BOOK III.

LABOUR AND CAPITAL IN ANTAGONISM.

CHAPTER I.

THE ENDS OF TRADES' UNIONISM.

IN enquiring, as we may now proceed to do, into the means and ends of Unionism, and in considering how far these can respectively be termed legitimate, we shall find it convenient to treat the two separately. Inasmuch, too, as the former can scarcely be deserving of commendation, if the latter be reprehensible, we shall do well to reverse the usual order of things, and to take the last first. Beginning thus with the ends, we have yet another separation to make. We must be careful to distinguish between what actually is and what possibly might be, and must not allow the charms of a beautiful ideal to disguise from us the homeliness and coarseness of a somewhat commonplace reality. By some uncompromising admirers of Unionism, the loftiness and modesty of its aspirations are alternate themes of praise, and are each in turn urged as sufficient recommendations. By one very zealous and very powerful advocate its object is represented to be nothing less than the entire remodelling of existing industrial arrangements, the complete abolition of hiring and service, and the substitution for those invidious relations between man and man, of a generous partnership in which employers should take their places as Captains of Industry,' while the employed cheerfully and trustfully subordinated themselves as rank

and file; the former assuming the duties of superintendence, and finding tools, materials, and immediate subsistence, the latter 'finding strength, patience, and manual skill.' A rose-tinted picture this, and a visionary, yet not impossibly prophetic. It is at least one quite capable of realisation, and one, moreover, which trades' unions might, if they chose, materially assist in realising; thereby paving the way towards still better things beyond, and, even without advancing farther, amply atoning thereby for all previous shortcomings or backslidings. Hitherto, however, they have been so far from making a move in that direction, that they will probably be both surprised and amused to find any such tendency attributed to them. 'Captains of Industry,' quotha. Yes, verily, every unionist private may perhaps be well enough content that there should be officers in the army of labour; only with this important proviso, that he himself should hold one of the commissions.

Not more ground is there for the same writer's assertions that Unionism aims, above all, at making even, regular, and safe, the workman's life,' and that 'one of its chief functions is to resist the tendency to continual fluctuations in wages.' Let it be admitted to be, as it undoubtedly is, an immense aggravation of the evils of the labourer's lot, that his earnings are liable to continual variation; let it be admitted that to those who, whether from necessity or habit, live from hand to mouth, lowering of wages may mean 'personal degradation, eviction from house and home, sale of goods and belongings, break-up of household, humiliation of wife, ruin of children's bodies and minds.' But let it at the same time be recollected that fluctuation of wages implies progress as well as retrogression, and sudden enhancement not less than sudden reduction 'by ten, twelve, or fifteen per cent. ;' and let it be asked whether, for the sake of exemption from the one, labourers in general would be content to forego their chances of the other. Would they really agree that their rates of pay, like those of secretaries, managers, and clerks, should, for a

longer or shorter term of years, remain absolutely stationary and unaffected by the vicissitudes of commerce? Was such a proposition ever made by any trades' union? If it should be made, the most obvious reason why employers might hesitate to accede to it would be a well-founded apprehension that the men would not by extra exertion in busy times make up for their inaction while business was slack. The plan might naturally seem to them unlikely to answer for either party. They might naturally fear that if the men had nothing to gain by working hard, they would set about their work as listlessly and lifelessly as clerks in certain public offices on fixed salaries are shrewdly suspected of doing, and without any of the mutual emulation which brings out individual skill and talent. But be this as it may, before the plan can be adopted, there must be a thorough change in the unionist mind, and a relinquishment of the more attractive half of the things on which its affections are at present set. For at present, at any rate, it is only the retrogressive element in fluctuation to which unionists object. They insist that the rate of wages shall never go back, but they are scarcely less eager that it should be frequently going forward. Mr. Harrison, indeed, assures us that the most perfectly-organised and most powerful of all trades' societies, viz., the Amalgamated Engineers, whose strength is so great 'that no contest with them would have a chance of success, and which is so well known that it never has to be exercised in a trade dispute of their own,' have neither raised wages nor attempted to do so during the last ten years. But this statement is not quite accurate, nor, if it were, would it necessarily have all the significance that Mr. Harrison attaches to it. Until

*

* According to Mr. Allan, Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineers, although in London and Manchester, engineers' wages fluctuated little until within the last twelve months, in the North of England and in Scotland, they have improved vastly within the last few years—year after year almost. Mr. Allan also states that there have been three or four strikes within the last ten years, expressly for the purpose of raising wages-two at Blackburn, one at Preston, and one at Keighley.

a few months before he wrote, the London builders had, for an equally lengthened period, similarly acquiesced in a stationary scale of wages; but in their case, at any rate, it is clear that such exemplarly forbearance was the result not so much of moderation as of good strategy. For some years they had continued quietly taking the same wages, evincing indeed a firm resolution not to submit to reduction, but asking for no advance; but it now appears that they were only waiting until an advance worth struggling for should seem to be obtainable by a struggle. When the opportunity came they changed their tactics at once, put forward a new claim, and on its being refused, struck, and obtained an advance of ten per cent. Without any lack of charity the Amalgamated Engineers may be suspected to have been, and to be similarly, biding their time. No doubt, as long as they have little prospect of being able to do more, they will easily content themselves with endeavouring to prevent a fall of wages; but no doubt, too, and small blame to them for it, their union, and every other trades' union likewise, will avail itself of the first and of every opportunity of securing a palpable rise.

Small blame to them for this perhaps, but surely quite as little praise. In striving to secure for their constituents the highest possible price for the labour they deal in, trades' unions may be merely obeying the natural instinct of trade, but moderation is not precisely the quality of which they are thereby making the most edifying display. So however it is, by some unionists and by most philunionists, assumed to be. By these a complete justification of Unionism is thought to be afforded by the plea that it aims at nothing more than at placing the sellers of labour on a level with the buyers, and so doing away with the present commercial disparity between them. On this point especial stress is laid. Thus, according to Mr. Dunning, the object of Unionism is to ensure the freedom of exchange with regard to labour by putting the workman on something like an equal position in bargaining with his employer.'

According to Professor Fawcett, the object is that the labourer may have the same chance of selling his labour dearly as the master has of buying it cheaply.' Mr. Harrison follows with much to the same effect. Insisting on the notoriety of the fact that capitalist and individual workman are not on equal terms, he assumes, as an inevitable inference, 'that the all-important question is, how equality is to be established, and represents the placing of labour on the same footing as capital as the great desideratum.' A whole chorus of vigorous voices are here in complete accord, using the same key-note and ringing the changes on an equality between employer and employed, which is taken for granted to be the latter's inalienable birthright. Nor can it be denied that there is some plausibility in these harmonious utterances. To say that in dealings between man and man there ought to be no preponderating superiority on either side, does sound very like a truism, although, on a moment's reflection, the seeming truism will be perceived to be a fallacy. For to maintain that all men-and when universal equality is under discussion, special claims in behalf of working or any other particular men are of course quite out of the question-to maintain that all men have a natural and inherent right to be placed on the same footing as those who have got above them, is equivalent to saying that no man has a right to avail himself for his own benefit of any superiority, natural or artificial, which he may possess. This is one of those propositions which to state is to refute. However applied, its absurdity is manifest, but when applied by labour in vindication of the rights of labour, it becomes suicidal as well. For every genuine right of labour rests partially on a diametrically opposite principle. Unless men were at liberty to take full advantage of their individual superiority, unassisted industry would not be entitled to the exclusive possession of its own produce. A workman of superior strength or skill, how much more soever he might produce than his fellows, would not be justified in taking for his