r
 
 INDUSTRY 
 
 AND 
 
 PROPERTY: 
 
 a pica for ilruth a^^ IbonctHv^ in Economics, 
 
 au^ for Xibcrt\> a^^ 3ui?ticc in 
 
 Social IRcfonn : 
 
 BEING A DISCUSSION OF PRESENT-DAY LABOUR PROBLEMS, 
 
 WITH PROPOSALS FOR THEIR SOLUTION, COUNSELS 
 
 TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED, AND WARNINGS TO 
 
 STATESMF.N, POLITICIANS, AND SOCIAL 
 
 REFORMERS. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE BROOKS 
 
 f Lcxophilics ) . 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 
 MELLS LODGE, HALESWORTH, SUFFOLK.
 
 HX) 
 1.350 
 
 Jl TO 
 
 T THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 o 
 
 o ^IK learl of Mcin^66, 
 
 ri 
 
 •WHO HAS STEADFASTLY RESISTED THE INSIDIOUS ADVANCES INTO 
 ^ ENGLISH POLITICS OF IRRATIONAL AND DESTRUCTIVE SOCIALISM 
 
 G^ AND STRENUOUSLY UPHELD THE 
 
 SANCTLIY OF I'ERSONAL FREEDOM AND THE SECURITY 
 OF INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORSHIP; 
 C^ TO WH03K FORESIGHT AND ENERGY THE MOVEMENT AGAINST 
 
 a. 
 
 -=r SOCIALISTIC TYRANNY IN ENGLAND MAINLY OWES 
 
 ITS INCEPTION AND GROWTH; 
 C/ AND WHOSE KINDNESS OF HEART AND TRUE SYMPATHY WITH 
 ^ THE POOR ARE NOT LESS CONSPICUOUS TO THOSE WHO 
 
 ^ HAVE THE HONOUR OF HIS ACQUAINTANCE 
 
 "^ THAN HIS ZEAL FOR THOSE GREAT PRINCIPLES WHICH LIE AT 
 -.- THE I5ASIS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS AND OF NATIONAL 
 
 WELL-BEING, 
 
 J? 
 
 Z\nB Mork \e S)cMcatcb 
 
 O 
 I— 
 
 o AS A HUMBLE TOKEN OF SINCERE RESPECT 
 
 BY THE 
 
 AUTHOR. 

 
 SYNOPSIS OF THE WORK. 
 
 E 
 
 VEKYW'HKRE throughout this work the following 
 fundamental principles are either expressed or 
 implied : 
 
 I. — That the interference of the State with the conditions 
 of Adult Male Labour, except for the protection of workmen 
 from dangers to health and life, is unwise and injurious ; the 
 regulation of the hours and wages of such labourers being 
 altogether outside and beyond the function of Government. 
 
 2, — That the tendency of a people to transfer to the 
 shoulders of the State responsibilities which ought to be 
 borne by the individual citizen is a sure symptom of national 
 decay. 
 
 3. — That Capital has its rights no less than Labour ; 
 that Labour has its duties as well as Capital. 
 
 4. — That the first right of Labour is that it should be 
 Free ; while the first right of Capital is that it should be 
 Secure. 
 
 5. — That both Capital and Labour have the right to com- 
 bine their forces for legitimate ends ; but that both should 
 exercise this right in subordination to the higher rights of 
 the community at large ; and that any combination, either 
 of Labour or Capital, which seeks to use its power for selfish 
 and sectional ends, against the common weal, is illegitimate 
 and reprehensible. 
 
 6. — That it is the inherent right of every labourer to dispose 
 of his labour as he thinks fit, without coercion from others, 
 and that correlatively every employer has the inherent right
 
 vi. Synopsis of the Work. 
 
 to manage his business according to his own convictions, 
 without dictation from outsiders. 
 
