W.E.A. LECTURE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 29 June 1926, Page 10

W.E.A. LECTURE.

“PERIOD OF OPPRESSION AX'D

This was the title of the lecture delivered at the W.E.A. class, at Ha-weia on \\ ednastlay ingot. in. me course oi tus remarks the lecturer (Mr Brotherton) stated.: . During the Napoleonic wars the influence tne Erench Revolution was plainly to be seen in the .repressive legislation ol other countries. It is well known that emergency powers must be granted in time of war, and fearing a revolution severe legislation was passed that hampered the. newlyloimed class of factory wage earners in asserting tlieir right- to decent conditions. In the same way .as the industrial revolution had been aggravated by war-time conditions and many l of its worst features emphasised, • -so the French Revolution proved a sinister influence that undoubtedly hindered the reconstruction following the settlement of the Congress of Vienna. Stability had to a. great extent been destroyed by the destruction of the apprenticeship system, and some system of combination was a natural outcome from working conditions that we .would now consider utterly impossible. The question of factory legislation, which had become a crying -necessity by the beginning of the nineteenth century, involved the whole -principle of Government interference, and- was -at variance to the whole system propounded! by Adam Smith. This caused delay, since public opinion had to grow and) tine resultant factory Acts were long overdue. At that point society might have developed, towards either Syndicalism, a system that places the industrial organisation in .supreme power so that political institutions become meaningless; towards Gild- Socialism..by which parallel political and 1 industrial parliaments are -set up; or towards State Socialism, which, as Lord Bryce points out, is to he found in its mostly highly developed form in. New Zealand. At first State interference was justified almost apologetically, but it gradually came to be admitted to be. a- necessity; and J. S. Mill modified liis attitude in several respects. He -shows that in the case of children freedom 1 of contract practically means freedom of coercion; also that in many cases, again notably with children, regulation may'be necessary owing to the persons in question not knowing their own interest ; and also in certain cases coercive powers may be necessary to give effect to the judgment of the individual where this would otherwise be impossible. Here he cites the case of the manufacturer who might wish to permit shorter hours, but might be prevented by his competitors. Here Mill is prepared to allow the minority to -)>e forced to give way, though whether because they lie wrong or whether merely because they be in a minority he does not state. It will thus be -clear that the idea of factory legislation was opposed to the whole economic theory that had held the field since Adam Smith wrote in 1776. Under these circumstances it may be imagined progress was slow, and it must Be remembered that parallel with the movement to improve conditions in the factories was the movement to obtain the repeal .of the combination, laws and admit trade unionism .as a natural and legal commentary to the change in' the organisation of society. The first Act towards improvement of conditions was not really a factory Act,_ but rather a poor law regulation. This Act followed a seven years’ agitation, but. once introduced, .passed Parliament without opposition. Nothing gives a better idea of the existing conditions than a recital of the Acts passed, for tlieir improvement. The 1802 Act provided a 12-hour day for pauper children, and was extended in 1804 to prohibit night work and to compel the employer to give some sort of elementary education to the children, and .also to provide them, with one suit of clothes- each year. This Act the Justices of the Peace were left to enforce, and the extreme penalty was a £5 fine; moreover, the Justices were frequently interested parties! In 1819 came the first real factory Act. It excluded children- under nine years o.f age from cotton mills, .but .not others, and it enacted that non© under 16 should work more than 12 hours per day. In 1825 this was amended to include one and a half hours per day for meals in the 12-hour day, and brought in. a nine-hour day on Saturdays. And in 1831 niglitwork was forbidden for all under 21, and the 12-hour day brought in for .all under 18. The J.P.’s were, however, still left to see to its administration. Further developments were mainly, improvements in administrative efficiency, notably the appointment of four Government inspectors, who, it may lie said, were not popular with the operatives, as they disliked Government supervision; the inclusion of women in the protected class, the extension from cotton to all factories, and) a definition of factories and workshops. In 1833 an addition to Government supervision made compulsory the fencing of machinery where children were employed in textile factories, forbid nightwork for anyone under 18, excluded children under nine, except in silk mills, and regulated the employment of children between the ages of 9 and 13. By 1844 women, were included in. the protected class, and by these means men were virtually included, as it was uneconomic to work the factories without the cheap -subsidiary labour of women and children, and by forbidding work by shifts (1850 and 1853) this was fairly well established 1 , and the Ten Hours Bill of 1847 may be said to have, usually included men. women and children within its provisions, owing to the impossibility of men carrying on without the subsidiary work of the women and children.

