THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF LABOUR.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 48, 4 September 1891, Page 21

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF LABOUR.

LECTCTBK BY CARDINAL MORAN.

(Sydney Freeman's Journal, August 22).

The Cardinal-Archbishop's lecture on the " Rights and Duties of Labour " may be set down as the event of the week. The lecture was the outcome of a request of his Lordship Dr Higgins that his Eminence would say something in the form of h public address by way of assisting in clearing off the debt on St Benedict's school-hall. The lecture was delivered on Monday evening in the New Masonic Hall, and the public interest was shown by the fact that, though contrary to the rule in Sydney, rather high prices were asked for the tickets the body of the hall was completely filled, while the large gallery at a shilling admission was crowded. A more interesting platform has rarely been seen in Sydney, all political parties and the Parliamentary Labour party in particular, being represented. The Hon Dr Andrew Garran, M.L.C. (president of tho late Royal Commission on Strikes), occupied the cbair. His Eminence, who was received with enthusiastic cheers, said :—: — My presence in this great assembly this evening may appear to some one amongst you to reverse the proverbial scene of Saul among the Prophets. Shunning, as I do, the political arena, why is it that I came to address you on one of the burning political questions of the hour? Why is it that around me on this platform are so many leading citizens, representatives of political life, some who every day are engaged in the thickest of the Parliamentary strife, others who guide the helm of Stata, or on whose energy and patriotism we all rely for developing the resources of this fair land ? But, gentlemen, it. is not in any politic il sens* that I come to address you this evening on the rights and the duties of labour. I wish to view thoee rights and duties solely in the light of the great moral principles which are the bulwark of society, the foundation on which ail social order rests, whilst from the teae iiogs of history and of daily experience I would derive practical lessons to safeguard the interests alike of capital and of labour, upon which the welfare of Australia so vitally depends. And you will permit me to remark that when there is a question of the rights and duties of labour the Church may justly claim that her voice be heard. There was a time when labour was the synonym of slavery, and when the working class were sunk in utter degradation and despondency as slaves. The Church took the slave by the hand, impressed upon his brow the seal of heaven's love, and revealed to rich and poor alike the liberty and equality of God's children. Again, when the barbarians poured down like an avalanche of destiuciion on Imperial Rome, crushing to the dust the institutions and traditions of the then civilised world, it was the voice of the Church that summoned those very barbarians from their career of lawlessness aud selfishness, and teaching them the dignity of labour, and sanctifying their hands for work, built up with them the great nation of mediaeval Christendom. In later times tbe

Church was ever at her post to assert the rights cf the poor, to champion the cause of liberty, and to mediate between the oppressed and the oppressors. It is only the other day that the present illustrious Sovereign Pontiff addressed to the whole Catholic world his magnificent Encyclical on the condition of labour, which from governments and peoples alike has elicited the warmest eulogy and the highest praise. There is one other preliminary remark that I would wish to make. It is said at times that the relations which have so long subsis'ed between capital and labour cannot ba changed. Better by far, tbey say, to build up new barriers against the advancing tide than to give legal sanction to what is nothing less than a revolution in the existing order of things. Gentlemen, this is a view of matters with which our statesmen will have to deal. Tbe rising flood too often breaks through the barriers which are raised against it and spreads ruin and desolation around. It is at times more prudent to open Dew channels and water-courses so that tbe rising tide may become a source of freshness and fertility and beauty to the surrounding plains. I do not think that there is any wrong to be redressed which in a free country may not be reached by tbe just laws of the land, but if, to remedy a manifest injustice and to redress tbe crying hardships under which a great majority of the people are oppressed, a revolution be necessary, then I say a revolution for me will have no ter ors. It was a revolution when the victorious legions of Constantino entered Borne with the banners of the Cross unfurled in triumph. It was a revolution when tbe Barons of England, marshalled at Bunnymede, extoited from the king the Magna Cbarta of our liberties. Many of us are old enough to remember how, in the British Parliament and in the public Press every attempt to alter the relations between the landlords and the tenants in Ireland was denounced as masked treason and open confiscation and robbery. Nevertheless the voice of justice was heard. The rival parties joined bands to redress what was found to be unjust, the relations between the Irish landlords and tenants hare been literally revolutionised, and every thoughtful man in the empire rejoices at the change. Ido not think that any such revolution or radical change is at all necessary to secure amongst us the just claims of labour. On the contrary, many of the rights for which the workman has to contend in other countries have been readily granted among ourselves, and it needs little more than to state the case in regard to the other rights of labour (hat the justice of the claim may be recognised. Entering now on the immediate subject of my discourse, I am sure there is not one amongst us but will accept the general principle that the labourer is entitled to partak ; in the fullest measure of every privilege and advantage which the Sta'eacords to its free citizens. And here, once for all, I would wish to rem^ik tbat though the generic designation of labourer or working man may embrace even those who cultivate the fine arts, or who exert the higher faculties of the mind, yet in the present dibcu^ion it is to be understood in its popular acceptance as referring; specially to those who use their bodily strength in daily toil as bread earnera for themselves or families. Now it is toj true that there are countries where the right of suffr-ge is still denied to the working man, where he is ineligible to Parliament, where even the municipal franchise is withheld from him. But amongst ourselves, in this free land of Australia, all such disabilities have been long since cancelled, and the humblest labourer is entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, on a level with the wealthiest capitalist, and we see inatances every day in proof that practically he enjoys such privileges. Very few amongst us will question the two specific rights ; first, that the labourer f ulfilß his duty by a fair day's toil, the measure of that toil being proportionate to the nature of the work in which he i-i engaged ; and, secondly, that fair wages should recompansa the labourer's toil. Man ia not a mere beast of burden, nor is it the sole purposa of his life to get through all the material work which his physical strength can accomplish. Behgious and domestic and Bocial duties await him, and these, if he be true to tbe dignity of his nature, he must faithfully diecharg . The dudes of wives and mothers, of husbands and fathers, the peace and purity of homes, and the education of children are written in the natural law of mankind, and these he cannot surrender. "To consent to any treatment which is calculated to defeat the end and purpose of his being is bjyond his right ; he cannot give up his soul to servitude ; for it is not man's own rights which aie here in question, but the lights of GoJ, most sacred and inviolable." [Encyclical.] Nothing can be more conformable to these principles than the eight hour system, which is now so generally adopted amongst us, and which the instinct of a free people will soon extend to tbe whole labouring class. But one instance will suffice to Illustrate how tlowly and wuh what hesitation the Parliament of England comes to recognise these righs. At the international Labour Conference, held in Berlin, in March, 1890, a resolution on the half time system was adopted, raising the mmimum age of child labour in factories to 12 yeats This resolution was accepted by the representatives of Germany. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. The representatives of Eng-

