CHURCH AND LABOUR.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1579, 6 March 1919, Page 10

CHURCH AND LABOUR.

I AN INTERESTING DEBATE. THE WORKERS' JUST DEMANDS. METHODIST CONFERENCE DISCUSSION. A lengthy debate on the relation of the Church* to the industrial problems . of the day took place at yesterday's sitting of the annual conference of the " Methodist Church of New Zealand. The subject was introduced by Mr T. Webli Jones (Wanganui), who in accordance with his notice of motion moved: — "That this conference of the, Methodist Church of New Zealand affirms its full sympathy with Labour in its efforts to secure its just, fair and equitable rights, including improved conditions, increased wages, and shorter hours, and pledges itself to assist Labour to that end, and recommends that at least once a quarter addresses should be specially devoted to industrial problems." In speaking to the motion, Mr Webb Jones saiil that his one object was to bring before the conference the vital problem of Church and Labour, and give the conference an opportunity of declaring to Labour that it had something more than a sentimental interest in the aims of Labour. For years past the presidents of the conference in their inaugural addresses had expressed sentiments sympathetic with the aims of Labour, but the time had come to do something of a practical nature. He suggested that when Labour had a particular object in view the Church should givo Labour its support. The Church had not supported Labour in the past. He referred to the recent drivers' dispute in Auckland, when the men had demanded a living wage to bring up thejr families decently. Did the Methodist Church in Auckland support the men in their jnst demands? Did the Methodist Church on the West Coast support Mr R. Semple, M.P., when he endeavoured to get a better drill for the miners. A conservative body like the English House of Lords hail taken up the Labour question, and it was time the Methodist Church took it .up. Bishop Averill, of the Church of England (the most conservative Church in New Zealand) had in an address expressed sympathy with the aims of Labour. Capital, the Bishop had said, was waiting behind its ramparts for Labour to move. He (the speaker) considered the Church was doing the same as Capital. The Church should come out from behind its ramparts. A member: What do you suggest? «* The speaker: I suggest we should stand for a 42 hours' week. • Another member: For all workers? The speaker: Yes. Something Practical Wanted. ") Continuing, Mr Jones again urged the necessity of the Church doing something practical. Did the Church, he asked, support the tramwaymen in their recent demands? Bev. 8. La wry: Not likely. The speaker: Mr La wry says "not likely," but I say that in five years' time the demands of Labour to-day will be considered reasonable. A member: We are in favour of the demands, but not of the methods. Mr Jones said that the Church had not supported Labour in the past. He referred to an address delivered by the Bev. C. H. Laws four years ago, in which Mr Laws said the Church should support Labour to endeavour to raise mankind. He (Mr Jones) was still waiting to see if the Church would do something practical to raise mankind. ' The Bev. P. N. Knight: If it were put in that way we should all support it. Continuing, the speaker said that a worker had told him that he had left the Church because the Church was against Labour. That was the reason why the workers did not come to church. In conclusion the speaker expressed the hope that his motion would be carried, and that the Church in the future would do something practical to improve the condition of the workers.

Church Must Take a Stand. 'Mr W. G. Noot (Wellington), in seconding the motion, said he believed the time had come when the Church should take up a stand with regard to the industrial questions. There were men in the Church to-day who were good Labour men. He did not want to frighten them by suggesting that there were Bed Feds in the Church. They must remember, however, that there were many men who had worked for Labour in New Zealand who were not connected with the Labour Federation. Personally, he was a Labour man. He believed in the Fatherhood of God. God was the Father of all men. He .believed that God would support the Labour movement, and he thought the Labour Party should take God into its councils. At this stage, as the conference was due to rise at 5 p.m., and as it was then 10 minutes past that hour, the question was put to the conference as to whether the dobate should be con-

tinued or adjourned. It was decided to continue until 5.25 p.m. An Amendment. Mr M. H. Hamilton then moved an amendment:— That this conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand affirms its full sympathy with Labour in its efforts to secure its just, fair, and equitable rights.

