Publicly accessible
URL: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2013, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
The Robert Stout Pamphlet collection has been encoded to represent it's physical form in the J.C. Beaglehole room as a collection of pamphlets bound into volumes.
I am no contemner of the present. To me it appears a time of immense and wonderful beginnings. New ideas are organising themselves out of the little limited efforts of innumerable men. Never was there an age so intellectually prolific and abundant as this in the aggregate is. It is true, indeed, that we who write and think and investigate to-day, present nothing to compare with the magnificent reputations and intensely individualised achievements of the impressive personalities of the past. None the less, it is true that, taken all together, we signify infinitely more. We no longer pose for admiration as high priests, and princes of letters in a world of finite achievement; we admit ourselves no more than pages bearing the train of a queen—but a queen of limitless power. The knowledge we co-ordinate, the ideas we build together, the growing blaze in which we are willingly consumed, are wider and higher and richer in promise than anything the world has had before.
This is a book for colonials, young and old, who have the social and political welfare of their country at heart. To understand our Colonies and their democratic aims we must know the England from which they have sprung. I do not mean only the traditional England that has stood for liberty amongst the nations and founded the Empire. I mean the real England as it was in the nineteenth century and as it has evolved therefrom to-day; the England which has 1,250,000 persons rich, 3,750,000 persons comfortable and 38,000,000 millions poor. It is from her mighty social and political problems we must derive examples of what to avoid, to prevent and to encourage, if "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" is still to be our watchword.
The chapters following, the bulk of which were published in an abbreviated form by the New Zealand Times, Auckland Star, Dunedin Star, and Sydney Morning Herald, have been written solely with a desire to bring home to thinking young men and women in the Pacific some of the principal effects of the traditional individualism of Britain in her own domestic sphere. By individualism I mean that particular form of political and social thought which takes for its cry. "The Liberty of the Subject." The long sustained and autocratic attempt of George III. to re-establish the privilege of earlier monarchs—"The Divine Right of Kings"—brought out to a marked degree the passionate racial instinct of the Englishman for what he calls liberty. It also had a great deal to do with that gigantic statue to the unfettered goddess overlooking the harbour of New York, by which a young and vigorous race symbolised for the future ages their undying hostility to any form of monarchical interference. The triumph of "the Commons" over the Hanoverian despot it is true gave definite shape to "The Liberty of the Subject." But the economic changes that were beginning at the time—a century and a half ago—had not been reckoned with. The invention of the steam engine materially affected the whole foundation of society. Prior to the days of steam, the industry of England was done in the homes. The domestic workshop was scattered through the agricultural districts. There were no great factories or concentration in the cities. That came later. With the steam engine factories sprang up and people flocked to the towns. With freedom from autocratic hindrances, which "The Liberty of the Subject" secured, industry spread and trade expanded. Britain began to accumulate wealth. But as the wealth accumulated the condition of the great mass of the workers and those dependent upon them became abject, as I shall show almost immediately. The whole of the great economical changes that began some hundred and fifty years ago benefited only the wealth and landowning classes. The privileges the monarch surrendered to his people were absorbed and transmuted into the commercial freedom these two great classes acquired. "The Liberty of the Subject," far from being of universal benefit, simply resolved itself into the will of these privileged individuals to exploit the mass.
The revolutionary changes that came with industrialism in Britain are almost as incredible as they are remarkable. The wealth-owning classes were absolutely unrestrained in their desire to erect factories, develop natural resources,
Here we have an irresistible picture of what ensued when the capitalistic classes were freed from the grosser forms of autocracy, claimed by Royalty to the extent that they did almost as they pleased. In those days there were no factory enactments, no Arbitration Courts,
It is true that when Britain deserted agriculture for industry, the pastoral and agricultural areas yielded less rents to the owner. But the burden of that, as is usual in such cases, fell on the unfortunate farmer more than the landowner. With the demand for coal, iron and other mineral resources, the land owning classes derived enormous benefits. By their hereditary or acquired right to the freehold and the unearned increment, they claimed and got fabulous sums for royalties, rights, and rents from factory areas and houses. And they never did a stroke of work for it either.
The influx of the population to the towns brought the speculative jerry builder, and the land-owners golden opportunities. In their eagerness to acquire wealth they did not scruple to erect some of the vilest slums known to history. What toll death has levied on England's millions by reason of the inhuman and disgusting filthy dens Englishmen have provided for their fellow creatures never will be known. It is one of the blackest stains on England's history. It is within measurable distance of our own times, in as much that the conditions still remain. Every British city of today has its slums. The mortality in these areas as I will show later is still so high as to be a disgrace, if not a travesty upon any civilised community professing as Britain does to stand among the nations for Liberty and enlightenment. These slums, a few examples of which I am able to illustrate in these pages, were the direct outcome of the unrestrained freedom of the landlord and his other half—the speculative jerry builder. They were free to create without municipal "interference" whatever they wished in the interests of money making and human selfishness.
Such was the result of the combined liberties of the wealth and land-owning classes operating together without any state intervention. Nobody could forsee the course of events. The people, who through no particular merit of their own were enabled to reap the rewards of the propertied classes, were not individually conscious of the evil they were perpetrating. It is the way of human and natural progress to blunder first and remedy after. The progressive men of Britain had to find out the evils in her midst and apply the corrective of state interference with private enterprise and "the rights of private property." It had to be done too in the face of the bitterest antagonism, personal animosity and persecution.
This policy which was associated with "The Liberty of the Subject" entered almost wholly into the life of the Municipalities, and so directly affected the wage earning classes. The industrial revolution which dealt destruction to many existing institutions and modes of life completely swept away the old guilds or Municipalities which at one time made effective provision for safeguarding the interests of wage earners against unscrupulous employers. There is no institution to-day, outside the State itself, that is capable of promoting so many of the things that make for the good of humanity as the Municipality. But under England's extraordinary burst of individualism, which reached its height in the reign of the late Queen Victoria, the beneficent powers of the Municipality were stultified and jealously cur tailed. It was held to be a grossly immoral thing that a Municipality should want to control its own public services. Its functions were also completely rele-
The Municipal revival in Britain, hardly fifty years old, removed the public services of water, trams, gas, sanitation, and other institutions beyond the grasp of commercial speculators. It has gone ahead with increasing rapidity in recent years. In this respect it is not too much to say that Britain, and more especially part, of the Continent, have left Australasia far behind. The Municipality has, it would appear, by no means reached the limit of its functions. Its increasing importance and beneficial influence can be readily understood if only the days that preceded it are borne in mind. In England to-day the municipalisation of milk is approaching the range of practical activities, just as water did barely half a century ago. The failure of private individuals to provide healthy and reasonably cheap housing has also brought about astonishing developments in recent years, particularly in Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, and even conservative old London, which still refuses to banish the monopoly which holds its water supply under all the disadvantages and 'difficulties of private ownership. The provision of cheap, healthy residential areas is now one of the practical activities of the Municipality. It has been carried far in advance of the standards that exist to-day in the minds of not a few civic dignitaries in Australasia. The control of the means of transit in cities, represented chiefly by electric cars, is held to be absolutely necessary to any well-ordered community. The private company has had its day in this respect, and it leaves behind a telling record. No colonial city, in the face of England's experience, has any justification for allowing a private company to monopolise its electric car service. To do so is simply setting back the hands of the clock.
There are many other activities in the sphere of British Municipal life which need not be enlarged upon here. It must be abundantly clear that the well-conducted Municipality is a force for national health and social economy, unrivalled by any other institution in the land. The essential, of course, is that
The example of Britain is full of teaching to the colonies. Many of our progressive enactments in the last decade were inspired by the defective state of society. Our progressive men determined we should not perpetuate in our midst the terrors of sweating, ultra-commercial housing, inhuman hours of labour, huge landed interests, and other evils, all created by the individualism of the past. If one thing only, they deserve the credit of having made the accumulation of large areas of land by the few almost impossible. What has been avoided cannot be put into figures. But the example of Britain is sufficient in itself to justify the progressive legislation of New Zealand. There is a connection between British affairs and our own which is sometimes lost sight of. The basis of society and industry in the two countries are identical. Both believe in private ownership of land, in the practice of the wealth-owner to obtain as large a dividend from his operations as business will yield, in the efficiency of the private individual, or individuals, for the production of the necessaries of life and the development of natural resources. In short, both countries, broadly speaking, possess, with few exceptions, the same principles for the conduct of the people and the welfare of the community. New Zealand has in many directions modified much of the grosser individualism which to-day permits the capitalistic and landowning classes to accumulate the bulk of the wealth produced in each year. But in the (bedrock principles of society she is virtually in harmony with Britain. The example of Britain is clearly of the greatest importance to us. I want, therefore, to present a few very striking facts concerning the Motherland. They reveal, at a glance, the disproportion that exists between wealth and poverty.
The area of Britain is 77,000,000 acres, and the population 43,000,000. Yet 40,426,900 acres (more than half) are owned by 2500 people.
In
London is probably the wealthiest city in the world. Its property is insured from fire at £1,040,057,846. Despite this, however, there is a large amount of poverty. The figures show that:
One person in every thirty-three is a pauper.
Twenty persons in every 100 die in a workhouse or a workhouse infirmary.—"London Statistics," published by L.C.C.
The area of land suitable for housing—that is, excluding rivers, mountains, etc.—in England and Wales is 20,000,000 acres.
7,500,000 people occupy 10,800,000 acres. 12,000,000 people live on 152,000 acres. 13,000,000 people exist on 48,000 acres.
Russia is seventeen times larger than the United Kingdom, and the population is more than three times as great. Russia is downtrodden, England "free." Britain possesses 30,000 more drink shops than Russia.
These facts have, I understand, been tested and verified by members of the Royal Society of Statisticians. What they represent in actual reality is on one side large estates, luxurious homes, private parks, and all the appurtenances
And let it be remembered that there are:—
It is out of no desire to discredit or misrepresent the Motherland that I write thus or the chapters following were penned. They are a statement of actual fact, derived from authoritative sources. That I suggest Britain to be a decadent country is by no means true. By the facilities which I was enabled to obtain as a member of the London Press for some three years, I had unusual opportunities of seeing Britain and investigating the conditions of affairs. I was tied to no political party or concern, but went into the Motherland with an open mind and as the son of a democratic soil. The majority of colonials who visit the Old World go for its pleasures and its holiday making. They spend six, twelve, or eighteen months visiting London, touring the British Isles and the Continent, seeing what sights they can. Tired of the pleasures of travel, they return to native land, rightly believing it to be for themselves the best on earth, and for the rest the affairs of the Old World do not pass for much. It was my good fortune not to see Britain or the Continent thus. I went as a worker, shared the vicissitudes of the mass, and got down to the bedrock of humanity, both in agricultural and industrial districts as much as in the cities. The privileges associated with the assistant editorship of an ambitious Society journal in London brought me into touch with aristocrat, artist, and celebrity alike. The revelation of London Society and English respectability enabled me to shed a few illusions that the cable man and Imperialistic statesmen have bestowed on many a colonial youth. At the risk of being set down as conceited, I am constrained to mention these few facts in order to make it clear that these pages, whatever class of reading they may provide, are not the outcome of superficial investigation.
The reader will find in these pages no catastrophic creed expounded. This book, moreover, is not printed in a red cover. It is simply a series of observations and investigations made over a period of years, and taken from the point of view of an outsider. The important things, so far as the reader is concerned, are the facts. They have been accumulated only at the expense of considerable time and trouble. In this connection, I wish particularly to express my acknowledgments to Messrs Sidney Webb (London County Council), L. G. Chiozza Money, M.P., J. S. Nettlefold. T. C. Horsfall, J. B. Marr, Albert Shaw, Professor Niebolson, Dr. Shadwell, J. Ellis Barker, and to the medical officers of health, Municipal leaders, and officials, and innumerable gentlemen, who gave me every facility in their power to see, know, and, I hope, understand Britain. These facts must tell their own tale. It is mainly by the study of British social and political life that the young colonial can expect to see his own country in a proper light. Since it is not always possible for every thinking young man or girl to see the realities of Britain for themselves rather than take the cable man's word for it, I have presented these pages in the hope they may be of assistance.
There is, however, one thing that must be borne in mind. That is that Britain is in a state of transition. A marvellous development and change is pulsating through almost every strata of her being. If not in political achievements, her
England was full of sunlit glories of the charm of deep lawns and wooded heights, of thatched roofs and soaring chimney pots beneath the old grey church tower that marks the site of many an enchanting village. Splashes of a thousand poppies float through the oat fields in a blaze of scarlet, rippling through endless hedgerows to where the woods gathered high on the hills. The landscape rushes by enthralled with the kiss of Summer. Towns gather suddenly on the horizon, only to whirl by in a stream of bricks and roofs, and finally disappear in the distance—a streak of red pierced by a few faint shafts. A green devil and a string of carriages swaying with the rapture of speed whirls us merrily over hill and dale. The Great Central ten o'clock special from Marylebone is rushing us on to Sheffield, knocking off the miles sixty to the hour almost to the second of time. Leicester and three hours of loveliness such as England only knows, are far behind.
But a change is at hand—a strange incongruous transformation speaking of fierce energies, fires, smoke and desolation. A bank of brown luminous cloud hovers on the horizon. The sunlight vanishes. Trees that a few minutes ago were radiant with splendour turn dim and strange. A faint mist blurs the land-scape. The bank of brown cloud remains stationary in the distance. Only the mist thickens until the country has the appearance of being affected by some neighbouring bush fire. It is literally smothered in smoke—fields, villages, woods and hills. The cause rapidly becomes evident. Tall shafts and fat ugly retorts pour out the clouds that gather fast over hill and dale. Blackened derricks and long gloomy pipes plumed with steam join in the spectacle. Ribands of railways flash off and stretch into great yards crowded with trucks of coal. Slag heaps rise up in mounds of desolation, and vanish again into the smoke. Everything seems flung together in disorder and dirt, reaching to a ragged and drunken outline against the gloomy zenith. Nature herself is scarred and torn by some black and devastating horror. The might of a century of relentless toil is materialised in that panorama of accumulated houses, factories and chimney shafts submerged in an inferno of smoke. Nothing could be more potent or suggestive of national wealth and poverty. That great steel works out there, sending up clouds of smoke and steam, and tinging the heavens at night with lurid fires is the material expression of vast and concentrated wealth. That mass of huddled cottages near it strung together in unbeautiful congestion, crowded and dirty with men, women and children, is the staring revelation of poverty. There was something in the contrast that hurt. I turned away disappointed and painfully disillusioned.
In distant seas, where the smoke of great industries is virtually unknown, and the voices of these activities reach one only in murmurs, imagination is quick to picture these wondrous things of industry amid the romance which surrounds them. A nebulous conception comes to one of vast and whirring machines, of great fires and
"Sheffield in five minutes!" The words of the guard find a response in one's pulse. The train rushes through long sidings, and in a few moments is darting by black stone buildings and shafts that mark the outskirts of the great steel centre. They crowd together craning with roof and chimney pot to shut out the sky from one another. In a moment they suddenly rise out of sight as we sweep into a cutting. The network of lines increases. There is a violent grinding of brakes, and we are slowly enveloped by a great black roof. Carriage doors are flung open, and in a moment there is a mass of humanity swirling amid the stygian gloom of Sheffield Victoria Station. The babel of a hundred voices is shut out by the arrival of another express gliding in on an opposite platform with a cloud of steam roaring from her safety valve. The whole scene is pregnant with feverish activity. It heralds what lies beyond the exit where one scrambles to at last for daylight and deliverance, with pulses throbbing to all the life, the wonder and the fierce energy of Sheffield's black and throbbing station.
In contrast to the wooded hills and the long radiant valleys, nothing could be more powerful or dramatic than the historic and busy centre of Sheffield. Placed as it is in a neighbourhood of wondrous charm and sylvan glory, the city and its immediate environment are hopelessly unbeautiful. From the eminence of Victoria Station, the eye is greeted by a sea of blackened roofs and chimney pots straggling from a gloomy valley to the hills beyond. It lies before one naked in ugliness, what with its miles of crooked and cranky streets, its endless chimney shafts and slated roofs crowding in from remote horizon to the eminence, where the Town Hall points a ponderous and sooty tower to the smoke-stained skies.
Sheffield is a characteristic example of a city grown without design, and attaining blindly to the proportions of a metropolis through a century of industrial revolution. In most manufacturing towns in Britain, there is usually an area more or less defined where the factories do not intrude. In Sheffield they appear to be everywhere. There is no place sacred from the desolating influence of the tall shaft with its cloud of smoke. The old streets are very narrow and full of irregularities. The houses and streets for the most part in these areas are revoltingly dirty. Nothing could be more repulsive or indicative of the evils that have arisen with the growth of the factory system in England, than some of these historic thoroughfares of Sheffield.
It is necessary to see it under sunlight and rain to realise, if need be, what certain environment and activities may entail upon the mass of the people. The rain subdues the City into masses of roof and shaft, reaching with uncertain outline through the smoke. The narrow streets loom up in wet indefinite perspectives, and all their mass of men and horses carts and wagons lurching across the cobbles are smudged into the picture.
Sunlight, on the other hand, accentuates every detail with curious and persistent aggressiveness. Every door and window, and every dirty face and
In
As I write these things of the great steel centre, a recollection of a certain district, down in the valley, comes to mind. It was just toward evening. I was taken there by a "slummer." We wandered down lane after lane, narrow and dirty, and dominated by that overwhelming sense of disorder. Children in droves, unwashed women gossiping on the doorsteps, and grimy workmen grouped by the veritable "shanty" that did duty for an hotel. There was something in their appearance and their attitude that seemed to reflect the dirt and the squalor of the houses in which they lived. In many cases two and three families shared one house. The overcrowding was typically illustrated by a case where we found a labourer—an unskilled worker in a neighbouring foundry living with his wife and six children in two rooms. Across some of the streets lines of washing were hung for the reason that there was no backyard for the purpose. In one part there were several large tenement dwellings, where makers of cutlers lived and worked. The landlord, it appears, provides the light, power and furniture, for which workmen pay a rent that absorbs one-fourth to one-third of their earnings. In some of the buildings over a dozen workmen and their families were housed, several occupying three rooms, the majority two, and some only one. The houses for the most part were old, leaking, and dilapidated, and the conditions under which the workmen laboured and their families existed were nothing more or less than revolting. Sheffield is not extraordinary in this respect. One can find similar examples of disorder existing in every large manufacturing centre. They all partake more or less of the same character, varying principally in the degree of smoke that pollutes the atmosphere, and the filth that seems inseparable from the houses. The first rush of impression transfixes the stranger with horror, and for the moment he hovers between the wonder and the terror of the grim, staring reality it reveals.
The effects upon a people of housing conditions so defective, and accompanied by all their corollaries in dirt, disease, moral ruin and degeneration, are things every community, young or old, should certainly realise. The importance of it
was well demonstrated in an edict issued by the Minister of the Interior for Saxony (Germany) in
In the case of Sheffield, the statement is only too clearly justified in the melancholy record presented by the Medical Health Office report for
A detailed examination of the figures shows clearly that the mortality amongst children (which is very high in all industrial centre in England and Scotland) is due to causes directly traceable to defective surroundings and insufficient feeding. Lack of food and sunlight, supplemented by congested conditions and parental ignorance, are just the things that make thinking men apprehensive for the future of the race.
On the hills to the west of Sheffield, where the smoke can seldom penetrate, there are many modern homes reared amid trees and flowers. The suburban electric car glides merrily on to their secluded heights, bearing bright-faced children, and well dressed people out to the sunshine. It is only as it should be. In these modern garden suburbs England is beginning to rear one reads the hope of the future. Already they serve to accentuate the horror of the valley. It is a contrast that for all time will hold with condemnation the memory of staring walls and gloomy shafts staggering above the sickly waters of the Don. It was the Don that centuries ago drew the primitive cutler to do his grinding by its verdant banks, and from such beginnings sprang that romance of industry, the tremendous fascination of which is strangely belied by what is now a pale stricken flood, winding amid fierce panting factories on the one hand, and desolation and misery on the other.
There are very potent things to be told of this marvellous throbbing Sheffield. Take, for instance, the making of cutlery and file cutting. Both industries long ante-date the introduction of steam power.
In bygone days, ere the white wizard was harnessed to the chariot of industry, the manufactures of Kngland were principally conducted in the homes of the workers. Every house was a factory, and every factory demanded its toll of labour from father, wife, and children alike. To all intents and purposes, the father was the embodiment of owner, board of directors, manager, working foreman, and shareholder. Such of these domestic labours that still survive the revolution effected by the invention of power and machinery are termed "Home Industries." Nowadays it is around these home industries that some of the most difficult social and industrial problems gather.
Sheffield clings with singular tenacity, to the old conditions under which cutlery grew to be one of its flourishing industries. Although there are a number of large factories, there are many folk who live and work in large tenements or in small workshops controlled by small employers. There are something
Even in the large factories the cutler plies his craft under much the same conditions as his ancestors did. Each cutler has his own little forge replete with bellows, water tanks at the side, and anvil in front before the open window. In a minute or so he can shape out a pair of scissors from a bar of steel, and by the ordeal of fire and water temper it to a degree beside which machine-made cutlery is rubbish. It is a craft so skilled that no inventive ingenuity has succeeded in revolutionising the old conditions under which the finest knives, razors, and scissors are produced to-day. It is Sheffield's priceless heritage.
The larger factories comprise dozens of these tiny forges squeezed together in tight congestion. The grinding of the rough-shaped product of the smith comprises another branch of highlyskilled labour. Unfortunately, it is responsible for a very high percentage of lung troubles amongst the workers, as I will show presently. Owing to the overcrowding of the workshops that have little ventilation, and the absence of opportunity to acquire sanitary habits, the cutlers in themselves are not an asset of health to the community. Besides insanitary housing and industrial conditions, there are two things that operate against the chances of the workers. One is that the earnings are not at all commensurate with the quality of the work, whilst the habits and the domestic ignorance in the homes militates against the full value being obtained from the money they earn. An ordinary workman, when labour is plentiful, can average 37/ a week on piecework.
Out of the 15,600 people who represent the cutlery trade of Sheffield, there are some 2,500 females employed, the majority of whom are unmarried. Whilst working hours in Sheffield generally run from 6 a.m. to 5 or 5.30 p.m., many of these girls can only earn from 9/ to 12/ a week. To see these girls at work in front of their benches, filing, rubbing, and polishing, to breathe the atmosphere in which they work week by week, year in, year out, to note their modest meals of bread and dripping—maybe butter sometimes—a mug of stuff called tea, and occasionally a particle of meat or fruit, cannot but make one marvel at the system which orders such things to be. I came across a unique case of female labour. It was one of those minor tragedies of an individual life swamped in the ocean of toilers. The foreman of a well-known establishment pointed out to me with some pride a woman at a bench tiling and polishing scissors. Her withered features and scant grey locks suggested "four score years and ten." She had come in as a girl of fourteen, and had been toiling at that bench of piecework for 50 years. Previous to that she had worked from childhood in a "home" workshop. Her wages had, according to the foreman, reached "as high as 23/ per week in her prime." I give his words. "Isn't she a wonder," he said admiringly, "64 years old and still working?"
"Remarkable," was all that I dared to reply.
"She used to work like a man," he added with a chuckle. "They used to get jealous of her. She could beat some of them out of sight."
"What can she earn now?" I asked.
"Well, she's old now—not so young as she used to be, you know—still she's a
wonderful old body. She mattes about 8/ a week," be added in an undertone.
Eight shillings a week at 64! I left the foreman and wandered over to the old lady's side. She never ceased working a moment. I spoke and professed to admire her work. She only grunted, the file in her hands never halting a moment. The foreman plucked my sleeve, and as we went away be whispered, "She don't say much now, but isn't she a wonder?"
I nodded, and went to the doorway.
There were about twenty girls working in that room. I stood awhile and watched them. A picture gathered in the heated atmosphere of the days when there were twenty girls working by the side of a poor little lass of fourteen. Where were they now? How many such lives had passed here in the smoke of Sheffield, toiling for a pittance? What perversity was upon humanity that had allowed such things to be, that foreman and workers alike should find admiration and wonder in the labours of a palsied old woman for whom there was until recently no old age pension, no years full of honour—only the darkening future? I thought of New Zealand and its Minimum Wage Act, its Arbitration Court and Factory Inspectors, of its State edicts by which the will of the individual was debarred from enslaving the mass. That broken old woman made a picture no imagination could resist.
With file-cutting the conditions of labour and living are much the same. The introduction of machinery has done, and is doing, much to break up the antiquated establishment where hand labour is still persisted in. In the surroundings of the home workers there is the reiterated note of dirty conditions, poorly clad and poorly paid workers, both men and women, striving to reach the line where poverty ends and self-support begins. Many of them do not attain it at all.
The natural surroundings of Sheffield are such as to make it one of the healthiest and certainly one of the most attractive parts of England. This probably contributes towards placing it thirteenth on the list amongst other centres in the matter of death-rate. But bad industrial conditions must necessarily make their effect evident, even in the best of natural surroundings. The city vividly illustrates this. The average death-rate for the whole community is 16.7 per 1,000. The report of the Medical Officer of Health for
Phthisis and diseases of the respiratory system are in the main responsible for such an appalling condition of things. "More than 100 deaths of men from phthisis are caused every year by the exceptionally bad conditions under which they work," the report says. Turning for a moment to a page in which the M.H.O. discusses housing conditions under which the majority of these people live, the report makes the following statement: "In some cases there are houses with five or six rooms, containing a different family in each individual room. The furniture is, as a rule, of the most meagre and dilapidated description, usually some sort of a bed or two (frequently vermin infested), a packing case stood on end for a table, a bottle for a candlestick, and one or two other such like substitutes. A single room containing a few shillings' worth of furniture usually lets for 4/ a week and upwards. . . . The tenant can be turned out any time during the 24 hours."
It is thus by a combination of extraordinarily defective industrial and housing conditions one may arrive at vital causes largely responsible for the melancholy record shown above.
The bulk of Sheffield's toilers, to the number of 23,200, are engaged in the great metallic and engineering trades that to-day make the city England's great steel centre. There are volumes that have been said, and still volumes unsaid, in regard to its potential industrial wonders—wonders that are materialised in a mass of blinding furnaces, lathes, steam hammers, casting pits, and monster hydraulic presses. In the making of armour plates and guns. Sheffield is one of the world's largest centres. For the production of the fabulous amount of war material that every year is hurried off to the great shipbuilding yards, it has been found necessary to lay down immense costly plants, and erect machines beside which the stature of the human unit is dwarfed to insignificance. The scale on which these mechanical monsters are designed is something that belongs to the titanic. When one speaks of armour plate rollers weighing sixty tons, or the capacity of a hydraulic press as 14,000 tons, it is impossible to picture what the material evidence of such things represent.
These modern appliances and plant of the great works are capable of producing and handling blocks or ingots of steel weighing up to fifty, sixty, or seventy tons, or even more. The area the premises cover varies from twenty-five to fifty or sixty acres, whilst there are in some cases large areas held for the requirements of the future. Plant and appliances are represented by the bewildering array of machinery gathered into great buildings and linked up, organised, and run continuously on a system that only a century of toil and invention could devise. The conglomeration of gas furnaces, lathes, hammers and presses, fed for the most part by 50, 100, and 150 electric overhead cranes, tempts one to think of the fabulous. Such is the force of this tremendous inspiring reality.
Each works has its own network of railways, with direct communication to the main lines. It possesses a full equipment of locomotives, and, in some cases, rolling stock. The traffic through the great works never ceases. The accumulation of industry and the amount of specialised thought that they present discloses a capacity on the part of mankind intermixed with many anomalies. All his forces appear to be focussed there into a stupendous effort, and that effort is production. Both night and day gather to its demand with ceaseless fires and the thunder of tireless machines. Sheffield is the temple of the great Iron God of Industry. There is neither worship nor thanksgiving—only a mighty coming and going of toilers, under lurid skies and smoke, to the Call of the white, dazzling stream of steel.
An early impression that suddenly assails one on entering the yard of a big works is the tremendous vitality concentrated in such an industry. A vista of retorts, travelling cranes, and other apparatus, overshadowed by long, lank shafts, vomiting smoke and fire and steam, falls into perspective. The world, for you, is transformed into a great arena, throbbing and panting with dominant energies. The eye hovers be-
A theory was once propounded that the universe was an experiment in creation, and it had gathered so much force and impetus since the dawn of time that it had passed beyond the divine control. It would seem that on plunging into the heart of a great steel works that its piles of machinery had rushed from the power of man, and that he, powerless at the might of his own creation, was being drawn into a vortex where destruction was ultimate. The individual self seems hopelessly overpowered before all the force that casts, squeezes, rolls and pounds into shape the livid, molten ingots. The blinding heat and blaze of fires, the leaping, dazzling clouds of steam, conspire with suggestive perspectives looming through the smoke to trick the imagination. The whole scene partakes of the force of some fantastic proceeding. The senses stagger beneath bewildering noises and movements. But illusions have no chance before that grim, blatant reality. The picture of men's disordered machines engulphing him in destruction pales, and out of a mass of fitful impression there slowly emerges the realisation of a marvellously complex scheme of labour, in which the genius of order is triumphant.
In the processes by which, after months of labour, a great gun or an armour plate is produced, involves some of the most spectacular processes in modern industry. The initial process of casting, say, a seventy ton ingot is a fiery ordeal for both workers and watchers. For twelve hours the great furnace has been in a flood of fire in order to bring the metal to the requisite molten state. By the use of blue spectacles it is possible to obtain a peep of the boiling inferno within. A moment or two is sufficient to make the beads of perspiration start, and one retreats conscious of a darkness, in the atmosphere, whi'st the memory of a livid white flood, boiling and bubbling like the surface of a planet in eruption, swims before the eyes.
A travelling overhead electric crane, reaching across the full width of the building, suddenly glides over the pit beside the furnace, and lowers the mould into position. The latter is an immense affair, strapped together by thick bands of steel. Half a dozen men, naked to the waist, appear as the crane glides forward again, bearing this time a monster ladle or bucket that is to be used to convey the seventy tons of glowing metal from the furnace to the mould. A long trough is swung into position between the furnace and the ladle. The men already drip with perspiration. "If they didn't sweat," said a workman, "the heat would burn them up."
The foreman suddenly appears with a long crowbar, and commences to pound a hole in the furnace wall just above the trough. The workmen steady the ladle with long poles, and the anticipation that has long filled the watcher is transformed to a vivid expectancy. Showers of red hot ashes begin to fly from the point of the crowbar. Every thud strikes into one's heart and brain, but still the psychological moment does not arrive. The monotony of this slow, deliberate process of penetration becomes maddening. Minutes of suspense seem to separate the blow. Each stroke is charged with tremendous excitement. Suddenly there is a shout, the crowbar drops with a crash. The moment of realisation comes with a
The colour of the metal changes. There is a shout. The long trough tips up on end, and from the gaping wound in the furnace, the slag gushes redly out, only to be lost amongst the dust and ashes of the pit below. Out of the gloom overhead an arm of steel descends, and in a trice the ladle with its molten mass is hoisted clear and swung like a baby over the mould itself. At a touch from the foreman a valve under the ladle is liberated, and the metal spills steadily into the gaping mouth of the mould. So the monster ingot grows apace, brimming to the very edge of the walls that shape it.
The process which follows brings into operation all the marvellous powers of the hydraulic press that can develop a pressure from 10,000 to 14,000 tons per square inch. The hydraulic press is virtually an evolution from the steam hammer. Where on the one hand there are noises and blows that shake the very earth with a tremendous force of impact, on the other there is only a black monster moving noiselessly to the touch of a lever with hardly a vibration in all its marvellous silent exhibition of force. It leaches high into the roof, combining with a pair of immense cranes an array of forces before which the resistance of that solid seventy tons of glowing metal appears to be no more than if it were butter itself. The mass of metal is drawn out of the furnace at white heat and swung gently under the jaws of the waiting monster. It betrays nothing of its nature or purpose. A man touches a lever and the press glides softly downwards. It kisses the white hot metal without a sound. Nothing happens, only the press does not stop. Great black splinters suddenly start off the sides of the ingot, blacken and fall. One is thrilled to the marrow to see the solid steel shrinking before the eyes, going down gradually before that noiseless marvellous force. It is one of the most remarkable mechanical developments of the nineteenth century. Neither nature nor man has ever achieved before a thing that secures without fuss or sound such crushing invincible power.
The fury of a volcano, the bursting of a meteor, the blowing up of a battleship, all present forms of intense force. There is force, too, in the Lusitania's turbines, in Niagara, or the omnipotent rush of the avalanche; but with all these things there are disturbances and violence. The hydraulic press will pulverise tons of steel without so much as a tremor. Its embrace is irresistible, its slow silent force stupendous.
In the rolling of the rough shaped plate which follows is one of the finest Spectacular sights in the works. The plate is drawn from the furnace white and glowing. The cranes drop it exactly into position on the floor of the rolling mill. The latter is made up of a series of small cylinders. At a touch from a lever they revolve, and the mass is shot along and thrust into the jaws of the main rollers themselves. With an im-
mense rumble that makes the ground vibrate, the rollers seize the glowing mass, and in a flash it is banged through on the other side, flattened a little by the colossal pressure. The plate is passed backwards and forwards through the massive sixty ton rollers by reversing the mill each time. As it passes through, piles of wet brushwood are thrown on to the red hot surface to enable the scale on the surface of the metal to be got rid of. Immediately the brushwood reaches the rollers there is a sound like the bursting of a dozen steam pipes. Flames shoot up twenty or thirty feet above the mill, and one is dazzled by a blinding effusion of sparks, fire, and clouds of steam. The violence of the display is astounding. After all that fieree uprushing of fire and water, so rapid is the combustion that only the blackened plate remains to tell of it. But a curious result has been effected As a rake is passed over the plate the scale comes away freely, leaving only the smooth surface to speak for the power and efficiency of the machine.
The armour plate mill is another of the giants that the dominant thought of industry has produced. Inspired by great engines its thunders shake not only the earth, but reach far down into the depths of the social fabric itself. It is animated by the same spirit that virtually dominates all Sheffield. That spirit is the Demon of War.
So far the processes described have seen the casting of the ingot and the rolling of the plate. They are merely the preliminaries to a long series by which the plate passed over acres of grounds, through numerous departments in order that it may be bent, rounded, bored, planed, cut, drilled, ground, and finally tempered so hard that a punch hit by a sledge hammer will not leave so much as a mark on its surface. Thus it is, after months of labour, representing a vast expenditure of human energy, of thought, of natural resources, of money, that it emerges at last from the great black works, a finished product to be but one small constituent part in the mass of a big battleship.
Beside armour plates, the processes which represent largely the energy, thought, and human activities of Sheffield's thousands of workers are just as involved in the production of guns. Monster twelve-inch guns, over fifty feet long, that cost thousands of pounds sterling—in the making, too, of the giant engines that are to drive the fighting machine on its mission of death and destruction.
One small constituent part in a battleship! All this life, thought, science and labour concentrated upon a single armour plate!—the mind staggers to think of that and realise there are thousands of parts to a battleship. Think of the steel, iron, copper, and brass that goes to the multiplicity of its being. One can dimly picture something of the enormous resources, the energies and the activities demanded from millions of civilised mankind for the construction and maintenance of England's Navy alone. The might of ancient Egypt or Persia, '"the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome" can offer no such tremendous example or achievement. No nation on earth has ever shown so much constructive thought applied with such breadth, cohesion, ingenuity or remorseless deliberation as that which actuates the great Naval Powers of the day. All Europe seems to be convulsed with a Titanic thought of war. The minds of the nations run to "Dreadnoughts." Let it be realised for a moment what a farreaching influence of national thought the construction of a single Dreadnought is. Thousands of tons of iron and copper have to be mined, transported, smelted, transformed, cast, rolled, tempered, planed, bent and shaped to ponderous ribs, plates, armour belts, barbettes,
The big Sheffield works usually take a day to explore, and their magnitude may perhaps be gauged if one takes the excellent up-to-date premises of Messrs Vickers, Son and Maxim. They cover 65 acres, and employ on an average 4000 hands. Cammell and Co. are another historic firm who employ from 3000 to 4000 hands on an area of 32 acres; also Thomas Firth and Son, with 2000 hands and 40 acres. There are many others, not omitting John Brown and Co., who built the Mauretania. Most of the larger works have their own ship-building yards on either the east or west coast, and their head offices in London.
One cannot escape or ignore the potent fact that in the production of war material all the big works depend largely upon the British Admiralty for existence. A certain process of cause and effect, too, can be traced out in the opposition to a policy of naval retrenchment, when one begins to look into the Boards of Directors or examine the share lists. Under the present commercial competitive basis of industry, and where works are in the hands of a number of private individuals in the guise of a public company, one can understand why any action on the part of a Government which results in a depreciation of share dividends produces unpopularity. The morality of the thing is another question which cannot be dealt with here, however much one would like to differentiate between the actual standard required for England's naval supremacy on the one hand, and the keenness of certain commercial classes on the other to do business and make dividends at the expense of the nation.
In recent years one has heard a good deal in regard to the backwardness of England's industries in comparison with those of Germany and America. There is much talk still of the hidebound conservatism of both the average English employer and worker in recognising the possibilities of inventions, and a regard for old methods that was almost hopeless for new. In numbers of the older factories, the condition of things give some colour to such pessimistic assertions. One
In Sheffield, however, in common with other manufacturing centres, there are other things than big works to consider. Small concerns are a far-reaching feature in the life of the city. They exist to-day in large, though decreasing, numbers, from the fact they long preceded the advent of the big works, which increase in number every year. With the small concerns, the greatest evils of the industrial system of the Nineteenth Century were associated—evils that are revealed in overcrowding, insanitary surroundings, dirt, ill-paid, underfed men, women and children, and all the consequent social horrors that resulted therefrom.
The work ahead of Sheffield to-day, work that must be achieved for the most part by the collective action of the municipal authorities, is almost impossible to describe. But if industrial phthisis and infant mortality are to take their fangs out of the social life of the people, if the 1,796 liquor licenses of the city are to be prevented from reaping their annual toll of misery and degradation, if those wretched slums are to be no more than a black stain on the past, and the great mass of the people are to be raised from the slough of ignorance and poverty, Sheffield must both work and fight. Whether that work will be ever accomplished or what the fight for progress may entail is beyond conjecture here.
The problem seemed to gather great force, as I left Sheffield one wet, grey evening looming through smoke and rain. A line of black retorts, tanks and long shafts, were blurred against the lying day. But from the distant streets, from those channels of the life of the people themselves, a flash of lights sprang up and touched the gloomy heavens with a soft pink glow. It was a strange, glad light in the darkness, and I wondered how many of the great army of workers down there in the rain and the smoke would see in the wet and glittering street what I saw reflected on the heavens.
In the vicinity of Sheffield, the country is full of deeply-wooded landscapes sheltering many a quaint village, many a romantic tower soaring above some silent sunlit flood. Spires and roofs hover among the trees and over hill and dale, spellbound with beauty, the radiance of summer floats. It was amid such surroundings that the early cutler came and pursued his craft. In many a shaded vale by the banks of the rippling radiant river the primitive steel was ground. They were the days of "little masters," each pursuing his individual will and little dreaming of the change that was at hand.
But industrial England was suddenly shaken to the roots by revolution. The great white god of steam had been chained to the rock of industry. With the development of mechanical power a new order of things, marshalling men, women and children into factories and from factories into big works, came with irresistible force over the hills. Foundries, shafts, furnaces, retorts, derricks, stag heaps and other things, rose with the flood. The triumph of invention had begun. The hills and man went down alike before its irresistible sweep. Ribands of steel shot like silver streaks through the land and with them noise, fire, transit and whirring wheels. Towns were convulsed with activity and expansion. England suddenly deserted her centuries of agriculture to become the manufacturer for the nations. Europe was reverberating to the voice of cannon. The tramp of armed hosts and all that romance of war which found expression in blood and slaughter blinded the continent to what industrial expansion meant to the Englishman.
America, too, was torn with dissension and civil war. Britain stood apart in the cultivation of the fruits of peace. The gloomy period that ended with
To-day one sees the march of events in piles of chimney stacks, in pipes plumed with steam, in jagged derrick and tangled twisted girders, in furnace and roof reaching up in black and drunken shapes to the pitiless dominance of the smoke. The might of it is huge; the genius that inspires it astounding. Nothing could be more potent in contrast to its array of unbeautiful, stunted and blackened elements than the sylvan splendour that once adorned the land and filled its vales with loveliness. That contrast which suggests itself so aggressively to the stranger is still to be had between the moors and vales that reach out on the one side of Sheffield to the scenic wonders of Derbyshire and the torn and devastated area, overpowered by chimney stack and smoke, that lies on the other between Sheffield and Rotherham—Rotherham and Leeds.
Outstanding in that conglomeration of machines and plant are the great Steel Works for which Sheffield is so justly famed. In all the industrial ac-
A visit to a big steel works at night, when all the processes by which iron ore is transmuted into the finest bar steel, are in progress, is one of the sights of modern industry. The melting of the raw material by the blast furnaces, the burning out of its impurities by the Bessemmer converters, the casting of the molten metal into ingots and the rolling down of the glowing mass into fine bars of steel are things associated with an extraordinary accompaniment of fire, steam, noise, dirt, danger and sometimes disaster. One is ushered from the outer darkness into arenas of bewildering activities, of dazzling bursts of flame and molten metal. In the yards, where the massive furnaces tower into the gloom, locomotives gather and bear away to the fiery area of converters the inexhaustible flood of metal that the world awaits. One stumbles over innumerable rails, over areas of slag, sand and waste, past a fairy waterfall of coolers, into, at last, the long black halls of labour. They are full of shouts and noises, and shadows moving restlessly against the furnace fires. There is neither disorder nor waiting. It is simply organised labour brought to the maximum of production. The men are grimy and sweating, but they do not stop. They pass with gleaming eyes and matted hair. One looks in vain for the familiar type of slow, heavy British worker, plodding along in his rut of unprogressiveness. These men fill the place with extraordinary energy. The work proceeds apace. From daylight to dark, round the twenty-four hours of the clock, it is the same. Nowhere could the realisation of the link between time and money be more complete—more strenuously recognised.
High in the roofs electric cranes glide to and fro. They swoop down in the darkness like birds, swift and voiceless. For them, there is neither the song of the morn nor the twilight, only the clatter of steel and the ceaseless rushing of sparks. It seems as if machines and men were in unison with nature beating out some great symphony upon the breast of the world, and the effect is mad yet masterful, inspiring yet terrible.
A blast furnace is, in appearance, like an elongated gasometer, reaching to an average height of sixty-five feet by twenty-five feet in diameter. They are usually erected in rows of half a dozen on an eminence together with companion towers known as Cowper stones, each some 75 feet in height. With the assistance of these stones, gas is produced
Immediately around the furnaces is a scene of extraordinary desolation. Large areas of sand lie at the base, ready to mould the molten metal into ingots of iron if steel is not required. The surroundings seem to have no thought above slag heaps, ashes and waste material. At night one is dwarfed by the fiery towers in a grey and melancholy wilderness Everything is given over to an orgy of fire and smoke, which reaches extraordinary intensity when the furnaces are tapped, and their tons of seething metal borne away in great ladles by locomotives to the converters. The furnaces have been roaring for hours. A little group of workers are gathered in the gloom at foot, silent and sweating, for the heat is almost unbearable. The foreman gives the signal. Crowbars are plunged into the wad of clay that corks up the outlet, and in a flash, as the men leap aside, a flood of fire bursts into the night. It roars and suckles greedily down a bank of sand, dazzling the night with sparks, and tumbles headlong like a golden waterfall into the ladles many feet below. The aperture widens, and the Hood swells till it rushes down the slope like a stream. The sand channel wears and chokes under the strain. The workers move, black and staring, between you and the Hood. The channel must be kept clear, and thus they stand on the brink of death, face to face with that blinding ordeal, shaping the course of the irresistible flood. Sometimes it happens that the water jacket that keeps the aper, ture cool becomes fouled and bursts, carrying with it practically the whole of the bottom plates of a furnace. With such a moment there is a blinding burst of metal over the whole bank, and what, working like a demon down there, was man, life, labour, love and parent, disappears with a shriek in that frightful incineration.
Blast furnacemen, as a class, require to be physically strong when young. Their work is hard, and wages are good. But at an early age the strain of occupation, and the example of older workers soon develops in them a heavy propensity for beer. Under the combined influence of intemperate habits, and violent changes of temperatures, they break down readily and become prematurely old. The majority of them die from bronchial and pulmonary affections. They are also in constant danger of being poisoned by carbon monoxide gas whilst charging the furnaces. This gas, which the furnace generates, is very deadly. Two mouthsful will kill an ordinary man, and even when he is but partially affected by it the after effects are such as to permanently unfit him for his work.
The furnaces drained, and the ladles filled, and the metal is hurried away to the converters, where is passes through a process, the story of which is one of the romances of industry. The Bessemmer converter is a fat and bluntedlooking vessel, pear-shaped, and open at one end, about nineteen feet long by seven or eight across at the widest part. Ten or eleven tons of the molten iron are poured into the mouth of the vessel, and a powerful blast of air introduced from the bottom. The air sets up a violent ignition, by which all the impurities are burnt or blown out. The
One approaches the area of their activities dazzled by tremendous outbursts of flame and myriads of sparks, rushing out to the stars. It seems as if the gates of the inferno are at hand. From the shadow of a gaunt iron building, with cinders crunching under foot, the visitor climbs on to a platform, where half a dozen converters, with their blunt noses pointing skyward, are roaring with a terrific effusion of flames, sparks and smoke. All the colours of the rainbow are cast into the ordeal. Below the platform there is a sandpit choked with moulds and men, where preparations are in progress for casting—at least, that is what the great husky foreman at your elbow tells you. Only vague shadows moving about in the gloom can be detected, for the atmosphere is charged with Steam and smoke. Moreover the roof of a long building extends over the yawning pit like the wing of a grea: black bird. A lurid peep is suddenly given as one of the converters is turned back on its mountings, hurling forth fire and destruction into the building itself. Nobody minds, for there is nothing but iron in its construction, and it is hopelessly dirty and black. Sparks rain into the pit below, but no one stops. Something is shovelled into the mouth of the vessel, and back again it turns roaring to the heavens. Down in the depths the workers can give no consideration to the menace of fire towering above them, even though it is the deathtrap of the whole place. It sometimes happens that in tilting a converter back over the pit the machinery fails at a critical moment, and the great vessel lumbers over with a crash. Tons of seething metal are shot with a rain of fire into the pit, there is a shriek—and then—horror!
It sometimes happens, too, that in the easting process which follows, despite the greatest care, a mould will be a little wet. The effect of pouring boiling metal into a damp mould is disastrous. A violent explosion occurs, and it is a matter of chance which of the band of workers in and around the pit is not hit, or who is not blinded by particles of fiery steel. Accidents occur with such frequency that every works of note keeps its own ambulance outfit and staff.
Once the ingot of pure metal is cast, it is hurried away to a furnace, heated and then squeezed down in the rolling mills. The latter, with their rows and rows of furnaces, adjoin the casting pit. The rollers spread across an immense floor space that extends over several hundreds of feet and out into the yards themselves. They are for all the world like huge mangles fluted so that the ingot as it passes and repasses between them is reduced from a solid red lump to a black strip the thickness of one's little linger. It is virtually one operation that transforms a solid block of metal four or five feet long by some eighteen inches in thickness and width into a thin bar of the finest steel over two hundred feet long. And it is done at pace.
The ingot at white heat is dropped into position by an overhead crane, and the workers, seizing it with tongs, bunt it into the gaping jaws of the rollers. There is a scrunch as it is shot through and
The dexterity of the man with the tongs is a thing to marvel at. The ingot bounds at him like a great red serpent. He slips to one side. There is a snick, and instinctively "got him" leaps through heart and mind. But he has need of all his skill and strength. The faltering of a single moment and the scorching metal will have done its worst. No man can afford to stop a few hundredweight of livid steel.
Strings of railway wagons are awaiting the finished product in the yards, and immediately the clatter of loading ends, are rushed off to the main line and so to the omnivorous markets of the world.
The heated mind and body of the watcher finds repose at last under the glad cool stars. The night is full of murmurs as the roar and thunder of tinworks recedes into the distance. One views them from afar, vomiting flame and smoke to the silent skies—a veritable ten acres of hell. Neither the hills nor the vales know no peace from its fierce unrelenting life. It throbs on far into the night, calling at last with syren voice to the fresh thousands for the morrow.
Across the dawn an army of workers drift, stained and weary. Somewhere in the distance are congested streets and their huddled, dirty homes. There will be food of sorts awaiting them, and hungry children too. Is it not incongruous that all this marvellous process of production they are concerned with, these huge activities that make for national wealth, and build fine homes on the outskirts of the cities and rear palaces in London, can do for them no more than this? There is surely something inhuman in the anomaly!
After Sheffield, Leeds at first gives promise of something better, something more of social order and cleanliness than what lies south in smoke and ugliness. The appearance of the large open square upon which all the main arteries of traffic converge, the fine public buildings and modern shops, tempt one to say off-hand, "Leeds is certainly better than Sheffield." I saw Leeds under sunlight the first morning 1 strolled through its leading thoroughfares. It was building arches, and lines of bunting were fluttering gaily into the breeze in preparation for the first visit of the King to the city since his coronation. Nothing could have been better to impress one with the importance and activity of the commercial capital of Yorkshire.
But there were two things that would not escape observation—the extraordinary blackness of the buildings, and the frequency with which dirty faces and dirty clothes passed along its busy streets, The two elements for a time jarred amid such fine thoroughfares and buildings, but were speedily obliterated by the joy of that sunny morning and the festive note of flags and greenery. I found myself gathering up impressions and consolidated them into kind words for this busy, black City of Leeds. As a matter of fact, I want now to say some unkind things, and show how, through errors of that past, it has in existence many social mistakes to-day—mistakes that offer a powerful example to young and rapidly-developing communities.
Leeds is essentially a manufacturing centre, with a population of 463,495. It engages from 30,000 to 40,000 of the populace in the manufacture of readymade clothing. Owing to commercial usage and the conditions under which the industry has developed, "sweating" has become intimately associated with it. Its workers are, in consequence, some of the poorest and worst-housed classes in the city. There is sweating in the East end of London of a type and magnitude that beggars description. It flourishes, too, in the boot trades at Leicester, in capmaking at Manchester, in various trades in Birmingham. It has, as a matter of ordinary fact, its roots in almost every part of industrial England. But throughout the country there are no conditions associated with this payment of wages glaringly below the lowest possible cost of living that are conceivably worse than those to be found in Leeds.
The city bears vivid confirmation of the truth that out of the past the present has developed. In laisser faire, by which the landlord was allowed to overcrowd his land to the maximum with jerry-built houses, and the vested interests of the small traders, the hotels, and other commercial classes Were completely safeguarded against any disturbing element of progress. The capacity of the Municipality, in fact, was Unrecognised and wholly subjected to the usages of private enterprise. The Council itself was composed of members drawn from the very classes who were responsible for those usages. So it was that after 30 years of public apathy and mismanagement, consequences could not be but inevitable.
A steadily rising death rate suddenly quickened the latent social conscience of the people. The rate per thousand had reached 32.3 (it is at present 16.0). Official reports showed that typhus, diarrhoea, and dysentery existed in almost every part of the town. In the more crowded areas the condition of things was much worse, aggravated by the existence of a large number of cellar dwellings.
The cellar dwelling is one of the worst horrors of nineteenth century housing. When first constructed it was never intended for anything but coals or lumber. The rapidly increasing population of the city, consequent upon the expansion of industry to the detriment of agriculture, and the growth of poverty, brought them other uses. "There were plenty of cellars which were used for coals 10 years ago that are now the only room of one or more families" is the statement of a poor law official of the time. It was thus that the cellar dwellings came to be built and let as part of the habitable portion of each row of dwellings for workers.
The medical evidence and the efforts of some progressive individuals woke Leeds up to something of the condition of affairs. Meetings were held, and, with the assistance of the local papers, pressure was brought to bear on the authorities, until a meeting of representative bodies was called to consider the crisis that had arisen. The opinion of the time as to how far the Municipality should "interfere"' with its people is certainly suggested by the result of the Council's deliberations. Apparently, after much cogent reflection, the following advertisement was inserted in the local Press: "Notice is hereby given that tickets for lime or white-washing, and the use of a brush, can be had on the written recommendation of the Aldermen and Councillors of each ward, or from any gentleman of the respective ward committees."
But public clamour and the claims of the progressives were not to be denied. The Privy Council in London was prevailed upon to send a medical officer to make an independent investigation. His report is one of the most remarkable documents in the history of English Municipalities. It showed that Leeds was in an appalling insanitary condition. Thousands of tons of filth filled the public receptacles, whilst scores of tons were strewn about. The reason for this accumulation was evident in the fact that the work was let out as a private contract, and only 45 carts were used to deal with the refuse of a population of 230,000. The domestic conveniences were in a shockingly overcharged condition. Whole areas were found in which the ashpit and other sanitary arrangements were immediately underneath bedrooms, kitchens, and living rooms. Several properties were found that had no such
arrangements whatever. The drainage system was condemned in that it did not include many populous streets, the poorer quarters being, of course, the sufferers. The condition of things with the water supply was even worse. It was found that a fellmonger was pouring each week into the stream, from which the supply was derived, the waste liquid in which a thousand skins had been washed. A rag merchant, who collected both English and foreign rags, regularly washed his wares in the stream. "Have seen sewers run cleaner." was the medical officer's comment.
The Mid-Victorian Council was equal to the occasion. They decided not to make the document public, but allowed any ratepayer to see it who took the trouble to call and make application a the Town Hall. They asserted that the M.H.O. had only seen the worst parts of the town inhabited by "the large proportion of low Irish population."
This propensity for defending an existing order of things, however bad they may be, has many parallels in English affairs. It usually comes from nothing more than a conflict between vested interests and progress. In few cases downright narrowness of thought and prejudice may be discerned; but only a few. The great cause is the vested interests of the slum landlord, the breweries, the slum pawnbroker, the slum tradesmen, and with them it is identified with a heap of commercial immorality.
Notwithstanding the horrible condition of things in Leeds in
Towards
What was going on in Leeds was common to every other industrial centre in Britain. The dominant belief of the movement was that private individuals and companies necessarily contracted for the public services to make profits out of the community, whilst the Municipality could trade in trams, water, gas, sanitation, etc., for efficiency and the public benefit.
It was just at this time when Labour was making itself felt in British municipal life, Leeds had to consider the tramway system in vogue. The Liberals were for giving the private company that controlled them a further lease of life. The Labour party, however, brought pressure to bear on the authorities, and a public meeting was called to elicit public feeling. The consequence was Leeds took the trams in hand herself. It was the best thing the city had done for years. To-day the tramways are one of the best equipped systems in England, a considerable improvement has been effected in the wages and condition for employees to what existed under private ownership, and the profits from the undertaking amount to £34,000 a year. As the whole of this money goes in relief of rates, the actual saving to the city is £108,000 per year.
It is necessary here to point out that whatever may have been the policy of Liberals in places like Leeds, the assumption that this is characteristic of the modern Liberal spirit by no means follows. The record of the Mid-Victorian Liberals in the matter of social betterment for the people is much on a par with that of the Tories (or Unionists as they are called to-day). It was the failure of both to remedy the extraordinary conditions under which the industrial population lived and worked that produced the Labour party. To-day, therefore, the Labour party is essentially a progressive and independent force in British municipal life.
I do not want to reproduce here merely a journalist's description of what may be seen night or day in those miles of crowded houses that make up so much of the city. The actual facts presented by the Municipal Medical Health Officer, Dr. Cameron, are much more important and to the point. He and his assistants have, in recent years, conducted a thorough and careful investigation, and carried out certain milk experiments in crowded districts with regard to infant mortality, which is very heavy in parts of the city.
The ordinary death-rate per thousand is 16.0. In South-East Leeds, one of the main sub-divisions of the city, the rate of infant mortality is 187.9. In one of the very crowded areas of this district more than half the children die in infancy. Compared with these rates, it is interesting to note the rates for Great Britain and Wales (138), New South Wales (93), and New Zealand (73). The above figures are taken from the vital statistics for
In
The results were very striking. In the district where ordinary milk was consumed the circumstances of 1291 mothers were investigated. They had had born to them 5483 children. At the time of inquiry it was found that no fewer than 2933 had died. "In this district of Leeds." says the M.H.O., "in families which should be increasing the women still of the child-hearing age had actually already lost more than 53 per cent of their offspring." That poverty, hunger and dirt, overcrowding and alcoholism, ignorance and superstition, are amongst the potent causes of infantile mortality, is the opinion of Dr. Cameron. The extraordinary ignorance prevailing amongst these people is indicated by the prevalent superstition that the woman who has
The children in the same district who were fed on depot milk did much better. Whilst it was found that the death rate amongst the infants who were fed on milk drawn from the ordinary supply was 225.3, that for the depot children was 153.3. The difference between the figures speaks volumes for the necessity of an absolutely uncontaminated milk supply in any modern town or city life.
Any investigation of the conditions inside the homes of the great majority of families in Leeds must reveal a sorry state of things. The ignorance in regard to the mode of feeding infants is frightful. Instead of the child receiving its proper natural food, for specified reasons it is fed with bread, with shop milk, and various patent foods. When the mother goes out to work, as she frequently does, the baby, if it is not left under the care of an elder child, is handed over to some old woman, who, for a few pence a day, looks after the children of absent parents. The baby, in consequence, is subjected during the daytime to artificial feeding. The nature of the food too often induces gastric disturbance in the child, to relieve which the nurse resorts to patent soothing syrups, infants' preservatives and other dangerous substances. Look at this fact: Of all the children born in the second quarter of
Because of the tardiness of the authorities to-day in dealing with the legacies of the past, Leeds is backward in its housing and industrial conditions. Rows and rows of "back-to-baek" houses are a common feature. Vested interests are strong enough to make the city a peculiar offender in still allowing this highly insanitary type of house to be built, although the M.H.O. has been condemning the practice for years. Amongst, and part of, these desperate housing conditions, are numerous small factories or workshops, wherein "Home workers" are engaged. It is with the latter "sweating" is rife, and unfortunately they are seldom, if at all, subject to legalised factory inspection.
The bulk of the 2378 registered workshops in Leeds belong to the "domestic" variety, where a man and his family work independent of his neighbours. It is a curious survival of the out-of-date that nearly the whole of the bread, cakes, etc., in the city are made by these private families. Numbers of the places are underground, and though subject to inspection, the conditions under which one of the staple foods of the community is produced are far from appetising. After seeing several, one begins to look askance at the bread that appears on the hotel table at meal time. It is patent that such a minute division of labour in the production of a public necessity not only complicates the problem of distribution, but is economically bad and expensive. The majority of these home bakers undergo a hard struggle for existence.
The ready-made clothing (also sack making) is one of the worst of the "sweated" industries of Leeds. In the factories themselves, where a large number of young girls are employed, for what
The best and most up-to-date of the large factories usually employ several thousand hands, and have as many as
It is the practice of most of the big firms to put out quantities of material to be made up in the homes of the outworkers. The rate of wage paid is miserably inadequate for the decent welfare of body and soul, even supposing the workers knew how to spend it to the best advantage. Unfortunately they do not. Many are from one cause or another industrial, physical and social wrecks, and it is well known that they have to work excessively long hours. The application of the provisions of a Factory and Work-shop Act to these thousands of homes is hardly practicable, and where inspection is at all lax, the Act is virtually a dead letter. Factory inspection in Leeds, as elsewhere, is very inefficient compared with Australasian standards.
The worst feature is that children have to take a hand. There are thousands of children who are known as half-timers, that is to say, children from the age of 12, are permitted to work half-a-day's working hours and spend the remainder in schools. Many of the children of the outworkers of Leeds are "half-timers." and what with defective housing, poor food, and the strain of enforced occupation from daylight to dark, it is little wonder that Leeds contains a heavy proportion of unhealthy and degenerate workers.
Many instances could be given and multiplied showing the terrible results amongst man, woman and child, produced under the conditions related. England to-day is being flooded with literature on the subject. It all points to the great blunder of nineteenth century industrial development—the blunder of individualism. It was no doubt a requisite condition before society could arrive at something better. The liberty of the subject—the watchword of early Victorian politicians and individualists—far from bringing freedom at all, only resolved itself into a privilege of commercial kings to keep down their armies of workers. Nobody was individually to blame except where downright slavery prevailed. It was a great social and industrial experiment, out of which has sprung the increasing perception of and movement towards the collective ideal.
Such is the record of Leeds, with many of its characteristic indications of English industrial life. Throughout its miles of crowded, congested streets, along the banks of that horrible, black stream,
The long street dips into the valley where the city is gathered in the twilight blurred and faint beneath the smoke. The western skies gleam with infinite tenderness and soar above to the first few stars that slip shyly into the dusk. Tall, slender shafts, looming up from the valley, soften with pinnacle and spire into shadowland. The night descends into dreamy splendour and all the world grows dark and still.
But the street is full of murmurs—the city awakes to the turmoil of the Saturday night. Electric moons flash and shiver with uncertain fire a moment ere they burst into the full blood of brilliance. The streets burn with exultant glitter from end to end and over pavement and roadway, busy throngs of people swarm. Penny squeakers and hoarse, gruff voices strike a dominant note of discord over the harmony of endless feet pattering softly on the cobbles. The markets are filled to overflowing and from street to street of the historic city of Bradford, through all the highways of the "Worstedopolis of the globe," the crowd stream, bright faced, eager and strenuous. The city is ablaze with light and laughter. These full-throated, hearty people of the North know well how to laugh; mirth, shrill and deep, rollicks through the street. But with the buoyant spirit, the gay dresses, comes a contrast that makes one pause—the contrast of grey figures in shawls gliding by in the shadows, knots of labourers drunken and dirty on the street corner where the glasses clink, and everywhere husky, ragged imps, speaking for a generation of the great unwashed. None the less there is a certain sturdy spirit, a marked individuality about these big burly Bradford men. There is frightful dirt, congestion and often disease amongst the people; there are the elements associated with human strife and sweat for existence in the life of a big manufacturing centre; but there are, too, the character and resoluteness stamped in many a face that has kept Bradford with one hand on the fleece and the other on the world.
The city proper is crowded into a valley reaching out on all sides to steep slopes that have gradually been built on as the residential areas spread. The modern conception of laying out a city to secure broad and convenient arteries for its traffic, air spaces, lighting and picturesque effect, had not been evolved when Bradford was expanding under its industrial impulse. The extension and laying out of streets was a matter entirely for private enterprise. There was no adequate supervision of plans, no scheme that had regard for the whole city. Building by-laws were, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter. The consequence was an extraordinary maze of dirty narrow streets straggling outwards, crowded on all sides with the maximum of building by individual landlords. Factories of all description were wedged in amongst the residential areas and with them came innumerable tall shafts plumed with smoke, so that to-day there is hardly an acre in the whole city where industry does not reign.
One might come and go thus through all the striking array Bradford offers, from slum and dreary areas of workers, homes to factories, from black public edifices to the suburban freshness on the hills, and without having regard to its antecedents, speak of it as many do—"a dreadful place."
The impression is as superficial as it is misleading. Bradford, in fact, is the most progressive Municipality in England. It has done more and fought hard for that progress, the genesis of which it was so intimately associated with. It had much the same legacy in horrible overcrowded areas, narrow streets and vested interests left to it as was the case with Leeds. Its early records of death, disease, pauperism and public indifference to the welfare of the masses were just as potent. Its early public services were mostly in the hands of private companies, whose first consideration was necessarily profit-making. The Tecord of child labour in its mills and those in the immediate vicinity, the story of its pre-legislative days in the matter of excessively long hours of workers, of poorly paid wages, and revolting conditions of labour were all much the record of industrial England ere Parliament became bold enough to interfere and override, step by step, the uncontrolled power of the individual to exploit the mass.
The industrial people of Bradford, as a class, were too restless and keen a body to submit to the conditions under which they came to work and exist, notwithstanding that many of them were necessarily oblivious to anything better. They emphasised in their lives that resolution, energy and independence for which Yorkshire people are noted. Nowhere did the opposition to the introduction of machinery in early days take a more violent form than in Bradford, was those inherited characteristics of
The feeding of the school children by the Municipality received the authority of Parliament in
It was a remarkable sight to see hundreds of children line up to the tables in one of the large dining halls for the mid-day meal. They get two courses—usually a stew with vegetables and a plain pudding. The teachers of the different schools take it in turn each week to control the serving of the meals and the children themselves undertake the waiting. I made a note of several children, who devoured two full soup plates of stew and then repeated the process with pudding. "That is their first meal to-day," said the superindendent. "These children," he added, indicating a group of pale unhealthy-looking mites, "have just been in a week, those over there have been fed for six weeks." The contrast in appearance between the two groups spoke volumes.
The results of the feeding of school children were very carefully noted by the Medical Officer of Health. The cost of the meals worked out at 1½ d per head. The most remarkable effect noted was that for the first three or four days the majority of the children showed no appetite. The reason for this was that they had from the moment of birth been systematically underfed, and the experience of an appetite was almost unknown. It did not take long, however, for Nature to assert herself. The children were soon eating prodigiously. It was found that each child on an average increased forty-nine ounces in weight every week, whilst the average gain of the ordinary home fed child was only twenty ounces. An interesting fact adduced was that during a fortnight's holiday, when the school children received no meals, they lost on an average 1lb, thus showing immediately the Municipality ceased its
work the children reverted back to the old condition of semi-starvation.
"We hardly know the children," said one of the Infant Mistresses. "They have put on flesh and filled out, whilst the effect on the child's intelligence is indisputable. Summer and winter we used to have children falling off their seats, fainting for the want of food. It was just heart-breaking to try and teach them. The most backward children were invariably those that were underfed." All through Bradford, so far as it is possible for a visitor to discover, there is a remarkable optimism prevailing in regard to the children. The doctrine that feeding would undermine parental responsibility received a rude shock when the Educational Committee showed that it had had scores of letters from parents expressing the utmost gratitude for what has been done, and readily giving payment for the meals supplied. "The question has a much deeper aspect than is commonly realised," said one of the officials in charge. "Nine-tenths of the people do not know how to feed their children. They have not got the means of knowing. When the father and the mother work in the mills, as is usually the case, what hope is there for the child? It therefore devolves upon the Municipality to undertake the work, and with the help of medical science and the specialised knowledge of foods that exist to-day, the Municipality can do it better, cheaper, cleaner and altogether more efficiently than the parents. This feeding of the school children is one of the greatest hopes we have for breaking into the darkness and misery that surround so many of the homes in this city."
Those were the thoughts I found common to the progressive minds in Bradford, and to those who have been down amongst the slums and seen the widespread horror eating its way into the heart of the race, the feeding of the children seems to be the keynote to a great truth, and to those possibilities of the future that have hovered over the dawn of each century of time.
The educational work in Bradford is full of life and vigour. Attached to one of the largest schools in Bradford is a cottage home completely furnished throughout with bedroom, sitting-room, dining-room, kitchen, laundry, etc. Every month squads of girls are taken from the school and educated there in all the duties that belong to the household. The syllabus secures the highest domestic efficiency with the greatest economy. The mistress put the need of such an institution in an anecdote: "I once had a party of thirteen girls enter here direct from their homes. Their first examination question was, "If you had 11d to get father a Sunday dinner, what would you give him? Two of the girls replied 'roast pork,' and the remainder 'fish and chips.' That is, I have found often, the limit of culinary knowledge in hundreds of homes."
Another interesting branch of Bradford's enterprise is the Municipal Milk Depot. Notwithstanding the inspection of the milk supplied by private vendors and other machinery to ensue purity of supply, commercial competition is such as to defeat these ends. A section of the Council was anxious to try the effect of a supply of absolutely pure and humanised milk upon the infants in pauper districts. The experiment was much on the same lines as that described at Leeds. To get pure milk, the borough had to secure its own farm and dairy herds, the reason being that there is virtually no Statt veterinary inspection of cows in England from which the public milk is drawn.
The milk secured from the farm is divided as follows:—Humanising for
In course of conversation with Mr. Arthur Priestman, chairman of the Bradford Labour party, and owner of one of the large textile mills in Bradford, I gathered that the supply of milk to the people was held to be as vital a part of the Municipal work as water supply. "Everyone knows," he said, "how necessary it is to have an absolutely pure water supply. The history of epidemics only too painfully illustrates that. It is being realised now that indisputable as this necessity is in regard to water, it is even more important when it applies to milk. Milk is much more liable to infection than water. When the water supplies in England were in private hands, they were frequently more or less contaminated. It was only when the Municipality asserted its right to control its own services that we got pure water. The same thing applies to milk. Commercial competition and individual control do not permit of a guarantee of pure supply." These views have wide currency in the city. Doctors, merchants, manufacturers, and the various public men one meets in a tour of investigation were ardently possessed with the same train of thought. When Bradford starts thinking, it is not long before something is done. That seems to be a characteristic of these big, bluff and intensely individualistic Yorkshire men.
A Municipal Tramways Parcel Delivery Department is one of Bradford's most successful ventures. It is impossible in a brief space to deal with the various aspects that such an innovation opens up, but the fact remains Bradford has utilised its street car service to inaugurate a system of collection and delivery of parcels on a scale eclipsing any previous private venture. The parcels are carried on the platform of the car on which the driver stands. There is a complete system of depots for the collection and receiving. The Department is a model of organisation and efficiency. There was a capital expenditure at the inauguration of about £1,600. The first year's balance-sheet showed a net profit of £520, the second year £970, and the third year (
There are many other aspects of the busy textile centre that offer absorbing topics. It offers cases of individual employers in the great woollen industry who have, by example, sought to show that a modern factory should not be a dirty, over-crowded mass of men, women, children, and machines, struggling ten to twelve hours a day in a hot, steamy atmosphere, for comparatively poor wages. The Municipality cannot deal with the factories. But its labours are concerned with the lives and surroundings of the 58,000 people who
Although Bradford employs some 58,791 workers in its textile trade, it is only the centre of a vast manufacturing area. It is surrounded by a cordon of towns and villages, and beyond these again lie fiercely busy communities like Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Keighley, and Halifax. The field of production, covered by the single word textile, embraces a very wide aggregation of specialised labour, from wool-sorting and weaving, down to the multifarious offices that appertain to dyeing and finishing. The ramifications of the woollen industry, in fact, present a bewildering aggregation of skilled trades, that in the aggregate represent the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of the great and historic industry in which Bradford leads. Although Leeds is the commercial capital of Yorkshire, Bradford stands apart in its manufacturing and merchant preeminence.
Over these hills of Southern Yorkshire has risen a wonderful romance of industry, materialised in miles of factories and long, lank chimney shafts, in a fabulous quantity of machines embodying the wonders of inventive genius, and an accumulation of working-class communities that holds one spell-bound. It all represents a vast and phenomenal growth—a growth of men and machines, of towns and cities, of wealth and poverty, of frightful disorder, congestion, and slums. Its turning point seems to be the beginning of the twentieth century. The spasmodic efforts of reformers, revolutionaries, doctors, divines, poets, politicians, scientists, and others that came with the closing decades of the nineteenth, have taken definite shape in leagues, associations, and other collective bodies for the amelioration of the lot of the worker, his wife, and his children. What industrial growth alone to Bradford represented is shown by the following statistics of population:—
When England deserted agriculture to become an industrial country, it necessarily meant that hundreds of thousands left the land for the towns and cities. The heavy increases in population did not carry with them an expansion of residential areas, but resolved itself into downright overcrowding. The problem was accentuated by the fact that the agricultural people carried with them habits of personal uncleanliness that in the, congested atmosphere of town and city were productive of appalling results. The unrestricted operations of speculative builders, landlords, and agents who leased and sublet whole areas, precipitated the social disaster that followed. There were also other elements in the food supply and habits of the people that had their share. The workers were equally obliged by the conditions of industry to work long hours for poor wages. Thus it was that hundreds of thousands of people were crushed by a combination of social and economic conditions which only the few who had the ability and individual force of character overcame. To-day, that in a few sentences, is the problem of the armies of textile workers in
The conditions of labour which surround the textile industries are some of the hardest that, outside of the sweated trades, exist in England. The effect is to be noted in innumerable ways, the pallor of the faces, neglect of personal appearance, a certain dispirited air, and mental apathy that is in part the outcome of sheer physical fatigue. In both Yorkshire and Lancashire there are some people who take a pride in the "hard working lads and lassies." To an outside observer, it is a sorry pride for all the physical unfitness it entails. When trade is good, the woollen and the cotton mills hardly ever cease, night or day, from 6 a.m. on the Monday morning till the Saturday mid-day. The average working hours are 55£ hours a week. It being illegal, since
In order to grasp what these things entail to the individual, I took the trouble in Bradford to inquire into the history of several families of textile workers. Here is an average case. The father is an unskilled casual worker engaged at night on wool-combing. His wages average 15/- per week. His wife is a spinner earning 12/- per week. They married at the ages of 23 and 20 respectively.' When the first child came, the mother, who had worked in the mills almost up to the day of its birth, was incapacitated for three weeks or a month. The maintenance of the family during the time was dependent on the earnings of the husband. Trade being good, the mother returned to her occupation, and the child was given over to a nurse—an elderly female pauper—upon whom the child was dependent for training. When the second child came, however, trade was bad, and the mother remained unemployed for over two months, whilst her husband was working short time, and out of work for over a week one time. It was under these conditions that additions to the family began to arrive at regular intervals. With the increase of children, the duties of the mother could not any longer be relegated to a third party. The woman therefore gave up her work as a spinner
The half-timer—the child who works half a day in a mill and spends the rest in school—is a survival of early Vietorian days, when juveniles from five years of age and women were harnessed to the untiring machines, and had to toil from fourteen to eighteen hours it an atmosphere poisoned with dust and bad air. The age at which a child could be employed was gradually raised till
"It was agreed that the conditions prevailing in most factories were superior to the conditions prevailing in the school ... In schools the class-rooms were notoriously crowded, and possibly unhealthy, thus largely accounting for the drowsiness on the part of the halftimers complained of by the school -teachers. Opinion was divided as to the effect upon the children having to be at the mill by 6.30 a.m., although the "Early to bed and early to rise" advocates were very staunch as to its having no injurious effect.
"The opinion was fully expressed that as a whole half-timers were quite
"The economy of half-time labour was mentioned, but it was contended that this, to individual firms, was of little practical advantage."
The last statement provokes one to the inquiry that if it is no advantage to individual firms to get the benefit of a child's labour between the ages of twelve and eighteen for 3/- to 3/9 per week, why is the abolition of the halftimer so strenuously opposed by the manufacturers? The managers make out a very poor case, and their statements are sufficiently obvious to require no answer here. This subjection of undeveloped and immature children to industrial needs, without any regard for their future welfare and moral and intellectual betterment is one of the most sordid features of English life. It has been going on for years, and it is not too much to say it is one of the tragedies of our civilisation. The relation of the subject to colonial inquirers is only to show that it is one of the component parts of the great industrial system of Europe and America which offers so many potent and tragic examples to younger countries that are, in turn, seeking to develop their resources.
There is another side to the picture in Bradford, and one which shows that despite all the economic considerations governing international industry to-day, despite the existence of hostile tariffs, and relentless competition for the world's markets, a woollen mill can be a factor for the production of national wealth without neglecting to secure to its thousands of workers the conditions requisite to bodily health and mental and social well-being. High up on the hills above Bradford, away from the congestion and the smoke of the city, Messrs. John Foster and Son's Black Dike Mills cover a floor area exceeding fifteen acres, and employ 2,000 workpeople. The business was founded in
Queensborough, in fact, is a model community. Its splendid mills are considered to be one of the finest properties in the district, whilst its thousands of workers labour and live in an environment that insures health and the highest industrial efficiency. In all departments of the factory there is light and air. The workrooms are white-washed, clean, well
The cottage homes of the workers, each with a plot of ground and garden where sturdy youngsters romped, fitted in aptly to the radiant hills and vales that surround them. Amid this industrious environment, where hundreds of machines whirled daily, and the clanging looms were never still, the landscape beauty remained. It was the realisation of Nature and industry moving in harmoney to the needs of man and his works.
But here is the contrast that speaks so bitterly for the mass in Bradford and all its adjacent black, dingy, throbbing centres. In the quarterly report of the Chief Woman Inspector, dated
"One house, on being inspected, presented a wretched appearance. The grate was choked with ashes. ... A small table and two dilapidated chairs constituted the furniture. From upstairs came the sounds of an infant wailing; otherwise, but for a puppy dog, there were no signs of life. After a time the grandmother was discovered preparing the infant's food in a neighbour's house, this preparation consisting of bread and water only, the family being so poor they could not provide milk.
"In one case the mother, daughter, illegitimate infant, and two young men appeared to be occupying one bed, the condition of which was deplorable; ticks, mattresses, coverings, were all black with grease and dirt. The baby lay on this bedding during the day, covered by the flock bed itself.
"One infant suffering from indigestion was being dosed with gin and water by its mother, who, fearing discovery, hurriedly thrust the tin cup containing the mixture into the oven. The doctor had ordered the mother to wean the child, and as she was very poor, a neighbour kindly offered her a long tubed bottle. This was in an unwashed, filthy condition, just as it had been left when the friend's child had last used it during an attack of diphtheria."
"There were two small children in the home, the younger being just under one year of age, the elder two years old. The infant, in physique and weight was about equal to the average child of three months. Although noon at the time of visiting, it had not been washed or dressed, and lay on the bed uncoved, with nothing on but a small dirty chemise. It was screaming violently, and by its side lay the long tubed bottle from which it had been feeding. On examining this the contents could not be seen for the thick coating of curd on the inside of the glass; the tube was almost completely choked, and the teat rotten. The whole feeding bottle was in a horrible condition, calculated to poison the child."
That is the grim staring revelation of poverty at the heart of industry itself. Is it not a tragedy for civilisation that these things should be whilst away on the hills there is only the song of labour and love in a cottage?
Lancashire is the workshop of the world. It is the apotheosis of British industry. It rises from the sea that bears its merchandise to mingle beyond the flat strip of its shoreline in hills and vales of surpassing loveliness, but Industry has run riot through the land. Every town, city and village have been enveloped by tire and steam. The land is black, blighted and dreary. Its forests are the chimney stacks and its cloudland the smoke. The petals of the red rose, that once was dyed with ancestral blood, are polluted and drooping. From all the days of its romance and wonderful folk - lore, it has come down to the twentieth century a bewildering arena of men and machines, of huddled unbeautiful cities and towns manacled by ribbons of steel, of fierce dazzling activities that have engulphed hundreds of thousands—man, woman and child—in this process of wealth production. Nowhere is the force that concentrates it more powerful, more malevolent. It is one vast throbbing orgy of Mammon, and at the heart of it is big black Manchester.
The dominance of the commercial capital of Lancashire is one of the most telling examples of rapid growth and expansion with all their adjuncts of congestion, dirt, poverty and wealth. It is the octopus of the north. From all sides it puts out tentacles of steel to a ring of important centres comprising Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, St. Helens, Blackburn, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Glossop, Gorton, Preston, and Stockport. The area of activities this vast circle represents, converging as it does on to the capital by a network of railways, tramways, canals, and motor services, is the most remarkable the world can offer. It has no parallel in industry, nothing greater than its palpitating energies galvanising the whole to the maximum of organised production. It is not alone the might of the cotton industry. It carries with it miles of iron and steel works, locomotive and rolling stock builders, chemical plants, glass factories, paper mills, piles of electrical works, of felt hats, linoleums, clothing, makers of marine engines, boilers and machinery, pumps, hydraulic and electric lifts and cranes, textile machinery, monster lathes, planes, drills, guns, and so on through the gamut of industrial enterprise. The complexity of it is like one of those wonderful Oriental Mosaics. Collectively it all focuses itself into one big scheme, the kernel of which one hundred and forty-live years ago took shape in a man's brain as he sat watching the lid of a kettle calling to the housewife to make the tea. Out of that scheme has come not only great industries, but all the social and economic problems of the age, and nowhere are they so strikingly materialised as in Manchester itself today.
Together with Salford (which to all intents and purposes is part of Manchester) the population of the metropolis is 764,829. One would naturally expect to find it concentrating in its midst to the highest degree the activities of surrounding districts, but it is not so. Manchester is the goods shed of the whole business. The city proper is made up mostly of warehouses and slums. This grim contrast of wealth and poverty is unassait-
It is not until the two mile radius is reached that anything like presentable residential areas come into existence, and it is only when one approaches the suburban limits like Heaton Park on the north and Rueholme or Levenshulme in the south, encompassed in a radius from five to six miles from the centre the detached dwelling, gardens tree lined streets and other evidences of enlightenment are met with.
The effect of this vast accumulation crowding in from remote areas to a black and congested centre, is overpowering. For the stranger it carries depression until the importance of the problems it presents and the examples it offers are realised. Nature adds to its gloom by a rainfall that is far above that of London, whilst the city is freequently enveloped in thick soupy fogs. The majority of the people are indifferent to these climatic peculiarities, and, in fact, are proud of their big black metropolis. Its great attraction is that it presents an activity and bustle of life that is not any more intense in London itself. The principal streets, though comparatively spacious, are taxed to the utmost by the incessant stream of traffic. Manchester people are, by temperament, more energetic than Londoners, and they infuse into their street life a vigour that is characteristic of the whole commercial life. The dominant factor of the traffic is the electric car, which within the last decade has revolutionised the problem of transit incidental to the life of a big city. Hundreds of cars pass every hour up and down and across the main artery of traffic—Market-street. By the Exchapge the pressure is as great and as busy as at the Mansion House comer itself. Blocks are frequent. Humanity, like bees, love a swarm. Life, stir, excitement and bustle are the elements that hold them spellbound to the big city. The swirl of the traffic and the din of thousands intoxicates all grades. Overflowing streers, with shops ablaze, endless faces, nose, light, laughter, movement are the eternal novelty, the delirious joy, the bewilderment and the madness of the age. Man-
It is a remarkable fact that for a radius of one and a half miles from the heart of the city there are no parks or open spaces where people can get away from the sea of bricks and mortar, save one small area in Salford. Yet it is estimated that nearly a quarter of a million people exist within that radius, under the demoralising influences that appertain to the slum. The figures may give a suggestion of magnitude, but the realities of the frightful congestion and disorder that permeate the acres and acres of Manchester slums are almost beyond expression. The evils were summed up, briefly and dispassionately, by a report compiled by Mr T. R. Marr, Secretary of the Citizens' Association in
An investigation of conditions to-day shows that out of the total population of 764,829, no less than 230,000 live in poverty and want. The density of population in several districts comprising each 500 acres is as high as 120 people per acre. In these areas there are districts between ten and twenty acres in extent where the density rises to 200 people to the acre. In such cases the death rate and infantile mortality goes up in proportion to the overcrowding. On 12.67 acres in Ancoats—a slum district—there were found recently no les3 than 600 dwellings in existence from six to two rooms each, and one hotel license to every 40 houses. The number of people living on each acre of the district was 203.
Amongst a host of individual examples given by Mr Marr as to how the people live under these conditions the following will suffice:—
Widow with two children rented a house of three rooms, and kept five boarders male and female. The house was back to back, old and dirty. Two slept in one room and five in another.
Coachpainter earning 30s per week, his wife and four children occupied a two roomed house. All six slept in one room 8 x 8 x 10 feet high.
Three adults and five children occupied four rooms of a damp, dirty and rat infected house. Six of them slept in one room containing 865 cubic feet of air space.
Hawker and wife with three children, one male and one female lodger—seven in all—occupied a two-roomed house. All slept in one room.
What accentuates the problem is the extensive system in existence in the slums known as "farming out" or subletting. A tenant rents from an owner one or two houses. In crowded areas they are usually the type of dwelling occupied by the business man in Manchester one hundred years ago, and con-
It is necessary to say here that it is not owing to the lack of municipal spirit that Manchester has not abolished the horrors of its housing condition. The city, in fact, is regarded as a foremost example of modern municipal government in England. The City Council has been endowed with a social conscience, and its affairs are as much the concern of its citizens as in any of the progressive communities to-day both in England and Germany. Its activities have not been hampered by any narrow theories as to the limitation of municipal functions. The vested interests of any particular set of individuals "nave not been allowed to prevail in the endeavour to secure the rights of the community. The housing evils shown above only serve to reveal what are the almost insuperable difficulties that assail a municipality once the problem is neglected and allowed to intensify. In twenty years Manchester has either caused to be demolished or closed for human habitation nearly 9,000 dwellings. Compulsory methods taken in hand too vigorously often result in the production of overcrowding in adjoining areas to that dealt with. The work of the Manchester City Council had regard for this probability, and by distributing their attention over the whole area of crowded districts, and not making a general clearance in any particular one, the displacement of a great number of persons in any one district was divided and the evils in part mitigated. By a special Act, the Council, acting on the advice of its Sanitary Committee, can order the destruction of a defective house, or prohibit its use for human habitation until the landlord makes such recurs or alterations that are in the opinion of the committee and the Medical Officer of Health, necessary. By closing the house up, the Council is not liable to compensate the owner. When the landlord is forced to repair a house to bring it up to the "average standard of a habitable dwelling," the cost of remedying the defective conditions falls on to the shoulders of the property owners who created them. Under the process by which some Councils clear out whole areas and build corporation dwellings, the ratepayers have to compensate individual landlords for the destruction of their property, besides paying for the cost of the land and the new building. The policy thus pursued in Manchester has been a steady effort towards the improvement and the prevention of crowded areas.
The great network of tramways which has been extended over the city in recent years has also assisted in relieving the pressure on particular areas. The question arises whether, with this factor
The effects of social disorder which seem to reach the maximum in Manchester are common in a proportionate degree to the ring of "little Manchesters" that surround it. Bolton, Oldham. Halifax. Preston, etc., are possessed by the same problem, the same vista of dirty, ugly streets where there is not a single tree-planted street or square, or a single building which is looked upon. Each one is a Manchester in embyro, and as they grow, their problems will grow with them so long as the Municipality is unable to enforce prevention instead of applying cures. They and their thousands are all subordinated to the demands of industry which have to be satisfied irrespective of individual welfare in the mass. Standing in Bolton Park one gets a characteristic impression of the environment under which Lancashire workers live. The park is an isle of green in a sea of desolation. It is surrounded by grimy blackened buildings that have nothing but naked ugliness in their composition. Hundreds of chimney stacks rise up in the immediate vicinity pouring out the inevitable trail of smoke. It is all a medley of mud and manufacture compressed with over a hundred thousand men, women and children into three square miles of desolation. For twenty miles round Manchester there is the intolerable extraordinary ugliness. At Widnes, where the chemical works abound, the whole countryside is blasted and barren. The effect of the gases has completely destroyed vegetable life in the vicinity. At Oldham one finds acres and acres of cotton mills—many of them old, dirty and poorly ventilated—and the same repulsive lines and lines of houses reaching for six miles and more into the heart of Manchester itself.
It is a remarkable car ride that from Oldham to the Infirmary in the metropolis. Beyond the squat roofs that line the roadway the cotton mills rise up on hill and mound. They work night and day as in Bradford, and the story of the workers is much the story of the textile workers that was given in the preceding chapter. The houses accumulate as the car sweeps on to the city lying in the distance blurred and faint with smoke. The few green fields that lie beyond the roofs, speedily vanish. The street becomes a vista of dirty cramped shops crushed between piles of industrial concerns. The density of building is at its maximum. Long narrow streets flash off crowded with men in shirtsleeves and women in shawls, whilst crowds of children, for the most part ragged and unwashed, play in the streets. It has been raining and the roadways lie wet and heavy beneath a sullen sky. Lines of lorries creep slowly away from the city and the evening shadows gather over
In front of the iron railings that guard the building, a single row of seats stretches for nearly its whole length. Those seats hold one of the most terrible impressions that are indelibly associated with the great city. They assemble there the dregs of life, lines of men and women, filthy and ragged beyond conjecture, lost to humanity. They are the overflow of civilisation crushed in the economic process, and doomed to the pauper's grave. They speak for Manchester as much they they do for London or Paris, the children of congenital defects, swamped in an ocean of toilers. It is that grim lifeless picture of the unemployable created by society and damned by mankind, that is the stain on modern civilisation.
A midsummer's morn was gleaming over the broad blue estuary of the Mersey. From the eminence of an embankment towering above Toxeth Dock, a panorama of river and sky unfolded in the sunlight, meeting away in the dim faint outline of the Birkenhead shore. The river palpitated with life and activity. A forest of mast and sail, grim smoking funnels, merchantmen, tramps, tugs dragging trains of fat barges in the swirl of the tide, and great liners pointing to the clouds and the smoke, gathered in a wonderful vista. They hovered between the flood and the sunlight, crowding into where the black irregular line of the shore was pierced by endless docks, landing stages, cranes, sheds, and all the paraphernalia that make up the complexity of Liverpool's maritime splendour. In the radiance of that summer morn, one beheld the city as the gate between the old world and the new. The traffic of a nation was clattering through its throbbing thoroughfares. The fabulous productions of the black, busy centres, toiling away beyond the hills in smoke and sweat, were speeding over its network of steel to the outgoing tide. Men, women horses, fire, steam, water, electricity, were caught up in the irresistible rush of its commerce. All the elements of human endeavour, of hope, and wretchedness were swamped in the ocean of lives beating against the stones of a great city—a city floating down far from the hills and ending abruptly in lofty piles of brick and steel against the silvered edge of the river. That was Liverpool on a bright midsummer's morn, and it only wanted a few minutes to the stroke of seven.
It is strange how a point of focus in the life of a city can become so vivid as to obliterate every other element of distraction. But with the stroke of seven, summer and winter, Liverpool presents a scene that is no more remarkable, no more astonishing or suggestive of the needs of the age than any other English city. Along the two miles of its stretch of docks and quays at seventeen different points armies of labour assemble. The men come in thousands every morn of the working day. The actual number that are gathered there in expectation of work ranges daily from 20,000 to 25,000. The streets are black with them, young and old, middle-aged, mostly grizzled, hulking specimens wearing the familiar greasy scarf and cap and clothes that speak for the dirt and the squalor from which many of them have emerged. At Toxeth docks the scene partakes of all the intensity of thousands of men lined up, mute and anxious, for the labour that means bread and physical satisfaction. With the coming of the hour, the steady stream of workers that began at 6.30 thickens. The side streets literally ooze with humanity that swarms under the elevated railways into the yards behind the gaunt stretch of sheds. The men gather into long lines at three separate stands or pools. It is like the marshalling of an army—an army of weaponless thousands in the dull drab uniform of the worker. In one corner, a crowd of idlers and the curious mingle, There are derelict specimens
"There won't be many taken on this morning," murmurs a policeman. "No, the usual thing, I suppose," drawls his mate as they saunter up and down at the gates. Suddenly the murmur of voices dies away. Two men, one carrying a small book, emerge from the sheds, and pass each to the three groups as the clocks clang seven through the city. A late arrival or two slip hurriedly into the lines. The whole army is silent. The foremen pass down the lines. They suddenly hold up a pencil and beckon. The line breaks, and a single individual darts away into the shed. The foremen finish their tour of the lines of men. They pass back again, and call out a few more. The number that pass into the shed seem infinitesimal to the assembled multitude. The lines are once more inspected, and as the foremen pass there is a palpable eagerness in the manner of the men to catch that favoured nod which means occupation for the day. The inspection is finished. The foremen make a sign, and turn to the sheds. The three lines break up in a chorus of grunts. A burst of cynical laughter goes up into the morning. "'Ow many d'ye saye; twenty out o' five 'undred," says a voice that is immediately lost in a widespread murmur. The men turned slowly away and filed out through the gates into the roadway. The quickened step and alert faces that passed into the lines was in vivid contrast to the figures that drifted aimlessly toward the city. Some merely shrugged their shoulders, others went off with set faces and hands rammed deeply into their empty pockets. One would suppose that years of this sort of thing would make these rough untutored men callous to disappointment. With their big frames, heavy hands, and slouching gait they remind one of the draught horse. They seem to share in common the dumb obedience, the blind strength of the animal. It is easy to picture them half brute, half human, credulous as children, and ruled by a coarseness of intellect that offends the finer intelligence. But the people who get into their lives, who go down to the heart of the submerged mass, say they are just as human as the best of the race. They have each their ambition, pride, fear, hate, faithfulness, kindness, hope, and love. The elements may be crude, but the difference with other men is only one of degree. It was a strange, sorry spectacle to see those thousand of men, unemployed, slouching off in groups, disappearing into narrow thoroughfares to face women and children, maybe, in that radiant summer
As to what are the exact figures of the population in Liverpool that are known as dock labourers, there is nothing officially known. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board themselves cannot say with certainty. The most reliable estimate is that given by Councillor James Sexton, of the Liverpool City Council, general secretary of the National Union of Dock Labourers, who
There is a very bad form of sweating in England by which women are paid a few shillings per week in numerous trades for work that is out of all proportion to the payment. None the less, the work is fairly regular. The worst form of sweating seems to be that of these armies of casual unskilled labourers, who each have to keep a family on four or five shillings a day, coming perhaps twice, perhaps three times a week. They are the people with whom most of the misery of the slums is associated in these waterside cities, and Liverpool has to within a year or so had the very worst slums in England.
Out of all the great mass of poor labour it presents in connection with its maritime areas, there are some remarkable facts to chronicle. The wages of these thousands are kept at the level they are by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which, being a combination of shipping and railway interests, has subordinated the privileges associated with harbour rights and dues to commercial usage. Prior to
Since the Board so successfully promoted its monopoly of what morally was a public service, it has steadfastly refused to admit the city any representation in its affairs. Nothwithstanding its enormous financial resources and powers to derive revenue for the purpose, the Board also steadfastly refuses to
Casual unskilled labour is one of the things that are at the root of unemployment. The most recent investigations show that amongst the unemployed, the typical figure of the elderly labourer, "too old at forty," cast out of his work because of his grey hairs and failing years, hardly exists. Except in the more acute and abnormal periods of unemployment caused by trade depression, it has been found that no less than seventyfive per cent, of the out-of-works are young men ranging from twenty to fifty, all casual unskilled labourers. In some districts in Britain the percentage reaches 90. These men belong to all classes of dock and shipping labourers and various branches of the building and other trades, where elemental manual labour is in demand. In round numbers there are half a million of casual unskilled workmen in Britain whose weekly earnings never rise to the average wage of 24s per week. The uncertainty of work for these half a million makes it imperative on the wife to assist in winning the necessaries that existence demands. What her absence from the home entails for the children may easily be guessed. But when, under the stress of modern industrial conditions, she has to bear children, when under the defective and insanitary conditions she and her husband live, the only avenue of pleasure open to them, the only solace and companionship, is the dirty foetid slum gin palace, night after night, who is to say what such a condition of things will spell for the unborn child? That is as much the curse of casual labour in Liverpool as in any part of Britain. In the case of the great seaport, however, the existence of a commercial monopoly has accentuated it.
The problem is characteristic of every department of British industrial activity where it is necessary to have a reserve of labour in call. It is an incident of modern industry just as sweating is. Both help to demoralise hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, and Britain is working toward the solution, just as, half a century ago, she began to solve the difficulties and the horror that were associated with excessively long hours, in sanitary workplaces and dangerous processes in her factory life. What the solution may be cannot be discussed here. The only outstanding question that remains is how much of the misery, the degradation and the social waste might have been saved to Liverpool's black army of casual labour had the city not been deprived of its right to determine for its workers what was a living wage and what was starvation pay?
The banks of the Mersey presents one of the most remarkable contrasts in human habitations that exists in the world to-day. Nowhere are the differences of environment, with all its attendant influences on mankind, more
Down in the valley, wedged in between the walls of great factories, are rows and rows of three and four storied houses, blackened with dirt and smoke, and punctuated by endless chimney pots straggling desperately above the slated
There is neither sentiment nor joy in the scene. The night of poverty, the squalor, of the surroundings, transfix the thoughts with other things. But where are the parents? Down at the street corner there is a low building conspicuous by its tawdry lights and the voices within. The state of the atmosphere is shown by the moisture that runs down the window panes. All signs are within save for a seedy figure that scrapes outside on a cracked and broken hearted fiddle. You may go in if you choose. It is not wise to do so, not that the people within are not good-hearted and hilarious enough—heaven knows. It is just a question whether you can stand the atmosphere, the hot thick atmosphere that nobody inside seems to mind. But just a moment—there! The swing doors open and a figure lurches out on to the pavement. The scene inside is visible for a few moments. Beneath the dim and smoky lamps, men and women—women with babies wrapt in shawls and children clinging to their draggled skirts—are packed against a counter four or five deep. There is a glitter of bottles behind them. Mugs of foaming beer are lifted on high and glasses arc handed back to those in rear. The scene is charged with animation. There are shouts, laughter and snatches of sons, but there is a note of overpowering disorder, of human madness in that congested mass of men and women drinking—drinking life and soul to the reeling, swaying dark of stupor. That is a picture of a Liverpool slum.
A woodland dell banked with flowers winds into one of the daintiest of open spaces. The foliage seems to float through the trees in the sunlight. On all sides at odd intervals peering into the depths of this sylvan loveliness are houses, quaint early English houses, with picturesque gable and lattice, red tiles and panelled just as Shakespeare knew the charming old town of Strat-ford-on-Avon. But here we are in a modern village, built but a few years, taking all the best elements out of a picturesque past and applying them with the science of modern town planning to the home beautiful. There are
The Port Sunlight estate, comprising some 200 acres, consists of a series of well planned factories, docks, railways, and workers' dwellings, besides a large number of buildings devoted to the religious, educational and social well being of its inhabitants. It is laid out on the best principles of modern town planning, The housing conditions are almost ideal. Each building is well constructed, picturesque, well situated and let at a rent that averages about five shillings a week. In every case there is a garden patch with trees in front of the house, and at the back are extensive allotment gardens. It is the realisation of the hack-to-the-land cry in England. Water is laid on and supplied free of charge. Tuition is given by a practical gardener, and for flowers and vegetables grown in the village prizes are awarded annually at the horticultural shows organised by the controlling firm. In the village it-self there is a theatre, a public library, technical and elementary schools, a lecture hall, a museum, boys' and girls institutes, an employees' provident society, scientific, literary and mutual improvement societies, a telephone system, fire brigade, ambulance society, bowling and tennis greens, swimming baths, football grounds, rifle range, gymnasium, hospital and church. In all this there is to be seen nothing of the monotonous and depressing rows of brick and mortar, the hard distressing regularity of design that is so common to so many English and Colonial cities. Port Sunlight, in fact, sets a standard above the modern suburban area as well as providing healthy homes and refining influence in the environment of its four thousand workers. The enterprise is described by Mr. Lever himself as "prosperity-sharing"—the best means he can find of sharing profits with his work people. He has recently stated that the firm gets a return from the money invested in the better health and consequent increased industrial efficiency of the workers. Mr. Lever in short has given practical recognition of the relation of housing to industry.
In order to realise how far a private firm can, side by side with its commercial success, make enlightened provision for its workers, the institutions of Port Sunlight are well worth studying. The village is no Utopian project any more than the other model communities in England like Letchworth, Hampstead, Ealing, Bourneville, Leicester and Hull are. It is a commercial project designed to secure and develop industrial efficiency. Port Sunlight proves that men and women working eight hours a day can turn out more and better work than those labouring ten or eleven hours in other concerns and living under poor housing conditions. Prominent among advantages enjoyed is that of the Em-
These are a few of the more interesting and suggestive phases of life at Port Sunlight. The spirit of the workers is said to be very appreciative, although there are times when a more restless spirit than the mass is apt to rebel against what has been termed "the benevolent autocracy" of the firm. The drawback to the scheme is that many of its advantages which the workers receive cannot be translated into terms of pounds, shillings, and pence—at least not at present. That is what seems to be in the future between labour and capital. The prosperity-sharing scheme as it works at present is no guarantee that the demand of labour, for a full share in the wealth that it creates, is being fulfilled. But compared with what exists for the majority of British workers to-day, Port Sunlight is a guarantee that a considerable share of its prosperity is going into the health, the happiness and surroundings of its workers. It is the half-way house to an absolute scheme of co-operation or co-partnership between the labourer and the employer, which seems to be a debatable alternative to State control, but it has yet to develop and be given practical demonstration. Judging by the opposition of the trade unions and labour generally to Sir Christopher Furness' scheme of co-partnership, that realisation is a long way off. Since the above was written, a cable announcement has been made that Messrs Lever Bios have entered into a comprehensive agreement for profit sharing. The details, however, are not available.
But there is a more immediate and an essentially practical side to Port Sunlight that is of great importance to young communities. That is the principles upon which it has been laid out, designed and beautified. Those principles are the foundation of the modern town planning movement in England, which takes its cue from what has already been accomplished in Germany. In British cities to-day there are comparatively few good houses, and a mass of slums. There are a few wide main arteries for through traffic and a network of unordered or undirected streets—a few large parks, but no smaller open spaces or playgrounds for the children of the gutter. Most of the towns are being extended by private speculation and individual owners on lines that are neither healthy, attractive, nor even economical. What the congestion of city life represents is shown in the remarkable figures that 12 millions of England's people are housed on 152,000 acres—an average of 79 to the acre. It is mainly towards the prevention and solution of the evils associated with this
The Garden City idea, such as is embodied in Port Sunlight, has undoubtedly captured the imagination of the British people. It comprises in one enters price the advantage of Town and Country. The existence of building societies co-operative housing bodies, and privates companies, have made it financially a sound investment to the residents and the shareholders. The advantage that is at once apparent is the provision of open spaces where the children and the young people can play, whilst the older people rest and enjoy themselves in a natural manner. There are also all the influences of environment associated with nature, beauty, art, and health, as opposed to those exerted by ugly house and streets, by "artificial brick boxes with lids of slate," and absence of air space. To have captured the imagination of the British people, unimaginative as undoubtedly they are, is a recommendation in itself. Town planning, in short, is claimed to be the solution of the housing problem.
Letchworth, the first Garden City, Limited, situated thirty-four miles from London, amid beautiful surroundings, is the materialisation of the town planning dream. The Garden City Company was registered in
So far the project is a decided success. The estate has nearly doubled in value since the company acquired it, and it is designed on such a basis that the land in time will become the property of the individual householders. Letehworth has drawn thousands of visitors from all parts of England to its picturesque and charming surroundings. The estate, which is six miles square in area, carries on its town area (one-third of the average) a population of 5,000 inhabitants, 1,000 houses, besides factories, workshops, shops, hotels, churches, and 200 acres of parks and open spaces. The area is quite independent of the 2,500 acres of rural land comprising the agricultural belt round the town, which it is intended shall not be built on. The Garden City has its own gas, water, sewerage and electric supply. The health statistics for
The decentralisation of the crowded areas of the modern city, the limitation of the number of houses to the acre and the people that shall live therein, the creation of air spaces, of picturesque environment and the inspiring of mankind to a higher plane of thought and consideration for his habitation are all one with this remarkable movement of the twentieth century. Their essentials are crystallised into the principles of the town planning, that made it possible for Port Sunlight to arise in beauty and scorn with loathing the hideous picture that stares from across the river. Unfortunately, that picture cannot always be entirely disassociated with our Colonial cities. Is it, therefore, a good or a wise policy, that they should go on developing as they are doing without some regard or some appreciation of the knowledge and the experience that lies beyond the sea in modern England to-day?
A shrieking sisterhood, a band of excited females seeking the limelight, waving umbrellas, storming at Cabinet Ministers, and dragging the fair fame of womanhood in the mud—that is the feminine ogre that haunts the domestic bliss of middle-class England. You pick up the "'Daily Mail" or the "Daily Express" and see that these mad women have been at it again; you are convinced by their strong manly condemnation of the militant suffragette that she is but as they say, "a person" and "a thing"—"a mere seeker after notoriety." You read the cables in the Australasian press and wonder what on earth "these silly women" can want. Their very tactics seem to show that they are unfit to have a vote.
Beside all the force, the sincerity, and the brains that are behind the woman's movement in Britain, beside all the elements that unfolded with the nineteenth century by which woman became fellow-worker with man, by which she entered the arena of medicine, of education, of factory inspection, of the university, of social undertakings, of the arts, of innumerable industries, of politics itself, this estimate of woman as a social and political unit is rather trivial. The women in Britain to-day who chain themselves to public railings, who break up meetings and make the cry of "Votes for Women" resound through every corner of the land, know perfectly well what they are about. Every demonstration of this sort is planned and thought out from the main camp in Clement's Inn as carefully and coolly as any big military undertaking. It is one of the most deliberate and calculated processes in current political movements. Behind it is n galaxy of brilliant intellects, university degrees, authors, writers, thinkers, doctors, students, and authorities that constitute the most remarkable feminine organisation the world has ever seen.
Throughout all the ages there have never been, so far as history records such a distinguished company of woman united in an unswerving demand for economic equality with man. The factors that have produced that demand came with the economic changes of the last century when the invention of steam and the demand of capital for cheap labour forced women out of the home into the open arena with men. Up to that time woman had chieflly been the lady like inferior of her gentlemanly lord and master, the Gretchen of her noble prince the squaw of the war-hungry chief. She was wholly dependent on the male, and the wings of her genius were clipped to the needs and the adornment of the household. But the very comment which forced her to tend its machines robbed her of many of the arts and crafts that made her strength in the home. The fair hands that knitted quilts, spar broadcloth, wove tapestries, laces, curtains, and carpets, that potted preserves jams, spiced meats, that made bread cakes, sweets, cider, and a host of other things creating the complexity of domestic activities, were supplanted by the machine. The very sphere that men de claim as woman's was invaded, robbed.
and limited by man in his march of commerce. Nowadays it is mechanical ingenuity that makes our daily bread and garments, that provides our food and household needs, that even does our washing. The work of the home, in short, was transferred to the factory, and woman went with it to become a potent factor in all the ramifications of commerce, when she did not remain behind to be a pleasure-seeker and a parasite. The increasing opportunities in public life, the invasion of the professions and all forms of wage-earning occupations that do not carry the physical fatigue and oppression of the factory itself, have operated against the existence of idle women. The mid-Victorian spinster, who was brought up in an atmosphere of sweet prudery and refined ignorance, who sighed over the Family Journal and read Ruskin, no longer survives. The typical girl or woman to-day of Britain, whether she be doctor, designer, actress, typist, milliner, teacher, book-keeper, post office clerk, lecturer, journalist, or factory hand, is no longer a parasite. She is a separate and independent unit in the economic process. Outside of domestic occupation her labour contributes to no less than one-third of the industrial work of Britain.
Practically all that immense amount of work, proceeding in a manufacturing country of forty-three millions of people is paid for at rates considerably below those paid to men—rates that not infrequently imply starvation when one recalls the extraordinary amount of sweated labour in modem Britain. Nearly all the more lucrative positions of the Homeland are in the hands of men. As a wage-earner woman is the "bottom dog." Moreover, it is a remarkable thing that during the last sixty years, whilst rates of remuneration have risen with men, the wages of women have remained stationary, and in some cases have even fallen. Men, who have had a vote, and by the operations of their trade unions, have been able to force an increase in the reward for their services more proportionate to their value, whilst woman, who has no political status, remains powerless. That is one reason, but one reason only, why there is this wild and recurring cry echoing through Britain, "Votes for Women!"
There are many other claims. Women are taxed without being represented, and taxation without representation is tyranny. Women have to obey the laws equally with men, and they ought to have a voice in deciding what those laws shall be, particularly as nowadays many legislative proposals concern so intimately the hearth and home, the wellbeing of children, and the moral and social elevation of people. Woman, because of her education and economic independence, will no longer be silent in the affairs of a State that is faced with an appalling rate of infant mortality, of the waste of child life, of employment of single and married women, of sweated female wages, unemployment, and the care of the aged and the needy. But what of the militant suffragette and her lawless methods?
In order to grasp the potentialities of the woman's movement it is necessary to take a glance back at time. The Parliamentary movement to restore the voting rights to women they possessed prior to the great Reform Act of
From that day to
There had been a disturbance in Manchester in
That was the beginning. A series of public demonstrations followed, arrests were numerous, women went to gaol is droves. The haunting of unconverted Cabinet Ministers was, in fact, the outcome of some advice by Mr Lloyd-Geonge who, speaking at Liverpool, said: "Why do they not go for their enemy? Why do they not go for their greatest enemy?" Almost immediately London was electrified by the untoward spectacle of a Cabinet Minister, in the person of Mr Asquith, taking precipitate flight through his back door before an invasion of the suffragettes. The majority of papers both metropolitan and provincial, took up the demonstrations as a joke. Columns were hurled at the public, giving interviews, protesting, ridiculing, and sometimes defending the women who dared to face the jeers of the mob, the police, and Bench, and go to gaol, martyrs to their cause. Unintentionally the press convulsed all Britain with interest in these extraordinary women. Universities, debating societies, pulpits, public platforms, clubs, and other associations tell to violently discussing the question. The university undergraduates, in particular, with all the defects of their qualities, declared "these women" to be
"unsexed," and "had dragged her pure tame into the mire." The paleolithic argument of man's superiority over woman cropped up with unfailing regularity. But the outstanding feature of this wonderful outburst throughout city and province, the most important aspect of the whole activity, was the thousands of women who flocked in on all sides to join the militant sections of the franchise advocates. The older societies, whose methods plainly indicated their peaceful and constitutional respectability, felt it was unladylike and vulgar that the suffragettes should shock the public in the way they were doing. They passed resolutions accordingly. The papers, particularly "The Times," supported them. They said that if these unruly women had only been moderate and reasonable, Parliament would have given them what they asked for. Members of Parliament passionately avowed the same righteous opinions, but declared that in consequence of the behaviour of the suffragettes, they would have to forego granting the reform.
All this seems incredible after twenty fruitless years of decorous advocacy, of petitions, of immaculate sobriety in urging that the political status of women should be other than it is to-day when she is legally the compeer of infants, idiots, and lunatics. Neither politicians nor press seemed capable of realising. That it was the political insincerity of both parties that had produced the militant suffragettes; they were unable to grasp the truth that behind all this lawlessness, this unhappy, unwomanly demonstration, there were far-seeing, rational and capable intellects demanding a reform that no force of argument or logic could refute.
In any case the outcry that has filled the unenlightened section of the British Press against the violent methods of the militant woman is not at all consistent as emanating from men. Mr. T. D. Benson proved that in the following: "Of course, when men wanted the franchise, they did not behave in the unruly manner of our feminine friends. They were perfectly constitutional in their agitation. In Bristol I find they only burnt the Mansion House, the Custom House, the Bishop's Palace, the Excise office, three prisons, four toll houses, and forty-two private dwellings and warehouses, and all in a perfectly constitutional and respectable manner. Numerous constitutional fires took place in the neighbourhood of Bedford, Cambridge, Canterbury, and Devizes. Four men were respectably hanged at Bristol, and three at Nottingham. The Bishop of Lichfield was nearly killed, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was insulted, spat upon, and with great difficulty rescued from amidst the yells and execrations of a violent and angry mob. In this and other ways the males set a splendid example of constitutional methods in agitating for the franchise. I think we are all well qualified to advise the suffragettes to follow our example, to be respectable and peaceful in their methods Nike we were, and then they will have our sympathy and support."
To disabuse one's mind as to the real character of these women, who are persistently maligned, it is only necessary to hear them speak or meet them in private life. Mrs. Despard (the sister of General French) is one of the most picturesque figures of the moment. She was several years past three score when in February, twelve months ago, she was sent to gaol for three weeks for taking part in a demonstration outside the House of Commons. Notwithstanding her years she is a keen worker, and a prototype of all that is eloquent and refined in her sex. Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst is one of the pioneers, and a
Mrs. Pethick Lawrence put the whole question of militant tactics when she said to me one day in the presence of Miss Christabel Pankhurst: "You do not suppose that our women, many of whom are ladies by birth and training, look forward with any pleasure to being spurned by a mob, rough handled by policemen, placed in a felon's dock, and sent off to gaol to face, in solitary confinement, for several weeks or months, all the horror and misery, the wretched food, and the cruelty of the wardresses, for the sake of notoriety. But what else can we do to awaken the public mind when, after organising the biggest public demonstration in London, when over a quarter of a million were present. Mr. Asquith in answer to that, says he has nothing to say? Not all the sentences of the magistrates in England will stop this imperishable demand of woman for liberty. We are winning all along the line in spite of them. Our adversity is our strength."
"We will win if we die for it," said Miss Pankhurst, "that is what we are here for."
The movement is still going on, drawing fresh converts to its ranks. In
There lived in Paris in the last century an impressionist painter who was such a genius, the people thought him mad. He had painted a wonderful vista of the Seine, reaching from bridge to bridge, far into the distance and marshalling between limpid river and sky, an immense composition of towers and spires. It was a scene at sunset—a sunset that burst in splendour far beyond the distant towers of Notre Dame, pointing to an ocean of cloud rack dipped in fire, and stretching out to infinity. The radiance of the west that held the city spellbound with beauty, transfigured the floating images in the flood below. With daring imagination and wild, vivid masses of colour, the painter had laid the soul of Paris bare. Genius had come to him in the hour of his need and misery. His friends and fellow-artists crowded round his studio, and called it his masterpiece, but he was not satisfied. He wanted it to be more than a painting, to be an apotheosis of the most beautiful city in the world. His only conception was to paint, with all the purity of aspiration his art engendered, floating above the river against the glory of the sunset, the nude figure of a girl with arms outstretched. To him, that was the spirit of the city, the highest incarnation of its beauty. But his friends filled his studio with laughter at the idea, and when he argued they only jeered. The painter fled from them in anger and grief. He brooded far into the night alone in his studio before his canvas, where the flesh tints glowed still wet and daring. At length, in a fit of renewed anguish, he flung his palette to the floor, ripped the canvas from corner to corner with a knife, and hung himself in despair.
One has not to be deeply concerned with the art that has made modern Paris, or spend many hours by the classic banks of the Seine, to know that poor "Claude Lantier" was far from erring. His art had produced for him the highest conception with which he could personify the city he loved. His friends were blind to any other belief than it represented Paris as they had found it, just as many find it to-day. That aspect of the gay city, the realities of which can but present so much human wreckage and social disaster, is but a phase. The true beauty of Paris lies in its splendid gardens and thoroughfares, its buildings and monuments, its priceless art collections, and the romance of its emancipation from the black, bitter days that culminated scarcely a generation ago. Whether it is by the river gliding away like a shining strip in the dusk, by its classic bridges and tree-hung banks, or through the woodland sweetness and grace of the Champs Elysees, there is that pure spirit of beauty which was personified in a nation's lost masterpiece.
Paris is the pioneer of a transforming and modernising influence which has set all European cities in search of beauty and pure environment. What has been done in the brilliant French capital has found a reflex in the development of Berlin, St. Petersburg, Budapest, Milan, Rome, Dresden, Munich, Brussels, and more particularly Vienna. Paris is the fountain head of European municipal
The example of Paris has even penetrated Eastern Europe. Sofla, the capital of the Balkans, from which one mostly hears mutterings of war and lawlessness, has, since the eighties, been transformed from a dirty, overcrowded village into a pretentious city, complete with modern shops, boulevards, electric lighting, cars, and other modern municipal appointments. Modern Athens can be considered quite up-to-date in these respects, whilst in the Italian cities, from Rome North, particularly Milan, there are vivid evidences of municipal development.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century Paris was mainly a maze of dark, narrow tangled streets, sprawling around historic palaces, churches, and monastic structures. What to-day is the finest square in Europe, the Place de la Concorde, was the site of the guillotine and some of the most terrible episodes of the revolution. It was on the smoking ruins of palaces and churches that wider thoroughfares and gardens sprang up. That fanatic spirit of revolt which had overturned an empire and drained a nation of its blood, became embodied in the creative spirit of the new era. Paris had no mercy for the architecture of past generations. Buildings and churches were torn down ruthlessly to make broad, straight avenues through the hopeless muddle of medieval congestion. Everything was sacrificed to secure to the city symmetry of design, spaciousness of thoroughfares, squares, parks, embodiment of order and beauty. The revolution that had culminated in blood and horror, continued long after it had spent its fury on the hapless aristocrat. In its inarch to municipal consciousness it swept away what Mr. Frederic Harrison, has described as
The transformation of Vienna is even more remarkable and dramatic than that of the French capital. In
Once the retaining walls were burst asunder, the city spread like magic. Magnificent new suburbs sprang up over the squalor of the outlying villages. New arterial thoroughfares were constructed, radiating out from the broad Ring Strasse. In the city itself old thoroughfares were broadened and straightened, new sewerage and pavements laid down, until, what had been a tangle of antiquated crowded courts and streets emerged into a splendid scheme of convenient thoroughfares and new buildings. The liberating of so much land as was held by the old fortifications, and the wise policy of the
From the wooded height of the Kahlenberg, high above the capital, the city is spread out in the dusk like a white mosaic glittering with jewels. Beyond it the historic Danube flows in silver reaches to dim foreign lands and distant seas. It is a magnificent panorama of a thoroughly modern city evolved from medieval chaos to grandeur and beauty. Great arterial thoroughfares radiate out from the dominant centre to garden suburbs, parks and beautiful palaces. On the fringe of the suburbs another wide belt, enriched with gar dens and trees encircling practically the whole city. This outer circle is the logical complement of the Ring Strasse, A wide space on either side is preserved to ensure a pure supply of air to the capital held within its far-reaching sweep.
The virtues of this particular cult of beauty, which has seized so strongly upon European imagination in recent years may not be regarded as of much importance in young countries where natural splendour abounds. Unfortunately, neither the influence of Nature nor art can be said to have had recognition in our colonial cities and towns in the face of what one finds on the Continent. The modern conception does not exist under the Southern Cross, except in the case of isolated parks and gardens, a stray thoroughfare, or a few public buildings placed without much regard to surroundings. Sooner or later it must be identified with our public and municipal life as the influence of environment on national character and temperament becomes possible of practical recognition.
Berlin is one of the most modern capitals in Europe, and it has a dignity and a Spaciousness permeating the grandeur of its splendid thoroughfares that compares well with London. The contrast between the rival metropolitan aggregations is one of the most vivid things in all Europe.
In London there is a powerful survival of the historic in buildings, in public customs, functions and offices and the methods by which the work of a City surrounded by cities, that has no paralled on earth, is accomplished. London front Hampstead Heath to Streatham is a network of narrow, wide, cramped, ill-regulated thoroughfares straggling out without order or design to the remote horizons where the suburbs take up miles of brick and mortar and spread their story far into the hills of five counties. Its great buildings, which every year resound to the tramp of nations, are solid venerable piles to which is attached a sentiment and adoration that can wholly overlook any of their architectural shortcomings. None the less they peer strangely into the gloom and the hazy atmosphere that dominates the metropolis for more than half the year. Their beauty of structure and architectural adornment, smudged as it is in the mist and fog, stare at one out of an incongruous surrounding of black squat buildings and cranky thoroughfares. It is this amazing medley of beauty and ugliness that in time grows upon one with a sort of horrid fascination. The Londoner believes that the extraordinary environment that huddles around places like St. Paul's or even the Abbey, gives dignity to the historic structures. He does not see that they in themselves only emphasise the hideousness of their setting.
A ride on top of a 'bus from the Abbey to St. Paul's on one of London's typically grey days, will reveal the extraordinary confusion of buildings and thoroughfares that passes as the most wonderful city on earth. The hoary old pile of the Abbey rises in harmony against the splendour of the Houses of Parliament that reach up to many a chiselled and fairy pinnacle and tower high above the river. But right opposite the beautiful facade with its two towers that Sir Christopher Wren pencilled into the noble pile of Westminster is a modern hotel and a dingy hospital, whilst a thoroughly modern heavy suite of British Government offices starts blatantly into the vision from an adjoining frontage. Whitehall, begins by being a wide thoroughfare, but it takes unto itself the funeral pall, the strange dim wonder that blots the distance and softens the buildings out in uncertain outlines against the wild and turgid stream of traffic. The immense new pile of the war offices looms up white and dignified in the mist, but its beauty is mocked by a dirty rambling collection of buildings right opposite it, known as the Admiralty. The ragged arena of Trafalgar Square suddenly bursts into view dominated by a long lank column with a little figure on top. It is the Nelson monument of course—one of the most incongruous "works of
The name of the Strand promises something better, but it turns out to be nothing more than a succession of blatant shops, poking their wares out of plain, sour-faced buildings, modern hotels, banks, all squeezed together as tight as congestion can make it. Theatres elbow their way into the mass and hurl loud posters into the street. Amid all the roar of traffic and the hooting of motor buses, one seems to hear these ill-assorted buildings squabbling for room, each one striving angrily to get its face in front of the other. Only the white piles of the Savoy and the Cecil look down in a sort of calm, lofty indifference upon the clamour below. The Strand is a most distressing thoroughfare. It begins by being painfully narrow and cramped. Then it bulges out on one side as if something had given way under the pressure, only to lurch back again in a drunken outline and crowd an amazing amount of traffic and swearing 'bus drivers into the neck, where the Waterloo Bridge-road effects a junction. Beyond it widens into a kind of lagoon, where two churches rise into view, looking as though they had drifted and stuck there right in the middle of the channel of traffic. Ugly old Somerset House and a bright red tube station alternately frown and smile on them alike. It is only when the stately pile of the Law Courts swings into view, with the promise of Fleet-street to follow, that one begins to thrill. But it is short-lived. One cannot see the Lan Courts for the ugly crowd of buildings that peer at and hem them in, save for the solitary sweetness of Clement's Ins. Immediately beyond, the 'bus rumbles through into historic Fleet-street.
Imagination was never more disastrously disillusioned. It is a thoroughfare of advertisement hoardings with windows in them. Every paper that ever was seems to glare at one in gilt letters. The medley of words that flash by on either side is appalling. The whole street is written all over with its calling and the wonder of it is that beneath the pile of squat, ugly buildings tumbling down towards Ludgate Cireus, there are hundreds of presses hurling forth the story of the world in a feverish haste and clanging amid the din of thousands of fierce panting voices. Over the whirlpool of Ludgate Circus, beyond a rusty overhead railway bridge, that chops the view in half, rises the ponderous towers and dome of St. Paul's. It is a wonderful bit of perspective that, even though a plain slab of a church tower half-way up "the hill" pokes itself into the vision. The City Cayhrdral dwarfs everything about it into insignificance, but all its imposing effects is lost, crowded in as it is by drunkes rows of buildings that eddy with uncertain outline round the base. The mixture of architecture is wholly incongruous. It reminds one of a plum pudding set in a dish of asparagus. The whole spirit of the surroundings seems to be personified in a particularly ugly and fat statue of Queen Anne, that turns
In all this medley of streets and buildings, struggling spasmodically to conform to order and beauty, but each element running its own sweet will irrespective of its neighbour, one sees an indication of national thought and character. It is an architectural demonstration of "the liberty of the subject." The conception of any collective plan or scheme that might have shaped London into a city of splendid avenues and well-ordered properties has been subordinated to the individual will. It is a case of every building for itself, and the County Council take the worst. That policy recently cost the ratepayers six millions sterling to wipe out a dirty slum and compensate the owners who had built it, in order to make a street a quarter of a mile long, and let a little daylight into the heart of the metropolis. But let us look at Berlin.
Just as London is divided in two by the Thames, the German capital is sliced in half by the Spree. At the Brandenburg gate, one stands at the entrance to the city and the finest thoroughfare in the Empire. The secluded and deeply wooded depths of the Tiergarten are behind—an immense park lined with drives and walks winding round lily-clad lagoons, statuary, and classic fountains. On the edge of this city forest stands an immense pile reaching up to the loftiest of domes. It is the Reichstag—a noble building set in a wide-spreading area of garden and tree-lined avenues. The Brandenburg gate, true in its beauty of the best traditions of Athens, makes a dignified entrance to a classic square—the Parisier Platz, and the broad and spacious Unter den Linden, reaching out to nearly 200 feet in width, and lined as far as the eye can reach with a double row of trees. The latter forms a remarkable and pretty avenue of limes and chestnuts for pedestrians down the centre of the thoroughfare, whilst on either side the roadway stretches with the buildings beyond. A summer day gives brightness to the scene as one strolls down the cool avenue, wondering at the cleanliness of the buildings and the buoyancy of the people. Here there seems to be no wrangling between the structures which shall thrust its most aggressive feature into your vision. The architecture of the one flows into the other. They are the creations of order and cleanliness. At the junction with Fried rich Strasse, Berlin presents some of its gayest and happiest aspects. Cafes abound and spread their innumerable tables and chairs under the trees. Beyond a statue of Frederick the Great commands the way, and points to the architectural grandeur of the city. It is past this point that a remarkable area of public buildings spreads out through open spaces, gardens, and park-like plots, grouped together to secure collective effect. On the right are the palaces of Kaiser Wilhelm and Empress Friedrich. Between the two, set in a large open square pictured by flower gardens and turf, rises the Opera House. On the opposite side, planned out with dignity and space, are the University building and the Arsenal (or Museum)—one of the finest buildings in Berlin. Over the whole group there is harmony of design and setting that cannot be altogether dissociated with grandeur. A canal Is crossed immediately beyond with a single span, and an immense square, filled with trees and monuments, opens out on all sides to the beautiful buildings that guard it. There is the Royal palace designed by the celebrated architect, Schinkel, on one side rising in contradistinction to the simple classic splendour of the Altes Museum that faces it—a creation of the same mind. Through the angle of the square, soaring above the
There are points of difference in the administration of the two metropoli that but serve to emphasise the contrast between them. London, up to within recent years, was the home of the policy which gave the private company preference over the Municipality in the conduct of its affairs and needs. It is now in a state of transition, but one must necessarily emphasize the traditional order of things if the contrast with Berlin is to be effective. By reason of its enormous vested interests and pecuniary offices that had come down from the bad old days, London was excluded from many of the reforms that gave life and soul to the municipal work of the north. It was mainly because the city laboured under a medieval survival known as guilds. These guilds, eighty in number, were originally designed to regulate the callings or trades they were associated with, such as the Mercers Grocers, Drapers, Goldsmiths, Merchany Tailors, etc. They were societies of gentlemen, entrance to which could only be gained by purchase, patrimony apprenticeship or honorary vote. They were the borough councils of mediend towns. But in later days, when industry revolutionised the towns, government he these self perpetuating guilds beauty totally obsolete and intolerable. England wiped their existence out every where except in London, where to this day they survive and practically
In Berlin, the administration is based upon the principle that it is the Municipality and the Municipality only that can best conduct its affairs. In order to secure the highest technical skill and efficiency, Berlin pays a handsome salary
In London the County or Borough
The contrast stops short when one recalls the miles of dirty congested areas in the greater and older metropolis in such districts as Mayfair, St. Paneras, "the East End," Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. It is only fair to say that London moves rapidly in the track of Berlin, despite the handicaps of antiquity and vested interests that retard it. But the contrast in methods must surely convey a striking lesson to an age in which health, sanitation and sociological betterment illumine the course of the unfolding century.
After the gloomy splendour and ponderous architecture of London, and the succession of black dirty centres that focus industrial activities in Britain, the German city bursts upon one white and clean, pictured by domes and spires reaching to the blue above tree-lined avenues and splendid parks. It is a creation of beauty and brightness, of fine public buildings grouped into orderly perspectives, of wide and convenient thoroughfares, of modern shops and palatial offices, and of suburban areas winding through trees and gardens that know no crowding.
In permitting towns and cities to expand without direction or control, in the failure to provide that expansion went on in a manner beneficial to the community and the health of its inhabitants, in the making of miles of insanitary, overcrowded areas of brick and mortar and terrible housing conditions for millions of people, England exemplifies the errors of the nineteenth century. In the realisation of, and the effort to remedy, those errors, to direct the growth of her cities into well ordered streets, open spaces, to secure lighting, air, and bright, healthy surroundings, Germany leads the world.
The hub of her social progress is the municipality. Nowhere have the powers and the possibilities of the civic machine been so quickly recognised, so widely developed; nowhere are the results more instructive or convincing. It is true that up to the closing years of the last century the German cities had not been eager to apply the teaching of science. The example of Paris, which was the pioneer of municipal progress in Europe Stimulated the great awakening that began in
It was all the result of an extraordinarily rapid growth. The immense modern impetus that has transformed European cities in the lust thirty years has only its parallel in the rise and growth of American cities. In the ten years preceding
Although there are in existence to-day overcrowded and unwholesome areas, in nearly all parts that have been built on, in recent years every care has been taken to secure wide streets, to arrange that very wide tree-planted avenues occur at no great distance from each other among the ordinary streets, that there are strips of pleasant gardens and larger park-like plots at frequent intervals. "It is no exaggeration to say," says Mr. T. C. Horsfall, of Manchester, a leading authority on housing and town planning in Europe, "that in all German towns which are known to me, the very poorest parents, in whatever part of the town they live, have far pleasanter places near their homes in which they can seek fresh air and beautiful surroundings for themselves, and space for the exercise of their children, than the richest people who live in any part of Manchester. If we take the physical conditions of the inhabitants of a town as an index to the efficiency of the system of municipal government in the case of Germany, then we shall certainly be compelled to say that the German system is far superior to ours. For the inhabitants of the large German towns are far more robust in appearance, and are, on the average, taller and broader than are the inhabitants of our large towns."
The German municipality alone determines the manner in which its confines and suburbs shall spread. To that end building plans are prepared of all the districts into which the extension of the city is likely to proceed. These plans are compiled by the highest experts in the land, and set forth amongst many things the roads, the open spaces to be preserved, sites required for public buildings and purposes, the building lines on which sites may be built, the mode of building, the distance of buildings from the street lines, the height of buildings, etc. They make every provision for security from fire, the amount of public traffic which is to be expected, the configuration of
With suburban tendency as the keynote to modern municipal development, the importance of these plans cannot be too often emphasised. They secure continuity of design between city and suburb, direct avenues for (puck transit, and in regard to the ruinous process of street widening, compensation, etc., give practical effect to the axiom. "Prevention is better than cure." Most colonial cities in design resemble the checkerboard pattern of the American centres. The forman ground plan is much more flexible representing a combination of the radial and the concentric with the rectangular and parallel—a system that is in every way more convenient.
When agricultural hind is being transformed into building land, owners are often led by consideration of their own pecuniary interests, to effect exchanges with each other for the purposes of forming more convenient building plots. But it sometimes occurs that the obstinacy or the stupidity of a single owner makes all agreement impossible. The consequence is that buildings have to be adapted to inconvenient sites, with the result that they are unfavourable to the health and welfare of the inhabitants The recognition of this difficulty gave practical shape to a remarkable system known as the "lex Adiekes" for the consolidation and redistribution of separate plots of land. The system is, in effect, the corollary to the building plan. When agricultural land is cut up into suburban allotments, owners have to set apart certain areas for roads and footpaths. By the German building plan, the municipality decides the area and the location of those areas. Under the "lex Adickes private owners make over their plots of land to the town. The town retains a part of the land thus surrendered, and uses it for streets and open spaces. The rest of the ground is planned into building plots suitable for building on according to the needs of the individual owner. Each owner receives back the area of his original holding, less the percentage deducted for streets. The new plot is given as near as possible to the old plot, and the questions of corner sites and other special claims are carefully taken into account. It is invariably found that the smaller plot of land is more valuable when returned to the owner than his original holding was.
Thus briefly is the elaborate and highly specialised method by which the German has evolved a practicable method of setting the site of his town in order before the commences to build it. But the process does not only apply to new districts. It is used in inhabited districts in such a way as to give a town—if it makes a street through an unhealthy district for the improvement of housing conditions or forms a public square in such a district—the right not only to obtain by compulsion the plots of land and houses needed for the street or the square, but also to expropriate and pull down the unwholesome houses in the neighbourhood. The "lex Adiekes," which was brought about by the Oberbuergermeister of Frankfurt-am-Main, Dr. Adiekes, became law in
The German system of municipal Government has been shaped by the
The numbers of paid and unpaid members respectively are represented in the following typical instances:—Dresden, 14 paid, 18 unpaid; Leipsic, 12 and 15; Munich, 16 and 20; Breslau, 13 and 11; and Frankfurt, 9 and 8. Stuttgart, the most conservative of all the German cities, until recently paid its Mayor alone. Under these circumstances, it may happen that a Mayor may come from another centre, just as a city engineer or town clerk may do. Thus the late Dr. Forckenbeck, Mayor of Berlin, originally established his qualifications in Breslau. The cost of salaried Mayors and Adjoints, who secured to German municipal government its efficiency, is comparatively small. Mannheim, for instance, which has a population approaching 150,000, pays its Mayor £1000 a year, its deputy-Mayor £600, and two Adjoints respectively £525 and £500. The Mayor of Stuttgart, which has a population of 180,000, receives £750 per year, whilst two Adjoints are paid £460 each. In Germany civic dignity is the ambition of all classes, and for that reason the municipality draws some of the finest and ablest men of the day.
In addition to the Council itself, the services of a large number of citizens are enlisted to serve as associates on committees, who are entrusted with the
Under legal edict and accepted belief it is considered necessary that every city should have an abundant amount of land of its own. German municipalities have
In an edict issued in
On
These two excerpts are the keynote of municipal ideals in regard to habitation "The liberty of the subject" is an unknown cry in Germany. "The good of the community and the welfare of the people" is the popular sentiment that has found extensive recognition true State and municipality and the people. In might be supposed that the advanced legislation which Germany offers in contrast to England, is the result of
from the viewpoint of other countries, to be far advanced in Socialistic undertakings; yet it must not be forgotten that the municipal ideals of a thrifty burgher collectivism and those of the social democracy in German cities may tend as far asunder as those of the burgeoisie and the proletariat in France. As yet the German city governments are in the hands of the educated and the thrifty classes. What social overturning will some day give these splendid business machines into the keeping of the working classes is a speculative topic that may be suggested here, but need not be discussed."
This briefly and imperfectly is an outline of one or two main features of Germany's civic progress. Whether they are of practical application to colonial cities is a matter for experts and experience, but nobody can resist the extraordinary example they offer, the deficiencies they suggest in our own surroundings or the results they show in practice. There are in the German conception of city government no limits to municipal functions. It is their business to promote in every practical way the welfare of the municipality and the well-being of the burgeses. When will Australasia recognise this truth in its entirety?
[The End.]
I asked your leave to dedicate this book to you, not because of private friendship nor out of personal regard, though these would have been reasons amply sufficient. Again, I did not ask your leave because you represent the nation which, next to my own, I love and admire—the nation which divides with Britain the allegiance of the English-speaking race. Though I am proud that this page should bear the name of one who sits in the seat of Washington and of Lincoln, it was not any touch of pride that moved me. I asked to lay this book in your hand because I felt that such a dedication would be in the strictest and truest sense appropriate. You are not only one of the most convinced and most powerful opponents of Socialism living, but, what is more, you oppose Socialism for the right reasons—or, at any rate, for what I deem to be the right reasons. You oppose it because you believe that it will imperil the safety of the State, by breaking down the character of
the citizens, and by drying up the sources of national wealth. In a word, you oppose Socialism because it is the enemy of the people. But while opposing Socialism in the name of Liberty, of Justice, of Manliness, and of Common sense, you have never failed to insist that a lawless Capitalism is as great a foe to the nation as a lawless Communism. You will indeed be remembered in History as the man who withstood the corruptions of monopoly and who insisted that the arbitrary powers of wealth must be restrained. But this you did without ever falling into the destructive error of regarding accumulation as an evil, or of looking upon property as a crime. You have kept that just mean which Tennyson ascribes to the spirit of English Freedom when he addresses her as "loather of the lawless crown as of the lawless crowd." You have been determined to check and denounce tyranny whether in capital or in labour. That is the anti-Socialism which I desire to support. Whether these Letters will do anything to accomplish their design remains to be seen, but at any rate they show their true colours by being connected with your name. Let me thank you once more for the honour you have done me, and let me assure you that
The "Letters to a Working Man" tell their own story, and so require very few words from me by way of introduction. I may perhaps be allowed to mention, however, that the gentleman to whom they are addressed, Mr. Charles Harvey, lives in Bishops Sutton, a small colliery village in Somersetshire. Though Mr. Harvey worked in the mine as a lad, his present work is in a shop doing a large retail business. I may state that the first two or three of the letters were addressed to Mr. Harvey without thought of publication. Later, it was suggested to me to throw into the form of letters to him matter which I had written elsewhere, and to publish the whole, first in the Spectator and afterwards in book form; but in putting together such matter I always had the thought of my correspondent in my mind. I should add that in writing to Mr. Harvey as I have written I knew well that I was preaching to the converted, for his views on the problems and perils of Socialism are in close agreement with my own. This fact was illustrated by two very able letters on Socialism contributed by him some eight or nine months ago to the Spectator, though not signed by his
bona fide working man.
The letter form, when used in dealing with a number of detached points, has its advantages, but there are also certain inherent disadvantages. In the first place, there is the danger of repetition; and next, there is an equal danger of omitting a good many subjects that ought to have been included. If I tried to sum up the general result of these Letters, it would be to say that they show that the chief peril of Socialism is waste—waste both in the moral and in the economic sense. Socialism would not only deteriorate character, but it would lessen product. No man realises more clearly than I do that there are a great many evils in our present system of production and distribution. Still, that system does contrive to provide shelter, clothing, and food for the mass of the people of this country. Can it be said that Socialism would do the same? I believe it would do nothing of the kind, because the mainspring would have been taken out of the clockwork. Our present organisation does provide an incentive to work. Socialism withdraws that incentive, or rather substitutes the much less powerful incentive of coercion. Till it can be shown that slave labour is as profitable in the economic sense as free labour, and that the order of an official or of
I ought perhaps, before I end this Introduction, to say that, though I have written so strongly against State interference in the matter of the labour of grown men and full citizens, I have no objection whatever to State interference intended to protect women and children, as in our Factory Acts. Women and children are not free industrial agents. They are in a position of dependence, and work can be and is exacted from them by others—by those, that is, from whom they derive their subsistence. Therefore the State has not only the right but the duty to see that they are not forced to work unduly by those who stand to them in a position of trusteeship. I know that this view will be challenged as regards women, though no doubt it will be admitted as regards children. Nevertheless, I hold that, owing to physical, social, and moral considerations which I cannot enter into in detail now, women are constantly placed in a position where they may be com-
In concluding this Introduction I desire to thank the Rev. R. H. Law for allowing me to reprint in an Appendix his spirited verses "To a Socialist Friend." They express most happily the lessons of Freedom and good sense which I have tried to set forth in these pages.
Dear Mr.—,—,—I like your letter because of its manly tone, and because it shows that you do not make the fatal error of dividing the world into rich and poor, and considering them as if they were different species of animals. That is a mistake which the rich are often accused of making in regard to the poor, but I am afraid it is a mistake which is almost as commonly made by the poor. Yet a little reflection will show that there is no difference of kind whatever, but only one of degree. Society is a slope, and a very gradual slope, and not a series of steps. The man with £2 a week looks upon the man with £1000 a year as a rich man and cut off from him by the fact of those riches. But in reality the £1000-a-year man is not separated from the working man so much as he is separated from the millionaire with his £100,000 a year. I often laugh at my well-to-do friends and tell them that they need
I, on the other hand, want to see capital accumulating freely and in large quantities, and competing everywhere for labour, and thus raising the labourer's wage. Though they so often deny this fact by their acts, what all labourers, whether with brain or hand, instinctively desire is higher wages. They sometimes indeed overdo this desire, or rather think only of the nominal amount of their wages, forgetting that the true way of estimating the value of wages is by considering their purchasing power. The essential thing is to leave capital and labour alone. If we do that, I have not the slightest doubt that labour will get its just reward in a greatly increased remuneration. Most of the things that we do nominally to help labour really injure it by reducing wages. Almost all Socialistic schemes tend in the end to reduce wages. This was shown in a marked degree in the old Poor Law. In the parishes where outdoor relief was given to every one, and where practically everybody was a pauperised pensioner of the State, wages were always found to be at their lowest.
I have inflicted a very long letter upon you, I am afraid, but the subject, as you know, is one upon which I feel very strongly.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.—,—,—I want to try and put to you yet another series of arguments in regard to Socialism—arguments which show, in my opinion, that working men, quite as much as those who are more richly endowed with the world's goods, should not be Socialists. Believe me, it is not because Socialists are innovators or agitators, or preach things contrary to the established order of society, or, indeed, are this or that or the other, that I am opposed to them and their doctrines, but simply and solely because I believe that Socialism is utterly impracticable, and that any attempt to bring it about must plunge the country into untold misery.
Let me try to put my reasons in the simplest form possible,—the form which is sometimes patronisingly called suitable for children, but which in reality is the form in which every one reasons out a subject in his own mind, the form of question and answer.
