ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
U rb ana- Champ aign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2015.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2015THE LABOUR DAY.

BY

MALTMAN BARRY.

An Address delivered before the Trades Council of Aberdeen,
on August 12, i8qo, and now published by them.

Printed by John Avery & Co. Limited,
mdcccxc.

PRICE, TWOPENCE.*x</

• ?

<■	PREFACE.

a
(**■

The following plea for the Legislative Restriction of
tie Hours of Labour is published by the Trades Council

0*>

_ Aberdeen, before whom it was first read (on August 12,

r

1890), and to whom, in recognition of their honourable
£ osition in relation to the Eight Hours Movement, I have
presented the manuscript. I have tried to treat the
s»ubject more fully, more exactly, more impartially than
has yet been treated. It is for my readers, and not

&

_ for me, to say what success in these directions I have
<f>

J a tained.

«	M. M. B.

■i

Springfield, Queen's Road.
South Norwood,

(fl	August 25, 1890

\

-»s

i '

w	„36118

t: \TEbe Xabour 2)a?.

=Z^2=

HE question of the Compulsory Limitation
of the Hours of Labour has now become
one of the most fashionable topics of our
every-day conversation. Writers who
previously had shown but little interest
in the subject now vie with each other in
proclaiming its urgent and vital importance; politicians,
who never were suspected of entertaining much sympathy
with the working class and with their militant aspirations,
have discovered that this question lies very near indeed
to their hearts; and even Popes and Eitiperors, who
might have been supposed to be above taking notice of
anything that concerned merely the well-being of the
Common people, are actively competing for the honour
of its introduction into the region of European practical
politics. One great figure, perhaps the greatest in Europe,
b^s been swept away by the rising flood, and others will
p 6bably follow. Prince Bismarck, it is said, was opposed
his young master's labour programme, and tried to
resist it. But the programme prevailed and the Minister
had to bid adieu to public life. In other countries
besides Germany, there are Ministers, ex-Ministers, and
potential Ministers opposed to the new demands of
labour. But it is doubtful if they will all follow Prince
Bismarck's example. Most of them, despite appearances,
i re not made of very stern stuif. On other subjects—
itrish Home Rule, for example—they have found it
possible to alter the convictions of a lifetime, and,6

should equal necessity arise, they will no doubt prove
equally pliant on the question of the hours of labour.

Ine managers of the Liberal party are acting with
their usual astuteness in this matter. They have no;
formally adopted the demand for a shorter working day
for that would offend and possibly alienate their manu-
facturing supporters, men whose financial assistance i;
now more than ever necessary. Nor have they formally
rejected the demand, for that would offend and possibly
alienate their working class supporters, whose votes and
political support are absolutely indispensable. But they
have assumed towards the question an attitude of indeci-
sion and benevolent neutrality, by which device they, a^
one and the same time, retain the support of both th£
workmen and the employers, and also give themselvek
time to wait and see which side of the fence it will suit
them best to come down on. This is undoubtedly very
smart, and if the same alertness is maintained until the
end of the agitation the Liberal party will certainly reap
whatever capital is to be had out of the movement.

The attitude taken up by the Conservative party is,
on the other hand, decidedly hostile, several of Lord
Salisbury's principal colleagues actually going * out of
their way to take sides with the employers. This is very un-
fortunate, from a party point of view. It will not materially
delay the triumph of the movement, and will inevitably
throw the working class voters more and more into the
arms of the Liberals. Nor is it in accordance with the
traditions of the Conservative party. When the workmen
fought their great battle against their employers over f 2
Factory Acts, the members of the Conservative par y
were the workmen's friends and helpers. The memoi /
of that friendship still lives in Lancashire, in the hearts
of the factory operatives, in Lancashire where, next to
London and the Home Counties, Conservatism is most
deeply rooted. Is, then, the political support of a
large section of the English working class really sq>
worthless that it is thus lightly cast off ? It woul i
almost seem so. I confess frankly that, looking a,t
the subject from a purely party point of view, I regret!	7

V

very keenly the hostile attitude towards the workers
which my political friends have taken up on this question.
It is, no doubt, likely enough that this attitude will by and
bye be modified, if not actually abandoned. But I am
afraid that my friends' conversion will come too late to
save the party from the consequences of their present
hostility. The mischief will have been done. The party
will have come to be regarded, justly or unjustly, as the
opponents of the Eight Hours' Movement, the working
class vote will be hopelessly alienated, and no number of
subsequent plausible speeches or indignant denials will
remove the stigma or undo the evil.

The prominence which the Eight Hours Question
now enjoys is due, in large measure, to the teachings of
Karl Marx and to the active practical exertions of his
disciples. For many years past Marx has been declared
by the Continental workmen to be the one and only true
economist, and latterly his doctrines have taken root also
in England, Australia, and America, in all of which
countries the short hours movement is, for the most part,
organised and directed by his followers. Marx founded
the "International," and created the German Social
Democratic Party. These were great achievements, but
they sink into insignificance beside the movement for the
shortening of the labour day, which his disciples are
conducting in every quarter of the civilised globe. The
distinction of Marx's teaching is its legality. He was a
revolutionist, no doubt, but he was also a philosopher.
He knew that changes made by violence are often unmade
by the same means, whereas changes made by law are
usually accepted and maintained. Hence he inclined
more to the ballot-box than to the barricade, and hence
also his followers' present desire for a legislative limitation
of the labour day rather than a series of violent and
anarchic struggles.

The demand for the legislative restriction of the hours
of labour rests on two main propositions :—First, that the
present economic condition of the workers is unjust and
injurious and ought to be altered. Second, that the
legislative restriction of the hours of labour is the only8

satisfactory remedy for the evils arising out of that
condition. The first part of the first proposition—that
the present economic condition of the workers is unjust—
is proved by two facts, namely, that under that condition
the workers have (a) more than their proportionate share
of the work of the country to perform ; and (b) less than
their proportionate share of the wealth of the country to
enjoy. Firstly, as to work. The number of adult males
in the United Kingdom—it is of adult males only that I
speak—may be said to be at present about 8,500,000.
Of these not less than one million live in voluntary
and wealthy idleness, rather more than another million
at the other end of the scale in enforced idleness and
want, leaving the whole of the work of the country to
be done by the remaining 6J millions. Of these 6J
millions another million may be put down as (a) working
employers and (b) men working for themselves. This
leaves, finally, about 5^ millions of wage-receiving
workers, by whom nearly all the work of the country is
performed. The average hours of labour for each of
these wage-receivers is at present about 12 per day,
Saturdays included, making 72 hours per week. This
includes week-day overtime, but is altogether exclusive of
Sunday labour. Now, if the 2 million idlers above-
mentioned, the voluntarily and involuntarily unemployed,
were to take their proportionate share of the nation's
work, the same amount of work that is now performed by
the 5^ millions working 72 hours per week would then be
performed by 7^ millions working a fraction less than 53
hours per week. Therefore assuming that the same gross
amount of work would be necessary under the new
dispensation as under the old—a doubtful point—19 hours
per week is the excess above their just share which the
workers now perform. Thus I prove my first point as t©
the present unjust division of labour.

Next, as to the unjust division of wealth. The total
annual income of the United Kingdom may be said to be
at present about £2,000,000,000. Some recent official
estimates indicate an annual income some years ago of
about £1,500,000,000, and, making allowance for sutit-9

sequent normal increase and for interested concealments
of wealth (a material item) £2,000,000,000 may be taken
as inside the present actual amount. Now all this
£2,000,000,000 is not, of course, the product of wage-
receiving adult male labour. Part of it is the product of
the labour of the women and children, of the labour of the
workmen who work for themselves, of the labour of the
employers who are also workers, and of the wealth that
comes to England through the operations of commerce,
foreign investments, &c. Let us deduct for these, say,
£500,000,000 a fourth of the whole, a most liberal
allowance, we have still £1,500,000,000 left as the result
of the labour of our 5^ million wage-receiving adult male
workers. And when we divide that sum amongst these
workers we find the amount to be about £273 per man
per annum, or £5 5s. per week. But what is the actual
average wage received by these workers? Five guineas
per week ? Not quite. It is—or at least was a year
ago—as nearly as possible 23s. per week, or £60 per
annum. The average for England is about 25s. per
week, for Scotland about 21s. 6d., and for Ireland about
16s., the gross average being, as stated, about 23s.
These are startling figures, but they are incontrovertible.
Suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that
they are exaggerated; that the national income is not
£2,000,000,000 but only £1,500,000,000, and that, of that
latter sum, only £1,000,000,000 is due to the labour of
the 5,500,000 workers. Suppose, further, that the average
wage is not 23s., but 25s. What then ? Why, even with
all these points allowed, the result still is that, in return
for his wage of 25s., each of the aforesaid 5,500,000
workmen produces value worth £3 10s. In the former
(and actual) case the proportion of wage to value
produced is as 2 to 9 ; in the latter (and imaginary) case,
the proportion is as 2| to 7. The opponent of the Eight
Hours Day can take which he prefers, for either proves,
although with differing force, that the wealth of the
country is most disproportionately and unjustly divided.
\jVhere do these 7-gths, or 4^>7ths, of the workers'
produce go ? In what form are they appropriated and by10

whom ? By the public authorities, local and imperial,
for the purposes of local and imperial government ? That
cannot be; for the whole of the expenditure in both these
spheres (and assuming that the workmen pay it all) is
only about £100,000,000 annually, whereas the 7-gths
appropriated from the workmen's earnings amount to
£1,172,600,000 annually, and even the reduced 4^-7ths
to £642,200,000. It is clear, therefore, that that is not
where the appropriations go. Where, then, do they go?
The answer is that they go in rents, interests, and profits,
to maintain in luxury the afore-mentioned million idle
consumers and their families and to build up huge
fortunes for that other million, the active working
employers of labour. Between them these two small
sections of the community annually appropriate more
than £,1,000,000,000 of the workers' earnings, leaving
the workers, although nearly three times the number of
their despoilers, less than one-third of the amount of
which they are despoiled. In the presence of these facts
it is evident that the wealth of the country, as well as the
labour, is both unjustly and disproportionately divided.

