I 8 89
 
 
 UNIVERSJTY OF CALIFORNIA 
 'S ANGELES
 
 TRADE UNIONISM.
 
 TRADE UNIOMSM: 
 
 WITH REMARKS ON THE REPORT OF THE 
 COMMISSIONERS ON 
 
 TEADES' UNIONS. 
 
 JAMES) STIRLIXG. 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE SECOND EDITION, ISC.O. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 JAMES MACLEHOSE & SONS, Gl ST. VINCENT STllEE'J", 
 
 {Jubltshcrs anb SjaoUscllcvs to the iluiU.rsiln. 
 
 1880.
 
 HD 
 
 QGG -r 
 
 ^ TRADE Uy 10 J ISM. 
 
 Parliamext havin!; now undertaken to legislate 
 in regard to Trades' Unions, it may be well to 
 enquire, what has been the net result of the late 
 investigations into that subject ; and w^hether any 
 principle has been evolved, wdiich may serve as a 
 o^uide for the Lesfislature in their deliberations. 
 
 In this matter of Unionism, we fear the country 
 will not find safety in the multitude of its Commis- 
 sioners. On the contrary, their Report, with its 
 various *' dissents," " statements," " observations," 
 and what not, is only too fiiithful a reflex of the 
 ^ perplexity of the public mind. The Commissioners 
 1^ have laboured, with admirable assiduity, but without 
 eft'ect, to set their egg on its end. No principle 
 J is forthcoming, to guide Parliament, or the public. 
 ^ The country asked for a clue to lead it out of a 
 '.' labyrinth of perplexity : the Commissioners offer 
 it a ravelled skein of weak compromises and con- 
 tradictory suggestions. 
 ^ The root of our perplexity is the want of clear 
 ^ ideas, as to the true nature of our modern indus- 
 H trial system. We forget that society is in a state 
 of transition ; and that wo are but in the act uf 
 
 420793
 
 passing- from serfdom to freedom. A benumbing 
 feudalism has hardly yet passed away, leaving the 
 labourer free to bargain for the hire of his labour; 
 and our trade-disputes are the natural first-fruits of 
 this new-found liberty of contract. It is scarce an 
 hundred years, since the colliers and salters of Scot- 
 land were sold with the land on which they worked: 
 what wonder, then, that the freeman of yesterday 
 should not yet have learned to use his freedom 
 wisely ? 
 
 In a state of slavery — even under the modi- 
 fied form of serfdom, — the superior class imposes its 
 own terms on the inferior : the relation between 
 master and servant is then purely one offeree. The 
 labourer must simply do the bidding of him who 
 needs his labour. But in a state of industrial free- 
 dom, the relation between the labourer and his em- 
 ployer becomes one of contract. Each individual is 
 left free to make his own barsfain, and to "hio-ale in 
 the market," as may seem good in his eyes. 
 
 Yet freedom is not anarchy ; the will of the 
 individual is regulated by universal laws. God does 
 not leave society to be torn asunder by the capricious 
 violence of contending interests. On the contrary, 
 self-interest is subordinated to the public good ; and 
 by the natural antagonism of individual desires the 
 rightful interests of all are harmonized. Things 
 base in themselves are turned to hio^hest uses. The 
 competition of avaricious men is made to check their 
 avarice. The power of the strong becomes a shield 
 to the weak ; and the wealth of the rich is made to 
 minister to the needs of the poor. The humble 
 labourer finds his best protection, and his richest
 
 reward, in that very struo;-<rle among the powerful, 
 which shallow thinkers denounce as oppressive to 
 the poor ; while, at the same time, the competition 
 among labourers for employment secures the capi- 
 talist against the tyranny of the many. Free com- 
 petition ensures justice to all. When nature is left 
 free to work, a divinely regulated mechanism of 
 antagonist interests secures to each man that which 
 is fairly due to him : to the master, faithful service 
 at a fair price ; to the labourer, the hire whereof he 
 is worthy. 
 
 But here a strange fallacy takes hold of the 
 public mind ; and lies, indeed, at the root of the 
 whole system of Unionism. Because the capitalist 
 is rich and the labourer poor, it is assumed that 
 they must therefore bargain upon unequal terms ; 
 that the poor man who oft'ers his services, is at the 
 mercy of the rich man who requires them. But 
 this is to misconceive the very essence of competi- 
 tion. The capitalist does not compete \vith the 
 labourer; he competes with his fellow-capitalists; 
 and it is this very struggle among the powerful that 
 protects the weak. The greater the wealth, the 
 more commanding the power, of the employers of 
 labour, the greater is the protection afforded to the 
 humble labourer, for whose services they compete. 
 The contest of the labour market is not " a battle of 
 Capital against Labour," but a struggle amongst capi- 
 talists contending for labour. Every increase to the 
 accumulated capital of the country gives an increased 
 value to the labour of its population ; and instead of 
 feeling a heavier weight of oppression, the labourer 
 rises to a higher power of si>lf-assertion.
 
 8 
 
 To be secure, therefore, the labourer has only 
 to put his trust in nature. His interest would be 
 amply protected, by the natural equipoise of individ- 
 ual desires. But ordinary minds have little faith in 
 the efficacy of impalpable agencies ; and the labourer 
 yields, not unnaturally, to the fallacy, that he will be 
 better able to hold his own with his employer, by 
 abandoning the principle of individual bargaining, 
 and trusting instead to the power of association. 
 And so, to escape an imaginary risk, he rushes into 
 a real danger. Distrusting the natural protection of 
 competition, he seeks safety in an artificial system of 
 combination. But competition, if suspended on the 
 one side, may no less be suspended on the other. 
 Combination of labourers may be met by combina- 
 tion of employers. Individualism on all sides may 
 disappear. The two classes may thus stand face to 
 face in organized hostility; and the labourer may 
 find himself subjected to the reality of that power 
 of oppression, of which he now dreads the shadow. 
 
 As to the right of combination, there is no 
 longer any question. Be it v/ise or be it unwise, no 
 one now disputes its rightfulness. Freedom of 
 contract is now the recosfnized rio-ht of the labourer. 
 He is free to bargain as he likes. He may bargain 
 singly, or he may bargain with his fellow-labourers 
 in a body. The only limit to his right is the 
 corresponding right in all others. His liberty of 
 contract only stops short of the liberty to oppress. 
 Nowhere has the just principle of combination been 
 laid down more clearly, or more concisely, than by 
 Lord Stanley, speaking to the working men of Glas- 
 gow: "That is, I think, the broad and plain rule to
 
 lay down — freedom to every man to use it as lie will, 
 provided, in so doing, he does not interfere with the 
 equal freedom of his neighbour." 
 
 But a freedom thus limited is not the freedom 
 demanded by the unionist. The object of his policy 
 is to restrict competition in his own favour ; an 
 object only to be achieved by the coercion of others. 
 Unionism is the Protectionism of labour. In spirit, 
 it is a return to the antiquated sj'stem of guilds ; 
 certain self-constituted bodies, in each trade, claiming 
 a more or less complete monopoly of labour. Trades' 
 unionism is the reversal of our free -trade policy. It 
 would impose on labour, restrictions such as a bar- 
 barous age imposed on trade, but which a wiser 
 policy has for ever banished from these realms. 
 
 The end of the unionist being to force from 
 his employer better terms, than the natural play of 
 supply and demand would afford, he has recourse to 
 artificial means to control the labour-market. By 
 an organization more or less complete of the work- 
 men enof^wed in each trade, he strives to limit the 
 supply of labour, and so to force higher terms from 
 those who seek to employ it. But in thus restrict- 
 ing the supply of labour for his own ends, the 
 unionist does a double wrong: he wrongs the 
 employer, from Avhom he forcibly withholds the 
 natural supply of labour; and he no less M-rongs his 
 fellow-labourer, whom he hinders in the free disposal 
 of his services. 
 
 One of the most usual and a})})r()^'cd modes 
 of restricting labour is, by limiting the number of 
 apprentices, or learners, admitted into a trade. 
 Those who have been bred to a trade, claim — in the
 
 10 
 
 true guild spirit — a vested interest ia its emolu- 
 ments, and a consequent right to restrict the numbers 
 of those who shall be admitted into it. Sometimes 
 we find this pretension avowed with a cynical 
 plainness of speech, which would be surprising, did 
 we not know how monopoly tends to blunt our moral 
 perceptions. " The limitation of apprentices," says 
 one, " is simply because we consider that as working 
 men who have been brought up in tlie trade and 
 devoted a number of years to learn it . . . we have 
 a right in a certain measure to limit the supply in 
 accordance with what the demand may be."" The 
 " demand," of course, to which the supply, in this 
 case, is to be accommodated, is not that of a free 
 labour-market, but that which will best suit the con- 
 venience of the unionist artisan. From another 
 workman we have the following naive statement of 
 his notion of the rio-ht of restriction : " The wav in 
 which we look at this apprentice question is simply 
 this — that we have served our time to a business, 
 and we wish to get a respectable living by il."t No 
 doubt, a most praiseworthy wish ; if only it be not 
 forgotten, that there are other people in the world, 
 who also wish to get a *' respectable living." 
 
 Equally indefensible are the restrictions, which 
 unions place on the kind of labour to be em- 
 ployed. Thus, women are excluded from certain 
 employments, where their services are desired, be- 
 cause they would interfere with the interests of the 
 men. " A union of warpers in Manchester," says 
 the Report, | " refused to allow the wife and sisters 
 
 * Report of Commissiouers. Q. 18,719. 
 t Ibid. Q. 19,94!). J Report, p. 16.
 