Should those who desire, above all things, an
No.
Why not?
Because Socialism, if carried out, would injure instead of benefiting the labourer.
Why would Socialism injure the labourer?
For the following reason:—If the condition of the labourers is to be improved—that is, if they are to have more food, more room in their houses, more clothes, more firing, more of everything they desire—it is evident that there must be more wealth, for these things make up wealth. But in order that there shall be more wealth, more of the things men need and desire, more must be produced. If ten men have only five loaves between them, and need one each, the only way they can get their wants satisfied is somehow or other to get five more loaves. It follows, therefore, that nothing which decreases the total wealth of the world—which diminishes the corn grown, the wool clipped, the houses built, the cotton spun, or the coal dug—can improve the condition of the poor.
If, then, Socialism would diminish the production of the things needed by mankind, it must be injurious.
But would it diminish the wealth of the world, and so make less to go round?
Yes.
How?
In this way. The great stimulus to the production of wealth of all kinds is self-interest. Canadian farmers who increase the wheat-supply of the world by working hard throughout the year do not do so out of a pure and disinterested love of their fellows, but because they want to get rich and be able to spend money in the manner most pleasing to themselves. In the same way, the man who throws up a life of ease and works from morning to night till he has made an invention which will enable the manufacturer to turn out double the amount of, say, woollen cloth without increased expenditure does so because he has the incentive of self-interest before his eyes—the incentive of knowing that success will be rewarded by the fulfilment of his desires. Throughout the world the motive-power of the machinery which produces wealth, the force that makes the wheels go round, is self-interest,—not self-interest, remember, in a bad sense, but the natural and legitimate desire for reward and enjoyment which we all experience, and which I for one am not in the least ashamed of. Destroy this motive-force, give men no rewards to strive for, and each individual, unless compelled, will do no more than is necessary to keep himself from starvation. But this is exactly what the Socialist intends to do. He proposes to take away the incentive under the influence of which more and more wealth is added to the world's store. The
Socialism, then, based as it must be on compulsion, would diminish the wealth of the world. But if the total wealth of the world is diminished there will be less to go round, and therefore the share of each person must be less. That is, Socialism would injure instead of benefiting the poor. You will never be able to give every man on a hot day a bigger drink of water if you begin by stopping up the pipe that feeds the cistern. Professor Smart, the distinguished Economist, objected, and rightly objected, to my use of the word self-interest in this letter. It should, he urged, have been qualified by the reminder that the self of the vast majority of men means a circle of five and a fraction. Professor Smart's point expanded is that for the majority of men self-interest in the economic sense is not selfishness, but the very reverse—care for the family, for the wife and the children and all others dependent on them.
Dear Mr.——,—People sometimes talk as if the poor could be benefited by making the State richer. They argue that if the State owned the land on which modern London and hundreds of new towns and parts of towns have been built, it would now possess millions and millions' worth of property, and that out of this property a handsome provision could be made for the poor.
No greater mistake could possibly be made, and for this reason:—.
There is only a certain amount of wealth in any particular country. Hence, whatever you place in the hands of the State you must take away from Brown, Jones, and Robinson. You do not increase the total wealth by placing it in the hands of the State; you merely pile it up in one big heap instead of in a multitude of little heaps. If the moment you had got the wealth into the big heap you dealt it out afresh into little heaps,
We must, however, deal with the notion of making the State rich and of keeping it rich, just as any great corporation or company remains rich. Of this notion we can say with certainty: "By
But it will be argued that the inhabitants are the State. Therefore, though they are poorer individually, they are just as wealthy collectively. In one sense of the word "wealth" this is no doubt true. In another, and in the proper sense, it is not true at all.
What do we mean by being wealthy?
We mean possessing the power of controlling, using, and disposing of—that is, of enjoying—so much wealth. But we can only enjoy wealth which is our own. Wealth which is our own—ours to dispose of exactly as we choose—is a hundred times more valuable than wealth which is doled out to us in a weekly allowance. Hence such wealth as the State possesses is not enjoyed by the persons who contributed to create it. This is what our ancestors meant by objecting so strongly to land and other wealth passing into mortmain,—being held by the "dead hand" of corporations lay and ecclesiastical. They argued that wealth can be best enjoyed when held by a particular individual as his very own, and that everything should be done to prevent it passing either into the hands of the State or of those corporate bodies
i.e. not individually, but collectively.
So far, so good. If I say no more, I shall be told, however, that I am omitting a very important aspect of the question. It will be said that when the State is wealthy it has to spend its money, and that, in this act of spending, its wealth passes out of the dead hands into the living, and becomes at once capable of producing enjoyment. That is, if the State out of its funds pays away a million a week in £1 doles, each recipient of the dole will get the full pound's-worth of enjoyment out of his dole. In other words, it may be argued that by first making the State wealthy, and by then doling out its wealth in wages, salaries, and allowances, the distribution of property may be equalised and the community as a whole benefited. Possibly this is true up to a certain point, but no further. The £1 State doles may go as far as any other £1; but this does not meet the fact that if the capital fund out of which the £1 doles would be paid were in private hands, instead of in those of the State, it would not only be giving far more enjoyment, but would also be being employed in a thousand ways in producing more wealth. Experience shows that the officials who look after State funds must be considered to have done well if they have not diminished those funds. They have not the motive that the private individual has to increase his little piece of property, and to
Take an example: If the State owned the factories and workshops, the great public offices controlling them would make little or no effort to extend business. They would be content to let things remain as they are. The private individuals, on the other hand, who make up a company, spurred on by the hope of more wealth to enjoy, are always endeavouring to find means of increasing their stock of wealth, and with it the stock of wealth at the disposal of mankind.
In spite, however, of this, I am willing to admit that if making the State rich, even with its consequent waste of wealth, were the only way of getting a more equal distribution of property, there would be a great deal to be said for it. As a matter of fact, however, nothing is more certain than that, if we do not waste wealth by aggressive wars, by forbidding the free exchange of commodities, and by absurd and unjust taxation, but allow as much freedom of exchange as possible, wealth will rapidly tend of itself to a more equal distribution. The inequalities under freedom tend to disappear, for, as I have said before, wealth is always tending to spread itself abroad. The maximum of freedom in the matter of exchanges, not State interference, is the short cut to a more equal distribution of property.
Dear Mr.——,—The Socialists often argue as if the more wealth grew, the poorer became the people. Their talk is of the land "where wealth accumulates and men decay," and those who get rich are denounced as plunderers of the people, and as persons who are taking the bread out of other men's mouths.
Yet, as a matter of fact, it can be shown beyond doubt that the creation of wealth must be beneficial to the working classes.
Now, though it will to some extent lead me to repeat the arguments I have used in my first and second letters, I want to deal with this side of the problem once more, and in somewhat greater detail.
When a man makes a large sum of money, he can do one of two things with it. He can either spend it or save it, but in either case he will benefit the working classes.
Let us suppose he spends it. In that case he buys a great number of objects which other men are anxious to sell. Some persons will directly sell him their labour. In such cases the benefit to the labourer is obvious. Others will sell him articles produced by labour. Here, again, there is an evident benefit to the labourer.
But it may perhaps be said: "Suppose the rich man spends his money in buying pictures by old masters and curiosities of various sorts, which are the result of no living labour. How will the labourer benefit then? "
The answer is, he will still benefit, though we may be one or two degrees removed from the spectacle of the benefit. That this is so can be proved by following out a transaction in pictures, old plate, or point-lace. A, the rich man, buys a picture by Tintoretto from B for £1000. No doubt if matters stopped here the labourer would not benefit. But they cannot stop here. Money is like water—flux, change, motion is the law of its being. B parts with his picture because he wants the £1000 to spend, and proceeds at once to spend it. He lays his money out in housing himself better, in buying food and clothing, and in a hundred other ways. But these ways almost all involve the employment of the labourer.
In very nearly every case, if we follow money to its ultimate destination, we find that destination to be the employment of labour. But everything
We must next take the case of money saved. If the money made by the rich rpan is put out to interest, and the interest spent, it is obvious, as I have just shown, that the result will be beneficial to labour. Suppose, however, a case in which money is put out to interest, and that interest is saved, and also the interest of the interest,—is such a result of accumulation beneficial to the labourer?
Yes.
And for the reason given in Letter I., which I may summarise here. Capital (i.e. mobilised wealth) has its price, just as labour has. If you want capital you must pay the market price for it. But we all know that the more there is of a thing in the market, the more the price tends to fall. Hence the more capital accumulates, the lower its price. But the price of capital is reckoned by the rate per annum at which it can be hired—i.e. the rate of interest. Hence the accumulation of capital tends to lower the rate of interest.
But how is this good for the labourer? In this way. Capital is primarily used to employ labour. If a manufacturer desires to build a mill which will give employment to hundreds of workmen, he has to obtain capital with which to set up his establishment. Now whether he can work his mill at a profit depends upon the amount he will have to pay for the hire of his capital. If he can get it cheap, the mill will succeed. If, however, he has to pay dear for it, the mill cannot be started. Hence the employment or non-employment of a large number of persons depends upon capital being cheap—i.e. the rate of interest being low.
But it has been shown that the accumulation of wealth—i.e. saving—makes the rate of interest low; that is, makes capital cheap.
Therefore "saving" as well as "spending" benefits the labourer. It follows, then, that the accumulation of wealth must always in one way or other benefit the labouring classes.
Perhaps it will be said that there is a third case which I ought to have touched on, the case where men neither spend nor put their money out at interest, but hoard.
How does this, it may be asked, benefit the labourer?
Possibly it does not benefit him as long as the hoarding is maintained, but the number of cases in which hoarding takes place in a civilised country is too small to make it worth mentioning. In any
What happens when money is in "the stocking" is simply this. So much circulating medium is withdrawn from the world and the stock of the precious metals in use is proportionately reduced. That is the result of hoarding while it lasts. Otherwise nobody is either benefited or injured, and things remain as they were.—Yours very
Dear Mr.——,—I have no doubt that you, like most other people who inquire into the question of Socialism, and who set forth the arguments against it, are met with the objection: "We are tired of abstract reasoning. Have you got anything practical to show why Socialism should not be tried? Things are so bad that it is worth trying any experiment to set them right."
In the first place, I deny that things are so bad that they could not be worse, and that anything is better than going on as we are. God forbid that I should deny that there is a terrible amount of misery in the world, or that I should say a word against those who are consumed with a passionate longing to make things better. You, at any rate, know me well enough to believe me when I say that if I thought Socialism would cure the ills that make the world so dark, I should be a Socialist to-morrow.
I oppose Socialism, as you know, not because
When a man is ill the doctor is often urged to try some quack medicine which he knows must make the patient's condition far worse. If he is an honourable and honest man, he will refuse to administer the remedy, however great the pressure put upon him, and however often he is told that the patient prefers to run the risk. Though he may have to admit that the cure he recommends will at the best be slow and painful, and that there is always the possibility that the patient, by refusing to follow his advice thoroughly, will repeatedly lose the ground he has gained and throw himself back into as bad a state as ever, he still refuses to agree to a remedy which must make matters worse. That is exactly the position which those who feel as I do must take up when we are urged to try Socialism as a last chance. Convinced that it is no chance at all, we should be eternally dishonoured if we did not protest
No doubt the temptation to shrug one's shoulders and let the nation receive the sharp lesson it would certainly receive if it plunged into Socialism is sometimes very great. Nevertheless it must be resisted. Thus, though I have little fear of Socialism hurting me individually, even though it must deeply wound the poorer part of the community, it is a duty to combat it with all the power at my command.
But perhaps it will be said that here again I am using abstract arguments, and not answering the appeal to practice. I can assure you that I do not dread this appeal. The schemes of the Socialists are not only not new in theory, but have already been tried and found wanting. I admit that the Socialists are entitled to say that never yet has the Socialistic system in its entirety been applied in any State, ancient or modern, with the possible exception of ancient Peru under the Incas. There everything from the land to the domestic animals was held by the State—that is, by the Incas—and the whole population were State slaves, owning no property, and depending upon the orders of officials for every act of life. But though State Socialism has not been established in its entirety under modern conditions, Socialistic legislation such as the Socialists now recommend has been adopted, and with the most
Dear Mr.——,—I want to state shortly what happened in Paris in
I know, of course, that the Socialists who read this will not admit that the experiment was fairly tried, and will say that it proves nothing. That is the kind of answer often made by men who refuse to admit evidence which is disagreeable to them. They will also probably declare that the
See Appendix B.Economist newspaper, who, if I mistake not, was Mr. Bagehot, a man of exceptionally clear brain and impartial judgment. He tells us that the experiment began with special advantages. The Government furnished the capital without interest, and gave an order for twenty-five thousand uniforms for the National Guard. Eleven francs for each uniform was the usual contractor's price, a sum found sufficient to provide the profit of the master tailor, remuneration for his workshop and tools, interest on his
The correspondent of the Economist saw the men at the Hôtel Clichy at work, and the foreman told him that, notwithstanding the law limiting the hours of labour to ten, "the principle of glory, love, and fraternity was so strong that the tailors worked twelve and thirteen hours a day, and the same even on Sundays." One would have imagined that this enthusiasm would have proved quite as great an incentive to work as does self-interest, or, as Professor Smart has pointed out that I ought to say, interest for wife and children. Yet, strange as it may seem, enthusiasm and love of the State could not avail to make the wheels of production go round. When the first order was completed, instead of the Government finding that they had paid eleven francs per uniform, they found that they had paid no less than sixteen francs. While the master tailor would have made a profit, paid his rent, the interest on his capital, wages a good deal higher than two francs a day, and only charged the Government eleven francs, the national workshops, with all their advantages, had added nearly half as much again to the total cost. The corre-
Economist ends his account of the experiment with the significant words: "Louis Blanc is not a match for the master tailors of Paris."
I am bound to say that the failure here always strikes me as very remarkable. One would have thought that if ever a Socialistic experiment was to succeed, it would have been in Paris in
Perhaps it may be said that I have only given you examples of failure under the "right to work"
Dear Mr.——,—I hope you will not suppose, because I offer so strong an opposition to Socialism, that I am an Individualist run mad, and that I think there is no function for the State. Nothing could be farther from my desire than to think meanly of the State, or to hold the foolish heresy that the State has nothing to do but look after our drains, make our roads, and perform a certain number of useful offices of that sort. I believe, instead, that to the State we owe a great devotion, and that Wordsworth was perfectly right when he said that an Englishman should feel towards his country as "a lover or a son." To my mind, there is no virtue greater that patriotism, nor is any man to be more honoured than he who is willing to sacrifice himself to the good of his country.
I want men not to have a parasitic feeling towards the State, or to regard it as something which is bound to shower benefits on them, but
Do not think, then, that in opposing further extensions of State action, and in desiring that such action, when necessary, shall be kept within strict bounds and limits, I am aiming a blow at the State. I am helping to establish it on the only firm base. Again, I hope you will not think that
Burke said that he preferred a Monarchy to a Republic, because it was easier to engraft upon a Monarchy the advantages of a Republic than to engraft on a Republic the advantages of a Monarchy. In the same way, I say that, though in the modern State there must be a certain amount of State action, I prefer a State based, in the last resort, upon Individualism to one based upon Socialism, because we can much more easily engraft upon an Individualistic State some of the advantages of Socialism than engraft on a Socialistic State some of the advantages of Individualism. Indeed, so absorbing is the nature of Socialism that you cannot in reality engraft any of the advantages of Individualism on a truly Socialistic State. The graft would not prosper, but would wither away.
To put the matter into practical shape, I would always rely, where I could, on individual action.
You remember the Irishman who said that he had too great a respect for the truth to be dragging her out on every paltry occasion. In the same way, I have too great a respect for the State to be bringing it into action for minor and unsuitable considerations. State action must be restricted to great and appropriate occasions.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—Hitherto I have dealt chiefly with the economic side of Socialism. I want now to turn to another aspect. People sometimes talk as if the only object of the Socialists was to destroy private property—that is, as if from the Socialist point of view private property were the sole enemy. That is a great mistake. Socialism involves not only the destruction of private property, but quite as certainly the destruction of the family. When I say this, please do not think that I imagine that any great number of Socialists deliberately desire to destroy the family. On the contrary, I am convinced that the majority of them are perfectly sincere when they declare that nothing is farther from their thought, and that they desire and intend, quite as strongly as their opponents, to maintain the family. Unfortunately, however, mere good intentions are not of very great service in this matter. What we have to
My first proof of this is that the clearest thinkers among the Socialists of ancient and modern times—the men who by the aid of reasoning and analysis have thought out what would happen under Socialism—have been obliged to recognise that it could not be maintained without the destruction of the family. No human being was ever possessed of a clearer brain than Plato, and no man ever thought a thing out to its final conclusion more clearly or squeezed more thoroughly the intellectual sponge. When he came to set forth his ideal Socialist Republic, Plato saw that the abolition of the family was essential if his State was to have a secure foundation. He would not even leave the vestige of a foundation upon which the family might be re-created lest it should ruin his fabric. The most elaborate precautions are taken in the ideal community whose laws are set forth by Plato that no man shall know his father or his mother, his brothers or his sisters; and, again, that no father and no mother shall ever know their children. Family ties are to be severed almost from the
Republic, asserted that the whole scheme must fail because it would in fact be found impossible to destroy the family. He somewhat quaintly predicted that owing to family likenesses fathers and mothers would recognise their offspring in the children of the State, and that in the family ties thus based on guesswork would be found the little rift within the lute which would in the end destroy the complicated mechanism of Plato's State.
Though Aristotle's criticism was acute and interesting, I am afraid that the family is not quite so hardy a plant as he imagined. The family, or at any rate what is worth preserving in the family, can, I fear, be destroyed far more easily than by the drastic proposals made in the Republic. Even without the obliteration of the knowledge of fatherhood and motherhood—which, of course, I fully realise is not now proposed by any Socialist—State Socialism may ruin the family past repair. By doing the whole work of the family, and undertaking all but the physical offices of parentage, the State will in fact destroy the family. Those, therefore, who believe the family to be essential to a sound and healthy State must withstand that undermining of the
Let me ask you to remember that a limb may be destroyed just as well by depriving it of its proper uses as by cutting it off. If you take a man's arm and bind it so tightly that the blood cannot circulate or the muscles be used, you will in a short time destroy it past all repair. The only difference between that and amputation is that the process of destruction is somewhat slower. The attack on the family by the Socialists is at present made up of three different proposals:—(1) Old-age pensions; (2) the State feeding of schoolchildren; (3) the so-called endowment of motherhood. These three proposals I propose to discuss in order in future letters.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—The schemes for old-age pensions assume many forms, but I will deal with what is apparently going to be the basis of the Government's plan, or at any rate the ultimate outcome of that plan, which is a non-contributory pension of 5s. a week for all men and women after sixtyfive. The first point to be noted is the cost. Universal old-age pensions of 5s. weekly at sixtyfive mean an expenditure of thirty millions a year by the State. It is hardly to be wondered at that all except avowed Socialists are appalled by such a figure. In order to avoid a scheme so ruinous as this, great efforts have been made to suggest plans by which the number of pensioners may, to begin with at least, be cut down, while at the same time the universal and non-contributory principles may be maintained in appearance. Which of these cutting-down plans will be adopted by the Government is at present unknown, but
Another method of cutting down the pensionlist is the suggestion that nobody is to have the money unless he or she applies for it every Monday morning in person at the local pension office. It is supposed that these disagreeable conditions will prevent persons in the middle and upper classes from claiming their money. They will not like, it is said, to stand in a line every Monday among their poorer neighbours waiting for their turn at the pension window. Now I venture to say that this plan for cutting down the pension-list will end in nothing. It might last for five or six years, but very soon people would begin to say that it was a monstrous shame to expose poor men to the discomfort of asking for their pensions in person, that many of them, old and feeble, had to stand out in the rain, and that therefore they ought to be allowed to send a substitute to fetch the money, or else the Government should send
Well-to-do men would no doubt explain that they did not take the old-age pension for themselves, but gave it to the parish church or the village hospital, or whatever their pet charity might be. I, for example, should certainly assign my pension to the parish rifle club, if parish rifle clubs are still allowed to exist when I am sixtyfive. In any case, the pensions would all be drawn.
I must defer to next week an examination of yet another scheme for cutting down the list.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—Another scheme for cutting down old-age pensions was suggested by the Nation last summer. It is that no man or woman should be allowed to claim his or her old-age pension if he or she is earning 5s. a week or over. If they are earning less they are only to be allowed such a pension as would make up their earnings to 5s. a week. The object of this proposal is to prevent what otherwise would certainly happen—the lowering of wages through old-age pensions. If an old couple, each sixty-five, were together getting 10s. a week through pensions and were still active, it is obvious that they could and would be willing to take lower wages than they do now. For example, the man might be willing to work at 10s. a week, and, though he might be somewhat feeble, it is quite conceivable that an employer might find it worth his while to have two men over sixty-five working in his garden for
According to the Nation's plan, then, idleness would be one of the essential conditions under which men and women would get their old-age pensions. The Nation significantly adds that a somewhat elaborate system of inspection would be necessary to enforce this rule. I certainly think it would. A whole army of inspectors, male and female, would always be looking over hedges or through doors to find out whether old Mr. Brown or old Mrs. Smith were not surreptitiously earning a little money, and if he or she were, would be reporting them to the pension authority and getting them struck off the list. If the old people persisted in claiming their pensions under false declarations, they would, of course, have to be fined or imprisoned for perjury. Though I fully realise the logical necessity for such a proposal, it is to my mind most harsh and odious. We all know how intolerable idleness is to the majority of men and women who have earned their bread by hard work. Unless they are born idlers, they cannot be happy unless they are doing something in their old age. Under the Nation scheme, however, they would either be bribed into an unnatural idleness or else tempted into deceiving the State by false declarations. Depend upon it, a scheme so contrary to human feeling would never stand. In a very short time the premium on
Before I leave the subject I must say a word as to an assertion often made—namely, that old-age pensions are a natural and proper charge upon the community, because their recipients have had no chance of making provision for themselves. To this declaration I give the most absolute denial. It is perfectly possible for an ordinary working man to make provision for his old age, and to make it without any intolerable sacrifice. It has been calculated that any working man who so desires may obtain an old-age benefit of 5s. a week at sixty-five in a Provident Society if from the age of twenty-one to sixty-five he makes a payment of 2½d. a week. That is, if on one day in the week he will give up, say, a pint of beer he may make provision for his old age. I note also that it was stated last summer by the permanent secretary at a meeting of the Ancient Order of Foresters that the extra contribution in the Foresters required to give 5s. a week at seventy would be only ¾d. a week beginning at eighteen years, 1d. at twentyfour, and 1¼d. at twenty-eight. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to the objection I have noted. I may add, however, that actual instances can be cited where even the most poorly paid men in the country—that is, agricultural labourers—have
Do not think, because I write strongly against State-provided, non-contributory old-age pensions, that I do not realise the benefits obtained through old-age pensions. I should like to see all men and women past sixty-five in possession of a pension. But I hold that they should provide it for themselves, and that we must not place this staggering burden on the State. I should not, again, object to a well-devised scheme of compulsory insurance against old age. What I protest against is imposing on the taxpayer a burden which will ultimately reach £30,000,000 a year. Remember, the taxpayer on whom the chief burden of taxation falls is always the working man.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—The next point in the attack on the family with which I want to deal is the feeding of school-children. I am sure that the universal feeding of school-children, advocated by the Socialists, and also by many well-meaning but uninstructed philanthropists, would be to open an academy of pauperism in every elementary school in the country. Superficially, no doubt, a certain case can be made out for feeding schoolchildren. What is the use, it is said, of pouring knowledge into the brains of children who are so weak from want of food that they are totally unfit to make the mental exertion required of them by their teachers? It is mere waste of money to teach starving boys and girls. Therefore, in order not to throw away the expensive lessons provided by the State, the State must feed the children, and so make them capable of taking advantage of the education it provides. In theory,
I should like to quote some facts to show you how absurd it is to imagine that the teachers are competent to look round the benches at a school and, when certain of the children are seen to look ill and badly nourished, to assume that their parents are unable to feed them. A year or two ago, the Education Committee of the Board of
(a) Man, wife, and two children.—Teacher's report: "Temporarily incapacitated from feeding children." Officer's report: "Man earning regular wage, £1: 13s.; wife, a weaver, earning 16s.; total, £2: 9s. Man in Engineers' Society and lodge."
(b) Man, wife, and four children.—Teacher's report: "Temporarily incapacitated." Officer's report: "Man's regular wage, £3: 10s.; daughter earning 18 s.; total, £4: 8s."
(c) Man, wife, and six children.—Teacher's report: "Apparently urgent." Officer's report: "Man employed by Corporation at regular wage, £1: 18s.; son and two daughters earning 19s.; total, £2: 17s. Man in lodges and trade society; children well fed; home clean; exceptionally thrifty parents and contrivers."
Remember this is by no means an exceptional experience. Boards of Guardians in other parts of the country have made similar inquiries with similar results. But if in spite of these warnings
bona fide cases where the parents are unable to feed the children. Let us never forget that one of the reasons which make men and women overcome their natural desire for idleness is their determination to provide for their children. The love of their children and the duty of feeding them act as incentives not only to work and thrift, but to morality and selfrestraint.
I can best illustrate the injury done to the family and family life by free meals to schoolchildren by quoting an authentic story which I have quoted on several occasions before. A widow in an East End parish said to the vicar's wife: "I'm glad, ma'am, that this free feedin' of schoolchildren didn't come in till mine was grown up." The clergyman's wife, somewhat surprised by this remark, asked for an explanation. "Well, ma'am, you see it's this way. My husband was a drinkin' man, but he was very fond of the children, and if it hadn't been that he was obliged to find something for them he'd have been ten times worse than he was." In other words, the wife, although no social philosopher and no political economist, had realised the enormous influence of responsibility for the family in keeping the husband within the bounds of social duty,
Mrs. Bosanquet, whose name must be honoured wherever men are gathered together determined to maintain the strength of the people and to resist attacks upon the family, has told another story which illustrates the tremendous influence exercised by family ties, and shows how unwise are those who, by schemes for feeding children, endowing motherhood, and relieving children of the care of aged parents, would deprive the institution of all its work. She tells us that while talking to a mother apparently terribly hindered in her work by the children who clung to her skirts, the remark came naturally: "They must hinder your work very much?" "I'd never get through my work without them," was the instant rejoinder. Here again that which made the woman a self-respecting member, or perhaps I should say the essential pillar, of society was a deep sense of the sacredness of family life. Let no one suppose that State action will provide springs of life so strong and so ennobling as these.
If neither father nor mother is to feel any necessity to feed their children, what sort of citizens are we likely to get? Miss Loane in one of her admirable books partly answers this ques-
I won't." I come next to the proposals for the endowment of motherhood. The plan proposed by that eminent Socialist, Mr. Sidney Webb, is for the State to give as it were a capitation-grant for children, while the mothers are to be helped in their hour of need by a handsome contribution by the State. Here again at first sight nothing would seem more reasonable or a better object for State aid. I, at any rate, should feel immensely attracted towards the scheme if we could help the mothers without pauperising the fathers. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible for the State to shower its bounty upon mothers without taking away from the husbands and fathers responsibilities which it is for their good and for the good of the State should be maintained. The fact that a man has to work to keep his wife, and to provide her with comforts during her confinement, and that he has also to provide for the young and helpless child in its mother's arms, has upon the father the most beneficial effect. Once teach him, however, that this is not his business, and that the State will look after his wife
I know you are a reader of Kipling. Do you remember the striking poem about the Kaiser's Rescript, and the discussion of the proposal that all nations should agree to a law preventing any man from working for more than eight hours a day? When an English working man speaks at the Conference, this is what he says:
And a British delegate thundered: "The halt and the lame be blowed,
I've a crib in the South-West workshops, and a home in the Wandsworth Road;
And till the 'Sociation has footed my burial bill
I'll work for the kids and the missis. Pull up?—I'll be damned if I will."
That is the true spirit. That is what makes the nation strong. But be sure that spirit will not last if we tell men that they need not endow motherhood, but that the State will do it for them.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—I want to draw your attention to a fact too often forgotten. It is that we have tried, and tried very thoroughly, a system of State Socialism in England, and that it was a complete and disastrous failure. Under the old Poor Law, or let us say the latest developments of the old Poor Law, which existed roughly between the years
There was State endowment for the old, State endowment for the unemployed, and State endowment for motherhood. The more children a woman had, whether born in wedlock or not, the more she received at the hands of the State. The begetting of the children was, as it were, the only
The worst results [of the old Poor Law system of indiscriminate outdoor relief], however, are still to be mentioned. In all ranks of society the great sources of happiness and virtue are the domestic affections, and this is particularly the case among those who have so few resources as the labouring classes. Now, pauperism seems to be an engine for the purpose of disconnecting each member of a family from all the others; of reducing all to the state of domesticated animals, fed, lodged, and provided for by the parish, without mutual dependence or mutual interest. "The effect of allowance," says Mr. Stuart, "is to weaken, if not to destroy, all the ties of affection between parent and child. Whenever a lad comes to earn wages, or to receive parish relief on his own account (and this, we must recollect, is at the age of fourteen), although he may continue to lodge with his parents, he does not throw his money into a common purse and board with them, but buys his own loaf and piece of bacon, which
Mr. Majendie states that at Thaxted mothers and children will not nurse each other in sickness unless they are paid for it. Mr. Power mentions the following circumstance as having occurred at Over, Cambridgeshire, a few days before his visit: "A widow with two children had been in the receipt of 3s. a week from the parish. She was enabled by this allowance and her own earnings to live very comfortably. She married a butcher. The allowance was continued. But the butcher and his bride came to the overseer and said, 'They were not going to keep those children for 3s. a week, and that if a further allowance was not made "Those whose minds," say Messrs. Wrottesley and Cameron, "have been moulded by the operation of the Poor Laws appear not to have the slightest scruple in asking to be paid for the performance of those domestic duties which the most brutal savages are in general willing to render gratuitously to their own kindred. 'Why should I tend my sick and aged parents, when the parish is bound to do it? Or if I do perform the service, why should I excuse the parish, which is bound to pay for it?'" * * * * * * "At the time of my journey," says Mr. Cowell, "the acquaintance I had with the practical operation of the Poor Laws led me to suppose that the pressure of the sum annually raised upon the ratepayers, and its progressive increase, constituted the main inconvenience of the Poor Law system.
they should turn them out of doors and throw them on the parish altogether.' The overseer resisted. The butcher appealed to the bench, who recommended him to make the best arrangement he could, as the parish was obliged to support the children."The experience of a very few weeks served to convince me that this evil, however greats sinks into insignificance when compared with the dreadful effects which the system produces on the morals and happiness of the lower orders. It is as difficult to convey to the mind of the reader a true and faithful impression of the intensity and malignancy of the evil in this point of view, as it is by any description, however vivid, to give an adequate idea of the horrors of a shipwreck or a pestilence. A person must converse with paupers, must enter workhouses, and examine the inmates, must attend at the parish pay-table, before he can form a just conception of the moral debasement which is the offspring of the present system; he must hear the pauper threaten to abandon his wife and family unless more money is allowed him—threaten to abandon an aged bedridden mother, to turn her out of his house and lay her down at the overseers door, unless he is paid for giving her shelter; he must hear parents threatening to follow the same course with regard to their sick children; he must see mothers coming to receive the reward of their daughters' ignominy, and witness women in cottages quietly pointing out, without even
the question being asked, which are their children by their husband and which by other men previous to marriage; and when he finds that he can scarcely step into a town or parish in any county without meeting with some instance or other of this character he will no longer consider the pecuniary pressure on the ratepayer as the first in the class of evils which the Poor Laws have entailed upon the community."
I mean in another letter to give you some further proof from the Report of
And read their history in a nation's eyes.Dear Mr.——,—Another method of estimating the demoralisation caused by the absolute right to relief conferred by the old Poor Law is to be found in noting the difference between the independent labourers, as they were called, and the labourers who had a right to parish relief. As you perhaps know, a man could only claim relief from his own parish. In order to make good that claim he had to show that he possessed what was called a settlement in the parish. A certain number of men, from various causes, such as having gone to other parts of England, lost their settlement, and so their claim upon any particular parish. They had therefore to rely upon their own efforts. The difference between such men and those who possessed the indefeasible right to relief was enormous. Several witnesses before the Poor Law Commission of
Here is a striking piece of evidence comparing the independent labourers and the able-bodied paupers:—
" Have you ever compared the condition of the ablebodied pauper with the condition of the independent labourer?"—"Yes. I have lately inquired into various cases of the labouring poor who receive parish relief; and, being perfectly acquainted with the cases of paupers generally, the contrast struck me forcibly. In the pauper's habitation you will find a strange show of misery and wretchedness; and those little articles of furniture which might by the least exertion imaginable wear an appearance of comfort are turned, as it were intentionally, the ugliest side outward. The children are dirty, and appear to be under no control. The clothes of both parents and children, in nine cases out of ten, are ragged, but evidently are so for the lack of the least attempt to make them otherwise; for I have very rarely found the clothes of a pauper with a patch put or a seam made upon them since new. Their mode of living, in all cases that I have known (except and always making the distinction between the determined pauper and the infirm and deserving poor, which cases are but comparatively few), is most improvident. It is difficult to get to a knowledge of particulars in their cases; but whatever provisions I have found, on visiting their habitations, have been of the best quality; and my inquiries among tradesmen, as butchers, chandlers, shopkeepers, etc., have all been answered with: 'They will not have anything but the best.' "In the habitation of the labouring man who receives no parish relief you will find (I have done so) even in the
Another writer, Mr Isaac Willis, collector of the Poor-rates in the parish of St. Mary, Stratfordle-Bow, London, spoke to the same effect:—
"Are the two classes externally distinguishable in their persons, houses, or behaviour?"—"Yes, they are. I can easily distinguish them, and I think they might be distinguished by any one who paid attention to them. The independent labourer is comparatively clean in his person, his wife and children are clean, and the children go to school; the house is in better order and more cleanly. Those who depend on parish relief or on benefactions, on the contrary, are dirty in their persons and slothful in their habits; the children are allowed to go about the streets in a vagrant condition. The industrious labourers get their children out to service early. The pauper and charity-fed people do not care what becomes of their children. The man who earns his penny is always a better man in every way than the man who begs it."
Another London witness, Mr. Samuel Miller, assistant-overseer of St. Sepulchre's, London, testified as follows:—
"In the course of my visits to the residences of the
I cannot, unfortunately, find space to give all the illustrations of the terrible demoralisation brought about by the old Poor Law which the Report contains. Before I leave the subject, however, I should like to quote the introductory paragraph which deals with the effects of the old Poor Law system on those not actually relieved
We have seen that one of the objects attempted by the present [pro tanto that law of nature by which the effects of
pro tanto the law by which each man and his family enjoy the benefit of his own prudence and virtue. In abolishing punishment we equally abolish reward. Under the operation of the scale system—the system which directs the overseers to regulate the incomes of the labourers according to their families—idleness, improvidence, or extravagance occasions no loss, and consequently diligence and economy can afford no gain. But to say merely that these virtues afford no gain is an inadequate expression; they are often the causes of absolute loss. We have seen that in many places the income derived from the parish for easy or nominal work, or, as it is most significantly termed, "in lieu of labour," actually exceeds that of the independent labourer; and even in those cases in which the relief-money only equals, or nearly approaches, the average rate of wages it is often better worth having, as the pauper requires less expensive diet and clothing than the hard-working man. In such places a man who does not possess either some property or an amount of skill which will ensure to him more than the average rate of wages is, of course, a loser by preserving his independence. Even if he have some property, he is a loser, unless the aggregate of the income which it affords and of his wages equals what he would receive as a pauper.
It appears, accordingly, that when a parish has become pauperised the labourers are not only prodigal of their earnings, not only avoid accumulation, but even dispose of, and waste in debauchery, as soon as their families entitle them to allowance, any small properties which may have devolved on them, or which they may have saved in happier times. Self-respect, however, is not yet so utterly destroyed among the English peasantry as to make this universal. Men are still to be found who would rather derive a smaller income from their own funds and their
Will it be believed that such is not merely the cruelty, but the folly of the ratepayers in many places that they prohibit this conduct—that they conspire to deny the man who, in defiance of the examples of all around him, has dared to save, and attempts to keep his savings, the permission to work for his bread? Such a statement appears so monstrous that we will substantiate it by some extracts from our evidence.
I feel sure that you will realise the importance of the extracts I have given from the Report of
Dear Mr.——,—I hope when thinking about Socialism and discussing it with your friends that you will never let yourself be frightened or put off by the technical language of political economy, or be driven from what seems to you a sound view because this or that great name is brought up against you and you are told that what seems to you common-sense is contrary to Mr. So-and-so's theory or statement. Political economy or Economics is the science of exchange, and though the tree may be very complicated at the top, with an enormous number of interlacing branches, it has only one stem, and that is the true and just definition of value, or rather exchange value. I say "exchange value" instead of simply "value to prevent confusion. People are apt to use" value" as if it were the same as "usefulness." Exchange value means not only usefulness, but the quality of being exchangeable—the quality
Suppose you take a hard and ugly block of stone and hire two or three men to carve it and bore holes through it in various ways. Next, suppose that these men hew it and hack it so much that it ceases to have any strength as a block of stone, while at the same time, as might easily be the case, acquiring no artistic beauty whatever. Some £20 or £30 worth of labour might have been put into the stone, and yet it would have no exchange value whatever, but might very well be worthless except as broken
It is also not possible to say that a thing has value because it has utility—because, that is, people want it. Sea-water has utility, for it can be made into salt, and it is therefore in demand, and yet on the seashore, where any amount of it can be obtained, it has no exchange value.
What is wanted to give exchange value to an article is the presence of two things—demand and the limitation of supply, or, in other words, demand and a certain amount of scarcity. These two requisities are like the two poles in electricity. When they are brought together, but only then, the electric spark of exchange value is produced. Test this rule in any case you like, and you will find that it is always true. There is always a demand for drinking-water among human beings. But it has no exchange value unless there is a limitation in the supply—that is, scarcity. Men will pay nothing for water if they are living on the shores of a lake, and can get it with perfect ease. When, however, they are away from the shores of the lake, and the water has to be brought to them in pipes—i.e. when it has become limited in supply—it has an exchange value, and men will give other things for it. The same may be said of fresh air. Here you see that demand alone-—everybody demands air and water—does not give exchange value. In the same way, limitation of
Perhaps the clearest way to put the matter is this. Demand is the first essential for value, because unless somebody wants a thing nobody is going to offer anything in exchange for it. The next essential is that it shall be limited in supply, because, again, nobody is going to give anything in exchange for something which, owing to the fact that it is unlimited in supply, he can get for himself for nothing.
But value varies very greatly in degree according to the proportion between demand and supply. The price, that is, is constantly changing. Here the old rhyme will help us:
The real worth of anything Is just as much as it will bring. You cannot get beyond that piece of ancient
wisdom as to the determination of value. The degree of value or price of a particular object can only be ascertained by finding out what people will give for it. Their conduct here is governed by the proportion between demand and supply. Let me say again that if you keep this simple theory of value clear in your mind, you will find it a sure guide through the labyrinth of political economy. Whenever you find a theory propounded by an economist, no matter how distinguished, which contradicts these plain facts as to exchange value, you may be sure it is wrong.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—No one can feel more strongly than I do the sense of pity and regret that men and women should often labour so hard and under such miserable conditions for so wretched a wage. If we could really put an end to the evils of sweating and free the tired sempstress from her unrequited toil by an Act of Parliament, I should deem no sacrifice too great,—except the fool's sacrifice under which one evil is abolished by calling a greater evil into existence, or no remedy at all is found, but only the name of the evil is changed. Unfortunately it is such means that the House of Commons lately declared its willingness to adopt in a fit of futile sentimentality. Members vied with each other in their eagerness to prescribe quack remedies for the evil—remedies which would either do no good or render the disease worse than ever—and refused to face the consequences of their action. We all know the mood of the coachman who, when he has lost
Let me give you an example of the unwillingness of the Commons to look the facts in the face or to realise the consequences of their proposal. Practically all the speakers in the debate admitted that the question of sweating was really part of the question of unemployment. Yet they deliberately sanctioned a measure the effect of which must be to increase unemployment. If a minimum wage is fixed, it is certain that a great many people now employed at less than that wage will be thrown out of employment, and thus we shall add to the unemployed, many of whom notoriously are unwilling to work, a body of men and women who at any rate are willing to work, but whom the State will not allow to work at the wages at which work can be obtained by them. This result of fixing a minimum wage was well brought out by Judge Backhouse, a judge appointed by the New South Wales Government to inquire into the working of the minimum-wage law in Victoria. The Judge pointed out how the result had been to drive out of employment many of those who were previously at work, or else to cause evasions of
It will no doubt be urged against the view I am taking that I have nothing practical to propose to meet the evils of sweating, and I shall be asked with rhetorical emphasis whether I am really content that "The Song of the Shirt" shall be sung in thousands of miserable homes or sweaters' dens in order that the sacred principles of political economy shall not be infringed. My answer is that though I have no ready-made remedy for sweating, I am not willing to pretend that I have a remedy when I have not, or to support a measure which I know will increase the evils complained of merely on the ground that I am doing something to ease the national conscience. If the "national conscience" demands an active poison rather than endurance of suffering, however poignant, then the "national conscience" is a false guide. But though I have no immediate remedy to propose, I am by no means unable to indicate some of the causes that have brought about the evils of sweating. These are the causes that produce unemployment and pauperism in their various forms.
To put the matter shortly, we must endeavour to stop sweating by stopping the manufacture of the unemployed and of pauperised persons. One of the chief engines of this manufacture is the
Another source of unemployment is to be found in those Trade-Union regulations under which the natural grading of the pay of labour according to its efficiency is not permitted. Of this cause we have no right to complain, for the action of the Trade-Unions is voluntary, and the State cannot and ought not to interfere. It ought not, however, to make the anti-grading policy of the Trade-Unions easier by, in effect, declaring that it will provide subsistence under the name of unemployed allowances for the men who are thrown out of employment by TradeUnion action.
A last and final source of unemployment, and therefore of sweating, is, I believe, to be found in the tremendous pressure of our taxes and our rates on the poor. It is popular just now to regard high rates and high taxes as things almost
In these days he who suggests freedom as a remedy for a social evil must expect to be treated with hatred, ridicule, and contempt, and held up as one who by his nature is half idiot and half tyrant. Nevertheless, I venture to say that by an application of the principles of free contract, and by such application alone, will a radical remedy be found for the evils of sweating. Restriction can do no permanent good, partly because it is bound to limit production—and increased production is the only means by which higher wages can be obtained—and partly because it is bound to carry with it that State aid which throws more burdens upon the people, and brings more and more of the industrious poor across the line which separates them from the pauper class. If the State forbids a man to take less than a certain wage, and he cannot get that wage,
One word more before I leave the subject. Though I hold that in freedom will be found the economic remedy, I by no means shut out the moral remedy. On the contrary, I believe that the moral remedy is all-important, and that those noble souls who are helping the poor to help themselves are doing infinitely better and kindlier work than those who vote for quack medicines. Again, I by no means desire to rule out the attack on sweating from the sanitary side. If, and when, the conditions under which men and women are working are found to be insanitary and likely to lead to disease, then let the law interfere and refuse to allow those insanitary conditions to prevail. Work under insanitary conditions is waste of the human and of the material product in the highest degree, and the State is well advised to prevent such waste.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—Mr. Ramsay Macdonald in the course of his speech on the Unemployed Bill declared that all economists and sociological investigators in the country, with Mr. Charles Booth at their head, had laid it down that modern industry demanded a surplus of labour in order to carry it on. He wanted to supplement that by another doctrine—that modern industry not only required a steady surplusage of labour, which might become a minimum, but also requires now and again a critical condition of unemployment. "It not only required its two per cent always, but its ten per cent occasionally. If they agreed with that, there was an inevitable corollary. If we were to have unemployed, not because the men were inferior to the employed, but because of the very nature of the organisation, it was a logical and humane corollary that the burden of unemployment should not be placed on the backs of these weak men, should not be left to charity or to odds and ends of ill-assorted
In other words, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald asserts that modern industry requires certain reserves of labour which can be brought up at moments of stress, and that the unemployed constitute these reserves. With certain limitations, I agree. But if these reserves are necessary to industry, let the cost of supplying them fall upon the industry, and not upon the State. Why should the taxpayers and ratepayers pay to keep during certain months of the year men who will be wanted by Messrs. Brown and Smith in order to get their firm very lucrative orders at another portion of the year? No doubt many owners of factories would be in very great difficulties if they could not feel that when large orders came their way they would find a sufficient body of men to help them to carry out those orders. Heretofore, or rather before the great extension of doles to the unemployed, many firms felt this so strongly that in slack periods they took orders at very low rates—rates which gave them no profit, or which even constituted a loss—in order to keep their body of operatives together. They recognised the need of maintaining reserves which can be drawn upon when large orders are coming in at high rates. Here is a good example of the compensating balance in industrial life.
Now, however, the capitalists are beginning to realise that there is little or no risk of their reserves of labour being lost if they do not keep them together by occasionally running their works without a profit. In future the reserves, instead of going elsewhere or melting away, will be kept in being for the good of the manufacturers by the State or the municipality. The onus of maintaining its own reserves is no longer imposed on the industry. The ratepayer and the taxpayer have undertaken the obligation. Being human, the employers very naturally fall in with this development of public policy, and shape their own action accordingly. In other words, what is happening in regard to the unemployed is what has happened again and again in our industrial history. We think we are throwing a bone to the poor unemployed terrier, whereas the big capitalist mastiff catches and makes off with it. The same thing occurred under the old Poor Law. The fact that the parishioners could claim maintenance from the parish had the result of driving down wages, and the farmers, in spite of the enormous rates, were often found to be defenders of the system because it enabled them to get farm-hands at 4s. a week. The parish paid, say, 4s. to the labourer and the farmer only paid 4s. No doubt in the long run the farmers suffered from the demoralisation of labour caused by State aid, just as the capitalist will in the end
In fact, the plan of providing for what Mr. Ramsay Macdonald calls surplus labour by means of State action carries a double curse. It curses the recipient, and in the end it will bring a curse upon the capitalist who for the moment appears to benefit by it. The reason is plain. The power to do good work depends in the last resort upon character and rests on a moral basis, and that moral basis is destroyed when we accept what Bastiat called the great fallacy that the State is an institution upon which everybody can live at the expense of everybody else.—Yours very sincerely,
Dear Mr.——,—You are, I know, concerned, as must indeed be every thinking man in the kingdom, with the problem of the unemployed. I do not want to trouble you with the obvious arguments against encouraging unemployment by lavish relief of various kinds, but I should like to draw your attention to some of the evidence in the Poor Law Report of
Mr. Baker (of Uley): "That it is not so difficult for them [persons unemployed and supported by the parish] to find work for themselves as it is generally believed to be, is proved from the shortness of the time that, with not above two or three exceptions, any able-bodied person has remained in the house; and by a list which has been
How, in the present scarcity of work, can those employ or support themselves who are now receiving parish pay?' The answer was: 'You will be surprised to find how soon the impossibility will dwindle down to an improbability, the improbability to a distant hope, and that again to complete success.' I was also told that industry and frugality would increase, and that crime would become less; but I never was told, nor had I the most distant hope, that the success would have been so complete. When it began the poor were idle, insolent, and in a state bordering upon riot: they openly acknowledged that they would rather live on the parish pay in idleness than work for full labourer's wages, and when hired their behaviour was such that they could not be continued in work. Now all are glad to get work. I employed many of them in the winter of They were in work which they had found for themselves, and in this winter, up to this time [
Another witness, Mr. Russell (of Swallowfield), made the following statement:—
"The sum of this is that the labourers generally have the means of independent support within their reach, but that, except in a few instances of rare sobriety and providence, they will not of their own accord make the efforts necessary to command them. Of most of the men here described, I have said that they are good and diligent workmen. A want of ability and willingness to work, when work is given to them, is not among the faults of English labourers; and it cannot be expected that they will be at the trouble of finding work, if they can find support without it. They will not go in search of the meat of industry, if they can sit down and eat the bread of idleness. If you maintain them in doing nothing, and put the key of the beer-house into their hand, what right have you to complain that they are idle and dissolute?"
Mrs. Park (wife of Mungo Park, the African explorer) gave this striking testimony:—
"About two years ago the state of our workhouse [Gravesend] attracted my attention, from the condition in which I learned that it was during my inquiries respecting Mr. Park's patients, he being then the surgeon of the parish. There were then fifty females in the workhouse. Of these, twenty-seven were young, stout, active women, who were never employed in doing anything whatever. There were five of these young and able women who were accustomed to go to bed in the forenoon, solely to pass off the time."
Accordingly a committee of ladies was formed,
"We wished to have the whole clothed in one way with gowns of blue linsey-woolsey, check aprons, dark handkerchiefs, and close white caps. After violent opposition from the mistress of the house and the females themselves, this was acceded to. Hitherto they had purchased the most gaudy prints for the females, and ready-made slop-shirts for the men in the house, whilst the young women were lying in bed idle. One of the paupers, a girl of eighteen years of age, who refused to work, was dressed in a dashing print dress of red and green, with
gigotsleeves, a silk band, a large golden or gilt buckle, long gilt earrings, and a lace cap, turned up in front with bright ribbons, in the fashion of the day, and a high comb under the cap, and abundance of curls. A general order was given that the hair of the females should be braided and put under their caps, and no curls or curlpapers seen. . . . One effect of this partial discipline in the house was that in almost two months about one-half of the workers left. Some of them called themselves widows; others said they did not come in to work; they merely came in until they could accommodate themselves, until they could get themselves another situation; but they would not remain to work,indeed, that they would not; they would take a room and keep themselves when they were out of place, sooner than put on a dress, and be made to work! One refractory person said: 'The poor were not going to be oppressed by work.'"
Comment on such evidence is needless. I desire, however, to note one point of special importance. Socialists will tell you that the reform of the Poor Law only succeeded because it coincided with the building of the railways, and
"Do you find any effect produced by men obtaining parochial relief readily when they are out of work, or have anything the matter with them?"—"I have always seen that men who have had parish relief have been very careless of work and of their money ever afterwards. It has also acted very mischievously on the benefit societies, as these men would never contribute to them."
Dear Mr.——,—A wise Imperial administrator once said to me that he was always having admirable schemes for reform, and for the development and improvement of the country over whose destinies he presided, brought before him—schemes which were often not only excellent on paper, but would no doubt have been very beneficial in practice. He made it a rule, however, before he began to consider them seriously and in detail, to ask: "What will it cost?" and to have a proper financial estimate made as a preliminary to any discussion of the merits. The next step was to ask: "Where is the money to come from? "By the time these two questions had been asked and answered, prudence and common-sense showed in the majority of cases that it would be inexpedient to proceed with the schemes. This no doubt was a depressing process, not only for the excellent people who advocated the particular project of
After all, the process is one very well known to every private individual. Who is there who does not know of a dozen plans for effecting an enormous improvement in his method of life? Unfortunately, we are almost always brought up short by the two questions: "What will it cost?" and "Where is the money to come from?" In spite, however, of such private experiences, a vast number of people refuse to apply these two questions to public affairs, but act as if "What will it cost?" were a very small matter, and "Where is the money to come from?" no matter at all. The assumption is, of course, that the State possesses somewhere or other an inexhaustible fund out of which money can always be produced if only it is asked for with sufficient vehemence. This belief in the Fortunatus' purse of the State is indeed the greatest of all the illusions which perplex administration. Not only is it difficult to get the man in the street to see the error. It is often quite as difficult to bring it home to the statesman.
The administrator of whom I have just spoken, who is by nature far more of an optimist than a cynic, went on to say that though it was often very disappointing to have to give up fascinating schemes of improvement and reform on the grounds I have stated, he found his consolation in the thought that
But though all this sounds so obvious, it is by no means the fashion at the present time. Men of the old school were wont to regard taxation as essentially an evil, though no doubt a necessary evil. The modern plan is to regard it as a positive benefit, and as a veritable source of national prosperity. The great goddess of taxation is invoked by both parties in the State—by the extreme Radicals and Socialists and by their opponents—as an all-powerful deity who, if only worshipped in the proper spirit and with appropriate rites, will prove the strongest and most helpful of political patrons. Again, in old days men found certain important objects for expenditure, and in view of the imperative character of those objects excused the grim necessity of laying fresh burdens upon the taxpayer. Now we begin at the other end. We suggest schemes of taxation in vacuo, and quite apart from the objects upon which the money when raised is to be spent. Indeed, we may now witness the amazing spectacle of politicians looking round for objects on which to spend taxes,
Though I fear I shall lay myself open to the taunt of being not only hopelessly behind the times, but poor-spirited, and also thoroughly unscientific, truth obliges me to confess that I take no pleasure in the new worship. I am oldfashioned enough to regard taxation per se with aversion. Save for the needs of law, order, and public justice, of national defence, of national health, and other essential public needs, I greatly prefer to let money fructify in the pockets of the individual rather than be sterilised in the Exchequer. Taxation there must be in a modern State, and heavy taxation; but let it be restricted as much as possible, and let us never forget that it is an evil, even when a necessary evil. In a word, I believe that what a statesman of a former generation called "the ignorant impatience of
By raising unnecessarily large sums by taxation the State tends not to develop but to prevent the natural processes under which money distributes itself more equally. By high taxes on such commodities of universal use as sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, and tobacco, we raise the prices of those commodities. But to raise the prices of commodities which all poor men use is in effect to reduce wages. Under a system of high taxes wages go less far than they would otherwise go. Sovereigns and shillings are, after all, only tickets for tea, tobacco, sugar, and so forth, and therefore to raise prices by
i.e. of a part of their purchasing power. A similar effect is produced by undue direct taxation, It is all very well to talk about taxing the millionaire and the rich man, and of so graduating your direct taxation that it shall fall only on the well-to-do. In truth, when you are apparently only hitting the well-to-do hard, you are really hitting the poor man still harder. The greater part of the money which you take from the rich man in Income-tax would, did you not take it, be spent in the employment of labour or in the accumulation of capital which would also go in the employment of labour. The capitalist employers whose incomes are reduced by high taxation are by so much the less able to compete against each other for the hiring of labour. Therefore in the most practical way high direct taxation of the rich tends to injure the poor. No doubt all taxation, high and low, is open to these objections; but that is not a reason for ignoring the fact, but for using taxation as sparingly as possible.
Money raised on commodities, as I have said, reduces the purchasing power of wages, and thereby reduces wages, while high direct taxation limits that competition of the wage-payers which is the wage-earners' opportunity. All taxation hits the poor in the end. No doubt I shall be told that there is a fallacy in my argument, and that money raised for social reform, if taken from the rich in
i.e. unproductive labour—involved in the process, and also that the return is constantly made to the wrong people. In other words, there is a very large class who are not in the possession of so-called superfluous wealth, and yet to whom no return is made. Under a system of high State expenditure and huge taxation the very poor and the very rich may for a time, and till the sources of wealth are finally dried up, manage to do well enough—one through their doles, the other through cheap labour and the lowering of wages which is always the result of such systems. But upon the intermediate class, including, of course, all the skilled artisans, an intolerable burden is laid. For them there is no give, but only plenty of take, until the burden of taxation has driven them into the ranks of the unemployed.
If working men would keep the two questions which form the title of this Letter in their minds they would find them extremely useful as tests by which to try proposals supposed to be made in their interests. They would very often find that the
Finally, I would ask the working men to remember that taxation is an evil, though a necessary evil no doubt. But though we cannot unfortunately do without necessary evils altogether, the sensible thing is to have as little of them as possible and not as much.—Yours sincerely,
Dear Mr.—,—,—The spectacle of the well-to-do in this country preaching thrift to the working man is often rather a ridiculous one, for unfortu nately the well-to-do classes in England are by no means inclined to practise in the concrete what they admire in the abstract. Taken as a whole, I am afraid the well-to-do are, considering their opportunities, quite as great sinners in the matter of saving as those with lesser incomes. At the same time, it is undoubtedly a fact that nothing is of greater advantage to the working man than the practice of thrift. Thrift will give him a strength, an independence, and a power of better ing his condition which nothing else will. If, then, I advocate thrift for the working man, it is not because I want him to ally himself with Capital, or, as it were, to give hostages to the present economic system, but because I am con vinced that through thrift and the possession of some measure of private property he will find one
I shall be told, no doubt, that it is impossible for working men to save, and that in suggesting more thrift I am simply indulging in one of the delusions of the well-to-do as to the working classes. My answer is that I shall continue in my belief as long as so many millions a year are spent by working men in the consumption of beer and spirits, and still more in betting and other "unnecessary" amusements. I say this, not because I take the total abstainer's point of view, for I do not, nor because I think the working man should be without his pleasures and amusements. I believe that thrift is to a great extent a matter of habit and of the successful organisation of life, and that the ordinary working man might indulge reasonably in tobacco and beer, and at the same time put by a little each year. As a proof of my assertion that a man may acquire the thrift habit without an abstinence from the pleasures of life, which clearly it would be unfair to expect from him, I would point to the fact that those workingclass families in which saving is the rule do not have such a very different standard of life and enjoyment from those in which no saving takes place. It is, as I have said, a matter of habit and method rather than any violent cutting off of all the amusements of life or the adoption of a cowardly niggardliness. Again, it is the experience of all those who know the working classes that families where thrift is practised are very
There is a story of a workman saying to his employer: "I am a braver man than you. I dare spend my last shilling and you daren't." The story is picturesque, but I cannot help feeling that if the British working man had a little less courage in this respect it would be infinitely better for himself and for the country. Such courage may suit the worst kind of capitalist, because it puts the working man very much at his mercy. It is by no means to be commended by those who desire the real welfare of the workers.
I know well that you will agree with me in all this; but you may perhaps be surprised that I have thought it necessary to bring in the question of thrift in dealing with the problems and perils of Socialism. I think, however, I can show you that I am not writing away from my subject. Some Socialists declare that thrift and saving on the part of the working man not only do no good, but are positive evils. For example, Mr. Quelch in his widely circulated lecture, "The Economics of Labour," takes up this position very strongly "Labour," he declares, "becomes poorer the more it abstains and the more it saves. Temperance,
Dear Mr.——,—Those who, though not Socialists, have Socialistic leanings often ask me whether I object to all national and municipal trading; whether, for instance, I hold that municipalities should not own their own tramways and gasworks, and whether, again, I consider that the State ought in no circumstances to own and run the railways, as is done in Prussia. Those who ask this question are, of course, using the device of the dilemma. If I say: "No, I do not think all municipal and national trading is to be condemned," then I am asked where I mean to draw the line. If the State can with advantage to the country run the Post Office and the railways, and the municipalities the tramways and the gasworks, and so forth, why should not the national and local Governments between them become the universal employers? In fact, it is sought to place one in the difficulty of either accepting Socialism wholesale or else of rejecting all State action.
Let me say at once that I have no intention of allowing myself to be impaled upon the horns of
I believe that if the facts are honestly examined, it will be found that it is almost impossible to discover any case in which the State or the municipality trades as economically and as efficiently as does the private individual. We are apt to boast about the Post Office, and no doubt it would be impossible to take away the monopoly of letter-carrying from the State and go back to private enterprise. Yet the State has not proved in any sense an ideal manager of the business of letter-carrying, and as regards both the telegraphs and the telephones a very strong case can be made out against State ownership. Again, public management of railways and tramways has by no means invariably proved an economic success. No doubt the example of the Prussian railways is often cited to show that a Government can beat private enterprise in this respect. I believe, however, that a great many traders and users of the railways in Prussia are anything but enamoured of public control, which is hard and unyielding to a degree which would be bitterly opposed and resented in this country.
In considering such questions as municipal trading and the nationalisation of railways we must not ignore the very great evils connected with direct employment by the State. You cannot without injustice disfranchise those who serve the
The difficulty I have just set forth has not as yet come within the region of practical politics, though I believe that at one time in Australia the workers on the Government railways were not allowed to vote in ordinary elections, but were given a certain number of representatives of their own. But though the danger has not yet assumed great proportions, there are indications, both in the municipalities and in the nation at large, that we are beginning to feel the pressure of the Government employees. It seems, for example, very doubtful whether the addition of over half a million to the wages of the Post Office employees made this year The increase will in the course of a year or two reach a million.
There is yet another objection to State and municipal trading which I, at any rate, am old-fashioned enough to think very important. It seems to me extremely unjust that the State or the municipality, who are able to rely upon the wellnigh inexhaustible resources of taxation, should compete with private individuals. Yet this is what is bound to happen when public authorities take to trading. The last objection which I desire to put may seem a sentimental one, but I believe it to be very real. If the State absorbs an enormous amount of the wealth of the community, then the individuals who compose the community will have less of it for themselves. To my mind, "the enjoyment of property" is a phrase which represents a positive truth. But there is no enjoyment of property when it is lodged in the "dead hand" of the State. Property to be really enjoyed must belong to an individual. Therefore I say, let us keep as much property as we can out of the "dead hand," and let as much as possible remain to be enjoyed by the individual. Let the State defend us from foreign enemies, and maintain law and order, and do, indeed, for us whatever it can be proved cannot be done as well or better by private enterprise. When, however, no such case can be made out for State interference, let us say to the State: "Hands off." We want to be, not as much, but as little, under Government as we can. At any rate, that is my view of the matter.—Yours very sincerely,
When Spain, Sicily, and Africa were pouring in their tributes of corn or money to the exchequer of the Republic, it was not an unnatural suggestion that the wealth thus acquired might fairly be expended in easing the material condition of the Roman citizens, of the men on whom had fallen the heaviest weight of all the blows, from Regillus to Cannae, by which the Roman State had been fashioned into greatness. Not an unnatural thought; and yet if the remembrance of the scourged veteran in the Forum, and of the cruel wrongs of the early plebeians, had anything to do with ripening it into action, we have here an instance of that strange Nemesis of unrighteousness which sometimes leads statesmen in the very excess of their penitence for an injustice in the past to prepare a new and greater injustice for the future.Dear Mr.——,—In my opinion, the great danger before us is the destruction of the spirit of the people. The risk we are running is that our nation may fall through the weakening of the national fibre owing to the well-meant but illplanned schemes of the Socialists. Let no one suppose that this is all matter of theory, and that there is no possibility of proof. Here, if anywhere, history can help us. We know from history that what has tamed great nations in the past has often been the enervating State action which it is the aim and object of the Socialist Party to impose on this country. I can give on the present occasion only one instance; but it is enough. The more the history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is studied, the more clear does it become that it was not the armies of the barbarians which destroyed that Empire Rome fell because "her heart was stone," and her heart had become petrified because her people had been ruined and pauperised by the insidious action
Italy and her Invaders. The pauperising legislation of Rome first wore the insidious form of a gentle intervention to lower the price of corn:—
Dr. Hodgkin goes on to refer to the legislation under which the Romans became in Rome a pauper people. He tells us of the enormous doles of corn and other means of subsistence that were given to the poorer Romans, until at last they became the pensioners of the State. While that disease was eating into the vitals of the humbler classes, another was attacking the middle class. Dr. Hodgkin points out that although Aurelian's bounties and rations might have made
Dr. Hodgkin ends with a passage of lofty eloquence coupled with a rare political insight:—
Of all the forces which were at work for the destruction of the Roman world none is more deserving of the careful study of an English statesman than the grain largesses to the populace of Rome. Whatever occasional ebbings there may be in the current, there can be little doubt that the tide of affairs in England and in all the countries of Western Europe, as well as in the United States of America, sets permanently towards democracy. Will the great democracies of the twentieth century resist the temptation to use political power as a means of material self-enrichment? With a higher ideal of public duty than has been shown by some of the governing classes which preceded them, will they refrain from jobbing the commonwealth? Warned by the experience of Rome, will they shrink from reproducing, directly or indirectly,
I cannot find a better end for these letters than those moving words. But, believe me, I quote them here, not for their historic learning nor for their literary excellence, but because they have a message for each one of us. If we are to avoid the fate that overtook Imperial Rome, we must avoid not merely the crimes, but the well-meaning blunders in philanthropy that sealed her fate. We must not destroy but build up the strength of the nation; and the strength of the nation is the strength of the spirit of the individuals who compose it. But the pauper, the pensioner, the serf of the State, no matter under what pleasant aliases you gild their position, are never strong in spirit. That is a gift which belongs alone to those who possess the priceless treasure of independence, who know how to make their own living, and who,
In the "Letter to a Working Man" dealing with the national workshops of "C'est-à-dire que M. Louis Blanc aurait voulu des ateliers nationaux autrement organisés. Reste à savoir comment il serait parvenu à classer les 115 ou 120 mille hommes que nous avons vus errer autour de la capitale. Nous ne pensons pas que M. Louis Blanc puisse se soustraire à une grande part de responsabilité, pour le fait des ateliers nationaux. Si ses collégues sont entrés dans cette voie, c'était en vertu de théories générates à la vulgarisation desquelles il a contribué plus que tout autre."A Correspondent of the Spectator having declared that the failure of the national workshops in Paris in ateliers nationaux, seems to indicate that he had not seen the "Letter to a Working Man," and was only writing on hearsay as to its contents. As to the allegation that Louis Blanc was betrayed by the Provisional Government, the point is one very difficult to disprove; but we are bound to say that the fact that Louis Blanc asserted this when the experiment was obviously proving a failure, and after it had proved a failure, by no means establishes its accuracy. Though
History of the Second Republic (Plon-Nourrit et Cie., Le Droit au Travail a l'Assemblée Nationale (Guillauman et Cie., Socialisms, Droit au Travail (after the event, repudiated the workshops as not carried out according to his theory. M. Joseph Garnier, the editor of the work in question, makes the following significant comment on Louis Blanc's declaration that the Socialists had no responsibility for the national workshops because of the manner in which they were organised and worked:—
The above passage shows what Louis Blanc's contemporaries thought of the excuse when it was first raised—i.e. at a time when all the facts were fresh in men's minds.
In a word, we do not believe the treason and betrayal story. That it was found impossible to organise workshops according to Louis Blanc's abstract theories is, we have little doubt, quite true. Those theories were in effect absolutely impracticable and could not be carried out. But that is the case of the antiSocialists against Socialism, and cannot be used as an argument in favour of Socialism. That the Provisional Government tried to make the ateliers nationaux succeed is, we think, certain. They were too much afraid of the mob to do anything else. But if the Socialists reject all responsibility for their failure, then we say again that they cannot possibly reject Louis Blanc's failure at the Hôtel Clichy.
Prtnted by R. & R. Clarr, Limited, Edinburgh.
The Auckland Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers, in issuing the proceedings before the Special Board of Conciliators in the Auckland Tramways Dispute, in book form, offer no apology for this publication. The public have a right to know, but do not know, the whole of the facts that led up to the second Auckland Electric Tramways Strike.
The first Tramway Strike occurred on
The Union exhausted all constitutional means of endeavouring to get their grievances remedied, even to the extent of laying the grievances relative to the summary dismissals of the men before the Hons. J. A. Millar and J. McGowan, Ministers for Labour and Justice respectively, in correspondence extending over a period of five months, but could get no redress. The summary dismissal of Conductor Herdson, on
No official answer to this ultimatum was received by the Union from Mr. Walklate, and accordingly at noon precisely on May 21st the men left their cars as they arrived at the Queen Street terminus. They were at once taken over by the officers of the Company, and sufficient steam was kept up at the Power House for two hours, to allow of the cars being
It has been decided by the Union that, in consequence of the meagre publication of the evidence by the daily Press, the general public can only express an opinion as to the justice of the finding of the Special Board by having the whole of the evidence taken at the inquiry placed before it. Many strictures have been cast upon the finding, but the Union has no hesitation in saying that these strictures are from biassed sources, and from persons who have not heard the whole case, but are content to obtain their opinions "ready made." The general public are earnestly urged to read the matter contained in this little publication, and then they will have no difficulty in arriving at a fair and honest conclusion as to whether the Union has proved its charges.
We, the undersigned representatives of the Auckland Electric Tramways Company and the Auckland Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers, do hereby agree to the following settlement of our Trade Dispute of this date, viz.:—
Report of Proceedings taken before a Special Board of Conciliators, consisting of Dr. McArthur, S. M. (Chairman), and Messrs. P. M. Hansen, E. H. Morris, George Sherry and Henry Carter, held at The Arbitration Court, Supreme Court Buildings, Auckland, on Wednesday,
Clerk of Awards read application referring dispute to Special Board, particulars of dispute, and agreement made
Dr. McArthur said:
As this is the first occasion, I believe, in which a Board of this description has been set up, it will be well for me to say a few words on the Board itself, and on the purpose for which we have met together.
Before doing so, I would like to inform you the members of the Board have been properly sworn by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), so that formality has been gone through.
With reference to formalities, I wish it to be understood that no want of formality shall upset any procedure whatever.
With reference to the evidence, we are not bound by any fast or legal rules of any Court, even the Arbitration Court is, because it says we shall take such evidence as we think fit, and Section 54 gives us the same power; it is wider, it does not only bind us by equity and good conscience, but to take such evidence as we desire, and that we think necessary in the matter.
As you well know. Gentlemen, on both sides there has been differences. The first thing I would like to draw attention to is the Agreement entered into on May 25th, which was read over by the Clerk of Awards just now. I should like to draw attention to the first four lines: "We, the undersigned representatives of the Auckland Electric "Tramways Company, and the Auckland Electric Tramways Industrial "Union of Workers, do hereby agree to the following settlement of our "Trade Dispute of this date."
That, I take it, will have an important bearing on what has to be settled, on that date. We must have some indication of what that dispute is to be.
The next point is in Section 1, is that the Board is set up; that we admit; and in Section 2, it shall sit when duly appointed, and take the evidence brought forward by either side.
Now, in paragraph 3, which binds me more than anything else, it Hays: "There shall be no appeal made against the decision of the said "Board, but its recommendations shall be accepted as a final settlement."
Taking that, and the introductory clause, I take it that these two clauses refer to whatever has been the matter of dispute. I refer to Mr. Rosser's letter of May 2lst. (Letter read.) I take these words to be the binding words. "Unless the resolution," etc. (Read.)
I rely on the Agreement and also the letter of Mr. Rosser, in which he says these Resolutions form the demands of the Union, and I take it that these Resolutions embody the subject matter of the trade dispute as on May 25th.
Now, on looking at these Resolutions, of course we know that Clauses 7 and 8 of Particulars of Dispute are not included there.
With reference to Clause 8, I should like to read you a telegram which I, at the instigation of the Board, sent to the Secretary of Labour yesterday with reference to two points: First, as to the amended particulars, and, second, as to whether anything intended to be done by the Government with reference to an inquiry as to the efficiency of the brakes.
The Secretary, in reply, rather missed the point as to the amended particulars. The object of the telegram was to clear this, and as to any precedent for an amended application in producing fresh matter.
He tells us something. He says: (telegram read).
Now, you will see he has missed the point altogether, because we have something more than he talks about here. We have a finality to reach, and that finality must be on these points that were agreed to by the parties themselves, and I take it that is on the first six clauses.
With reference to Clauses 7 and 8, I take it we cannot come to a final decision, that is, a decision which this Board can bind both parties to, unless both parties agree. We can do this, as the Arbitration Court does; we can make a memorandum and make our recommendations there; but with reference to Clauses 7 and 8, that is all the length that I can see we can go at present.
With reference to Clause 8, the last part of this telegram relieves both sides, I think, considerably (reading). I shall corroborate that to-day by sending a wire to the Minister for Public Works, to get that direct from himself. I have no doubt whatever as to the correctness of Mr. Tregear's telegram, but in this connection I think we should have something definite from the Minister himself. We have accordingly agreed to wire him to-day and probably some time in the afternoon or to-morrow morning we shall have a definite answer as to that, and that may influence both sides as to what you wish to do with reference to the evidence on these questions. Also, there is one other word I have to say about these Clauses 7 and 8. I find they are virtually recommendations which were made by memorandum on June 7th in the Arbitration Court, which fixes the Award to begin on
Now that I have mentioned that, evidence will be taken, reading of that telegram may simplify that evidence, hut when we get
As to the method of taking evidence here, some of you are more conversant with the proceedings of the Arbitration Court than I am. This is what I purport to do. That the Union begins with the opening, by its representative, that the calls his evidence, and that his first witness will be a pattern to the others; he will examine in chief, getting from him the evidence he wishes to get; then the witness is then subject to a cross-examination by the other parties. In the cross-examination I want it to be clearly understood that this cross-examination is not confined to trying to break down the evidence of the witness, because it may be to the advantage of the person presenting that witness to only ask him certain questions. The cross-examination may ask fresh matter. Then the Examiner-in-Chief may re-examine the witness with reference to the fresh matter which has been brought in by the cross-examination. He is not to introduce fresh matter himself, but if he has omitted anything, and asks permission to further examine, he will decidedly get it. When the witness is done it is at the discretion of any member of the Board to ask any questions he may like on the matter, so as to make it clear to himself or to elucidate the matter in any way.
I trust and hope and believe that the parties will act in a friendly manner.
This is an inquiry that the public are concerned in, the public convenience must be looked to, also the convenience of the Company and the Motormen; therefore, we have decided not to hold long meetings, as we are to give each side a copy of the proceedings early the next morning and we shall sit from 10 to 12 and from 2 to 4 each day, and not on Saturdays at all. We think that will meet the convenience of the public, of the men. and of the Company.
Mr. A. Rosser:
I wish to ask first of all, whether the other side will admit that the case is properly before the Board, because, as you have rightly stated, this is the first case on record under the Arbitration Act in New Zealand. There have been other Boards of Conciliators appointed. Their duties have been to bring forward expert knowledge, and the special conditions under an Award, that should be binding on both parties. The Slaughtermen's is a case in point.
His Worship:
Should there be such a case, I shall waive it at once.
Mr. A. Rosser:
The Slaughtermen's case was the first under special clauses. This ease, however, is the first case on record in which a strike has been terminated peacefully by mutual agreement to refer the matters in dispute to a properly-constituted Board under Clauses 51 and 52. I am in this difficulty, that those clauses are to be taken in conjunction with other clauses of the "Industrial and Conciliation Arbitration Act,
Will the other side admit that the Union is properly registered, and also that the case is properly before the Board?
Mr. Walklate:
We are here, as I understand, before the Conciliation Board, who will endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory decision on the dispute we had on the 21st of May last. So far as that goes, we do not propose to raise any objection, but I must strongly object to Clauses 7 and 8, and we respectfully protest against any evidence being heard on those two points.
Mr. A. Rosser:
With regard to the formalities in the matter, that means the formalities have been complied with. I wired to Wellington, and received a reply that confirms what Your Worship has mentioned this morning, and in view of a public inquiry being held as to the brakes.
His Worship:
The point we want is, Will Mr. Walklate waive the formalities? We will take that first.
Mr. Walklate:
We will raise no objection to the formalities at all, with the exception of Clauses 7 and 8. We object to these being dealt with in any way. With regard to the dispute, we are prepared to go on with that, an raise no question as to procedure or anything else.
Mr. A. Rosser:
Now, with regard to Clauses 7 and 8, I would object, on behalf the Union, to the matter being considered in the light of the information that has come to hand yesterday and to-day, because the readily see that if the evidence is drawn out, and the Board find they have no power to make an Award binding, and can only make a recommendation, that recommendation would not he worth the paper it was printed on.
His Worship:
It would simply amount to an expression of opinion of the majority of the Board.
Mr. A. Rosser:
It would prejudice fresh proceedings before an inquiry. It would weaken our position.
His Worship:
Are you prepared, then, to drop all reference whatever to Clauses 7 and 8 in the evidence?
Mr. A. Rosser:
I am prepared not to go on with Clauses 7 and 8, but it must necessarily follow reference will be made to them, but the Heard need not make any Award on those two clauses; that will be the simplest way out of it. Clause 8 is a recommendation from the present Court. They have not obeyed it; it has never been carried out; and, to quote Scripture, "If they obey not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe, "though one rose from the dead." I want to point out this: If, as we contend, the recommendations of the highest Court in the land are not carried out then the recommendations even of this Board may not be binding upon them. That is the point. I think it would be of no use to put the Board to the trouble of hearing evidence that there would not be a chance of being carried into effect if placed in the form of a recommendation.
His Worship:
Then it will bring the matter down to these six clauses.
Mr. A. Rosser:
My friend may object to certain evidence coming forward, but the evidence is so interwoven with the other part. I will do my best to disintegrate the matter.
His Worship:
We cannot take evidence down as you can in a Court of Law. (Clause 54, Subsection A. read.) Now, it is inconceivable that each one of these separate sections should be so separated as the fingers on each hand; they must touch or overlap somehow; but I think with that explanation we may leave them out.
Mr. A. Rosser:
I ask permission to withdraw Clauses 7 and 8.
His Worship:
Clauses 7 and 8 are withdrawn accordingly.
Mr. A. Rosser:
That is without prejudice, of course. We withdraw our evidence and hold it over for another inquiry, if necessary.
I may say that, although there is rather a formidable list of witnesses handed into the Clerk of Awards, that it will be considerably lessened now by these clauses being withdrawn from the scope of this inquiry. I have subpænaed eight or ten witnesses for to-day, because, as you have rightly pointed out, there is the convenience of several to be studied in this inquiry. In the first place, the service has to be maintained, and men will be here this afternoon that will be off shift. It would be putting the Company to trouble and putting the men out also; therefore. I have summoned about ten witnesses for to-day, and
His Worship:
if at any time either party finds they have omitted anything in evidence, or they wish to recall evidence, that is always permissible.
Mr. A. Rosser:
In this case, gentlemen, I may say the Union appreciate the seriousness of the situation, and, although in opening cases before the Arbitration Court it has not been my practice to enlarge too much on the points, yet, seeing that the four members on the Board are thoroughly conversant with every phase of the question, perhaps I will explain the matter so that Your Worship may have a clearer idea as to what the meaning of this clause is. I desire to state that the Tramway Strike was not a strike against the Act. It has been represented that the Art has been set at defiance, but in this case it is not against the Act, neither is it against the provisions of the Award, that the Union took that step on May 21st, but it was against matters outside the scope of the Act, and not provided for in the Award. Had it been a question of wages, it would have been a deadly blow at the Award, but we have not struck for wages or as to working hours. It is against regulations that have been formulated and decisions that have been carried into effect by the Company itself. The Strike was a measure of self-preservation, and, as Your Worship has mentioned, we are to take into consideration, not only the actual particulars, as formulated on this 21st day of May, but on previous days, and this has not been a sudden outburst.
I would take the Board back to last November, when the first bit of irritation occurred in connection with the dismissal of Conductor Holden, and that is necessary, because we have stated that we had only struck after exhausting all constitutional means. I wish to place that before the Court; it is not a case of a spoilt child, who strikes off at a tangent and does something he regrets afterwards. But a case carefully thought out, and a well-advised action, so far as we are concerned. Conductor Holden was in the service of the Tramway Company. In October last there was a fatal accident in Ponsonby Road, a man run over and killed, Mr. Ben Paul. Mr. Gresham, the Coroner, conducted an inquiry that, and, hearing that Holden had expressed an opinion about the brakes, he was subpænaed by the Coroner to attend to give evident. Holden appeared, as he was bound to do and gave evidence, and the nature of his evidence was to the effect that he had known a case where the brakes refused to act. The verdict of that inquiry was that the deceased came to his death by being run over by a tram car, the verdict reflected on the efficiency of the brakes. That is the verdict, and a rider was added to the effect that there should be life-saving apparatus and cradle attached to the cars. It was also suggested that the Government should be asked to appoint an Inspector to examine rolling stock of the A.E.T. Co. Holden was told there was no run for him; at any rate, he was dismissed, no cause being given. Now, I propose call Holden as the first witness. Then came other events, such as the dismissal of James Brown, who is here this morning. The reason assigned was that he was unsuitable, and also that the Company were shortening the spare list. Cate was another case. I am him, as he is 75 miles from Wairoa, in the Hawke's Bay District.
Schwarz another man. I have his affidavit, taken before me as a J.P., never dreaming it would come up again. He is now in Brisbane. He was told he was unsuitable. Another man, Parlatto, was accused of going into an hotel while in uniform and on duty. The Rules properly provide against such a contingency as that. Hut the man had two witnesses that he was taken ill, and two passengers took him into the hotel for a port wine and brandy. He had asked to be relieved, but could not get leave. I don't say they were not justified in calling him to account for it and perhaps dismissing him, but the man had no opportunity of bringing forward evidence on his behalf.
Then follows a man named Veart, who for a bump—no damage being done—was disrated as a Motorman. That oar bad been reported on by seventeen Motormen as having defective brakes. We content that Veart should not suffer this disgrace, and he went out of the service. We now come to Holden, who was dismissed without reason being given at all—i.e., insufficient reason—and the Award states that "a week's "notice shall be given on either side, providing that this shall not prevent "the Company from discharging a man for good cause." If the cause is shown, we have nothing to say, but in his case that has never been done, and this matter has brought about discontent and irritation in the service. I want to point out that the case of Holden was referred to the Minister for Justice, and the reply I got was that the matter had been referred to the Minister for Labour, to see whether a broach of the Award had been committed, and there the matter hung fire for a while. (Letter from Mr. McGowan and Mr. Miller read.) Now, that went on until March this year: the first letters were in November, and it was found that inasmuch as I had, to use a colloquial term, "barracked" for a week's wages to be given to Holden, that that had put the Company outside of any prosecution for breach of Award. That is a matter for argument at a future time. The latter clause of that letter was written because I quoted that our Act with regard to protection of witnesses, was lamentably deficient in Now Zealand, and that the British Act is far ahead of ours. That provides that a witness can be protected, not only at the time he has given evidence, but afterwards. Our New Zealand Act only provides he shall be protected up to the time when he gives evidence. Steps are now being taken to put our Act on similar lines to the British Act. Therefore I think I have clearly shown to the Board that we tried every constitutional moans of bringing about some amelioration of the conditions of the men before we took the decisive step on the 2lst of May last. To come back now to Mr. Hordson, who was dismissed, he was not given a week's notice: he was a regular man, and entitled to notice, and we never asked for the week's wages in lieu thereof.
The Strike was one of self-preservation; that is inherent in brute beasts: but it is not surprising to find that it also exists in tram employees; it is only human nature to protect one's self as a last resource. That is the reason the Strike took place.
I may say with regard to the remarks made by Your Worship in the opening address, that the Agreement was drawn up in a stress of excitement. It was drawn up by Mr. Tregear and myself, and while it was being done the service was hung up: therefore it does not include everything that it should have included, because it was done in a hurry. It was sufficient for us to know the men had agreed to go back to work, and
With reference to other events, I am justified in showing that there were other matters which are contributing causes. For instance, if a person is sued for an offence, and it can be shown that he is guilty of contributory negligence, that affects the result and the verdict. I submit that, even including Clauses 7 and 8, that we were justified in bringing them in as contributory causes to the irritation existing amongst the employees of the Company.
His Worship:
If you show in the course of hearing contributory negligence by the other party, that throws the onus on the other side to show there was none.
Mr. A. Rosser:
We are not pursuing that point any further, but it would have rested with the Company to have shown that they had carried out the recommendations of the Court.
His Worship:
Take the case of an ordinary motor accident. The motor ran into a horse one early morning in the dark. The defence of the motor people was that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, inasmuch as he was on the wrong side of the road round the corner. That there the onus on him of showing that he was on the right side, or if on the wrong side, he could not get on the right side until he was round the corner.
Mr. A. Rosser:
It was notified in the Press that the Company had decided to appoint Mr. Hansen and Mr. Morris to seats on this Board, and it had not been formally carried out. I therefore sent this letter to the General Manager, on May 20th. (Letter read.) So that I realise that perhaps this is another precedent, in which the status even of a Judge may be temporarily asked to be set aside, because there are certain charges him. You will see the peculiar position I am placed in. I informed Mr. Walklate of it, and he sent me a reply, that he saw no reason to the appointments, and the names were sent in formally to the Awards. Now, evidence may be brought forward that will even one of the members of the Board. I mention that because I wish to give respect to the Board, and I do not wish to be accused of disrespect or keeping things back and bringing them up afterwards. I have that Conductor Herdson asked to be reinstated, or given a reason for his dismissal. The General Manager had given a guarantee that in future any employee who was dismissed given a valid reason for his dismissal. Now, Mr. Hansen agreed to on November 14th, that a man should be given a valid reason for his dismissal, and given a chance also to produce witnesses. That was one of the contributory causes in settling that first Strike that the Conductor should be reinstated, and given a That was Beaston. Then the other matter was that the men who went out on strike should not be prosecuted. That was kept by Mr. Hansen, and it is only due to Mr. Hansen to say that he kept his part of that Agreement faithfully. He was in a position as Manager for several
With reference to Clause 8 (Clause read), the Traffic Manager is Mr. Lysaght, and here I consider that, however good Mr. Walklate is, he cannot pursue the right path unless he has good advisers, and we will call evidence to show that Mr. Lysaght has always been a bone of discontent among the men. It is a serious thing to say, but I say it seriously and advisedly, and we shall have evidence to show that Mr. Lysaght, who has the greatest communication with the men has not acted rightly, as in many cases a man has not had a chance of seeing the report put in against him. In Beaston's dismissal the report made was added to, and I ask the Board to call for the production of that document. It was read by me. Mr. Hansen gave it to me on
Clause 4 read. We can practically dismiss that clause from our minds, because Mr. Walklate agreed to it at the time the meetings were being held. The Press reports have it clearly; he said, "1 can give you "my word for that; I have no time for anybody, and no time for a liar." Somebody said. "Why have you got time for Lysaght, then?" I take it, this will not take a great deal of discussion, because the Manager practically agreed to it.
The crux of the question is in Number 5. (Read.) With regard to this, I may say that we have evidence of questionable methods that have been pursued during the last eleven months, and also for many years past, and we propose to show by this evidence that Mr. Lysaght is at the root of the whole matter. We don't hold, like some people, that the men objected to having supervision. We realise that in a service like this the men must be supervised, to see that they are carrying out their duties, but we do say that a man detected in a fault should be told of it, and not told four or five days afterwards about it, and he to lose his run and his wages of 7 or 8 shillings, and perhaps, having gone down to the office, to find the matter is a trifling one. This is the root of a great deal of irritation. The rules and regulations of the Company are fearfully and wonderfully made. It is impossible for an Arch-angel to-work with this Company and not run foul of one or more of the regulations. Take, for instance, one, that the Conductor must remain on the back platform, so as to keep an eye on intending passengers at every stop. In a crowded car of 66 passengers he has to rush back to the
With regard to Clause 6. (Clause read.) That clause we consider is part and parcel of the settlement of the Strike; that is, the agreement to go to go back to work amicably and study the public convenience, and submit the matters to the Board. Your Worship mentioned that there was an amended form put in by the Union; the wrong form was attached to the citation, which left out Clause 6. I mention this to show that it was a clear omission. In the first Strike of
His Worship:
That just brings us to the psychological moment—that is, 12 o'clock. We will meet again at two, and you will then call your first witness.
(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)
(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)
Court ordered all Witnesses to retire.
Mr. A. Rosser:
There are two witnesses assisting me in the case. I presume they can remain.
Mr. Walklate:
I have no objection to that.
Alfred Nicholas Holden, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Alfred Nicholas Holden. I am a carter, in the employ of A. B. Wright and Sons. I was formerly a Conductor in the employ of the A.E.T. Co. for over four years prior to my dismissal. I was dismissed about six months ago, November last, I think. I had a good record with the Company, and there was nothing standing against me prior to my dismissal. The merit and demerit system was in vogue then for over twelve months. There was a competition each quarter, and one pound was given to the man with the best record. There were so many points for any good act and so many taken off for any fault. I stood very near the top twice. I remember October 16th last, when Mr. Paul was killed in Ponsonby Road. An inquest was held. I was subpoænaed to appear as witness; it was signed by Mr. T. Gresham (Coroner), and I was commanded to give evidence as to the brakes. Mr. Lundon appeared for the relatives. I was duly sworn. My evidence did not approve of the brakes. I went next morning, the 6th, for my run. I was a regular Conductor, always on the one run, and had been so for some time. I saw Mr. Morris, who was officer in charge of the Ponsonby Depot, and was told I was to report myself to Mr. Lysaght at the Head Office. I went at 6.30 for my run, and was told to report at 10. I asked him the reason why I could not get my run, and he told me I was suspended until there was an inquiry, and I would have to see the Manager. They gave me no reasons. I waited about the office for over five hours. It was close on 6 when I went home, tired of waiting. I reported again next morning for the run and was refused. I then interviewed Mr. Rosser to see if he could make inquiries into the matter. I saw Mr. Lysaght again, and he told me my services were not further required. 1 asked if 1 could see the Manager, and was told he was engaged, Mr. Rosser and I then saw Mr. Lysaght in the outer office, and when Mr. Rosser asked why I was dismissed no answer was given. My wages had to be demanded from the Company, and the Award of the Arbitration Court was read out to him, and he said he would see the Manager. Eventually a week's wages were paid. I remember Mr. Walklate coming out to the flap of the counter. Mr. Rosser pointed out the seriousness of the situation, and told him that he would make the matter public through the Press. Mr. Walklate said "he did not care "what the public thought." I went to the "Herald" and gave my statement, but it was not published. (Extract from "Herald" read by Mr. Rosser.) 1 remember that appearing. I was out of work a fortnight. Mr. Walklate said he did not give references. I produced references when I went to the Company, and was accepted on those references. I applied to a big warehouse for work, and was asked for a reference from my last employer. I said I had none, but had just left the Tram service. I was not successful. I asked Mr. Kidd for a reference when I handed in my uniform and book. He is an officer of the Company. About a fortnight afterwards I went to work in Mr. Craig's stable, and got a job driving. I have been carting ever since. I consider it very hard to be dismissed without a reference. I thought there was nothing against me, except what I said at the inquest. I often thought I was harassed by the Inspectors, but I did my work to the best of my ability. I was reported once for talking to a Motorman, which is a broach of the regulations. It was in Symonds Street, near the Bridge. Mr. Morris was under the verandah opposite. I got an envelope, and was requested to send in an explanation. That is known as a "Please explain." I saw
By Mr. Carter:
The Inspector got on the ear at the penny section; the lady came from Queen Street. I went to the office and saw Mr. Lysaght and the report, and the lady's name was not in it. He told me what Inspector reported me for.
By Mr. Hansen:
Mr. Lysaght knew I was waiting outside the office during those hours. There was nobody else near the office but me during that time I was not a yard or so away from the door.
By Mr. Rosser:
I reported myself to Mr. Lysaght two or three times that day, but was told Mr. Walklate was not in. Mr. Lysaght passed me a dozen times. I was suspended. I was not to resume work unless I got orders to do so. The demerit system was not in force at that time.
James Mills, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is James Mills. I am a Switchman in the employ of the Company. I have been with them ever since the Company started over seventeen years altogether. I was a driver on the old horse-cars, and also at other occupations. I went on as a Motorman when the electric traction started, and previous to that I was stable foreman at Onehunga. I have been a Switchman about twelve months, and before Motorman on the Ponsonby route. Previous to the
Cross-examined by Mr. Walklate:
I was put on as Switchman because I applied for the position of Despatcher. I made no report against my Conductor Beaston; it was an application. I think the report was as follows: "I hereby ask for a "change of Conductors, on account of not being able to agree with "Thomas Beaston on personal matters." That was the second application. The first application was applying for W. R. Spence as a Conductor. There were two separate statements. (Report handed to witness.) That is mine. I think it was the first one I sent; it is dated 25th of October it may be the second one; I am not quite sure. This request that Conductor Spence be put on, and also a request for a change from Beaston. Mr. Jysaght said I must give a reason. I said the report was added to. (Report put in evidence.) There is no sign of any addition to that report. In
By Mr. Hansen:
When I was Foreman of the Onehunga Stables it was temporary promotion. Mr. Lysaght did not work against me in securing that.
By His Worship:
I am quite certain there were two applications; this may have been the second, but the first was never handed back to me.
Mr. Walklate:
We have no record of any other application.
Re-Examined by Mr. Rosser:
I am absolutely certain I sent two applications. I demurred to Mr. Lysaght asking; for a second, as I thought it unusual. I heard what you read out at the meeting, and I denied it. The report you read was not mine.
By Mr. Hansen:
The first report merely contained my application for Spence. I don't know why any report should have been altered. I understood the report read was one said to be written by me against Conductor Beaston. Although I asked for an explanation it was never given to me.
Thomas Beaston, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Thomas Beaston. I am a shop assistant, and was formerly in the employ of the Company as a Conductor; I was also a member of the Union. I was appointed for a Delegate for the Trades and Labour Council to represent the Union about
By Mr. Carter:
At the time I supposed to write obscene expressions on the glass I was actively engaged in Christian work in tin's city.
By Mr. Hansen:
I state distinctly that I never discussed, whilst on duty. Trade and Labour questions with passengers.
By Mr. Morris:
The men took my case up they thought I had been treated unfairly and unjustly, and they thought it their duty to take it up. The Company refused to hear my case, and that was really the cause of the Strike. My dismissal was due to the official who had charge of the Conductors, or it may have been the officer in charge of the Ponsonby Depot. I was dismissed by Mr. Lysaght. He treated me well until the latter part of my time, when I applied for a holiday to go to Australia on private and important business. He said he could not give me leave, and I said I should have to leave. The officials of the Company were aware that I would be forced to leave, and in spite of that, they tried to take my character away, so as to be able to say they dismissed me. I think Mr. Lysaght should have seen that I had a fair hearing:
By His Worship:
I knew nothing of this writing at the time. I saw Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Carey both together, and the latter read the charge out to me from paper, as to using and writing obscene language. It was a report made by Mr. Kidd. I said it was the first I had heard of it and I am quite innocent. There was no evidence brought to support the charge. I reported myself to Mr. Hansen, who said I was to come down next morning. I then saw Mr. Lysaght, who said the Company would not require my services any longer, and they would give me wages in lieu of a week's notice. I ultimately got a reference from Mr. Hansen after the Strike; it was a condition of the Strike.
By Mr. Morris:
Mr. Lysaght never reported me that I know of.
By Mr. Rosser:
At the time of these negotiations the room was packed; there would be over 100 men there. I remember Mills asking for his report to be read. I think you read a report before that. Mills was excited about something being added. I remember that. You read the addition, too. Mills came in after and asked for it to be read again.
Peter McElwain, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Peter McElwain I am an Inspector in the Tram Company's service. I have been in the service about ten years, as Inspector most of the time. I am the Senior Inspector by length of service, but there is no difference in my pay. I was on the horse-cars for about live years. I have been associated with Mr. Lysaght for about 11 years. I remember the "round robin;" I took it round; I got some signatures. I might have been turned off a verandah, but I don't remember who drew it up. Mr. Lysaght was my superior officer, and he asked me to take it round; it was my duty to do as I was told, He told me it came from the Company. Poor Heaney is dead now. He was not a loyal man to
Thomas Algar Johnstone duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Thomas Algar Johnstone. I am an Inspector in the employ of the Company. I have been with the electric ears since they started, in
By Mr. Hansen:
I was instructed by Mr. Lysaght. I was not told to go behind logs, or anything of that kind. I used my own discretion in the matter that I would not be observed.
By Mr. Carter:
I know if I had to check the time-table that it would not do for the men to see me.
Mr. Walklate:
We don't dispute this at all; I take the responsibility of checking the time-tables; it is a necessity. There is only one method to find by some means what time is kept. It could not be done if the Inspector stood by.
By Mr. Rosser:
I have acted as Despatcher at times. It was then my duty to cheek the time at the Queen Street end; but there is no one to check them the far ends. If the men stay three or four minutes at the terminus longer than they should they have to drive the cars at a greater speed
James Brown, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is James Brown. I was formerly a Conductor in Melbourne, and also in the employ of the Auckland Tram Co. I was three years in the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. Roth cable and horse traction. I left on my own accords and got a good reference. I have one here. (Reference produced and read.)
I produced that reference and another one when I made application to the Auckland Tram Co. I filled in and signed an application form. The form produced is similar to the one I filled in. I started for the Company at the end of September or the beginning of October. There were 23 on the spare list at that time, so far as Conductors were concerned. I reported twice a day at 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. I got nearly to the top of the list, but not into the position of the regular wage of two guineas a week. Just after the new year I was told by Mr. Morris to go and see Mr. Lysaght; it was the 4th or 6th of January; I was told my services were not further required. I went to see you, and we went down to the office and saw Mr. Walklate, who said I was unsuitable. I asked what was the moaning of that. I had to show the reference that I was a capable Conductor, and had had three years' experience in Melbourne. I reckon that a Conductor in Melbourne has a harder task than one in Auckland, I do not drink or smoke. I was surprised to hear that I was unsuitable. I did not use bad language to passengers. Mr. Walklate qualified his reason by saying they were shortening the spare list. I don't think they were, as far as I know. There were several who went on that list afterwards, and it showed they were doing just the opposite. I told him it was unfair a man should be dismissed directly after the Christmas holidays, and he said he had to study the Company's interests, not the men's. You then told him you would advertise the conditions under which employment was to be given to spare men, and he said he was very pleased you should take the matter in hand.
I think I should have a reference from the Tram Co. or have satisfaction. I did not get either. I went to the Grand Hotel at Rotorua as cook. I got a good reference, but I haven't got it with me.
By Mr. Walklate:
You told me the Company was shortening hands. I asked you what was meant by the word "unsuitable." You withdrew that remark and said you were shortening hands.
Mr. Walklate:
I never told you that.
Witness:
I was in your service about three months; I was still on the spare list: and as such the Company were under no obligations to give me any notice whatever.
Mr. Rosser:
The award says it does not apply to the spare list; I admit that.
Witness:
I am nothing at present.
(Court adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday,
(Court resumed Thursday, 9th July, at 10 a.m.)
His Worship:
Just before calling witnesses, I wish to say I have a telegram here addressed to me as follows: "In reply to your wire, Mr. Holmes and Mr. "Richardson are expecting to leave here on Tuesday morning for Auckland. Mr. Richardson, who is the Wellington City Tramways Engineer, "cannot leave before that date at earliest (Signed) William "Hall-Jones." Mr. Holmes, of course, is well known to most of you as the Government Engineer, and Mr. Richardson is the Wellington Tramway Engineer. These two gentlemen are engaged in passing trams before same are allowed to work there.
Witnesses ordered out of Court.
Horace Edward Veart, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Horace Edward Veart. I was formerly in the employ of the Tram Co. as Conductor and Motorman. I was in the Company's employ two years and two months. I went on as Motorman in October last. I remember March 12th. this year. I was driving No. 73 car on the Ponsonby line. I had a slight bump with another car which standing at Pitt Street penny section. I was going from town. It was a Ponsonby car just ahead of me. I don't know of any rule, but it is usual to go gently round the curve, so as to allow any car to get away or stop a short distance from it. It was a very slight bump: the only damage was my buffer was dinted a bit; no harm was done to the other car. My buffer slipped over the top of the other one being higher. The brakes on No. 73 had not been working all right. I knew they were not working well. I got notice the next afternoon. Inspector Johnstone was standing there at the time, He got on my car and told me he going to report it. Inspector Morris told me on Friday night that I wanted on Saturday morning at 9 a.m. I was taken off a special ear, and did not finish the trip. I took the same car out with Mr. Lysaght, and Mr. Brennand; and Inspector Johnstone was on the outside. Mr. Brennand was Superintendent at the Ponsonby Barn. Inspector John stone was looking after the pole. It was done for the purpose of having a demonstration of the car at the scene of the bump. I drove down College Hill to Queen Street. When I loft the Lamps I put the brake hard down and wound up the ratchet brake. That is the thing to do. I proceeded cautiously, knowing the car was faulty was hard to stop at England Street curve. It was not the same I previously bumped with. The brakes at one end may be good and other bad. I went to Queen Street terminus, and started with the same end to the front as when I bumped the ear. I had no stops, except when slowing off going round the curves. When I arrived Pitt Street curve, Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Brennand cane out to the front of the car, which went a lot easier than on the Thursday night.
I then took the car to the barn. That morning was booked up on a car, but was not allowed to take it out, as I was told I was wanted at the Head office. I saw Mr. Lysaght there, and he told me he would put me back on the bag for two months, from Motorman to Conductor. I did not appreciate it; it was an Irishman's rise; it meant a loss of status and of pay, besides a stigma attached for being in fault. I do not consider I was in fault, as I did the best I could with the equipment under my control. Between Thursday and Saturday I looked in the book at the barn, and saw that the brakes had been adjusted. After the bump I reported. "Ratchet brake wants adjusting." Afterwards in that book in another column, I saw these words: "Brakes adjusted, W "Bartlett." I do not consider it was a fair trial to experiment with the same car when brakes had been adjusted in the meantime. I remember the result of investigations I made as to whether that car had a bad character. (Documents produced.) That is a faithful copy of what I discovered. I worked afterwards for about three weeks as Conductor, but not constantly, as I was suffering from a bad cold at the time. I was a bit sore about the matter, and finally decided to sever my connection with the Company.
By Mr. Walklate:
The car that I bumped was on the other side of the curve. It was the same place I had been warned about; not in the morning, but in the afternoon; about four hours before that. It was my first day out with that car. I had no chance of complaining to the Inspector about it hut I spoke to him and I no sooner did so than he went to the back of the car. I did not complain to him about the brakes. I worked for about three weeks as Conductor, and then left the service. I resigned; gave Mr. Lysaght notice on Saturday morning, and left the following week. It was the 18th May that I gave notice, and my discharge is dated the 25th. I was not compelled to give a week's notice, but I meant to resign there and then.
By Mr. Carter:
The time of the accident was about 7.27 p.m. on the 12th of March. The Trackman greased the curve at about the same time. I took a special car at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning. The Trackman generally greases the line about 0.30 a.m. It is a very hard thing to stop a car on the curve just after greasing. There is no rule about letting your buffer touch the other car. I have never heard of anyone else being "put back on the bag" before or since. It is quite a usual thing for cars to pull round exactly as I did. I have often heard of the brakes of cars jumping on going round the curve,
By Mr. Hansen:
My buffer slipped off the other car again, I went right on to Ponsonby.
By Mr. Morris:
The Trackman was greasing both rails on that night. You told me afterwards that I would not lose my place on the Motorman's list, but I was not told at the time.
By Mr. Rosser:
I did not understand that at the time. I was told the same afternoon. I don't think it was a fair thing that I should have been pun-
By Mr. Walklate:
The Trackman greased the outside curve, the curve I was using. I was almost on the straight when the ear bumped. I was told the reason for being put back was "bad judgment," going round the curve when another car was standing there.
By Mr. Hansen:
When I made that bump I had been on about half-shift about four hours. I found the brakes very heavy and stiff. I never got a chance to report it.
By Mr. Hansen:
You can report to the Despatcher.
Mr. Sherry: I know you cannot.
Witness:
I worked the shift out afterwards with those brakes, and finished about ten past eleven o'clock.
Mr. Hansen:
It was very dangerous for you to do that.
His Worship:
The conclusion must be drawn by the Court.
By Mr. Rosser:
I know it is wrong to slop on a curve; you must have a clear of rails round the curve.
Mr. Carter:
The grease is liberally supplied; it is squashing over the top skating rink.
Herbert Montague Herdson duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Herbert Montague Herdson. I worked as Conductor for the Company until about a week before the Strike. I was a regular man for two weeks. I worked my way through the spare list. I went on regularly about the 1st May. No. 1. Herne Bay was my run Friday before the Strike I was told to go down at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning and see Mr. Lysaght. I saw him, and got rather a said, "Herdson you are dismissed; your services are no longer I asked for a reason. He said, "He had no reason to give me: he was" acting under Mr. Walklate's instructions." I then asked for an interview with Mr. Walklate, but was informed he "was too busy to I told him I was a member of the Union, and it would be a Union matter. I told him I thought it was a very unfair thing, as I could think no reason for my dismissal: he said he knew of no reason then went to the Secretary of the Union (Mr. Rosser), and he advised me that, inasmuch as Mr. Hansen had first helped me to get on with the Company, to whom I bad been introduced by my uncle, the Rev. Mr. Monckton. Chaplain to the Bishop of Auckland, I had better see Mr. Hansen about it. He said he would make investigations, and see if he
By Mr. Waiklate:
I don't remember Mr. Lysaght saying anything about the week's wages, but I could not be sure; I was so astounded at being dismissed; it was a big shock. Inspector McElwain got on the ear at Cox's Bridge Road. He had an argument with the ladies, who said they had dropped their tickets. He beckoned to me, and called out at the same time. The ladies were sitting in the front compartment: the car had stopped when he called me. I never lose my temper; I am very sweet tempered. This is my first experience in Tramway work. My only experience of what an
By Mr. Carter:
The Inspector should have rung the bell, not called me. The ladies offered to pay the fare again. They said, "Conductor, we don't like "reflections cast on our characters; we will pay you again." As a rule the Inspector takes the word of a passenger that they have dropped their tickets, He was the first that did not do so. There have been no suggestions as to any fault of a monetary character at all. It is the usual proceeding on my part to get change from shopkeepers. There are no objections as far as I know.
By Mr. Hansen:
When my wages were due I called for them. I thought the week's wages in lieu of notice would be given to me. I asked for my pay date.
By Mr. Sherry:
It was at the barn, and we got paid through a hole in the fence that occasion.
By Mr. Hansen:
Mr. Morris asked me to hand in my uniform. I did not consider myself cut off from the Company. I thought the wages would be paid first, and then I would have naturally handed the uniform in. I usually call for my money, but for this I did not do so.
By His Worship:
I did not get a request to hand in my uniform.
By Mr. Rosser:
you advised me to retain my uniform until I was missed. I am not clear of the Company until the uniform is handed in.
Walter Henry Haslam, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Walter Henry Haslam. 1 am a Motorman in the employ of the Company and have been in that service close on five years. I came from Brisbane as a practical Motorman; I learnt there. I am Treasurer of the Union. I remember attending with a deputation some fourteen months ago, when Mr. Hansen was Manager. I laid a complaint that Inspector Morris had hidden at the Herne Bay terminus, to my knowledge, for over an hour, and on my nine o'clock trip I was sitting down on a box, and he came out and reported me. At the deputation I pointed this out. Mr. Hansen said he didn't order that son of thing, but when asked who did order it no answer was given. I never yet heard any solution about it. I could make no mistake about its being Mr. Morris; he had been there from the trip before. I have seen him at other times also. I do not consider it a right thing to do. I consider it right for an Inspector to report a man if in fault, but he should be told what it was for. A new Inspector could easily find means of reporting men under the present Rules and Regulations. I was reported for sitting down on the box in front of the car. It was a locker box. It would be four poles before we reached the terminus. The box was right in front of the controller. Since then Motormen's seats have been introduced. What was then an offence, when reported, now a regulation of the Court. I was not feeling too good that night, and I explained to Mr. Hansen at the time. I have seen lnspector Tickle on several occasions hiding himself. One of his places is in England Street: it is now a compulsory stopping-place: there a gable house right on the corner, and he has hidden in the doorway on dozens of occasions, and then would jump on the car. He wants to see if we are making a compulsory stop. He will make a pounce out on the car like a leopard on to his prey. Also in New Street, at the Suffolk Hotel on dozens of occasions I have seen him. I have not noticed other Inspectors doing it. He has a very bad name with the men and the travelling public; he is called "Sherlock Holmes." I heard a passenger make a remark once to him about shooting himself with a revolver he is supposed to carry.
By Mr. Walklate:
I saw Mr. Morris hiding in the shadow of the Bayfield Church. I saw him on two occasions, and there was about an hour between them. I surmised he was there all the time, It was a few months before you were appointed Manager—'in Paradise time." It was on the second time when I saw him that he spoke to me about the seats. I knew he was there, but did not take a seat in despite of that, but I sat down because I was not feeling well. I did not apply for relief, because it was impossible to get it at 9 o'clock at night; there is nobody about. I felt ill, and sat down. I was travelling at the time. The seat was practically as high as the seat I use at the present time. The locker can be detached. The seats we now use stand up on a spindle, and I can shift
By Mr. Carter:
When sitting on the locker, I had the reverse and the emergency brakes under my control. Before seats came in men would sit on fruit cases, something similar to the locker. Inspector Morris is the Chief Inspector at Ponsonby Depot, and manages the traffic. He acts as intermediate between the Traffic Manager and the men. He was at Bayfield Church for an hour, that is two trips; each car would pass twice. I don't like being subjected to the indignity.
By Mr. Sherry:
If the locker was cornerways there would be more room for the feet; that was the position I had it in.
By Mr. Hansen:
I knew I broke the regulations. I got no reply to my excuse, and heard nothing more about it. There are reports put in against and you hear nothing more of them. It is the espionage that I object to, not the fact of being reported at all.
Thomas Alexander Steen, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Thomas Alexander Steen. I am a Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company on the Ponsonby route. On May 16th of the present year I was on the night shift somewhere between 7 and 8 at Cook Street, and saw Inspector Tickle standing there; his in to hide the buttons, and his cap was under his arm with the badge turned to the back. The cap has a largo badge with the word "Inspector" on it. It was at the junction of Cook and Hobson Streets where I saw him. I have no doubt it was him. I think my Motorman also saw him and a passenger sitting on the sand-box; it was an open car. I drew their attention to it. It is the only time I saw him do this, but I saw him do other things just as bad. I knew he was on the run that day, because I saw him on the back of the car ahead of us. My Motorman was W. Breen. I saw Inspector Tickle about two months prior to this at the Reservoir, behind the telegraph pole near the urinal. As we came round the corner he kept going round behind the pole saw him, though he didn't think I did. He then went into the urinal, keeping the pole between the car and myself.
By Mr. Morris:
I do know that there is a system of signalling between Motormen and Conductors from one ear to another as to the position of the Inspector on the road.
Walter Leslie Breen, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Walter Leslie Breen. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I am a spare man t was Conductor before that, and worked on a regular run. I was Steen's Motorman before the Strike. I don't remember the date, but I think it was Saturday night. The Conductor drew my attention to somebody at Cook Street, and when I looked I saw someone standing under the verandah, but I flashed by too quickly to notice who it was. He said it was Inspector Tickle. There were a couple of passengers on the front of the car.
By Mr. Walklate:
It was in the evening, and dark. I don't think there was anyone else about the corner. I saw someone standing against the verandah pole, but I don't know who it was.
By Mr. Carter:
The Inspector is not a popular man. There are some Inspectors not so popular as others. There are several reasons; the dirty way he does his work. I have seen him step out of a doorway in Freeman's Bay on several occasions. He is the only one I have noticed doing that.
By Mr. Morris:
When the Conductor drew my attention the front of the oar would be about half a car length on the Ponsonby side of Cook Street.
Mr. Rosser asked if it was the intention of the other side to call Inspector Tickle; if not, he proposed to call him before terminating his ease.
Mr. Walklate said they would call him.
Thomas Glass, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser;
My name is Thomas Glass. I am working in a boot factory at present. I was formerly Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company. I was taken on about the last week in November, or beginning of
By Mr. Walklate:
There were three testimonials handed to the Company, and not returned to me. My other references were handed back to me in as envelope, and I took it for granted they were all there. After I dismissed I examined them, and found three missing. It was the day following my dismissal that I first looked in the envelope. I didn't trouble very much; I thought I could get others. I have my license at home; I think it was given to me about the latter end of November. I had been booked up for three weeks on the regular shift. I was top of the spare list before that. I am not aware that I was taking the run a regular man who was sick. I did not demand a week's notice, expected to be reported for something, and found I was dismissed; a big surprise. I looked for work elsewhere. There was previously trouble with a Motorman about religious convictions. Another Motorman made a complaint about my ringing the bell so close to the stopping place, but the car was going into the barn, and not running a time-table. He got excited over it and said he would report me. There was also another Motorman I had trouble with. There was a who struck me in the face while at the office at the barn, as he thought I was getting more work than he was. He began to throw-off at me personally. I said I didn't like that sort of thing, and he used some bad language. I did not strike him. I had to go to the office over that have men to testify I did not strike him. I don't know for certain, but was told that a Motorman refused to work with me.
By Mr. Carter:
I was working for Mr. Page, Grocer. Kingsland. He is a man you have to keep going for, or you are no use to him. When I left to join the Tram Company he wanted me to stay on. I have never been insolent
By Mr. Hansen:
I left my previous employment to join tram Tram Company. I gave Mr. Page a week's notice.
By Mr. Rosser:
That Conductor is not in the service now. He left shortly after.
I had to pay for the license, and also a doctor's certificate. I have not seen that certificate since. That was an additional outlay during the first live weeks of my employment. Apart from those little scrimmages, I know of no reason why I should be dismissed believed I was a regular man at that time, as I was on that run for three weeks, and booked up with the regular men's shifts. I was not on one run all the time, but I was fully a fortnight on the Herne Bay line.
By Mr. Sherry:
Herdson was junior man to me at that lime.
William Rockland, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is William Rockland. I am a Motorman in the service of the Company. I have been so for about four years and six months. I had a good record under the merit and demerit system. Once I won the pound: another time I was second for it; and as a rule I have been seventh or eighth out of about 150 Motormen I prided myself on my good conduct in those days.. I am on the Herne Bay run. I have had experience with Inspectors where I thought they were acting beyond their duty. Two false reports were put in by Inspector McElwain. It was about two years ago, perhaps a little longer. I got two lots of ten demerit marks sent to me, and in those days you were punished before you were tried, and tried after. I appealed against it and won my appeal. At one lime they were metalling the roads at the barn, and the time-table was a little faster. I ran up to the metal, but not so fast over the metal. A man ran out to me with a shovel. I told him not to hold it up to me. He reported it to Mr. McElwain who reported it to the Company as if he had been present. I called him as a witness, and the demerits were taken off on that occasion. The other one happened on the same day when going to town, between Sentinel and Hamilton Roads; the metal was a bit high, and I thought the motor-case would catch. The men there didn't think so. I gave the handle a turn, hut had to back again. McElwain was there, and reported me for furious driving over new metal. It is an up-grade there, and I could not drive furiously. Then Inspector Menzies reported me. My car was defective, and another man had my regular car, No. 28. There was a smell of burning insulation, and I didn't know how long it would last. I asked a Motorman to give me back my car, but he refused. The car I was driving was defective. The Inspector told me we had been four minutes talking, and I was sent to the Head Office, but the report said three minutes, and nothing was said about the defective car which made it appear as if we had been yarning. I proved the Inspector was wrong by his own time. I left Horne Bay at 6.4. He boarded my car at 6.9 at Sentinel Road. If there had been delay I could not have got there in that time. I saw the Traffic Manager, and when I proved the Inspector was wrong he raked up something else. That Inspector has left the
By Mr. Walklate:
I didn't object to the demerit system, I was at the deputation when Mr. Tegetmeier decided to take them off. These two lots of ten marks were both finally taken off. Car No. 28 was my car, but it the one the other man had on that day. It had to go into the barn, and as my car was defective I asked them to give me the car there and then, but he didn't do so. I was about a minute talking to him. I have a good idea of the length of a minute (Witness tested by watch.) (Stated minute gone; real time 34 seconds.) At that rate, then I only been talking to the other man for half a minute. I have seen Inspector Tickle hiding in England and Exmouth Streets. He was hidden to a car coming down. He was standing right in a doorway. It was no good reporting it to the Company: a man would have to employ a clerk to send in all the reports about it. I have seen times. The deputation brought it before the Management. At the time the Inspector allowed the two passengers to get on they did the car, but remained on the platform. I am quite sure the car contained its full number. I had three bells. I counted the people before I told the man to get off, and there were eight standing. I didn't count the number sitting, The Motorman is equally responsible Conductor and there was a notice to the barn to that effect, Motorman is asked to assist the Conductor to try and stop overcrowding I left the platform on the car. A man must leave his platform to change round at the terminus. It is necessary for the safety public to obey the By-laws. The notice referred to was put up before the amended By-laws came into force. The Company put up that the Conductors would have to pay their own fines, and man was equally responsible with the Conductor. That was a year ago.
By Mr. Carter:
The Inspectors are not officials over the Motormen; at least, I don't consider them so, as they don't know the Motormen's duties; they have not passed through the ranks of the Motormen. This partiality of giving: out runs when men are a few seconds late is done by Inspector Morris at the Ponsonby Barn. That shows there are favours. It is not an offence to leave the front platform. The condition is that both men shall not leave the car at the same time, and the Motorman must take the handle with him. If a pole-head carries away, I must leave the platform. I am supposed to assist the Conductor, and the rule book says so.
By Mr. Hansen:
I am not aware that the Motorman's responsibility refers only to the Motorman's platform; I was under the impression it referred to all the car. When a Motorman passes passengers on the road he can call out that the car is full, as he can see that by a glance aside. I am not aware of the fact that my responsibility ended with the Motorman's platform. It was never meant that way.
By Mr. Morris:
I say on oath that half of the Inspectors cannot drive a car. Anyone can drive a car a short distance, but cannot drive it the way it should be driven through traffic and keep the time-table.
By Mr. Rosser:
These are the rules we are working under. (Rule No. 112 read.) That implies that I have a right to leave the platform. It is a common thing for a man to leave the platform; I have never got into trouble about that. No one can start the car without the handle. (Document as to merit and demerit system handed to Court.) I leave the platform to examine brakes as a Motorman.
Roy Hodson, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Roy Hodson. I am a Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company. I am a spare man. I have been in the service since the 27th of January, this year. I think no more joined for two or three weeks after me. I knew none who were on the spare list when I went to the Company. I have seen Inspectors keeping out of sight and boarding cars. I live in Ryle Street. Ponsonby. I have seen Inspector Tickle several times. I once met him going down Arthur Street, into Wood Street; there is no tram line there. He nodded to me, and I am certain it was him. I wondered what he was doing, and stopped round the corner of Arthur Street and watched him out of sight into Wood Street. I followed him as far as the corner of Rendell Street. He stopped close to the Suffolk Hotel, in College Hill. A car had just passed down before he got there. He watched there until another car came along. He must have been there fully ten minutes before the car arrived. I have a good idea how long a minute is. When the car started he ran after it. The Motorman could not see him once he had started the car. I went round Newton, as I considered my duty was done. I have seen him several times peeping out of doorways, but I cannot give any dates.
By Mr. Walklate:
I don't know that there is any reason why a Motorman should see the Inspector. I myself don't like being watched close like that; I would do my work better if they let me alone.
By Mr. Morris:
I have heard of a system of signals. I know of it; it tells as to whether the line is clear or whether an Inspector is about. If the Inspector had acted straightforwardly the men would not object.
James Harvey Mansell, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser.
My name is James Harvey Mansell. I am a Tram Conductor in the employ of the Company. I have been so for about three years and two months. I am on the Herne Hay run. I bad trouble with Inspector Johnstone about four or five months ago; I think after the new year. There had been a meeting of the Union two days before, and I was at that meeting He asked me what we were going to do in Holden's cast—whether we were going to insist on him coming back. I said. "That is "nothing to do with you." That was on my last trip going home the preceding night. I think he did ask me if I was at the Union meeting. He didn't say another word after that. The next day Inspector Johnstone kept on boarding my car. He told me there were eight passengers got on at Billington's corner, and I only sold seven tickets. I replied I never counted the passengers, but I was certain everyone had a ticket. There are some cases when a passenger will give you a return ticket. I am referring to a worker's ticket. It has to be taken out before 8 a.m. but it is available any trip after that. He showed me his cuff sleeve with eight marked on it. I wanted to see Mr. Walklate, and put my case before him hut was told I could not see him, as it was mail day. I sore over it. I reported it to Mr. Morris. I went to the barn, there and then, and reported it to him. He said I could not see Mr. Walklate until I had worked my shift out but I could see him next morning. I have had no trouble since. That is a copy the report. The passengers made a remark to me later on in the evening about it. Inspects Johnstone got my waybill, and I was told by some passengers he copied all the figures on his cuff sleeve, so I said sarcastically. "Have you got "them down right?" It is not a usual thing for an Inspector to do. I never heard any more about it. I have no idea why he should treat me in that way. I never had any trouble with any other Inspector, have not been to the office at all.
William Small Campbell, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is William Small Campbell. I was formerly Inspector in the employ of the Company from the
By His Worship:
I am sure of what I say.
By Mr. Rosser:
He told me the Conductors were rogues. I got instructions in Beaston's case, Mr. Lysaght told me to report any breach of the rules committed by Beaston, however trifling they might be, as he was of no use to the Company, being too much of a labour agitator, and he wanted to dismiss him. That is the purport of what he said. (Reference handed to Court.) That reference says it was from
By Mr. Walklate:
I reported Motorman Olney for smoking, and my report is on the file. It was
By Mr. Carter:
My appointment as Inspector was before I was tutored in the art of driving a motor. My duty was to supervise the Motormen when Inspector. I had no experience as Motorman at that time. As Inspector I got a week's pay in lieu of notice, but I didn't get it until two months afterwards. The men I was told off to watch were excellent Conductors, and strictly honest as far as I knew. While I supervised them in a very keen manner I did not see any case of dishonesty. It was my duty to open the motor-case when 1 got my coat burnt. Althought I got one pound, it was nothing like the value.
By Mr. Sherry:
I had worked through the spare list with these men. and knew them. I was on the list eight months, I knew what I was speaking about when I said they were good men.
By: Mr. Hansen:
When I was dismissed as Inspector I got no reason, but you said I was unsuitable. I was not smoking on that day, and you never mentioned that to me then. I was once before you for drinking whilst on duty as a Motorman. I said twice I may have taken tea from the Motormen but I had no recollection of drinking the tea that night.
Mr. Hansen:
I wanted to prove merely that this Inspector was very familiar with the men.
Witness:
It was out of a billycan; they don l carry bottles.
By Mr. Rosser:
I admit I was drinking tea; it was nothing else.
By Mr. Sherry:
It is ridiculous that I cannot take a drink of tea with a Motorman.
By Mr. Rosser:
I am now employed at the "Herald" Office, and have been there ever since I left the Company. They know I am giving evidence here. I have had no complaints about drinking with reporters. I have their entire confidence.
By Mr. Morris:
I qualified as Motorman after I left as Inspector. I began to qualify about three months before I was dismissed; but I am speaking
By His Worship:
When I was an Inspector I got those instructions to go to Onehunga; it was three or four months, possibly longer, when I was dismissed. I was off for about two weeks, and then acted as Motorman for about two mouths. In neither case did I get a reason. I had a Conductor with me on the Newton and Ponsonby line one Saturday night, which is a very busy night, He was giving me very erratic bells; he came to the front, and was giving me insolence in front of the passengers. I ran the car into the barn and asked them to give me another Conductor or another run, or I would not be responsible for any accident. I was dismissed for running the car into the barn; but Rule 47 says that the Conductors and Motormen must use their own discretion on any matters not referred to in the Rules. I did so on this occasion.
(Adjourned until Friday morning at 10 a.m.)
(Court resumed Friday, 10th July, at 10 a.m.)
Clarence W. Smith, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Clarence W. Smith. I am President of the Union. I have been President since the beginning of the year. I have been in the service about four years and nine months. I was about eighteen months as Conductor, and the remainder of the time as Motorman. I am on the regular list on the Kingsland line. I know something of the working conditions; for the past four years they have been unsatisfactory. There has been discontent because of certain officials. I have a good record. If the office of an Inspector falls vacant, promotion is usually made from the ranks. About two years ago I was asked by Mr. Hankinson, officer in charge of Ponsonby Depot, if I would care to become Inspector, He said he was going to recommend me if I would accept, and I told him I would let him know later. I had a conversation Inspector Griffiths, and he advised me not to. Me was Ticket Inspector at that time; he is not in the service now. He said I had a good in Mr. Duncan, and I would be changing for a bad one. I took it that meant his boss, Mr. Lysaght. He also said my life would not be worth living if I took the position of Inspector. The Inspectors were not in the Union then. It was proposed to me again later on. Mr. Morris asked me not very long ago, about three or four months. It was about the time Inspector Tickle was appointed. I told Mr. Morris I didn't care about the position; the wages were not high enough, and the too long. With regard to what is termed "Blacklegs," I remember morning, about 7.30, when I had just arrived in Queen first trip to town, there were four Epsom men waiting for me who me Mr. Reuss had been put back on his run that morning, and should they leave their cars or continue to work. I advised them to continue until I rang up the Secretary, for him to see Mr. Walklate some system of signalling does exist. It was only Epsom men who me that morning. They are against them, and the general feeling at Ponsonby is also the same. I attend all meetings. I consider it is against the interests of peace and harmony that these men (Reuss and Spry) should be allowed to go back; there will be trouble if they do.
By Mr. Walklate:
The working conditions during the last four years were not satisfactory. The previous nine months I never took much notice of, as I had no intentions of staying with the Company that lime. I do not know what Mr. Hankinson's duty was in appointing an Inspector at that time. I have nothing personally against any official of the Company or Mr. Lysaght. If Reuss and Spry go back to work there will be trouble; there will undoubtedly be another Strike. That does not necessarily mean that the men are not prepared to abide by the Agreement before the Court. It is my opinion that if these men are sent back to work the men generally will strike. It is only an opinion. The men will not work with them. It does not mean that the men are not prepared to act up to the Agreement as signed.
By His Worship:
The men intend to stick by their Agreement but they will fee! sore at their having to go back and work with the "Blacklegs."
By Mr. Walklate:
I cannot give you the date when Inspector Tickle acted as stated. I was running a special car to Epsom to Alexandra Park, one Show Day; it is since January this year; between January and February, and my Conductor's name was Belmont. The second occurrence will be found on the report I put in on the same day.
By Mr. Hansen:
I said that during the four years the working conditions were not satisfactory. There were other matters that kept me in the service.
By His Worship:
I said the men would feel very sore if Reuss and Spry were put to work. I was referring mostly to the occasion when they were put back, and the dissatisfaction of the Epsom men.
By Mr. Rosser:
I know of nothing whereby the men or the Union have stated anything other than that they will obey the Award of the Board; nothing
Patrick Coady Buckley, duIy sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Patrick Coady Buckley. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I have been in the service four years this, or last, month. I was a Gripman employed in the Melbourne Tramways and Omnibus Co. prior to that. As far as I know. I have a good record with this Company. I was president of the Union for two years previous to Mr. Smith being appointed. I have not been reported a great number of times. If an Inspector wants to report a man they can catch him almost every trip. I have seen Inspector Tickle behind the posts repeatedly. One day coming down College Hill I got three bells, indicating the car was full up. There was a lady standing at Wood Street I found out after I passed that Inspector Tickle had been standing behind a telegraph pole, obscured from my view. The pole was large enough to hide him. He made a dart out afterwards, but missed the car, as he had given me nearly fifty yards' start. I have seen him repeatedly at England Street, but you cannot see him until you abreast of the pole; it is a very wide one, and he has ample room to hide himself there. Behind that pole there is a recess for doorways in front of two houses. I have often seen him step out of that place at night time. Also at Curran Street he has very good cover; and at Sentinel Road and Victoria, Street, in Queen Street, outside the Union Bank; also the Victoria Arcade, corner of Shortland Street. I saw him watching when I was off duty. The Strike trouble was general: I never saw a body of men so unanimous on a question in my life. I should say 1,500 to 1,600 men are employed in the Melbourne Co., so I have had experience with other bodies of men. There seems to be a good deal of competition between the Inspectors. I remember Inspector Campbell telling me he expected dismissal at any time. Inspector Griffiths told me he was very much dissatisfied with the work he had to do, and intended to leave. He is now in Melbourne. I can swear positively that Mr. Lysaght did of these goings on, as I told him myself. It was about three months ago; one night when he was on the box alongside of me and I was driving. I said in the first place that Inspector Tickle was irritating the men, and he had a very irritating way with him. He said he had heard it before. I said he had a habit of rushing out from behind telegraph poles; and Mr. Lysaght said, "He should do his work in a straightforward manner, and he doesn't do it." I was not on the last deputation, but I know that strong comment was made, but no satisfaction got the Company. Mr. Walklate received it well, but nothing came of it did not come much in contact with Inspector Tickle. I was told by one man he was not to be trusted, and to beware of him. The man me he picked up a 4d. ticket, and asked him for the last check, wanted him to sell it over again. I was not present at the deputation, and didn't know that that was brought forward at that time. I not take an Inspector's billet at five pounds per week under the present conditions. I would not resort to the dirty tricks; I would sooner a pick on the road. I think a Strike was a foregone conclusion if and Spry had been kept on. I was a delegate, and went with you and Walter Haslam to see Mr. Walklate, also Mr. Smith, as President. Walklate said these men have been off a considerable time, and he saw no reason to keep them off any longer. You, as Secretary, advised him
By Mr. Walklate:
I can give you no dates, as, unfortunately, I did not keep a diary. It was this year, as I have only been on the Herne Bay run this year. As soon as the oar passed Wood Street the Inspector came out hurriedly. He did not report me for it. I saw' him after I got past, but he was obscured from my view until after the oar was abreast of Wood Street. Referring to the Melbourne Tram Co., there was no trouble there at the time I loft. I was employed for five months after that. I left that Company of my own accord. I didn't give a week's notice: a day's notice is sufficient. You are supposed to give a week, but if you request to get off sooner a day is sufficient. I received a five years' reference from them I have been treated by Mr. Lysaght satisfactorily, as far as I know, and my treatment by the Company has boon satisfactory; but I was under the impression that Inspector Tickle was harassing me or attempting to do so. He has reported me on several occasions. I have never received punishment, beyond going to the office on one occasion, and his report was not altogether a true one then. When President of the Union I was treated fairly well; I had nothing to complain of If it has boon suggested that anyone in the service of the Company taking a prominent part in Labour matters does not get proper treatment, that does not apply to myself.
By Mr. Carter:
I remember one incident of a man taking an active part, and being dismissed. The working conditions are not satisfactory, or there would not have been a Strike, I have heard lately of complaints at Ponsonby Depot about runs being given away. I know of some men of good reputation in the Company who have been offered the office of Inspector, and have refused to take it on the ground of the work they have to do. I knew of a man taken off the spare list of Conductors and put on as an Inspector. It seems to me that the Inspector who gets in the most reports gets the host promotion.
By Mr. Hansen:
I understand that Inspector Morris has boon promoted from Inspector to Depot Manager: there has been another case at Epsom.
By Mr. Rosser;
It was Inspector Menzies. He was on the spare list, and he was not on very long to my knowledge. It was his second term with the Company. He is not now in the employ of the Company His career didn't last long.
By Mr. Morris;
I have often heard arguments at the Ponsonby Depot as to runs being given away. It may be six or eight weeks ago. There were simi-
Joseph Patrick Hugonnet, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Joseph Patrick Hugonnet. I am Conductor in the service of the Company and have been there a little over two years. Mr. My run is on the Arch Mill line. I have seen Inspector Tickle at Princeps Street. I have seen the car going full speed, and he rushed out from behind a big house there to catch the car. One night he got left by A. P. Haslam. I don't know whether he saw him or not. I have seen him hiding at the top of Grey Street, and one of the Motormen also sir him, with his hat turned had; to front. My Motorman was William Kerr. I am positive of it, as the Inspector got on my car at that particular time. I don't like being spied on. About three or four weeks I had a conversation with Inspector Tickle. It was my first trip out that morning, and there was a fireman on my car. They test fire-alarms each morning. He said he was going to the Lamps, and gave me a half-penny, and went inside: but when we reached Hamilton Road he said be had forgotten something, and got off the car when moving. Inspector Tickle jumped on at Hamilton Road, and before getting on to the step he said. "There is a halfpenny lost to the Company." I said, "Give me "a chance: what do you mean? You should make sure before you say "that." I showed him my waybill and block, and he said. "Oh yes; I "made a mistake." I said, "if you make a mistake, there is nothing "more about it; but if I do I have to go to the Head Onice." I have been down twice. I think, and you have to go in your own time. I have heard of a man losing his run to go down there. I am an Australian a native of Sydney. I know a good deal about the Sydney service as I travelled on the trams every morning I went to work. I also have a brother-in-law in the service. I was over there for my holidays about twelve or thirteen months ago. Such tactics as Inspectors employ here are not employed in the Sydney service. They have 700 cars, and there are about six inspectors, you travel all day, and may not see one. I never heard of such a thing as hiding behind poles there. Inspector Tickle also reported me falsely, and I have been feeling it ever since. He reckoned I carried a ladder on the platform of the car and refused to charge the man for it. I didn't charge him for it: hut it was on the step of the car, outside the chain, the man holding it there. If he had said that I had not charged for it the Inspector would have been right, but he said that I refused to charge the man. The man was sitting on the sand-box.
By Mr. Walklate:
I cannot tell the date when Inspector Tickle got on at Princeps Street, but he has done it several times. It was this year, about a fortnight ago the last night shift I was on, I think, and I am on night shift now but I would not swear that it was a fortnight. Over the incident of the fireman the Inspector admitted he made a mistake. He had no right to accuse me before he got on the car. When I came to the office it was in my off time. As to the incident of carrying the ladder on the step, I told Mr. Lysaght after the matter was investigated I was satisfied. I have nothing against the Traffic Manager, as am personally concerned.
By Mr. Carter:
Mr. Tickle's report was read out to me. I distinctly heard the word "refused." I should like to see the reports, and I think it right a man should do so.
By Mr. Sherry:
In the incident of the fireman, it was lucky it was Hamilton Road, instead of further along the road.
By Mr. Rosser:
I cannot give dates, because these incidents are of daily occurrence, especially on the night shifts; it is quite a common thing. I was one of the deputation that waited on Mr. Walklate about the harassing of inspectors. Three men drew his attention to it. That affair about a fourpenny ticket being sold again was also mentioned to Mr. Walklate. Mr. Walklate said something about if the Inspector was a bad Motorman he was a good Inspector.
James Benjamin Cox, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is James Benjamin Cox. I was formerly in the employ of the Company as Conductor and Inspector, and was about four years in its service. I left about and not in the hearing of passengers". "I don't think it fair for an Inspector to speak to a man in front of the public: it would cause a row in the car: it would belittle the Conductor in the eyes of the passenger, probably. I followed that instruction out I received instructions as to sentry duty, and watching the men at times. I got them from Mr. Lysaght. I was given a note to go to the Three Lamps, to be there at 6.30 a.m., to place myself in a position where I was not seen, and report all irregularities or breaches of the By-laws. I went there in my uniform. I was told to go in private clothes. I stopped there until a-quarter to nine a.m. Mr. Lysaght came by, and asked what I was doing there, and I told him I was acting under his instructions. He told me to get back on the car. I was no good at checking, I "might as well have had a Union Jack to fly over my head." as they could all see me in my uniform. He would put another man there who understood the work. I went out to Onehunga lots of times. it was suggested I should go out at night time and place myself in a position where I could not be seen. Mr. Lysaght gave those instructions; I don't believe anyone else would do so. I was to put on old clothes, so that I should not be known. He suggested going in my own time, when off duty. It was to catch the men napping. I never went once at night time, and I defy any Conductor to prove that I did. I have known of
By Mr. Walklate:
I cannot tell the date when I was sent to the Three Lamps by Mr. Lysaght. I kept every paper given or sent to me until I finished my service with the Company, and then I destroyed it. I had it in writing, to go in private clothes. Mr. Morris will remember the night; he in Chapel Street with false whiskers on. I was not personally instructed. Mr. Lysaght would say, "I would like you to do this" or that. He was continually telling me he had anonymous letters about picking up tickets, and when I had had the experience he had I would know that there was not an honest man in the service. They were as plentiful as sheep, according to Mr. Lysaght. General instruction might be sent by Mr. Carey or by Mr. Hansen; that is, as to the merit or demerit system. My direct instructions were from Mr. Lysaght had a copy of those instructions signed by Mr. Carey.
By Mr. Carter:
I am positively sure he said there was not an honest among them. When appointed as Inspector I was a Conductor off qualified as Motorman afterwards. I have known Inspectors come off the spare list. I think Inspector Campbell did so. Mr. Morris was only a fortnight on the spare list, as far as I know. He conducted a car on Sunday, and started Inspecting on Monday. He were whiskers when he was looking for a witness for a case. He was not in uniform at the time. I received a week's pay, and was robbed of a week's McElwain and I were instructed by Mr. Lysaght to leave our in abeyance until the traffic was fixed up, and then they refused to give it us. I knew the Inspectors well. There are men who do their work faithfully, I have known an Inspector catch a good man and it to another Inspector. It is a usual thing.
By Mr. Rosser:
I am employed in the Railway Goods Shed at the present time, and have no reason to regret the change.
Henry Carter, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Henry Carter. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I have been in the service since the inauguration of the electric traction here, I remember the first Strike, in
By Mr. Walklate:
I saw the report myself, but did not examine it minutely. It was Mills' report and his signature, it was on ordinary report forms. The first interview was with Mr. Rosser and myself in the inside office with Mr. Hansen. The report was read by Mr. Hansen, and then passed to Mr. Rosser. On the second occasion Mr. Rosser read the report.
Mr. Walklate:
It will be better to call Mr. Hansen with our other witnesses later on.
(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)
(Court resumed, Friday, 10th July, at 2 p.m.)
William George Bassett, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is William George Bassett. I am a Manufacturers' and Commission Agent, at Palmerston Buildings, Auckland. I was formerly in the service of the Tram Compan for about three years. It was his friends could not be brought into the matter. There was a boy or a little girl, brother or sister-in-law to Inspector Mackay, sent out to try and trip Conductor Watson on the Herne Hay line. They purchased a ticket and marked it. Watson was afterwards brought before the Court but the ease was dismissed. I consider that a rotten state of affairs. If you have to employ anyone to do that, then pay them for it; not get your friends and do it for nothing. Mr. Lysaght used to come to the inquests occasionally. There were always questions as to the brakes, etc. It was the Engineer's business to get evidence as to that. I never heard Mr. Lysaght give evidence any time, and he did not fossick out evidence to my knowledge. I heard him tell the men that if they said the brakes were all right the Company would stick to them; but if they said otherwise they would get the sack. There never has been peace and harmony under Mr. Lysaght's managership of the traffic; and yet there could be, if Mr. Lysaght would alter his tactics; but I doubt if he could do so. (Clause 5 read.) I think, in the Company's own interests, he should be removed from contact with the men; I don't say put out of his billet. I have no feeling
By Mr. Walklate:
There was a mention in the newspapers about the fine body of men more than once. I have a clipping in my office now. There were often letters against the Tramway men, but this was someone writing in their favour. Mr. Lysaght not only told me, but he has made public assertions in public streets, "that all the Conductors were thieve." In my old reports I mentioned this to Mr. Hansen: they could be referred to I put most things in black and white. I cannot give you any date; it was done so often. It was during the last eighteen months I was in the service. Reports were stretched and added to I won't say written additions. I know Mr. Lysaght brought men down on the report I had made; perhaps for smoking or some small affair; but he would add more but he would than was on the report, so as to shut the men up and get them out of the office. I have seen him take up my own report while I was in the same room, and add something that was not true; it was that sort of thing that made me dislike him. If be had other information, why should he say it was my report? I object to a man in it is uniform hiding; British, and not manly. I think there is a very great difference when he is a Private Inspector. I objected to those in uniform being told after their ordinary work to go out in plain clothes. In my case, it was my profession, and I never had occasion to hide under ditches or turn the coat to hide buttons, or so on. I saw a man crouching down lately near St. Matthew's Church with a uniform on, less than a month
By Mr. Carter:
I should say the Inspectors were not taken from the best men in the ranks. Two or three Inspectors were real good men but as a rule they were not suitable for the position.
By Mr. Sherry:
I was not connected with the Union when with the Company. I left the Company. I had always been against the Union. There was very little trouble on the Motormen's side: they were under the control of Mr. Duncan. I began to see the only chance the Conductors had was to form themselves into a body and stick together pretty close, otherwise I they would be treated as dogs. I was a "Blackleg" before that, and didn't believe in Unions.
By Mr. Hansen:
I don't think I have ever spoken to Mr. Lysaght since I have left the service. I don't care to be seen in his company. The result of my labour us Private Inspector was satisfactory to the Company, so I understood. Private inspection is a good thing decidedly, if done in a straightforward way; no man objects to being looked after, but he objects to being jumped on: that is the difference.
By Mr. Morris:
When Inspector I don't remember asking the Conductors what they thought of Mr. Lysaght. I had my own opinion, and that was sufficient for me.
By Mr. Rosser:
I say I saw an Inspector, within the last month, in uniform in Hobson Street, at St. Matthew's Church, watching down Wellesley Street. It was behind a timber fence going round the church. It was Inspector Tickle. I travel a good bit by the cars continuously. I only get a pass when I pay.
