Art. 12.-THE POSITION OF TRADE UNIONS.

1. Reports of the judgments given in the Osborne case by the Court of Appeal (Nov. 28, 1908), and by the House of Lords (Dec. 21, 1909).

2. Reports of the proceedings of the Trade Union Congress at Sheffield (September, 1910).

3. Reports in the Daily Press of Labour disputes in various parts of Great Britain.

4. Report of the Board of Trade upon Conciliation and Arbitration Boards, 1910 [Cd. 5346].

5. Report of the Board of Trade upon Strikes and Lockouts, 1910 [Cd. 5325].

ONE of the most puzzling of recent industrial developments is the sudden outbreak of indiscipline among large bodies of Trade Unionists. Men in well-organised trades, subject to definite agreements for the settling of disputes by means of conciliation, and if necessary by arbitration, have suddenly thrown down their tools, ignoring their agreements and defying their leaders. At the same time there have been ugly scenes of violence, recalling some of the worst incidents of the early days of Trade Unionism. It seems as if the Trade Union movement had suddenly stepped back a generation, and as if the progress achieved in the last thirty years had been temporarily blotted out. Various theories have been put forward to account for this phenomenon, but it is doubtful whether any of the theories are capable of precise demonstration. All that can be safely said is that these symptoms of unrest have followed upon a persistent Socialist agitation among the working classes, and that there is plausible ground for believing that the unrest is partly the result of that agitation.

The Socialist agitation operates in two ways. Its first purpose is to create a feeling not merely of discontent, but of passionate revolt. Working men are taught that they are the victims of a systematic and unceasing robbery; that the wealth which they produce is filched from them; and that the capitalist is their worst enemy, who will crush them unless they crush him. Such teaching does not tend to create that conciliatory temper which is requisite if practical grievances with regard to

hours and conditions of work are to be settled amicably. In addition, a considerable section of the Socialist party is frankly contemptuous of Trade Unionism, and holds that the only way to secure progress is to gain control of the power of the State, and to use that power for the benefit of the working classes. So far as this doctrine is accepted, it shakes the faith of the working classes in their own Trade Unions, and disposes them to treat as negligible the advice of leaders who, while waiting for the social revolution, wish to make the best of Trade Union methods.

Thus the Socialist leaders themselves suffer from the results of their own teaching, for, though they condemn Trade Unionism as a played-out force, they have a very keen sense of the value of discipline, and it does not at all suit them to see the rank and file defying authority. Indeed, one of the most serious difficulties with which Trade Union leaders-most of whom are now Socialists-have to contend is the jealousy which the ordinary workman feels of his elected leaders. Not only is there always some rival waiting for an opportunity to step into the leader's shoes, but throughout the general body of the society there is an undercurrent of feeling that the leader who wears broadcloth and sits in an office or in the House of Commons has got an unduly soft job at the expense of the ordinary workman who has every day to go to the pit or the mill. This feeling finds open expression whenever the leaders advise a course which at the moment is unpopular; and the doctrine of universal equality then recoils somewhat unpleasantly on those who have been busily teaching it.

Another factor in the present situation is the recent establishment of Labour Exchanges, managed by the Board of Trade under the authority of an Act of Parliament, and with funds supplied from the National Exchequer. Until these exchanges were established, almost the only machinery for assisting masters to obtain workmen was that created by the Trade Unions. As soon as a member of a Union is out of a job, he reports himself at the Trade Union office; and, when an employer wants more hands, it is to that office that he generally sends. This well-understood system naturally operates so as to give the Unionist a better chance of

obtaining employment than the non-Unionist, and thus helps to strengthen the control of the Union over the trade, and in particular to enable it to cut off the supply of labour to an employer whose men are on strike. The new Government Exchanges of necessity ignore the distinction between Unionists and non-Unionists; nor can they take cognisance of a strike to the extent of refusing to send workmen to an employer who makes due application. The Trade Unions consequently find themselves threatened with a dangerous rivalry in a business of which they have hitherto possessed almost a monopoly. The seriousness of the alarm they feel can be gathered from the strong resolution passed at the Trade Union Congress in condemnation of the Labour Exchanges. The situation has its humorous side, for the proposal to establish Government Labour Exchanges received the warm support of the Labour party in the House of Commons; and the distribution of patronage in connexion with their establishment was entrusted to a committee of which Mr Shackleton, M.P., was a prominent member.

