PER! f^"nn^^W'T SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIB 1 1 1 1 1 ^ OOt- CNJOOO ^ ■'■! 1 K^ 1 J 1 : i ■'1 N Net, (! rp UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ■37 ,. Vtlil:-1..A--TT^' £25] 0.^f?^ U/VV^Q 38 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY doubt a bright side to the picture as well as a less encouraging one. The bright side, from the party point of view, is afforded by the hopeless chaos of opinion in the ranks of our opponents — by the total absence of any clear conviction or definite line whatever in the counsels of the Government, which causes Ministers to dash wildly from measure to measure in endeavouring to satisfy first one section and then another section of their motley following, and which prevents them from ever giving really adequate attention to any one of their proposals. I am not speaking of Ministers individually. Granted that some of them have done excellent work at the heads of their several departments — I think it would not be fair to deny that. I am thinking of their collective policy, and especially of their legislative efforts. For monuments of clumsy opportunism, commend me to the legislative failures, and, for the matter of that, to most of the legislative achievements, of the last two years. So far so good. Unionists cannot complain of what the Government is doing for them. And on the negative side of policy — in their duty A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 39 as a mere Opposition — their course is clear. It is a fundamental article of their faith to main- tain the authority of the Imperial Parliament in Ireland. But that authority can be set aside by the toleration of lawlessness just as much, and in a worse way, than by the repeal of the Union. And such toleration is the rule to-day. There may be no violent crime, but there is open and widespread defiance of the law and interference with the elementary rights of law- abiding people. It is a demoralising state of affairs, and one to which no good citizen in any part of the United Kingdom, however little he may be personally affected by it, can afford to be indifferent. Once let it be granted that any popular movement, which is not strong enough to obtain an alteration of the law by regular means, can simply set the law aside in practice, and you are at the beginning of general anarchy. Unionists have to fight for a restoration of the respect for law in Ireland in the interest of the whole kingdom. And they may have to fight also, it appears, against the abrogation of our existing constitution in favour of a system c 40 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY of quinquennial dictatorships. For that and nothing else is involved in the proposal to re- duce the House of Lords to impotence and put nothing in its place. I am not concerned to represent the present constitution of the House of Lords as perfect. I have always been of opinion that a more representative and there- fore a stronger second chamber was desirable. But that we can afford to do without any check on the House of Commons, especially since the removal of all checks upon the power of those who from time to time control the House of Commons to rush through any measures they please without the possibility of an appeal to the people — that is aproposition which no man with any knowledge of history or any respect for constitutional government can possibly defend. To resist such a proposal as that is not fighting for a party ; it is not fighting for a class. It is fighting for the stability of society, for the fundamental rights of the whole nation. I say, then, that on the negative side, in the things it is called upon to resist, the Unionist party is strong and fortunate. But are we to A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 41 be content with that ? Should we not all like to feel that we appealed for the confidence of the people on the merits of our own policy, and not merely on the demerits of our op- ponents ? That, I take it, is the feeling at the bottom of what men are saying on all hands just now — that the Unionist party ought to have a constructive policy. Now, if by a con- structive policy is meant a string of promises, a sort of Newcastle programme, then I can well imagine any wise statesmen, especially if they happened to be in Opposition, thinking twice before they committed themselves to it. But if by a constructive policy is meant a definite set of principles, a clear attitude to the questions which most agitate the public mind, a sympa- thetic grasp of popular needs, and a readiness to indicate the extent to which, and the lines on which, you think it possible and desirable to satisfy them — then I agree that the Unionist party ought to have such a policy. And I ven- ture to say that, if it has such a policy, the fact is not yet sufficiently apparent to the popular mind, or, perhaps, I should say, speaking as one of the populace, to my mind. 42 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY Many people think that it is sufficient for the purpose — that it is possible to conduct a victorious campaign with the single watchword " Down with Socialism." Well, I am not fond of mere negatives. I do not like fighting an abstract noun. My objection to anti-Socialism as a platform is that Socialism means so many different things. On this point I agree with Mr. Asquith. I will wait to denounce Socialism till I see what form it takes. Sometimes it is synonymous with robbery, and to robbery, open or veiled, boldly stalking in the face of day or hiding itself under specious phrases, Unionists are, as a matter of course, opposed. But mere fidelity to the eighth Command- ment is not a constructive policy, and Socialism is not necessarily synonymous with robbery. Correctly used, the word only signifies a par- ticular view of the proper relation of the State to its citizens —a tendency to substitute public for private ownership, or to restrict the freedom of individual enterprise in the interests of the public. But there are some forms of property which we all admit should be public and not private, and the freedom of individual enterprise A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 43 is already limited by a hundred laws. Socialism and Individualism are opposing principles, which enter in various proportions into the constitu- tion of every civilised society ; it is merely a question of degree. One community is more Socialistic than another. The same community is more Socialistic at one time than at another. This country is far more Socialistic than it was fifty years ago, and for most of the changes in that direction the Unionist and the Tory party are responsible. The Factory Acts are one in- stance ; free education is another. The danger, as it seems to me, of the Unionist party going off on a crusade against Socialism is that in the heat of that crusade it may neglect, or appear to neglect, those social evils of which honest Socialism is striving, often, no doubt, by un- wise means, to effect a cure. If the Unionist party did that, it would be unfaithful to its own best traditions from the days of " Sybil" and " Coningsby " to the present time. The true antidote to revolutionary Socialism is practical social reform. That is no claptrap phrase — although it may sound so ; there is a great historical truth behind it. The revolu- 44 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY tionary Socialist — I call him revolutionary be- cause he wants to alter the whole basis of society — would like to get rid of all private property, except, perhaps, our domestic pots and pans. He is averse from private enter- prise. He is going absurdly too far ; but what ofave birth to his doctrine ? The abuse of the rights of private property, the cruelty and the failure of the scramble for gain, which mark the reign of a one-sided Individualism. If we had not gone much too far in one direction, we should not have had this extravagant reaction in the other. But do not let us lose our heads in face of that reaction. While resisting the revolutionary propaganda, let us be more, and not less, strenuous in removing the causes of it. You may think I am now talking pure Radi- calism. Well, but it is not to the objects which many Radicals have at heart that we, as Unionists, need take exception. Why should we make them a present of those good objects ? Old age pensions ; the multiplica- tion of small landholders — and, let me add, landowners ; the resuscitation of agriculture ; and, on the other hand, better housing in A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 45 our crowded centres ; town planning ; sanitary conditions of labour ; the extinction of sweat- ing ; the physical training of the people ; con- tinuation schools — these and all other measures necessary to preserve the stamina of the race and develop its intelligence and productive power — have we not as good a right to regard these as our objects, aye, and in many cases a better right, than the supporters of the Government have ? It is not these objects which we deprecate. On the contrary, they have our ardent sym- pathy. What we do deprecate is the spirit in which they are so often preached and pursued. No progress is going to be made — quite the contrary — by stirring up class hatred or trying to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. It is not true that you cannot benefit one class without taking from another class — still less true that by taking from one you necessarily benefit another. The national income, the sum total of all our productive activities, is capable of being enormously increased or diminished by wise or foolish policy. For it does not only depend on the amount of capital and labour. 