 7. — That Capital and Labour are inter-related and inter- 
 dependent, and to some extent identical, inasmuch as Capital 
 itself is Labour in another form, being that part of Labour 
 which has been accumulated in the past to supply the needs of 
 the present : that the capitalist is himself a labourer ; that 
 therefore, Capital and Labour cannot truly be antagonists, 
 whose interests lie in divergent and opposing directions, but 
 must always be allies and co-adjutors, whose fundamental 
 and ultimate aims are the same, however much their imme- 
 diate interests may appear to differ : and that, consequently, 
 a state of war between them is unnatural and irrational. 
 
 8. — That Labour is the instrument which Capital (or past 
 Labour) uses in the work of production. 
 
 9. — That wages consist of that portion of the profit of pro- 
 duction which remains after interest and working expenses 
 have been paid ; which is paid out of the results of past Labour 
 (or Capital) ; and which the workman contracts to receive as 
 his full and final share of the results earned by the conjoined 
 efforts of Labour and Capital. 
 
 10. — That neither Capital nor Labour primarily gives 
 value to commodities, but only an effective demand for those 
 commodities on the part of those who desire them. 
 
 II. — That an employer, whose interests are bound up with 
 those of his workmen, is, on every principle of reason and 
 common-sense, likely to prove a truer friend to those work- 
 men than a professional agitator who has no interests in 
 common with the workmen, and whose chief concern may be 
 to serve himself by exploiting them. 
 
 12. — That Labour conflicts and strikes can be avoided only 
 by the exercise of a large and tolerant spirit on the part of 
 employers, and by the growth of an intelligent and reasonable 
 temper among workmen.
 
 Synopsis uj the Work. vii. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 Recent Developments of the Labour Movement — 
 
 Historical. 
 
 Chapter i. — The (Ireat Dock Strike. 
 
 „ 2. — Smaller Dock Strikes and Miscellaneous 
 
 Trade Conflicts. 
 ,, 3. — Riiilway and Omnibus Strikes. 
 „ 4. — Insubordination in the Public Services. 
 ,, 5. — How Socialism is permeating our Literature, 
 Legislation and Politics, and the Attitude 
 of our Public Men in relation thereto. 
 
 HOOK II. 
 
 Proposed Legal and Political Solutions of Labour 
 
 Problems; or the Relations of Politics and 
 
 Law to Capital and Labour. 
 
 Chapter i. — The Limitations of Law. 
 
 ,, 2. — Recent Action of Parliament on Labour 
 Questions, 
 
 „ 3. — The Demand for an Eight Hours' Law. 
 
 ,, 4. — The Dangerous Consequences of Legal Inter- 
 ference with Contracts, Accumulations, 
 and Exchanges. 
 
 „ 5. — Manhood, not Law, the Great Desideratum. 
 
 BOOK TIL 
 
 Proposed Revolutionary and Socialistic Solutions of 
 Labour Problems: or the Relation of Demo- 
 cracy to Liberty and Property. 
 
 Chapter i. — The Socialistic Spirit and Socialistic Systems. 
 ,, 2. — Socialistic Dreamers and their Delusions. 
 ,, 3. — Warnings from History and Experience. 
 ,, 4. — The True Socialism. 
 
 „ 5. — Grave Dangers Ahead, arising from the Time- 
 serving Spirit of our Political Parties.
 
 viii. Synopsis of the Work, 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 The True Solution of Labour Problems Economical 
 
 and Moral: or the Wisdom of Profiting 
 
 by Past Experience. 
 
 Chapter i. — The Old Political Economy. 
 ,, 2. — The New Political Economy. 
 ,, 3. — Individualism the True Antidote to Socialism. 
 ,, 4. — Combinations of Workmen and of Capitalists. 
 „ 5. — The Application of the Christian \'irtues to 
 
 the Solution of the Industrial Problems of 
 
 our Times. 
 
 Note. — For list of Subscribers, see the end of the book.
 
