Labour Notes.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 16, 3 February 1893, Page 2

Labour Notes.

Mb John Burns has written an article in the Nineteenth Century for December, in which hedeals with the question of the unemployed. After the termination of the work of autumn, he tells us, the workers' army begins to gather in the towns and cities. Increasing education, political enfranchisement and economical knowledge, he says, have engendered among the people a hearty discontent at enforced idleness and poverty. The bolder spirits among them, meantime, make a nusiame of their grievance, acting on the suggestion contaloed, for example, in the language uttered by a certain noble politician, — " The people are only in earnest when they pull dowo railiogs, break windows, and create riots." Genuine distress, moreover, says Mr Burns, is exploited by designing men. Neveitbeless, that the recent unemp'oyed movement was bo used did not hide the suffering of the iaDk and file. And, even if the meetings were composed of thieves and loafer?, society, claims the writer, should anticipate them by providing work. This is felt even by the criminal class themselves. Mr Burns gives as an example a case in which a prisoner at Pentonville exhorted him thus, — " Stick to the unemployed, John, work is our only hope. '

Informer days, explains the writer, the unemployed were put off on various pretences. Then they could do nothing to help themselves, but now the extension of the franchise, education, trades uniouit-m, the Socialist propaganda, and the Labour movement have altered all that. The condition of the unemployed man in wretched ; that of the unemployed worn n infinitely more so. But whatever the movement among the workers may be, its end is to discover how honest workers can be provided with work, uncontaminated by the taint of pauperism, or the aid of charity. The writer goes on to show tha* the official figures quoted to prove a reduction of pauperism are fallacious »s to the non-existence of poverty. The unemployed, be continues, have to be kept in one of three conditions : — as paupers on the rateß ; aB criminals in prison ; or as wanderers in the streets, •ponging on their fellows or the charitable rich. The cheapest and ■afest way to provide for them, he Bays, is by means of work. But how 1 he asks. It must be done, he explains, by proper measures tending towards the reorganisation of society. But whatever is done under a competitive form, adds the wiiter, is only palliative and not permanently remedial. To some extent the existence of the unemployed 19 the corollary of the unrestricted competitive system — in which production for profit by a class is carried on irrespective of the social consequences to the community and the producers. The fact is, concludes Mr Burns, the basis of our social, economic, and industrial life is anarchic, and must be revolutionised.

The harshness of capital has, however, he says, been tempered in England by the poor law and by voluntary charity. The queation is, how may these agencies be concentrated. Ail charitable schemes for the relief of the unemployed, he asserts, end in the demoralisation of the donors, and the degradation of the recipients. A system ( of relief should be undertaken by the proper authorities, and carried out by paid offioia's doing their work properly. An Act of Parliament, Bays the writer, Bhould prevent Utopian philanthropists, like General Booth, Mr Arnold White, and others, from making London a happy bunting ground for charitable debauchees, and a centre to which loafers and tramps are drawn from all parts of the country. " The provision for the aged, Bick, and destitute ; the finding of employment for the able-bodied, is not," he adds, " the work of religious proselytism, or of the individual, however benevolently disposed. It is a collective, social and municipal duty, in which the minds, principals, energies, and organised sympathies of all men, absolutely non-religious and impersonal, should be embodied by and through those governmental and administrative agencies that should consciously carry out the scientifically ordered benevolence and desires of the community."

The first of the practical measures recommended by Mr Barns is the obtaining of exact information as to the number of the unemployed. He goes on to give particulars of the state of tradeespecially in London — which is by no means satisfactory. Reliable statistics, he says, could only be obtained from labour bureaux. The bureau, he adds, should be the medium of communication between men seeking work and employers, and should eliminate loafers, to whom little consideration is due. Until the differentiation referred to takes place, he asserts, the unemployed question will never be properly discussed and dealt with. The success of the genuine labour movement, he declares, depends on discipline.