46 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY A number of far subtler factors enter into the account — science, organisation, energy, credit, confidence, thespirit in which men setabout their business. The one thing which would be certain to diminish that income, and to recoil on all of us, would be that war of classes which many people seem anxious to stir up. Nothing could be more fatal to prosperity, and to the fairest hopes of social progress, than if the great body of the upper and middle classes of the community had cause to regard that progress as indissolubly associated with an attack upon themselves. And that is why, if reforms such as I have indicated are costly — as they will be costly — you must find some better way of providing for them than by merely giving another turn to the in- come-tax screw, or just adding so much per cent, to the estate duty. From my point of view, social reform is a national affair. All classes benefit by it, not only those directly affected. And therefore all should contribute according to their means. I do not in any way object to the rich being made to contribute, even for purposes in which they are not direcdy interested. What I do object A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 47 to is that the great body of the people should not contribute to them. It is thoroughly vicious in principle to divide the nation, as many of the Radical and Labour men want to divide it, into two sections — a majority which only calls the tune, and a minority which only pays the piper. I own I am aghast at the mean opinion which many politicians seem to have of the mass of their working fellow countrymen, when they approach them with this crude sort of bribery, offering them everything for nothing, always talking to them of their claims upon the State, and never of their duties towards it. This is a democratic country. It is their State and their Empire — theirs to possess, theirs to con- trol, but theirs also to support and to defend. And I for one have such faith in the common sense and fair-mindedness of the British people that I believe you have only to convince them that you have a really sound national policy, and they will rally to it, without having to be bought by promises of a penny off this and twopence off the other — a sort of appeal, I regret to say, which is not only confined to 48 A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY Radical orators, but in which Unionists also are sometimes too apt to indulge. And, now, gentlemen, only one word in con- clusion — a brief and inadequate reference to a vast subject, but one to which I am at all times and seasons specially bound to refer. After all, my chief quarrel with the Radical party — not with all of them — I do not say that for a moment — but with a far too large and influential section — is their anti-patriotism. I use the word advisedly. It is not that they are unpatriotic in the sense of having no affection for their country. It is that they are deliberately and on principle — I do not asperse their motives ; I do not question their sincerity and conviction — anti-patriotic, opposed to national as distinct from cosmopolitan ideals. They are not zealous for national defence ; they have no faith in the Empire ; they love to show their impartiality by taking sides against their own country ; they object to their children being taught respect for the flag. But we Unionists are not cosmopolitans, but Britons. We have no envy or ill-will towards other nations ; a man is not a worse neighbour because he loves his own A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY 49 family. But we do hold that it is not our business to look after others. It is our business to look after ourselves and our dependencies, and the great kindred communities who own allegiance to the British flag. We want to draw closer to them, to stand together ; and we believe that the strength and the unity of the British Empire are of vital and practical importance to every citizen. In all our pro- paganda, and in all our policy, let us continue to give that great principle a foremost place. UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE Edinburgh, November 15, 1907 I AM greatly reassured by the very kind recep- tion which you have just given me. To tell the truth, I had been feeling a little alarmed at the fate which might await me in Edinburgh. From a faithful perusal of the Radical Press I had been led to believe that Scotland was seething with righteous indignation against that branch of the Legislature of which I am, it is true, only a humble and very recent member, but yet a member, and therefore involved in the general condemnation of the ruthless here- ditary tyrants and oppressors of the people, the privileged landowning class, which is alleged to be so out of sympathy with the mass of their fellow-countrymen, although, oddly enough, it supplies many of the most popular candidates, not only of one party, at any General Election. UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 51 Personally, I feel it rather hard to be painted in such black colours. There is no taint of here- ditary privilege about me. I am not — I wish I were — the owner of broad acres, and I am in no way conscious of belonging to a specially favoured class. There are a great many of my fellow members in the House of Lords who are in the same position, and who sit there, not by virtue of any privilege, but by virtue of their services, or, let me say in my own case, sup- posed services, to the State. And while we sit there — and here I venture, with all humility, to speak for all the members of that body, whether hereditary or created — we feel that we ought to deal with the questions submitted to us to the best of our judgment and conscience, with- out fear of the consequences to ourselves and . without allowing ourselves to be brow-beaten for not being different from what we are. We believe that we perform a useful and necessary function. We believe that a Second Chamber is essential to the good government of this country. We do not contend — certainly I am myself very far from contending — that the existing Second Chamber is the best imagin- 52 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE able. Let there be a well-considered reform of the House of Lords, or even, if need be, an entirely different Second Chamber. But until you have got this better instrument, do not throw away the instrument which you have — the only defence, not of the privileges of a class, but of the rights of the whole nation, against hasty, ill - considered measures and against the subordination of permanent national interests to the temporary exigencies of a party. It is said that there is a permanent Conser- vative majority in the House of Lords. But then every Second Chamber is, and ought to be, conservative in temper. It exists to exer- cise a restraining influence, to ensure that great changes shall not be made in fundamental insti- tutions except by the deliberate will of the nation, and not as the outcome of a mere passing mood. And if the accusation is, that the House of Lords is too Conservative in a party sense, which is a different thing, I admit, from being Conservative in the highest and best sense, that points not to doing away with the Second Chamber, but to making such a change in its composition as, while leaving it still UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 53 powerful, still, above all, independent, will render it more representative of the permanent mind of the nation. But let me be permitted to observe that the instance relied on to prove that the House of Lords is in the pocket of the Conservative party is a very unfortunate instance. What is its offence ? It is said that the Lords rejected the Scottish Land Bill. But they did not re- ject the Scottish Land Bill. They were quite prepared to accept a portion of the Bill, and it is for the Government to answer to the people interested in that portion for their not having received the benefits which the Bill was pre- sumably intended to bestow on them. What the Government did was to hold a pistol at the head of the House of Lords, and to say that they must either accept the whole stragglino- and ill-constructed measure as it stood, or be held up to public odium for rejecting it. But when the Bill was looked at as a whole, it was found to