ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO

Taranaki Daily News, 8 March 1929, Page 13

ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO

PRODUCTION AND POPULATION.

WORK OF SCIENCE AND INVENTION

Not the politicians! Not the propagandists! Not even the leaders of the great humanitarian movement! But the research chemist in his laboratory, the inventor in his workshop, the designing engineer in his drawing office —these were the kinds of men who made possible the emancipation of the workers, men, women and children, from the utterly appalling conditions of a hundred years ago.

That was one of the subjects for thought left by Mr. A. Ernest Mander with the 84 people who attended his lecture in the Whiteley Hall, New Plymouth, under the auspices of the Workers’ Educational Association last night. He suggested, too, that we must rely largely on the same means to-day to enable the wealth of production to keep pace with increasing population and thus maintain and improve the standard of living of the masses. The Honourable Mr. Justice Smith, who presided, said he had something to do with the Workers’ Educational Association in the past. It was a movement that should be encouraged. Although it was started primarily for the teaching of economies to adults, its scope gradually widened so that it began to deal with such subjects as history, literature and even science. This was wise because men did not live by bread alone. The association, which was practically world-wide in its activities, in discussing these things, was showing men how to enjoy their leisure, a magnificent object that should be encouraged.

The lecturer (.Mr. A. Ernest Hander) began by stating that this lecture was to be of a different nature from those which had preceded it. His earlier lectures had been mainly descriptive of conditions, but this lecture would be mainly explanatory. Then next week ho would revert to description in taking as his subject the character and career of Robert Owen.

Mr, Mander then reminded his hearers of the utterly appalling condition of the working classes in England 100 years ago, and he referred' against .to the long h urs of labour—-72 to 84 hours a week —and to the low rates of wages. The industrial workers of England at that time were earning the equivalent in New Zealand to-day of about £3 a week for tradesmen and mechanics, 25s for labourers and factory hands and 18s for female workers, while hundreds of thousands of children 'were being paid the equivalent of 2s to 4s a week for upwards of 72 hours, and scores of thousands of pauper-apprentices were receiving only their bare “keep.” “The question is,” said the lecturer, “could higher wages have been paid? Could the hours have been reduced? What is the explanation of these conditions? Was there some inherent defect in the system? Would things have been different, for instance, under a socialistic system? Was it that the employing class had the workers at their mercy and ‘put the boot in’? Could things possibly have been better? Let

us look at the facts The first thing we need to know is the ratio of profits to turnover. When the finished product is

sold, how much of the price obtained for it goes to the millowner, and how much to the workers?” The lecturer quoted figures showing that net profits seemed to have averaged roughly one-seventh of the wages bill. So it was clear that even if it had been

possible to eliminate interest and profits altogether, wages could have been increased only by something less than oneseventh. He knew that it was easy and chzap and popular to assert dogmatically that there was always enough for all, if only it were fairly distributed. In point of actual fact there was not. The bare fact was that the productivity of industry had not, at this time, reached a level which would provide a comfortable living for all. Scientific knowledge had to be extended, more inventions and discoveries would have to be made, before that became possible.

THEORY OF MALTHUS. But at this time Malthus was drawing attention to another fact. He put his case in an extreme form that had been modified since. But there was no doubt that, apart from voluntary birth-control, his main principles were true, and were still true.

Mr. Mander then showed the growth of the population of England, from one and a half millions at the time of the Norman Conquest to seven millions in 1776. But in the next eighty-five years, in one man’s lifetime, between 1776 and 1861, the population of England increased from seven millions to twenty millions. • He showed how this vast and sudden increase came about, and then proceeded to give a statement of the •'modified Malthusian” argument. Malthus, writing about 1800, showed that there is always a tendency for population to increase up to the very limit of what the country could support at bare sustenance level. Double the productivity of the land, or of industry, and the population would also double itself. Apart from artificial checks, population would always reach the very limit. This conclusion was accepted by nearly all the leading sociologists of the age, including such leaders of labour as Francis Place. It seemed futile to attempt to raise the level of comfort for the working class because, however much production might increase, the total number to be supported would increase correspondingly.

THE STANDARD OF LIVING. After about 1845, however, the standard of living of the workers did rise rapidly. At the time men thought this refuted the argument of Malthus. But there were other facts to be considered—the stream of emigrants to America and the colonies, which checked the growth of population at home; the opening up of new virgin lands overseas; and the very rapid increase at this time of the productivity of power and machinery. These facts gave production an advantage in the race with population, an advantage that had been prolonged by the rapid fall in the birth-rate from 36 to 18 per 1000, and so the level, of comfort of the working classes had risen. The result was that to-day tradesmen

earned about 160 per cent, of the wages (real wages, measured by the level of prices) for about 60 per cent, as many hours work, as did the workers of 100 years ago. Moreover, children had gained another seven years of childhood, starting work at 13 or 14 instead of six or seven. And the workers’ wives, for the first time in history, had been freed from the necessity of earning their share of the family income and so freed to look after the children and the home. A mere handful of men —William Wilberforce, Meredith, Bennett, Romilly, Richard Oastler, Robert Owen, Michael Sadler, Francis Place and Lord Shaftesbury—gave themselves to fighting for better conditions. All honour was due to them; they were types of the real heroes of history. And yet truth compelled them to add that even they could have accomplished nothing, their appeals must have been in vain, had not further inventions, the improvement of machinery, the discovery of new natural forces, the extension and applications of science, made the improvement possible by increasing the productivity of industry.

After Mr. Mander had shown a number of lantern slides relating to bygone periods and answered questions, the chairman said that he had listened with interest to the lecture, which had been admirably clear and logically presented. 'One appreciated the fact that even at the present time there were some things that indicated all was not yet well. It led us to the conclusion that if we could throw ourselves 100 years forward from to-day we should still find some interesting problems. In moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Mander, Mr. Justice Smith said the lecturer had touched on two subjects of paramount importance —the increase of production and the limitation of population. Although an increase of human happiness n. ght not depend on these things only, it seemed to him that we could not have it without them.

Mr. J. H. Sheat moved a vote of thanks to the chairman, saying that his interest in the movement was very real. The fact that he had given his time to pieside that night was going to be of great service to the Workers’ Educational Association in New Plymouth, perhaps of greater service than his Honour icaliscd.