land accepted it also after special instruction to that effect bad been forwarded by Lord Salisbury ; and Sir John Gorst, speaking in the name of ber Majesty's Government, then declared that " the limit of 12 years has been specially adopted by the Conference in consideration of the demands of physical, moral, and intellectual development of the children. . . . We can pledge ourselves for Great Britain that our Government, faithful to its action in the past, will conform resolutely in the future, if it does not even go beyond them, to the benevolent principles of the Conference." The age limit for those half-time children was hitherto 10 years, and 39,000 children under 12 years of age were thus employed in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire. The evidence of the teachers in the mannfacturing districts was to the effect that the employment of these young children as half-timers tended to make them dull and exhausted, and there* f jre inapt for school work, while the evidence of the certifying surgeons and other medical officers waa oat less decisively to the effect that the employment was injurious to their health, and tended to their permanent physical deterioration. The children thus employed worked every day for six hours from six o'clock a.m. till half-past twelve, one half hour only being allowed for breakfast, and the average payment was something less than 3a per week, or Id per hour. The work, however, in which they are engaged is remunerativejtj the employers, for one child suffices for what is called the spinning-mule, which contains 950 spindles. The question of adopting the B erlin resolution came on for discus 3ion in Parliament in the month of June iv the present year. It was proposed by a private member, the Government measure being silent in regard to it. In committeej.it was rejected by a majority of three, but subsequently under certain modifications it was accepted by a small majority of the House, and thus the honour of the country was saved, and the vital interests of the children were at least partially defended. The misery and wretchedness which attend on insufficient wages and are too often followed by crime, need not here be dwelt upon.' And yet it has been found no less difficult to redress this than to remedy the former evil. In the Rjyal Commission on Labour, evidence was given to the effect not only that the wages in the factories were reduced to the lowest amount, barely sufficient to enable the labourer to live and work, but that in manifold ways he was unjustly dealt with in the payment of such wages. Thus at times payment was made in publichouses kept by the paymaster, but the property of the employer. The time of payment was prolonged till late at night, and the workman who would not drink became a marked man to be dismissed on the first opportunity. Sometinie3 payment was made in goods, or by orders for goods on traders, who themselves were supplied by the employer, and too often the workmen were found to have been cheated as to the quantity and the quality of Buch goods. In olden times the tenant was compelled to grind his corn at the mill of the lord of the manor. This custom continued in Leeds down to the year 1839, when the city ha i to pay £13,000 that the citizens might be exempted from this feudal imposition. Sometimes, too, the employer erected cottages, and the workmen, who bad no choice of dwelling, wera charged an exorbitant rent for them. All th.s may be comfortable to the maxim of political economy, " Buy Übour as cheaply as you can " ; but there is a higher and holier law, which declares that " the labourer is worthy of his hire," and to defraud him of it is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. And it must be borne in mind that the labourer's wages should suffice not only to maintain his streagthand vigour, and to make provision for the rainy day, sickness, and old age, but should yield a competence, moreover, for the frugal support of his wife and family and enable him to educate his children in the paths of virtue and' industry and to equip them for their career of life. In Australia taose rights are very generally admitted to be the dictates of common Bense and are recognised by all. Allow me to add that in many ways the material condition of our Australian artizan class might serve as a model to many other countries, in the wages which they receive, the hours that they work, and the general comfort of their homesteads. I do not know that any other sight in Sydney is more cheering than the family groups on their holiday trips. Children and parents, with their picnic baskets and in their gay attire, present such a picture of contentment and domestic life as would seem to realise the dreams of Goldsmith in his Deserted Village. I must now invite your attention to what I consider a matter of main importance in connection with my subject. Now-a-days much is said about Freedom of Contract, and may I be permitted to contend that that precisely should be the bulwark of the labonrer's industry and the paladium of the workman's rights. Nevertheless, no other form of words has been so misused, perhaps, in modern time, till is the hands of designing men it has been turned into an engine of robbery, and the very name of liberty has become a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. Iv its true meaning it should not be so. Let us consider the terms Freedom of Contract. The one is the noblest heritage with which nature has endowed us ; the other is the sure basis by which commercial enterprise and all mutual interchange of property subsist. If we link together those terms, we should see that the conditions of true freedom, and at the same time the conditions