Spencer Frank Brown, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Spencer Frank Brown. I am a regular Conductor on the Ponsonby run, No. 2. I remember May 11th of this year, the week before the Strike eventuated. I was on the morning shift, when Inspector Tickle boarded my car at three minutes to twelve from town, and occupied a seat inside the combination car. The car was full. The Rules say, "No official shall occupy a seat when required by a paying "passenger." He took the seat, and remained in it. He was practically in private clothes. I had a full car, and had to turn away two ladies. At the top of Wellesley Street I turned away two men. I asked him to give up the seat. He admitted he should have given it up, but for some reason he refrained from doing so. I sent in a report the same day but I have heard nothing more about it. There was no acknowledgment
Mr. Rosser said he could call plenty more witnesses, hut it would only prolong the inquiry, and it would be corroborative evidence. He proposed to go in the box himself, so as to depose as to that report and also as to letters written by him to the Company, so as to show the Company had been cognisant of this all through.
Mr. Rosser, duly sworn:
My name is Arthur Rosser. I am Secretary of the "Auckland "Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers." I remember re Conductor Beaston was called for and read. I noticed that there was an addition made to the report. It seemed to me to be in a different handwriting although I was not familiar with Mr. Lysaght's writing. After time was consumed in persuading the men to listen to a proposed settlement and discussing the terms of that settlement, in which Conductor Beaston also had a say, a commotion was created by Motorman who had just arrived and been admitted. Mills jumped on the polished counter, and said that "I demand that that report of mine be read "again; I have not heard it." Mr. Hansen again handed me the report and I read it. I noticed again that the addition was made in a different handwriting. I swear that the report presented here by the first day of this inquiry is not the report or application read by me on that day, purporting to be Mills' application for a change of Conductors. Subsequent to that, when matters had been reduced to a working order, and application was made to Mr. Hansen to consider that report, that was said to be added to by Mr. Lysaght. Mr. Hansen's reply was that as matters had been reduced to working order it was not wise to re-open the matter. I think that was the answer to us.
I accompanied Holden when he was before Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Walklate, and I corroborate his evidence bearing on his dismissal.
I also accompanied James Brown, C. F. Cate, and Herdson in their interviews with Mr. Walklate. I corroborate the evidence that has been
I also wish to state that letters have been sent to Mr. Walklate notifying him of certain matters.
I will depose to the page of the letter-book I have here, and will send copies into the Board, accompanied by the letter-book, to compare. The first letter is on
Mr. Walklate:
I have the originals of these letters, and will hand them in to the Board, instead of Mr. Rosser handing in his book. About the letters. I don't want to ask any questions of Mr. Rosser. The only thing is about the incident of the report, and I almost think I had better leave that to Mr. Hansen, as he was there at the time.
Witness:
I have read the report. The addition to it is in a different handwriting to the body. Mr. Lysaght was the officer who had charge of the report, and he is supposed to have made the addition. There is no proof, but the Company is responsible for what was read out. I am sure about the letter being read; it was not a typewritten one.
Mr. Rosser:
That is all the evidence for the Union.
His Worship:
Will you leave those letters now, Mr. Walklate?
Mr. Walklate:
Yes.
His Worship:
In accordance with the understanding come to between the parties, we will now adjourn until Tuesday morning, the 14th instant, at 10 a.m.
(Court resumed on Tuesday,
Mr. Rosser requested leave to call another witness.
Leave granted.
Walter Rogers, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Walter Rogers. I am Motorman in the employ of the Company have been in the service for over twelve years; during horse traction and also electric traction. I did not sign the "round "robin," previously referred to; I am perfectly sure of that. I was asked three times that afternoon to sign it. Inspector McElwain, when he got on my car, said. "You are the last one on the road to sign it," and I said, "I will not sign it." It was intended to get Mr. Steve Heaney, the foreman in the stable, the sack. I was groom for over twelve months and he was over me in the stable. I was never found fault with because I did not look after the Company's interests. Mr. Lysaght came to me on different occasions, and said that the 'bus had beaten me, and what was I doing to allow it. I said it will be seen whether I have done my duty when you refer to the money-bag at night. Mr. Heaney was a good man to work under: he always looked after the interests of the Company; he knew a good horse, and could put a team of horses together. (Mr. Heaney's discharge read.) I agree with what that discharge says.
Mr. Walklate said he proposed to proceed to call evidence, and would reserve any remarks until the evidence had been closed.
William Dennis Lysaght, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is William Dennis Lysaght. I have been connected with the Auckland Tramway Co. for the past nineteen years. I commenced in the office, when the old horse cars were running. I was relieving conductor for a while, then I was Chief Inspector, and now Traffic Manager. The first intimation I had of Mills wanting a change of Conductors was when I received a telephone message from Mr. Hankinson, then in charge of the Ponsonby Depot; that was on the
It is about nine or ten years ago when I was concerned in the "round "robin affair was then Chief Inspector on the horse cars. The document was handed to me. I was told it was a "round robin." I didn't know then what a "round robin" meant; I asked what it meant, and it was explained to me. My instructions were that I was to pass it on to Mr. McElwain to take it round to the men to be nothing else to do with it. It was suggested to me that I should sign it, and I did so. The "round robin" related to a man named Heaney. Shortly afterwards he resigned from the service. He occupied a position that did not bring him into contact with me. Later on I was instrumental in getting him a position as Motorman. I recommended him to Mr. Carey. I also engaged his son as Conductor, and he is still in the employ of the Tram Co. In this affair I was simply carrying out instructions received. Personally. I had nothing whatever against Heaney.
Inspector Campbell did not receive instructions from me to proceed Onehunga, to remain unobserved, checking the time-tables and to report breaches of rules. As a matter of fact, he was Temporary Inspector, engaged only on special occasions or busy days; and I would never
I did not tell Inspector Campbell to pay special attention to certain men. The men whom he mentioned were particularly good men, and I was very sorry to lose them. One man named Henry Carter left the service some months after Campbell did. With reference to Griffin, he was a real good Conductor, and I was very sorry to lose him. I reinstated him afterwards, when he applied to be taken back again.
As to Campbell's statement that I told him "all the Conductors were "thieves," and "no man could be honest with all the money in their "charge on the cars," that statement is false. It would be absurd for me to make a remark like that. I did not consider Campbell was a satisfactory Inspector. I frequently had to warn him about carelessness in his work. He was finally dismissed. As an Inspector he was discharged, and was given one week's money in lieu of notice. He was subsequently reinstated as Motorman, and dismissed for quarrelling with his Conductor, taking his car out of service, and running it into the depot.
With reference to Inspector Cox, I instructed him to check the time-tables. To enable a man to check the time-tables, he must keep out of sight; there is no other method of doing it. I never instructed him to make reports of other branches. No notice was taken of reports on breaches of the regulations when Inspectors were checking the timetables.
Inspector Cox said that I told him "he might as well carry the "Union Jack with him." I have no recollection of that; it is absolutely absurd. I did not make the statement. As to asking him to get the assistance of females, that is absolutely false. Inspector Cox was on for about two years as Inspector. He was a very smart man until the last six months, then he became careless.
Although Inspector Bassett while in the service frequently had matters to do with me, still he did not come under my supervision until the last two months of his service, and then he objected strongly. His statement that I said the Conductors were a lot of thieves is not true, and the statement that I could not see any reason why the Conductor should be allowed to leave the service with a good character is absurd. I was not in the habit of discussing my duties with him at all, particularly as he occupied a somewhat peculiar position of being inspector over me if he chose. I never suggested to him that he should employ Female Inspectors.
As to cheeking time-tables. I had been instructed by you to get them checked, and commonsense tells me that a man doing this must not be observed. The reason I received these instructions from you was because we had several complaints from Road Boards and passengers of the irregularity of the runs from the various termini. The cars did not complete their journeys, but turned back at the last loops in some instances. The result justifies the means. We find there are irregularities that would not otherwise get reported except through the public or
With regard to Conductor Herdson, when I told him that he discharged I said he could have a week's money in lieu of notice. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The reason of his being discharged was we had no further use for him. It is not a fact that I would not give him a reason.
As to Motorman Veart, he was blocking the crossing, which is a matter we have received a number of complaints about from the Local Authorities. He was warned earlier in the same day by Inspector John stone about that same matter. I went round in the car the next day in order to locate the position of the car.
By Mr. Rosser:
I started first of all in the office. I was not a stable boy, mixing the feed at one time. I am quite sure of that.
With reference to Mr. Mills, I am certain that there was only one application sent applying for change of Conductors. I do not know of anyone else receiving an application, and I have not seen any other in the office. I have only seen one report, not two reports. I will swear there were not two applications sent to me by Mills.
I heard of two applications at this Court, but I did not hear of it prior to that. As far as I know, he did not send in two reports Reports should be sent first to Mr. Hankinson and then to me. I did not make any comments in writing on Mr. Mills' report In my report to Mr. Hansen I stilted what Mills had said verbally. He told me on his car that day he could not stand his Conductor any longer, and certainly would not work with him during the approaching holidays. He also said he was in the habit of arguing Trade and Labour Council questions with the passengers, and consequently his car was delayed far as I remember that was the gist of it I embodied that in a report sent to Mr. Hansen. I am perfectly certain he said that. If Mills says he did not say that it is incorrect. My report to Mr. Hansen is in the possession of the Company.
Now, with reference to the "round robin," l say the document was handed to me and explained to me by the late Mr. J. S. Kidd. I told him I did not know what a "round robin" was. He told me what it was but did not go into details as to the reason of it I thought it a singular method at the time, but I was an Inspector, and had to do what I was told. Mr. Kidd was Manager, and Mr. Heaney was Stable Foreman. I thought it curious at that time that the Manager should ask the men to sign the "round robin" to get a subordinate displaced. I cannot recollect what reasons he gave; it was such a long time ago. Mr. Kidd gave
I am absolutely certain I did not give Inspector Campbell instructions to go to Onehunga. I have never given any instructions to pay special attention to the men during the last week of their service; I am certain of that.
I am absolutely certain I never told any Inspector to watch a man when he had resigned. If he (Inspector Griffiths) said I did, it is incorrect. Inspector Cox was a smart Inspector at the beginning, and I have frequently given him instructions to check time-tables. I have no recollection of any special case as to telling him to go to Onehunga. As to the Union Jack statement, I most decidedly did not say that; he is mistaken in that fact. I instructed Inspector Johnstone to check the time-tables, but did not tell him where to go, or to make arrangements where he would not be seen. The Union Jack incident is not correct in any part. Inspector Cox was careless during the last six months, but I am not quite sure of the reason. If Inspector Bassett states that I said "all Conductors were rogues," he is incorrect. I have never instructed Inspector Etheridge to employ females. Chief Inspector Mackay told me that Conductor Spence was suspected of dishonesty; there were strong suspicions, and he told me he intended to get a passenger going to Onehunga to mark a ticket. That was done, and "the end justified the "means." He was suspected of dishonesty, and he was convicted of it. We had evidence of his dishonesty, and I considered we were quite justified in proving it. I don't know who the passenger was that was employed, but I absolutely never came in contact with her. I didn't tell Inspector Mackay that lie was not to do it. In the case of Watson there was not a female detective employed in that case. I cannot say whether it was the same person as was connected with Spence's case. As far as I recollect, it was owing to the defective numbering of tickets that the case against Watson was dismissed. As far as I recollect, we never engaged a female to act as Inspector. I would not approve of a female detective. If they were introduced I would do my best to discountenance it.
With reference to the reports. I am quite certain that men are only called down to the office for serious offences. I don't remember Straker's case. I don't remember his being sent to the office, and missing his run for a trivial offence. Straker was not dismissed; he resigned. I don't remember his case coming before me. Mon have asked for reports against them to be read, and I have always done so. I don't let the reports go out of my hands unless they ask for them. Then I lot them see it. I give the men the benefit of any doubt. Holden's case did not
I am quite sure that I told Herdson a week's wages would be give to him on the day of his being discharged, Saturday.
With reference to Veart's case, I say the Local Authorities complained about the men pulling the cars up behind each other and blocking the crossing. The first car should pull right round the curve, and leave sufficient room for another. Veart was not discharged; we put him "back on the bag" for two months. His seniority as Motorman was not to be impaired by that; I am absolutely certain about it. I remember Donald Brown, the Motorman when he was President of the Union. He was the reverse of unobtrusive. I did not tell Inspector Ferguson to hide in Hobson Street, and catch Brown tripping on his car. I remember Conductor Menzies. I never supplied him with Onehunga tickets to ride on the cars to watch his mates. He was never appointed Permanent Inspector; he was on trial; they all start that way. I promoted him from Conductor. He was not on the spare list at the time: he had a regular run. He was in the service the first time about three years, and the second time about nine months. I promoted him above the heads of other men, as I thought he might make a good Inspector. I realised that there are special qualities required for an Inspector, and I considered he possessed those, I have no recollection of a report from Inspector Bassett about a Conductor named Boulton. I remember a man named Crawford; he was on the Grey Lynn decker. He resigned, if I remember rightly. He was not dismissed, I am sure about that. I don't remember Inspector Griffiths reporting that he committed an indecent acton top of this decker. I say if you brought a dozen men forward to swear to that "Union Jack" incident it would still be absolutely false. I do not remember boarding a Domain car after dark with a young lady. I have never been in a place known as No. 79, Symonds Street, Mrs. Don Mr. Hankinson telephoned to me and that was the first intimation I had about Mills desiring change of Conductor. (Report produced and read.) That is the report made by me. I instructed Mills to make application in writing, and the one produced in evidence last week is the one received. I am certain there was no other presented by Mills. (First report read.)
Since Mr. Walklate arrived I have had Motormen under my charge too, I know the theory of electric traction. I am competent to be Motormen of any breaches. I have also been to college, and electricity in relation to tram cars. Cars turning back on the loop are not sent back in accordance with instructions from the Despatcher. In the event of a block the Despatcher may give orders for the car to turn back at a certain loop. It is a usual thing for the car to turn as to keep up the time-table. It is not a slow service, but about the same average speed as Wellington. I have compared it with vices; it is as fast as any other service: but the Onehunga line is shower than some of the Wellington speeds. I think the Island Bay one of the fastest. Motormen only receive instructions from the des-
By Mr. Carter:
I am an experienced Motorman. I learnt in Auckland. The first driver I practised under was a man named George Nichols, when the cars first started. I can handle any equipment in the service at the present time. I hold a license. When I went through my term there were no blue papers to sign. I qualified under Mr. Carey. I took Mr. Morris off the spare list, and made him an Inspector, as I was acting under instructions. I put him in charge of Ponsonby Depot over Inspector McElwain because I considered be was best fitted for the position. I did not instruct him to wear a false beard. If Inspectors take the train to Onehunga the Company pays the fare. On looking up the report I found that Mr. Duncan gave Olney 30 demerit marks for smoking. Inspector Campbell reported it. He was apparently on duty on that line. Mr. Hansen did not call me in and reprimand me as stated by Mr. Bassett. At the Despatcher's pole I drew his attention to a rule: I did not severely reprimand him I don't know what became of the letter that was missing. As to men coming to the Head Office, I say the report would be given them if asked for. Reports first of all come to the Chief Inspectors, who forward them to me. I see every report issued against the men, and I investigate all reports. Each man comes before me if it is a serious offence. If the complaint is for smoking, the man gets a "Please explain." If satisfactory explanation, the incident close. The original report does not leave the office. I defy any man to say that I have not given him fair play in regard to a report. As to the suggestion made by Mr. Bassett, we send a copy of the original report to the men, and they can see the original at the office. We state the facts in the "Please explain." Veart was informed a few minutes prior to the incident at Pitt Street. I have acted in a similar way with Motorman Penny. Mills was a good Motorman but occasionally late. After getting rid of Beaston, I don't remember if he made any improvement. Despatcher Hogan made verbal complaints as to his time-table before that. I know Beaston and was surprised to hear he was supposed to have used obscene language. I was surprised also at the report received from Mr. Kidd as to the three words written on the window. I am not quite sure what he was discharged for. I don't remember standing beside you during the meeting at the office at the first Strike, but I remember the drunken man coming in, and I was asked to put him out. With regard to Menzies, I say he was on the regular run when appointed Inspector. The reason of my appointing him was I thought he was fit for the position. He was not long on trial; he resigned. I did not receive any complaints about him from the Motormen or Conductors. I knew he was at the office to answer a charge against him. He did not tell tales of his mates to me when on the Kingsiand service. I am absolutely certain I never gave him tickets. Inspector Cox was careless during the latter part of his term: he was constantly sitting down, smoking, and yarning; it was not because of his reports diminishing during that time: as far as I remember they came in just the same. (Rule read.) That rule is not always carried out. It may be a case
By Mr. Sherry:
As to turning back from the loops, it is a fact that there has been a bad run in the power lately. The Inspectors have also power to tell the Motormen to turn back, as the Inspector is the Inspector of Traffic on that particular run. The Motorman would not complete his journey if he got instructions to the contrary. I do not remember the case of Conductor Penfold. It is a fact that he is very gentlemanly in his manner. I have no recollection of a report about his standing on a lady's toe. I consider that was a frivilous charge to be made by the lady, but I don't remember the incident.
By Mr. Walklate;
I did think it a peculiar procedure as to the "round robin." At that time I was seven years younger, and I had less knowledge of those matters. At the present time I should think it a very curious thing. I was Chief Inspector in those days. I was not experienced in the management of men. I have heard of putting new. Motormen back on the Conducting. It is quite a common thing in Sydney. We find we have a difficulty in obtaining satisfactory Inspectors. Most of Mr. Bassett's reports never came to me at all. I have no recollection of having received a report from Mr. Bassett. I get quite a few reports, and in the nineteen years they mount up, so that it is quite impossible to remember every individual one; but when they have been talked about I put my mind to work upon them. With regard to cars turning back, unfortunately a great many are turned back, and we have reasons from the Despatcher and from the Inspectors, but there are others where we have no explanation at all. That is why the Company check the time-table. It is a fact sometimes that a man may turn back without instructions, so as to enable him to get to the barn in time to finish.
His Worship:
That would be when a Motorman and Conductor have been in league together.
Mr. Walklate:
That is so, Your Worship.
William George Bassett (re-called) examined by Mr. Rosser:
(Part previous evidence read.)
I reaffirm that that evidence is correct as to anonymous letters received by Mr. Hansen. I have no idea as to the author of the letter, but to my own satisfaction I think I proved Mr. Lysaght to be the author, and I am of that opinion still. There had been an accident to a woman out at Epsom, who made a claim for damages. A certain doctor was backing this woman up in her claim. I investigated the case, and found I could prove that it was all absolute lies, and the injury was given to her by her own husband. Mr. Lysaght asked me about the matter, and I told him that the doctor would be sorry if it ever went to
By Mr. Walklate:
The paper was not in general use but he or I would take it to scribble notes on. It was the only package I saw in the office: it was in the small room which leads to the stationery cupboard, in the telephone room. Mr. Lysaght could go there the same as I could, as the cupboard was open to anyone.
Frederick James Etheridge, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Frederick James Etheridge. I was Traffic Inspector in the employ of the Company. I was about four years as Inspector and twelve months as Conductor. I was always told to caution a man before reporting him and to tutor him in every respect with regard to the service. I always treated a man fairly, and tried to coach him as much as possible. I never received instructions to hide myself from the men, and I never did it and never would. I am Manager of the Ti Ti Estate, in the Waikato, at the present lime. There is a system of signals between the Motormen and Conductors as regards the whereabouts of an Inspector on the line. They indicate his movements, wherever he may be. I have spoken to a man and also reported a man, but I have done more of the former than of the latter. I have checked time-tables at the termini. I would not stand in the middle of the road in all cases, but I have never hidden or planted myself; but I have never gone and stood at the terminus to do it. As a Conductor I never had trouble with the Inspectors; in my time I got on very well. I have never been told by the Traffic Manager that the Conductors were all dishonest. I have always been dealt with fair and square by the Traffic Manager. I had my own faults, which have had to be rectified occasionally.
By Mr. Rosser:
I was always told to caution a man before reporting him. I remember the case of Spence. I am the Inspector who got Spence brought up on the charge on which he got two months' imprisonment last November. I don't exactly know whether I warned him or not but I suspected him. I reported it to my superior officer, to the Chief Inspector at Epsom Depot (Mr. Mackay), and I expect he reported it to the Traffic Manager. Mr. Mackay told me to make arrangements with a passenger to catch him. It was not Mr. Lysaght who told me that. I
His Worship mentioned that the manner of giving evidence weighed very heavily with the Court.
By Mr. Rosser:
I had no previous knowledge of this passenger before getting on this car, but I may have passed the time of day with her. She was told to be there. Chief Inspector Mackay told her, and I received knowledge that she would he there. I told her to mark a ticket and get out at the Royal Oak. The result was someone else was found with this ticket. I did not tell her where to place the ticket. Spence was convicted, and got two months' imprisonment. That is the only time I have had any collusion with female detectives. I have never been asked to work with them since, as I never had occasion. I have had instructions to check the time-tables from the Traffic Manager. I don't stand out on the fool-path. I never went behind the fence or inside a room behind the curtain; it was always out in the open I stood. I received no instructions as to how it was to be done, I would also report any breaches. I have on my own responsibility given instructions to Conductors as to working their cars, Conductor Sherry had a car, and his regular run was on the Onehunga line. I told him once no passengers were allowed to stand at the back. That was before instructions were issued that passengers were allowed to stand at the rear. I don't know that Mr. Sherry got into trouble for ordering a passenger inside. I have never had any complaint to report as to Mr. Lysaght. Three years ago there was a meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road, hut I hardly remember what was decided at that meeting. I remember Mr. Bassett and Mr. Griffiths and other Inspectors were there, but I don't remember it clearly. If a man were a better man, I think they would be justified in promoting him over my head. I was perfectly satisfied with what the Company did. I got a rise myself, as I was fit for a certain class of work. It was three years ago when I attended that meeting. I have been reported for drinking with the men in uniform. I was not in uniform when a friend of mine asked me to have a drink, and there was another employee with me at that time. I remember the time when I was seen in the cellar of the Captain Cook Brewery in uniform. I was having my When men have been sick I have told them to get a glass of brandy and port wine, and stood by the car while it was done. I don't remember reporting a man for drinking in uniform. I remember the case of Mr. Ballin and the gloves that were missing. The gloves were dropped by a lady in the ear. I picked up the gloves, and ran outside after a passenger, thinking they were hers. The car proceeded on its way: they did not belong to that lady, and I enclosed them in an envelope and sent them to the depot, I did not receive a letter from Mr. Ballin about them. (Photo produced.) That is my photo., taken on my in uniform. It is on my own verandah, and in place of it being' a bottle of beer, it was a bottle of tea. I never heard of Inspector Johnstone reporting me for being intoxicated at the Show.
By Mr. Carter:
I was one year as Conductor and four years as Inspector. I had no previous tramway experience. I did not drive a car before being made 'inspector. I went into the barn for a fortnight; but I was Inspector before that. I was Relieving Inspector for some considerable time before being made a Permanent inspector. I was in the barn three years ago, and again this year. Mr. Hansen appointed me as Inspector. I have never done any inspecting in private clothes. I am pretty well acquainted with the signalling. I don't think it is right, when a man is getting fair and just treatment; it looks bad. Some of the public are quite conversant with it. One gentleman told me he had caught the mode of signals. When cheeking the time-tables I may have stood this or the other side of the terminus, I would be on the road: never hidden behind places. I never stood behind telegraph posts at Kingsland. Mr. McElwain was Chief Inspector, and was my superior officer. In some things he was a good and capable man. He could have been more efficient in some respects, in the clerical part of the work, but his education was not very good. He never asked me to do anything crooked for him. I never did any private clothes' duty. I have no complaint to make as to a man being appointed Inspector. I think the men that hold the positions at the present day are equal to it. I think an Inspector should be up to everything. If a bad Motorman may make a good Inspector, the same applies to the Conductors.
By Mr. Sherry:
It is hard to explain why the signalling originated. I expect the men like to have a code of signals. I had a very good class of men on the Onehunga line. I had not many men who did that signalling there; but I have seen it on other lines. I reported you at Greenwood's Corner, justly. It was by word of mouth; it was just about that time when the signalling came in. Your case was the first one to be reported, and although I said I did not like reporting it, you said you preferred to have it done.
By Mr. Carter:
It was a standing rule to caution the men before reporting them. I have seen men go to refreshment shops and have a bottle of hop beer during the hot weather and go straight back to the car. We always use our own discretion. I have seen men leave their cars for a minute or two and did not report them; but if a man left the car for an unnecessary reason the case would be dealt with. I made it a rule to tell the man before reporting. It depends on the circumstances of the case. An old Motorman like yourself would know the rules as well as I. I may have reported a man without telling him at the time of the offence.
By His Worship:
We cautioned a man first, but that caution would not be followed by a report at all; but if it happened again I should feel it incumbent on me to report it. If a serious breach of the rules, I should certainly report him after cautioning him; but if merely a technical breach I might warn him again.
By Mr. Carter:
I was not supposed to notify a man before reporting him.
By Mr. Rosser;
After the Spence affair I was on the Onehunga line. It is a fact I earned a revolver after that; it was to protect myself. I did my duty conscientiously, but there is always a class of men who have a better feeding towards you, and I was aware of this feeling; not actually the employees, but some of the travelling public as well, amongst a certain class. I believe there was a subscription got up to help Spence at Onehunga. The revolver was not loaded, except in some cases.
By Mr. Walklate:
If I saw a man smoking I would caution him. If I saw him again next day I would report him. I would not caution him again.
Frederick Reuss, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Frederick Reuss. I am a motorman in the employ of the Tram Company. I have been employed four years next November. I remember the day of the Strike. I took my car out at 7.13 a.m. brought it in about 10 o'clock. I was due on again at 9 past 2 p.m. I turned up at Epsom to take the car out, and found they were not running. I was told there was a Strike. Inspector Mackay asked me to see whether the handles were on the cars, and I did so. I left about a o'clock. I think. I came up next day to see if anything was doing. There were no cars running, and I cleaned his office out, and while I doing so I heard there was grumbling about my working. I went to the Inspector about it; the men said they did not object to my working. I have been employed as Motorman the whole of the four years. I was satisfied with the treatment I had from the Inspectors and from the officials of the Company. I have had no cause to complain.
By Mr. Rosser:
I remember the first Strike in
By Mr. Walklate:
I worked on the cars for one day about a fortnight ago.
By Mr. Carter:
After the
By Mr. Rosser:
I am not a member of the Union, but I have been. I ran into arrears, and you issued a summons against me; I paid up, and since then I have not been a member of the Union.
Richard Spry, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Richard Spry. I am a Motorman in the service of the Company. I have been in their employ for five and a-half years, and about five years driving. I remember the day of the Strike. It was about 12.15 on the 21st of May last. I was a Motorman driving on the Mount Eden line. When I arrived in Queen Street I saw a number of cars there deserted by the Motormen and Conductors. Mr. Rosser and a number of others came up and asked me to join the Strike. I told them I didn't belong to the Union, and didn't choose to strike. They went away, and I took my car, with another attached, round to the Epsom barn. I had received no notice from Mr. Rosser, verbally or in writing, that the Strike was to take place. I saw no reason for the Strike myself. When I got to the barn I got signed off by one of the clerks, and went home. Next morning I went to take out a car as usual, but was informed that the cars were not running. I was set on at the barn to clean carriages, and afterwards told by the Foreman to go home. I have not worked since. I have been paid. During the time I have been employed I have had no reason to complain of the treatment by the Inspectors or officers. I could not be treated better.
By Mr. Rosser:
On the day of the Strike I saw a number of cars deserted, and you asked me to join the Strike. That was the first I heard about it. I don't remember Motorman Carter speaking to me outside H.M. Theatre; in fact, I never knew his name. I have been paid since then the full Motorman's wages, or thereabouts. I had had previous experience in Tramway matters in Melbourne. I remember the Cable Strike there in
By Mr. Carter:
I am satisfied with the wages. I think they are fair and just. I remember giving evidence at the Arbitration Court. I said that a shilling an hour was a fair thing. I did not say 5s. 6d. a day. I did not know you by name, but I know you by sight very well. I had spoken to you, but I didn't know who Mr. Carter was. I remember the time we were together in the Instruction Room. I don't believe you spoke to me up Queen Street as to the Strike. I don't think there is one man now, after due reflection, would dislike my returning to the service.
By Mr. Sherry:
I don't remember you being with Mr. Rosser. It was enough to excite anyone to see the crowd there. You never spoke to me on that morning to my knowledge.
By Mr. Walklate:
If I had thought it necessary to go out on Strike I should not have thought it the proper thing to leave my car in the public street, because the larrikins might interfere with the brakes. I had a job to keep then off my car. I certainly think it the proper thing to take the car off the public street. They should not be left there.
Ralph Turner, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Ralph Turner. I am a Tramway Inspector, and have been in the service about four years. I have acted as Conductor, and during the last twelve months as Inspector. I have been instructed to take steps to check time-tables at Remuera, and also Kingsland. I stood on the main road on the tram lines, and took the times of the arrival and departure. There is a system of signals amongst the Motormen and Conductors. The Conductors are watching for the Inspectors like a cat watching a mouse, and trying to get the signal as to where the Inspector is. I have never received special instructions to watch a man leaving the service. I have occasionally inspected a car when nearing the terminus. I occasionally find people have dropped their tickets; it is not a regular thing as a rule. If a passenger had not got a ticket I asked them where they got on, to see whether they have ridden over two sections or only just got on. It would be unfair to take the matter up with the Conductor in the latter case. I have always been treated fairly by the Traffic Manager.
By Mr. Rossers:
When instructed to check the time-tables I have done so from the tram lines, standing on the road. I don't know whether they saw me or not, but anyone on the ear could have seen me. I never found any difficulty in being able to check the time-tables from that position. I could do it just as well there as from behind the log or the fence. I have never taken up a position at Kingsland where the men could not see me. I have been satisfied with the conditions in the service. I was some time before acting as Relieving Inspector for about six months. So far as I am concerned there was dissatisfaction as to inspecting being done. As Conductor I never heard any expression of dissatisfaction or heard them say there were things they did not approve of. I had been Inspector, Relieving Inspector, and I was Conducting up to the Strike. I was on the shift that came out, and my car was left empty with the others. I left because the others left. I had no opinion as to the principle for which the men struck. I never thought anything about it, and simply went out because the others did it.
Mr. Rosser:
I believe the witness has always been a straight man, and one of the best Inspectors in the service.
By Mr. Carter:
I should have gone on as a Motorman, but I was appointed as Inspector, and at that time I was being put through a course of instruction. As an Inspector I warned a man before reporting him. I have always been told to do this. If I saw a man at a serious offence I would certainly tell him before reporting. I was put over the men before I had a practical knowledge as Motorman. I have been Motorman for about twelve months, since being Inspector.
By. Mr. Sherry:
It is a fact that men will go out of their way to oblige me in carrying out my duties as Inspector, and in my turn I would give them a straight deal back.
By Mr. Walklate:
It is a rather delicate time just now; you can hardly dare t6 speak to some of the men; they think everybody is watching them.
Herbert James Baker, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Herbert Janies Baker. I am a clerk at the Ponsonby Depot. I have been in the service three years next November, during which time I have been in the employ of the Company as Conductor and Clerk, Conducting for twelve months and the remainder of the time as Clerk. When Conductor I had no complaints to make as to the Inspectors. Since being in the office I have not come under the Traffic Department.
By Mr. Rosser:
I remember the
By Mr. Morris:
On that occasion I remember the language used was forcible, tat not out of the ordinary.
By Mr. Rosser:
It was before he went to the office; when he got word at the window. I have no recollection of any words that he used. I
William Thomas Rowe, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is William Thomas Rowe. I am a Ticket Inspector in the service of the Company. I have been employed by them for five years and one month, as Conductor, Motorman and Inspector. I was Motor man over four years. I have been Inspector for two months. When the merit and demerit system was in vogue I stood high up. Mr. Hansen gave three prizes of £3, and £1. I came third; next quarter I came first, and the last quarter I tied with Motorman Haslam tor the first place. There is a system of signals among the men to notify where the Inspector is. When I am on a line too long the men know where I are, and I have to dodge to another line across country, without letting them know. If a Conductor is a new hand and there is a miss-fare I tell him where the passenger is, and he collects the fares; that is if it is a fult car. If there are eight or ten passengers and he has had time to see to the fares, I ask the passengers where they joined the car, to whether they have overridden their sections or have tried to "best him. If I find a passenger trying to impose on the Conductor I ask they don't know what he is employed for. On the first occasion I find the fare missed I tell the Conductor, and if I find more later on I the matter. I make allowance if he is a new hand. During the time was Motorman I was satisfied with the treatment by the Inspectors got merit marks, and I always had the privilege to go to the office-was in the wrong I got demerit marks; if otherwise, I got them celled. I have no complaints as to the treatment I received from Traffic Manager. I have been down once "on the carpet," as the saying is, before Mr. Hansen, the General Manager.
By Mr. Rosser:
I have been Inspector for about two months. I was the 18th or 19th of May, three days before the Strike was held applied for the position of Inspector about four years before, when Conductor. I was offered the position, but preferred to be driving as Motorman. I applied for the Onehunga run, but Mr. Alec Paton came back, and claimed this; and as he was senior man he got the preference; as senior man he was entitled to it though at the time I felt sore about it Signalling has been carried on ever since I was in the have given signals myself. I have been reported for it, and got demerit
By Mr. Carter:
I did not strike during
By Mr. Sherry:
As to the signals, I was conversant with them as a Conductor and as a Motorman; it went back as far as that. The signals were not used so much then as now. It was a very rare case five years ago to use them. It is only during the last twelve months that it has got to such a pitch as at present.
Benjamin Guy, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Benjamin Guy. I am a Fitter. I was formerly a Conductor on the spare list of the Company. I joined the Company about last September. I am not sure of the date. I remember the Sunday after the Agricultural Show in Auckland. I was booked up for the No. 4 Kingsiand run at the Ponsonby Depot. I got the information of that booking on Friday afternoon. There is a sheet put in a case at the barn, and all runs for Saturday and Sunday following are shown. I reported myself on Sunday, about half an hour before the time; that is the usual course. I was due to go out by 12.45. I got my waybill. Mr. Morris asked me if I would oblige him by talking a Remuera run, as a Conductor booked for that run was sick. Afterwards Conductor Armitage came in, and said he did not mind taking a run, and Mr. Morris said, "Then be "quick, and get your uniform and block." Mr. Morris then said, "Perhaps Guy won't mind, and you can have the Remuera run." The rule on Sunday is, if on the spare list, a man is entitled to the run; therefore I was entitled to the Remuera run on account of the Conductor being sick. They always commence at the bottom of the list; that is to give a chance to a man earning very little to get the best nm on Sunday.
After the spare men are supplied, then the regular men come in, but the spare men always have preference on Sundays. I told Mr. Morris I didn't think it was fair to me, as I was entitled to the Remuera run or the one booked up for Kingsland. He turned on me and said, "I can "see you wish to refuse duty, and you won't be required any more at the "barn." It is a serious offence, refusing duty. The Remuera run is a better run than the Herne Bay, as it is a longer run, and therefore more profitable to me. We get time and a-half for Sunday work. I told him I did not refuse duty, I was willing to take the car out but I didn't care about being taken off one and put on another, particularly to oblige a regular man. As a spare man I would not make very much that week, but a regular man would make his regular wage, £2 2s., or more. I saw you at your office on the Sunday, and told you the facts of the case. I saw Mr. Lysaght on the Monday morning, and he said it appeared to him that I had refused duty. I told him I had not. Then he said, "You "to be grumbling." I had a right to grumble about a shortage; they stopped me 5s. on the Onehunga run on the Wednesday preceding, which was actually more than I earned that day. I knew I was not short. I reckoned up my tickets. They afterwards returned me 50 one penny tickets booked up against me, which I never had. If I had not protested I should have had to pay the 5s. I did not consider that I was rightly discharged, as I did not refuse duty. I gave references to the Company, and was accepted on those. I signed the big application form, in which there are about 35 questions. I am a married man. I did not get a reference when I left. I have been on various work since leaving the Company, The last job was as a fitter at Waihi which ended on Saturday day morning last. I paid the doctor's foe of 5s.; I also paid for my license, only the one, and that was for last year, until December 31st. I did not pay for one this year, I did not get the doctor's certificate. I have been in there three or four times, but could not got an answer at all. I consider it belongs to me, as I paid for it.
By Mr. Morris:
You asked me if I would oblige by taking the Remuera run never said anything to me about a man not turning up. I had been on the Remuera line before, so it was not a case of managing it. I was not signed on, but you told me to get the block out. It was when you were giving me the blocks that you asked me to do this. I know a man different block for each run but you gave me the right block, and told me you would give me the tickets in a minute. I did not get the special block. I was entitled to the Remuera run according to the rules, The block has nothing to do with the run. I took your word as a gentleman that I should have the nm. You told me that I would not be required any more at the barn, and I considered I was dismissed when you I me that. When I saw Mr. Lysaght I got no satisfactory answer, I considered I was dismissed, because I was told so by my superior I had no trouble with the officials while I was working. After I was discharged Inspector Griffiths and I had a bit of a row; he struck me first, and I struck him back, as any man would do. There was cause for trouble, but I was not excited; I was quite cool and sober, It was on Monday.
By Mr. Walklate:
I went to see Mr. Lysaght because I reckoned I was entitled to see the Traffic Manager. Mr. Lysaght said. "You know what Morris told
By Mr. Carter:
Mr. Morris is Inspector at the barn, He said I should not be required any more at the barn; he considered I had refused duty. There seemed to be grumbling amongst the spare list men all the time—a good deal of discontent. They were not satisfied as to the shortages. On three or four occasions I have had 2s. 6d. put against me, but they refunded it when I complained. It must have been five or six occasions. I have been three or four times for the doctor's certificate, and Mr. Lysaght refused it and said I could not get it back. It was certainly my property. I had my references back, but they still hold that certificate.
By Mr. Sherry:
I was entitled to take the run according to the rules of the spare list. I should have been the next man for Mr. Morris to put on. Armitage was not booked up at all he being a regular man. He would have to come in after the spare list was fixed up.
By Mr. Rosser:
The mere fact of my not having the Remuera block and tickets did not count, as it did not affect my position on the spare list, and I was entitled to the best run going. I did not hear about the spare list men complaining while I was there. I did not have trouble with any officer until I considered I was badly treated. Inspector Griffiths afterwards told me he did not think there was an honest man working on the Tram Company. I told him I was as honest as he was. I had the 5s. returned back to me when I left, he struck me first, and left a little bit of a mark, I think. I believe you first suggested I should go to Mr. Lysaght, as Mr. Morris had not the power to discharge me. One firm I was in I remained with for 14 years. It was a gun-maker's in Birmingham and I showed that discharge when I applied to join the Company.
By Mr. Morris:
I was at the Epsom Depot before coming to the Ponsonby. I asked for the change, as it was too far to walk, and I would have to get up at 4 a.m. I had no dispute with anyone there.
Mr. Rosser referred to Witnesses being subpæenaed by the Company at the last moment.
Mr. Walklate explained that snbpaænaes not signed by Mr. Cave had been issued in ignorance and that fresh subpæenaes had consequently to be issued with Mr. Cave's signature attached.
Evan Tickle, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Evan Tickle. I am employed in the service of the Tram Company as Ticket Inspector, I have been in the employ just over five years, for eighteen months as Conductor, three years as Motorman, and about seven months as Inspector. As to checking time-tables, I have never received any instructions as to keeping myself unobserved; none whatever. I have never had special instructions to pay special attention to men about to leave the service. As regards checking cars when nearing the terminus, I consider it necessary. I have never had any trouble
As to Mr. Bassett's statement with regard to my crouching behind St. Matthew's Church fence, it is an open fence; it would be necessary to know what is meant by crouching. If he meant I was standing and leaning on the fence, I admit it, but if he meant I went down on all fours. I do not admit it. I have often stood at the fence, leaning on it and waiting for a car to come up. It is a low fence at that place. I remember the incident mentioned by Conductor Browne, as I had to report on it to Mr. Lysaght. The facts are these: I hearded the car al Shortland Street: I was in private clothes: the car was about quarter full: it didn't till up at Wellesley Street, but I took no further notice after that. After passing the penny section, somewhere in the neighbourhood of West Street, he came and tapped me on the shoulder, and asked if I was supposed to give up my seat, the same as themselves, and I said certainly, why do you ask, is there anyone standing? He said "No," but there was. I said, "it is rather late to come and tell me now, "but had I known I would have stood up." When I joined the service I went to see Mr. lysaght, and, not being familiar with inspecting. I asked for instructions. He asked me if I had a Rule Book, and said. There is your guidance; follow it. I am not in the habit of harassing a man, as Inspector. After being Inspector four or live weeks I met Wade, the Motorman, at the corner of Hobson and Victoria Streets, and he was off duty at the time. He told me if I did not change my tactics I would not be in the service three months. He also said he was surprised that I did not stand in a proper place, and proper manner, and suggested how he would stand. At this corner there is a telegraph pole, and the Greaseman's grease cans are against it. I was standing about four or five yards towards College Hill from this pole, and he said t had no right to stand there; I should stand over on the corner of the footpath, which would face the road down towards town. When I was Motorman I never thought I was harassed by Inspectors. I never had any complaints against the Traffic Manager.
By Mr. Rosser:
I never got any instructions as to checking time-tables. The Rule Book gave me full instructions in those matters. The Inspector's Book was handed to me by Mr. Morris. I have not got it with me. I could not say whether it was a new book; I did not notice any great wear in
I was in the barn three or four weeks. I am not quite sure. I know nothing about Rogers asking for me to be taken out of the barn. I am never on the same road as other Inspectors are, so don't know their methods. I am very seldom out in private clothes. Any work done as Inspector by me was following the Book of Instructions, I do not think it tells me to get out of sight. I do not follow my own ideas. I don't know why you ask the question as to keeping back out of sight and then boarding a car. I said I did not stand in the road. I have nothing to do with the Motormen, whether they see me or not. I consider it well to be out of the road. It is impossible to answer questions Yes or No.
By His Worship:
I consider it is better for me to stand out of the road.
(Court adjourned to 2 p.m.)
(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)
Inspector Tickle, examined by Mr. Rosser:
(Report read.) I know the circumstances referred to in the report you have just read. The report is not correct. I have no received a copy from the Company, but I have seen it. I know it has been sent in.
I was waiting" for an up car when this man who was supposed to be injured came over to me and wanted to know if I could tell him who were in charge of that particular car. I referred him to the office for the names it is some weeks since the accident happened. I was not present at the time, and I never saw anything but the finish. He complained something about the men running with the pole the wrong way, and something was said about their pulling the wires out and it was very careless of them. I said it was possible they did, but I expressed no opinion as to getting rid of the men out of the service. I have been asked by Mr. Walklate for an explanation. I did not know which car it was for certain. I cannot see any reason for the Motorman being under the apprehension that a false charge would be brought up against him. That was all the conversation I had with the man and I do not know his name. When I was appointed Inspector I considered I was competent. Instructions were given to me as to how to pursue my duties. (Instructions to Inspectors read.) I consider that good advice, and I have always endeavoured to follow that. I have never catechised a man in front of a passenger. I may have spoken to a man through him speaking to me first. I never deliberately asked a man any question in the presence of passengers. It was in a firm and considerate manner. I have spoken in front of passengers on very few occasions, and only where a man spoke to me first. It lowers both in the opinion of the passenger: If the Conductors in those cases forced it on to me. I was compelled to answer. I answer in a calm and firm way. When I was a Motorman I did not give any free rides. I remember Cusack, the Epsom conductor. I do not remember the instance of two lady friends being with me on the front platform. I would not say, but it is possible they were in the car. They were not on the front platform; that has never happened.
By Mr. Morris:
With regard to the Cook Street incident, my waistcoat has bright buttons on. They were not hidden in the way Mr. Rosser described it.
By Mr. Rosser:
I mentioned the overcoat was too small in the chest. I will explain this: I cannot purchase a suit or an overcoat ready-made that will fit me. I must have three inches across the chest more than an ordinary man. I am seldom able to button the coat owing to the fact that there was not enough room. I invariably work with my coat open, but when windy I simply button it together, and I presume that is the reason I have been accused of all these things.
By Me. Morris;
The coat is single-breasted.
By Mr. Carter:
The very fact of pulling it over would hide the buttons. This spot is covered by the verandah, and I would not be exposed to the rain when under that. When on duty I am not compelled to wear uniform. When working in specified hours I am compelled to wear a uniform. I have, never done private clothes duty in that exact term. I have reported a man whilst wearing private clothes. I presume I was on duty, even after working the eight hours. I go on the rule that I am always on duty. That is a rule with the other Inspectors, too, I think. I would not be an Inspector if I didn't like it. If I expressed my opinion to anyone. I think I said I would sooner go back to Motorman; there is
By Mr. Sherry:
When I started on Inspector's duty I certainly understood were a great many points to pick up. I worked under the old system as Conductor; I never had anything to do with this system. I do not think it is more complicated. I think I commenced duties on a Friday; in fact. I am sure I did. When I was Conductor it was my practice when changing from one block to another to put down the new number before finishing the old one. I always did that, as I was instructed that way. Any Inspector conversant with the system knew that can hardly call it a system: it is not a whole system; it is only a point I agree with you, there are a number of points.
By Mr. Walklate:
The only instance when I came before you was when I came to meet a deputation; it was not as to doing my work.
Peter McElwain, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Peter McElwain. (Report handed to witness.) I know that report, as to Conductor Herdson's car. That is my report, and it was made in connection with the incident that occurred on his car. That report is absolutely correct. The statements made here as to what was said to me by Conductor Herdson are absolutely correct. (Report read.)
By Mr. Rosser:
I am decidedly of opinion that that report is correct, and that those words were used by Herdson. I would not go back on what I say, It was without provocation. He spoke to me first. I had previous trouble, but that was an incident on the Kingsland line. Instead of taking me to the back of the car, he came in front of the passengers. I remember the time of the last strike, and that the Inspectors sent a report to the star Office to say that they were quite satisfied with Mr. Lysaght's administration. I believe all the men were unanimous in The men met together, and they expressed their opinion. They were round about the office waiting for instructions; it might have been outside of the office. I was not called to the meeting. I found afterwards that a report was sent to the Star Office. I am quite satisfied that all the men expressed their opinions in that way. I was satisfied as far as certain things went, but I certainly considered that as far as having a man placed over me was concerned that Mr. Lysaght was to blame for it. I am the oldest Inspector in the service. I am satisfied now with the explanation given by Mr. Lysaght, and, considering the
By Mr. Sherry:
I consider a girl is a girl, until she turns 25. They did not appear to be more than that. I have found out since that one of these ladies is a married woman, and has a child. It may not seem fair to the Conductor, as the Company might surmise that these two girls were relations or friends of that particular Conductor; but I did not state it in that way and I did not write the report to read that Way. They did not appear old to me. They were in evening dress, and very often you will find even a woman of thirty in evening dress would appear much younger. I did not notify the Company that one was a married woman. I know Mr. Carey's instructions about dealing with fairness, I might have made a statement to the Company, and mentioned that afterwards I found that one was a married woman, but I won't say that I did. I do not know that there are many' men that will say that I did not give them fair play. Certainly', I say now that it was an error. I could not alter the report, but I could add a rider if necessary.
By Mr. Walklate:
I explained to you that they were in evening dress, and they looked very young. I did mention that to you. They were going to an evening party, I think. I told you they were about 22 or 23 I thought.
By Mr. Morris:
As to the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road, I used the words Do a man an injury." In using that term I considered that any working under a master who would do anything to undermine him It is only natural that he would slate him down for it I certainly think that meeting was for that purpose of undermining.
Vaughan Walker, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Vaughan Walker. I have been in the service of the Company for 3½ years as Conductor and Inspector. I have been Inspector for about eighteen months. I was Conductor in Brisbane for 4½ years. I gave notice to leave, and got a good discharge. The arrangements there as to inspection were about the same as here. I could never see the reports, and could not tell who reported me. Here I can see the reports. As far as working on the road, it was the same inspectors used to board the cars at unexpected places, before the cars reached the terminus, and report the men, I have been instructed to check the time-tables here, and was instructed to keep out of sight. If see a man doing wrong I tell him, but I don't tell him I am going to report him, because I would get too much abuse in most cases if I did. I never got instructions to pay particular attention to men during the last few days before leaving the service. If I found a miss-fare on the car, I asked the passenger where he boarded, to see if the Conductor had had a fair chance to collect the fare before reporting, as I was instructed to treat the men fairly. Sometimes I found a passenger had overridden a section, and sometimes fares not collected, not necessarily near a terminus. I have found cases of tickets being thrown away, but not generally. I was promoted to Inspector direct from the Conductor's position. I have had training as Motorman. I passed my examination and went to the Ponsonby Depot for instructions, when I was first promoted as Inspector. I have been treated by the officials of the Company very fairly.
By Mr. Rosser:
I had experience as Conductor in Brisbane. It is a private company, It is not a fact that Brisbane and Auckland services are the only private companies. Melbourne is so, or it was when I was there. I could not say whether it is a municipal concern now but I do not think so. I consider men here have a better chance than in the Brisbane service I heard a few complaints about the system there. I have read about the complaints of the Conductors here, but I did not hear of As Conductor I never heard of having to report oneself at the Office. It never happened to me. I was instructed to check time-tables, and keep out of sight. I got out of sight the best way I could. I have never planted myself in an upper room behind a curtain. I have never found it necessary. I stand on the footpath, and board the car from there. I do not take any method to conceal myself at all. I have an overcoat, furnished by the Company, and it is made to fit. I was
By Mr. Carter:
About six weeks after being appointed Inspector I learned the duties of a Motorman. I have done duty in private clothes. I have checked time-tables then. I have done it in the Company's time, not in my ordinary shift. I did not report breaches of rules, but I saw plenty. My instructions were to report the arrival and departure of the cars. I was not instructed to wear false whiskers. As Conductor I was rather reserved, and did not mix up with the general file. I would not hear what was going on very much.
By Mr. Rosser:
I was not Inspector during the
Thomas Henry Ashe, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Thomas Henry Ashe. I am Inspector in the Company's service. I have been there about four years, as Conductor, Clerk, and Inspector; about two years as Inspector approximately. Prior to joining the service of the Company I was in the service of the New South Wales Railways and Tramways, I recollect the conditions in Sydney. I was connected with the Tramway Manager's office ten years ago, before the installation of the electric system, I know, although not prepared to swear, that there were private Inspectors travelling on the cars. There were also uniform Inspectors, six in number. I have not received any special instructions to watch men who were leaving the service. I have not been instructed to watch any man in particular. If it is a trivial matter, I warn the Conductor before reporting him; it all
By Mr. Rosser:
I stayed at various places while inspector. I am a single man. I boarded with Mr. Etheridge. Naturally we would be intimate, living together and being in the same service. I have never received instructions as to working with female detectives or spies, nor with female passengers. I have no need to resort to that. I don't think it would be a good system. I think I can do my work effectively. My knowledge of the Sydney trams is from ten years ago. I have read about a big upheaval in that service. There was a Royal Commission appointed in
By Mr. Carter:
I was taken from the ranks of Conductors and made Inspector. When I was appointed Inspector I was instructed to pass the Motorman's examination. I don't remember how long it was; it may have been a few days. I have done plain clothes duty, checking time-tables. If I saw any breaches of the Rules, it would depend on the nature of the offence, and if warranted I would report it. When appointed as Inspector I had no instructions whatever. I was simply told to go in private clothes and check the time-table. I don't remember having reported men for other offences when checking time-tables, though possibly I might. Mr. Etheridge never did any private detective work; at least I never heard of it. I don't remember any system of signalling in Sydney; it was not necessary for us then. They' had the bell system then. They only had about six Inspectors, but there were private Inspectors as well. I would not swear to that. In
By Mr. Walklate:
I would wait until the car came, and then walk into the road and get on it. I would not stand in the middle of the road, unless at the Despatcher's pole. One of the steps to counteract the signals would be to go from line to line across country. It would be quite natural to go from College Hill up to Ponsonby Road.
By Mr. Carter:
It might possibly occur that Motormen and Conductors, knowing the whereabouts of the Inspector, would perhaps take advantage, knowing the Inspector to be off the road, and remain at the terminus for a time. As an illustration, say a car is at the terminus for ten minutes after its time, and if an officer of the Company remains unobserved, he notices this, and investigations would show subsequently the cause of his being there all that time. If a Despatcher told him to lay over, for a time, I don't see how they could punish a man for that offence. Perhaps that man would be asked to explain the cause of the delay. You would report a man, and he would get a "Please explain." It does not say the man would be called upon for an explanation, as the matter could be investigated by the officials without bringing a man into it at all. There may have been some unaccountable delay.
(Adjourned to 10 a.m. on Thursday, 16th July.)
(Court resumed Thursday, 16th July, at 10 a.m.)
James Brennand, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is James Brennand. I am Superintendent of the Rolling Stock. I have been with the Company 10 months. Prior to that I was seven years in Sydney first of all as Electrical Inspector, and then General Foreman. I can tell you about the Inspection system there. It is very strict, and the men are watched far more than in Auckland. There are a large number of Inspectors. About 60 or 70 of all ranks. There are Inspectors. Sub-Inspectors, Motor Inspectors, Ticket Examiners, and Electrical Inspector's. Seven years ago there was a considerably less number of Inspectors, but the service has increased very largely by three or four hundred ears. I could not say how many Inspectors there were seven years ago, I am not prepared to say what the private inspection is, but there is private inspection, and some of the Inspectors wear plain clothes. I was in the Engineer's Office at head-quarters with a gentleman holding the same position as I hold in Auckland now. They have Bundy Clocks at various points, and at North Sydney about four are used. Before the installation of the Bundy Clock the Inspectors went out and checked the time of the cars. They simply went along the road; I don't think they had any particular rule as to being on or off the road, I consider it would be better to be out of sight. Inspector there did keep out of sight. It is about three and a-half years since the Bundy Clocks were introduced. Before that Inspectors used to check the time-tables.
By Mr. Rosser:
I was seven years in the Sydney service, I started there as Electrical Inspector in the Engineer's Department. They are very strict there; more than in Auckland. I was there during the Royal Commission; it was a very long inquiry. There were certain measures adopted by Mr. Kneeshaw that came in for strictures, but a lot of the cases were not proved, Mr. Beeby conducted for the Union, and, I think. Mr. Hollis was associated with him as Barrister. The men complained about the Bundy Clock, and about the method of Inspection. They brought various charges against various members of the service and against Mr. Kneeshaw, but I think they were not proved. The glass fronts was one of the grounds of complaint. They tried them in George Street, and the drivers asked for them to be removed. There are no obsolete brakes there; they are all up-to-date. There has been a Royal Commission as to the brakes also. The Bundy Clocks kept too firm a check on the Conductors with regard to maintaining the time-table. If there is a delay on the line through any cause, loss of power or otherwise, with the Bundy Clock every man running on the line would the same delay; that has happened. On all the single lines they work the staff system, and that compels a man to run to a time-table whole system depends on a staff being at a certain place at a certain time on the single lines. They checked the time-tables along the I think it was said at the Royal Commission that the only possible way of checking them was similar to that suggested by you, namely, looking out from a window, behind a curtain. It all depends on the locality as to whether there is sufficient cover outside. It is no good of an Inspector going to look for faults when everyone can see him coming. The method of having a Union Jack Hying or brass band playing would cer-
By Mr. Carter:
I was attached to the Electrical Department in Sydney, and had nothing whatever to do with the traffic. Being in the Engineer's Department, I would only report on the equipment. I was attached most of the time to the North Sydney circuit. They had two Ticket Inspectors and about 75 cars. When I went to North Sydney first the rolling stock there was 35 single cars, and when the cars were coupled they doubled the rolling stock. As to cheeking the time-tables, there is no Despatcher at Gore Hill, but there is an half-hourly service. There is a starter at morning and night, but none during the day. At Neutral Bay there is no starter. Working on the staff system was a chock on the other man; if a man were late it would throw the whole line out of gear. I do think it necessary to have a man out of sight when checking the timetable. I think the best method is the Bundy Clock. Some of the charges made at the Royal Commission were not true. As far as I remember, Superintendent F. H. Brown got a rise in salary; I don't remember that he was censured. Smith was censured, but that was for something that occurred in the old days. I don't consider any inquiry is fruitless; it is well to ventilate grievances sometimes. A lot of the grievances were only imaginary. If there is an Appeal Board I think there is far less trouble, as the Union has to investigate the complaint very seriously before going to the Appeal Board. There have been cases of reinstatement, however, by that Board. The glass fronts are not the same as ours; they are square, like a motor-car. The discipline is not so good here; it is very rigorous in Sydney. I think there should be
By Mr. Walklate:
The 75 cars I mentioned were cable cars. They were both motor, driven with one controller. The carrying capacity varied from 18 to 70 passengers according to the class of cars; they had four different classes There were about twenty carrying about 70 passengers, and fifteen cars, similar to the small cars here, carrying about 18. Also. 15 cars similar to No. 49 here, with end seats, carrying about 35 passengers. There is no limit to the accommodation at all. At the termini they have to change sometimes, use a switch, and come through points. The cars are permanently coupled. I did not come across special detectives in America. I went out with a private detective in Chicago, but he was not from a special agency; he was properly attached to the Company, as far as know. As far as checking the time-tables is concerned, it is not so much to check the men as to have the number of cars carrying out the time-table.
By Mr. Rosser:
The regulation with regard to smoking is very strictly enforced on the cars, and at the terminus, too. The men are not allowed to smoke there.
By Mr. Morris:
If a man is running late it may have a very big effect on the equipment if he had to drive his car to make up the time-table, especially on grades.
William Haydock, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is William Haydock. I am a Clerk in the service of the Company. Previous to that I was Conductor for about 15 months and Inspector for 10 or 11 weeks. Since then I have been a Clerk in the Traffic Office. I was quite satisfied with my treatment by the officials
By Mr. Rosser:
It is three years since I was Inspector. I was only Inspector for about ten weeks—I was relieving Inspector. A vacancy occurred at the Ponsonby Depot, and Mr. Clarke asked if I would take it. It was not because I preferred that position to being Inspector. If I had been permanent Inspector I don't think I would have gone into the office. I remember nothing about the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road. As to the shortage, the Conductor makes up his cash; he puts tickets into the envelope and seals them down, that is the exchange and return tickets, puts the cash on the tray, and puts the amount down in the revenue journal. The Receiving Clark counts it in the presence of the Conductor. Any shortage in the cash should be detected by the Clerk. I did not take the cash from Guy; at least I don't remember if I did. It is marked in the revenue journal, so much for cash and so much for return tickets. I don't check whether the figures are right or not; they are checked next day as a rule. A man is put on the work especially to check it the next day. That is the method during the present time, and also in Guy's time. Formerly the clerks checked it. I don't think that is a better system, because at that time when they were put away that was taken as final; now it is not; we check the unsold value, and that is carried forward on the book, and a mistake is easily discovered that way. There could not possibly be any dishonesty in that method. I have not heard of young Conductors being marked up with £1 shortage in my time. I have heard of blocks of tickets being lost and found again. There was one case at the Depot this week. The Clerk at the office could not possibly be dishonest without my finding it out. I make a general inspection of their work. I detected the mistake in which Guy was overcharged 5/-in about
By Mr. Morris:
With regard to the Conductor having any future check, he can always refer to the Revenue Journal, whore his own figures are down at the time.
By Mr. Carter:
I said there does not seem to be any discontent about the shortages at Ponsonby. It has not been brought to my notice. I don't remember a man saying he would not pay the shortages, as it was against the Truck Act. I don't remember that, even though you say it was in your presence. With reference to Guy's matter, it happened about twelve o'clock. All the runs were going out at that time. The controversy lasted about five or six minutes, I was not away from the place at the time; I was putting new tickets in the cases alongside of Mr. Morris. Guy was booked up for No. 4 Kingsland run. He was asked to take the Remuera run because it would go out first. I think it went on time, about 12.15. The Kingsland run would be about I o'clock (12.50). Mr. Morris got a substitute. Armitage came around the place. Mr. Morris asked me to take charge, and he actually went out and got a man. I could not swear if the substitute was for the Remuera line. There is a certain status for men to sign on by, but that does not apply
By Mr. Sherry:
It is not the rule now for the man receiving the Revenue Sheet to check the numbers with the numbers on the block. I have a man to go and do that specially the following day. I think the first Remuera run is 12.5, there is not much difference anyhow, on Sunday. The Remuera nm goes longer than eight hours. I think, as it pans out longer hours.
By Mr. Walklate:
At the time of Conductor Herdson's discharge his shortages were the largest in the service; they were above the average. Separate blocks are kept for each man. If any mistake such as Guy's occurs, it is pretty certain to come home. It is bound to show it It could not go through without. Under the old system shortages were a very considerable matter at the Ponsonby Depot. At the rate we are going now shortages will soon be a thing of the past.
By His Worship:
I mean the rate of decrease.
By Mr. Walklate:
The shortages a year ago were from ten to fifteen pounds. To-day we are getting three or four pounds only; that is the actual collectible shortages. A Conductor may be a pound short to-day and pay it up to-morrow. That is not shown. Yes, that must go on the shortage sheet, but we put it through petty cash afterwards. Mr. Morris deals with the old bags, as to keeping them in repair.
By Mr. Rosser:
Herdson generally paid his shortages at the end of the week, but there is still a little left.
Mr. Rosser: I advised him not to pay it, as it is an infringement of the Truck Act, and I told him so.
Witness: The tickets used to be very thin, and printed with advertisements on the back. The tickets are easily loosened before starting to use them, but it may be possible for two tickets to be torn off together. It is not necessary that a Conductor should lose that; he would take that back again, but the Conductor would have to pay it if he were short I have not known of tickets blowing away on the Onehunga run. Herdson always paid his shortages; I would not call him a dishonest man; it has not been alleged that he was. His shortages
By Mr. Carter:
The spare list men have regular blocks of their own. The tickets are not perforated at butt; they have to tear each one off.
Lewis George Francis Spry, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate.
My name is Lewis George Francis Spry. I am an Inspector in the Tram service. I have been in the Company's employ for four years as Motorman and Inspector, I have been Inspector since may 18th. There was a system of signalling between the Motormen and Conductors, and there is one now. As an Inspector I have to take precautions accordingly. I have had no instructions to pay particular attention to men about to leave the service. Whilst Motorman I was not harassed by inspectors, I am quite satisfied with the treatment I had from the Traffic Manager all along. As to checking cars, I would see the men did their work, but I would use my own discretion when checking.
By Mr. Rosser:
I was promoted to Inspector on May 18th. There has been no need to pay attention to men leaving the service during that time. I have not been called down to the office about this Board and the present case. I got word I was wanted up here, and I came. Word was sent to me by Mr. Morris. He first asked me how long I had been in the employ of the Company, and practically what evidence I have given here this morning. It was at Ponsonby Depot, not at the office. I had no occasion to use the signals when a Motorman but I saw others do it Signals were given to my ear. I have known Conductors and Motormen summoned for running past passengers; it is the Motorman's duty to look out for passengers. Since the strike I have not been called a by Mr. Walklate and I did not receive any cautions from him; I word from Mr. Morris. I cannot report a man if he does not do anything. With reference to observing traffic, I have had no occasion to hide myself upstairs, behind a Jog, or up a tree. I don't stand behind telegraph posts. Sometimes I can hide the buttons with an overcoat on, I always button it up.
By Mr. Carter:
Mr. Lysaght appointed me Inspector. I applied for the I never won a prize on the merit system when in vogue. I am not a senior man in the Depot to which I am attached. Instruction I received were verbal. I have a printed book of instructions at work from 7 until 2, and from 5 to 6.30; that is the I start have not done morning shifts on Saturdays. On the other shift I at 1 o'clock and work until 11, but I have three hours off during that time. I am not always on duty, whether in uniform or not. I I a private clothes Inspector, and' I have never done any of that work. I have not reported a man when in private clothes. I have not had instructions to report a man in such a case.
Mr. Walklate:
You might turn the coat in so as to hide the buttons so as to show His Worship, You will observe that it did not make much difference as to the show of the brass buttons, Your Worship.
Mr. Rosser:
If the coat is turned in that way there is only one row of buttons, and a man might take him for one of the fraternity, and his suspicions are lulled.
(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)
(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)
Evelyn Harry Morris, duly sworn:
Touching on the subject of the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road some two or three years ago, I was one of those Inspectors, and it was to formulate a petition asking for certain alterations concerning the Inspectors. As far as my memory serves me, in those days we carried small ticket books, containing tickets, which were sold to the passengers at reduced rates, and we asked that we should be excused from carrying these during the 5 o'clock rush; that some sheets that the Conductors sign when we check the car should be done away with, and this has since been done; that we should have new uniforms every nine, instead of twelve, months, owing to the general rough usage they receive; that, if possible, one or more Inspectors, if the Management thought fit, should be excused from coming out at five o'clock and work longer during the day, as the hours were broken on the morning shift; and also asking for an increase of salary, owing to the number of hours we worked. I am quite certain there was nothing in the nature of complaints against the Traffic Manager. I do not think Mr. McElwain was present, but I fancy all the other Inspectors were. He perhaps, had his reasons for not coming. That was the nature of that petition.
With regard to checking time-tables unobserved, I have done a good bit of it off and on, and I have been unobserved, except on one occasion. It is simply to assure ourselves that the time-table is being run something near the time set for cars to leave the termini. We have complaints from passengers that they do not leave on time, and in some instances the cars are delayed longer than necessary, and the equipment suffers in consequence of being driven along the road faster to make up the time. Perhaps, too, the passengers may be hurried on and off when late so the Motorman might arrive in time. With regard to the statement made by Inspector Walker, that I suggested that it was not advisable for him to board at the same place as Motormen and Conductors. I was giving him some advice. I had been Inspector longer than he, though he was perhaps connected with trams longer than I was, and I suggested it would be well not to board with them, as it might happen that his work would not be made so easy, especially with the men in the house he was living in; and that was my only reason for doing this.
With regard to the question of Conductor Guy on a Sunday, and being on the spare list, the men are booked up about Thursday evening, and on the Sunday as a rule we have nobody at the depot to take out a run in case a man falls sick, though that does not often happen. Conductor Guy was booked up on an extra car we run on the Kingsland route, though not on the time-table. The car, although it invariably runs, is a car we are not legally bound to send out, and if it misses a trip it is our look out. The time for that car is about the same as any ordinary car on that run. The time-table shows three to Kingsland and send four on Sundays. On this particular Sunday in question I
With regard to the whiskers, which certainly grow into a beard in a day or two. I used them to discover, or to got hold of, some witnesses in regard to a tram accident which terminated fatally, and in which the Motorman and Conductor had no witnesses at all. I was given the reports, and asked to do my best to discover some witness, if possible not only for the Company's sake, but also for the Motorman's. Since that time we have had two Motormen who have had to stand their trial for manslaughter, I did it as much for the men as for the Company. I heard these witnesses were dodging me, so I got a hairdresser to disguise me one night, and went along, and eventually got hold of the witnesses' names, and through their evidence it was proved to be an accident.
By Mr. Hansen:
I used the whiskers entirely on my own account.
By Mr. Rosser:
With reference to the mooting of inspectors, I had been then about one or two years. It is three years ago. I joined in following the Kingsland accident, in 1004. The accident was on Christmas Eve I think. It must be less than live years since I joined. As far as I was concerned, and I understood it, the object of the meeting was as I have stated. The meeting was really to sign what had been formulated. The meeting didn't last half an hour. Some discussion took place on one or two things. Mr. Bassett was there. We sent in the petition to the Company. I think all the Inspectors were there with the exception of Mr. McElwain. I never heard of Inspector Cox working 25 hours. He would be allowed to go off to get anything to eat. There is dissatisfaction and satisfaction. As I understood the feeling of the meeting, if the Compnay could not see its way clear to shorten the hours of Inspection, they would be satisfied if the Company thought it was
With reference to Haydock's evidence, I have not worked in the same position when checking blocks of tickets. On certain occasions I give the blocks out, but I receive no cash whatever. I would not like to say anything about the checking of tickets. Now and again you hear a grumble about shortages, but they are very rare now. The present system is very thorough, but it takes time to check those blocks and to be able to put the shortages on the sheet. The tickets and exchanges are put in an envelope and opened at the Head Office. Beyond knowing that they are checked by two different parties, I cannot say I know any more about it. The Conductor can go down and count them if there is a shortage. I could not say how long the tickets are kept. There have been complaints, but if you are going to keep the man to count his tickets he will be there half the night. I remember Conductor McDonald being dismissed. I remember his wife coming to me about his dismissal.
I most decidedly did not tell her that 25 Union men were going to be dismissed. I asked her to go and see Mr. Lysaght at the Head Office. If she is prepared to swear I told her tht, it is incorrect. I never said that to anyone, and should not dream of doing so even if I knew. I certainly do not know that that is so. I thoroughly agree with those instructions to Inspectors as to taking the Conductor away from the passengers and speaking to him firmly out of their hearing. I never spoke in front of passengers, unless the Conductor spoke to me, and then I have had to answer him. The Inspectors' Book is a little wee book of printed instructions telling them to handle their men fairly. I think Inspector Tickle is the only one that has not got one. I was under the impression he had. I have not got one with me.
Mr. Rosser:
I would like it to be produced.
By Mr. Carter:
I have been in the Manukau Hotel bar parlour, but never watching the men through the windows, and I never brought a man up. I would like to say I have a friend who occasionally stays there, and I go and see him. I might possibly be able to see a car, but I have not observed, if a man delayed over his time at the terminus he would have to make up time. That does harm. If you feed too quickly they run up to a stop at a fairly high speed. They also hurry passengers on and off. These particular tactics have led me to cheek the time-tables on more than one occasion. There is also harm done to the equipment, wear and tear when time has to be made up through loitering, and the oar has to be driven at top speed. I say you could be more economical in the use of current by running at slack time than loitering at the terminus. Anyway, it would be more economical up College Hill. There is also the wear and tear on the brakes running up fast to the stopping places. I never heard of the case of a man named German running from the barn to Queen Street. It is a fact that I open up the barn at six o'clock every morning, and occasionally I have been on duty at eleven o'clock at night, but in those days I take time off in the day.
I may sometimes be asked for the name of a man whom I consider suitable for an Inspector, but my recommendation is not necessarily taken. I do my best in giving out runs from the Ponsonby Depot. A man came five minutes late this morning, and got it. As far as possible I am always fair. If the run goes out at 2.30, and it goes half a minute before, the regular man wants to know why; if half a minute late the spare man wants to know why. It is not a fact that I always take the same man, but some few men may get more than others, on account of their coming into the depot early. Sometimes I have instructions to do something that takes me away from the depot. When giving out Specials, unless previously asked for, I must give out to the men who are there first, or who are among the first, because it has happened that men coming in later don't want them, and the bulk of the men are then underway. I have never been asked for a special, or work by a man if he wanted it, without giving it him. I understand Mr. Anderson was Superintendent during Mr. Carey's holiday. Each Inspector uses his own discretion. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules for an Inspector, as different occasions ari.se, and he must use his own discretion in order to cope with them. I know the telegraph post at Kingsland, and it would be hard to stand on the path anywhere without the
Paul Maximillian Hansen, duly sworn:
I think I will deal first of all with the reports from motorman Mills. The Strike on But I state most definitely, and I realise that I am here on my oath, that to Mr. Mills' report nothing was added by Mr. Lysaght, especially in the way as was stated, which would imitate Mr. Mills' writing. These two reports were read over one alter the other, and that makes it quite clear how the mistake has arisen, because, as I have said, Mr. Lysaght's report to me about the same matter brought so much more forward as to what Mr. Mills had stated verbally to Mr. Lysaght. This report from Mr. Mills was brought to me several days before, and if this report had been in any way added to surely I would have noticed it. Hut Mr. Rosser and the gentlemen who now stale that Mr. Mills' report was added to, and that they saw these reports on that evening, when the excitement was on, will now see that a mistake of this kind could easily have been made. The fact whether it made a difference to Mr. Mills that somebody might have added to his report, and imitate his writing, or whether something was written which he now states he did not say to Mr. Lysaght. I think that is where the real point is. Mr. Mills objected that Mr. Lysaght reported what he is supposed to say and what he did not say. The report is in your hands, and with the explanation I have given I feel sure that this will make it clear as to the way the mistake came about, and that Mr. Lysaght should have been thought to have added to Mr. Mills' report.
I might also say a few words in regard to Mr. Bassett's evidence that he has given. Mr. Bassett acted as our Private Inspector, and he stated that in that capacity he gave satisfaction to the Company. Mr. Bassett is quite right; he did give satisfaction. I consider that a sort of private inspection, or, you may call it unexpected inspection is an absolute necessity. In a tramway system which covers miles of road there must be some check beyond the one which apparently is required here in Auckland, if it is wished that an Inspector waits for a certain car say, at Khyber Pass at 12 o'clock. Inspection of that kind would be quite ridiculous; and I repeat, again, that a sort of unexpected inspection is absolutely essential. But when it comes to a disguised inspection, I have always been, and am still, much against it because I consider a disguised inspection, when men go about in beards, or buttons turned back, they are unmanly, and they are not right.
A good deal has been said, and one of the demands deals with Mr. Lysaght. I have been associated during the last nine years very closely with him. I have known him when he was Chief Inspector for the horse tramways. I was then the present Company's Attorney, and the then Manager of the Tramways expressed himself in the highest terms of Mr. Lysaght. When I took the Management I saw no reason to change my opinion. I can say this, that Mr. Lysaght has been a most conscientious officer, and if he had not been told to go in for the inspection methods that are now complained about, I am quite sure he would not do it. He would never do things like this on his own account. He has never been asked by me to do it. I have already stated I am strongly against dis-
Now with regard to the signals used by Motormen. It has been stated these signals were started here at a certain time when the men considered it necessary to protect themselves against the unexpected inspection by Inspectors, but I know this is not the case. The signalling was introduced by the first Motormen we engaged for Auckland from Sydney. They brought the system from Sydney, and it has been in vogue ever since. Your Worship has also beard something in regard to one of the promises which was made by me on the settlement of the last strike. The wording of that promise referred to is as follow:—"That any employee accused of anything involving dismissal shall have the right to produce evidence in his defence, if procurable." This was always carried out, but during the six or seven months after the strike there was hardly occasion for me to make use of it because the only man who was placed before me for dismissal was Motorman Rocklands, and when I looked into his case I found there was no reason for dismissal, and he was not dismissed. Then there was one Conductor, Pyke, the only man dismissed during that time. He was brought up before me for dishonesty, and I remember quite well I told him the proofs were very strong and if he made a clean breast of it I would not prosecute him but if he denied it we must go on. He confessed to several charges of being dishonest, and of course he was dismissed, and nothing more has been heard about it. So during this six or seven months my promise with regard to giving reasons to men going to be dismissed really didn't come up. That was the "Paradise" period, Your Worship, but I was not in Paradise myself; I was only supposed to enjoy it.
When Mr. Lysaght gave evidence he made one mistake which I should like to correct. He stated Mr. Martelli was not then employed by the Tram Company, but Mr. Martelli was employed then but he was suffering from his lungs a great deal, and he was very often laid up with his complaint, and it may be for that reason Mr. Lysaght made
By Mr. Rosser:
With regard to Mills' report, it is very probable that I made a remark that as matters were smoothed out it was not advisable to re-open the question. I really considered the whole matter done with, and I did not see any reason why we should re-open it. I could not be a prophet, and look into the future and find it was not done with. I only received one report from Mills. Mr. Mills himself was not very clear, and mixed up his statements considerably. He said he told one thing in the first report, and the other thing in the second report, and really the report contained both matters. An addition was not made to Mr. Mills' report, imitating Mr. Mills' writing. I understood you to say it was really added in Mr. Lysaght's writing. I know of nothing of papers being sorted. We have got a cellar now and there may be some alterations in connection with water, and the papers may have been re-arranged. It is impossible that the second report could have become destroyed, because it was never there as far as I know. These papers were all kept by myself in a safe. I never remember seeing the report. I would be the first to acknowledge it as I have nothing to hide about it. I had a very high opinion of Mr. Kidd; he was universally respected. My acquaintance was not a very thorough one, as I knew him unfortunately only for a very few months that I was mixed up with him. To what extent he approved or disapproved of this "round robin" business I could not say. I was very angry about it myself. He may not have said much about it but he gave me the impression that he was well aware of the fact. I don't know to what extent Mr. Kidd was against it or not, or upon whom lies the responsibility of it. I disclaim all connection with it, and had I known before, it would not have happened.
With reference to the promise made by me as I explained about Mr. Rocklands, it was the only case. He was dismissed by Mr. Carey who had no right to dismiss him. I looked into the matter; it was just a few days after the strike. There were two men passing each other on the cars, and one called the other a blackleg. It was my business to smooth matters down, and I considered a good warning would do, and told Rocklands to go on with his work again. I remember a deputation of the Committee of the Union reminding me of my promise. I think Mr. Walklate said he would adhere to his promise, that al! men being dismissed should receive a reason. As far as I am aware. I think he has carried that out. A week's wages in lieu of notice is much better in my opinion. Mr. Walklate is naturally guided by the Arbitration Court Award. It is a legal point as to the week's wages in lieu of notice, and it is very difficult for me to say. I don't remember McPherson. I remember the case of Mr. Lewis reporting to me after the strike. I remember now it was in my office, and McPherson said he would apologise to no man. I don't think he was dismissed; I think he resigned. I remember Mr. Lewis complaining, and this man was present. I made it a rule that the man who accuses should be present if possible. I really don't remember the case of Motorman Buckley and the dog on the car three years ago. If Mr. Bassett sent a report in to me about Mr. Lysaght, then I must have received it and it must be filed at the office, but I don't remember receiving it.
By Mr. Carter:
I don't remember reading Mr. Mills' report aloud, but I may have
By Mr. Sherry:
What you state as to my saying, "'You naughty man, Mc-Pherson, why did you not apologise to Mr. Lewis" may have been said by me. He had a right to apologise or resign. I remember the case now quite well.
Mr. Rosser referred to Inspector Mackay not having been called and he considered it was necessary that he should be, as it would clear up an important point as to the female detectives. He also considered that the inquiry could not be closed until his testimony had been taken on the matter. He was unfortunately laid up now with an attack of influenza.
Mr. Walklate stated that he intended to call him as a witness, but he was in bed yesterday and to-day, but if better he would have him called to-morrow.
(Court adjourned until Friday, 17th July, at 10 a.m.)
(Court resumed Friday, 17tth July, at 10 a.m.)
Mr. Rosser explained that he wished to clear up the point with regard to the "round robin," and had subpoenaed Mr. Martolli, and, if the Court would allow him, he would have that subpoena served on him and try and get him here this morning.
Mr. Walklate raised no objection.
Evelyn Harry Morris:
I omitted to state yesterday that while I have been an Inspector Mr. Lysaght never instructed me to particularly watch a man in any shape or form, whether he was either under notice to leave or resigning. Neither did he instruct me to pay particular attention to Conductor Beaston, nor at any time asked me to get any private person to assist me to do anything in the way of detective work or otherwise.
By Mr. Rosser:
I remember Guildford; he was a very good Conductor. I don't know whether he came from Australia or not, and I could not say whether he went the other side to visit his people. As far as there was no reason to impugn his honesty as a Conductor. I was not instructed to pay attention to him during the last week of his notice. I could not say whether Inspector Griffiths received instructions to do that. Inspector Griffiths is now in Melbourne. I could not Griffiths inspected Guildford's work, even though you state it as a fact I have arranged doubles—that is, working with two Inspectors, checking the same car. It does not necessarily show that there is a suspicion of the man, but to get a true idea of how a man is doing his work; if the car is inspected by an ordinary Inspector, then another Inspector gets on afterwards, and you have a real good idea to go on. It does not necessarily imply that you do not get a true idea from the one Inspector. It is simply to get a true and accurate idea of the which a man does his work. We have not necessarily a suspicion of a man when we are working a double on him. After a regular Inspector checks his car he is subjected to another unexpected inspection later on. I see nothing against it, as far as the morale in the service is concerned.
By Mr. Carter:
I Have done it on my own, to get an accurate idea of the men's work. Mr. Lysaght has never instructed me to do that, not that I remember. I don't remember working a double on Beaston. When I was on the Ponsonby shift I had little to do with Conductor Beaston; if I remember rightly, he was on the opposite shift to that on which I was working. I would therefore only see him during rush times, between 5 and 6.40. It might happen I might only check his car perhaps two or three times a week. I really cannot say I took particular notice one way or another of Beaston. I may have reported him for something, or I may not. I don't say he was a first-class man; I would rather not say. Anyway, he was about the average; but I didn't notice him particularly one way or the other. I could not say what he was discharged for.
Andrew Mackay, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:
My name is Andrew Mackay. I am Chief Inspector at the Epsom Depot of the Tram Company. I have been Inspector for five and a-half years—since I joined the Company. I was appointed Inspector. Prior to that I was with the Brisbane Tram Company, six years as Conductor. The inspection in Brisbane was somewhat similar to what it is here. But the discipline is much more strict than here. I have passed as Motorman, and have driven a car on several occasions, ever since I have been with the Company. I Wave driven a car for a couple of hours at a time. If anything happened to a Motorman, I could take the power off him. If I found a passenger without a ticket when checking a car I would ask where he got on: he may have come from town, or only just got on. I treat the Conductors as fairly as I can. I am satisfied with the treatment I have received from the officials of the Company.
By Mr. Rosser:
I was in the service during the time Mr. Beaston was there. It was suggested to me but I was never asked directly, to get the assistance of friends to catch or trap Conductors. It was suggested to me by Mr. Lysaght, who said if he was in my place he would get somebody, in suspicious cases, to buy a ticket. I had done it once before I was asked to do it. It was in Watson's case. Another Conductor in Ponsonby barn came and told me that there was a Conductor blowing on Sunday how he could beat an Inspector, and I would get into trouble over this. He had said he could make live or six shillings on a Sunday. I came down to the corner of Victoria Street, and met two passengers there, and asked them to take the numbers of the tickets, and when they got off they gave me the numbers. I did this on my own initiative. My brother and sister-in-law were the passengers. I remember that case being brought up for trial. The result was that the machine was found to print different numbers, and it proved that the numbering machine was not infallible, and it was possible to have wrong numbers on the block. Watson's case was dismissed. I did this in Watson's case, but I have never done it since. "A suggestion" from a superior officer is practically "an instruction," if you like to take it that way. If you do not take the suggestion it would seem as though you were not smart enough, or you were not acting in the best interests of the Company. I could not say it would surprise me or not that Mr. Lysaght has sworn that Mr. Bassett's statements were false. Mr. Lysaght issued the suggestions. I make that difference, it was a suggestion, and not an in-
I was present at a meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road about three years ago. Mr. Bassett was there. It was called for different things—wages, a less number of hours, and uniforms, etc. I don't think we had less hours afterwards; they were about the same. There was a rise in wages of 5s.; it was £2 5s., or £2 10s a week; I forget now. Mr. Bassett acted as Secretary, I think. I forget whether there was a Chairman. I cannot remember anything about spying on the men. There was nothing to be ashamed of in that meeting. It was an open and straightforward way of putting the grievances before the Company Mr. Lysaght never asked me to watch certain men. As to watching a man towards the last week, it depends on the record he has; if good, the ordinary attention is sufficient, but if there is anything suspicious there would be extra attention. It would be the honesty called in question rather than a breach of discipline, as a man has a big chance during the last week. I have been instructed to work doubles, in conjunction with another Inspector. Mr. Lysaght gave those instructions. It would not be on good men. It simply means that when an Inspector has checked the ear, another Inspector checks it again further along the line, when the Conductor is not expecting it. Before I went to Epsom I was on the road, the same as other Inspectors. I have never planted myself. I found I could carry out my work with credit to myself and do my duty to the Company without doing that. I am on the Epsom side, and have heard nothing about Inspectors placing themselves poles. Inspector Tickle does not inspect the Epsom line: only on race days, as far as the Junction Hotel. I did not consider it necessary to do that sort of thing. I have never found it necessary to carry a revolver. I felt I was quite safe amongst the men. The men have no enmity against me; at least. I have never heard of it; I feel I have the respect of the men. Mr. Lysaght has never expressed an opinion to me that all Conductors make money out of the Company, but he said some Conductors do so. It is not my opinion that they make money by reason of handling so much. With reference to the Reuss
Mr. Walklate called in last night to see if I could come here to-day. Inspector Ashe was there also last night. That was merely a friendly visit. Inspector Rowe is in every day; he is working in the barn, and comes to me for instructions. I have told you the whole truth in regard to this man Spence.
By Mr. Morris:
I do not consider the young lady connected with Spence's case as a Female detective. She has never been engaged as a female detective.
By Mr. Carter:
I have been relieving Traffic Manager. I was trained as Motorman after I joined the service. I only know Mr. Etheridge since joining the Company. He is rather an excitable man. Mrs. Etheridge was never employed to do detective work. I have no bother as to giving runs out at the depot. Men are sent to the Mead Office for pulling a wire down
By Mr. Rosser:
In giving runs out on Sunday, the junior men have the preference. The greenest men are put on the easy run, e.g., Parnell. The best men would be on the Onehunga run. If a regular man was there I would call him to take the car in the case you mention, but if nobody there I would take on a man and go out later and try and find another man. The junior men have the preference for the best runs, because it brings in most money; Saturdays and Sundays are their best days. Some of them don't make much on other days. The senior man has the privilege through the week.
By Mr. Walklae:
When I said Mr. Lysaght "issued suggestions" it was in conversation. It arose after the Watson case. He did not say I should employ female detectives. I don't consider female detectives have ever been employed. I had the opinion that Spence was an honest man. I changed my opinion afterwards; I had to. I could not swear as to the meeting of Inspectors; it is three years ago. I remember something was read to the meeting, as to wages, hours, uniforms, etc. I believe I signed something at the meeting. It lasted, I believe, about an hour, as far as I remember. I would not trouble to take particular precautions about the majority of men during the last week of their service. I would be satisfied that the majority were all right, hut in some cases we have a different class, and they are not all the same. In those oases we would take special precautions. I have never had genera! instructions to watch all men that are leaving. I have had instructions to watch a man. As regards doubles, to my mind it does not matter whether an Inspector gets on at any time if a man is doing his duty.
By Mr. Carter:
I have inspected cars near a terminus, and have found passengers have thrown their tickets away.
Claude Martelli, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:
My name is Claude Martelli, and at the present time I am employed by Mr. J. J. Craig at the Railway Wharf. I remember being an employee of the Auckland Tramway Company in
To Mr. Hansen:
I was not in the room when you spoke to Mr. Kidd about this "round robin" business, and I cannot say what Mr. Kidd told you. He did not mention it to me afterwards.
Mr. Walklate said he would like to put in the following documents:—
star and Herald newspapers.
It has been suggested that Mr. Lysaght was the cause of that Strike, and it may perhaps throw some light on that, so I am putting them in with the other documents.
Joseph John Walklate, duly sworn.
My name is Joseph John Walklate. I am the General Manager and Attorney for the Auckland Tram Company, I have been concerned in tramway management in various places for the past twenty years or more in various countries in Europe. I have been connected with tramways in the United Kingdom and Australia, so that I am pretty conversant with the methods adopted. I have also studied tramways in the United States and also Canada.
As regards Herdson's case: I have to state that Herdson was discharged from the Company's service, and offered a week's money in lieu of notice. He was informed that we had no further use for him. The
As to checking time-tables, I might state on that subject it is necessary to check the arrival and departure of oars from the outside termini, and whatever has come out in the evidence as to that I take full responsibility for. It is necessary for me to know this to enable me to endeavour to work the service satisfactorily, and to know exactly how the cars do arrive and depart from the termini, and I have to take these steps to ascertain it, and I shall continue to do so. The only other matter I want to mention is Mr. Lysaght. I have been connected with this Company for slightly over a year, and I can only say I am perfectly satisfied with Mr. Lysaght's performance of his duties. I know of no actions of his to which exception can reasonably he taken, and I do not think he would wish to act in an unfair manner with any of the men under him. These are the only matters I wish to speak about.
By Mr. Rosser:
I am quite certain that a week's wages were to be given to Mr. Herdson. It was not offered to him at the time; I am satisfied he told, but I was not there. He was told by me when he saw me in company with yourself. I remember saying he was going to get it. Mr. Lysaght was instructed what to do beforehand, and he informed me he had done it, and Herdson in his evidence states that he was very excited and shocked at the time, and that accounts for it. I should be very surprised, as well as shocked, if I received a cable from London that my services were not required. With reference to Brown's case, I do not reinember stating that we were shortening the spare cannot remember every detail. I am not aware there were men outside to sign on. I say it is not necessary for any reason assigned by either side, the Award says when a man is but dismissal and discharge are two different things. Where a man is discharged with notice no reason is necessary, hut where a man is dismissed a reason is given.
Mr. Rosser read Clause 10 of the Award. Herdson was not dismissed; he was discharged. When we have dismissed a man we have given good cause. Until I am convinced in some way that I am wrong, of course I shall continue. I have also looked up Webster's Dictionary, and I think that it states these words: Discharge, refers to the completion of something, but Dismissal, means dismissed from office.
His Worship:
If an ordinary seaman gets his discharge, then the voyage is over:
Witness:
If you spoke to a man in the Army as to his discharge, nothing is said; but if you asked if he were dismissed from the Army, he would probably knock you down.
Mr. Rosser:
Then the word discharge has acquired a certain moaning with regard to seaman that does not exist in any other service.
Witness:
It is not mentioned in the Award about a week's wages. I remember Holden's case. There was some misunderstanding about that. It would require no consideration; my view was a week's wages from the very first. I believe Herdson has not yet returned his uniform. It has been the custom that when a man returns the property of the Company he gets back his money. We hold a week's money against his clothes, and so long as we have any money in hand we call that back money.
With reference to checking time-tables, it is necessary to check the arrival and departure of the cars. I will take the responsibility of Inspector Johnstone engaging rooms. I consider it was necessary, though it was before my time. There was no spying on another man. All the Inspectors were told to do was to tell us the arrival and departure of the cars at the terminus. I have beard about Mr. Tickle's tactics and I remember the deputation drawing my attention to them. I am not satisfied that Inspector Tickle has done anything like what is suggested. The point appears to me to be something like this: I consider an Inspector would be foolish to expose himself to the man on the car coming up but, on the other hand. I would not view with favour any Inspector hiding or crouching behind a fence, but I don't think he has done that. He assures me be has not. I certainly believe Tickle, when he says he has not crouched down. I have to be a trustful man to some extent. I see there is a likelihood of a strike in Sydney, owing to the espionage there. It has not been suggested to this inquiry that I employ private detectives. In conversation with you, when I was first introduced on referring to the big Unions in the Old Country. I think I said I thought it was not so terrible in New Zealand after all, as Strikes were prohibited here. You must remember New Zealand has been looked up to as a paradise where labour troubles were unknown; that was the impression put about in the Old Country, and I am afraid it is not quite correct. I have seen Strikes in the Old Country, and I was concerned in one about the construction of a Tramway. I have also knowledge of other Strikes in other countries. I am afraid in Now Zealand no Strike is justified.
Now with regard to Clause 4: "Any Inspector proved guilty of making misstatements, or false reports against employees, shall be instantly dismissed."
I remember that Press cutting that you are now referring to, about Inspectors disguising themselves. Those remarks were addressed to me by Mr. Carter I believe.
I didn't know that that Inspectors' Rule Hook existed until a day or two ago. I don't believe in books for Inspectors; an Inspector, who wants a book, would not in my opinion be suitable for the position. When asking Conductors and Motormen to take a position as Inspector, we have met with a few refusals. I presume it is because they don't care
By Mr. Carter:
Mr. Herdson was discharged. I have not tried to make his case parallel with a man leaving the Army or Navy. I have no objection to giving a man a reference. If he is dismissed I don't give one. A bad Motorman may make a good Inspector—an inefficient Motorman, or how bad, I will not say. I believe in giving the senior position; everything else being equal. I always do. I have heard it stated that men are taken from the spare list, but it depends on individual cases, and I could not give a general answer. In a serious case a man can see the report against him. If a passenger complained about him, I would allow him to see it. If a man were called to the Head Office, and I was satisfied that he was right, and he was in jeopardy, I would show him the report.
By His Worship:
If he satisfied me after conversation, I would not consider it necessary to show the reports, I must keep sometimes the names of the people to the report a secret. I do not want necessarily to commit myself to show the correspondence I get from outside, but where necessary in the interests of the man I will do it.
By Mr. Carter:
Motorman Buckley's case was before my time. In a "Please "explain" I think the purport of the report is put in, but sometimes a report would deal with two different subjects. I think we might put in the full report.
By Mr. Rosser:
It is about six months, perhaps less, since that certificate of character was issued. Before that, it was not my practice to give any certificate, excepting to men going out of the Company. In England it is a practice not to give references for men passing from job to job. But big firms keep a big form for sending to employers asking very full questions, but when a man is leaving the service and going abroad, it was a general practice to give him a certificate. Unless going abroad, it was not given; that practice was followed here, until we decided to bring this form in. That certificate was given. I understand, as he was leaving the country.
(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)
(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)
Mr. Walklate:
I have finished the evidence now, and I take it any remarks should be made at this time.
Your Worship and Gentlemen.—I will be as brief as I possibly can, but there are some matters I would like to deal with. My task is a much simpler one than I anticipated, in view of the demands that were, made upon us and which formed the basis of this inquiry. I think I should impress upon you the mass of information which has been placed before you, and ask you to view the fact that the points at issue are Conductor Herdson; reasons to be given in case of discharge and dismissal; inspection of reports; and calling evidence of the men who are reported for breaches of the regulations; false reports; Mr. Lysaght; and, lastly, the question of so-called blacklegs.
I do not propose to deal with the evidence in detail, much of which is quite irrelevant, and the remainder is wholly insufficient to support the claims advanced. I shall therefore leave it to the Board under the able guidance of Your Worship to analyse it. The greater part of the evidence put forward by the other side relates to ancient history, but times change, and methods with them. Much of it is evidence that really did not relate to any of the points I have enumerated.
Turning to the incident of the "round robin" and Heaney, that is one of the most startling proofs of this fact, that it dates back to ancient history, considering it occurred before either of the parties to this dispute were in existence as organised bodies in Auckland, and, further, the people concerned in it are both now dead. Surely it shows a weakness on the part of the Union to have to go back so far for evidence in support of one of their demands—nearly ten years. Had it occurred recently it is quite possible great stress might be laid upon it
The arrangement as regards to men who are dismissed from the service being given reasons was hardly brought to a test during the period that had been referred to, immediately' before I came here, excepting in one instance, where a man confessed his dishonesty. As regards my actions in this matter, they have been governed by the Award of the Arbitration Court. There have been several matters mentioned during the hearing, and one of the application forms in use has been held up for some criticisms by the other side. I would like to point out that an amended form got out some time ago and actually printed, would have been in use for some weeks, but for the fact that some accident hap-
As regards the second item, that is, giving reasons for dismissal. Reasons have always been given where a man has been dismissed, and by dismissed I mean dismissal without notice; and therein I differentiate from discharged. In those cases where a man has been discharged, with a week's notice or a week's pay, we are under no obligations to give reasons. No reasons are therefore given, beyond the statement that we have no further use for him. The illustration I gave before, that an old soldier would be highly insulted if you said he was dismissed from the Army, but if you told him discharged he would not mind very much about that.
The next item is No. 3, as regards reports. (Read.) No. 4 is very shortly stated. As I previously said, any person proved guilty of making a false report will be dismissed, I think that should apply to any service.
As regards item 5, referring to Mr. Lysaght's methods, I submit it has not been proved by the evidence that Mr. Lysaght was the cause of the
The last item is the matter of "Blacklogs." I use the term, although it has been applied incorrectly to Messrs. Reuss and Spry, who refused to go out on Strike. I always understood a "Blackleg" was an outside man, who volunteered to come in and take the place of those who had gone out on Strike. These men did not do that, but in this case they simply had the moral courage to refuse to be coerced into committing a breach of the law. At the conclusion of the Strike an agreement was made with the men to resume work, and this question of "Blacklegs" was then raised, and it was clearly agreed that the men were kept off was because His Worship the Mayor made a suggestion to me that I should keep them off to allow the feeling to subside. This was explained to the deputation that came to see me, and they termed it a "graceful concession on "the part of the Company," but it was afterwards said that the Union understood that I had agreed that the Company should keep these men off until this Board sat. I may say it was a misunderstanding on their part. However, one man, as you have heard, was put on his car for some half a day, and, as was pointed out to me by Mr. Rosser, there was
Mr. Rosser:
Your Worship and Gentlemen,—I may say that I propose to treat the matter in the first place as Mr. Walklate has treated it—that is in the order in which the demands were made to the Company, and latterly have been placed before the Board. Therefore, I will take Clause 1—Herdson's re-instatement. I submit that even now no cause has been assigned for Herdson's dismissal; it has been alleged that he was insolent to his superior officer, and on that I would say it is a question of one man's word against another's—that of Herdson's against Inspector McElwain's. I cannot plead that there would be a difference between their temperaments at the time, as both, perhaps, would be excited; but Herdson's evidence is entitled to serious consideration as much as Inspector McElwain's is, and it has not been proved he was insolent to his superior officer. But, assuming that McElwain is correct, which I am willing to assume for the moment, it is an offence not necessarily punishable by a summary dismissal.
I asked Mills a question in his evidence, Had ho been insulted or received insolence from a Conductor under his guidance? Mills was in the position of Switchman, which is a serious responsibility in a crowded thoroughfare. Upon him rests the sole responsibility of stopping the cars, as he takes the responsibility of a collision at certain points. His authority is higher than that of a Ticket Inspector, and while it came out in evidence that Mills had been insulted by a Conductor, who had even used obscene language, not as in the case of Herdson, where he used "King's English" only, but this was a case of filthy, obscene language, and Mr. Lysaght himself in that case said that he would send the man down to apologise or he would have to be dismissed. He apologised, and the matter was ended. Now, I mention that to show that there is no precedent to show that this is an offence punishable by summary dismissal, even on the assumption that Herdson was insolent, which we deny. It was, as you will discover, not a regular thing to check a car so close to tile terminus. When that is done it implies a suspicion on the man in question that would rouse his ire, and hence he took the step he did. He spoke plainly to the aggressor. He is a gentlemanly young fellow, with good address, and comes of a good family. It is natural he
Here is an application form that to answer fully would entitle a man to go into any society so far as his character is concerned and yet this is dissipated at a moment's notice, because, forsooth, he dares to speak out of his usual tone to an Inspector who calls his honesty into question. That is the sole reason of it. Then I think I am right in pointing it out that a worker's asset—his only asset—is his character, and that when that character is at stake, then I think that man is justified in standing up for it. We find that the only man who is not careful as to his character is the man who has no character to be careful; of! So, in Herdson's case, it was not a serious offence: it was only human for him to take the offence in the way he did.
"Who steals my purse, steals trash; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed."
Now, then, I think I am right in asking that the man who comes into the service with a character, and has to answer the questions on that form, practically for the previous ten years, and with all the other minutiæ that are set down in that application—he is justified in saying, "I am dismissed at a moment's notice, without a character, and I am "practically ruined." It is not the first time this has been done Beaston's was a parallel case, Beaston was dismissed, or discharged which ever you like to call it, it makes no difference, at a moment's notice for an offence he did not commit, viz., writing on a with a smoking wax match. He was discharged, and there was a Strike over it; what was Beaston's case in
Now with reference to the Clause 2—the written guarantee. I would point out that the wording of this and other propositions was framed at the time when there was no mention of a judicial Board to consider that. They were in the form of an ultimatum to the Manager but the prayer is the same to-day as on May 20th, when this
Holden was dismissed without reason. Brown was dismissed. A man after three years' training in the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company. Now. I presume we sometimes look to the other side as furnishing the readiest instance of where a man has to keep his eyelids peeled, and if a man can serve three years in Melbourne and Sydney, it is not for us to say. "He might come up to their requirements, but he is not good enough for Auckland." I feel in Auckland we have everything to learn from a good many places that are outside of our boundaries, and Brown, having served three years as a Conductor, and, coming here with references (and he is not an insolent man, but a man of good address and good training), was dismissed and told that he was not required; that he was not suitable, and that they were shortening the spare list. I am a witness to that; I heard it said; and when we came out we found men waiting to sign on and take his place. The latter reason was not tenable, because ocular demonstration proved that, and the training of the men disproved the first contention, that he was not suitable. The fact of the matter is, the Company want men who are docile, submissive men who realise the Apostolic injunction. "Ser-
Clause 3. The weight of evidence has been that this has not been done in the past. I will guarantee that Conductors and Motormen have learnt something during this fortnight, that they can see the reports if they ask for them. Many of them have been too timid to ask for them, and those not too timid did not realise they had a right to ask for them. The weight of evidence has been that it has not been done in the past. Mills' report, that we have complained about—that report that was sent in by Mills, and was added to—the evidence shows a direct conflict, and all the Board can do is to weigh the one against the other. Mills said his report was added to, and as one who recollects Mills' attitude on that evening, I can bear witness to it. It was only too painful, he was raging at finding that one of his mates had said. "That is a crook report you put in against Beaston." and when read he said, "It is a lie; I never wrote that report." We did let the matter rest. We tried to resurrect it, but Mr. Hansen, with his affability and desire for peace, said. "Let the matter rest," and it was allowed to drop. If the course of procedure had been altered, the matter would have rested still. Men are called down there, and the reports read out to them, and in some eases they cannot say whether there are any interpolations in that report. They get on at the Inspector, and say that he has told lies, and yet there is nothing in the Inspector's report compared with what has been read out. My own recollections are clear on that: Mills' are also clear, and also the men who were standing around me. I think Mr. Buckley mentioned he was on my left side when I read the report. The report is not produced, and the only solution is that there has been a shifting from the old office to the new, and there have been documents lost, as two Inspectors were sorting them out and tabulating them quite recently. I am as certain that the sun will rise to-morrow morning that that other report, that could not be produced in this existed at that time, and that was the report I read.
Now dismissal for false reports has been dealt with by Mr. Walklate.
Now I come to Clause 5. as to Mr. Lysaght's removal from direct contact with the men. Mr. Walklate has put a peculiar construction this. It would be dismissal or discharge. Ah we ask is that he removed from direct contact with the men. There was another officer at the time of the
We have been accused of introducing ancient history; well, the Union is justified in sketching his career, because had it been one of modern instance it may be reasonably concluded it was an error of judgment, and it was not right to jump on a man because he had committed an error of judgment. But, in order to make the matter more conclusive, and put it before the Board in all its points and bearings, the Union has shown how he has boon concerned in his operations with the men as far back as the last century—
I now come to the "Blacklegs." These two men whom we call "blacklegs" were put in as witnesses, and I must confess they made a very sorry showing for themselves and for the Company. Spry was a self-confessed "blackleg" of twenty years' standing. In
Now, as to the line of defence adopted by the Company. The defence has practically been a denial of everything. Even Inspector Tickle, who has figured largely throughout these proceedings, denied everything. The only time that he was hiding behind telephone posts was in a storm or in bad weather. The number of cases when that has happened, and that have been brought forward, must give Your Worship a very poor opinion of our genial Auckland climate. If every time he ducked out from behind a post there was a storm on I would tremble for the poor opinion of the climate you would have from the evidence given by him that he only did it to keep in shelter. He cannot help getting behind the posts; it is his nature. Dr. Watts has told us that long ago, and he is a living exemplification of the fact: "it is his nature to." The other inspectors seem to have struck fair weather where they were; they did not need to hide from the storm, and yet they did their duty efficiently, and Tickle does not. He does not keep out of sight after all; therefore there is no need for it. That is why the signalling has gone on to such an extent, because of this man being promoted and using those tactics,
Now, I think the Company cannot be congratulated upon the promises they make, especially with regard to Tickle, and they committed a serious error in promoting a man like that. They denied everything. Now, if the Company had brought forward this defence, it would have been a very hard matter for us to combat it, "That it must necessarily "follow that in a Company like this, with such a large number of men "handling such a big amount of money, there are shortages which we "have to account for, and cannot, and it is absolutely necessary to take "some precautions to provide against this," then that defence would have been very ingenious, and one hard to meet lnstead of that it is a defence of denial, and that is the easiest defence the Board can have to consider. Where there is a direct conflict of opinion, it is an easy matter to weigh the evidence for and against, and that is what the Board has to do. I think that it must be decided that the weight of evidence is against the Company in that respect. There has been hiding behind the curtains, and Johnstone took all the responsibility of that. It must not be lost sight of however, that an employer is responsible for any acts done by his subordinate in carrying out the employer's work.
It has been proved time and again that an employer is responsible for what is done in his absence even. In licensing matters I think you will bear me out that that is so; the landlord is responsible for what is done by an appointee in his absence. And so in this case the Company cannot disassociate themselves from any acts done by their Inspectors, even if unaware of it; but the Company was not unaware, because my letter book shows that there are letters notifying them. In this case the letter-book shows that the Company were approached months ago with reference to Tickle's acts. A special deputation waited on Mr. Walklate, consisting of ten or twelve of the Conductors and Motormen, who complained that they were harassed by this man, and Tickle was there, and the Manager heard all the parties, and yet there was no alteration. Mr. Lysaght cannot plead he knows nothing about it, because Mr. Buckley, the ex-President of the Union, told him of it, and I believe that Mr. Lysaght expressed disapproval of his tactics, and there seems to be dis-approval amongst his fellow-Inspectors. There is not one of them that will imitate him. "Imitation is the sincerest flattery," but none will imitate; he stands alone in this respect. He considers Sherlock Holmes was a fine character, and he has been dubbed "Sherlock Holmes" in the service. When "he sees a feather there must have been an egg to produce "that feather;" that is his idea of a deduction. If the Company had admitted taking these precautions, it would be a hard defence for us to meet, but they have not done this; they have denied everything. Mr. Hansen has not scrupled to express his disapproval of these precautions, and in his evidence says, "They are unmanly, and are not right." Mr. Morris was asked—and from his judicial nature he claimed exemption, and I respect that exemption—to give an opinion, but I leave it for him to give his opinion in the right place.
Then comes the question of espionage, and it is a very peculiar fact that Sydney was quoted by Mr. Brennand. He expatiated on the Sydney system of discipline, and said it was better, and the supervision was more rigorous. But I claim there is a difference between and espionage. Discipline is not produced by espionage, and while he was expressing his approval of Sydney discipline, etc., modern science was flashing the news across the sea that the men of Sydney—the highly disciplined men—had kicked over the traces. They had done such an undisciplined thing as to remonstrate against the espionage. Where is the discipline? The line had been drawn to breaking point and now we hear that the Commissioners are to receive a deputation bearing on this matter, and that the Unions are prepared to enforce their demands. Where is their discipline now? I say the men in Sydney had gone under espionage until it was too hard to bear, and in this case perhaps espionage has something to do with the discontent of the men at present in Auckland. I must admit, and I think I should discipline he wanting in intelligence and judgment if I did not admit, that discipline is highly necessary. I do not wish to belittle discipline there is a necessity for it, but it is not brought about by espionage—the one is necessary, the other repugnant. We have to go back to the French Revolution, and if a man wanted another guillotined all he had to do was to drop a private communication in a letter box, and the man was condemned in private, and guillotined the next day. Espionage is always distasteful. It is not so only to those who are doing wrong but I submit the most upright and conscientious men cannot work under a system of espionage. One of the greatest punishments to criminals who may be immured in a cell is to have a cell with peep holes in, where
Now, with reference to glass fronts. If the Company would carry out the recommendations of the Court, and introduce glass fronts, there would be much more content in the service.
With reference to these men that have been discharged. Why, some of these men are holding good positions. Take Holden, he is with a good employer, and gives good results, and that shows it was not his character he was discharged for. He reflected on the condition of the brakes—that was the reason. Brown has acted in different capacities at the Grand Hotel, and bears a splendid discharge, but the season has now closed. Cox is in the Railway Department. He got no reason for his discharge, and he came here with the full knowledge of his superior officer. Herdson is too recent to speak of. He would have left the district, but the Union wished to retain him here. He need not trouble for his future. Apart from any character he has lost from the Company, his address and his past career will get him a position again.
These are not wastrels, but respectable young men that have been discharged from the Company. What a shame they should have been dismissed on frivolous pretexts.
Now, as to the difference between "discharge" and "dismissal." In Annandule's Dictionary I find "discharge" means to dismiss. I looked up "dismissal." and I found it was to discharge. The same thing occurred to a visitor to Auckland, and clergyman, the Rev. James Flangan, who had London experience, and we look on London as the hub of the Universe. Mr. Flanagan was at our church parade, and acted as chaplain for the occasion, and the same thing struck him as anyone else. His definition between discharge and dismissal was given in the course of his definition between discharge and dismissal was given in the course of his address, and he said this: (Extract read.) That was his idea, and it evidently does not exist in the Old Country; and one can only say, with all due respect to Mr. Walklate, "It is strange such difference there "should be twist tweedledum and tweedledee." That is the only difference between the two words. Mr. Walklate introduced the dissatisfaction with the Award, though the men have abided by it loyally; and though they did not get the increase of wages asked for they have abided by the Award ever since; but there was also the question that the men were being asked to perform too much work for the money they got, and the result was the strap-hanging question arose, and the men objected to take more than the car was licensed for. They were well within their rights, and well within the law. We have a pliable City Council in Auckland, and they amended the By-law, and allowed more accommoda-
ultra vires or not.
With reference to the shortages. It is a well known fact that the shortages occur at rush times in crowded oars; wrong change is given, while men are pulling switches, opening points, etc. I take it the men have boon justified in the action they took, because if they pay shortages they don't got overs, It may seem rather strange as to why they should not have overs. It is impossible to avoid this, and I may say some men are unable to make up their own block. On a two-hours' run a man has had 22 blocks of tickets, amounting in value to £37 10s., to take out for two hours, and there is a big responsibility. I totted up one man's tickets, and sent a letter to Mr. Walklate to say that the men were responsible for this amount. The man had to put some in his trousers, some in his waistcoat, and some in his coat pockets, for a two-hours' run—22 different blocks of tickets! That is a source of discontent among the men and I think the Company have been told about it and should do their host. The men are overburdened with responsibility. Glass fronts are being tried. I am told they happened to be on the ten oars they were obliged to purchase.
Mr. Walklate: It is wrong; they were made to our order.
Mr. Rosser: I withdraw that.
Now, with reference to Herdson not receiving his week' pay. Considering the matter was in abeyance, the Union advised Herdson, or, rather, the Union decided, he was not to put in his uniform until the Board has decided on the question. That is the reason he has not put his uniform in.
With reference to the reason for dismissal in the mining ease in
I think now I have practically covered the ground opened up. There is only this to say, that Herdson's shortages were mentioned as being above the average. Now, as I asked Mr. Haydock that did not show him to be a dishonest man although his average was higher; yet he paid it cheerfully; he paid everyone except the last, and I advised him that the Union considered he was not justified in doing that.
With reference to the Award, it does not show you can suspend a man. "He must be discharged for good cause." That will be made a matter of comment in another Court. Mr. Walklate also mentioned the fact that frivolous charges were made with reference to running the cars, and nothing has come of it. I say we have a ground of complaint where regular men, for working on Christmas Day are entitled to time and a-half. It was a wet day last Christmas, and men were taken off and sent home because the oars were not required. It was a Southern
I wish to state that the Arbitration Act is still supreme in this respect; that the provisions of the Act said to be so much in jeopardy still obtain; and that the Tramway men, in striking, did not wish to see that Act despised, or repealed, but that, though they broke the provisions of the Act, yet had it not been for their desire to obey the Act this Board would not have been sitting now.
His Worship: You will have noticed to-day has been a very hard day on the stenographer. It has been talking all the time, and consequently we will not be able to get the transcript from him until Monday morning, and I don't consider it fair to ask for it before that.
We propose to meet on Monday at 10 o'clock to find out what we will do. In the meantime I propose to go through the evidence myself, and we will then meet together and discuss matters.
I may say that this matter is a very serious one indeed, not going to hurry, as it requires due consideration, and that will be given to it. We will let you know 24 hours before we want you, and then we need not interfere with the Brake Commission.
(Court then Closed.)
1. Alexander George Jarrett, of Swanson Street, Auckland, Authorised Reporter by examination under "The Shorthand "Reporters' Act, Do Hereby Certify that this, and the foregoing 210 sheets, contains a true and correct transcription of the Shorthand Notes taken by me on the dates, at the time, and in the place, above mentioned.
Dated this
Under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and its amendments, before a Special Board of Conciliators of the Northern Industrial District, in the matter of an industrial dispute between the Auckland Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers, hereinafter called the Union, and the Auckland Electric Tramways Company, Limited, hereinafter called the employer, and of an agreement made between the Union and the employer dated
Judgment in this case was given at o'clock on Friday, July 24th.
The President of the Board. Dr. McArthur, S. M., in delivering the decision of the Board, said:
"The Special Board of Conciliators, having taken into consideration the matter of the abovementioned dispute, and having heard the Union by its representatives duly appointed, and having also heard the employer by its representatives duly appointed, and having also heard the witnesses culled and examined and cross-examined by and on behalf of the said parties respectively, do hereby' recommend:
"That as between the Union and the members thereof and the employer, and under the abovementioned agreement, the terms, conditions and provisions set out in the schedule hereto, and of this recommendation shall be binding upon the Union and upon every member thereof, and upon the employer, and that the said terms, conditions, and provisions shall be deemed to be, and they are hereby incorporated in and declared to form part of this recommendation; and further, that the Union and every member thereof, and the employer, shall respectively do, observe, and perform every matter and thing by this recommendation, and by the said terms, conditions, and provisions respectively require to be done, observed and performed, and shall not do anything in contravention of this recommendation or of the said terms, conditions and provisions, but shall in all respects abide by and perform the same. And the Board doth further direct that this recommendation shall take effect from the
"Schedule.
- —Tliat Conductor Herdson be reinstated in his position.
- —That the General Manager shall give a written guarantee that in future any employee being dismissed from the service shall be given a valid reason for his dismissal.
- —That any employee being sent to the head office for an alleged fault shall see all reports made against him and have the right to call evidence on his behalf.
- —That any inspector proved guilty of making mis-statements or false reports against employees shall be instantly dismissed.
- —Seeing; that Mr. Lysaght's questionable methods were the real cause of the strike of
November, 1906 , and that the recent harassing of motormen and conductors by ticket inspectors has been in obedience to his instructions, he shall be removed from direct contact with the men.- —The Board directs that the foregoing recommendations shall take effect from the
first day of September, 1908 , and shall continue in force until the31st day of August, 1910 ."(Signed) " A. McArthur,Chairman."
The President went on to say as follows:—Although the evidence was necessarily very voluminous, the examination of witnesses was conducted in a friendly spirit. All the meetings of the Board both in camera and in public, have been fully attended by the members. It may be well to observe that in all matters coming before the Board the decision of the Board shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present, exclusive of the Chairman, except in the case of an equality of such votes, in which case the Chairman shall have the casting vote.
Two clauses contained in an amended application by the Union were objected to by the Company. The objection was upheld by me, and the Union thereupon withdrew them. The number of clauses left was six and as the parties were unable to agree upon any one of these. I in all cases called upon to exercise my casting vote. As then, it evident that I must have been the deciding element in each clause, I think it is my duty to explain my views on each clause as briefly as I can with some degree of fairness.
Clause I: "That Conductor Herdson be reinstated in his position, or given a satisfactory reason for his dismissal."
There is a direct conflict of evidence as to what took place between the inspector and the conductor. The inspector's report was taken as correct, and the conductor was not called on for his defence. In my opinion, it was a case that should have been carefully the investigated. If the inspector had been proved to be correct, adequate punishment would have had a salutary effect on those inclined to follow in the path of the offender; but the men would have felt that the culprit had not been condemned without a hearing. If the conductor's version had been proved correct, and the inspector dealt with, confidence would have been instilled in the men. One cannot overlook the tone of the inspector's report, which stated: "I found two girls on car." As a fact, one was a married woman, and the other from 23 to 25 years old. To my mind, there was a covert insinuation in the term "two girls." The inspector found out his error, but did not think it worth while to correct it. The manager distinguishes between "to dismiss" and "to discharge," but I do not agree with him in the distinction, for reasons which I shall give presently. The award of the Court under which the parties are working at present does not use the word "discharge," but only the general word "dismiss," which, in my opinion, includes "discharge." Moreover, no reason was given for Herdson's dismissal or discharge, whichever you please to call it, until the strike was in progress. Viewing the case in
Clause 2: "The General Manager shall give a written guarantee that in future any employee being dismissed from the service shall be given a valid reason for his dismissal."
It has been attempted to draw a distinction between the words "dismiss" and "discharge." In general usage the terms are synonymous. In the strict sense, "dismiss" is the general term, and means "to send away"; while "discharge" is a mode of dismissal and means "to relieve of a charge or duty." "Dismiss" is applicable to persons of all grades, whilst "discharge" is for the most part confined to those in subordinate positions, "Dismiss" usually implies disgrace; "discharge" not necessarily so. To dismiss or 'discharge a man from a public service, whether carried on by a public body or a private company, while that service is increasing, must imply that there is some fault to be found with the man either in his conduct or in his work. Hence, in my opinion, in such a service a man dismissed or discharged is entitled to receive a valid reason for his dismissal or discharge, and the more so if he be given a week's pay in lieu of notice, as this, to my mind, implies an utter want of confidence in him. Closely allied to this subject of dismissal or discharge is that of giving what is generally called a reference or a character. It is usual for employers such as the Company in the present dispute, to ask for certificates and testimonials from those who apply for employment. This assumes on the part of the proposing employer that former employers of the applicant would, had he been satisfactory, have given him testimonials. Is it then too much to expect from them that which they expect from others? The giving a character of a servant is one of the most ordinary circumstances which a member of society is called upon to make, even in his private capacity, and it is a duty of great importance to the interests of the public, especially when the employer is in a public or semi-public position. In respect of that duty a party offends grievously against the interests of the community in giving a good character where it is not deserved, or against justice and humanity in either wrongfully refusing to give a character or in wilfully misrepresenting one to the harm of the individual.
It is clear that in the absence of any specific agreement to that effect there is no legal obligation binding a person who has retained another as a servant to give that person any character at all on dismissal, and no action will lie against him for refusing to do so. But it is equally clear that a master is under a duty, whether it be called a moral duty or a duty to society, to give a character to a discharged servant. Conscientious communications are privileged, and the privilege is not allowed only for the benefit of the giver. It is of importance to the public that characters should be readily given. The person who applies for the character, and the person who is to take him are equally benefited. There is no class to whom it is of such vital importance that characters should be freely given as honest servants. A master is amply protected in the giving of a character. He has nothing to fear if he has acted uprightly. Where a master gives a character of a servant, unless the contrary be expressly proved, it will be presumed that the character was
bona fide and without malice. If, however, the party giving the character knows what he says to be unture, that may deprive him of the protection which the law throws around such communications."
Bullen, J., in Weatherston v. Hawkins (1 T. R. 110) said: "In actions of this kind, unless the plaintiff can prove the words to be malicious as well as false, they are not actionable."
In Rogers v. Clifton (3B and p587), Lord Alverstone, C. J., said: "If it were to be understood that whenever a master gives a bad character to a servant who has quitted his service, he may be forced by the servant in justification of such his conduct as a master to prove the particulars which he has stated respecting the servant, it would be impossible for any master (so understanding the law, at least with regard to his own safety) to give any' character but the most favourable to his servant, and consequently impossible for a servant not entitled to the most favourable character to obtain any new place, Unquestionably the master who has given a had character of a servant to persons inquiring after his character is not bound to substantiate by proof what he has said, hut it is equally clear that the servant may if be can, prove the character to be false, and the question between the master and servant will always, in such case, be, whether what the former has spoken concerning the latter, be malicious and defamatory."
Where a master does give a discharged servant a character, he may perhaps in doing so make a statement which the servant regards as defamatory, and uses as the foundation of an action of libel or slander. It may be stated generally that such a statement is made without "express malice." is a privileged communication, so that the master will not be liable to the servant in respect of it. That is to say if he should be sued by the servant he will generally be enabled to reply upon the defence of privilege. If this defence is raised and proved, the servant must then, in order to succeed in the action, show that the master has been guilty of express malice. Hut a communication will not be privileged unless it is made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs in matters where his interest in concerned. I have gone some what fully into this particular branch of the dispute in reply to what was said by Mr. Walklate in his evidence on the subject. It is not simply a matter between a private employer and his servant, It is a matter which concerns above and beyond the master and servant, the great body of the people. The public are those who are most intimately concerned in the matter. It is for the public good that there should be the utmost confidence between the Company and its servants. The public safety and convenience demands that such confidence should exist. Mr. Walklate's arguments are applicable as between an ordinary master and his servant, but are not so in my opinion, when a public servant concerned. Again, the Company is fully protected by the common law in the matter of dismissals, discharges, and in the giving of characters.
Relying upon the principles contained in the foregoing, I am strongly of opinion that an employee on being dismissed from the service should be given a valid reason for his dismissal.
Clause 3: "Any employee being sent to the head office for an alleged fault shall see all reports made against him, and have the right to call evidence on his own behalf, as inspectors' reports are often found to be misleading, and exaggerated to suit requirements of the traffic manager."
In my opinion, if an employee is summoned to the head office for an alleged fault, he should be shown all the reports against him. It is only bare justice that an accused person should know exactly the nature or the accusation brought against him, and who it is that accuses him. A necessary corollary is that he should be allowed to call evidence on his own behalf.
I consider that there should be a court of appeal, to which an employee may have recourse if not satisfied with the decision in his case. Such court might consist of the manager of the Company, a representative of the employees, and the Mayor of Auckland, the last-named as representing the public, who are deeply concerned in the doings of the Company.
Clause 4: "Any inspector proved guilty of making mis-statements or false reports against employees shall be instantly dismissed.
A request of this sort I consider requires only to be preferred in order to be agreed to. An inspector who is proved to have acted in the manner stated is unworthy of any position of responsibility in any walk of life. He should not, and must not, be left in a position over anyone. Mr. Walklate states candidly he has no time for any such.
Clause 5: "Seeing that Mr. Lysaght's questionable methods were the real cause of the strike of
The chief causes of complaint alleged against Mr. Lysaght are the following:—
Mr. Lysaght gives an absolute denial to each and all of these charges, and states that whatever he did was only acting under instructions. He states that he received the "round-robin" from the late Mr. Kidd, and acted only under his instructions. He passed it on to Inspector McElwain, who obtained signatures, but who states that he did not know who drew up the document. I am satisfied on the evidence of Mr.
Clause 6: 'That the employees of the Company shall not be asked to work with any 'blacklegs,' who went back to work during the last strike."
There is evidently a strong feeling amongst the employees against resuming work with the two men who refused to go out. I consider that these two men were entitled to their own opinion as to striking or not, and I do not think it fair or just that they should be punished for having the courage of their opinions. I cannot, therefore, agree with the demand contained in this clause.
Mr. Rosser said he would like to ask the Board whether this judgment was to be taken in conjunction with the present award of the Arbitration Court, which would run out on November I. "Or does it run side by side with any award in operation?" he inquired.
The Chairman:
Mr. Hansen asked me almost the same question this morning, and I said "No." The Court had its special duties to perform. This dispute has been referred to us under six heads, and we have given our answer under those heads, and, according to our conclusion, the judgment of the Court runs from
Mr. Rosser:
I notice both parties were agreed on certain points, and I believe will honestly endeavour to carry out the provisions of the Heard's finding, but there is no mention as to any penalty if the provisions are not carried out
The Chairman:
I take no account of any penalty.
Mr. Rosser:
Then none is provided?
The Chairman:
None, except that the breaking of the agreement would be a very serious thing for either party.
Mr. Rosser:
I would like to be quite clear on all these points, and I can assure the Board that the Union feels the seriousness and the gravity of the position which we have occupied for the last six months, I wish to say that the thanks of the Union and of the community, are due to the Board for the patience that it has displayed in listening to the evidence. The evidence has been complicated, and there can be no doubt that the Board had a very difficult task to disintegrate the many matters placed before it by the Union on the one side and the Company on the other. I wish to convey the Union's sense of appreciation of the attention bestowed, and the tactfulness displayed by the Heard in this particular matter. We feel that the position is not only serious, but peculiar in that a precedent been made for all time.
Mr. Walklate:
There are one or two points I would like to refer to. In your reading, I understood you to say the recommendation would run out on
The Chairman:
Common sense should tell you that. Mr. Walklate.
Mr. Walklate:
I don't know why two years should he fixed. I was under the impression it was to form part of the award.
The Chairman:
This is Quite distinct from the Arbitration award. It would be absurd that we should go to all this trouble and it should be knocked on the head on November 1.
Mr. Walklate:
Not necessarily: it comes under the control of the Court then, I take it.
The Chairman:
I can only say, as I said to Mr. Rosser, you can take your own troubles as you like. There is nothing to argue about.
Mr. Rosser:
I don't see how the Heard has power to go beyond three years under the Act.
Mr. Walklate (to the Chairman):
I thank you and the board for the very patient manner in which you have heard the evidence, and for the able way in which you have presided.
Mr. Rosser:
Regarding Herdson's reinstatement—
The Chairman:
That will take effect at once.
Mr. Rosser said he would like also to express his appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Walklate had conducted the case. He had been fair while occupying a trying position. One pleasing feature about the whole proceedings had been that no acrimony had been imparted into the discussion.
Dr. McArthur, on behalf of the Board, thanked both gentlemen for their appreciation. The position was certainly an awkward one and be was certain that the four members of the Board and himself had approached it with a full sense of their responsibility, and with an open mind. The ease had been splendidly conducted. It was a matter for congratulation that the crucial points of the ease should have been approached without any bitterness or snarling at one another. "1 compliment you both." said Dr. McArthur. He also paid a high compliment to the witnesses, who had given their evidence in a fair and straight forward manner.
"I trust." said the Chairman, in conclusion, "that both the Union and the Company will bury the hatchet and shake hands, and that matters will go on as if this dispute had never arisen."
[End.]
It might seem at first that there was no room or no need for another exposure of the errors of Socialism, after the admirable writings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, Mr. Auberon Herbert, Mr. Mallock, and others. But those who have engaged in controversy know how truth has to be repeated over and over again, in forms as endless as the mistakes it opposes, if it is to prevail. What is an answer to one man is no answer to another, who perhaps misses your main point altogether, and goes off on a side issue, or understands one of your terms in a totally different sense to yourself. An experienced teacher once told me that, when he bad given a careful explanation of anything to a pupil, he always asked him, "Do you understand?" If the answer was "Yes," he followed it up with "What do you understand?" and, by compelling the pupil to give the explanation in his own words, he would tell if he had been understood. But you cannot do this with a controversial opponent. A heretic is like a man on the under-side of a cloth armed with a bodkin, which he thrusts through the cloth, first in one place, then in another, while the malleus hereticorum on the upper side places his finger, armed with a thimble, to stop the passage of the point. He finds that, though he is triumphant at the place where his finger rests for the moment, the troublesome and unabashed bodkin comes up in endless places all round it. Error is like the hydra, and its heads require not only a tap with the club, but searing with a hot iron to prevent them springing up again.
The advocacy of Socialism, I admit, does honour to the hearts, if not to the heads, of its upholders. They see, as we all must, that there is much wrong and suffering in the world, and wish, as we all do, to cure it. Every instance of wrong and suffering is, taken by itself, preventable. Hence it follows that, if certain assumptions or premises are granted, a millennium or state of perfection will ensue. It is with these assumptions that I propose principally to deal. There is seldom any fault in people's reasoning, or, for the matter of that, in the reasoning of animals. Error comes in either in a false major premiss, an assumption contrary to fact, or in what logicians call "undistributed middle"—
If Socialists would take the trouble or be honest enough to write out their syllogisms in full, they could hardly deceive themselves and others as they do. Let me give an example : "State officials never make a mistake in management. We propose to turn every business into a department of the State. Therefore we should abolish mistakes in management. Errors in management are the sole cause of poverty. We should do away with errors of management. Therefore we should abolish poverty." Such is the socialistic argument. Here everyone can see that the initial assumptions, without which the conclusion falls to the ground, are absurd.
Socialists are fond of asserting that Socialism is "advancing by leaps and bounds," is "winning all along the line," and so on. There is a good deal that favours this view. Indeed, one very clever prominent politician has asserted of certain other prominent politicians that, as long as they confine themselves to a negative and purely destructive policy, they can never hope to win. In other words, that, unless they promise to bring in a Bill to make three sixpences in a shilling or something of a similar kind, they will lose the support of the working classes. It is natural that Socialism should meet with general acceptance, since it is a gospel that tells people that their want of success is due to anybody but themselves. If a man is poor or out of work, it is not because he has never taken the trouble thoroughly to master his trade; because he drinks or smokes too much; because he throws up a good berth before he has got a better; because he has driven his master's trade away by strikes. No. It is the fault of this neighbour, his employer, "Society," or "the State."
The first Socialists were Adam and Eve. Adam threw the blame on his wife, and she on the serpent. I wonder, as the critics explain the story of the Fall as a myth or allegory, that they do not point out that the serpent is an allegorical representation of "capitalism," "the present social system," or whatever they call that which is the cause of all the evil in the world. No doubt, if there had been a "State" in Eden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil had been under the care of a State department, with a Minister at £5,000 a year, a permanent secretary at £1,500 a year, ten first-class clerks and twenty second-class clerks, with a messenger to sell them gold watch-chains on commission, the temptation would have been averted, and the history of the world would have been different.
A Socialist apostle, like an Irish Home Rule member, is a Mr. Facing-both-ways. The latter, when addressing Englishmen, says that
Now these opposite assertions cannot both be true. On the last point I look to my own experience as a University man. I know no callings in which wages have risen much more than those which are chiefly adopted by University men—curacies and teaching. Yet neither of these callings has formed a union, nor have the members of them ever struck. Domestic servants form another example. The wages of capable servants are something like double what they were fifty years ago. Yet servants are entirely unorganised, and have never had a strike. In all these cases employers found that good workmen were gradually turning to other walks in life where the conditions were better, and they had gradually to bid higher to draw them back. The change taking place gradually enabled the necessary adjustments to be made without disorganising society. It is the suddenness of the change, more than the change itself, that is so disastrous. Any cyclist knows that if, when he comes to a steep descent, he puts on the brake gently at first and back pedals, he will reach the bottom of the hill safely. But if he starts full speed and in the middle of the hill suddenly jams the brake hard down, he will take a flying somersault over the handles, and probably break his neck. I will not assert that trade unions and strikes have no influence in raising wages, but, if I did, I should be nearer the truth than the labour leaders are, who credit them with the whole increase. Most people have so little idea of evidence that they do not see that, if a certain event happens hundreds of times after another event, that is no proof that the second named is the effect of the first, unless we can show that the second in order of time never happens when the first is absent, and the first never occurs without being followed by the second. English soldiers wear scarlet, and they
A good example of the confusion of thought which lies at the base of all Socialism is furnished by one of its dogmas : "The land belongs to the people." If we asked, "What people?" the makers of the assertion would find themselves in a difficulty, for they have never thought out the matter. It reminds one of the witty saying of Mr. Barrie in one of his novels, that it is a great epoch in a young man's life when he finds that it is not women that are formidable, but a woman. Do the Socialists mean that, as in Russia, the land of the village is to be periodically divided afresh, so that the industrious and careful may lose the fruit of their labours, and the idle and improvident get a share of it. If Smith and Brown settle on a ten acre island, and each farms the half of it, and Brown imports a wife and has twenty children, is Smith to be robbed of nine-tenths of his little farm to fill the rapacious mouths—"like attic windows perpetually flying open"? In the early days of economics people were puzzled to explain bow it was that, while bread was so useful and diamonds so useless, the value of tbe one as expressed in price was so little, and that of the other so great. The difficulty vanishes at once when we see that we do not compare "bread" and "diamonds," but a particular loaf and a particular diamond. If I lose this loaf, but by going a few yards can find a baker's shop full of other loaves, the value of that one loaf to me is very small. But to a traveller in the Sahara, with no other loaf within a thousand miles, the value of the one that he has exceeds that of all the diamonds in the world.
Socialists assert that capital robs labour of a large part of the friuts that labour has created—"exploits labours" is their phrase. The assumption underlying this is that the average profits of capitalists are very large, for, if most employers could afford to make a considerable addition to the wages of their workmen, their profits must be very great. But all those who are well informed know that the average profits of capital are not large. Thousands of masters, with all their capital, their anxiety, and working sixteen hours a day instead of eight, do not make more than one of their workmen. To compel them to pay higher wages would ruin them and throw all their workmen out of employment. It is true that some of the more successful masters might pay higher wages but the unions would soon be up in arms if wages were not the same all round. Even Professor Marshall, who is very indulgent to Socialism, tells us that, of every ten persons who start in business, nine fail in a year or two. Therefore, for the average profits to be two per cent, the successful ones must make twenty per cent. The most successful business that I have known and dealt with nearly thirty years makes
The State (hateful word !) is to be the universal employer. But the State would have to use as managers the present capitalist employers, for there are no fresh officials waiting in the moon to be brought down. We see, then, that the assumption is that, if a man is a duffer or a rogue as a private employer, by turning him into a salaried State official he will become clever and honest. It is just the same with the cry of the advanced women. They say that if women were only independent—if their fathers left them a small fortune, or if they were taught some profession by which they could support themselves—there would be no unhappy marriages. These excellent creatures never stop to reflect that, if every woman had £300 a year, that would not create one more good and worthy man. There might be a little shuffling of the cards, and Seraphina Smith might carry off the model husband who now falls to the lot of Distaffina Jones; but the number of happy marriages could not be greater than the number of good men, few of whom are left unmarried now. Again I appeal to facts. There is a considerable number of women who, as singers, actresses, and so on, earn such incomes as make them independent, and give them great power of choice. It is notorious that the number of unhappy marriages among women of this class is vastly greater in proportion than it is among their less favoured or less gifted sisters.
Socialism is no new thing. In all ages, from Plato downwards, amiable enthusiasts have devised in their studies plans for magically transforming mankind—plans which, however varied the details, all agreed in this : that the change was to be wrought by laws. Now, laws are of no use unless they are enforced. But, to be enforced, there must be men to enforce them. Then the result cannot be superior to the average intelligence and virtue of the enforcers. I know that all socialistic schemes tacitly presuppose a committee of angels to carry them out, as much superior to the governed as a clever and virtuous father is to a child two years old. But statesmen and administrators are not angels, but ordinary men, with the limitations and
Mr. Giffen is quoted as reckoning the total incomes of the working classes as 500 millions, and those of the richer classes as 850 millions. It is easy to see that the assumption is that, if the latter were seized and divided among those who are called the workers, each would have double the income. But rich men do not swallow their incomes. The great bulk is paid away to others in return for various services, and appears as part of their incomes. So that the working classes already share the greater part of the incomes of the rich among them. If some of the income of the rich is spent unproductively, so is some of the income of the poor. I have seen 200,000 people on Doncaster Twon Moor. Each of those had spent a shilling or two on railway fare, something on food, a good deal on drink, and perhaps something on bemug. What a vast expenditure to earn a headache and a fit of the blues! If the Socialists wish to prevent a duke spending his money ill, why do they not also regulate the budget of a dustman? But, any way, the Socialist does not seem to realise how large a part of these great income is spent in managing and improving the estates, and how comparatively small the net income is, which the owner can spend as he will. And if one duke spends his income on baccarat, another, like the Duke of Bridgwater, spends it all in making a canal, thereby enriching the country. What tribunal is to be set up which is to be trusted to say to Duke A, "You spend your money badly, and we will take it away"; and to Duke B, "You spend your money well, and may keep it"? Or perhaps all dukes are to have their property taken away, on the ground that working men would spend it better. Experience does not confirm this view. Great numbers of workmen spend their money ill; and the higher their wages, the more wretched is their lot. I shall be told that they are improving in this respect. I gladly assent; but so are dukes. I am told that the joiner who now makes a baccarat table for a duke would, under the Socialist rule, be employed in making a better house for a working man. That is pure assumption. Many dukes now spend
It is highly diverting to contrast the denunciation of the well-to-do classes as idlers, who prey upon the industrious, with the Socialist proposal to give everyone a pension at fifty. Now, before a man can retire he has to work hard and save money. But then, without a perfect army of spies and inspectors, it would be impossible to prevent the greatest shirker from retiring on a pension which he had never earned. Besides, if the rich took the Socialists at their word, and descended into the labour market, would they not immediately be denounced as scabs and blacklegs, beating down wages and taking the bread out of honest workmen's mouths?
Besides expediency, let us look at justice. I am told that 500 millions a year is paid in rent and interest. But those who receive this created the whole of the property in respect of which they receive it, the workmen having had their share, and often more than their share, in wages. To prove this we have only to ask why a man goes to work in a factory instead of working for himself at home. The answer, of course, is because he earns more, for no one compels him to go in. Then the extra amount that he earns above what he would make at home was created, not by himself, but by his employer; and, if the employer also earns some profit for himself, justice demands that he should keep it. And it is not even proposed that the profits of a factory should be divided among the workpeople in that factory, who, at any rate, have had something to do with creating them, but they are to go to the State, the whole nation, so that the idle and the vicious will have as much as the good. As to rent, Socialists seem not aware that thousands of tenants pay absolutely nothing for the land, what they pay being but a very small percentage on the cost of buildings, roads, fences, drains, etc., made by the landlord. As to capital, the beginnings were when a savage first made a fish-hook or an arrow-head. I have no doubt there were Socialists even then, who, when they saw a comrade so employed, lay down at their ease, saying: "Go on, Quashee, you makee hook, me use it, for capital no ought be private property."
England was long a poor country, so that, according to Professor Thorold Rogers, for two hundred years the population did not increase. At that time trade and commerce were hampered by endless socialistic and grandmotherly restrictions. Since we have shaken off these we have advanced by leaps and bounds, so that our people and our language are rapidly covering the earth. That is because we have been
I have seen it asserted that no Socialist ever advocated strikes. I only know that many who express sympathy with Socialism express sympathy with strikers and subscribe to strike funds, and that the leaders of strikes justify their action on socialistic grounds. I grant that they speak of strikes as the lesser of two evils, and that they would like to see the necessity for them done away with by legislation. The difference between these remedies is that, while strikes do intermittent harm, legislation does permanent harm. It is not the mode of coercion that is in fault. The wrong is in subjecting a million circumstances, every one of which is different, to a hard-and-fast rule, and in interfering with every man's natural right to be the judge of the hardness of his work, of his own power to endure it, and of the question, which varies with every man and every day, whether, at a given time, an hour's more work or an ounce less food is the greater evil. Besides, the world is built on the system of periodicity; there are busy times, and there are slack times. "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." But all this labour legislation is directed to preventing men doing so. It is tyranny. But such words have an unpleasant sound. The same author I have just quoted makes one of his characters object to the use of the word "steal." He says, "Convey, the wise do call it." Just so. Do not call a thing by its right name—"tyranny." Call it "beneficent legislation," and you will get thousands of votes. Socialists suffer from an inability to see the essential identity of two things when disguised under different names. They know that some of the fairest countries on earth, which once were populous, highly civilised, and prosperous, are now thinly peopled, barbarous, and poor. What is the sole cause? It is that when one of the inhabitants, by industry and thrift, has got a little property, the Government steps in and takes it from him. That is just what is advocated now by those who call themselves advanced Liberals. In
This tyranny will, at any rate, be impartial, and oppress both classes alike. It will forbid the man who is young and has a family of children to work any longer than the man who is elderly and has got all his children off his hands. So it will compel the master who makes small profits or has an inferior workman to pay the same wages as the one who makes large profits or has a first-rate workman. So, if the prosperous man pays the same rate of wages as the struggling man, he cannot avoid the crime of making large profits. If the struggling man pays the same rate as the prosperous man, he is ruined, and his workmen go to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Numbers of men, willing to work, are now, I hear, forced into the workhouse, for they are no longer worth three shillings a day, though fully worth half-a-crown. But the unions say, "Three shillings or nothing." So the masters naturally, if forced to give young men's wages, will have young men's work; and we have come to this : that the chief buyers of hairdye are not elderly Lotharios, but working men who conceal their grizzling locks to give them a better chance of employment. Could the rule of Lobengula or Cetewayo be worse than that? People complain of the power and influence exercised in Europe by the Jews on account of their wealth. Now, a Jew is not a magnet that has the power of attracting gold. There is no source of wealth open to Jews which is not open equally to Christians. All the millions of the Rothschilds were amassed by the observance of two rules. Whatever income a Jew has he tries to live on the half of it, and if he cannot get a shilling he will take sixpence rather than nothing. Yet your Socialists expect Englishmen to become rich, individually or collectively, by pursuing the opposite tactics.