Having then proved that the workers have at present
more than their proportionate share of the work to perform,
and less than their just share of the wealth to enjoy, it
follows that the present economic condition of the workers
is unjust. It is now my duty to prove that it is injurious.
When I say that that condition is injurious, I mean that
it is injurious to the workers themselves. I do not mean
that it is injurious to everybody. That is not so, or means
would soon be found to alter it. It is not injurious to
either employers of labour or to the wealthy non-produc-
ing consumers. It is, on the contrary, very advantageous
for both of these sections of the community, for it enables
the one to procure cheap labour and the other to procure
cheap produce. But it is injurious to the 5,500,000
workers themselves, to their families, and also to th6
million compulsorily idle workmen and their families; and
as these two groups constitute more than three-fourths of
our total population, their claims are, even on the
Benthamite doctrine, of "the greatest good of the greatestII

number," entitled to first consideration. And that the
present economic condition of the workers is injurious to
them will hardly be denied. It injures them in every
relation of life—mental, moral, and physical. The long
* and laborious toil, the scanty and inferior food, the
wretched and insanitary homes, the insufficient clothing,
the corroding anxieties—any one of those would suffice to
poison life : combined, they reduce their victims to a
condition of living death. They starve and stunt the
body, enfeeble the mind, and surround the soul of child-
hood with an atmosphere of pollution. The misery of the
workers is indeed very great and very real, although the
fact is sometimes denied by the wealthy and the well-to-do.
A simple test proves the insincerity of these denials.
What wealthy or well-to-do man ever divests himself of
his possessions and joins the ranks of the workers ? Not
one. On the contrary, when that wealth is taken from
them by misfortune, as sometimes happens, how often do
we see them committing suicide rather than face the
dreadful horrors of poverty. No, there are no two opinions
as to the injuries that are inflicted on the workers by the
excessive toil and insufficient reward which characterise
their present economic condition.

But, although we have thus seen that the present
economic condition of the workers is unjust and
injurious, there are those who still deny that that condition
should be changed, or who at least resist all attempts in
that direction. These are, for the most part, they who are
personally interested in the maintenance of the present
system, wealthy idlers and employers of labour, and their
dependents and parasites. And, when asked for reasons
in support of their hostility to the movement for shorten-
ing the labour day, they say that they are opposed to that
» movement because its success would, in the first place*
destroy Jocal trade ; in the second place, it would destroy
our national trade; and, in the third place, it would harshly
and unjustly impoverish, if not ruin, certain individuals.
They do not always avow this last-named objection, but
it is always in their minds, for it is their own case they are
thinking about. Now, one might justifiably enough12

decline to recognise any of these three objections. One
might say, let justice be done if the heavens fall; render
unto the workers their just reward, even if local and
national industries perish and individuals are ruined. But,
happily, it is not at all necessary to take up any such
heroic attitude; happily, there is a way of rendering
justice to the workers, and, at the same time, preserving
our legitimate trade, both local and national, and causing
hardship and ruin to no man. To begin with, it may be
taken as an axiom that no trade is ever lost, either locally
or nationally, solely in consequence of the just demands
of the workers being conceded. Trades have been lost in
England, both locally and nationally, but other causes
than the just demands of the workers have always con-
tributed to the result. In the second place, it should be
noted that trades are sometimes lost to a locality but
retained by the nation. The ship-building trade, for
example, was lost, some 30 years ago, to the Thames and
transferred to the Clyde and the Tyne. And it was so
transferred, not solely, nor even principally, because labour
was cheaper on the banks of the northern rivers—although
that was the reason put forward by the employers at
the time—but because the great raw materials requisite to
the trade, coal and iron, were cheaper there. It may have
been the demands of the Thames men that gave the first
movement of disturbance to the trade, but if coal and iron
had been as cheap in London as they are in Glasgow and
Newcastle, the trade would never have left the Thames.
But, it may be asked, what about London and other places
similarly circumstanced ? What are they to do when they
lose such industries ? The answer is simple. They must
address themselves to such industries as they are qualified,
by their position, possessions, and surroundings, to
advantageously conduct. They cannot expect to retain
trades for which they are not, and other parts of the
country are, naturally fitted and conditioned.

The same imperative law of natural fitness and
capacity applies also to national trade ; and, just as it was
natural and inevitable that the ship-building trade should,
•sooner or later, leave the Thames and go to the Clyde and
the Tyne, so also is it natural and inevitable that other*3

trades (if there are any) that we are unfitted to conduct
should leave England and go to such countries as are fitted
to conduct them. But there is no danger of our losing
any trade, for which we are fitted, through conceding the
just demands of our workers. That is, assuming the trade
in question to be a useful or necessary one. It would
indeed be absurd to suppose that it could be otherwise, for*
the general community, having need of the article produced*
and having also, as we have seen, sufficient means, will un-
doubtedly continue to purchase it, even if its price
becomes enhanced in consequence of the increased wages
paid to its producers. I am aware that this argument is
controverted by some economists, but the facts of every-
day life prove its soundness. Take, for example, one of
our staple industries, say, coal. That is an industry that
is subjected to perhaps more frequent and violent dis-
turbance, by reason of the constantly recurring demands
of its workers, than any other in the country. It, more-
over/fulfils the two conditions laid down, that is to say, it
is a useful and necessary trade, and it is a trade for
which we are naturally fitted. And, notwithstanding these
constantly recurring demands of the workers and the
consequent violent disturbances of the trade, what is the
result ? The result is that the trade remains with us, its
volume and its profitableness constantly increasing. And
so it must be with all other trades, as well as with the
coal trade, that fulfil the two specified conditions. With
regard to trades that are not necessary, or for which we
are not naturally fitted, it were wise not to enter into such.
But, if we do enter into them, we certainly cannot expect
to be allowed to make them profitable, in the teeth of un-
natural conditions, at the expense of the producers. Some
years ago, England tried two experiments of this kind, but
they ended in signal disaster. The silk weavers of Spital-
fields and the ribbon makers of Coventry struggled long
and endured great privations before they gave up the hope-
less contest; but the end came at last, not through
any dispute as to hours or wages (although these
were long enough and low enough), but through
the sheer dead weight of the unnatural economic14

conditions under which the industries were attempted to
be carried on. And now Spitalfields has other industries—
slop-tailoring, boot-making, furniture-making, &c.— \tfhich
are carried on successfuly enough from the economic point
of view, and which would be satisfactory enough for the
workers also, but for the competition of an over-crowded
labour market; while Coventry is in the enjoyment of a
natural industry, bicycle making, which furnishes fair
wages (as wages go) to its workmen and most excellent
profits to the employers. The economic law here indicated
is of universal application. It affects all nations and all
localities impartially, and cannot be permanently evaded.
Its influence may sometimes be counteracted, partially or
temporarily, by artificial means, such as forcing wages
down or prices up beyond their natural level. But these
expedients cannot be defended from either a moral or
economic point of view, nor can their employment be
continued indefinitely. Sooner or later the natural law
asserts itself and the unnatural attempt comes to an end.
Under this law industries gravitate towards their natural
spheres, and all attempts to prevent them doing so must
inevitably fail.

But, it may be said, England has not enough indus-
tries of the kind stipulated to enable her to exist, much
less to maintain her present commercial pre-eminence.
If that were true, it would be regretable from England's
standpoint; but it is not true. It is very far from being true.
The coal and iron industries of England, with all their
auxiliary and dependent trades are enough and more
than enough to keep England at the head of the nations
of the world. But if they were not enough, England,
great as she is, would have to put up with the hardships
of the position, for the laws of political economy cannot
be suspended, even for her sake. But, as a matter of fact,
the statement is not true. The truth is all the other way.
England has more than her share of nature's endowments.