 11 
 
 of one of their members to warp ; ' It was against 
 their rules,' they said, ' to allow women to warp, for 
 if women were introduced into their market, the 
 wages of the men would be reduced.' " ^'' 
 
 So boys are frequently excluded from doing 
 work which the unions think " ought to be done by 
 men." This has given rise to many disputes, more 
 especially in the engineering trade, where many self- 
 acting machines have been invented, which require 
 neither skill nor strength for their supervision. But 
 the skilled artisan asserts a right to the superintend- 
 ence of machinery which has displaced his handiwork. 
 Hence the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineers 
 states that during the last ten years, one of the 
 principal causes of dispute with their employers has 
 been " the large number of boys employed." t 
 
 Another cruel restriction is the exclusion of un- 
 skilled labourers from work, which has been appro- 
 priated by those who call themselves skilled artisans. 
 A man of ability, though not regularly bred to a 
 trade, may be perfectly able to do the work i-equired; 
 and in such a case the only rational test of fitness is 
 the desire of an employer to employ him. But in 
 many trades, the workman not regularly bred to it 
 is prohibited from working at it, however willing 
 and capable he may be, and however anxious the 
 master may be to employ him. This exclusion from 
 skilled employment is the more grievous, that it 
 practically prohil)its the unskilled labourer from 
 raising himself into a higher position ; and thus 
 establishes a monopoly in favour of a minority, to 
 the detriment of the great body of the working class. 
 
 * Report of Manchester ExatiiiDer:^, ji. 21. f Q. 841.
 
 12 
 
 A yet more outrageous method of restriction 
 is thus noticed in the Commissioners' Report. "' 
 " Sometimes the monopoly of the work of a district 
 lias l)een attempted. A society of brick makers in 
 Manchester, as stated in the Report of the Examiners 
 into that district, claim an extent of four miles round 
 Manchester in every direction, an area of 120 square 
 miles, as their peculiar district, within the limits of 
 which they permit no bricks to be made, except by 
 Manchester union men, nor any bricks to be used 
 except tliose made within the district." And this 
 monstrous infringement of the liberty of the subject, 
 enforced by systematic " outrage and wrong," is 
 perpetrated in Manchester, the heart of English 
 industrial civilization ! 
 
 The same monopolizing spirit lies at the root 
 of all those union rules, which aim at limitinof the 
 productive power of labour, and at hindering the free 
 use of machinery and improved methods of production. 
 All progress is based on the increased efficiency and 
 economy of human labour. To reverse this process, 
 and strive to lessen the efficiency of labour, and 
 hinder the economy of it, is to do a grievous wrong 
 and injury to mankind. Yet this the unionist 
 attempts to do. He labours to limit the productive- 
 ness of his own, and his fellows' labour, that more 
 men may be needed to do a given quantity of work. 
 Hence the union rales against piecework, overtime, 
 "chasing," and so forth; all tending to lessen the 
 work done, and create the need for more workers. 
 Thus wilfully to abridge one's productive power, is 
 an oflence against God and man ; but a heavy pun- 
 
 * P. 16.
 
 13 
 
 ishment falls on the unjust workman. An increase of 
 workers is an increased force of competition ; and 
 the inevitable result is a diminished waoe. 
 
 Nothing, indeed, proves better the narrow spirit 
 of Unionism, and its disregard of the interests of the 
 true workman, than its aversion to piecework and 
 contract-work. Piecework, or payment by results, 
 wherever it can be applied, is the fairest mode of 
 remunerating labour ; and it is best for the best 
 worker. It admits the hired workman to a participa- 
 tion in the results of production, according to what 
 is produced ; and so removes the objection to hired 
 labour, that the labourer has no interest in the result 
 of his exertions. According as he works, so he is 
 paid : and thus while stimulating all to the utmost 
 exercise of their energies, the system of piecework, 
 alone, yields to the superior workman the remunera- 
 tion which is his due. 
 
 As to the pretence, that union rules prohibit 
 piecework, in the interests of the employer and the 
 public, in order to secure them against inferior work- 
 manship, the plea is as absurd as it is dishonest. 
 " The plan of doing piecework," says Mr. Robinson 
 of the Atlas Ironworks, ^' in an establishment like 
 ours, and in Whitworth's and Beyer's, has led to such 
 a reputation for our work, that we can get a higher 
 price than other firms." But be it better or be it 
 worse, that is a question which each man has a right 
 to decide for himself, and on which no trades' union 
 has a right to thrust a decision upon him. 
 
 Other union rules oppose the use of niacliinery 
 and improved methods of production, with the di- 
 rect purpose of lessening the efficiency, or increasing
 
 14 
 
 the cost of labour. TJiiis, objection is taken to the 
 use of machines for dressing stones and for making 
 bricks ; and even the use of machine-dressed stones 
 or machine-made bricks ]ias Ijecn prohibited. The 
 difference of cost to the pubhc, from this prohibition, 
 was calcukited by the contractor, on one occasion, at 
 no less than 35 per cent. Numberless other regula- 
 tions appear in the Commissioners' Report, all ani- 
 mated with the same restrictive spirit, and some of 
 even a mere grotesque barbarism. Thus, rules exist 
 in certain unions, that stones shall not be dressed in 
 the quarry where they are found, but shall be carried 
 rougli to the place where they are to be used. 
 Other rules prohibit masons from laying bricks, and 
 bricklayers from laying stones ; while others ordain 
 that no labourer shall wheel bricks in a wheelbarrow, 
 and that the hodman shall not carry more than eight 
 bricks at a time in his hod. Such regulations, how- 
 ever paltr}^ and ridiculous they may seem, are most 
 vexatious in their practical eifect, and demonstrate 
 even more clearly than more important matters, the 
 restrictive spirit in which Unionism is conceived. 
 
 That such restrictions as we have pointed out 
 on the freedom, both of employers and of work- 
 men, cannot be carried out without more or less of 
 coercion, is manifest from the nature of thino-s. 
 Force — open or latent — is of the essence of Union- 
 ism. But the manner of applying force varies with 
 the temper of the times, and the character of insti- 
 tutions. While society was ruder than it now is, 
 violence was open and systematic ; and among coarse 
 populations similar violence still exists, though less 
 openly practised. But Unionism has participated in
 
 15 
 
 the softened manners of the age. The bearing of 
 unions, especially of those of the higher class, is less 
 rude ; and more deference is paid to public opinion. 
 All needless display of power is carefully eschewed ; 
 and the purposes of the union are carried out with a 
 miiiimuin of coercion. Brute force is carefully kept 
 in the background, and only its shadow is allowed 
 to fall on the minds of men. 
 
 Still, coercion there is and must be, if Union- 
 ism is to achieve its ends. The strike — actual or 
 potential^ — is the motive power of unionist machinery. 
 In all productive industry, the capitalist can only 
 make his capital available by the help of labour ; and 
 this labour he can only obtain — in a free country — by 
 the voluntary consent of the labourer. On this 
 necessity the unionist builds his system. He waits 
 till his employer has laid out capital on buildings 
 and machinery ; till he has entered into engagements 
 and undertaken liabilities ; and till his productive 
 power is in full operation : then, hy virtue of his 
 organization, he suddenly withdraws the labour em- 
 ployed, stops the work, and on pain of certain loss 
 and possible ruin, urges his demands. Or he may 
 stop short of an actual suspension of work ; a threat 
 may suffice : and suiooth-spoken secretaries may 
 take credit to their unions for discouraging strikes, 
 while actually ruling a trade by the dread of them. 
 
 In carrying out the system of strikes, the union 
 leaders show great strategic skill. Avoiding a 
 general attack upon a powerful body of employers, 
 they adopt the Napoleonic tactics of concentrating 
 their force upon isolated points ; attacking one work 
 after another, and beating the masters in detail. In
 
 16 
 
 this way, if not met by energetic counter-organiza- 
 tion, they are enal)led not only to control the trade 
 and command their own tenns, but absolutely to 
 make the masters contribute the funds for their own 
 subjugation. While one work is stopped, in a trade 
 or district, the others are temporarily permitted to 
 go on, in order to provide the necessary funds for 
 supporting the strike. When tlieir turn comes, they 
 are subjected to a like process of coercion. 
 
 An important aid is furnished to the unions, 
 in conducting strikes, by the provision made by 
 English law for the support of able-bodied labourers 
 when out of work. The unionist fiolits his battle 
 with the Poor Law at his back. If the worst come 
 to the worst, he can fall back on the parish for sup- 
 port. No doubt, guardians may refuse relief to 
 workmen who will not accept of proffered employ- 
 ment ; but public opinion would hardly sanction a 
 stern application of poor-law rules in the face of 
 clamant distress, even though self-inflicted. More- 
 over, the difficulty is easily evaded by change of 
 residence ; and the subsidiary workers thrown in- 
 vokmtarily out of employment, as so often happens 
 by a strike of skilled artisans, cannot legally be 
 denied relief. And so it may come to pass, that a 
 laro'e number of hands on strike shall be thrown on 
 the rates for support, and that the very employer, 
 whose works have been closed by a strike, shall be 
 heavily taxed for the support of the workmen who 
 have stopped his business. 
 
 But even with the Poor Law for an ally, unions 
 would fail to achieve their end, without the help 
 of more or less of coercion. Force, open or threat-
 
 ened, is a necessary condition of success. A mere 
 voluntary cessation from labour will avail little, 
 unless followed up by a forcible exclusion of other 
 labourers, more needy or less exacting. This is clearly 
 perceived by the leaders of Unionism, whose hope is 
 fixed on some compulsory power, which will enable 
 them to force into the organization, those who as yet 
 are beyond the pale. Without this. Unionism must 
 fail. A strike can only be efficient, when those who 
 give up work can hinder others from taking the 
 places they have abandoned. Unless the unionist 
 can accomplish this, he accomplishes nothing : he 
 simply sacrifices his bread in vain. 
 