I am told that the best economists agree with Mr. Ruskin that the distress of the poor, irrespective of that caused by sloth, minor errors, or crime, arises from competition and oppression. This is very like saying that the mortality in battle, irrespective of that caused by bullets and bayonets, is due to sword cuts. I fancy the best economists are not in such accord with Mr. Ruskin as is assumed, but let that pass. If Mr. Ruskin's assertion is true, how is the capitalist to blame for competition? He does not cause it, and he cannot cure it. I was coming out of a railway station the other day, and as I was going to call on a lady I thought I would have my boots blacked. On searching my pockets I found I had only a penny left. I held this penny up, and
We Individualists are accused of hard-heartedness and want of feeling, because we say that failure is a man's own fault. We have all laughed at the story of the Irishman who offered his mare for sale, warranting her as "without fault." When a bystander pointed out that she was blind, he answered: "Oh, that's not the poor craythur's fault; it's her misfortune." Yet, like many jests, this story contains a deep philosophy. Nature knows absolutely no difference between misfortune and fault. If a man who can clear fifteen feet tries to jump a twenty-foot dyke, he will fall in and be drowned, and it will not be much consolation to him or his friends to know that it was misfortune, and not his fault. If a man does not learn his own powers and deficiencies, and the limits of what powers he has, you may call it his fault—at any rate, he will be punished for it. Social Democracy is founded on the assumption that all men are much of a muchness, and that, as one of my opponents says, the art of creating and managing a huge business can be learned. So one of the Labour leaders is credited with the remark that he had not seen a man who was worth more salary than £800 a year. This reminds one of the man who said that he could write plays as good as Shakespeare's if he had a mind, on which Charles Lamb, who was present, drily remarked: "So you see it is only the mind that is wanting." What is the use of laying the blame on our "social system" if a man fails because he attempts something for which he is not fitted? And if for hundreds of thousands of years there have been these cardinal differences between one man and another that we see to-day, what reason can the Socialists give us for expecting in the near future to see men more on a level? I do not call a man a failure because he remains a workman instead of rising to be an employer. If all men were employers, where would their work-men come from? We do not call every clergyman a failure because he does not become a bishop, nor a soldier a failure because he is not a field marshal. The failure comes in when a man attempts something for which he is not fitted. Many men make excellent subordinates, but poor chiefs. Every reverse the British arms have sustained has
I am asked why I call the "State" a hateful word. I do so because the use of it is both the result and the cause of confusion of thought-It is plain that from using the term people unconsciously look upon the State or Government, as a power outside the population, possessing funds from which it can make gifts to the people, as if these gifts came from the sky. Yet the State can give us nothing that it has not first taken from us, and what it returns is always less than what it took. If the State is to educate my neighbour's child, it must first take from me enough money to educate it, and so much more as will pay an inspector to see that it is educated, and so much more as will pay a second inspector to see that the first does his duty, and so much more as will pay ft clerk to keep the accounts, to say nothing of providing a room for the clerk to sit in. Let people express what they think and want in plain English. Instead of talking of the "State" providing "Free" Libraries, let them say honestly that they want to take away by force their neighbours' money, in order that a milliner's apprentice may surfeit herself with trashy novels, or a grocer's boy may learn the state of the odds, so that he may be inspired to rob his master's till. If real culture is wanted, the best and most interesting books in the English language may now be bought for the price of a pot of beer, and no man's rise is checked by reason of the cost of books. One Socialist says that the "State" means the Government and not the whole people. Another speaks of the State as the "representative of the whole people." Which am I to believe?
What a universal delusion is the belief in a panacea! It stares us in the face on every wall and in every newspaper, and the quack medicines advertised are sold by millions. Let us consider the assumption that underlies them all. A man for forty years, let us say, violates every law of health. He eats too much, drinks too much, smokes too much, sleeps too much, works too much. Having from these complicated causes got every organ of his body subject to a complication of disorders, comes Mr. Bolloway or Mr. Heecham and says: "Swallow but one box of my pills, and hey, presto! all your ailments will vanish." They "touch the spot," as if there were only one "spot," and not a hundred. So every social and political medicine man has his pet nostrum. With one it is free money, with another it is free land, with a third teetotalism. Introduce but this one change, and poverty and crime will vanish. Yet success or failure in life is affected by a hundred causes:—The constitution and tendencies a man inherits from his father; his training in youth; the pains he has taken to learn his trade; the diligence with which he has followed it: his prudence in
In the case of some of these social remedies we have the means of direct proof. In respect to teetotalism we can point to immense nations of abstainers where yet the general level of well-being is far below ours, and extreme poverty far more common. It is true that teetotalers can insure their lives at a lower rate than others. But their acting in any way contrary to received opinions and practices shows that they are thoughtful persons, above the average in intelligence, and likely to order their lives generally with moderation and regularity. We see the same in Quakers and Unitarians here, Protestants in Italy or Spain, etc. Any small body of people who adopt unpopular tenets on conviction will surpass the average of the population in intelligence and virtue. Teetotalism is the effect, not the cause, of superiority.
Those who say that the present system requires replacing should give a glance at the system it has replaced. Let them compare Leeds with, say, Thebes in Egypt. In the latter they would see the remains of immense and magnificent buildings, so solid that they have stood for thousands of years. But they are all temples, palaces, and tombs, built for the luxury and gratification of Kings. Of the wretched mud hovels, in which the workmen who built them dwelt, not a trace remains. If we could see these workmen as they lived, we should find their sole possessions a cotton shirt and two onions. When we turn to Leeds we find the public buildings very inferior to those of Egypt, in splendour and permanence; but, on the other hand, we should see miles of streets lined with workmen's bouses. We should notice their solidity, often their bright appearance—their flowers, clean steps, curtains. A glance inside would show some prints and books, perhaps a piano, and other signs of cultivation and refinement, and of a lot raised above a mere animal struggle for existence.
Yet I am told that the destitute outcasts form one-tenth of the population, and that "the general condition of the whole proletarian population is one of sickening wretchedness." How can we hope to arrive at a correct solution from such false premises? At every cricket or football match I see a crowd of many thousands. Where does the gate money come from if not from the proletariat? I see the streets filled on Sunday with workpeople—the men in decent black, the women with gloves, watches, feathers, silks, and parasols. Every man I meet is smoking. Their pleasures may not be always my pleasures, but a right-thinking mind cannot but derive great satisfaction ftom these general signs of well-being.
Socialists call the workmen the slaves of the capitalists. So Burns
Someone tells me that organising power is as easily learned as carpentry. Does he not know that one waggoner or coachman, with the same training, will get twice as much work out of a team of horses as another, and yet keep them in better condition? That one colonel will have his regiment in perfect order, ready to follow him anywhere, and another will come after him, and, without apparent cause, in a few weeks have the men almost mutinous? That, of two masters turned out of the same training-college, one will keep a class of a hundred hanging on his lips by the hour and remembering everything he teaches, and the other cannot prevent the attention of a class of ten from wandering?
It is amusing to hear that capitalism has depopulated Ireland. The great want of that country is more capital. So, in Egypt and other great empires of antiquity, the accumulation of capital in private hands, and its application to the creation of wealth, were checked by violence and insecurity. The State there, like the proposed Socialist State, had immense wealth; but it spent it, not in creating more wealth, but in unproductive buildings. It is for Socialists to explain why their State will be different from all the States that have preceded it. The Socialist State would be a great slave-owner, supplying the direction and foresight, while the people, like slaves, ate and drank, lived for the day, and looked to the "State" to dry-nurse them.
The state of ancient Egypt was more socialistic than capitalistic. I am asked how that can be, when the fundamental idea of Socialism is that every man shall receive the full produce of his labour. I answer that I have nothing to do with ideas. Ideas are cheap enough; they are like professions. I do not care what a man's ideas or professions are, be he Socialist or professing saint. I look to his actions, and the necessary result of those actions. A Socialist cries that I shall be saying next that American slavery and Russian serfdom are socialistic! He is quite right. I do say so. Most people seem quite incapable of picking out the essential features of anything, and fix their attention on some casual or accidental point. From some memories of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," they fancy that every slave-owner is a Legree. Yet, if they had studied Mrs. Stowe's tale, they would remember that Legree was quite an exception, and that the majority of slave-owners were kindly, and domestic slaves, at any rate, had an easy time. It is not being flogged that makes a man a slave, but putting off responsibility on to other shoulders than your own. What was the condition of the great bulk of the slaves? They were in a state of equality—no wicked millionaires or wretched paupers among them; had plenty of food and clothing; were cared for in sickness and old age; and had no anxiety. That exactly realises the Socialist ideal.
I have before me a list of the principal aims and objects of Socialism. Some of these are ends, and some are means to those ends. Some of these ends I should be equally glad to see realised; but it is the means that I object to, as sure to bring about results very different from those desired. I should like a Socialist to sit down and draw up a scheme of his expenditure under a socialistic system. Let him put on one side his income, and on the other the various sums he expends for the comfort and welfare of his wife and children. He would probably not wish to diminish many of these, and, if he is like most of us, there would not be a large surplus left. But if there is any, let him put against it the various items which the Socialist State would add to his expenses. Thus, under the head of "Compulsory construction of healthy dwellings," there would be : "Item, to building my neighbour a healthy dwellings," so much." "Item, to replacing the gas and water pipes, which my neighbour tore up and sold, so much." Or else : "Item, to paying an inspector to go round and see that my neighbour does not sell his piping, so much." Under the head of "Pensions" would be: "Item, to persion for my neighbour, who spent his time in rabbit coursing while I had to work hard, so much." Or else : "Item, to paying an inspector to see that my neighbour does not shirk his work, so much." "Item, to keeping my neighbour, who threw up a good post because he did not like the colour of his employer's whiskers, so much." And so on to the
If men are improvident and idle now when they suffer for it, are they likely to be better when they are sure of a pension at fifty? I am told that, as under the Apostles, so under Socialism, if a man will not work, neither shall he eat. That is excellent on paper, or when you have Apostles to see to it; yet, however well things may have gone in their presence, we know from their letters that all sorts of abuses crept in the moment their back was turned. When a man has left his native village, how are you to find out whether he has been industrious or idle when he comes back and claims his pension?
I am told that landlordism is one of the great causes of distress. Then let the man who thinks so go to Canada. There he will have 160 acres of land free from the landlord and the capitalist. He will have enough to eat and drink in a rough way; will wake up in the morning and find a foot of snow on the counterpane; and will have to turn out at daylight and plough, while his wife leads the horses with one hand and holds the baby with the other. If he prefers such a state of things to his present lot, by all means let him go. I am simply preaching obedience to the laws of nature. I did not make the world; and if I, or even one of my Socialist opponents, had been consulted at the making, possibly we should not have bettered it. I am asked when the capitalists made the land or the minerals. A piece of land, undrained, unfenced, unmanured, with no road to it or buildings on it, is unmade; it is worth little. Coal is practically nonexistent till the capitalist spends £100,000 or so in sinking a shaft and putting in machinery. A man cannot go to a farm in Canada unless he is a capitalist, and has money to pay his passage and buy tools, and feed himself till his crop is reaped. Our ancestors could not have come to this country unless they had been capitalists, and had ships and weapons and stores of food.
It is highly amusing to hear Socialists declaim against the tyranny of capital, the evils of large fortunes, and the danger of concentrating so much power in the hands of a few, while they propose to concentrate a hundred times as much power in the hands of a few; for every State must be worked by a few, and they have never disclosed to us the machinery which is to prevent unscrupulous and self-seeking men from working to the top of the Socialist State, as they do in other States. The great difficulty is to get people to take any interest in the affairs of their country or city. They will not do the work themselves, and, if
Will they hang every man who can lift half a ton? Some men have an extraordinary power in attracting the love of women. This is sometimes misused. Is, therefore, every man of whom more than six women speak well to be ordered to execution? We come round to the old point—Socialism is tyranny. Of old not only the possession of wealth or talent, but even of great virtue, gave a man power; and he was therefore marked out for death, as dangerous to the Government.
Common sense tells us, and all experience tells us, that, so long as men are free, some men will commit mistakes or errors for which somebody must suffer. This would be the case even in a Socialist community. The only question, then, is, Who is to suffer? Individualism says, "Let the one in fault suffer." Socialism says, "Let his innocent neighbours suffer." Horace, whose small works contain more wisdom than almost all the other Latin writers together, furnishes us with an apt quotation on this, as he does on nearly every social and economic question. Speaking of the Trojan war, he says:—
Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi,
which may be freely rendered : "Whatever folly the chiefs commit, it is the rank and file who have to pay the piper." Another instance of the similarity of ancient tyranny to modern Socialism. I am not saying
Some people speak of Individualism as if it meant selfishness—everyone striving for his individual advantage, regardless of his neiehbour's. Of course, this is not so. What we object to is not charity, but compulsory charity, which may be, and always is, counted on beforehand and discounted. In considering the limits of State action we have always to keep in view the indirect effect of any measure. Mr. Mallock says that it is socialistic to keep up a highway at the public expense. But the reason we do so is that it costs far less in money, and in time and trouble, which are money, to levy the cost as a tax than a toll. Moreover, when a man is reflecting whether he can afford to get married, the scale would never be turned in the slightest degree by the consideration that the road he walked on is paid for by the community. But if he knew that his children, when they came, would get free education, free boots, or free breakfasts, it would be a strong inducement to him to chance it. There is, therefore, a broad toe of demarcation between acts that are merely division of labour—the nation its corporate capacity, saving the time of individuals, which would be wasted if each did that which is better done collectively—and acts which either interfere with the individual's rightful freedom, or foster improvidence, by throwing on the thrifty the burdens of the thriftless.
Democracy is with us, and has become synonymous with rest-less political activity. The problem of problems is how to direct that activity along right lines. In all spheres of effort there is a great deal of wasted and misdirected energy, but especially is this characteristic of that sphere in which men are working to ameliorate the conditions of society. There are a thousand and one remedies proposed and earnestly advocated for all our social ills. Each remedy has its army of followers, who throw the strength of their mind and heart into its advancement. Yet these alleged panaceas are, in many cases, contradictory one of another. As a consequence, many earnest men and women are employing their faculties to no purpose. We all admire the man whose warmth of conviction in say cause leads to a consecration of life to that cause. It betokens a thoroughness of character which challenges respect and even homage. "Yet it is probable that the world suffers more from sincere error than from perversions of self-interest. Let this truth never be forgotten: a man may be the sincere, unsuspecting servant of error all his days, and error cannot endure. Truth alone holds the principle of everlasting life. From the foundation of the earth the fiat went forth that bankruptcy shall sweep down every lie and error sooner or later. He who builds on false theories builds on sand. It is therefore with painful emotions one observes the infatuations of social reformers. To spend a life in weaving ropes of sand is galling.
The writer has been induced to write the following few chapters because of the belief strong with him that the labouring class is wasting its substance and energy in the pursuit of reforms which, when grasped in the practical hand of experience, will be found to be bubbles filled with air. His sympathies are deep with the toilers of our cities. Dearly would he love to see the conditions of society such that the man who did not work should not eat. He abhors your class distinctions, and protests against the honour society pours upon its idlers. Labour, common and horny-handed, still lacks the homage winch is its right. The Grecian and Roman philosophies have left an aftermath of contempt for those who toil, and honour for those who appropriate the fruits of toil. We British folk still love a lord, though his function in life be simply that of "eating sumptuously dressing gracefully." With this superstitious reverence no thoughtful man can have any tolerance. And no wonder the leaders of Labour are in insurrection against it. No
Some insistence requires to be placed on the solid value of the principle of conservatism in this age of political ferment and unrest. As Burke says: "Men are not qualified to look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." The atmosphere is charged with storm. Around us whirl racing floods. A stable hand is needed to navigate them. No vision of a social millennium can be trustworthy which is not opened out by a reforming zeal chastened by a firm grasp of the lessons of history. The counsels of experience and economic history must be invoked in all departures from beaten tracks. In dealing with the problems of the day we seem to he in danger of falling into one of two opposite errors—too great or too slight a respect for existing institutions. The wealthy and contented tend to fall into the former error, the labouring poor into the latter. As a consequence we have on the one hand a senseless obduracy to reform, on the other a, precipitancy, an inappreciation of consequences which truly alarming. Demos gropes and wrestles like a blind giant With a foresight often that reaches no further than his own nose, he decides what must in its consequences reach to the world 's end. He is peculiarly susceptible to the empire of economic fallacies. With little to hazard, he manifests an amazing intrepidity in attacking social difficulties. The light that is in him being dim and tallowy, he often gets on to the wrong track, takes false steps, and strikes indiscriminately the good and evil. Conse-
of progress impeded. To avoid this waste, these pages enter a plea for a careful analysis of the fundamental truths, of economics and for a strict scrutiny of the guiding facts which history supplies. Bacon well said: "A cripple in the right way will beat a racer in the wrong one. Nay, the fleeter the racer is who has once missed his way, the farther he leaves it behind." A calm and impartial study of principles is requisite if we are to start on the right way.
Unfortunately little guidance can be obtained from politicians. Their interest to warp the judgment and inflame the passions of men is a temptation hard for human flesh to resist. This is rendered doubly unfortunate from the fact that the mass of the people derive their knowledge of economic principles from the hustings and the stormy arena of parliamentary debates. The shiftiness of the politician has become proverbial. His close dependence on the popular will makes unswerving adherence to principle difficult except in men of rare strength. Often he is but a self-seeker with his ambition thinly varnished over with zeal. The temptations to temporise and skirt round a problem are the peculiar besetments of those who govern in the practical affairs of State and render them unsteady and untrustworthy lights of guidance. There is a danger, specially marked in politics, of speech and silence being set to the sympathies of one's own little public, like the words of a song to music. One who has felt the power of these temptations will, without hesitation, recognise the urgency of appealing to other leadership than that of the man pressed from all points to accommodate his opinions to those of the majority. There is an ever-growing need of an economic literature which shall instruct in first principles while avoiding the technical difficulties and terms of the schools. There is likewise an ever-growing appetite for books of small compass which shall apply first principles to those involved problems of society which confront our generation.
Political Economy, we are told, is the science and analysis of what is, not of what ought to be. But the generality of men invest the science with a more extended scope, and demand, with reason, the answer of Political Economy to the multitude of reforms that are clamouring for acceptance. Many of these proposed reforms are based on fallacies obvious to the slightest investigation. This little hook aims at a popular statement of fundamental principles, so that he who runs may read. By the light of these principles it hopes to reveal the essential illusoriness of many theories accredited by large bodies of public opinion. That done, it indicates, though with diffidence, the lines upon which true and lasting reform must run.
The present age is marked by extreme social inequalities. A square mile in a modern city will hold many plutocrats and thousands of proletariats. The distinctive feature of the time is the persistence of poverty in its most appalling aspects amid the rapid growth of wealth.
Former ages, it is true, have been worse than ours in the prevalence and depth of poverty. The lot of the common people to-day is better than it has ever been. The statistics of trustworthy investigators establish this point beyond question. The movement towards amelioration of social conditions never halts, although its progress for the most part is wofully slow. Giffen and other statisticians save their readers from pessimism. In Gregory King's time one in ten of the population of England was in receipt of alms, while now the proportion is only one in thirty In
What amazes one, however, is the sluggishness of the movement. We feel we have a right to expect a higher speed of improvement. "Fifty years ago," one writer has pointed out, "the tide of human progress was in full flow, and a breath of passionate hope was passing through all Europe. Italy was feeling her way to deliverance. America was emerging like a giant from the sea; Germany collecting her energies for a tremendous struggle. Tenny-son was writing his first Locksley Hall."
"Men my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new; That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do:
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see.
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be."
Men saw visions and dreamed dreams. A buoyant hope impassioned the hearts of men in that period, when the railway and steamship were making all nations neighbors, and the long dormant energies of nature were being awakened to stupendous activity in man's behoof. Education has since poured its strength into the minds of the poorest. The light of popular knowledge has risen upon the darkness of ignorance and error. The citadels of injustice, prejudice, and prerogative have been stoutly assailed. The world, especially the English-speaking world, has witnessed during the past half-century a movement akin to that of the Renascence or Revival of Letters in the 16th century. That ancient revival touched only the upper classes; this latter one has awakened into activity the somnolent brain of the common laboring
Yet what are the results of popular education? It has increased the industrial efficiency of the worker. It has widened his outlook. But its effect on reducing social inequalities is scarcely perceptible. The progressive march of invention, the more alert intelligence, has multiplied beyond calculation the productive capacity of the nations. The wealth per capita has been immeasurably augumented. A machine will do in an hour what a dozen men could not do formerly in a year. The amazing improvements in transportation have annihilated distance, brought the grain fields of the remote comers of the earth to the gates of ancient cities, and removed the possibility of famine in a civilised country. Into a city like London there streams daily tributary produce from all lands and climes. The industrial organism, though infinitely complex, is so nicely adjusted by trade that abundance in, one country runs as naturally to wants in another as water to lower levels. Where, however, is the corresponding gain to the masses? The destitute are still with us, and as this chapter is penned, the British House of Commons is discussing a Bill to provide for the adequate nourishment of imperfectly developed school children. There is enough productive energy in the world to furnish wholesome food, warm clothing, and good shelter to all its inhabitants. Whilst this fact stands indisputable, hundreds of thousands in Britain are yearly in receipt of poor relief. Trade Unionism has flourished for many decades. It has opposed a collective body of workers to the employers in bargaining for a share of the national product. It has secured legislation against child-labor, against insanitary conditions of employment, and against the exhaustiaccute;on which follows toil for an excessive number of hours per day. Many other ameliorations lie to its credit. Yet Dives grows richer and Lazarus still begs at his gate.
Let there be no misunderstanding. Amendment has been effected. Wages have increased, and that substantially. Mr A. L. Bowley, in a paper on "Wages: in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century," says: "In
The condition of destitution to which a large proportion of our fellow beings in all thickly populated countries is reduced is enough to rend one's heart strings.
Godard, in his work "Poverty, its Genesis and Exodus." affirms that in England, although relatively the number of the poor is some-what less to-day than it was, the annual wealth produced is nearly double what it was three generations ago, and "never in the whole history of England, except during the disastrous period at the beginning of the century, has the absolute number of the very poor been so great as it is now." The same writer, after mentioning that Giffen in
The statistics of pauperism are still more distressing. Mr Kelogg, Secretary of the New York Charity Organisation Society and Professor Ely both estimate the total number of paupers in the United States in
Unfortunately, the writer has been unable to obtain more recent statistics for the United States. But it would appear that to speak of the "submerged tenth" is far from an exaggeration in a country of such vast territory and inexhaustible re sources as America.
Professor Ely has attempted a calculation of the direct and indirect cost of pauperism. The direct public outlay Per year
The mere statement of these figures shows that the problem of poverty has claims upon the attention of the economist as well as upon the sympathy of the philanthropist. Pauperiaccute;sm is a costly evil.
The condition of the people in Great Britain is still more appalling. Giffen, in his "Essays on Finance," talks of the "class of 5,000,000 whose existence is a stain on our civilisation." It is the lot of at least one in five of manual labourers to belong to this class, and the lot of sixteen in one hundred of the whole population. The number of actual paupers in
The cost to Great Britain is enormous. The amounts distributed by public institutions for the relief of the poor in the years
So far as can be discovered, no estimate has been made of the indirect loss, but adopting Professor Ely's basis of calculation it is at least twice as great as the direct loss. Pauperism, then costs Great Britain directly through actual expenditure, and indirectly through loss of productive power, considerably over £40,000,000 a year. Surely here is a problem of waste sufficient to arrest the attention of statesmen and economists! Surely here is a problem of misery, pain, and degradation enough to stir the sluggishness of our apathy into frenzy of reforming zeal! In the presence of the suffering which these figures spell cut, we cannot look on with quiet pulse; we cannot stifle the instincts of humani-tarianism; we cannot dungeon up our hearts from sympathy. From many an earnest man the appalling spectacle has wrong the wail of despair. Says Professor Huxley: "I do not hesitate to express the opinion that if there is no hope of a large improvement of the condition of the greater part of the human family; if it is true that the increase of knowledge, the winning of a greater dominion over nature which is its consequence, and the wealth which follows upon that dominion, are to make no differnce in the extent and the intensity of want with its concomitant physical and moral degradation amongst the masses of the people. I should hail the advent of some kindly comet which would sweep the whole affair away as a desirable consummation." "What profit it" Huxley further asks, "to the human Prometheus that he has stolen the fire of heaven to be his servant and that the spirits of the earth and the air obey him, if the vulture of pauperism eternally to tear his very vitals and keep him on the brink of destruction?" No more need be said to justify inquiry into the nature of poverty, its cause, and its cure.
The conditions of life to the Australasian Colonies do not exhibit these distressing features in such accentuated form Nevertheless, it is noticeable that as population advances these inequalities manifest themselves in greater and greater degree There is more poverty in Britain than in America, in America
It behaves those countries and colonies, therefore, that stand at the beginning of their history, to look searchingly upon older nations and to follow carefully social phenomena back to their causes. To avoid the same grievous results we must destroy the cause; to destroy the cause we must know what it is, and understand its nature.
What, then, is the meaning of the persistence of poverty with expanding capacity for production? Something is seriously amiss. Is it lack of thrift? Is it moral weakness? Is it want of qualities of stable character amongst the masses of men? Is it the operation of unjust economic laws? Is it the absence of equality of opportunity in the rivalry of life? It will appear as the argument proceeds that there are many causes, both moral and economic, each contributing its effect. The more conspicuous of them which are amenable to immediate redress, must, however, chiefly occupy us with a view to the maximum amelioration in this our own day. We are not so much concerned with the ideal state of the far-distant future, as with the prospect of substantial and lasting improvement of social and economic conditions for the benefit of this generation and the next.
Attention must first be withdrawn from alleged remedies which carry in them no power of relief. The next best thing to finding out what is right is finding out what is wrong. This process of inquiry will be adopted in these pages. An attempt will be made to expose the fallacies inherent in many articles of the popular political faith. That done, energy will be released and the ground cleared for the treatment of remedies which it is submitted will be efficacious. The need of the time is clear vision, not to comprehend the ultimate destiny of mankind, but to see distinctly firm ground upon which the next few strides of progress may be taken. We want, to move in the right direction and avoid the necessity of any retracing of steps.
As to the spirit in which the inquiry is conducted it is best expressed in the words of Lecky: "We must be prepared to follow the light of evidence even to the most unwelcome conclusions, to
The writer holds no brief for any class or interest. He is deeply sensible of the inequalities which mark our social conditions, and is warm with the conviction that they are susceptible of redress.
So long as the inequalities of society exist, and indolence is seen in luxury and industry in poverty, men will pin their faith to some proposed remedy. There is inherent in human nature the belief that right is stronger than wrong. Optimism is strong with us after all. That the primeval laws by which this world was set in motion are necessarily productive of undeserved suffering we cannot believe. The beneficent Creator did not preordain conditions of life under which many who toil not nor spin are arrayed like Solomon, and millions, who live laborious days, produce riches they are not permitted to enjoy. These evils under which communities suffer must be due to the perversion of natural laws, the violation of the eternal principles of right, and the fervid words of Moses, addressed to the rebellious Israelites, ring through this generation:—
"Thou shalt carry much seed into the field, and shall gather but little in. "Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes. "Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil."
At some point the laws of God are outraged, otherwise he who kept the fig tree would eat the fruit thereof, and he who sowed would reap.
That the wrongs of man are susceptible of redress, that bankruptcy must sooner or later sweep down the evil institution or practice, is the confident conviction of the generality of men. Our nature will not permit us to escape the conviction that the leaden weight of constraining circumstances which flattens down the life of the masses will ultimately be lifted. Deeply sensible of injustice somewhere, the unthinking multitude of men are, however, too ready to seize on any proposal which holds out the slenderest of promises of relief. One of these proposals undertakes to cure the defects of the industrial organisation by strict regulations of hours of work, or wages and general conditions of employment. To the futility of such a measure attention must now be addressed. Before attempting to criticise, however, let the due meed of appreciation be offered.
The Factory Acts and other kindred statutes make a chapter of throbbing interest in the history of the betterment of the working classes. They have saved much childhood from being broken on the wheel of labour. The honors of child labour half a century ago were appalling beyond measure. These; Acts have thrown a protecting arm round women, condemned by the misfortune of their lot to earn their daily bread. They have insisted upon sanitary surroundings. They have relieved the strain of excessive toil by reducing the hours of work per day. In some countries, indeed the eight-hours' day has been realised; in others various approximations to it have been reached-The truth is now being borne in upon us that the shorter day gives increased efficiency and increased productivity. The last hours of a long day exhaust the worker, leave him limp and sapless; the night's repose is not sufficient for recuperation: he returns to his work in the morning dispirited and but partially renewed in strength. Consequently his work suffers. The evils of such exhausting toil are cumulative, and the worker at middle life is cast aside to make room for the young man whose natural vigour is unexploited. The fountain of his energy drawn dry the older man, toil-worn and inert passes into the workhouse. Such has been the story of countless thousands of industrial slaves.
A digression here is not unbefitting to remark upon the opposition of interest so often obvious between the employer and the State. There are advocates of the doctrine of laissez-faire who smugly assert that the interest of the employer is coincident in the last resort with that of the State. To augment the wealth of a country is to benefit the people, and we are told that the employer, whose energy and enterprise are directed to increasing his riches, thereby renders the greatest service to the State. The experience of the most casual observer will enable him to confute such a proposition. Not at one, but at a score of points, the antagonism of employer and State can be marked. It is the interest of the State that each citizen shall expend his productive energy with such liberality as shall secure for him the greatest sum of products and satisfaction. It wants each man to exert himself to the utmost in the field of industry. The more riches his muscles and brain compass the better. A community prospers on strenuous toil, not idleness. But in measuring the result of a man's labour the Stale takes as the unit of time the man's lifetime Taking the life of each man as a whole, the State want, to attain the utmost reach of productiveness. The life should be so ordered that, at the end, the accumulated fruits of the whole life's industry shell be the largest sum possible. To wear a man's fibres through, to burn his energy out, in a few years' intense unremitting toil is to sacrifice the future on the altar of the present. Better fifty years' steady industry than ten years' fieree expenditure of energy. To pour out the life's vigor in fifteen or twenty years does not
The self-interest of the employer dictates otherwise. More profitable to him ten crowded years of fierce, unrelaxed toil, with the human frame straining like an engine under the pressure of full steam than fifty years of labour at a slower, less exhausting pace. It matters not to him if the human machine breaks under the burden; others are waiting for the place with natural powers unimpaired. From the mercenary view-point of profit, it pays to suck the energy from the worker quickly and replace him with a young man full of sap. No obligation is cast upon the employer to care for the man he has wasted. The burden of his maintenance in his premature decline falls upon the State-supported institutions of charity.
Thus arises the urgency and justification of Governmental interference. Labour, the conditions and time of its exertion, must be regulated to prevent this sacrifice of the permanent interests of the future to the greed of the employer. The path of industrial progress is strewn with the wreck of men, struck down, midway on life's journey, by the relentless hand of soulless industry. But what concerns us here is not the base inhumanity of it. We are not concerned in this place with ethical considerations. It is the economic waste which challenges our attention. It is this which appals. All honor then to Trades Unionism, which, standing on the rights of man demanded that this waste should be stopped. The well-being of a people, the wealth of a country, require the regulation of industry with a view to preventing wasteful or uneconomical employment of human energy.
Not only has State interference on behalf of the workers been justified in the past, but the duty is incumbent upon Governments of still further interfere nee, at any rate in Europe. A few years ago, the writer stayed a week in a manufacturing village of Yorkshire. It was winter, and at the dark cold hour of six he was awakened every morning by the multitudinous clatter of clogs on the stone pavement. Hundreds of women and girls were making their way to the woollen mills to work for ten hours at the loom. Many of them were married, with families. They left their babies at dark, and returned to tliem at dark. Can' stalwart men be nourished and built by mothers whose best energy is devoted to making cloth? The nation cannot afford to allow" its womanhood to neglect the making of men for the making of anything material. The women of a country should not work for wages; they should be in the home child-bearing and manufacturing character in their children. Britain to-day is neglecting her soils for the sake of victory in the world's markets.' But nowhere is the juggernaut of modern industrialism with its panting passion for profit's at any cost, crushing out move lives than in the United States of America.
In New Zealand. State interference in the control of industry has gone further than in any other country. The outstanding feature of her advanced legislation is the Arbitration Act. This Act, which has been in force for fifteen years, sets up a Court of Arbitration where all disputes between Trade Unions and Employers are settled. A recent amendment to the Act has made strikes or lock-outs illegal. Thus arbitration in the settlement of disputes is compulsory. Much controversy has raged round this Act. The effects of its operations have been the subject of bitter partizanship. Many allege, and with considerable weight of supporting fact, that the characteristic effect has been the multiplication, not the settlement, of disputes. Undoubtedly, the ease with which the Court can be approached has induced unions to bring the smallest grievances to it for arbitration—grievances which under no circumstances would have led to a strike. Practically every industry in the Dominion is now subject to an award of the Court. These awards are usually operative for three years, and experience shows that, when they expire, the workers file new and enlarged demands, necessitating a revision of the conditions of each industry every three years at least. From this it will be seen that the Arbitration Act has brought no finality.; disputes are endless, with no prospect apparently of industrial peace ever being reached. As a set-off against this constant, irritation, one grand commanding result can be chronicled: New Zealand is a land without strikes. It is true that in Since these pages went to press the Blackball miners have gone out on strike. They are being prosecuted for breach of the Arbitration Act and no doubt the strike will soon be ended. The most significant phase of the trouble Court. In this they seem to be supported by most of the Trades the Trades Halls of the Dominion. In fact, the workers are growing impatient with Arbitration because it has not realised the hope it first inspired. The principle of Arbitration is no wise at fault because it first inspired. The principle of problems which only the reforms urged in the following chapters can effect.
Its effects upon wages and conditions of labour must also be remarked. For the most part the Court has slightly raised wages, shortened the working day, and improved the lot of factory girls; the over-reaching employer, apt to abuse the advantage of his position to the detriment of his men, has been checked.
Having fairly stated the benefits of regulation, the question which furnishes the keynote of this little book can now be asked: What has this regulation contributed to the solution of the problems or social inequality? Are they any nearer solution? Does success lie along the line of further and stricter regulation Can the industrious poor be amply rewarded and the idle rich be penalised thereby? Can Labour hope to get its fair share of the products of industry by this means? Can unearned increments be diminished and earned increments be augmented? These questions touch the pith of the matter. Regulation has done much, but maybe it is a spent force. Its virtue may be exhausted. It may be that here reforming zeal can achieve nothing further, that energy must be diverted into new channels if large results are to be gained. That, such is the case will appear as the argument proceeds. The regulation of industry has no key with which to unlock the door of just industrial conditions to the workers of the
The wealth of the world is enormous, and ample to supply the real needs of all its inhabitants. By the operation of subtle economic laws this wealth is unevenly distributed: many are glutted with riches: the producers of these riches are generally stinted. It was thought that Trade Unionism, in adding to the power of Labour in bargaining with the employer by the substitution of combination for competition, would secure to labour that share of the produce of industry to which it was justly entitled. That it has failed of its main purpose must he admitted. This failure is noticeable whether the principles of Trade Unionism are applied directly by the unions or through the medium of the State. New Zealand offers the best illustration of the failure because she has made the most liberal concessions to Labour ideals. Wages have been raised in almost all trades, but the purchasing power of those wages has been reduced in greater proportion. After sixteen years of Labour Legislation, after sixteen years of earnest effort after reform, real wages are less than at the beginning of the reforming period. By real wages are meant the commodities and satisfactions which money wages can purchase. Wages have gone up, but prices have increased still more. If the labourer now gets £3 a week where formerly he got only £2 he is worse off if his £3 will not purchase as many consumable goods as the £2 were wont to do. Very significant conclusions were published about three year ago by Mr Coghlan statistician of the New South Wales Government. He said that during the past fifteen years
A common plank in the platform of immediately desirable reforms adopted by the Trades Unions of New Zealand at their annual conferences is the following:—" That the hours of labour per day be gradually reduced until employment be found for all." The unemployed difficulty has never suffered in new Zealand that acuteness which is its normal condition in older lands. Yet there has always been a residuum of unemployed. As a country advances in population and wealth, the unemployed problem becomes accentuated. The wealth per head of a newly-settled country is less than that of an old country. Yet there is comparatively no poverty in the new country and no lack of employment. In the older country these evils are pronounced to a degree that appals. The Labour conference seeks a remedy in the gradual reduction of the length of the working day. The remedy is so crude that the possibility of its ever receiving legislative expression is, indeed, hardly conceivable. The reason for adverting to it is that it is rooted in ideas which exercise so vereignty over the minds of thousands of people in New Zealand and millions of people throughout the world. These ideas with draw attention from reforms which have in them the prospect of success. Our task is still to clear the path of progress from the futile measures of reform which encumber it. There is much rubbish to be removed before any real advance can be made.
That any body of opinion should be found in support of such and kindred proposals among the leaders of thought in the ranks of Labour reveals an ignorance of the root principles of economics which one would scarcely have expected from intelligent men. It shows a disregard of the laws of production which, persisted in, must lead to calamity. The fallacy can be readily exploded. Let the
A fair statement of the case for the proposed reform is first required With plausibility of superficial reasoning, it iaccute;s argued that if one hundred men working eight hours, a day can make all the boots needed by a community, and there are 200 men seeking employment as bootmakers, then if the working day were contracted to four hours, employment would be found for the whole 200. It is therefore suggested that a sort of sliding scale should be adopted whereby the hours of work in an industry might be lessened in number until the unemployed in that industry were absorbed. The mere statement of the ease reveals its amazing absurdity! The least critical suggests innumerable interrogations for the defenders of the proposal to answer. If 200 men are required to do the work formerly done by 100, are their individual wages reduced, or do they remain the same? Doing only half the work, must not their wages be reduced by half, if the boots are to be sold at the same price as formerly? If wages, however, remain the same, must not the price of the product be raised sufficiently to pay for the added cost of production? If the price is raised, will not the consumer have to bear the burden? If the consumer has to pay more for his boots, will be not economise his use of them and thus lessen the demand, or will be not have less of his earnings to spend on other commodities and thus lessen the demand for those other commodities? Is it not true that if a man with fixed wages or income has to pay more for an article he has been in the habit of using, he will have less money for the purchase of other articles? If the demand for commodities is lessened, must not the demand for the labour which produces the commodities be lessened also? The demand for boots being diminished, how can our two hundred men find employment even at four hours a day? Must not the hours still further be reduced? And must not that, by further enhancing price, necessitate a still further reduction of hours? And so on, until we arrive at the reductio and absurdum—when the price is so high that the boots cannot be purchased at all and bootmakers have no employment. But suppose the demand for boots at the high price were maintained, would not the diminished demand in other branches of industry embarrass labor and lessen employment? In short, it is impossible to pursue this policy of gradually shortening the working day without causing one of two results—either there will be a rise of prices, which, by lessening general purchasing power, will weaken the demand for commodities in some direction and thereby contract the aggregate amount of employment; or there will be a maintenance of prices at their old level, with the purchasing power of the general consumers unabated, in which case our bootmakers must submit to a reduction of wages commensurate with the reduction of their output. On one horn of the dilemma Labour must be impaled. A merely artificial increase of employment in one trade cannot be effected without either a diminution of wages in that
That such a monstrous proposition should engage the energy of men earnest for social betterment emphasises the urgency of familiarising the general public with the elementary principles of the production and distribution of wealth. Gross misconception of these principles has led to an expenditure of misguided effort, which, rightly directed, would have shifted the hand on the dial-plate; progress much further on. What is the leading principle governing wages, the reward of labour?
The source from which wages are drawn is the aggregate pro duct of the factors of production—the national output, or tie national dividend. It matters not what phrase is used, so long as the meaning is clear that Labour can only draw its wages from what is produced by Labour. Consequently, anything that diminishes the national output lessens the fund from which Labour is paid That the effect which the reduction of the day's working hours will tend to have upon the national output may be fully appreciated let an extreme raise be taken.
Suppose the working hours in all trades are reduced to four per day—a supposition not unreasonable, since such a reduction has been earnestly advocated by a president of a New Zealand trades Hall. What will be the effect? It cannot be contended that a man will produce as much in four hours as in eight. True, it his been established by experience that workers will do as much in eight or nine hours as in eleven or twelve. Indeed, so far as the reduction of hours has gone, the efficiency and productiveness of Labour may be said to have been increased. But it is false reasoning to argue that the same tendency must manifest itself at every further reduction. There is a limit below which any shortening of the working day must lessen the productivity of the worker. To lessen that is to diminish the total produce. And to diminish the total produce is to encroach upon and contract the only fund from which Labour can obtain wages. If the national output were diminished very substantially it is difficult to see how Labour could avoid sustaining a reduction of wages. At least, this is certain, the national output provides the only fund out of which the various factors of production can be remunerated. Land. Labour, and Capital have to share among them this aggregate output. If it is lessened, one of them must suffer. Land will receive less rent or Labour less wages, or Capital less interest. The natural effect of a diminished output would be to lessen the return to each factor Thus landowners, labourers, and capitalists would all suffer a pro-portionate reduction of income. But such is not the desire of these who advocate the shortened working day. If it is to be purchased at the cost of diminished wages, it is not wanted. It may be laid down, as possessing the self-evident truth of an axiom, that the average able-bodied worker would rather work eight hours a day at
But the question here obtrudes itself: Cannot the whole loss of the diminished output be thrown upon the capitalist or the land-owner? cannot Labour get the benefit of a shortened day with the maintenance of an undiminished rate of wages? This leads us to the domain of distribution. The problem of problems here presses into the foreground. Is there some hard necessity, some undeviating law which condemns Labour to a fixed proportionate share of the products of industry? Without regard to the volume of the national output at all, are there no measures whereby Labour may obtain a greater share than it has hitherto enjoyed? This question it is the function of subsequent chapters to answer. It will suffice here to state the conclusion which is there reasoned out. Labour can, and in justice ought to, receive a larger proportion of the products of industry—of the national output—than it does under the present industrial organiaccute;sation. But no assistance is rendered to the Solution of this problem by diminishing productive energy and restricting its output. The injustices and inequalities of distribution are not remedied by lessening the amount to be distributed. No salvation lies along the line of restricted production. Such a course leaves the problem of distribution still untouched. Let Labour exert itself to augment the national wealth consistent with an avoidance of "sweating" and undue fatigue. The more energy thrown into production the better. A country cannot be encumbered with too much wealth whilst an innumerable variety of wants remains unsatisfied.
Sometimes men speak of over-production as though such a thing in a general sense were possible. The consuming capacity of mankind is practically illimitable. Satiety is scarcely conceivable. Upon the gratification of one desire another emerges with almost equal importunity. There may be overproduction of one commodity; at a particular time the supply may be in excess of the demand. But so long as men are wanting satisfactions which only the products of labour can supply, there can be no overproduction of wealth. Should it arise that the markets of commodities generally were glutted, that goods offered for sale were unable to secure buyers we should find the explanation of the phenomenon not in overproduction, but in impediments to exchange, or in the unequal operation of the laws of distribution. Again, we come on to the problem of distribution. To talk of an overproduction of wheat in the world while millions are insufficiently nourished seems paradoxical. No doubt it has an intelligible meaning in the economic sense, for producers will he unable to dispose profitably of their goods unless consumers not only have the desire to consume, but have the general purchasing power which will make their desire an effective demand for the goods. The solution, then, of so-railed overproduction is
Again, Labour has often assumed an attitude of hostility to machinery. Machinery, it is urged, has displaced labour. By doing the work of ten men, nine have been supplanted. It is assumed, therefore, that the tendency of machinery and labour saving devices generally is to accentuate the lack of work and swell the ranks of that most distressed class, the unemployed. The industrial history of Great Britain during the last 100 years furnishes abundant evidence of the misery and straitening wrought by the sudden introduction of elaborate machinery. The riots whirl: swept over Britain, smashing the hated machines which had displaced labour, still live in the memory of men. However emphatically we may insist on their futility, we cannot but be filled with, compassion for the desperate plight of the labouring class which gave them birth. Unfortunately, the process of transforming industries by the use of machinery was not gradual enough. With a callousness for which the business world is notorious, the human factors of production were cast out as rubbish to make room forth steam-energised arms and hands of steel. The transition to the era of machinery came with something of the suddenness of a revolution. Insufficient time was given to prepare for the change and abate its evils. The usual distresses of a revolution afflicted the industrial classes. But the displacement of labour occasioned by the introduction of machinery is never more than temporary Machinery never supplants labour except it lessens the cost of production. To lessen the cost of production is to reduce the price of the commodity. To reduce the price is to reduce the amount of the consumers earnings needed to be spent on that commodity; and to do that is to release money for expenditure in other directions. The introduction of machinery in one industry, therefore, occasions an increased demand for the products of other industries, and consequently of the labour required to produce those other commodities.
Whilst in some cases the introduction of new machines has come by continuous leaps, for the most part labour-saving appliances have made their way by small increments of invention. Indeed, as a general rule, machinery displaces labour only slowly and gradually. Porter tells us, for instance, that in
But whether machinery comes in gradually or suddenly, it ought to be a benefit to labour. After all, the masses do not want work: they want the results of it. If by invention some of the strain of toil can be shifted upon the shoulders of Nature and the productiveness of industry be augmented, so much the better. With a little less toil and more to consume the world would be happier. What eases labour whilst it multiplies its power cannot be inherently injurious to the working classes. If there are still poor, the fault lies not with machinery, but with the laws which distribute the products of machinery. It were disastrous misdirection of effort to assail that which increases Labour's efficiency. We only work to obtain goods for consumption. Let us obtain those goods as easily and in as large abundance as possible. We want not less goods, but better distribution of them. No benefit is to be gained by multiplying the obstacles and difficulties in the way of obtainng commodities for satisfaction. No blessing falls by doubling the amount of labour required to achieve a given end. Once again, we are led to the conclusion that it were a delusion to expert amelioration by making production more costly and less effective. The great desideratum is the utmost energy and efficiency of industry coupled with distribution of its teeming products on just principles.
One of the most insidious foes of genuine reform of our social system is the policy of Protection of home industries. To begin with, the name begs the question. The word naturally suggests ideas associated with what is good and praiseworthy Surely no one can argue against the protection of industries. Perhaps not in the literal sense, but most assuredly one can in the technical sense which the word has acquired in relation to the fiscal systems of countries. It is most unfortunate that the exponents of the theory of promoting industry by taxing imports should have been permitted to appropriate such a term as Protection. This virtue-assuming name has helped to perpetuate the errors which it covers and has impeded the progress of true reform. If the function of a name is to express the qualities and tendencies of an idea, then the name "Destruction" would be more fitting.
The most cursory survey of the commercial world discovers signs of a growing belief in the efficacy of the system of Protection to promote a country's wealth. Nations seem on the eve of a bitter and prolonged warfare of tariffs. New Zealand has just raised her tariff. Australia is advancing, bounding along the same road. America is preparing for a tremendous struggle on this same fiscal issue. Indeed, Britain is the only considerable country whose Government is not meddling with the course of trade. And even in Britain there is not lacking a disposition on the part of a zealous and perhaps growing minority to urge her to a complete change of her traditional policy. In fiscal problems, error seems specially facile in assuming plausible and winning guises. Its parade of superficial logic deceives the man unaccustomed to searching analysis of ideas. It has a semblance of truth which the undiscriminating popular mind fails to distinguish from the reality.
"In the Dominion of New Zealand," we are told, "a great quantity of woollen goods is annually imported. If a tex were imposed on these imports sufficient to exclude them, a tremendous impetus would be given to the local woollen industry. More labour would be employed. The money formerly expended on foreign goods would be circulated in the Dominion. The home producer would be benefitted at the expense of the foreign." To one versed in the principles of economics the above reasoning is seen to be faulty at every step. Yet to the mass of working people in the Australasian colonies at any rate, and to a multitudinous class
There are many benefits which Protection can secure to a country It can give support to industries in their infancy and nurture them into justy manhood.; it can shelter them in their time of weakness from the withering blast of the competition of strong, long-established rivals in foreign countries; it can give a diversity of employments and thereby a diversity of social life; it can render a country in a large measure self-reliant and independent of supplies from alien nations.
Let us speak with equal plainness upon the disabilities of Protection. It cannot contribute anything to the solution of the un-employed problem; it cannot raise wages; it cannot increase the demand for local labour, or make employment more abundant; it cannot augment a country's wealth. So far as its effect upon wages is concerned, Protection has always failed to realise the hopes of its protagonists.
But a high tariff involves something more than the negation of virtues; it possesses positive evils. A high tariff contracts a community's productive capacity, diminishes the consumer's purchasing power, and lessens the real wages of labour. Besides this, it keeps alive international animosities which the peaceful course of trade would help to allay. Its grip of the popular mind is due to the belief that by importing commodities a country confers greater benefits on the foreigner than it receives; that one nation's gain is another's loss; that trade is advantageous to the seller, but detrimental to the buyer; that a country grows rich by exporting and poor by importing; that the best way of advancing one nation's prosperity is by beggaring another. Adam Smith bursts into a transport of indignation at the false notions and the mean and petty jealousies that encumber trade. "In this manner," he says, "the sneaking arts or underling tradesmen are erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire. By such maxims as these nations have been taught that their interest consisted in beggaring all their neighbours. Each nation has been made to look with an invidious eye upon the prosperity of all the nations with which it trades and to consider their gain as its own loss. Commerce, which ought naturally to be among nations as among individuals a bond of union and friendship, has become the most fertile source of discord
So much for bare averments as to what Protection can and cannot do. They prove nothing, but they serve to state the problem. Now, let us look at the general attitude of Protectionist countries to foreign trade. The dimensions of the problem will be better appreciated. That attitude will be seen to involve strange contradictions and indefensible positions. There is not a country in the world with any claim to civilisation which is not eager to obtain new markets for its produce. Every effort is made to push the sale of its commodities in foreign lands. We bemoan in this Dominion that we are so far away from the centres of commerce. We hail with delight the progress of invention which enables as to land our meat and butter in excellent, condition at the Antipodes. We subsidise steamships to extend our trade. We welcome anything that will reduce freights, quicken the speed of ships, or in any way lessen the cost of transportation. We are looking hopefully to China and Japan, watching their awakening, and making estimates of their value as markets for our produce. It is conceded with unanimity that no pains must be spared in producing articles for export which, by their quality and cheapness, shall obtain a commanding position in foreign lands. Our dairy and agricultural produce is subjected to the minutest Government inspection to protect it against deterioration. It is carefully graded and tested. So jealous are we of the reputation of our produce abroad.
Our attitude towards the importation of foreign goods from foreign countries is quite different. Whilst we view with complacency the growth of our export trade, we look with apprehension at the advance of the import trade. The one we regard with the liveliest satisfaction, the other with dread and fear. As goods come pouring into the country we tremble for the fate of local industries. We expatiate on the advantages of letting our own people make the goods instead of the foreigner, of keeping our money in our own country instead of sending it abroad to enrich our foreign competitors. There seems some lack of patriotism in employing the labour of distant lands to make commodities which the labour of our own country could make. Hence patriotism and a multitude of other worthy sentiments are enlisted in the service of the policy which would check imports as destructive to local industry.
However it may be disguised, the above represents the attitude to foreign trade of all countries that attempt to foster local industries by tariffs. They point with alarm to a country whose imports exceed its exports. They speak of the balance of trade being "favourable" when exports exceed imports. By some means
"If the foreign goods," its upholders urge, "were not purchased, the demand for local goods would be increased, and this increased demand for goods would necessarily lead to an increased demand for labour to produce them; hence Protection, by restricting imports, intensifies the demand for local labour." There can be no doubt Protection owes its influence to such misconceptions of foreign trade. This its leaders will probably disavow. Nevertheless, Protection is a lost cause when collect notions of foreign trade are the property of the masses. Misconception hero is the great fortress of the selfish interests of manufacturers and politicians. The rudimentary principles of trade require to be stated in simple and untechnical language.
Foreign commerce is, in the long run a mere exchange of commodities. It is a system of barter on a colossal scale. This barter is aided by money, or, more truly, credit instruments, which are the medium of the exchange. The foreign trade of a country always consists in exchanging goods of less value to it for goods of greater value. Imports arc the payment, for exports, and they tend to balance each other everywhere. A country cannot be deluged with the cheap products of foreign merchants to the extinction of its industries. A country with cheap labour and boundless natural resources cannot, under a system of Freetrade, destroy the commerce of a country whose labour is dear and whose soil is churlish and ungenerous. No nation ever was, and no nation ever could be, drained of its money or precious metals by the action of trade. To lessen imports is to lessen exports. To increase exports is to compel an increase of imports. Except under abnormal conditions, trade is always profitable to both parties to it. It increases a country's wealth, enlarges the stock of its consumable commodities, and makes its labour more productive.
The above statements, crisp and audacious, have been grouped together to challenge attention. If true, they undermine the theory of Protection. To establish them is the duty of the present chapter.
"Trade is an exchange of commodities." Money in this connection is merely the medium of the exchange. At bottom, trade is barter. Money has been introduced to facilitate the exchanges. The inconveniences of barter are apparent on the surface. If a boot-maker has a pair of boots for sale and wants to buy a pair of
Nevertheless, the principle of trade has not been altered. When the bootmaker sells his boots for £1 and with it buys a pair of trousers, the boots are as truly exchanged for the trousers as in a system of barter. The man who buys the boots cannot supply the seller with trousers, but he supplies him with the £1 wherewith the trousers can be bought from any tailor, irrespective of the latter's want or otherwise of a pair of boots. "It is not," says Mr Mill in the third volume of his "Principles of Political Economy, "with money that things are really purchased. Nobody's income (except that of the gold or silver miner) is derived from the precious metals The pounds or shillings which a person receives weekly or yearly are not what constitute his income; they are a sort of tickets or orders which he can present for payment at any shop he pleases, and which entitle him to receive a certain value of any commodity that he makes choice of. The farmer pays his Labourers and his landlord in these tickets, as the most convenient plan for himself and them; but their real income is their share of his corn, cattle and hay and it makes no essential difference whether he distributes it to them direct, or sells it for them and gives them the price; but as they would have to sell it for money if he did not, and as he is a seller at any rate, it best suits the purposes of all that he should sell their share along with his own and leave the labourers more leisure for work and the landlord for being idle. The capitalists, except those who are producers of the precious metals, derive no part of their income from those metals, since they only get them by buying them with their own produce; while all other persons have their incomes paid to them by capitalists, or by those who have received payment from the capitalists, and as the capitalists have nothing from the first except their produce, it is that and nothing else which supplies
It is the general purchasing power of money which has given rise to misconceptions concerning its functions. Since money will buy anything, men toil and strain to bring forth something which will buy money. Thus the grand virtue of money in facilitating exchanges is often lost sight of, and money is pursued as an end in itself.
As money is the medium of exchange, it follows that exports must equal imports in international trade. Foreign trade is no more than a complex development of the simple transaction we have been considering between the bootmaker and the tailor. The principle is the same, although its operation may be disguised. The commodities which a country imports are paid for in the long run by the commodities it exports, and not by gold.
The importance of this truth is so vital that it ought to be written in illuminated capitals in every work dealing with fiscal problems. Let it once grip a man's understanding, and the bold of Protection must needs be relaxed. The dread of a large import trade is the belief that it deprives local labour of employment. If Britain, it is argued, did not import so much wheat there would be more employment for British farm labourers. If New Zealand did not import American and English boots there would be more employment for New Zealand bootmaker. But the imports must be paid for, and they cannot be paid for by money; therefore they must be paid for by commodities produced for export. Britain must send out woollens and cottons in exchange for the agricultural produce; New Zealand must send out meat and grain in exchange for the boots and shoes. And fabrics cannot be produced without labour in Britain; neither can grain be grown without labour in New Zealand. If as the result of foreign trade, Britain requires less labour for agriculture, she requires more for manufacture. Similarly. New Zealand requires more for agriculture and less for manufacture. Thus to import boots is to export butter and cheese, and does not lessen the demand for home labour. If the labour is not required for making boots, it is required for making those things which must be exported in, payment of the boots. Every purchase implies a sale, and every sale a purchase. There must be an exact balance between what is poured into the markets of the world and what is drawn out. Popular speech often seems to be based on the belief that a country is impoverished when it imports and en-
But the reader may demur from the proposition, incidentally laid down, that imports cannot be paid for by money. Close attention to this point will be amply repaid. Indeed, it is the crux of the fiscal problem. Why cannot a country he drained of its gold to pay for its imports? What necessity is imposed upon it to export commodities? The necessity is that of an economic law that never deviates. That law is this: as water tends to find one level, so prices of the same commodities at the same time tend to find one level the world over. If allowance be made for cost of freight, fetal tariffs, and other impediments of trade, the statement is true that prices are the same everywhere. Now, what determines the general level of prices? The amount of money in circulation, supplement of course, by the present highly organised system of credit. But for the purposes of the argument we can treat credit as money, since it economises the use and performs the function of money as a medium of exchange. Money, then, is the medium of exchange Money is also the standard by which we measure value. If there is a large amount of money relative to the number of exchanges to be effected, prices will be high; if there is relatively a small amount of money, prices will he low. Trade is the process whereby the man who produces goods brings them into the hands of the man who wants to consume them, and money is the means employed. The goods must pass from hand to hand for this purpose, and they do so by the instrumentality of money. The goods as they are exchanged are expressed in terms of money. Now, if there is an abundance of money in proportion to the number of exchange transactions to be effected, prices will be high. If money is scans, prices will be low. To understand the effect of money on general prices, one must put on one side the work to be done, the exchanges to be effected by money, and on the other the amount of money that is available for the performance of this work. The proportion of the money to the work determines the general level of prices-that is, makes things generally dear or cheap.
We can now revert to the problem whether foreign trade can drain a country of its money. Let us suppose that imported goods are being paid for by money. As goods come in, gold coins go out Gradually the currency, the medium of exchange, is depleted. But as this process of depletion goes on, prices fall, and in proportion to the depletion. The money for doing the work of exchange is lessened, while the number of exchanges to be effected remains the same. Thus it becomes scarce, relative to the work it has to do; whence it follows that a sovereign will purchase more commodities
A simple illustration will clarify this most important of economic truths. Suppose that Robinson Crusoe had saved from his ship a small of gold coins, and that in exploring his island he came across 100 move men in like case to himself, each also with an equal stock of coin. They cannot eat and drink the coin. It will not help them to hunt and fish or build huts and boats. But they will soon realise the advantage of a rudimentary division of labour; some will do the fishing, some the house-building, some the tailoring, etc. With this division of employments, trade will arise through the necessity of an exchange of products. The inconvenience of barter-will very quickly manifest itself, and the money they have will be used as the medium of their exchanges. One is made a hanker, and each puts his money in the bank and is credited with what he puts in. The money in the bank, say £500, is to he used for buying and selling the possessions of each. Thus the value of the possessions expressed in money is £500. Had the amount of the money been £250, the value of the same possessions would have been £ 250. The amount of money for use in exchanges thus determines the general level of prices.
Or suppose six men come into a market each with but one article to sell, and each wanting to purchase one article belonging to another. One article, we will suppose, is as valuable as another. All that is wanted is an exchange. Each man brings one article and wants to go away with another. If the amount of money to effect these exchanges is £36, the price of each article will be £3, as twelve exchanges will be requisite. If, through foreign trade drawing away half the money, the amount to effect these exchanges is only £18, then the price of each article will be £1 10s.
These illustrations serve to show that money, being the medium of exchange, is also the determinant of general prices. Prices rise or fall with the amount of money in circulation. Well, then, if a country—say New Zealand—were to pay for its imports by money and large quantities of money were sent out to meet indebtedness to foreign creditor, the general level of prices for its commodities must fall. If half the circulating medium were in that way sent out of the country, prices in New Zealand would fall bv one-half.
A drain of gold stimulates the export trade. Prices are so low that it pays local producers better to send their goods to Britain for sale than to sell them at home. After paying cost of carriage and other expenses incident to exportation, a better return is obtained in the British markets than in the home one. Thus goods have stopped coming in, and goods have begun going out. The cessation of imports has stopped the drain of gold, and now there is a drain of commodities, while the amount of currency remains stationary and prices begin to rise. Furthermore, whilst local prices remain far below foreign prices, no goods will be imported in exchange for the goods that are being exported. No. the Dominion's exports will necessarily be paid for by money. Thus goods will go out and money will come in. The outcome of this process will he a rise in local prices, and the process will continue until prices have reached the normal level—until, in short, the general level of prices in New Zealand is the same, after allowing for the factors already noticed, as in other countries.
The above argument demonstrates the impossibility of any country being deprived of its gold by foreign trade. The slighest tendency in this direction shows itself in a fall in prices, and the fall in prices arrests the tendency. The action of money on prices is such as to preclude the possibility of goods being exchanged ultimately for anything but goods. Such being the influence of the fluidity of money on prices, it becomes demonstrably impossible for a country, however inferior in natural resources or industrial efficiency, to be robbed of its currency and deluged with foreign commodities.
Payment cannot long continue to be paid in money. If goods are not exported, importation must stop or the national assets must be mortgaged. Even in the latter case, the indebtedness must at some time be redeemed, and redemption can only be effected by the exportation of commodities It is the rigorous necessity of providing for payment, which can only be made by goods, which preserves the industries of the weakest countries. Foreign trade may cause this industry or that industry to languish but it must necessarily stimulate others. Of course if it were possible for one
The soundness of this conclusion is confirmed by reference to the fiscal history of any country. At first sight, there seems wide disparity between the values of the imports and exports of Great Britain. The imports were in
In New Zealand the exports exceed the imports. The exports in
If further proof were required that foreign trade is an exchange of commodities, it is supplied in the small quantities of money which pass between nations from year to year. New Zealand's export of specie in The importation of large quantities of money into America during the recent crisis was due to the total collapse of credit, and in no way affects the argument of this chapter.
Trade being demonstrably an exchange of commodities, what becomes of the popular belief that Protection gives employment to Labour? The labour not required to produce the article imported is required to produce the article exported. So that, whatever virtues Protection may have, it does not give a country's workers employment; and whatever evils Freetrade may possess, it does not drain a country of its money.
The nature and benefits of foreign trade cannot be understood apart from the causes which give rise to it. Nations only trade with each other when it is profitable to do so. They pursue self-intent in the same way as individuals. There cannot continue between two countries trade which is profitable to one only. Countries exchange products because of mutual advantage to be gained. This truth can be set in the clearest light by an extreme case. There is considerable trade between England and the Channel Islands. The islands import all their wheat from England, yet they can produce wheat much more cheaply than the imported article can be sold for in the islands. What, then, is the cause of this importation of wheat? Why do the local farmers not grow it, and capture the home market! The answer is to be found in the special advantages which the Channel Islands have for the production of early potato and fruit. Whilst they can produce wheat cheaper than Britain, they can produce fruit and potatoes still cheaper. Their advantages over Britain in the growth of fruit is greater than their advantage in the growth of wheat. Hence the Channel Islands have turned their wheat fields into orchards, and by doing so they have obtained the maximum gain. The islanders, instead of applying a portion of their labour to the growth of wheat for home consumption, apply it to the growth of fruit to export in exchange for wheat. The way in which the gain from such exchange accrues is obvious. Suppose an acre of land under wheat yields forty bushels, whilst the same acre under orchard, with the same labour, will produce fruit for export which can be exchanged for sixty bushels of wheat. In this case the same labour and land, devoted to fruit, will yield in effect twenty bushels more wheat than if devoted directly to the raising of wheat. It is not always advisable, then, for a country to make for itself what it can produce cheaper than the foreigner. Thus it follows that a country superior in every respect to another might find it profitable to import from that other, importing those commodities for which its superiority was less marked. In other words, trade may arise betwen two countries, one of which is superior to the other in respect of the production of all the commodities the subject of exchange. A country's foreign trade consists in exporting those goods in the production of which it has the greatest advantage or least disadvantage, and importing those goods in the productions of which it has least advantage or greatest disadvantage.
These illustrations serve to show that foreign trade augments the wealth of a country. What is less valuable to it, it exports for what is more valuable. The labour and capital of the country is concenerated upon those industries for which the country is most adapted. Trade invariably means an exchange of a lesser for a greater value.
It is not proposed to enter into the merits of the controversy between Freetrade and Protection. Whatever may be said for Protection, there is no doubt that Freetrade secures for a nations
But neither Freetrade nor Protection solves the questions to which this book is devoted. In Freetrade Britain there is appallling poverty and distress. In Protectionist Germany and United States there is the same. The root idea of foreign trade has been dealt with here to show there is no magic power in Protection to quicken the demand for Labour, make money plentiful, and bring in the industrial millennium for which so many are striving. Consistent with this purpose, the treatment of the problems of money and fiscal relationship has been confined within narrow limits. In dealing with money no mention has been made of the effect of the rapidity of circulation and of credit instruments. Neither has the alleged beneficial effect of Protection on infant industries been examined. These and other kindred matters have been disregarded as unnecessary to the object in view. This is not a treatise on foreign trade or money, but if the truth has been firmly grasped that trade is but an exchange of commodities, the power of Protection to seduce men from the path of true reform will have been diminished. The spell which it exercises on some minds will, it is hoped, have been broken, and energies liberated for the pursuit, of those reforms which will indeed bring amelioration of society.
N.B.—Nothing is more calculated to give just notions of the [unctions of money and destroy the fetish of gold and silver than an enumeration of the various articles that have at different time-and in different countries been used as money. Almost every portable article of consumption has at one time been so used and indeed, the precious metals are not universally employed now. In Africa some of the tribes on the West Coast use cowrie shells. In parts of Japan they use rice: in Central Asia, packages of tea; in Central Africa pieces of calico; in Abyssinia cubes of salt. These commodities are used as the general medium for effecting exchanges. In civilised countries gold and silver have displaced all other commodities as standard currency because of their ready portability, great durability, and high intrinsic value.
As showing how an overplus of money relative to the exchanges to be effected raises the general level of prices, merchants in Sweden in the 17th century had to take wheelbarrows with them to carry their money. In the interior of China even to-day, where the depreciated copper coin called the "cash" is the only currency, merchants have to hire porters to carry their money.
The inconvenience of the absence of a circulating medium was acutely by Mr Wallace when travelling in the Malay Archipelago. Many of the islands had no proper currency, and when he
Colonel Young husband experienced the same drawbacks recently in his expedition into Thibet. He found many trite without currency, and suggests the introduction of one as the first step to civilisation.
The use of money in any but the most rudimentary societies is indeed essential. It is as indispensable to the interchange of commodities as language to the interchange of ideas; but it is no more wealth than the dictionary is Shakespeare or Milton.
There is a disposition on the part of a large body of men to ascribe the economic ills of society to the money question. We have ardent advocates of Bimetallism, and still more ardent believer, in a State Bank. The former are a negligible quantity in practical politics, the latter by their numbers and importunity command attention. The faith of the working classes in the efficacy of abundant money as a panacea is hard to shake. No topic is more beset with subtle and insidious delusions. "All the evils of the day," says Jevons—" slackness of trade, falling prices, declining revenue, poverty of the people, want of employment, political discontent bankruptcy, and panic—have been attributed to the want of money" The remedy formerly proposed was to set the Mint to work; that now suggested is to start a printing press for the issue of paper money.
A State Bank and paper money are indissolubly associated. Many conceive of such a Bank as an institution where money can be made without limit and without cost. The popular mind invariably connects with it a printing press turning bales of paper into bank notes. As money can always purchase things and employ labour, it is thought that the more money there is the more commodities can be obtained, and the more labour employed. Thus the State, by the issue of paper money, could construct its public works and carry on the administration of government without appreciable cost. An illustration of this belief is afforded in the annual discussions upon the subject of the New Zealand Trades and Labour Conferences. With unfailing regularity, the desirability of the Slate's monopolising the functions of banking; is affirmed. With the same regularity resolutions are passed that the State should build its railways by the inconvertible paper money of such State Bank.
If the Australasian States, by monopolising banking and reserving to themselves the sole right to issue paper money, can construct roads, bridges, and railways without the necessity of recourse to the British money-lender—without cost, in short—then it will be generally admitted they should assume the discharge of these functions without delay.
An analysis, therefore, into the operation of paper as money must precede any judgment upon the merits of State banking. For it is this which specially distinguishes State banking from any other form of State enterprise.
History would seem to condemn the use of paper money unless it is convertible at will into coin. The dire calamities of the past have induced all civilised communities to adopt gold or silver as their standard currency. Paper is used, but always subject to the strictest regulation. "The Bank Charter Act "allows the Bank of England to issue against Government securities some £15,000,000 of bank notes without requiring any gold reserve for their redemption. After this limit is reached, the Bank must deposit, in its vaults gold equivalent to five sovereigns for every five-pound note it puts in circulation, so that at any time there is sufficient gold actually in the Bank to redeem all the notes in circulation in excess of £15,000,000. All the notes, however, are alike convertible into gold at the demand of their possessors.
But British internal trade is such that, under normal conditions, there will remain in circulation a minimum of Bank of England notes amounting in value to £15,000,000. Apart from finanacial panic, therefore, the Bank runs no risk of being unable to meet its obligation to give gold on demand for every note it issues.
The insistence upon the convertibility of bank notes, and the strict regulations which govern their issue, are in striking contrast to the conditions under which gold money is issued. For gold there is absolutely free and unlimited coinage. The Government make no charge for the cost of minting and impose no limit upon the quantity coined. Any man may take gold bullion to the Mint and have it coined into as many sovereigns as it will make. The State will give him back his bullion in the form of sovereigns, containing the same weight of fine gold as his bullion did, and charge him nothing for the labour involved.
From this it will appear that Britain has no fear of the over issue of gold. The State bears the expense even of coinage, that there might not be the slightest impediment to the increase of gold money. There is a total absence of those restrictions that encumber the issue of paper money. Seemingly there cannot be too much gold in circulation, but there is a danger of too much paper truth is, however, there may be an excess of gold as well as paper but the former is subject to natural causes of limitation which do not affect the latter. Let us briefly recapitulate here the argument used in a previous chapter in elucidation of the law governing the value of money generally. It is necessary to a proper understanding of the peculiar dangers incident to paper money.
Money is not wealth, but it is the power to procure wealth It is now generally recognised that money is the medium of exchange and that a country is not enriched by the mere possession of gold or silver or paper. If the worlds supply of the precious metals were doubled to-morrow, there would be no more bread to satisfy the hungry, no more clothing, no more houses—in short, no more com-
The leading idea of the Mercantile Theory, however, was that of all forms of wealth gold was the most useful to a nation. The pre-dominance of this idea led Spain. France, and Britain to adopt every conceivable expedient, to increase the quantity of gold and silver in their countries. Governments generally, indeed, gave bounties on the export of home manufactures, placed heavy duties on the import of foreign goods, and forbade the export of the precious metals. By this means each country strove to robits neighbours of their money. When commodities were being exported, and no commodities were being imported, the exported commodities had to be paid for in coin. The benefits of foreign trade to a country were measured by the amount of money such trade brought into it. A nation was said to have a favorable balance of trade when exports exceeded imports, leaving a balance to be paid for by money. It was the empire of this belief in the pre-eminent preciousness of gold and silver which dictated the early colonial policy of Britain and Spain. The colonies of both countries were considered valuable only in so far as they furnished the mother country with abundant quantities of the precious metals. To this end they were uniformly prohibited from trading with any but the mother country, and their trade was restricted to supplying her with the raw produce of manufactures or with precious metal. When Columbus discovered America he was impressed not so much with the wide stretches of fertile soil as with the indications of rich mines of gold and silver. What excursions he made on that vast continent were made in pursuit of gold. To him the grand advantage of America to Spain was its capacity of pouring into her the inexhaustible supplies of its natural storehouse of gold and silver. For many years Spanish galleons plied the Atlantic carrying wares and trinkets to the aborigines, and returning freighted with the spoil of the mines. In many cases whole villages of natives were reduced to slavery and compelled to work in the mines that the stream of gold and silver into Spam might be swelled.
All the time the Spaniards thought they were growing rich. They held on to their treasure with amazing tenacity. They prohibited under severe penalties, the export of' any of the gold and silver and in order that still more might flow in they encouraged in every way conceivable home manufacturers to export their goods. The producer who sent his goods to the foreign market for sale instead of to the home market received a bounty. In this way the nation confidently expected to get rich beyond all others. It was sending away from it, shores the goods by which its people
Disaster followed. The more that gold streamed in, the more that money circulated, the more that precious metals accumulated the more aggravated became the poverty of the inhabitants. If money was wealth, the country was fabulously wealthy. Unfortunately, however, the process of filling the country with gold had emptied it of those consumable goods, the abundance of which alone constitutes a people's well-being. The gold was there, but there was a lamentable shortage of commodities to be purchased by the gold. Spain became poor through having too much money From a position of pre-eminence she sank into the second rank among European nations, and has remained there ever since. No doubt many causes contributed to the decline of the once formidable power of Spain, but the excess of money was by no means one of the least. Spain suffered more than any other from the Mercantile system, because she carried it out to the most extreme degree, and because of the fatal ease with which she obtained supplies of the precious metals from America.
No better example could be furnished of the possibility of a glut of money and of the evils arising therefrom. The superfluity of over-issue of money of any kind leads to depreciation of its value, and all the collapse of credit and depression of trade which such depreciation entails.
Let us indicate again with precision what determines the value of money. Competent authorities tell us that the value of money varies inversely with its quantity. In other words, the more money there is in circulation the less will be its purchasing power or value. Each coin will exchange for a less quantity of goods. The grand purpose of money is to act as a medium for effecting transferences of commodities from one person to another. The number of exchange that require to he made at any time is limited. If the money which is the medium of these exchanges be doubled in quantity each individual coin or bank note will purchase only half as much as formerly.
An illustration may help to elucidate the truth. Suppose that next pay day every wage earner in the Dominion of New Zealand finds his wages increased twofold. There are then twice as many sovereigns or twice as many bank notes being offered in purchase of goods as there were on the previous pay day there are no more commodities in existence. There are no more But boots to buy, no more clothes for sale. What happens then Prices rise. Every piece of money in circulation represents a demand for some article of consumption or for some service. To double the number of pieces is to double the demand. But this increase in money has in no way increased the supply of the goods
But will this be a hardship? Will not shopkeepers quickly dispose of their present stock and create a demand for more goods, which will stiaccute;mulate production in all industriaccute;es? Would not this increase of money give a tremendous fillip to industry, relieving the glut of the labour market, raising wages, and conferring innumerable other benefits.
Undoubtedly the immediate effect of an increase of money would be to give buoyancy to trade. It would lead to quickened industrial activity for the time being. But the sudden increase in the demand would bring about a sudden increase in the price, as retailers would find themselves temporarily short of supplies. The supplies which merchants keep are determined on calculations of normal demand. Consequently they would be unready to meet the suddenly enhanced demand. This unreadiness would manifest itself in rising prices. The iaccute;ncreased price, however, which they would secure for what stocks they had would induce them to make every effort to replenish their stock. To increase their stock they would compete with each other vigorously in the wholesale markets, and wholesale prices would go up. Wholesale prices going up the profits of wholesale dealers would be enhanced, providing a strong incentive for them in their turn to increase their stocks. This would lead them to compete with each other with added energy for the purchase of commodities from the producers. Thus the producers would be able to obtain an increased price for the products of their industry. But when these went to spend their increased earnings they would find that the price of everything they wished to purchase had risen, and that although they had more money than formerly they could not obtain more articles for consumption.
The ultimate effect, then, of the increase of money is simply to increase prices more money has to be given for the same satisfaction. Wage earners find themselves in possession of a greater amount of money, from which they undoubtedly derive some temporary advantage, for wages don't rise uniformly all at once, but the larger portion of the benefit of the increased wages is taken away by the upward movement of prices which quickly asserts itself. The benefit, again which the rise in prices gives to the retailer is largely taken away by the increased price he has to pay to replenish his stock. The benefit of this to the wholesale dealer is taken away
In the process of this diffusion of enhanced prices individual fortunes may be made, and trade will be brisk. Indeed, production may in some degree be stimulated, and the advance in prices slightly checked. There can be no doubt that a gradual increase is the volume of the circulating medium has a distinct tendency to impart vigour to industry for a time; but depreciation, with all its evils, cannot be long held back. When the process of diffusion is complete industry will settle down to its normal condition, with prices at a permanently higher level. Everybody will receive more money, but everybody will have to give more money for everything purchased.
If, now, the country with the level of prices thus raised is engaged in commerce with other countries, the high prices will attract foreign commodities. The outcome of this attraction has already been indicated, but its relevancy here makes a passing note advisable.
Exceptionally high prices in a country invariably encourage imports and discourage exports. Local producers will not send their goods to foreign countries if the home market offers higher prices. The necessary result is obvious. Goods will come in but goods will not go out, consequently money must go out in payment for the goods imported. In that way the country with high prices will have its money drained away until prices are reduced to the same level as in other countries, making allowance for cost of freight, etc. Thus, if one country has an excess of money, as shown by excessive prices, foreign trade will draw away the excess and distribute it over the world.
But what, it may be asked, has this to do with a State Bank and paper money? A moment's reflection will show its close relation. The advocates of a State Bank, or many of them, draw their enthusiasm from their belief in its efficacy to manufacture paper money without cost, and thereby increase the community's wealth. They believe that the railways of New Zealand could be built for nothing if only the Government would pay the men's wages in bits of inconvertible paper, and compel storekeepers landlords, etc., to take them in payment for groceries and rent The Government would then be independent of the British money lender, public works would be constructed, and nobody would pay for them.
The foregoing argument, however, indicates clearly the effect of such a course. Instead of paying in money already in circulation the Government would pay in new additional money issued for
The impossibility of constructing public works in some magic way by the multiplication of money appears from another consideration. Whilst the work of construction is in progress, those engaged upon it are not producing anything which can be con-Mimed or can satisfy any immediate want. They must be fed and clothed and housed by the labour of others. All the time the railway is in building, the workers are being sustained by the consumption of the products of the efforts of other men. In order that the railway may be built, those engaged in producing the food and clothing for the community must produce an extra quantity for the railway workers. The mere fact of giving to the latter bits of paper does not give them anything whereby they can support life whilst constructing the railway. What it does is, by increasing prices, to force all persons with fixed money incomes or wages to forego a portion of their consumption for the benefit of those employed on the railway. It is tantamount to a forced loan. There is in short, no royal road to wealth.
This conclusion finds abundant confirmation from history. The United States provides many examples. Massachusetts was the first State to try the expedient of meeting financial embarrassment by the issue of a paper money. In
The experience of Rhode Island was still worse. In
The calamities which follow over-issue of money were still more marked in the case of the French assignats. These pieces of paper actually represented property. They were issued against ecclesiastical property which the Government had confiscated The property was assigned as security for the notes. But it makes no difference whether notes have property behind them or not. In either case over-issue will bring about the same result. As the millions of notes were poured into circulation, the depreciation went on apace, although the money was based "unshakeably" on the only real property, the "sole source of production, the soil on which we tread." The factories of the country were closed, vast numbers of workmen were thrown out of employment, yet hundreds of millions of pounds of money were put in circulation yearly. The trouble was capitalists dared not embark in industry; the changes in prices were so sudden and extreme. "Commerce was dead, betting took its place." An assignat professed to be worth £4. At the last it would not purchase as much as could be purchased by 3d before assignats were issued. The truth stands out unmistakably—by increasing money wealth is not created mere jugglery with money can't create wealth. It may transfer wealth from the pockets of one man to the pockets of another, but, it has no power to make an addition to the world's stock of goods that can be consumed and enjoyed. Nothing but the expenditure of human energy on the resources of nature can promote the lasting prosperity of a people. The belief in the efficacy of inconvertible bank notes, issued by the State, to perform what their advocates claim for them is a delusion finding no support from the first principles of banking or from the experiences of the past.
Indeed, the statement once made by a great financier hardly seems exaggerated: "That of all the contrivances for cheating the labouring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deluded them with paper money. It was the most effectual of inventions to fertilise the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow."
It is not difficult to see that an over-issue of paper bringing about depreciation of its value, and a consequent rise of prices, is detrimental to the working classes. It lessen, their purchasing power. It is extremely unsettling to business generally. In a time of rapid depreciation capitalists are loath to advance money on industrial enterprises. A man loses all security for adequate purchasing power a week later. A depreciating currency enables borrowers to pay back their loans with less purchasing power than they received. Vice versa, the lenders receive less than they parted with.
But why is paper more liable to depreciation than gold? There are two reasons. The world's supply of gold can only be increased by the expenditure of labour in the mines. Gold is the product of toil like any other commodity. The difficulty of getting it imposes a real limit upon its over-abundance in circulation. Besides, if gold were to depreciate greatly as money, it would be used more extensively in the arts for ornamental and manufacturing purposes. This alone would absorb surplus quantities, and prevent serious depreciation. Paper money, on the other hand, can be increased in quantity without any increase in cost.
The second reason is found in the non-exportability of paper. This is the vital characteristic of an inconvertible currency. International trade distributes metallic money evenly over the world. No country can retain a quantity of metallic money greater than its commerce entitles it to. As the general level of prices is determined by the quantity of money (qualified of course, by the rapidity of its circulation and the extent to which credit prevails), if one country, considering the number of its exchanges, has more than other countries, prices in that country will be higher than they are in other countries. The high prices will attract goods of other countries, and will discourage the export of goods to those other countries, for goods will not leave a country where prices are higher to go to countries where prices are lower. The effect will be that the country with high prices will have to send its gold out to pay for the goods imported. This export of gold will continue until the level of prices is reduced to that in other countries, after making allowance for freight, charges, etc. Thus the excess of metallic money will be drawn away by the action of commerce.
But such a process is impossible with paper money. Its amount is not subject to regulation by the law which distributes metallic money over the world. Its essential feature is limitation of circulation. The paper money of one country is absolutely use-less in another country. It cannot circulate beyond the boundaries of the country issuing it. Possessing no intrinsic value, foreigners will not accept it in payment for goods or in discharge of obligations. Consequently an excess of issue cannot be cured by foreign
It is true that trade between nations is essentially that of barter. Nevertheless, gold is in constant use for the adjustment of balances. It is universally acceptable, because of its intrinsic value because of its preciousness as a commodity apart from its use as currency. So that a country with a relative scarcity of metallic money will, by its low prices, stimulate export and discourage imports, thus drawing upon the world's supply of money to meet its deficiency. The monetary crisis through which the United States is now passing is an illustration of this. The phenomena are there observable of falling prices in the home market and inflowing gold from abroad. So a country with a relative abundance of money will not send goods out in payment for imports, but money. In the light of this effect of the operation of trade, it is not difficult to understand how a country with a metallic currency is immune from the calamities which so often befall the country with inconvertible paper.
For this reason it has become an orthordox article of faith in banking that paper should always be convertible into gold. When a person can at will take a bank note to the issuing bank and demand gold to the amount of its face value, it cannot possibly depreciate more than gold. Convertibility is the safeguard against depreciation.
Nevertheless, the advocates of a State Bank have solid ground to stand on. As is often the case, the intuition of the messes on this question is right, although the reasoning by which they affect to support it is unsound. A State Bank with the prerogative of issue of inconvertible notes will not perform miracles; but it will enable gold, the costliest of money, to be supplanted in the internal commerce of a country by paper, the cheapest of money. This process of displacement, by driving the gold abroad in purchses of foreign goods, will indirectly enrich the country. Indeed while this movement is in progress, the State is practically obtaining loans free of interest. When a country like New Zealand borrows £1,000,000 for railways in London the loan arrives mostly in the shape of railway material or other commodities ready for consumption. On this loan she has to pay interest and underwriters
The export of gold prevents any pronounced depreciation of the currency. The evils of a paper currency arise when further issue are made without any corresponding displacement of metallic coin. Then every successive issue brings aggravated distress.
The dangers, then, incident to incontrovertible paper money may be conceded, and yet a strong ease made out for its use. It satisfies the needs of internal trade as well as coin. Why, then, should we go to the infinite trouble of digging gold and silver out of the mines to be used in effecting domestic exchanges when bits of stamped paper will serve the purpose with equal efficiency? There is really no reason at all apart from the fear of over-issue. If a sufficient gold reserve were kept for the purpose of adjusting balances in the commence of foreign countriaccute;es, and if the issue of paper were strictly limited to the needs of a country, we could dispense with gold for internal commerce not only without loss, but with gain. The cardinal objection to an incontrovertible currency lies in the unreliability of Governments. If they could be trusted, under all circumstances to resist the temptation to overcome temporary financial embarrassment by excessive, issue of paper, an inconvertible currency for internal exchanges would be ideal. It would be so cheap. But, as Walker says, viaccute;gilance must never be relaxed. "The prudence and self-restraint of years count for nothing, or count for but little, against any new onset of popular passion or in the face of a sudden exigency of the Government. A single weak or reckless Administration, one day of commercial panic, a mere rumor of invasion, may hurl trade and production down the abyss."
The substitution of £1,000,000 worth of bank notes for £1,000,000 worth of coin to be used in internal trade would augment a country's riches or store of consumable articles. Paper that cost nothing would do the work of the gold, and the gold would purchase commodities abroad. The practical question, however always forces itself forward: Will Governments ever exist which are proof under all emergencies, against the temptation of overissue of this money which is so easy of multiplication?
This is the only danger. If adequate provision can be made for it the ease for a State Bank stands triumphant. It must be
But let it never be forgotten that, in taking over banking, the State is not getting control of machinery which will construct its public works or discharge its obligations for nothing. No miraculous way is opened of growing rich without effort. Money cannot be increased ad infinitum without burden to the community A certain amount of money is needed for effecting exchanges with ease and rapidity. Any amount in excess, by increasing prices lessens the purchasing power of money. It partakes, in short, of the nature of a forced loan. A recognition of this limitation will save the zealots for a State Bank from pursuing it as a solutions of the problem of poverty, unemployment, and insufficiency of wages It does not touch these problems at any vital point. It is not a radical reform; established, the roots of social difficulties would remain unaffected. It has no more potency to redress the inequalities of society than the regulation of industry. Come it must and with benefit to the State; but if progress does not run along other lines, as well, our economic and social problems will stand as gigantic, as importunate, as puzzling as ever. Having exploded the belief in the infinite capacity of a bank to create money our way is clear of another obstruction.
Socialism is a much-abused term. The stubborn antagonists of innovation use it as an epithet of malignity by which they affect to dispose of any proposal of reform they are incompetent to meet with reason. The name has gotten such an evil savour that often the mere branding of a movement as Socialistic is sufficient to condemn it. Again, we are told that Socialism is so vague and fugitive in its meaning as to be insusceptible of precise definition. "What is Socialism?" men derisively and triumphantly ask as though an intelligent answer were impossible.
Socialism, notwithstanding, has a definite aim; it is directed against a definite evil; and has a definite method. Its object is to reorganise society on a basis of co-operation instead of competition. It proposes that the whole people, as represented in the State or the municipality, shall control all the means of production, distribution, and exchange; that private property in the great material instruments of production shall be abolished, and collective property substituted therefor; that land, machinery, and capital, in all its forms, shall be employed not for the profit of individuals but for the benefit of all.
For the justification of this reorganisation of industry we are pointed to the failure of individualism. The evils of unrestricted competition cannot be gainsaid. Under it some men have to work too hard, some need not work at all, and others cannot get work however earnest they be in its search. The toilers (the producers) are poorly fed, poorly clad, and poorly housed. Capitalistic production seems to enrich the non-producers. It involves prodigal and frightful waste. Especially is this characteristic of the distributive industries. In all cities there is a redundancy of retail shops. The requirements of the public could be served with one-tenth of the number if organised with a view only to the common interest. It is estimated that England spends £90,000 a day in advertising alone. The elimination of competition would indeed effect saving in numberless ways. The vast class of agents and middlemen would be turned into productive industry. The services which the community requires of the legal profession, for instance, would be supplied by half the number at present engaged in it, and at less than half the' cost. "Undoubtedly Socialism stands for many and far-reaching economies. By making service to the community the foundation of the enjoyment of the fruits
The present system lamentably fails to develop a country's resources to their utmost. There seems no reason to doubt the statement of Prince Kropotkin in "Fields, Factories, and Workshops," when he says:—
"If the soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated only it was cultivated thirty-five years ago, twenty-four million people could live on home-grown food. "If the cultivable son of the United Kingdom were cultivated as the soil is cultivated on the average in Belgium the United Kingdom would have food for at least 37,000,000 inhabitants. "If the population of this country came to be doubled, all that would be required for producing food for 80,000,000 inhabitants would be to cultivate the soil as it is now cultivated in the best farms of this country, Lombardy, and France."
It would be better for the United Kingdom to feed her people than to develop a vast over-sea commerce. The curious spect
The present system fails to recompense its wealth producer. Quoting from Robert Blatchford's "Britain for the British." we have it that:—
"One-half of the wealth of the nation is held by about 25,000 persons. "About 30,000 persons own five-sixths of the land and capital of the ration. "Two-thirds of the national income is taken by 5,000,000 people, half of whom do not work at all while 35,000,000 people only get one-third. "Out of every thousand persons, 939 die without leaving any property worth mentioning. "Twenty millions of our people are poor."
"Our cities," says Ruskin," are a wilderness of spinning wheels yet the people have not clothes. We have blackened every leaf of English greenwood with ashes, and the people die of cold; our harbours are a forest of merchant ships, and the people die of hunger." So John Stuart Mill questioned whether all the
"If therefore the choice were to be made between Communism, with all its chances, and the present state of society, with all its, sufferings and injustices; if the institution of private property necessarily carried with it as a consequence that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in inverse ratio to the labour—the largest portions to those who never worked at all the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work lows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life—if this or Communism were the alternative, all the difficulties, great or small, of Communism would be but as dust in the balance."
Now, how does Socialism propose to proceed in the attainment of its end? Its method is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Anarchists, no doubt, have been called Socialists, but their attitude is at variance with the teaching of modern Socialism. Such recent writers as Kirkup, Macdonald, and Keir Hardie maintain that Socialism springs naturally out of the past. It is the next stage, we are told, in the progress of society. It was essential that individualism should precede it to break up the system of caste and class privilege. The vast scale upon which industries arc organised in this age is looked upon as the immediate preparation for the overthrow of private property. Competition is exhausting itself, and leading to co-operation everywhere. The spirit of individualism has departed from the industrial organisation. The method of Socialism, in fact, prevails in production. How small a part of the labour of a modern community is done by persons working for themselves! "From the Irish reaper or hodman to the Chief Justice or the Minister of State, nearly all the work of society is remunerated by day wages or fixed salaries." As Mill truly says: "A factory operative has less personal interest in his work than a member of a communist association, since he is not like him, working for a partnership of which he is himself a member."
Any modern factory reveals the fact that co-ordination is the characteristic of modern industry. Men gather together in multitudes, divide the tasks among them, and generally co-operate to one end. The benefit of this socialisation of production accrues however, to capitalists and landowner. It is claimed that the nest step is to socialise the products, as well as the method of production.
If competition is the justifying principle of the present system, then it will have difficulty in upholding itself. Industry everywhere is organised on the co-operative plan. Trusts and combines everywhere lift themselves above the influence of competition by crushing out their rivals. The age is full of the doings of monopolies. They are wrapping their tentacles round every branch of production and distribution. Private enterprise, when it becomes monopolistic, ceases to be enterprising, and cannot be made so by regulation. State intervention is becoming imperative. The State manages monopolies with greater safety and efficiency and at less expense than private corporations. Its aim is to secure serviceableness to the community rather than large profits. It does not cut off non-paying but serviceable departments.
The rapid and fundamental changes, which industry is undergoing, the barely tolerable burden of trusts, the submerging of old landmarks, the accentuation of class antagonisms, the growing numbers of those distinguished by conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption, are all claimed as leading to Socialism and the disappearance of the individual struggle for existence.
Benjamin Kidd wrote "Social Evolution" to demonstrate that Socialism is at variance with the principle underlying evolution and consequently must fail. "True Socialism," he said, "has always one definite object in view up to which all its proposals directly or indirectly lead. This is the final suspension of that personal struggle for existence which has been waged, not only from the beginning of society, hut in one form or another from the beginning of life." He points out how all nations have been cradled and nurtured in ceaseless war; how the road by which man has come is strewn with the wreck of races and civilisations. The elimination of competition, of industrial and commercial rivalry, which Socialism would effect he fears would bring about decadence and race suicide.
But Socialism would not extinguish combat. Man is something more than an animal, and if the struggle for animal existence were suspended mind would be freer to measure itself against mind, and spirit to contend with spirit. Struggle, we know, is the condition precedent of progress, hut the struggle for bread and shelter which now absorbs the energies of the greater portion of mankind is inimical to man's mental and spiritual progress.
Drummond has grasped more truly the principle of social evolution. "War," he says, "is simply the modern form of the struggle for life. As the higher qualities become more pronounced, and their exercise gives more satisfaction, the struggle passes into more refined forms. One of these is the industrial struggle. Another is the moral struggle. The former of these must give place to the latter. The animal struggle for life must pass away. And under the stimulus of ideals man will continually press upwards, and find his further evolution in forms of moral, social, and spiritual antagonisms."
It is quite possible, therefore, to argue, as modern Socialists do, that Socialism is a phase of the evolutionary progress. They have, consequently, abandoned all attempts to introduce it by force or revolution. They insist that it must come by gradual change. It is a growth from the acorn to the oak. They look with keenest satisfaction upon the progress of Municipal Socialism and upon the steady advance of State Socialism in the Australasian colonies.
Municipal enterprise in the United Kingdom during the past twenty-five years reads like a romance. Here is what R. B. Suthers, a leading authority on the subject, says of the City of Glasgow :—"A citizen of Glasgow may live in a municipal house. He may walk along the municipal street or ride on the municipal tramcar, and watch the municipal dust-cart collecting the refuse, which is used to fertilise the municipal farm. Then he may turn into the municipal market, buy a steak from an animal killed in the municipal slaughter-house, and cook it by municipal gas on a municipal gas stove. For his recreation ho has the choice of municipal libraries, municipal art galleries, and municipal music in the municipal parks. Should he fall; ill, he can ring up his doctor through the municipal telephone, or he may be taken to the municipal hospital on the municipal ambulance by a municipal policeman. Should he be so unfortunate as to get on fire, he will be put out by a municipal fireman, using municipal water, after which he will, perhaps, forego the enjoyment of a, municipal bath, though he may find it necessary to buy a new suit in the municipal old clothes
A Parliamentary return issued in
The advantage to the community of municipal, as compared with private, management is most marked. Take the following figures from Garche's "Manual of Electrical Undertakings,
Thus the municipalities charged more than 25 per cent, less for current, while their profits were only 14 per cent. less than those of the companies.
Examples of this kind can be given without limit. The City of Glasgow has a better tram service than the private company formerly provided, the fares are from 30 to 50 per cent. lower, the men work four hours a day less, and get from 5s a week more wages and free uniforms. Besides, the capital invested is being gradually repaid out of the receipts, and in thirty years the tramways will be free from debt.
"The Reformers' Year Book,
In the face of this uniform success, municipal enterprise aft not fail to advance into other fields of industry. Its advocates are now pressing for the public supply of the necessaries of life as well as the conveniences. If water is supplied, why not bread; if lighting, why not clothing? So far, however, municipalities have only undertaken those industries which are in their nature monopolies. The same success may not attend it in those departments where competition already protects the interests of the consumer. The only defensible position probably is that public control in the monopolistic and private control in the competitive field will produce the best results.
Another movement of Socialism which is destined to grow to large proportions is what is technically known as co-operation. In the sphere of distribution this has been remarkably successful in England. From the Rochdale Pioneers, who started with a capital of £28, and opened a small store for the "supply of a few common articles for consumption of their families," there has been a rapid development. In
The advantages hitherto obtained from public ownership and management—from Socialism, in short—cannot, be disputed. The benefits of extended ownership will possibly be greater. He were a bold man who would assign a limit to municipal activity. This is the channel in which the stream of Socialism seems destined to flow during the present century.
Having examined the potentialities of Socialism, having indicated the method it employs and the direction in which it moves, the question which this chapter is designed to answer may be put: His Socialism any virtue to solve for this generation the social problems which confront it?
The answer must be "No!" Socialists assert that gross injustices and inequalities will continue until land and all the material Lents of production are under public ownership. But how do they propose to compass their end? All schemes of revolution have been abandoned. Confiscation has been ruled out of court. Gradually Socialism is to arrive. But progress is retarded by a most important factor, the land, the factories, and the machinery have to be purchased The capital value of the land of the United Kingdom is estimated at £6,000,000,000. The purchase by the State or the municipalities of this agent of production alone represents a financial undertaking of unprecedented proportions. Here in itself is the work of generations of Parliaments. And, in the meantime, social problems will grow more acute despite the enlargement of municipal activity.
In arguing the case for municipal management, Suthers remarks upon the capacity of the landlord to absorb the largest measure of the benefit. He says:—
"For example, of the 370 millions of municipal debt owing in England and Wales in "Who benefits by street improvement? Who pays for them? We, the ratepayers and taxpayers, pay for them. And when we have paid for them, the landlords who own the lands and shops and houses in the streets raise their rents. We pay for the improvements, and then we pay a fine to the landlords for improving-their property."
Or, again: "The land value of London is £16,000,000 a year, and is increasing daily. This value is due to the presence and industry of the large population living in London. The landlords have not created one single pennyworth of it.
"Here is a shop in, the Strand. A shop! It looks more like a rabbit hutch. Measure it. Width, 9ft; depth, 18ft. What is its worth? What would it be worth in the middle of Essex? About 2s 6d a week. The rent of the Strand shop is £500 a year Ten pounds a week! Eighty times as much as the same space would be worth in Essex!
"What is the cause of the difference in value? In Essex there are few people. In London there are millions. Did the landlord make the people and bring them there? No, he didn't. . . .
The above is from the pen of a Socialist, bemoaning the way in which the public are cheated of the benefit of municipal expenditure by increasing rents. It puts a finger upon the vital cause of our social distress. Yet the only remedy the Socialist offers is the buying of the land—a task so colossal as almost to he impossible.
Socialism has made considerable strides, and much betterment has resulted, but it possesses no power to touch the root of our social evils within a period which this generation or the next will cover. This is acknowledged by such an eminent Socialist as Kirkup, who, writing in
But the toiling, burdened masses of this generation want hope. They clamour for relief and redress in the present time. They cannot be comforted with the anticipation of the millennium for then children's children.
It is not so much that Socialism is running in the wrong direction, as that it is travelling the longest road to its goal. It has not a sufficiently clear perception of the relative proportions of our social problems. In its efforts to burst asunder the integument of capitalism, to sound the knell of capitalist private property, and to expropriate the expropriators, as Karl Marx, emphatically puts it, it neglects the permanent distinction between land and capital. Its error lies in supposing land an instrument of production in the same way as a machine or a factory. The return to capital may be excessive, the organisation of industry for private profit may aggrandise its promoters at the expense of the worker; but, after all, capital and organisation have enormously increased the productiveness of labour. Interest and the emoluments to organising ability are not altogether an unearned increment. For the rent of the unimproved value of land, however the landlord renders no service whatever. The paramount enemy of Labour is growing land values. Against this; Socialism has no weapons of immediate warfare. The solution of the most colossal problem of all it postpones indefinitely. It pours out its energy in securing small instalments of reform which bring to the masses a scarcely appreciable increase of the products of labour, whilst they enlarge the gains of idle landlordism.
The false lights of many popular but erroneous theories having been extinguished, the mind is open to the light of reasonable guidance afforded by first principles. Our enquiry has led us to condemn every proposed measure of reform winch would slacken the energy of production. The most particular insistence has been laid upon the folly of pursuing the millenium along the lines of embarrassed and lessened productivity. At every turn the examination has pointed to the department of distribution as that in which reforming zeal must employ itself. Not that the conditions under which production is carried on are incapable of improvement. The chapter on Socialism has indicated the extensive waste of effort to which the present competitive system subjects society. The possibilities of co-operative enterprise and municipal enterprise have been pointed out. Indeed quite a multitude of expedients might be suggested for diminishing the widespread waste. Any reform which will enlarge a nation's productive capacity is sound and urgent. Whatever facilitates exchange and transportation, whatever economises effort or utilises by-products, whatever strengthens the body, gives moral grit, or adds resources to the mind; whatever, in short, stimulates productive energy and multiplies its fruits should command the support of every well-wisher of his country. Therefore, let the arms be opened wide to labour-saving appliances. Let Labour rejoice at every invention and discovery which shifts more of the burden of toil upon the shoulders of Nature. Let the nations shout an eager welcome to the science which teaches men to harness the rivers and tides and air, that these may draw the world's loads, animate its workshops, illumine its darkness, and propel its engines of locomotion. Let educational activities be multiplied until industrial equipment is carried to its highest point of efficiency. Whilst man's capacity to consume and enjoy wealth retains its illimitability the volume of production cannot be too large.
Attention must now be directed to the shares of the national output obtained by the three factors of production Land, Labour, and Capital—and an analysis made of the laws which determine the relative proportions of those shares. Land will be first dealt with.
In most books of economics, land is made to embrace in its meaning all natural agents of production, such as air, rivers, and
The mind must be fortified here against misconception arising from the loose, indefinite meaning given to the term land in popular phraseology. Land, in the popular acceptation of the word, is usually made to include the improvements effected upon it by human labour. Thus, when we speak of the value of farmer's land, we commonly include the value of the buildings upon it and the improvements wrought in the soil. This wide use of the term is due probably in some degree to its legal signification In our system of law, to transfer land is to pass the ownership of all that is fixed upon the land or is beneath it. But its meaning must he narrowed before any clear ideas of economic principles can be gained. Speaking in the language of economics, land comprises nothing which is the outcome of labour. It denotes the gift of Nature, and that only. So when the value of land is the subject of treatment, whatever value is due to the expenditure of Labour and Capital must be carefully distinguished from the value of the natural agent. If bogey land is drained, the value added by drainage represents the results of industry, and cannot he regarded as the value of land in its economic sense. No doubt the greatest difficulty is experienced in separating the unimproved from the improved value. Certain kinds of improvements, after the lapse of years, become merged with the soil and arc indistinguishable from it. Despite the practical difficulties here and there, however, the economic conception is a just one. There are three grand factors in production—Nature (or Land). Labour, and Capital. Their separation must be rigid, and each examined in isolation, if true conclusions as to their tela ship are to be obtained.
In determining the share of the produce of these three factors which accrues to land, an analysis is needed of the causes which give value to land. Value signifies not utility, but general purchasing power. Air has the highest utility, but strictly has no value in that it cannot be bought and sold. By value is meant exchange value, or the power of purchasing other goods, or being converted into money, which is general purchasing power. What gives this exchange value to land, while air, whose utility is certainly equal, has none? Why should land, a gift of Nature be a marketable commodity? Its value arises from its being limited in quantity.
Now, although the supply is rigidly fixed, the demand greatly varies As a general principle, it may be laid down that demand varies directly with population. The demand for land arises from the people's need of it for productive purposes. Therefore, other tilings being equal, an increase of population will intensify demand, and vice versa. The truth of this statement is borne out by abundant evidence. Look where we will, we find it exemplified. In new countries, where population is sparse and land relatively abundant, land values are low. Land upon which the city of Wellington in New Zealand now stands was a little more than half a century ago purchased for 2s 6d an acre. At that time the population of the Dominion numbered but a few thousands; the demand for land was meagre, the supply ample; consequently land bad little or no value. But with every step in the increase of population there was an increase in land values. The two were concomitant. And to-day land formerly sold for 2s 6d an acre is valued at upwards of £200 a foot frontage. Land is more valuable in the town than in the village, in Melbourne than in Wellington, in London than in Melbourne, because more densly peopled. Land values are the economic barometer, indicating with infallible regularity fluctuations in population. As a country progresses, the demand for land increases, and as the supply cannot be augmented, the value rises. A country's advancement is registered with unfailing accuracy in its land values.
The discovery of the cause which determines land values enables us to ascertain the share of the national output which land will be able to secure. This share is generally spoken of as rent, and rent bears the closest correspondence with land value The term rent of course, must be used in the same restricted meaning as land. In popular language, rent invariably includes the rent Economic rent is limited to the latter. As land values rise or fall, the rents must rise or fall, for rent is nothing but the annual value of the capital value. The argument leads then to this conclusion: in young countries, sparsely populated, land values being low and
Rising land values do not cause or contribute to prosperity. They are the result. They measure prosperity; they do not promote it.
A railway is projected into a district hitherto inaccessible; tit land of the district at once rises in value; men are eager to purchase farms; demand, once sluggish, is now active. The land has not changed, but the demand for it has changed, because that product of labour, the railroad, has made the fruits of it available to merchants.
An electric tram car draws a distant suburb near the centre of a large town: immediately business men clamour for suburban homes. The exigencies of their occupation would not have permitted it but for the power of electric propulsion to annihilate distance. The demand for suburban land is increased by that product of labour, animated by Nature, the electric car; and land values sensitive as quicksilver, increase pro tanto. The utility of the electric car finds its measurement in land values. There in Arizona and the Central States of North America is a wilderness of desert and boulder, miles and miles of it, millions of acres valueless, not worth possessing; the possibilities of irrigation are discovered: the Sahara bursts into fertility at the magic touch of water; at once men stream into the desert, dam up rivers into reservoirs, make canals, and dig ditches; now the once valueless land is keenly competed for; all the foreseen possibilities of the watered sand are measured in the value of the unwanted sand. As soon as it is discovered that the desert can be reclaimed before any work of irrigation has commenced, the land acquires value. Land values show that there is a demand, actual or prospective, for land, and that the supply cannot expand with the expansion of the demand.
Herein it differs fundamentally from all other things which have exchange value. If the demand for pianos was rapidly to increase from any unanticipated cause, the price would rise also, but instantly there would be set in operation the machinery of Production to increase the supply of pianos proportionately to the demand. With respect to all commodities which are the product of labour, the law may be laid down that their price, or exchange value, tends to approximate to the cost of their production. When the price is much above, profit, are abnormally high; the
But not so with land. Land is not produced by labour, and cannot be increased by it. Consequently the price-raising property of increasing demand cannot he counteracted by the increase of supply.
The difference between land and the products of labour is well brought out by economists in their statement of the opposition of the Laws of Increasing Return and Decreasing Return operating in modern society.
The Law of Increasing Return governs the supply of practically all commodities produced by labour. Concisely put, it is this: The greater the demand for a commodity, the larger the scale upon which it can he produced; the larger the scale of production, the more machinery can be specialised and the more economies can be secured; the greater the economics, the less the cost of production, so that as the scale of industry is enlarged the return is increased more than proportionately. Boots can be produced cheaper in a large factory than in a small one. The large factory can use more elaborate and more specialised machinery, and can carry the division of labour to the point of perfect economy; buying its raw materials in larger quantities, it can buy cheaper; indeed, it can adopt innumerable economies to lessen the cost of production which are not available in the small factory. The more extensive the scale of production, the cheaper the product can be marketed. And the scale upon which an industry is carried on depends upon the demand for its products. Hence the great advantage winch such countries as Great Britain and the United States have over a Dominion like New Zealand. New Zealand finds it hard to establish manufactures because her population being sparse the demand for manufactured goods is relatively small. The demand is not sufficient to call into existence factories such as those in America and Britain, whose size enables them to be organised so as to secure every possible economy, and thus to reduce the cost of production to a minimum.
An illustration may be drawn from the pin industry. It would be utter madness for New Zealand to endeavour to manufacture pins for home consumption. The demand is not adequate for the scale of production requisite to cheapness. Long ago Adam Smith assured us that to obtain the maximum economy in pin making the industry must be divided into some sixteen distinct operations, with a set of workmen exclusively devoted to each operation—pointers, headmakers, etc. There would require also to be twice as many headmakers as pointers, since to make the head look twice as long as to sharpen the point. Thus before pins can be marketed at the minimum cost many more men must be continuously employed. But one factory organised with ten men, Smith tells us, would produce 48,000 pins a day. We have no means of estimating the consumption of pins in New Zealand, tat it is doubtful whether so many are consumed in the course of a day. If not, the demand in the Dominion is not sufficient to keep one well-organised factory in full operation. Pin making, therefore, in New Zealand could not be carried on at the minimum cost of production, apart from the development of an export trade.
The great truth that as the demand for commodities increases the cost of their production diminishes and their price is reduced to the consumer, finds abundant confirmation. The Law of Increasing Return is at work on every hand. Clothing, boots, watches, furniture, etc., have got cheaper with every increase in the demand for them, because the scale of production has been ever enlarging. The same weekly wage can produce incomparably more of these goods now than it could a generation, or still more a century, ago.
Land, however, we are told, obeys the Law of Diminishing Return. The greater the demand for it, the greater—not the less—the cost of obtaining it. As a general principle (the modifications we do not need to consider) the best land in a country is taken up first. As population advances recourse has to he had to inferior land—inferior either in fertility or position. Once the needs of a growing population compel use of the inferior lands, land value and rent rise. The value of the superior land is measured by its superiority over the inferior land. The value of the one represents its differential advantages over the other. A few simple illustrations will make the point clear. The value of land in the center of a town is greater than that of land in the outskirts; the higher value of the former corresponds to the greater advantage it has in situation. The value of a farm near a railway is greater than that of a farm far removed from such means of transportation of its products; the higher value of the former measures exactly the advantage which "the proximity of the railway affords. A farm on the plains of the Mississipi, rich with the fertilising deposits brought down by mighty river through countless ages, is more valuable than
The conclusions to which our argument leads are of supreme importance. The greater the demand for land, the greater its value and the greater the price that must be paid for it. Progress may mean a diminished price for commodities made by labour, but it means an augmented price for land. As the need of land increases with advancing prosperity and populousness, the difficulties of obtaining it increase. As the appetite for land grows, the price at which that appetite can be satisfied grows also. Land, with its stationary supply and rising value, stands as a force resistant to advancing prosperity. It levies toll upon progress. The price at which it can be obtained grows as the need for it grows.
The Law of Diminishing Return is operative even where inferior soils are not brought into use. After a certain point is reached, any further cultivation of the best land will yield a diminishing return. Every farmer knows that after a certain amount of labour and capital has been applied to his land additional applications of labour and capital do not yield the same proportionate result. There comes a point when, on account of a diminishing return, it does not pay a farmer to devote labour and capital in more intensive cultivation. Here, again, we observe that the products of land obey a different and opposite law to the products of manufacture—in the one case obeying the Law of Diminishing Return, in the other the Law of Increasing Return.
This book is designed to give a popular statement to the economic truths which underlie the social problems crying out for solution. The technical terms and mathematical treatment of modern economists have been avoided as far as is consistent with a treatment of governing principles adequate to convey a true meaning to the reader. Nevertheless, a passage from Marshall's "Economics of Industry "may well conclude this chapter:—
"The Law of Diminishing Return is a statement of a tendency which may indeed be held in check for a time by improvements in the arts of production and by the fitful course of the development of the full powers of the soil, but which must ultimately become irresistible if the demand for produce should increase without limit. Our final statement of the Law may then be divided into two parts, thus:—
"Firstly, although an improvement in the arts of agriculture may raise the return which land generally affords to any given amount of capital and labour; and although the capital and labour already applied to any piece of land may have been so inadequate for the development of its full powers that some further expenditure on it even with the existing arts of agriculture would give a more than proportionate return; yet these conditions are rare in an old country; and except when they are present, the application of increased capital and labour to land will add a less than proportionate amount to the produce raised unless there be meanwhile an increase in the skill of the individual cultivator. Secondly, whatever may be the future developments of the arts of agriculture, a continual increase in the application of capital and labour to land must ultimately result in a diminution of the extra produce which can be" obtained by a given extra amount of capital and labour. "Making use of a term suggested by James Mill, we may regard the capital and labour applied to land as consisting of equal successive doses. The return to the first doses may perhaps be small, and a greater number of doses may get a larger proportionate return; the return to successive doses may even in exceptional cases, alternately rise and fall. But our Law states that sooner or later (it being always supposed that there is meanwhile no change in the arts of cultivation) a point will be reached after which all further doses will obtain a less proportionate return than the preceding doses."
Thus, whilst its operation may be stayed temporarily by improved processes of agriculture, the Law is rigorous. Indeed, in all civilised countries it is active; progress in the arts of production weakens, does not suspend, its activity. Wherever land has exchange value the Law of Diminishing Return operates. There could not be such exchange value if there were an ample supply of first-class land in point of fertility and situation, just as air cannot possess exchange value because of its illimitable abundance.
An analysis has been made of the principles which govern the rise and growth of land values. We have seen how they respond to every step in the march of progress, how they advance with the aggregation of population. Growing land values represent the growing inadequacy of the land of a community to meet the growing needs of such community. To satisfy the requirements of additional population recourse is had to inferior lands, or to less productive applications of labour and capital upon the same land. It is not the mere presence of population which creates land values. It is the demand of consumers, wherever situated, for the products of the land. Whilst it is true that the demand—the needs—of the people of New Zealand is most effective in its stimulus to local land values, it must not be ignored that the demand of British consumers for New Zealand mutton and butter has contributed in large measure to the remarkable advancement during the past fifteen years of the values of pastoral, and especially of dairy, land. The frozen meat trade with Britain has enhanced the value of land in New Zealand by increasing the number of buyers of New Zealand products without increasing the supply of the land from which the products are obtained.
Before this trade mutton in New Zealand was about 2s 6d the half sheep; now it is 4d and 5d per lb. Now, at the same time, the price of the same article, making allowance for costs of freight, tariffs, etc., is the same everywhere; so that the price which the New Zealander pays for his mutton approximates to the price paid by the British consumer, after allowing for cost of carriage, storage, and freezing. The burden of this increased price is borne by the consumer, the benefit is appropriated by the landowner. The farmer whose means have not permitted him to obtain the freehold of his farm finds that steadily increasing prices make his lot no better, as they are accompanied with steadily increasing rent.
In Taranaki, the most renowned of New Zealand provinces for its dairy produce, land has risen from £.1 or £3 to £30 or £40 an acre. This is the outcome of the extension of the market for butter, arising from the fitting of merchant ships with refrigerating chambers. Now if there is "sweating" and arduous child-labour in any of the industries of New Zealand, it is in dairying. Despite the high price for butter and the insatiable market which Great Britain offers, the farmer finds he needs the assistance of all the
We are now ready for the proposition that economic rent represents an unearned increment. Wages represent an increment to the labourer, earned by the expenditure of effort on the production of something. Interest represents an increment to the capitalist earned by the service rendered by capital as ancillary to labour in facilitating production. Rent represents an increment to the landowner unearned by any exertion he has put forth. All increasing sum paid in wages or interest indicates generally increasing productivity. The more labour and capital are employed the greater the fruits of industry and the greater the amount of produce for consumption. Growing rents do not indicate growing productiveness, but rather the reverse. They indicate the diminished productiveness of labour applied to land. They simply denote the increasing scarcity of land relative to the needs growing population. Land values do not rise in a progressive society, because the services which the land renders to production grow in importance. On the contrary, land yields proportionately less and less as cultivation becomes "more and more intensive or
When land is abundant, as in a new country, and the best and most profitable land is available land has little or no value; other words, it demands nothing for the service it renders to production. Land is given by God, and He asks no share in the output. But as this relative abundance is turned into relative scarcity by general progress, land acquires the power of effectually demanding a share, and a share that enlarges itself with the diminishing abundance. A fertile farm renders no greater service to production, when a colony is thickly populated, after a century of progress and industry than when, with a handful of settlers, the colony is commencing its industrial history. The properties of the soil are the same; the power to furnish man with raw material is the same. Yet in the one case there is a high rent, and in the other the rent is quite a negligible quantity. The owner of the land receives this rent. How has he promoted production that he should receive this ever-growing share of the produce of industry? It is not payment for work done, for energy expended. It is not payment for capital invested in machinery or appliances to facilitate industry and augment productiveness. No! the landowner observes his share grow as the competition for his land grows in intensity; he sees industries expand; he sees population increase—and all this advancement intensifies the need of his land. Upon this competition he fattens. His land will not produce more than formerly, but more are wanting it. So without labour, without effort, his land rises in value and his rents increase. He flourishes upon the necessities of advancing population. Without contributing to prosperity, he secures a share of its gains. The more men clamour for what he has to give, the more he asks for the right to use it. He asks more because the need is more. As the difficulties of production increase, as the labourer gets a diminishing return for his labour and capital owing to the necessity of cultivating poorer land, the landowner gets an increasing return. Having that, the supply of which cannot be increased, he prospers on the community's growing need.
The full force of the argument will be best seen by taking an extreme case. Let us suppose a country parcelled amongst one hundred landlords, and that no progress in invention, machinery and the arts of production (which tend to increase the efficiency of labour and make it more productive) has taken place. Population steadily increases. The arts of production being stationary, the law of diminishing return will operate unchecked, and without conditions the state of the people will become worse and worse.
Such is really what happened in Britain before the repeal of the Corn Laws. The duty upon corn was so high as almost to prohibit the importation of foreign supplies. The country was thrown upon its own agricultural resources. The result was inevitable. Foreign supplies being cut off, the demand for bread could not easily be met. The poorest land was brought under cultivation, and the fertility of all land was drawn upon to the utmost. The soil everywhere was highly, intensively tilled. The high price of corn rendered this extension of cultivation profitable. Land which, with a low price, would not have paid to farm brought to its owner a profit for his labour. But the law of diminishing return was in acute operation. The inferior soils yielded less to the exertions of labour than the more fertile ones, and it was only the high price of produce which enabled them to be profitably cultivated. In agriculture, as in other industries, men go on applying labour and capital to a point at which any further application will not yield a remunerative return. A rise in price causes that point to advance; a decline causes it to recede. The argument is clear. Cultivation can be carried further with profit when prices are high than when prices are low. But notice the double effect of this more extensive and intensive cultivation necessitated by the insufficiency of less extensive cultivation to meet the demand of the people for bread. In the first place, prices must rise to cover the extra cost of production on the margin of cultivation. If the price did not so rise, the needed supply would not be forthcoming. In the second place, the value and rent of agricultural land rises. Every widening of the area of tillage by the inclusion of less fertile soils enhances the value of the more fertile land. The rent of any piece of land is nothing but the measure of its superiority in fertility or situation over the most inferior in use. Consequently, as more inferior soils are resorted to rents rise. If through high prices it-becomes profit able to till a patch of land hardly redeemed from barrenness, and far removed from facilities of transportation, the profitableness of another patch, fertile and accessible to; market where its products can be readily sold, is still further augmented; and the difference is represented by rent. This truth, that resort to inferior land raises land values and rent, may be made obvious by a simple illus-
Let the segment A B C represent the most fertile land of the country. This is sufficient at first to produce the cereals required by the inhabitants. Now, let population increase, and with it the demand for cereals. To meet this enlarged demand the land represented by the segment A C D has to be brought "under the plough; but it is inferior to the land A B C, and does not give so large a return to the same amount of labour. Consequently the cost of producing cereals from A C D is greater than from A B C, and the price of the produce must be raised to cover this additional cost, otherwise no cultivation, of A C D will take place. And, of course, if the price of the produce raised from A C D requires to be increased to cover the added cost 1 production, the price of the product raised from A B C is raised to the same figure, for in the same market, at the same time, there cannot be two prices for the same article. Thus the resort to the more inferior soil A C D will have rendered the cultivation of A B C more profitable than formerly, and this extra profitableness will be absorbed in rent. The men who own the superior laud A B C will be able to obtain for the use of it a rent representing the advantage which it possesses over A C D. Those cultivating the inferior soil will be always ready to offer a rent for the superior soil measuring the advantage which the latter possesses over the former. Thus competition will secure a rent for superior land, as recourse is had to inferior soil and prices of produce are raised. As population still further increases the demand for cereals will grow until the supply from A B C and A C D is insufficient. Prices must then rise to make it profitable to cultivate the still more inferior land represented by the segment A D E. This will cause a corresponding rise in the rent of the superior laud A B C, and enable A C D to command a, rent measuring its superiority over A D E. Rents will still further rise as the necessities of a growing population bring the most inferior soil of all, A E B, into cultivation ft thus appears rents increase as the difficulties of supplying the demand for the produce of land increase, or, in other words, as the cost of production increases.
The British Corn Laws occasioned high prices and high rents, and this double effect is now explainable. Consumers had to devote more of their earnings to the purchase of bread, and the incomes of the landlords were enlarged. Or the truth may be stated thus:—The Corn Laws, by diverting labour and capital from manufactures, which are governed by the law of increasing return, to agriculture, which obeys the law of diminishing return, lessened the total annual output of the nation's industry. The wealth of
The repeal of the Corn Laws removed the barriers to the importation of foreign supplies. It widened the area from which corn and raw produce could be drawn. The effect was the same as multiplying manifold the quantity of agricultural land available for the supply of cereals to meet the needs of the British people It was an enlargement of the acreage of supply. The land of Russia, America, Canada, and Australasia was brought into the service of the British people. In many of these lands the law of diminishing return was but feebly operating; labour was revelling in the cultivation of virgin soil, with its treasures of fertility unexploited; land was liberally, lavishly responsive to the first touches of cultivatioN. Yet the value of land was low, and its share of the produce in the shape of rent was negligible. Wages were higher than in Britain; but rent was lower, and land was more productive. The cost of producing corn was much less. Hence, after paying for freight, cereals were brought to British consumers at largely reduced prices. The sufficiency of supply of foreign produce at low prices made the prices for home corn fall to the same level. As prices fell, inferior lands fell out of cultivation, and the better lands were not cultivated so intensively. Hence rents fell. Freetrade in corn for Britain arrested the law of diminishing return by enlarging the area of supply, gave to the people cheap bread, and curtailed the share of the national output obtained by the owners of agricultural land. It was in the effect upon the principle of diminishing return lay the conspicuous virtue of Freetrade. Raw produce being cheaply supplied from foreign trade internal labour and capital were released from the necessity of wringing produce from unfertile, inhospitable soil, and of draining to their last reluctant element the resources of the better land. The labour and capital thus liberated were devoted to the manufacture of textiles, hardware, etc. These were exported in exchange for the imported foodstuffs. The benefit to Britain was enormous. Labour passed from exertion in a sphere where the law of diminishing return was dominant into a sphere where the law of increasing return prevailed. The labour of the people became more productive. The same amount of industry produced an immeasurably greater return of the fruits of industry. The labour devoted to manufacture by exchanging its textiles for the foodstuffs of foreign countries was enabled to procure a much larger quantity than had been the case when the labour had been applied directly" to the production of such foodstuffs. Freetrade meant to Britain the passage from the supremacy of the law of diminishing return to that of increasing
The argument can now be summed up. The share of the fruits of industry, which agricultural land will be able to secure, depends upon the operation of the law of diminishing return. Where the law operates acutely this share will be large, where it operates feebly the share will be negligible. The residue of the fruits of industry is divided between Labour and Capital. Rents, by an inexorable law, advance only at the expense of wagss and profits.
But agricultural land is not the only kind of land which has value and yields rent. Indeed, the peculiar property of land to absorb the fruits of a community's advancing prosperity is more accentuated in urban than in rural lands. City lands have an amazing capacity for large appropriations of the produce of labour and capital. As a city grows, as its people increases and its industries develop, land values grow, claiming ever larger and larger shares in the city's wealth. In the country the unit of measurement is the acre; in the town it is the foot frontage. Double the population of any city and you will enormously enhance the value of its land, for the same old reason that the supply is stationary, whilst the demand has increased twofold. The rent of a section at the heart of a city's commerce is higher than that of a section on its outskirts. This arises from the superior advantage in situation, and consequently greater productiveness for business purposes, of the former, as compared with the latter. In other words, the return to effort on the latter section is less than on the former. Again we see the law of diminishing return in play and determining rents. One business site commands greater rent than another because of its greater profitableness. The house on land along the electric car route is more valuable than that on land far removed from any such convenience of transportation. Similarly the residence close to the business area fetches a higher rent than the residence of the same kind in a distant suburb; there is a saving of car or railway fares, as well as greater convenience.
Whatever increases the demand for land increases its value Increasing demand is essentially characteristic of progress. Land is the very staple of industry. Manufactures do not require the same extent of it as agriculture, but where they locate themselves they create an intensity of demand for neighbouring land for workmen's homes and other purposes which enables such land to appropriate a share, and a large one, such workmen's wages, and also of the manufacturer's profits. Let an industry plant itself down in an
The argument requires no further elaboration to conduct us to the grand conclusion that the share of the national output which land secures is an unearned increment. It does not represent reward for labour or effort of any kind. It does not measure the service which land renders to production; it measures the need of the community. The need grows with advancing population, and consequently there is a concomitant growth of land's share of the national produce. Growing land values do not indicate that land is growing more serviceable, but that it is growing scarcer relative to the need of it. Indeed, growing land values represent declining serviceableness, or, in other words, declining productivity. It is the necessity of recourse to inferior soils that gives rise to rent. "Were there an abundant supply of land of prime quality the soil would yield generously to man's labour, and yet claim no rent.
Thus the return to the landlord is an unearned increment, and therefore unjustifiable. Indeed, only Labour, in the broadest sense, has any defensible title to remuneration. Capital is the stored-up fruits of labour. It is the labour of the past, accumulated and expressed in such forms as will most facilitate industry and augment its productiveness. By the aid of capital labour is sustained whilst engaged in enterprises, such as the construction of railways, which interpose a long period between the effort and the result. It is only the expenditure of human energy, at one time or another, which justifies the consumption of the products of the earth. We have the highest Authority for saying that "he who will not work neither shall he eat." Now land is a gift of God. It is not a outcome of man's industry, and, except to a degree so slight as to be negligible, does not yield fruit apart from the application of such industry. This proposition may be taken as the foundation of the contention that the owner of land as such, is entitled to no reward, seeing he has exerted no labour. To get a remuneration under such circumstances is to obtain that which is unearned. The mere possession of what is necessary before production can proceed should give no claim to the fruits of production, unless such possession has in some way facilitated production.
But the return to land in the shape of rent is not merely an unearned increment to the landlord; it measures the extent of the advantage which he can take of the necessities of the community. This is important. Rent increases because of the hindrance which the limitation of the supply of land imposes to production. To say of land that it gives to its possessor an income he does not earn is to assert the negation merely of merit; it charges no reprehensible qualities. But to say that the landlord
We must now address ourselves more closely to Labour's interest in this question of unearned increments. A careful and somewhat tedious analysis has disclosed the nature and causes of the unearned increment. We have seen how it rests on the law of diminishing return. We have seen how that law depends on the growing needs of a growing population. Our argument, so far, is confirmed by all acknowledged authorities on Political Economy. But what concern has Labour with the argument That is the vital question. Let the answer be thrown out boldly. To this law of diminishing returns is to be ascribed almost all the substantial grievances from which Labour suffers. It is a natural law, rigorous, cruel, and relentless. Because land yields less to man's effort as more is applied, therefore it demands more of the fruits of that effort. Or let us reason mathematically. The source from which wages, profits, and rent are obtained is the national output. There is no other source from which remuneration can come. The money that the labourer gets consists only in tokens whereby he can command the commodities the tokens represent. The more, then, that rent absorbs the less for wages and profits. It is a simple sum in proportion. If land gets one-third of the whole. Labour and Capital can get only two-thirds between them. If Land gets nothing, Labour and Capital will get the whole between them. In a young country Land gets, next to nothing, and Labour and Capital share the produce between them. In an old country, with dense population, Land gets a large share. Now, it has been established beyond any manner of doubt that this share of Land is an unearned one; that it does not represent an increasaing service to industry, but a decreasing capacity for such service. If land were as abundant as the air, we should pay as little for it as we do for that indispensable element of life. It thus appears that Labour and Capital are obliged to admit, as participators in the results of their exertions, a factor of production which claims remuneration only as its power of service declines. When land of good quality is abundant, as in a new colony where the soil is generously responsive to man's effort, rent does not arise. Even to-day Canada is offering farms of 160 acres absolutely free to bona fide settlers. But give the country another generation for population to spread, for highways to be made and railways to he built, and the land now free will have attracted competitors; and then, like the veriest coquette, will raise its price the more it is sought after. If it is urged that
At this point an objection presents itself. If with growing population and the concomitant relative scarcity of land larger and larger incursions are made into the earnings of labour, how comes it that the condition of labour continues to improve? No doubt labour is better off in a young colony than in the countries of Europe, but even in those countries the amelioration of labour has been going steadily forward in conjunction with rising land values. It cannot be denied that, taking the countries inhabited by white people, population is denser than it ever has been, trade is more active, the demand for land is more intense. In short, the total value of the land of the civilised world is larger than at any previous time. Yet never before has labour been so well cared for or so well paid. If rents, then, advance only at the expense of wages, we seem to have fallen into a paradox. Growing land values, according to the reasoning employed, should involve aggravated poverty of labour. But economic history testifies to the reverse. The explanation is not hard to find.
If there is a law of diminishing return, there is a counteracting law of increasing return. This latter has neutralised the former. Indeed, its operation has been more powerful; so much so, that the gains it has bestowed upon labour and capital have been greater than the losses they have sustained by reason of the increasing rents demanded for the use of land. The inroads made upon the earnings of labour by growing land values have thus escaped observation. The evil has been covered; reforming zeal that, with every successive unit of effort, the return is diminished, but in every other sphere of its activity the return is propertionally greater the greater the effort. The more of it that people want, the more commodity, only give time to the sources of supply to accommodate themselves to the enhanced demand, and the growing
Between
When Britain, by the iniquitous Corn Laws, endeavoured to wring from her own soil all the produce her people needed the price of wheat rose tremendously, and with it the price of land. But when she abandoned her Corn Laws and transferred the energies of her people to manufacturing not only for herself but for the world, the price of those goods did not rise with the increased output. On the contrary they fell. The increased output of agricultural produce raised prices, the increased output of manufactured goods lowered them. Freetrade gave the British consumer a double blessing. It gave, on the one hand, cheaper food; on the other, cheaper clothing. By opening up new sources of supply of wheat, it arrested the law of diminishing return; and by turning the national industrial activities into manufactures it brought labour into a sphere where the more the production the less the price of the articles produced. It is estimated that if Lancashire could secure the monopoly of the world's market for cotton, the added economies, which the concentration of the industry would render available, would enable it not only to meet the demand, but to do so at a lower price.
Again, the march of invention has been going in the same direction. Who can estimate the accession of productivity attributable to steam? Who can foresee industry's gains in that subtle element, electricity? These are the factors which have poured wealth at the feet of the nations with the prodigality of a cornucopia. No wonder the influence of the law of diminishing return has not been consciously felt. Even in the field of agriculture, the law has been counteracted in no inconsiderable degree by improved means of cultivation, by railways and other facilities of transportation, and by a widening use of
But why? That is the question. Labour apparently has not received its fair share of the increased fruitfulness. It is no answer to the charge of the essential greediness of land, which raises its price with deepening necessity, to say that some betterment is noticeable in the condition of Labour. Has Labour re-
i population, has everywhere increased much more than the wealth per head of the working classes. Where has the surplus gone? Capital has been able to secure a large return, but then it is quite arguable that Capital has earned it, since, but for the invaluable services it has rendered, production could never have reached the scale on which it is now carried on. But more of that anon. The point upon which emphasis must now be laid is that Land has obtained the lion's share. That factor of production which is a gift of Nature has made larger and larger drafts upon this labour-created fund. A tremendous proportion of the increased fruitfulness has passed in the shape of unearned increment to land. The factor of production, which can only command remuneration at all by becoming less fruitful, has secured the greatest benefit from the increased fruitfulness of the other factors of production. Its progressive disservice has enabled it to levy tribute upon the progressive service of the others. So Land, growing more parsimonious with advancing civilisation, appropriates the major portion of the benefits. Thus Labour is deprived of the reward of its growing productiveness. The private wealth per head steadily grows in all countries. Mr Hayter estimates that in Victoria the growth was from £185 in
Land which went heretofore for £20 or £40 a year now is let for £50 or £100. My father was a yeoman, and had no lands of his own; only, he had a farm at a rent £3 or £4 by the year at the uttermost, and thereupon he tilled as much as kept half a dozen men. He had walk for one hundred sheep and my mother milked thirty kine; he was able and did find the King a harness with himself and his horse when he came to the place that he should receive the King's wages. He kept me to school; he married my sisters with five pounds apiece. He kept hospitality for his neighbours, and some alms he gave to the poor. And all this he did of the same farm where he that now hath it payeth 16 pounds rent or more (instead of 3 or 4 pounds by the year at the uttermost) by the year, and is not able to do anything for his Prince, for himself, nor for his childern, nor to give a cup of drink to the poor.
During
It would appear, then, that although the wealth per head in New Zealand has increased during fourteen years, yet Labour is not so well off as formerly. The advance in wages has been more than counterbalanced by the increasing portion absorbed by rent and by the enhanced price of such necessaries of life as meat and butter. But how comes it that the necessaries of life have increased in price? It arises from the fact that they are the direct product of the land. The expansion of foreign trade has increased the demand for these products, and, therefore of the land. This increased demand for land has been followed as always, by increased price of land. As has already been observed, dairy land in Taranaki, which fifteen years ago was only worth a few pounds an acre, now finds purchasers at £40 an acre. So that the increased price of dairy produce measures a further encroachment of land upon the products of industry. It is the resort to more inferior soils, and the more intensive cultivation, consequent upon the increased demand of growing local markets and expanding foreign markets, which has raised the price of such commodities as butter and meat to the worker. It is the
We seen, then, how Labour is spoiled by an increment to land that increases as the service of land in production decreases. So Labour is robbed of its earnings.
But this does not represent the full penalty which advancing land values impose upon Labour. They aggravate the unemployed problem. Land is a condition precedent of the employment of labour. Industry consists in the extraction of raw produce from the soil and in working it up into forms filled for the satisfaction of human desires. The starting point of all industrial activity is land. It follows, therefore, that everything which impedes or sets any hindrance to the use of land hampers industry. Labour could not lack employment, able-bodied poverty could not exist, were there abundance of fertile land to be had free of charge. Were Labour enabled to devote its unemployed energies directly to the soil without impediment, starvation were a calamity unknown, apart from catastrophes of Nature, such as droughts. Any man capable of work can procure a living if he have a patch of fruitful soil into which to throw his seed. So in young countries, where the use of land can be had for a trifle, there is no abject poverty. Land is practically free and accessible; there is no obstacle" to the productive energies 0: Labour. Land is Labour's opportunity: and where the opportunity is open to all, there is no undeserved poverty. But when land is scarce relative to need, and what there is of it is high priced, when a large payment is demanded before Labour is permitted to employ its energies thereon, or still more when land is made artificially scarce by speculators locking it up in anticipation of accession of value, or by proud aristocrats fencing off vast areas for deer parks, then Labour loses the opportunity for the employment of its unemployed energies. Were the relation of the accessibility of land to the prosperity of Labour generally understood, the public conscience would hold as criminal the artifical withholding of land from use. Thus rising land values rob unemployed labour of a large portion of its earnings, and by making land inaccessible to the poor, prevent unemployed labour from sustaining itself.
But we have not yet measured the weight of the burden of rising land values upon industry. Wherever there is rising land values there is speculation. Wherever there is speculation there is a degree of productiveness short of that possible. Speculation or trafficking in land values is a grave evil incident to private property in the earth's surface. In all communities riding on the advancing tide of prosperity, and especially in young countries, men
The conclusions of the argument may now be concisely set forth. By reason of the supply of land being incapable of expansion, and by reason of the demand for land being subject to progressive expansion, a threefold burden is placed upon the back of Labour. As the demand presses upon the supply, land appropriates more and more of the products of labour. Increasing rents are an unearned increment, since they measure, not the growing bounty of Nature, but its growing niggardliness. In addition to the burden of an unearned increment growing values and rent mean growing inaccessibility of land to the poor and those not possessed of capital. Thus the unemployed are denied the outlet for their unbespoke energies which the existence of free land would
Thus far the analysis has conducted us to two conclusion: the folly of attempting amelioration of social conditions by contracting productivity; and the undeviating tendency of that agent of production, land, to absorb an ever-increasing proportion of the fruits of industry. The attention directed to the laws of distribution have revealed the cause—or, at any rate, a cause—of the poverty of Labour and of the widening gulf between rich and poor. As a parasite cannot exist by reason of its own energy, but flourishes only by robbing another of vitality and vigour, so rent, the parasite of economics, grows, and grows only, at the expense of Labour and Capital. Carlyle has expressed the truth in his usual illuminating and forcible fashion. He is examining the cause which led to that uprising of the peasants known as the French Revolution: "Consider it, look at it! The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Œil-de-Bœuf, has an alchemy whereby he will extract from her the third nettle, and name it rent and law; such as arrangement must end." The great philosopher seemed to discover some moral blame attachable to the landlord. But the law of rent is a law of Nature, and as inexorable as the law of gravitation. Rent is not the exaction of an idle and selfish class. So long as land is limited and human wants are illimitable, land will acquire value, and rent is but the income of such value. Whether land be the subject of private or State ownership, economic rent will exist. It is not a burden on Labour which philanthropy can shift. Nevertheless it can be lifted ultimately, and may be lightened immediately by the sovereign remedy of taxation. This question must now occupy us.
The principles of taxation require close inspection. is any chapter of classical political economy which ought to be rewritten it is preeminently that one which deals with this subject. There is almost unanimity among the old writers that the only end of taxation is the provision of revenue for transacting the affairs of State. Modern thought, as expressed in Radical politics, finds in taxation an instrument for redressing social inequalities and bringing the distribution of the products of industry into alignment with justice. Its power of levelling the industrious poor up, and the idle rich down, is rising above the horizon with promise of a new and brighter era for Labour. There is in it potentialities for
In the beginning of economic science, Adam Smith laid down four canons to which every sound system of taxation, he conceived, must conform:—
More than a century and a-quarter has passed since these principles were enunciated for the guidance of statesmen, and age has not withered them or robbed them of their worth. Their truth does not vary with changing conditions or environment. No economist would dream of superseding them. Nevertheless, many, conscious of their insufficiency, advise supplementing them. A deeper knowledge of economic truths, the emergence in modern times of the far-reaching doctrine of the varying utility of money to different classes of the community, and the emphasis which the amazing prosperity of the last hundred years has put upon unearned increments, has rendered the revision and amplification of the theory of taxation a matter of the utmost urgency.
Without withdrawing anything from the value of Adam Smith's statement, the writer would suggest the following canons as indispensable to a just system of taxation:—
Let a few words of elucidation be offered on each.
1. The first one affirms the desirability of exempting the necessaries of life from taxation. The hare statement of this canon is sufficient to win approval. It has the convicting force and self-evidence of a maxim. Nevertheless, it is a governing principle of not a single civilised nation. When wheat, sugar, tea, woollens, etc., are taxed, those verging on destitution are made to contribute. The costs of administration should not be defrayed at the expense of the efficient existence of the people. Britain has been asked by Mr Chamberlain to consent to a tax on foodstuffs, that the colonies might be more securely held to the Empire. To tax a commodity is to increase its price. This is the almost universal experience. Now, the tax on foodstuffs, increasing their price, would increase the difficulties of living to the millions in Great Britain who are on the line of bare subsistence. Until the superfluities of a people are drained to supply the needs of government, no entrenchment should be made upon their necessaries. We are sometimes told that everyone should be taxed, that he may be affected with a due sense of responsibility as a citizen. But it is in few modem communities that the poor man contributes anything directly to the revenue of the State. The poor man's contributions are made through Customs duties, and are hidden in the price of the goods he purchases. He is scarcely sensible of paying any taxes, and of the amount he is certainly ignorant. Such being the case, the sense of responsibility can hardly exist. Nothing can be urged in defence of the system of levying tribute upon the goods commonly needed to sustain life. Yet its attractiveness to Governments has been uniformly irresistible. With them, the
Moreover, Customs duties violate Adam Smith's canon of economy. They take a great deal more out of the pockets of the consumer than they put into the Public Treasury. The cost of collection is heavy, requiring an army of officials at every port, and, the most elaborate precaution against against fraud. In Victoria from
2. Our first canon asserts the urgency of what is known in the phraseology of the hustings as "a free breakfast table." The second puts forth a claim almost as strong for free industry. No useful labour should be hampered by taxation. The policy of the State should be to supply every incentive and to remove every discouragement to industry. Again and again insistence has been laid on the wisdom of multiplying aids to productiveness. A country can't produce too much whilst human wants! possess their present range and elasticity. The world will require to be peopled with Carnegies before satiety is reached. What madness, then, to put shackles upon industry, to beset its path with difficulties and load its back with burdens. One of the most pressing of the needs of modern society is the relieving of its industries from weights and
In New Zealand the woollen industry is protected by a heavy duty against the importation of foreign goods. The expressed object of the duty is to promote the growth of wool manufactures. At the same time the woollen factories are heavily rated for the purposes of municipal government. Land upon which a factory is built pays much more in taxes than land upon which no improvements are effected. Thus the benefits given on the one hand are partially taken away on the other. If the maximum of productiveness is the aim of the State, what can justify the proportionment of taxation to industry or improvement? To use terms now pretty commonly understood, taxation should not be upon "improved" value of land, but upon its "unimproved value. No penalties should be imposed upon productive labour. It may be asked, if industry of no useful kind is to he taxed where is revenue to come from? That question will be answered hereafter. All that is wanted from the reader at the present time is assent to the proposition that if other sources of revenue are accessible and can he justly drawn upon, every form of productive enterprise should be absolutely free from taxation. What nations want is augmented productiveness; then away with every burden, obstacle, and discouragement.