of ft jnst contract are verified, aod then freedom of contract becomes the surest guarantee of our social rights. Unfortunately , too of ten such conditions are not verified. In spite of contracts the law of the land has to step iD every day to protect the weak against the strong and it declares null contracts which are unjnst or injurious to the public weal. The Chief Justice of England, Lord Coleridge, has not hesitated to state that "contracts nominally free might be cruel instruments of tyranny and oppression, to be denounced by moralists, and to be summarily set aside by just and fair laws ; ' and he added that a contract must be consideied void " when one party to a contract / can impose, and the other party to it must accept its terms, however " burdensome, however inherently nnjust." Hence, I say, the contract should be free. If it be compulsory it ceases to be binding. It should, moreover, be comformable to the true conditions of freedom, consistent with man's natural rights, as well as with the rights of society and with the rights of others. On the one hand, it must not be a liberty to oppose or to extort anything that is unfair ; on the other, it cannot be a freedom to barter away one's inalienable rights or to encroach upon the rights that others enjoy. In the Royal Commission on Trades Unions the question was asked by one who championed the capitalists' claims, " Is it not optional with the miners to go into the pit ?" « Certainly," was the reply, " but it is also optional with them to starve if they do not go." Thus it is that Freedom of Contract came to mean, in too many cases, liberty to plunder, to defraud, and to oppress, and linked with it was the liberty to adulterate everything we eat or drink or wear ; whilst on the part of the oppressed it was a liberty to endure the agonies of hunger and despair, a liberty to die by want of food, or, as Carlyle has expressed it, a still more fatal liberty to live in want of work." An instance from one of the Royal Commissions will best illustrate how a contract nominally free may become an engine of tyranny. In ■everal of the factories the masters avail themselves of children's labour. It was common for the master to send for the parent and to offer an advance of money, an irresistible temptation, on the condition of the repayment of the loan by his child's labour. The bond was duly signed, and was enforced by the magistrates. A child of tender age, under these conditions, seldom received as much as a shilling a week for its work, and as the wages were paid to the parent instead of being allowed to gradually cancel the debt, the child continued to be worked as a slave, and its slavery was prolonged for an indefinite time. Some masters possessed as many as four or five hundred of these unhappy creatures. The moral condition of the children is thus described :-" Without education, without moral or religious training, these children are compelled at ten or eleven years of age to work in the mills, and there we see them rocked by the cradle into a maturity of vice, completed by the conversation of older boys and men, whose every breath is an offensive expression or an oath, and who appeared to be suckled ia sin, cradled in profligacy, and catechised in blasphemy." This was in the factories. In the mines it was no better. Oje of the sub-commissioners appointed to inspect the mines, in his official report stated that he found children only six years old carrying half a hundredweight, and making regularly fourteen long journeys a day. There was a common practice of drawing loads by means of the girdle and chain. Children, boys and girls, had a girdle bound round their waist, to which a chain was attached. In this way, going on all fours, they had to draw the cart through narrow and damp passages • their sides were blistered by the girdle, their backs were kept bent all day, and the pains they endured were sometimes intolerabie. or rpl UU OH O H ? ° mmißßioner ?ddß-"? ddB -" Any 8i B ht more disgustingly indecent or revolting can Bcarcely be imagined." But why do I refer to this much-debated matter of Freedom of Contract? It is that the worker should avail of it to defend his interests and assert his rights, for where the n.cessary conditions of a free and just contract are verified it cannot be but an aegis of protection to him and the guarantee of his just claims. The skilled workman is entitled to fair wages for his day's toil, but it appears to me that h* may with all justice contract to have a fair share in the abundant fruits which result from his toil. Now, lam far from asserting that all the profits are the fruit of the workman's toil The brains that direct, the capital that sustains, the energy that carries on the work, all have their part in producing those fruits, and are entitled to their due recompense. But I would wish to remove the complaint so generally made that capitalists, particularly in jointstock concerns, draw to themselves an exorbitant portion of the results obtained by the united action of labour and capital, and what has hitherto been a source of disunion and bitterness I would wish to make a means of securing concord, strength and peace. What holds good for the labourer must hold true for the capitalist also. He ia entitled to his support in frugal sobriety with a sufficient competence and all those comforts that befit his position, or maintain bis dignity and repay his outlay. But in the name of common sense why should he be entitled to receive a thousand per cent, on hia capital, whilst tt^e workman receives only the fixed wages of his daily toil'? The workman's industry and skill and toil are so much capital, which he invests, and why Bhould not a Bhare in the thousand per cent, reward bis investment as well as that of the employer ? Thiß would' i

