J. RAMSAY MACDONALD.

NZ Truth, Issue 62, 25 August 1906, Page 7

J. RAMSAY MACDONALD.

"LABOR" ADVOCATE OF CHILDENSLAVEMENT.

A Coming Distinguished Visitor.

HIS BACKING OF BLOATED BRUNNER'S BILL.

A Bill to Compel Toddlers of Twelve to Work all Day and Study at Night.

Keir Hardie Thinks Macdonald was " Tricked," but "Justice" Says He is too "Astute."

The daily newspapers have announced that Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, the secretary of the Labor Party m the British House of Commons, is coming to this country upon some sort of mysterious mission that is not by any means explained. In a vague way, we are informed that he is coming to study the Australian Labor movement, and that, although he will represent tho British Labor Party, he will not come with "strictly official credentials." Well, representatives of British labor are welcome, but it is a pity that a better man than Ramsay Macdonald is not coming., Keir Hardie, Will Thome, F. W. Jowett, or Phil Snowden would have been more m harmony with the aspirations, of the Radical Democracy of Australia than J. Ramsay Macdonald is likely to be, for the

LAST-NAMED IS A TRIMMER-, although he does call himself a Socialist. He has written a book entitled "Socialism and Society," but thiß book so distorts the philosophy of Socialism to make it agreeable to people of the Nonconformist Consciences type that a reviewer of it, writing m the monthly magazine entitled the "Social Democrat," termed Macdonald's Socialism, "Socialism Adapted to the" Petty Bourgeoisie." This was the title of the reviewer's article, and it adequately described the sort of tame, lame Socialism that Macdonald advocates.

J. Ramsay Macdonald was not long m showing what sort of man he was after he got into Parliament. It is regarded as

MAINLY HIS FAULT that the constituency for which he sits is not represented by two Labor men, instead of by Macdonald and a Liberal. When Henry Broadhurst retired, there was ample opportunity to get another Labor man elect-, ed m the place of Henry Broadhurst; but Macdonald feared, apparently, to offend the Liberals to whom he had truckled, and the consequence was that he made no effort to secure ihe return of a member of the Labor Party as his colleague m the representation of Leicester, and a Liberal was elected.

Very much worse than this, however, was the conduct of Macdonald m supporting a bill introduced by the capitalist Liberal, Sir John Brunner. This bill is one to afford ■facilities to the children of the poor to go to work at even earlier ages than at present. The ages now are 14- m the cities and 13 m the rural districts. Brunner's bill would, however, permit of the issuing of exemption certificates upon a very large scale, and the result of the issuing of these certificates would be that the

AGES WOULD BE REDUCED to 13 and. 12 respectively. With regard to this matter, and the conduct of the Labor members who backed Brunner. bill, London "Justice" of June 9 says: —

Last week we called attention to the "Bill to Amend .the Education Acts," presented by that Liberal millionaire, Sir John Brunner, and backed, among others, by Messrs. Will Crooks and J. Ramsay Macdonald. We then expressed surprise at these last two names appearing m such a connection, but no satisfactory explanation has been given, and we should now like to know how far

THIS PRECIOUS BILL meets with the approval of the party of which Messrs. Crooks and Macdonald are prominent members. .At a meeting at Fulham last week, our comrade Keir Hardie was asked if he could explain how his colleagues came to endorse this bill. His only explanation was that they must have been tricked into it. It is difficult to understand how this could happen to an

ASTUTE POLITICIAN LIKE MACDONALD, or to an old Parliamentary hand like Will Crooks, and m any case some" public declaration on the matter from them is called for. According to the "Memorandum" prefacing the bill, thia proposed measure "provides that local authorities may fix thirteen as the minimum age for total exemption from attendance at a public elementary school if they frame by-laws for the attendance of children so exempted at some recognised continuation school for at least three evenings a week until they attain the age of sixteen years. In the rural districts, it is provided that the local authorities may fix

TWELVE AS THE MINIMUM AGE for total exemption m the case of boys who have definite and regular agricultural employment, and whose parents desire that they shall be so employed, on condition that they attend a continuation school for at least two evenings a week during the winter months until the age of sixteen."