3. We have freed the breakfast table from taxation, and we have freed, likewise, industry exerting itself in any kind of physical or mental labour. Now, since taxation consists in appropriating, for the needs of State, a portion of the products of industry, we seem to be left without any resources for meeting those needs. The third canon, however, expresses the desirability of requisitioning for public services those fruits of industry which are enjoyed by men who
Apart then altogether from the question of finding revenue for purposes of State, incomes enjoyed by those who do not produce them should be looked upon with disfavour by Governments and dealt with accordingly. Those habits of thrift which make a nation strong require that wealth should be proportioned to effort. And since the necessities of State have to be met by some form of taxation, to tax unearned increments would serve a double purpose: the public coffers would be supplied, and consumption without labour penalised and lessened.
At this point an important question arises. Are there any unearned incomes upon which the burdens may be shifted from productive industry? To maintain the claims of earned, as against Unearned, incomes needs little advocacy. But where are the unearned increments? Can they be defined and classified? Are they sufficiently accessible to be amenable to the tax-collecting machinery of Government which can only deal with classes of men and things?
Both ancient and modern economists have defined one large I class of such increments which they have called "rent." The economic meaning of this term has already been precisely indicated. We have seen that it accrues to the landowner, not through any exertion on his part, but by the growing need of growing populations for the use of land and its products, coupled with the inability of man to increase the supply of land, and thus adjust it to the increased demand. Growing rents, we are told on unimpeachable authority, are the effects of growing scarcity of land relative to man's requirements. They represent not increasing but declining productiveness. They are the outcome of the law of diminishing, not increasing, return to labour. The holder of the city site leaves it
4. Not only should the necessaries of existence be free, not only should industry be relieved, not only should unearned increments be loaded, but the fourth canon asserts that the contributions of the latter to the expenses of State should be proportioned the enlargement which they receive from the activity of the State. Contributions to State needs! should bear a close relation to gains from State enterprise. Everybody knows that land values rise in the wake of the steam engine. In New Zealand public money spent liberally on railways and roads. The benefits of these highways of commerce are registered in the enhanced value of land in their vicinity. Land speculation always accompanies a vigorous public works "policy. New Zealand spends some £2,000,000 a year on intersecting the country with railroads, and supplying back-blot settlers with means of transportation and facilities of communication, and the unimproved value of New Zealand's land has risen for the past ten years at the rate of some £4,000,000 a year. It is not all due to the expenditure of public money. It is accounted for in part by the extension of the British market for New Zealand produce, and by the general activity of New Zealand people. Yet it is safe to say there is no class of incomes which receives such large accretions from public expenditure as that derived from land. In the Australasian colonies, where State and municipal enterprise is so varied and Socialistic, the faculty of land to absorb the maximum gain is very marked. "As a matter of fact." writes Thorold Rogers, in his work "Six Centuries of Work and Wages." "the owner contributes nothing to local taxation. Everything's heaped on the occupier. The land would be worthless without roads, and the occupier has to construct, widen, and repair them. It could not be inhabited without proper drainage, and the occupier is constrained to construct and pay for the works, which give an initial value to the ground rent, and, after the outlay, enhance it. It could not be occupied without a proper supply of water and the cost of this supply is levied on the occupier also. In return for
5. This peculiar fitness is emphasised when we discover the conformity of land taxation to the fifth canon. Not only are land values unearned by those who possess them, not only do they gain in a special way from national and municipal activity, but they are essentially created by the community. So far we have spoken of value as an unearned increment to land; but this is true in a limited sense only. Value is not given to land by the labour of its owner, but it is the indirect outcome of the labour of the community. Labour gives rise to it, but not the labour of the person who enjoys it. The owner appropriates the Jesuit of the industry of the people as a whole. You can't start a factory in a town without increasing the value of the laud, not only in the immediate neighbourhood, but throughout. You can't increase a town's commerce, you can't increase its population, without bringing about the same effect. Concomitantly with progress advance land values. They are thus the result of the community's enterprise and activity intensifying the need of the use of land, and as such may well be ascribed to the creation of the community. Now since taxation is always levied for national, municipal, public, or communal purposes, a community-created value seems specially fitted for the burden.
Little need be said of the canons of taxation enunciated by Adam Smith. It were a work of supererogation to show that the holders of unearned increments satisfy the requirement as to ability to pay. The advantage of direct taxation on the point of economy has already been noticed. Indirect taxation surpasses direct taxation in one respect only—that of narrow expediency. Customs duties would have been abolished long ago, in every civilised community, were they not so apt in eluding observation by concealment in the price of the commodity.
This chapter may well be brought to a conclusion by a statement of the opinion on this question of land taxation by two such classics as John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. In the fifth book of his "Political Economy," Mill, speaking of the house tax, says: "It is only in exceptional eases like that of favourite situations in large towns that the predominant element in the rent is the ground rent; and among the very few kinds of income which are fit subjects for taxation these ground rents hold the principal place, being the most gigantic example extant of enormous accession of riches acquired rapidly, and in many cases unexpectedly, by a few families from the mere accident of their possessing certain tracts of land with-
Adam Smith, whose canons of taxation we have been elaborating, says in "Wealth of Nations," Book V.:—"Both ground rent and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue, which the owner in many cases enjoys without care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the State, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed on them. Ground rents (economic rent) seem in this respect a more proper subject of peculiar taxation than even the ordinary rent of land (rent in the popular sense including rent of improvements)."
There is nothing new, therefore, in the advocacy of land taxation. It has the sanction of the highest authorities.
The analysis of the canons of taxation has brought us to an important conclusion. The justice and expediency of taxation of the unimproved value of land has been made abundantly clear. No further elaboration is required to establish the principle that communal expanses are most fittingly met by a value or fund communally created. So long as there is any form of civic or national government, there must he revenue provided by taxation. It is better to discharge this obligation by forcing unearned rather than earned increments into contribution. We have arrived, then, at this point: that it is most inequitable to attach any portion of the earnings of those whose means are insufficient to provide more than a bare subsistence whilst any class of men are in receipt of incomes which are the product not of their own labour, but of the labour of others.
So far, the argument has been consistent with the doctrine that the only legitimate function of taxation is to supply revenue. A protest must now be made against such limitation. Accordingly the proposition is boldly put forth that if the Stale did not require revenue the taxation of land values would none the less be desirable. Land taxation does something nunc than divert a community-created income into the Public Treasury; it does something more than make possible the exemption of the necessaries of existence? it does something more than make contribution for public purposes proportionate to benefits received from public expenditure and enterprise; it increases the productive capacity of the community and effects a more equitable distribution of its wealth. Land taxation, therefore, is urgent irrespective of the needs of government. If it stimulates industry and ensures a fairer distribution of its products, it promotes the objects to which all efficacious industrial reform must be directed. Let the proposition now be supported by argument.
Land taxation increases a nation's productiveness, and it does so in two ways.
First: So far as it is in substitution of taxation upon the direct products of labour, it removes a burden which weighs upon industry and thrift. To tax any commodity is to discourage its production. All commodities produced by labour have their price increased by the imposition upon them of taxes. The tax becomes part of the cost of their production. As a general rule there is a decline in
The result is essentially different in the case of commodities produced by labour. It is true that the price of these, too, is governed by the relation of supply and demand. But in this case the relation is disturbed by the imposition of a tax. The price of any commodity produced by labour must be sufficient to cover the cost of its production, otherwise the supply will fall off. Industries are run on business principles, and no man will continue to produce an article the price of which does not reimburse him for its cost. A tax on boots increases the price of boots; a tax on corn increases the price of corn and bread. But the tax is not the immediate cause of the increase in price. The proximate cause is the effect of the tax on the supply of the boots "and grain. If the conditions of the market are such that an increase in the price is impossible—that is, if the supply is so abundant, relative to the demand, that it would be impossible for vendors, to dispose of their stock at enhanced prices—then manufacturers of hoots and producers of grain will reduce their output—dimmish the supply—to the point at which the price will rise sufficiently to cover the added cost of production due to the tax.
The equalising effects of competition must always be kept in mind. Profits tend to an equality in all industries, because capital is ever seeking the most profitable investments, and being mobile, is readily transferred from one branch of production to another. As soon as a particular industry offers profits above the general level, streams of capital from all directions begin to flow into it; and the influx continues until the increased output brings prices, and therefore profits, down to normal.
A precisely contrary effect is produced where the profits in a particular industry (through over-production or contracted demand
So if a tax is imposed on the products of one particular class of producers, their branch of industry is loaded with a special burden which, unless prices are raised, will lessen profits. Now so far as competition was operative, the profits before the tax could not have been above the normal. That being so, the tax causes them to fall below the normal. Capital starts to leave the taxed industry; supply is thereby diminished; with diminishing supply, the demand remaining the same, prices begin to rise; and the process goes on until prices have reached the higher level which, after payment of the tax, will yield the ordinary rate of profits. Such are the adjustments which competition effects between trade and trade.
It becomes obvious, therefore, that to tax a commodity, the product of labour, will raise its price through the effect upon supply. Thus the burden falls upon the consumer. But tax land or anything the supply of which is independent of human effort, and there is no tendency set in motion to reduce its quantity or supply. The withdrawal of labour and capital from land cannot reduce the supply of it. Now price only varies with the variations in supply or demand; and as a tax on land cannot affect either, the relation of supply and demand cannot be disturbed, hence the price of land cannot rise. In other words, a tax on land values, in the economic sense, must be borne by the landowner; it cannot raise the value of land; therefore it cannot raise the rent of land; therefore it cannot be shifted upon the tenant or the user of land.
This proposition is of the first importance. Tax the goods of the grocer, the baker, the bootmaker, and the burden is shifted by them upon the consumer, by means of increased prices. Tax the land of the landowner, and he has no power to rid himself of the impost. An increase in the price of his land is impossible; he must pay the tax himself: he cannot recoup himself from the lessees, tenants, or purchasers, because competition, operating through the laws of supply and demand, disables him from obtaining any higher price for the use or sale of his land on account of the tax. Upon pis point there is absolute unanimity on the part of writers on Political Economy. Indeed, it will appear later, a tax on land lessens the value and rent of land—a tendency which finds no parallel in the taxation of other commodities.
Let the argument under this head be closed with a brief summary of the conclusions. A tax on articles produced by labour lessens their supply, and increases their price; it furnishes less for consumption, and provides this less at an enhanced price; a tax on land or any natural agent not produced by labour does not lessen
Secondly: Land taxation increases a nation's productiveness by rendering land more easily available for industry. Land lies at the basis of all production; it is the storehouse of the raw materials which labour works up into consumable goods. From it come the cereals; upon it arc fed the animals which provide man with meat, the sheep that furnish him with wool; in its womb are the ores which labour can fashion but not create, and the coal which animates the world's workshops. In "Past and Present," Carlyle says:—
The land is the mother of us all: nourishes, shelters gladdens, lovingly enriches us all. In how many ways, from our first waking to our last sleep on her blessed mother-bosom, does she as with blessed mother-arms enfold us all? . . . . Mystic, deep as the world's centre, are the roots I have struck into my native soil; no tree that grows is rooted so. From noblest patriotism to humblest industrial mechanism, from highest dying for your country to lowest quarrying and coalboring for it, a nation's life depends upon its land.
Lafcadio Hearn, that wondrously sympathetic writer on Japanese life, sounds a note of warning to Japan as she opens her ports to foreign commerce, and her mind to Western ideas: "When Japan yields to foreign capital the right to hold a rood of land, it will sell its birthright and liberty."
It were needless to emphasise the importance to a country of an abundance of fertile land. It is equally important that such land should be readily accessible to labour. Land locked from productive effort contributes nothing to a country's prosperity, and by diminishing the supply available, for industry, causes rents to rise and the productive capacity of the country to be contracted. No nation can reach the high-water mark of wealth and prosperity unless its soil is open to the efforts of labour and capital. Slowly this truth is laying hold of the Liberal Party of Great Britain. At the beginning of the year the Prime Minister of England, at a political demonstration in Glasgow, uttered the following significant passage:—
When I see the time of the House of Commons occupied tor days together in discussions about the rights of landowners in their pheasants and hares, and when I am told that the
The evil of locking up land, whether for speculative purposes, for parks, or game preserves, is obvious to a moment's thought. Economic rent arises, as we have seen, from the niggardliness of nature. Did the supply of suitable land grow with the needs of an advancing population, rent would be unknown. It is to the limitation of the supply of land that we must ascribe the rise and growth of rent. Well, then, whatever lessens the supply of land available to meet the demand for it for productive purposes raises rent, or, in ether words, increases the price which labour must pay for the right to the use of that natural agent, which is at the foundation of all industry. The converse is true, that whatever increases the supply of land available to meet the demand lessens rent or decreases the price which labour must pay for the use of it.
Now what effect would a tax on the value of land have upon land withdrawn by speculation or lordly greed from cultivation or use? It would have to be paid by the owner, for we have seen that it could not be shifted on to the producer or consumer in the shape of increased rents. The tax would thus increase the cost of speculation or game-preserving. The profits being diminished, or the burdens augmented of locking up land, straightway owners would begin to throw open such land. If the tax were heavy enough, no man could afford to withhold his land from productive purposes. To tax land is always to discourage speculation, is always to bring idle land into cultivation and vacant land into occupation. It is harder to bold land speculatively for a rise in value when an annual tax is levied while the speculator waits for a rise, than when no such tax is imposed. Wherever rating on unimproved land values has been tried in New Zealand, it has invariably been the means of bringing vacant lands upon the market. A tax on land, therefore, increases the supply of land accessible to labour. By doing so it lessens the value of land, and thus the rent. Value depends upon supply and demand, and the tax, by unlocking land, increases the supply: hence the price of land falls, We have already seen that a tax on commodities increases their price, whilst a tax on land has no such effect on the price of land. We can now advance a step further: a tax on land decreases the value of land. Not only is the tax paid by the landowner, but the rent he can obtain for it is reduced.
Again, let us sum up the results of a land tax. It cannot raise the value of land; it cannot raise the rent of land; it cannot be shifted upon the tenant or user of land. On the other hand, it can and does lessen the value of land; it does lessen the rent of land; it falls upon a value unearned by individual labour; it falls upon a value created by public expenditure, general enterprise, and growth of population; it relieves industry to the extent that it takes the place of imposts on the products of labour; it renders speculation unprolitable; it increases the quantity of land accessible to labour; it enlarges a community's productive capacity. In short, its action in lifting burdens, off industry and unlocking land promotes abundance of commodities and abundance of land.
A land tax has effects which reach far beyond the supply of industrial activity, and augments the fruitfulness of a country's revenue by the cheapest and most equitable means. It stimulates industry. Doing this, it deserves the earnest attention of electors.
In this chapter an attempt will be made to establish the following propositions:—
1. Whatever stimulates the use of land calls for more labour-The structure of the industrial system rests upon land. No industry is independent of its service. Labour cannot exert itself apart from land, even in manufactures. Throughout all branches of its effort, it must have land to work upon. The higher the price it has to pay for the use of land, the greater the impediment to its productive energy. Cheap land is beneficial to production. The dearer the land, the heavier the toll upon industry. Now, land is cheap when it is abundant. Anything which increases its abundance lowers its price, or value, or rent. A substantial Land Tax renders it unprofitable to hold land out of use for speculative purposes. Since a Land Tax cannot be shifted from the shoulders of the landowner, he cannot afford to retain his land except by making it productive. Mere speculators become eager to sell their land. This operates in the same way upon price as an increase in the supply of land. More land is available for those who want it for use and occupation. A landowner cannot continue long to pay a heavy Land Tax unless his land is yielding him a revenue; it cannot yield him a revenue unless it is put to some productive or useful purpose; consequently the landowner must use his land, or sell it to someone who will. In other words, all the land idle, vacant, and disused before the Tax will, by the powerful incentive operating on the minds of its owners, be brought under cultivation or under occupation. Necessarily incident to this process is a keener demand for Labour. To bring land into use, hitherto held by speculators, is, perforce, to stimulate this demand. Furthermore it has the same effect in cheapening land as an increase in its supply—which, indeed, it is—and cheap land always leads to greater industrial activity. Thus industry is quickened and the employment of Labour increased.
2. There are three agents of production—Land, Labour, and Capital. The only source from which these agents can obtain
3. The total product of the factors of production being increased, how does the Land Tax affect its distribution among those factors? There is an augmented fund for division. Will Labour secure a share of the increase? The whole product is divided into rent, wages, and profits. Rent, and wages, and profits equal the total output. A Land Tax will lessen rent, or the share of the landlord. In the first place, he will have to pay the tax himself. That alone will reduce his rent. Besides paving the Land Tax, he will find that the tax, by bringing more land on to the market, lessens the value of his land, and therefore still further lessens his rent. It thus appears that, although there is more to be divided the landlord will get less than formerly. Consequently, either the labourer or the capitalist or both must benefit. If the landlord gets a diminished return from an augmented product the gain to the other agents must be considerable.
The gain to the labourer is clear. He will pay less as rent for his house. He will pay less in taxes to the Government, the landlord contributing to the revenue what formerly was a charge upon commodities and industry. In addition to this, there is a larger fund to be divided.
The effect upon the remuneration of Labour of land taxation will appear most clearly from taking an extreme case. Suppose the Land Tax superseded all the other taxes and became the Single Tax, that all the revenue of the State was drawn from this tax, and that the land was taxed up to its full annual value. In this case, the profits of the private ownership of land would be wholly taken away. Land would have completely lost its selling value. The landlord would be not better off than a tenant. He would have to pay to the Government in taxes the equivalent of the rent he formerly obtained before any tax was imposed. Ownership apart from occupation would be rendered impossible. The State would practically be the universal landlord, and the tax would be the rent paid by occupiers and cultivators. The very name "Single Tax" assumes that the yield of the tax would be sufficient to meet the needs of Government, and that all other taxes are remitted. The gain to the labourer is obvious. In
As a matter of fact, the total expenditure for the administration of State affairs in New Zealand for the year
Now, the Postal and Telegraph Service and Stamp Department of the Dominion cost £617,270, and yielded a revenue of £1.365,727. If this item is eliminated from the revenue and expenditure account, there remains an expenditure of £7,157,656 to provide for. This would be amply met by £7,334,123 drawn from land values by the Single Tax, and £748,457, the excess of revenue over expenditure in the Postal Service. Indeed, there would be a surplus of £924,924. Therefore, allowing for a depreciation of a million pounds sterling in the unimproved value of land as a result of the imposition of the tax, the Single Tax would yield sufficient to meet the expenses of all the departments of State except the Stamp Department. That means that incomes might be free from taxation; that death dues, fees on registration of the transfer of land, and all Customs duties might be abolished, and that the public railways might be as free as the public roads. In this calculation account has not been taken of taxation for municipal purposes. This yields £1,258,125, or £1 8s 8d per head of population. In order that this might be remitted, some revenue would still be required from the railways. The revenue from this source was £2,624,600 in
The gain to Labour would be tremendous. It would pay rent to the State and pay for posting of its letters and the sending of its telegrams, but every other Government service would be absolutely free, and all the commodities it consumed would be as cheap as unrestricted trade and untaxed production could make them
The New Zealand Official Year Book estimates the revenue received per head of population at £8 12s 6d. This is what each citizen pays on the average to the State. The estimate is easily
The saving can now be calculated. Take a man with a wife and five children. The family, if an average one, pays under the present system, out of its earnings, £49 17s 6d to the State. Tim payment being rendered unnecessary by the Single Tax, there would be a saving to the family of nearly £1 a week. It would be a clear gain. Rent, it is true, would have to be paid to the State to make up the revenue that had been foregone, but this would simply involve paying to the State what formerly had been paid to the private landlord.
The above, however, is a low and inadequate estimate of the saving. As we have already seen, one of the charactcristic evils of indirect taxation is that it takes out of the pockets of the people more than it brings into the public coffers It is costly to collect and the middlemen and retailers get the ordinary rate of profits on the taxes paid. The gross payments by the public as the result of Customs duties must be at least 25 per cent, greater than the ner receipts of the Government. From this cause alone the abolition of indirect taxation would effect a saving to our average family of £5 5s a year.
But we are still far from having arrived at an adequate estimad of the gain. Land values would certainly decline under the impostion of the Single Tax. If they dropped in the aggregate £1,000,000 the revenue from the tax and the postal service would still sufficient to meet expenditure. This diminished value of land would make the amount payable to the State as tax less than the rent payable before the tax. Here would be a further saving.
The great gain, however, has yet to be accounted for. There would be an amazing vigour imparted to industry. The productive ness of Labour would be increased beyond calculation.
The remission of the taxes on improvements and the produets of industry, coupled with the forcing of all land into use, would give such a stimulus to industry, would so quicken the demand for Labour as not only to absorb the unemployed but to raise the rate of wages. The demand for Labour being keener, wages would rise. Now, if we take the "Single Tax" as a rent, we arrive at the following conclusion: The effect of its incidence would be to charge wages, and at the same time immeasurably to lessen the charge upon wages. First, the aggregate produce to be divided would be
To show the benefit of a Land Tax to Labour needs no further argument. To the extent that the Land Tax supersedes taxes, the advantages that have been enumerated will other follow. The tendency of its operation is, uniformly, to promote industry and augment its products, to increase wages, and to furnish abundant employment to Labour.
The most strenuous opposition to the land tax comes from the small farmer. He looks upon it as a burden specially placed on fais shoulders to the relief of the city dweller. A very little examination will will show that this attitude arises from an imperfect acquaintance with facts and a misconception of the operation of a land tax.
The working farmer, whether farming his own land or that of landlord, would receive immense gain from a heavy land tax. The benefit is twofold: cheapened land and a lightening of the burden
In no other country in the world is the taxation of land value so pronounced as in New Zealand. No other country furnishes sort ample data for estimating the effect of a land tax on the farmer. Consequently this chapter will draw its illustrations wholly from New Zealand. Here a graduated land tax rising to 2½ pre cent of the unimproved value has been imposed upon land. Land, however, up to £500 in value is exempt from taxation. The object of the graduated tax is to compel the cutting-up of large estates, held more or less for speculative purposes. Such taxation has rendered accessible to close settlement many broad tracts of unimproved or imperfectly improved land. Many estates have also been pruchased by the Government for the same purpose. This latterc method however, is exceedingly expensive, and progressively so in a countery like New Zealand, where the growth of land values is both rapid and steady. The present Government recognises the growing difficulty in the way of promoting close settlement by the State purchase of estates. Last year it introduced and passed through Parliament a measure increasing the graduated tax to such an extent for long render it impossible for the very large estates to continue for long intact. The effect must be to bring a great deal of land on the market. This will tend to arrest the rising value of agriculturals land and appease somewhat the intense earth-hunger which prevails even in this young country. The benefit to those who want to sattle on the land and work it cannot be over-estimate. Cheap agricultural land is a great boon to a country. It brings with it enlarged productiveness, and stimulates industry in all directions. Dear land represents a heavy toll upon the fruits of the earth, and throws producers into hopeless dependence on money-lenders. Were the land tax in New Zealand heavy enough throughout, all the speculative owners of land would be forced to sell. Property-holders
But the land tax does more than free the farming community from the ill effects of speculation; it lessens the weight of taxation.
Suppose a substantial land tax were in operation, what would be the relative contribution of the farmers of New Zealand to the revenue. A most valuable return, B—17a,
Further, it is often said that land taxation is an expedient for relieving the cities at the expense of the country. The falsity of this allegation admits of easy proof so far as it refers to the genuine farmer. More than half the owners of country lands
But granting all this we are still met with the objection that the land tax is a class tax, that it relieves the landless at the expense of the land-owning class. Wherein lies the justice, it may be asked, of laying a greater portion of the burden of the administration of State on the landowner? We are told that the farmer pays at the present time quite enough to the revenue, and should not be called on to pay any more, merely for the relief of the worker in the town or the farm hand in the country.
The equitable grounds for taxation of land values have already been covered. The urgency of such taxation, apart altogether from the needs of State, has been emphasised. But the peculiar feature of a land tax is that it appeals not only to the sense of justice, but to the self-interest of the farmer. It not only unlocks land held for speculation, and promotes close settlement, but lessens the amount of his payments to the exchequer, even if he be the owner of the land he farms unencumbered by mortgage. On an average each man, woman, and child contributes £8 12s 6d to the general revenue. Farmers generally have larger families than city dwellers. Take one with a wife and six children. If the family is an average one he will pay £69 a year in the aggregate to the State. In this death amount, of course, are included railway fares and freights, death dues, etc., as well as the proceeds of ordinary deficiencey of assume Single Tax to be in operation. Without any deficiency of revenue, all these payments except those for the use of the postal and telegraph service could be remitted. Excluding the revenue from this service, the revenue of the New Zealand Governm represents a payment of £7 2s 6d per head of population. Our typical farmer, therefore, would have a saving of £57 to set off against the land tax. The saving would in reality be much more since no account is here taken of the middleman's profits on the Customs duties. What would be the farmers payment under
If such would be the relief afforded to the farming comunity by the Single Tax, any land tax in substitution of some tax indirect tax would contribute to the same end. A general tax of 1d in the £ would yield about £420,000 to the State. A reduction of Customs of Customs duties accordingly would lessen the burden of taxation by at least 10s per head of population. Our farmer with six children would be relieved to the extent of £4 a year. But he With would have to pay the land tax. If apart from improvemnts his land was worth £100, he would pay 8s 4d; if £200, 16s 8d; id £300. 25s; if £400, 33s 4d; if £500 (with the majority of farmers the value is less than this), 41s 8d; if £600, 50s; if £1,000, £4 3s 4d. Land taxation demonstrably is a relif to the working farmer as well as to the working man.
But the question hers meets us, would the revenue be main tained? Land taxation destroys the profits of gambling in the probabilities of social progress, takes away the fictitious value of land, and constrains large proprietors to cut up their estates. It might be that this would lead to a very substantial reduction of unimproved value, or what is the sane thing, a contraction of the source from which revenue from land taxation is drawn. If it had this effect of cheapening land, and throwing large areas of land on the marker for close settlement at low prices, the stimulus to settlement would be an unmixed blessing to the community in general and the farmers in particular. Whether we look at the land tax from its effect in cheapening land or relieving the weight of taxation the benefit to the farmers is clear. It would indeed have a measure of both effects. Land taxation opens land for settlement and lessens the contribution of the small farmer to the revenue.
The perusal of the previous chapter might lead the reader to pronounce the writer a Single Taxer. He hastens to dispel any such erroneous conclusion. Single Tax could cure social evils only by the infliction of a great injustice. No country could adopt it without lending itself to a measure of confiscation. It economie land values are an unearned increment, and wholly so. But the present proprietors of those values have, in many case purchased them with the earnings of hard and continuous laboour They have purchased the unearned increment by an earned increment. In an advancing community the unimproved value of land grows almost daily, but the increment of a year is a small proprotion of the total increment. The man who has been in m possession for a year of land growing in value has received a certain amount of unearned gain, but it is small compared with what has been obtained by his predecessors in title. The past accumulations of in crements crements he has paid for by the genuine earnings of labour. If the Single Tax were suddenly imposed upon his land the full annual value of his land would be taken away—not merely the annuaal value of the increment which had accrued during his ownership but the annual value of what had accrued before. Thus the profit arising from the investment of his savings in land would be absorbed entirely by the tax.
This is the difficulty that Single Taxers have to face. And indeed, it seems insuperable. Their reform is practically a reputation of the innumerable contracts that have been built on land values. But for the fact that men are daily buying unearned crements with hard-earned money, the Single Tax would have an incontestable claim. It may be argued that people should not traffic in land values. The answer, however, is instant. The State has given to such transactions the sanction and protection of its laws. There can be no injustice of which statesmen can take cognisance in a transaction which is in accordance with a nation's laws It may be further argued that it is the very "nature of worng prisciples to bring about situations from which it is impossible to go back to right principles without doing wrong to sombody the Single Taxer stands on ground from which it is hard to drive him. The radical cure of any malignant disease involves an accession of immediate pain. To the man possessed of devils in Galilte the pain of exorcism by our Saviour was torture in the of the extreme tearing and almost bursting the body; but the suffering of
This extreme remedy, however, is not necessary to accomplish the
Had his scheme been adopted, all traffic in future unearned increments would have been stopped, and the enormous wealth which has been poured into the pockets of individuals by growing land value since Mill wrote would have gone to enrich the State, to the immeasurable relief of British workers and British industries. Mill died in
The expedient of Mill might well engage the mind of the Australasian Colonies, where unearned increments are growing so rapidly, and are destined to reach such colossal proportions. In New Zealand, the unimproved value of land has grown at the rate of £3,000,000 a year for the last fifteen years. If the mistaken policy of the past cannot be retrieved without doing violence to private interests, the future offers a vast field where reform can be secured without injustice to individuals.
The analysis of economic conditions has led to the conclusion that the principles on which the wealth of a modern civilised community is distributed among the factors of production require readjustment on a more equitable basis. But a bigger problem confronts us than the economic one which has so far occupied our attention—the problem of character. A nation's most valuable asset is a people of strong bodies, supporting strong minds, governed by strong conscience.
Long ago Ruskin bethought him to examine philosophically the busy life of the manufacturing towns of Britain. He went from London to Birmingham, from Birmingham to Manchester, from Manchester to Glasgow. His admiration was evoked at the elaborate industrial organisation. He noticed the large sweep of the employers' intellect, and the delicate skill of the operative. He found that no place in the world could equal the Clyde for shipbuilding, that Manchester stood pre-eminent in cottons, that Sheffield feared no rivals in cutlery, that Leeds occupied pride of place in woollens. He marvelled and exulted at the degree of excellency his countrymen had attained in the manufacture of commodities. Then he visited the quarters where the workmen were lodged. He inquired into their manner of life, the pursuits of their leisure hours, their qualities of character, and his heart sank. He left those manufacturing towns freighted with the heavy conviction that on Britain lay the imperious duty of establishing factories for the production of character. Without sparing, money had been poured and labour spent on the manufacture of linens, cottons hardware; but the time had arrived when some of this energy and some of this wealth should be directed to the manufacture of men. Good, strong men were more than good, strong cloth. The obligation was clear: England must apply herself for the next generation to man-making.
Truly the problem of character towers above all others. How are we to strengthen the bodies, furnish and train the minds, and knit closer the moral fibres of men? When we can faithfully answer that question there will be no disease wrought by passion to lessen productive power, there will be no prejudice born of ignorance to bolster up economic fallacies, there will be no depravity nursed by intemperance to fill our gaols.
Let this question stand out in all the prominence which its importance justifies. What is the strength of this element of character in national life? It is predominant, and has ever been so. The decline of a nation's prosperity is the inevitable accompaniment of the decay of the character of its people. All sane men ascribe what measure of superiority Britain possesses to the stamina of her people. Brassey, in his monumental work on "Wages," gives us the experience of his father as a builder in all parts of the world as to the comparative efficiency of British workmen. He found in building the Paris and Rouen line that, although English navvies received 5s a, day and French navvies only 2a 6d, the former were cheaper workmen. On comparing the cost of adjacent cuttings, in precisely similar circumstances, one excavated by a gang of Englishmen, one by a gang of Frenchmen, the work of the former was done at a lower cost per cubic yard than that of the latter.
A strong people is more in the making of a great nation than ample resources. Abstract the British people from the British Isles; replace them with forty million Asiatics; give these Asiatics the benefit of British laws, the guidance of British statesmen, the control of the British navy, the possession of British ships, and the management of British factories; give them everything except British grit and character, and the ascendency of the star of Britain will be arrested, its decline and fall will be speedily accomplished. All these things are accessories; character is the essentia.
As we stretch our gaze down the course of the world's history and watch the rise and fall of nations, we are struck with the preponderant influence of human character in moulding the destines of nations. It was the spirit of freedom which the Greeks breathed in from the expansive sea that exalted them as a nation and made their intelligence and physique the wonder of all time. But a distaste for steady industry, a relegation of labour to slaves, weakened the spring and grip of their mind. A more pronounced degeneraey of character dashed the sceptre from Rome's imperial hand. Five hundred years before Christ Rome drove her Tarquín kings beyound her walls because of a moral lapse, and established a republic. From this time she advanced steadily in power, bringing province. "after province and people after people under her dominion. "Roman citizen" then stood for honour, liberty, and prowess in war. His religion was an intense worship and consistent practice of the cardinal virtues. In temples, raised by hands that found joy in labour, he offered sacrifices to the highest human excellencies-to '"Valour," to "Truth," to "Good Faith," to "Modesty," to "Charity," to "Concord." Each virtue had its shrine. The reverent imagination elevated each into a god, able and resolute to inflict dire penalties in case of deviation from integrity. The Roman was a Stoic, disdaining the weakness which would murmur under pain or misfortune. He steeled himself against the "blows
But as the imperial city extended her boundaries beyond Italy and carried her victorious arms east and west, wealth accumulated and men decayed. Into the lap of mighty Rome the subject provinces emptied their horns of plenty. Conquering warriors returned home with captives innumerable chained to their chariot wheels. These poor slaves, the victims of war, were made the drawers of water and hewers of wood for their masters. The Roman forsook agriculture, relegated his toil to slaves, and devoted himself to sumptuous living. The Roman patrician, finding slave labour cheaper and more docile than that of free men, substituted it upon his farms and plantations. The unemployed gravitated into the city to demand bread. With the increase of riches came increased poverty. Formerly duty had been of more weight than pleasure, and justice stronger than expediency. But now that the world paid Rome tribute, and nations sent their best men to till her fields; now that the free cultivators had disappeared from the soil, and Italy was being absorbed into vast estates, the Roman citizen lost his stoicism; his patriotism waned; his religion, from being a condition which regulated life, degenerated into an opinion. The outward form—the shell of these virtues—remained, but the kernel was withered up. Patriotism and religion received a lipservice only; cant gripped the utterances of men. The higher classes deemed it their supreme function to dress elegantly, dine sumptuously, and live sensuously; the poor asserted their right to be fed without labour. The young patrician spent his days in perfumed baths, his nights in wild orgies. He became more solicitous about the curl of his hair than the set of his muscles. The tie of wedlock, so strong in the best days of the republic, he laughed at as prudish. For a time, indeed, the law of marriage was practically suspended. Cicero put away Terentia when she was old and married a young woman. Cato made over Marcia, the mother of his children, to his friend Hortensius, and took her back as a wealthy widow when Hortensius died. So vice and luxury relaxed the fibre of the people. Empire cannot build or maintain itself on flaccid character. Hordes of rude, strong, nature-fed savages from the North eventually overwhelmed imperial Rome.
With pardonable pride we look back to the fourth and fifth centuries, when successive migratory waves brought to the shores of Britain the strongest members of the strongest races of Northern Europe, From that time to this it has been superiority of character, daring and resourceful, which has enabled the British nation to withstand many a staggering shock, and, at length, lift herself to the exalted position of a nation on which the sun never sets.
But is there no ground for misgiving? Are the elements which wrought the dissolution of Rome utterly absent? May we not be vain-glorious? May not our imperialism be of the kind which grasping after territory, neglects the conditions which make an imperial race? Are we not in danger of reckoning our greatness by statistics of shipping and trade, by strength of navy and
If history establishes that luxury enervates, how shall we view the statement in Marshall's "Principles of Economics":—"Perhaps £100,000,000 are spent by the working classes and £400,000,000 by the rest of the population of England in ways that do little towards making life nobler or truly happier." Of the whole purchasing power of the English people one-third is spent wastefully.
An analysis of the statistics of poverty affords abundant evidence of the causes undermining national strength and weakening character. Professor Warner, in his "American Charities," tells us that misfortune causes 74.4 per cent, of the world's poverty and misconduct causes 21.3 per cent. He furnishes a detailed table of those causes, but the three main ones are sickness or death is family, lack of employment, and intemperance. The first account for 23.6 per cent, of the poverty, the second for 17.4 per cent., the third for 11 per cent. He bases his conclusions on investigations made in Great Britain, the United States, and Germany. Charles Booth, in his momumental work on "Poverty." commenting on the third cause, says:—"Of drink in all its combinations, adding to every trouble, undermining every effort after good, destroying the home and cursing the young lives of the children, the stones tell enough. It does not stand in apparent chief cause in as many cases as sickness and old age, but if it were not for drink, sickness and old age could be better met."
Another writer says:—"The four great causes of pauperism and of degraded city life have long seemed to me to be these: 1 Foul homes; 2 intoxicating drink; 3 neglect of child life; 4 in discriminate almsgiving."
Such are the conclusions of men whose research and ability qualify them to express an opinion.
Now, philanthropy has never wearied in its efforts to relieve the appalling distress. The activity of charity organisations bears eloquent testimony to the benevolence of mankind. But the question is beginning to obtrude itself, and ever With greater at and greater insistence, whether the prolific causes Permanently be work creating want, vice, crime, disease, and death, may not be wholly or in large degree eradicated. It seems vain to waste energy on singles cases of relief, if wisely directed effort might dry
Economic reform is urgent, yet each step in the industrial advancement should and must, if the gain is to be permanent, be followed closely, and secured by a corresponding advance in the moral and intellectual character and habits of the people. Whilst removing the economic causes of inefficiency, we must be earnest in attacking the social and moral causes.
It will have been observed that the figures quoted relate solely to the causes of pauperism. Now, pauperism is by no means an infallible index to character. Generally speaking, no doubt the pauper is such because of a weakness of some kind, which unfits him for the stress of our competitive industrialism. There is usually a lack of mental or moral robustness. Nevertheless, men of stout heart and firm principle may be overthrown by a calamity. But even if pauperism may be taken to indicate inefficiency, there are incalculable elements of weakness in society above the poverty line, elements which generate crime and contract beyond measure a nation's productive capacity. Intemperance, lust, gambling—who can estimate their baneful influence? Marshall says a fourth of the world's expenditure makes no contribution to human happiness or strength. Insanity is on the increase. The most disquieting reports reach us of physical degeneracy in the candidates for the Army, and of defective constitutions of school children. Everywhere we see energy misdirected, leisure misspent. Our policemen lawyers, and magistrates are wrestling daily with crime. No doubt the dangerous classes are almost always poor, but vice and inefficiency are not peculiar to any grade of society. The virus permeates through all. Righteousness, we are told, exalteth a nation. Yes, righteousness makes a people strong; righteousness augments a people's wealth. Righteousness has a commercial value, and can be expressed in terms of money. Let the British Empire make
The problem then presents itself, how is national character to be improved? The sovereign remedy is education in the widest acceptation of the term. There are always two methods of attaining an end, the positive and the negative. A conjunction of the two is invariably attended with the largest measure of success. If sound, virile character be our end, we may move towards it, positively, by the training of the faculties and furnishing of the mind, and, negatively, by removing every hindrance to such developmen. It is unwise to cultivate the garden and then leave it a prey to the depredator. We must be destroyers as well as cultivators, iconoclasts as well as builders. From this double activity we may confidently expect the emergence of strengthened character.
A safe democracy must needs be enlightened. Nothing—not even Christianity—is exercising a more potent influence over the destinies of mankind than the onward sweep of Democracy. It is rushing like a tidal wave over the face of the earth. Its impetuous progress overwhelms all resistance. To some this is an omen of disaster. "The many-headed multitude, swayed by impulse and prejudice, has seized the reins of control," they cry," and the chariot of State will be driven to destruction. Cultured reason and learning have been dethroned and ignorance exalted The masses, lacking the luxuries of life, envious of the wealth of the fortunate few, are extremely impatient of inequalities, and disposed to any policy which uproots and overturns. They manifest an intrepidity in attacking social questions which makes the wise man quake. They avaunr hesitancy and indecision, and with fearful boldness pronounce categorically on the most momentous and intricate questions of the time. They are guided by instinct, not reason; place their trust in intuition, not logic. They are the playthings of demagogues who set themselves to inflame class cupidities. There is danger that envy and covctousness may become the dominant factors in pol-propagandism."
Such are the uneasy apprehensions of many, and they are not without cause. However ardent our hope for the future may be, however strong our confidence in the collective wisdom of the people, we cannot but be impressed with the inadequate equipment of the masses for the exercise of self-government. The gravest problems press into the foreground—problems whose issues run through all time. The political atmosphere, the wide world over, is charged with storm. Into the night of Russia's Autocracy dart the lightning flashes of the awaking power of the peasantry. A people bowed down with the weight of centuries of unrequited toil is beginning to shake itself. Thunderclaps of strikes here and strikes there break in upon our tranquillity. Huge trusts and combines spread their lowering clouds over the darkened firmament. These problems are grave. They will precipitate revolutions if ignorance and prejudice are left to encounter them. An instructed people alone can meet them without catastrophe. "There is no more terrible sight," said Goethe, "than ignorance in action." The masses are claiming the right of government. A political Samson stalks the land. If he is blind the pillars of society will indeed be
We cannot wonder, then, at the conspicuous position which education occupies in all advanced communities. It is not the writer's intention to labour a subject the importance of which is already fully recognised. A few remarks will suffice. Education should be directed to equipping men for industry, fitting them for participation in government, and teaching them the right use of leisure. As to the first, there are few who have not sufficient confidence in British skill to predict that foreign competition in trade can never injure Britain if British hands are the servants of educated British brains. What our Empire needs is not the artificial protection of tariff walls, but strengthening from within.
As to the second object of education, it is remarkable it should have received so little attention. Manhood suffrage practically prevails under the British flag, yet few who exercise the franchise understand the first principles of trade or industry. Momentous social and economic questions cannot be settled by a policy of groping. Too often, also, men enter Parliament with as little appropriate knowledge as the voters. Democracies need a wider diffusion of the first principles of political economy. Nevertheless, the rudiments of industry, commerce, and government are taught in none of our primary and secondary schools, and in comparison with the dead languages are considered utterly insignificant in our universities. Political econmy, touching men in the largest concerns of their life, should rank second to no branch of learning m our national system of education.
As to the third object of education, it becomes more important with the progress of the amelioration of social conditions. The reduction of the hours of the working day is a doubtful blessing if it is not accompanied with the right employment of leisure. Higher education should not be the luxury of the rich, but in rome degree the portion of all classes. With increasing leisure there is increasing need of the development of tastes and aptitudes for that high thinking and high-feeling which comes from communion with the master spirits of the races of men.
The general diffusion of education will bring abcut a readjustment of social relations. There is many a man at the plough who ought to be in the laboratory, and many a man at the university who ought to be at the bench. General education will sort men out and bring ability to the top. It will apportion task to capacity. Upon this ground alone education ought to be free from the bottom to the top. There is no extravagance more prejudicial to a nation than that of allowing natural genius to run waste from lack of opportunity. The growth of national wealth is retarded when
Again, the spread of higher education is already beginning to have an important influence on wages. The learned professions are losing their monopoly value. Educated men crowd the intellectual and avoid the manual occupations. This can only have one result—lowering the remuneration of the former, and raising the remunerartion of The litter. Thus social distinctions arising from distinctions of wealth will tend to fade.
In this respect, education becomes a factor in the more equitable distribution of wealth. It takes away the monopoly earnings of the educated few. When writing was a rare accomplishment clerks received exceptionally high salaries; now they are worse paid than the manual labourer. This tendency should not be deplored. There is no reason inherent in natural justice why manual labour should not be rewarded as amply as intellectual labour. It is only the relative scarcity of the latter which has enabled it to secure a differential advantage. In the course of a generation or so, the intellectual walks of life, which call for little originality and little power of adaptation, will not be so remunerative as the manual, where skill is required. Indeed, generally, as Ruskin says: "We shall pay our ploughmen a little more, and our lawyers
Those occupations which are disagreeable, and become more repellant as education is diffused, will command higher relative wages. Education is changing the adjustments of supply and demand in different branches of industry, to the benefit of poorly paid manual labour. It is breaking down the monopoly of learning and equalising opportunities. The efficacy of general education for this purpose, amongst others, explains the hostility of the instructed classes in the past to all extensions of popular education.
The claims of general education upon a democracy are irresistible. It cultivates interests which employ profitably the leisure which is increasingly characteristic of modern progress. It augments productive power. Mere muscle is daily retreating before the advance of machinery Sandow can lift heavy weights, but the unreasoning horse can lift heavier, and an inanimate engine can lift still heavier. But no machine can lift a nation's mental loads. Every country wants more energy and strength of mind. Superiority here carries with it national ascendency. Again, the diffusion of education among the masses tends to redress the inequalities of distribution.
We may now turn our attention to some of those national institutions and practices which tend to neutralise the uplifting influence of education. The home, the school, the workshop, the church all contribute to the formation of character. The house of ill-fame, the gambling den, the drinking-bar oppose a maleficent influence, crumbling the pillars of character so laboriously erected. The most colossal of the sinister influences is intemperance. Words cannot convey, statistics cannot measure, the wreckage it has wrought. The moral energies of Christian nations should flow out in conquering deluge to overwhelm this dreadful scourge of man.
Look at the magnitude of the problem it presents. According to the "Gambrinius"—a beer organ published in Vienna—the world's production of beer in
Let us look at this vast problem, first, in the light which polirical economy sheds. Political economy is the science which treats of wealth, its production and distribution. It is considered to have nothing to do with moral questions, except so far as they affect material prosperity. If the economist treats of gambling, he treats it as a vice lessening thrift and leading to impatience of steady industry, and thereby diminishing productive power. He has nothing to do with its immorality as such. In the same spirit he approaches the liquor traffic. He turns a deaf ear to all tales of woe founded on drunkenness, and asks: "How do the drinking customs of the people act on the production and distribution of wealth?" This is the eternal question by which he strives to meet any assault of mere sentiment. The excesses of an alcohol-loving husband fill up the measure of the wife's cup of sorrow; the economist stands immovable as a statue, and frigidly inquires if the man's industrial efficiency is impaired by his immoderate indulgence. Let us bring the liquor traffic to the bar of the judgment of political economy. We will look at the operations of the traffic from the point of view of the cold, unfeeling, soulless man concerned only for that wealth which consists in the multitude of marketable goods. The examination will convince all those free from incurable bias that the economist joins hands with the moralist and philan-
Let us address ourselves to the first proposition. What contribution to national character, efficiency, or wealth does this enormous expenditure make? Does the alcohol feed the body or promote physical efficiency? Medical opinion a generation or two ago inclined to the affirmative. To-day it answers almost unanimously: "No!" In
The experience of life insurance companies speaks whit equal authority. There are many now who have a special temperance section, offering easier terms of insurance to abstainers. The
Total Abstinence Section.—Expected death claims, 8,048 for £1,889,628; actual death claims, 5,724 for £1,298,348. Total gain,
There were 2,324 fewer deaths than were expected; and £591,280 less to pay than was expected.
Non-abstaining Section.—Expected death claims, 10,869 for £2,463,253; actual death claims, 10,469 for £2.379,242. Total
The difference is most marked. The non-abstainers show only 400 fewer deaths than were expected against 2,324 of the abstainers; and only £84,011 less than expected against £591,280. Apparently total abstinence tends to longevity. Mr T. P. Whittaker, M.P., a recognised authority on insurance, says that the actual tables of this Society show that from twenty-five to sixty years of age the average mortality amongst abstainers is 40 per cent less than that in the moderate section. Dr M'Lintock reported to the Actuarial Society of America that the actual death-rate among moderate drinkers was 22 per cent, higher than among total abstainers.
In the face of these figures, and the generality of medical testimony, it can hardly be contended that alcohol promotes health or strengthens or feeds the body. If it does not, then the fabulous sums which nations spend on its consumption are, to say the least of it, wasted. Have we then come to this conclusion: that a people would be as rich in health and bodily strength if its beer and spirits were emptied into the ocean? Already we have advanced further—a people would augment its bodily vigour by pouring its alcohol into the sewers. Here is a challenge to the economist. Material wellbeing demands the checking of waste, especially colossal waste of this kind. Great Britain and her self-governing colonies spend £200.000,000 a year on that which in no way promotes national efficiency. The economist has little tolerance for the industry whose products are so useless that their destruction would be as beneficial as their consumption; still less for that industry whose products are so harmful that their destruction would be more beneficial than
The second proposition states that the national expenditure on intoxicants involves a deterioration of national efficiency. In an era when the international competition in commerce is so keen, no country can afford to carry burdens which crush down industrial efficiency. Neither Great Britain nor her Colonies have any producing power to throw away or misdirect. That the star of our empire may remain in the ascendant, we must expand, not contract productive capacity. By education we enlarge our powers, and by
That excessive indulgence in alcohol essens capacity admits of easy proof. Other things being equal, employers invariably choose men of sober rather than men of intemperate habits In
The action of the American Railroad Companies bears remarkable testimony to the pernicious influence of intoxicants in lessening productive power. Ninety per cent, of them require abstinence from alcohol on the part of their employees when on duty
G.—The use of intoxicants by employees while on duty is prohibited. Their habitual use, or frequenting of places where they are sold, is sufficient cause for dismissal.
There are a little more than 200,000 miles of main-trunk mile age in the United States, and the Railway Association controls 160.000 miles of it. The greater number of the Railway Companies that are not incorporated in the Association have rules equally stringent against the use of intoxicants. Many Companies both in the Association and out of it, make total abstinence under all circumstances, a pre-requisite of employment, here for instance is the form to be filled in by an applicant for employment on the Vendalia Line:—
To________________________
Dear sir,—I hereby make application for a situation as..................... and if employed agree to observe all the rales and regulations of the Company, to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors to aviod saloons and places of low resort, to conduct myself properly whether on or of duty, and to perfrom my duty to the bset of my ability.
Rule 22 of the regulations of the Toronto, Hamilton, and Buffalo Railway reads:—"The use of intoxicating liquors is forbidden under any circumstances."
In
The Pittsburg Railway Company gave the following significant notice to its employees on the
Notice to EmployeesApril 20th, 1907. For the betterment of the service and the safety of the publuic it will from this date be the policy of this Company to Not retain in its employ men who use intoxicating liquors or cigarettes, or are in the habit of gambling. While it is the privilege of each individual to eat, drink, and smoke what he pleases, it becomes the duty of this managelent to have in its service only men of sober and temperat habits, physically and mentally able to perform the duties to which they may be assigned.
General Superintendent Approved: John Murphy,Pres. Jno. D. Callery.
What the "Railway Age "said a few years ago is undoubtedly true that the railways of the United States now constitute one of "the grandest and most effective temperance organisations in existence." This statement is equally true of the Canadia railways.
The practice of these American Railway Companies is incontrovertible testimony to the detrimental effects of indulgence in intoxicant on industrial efficiency.
But more direct proof is available. Examine briefly the statistics of lunacy. One person in 285 in England and Wales is a certified lunatic. Forbes winslow, M.B., D.C.L., LL.D., recently wrote:-"We are indeed a mad world at the present time, and I shudder to think what will be our condition thirty years hence, unless some stringent measures are passed by the Legislature enabling us to deal with the subject effectually. I am of opinion that degeneration, and how to contend with it, are the most important questions of the present day. It is the duty of everyone to aid in the prevention of this calamity. Out one aim in life should be to improve the intellectural, moral and physical condition of man, to prevent his degeneration, and to establish, if possible, his regeneration."
In The
As far as investigation has gone, statistics show that 25 per cent, at least of the world's insanity is due to intemperance. The census of
Truly intemperance weakens efficiency. But examine now
Carrol D. Wright, the United States Commissioner of Labour when in charge of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labour, analysed the causes of the crimes committed in This conclusion is confirmed by the results of an official inquiry in
Crime means weakness, crime means inefficiency, crime means misdirected energy. It means expense to the State, it means impairment of productive power. Truly intemperance is a colossal evil.
The contribution of intemperance to pauperism has already been adverted to. The twenty-third Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labour contains the record of special investigations into the condition of the tenement population of Boston. The investigation covered 475 families and 2,140 persons. The most potent individual cause of the tenement condition was found to be drink, to which was ascribed 42 per cent, of the cases. Again, we may say that intemperance is a fearful engine of degradation, destroying industrial efficiency.
But this catalogue of woe has no end. Drink enfeebles the constitutions of the children of the nations. Dr Demme, a distinguished Gennan physician, found that of the children of nondrinkers 82 per cent, were sound, while of those of excessive drinkers only 17 per cent, were so. Dr Brendell, in a lecture a few years ago before the Anthropological Society of Munich, ascribed to alcohol "fatty, enfeebled hearts, shrivelled kidneys, fatty or
Intemperance is a prolific source of death. In
Is it matter for wonder that the Chinese claim that eleven centuries before Christ one of their Emperors ordered all vines in the country to be uprooted; that Buddha inculcated total abstmence as a divine ordinance; that Draco punished drunkenness with death: that Lycurgus, King of Thrace, ordered all vines to be destroyed; that the Carthagenians forbade wine in their camps? Is it any wonder that the greatest of all modern philosophers, Bacon, exclaimed: "All the crimes on earth do not destroy so many of the human race nor alienate so much property as drunkenness"? Is it it surprising that our British Generals, Wolseley. Roberts Kitchener, should stand for abstinence in the Army; that the last named testified that during the Soudan campaign the victories of the men and speedy recoveries of the wounded were due to the abstinence of the men from alcoholic drinks? Can we marvel that intoxicants were abolished a few years ago in the canteen of the United States Army? We can now understand the passages in Cæsar bearing testimony to the strength which temperance imparts. He tells us that the Nervii—a race of Teutons—displayed the most conspicuous valour of all the tribes he met in Gaul. Their preeminence he ascribes to the fact that they were water-drinKers and
The indictment against alcohol on the second count, of diminished industrial efficiency, is proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Such being the case, the nation that drinks the least stands to win in the markets of the world. The following table, given by John Burns in the Fifth Lees and Raper Memorial Lecture, "Germany, with 56,000,000 of people, spends on drink per annum £150,000,000. At Britain's rate (per head) Germany would spend £270,000,000. Compared with Britain, Germany saves or diverts to better purposes £120,000,000. "The United States of America, with 76,000,000 of people, spends on drink per annum £234,000.000. At Britain's rate (per head) the United States would spend £362,000,000. Compared with Britain, the United States saves or diverts to better purposes £128,000,000 "The additional joint spending power of Germany and the United States over Britain in home and foreign markets is £248,000,000
The above table should stir the reforming zeal of every patriotic British subject, especially in view of the progress towards national sobriety being made in the United States. In
The third proposition avers that expenditure on alcohol takes away employment from Labour. What is meant is that capital devoted to the liquor traffic offers less employment to Labour than if devoted to any other industry. The proof is easy and invulnerable. If the people of New Zealand were to cease spending £3,000,000 a year on beer, or the people of Britain £164,000,000, the money would be released for expenditure in other directions. When the labourer gets his wages, if one avenue of customary expenditure is closed, he has more to lay out in other ways. If Britain were suddenly to discontinue drinking, her people would find themselves with £164,000,000 with which to extend their purchases of other commodities. Now, to buy commodities is to buy the labour necessary to produce those commodities. If, for instance, New Zealand adopted the reform of No-license, the totle demand for labour would not be
The abolition of the liquor traffic, however, would involve something more than the mere transference of labour from an injurious trade to wholesome industries. The transference would increase the demand for labour. It would not only absorb the men and women displaced from the manufacture and distribution of intoxicants, it would create a demand for many more workers. The Blue Books of the British House of Commons for
Looked at in another way, £100 spent on coal will give employment to more than seven times as many labourers as the same money spent on beer; spent on shipbuilding, it will give nearly six times as much employment; spent on wheat, butter, etc., it will give nearly four times as much; on cutlery more than three times as much. The liquor traffic, in short, per million of money spent on it, gives employment to fewer men than any other trade. Such was the result arrived at by the Royal Commission which investigated the matter in
Indeed, they are confirmed by a table more recently compled from the Government records of the United States, and published in
According to this table money invested in making boots and shoes will give employment to nearly ten times as many persons as money spent on beer; on clothing to nearly nine times as many; on bread to nearly eight times as many. With the exception of cotton, there is more capital employed in brewing than in any other industry; yet there is less paid in wages; and a less number of workmen engaged. The boot trade employs a little more than one-third of the capital, pays more than twice as much in wages, and employs more than three times as many workers. From the point of view of employment of labour, cotton stands next in order of demerit to beer; yet for every £2,000 of capital it employs twice as many hands, and disburses £22 more in wages. The reason for the greater difference between the number of labourers employed as compared with the amount of wages paid is to be found in the larger number of women and children employed in cotton factories. As an employer of labour, then, the brewer is the worst. These tables furnish an illustration of the supreme folly of buying beer that trade may be stimulated and the employment of labour increased.
They also furnish a striking commentary upon another table set forth by Bliss. It shows how the Americans distribute their expenditure
To spend the largest sum on the most harmful article of consumption, which is at the same time the product of an industry which gives the least employment to labour proportionate to expenditure and capital employed, seems strangely irrational.
This enormous consumption of alcohol must have a close bearing on the unemployed problem. For every man now employed in the liquor business, three, four, five, or more would be wanted if the liquor business were abolished, and the people's money, now spent on liquor, turned into other channels. Might it not have a bearing also on the problem of low wages? To increase the demand for labour without increasing the supply is necessarily to benefit the worker. It relieves any glut in the labour market and causes wages to take an upward tendency.
It is the same with labour as with the products of labour: increase the demand relative to the supply, and up goes the price. It is estimated that if No-license were carried in New Zealand it would displace about 3,750 workpeople, but it would employ them in other industries and call for 7,500 more. If that number were not unemployed, then the increased demand would manifest itself increased competition for the labourers already employed, which could not but result in an increase of general wages. It should not be forgotten that the £3,000,000 the people spend annually in the public bars represent a minimum of three times as much employing power when expended on other commodities.
There remains the fourth proposition to establish to complete the economist's case against the liquor traffic: It costs more directly and indirectly to the State than it yields in revenue. Indeed, it would seem that the direct outlay in money occasioned by the traffic in strong drinks is much greater than the enormous revenue it affords. Again, we must draw upon the statistics of the United States. The Government departments of that country are the most perfectly organised in the world for furnishing the arithmetic of social problems. Every year a statistical abstract is issued, and the publication of
It was estimated that the net direct cost in that year was 765,38l,893dol, and the net public revenue was 137,263,974dol For every dollar received, five dollars had to be spent. An estimate is also attached of the indirect cost, which is stated at 453,076,220dol, bringing the total cost of the traffic to the nation to the fabulous sum of 1,218,453,113dol. So that for every dollar the Treasury gains the nation loses nine.
But let the account speak for itself:—
The manner of arriving at the cost to the Goverment of poverty and crime is by ascribing to drink 75 per cent, of the cost of institution for criminals and paupers. The totle cost of these institutions to the State and local governments was in
The traffic to the State goverments and locals bodies of America involves a direct monetary loss. These bear the expense of police administration and charity, 91, 841,480dol, and receive license fees amounting to 24,786496dol. But 75 per cent. of the cost of police administration and charity would be saved if the drinking customs of the people were discontinued. The direct monetary gain to these public bodies, if the traffic were abolished, would be 68,881,110dol, less 24,786,496dol, or 44,094,714dol. In other words, to secure twenty-four million dollars these bodies have to pay out sixty-eight millions.
These figures of course relate to the year
How is this gigantic evil to be dealt with? The question is importunate. It will come with louder knocks every year. As Lord Rosebery said some time ago, Great Britain must grapple with and overthrow it, or it will grapple with and overthrow Great Britain. There is no problem more alarming than this of intem perance. It wastes money; but, worse still, it wastes character. It is an economic problem of the first magnitude. It is a social and moral problem of still greater proportions. An earnest people must rise up and smite it. The duty will not be denied. The manhood of the nation must purge off this distemper. But how?
We may rely upon education inculcating in our schools sound teaching upon the baneful effects of alcohol upon the human body. We may use the Church, Platform, and Press as vehicles of moral suasion. We may trust to the conscience and enlightened selfinterest of the people to put an end to intemperance, which dethrones the reason, excites the passions, and leads to crime. Ofwhile not neglecting or depreciating this method, we may combine i with laws regulative or prohibitive of the traffic in alcohol, rostively, we may promote the growth of temperance sentiment, an negatively we may strike down institutions which impede the grow of temperance practice. Such a course is likely to effect reformation with greater despatch.
The curse of alcohol is the ungovernable appetite it tends to engender. The appalling prevalence of intemperance is not due to any lack of knowledge of its injurious consequences. Men drink in excess to drown sorrow; men drink to aid conviviality; men drink because their companions drink. Thus men begin to drink. After wards men drink because the passion for it has got hold of them. The facility which the public house system, with its open bar, offers to this drinking is the feature of the problem which should attract the attention of all reformers earnest for human betterment and the enlargement of human capacity. If the charge laid against intemperance be true, it behoves every stalwart, wholesome-minded people to adopt every expedient for its discouragement. Law
The State has abundant justification, then, for regulating or abolishing entirely the traffic in strong drink. And, indeed, this traffic has no claim upon the support of an enlightened people. A trade which flourishes upon the ruins of its supporters, which derives its revenue from the impoverishment of homes, which thrives upon the crumbling of character, which requires for its prosperity the injury of the community, ought not to be able to claim the encouragement of a nation's laws. The liquor traffic is such a trade, and yet it receives the sanction and protection of British law. If alcohol affected farm stock as it affects human stock, it would have been prohibited long ago.
The moral energies of the British Empire must gather for the overthrow of the traffic in intoxicants. The struggle will be tremendous. But we are not permitted without dishonour to lay down the burden of it. The evil is full grown. It is shaking the pillars of our national might. British stamina is strong, but the immeasurable tide of strong drink can wear it down, as the ocean, plunging and heaving at a bank, eats into it and devours it. We must swing round upon this dreadful scourge. We must play the iconoclast and strike down the institution, which flourishes only by striking down the character of the people. If we cannot foresee the ultimate consequences of the great social change, we must stand on abstract right and have faith that what is just shall prove expedient It cannot be that the abolition of the liquor traffic can bring with it a train of disasters commensurate with that occasioned by its existence. The magnitude of the problem must not be allowed to induce hesitation. Let courage mount with occasion. The manhood of the nation, the womanhood of the nation, its childhood, its happinness, its moral and material well-being, cry aloud: "Down with the traffic, and up with manhood." The body politic shall be purged of this disease. The sword must be d rawn and the scabbard flung away. The destiny of our Empire hangs upon the issue. And we must not expect that in stepping in to change an old inveterate custom it can be done peaceably; we are bound to jar
"New occasions teach new duties. Time makes ancient good uncouth; They must upward still and onward Who would keep abreast of truth. Lo! before us gleam her camp fires; We ourselves must pilgrims be. Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly Through the desperate winter sea."
The history of social progress is glorious. To look backward across the ages, and "the beacon moments see, which, like peaks of some sunk continent, jut through oblivion's sea," is a grand inspiration of confident hope for the future. British people especially have cause for pride. Their Homeland has been the theatre of many stirring events, by which humanity was leveraged up. It has suffered no cataclysm like the French Revolution. Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity have risen to supremacy by the slower but surer method of evolution. The British Constitution, with its House of Commons, its unimpeachable system of justice, is the outcome of the steady and continuous operation of causes, the weight of whose accumulated effects crushed down tyranny without any sudden and violent rending of the existing social order. The French peasants and artisans, bowed with the burden of centuries of unmitigated oppression, groaning under the load of unequal exactions by Priest and Noble, restrained at every point by privilege and caste, revolted savagely, and, with the hoarse yell of despair, burst through the bonds with which their superiors had bound them. Over the face of France they stampeded with torch and sword, leaving conflagration, ruin, and murder in their wake. The Nobility had been sowing the wind for ages; in terrible fashion it reaped the whirlwind. The nation was reduced to chaos, and, as Carlyle says, the attempt was made—futile, of course—to construct an ark of salvation out of the driftwood.
Britain has had her partings of the ways where blood has been freely spilled. Her Constitution, however, has always provided a safety valve against the worst excesses of reforming energy. Such has been the wisdom of our ancestors that steam has never been pent up to the point of disastrous explosion. Our country has ever united a spirit of conservatism with the spirit of innovation. Whilst looking forward to posterity, she has ever had regard to the teachings of the past. She has thus been saved from many catastro-
There is in the blood of the Anglo-Saxon an inherent intolerance of injustice and oppression. Long before the founders of the race migrated from the coast lands of Germany to the shores of Britain they had shown their mettle against the legions of Rome. Almost centemporaneous with the shimmering of Bethlehem's star in the East three Roman legions at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest were annihilated and their General. Varius, driven to suicide by the Teutons from whom we sprang. The onward march of Rome was permanently checked. Arminius, the Victor, not only became the rsaviour of his country, but he and his people became the progenits of the most powerful and cultured nations of the modern world. Long before English history properly begins the pen of Tacitus reveals to us our forefathers in their old homeland of Northern Germany beating back the Roman Army. They were the only people who did not bend the neck to those "lords of all the wo who did not bend the neck to those "lords of all the world besides."
This spirit followed them to the British Isles. This spirit nerved them in their fierce and bitter struggle with King John and wrested from nerved them in their fierce and bitter struggle with King John and wrested from him at Runnymede the Great Charter of British liberties. This spirit enabled Simon de Montfort to call together the first House of Commons. This spirit enabled Britain to gather the maximum of gain from the Renascence.
Let us halt for a moment before this Phenomenal uprising of the world's mind called the Renascence, and try to feel its seething. In " I have given up my whole soul to Greek learning," writes Erasmus, "and as soon as I get any money I shall buy Greek books—and then I shall buy some clothes." This passion grew into a devouring tide of intellectual energy, which swept over every institution and belief without mercy or respect.
This was the age when the art of printing was discovered. The writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero were scattered broadcast. Soon the Bible found its way into the artisan's home. It was about this time that gunpowder was invented, which, as much as anything else, blew to atoms the military power of the nobility and the strength of feudalism. The armour of the knight and the towers of his castle were of no avail against this destructive force.
But follow the spirit of inquiry as it turns seaward. At the end of the fifteenth century a Portuguese fleet sailed 1,500 miles south of the Line, and, for the first time, European men gazed up at the star-sown vault of the Southern Hemisphere. True, a Papal Bull was issued proclaiming the earth an oblong plane, twice as long from east to west as from north to south, and surrounded by a wide strip of ocean but as this decree went forth Columbus sat with the book of Seneca open before him, reading with voracious mind the wondrous prophecy by the great Roman of a vast continent on the other side of our spherical world. As he read, he dreamed, and as he dreamed the driftwood and carvings of an unknown land were washed up to his feet on the shores of the Madiera. He felt himself a providential man. He embarked; four times he braved the tempests of unknown seas.
In this age the Portuguese mariners doubled the Cape of Good Hope and anchored in the bays of India. Sebastian Cabot, one of many intrepid adventurers that hailed from British shores, threaded the icebergs of Labrador into Hudson Bay. The power of the magnetic needle to guide navigation had just been discovered. Equipped with the compass, seafaring acquired an assurance it had
It was a time of daring enterprise, daring thought, and daring action, which discovered a new world, propounded a new theology, and wrested the sceptre of tyranny from a king. The Renascence drew in its train the religious reformation and the great political revolt. The enfranchisement of the mind developed in Britain the spirit of protest which overthrew, first, papal domination, and then kingly misrule; the seventeenth century especially was big with deeds for freedom.
That century was a glorious span of crowded life—when prisons rang with the hymns of martyrs, and were sanctified by the custody of the greatest giants of civic righteousness that ever trod the earth; when Pym made the halls of Westminster resound with his patriotism, as he unloosed the bolts of his fiery denunciation on the perpetrators of injustice and tyranny; when Hampden, at the call of his country, spilt his life's blood on the heath of Chalgrove that men of Britain might be free; when Cromwell was "disembowelled from the modern Trojan Horse" to repel the attack upon the stronghold of British liberty and demonstrate that invincible valour was still the heritage of men.
Oh! that was a century of heaven-climbing thought when Milton, that organ-voiced seer, with a mind bathed in the sunlight of knowledge, with a heart lacerated by his country's woes, with a pen nibbed with the incisiveness and brilliance of a diamond, sent his strong song of liberty, like a fiery flood, through the heaving multitude. It was the century whose irresistible vehemence led one king to the block and another into exile. It was the century which hesitated not to pour out its richest blood and spend its highest energies in exalting the common people and investing them with wide political franchises.
The reforming forces of that century of storm were focussed in the phenomenon of Puritanism, which found the expression of its highest sentiment in Milton and of its highest activity in Cromwell In these men we have Puritanism dramatised into heroic flesh and blood. Democracy, with its rapidly unfolding possibilities owes its birth to them. The ascendency of the principles of religiur and political liberty was the sine qua non of Democratic progress, and the betterment of the social and economic conditions of the masses. This ascendancy is the triumph of Puritanism, and we must pause for a moment to take the measure of its stature.
It was a phase of ardent religious belief which most profoundly has affected the destiny of our race. Its momentun is still felt. Much there was in it accidental and superficial but much
He was invincible in his zeal against oppression and injustice because of the convictions which governed him. Every Puritan looked upon himself as the product of an act of God; his life as a breath of God and his mind as a thought of God. His individuality was merged in that of the Most High. Before God he was utterly abased. But this self-abasement before God became a lofty pride before men. He was the elect of God. Beside him the powerfullest king of the world, if unregenerate, was but a child of the Devil. Hence when Cromwell and his Ironsides charged the Royalists they were charging the children of Iniquity, and they rushed forward crying "Let the Lord arise and let His enemies be scattered." In the energy and intensity of his belief the Puritan was unconquerable. I the most trivial af fairs of life he never forgot he was a man of God, and a weapon of the Omnipotent. Here is the explanation of the imperious, into erant flash he turned upon the vicious principles and practices of kings and aristocrats. He may have shrunk a Macaulay says, from a surplice and a mince-pie as from a crime; yet to him we owe the political franchises now so deeply cherished.
Yes! Puritanism, that in its grotesque form so often moves us to laughter, is a name to conjure with. It spells unconquerable force, constraining earnestness. It, perforce, casts the soul upon its knees in homage. At its mention, the burial places of British history seem to give up their most honoured dead. Across the stage walk Pym, Hampden, Elliot, Milton. Through the memory halls of mind rings again the noise of battle as the great warrior-statesman leads against the foe his Ironsides at Marston Moor or Naseby. We bend the ear to the seventeenth century and catch again the deep, solemn, fervent strains of the Puritan prayer meeting. We stand within the House of Commons, awe-stricken at the stupendous conflict, where peasant and tradesman dare to rebuke a king.
What a wonderful century! "It dawned amid the dense fog of royal despotism; in tlie mid-day of its career it was overhung with the thick, black clouds of tempest, the thunders rolled and the lightnings flashed; but, towards eve, the atmosphere cleared and the sun of that century of storm and maelstrom set, shedding forth the brilliant rays of the. Bill of Rights and the Act of Succession. These measures, securing freedom from taxation without representation, exemption from the delays and inequalities of justice, and immunity from the exercise of arbitrary power, were the fitting trophies of the unprecedented struggle of a nation for self-government and religious liberty. In them the sublime energy of Crom well and his co-adjutors "burst full-blossomed on the thorny stem of time." Such, in brief, is the story of that conflict from which emerged a reformed religion and democracy.
"The best that history gives us, "says Goethe, "is the enthusiasm it arouses." This colossal struggle, with its grand issue, is enough to excite a very delirium of enthusiasm. It kindles emulative ardour and engenders lively contempt of low ideals. There wonderful optimism in the march of progress. The path of history is strewn with, burning faggots to fire our patriotism and stimulate to renewed fervour zeal for the betterment of man. The problems of the present age are not beset with difficulties comparable with those of past times. The masses have the power. Their hands grasp the sceptre. Monarchy has yielded to the supremacy of democracy. Once for all, we are freed from that eternal curse of despotism by which unlimited calamity may be drawn down upon millions by the caprice of one man. This is the grand heritage of our generation. It is ours rightly to use the power which the blood and energy of our forefathers have bequeathed to us.
And in passing let a note of warning be sounded. May Labour leaders, Socialists, and aspirants after leadership in the forward and aspirants after leadership in the forward movements of society manifest a tendency towards atheism Reforming zeal, divorced from God and defiant of Him, has more than once heaped up calamities upon a people. Britain owes her franchises to religious zeal. France was deluged with blood and covered with dishonour because her revolutionary ardour was untempered by godly sentiment and uncontrolled by godly Principle. Let those Socialists who stand upon a sort of sublimated Paganism remember what the toiling masses owe to Cromwell and Knox, to Wesley and Shaftesbury, to Gladstone and General Booth. Well might we tremble for the future of Democracy if the teachings of the first and greatest Democrat, the Christ, are not only to be innored, but spurned.
Contemplate now the characteristic feature of the social movement to higher levels. It is the evolution of freedom from irksome restraints. We are ever moving towards greater freedom of thought,
The emancipation of the body consummated, progress ran along the lines of emancipation of the mind and soul. From free bodies we passed to free thought, free speech, free Press, free religion. As late as the reign of Henry VIII. men were persecuted not only for what they said, but for what they thought. By every cunning expedient, the recesses of a man's bosom were dived into to discover his most secret opinions. Freedom of speech was gained only at heavy cost and a long roll of martyrs. Their names are legion who have languished in prisons because of fearlessness of utterance.
Freedom of religion was procured only at a larger sacrifice. The world has been deluged with the blood of religious persecutions. What can equal the horrors of St. Bartholomew's days? Or follow the Duke of Alva on his murderous mission to stamp out freedom of religious thought in the Netherlands. Women shouldered the musket to defend creed and home. The gallant William of Orange, in his extremity, flung back upon his country's oppressor the bold defiance that his people would fight to the end, and, if need be die in the last ditch. Or go down into the dungeons of the Inquisition in Spain. Or become a spectator at the Smithfield fires in England of Mary and of Elizabeth. And you cannot fail to be sensible of the rich legacy of freedom of religious thought and expression our forefathers bequeathed to us.
Men are now free to speak or write whatever opinions they choose so long as no one's character is defamed and public morals are not scandalised. The bodies of men are free, their thoughts are free, their tongues are free, their creed is free. Last century progress manifested itself in the extension of the political franchise, in the diffusion of primary education, and in the organisation of Labour for collective bargaining with employers and for industrial warfare.
In the morning of this twentieth century the masses stand fully equipped with all the powers requisite to a successful assault upon the present industrial system, with its unequal burdens and unequal privileges. So far, reforming energy has been occupied with the machinery of democratic government, and although that machinery is by no means perfect for the expression of the popular will, the popular mind can nevertheless assert itself effectively. The time has come for setting this machinery in motion for the redress of economic injustices. Hitherto the course of freedom has been in the removal of fetters and the transference of political power. Now something is to be attempted by the enfranchised mass which will effect a more equal distribution of the world s wealth. For centuries the people have been engaged in getting the power, now they are going to use it. If well advised, they will use it to secure further freedom, free commerce, free land, and they will use it to make men free from the fetters of intemperance and other immoral and weakening practices. Free body, free thought, free speech, free religion, free Press, free vote, free labour, free education, free trade, free land, free will, uncoerced by appetite—this is the path of progress.
Never was there greater need for earnest thought on social and political questions. The air resounds with battle cries and the clash of opinion. Nothing but the immediate, thorough, and earnest amendment of the laws of distribution can avert the crash of industrial revolution. There is an unconquerable energy in toil's enfranchised might, and it is assuming an attitude of challenge to every social and industrial institution. Social forces, new, and altogether immeasurable, are at play in our midst. The impetuous and appalling rush with which the human intellect moved forward in the career of innovation during the fifty years which followed the separation of Luther from Rome seems about to be repeated. The storm of it all already roars in on one. To avoid misdirection of enthusiasm and waste of effort, withhold outraged Labour from running amuck, to reconcile infinitude of noisy discrepancies, we must lay hold of the grand principle of progress. Greater and ever widening freedom, larger opporunity, fuller scope for labour and enterprise, this is the principle which emerges from the history of the past. This is the channel along which the zealot for humanity must pour his energy. We want not a contracted but an extended horizon. Labour not want coddling, but freeing. Throw off its burdens, ease it weight of unequal and hampering taxation, give it unencumbered access to land, the basis of all industry. By readjustment of conditions of distribution of wealth, sap monopoly of its power luxurious idleness of its privilege. By making higher education free to all, enrich the understanding, and what is not less less tant, level up the wages of the drawers of water and hewere of wood. Wage uncompromising war on institutions which flourish on human wreckage. Down with intemperance and up with man
Reform of some kind cannot be delayed. The masses are restive. Their temper is not such as to submit stolidly to the perpetuation of inequalities which advancing civilisation is daily accentuating. Universal education and universal franchise have made such submission impossible.
John Morley recently said there was no remedy for the unemployed difficulty. In other words, the problems of want which confront modem society baffle him. The masses refuse to believe there is no remedy, and rightly so. The amazing enlargement of productive power is a final answer to the fatal necessity of poverty. Chevalier tells us that in many manufacturing industries "one man could do as much in a day in
Science! She is harnessing the resources and vigour of Nature, drawing together the ends of the earth, electrifying the night with light, transmitting messages from continent to continent along the lambent air, and animating mammoth workshops. And we seem ta have caught only the first faint rays of the dawn of her triumph in compelling Nature to co-operate with man in the production of wealth. Surely in the face of this limitless expansion of productive capacity we cannot despair of the possibility of solving the problem of poverty.
Hitherto, however, it is questionable whether the masses have received any corresponding benefit from the marvellous scientific
It would be vain to attempt to cast the horoscope of democracy. Our prescience is not sufficient to dogmatise about the ultimate reaches of progress. If we understand our own age and the next, and bring to the solution of the problems which press upon us the guidance of the past, we shall be saved from all futility of effort. We must ever look backward and forward, keep an ope eyeball, and court the full light. The past, it is true, must not be allowed to be our jailer. We are wiser than our fathers we have outgrown the laws that in their day were expedient and defensible, Our institutions are but "the tents of a night to be stricken whenever truth puts the bugle to her lips" and sounds a march to a level of living. We see further than those who have gone before us. We stand on the inheritance of their achievements. Even were we pigmies as compared with them, standing on the shoulders of the giants of old, we should see further ahead. Again we must grown into capacity for a larger measure of reform. Reform must needs come by instalments; progress must needs come by the goal is not attained by flight, but by steady and patient accumulating their effects. Nevertheless, we have a right accelerating rapidity of movement towards the ideal. This is a
And progress will be faster. This indestructible new element m the polity of nations—the political power of the overwhelm by its ardour the cold sluggishness of the wealthy classes and their sullen resistance to innovation. Something must be done to assuage the black, desperate struggle of men against whole condition and environment of modern industrialism. Something must be done to obviate the growing need of charitable in stitutions. Something must be clone to apportion more justly reward m tegration. Something must be done to arrest the forces of disintegration at work upon the columns of our national character. And something will be done. Discontent prevails The sprit of intolerance of existing evils is abroad. There is no cause however, for mutable principle of political economy are recognised. The danger alarm so long as the lessons of history are observed, and the immutable principles of political economy are recognised. The danger is that enfranchised Labour maddened by its wrongs, may spend its energy in rolling stones uphill, in rioting over the surface of a problem without touching its roots.
But let zeal for human improvement run in the right channels, and speedy deliverance awaits the labourer from his industrial burdens. The future is bright with hope. The evils of society are not irremediable, its wrongs are not beyond redress. The past has left us rich legacies of emancipating effort. Freedom has a noble ancestry; without doubt it shall have a nobler posterity.
Printed bye The Evening Star Co., Ltd., Bond and Crawford Streets, Dunedin.
The George Junior Republic was founded by William R. George in the summer of
It is a town or colony of young people; an organization that aims to instil into the minds of boys and girls principles of self-reliance and self-government, by giving them actual powers and duties of citizenship in a minature state wherein are operating the same economic, social and civic conditions that they will find outside on leaving the Republic. It is merely a frank acceptance of existing conditions. It is not an institution with inmates, where officers have absolute authority over them; it is not a school with instructors and rules; it is what its name signifies—a Junior Republic; A Republic of the children, by the children and for the children.
While Mr. George was engaged in business in New York City he devoted much time to the study of social conditions, especially in relation to children. Between the years
An obvious difficulty arose. The farmers demanded protection against the lawless visitors from the city. There was necessity for control. Moreover a strong tendency to pauperism showed itself; the children were receiving food and gifts of clothing, which they soon demanded as a right. So these things were led, first to a system of punishment, (the prison), and second to the cardinal doctrine of the Republic, "Nothing Without Labor." Finding by actual experience the existence of a keen sense of justice, and seeing the advantage of retiring from his self-appointed position of arbitary dispenser of punishment, Mr. George established a Jury. Then it was discovered that the boys made better policemen than their elders.
Late in the summer of
The numbers have increased gradually but steadily, until now many more applications are received than can be accepted. For two summers after the organization of the permanent work, companies of boys and girls were brought to the Junior Republic for the months of July and August. After this the temporary camp work was abandoned as it was found to be far less satisfactory, and much more expensive than the permanent work.
The Republic is now an all-the-year-round home for children founded on the belief—
First—That a boy or girl may break a law, or commit offense, and still not be, necessarily, what is known as "bad" or "criminal".
Second—That as a rule a boy or girl who commits an offense against social or civic laws, is possesed of many of the qualities, courage, leadership, self-reliance, will, which if rightly directed will make the strongest character and the best citizens. And that to direct and
Third—That to separate a child who has broken the law, or who is criminally inclined, or an unmanageable child from the normal environments of educational, commercial, social, civic, religious and home conditions, and commit him at an impressional age for a definite period to an institution where he is thrown in constant contact with the hardened criminal, where he is restrained by rigid discipline from acting upon his own initiative, and where his individuality is lost id numbers—will never prepare him for the problems and responsibilities of life and citizenship which will confront him upon his release from that institution.
Fourth—But that to develop a sense of responsibility the child must have responsibility placed upon it; to overcome pauperism the child must learn self-support; and to respect law and order, the child
The equipment of the Republic has gradually increased until now the Association owns and controls over 350 acres of land. On this is a little village of some twenty-five buildings. Ten are cottages where citizens live. Besides these
The equipment throughout is simple but good. The purpose is to instil into the minds of the boys and girls a sense of economy and healthful living. The property is entirely free from debt and it is the policy of the trustees to work and expand as the funds permit, and not to mortgage the property which is now free from all encumbrances.
The boys and girls live in families of ten or twelve in a cottage. These make up family groups of boys, or girls as the case may be, with a lady or a lady and her husband, as its head. This system of family or home groups has a salutary effect upon the little community, and although not bound by blood relationship, there are ties of friendship stronger than one might
Upon arrival at the Republic the boy or girl becomes a "citizen;" an active factor in the life of the little community. No rules are placed over him except the economic forces that are at work in the great Republic, and such laws as may have been made by his fellow "citizens". He is not told to do 'this' or to go 'there'. He must act as he would were he becoming a citizen of any town in the country. He must secure a position by which he can earn enough to pay all his expenses, board, lodging, laundry, tax, etc. The motto of the Republic is "Nothing without Labor". There is work for all to be found in the number of shops, on the farm, in the cottages or in the government. After securing his own job, for which he is paid in the equivalent of United States currency, he must arrange his board and lodging in one of the cottages. In this way he learns how to be self-supporting and self reliant. He pays for all he gets, nothing is gratuitous.
All boys and girls are not of the same earning capacity. So the cottages are run at different rates to accommodate them. The boy earning enough can secure the best accommodations,
Among the industries will be found farming, which is the most prominent, and which gives employment to the largest number of "citizens". The work is under the direction of a capable man, and besides raising large and varied crops, a large herd of cattle and many pigs are kept. A number of "citizens" have taken op farming as a life work on leaving the Republic.
There are two departments in the bakery. One in which is produced the famous "George Junior Republic Wafer". Many thousands of pounds of these wafers are made by the "citizens" every year, and shipped to all parts of the country. They may be bought of Park and Tilford of New York, and Cobb, Bates and Yerxa of Boston, and at least one dealer in almost any large city. In the other department the boys bake bread and cookies which are sent to the surrounding towns. About fifteen hundred loaves of bread are baked every week.
In the carpenter shop, besides building when there is such going on in the Republic, and
All kinds of plumbing, steam fitting, and metal work are carried on in the plumbing shop.
The printing office publishes the Republic paper, "The Citizen", and all reports, pamphlets, etc. It also does job work.
Other occupations may be found in the laundry and cottages for girls, and in the government positions for both boys and girls. Each department is in charge of a competent person who, although in a large sense is an instructor, stands as an employer of labor in his or her relations to the "citizens".
It must be understood that the republic aims chiefly at character building. We have been made a trade school because in the development of character productive labor plays a very important part. We are attempting to make the Republic self-supporting on the basis of the productive value of its "citizens". Much of the produce is consumed on the place. Amongst the older boys and girls there is quite a wage earning capacity but it must be remembered that they spend half of their time in school, while with the younger and new "citizens" the
The average wage paid a "citizen" is ten cents an hour. The working day is from seven o'clock in the morning to six o'clock at night with an hour for dinner at noon. Most of the "citizens" spend half of this time in school, attending either in the morning or in the afternoon according to the classes to which they belong. They are not paid for attending school. Out of their wages they must pay for board, lodging, poll tax, laundry, clothing, and whatever else they may need or can afford. The Citizens National Bank offers an efficient banking system, and here the "citizen" deposits his pay check and defrays his expenses by checks in the usual
While the industries play a very important part in the work of the Republic, schooling is by no means secondary to them. The work in a well equipped school house is in charge of a corps of seven teachers. The curriculum includes the regular grade work, a college preparatory course. Although the children are backward in their studies they are by no means unintelligent and many make remarkable progress when once given the opportunity.
Church and State are absolutely separate. All
That phase of the Junior Republic which commands the greatest attention is the government. The plan is similar in many respects to the old New England town-meeting system. The community is entirely self-governing. The laws are made by the "citizens" in the town-meetings, one meeting being held each month. All children over fifteen years of age become "citizens" and are entitled to vote and hold office. The laws are those of the State of New York with certain local ordinances, to meet existing conditions. For example, there are laws against smoking profanity, etc. On Tuesday night of every week a session of Court is held, and all cases for the past week are tried before the "citizen" judge and often a jury of four. If convicted the prisoner is turned over to the "citizen" keeper who places him in jail, and directs the prison labor, Here he does not have the privilege of working for himself but for the government, and merely receives his prison fare.
All officers of the cabinet are elected by the
Pleasure and athletics are by no means forgotten in the Republic. Football, Baseball and Basketball teams are organized by the boys, which compete with teams from schools in the neighboring towns. The girls play Basketball among other games. Parties are held in the various cottages, and entertainments are given in the school house at intervals.
The question is quite naturally asked as to what success the system has met. Although the Republic is still in its infancy enough has been done to prove the great efficiency of the plan. Many children who were leading lives of idleness
Boys and girls over fourteen years of age and tinder eighteen years, of sound mind and body are accepted. Applications for admission should be made to the Superintendent, George Junior Republic, Freeville, N. Y., of whom all details can be learned.
It cost about $250 annually for each child at
It costs the state of New York between $600 and $700 annually to care for each person under its charge. It costs between $250 and $300 annually for each "citizen" at the George Junior Republic. This sum does not aid in reforming him but merely supports the charge. Thus—it is cheaper to save children than to punish
The George Junior Republic was not conceived in its entirety and thrust upon the public untried. It has come out of a process of evolution. It has grown out of practical experience and is no theory. The respect and confidence of the public has been growing, for it has undoubtedly done more toward the saving of unfortunate and criminally inclined children than any other method.
The George Junior Republic Association under whose management the Republic is operated, is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, and renders reports to the State Board of Charaities. Its trustees are successful business and professional men from various parts of the country. Any one paying $5 or more becomes it member of the Association for a year. $25 pays for a sustaining membership, and $250 for a life membership.
Visitors are always welcome at the Republic. There are no barriers about the grounds and no rules as to hours. Shaver's hotel at Freeville gives excellent accommodations to those wishing to stay more than a day, while Auburn, Cortland, and Ithaca can be made the basis of operations.
With the exception of a few whose parents are able to pay, the expenses of running the Republic is borne entirely by voluntary contributions. No state aid is received. At the present time the annual expenses amount to about $45,000 a year, $10,00 is received from tuition and other sources, leaving about $4.0,000 to be secured through contributions.
An effort toward an endownment fund has been made. A gift of $5,000 toward this fund will provide perpetually for the support of one child at the Republic. Legacies and trust funds are invested in first mortages. The Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., of New York are Trustees of the Endowment Fund.
It is the earnest desire of the Association to increase its membership. Contributions of any amount will be gratefully received. All checks may be made payable to Mr. A. G. Agnew, Treas., 22 William St., New York City.
I herewith present the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Junior Republic for the year ending
Is located at Freeville, Tompkins County, N. V.
It is thirty-three miles south of Auburn, ten miles east of Ithaca.
It is reached via L, V. R. R., from N. Y. City via Sayre, or Ithaca.
It is reached from Buffalo via L. V. R. R. to Ithaca.
It is reached via N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. through Auburn.
It is reached via the D. L. & W. through Cortland.
It is located about one mile out of the village of Freeville.
There are good hotel accommodations at Freeville—Shaver's Hotel.
There is a beautiful "Inn" midway between the Republic and Freeville.
This new "Republic Inn" has every modern convenience.
The "Republic Inn" was built for the comfort and accommodation of our friends.
The "Inn" is not conducted controlled by the Republic Authorities.
The Second Friday in January—Inauguration Day"
The Tenth of July—"Founder's Day"
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November—"Election Day"
All other general holidays.
The second Saturday in each month—Executive Committee Meetings.
Monday Night—Grand Jury meets.
Wednesday Night—Regular mid-week prayer meeting.
Thursday Night—Social Clubs meet.
Friday Night—Court.
The business affairs of the Junior Republic are under the direction of an Executive Committee composed of the following:
Committee on Finance - - Messrs Rothschild and Tuck.
Committee on Legal Affairs- - - - Messrs Smith and McAllister.
Committee on Theory and Practice - - Messrs Osborne and Heizer.
Committee on School - - - Messrs McAllister and Smith.
Committee on Maintenance- - - - Miss Van Santvoord and Mr. Heizer.
Committee on Improvement and Plant- - - - - - Miss Van Santvoord and Dr. Genung.
Committee on Farm- - - - Professors Stone and Tuck.
The George Junior Republic is a Training School for all classes of boys and girls. There are three qualifications which must be met by alt who enter; First, a sound mind—no mental defectives are retained. Second, a sound body—cripples, deformed and sickly children are not accepted because they cannot be expected to meet the strenuous conditions implied and demanded by our motto, "
It costs about three hundred dollars a year to support, train school, clothe and physically develop a Citizen. We do not exclude poor children because their parents cannot pay the full amount; we often take such boys and girls free of charge and then try to get the poor authorities of the town they came from to pay us something toward the support of the Citizen. In worthy cases of this kind there is usually some good person who is glad to aid the parents of the candidate in securing the necessary funds to defray at least a part of the burden of his or her support at the Republic. Many times a church society, a social club or other organization undertakes the support of a boy or girl from their vicinity.
Citizens may be received from the overseers of the poor, superintendents of schools, judges of juvenile courts societies, guardians, etc., as well as from parents; but in each and every case applications for admission must be made directly to the General Superintendent of the Republic. No one can be sentenced to the Republic! This is not a criminal institution. Application and Surrender Blanks will be found else where in this report.
The length of time a Citizen remains at the Republic varies from one to three years. Many of our Citizens remain five, six or seven years, Citizens coming to as from the town or county authorities or from a court, are taken for one year, the contracts with such authorities
See note on proceeding page.
Except in a most unusual case, no Citizen leaves the Republic with our approval with less than one full year of training. The brightest boys and girls, under the most favorable circumstances, cannot get the full training in a year. When parents are sensible and ready to co-operate with the forces within the Junior Republic there is seldom failure in the ultimate success of the training upon the life of the Citizen. If the Citizen leaves with our approval the George Junior Republic Association is entirely willing to be judged by the product it sends out.
It often happens, however, that weak and foolish parents seriously interfere with the training of their boy by promises that he may come home in six months, or when school is out or at some other definite period. They are the parents who have begged us most piteously to "save their boy over whom they can exercise no control" The boy has always Inn able to get what he wanted by teasing and by this process he still continues to rule the weak parent: and the parent starts the self-same method with the Republic Authorities. It is almost impossible to help the boy. His parents ruined him lost control of him and publicly acknowledged their failure. But even in the face of these facts the boy is still able to make the parent accede to lus wishes. Time, money and effort are all lost upon this boy until the parent can be eliminated or educated.
Parents may send their children tous with any kind of an outfit they choose, except that a large amount of unnecessary clothing, jewelry, etc., will not be permitted. The usual outfit calls for two suits, two pair shoes, three suits underwear and such other accessories as handkerchiefs, ties, brushes, etc. After this initial outfit the parent is not permitted to furnish clothing or other things easily converted into money. If the parents do send these things the Citizen is not allowed to receive them free, hut must redeem the goods, at about face value, in Republic coin which he obtains by working regularly at some trade or on the farm. The object of this rule is to put the rich and poor boy on the same basis of self-support. There is a reasonably good store in the Republic at which Citizens may buy with their own coin nearly everything they need.
Perfect freedom in the matter of letter writing is allowed except the prisoners in jail, who may write letters only once a week—Sundays. Parents may write as often as they wish. The letters of all Citizens are censured as long as we feel the need of such precautions. Any piece of mail which we consider it unwise to let the Citizen have is withheld. In case of severe sickness, accident or runaway we notify the parent; but we do not undertake to render regular reports. However, such reports are cheerfully given when asked for.
Vacations are not fixed by the mere passage of time. Real progress in standards of Citizenship, thrift, and conscientious work in shop and school are the factors that determine whether or not a boy or girl is entitled to a vacation. The parents or friends are required to bear all the expenses of the vacation. A bond of fifty dollars must be
Parents are requested not to arrange for the vacation with the Citizen until the matter has been fully arranged with the "Office." No Citizen is granted more than two weeks vacation: please do not ask for a longer period.
If for reason which neither parent nor child are responsible a Citizen is returned to his home or dismissed from the Republic, (physical or mental disability) and there is any unused tuition to the credit of such parent, the money will be returned to the parent: otherwise the money is forfeited to the George Junior Republic Association.
People wishing to send boys or girls to the Republic should have the eyes, teeth and throat thoroughly examined and treated if necessary, before sending the child to the Republic
The two main reasons why the George Junior Republic has such an absorbing interest to most people are to be found in its form of government and the independent basis of self support which every boy and girl is obliged to maintain within its bounds. Almost the first question asked by a visitor is whether the boys and girls do really govern themselves or if Mr. George and the Superintendent do not in reality direct the affairs of the government. Neither Mr. George, the Superintendent nor any other adult attempts to direct or even to directly influence the affairs of the government. The adult helpers, while always willing to discuss matters with any Citizen, or to express opinions about affairs in or out of the government circle with official or plain Citizen, are not expected or permitted to try to directly influence legislation, nor are the Citizens under any obligation, expressed or implied, to heed the opinion of the helpers. The government of the internal affairs is in the hands of the Citizens. As to their foreign relations, that is, matters relating to affairs or persons without the hounds of the Republic proper, the Citizens have nothing whatever to say. All of those matters are in the hands of the Superintendent.
Following is a brief description of the government by the Citizens,
The government of the George Junior Republic consists of three departments: the legislative, the judicial and the executive.
The legislative department is vested in the citizenship and all the laws are passed by the Citizens in town-meeting assembled, a majority vote deciding the fate of bills proposed. A bill must be signed by the President before it can become a law. The bills are drawn up and pro-
Note: This part of the 1909 Annual Report is reproduced special request.
The Citizens in the Republic, who are over fifteen years of age, are voters, the girls enjoying equal suffrage with the boys.
The judicial part of the government consists of two departments, the criminal or police court and the civil court, The judge presiding over the former is appointed by the President and holds office for one year unless removed for conduct not becoming a judge.
Connected with this court are the Attorney General, appointed also by the President, and a bar of ten or fifteen lawyers. A bar association has been organized and no Citizen is allowed to practice law until he has successfully passed the bar association's examination and paid a fee for his license. This reform in the legal branch of the government has had a tendency to greatly increase its efficiency and most of the boys now practising before the court are competent.
In addition to the Citizens' court, there is supreme court made up of three members of the Board of Trustees of the G. J. R. Association. All matters which cannot be adjusted in the lower court may be appealed to the supreme court.
If a difficulty arises between a helper and a Citizen it may be settled in the lower court providing the action is against the Citizen, but if the Citizen brings the action, the supreme court has original jurisdiction. To many people not familiar with the Republic and its affairs, it seems incredible, if not impossible, that a complete government can be carried on in this commonwealth by a community of young men and women not one of whom is twenty-one years of age. It is a popular fallacy that much of the direction of the government is given by the Superintendent or other adults, This is entirely wrong. There is no place, no point, at which the Superintendent, Mr. George or any other person, save a Citizen, enters into, or interferes with, the government of the Citizens.
It is true that the preamble of the Constitution gives the Superintendent the power of veto over any bill proposed and passed by the Citizen body, but it is also true that that power is almost never used. The Superintendent and other helpers do not enter into the discussions of bills about to become laws; they have nothing to do with the framing of such laws nor with the applying of the law.
The helpers have the power of the court of this government behind them to deal with Citizens the same as the Citizens deal among themselves. No arbitrary control is exercised, except such as comes under the head of parental control used exclusively along the lines of moral and ethical growth.
The executive department of the government is vested in a president, who has associated with him a vice-president and several other officers as police commissioners, board of health etc., elected by the citizens and a chief of police under appointment.
The president and vice-president are elected by popular vote for a term of one year.
The President, Vice-President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and the Chief of Police constitute a cabinet, and the President has power to convene this cabinet whenever he wishes to consult with them upon matters pertaining to the Government. The second question asked by the usual visitor to the Junior Republic is: "How do the Citizens support themselves and get an education at the same time?" The following brief description of the relation of our school and our industries will be sufficient to answer the question.
1st. In the Junior Republic everybody works. There are no idle classes simply because there is no money to be had except as a return for work performed and no credit is given for meals or beds except in cases of sickness.
2nd. The boys of the Republic are classified into four divisions.
Note: The Hoo. T. M. Oabome is president of the Board of Trustees of the Association. The president of the Republic is the boy elected by the Citizens to act as their Chiel Executive.
(1) Those who are first-class farmers, plumbers, car penters or bakers etc.
(2) Those who show a willingness to learn a trade or stick to one job, even though they do not possess so high a degree of skill,
(3) Those who will not follow any job definitely, and cannot be depended upon to carry out their contracts or to do their work no matter how skillful they may be,
(4) Those who are too lazy or incompetent or unskilled to be classed anywhere else. Boys may be promoted from class to class by helpers. The maximum wages are $700 a week and the minimum wages are $3.50 a week. The following scale of wages is observed:—
Wages 4th Class—not over $4.20 a weekWages 3rd Class—not less than $4.20 or more than $4.80 a week.Wages 2nd Class—not less than $4.80 or more than $5.10 a week.Wages 1st Class—not less than $5.10 or more than $6.60 a week.
All overtime 10 cts. per hour. 3rd. The girls are likewise divided into four classes. The grading is based on a concensus of opinion of all the house mothers in the Republic.
Wages for the various classes of work are as follows:—
Progress from 4th to 1st class depends entirely upon the individual.
The school is in session nine hours a day the same as the shops; no teacher, however, is on duty over six hours, and those pupils who attend school in the morning are working on the farm or in some shop in the afternoon, and vice versa.
Now every Citizen must have regular and steady employment. Let us suppose that a boy is learning the
All Citizens under 18 years of age and under high school grade, must attend school unless excused by the principal of the school. The New York State law governing this point places the age limit at 16 years but the Citizers themselves raised the age to 18 years.
A fuller description of the school will be found elsewhere in this report.
If one examines the general view as found in the front I part of this report, he is impressed by the close resemblance the "Republic" bears to a modern village. There are no large buildings used as dormitories, no big shop in which everything is done. There are many modern, "homey" looking dwelling houses, several commodious shops, a beautiful chapel, a fine school house, a splendidly equipped hospital and a large and very conveniently arranged barn. The Republic is a big farm of 350 acres having upon it a modern village with its own system of water, sewerage, steam heat, roadways and cement walks.
There are four cottages devoted to the use of girls, and six cottages devoted to the use of the boys. Each has its own Cottage Mother who runs the house as she would her own home, as nearly as conditions will allow. All the Citizens boarding at any given cottage must observe the wishes and rules of the mother presiding over the house. The Citizen is at liberty to change his boarding place if he is not satisfied with the rules of the house, or board, or any other feature connected with it. On the other hand the Cottage Mother may dismiss him from her house for cause.
Of course, under this plan, there are as many different sets of rules as there are Cottage Mothers, but all are attempting to follow, in a general way, a certain line of training which shall result in practically the same thing.
The social life is interesting. The girls and boys are given every opportunity to cultivate the social side of their lives. There are no-regulations" governing this question. It is worked out quite as naturally as in the world at large, except that strenuous, industrial Condi-
On Wednesday evening the mid-week prayer meeting is held from eight until nine o'clock. Thursday evening is "Club Night," and on this evening of one week all the girls in the Republic meet at the "House in the Woods," the beautiful home of Miss Anna T. Van Santvoord where they come in close contact with the "best in life" considered from every point of view. On the alternate Thursday evening the boys meet. On Friday night. Court is held. Nearly every one attends Court. Skating, coasting, sleigh-riding, parties etc in the winter afford considerable pleasure. Athletics, picnics and walking are enjoyed in the summer months.
Our base-ball, foot-ball and basket-ball teams go to all the nearby cities and large towns to play, and, of course, many Citizens not on the team go along to "cheer things up." This gives touch, color and vim to our life. We have a good ball team and are proud of our record in this respect, Upon the athletic field our teams meet teams from Ithaca, Cortland, Binghamton, Syracuse, Sayre, Owego, Elmira, Auburn, Rochester, and many smaller towns.
Last year the Republic entered upon a new and very important era of industrial life. For several years the Industries—farm, bakery, laundry, plumbing shop, furniture stop, printing shop etc. had been doing good work considering the very limited equipment at hand. Our hum, with 350 acres of land, 27 cows and 11 horses did not provide for our needs as it should, because, in the first place, there were too many demands upon the time and resources of the head farmer and teams: and in the second place there was not nearly enough stock to con-some the hay and fodder raised or to produce nearly enough butter and milk for our own use.
This condition on the farm was typical of every department in the Republic; there was just enough machinery and equipment in each one to "name the place" but not sufficient to carry out the work with efficiency and satisfaction, to say nothing of profit.
It is the theory of the present management that our industries can be made to pay a good profit in money and turn out a very much higher grade of workmanship by bring properly equipped. Many good friends of the Republic have come to coincide with us in this belief with the result that funds have been furnished by Mr. John D. Rockefeller and Mr. V. Everit Macy of New York City for the purpose of completing such equipment. Much has already been done. Our dairy has increased from 27 to 60 head; our horses from 11 to 14. A blacksmith shop is m successful operation. The laundry has a complete outfit of the best made washing machinery.
The bakery has a new "Ordway" oven with a capacity of 300 loaves of bread: the furniture shop has $300 worth of new tools and machinery; the plumbing shop has new quarters and many new tools: a sewing school has been
Nevertheless, with all of this new machinery and with a better grade of help our advance along the lines of industrial efficiency has not been quite satisfactory. It is true that we have greatly decreased the operating expenses of many departments: it is also true that those departments showing a loss, show a much smaller loss than in former years. During the year just closed, for the first time, each and every department had to bear all expenses chargeable against that department: such items as stationery, printing, sundry supplies, repairs, rent, heat, light, power, etc., have all been charged against the department and not against general maintenance, improvement, equipment, etc., as in former years.
Two other very important factors also entered into our affairs of
The following is a comparative statement which shows the increase or decrease in the operating expenses of the several departments.
The financial support of the George Junior Republic rests with several hundred people scattered over several states. An annual contribution of one dollar entitles one to "The Citizen," a magazine which is published monthly at the Junior Republic. An annual contribution of five dollars gives one membership in the George Junior Republic Association while a gift of one hundred dollars makes one a life number. In order to facilitate the collection of funds Aid Societies are formed in the larger cities. Two Field Secretaries are also employed to collect funds, conduct an educational campaign and interest new capital in the work of the Republic. In this field of work lectures are frequently given. A person well qualified to talk upon the subject, with or without slides, may be had upon application at the office.
Our great drawback is a deficit, U was $14,647.75 on September 30th., last. It is a part of results of a fifteen years struggle: the other results are represented by a teeming village of boys and girls: twenty-seven boys who have been sent from the Republic to College; scores of girls and boys who have gone out into the very best of industrial life and success and hundreds who have gone out to a clean, earnest, humble walk in life; this great Alumni of true-hearted, loyal citizens is our greatest asset. When one reflects upon the fact that the "Junior Republic Association" has never received a dollar of state aid, and that it has no endowment to speak of, (the income from all endowments is $1,151,00) and when, in connection with this, it is remembered that he sides the real problem of current expenses the friends of the work have had to constantly increase and maintain the permanent improvements and equipment, one is surprised that the debt is not larger. It is the one thing that is confronting us in every new move for reform or economy, If we had
We are supporting 155 Citizens between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one. For the training and support of forty-eight of them we receive no pay from any given source; we have over twenty for whom we receive less than two dollars a week and over thirty for whom we receive less than three and a half dollars a week while the actual cost is very much greater.
We are trying to make good, clean men and women out of unfortunate boys and girls; we are straining every nerve to send them into the world trained to take up life's work with sound minds and healthy bodies.
No physical defect is ever overlooked if surgical skill or medical treatment can correct it.
The burden of expense is very heavy upon comparatively few people. Will you not help carry the load? Will you not send us five dollars or three dollars or one dollar? The preparation of this little booklet represents a large out-lay in time and money. If it has afforded you any pleasure or given you any information we are amply repaid, but if each person to whom a copy comes would express their pleasure and confidence in our work by even a small donation we would be most grateful.
The total expense of all cottage maintenance in
The total expense of all cottage maintenance in
The total expertise of all cottage maintenance in
The total income of all cottages in
The total income of all cottages in
The total income of all cottages in
The total loss on cottage maintenance in
The total loss on cottage maintenance in
The total loss on cottage maintenance in
In response-to a letter written by Mr. Derrick, a meeting was held on
Since
It is hoped that there will be no misunderstanding in regard to the purpose of the Committee, It is not working independently but in co-operation with the management in its efforts to maintain and increase the number of contributors.
The Secretary has received since
The Treasurer charges herself with the following receipts:
The Treasurer credits herself with the following disbursements:
Note: The Olean Aid was not formed until
W. J. Nolan, A. R. Pd.
Principal.
Mathematics ans Science.
Theresa B. Dodge. A. B.
German, Algebra.
Bertha Moyer, A. B. Arithmetic, History.
Bessie B. Outterson, B. S.
Elem. English, French, Latin.
Hannah Whitson,
High School English, Eng. History.
Julia Guernsey,
Commercial Subjects.
Cecilia O'Connell.,
Geography, Drawing Physiology.
Prances Butler.
Botany, Arithmetic.
The story of the Hunt Memorial School is a story of evolution. In
In
It has often been said that a successful school in the George Junior Repulic was an impossibility because of the heterogeneous character and training of the pupils. Toward the end of the school year
About twenty passed out of the Grammar school on preliminary certificates and the Hunt Memorial High School awarded Regents1 diplomas to its first Academic graduating class in
This enthusiasm to accomplish something, sought new channels and our pupils were eager to participate in Prize Speaking Contests. In
The outlook for the future is most encouraging. The new buildings with commodious quarters are nearly complete and since we have made such strides under adverse and crowded conditions what may we not hope to accomplish in more advantageous surroundings?
Note: English is required of every student in each year. Each student is required to carry at least three subjects, which may be chosen from the other subjects as electives.
Note: Any first or second year subject may be taken, by a third or fourth year student, as an elective.
The Elementary School consists of five grades, from four to eight inclusive.
The majority of the students taking telegraphy are elementary pupils. The girls devote two hours each week to sewing.
Pupils who attend school in the forenoon, work in the shops, on the farm and in the cottages in the afternoon.
Pupils who attend school in the afternoon, work in the shops, on the farm and in the cottages in the forenoon.
Every two months the schools alternate, and the pupils who attended school in the morning attend school in the afternoon.
While Auburn Seminary was in session a theological student came over to conduct the church services, during the early part of the summer, Mr. Mitchell a former Y. M, C. A. secretary, was at the Republic, as friend and adviser, as well as preacher until the time of his vacation, when Mr. Stevens assumed charge. This fall it was decided that we needed a man, who should work both in the church and the gymnasium, and the right one has been sought through many disappointments. It is not fully settled at the time of writing, but when he is found, we hope it will solve many of our problems. The organized S. S. classes are well attended and the midweek meeting attracts a large proportion of the citizens while the meetings at the two jails, on Tuesday evening and late Sunday afternoon, are necessarily fully attended, but are especially enjoyed, for vital topics are discussed and hymns aie sung which are dear to their hearts. A felt need is the organization of the church which is difficult owing to the different creeds, but a workable plan has been adopted and will be fully reported next year.
The Forbes—Walter hospital is a beautiful, well equipped building under the supervision of Dr. Homer Genung, our attending physician A competent nurse is in attendance; the health and physical well being of the population is therefore, well looked after. Great care is given to such physical defects as stand in the way of the normal development or future happiness of the citizens. The eyes, teeth and throat of every citizen com-
ing to us, are carefully attended to. No case requiring the removal of adnoids is ever overlooked. We are under heavy obligations to some of the best medical skill in Ithaca for assistance they have given us in these cases, Drs. Gould and Kirkendall render us very valuable service in caring for the eyes of the citizens. Dr. Burr Besemer, Dr. Kirkendall and Dr. Crum have often freely given their services in the operating room while the hospital of the City of Ithaca has always made it possible for us to place Republic patients requiring operations, some where in the wards. These favors are gratefully acknowledged.
This beautiful gymnasium, the gift of warm friends of the Republic was formally opened for use on Monday evening,
Is established for the advancement of knowledge by the full and free discussion of economic questions. The editors assume no responsibility for the views of contributors, beyond a guarantee that they have a good claim to the attention of well-informed readers.
Communications for the editors should be addressed to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Cambridge, Mass.; business communications and subscriptions ($3.00 a year), to the Publication Agent of Harvard University, 2 University Hall, cambridge, Mass.
The writers desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to Mr. John MacGregor, of Dunedin, for important suggestions and criticism.
New Zealand not prosperous from
With the exception of a few brief intervals of prosperity, times were hard in New Zealand from
In the year Parliamentary Debates, vol. Ixxviii, p. 161.
It is impossible to say who first suggested compulsory arbitration as a remedy for strikes. The thought
Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 188. Parliamentary Debates, vol. lxxvlil, pp. 116, 166, 411.
None the less, the passage of the compulsory arbitration law of Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, vol. ii, p. 135; Parliamentary Debates, vol. lxxix, p. 379; vol. cxlv, p. 208. Parliamentary Debates, vol. lsxviii, p. 186.
Mr. Reeves considered the compulsory feature essential to the successful working of the law. He thought the Massachusetts system of arbitration almost ideal, except that it was voluntary and not compulsory. Broadhead, State Regulation of Labor and Labor Disputes in New Zealand, P.8. Parliamentary Debates, vol. lxxviii, pp. 151-186, 405-416.
The bill was not adequately considered, either by its friends or its opponents. Mr. Reeves says: "During the three years and a half in which its fate was in suspense, it neither roused the least enthusiasm nor attracted much attention. Only the trade union leaders studied its provisions, decided to support it, and did so without flinching." Mr. Reeves admitted that it was a piece of experimental legislation. "Frankly," he said, "the bill is but an experiment, but it is an experiment well worth the trying. Try it, and if it fail, repeal it." Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 107.
The act of Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acta Compilation Act,
The act as it stood in State Regulation of Labor in New Zealand, Chapter 3.
The act provides for the registration of industrial unions and associations of either employers or workers with the Secretary for Labor. As few as two employers or one firm with two members may form a union, but, in the case of workers, seven are required. By the amendment act of
The colony is divided into eight industrial districts, in each of which there is a clerk of awards, appointed by the Governor. In every industrial district there is a Board of Conciliation for the settlement of disputes arising within the district. The Board consists of three or five members, one or two being elected by the industrial unions of employers, an equal number by the industrial unions of workers, and the third or fifth, as the case may be, elected by the other members. The Amendment Act of
An industrial dispute can be brought before a board through the clerk of awards by a trade union, industrial union, industrial association, or employer. If a settlement is arrived at by the parties, it is set forth in an industrial agreement. Otherwise the Board makes a recommendation for the settlement of the dispute, which becomes enforceable as an industrial agreement unless the dispute is referred to the Arbitration Court within one month.
Before the year
A neglected clause of the act provides for the creation of a special board of conciliators composed of experts in the particular trade to which a dispute relates, elected in equal numbers by the employers and the unions of workers concerned, and vacating their office on the settlement of the dispute. Oddly enough, such a board has been set up only once, in the case of the strike of tramway employees in Auckland in
There is one Court of Arbitration for the whole of New Zealand. It consists of three members appointed by the Governor: a president, who has the status of a judge of the Supreme Court, and two other members, often called assistants or assessors. One of the assessors is appointed on the recommendation of the industrial unions of employers, the other on the recommendation of the industrial unions of workers. By an amendment passed in
The Court may limit the operation of any award to any city, town or other part of an industrial district; or, on the application of any of the parties, it may extend the provisions of an award to another industrial district. Thus, a number of awards have been extended so as to apply to the whole of the North Island, and some have been given a still wider extension. Extension of awards is usually granted at the request of employers to prevent unfair competition on the part of their rivals in business.
Every award binds not only workers' unions but also individual workers, whether members of unions
Mr. John MacGregor has drawn attention to a curious state of affairs existing from
Fines may be recovered in a summary way under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act,
By the act of
As intended by its author, the act has greatly encouraged the formation of industrial unions and associations. Only unions or associations could be registered under the act; hence workers desiring to enjoy the benefits of conciliation and arbitration were obliged to form unions, and these soon were federated into associations. The employers, at first, had few organizations, but presently, in order to combat the efforts of the labor unions, they formed unions and associations of their own.
In the year J. Ramsay Macdonald, Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards in Australia, Contemporary Review, Annual Report of the Department of Labor, Aves, Report on the Wages Boards and Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, London,
The act of Parliamentary Debates, vol. lxxvii, p. 30; Broadhead, op. cit.. p. 49. Industrial Arbitration in New Zealand, by J. MacGregor, M. A., Dunedin,
The arbitration act was designed to improve the condition of the working class as well as to prevent strikes, and, therefore, practically all of the disputes have originated with the workers, while the employers have occupied the position of defendants. Wages were low in
Mr. Reeves thought that most of the cases would be decided by the boards and that only the most serious cases would come before the Court. In the Session of
In the early years of the act many cases were settled by the Boards, but the contending parties soon perceived that the Boards were not true boards of conciliation, but arbitration courts of first instance, and, wishing to have the decision of the highest tribunal, they carried most of the cases to the Arbitration Court. The workers were fairly well satisfied with the Boards, since the decisions were usually in their favor. But the employers were very much dissatisfied, and through their influence the amendment of Broadhead, op. cit., p. 35; Aves, op. cit., p. 93.
Many reasons have been given for the failure of conciliation. Mr. Reeves himself says that the sys-
State Experiments, vol. ii, p. 131. Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 248. Broadhead, op. cit., p-81. Aves, op. cit., p. 92. Industrial Arbitration, p. 21.
That governmental regulation is incompatible with freedom of contract was brought out in a forcible way by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, in a decision by the Court of Appeals in Book of Awards, vol. i, p. 304; Broadhead, op. cit., p. 111. Broadhead. op. cit., p. 93.contract and restores status. The only way the act can be rendered inoperative is by the workmen not associating or not joining any union. No doubt the statute, by abolishing contract and restoring status, may be a reversal
status to contract marks the path of progress."
The judges of the Arbitration Court have been invariably jurists of high standing. There have been six judges in fifteen years,—Justices Williams, Edwards, Martin, Cooper, Chapman, and Sim. The position of judge of the Arbitration Court is not an enviable one and the judges have always been glad to be transferred to the regular work of the Supreme Court.
Some idea of the work done by the Conciliation Boards and the Arbitration Court may be got from the fact that the total number of awards, agreements, and recommendations made under the act from its inception until Aves, op. cit., p. 93; Broadhead, op. cit., p. 213.
A recent decision relating to agricultural laborers is most extraordinary. It originated in a dispute
The Press, Christchurch,
The awards and agreements made under the act cover a great variety of subjects, among which the most important are,—minimum wages, hours of labor, permits to incompetent workers, limitation of apprentices, periods of apprenticeship, piecework, distribution of work, holidays, meal hours, provision
Aves, op. cit., p. 99.
In most of the awards a minimum wage is granted, and this is never a bare subsistence minimum, but rather an ideal wage such as an able-bodied worker of average ability ought to earn. It has generally been fixed at a point higher than the average wages prevailing in the trade at the time the award was made.
One important effect of the establishment of so high a minimum wage is that workers of less than average ability find it hard to obtain constant employment. This difficulty has been partially met by granting under-rate permits to such workers. But most workers, other than old men, do not like to be branded as incompetent, so that not many under-rate permits are applied for or granted. During the years Aves, op. cit., p. 151.
An interesting case occurred after the Auckland Furniture Trade award of Book of Awards, vol. iv, p. 135; Broadhead, op. cit., p. 73. Manuscript by J. MacGregor,
It is often stated that the granting of a minimum wage works a hardship upon the worker of more than average ability, since the employers, being compelled to pay the minimum wage to a large number of workers of less than average ability, are unable, if not unwilling, to pay more to superior workers. The general opinion among employers and theorists is that the average wage tends to become the minimum, the minimum tends to become the standard, and the standard tends to become the maximum. Broadhead, op. cit., p. 72; Aves. op. cit., p. 194; Clark, the Labor Movement in Australasia, p. 230; Labor and the Arbitration Act, a speech by the Hon. Dr. Findlay,
A recent investigation by the Department of Labor shows that wages are by no means so uniform as one
Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor,
The most reasonable conclusion that one can draw from these facts in relation to the theory stated above, which certainly has some validity, is that the minimum wages awarded in most of the trades are not high, that the average worker fully earns the award rate, and that it pays the employer in most cases to give higher wages to the better men. This conclusion is substantiated by a consideration of the prosperity of New Zealand and of the slight effect which the awards seem to have had on the prices of manufactured articles. It should also be remembered that the superior worker is more regularly employed than the average, so that his yearly wage must be higher than the amount indicated by the figures of weekly wages only. But where the minimum is placed too high there must be a tendency toward a levelling down of wages, which cannot but be discouraging to the more efficient worker, and injurious to the industrial efficiency of the Dominion. For this reason, the objection of the unions to piece-work is probably ill-founded, and, in so far as the Arbitration Court has decided against the piece-work system, it has injured the efficient worker and increased the cost of production of manufactured articles.
In order to prevent such results, Dr. Findlay has suggested a double, or, rather, a primary and a sup-
Findlay, Labor and the Arbitration Act, Wellington, The Evening Post, Wellington,
In the decisions of the Arbitration Court, questions as to wages and hours of labor occupy first place, but close after these comes the claim of unionists for preference of employment. The Act of Book of Awards, vol. i; Broadhead, op. cit., p. 105. Reeves, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 112.
Among the arguments in favor of preference, the chief is that the unionists go to much trouble and expense to obtain concessions, not only for themselves but for other laborers, and that non-unionists can obtain preference by joining the union. Also, preference is sometimes regarded as a compensation to unionists for having given up the right to strike. Preference, too, protects active unionists from being victimized by their employers. Again, unionists generally object to working in the same shop with non-unionists. In brief, the question is practically the same as that of the closed shop in the United States.
Non-unionist laborers object to preference on the ground that it tends to compel them to join the union. Preference, they say, is compulsory unionism. Employers object to preference because it increases the power of the unions and interferes with the employer's freedom in employing and dismissing. In some cases they would discriminate against unionists, whereas, when preference has been granted, they are obliged to examine the employment book kept by the union in order to give the unionists the first
Preference has been granted in most of the awards. Out of 159 awards in force on Broadhead, op. cit., p. 113. Annual Report of the Trades and Labor Councils of New Zealand, Dunedin, Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 188.
In the administration of the act, the sympathy of the Department of Labor is generally with the workers, and the employers complain of partiality. From Annual Report of the Department of Labor,
There is a pretty well-defined theory in justification of compulsory arbitration in the minds of those who favor that method of settling industrial disputes. The competitive system, in this view, has resulted in two great evils,—sweating and strikes. Under sweating the workers receive less than enough to secure a decent subsistence for a human being. The strike is a form of private war in which the strongest win, not those who have justice on their side, and which causes great inconvenience to the public, who are a third party in every strike. All the evil and injustice should be done away with by an appeal to a court, which should establish relations between employers, workers, and the public according to principles of justice.
On the surface the theory appears to be highly reasonable, but when put into practice, serious, if not fatal difficulties arise. One of these has to do with the discovery of specific principles of justice; the other with the enforcement of awards supposedly just. So great are the difficulties in the way of discovering principles of justice in the determination of wages, that one of the most distinguished of the former presidents of the Arbitration Court has stated that no such principles exist.
The theory of fair wages that appears to prevail is the doctrine of the living wage, stated both in its negative and its positive form. Stated negatively, the theory holds that extremely low wages, such as are found under the sweating system, are not fair wages, because insufficient to afford a decent living according to the colonial standard. Aves. op. cit., p. 100.
Other difficulties arise when the theories are applied to actual cases. For example, a wage which would be quite sufficient for a single man might be inadequate for a married man, and should vary with the size of his family and their ability to contribute to their own support. But if a married man is to receive more than a single man of the same ability, he will find it hard to get employment except in the most prosperous times. Again, a living wage for a skilled worker must be higher than that for a common laborer, since his standard of living is higher. This arises from the fact that skilled laborers are scarce; but here another complicating factor is introduced, the supply of labor, which, in densely populated countries, threatens to destroy not only the theory but the possibility of a living wage.
These and other complications prevent the creation of a body of legal principles defining and explaining the nature of fair or reasonable wages, but do not prevent the Court from bearing in mind the desirability of keeping the customary standards of colonial life from falling, and the equal or greater desirability of raising those standards as much as possible. The doctrine of a living wage, then, is not an established legal principle, but an ideal toward which people may strive. The Arbitration Court, not being bound by precedent nor hampered by technicalities, and having legislative as well as judicial powers, may do its best to attain the ideal within the limits fixed by economic law. But one hears little about economic law in New Zealand, and much more about justice and fairness in distribution, as tho there was no such thing as market value and the effort to attain the desirable had no relation whatever to the possible.
The doctrine of a living wage is nothing more than a starting point for the workers of New Zealand. They demand a living wage and as much more as they can get. Realizing the fact that some employers can afford to pay more than others, the workers desire that some form of profit-sharing be established by the Arbitration Court. Otago Dally Times, Book of Awards, vol. vii, p. 50; Broadhead, op. cit., p. 61.
In practice, the awards appear to be based on two main principles: first, the desire and intention of the
During all the years since the act was passed, political power has been in the hands of the Liberal Party, so that both the government and the judges have been disposed to do what they could for the working class. If they have not done more, it is because they could not, or thought they could not, without grave injury to the industries of the country. Justice Williams, the first president of the Court, said in a letter to the London Times: "The duty of the Court is to pronounce such an award as will enable the particular trade to be carried on, and not to impose such conditions as would make it better for the employer to close his works, or for the workmen to cease working, than to conform to them." Broadhead, op. cit., p. 57.
The rigidity of system which is characteristic of the railway rates seems to be taking possession of the regulation of wages also. When the awards were
The Labor Movement in Australasia, p. 204.
Another stumbling-block in the way of advance in wages is the inefficient or marginal or no-profit employer, who, hanging on the ragged edge of ruin, opposes the raising of wages on the ground that the slightest concession would plunge him into bankruptcy. His protests have their effect on the Arbitration Court, which tries to do justice to all the parties and fears to make any change for fear of hurting somebody. But the organized workers, caring nothing for the interests of any particular employer, demand improved conditions of labor, even tho the inefficient employer be eliminated and all production be carried on by a few capable employers doing business on a large scale and able to pay the highest wages.
This is not to say that even the most efficient employers could afford to pay wages much in excess of those now prevailing. Dr. Findlay has made an elaborate statistical examination of this matter, and arrives at the conclusion that if all the net profits, excluding interests, of all the employers in New Zealand, except farmers, were divided among all their employees, the yearly increase in wages would be very small. He says: "Any attempt to lay violent hands upon these profits would put an end to all
Labor and the Arbitration Act,
It is not easy to show that compulsory arbitration has greatly benefited the workers of the Colony. Sweating has been abolished, but it is a question whether it would not have disappeared in the years of prosperity without the help of the Arbitration Court. Strikes have been prevented, but New Zealand never suffered much from strikes, and it is possible that the workers might have gained as much or more by dealing directly with their employers than by the mediation of the Court. As to wages, it is generally admitted that they have not increased more than the cost of living. A careful investigation by Mr. von Dadelszen, the Registrar General, shows that, while average wages increased from Year-Book,
It is a common opinion in New Zealand that the increase in the cost of living has been due largely to the high wages and favorable conditions of labor fixed by the Arbitration Court, but so widespread a result cannot have been due to local causes alone. There may be, and probably are, cases in which the awards of the Court have compelled manufacturers to raise the prices of their products, but these are doubtless exceptional. If it is true that in most cases the Court has awarded wages no higher than the
Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 212, speech by Mr. Ell; Clark, The Labor Movement in Australasia, p. 236; Scholefield, New Zealand in Evolution, p. 214.
Manufacturers complain that the awards have been so favorable to the workers as to make it difficult to compete with British and foreign manufacturers, and demand that either the arbitration system be abolished or that they be given increased protection by higher duties on imported goods. It is claimed that the growth of manufactures has not kept pace with the growth of population and the importation of manufactures from abroad. Broadhead, op. cit., pp. 136, 219. Aves, op. cit., p. 169; Beeves, State Experiments, vol. ii, p. 147; Report of the New Zealand Employees' Federation, Broadhead, op. olt., p. 218. Parliamentary Debates, vol. clxv, p. 181.
There is such agreement among manufacturers as to the effect of compulsory arbitration in increasing the cost of production that their statements cannot be lightly dismissed, especially as many unbiased writers concur in the opinion. From Year-Book, Year-Book,
These statements refer only to the value of the output, as shown in the reports of the census. Statistics relating to the profits of manufacturing, as given in the census reports for Year-Book, Findlay, Labor and the Arbitration Act,
Unquestionably, manufactures, with the exception of the great industries which work up raw materials for market, are not doing any too well. But it is not likely that compulsory arbitration is the chief cause of this. The high wages which manufacturers have to pay are due chiefly to industrial conditions which always prevail in a new, thinly populated country with great natural resources awaiting development. The more prosperous the agricultural population, the higher wages must be, and the more difficult it is for manufacturers to find workers. This is particularly true of women workers, for whom there is an active demand in the matrimonial market.
New Zealand manufacturers produce on a relatively small scale, find it hard to compete with imported goods produced under totally different conditions, and are inclined to throw the blame upon the Arbitration Court. Certainly, the Court has done nothing to lower the cost of production, except in the way of preventing strikes and has probably increased it somewhat, not so much by fixing minimum wages as by granting, in many cases, limitation of apprentices, prohibition of piece-work, and other restrictions. As Dr. Clark says: "All regulations restricting the freedom of employers in conducting their business probably add to the cost of production." The Labor Movement in Australasia, p. 233.
Many employers believe that the cost of production has been increased by a decline in the efficiency of labor due to the fixing of high minimum wages, which discourages capable men from doing their best work. Mr. G. T. Booth says: "I am quite sure that the arbitration system has resulted in a loss of industrial efficiency far greater than ever resulted from strikes." Mr. Booth asserts that the annual output
Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 210; Annual Report of the Canterbury Employers' Association, Aves, op. cit., pp. 109, 180.
The employers, at best, give but a grudging approval to the Arbitration Act. The farmers, as a class, are decidedly opposed to it. Evening Post, Wellington, Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 195. Scott, Address before the New Zealand Employers' Federation, Broadhead, State Regulation, p. 208.
The dissatisfaction of the employers was not the chief of the causes which brought about the amendment Act of Broadhead, op. cit., p. 164; Book of Awards, vol. iii, p. 463.
From this time complaints against the Court became more frequent and bitter, not because wages were reduced, but because they were not increased, and because other demands were not granted. Great dissatisfaction was aroused because of the Dunedin Seamen's Award of
At the Meeting of the Trades and Labor Council of New Zealand, at Christchurch, on Report of the Annual Conference of the Trades and Labor Councils of New Zealand,
The dissatisfaction finally came to a head in a series of strikes beginning with that of the tramway employees in Auckland, on Reeves, State Experiments, vol. ii, p. 139.
The next strike began on Annual Report of the Department of Labor,
Early in the year
The Department of Labor attempted to effect a settlement of the trouble, but without success, whereupon the union was cited before the Arbitration Court and a fine of £75 was imposed. The strike continued and the union went so far as to refuse to pay the fine, alleging that it had no funds. In this position the union was generally condemned by public opinion, but supported by a number of unions by resolutions of sympathy and gifts of money. Finally, the Arbitration Court decided to proceed against the men individually for their share of the fine. The whole of the fine, together with the costs of collection, amounting to over £147, was recovered by means of attachment orders under the Wages Attachment
The Evening Post, Wellington,
On Report of the Department of Labor, Report of the Department of Labor,
On Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 187.
Trouble in the mining industry arose again because of the new Workers' Compensation Act of Evening Post, Wellington, Evening Post, Wellington,
The situation was very grave. The State Insurance Department had very properly refused to assume the extra risk without medical examination, and the government had stood by them, but on hearing of the action of the Waihi union, the government made a complete change of front, authorized the Insurance Department to issue policies without examination, and agreed to indemnify the Department against loss, pending further legislation. The Evening Post,
This extraordinary concession was received with astonishment by the public, especially by employers and insurance men, but it prevented a serious strike, and the trouble about pneumoconiosis was ultimately settled by the employers' agreeing to take their own
Annual Report of the Canterbury Employers' Association
The pneumoconiosis deadlock resulted in a strike of the coal miners at Huntly, who wished to have four so-called "blacklegs" degraded for having submitted to a medical examination, but the miners were clearly in the wrong, accepted a compromise proposed by the Company, and went back to work on January 27.
A trifling strike occurred on Annual Report of the Department of Labor
From this time until
Another interesting fact is that the miners were encouraged in their demands by the statements of the Department that the State collieries were earning large profits, altho some financial critics deny that any such profits were earned. The Star, Christchurch, The Evening Post,
After much discussion, the Government, being convinced that the miners had substantial grievances, receded from the position previously taken, and the miners' representatives received the assurance that the Minister of Mines, the Hon. Roderick McKenzie, would visit Point Elizabeth after the session of Parliament and would give the men conditions not less favorable than those obtaining in
On the day after this settlement was effected, the Wellington Slaughtermen's Union sent a notice to the Gear Company and the Wellington Meat Export Company that they would go on strike in 14 days if their employers would not grant them a rate of 25s. a hundred for all sheep and lambs not otherwise specified, besides other concessions. The agreement entered into after the strike of Evening Post,
The strikes of Summary of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act,
It gives elaborate definitions of the terms "strike" and "lock-out," stress being laid in both cases on the "intention" of the workers or employers in causing a strike or a lock-out.
The terms "unlawful strike" or "unlawful lockout" mean a strike or a lock-out by parties bound by an award or industrial agreement in the industry affected. For example, the strike of the miners in the State colliery in
Every worker who is a party to an unlawful strike is liable to a penalty not exceeding £10; and every employer who is a party to an unlawful lock-out is liable to a penalty not exceeding £500.
The maximum penalty for aiding or abetting an unlawful strike or lock-out is, in the case of a worker, £10; and in the case of an industrial union, trade
Special penalties are to be inflicted when strikes or lock-outs occur in certain specified industries—the manufacture or supply of coal gas; the production or supply of electricity for light or power; the supply of water to the inhabitants of any borough or other place; the slaughtering or supply of meat for domestic purposes; the supply of milk for domestic consumption; the sale or delivery of coal; the working of any ferry, tramway, or railway used for the public carriage of goods or passengers. These penalties are to be inflicted if a worker strikes without having given at least fourteen days' notice to his employer, or if an employer fails to give a similar notice to his employees of his intention to lock-out. It was to escape these special penalties that the Slaughtermen's Union gave notice to their employers, on
The judgment in any action is enforceable in the same manner as a judgment for debt or damages in the magistrate's court. The surplus of a worker's wages may be attached above the sum of £2 a week in the case of a worker who is married, or who is a widower or widow with children, or above the sum of £1 a week in the case of any other worker. Imprisonment for refusal to pay fines is abolished.
The Boards of Conciliation are abolished, and Councils of Conciliation take their place. The only
bona fide engaged or employed either as an employer or as a worker in the industry."
Every dispute must be referred to the Council before proceeding to the Court, and in every case the Council is required to make a recommendation, which has no binding force, but operates merely as a suggestion for the amicable settlement of a dispute by mutual agreement and as a public announcement by the Council as to the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the new law resembles the Lemieux Act of Canada, which is a system of investigation and conciliation. However, an agreement, when filed, has all the force of an award, and, if the Council fails to effect a settlement, the dispute is automatically referred to the Arbitration Court.
The Amendment Act of Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 186. Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 480.
But there is a way by which the workers may altogether evade the arbitration law and strike as much as they please without rendering themselves liable to penalties. After the expiration of an award, they have only to cancel their registration or allow it to be cancelled by the Department for neglecting to send in their annual returns. It has already been noted that this was done by the Point Elizabeth miners, who, therefore, could not be punished for striking. During the year ending Annual Report of the Department of Labor, Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 482.
There are some weak features in the new act, as there must be in any attempt to deal with so difficult a subject, but hitherto it seems to have had a fair degree of success. A series of ten articles in the Evening Post, Wellington, Annual Report of the Canterbury Employers' Association,
Undoubtedly, most of the people of New Zealand earnestly desire that the act may prove successful, and the employers, as a class, notwithstanding their frequent criticisms and their dislike of regulation, would rather have arbitration than strikes, provided that the Court is reasonable in its decisions, as it has been in the past, and does not put upon them a greater burden than they can bear. The employers will not move for the repeal of the act, but will throw the responsibility' for its success or failure wholly upon the shoulders of the workers.
The workers' position is embarrassing. The original act was passed for their benefit as well as to prevent strikes, but when it could no longer be used as a machine for raising wages they were the first to rebel against it. Doubtless, a large proportion, if not a majority, of union laborers have been much dissatisfied with the act, and yet most of them are disposed to give the amendment act a fair trial. The more radical among the workers, many of whom are socialists of the type of Tom Mann, regard the Arbitration Court as an instrument of capitalism in keeping the working class in subjection, would abolish the act, and inaugurate a period of industrial warfare as a prelude to the social revolution.
But the more conservative among the workers wish to do all they can to preserve industrial peace. The Hon. J. T. Paul, one of the most capable of the labor leaders, said in the Council: "I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I am totally opposed to the strike, that I see absolutely no good in it, and I oppose it for one reason, that it is against the interests of those whose welfare I have most deeply at heart, and against the interests of the general community. Strikes cannot be supported, because they do not help the worker." In the same debate Mr. Paul quoted with approval the words of Mr. Pritchard, who was a prominent and almost violent supporter of the Blackball miners in the strike of Parliamentary Debates, vol. cxlv, p. 570.
The workers are probably in error in thinking that the wages of all classes of labor can be raised much above the market value by means of unions and strikes, by the awards of a court, or by any means other than increasing the efficiency and limiting the supply of labor. It would probably be the best policy for the working class to accept rates of wages based on the market value of labor, to encourage the highest possible efficiency, and to increase the provision already made against accident, sickness, and old-age, by means of insurance supported by taxation of the incomes of the rich.
But in particular cases, as has been shown by the success of most of the recent strikes, organized labor can frequently force concessions which the Arbitration Court would not grant, and which, if given to all of the working class, the industries of the Dominion could not stand. The unionized workers, then, numbering about 50,000, out of about 420,000 breadwinners, have interests somewhat opposed to those of the non-union workers as well as to the interests of the employers and many other people. If, therefore, the unions adopt the policy of cancelling their registration, and try to force concessions from their employers by means of strikes, they will lose the advantages enjoyed under the act, and, what will be far more serious, they will lose the sympathy of the general public, by whose assistance they have obtained the most advanced labor legislation in the world.
The future of compulsory arbitration will depend upon the attitude of the workers. They could have
Dr. Findlay sums up the subject thus: "It should be the aim of every country to prevent strikes, not by severe pains and penalties, but by providing, if it be possible, such conditions of labor, and such a fair, prompt, and competent tribunal as will secure to the workers all they can ever reasonably hope to attain by a resort to the blind force of a strike." Labor and the Arbitration Act, p. 16.
New Zealand has come to be regarded as a sort of laboratory for political and social experiments, and her people are inclined to be rather proud of the rôle, and are optimistic enough to believe that their experiments have issued successfully. Of such experiments, what is known as our system of Compulsory Conciliation and Arbitration in Industrial Disputes, is one of the most interesting, and in the following pages the writer has candidly answered the question appearing on the title page. It is with regret he finds himself constrained to answer in the negative, because, as a member of the Upper House, he helped the author of the measure, the Hon. W. P Reeves, to get it placed upon the Statute Book. Having closely observed and studied the working of the system during the six years it has been in operation he claims to he in a better position to answer the question than Mr. Reeves can possibly be, inasmuch as he has been absent from the Colony during nearly the whole of that period. The writer finds himself driven by candour to admit that the system is not in any sense what it purport, and was intended to be—a means of settling industrial diputes and strikes by conciliation and arbitration—but is rather a system for the regulation of the industries of the Colony by means of ordinances (misnamed "awards") issued by a court of law. It is impossible for Mr. Reeves to contend that the system has been a success for the purpose for which he in tended it, and the writer is convinced that Mr. Beeves is incapable of having resort to the subterfuge of arguing, as some people have done, that il has served its purpose of preventing strikes but in a different way from that intended subjecting all industries to regulation by a court; and it is as such it must be justified by anyone who advocates its adoption by other countries. It may be necessary to remind such foolish people that a laboratory experiment is not a sufficient test, and that ad poenitendum properat, cito qui judical.
It may be mentioned that since the first publication of the papers in the "Otago Daily Times," an Act has been passed which practically repeals the conciliation provisions of the Act; this has been done in spite of the opposition of the Trades Union Government. Mr. Reeves, as an honorable man, should either admit that the system has failed or disown it; only the skeleton remains and the skeleton is not the man.
Let no man who begins an innovation in a State expect that he shall stop it at his pleasure, or regulate it according to his intention.