 Hence the practice of picketing ; a needful ad- 
 junct of the strike. It is the ordinary policy of 
 the unions, when a strike has been declared, to 
 surround the workshop which has boon struck 
 against, with guards technically called " pickets," 
 whose business it is to hinder the approach of 
 workers, willing to fill the places vacated by those 
 on strike. This picketing they consider the neces- 
 sary compliment of the strike. Without [)icketing, 
 Mr. Applegarth, the intelligent secretary of the 
 Amalgamated Joiners, admits that " the masters 
 would be able to obtain the workmen they desire." * 
 
 As to the means employed by pickets, these 
 vary according to the need ; rising in energy from 
 " moral suasion" up to violent outrage. If fair means 
 fiil, foul means may chance to be resorted to. The 
 mode of action will probably vary with the varying 
 fortunes of the contest. Pickets, while successful, 
 can afford to be good-natured ; but are apt to get 
 
 *Q. 0744. 
 B
 
 18 
 
 savage, when they find themselves about to be 
 worsted. So long as there is hope of victory, pickets 
 may be satisfied to use persuasion and pots of beer ; 
 but when cajolery fails and the strike is about to 
 collapse, passion will too often get the better of 
 prudence ; and the stolid knobstick who will not be 
 convinced will be very apt to have his head broken. 
 The due regulation of picket practice, indeed, is 
 one of the nicest points of unionist management. 
 The object of the directors of the strike is, effectively 
 to shut out competition, and yet to keep within the 
 limits of the law ; the unionist would fain avoid 
 collision with the police ; and yet, he would fain, too, 
 keep out black-sheep. The problem, therefore, is, 
 how to coerce, without the outward seeming of co- 
 ercion ; how to give the greatest possible hindrance 
 to knobsticks, with the least possible technical 
 " molestation ; " how to combine a maximum of com- 
 pulsion with a minimum of law-breaking. But this 
 problem has its difficulties. No doubt, union officials, 
 with a prudent regard for the law, and having 
 the fear of Baron Bramwell before their eyes, send 
 forth their pickets with strict injunctions to keep 
 Her Majesty's peace : but is it in human nature 
 that the picket, hungry and angry, should always 
 keep his temper with the knobstick, who will not 
 listen to reason^ and whom he sees about to take 
 the bread out of his mouth 1 We do not wonder, 
 then, to learn from the Commissioners, that : " the 
 evidence before us leaves no doubt on our minds 
 that during the existence of a strike, workmen, 
 desirous to accept work, are often subjected, through 
 the agency of the pickets, to molestation, intimidation,
 
 19 
 
 and other modes of undue influence, and in effect are 
 prevented from obtaining employment." " 
 
 The more systematic violence, revealed to an ap- 
 palled community by the inquiries of the sub-com- 
 missioners at Sheffield and Manchester, need not be 
 dwelt upon. The first thrill of horror which thev 
 caused, has been followed by the usual apathy of 
 reaction ; and people are half inclined to look back 
 on the whole thing as the phantom of an uneasy 
 dream. But the ugly facts remain ; and it is to be 
 regretted, that these systematic outrages hardly met 
 from the unions with so hearty a condemnation as 
 might have been wished ; and that partisans were 
 oven found to palliate their atrocity. Altogether, the 
 investigation was not thoroughly satisfactory. At 
 Sheffield the unions were taken by surprise. But at 
 Manchester they Avere better prepared; and witnesses 
 absconded, and books missing or nmtilated, left a 
 l)ainful impression on the public mind, that wo had 
 not got to the bottom of this great iniquity. So 
 much at least is certain, that the restrictionist policy 
 of Unionism, and the coercive means by which it is 
 carried out, tend 1)y their very nature to excite angry 
 passions, which naturally lead to oppressive inter- 
 ference, even when they do not vent themselves in 
 open violence. 
 
 Such are the objects of Unionism, and such 
 the means by which it seeks to attain them : what 
 then are its results ? and what Gfood has it done to 
 the communit}^ to the working class in general, or 
 to the unionist himself .' The fruits, we fear, are 
 
 * Report, ]>. I'l.
 
 20 
 
 such as might be expected from the radical unsound- 
 ness of the system. No good can come of an arbi- 
 trary interference with the rights of others ; and that 
 root of bitterness empoisons the relations of the 
 unionist, alike with his employer and his fellow- 
 workman. We hear, indeed, much from the 
 apologists of Unionism, of its high aspirations, and 
 its generous concern for the common weal of the 
 labourinof class, as contrasted with the vuls^ar selfish- 
 ness of isolated competition. But in the practice of 
 Unionism we can find no higher principle than the 
 vulgarest self-interest, and a sheer disregard of the 
 interests of all beyond its pale. Unionism cares 
 only for the unionist; non-unionists, on the other 
 hand, are regarded as an inferior type, unworthy of 
 the privileges of high-caste artisans, or even of the 
 equal rights of fellow-workers ; as hewers of wood 
 and drawers of water, on whom a tax is to be levied 
 for behoof of the exclusive oligarchs of the unions. 
 
 This exclusiveness even derives support from the 
 carelessness of the law itself, to provide efficiently 
 for the security of the non-unionist. Practically, he 
 is a Pariah, left to fight his own battle as he best may. 
 True, we have little direct evidence of oppression 
 from non-unionists themselves, in the Report of the 
 Commissions. Nor was this to be expected. The 
 poor knobstick, threatened, outraged, and driven from 
 his trade, dares not complain : his is an inarticulate 
 grief But we do hear of offers from men who 
 have suffered wronor and outrao^e, " to come and sfive 
 evidence, if they were enabled to emigrate after they 
 had given it." '" The truth is the law, practically, 
 
 * Q. .3006.
 
 21 
 
 affords no efficient protection to the non-unionist 
 workman ; for when he is wronged, evidence of the 
 wrung is not forthcoming. He is intimidated ; and, 
 as was shrewdly observed to the Commissioners : " if 
 a man is intimidated from trying to get work, he will 
 he still more intimidated from going to give evidence, 
 ill relation to that intimidation." '"'' 
 
 To the unionist himself, the results of Unionism 
 are no less hurtful. Ample testimony was given to 
 the Commissioners, of the change for the worse in the 
 relations between employers and their workpeople, 
 under the unionist disjiensation. A spirit of antag- 
 onism, formerly unknown, has sprung up between 
 them. The mutual respect and kindliness which once 
 sweetened the intercourse between master and man — 
 names now as obsolete as the feelings they embodied 
 — have given place to nmtual susj^icion and hostility. 
 The employer complains, that the workman seeks to 
 establish an arbitrary control over his business : the 
 workman resfards his emiilover as a tvrant, who 
 would rob him of the fair remuneration of his labour. 
 They no longer look upon each other as friendly co- 
 operators in a joint enterprise, but rather as hostile 
 disputants, snarling at each other like dogs over a 
 bone. And so, too, the sense of reciprocal duties 
 has been lost. The employer has no longer the same 
 feeling, that he owes guidance and helpfulness to his 
 work people : the unionist no longer recognizes the 
 duty of faithful service to his employer. 
 
 One cannot but sympathize with tlie sadness of ]Mr. 
 Trollope, the eminent London builder, in bearing 
 witness to the changed relations between masters 
 
 * g. -Mil.
 
 22 
 
 and men, within his own memory. Witli a simple 
 pathos, he tells us of the friendly feelings that once 
 suhsistcd between himself and his people ; and hov/ 
 *' he used to boast," that his firm had men "who 
 had been 30 or 40 years " in their service. " We 
 had a respect for them, and they for us;"* and when 
 a job was in a hurry, and they Avere asked to "drive 
 along," they did so with a will. But, witli the 
 growth of Unionism, all this has passed away ; and 
 now when a man is asked reproachfully : " Come 
 now, is this a fair day's work ? " he answers (if he 
 have a remnant of the old conscience left) : " Well, 
 sir, it is not; but I am not allowed to beat my 
 mates." t Or, again, when remonstrating with a 
 workman for crawling at a snail's pace to his work, 
 he may be answered after this fashion : J " Sir, I 
 am very sorry to say it, but we are not allowed to 
 sweat ourselves if we are walking in your time." 
 Need we wonder that a man of principle like Mr. 
 Trollope, should often say : " I am so disgusted with 
 the system, I should be glad to leave the business 
 altogether ? " 
 
 In the nature of things, the effect of Unionism 
 on the character of the workman himself cannot but 
 be hurtful. To take wages from one man and do 
 the bidding of another, must needs lower a man 
 in his own esteem. It cannot but degrade him, to 
 feel that he is obtaining wages under a false pretence 
 of service, and that, while calling himself the servant 
 of his employer, he is in reality serving a society, 
 organized for the purpose of controlling that em- 
 ployer's authority and undermining his interests. 
 
 * Q. 924. t Q. 2920. I Q. 2920.
 
 The workman cannot serve two masters ; and the 
 master he elects to serve is not the one who pays 
 him his wages, but the chief of a junto bent on 
 opposing him. 
 
 Again, the complete absorption of the workman 
 in his union is fatal to all individuality of charac- 
 ter. The unionist does not dare to think or act for 
 himself : he is a mere puppet in the hands of the 
 wire-pullers of his union. When he joins the union, 
 he abdicates all autocratic power, and ceases to 
 exist as an independent intelligence. U'he man is 
 lost in the unionist. Regarding himself solely as a 
 unit of his trade, the unionist abandons all claim to 
 self-guidance, and tamely submits to the edicts of an 
 irresponsible club, into whose hands he commits the 
 care of his interests and the keeping of his conscience. 
 In democratic times, like ours, the great ditticulty 
 of the citizen is to preserve independence of thought 
 and autocratic power of will. Sequacity is the bane 
 of modern society. But Unionism intensifies this 
 evil ; and the workman's trade conspires with his 
 politics, to paralyze his noblest powers. 
 
 Even in his capacity of workman, the union- 
 ist suffers deeply from the system of his adoption. 
 His trades' union does not teach him well his trade: 
 it is a hindrance rather than a help to his becoming 
 a master of his craft. It cramps, instead of develop- 
 ing his powers ; and tends to make him an indolent 
 and inefficient workman. Instead of rousing, in the 
 young workman, a spirit of strenuous industry and 
 faithful service, it encourages him to scamp his work 
 and idle away his time. It is the aim of Unionism 
 to restrict the produce of each man's labour ; from
 
 24 
 
 a foolish notion of making work for more workers. 
 The effect of this pohcy is to discourage emulation, 
 and by repressing individual energy and skill, to 
 reduce the mass of workmen in a trade to a dead- 
 level of mediocrity. J a this way merit is repressed; 
 and the superior man is sacrificed to the worthless. 
 The ardent, energetic workman, who would fain 
 push on, and gratify an honourable ambition by the 
 assiduous exercise of his higher gifts, is snubbed and 
 held back, to suit the convenience of his idle, good- 
 for-nothing mate, who prefers to take life easily, and 
 whose hiofhest outlook is to a life of beer-swillinof and 
 blue Mondays. Nay, there are teachers of unionist 
 philosophy, who think it becoming to sneer at aspir- 
 ing workmen ; and who denounce all especial in- 
 dustry, as little better than privately stealing from a 
 common stock. 
 