The result of "Justice's" exposure and protest was that the secretary of the British Labor Party (Macdonald) simply became abusively denunciatory of "Justice," but that periodical returned to the charge m its issue of June 16 as follows:—

As our frequent expressions of approbation of certain declarations of his have shown, we have no desire to be harsh or unjust to Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald. We must say, however, that his action m backing Sir John Brunner's

'CHILD ENSLAVEMENT BILL, called "a Bill to amend the Education Acts," calls for fuller explanation than is afforded m the ill-tempered and evasive statements vouchsafed to the Boot and Shoe Operatives' Conference. At that conference, our comrade Gribble moved that the conference "views with alarm any attempt to lower the age at which a child shall be permitted to leave school and be plunged intd competition with its parents, and calls upon our M.P. (Mr. T. F. Richards, Wolverhampton) to use every effort to defeat, the 'Bill to amend the Education Acts, 1870-1903, presented by Sir John Brunner, and backed by Sir W. Anson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Eve, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Masterman, Mr. George White, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Yoxall.'" IN A HEATED DISCUSSION, the Leicester delegates and Mr. T. F. Richards, M.P.," denied that the object of the bill was as stated by Gribble, or that Macdonald would be a party to anything of the kind.' The matter was deferred to be brought up on Parliamentary business, when Mr. Richards, M.P., produced the following telegram from Macdonald — "Just returned from Paris. Statement is a lie;" and also a letter from Mr. Will Crooks, stating that he was not aware that his name was attached to any bill for lowering the school age. This appeared satisfactory until Gribble produced a copy oi. the bill, and read extracts

therefrom, showing how mischievous were its objects. The delegates thought they would like further evidence .

BEFORE CONDEMNING MACDONALD, and the matter was deferred to the last day of the conference. Tho president then read the following telegram from Macdonald:— "The statement is a Ue, as most things are which appear m 'Justice' " — a curious message, seeing that "Justice" had not once been mentioned m the discussion— and Mr. Richards, M.P., read the following letter: — "My dear Richards,— l got your, letter last night, on my return from Paris. The : report to which you refer was probably made on the Btrength of an article which appeared m 'Justice.' I have not seen the article, as I '

DO NOT BUY THE PAPER, and very rarely come across it; but have •heard of its publication. It is only part of a campaign which has been carried 6n against members of the 1.L.P., and which, so far as I am concerned, I decline to notice publicly. The bill simply accepts the position, its object being "hot to alter the school age at all, but tc make a beginning m a compulsory system of evening schools. This beginning cannot be made withoiit some awkward features, because it is to be dovetailed into a very imperfect method of education. lam not, however, to be deterred from helping m making a beginning by ignorant and prejudiced criticism as to the effect of the experiment. Witb kind regards, etc. —Yours sincerely, J. Ramsay Macdonald."

In response to this, Gribble produced a telegram he had received from Keir Hardie, m reply to an inquiry as to hia opinion of Brunner's Bill. Hardie wired : —"I favor continuation schools, but

AM STRONGLY OPPOSED tb age of exemption being reduced as proposed by bilL"-""

Gribble's resolution, on being pat, was carried without dissent, several delegates not voting.

We can afford to disregard Mr. Macdonald's ill-mannered and uncalled-for re ferences to ourselves, merely remarking m passing, that his intercouiso with Liberal millionaires has not improved his temper, his manners, or his veracity. Neither are we greatly concerned with Mr. Macdonald's personal opinion on a measure which is avowedly directed to

EXTENDING CHILD SLAVERY by lowering the age of exemption, and making attendances at continuation schools compulsory as a substitute for raising the normal school age. But Mr. Macdonald is not an irresponsible individual. He is the paid secretary of the Labor Party, and idle official Whip of its Parliamentary Group, and what we have a right to know is the view that Party and that Group take of this action of their chief official m backing- -such a bill as this of Sir John Brunner. Whatever Mr. Macdonald may imagine — seeing that he never sees the paper, he cannot know— of any campaign carried on m "Justice" against the members of the 1.L.P., we have always given that body and its members credit for being absolutely at one with us m the desire to

ABOLISH CHILD LABOR, and to raise the school age. We had supposed also, judging by- the resolutions of the L.R.C. Conference and of the Trades Union Congress, that the Labor Group m Parliament was committed to the same principle. ', Yet here we have the chairman of the I.LJP. and secretary of the Labor Party endorsing a bill deliberately directed against that principle. The