 PREFACE 
 
 I CLAIM, not as a favour, but as a right, that this work 
 should be judged in accordance with the Hmitations 
 which I have perforce imposed upon myself in writing 
 it. It is not designed to be a philosophical treatise on 
 Political Economy. I do not pretend to have the qualifica- 
 tions necessary for producing such a treatise, and, even if I 
 had such qualifications, the work has already been so well 
 done by others that it would be merely a piece of conceit on 
 my part to imagme that I could improve upon it. Never- 
 theless, it is hoped that such references to Political Economy 
 as are made in this work will be in harmony with the teach- 
 ings of its most eminent and authoritative expositors. The 
 aim of the work is severely practical, and perhaps it is ex- 
 plained with sufficient clearness in the Synopsis. 
 
 I was impelled to undertake this work by a profound con- 
 viction of the importance of placing before the electors, and 
 especially those of the working classes, a plain statement of 
 the principles which lie at the basis of national prosperity, 
 and even of civilisation itself. The signs of the times indi- 
 cate that if we have not reached, we are at all events ap- 
 proaching, a crisis in our industry. There are forces at work 
 which, if allowed to operate unchecked, will effectually com- 
 pass the ruin of Great Britain as a manufacturing nation, 
 simply because they are antagonistic to the Capital and 
 energ}' and skill upon which our manufactures depend. Yet 
 a considerable proportion of our working men have been
 
 X. Preface. 
 
 deluded into the belief that these destructive forces are really 
 beneficent, and accordingly they hail them with delight as 
 harbingers of their social salvation. To see multitudes of 
 toiling men thus hugging to their hearts a fatal delusion, and 
 straining all their energies in the pursuit of a phantom, is as 
 pathetic a spectacle as that which moved the heart of 
 Christ when He pityingly remarked that the common people 
 of His time were " as sheep having no shepherd." 
 
 I say that I was " impelled " to undertake this work, and 
 I use the term advisedly. The God who called me to preach 
 the Gospel from the pulpit, has also called me to write this 
 book — which, indeed, is but preaching the Gospel in another 
 and a more comprehensive form. Of this I have no doubt 
 whatever. Under this conviction I have written it ; by this 
 conviction I have been sustained amid many difficulties 
 incident to the writing of such a book : and I send it forth 
 in the full persuasion that it will tend to promote truth and 
 righteousness, freedom and justice, and the cause of social 
 progress in general. 
 
 It is quite likely that many of my critics will say that the 
 work is written in the interests of capitalists. In one sense 
 no doubt this is true, inasmuch as the interests of capitalists 
 are the interests of commerce and industry. But I certainly 
 am not a capitalist — nor a landowner — nor a monopolist. 
 The only capital I possess consists in the brains and the health 
 which God has been pleased to give me. I never possessed 
 /"500 in my life, and as my only chance of ever possessing 
 that amount depends entirely upon the earnings of my pen, 
 I fear it is an exceedingly remote one. So far am I from 
 being connected with the capitalist classes that I am an agri- 
 cultural labourer's son. At the age of nine I began to work 
 in the fields of my native county of Lincoln: while my youth 
 was spent as a factory operative in Oldham. When I left
 
 Preface. xi. 
 
 the factory for the pulpit and the editorial chair, I only did 
 what many others have done before me. The way is open 
 still for others to do the same. There is no secret about it. 
 Men who raise themselves from the working classes into the 
 ranks of the professional or the wealthy classes do so by dint 
 of their industry, perseverance, and integrity. Hut with such 
 antecedents as these, is it probable that I can be lacking in 
 sympathy, true sympathy, with the working classes ? Among 
 these classes arc numbered many of my dearest friends. The 
 companions of my \outh are still farm labourers and factory 
 operatives, ami I have not less regard for them now than I 
 had then. 
 