 In a natural state of thinofs, our industrial svs- 
 tem affords the best possible practical education for 
 the workino- class. The best of their order raise 
 themselves by superior energy and thrift, to posi- 
 tions of power ; and then these superior men, in 
 the ordinary exercise of their calling, discipline and 
 educate their fellow-workers. Not from any lofty 
 motive of philanthropy, but simply in pursuit of his 
 own interest, it is the chief endeavour of an employer 
 to search out and promote merit among his people. 
 The most essential condition of successful production 
 is the mental training of those engaged in it. To 
 succeed, the employer must develop the faculties, 
 and form the habits, of his workpeople ; promoting 
 to the higher posts in his establishment, those who 
 distinguish themselves by capacity and character.
 
 25 
 
 Thus our industrial system naturally becomes an 
 educational system for the people. But Unionism 
 sets its face against this elevating process. Its 
 aim, oil the contrary, is to repress superiority in 
 individuals, and reduce the mass to average infer- 
 iority ; thus sacrificing the best interests of the com- 
 munity to the necessities of a lazy communism. 
 So a Nasmyth, by his genius and energy, raises 
 himself to wealth and distinction, and with him- 
 self raises a whole community. But a domineer- 
 ing union dogs his steps, thwarts his efforts, and at 
 last drives him in disgust from the trade ; to the 
 great loss of the nation, and the especial loss of the 
 engineering trade. Could Unionism attain its end 
 of neutralizino- the elevatinof influence of a free 
 industrial system, the noblest element of modern 
 civiHzation would be lost; and mankind would sink 
 back into the monotony of mediaeval caste. Fortu- 
 nately for us, nature is stronger than any selfish 
 confederacy; and the unions we ma}- hope, will fail 
 to arrest the progress of the working- classes. 
 
 In any large or generous sense, then, Union- 
 ism fails to elevate the working classes. But does 
 it even improve their material condition ? Does it, 
 or can it, at lowest, raise their wages ? With all 
 this cost, of wrong to others, and deterioration to 
 himself, has the unionist, even in a money point of 
 view, bettered his position ? The unionist himself 
 has no doubt about it. But doul)t forms no element 
 of unionist [)hilosophy ; and of what value is the 
 opinion of a philosopher, who never doubts ? To us, 
 indeed, it seems that much \ aluable time was wasted 
 by the Commissioners in ascertaining the opinions
 
 26 
 
 on scientific subjects of men devoid of scientific 
 training-. Such opinions, however interestinc^ in a 
 social point of view, as manifesting the leanings of 
 certain classes and corporations, possess no scientific 
 value. An uneducated bricklayer knows as little of 
 the laws which reofulates his wasfes, as of the laws 
 which regulate the laying of his bricks. It is an 
 old and mischievous fallacy, that men must have 
 some theoretic knowledge of matters with which 
 they are practically conversant. 
 
 To us it seems clear, that Unionism must 
 needs fail ; that it cannot, in the nature of things, 
 attain its object of controlling the market-price of 
 labour. Two antagonist forces hold the industrial 
 world in equilibrio. On the one hand, the principle 
 of population regulates the supply of labour ; on the 
 other, the principle of accumulation determines the 
 demand for it. These forces act and react upon each 
 other ; and the play of their antagonism — when left 
 absolutely free — ultimately determines, at any given 
 time and place, the just price to be paid by the em- 
 ployer to the labourer, for the hire of his service. No 
 human power can permanently raise the rate of wages, 
 above the level determined by these natural causes. 
 There is only a certain produce to be divided be- 
 tween capitalist and labourer. If more be given to 
 the labourer than nature awards, a smaller amount 
 will remain for the capitalist ; the spirit of accumu- 
 lation will be checked ; less will be devoted to j^ro- 
 ductive purposes ; the wage-fund will dwindle, and 
 the wage of the labourer will inevitably fall. For a 
 time, indeed, a natural influence may be dammed 
 back ; but only to act, ultimately, with accumulated
 
 27 
 
 force. In the long run, God's laws will overwhelm 
 all human obstructions. Should a union succeed — as, 
 no doubt, for a time it may succeed — in shutting 
 out competition, and so unnaturally raising wages 
 and lowering profits, in some particular trade ; a 
 twofold reaction tends to restore the natural equi- 
 librium. An increased population M'ill add to the 
 supply of labour, while a diminished wage-fund will 
 lessen the demand for it. The joint action of these 
 two principles will — sooner or later — overcome the 
 l)ower of any arbitrary organization, and restore 
 profits and wages to their natural level. 
 
 This, too, must be borne in mind : that the move- 
 ments of population are slower and more permanent 
 than those of capital. Inequalities of capital are 
 speedily redressed. With modern appliances of 
 information and intercourse, the readjustment even 
 of international capitals is the work of a few weeks 
 or months. But a readjustment of population is a 
 slow and painful process ; and an excess in the 
 numbers of a people can only be remedied by the 
 sufferings of a generation. 
 
 This reasoning, however, is lost on the unionist. 
 Nothing, indeed, in Unionism strikes one more than 
 the extreme narrowness of its views, in contrast 
 with the magnificence of its pretensions. A system 
 which aspires to regulate the industry of a nation, 
 omits all wide consideration of the laws which 
 govern the movements of population and the economy 
 of capital. The unionist regards capital and j)opula- 
 tion — both elements of extreme varial)ility — as fixed 
 quantities, to be manipulated at will by an interested 
 confederacy.
 
 28 
 
 Of the principle of population, indeed, and its 
 resistless power, the unionist takes no note what- 
 ever. He looks simply to the numbers engaged in 
 his own trade ; and these he strives to restrict by 
 his trade-regulations, carried out with more or less 
 coercion as occasion requires. Of the dread power 
 of population, which is silently overruling the des- 
 tinies of his trade, his nation, and his kind, he takes 
 no heed at all. With a fanatical faith in the all- 
 sufficiency of his system, he pits his union against 
 Providence; and the Mrs. Partington of Unionism 
 unhesitatingly undertakes to sweep back an Atlantic 
 force of population. 
 
 No less narrow are the unionist's views regarding 
 capital. Of all earthly things, capital is the most 
 sensitive. Not only does it flee injustice, the very 
 dread of wrong will banish it. But the unionist 
 regards the capital in his trade as a fixed amount, 
 permanently invested for his behoof; which no loss 
 will diminish, and no ill-usage will drive away. In 
 short, he looks upon his employer's capital, much 
 as the wrecker looks upon a wreck, which, as it seems 
 to him, a kind Providence casts upon his coast, for 
 his especial behoof. 
 
 Wages are regulated by natural laws. The will 
 of masters and of men is alike po\verless in the 
 matter. But the unionist, thouo-h not aiminsf at 
 making industry more productive, hopes, by a subtle 
 use of his organization, to wrench from the capitalist 
 a larger share of their joint-production than nature 
 awards. This polic}^ even if temporarily successful, 
 must ultimately prove injurious to the labourer. 
 As a rule, productive capital is accumulated out of
 
 29 
 
 profits, not out of wages ; and, therefore, the greater 
 the proportion of wages to profits, the small er'the 
 tendency to national accumulation. Thus, if com- 
 bination were for a time to raise wages, tlie growth 
 of the wage-fund would be unnaturally retarded, 
 while a fictitious stimulus would be given to popu- 
 lation, by the momentary enrichment of the labour- 
 inof class. A diminished demand for labour would 
 coincide with an increased supply. The labourer's 
 wage would be forced down to starvation-point ; and 
 his last state would be worse than his first. 
 
 But a forced increase of wages not only tends to 
 limit accumulation ; it tends, no less, to drive away 
 capital. Productive capital must pay, or it will cease 
 to produce. It will not be bound down to unremun- 
 erative employment. If you force your Samson to 
 grind for you with(nit suitable reward, he will simph' 
 cease to grind at all. The unionist, indeed, calculates 
 that he has the capitalist in his power ; that fixed 
 capital cannot be removed ; and that a change of 
 business means practical ruin : and, no doubt, to a 
 certain extent his calculation is correct. Yet even 
 here there is a limit to coercion. The unionist 
 may ruin his employer ; but he cannot force him 
 to continue a ruinous trade. And then, ruin to 
 the capitalist means hunger to the labourer. The 
 heaviest penalty falls on the triumphant unionist. 
 In beating his employer, he has ruined the man, who 
 gave him bread. It is the old story of the clown 
 and the goose with the golden eggs. 
 
 The Hepoit of the Commissioners teems with 
 evidence of this suicidal folly in various unions. 
 Even a man of Nasmyth'a strength of mind yields to
 
 30 
 
 the "terrible power" of Unionism; and is driven 
 from his trade, "10 or 12 years sooner than he would 
 have left it."* He feels that his business rests on a 
 " volcano ; " and he hastens, at any sacrifice of pro- 
 spective gain, to secure the fortune which his energy 
 had created. His loss was great ; but a greater loss 
 fell on his persecutors, the Amalgamated Engineers. 
 The M'age-fund, destined for their support, was by 
 so much diminished ; and the genius which directed 
 it, w^as for ever lost to them, and to the world. So it 
 has been with other industries. The North Staf- 
 fordshire ironworkers, by their exorbitant demands, 
 compelled more than one employer to " close their 
 vv^orks;"f and drove a portion of their trade to 
 Belgium, never, it may be, to return. In like manner, 
 the extortionate folly of an union forced the Directors 
 of the Mersey Iron and Steel Works, *' to come to 
 the determination, that their works should close : " t 
 thus recklessly depriving themselves of their daily 
 bread. 
 