Mr Burns gives the following details respecting over-time :— At Chatham, he says, from April to August, 4,000 men were working for 13£ hours per day instead of 9£ ; at the time at which he wrote 1,800 men were working there 3£ hoars overtime. At Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devon port, and Woolwich, the same state of things existed— and possibly to this and the nature of the work so hurriedly done, the writer believes the breakdowns that had occurred in certain iron-clads were due. The fatal railway accident at Thirsk he attributes to the under-manning of the working-staff for the benefit of the directors. In 1891, he says, 628 men were killed, and 9,601 injured, out of less than 200,000 men employed on the railways, and from 1874 to 1892 the number of the killed waa 12,000, and that of the injured 160,000. The eight-hours' day, he adds, would reduce the slaughter by 50 per cent., and if applied to all the railway! would absorb 100,000 men — at a reduction, it is true, of dividends by 1 per cent.

" But," says Mr Burns, " whatever may be done of a gradual and tentative character in the towns and cities by public works or by reduction of the hours of labour will be permanently useless, till the influx from the countryside is stopped, and machinery is made the servant, and not, as now, the master of the men, How this is to be done it is difficult to say, and apparently nothing but the justifiable appropriation by the rural authorities of the uncultivated land will do it, la the general interests of the country something must be attempted to prevent the land lying idle. Year by year the community looks on as field after field is added to sporting estates, and men give way to deer, — Iv many country districts peasants rot, whilst the pheasants rule ; and game is master where man is hunger's sport. — The creation of parish and district councils must stop this, and, let ub hope, will furnish the labourer and farmer with the means not only of cultivation where now desolation reigns, but will provide the means for more attractive life on the soil, higher wages, and that a'eadiness of work tbat will stem the exodus to the towns, to the physical detriment of the nation, and to the addition to London's burdens and poverty which now goes on."

" Any attempt at labour colonies, unemployed settlements, elevators, farm colonieß, municipal workshops, and other social will-o'-the-wisps will fail," Mr Burns says, '' as they have always done. Man is, even in social and political reform, a gregarious animal, and loathes separation or isolation from his fellows, even for his own improvemi nt, Into the mass of the industrial army the ragged regiments of the unemployed must be absorbed. Over trade, commerce, agriculture, and labour, the cost, not of finding merely work for the work less, but rather of reducing the hours of all that are overworked, Bhould be spread. It needs no charge, is the simplest way, avoids friction, displacement, and migration. In this way every consumer at Home and abroad in the price of the product be buys will, through the added cost of shorter hours, pay equally with the manufacturer and producer for the maintenance of people that, without these shorter hours, would be unemployed, and the cost of which would be borne by the producers alone. Absorption of the unemployed by general reduction of hours, this followed by manicipalisation of in-

dnstry and nationalisation of monopolies, is the line of least resistance for all. It is regulation oi riot, reduction or revolution "

Mr Thomas Bart, M. P., criticising in the Nineteenth Century for December Mr Chamberlain's recent article in the Contemporary, says it is saturated with extreme political partisanship. He denies the claim made as to the benefits conferred by the Tories on the workingclasses, and contradicts the contrast dnwn between the old tradesnoions and the new. The programme of legislative reforms, he says, is notable for its omissions. Mr Bart agrees with Mr Chamberlain as to the appointment of a Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. He has amendments to propose to other proposals with which he agrees. The Labour question, he says, must be faced with courage, but with caution and judgment. Above all, it must not be made the shuttlecock of party combatants.

Mr H. H. Champion, also in the Nineteenth Century, says that on the whole Mr Chamberlain's survey of the schools of Labour politicians is fairly accurate. As representing Labour voters who put the interests of labour before those of any political party, he asks :—: — Does Mr Chamberlain mean business 7 Is he in a position to do busi* nest? Is the Labour party in a position to do business with him? Mr Champion does not doubt Mr Chamberlain's sincerity, and his conclusion is that he does mean business. He sees, too, a way, under ceitain conditions, of his effecting his object. His position is a strong one. Seven years ago the Liberal Unionists in Parliament were 77 ; now they are 46. But they are the Chamberlain party, and it must be assumed that, in bis proposals, he has the assent of his followers. Mr Champion, however, thinks it doubtful that the Unionist party, as a whole, will accept the policy in question. — " For my part," he concludes, " I agree witb Mr Chamberlain that the Gladstonians have neither the power, capacity, nor will, to carry anything like so large a number of changes as be has indicated. lam further willing to admit it conceivable that the Unionist party might endorse and carry inch a programme. If they can give evidence that they will do so when entrusted with a new lease of power, I am of opinion that the