contain principles — novel principles as far as the great part of Scotland was con- cerned, bad principles, as the experience of Ireland showed — which the House of Lords, 54 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE and not only the Conservatives in the House of Lords, were not prepared to endorse. Was it Conservative criticism which killed the Bill ? It was riddled with arguments by a Liberal Peer and former Liberal Prime Minister — arguments to which the Government speakers were quite unable, and had the good sense not even to attempt, to reply. And that is the instance which is quoted to prove that the House of Lords is a Tory Caucus ! Now, before leaving this question of the House of Lords, let me just say one word about its general attitude. I have not long been a member of that assembly. I do not presume to take much part in its discussions. But I follow them, and I think I follow them with a fairly unprejudiced mind. On many questions I am perhaps not in accord with the views of the majority of the House. But what strikes me about the House of Lords is that it is a singularly independent assembly. It is not at the beck and call of any man. It is a body which does not care at all about party claptrap, but which does care a great deal about a good argument, from whatever quarter UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 55 it may proceed. Moreover, I am confident that the great body of its members are quite ahve to the fact that they cannot afford to cast their votes merely according to their individual opinions and personal prejudices — that they are trustees for the nation, and that while it is their duty to prevent the nation being hustled into revolution, as but for them it would have been hustled into Home Rule in 1893, ^^ey have no right to resist changes upon which the nation has clearly and after full deliberation set its mind. And when the Prime Minister says that it is intolerable arrogance on the part of the House of Lords to pretend to know better what the nation wishes than the House of Commons, I can only reply that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In 1893 the House of Commons said that the nation wished Home Rule. The House of Lords had the intolerable arrogance to take a different view. Well, within less than two years the question was submitted to the nation ; and who proved to be right ? I regret to have had to dwell at such length upon this particular topic. But it seems to me D 56 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE that we have no choice in the matter. If the Government succeed in their attempt to divert the attention of the nation from matters of the greatest interest at home and abroad in order to involve us all in a constitutional struggle on a false issue, we must be prepared to meet them. But I do not wish to waste the rare opportunity afforded to me to-night of address- ing this great and representative Scottish audience by talking exclusively about this regrettable manoeuvre. There is something I am anxious to say to you about the future of the Unionist party. I do not claim to lay down a policy for that or for any party. I am not, by temperament or antecedents, a good party man. But I want to be allowed, as a private citizen, to point out what are the great services which I think the Unionist party can render to the nation at the present very critical juncture in its history. The Unionist party has a splendid record in the past. For twenty years it has saved the United King- dom from disruption. It has preserved South Africa for the Empire ; and, greatly as I feel and know, that the results of the efforts and UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 57 sacrifices of the nation have been marred and impaired by the disastrous poHcy of the last two years, South Africa is still one country under the British flag. And all the time, in spite of foreign war and domestic sedition, the Unionist party has pursued a steady policy of practical social reform, and the administrative and legis- lative record of the last twenty years will com- pare favourably with that of any period of our history. But no party can afford to rely upon its past achievements. How is the Unionist party going to confront the great problems of the present day ? The greatest of these problems, as I shall never cease to preach to my country- men, is the maintenance of the great heritage which we owe to the courage, the enterprise, and the self-sacrifice of our forefathers, who built up one of the greatest Empires in history by, on the whole, the most honourable means. The epoch of expansion is pretty nearly past, but there remains before us a great work of development and consolidation. And that is a work which should appeal especially to Scots- men. The Scottish people have borne a great 58 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE part, great out of proportion to their numbers, in building up our common British heritage. They are taking a foremost part in it to-day. All over the world, as settlers in Canada, in Australia, or in South Africa, as administrators in India and elsewhere, they are among the sturdiest pillars on which the great Imperial fabric rests. I am not talking in the air. I am speaking from my personal experience, and only saying in public here to-night what I have said in private a hundred times, that as an agent of my country in distant lands I have had endless occasion to appreciate the support given to the British cause by the ability, the courage, the shrewd sense and the broad Imperial instinct of many Scotsmen. And therefore I look with confidence to a Scottish audience to support my appeal for continuous national effort in making the most of the British Empire. I say this is not a matter with regard to which we can afford to rest on our laurels. We must either go forward or we shall go back. And especially ought we to go forward in de- veloping co-operation, on a basis of equality and partnership, with the great self-governing UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 59 communities of our race in the distant portions of the world, else they will drift away from us. Do not let us think for a moment that we can afford such another fiasco as the late Colonial Conference. Do not let us imaofine for a moment that we can go to sleep over the questions then raised, and not one of them settled, for four years, only to find our- selves unprepared when the next Conference meets. A cordial social welcome, many toasts, many dinners, are all very well in their way, but they are not enough. What is wanted is a real understanding of what our felJow country- men across the seas are driving at, and a real attempt to meet them in their efforts to keep us a united family. All that our present rulers seem able to do is to misunderstand, and there- fore unconsciously to misrepresent — I do not question their good intentions, but I think they are struck with mental blindness in this matter — to misrepresent the attitude of the colonists and greatly to exaggerate the difficulties of meeting them half-way. The speeches of Ministers on a question like that of Colonial Preference leave upon me the most deplorable impression. One 6o UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE would have thought that, if they could not get over the objections which they feel to meeting the advances of our kinsmen, they would at least show some sort of regret at their failure. But not a bit of it. Their one idea all along has been to magnify the difficulties in the way in order to make party capital out of the busi- ness. They saw their way to a good cry about " taxing the food of the people," the big and the little loaf, and so forth, and they went racing after it, regardless of everything but its electioneering value. From first to last there has been the same desire to make the worst of things, sometimes by very disingenuous means. First of all it was said that there was "no Colonial offer." But when the representatives of the Colonies came here, and all in the plainest terms offered us preference for prefer- ence, this device evidently had to be abandoned. So then it was asserted that, in order to give preference to the Colonies, we must tax raw materials. But this move again was promptly checkmated by the clear and repeated declara- tion of the Colonial representatives that they did not expect us to tax raw materials. And UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 6i so nothing- was left to Ministers, determined as they were to wriggle out of any agreement with the Colonies at all costs, except to fall back on the old, weary parrot-cry — " Will you tax corn ? " " Will you tax butter ? " and so on through the whole list of articles of com- mon consumption, the taxation of any one of which was thought to be valuable as an elec- tioneering bogey. For my own part, I am not the least bit frightened by any of these questions. If I am asked whether I would tax this or tax that, it may be proof of great depravity on my part, but I say without hesitation, that, for