Again, it may be said that there are some industries
that England now possesses, industries for which she is
not favourably conditioned by nature, but which, never-
theless, she retains by virtue of the superior energy or15

intelligence of her sons ; that these industries are valuable
to England, but would be lost to her if the laws of
labour were curtailed while wages remained as at present;
that longer hours are worked and lower wages paid in the
same industries on the Continent, and that, if prices are
raised, as they certainly would be by the concession of the
workers' demands, the foreign competitor, continuing to
sell at the old figure, would have the whole of the market,
and the industry in England would be destroyed. The
answer to this is, in the first place, that, as admitted, the
industries in question are with us unnatural, and are
therefore industries which we ought, on economic
grounds, at once to discard. In the second place, the
demands of the workers, if just, must be conceded. That
obligation is imperative. If the concession of these
demands takes away a portion, or the whole, of the
employer's profits, that only proves that the price now
paid for the article by the consumer is less than its real
value and makes it incumbent on the employer to raise
that price. The employer, in short, must add to that
price the amount he adds to his workmen's wages and
thus recoup himself. If the employer cannot obtain that
increased price from the consumer—an extremely impro-
bable supposition—the fault will be his own, and he will
have to either bear the loss out of his own pocket or
retire from business. These are the imperative conditions
of the case, the inflexible economic law which cannot be
broken or evaded. In no case must the just recompense
of the workers be abridged. If the end of it is that the
trade is lost through the workers' demands being conceded,
the employer can console himself with the reflection that
the loss, if it is a loss, will chiefly fall, not upon his
shoulders, but upon the shoulders of the workers them-
selves. In the third place, if foreign competition is the
sole cause of the trade in question being lost, if that is, the
English employer could concede his workmen's demands
and still retain the trade but for foreign competition, then
the course of the English employer is simple and clear.
If the foreign competition that is destroying him is fair, if,
that is, the foreign employer pays his workers the samei6

wages as the English employer pays, works them the same
hours, and enjoys no advantage over the Englishman in
the matter of tariffs or bounties, then there is nothing for
the Englishman to do but to retire at once from the
contest. The natural conditions are evidently against
him, and it would be foolish to waste good energy and
capital in a hopeless persistence. If he is wise the
English employer will promptly recognise these conditions
and turn his capital and energy into other and more
favourable channels. But, if the foreign competition is
unfair—if, that is, the foreign employer pays his workers
lower wages than the Englishman pays, works them
longer hours, or receives from his government the benefit
of bounties and protective tariffs,—then, as I say, the
course of the English employer is simple and clear. The
evils he has to attack are two-fold. They are distinct and
require different treatment. The first relates to foreign
bounties and tariffs, the second to foreign hours and
wages. In the first place he should cause his government
to prefer a request to all foreign nations for absolute free
exchange—i.e. Free Trade. If this were granted, the evil
of bounties and tariffs would be at once disposed of. If
it were refused, then the English employer should cause
his government to impose upon the products of the
refusing nations such protective tariffs as would establish
a just counterpoise and equilibrium. That, although not
so desirable an arrangement as absolute free exchange
(Free Trade), would establish equality of opportunity—
which is all that the Englishman asks—and would remove
one of the evils that characterise unfair foreign competition.
But, it may be said, such a step would be a return to
Protection, and Protection is condemned by both political
parties. The answer to that is very simple. If England
does not desire to protect herself against unfair foreign
competition, she need not do so. There is no compulsion
at all in the matter. Only, if she does not do so, she
must make up her mind to put up with the consequences,
one of which is to part with the industries which that
unfair competition is now taking from her. She may rely
on it that she will not be allowed to continue to retain*7

these industries at the expense of her own workers—the
time has gone by for that. And as for the condemnation
of the political parties, that need not scare anybody.
These parties have combined before now in condemning
many things that have since come to pass and that now
enjoy their high esteem and approbation—Household
Suffrage, National Education, and Irish Tenant Right, for
example. Protection for the industries of the nation against
unfair foreign competition is surely not more unreason-
able nor less important than any of these. But, as I have
said, there is no compulsion in the matter. The alter-
native—the loss of the industries—is always open to us.

There remains the second evil in unfair foreign
competition—the long hours and low wages. This should
be attacked through the instrumentality of the English
workers. These are anxious enough, for their own sakes,
that the condition of their Continental brethren should be
raised to the English level, and already they are making
efforts to establish an equality in the condition and rewards
of labour throughout the various nations of Europe. The
English employer should second and support these efforts
with all his power. They are obviously in his interest
quite as much as in the interest of the workers, and their
success is to him a matter of absolutely vital moment.
Unless these efforts succeed he will still be heavily handi-
capped in the foreign markets. In the home markets he
would, it is true, be protected by his tariffs, but, unless he
can contrive that his foreign rival shall have to pay the
same wages and work the same hours as himself, he will
still be, to that extent, handicapped not only in said
foreign rivals' own home market but also in those markets
which are foreign and equal to both of them. Therefore
he should strenuously support all efforts, by whomsoever
made, to lift up the Continental workmen to the level, in
hours and wages, of the Englishman. When these two
steps have been taken, and an equality has been established
between the Englishman and the foreigner in the two
matters of tariffs and the conditions of labour, then and
not till then will the former be able to enter the markets
of the world with a fair field and no favour. The foreigner,

Bi8

it is true, will still retain the supremacy, in some cases
the monopoly, in certain industries for which nature
has specially fitted and endowed him. But these cannot
be taken away from him, nor, from the economic point of
view, is it desirable that they should be so taken. More-
over, England herself has her full share of these endow-
ments in her vast stores of coal and iron and in the
natural industrial aptitude of her sons. There are nations
which have been scantily endowed by nature with the
materials of greatness, but England is not one of them.

Having now answered the two pleas that the
concession of the demand for an Eight Hours' Day
would involve the destruction of our local trade and the
destruction of our national trade, I now come to the plea
that such concession would involve injury or ruin to certain
individuals. This plea is advanced in the interests of
two separate sets of individuals; first, the employers of
labour, who, it is alleged, would be ruined if compelled
to pay the wages and concede the hours demanded ; and
second, the general community who, as consumers,
would, it is alleged, be unable to pay the increased price
for the article produced, which increase in price would
ensue consequent on the concession of the better hours
and wages aforesaid. Now it is quite right and reason-
able that such a plea as this should be put forward.
Employers of labour and non-producing consumers may
not, as such, be the most valuable elements of an
industrial community, but they are human beings, and
it would be wrong to impose any hardships upon them
unjustly or any burdens without sufficient cause. In their
case, as in all others, justice must be done; and it so
happens that, in their case, justice does not require the
imposition of any hardship at all, and of burdens only
the lightest and easiest to be borne. To begin with, it
is to be noted that the plea duplicates itself and tries to do
double duty. It alleges that the concession of the
workers' demands would (a) ruin the employers, and (b)
entail a burden (in the shape of an increased price
proportionate to and caused by the increased wage) on
the consumer. Now it is obvious that, while the „19

v concession in question might do one or other of these
things, it could not do both. It might, indeed, if its
weight were divided, entail both results; but that is a
sophistical refinement of the argument with which we
* need not trouble ourselves, and which, in point of fact,
is not seriously advanced. Practically, the question is,
would the employer consent to pay out of his profits the
difference caused by the concession of his workmen's
demands, or would he put the difference on to the price
at which he sold the articles to the consumer ? There
can be no doubt about the answer to that question; the
employer would put the difference on to the price-
Perhaps some will say that he might not put the whole
difference on to the price, but only a part, voluntarily
bearing the loss of the other part himself. It is, of
course, possible (for the bounds of possibility are wide)
that some one or two employers of labour might do such
a thing, but the probabilities are all against it. If such
a thing did happen, it would be indeed the exception to
the rule. What, as a matter of fact, would happen was
shown only the other day when a coal strike was
threatened. The workmen demanded an increase in
their wages equivalent to about one penny on each ton
of coal they produced, and the coal merchants, without
waiting for the strike to actually take place, promptly
clapped an additional shilling per ton on the price to
the consumer. These coal merchants are specimens of
the employers who are to be "ruined " by conceding the
demands of the workers.

We now come to the consumer, who is to be
unjustly, some say ruinously, impoverished by having to
pay the increased price for the article produced. The
consumers of produce form two great divisions; firstly,
tihose who are consumers only, and secondly, those who
are producers also. The members of the first of these
divisions are naturally averse to any proposal that will
e result in raising the price of produce. As non-producers
they will have no share in the increased wages that will
cause the price to rise, while, as consumers, they will
have to pay the increased price. Obviously it is their20

interest that prices should be kept down as low as
possible. But it does not, therefore, follow that prices
ought to be so kept down. There are other parties to
the transaction, and justice must be done between them.
Those other parties are the producers, and justice
requires that the price the consumer shall pay to the
producer shall be the whole value of the product. This
is the true economic law. Nor can it be said to
be unjust. If the consumer is blessed with wealth
which enables him to buy the produce of the labour
of others, even at its full value, without himself labour-
ing, then happy is he amongst men, and the least
he can do is to be silent and content. If his wealth
falls short of the amount necessary to enable him to live
entirely idle, and he must needs do some little work to
make up the deficiency, still is he blessed above the great
mass of his fellow creatures, whose only wealth is the
labour of their hands from day to day.

So much for the consumer who is a consumer only,
and who objects to the increase of prices. As to the
other consumer, he who is also a producer, his case is
wholly different. He has two capacities, that of a
producer and that of a consumer. These capacities are
entirely distinct, and indeed, in one sense, antagonistic.
They are antagonistic because it is his interest as a
producer that the prices of products should be high,
while, as a consumer, it is his interest that prices should
be low. Placed in this position it is necessary for him
to ascertain which set of interests are most important to
him. A little reflection decides the point. His interests
as a producer clearly outweigh .his interests as a
consumer, and cause the latter to kick the beam. The
circle of the producers is smaller than the circle of the
consumers, and as he is presumably an average-sized
member of both, his relative proportion to the former is
greater than it is to the latter. In other words, his
individual share in the collective interests of the
producers is greater than his individual share in the
collective interests of the consumers. Therefore, the
interests of the producers are his first and greatest21