 But perhaps the most notable instance of self- 
 destructive Unionism, in these latter times, is 
 the case of the iron shipbuilders of the Thames. 
 Mr. Samuda has told us this sad tale of suicidal 
 foll}^ " By degrees," he says, " the men have be- 
 come the parties who have fixed the wages, and the 
 masters have been ig^nored in the matter." In vain 
 he warned his workmen, that they extorted unrea- 
 sonable terms "at their peril." They persisted; and, 
 within the last seven or eight years, enforced a rise 
 of wages, amounting in all to 15 per cent., with this 
 result ; that, with the exception of his own, '' every 
 
 * Q. 19,-222. t Q. 10,522. I Q. 11,160.
 
 31 
 
 single establishment that \vas in existence as an iron 
 shipbuilding yard, on the Thames, when I begun to 
 build in 1851, and several that have started since, has 
 either broken down, failed, or given up because they 
 could not make money."'" Mr. Samuda himself 
 now employs some 200 hands ; formerly from 1 200 to 
 2000. Meanwhile on the Clyde, where the masters 
 had succeeded in resisting the demands of the unions, 
 the iron shipbuilding trade has flourished exceed- 
 ingly. The daily wage of a shipbuilder on the 
 Thames was 7.s\ ; on the Clyde it is 4s. (jcl. But 
 whereas the former was a mere empty figure, the 
 latter is a real wage, regularly earned, and secured 
 by a thriving trade. Thus for the Clyde workman, a 
 seeming defeat has proved a real gain ; while the 
 success of the Thames unionist has been his ruin. 
 All along the Clyde there is the din and bustle of a 
 prosperous industry; while on the banks of the 
 Thames we find only silent workshops and " East 
 end distress." 
 
 The same cause threatens to drive tir.de abroad ; 
 the factitious cost of Ens^lish labour tendino- to (Ave 
 an undue advantage to the foreign capitalist. Here, 
 again, the practical experience of Mr. Samuda is of 
 great weight : — " My greatest customers," t he says, 
 " used to be, ten years ago, even five years ago, 
 France, Russia, Prussia, Egypt and Turkey. I 
 have had as much as £700,000 worth of orders for 
 tliose dift'erent governments in my yard at one time, 
 but at the present moment France is competing with 
 iiie, and taking away my Prussian orders. She is 
 also taking av/ay my Egyptian orders ; and at this 
 
 *(^ 10,747. 1 ^>. lC,7o7.
 
 32 
 
 moment there is in France no less than .£380,000 of* 
 woik going on for two of those very governments, 
 Avho have been my own customers for fifteen years." 
 In all ironwork, and more especially in all iron ship- 
 buiklino:, our natural advantaofes should make our 
 supremacy assured : yet in this very trade, as Mr. 
 Samuda tells us, our future fate is " trembling in 
 the balance." As he remarks, with biting sim- 
 plicity : "if they raise the price of the article I 
 have to produce more than it is worth in the market 
 of the world, I cannot go on producing." '" 
 
 Again, in the manufacture of steam engines, 
 locomotives, and machinery in general, England, it 
 was thought, could defy the world. And so she 
 could ; but so she can no longer. Mr. Robinson, the 
 experienced engineer of the Atlas Works, at Man- 
 chester, says : " We have now competitors in almost 
 every market in Europe, where before we had the 
 market in our hands." t With regard to locomotives, 
 the manufacture of which is eminently suited to our 
 industrial capacities, and the demand for which has 
 immensely increased with the development of the 
 railway system all over the world, Mr. Robinson 
 says : " Formerly, England supplied certain kinds of 
 machinery; for instance, locomotives to France, 
 Germany, Austria, Holland, Russia, Italy, Spain, 
 and other European countries ; whilst now France, 
 Germany, and Austria, not only supply their own 
 wants, but have become important competitors with 
 us in Russia, Spain, Italy, Egypt, and even in India 
 and in England herself." On the same subject^ Mr. 
 Beyer, of the Gorton Foundry, at Manchester, says : 
 
 * Q. 16,759. t Q. 19,040. Tenth Eeport, p. 56.
 
 33 
 
 " When I came to Manchester, and for years after, 
 we supphed the Continent with locomotives. Now 
 they do not want us, and we can scarcely compete 
 with them." "" The cause to which Mr. Robinson 
 attributes the increased cost of production, is less an 
 increase of wages than a diminished productiveness 
 of work, " I do not believe," he says, " that these 
 unions have done much on the whole to advance the 
 rate of wages, in their respective trades, but I have 
 a very strong conviction that their tendency is to 
 diminish the amount of work produced for a given 
 sum of wages, and so to increase materially the cost 
 of the production of labour." 
 
 Similar danger seems to threaten the glass 
 trade, in which the restriction of labour by the 
 unions is peculiarly oppresssive. Dr. Lloyd, of 
 Birminofham, stated to the Commissioners, that : 
 " Foreign competition is increasing daily almost. 
 The quality is improving, and the cost of production 
 and labour is cfreater in Ensrland than it is abroad." 
 And so it is with hosiery, printing, and other trades 
 which it were tedious to enumerate ; to the great 
 detriment of the community at large, but to the 
 especial loss of the labouring population to whicli 
 they give employment. No doubt, other causes, 
 besides the exactions of Unionism, may have contri- 
 buted to foster foreign competition. But so much 
 more reason is there, for wise moderation on the part 
 of British workmen. Whatever tends, like reckless 
 Unionism, to hamper the operation of the capitalist, 
 and raise the cost of his production, endangers his 
 industry, and by driving his capital abroad, lessens^ 
 
 ♦Q. 18,933. 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 pro tanto, the home labourer's means of subsist- 
 ence. 
 
 As to the Board of Trade statistics, on which 
 so much stress has been laid by the apologists of 
 Unionism, they prove only that certain staple in- 
 dustries have not yet been extinguished in this 
 country ; not by any means, that they have received 
 their due development. Since the establishment of 
 free-trade, our exports in general have been trebled. 
 In the natural course of things, the manufacture of 
 steam-engines, locomotives, and machinery of all 
 kinds, railroad iron, iron ships, and like articles, 
 should have received, of late years, an enormous 
 development. It is sorry comfort, then, for the 
 British capitalist, and still sorrier for the British 
 labourer, to be told that these industries still 
 exist, though their future continuance, and still 
 more their future expansion, are seriously threat- 
 ened. The East- end shipbuilder, musing, dinner- 
 less, among the ruins of the Isle of Dogs, will 
 hardly be consoled by learning from the Report of 
 the Commissioners that the " total of iron and steel 
 exported " has risen, " from the value of ten millions 
 in 1861 to that of fifteen millions in 1867."'" The 
 pressing question for him is, where he is to get his 
 dinner. 
 
 Next, let us count the cost of Unionism. 
 What does the unionist pay, in hard cash, for the 
 privilege of inflicting so much of injury on himself 
 and others I Take, for instance, an amalgamated 
 engineer, earning from 305. to 365. a week, and paying 
 a contribution of \s. a week to his union. Here 
 
 * Eeport, p. 125.
 
 35 
 
 the direct cost of Unionism to such a workman, 
 independently of entrance fees, occasional levies and 
 public-house expenses, is a self-imposed income-tax, 
 averaging about 8cZ. in the pound. We know how 
 grudgingly a tax of this extent was paid, even by 
 our richer classes, for objects of the highest national 
 importance ; and we cannot but think that, if the 
 w^eiofht of the union income-tax were not iudiciouslv 
 veiled under periodic payments, we should have 
 more murmuring at its amount. Were a slump 
 sum of £2 12s. called for, once a year, by the 
 tax-gatherer, even an enthusiastic amalgamated 
 engineer would look more closely into his " value 
 received." 
 
 But the unionist pays also indirectly for his 
 whistle. He is a consumer no less than a producer; 
 and, in that capacity, must bear his share of the 
 burden of increased cost of production. Unionism, 
 like protectionism, is a system of taxation " all 
 round " ; a mulcting of everybody for everybody 
 else. It is needless, at this time of day, to follow 
 out, in detail, such a system of mutual spoliation. It 
 is enough, as an example, to point to the increased 
 cost of labourers' cottages mentioned by Mr. E. 
 Ashworth, than whom no one is more deserving of 
 being listened to. After alluding to the opposition 
 in Manchester to machine-made bricks, he continues: 
 " Cheaper cottages would be a great blessing to the 
 working-classes ; and, with machine-made bricks and 
 free-trade in labour, I am of opinion they might be 
 made much cheaper than at present. A cottage 
 now lets at 3s. per week : if built at present prices, 
 it would require 4s. per week rent ; and this would
 
 36 
 
 be a weekly tax of Is. per week on the occupier." "'' 
 This weekly shilling, added to his contribution of is. 
 per week to the union, would make the weekly cost 
 of Unionism, on these two items alone, to an amal- 
 gamated carpenter or engineer, 2^', per week, or 
 £5 As. a year ; equivalent to an income-tax of about 
 Is. Ad. in the pound. 
 
 Thus, Unionism is in this dilemma, that whether 
 it fails or whether it succeeds in its immediate 
 object, its ultimate tendency is hurtful to the 
 labourer. If it fail, at once, in forcing higher terms 
 on the employers of labour, the whole cost of 
 the organization, in money and exertion, is simply 
 thrown away. An amount is lost that, more wisely 
 invested, might have secured to the workmen a 
 provision for sickness or old age. If, on the 
 contrary, it should attain, for a time, a seeming- 
 success, the ultimate result is even worse. Nature's 
 violated laws vindicate their authority by a sure 
 reaction. The presumptuous mortal, who dares to 
 set his selfish will against divine ordinances, brings 
 on his head inevitable retribution ; his momentary 
 prosperity disappears, and he pays, in prolonged 
 suffering, the penalty of his suicidal success. 
 
 We say, then, that Unionism does not, and can- 
 not, permanently and generally raise wages, t But 
 the unionist insists that it has raised wages; and, in 
 proof, he points to the fact, that, of late years, unions 
 have flourished and wages have risen. He is here, 
 however, the dupe of a natural, but transparent 
 illusion. The establishment, in this country, of the 
 policy of Free-trade, some quarter of a century ago, 
 
 * Q. 4345. + See Note, page 56.
 