a sufficient object, I should not have the least objection to putting two shillings a quarter on wheat or twopence a pound on butter. But I must add that the whole argument nauseates me. What sort of opinion must these gentlemen have of their fellow countrymen, if they think that the question of a farthing on the quartern loaf or half a farthing on the pat of butter is going to outweigh in their minds every national consideration ? And these are the men who accused Mr. Chamberlain of wishing to unite the 62 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE Empire by sordid bonds ! It is indeed extra- ordinary and to my mind almost heartrending to see how this question of Tariff Reform con- tinues to be discussed on the lowest grounds, and how its higher and wider aspects seem to be so constantly neglected. Yet we have no excuse for ignoring them. The Colonial advo- cates of Preference, and especially Mr. Deakin, with whose point of view I thoroughly agree, have repeatedly explained the great political, national, and I might almost say moral aspects of that policy. There is a great deal more in it than a readjustment of duties — twopence off this and a penny on that. I do not say that such details are not important. When the time comes I am prepared to show — and I am an old hand at these things — that the objec- tions which loom so large in many eyes can really be very easily circumvented. But I would not attempt to bother my fellow coun- trymen with complicated changes in their fiscal arranoements, or even with the discussion of them, if it were not for the bigness of the prin- ciple that is involved. I wish to look at it from two points of view. UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 61, The principle which lies at the root of Tariff Reform, in its Imperial aspect, is the national principle. The people of these great dominions beyond the seas are no strangers to us. They are our own kith and kin. We do not wish to deal with them, even in merely material matters, on the same basis as with strangers. That is the great difference between us Tariff Reformers and the Cobdenites. The Cob- denite only looks at the commercial side. He is a cosmopolitan. He does not care from whom he buys, or to whom he sells. He does not care about the ulterior effects of his trading, whether it promotes British industry or ruins it ; whether it assists the growth of the kin- dred States, or only enriches foreign countries. To us Tariff Reformers these matters are of moment, and of the most tremendous moment. We do not undervalue our great foreign trade, and I for one am convinced that there is nothing in the principles of Tariff Reform which will injure that trade. Quite the reverse. But we do hold that our first concern is with the industry and productive capacities of our own country, and our next with those of the great 64 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE kindred countries across the seas. We hold that a wise fiscal policy would help to direct commerce into channels which would not only assist the British worker, but also assist Colonial development, and make for the greater and more rapid growth of those countries, which not only contain our best customers, but our fellow citizens. That, I say, is one aspect of the matter. But then there is the other side — the question of social reform in this country. Now here again we differ from the Cobdenite. The Cob- denite is an individualist. He believes that private enterprise, working under a system of unfettered competition, with cheapness as its supreme object, is the surest road to universal well-being. The Tariff Reformer also believes in private enterprise, but he does not believe that the mere blind struggle for individual gain is going to produce the most beneficent results. He does not believe in cheapness if it is the result of sweating or of underpaid labour. He keeps before him as the main object of all domestic policy the gradual, steady elevation of the standard of life throughout UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 6^ the community ; and he believes that the action of the State deHberately directed to the encouragement of British industry, not merely by tariffs, is part and parcel of any sound national policy and of true Imperialism. And please observe that in a number of cases the Radical party itself has abandoned Cob- denism. Pure individualism went to the wall in the Factory Acts, and it is going to the wall every day in our domestic legislation. It is solely with regard to this matter of imports that the Radical party still cling to the Cobdenite doctrine, and the consequence is that their policy has become a mass of incon- sistencies. It is devoid of any logical founda- tion whatever. I know that there are many people, sound Unionists at heart, who still have a difficulty about accepting the doctrines of the Tariff Reformers. My belief is that, if they could only look at the matter from the broad national and Imperial point of view, they would come to alter their convictions. I am not advocatinof Tariff Reform as in itself the greatest of human objects. But it seems to me the key 66 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE of the position. It seems to me that, without it, we can neither take the first steps towards drawinof closer the bonds between the mother country and the great self-governing States of the Empire ; nor maintain the prosperity of the British worker in face of unfair foreign competition ; nor obtain that large and elastic revenue which is absolutely essential, if we are going to pursue a policy of social reform and mean real business. I cannot but hope that many of those who still shy at Tariff Reform, when they come to look at it from this point of view — to see it as I see it, not as an isolated thing, but as an essential and necessary part of a comprehensive national policy — will rally to our cause. I have travelled along that road myself. I have been a Cobdenite myself — I am not ashamed of it. But I have come to see that the doctrine of free imports — the religion of free imports, I ought to say — as it is practised in this country to-day, is incon- sistent with social reform, inconsistent with fair play to British industry, and inconsistent with the development and consolidation of the Empire. And therefore I rejoice that, in the UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE 67 really great speech which he delivered last night, the leader of the Unionist party has once more unhesitatingly affirmed his adhesion to the principles which I have been trying, in my feebler way, to advocate here this evening. My own conviction is that, when these principles are understood in all their bearings, they will command the approval of the mass of the people. And even in Scotland, where I dare say it is a very uphill fight, I look forward with confidence to their ultimate victory. Do not let us be discouraged if the fight is long and the progress slow. The great permanent influences are on our side. On the one hand there is the growth of the Empire, with all the opportunities which it affords ; on the other there is the increasing determination of foreign nations to keep their business to themselves. These potent facts, which have already converted so many leading- minds, will in due time make themselves felt n ever-widening circles. And they will not fail to produce their effect upon the shrewd practical sense of the Scottish people, especially when combined with an appeal to the patriotic 68 UNIONISTS AND THE EMPIRE instincts of a race which has done so much to make the Empire what it is, and which has such a supreme interest in its maintenance and consoHdation. UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM . Rugby, November 19, 1907 There has been such a deluge of talk during the last three weeks that I doubt whether it is possible for me, or any man, to make a further contribution to the discussion which will have any freshness or value. But inasmuch as you probably do not all read all the speeches, you may perhaps be willing to hear from me a con- densed summary of what it all comes to — of course, from my point of view, which no doubt is not quite the same as that of the Prime Minister or Mr. Asquith. Now, from my point of view, there has been a considerable clearing of the air, and we ought all to be in a position to take a more practical and less ex- aggerated view of the situation. Speaking as a Tariff Reformer, I think that those people, 70 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM with whom Tariff Reformers agree on almost all other political questions, but who are strongly and conscientiously opposed to anything like what they call tampering with our fiscal sys- tem, must by now understand a little better than they did before what Tariff Reformers really aim at, and must begin to see that there is nothing so very monstrous or revolutionary about our proposals. I hope they may also begin to see why it is that Tariff Reformers are so persistent and so insistent upon their own