„ concern ; the interests of the consumers concern him
only in a secondary and subordinate degree. He is a
consumer, it is true, and it is necessary that articles
of consumption shall be witrfiin his reach. But a brief
* examination of the matter makes it clear that high
wages, and not low prices, are the best, and in fact the
only means by which the producer can obtain those
articles in anything like adequate abundance. Low
prices will be, as we have already seen, a great advantage
to the consumer who is not a producer, but they are no
advantage at all to the producer whose wages are too
low to enable him to .buy them. Take a simple
illustration; suppose that, through excessive competition
in the labour market, wages went down very low, and
that, through consequent excessive supply of products,
prices also fell very low. Take the case of, say, three
representative producers, a baker, a tailor, and a collier,
and see how excessive reduction of wages and prices
would affect them. To make the result of the test very
clear, the reductions should be considerable, the larger
they are the better for the purpose of illustration.
Suppose, then, that the wages of the three workers
named now average 30s. per week, and that they are
reduced by one half and made 15s. Suppose also that,
at the same time, the produce of the labour of these
workers, i.e. bread, clothing, and coals, are reduced in
price by one half, and made, say, bread 3d. per 6d. loaf,
clothing 30s. per 60s. suit, and coals 12s. instead of 24s.
per ton. Each of the three workmen need the products
of the other two, and if the argument that low prices
will entirely compensate the workers for low wages is
true, these workmen will be able after the reductions are
made to obtain the same supply of these products as they
were able to obtain before the reductions were made.
But will they? Not exactly. And why not? Simply
because no reductions, or no reductions to the same
extent, will have been made in certain other articles
of consumption equally necessary. Theoretically, n©
doubt, the argument is true, or would be true under
certain conditions, but as these conditions are now22

absent and are never likely to be present the argument
is practically false. For the argument to be true it
would be necessary for everything else besides bread,
coal, and clothing—rent, rates, taxes, locomotion, etc.,
etc.—to be also reduced in price, and at the same time, -
and to the same extent. If this were to happen, then,
indeed, the condition of the baker, and tailor, and collier,
would be no worse after the reductions than before
them. But it is practically impossible that this should
happen : nothing less than an economic earthquake could
bring it to pass. The idea, in fact, is only a fanciful
and impossible hypothesis which need not be further
pursued. What would actually happen in the cases
supposed would be that the baker, after paying his week's
rent and other imperative demands (whose price had not
been reduced) would find that he had not money enough
left to buy either bread, or coals, or clothing (their
reduced price notwithstanding) in anything like the
quantities necessary for himself and his family, the
quantities he had previously obtained. The same result
would happen to the collier and to the tailor, and so
these three producers would have placed their produce
on the market at a reduced price, and thereby benefited
the non-producing consumer, while, at the same time and
by the same action, they would have actually put that
produce beyond their own reach, thereby greatly
aggravating the misery of their own condition. So much
for the effect of a reduction of wages (even when
accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the price
of commodities) on the condition of the workers. Let us
now see what would be the effect of an increase of wages
and prices. Suppose the wages of the three workmen
already mentioned were doubled—that is, raised from
30s. to 60s. per week—the prices of bread, coals, and
clothing being doubled at the same time. What would
be the position of these men ? Why, this, that they
would find that the circumstances that were dis- c
advantageous to them in the previous case were now
advantageous to them ; for just as rent and other similar
fixed charges did not keep pace with commodities in -23

their fall, so also would they fail to keep pace with
commodities in their rise, and the difference would be
the measure of the workmen's gain. It is clear, therefore,
that high prices, consequent on high wages, can have no
terrors for the workers.

In addition to the three pleas just dealt with there is
another that is frequently put forward by the opponents
of the Eight Hours' Day. That is that the workmen
themselves do not desire such a measure. The workmen,
these opponents assert, are well Satisfied with the present
system, and wish to be left free to work as many hours
as they like and as much overtime as they can get. The
answer to that is that, even if the assertion were true, it
would not, as we shall see presently, make the plea a
valid one; but that, as a matter of fact, it is not true.
It is, on the contrary, the fact that the vast majority of
English workmen are intensely dissatisfied with the present
system, and ardently desire its alteration. It would indeed
be strange, seeing what the life of the average English
workman is, its long hours, its laborious toil, its pre-
carious tenure and scanty reward, if the fact were
otherwise. But there are amongst workmen, as among
other classes, men of limited intelligence and selfish
disposition. And some of these men, not understanding
the question, and fearing that short hours would mean
short wages, shrink from what they regard as a doubtful
if not dangerous experiment. They are aware, in a vague
sort of way, that their condition is not what it ought to be,
but they do not see how it is to be improved. They feel,
moreover, quite truly, that their condition, bad as it is, is
better than that of many of their fellows (the unemployed),
and they fear that, like the dog in the fable, they may
lose the bone in clutching at the shadow. And they elect
rather to endure the ills they have than fly to others they
know not of. These men, however, are but a very small
minority of the workers, a minority, moreover, that is
rapidly diminishing. As this is a point about which there
is much dispute, it may be as well to mention one or two
facts bearing on it.

The working men of the United Kingdom are, in24

round numbers, close upon 7,000,000. Of these, about
700,000, one-tenth of the whole, are (or were before the
dockers' great strike) members of trades unions. I believe
the percentage is now much larger. As to the six million
odd non-unionists, it is safe to assume that the majority
of these are in favour of a reduction of the hours of
labour, seeing that they are mostly the unskilled workers,
one portion of whom work excessively long hours, while
another portion starve for want of work altogether. And
as to the trades unionists, the " aristocrats of labour,"
whose ranks may be supposed to contain the bulk of the
contented minority before referred to, we have some
data, more or less precise, to guide us to their Opinions.
At the Annual Congress of the Trades Unions, held at
Swansea in 1887, a resolution was adopted with practical
unanimity in favour of " a further reduction of the work-
ing hours," and expressing the opinion that " this may
be accomplished, as far as adult males are concerned, by
increased combination, assisted by the Government, in
reducing the hours of labour in all Government works to
eight hours per day." The meaning of this is not very
clear, but I believe it was intended to convey the opinion
that while " increased combination " (of trades unions)
would suffice to " accomplish a further reduction of the
working hours " in trades generally, it was desirable to
have the assistance of the Government in the task of
" reducing the hours of labour in all Government works."
It will be observed that while it is suggested that
" the hours of labour in all Government works " should
be reduced to " eight hours per day," no precise limit is
specified for other trades or establishments. This resolu-
tion was put forward by what may be called the old
official section of the Congress, to anticipate a demand
for a Legal Eight Hours' Day which was known to be
coming from the younger and more "advanced"
delegates. The resolution was moved by a Mr. Swift,
of Manchester, the delegate of the Steam Engine Makers'
Society, a gentleman who was then a member of the
Parliamentary Committee of the Congress, and who was
last year, for special services rendered, made its chairman.25

To the resolution Mr. William Parnell, of London, the
? delegate of a Cabinetmakers' Society, moved the following
amendment:—"This Congress is of opinion that the
best way of providing permanent work for the vast
4 number at present out of employment is by a general
reduction of the hours of labour, and believes that the
only effectual means of obtaining the same is by national
and international political action, and therefore instructs
the Parliamentary Committee to further the passing of an
Eight Hours' Labour Bill by all legitimate means in its
power." The debate extended over two days, at the end
of which the amendment was rejected by 76 votes to 29.
A second amendment was then moved by Mr. Charles
Drummond, secretary and delegate of the London
Compositors' Society, " instructing the Parliamentary
Committee to obtain a plebiscite of the members of the
various trades unions of the country upon the question."
This amendment, almost without discussion, was carried
with two dissentients. The original resolution (Mr.
Swift's) was then voted upon and rejected by 84 votes to
11. Finally, Mr. Drummond's amendment was put as a
substantive motion and unanimously adopted. These
motions and divisions may be assumed to fairly reflect
the minds of the delegates to Congress. These gentlemen
are, for the most part, elders in their trades, men who
have passed through many years of labour disputes and
vicissitudes, and who shrink, with a most pardonable
timidity, from proposals that differ entirely from the
lines that they have been for so many years following.
At the same time they recognise—at least some of them
do—that their own personal views on this question are
not the views of the bulk of their constituents, that a new
departure is at hand, and is indeed upon them; and
hence their willing consent to the proposed plebiscite.
For if the body of the workers backed them (the delegates)
up in their opposition to an Eight Hours Law, then their
(the delegates') position would be fortified. And if, on
the contrary, the workers declared for an Eight Hours
Law, then the delegates would be freed from all obliga-
tions to further oppose the project. This, probably, was26

the feeling that prompted most of the delegates to ^
acquiesce in Mr. Drummond's resolution. Others there
may have been, more implacably hostile, who only agreed
to the proposal because they saw, or fancied they saw, in
it a means whereby the whole question might be shelved ^
for a season and perhaps stifled altogether. Strong
countenance is given to this conjecture by what followed.
The Parliamentary Committee issued the appeal to the
unions as directed by Congress, but accompanied the
appeal with an argument against the Eight Hours Day
and with many warnings of the danger of adopting that
proposal. The result was that the bulk of the members
of the unions thus addressed took no action at all in the
matter. They answered neither Yes nor No. Some of
them, probably, did not like to express opinions evidently
obnoxious to their leaders and officials, while others,
possibly not so timid, felt nevertheless that it would be
useless to do so. Anyhow, whatever the reason may
have been, that was the fact that only a very small
proportion of the members expressed any opinion one
way or the other. Those who did answer, however, sent
in replies that could not have been at all agreeable to the
Parliamentary Committee. For some inscrutable reason
—it could not have been mere stupidity—a number of
irrelevant questions had been inserted in the Committee's
circular, and the answers given to these in some cases
undoubtedly seemed inconsistent with the answers given
to the main questions themselves. But the specific
answers to these main questions were unmistakable.
Here is the form in which these main questions and the
answers to them appeared in the Parliamentary Com-
mittee's own official report as laid before the succeeding
Congress at Bradford in 1888 :— „2 7

Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee.

Result of Plebiscite on the Hours of Labour.