Of all the labour lows of New Zealand the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act has attracted most attention beyond the colony and that mainly on account of the generally recognised difficulty of the problem dealt with, and the novelty and boldness of the attempt at a solution. Visitors from Britain, the United States, France, and the other colonies have inquired into the working of this and our other labour laws; numerous articles upon the subject have appeared in the newspapers and industrial nines.. A well-known writer on industrial and social subjects, Mr Henry Demarest Lloyd, of Chicago, after spending some months in New Zealand published a book with the title "A Land Without Strikes," eulogising our system; and now we have the report of a Royal Commission sent from New South Wales for the express purpose of reporting upon the subject for the guidance of the Government and people of that colony. One thing that must strike such visitors is the fact that we in New Zealand have so soon come to regard ns mere matters of course experiments which to them appear so novel and hltor0Sting on this and other subjects-such, for example, as that of woman suffrage. The Arbitration Act has boon in operation now for six years, and it is indeed truly remarkable how little attention has been paid by the people of the colony generally, and especially by employers, to the question of the probable ultimate effects of legislation so novel and far-reaching. What little discussion has taken place has been until quite recently somewhat optimistic in tone and the explanation probably is that during the whole period the colony has been in the enjoyment of a gradually increasing prosperity: employers and workers have been in the position of a healthy man of good digestion and with plenty to eat, who is unconscious of having digestive organs, and has no ocon to observe, still less to study the processes going on. Thus it happens' that up till now the opinion of employers upon the working of the system has been of so little value, and it is imposible to imagine an experiment being tried under circumstances more favourable; everybody wished it to have a successful issue. Three years ago the writer ventured to question whether the system was serving the purpose for which it was intended, but his voice was like that of one crying in the wilderness; now, however, when symptoms of waning prosperity are beginning to appear, and our Premier admits that the state of our public finance is causing him much anxiety, our general tone is not quite so optimistic, and now at length the question is being seriously discussed whether our much-vaunted system may not do more harm than good. Hitherto our ne-papers-with, I think, only one important exception, the (Auckland) New Zealand Herald-have been friendly in their altitude towards the system: but now there are signs of a change. The employers have been too busy to pay much attention to the proceedings of the Conciliation Boards and Arbitration Court, or to form combinations to resist the multitudinous demands of tho workers; they have, indeed, shown a remarkable lack of foresight and regard for their common interests, which they will probably have cause to regret. Another thing that renders the opinion of the employers almost valueless is that they are so completely at the mercy of the unions; they are afraid to say a word against the system, whilst many of them who enjoy Government patronage are afraid of giving offence in that quarter, for real liberty decreases as Liberalism increases. Whilst the em-
To the question at the head of this article—Has compulsory arbitration been a success?—the answers will, of course, vary a good deal; but it would probably be correct to say that, till quite recently, few thought of raising the question. Of course the Liberals and the Liberal Government de clare that not only has the law been a success, but that it has largely contributed to the prosperity of the country; and there is no doubt that working people generally but especially the unionists, are so satisfied of this that they regard as their enemy any man who dares to so much as question it. As for the employers, their attitude has been that of indifference with, perhaps, a general inclination to regard the act as a success on account of their immunity from strikes. Their policy has been simply to make the best of the good times while they lasted, and to let the future take care of itself—a very short-sighted and dangerous policy, as they are even now beginning to find out. It is safe to say that if the employers in England had pursued a like policy instead of combining to fight the great strike in the engineering trade in
Proceeding, then, to endeavour to arrive at an answer to the question whether the act has been a success, we have first to recall to mind the object in view, and the circumstances under which the act was passed. It must be remembered, then, that the act was the direct outcome of the great maritime strike of
Obviously, then, the object of the Legislature in passing the act and of Mr Reeves in drafting and introducing it was to provide means by which strikes and lock-outs and disputes likely to result in such might be prevented or settled.
In order to see how completely the measure has been diverted from its real purposes we have only to refer to Mr Reeves's speeches in Hansard. In volume 77, at page 30, we read:—"This House is only asked by public opinion to legislate to prevent that of labour disputes which cause loss or danger to the community—loss to those concerned and danger inasmuch as they may arrest the processes of industry." One wonders what he would have said if anyone had suggested that, instead of being brought into requisition in such disputes as he describes, the act would be plied daily for the purpose of creating disputes? And his answer may be inferred from the reasons he gave for preventing individual workmen from invoking the powers of the act. "I determined to confine its operation to dispute between masters and trade unions. . . . I was induced to take that course for several reasons, one of which is this: that, if you allow one workman or two or three unorganised workmen to drag an employer before the Board of Conciliation, not only would that be grossly unfair to the employer, but it would soon make a lauging stock of the whole system. It would make the measure so extremely unpopular that a succeeding Parliament would probably sweep it away." We have reason to suppose that Mr Reeves thinks his pet measure is being made a laughing stock in spite of his precautions, for in the Legislative Council in
If anything further were required to show how completely the system has been perted we find it in Mr Reeves's references to the Massachusetts system: "I cannot help thinking after devoting many hours to the study of this subject that the ideal board is one consisting of three persons appointed by the State, paid an annual salary, and able to go to any part of New Zealand whore a dispute arises—a board which should have the power to transform itself into a judicial tribunal, able to compel parties to come before it and make its decisions legally binding. But I do not think public opinion is ripe for that yet. I think objection would be raised to pay three permanent officers suitable calaries." This passage shows quite clearly that our Court of Arbitration was intended to discharge the same function as the Massachusetts Board—namely, to settle strikes and lock-outs and such disputes as inevitably arise in the ordinary course of industry Instead of this we have a court of law constantly moving about from end to end of the colony, like a Court of Assize, to adjudicate upon a long list of cases that have been got up by the unions and hurried through before the Conciliation Boards in order to be ready for trial by the court. Instead of one strike or dispute at a time, the court has long lists of cases awaiting for it at every centre, and it cannot overtake the work.
To complete the proof of this part of my thesis it only remains to mention the fact that Mr Reeves's act contemplated the imposition of only one fine, and that of a maximum sum of £500, under one award, the idea being that an employer locking out his men or a union persisting in a strike in defiance of an award could be brought to reason by the imposition of such a penalty. Instead of this we have a court that undertakes to regulate all the industries and most of the other businesses of the country down to the minutest details, simply because a union of perhaps only seven men, or even seven girls, has got up a "dispute" with the employers, and cited them before the court to have all the details of their business which the union has thought proper to mention adjudicated upon by the court! And thus it has come about that this statutory court, which has enormous powers against which there is no appeal, is seen perambullng the country like a peripatetic police court, infliction fines of a few shillings upon some employer who has dared to give a job to a starving youth who has the misfortune to be a non-unionist!
At this point, then, our answer to the question, Has the system been a success? must; be this: that as a scheme for the settlement of industrial disputes in the ordinary sense it has never been tried; and the ordinary argument in its favour—that it has saved the country from strikes—reminds one of the saying about the number of lives saved by pins—by people not swallowing them. The reply will probably be that it has made strikes impossible by reason of the fact that all industries are regulated by the decrees of the court. So be it but let; the system be judged as one used for that purpose and not for the purpose for which it was mtended. The man who wrote "A Land without Strikes" shows by the very title of his book that he failed to realise the real nature and operation of the system. The same remark applies to Sir W. J. Lyne, Edmund Barton and the other Australian politicians (not statesmen), who propose to introduce the system in Australia on the ground that it has been such a success in New Zealand as a means of preventing strikes. Mr Reeves said in. Parliament "that it would take year before the public can say whether or not they consider it a good and useful measure-experience alone will show that"; obviously because be thought tile compulsory clauses might not be invoked for years, inasmuch as they were not to be used except as a last resort for the settlement of some strike, lock-out, or dispute likely to "cause loss or danger to the community." For such a purpose the act has never been tried, and yet responsible Ministers of the Crown are ready to apply it to the whole of Australia on the strength of our experience, and a sentimental English bishop and that prince cranks and faddists, W. T. Stead, are ready to run the risk of applying it to the enormous industries of Great Britain!
If there is any lesson to be learnt by other countries from the experience of New Zealand it; is this: that;, If they want a system of arbitration for the settlement of strikes and real disputes rather than one for the creation and multiplication of factitious dispules, they should adopt some such system as that of Massachusetts.
So far, then, our answer to our question is that the system cannot be said to have been a success, inasmuch as it baa never been tried for the purpose for which it was intended; whether it; can be pronounced a ouccess as a system for the regulation of all the conditions of all industries, trade, and occupations is quite another matter, which we propose to consider later on.
In the meantime, let us consider it as a means of promoting conciliation. As we have already seen, the author of the system was utterly mistaken as to the propose for which it would be used, and I propose to show now that he was equally mistaken as to the method in which it would be used. In moving the second reading (in
There can be no doubt as to which of these members had the clearest conception of the probable outcome of the measure—the tiger has indeed lain down with the lamb-inside and the smile on his face is very broad. Three years ago the present writer contended that as a means of promoting conciliation the system had failed, and that the Boards of Conciliation should be abolished; and within the last few days the Premier has practically admitted this, although, instead of blaming the unionists, he blames the boards.
Reverting to our question, then, we can have no hesitation about saying that as a means of promoting the settlement of labour dispute by conciliation, this scheme, so far from being a success, has been an almost complete failure. The position, then, is this: that the measure intended to serve the same purpose as the Massachusetts system—namely., the settlement or prevention of strikes and lock-outs and disputes likely to result in such—has completely missed its object. If it can be sa.id to be a success, it must be in some quite different way from that intended. Now, we know there has been a general disposition in the community to take for granted that the system was a success; employers thought of nothing beyond being left in peace to make the belt of the good times while they lasted, and they were ready to concede almost any demands of their men, believing that they could reimburse themselves by raising prices. Thus it was that so many of them wen inclined at first to regard the system with a certain amount of favour. As a class, they have shown singularly little provision, and an almost total disregard for their common interests. In the past, the leading characteristic of the average New Zealand employees, was fairness towards his employees, and for some time after the new system came into operation this continued; but it is now giving way to a tendency to hold aloof and to concede nothing more than the law compels; whilst, as between employers and employees, there as been almost a total absence of that spirit of combination for common defence which saved the English engineering trade in
Our conclusions, then, so far are that, as a scheme intended for the substitution of conciliation and arbitration for strikes and lock-outa in real industrial disputes, the system tem has never been tried, and therefore to speak of it as either a success or a failure is a misuse of terms, and that as a scheme for the promotion of conciliation it is a failure. I am convinced that no one who has followed the reasoning with competent knowledge of the nature and working of the system can fail to admit the correctness of these conclusions; but it must be observed that I do not say the net has been a failure. What I do say is that, if it is success, it is not as that which it was intended to be, but as something quite different. It follows that those who describe the system as a success by reason of its securing to us immunity from strikes are either wilfully or ignorantly misrepresenting the facts. The very title of the book, "A Land Without Strikes," is misrepresentation, inasmuch as it implies that the system has been completely effectual in the settlement of disputes which would otherwise have resulted in strikes, whilst the fact is that no one can say it has ever been invoked in such a case. When the then Premier of New South Wales, Sir W. J. Lyne, met a deputation opposing the introduction of the system into that colony with what he apparently considered the conclusive answer that in New Zealand the system bad been satisfactory, because "it had put a stop to strikes," he was simply showing how utterly ignorant he was of the subject.
Let us now proceed to consider the actual working of the system, and whether it can be described as a success. Although it is incorrect to say that "it has put a stop to strikes, the fact remains that during the period the act has been in operation New Zealand has been a "land without strikes," I am prepared to go the length of admitting that the probabilities are that but for the existence of the act we should have had one or more strikes. Is it then correct after all to say that the act has prevented strikes? Have we simply been splitting straws all the time? By no means the act was in to be applied, like the Massachusetts system, for the prevention of strikes in the sense of providing the means of settling disputes resulting in or likely to result in strikes or look-outs. If the system has prevented strikes it has done so by reason of its being worked not as a method of settling disputes arising in the ordinary course, but as a method of enabling unions to get up factitious "disputes" for the express purpose of having them adjudicated upon by a court of law. Herein lies the—whole crux of the question. This is one way of "preventing" strikes, but it is not the way contemplated by the author of the measure nor by the Parliament that enacted it. Still, the question is whether it has been successful, and we should have had no fault to find with those who declare that it has been successful had they not used terms implying that the system had been used, and successfully used, in the settlement of disputes in the ordinary sense. That it has been successful as a system for getting up "disputes" for the express purpose of having them adjudicated upon there is no doubt; but the real question is whether a system which "beneficia strikes" in the way is necessarily beneficial. We have now succeeded in making clear the absurdity of describing as a method of preventing strikes a system used for an entirely different purpose—namely, the regulation of all the details of trade and industry by the deerees of a statutory court of law made under the pretence of settling disputes-disputes got up for the express purpose of being submitted to the court, and which in all probability would never have been thought of but for the fact that the existence of the court prompted them.
What we have to inquire about, then, is the success or failure of a scheme, not for preventing strikes, but for the control and regulation of the trade and industries of the country with the object of making strikes impossible-two very different things; and the real question is whether immunity from strikes is a matter of such transcendent importance as to make it worth our while placing the regulation of our industries under the control of a court of Jaw. That is the real question, and books like "A
Let us see what it means in actual practice. During the period of less than six years that the act has been in actual operation a multitude of disputes have been "faked up" under it, and there is scarcely an industry or trade in the colony that is not subject to restrictions imposed by an award of the court at the instigation of the unions, and in a sense at their dictation, inasmuch as they can call upon the court to adjudicate upon any question they think proper to raise affecting any industry. There is scarcely an employer in the colony that is not subject to an award of some kind, and many are subject to quite a number of awards at the same time; in the engineering trade, for example, an engineer may be hedged round by seven different awards. The modus operandi is very simple. A meeting of the union in any industry, from shipping or coal mining to hair-dressing or shirtmaking, is held. A long list of demands is drawn up, and great ingenuity and resource is shown in formulating them so as to cover the formulating details of the trade. This list of demands is sent to the employers in the trade, and in case of any of them refusing of ignoring the demands, a "dispute" is held to have arisen within the meaning of the act, and the machinery is put in motion for the "settlement" of the "dispute." As a rule many of the employers, and those of the employed who do not belong to the union are not aware of the existence of the "dispute" until they see some reference to it in a newspaper. In many instances the so-called trades union is as purely factious as the "dispute," inasmuch as it is formed for the express purpose of getting up the dispute. And so the formation of unions, the getting up of "disputes," and the settlement or the adjudication of them goes merrily on. If the act was intended simply to provide the means of getting up disputes for the express purpose of being adjudicated upon, regardless of ultimate consequences, then it must be pronounced a success; but I have shown clearly that it was intended for quite a different purpose. It cannot be said to have failed (except in so far as its object was the promotion of conciliation) inas-much as it has never been tested for its proper purpose. Neither has it been a success for that purpose, but it does not follow that it may not have been a success in a different and perhaps better way. This is what we have now to consider.
The position, then, is this: that the people of New Zealand find in active, very active, of New Zealand find in active, very active, operation amongst them a system which controls and regulates all the industries of The country in a manner that neither the people nor the Legislature intended; that the system has been diverted from its purpose in this way by the unionists, who from a comparatively small proportion of the population, and furthermore by a comparatively small proportion of the unionist—namely, the agitators or wire-pullers amongst them. As we shall see further on, the system has been thus perverted to serve the ends of one particular class, the unionists. From their point of view and as a means of securing political support for their Government the scheme has been a decided success; but the real questions are: Has it been a success in the sense of being beneficial to the country as a whole? Is it likely to be, or is there any chance of its being a success in this sense?
If the system had been put to the test, say once in each of the six year it has been in force, for the purpose of settling strikes, we might by this time have been justified in forming an opinion as to its success. But since it has not once been put to the test, no man of competent knowledge, and having a due sense of responsibility, would commit himself to any opinion on subject. When one finds the Premier of a great colony—the mother colony—expressing himself thus in reference to it: "Whatever will prevent the repletion of strikes is an absolute success, and they have prevented strikes in New Zealand—from whatever cause they have done it," one can only exclaim with Oxenstiern, "with how little wisdom is the world governed?" If we have prevented strikes in New Zealand we have achieved this object, not in the way we intended, but by subjecting all our industries to regulation in every detail by a court: if Sir W. J Lyne had been aware to such a statement? One can understand unionists of the Marxian school of socialism taking up such a position, but not a Minister of the Crown who makes prestensions to statesmanship. No man is justified in describing the system as a success either as a means of preventing striks or as a scheme of trade regulation. Mr Reeves said, "It will take
Objection will probably be taken to my describing the Court of Arbitration as a court of law for dictating to employers and regulating industries at the instigation and dictation of unions, but the terms are perfectly justifiable. In the first place, the court has unconsciously allowed itself to be diverted from the purpose for which it was intended by the Legislature—the settlement of real disputes and not mere factitious demands. This was done at the instance of the unions. The result is that a union that has been in existence only seven days, and probably consists of only seven youths or girls, can invoke the aid of the court for the purpose of enabling them to dictate terms to their employers, and to interfere in the carrying on of his business down to the minutest details. And the court has completed its own transformation by ordering employers to give a preference of emploument to unionists! The system is in its very nature to a large extent one-sided, but the court has made it completely so. The result is that instead of a court for the settlement of strikes, we have the sorry spectacle of a Supreme Court judge perambulating the colony from end to end, inflicting paltry fines upon employers for offences which have no existence in the jurisprudence of any other civilized country—offences that have no existence apart from the award of the court that created them at the instance of trades unions. The act says there is to be no appeal from this modern Star Chamber and so far as the employer is concerned there is no appeal; but the unions have an appeal, in spite of the act, to the People's Government and the trades union Parliament, and they never appeal in vain to that quarter. If, for example, the court refuses the demand for a reduction of hours from 48 to 44 without reduction of wages a bill is brought in for that purpose, or if the court boggles about its jurisdiction to grant preference to unionists the question is straightway settled by statute. Surely never outside of Baratarea was such a court ever seen or imagined; and yet the court goes on its way, trying hard to look dignified as it hurls its mimic thunderbolts against some wicked master baker for the heinous offence of employing some hungry boy guilty of the offence of being a nonunionist: fined 5s, with costs! Employers had better take warning, for this court had the power of inflicting a fine up to £500 and the next offender may not get off so lightly!
When one learns that nearly every industry in the colony has its award, one begins to see a strong resemblance between such awards and the "Statute of Labourers" of Tudor tyrant, and to wonder whether the most progressive country in the world (in its own estimation) has gone to the fourteenth century for its notions of political economy. In New Zealand, methods essentially the same as those used in the fourteenth century by masters against men are now being used by workers against employers. In the fourteenth century, a Parliament of masters, because of the "insolence of the servants," who asked for higher wages than had been previously paid, "to the great detriment of the lords and commons." Ordained that no person should refuse to labour for the same wages they were accustomed to receive in the twentieth year of the King's regin (
This wonderful ordinance of the English masters remained on the Statute Book over 200 years, and for some time the fines and forfeitures levied under it formed a large source of Royal revenue; but in spite of Kings and Parliaments, and pains and penalties-even to branding of the forehead with a red-hot iron—it became impossible to enforce the law, for wages kept rising in spite of all. The landowners complained that the law was entirely inoperative, and Parliament obediently made further enactments; and in
In obedience to the demand of the unions, our act has been altered almost every session—not for the purpose of lessening its inevitable one-sidednees and unfairness to employers, but for the purpose of rendering it more efficient as a weapon of offence them. In fact, its most essential features have been recast. Under the act of
Then follows a specimen of coercive legislation so perfect in its way as to be worth quoting in full:—"In case either of the parties shall interrupt the relationship of employer and employed by the dismissal of any of the employees, or by any of the employees discontinuing work, the onus of proving that such discontinuance of work or such dismissal was not done in contravention of section 100 shall be on the employer if he dismisses as aforesaid, and shall be on the employee if he discontinues work as aforesaid. And yet Mr Reezes fondly imagines he can trace the features of his beloved offspring in this monster! I sincerely hope he may not have to admit that he regrets having fathered it.
Dominationis in alios servitium suum Mercedem dant.
Having show, I think conclusively, that the system is no and never can be, a success for the purpose for which it was intended, I propose to consider the chance or possibility of its being a success as a system for the regulation of industries. A glance at an award will show the lines upon which the court proceeds under the guidance of the unions. The two points upon which the unions have insisted most strenuously are the minimum (living) wage and monopoly of employment for unionist. But, besides these, the court deals with all the usual aims trades unions, such as reducing the hours of work, limitation of number of apprentices, and making indenturing compulsory, abolition of payment by the piece and of overtime, etc. The first thing to note, then, is the enormous power of the unions: the act gives them the right to call upon the court to adjudicate (practically ligislats) upon any subject, however important or however insignificant, and the right might as well be exclusive, for the employers never exercise it, and probably never will, and the court has made the unions masters of the situation by granting them monopoly of employment, as this has led to great increase in their numbers.
It has been truly said that unionism must dominate Parliament if it is not controlled by Parliament, and in New Zealand for some years it has dominated the government, and through it the Parliament. The ultimate aim of the ringleaders in the conspiracy is to dominate the employers and control all the industries of the colony; and Parliament has deliberately furthered their aims, whilst the court, by awarding preference to unionsist, has unconsciously played into their hand. They have achieved their object, and the employers from end to end of the colony feel themselves to be at their mercy. This is no exaggeration, but a sober statement of fact. Is it possible or conceivable that such a system can be a success?
If the teachings of history have any value at all, there is a strong presumption against the success of legislative and other artificial attempts such as this to fix wages and otherwise arbitrarily regulate the production and distribution of wealth; and this presumption is almost raised to a certainty when the attempt is made by means of a system so completely controlled by unionism as the New Zealand system is. In New Zealand, as in the other colonies, and in the United States, there is amongst the working classes generally a growing tendency towards socialism of a vague kind; whilst the leaders of unionism are, with probably few exceptions, influenced by the materialistic socialism of Karl Marx. They regard Marx's "Capital" as their Bible and accept as infallible truths fallacies which have been exploded over and again, and doctrines which Marx himself admitted toward the end of his life to be erroneous. Many of them accept as gospel the asserted right of the worker to the whole produce of industry, which has been called "the fundamential revolutionary conception of our time," and consequently they regard the capitalist as the vampire that sucks the blood of the workers. They accept as beyond question Marx's teaching as to class warfare, which sees in society simply a war of classes for the possession of material adventages, and regards the capitalist as a stranger and an enemy; it is not justice they demand for the workers, but power, looking forward to the time when the workers, organised into federated unions and societies, most obtain complete control of the government of the country and of all the instruments of production. They also echo his contempt for patriotism: the union and the interests of one particular class have taken the place of patriotism, and there is good reason to believe that many of the leaders are pro-Boer in their sympathies.
Unionism in New Zealand has become a triple tyranny—the ringleaders and agitators tyrannise over the general body of unionists: the unionists, who are only a minority of the workers have established a tyranny over the workers generally, and they exercise almost complete control over the Ministry and the Legislature. They are at present concentrating all their efforts upon one object—to compel employers to use their capital according to the determinations of the unions, dictated through the Court of Arbitration, and in the meantime to give the least possible return to the employers for wages received.
The submissiveness of the general body to a small clique has always been characteristic of unionism. "There is too little individual thought or volition among them, and that little is rarely courageous. They follow others, thinking they are going with the majority, when in truth often half the majority are ignorant or reluctant, the impulse being given by a small, often unwise, sometimes selfish and dishonest clique. There is, perhaps no such through oligarchy as that often to be found among trades unions." In order that they may coerce the employers, they are content to surrender their individual liberties and individual judgments, and they show no resentment, however dictatorial may be the rule exercised over them by their self-constituted leaders. This feature of unionism generally is specially characteristic of the peculiar variety created and fostered in New Zealand, inasmuch as the preference of employment to unionists compels large numbers to join the ranks who would much prefer to retain their liberty. A solidarity which is quite artificial and unreal is made the pretext for tyranny. Not only over members, but also over nonunionists.
We have already seen how completely the unions have captured Parliament; this is entirely the work of a few wire-pullers, who arrange the "tikets" at elections, and succeed in imposing themselves, not only on the unionists, but upon the workers generally. At our last general election, for example, the wire-pullers consummated a secret alliance of the labour party with the Roman Catholics and the liquor interest, by means of which they succeeded in foisting upon the constituencies members of whom they were in some cases ashamed when they came to know them. But there are indications now of a determination on the part of the other classes to throw off this infamous tyranny of aminority of a minority—this government within the government.
With such a spirit animating trade unionism, it was inevitable that our system of conciliation and arbitration should be perverted info an instrument of tyranny over employers; and the action of the court in granting the right of preference to unionists presents an instance of fatuity that would be difficult to parallel. But it is inconceivable that such a detestable tyranny as the leaders of unionism are striving to establish can long be tolerated. It has been said that labour passes through three states—when it is enslaved, when it is free, and when it is tyrannical in New Zealand it has reached the third stage.
One of the features of new unionism generally is its contempt for the old unionism, and especially for its encouragement of thrift and self-help. The inculcation of thrift is looked upon with coldness, if not with aversion, by our New Zealand variety of unionism as, indeed, it is by materialistic socialism generally. Experience shows that amongst the workers as rule, thrift goes with unselfishness and a sense of duty and responsibility and unthrift with selfishness and self-indulgence. The whole tendency of unionism amongst us is to destroy in the worker the one thing on which his manliness and his chance of real happiness depend, by disparaging the old unionist idea that it is a man's duty to carry at least his own burden; it tens also to discourage the foresight and self-control which form one of the elementary factors of morality—"a quality in moral character which determines the happiness or misery of them who possess or do not posses it, in a way that goes far deeper into life than by mere success or failure in laying by a sum of money." The difference between the old unionism and colonial unionism is clearly seen in their different attitudes towards the question of old age pensions, the tendency with us being to look to the State for everything and to discourage self-reliance. It is still more clearly seen in the fact that amongst the unionists in New Zealand there is almost complete indifference to real co-operation, which in England has made such remarkable progress in recent years. The whole tendency of our boasted labour legislation is to discourage real co-operation, and one of the worst evils of our arbitration system is that it tens, not only to divided permanently employers and wage-earners into two hostile camps, and to render it more and more difficult for the wage-earner to becaome an employer, but also to segregate the wage-earners more and more from the other classes in the community.
Such are the general tendencies and character of unionism of the colonial type and it must be admitted that the probabilities are against the success of a system of conciliation and arbitration in which unionism has such a preponderating influence. Coercion and class-warfare are of the very essence of it, and we can now see that failure was the inevitable fate of any system based upon conciliation. Unionism, like other institu-
The quality of our unionism strengthens enormously the presumption against the success of the system as one for the regulation of trade and industry by legal decree. In "Industrial Democracy, a book that is re garded as the very gospel of unionism, we read:—"The economist and the stateman will judge of trade unionism, not by its results in improving the position of a particular section of workemen at a particular time, but by its effects on the permanent efficiency of the nation.' Is it to be expected that unionism, imbued with such a spirit as I have described, can promte the efficiency of labour? However it may be elsewhere, there can be no doubt of this—that unionism in New Zealand does not even Profess to have any such aim, and that its whole tendency and influence is in the opposite direction. If it be true that unionism, like government, is to be measured by the men it eventually makes, not by the advantages, it immediately confers, them colonial and the new unionism generally stand condemned.
The authors of "Industrial Democracy," a their advocacy of the cause of unionism, find themselves compelled to make an important disclaimer of certain abuses which they describe as mere accidents, and which, according to them, form no part of the policy of unionism. On behalf of English unionism they disclaim the following:—The exclusive right to a trade, the restriction of the number to a trade, the restriction of the number of apprentices, the objection to piece work, the objection to the introduction of improved machinery, the "ca' canny" principle and interference with management.
Now, most people will be inclined to doubt whether even English unionism is entitled to this disclaimer; but it is certain that colonial unionism, and especially the bastard New Zealand variety, is not entitled to it. The whole spirit of unionism in New Zealand is to give the employer as little value as possible for the maximum amount of wages. To say that this is true of all unionists would, of course, be a libel on many excellent men who are unionists; but may reference is to the general spirit and tendency of the system. Employers are fully convinced that, whatever the theory may be, there is a good deal of "ca' canny" in actual practice. Judge Backhouse, the New south Wales Commissioner in his report, mentions a case in New Zealand in which the offence had been sheeted home: and the value of the disclaimer of Dr and Mrs Webb on this point may be judged from the following facts: Sir Hiram Maxim gave an instance of a small gun-attachment which the union committee classified as a-day-and-aquarter-job. He invented a machine to make it, but the men would produce the piece only in a day and a-quarter, even with the machine. He then hired a German workman, who easily produced 13 pieces a day. It is only necessary to add that Dr and Mrs Webb admit that the "ca canny" rule is an "adulteration of labour" which may "easily bring about the final runin of personal character."
The limitation of the number of apprentices is a subject on which New Zealand unionism insists very strongly, and almost every award of the court imposes such restrictions; and yet our authors describe it as "undemocratic methods, and fundamentally unsound in its financial aspects."
To see how little New Zealand unionism is entitled to the disclaimer of interference with management, one has only to read the demands filed by the unions and the award of the court. That court has stretched its enormous power of interference even beyond its very wide legal jurisdiction by ordering an employer, on the demand of the union, to reinstate certain unionists whom he had dismissed. As an instance of interference on the part of a union, I give the following specimen of a letter from the secretary of a union to an employer:—
"Mrs___ "Dear Mdame.—I have been instructed by the___Industrial Union to inform you that unless Miss___(to whom you gave one week's notice without just cause whatever, after being in your employ for a considerable number of years) is reinstated within three days from date, further proceedings will be taken by the above union. "I have also the honour, as secretary, of forwarding you the log, which is enclosed, and agreed upon by this union, to which we shall be pleased to hear of your answer on Saturday, June 1 inst. Failing that, we intend to file the statement immediately after that date. I am, dear madam,—Your truly,
This is an example of what employer are getting used to in the way of interference (to put it mildly) in the Land without Strikes; the case is interesting also as an illustration of the way in which a "dispute" is got up for conciliation. Down to the minutes details the unions interfere with management: in a reference filed by the tramway employees, one of the demands is, "That employees be allowed to smoke when the car is not in motion!"
Call that which is just equal, not that which is equal just.—Greek proverb.
The result of our investigation up to this point has been to find that a system intended by Parliament as one for the settlement of strikes has proved in actual practice to be an arrangement for placing the regulation of all trade and industry under the control of the unions exercised through a court created for the purpose. The union leader is constituted a Lycurgus, organising things according to his own ideas, and he is busily engaged in framing a constitution for a society composed of consumers, employers, and wage-earners, amongst whom he undertakes to distribute wealth as be thinks proper. How little consideration the consumer receives either from the unions or from the court we still see further on. The unions assert and exercise through the court the right to say what wages all classes of workers are to receive and what work they shall give in return; and the question arises whether this is practicable in a community not founded upon pure Socialism, but upon private property, and ostensibly upon freedom of contract, and in which industries are carried on by private employers at their own risk and with their own capital. This attempt is made by arbitrarily fixing a minimum wage for each industry, and it is probably not the least use arguing with the workers that all such efforts to enrich one class at the expense of another are wholly unceonomic; for they would probably reply, So much the better': nor is it any use expecting to convince them that the only way to permanently raise wages is to increase production. For the teachings of history and economies not only the unionists, but the delegates they send to Parliament, have the most profound contempt; and so it is useless to prove that such arbitrary devices to increase wages are as ineffectual as were the "Statute of Labourers" and the conspiracy laws to keep wages down. The unionist refuses to believe that wages are proportioned to the productivity of industry and the aboudance of capital, and that whatever tends to restrict output, whether it be legislation or union regulations, reacts in the long run upon the worker. Unfortunately for the worker the tendency of unionism has been to lead him to look upon wages as so much money extracted from the capitalist, and to regard the capitalist as an enemy to be despoiled; whereas facts show that if the interests of capital and labour are not identical they are certainly not antagonistic: they are reciprocal. The real antagonism is between employer and employer. There is reason to fear that the evil done by unionism infostering this spirit of antagonism far morethan countervails any good they do a country which has been described as the Paradise of the worker's, the agitators tell him that he is unjustly treated that he has a right to more than he receives, that the only obstacle to his obtaining more is the employer, and that the way to extract it is by coercion. Such teaching is especially mischievous in a country such as New Zealand, where the people are omnipotent. Unionism has its uses, but as an instrument of socialistic warfare it is utterly mischievous. At present this is carried on by means of legislation directed against capital through the Arbitration Court.
By means of incessant labour legislation and everlasting disputes capital is kept in a state of uncertainty and perturbation, but the union leaders either refuse to cognise the fact or glory in it. They it the idea of frightening capital, and call it a "bogey" set up by the employers just as they laughed at the "bogey" of foreign competition in the engineering lock-out of
In England the danger is proving to be so real that a scheme is now on foot send union delegates abroad to see for themselves and report to their deluded con freres. In France the Socialist Labour party is actively engaged in labour legislation, and M. Millerand, the representative of that party in the Ministry, has found it necessary to warn them of the danger of frightening capital into taking flight. In New Zealand there are urmistakable signs that capital is becoming alarmed, but nothing short of actual experience can bring conviction to the averange unionist, whilst as for the agitator ho glories in frightening captital.
At present the unions are concentrating their efforts mainly upon two objects—using the court for the purpose of securing preference for unionists sod getting a minimum wage fixed in every trade. They seem to think that the decree of the court can maintain a "living" wage in spite even of bad times. We could forgive to unionism a great deal if it tended to promote the efficiency of labour, but it cannot and does not make any such pretension. There can, indeed, be no doubt that the joint effect of the minimum wage and the preference to unionists is very much in the opposite direction. Formerly the unions consisted of the elite of the workmen, be cause the policy was to exclude men who were not worth the standard wage; but this is now impossible. The effect of this is to countervail whatever tendency union-
The evil effects of the minimum wage (especially when combined with preference, whilst membership of a union is no guarantee of competence) are obvious. In the first place, although the fixed wage is a minimum, it is to be expected that the minimum will tend to become the maximum. An employer compelled to pay some of his men more than they are worth is certain to pay good men less than they are worth, unless the demand for labour is so great as to make this impossible. This tendency is admitted by the authors of "Industrial Democracy," and our experience in New Zealnd shows this to be the actual result. The skilled workman, who is naturally inclined to take pleasure in the full exercise of his skill, and who is probably too high spirited to submit to union tyranny, is affronted to find that the duffer at his elbow, who perhaps works on the "ca," canny" principle, receives the same wage as himself. The effect of this upon the industry of the country must be very serious; but what is most serious is the effect upon the character and efficiency of the worker. The effect upon apprentices must be most pernicious; knowing that as soon as he becomes a journeyman he become entitled to the minimum wage, the apprentice has no incentive to improve himself and carry on his education. Decline of efficiency is inevitable, and I am informed by employers in the building trade that within the last few years it has been so marked that, in estimating the cost of work, they have to allow for three men where formerly they allowed for only two, If this be really the effect of unionism and regulation of industry by law, then there could be no greater condemnation, for it is not only our industries that are endangered, but the character of our people, and even civilization itself.
Let us now proceed to consider some of the more direct effects of the minimum wage. The unions strenuously claim credit for the general rise in wages; but there is good reason to believe that in many cases it has been attained not by means of unionism, but in spite of it—by reason of the increase of production, by the increased use of machinery, and improved methods of work. As to the fact of the increase there is no doubt: not only the nominal (money) wages but the real wages have increased, because the prices of the necessities and conveniences of life have tended to decrease even more than nominal wages have increased. That this is the tendency under conditions of freedom there is no doubt; but can the same be said under a system used for the purpose of artificially and arbitrarily raising wages? The answer must be in the negative so far as the New Zealand experiment is concerned. Nominal (money) wages have been raised in many instance by the court, but even unionists admit that prices have gone up in a greater proportion. The ultimate outcome is that real wages (i.e, number of commodities that can be bought with the money wages) have not increased. A natural rise of wages does not increase prices or diminish profits but an arbitrary rise tends to produce both of effects, and the only way of increasing the income and improving the material condition of the wage-earner is through a natural and permanent advance of real wages. The worker's standard of living
The recent history of the boot trade in New Zealand presents a lesson which even the unionists are taking to heart. It will be remembered that the court, having regard to the effect of the importation of American goods upon the local industry, refused to raise the minimum wage. What is the result? That the workers, recognising the impossibility of keeping up wages by decree of the court, have joined the employers in sending two operatives to the United States to learn the American system. Here, then, is a case in which even unionists have been constrained to admit that neither acts of Parliament, nor awards, nor further protection could enable them to compete with the Americans, and that the only way is to increase and cheapen production.
The same thing must happen in all industries in which foreign competition can operate. There are, no doubt, some industries in which it is possible to maintain a minimum wage by raising prices, and in some trades there has existed what can only be described as a conspiracy between the unionists and the employers (to which the Conciliation Boards and the court have been parties) against the interests of the public as consumers. But, after all, the workers themselves constitute by far the larger proportion of the consumers, so that an increase of (nominal) wages gained at the cost of an equal (and probably greater) increase in the cost of necessaries is no real benefit to them, whilst such an increase is positively unfair to other classes in the community. Here we come face to face with, one of the fundamental objections to the minimum wage—the fact that it does not give the first place to the interest of the consumer. No one objects to the unions seeking to obtain for the workers a greater share of the social wealth of the community, but when they try to attain this end at the expense of other classes or otherwise than by increasing the wealth of the community their influence is wholly mischievous.
There is one class in particular that has all to lose and nothing to gain by the action, of the unions, and the Court of Arbitrations, and, indeed, by our boasted labour; legislation generally—the farmers, the most important class in the community. Agriculture, according to a Chinese proverb, is the root of the social tree, and manufacture: and trade are merely the branches. I remember seeing a pictorial presentation of the same idea in a country storekeeper's almanao, where the clergyman was represented as praying for all, the advocate as pleading for all, the soldier as fighting for all, whilst the farmer at his plough came last, saying "I work for all." When the unionist mechanic, who makes the farmer's plough, applies to the court for an increase of wages, he imagines he can overcome all objection by suggesting an equal increase in the price of the plough; and when the statutory Providence to whom we have entrusted the regulation of all our industries ventures mildly to suggest that an increase in the price might reduce work by increasing importations, the unionist is ready with his favourite remedy—more protection by increase of duty; or if the industry in question happens to be one in which the farmer's produce forms the raw material the unionist will suggest that the difficulty might be met by a reduction in the price paid to the producer—the farmer. This actually happened in the case of the tanners when a reduction in the price of hides was suggested! And yet the unionists and yet unionists Premier think the farmers should not form unions. Self-protection is the utmost the poor farmer can hope to achieve by forming unions, for neither the statutory Providence that presides over the sublime Court of Arbitration, nor the omnipotent Parliament itself can fix a minimum price for the farmers' oats, his wheat, or we mutton, or his wool. No, not even if the Trades and Labour Council gave them permission to fix a minimum price and vouchsafed to the farmers the official countenance and support of the Labour party.
Even the unionists themselves are beginning to have a doubt as to the practicability of fixing and maintaining a minimum age by ordinance, and it is beginning to dawn upon them that they may eventually "have
One of the favourite arguments of the agitator, termed advocate, is the enormous increase in house rents, which he, of course, attributes to the rapacity of the landlords. The landlord may have to pay about one-third more for material and labour in order that the worker may receive higher wages, but he must not raise the rent; and in order to reduce rents the Government or the municipality must build houses to be let to the poor workers at low rents! At all hazards the wage-earner must be saved from the consequences of his own action. If the wicked capitalists button up their pockets and refuse to make work for him then the Government must do it! As for the farmers and other classes who suffer equally in consequence of increased prices, they are not worth considering!
Such are some of the difficulties incidental to attempts to fix arbitrarily the rate of wages. Another evil inseparable from the minimum wage is the hardship it entails upon the elderly and the slow workman. In many cases employers are anxious to keep on faithful workmen when they are past their best, and are no longer worth the minimum wage, but of course at a lower wage. But this is not business, but mere kindliness, and it is not allowed by the unions: such men must become pensioners on the State. We are, of course, aware that the awards make provision for "permits." allowing elderly or slow workmen to take employment at wages less than the minimum. But such a system is open to many objections—it is humiliating to the workmen; and, except when the demand for labour is exceptional, employers prefer to have nothing to do with men who are neither worth the minimum nor free to take work at a wage which the worker himself, as well as the employer, may consider fair. It pays the employer better to pay the minimum to good men than to pay less to inferior men. Many a deserving man has had to endure bitter humiliation and hardship from the operation of the minimum wage in Victoria, and there the system has utterly broken down.
An instance of this has been brought under my notice as I write. An employer in Christchurch was keeping on one of his workmen when he was over 70 years of age, and paying him 7s a day. The unionists came along and insisted upon the employer paying the minimum wage, and the consequence was that the workman had to be turned adrift. The unionists will no doubt say he can get an old-age pension; and if he cannot, he is entitled to charitable aid!
We have yet to learn that there are some demands which can only be made by madmen and listened to by fools, and this demand for a minimum wage in all industries seems to be one of them. At the root of it lies the Utopian cry "Equality and Fraternity," at once preached and discredited by the French Revolution. For Liberty we have substituted Liberalism, which in New Zealand means its opposite; and we are likely to learn by experience the truth of the saying, "Equality may be a right, but no human power can convert it into a fact."' But we may perhaps console ourselves with the reflection that there is a presumption, that what cannot be accomplished ought not to be accomplished.
If hopes are dupes, fears may be liars.
We have been studying the working of a unique experiment in labour legislation, t!:e outcome of which is being closely watched by other countries. In New South. Wales a bill embodying the principle of compulsory arbitration (but without con-cliiation provisions) passed the Legislative Assembly last year, but was lost in the Council. Now, it is perfectly clear from the expressions used by the then Premier, Sir W. J. Lyne, that when he undertook the great responsibility of introducing a measure of such tremendous importance he must have been quite ignorant of the real nature and outcome of our act. It is indeed comical, and says little for the statesmanship of New South Wales, and indeed of the other Australian colonies, that their politicians should be so ready to slavishly follow the example of New' Zealand in this and other matters. It reminds one of our own action during the last Melbourne boom, when New Zealand was sunk in depression and we thought of nothing but studying and imitating the means by which the supposed marvellous prosperity of Victoria
Turning now to Judge Backhouse's report, the first thing that occurs to one is the strange fact that a judge should have been sent upon such a mission rather than an experienced business man. It shows clearly that those who selected him must have thought that what he had to report upon was a system for the settlement of real disputes, and not one for the regulation of industry. It is much to be regretted that the judge has failed to make it clear that he realised the difference between what he expected to find and what he actually did find. The omission renders his report not only of comparatively little value, but positively, misleading. He refers over and over again to "the principle of the act," and informs Ms Government and the people of the colony that in New Zealand "a very large majority of the employers interviewed are in favour of the principle of the act "; and yet he nowhere points out the divergence from the principle in actual practice—that, in point of fact, the principle has never been applied at all. The principle of which the employers approve is that for which the act was intended, not that to which it has been perverted. If the judge were to return to New Zealand he would find that the employers are only now realising what the act means in its actual application, and that they are as far as possible from approving of it; he would find, instead, that the feeling is rapidly spreading in the community that if the act continues to be abused it must become a curse and a nuisance, instead of what it was intended to be—a blessing. If the judge had exercised any penetration and sagacity he could not have failed to discover that what he found in operation is not a system for the settlement of industrial disputes (in the ordinary and proper sense), but one essentially the same as that existing in Victoria; the differences being that in Victoria the boards are serving the purposes for which they were created (for good or for ill), whilst our boards and court are serving a very different purpose from that for which they were created. And the Victorian system is much more rational m conception than ours. What is the reason that our system places a Supreme Court judge at the head of the Court of Arbitration, is simply that his function was intended to be the settlement of strikes ana ([,Spu likely to issue in strikes. Is it to be supposed that, if the New Zealand Legislature had intended to create an authority regulating all the conditions of industry, it
If the New South Wales Government had appointed as its commissioner a business man of some perspicacity, who could see the true inwardness of our system for himself, instead of a judge, who merely summarises what he was told, we should probably have received some fresh light upon the subject, and found him arriving at some such conclusions as the following:—
It only remains to add that the writer did his best as a member of the Legislature to secure the passing of the act; that he believed it would prove a beneficent measure, and still believes it would have so proved had it not been perverted to improper uses; that he has watched it closely from its inception, hoping against hope that it might yet fulfil its promise and justify the expectations of its author; that he has been reluctantly driven to the con-
Printed at the Otago Daily Times Office, High Street, Dunedin.
Senator Sir That the Bill be now read a second time.Josiah Symon (South Australia-Attorney-General) move—
In moving the second reading of this Bill, I recognise, as we all must do, the great importance of the measure. Whilst setting a high value on the principle and purpose of the Bill, I cannot help thinking that as to its immediate practical operation it is viewed, perhaps, with an exaggerated enthusiasm on one side, and with a needless fear or apprehension on the other. I am proud to be in a position to move the second reading. I think it is an honour which any one would appreciate, and which I certainly do very fully appreciate. It will not, I think, be necessar to demonstrate to the Senate the essential principle of the measure. I regard it as a part of that very modern, salutary, and humane legislative effort to substitute in industrial diputes the arbitrament of conciliation, the peaceful arbitrament of an appropriate judicial tribunal, for the violent and barbarous methods of the strike and lock-out. I say violent and barbarous methods, bacause they bring with them all the attendant passion, and sometimes bloodshed and worse even than that—the untold misery and suffering to innocent people, to women and children. Strikes, which, in their origin, may be merely disputes as to rates of wages, may attain the magnitude of civil war. They may involve a revolt against ordered society and peaceful government. It is so, becasue we must remember that the aecustomed remedy for the trouble was force, and force in combination, and that force in combination very often resulted in conflict with the civil authority. These old methods paralyzed industry; they sometimes sxiled workmen form home and country, and gave trade over to the foreigner; they involved untold loss to the community. But beyond and above all these things which I have summarized, and which we all recognise, there were the sufferings of the innocent. Who shall count the tears of the women, or the cries of the children? I have often had in my mind in connexion with the consequences of these methods, which we are at one in desiring to bring to an end if possible, the well-known lines from The Cry of the Children. There is nothing which moves a man like the sufferings of children—there is no motive which appeals.
Powerfully to a man in guiding his course of action, than the distress of the suffering child.
And—
Is it not so? And if that is a fair summary in general of consequences, which every one of us deplores, and the removal of which largely underlies this particular kind of legislation, then, surely, every effort that can be made to give for industrial war the blessing of industrial peace will be welcome? The compelling reasons, I do not say for this Bill, but for similar legislation are to avert injury and loss to employers, to workmen, and to the country and to promote the interests of humanity. We can never escape from national or from international strife. Man, I was going to say, is born to quarrel and to fight—at any rate, one of the finest qualities which mankind possesses is, when held in proper subjection, the combative instinct. It is found in all spheres of society. We know that it reaches the village, and is asserted by the villager—
As we go up and down the scale of social, industrial, and national life, the fighting instinct, the assertion of right, when they ought to be asserted, and the combative instinct prevail. Whilst it is, therefore, a large undertaking to subdue the combative instinct, it should not be so large an undertaking to regulate and minimize it. In international affairs we know that international arbitration has been brought about within recent years. I am afraid it only applies to minor disputes. It is, however, not a modern development, although it is largely of modern application.
Senator Higgs.—The big fellows make the little fellows agree to it; the United States and Venezuela, for example.
Senator Sir The history of international arbitration reached back to the earliest times of classical antiquity, and ran through the Middle Ages, and in our own time the subject had assumed proportions little dreamt of half a century ago.Josiah Symon.—Perhaps the honorable senator is right, but be will see that he uses a two-edged sward. It may equally apply to large organizations in whichever direction they are exercising similair power over the individual or a smaller organization. I merely suggest to
The same constitutionalist said, on the same occasion—
Europe had fallen back upon the plain, less ambitious, but more practical arbitration resting on the consent of the parties to the dispute.
Of course in relation to these matters there must be consent.
And they might hope that its adoption, though it never could abolish war, would at least greatly diminish its frequency.
And he points out a principle which, I think, we might bear in mind, and apply so far as we can to these matters of industrial disputes when he says—
In truth, no internationla authority, with the power to inforce the decrees of the tribunal of arbitration, was either necessary or desirable.
Senator Dawson.—But there is a difference between outside disorder and disorer within one's own territory.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That is so.
Senator Guthrie.—who is the authority quoted?
Senator Sir we are a law abiding people. The people of the Colony respect the law whether some of them like particular laws or not. I do not think the law will be set at defiance by any class of the community.Josiah Symon.—Sir Robert Finalay, the present Attorney-General of England, a gentleman whose qualifications to express an opinion and such a subject from the historical point of view, and from the point of view of juridical principle, cannot be exaggerated. But we know quite well that that feeling largely enters into these matters of national and international disputes, and in graver question there is still, unfortunately, the arbitrament of the sword. The honour of a nation cannot go to arbitratin when I speak of the honour of a nation I fear that we must include in the expression its ambition and its desire of territorial aggrandizement, and
These being the principles applicable, and the objects to be gained, legislation of this sort was introduced in South Australia first in
Senator Playford.—But it was not compulsory.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was going to point that out. I remember very well that when the measure was introduced it was mentioned that there had alredy been a Bill a copy of which was not then to be obtained, introduced in the New South Wales Parliament by the late Sir George Dibbs, then Mr. Dibbs, with the same object. But there can be no doubt of this—that the true credit of having embodied a carefully thought-out scheme on this subject in a most lucid printed Bill belongs to the Right Honorable C. C. Kingston, who, if by nothing else in his public life, deserves by that measure to be permanently held in remembrance. With respect to that I think I may be excused for giving this little personal remimscence. The draft Bill was submitted to me before it was finally in print I regard that as not merely a compliment from Mr. Kingston, who was then in politics while I was not, but as an acknowledgment of a desie which I shared with him at that time, and always have shared, that some effort should be made to secure the arbitrament of a tribunal in respect of industrial disputes in substitution for the methods to which I have already alluded. That Bill was introduced at the end of the session of
Senator Playford.—It was not compulsory.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The Bill has re-introduced in the following year,
Senator McGregor.—With the inside taken out of it.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—My honorable friend Senator Playford has remarked that that measure was not compulsory. I do not agree with my honorable friend Senator McGregor that the inside was taken out of it, bacause the scheme of the Bill was carried as introduced, and the honorable senator who now says that the inside was taken out of it approved of it at that time.
Senator McGregor.—I did nothing of the kind.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The honorable senator said, in the Legislative Councilthat the Bill was not all that he desired, but he concurred in its being passed.
Senator McGregor.—I could not help it.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—There is a difference between opposing a Bill and giving it one's blessing when it is passed by a Chamber of which one is a member. But I frankly acknowledge that many, if not all, holding the views of honorable senators opposite, and belonging to the party which my friend represents, were very slow to give their approval to any system of arbitration, compulsory or otherwise. Because, like other people, the Labour Party had not at that time reached a decisive point of judgment on the subject. I am not at all reflecting upon them. I think that it is desirable that the process of coming, to a conclusion on an important matter of this sort should be slow; and I think all parties on all sides, and all interests, might very well, so to speak, seek time for consideration before making a departure which is very grave and very vital.
Senator Best.—The South Australian Bill made a very substantial advance, though, because it gave the force of law to the enforcement of an award.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was about up point out that. We have an example to England at this moment. One of the most notable conferences of trade unionists has recently taken place at Leeds. It was presided over by a very distinguished unionist, Mr. Bell. A proposal for arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes was defeated by a nearly three to one vote.
Senator Givens.—Why?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—All that I know is that it was defeated.
Senator Givens.—Because they are afraid of the constitution of the Court.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—They may, or may not be; but I do not agree with my honorable friend in his criticisms the other day, and those of Senator de Largie, with regard to our judicial officers.
Senator Dawson.—Not very long ago they objected to eight hours.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I rejoice at the liberalism of trade conditions. I rejoice in the relief that has already been secured; and I rejoice that the efforts that have been made have, in many direction, been so successful. But I believe, at the same time, that there are no men on this planet who rise so completely above the level of local conditions and local influences, who are so absolutely free from bias and so impartial, bending neither to the one side nor to the other, as are the Judges of our country; and I do not believe there is any likelihood of a measure of this sort being defeated by an assumption that the Judges will not do even-handed justice.
Senator Dobson.—I do not think there is a word in the Times report of the Trade Unions Congress which expresses Senator Given's objection-not a syllable.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I merely mention that, not with a view of suggesting that conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes may not be effected in the mother land, but to bear out the remark I have just made in vindication of any hesitation on the part of the labour organizations, in the early stages of this legislation, to accept it. The same slow, gradual process of conviction may, I hope, make itself felt upon the minds of those in England who, by a majority of nearly three to one in the conference to which I have referred, have just negatived a proposal for conciliation and arbitration.
Senator Dawson.—Does the honorable and learned senator suggest that we ought to wait until the minds of people in England are changed?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I am not suggesting that at all.
Senator Best.—Otherwise the honorable and learned senator would not be moving the second reading of this Bill.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Of course not. As my honorable friend Senator Playford has reminded me, there was no compulsion under the first South Australian Act. That Act, unfortunately, was, as a result, largely a dead letter. It depended on registration. Without registration there was no enforceable award. No award was to effect any one who had not submitted. The provisions against strikes were against strikes by, or on the part of, registered associations. That measure, nevertheless, was an enormous advance. In fact, it was the foundation of the subsequent legislation which has been passed elsewhere. But under the conciliation and other provisions of that South Australian measure, there has been, I think I may say, most satisfactory adjustments of various industrial disputes in South Australia.
Senator Guthrie.—Some disputes were prevented by it.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—There cannot be prevention unless there is a dispute.
Senator de Largie.—The Bill may have prevented strikes.
Senator Sir An industrial dispute is a public nuisance to be restrained by law like any breach of the peace.Josiah Symon.—That is another thing that is a distinction to which I hope to invite the attention of honorable senators presently. But until there is a dispute there is nothing to arbitrate upon. The object of the legislation was to prevent strikes. That was the first legislation, so far as South Australia is concerned. In the meantime—before National Review, some time ago—
I should not, myself, have put the principle quite in that form, but Mr. Wise's sentence expresses and conveys to the mind essentially the purpose we seek. To accomplish that object, there can be no doubt—and we cannot disguise the fact—that we do interfere with the liberty of the workman as well as with the liberty of the employer.
Senator de Largie.—Strikes have often been a nuisance to the public.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That is exactly what Mr. Wise points out. Here I should like to say that a great deal of unnecessary comment has been made in respect of some remarks by the Chief Justice of New South Wales. With the permission of the Senate, I shall quote his words which embody his opinion of the effect of this legislation. But the question which always remains is—"Are you justified, to a certain extent, in interfering with individual freedom on the part of employers on the one hand, and employes on the other for the accomplishment of some higher abject?" That is what it all comes back to.
Senator Givens.—All law is an interference with individual liberty.
Senator Sir It is also beyond all question that the Arbitration Act, as enforced in this State, is an Act which is an abrogation of the common law.Josiah Symon.—To a certain extent it is; and, therefore I think that the introduction of heat in reference to the language of Chief Justice Darley was unnecessary. His words embody a true description, but they do not deal with the opposite side of the question. They do not show the other side of the shield. They do not show how far that interference is within proper limits, or how far it is justified by the end in view. He said—
Nobody can deny that.
It does encroach upon the liberty of the subject as regards person and property.
Nobody can deny that.
It creates new crimes unknown to the common law, to any previous statute.
Nobody can deny that. I may say that Chief Justice Darley seems to put the point admirably—
It interferes with the liberty of action of both employer and employe. It precludes the one from giving, and the other from obtaining, employment except upon terms settled by the Court. It has the effect of preventing persons from obtaining
That is, I think, a very fair summary. But it gae rise to a very great deal of animadversion at the time. I reproduce the passage in order to say that I think that that animadversion was rather misapplied and underserved; and that the true inwardness—if I may so express it—of these observations was perfectly within the competence of the learned Judge who made them, and that they really expressed no more than we may very well admit.
Senator McGregor.—But he was expressing an opinion upon legislation which he was supposed to administer.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—And he had a perfect right to express an opinion on the legislation.
Senator Findley.—Not a one-sided opinion, though.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—My honorable friend does not agree with me. I think the opinion is not one-sided.
Senator Givens.—Thehonorable and learned senator himself said that it revealed only one side of the shield.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is not one-sided as to the Arbitration Act itself. But it does not deal with the question whether this interference with liberty may not be wise and necessary, in order to attain some higher end in the public interest.
Senator O'Keefe.—Does not the honorable and learned senator think that Chief Justice Darley's remarks created a wrong impression?
Senator Sir We made careful inquiries as to how the operations of the Act were viewed from both the employers' and workmen's stand-point and met leading representatives of each side. We were much indebted to the right honorable the Premier for amanging a conference for us with the members of the Court, Messrs. Thompson and Slater, representing the employers and workmen repectively, together with several members of the Board of Conciliation for Wellington, with whom we fully discussed the working of the Act. We were assured that the more reasonable class of employers regarded the Act as fairly satisfactory, but there were other employers, however, who complained they had not the same exclusive privileges of managing their businesses as formerly. The Act is certainly popular with the workmen. Speaking at a special meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce on the Josiah Symon.—I really do not think so. At any rate, they produced no wrong impression upon my mind, and I feel quite able to disentangle myself from any possible inference, such as honorable senators opposite seem to draw from them—If saw anything of the kind, which I do not. In New Zealand, in Otago Daily Times to have said that, "personally, he thought the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was a very beneficent one. . . ."
Senator Gray.—Has he not modified that statement since then?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—If he has qualified the statement in any way, I am not aware of it.
Senator Best.—It is only very recently, if he has.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—In any case, I am merely reading the statement as it is given in this report, and I am sure that Mr. Mills, if he comes to know that I have alluded to it, will not think that I am doing him an injustice if I do not mention any qualification, if there is any.
Senator Best.—I do not think so.
Senator Findley.—The conversion has been the other way. Those who were opposed to this legislation at first, now be lieve in it.
Senator Sir "Personally, he thought the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was a very beneficent one, and one of the most important that had been passed, and he felt they were under a debt of gratitude to
Josiah Symon.—Probably it may be said that those who were called in to curse, remained to bless. The report continues—
The whole of the report is very interesting, but that is the passage which more particularly refers to the point we are now considering. In
Senator Trenwith.—But that consideration does not arise anywhere in this Bill.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I think it arises in the inclusion of the railway servants.
Senator Trenwith.—If a dispute extends beyond the boundaries of a State, it is with in our power to intervene.
Senator Sir If this is to be carried out, it will create the greatest possible difficulty and complication, not withstanding which all it does is simply to embody
Josiah Symon.—I am obliged to my honroable friend for reminding me of that consideration, with which I shall deal presently. When the Convention sat, a great many matters were dealt with. It was urged in the first, as well as the closing session, that under certain conceivable circumstances, an industrial dispute in a State might fill the Commonwealth area; might overflow from the State of origin into another State, or other States. It was urged that by overspreading Australia it might assume a national maghitude, so as to be a menace to the nation, and that if that condition of things arose, it was desirable that the whole of the people, as distinguished from the people of one State, should deal with it. Therefore, it was proposed that, in the case of an overspreading dispute of that character, the Commonwealth Parliament should have the power to legislate. I was not in favour of the insertion of the provision in the Constitution. I never ceased to be strongly in favour of applying to these disputes some method of arbitration, but I was not in favour of the introduction of the provision into the Constitution. At the Adelaide session the proposal was defeated, but at the final session in Melbourne it was carried by a majority of only three. On that occasion I said, at page 189—
If that observation can be applied in connexion with all the ordinary industrial affairs, as we understand them, that is on the part of employers, whether individuals or companies, how much more will it apply in relation to the States and their own State enterprises?
Senator Pearce.—And the honorable and learned senator recognised that there was a possiblity of it applying to State enterprises?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No; that never entered my mind.
Senator Peapce.—Why bring forward the objection?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—What I had in contemplation was not State enterprise, conducted by the Government, but the industries of the State, in the ordinary sense of the term.
Senator Pearce.—But the honorable and learned senator just said that he meant that to be included?
Senator Sir Conciliation and Arbitration for the prevention and settlement of injustrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State.Josiah Symon.—No; I did not I was not in favour of the insertion of this provision. Because I felt, and I still think, that it will create difficulties. It will still give trouble in its application. It opens up a vista of litigation, which may be acceptable in some quariers, but not to the general body of the people. In opposing the insertion of this provision in the Constitution, I was in excellent company, because Mr. B. R. Wise took the same view as I did. I think my honorable friends will readily understand that we acted from no narrow point of view when I say that my friend Senator Dobson voted for its insertion and I ought to mention that Senator Trenwith, who voted for its insertion, joined in the debate with an ability which, if he will allow me to say so, he showed throughout the proceedings of the Convention. Well, there the provision is, and, being in the Constitution, it is part of the necessary equipment of the Commonwealth. It is our duty not merely to put it in force, but also to make it effective, if we can. This I regard as a machinery Bill, just as much as some of the other Bills which have been introduced. We may differ on the details, but it is
This Bill recognises in its definition clause that limitation. It is important that we should bear in mind that, according to clause 4—
"Industrial dispute" means a dispute in relation to industrial matters . . . and extending beyond the limits of any one State.
The guiding and governing words which we ought to bear in mind, and to which I shall invite the attention of honorable senators in connexion with another question, are "extending beyond the limits of any one State."
Senator Guthrie.—Are they not the words "prevention and settlemetn"?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is a dispute beyond the limits of any one State, and a dispute of that character only to which the words "prevention and settlement" apply. That is a point in respect to which I desire to remove and possible misapprehension. Honorable senators must not cherish the illusion that this provision enables us to interfere with a dispute while it is yet within the borders of a State. I see that some discussion took place elsewhere on this point, and the words "likely to extend" were used. I venture to say that that is no part of the definition. When we apply our minds to the Bill in Committee, or at any other time, we should avoid running away with the notion that we are dealing with disputes that are "likely to extend" beyond the limits of a State. Extending beyond the limits of a State means that the dispute must have gone outside the borders of the State and into another before this legislation can touch it.
Senator de Largie.—Unless we are invited to deal with a dispute before that takes place.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I am obliged to my honorable friend for his interjection. There is a provision in the Bill which enables the Commonwealth Court to deal with disputes at the request of a State. Whatever the moral effect of that
Senator Givens.—Could not a State appoint a Commonwealth Court to decide the matter for it?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—In my humble opinion, a Commonwealth Court has no power to deal with any dispute that is local—that is within the territorial limits of a State—even if requested by a State Court to deal with it.
Senator Best.—On the principle that consent cannot give jurisdiction.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That is the technical reason. I wish to put it quite clearly as my view—with all deference to any opposing views which may be stated—that the word "prevention" does not enable us to interfere with the industrial troubles of a State on the pretext that they may extend, or are "likely" to extend, beyond its borders.
Senator Trenwith.—How can these words apply if they do not apply in that way? Have they no meaning at all?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—They may or may not have some other application, because "prevention," as used in the Constitution, can never apply to a dispute until it has arisen.
Senator Trenwith.—I think the honorable and learned senator made that point before.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I made that point before. The honorable senator will remember that we were not in the Convention using words by plumb and rule. Everbody recognises that a Constituion is not bound in fetters with the rigidity of even an Act of Parliament. Honorable senators will see that whatever meaning is to be attributed to, and whatever effect is to be given to, the word "prevention," it must be an effect applicable to the kind of dispute to which it applies, namely, a dispute which has overspread into the Commonwealth area, as distinct from the State area.
Senator Dobson.—The Convention had the maritime strike in view.
Senator Guthrie.—That could not possibly have been settled by any one State.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—In Committee, if I can be of any assistance to honorable senators, I shall place my services unreservedly at their disposal in dealing with some points may be suggested which may not arise now, but I am giving my views as fully as possible in submitting what I think is an elucidation of the Bill.
Senator Givens.—We shall make it as good a Bill as we can.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Exactly, and I say I am going to help to do so. Then we come to the next thing which we have to do, and that is to provide for the settlement of these disputes. In making this as good a Bill as we can, we have to bear in mind what it is we are dealing with, namely, disputes extending beyond the limits of a State, because though you cannot prevent a dispute, you can prevent a strike by settling a dispute.
Senator de Largie.—There is no restriction as to the kind of dispute—whether it arises under State enterprise or otherwise.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That is a point on which we may not agree. My honorable friend will bear with me because I intend to deal with that in detail. I think it right to do so as it is one of the most important matters arising under the Bill. I am dealing now merely with what the Convention did. Once a dispute becomes national as distinct from State—as to territorial area, that is what it means, and not as to at nospherical disturbance—we apply the same provisions to it as we should apply if it were purely a State matter dealt with by a State. It becomes Federal and national, and I point out that there is a parallel in one part of the jurisdiction of the High Court, where we have "controversies" as they are called between States. This is exactly in the same position. We are to give jurisdiction to this newly created tribunal in respect of disputes that have gone beyond the boundaries of a State and have extended to another territorial jurisdiction. Having made these general observations on the Constitution and the fashion in which the provision got into it, I may say that those of us who resisted its being put into the Constitution cannot be charged with doing so from any antipathy to the great doctrince of consiliation and arbitration in such disputes.
Senator Guthrie.—The honorable and
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Not at all. I was merely saying, in self vindication, that the opposition to the insertion of these words in the Constitution was not due to any antipathy to conciliation and arbitration, because associated with the opposition to their insertion were such men as Mr. B. R. Wise, who is, we know, the author and one of the strongest advocates of compulsory consiliation and arbitration in New South Wales.
Senator Givens.—Men who voted against their insertion may have done so from entirely different motives.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—What motive could Mr. Wise have had for voting against their insertion?
Senator Givens.—he might have had one motive, whilst some one else might have had another.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I shall tell my honorable friend what I think the motive was. I think it was that we should be very guarded and careful about enlarging the interference of the Federal authority with State affairs. There was in the Convention a jealousy, and a justifiable jealousy, of Commonwealth encroachment upon State rights.
Senator Walker.—Sir Edmund Barton, Mr. Justice O'Connor, and Sir Philip Fysh were also against it.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—In those circumstances, the provision to which I have been referring was inserted. I think, as honorable senators will see, that there may probably be difficulties yet. Quite irrespective of the provision in this Bill with respect to State public servants, the States may be brought into conflict by its operation in other regards. I do not wish to prophesy evilof any sort or description. I hope there may be none. I still, however, adhere to the view I entertained some time ago, that there are possibilities of difficulties which I hope may not arise, but that they exist I think now as I did then.
Senator Guthrie.—The honorable and learned senator will admit that disputes may arise which a State cannot settle.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I am not very sure of that. I should not like to admit that now. I am rather inclined to think that State jurisdiction might settle practically everything. But now that we have this provision it is our duty to assume that
Senator Givens.—It is based on organiszation.
Senator Sir, To prevent lock-outs and strikes in relation to industrial disputes.Josiah Symon.—Quite so. The individual employé and the individual employer, except as defendants, are substantially excluded from its operation. Employers are debarred in just the same way as employés from bringing a dispute before the Court, unless as members of an organization. The Bill does not provide a means for the settlement of disputes between employers and non-associated workmen. Whatever differences there may be between them, there is no means provided by this measure for settling such disputes. It rests, as Senator Givens has very properly said, upon organization. I propose to hurriedly refer to some leading clauses, and then to deal with two very vital and most controversial provision before I close. The objects of the measure are set out in clause 2. They are—
That involves, as I said in my introductory remarks, a reciprocal obligation on the part of the Parliament to provide some other remedy. The other remedy is—
2. To constitute a Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration having jurisdictionfor the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes; 3. To provide for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court by conciliation, with a view to amicable agreement between the parties. 4. In default of amicable agreement between the parties, to provide for the exercise of the jursidiction of the Court by equitable award.
Then there is the provision to which Senator de Largie has alluded—
5. To enable States to refer industrial disputes to the Court, and to permit the working of the Court and of State industrial authorities in aid of each other;
Perhaps I may say, parenthetically, that the reason why I doubt the constitutional efficacy of that provision is that this Commonwealth Court and Commonwealth Legis-
senator Fraser.—We must amend the Constituion first.
Senator Sir 6. To facilitate and encourage the organization of representative bodies of employers and of employès, and the submission of industrial disputes to the Court by organization, and to permit representative bodies of employers and of employès to be declared organizations for the purposes of this Act. 7. To provide for the making and enforcement of industrial agreements between employers and employès in relation industrial disputes.Josiah Symon.—We shall have to amend the Constitution first, it seems to me. Then the objects are further stated to be—
These are the objects. I pass by the definition of "industrial dispute" for a moment, because, to a controversial portion of that, covering the inclusion of public servants of the States, I shall refer presently. The first part of the objects which I have enumerated is carried out by clause 6, which prohibits anything in the nature of a lock-out or a strike. There is a penalty provided under the clause, but as honorable senators will find on referring to clause 50, it also involves certain disabilities in addition to the penalty set out in clause 6.
Senator Pearce.—Particularly applying to employès.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Theyapply to any person adjudged to be guilty of any contravention of Part II. of the Bill, or of wilful default in compliance with any award, if the Court, in its discretion, so orders.
Senator Pearce.—But the disabilities are of such of character that they will apply particularly to the members of a trade society.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—They do not apply exclusively to members of trade organizations, as my honorable friend will see.
Senator Trenwith.—That is a committee matter.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is a Committee matter, and I am merely calling attention to the fact that it is proposed that the Legislature on one hand shall carry out its compulsory mission, so the speak, by enacting the prohibition of lock-outs and strikes, not merely under penalties, but under disabilities which honorable senators will find set out in clause 50.
Senator Pearce.—Perhaps the honorable and learned senator will allow me to say that my object in calling attention to their special application to trade organizations is to rebut the statement that has repearedly been made that no penalties are provided against workmen under the Bill.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Senator Pearce is quite entitled to make that observation. No one can view the Bill with an unbiased mind without seeing the extent to which the penalites and disabilities go and the persons on whom they fall. Then we have to consider how the other part of the objects of the measure are to be given effect to the next thing is the constitution of the Court, and under clause II the Conciliation and Arbitration Court is to be appointed. In connexion with that appointment, I remind honorable senators that, under clause 35, the Court is to be constituted with the appointment of a President. The original proposal to have two permanent members of the Court, in association with the President, does not now find a place in the Bill. The remainder of clause 35 refers to the appointment of assessors, or experts, to assist the President.
Senator Lt-Col. Gould.—They are not members of the Court?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No. I think that assessors, along with the President, who will be a trained Judge, will be the more satisfactory tribunal. Put I may say—I do not propose any alteration—that I concur with a remark made by Mr. Deakin on this point. I do not know that it would be possible, but I think it would be better if the President of the Court were a high judicial officer, who was not at the same time a Judge of the High Court. Personally, I do not like the idea of—I was going to say, entangling, but I shall not use that word, because it might be misunderstood—transferring a Judge to an atmosphere in which questions of a totally different king are dealt with—to an arena in which there are elements not ordinarily present in the High Court. Whatever we may say to the contrary, all of us recognise that in that arena there are elements of heat—
Senator Fraser.—Discord.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I shall not say discord; but there are elements of heat and irritation, which, as I know from long experience, affect unsuccessful litigant in any Court, but which will be infinitel more in evidence when the litigants number
Senator Pearce.—That has not been our experience in Western Australia, where the present Chief Justice was the first Judge of the Arbitration Court, and there is no one more repected.
Senator Best.—A big crop of disputes must be contemplated, if it is thought they will constantly employ one Judge.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was going to say that I hope it will be a long time before this Bill has to be put into operation. But when it is placed on the statute-book, we shall know its shape, and will be able, if necessary, to deal with that question. On the other hand, as Senator Best has said, we hope that the office will be a sinecure, because there would be great difficulty, even if we desired, in having a Judge exclusively for this Court.
Senator Best.—The term of seven years would probably have to be altered if there were a separate Judge.
Senator Sir Joshiah Symon.—I prefer, as I said before, that the Court should consist of a President and assessors, because there might be disputes in a particular branch of industry, about which one man knew a great deal, and another man knew nothing.
Senator Best.—If either party demand assessors. I suppose they will be appointed; put can the Judge act alone?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—According to clasue 35 a Judge may "without such application" appoint assessors. Having constituted a Court the Bill confers jurisdiction, and the President is charged with the duty of doing his best to bring about an amicable arrangement. Under clause 19 the Court is given cognisance of three kinds of disputes—first, those certified by the Registrar, which are quite independent of proceedings started by an organization; secondly, those industrial disputes submitted by organizations; and, thirdly all industrial diputes on which any State industrial authority may request the Court to adjudicate, and which, under the Bill, the Governor in Council of a State may refer to the Court.
Senator Lt.-Col. Gould.—And the latter are what the Minister thinks the Constitution does not allow?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No; what I doubt is the power of the State Court, under the definition clause, to refer a local dispute to the Commonwealth Court. The clause with which I am now dealing refers only to industrial disputes within the meaning of the Constitution. Then I call particular attention to clause 25, under which, it will be observed, the Court is not bound by rigid technicalities or by rigid rules of evidence.
Senator Guthrie.—A bit of law reform.
Senator Sir In the hearing and determination of every industrial dispute the Court shall act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities—Josiah Symon.—As the honorable senator knows, this is a fundamental principle of the jurisdiction of the local Courts of South Australia, the State in which legisaltion endeavours to do everything according to the highest principles of justice. The clause provides—
Senator Guthrie.—The language is beautiful!
Senator Sir or legal forms, and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence, but may inform its mind on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.Josiah Symon.—The language is not only beautiful but good. The clause proceeds—
I beg honorable senators to bear that clause in mind when they come to consider a subsequent provision to which I shall refer. This clause is further amplified in clause 28, which declares that a decision of the Court "shall be framed in such a manner as to best express the decision of the Court, and to avoid unnecessary technicality."
We have here a Court which, I think, should confidence, and the functions of which ought to be successfully exercised. We have a Court whichis expressly emancipated from those rigid rules and technicalities which, some honorable members may think, occasionally embarrass, if they do not frustrate, the ends of justice. I think I have said enough, without going into the other clauses, to inform honorable members as to the constitution and jurisdiction of the Court. Then clause 30 provides that when a State law or award is inconsistent with an award of the Court, the latter shall prevail. In another place a question was asked by way of interjection as to how far this clause aplied, and I am disposed to think—and I suggest this for the consideration of honorable senators—that this clause will not apply, as many have supposed, to a decision of the Court given before a dispute has overspread into another State. That is to say, if there is a dispute with which a State Court has dealt effectively, I doubt whether, even if the dispute may subsequently travel into another State, this provision would enable the Commonwealth Court to practically reverse the decision of the State Court, or modify it in any respect. I mention these matters so that honorable senators may think them over, and not with any view of laying down a rule. If any honroable senators are under the impression that the Commonwealth Court is to have power to plunge itself into conflict with a State Court whichhas already done justice in a particular dispute, they will probably find themselves under a misapprehension.
Senator McGregor.—I do not think any one ever thought such a thing.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The honorable senator is mistaken; but I am very glad to think that he agrees with me. Clause 38, which deals with the powers of the Court, refers to the principle of the common rule; but I do not propose to say anything on that subject now. The fundamental object is to prevent the frequency and multiplication of applications to the Court. Where the Court, in the exercise of its judgment, subject to the qualification imposed by the clause, considers it may bring in the other parties affected, soas to establish a common rule, it is given power to do so. In Committee, we may or may not discuss this point; but as the provision stands, it seems to me to carry out the intention of the Bill.
Senator Pearce.—Does the Minister think the Court will have power to vary a common rule under sub-clauses (f) and (o)?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It appears to me that every effort has been made, so far as this provision is concerned, to intrust the Court with the widest jurisdiction; and no jurisdicion can be complete in this or any other Court, if it has not the power, first of all, tomake orders, and, next, particularly in a jurisdiction of this sort, to vary those orders as varying conditions require.
Senator Givens.—The Bill contemplates trusting a good deal to the discretion of the Court.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is not so much trusting to discretion, as giving the Court ample jurisdiction to deal fairly and justly with the conditions which are presented. If the conditions alter in the intrvals between the making of the order and the application to vary, there should be power to reconsider that order. What could be fairer or more just? The orders of the Court are not to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, absolutely immutable, because conditions may change and cause suffering to both employers and employès We all desire that in those settlements there shall be evenhanded justice. Clause 51 provides for the registration of organizations, and this is hedged in so as to prevent injustice. Then come the provisions with regard to industrial agreements which are only important in this connexion in so far as they are to be intrusted to the Court. There are two other points to which I promised to refer at a little greater length. The first arises under the definition of "industrial disputes," and hs reference to railway servants, or, as I shall call them henceforth, public servants. The provision referring to railway servants or others employed in industries carried on by or under the control of the Commonwealth or State, has given rise to a great deal of controversy. There are two classes—one consisting of railway servants, and the other consisting of persons employed in industries carried on by or under the control of the State, or any public authority constituted under the State. It seems to me that those two classes are specifically mentioned, because otherwise they would be outside the Bill. It probably is felt, or was felt—and it is well this should be distinctly stated—that unless they were ex
Senator de Largie.—Does the honorable and learned senator propose to strike out the clause?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No, I do not propose to strike it out.
Senator McGregor.—This is a "Yes-No" attitude.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I do not take any notice of that intrruption, except to say that my honorable friend occupies a position in this Senate whichis only second to that which I occupy, and he may well refrain from interruptions which do not usefully assist the discussion. I am going to tell the Senate what I think of the clause, and what I propose to do. It is our duty to look at it from the point of view which I have stated, to consider the position which we occupy, and the redress which the States may have in respect of this provision, if they take exception to it, and whether that redress will be efficient or otherwise. There are three considerations. The first is, is it expedient? The second is, would it be operative—I mean in respect of the public servants of the States? And the third is, is it constitutional? I am going to take the same course as my friend Mr. Deakin took, and say that in my humble view as it originally stood in the Bill the provision was not expedient; and that the reasons applicable in respect of individual ordinary employers do not apply in the same spirit to a State or to State employment. Private employers are moved by self-interest in respect of their lobour bargains. A State is not supposed to be moved by self-interest. It is under the eye and control of its representatives, and, in point of fact, the States servants are really their own employers.
Senator Pearce.—In States where the railways have been handed over to Commissioners?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was going to say that that is so where the employers are directly employed by the States. It is also the case, but not to the same extent, where they are under the control of Commissioners. A Railway Department is equally a State Department, and it is equally a department contributing to the revenue of the State.
Senator Findley.—It is run an commercial lines.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Of coure it is run on commercial lines; but it is under the control of the people, of whom the public servants are part. It is under the control of Parliament, which is elected on a franchise which these public servants are entitled to exercise. I am merely pointing out that there is that difference, and that also it must never be forgotten that States servants—and these are considerations which affect the constitutional eapect, as well as the other, and that is why I am putting it now—enjoy privileges which other employès do not enjoy. The States offer inducements which cause State employment to be run after.
Senator Gray.—Not necessarily so; there is the State factory in New South Wales for instance.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I have in mind the railways at present. At any rate, there are certain privileges attached to the service of the State, and if in exchange it may be said that State servants suffer from a disability in regard to Commonwealth legislation of this kind, from which other employès do not suffer, they are recompensed in other directions. The position was exceedingly well put in a journal which lately referred to a very remarkable railway strike which took place in Hungary. The railway servants struck. But these railway employès also belonged to the railway regiments of regulars, and the way the strike seems to have been brought to an end was be their being called out and embodied as a railway regiment of regulars to put down their own strike. That was a kind of compulsory conciliation.
Senator Pearce.—It was compulsory conscription, I should say.
Senator Sir The event has been a most instructive instance of a kind of Josiah Symon.—They had to serve; but I hope that that is not going to be the method for putting an end to strikes in Australia. I quote the case because it led to this comment by an observant journalist—
impasse which the nationalization of great industries is bound to lead to. When a workman is a servant of the State he loses his right to combine, and the ordinary tactics of labour become for him criminal offences. The difficulty is still graver under a popular Government—
and this is the remarkable thing which, I think, will commend itself to the minds of honorable senators—
where the coercive power which opposes the workers is simply themselves organized in another form.
Senator Givens.—What is the name of that journal?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The London Spectator. The second point to which I shall merely allude is, "Can a dispute in a State railway service extend beyond the limits of that State"? Now, I venture to say, with my friend, Mr. Higgins, who is a close student of the matter, that it cannot. I think that is not one of the conceivable conditions under which this measure will operate.
Senator Guthrie.—May not a dispute upon the railways of one State have a detrimental effect upon another State?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I am glad that my honorable friend has made that remark, because it enables me to point out that the Constitution has not given us the power to legislate in regard to strikes in one State, which may have a detrimental reflex operation in another State.
Senator Pearce.—Can we not imagine that the railway men of New South Wales might refuse to take goods any further than the border when they knew that there was a strike on the part of the railway men in Victoria.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I do not know what we should call that.
Senator Playford.—It would be boycotting.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That would not be striking, in the true sense of the word; it would be boycotting in sympathy; and every one agrees—I think I may say that the leader of the Opposition in another place, equally with those who dissent from him on other matters, agrees—that this Bill does not apply to what is called a sympathetic strike. And what my honorable friend Senator Pearce refers to would not be even a sympathetic strike; it would be a sympathetic boycott, to adopt Senator Playford's term. Therefore, I do not object to this provision in the form in which it stands in the Bill, for the reasons which I will mention. One of them is that I agree with Mr. Higgins, with Mr. Deakin—and, perhaps, with others, for all I know—that there is not likely to be any conceivable case to which it could apply. But I must ask honorable senators to consider the question also in connexion with its constitutionality in respect of what are the industries of a State. What are those industries to which this measure would apply? Does it mean water supply or deep drainage, such as we have in South Australia, or anything of that kind? When we come face to face with these matters, we shall find that there are considerations which perhaps will lead to some difficulties in settlement. In the couse of the debate in another place, Mr. Deakin said that, in these matters—
The President.—The honorable and learned senator will not be in order in refer ring to what has been said during the session in a debate in another branch of the Legislature.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I will not quote what Mr. Deakin said in another place, but I may remark that it was said elsewhere, that the High Court would decide, and Mr. Mauger interrupted, "Is not that a solution of the difficulty?" I think it is a solution of the difficulty. But I feel bound, at the same time, to give the Senate, very briefly, the benefit of the considerations which I think will operate to decide that it is not a constitutional provision. But of course, as say again, it is for the High Court to decide; and I personally adopt exactly the same course as I took up in connexion with Tattersall's, when, without dealing with the expediency of the question, and so on, said that I regarded our legislation as anunconstitutional interference with the right of Tasmania, and that it was for the High Court to decide. I put it, briefly, in this way. Federation, honorable senators will recollect, is, as was said by Chief Justice Chase, the indestructible Union of Indestructible States. The States are sovereig States. They surrender only certain self governing powers, and they give up certain
Senator Best.—The honorable and
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—This is not the place to determine this constitutional question.
Senator Playford.—Yes, but the question
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I have referred to two things, and it seems
Senator Pearce.—It would place certain Government supporters in a very awkward position if the Government went back on the proposal.
Senator Best.—That is a most unkind remark!
Senator de Largie.—It might place the Government in an awkward position.
Senator Sir XIII. Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money; XIV. Insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned.Josiah Symon.—I do not know about that. I am perfectly satisfied with the view I express, and with the position which I think will be taken. I wish to call attention to the fact that where in the Constitution it is expressly intended that a State enterprise shall come under Commonwealth jurisdiction, it is so stated certainly in the only instances to which I am able to refer. For instance, in section 51, I find these legislative powers—
Honorable senators will see the care with which the Constitution deals with the question of taxation, and the relative powers of State and Commonwealth in section 114, and in connexion with the railways of the States in sections 98, 99, 102, and 104.
Senator Pearce.—But is it any more correct to say that this Bill would bring the railways under Federal supervision than it would be to say that the municipalities are brought under Federal supervision, because the High Court gives a verdict which affects them?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—That is a very fair argumentative parallel to suggest; but it is not exact, because there is no comparison between this matter and the High Court dealing with municipalities on appeal on a question of imposing municipal rates under a jurisdiction expressly given to it by our Judiciary Act.
Senator Pearce.—This Bill will give the power.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—But the Judiciary Act is within the limits of the Constitution, and we have the power.
Seantor Pearce.—It interferes with State institutions.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is a perfectly fair argumentative parallel; but it is not complete or exact. I think the honorable senator will find that it will befallacious as an argument on which to found as a constitutional right a power on the part
Senator Best.—The honorable and learned senator thinks this clause is unconstitutional, but does he think it expedient to insert it?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—On its expediency there may be very great difference of opinion, and if it will avail and is applicable, I shold be very sorry to see the provision struck out. If it will avail and is applicable, and there are disputes which will come under its operation, why shold it not be brought into play? I think it would be a monstrous thing, if it were a matter on which there was any doubt, that the doubt should be solved by its exclusion if it merely rested on the question of what one side or the other thought was expedient. And when we find that question of expediency made, as it must necessarily be made, a party question, it appears to me that in a Bill of this sort, which I look upon as a machinery Bill—we may differ as to deatails, but in essence it is a machinery Bill—imperiled by the party conflict.
Senator Givens.—It has led to the defeat of two Governments.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—On its details we should seek to make its ambit as large as we can consistently with what we may think to be the object we have in view.
Senator O'Keefe.—The honorable and learned senator believes that it will be a good thing to leave the provision in the Bill if it is constitutional.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Yes, if it is constitutional. I have been taunted here before with having said that something was unconstitutional, and with the Court having decided the other way. I dare say, sir, I am very often wrong in giving an opinion, but if I have an opinion it is my duty to express it, and I hope I may be forgiven if it turns out that I am mistaken. I should feel that I was not discharging the trust which is reposed in me, in common with other honorable senators, if I did not point out these things, and decline to take upon myself the obligation of deciding the question, and voting in accordance with that decision, when in the Constitution we have created a tribunal to decide it for us. The thing would be absurd; at any rate, it is a course which I do not intend to follow on this any more than I have done other occasions, whether my view is right or wrong. I may mention that on a former occasion my friend Mr. Kingston referred to the language of the Constitution, and said that the terms would have been much more elastic had it been possible.
Senator Pearce.—Oh!
Senator Sir The granting of preference in itself is, undoubtedly, the most serious and most far-reaching power in the Bill. . . . Preference means the power of alloting employmen to members of an organization, who can only obtain that priority of employment by the opportunity being taken away from others outside the organization to precisely the same extent.Josiah Symon.—I refer to this observation in connexion with the remark made by the honorable senator as to what the Convention intended. Looking at the jealous way in which it safe-guarded the railways in every respect from the Commonwealth, I am quite sure that if it had been proposed the Convention would not have consented to the introduction of a power giving the Commonwealth Parliament control over the public servants of the States. But whether it has done so ro not, various reasons have been shown by Mr. Deakin in various places as to the possible unconstitutionality of this provision, which I do not intend to deal with now. The only other matter to refer to is preference to unionists. On one occusion my honorable friend, Mr. Deakin, used words which I cannot improve upon. He said—
As the matter originally stood, it existed without qualification, and without any rule being laid down in respect of the principles which the Parliament representing, or supposed to represent, the feeling of the country, had in view for the guidance of the Court. We now have it in a form in which it seems to me, after as exhaustive an examination of the views on both sides as I have been able to give, to literally express what every one thinks is a fair principle, namely, majority rule. And safe guarded in that way, and embodying in the Bill a principle on which Courts have already acted, I confess I am unable to understand the objections which have been taken to
Senator Pearce.—We shall try to explain it later on.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I shall be most pleased to hear the explanation and there is no one whose mind is
Senator Guthrie.—Is that the Government mind?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The Government mind is as it is in the Bill, and
Senator Pearce.—We hope that the honorable and learned senator will not forget his admiration for majority rule.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I have never departed, I think, from that great principle.
Senator Dobson.—Are they going to kill the Bill.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I hear a suggestion to kill the Bill.
Senator Drake.—No, it was a query.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I am glad that it was only a query; it must have been an aside which was not meant to be heard and commented upon.
Senator Givens.—Senator Dobson said the Bill was going to be killed.
Senator Dobson.—I was only asking a question.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—From my point of view, of course, this question of preference does involve in its bare form the whole matter of freedom of contract, of whether, if unionists decline of work with non-unionists, the penalty of being out of work should fall on the non-unionists only. It covers the whole area of the States, with diverse conditions of climate, different scales of living.
Senator Pearce.—And as to whether employers should have the right to boycott unionist workmen?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—There are all sorts of elements with which we shall deal in qetail.
Senator Pearce.—I thought that the honorable and learned senator would mention that along with the other.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I do mention it. The bald principle is said to be essential to the Act. I do not think it is. I was going to use the expression "unadulterated," and I hope I may be allowed to say, without offence, that unadulterated preference is not essential to the measure. I take an illustration which has been given before. There is in Victoria an Act which is really an Act for compulsory arbitration in relation to trade disputes. I refer to the Factories and Shops Act of
Senator Pearce.—And because of the absence of it many men have suffered persecution.
Senator Findley.—That Act recognises only organized bodies.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—So does this Bill, and the honorable senator and I are therefore on the same plane.
Senator Findley.—But under this Bill we consider some persons who are not members of organized bodies.
Senator Best.—The Victorian Factories Act is not confined merely to organized bodies.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Then we have here a conflict of opinion on the subject.
Senator Findley.—Employès cannot get the benefit of the Wages Boards provisions unless they are members of organizations.
Senator Best.—The Act has nothing to do with organized bodies in any way.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was under the impression which Senator Best confirms, because I had noted proceedings under the Act reported in the newspapers which certainly did not bring home to my mind the idea that the Act was confined to organized bodies. However, it embodies a system of complusory arbitration in relation to the matters within its scope, and so far as I am aware it contains no provision as to preference as an element in its efficacy, and its efficacy has been great. It has been fought for, and, I think, it is valued highly in this State. That appears to me to afford a strong argument in support of the contention that we may have complusory arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes as to wages, and so on, without having preference as an essential.
Senator Findley.—The analogy is hardly fair.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It may not be. I am putting it with submission and argumentatively, and honorable senators who disagree will be able to show the difference. The illustration has been given before, and it struck me as very forcible. It is alluded to, I think, in the speech in which Mr. B. R. Wise moved the second reading of his Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in New South Wales, and in this connexion, as illustrative of the beneficent effects of a certain kind of compulsory arbitration. But what I desire to point out to honorable senators is that this Bill concedes preference. The only controversy is as to what are fair terms.
Senator Playford.—Why not leave it to the Judge?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I will give my honorable friend the reason. One Judge may have a certain idea—
Senator Playford.—There are varying climates and varying conditions in the Commonwealth.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I prefer in this matter to do what is done by the law, except in dealing with matters of fact, in connexion with every Court in the world. Every Judge who sits in any tribunal is guided in his decision, so far as matters of law are concerned, by principles which have been established for all time.
Senator Givens.—Musty old precedents, the half of them.
Senator Playford.—Judge made law.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—As my honorable friend suggests, it is Judge-made law, but Senator Playford knows that the common law of England is the finest body of jurisprudence in the world. It is the essence of the jurisprudence of two continents, and it consists of Judge-made law.
Senator Givens.—And under it you could lag a man for shooting a rabbit.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Senator Playford must know that in establishing a tribunal, which is not to be governed by common law, we should lay down, so far as we can, as we do in the case of ordinary tribunals, the principles upon which the decision of the Court shall be arrived at. We cannot regulate it as to matters of fact, but we can as to matters of principle.
Senator Playford.—We do not propose to tell the Court what wages they shall allow.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Of course not because that is a question of fact.
Senator Playford.—Then why tell the Court what preference it shall give?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It is not proposed to tell the Court what preference it shall give.
Senator Playford.—It is proposed to tell the Court that it shall not give preference unless in certain circumstances.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Unless a majority of those affected agree. That does not effect the giving of preference, but we propose to lay down the principles or conditions by which the Court is to be guided before it can give a preference in any case brought before it.
Senator Pearce.—If it is asked for?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It has to be asked for first, of course. Senator Playford should know that we are merely embodying in this Bill a principle by which we have been guided in dealing with all Courts.
Senator Playford.—it was not in the orignial Bill.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—It was not in the original Bill, but it is in this Bill, which is a great improvement on the original Bill, because it is a broad principle, laid down by other Courts after experience. It will comment itself quite as much to my honorable friend to learn that it is embodying a principle which has practically been assented to by the leaders on the other side.
Senator Givens.—Where?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I will give honorable senators chapter and verse for it. It appears to me that the question is really: What are fair terms? What is a fair principle by which the Court shall be guided? In what way and subject to what limitations shall the Court exercise that particular function, which is so far-reaching and important? I say that it is our duty, having regard to the difficulties of the Court in many other directions, woing to its new and complex jurisdiction, to make these governing lines as clear as we possibly can. There is really, as I have said no difference of opinion as to the basis or conditions of this preferece. I make certain references simply with a view to substantiating what I say as to the views of the leaders on the other side. We know that this provision for a preference was inserted in the New South Wales measure. In an article published in the National Review for
Senator Guthrie.—The honorable and learned senator would not class Mr. Wise as a leader on the other side.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I think so.
Senator Guthrie.—I thought he was on the honorable and learned senator's side?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I should have thought that my honorable friend opposite accepted Mr. Wise as their guide, philosopher, and friend on this question of preference. There may be no
Senator Pearce.—Our leader is Mr. J. C. Watson.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No one can have a higher esteem for Mr. Watson than I have, or, in fact, than everybody has.
Senator Findley.—That is why some persons tried to put him out of office.
Senator Dobson.—He put himself out.
Senator Givens.—That is what the present Prime Minister will not do. It will take a team of bullocks to drag him out.
Senator Sir Should an employer in one of these industries attempt to introduce non-union labour for the purpose of destroying unionism, a case would, I apprehend—Josiah Symon.—This shows how party spirit will run riot even on such a Bill as this. I quote Mr. Wise then without any observation with respect to his views one way or the other. This is what he writes—
Even that he puts very gingerly—
arise for the use of this provision, just as the Court would certainly refuse to apply it in a case where the majority of the employès were nonunionist, or where the union was not able to supply a sufficiency of labour.
Senator Lt.—Col. Gould.—When was that expressed?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—In
Senator Pearce.—In the Legislative Council of New South Wales.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—No, this was written in the calm deliberation of the study.
Senator Pearce.—I thought, perhaps, it had been said to make the pill sweet for the New South Wales Legislative Council.
Senator Sir The Court's authority would be exercised for the most part, if not wholly, in regard to disputes in which large Inter-State organization are involved. The unions that will come within the scope of this Bill are so strong that there are practically no men engaged in the same industries outside their ranks.Josiah Symon.—No, this was long after the Legislative Council of New South Wales had swallowed the pill, and Mr. Wise was dealing with his own provision, which had no limitation at all. I, therefore, cite Mr. Wise as saying that the Court would refuse toapply the principle of preference in a case where a majority of the employès were non-unionists. Senator Givens asked me where these views were assented to by leaders on the other side, and I can quote an authority who said that the spplication of the principle would be almost confined to cases where unionists would practically represent the whole of the persons engaged i an industry. Of course, in such cases we should have a majority in favour of a preference in its highest sense, so far as the organization was concerned. I quote in this connexion Mr. Spence, who is reported to have said—
Mr. Spence is one of the most thoughtful men and highest authorities on these great question; and, if the position be as he states, surely honorable members will agree that whatever qualification be imposed on preference, we should practically have unanimity of desire and unanimity of application.
Senator Playford.—And no preference is wanted.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Of course, and the nearer we get to that condition of things the nearer we shall be to do no injustice to anybody. But does my honorable friend think that it would be fair, if there were two unionists and 500 non-unioists, that preference should be given to the former?
Senator Playford.—Certainly not.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Then why not have a provision to that effect in the Bill? Why are we to allow a Judge, who may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, to give preference to a minority, while his successor may give preference only when desired to do so by a majority? Let us lay down a rule which he who runs may read.
Senator Playford.—But the Minister says that the Judges have already laid down a majority rule.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—And we propose to ambody that rule in the Bill.
Senator Playford.—There is no necessity.
Senator Sir In the great majority of cases a majority of the men employed in a given trade or calling are within the ranks of unions relating to it.Josiah Symon.—But another Judge may come along and reverse the principle—another king may arise who knows not Joseph. Why does my friend
I regard that as an additional reason, not only for the decisions of the Judges in the past, but for embodying those decisions in the Bill, so that they may be known to employers and employès alike.
Senator Guthrie.—And every unemployed man in the Commonwealth will be considered as against unionists.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—We have to consider that we propose to declare that by an outside power one man shall be permitted to earn his bread and butter, while another man shall not be permitted.
Senator McGregor.—Is not that the case in the legal profession?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Nothing of the kind. I think we ought to try and do justice to both sides.
Senator Guthrie.—We had lawyers working as non-unionists during the maritime strike.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—The first rule in the selection of a man by an employer, should be that the latter is free to choose a man on the ground of competency, and not because he has fixed to him some brand of a trade union.
Senator Pearce.—That is considered where preference is given, as shown by the words, "other things being equal."
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was merely dealing with the interjection. I am perfectly willing—and I think my friends opposite ought to be delighted—to accept preference on the lines already adopted, and within the limits already prescribed.
Senator Givens.—The clause must be a bad one which needs so much special pleading!
Senator Pearce.—We know the clause to be unworkable.
Senator Sir The practice in nearly every case in all Arbitration Courts has been to grant preference only when a majority reasonably ascertained are in favour of such preference.Josiah Symon.—I am only anxious that honorable senators shall know my views in order that they may assist in making the Bill as efficient as possible. Mr. Watson also authoritatively stated—
That is all we have provided in the Bill.
Senator Pearce.—It isnot stated how the majority is to be ascertained.
Senator Sir I am not so foolish as to anticipate that the practice laid down by the Arbitration Courts of New Zealand and New South Wales will be departed from by the Judges appointed to the Federal tribunal.Josiah Symon.—The words I have read I believe to be a true statement of the principle by which the Courts have been guided. No one admires Mr. Watson more than myself for him moderation and political wisdom. The honorable gentleman further said—
Nor do I; but I am going to take care that the Judges shall have no opportunity to depart from the practice. It is in the interests of all parties that there shall be a clear and defined enactment of this principle. Mr. Watson further said—and I take his statements as principles—
The Government do not desire that preference should be granted to minorities. The Court, if it followed the precedents which have been created in New South Wales and New Zealand, would be bound to interpret the words as implying a majority.
Senator Pearce.—Is that the position which the Minister desires to maintain?
Senator Best.—Was Mr. Watson Prime Minister at that time?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Yes.
Senator Playford.—Why did Mr. Watson wish to insert the words "substantially represent"?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I shall tell the honorable senator in a minute, but I desire to proceed line upon line and precept upon precept. The honorable senator, I understand, agrees with me tht there ought to be a majority, and in the next place he agrees with me that those are the principles laid down by the Courts in the light of the experience of the past few years.
Senator Playford.—That is what Mr. Watson agreed with.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—But desire the honorable senator's vote.
Senator Pearce.—Will the Minister in dorse those words of Mr. Watson?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—
Senator Pearce.—Does the Attorney-General indorse what the late Prime Minister said?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I have not quite finished, and I am using the lae Prime Minister's words as part of my speech. I confess I do not possess the vocabulary to express those views with anything like the accuracy of the late Prime Minister.
Senator Higgs.—The Attorney-General has spoken from a quarter to three to a quarter to six o'clock.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I do not think that remark comes well from the honorable senator.
Senator Higgs.—I withdraw it.
Senator Sir In New Zealand it has been insisted that the majority, so for as that can be reasonably shown, shall be shown to be in favour of the granting of a preference.Josiah Symon.—All I say is that if honorable senators do not attach importance to the Bill, and do not want to hear my views fully, I shall be perfectly satisfied to conclude. Mr. Watson also said—
All that is in the Bill is simply an assertion of that principle of preference, but a rule is laid down for the guidance of the Court. To that rule no one, it seems to me, can justly take exception, and it is supported by the view of Mr. Watson.
Senator Givens.—Why did another place object to Mr. Watson's amendment?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I was just going to ask why there should have been all this political carnage.
Senator Givens.—Because the present Government wanted office at any cost.
Senator Playford.—I cannot understand Why Mr. Watson resigned office.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—And I share the honorable senator's astonishment. The late Prime Minister was not killed, out committed suicide?
Senator Pearce.—Did he fall, or was he pushed?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I do not think the late Prime Minister was "pushed" at all. The fact of teh matter is, and I say it with all humility, that it was largely a fight over words without substance.
Senator Pearce.—so long as the rights of majorities are safeguarded, will the Attorney-General be satisfied?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I think the Bill effects what everybody intends, and I prefer the words of the clause. I am with those who voted with the majority in another place—those who preferred the words now inthe clause, rather than have others much more difficult of interpretation and application. I agree with Mr. Deakin, as I said before, in regard tothe difficulty of the word "substantially," and so forth. The provision is that no preference shall be given unless the application is in the opinion of the Court "approved by a majority of those affected by the awards, who have interests in common with the applicants." I apologize, especially to my friends opposite, for speaking at such length; but the subject is so interesting that I had no idea I had been so long. Senator Playford referred to the word "Substantially," but I remind him that that is not the word in the Bill. It was in the other proposed amendment, and the difficulty as to how it would be interpreted shows the propriety of the rejection of the proposed amendment and the retention of the provision in the Bill.
Senator Playford.—After Mr. Watson had used the words quoted, why on earty did he not accept the other amendment? Why did he want to put in the word "substantially"?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—I really could not explain. That amendment introduces language much more calculated to created confusion, and to embarrass the Court. The provision of the Bill in the form in which—with the permission of the Senate—I shall endeavour to have in carried, will be open to no exception on the ground of difficulty as to proof. I agree entirely with Mr. Deakin and those who take the view that the principle to which I have already referred, with regard to doing away with all technicality and disregarding the rigid rules of evidence, will apply with regard to this us with regard to other parts of the measure, and that the Court will inform its mind—that is the language of clause 25—by any means in its power, and will, upon the information which it thus derives, come to the conclusion which it may think right. I again apologize to the
Senator Higgs.—I hope my interjection has not curtailed the honorable and learned senator's remarks?
Senator Sir Josiah Symon.—Oh, no; and, on the other hand, I hope that my honorable friend will not take the remark I made to him too seriously. I agree with the observation that this has been a very fateful measure. It seemed like a portent. It weakened and shook and Ministry. As my honorable friend, Mr. Deakin, put it, it rent that Ministry asunder. It has wrecked two more Ministries. There is only one catastrophe which remains for it to accomplish, and that is to wreck a Parliament. For my part, I fervently hope that that fatality at least may be averted; and in all sincerity I say that I hope we shall quickly see this measure in the quiet haven of the statute-book. Why it has been so fruitful of disaster I am really at a loss to know. But that, after all, may be a good omen. An accompaniment of warring elements at its birth may presage a power for good and a life of usefulness. That has happened before; I hope it will happen again. And I hope that it will happen in relation to this Bill, which is, at least, the symbol of a higher civilization and a more humane spirit. I think it is big with promise, I earnestly hope that it may also be big with fulfilment. Nevertheless, I trust that the day may be far distant when such a lamentable condition will arise as shall bring it into operation; because the bringing of this measure into operation predicates a dispute of a magnitude which none of us cares to foretell, and which, I think, we should shrink from seeing. At any rate, when that time comes I earnestly pray that it may be found adequate to all needs, that it may, as we desire, throw wide the everlasting gates of a great temple of peace within whose precincts passion shall be stilled, and no sound of oppression heard, and where the healing voice of justice shall pronounce only that which is right.
"Is there a Government in this country?" asked the Irishman in a well-known story, who, being informed that there was, promptly replied, "Then begorra I'm agin it." This attitude of mind is not exclusively Hibernian. Our race is in its blood and bone individualistic. The struggle demanded by a rough environment and early foes endowed the Teuton with unusual energy and independence. This endowment was aided by a process of selection. The wanderings that brought our early ancestors to Western Europe and the British Isles provided that process. These migrations Westward, then as now, were migrations of the strong and intrepid souls The others, as they always do, stayed behind. The Teuton becomes the Anglo-Saxon with a courage, enterprise and self-assertion which have made our nation what she is. For sixty generations or more, experience and struggle bred in our ancestors the fighting instincts, and the spirit so acquired is not easily or soon subdued. It accounts for the emulative individualistic stamp upon most of our customs, laws and institutions. It accounts at least in part for that impatience of State interference which has always been one of our conspicuous national traits. But this impatience is also a legacy of early government. Liberty is loosely defined as that freedom of speech and action permitted by law; but traced to their origin, it will be found that most of the great popular liberties we enjoy have been won for us by the people being very much "agin the Government." Civic freedom, historically considered, has been the result of increasingly effective systematic resistance to monarchical or oligarchical despotism. The price of liberty with us has indeed been eternal vigilance. The injustice and oppression of even a far past accounts for many present popular prejudices. Among animals fear of former enemies long survives the cosmic struggle which engendered it, and even in our Anglo-Saxon nation, where the people and the people alone are the real rulers, there is a racial and traditional disposition to be "agin the Government." It is true one reason for this is that the majority, even in the freest democracies, have not yet learnt to really feel the power of the State as their power, but the disposition of antagonism
I have emphasised this preliminar
What, then, do we mean by
These definitions, while technically
The Greeks saw what Austin over
But between Aristotle's and Austin's day many an attempt was made by different writers to first account for the fact of Government, and next justify or limit its supreme power. A short reference to some of these writers will show how old and deep seated is the feeling that men possess in civilised societies natural and indestructible rights which no law can properly invade. This reference may seem to some unnecessarily academical, but 1 would remind those who are impatient of so-called academical treatment of social questions that it is to just that treatment that the greatest revolutions and social changes have been immediately or ultimately due, and nothing will illustrate this better than the theories of the writers to whom I now proceed to refer. The impetus they gave to democratic development affects us even at the present day. Beyond all doubt, says Professor Ross in his splendid work on Social Control, "the democratic movement in Western Europe arose out of the radical movement of thought in the 18th century, which discredited traditions by compelling them to submit their credentials at the bar of reason and justice." "Without Rousseau." said Napoleon, "there would have been no French Revolution.
To Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and their theories modern liberty owes more than to the Baltic, Trafalgar or Waterloo. The pen of the philosopher has in the world's history been a more potent instrument of progress than the sword of the soldier, and it is impossible to estimate the influences of, for instance, Rousseau's teaching upon the national destinies of Europe. Hut probably without Hobbes and Locke we should never have had the "Contract Social." All three writers wrestled with the problem have just alluded to. All three try to define the true extent of the power of Government and the sphere of individual liberty. Why should the subject obey, and what are the limits if any, of that obedience? That was the enigma they each sought to solve. Hobbes, the father of English political thought, places the test of liberty in an imaginary contract.
He begins with the assumption that before the State was created all men were by nature free and equal. This freedom and equality, however, did not bring the millenium. He thinks or assumes that it produced incessant war between each and all, and that our early ancestors decided upon what might be called a peace at any price policy to escape from this ever-lasting disorder. Hence the whole community entered into a contract, and gave over to a person or a body of persons—a monarch or an oligarchy—all their natural rights for the purpose of establishing a sovereign power that could enforce law and order among them. This supposed contract contained no reservations. The transfer of rights was absolute, and the soverign so created was absolute and irresponsible. Thus the people properly and in the most literal sense became subjects. Liberty is strictly such freedom as this supreme power chooses in its uncontrolled discretion to allow the people. So Hobbes taught in the "Leviathan," published in
Locke, in his "Essay on Civil Government," which was an elaborate defence of the Revolution of
Under Rousseau's social compact the people do not surrender their natural rights to a monarch or oligarchy or any other separate controlling body. They surrender their rights to all the people, and not to any other sovereign. "Each of us," he says,
Rouseau published his "Le Contract
"Thanks," he says, "to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we have not yet, like the French nation, been subtilised into savagesed, In England we have not yet been come pletely disembowelled of our natural entrails. We have not yet been
I quote these remarkable words because they not only express with Burke's matchless power the artificiality of social construction and the false conception of human natured which pervade Rousseau's doctrines but they also illustrate the attitude of the conservative individualism of England to novel social doctrines That the influence of the "
New I return tor a moment to the delinitioa—that the sphere of legal liberty is the sphere of action within which the law is content to leave me alone. This, it will be observed, covers not only political and social action, but economic action. Our history makes so much more of political and social liberties that we are apt to forget the importance of economic fiberties both in themselves and in their influence upon all other kinds of freedom. The changes which have taken place in our modern views of political liberty are mainly due to changes during the last one hundred years in national economic conditions. The future development of British liberty will depend more upon Britian's economic evolution than upon any other changes. Political and religious liberty have during the last eighty years been steadily widening to completeness, but throughout that period there has also been an unmistakable disposition to limit economic freedom. Now, as Cliffe Leslie points out, the whole economy of every nation is the result of a long evolution in which there has been both continuity and change, and of which the economic side is only a particular aspect. The intellectual, moral, legal, political and economic sides of social progress are indissolubly connected. In other words, it may be shown that the expansion in energy and area of popular political and social rights is mainly responsible for the limitation of economic rights, to which I have alluded; and the same action and reaction may be discerned throughout the development of all our liberties.
These facts justify the view that at the present time, and for many years to come, the most important aspect of the relation between the State and the individual is the sphere of liberty the law will allow a man in parsuing his trade or calling, ana in the acquisition and use of his wealth. To forecast the future it is nearly always needful to look at the past, and no one can understand the present transition stage of economic liberty in Western Europe without some knowledge of the teachings of Quesney in France and of Adam Smith in Britain one hundred and fifty years ago. Equally essential is a knowledge of the industrial conditions and restrictions of their day. Their doctrines of the widest natural freedom to every man in his business or calling—of unlimited freedom of trade—of unrestricted competition—have influenced and moulded all our political economy and still largely dominate economic thought and political action. These doctrines led a revolt against the strangling legal interferences which enveloped the trade and industrialism of their day. Labour was hampered with all sorts of antiquated and absurd restrictions, declaring where the workmen should live, what trade they should follow when and where they should sell their goods industries were in a network of regulations. The coach builder in England was forbidden either to make, or to employ a journeyman to make, his coach wheels—he must buy them from a master wheelwright. The bootmaker in parts of France could make—but he must not mend—shoes, in Germany everything was done by rule. Spinning, for instance, came under public inspection and the yarn was collected by officials. The privilege of weaving was confined to the confraternity of the guild. Methods of production were strictly prescribed. Public inspectors exercised control. The right of dealing in cotton goods was confined to the confraternity of the merchant guild. To be a master weaver had almost the significance of a public office the sale was also under street supervision. For a long time a fixed price prevailed, and a maximum sale was officially prescribed for each dealer.
In England commerce was still struggling in the decaying straight jacket of the old mercantile laws. Everywhere throughout the industrial and commercial system were artificial rules, regulations, prohibitions and privileges. Liberty was checked by a thousand ties, production hampered, prices unnaturally raised, and both the and freedom of merchants and of the wealth-making agents of the were repressed or manacled. From this oppression the promised land was
Smith's fundamental doctrine was that the most effectual plan for advancing people to greatness is to maintain that order of things which Nature has pointed out. That is, to allow every man to pursue his own interest, his own way, and bring his industry, capital, or labour into the freest competition with those of his fellow-citizens.
This he calls the natural system of perfect liberty and justice, and in this view we find him on common ground with Rousseau and his school.
Summed up, his belief was that if the State swept away all restrictive measures and permitted the freest play of individual interest, the operation of natural law would produce the greatest good of the whole community.
To understand the fanatical Individualism to which these doctrines led, we must bear in mind that it was in the nature of a revolt from the artificial and absurd restrictive systems of his day. We must also bear in mind the fact that at that time Britain was mainly an agricultural country and the stage of her industrialism was mainly domestic. He wrote before the great industrial revolution which followed the wide employment of the steam engine and the inventions of Wedgewood, Hargreaves, and of Arkwright, Crompton, and Cartwright. This revolution altered the whole economic face of England. It led the rural population to set in rapid current for the cities, and there form a slough of despond in which tens of thousands of both sexes and all ages wore soon hopelessly sunk. Adam Smith preached the view that Nature has made provision for social well-being, that the individual, while he aims at his private gain, is in doing so "led by an invisible hand" to promote the public good, although that was no part of his intention. Human institutions (including, presumably, humanitarian legislation), by interfering with this principle in the name of
No; the cosmic process recognises no rights or liberties. Might through its whole field is right. Force, insensate and unpitying, holds undisputed sway.
I know this aittagonises our yearnings. We would fain believe that love is creation's final law, but candour and observation—the struggle in held and wood and sea and stream—compel us to the conclusion that "Nature, fed in tooth and claw, with ravine shrieks against the creed." But, it may be asked, even if the process be a grim one, does it not produce "the survival of the fittest." No doubt it does; but what is meant by the "fittest"? It is to the ambiguity of this word that Huxley ascribes the fallacy that Nature's methods can help mankind to perfection. "Fittest," he says, has a commotation of "best," and about "best" there hangs a moral flavour But in nature the "fittest" only those most fully adapted to the circumstances of their existence. What is "fittest" depends upon the conditions. If our hemisphere were to cool again "the survival of the fittest" might bring about in the vegetable kingdom a population more and more stunted, and humbler and humbler organisms, until the "fittest" that survived might be nothing but lichens, diatoms, and such microscopic organisms as those which give red snow its colour. While if the hemisphere became hotter our valleys would become uninhabitable by any animated beings save depends those that flourish in a tropical jun-gle. In human societies the law of Nature shows itself in the tendency of the strongest and most assertive to tread down the weaker, and we can measure a nation's advancement by the degree to which its laws limit or repress this tendency. This is put by Huxley in these words: "The influence of the cosmic process—that is, of Nature's laws on the evolution of society is the greater the more elemental y its civilisation. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at every step, and the substitution for it of another which may be called the ethical process, the end of which is not the survival of those who may happen to be the fittest in respect of the whole of the conditions which obtain, but of those who are ethically the best." The moral processes by which human improvement can be achieved are antithetic to Nature's process, the characteristic feature of which is the intense and increasing struggle for existence. Nature's method is to force adjustment on pain of extinction with her current conditions. The moral or ethical method is to adjust circumstances and conditions to the needs of the higher type we desire to create. The first step in this direction is the elimination of the cosmic struggle for existence by removing or preventing the conditions which give rise to it and this step requires stringent and numerous restrictions upon the belauded natural individual liberty of the orthodox economists.
The influence of John Stuart Mill's work on political thought for the last sixty years has been incalculable, and of all his work his views of liberty and of the relation between the individual and the State, although not in any part essentially new, have probably had the profoundest effect. These views still represent orthodox individualism. In his classic work "On Liberty," Mill states his doctrine thus:—
"The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public, opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection; that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his
Now, I invite those who desire to see how this doctrine falls to pieces under a close analysis to read James FitzJames Stephen's "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." You will remember him as Lord Stephen, one of our greatest judges. I do not pretend to be able to add anything to that splendid and exhaustive criticism. The principles and assumptions stated in Mill's book are as follows:—
Now it will be observed that Mill's doctrine applies to coercion not only by law, but by public opinion. So that, even in the domain of morals, a man is to be free to indulge himself as he likes so long as it cannot be shown that he is injuring someone else. Stephen shows that this system of liberty "is violated not only by every system of theology which concerns itself with morals and by every known system of postitive morality, but by the constitution of human nature itself." I do not propose to discuss this part of Mill's doctrine. I confine myself to the consideration of legal coercion. Mill's system forbids (inter alia) any such coercion—
But to forbid such coercion is simply to forbid progress. "All the great political changes which have been the principal object of European history for the last three centuries have been cases of coercion in the most severe form, although a large proportion of them have been described as struggles for liberty by those who were in fact, the most vigorous wielders of power.
But Mill's whole doctrine, and, indeed, the teaching of the whole of his school of natinal liberty, are based upon a false assumption, and it is this—that in all the countries which we are accustomed to call civilised, the mass of adults have so much selfcontrol, are so well acquainted with their own interests, and are so me disposed to pursue them, that no
I am not, it must be observed, depreciating or overlooking the great value of moral suasion. I am meeting the contention that under a system of natural liberty suasion along can be relied upon to effect moral improvement. Surely it is clear that the degree of liberty which should be allowed an individual is the effect its exercise has, not on himself alone, but on general well-being, and that the degree of liberty which will really benefit a people depends upon the use the mass or the majority of them make of it. Freedom in the few or the many whose use tends to retard progress—to demoralise or pauperise the individual himself or large sections of the community—is not a blessing but a curse. It matters not whether this freedom is in public or in private life, or in the political, social or economic domain of human action. "Men," Mill's great critic says, "are so constructed that whatever theory as to goodness and badness we choose to adopt, there are and always will be in the world an enormous mass of bad and indifferent people—people who
Again, Mill's system of liberty may be assailed on another broad ground. Shortly put, his system teaches that men should be allowed both in the domain of law and morals to do as they please so long as they do not injure others. Now, what is meant here by "injury to others?" If it means prejudicial to the interests of Society, then obviously all conduct of an anti-social character such as wasteful extravagance and gross intemperance, might be restrained, and the strictest social control justified. This, however, is clearly not Mill's view. The conduct from which along a man may be compulsorily deterred "is that which is calculated to produce evil to someone else," and as such conduct is in the vast majority of cases, even where we call the offence a crime, an invasion of some legal private right, the doctrine substantially means that a man's sphere of legal liberty should be circumscribed only be the legal duties he owes definite or definable persons. This view reflects that spirit of liberty which says that so long as a man interferes with no one else's right he should be allowed to go to Hell his own way if we wants to. This doctrine is still, in theory at least, the dominant one. It is the basis of orthodox individualism, and
From all this misconception as to the promotion of general welfare, from natural liberty and the apotheosis of individual rights, we are steadily going back to Aristotle. He taught that the State had educative and reformative functions, that it was its duty to make good citizens.
In this view the character of the State is changed from policeman toparent. The end and aim of Government is changing and has changed from police and other legal protection to providing the conditions which will promote general welfare. The old method was a survival of the fittest—that is, of those
If the State is to provide the path, it must see that it is taken and, if necessary, compel its use. Some modern nations furnish their people with free schools, but they also punish parents who neglect to send their children there. Under prudent domestic Government, discipline is as necessary as opportunity for the welfare of the family. The excess or absence of either will do harm, and the same is true of the paternalism of the State.
In this changing conception of the State's functions, private rights and liberties must be substantially affected, as I shall shortly show. Meantime, let me say that such prudent social control as I am indicating should produce neither the evils of unrestrained self-seeking found under natural liberty or the regimentation of revolutionary Socialism. In approving of this conslusion, Huxley says: "In this business of the Government in that elementary polity a family, the people who fail utterly are on the one hand the martinet regimentalists, and on the other the parents, whose theory of education appears to be that expounded by the elder Mr. Weller when he enlarged upon the advantages which Sam had enjoyed by being allowed to roam at will about Covent Garden Market from babyhood upwards. Individualism pushed to extremes in the family is as ill-founded theoretically and as mischievous practically as it is in the State, while extreme regimentation is a certain means of either destroying self-reliance or of maddening to rebellion. And so when we turn from the family to the aggregate of families which constitute the State, I do not see that the case is substantially altered."
The doctrine is already widespread that the proper relation between the State and the individual is at least analagous to that of an intelligent parent to his family, and it is being increasingly seen that the system of natural liberty is a dogma that over looks the extent to which the ethos in men's hearts must through the State control the cosmos, if human society is to rise to a higher civilisation.
I have said that this sublimation of the State from policeman to parent involves modifications in all conceptions of rights and duties—in other words, of legal liberty. Once it is conceded that the law may compel me prohibit me, punish me, or tax me, not only for the protection of legal rights, but for the purpose of improving me or of providing the conditions by which others to whom I owe no legal duties may be improved, the whole doctrine of liberty I am here attacking becomes a discredited dogma. The rights formerly and under Mill's doctrine so sacred and paramount, lose their inviolabel sanctity and supremacy, and become subsidiary to the needs of parental schemes of social progress. We have so long knelt at the throne of individual rights that this dethronement stated as a general principle sounds like treason. It threatens, it would seem, our cherished private freedom, and makes for oppression. We talk with bated breath of individual liberty. Like the "Om" of Oriental creeds, these words have acquired the attributes of idolatry. They have become blessed like "Mesopatamia," and all that is often deemed necessary to discredit a policy of social progress is to show that it infringes or limits individual liberty. Let us deidolise this phrase if we want a clear perception of the respective rights and duties of Man and the State. What gives, for instance, such special sanetity to individual rights of property? The inherent justice of their origin? Hardly. When the great bulk of the acquired wealth of England was not earned by its owners, but by inheritance, and when a Mr Paten is free to corner wheat and thus extract a million sterling from the pockets of the people! Is, then, this sanctity due to the ideal equality of such rights? Scarcely! While pinching poverty is everywhere contrasted with colossal fortunes! Surely, then, this sacred regard is owing to the pre-appointed harmony and beneficent operation of the law creating and protecting these and other individual rights? By no means! Since Huxley could forcibly and truthfully declare in his essay on "Government" that: "Even the best of modern civilisations appears to me to exhibit a condition of mankind which neither embodies any worthy ideal nor even possesses the merit of stability. I do not hesitate to express the opinion that if there is no hope of a large improvement in the condition of the greater part of the human family; if it is true that the increase of knowledge, the winning of a greater dominion over Nature which is its consequence, and the wealth which follows upon that dominion ae to make no difference in the extent and intensity of want, with its concomitant physical and moral degradation among the
To do this, let us clear the ground by some understanding of what is really meant by "rights" in the strict and proper sense. A "rights" is an interest respect for which is a duty and disregard of which is a wrong. There can be no "right" without a corresponding duty; no duty without a corresponding right, any more than there can be a husband without a wife or a father without a child. For every duty must be towards some person or persons, in whom, therefore, a correlative right is vested. Conversely, every right must be a right against some person or persons, upon whom a correlative duty is imposed.
Now it is clear from this that the more rights a man has the more duties are due him by others, while the fewer rights he has the fewer duties will be due to him. If he have no rights, as in the case of a slave, no duties are due to him. But what "interests" do "rights" imply? In a free country rights consist mainly in the interests a man has in respect of his person and reputation, and interest in respect of things. A man has a right not to be killed, injured, assaulted, wrongly arrested or defamed. But these are not "interests" upon which a man may live. He cannot thrive upon his right to not being killed or wrongly arrested. A man may have all these rights and yet starve. They are of real value to him for the purposes of existence only in so far as they enable him to exercise or acquire rights over things—that is, over some kind of property—food, wages, or the soil. It is these latter rights that are by far the most important of all legal rights in point of number and market value. Hence in a civilised state the rights the law has in fact chiefly to protect are the rights of property. To further elucidate this let us substitute "liberties" for rights.
My legal rights are the benefits I derive from legal duties imposed upon other persons. My "legal liberties" are the benefits which I dervie from the absence of legal duties imposed upon myself.
Thus "right" marks the possession of the interest; "liberty" my legal freedom to use or enjoy it. I have a right over my estate, and therefore I am legally free to cultivate it.
Thus it will be seen that liberties and rights are strictly correlatives, and that the fewer liberties he possesses. But the "liberties" correlative to rights over things are much productive of profit than the "liberties" correlative to rights to personal freedom and reputation. I may use my right to walk the street without being assaulted, and use it eight hours a day for twenty years and yet gain nothing by it but an appetite, which I have not the mans to satisfy.
What, for instance, are the "liberties" of the great mass of the people in the cities of England? Then we are told that there are in London about two million people who do not know here next week's food is to come from. They have no property. Their rights do not expose them to the evils of high living. They have a right not to be killed—a right not to be injured, assaulted, wrongfully arrested or defamed. These rights cannot be taken into the market, like a right to a house in Belgravia. You cannot
Remembering this, we revert to the orthodox doctrine that general welfare is best promoted by the State confining itself to the protection of individual rights, and findthat it really means that the State's main concern is the interests of property owners the larger the owner, the more the State is concerned with his protection. Surely a beautiful doctrine this when the vast majority of the people (I am speaking, of course, of the old world) have no property at all.
I have given some time to an anlysis of what our idolised "individual liberty" really means to the great mass of the old world people. This idolatry still prevails, but the hollow places in the idol are being slowly revealed.
The freedom implied is mainly a negative freedom. Nay, it is a misleading illusion flattering or soothing the ear but yielding nothing to men's hope. Let me here anticipate a hasty criticism. I am, observe, under-estimating in no way the absolute necessity for legal protection of rights. The enforcement of lawa and order is the first essential of the State's existence, and the security of life and property which law and order confers is a paramount need not only of social progress but of our present social life. The purpose and only purpose of the reference I have made to individual rights and liberties is to expose to
What, then, are the proper limitations of the sphere of individual freedom?
First we can shortly state a rule which disposes of an infinite amount of fine-spun theorising about the sanctity of freedom. Freedom which a man uses to make a beast of himself has no sanctity and deserves no legal protection. Hence, then, the law, so long as it scrupulously respects proper privacy and all the more intimate and delicate relations of life, may wisely forbid anything which, allowing for the utmost individual variety of rational taste, no sensible person would wish to do, provided always that such interference is in the interests of the individual himself or of the well-being of the community. This proviso excludes meddlesome prohibitions in respect of small things.
The rule so stated would leave as wide a sphere of personal freedom as anyone deserving of respect could desire. Surely such a rule is more consonant with our conceptions of ture manhood and womanhood than a doctrine which expressly permits swinish excess so long as it invades nobody else's rights.
That this rule involves considerable limitations upon the area of personal freedom must be conceded, but these limitations will be those approved and unequivocally dictated by the intelligence and moral sense of the community. It is in final analysis coercion to bring human conduct nearer to an ethical ideal. It is in one aspect society conceiving its ideals as the measure of its rights against the individual. This is all antithetical to the individualism of natural liberty, and the service or injury this new system will do the future depends upon success or failure in discovering the true socientific frontier between collective control and personalfreedom. Already it is generally conceded in practice, if not in theory, that individual liberty may berestrained in the interests of public health and of public morals. Restriction in this direction will doubtelss increase. But the most marked limitations of the old theoretical sphere of personal freedom have taken place, and no doubt will continue to take place, on the econo-
But our race has only slowly, painfully and semi-consciously come to see that the system of natural liberty I am attacking furnishes in itself no true basis for modern social progress. I say "modern," because it is mainly owing to the complex development of capitalism, industrialism and invention during the last 100 years that this system has become so inadequate for true social progress.
I have already shown that at least in the old world the so-called "liberties of the subject" are but a mockery if the subject can acquire no rights to exercise. The whole fabric of modern society grows ever more complex and artificial. The ties of kinship as social bonds have almost disappeared, and the State must furnish new bonds to supply their place. The old intimacy and mutual aid of the village and the countryside have in large measue been supplanted by the "multitudinous desolation" of the city. The exigencies involved in this change demand something more substantial than the negative freedom of individualism. In one aspect of it, the basis of society is really the family. That is, a household for the most part, if not wholly, supported by the earnings or means of its head. Upon the husband and father the law casts an imperative duty to maintain wife and children. It will imprison him for beggary. It will punish him if he have no lawful visible means of support. It is his duty to have such means or earn them. Upon such a basis, then, society is built. But what if an honest and willing man have no means? What if he can find no opportunity of earning them? Is society so vitally concerned with the health and existence of the household and yet not concerned with what is pre-essential to the household's existence? This, if true, were surely a paradox, and yet it is the logical result of the laissez faire doctrine. But the truth is that from the point of view of general welfare possession of, or means of possessing, individual rights is at least as important as their protection, for possession of rights whose exercise will provide a living is essential to a discharge of the primary duties of citizenship liberty, conceived in vacuo, can no longer be relied on by the State to promote social progress or general well-being. True economic freedom in a modern nation, it has been said with profound truth, "is not the absence of restraint but the presence of opportunity." And what is meant by the "presence of opportunity."? I take it to mean a sphere of activity—a scope of work—with the tools or other materials requisite to such sphere of work, by and through which a willing man may maintain himself and discharege the legal and moral duties of citizenship.
In opposition to Mill's doctrine of liberty and non-interference of the State, it is now being increasingly reccognised that a proper purpose of Government is to bring tools to willing hands which would otherwise be idle or precariously employed. This is but an example of the people collectively, consciously and directly providing the conditions considered essential or expedient for general welfare and progress.
To provide these conditions (prudently and cautiously devised, let us hope), individual rights and liberties must if necessary be limited and checked. But while the functions of the State must increase in area and number if our social ideals are to be promoted, every increase should be jealously watched. Excess of social control upon the injividual life is as pernicious as excessive liberty. It mattes little from what source that control emanates. In religion the coercion of law, or even of an aggressive public opinion, produces an insolent orthodoxy which makes conformity a radiant virtue and doubt and dissent an offence. Conformity so thrust upon a peple kills religious liberty. In art the enforcement of canons of taste produces as it always has produced, a conventional, stilted and rigid school. On the social side of life excessive collective controal either by law or custom, imposes that dead, or paralysing uniformity seen in Eastern countries, and thus destroys
The lessons of the past warn us aganist giving too wide a sway to Government over the individual life. Excessive controal is vicious, whether is based upon the divine right of kings or of popular majorities. It is well here to emphasise the fact that social welfare, although largely the same, is not synonymous with human servation of the State may be advanced by restaints and prohibitions really hurtful to individual well-being. There are limits to the claims of collective interests and advantages, just as there are limits to the claims of individual freedom. Most students of sociology are agreed as to the effect upon a nation's members of woman's modern sphere of freedom. The new aspirations and efforts of woman to individuate in fuller life than that of merely mother and household drudge might conceivably be restrained by law in the interests of the cradle, but what in such event of the welfare of the women themselves? The seientific frontier between the individual and society cannot be laid down from any a priori reasoning. Experience, thoght, trial, failure, and retrial will all be necessary to ascertain its true position. Meanwhile we see on every side in all modern democracies a steady movement towards authoritative regulation in almost every domain of life except the religious. Evils rightly or wrongly traced to freedom are inducing restraints upon that freedom. Already freedom in connection with drink, gambling, horse-racing, drugs, duelling prize-fighting, tabacco, and morals generally is in several countries being steadily and greatly curtailed. Both in America and Great Britain there is a growing demand by the best citizens for some restriction upon the freedom of the press so as to protect particularly the young against the demoralising influence of a certain class of journalism. In most advanced countries there is—or thereis likely to be—increased restraints placed upon wastrels and vagrants and some form of legal discipline imposed upon the great mass of the obviously unemployable, both for their own good and that of the community. To anyone who makes a careful survey of the legislation of the last fifty years in most modern democracies it is amazing to see the extent to which society is turning away from the old school of natural personal freedom and is imposing by compulsion its conceptions of decency, temperance and moral well-being upon the individual life.
In the same spirit of coercion towards an ideal it has enforced all sports of regulations to secure the health and physical welfareof the people.
But the most striking limitations and infringements of liberty have been those imposed on what I have called the economic side of life.
The purposes of these limitations and infringements, although apparently various, are really phases of but one aim—sometimes, it must be admitted, but vaguely seen—and that aim has been to improve the conditions hygienic, moral and material of labour.
It will serve to remind you of the extent to which the limitation has gone if I point out that in several countries now it is a penal offence for a man to work, no matter how wilingly, or for another to employ him at a shilling, or indeed a farthing less than the rate of wages fixed directly or indirectly by law. This and countless other illustrations one might give show how far coercion instead of the old system of freedom is relied upon to promote general welfare.
I have already said that individual liberty has been and will be increasingly invaded to secure or provide the conditions deemed by the majority essential to progress. Primary education is now furnished by the State at the expense of the general body of the taxpayers. In Spencer's words, "I am taxed in order that my neighbour's children may be taught." Legal compulsion in turn is applied to force parents to send their children to the schools so established. Secondary and university education, mainly at the expense of the whole people, is almost free. So is technical education. Thus the State invades private rights by taking part of each man's property or money by way of taxation to provide what I may call equipment conditions for the people—a general, specialand technical training.
In industries it seeks by legal compulsion to secure the material conditions of decency by enforcing healthy surroundings, a living wage, and restricted hours. In several countries now, including England, the State may at the expense of the community take a man's land from him compulsorily to provide poor and unemployed people with farms, and not only with the soil, but with the means to work and develop it.
Thus not merely in new lands, but in old the State is striving to furnish its people with opportunity, not, as
Our conceptions of individualliberty have fundamentally changed with a change in our national aims. Wealth and its production still appear to be the paramount concern of orthodox political seience. This has tended to make every consideration of social evils subsidiary to the methods of increasing national riches. Such a disposition is clearly seen in the arguments by which Bright and Cobden resisted the early factory laws. The old Adam in individualism dies hard but "Wealth and its production" as the principal national aim is yielding steadily to "Want and vice and their reduction" as that aim. And in this transition of regard from wealth to want may be found the key to most of the limitations which for fifty years past have been increasingly imposed by law on individual liberty. "Want and vice and their reduction" as a collective ideal calls for a policy very different from that of laissez faire, and it is mainly the perception of this, or if you will the deception of this, that is driving modern democracies along the road of increased regimentation. It has been said that talk is the surface ripple—thought a ground swell, but national sentiment an ocean current. The great ocean current of democracy to-day is popular sentiment seeking, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes clearly, a social ideal. It issetting towards a State paternalism—to a closer control of each for the gain of all. We may like or dislike this great movement. Our individual preferences or antipathies count for little. You may denounce the River God, but the stream will bear you with it all the same. There is no wisdom in the angry opposition to the Zeitgeist. What is recognised as inevitable must be made the best of, and he who, failing to perceive its irresistibility, sets himself to check a world movement, is only a modern Mrs Partington with broom, mob-cap and apron, hopelessly attempting to sweep back the Atlantic.
But, I may be asked, what capacity has a democracy to devise, apply and, above all, enforce such an intelligent parental process as metaphorically speaking will make a garden of the wild?
I have already pointed out how essential compulsion is to progress, and the question naturally arises—How can the mass of men and women, falling as they do short of self-control, become in the form of a democracy the intelligent governors, not only of themselves, but of the whole community. This is a stock argument, and there is not a little in it, but not so much as I, at least, once thought. The view seems very plausible that order their own lives on rational-moral lines are incapable of controlling others. Then theaverage citizen is taken and his qualification for regulating the conduct of others examined and these qualifications found wanting. I am satified that this method of testing the capacity of the majority at least for moral Government is fallacious and misleading, for, strange at it may seem, the history of the world has shown that even a very bad man may make a very good ruler. It has been well said that "rare is the strength that can singel-handed overcome temptation, but common enough is that mild predilection for the right which is capable of supporting someone else under temptation." The affection of weak knees does not, thank Heaven, debar us from triumphing over the frailties of others! Nothing is more trite than the saying that he who cannot control himself is not fit to control others—and nothing is more false. If only those were allowed to uphold standards who had demonstrated their fitness to live up to them, how our reigning ideals would suffer! What widespread blindness if no one might pick motes from his brother's eye until he had cleared his own optic! The truth is, as it has been well put by Ross, that the faculty of apprehending one's neighbour's case so much better than one's own renders available for social control a vast amount of correct sentiment which is too weak to be effective for self-control. Just as in mining the cyanide process permits the reduction of low-grade ores formerly unprofitable, so the method of mutual control turns to account a vast deal of flabby anaemic sentiment which hither to has been of no use whatever in raising the general level of conduct. The "voice of a people" is indeed always much in advance of the practice of that same people. "Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor." Collective sentiment reflecting an ideal tends in a democracy to pass into a law whichin turn helps to lift practice nearer to the standard of the ideal. Many a man who votes prohibition as an ideal is consciously invoking compulsion to pre-
It may, however, be contended that democracy offers no guarantee that sound and elevated sentiment will thus pass into law. I do not deny that there is room for this doubt, but let it be remembered that history presents us with an apparent paradox, namely, that where the humbler and the socalled higher classes of our nation have differed regarding great social questions, the events have proved the humbler right and their so-called betters wrong. This is forcibly put and shown by Bryce in his "American Commonwealth," where he sums up the position in these words:—"Nearly all great political causes have made their way first among the humbler and middle classes." This fact, indeed, may be traced to deeper reasons which go far to relieve our gravest doubts as to the capacity of collective control for the purpose of intelligent government. We hear much of a social sense anti of a social conscience. I know that these phrases are of vague import, but in final analysis they mean collective consiousness a social ego only emerges with any clearness when natural sentiment becomes organised and articulate—when, indeed, collective opinion becomes self-conscious, when it begins to realise both its authority and its duties. Now it is in modern democracies, especially those with manhood and womanhood sufrage, that collective opinion—that is, of course, of the people as a whole—is most highly organised and active. Hence Professor Ross in the admirable work to which I have already referred, in observing this says:—"It is democracies that are most active in humanitarian legislation. 'The people' are the readiest to respond to a generous proposal. In every organisation of national opinion the bottom is more radical on purely moral questions than the top. If we would mark the moral plane of an age we look to the common people, and not to the hierarchies. For progressive views as to the rights of slaves, foreigners, enemies, or the lower races we appeal to the intuitions of common men, and not to the spokesmen of highly organised bodies of sentiment such as the church, army, trade, or 'society.' It is to the masses and not to the classes that we must protest against natural wrong-doing."
If, then, as Mill thought, individual liberty will be increasingly exposed to invasion as the majority become conscious of their power; as, in other words, national sentiment and opinion not only reign but rule, there does not seem any clear justification for the often expressed fear that that invasion will violate any true principle of justice.
But it may be said that progress depends on more than unsophisticated national sentiment. It demands invention, calculation, reasoning no the part of the Government. I do not demy this, but one of our greatest illusions is that reasoning is the main factor in social progress. Mr Balfour emphasises this in his "Fragment on Progress." "To hear some people talk," he says, "one would suppose that the successful working of social institutions depended as much upon cool calculation as the management of a joint stock bank; that from top to
Society is founded—and from the nature of human beings which constitute it, must in the main be always founded—not upon criticism (or reasoning), but upon feelings and beliefs, and upon the customs and codes by which feelings and beliefs are, as it were, fixed and rendered Stable. And even where these harmonise, so far as we can judge, with sound reason they are not in many cases consciously based on reasoning; nor is their fate necessarily bound up with that of the extremely indifferent arguments by which from time to time philosophers, politicians and, I will add, divines, have thought fit to support them. Mr Balfour then proceeds to show that this is true of a democratic Government based on public opinion. Thus, then, it will be seen that if such a Government is in the main collective sentiment operating as law, it is not likely to be less rational than other forms of government.
There still remains one other aspect of legal liberty to which I desire to refer. The sphere of individual freedom depends upon the efficacy of the restraints which circumscribe it. It is idle to talk of the legal limits of
But turning now to the former kind of obedience—obedience to a law passed in a democracy based on universal suffrage. That is felt to be obedience to the people as a whole. It tends to be vaguely viewed as a self-imposed restraint, and that same difference is discernible in the spirit of submission which we see in obedience to the dictates of our own self-control and those of an independent dictator respectively. Hence there is about a government based upon the will of the people a strength unknown to other forms of government. "Once the principle that the will of the majority honestly ascertained must prevail has soaked into the mind and formed the habits of a nation, that nation acquires an immense effective forece, and obedience to it becomes unquestioning if not cheerful."
In this lies at once the advantage and the peril of democracy. The advantage, in that its proper progress is not likely to be barred or long delayed by the resistance to its laws of strenuous and militant individual interests. Thus, so far as collective control is really expedient for the welfare and progress of the nation, it will be effective. But here arises a possible peril order in this world is usually produced by a conflict—either of forces or of interests. The opposition of centripetal and centrifugal forces gives the earth her orbit. If either were much weakened there would be disaster. The conflict of interests between man and the State has done much to give us our social order and the present area of individual liberty. But if the resistance of the individual to collective encroachment is much weakened—if what Mr Bryce calls a sense of the fatalism of the multitude disarms all individual opposition, and the champions of personal freedom leave the field as men who yield to fate—what is to prevent State regulation crossing all the frontiers of individual liberty and imposing upon the whole round of private life a control as oppressive as an Oriental despotism? That this is conceivably possible is undeniable; that it is humanly probably in an Anglo-Saxon democracy we may confidently deny. This is, however, the danger mostemphasised by those who regard a wide area of individual legal liberty as essential to the vigour and manhood of our race. But most of these grave apprehensions overlook the stability of national characteristics. National character is the product of many influences. It is due to racial origin and racial mexture—to geographical position, to the struggle for existence within and without its territorial limits, and to all the other experiences, including those of religion, which for a thousand years or more have gone to mould it. So formed it is not easily changed.