particular view. There is something very attractive in the argument which says that, since Tariff Reform is a stumbling-block to many good Unionists, it should be dropped, and our ranks closed in defence of an effective Second Chamber, and in defence of all our institutions against revolutionary attacks directed upon the existing order of society. In so far as this is an argument for tolerance and against excommunicating people because they do not agree with me about Tariff Re- form, I am entirely in accord with it. I am only a convert to Tariff Reform myself, although I am not a very recent convert, for at the UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 71 beginning" of 1903, at Bloemfontein, I was in- strumental in inducing all the South African Colonies to give a substantial preference to goods of British origin. I was instrumental in doing that some months before the great Tariff Reform campaign was inaugurated in this coun- try by its leading champion, Mr. Chamberlain. But while I am all for personal tolerance, I am opposed to any compromise on the question of principle. I am not opposed to it from any perverseness or any obstinacy. I am opposed to it because I see clearly that dropping Tariff Reform will knock the bottom out of a policy which I believe is not only right in itself, but is the only effective defence of the Union and of many other things which are very dear to us — I mean a policy of constructive Imperialism, and of steady, consistent, unhasting, and un- resting Social Reform. I have never advocated Tariff Reform as a nostrum or as a panacea. I have never pre- tended that it is by itself alone sufficient to cure all the evils inherent in our social system, or alone sufficient as a bond of Empire. What I contend is that without it, without recovering 72 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM our fiscal freedom, without recovering the power to deal with Customs Duties in accordance with the conditions of the present time and not the conditions of fifty years ago, we cannot carry out any of those measures which it is most necessary that we should carry out. Without it we are unable to defend ourselves against illegitimate foreign competition ; we are unable to enter into those trade arrangements with the great self-governing States of the British Crown across the seas, which are calculated to bestow the most far-reaching benefits upon them and upon us ; and we are unable to obtain the revenue which is required for a policy oi progressive Social Reform. I hope that people otherwise in agreement with us, who have hitherto not seen their way to get over their objections to Tariff Reform, will, nevertheless, find themselves able to accept that principle, when they regard it, not as an isolated thing, but as an essential part of a great national and Imperial policy. Of course, they will have to see it as it is, and not as it is represented by its opponents. The opponents of Tariff Reform have a very UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 73 easy method of arguing with its supporters. They say that any departure whatsoever from our present fiscal system necessarily involves taxing raw materials, and must necessarily result in high and prohibitive duties, which will upset our foreign trade, and will be ruinous and disorganising to the whole business of the country. But Tariff Reformers are not going to frame their duties in order to suit the argu- mentative convenience of Mr. Asquith. They are going to be guided by wholly different con- siderations from that. It is curious that every- body opposed to Tariff Reform says that Tariff Reformers intend to tax raw material, while Tariff Reformers themselves have steadily said they do not. I ask you in that respect to take the description of a policy of Tariff Reform from those who advocate it, and not from those who oppose it. And as for the argument about high prohibitive duties, I wish people would read the reports or summaries of the reports of the Tariff Commission. They contain not only the most valuable collection that exists anywhere of the present facts about almost every branch of British industry but they are 74 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM also an authoritative source from which to draw inferences as to the intentions of Tariff Re- formers. Now the Tariff Reform Commission have not attempted to frame a complete tariff, a scale of duties for all articles imported into this country, and wisely, because, if they had tried to do that, people would have said that they were arrog'ating to themselves the duties of Parliament. What they have done is to show by a few instances that a policy of Tariff Reform is not a thing in the air, not a mere thing of phrases and catchwords, but is a practical, businesslike working policy. They have drawn up what may be called experimental scales of duties, which are merely suggestions for consideration, with respect to a number of articles under the principal heads of British imports, such as, for instance, agricultural im- ports and imports of iron and steel. These experimental duties vary on the average from something like 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, on the value of the articles. In no one case in my recollection do they exceed 10 per cent. But then theopponentsof Tariff Reform say : "Yes. That is all very well. But though you UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 75 may begin with moderate duties, you are bound to proceed to higher ones. It is in the nature of things that you should go on increasing and increasing, and in the end we shall all be ruined." I must say that seems to me great nonsense. It reminds me of nothing so much as the fearful warnings which I have read in the least judicious sort of temperance literature, and sometimes heard from temperance orators of the more extreme type — the sort of warn- ing, I mean, that, if you once begin touching anything stronger than water, you are bound to go on till you end by beating your wife and die in a workhouse. But you and I know per- fectly well that it is possible to have an occa- sional glass of beer or glass of wine, or even, low be it spoken, a little whisky, without beat- ing or wanting to beat anybody, and without coming to such a terrible end. The argument against the use of anything from its abuse has always struck me as one of the feeblest of arguments. And just see how particularly absurd it is in the present case. The effect of duties on foreign imports, even such moderate and carefully devised duties as those to which I 76 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM have referred, would, we are told, be ruinous to British trade. It would place intolerable bur- dens upon the people. Yet for all that the people would, it appears, insist on increasing these burdens. Surely it is as clear as a pike- staff that, if the duties which Tariff Reformers advocate were to produce the evils which Free Importers allege that they would produce, these duties, so far from being inevitably maintained and increased, would not survive one General Election after their imposition. It is not only with regard to Tariff Reform that I think the air is clearer. The Unionist Party has to my mind escaped another danger which was quite as great as that of allowing the Tariff question to be pushed on one side, and that was the danger of being frightened by the scare, which the noisy spreading of certain sub- versive doctrines has lately caused, into a purely negative and defensive attitude ; of ceasing to be, as it has been, a popular and progressive party, and becoming merely the embodiment of upper and middle class prejudices and alarms. I do not say that there are not many projects in the air which are calculated to excite alarm, but UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 77 they can only be successfully resisted on frankly democratic and popular lines. My own feeling is — I may be quite wrong, but I state my opinion for what it is worth — that there is far less danger of the democracy going wrong about domestic questions than there is of its going wrong about foreign and Imperial ques- tions, and for this simple reason, that with regard to domestic questions they have their own sense and experience to guide them. If a mistake is made in domestic policy its consequences are rapidly felt, and no amount of fine talking will induce people to persist in courses which are affecting them injuriously in their daily lives. You have thus a constant and effective check upon those who are dis- posed to try dangerous experiments, or to go too fast even on lines which may be in them- selves laudable, as the experience of recent municipal elections, among other things, clearly shows. But with regard to Imperial questions, to our great and vital interests in distant parts of the earth, there is necessarily neither the same amount of personal knowledge on the part of the electorate, nor do the consequences 78 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM of a mistaken policy recoil so