MR TOMMANN AS A LICIURER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2524, 30 July 1902, Page 14

MR TOMMANN AS A LICIURER.

AX ADDRESS OX THE INDUSTRIAL PROBLEM. The Choral Hall was well filled on Thursj day night, when at 8 o'clock, Mr Tom Mann appeared 011 the platform to deliver his lecture on "Tiie Labour Problem." Mr W. Hood presided. I The Chairman, in a few preliminary remark-, said that as the lahour problem had engrossed the attention of the people and of the Legislature of this country probably to a greater extent than 111 any other country any information of any kind, or any light that Mr Mann could throw oa the subject must necessarily prove of some value in view of the fort!. coming general election. Mi M a nn came here a- an accredited Labour leader — (applause),— and came fresh from the great centres of industrial activity. Although he was personally a, stranger to moat of those present, he was not a stranger by repute, and anything he might state ia regard to the Labour problem they could take as being of an authoritative character. — (Applause.)

Sir Mann received a hearty round of applause as he rose to speak, and in clearing tho ground said tliat his subject did not simply include those questions which would enable the workers to find some p-articular method whereby they could obtain more from their employer than they wore now doing. Fe was not concerned with eectional questions at all, except in .so fay as such sectiona-l questions boro directly on the main point. The object he had in view was not to endea\our to show thac it was possible for the workeis? to score as against any other class, but to deal with tlio more general and deep-seated questions that affected the wellbeing of the community as a. whole. — (Applause.) In t! at Fe'-.sc- it would be necessaiy to corei Hie position occupied by those i'l high places just a-s mivh as of .those who happened to be very low down in the social scale. Ali through the object would' be to try and understand by what particular means the various coinn.unitiea of the world had at various time-, provided themselves wi f h the necebsarie- of life, ai,d what tffect thf particu'ar system they might use had upon the general standard, 111 order that po-.*ihly they mis?ht tlr.iw -omr- conclusion latrr on that might possibly be of u^e lo the present community Those present would please under-darn! he wa" not here especially to defend uorkoiV organisation 1 - an against any other oiguni^ntioin-, or to s-pealc on behalf of tradpn unionism or any oilier '"ism," but to deal with those general questions that iiiade up the social problem. This problem uas admittedly the most stupendous that Lad e\er confronted civilisation. He would ask his audience to carry their minds back to the Old Country, and some of them would have recollections of the social and industrial conditions which prevailed — perhaps they were not pleasant recollections. Many would have some idea of the conditions obtaining- in England, especially 111 London, and he could assure them that in all the large centres the conditions were distinctly bad. Many took the view that it must needs be bad. teeing that the population had grown to 40,000,000 of people. The notion prevailed that thcr^ were too many people. He wanted to say light there that there was not one family too many in the Old Country. — (Applause.) He knew that poverty existed, and how very eenou3ly it existed ; not merely in metropolitan areas, but in «mall towns and villages. The time and attention given to the production of foodstuffs would maintain the population for one third of a year, or would maintain for a whole year one-third of the population. There was a hazy impression that it was not to be expected that England could produce enough, but, taking the acreage into consideration, there was land enough not only to maintain the present 40,000,000, but a much greater population. Still the poverty existed. What was the cause? There were 15 to 25 per cent, of the population of metropolitan centres existing under conditions below the poverty line Yet the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland were producing more wealth to-day than they ever produced before in their whole history. They never produced wealth so effectirely as they produced it now. The fact remained that poverty existed. We knew that, having regard to the acerage and yielding capacity of ♦he country, and the mineral resources, there should bo sufficient for all ; we knew that it was not because there were too many peopU, or that the people were dissolute, or idle, or incapable of producing, or was it from tho unkTndness of the deity, and yet poverty was there. It was out place to find out why. Mr Mann then proceeded with an analysis of wealth and the means used in its production. He denned it es " The commodities we make use of for sustenance and £^Xfil£WMUHfc" Wbeoce oame i,h.e*a com^o-

dities? They came from one source — the earth's crust. Five hundred yeare ago the English workeis, whether artisans or labouiers, lned up to a good standard of physique. They had enough to eat, were well clothed, and they dkl not work more than eight hours per day. (See Professor Thorold Rodger's " Six Centuries of Work and Wages in Britain."') There was no machinery then. Machinery was introduced in order to produce greater lesults with a gnen expenditure of energy, and consequently it should have been so much easier to produce the required commodities. Yet poverty was intensified, and pconle, instead of living to 60 and 70. were dying at 30, 35, and 40 year? of age. Seeing that the earth's crust was the storehouse for every article produced, was it not singular that a handfull of the community had been allowed to exercise a monopoly over the one source of life? London was originally a swamp on the Thames. A certain section had been permitted to get control of the sites of London housL j £, shop?, factories, and mills, and every year they took about, £18.000.000 for whicli they never did a =ingle stroke of woik or in any way added to the wellbeing of the corrmunity. What was true of London \ia> true of the whole country. The rent-ioll of rural and urban landlords was £200,000.000 ppr annum, which went in recognition of thp exploiting power cf the n'onopolistic section of the land-owning. people. This was practically the sole causeof poverty in Britain and other countries. Did the audience tbink that poverty was caused by an incapacity to produce? The most luxurious extravagance the world had ever known was going on all the year round in London, and who was paying for it? How was an equity of distribution to ba mae'e? To make the nece-sary changes it was uot ncee^ary to cut anyone's throat, or to use the bayonet, or dynamite, unless the Istter wa« ucce^ary to awaken the sleepy faculties of the unthinking crowd. There was a glorious time in front of the civilised world if we could only establish the conditions of fair play. He had referred to the £200,000,000 received by the landowners. How much did they suppose that the profit lec-iver and the interest taker got? Why, another £200.000,000 each. These three classes among them took half tho total product of the people of England, without in any way contributing towards the wellbeing of the community of facilitating production and distribution. Fairplay and ofiieiency of production, witli equity of distribution, were all that was required, and tho terrible industrial problem would be solved. Dealing with the labour condition of other countries, Mr Mann touched on Germany, and said that that country was suffering frcm great depression. The talk about her competing with Britain was absurd. The enforced idleness of rhepeop 1 c was appalling. Banks were breaking, and large firms going through the Bankruptcy Court. America was paving 'the way for a similar state of things. Tho blame for the oppression of monopolies, ]\lr Mann contended, was largely dite fco the workers for not being more keenly alive to tho effects of such combinations. He traced their evolution from the joint stock companies to tho limited liability companies, to the syndicates, to tho combines, and finally to th-e trusts. What was to be the next step? He thought it was for a democratic community in its corporate capacity to relieve the capitalists of their responsibilities by undertaking the tffeetno control of the industrial resources and interests of the community as a whole. The change would, come from private ownership to public ownership, which would ba for tlio general wollbeing of the people. Mr Mann said he looked to the municipal bodies to give effect to his collectivist views, and baid that during the last 15 years there had been extraordinary advances in local government in England. The tendency was towards municipalising all public eervicos. and colonial townq were miles behind in this reepect. Ho concluded by asking the audience to remember that what he was advocating was nothing other than the application of the principle of the brotherhood of man —(Applause.)

-\ number of questions were put to tho loetiirer, ai-d among-t otlirrs cropped tip the jne\ltablo liquor tiiiffic Mr Mann ropliod that he favoured prorhiptinn of tlio material by tho State, and the distribution of it by fclic municipality. A vote of thanks to tho chair o'o^cd the treating. Mr Mann will probably address another meeting at au caily date.