working classes would be fools indeed to refuse to give them that power." P9l# Mr J. Keir-Hardie, M.P., says that Mr Chamberlain's article is chiefly remarkable for its omissions. It is as niggardly in its proposals as stilted in its style, and has evoked ridicule. It is not, bowerer, altogether without value. It shows that an acute politician oa the hunt for votes is awakening to the consciousness that the labour vote is worth catering for. Besides, Mr Chamberlain's political opponents will now be obliged to go one better in the same direction. A politician, meantime, who takes up a question to attract votes would probably drop it as readily if the balance of votes turned out to be on the other side. As to the contents of the article referred to : the assumption that the working classes are much better off than their forbears were 50 years ago is the half-truth that forms the blackest of lies. The classification of schools of political and economical thought is crude and misleading. The six divisions resolve themselves practically into two sections ;—(1); — (1) the Individualist who is an anarchist plus a policeman, the Old Onion is ta having all been ■uch before their conversion ; (2) the New Unionist and Collectivism who are bat varieties of the State Socialist. By his programme Mr Chamberlain hopes to wean the workers from Home Bule. It contains not on* original or bold idea. No mention is made in it of the land system ; there is not one word of hope for the prisoners of poverty in Slnmland ; there is nothing about the unearned increment or a progressive income-tax. It will give general offence aod will conciliate no one. Mr Heir-Hard ie confesses himself bitterly disappointed. If, he says, the programme is a party movement, it is a dismal failure. If it is honestly meant, Mr Chamberlain cannot do better than follow the advice he himself gives, to study the social problem* He deßervea credit, however, fur speaking definitely as the leader of a party. Mr Bam Woods, M.P., says there is, in Mr Chamberlain's article, nothing new, nothing interesting. There is string after itriag of commor>place arguments. If Mr Chamberlain and other political

leaders are sincere, he says, in their professed sympathy with the social and labour questions, they may rely on the support of the Labour leaders in Parliament. " But, if it be merely a movement on their part to cain party prestige, or a course of party intriguing, as seems to be half-shadowed forth in the concluding sentences of Mr Chamberlain's article, such conduct will meet with the united and hostile opposition of the Labour Members in the House of Commons, and the irresistible criticism of the trades unions and working classes in the country .''

Mr Champion, in the paper froza which we have quoted, gives ua some information as to the Parliamentary strength of the Labour party. He admits that the number of Independent Labour votes, although increasing, is at present very small. "At the General Elections the candidates who got this vote only, were in every instance at the bottom of the poll. None of those who opposed a passable Gladstonian got into four figures, though there may be a certain significance in the fact that the most successful (or least unsuccessful) of them was the most extreme anti-Gladstonian contesting a supposed Separatist stronghold. The success of two men who polled the Gladstonian-cum Labour vote and easily best Conservatives, though when getting the pure Labour vote previously in other constituencies they only got about 600, is not more encouraging, for naturally, seats won by the help of Gladstonians can only be retained by the same allies. As far as the data go, they show that, in the position of parties this year, even where the Independent Labour vote is strongest, its strengh is numbered by a few hundreds." Mr Champion believes, nevertheless, that the vote is capable of reversing at the next elections the verdict of la*t July. Its strength, he says, lies not only in numbers but in the sagacity and courage with which the numbers are üßed.