directly and so unmistakably upon them. These subjects, therefore, are the happy hunting-ground of the visionary and the phrase- maker. I have seen the people of this country talked into a policy with regard to South Africa at once so in- jurious to their own interests, and so base towards those who had thrown in their lot with us and trusted us, that, if the British nation had only known what that policy really meant, they would have spat it out of their mouths. And I tremble every day lest, on the vital question of Defence, the pressure of well-meaning but ignorant idealists, or the meaner influence of vote-catching demagogues, should lead this Government or, indeed, any Government, to curtail the provisions, already none too ample, for the safety of the Empire, in order to pose as the friends of peace or as special adepts in economy. I know these savings of a million or two a year over say five or ten years, which cost you fifty or one hundred millions, wasted through unreadiness when the crisis comes, to say nothing of the waste of gallant lives even more precious. This is the UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 79 kind of question about which the democracy is liable to be misled, being without the corrective of direct personal contact with the facts to keep it straight. And it is unpopular and up-hill work to go on reminding people of the vastness of the duty and the responsibility which the con- trol of so great a portion of the earth's surface, with a dependent population of three or four hundred millions, necessarily involves ; to go on reminding them, too, how their own prosperity and even existence in these islands are linked by a hundred subtle but not always obvious or superficially apparent threads with the main- tenance of those great external possessions. I say these are difficulties which any party or any man, who is prepared to do his duty by the electorate of this country, not merely to in- gratiate himself with them for the moment, but to win their confidence by deserving it, by tell- ing them the truth, by serving their permanent interests and not their passing moods, is bound to face. For my own part, I have always been perfectly frank on these questions, I have maintained on many platforms, I am prepared to maintain here to-night and shall always 8o UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM maintain, although this is a sul)ject on which it may be long before my views are included in any party programme — I say I shall always maintain that real security is not possible with- out citizen service, and that the training of every able-bodied man to be capable of taking- part, if need be, in the defence of his country, is not only good for the country but good for the man — and would materially assist in the solution of many other problems, social and economic. But being, as I am, thus uncom- promising, and quite prepared to find myself unpopular, on these vital questions of national security, and of our Imperial duties and responsibilities, I can perhaps afford to say, without being suspected of fawning or of wishing to play the demagogue myself, that in the matter of domestic reform I am not easy to frighten, and that I have a very great trust in the essential fair-mindedness and good sense of the great body of my fellow countrymen with regard to questions which come within their own direct cognisance. And therefore it was most reassuring to me at any rate — and I hope it was to you — to observe, that that large section UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 8i of the Unionist Party which met at Birming- ham last week, not so much by any resolu- tions or formal programme — for there was nothing very novel in these — as by the whole tone and temper of its proceedings, affirmed m the most emphatic manner the essentially pro- gressive and democratic character of Unionism. The greatest danger I hold to the Unionist Party and to the nation is that the ideals of national strength and Imperial consolidation on the one hand, and of democratic progress and domestic reform on the other, should be dis- severed, and that people should come to regard as antagonistic objects which are essentially related and complementary to one another. The upholders of the Union, the upholders of the Empire, the upholders of the fundamental institutions of the State, must not only be, but must be seen and known to be, the strenuous and constant assailants of those two great related curses of our social system — irregular employment and unhealthy conditions of life — and of all the various causes which lead to them. I cannot stay here to enumerate those causes, 82 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM but I will mention a few of them. There is the defective training of children, defective phy- sical training to begin with, and then the failure to equip them with any particular and definite form of skill. There is the irregular way in which new centres of population are allowed to spring up, so that we go on creating fresh slums as fast as we pull down the old rookeries. There is the depopulation of the countryside, and the influx of foreign paupers into our already overcrowded towns. There is the undermining of old-established and valuable British industries by unfair foreign competition. That is not an exhaustive list, but it is suffi- cient to illustrate my meaning. Well, wherever these and similar evils are eating away the health and independence of our working people, there the foundations of the Empire are being undermined, for it is the race that makes the Empire. Loud is the call to every true Unionist, to every true Imperialist, to come to the rescue. And now at the risk of wearying you there is one other subject to which I would like specially to refer, lest I should be accused of deliberately UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 83 giving it the go-by, and that is the question of old age pensions. It is not a reform alto- gether of the same nature as those on which I have been dwelling, nor is it perhaps the kind of reform about which I feel the greatest enthu- siasm, because I would rather attack the causes, which lead to that irregularity of employment and that under-payment which prevents people from providing for their own old age themselves, than merely remedy the evils arising from it. But I accept the fact that under present condi- tions, which it may be that a progressive policy in time will alter, a sufficient case for State aid in the matter of old age pensions has been made out, and I believe that no party is going to oppose the introduction of old age pensions. But, on the other hand, I foresee great difficulties and great disputes over the question of the manner in which the money is to be provided. I know how our Radical friends will wish to provide the money. They will want to get it, in the first instance, by starving the Army and the Navy. To that way of providing it I hope the Unionist Party, however unpopular such a^course may be, and 84 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM however liable to misrepresentation it may be, will oppose an iron resistance, because this is an utterly rotten and bad way of financing old age pensions, or anything else. But that method alone, however far it is carried, will not provide money enough, and there will be an attempt to raise the rest by taxes levied exclusively on the rich. I am against that also, because it is thoroughly wrong in principle. I am not against making the rich pay, to the full extent of their capacity, for great national purposes, even for national purposes in which they have no direct interest. But I am not prepared to see them made to pay exclusively. Let all pay according to their means. It is a thoroughly vicious idea that money should be taken out of the pocket of one man, however rich, in order to be put into the pocket of another, however poor. That is a bad, anti-national principle, and I hope the Unionist Party will take a firm stand against it. And this is an additional reason why we should raise whatever money may be neces- sary by duties upon foreign imports, because in that way all will contribute. No doubt the rich will contribute the bulk of the money through UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 85 the duties on imported luxuries, but there will be some contribution, as there ought to be some contribution, from every class of the people. And now, in conclusion, one word aboutpurely practical considerations. We Unionists, if you will allow me to call myself a Unionist — at any rate I have explained quite frankly what I mean by the term — are not a class party, but a national party. That being so, it is surely of the utmost importance that men of all classes should participate in every branch and every grade of the work of the Unionist Party. Why should we not have Unionist Labour members as well as Radical Labour members ? I think that the working classes of this country are misrepresented in the eyes of the public of this country and of the world, as long as