Societies who have Voted and sent the Numbers.

NAME OF SOCIETY.

Are you in fa-: A	. .

per week ?

day by law.

London Amalgamated Society of Upholsterers -

Amalgamated Society of Lithographic Printers -

National Union of Boot and Shoe Makers -

United Tinplate Workers and Gas Meter Makers' Protection

and Friendly Society of Edinburgh and Leith
United Operative Masons1 Association, Scotland
Associated Blacksmiths, Scotland -
Associated Iron Moulders, Scotland -
Scottish National Operative Tailors' Trade Protection and

Benevolent Society -
London Society of Compositors -----

Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, Scotland
French Polishers' Society, Edinburgh -
London Saddle and Harness Makers' Friendly and Protection
Society --------

Leicester Amalgamated Hosiery Union -
Associated Carpenters and Joiners, Scottish -
Amalgamated Society of House Decorators and Painters
Operative Stonemasons' Friendly Society	- - -

Women's Protective and Provident League - -
Ironfounders' Association, England -
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners
Stirlingshire Miners ------

Bookbinders' and Machine Rulers' Consolidated Union—
Edinburgh Branch ------

1  Yes	No	Yes	No
17	15	! 6	28
197	387	1 138	375
1,039	177	276	23a
39 350		i  290	
263		j 199	
358	928		
542	79	241	106
1,125	2,098	560	2,566
775	146	260	
127		119	"8
66	81	37	97
588	5	588	T
653		560	
101	i68	57	i86
472	14	399	165
42	49	23	43
11,966		9,209	
4,300		4,300	
		5	
22,720	4,097	17,267	3,819

per week ?

day by law.

There does not seem much room here for doubt as to*
what are or are not the wishes of the workers on the
question. Out of 26,817 who answered the question,
22,720 declared for an Eight Hours Day, and out of
21,086 who answered the further question how it should
fee attained, 17,267 declared that they desired it to
enforced by law.

In addition to the returns given above, others were
received from executive committees of trade societies and28

from trades councils, bodies, obviously, whose opinion
was of no value at all for the purpose in question. But,
even these, returns showed a majority for the Eight Hours
Day. Here is the Parliamentary Committee's official
statement:—

NAME OF SOCIETY.	Are you in fa- vour of an eight hours limit of the day's work —total 48 hours per week ?		Are you in fa- vour of Parlia- ment enforcing an eight hou s day by law ?	
	Yes	No	Yes	No
National Federation of Engineers' Protective Association  United Kingdom Society of (Joachmakers—Sheffield Branch -  Durham County Enginemen's Association -  Plasterers' Association - -  United Operative Slaters of Edinburgh and Leith  Amalgamated Engineers—Edinburgh Branch -  Kent and Sussex Labourers' Union -  Brassfounders—Edinburgh and Leith -  Britannia Metal Smiths' Provident Society -  ■Carpenters and Joiners'General Union -  Cumberland Miners' Association -----  Tube Makers' Amalgamated Society -  Society of Shirtmakers, London -----  Barge Builders' Trade Union -----  Middlesburgh Trades Council _____  Ipswich Trades Council ------  Aberdeen Trades Council ------  Barrow-in-Furness Trades Council -	Yes  Yes Yes Yes Yes  Yes Yes Yes  Yes . Yes  Yes Yes	No  No No	Yes Yes Yes Yes  Yes Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes	No No No No  No  No No  No
	12	3	9	8

These figures are not so emphatic as those expressing the
direct views of the workers, but they do not at all events
run counter to them. Yet the Parliamentary Committee
had the hardihood to append the following note to the
return :—

" In summarising the whole of the Returns, it is almost
impossible to give a definite opinion as to which way the balance
lies, as the number of votes returned is so small; and it is, con-
sequently, open for anyone to put the opinion of those members
who have not voted on which side they choose. A perusal of the
returns will, however, we think, be sufficient to satisfy any un-
prejudiced person that the time is not yet ripe for commencing an
agitation for an Eight Hours Day."

The delegates at the Bradford Congress did not, however,
accept this view of the case, nor did they pretend to be29

^ satisfied with the way in which the whole thing had been
managed by the Parliamentary Committee. They there-
fore passed a resolution instructing the Committee to take
a fresh plebiscite, leaving out all the irrelevant and side
questions, and asking simply—(i) Are you in favour of an
Eight Hours Working Day ? (2) Are you in favour of it
being obtained by Act of Parliament ? This resolution
was adopted by 42 votes to 22. When the question was
brought up at next year's Congress at Dundee, it was
found that the Parliamentary Committee had indeed
carried out the instructions given it at Bradford, but not
in the way intended by the delegates. Warned by previous
reprimands, the Committee had abstained from repeating
its attempt by circular to prejudice the issue, but it
adopted another device which greatly assisted to confuse
the result. It inserted in its new returns the opinions of
a few individuals, delegates at a representative meeting,
or members of a council, putting down in the margin
figures representing the total number of members of these
individuals' societies ! By this device the returns, which
were overwhelmingly in favour of the Eight Hours Day,
were made to appear as if they were actually against it.
The following (official) list explains itself and shows
how the thing was doneVotes upon the Eight Hours Question received by the Parliamentary Committee up to Aug. 6,1889.

NAME OF ASSOCIATION,

No. of
Memb's

1,700
3,214

172
1,909
230
4,000
20,117

Alliance Cabinetmakers' Association, ...

Bakers of Scotland, Operative -

Barge Builders, ------

Bookbinders' and Machine Rulers' Consolidated Union,
Bookbinding, Society of Women employed in -
Boot and Shoe Makers, Amalgamated Society of
Boot & Shoe Rivetters & Finishers, National Union of -
Cabinetmakers, Amalgtd. Union of (Westminster Branch)
Carpenters and Joiners, Associated -

Compositors, London Society of - - - -	7,400

Coopers, Mutual Association of - - - -	3,744

♦Cotton Spinners Amalgmtd. Association of Operatives,	17,125

* Do. (Oldham), - -	5,660

Cigarmakers, Mutual Association -	850

Hosiery Union, Amalgamated -	800

Iron Founders, Friendly Society of ...	5,664

Iron Moulders of Scotland, Associated -	5,5C0

Miners Union, Ayrshire -----	io,000

Do. Association, Cumberland -	3,000

Do. do., Derbyshire - - - -	4,000

Plasterers, Edinburgh District Operative - -	250

Do., Metropolitan Society of Operatives - -	95

Railway Servants, Amalgamated Society of -	13,000

Razor Grinders' Protection Society, Sheffield - -	150

Rotary Power Frame "Work Knitters, Nottingham -	390

Scissor Grinders, Society of - - - -	200

Shipwrights' Society, Associated -	5,000

Steam Engine Makers' Society -	5,350

Stone Masons, Operative Society of	11,000

Typographical Association (H.R.S.) - - -	7,590

Do. Society, Edinburgh -	740

♦Northern Counties Amalgamated Weavers'Association	83,756

Zinc Workers, London Operative - - - -	70

Associated Blacksmiths' Society, Scottish - -	1,900

Liverpool United Trades' Council - - -	10,000

Wolverhampton Do. - - -	...

*Accrington and District Do. - - --	4,500

Are you in
favour of
Eight Hours ?

For.

436
1,271

60

169
629
15
680
2,201
3,744

697

3,

358
10,000
3,000
2,253
250
41
3,344

150
366
200
854
1,429
578
1,505
371

476
20
7

Ag'nat.
31

167
100
27
162

'*60
1,411

17,125
5,660

155
5

1,350
928

Are you in
favour of it
being obtained

by Act of
Parliament ?

15

350

20

134
97
17
1,191
42
33,756
70

10
7

4," 500

178376 39,656 67,390 28,511 12,283

For.

391
1,181

60
467

427
1,578

229
697
1,843

loiooo

3,000
1,851

"*41

2,190

150
339
200
339
629
388
1,269
239

Ag'nst.
75
90

103
24

8

119

561
J, 744

101
7

1,410
1,286

250
1,504

564
650
165
1,141
110

162
2
7

Vote taken at special meetings.

By voting papers, great number members remained

neutral, thinking time not opportune.

Vote taken at general meeting of members (no address)
By voting papers.

Do.

Taken last year by voting papers.

Vote taken by show of hands.

By vote at the meetings of the branches.
By voting papers.

Vote throughout the branches (no address).

Vote taken at representative meeting.

Opposed in general meeting to any reduction in this
country until the hours on Continent, India, and
America are brought nearer to ours.

By voting papers.

By ballot (no address).

By voting papers.

This vote was taken last year.

Votes taken by house to house canvas.

By ballot, at their different public meetings.
By ballot.

Voting by show of hands.

By ballot.

By voting papers, considerable number refused to enter-
tain subject, others opinion that an 8 hours'
was impracticable.

Vote taken at representative meeting.

Vote taken by ballot.

Vote in members' meeting (no address).

Vote taken at branch meetings.

Do.	do.

Taken by show of hands at their respective lodges
By voting papers.

Do.

V otes taken at meeting of General Council.

If desirable, no chance of success, and would probably
cause the Society to collapse.

These figures represent number of delegates voting

Do.	do.	do.