PACT WAS SO INCREDIBLE . that we could not believe it until we had soen a copy of the bill ; and Mr. Keir Hardie, when questioned, as leader of the ' Party, on the subject, could only conjecture that his colleague's endorsement had been obtain/ed by a trick. Now, however, we have Mr, ; Macdonald, m spite of his j reckless accusation of lying, AVOWING HIS AGREEMENT with the measure which his chief agrees with us m condemning. The question now, once more, is, What does the Party intend to do m the matter? On June 23, "Justice" again returned to the subject and said: —

Angry at our condemnation of his support of Sir John Brunner's bill, Mr. J. R. Macdonald and his friends assert that we are wrong m describing this as "a bill to lower the age at which boys may be taken from school," because it leaves the age of exemption untouched. ... At present the certificates of exemption are granted on the child attaining a certain educational standard. That this is far too low may be readily admitted. x But the Brunner bill

MAKES NO PROVISION for any educational standard at all. All that is necessary to qualify for total exemption from day school attendance at 13 years of age m the towns, or at 12 m the rural districts, is an undertaking that the child shall be compelled to attend' a continuation school for at least two evenings a week during the winter months m the x_ral districts, and three evenings a week all the year round m the towns. If this is not, therefore, a measure for

LOWERING THE AGE at which boys may be taken away from school, we are at a loss how to describe it. . • ■

Now, all sectiohs of the organised work-ing-class movement are Hot only opposed to lowering the age at which children may be taken from school, and thrust into the factory, but thoy are explicitly and avowedly m favor of raising that age. At the Trades Union Congress at Hanley last year, a i-esolution was carried, without dissent, asking, among other things, that "adequate provision be made for children to

CONTINUE AT SCHOOL until the age of 16 years, or tintil such nge as the university course begins." That is the definite declaration of the Trades Congress on the subject, a declaration which has been endorsed by practically e\ery other body representative of organised labor. "Justice" was not the only proletarian periodical that commented adversely upon the action of Macdonald and Crooks m supporting the Brunner bill; similar comments appeared m tho "Clarion," m an article by Councillor F. W. Jowett, M.P., a member of the Labor Party. This article appeared on Juno 22, and Mr. Jowett said therein: — Now, Sir John Brunner's bill proposes to sweep away all restrictions aa to at-

tendances and educational requirements, i.e., as conditions limiting full time eipploymenfc, and proposes instead that. Oo]~ dren can be employed m agriculture ylfcll time pn condition that they engage to attend an evening school for three years — with PENALTIES FOR NON-ATTENDANCE. In employment other than agriculture, children are to be allowed, to go to work full time at 13, also providing that they agree to compulsory attendance at evening classes for three years, up to 16 years of age, and if employed m agriculture they are to be allowed to go full time at 12 on condition that they will attend evening classes till they are 15. It appears, therefore, that whilst it ia true, as Macdonald and Crooks state, that children can now go to work full time tinder certain circumstances quite as early as the Brunner bill proposes, their doing 'so is dependent on the result of a Labor examination, the requirements of which are GENERALLY MORE FORMIDABLE than the average child can comply with at that age. A large number manage to get school exemption at 13 by attending school '350 times a year for five preceding years, but there is no way of securing full time Labor certificates on attendances at 12 years of age, even m agricultural districts. For the reason, then", that child labor will, m fact, be increased if the Brunner bill is passed," I HOPE IT NEVER WILL BE PASSED. ' . and, I submit, subject to correction—for I now see how extremely difficult it is tc understand the exact position of affairs so as to estimate the effect of new proposals —that Messrs. Macdonald and Crooks are m error m thinking that child labor will not be increased. ... I hope the bill will never pass, and, to tell the truth, it would have Bunk at once, like heaps of other private bills do, into the sea of oblivion, had it not been for the distinction conferred upon it by two Labor members. Well, this man Macdonald is coming ta Australia, and, Bays a cablegram:— ■• He hopes to talk to leading men of all sides m the colonies to gain a better un- - derstanding of the circumstances and difficulties, and discover analogies between their conditions and ours; also to impart information contributing to a fuller know* ledge of the problems of Great Britain. It is to be. hoped that, whatever else may be doubtful, it will be made perfectly cleat! to him that we. do not, m Australia, approve of bills for the enslavement of children by compelling them, when but 12 or 13 years of age, to work all day long and Btuffl their minds with educational lumber at night. ■ '