 Let not the reader infer from the last sentence but one 
 that I am one of those who have risen from poverty to wealth. 
 On the contrary, I am in many respects less well off than 
 when I worked for weekly wages, the main difference betwixt 
 the two positions being that I now have to work harder and 
 longer, and to endure much more anxiety and fatigue, than 
 I did in the old days of manual toil : while at the same time 
 the duties and responsibilities pressing upon me are more 
 numerous and heavy. This very work has been written to the 
 accompaniment of the howls of the wolf at the door. This 
 is not pleasant music : but it sometimes sharpens one's 
 wits. The wolf has more than once got his nose inside, 
 gnashed his teeth in fury, and howled triumphantly in anti- 
 cipation of the feast which he now regarded as indubitably 
 his own, to the no little dismay of those whom he intended 
 to make his victims. While the Wolf of Hunger has howled 
 at the door of my dwelling, the Angel of Death has hovered 
 above it. Yet, by God's good providence, the growling and 
 grinning monster has been driven back disappointed ; and, in 
 the words of St. Paul the great Apostle: "Having obtained 
 help of God, I continue unto this day." This reference to
 
 xii. Preface, 
 
 my position is not made from any vulgar desire to parade 
 my circumstances before the public eye, still less \vi*h a 
 .view to drawing forth the sympathies of the charitable 
 (though I confess that if any man or woman should, Jor my 
 work's sake, desire to help me, I could accept such an ex- 
 pression of sympathy without feeling any more degraded 
 than does a man who accepts a pension from the State — 
 especiall}' if it should be the case that he had done nothing 
 to earn or to deserve it) ; it is on the contrary made with 
 great reluctance, and purely from a desire to emphasize the 
 fact that I am still, though in a different station of life, a 
 poor man, and therefore not pre-disposcd to be lacking in 
 sympathy with the poorer classes or to take the side of the 
 rich against them. Whatever else my critics may say about 
 me, they cannot say that I am an aristocrat, or a plutocrat, 
 or a capitalist ; they cannot deny that I am the son of my 
 father, who was an agricultural labourer, or that I myself 
 have, in the most literal sense, gone "through the mill." I 
 am a poor man pleading for poor men ; if in defending the 
 interests of the poor I defend those of the rich also, it is be- 
 cause the interests of rich and poor are in the nature of 
 things, and by the design of Providence, inseparably bound 
 up together. 
 
 If some of the things which I have felt it my duty to say 
 respecting working men seem a little severe, I can only say 
 that I have in every instance conscientiously spoken the 
 truth according to the facts and the circumstances under 
 discussion, and that I- have spoken it with a sincere desire 
 to promote the interests of men for whom, as a class, I have 
 a very high and sincere respect, and with whom I am allied 
 by ties of birth and early experience. The best friend of the 
 working classes is the man who tells them the truth, the 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; who points out to
 
 Preface . xiii. 
 
 them the results which will inevitably tiow from a given 
 course oi conduct ; who warns them against ignorant 
 or fanatical teachers and against false friends ; and who 
 logically demonstrates that they are Hying in the face of 
 their own interests if they allow themselves to be beguiled 
 by the specious pretensions of an impracticable Socialism. 
 
 No: this work is not written in the interests of capitalists 
 as such ; it is w rittcn in the interests of both Labour and 
 Capital, of both employers and employed, of the poor as 
 well as of the rich — in short, in the interests of all classes of 
 the nation : in other words, it is wTitten purely in the 
 interests of economic truth. Where true economical 
 doctrines are believed and practised Liberty will thrive, and 
 its hand-maid, Prosperity, like a good angel, will attend the 
 steps of every citi/en and march side by side with the nation 
 as the Guardian of its life and its glory ; there the State will 
 be free, and every man in it free also, and whatever inequali- 
 ties may exist will be such as were designed to exist by the 
 wise Creator Himself, and are therefore really in the interests 
 of mankind in general, and not least in the interests of those 
 who are most disposed to chafe under them ; there bene- 
 ficent and constructive forces will attain their highest energy 
 and efficacy, and will succeed in developing the most perfect 
 type of civilization. Of nations, no less than of individuals, 
 it is profoundly true that they are made free and strong and 
 great by the truth. As a contribution to economic truth, to 
 constructive social reform, and to national progress, this 
 work is sent forth, and it is submitted with hope and confi- 
 dence, and not without some degree of anxiety also, to the 
 judgment of the British public. 
 