Would be favourable if time were opportune. |

00
O3*

■, Two societies and one trades council, apparently brought in
as makeweights, are marked with an asterisk on the margin.
Their presence on a list ostensibly of votes of the workers
themselves is clearly indefensible. And when the combined
* numbers of these societies and council, 61,041, are struck
out, there are only 6,349 left as opponents of the Eight
Hours Day and 39,656 in its favour. This is leaving these
societies and council out of the list altogether and not
claiming them, as they might fairly be claimed, no
doubt, as positive supporters of an Eight Hours Day.
In addition to this, it should be stated that several
societies, possibly suspected of a disposition to give
an Eight Hours vote, received no voting papers
at all, and that others, who had voted unanimously
in favour of the Eight Hours Day found their answers
entirely omitted from the return! These two specific
matters were formally brought before Congress by the
delegates of the particular societies so treated, and
Mr. Broadhurst was asked for an explanation. But that
gentleman was unable to do more than suggest that
the respective communications had been lost in the
post.

With regard to the method by which the Eight Hours
Day is to be obtained, the returns are not quite so
emphatic. The majority of 28,511 to 12,283 is not
absolutely overwhelming, but it is at least decisive. When
the discussion of the returns came on, one delegate
pointed out the impropriety of the entry purporting to
give the opinions of the cotton weavers, 33,000 odd, and,
sarcastically describing it as a case of " cumulative voting
with a vengeance," moved its deletion. This proposal
having been promptly seconded, another was made, of the
same nature and on the same grounds, in reference to the
entries in the names of the Cotton Spinners' Societies
(Amalgamated and Oldham), 17,000 and 5,000 odd,
respectively. The motion for these deletions—a distinct
4 censure on the Parliamentary Committee—was adopted
by Congress by 72 votes to 49. Even this, however, did
not satisfy the wrath of the delegates, for, a further
amendment being moved for the entire rejection of the32

return was adopted almost unanimously. This is the ^
whole history of the trades unions' plebiscite on the Eight
Hours Question up to date, and it shows how, in spite of
the persistent and somewhat unscrupulous hostility of
their leaders and officials, the rank and file of the men
have contrived to make their opinions known, these
opinions showing an overwhelming majority, not only for
an Eight Hours Day, but for an Eight Hours Day
enforced by law.

So much for the opinions of the workers themselves,
opinions which, the opponents of the movement say, are
against an Eight Hours Day. But, as I said before, even
if these opinions were not in favour of an Eight Hours
Day, that would not be a conclusive argument against it.
It is, of course, always desirable to have the consent to
any scheme of all the parties whom that scheme will
affect. It is always desirable, but it is never absolutely
necessary. The principal question is, Is it just ? If it is
just, then, consent or no consent, it must be done. And
an additional reason why the consent of the present
workers to an Eight Hours Day is not absolutely necessary
is because they are not the parties whom it will principally
affect. The parties whom it will principally affect and on
whose behalf, primarily, it is demanded, are the present
unemployed. These the Eight Hours Day will benefit
immensely and immediately by finding them employment.
That is its first and greatest object. The present workers
it will also benefit by shortening their hours and raising
their wages. That is its second and lesser object. I am
not blind to the importance of this second object. It is
great, very great. But it is not so important, and not
nearly so urgent as the former—upon which, in fact, it is
contingent, and without which it can never come to pass
at all.

The opponents of a shorter labour day, driven
successively from the foregoing four positions, seek refuge
finally in a declaration that the proposed remedy would
be ineffective, inasmuch as, in the first place, the law
would be disobeyed or evaded, and, in the second place,
because, even if an Eight Hours Day were established -33

to-morrow, and the surplus in the labour market thereby
absorbed, in a few years, in consequence of increase of
population and of improved productive appliances, the
evil would have returned as strong as ever. The answer
to the first of these objections is that it is an objection
that might with equal force be advanced against the best
law that was ever passed. And, in fact, the better and
more necessary the law, the more disquieting is the threat
of disobedience to it. But as to the objection itself, there
is really nothing in it. Ifalawis made it must be obeyed,
and it would be for the executive of the country to see that
the law of the Eight Hours Day was obeyed like every
other. .The answer to the second objection is that the
labour day must be shortened from time to time, keeping
strict pace with the increase of the number of the workers,
the increase of improved productive appliances, and of
(should that happen) any diminution in the effective
demand of the market. The matter is very simple and
nobody can pretend not to understand it. There are
three factors in the calculation; first, the amount of the
'effective demand of the market for products ; second, the
number of the producers; and third, the productive
capacity of the producers. The first has to be satisfied ;
and the amount of time it will take the workers to satisfy
it obviously depends upon the two latter—i.e. their num-
bers. and productive capacity. If either the number or
productive capacity of the workers increases or diminishes
in relation to the amount of the effective demand for
products, then the length of the labour day must be con-
tracted or expanded in exact proportion accordingly. In
other words, on the one hand, the market must be fed,
while, on the other, every, worker must be equally
employed.

Now the first of these factors is a matter about which
the workers need not specially concern themselves. The
Consumers are its creators and their selfish appetites are
ample guarantee that they will take care of it. What the
workers have to concern themselves about is the two
others, that is, their own numbers and their productive
capacity. These concern them vitally. As to the first df34

these, the question of the numbers of the workers and
the effect of these numbers on the workers' own condition, "
the subject is one upon which there is much confusion of
thought and consequent difference of opinion. But it is
really very simple and presents no difficulties at all. The ^
whole point is governed by the condition of the case.
The worker, as every one admits, is a source of wealth.
That is to say, he not only supplies his own wants (or
their equivalents, which is the same thing) but also yields
something over. It is this " something over " that maintains
and enriches the idle consumer. Hence, the worker
obviously is a gain to the community, and the more of him
it has the better for it. That is clear. But it does not
follow that he is a gain to each part of the community.
If the community is divided into two parts, as it is at
present in England, one consumers and the other workers,
the former extorting much labour from the latter and
allowing them in return only a subsistence wage, then
additions to the ranks of the workers are no advantage to
these workers. They are, on the contrary, disadvantages ;
for their added labour tends to flood still more the already
overflowing labour market, and, by stress of increased
competition, brings down still lower the recompense of
labour. That* also, is clear; so that it is evident, that,
while additions to the numbers of the workers (either by
birth or immigration, it matters not which) could not be
injurious to any one in a community where each worker
received the whole value of his labour ; such additions
are extremely injurious to the workers in a community
where, as in the case of England at the present time,
there is an unemployed surplus in the labour market, and
the recompense of labour is determined, not by the real
value of that labour but by the necessities of the workers
and the competition in the labour market.

With regard to the other factor mentioned—the
productive capacity of the workers—that, also, is a subject
upon which there is much confusion of thought and c
consequent difference of opinion. And, like the other it is
really very simple. The productive capacity of the worker
rests on two things; first, his natural powers, mental and35

physical; second, the artificial appliances which he can
invent or acquire. The first of these does not enter into
the present argument. It is an endowment of nature,
varying in each individual and nation, and cannot be
suppressed or taken away. Nor is it necessary, even if it
were possible, to interfere with it, for the inequality which
it frequently establishes between both nations and
individuals are never so great as to necessarily involve
hopeless servitude on the one hand and assured mastership
on the other. These relations, it is true, do sometimes
come to pass between two nations or individuals unequally
endowed by nature; but, upon examination, it will be
found that in almost every case, certainly in every case
where the relations continue for any length of time, the
natural endowments of the superior nation or individual
have been supplemented by artificial acquirements. It is
this second element in the worker's productive capacity,
the artificial appliances, that constitutes the danger to the
worker's own welfare. Again the problem is extremely
simple : it is all a question of condition. The increase of
appliances of production, like the increase of the numbers
of the workers, is obviously a gain to the community, and the
more of these labour-saving machines it has the better for
it. That is clear. But (again as in the case of the additional
workers) it does not follow that the gain is a gain to each
part of the community. If the industrial community is
divided into two parts, as it is at present in England, the
one employers of labour and the other workers, the former
owning all the labour-saving machines and allowing
the workers only a subsistence wage for attending to the
same, then additions to the numbers of these labour-saving
machines are of no advantage to these workers. They are,
on the contrary, disadvantages ; for their increased facility
of production tends to reduce the demand for workers, and
thus, by stress of increased competition amongst these
workers, brings down still lower the recompense of labour*
That, also, is clear; so that it is evident that, while
additions to the numbers of labour-saving machines would
be undoubtedly gains to the workers if they, the workers,
owned as well as attended to these machines ; such additions36

are extremely injurious to the workers where, as in the
case of England at the present time, these machines are
owned by the employers of labour, where there is already
an unemployed surplus in the labour market, and where
the recompense of labour is determined not by the real
value of the workers' labour, but by their necessities, and
by the competition in the labour market. This is the
answer to the two questions that are always being raised
as to the right attitude of the workers towards an increase
either of their own numbers or of labour-saving appliances,
and its simplicity and adequacy are at once apparent.

Now the workers cannot possibly prevent either one
or other of the two evils that threaten them. They
cannot prevent the increase of their own numbers; they
cannot prevent the increase of labour-saving machines.
What then are they to do ? Quietly submit to perpetual
misery and degradation ? By no means. Although they
cannot prevent the increase of either workers or labour-
saving machines, they can do something which will not
only disarm both these terrors and make them entirely
harmless, but actually convert them into sources of
advantage to them. The whole danger in these im-
pending events consists in the element of labour which
they possess, and if that element is removed the whole
danger instantly disappears. For example, if the numbers
of the workers and of labour-saving machines were
increased indefinitely, such increase would be quite
useless to the employers if the workers did no work
either with the machines or without them. The whole
value of such increase to the employer, the whole danger
of it to the worker, rests on the expectation that it will,
in the first place, create, and, in the second place, take
advantage of, a superfluity of labour. And if the workers
can devise means to abolish this superfluity of labour,
the whole problem is solved. Can they do so ? Obviously,
they can. Will they do so ? That is not doubtful. How
ought they to do so ? That is the point we have now to
consider.

