SIR JULIUS VOGEL ON CAPITAL AND LABOUR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXV, Issue 7792, 24 February 1886, Page 2

SIR JULIUS VOGEL ON CAPITAL AND LABOUR.

AUCKLAND, Jan, 30. At a meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress, a letter was read from Sir J. Vogel to the Congress, in response to an invitation to address them on the labour question. A vote of thanks was accorded to Sir Julius, and it was resolved to ask him to use his influence to pass those measures in Parliament which Congress had adopted in session. The following is the text of the letter: — The Secretary New Zealand Labour Congress. Dear Sir, —I have to thank you for your letter asking me to attend a meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress, and address you on the “ Labour Question, its Position as a Factor in the State.” I regret that at so short a notice in my present invalid state I am unable to accept your invitation, though I should greatly have liked to do so, for the subject has always possessed for me much interest. The limits of a letter, not unreasonably extended, forbid me giving yon my own opinion at a length which would sufficiently do me justice; still I will endeavour to sketch in a condensed form my views as to the conditions which labour should enjoy in a new country. The welfare and happiness of a community depend, in my opinion, upon its members being occupied and employed. A community of which a large proportion has not work to do. must be an unhappy one; but it will be no less unhappy if those who perform the work are not well paid for their labour. The proposition, then, stands thus:—The community is happy whose members are well occupied and well paid for their labour. A community of this kind attains one condition of happiness in a general distribution of wealth. All the Communist divisions of wealth are, to my mind, hopeless; one condition under which wealth becomes generally distributed, is that of well-paid labour which enjoys a surplus over and above the expenses of living. The way is thus open to the employed of to-day to become the employers of to-morrow. Labour cannot flourish unless there is capital to support it; the wants and means of a community which is without capital are so small, that the demand for labour is attenuated. Labour, to be well paid, requires, then, the aid of capital, and we are thus brought_ to the question of what shall be the relation between labour and capital. Although there is such an intimate union in labour and capital, there isj yet a great deal of antagonistic feeling between them; the union and antagonism are easily shown by a familiar example. A factory we will suppose is established. Its owners, by use of capital and the employment of the labour, make a fortune. They would not have done so without the use of their capital, nor without'the labour they require being available. The question then arises: —Has labour profited as much as it should have done; has it received its fair share of the fortunes made ? The cry of the unemployed in England is that they do nob receive a fair portion, or, in other words, that the profits have been sufficiently large to have enabled the employees to pay more for labour, and retain less on account of capital supplied. If labour is subjected to universal competition in all climates and countries, it is clear that capital must be dominant, and that a condition of wellpaid labour, which I have contended is one of the necessary features of a happy community, must be wholly wanting, but an exact balance of power evidently cannot be of long continuance, and we have to face the question of whether it is better for the happiness of a community that capital or labour should have the greater political power. If capital is dominant, it is utter nonsense to assert that, more or less, it will not look after what suits it best. It may stop short of positive cruelty, it may exhibit a great deal of individual kindness and good-heartedness, but all the same, the general tendency will be to seek for capital excessive advantages in the shape of cheap labour and the monopolising of wealth in few hands; but if labour is dominant it may be said it will be just as unreasonable and as hard on capitalists as in the other case the capitalists will be on the labourers. There is no reason to expect more moderation from one than the other, but self-interest forces moderation on the labouring classes. Capital can better afford to wait than labour, and therein lies the whole secret. If capital is in the ascendant, it fixes the rate of wages, and more or less compels their acceptance; if labour is in the ascendant, and demands persistently a higher rate of wages than capitalists can afford to pay, it drives away and kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. - I may be asked what I mean by capital or labour being in the ascendant, or dominant. These, are examples. The influence of capital may reduce the rate of import duties, and throw thousands of men out of employment to compete with ordinary labourers. Again, it may stop public works, and, by doing so, increase the number of persons who will be compelled to accept any wages they can obtain. Again, it may confine itself to the pursuit of industries which require little aid from human labour; and lastly, it may take the most mischievous shape of driving out small capitalists who are depending on the local markets, and are confronted with an impoverished people, unable to buy; small farmers, for example, must bo ruined if they have to depend on a market 13,000 miles distant. Their support and safeguard is a prosperous artisan class of local consumers. On the other hand, labour in the ascendant may impose many restrictions upon capitalists, but it may use its power no further than to see that the conditions are maintained that will leave to capital profitable employment, while forbidding unfair exaction on the labouring classes. The tendency to an excessive use of power is equally likely to follow the dominance of either class; but, as I have pointed out, self-interest most powerfully restrains license on the part of the labouring classes : because, if they are unfair to capital, they drive it away, and prevent its introduction from abroad. I know that I am liable to be told that this is not a . sufficiently restraining influence. All I have to say in reply is, that it must prove so, unless the world is to come to a ■ very unhappy balance. Political power is more or less rapidly, everywhere, passing into the hands of the labouring classes and small capitalists simultaneously. These classes are becoming more thoughtful and better educated; Radicalism is being divided into two schools—the Conservative and the unbridled. In my: opinion Conservative Radicalism will carry the day, and the employers of labour will

find that, a sufficiently powerful section of the employed will prevent undue advantage being taken of the larger political power that labour will enjoy. Capital, restrained frombeijag too exacting, should' find its best. ; ally in the moderate views of the thoughtful portion of the labouring classes. I am, &c., Julius Yogel.