 Melh Lodge, HalesicoriJi. Suffolk. 
 June I, 1892,
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC government threatens to assume the 
 same relation towards Despotic government as was 
 assumed by the rule of Rehoboam towards that of his father 
 and predecessor. After Solomon's death certain discon- 
 tented persons complained to his son in these terms : " Thy 
 father made our yoke grievous ; now therefore ease some- 
 what the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke 
 that he put upon us, and we will serve thee." Rehoboam's 
 reply was : " My little linger shall be thicker than my 
 father's loins. For whereas my father put a heavy yoke 
 upon )'ou, I will put more to your yoke ; my father chastised 
 you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." The 
 change from a heavy yoke to a heavier, from whips to 
 scorpions, marks the change from the absolutism of an in- 
 dividual, or of a class, to the absolutism of the impulsive and 
 uninstructed multitude. Democracy has succeeded Mon- 
 archy and Aristocracy ; for though these still exist they are 
 no longer effective forces of government; the more's the 
 pity ! The thought, the reason, the intelligence, the wealth, 
 the commerce, the vital interests of the nation, material and 
 moral, wait iipon Demos and say : ** Thy predecessors 
 made our yoke grievous ; now therefore ease thou somewhat 
 the grievous servitude of thy predecessors, and the heavy 
 yoke that they put upon us, and we will serve thee. We 
 have awaited thy coming, O Demos, with large hopes ; we 
 have hailed thy advent with great joy, as an oppressed 
 people hail a Deliverer ; now therefore let our desires be ful- 
 filled and our emancipation accomplished." And Demos, 
 elated with his triumph, intoxicated with dreams of yet 
 larger success, proud of his achievements in humbling a 
 mighty nation and bringing it to its knees, and strong in his
 
 xvi. hitwdudiun. 
 
 consciousness of security, knits his brows and replies,, 
 haughtily: " My little linger shall be thicker than my pre- 
 decessors' loins. For whereas they put a heavy yoke upon 
 you, I will put more to your yoke ; they chastised you with 
 whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." And, judg- 
 ing from the beginning he has made, the arch-Tyrant will be 
 as good as his word. 
 
 Democracy is rapidly developing into a general and for- 
 midable attack upon property, and not only upon property,, 
 but upon that which is even more precious — liberty ; the 
 weapons used being platform incendiarism, the unscrupu- 
 lous and illegal and immoral use of the power of combination, 
 the boj-cott, intimidation, and the ballot box. In other 
 words Democracy is avowing and revealing itself to 
 be the enemy of all who possess anything beyond 
 their brains and hands and the clothes they stand in. 
 And as in every country the majority are poor (the Have- 
 nots), it follows that when they are empowered to coerce 
 the minority (the Haves), whether under the forms of law 
 and order or otherwise, they are likely to use their political 
 privileges as a means of gratifying their selfish propensities ; 
 so that Democratic government will be virtually synonymous 
 with sordid greed, malignant envy, furious hatred, and mad 
 revenge, all directed against those who are guilty of the aris- 
 tocratic crime of possessing property. Democracy may be 
 shortly defined as the struggle of the Have-nots to become the 
 Haves. This is a state of things which is fraught with deadly 
 peril to any civilized community. We are now face to face 
 with it in this country — as they are face to face with it \n 
 France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Spain and Italy, and as 
 they are face to face with it in the United States — though it is 
 a more serious danger for us than for them, because we have 
 no Written Constitution and no Supreme Court to enforce 
 it.* 
 
 •The Marquis of Salisbury, speaking at Edinburgh on Nov. 23, 1882, said : 
 •' I confess I do not often envy the United States, but there is one feature in their 
 institutions which appears to me the subject of the greatest envy— the magnifi-
 
 Iiihcnluctioii. x\ii. 
 