In the first place, this superfluity of labour can only
be abolished by such a general limitation of the labour37

day as will ensure an equal share of work to all workers,
leaving not one idle man in the labour market. If one
such man were so left out, it would be like the beginning
of the letting out of waters. He would go to the nearest
workshop and offer his services for a shade less than the
amount then being paid to the men in work. He would
be taken on, the least efficient of the workers being
discharged to make room for him. The discharged
workman, confronted by his starving wife and little ones,
would return to his employer and offer to work for even
less than had been asked by the man who had displaced
him. He would be taken on, the next least efficient of
the workers being discharged to make room for him.
And so the process would be repeated until, by successive
reductions, the wages of all the workers had been reduced
to their old subsistence point below which men could not
sink and live. Then the one superfluous workman would
be allowed to walk the streets, shoeless and starving, a
recipient of alms or a social bird of prey. Clearly,
the limitation of the labour day must be such as to include
every single worker in its beneficent operations.

Having now proved my first main proposition—
namely, that the present economic condition of the
workers is unjust and injurious and ought to be altered,
I now proceed to prove my second—namely, that the
only satisfactory remedy for the evils arising out of that
condition is the legislative restriction of the hours of
labour. In order to prove this it will be necessary to
examine all the serious alternative remedies proposed,
showing either their positive unfitness or their compara-
tive inferiority to the remedy named. The alternative
proposals in question are very numerous, but only a
comparatively small number of them are worthy of serious
consideration. One of these is emigration. Now it may
be at once conceded that, given proper conditions as to
climate, occupation, age, and means, emigration is, from
the point of view of the political economist, one of the
least objectionable of the alternative remedies proposed.
But it has two fatal defects. First, it is unacceptable to
the workers, and they will not willingly adopt it. Second,38

it is so glaringly unjust that no Government would dare
to attempt its enforcement. And these two considerations
put the proposal entirely out of court. So strong is the
workmen's repugnance to this " remedy" that he in-
stinctively looks upon any one who recommends it as
his enemy and the enemy of his class. " Why," he asks,
" if there are too many of us in this little island, should I
be the one to leave it ? I cultivate the soil and raise the
food stuffs; I rear the dwellings and weave the clothing.
Who is more necessary to the community, that he should
stay and I should go ?" There is no answer to that
question. There may be an answer good in law, as that
law at present stands, but there is no answer in equity,
and it is equity that we are discussing. If there is to be
an expatriation of any portion of the community, both
common sense and equity require that it shall be that
portion which contributes least, not that which contributes
most, to the necessities of the whole.

Or take co-operation, another of the alternative
remedies proposed. There are two varieties of this article.
One professes to admit the workers (as distinguished from
the shareholders) to some share in the advantages of the
system. The other makes no such pretence, but shame-
lessly appropriates the unpaid wages of its workers (called
shareholder's profits) just as the most ordinary and least
benevolent individual capitalists do. The latter kind we
may dismiss at once. It does not pretend to solve the
labour problem. And as for the former kind, although it
undoubtedly benefits those workers who are within its
favoured sphere, it can never reach the whole of the
people. The very poor and destitute, our first and most
urgent clients, must always, in the very nature of the
case, remain outside its operations. They could not take
up shares, for they have no money. Therefore, they
would not draw any dividend. On the contrary, their
labour would be laid under tribute to provide dividends for
their wealthier fellow-workers and for some who were not
workers at all. If a co-operative system were established
in which all the profits were equally divided among the
workers, and into which a poor man could enter with the39

same advantages as a rich man, and such system became
universally prevalent throughout the country, providing
employment for every worker, then there would be no need
for a law to shorten the hours of labour. But there is no
such system in existence, nor, indeed, proposed; so that
it is clear that we will not find in co-operation, any more
than in emigration, an effective remedy for the economic
slavery of the working class. The foregoing reply covers,
also, the newly invented schemes of "profit-sharing."
These schemes are identical in principle with the better
form of co-operation, and, being equally limited in their
scope, are equally ineffective for the purpose in view.

Then there is another alternative remedy suggested—
^Malthusianism ; but the advocates of that nostrum require
but little notice. They are a decaying group, whose
utterances attract less and less attention as the real points
of the labour question become better understood. That
their "remedy" is an unnatural one is no defect in their
eyes, but rather a recommendation. They are above—or
below—nature, and plume themselves upon the detach-
ment. To do them justice, it must be owned that their
practice corresponds with their precepts, but whether the
former is adapted to the latter, or the latter to the former,
only themselves can say. But, however that may be, the
answer to them is that their " remedy" is not only
unnatural but impossible, and that, that being the case, it
need not be discussed. A state of society in which all the
children are slain is conceivable : although it is not difficult
to forecast the time when such a society would come to an
end. But a state of society in which no children shall be
born, or only the children of the wealthier members of the
community, is an inconceivable monstrosity, equally
abhorrent to nature and to justice. Over and above all
that, it may be pointed out that the proposed remedy is
quite beside the mark, inasmuch as indisputable statistics
show that, in this country, wealth has increased, and is
increasing, even under the present disproportionate system
of wealth-production, much faster than population.

With regard to thrift or temperance, another of the
alternative remedies proposed, it is evident, in the first40

place, that this remedy, like co-operation, can only be very
partial in its extent, and that it is therefore quite ineffective
for the purpose in view. One worker may, it is true, by
dint of sacrifices and self-denials on his own part, and by
hardships and privations on the part of those near and
dear to him, lift himself, after years of suffering, above the
level of his fellow workers and out of the slough of poverty.
But what follows ? He has attained to that position by
his own sufferings and exertions and by the sufferings and
exertions of his wife and children. I will not stop to
discuss the morality of that proceeding, although
undoubtedly it will not always bear strict examination,
and sometimes the victims do not survive the operation.
But how does our risen workman maintain himself in his
new position ? Still by his own sacrifices and exertions ?
Not exactly. On the contrary* he becomes himself an
employer of labour, employing, probably enough, some of
those old fellow-workers of his, from whose side he has
risen, and extracting from their labour profits that enable
him to live, and live well, without doing any work himself.
What better is the general condition of the working clkss,
what mitigation of their misery is there, through this man's
thrift ? Obviously, none at all. He has lifted himself up,
it is true, but he has left his fellows down. In fact, he has
aggravated their condition, for he has created, in his own
person} another employer of labour who has to be kept out
of the profits extracted from their toil. Clearly thrift,
like each of the other " remedies " we have been examin-
ing, is not the cure for the economic misery of the working
class.

These four " remedies," emigration, co-operation
(including profit-sharing), malthusianism, and thrift, may
be said to exhaust the list of proposals seriously put
forward as alternatives to a shortening of the labour - day.
But there still remain to be disposed of those who declare
their willingness, and, in some cases, even desire,, to see
the labour day shortened, on condition that the process of
shortening is not effected by legal enactment. It is not
easy to understand intelligent men taking up this position.
They admit that the shortening of the labour day is a4*

^ matter of the very greatest consequence to the workers*
yet they haggle over the mere question of method, and

*	declare that if their method is not adopted, they will
oppose the whole project altogether. Is, then, the

*	question of method more important than the object itself?
Is the raiment more than the body ? The proposition is
of course absurd, but it is the inevitable outcome of the
attitude under consideration. Moreover, many of the
persons who have taken up that attitude know perfectly
well that the method they insist upon is utterly ineffective*
and that the method they oppose is the only one that can
succeed. They know perfectly well that there is a huge
surplus of unemployed labour in the labour market, to be
drawn upon by employers when strikes occur, rendering
absolutely futile all the attempts of the unions to effect the
object in view. They know, moreover, that the arm of
the law is necessary for the protection of the workers, even
when these are grown men and members of trade societies,
against the cupidity of their employers ; and show their
recognition of that, fact by their warm support of
Parliamentary decrees forbidding the payment of wages,
in kind (the Truck Act), specifying the limits of the
compensation (Employers' Liability Act) which employers
shall pay to their workmen in case of accidents, etc.
The real truth seems to be that these objectors to.
the Eight Hours Law are not honest. This opinion
is shared, and has been publicly expressed by one
of the workmen's Parliamentary representatives, Mr.,
Benjamin Pickard. If they were honest in their pro-
fessions of friendship towards an Eight Hours Day,,
they would adopt for its attainment that legal method
which they deem necessary for the adjustment of other
(and less important) matters of dispute between the
same parties. The fact that they do not adopt that
method but, on the contrary, bitterly denounce it,
justifies the conclusion that their professed friendship is.
not sincere, but is only a cloak for a hostility which they
dare not openly avow. It is, of course, possible that some
of these objectors are not dishonest, but only stupid. This,
would, in fact, appear to be the case in certain instances*42

judging by the arguments these gentlemen themselves put
forward. One of these, a Radical Member of Parliament,
bases his hostility to an Eight Hours Law on the ground
that the change ought to be brought about by the action of
the unions ; and then he goes on to "give himself away "
by declaring that a reduction of the hours of labour must
be resisted inasmuch as it would destroy certain industries !
Now one would think that it must be clear, even to a
Radical Member of Parliament, that the two positions here
occupied are mutually inconsistent, and that, to put it
mildly, they ought not to be taken up at one and the same
time by one and the same individual. If an Eight Hours
Day, enforced by law, will ruin trade, will not an Eight
Hours Day, enforced by trades union combinations, do,the
same? One would think so. Yet the person referred to
has no mean opinion of himself—by which description,
meagre though it be, the reader may identify him even
amongst Radical Members of Parliament — and his
<( arguments " against an Eight Hours Bill are vigorously
applauded by the employers of labour on both sides of the
House of Commons. There are others who may be
judged more leniently, trades union leaders and officials,
men who have spent their lives in the cause of labour, who
do not understand the new economic doctrine, and who
cling with an honest infatuation to a belief in the potency
of their old organisations. It is nothing to them that these
organisations have all these years failed to remedy the
condition of the workers, leaving them to-day as com-
pletely the victims of an overflowing labour market as
they were when they first started their operations. They
pride themselves on the success they achieved in the Nine
Hours Movement a generation ago, and do not see that
nine hoars labour now produces far more wealth than ten
hours produced then, and that, therefore, even omitting
the question of increase of population, the labour market
must necessarily be even more over-stocked to-day than it
was before the Nine Hours Movement was started.