A somewhat similar situation has arisen in connexion with the Workmen's Compensation Act. This Act was intended to lead to the establishment of a system of insurance at the cost of the employer, which would enable a workman struck down by the disaster of an accident to obtain reasonable compensation. That intention has been fairly well attained, but in addition it has been found that the Act operates to exclude the more elderly men from employment, because the insurance companies ask for higher premiums to cover the greater risk of accident. Bitter complaints of these unforeseen, but easily foreseeable, results are being made all over the country, and found expression at the Trade Union Congress.

Of even greater importance to the position of Trade Unions than the matters already enumerated is the determination of a very active section of the Socialists to obtain, if possible, authority from Parliament to use the funds of the Trade Unions for the maintenance of the Labour party in the House of Commons. The issues here involved are constitutional as well as industrial. The constitutional aspects will be dealt with presently

but it is desirable first to point out the bearing of the Osborne judgment on the position of Trade Unions. That judgment is based upon the view that Trade Unions are industrial and not political organisations, and that the two purposes are so dissimilar that it is illegal to use the funds of a Trade Union for such purely political objects as the maintenance of Members of Parliament. The Socialists who control the Labour Party deny that Trade Unions are non-political bodies. Their view is that the Trade Unions are bodies existing for the benefit of the working class; that the working class can only be benefited through the action of the State; and that therefore it is the business of Trade Unions to obtain political power.

Incidentally it may be remarked that this is not the view of all Socialists. There is a body entitled the 'Socialist Labour party,' with an organ of its own called the 'Socialist.' In the September issue of this paper is a very interesting signed article criticising the Miners' Eight Hours Act from the Socialist point of view, and laying down the policy of this group of Socialists. After stating that the Labour leaders and the members of the Independent Labour Party and of the Social Democratic Party have only one cry-'Send us to Parliament and we will emancipate you,' the article continues:

'Summed up, this cry means that political action is allsufficient to emancipate the working class. It is a denial of the function of the Union. The Socialist Labour Party holds that the emancipation of the workers can only be achieved by the workers themselves; that it cannot be brought about by a bunch of office-holders; that it cannot be the result of legislative enactment.'

Whether this 'Socialist Labour Party' is numerically important, or not, the present writer has no means of knowing; but, in any case, the above quotation is interesting as evidence that even in the Socialist ranks there are critics of the doctrine that the effective advancement of the working classes can only come through political action.

Nor does the acceptance of this doctrine carry with it the further proposition that Trade Unions are justified in embarking upon political action. And here again it is interesting to note that there is a difference of opinion

among the Socialists themselves. The New Age,' which is without exception the most ably written of all the Socialist papers, in its issue of September 22, 1910, thus sums up its arguments upon the Osborne case :—

'Does all this mean that in our view Trade Unions should cease to engage in any direct political action? Undoubtedly it does, and we are prepared to stand by it. Have we not for the past three years been urging the Unions to stick to their last, and to work industrially, leaving other organisations to cover the political field?'

Mr Victor Grayson, whose real intellectual ability has been overshadowed by the incendiary folly of some of his speeches, is equally emphatic in supporting the Osborne judgment against the attack of the Labour Party. In a signed editorial in the 'Clarion' of September 23, 1910, Mr Grayson points out that, until quite recently, the watchword in all Trade Unions was 'No politics;' and that it is, therefore, absurd to pretend that, 'when these organisations were registered as Trade Unions, they were registered on the understanding that their funds might be used for the financing of an independent political party.' His conclusion is that Socialist Members of Parliament ought to 'depend for the sinews of war upon Socialist support, instead of as at present subsisting upon grudged and unfairly extorted money. The thing is cleaner and more dignified.'

go

These arguments state very clearly the fundamental issues involved; but the Labour Party will not readily let the large funds over which it has obtained control. By whatever means men obtain command of wealth, they are always reluctant to part with it; and the members of the Labour Party can at least claim that it is by their own brains and hard work that they have secured possession of the funds which maintain them in Parliament. They have cleverly pursued the Fabian policy of 'permeation' till they have succeeded in gaining almost complete control of the Trade Unions, and are able to profess that their voice is the voice of millions of working men. The ability which has enabled them to achieve this success is not likely to fail them now that they have to fight on the defensive.

Already it is clear that they have captured a