 37 
 
 added greatly to the productiveness of the national 
 industry. More was produced, to be divided 
 between capitalists and labourers. Wages rose, and 
 capital was rapidly accumulated. This again caused 
 a renewed demand for labour, and a rise in wages, 
 amounting in all to from 25 to 50 per cent. Now 
 this rise coincided — especially during the last ten or 
 fifteen years — with a marked development of the 
 system of Unionism ; and the unionist, naturally but 
 erroneously, attributes the rise in his wages to the 
 influence of the system which he had organized to 
 effect it. His error is the common one of confound- 
 ing simple sequence with cause and effect. Hardly 
 even that : for it is rather probable, that the growth 
 of Unionism was itself due to the excitement, caused 
 by the prosperity of the working-classes, under the 
 influence of our free-trade lesfislation. 
 
 O 
 
 Moreover, the rise of wages throughout the 
 country, during the last twenty-five years, has nowise 
 been confined to the organized trades. It has been 
 universal ; being shared, in at least an equal propor- 
 tion, with those classes among whom organization is 
 not only unknown, but impossible. Thus the rise in 
 the wages of agricultural labourers, which Lord 
 Overstone recently estimated at 25 per cent, during 
 the last twenty years, could only be the result of a 
 natural demand for labour, not of any organized 
 effort. The rural labourer is too isolated, and too 
 stupid, to combine. So the increased pay of our 
 soldiers has manifestly been caused by natural, not 
 artificial, means. The strays aud waifs who recruit 
 our armies, have no power of previous organization. 
 They are not even known to each other ; still less 
 
 420792
 
 38 
 
 do they form a compact body. Yet these isolated 
 and thoughtless creatures feel, simultaneously, the 
 electric thrill of demand that passes through the 
 labouring body ; and their heightened terms tell as 
 imperatively on the recruiting sergeant, as the 
 demands on the capitalist of the most dictatorial 
 union. So, again, with our domestic servants. A 
 class, seemingly, more helpless, or less capable of 
 combined effort, cannot be conceived. Yet the 
 wages of this class have risen, parri passu, with those 
 of the best organized trades; and the most friendless 
 little maid -of-all- work has had her interests cared for, 
 and her wages raised, as surely as those of the haughti- 
 est member of the Amalgamated Engineers. 
 
 Unionism can neither enrich, nor ennoble, the 
 working-class. The only effectual means of bettering 
 their condition is that course of self-improvement, 
 enjoined alike by morality and common-sense. 
 They must practise industry, thrift, and self-denial. 
 They must work hard and look ahead, refraining 
 from marriage, till they can support and educate 
 a family; and striving resolutely towards a higher 
 ideal of existence. When, by this means, they 
 have succeeded in limiting their numbers, and 
 raising their standard of life, they will be able to 
 command better terms for their labour. " Effort 
 and sacrifice " are the elements of all genuine pros- 
 perity, as — according to Kant — of all real virtue. 
 The working-man can only improve his circumstances, 
 by elevating his character. Any scheme he may 
 devise, or that false friends may suggest to him, for 
 bettering himself by robbing others, is as vain as it 
 is dishonest.
 
 39 
 
 And now let us ask : What is the probable 
 future of Unionism ? Is it to go on developing its 
 power, till it gets to rule the industry of the nation, 
 and of the world ? Or will its influence more pro- 
 bably be checked, by an inevitable reaction ? Par- 
 tisans, elated by the rapid development of the system 
 during the last few years, predict for it the former 
 fate : to our cooler judgment, the latter seems more 
 probable. But as yet we know too little of the 
 nature of Unionism, to forecast, with confidence, its 
 future fortunes: we can only reason on general prin- 
 ciples. The whole system is but a thing of yester- 
 day. The Union of Amalgamated Engineers has 
 not existed for twenty years, the other chief unions 
 barely for ten. Such a duration is a mere point in 
 a nation's history, and can afford no solid basis, 
 on which to build a scientific system. We must 
 wait for more experience. We must have time for 
 the study of a phenomenon so new and strange as 
 this of Unionism. Hitherto, friends and foes have 
 been alike puzzled; and, as yet, the British Public 
 is only groping its way to some dim conception of 
 its real nature. 
 
 To us it seems pretty clear, that a new 
 phase of Unionism is setting in. Hitherto, com- 
 bination, as a rule, has been confined to the men; 
 and their success — when they did succeed — arose 
 from the assaults of orcranized bodies on isolated 
 individuals. Now similar tactics have been adopted 
 by tlie masters. Henceforth, it would seem, com- 
 bination is to be met by combination; an organiza- 
 tion of capital will be opposed to tlie organization of 
 labour; and the '* terrible power" of the Strike will
 
 40 
 
 encounter the still more terrible power of the Lock- 
 out. 
 
 This policy of the masters is prompted by 
 the instinct of self-preservation. Combination among 
 employers is always difficult ; so, difficult, indeed, 
 that nothing short of dire necessity will effect it. 
 The oft-quoted dictum of Adam Smith, that it is 
 very easy for a few capitalists to combine, is a griev- 
 ous error ; very natural for a closet philosopher, but 
 palpably false to every man conversant with practi- 
 cal affairs. Capitalists in the same trade are neces- 
 sarily competitors, and are therefore kept apart by 
 natural rivalries, which too often degenerate into 
 personal jealousies. Moreover, the capitalist has 
 difficulties peculiar to himself. If a suspension of 
 labour threatens the labourer with want, it threatens 
 no less the capitalist with ruin. Insolvency is the 
 terrible phantom, that gives the employer pause. 
 Every producer has obligations that must be met on 
 pain of dishonour; bills to take up, contracts to fulfil, 
 borrowed money to repay, and so forth. Mr. Sa- 
 muda has told us with what crushing force these 
 obligations fall on needy producers, and make it all 
 but impossible for them to carry out a combination. 
 Speaking of the great engineers' lock-out of 1851, he 
 says : "I was one of the committee for carrying out 
 that contest, and the difficulties that existed in 
 maintaining a combination among the masters, were 
 enormous, because there were so many masters 
 whose necessities were so great that they could not 
 act to the extent of resisting demands that they 
 thought unjust. It was only men who were thor- 
 oughly independent, and who did not care for
 
 41 
 
 closing their works, that could stand the difficulty, 
 and face the insolvency that was brought upon 
 weaker houses, by resisting the unjust demands of 
 the workman." ^'" 
 
 Besides such considerations of mere interest, 
 other and more generous motives cause the capitalist 
 to hesitate, before entering into combinations, even 
 for defensive purposes. It cannot but be painful to 
 any gentleman of proper feelings, to enter on a 
 course of policy, the result of which may be to in- 
 Hict — however justifiably — severe suffering on his 
 .subordinates. Moreover, men in the position of 
 employers of labour are singularly sensitive to the 
 opinion of the public, always impatient of witnessing 
 distress, and ready, without much enquiry, to cast 
 blame on those whom they fancy to be its authors. 
 We do not wonder, therefore, to find in the 
 Commissioners' Report, abundant evidence of the 
 strong aversion felt by employers, to enter even into 
 defence associations, unless impelled by the dire 
 necessity of self-preservation. 
 
 Still, endurance has its limits ; and when wrong 
 and humiliation become intolerable, the tamest 
 employer will turn to bay. He will cast sentiment 
 to the winds; will defy public opinion; and will face 
 ruin itself, to preserve at once his property and his 
 self-respect : if he must be ruined, as well be crushed 
 in a gallant struggle for his rights, as tamely submit 
 to unresisted spoliation. When masters are in this 
 temper, defence-associations become possible ; and 
 when achieved, they are irresistible. The power of 
 such a counter organization was stikingly shown 
 
 *Q. 16,805.
 
 42 
 
 forth in the late success of the iron shipbuilders on 
 the Clyde, as contrasted with the disastrous fate of 
 their brethren on the Thames. The latter were 
 disunited ; could offer no effectual resistance ; and 
 were ruined. The former organized a Defence 
 Association ; beat the unions ; and preserved a val- 
 uable industry to themselves, their workmen, and 
 the community at large. 
 
 Should, then, the labouring class continue to 
 put their trust in combination, they must face the 
 possibility of counter-combination. In bargaining 
 for his wages, the workman has before him the 
 alternative of natural competition, or artificial organ- 
 ization ; but he must not expect to combine the 
 advantages of both. If the system of individual 
 bargaining is to be rejected, it must be rejected for 
 masters and men alike. Both must bargain indivi- 
 dually, or both in a body. One and the same prin- 
 ciple must regulate the demand for, and the supply 
 of, labour. You cannot have monopoly on the one 
 hand, and freedom on the other. If competition be 
 suspended among the men, it will inevitably be 
 suspended among the masters. Now, mark the 
 consequences. So long as individual competition 
 prevails among masters and men alike, the humblest 
 labourer is protected in hiring out his labour, by the 
 competition of powerful capitalists; just as the poor 
 needle- woman is protected in purchasing her ounce 
 of tea, by the rivalry of Mincing Lane produce 
 brokers and millionaire China merchants. Under a 
 system of competition, the strength of the capitalist 
 is the shield of the labourer. But when combination 
 takes the place of competition, and masters as a
 
 43 
 
 body confront workmen as a body, the natural 
 conditions of the market are reversed. Then the 
 rich are pitted against the poor ; the powerful against 
 the weak ; and then, as of old, the battle will be to 
 the strong. And so there is established that very 
 supremacy of wealtli, which Unionism was vainly 
 devised to counteract. 
 
 Besides the danger of counter-combination, that 
 threatens Unionism from without, a more insidious 
 danger threatens it from within. In the very 
 constitution of trades' unions, as combining the char- 
 acters of trade and benefit societies, there lurk tlie 
 seeds of weakness, if not of ultimate dissolution. 
 And so, even though they should withstand the 
 power of hostile organizations, they must succumb 
 to the financial difficulties inherent in their nature, 
 No doubt the combination of trade with benefit 
 purposes was astutely conceived, with a view to 
 increase the strength of trade organizations. The 
 benefit element was first to decoy, and then to con- 
 trol. The lure of prospective benefits having 
 attracted members, the dread of confiscation was to 
 enforce obedience. A workman, it was calculated, 
 who had contributed for years to an union, would 
 hardly dare to resist the will of its chiefs. The 
 savings of a life-time stood pledged for his submis- 
 sion. Yet the development of the system has shown 
 it to contain an element of fatal weakness. No 
 doubt the promise of lavish benefits tends, at first, 
 to attract members ; but, on the other hand, the ful- 
 filment of these promises to old members so exhausts 
 the funds as to rcj^cl new ones ; and the older the 
 society, and the more lavish its promises, the greater
 
 44 
 
 will be the difficulty of recruiting its ranks. A work- 
 man, invited to join such an union, will probably fear 
 that his contribution may be required to liquidate 
 obligations long ago incurred ; and he will hesitate to 
 cast in his lot with a society, whose whole funds may 
 be so absorbed, before his turn comes to participate in 
 its advantages. Nor will it lessen his reluctance, to 
 be told that, in case of a total exhaustion of the 
 society's funds, its treasury can be replenished by 
 extraordinary levies on himself and his fellows. 
 