 Willi the tyrann}' of kings, aristocracies, and Pariia- 
 nients we have dealt, and dealt effectually ; but how are we 
 goin^ to deal with the more [)ortentous and monstrous 
 tyranny of Democracy, so galling and grinding, so pervading 
 and hydra-headed ? That is the problem which we have 
 now to face, though all our statesmen, Tory and Liberal 
 alike, seem to be engaged in shutting their eyes to it as hard 
 as ever they can. It seems to be so much more congenial to 
 them to bury their heads in the sand heaps (or mud heaps) 
 of sensational political controversy than to clear their eye- 
 sight, uplift themselves erect, and look straight ahead at the 
 battalions which are marching down upon us. Yet they are 
 supposed to be the nation's guardians and watchmen, as wel 
 as guides. Solemn and awful is their responsibility. To 
 them the nation may say : " If the watchman see the sword 
 come and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not 
 warned ; if the sword come, and take any person from among 
 them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I 
 require at the watchman's hand." 
 
 That section of the community which ranges itself under 
 the banner of Labour, as if it loved labour for its own sake, 
 appreciated its dignit\', and gloried in its practice more than 
 other classes of the community (none of which things is 
 true), is up in arms all along the line, not in defence of that 
 which alone properly belongs to it — the abihty to labour, — 
 but in aggression upon the property of others, which is the 
 cumulative result either ot their labour or of that of their 
 fathers. As a natural corollary those classes which march 
 under the banner of Capital are up in arms too. The forces 
 
 cent institution of a Supreme Court. In the United States, if Parliament passes 
 any measure iHconsistent with the constitution of the country, there exists a court 
 wliich will negative it at once, and that gives a stability to the institutions of the 
 country, which, under the system of vague and mysterious promises here, we look 
 for in vain. ' Again, in a more recent speech, Lord Salisbury says : " The 
 Americans, as you know, have a Senate. I wish we could institute it in this 
 country. Marvellous in efficiency and strength I" The Senate was designed by 
 Hamilton to be a check both on the monarchical ambition of the President and 
 on the democratic lawlessness of the House or the people. Its powers are chiefly 
 of a negative character. 
 
 B
 
 xviii. Introduction. 
 
 are joined in battle array. It is a lamentable state of affairs, 
 but it seems to be a stage necessary in and to the evolution 
 of a commercial society, and it will work for ultimate good 
 if it is wisely and firmly dealt with at the outset. Anyhow, 
 it is a state of things for which Capital is not responsible, and 
 from which, in the long run, it has nothing to fear. 
 
 What may be called the first great pitched battle betwixt 
 the two forces under the new conditions took place about a 
 year and a half ago, and a fierce and obstinate conflict it was. 
 In the Dock strike the forces of the Socialistic "New Union- 
 ism" measured themselves for the first time against the forces 
 of the Old Individualism. The former gained the victory for 
 the moment, not by virtue of its own prowess or the merits 
 of its own cause, but by reason of the illegitimate support ot 
 outsiders. It was a Pyrrhic victory, however, for which the 
 dockers and the community generally have suffered ever 
 since, as I will presently more fully show. Perhaps the most 
 disastrous consequence of the Dock strike, as regards the 
 working classes, was that it swelled the heads of the leaders 
 of the " New Unionism" to such a size that they have never 
 assumed normal dimensions since. 
 