be an act of justice to the labourer, and it would be an effectual way of bridging over tbt ever-widening golf between capital and labour which tbe beet friends of the Empire do not cease to deplore. As far back as 1843 Mr Gladstone declared that " it is one of the most melancholy characteristic!! of the social condition of England that a decrease in the power of consumption among the people and an increase of privation and misery among the labouring classes should go hand in hand with a constant accumulation of wealth in the higher classes of society and with the constant growth of capital." Twenty years later, in 1863, the same statesman, as Chancellor of Exchequer, stated in Parliament — " The fact is astonishing and scarcely credible, of this intoxicating increase of wealth and power confined entirely to the possessing classes," whilst in the labouring classes " human life, in seven cases out of ten, is a mere struggle for existence." Another distinguished public man has writtea that " the rich are becoming rapidly wealthier, whereas no increase can be discerned in the comforts of the labouring classes . Tbe means of livelihood are getting dearer, the working people are becoming almost the slaves of those petty tradesmen whose debtors thiy am." What is remarkable, the condition of the agricultural labourer was found to be the worst in those counties of England where agriculture was most flourishing. In many parts of England women have had to work fifteen hours a day on tea and dry bread and very often the wages did not nuffice to supply that pittance. In London, at the present day, the riches of the whole world are poured into its coffers, yet nowhere are such degradation, wretchedness and misery to be found among the labouring classes. The Dock Strike in the summer of 1889 was a revolt against the conditions of labour which had become practically intolerable. The permanent staff ol labourers employed in tbe docks was small. The main part of the work was systematically carried on by casual labourers, at the lowest possible rate of pay. At the same time, congestion of tbe population caused the rents of roomß and of corners of rooms to lise. At length the verge of starvation could go no further. There were countless instances of men suffering from extreme privation, yet they made no complaint. Tney went to their work, carrying their empty dinner cans in order to keep up appearances, and they toiled till evening without a morsel of food. It was only when they became faint through want of sustenance, and when the strokes of the drill and pick conld no longer be heard, that the reality of things dawned upon their companions, many of whom were only a shade better off than the sufferers. Then the skilled labourers made common cause with them, contributions from all parts of the world wera sent to succour them, and as a result the Docks" Committee were forced to make practically a complete surrender. Every day the complaint is repeated, throughout the continent of Europe, that capital is an insatiable Bponge, absorbing all the fruits of labour, and that whilst one man is enriched beyond measure, thousands are left in the lowest condition of drudgery and misery. This is an unnatural state of affairs, and, in the experience of hietory, must lead to ruin. Let me explain, by a few examples, how a remedy might be applied to this growing evil. Not very loog ago, the owner of a spinning mill at Leeds publicly stated that if his workmen used diligence at their work, and avoided waste, they would add £4,000 a year to his profits. Would it not be worth the while of this employer to divide that surplus profit with the workmen and thus stimulate their diligence and industry to their work ? This would be true freedom of contract, remunerating alike the employer and the employed. Last year in Germany, a large joint stock company notified a new arrangement to its employees. It was hitherto the custom to give a present to its woakmen from year to year, proportionate to the profits of the year's transactions. It now made this present a matter of contract, so that the workmen could claim ii as a right, and a fixed sum was allotted to each workman for every one percent, that is added to the dividends. (To be concluded.)