they appear to have no leaders in Parliament except the men who concoct and pass those machine-made resolutions with which we are so familiar in the reports of Trade Union Congresses. I am not speaking now about their resolutions on trade questions, which they thoroughly understand, but about resolutions on such subjects as foreign politics, the Army and Navy, and 86 UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM Colonial and Imperial questions, resolutions which are always upon the same monotonous lines. I do not believe that the working classes are the unpatriotic, anti-national, down- with-the-army, up-with-the-foreigner, take-it- lying-down class of Little Englanders that they are constantly represented to be. I do not believe it for a moment. I have heard Imperial questions discussed by working men in excellent speeches, not only eloquent speeches, but speeches showing a broad grasp and a truly Imperial spirit, and I should like speeches of that kind to be heard in the House of Commons as an antidote to the sort of preaching which we get from the present Labour members. And what I say about the higher posts in the Unionist Army applies equally to all other ranks. No Unionist member or Union- ist candidate is really well served unless he has a number of men of the working class on what I may call his political staff. And I say this not merely for electioneering reasons. This is just one of the cases in which considerations of party interest coincide — I wish they always or often did — with considerations of a higher UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM 87 character. There is nothing more calculated to remove class prejudice and antagonism than the co-operation of men of different classes on the same body for the same public end. And there is this about the aims of Unionism, that they are best calculated to teach the value of such co-operation ; to bring home to men of all classes their essential inter-dependence on one another, as well as to bring home to each individual the pettiness and meanness of per- sonal vanity and ambition in the presence of anything so great, so stately, as the common heritage and traditions of the British race. SWEATED INDUSTRIES Oxford, December 5, 1907 This exhibition is one of a series which are being held in different parts of the country with the object of directing attention, or rather of keeping it directed, to the conditions under which a number of articles, many of them articles of primary necessity, are at present being produced, and with the object also of improving the lot of the people engaged in the production of those articles. Now this matter is one of great national importance, because the sweated workers are numbered by hun- dreds of thousands, and because their poverty and the resulting evils aftect many beside themselves, and exercise a depressing influ- ence on large classes of the community. What do we mean by sweating.-^ I will give you a definition laid down by a Parliamentary SWEATED INDUSTRIES 89 Committee, which made a most exhaustive inquiry into the subject : " Unduly low rates of wages, excessive hours of work, and insanitary condition of the workplaces." You may say that this is a state of things against which our instincts of humanity and charity revolt. And that is perfectly true, but I do not propose to approach the question from that point of view to-day. I want to approach it from the economic and political standpoint. But when I say political I do not mean it in any party sense. This is not a party question ; may it never become one. The organisers of this exhibition have done what lay in their power to prevent the blighting and corrosive influence of party from being extended to it. The fact that the position which I occupy at this moment will be occupied to-morrow by the wife of a distin- guished member of the present Government (Mrs. Herbert Gladstone), and on Saturday by a leading member of the Labour Party (Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P.), shows that this is a cause in which people of all parties can co-operate. The more we deal with sweating- on these lines, the more we deal with it on its merits or 90 SWEATED INDUSTRIES demerits without ulterior motive, the more Hkely we shall be to make a beo-inninor in the removal of those evils against which our crusade is directed. My view is, that the sweating system im- poverishes and weakens the whole community, because it saps the stamina and diminishes the productive power of thousands of workers, and these in their turn drag others down with them. " Unduly low rates of wages, excessive hours of labour, insanitary condition of work- places " — what does all that mean ? It means an industry essentially rotten and unsound. To say that the labourer is worthy of his hire is not only the expression of a natural instinct of jus- tice, but it embodies an economic truth. One does not need to be a Socialist, not, at least, a Socialist in the sense in which the word is ordinarily used, as designating a man who desires that all instruments of production should become common property — one does not need to be a Socialist in that sense in order to realise that an industry, which does not provide those engaged in it with sufficient to keep them in health is essentially unsound. Used-up capital SWEATED INDUSTRIES 91 must be replaced, and of all forms of capital the most fundamental and indispensable is the human energy necessarily consumed in the work of production. A sweated industry does not provide for the replacing of that kind of capital. It squanders its human material. It consumes more energy in the work it exacts than the remuneration it gives is capable of replacing. The workers in sweated industries are not able to live on their wages. As it is, they live miserably, grow old too soon, and bring up sickly children. But they would not live at all, were it not for the fact that their inadequate wages are supplemented, directly, in many cases, by out-relief, and indirectly by numerous forms of charity. In one way or another the commu- nity has to make good the inefficiency that sweating produces. In one way or another the community ultimately pays, and it is my firm belief that it pays far more in the long run under the present system than if all workers were self-supporting. If a true account could be kept, it would be found that anything which the community gains by the cheapness of articles produced under the sweating system is 92 SWEATED INDUSTRIES more than outweighed by the indirect loss in- volved in the inevitable subsidising of a sweated industry. That would be found to be the result, even if no account were taken of the greatest loss of all, the loss arising from the inefficiency of the sweated workers and of their children, for sweating is calculated to perpetuate inefficiency and degeneration. The question is : Can anything be done ? Of the three related evils — unduly low rates of wages, excessive hours of labour, and insanitary condition of work-places — it is evident that the first applies equally to sweated workers in fac- tories and at home, but the two others are to some extent guarded against, in factories, by existing legislation. This is the reason why some people would like to see all work done for wages transferred to factories. Broadly speaking, I sympathise with that view. But if it were universally carried out at the present moment, it would inflict an enormous amount of suffering and injustice on those who add to their incomes by home work. Hence the problem is twofold. First, can we extend to workers in their own homes that degree or protection in respect SWEATED INDUSTRIES 93 of hours and sanitary conditions which the law already gives to workers in factories ? And secondly, can we do anything to obtain for sweated workers, whether in homes or factories, rates of remuneration less palpably inadequate ? Now it certainly seems impossible to limit the hours of workers, especially adult workers, in their own homes. More can be done to ensure sanitary conditions of work. Much has been done already, so far as the structural condition of dwellings is concerned. But I am afraid that the measures necessary to introduce what may be called the factory standard of sanitariness into every room, where work is being done for wages, would involve an amount of inspection and interference with the domestic lives of hundreds of thousands of people which might create such unpopularity as to defeat its own object. I do not say that nothing more should be attempted in that direction, quite the reverse ; but I say that nothing which can be attempted in that direction really goes to the root of the evil, which is the insufficiency of the wage. How can you possibly make it healthy for a woman, living in a single room, perhaps with 94 SWEATED INDUSTRIES children, but even without, to work twelve or fourteen hours a day for seven or eight shillings a week, and at the same time to do her own cooking^, washing, and so on. How much food is she likely to have ? How much time will be hers to keep the