 The serious and far-reaching effects of the Dock strike have 
 never yet been properly estimated by the nation at large. 
 *' The new Trades Unionism," which may be said to have 
 been brought to the birth during the throes of that conflict, 
 constitutes the most formidable danger to our trade and com- 
 merce, to both Capital and Labour, with which we have ever 
 had to deal in this country. Socialistic in its character, it 
 aims at despoiling both landowners and capitalists of their 
 property, and transferring the said property to the State 
 without compensation to its present possessor, by inducing 
 the Have-nots to combine their votes for selfish purposes. 
 That is its ultimate purpose ; but for the present it confines 
 itself to individual corporations or firms of employers, with 
 the view of coercing them into granting the extravagant 
 demands of " labour " ; and if they refuse to obey these indus- 
 trial dictators, and resist their coercion, the whole machinery
 
 Introduction. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 of the "New Unionism" is brought into play against the 
 employer, with the deliberate intention of crippling or crush- 
 ing him. Hrutal violence, illegal intimidation, dishonest 
 violation of contracts, boycotting and outrage, are all used in 
 order to force the employer to yield. The liberties of the 
 employer and of those who are willing to continue in his 
 employment, although they are guaranteed to them by the 
 law, are trampled under foot by mobs of strikers (led by men 
 who never need to strike because they never work), and the 
 authorities who ought to execute and vindicate the law too 
 often stand idly by while legality is defied and illegality 
 •deified. To talk of" the liberty of the subject," or of justice 
 being the inalienable right of every citizen, has been the 
 merest mockery during the last two years wherever a strike 
 has taken place on a large scale. 
 
 The Dock directors were first singled out for attack, and 
 they succumbed, owing, firstly, to the supineness of the 
 Home Office authorities, who denied to the directors and to 
 their loyal servants the protection to which they were en- 
 titled by law ; and secondly, to the misplaced and mischievous 
 sympathy of the public with the strikers. The leaders of the 
 strike found their occupation too profitable to be abandoned, 
 and so they proceeded to make it permanent by creating 
 labour agitations and strikes all over the country. A spirit of 
 social envy and strife had been engendered, of which they 
 were able to take advantai^e to serve their own ends. The 
 results have been seen in the various local conflicts which have 
 taken place between Capital and Labour, and in the general 
 uneasiness which prevails all over the country. Railway- 
 men, sailors, gas-stokers, coal-miners, policemen, postmen 
 have all in turn come under the dangerous influence of the 
 Radical-Socialist demagogue, and in all these classes, to 
 the dishonour of the British workman be it said, there have 
 been found men who were willing to act as the instruments 
 of agitators whose aim is to coerce capitalists through the 
 community, their calculation being that if the community can 
 only be terrorised sufficiently, and subjected to inconvenience.
 
 XX. Introduction. 
 
 loss, and peril for a few weeks, it will turn upon the capitalists 
 and rend them. The policy of these industrial monsters is 
 to paralyse society by bringing about a general and simul- 
 taneous strike in those industries upon which the very exist- 
 ence of society depends. So far their villainous calculation 
 has been only too well justified, for a considerable proportion 
 of our millions of "mostly fools " have justified their desig- 
 nation by walking into the trap laid for them by the Socialist 
 firebrands, while multitudes of our working men have dis- 
 graced themselves and their class by the eagerness with 
 which they have become the dupes and tools of those 
 enemies of society who are no whit less dangerous than 
 Anarchists, Nihilists, and Dynamiters. 
 
 Since the Dock strike occurred there has been a perfect 
 epidemic of strikes, large and small, all over the country, and 
 nearly all of them have been instigated by the " New 
 Unionism." Most of them have virtually failed, although in 
 every case the characteristic methods, both illegal and wicked, 
 of the "New Unionism " have been brought into operation. 
 We have seen large and flourishing towns temporarily given 
 over to mob violence, and, what is even worse, we have seen 
 the authorities of such towns temporising and negotiating 
 with lawless agitators, who represented nobody but them- 
 selves and the lowest dregs of the population. Even worse 
 yet, we have seen the municipal authorities of at least one of 
 our largest towns capitulate most ignominiously :o a violent 
 body of their own workmen, who had not only placed their 
 town in darkness, but had resorted to the most despicable 
 and cowardly outrages in order to prevent other men doing 
 the work which they had refused to do. Events such as 
 these may well fill the minds of thoughtful and patriotic men 
 with concern, and suggest forebodings of the most gloomy 
 character as to w hether it is possible to preserve law and 
 order, and to administer justice sternly and impartially in a 
 democratic community where the Government is absolutely 
 at the mercy of a chance vote of the majority. 
 