He thought the Church had no need to go any further at present. He also thought the Church had very little to do with the Labour movement, for he considered its mission was to fulfil the work of God on earth. The rest of Mr Hamilton 's address was rather irrelevant, and as time was getting short he was ruled out of order. As he sat down he remarked that he considered the Church had the work of its Lord and Master to attend to, and not the matter before the conference.

Mr S. Avers (Rangiora) in seconding the amendment pro forma, said the Methodist Church was a working man's church. "If you take the working men out, there will only be a few officials left," he said amidst laughter. He considered that the workers were entitled to higher wages, and they should get them. The Rev. S. Lawry gave notice of his intention to move an amendment that the last clause, "that at least once a quarter addresses should be specially devoted to industrial questions," should be deleted from the motion. . Treated Too Lightly. Mr D. Jones moved the adjournment of the debate. He considered it was a question to -which plenty of time should bo given. He considered that the members of the conference were treating it too lightly. The Rev. W. A. Sinclair (New Plymouth) also considered that members were treating the question too lightly. He thought the interruptions should not be allowed. • It was decided to adjourn the debate until the evening session. Mr Webb Jones was not present at the evening debate, having left for his home by the ferry steamer. The Debate Resumed.

Mr D. Jones (Leeston) opened the debate in the evening. He said he did not think there was much difference of opinion amongst members on the question. What was wanted was something to express that opinion, but the motion went beyond it. The Church's first consideration was not the fight between Capital and Labour, but the work of God. Apparently the motion said that the Church was to support the claims of I.bour, whether they were just or not. (Voices: No.) The motion said that the Church should support claims for shorter hours and higher wages. This would mean turning the Church into a great Conciliation Council. Was that the function of the Church? Voices: No. The mover of the motion had said that if the Church wanted Labour with it, it must be with Labour; but the Church must also support Capital in its just demands. Were the capitalists inside the Church? Unfortunately, the truth was that the workers were not the only ones outside the Church. The mission of the Church was to win the people as a whole. The Church must endeavour to teach all men the Spirit of Christ. The speaker hoped the conference would be careful over the matter. The Labour men were men of common sense, and they would be the first to despise the Church if it "toadied" to them. He considered that the amendment went far enough. The mover wished to obtain for the Church

the support of Labour, but the motion would not achieve this object. He hoped the conference would look at the matter in a broad light, and carry the amendment. Profit-Sharing. Mr T. P. Hughson (Taranaki) said he wished to give notice of motion of the following amendment: — That this conference, whilst fully recognising the just claims of Labour, considers the continued efforts for in-

creased wages ami shorter hours are not likely to bring a satisfactorysolution of the problem. The conference therefore recommends to 'the favourable consideration of the Legis-

lature (the Minister of Labour) the necessity of bringing^employers and employees iuto more intimate touch with each other, and to this end recommend the dissemination of information regarding the profit-sharing principle amongst employers by competent instructors or otherwise, thereby giving to Capital and Labour their

just and equitable rights. He said that the Church required to recognise that both Labour and Capital had rights. In the past, legislation had failed to cope with the great industrial problems. The wages had increased, and at the same time the cost of living had increased, aud the question was where was it going to end. He did not know, unless a scheme of. cooperation and profit-shariug were devised.

Mr C. ,E. Daniels (Wellington), who is chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board, said that for a whole month he had presided over a conference be-

tween Capital and Labour, and he had come away from it with an increased respect for Labour. He then went on to show how the pugnacious worker, whom the employer disliked, was the real friend of the working class, because by his efforts the rights of the working class were secured. He recommended the employers present to do something for their workmen. The mere passing of a resolution was of no use. The speaker referred to the unrest amongst the wharf labourers. This he said was due to the poor wages paid by the big shipping companies owned by capitalists outside New Zealand. The men said that they were going to take it out of these companies, and it was practically a fight between organised Labour and organised Capital. "Let the people of New Zealand," he said, "Put their backs in and show some national spirit. Let them show that the people of this country will not follow at the heels of foreign capitalists." These capitalists, the speaker said, were responsible for the conditions on' the water front today. He also recommended that Church members should get into touch with the Labour leaders, who. were not all bad fellows. A hundred years ago the Methodists were the great Labour agitators for better conditions for the