The character of our nation is sullen and stubborn, only slowly impressed by effects of government. I have already said that the spirit of individualism, which is the spirit of the widest liberty, is a national inheritance. It rejoices in that aggressive freedom which declares that a man's house is his castle. Thus the temper and character of the Anglo-Saxon people afford the best safeguard against any undue democratic domination of the State. The vigorous individuality that down the centuries has won us our civic freedom is not likely to be easily extinguished by democratic repressions. The instinctive love of liberty—the courageous exercise of it, which conspicuously mark our nation, will reflect themselves in all collective control and will, at least for many years yet, secure for individual freedom even a wider area than is either necessary or desirable in the best interests of the State. This prediction is favoured by other temperamental traits. Burke speaks of British "sullen resistance to innovation and the cold sluggishness of our national character which resists the subtilising of the philosophers." Certainly our countrymen have none of the inflammable qualities of a Latin people, like the French. They have never taken Utopias seriously. You cannot capture them by any large doctrinaire schemes of social reform. They dislike theories. They have little patience with any proposal which does not present a practicality they can grasp. They are moved to action not by fancy-fed ideals, but by the presence of a condition—by the pressure of immediate necessities. They may talk about El Dorados, but in practice they are men of short views focussing such policy as they have upon
Now, in closing, let me summarise my conslusions:—
It will be observed that each of these propositions bears upon the question of our legal liberty—that is, to the cases and purposes in and for which my property, conduct or speech may be interfered with by the State. In all the perplexing difficulties of the subject-matter of this address, no man can speak with confidence. If I appear to have spoken with confidence it is not because I feel any certainty about the accuracy of my views or anticipations. Upon such a subject as my present one dogmatism would be not only unjustified but an impertinence.
But if there is doubt as to the shapes and forms and methods of future Government, one thig is clear—that a democracy is in the long run governed by the character of its people, and unless the people possess the cardianl virtues of honesty, industry, temperance and justice, and individually and collectively desire to promote them, no form of Government can be a success and no nation escape decay. It is as legislation reflects or enforces these qualities, and only as it does this, that it can promote an ever-widening human welfare.
In a preface to this booklet, Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice of New Zealand, says:—
"Mr. Ross deals with political and quasi political questions. There are obvious reasons why I should not touch on such subjects. The social questions dealt with by Mr. Ross are, however, above politics, and have an interest for every citizen of Australia. I bespeak for this booklet the careful and thoughtful consideration of those who are looking to our new nations in the southern seas to become more and more the home of great and good citizens, and of those who realise that it is their duty to help to bring about these social reforms that will make such an ideal possible."
The Manchester "Co-operative News" is the press organ around which the whole co-operative movement, as it develops itself in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe, centres itself, and the imprimatur of this high authority has been given to Mr. Ross' booklet in the following criticism:—
"As was pointed out in an article by Mr. John Plummer, in a recent issue of the 'News,' the co-operative principle, as we understand it here, has little life, and still less practical
"The anti-socialists, he says, may be excused for not regarding co-operation with favour, for 'it is inimical to the régime of private capitalism,' but he can only account tor the indifference of Labour politicians on the ground that 'either they do not know better, or that a recognition of its supreme importance as a working-class movement should entail upon them too much social hard work without the chance of winning such prizes as are to be secured by successful political agitation.' But we need not follow Mr. Ross into the political aspect of the matter. What we have to admire is his strenuous advocacy of voluntary co-operation, of which he has evidently made a very careful and complete study. "A thorough-going democrat, Mr. Ross is naturally opposed to the anti-social agitators, who do not recognise that there is a social problem to be solved, and who have for
" Mr. Ross regards voluntary co-operation as a powerful lever for the raising of the masses, and, given a solution or modification of the increment of land values problem, this power may be considerably increased. "If, however.' he says, 'conservative anti-socialists are able to influence the Governments not to undertake the solution of the increment of land values problem, or its modification, but permit it to take its natural course unchecked, the agitation for State socialism, which the co-operative movement is calculated to overcome, may receive fresh vigour from the hard lot of settlers placed on the land under conditions to which State socialism would be a welcome change.' "This little work appeals to us mainly on account of the sterling advocacy of the principle for which this journal stands, and it should have an interest for every citizen of Australia. The story of the origin and progress of voluntary co-operation in Great Britain is briefly and lucidly told, and the object lesson is one well worth taking to heart by the new nations in the Southern Seas."
In a note to the writer of the pamphlet, His Grace the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania kindly says:—
"Many thanks for your booklet.... At present I have only had time to glance through it. Tt is most encouraging to know that there are some who are able in the midst of all this political strife to take a calm and disinterested view of matters, and to devote to our social problems an interest that is at once keen, practical, and scientific."
The following appreciative notice is taken from the "Age" newspaper:—
"Between the extremes of socialism on the one hand and unlimited competition on the other, Mr. John Ross' panacea for solving the economic problem of to-day lies in voluntary co-operation, and the pamphlet in which he advances his views is an interesting and decidedly suggestive array of all the facts and figures bearing on the immense success which has been achieved by co-operative societies of the nineteenth century, from the famous work of Robert Owen in New Lanark to the present day. His arguments and his data are to be warmly recommended to all those who are seeking information on a movement which, as Sir Robert Stout says in an appreciative preface, is worth experiment if it will palliate any of the evils from which we suffer."
The following table of Contents will give a fair idea of the character of this little work:—
McCarron, Bird & Co., Printers and Publishers.
To be had of all Booksellers and Civil Service Stores.
Price 1/-
In the Australasian colonies we live in a land of freedom. Our institutions are free, and no ruler tyrannises over us. We have done much for the civilisation and culture of our citizens. In our midst there is the free school, under the control of the citizens, and not dominated by any ecclesiastical body. We have free libraries, too, and in the larger cities there are art galleries, colleges, and universities. The health of the people is also a matter of public concern, and we have made provision for the recreation of our citizens. Gardens and parks open to the public are in all our towns. The political reforms for which the Chartists and reformers of England struggled sixty or seventy years ago are ours. And yet we have our social problems, and we seem to be no nearer a solution of many of them than our ancestors were in the early part of last century. We have often poverty amongst us, and the cry of the unemployed is not rarely heard in our land. What is to be done? We are bound to try to find a solution of the pressing social and economic problems that are with us. Mr. Ross, the writer of this booklet, thinks that in co-operation there is, if not a solution of our social and economic problems, at all events a mitigation of many of the evils under which we suffer. He may be too sanguine. This is ever the complaint we make when some new idea of social progress is launched. But if he be only partly right, if his remedy will palliate any of the evils from which we suffer,
Mr. Ross deals with political and quasi-political questions. There are obvious reasons why I should not trench on such subjects. The social questions dealt with by Mr. Ross are, however, above politics, and have an interest for every citizen of Australasia. I bespeak for this booklet the careful and thoughtful consideration of those who are looking to our new nations in the southern seas to become more and more the home of great and good citizens, and of those who realise that it is their duty to help to bring about these social re-forms that will make such an ideal possible.
Under the banners of socialism and anti-socialism, political parties throughout the Australian States and in the Commonwealth Parliament have been resolving themselves into two distinct and antagonistic forces, the central idea of the socialists being that of a collectivity of interests under State ownership and administration, and that of the anti-socialists the free and unfettered play of individualism, without State aid or interference—otherwise, unlimited competition and "the survival of the fittest."
State socialism in Australia is the outcome of Labour politics, and its demands are felt to be so subversive of the prevailing order of things that democrats, who readily sympathise with Labour aspirations, shrink from supporting measures of a character so revolutionary as to involve, by the sudden dislocation of existing arrangements, sufferings upon society greater than those which lend inspiration to the socialistic movement.
An astute Commonwealth political leader seemed to perceive in this an opportunity for starting an anti-social agitation, calculated to unite voters and politicians, other than State socialists, against a common danger.
Whatever sympathy thoughtful democrats may have for the aims of the socialistic party they can have none for those of a party that does not recognise that there is a social problem to be solved, and that, to accomplish this, the warning words of Carlyle need as much attention to-day as they did at the time when they were uttered:—" Will not one revolution suffice, or must there be two? There will be two if
laissez faire as a system of society, so imperative in its exactions that it cannot be relaxed without making concessions destructive of the theory, while its rigid adoption is fraught with consequences so revolting to humanity as to make it impossible in practice.
The serious error is to make "Unlimited Competition" and "Individualism" synonyms for one and the same thing-There is nothing in a doctrine of individualism that would prevent social combinations to be formed, in order to economise and co-ordinate forces for the better attainment of common objects without any State aid, and, in course of social development, it is as natural that combinations of this character should be entered into as that two persons should unite to overcome an obstacle beyond the power of any one of them to deal with singly. "Individualism" and "Collectivism" are by no means contradictory in character, and it may be asserted with confidence that it is under a system of scientific socialism that "Individualism" can be civilised and humanised, and redeemed from the brutish and demoralised attributes which belong to it under the régime of unlimited
Anti-socialists are bound to admit views favourable to a theory of government constituted for the administration of equal laws, under which citizens are conceived to enjoy equal rights and opportunities for acting their individual parts in the struggle for existence, singly or by voluntary associations, without State-made limitations in favour of privileged persons or classes. They could not logically defend their hostile attitude towards State socialism without admitting this, and the profound meaning which lies in the demands of socialism, no matter how imperfectly formed or crudely presented, comes from the fact that these conditions never have been complied with. On the contrary, Governments have interfered with individual liberties and citizen rights by laws which have conferred upon classes, from generation to generation, powers to monopolise the means of subsistence at their very source, and circumstantially promoted the accumulation of industrial capital and other wealth in private hands, upon whom the rest of the community have been made slavishly dependent for the means of living.
There is nothing, therefore, by contrast to be marvelled at in the attitude of that socialism which demands that the
It would be difficult to contend, upon general principles, against the validity of the sentiment ascribed by Mr. Rae, in his work on "Eight Hours for Work," to the late Prof. Jevons, namely, that "the State is justified in passing any law, or even in doing any simple act which, without ulterior consequences, adds to the sum total of human happiness," and to demand the removal or amelioration of evils which have been the ulterior consequences of class-made laws is, in itself, both appropriate and natural. It is easy enough to foresee many "ulterior consequences" which would be bound to follow the adoption of a State socialism that would make little or no call upon individual initiative, but the trouble is that the masses may require a good deal of very inconvenient experiences to teach them the necessary lessons. Experience is clearly proving what Robert Owen is said to have foreseen, that the individualism which belongs to a state of society based upon unlimited competition was destined to be worked out in time, and give place to monopolies. The Trust is the apotheosis of private capitalism, and yet anti-socialists, in
But the law of progress does not entrust its fulfilment to politicians of any class, whose sole policy seems to be that of a self-seeking opportunism. Amidst the contentions and recriminations of socialists and anti-socialists which distract the political atmosphere, and are productive of so much injury to public and private interests—a selfish political game played between candidates for Parliamentary honours and place and pay—there is hardly an allusion ever made to the social evolution which is taking place in Great Britain and Ireland, and on the European continent, by means of that marvellous and ever-expanding agency known as "The Cooperative Movement." Anti-socialists may be excused for not regarding it with favour, for it is inimical to the régime of private capitalism, but that Labour politicians should treat it with such absolute neglect and indifference is unaccountable, except on the ground that either they do not know better, or that a recognition of its supreme importance as a working-class movement should entail upon them too much social hard work, without the chance of winning such prizes as are to be secured by successful political agitation. Whatever the cause, politicians of every description are failures in the social field, and that is a state of things urgently requiring amendment. John Stuart Mill, with only the statistics before him which the first sixteen years of "The History of Co-operation in Rochdale" made available, meagre as they were and simple in character compared with the volume and complexity to which the movement has since attained, was inspired to perceive a new and transforming economic agency at work, with possibilities calculated to find a natural solution for many Labour and industrial problems which orthodox economists leave for settlement to the ruthless law of supply and demand operative under the régime of unlimited
It may readily be conceived, even by many who may be opposed to all socialistic schemes which postulate the na-
"Intelligence without liberty is oppression; liberty without intelligence is anarchy," is a saying attributed to Jules Simon, the French aristocrat and socialist. Whatever degree of intelligence belongs to social beginnings is naturally the property of a privileged few, who employ it to place and hold the mass of the people under conditions of dependence and servitude. In their primal ignorance and simplicity' the people accept the situation, generation after generation, without a rebellious thought or idea of protest, as their part in the natural order of things. From this arose false conceptions of social rights and duties, under the hereditary influences of which spiritual and secular authorities have taught and enforced such perverted doctrines of morality and justice as to have construed popular contentions in favour of civil and political rights into misdemeanours and crimes to be visited with the severest penalties, in the names of law, order, and religion. Even now there is much more truth than exaggeration in the saying of Tolstoy:—"Laws are rules made by people who govern by means of organised violence, for non-compliance with which the non-complier is subject to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered." So long as the people lived upon the land in a state of rude physical contentment, under a system of feudalism which had in it something of the clan sentiment of loyalty to their social superiors, their lot was tolerable, but when feudal services came to be converted into "cash payments" of rents and taxes, the masses had to toil and struggle, and pinch and starve, and endure all sorts of privations and miseries, that the heartless extravagances of courts and courtiers, of temporal and spiritual potentates, and privileged classes generally, might be gratified.
The sense of deprivation and suffering creates a spirit of discontentment and revolt, and a disposition to question the rightness and wrongness of things. In vain Governments, with all the forces at their disposal, have attempted to quell this rebellious spirit. It is a force in nature which must find vent, and oppressive laws and "Peterloo massacres," and Russian "red Sundays," instead of quenching it, are met by the counter-horrors of as many "French Revolutions" and other revolutions "as may be needed," until conservatism has to make concessions to fear that would have been promptly denied on principles of humanity and justice. What threaten to bring about social upheavals and popular insurrections are not the demands for social and political liberty, but the denial of them. The submerged masses have had the situation made for them, not by them, and their struggles for freedom from social servitude and political disabilities come from a natural born and irrepressible impulse, which, notwithstanding the blind, tactless, ill-regulated modes in which they frequently manifest themselves, social evolutionists and philosophic historians recognise as forces which 'make for righteousness" in spite of all the obstacles which the "classes in possession," and the monopolisers of the means of subsistence, place in the way. This is the meaning of the aphorism Vox Populi Vox Dei.
But democracy is never so led; it has to "grope" its way unaided, on rude and erratic empizical lines, from darkness to more light, but even "the light that leads astray is light from heaven," as well as that fuller and clearer light by which democratic efforts ultimately come to be systematically directed towards well-defined ends and issues.
Although demands for popular rights must pre-suppose more or less intelligence on the part of those who unite in making them, yet liberty has to be won, step by step, in advance of the greater and clearer knowledge which accrues from the struggle. This, of course, is very inconvenient to society generally, aggravated as the situation always is by the contemptuous and frequently insulting abuse which the defenders of conservative interests make of the superior intelligence and culture to which they never fail to lay claim, in contrast to the rude and unlettered condition of the "vulgar crowd." This the "crowd" feel and resent as gratuitous insult added to injury, and elements of anarchy must enter into conflicts carried on under irritating circumstances of this character. In the words of the late Prof. Thorold Rogers:—"It is not at all remarkable that when, after
In an article on "The Struggle for Existence," contributed to the "Nineteenth Century" for
Yet many eminent thinkers do not favour a theory of society based upon non-competitive principles. In the principle of competition evolutionists find an explanation of the mode in which all that is strongest and best in individual and racial character has been evolved, and many argue that its active presence in social and national life, however modified under the influence of an advancing civilisation, is permanently necessary to preserve human character from lapsing into degeneracy. And it seems evident enough that the antagonisms between man and his surroundings, between individuals, between tribes and between nations, have been instrumental in developing and strengthening physical and mental powers which no other conceivable process could have accomplished, and that the races who have had to contend with the more adverse circumstances—so long as they were not such as to have made progress impossible, as in the Arctic
laissez faire was distinctly set out. It was stated that "No interference of the Legislature with freedom of trade, or with the perfect liberty of every individual to dispose of his time or his labour in the way and on the terms which he may judge most conducive to his own interests, can take place without violating general principles of the first importance to the prosperity and happiness of the community, without establishing the most pernicious precedent, or even without aggravating after a very short time, the pressure of the general distress, and opposing obstacles against that distress ever being removed."
A Merchants' Petition in
Notwithstanding all that can be urged, and truly enough urged, by strictarian evolutionists and orthodox economists in favour of the part which the principle of "the struggle for existence" has played in the progress of man from savagery to a comparatively high degree of civilisation, it is clear that, at some stage of human progress, another and a much more powerful element must come into play, which the stoutest arguments and most trenchant logic of economists and evolutionists cannot repress or conquer. Progress, to justify the term or to be of any value, must, sooner or later, touch and unfold the emotional side of human nature, and create a sentiment of humanity irresistibly hostile to a system of society, based upon competitive struggles and laissez faire, so replete with human degradation and sufferings as only the soulless, unemotional intellect of a demon could contemplate with indifference.
Before the application of steam power to industrial machinery factories were built in the country where water power was available. The labour of very young persons was necessary in many branches of the textile industry, but, owing to the sparseness of rural populations, the supply was difficult to obtain. In "The Life, Times and Labours of Robert Owen" Lloyd Jones informs us:—" The obstacle, however, had to be overcome, and the plan resorted to was to obtain, as apprentices, from the various workhouses in the United Kingdom, as large a number of the pauper children as were required, and bind them under indenture to the foreman, or manager, under whose superintendence they worked. They were bargained for and sent to their destination in droves; the workhouse authorities, glad to get rid of them, prudently stipulating that those who contracted for them should take a fair proportion of the ailing and idiotic." These wretched children were lodged in sheds close to the factories, the beds vacated by the day shift were immediately occupied by the children returning from the
laissez faire "falls to the ground as a scientific doctrine," and that the late Herbert Spencer, with all his magnificent powers of analytical and synthetical reasoning, and unswerving loyalty to his conceptions of first principles, in vain placed himself in uncompromising opposition to any interference with the "régime of contract."
And so it is with human nature in everything, and human conduct must ever be actuated by circumstances which more directly appeal to human sympathies, rather than by remote considerations based upon utilitarian theories devoid of soul and feeling. The want of sympathy between employers and employed works much injury to both, by which the more dependent class suffer the most. Robert Owen, the recognised "father of modern co-operation," by his remarkable industrial experiment at New Lanark, on the Clyde, in Scotland, proved that this condition could be ameliorated and made tolerable, provided that employers could be induced to
When but still a lad Owen proved himself to be one of the most successful mill managers of his time; so much so, that, before completing his nineteenth year, he was made a partner on exceptionally liberal terms, without solicitation or even expectation on his part, by an employer who took this step to attach to his own interests a young man of such rare character and abilities. Owen was also possessed of keen and easily-excited sympathies—an apparent incongruity in the mental constitution of a successful textile manufacturer, especially of that period—and his whole soul revolted against the barbarous and inhuman practices of his class, and the depraved and immoral condition and physical deterioration into which millworkers were sunk and sinking under the unchecked exactions of cruel and rapacious employers. He did not believe that all this misery was an economic necessity; on the contrary, his contention was that the extension of just and humane treatment to the workers could be turned to economic advantage. Possessed of these ideas, and looked up to with confidence and respect by capitalists owing to the staidness of his character, and the good fortune which invariably attended his business operations, he was successful in securing partners to join him in purchasing the New Lanark Cotton Mills on the Clyde, in Scotland, for £60,000, where he, as sole manager, had liberty to put his humanitarian principles into practice. He assumed control of the works on
In an article on "Pre-Scientific Socialism," which appeared in the number for "He built healthy dwellings for the people under his employ, with garden plots, at cost price; he opened stores where commodities could be purchased at wholesale prices; he provided a common dining-hall, to save the waste incurred in separate cooking establishments for each household; he founded creches for the reception of infants, and opened infants' schools, the first of their kind, we believe, and prohibited children under ten years from working in the factory; he made the training of the young, moral and physical, his chief care, encouraging at the same time amongst the adults habits of sobriety and saving. His scheme was crowned with success. Emperors and kings came to see with their own eyes this new Utopia in the valley of the Clyde, and to be told by the owner that 'the foundations of prosperous virtue and moral happiness are to be found in the wise appreciation of natural laws and their application to the social body by the rulers of mankind.'"
Unfortunately this unique success had not been achieved without producing strained relations between Owen and some of his partners. Although the business paid handsomely, they noticed such unexpectedly large sums expended upon buildings, teachers, literature, &c., as would materially add to the net profits of the business, and their cupidity was excited. The part which a well-paid and well-cared-for body of sober and loyal workers took in making the profits so exceptionally good was not recognised. It thus happened that in eight years' time from the commencement of the experiment, and in the full tide of its industrial success, Owen had to find new partners to buy out the discontented ones. The new co-partnery purchased the concern for £84,000, being £24,000 above the original cost.
In another four years' time Owen had again to confront an exactly similar trouble. He had no labour troubles to contend with; they all came from capitalistic greed. On this occasion the discontented partners schemed to force on the sale of the business by auction, hoping to be able to
A new co-partnery was formed, including the celebrated Jeremy Bentham, and a "sanctimonious" quaker of the name of William Allen, for whom Owen purchased the business at auction for £114,000—£30,000 more than it was purchased for four years previously—and he was prepared to give £120,000 for it had the necessity arisen. To show how needless and selfish were the complaints of the retiring partners against Owen's just and equitable treatment of the workers, an examination of the books disclosed that the net profits of the business during the four years the partnership lasted (after paying 5 per cent, on the capital) amounted to £160,000, returning them their capital of £84,000 twice over all but £8000.
Unfortunately for Owen, and more so, eventually, for his workers, the most serious troubles yet experienced commenced with the advent of Mr. William Allen, who soon placed himself in uncompromising hostility to the system of education in vogue at New Lanark as far too secular and irreligious to satisfy his extremely sanctimonious views. After fourteen to fifteen years of nothing less than religious persecution, Owen, who had successfully contended against other forms of opposition, had to succumb to this. Under the strain he was "driven out" of a phenomenally prosperous business, which he had built up by the intelligent devotion of nearly thirty years of his valuable life. It may be imagined with what an aching heart he had to abandon a model industry and a thriving and contented community of sober and intelligent workers, with their wives and children, a prey to capitalistic greed, and that "complacent religiosity of the prosperous," of which John Morley said "it was hard to imagine a more execrable emotion."
After all, this was only anticipating what, sooner or later, must happen to an organisation so completely dependent upon the controlling influence of one exceptionally
Robert Owen was fifty-five years of age when he was forced to abandon the New Lanark Community, an industrially profitable and a socially righteous institution, to the tender mercies of the anti-socialists and individualists of his time. We have seen the summary given by the Rev. M. Kauffmann of the wonders accomplished by Owen with this experiment. It will bear repeating in terms of an answer given by a co-operative pupil—Mary Collier, Wigan—to the question of: "What was done by Robert Owen for the people of New Lanark?" one of a series of questions upon which children attending co-operative classes were examined under the auspices of "The Co-operative Union," a permanent society supported by co-operative funds for carrying on propagandist and organising work, and for watching over the development of the movement on correct co-operative principles. The reply was as follows:—
"What Robert Owen found when he went to New Lanark:—
"What Owen did for the people of New Lanark:—
This, in juvenile phraseology, gives a very fair idea of what went down at New Lanark before those enemies of commercial morality and social justice—unscrupulous trade competition and the sordid greed of the owners of industrial capital, and William Allanism—that kind of thing which has prevented the citizens of Melbourne for such a length of time from enjoying access to their own splendid possession in the Public Library on the only day of the week on which most advantage could be taken of it. Owen performed wonders when he tamed the cruel trade notions and heartless individualism of his time into some semblance of civilised regard for moral and humane principles, but the brutal and sordid elements eventually broke away from the restraints which Owen for so long managed to place upon them, and quickly destroyed the beneficent, and in every way successful, work of thoughtful and laborious years. The lesson, however, lived to give illustration to the new doctrine of society of which thenceforth Owen became the apostle, and with which his name has become permanently associated.
The New Lanark experiment, and the possibilities suggested by it, was a never-failing source of encouragement to the followers of Owen in their zealous endeavours to establish similar works with co-operative capital. To provide this capital was a formidable undertaking. The most sanguine enthusiast could not expect working men to save out of their earnings the amount of capital per head required for such a purpose. But Robert Owen taught more than one important lesson by his experiment. By means of a co-operative
In theory the scheme looked plausible enough, but success did not attend its working. It was a radical mistake to look upon distributive co-operation as means to an end instead of making it a complete and perfect end in itself, to which all other forms of co-operation were but tributaries. It was a subversion of the economic order of things to make co-operative production the final cause of co-operative distribution, probably preventing the promoters of the movement from making an earlier discovery of the principle which made the Rochdale experiment the pioneer co-operative success. When the goods of a co-operative store were distributed at prices as near cost as could safely be determined upon, members were enabled, there and then, to make savings as purchasers of what, under ordinary circumstances, would have been dealt with as traders' profits. It, therefore, seems strange when co-operative societies adopted the practice of charging members such prices as were current with private traders that the amounts taken for goods, over and above cost of purchase and distribution, should have been divided upon share capital as trade profits, and not upon purchases as savings belonging to consumers—the primary object of distributive co-operation. The capitalistic idea of dividing profits upon shares still prevailed, and, notwithstanding the limitation put to the number of shares which any one member of a co-operative society could hold, the practice failed to comply with the demands of that strict equity which co-operators strove after. So long as members,
"A new mind is first infused into society; it takes root, it expands silently, almost imperceptibly, for the surface of things remains the same; the same laws, the same form of
It was in a "fulness of time" created by the missionary labours of earnest and unselfish social workers—always in the "fulness of time," or new movements do not take hold and prosper—that the "word" came to be spoken that was to collect all practical social reformers into one body, "under one standard," but not to be recognised all at once, for like "the word" in the sacred story, it came into its own—to those who, above all others, needed the social healing it was destined to bring them, and they knew it not. Born of abject poverty, and cradled amidst squalor, infant co-operation had no "shepherds" to tender it homage, nor "star-led magi" to offer it devotion and gifts. How could it be possible that this could be the infancy of that which social evangelists and co-operative prophets for so long worked and prayed for? that in a comparatively few years this weakling was to develop such magnitude and powers as to fill "shepherds" and "magi" with so much admiration and respect as to feel honoured by obtaining a footing on the platform it was destined to raise, and to covet the privilege and distinction of presiding over a session of one of the congresses which were annually to assemble in its name? Now, private traders in Great Britain, and recently here in Melbourne, like the silversmith' of Ephesus, perceive the danger of the movement to their calling, and, by a despicable attempt to establish a "boycott" against it, vainly endeavour to strangle that which their class failed to recognise, and induce some
What the wisdom of men of learning and ability, possessing a sound knowledge of social and economic principles, profoundly in earnest and absolutely pure in motives, failed to accomplish for co-operation, was the discovery of a few impoverished and unlettered flannel weavers in Rochdale in
"The Rochdale Pioneers" were twenty-eight in number They commenced business as a co-operative society with £28 capital, or £1 per head, put together with a great amount of patience and perseverance in two-penny instalments. For a store they rented a room in a dilapidated building in a dismal locality, appropriately enough called "Toad-lane," and from there, on appointed evenings, distributed their goods under conditions so poverty-stricken and mean as to excite the jeers and contempt of the inhabitants of that slum neighbourhood. Simple, common-sense rules were adopted for conducting the business. Credit they could not afford, as the cash must be turned over quickly in order to keep the concern going, and, in itself, was a thing uneco-
The retail prices, as already pointed out, were not fixed at rates current with private traders in order to make profits, but in order to avoid losses; but the practice of making what, in ordinary business, go under the name of profits, and distributing them at quarterly intervals amongst members upon their purchases gave them such palpable and gratifying evidence of the benefits to be derived from co-operation—an element in which schemes that failed were wanting—as to secure their firm loyalty to the store and to attract others to it. "This," in the words of Holyoake, "was the discovery that created co-operation," a sentiment fully confirmed by cooperative experience right through from the Rochdale experiment which inaugurated the movement to its latest development. To depart from it would not only be inviting disaster but insuring it.
Among the Pioneers Holyoake says "was an original, clear-headed, plodding thinker—if that conjunction of terms be intelligible—one Charles Howarth, who set himself to devise a plan by which capital could be obtained and the permanent interests of members secured." There was no idea of borrowing here; the capital has to be obtained by hoarding the savings of members and applying them to the purchase of more shares. In order to accomplish this a rule
The rule worked admirably, adding greatly to the power of the society as a trading and provident concern. At the outset the trade capital was barely sufficient to meet the requirements of members themselves, so that non-members who might be willing to make purchases at the store, but unable to contribute their individual proportion of share capital, could not for the time be accommodated. As the funds of the society increased per member the Pioneers could then extend helping hands towards their poorer neighbours. This was done humanely, as wisely, by admitting them as customers of the store, with the privilege of members as to dividends upon purchases, but not as to voting, until the savings of each amounted to £5, when scrip would be issued for the amount and the recipient registered as a full member.
Here was a marvel—persons so poor that only a few could contribute £1 each to the capital of the society, and that by saving it up with painful perseverance in two penny instalments; others too poor to contribute any capital at all; yet, by making all their purchases at their own cooperative store, "they eat and drank themselves," as Holyoake quaintly put it, into each becoming the owner of a £5 share of the society's capital. John Bunyan's religious paradox can hardly appear more absurdly self-contradictory:—
The following is from a letter published in the "Co-operative News" of "We have, through the Rochdale system of saving money, thousands of working men to-day who can lay their hands on ten, twenty, and, in some cases, a hundred pounds who otherwise would never be in possession of a single farthing.
The Pioneers, or, as the society was named, "The Rochdale Equitable Pioneers' Co-operative Society," commenced business on the
In
This was certainly an excellent six years' progress from a beginning so weak and unpromising, and a progress that went on increasing like the proverbial snowball. Suffice it to say that, in
But it was not in the creation and equitable distribution of material wealth alone that this society has been the pioneer of modern co-operation, and stamped it through and through with its own character. The following is from an article on "Co-operation Amongst the Working Classes" which I contributed to "The Melbourne Review" for "From an early period of the history of the Rochdale society 2½; per cent, of the profits were devoted to educational
Thus the Rochdale Pioneers, although not starting with the idea of making profits and hoarding them so as to accumulate capital—that being a subsequent development of the movement—nor with elaborate views, if any, respecting social reconstructioN. Yet, actuated by the primary and simple idea of combining their resources for the economical purchase and distribution of as much of life's necessaries as their extremely limited means could afford and capitalising their savings, they set such a train of ideas and circumstances in motion as promises, by the natural law of evolution, to realise all the ambitious projects which able thinkers and earnest social reformers had contended for in vain. From prudential motives goods were distributed (as already mentioned) at such prices as ruled with private traders, not for the purpose of making profits, but in order to avoid losses; and the restoration to members, as dividends upon their purchases, of such moneys as remained on hand after all expenses had been paid for, afforded facilities and created a desire for saving which led to the phenomenally rapid growth of the society in members and wealth, and to the spread of co-operation as a social movement. The propagandists had now a new experiment to work from that gave completeness to practical co-operation as a system of society.
Like all popular movements, co-operation had to make headway against numerous social and political difficulties, and much hard work had to be done to clear the way.
In a little work written by Messrs. A. D. Acland and Benjamin Jones on "Working Men Co-operators," we read that:—"In the very years in which the small Rochdale society was beginning, working people were making themselves heard and felt in the State, and legislation was making their lives more free and their power for self-help greater. In
The Provident Societies Act was amended from time to time so as to give greater trading facilities to co-operative societies registered under it, and the passing of the Public Libraries Act, and repeal of the duty upon newspapers in
A highly important lesson taught by the pioneers was, not only that it was possible to make a great co-operative success out of a small beginning, but that a small beginning was a valuable contribution to co-operative success. In the evolution of things it was the birth of a "new social order" that was taking place—a new movement requiring "new men, men with new hearts and feelings," with new ideas and new social aims, and a new and special training in a new school of experiences, which had to progress from simple and easily-understood and easily-dealt-with conditions, automatically developing new tendencies and possibilities, and the workers in it developing the increased aptitudes and attributes necessary to guide it towards higher and wider issues. Until the general public are thoroughly educated in co-operative principles and methods, a society commencing on a large scale is certain to include a quantity of uncongenial and disconcerting elements which have to be assimilated or eliminated before success can be achieved. The smaller beginnings bring the more congenial elements together to start with, and make progress by gathering in more and more of a similar character as time goes on.
But although the initial conditions out of which powerful co-operative societies have grown were simple enough in the sense of being free from complexities puzzling to the understanding, success in most instances was only achieved by the exercise of much patient self-denial, frequently extending over many years of plodding, discouraging hard work. But not greater than, nor probably so great as, the cares and
This society was started in
In the "Co-operative News" of 9th April last a report is published of a "Big Demonstration" which took place to celebrate the opening of a new five-story warehouse, erected by this society at a cost of over £21,000, to stock which "took the contents of nearly sixty railway waggons." With the exception of some ironwork, "the entire building had been erected by the society's own workmen," and the stock was supplied by the Co-operative Wholesale Society—loyally co-operative right through. "The new warehouse has been erected on a site in close proximity to the St. Mary's Wharf of the Midland Railway Company, having a frontage to Wood-street of 212 ft., and a frontage to Fox-street of 116 ft. The total length of the warehouse is 128 ft., and its width 72 ft. It contains five floors and basement, all of concrete, and supported on iron columns, with rolled steel girders and joists. The total area of floor is 56,000 ft. For lighting the interior of the buildings there are 390 lamps, equal to 6000 c.p., while outside five arc lamps are fixed. At the rear of the premises are the stables for twenty-five horses, with harness room, lofts, &c., and a cottage containing living room, parlour, three bedrooms, and bathroom."
The article from which the above is an extract opens with the statement that "so far as money and members were concerned the pioneers of co-operation in Derby held a very weak position . . . their total capital was only £2, and their numerical strength was a dozen."
From such an origin developed a society of 17,000 members, with corresponding trade and wealth, yet, not with standing the marvellous results eventually arrived at from an origin so despicably and hopelessly insignificant, it will be found to form no unique record in the history of co-operation. Similar results can always be achieved when the right men take the work earnestly in hand of urging, instructing, and organising their fellows.
In
In
The satisfactory progress made by this society in two years' time may be seen by comparing the above figures with the returns for
This society had a very weak beginning, starting in
In marked contrast to the affluent commencement of the Civil Service Co-operative Society of this city, the Woolwich society had a very humble beginning, notwithstanding the powerful body of Government employees to which the promoters belonged. It was started in
Co-operative capital and savings increase so fast that new uses have to be found for them, so that the interest charge may not press too heavily upon what otherwise would be an over-capitalised business. This is what Lord Rosebery alluded to when he said, in his presidential address to the delegates which formed the Annual Co-operative Congress, which met at Glasgow in
Under pressure of this nature the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society had purchased 175 acres of land, upon which it was decided to build a model town of 4000 to 5000 houses. On the
The delegates who attended the Annual Co-operative Congress which met at Stratford in
"This estate of 190 acres, the property of the Woolwich society, where houses are being erected by the works department of the society for the members, is possibly unique in the co-operative world. Over 600 houses are completed, and there is no trouble in disposing of the same. Trams, chartered by the society, met the delegates at the gates of the Arsenal for the purpose of conveying them to the estate. Here tea was provided in the Co-operative Hall, after which parties were conducted through the workshop, where the woodwork for the houses is prepared, and the flagstones for the pavement and window sills are manufactured. The Chalk Pit, on the model of a coal mine, was visited, and this being lighted by electricity, was the cause of much wonderment. Messrs. J. T. Harris and T. Smith, of the Woolwich society, conducted small parties through the Bostall Wood, where an al fresco concert on a small scale was held, and thoroughly enjoyed."
In
This society also had a small beginning, but made a fairly rapid progress. It started in
This is the kind of progress which becomes possible when wage-earners are co-operatively educated and co-operatively led. The Beswick society did not escape the early hardships which seem to be invariably characteristic of the movement. In its third year the store appointments were as yet of a bare and primitive character. "The board of management had to sit on empty cheese boxes, and every bit of work had to be done free of expense." This was a statement by Mr. Brooks, who was on the society's committee since its third year, and who added:—" We have taken the movement to the doors of the people, and in the winter time we have visited the people in their homes." Co-operation is a thing that cometh not by the uttering of platitudes about "the uplifting of humanity and the calling of three cheers for God and humanity," backed by the enforcement of Labour laws that would have crushed out co-operation in almost every instance if applied in the initial stages of society formation, when work for long hours and without remuneration were necessary to build up institutions for working men that were to increase the comforts, leisure, and opportunities of all connected with them. The distinction to be drawn between the treatment constantly necessary to check the evils chronic to competition as a trade system, and the temporary difficulties and sacrifices which wage-earners have to encounter in laying the foundations of a trading institution of their own by means of co-operation, have yet to be properly understood and allowed for. Co-operation, to emerge successfully from any difficulty, has to be left very largely free from extraneous interferences. Troubles within itself can be overcome if a sufficient number of members are intelligent enough to understand what they are about, and prove loyal to their own interests, and never fail to give their custom to the store.
Just one instance more to illustrate the capacity of a cooperative society to recover itself from financial difficulties that would inevitably involve private enterprise in ruin.
The Leeds Industrial Cooperative Society, over thirty-five years ago, lost £50,000 in a colliery venture, and for a moment the existence of the society was threatened. But the directors and members were co-operators who knew what could be accomplished by the powers which lay in them, when loyally and faithfully exercised, and they decided to stand by the store. It has to be remembered that members of a co-operative distributive society, out of which the wealth is created that gives expansion to the movement, are, first and foremost, customers, each supplying his or her own individual share of trade capital. The trade is, therefore, assured with all its great profit-making capabilities, and not dependent upon the public goodwill, which generally fails when most needed. To make up the loss of capital the profits of the Leeds Industrial were reserved for some years to build up a redemption fund; the financial position was soon recovered, and the society again became an exceptionally powerful institution. In
The above instances are typical of the many hundreds of distributive co-operative societies which followed in the wake of the success established by the Rochdale pioneers, each and all demonstrating that co-operative success can unfailingly be won by the loyal and faithful observance of well-tried and, withal, simple conditions, neither so venturesome nor hazardous as those which, as a rule, fill the lives of private traders with care and anxiety—a lesson which ought not to be thrown away upon working men. So far we are only on the fringe of the subject as a movement which clearly embraces within its evolutionary sweep the creation of a new social order, and the next step will be to follow its natural and automatic development towards that end.
As distributive societies, formed on the Rochdale plan, increased and multiplied and felt each other's presence and influence, the same simple motive which formed the raison d'être of the co-operative distributive store asserted itself in moving several of the societies to co-operate with each other in order to establish a central wholesale purchasing agency, so as to avoid competition amongst themselves in the wholesale market, and to secure, by collective purchases of considerable volume, greater benefits than each society could command by purchasing on its own individual account.
With this object in view, we are informed that "the Christian socialists started a Central Co-operative Agency in London in
These efforts were not quite on systematic co-operative lines, although, if successful, they might have proved great conveniences to many of the societies, and might have worked by degrees into organic form. A co-operative wholesale society, to be the centre of a complete system, must needs be the act of a federation of individual societies themselves, moved by an impulse identical with that which, in the first instance, caused individual citizens to form co-operative distributive societies. Things sooner or later must have developed in that direction, and the impulse was accelerated by the marked hostility displayed towards the co-operative societies by private shopkeepers, who threatened to withdraw their custom from such wholesale merchants and manufacturers as supplied the societies with goods to the injury of
A number of distributive societies federated to form the wholesale, providing capital at the rate of £5 for every ten of their members. One shilling per share was to be paid upon application, leaving it optional to pay up the balance in cash or out of accruing dividends upon purchases as societies might find most convenient. In this way the wealthier societies helped the smaller and weaker ones, and the wholesale got the business on cash terms.
This was but the application to co-operative wholesale trading of the plain and simple principle of collective purchasing, and distribution of profits as savings on members' purchases, discovered by the Rochdale Pioneers, the adoption of which by other societies made distributive co-operation such a signal success, and now destined to vindicate itself on the more extended field. Social reformers were beginning to perceive possibilities of greater and still greater triumphs for the movement by the extension of principles in co-operative economics which had for its objective the welfare of consumers—that main body into which all other classes must merge and lose themselves, as rivers are lost in the sea—and they proceeded with care and "the taking of infinite pains" methodically to develop them. The history of the Co-operative Wholesale is similar to that of each of the societies which combined to start it—a small beginning, steadily gaining ground by patient, prudent, intelligent attention to the business and active propaganda work among the societies to induce them to join and strengthen the federation. This was the great idea now—federal co-operation by the development and ramifications of which the whole social world could be conquered, a system, inaugurated by the help of people's farthings, yet calculated in course of time probably to render powerless the syndicates, trusts and combines promoted by J. D. Rockefeller and Pierpont Morgan millions.
Although there were over 500 co-operative societies in Great Britain at the time the Wholesale was started, only a small number, having a total of 18,337 members, entered the federation. The business was started in an office in Manchester, significantly described as "obscure," with a capital of £2455. For the first thirty weeks the turnover was £51,857, on which a profit of £267 was realised.
In
In that year the business was removed to the situation in Balloon-street, Manchester, now occupied by the Wholesale Central Buildings. The new premises covered about 230 square yards, and altogether could afford but spare accommodation for anything like a large business, yet one or two of the directors felt so apprehensive lest the forward step which had been taken might prove risky that they suggested the propriety of letting off a portion of the building as a matter of precaution. This pessimism the more clear-headed of the members of the board overruled, and circumstances very soon justified their confidence. The business increased at such a rate that in
In
Immense as these figures are, they are not nearly the whole. The Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited—an independent, but affiliated, institution—was started in Glasgow in
As the Co-operative Wholesale Societies prospered productive and other forms of co-operative enterprises were entered upon, line by line, and many difficulties have been overcome which, at one time, were thought to place a bar against the development of the movement beyond its organisation as a wholesale purchasing and distributing agency. The Manchester Wholesale has large capital invested in biscuits and sweets works, boot and shoe works, soap and candle works, woollen cloth works, flour mills, clothing factories, cocoa and chocolate works, shirt, mantle and underclothing works, flannel mills, &c. It has purchasing agencies in Cork, Limerick, and Armagh in Ireland, also in the United States, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, and a fleet of eight steamers trading between English and Continental ports. It has thirty-nine creameries, with fifty-one auxiliary ones in Ireland.
The Scottish Co-operative Wholesale has established numerous and highly-prosperous industrial concerns. At Shieldhall, near Glasgow, it has factories for boots and shoes, leather currying and tanning, cabinet works, brushware, ready-made clothing, preserves and confections, coffee essence, drug and drysaltery, hosiery, pickles and sauce, printing and bookbinding, tobacco, tinplate, artisans' clothing, building and mechanical works. At Glasgow it has factories for bespoke clothing, mantles, underclothing, shirts, umbrellas, waterproofs, boots and shoes, aërated waters, sausages, bacon-curing, saddlery, building and electrical fit-
Mr. H. W. Wolff, the authority upon "People's Banks"—under which title he published a valuable little book in
In Germany about
In
"The next step," Mr. Wolff says, "was the formation of a co-operative cattle-purchase association . . . which move attacked the usurers in one of their strongest outworks, and reduced their mastery at a vital point." But the "citadel"—the cruel rate of interest charged for existing debts—had yet to be dealt with. To inaugurate a system whereby that evil could eventually be overcome, Raiffeisen, in
Signori Luzzatti and Leone Wollomborg were instrumental in introducing these "first aids to agriculture" into Italy, where they have thriven immensely. The campaign was started in
The democratic character of the bank may be seen by the statement that in
The characteristics of the banks are said to be these:—
Caution is exercised in making advances; only members can borrow, and the money is to be used for the purpose for which it is lent, and none other. The family type is observed, and all know each other's circumstances. This system confers upon members the power to borrow cheaply and lend safely as no other can.
Mr. Bolton King, an English landowner who devotes his time and energies to establish co-operative settlements on his own estate, and interests himself in the co-operative movement generally, contributed a highly interesting article to the "Independent Review" describing what association and credit banks have done for Italy. The following notice of the article, which appeared in the "Age" newspaper of
"They buy what they want in quantities at wholesale prices, cultivate their land with improved implements according to scientific methods, and sell their produce in the best markets. Co-operative dairies are now numbered by hundreds, and in some places these have increased the incomes of the small cowkeeper by one-third, while returning the shareholders a dividend of 7 per cent. The same principle is being applied to wine-making, and is just beginning to show itself in silk culture. In bygone years the peasant
In France the principle of association applied to land and rural industries has received a development of its own, characteristic of what appears to be a genius possessed by the French people for that kind of organisation. In an article published in the Manchester "Co-operative News" for
It is a fine sentiment to say of land, "tickle it with a hoe and it will laugh with a harvest/' but to put mere labour on the land unskilled in the conditions necessary to its profitable culture can only end in failure, and amongst the qualifications necessary to success the capacity for co-operative effort on the part of settlers is not the least. There are orchardists and small settlers now who are able to get fairly good return from their land and plantations, but who fail to make their industries profitable simply for want of co-operative action in preparing their products for market and for purchasing supplies. This is a matter for settlers already established to attend to on their own account, without going, as the saying is, cap-in-hand to a Government for assistance.
If the wealthier French landowners made the conditions of entrance into agrarian associations anything at all high—as they might have done without causing surprise or comment—the small cultivators might have been excluded, but they could be formed into co-operative unions of their own, and work their way to success as members of the class have done elsewhere. The struggle might have been greater and longer, but co-operation overcomes all that; yet the whole movement could not have been as effective as on the larger scale, which developed into proportions of a national character. The population engaged in small rural industries in France are too numerous, and their total produce of too great a value, to be ignored in any agrarian co-operative movement. Persons engaged in any particular industry, such as grain-growing, wine-making, dairying, or any other
For fuller information upon this absorbingly interesting subject Mr. Wolff refers the readers of the "Co-operative News' to what he characterises as "an excellent little book" on "Agricultural Syndicates and Their Work" by the Count Rocquigny.
Other countries, like Belgium, Denmark and Holland, furnish convincing evidences of the enormous improvement which has been made in the condition of rural populations and in the increase of national prosperity wherever agricul-
In his opening address Count Karolyi said:—"Every co-operative centre ought to bear in mind the aim of all co-operation, and that was greater social force through co-operation, greater economic knowledge through practical instruction, and, moreover, a higher moral development through the need of being equitable. It was not State socialism that was wanted, but liberty."
The italics are mine, as I desire to point out how the practical adoption of co-operative principles on the Continent of Europe, for the solution of social problems, had vastly altered from the ideas of State socialism which characterised the revolutionary doctrines which animated the "Internationalist" movement of the early seventies of which Karl Marx was the inspiring genius. The discussions at the Buda Pesth congress throw a good deal of light upon this aspect of the question. On the second day Count Rocquigny—the author of the little book so highly commended by Mr. Wolff—read a paper on "The Duty of the State Towards Co-operation: Should it Subsidise it or Not."
A delegate from Wiesbaden said that "forty-four years' experience in Germany proved conclusively that the intervention of the State was absolutely unnecessary." A Russian delegate was of opinion that the State could aid financially without loss of co-operative independence. A Hungarian delegate favoured State aid, another opposed it. The British delegates were against State aid, but Mr. W. Maxwell, chairman of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, Glasgow, gave cautions expression to the sentiment that there might be circumstances surrounding some of the Eastern countries which Western co-operators did not understand, and which might call for help even from the State, and that it might be left for those countries to receive or reject such measures of State aid as might be held out to them. At the same time he confessed to having no faith in State aid. The glory of the co-operative movement lay in the fact that it had been built up by the working classes without going cap-in-hand to anybody, and all that co-
A resolution was submitted to the congress declaring "that co-operation warranted a moderate intervention of the State for the purpose of encouraging its application in countries in which private enterprise was not strong enough to serve such purpose of itself, but that this intervention should not injure any other interests entitled to consideration, nor degenerate into permanent assistance, since that would prevent co-operative institutions from acquiring vitality of their own."
The anti-State sentiment was sufficiently pronounced to make it evident that the proposition, although so cautiously worded, could not be carried as a resolution of congress, and rather than introduce an element of discord into the deliberations of "The International Co-operative Alliance" by a formal vote on a question which, under many conceivable circumstances, might require to be decided upon grounds of expediency, it was decided to leave it an open one.
"This had the twofold advantage of giving a free hand to the various countries, and removing any need for a sacrifice of principle on the part of those who regard self-help as the fundamental basis of all co-operative effort."
This was a wise decision, calculated to preserve "The International Co-operative Alliance" from liability to come under an influence that might develop sectarianism in its ranks, and left the movement, in relation to State aid, exactly in the position reasoned out by Mill in the passage quoted from his work in my preliminary remarks, namely:—" Government aid, when given merely in default of private enterprise, should be so given as to be as far as possible a course of education for the people in the art of accomplishing great objects by individual energy and voluntary co-operation." With close settlements already in existence, self-help associations have proved amply sufficient to provide members with every necessary requirement, financial and otherwise, for develop-
The "democratisation" of credit would be incomplete without a system under which advances could be made on mortgage to owners of small properties—and on people's homes on terms equitably even with those commanded by the wealthier class of proprietors. The Credit Foncier, the principles of which, and its evolution on the European Continent, were lucidly explained by mm. Pinschof and Loprieno in their evidences before the Royal Commission of Banking in
A Credit Foncier may consist of an association of property-owners for the purpose of securing loans on mortgage for its members, and of obtaining the necessary funds for that purpose from outside sources on their collective security; or it may be formed of members with share capital to act as an intermediary society between borrowers on mortgage and the investing public. The latter is the form in which the system has come to find favour, and in which it could be so easily
M. Pinschof, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, said:—"The first institutions were founded by the borrowers of money. This is the first development of the Credit Foncier—the German Landschafts Banken. After the seven years' war between Prussia and Austria, especially in Silesia, the distress was very great; money was very scarce, and the rate of interest very high. At that time Buring submitted to Frederick II. of Prussia his scheme for the formation of mutual associations of borrowers, who would be jointly responsible for the debts of each individual of the institution, and who would thus be a certain guarantee to the lenders of the money that they would only admit good people to get advances." It was some years before Frederick the Great gave his support to the scheme, but finally did so by investing a considerable amount in the Credit Foncier bonds. At a later time, as M. Pinschof informed the Royal Commission, "Napoleon III. took up 10 million francs (equal to £400,000) of mortgage bonds to give the Credit Foncier de France a start."
Here we have two notable and instructive instances of how Governments may aid a self-help people's movement by statesmanlike acts, and without a taint of State socialism. The funds supplied in each case were so economically utilised as to make the investment amply remunerative, and an enormous benefit to a class of borrowers whose emancipation from the extortions of usurers was a vast gain to the State itself. Credit Foncier institutions became self-going concerns, and their bonds favourite stock in which to invest people's savings so as to administer to the needs of the great body of small producers, and the purchasers of their own homes, without the intervention of middlemen bankers and money-lenders of any other kind. The system was established by law in France in
The borrowing power of a Credit Foncier is limited to a certain multiple of its capital, a principle with which we are familiar, and no moneys are accepted on deposit in the way usual with ordinary money-lending institutions. Loan funds are provided for—(1) by share capital, and (2) by sale of bonds. After the investment of share capital, bonds are issued from time to time as funds are required for actual business, and not before. In this way the indebtedness of borrowers to a society, on the one hand, is exactly equal to the indebtedness of the society to its own shareholders and the public on the other, and provision is made for maintaining this equilibrium throughout by using a power conserved to the institution of calling in bonds at any time by ballot, to be paid off and cancelled. Loan repayments, instead of being placed to a sinking fund, are disposed of in this way, and the equilibrium, which is disturbed as repayments come in, is again restored when the accumulations are employed to cancel their equivalent in bonds. Thus, no interest is wasted by Credit Foncier institutions on idle money, and no unwholesome pressure is put upon managers to stimulate the loan market to find employment for unused funds.
M. F. Loprieno, in a very informing little pamphlet published in
There are other features belonging to the system which enables the stock to find a ready market at par values, even at times when other forms of investment are suffering from depression. The design being to accommodate the small land and house owners with cheap money, it naturally follows that the stock itself should be so "democraticised" as to come within the ability of the smallest investor to deal in it, and the transfer of bonds from hand to hand made as free from formalities as possible. Some institutions accomplish this by making their bonds transferable by indorsement, but the most acceptable, because the most convenient, form is to issue bonds with interest coupons attached, made payable to "Bearer," and of such low denominations so as to be as easily transferable from hand to hand as a £5 note. In this way they form an acceptable addition to the currency, whilst offering inducements to the working classes and small traders to exercise thrift beyond any advantages offered by Savings Bank institutions as conducted, and it is the duty of a Government to encourage in every conceivable way, and even to stimulate thrift, by opening up avenues for the profitable investment of public savings. In France, when Government loans are placed upon the market, the people can invest their small savings in the stock as free citizens without having the opportunity closed against them in the interests of high financiers and big brokers—a principle which the Bent Government have wisely adopted in the local flotation of the late Government loan—whilst in Great Britain, under Mr.
It is with capital as with water. It is necessary that streams formed of people's savings should be collected in financial reservoirs and placed under State supervision and regulations, but equally necessary that channels should be formed for its distribution, so that the class who make the savings should themselves reap the full benefit to be derived from their employment, instead of forming a capitalistic store for only Governments and big operators and speculators to draw upon. On the Continent of Europe this has been accomplished to such an extent that Credit Foncier institutions and people's credit banks have come to be as much regarded as agencies for providing safe and profitable employment for people's savings as they are for performing the special functions for which they were designed.
These sentiments are well expressed in a resolution carried at the British Co-operative Congress which met at Middles-borough in
"That this congress earnestly invites His Majesty's Government to consider, at the earliest possible moment, whether it is not practicable to employ—as is done elsewhere, and most notably in France, Germany, and Belgium, admittedly with absolute safety and admirable results—part of the large sums collected from the poorer classes by means of the savings banks, by way of loans granted to suitable intermediaries furnishing adequate security, in the construction of working men's dwellings, in order that by such means one of the ackowlegded great needs of the hour may be met; the money withdrawn from fructifying use may be turned back into directly useful employment; working men's money may be made to satisfy working men's wants, and by means of a higher rate of interest for deposits maintained than will, after
The italics are mine, in order to show that the importance to be attached to the Continental system of employing intermediary societies as agencies through which people's savings could be utilised for the people's benefit, did not escape the notice of British co-operators. The capital of the intermediaries offers better security to the Savings Banks and other investors in their bonds, and a better guarantee of more careful and more economical management, which the Government could much more safely recognise than by accepting the risks of making advances through comparatively irresponsible boards of State-appointed and State-paid commissioners, or State officialism of any kind beyond what may be necessary for the inspection of advances and securities in the interests of public safety. It is a sensible and scientific credit system, in which the Government can, and ought, to assist, perfectly free from a suspicion of State socialism, and, instead of weakening it, promotes the cultivation of a sound individualism.
It now remains briefly to summarise some of the results which mark the progress of the social movement from competition to co-operation, of which the foregoing is a sketch, and discover what lessons they are calculated to teach, and what light they are able to throw upon the confusing quantity of misspent energy wasted upon fruitless political and social controversies amongst us, to the neglect of that honest, intelligent, reconstructive social work of which so many examples abound in other countries, which we, in our lack of appreciation and true conceptions of the nature of things, may look upon as behind us in democratic progress—a very grave error indeed.
Under the heading of "A Bird's-eye View of Co-operation," the Co-operative Union has tabulated statistics which show that from Just as this little work was being prepared for the press, statistics under this head had come to hand as follows:— "From Comparing the data given in the text with these later returns, it will be seen that in three years' time, to end of
In an able and well-informed article contributed to the "Arena" magazine for
The above prepares us to entertain the highest optimistic views of the capacity of co-operation to solve the social problem. Mr. E. O. Greening is a veteran of the movement, having been closely identified with it since
In an address which he delivered at a session of the annual co-operative congress which met at Perth, Scotland, in
And this was not a sensational novelty sprung upon Mr. Greening's hearers in
But the growth of the movement does not await the orderly development of the Rochdale system from distributive co-operation to every form of production and exchange by which supplies reach the consumers. The principle is active in detached forms, developing from a variety of centres, but all actuated by identical motives of economy which, sooner or later, must bring them into uniformity, like patterns in a mosaic, so as to form the co-operative commonwealth conceived by co-operators on the Rochdale principle to be the natural development of a consumer's co-operative movement. Mr. H.W.Wolff has shown that, on the Continent of Europe, a system of democratic banking has been developed, which has enabled small producers, especially peasant proprietors and persons engaged in small agrarian industries, to improve their lands, stocks, and crops; to co-operate in preparing their common produce for markets; in getting advances and
Honesty—straightforward, transparent honesty—forms an essential part of co-operative capital—indeed, a prime necessity, for the co-operation that is a people's mutual self-help movement, and not a combination of capitalists or traders formed for the exploitation of the rest of the community, can only thrive by the exercise of fair and equitable methods. Every departure from principles of strict integrity must be a violation of some economic law necessary to its existence and progress. Every self-help association established for the purpose of effecting economies in production or distribution by which the superfluous middleman, speculator, and private dealer can be dispensed with, however objectless may be the
The struggle of right against wrong is a painfully protracted one. The final triumph, however, cannot be doubted.
But so long as labour contentions are confined to the modification of conditions which obtain under a system of trade competition, the advantages gained can never be satisfactory nor stable in character. Factory and labour laws have done much to mitigate the evils of unlimited competition, and humanise its practices, but when legislation is depended upon to establish a "minimum wage"—except as a temporary bridge over which to pass on to something better—the law of supply and demand, operative in a competitive system of employment and trade, will assuredly assert itself, however slowly, and decide ultimate issues in spite of all legislative efforts to override it. Neither unionism, nor strikes, nor Courts of Arbitration can compel an employer of labour to pay as much wages as a worker may stand in need of in order to enable him to live and rear a family in tolerable decency
The hopelessness of the situation is felt, and, naturally enough, stands responsible for the demand for a State socialism which, in the optimistic conception formed of it, is to find congenial occupation for all, and ample means to satisfy personal and social wants, under a system of State ownership of the land and of the industries, substituting an all-embracing collectivism for individual enterprise and private capitalism.
As already stated, the ruling classes, at the early stages of State formation, made laws that gave themselves a monopoly of the means of subsistence, which to this day are responsible
Co-operators in the United Kingdom are so sensible of these inherent defects that they decline to be classed as socialists, notwithstanding that their movement has had its origin in the social science doctrines of Robert Owen, promulgated by his disciples, and accepted by every co-operator. Even on the Continent of Europe the improvements which have been effected in the social condition of peoples by the adoption of co-operative methods of self-help in production, trade, and finance, have been so great and obvious that agitation for State socialism is losing ground in its own home, and voluntary co-operation is taking its place as the foundation of a new social order. I have given a greater number of instances of the rise and progress of co-operative societies in the United Kingdom than would be necessary for the mere purpose of illustrating the working of a principle, in order to impress upon the minds of wage-earners, if I can reach them, the all-important fact that co-operative success is not a chance work, but the assured result of plain common-sense, and entirely practicable methods. By voluntary co-operation the
Private capitalists adopt the principle of co-operation and apply it to schemes of anything but a social character. They are, indeed, found to be so injurious to public welfare that they have become, in esse vel posse, objects of hostile legislation in every nation, and are now engaging the attention of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament. How far such legislation should be prohibitive, how far regulative, are questions of grave importance, and have a direct bearing upon the subject herein discussed. As previously pointed out, the heartless cruelties practised under the régime of unlimited competition by the owners of early industrial machinery, to which may be added the excessive exactions of rack-renting landlords, and the great national loss and vast amount of human suffering caused by the cruel evictions carried out under their unrestricted authority, discredited the doctrine of laissez faire to an extent that made State interference a matter of unavoidable necessity. Now the competitive system itself seems to be threatened with a general breakdown before the rising tyrannies of the combines and trusts, creating a new situation inviting measures of State interference which, in the absence of a countervailing social movement, may lead to direct State socialism.
The Manchester "Co-operative News" for bona fides of such combine."
Under this Act a number of prosecutions had taken place, and were active at the time when the issue of the paper from which the above extract has been taken was published, and heavy penalties were being inflicted. In delivering judgment against members of a combine of this character, "His Lordship Councillor Boyd" made the following remarks:—"There is no doubt that lawful combination may easily become unlawful conspiracy. A company of respectable people get together to control a trade. Their object of furthering their own ends obscures or blinds their moral sense as to the fair claim of others. Accordingly, they plan with dulled or forgotten perception of individual personal responsibility; fair dealing must not come in to lessen the prospect of goodly gain, and so is formed a monopoly which to them is justified by its profitable fruits, but to others becomes baneful, working harm and loss, stealthily depriving them of money without returning just value—in brief, cheating them."
It is not the legality of the combines as trading concerns that seems to be here called in question, but the legality of the practices in which they may be employed, as a citizen may be liable to prosecution without an attack being made upon citizen rights. A combine in itself, economically considered, may be a distinct advance upon the wasteful and ill-organised competitive system from which it springs, but, like any other system, it must confine its operations to legitimate objects and ways. The Standard Oil Trust, Cotton Thread, and other combines, are able to serve the public in their various lines more economically than can be possible by the
There is another distinction that goes to favour the popular plea for State socialism as against trading by combines. A system of manufactures and commerce by combines, however shrewdly organised and prudently managed on strictly legitimate lines, would yield no further benefits to wage-earners and consumers than would be barely sufficient to prevent opportunity being given for State interference, and to keep outside capitalists, if any, from "figuring against them," as I once heard a representative of the most powerful trust in the world express himself. After making this necessary concession to social interests in the interests of the organisation's own safety—a policy which is not always followed when a temptation to make plunder out of a "corner" presents itself—a balance of power still remains to combines, and fully exercised, to exact from the general public excessive
A democracy, awakened to some sense of what is due to itself, i.e., to social and public rights, could never accept as the terminus ad quem of all social progress the best results of trade and commerce carried on by combines, or by any system of which private capitalism seems capable, and the anti-socialists, by not recognising and admitting this, and by taking up an attitude defensive of a system which, at its very best, is an exploitation of the mass that supplies the world's labour, and of the public consumer, to an extent that is daily becoming less and less tolerable, are pushing the controversy to an acute stage that may make more or less experiments in State socialism inevitable.
The same politicians and classes who, correctly enough, point out many serious reasons for objecting to State socialism, and make use of them as alarmist cries by which to unite the rest of the community against it, are the logical upholders of interests which, at the same time, constitute them the natural opponents of co-operation as a social movement, yet, by force of circumstances, are made to support a State policy that favours its evolution.
In the conflict of parties a situation is created that induces conservative politicians, manufacturers, private traders, and others—even landowners, if they be permitted to sell when they like, and misappropriate to themselves all the increment value given to the land by the public demand for it—to encourage the establishment by the State of close settlements of small producers on the land, from motives, not the least of which is to counteract the growing influence of State socia-
The application of machinery to rural industries has helped to introduce co-operation to the small producers. When the State of Victoria granted a bonus on exports to encourage the butter-making industry, and employed experts, with complete plant, to travel from district to district to instruct farmers in the use of cream separators and butter-making machinery, and the economic value of co-operative creameries and butter-making factories, co-operation was started amongst the primary producers, and is developing into a self-reliant, self-expanding movement, extending to persons engaged in every form of rural industry. In the "Age" newspaper of
The above paragraph tells a story complete in itself, and points, with well-founded assurance, to much greater co-operative possibilities. Individual dairy-farmers come together to form local co-operative butter factories, followed up, as a natural evolutionary process, by a federation of all the co-operative factories throughout a wide province, in a conveniently situated central co-operative selling and purchasing agency of their own, with its own co-operative agency in London. This development was hastened by the scandalous manner in which the producers were treated by private middlemen agents, and a further development must assuredly follow, and result in a federation of every provincial organisation in one national centre—a Farmers' Central Co-operative Agency Society—for receiving consignments of every kind of rural produce from members, arranging for freights, regulating exports, grading and fixing prices against which to make advances to consignors—in short, to do everything in selling and buying, and, generally, that members stand in need of, and to act as a propaganda and educating agency for furthering the interests of members and the development of the movement.
Through the able leadership of Mr. C. E. D. Meares, of New South Wales, a central society, constituted upon lines likely to develop this greater federal character, has been established in Sussex-street, Sydney, called "The Coastal Farmers' Co-operative Company," of which the members are maize-growers, co-operative butter factories, cheeseries, cooperative bacon-curing factories, breeders of cattle, pigs, poultry, &c. At the end of the fourth year of the society's
The prospects are not so encouraging when we come to look amongst the labour population for signs of that cooperative movement by which millions of the working population of the United Kingdom have raised their class in the social scale to a position of great material wealth and commercial influence. We have a few co-operative societies, but no working class co-operative movement. There is a Consumers' Society in Bendigo, started and successfully conducted by Mr. W. A. Hamilton, ex-M.L.A., and a thriving one at Ballarat, started by Mr. James Drummond, and making good progress under his management, whilst Mr. G. Thomp-son, of Adelaide, has rendered eminent services to co-operation in his city by starting the "Adelaide Co-operative Society" thirty-eight years ago, and guiding it to a state of well-established and growing prosperity. But to promote co-operation of a progressively expanding character, similar to what has been done in the United Kingdom, requires an ever active organised propaganda work and enthusiastic, energetic leadership. For lack of this the social field in Australia is little better than what is termed a "co-operative desert," with the trail of the politician over it all, to the neglect of all good social work. Had the great capacity of the Labour party for organising work been more employed in this direction, with some of the zeal and earnestness of
The co-operative prospect brightens, however, when consideration is given to the success which has attended the "Civil Service Co-operative Society," started in
The start of the society was a faulty one. This, under the conditions which prevailed, appears to have been unavoidable if a society was to be formed at all. The whole thing was the result of a sudden impulse, inspired by exciting circumstances, which at the time appealed strongly to the esprit de corps of the service. The members as a body were not well versed in the principles of co-operation, nor conversant with its history, and there was no time to undertake educational work. It was, therefore, decided to form a Civil Service Co-operative Society at once, so as not to lose an opportunity exceptionally favourable to the enterprise, although recognised principles vital to co-operation as an economic social movement had for the time to be disregarded. The society was formed with a fixed capital of £30,000, in 30,000 shares of £1 each, which, under the excitement of the moment, were promptly taken up by about 7000 members—an unparalleled success, but which soon proved that the society, under the rule adopted for raising the capital, was composed of members of the Civil Service, but was not of a Civil Service co-operative character. A Civil Service Co-operative Society should make room for every eligible member of the service to join the society as they might feel disposed, and should be free to issue shares in ready response to every such application. The other rules were of approved co-operative character, with the exception that a 10 per
This want of fidelity to the store and to their fellow-members, and these unreasonable expectations, were absurd, of course, and very embarrassing to the management, who found it hard to amend the situation, because, by the joint-stock system adopted for raising capital, the doors were barred against receiving the continuous inflow of new members which the Industrial and Provident Act provides for. A co-operative distributive society is constituted to trade with its own members, and if its own members will not support the trade of their society the result must be obvious.
Early evidence was thus given of how necessary it was that this unworkable rule should be repealed as soon as ever practicable, and the society placed upon a proper co-operative foundation by the adoption of the only rule for raising capital by which the society could grow and prosper. This meant active propaganda work amongst the members, and the commencement of a very remarkable history in the annals of the co-operative movement.
The need for this educational work was anticipated by the establishment of a monthly newspaper called "The Federal Co-operative News" from the very first, and, at an early stage of the society's history, the directors called to their aid
The work accomplished, or carried to the verge of accomplishment, through the instrumentality of this Civil Service co-operative propagandist association, may be summarised as follows:—
The Credit Bank is quite distinct from the Civil Service trading society, although closely allied to it, and, being co-operative, its customers have first of all to become members by holding at least a £1 share in its capital, which may be paid up by small monthly instalments. "See Appendix—"The Civil Service Co-operative Credit Bank."
The Co-operative Union have rendered essentially important services to the board of management in advancing the interests of the society. They were enabled to transfer the society's business to the handsome building erected on the society's own freehold—land and buildings costing £30,000—before the third year of the society's existence entirely lapsed. They assisted very materially in providing the society with a Civil Service Co-operative Credit Bank ally, which, whilst accommodating members with loans, also relieves the store from liability to have to refuse credit for goods in instances when it might be painful to deny it, and adds immensely to the store's attractions; by their efforts the members of the society were increased in numbers from 7000 to 9000 by the better distribution of its 30.000 shares, increasing the business to an annual turnover of more than £100,000—not one-half of what it might be "were every member giving loyal business to the store. It now only requires that the Rochdale system of admitting members and raising capital should be adopted to give the society a true co-operative constitution, freely opening its doors to every eligible member of the Civil Service ready and willing to enter it.
But even were this last condition, so necessary to complete its constitutional co-operative character, complied with, it would still fall short of being typical of co-operation as a social movement so long as the society retained its class limitations.
A co-operative movement, to be a social movement, has to be a people's movement, without class distinctions. For want of this broad social character, the Civil Service Co-operative Society has already come into practical competition with co-operative societies founded on the broader type in Bendigo and Ballarat. To support this view, it is not necessary to prove that the provincial societies should have lost one member or one customer on this account, or that the Civil Service Co-operative Society's branches opened in those localities should have dealt in any instance with one person outside their own class. What violated the economic character and confraternal spirit of co-operation was that two co-operative societies should have been found occupying one and the same territory. This "overlapping" is one of the special evils against which the leaders of the movement are constantly on the alert as an unnatural form of competition, and is certainly a breach of the monistic conception of society, so lucidly denned by Huxley, of which co-operation bids to be the practical economic embodiment.
The managers of the Civil Service Co-operative Society soon came to realise the significance of this unco-operative situation, and took early steps to amend it. The experience, however, was a valuable one, and a gain to social evolution. The concession made to a principle essential to co-operative unity, when sanctioned by the members of the Civil Service Co-operative Society, may be accepted as an indication that the institution is automatically developing into a broad people's movement. This is more than confirmed by an important progressive step which the directors of the society and members of the Co-operative Union have taken to persuade eight or nine other co-operative societies throughout the country to federate with the Civil Service Society to
Everything considered, it may be regarded safe to assume that co-operation, both on the Rochdale system and on that which fits in with the economic requirements of primary producers, is on the eve of becoming a well-organised social force in this new land, with a propaganda of its own for promoting the movement, without calling upon the State for aid in any matter which co-operators as individuals can manage much better for themselves. The State, however, is bound to act a part of supreme importance in forming rural settlements for placing primary producers on the land under conditions that will enable them to co-operate in marketing their produce and obtaining supplies, and to surround themselves with the comforts and amenities of a civilised existence. This is a matter that requires separate consideration.
This is a question that lies at the root of the whole social problem. Upon its solution fundamentally depends whether the country is to be settled by a prosperous class of primary producers or by a struggling class of late-and-early toilers, slaving to make a bare and precarious living, that, in course of time, may urge them to implore the State to take the whole thing over and relieve them of their miseries. In co-operative trading we have seen that, after all expenses, including interest upon capital, had been paid, the surplus profits were restored to members on their purchases, as the legitimate owners of what they themselves created. Waiving the question of the right of making a commercial commodity of land at all—that is past praying for, and society has to get out of the trouble the best and fairest way it can—it may be freely conceded that landowners are fully entitled to have the legitimate capital value of their investments respected, but it is quite another thing that they should be permitted to make monopolistic use of it to confiscate the rights and interests of the general public. It is for this that the combines and trusts are made the subjects of restrictive and hostile legislation, and they receive more justification from the laws of orthodox political economy, founded upon the doctrines of competitive individualism and laissez faire, for their commercial and financial enterprises, than can be claimed by landowners who have simply to "lie low" and do nothing in order to reap the fruits of their monopoly, and leave the industrial community to do all the work.
Land is The Great Natural Monopoly, to which no single individual nor single generation can claim special proprietary-rights, and, when made a commercial commodity of, there is no law in political economy so certain as that by which land increases in value by the increased demand for it by an increasing population, and that without any effort on the part of the owners.
The increasing value of land indicates the pressure of population on the means of subsistence, and is greater in densely populated countries, and in and near towns, than in new colonies and at distances from closely inhabited centres. The pressure may be temporarily relieved in the more densely populated situations, but only to be increased in the others, by the building of railways and ships, by which the surplus products of distant areas and countries can be economically exchanged, and emigration from thickly-populated countries to new lands facilitated. But this is only reducing the pressure to an average level by distributing it over a larger area—not arresting it for one moment, but giving it a wider base from which it commences at once to continue its upward movement. The law always holds good that the value of land rises with increase of population, and in a manner:—
More certain and unabatable than the rise in value of any other commodity; and,Altogether different in character from the aggregate increase of other forms of wealth.
The value of a commodity does not primarily depend upon the capital employed, upon its production. It must have some value in use before it can have any in exchange. Air does not cost anything to produce, but its intrinsic value is such that, if it could be monopolised by a class, the rest of mankind would have to pay dearly for its use. On the other hand, an article may be costly to produce, and yet be unmarketable if it has no value in use. The supply of any commodity cannot be continued for less price than will repay cost of production, with something additional for profit; and
natural value. Articles which cannot be thus indefinitely produced, or are under class control, are essentially monopolies, and although the cost of production to the owners may be comparatively low, the cost to consumers will be high in proportion to the intrinsic value of the article. The value of food in times of famine rises to whatever it is possible to give in exchange for it, for it is a matter of life or death. The demand for commodities less necessary to existence will not reach this extreme limit, and no scarcity will force an article beyond the price which people can be made to pay for it sooner than go without.
Commodities, therefore, which can be produced to an indefinite extent will be maintained, with more or less fluctuations, at prices which afford a margin for an ordinary rate of profit, and they are only articles of necessity of which the supply is, or can be made, limited, which can have an increment value above this natural level. Natural monopolies, and commodities incapable of indefinite supply, are not subject to this rule, but have an increment value not depending upon the cost to owners, but upon the important nature of the want to be supplied, and the more important the want the greater the possibility of the increment value.
The conclusion is inevitable that land, which is a commodity not only incapable of addition to its quantity, but which is constantly diminishing in inverse ratio to increase of population, and is the source of all supplies, must increase in value as time goes on at a greater ratio than that of any other commodity not of such prime and absolute necessity.
Again, there is no comparison between the increment value of land and the increase of other forms of wealth. Other wealth increases by adding building to building, railway to railway, improvement to improvement, and to maintain this increase, and counteract the effects of deterioration and de-
natural, or unimproved, value of the land alone. Capital employed in industrial pursuits increases by constant activity and thrift, and it is out of the product of this general industry and economy that landowners (as distinct from land cultivators) receive that which gives enhanced value to their investments. The profits arising from manufactures and commerce, and from improving and using land, represent something actually produced to maintain and increase the general wealth. The demand for houses does not necessarily increase the value of houses already built. It means an addition to the general wealth by the building of more houses, but a demand for land raises its value, and increases the wealth of its owners by diminishing the wealth of the rest of the community, and not by the addition of a single cent's worth to it. The conclusion is indisputably clear that capital invested in the raw material of the earth cannot be increased in the industrial and economic sense of the term, and that land investments are simply the purchasing of a power by which the owners can compel the industrial portion of the community to hand over an undue share of the wealth which they create to non-producers, a power which waxes greater and greater as population increases, with a relatively diminishing area of land to live upon.
There is no intention here to discuss how the problem of increment land values is to be solved. It is sufficient to call attention to the fact that there is such a problem to be solved, if the social problem itself is to be solved without State socialism. Co-operative societies of primary producers, and—thanks to the great work done by the State civil servants—co-operative societies of consumers, are each
A brief description of how this institution came to be established, and a practical instance of how it works, will give a very clear conception of its nature and objects, and of the important part it is likely to play in the co-operative movement.
When reasoning with a shareholder of the Civil Service Co-operative Society for not giving his custom to his own store, Mr. Burke discovered the cause to be the member's indebtedness to his local storekeeper to the extent of £9, which mortgaged his freedom beyond his ability to redeem himself. His income was but little over £100 per annum, more than £50 of which was annually spent with the local trader, and the prices which he had to pay were 15 per cent. in excess of those charged at the Civil Service stores for the same class of goods, or £7 10s. per annum, because of a £9 indebtedness on the storekeeper's books.
This would average 9d. on every 5s. worth of goods purchased, and probably may not have been too much of a premium for the storekeeper to charge to cover risks of loss to which a provision business run on credit is liable. The case in point was a rather hopeless one, and of pathetic interest. There was not much chance of recovery under the circumstances which held him in their relentless grip, and the storekeeper was as helpless in the matter, probably, as his customer. The trader must pay his way, and the system made it risky.
Mr. Burke was acquainted with the literature of People's Co-operative Credit Banks, and the idea forcibly struck him
The member whose case suggested the idea, became a member of the bank, and borrowed £9, to be repaid at the rate of £1 per month, with interest at the rate of 2d. per £ per month on the unpaid balances. The repayments were made as follows:—
This bank and the co-operative store act and react economically on each other. Were it not for the bank this borrower could not have paid off his indebtedness to the private trader and transfer his custom to the co-operative store, and without the savings effected by dealing for cash with the store, he could not hope to keep his repayment engagements with the bank.
At the rate of £50 of purchases per year, he would have to expend with the private trader, for the nine months the loan ran, £37 10s.—for goods which cost him at the co-operative store £31 17s. 6d., making a saving of £5 12s. 6d.; to this has to be added 6d. per £ returned on his purchases, j 15s. 10d., bringing the whole up to £6 8s. 4d., to which he
This is said to be by no means a solitary instance of the good this bank has accomplished, in association with the store, to help members out of "very tight' places. Although the principle of people's banks is not new, this particular application of it in association with a co-operative retail store is the first of its kind, so far as? know, and seems entitled to special attention as a likely means, if adopted, to solve the credit difficulties which British co-operators find it hard to eliminate from their ranks, much to the detriment of their movement. There are always cases in which to refuse credit seems somewhat cruel, and yet to give way in one instance makes it difficult to keep loyal to the cash system By having a credit bank to apply to, a customer's temporary financial wants may be relieved, and the cash principle in trade preserved inviolate.
Many members of the Civil Service Co-operative Society, as Mr. Burke feelingly remarked to the writer, were kept more or less bound to the local traders, not because they were ever under the necessity of obtaining their supplies on credit, but because circumstances might any day place them in that position, and whilst private storekeepers were always ready to accommodate customers, of whose reputation they had probably many years' satisfactory experience, with whatever credit they might require, the rules of the Civil Service Store could not recognise the claim, however deserving and pressing. This loyalty to a cardinal principle in strict retail trade economics, was ready to place the store and its customers at any time at a disadvantage, against which customers made provision by keeping up their connection with the private storekeepers. The establishment of the Civil Service Credit Bank not only removes all liability to the occurrence of strained relations of this nature, but presents the remedy in a form which vastly increases the economy by which the accommodation can be received, and preserves the indepen-
This, however, is not quite the same thing as the system of People's Credit Banks, designed to aid persons engaged in reproductive industries, by which, for instance, primary producers are helped to pay cash for fertilisers, seeds, stock, implements, &c., to be repaid out of the increased wealth which the investments produce. In strict economy, the true sphere of credit is to aid reproduction. It is quite another thing to use it in making loans in order to help persons out of financial difficulties, owing to having incurred expenses in excess of their incomes, and who have to submit themselves to the practice of more or less severe economies in order to repay the debt. To meet such cases, the Civil Service Cooperative Credit Bank is a most admirable and really beneficent institution, driving usury and distress from the door of many deserving families,
The bank is not only used for helping members out of difficulties such as anyone is liable to be placed in, however prudent, but also to economise expenditure. One small example will explain. A member, for instance, may find it very inconvenient to find the amount requisite to purchase a yearly or half-yearly railway travelling ticket. No more need be said. The Civil Service Co-operative Credit Bank is prepared to accommodate its members in this and other similar respects.
The office is at 114 Flinders-street, Melbourne, managed under the Presidency of W. M'Iver, A.I.A.V., and seven other directors, with J. Cummins, secretary—all members of the Co-operative Union. In writing for information, it is necessary to send a postage stamp for reply. See notices and advertisement in "The Federal Co-operative News."
McCarron, Bird & Co., Printers, 479 Collins-street, Melbourne.
An important review of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, its history, results, and the future prospect of the measure, was given by the Hon. Dr Findlay (Attorney-General and Minister of Internal Affairs) last night before a meeting of the Wellington Liberal and Labour Federation in Uodber's rooms, Cuba street. It was a wet nislit but there was an audience which filled all the available space. Mr George Winder (president) was in the chair, and among those present were Sir William Steward. M.P. (Waitaki), Hon. C. M. Luke. M.L.C.. and Mr W. H. P. Barber. M.P. (Newtown). The speech was followed with intense interest, and concluded amid a demonstration of cordial appreciation.
Hon. Dr. Findlay said:—
I recently delivered an address at Wanganui on "Labour and the Arbitration Act" in which I traced the origin and outcome of our wage system, and t to show the purposes, the possibilities and the failures of our Industrial Arbitration law. Owing partly to the great and pressing importance of the subject—partly because of the liberal length of the press reports throughout New Zealand—especially in the three Wellington dailies and in the "Lyttelton Times,' my views have had the advantage of criticism by every prominent daily newspaper in this country. And the temper of this criticism—though often advrinse—ha6, on the whole, been fair and unembittered by party feeling. Indeed, several of the most influential journals have shown by their tone that industrial npnee, like national safety, should be lifted above the came of politics, above the play and partisanship ot party conflict, to that higher level ot discussion in which all sectional differences are sunk in a united effort to demise and obtain the fair trial of an improved industrial arbitration system.
I am not here to-night to deliver a fighting political speech. I am not going to attack or defend any party, am here to contribute such serious thought and information as I possess to a better understanding of the most difficult, the most vital, and the most urgent question of the day—the Labour question—and before I proceed let
We must get down to facts—truly diagnose complaints and their causes, decide their remedies, and then ascertair if ways and means are available. It has been said that many of the advertisements of modern patent medicines aim chiefly at persuading people they have got the disease rather than offer any reliable proof that it is curable—and many of our platform social physicians seem to follow the same practice. Heaven knows we all recognise the evils well enough. What is wanted is a true and permanent remedy, and that remedy is certainly not to be found by inflaming drafts of revolutionary rhetoric. I believe that where our deepest interests are concerned it is better to be told plain—if unpalatable—facts than be fooled by glorious lies about impossible Utopias. If to night I submit facts and figures which disappoint the hopes of any section oij the community. I claim that I am performing a useful if a thankless service.. I propose ta divide my address under three heads., viz.:—
1st—A Defence,
2nd—A Criticism, and
3rd—An amendment of our Industrial Arbitration Act and under the first head to reply to the critics of my Wahganui speech. In my Wanganui speech I tried to establish the following propositions:—
Much of all this is admitted by my critics, but some of them say that weating in this country was not eradiated by the Arbitration Act but by the Factory Act, passed before it or short-
In
Hosiery workers, 9s a week.
Shirtmakers, 18s 6d a week.
These were the maximum wages paid and I quoted these and other trades to show that sweating rates existed in
If you will refer to the Factories Act, in force in
Thus by recommendations, agreements, or awards under the Arbitration Act, the wages of shop tailoresses and factory tailoresses and pressers were fixed at a living rate long before the Factory Act of
In view of all these references can it be seriously contented that sweating in this country was eradicated by the Factory Act, and not by and through the agency actual and potential of the Arbitration Act.
But I further contend that the Act wa6 designed in part to prevent sweating and not to prevent strikes alone. I quoted from perhaps the best authority I could get, the framer of the Act himself, to support my contention. I need not do more now than give a further, and I think, conclusive proof. In giving a full account of the origin and purpose of our Arbitration Act, of which Mr Reeves was the framer, he says on 70 pages of his work on State experiments in Australa and New Zealand. "These (the critics of the Act) write of it as if its
I contended that the Act had for many years prevented strikes, and that if reasonably used in the spirit intended bv its framer, it would always prevent them. This contention has been adversely criticised. I am not going to repeat the proofs I gave, but submit these considerations to unbiased critics:—
Eighteen strikes have taken place in New Zealand, all really small and shortlived, and only twelve of these have been illegal, since in six the Act had no application. In these six there was no union award or binding agreement. In these illegal strikes, 740 men all told engaged, that is, less than one-third per cent, of the above average of total wageearners in this country, and if those engaged in strikes (legal and illegal), be included, not one half per cent of these 250,000 workers.
The days of idleness of workers due to these strikes were very few. In some cases the strikes only a day or two.
Now compare these figures with our Motherland's experience. From
The total number of days British workmen were idle in these ten years owing to strikes (i.e., multiplying the days idle by the number of men idle), was 106,191,528, making an average idleness of about 39 days per man.
In New Zealand I have no definite figures of the time of idleness, but it has not been more than a few days per man in thirteen years. No wonder English reviewers of our experience tell us that our strikes have been but short-lived tiffs, as compared with the long and desperate industrial struggles of Great Britain, where compulsory Arbitration has not yet arrived. But surely, most of us in connection with the work of our Arbitration Court fall into a very common error—that of measuring the importance of incidents a6 well as of individuals by the extent of their noisy obtrusion upon public notice—treating them as typical (which they are not), rather than freaks (which they are). It is a sample of this error which seems to induce some people, even editors (if one may include them without profanity), to treat the Act as a disabled and useless machine because a few short-lived strikes have taken place, and a few very noisy gentlemen have declared they will have none of it. But let us be just before we are censorious. Follow the career of the Court and the Act since their inception!—follow the Court's work to-day with a fair mind, and you will admit that it! has done, and is doing splendid work., discharging one of the most difficult tasks with fairness, ability and patience.'
I claim that the Act has done immense service in this country in the cause both of industrial peace and fair wages. That, it is capable of improvement (as I hope! to show), should not belittle that service.
I contended that the Act had not appreciably increased the workers' cost of living. This view has been considerably canvassed. It is very important to decide whether the operation of the Act is merely to increase the nominal wage, leaving the real wage stationary—or, in other words, to take away the benefits it confers as higher wages by causing a corresponding increase of prices. If this is truly its operation, I admit that the; Act as it stands, is of no value to workers as an instrument for getting for them a better real wage. Hence it is essential to decide this question. Now, first let me emphasise an important point. My proposition was that the Act had not caused an increase of the cost of living of the workers—that is of the wage-earning class which it was passed to protect or deal with. I am not concerned just now with the effect the Act had upon the cost of living of the wealthier classes. It is quite demonstrable, I think, that it may—and probably does—affect the cost of living of the wealthier sections of the community, while it does not appreciably affect the cost of living of the worker. This may be recognised if we remember that a man with a wife and a family on 50s a week must spend it almost wholly on, the necessaries of life, while a man with £50 per week spends only a very small; proportion of his income upon necesaries. And if necessaries escape the, influence of the wage increases of the Arbitration Court, and other commodities do not, mv distinction would be largely established.
Now let me point out that economists have never established any law of connection between increases or decreases in wages and the workers' cost of living. There is an immense amount of economic writing on this topic, but I will cite only one authority. An inquiry was made by the British Board of Trade into working class rents, housing and retail prices together with the standard rates of wages prevailing in towns of the United Kingdom. Their report is published in the journal of the Royal Statistical Society for
Now at Wanganui I quoted a report from the Registrar-General which showed, that in 12 years since the Act passed the cost of the workers' living based upon the chief articles of diet had increased 18.6 while the general increase in wages effected by the Act during the same period was 17.9. This report did not include rent or clothing and it is admitted that if these items had been included the increase in the cost of living would have been greater. Probably the increase has not been less throughout New Zealand than 20 per cent. How much of this increase is due to the Act? Now you cannot answer this question off-hand. A reliable answer can be obtained only by examining the items of expenditure which make up a worker's cost of living and ascertaining how much, if any, the Arbitration Act has affected the prices of these items. Let us take a worker on 50s. per week. Here is a statement regarding the weekly cost of living computed from actual expenditure for a fairly of father and mother with three children whose ages were 3, 5, and 7 years respectively living in a four roomed house in Christchurch. This statement was given before the Arbitration Court about 6 months ago by a worker's wife whose budget seems very carefully compiled.
Probably other wives would vary these items a little, but with 50s to keep 2 adults and 3 children, there is little if anything for any luxuries and food rent and clothing must cost the family about 5s 6d of the worker's wages. The lower the wage as I have said, the greater proportion of it must be spent on the necessaries of life. Now let us look through these items, and ask how much the price of them has been increased owing to the Arbitration Act.
Begin with food, It may be said to consist of variously—beef, milk, Hour, potatoes, sugar, mutton, bread, oatmeal, eggs, pork, butter, rice, tea. The Registrar-General found that, taking all these necessaries, there was a rise in 12 years of 18.6 per cent. What has caused this rise? There have been as there always are with respect to the price of necessaries several causes. Wheat, oats, milk, potates, meat—remember how seasons good and bad—drought—shortages due to market flotations and other causes affect these commodities—remember also that the wages of farm labour have not and do not vary greatly from decade to decade, and one must surely admit that to unhesitatingly conclude that the increased price of these commodities is due to wages having been raised in a number of industries by the Arbitration Court is somewhat unreasonable. But there is a further consideration and that is the prices our export of food stuffs have been obtaining in Britain and foreign markets. These prices are plainly not effected by our cost of production—by the wages we are paying here, but by the competition and by supply and demand in the world's markets.
If the wages in New Zealand had been doubled we should have got no more lor the foodstuffs we exported, and if these wages had been reduced 50 per cent, we should have got no less, and prices here would have been about the same. The foreign markets for our foodstuffs practically control on the average the local prices. The price one pays for the best butter in New Zealand is, in the long run, determined by what its prevailing price is in London. Producers are not likely to take less here if they can get more in Great Britain. Now, I am not going through all the above items to prove it. The Registrar-General has furnished me with a mass of figures in support of the view I am advancing, but they are too long for statement here: I assert that there is not a single item in the above list whereon any material increase in price is paid by the workers simply on account of an increase of wages under the Arbitration Act. Next with regard to the second important item—rent.
I repeat my contention at Wanganui that the increase in rent is mainly due to increase in unimproved value of City lands. The statement above given fixes
But it is said the cost of building has increased. Now refer to pages 12 and 13 the Parliamentary return bore referred to and it will be found that the Arbitration Act has increased carpenters' wages very little—less perhaps than those in most other trades. On page 12 you will find the award rates with regard to builders and general labourers. Compare these with the rates prevailing when the Act came into force and I confidently assert that the increase in rent of a worker's cottage due to increases in wages paid to all those employed in building it is not 4d per week.
It is true building materials are dearer, but investigate the causes and it will be found that they are many, e.g. greater demands, more combination and less cutting competition among the suppliers of timber and other building material; increased cost of obtaining timber owing to the forests becoming more and more remote; increased royalties asked by forest owners-and to a small extent increased wages. But express in the form of increased rent of a worker's home, the increased cost of it due to these increased wages of every class, and you will find that euch increased rent is measured by a few pence.
Next with regard to the clothing a working man and his family require. Messrs J. Smith and Sons and Messrs Veitcli and Allan, of this city, both firms being highly qualified to give an opinion, have very kindly furnished me with a carefully prepared statement of items and prices of all clothing and boots required for a worker of say 50s a week, his wife and three or four children. These statements are here and are available to the public. Messrs Smith and Sons fix the total cost of clothing without boots at £17 7s 2d per annum, and think that the difference in prices (allowing for value) between
My conclusion, therefore, is that while the workers' cost of living his increased probably 20 per cent since the Act came into force, this increase has been only in very small part due to the operations of the Arbitration Act, or in other words, is not appreciably due to the all round increase in wages. 17.9 per cent., which the Court has given in the trades it has dealt with.
But I also said at Wanganui that employers had transferred to the community, in the shape of increased prices, the extra wages the Court had awarded, and I have been told that my two conclusions are inconsistent, and that if all the extra wages have been so transferred in the shape of prices to the consumers the particular consumers affected must pay for the all round 17.9 per cent, increase in wages given by the Court. I admit this, but it does not contradict my proposition that the increase has not materially affected the workers' cost of living, because
I repeat, therefore, my statement at Wanganui, that even if no increase in wages had taken place in New Zealand during the last 14 years, the workers' cost of living would still have greatly increased, owing to the high prices for our foodstuffs in foreign markets, and the great increase in the unimproved value of land and the cost of building material. I maintain'; therefore, that the Arbitration Court has not, by an alleged increasing of the cost of living, destroyed the benefit of the all round increase in its rates of wages.
I have now dealt with the main lines of criticism of my Wanganui speech, and I proceed to offer a few words of criticism of the Act, with a view to suggesting and justifying certain proposed amendments. First, I tried to show, in my former address, that the Act originally aimed at two purposes:
It was not the intention of the man who framed, or of the Parliament which passed the Act, that it should be a standard wage regulator. It was anticipated that although a minimum wage was fixed by an award, the old contractual basis of service would continue, and that the Court would be rarely invoked, and then only to settle some outstanding point of difference which stood in the way of the parties coming to an agreement. I showed that from the use made of the Act. and for the reasons I gave, the Court has steadily become a State regulator of fair wages in each industry, and although a wage fixed by the Court is merely the least an employer is allowed to pay, it is in general practice, the highest the employer will pay. The result of this has been a marked tendency to a uniform or dead level wage in each trade, for all workers, good, bad and indifferent. I need not dwell upon the evils of such a tendency. It has tended to deprive superior care, skill, and industry of the reward and encouragement essential to their exercise, and the dead level of the wage tends to impress itself upon the energy of the worker. This is the evil the Prime Minister referred to in his speech at Onehunga when he declared that what the Act wanted was some provision, some machinery, by means of which, while preserving to the workers all the present benefits of the measure, a proper reward should be provided as an incentive to superior care skill and industry. I shall return to a discussion of this suggestion later.
The second point of criticism I offer relates to 'the Conciliation Boards. It would be idle to deny that, for reasons it is unnecessary to discuss just now, they have entirely failed to achieve the results Mr Reeves anticipated. He thought that through the agency of the Boards 90 per cent, of our industrial disputes would be settled—the assumption being that the intervention of impartial conciliation would enable the two parties to come to terms upon the points finally in dispute between them. When the parties gave up trying to settle these disputes—gave up indeed, having any genuine disputes—but worked the Art for the sole purpose of wage and labour regulation, Conciliation really had no place, and the Boards as they now stand have become a kind of fifth wheel in the coach, of which they were intended to be the most important part—an agent wrested from its true purpose of conciliation into one of expense, friction and delay. Thus, in the Bill of last year, 'they were to be abolished, and a new system of Industrial Councils established.
The third point of criticism is that as it at present stands the Act makes no satisfactory provision for the enforcement of fines. It is true that the Court of Appeal has decided that by a process of attachment strikers may be imprisoned for non-payment of fines imposed on them, but this remedy is not provided by the Act, and springs from an old principle of our law. Even this method of enforcing imprisonment is exceedingly clumsy and circuitous, but for reasons already given 1 am opposed to imprisonment for taking part in a strike. In the absence of imprisonment and as the Act stands, it contains no effective method of enforcing tines, as experience has already shown, and some amendment in the direction of an effective method is required.
Again the provision in the Act with regard to what is called victimising, although so far ifc has not permitted any miscarriage of justice, seems to me to require some amendment. This the Prime Minister has already foreshadowed. The provision, section 100 of the Act of
Lastly, the Act has in practice, and owing to no fault of the Court, been unable to secure that expedition of its operation which, in heated differences between employers and employees, is so desirable. Expedition is here only secondary in importance to the competence and impartiality of the tribunal, and to anv amendment of the Act this fact must be applied as a cardinal test. Time presses me, and I cannot delay to discuss and criticise minor failings, for I desire to make the most important part of this address the third and last part.
Before I proceed to outline amendments let me remind you by a few facts and figures of the limits which circumscribe the sphere "within which Industrial Arbitration, however perfect, can benefit the workers by increased wages.
No Arbitration Act can create a Fortunatus' purse out of which the rewards of labour can be indefinitely increased. No Arbitration Act can increase the Stock of wealth out of which increased wages may be paid. If then it can be shown that our present national industrial income is such as makes impossible any marked improvement in the remuneration of the wago-eamers, we muse first seek some means of increasing our production before we set ourselves to increase our distribution of wealth. This increased production can be effected only by an increased efficiency on the part both of the entrepreneur and the employee. To this topic i will return again. Meanwhile let me give you a few figures to show the means available in New Zealand to improve the workers' lot, and the limits of this improvement. Here is a return prepared by the Registrar-General, which is of great interest, and on? to which I shall refer frequently in this part of my address:—
Estimated Wage-Earnings of the People. Numbers of persons given as shown by results of Census taken inApril. 1906 .
Males.|
class | Occupations. | Number of Wage-earnes 19 6, | Average annual Earning | Aggregate Earnings | 1906 .|
| | | £ | £ | |
I | Professional | 12,221 | 144.8 | 1,769600 | |
II | Domestic | 6701 | 79.3 | 531,400 | |
III | Comraercial | 29.003 | 115 9 | 3,361,400 | |
IV | Transport | 24.24 | 108.0 | 2616.200 | |
V | Industril | 85,290 | 94.1 | 8,025,800 | |
VI | Agricultural pastoral mineral and other primary producers | 63,624 | 73.3 | 4663,600 | |
VII | Indefinite | 6,020 | 95.0 | 571,900 | |
| | 227,083 | 94.8 | 21 539,900 |
Females.|
| | | £ | £ | |
I | Professional | 8,008 | 67.2 | 538,100 | |
II | Domestic | 27.696 | 37.8 | 1,020,500 | |
III | Commercial | 6,424 | 77.9 | 243,700 | |
IV | Transport | 731 | 59.8 | 48,700 | |
V | Industrial | 15,316 | 49.1 | 641,200 | |
VI | Agricultural pastoral mineral, and other primary producers | 1,932 | 22.4 | 43,800 | |
VII | Indefinite | 3,182 | 60.0 | 159,100 | |
| | 63,189 | 42.3 | 2,671,200 |
Totals.|
| £ | |
Males | 21,538,900 | |
Females | 2,671,200 | |
| £24,212 100 | Registrar General. E. J. von DadelszenRegistrar-General's Office, Wellington.
From this return it will be
But it may be said that these
In private employ, then, out of the hundreds of thousands engaged 1&35 wage-earners only get more than the sum of £300 a year. I do not overlook the fact that some deductions are allowed in the income assessment for life insurance premiums, but these inappreciably affect my figures. I have had other turns prepared showing what wage the vast majority of our workers receive not on an average, but individually; and without swamping my
This illustrates the apt-to-be forgotten to confer any widespread benefit upon the workers requires a substantial increase of our national income. Last year we raised the wages of the police force and prison warders by
But perhaps it is supposed the
In reply to inquiry I append the information desired:—
I attach a schedule summarising the figures given in this memorandum in a form which may lie more convenient for reference:—
Now, let it be remembered that every person or firm, who or which in any trade, calling or business (except farming land), makes more profit per annum than £300, has to pay income taxes on the excess, and that every company has to pay on all its profits without deduction, and we find that of all the shopkeepers, traders, manufacturers, factory owners, or other business men or firms, only 4827 in New Zealand (and absentees) make over £300 a year. Those who make £300 a year or less, are in the vast majority of cases getting no more than reasonable, or less than reasonable, wages of management, and hence these can scarcely be said to be getting more than a modest wage. One hundred and seventy-four non-resident traders were also assessed.
We also find that only 884 companies out of 1583 made any profit at all. I am excluding land companies.
Now, the profits earned by this fortunate 5885, in excess of the exemption where allowed is £7,775,579 per annum. But let no one fancy that these profits are, from a national point of view, a final balance of profits over all losses in industrial enterprises. If we are considering how the whole general body of workers can be better paid out of profits, we must investigate the profits of all the industrial enterprise in which
But before we can estimate the not amount of profits made in all businesses and available as a fund to increase wages, we must deduct these great annual losses—and so reduced we would probably find that the whole sum if seized as available for distribution among the workers employed in business in increased wages, would not yield a rise of very much per day.
But there is still another important consideration regarding these profits, and it is this: If a man begins business, and puts £10,000 into it, which is lying invested at interest on gilt-edged securities and yielding him, without any care or effort at an, £400 a year, he expects, and rightly expects, to get out of his business with all its risks, fluctuations and anxieties, sufficient income to provide interest proper on his invested capital and a reasonable amount of profit in addition.
Put another way. If the workers were investigating me amount of profits made by all employers with a view to taking a new share of these profits for increasing wages, they would recognise that before the net amount of profits was determined, interest at the current rate should first be deducted for the capital invested, and used in the business by the employer. Now with this made clear, let us turn again to the £7,775,579 of profits above referred to.
In arriving at this sum no deductions are allowed by the Income Tax assessment for the capital of the trader, firm, or company employed in the business, unless it be invested in the business land and buildings, and then a deduction for the rent is allowed, and if it is lent out on mortgage the interest is not assessed as profits. It is true a deduction is allowed for interest on borrowed capital so employed in the business, but not for the capital of the trader or company, himself or itself. Now, what capital upon which no interest is deducted for income tax purposes is invested to produce this £7,775,579? I have not the definite amount, but such figures as I have will help you. I cannot give the capital so invested by private persons and firms who represent nearly four-
I have been unable to get the paid-up capital of private companies. 'It is, no doubt, very much nearer the nominal capital. But even if the proportions were the same paid-up capital would amount to £2,327,083. That is, a total capital invested of £24,476.593 by companies to earn profits in New Zealand. And since any company that makes any profit is assessed on it the profits stated in the foregoing return are all the profits made by any of these companies in N.Z. But such companies as are assessed, are assessed on only £3,594,900 profits, while firms and persons are assessed on £4,052,553 profits, about 14 per cent, more, so that there is no doubt that to earn this £4,052,553, the capital invested by the firms and persons, must be enormous.
From all these figures and others in the Commissioner's possession, he is of opinion that at least £40,000,000 sterling is invested to produce the £7,775,579 in respect of which invested capital no deductions are made in income tax returns. This sum at 5 per cent, is £2,000,000 a year. Hence a reduction for
Now, I have gone into these figures to give the workers some idea—it may be only a very rough idea—of what amount of profits fairly and properly so called could under any circumstances, be made available for distribution as increased wages.
We have seen that income tax is assessed on £7,775,579. I have pointed out that for such a purpose as that last mentioned there must first be deducted the periodic annual losses in those business establishments employing labour. This would reduce the above sum greatly. But there must be the further deduction I have mentioned for interest.
Hence if you take the profits of every trading, manufacturing and commercial business carried on by a firm or person in New Zealand which is making over £300 a year, and all the profits of all the companies assessed, and deduct from the whole excess the great periodic annual losses of those establishments which lose in any given year, and further deduct that portion of this excess which is really interest on capital and not profits at all, you will find that the final balance of profits so produced would, if distributed as increased wages among all those wage earners employed in every capacity by the persons, firms, or companies carding on business in New Zealand (except of course, farming) leave these wage-earners but a very small increase, indeed, in their wages. Let it be also noted that the year's profits I have 'taken is a record—the largest that N.Z. mas yet seen. The average would leave the average employee still worse, off. But all this is a calculation upon a purely hypothetical basis. Any attempt to lay violent hands upon these profits for such a purpose would, of course, put an end to all business enterprise, and thus destroy the very source from which the profits are drawn.
Now it must be realised that "business ability is itself an agent of production, and that the competent employer is himself a creator of wealth and not a mere parasite, as workers are often told, upon the productions of labour. The ability of the employer is a vital concern of the workers, for the workers have direct sources of loss in a bungling entrepreneur. Anyone genuinely desiring information on this topic may be referred to "Walker's Political Economy," or to "Mallock's Labour and the Popoular Welfare." Or if one desires the latest word to the last-mentioned writers, "Lectures on Socialism," delivered in America last year.
Admitting as any impartial man must (that business ability is itself a producer, it still remains to decide whether on the figures I have given business ability in general seems to be overpaid in N.Z. It is not necessary for me to offer an opinion.
I have not adduced these figures to show that the general level of the wages of labour cannot be raised. I think it can, but I wanted to clear the ground for a discussion of the means by which this end can be effected, and to demonstrate that unless more wealth is produced both by increased effort and cooperation on the part of both employers and employed, there is not much prospect of any marked rise in the general level of the workers' wages. Is there room for this increased effort and cooperation? Assuredly there is. Walker shows in the text book I have referred to what business ability can do both in saving waste and promotion of production and incidentally he establishes the fact that some of the worst enemies of the workers are the incapable and blundering employers. The average business ability of this country is high—the average industrial efficiency of the workers is high, as may be well inferred if only from the intelligence and physical stamina of our people.
But do the human agencies of production produce in service or commodities the fair and reasonable maximum of their capacities? I am certain they do not, and the one great desideratum now in N.Z. is some inducement, satisfactory to both the great agents—employer and workers—to establish and maintain that genuine co-operation which will produce the best results. I believe that desideratum can be at least largely supplied by an improved Arbitration Act.
Now, before I proceed to show this, let me ask you to recognise that our Arbitration Act has served, and must now serve, two purposes which are distinct. First it now discharges the function of a standard wage regulator. A kind of State Wages Board to which—and not to their employers—the workers in practice appeal to fix a fair wage. This appeal is not made to prevent a strike for there is rarely a genuine dispute, and the function of the tribunal has become that of saying what the State (as represented by the Court, or at any rate the president) thinks the standard wage should be.
The second function which the Act is asked to discharge is strike prevention by pains and penalties. I propose to consider the functions separately.
1. What direction or guide does our present Act contain as to what should be the standard wage in the different callings? Absolutely none. Nowhere in the original Act or in any of its amendments is there any hint or reference as to what that wage should be. The Court itself has not as far as I know ever propounded any basis. One can see from looking along its career that it has sought to effect the readjustment which is essential to bring the methods and the shares of modern pro-
Now the Court must not and does not proceed by haphazard methods. What basis then for fixing wages has it mainly employed? Plainly not a competitive standard, for that would fix itself without the intervention of the Court by the market rate; and, moreover, the competitive standard was one which the Court was especially established to check. Equally plainly it cannot be a profit-sharing standard. This the Court has indeed expressly stated and declined, as it had to decline, to enter upon an inquiry as to the profits of all the employers as a basis of wages.
Profit-sharing, indeed, as a method of industrial remuneration has been found illusory and unsatisfactory. I cannot now enter upon its history, but even under a voluntary system, where employer and workers have mutually agreed to a basis, it has broken down in countless cases after fair trial. A system under which—
A system under which these defects arise is doomed to failure.
These are but a few of the objections even where the profit-sharing system is based upon voluntary arrangement, but ask yourselves how enormously increased the difficulties and objections would be if a profit-sharing system was forced on employers by an Arbitration Court—forced on 200 or 300 employers all making different rates of profit in the same trade.
How could it be done?
It is impossible.
The essence of such success as it has had has been cordial co-operation between employers and employees, and yet except where the circumstances were special and both sides
And Schloss—a most sympathetic investigator—declares that "the radical defector radical feet of a method of industrial remuneration under which the rewared, servant's labour is made contingent upon the good or bad management of the business by his employer, and upon the hazards of commercial fortune, renders it difficult to admit, even with a great degree of reserve, the claim of those novel arrangements to have established a substantial improvement in the ordinary wage system."
What other wage standard then, is open to the Arbitration Court? This brings us down to the bed-rock of the matter. Before I suggest the most satisfactory basis, let me impress this upon you. No standard that can be devised is at all a perfect one. It is a choice of the least inadequate, and him who condemns the standard I now outline I would put this question—what better can you propose?"
In my belief, if our compulsory arbitration system is now to continue it must continue to be a wage regulator, and the best standard that can be divised for its guidance is, I think a double, or rather a primary and supplementary standard.
The primary standard should be "the needs of the worker," and when I suggest this standard do not mean what the worker thinks to be his needs or what the employer thinks to be those needs, but the needs which society, through the Arbitration Court taking an enlightened view of the means available, of the worker's position and welfare, and of social interest, detns necessary or proper. This, as Hobson points out is the rationale of the labour movement in its struggle for a "living" or a minimum wage. This claim is the primary step towards the substitution a rational wage system based upon needs for the anarchic struggle of disordered competition, which only feigns to apportion pay according to individual productivity. A wage based or this standard is not a bare subsistence wage, but one which should allow for all those conventional decencies as are essential to a worker's self-respect. This can be fixed quite satisfactorily. (See for proof of this Ryan's valuable books on "A Living Wage."
In fact, so far as Wellington awards are concerned this basis constantly urged upon the Court as the proper
It has been well said that as we raise the character of the work we have to deal with a class of workers whose social efficiency demands continual progress in the development of his mental and moral and, it may be, his physical powers necessity of this development imposes more needs upon the worker and social utility demands that these needs should be supplied with a higher needs wage—or in other words a higher grade worker should have a higher rate of pay than a low grade worker because his needs, reasonably considered, are greater. In New Zealand the difficulty of fixing a needs wage is enhanced by the difference in cost of living in different industrial districts but the settlement of these differences could be left to the Court. A perfectly adjusted living wage should look beyond the worker himself to his burdens and responsibilities, and on this basis married workers with a wife and young family dependent on them should received a needs wage sufficient to maintain in decency himself, his wife and young children—especially since in rearing and bringing up a family such a worker-discharging one of the highest duties of citizenship. It is estimated that there are 96.000 married workers in New Zealand in all grades and classes of employment.
Now a needs wage is necessarily more or less uniform in the different trades, and this uniformity would produce the same discouragement of superior care, skill and industry as is found under the present conditions. It is idle to assume equality of industrial efficiency in the workers in all the different callings—inequality not equality is nature's rule, and any law which fails to give an
Now the needs wage should be supplemented by an "exertion wage." The expediency of recognising superior skill and greater energy has long been seen by employers in the old world, and has resulted in what is known as progressive wages. The system is as follows:—
This principle in some form or other has been adopted in many cases in the Old World. It appears in at least three distinct forms: (1) The form I have just described; (2) the form in which each worker who exceeds the standard gets a premium fixed irrespective of the ratio of the excess to the standard. (For example, at Rheims wine-bottlers receive 5 francs a day, but if they bottle more, it does not matter how many or how few more, than a certain number (the standard) they get an additional franc a day.) (3) The third form of this system is a prize offered to a small number among the operatives who may within a given time produce the greatest output. This may be termed a prize day wage.
Now, I want to anticipate objections which are likely to be raised to this system. The practice of paying a premium or extra wage to one or a few operatives in order to force the pace of all is strongly condemned by trade unions. And from the glaring abuses of the system, rightly condemned. I need not delay to set out the objections to the class of "chasers," "runners," and "bellhorses" employed in different callings at a premium to be pace-makers for all. The oppressive tendency of this peculiar system has justified trade union opposition. But this system has never yet in the world, as far as I know, been tried under a Compulsory Arbitration Act with powers to prevent these abuses, and upon-examination it will be found that its evils are due to the fact that the employer (in the absence of the controlling power of an Arbitration Act over him) has been able to use or rather abuse the system for his own profit.
But surely in the hands of an Arbitration Court seeking sincerely to apply it for the reasonable benefit of the workers, It can be made a most effective means of "gain sharing," It is suggested therefore that in addition to the needs wage to be now fixed as I have indicated, there should a progressive wage based on gain-sharing." This gain-sharing, (it will be observed, is sharing the gain or saving of the cost of production irrespective of the rate of profit realised by the employer, and is to be definitely distinguished from schemes of profit-sharing under which the amount of the bonus r dependent upon the realised profits (if any) of the businesses—an entirely different thing.
This scheme has been tried successfully in several great enterprises—tried, let it be remembered, in the absence of any State guarantee of fairness such as could be secured by the Arbitration Act. It was introduced in
Mr Halsey also urges that to cut down the scale after it has once been fixed on the ground that under it the workmen are earning too much is a fatal step. For, as he says, "If the premiums are cut down the workman will rightly understand it to mean (as under the piecework plan) that their earnings are not to be permitted to pass a certain limit, and that too much exertion is unsafe." This, of course, can be safely prevented when you have an Arbitration Court like ours. The settled objection of trade unions to piecework system and progressive wage systems is based upon the painful experience that periodic "cuts," or reductions in the rate or alterations in the standard, were made as the increased exertions of the workers under these systems secured for them better wages. This ground of objection can in New Zealand be entirely removed, or rather, prevented. Mr Halsey's system increases the exertion wage in proportion to the degree of additional effort required in the different callings to exceed the standard. What has been the result of Halsey's system? Let me state his own words (I am quoting from Schloss
"Speaking broadly," he says, "I should say that the average increase of our put due to the system has been from 25 to 35 cent., and the proportion of oremiums has been such as
Thus it will be seen that if the worker had got the whole increase their additional exertion instead of dividing it with the company (as under Mr Halsey's system), workers on, says 50s week needs wage, would receive with their exertion wage from 62s-6d
A further illustration of another form of this exertion wage may be interesting and useful. Since
It will be observed that here employers take half the product of the extra exertion of the worker. That is not an essential part of the scheme and the part the employers should take-if they should take any part at all-would in New Zealand be determined by the Arbitration Court.
A full report of all this, withe illustrative details, appears in the English Labour Department reports on gain sharing, and in Schloss's very valuable book, to which I have referral and from which I have largely extracted.
This scheme of Willans and Robinson makes a basic principle of keeping the reference rates—once fixed unchanged recognising, as it does, that any system of exertion wage to be successful must make the workman feel that if by increased exertion or skill carefulness, or by discovering improved methods of work he can reduce the time necessary for the execution of the work confided to him, the rate of his exertion wage will not on that
Another point is that the workmen know before they start the work what the reference rate is, and what the rate of exertion wage is to be. Moreover the exertion rate is to apply to each job separately, so that any loss on
So far I have dealt with a system of individual gain-sharing—that is, of a progressive wage for the industrial worker. But some cases this is impracticable, and a collective progressive wage has been in many cases tried successfully.
For instance, in a manufacturing industry The "preparers'" in a woollen yarn factory in some factories work in sets of our. Each of the workers in these groups of four receive a weekly wage. Then the output of each set of
Numerous instances could be given of this system. It has been employed with greatest success where machinery run by steam or other power is used by a group of operatives. In these cases it has been found possible for a set of workman by diligence and by "working together in a loyal and intelligent manner without in any way over-exciting themselves to increase their output and their earnings. But the system has not been confined to manufacturing industries it has been successful in many other. Many illustrations with details are given in the works to which I have referred. In this system the exertion wage may be divided either (a) among all the members in equal shares, or (b) it may he divided in accordance with the importance of the services rendered by each member of the group. The nature of this division could be determined either by voluntary agreement between the men or by the Court, if necessary.
Even exposed to all the difficulties and dangers incident to a system which is largely at the mercy of the employers, this system has produced excellent results. For example the scheme of collective gain-Sharing which was, and as far as I know in operation at the Thames Iron
Let me add a few words as to the cases in which the collective progressive wage is used instead of the individual progressive wage. In certain cases work is done by a number of men each working up to the other. In these cases it is often practically impossible to ascertain in what proportion each man has contributed to the joint output. Here the collective rather than the individual gain sharing" is inevitable. I cannot occupy more time in explaining or exemplifying this gain sharing system in both its forms. Further information can be obtained in the English Labour Gazette in the Labour Department reports re gain sharing, or in Mr Schloss's book above referred to.
Now, I wish to again remind Trades Unions that the objections which have been raised in Great Britain to different forms of this system have nearly all been objections to the abuses of the system, and not to the system itself: abuses which in the absence of any such control or compulsion as that provided by an Arbitration Court the selfishness of employers was mainly responsible for. If the system has been a pronounced success in so many cases in the absence of any tribunal to fix fair standards, surely it could achieve far wider success where a competent Court could not only fix the standards but maintain them, and prevent any abuses of the system.
Let it be remembered that I am not seeking to introduce into the operations of the Act some unnecessary experiment. I hold it to be of paramount importance, not only to the workers and employers, but the whole community, that the workers should have some direct pecuniary interest in the product of their labour. To give all workers, fast or slow, careful or careless, the 6ame wage, to offer no inducement whatever to the worker to take a real and lively interest in his work, to reduce wages to the same dead level whatever be the result of the wage earner's efforts or skill or care, really tends to degrade labour. It
The system suggested cannot injure the workers. Under it they are secured the game minimum or needs wage as they now receive under the Court's awards, and assuming the standards are reasonably fixed by agreement between the employers and'employees or by the Court, there is no reason why, without any over exertion the great bulk of the workers should not materially increase their wages. The employers could have no reason to complain, for the system only provides that the worker's additional wage is to be paid out of the additional production of their labour.
I believe that in a great many industries and trades this system, either of individual gain sharing or collective gain sharing, could be applied, especially if it received the support and co-operation of the Labour Unions. But seeing the main motive for proposing it is the benefit of the workers, and seeing that the unions may object to have it thrust on them, I should provide that it was to be prescribed by the Court only in such cases as the unions desired, if it offers them an escape from the dead level wage of which they complain and they reject it their rejection may not "damn the piece but it certainly damns the critic."
I claim for the proposal that it is a method of producing more wealth for the direct benefit of the workers, and thus indirectly for the benefit of the whole community.
Before T leave this part of my address, I want to make this quite clear. The Prime Minister in an important speech he delivered recently at Onehunga dealt with necessary amendments of the Arbitration Act, and strongly expressed the opinion that some system of progressive wage should be adopted by the Court. I know that lie has given this topic very anxious thought, but what I nave said to-night must not be taken as committing the Government to the schemes I have outlined. I desire it to be understood that I have done no more than explain views and material which are having the closest attention of the Government.
Time presses me, and I must greatly condense my last topic—the compulsory prevention or punishment of strikes. The attitude of the State to strikes has undergone a curio as change, and as it is the social aspect of a strike, and that aspect only, which warrants the interference of the State, the change I have referred to is instructive. Let me trace it:—
1. Originally in England the organisation of workers by means of combinations m restraint of trade (as it was called) was illegal and a penal offence.
2. Even under the Act of
3. In England to-day a strike, even if it involves a breach of contract, is not illegal, save in a few cases.
4. When the legality of a strike was clearly established the State first treated it as essentially a matter between employer and workman, calling for no intervention.
5. In
6. This law (although the Act does not expressly name strikes) proceeds on the basis that where a strike, in breach of contract, causes directly the risks, injuries and losses to the public I have mentioned, it is a penal offence, and
7. As regards other strikes, England has made no other provision than the Conciliation Act,
8. In other parts of the British Empire the State has more actively interfered, and legislation has gone along three separate lines, which are as follow:—
None of this legislation confines itself to the English system of distinguishing between strikes that directly cause great damage or privation to the people and
The view however, is extending that all strikes inflict some loss upon the Community—that they are a breach of that implied understanding between the great interdependent classes that if one class will do its part the other classes will do theirs. Strikes are in this aspect a desertion of duty. They are, moreover, a breach of industrial peace, and just
As regards the penalty for striking, I gave full reasons at Wanganui for objecting to imprisonment, except, of course, in such extreme cases as those made penal by the English Act of
Let me close this long address with these few observations. It should be the aim of every country to prevent strikes,
And not only the best hope of the Act, out the best of this country as a Whole lies in that same moderation and intelligence.
The majority of our electoral rolls consist of men and women receiving (not on an average, but individually) £150 or less per annum, including
We have in New Zealand a democracy of workers, the level of whose intelligence, ability and material comfort is higher than anywhere else in the world. Their intelligence is this country's best security. They will demand progress and they will enforce it, but it will be a progress along safe lines. They can distinguish an appeal to reason from an appeal to passion, and will always enlist under those who promise prudent guidance to steadily bettering conditions rather than under those self-appointed deliverers who seek their miraculous emancipation from an imaginary bondage.
Concluding, Dr. Findlay said that the audience would note that he had confined himself to the workers and the employers in industrial pursuits. He recognised that a proper corollary to his address would be to show the bearing of the land question upon the wages question.
Mr E. Arnold moved the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr E. G. Hicks and adopted with enthusiasm:—
That the members of the Wellington District Branch of the Liberal and Labour Federation of New Zealand sincerely thank the Hon. Dr J. G. Findlay for his presence amongst them this evening. They also desire to record their appreciation of his able and interesting address upon the industrial problems of the day; and further, to express their conviction that the present Government is
La loi sur l'arbitrage (The Industrial conciliation and arbitration act, Amending Acts se trouvent dans The Labour laws of New Zealand, Wellington, The Handbook to the labour laws of New Zealand, Wellington. Journal of the department of labour (New Zealand) et dans les Reports of the department of labour depuis New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, années The state arbitration and the living wage; un livre intéressant, très optimiste, A country without strikes (un pays sans grèves), par Henry Demarest Lloyd, New-York Sociatisme sans doctrine, Australie et Nouvelle-Zélande. d'Albert Métin. (Paris, Alean,
La question de l'arbitrage obligatoire continue à être posée, en France comme dans tous les grands pays d'Europe et aux Etats-Unis. En France, les partis politiques constituant, à l'heure actuelle, la majorité parlementaire, ont résolument inscrit dans leur programme l'arbitrage obligatoire. Le parti radical et radical-socialiste, en son Congrès de Lyon, a placé cette réforme au nombre de celles qu'il réclame (séance du
Un seul pays a, depuis plusieurs années, fait l'expérience de l'arbitrage obligatoire : la Nouvelle-Zélande. Ayant, pendant trois mois (d'avril à
La loi organisant l'arbitrage obligatoire est l'œuvre d'un écrivain néozélandais connu, l'honorable W.-P. Reeves, alors ministre du Travail et de l'Education, actuellement agent général de la colonie à Londres. Elle fut présentée au Parlement par le cabinet de l'honorable R.-J. Seddon, actuellement encore premier ministre, en er Trade-Unions, riches et puissantes, se contentaient de l'action syndicale pour améliorer le sort de la classe ouvrière; ruinées par la grande grève de dockers anglais, elles décidèrent de joindre à l'action syndicale l'action politique. De même que les Syndicats pauvres et faibles, en Angleterre, ont accepté les premiers l'idée de l'action politique, à laquelle se sont longtemps refusés les Syndicats riches et forts, de même les Syndicats néo-zélandais, une fois appauvris, résolurent d'utiliser, pour l'émancipation des travailleurs, le bulletin de vote qu'ils méprisaient quand ils étaient forts et riches. Les Conservateurs furent battus aux élections de
La loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire procéda d'une double constatation et d'un double désir. Constatant, à la suite de la grève de
∴
La loi de Conseils de Conciliation (Boards of Conciliation) qui se bornent à donner des «recommandations» aux parties en désaccord; au-dessus d'eux, une Cour d'Arbitrage (Court of Arbitration) unique, dont les «arrêts» sont obligatoires et sans appel.
∴
La loi désigne par le mot «différend industriel», tout différend portant sur les salaires, le temps de travail, l'emploi ou le renvoi de certaines catégories de travailleurs, les coutumes de l'industrie, tous les détails de la vie industrielle. Et elle invite patrons ou Syndicats patronaux et Syndicats ouvriers à établir entre eux, pour régler ou prévenir ces différends, des accords spéciaux, sans intervention étrangère. Ces accords, faits pour un temps donné qui ne peut dépasser trois ans, lient pendant ce temps-là tous ceux qui y ont participé; ils ne peuvent être annulés ou modifiés que par la volonté des deux parties; la Cour d'Arbitrage est chargée de les faire respecter. Notons dès maintenant ce caractère important de toute la loi sur l'arbitrage : elle s'applique aux patrons isolés comme aux Syndicats patronaux, mais seulement aux Syndicats ouvriers — c'est-à-dire aux groupes, enregistrés, de plus de sept ouvriers — et non pas aux ouvriers isolés. Le conflit n'est assez grave pour mériter l'attention de l'Etat que quand il s'élève entre ouvriers organisés et patrons; la loi ne peut tenir compte des fantaisies de l'ouvrier isolé tant que le Syndicat n'adopte pas ses désirs. Cependant le patron isolé a droit aux avantages de la loi : il importe qu'il ne puisse pas en éviter les conséquences, même s'il préfère ne pas s'associer avec les autres patrons.
∴
Supposons donc qu'un différend industriel s'élève et ne puisse être réglé à l'amiable sans intervention de tiers : si l'une ou l'autre des parties désire que le différend soit concilié ou arbitré, le patron n'a pas le droit de fermer son usine, le Syndicat ouvrier n'a pas le droit
Ce système de conciliation fonctionnait, en
∴
La Cour d'Arbitrage a pour fonction, d'abord de décider s'il y a rupture de contrats établis entre patrons et ouvriers soit à l'amiable, soit après décision du Conseil de Conciliation, et de fixer les pénalités; ensuite et surtout de régler définitivement les différends industriels. Les Conseils locaux essayent de concilier; la Cour d'Arbitrage juge en dernier ressort. Les deux éléments de cel ingénieux mécanisme judiciaire se complètent l'un par l'autre : les Conseils de Conciliation seraient d'une ridicule impuissance, s'ils n'avaient derrière eux la Cour d'Arbitrage, qui peut faire leurs arrêts exécutoires en les faisant siens; la Cour risquerait de voiries choses de trop loin et de trop haut sans les Conseils de Conciliation, dont les enquêtes locales servent de base à ses décisions.
La Cour d'Arbitrage, unique pour toute la Nouvelle-Zélande, se compose de trois membres nommés pour trois ans «par le Gouververneur» dit la loi, c'est-à-dire, en fait, par le Ministère : le premier est désigné sur la recommandation de la majorité des Syndicats ouvriers; le second sur la recommandation de là majorité des Associations industrielles patronales; le troisième, le Président de la Cour, est nommé directement, sans recommandation, «par le Gouverneur,» c'est-à-dire par le Ministère; il doit être un Juge de la Cour Suprême. — La clause déterminant le mode de nomination du Président de la Cour est la plus importante de toutes les clauses de la loi : elle donne à l'État néozélandais la possibilité de modeler, suivant les désirs de la majorité des électeurs, tous les détails
c'est le Président de la Cour, nommé par le Gouvernement, qui départage les voix; c'est donc de lui, en définitive, c'est-à-dire indirectement du Gouvernement qui le nomme, que dépendent les décisions de la Cour d'Arbitrage, auxquelles ni patrons ni ouvriers ne peuvent refuser de se soumettre.
Les parties qui n'ont pu voir leur différend concilié par le Conseil local, apparaissent devant la Cour d'Arbitrage, personnellement ou par représentants, ou, si tous les intéressés y consentent, par avocats; elles peuvent produire devant la Cour tous les témoins, tous les documents, qu'elles jugent propres à montrer le bien fondé de leur cause. De son côté, la Cour a le droit d'ordonner la comparution des témoins qu'elle veut entendre, de se faire montrer tous les livres et documents qu'elle considère comme nécessaires, de visiter n'importe quel local industriel, d'y interroger tous ceux qu'elle y rencontre, etc. Elle peut se faire assister de deux experts, à titre d'assesseurs, l'un nommé par les ouvriers, l'autre par les patrons. — Le président de la Cour fixe lui-même la date des séances. 11 reçoit 2 liv. (50 fr. 50) et les autres membres 1 liv. 10 sh. (37 fr. 90) par séance. — C'est le budget de la colonie qui paie toutes les dépenses, sauf les frais de témoins. — Les séances peuvent être publiques ou avoir lieu à huit-clos. Dans le courant du mois qui suit la première réunion de la Cour, elle doit faire connaître son arrêt. Cet arrêt est définitif et sans appel, ne peut être cassé pour vice de forme, doit éviter autant que possible les termes techniques. Il doit spécifier les parties qu'il lie, et le temps, ne dépassant pas deux ans, pendant lequel il est valable. La Cour peut faire payer les frais à l'une ou l'autre partie. Elle détermine ce qui peut constituer une rupture de 1 arrêt, fixe les pénalités maxima payables en ce cas-là par les parties : en général, la pénalité maximum est une amende de 100 liv. (2.525 fr.); le total des pénalités payables en vertu d'un arrêt de la Cour ne peut dépasser 500 liv. (12.625 fr.). Si la propriété de l'Association ne suffit pas à payer l'amende, chacun de ses membres est responsable personnellement pour une somme ne dépassant pas 10 liv. (252 fr. 50). Au cas, d'ailleurs, où une Association industrielle riche et puissante résisterait encore après avoir subi un total d'amendes atteignant 500 liv., la Cour aurait toujours le droit de faire alors un nouvel arrêt et d'en exiger le respect sous peine d'amendes égales, et ainsi de suite jusqu'à l'épuisement des rebelles.
Une fois l'arrêt rendu, les patrons et les Syndicats ouvriers doivent s'y soumettre. Le patron qui ne s'y soumettrait pas devrait fermer son usine et organiser, s'il lui plait, une autre industrie; le Syndicat
En général, les arrêts de la Cour d'Arbitrage, comme les recommandations des Conseils de Conciliation, comme les accords conclus à l'amiable entre patrons et Syndicats ouvriers, fixent le temps de travail, les salaires, le prix des heures supplémentaires, les congés obligatoires, la proportion des apprentis et le temps d'apprentissage, les rapports à établir entre unionistes et non-unionistes, enfin divers menus détails variant avec les industries et les localités. Il faut, pour se rendre compte de la portée de la loi, examiner de près le contenu de quelques-uns de ces arrêts. Etudions, par exemple, ceux que la Cour a rendus de juillet
a) La Cour fixe le temps de travail par jour ou par semaine. Généralement elle le fixe à huit heures par jour pour les cinq premiers jours de la semaine, à quatre heures pour le samedi. Dans ce cas, tantôt elle fixe elle-même les heures de travail (peintres de Wellington, de Dunedin, charpentiers et menuisiers d'Auckland, de Christchurch, de Dunedin), tantôt elle se contente de fixer des limites à l'intérieur desquelles les patrons peuvent placer les huit heures de travail (plombiers de Christchurch). Elle impose aux ouvriers du port de Dunedin huit heures de travail par jour sans exception pour le samedi; aux mineurs de Reefton huit heures par jour, aux boulangers de Christchurch huit heures et demie, à condition qu'ils fassent un nombre de pains déterminé. Elle fixe quarante-quatre heures par semaine aux charpentiers de Rangiora, quarante-six heures et demie aux fondeurs de Wellington, quarante-huit heures aux cordonniers de New Plymouth, quarante-huit heures avec repos l'après-midi du samedi aux selliers de Dunedin. Pour les ouvriers maritimes de Wellington, ainsi que pour les marins, elle établit un très minu-
b) Au point de vue des salaires, la Cour, tout en suivant, autant que possible, les usages établis, s'efforce de faire payer toujours au moins 1 sh. (1 fr. 25) l'heure de travail, et de relever les salaires des ouvriers les moins payés. La Cour fixe le salaire minimum par heure, par jour, par semaine ou par mois. Elle accorde 10d. (1 fr.) parheure aux cordonniers de New-Plymouth, 1 sh. (1 fr 25) aux selliers de Dunedin, 1 sh. 1½ d. (1 fr. 40) aux fondeurs de Wellington, 1 sh. 2d. (1 fr. 45). aux charpentiers et menuisiers d'Auckland travaillant à l'heure, 1 sh. 3 d. (1 fr. 55), aux ouvriers du port de Wellington et aux peintres de Wellington, 1 sh. 4 d. (1 fr. 65), aux charpentiers et menuisiers de Dunedin. Elle accorde 8 sh. (10 fr.) par jour aux vernisseurs de meubles de Wellington, 9 sh. (11 fr. 25) aux tapissiers et ébénistes de Wellington, de 9 sh. à 10 sh. (12 fr. 50) aux plombiers de Christchurch. Elle accorde 2 liv. 8 sh. (60 fr. 50) par semaine aux charpentiers et menuisiers d'Auckland travaillant à la semaine, de 2 liv. (50 fr. 50) à 2 liv. 15 sh. (69 fr. 25) aux ouvriers boulangers de Christchurch. Elle accorde aux marins de Wellington et aux marins fédérés des districts d'Otago et de Southland des salaires variant suivant leurs occupations de 9 liv. 10 sh. (239 fr. 75) à 1 liv. 10 sh. (37 fr. 75) par mois. — Presque toujours la Cour permet à l'ouvrier qui se reconnaîtrait incompétent ou malhabile de conclure avec le patron un arrangement spécial pour être payé au-dessous du tarif fixé; mais il ne peut le faire qu'après entente avec le président du Syndicat ou sur les indications du président du Conseil de Conciliation. — Quant au travail aux pièces, quelquefois la Cour l'interdit; quelquefois elle tolère que les ouvriers soient payés aux pièces plutôt qu'à la journée, mais seulement après entente entre le patron et les fonctionnaires du Syndicat (charpentiers et menuisiers d'Auckland); quelquefois elle ne le permet que pour certaines spécialités (cordonniers de New-Plymouth); souvent elle régularise le travail aux pièces, fixe elle-même, minutieusement, le tarif (mineurs d'Otago, tailleuses de Dunedin). — Quelquefois elle fixe la date du paiement des salaires, pour éviter qu'ils ne soient payés à intervalles trop irréguliers.
c) Après avoir fixé le temps de travail et les salaires, la Cour détermine le prix à payer pour les heures supplémentaires. C'est généralement une fois et quart le tarif précédemment fixé pour les deux ou quatre premières heures, une fois et demie pour les heures suivantes, une fois cl demie ou deux fois pour les dimanches, les jours fériés, certains travaux de nuit.
d) L'arrêt détermine ensuite quels sont les jours fériés : c'est généralement Noël, le premier Jour de l'An, le Vendredi-Saint, le Lundi de Pâques, le jour de naissance du Souverain, le jour de la fête du Travail.
e) L'arrêt de la Cour traite ensuite la question des apprentis, établit leurs salaires, détermine la durée de leur apprentissage (généralement de quatre à cinq ans), enfin fixe la proportion d'apprentis qu'un patron a le droit d'employer par rapport au nombre total de ses ouvriers compétents : c'est tantôt un apprenti pour un ouvrier (plombiers de Christchurch), tantôt un pour deux (boulangers de Christchurch), tantôt un pour trois (fondeurs de Wellington, charpentiers et menuisiers de Wellington, peintres de Dunedin), tantôt un pour trois ou quatre (cordonniers de New-Plymouth), tantôt un pour quatre (peintres de Wellington). La Cour fixe quelquefois aussi la proportion des femmes employées dans certaines branches de l'industrie : par exemple, pour trois ouvriers les patrons-selliers de Dunedin ont droit d'employer tantôt trois, tantôt deux femmes ou apprentis. Quelquefois elle ne limite pas le nombre des apprentis (charpentiers de Christchurch, menuisiers et charpentiers de Dunedin). — En limitant plus ou moins le nombre des apprentis, la Cour veut éloigner les jeunes ouvriers des professions encombrées et les diriger vers celles où l'industrie manque de bras.
f) Enfin les arrêts de la Cour règlent encore la très importante question des rapports à établir entre unionistes et non-unionistes. La Cour pose toujours ce double principe : à travail égal, salaire égal; quand unionistes et non-unionistes travaillent ensemble, ils travailleront en harmonie et il n'y aura entre eux aucune différence. Mais tantôt elle ne demande pas, tantôt elle demande que les unionistes soient employés de préférence. Tantôtelle se contente d'exiger qu'aucun patron, en engageant des ouvriers, ne repousse de parti-pris les membres du Syndicat; «qu'aucun employeur, dans l'engagement ou le renvoi de ses ouvriers, ou dans la conduite de ses affaires, ne fasse rien pour offenser le Syndicat, directement ou indirectement» (charpentiers et menuisiers d'Auckland, ébénistes et tapissiers de Wellington, marins de Wellington, de l'Otago, de Southland, ouvriers du port de Dunedin); tantôt, et le plus souvent,
g) Souvent enfin la Cour d'Arbitrage ajoute à son arrêt des décisions réglant certains points de détail : par exemple, dans certains cas, elle impose un salaire supérieur pour le travail fait dans les faubourgs ou à la campagne; ou bien elle fait payer par le patron le
Tous les détails de la vie industrielle, les plus insignifiants comme les plus importants, sont réglés par ces arrêts de la Cour d'Arbitrage. Comme le président de la Cour, qui est en somme l'arbitre départi-teur entre le délégué ouvrier et le délégué patronal, est nommé pour trois ans par le Gouvernement, on peut dire que le Gouvernement peut indirectement modeler peu à peu toute la vie industrielle de la nation, selon la volonté de la majorité des électeurs. Il faut replacer au centre de la législation ouvrière et commerciale de la Nouvelle-Zélande cette loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire pour en comprendre la portée. Par tout un ensemble de lois, le gouvernement peut agir indirectement sur les profits des industriels comme sur les salaires des ouvriers. Si les patrons décidaient de faire payer par l'ensemble des consommateurs ce que l'Etat leur réclame pour leurs ouvriers, s'ils s'entendaient pouraugmenter par trop les prix de vente de leurs produits, l'Etat néo-zélandais n'aurait aucun scrupule, soit à provoquer la concurrence étrangère par un abaissement des droits de douane, soit plutôt à organiser contre les industries particulières des industries d'Etat, comme il a organisé une société d'Etat d'assurances sur la vie contre les sociétés d'assurances particulières, défavorables aux petites bourses. On conçoit qu'un gouvernement ayant en mains la loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire puisse un jour faire un usage socialiste de cette loi sociale; par elle le profit des industriels pourrait être assez réduit pour n'être plus que le salaire, légitime même au point de vue socialiste, du travailleur qui travaille à organiser l'industrie.
∴
Dans ces conditions l'expérience de la Nouvelle-Zélande est d'une importance unique, sans rapport avec les tentatives timides faites ailleurs pour faciliter la solution des différends industriels. En France, par exemple, la loi du
Quels sont les effets de la loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire en Nouvelle-Zélande? Que pensent d'elle les patrons? A-t-elle gêné ou au contraire favorisé le développement de l'industrie, le progrès de la
∴
Les patrons se sont soumis a la loi. Le nombre des condamnations prononcées contre eux a toujours été minime. Aucun grand industriel n'a essayé de violer la loi. De ce fait il ne faudrait pas conclure que les patrons soient tous satisfaits. Plusieurs protestent avec véhémence, regrettant les jours passés de l'absolutisme patronal, désolés de ne plus pouvoir ignorer le Syndicat. Beaucoup avouent leur préférence pour l'ancien état de choses. Ils ne se révoltent pas, ils boudent. Dans certains districts industriels ils ne nomment pas les délégués auxquels ils ont droit, laissant l'Etat désigner à leur place les membres-patrons du Conseil de Conciliation. J'ai entendu certains patrons préférer, pour la raison suivante, l'ancien système de la grève et du lock out : autrefois, disent-ils, les ouvriers hésitaient à se mettre en grève, parce que la grève coûtait cher et échouait souvent; maintenant l'Union, pour la moindre difficulté, en appelle au Conseil ou à la Cour; elle sait qu'elle n'a rien à perdre, qu'elle risque de beaucoup gagner. — Cependant on entend aussi en Nouvelle-Zélande certains industriels reconnaître que la loi a pour les patrons mêmes au moins deux grands avantages.
D'abord le contrat d'un ou de deux ans, que cette loi institue entre patron et Syndicatouvrier,—qu'il soit établi à l'amiable ou à la suite d'une décision du Conseil ou de la Cour, — don ne au patron une immense sécurité : il lui garantit que les prix etles conditionsdu travail reste-rontlesmêmes pendant le temps fixé, qu'il n'yaurapendant cetemps-là ni grève ni demande d'augmentation de salaires ou de réduction des heures de travail; le patron peut donc calculer bien plus sûrement ses dépenses et ses bénéfices, accepter ainsi des commandes à longue échéance.
Le second avantage pour le patron, c'est qu'à l'intérieur d'un district industriel, elle délivre les patrons honnêtes, qui paient bien leurs ouvriers sans les faire travailler trop, de la concurrence déloyale des patrons malhonnêtes, qui paient mal leurs ouvriersen les faisant travailler trop. La Cour peut, en effet, décider que son arrêt s'étendra, pour une industrie donnée, à tout le district industriel; que les salaires, le temps de travail, y devront être uniformes. Il devient alors impossible au patron peu scrupuleux de diminuer le salaire de ses ouvriers pour diminuer du même coup les prix de vente de ses produits et écraser ainsi ses concurrents plus humains.