 That these fears are nowise visionary, has been 
 clearly established by the investigations of two 
 actuaries of high standing, into the affairs of the 
 two model unions, the Amalgamated Engineers and 
 the Amalgamated Carpenters. The result arrived at 
 by these authorities was, that both of these unions 
 are in a state of hopeless insolvency. The argument 
 chiefly relied on, in reply, by the unionist authorities, 
 is, that the number of members entitled to super- 
 annuation is greatl}^ reduced by voluntary secessioii. 
 But, even after the most extreme allowance for 
 secession, Mr. Finlaison makes the deficiency in the 
 present value of the assets, of the Amalgamated 
 Engineers, to amount to £1,000,972 ; and of the 
 Amalgamated Carpenters, to £201,508. Mr. Finlai- 
 son estimates separately the deficiency for benefit 
 purposes, and that for donations or trade purposes. 
 Putting them together we arrive at the following 
 result : — 
 
 Amalgamated Engineers. 
 Estimated deficiency of Assets, — 
 
 For Benefit purposes, . . . £453,930 
 For Trade purposes, . . . . 547,042 
 
 Total Deficiency, . . . £1,000,972
 
 45 
 
 Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners. 
 
 Estimated deficiency of Assets, — 
 
 For Benefit purposes, . . . £46,414 
 For Trade purposes, 155,094 
 
 Total Deficiency, . . . J201,508 
 
 Mr. Finlaison adds, that the weekly contribution 
 required for benefit purposes alone, wholly irrespec- 
 tive of any trade object, would be, in both societies, 
 Is. 6d. instead of Is. per week, or 50 per cent, more 
 than the actual contribution.'" 
 
 In answer to those astounding disclosures, the 
 apologists of Unionism assert, that no conclusion 
 adverse to the system in general can be drawn from 
 the insolvency of these two model unions, as only 
 they and a few others offer superannuation benefits. 
 It is difficult, however, to believe, that if these 
 superior societies were found wanting, when subjected 
 to scientific scrutiny, weaker and more reckless 
 unions would have better stood the test. But be 
 this as it may, so much at least is certain, that the 
 collapse of such an union as the Amalgamated 
 Carpenters or Engineers, would involve the ruin of 
 many other unions. The prestige of these societies 
 is great; and the credit of Unionism throughout the 
 land, rests greatly on the general opinion of their 
 stability and power. Were they to fall, a shock 
 would be given to the whole system. This, too, is 
 certain, that in every trades' union there exists the 
 fatal element of incalculability. At any moment, a 
 trade dispute may swamp the richest and best 
 resrulated union. The wise unionist, therefore, will 
 
 *Mr. Fiulaisoa's " Menioranduui " in App. to Commissioners' Sixth 
 Report.
 
 46 
 
 lay to heart the significant hint, with which Mr. 
 Finlaison concludes his " Memorandum" : — "In con- 
 clusion, it may be remarked, that it is too frequently 
 unobserved, that regulations which leave the funds 
 required to meet definite contingencies open to 
 diversion for casual and incalculable demands, have 
 also the effect of removing the conditions which 
 are generally indispensable to permanent success," 
 That is : if you would preserve your union funds for 
 sickness and old age, beware of wasting them on 
 strikes and lock-outs. 
 
 Holding these opinions as to the disastrous conse- 
 quences, which the union of trade and provident 
 purposes is likely, ultimately, to bring on Unionism, 
 we should have expected their separation to be chiefly 
 insisted on by the earnest friends of that system, 
 with a view to eliminate an element of great future 
 danger. But, strange to say, we find the supporters 
 of Unionism clinging tenaciously to this double 
 function ; and angrily resisting every proposal for 
 separation, as an insidious device to sap the power 
 of the system. On the other hand the opponents of 
 Unionism, with no less inconsistency, call for the 
 peremptory separation of the trade and provident 
 purposes of the unions, or at least of the funds 
 devoted to each. They do not see that, even if they 
 could effect this object — as assuredly they can not— 
 they would only give increased stability and perma- 
 nence to a system they condemn. 
 
 Next, let us consider, shortly, some of the reme- 
 dies for the evils of Unionism, suggested by the 
 Commissioners in their Report. Foremost among
 
 47 
 
 these are arbitration and conciliation. As to the 
 former, we confess we hardly see how it is to be 
 made available for the purpose in view. All efficient 
 arbitration is based on some acknowledged principle 
 of decision. The arbiter's judgment rests on the 
 application, to a particular case, of some rule of law 
 or natural equity. But trade-disputes involve no 
 question of right ; they are mere differences on 
 points of interest. An arbiter can no more decide, 
 on any rational principle, whether the wage of a 
 labourer should be a pound or a guinea, than 
 whether the price of a pound of rump steak should 
 be Is. or Is. Id. In neither case can any universal 
 rule of right be invoked ; in both, the decision lies 
 with each man's notion of his own interest or con- 
 venience. His idea as to his interest may be wise, 
 or it may be foolish ; but such as it is, he is entitled 
 to hold by it. The employer and the labourer, like 
 the butcher and his customer, has each the right to 
 name his own price, and to stick to it. In such a 
 case, an arbiter has no means of judging according to 
 any principle of reason. He may advise as a friend : 
 he cannot decide as a judge. In the end he will find, 
 he has nothing for it but to split the difference. 
 But if splitting the difference becomes a system, de- 
 mands will be so regulated, as to admit of being 
 «plit. 
 
 Then, how is arbitration to be enforced ? In 
 the Report of the Commissioners, there is abundant 
 evidence of the difficulty of getting disputes referred 
 to arbitration, even when a general assent to the prin- 
 ciple had been previously obtained. And even sup- 
 posing this difficulty overcome, how are the parties
 
 48 
 
 to be bound by the arbiter's decision? Legal com- 
 pulsion is out of the question; and moral compulsion 
 can be least depended on, just when most needed ; 
 naaiely, to enforce an unpalatable decision. But even 
 if good faith be kept, and the original parties to an 
 arbitration abide honourably by the award, how can 
 their successors be equitably bound by it ? Labour- 
 ers are a fluctuating body; and it seems unreasonable 
 that the workmen of to-day shall have power to bind 
 the workmen of to-morrow. On the whole, arbitra- 
 tion, we fear, is likely to remain more an amiable as- 
 piration, than a practical principle for everyday use. 
 But the pet scheme of the Commissioners, for 
 settling trade disputes, is the establishment of courts 
 of conciliation. Such store, indeed, do they set by 
 this contrivance, that they declare, they will deem 
 their two-years' labour well repaid, if it shall be the 
 means of forcibly drawing public attention to so 
 hopeful a means of ^' establishing lasting friendly re- 
 lations between capital and labour."* For our part, 
 we do not altogether share this lively faith, in the 
 all-sufficient remedial force of the system of con- 
 ciliation. We do not, for a moment, doubt the al- 
 leged success of Mr Mundella's Nottingham court 
 of conciliation ; but we cannot discover any prin- 
 ciple of efficiency, to which that success can be 
 attributed, or which is capable of general application. 
 It seems to us, that Mr. Mundella has attributed too 
 much to the power of his system; too little to his per- 
 sonal influence. Mr. Mundella is too modest by half. 
 We can well believe, that, in a comparatively 
 limited trade, such as the hosiery trade, the energy 
 
 * Report, p. 28.
 
 49 
 
 and good feeling of a superior man may overrule the 
 wills of more vulgar spirits; but such an infiuonce 
 is partial and precarious ; and neither ]\Ir. Mundulla 
 nor the Commissioners have pointed out any princi- 
 ple of influence, capable of universal application in 
 their courts of conciliation. 
 
 " All that is needed," says the Commissioners, 
 " is that certain representative employers and work- 
 men should meet at regular stated times, and amica- 
 bly discuss, around a table, the common interests 
 of the common trade or business." Just so : but 
 how insure the " amicable " discussion ? Given 
 "friendly feelings" on both sides, the problem is 
 easy of solution ; and courts of conciliation might 
 even be dispensed with, as a superfluous luxury. 
 But failing such friendly I'eelings, we do not see how 
 any amount of discussion, "around a table," is to 
 ensure an " amicable understanding." The proposi- 
 tion of the Commissioners, in short, amounts to 
 little more than a pious wish, after the manner of the 
 excellent Dr. Watts, that brethren in trade shall 
 dwell in amity together. 
 
 Even the physical conditions of courts of con- 
 ciliation present practical difficulties, which might 
 appal men of less intellectual nerve than the Royal 
 Commissioners. No doubt, it may be possible to 
 collect representatives of a small hosiery trade, in 
 a central town like Nottingham ; nor would it be 
 unreasonable to expect some feeling of a " common 
 interest " in such a representative body. But the lar- 
 ger unions, spread all over the kingdom, nay all over 
 the world, seem much less manageable. How, for in- 
 stance, are representative men of the 33,325 Amalga- 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 mated Engineers, and their hundreds or thousands of 
 employers to be gathered together from all the ends 
 of the earth; from the colonies, from the Continent, 
 from the United States, not to speak of the United 
 Kingdom and Ireland? And even supposing these 
 preliminary difficulties overcome, and a national, or 
 even an international, court of conciliation assem- 
 bled, say in London, the problem would still remain 
 to be solved, how a sense of " common interests is 
 to be established, and an " amicable understanding " 
 regarding them arrived at. 
 