Having shown that an Eight Hours Law is an absolute
necessity for the workers, I now proceed to prove that it
is equally necessary for the employers. This may sound43

strange doctrine, but it is quite true. Everybody will
admit (employers of labour amongst others) that the
Eight Hours Day, in one shape or other, is coming. In
fact, in some trades in some districts it has already come.
Coal-miners, gas-stokers, chemical workers, and some
other trades, have already attained the Eight Hours Day
through the instrumentality of their unions, and the
contagion is rapidly spreading. Now, it is inevitable
that if the extension of the Eight Hours Day is forced by
trades union action it will not only entail much suffering,
for the time being, upon the workers, but that it will also
bring ruin upon numerous individual, employers of labour.
That is inevitable. The trades assailed may themselves
survive the attack, and the bulk of the employers may be
even better circumstanced after it than they were before.
But that some employers, as well as some workmen, will
fall in the struggle, never to rise again, is as certain as
anything can be. Now the employers are not ignorant
of this fact. They are, on the contrary, keenly alive
to it. And it is the knowledge of it, and the fears
that that knowledge inspires, that impels these employers
to resist all demands for shorter hours of labour.
They know, at least as well as anybody, that the aver-
age labour day is 12 hours for every man in work,
and 6 days in the week. They know, also, that there
are many men standing idle in the labour market,
able and willing to do their share of the work that
has to be done and starving for want of it. Yet they
maintain their attitude of resolute hostility to all proposals
to bring in those unemployed workmen and give them a
share of the work. Why do they do so ? The employer's
answer—and it is a perfectly honest one—is that he
cannot afford to pay the additional wages that the proposed
alteration would involve. Now, no doubt, this is quite true
in a great number of cases under present conditions. But,
if these conditions were changed, it would then be just as
easy for the employers to pay the larger sum in wages as
it is for him now to pay the smaller. I will explain. The
position of an employer of labour is like that of Germany
in Europe : he has an enemy on each of his frontiers. In44

front of him is the produce market, into which he can only ^
enter with produce at least equal in value and cheapness
to the produce of his rivals. Behind him is the labour -
market, from which he must draw supplies of labour at
least equal in value and cheapness to those of his rivals. —
Failure in any one of these points means his destruction ;
and inasmuch as the payment of a higher rate of wages to
his workmen, while his rivals continued to pay the lower,
would involve that failure, the employer very naturally
sets his face against the demand for a shorter labour
day. In this apprehension of the result of a shorter
labour day, the employer is both right and wrong.
It all depends on how the change is effected. If it is
effected spasmodically and piecemeal, as it is now being
effected by the trades unions, the employer's apprehensions
are well founded and almost certain to be realised. If it
is his fate to be the first to be attacked by the unions, he
will find himself assailed and harassed, while his rival,
occupying, possibly, adjoining premises, remains un-
touched; and, while he is engaged in a life-or-death
struggle with his assailants, his rival will carry off the
trade and he will be ruined. All that is quite clear. But
if, on the contrary, the change is effected universally and
simultaneously, the employer's difficulties vanish—or,
rather, they do not arise. For all his rivals are placed in
and same position that he is placed in. They will have to pay
the same wages and work the same hours that he does,
and therefore they will not be able to rob him of his share
of the market. It is thus seen that the employer's interests,
when rightly understood, are not really opposed to a
shortening of the labour day, but only to the spasmodic and
partial method adapted by the trades unions for carrying
the change into effect; and that, if he can be made sure
that the change shall be universal and simultaneous, his
objections at once and entirely disappear. But he must
be made quite sure. No mere hopes or expectations will
satisfy him. He must be made absolutely sure. But what
guarantee can we give to the employer, how shall we make
him sure that the change in the labour day shall be made
simultaneous and universal ? The only guarantee that45

the employers can accept in this matter is the security of
the law, and the security of the law can only be given if
/ the change is made by law; so that it is clear that, in the
^ interests of the employers themselves, as well as in the
w interests of the workers, employed and unemployed, an
Eight Hours Legal Labour Day is absolutely necessary.

The argument is now complete. I submit that I
have conclusively proved my two main propositions—
namely, that the present economic condition of the
workers is unjust and injurious and ought to be altered;
and that the legislative restriction of the hours of labour
is the only satisfactory remedy for the evils arising out
of that condition. We have examined all the
objections to a shorter labour day, and seen that they
cannot be maintained. We have examined, also, all the
alternative remedies proposed and found them either
insufficient or impracticable. And we have looked forward
to the results of a shorter labour day and find that, while
they will be immensely beneficial to the great masses of
the people, they will entail hardship upon none; the
wealthy, idle consumer, upon whom chiefly will fall the
weight of the change, being well able to bear that weight.

There remains only to be spoken a last word to those
who, with unreasoning infatuafcfron, cling*to the conviction
that the great change can be brought about by the action
of trades unions, apart from legal -enforcement. The
reasons that destroy—or ought to destroy—that infatua-
tion, are shortly two. In the first place, as we have seen,
the change, to be effective, must include all the workers,
and the unions do not contain in their ranks more than
about one-tenth of these. In the second place, the unions
are not, as we have also seen, themselves agreed upon the
question, so thait combined action, even to that small
extent of one-tenth of the workers, is not to be hoped for.

There is one way, and one way only, by which the
unions might possibly conquer in such a struggle, but in
which their probabilities of success would be in the pro-
portion of about one to a million. If all the unionists in the
country resolved themselves into pickets, and armed them-
selves with deadly weapons, and slew without compunction46

every blackleg and knobstick who tried to fill their places,
they might establish such a terror as would bring all trade
to a standstill and so intimidate the employers into
granting their demands. Any action short of this would
be useless and hopeless, for reasons already seen; and as
to this measure, it is not at all probable that it would be
allowed to succeed. The whole community would rise
against the unions; the civil authority would stretch out
its arm for the protection of the blacklegs, and if that arm
was not long enough or strong enough, the military power
would come forward to its support. The issue would not
be doubtful. The unionists would be ground to powder,
and trades unionism and the interests of labour would
receive a blow that they would not recover from for
two or three generations. That is what would happen if
any such action were attempted.

But, it may be said, if the workers cannot, by means
of their unions, obtain a limitation of the labour day, how
can they hope to obtain it by any other ? The answer is
very simple. In the one case, they have the whole
community outside their own ranks combined against
them. In the other, the community is divided into two
almost equal parts (political parties), each intent on its
own interests and most anxious for the support and
assistance of the workers in the furtherance of these
interests. Neither of the parties, it is true, would help the
workers to an Eight Hours Day if they could avoid it, but
either of them will certainly do so if that is. the price of the
support and assistance aforesaid. Of course, if that assist-
ance and support are always given to one of the parties, and
always without an equivalent being exacted, no equivalent
will ever be given. That is what the workers—or,
rather, their leaders and spokesmen — have been doing
up to the present, and they have only themselves—
or their leaders—to thank for the unsatisfactory result.
But, if one may judge by present appearances and by the
awakened attitude of the workers, the policy of the past
is condemned and is not likely to be continued. These
two great political parties, Conservative and Liberal, are
so immersed in their mutual antagonisms, and so equally47

matched, that they will give almost any terms to allies.
This is the opportunity of the workers. They have votes,,
and their votes can restore Mr. Gladstone and his
followers to place and power or doom them to perpetual
Opposition. Their votes can give Mr. Parnell a Parlia-
ment on College Green, or condemn his countrymen to
continual bondage. Their votes can give Sir Wilfrid
Lawson the power to shut up every public-house in the
country, or throw the trade of liquor-selling absolutely
onen and free. Is there any doubt, can there be any
dtaibt, as to what the result would be if the workers were
t<) decide, once for all, that only such Parliamentary
candidates as pledged themselves to an Eight Hours Day,
irrespective of all other questions, would receive their
support ? There can be no doubt. Not less than 90 per
cent, of the Liberals and 70 per cent, of the Conservatives
would instantly swallow the pledge. There would be
no more strikes, with their concomitants of misery and
suffering to the workers ; no more civil war, with unionist
and non-unionist workmen killing each other for the
chance of a bare existence; no more disturbances of
trade, local or national, with consequent ruin to honest
employers of labour. Everything would be adjusted
quietly, constitutionally, and in order. The machinery
is all ready, waiting to be put in motion. This is the
task now lying at the door of the workers. They want
a leader to help them to perform it. He must be wise
and brave and honest. Other qualities are desirable ;
these are indispensable. Above all, he must be brave.
Ifiave they such a leader ? I do not know. But the time
is ripe, and circumstances are extremely propitious. The
issue is in their own hands.This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding

by,

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2015