Mr Keir-Hardie explains as follows his denial of Mr Chamber* lain's statement that the working classes are now much better off than were their predecessors 50 years ago :— " The relative proportion of the produce of labour, which is paid to even the best paid section

of the workers to-day is considerably less than itwas fifty years ago, while the number of those peimanently condemned to the lot of the casual labourer has increased ; the perfecting of mechanical appliances and the spread of piece-work has induced a pressure and intensity at work which is killing and which in the days of our grandfathers was all but unknown. Work is much more precarious than ever it was, and the fear of being dismissed, which in periods of dull trade haunts tha mind of the man who has passed his fortieth year, is a positive terror, because once dismissed and the chances of reengagement are very slight. Besides, if income has, in some cases increased, so has outlay. . . . Periods of good trade are shortening with every recurrence, which implies a corresponding lengthening of the periods of depression); and at the back of everything else we have the undeniablt fact that the lot of the very poor has not improved any. They started as paupers, actual or poten'ial, fifty ypars ago, and such they remain, the growing wealth < f the na'ion and of the rich but the more accentuating their miseries and hinging them out in greater relief. It is safe to say that never before w*s the sordid struggle for existence so intense in tne ranks of the woik> rs as it is to-day, what exceptions thsre are only serving to prove the rule ; and one lookb in vain beneath the surface for those ' marvellons improvements ' of which Mr Chamberlain is so enamoured." A writer in the Quarterly Review for October, who pronounces a panegyric on Lord Salisbury and his administration, confirms, nevertheless, the statement we have quoted from Mr John Burns as to tfe overtime and hurry exacted of men in the shipbuilding yards of the Government. " The largest and finest vesspls of war," he writes, were turned out in the shortest space of time ever known, and smaller battle-ships were completed at a rate which astonished navai men in all countries." This is a phase of that consideration fjr he workingmen which, according to Mr Chamberlain, is characteristic of the Tories. Here is the funny side of the affair — from the Melbourne Punch '. —"The Labour party in N.B.W. intends to return Sleath next dec-

tion, even if be is in gaol. If the L.P. is going to go to gaol for its representatives, it is to be hoped it will sleet long sentence men." — Punch, as we perceive, is funnily aristocratic.

An agent and organiser of the " New Australia " project has been interviewed at Broken Hill by a contributor to the Barrier Miner, His expectations seem to be great indeed. The Australian Governments, it seems, were applied to, but none of them were prepared to make the necessary land concessions without special legislation, and a sufficient extent of territory could not be obtained in New Zealand. Besides, it was thought desirable to convey the expedition out of the reach of a strong centralising Anglo-Saxon government, and beyond the range of such temptations as that, for example, of the Melbourne cup. The tract of coun'ry now thought of, though not as yet decided on, lies at the foot of the Andes, near the head waters of the Bio Negro, and in latitude 38deg. 8., a railway terminus being distant from the extremity that approaches nearest to it 200 miles. The life of this settlement within is to be perfect, and its influences without most salutary. It is to check emigration from Great Britain by proving from its exodus to the starving multitudes there that people in Australia are no better off than they are themselves, and that they may, therefore, as well stay and be buried by the parish at home. It is to hold out the right hand of fellowship to the Australian workers, and enable them to keep a stiff upper lip by providing them with a place of refnge — rather difficult of access, perhaps— when the squatters want to get rid of them. As to what is to take place within the settlement— it may be explained as everything that is perfect. They are to produce just as much as they want and no more — giving, of course, to everyone enough and to spare. Everyone is to work except those that cannot, and the hours are to be such as are found necessary, eight being the maximum limit. They are to have education and journalism, and even a fag end of religion (from working parsons), and electric trams, and hand looms. All, we may add, is at the command of anyone who has £60 to throw away. Bo much he must contribute to the common fund, and be may give as much more as he has. In any case, he is not to keep a farthing for himself. The

promoters, we are told, see one danger — that of internal dissension. " But they have sufficient faith in human nature to believe that the danger will be overcome." Is It not human nature, nevertheless, from which they are running away ?—"? — " Autolyeus," the contributor to the Miner, concludes, as we may conclude with him :—": — " I, for one, still have my doubts ; but I heartily wish them luck." — And yet what luck do people deserve who deliberately act an inconceivably foolish part T It is luck they will have, however, at best — the pot-luck of the desert.