Il est arrivé que certains patrons en Nouvelle-Zélande ont engagé leurs ouvriers à se syndiquer et à les poursuivre eux-mêmes devant la Cour, pour obtenir d'elle un arrêt obligeant leurs concurrents déloyaux à payer à leurs ouvriers de plus hauts salaires. Malheureusement les conditions du travail sont parfois différentes, pour une même industrie, d'un district industriel à l'autre; alors le maintien de la libre concurrence entre industries identiques de centres industriels différents, entraîne, pour les ouvriers, quelques-unes des fâcheuses conséquences, qu'entraine pour eux en Europe le régime de la libre concurrence de pays à pays et d'individu à individu. Certains différends industriels, qu'il a été presque impossible de concilier ou d'arbitrer, ont révélé une lacune grave de la loi néozé-landaise de
∴
En tout cas, quels que soient les avis des patrons sur les avantages et les inconvénients de la loi pour leurs industries particulières, ce qu'on ne peut nier, c'est que l'industrie néo-zélandaise, prise dans son ensemble, a continué à se développer depuis l'application de la loi. M. Reeves, dans une intéressante préface écrite pour le livre d'un sociologue américain, M. Lloyd, sur l'arbitrage obligatoire en Nouvelle-Zélande, cite triomphalement les statistiques suivantes, qui montrent bien la prospérité croissante de la colonie depuis
Dans certaines industries, c'est de bras qu'on manque plutôt que de capitaux. Est-ce la loi sur l'arbitrage qui, en supprimant les grèves et les lock-outs, a contribué à cette prospérité du pays? Le moins qu'on puisse dire, c'est qu'elle n'a pas arrêté, comme les pessimistes l'avaient prédit, le progrès industriel de la Nouvelle-Zélande.
∴
Si les patrons différent d'avis sur la loi de Trades and Labour Council de Wellington, conseil central composé des présidents et secrétaires de toutes les Unions de la ville. Je priai les membres de ce Conseil de me donner leur avis sur l'arbitrage obligatoire. Les uns après les autres ils se levèrent, firent, en un petit discours souvent fort
pounds dans la poche des travailleurs», dit le secrétaire du Syndicat des marins. Ce qui m'intéressa peut-être le plus dans ces discours, ce fut d'entendre ces syndiqués célébrer la loi comme «préservatrice de richesse», comme utile aux patrons autant qu'aux ouvriers. Le secrétaire du Trades Council, dans un discours final, plein de sens pratique et d'énergique modération, loua la Cour d'Arbitrage de faire généralement triompher les revendications ouvrières tout en s'attachant à laisser aux patrons un profit honnête et légitime. Les opinions exprimées en cette séance me paraissent bien représenter le sentiment général des ouvriers néo-zélandais. Notons cependant que, s'ils étaient satisfaits de la loi dans son ensemble, les ouvriers syndiqués demandaient en
∴
Les Syndicats ouvriers considèrent donc la loi sur l'arbitrage comme très favorable à la classe ouvrière. On a dit cependant, pour diminuer le mérite de la loi, que les salaires étaient souvent aussi hauts avant elle qu'après elle : dans un pays neuf, il y a toujours plus de travaux à faire que de travailleurs pour les faire; bonne raison pour que la marchandise travail coûte cher, pour que les salaires soient élevés. La remarque est vraie pour beaucoup d'industries néo-zélandaises; mais il est vrai aussi que, dans plusieurs autres, les salaires ont été augmentés elle temps de travail diminué sous l'influence de la loi. C'est ce qui est arrivé notamment dans certaines industries, ou les femmes sont employées. Les Syndicats faibles et pauvres ont obtenu par la loi les avantages qu'avaient conquis par la grève les Syndicats forts et riches. Le secrétaire du Syndical des fondeurs de Wellington, qui ne comprend que vingt-cinq membres, me disait que jamais si peu d'hommes n'auraient pu réunir des capitaux suffisants pour faire réussir une grève; ils auraient donc dû subir toutes les volontés patronales sans la loi sur l'arbitrage, qui a permis à la Cour de diminuer leur temps de travail et d'augmenter
Améliorant la condition de la classe ouvrière, en favorisant ou du moins sans gêner le développement de la richesse du pays, la loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire paraît être une loi très pratique, à la fois, et très humaine : un modèle de loi sociale.
La loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire, admirablement adaptée aux conditions naturelles et sociales de la Nouvelle-Zélande, y réussit parfaitement; de ce fait peut-on conclure qu'une loi analogue aurait en Europe d'aussi bons effets ? Les conséquences d'une loi identique peuvent, doivent être différentes, en des milieux différents. Tâchons de voir à quel point la situation économique et la situation politique des pays européens diffèrent des conditions où se trouve placée la Nouvelle-Zélande; ce sera le seul moyen de juger si une loi semblable serait, en un pays européen, favorable à la fois à l'accroissement de la richesse de la nation et aux progrès de la classe ouvrière dans la nation.
∴
La première différence, c'est que la Nouvelle-Zélande est un petit
sheepstations) et les usines à réfrigération (freezing works). Beaucoup de matières premières coûtent ici moins qu'en Europe. Pour ces deux raisons, les articles industriels néo-zélandais, faits avec des matériaux à bon marché par des ouvriers bien payés, peuvent lutter, du moins sur le marché intérieur, avec les produits du dehors, faits par des ouvriers beaucoup moins payés, mais avec des matériaux plus chers, et devenus coûteux surtout par suite des frais de transport et des droits de douane. Même, pour certaines industries privilégiées, l'abondance des produits naturels est telle que les industriels néo-zélandais peuvent faire jusque sur les marchés d'Europe une heureuse concurrence aux producteurs européens :
freezing works de Belfast, près de Christchurch, une très belle usine à réfrigération, qui envoie actuellement trois quarts de million de moutons gelés par an en Europe. En tout cas, les patrons elles capitalistes continuent à faire en Nouvelle-Zélande des bénéfices assez élevés pour avoir intérêt à maintenir et développer leurs industries, môme en subissant les conditions que leur impose la loi sur l'arbitrage en faveur de leurs ouvriers. — Mais supposons la Nouvelle-Zélande placée à côté de grands pays dont l'industrie soit très développée, comme sont nos grands pays d'Europe : elle serait, malgré ses tarifs protecteurs, qu'elle ne pourrait d'ailleurs probablement pas maintenir aussi élevés, écrasée sous les produits de ses concurrents fabriqués par des ouvriers travaillant de longues heures à de bas salaires. En France, en Angleterre, en Allemagne, jamais une Cour d'Arbitrage ne pourrait calculer assez sûrement tous les effets de la concurrence intérieure et surtout de la concurrence étrangère pour pouvoir rendre un arrêt obligatoire qui risquerait de tuer l'industrie nationale, d'obliger les patrons à fermer les portes de leurs usines, de priver ainsi de tout travail les ouvriers du pays. Quand on voit, comme dans le cas si intéressant des tailleuses de Dunedin, quels obstacles le fait de la concurrence entre deux petites villes apporte au fonctionnement de l'arbitrage obligatoire à l'intérieur d'un petit pays, on comprend pourquoi le fait de la concurrence d'un grand nombre de grandes villes et surtout d'autres grands pays industriels empêcherait dans tout Etat européen le bon fonctionnement de l'arbitrage obligatoire. C'est parce que la Nouvelle-Zélande est petite, peu peuplée, riche en richesses naturelles, c'est surtout parce qu'elle est isolée, qu'elle peut supporter sa législation sociale si avancée sans se laisser écraser par la concurrence étrangère. C'est grâce à des conditions naturelles spécialement néo-zélan-daisesque la loi sur l'arbitrage obligatoire a pu, en Nouvelle-Zélande, ne pas gêner ou même favoriser le développement de la richesse nationale.
∴
C'est aussi grâce à des conditions politiques et sociales spécialement néo-zélandaises que cette loi a pu, en Nouvelle-Zélande, servir les intérêts de la classe ouvrière. Rappelons-nous le mécanisme de la loi; la conciliation n'a pour rôle que de préparer l'arbitrage; les décisions arbitrales obligatoires procèdent d'une Cour où l'arbitre départiteur est un juge nommé par le gouverne-
tory, rend presque toujours des arrêts favorables à la classe ouvrière, c'est sans doute parce qu'il juge avec impartialité et qu'il considère comme juste d'attribuer aux travailleurs une plus large part des richesses qu'ils produisent; mais c'est aussi parce qu'il sent autour de lui une opinion publique nettement favorable aux revendications ouvrières; c'est aussi, c'est surtout parce qu'il a derrière lui un gouvernement ouvrier, qui le nomme pour trois ans, qui, au bout de trois ans, pourra le maintenir ou le remplacer. La coalition libérale-ouvrière arrivée au pouvoir il y a douze ans, a maintenant dans le pays une situation qu'elle ne perdra pas de longtemps; les élections lui ont été favorables au-delà de toute espérance; il n'y a pas de réaction à craindre en Nouvelle-Zélande : il n'y a donc pas à se demander quel usage pourrait faire de la loi sur l'arbitrage un gouvernement hostile à la classe ouvrière. La puissance de la classe ouvrière dans ce pays tient à des causes sociales et historiques qui agissent presque avec la constance de causes naturelles : notamment à l'état physique et moral de l'ouvrier néo-zélandais, et aussi à la jeunesse même de la nationnéo-zé-landaise. L'ouvrier néo-zélandais, qui travaille un petit nombre d'heures dans des usines parfaitement hygiéniques, qui, avec son haut salaire, peut se donner une vie confortable, reste un homme sain et vigoureux; instruit dans les écoles primaires de l'Etat, qui sont les meilleures écoles du pays, il est aussi cultivé que les autres Néo-zélandais, patrons ou fonctionnaires, rarement d'une haute culture. Physiquement et intellectuellement fort, il multiplie sa puissance en l'associant à la puissance de ses camarades de l'Union. Quand ces ouvriers, forts isolément et forts en groupe, veulent agir syndicalement ou politiquement, ils ne rencontrent l'obstinée résistance d'aucune des forces du passé : ni d'une aristocratie de naissance, ni d'une aristocratie terrienne, ni d'une aristocratie capitaliste puissante, ni d'une armée, ni d'une Eglise maîtresse des consciences. — Que l'on compare maintenant la situation de la classe ouvrière dans chacun de nos pays d'Europe; que l'on se représente les effets du paupérisme, des bas salaires, des longues heures d'un travail épuisant en des usines malsaines; que l'on se fasse une idée exacte de la faiblesse politique et syndicale de la classe ouvrière; que l'on se rappelle quelle opposition irréductible font les forces de résistance aux forces de mouvement, de quel poids pèse chez nous le passé sur le présent, combien nous payons cher, en souffrances actuelles, l'honneur d'étre des pays de longue histoire. En Nouvelle-Zélande, il y a plus de vivants que de morts,
∴
En pays européens, le fait que les décisions de la Cour d'arbitrage sont obligatoires risquerait ou de ruiner l'industrie de la nation ou de s'opposer aux progrès libérateurs de la classe ouvrière. Pour des raisons d'ordre national et pour des raisons d'ordre social, on ne peut songer à copier la loi néo-zélandaise.
Cependant l'Etat démocratique moderne,— seul intermédiaire concevable, comme le remarque fort bien M. Lloyd, entre patrons, ouvriers et consommateurs, — a le droit et le devoir, en échange de la protection qu'il donne à l'industrie, d'exiger qu'elle rende à la collectivité le plus de services possible : il a donc le droit et le devoir de tenter de rendre moins nombreuses ou moins longues les grèves toujours fâcheuses, causes de souffrances pour les ouvriers, de ruines pour les patrons, d'inconvénients innombrables pour les consommateurs. Dans tous les grands pays d'Europe, les législateurs devraient chercher un intermédiaire entre l'état d'anarchie industrielle dont souffrent ouvriers et patrons, et l'arbitrage strictement obligatoire, qui serait, pour les uns et pour les autres, plein de danger. Il faudrait joindre aux lois réglant le droit de grève et de lock-out une loi organisant un arbitrage relativement obligatoire.
L'arbitrage néo-zélandais est absolument obligatoire; obligatoire dans les deux sens possibles du mot : les parties sont toujours obli-
∴
De ces deux types d'arbitrage relativement obligatoire, lequel devons-nous préférer?
∴
Le projet de loi déposé jadis par M. Millerand, en qualité de ministre du Commerce, repris récemment par lui, comme député, laisse aux industriels la faculté de soumettre ou de ne pas soumettre à l'arbitrage les différends qu'ils peuvent avoir avec leurs ouvriers; mais, une fois pris l'engagement d'accepter l'arbitrage, patrons et ouvriers doivent obéir aux décisions rendues. L'exposé des motifs invoque «l'admirable exemple de la Nouvelle-Zélande». ll me semble cependant que l'étude précédemment faite de la loi néo-zélandaise, permettrait d'adresser à ce projet deux sortes de critiques.
D'abord il laisse de côté un grand nombre d'industries, — ne s'appliquant, en somme, qu'aux industries soumises à l'influence de l'Etat. Il est tout à fait vraisemblable qu'en France, comme en Nouvelle Zélande, les patrons, désirant rester maîtres absolus dans leurs usines, ne consentiront que sous la pression de l'Etat à accepter de recourir toujours à l'arbitrage. Ainsi un très grand nombre de conflits continueront à se produire, où les ouvriers pourront, comme il arrive si souvent, réclamer conciliation et arbitrage, sans que les patrons soient obligés même de discuter avec eux. La non intervention de la loi laisse intacte, en un vaste domaine, l'anarchie industrielle, qu'il s'agirait de limiter.
Insuffisante, à ce pointdevue, la loi projetée peut, d'autre part, vraiment paraître tyrannique. Dans les industries soumises à la loi, l'obligation où seraient les parties d'accepter toujours les décisions rendues, si ces décisions étaient sanctionnées de peines sérieuses, pourrait avoir les conséquences fâcheuses qu'aurait la pure et simple application à notre pays de la loi néo-zélandaise. Les patrons pourraient toujours craindre de voir une décision arbitrale obligatoire leur imposer d'inacceptables conditions, ruiner leur industrie. Les ouvriers
Ce double danger, menaçant à la fois l'industrie nationale et le mouvement ouvrier, résulte nécessairement du caractère obligatoire conféré à la sentence arbitrale. Ou plutôt il en résulterait, si des peines sévères s'attachaient, comme en Nouvelle-Zélande, à la violation de la loi. Mais la seule pénalité prévue, la privation des droits électoraux dans les divers scrutins relatifs à la représentation du travail, constitue un châtiment vraiment dérisoire : la crainte d'une peine si minime n'arrêtera aucun de ceux que de gros intérêts pousseront à violer la loi. La violation des décisions théoriquement obligatoires restera, en fait, impunie. La tyrannie de la loi se trouve tempérée par l'impunité des délinquants; mais son efficacité en est annulée. Oppressive en apparence, anodine en fait, la loi s'écroule, faute de sanction.
Le projet Millerand me paraît critiquable à la fois parce qu'il laisse les parties libres de faire ou de ne pas faire arbitrer leurs différends, et parce qu'il impose ensuite, d'ailleurs sans sanction suffisante, l'obligation de se soumettre aux décisions rendues.
∴
L'expérience de la Nouvelle-Zélande, qui me semble condamner le projet Millerand, me parait au contraire pouvoir recommander un projet d'arbitrage relativement obligatoire d'un autre type. Patrons et ouvriers seraient obligés, dans tous les cas, de faire arbitrer leurs différends par un arbitre impartial, comme en Nouvelle-Zélande; mais ils resteraient libres ensuite d'accepter ou de repousser la sentence arbitrale. Au lieu de placer, comme dans le projet Millerand, la liberté individuelle au point de départ, l'obligation légale au point d'arrivée, un tel projet placerait au point de départ l'obligation légale, au point d'arrivée la liberté individuelle. Voici comment on pourrait concevoir cette forme d'arbitrage relativement obligatoire.
Patrons et ouvriers pourraient d'abord, comme à l'heure actuelle, faire arbitrer leurs différends, dès qu'il y aurait entre eux quelque désaccord. Le désaccord serait constaté à une entrevue que le patron serait légalement tenu d'accorder aux délégués de ses ouvriers : on pourrait avantageusement emprunter au projet Millerand l'idée de ces délégués ouvriers et de ces entrevues obligatoires, en l'étendant d'ailleurs à toutes les grandes industries. Même sans que la grève éclate, l'arbitrage pourrait être réclamé par l'une ou l'autre partie.
En tout cas, dès que la grève éclaterait, patrons et ouvriers seraient légalement obligés de recourir à l'arbitrage. — II me paraît impossible et injuste de limiter, si peu que ce soit, le droit de grève. Mais l'obligation d'aller en arbitrage n'empêcherait nullement les ouvriers, ni même une partie des ouvriers, de cesser le travail dès qu'ils le jugeraient bon.
Quels seraient les arbitres du différend? L'expérience de la Nouvelle-Zélande me parait ici tout à fait concluante. Les Conseils de Conciliation n'aboutissent que dans des cas exceptionnels à apaiser les conflits; quand ils réussissent, le succès ne tient qu'à l'autorité personnelle du président, qui peut départager les voix des délégués des deux parties. Le succès de la Cour d'Arbitrage tient à ce que le président, haut magistrat nommé par l'Etat et aussi impartial qu'on peut l'être, doit départager les voix des délégués patronaux et des délégués ouvriers. En France, les Tribunaux d'Arbitrage, devant lesquels tous seraient obligés de porter leurs différends industriels, pourraient contenir un nombre égal de délégués patronaux et de délégués ouvriers, empruntés, par exemple, aux représentants de la profession dans le Conseil du Travail; mais ils devraient contenir un arbitre dé-partiteur impartial, qui ne pourrait être qu'un délégué de la collectivité, par exemple un juge nommé par l'Etat. La création d'un organe judiciaire spécialement compétent en matière d'industrie etde travail, me parait être la caractéristique essentielle de la loi néo-zélandaise qu'il y aurait, sur ce point, tout avantage à imiter.
Eclairé sur les détails de la profession par les membres du Conseil du Travail, le juge devrait, dans tous les cas, rendre un arrêt motivé. Cet arrêt pourrait-il être obligatoire ? L'étude de la loi néo-zélandaise montre, il me semble, qu'une telle mesure serait dangereuse à la fois pour le développement de la richesse nationale et pour l'émancipation de la classe ouvrière. D'ailleurs l'arrêt ne pourrait être obligatoire en France, qu'appuyé de sanctions inefficaces, dont le mépris entraînerait à mépriser toute la loi. II me paraît nécessaire de laisser patrons et ouvriers libres d'accepter ou de repousser l'arrêt rendu. Je dirai, plus tard, pour quelles raisons on peut espérer que l'arrêt rendu sera très souvent accepté par les deux parties.
Si les deux parties acceptent la sentence arbitrale, elles pourront établir entre elles un contrat, sur cette base, pour un temps donné, comme font les partiesen Nouvelle-Zélande; contrat dont la loi assurera le respect. Les violations de ces contrats devraient être, naturellement, déférées au Tribunal d'Arbitrage. C'est lui qui serait chargé de punir les délinquants. Et il pourrait aussi avoir à assurer l'exécution loyale des contrats collectifs passés directement, sans son intervention, entre patrons et ouvriers.
Quelles seraient les sanctions de cette loi ? Elles ne pourraient être que pécuniaires; mais elles devraient être assez redoutables pour obliger au respect de la loi; elles pourraient très bien consister en amendes élevées, comme en Nouvelle-Zélande. Ces amendes puniraient soit le refus d'aller en arbitrage, soit la violation des sentences arbitrales une fois acceptées ou des contrats une fois conclus. Naturellement il serait juste de proportionner la pénalité à la responsabilité. A beaucoup d'esprits il paraîtrait équitable de fixer des amendes plus faibles pour la collectivité ouvrière qui, par définition, n'a pas de capital, que pour le patron qui, par définition, est un capitaliste. A ces amendes on ajouterait les punitions sévères et justes proposées dans le projet Millerand contre toute influence exercée sur les ouvriers, les délégués, les arbitres, par voies de fait, violence, dons ou promesses.
Quels seraient les avantages d'une telle forme d'arbitrage relativement obligatoire?
D'abord la création d'un organe judiciaire spécialement compétent en matière d'industrie et de travail empêcherait beaucoup de grèves d'éclater, sans gêner la liberté du patron, sans limiter en aucune façon le droit de grève de l'ouvrier. Dans bien des cas, les deux parties, sachant qu'en cas de grève elles seront légalement obligées d'aller en arbitrage, décideront de consulter le Tribunal d'Arbitrage avant que la grève soit déclarée; et patrons et ouvriers seront naturellement portés à accepter la sentence arbitrale, pour éviter la grève, que les uns et les autres redoutent tant.
Puis, — et ce second avantage est encore plus évident — l'institution de cet arbitrage relativement obligatoire amènerait une solution beaucoup plus rapide de la plupart des grèves. Ce qui envenime la plupart des grèves, ce qui les fait durer longtemps, c'est le plus souvent l'obstination des patrons, et, quelquefois, celle des ouvriers; c'est leur entêtement à refuser toute discussion contradictoire; c'est l'amour-propre qu'ils apportent à ne pas paraître céder les premiers. Au contraire, j'ai constaté souvent en Nouvelle-Zélande que, dès que les deux parties sont en présence, une solution jusqu'alors inimaginée apparaît tout d'un coup possible. La loi, obli-
Autre avantage considérable : il y a de grandes chances pour qu'une telle organisation de l'arbitrage obligatoire aide à faire triompher dans la plupart des cas la solution la plus juste, la plus humaine, celle que réclamerait un spectateur vraiment impartial. A défaut de sanctions plus efficaces, la sentence arbitrale aurait sans doute pour ellela force très puissante de l'opinion. C'est un fait qu'en temps de grève les deux parties cherchent ardemment à s'acquérir l'approbation delà conscience publique; c'est un fait que souvent le succès ou l'échec d'une grève dépend de l'intervention des consommateurs et des commerçants, de l'impression sympathique ou hostile qui finit par prévaloir dans la ville ou la région. Mais la conscience collective est singulièrement hésitante et défaillante; elle se laisse duper facilement par les mensonges des journaux. L'arrêt motivé d'un tribunal impartial viendrait orienterce courant puissant de l'opinion publique dans le sens de la solution la plus raisonnable et la plus juste. D'autre part, une foisl'arrét rendu, le Gouvernement, le Parlement, les municipalités auraient mille moyens d'agir indirectement sur la grève pour la faire aboutir à la solution conseillée par l'arbitre (refus de commandes, attributions de secours, etc.). Aussi la sentence arbitrale aurait chance de s'imposer dans bien des cas. La double pression de l'opinion publique et des autorités constituerait bien une sorte de contrainte, mais indirecte, et, suivant les circonstances, plus ou moins énergique. Aucune sanction ne pourrait être aussi souple; aucune sanction efficace ne pourrait être aussi peu tyrannique. Les patrons ou les ouvriers qui croiraient leurs intérêts dangereusement menacés ou leurs droits brutalement violés par une sentence arbitrale, pourraient toujours user des armes qu'actuellement leur confère la loi : ils ne seraient pas acculés à la
Enfin un dernier avantage, très important, de la loi, serait que dorénavant des contrats à longue échéance se multiplieraient, qui lieraient patrons et ouvriers; le Tribunal d'Arbitrage, comme la Cour néo-zélandaise, les ferait respecter, qu'ils soient établis de gré à gré, ou à la suite d'une sentence arbitrale librement acceptée par les deux parties. Les ouvriers goûteraient alors, comme en Nouvelle-Zélande, la certitudode ne pas voir leurs salaires brusquement diminués; les patrons seraient capables de prendre avec leurs clients des engagements à long terme. L'industrie nationale jouirait d'une stabilité jusqu'alors inconnue.
Une telle loi serait utile à la nation, en rendant moins nombreuses et plus courtes les grèves, néfastes à la formation de la richesse nationale. Elle serait utile à la classe ouvrière, d'abord en l'aidant à améliorer son sort sans subir les souffrances des longues grèves; puis en l'obligeant, pour réaliser un progrès continu, à réfléchir plus, à raisonner mieux sa conduite, à discipliner mieux son action. La loi travaillerait pour l'avenir le plus lointain en encourageant la classe ouvrière à accomplir un incessant effort d'organisation, d'instruction, d'éducation. Ainsi, pour des raisons d'ordre national et pour des raisons d'ordre social, la nécessité s'impose, d'ajouter, à notre législation industrielle, une loi organisant l'arbitrage relativement obligatoire.
∴
La loi néo-zélandaise sur l'arbitrage obligatoire, qui réussit fort bien en Nouvelle-Zélande, ne pourrait être appliquée sans modifications à nos sociétés européennes. La Nouvelle-Zélande est trop différente de nos nations d'Europe, trop différemment située dans l'espace et dans le temps. Petite, agricole, abondante en richesses naturelles, isolée du monde, elle peut légiférer pour elle-même sans tenir compte de la concurrence étrangère; toute jeune dans l'histoire de l'humanité, elle apparaît comme le modèle d'une démocratie neuve, n'ayant pas subi de longs siècles d'oppression politique et économique. Nos pays européens sont de grands pays, et des pays de grandes affaires industrielles, soumis chacun à la brutale concurrence de tous les autres; ce sont de vieux pays, tout écrasés encore sous les tyrannies du passé. Il est fatal qu'ils ignorent la paix industrielle presque parfaite dont jouit l'heureuse Nouvelle-Zélande.
Cependant, si on ne peut copier la loi néozélandaise, on peut du moins essayer de la transposer. On l'adapterait assez bien aux conditions naturelles et sociales des nations européennes, en remplaçant
La loi de industriel, mal défini, avait paru exclure : employés de magasins, de bureaux, de tramways, etc.; et les employés de chemins de fer, — seuls de tous les salariés de l'Etat, — ont reçu le droit de recourir directement à la Cour d'Arbitrage. Puis on a étendu le pouvoir de la Cour d'Arbitrage : elle peut légiférer, quand elle le juge bon, non plus seulement pour un district industriel, mais pour toute la colonie Enfin on a rendu la procédure plus rapide, en autorisant les parties à porter directement le débat devant la Cour d'Arbitrage, sans pasier par le Conseil de Conciliation (amendement de
Paris. Typ. A. Davy. 52, rue Madame. — Téléphone.
This plain statement of the case against the House of Lords is a record of what they have done in the last hundred years.
History is their accuser. Their own Journals supply the damning evidence of their guilt. It is now for the people to pronounce the verdict—
The substance of this historical narrative first appeared in germ in vade mecum for writers, speakers and voters at the General Election.
The question before the country is simply this: Peers or People: which shall rule? That it should be raised at the beginning of the twentieth century is somewhat of a surprise. That it should be deliberately raised by the House of Lords on a question upon which the mandate of the electorate was clear and unmistakable, and the usage of the Constitution unbroken, is still more surprising. The fact, however, is there. The challenge is none of our seeking. The people of these three kingdoms were in no mood to raise the great constitutional question that they evaded in
On the right-hand side of the corridor leading to the House of Lords the eye is arrested by a large mural painting of one of the most memorable scenes in English history. It represents Charles Stuart, surrounded by his Cavaliers, hoisting the Royal Standard at Nottingham. It was the signal for the outbreak of the Civil War. Very heroic is the Sovereign, with his son on his right hand, surrounded by enthusiastic Cavaliers. I never saw that picture during the November days in which the House of Lords decided to make war upon the privileges of the Commons without recognising it as a symbol of what was happening before our eyes to-day. In
Long-suffering indeed, but not for ever suffering. The full cup has run over at last. It is now for the Commons of England, not to exact
To the accomplishment of this task all other political interests must be subordinated. If the dual usurpation of the Royal prerogative of dissolution and of the Commons' privilege of financial control be not met with stern and instant chastisement, then our claim to be a self-governing democracy, a Crowned Republic, disappears at once and for ever. It is no use preaching of this, that, or the other reform to be carried out by the will of the people when the fundamental principle of the government of the people by the people for the people is trampled in the dust.
The question before the country at the coming election is summed up in the phrase, "Peers or People: Which Shall Rule? "The glozing and mendacious pretext that the Peers are exerting their authority merely in order to give the electors an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Budget is a subterfuge similar to that by which the wolf arrays himself in sheep's clothing in order to devour the flock. Even if it were accepted at its face value it would amount to a revolutionary change in the ancient Constitution of this realm. It would present to us, instead of a system of King, Lords and Commons acting in accordance with long-established constitutional usage as the legal representatives of the nation, an oligarchy wielding a despotism tempered by plébiscite, a system in which there will be neither room for King nor Commons. The principle of plébiscite is as foreign to the British Constitution as is the claim of the Upper House to refuse to the monarch the supplies voted by his faithful Commons.
The pretext that the Peers have wrecked the Budget out of an excessive anxiety lest any financial or social reforms should be introduced upon which a mass vote of the people has not been taken, is a piece of insolence so flagrant as to justify our resenting it as an insult to the common sense of the nation. Behind all these fine phrases and protestations of anxiety to take the opinion of the people there lies the settled resolve of the landlords and the publicans to render it impossible for the Liberals to govern the country in the future. It is an attempt to pack the cards against the Liberal Party, or—to vary the metaphor—to secure that the Tories shall always be at the wickets by appointing an umpire who will always declare the Liberals all out in the first over. That may be Tory politics, but it is not English cricket. If for one moment the claim of the Peers to refuse Supplies be recognised as valid, no Liberal Ministry can survive its first Session. For the House of Lords has become a Tory caucus, whose dominating principle is to promote the interest of the Tory Party and to protect the sacred privileges of beer. If the electors tolerate the attempt of the Peers to usurp the right of refusing Supplies, which has been hitherto exclusively exercised by the Commons, the government of this country passes permanently into the hands of what is to all intents and purposes a joint caucus of Tories and brewers. If the Tories and brewers succeed in securing a return of the narrowest possible majority, the Tories will be left to govern the country for seven years without any control or interference from the Second Chamber. This will never do. But it is this monstrous claim to secure for the Tory Party the monopoly of the government in this country, to destroy the ancient constitutional usage of centuries, that the electors have now to defeat, to repel, and to punish by inflicting upon the usurpers a defeat so overwhelming as to paralyse for ever the forces which have aimed so sinister and deadly a blow against the
Misled by the electoral endorsement in
The claim that is put forward with more or less impudence by the apologists for the House of Lords is that the Peers have a right to demand a dissolution in order that the electorate may have an opportunity of saying whether it has changed its mind since the General Election! It is not denied that the Liberals received a mandate from the electorate to legislate to defend Free Trade and to defeat Tariff Reform. That mandate was expressed in the unmistakably solid shape of a majority of 354. If the Nationalist vote be subtracted from the Ministerial vote and added to that of the Opposition, it still showed a majority of 192. There were only 158 Unionists of all shades returned to a House of 670 members. Never was there a verdict more decisive. To secure the election of that House, no less a sum than one million sterling was spent in polling 3,394,346 votes for the Liberals and 2,557,928 for the Unionists. To demand an immediate dissolution under such circumstances is the superfluity of naughtiness, and the proposal is made solely for the purpose of bringing representative government into contempt. It would be simply impossible to carry on if the House of Lords is allowed to refuse to pass any measure it dislikes until it has been submitted twice over to the verdict of the electorate. The Chartists demanded Annual Parliaments. Mr. Balfour regards the Septennial Act as one of the fundamentals of the British Constitution. But the demand for a dissolution by the Peers is virtually to allow the House of Lords to repeal the Septennial Act when the Liberals are in office and to usurp the prerogative of the Crown in fixing the date of a dissolution.
If the country stands this usurpation on the part of the Peers it seals in advance the fate of all legislation introduced by a Liberal Administration. Even if the Peers approve of the Bills sent up from the House of Commons, it is to their party interest to reject them in order that their party may afterwards have the credit of passing them. But even if they did not carry partisanship quite so far, Liberal legislation is unpopular enough with the majority of the Peers for them always to have conscientious scruples against allowing their Bills to pass into law. The fate that has befallen the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill in the first Session befell the Licensing Bill in the third, the Scotch Land Bill in the second, and the Budget in the fourth. The responsibility of the Peers is measured by the extent of their opportunity, and that is limited only by the range within which they can mutilate and reject Liberal Bills with impunity. When once they are assured that they can do their deadly work upon all Liberal Bills without protest or commotion they will reject them all. And what is more, it will be their duty to do so. For the acquiescence of the country in the exercise of their veto is equivalent to the conversion of a strictly limited and subordinate prerogative into one of absolute and uncontrolled power. It is as if a Constitutional Monarch were suddenly and silently converted into an absolute despot.
The issue, therefore, is whether the ancient time-honoured system by
It is against this new and monstrous reversion to a worse than Boyal veto, because vested permanently in the hands of a faction, that the Liberals must now protest with effect or for ever hold their peace.
It is often assumed that those who advocate the ending or the abolition of the House of Lords are therefore necessarily opposed in principle to a Second Chamber. It would be nearer the truth to say that it is those who believe most in the importance of Second Chambers who are the most hostile to the House of Lords. That this is necessarily so will appear the moment we inquire for what purpose the Second Chamber is supposed to be needed in a representative Government, and it is still more apparent when we examine the Second Chambers of other lands.
The first duty of a Senate is to act as a revising Chamber to correct the errors and straighten out the tangles in the legislature of the popular Assembly. This duty demands for its exercise, impartiality, expert training, patience, and industry.
Its second duty is to act as a legislature, taking its fair share in the burden of legislating for the nation. The more hopelessly clogged and broken down is the popular House, the more urgent is the need that the Second Chamber should relieve it of some portion of its task.
Its third duty is to act as a strong and trusted bulwark against the aggression either of monarchs or of mobs, to defend liberty and law impartially and firmly against all assailants.
For the discharge of these duties, the first essential is the confidence of the nation, without which it cannot possess the courage to do its work. The second essential is confidence in itself: it must not feel that it is an anachronism, a mediæval ghost lingering belated in a democratic age till some revolutionary cockcrow sends it to limbo. The third essential is that its members should be held to their work by a constraining sense of public duty. And the fourth is that they should be fairly representative of the nation as a whole, and above any reproach of being connected with any special industry or interest.
For any Second Chamber to command the confidence of the whole nation it must not be identified with any section of the nation. Alike in class, in politics, and in religion, it ought to bear some proportionate relation to the people on whose behalf it legislates. To be permanently identified with either party in the State is fatal.
In the struggle upon which all nations are entering between the Haves and the Have Nots, between the Socialists and the moneyed classes, a Second Chamber should exert a moderating and balancing influence. This is not to say that it should be recruited equally from the Sansculottes and the money-bags, but it ought not to be identified with either.
The House of Lords is the only Second Chamber in the world at the present moment which is based solely upon the hereditary principle, plus
This is the more remarkable because it was not originally intended to be a hereditary Chamber. Mr. Edward A. Freeman has devoted much learning to demonstrate that the hereditary character was not its original essence. The hereditary legislator he regards as a late modern development which has obscured the original character of an assembly to which the King summoned whom he pleased at first, without a thought of conferring upon their descendants a right to be summoned in their turn to the legislature. Be that as it may, we have to do with things as they are to-day, and the outstanding fact is that the House of Lords is now a hereditary legislature. As such it invites, nay, challenges attack. Hereditary legislation belongs to the past. It is an anachronism and an anomaly at the present day. As Mr. Goldwin Smith says, the House of Lords was never created to serve the purpose of a Second Chamber. "It is a relic of a time in which the legislative, executive, and judicial functions lay enfolded in the same germ. The task now proposed to British statesmanship is in effect that of converting an estate of the feudal realm into a chamber of revision or senate."
Being an anachronism, the House of Lords is an assembly which is notoriously without the courage of its own convictions. It is conscious of its anomalous position, and is weak and timorous when a real Senate would be bold and strong. That, indeed, is one of the reasons why it has continued so long to exist. There are Radicals who resent any attempt to create a real Second Chamber because they regard the House of Lords as the weakest, and therefore the least mischievous, Second Chamber that the wit of man ever invented. Single Chamber Radicals, it has been wittily said, prefer to keep the House of Lords as it is for the same reason that the Russian Government preserves the Sultan at Constantinople. It is not that they love the Lords or the Turks, but they regard both Lords and Turks as less formidable obstacles to the realisation of their ulterior ambitions than any conceivable substitutes. To the revolutionist the House of Lords is almost an ideal simulacrum of a constitutional check, for it is guaranteed to disappear whenever the popular pressure rises to the point of threatened violence. But alike to the constitutional reformer and the opponent of reform, no contrivance can be so detestable as an institution which blocks the way obstinately when timely reform might avert disaster, but which vanishes from the scene the moment popular discontent develops into revolutionary fury.
The essential weakness of a hereditary House in this democratic age has been frequently deplored by staunch Conservatives. Lord Newton and Sir Herbert Maxwell are among the most recent to bear testimony in this sense. The latter, writing in Nineteenth Century,
The speeches of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Halsbury, as leaders of the majority, showed that they entirely shared Sir Herbert Maxwell's view of
Lord Halsbury declared that the Bill was "dangerous, unjust, and contrary to the whole spirit of British liberty." It was "gross, outrageous, tyrannical; it legalised tyranny." It was "a disgrace to a civilised country," and contained "a section more disgraceful than any that bad ever appeared in an English statute."—(House of Lords,
This was the deliberate verdict of the late Lord Chancellor and the leader of the Conservative Peers. They had an obedient and overwhelming majority at their command eager to destroy this atrocious Bill and to deliver the country from the danger which menaced it. But instead of doing this plain duty the Peers were advised by their party chiefs to allow it to pass, lest by rejecting it they might endanger their own existence. Lord Lansdowne's words were thus reported in the He should greatly deprecate au appeal to the people on such a ground as that. They were passing through a period when it was necessary for the House of Lords to move with great caution. Conflicts and controversies might be inevitable. But let their lordships, so far as they wore able, bo sure that if they were to join issue they did so uTimes (pon ground which was as favourable as possible In themselves. In this case the ground would be unfavourable to the House, and the juncture was one that, even were their lordships to win the victory, would be fruitless.
The Peers accepted his advice and passed what they believed to be a thoroughly bad Bill on the naked ground that the issue was an unfavourable one for the House of Lords. As the That really bars the claim of the House to be a revising Chamber which considers important Bills on their own merits, and reduces it to a party convention accepting the tactical decrees of the Opposition Leaders in the other House.Westminster Gazette remarked:—
How apt and timely an illustration of the justice of Lord Rosebery's remark:—
In my judgment the House of Lords is not a Second Chamber at all. . . . It is a permanent party organisation, controlled for party purposes and by party managers.—(Bradford,
The House of Lords is in a most unfortunate position. If it were free to act upon its convictions as to what is best for the country it would reject unhesitatingly almost every Liberal measure sent up from the House of Commons. If the Peers did this they know they would be swept out of existence. They have, therefore, constantly to consider, not what are the merits or demerits of Liberal Bills, but whether it would be safe for them to give expression to their real sentiments. They yield everything to fear and nothing to reason. If they give way it is solely a registration of the result of a calculation that it would be dangerous to persist in their opposition to the popular demand.
The House of Lords as a Second Chamber is only useful as a political thermometer of the popular temperature. The Peers inquire not whether a proposed measure be just or good for the country. Upon all Liberal measures their minds are made up on that subject before they enter their Painted Chamber. All that they ask is whether there is behind this particular measure such a volume of popular passion as to render it unsafe for them to stand out against it. If there is, then no matter how mischievous the measure, the Peers will incontinently pass it into law. The House of
The real danger of the House of Lords from a constitutional point of view is that it invites unrest, it invites agitation, and in certain cases the cup might boil over, and it might invite revolution. This is a great national question and it is a great national danger.—(Bradford,
The House of Lords as a revising body is very much at a discount. That there is great and urgent need for a Chamber of revision cannot be denied, especially of late years, since measures have been passed undiscussed through the House of Commons by the unsparing use of the guillotine. Unfortunately the House of Lords has not risen to the occasion. Instead of revising the half-baked measures sent up from the Lower House, it has placed them on the Statute Book often without serious discussion. This slovenly habit of shirking its proper work is peculiarly manifest when a Conservative Government is in office. The House of Lords practically retires from business when its political partner has a majority in the House of Commons.
Legislatures exist in order to give statutory expression to the wishes of the legislators. Whether they do their work effectively or not is to be tested by the decisions of the Law Courts when they are called upon to interpret the statutory results of legislative activity. It is a curious fact that for the whole of the first year of the present Parliament the nation has been occupied in endeavouring to remedy the results of the imperfect drafting of three Acts of Parliament, all of which were framed by Conservative Governments and carried in their present shape by Conservative Parliaments, without a Second Chamber discovering the flaws in the drafting which nullified the intentions of their authors.
The House of Lords, as it is at present constituted, consists of three peers of the Blood Royal, 540 peers of England, Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom, 28 representative Irish peers, 16 Scotch representative peers, the 2 Archbishops and 24 Bishops of the Established Church, and 5 life peers.
Of the 600 odd peers, lay and spiritual, 400 seldom, or never, attend. The heaviest attendance occurred in
It is a popular delusion that the Peers, as a body, represent families of ancient lineage. Since
The following brief table shows the way in which Liberalism in the Upper House has dwindled in the last forty years:—
From this it would seem, with the exception of the sudden rallying of the last remnant of the Whigs to the cause of Parliamentary Reform in
Out of 500 peers 60 can claim to have had nine predecessors in the title, only seven can claim 20. The immense majority of the peers are of modern creation.
The assumption that peers are men of such transcendent merit or such exceptional genius that all their descendants to the tenth and twelfth generation must be more fit than other men to legislate wisely for the nation, will not hold water for a moment. Genius is not hereditary neither is statesmanship. But even if it were, the origins of our titled legislators are not such as to justify any confidence in the law-making capacity of their progeny. The majority of men who are made
Sir Wilfrid Lawson said that peers were made of men who had either "made much money, or bribed many voters, or brewed a great deal of beer, or killed large numbers of people." When the question "Who were their ancestors?" is looked into, it will be found that many owe their peerages to even less respectable sources than those enumerated by Sir Wilfrid Lawson. The peerages of Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson, Wolseley, Alcester, and Roberts were won by distinguished service in naval or land warfare. To these men the barracks and the quarter-deck were ante-chambers to the legislature. Even if the camp and the deck are the best schools of statesmanship, the qualities that raise a soldier or a sailor to the top of his profession are seldom transmitted to his posterity. In India they have a caste of "hereditary clerks who pray to their ink-horns," but it is only here that the sons of successful soldiers and sailors are supposed to be qualified to become hereditary legislators who make laws for the Empire. There are many peerages founded by lawyers which may be said to have some claim to represent exceptional ability. But the majority of our peerages are bestowed for any and every reason except a proved capacity to take a useful part in legislation.
The origin of some of our peerages, notably the Irish peerages, is infamous. Titles have been given to men for deeds for which they deserved whipping at the cart's tail. Peerages were recognised as an indispensable part of the currency of corruption. "The majority of Irish titles," said the Unionist historian, Mr. Lecky, "are historically connected with memories not of honour but of shame."
Says Mr. Lecky—
In the majority of cases these peerages were simple, palpable open bribes, intended for no other purpose than to secure a majority in the House of Commons. The most important of the converts was Lord Ely. He obtained a promise of an English peerage, and he brought to the Government at least eight borough seats.
But it is unnecessary to go seriatim over the black list. Sufficient has been quoted to show that the hereditary House of Lords has been often recruited by men whose deserts would have been more justly rewarded by incarceration in a convict prison. The progenitors of some of our noble legislators may have been men distinguished above their fellows for virtue and genius. But the progenitors of so many of the others were scamps and scoundrels that it is impossible to say, without looking up Debrett, whether a man is a hereditary legislator because his forefather was preeminent for rascality or for public spirit. Probably, as a rule, he belonged to the majority—he was pre-eminent for nothing, but belonged to the great army of wealthy, respectable mediocrities who rendered yeomen's service to their party, and who received the partisan's reward.
"Some people tell us," said John Bright in that the House of Lords has in its time done great things for freedom. It may be so, though I have not been so successful in finding out how or when as some people have been. At least since
Mr. Bright, it will he noticed, selects the year
After the Wars of the Roses, the Tudor despotism found little to choose between Lords and Commons in subservience to its will. Only twenty-nine temporal peers received writs of summons to the first Parliament of Henry VII. During the whole reign of Henry VIII. Hallam says he can only find one instance in which the Commons refused to pass a Bill recommended by the Crown. When the dynasty passed on the death of Elizabeth from the Tudors to the Stuarts, the number of temporal peers was only fifty-nine. The first James created sixty-two peers; the first Charles fifty-nine.
The new creations, therefore, largely exceeded the old. They were for the most part King's men, and the House of Lords, as was to be expected, played but a small part in the great struggle which saved Parliamentary government in the middle of the seventeenth century. The two Houses had occasional collisions over the vexed question of the financial privileges of the Commons. At a conference held in
Sturdy Mr. Pym, however, refused to accept their disclaimer. He told them that they had not only meddled with matters of supply, but that they had both "concluded the matter and order of proceeding, which the House of Commons takes to be a breach of their privilege, for which I was commanded to desire reparation from your Lordships."
The Lords made the desired reparation by declaring that they did not know they were breaking a right of the Commons by merely suggesting that supply should have precedence over the consideration of grievances. Such a suggestion, however, revealed the cloven foot. "No supply until
The struggle between the King and the Parliament had not proceeded very far before a contest arose between the two Houses on the question of the right of the Bishops to sit in the Upper House. In
The outbreak of the war carried off many peers to the Royal Standard. The remnant of the House of Lords refused to concur in the vote of the Rump of the House of Commons, declaring Charles Stuart guilty of treason, and constituting a High Court of Justice for his trial. Thereupon the Rump, on The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, being chosen by the people representing them, are the supreme authority of the nation. Whatever is enacted and declared to be law by the Commons hath the force of law without the consent of the King or the House of Lords.
This was followed up on February 10th by a still more trenchant resolution:—
That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished. And that an Act be brought in to that purpose.
The House of Lords reappeared after the Restoration. The first time that they took action differentiating their policy from that of the Commons was significant. Charles II. had promised pardon to all rebels except those excluded by Act of Parliament. The House of Commons sent up its list of proscribed persons. The House of Lords enlarged that list by dooming the judges of Charles I. who had surrendered, and added nine other names to the list of the doomed. This was too much for the Commons, who struck out the additions proposed by the Peers, and added a clause that no one who had surrendered should be executed except under a special Act of Parliament passed for the purpose.
In the enactment of the series of persecuting edicts which were in flagrant violation of the liberty of conscience promised in the Declaration of Breda, the Peers did nothing to restrain the fanaticism and intolerance of the Lower House. They joined hands with the House of Commons in substituting an excise duty for the land tax, whereby, in Mr. Spalding's words, "by a vote of their own House they relieved themselves from all the most onerous liabilities in respect of land, by virtue of the payment or performance of which they had originally become entitled to their seats as peers."—(Spalding, "The House of Lords," p. 66.)
"The House of Lords," says Hallam, "after the Restoration contained an invincible majority for the Court ready to frustrate any legislative security for public liberty. Thus the Habeas Corpus Act first sent up to that House in
Charles II. created sixty-four peers. James II., before his reign was cut short by the Revolution of
If there was ever a period in the history of England in which it may bo alleged that the House of Lords did any good it was after the Revolution of
It was the Lords Temporal and Spiritual who, being left almost the only remaining authority in the State after the flight of James, took the lead in framing the Declaration of Rights, and in welcoming William and Mary to the vacant throne. Prom that day, for half a century and more, the Whig peers ruled England—the House of Lords in the reign of Queen Anne was more Liberal than the House of Commons.
Mr. Lecky pays a high tribute to the Whig peers who, in the early part of the reign of George I., were in the ascendant in the House of Lords. He says:—
In general, the services of the Peers to the cause of civil and religious liberty at the time we are considering were incontestable; and the advantage of an Upper House to this portion of our history can scarcely be questioned by any one who regards the Revolution and the principle it established as good.—("History of England," vol. i., p. 186.)
Comparatively good as was the House of Lords in those days, it came into collision with the House of Commons on a matter in which the Lower House showed a sounder sense of the genius of the Constitution than the House of Peers. Yet it was a matter which primarily concerned the Lords themselves. Alarmed by the creation of twelve peers in the previous reign for the purpose of securing a majority for the Court, and anxious to prevent the adulteration of the peerage by new creations from the King's favourites, the Whig Lords, with the King's assent, brought in a Bill in
The only other notable clash of opinion between the two Houses in the eighteenth century was over Mr. Fox's India Bill in
In the eighteenth century it may be admitted that the House of Lords was no worse, and sometimes a little better, than the Lower House. But as the Peers practically nominated the Lower House in the latter part of that period, this is not very surprising.
The history of the House of Lords may be divided into three parts. At first the Peers and Commoners sat together. Afterwards the Peers dominated, and at last practically nominated the House of Commons. The third period dates from the Reform Act of
This is no ancient history. The lesson which the Peers and the People mutually taught each other in the famous struggle of
That was the fatal lesson which the democracy received in its cradle from the House of Lords. If Russia is a Despotism tempered by Assassination, England is an Oligarchy tempered by Intimidation.
To overcome the resistance of the House of Lords to Reform it was not sufficient to rely upon constitutional means. Agitation which was law-abiding and orderly was as the idle wind that whistles round the Victoria Tower. The fountains of the Great Deep had to be broken up, the foundations of society disturbed, conspiracy set on foot, and the great red dragon of revolution held in leash ready to be unloosed before the House of Lords would admit the necessity of Reform.
What has been the result? The People, from that time to this, have never forgotten the lesson. The House of Lords has been tolerated because it can always be terrorised. This constant underlying consciousness that without a display of turbulence below there is no hope of concession from above, has been one of the poisonous inheritances which we owe to the House of Lords. How deeply it has sunk into the hearts of Englishmen may be gauged by the following remarkable declaration made by a statesman in temperament as Conservative as in conviction
You are dealing with a vast and overwhelming preponderance, a huge deadweight of prejudice, of passion, of interest, of bigotry, of blind class and party spirit—impenetrable by argument, immovable by discussion, beyond the reach of reason, and only to be driven from its hereditary and antiquated entrenchments—not by argument, or by reason, or by discussion, but by force.
There is a certain brutality of the barbarian in that phrase. The sword of Brennus has seldom been more defiantly flung into the political scales. Mr. Chamberlain, whose temperament is as Radical as his political environment is Conservative, did not overstate the case when he told a Welsh audience in The chronicles of the House of Lords are one long record of concessions delayed until they have lost their grace, of rights denied until extorted from their fears. It has been a history of one long contest between the representatives of privilege and the representatives of popular rights; and during this time the Lords have perverted, delayed, and denied justice, until at last they gave, grudgingly and churlishly, what they could no longer withhold.—(Denbigh,
The winter of
It is worth while briefly to recapitulate the salient features of that great object-lesson in practical politics.
England in the later twenties was seething with misery. Discontent was almost universal. Desperate men banded themselves together to do desperate deeds. Ricks were fired, and farmsteadings reduced to ashes. Mills were burnt and machinery destroyed. Occasionally discontent tried to become articulate as at Peterloo, and was massacred back into dumbness and despair. Secret combinations were formed among the artisans of the North and the agricultural labourers of the South. Over the whole land a sullen horror brooded like a nightmare.
In the midst of the universal unrest, the French, as is their wont, flashed a red ray of revolutionary light across the gloom. Almost without an effort, the Citizen King was established on the throne of the Bourbons, and the flight of the Legitimist monarch gave a fillip to the hopes of the masses everywhere. It was in these circumstances and in such an environment that the great struggle began.
At that time the so-called House of Commons was in the pocket of the House of Lords: 471 members, out of a House of 658, were returned by 267 persons of whom 144 were peers; 16 other members were returned by Government influence. Only 171 members were independent.
—("Oldfield's Representative History," vol. vi., pp. 285-300.)
The independent members were returned at an expense so enormous that the whole representation of the people was in the hands of the wealthy classes. Members who were returned for pocket boroughs considered themselves liberally treated if they were asked for no other pledge than that they would resign whenever their views differed from those of their patron. While many of the most populous towns had no representative in Parliament, two members were returned to represent a stone wall, other two for an empty park, and two more for a green mound. It was the veriest travesty of a representative system. Yet to the House of Lords and its illustrious chief, the Duke of Wellington, it was almost ideally perfect.
Said the victor of Waterloo from his place in Parliament in I have never read or heard of any measure up to the present moment which could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the representation could be improved or be rendered any more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment—(3rd Series, Hansard, vol. ii. col. 1102.)
Very shortly afterwards the Government was defeated, and Lord Grey took office with a programme of Reform.
The new Ministry had no majority to speak of in the House of Commons. It was in a hopeless minority in the House of Lords. Lord John Russell introduced a Reform Bill which disfranchised outright 60 boroughs with less than 2,000 inhabitants, while 47 others each lost one of their members. Of the 167 seats thus obtained 62 were not to be filled up. The others were distributed as follows: London, 8; large towns, 34; English counties, 55; Scotland, 5; Ireland, 3; and Wales, 1. The ten-pound borough householder was to receive a vote, and the leaseholders and copyholders in the counties. The introduction of the Bill was hailed with great enthusiasm in the country. But in the House of rotten boroughs, the second reading was only carried by a majority of one. And before it went into Committee, Ministers were left in a minority of eight.
Parliament was at once dissolved. The people rallied everywhere to the cry, "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill! "London was illuminated by order of the Lord Mayor, an order enforced by King Demos, who, obeying his instinct as to the only way in which to put the fear of God into the hearts of the Peers, smashed all windows that were unlit, including those of Apsley House. It was a grim earnest of things to come, the first taste of the ultima ratio of the Democracy. The election went everywhere in favour of the Reformers. One hundred anti-Reformers lost their seats. The county members who had opposed Reform "went tumbling like ninepins." Out of 82 county members only six were returned to oppose Reform. When Parliament opened it was found that the Reform Ministry had a majority of 136 returned with an express mandate to carry "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill."
The defeated Tories resorted to obstruction. From Midsummer till well-nigh Michaelmas they resorted to all the methods of delay, which in those days were primitive and rudimentary. But at last the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords. The second reading was moved on October 2nd.
The measure was admittedly one which struck a heavy blow at the powers and prerogatives of the Peers. The House of Lords, therefore, only exercised a natural instinct in rejecting it on reductio ad abmrdum of the constitutional paradox. The House of Lords, whose existence is defended by asserting the necessity for an effective check upon a craving for revolutionary change, and which is furnished for that purpose with a decisive veto upon every measure which in its mature and hereditary wisdom it regards as unwise, was fifty years ago confronted by a popular demand for a revolutionary change which it regarded as not merely unwise but dangerous in the extreme. It showed the courage of its convictions; it discharged its function; it rejected the Bill. The result was a conclusive demonstration of the impossibility of working constitutional machinery on
The immediate answer of the people was to resort to tumultuary violence, which, by an inevitable law, speedily developed into crime. They hustled and howled at the bishops, detesting them more than all others. And with cause. For until the day of the fatal division it had been the established custom of the Lords Spiritual to vote with the Government of the day. On this occasion the Lawnsleeves broke loose. The Primate denounced the Bill as "mischievous in its tendency and dangerous to the fabric of the Constitution." Twenty-one of the right reverend Fathers in God voted against Reform—only two in its favour. If the bishops had voted for the Bill it would have been carried by a majority of one. So Demos took to drubbing the Lords Spiritual "to teach them to behave," until the bishops hardly dared to venture into the streets.
But it was not enough to rabble the bishops and assault dukes and lords on their way to Parliament House. It was necessary to intimidate the King. A menacing procession of 60,000 persons marched to the gates of St. James's Palace to present an address to the King—an address which was almost in the nature of a command. "Retain your Ministers. Press on the Reform Bill, and expel all anti-Reformers from your Court." "Your will shall be done," replied the frightened monarch. Then the multitude, elate with its triumph over its sovereign, gave itself up to what in our day is known as mafficking. They bellowed threats of violence against the Peers and the Bishops, they mobbed any unfortunate Tory they found in the streets, and finally relieved their excited feelings by breaking some more windows.
In London the demonstrations of hostility to the Peers did not go beyond rough horseplay, accompanied by threats of violence to come. It was far otherwise in the provinces. The pent-up violence of the hour found vent in outbreaks of incendiarism and of crime. The mob at Nottingham got out of hand and expressed their antipathy to the political principles of the Duke of Newcastle by giving to the flames the palatial castle which looks down from its lofty eminence upon the great industrial town which lies at its foot. Riotous mobs assembled, destroying property and subverting order at Derby, Loughborough, and other places. What was more serious was that the Government could no longer rely implicitly upon the obedience of its armed forces. Lord Melbourne, who was then Home Secretary in the Reform Administration—although he personally cared little for Reform—wrote to the King's private secretary on October 25th:—
I am extremely concerned to learn from Dorsetshire that the sprit of party occasioned by the recent election prevails to such a degree in the yeomanry corps of that county, that it is deemed inexpedient to call upon them to act in case of riot provided I the doing so can possibly be avoided.—(Lord Melbourne's Papers, p. 134.)
Two troops of Kentish yeomanry actually resigned because their commanding officers had voted against the Reform Bill. It was reserved for Bristol to give the country the most terrible illustration of the danger of confronting the infuriated populace by a military force which was in no mood to punish turbulence, so long as it was essential to overawe the Lords.
The Recorder of Bristol, Sir Charles Wetherell, had distinguished himself by the vehemence and ardour with which he had opposed the Reform Bill. As ill-luck would have it, he had to attend Quarter Sessions at Bristol soon after the Bill was rejected by the Lords. Sir Charles
The situation was serious. The local authorities had no adequate force of constabulary to control the mob. The colonel in command of the nearest military sympathised with the populace, and put every obstacle in the way of the use of the soldiers against the people. The whole city was up. Probably three-fourths or nine-tenths of the citizens only wished to give the Recorder a fright, and to impress upon his mind the intensity of the antipathy excited by his opposition to the Reform Bill. But when thousands of men are in tumult the reckless and unscrupulous minority is master of the situation. The mob attacked the Mansion House, where the Recorder had taken refuge, clamouring for their prey. If they had laid hands on him he would never have emerged alive from the howling maelstrom of excited ruffianism which surged round the Mansion House. To save his life the proud old Tory was compelled, sorely against his will, to assume the dress of a postillion and escape ignominiously from the city. The mob, on finding that its destined victim had escaped, took vengeance on the Mansion House. The criminals realised that the city was in their hands. For three days scenes recalling the worst days of the French Revolution were witnessed in Bristol. The Mansion House, the Custom House, the Excise Office were burnt to the ground. The prisoners were let loose from prison to join in the Carnival of Crime. In Bristol, as in London, the wrath of the people was specially concentrated on the Church, whose prelates had betrayed their trust and voted against the people. In London the Bishops where only mobbed. In Bristol the Bishop's palace was given to the flames. After three days the authorities succeeded in finding some troops whose officers did not hesitate to shoot, and the riot was quelled as by magic. The "Encyclopædia Britannica" thus chronicles this startling episode in the history of the city:—
"The Reform Riots were called 'The Bristol Revolution,' but were simply a revolt of the lowest stratum of society, in whom the mania for plunder superseded all political principles. Forty-five houses, the Bishop's palace, and the prisons were burnt to the ground; twelve of the rioters were killed by the soldiers; several perished in their own fires; four were hanged; thirty were imprisoned; the colonel of the troops committed suicide; and the city was mulcted in £68,208 damages."
"The lowest stratum of society "would never have got out of hand if society itself had not been in revolt against the existing order. It was no doubt the criminals who fired the Bishop's palace, but it was the disappearance of the moral pressure by which in ordinary times public opinion keeps the criminals in restraint that rendered the crime possible. A similar phenomenon is to be observed in some parts of Russia, where the bandits of society pursue their depredations with the tacit approval of the law-
It is the public feeling which is dangerous, not the political unions. If these latter should adopt any of the measures mentioned in my former letter, such as the resistance of the payment of taxes, unless they are supported by a large proportion of the middle and even of the better classes of society, the attempt will be abortive and ridiculous. If they are so supported it is unnecessary to say how critical the state of affairs will become.—(Melbourne Papers, p. 134.)
That the middle and better classes of society sympathised with the demand for reform no one could doubt. Newspapers appeared in mourning, and the bells of the churches rang muffled peals. Everywhere men began organising themselves into political unions which, although not armed, could easily have developed into armed forces. Earl Grey wrote to Lord Melbourne, I have been thinking a great deal about this Birmingham Union. The sort of organisation which is now proposed is not calculated for the discussion of public questions or for petitions upon them. It is of a military character, for active purposes, now alleged to be for the preservation of the public peace, but easily convertible to any other objects. Unarmed as a body, they, possess arms as individuals, and being previously formed into companies and regiments and divisions under the name of tithings, etc., they may at any moment appear as an armed and disciplined force. The danger of this I need not point out to you. The question is, how to deal with it. And I cannot help thinking that the proceeding, of which we are expecting an account from Birmingham, cannot be sanctioned by the law. You will, of course, bring under their notice the facility with which a body so organised, though not with arms in the first instance, may become an armed force.—(Melbourne Papers, p. 136.)
The other side took alarm. The Times and the Morning Post advocated the general enrolment and arming of all the respectable classes under the title of a National Guard. Lord Melbourne wrote begging Sir F. Burdett to take no part in the formation of the London and Westminster Political Union, and on his refusal all such associations were declared to be illegal.
Parliament, which had been prorogued on the 20th of October, reassembled on December 6th. Six days later Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill. The second reading was carried after two days' debate by a majority of 162. On March 22nd the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords. The Duke of Wellington stood firm, but the disintegrating influence of Royal pressure and Ministerial blandishment reinforced the grim and bloody arguments of the agitators in the country. The Thanes fled from him, and the second reading was carried by a majority of 9. Fifteen bishops voted against the Bill, but 12 voted for it.
It was, however, frankly admitted that the Bill had been spared on the second reading only in order that it might be mutilated in Committee.
By a majority of 35 the Tory Peers carried a motion to consider the enfranchising before the disenfranchising clauses of the Bill. They had been warned by the Government that such a decision would be accepted as a rejection of the measure. Undeterred by this ultimatum, they carried their amendment. As the King refused to create new peers, Lord Grey placed his resignation in the hands of the King, who at once sent for Wellington and Peel and asked them to form a Ministry. There was a hostile majority of 162 in the House of Commons. Nor was there the least chance of success if they appealed to the country. While they were deliberating, the people began to make ready the only argument which carried conviction to the Peers. If Nottingham and Bristol had not been sufficient there was plenty more to follow.
The cry rang through the country, "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the the William IV. was hissed as ho passed through the streets, and the walls blazed with insulting lampoons and caricatures. Signboards which displayed the King's portrait were framed with crape, and Queen Adelaide's likeness was disfigured with lamp-black. Rumours of projected riots filled the town, and whispers of a plot of seizing the wives and children of the aristocracy led the authorities to order the swords of the Scots Greys to bo rough-sharpened—(Stuart Reid's "Russell," p. 83.)
Not before time were these swords rough-sharpened, but it is easier to sharpen a sword than to make sure that its wearer will draw it against the people. There is little doubt that if the Duke of Wellington had taken office he would have had to begin by dissolving Parliament and proclaiming martial law. He would then have had to face revolutionary risings without any troops upon whom he could depend. Mr. Spalding says:—
The consternation and resentment of the people were unbounded. Meetings were held everywhere to demand the recall of the Ministry; and resolutions were passed binding all present to refuse payment of taxes until the Reform Bill was passed into law. The Common Council prayed the House of Commons to refuse supplies; and the House of Commons, not to be behindhand in asserting the will of the people, adopted a humble address to the King, asking that he would "call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that Bill for reforming the representation of the people which has recently passed this House." The people were prepared to support their words by actions. There is no doubt that if the crisis had been greatly prolonged insurrections would have broken out in all parts of the country; and it was oven reported that the army could not be trusted in such an event.
Birmingham stood ready to march on London. Mr. Thomas Attwood, with 150,000 men of the Midlands, talked considerably of what they were about to do, after the manner of Birmingham. Lord John Russell consoled them by a letter in which he told them, "Our prospects are obscured for a moment, but I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of a faction should prevail against the voice of a nation."—("The House of Lords," p. 166.)
When it was clear that the Opposition dare not assume the responsibility of undertaking to carry on the King's Government, the King was compelled to recall Lord Grey. But Lord Grey would only take office on his own terms. The King had created sixteen peers before the second reading of the first Reform Bill, but he shrank from making as many new creations as would be necessary to break down the Tory majority in the House of Lords.
But while Majesty was deliberating, the People were getting altogether out of hand. One fine morning in May, when the citizens of London left their homes for business, they were startled by finding the whole town placarded with bills containing the imperious suggestion; "To stop the Duke: Go for Gold! "Great is the force of suggestion, and the effect multiplies with each repetition. At first only the more ardent reformers acted upon the advice. They exchanged their notes for gold, withdrew their deposits, and paraded the fact that they had done so. Soon other timid and prudent men followed their example. A run upon the banks set in which showed signs of developing into a veritable panic. "To stop the Duke: Go for Gold!" "To stop the Duke: Go for Gold! "In a few days the suggestion might have paralysed the whole vast machine of industry whose mainspring is credit.
"To stop the Duke: Go for Gold! "The King gave way. The Duke was stopped. Lord Grey was told he could make as many new peers as were necessary. The run upon the banks ceased. The crisis was at an end.
Before Lord Grey consented to resume office he received in writing the following assurance from the King:—
The King grants permission to Earl Grey and to his Chancellor, Lord Brougham, to create such a number of peers as will be sufficient to ensure the passing of the Reform Bill, first calling up peers' eldest sons.May 17, 1832
The next day the King wrote to Lord Grey as follows:—
His Majesty authorises Earl Grey, if any obstacle should arise, during the further progress of the Bill, to submit to him a creation of peers to such an extent as shall be necessary to enable him to carry the Bill, always bearing in mind that it has been, and still is, His Majesty's object to avoid any permanent increase to the peerage, and therefore that this addition to the House of Peers, should it unfortunately become necessary, shall comprehend as large a proportion of the eldest sons of peers and collateral heirs of childless peers as can possibly be brought forward.William R.
At the same time the King sent to the Duke of Wellington, through Sir H. Taylor, his private secretary, a significant hint that the game was up. He wrote on May 17th:—
Should your Grace agree to this, as he hopes you will, His Majesty requests you will communicate on the subject with Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Ellenborough, and any other peers who may be disposed to concur with you.—I have, &c.My dear Lord Duke,—I have received the King's commands to acquaint your Grace that all difficulties and obstacles to the arrangement in progress will be removed by a declaration in the House of Lords this day, from a sufficient number of peers, that, in consequence of the present state of things, they have come to the resolution of dropping their further opposition to the Reform Bill, so that it may pass, as nearly as possible, in its present form.H. Taylor.
The Tory peers took the hint: the Bill, which had never technically lapsed, was taken up, and passed through Committee, about one hundred of the peers absenting themselves from the House.
The Boyal Assent was given on Reform, my Lords, has triumphed, the barriers of the Constitution are broken down, the waters of destruction have burst the gates of the temple, and the tempest begins to howl. Who can say where its course should stop? Who can stay its speed?
The seventy-seven years which have passed since then have not justified the dismal forebodings of the Duke. "Speed" is about the last word that rises to the mind of the historian who is engaged in chronicling the pace of a Reform Movement which after nearly four-score years has left the power of the Peers still intact.
Such is the story of the remarkable crisis which inaugurated the era of democratic government in Great Britain. It was the supreme object-lesson, which has never been forgotten, as to the methods that had to be employed to overcome the insistance of the Lords to any measure of popular reform. The country must be thrown into a ferment, social order must be endangered, and the nation must be brought to the verge of civil war. Then, when political passion is culminating in revolutionary violence, the Sovereign can paralyse this resistance of the Peers by the threat to create as many peers as may be needed to convert the minority into a majority. But the pot must be almost boiling over before Majesty will consent to damp down the fire.
The lesson which the nation learned from the collapse of the opposition of the House of Lords to the demands of the people was that they could extort anything they pleased from the Peers by violence and the threat of violence, but that unless they could evoke a quasi-revolutionary agitation the House of Lords would treat them with contempt.
Mr. Gladstone, in
To this it is sufficient to remark that if the Reformers of
There is something peculiarly offensive in the assumption of the House of Lords that they have a right to interfere in the methods by which the House of Commons is elected. Individual members of the House of Lords are expressly forbidden to interfere in the election of Members of Parliament. But collectively the House of Lords has always asserted a right to interfere in the election of the House of Commons as a whole. It might reasonably be thought that the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, had a right to decide questions relating exclusively to the manner in which it was elected. The Commons do not interfere in the way in which the hereditary Legislature renews itself. That is left to the Peers themselves. But the House of Lords constantly interferes in the way by which the House of Commons renews itself. Whether it is in prescribing who shall be allowed to vote, or how they shall vote and in what constituencies, the House of Lords has repeatedly overruled the decisions of the House of Commons, although seldom, if ever, to any good purpose.
The Parliament of
These are the latest instances, and not the least characteristic, of the insolence of the Peers in dealing with reforms exclusively relating to the Lower House.
In the last chapter the story has been told of the desperate tenacity with which the House of Lords attempted to deny the great body of the people the right to any voice in the election of their own representatives. They
It was not merely by insisting that the freemen should remain on the register that the House of Lords provided for the corruption of the new constituencies. When the reformed House of Commons was confronted with the evidence of the corrupt practices which prevailed at the first general election after the Reform Act, its efforts to extirpate corruption were frustrated by the deliberate and persistent refusal of the Lords to assent to the remedial measures sent up to them by the Commons. The most glaring cases of corruption reported after that general election were those of Warwick, Stafford, Hertford, and Carrickfergus. The House of Commons sent up Bills to the House of Lords disfranchising the corrupt boroughs. The House of Lords refused to accept the evidence taken by the Commons, and insisted upon hearing the witnesses at the bar of the House. As a result the corruption went unpunished. The House of Commons postponed the issue of the new writs; and even of this complaints were raised in the House of Lords that they were exceeding them rights. Although gross bribery was proved to have prevailed in the peccant boroughs, it was maintained that the House of Commons ought to issue the writs, in order to make its numbers complete. But that was not all.
In the fervour of its reforming zeal, the House of Commons sent up to the House of Lords a drastic Corrupt Practices Bill—not so drastic, it is true, as Sir Henry James's Draconian Bill, but a measure which, if passed in its entirety, would have done much to check corruption. The House
Two years later the House of Commons made another attempt to
Twelve years later the House of Commons made another attempt to get rid of the corruption which disgraced so many constituencies. It sent up, in
It is unnecessary to pursue this theme. Enough has been said to show that if corruption has eaten into our democratic institutions, the aristocratic branch of the Legislature is largely responsible for the failure of all the remedies devised for its extirpation. The rejection of Bribery Bills was only one method of manifesting their antipathy to cheap and pure elections. The proposal to limit the polls in counties to one day instead of two had to undergo in
Measures adding to the number of electors were almost always rejected. In
In
Another illustration of the attitude of the House of Lords to questions of Parliamentary reform is supplied by their treatment of the Ballot Act. Although Mr. Berkeley succeeded in carrying his resolution in favour of the ballot nearly thirty years before, the subject did not come before the Peers until
The last great struggle between the Peers and the people took place in
Then ensued a great storm of popular indignation. Mr. Gladstone sacrificed all the other measures promised for the year and announced his intention to hold an Autumn Session to pass the Bill straightway through the Commons again. A large number of meetings were held throughout the country to protest against the action of the Peers, and a huge demonstration was held in Hyde Park. "Fifty Years of the House of Lords" was widely circulated. The late John Bright said of it: "It presents a picture of class selfishness and obstinate resistance to what is liberal and just which would be astounding if we had not been so long accustomed to it."
Rival "demonstrations" in support of the Peers also took place They were comparatively few and feeble, but they afforded Mr. Gladstone who deprecated the raising of a great constitutional question, an opportunity which he eagerly embraced of entering into an arrangement with the Opposition.
The deadlock was removed by a compromise. After the
In dealing with these two last exhibitions of the House of Lords' inaction, it is difficult to say whether they excite more indignation or contempt. For both in
Nor was his scorn unjustified. Their leader hoisted the white flag, and almost without parley they betrayed what they described as the citadel of the Constitution into the hands of the democracy.
It was much the same in We are told that the House of Lords claims the power either to reject this Bill, to destroy this Bill, or to compel a dissolution. We do not admit that claim. It is a claim without precedent. ... I am not afraid that the House of Lords will prevail in this contest. The contest between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is not an equal contest. The House of Commons, strong in its representative capacity, strong in the support of the great masses of the people, and strong in the undivided and indisputable control it possesses over the resources of the country, is more than a match for its opponents in the contest.
This claim of the Peers to insist upon a dissolution before accepting the deliberate vote of the House of Commons as an expression of the national opinion has been raised again in even more preposterous terms. In In
The agitation against the House of Lords became so menacing that it scared the Emperors of Germany, Russia, and Austria into the Three Emperors' League to defend the monarchical principle against the expected triumph of Republicanism in England (see Hohenlohe's Memoirs, What would have become of the country if the Lords—the majority of the Lords—had ruled unchecked for the last fifty years? By this time the country would have been enslaved or ruined, or a revolution would have swept them away. It might possibly have swept away even the venerable monarchy itself.
There was a good deal of plain talking in those days by Liberal leaders, especially by Mr. Chamberlain. If Mr. Bright, then his colleague in the representation of Birmingham, could say:—
Unless English freedom be a fraud and a sham, the English people will know how to deal with a titled and hereditary chamber whose arrogance and class-selfishness have long been at war with the highest interests of this nation.
Mr. Chamberlain capped his most vigorous invectives. Here, for instance, are three samples of the rhetoric of Mr. Chamberlain when he was on the war-path against the House of Lords in During the last hundred years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege. It has denied justice and delayed reform. It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge. We are in favour of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we repudiate the presumptuous claim to usurp the prerogative of the Crown, to degrade the House of Commons, and humiliate all who bear the name or claim the rights of free men. We grudge the Lords nothing that rightly belongs to them, nothing they can enjoy without injury to others—their rank, their titles, their Stars and Garters, any influence which their personal qualities can gain them, any power that they may secure by long prescription and high station; but their claim to dictate the laws which we shall make, the way in which we govern ourselves—to spoil, delay, even reject, measures demanded by the popular voice, passed after due discussion by the majority of the people's House, and receiving the sanction and confirmation of popular Assemblies such as these—is a claim contrary to reason, opposed to justice, and which we will resist to the death. Are the Lords to dictate to us, the people of England? Are the Lords to dictate to us the laws which we shall make, and the way in which we shall bring them in? Are you going to bo governed by yourselves? Or will you submit to an oligarchy which is a mere accident of birth? Your ancestors resisted kings, and abated the horde of monarchs, and it is inconceivable that you should be so careless of your great heritage as to submit your liberties to this miserable minority of individuals who rest their claims upon privilege and upon accident. ... In the meantime, what mischief has been wrought, what evils have been developed, that might have been stayed in their inceptions, what wrongs have been inflicted and endured that ought long ago to have been remedied!... But the cup is nearly full. The career of high-handed wrong is coming to an end. The House of Lords have alienated Ireland, they have oppressed the Dissenters. . . . We have been too long a peer-ridden
Mr. Gladstone, as we learn from Lord Morley's book, was alarmed at the growing agitation. He did his best to damp it down. The Lords on their part intimated their readiness to accept an even more democratic Redistribution Bill than that which the Liberals had contemplated if they were but provided with a golden bridge to retreat from their dangerous position. To the no small indignation of the Radicals, Mr. Gladstone consented to provide that bridge. The Peers agreed to the enfranchisement of the county householders and to the introduction of single member constituencies, providing that their face was saved by an arrangement which would enable them to say that they had carried the technical point of dealing with both questions at once. Mr. Gladstone, who was always open to bargains of that sort, jumped at the offer, and the crisis was promptly ended.
What is the House of Lords? Primarily it is a House of Landlords. The landed system of this country was created in order to make the Peers the owners of the soil and the lords of the land. It has done its work. According to Lord Derby's return of
This is no natural growth. It has been artificially fostered for nearly nine hundred years. The landed system exists to maintain the House of Lords, and the ultima ratio of the House of Lords is to maintain the landed system. The House of Lords is a mere Tory caucus for all other purposes of legislation. But it will defeat even a Tory Government when it attempts to reform the landed system. To the Peers there is one thing only that is more sacred than the interests of the Tory party. That is its own interests in the land.
Of this the most recent illustration was afforded in the year
A measure which will conduce largely to the happiness of the people of this country, and largely also to the prosperity of the owners of land, which will remove one of the great causes of odium from our present landed system, and one that threatens its existence. Wo earnestly ask you not to take from us the power of carrying this beneficial reform into law, and not to place upon the House the ominous responsibility of standing between the people of England and this great advantage.
It was not a very drastic Bill. It provided for compulsory registration, for putting the title within five years on the register, and for the assimilation of real and personal estate by abolishing the law of primogeniture and entail. It was introduced in
The Lords, therefore, stand accused, Lord Salisbury himself being witness, of standing between the people of England and a great advantage which would have contributed largely to their happiness. It is an ominous responsibility. But they assumed it after full and impressive warning from the Tory Prime Minister. It is now full time that they were called to account.
It is written in the book of the prophecies of Isaiah, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (ch. v. 8).
The process upon which the Hebrew prophet placed the curse of the Almighty is that which our landed system has invented, and which it is
The House of Lords and the land system are Siamese twins. The death of one entails the death of the other. Hence to get at the vitals of the hereditary legislature strike at the land! That is the secret of the Budget.
There have been comparatively few collisions between Lords and Commons on the land question. The Commons have for the most part, down to quite recent times, recognised that the landed system was so bound up with the House of Lords that it was useless to attack it. In
The estates of the Peers, which were originally of considerable size, being granted them in order that they might equip soldiers and maintain the King's authority in the land, have steadily grown under the influence of laws passed by the Peers for the aggrandisement of their order. Large estates are continually eating up smaller holdings. The process, partially economic, has been stimulated by the law. To maintain the landed interest was a settled principle of public policy. The House of Lords itself is a constant incentive to the laying of field to field. For the wealthy man anxious to force his way into that assembly naturally sets about the accumulation of landed property. By the operation of Enclosure Acts in the thirty years between
The operations of this gigantic trust controlling four-fifths of the land and one-half of the legislature affect all departments of national life. To quote Arthur Arnold:—
Look at the railway system! If that system had not been unduly burdened by an amount exceeding £50,000,000 by the prejudice and power of the Lords, agriculture might have had less reason to complain of railway rates, and the industry of the country would have been spared a burden it must now sustain. The Peers were the tribunal in their own case. Take an example, in the matter of land only, as narrated by Dr. Smiles in his "Lives of the Engineers." When the London and Birmingham Railway Bill passed the Commons and went to the Lords, committees were open to all peers, and the promoters of the Bill found to their dismay many of the Lords who were avowed opponents of the measure as landowners sitting as judges to decide its fate. The
This exaction of £500,000 may not have been bribery. It is more like blackmail. The Bosses of many an American city would turn green with envy at such a spectacle of successful "sandbagging." "Graft" to the tune of £500,000 looted under a single Bill is surely a record even in these modern days of civic larceny.
The story of how the landlords, aided and abetted by the House of Landlords, worked the legislature to advance them on loan money for drainage, the whole cost of which, and more in many cases, they charged upon their tenants, can only be alluded to here. These things are the natural result of the exceptional position of the Lords in the legislature. "They were, I suppose," says one of their critics, "guided by the belief that a hereditary aristocracy is necessary for the public welfare." How could they think otherwise? The whole social system in feudal England, nay, the military and judicial system also, was based upon the supposition that the Lord was the lynch-pin of the universe. In process of time the Lord has lost most of his social, political, administrative and judicial functions. But in his legislative capacity he represents a survival from an earlier age, and he is not to be blamed if he should regard himself and his Order as the objects for the maintenance of which the world and all the things that are therein were created by a beneficent Providence, whose fundamental idea was the indispensability of the landed aristocracy. It is an archaic anachronism. The existence of the House of Lords naturally and inevitably creates this false perspective in the minds of its members. The supremo end, the preservation of their Order, justifies in their minds the use of any means, even, as we have seen in the case of the Trades Disputes Bill, what they declared to be the betrayal of liberty and the highest interests of the community. It is not their fault. It is inevitable that they should think and act as they do. The instinct of self-preservation is omnipotent.
The aggregation of land, by which huge estates tend ever to become huger, has been fostered by a landlord-ridden legislature. "Entails were intended for the preservation and aggrandisement of a great feudal aristocracy." Up to forty years ago it was recognised as an axiom of the policy of the governing families to preserve, as Lord Palmerston put it, "as far as possible the practice of hereditary succession to unbroken masses of landed property." This object, Mr. Fyffe informed the Committee on Small Holdings—
Has been carried out by legislation both directly and indirectly. It has been carried out directly by the Law of Settlement, and indirectly by other measures, all having as their chief object the avoidance by the landowners of the necessity to sell. This object has been kept in view in the following among other instances. First, in the different taxation of real and personal property at death, as amended by Sir W. Harcourt in
In dealing with other heads of the indictment against the House of Lords particular cases have been cited in which they opposed the will of the nation, and retarded progress by the rejection or mutilation of certain specified measures. With regard to the land, the indictment is
So long as the influence of the House of Lords was paramount to the legislature of the country, "the distinct object of legislation," as the Committee on Small Holdings reported in
Any popular movement against the House of Lords, no matter how it may be initiated, will inevitably find itself compelled to take up the Land Question. Hence noble Lords who obeyed the Bishops in rejecting the Education Bill have found that they gave a powerful impetus to an attack upon the monopoly of land, which is the basis and secret of their power. "I freely own," Mr. Gladstone said in
The House of Lords question is at bottom the land question, and land reformers of all shades who are in serious earnest have now discovered that it is sound policy to sink their differences and unite in a great combined attack upon the common enemy.
In this connection, and as illustrating the spirit in which the House of Lords deals with questions relating to land, may be noted their malignant opposition to the preservation of commons. They mutilated the first Commons Preservation Act of
The Lords accepted the Agricultural Holdings Bill of the Government in
But these are only straws showing the direction of the current. The whole course of land legislation in England from the days of the Conqueror downwards has been legislation by the Lords, for the Lords, and through the Lords. And as it has been, so it will be as long as the House of Landlords is allowed to possess a veto upon all the decisions of the representatives of the people. In Mr. Morley's phrase, "It is not a Senate, it is a privileged interest."
Yet another reason for objecting to the House of Lords is to be found in the fact that although personally the Peers are free from the stain of corruption, collectively they are as corrupt a legislative body as is to be found in the world. Mr. Morton, M.P., speaking at Portsmouth, The Lords uniformly used their political position to further their personal pecuniary interests. Why was it that they threw out the principle of Betterment? For no other reason than that many of them wore pecuniarily interested in the ground rents of London. But who were the Peers that had led to the mutilation of the Employers' Liability Bill? They were Lord Dudley and Lord Londonderry, the largest coal owners in the country. Why is it that they had never been able to solve the Land Question in England? Simply because the Lords were also the landlords. It was the duty of the people of this country to see that a final stop was put upon these fraudulent proceedings.
If the rule were enforced that no legislator should speak or vote on any question in which he was financially interested, how many of the Lords would be left to deal with Land Bills?
In
The fiscal policy favoured by the Peers was admittedly based upon self-interest. They refused to condemn the Corn Laws because dear bread meant high rent, and they naturally regarded Cobden and Bright as the enemies of the human race. As they were in
This has come out very clearly in the raging of the Dukes and their satellites against the Budget of
"If this land (the Commissioners say) were rated at, say, 4 per cent. on its selling value, the owners would have a more direct incentive to part with it to those who arc desirous of building, and a twofold advantage would result to the community.
"First, all the valuable property would contribute to the rates, and thus the burden on the occupiers would be diminished by the increase in the rateable property.
"Secondly, the owners of the building land would be forced to offer their land for sale."
"Your Majesty's Commissioners," the paragraph concluded, "recommend that these matters should be included in legislation when the law of rating comes to be dealt with by Parliament."
But despite the recommendations of Royalty and of Royal Commissioners nothing was done until Mr. Lloyd George took the matter in hand. Where upon the House of Lords promptly threw the Budget out. They did so for the same reason that Mr. Lloyd George proposed to pass it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the preface to his "Budget Speeches," says:—
The greatest provision of all for unemployment, in my judgment, is contained in the Land Clauses of the Budget. Those provisions must have the effect eventually of destroying the selfish and stupid monopoly which now so egregiously mismanages the land. Only the business community in this country, and those who have been associated with it all their lives, can fully appreciate the extent to which the present ownership of land hampers and embarrasses trade and industry. Ask any man with a growing business in town or village in this country, and he will tell you more than all the theorists and agitators in Europe about the mischief done by the unintelligent greed of some of the land-owning classes. It is not merely that extravagant prices are demanded and impossible conditions imposed; but what a business man minds even more is that an atmosphere of uncertainty is created by the powers of incessant interference and inquisition reserved for the landlord and his agents. The Budget strikes the first real blow at this mechanism of extortion and petty persecution. No class of the community will have greater reason to feel joy at the triumph of the Budget than the men engaged in putting their best quality of mind and morale into the building up of the commercial greatness of our nation.
The right of the Crown to create peers for life only had never been surrendered, never abolished, never doubted. But it had gradually gone out of use. It was at last exercised again in our own time, or, more truly, an attempt which was strangely unsuccessful was made to exercise it. The circumstances under which it was made were highly instructive. They show to what a height of presumptuous aggression the newer element in the House, the hereditary element, had grown. I refer to the peerage granted to Lord Wensleydale. That eminent lawyer was, according to a crowd of ancient precedents, created a peer for life only. He had no children, so that the question was not a practical one; it was simply that this occasion was chosen to assert an ancient and wholesome principle. But with matchless impudence the hereditary peers, in defiance of precedent, in defiance of law, in gross contempt of the lawful authority of the Crown, refused to let Lord Wensloydale take his seat in the House. And they were led by newly-created lawyers who assuredly knew that they were acting against law. . . . The Crown yielded its ancient and undoubted right; Lord Wensleydale, lawfully summoned to Parliament, was shut out from his seat until the new patent was granted securing the seat after him to the descendants who were not in being. Presently, be it remembered, the hereditary peers had to submit to receive colleagues whose blood had not been ennobled. In full agreement with ancient law and usage official law lords not holding hereditary peerages but truly representing the ancient Witan of the laud now sit and vote in the House which refused a scat to Lord Wensleydale. The grotesque pride of the hereditary peers has surely received a little shock by their presence.The Peers have constantly attempted to encroach upon the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of the Commons. So far from accepting the subordinate position to which they were reduced by the catastrophe of
They have encroached upon the privileges of the Commons in their repeated attempts to meddle with questions of finance. But all the best constitutional authorities, all the great statesmen of both parties, have always asserted that the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, controls all questions of finance.
Mr. Balfour himself has declared that "you all know the House of Lords does not interfere with the financial policy of the country. He has told us: "We all know that the power of the House of Lords, thus limited, and rightly limited, as I think, in the sphere of legislation and administration, is still further limited by the fact that it cannot touch those
This privilege of the Commons dates back for nearly six hundred years. In We have had uninterrupted possession of this privilege (the privilege of the undisputed control over the taxation and finances of the country) ever since the year
In In all aids given to the King by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords.
At a conference with the Lords they declared that the right they claimed "was a fundamental right, both as to the matter, the measure, and the time." The Lords, they said, could throw out a money Bill, but not amend it. The Lords retorted by passing a resolution asserting their right to do as they pleased. They said:—
If we cannot amend, or abato, or revise a Bill in Parliament, if we cannot amend, or abate, or alter in part, by what consequence of reason can we enjoy the liberty to reject the whole?
Seven years later the House of Commons passed a famous resolution, which ever since has formed the fundamental law governing all the proceedings between the two Houses in matters of supply. It was declared in a resolution voted by the House of Commons as far back as that all aids and supplies and aids to his Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.
The Lords did not venture to reject the Bill repealing the Corn Laws, although it was passed by a Parliament elected by a majority of Protectionists. Their right to reject a finance Bill was carefully identified with the right of the Sovereign to refuse his assent. Their assent, like the King's, was purely formal. As Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, said:—
Taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone ... In legislation the three estates are alike concerned, but the concurrence of the Peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone. We represent the rest of the inhabitants. When, therefore, in this House of Commons we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty.
The Peers never ventured to reject a money Bill until This was the affirmation in practical shape of the resolution of the House of Commons in the previous year, that it possessed in its own hands the power to remit and impose taxes, and that the right to frame Bills of supply in its own measure, time, and matter is a right to be kept inviolable. ... By including all the taxes in a single, finance Bill, the power of the Lords to override the other House was effectually arrested.d'état by combining for the future all the financial proposals of the House of Commons in one Bill, so that the Lords could not reject them without dislocating the whole administration of the country. Lord Morley says:—
Speaking at Edinburgh, The House of Lords during those two-and-thirty years has been absolutely excluded from all influence whatever upon the finances of the country. It was an abridgment of their province, and that province need never have been abridged if they had acted in if with discretion. But they chose to bo attracted by circumstances of momentary difficulty, which they thought they could turn to their account, and the result has been the permanent loss and destruction of a cherished and an important prerogative.
That was Mr. Gladstone's opinion. It was not the opinion of Sir
This judicial decision is important at this crisis, and should not be
The Lords have, notwithstanding, made repeated attempts to
When the Parish Council Bill was before the House of Lords, in
Three years later, the Conservatives being in office, the new
Notwithstanding this parade of unctuous rectitude the same Lord Chancellor was party four years later to a flagrant evasion of the en bloc.
All their other offences are, however, thrown into insignificance by
We belong too much to one class, and the consequence is that with respect to a large number of questions wo are all too much of one mind. Now that is a fact which appears to me to bo injurious to the character of the House as a political assembly.Speaking of the House of Lords at Edinburgh in
"Too much of one class," indeed! The House of Lords is the central citadel of class interest. Under no conceivable circumstances can any representative of the industrial classes cross the sacred portals of the Gilded Chamber.
The House of Lords first showed its antagonism to the interests of labour very early in the session of
In thus thwarting the popular will and in rejecting a measure specially promoted by the Labour party, they acted in entire accordance with their indent hereditary and traditional practice. It might naturally be supposed; that the peers who have boasted that they were "the hereditary tribunes of the poor," would, if only from their antipathy to landlords and manufacturers, have sedulously supported the cause of labour against the exactions of capital. Such, however, has not been the case. In
The same grudging spirit was shown in
In
This is what the Government Bill did:—
When that measure was passing through the Commons in
Next month the Lords inserted an amendment, by 148 votes to 28 giving with specified safeguards the liberty of contracting out, not only
This was struck out in December by the Commons by 213 to 157.
The Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee and the We now appeal to you to say whether you will thus continue to allow the House Lords to block the path of your industrial progress, as well as to render insecure
There are some people who seem to think they have no reason to "thank God for the House of Lords."
When the ten years during which the Unionists were in power came to an end, the Liberals introduced a new and more drastic Employers' Liability Bill, officially described as the Workmen's Compensation Bill. This time the word was passed by Mr. Balfour that the Lords must not meddle with Labour Bills. The Peers, therefore, contented themselves with making two amendments in the first schedule. The first provided that workmen suffering from old age, physical infirmity, or incapacity might contract themselves out of the Act so far as to accept a reduced compensation. This was the reinstatement of the original proposal of the Government which the House had struck out at the instance of the Labour party. Here, possibly, the Lords might have done good if they had stood to their guns. But when the Commons rejected their amendment they submitted. The only oilier amendment was that providing that either party might insist upon calling in a medical referee. As the Bill stood, he could only be called in when both parties consented. This amendment was also disagreed with, and again the Lords submitted.
In
In
One of the most useful functions of the House of Lords from a Conservative point of view is that of providing incoming Conservative Ministers with an ample array of measures ready to hand. The rejected Bills, or the expunged clauses of the Bills of Liberal Administrations, amply furnish
In the legislation of the Parliament of
The decision of the House of Lords sitting as the Supreme Court off Appeal in the Taft Vale case in
Lord Lansdowne's words were: "Let their Lordships, if they were to join issue, do so upon grounds which are as favourable as possible to themselves. In this case the ground would be unfavourable to the House."—(
Lord Halsbury said the Bill was contrary to the spirit of English liberty. It contained the most disgraceful section that had ever appeared in an English statute. As for Clause 4, "anything more outrageously unjust, anything more tyrannical, he could hardly conceive." It was "a Bill for the purpose of legalising tyranny." It was likely to produce commercial distress. It might be that it would drive justice from her seat. And then with a majority of the Peers longing to be allowed to reject this terrible measure, Lord Halsbury, like Lord Lansdowne, would not vote against it. And why? Frankly because they feared for their order. Was ever the essential rottenness of a hereditary bulwark more nakedly confessed?
The same moral is emphasised with equal force by the action of the House of Lords when they came to deal with Old-Age Pensions in
The Lords said that the Bill would have "disastrous" effects, that it would "weaken the moral fibre of the nation and diminish the self-respect of our people," would "demoralise" the working classes, "do away with thrift," while they regarded the money to be spent on pensions as "these lost millions."
The Bill had, however, been supported by colossal majorities in the Commons, and it was a Bill essentially of financial complexion. "In these circumstances it seems to me," said Lord Lansdowne, "that however much we may dislike the Bill, we should gain nothing by rejecting or delaying its progress . . . and the difficulty would be increased for us by the fact that we should be represented, not without some prima facie justice, as having endeavoured to encroach upon that well-established privilege of the House of Commons which gives to that House almost utidisputed control over the finances of the country."—Hansard (192), p. 1,422.
It was the Commons' privilege which saved Pensions. But although Lord Lansdowne shrank from straightforward slaughter of the Bill, he supported Lord Cromer's attempt to take it on the flank. The House of Lords carried by 77 to 45 Lord Cromer's proposal killing the Bill in seven years' time. Fortunately this was ruled out as a breach of privilege by the Speaker. Privilege therefore saved Pensions twice over. It saved them in
Small wonder is it then that the Labour party in its Manifesto speaks with no uncertain sound on the question at issue. "A General Election has been forced upon the country," it says, "by the action of the House of Lords rejecting the Budget. The great question you are to decide is whether the Peers or the People are to rule this country." The House of Lords, it declares, has mutilated or destroyed many useful measures, and now claims the right to decide what taxes shall be paid and how they shall be spent. The present system of land ownership "has devastated our countryside, imposed heavy burdens upon our industries, cramped the development of our towns, and crippled capital and impoverished labour." "Therefore," says the Manifesto, "the Lords must go! "
The first serious attempt made by the (unreformed) House of Commons' to provide for the education of the people of England was thwarted by the Lords. It was in
The Primate was justified in his confidence. Only three Bishops voted for a rate-aided public elementary school in every parish. Fifteen voted against it. The Bill was thrown out by a majority of the Peers. So ended the first attempt to pass an Education Bill providing school accommodation for all the people in the country. Thanks to that veto, it was sixty years before a similar measure was placed on the Statute Book. Two generations of English folk had lived and died without education, because the Church and the Lords preferred they should have no schools rather than provide schools which were placed under the control of those who paid for them.
The Nonconformists in
Lord Ashley, afterwards Lord Shaftesbury, who was as bad a politician as he was an admirable philanthropist, said:—
It is my firm belief that this plan of national education is hostile to the Constitution, to the Church, and to revealed religion itself.
The Lords could not interfere with the money giant, but they would not allow even so small an advance towards national education without expressing their suspicion and distrust. The Archbishop of Canterbury proposed a series of resolutions condemning the scheme. They were embodied in an address to the Crown, praying that—
Her Majesty will give directions that no steps shall be taken with respect to the establishment or foundation of any plan for the general education of the people, without giving to this House, as one branch of the legislature, the opportunity of fully considering a measure of such deep importance to the higher interests of the community.
The method of proceeding by a vote in supply instead of by a Bill was fiercely assailed by Lord Ashley on grounds which justify a regret that the whole question was ever otherwise handled. It would not have been impossible to have dealt with education so as to have made every educational question a financial one, and so have removed it from the meddling of the House of Lords. Lord Ashley, of course, was of the opposite opinion. He said:—
It is above all a matter of astonishment and regret that the Bishops of the land, the parties most responsible for the good conduct and government of the people of this country as spirituals, should be denied the liberty to express their opinions on the tendency of the proposed system to promote the spiritual welfare of the Church. . . . Consider the evil nature of the precedent you are laying down by converting measures of unspeakable interest into mere money votes, abating thereby the reverence due to the subject matter, limiting the means and opportunities of consideration to the House of Commons, and wholly excluding the House of Lords.
Lord Ashley was beaten in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords the battle was renewed.
The Duke of Wellington gave his opinion in no uncertain terms. The opposition to the scheme was based upon a demand that public money ought in no way to be diverted from schools in connection with the Established Church. He wrote to Lord Ashley:—
Money ought not to be levied upon the subject or granted by Parliament for the purpose of educating the people in popery, in the tenets of the Unitarians, in those of the Anabaptists, in those of any sect not in communion with the Church of England; or at all excepting in the tenets of the Church of England.
The Bishop of London protested against the National Council for Education on the ground that "the State, having delegated its functions to the Church as far as the religious education is concerned, is not competent to resume them." The old Tory note of hostility to the education of the working classes was voiced by the Bishop of Exeter, who—
speaking of the poorer classes, saw very little need of secular education that ought not to be combined with religion. Looking to the poor as a class they could not expect that those who were assigned by Providence to the laborious occupations of life should be able largely to cultivate their intellects.
When the division was taken 229 Poors, including 15 Bishops, voted with the Archbishop, and 118, including three Bishops, with the Government.
The Queen replied dryly that the reports of the way in which the money was expended year by year would he laid before Parliament. But peace was eventually made between Lord John and the Bishops by an arrangement by which the reports of inspectors of schools were to be sent to the Bishops as well as to the Committee of the Privy Council.
For the defeat of Sir James Graham's attempt to extend the national system of education in
It is well to be reminded of the fact that the Lords were practically shut out from any effective share in the development of the national education from
"It is remarkable," says Mr. Spencer Walpole, "that this rapid growth of expenditure was the effect not of legislation but of departmental minutes. Even the introduction of the Capitation Grant in
1853 and its extension in1856 were effected without legislation." Sir H. Craik says, "The legislature at the most acquiesced in the minutes: it did not deliberately ratify them." But it should be recollected that the expenditure was directly sanctioned by the House of Commons in votes of supply and by both Houses in the Appropriation Act.—("History of Twenty-five Years," vol. ii., p. 505.)
In
Ten years after Mr. Forster's Act was placed on the Statute Book, the Lords passed a resolution by 98 to 50 striking out from the Code the schedule sanctioning the teaching of elementary science. Four Bishops voted against science and three for it.
Eleven years later the Conservative Government brought in a Bill abolishing the payment of fees in elementary schools. It was passed by the House of Lords. The House always passes the measures of a Conservative Government, excepting when they touch the land.
It was, however, not until
Lord Herschell, in the debate that followed, said that the first amendment was—
a direction to the Education Department, but the question was whether this came within the principle, and affected the people who were to receive the grant, which grant: was not made specifically to any school or schools, but left to bo distributed by the Education Department. ... If the House was precluded from discussing from an educational point of view what was to bo the distribution of the money for education with a view to educational efficiency, then it seemed to him the House was deprived of the means of dealing with one of the most important questions ever brought before Parliament.
The Earl of Camperdown said that "if the House were precluded from discussing any conditions which appeared in a Bill making a grant of public money out of the Exchequer, then their Lordships would have no power to modify the words of any clause in Committee on such a Bill." Lord Coleridge asked if the second amendment, defining "efficiency," were in order, and the Lord Chancellor at once replied, "It adds a condition to the grant of money, which is within the express language of the protest of the House of Commons." So with an amendment standing in the name of the late Lord Kimberley, "I think," said Lord Halsbury, "it comes within 'management.' The language of the protest includes the management, and I think that this touches the management." The Liberal peers appeared to object to Lord Halsbury's ruling; not so Sir II. H. Fowler, who promptly pointed out (Times,
The Lord Chancellor appeared to be of opinion that because the Bill proposed grants in aid of Voluntary schools it became what is technically called a "Money Bill," and he laid down the doctrine that it was the undoubted and sole right of the House of Commons to attach conditions, limitations, and qualifications to such grants, and "that such conditions, limitations, and qualifications could only be altered in the House of Commons."
It is not for the Liberals to complain of this unqualified recognition of the sole prerogative of the House of Commons with respect to all measures which involve any grant of public money.
It is to be regretted that these admissions of
In
It was a long succession of similar instances which led Lord Rosebery to exclaim in What I complain of in the House of Lords is that during the tenure of one Government it is a Second Chamber of an inexorable kind, but while another Government is in it is no Second Chamber at all . . . Therefore the result, the effect of the House of Lords as it at present stands, is this that in one case it acts as a court of appeal, and
When the Bill got into Committee the Lords set to work to "amend" the Bill by making it more denominational than ever. The following summary of the divisions in Committee, taken from Mr. Joseph Clayton's "Bishops as Legislators," indicates the general drift of their Lordships amendments:—
The Education Act of Education Bill by 147 to 37 votes. Fourteen Bishops voted for the Bill, one (Hereford) against.Secondary Education was lost by 174 to 33 votes. Three Bishops voted for the amendment, twelve against.denominational teaching in secondary school, and colleges was carried by 107 to 14 votes. Sixteen Bishops voted for the amendment none against.Conscience Clause" in all training colleges was lost by 121 to 19 votes. Fourteen Bishops voted against the amendment none for.two instead of four foundation managers for non-provided (voluntary) schools was lost by 158 to 27 votes. Seventeen Bishops voted against the amendment, one for.the local authority (and not responsible for the "wear and tear" of voluntary schools was carried by; 114 to 88 votes. Eighteen Bishops voted for the amendment, none against.allow education authorities to appoinall teachers "without reference to religious crced or denomination" was lost by 167 to 2 votes. Thirteen Bishops voted against the amendment, one for.confine the control of the religious teaching t the foundation managers (excluding the appointed managers) was lost by 87 to 28 votes Three Bishops voted for the amendment, eleven against.
Of these amendments the Bishop of Manchester's Wear and Tea clause was obviously a breach of privilege. It was a violation of the con stitutional law of the country and a departure from the constitutional practice of the House of Lords, which, as Lord Davey truly said, has no
The way in which this was done deserves special mention. As the Bishop of Manchester's amendment was admittedly a breach of privilege, the Duke of Norfolk, with the consent of the Duke of Devonshire, added to the clause after the Bill had been read a third time the following words: "But this obligation on the local educational authority shall throw no additional charge on any public funds."
As the whole object of the clause was to impose upon the local education authority the duty of meeting the cost of wear and tear out of the rates, this addendum was an absurdity. It was equivalent to telling a man ne had to pay a bill and in the same breath saying that that acknowledgment of a debt entailed no obligation to part with any money.
So monstrously ridiculous was the clause as amended that the officials of the House of Lords marked the words in italics as "proposed to be omitted by the House of Commons."
When the amended clause came before the House Sir James Ferguson proposed to omit the italicised words. The motion was carried by 200 to 104. Thus another inroad upon the privileges of the Commons was nade with impunity.
It is worth noting that even so unimpeachable a Conservative authority s Sir William Anson has recorded with anxiety the constant tendency of he Lords to trespass upon the domain marked out as the exclusive But it is not only in this matter of the paper duties, nor so long ago as
Obsta principiis is a good maxim, but one of which the House of Commons has been unmindful—with the natural and inevitable result. One unresented encroachment paves the way for another, and unless there a prompt awakening the House of Commons will discover that its exclusive right to deal with financial questions has vanished into thin air.
The action of the House of Lords in relation to secondary education as been similar to their dealings with elementary schools. The Endowed schools Commission was appointed in order to secure the utilisation of educational endowments amounting to nearly £600,000 per annum; that a sum equal to 3 per cent. interest on £20,000,000. The Commission as appointed to prepare schemes for the reconstruction of trusts that had en abused, for the restoration of the moneys of the pious founders to
"The effect of this action on his part was," says Mr. Claydon, "to prevent in the counties named the carrying out of a plan for taking scholars from elementary
o intermediate schools, for giving bursaries to poor scholars, and for taking successful scholars from intermediate schools to university colleges."—("Bishops as Legislators,' pp. 62-3.)
The extent to which the House of Lords has forgotten the modest
The Education Act of The Bill of 1002 transferred, wisely or foolishly, from School Boards the vast duty the enormous responsibility, of providing for the primary education of their district and for co-ordinating secondary education so that both should go together, to
If the Act of For the first time the teachers in denominational schools were wholly paid out
Against these provisions of the Act the Nonconformists rose in
It went up to the House of Lords, where it was read a second time without a division, and then turned inside out in Committee. What was virtually a new Bill in spirit and in substance was sent back to the House of Commons. In this new Bill, according to the terse statement of the Prime Minister—
The demand was solemnly avowed that in the hitherto denominational schools, the ion-provided and the transferred schools, according to the nomenclature of this
The House of Commons sent the Bill back to the House of Lords by a Mr. Redmond, in the House of Commons on December 20th, speaking of the con-bloc, while intimating t the same time what further concessions they were willing to make. These concessions satisfied the Irish Catholics
By thus wrecking the Bill, to which the greater part of the first session of the Parliament had been devoted, the House of Lords has not only wrecked the work of the Commons and postponed the redress of admitted grievances; they deprived the children of the nation of benefits which were secured them by the Bill. The Education Bill is often spoken of as if it were nothing but an attempt to redress the wrongs of the Chapel at the expense of the Church. But it contained provisions for the blind and deaf, for vacation schools and recreation, for medical examination and inspection, and for enabling intelligent children to have an opportunity of passing into higher-grade schools. Mr. Birrell, in pronouncing the funeral oration over his Bill, said:—
Reference has also been made to the medical inspection clause, which passed with general consent in this House, and gave great hopes, not only to those who are scientifically interested in the subject, but to all who believe in the manhood of our race, as being the one thing to preserve and the only real hope for the future. I also derived great pleasure from the thought that this Bill would have done something to organise the playgrounds of our children, to give to the children of the poor what perhaps is almost the best education they anywhere can get, that of acting in manly and friendly co-operation one with the other. Well, all these hopes are for the moment banished, and we have lost our labour.
The children of the poor, it would seem, have scant reason to "thank God for the House of Lords."
This chapter cannot be more appropriately closed than by quoting the peroration of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's brief speech announcing the fate of the Bill:—
It is plainly intolerable, sir, that a Second Chamber should, while one party in the. State is in power, be its willing servant ("Slave," "Hear, hear "), and when that party: has received an unmistakable and emphatic condemnation by the country, the House) of Lords should then be able to neutralise, thwart, and distort the policy which the electors have approved. (Loud cheers.) That is the state of things that for the moment—for the nonoe—we must submit to. A settlement of this grave question of education has been prevented, and for that calamity we know, and the country knows, upon whom the responsibility lies. (Cheers.) But, sir, the resources of the British, Constitution are not wholly exhausted—(cheers)—the resources of the House of Commons aro not exhausted—(cheers)—and I say with conviction that a way must be found, a way will be found, by which the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives in this House will bo made to prevail.
It is not surprising that at the National Assembly of the Free Church Council held at Swansea, (a) injuriously affects the drafting of educational measures, and (b) leads to their deterioration in Committee. "
No one can pretend to be astonished that the Lords should have wrecked the Education Bill by insisting upon the maintenance of religious tests in the educational branch of the Civil Service. "Let dogs delight to bark and bite," said good old Dr. Watts, "for 'tis their nature to." And on the same ground, if the House of Lords exists, and so long as it exists, they will insist upon religious tests. It is the law of their being. "It's the nature of the beast." They have always done it, and they will go on doing it to the end of the chapter. The impudent assertion that they have not insisted upon tests, when they insisted upon rendering it practically impossible for any one to become a schoolmaster in half the schools of the country unless he was willing to teach the Church of England Catechism, is a dishonest subterfuge which imposes upon no one who does not wish to be deceived. It would be more manly to admit the fact and justify it as best they can. To the House of Lords religious tests and the imposition of civil disabilities as the corollary of such tests are part of the nature of things. Every removal of religious tests has seemed to them, and still seems to them, to be flying in the face of the will of the Deity. It is as foolish to be angry with them for acting in accordance with their hereditary instinct as it would be to scold a duck for taking to the water or a sow for wallowing in the mire. If they have been consistent in nothing else, they bave been consistent here. It would be as easy to amputate a backbone as to exorcise the spirit of irreligious arrogance, irreligious ascendency, irreligious intolerance, from the House of Lords.
The Peers have always been the persistent, steady, and unwavering opponents of every recognition of the claims of Nonconformists to an equality of rights and privileges with Churchmen. On one occasion, and on one occasion only, have they shown themselves more Liberal than the House of Commons. In
A debate which took place in
The same year that the Bishop of Exeter had asserted that the Thirty nine Articles were an unalterable part of the British Constitution the Duke of Wellington laid down the law that the King's Coronation Oath compelled him to reject every proposal to allow Nonconformists to be educated at Oxford and Cambridge. The Duke's reasoning was somewhat
The struggle for the opening of the national universities freely to
As with University Tests, so with Church rates. In
The clerical monopoly of the national burial grounds, after being repeatedly condemned by the House of Commons, was maintained by the House of Lords down to
The struggle for Jewish emancipation was even more protracted than
In
In dealing with Dissenters, at every stage of their existence, from the cradle to the grave, the Lords have uniformly endeavoured to brand them with some sign of inferiority. The Dissenters' Marriage Act of
The Lords amended the Poor Law Bill in
Permission to substitute an affirmation for the oath in courts of justice was resisted session after session, until piecemeal concessions first to one and then another of the sects rendered it possible at last for the courts of justice to receive the evidence of any citizen without insisting upon his being sworn. They attempted by an amendment of the Municipal Bill to reimpose the Test Act in order to exclude Nonconformists from any share in the administration of charitable trusts; and it is not ten years ago since the House of Lords rejected scheme after scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, in order to proserve to the dominant sect a practical monopoly of intermediate education.
It is thus obvious that the House of Lords, in wrecking the Education Bill of
The House of Lords, being an hereditary and aristocratic Chamber, has always shown a morbid jealousy and distrust of local self-government. This is perhaps inevitable. It is fortunately impossible to graft hereditary
It is very provoking no doubt, but, to use a homely metaphor, what can you expect of a pig but a grunt? The Lords but acted as they have always done. The real blame lies at the door of the nation which has, in its indolent apathy, suffered this obstructive institution to survive till the twentieth century.
The House of Lords has contributed but little to the constructive legislation of the last century. Its function has been negative, obstructive, and destructive. It has rejected measures of constructive statesmanship retarded for the lifetime of a generation the removal of ancient abuses and by the short-sighted Conservatism which has led it to reject reforms it has contributed to the destruction of institutions it sought to preserve. But with the exception of the three-cornered constituency, it has hardly created anything since the Reform Act of
The Municipal Reform Act of en masse from extinction, they endeavoured to snatch as many brands from the burning as they could. All the freemen were restored to the burgess roll. All the old town clerks were made irremovable. All the existing aldermen were secured the possession of seats in the new town councils for life. All the justices who sat on the bench in their corporate capacity were secured fixity of tenure. aldermen were to be elected for life by the town councillors, to form a kind of municipal life peerage in the heart of each corporation. The right to nominate justices was taken away from the councils. A high property
en bloc. This course was strongly pressed upon the Government by Mr. Roebuck; Mr. O'Connell was equally defiant of the Lords, but he thought the best method was to make what concessions they could, and then dare the Peers to throw out the Bill. His advice was taken. The Ministers refused to assent to the perpetuation of the town clerks and aldermen of the old system; they refused to re-enact the Test Act in relation to Church patronage; but they assented, with modifications, to the property qualification which lasted down to the last Parliament, to the continuance of the freemen, to the loss of the right to nominate justices, and to the institution of aldermen for a term of years. Thus the alderman was saved from extinction by the House of Lords, which renewed the lease of his existence and enabled him to secure to this day in Liverpool and elsewhere a Conservative majority in councils where, but for his presence, power would have passed into the hands of the Liberals. It is, perhaps, a righteous Nemesis that the aldermen in the London County Council were in after years to give solidity and strength to the Progressive majority in the body which rekindled the faith of the nation in democratic institutions.
There was some very plain speaking in the Commons in those days upon the conduct of the Lords. Sir William Molesworth declared that the Commons had gone too far in the path of compromise and concession.
Of what use was the House of Lords? Their conduct afforded the nation an easy and simple reply to that question. Their conduct was politically evil. On that subject every second person with whom he conversed held opinions not very dissimilar from his own. Let them pursue their course a little further and the period would quickly arrive (which he for one would be glad to see) when an end would be put to the privileges of an hereditary aristocracy—of that body which in his solemn belief could never be reformed save by being dissolved.
The reason for this irritation was stated by O'Connell, in a passage which is worth quoting, if only to illustrate the extent to which the House of Lords operated as a check on public business:—
See what an immense quantity of most useful measures had been stopped in the other House during the present session! Take England. What had become of the Executors and Administrators Bill—a Bill of the utmost importance, doing away with some of the grossest absurdities of the law? It was cushioned. What had become of the Execution of Wills Bill? Cushioned. What of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill? Cushioned. What of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill? Thrown out. Turn next to Ireland. What had become of the Irish Church Reform Bill—the first honest experiment to conciliate the people of Ireland by the Government of England? It was treated with indignity, wholesale indignity. Twenty-five clauses annihilated at one breath; they were struck out by the gross, and wholesale contumely as well as injustice was cast upon Ireland. What had become of the Irish Marriage Bill? It was thrown out; and what was the result? Why, that in every instance where illegal marriages had been effected the innocent child alone was left to be punished. What had become of the Irish Constabulary Bill? Thrown out on the most frivolous reason ever heard of. What had become of the Dublin Police Bill and the Irish Registry of Voters Bill? It was not yet destroyed; but he need not boast much of the spirit of prophecy to foretell what would become of that Bill. In short, as regarded England, the other House had evinced a determination to stop everything that was useful; and as to Ireland, they treated everything of conciliation or of justice with contumely and contempt.
The Dublin Police Bill and the Irish Registration Bill shared the fate which O'Connell predicted. The great Agitator spent the recess in haranguing vast assemblies in the North of England and in Scotland on the evils of the House of Lords.
Thirty-seven years later the Peers threw out a bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone's first Administration for devising a method of terminating by the deadlock that had arisen over the question of the terminating aries of wards. Lord Salisbury detected in the proposal some political plot, and the Lords threw the Bill out by 77 votes to 56.
Between
In dealing with the question of Poor Law relief the Peers do not appear to so great a disadvantage as compared with the House of Commons. In the great Poor Law Act of
The most conspicuous instance of late years in which the Lords showed their animus against the extension of self-government to the people of this country was the way in which they mangled the Parish Councils Bill of The first thing they did was to make the Parish Council optional in nearly 5,000 villages. The Commons, after several long debates, had decided that all parishes of more than 200 population should have a Parish Council. It took the House of Lords
The Lords then (by Go to 55) made District Councillors e The success of the first night's work was, however, to come—on Lord Selborne's proposal as to meetings in schoolrooms. The Bill provided that when no other public room is available the schoolroom of any school in receipt of a Government grant could be used for meetings (a) as to allotments, This most reasonable provision was soon swept away. In vain it was pointed out that in many cases the only alternativo to the schoolroom was the public-house. "Well," said Lord Salisbury, "why not?" All this objection to the public-house was "a mere piece of Puritanical humbug." The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke on the same side. Two Archbishops and 13 Bishops voted in support of the public-house against the public schoolroom, and Lord Selborne's amendment was carried by 14S to 2S. The second day in Committee was chiefly occupied with the allotment clauses, to which, as might be expected, the House of Landlords greatly objected. The Liberal plan for acquiring land compulsorily was this: The Parish Council made a representation on the subject to the District Council. The District Council inquired into the matter and reported to the Local Government Board, who were empowered to make an order for the purchase of the land without any application to Parliament. After Lord Winchilsea had substituted the County for the District Council, Lord Salisbury proposed that instead of a Local Government Board order, a Provisional Order requiring confirmation by Parliament should be necessary. He would not be a party to "surrendering the guarantees which property has always had." The Earl of Selborne suggested that it might be loft to the County Council. This didn't suit Lord Salisbury at all—it was not difficult and expensive enough. "Let them think," he said, "of the case of Wales, and having seen something of the operation of the County Council in that principality, consider how far it would be fair to landowners and large fanners to trust their interests entirely to those bodies." This merely meant, of course, that nearly all the Welsh County Councils have Liberal majorities. Equally, of course, Lord Salisbury got (by 150 to 54) his Provisional Order. It need hardly be added that a Provisional Order costs a great deal of money, and involves much delay. It is because it is costly and dilatory that Lord Salisbury insisted on it. The clause was finally mutilated by the Duke of Richmond's motion striking out the words which secured that no compensation was to be paid on account of the land being taken compulsorily. This was carried by 114 to 21. The hiring clause was wrecked in a like manner, and thus the easily workable allotment clauses were altered in such a way as to make them practically useless. The third day in Committee was largely spent on the compounding householder question, but time was found for spoiling the Charities Clause. The sub-section embodying Mr. Cobb's amendment, ana giving to the Parish Council the right of appointing a majority of the trustees for Parish Charities, was struck out by 80 to 19. Lord Harrowby completed what Lord Selborne had begun by getting a new clause carried (by 103 to 23), omitting from the Bill all charities, vested in a minister either of the Church of England or of any other denomination. This kept under the control of the Church a host of charities which ought to be managed by the parish. Lord Salisbury refused to strike out the clause by which magistrates were to be no longer e The fourth day opened with the creation of some more e On the Tory proposal as to the compound householder, even the Duke of Devonshire
The Tories soon made up, however, for lost time. By 54 to 18 the clause was struck out by Which Chairmen of District Councils were to be magistrates. By 107 to 26 the Lords cut out the clause by which the London Vestries were to be elected on a demo cratic basis. One of the excuses given for cutting out the reform of the London Vestries was that its effect was not sufficiently considered in the Commons. But this was a mere excuse The Lords did not hesitate to mangle clauses to which the House of Commons had given many days of discussion. Thus ended a week's work at wrecking, and such would have been the Bill if the Lords had been allowed to have had their way. The Liberal party, however, rejected all these amendments, and sent the Bill back to the Lords.x-officio members of the Parish Council. The desire for ex-officio members on elective bodies amounts to a passion with the Tory party.(b) by candidates for Parish Councils, and (c) for administrative purposes.x-officio Guardians. Lord Salisbury's reason reminds one of the incompetent judge of whom it was said that even when he was right, he was right on wrong grounds. Lord Salisbury threw over the magistrates—because they might in future be appointed for party reasons! Now that the county bench is no longer to be a Tory landlord preserve, the Tories have to find some new mode of defending the sacred rights of property. It isn't safe any longer to look to magistrates who may not bo Tories.x-officios—County Councillors were to sit on Boards of Guardians, and Local Government Board nominees on the London Boards of Guardians were to be retained. More stumbling-blocks in the way of the elective system.
After much sending of the Bill backward and forward the Lords withdrew all the amendments to which the Commons seriously objected, excepting two: that 300 instead of 200 be the limit of population above which a village was obliged to form a Parish Council, and that in the case of non-ecclesiastical charities, where none of the trustees are elected directly or indirectly by the ratepayers, the Parish Council may only elect additional trustees as allowed by the Charity Commissioners. These were accepted under protest by the Commons.
It was in announcing the decision of the Government to accept these amendments under protest that led Mr. Gladstone, in the last speech he ever made in the House of Commons, to make his famous declaration of war against the House of Lords. He said:—
The question now is, whether the judgment of the House of Lords is not merely to modify but is to annihilate the whole work of the House of Commons—work which has been performed at an amount and sacrifice of time, labour, convenience, and perhaps health, totally unknown to the House of Lords. . . . We are compelled to accompany that acceptance [of these amendments] with the sorrowful declaration that the differences not of a temporary or casual nature merely, but differences of conviction, differences of prepossession, differences of mental habit, and differences of fundamental tendency between the House of Lords and the House of Commons appear to have reached a development in the present year such as to create a state of things of which we are compelled to say that in our judgment it cannot continue. . . . The issue which is raised between a deliberative Assembly, elected by the votes of more than six millions of people, and a deliberative Assembly occupied by many men of virtue, many men of talent, of course with considerable diversities and varieties, is a controversy which, once raised, must go forward to its issue. No doubt there is a higher authority than the House of Commons. It is the authority of the nation, which must in the last resort decide.
In the same year, acting under the sinister guidance of Lord Balfour of Balcanes, the Lords made hay of the Scotch Parish Council Bill which the Government perforce accepted "under the pressure of superior numbers."
The jealousy of the House of Lords towards local governing bodies has been conspicuously demonstrated in its dealings with the London County Council. Although this body was brought into existence as the result of a measure passed by a Conservative Government, the Peers have ever acted as churlish obstructors of their own creation.
A whole chapter might be devoted to the dealings of the House of Lords with London. But their opposition to bringing the tramways across the bridges and along the Embankment is too recent to be forgotten, and as for their previous acts of hostility, it may be sufficient to quote here the words of the late Lord Hobhouse, himself a member of the House of
In the session of
When any attempt is made to estimate the exact influence which the House of Lords has had upon legislation, its advocates uniformly resort to a disingenuous defence to which the tactics of the Upper House lend some colourable pretext. Thus when the Peers are accused of having secured the defeat of this measure or of that, their apologists indignantly protest that this cannot bo true because the House of Lords never rejected the Bill. Hansard is appealed to for proof that their lordships read the Bill a second time, and that no motion directly fatal is to be found in the journals of the House. Nay, they even are able sometimes to point triumphantly to the fact that the coup de grace was given to the Bill by the House of Commons on the motion of the authors of its being.
Upon this specious sophistry the recent action of the Peers in dealing with the Education Bill of
Another favourite subterfuge of the advocate of the Lords who has to make the best of a very bad case, is to point to the fact that the foundering of Liberal measures in the House of Lords was not due to the hostility of the Peers, but simply and solely to the fact that there was not enough time for their consideration. It is, of course, obvious that if there had been no House of Lords the measures would have passed into law. The existence of the Second Chamber in this way acts as an automatic brake upon legislation. But the Lords are not content with the delay necessarily entailed by the duplication of machinery. They are experts in all the wiles of plausible obstruction. One of their favourite devices is to refer measures to a Select Committee, whose report is delayed until it is too late to proceed with the Bill in that session. Another is so to transform the Bill by amendments in
When some particularly obnoxious amendment has been grafted upon a measure by the Peers, who have compelled the Government to accept it on penalty of losing the Bill, the submission of the Ministry is quoted as conclusive evidence that the guilt is chargeable to them, not to the Lords. "You object to this amendment, do you?" they say. "But perhaps you do not know that Mr. Gladstone accepted it; that Lord Granville said civil things to its authors," and so forth. It would be just as reasonable to argue that a man recognised the right of a highwayman to the purse of his victim. "Your purse, do you say? Why, with my own eyes I saw you hand it to the gentleman on horseback, who wore a mask and was holding a pistol to your head. And so far from your denying his right to the purse, you addressed him quite civilly." Every Liberal Government who endeavours to carry a measure of reform through the Peers is in the position of a coachman on Hounslow Heath when Claude Duval or Dick Turpin rode up to the coach. Their passengers may escape with their lives, but at a price, which the highwaymen alone have the power to fix.
The old oft-quoted saying of the Tsar that Russia relied upon her two Generals, January and February, may be applied, with the alteration of the month, to the House of Lords. They rely upon their Generals, July and August. When the month arrives which is sacred to the slaughtering of grouse, the Lords never have time to discharge their legislative duties. The call of the moors is sounding in their ears. How unreasonable to expect them to postpone the rapturous delight of butchering birds to the discharge of the irksome and distasteful task of legislating for the needs of a nation! So year after year measures have been sacrificed in order that the Peers may enjoy themselves after the custom of their kind. If only the choking of a measure by the Thugs of legislation postponed it just for a single year, the evil, although great, might be borne. But every tyro knows that the time of the House of Commons being limited, and the pressure of circumstances varying constantly, the rejection of a Bill one year often effectually prevents its reappearing for many a year. Liberal Ministries, with the best goodwill in the world, are often unable to spare time in subsequent sessions to pass the Bill defeated on the specious plea of lack of time through all its stages in the House of Commons choked with pressing business. If all Bills dropped in one session for lack of time could be taken up at the same stage in the following session, the evil of obstruction in the Lords might not be absolutely intolerable. But as things are, the refusal to pass a Bill entails upon it the ordeal of running the gauntlet through the House of Commons, a process which may lead to its destruction by obstruction, and which will certainly lead to the obstruction of other Bills equally detested by the House of Lords.
Yet if any Bill obstructed out of existence by the Peers does not reappear for a term of years during which Liberal Ministries have been in power, the fact of its non-appearance is triumphantly adduced as evidence that public opinion was not ripe and that the inaction of the Liberal Governments was a conclusive confirmation of the wisdom of the Peers. The fact that the legislative capacity of the overburdened House of Commons is strained to the uttermost, that legislation is constantly in
The House of Lords is the great Baby Farming branch of our legislative establishment. It is conducted on much the same principles as those of the notorious institutions which flourish for the "making of angels." The proprietors are experts in the art of doing to death the unlucky infants confided to their care. They do not cut their throats. Neither do they poison them. They love the little dears so much that they go to no expense in dosing them with paregoric. But somehow or other the children die. Of course it is a natural death, due to the reconstitution of the contents of their little Marys, due to spare diet and unnatural food. But infanticide! Oh, fie! The poor babes were rickety to begin with, and it was not the fault of their kind foster-parent if the regular diet of the establishment disagreed with them. Besides, they do not always die in their hands. They are sent home to the authors of their being, and if anything happens then, it is the parent, not the baby-farmer, who is to blame. But now and then some hideous scandal occurs, like the rejection of the Education Bill, within a year of the General Election, and then comes the coroner's inquest. Such an inquest has now been opened, nor is there much doubt as to the verdict of the jury.
These observations lead up to the consideration of the action of the House of Lords in its dealing with all political, social, and religious reforms, but especially with those which concern Ireland. If Ireland has been the despair and the disgrace of the Empire, it is largely due to the fact that in dealing with Irish questions the House of Lords has been, down to
The difference between having to deal with a House of Lords in your
The Irish question is peculiarly a Catholic question, for eight Irishmen out of ten belong to the Roman Church. Irish discontent was the natural result of Protestant intolerance, but the ascendency of an alien sect was jealously maintained by the Lords. When Lord Cornwallis reported to Mr. Pitt that he could carry the Union, but not the participation of the Roman Catholics in all the privileges of the Protestants of Ireland, Mr. Canning exclaimed, "Then if I were you I would refuse both; I would not have one without the other." Mr. Pitt rebuked Mr. Canning for his intemperance; but Earl Russell, nearly fifty years later, after long experience of the results of taking one without the other, declared from his place in Parliament, "I own that in reflecting upon what then passed I very much doubt whether the youthful judgment of Mr. Canning was not wiser than the mature decision of Mr. Pitt."
The House of Lords did its best or its worst to defeat the recognition of the rights of the Roman Catholics. One memorable instance was typical of all that followed. Catholic Emancipation, regarded by Mr. Pitt as one of the essential conditions of the Union, was postponed until concession lost all its virtue. The responsibility for this, no doubt, must be shared with the House of Commons, which in those days was but little better than the creature of the aristocracy. But in
How was it suffered to escape? By the action of the House of Lords. They rejected the Relief Bill by a majority of forty-eight. Three years later the House of Commons again sent up the Bill, which admitted eight-tenths of the population of Ireland within the pale of the Constitution. Once more the House of Lords rejected the Bill. In
The attitude of the House of Lords in relation to the administration of Ireland has been in strict keeping with the opposition which it has uniformly offered to all recognition of the claims of the Catholics. It is significant that the first popular movement for the abolition or reform of
"Why are the Irish discontented?" once asked O'Connell in the House of Commons. "Because," he replied, "for seven hundred years England has governed them by a faction and for a faction." To secure the perpetuity of that mode of government has been a constant preoccupation of the Peers. They have at least secured a perpetuity of discontent.
After the Emancipation Act was passed it was some time before its spirit was recognised in the Administration. Por years after it received the Royal Assent the Roman Catholics were virtually excluded from the government of Ireland. To this day the justices of the peace in Ireland are selected chiefly from the minority of the population, but in
The conduct of the Lords may be illustrated by their dealings with the Church Establishment. In
The next year the Tithe Bill was again sent up to the Lords. They struck out the clause appropriating a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the community, thereby securing the abandonment of the Bill. In
The sequel of the victory was not seen for thirty years. In
The way in which the House of Lords dealt with the subject of the Irish franchise affords a good illustration of their general policy. When Roman Catholic Emancipation was wrung from the House of Lords in
In
The condition of the Irish electoral system, which the Lords repeatedly refused to permit the Commons to reform, may be inferred from the following extract from one of Mr. Bright's speeches in the session of
Fifty years ago O'Connell and the Irish popular party demanded the English franchise. In
Municipal reform in Ireland was not less strenuously resisted by the Peers than the reduction of the franchise. In
Earl Russell, speaking of the pledges given by England and Ireland when the Union was concluded, said:—"The promises which were made at the time of the Union were that Ireland should be placed upon an equality with England, and that she should be governed upon the same principles and should enjoy the same rights and privileges." They enjoyed equality when the law entailed disabilities, not when it conferred privileges. Take the penal laws, for instance, which, although common to the whole country, chiefly affected Ireland, where the immense majority of the population were Catholics.
The Penal Laws remained unrepealed till
These laws, it may be said, were dead letters, although they might be put in motion by any informer; but the less vitality they possessed the less excuse had the House of Lords for perpetuating in the Statute Book these mouldering monuments of the bigotry of the sixteenth century.
Even that apology, however, fails in the case of the Marriage Laws. In
Thirty years after the vote on the Marriage Bill, Lord Derby secured the rejection, by a majority of 84 to 63, of the Bill relieving Roman Catholics from the oath of abjuration imposed on their representatives in Parliament by the Act of
The catalogue of the misdeeds of the Lords in thwarting the redress of Irish and Catholic grievances might be extended to almost any length, but considerations of space forbid any attempt to present more than the salient heads of the indictment which history brings against their system of administering Ireland in opposition to the wishes and ideas of the Irish people.
A whole chapter might well be devoted to a statement of the damning record of the case against the Peers for their treatment of the Irish Land question. The House of Landlords has, from first to last, legislated in its own interests. In their legislation for the tenants it was as if foxes were legislating for the welfare of the geese. This characteristic is the distinguishing note of all their actions, from the beginning of last century down to
In its essence the Irish Land question is, whether the Irish landlord shall or shall not be allowed to steal the property of his tenant. This was done sometimes by confiscating their improvements on the termination of their tenancy, at other times by raising their rent upon the improvements made by the tenant. The first attempt to prevent the former form of robbery was recommended by the Devon Commission as far back as
In
In
The Bill when sent up to the Lords contained the proviso that, although the claim for compensation for disturbance should be voided when the tenants were ejected for non-payment of rent, the Court should be empowered on special grounds to award compensation even in those cases. The Lords struck this proviso out. Mr. Gladstone declared that the stipulation was necessary, and the House of Commons reinstated it by a vote of 248 to 171. The Duke of Richmond and Lord Cairns pointed out that the effect of the clause would be that the Court would be empowered to decide against allowing a landlord to eject a tenant without compensation for disturbance if the latter could plead the failure of crops as a special ground for his inability to fulfil his obligations. Lord Granville and Lord O'Hagan in vain urged the importance of giving the Court power to soften the oppression under which the peasant might be placed, but they appealed in vain. The Lords decided to insist upon the amendment, and the Bill was sent back to the Commons. Mr. Gladstone said the Government attached great value to the clause, but as the Bill might be lost by insisting on it he
The consequences of this acceptance of the Lords' amendment were not fully revealed till the session of
Mr. Forster, who saw all too clearly the terrible consequences of the action of the Lords, blurted out in his rough way the indignation which he felt at the suicidal action of the Peers, and still more at the callous cynicism which led them to justify their action by the hollow pretext of want of time to consider it, the lateness of the session, etc. He said:—
This was one of the matters in which especially They could not forget—at any rate the country could not forget—thoso two facts: first, the Commons were the hardest-worked law-makers in the world; and secondly, that on the other hand probably there was no assembly of law-makers with so much power and so little personal labour as the House of Lords. They must not forget that they were the representatives of the people, and that the power which the Lords had was simply owing to an accident of birth.noblesse oblige, and the House of Lords ought not to allege personal inconvenience to prevent Bills sent up from that House at any time of the session being thoroughly considered. . . .
The Lords smiled superciliously as is their wont, and the storm burst. Next year, when the Irish Land Bill went before the Peers, they did not dare to reject it. They read it a second time, and then proceeded to mutilate it. The Commons promptly rejected the Lords amendments. The Lords reinstated most of them, and then began a struggle between the two Houses. The situation was so desperate, however, and Mr. Gladstone so firm, that most of their amendments were rejected. The only considerable blot that they made in the Bill was the rejection of Mr. Parnell s clause staying evictions pending the application for a judicial rent. But if they had not been overruled, the Bill would have been utterly spoilt. As it was, nearly all their alterations were in the wrong direction. The Bill failed because it was not strong enough. All their efforts were devoted to weaken it; as a consequence, it has needed repeated amendment.
This was strikingly illustrated the very next session. The Lords had
In
It only remains to complete this very rapid and imperfect survey of the way in which the House of Lords has handled the Irish question, by a reference to the last occasion in which they thwarted the wishes of the majority of the Irish people by rejecting Home Rule.
Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Home Rule Bill in
The action of the Peers on this occasion is not open to the same severity of censure as that to which their conduct on other occasions has
With the exception of the rejection of the Home Rule Bill of
Addressing the ministerial majority which represented the English people in You have tried on your knees to obtain justice for Ireland . . . and what has been our reward? Contempt and scorn. Your enemies have trampled upon your measures; they have contemptuously delayed, changed, or rejected them as the
And as it has been so it will be until we clip the claws and draw the teeth of the hereditary enemies of the Irish people.
Having dealt with the chief offences of the House of Lords under the leading counts in the popular indictment, there remain still to he noticed, although in the most cursory fashion, some of their miscellaneous misdeeds and misdemeanours which, although often of the first importance, do not lend themselves easily to classification.
The first great outstanding blot on the escutcheon of the Peers is that the Peerage has become a Beerage. The decisions of the Upper Chamber are dictated by the Trade. The Licensing Bill of The Marquis Of Lansdowne having decided to submit the Malicious Budget introduced by Mr. Lloyd George to the
The second great blot on the record of the Lords is, that, although from their position and their pretensions they should have been a restraining influence when the Empire was threatened with unjust and unnecessary war, they have been just the contrary. The House of Commons, which is
The statesmanship of the Upper House, and its keen appreciation
The House of Lords has always been for war. Yet, when in
Another evil blot upon the escutcheon of the House of Lords has been its indifference to the humaner tendencies which have transformed modern society.
At a time when our penal code was the scandal of the world for the indiscriminating barbarity of its punishments, the House of Lords was the resolute and unbending advocate of its worst atrocities. When, in
This callous indifference to the promptings of humanity has shown itself in many other directions. In
The House of Lords, in
It might be expected that such an assembly would show the scantiest regard for the grievances of women. In Could anything be more harsh or cruel than that a wife's goods and chattels should be at the mercy of her husband, and that she might work and labour and toil for an [unkind father to support his family and children while the husband repaid her with harshness and brutality, he all the while revelling in extravagance and brutality, and squandering in the company of guilty paramours the produce of her industry? The law is silent to the complaint of such a woman.rcductio ad absurdum of this favourite form of argument than that used by no less a personage than Lord Brougham! He argued that women suffered so many other grievances they had no right to ask to be relieved from this one. His words, quoted by Mr. Spalding, were as follows:—
A wife is robbed by the law of her property, therefore let it also continue to rob her of her children. Could anything be more convincing? It convinced the House of Lords, which thereupon threw out the Bill.
It may be asked whether the Peers did anything to redress the robbery of a wife's property thus admitted by Lord Brougham. A whole generation of wives passed away before the question of protecting the property of married women was handled by the Peers. They did not take the initiative. In matters of justice and human right they never do. For the defence of property they are keen enough, but not of the property of the sex to which they do not belong, or the class which is unrepresented in the House of Lords. They remodelled Mr. Russell Gurney's Married Woman's Property Bill of
For twelve years the wives of Englishmen were mocked by this eviscerated measure. Then, thanks chiefly to the untiring exertions of Mrs. Elmy and of Mr. Bryce, sufficient pressure was brought to bear upon the Lords to induce them to grant in
When the Contagious Diseases Acts were enacted, and the womanhood of Britain were in revolt under the leadership of Mrs. Butler, it was in the Commons, not in the Lords, where the victory was won, the Bishops in this great moral issue proving themselves to be as weak a reed to lean upon as they have been in all other great causes which postulate the existence of a righteous ruler of the universe.
In the later phases of woman's struggle for justice and civic rights the Lords have played their usual rôle. The London County Council, having to act in loco parentis for many thousands of persons lodged in their great asylums, thought it well that women should share the parental responsibility. They elected two women as aldermen, who did admirable work. A judge, under strong sex bias, decided that they were not legally entitled to do the work. The London County Council asked Parliament to permit them to utilise the services of capable and willing women as councillors and aldermen. The House of Lords in
The House of Lords has always contained among its members some of the most eminent lawyers of the country. Nevertheless, or perhaps as some would say on that account, it has retarded the progress of legal reform. Session after session it resisted the demands of the Commons for the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Bill was rejected one year, referred to a Select Committee another, and abandoned for want of time a third. It was not without much reluctance and much wrangling with the Commons that they consented to remove that disgrace of our criminal law, which forbade a prisoner the benefit of counsel, and denied him copies of the depositions on which he had been committed. For years they prolonged the needless expenses and delays which stood between the poor and the cheap and speedy justice of the county court. They obstructed the reform of the Augean stables of the Court of Chancery. They repeatedly rejected measures simplifying the procedure of the common law courts in England and Court of Session in Scotland. They threw out the Bill extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty in
This rapid and imperfect survey of the acts of the House of Lords will help to explain why hereditary legislators are distrusted by the people—so distrusted that nowhere in the world but in Britain is an exclusively hereditary legislature to be found. But when all has been said of their miscellaneous misdeeds, Dr. Spence Watson spoke the truth when he declared in The question with the Lords is not one of their conduct in this or that special case It is the baneful and blighting effect of their power over legislation generally with which we have to do. No doubt all special manifestations of that power are annoying and irritating; whilst the perpetual strife between the two Chambers, the arrogant assumption of superiority on the part of that which is ironically called "the Upper," and the
Fifteen years have passed since then, and the nation is still bearing the same state of things. Are we going to continue bearing it for ever?
That is the question of the hour.
Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons,
Resolved:That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished. And that an Act be brought in for that purpose.Were the country, by large majorities in all four kingdoms, to pronounce in favour of the total abolition of the House of Lords, there can be no doubt the country would be obeyed. The Lords, to do them justice, have always given way to a genuine threat. If they were bidden to go, go they would, without putting anybody to the inconvenience of creating a sufficient number of noblemen to inflict the happy despatch. The majority of Radicals favour this solution as one which, though it may involve delay, is the cleanest job when done.
— Augustine Birrell, Portsmouth,1894 .
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn), when Sir Robert Reid, repeatedly put forward the following method of reducing the Peers to submission:—
Here is this perfectly simple plan: A Liberal statesman, when called on by the Queen to form an Administration, is to refuse, except on condition that the Crown consents to make the necessary number of new Peers to enable him to carry his measures. Every member of the party is to refuse to support the Minister unless he insists on this condition. Every Progressive elector in the constituencies is to refuse to vote for any candidate who will not pledge himself to refuse that support. Thus the whole matter is within the immediate power of the constituents themselves. You say to your candidate, "Will you vote against any Minister who has not obtained from his Sovereign the right to make Peers?" You act in accordance with his reply, and the thing is done. That was the method by which the great Reform Bill was passed through the Lords. How are we to face the situation? Of course, not by a dream of illegality in any form. Nay, more, while we abhor violence, in such a case as this I would even dissuade vehemence, which is quite unnecessary. What we want is determination—calm, solid, quiet, but fixed determination.Gladstone, Edinburgh,
The House of Lords Must Go.
As to how it can be made to go, without violence or without any straining of the Constitution, read No. 2 of "The Peers or People" Series—" How to Bell the Cat; or, a Short Way with the Lords.
The first fundamental principle is that we must look to the King to
by their habitual contumacious contempt of the King s Writ of Summons in the last Parliament. This will get rid of four hundred of those backwoodsmen who do not put in ten attendances a Session. Then fill up with the pick of the best men of the Empire, either as Life Peers, or, better still, as Lords in Parliament for the duration of that Parliament.Sack Those Peers Who Have Sacked Themselves
London:
Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Limited.
Duke Street, Stanford Street. S.E., and Great Windmill Street, W.