 Our main objection, however, both to arbi- 
 tration and conciliation, as palliatives of Unionism, 
 is that they sanction, nay necessitate, the continu- 
 ance of the system of combination, as opposed to 
 that of individual competition. We regard them, 
 therefore, as mischievous compromises with a prin- 
 ciple essentially evil; as deceitful remedies, which 
 palliate the symptoms, but confirm the disease of 
 Unionism. By bringing together representative 
 bodies of masters and men, and appealing to their 
 cooler judgment and better feelings, we may, pos- 
 sibly, stave off* a quarrel for a time, and here or 
 there prevent a strike or a lock-out. But, in so 
 doing, we lend the authority of public recognition 
 to the pestilent principle of combination; and sanc- 
 tion the substitution of an artificial mechanism, for 
 that natural organism which Providence has pro- 
 vided for the harmonious regulation of industrial 
 interests. 
 
 On one point the Commissioners are unani- 
 mous : all agree in recommending the registration of 
 unions. To this suggestion, — agreeable as it is to
 
 51 
 
 the present passion for State supervision — we have 
 the same objection, as to the proposal for arbitration 
 and conciHation. Like them, registration gives 
 State recognition to a bad principle. Unionism is a 
 system to be tolerated ; not to be encouraged. The 
 liberty of the subject must be respected, even when 
 men inflict injury on themselves; but a system inju- 
 rious to the workman, to his employer, and to the 
 community, ought not to bear the stamp of State 
 recognition. Moreover, the apparatus of registration, 
 as proposed by the Commissioners, is practically 
 unworkable. The whole system of regulation — 
 especially when separation of trade and benefit funds 
 is enjoined — is singularly intricate and vexatious; 
 and, most assuredly, would be indignantly rejected by 
 the unions. Nor would the publicity be obtained, 
 which is so much desired. The regulations which it 
 would be really important to know, would still 
 remain ''secret rules"; and the accounts would be 
 equally unexplicit. It is childish to suppose that, 
 where evil existed, the wrong-doer would volunteer 
 information to the registrar of his own misdeeds. 
 Not even the temptation of a " first-class certificate" 
 would induce the unionist conspirator to proclaim 
 his guilt. A Broadhead would not publish his 
 schemes of outrage to the world ; nor would the 
 blood-money of his assassins appear in his accounts. 
 
 To us it seems, that little new legislation is 
 needed. What is wanted is, rather, a juster ad- 
 ministration of existing laws. What the State is 
 bound to do is, to enforce perfect liberty of con- 
 tract; to secure to every person, "full freedom
 
 52 
 
 in disposing of his own labour or his own capital 
 according to his will." '" This is the principle estab- 
 lished by common law, and definitely sanctioned by 
 enlightened public opinion. How it may best be 
 carried out, is a question for the lawyers; but as to 
 the end to be attained, there is, among rational men, 
 no longer any dispute. 
 
 The sanction given, by universal consent, to the 
 principle of combination, behoves to be carried out to 
 its logical results. The right to combine being con- 
 ceded, the unionist ought to be protected in the full 
 exercise of his right. Having liberty accorded him 
 to combine for his own purposes, he may logically 
 use his combination to accomplish similar purposes 
 for others. And, moreover, it is impossible to 
 hinder him from doing so. The proposal, therefore, 
 of the majority of the Commissioners, to prohibit 
 one union from helping another, is at once oppressive 
 and futile. Neither can the unionist be reasonably 
 denied the rio'ht to refuse to work with another 
 workman. No doubt it may be a spiteful thing to 
 refuse to work, as sometimes happens, under a fore- 
 man of undeniable ability and good character; but 
 we can see no rule of law, under which such spiteful 
 conduct can be condemned as criminal. Such sole- 
 cisms must be left to the influence of public opinion 
 and individual conscience. They are sins against 
 morality; not crimes against the State. 
 
 Again, combination being recognized by law, 
 union funds have a clear right to protection: and if 
 they are not sufficiently secured by tlie law as it 
 stands, by all means give them full protection. The 
 
 * See Sir W. Erie's Memorandum. Report p. 59.
 
 53 
 
 ideas of unionists may not be consistent with the 
 received principles of economical science ; but it is 
 no good reason to outlaw men, that they are bad 
 political economists. The old bugbear of " restraint 
 of trade " must not be made use of to sanction 
 larceny. It is a sorry policy, which allies the law of 
 the land with the rascality that robs a till. 
 
 On the other hand, the unionist must not be 
 permitted to oppress his neighbour ; whether em- 
 ployer or fellow-workman. The first duty of the 
 State is to secure a just administration of the laws ; 
 and our rulers abdicate their highest function, when 
 they cease to protect the citizen. It is intolerable, 
 that a district of England should be abandoned, like 
 Wigan the other day, to the club-law of infuriated 
 colliers ; or, that the community of Manchester 
 should be condemned, to use 72 millions a year 
 of bad and dear bricks, to fill the pockets of a junto 
 of semi-barbarous brick-makers. The evidence 
 given before the Commissioners demonstrates, also, 
 in many cases, a shameful miscarriage of justice. 
 Persons have been forcibly impeded, both in hiring 
 labour, and in offering labour for hire. In the 
 ordinary exercise of their calling, they have been 
 subjected to grievous injury; and their wrongs 
 have gone unavenged, because men feared to give 
 evidence against the wrong-doers. Such a paralysis 
 of law is disgraceful in a land, calling itself civilized; 
 and our authorities cannot too soon take order, that 
 such scandals shall henceforth cease. Witli this 
 view, we heartily applaud the suggestion of a major- 
 ity of the Commissioners, that a public prosecutor be 
 appointed. To every man of common sense, it must
 
 54 
 
 appear a grotesque perversi(.>ii of" justice, to call upon 
 the poor victim of a trade outrage, to prosecute his 
 assailant at his own expense ; and to bind him over 
 in heavy penalties, to vindicate the majesty of a law 
 which has failed to afford him protection. 
 
 Come what may, Government is bound to keep 
 the peace, and to secure to every citizen the full 
 exercise of his freedom. This is not " class legisla- 
 tion;" it is, in the best and highest sense, legislation 
 for the community. The State has renounced the 
 barbarism of fixing a maximum of wages ; let it see 
 to it, that resuscitated guilds do not fix a minimum. 
 The Legislature must be just to the trades' unions; 
 but it must not truckle to them. 
 
 As for the public, the less they interfere in trade- 
 disputes, the better. They will get no thanks, and 
 will do no good. They never can understand the 
 intricate technicalities of such a discussion, nor 
 unravel the contradictory statements of the disput- 
 ants. They can onl^'^ offer the usual weak wailings 
 as to the loss to be incurred, and threadbare plati- 
 tudes as to the foolishness and wickedness of con- 
 tention. Such considerations never shortened a 
 trade-dispute by an hour. Far other considerations 
 weigh with both the parties in a serious trade contest. 
 Goody talk, in such a case, is mere waste of human 
 speech. 
 
 One thing is clear : the relation betAveen work- 
 men and their employers has permanently changed 
 its character. The democratic idea which rules 
 in politics, has no less penetrated into industry. 
 The notion of a governing class, exacting implicit 
 obedience from inferiors, and imposing upon them
 
 55 
 
 their own terms of service, is gone, never to return. 
 Henceforward, employers and their workmen must 
 meet as equals in all the essentials of manhood. 
 When this truth shall have been more thoroughl}^ 
 recognized, it will influence favourably the conduct 
 of both parties. It will soften the manner of em- 
 ployers towards workmen, whom they recognize as 
 equals in all essential respects; while the workman, 
 more and more assured of his position, will feel less 
 anxious to assert his dignity by a rude address and 
 intemperate demands. 
 
 Let the nation, then, insist on justice: let it see 
 that freedom is secured to all ; and then, let it leave 
 unionists alone. Let it leave them to the teachinos 
 of experience. If that stern school-mistress cannot 
 teach them wisdom, none else can. A system so 
 rooted in the proletarian mind, as Unionism, will 
 only yield to self-inflicted suffering. It will be a 
 painful, and a slow process; but in the end it will be 
 successful. Generations ma}^ pass away without 
 effect ; but, with time, truth will prevail. The 
 fanatical faith of the working-classes in the artificial 
 mechanism of combination, will give place to trust 
 in the wiser, because more natural, system of indi- 
 vidual competition ; and the hiring of labour, like 
 the exchange of commodities, will be set free, to be 
 regulated by the heaven-ordained laws of Supply 
 and Demand.
 
 56 
 
 NoTK TO iSkcond Edition (page 36). 
 
 We have been twitted, by an otherwise friendly critic, with having 
 overlooked the late modification of this doctrine by Mr. Mill and Mr. 
 Thornton. Thi.s is not so; but we thoiit,dit that, in so slight a tract as 
 ours, we might, withotit controversy, build on a doctrine which, on v 
 Mr. Mill's own showing, has up till May, 18(59, been sanctioned by ^11 
 or most economists, including himself. As to Mr. Thornton's theory, 
 that different prices may coexist in one and the same market, it seems ' 
 to ITS, he confounds the oscillations of price with the point towards 
 which price oscillates. "Higgling " is but another name for oscillation; 
 and it matters not a straw, whether the higgling begins with the buyer 
 or the seller; whether the oscillation commences from the right hand 
 or the left. Surely Mr. Thornton has forgotten the rebuke administered 
 by Luckie Mucklebackit to the Antiquary, for closing at once with a 
 fishwife'.s "first bode." Mrs. Mucklebackit evidently held more orthodox 
 views tiian Mr. Thornton, as to the oscillations of price ; and set less 
 store by the power of the initiative. 
 
 PRINTF.n BV ROBERT MACLEHOSE, rNMVRRSITV PRESS, OLASOOW.
 
 UNIVERSITY OI' CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last daic stamped below 
 
 rm L-0 
 i-2,'43<520;1
 
 yC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY fini iry 
 
 3664 Stirling - 
 
 386t Trade x mio i 
 
 1889 
 
 . - ■ "lNlliin|||ii||i;|||||| 
 
 .iA 000 962 071 7 
 
 
 HD 
 6664 
 S86t 
 1889