In the same way as the factory legislation was ha-mperedi by the economictheory of the period, so was the trade union .movement by the reactionary forces let loose through fear of a. revolution similar to that in France. Many useful reforms were post- poned during the war period and in .general both the war and the revolution may be said, to have been the cause of the Vailure of several .attempts at amelioration of the position of the masses.

The original .combination laws were passed to prevent men combining to raise wages, -as these wages were assessed by the J.P’s., under the Elizabethan settlement and combination iigainst this -settlement was in direct defiiance of the .law. Although the action of the J.P’s. had long been in clii-stisse. t-lio 1 artv.-i renra-inod on the .statii.te book. At first they were a dead letter, but later were revived with considerable effect. Moreover, in- 1799 and 1800 these 'laws were strengthened' so a.s to find all combinations of both blasters and men. This was in the ha-tu-re of war panic legislation, and had it been .impartially administered, ‘would not have been -an undue griev-'anc-e-, but this was not the case. In addition, the common law conspiracy Was aJlsb invoked against the early trade unions. Some old association survived unmolested, but the workers in the new industries of the industrial revolution. were often, hard pressed. It is o.f interest to> notice that while, those Who supported factory legislation were almost without exception, Tories, the

inaim support- of the .trade union movement came from the Whigs. The policy of repression culminated In the “Peteuloo Massacre” anti the •fix Acts of 1819. By these ordinary liberty was challenged -and, England woke up to- the necessity of charge. France’s Plaice -was the prime anover in the- repeal of the. combination- laws, or more correctly, he was the paver behind the- .throne and others carried the work out in public. . Plaice, though the agency of Home, succeeded in 1824 in getting a, Bill through Parliament that permitted the emigration of iworkinen, the export, of machinery and the Combination ol : workmen. Thus, tacked to another measure, the combination laws were repeaJlled. Plaice thought Combination had only taken place .since it was forbidden, but the event proved him wrong and a- series of serious strikes caused the concessions modification, and wlii-le t-lie right to combine Svas permitted! the common law' of .conspiracy was left in force. From this time, lalthough there were set backs, trade unionism .gradually developed. There was the. movement under Robert Oliver, which was virtually of ,a revolutionary nature, and latter there emerged in 1852 the “new model,” in Which we find paid officials, who were sound .men of .business, who put the union on a firm: basis financially and emphasised the friendly .society aspect. The' main policy of the Junta, as these leaders- were caliled, was to favour political reform, and national education land to oppose the use of the. strike weapon ’except iu extreme cases. The -latter history of trade -unionism begins to .get .involved with the history bf the Independent Labour Party and I do not propose, to follow it in detail. Suffice d|t to ,sa.y that various legal decisions, such as the Tuff Vale judgment of 1901, which decided a. trade 'union was. liable at law for the action bf its members, were usually met within a few years by an Act of Parliament that met the position—iu the case given above, .by the Trades Dispute ’Act. of 1906, that gave the trade unions Vertuail immunity against civil -actions. The latest Alct in this connection was in 1913, authorising the unions to use it fund for political purposes, provided •itr ivas Isoplt -sep araite and co 1 i.t-r.Lb utioi i a be volunta.ry. A lecture such as this: manifestly bah not do justice to .so large la. subject •—but it .is for you to trace the more ‘recent developments for yourselves. It is as yet impossible -to estimate the Strength of various forces at work, find when dealing; with the action of •men still living, such treatment as we ban give tends to be .political rather than historical. Against one thing I Would, caution you—.beware of reading books .written from one viewpoint only if possible in conbrovert.ial matters; bead both .sides, and, if this is imlposkiWle, read your opponents, arguments bather than, those of the side you favbur and your resultant criticisms may, With luck, be more op less correct.