place clean and tidy ? An increase of wages would not make sanitary regulations unnecessary, but it would make their observance more possible. An increase of wages then is the primary condition of any real improvement in the lives of the sweated workers. So the point is this. Can we do anything by law to screw up the remuneration of the worst-paid workers to the minimum necessary for tolerable human existence ? I know that many people think it impossible, but my answer is that the fixing- of a limit below which wacres shall not fall is already not the exception but the rule in this country. That may seem a rather start- ling statement, but I believe I can prove it. Take the case of the State, the greatest of all employers. The State does not allow the rates of pay even of its humblest employes to be decided by the scramble for employment. SWEATED INDUSTRIKS 95 The State cannot afford, nor can any great municipality afford, to pay wages on which it is obviously impossible to live. There would be an immediate outcry. Here then you have a case of vast extent in which a downward limit of wages is fixed by public opinion. Take, again, any of the great staple industries of the country, the cotton industry, the iron and steel industry, and many others. In the case of these industries rates of re- muneration are fixed in innumerable instances by agreement between the whole body of employers in a particular trade and district on the one hand and the whole body of employes on the other. The result is to exclude un- regulated competition and to secure the same wages for the same work. No doubt there is an element — and this is a point of great impor- tance — which enters into the determination of wages in these organised trades, but which does not enter in the same degree into the determina- tion of the salaries paid by the State. That ele- ment is the consideration of what the employers can afford to pay. This question is constantly being threshed out between them and the 96 SWEATED INDUSTRIES workpeople, with resulting agreements. The number of such agreements is very large, and the provisions contained in them often regulate the rate of remuneration for various classes of workers with the greatest minuteness. But the great object, and the principal effect of all these agreements, is this : it is to ensure uni- formity of remuneration, the same wage for the same work, and to protect the most necessitous and most helpless workers from being forced to take less than the employers can afford to pay. Broadly speaking, the rate of pay, in these highly organised industries, is determined by the value of the work and not by the need of the worker. That makes an enormous difference. But in sweated industries this is not the case. Sweated industries are the unorganised industries, those in which there is no possibility of organisation among the workers. Here the individual worker, without resources and without backing, is left, in the struggle of unregulated competition, to take whatever he can get, regardless of what others may be getting for the same work and of the value of the work itself Hence the extra- SWEATED INDUSTRIES 97 ordinary inequality of payment for the same kind of work and the generally low average of payment which are the distinguishing features of all sweated industries. Now, if you have followed this rather dry argument, I shall probably have yourconcurrence when I say, that the proposal that the State should intervene to secure, not an all-round minimum wage, but the same wages for the same work, and nothing less than the standard rate of his particular work for every worker, is not a proposition that the State should do something new, or exceptional, or impracticable. It is a proposal that the State should do for the weakest and most helpless trades what the strongly-organised trades already do for themselves. I cannot see that there is anything unreasonable, much less revolutionary or sub- versive, in that suggestion. This proposal has taken practical form in a Bill presented to the House of Commons last session. Whether the measure reached its second reading or not I do not know. It was a Bill for the establishment of Wages Boards in certain industries employing great numbers 98 SWEATED INDUSTRIES of workpeople, such as tailoring, shirtmaking, and so on. The industries selected were those in which the employes, though numerous, are hopelessly disorganised and unable to make a bargain for themselves. And the Bill provided that where any six persons, whether masters or employes, applied to the Home Secretary for the establishment of a Wages Board, such a Board should be created in the particular industry and district concerned ; that it should consist of representatives of employers and employed in equal proportions, with an impartial chairman ; and that it should have the widest possible discretion to fix rates of remuneration. If Wages Boards were established, as the Bill proposed, they would simply do for sweated trades what is already constantly being done in organised trades, with no doubt one important difference, that the decisions of these Boards would be enforceable by law. Now that no doubt may seem to many of you a drastic proposition. But I would strongly recommend any one interested in the subject to study a recently-published Blue-book, one of the most interesting I have ever read, which contains the SWEATED INDUSTRIES 99 evidence given before the House of Commons Committee on Home Work. That Blue-book throws floods of Hght on the conditions which have led to the proposal of Wages Boards, on the way in which these Boards would be likely to work, and on the results of the operation of such Boards in the Colony of Victoria, where they have existed for more than ten years, and now apply to more than forty industries. The perusal of that evidence would, I feel sure, remove some at least of the most obvious ob- jections to this proposed remedy for sweating. Many people look askance, and justly look askance, at the interference of the State in anything so complicated and technical as a schedule of wages for any particular industry. But the point to bear in mind is this, that the wages, which under this proposal would be enforceable by law, would be wages that had been fixed for a particular industry in a particular district by persons intimately cog- nisant with all the circumstances, and, more than that, by persons having the deepest common interest to avoid anything which could injure the industry. The rates of remuneration loo SWEATED INDUSTRIES so arrived at would be based on the consideration of what the employers could afford to pay and yet retain such a reasonable rate of profit as would lead to their remaining in the industry. Such a regulation of wages would be as great a protection to the best employers against the cut-throat competition of unscrupulous rivals as it would be to the workers against being com- pelled to sell their labour for less than its value. There is plenty of evidence that the regulation of wages would be welcomed by many em- ployers. And as for the fear sometimes ex- pressed, that it would injure the weakest and least efficient workers, because, with increased wages, it would no longer be profitable to em- ploy them, it must be borne in mind that people of that class are mainly home workers, and as remuneration for home work must be based on the piece, there would be no reason why they should not continue to be employed. No doubt they would not benefit as much as more efficient workers from increased rates, but pro tanto they would still benefit, and that is a consideration of great importance. But even if this were not the case, I would still contend, that it was SWEATED INDUSTRIES loi unjustifiable to allow thousands of people to remain in a preventable state of misery and degradation all their lives, merely in order to keep a tenth of their number out of the work- house a few years longer. I have only one more word to say. I come back to the supreme interest of the community in the efficiency and welfare of all its members, to say nothing of the removal of the stain upon its honour and conscience which continued tolerance of this evil involves. That to my mind is the greatest consideration of all. That is the true reason, as it would be the sufficient justifi- cation, for the intervention of the State. And, or my own part, I feel no doubt that, whether by the adoption of such a measure as we have been considering, or by some other enactment, steps will before long be taken for the removal of this national disgrace. Printed by Ballantvne b' Co. Limited Tavistock Street, London SEP I 1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 1,; -s.-v If MAIN LOAN APR 161968 Jl APR so IV no DESK NOV I 1U65 A.M. 7lftlPi]0llll]ilLl P.M. ft MAR 9 • Form L-r. 2:.r':-Ii).' 11(2101) l&HiilSilJ 1966 91968 96? xjNT^'ERSiTY oi ^ > - '" '^^^^ AT LOS ANGELES LIBRARY li!|j,^Ol^HERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 001280 676 I PLEA*^";: DO NOT REMOVE THIS BOOK CARD J ^(?/0JilV3JO University Research Library