workers. They would not do much good by passing the resolution. Let them come into contact with the working meu and assure them of help. "*" Not Far Enough. The Rev. H. L..Blamires (Wanganui),said that it was refreshing to hear such a straight-out socialistic speech from MiDaniels. He did not think there were any Red Feds in the" conference, although there were many S3'mpathetic with Labour. He did not consider the amendment went far enough. Labour was looking for something more than an expression of sympathy from the Church. At the front he had come into

contact with socialists, and had found them good fellows. He considered the Capitalists were as much the victims of the present system as the workers. He thought the Church should give a lead in these industrial matters, and put the principles of the Sermon on the Mount into practice. Mr C. M. Luke said that to-day we suffered from two extreme classes. There was as mucji to - fear today from the exploiter as from the extreme Labour. man. (Hear, hear.) There were good and bad in both the Capitalist and Labour classes. Amongst the Capitalists there were men so greedy that they had lost all sense of humanity, whilst amongst the Labour Party there were men who would rush headlong into strife to secure claims that were economically impossible. The legislation of the past had been imperfect. The high cost of living was being felt by all classes, professional, clerical, and artisan. He thought there should be legislation to regulate the sale of the necessities of life to the masses. If they went on till Doomsday and talked platitudes they would do no good. What was wanted was increased production, and this could be brought about only by hearty co-operation between Labour and Capital. He had no sympathy with the extreme Labourites, wJio, during the war, had refused to take up arms in the defence of their country and civilisation. However, Labour as a whole had not been disloyal. There had been disloyalists among the Capitalists. While the Church could not take up the cudgels for one party or the other it should not neglect the welfare of the masses. Whilst it should eschew politics and keep them outside the pale, it should always be found on the side of the people whilst they were seeking that which was right. The amendment he considered was abstract and led nowhere. No Cause for Alarm. The Kev. Knowles Smith (Wellington) said he was surprised at the alarm of members at the motion, which, coming as .it did from an ardent Labour man, was colourless indeed. The

speaker said it was a great fallacy to say the working men did not support the Church. If that were so the Church could not keep going. There was no reason why members of the conference should not support. the working men in their demands for shorter, hours, higher wages and better conditions. The working man was not a machine, although he had been too long regarded as such. The only man who need be alarmed at the motion was the man who ought to be alarmed, and that was the exploiter. Unfortunately in the Labour ranks just now there was a "top dog" tinged with agnosticism. That was the man the Church had to fight, but they could not fight him by leaving the industrial problems alone. He supported the motion, for the amendment seemed to him a pious sort of thing that would look well on the minute book and that was about all.

Mr C. E. Bellringer(Palmerston North) said that unless, the competitive system were dealt with there would be a constant recurrence of labour troubles. He mentioned the necessity for giving workers more than a living wage, so that they could enjoy the comforts and luxuries of life. A man could not be expected to live from hand to mouth all his life.

Mr B. J. Lynneberg (Johnsonville) spoke of the advantages of the cooperative and profit-sharing system, under which the workers performed their duties gladly and without supervision. The Rev. W. A. Hay (Dunedin) referred to the necessity of inculcating the spirit of Christ amongst men. Tlrts was the duty of the Church, and it should not take up sides in these industrial matters. The Rev. E. P. Blamires (Christchurch) said he had heard Mr Hay on the subject of spirit before, but in this world spirit was no good without the body. The Motion Carried. The matter was then put to the meeting. The amendment as moved by Mr Hamilton was lost, and the v ßev. Lawry's amendment, which was the original motion except for the last clause, regarding the giving of quarterly addresses on industrial problems, was carried without dissent. Mr Hughson agreed to withdraw his amendment, and the following additional motion, moved by Mr C. M. Luke and seconded- by Mr Hughson, was substituted and carried': — "That this conference recommend to employers and employees the principles of co-partnership in all forms of industry and profit-shar-ing." „ The conference then adjourned.