 Railway directors and shipowners have, on the whole,
 
 Introduction, xxi. 
 
 courageously resisted the attacks which have been made upon 
 them by the Radical-SociaHstic New Unionists, and they 
 have thereby earned the thanks of the nation. The ship- 
 owners have taken vigorous measures, and have formed them- 
 selves into a defensive combination, the Shipping Federation, 
 which can promptly crush any strike ; for if the worst comes 
 to the worst they are prepared to lay up their ships for 
 months or even years. This organization will be more fully 
 treated of in the following pages. Meanwhile, the example of 
 the shipowners in forming themselves into a combination so 
 compact and invulnerable, whose motto is " Defence, not 
 Defiance," may be commended to other bodies of employers, 
 especially to railway companies. The Railway strike in 
 Scotland, which was commenced just before the Christmas 
 of 1890 was, next to the Dock strike, the most serious indus- 
 trial battle of recent years. The facts relating to it will be 
 found fully set forth in the succeeding pages, and a careful 
 perusal of those facts will afford ample proof of the truth of 
 the declaration that the object of the " New Unionism " is 
 10 make open war upon society for the sake of carrying out 
 its malignant purposes. During this strike teachings of the 
 most wicked and abominable character were persistently 
 poured into the minds of the men by blatant agitators of the 
 new type ; boycotting and intimidation were resorted to, and 
 in short every species of illegality and immorality that could 
 be made to serve the turn of the strikers was daringly and 
 unscrupulously employed. For these doctrines and practices 
 Trades Unionism must be held responsible; they are its off- 
 spring, they exemplify its spirit, and they are used to accom- 
 plish its ends. It is amazing that a strike so commenced and 
 conducted should have been supported for a single day by 
 hard-headed Scotsmen, still more amazing that those Scots- 
 men did not drive from the platform the agitators who in- 
 sulted them by advising them to " ca canny " (i.e., scamp and 
 spoil their work, idle away half their time, and yet take a full 
 day's pay for it), urging them to maltreat peaceable free work- 
 men, and inciting them to break the law ; and most amazing
 
 xxii. Introduction. 
 
 of all that any portion of the public should be so utterly idiotic 
 as to give support to strikers who are virtually making war 
 upon society itself. The only hopeful sign is that Trade 
 Union leaders of the more reputable type, such as Mr. Broad- 
 hurst, Mr. Howell, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Fenwick have hitherto 
 held aloof from the " New Unionism." But we have seen 
 how the tail wagged the head in Scotland, and we may con- 
 clude with certainty that such men as those just referred to 
 will either be dragged into the vortex of Socialistic Unionism 
 or drummed out of Unionism altogether. The Trades Union 
 Congress of 1S90 was virtually dominated by the new school 
 of Unionists, and the last Congress was entirely captured by 
 them. 
 
 Ample evidence will be adduced in the course of this work 
 as to the nature and magnitude of the economic and social 
 calamities which seriously threaten us, and as to the duty of 
 all good citizens to bestir themselves in defence of the old- 
 fashioned and fundamental principles of the sanctity of in- 
 dividual freedom and of the inviolability of established rights 
 of ownership which underlie all civilization, and which have 
 made England the mighty nation she is. Working men 
 especially need to be on their guard against the advance of 
 the destructive principles which are now being so loudly and 
 widely promulgated. The political power of the working 
 classes is now very great ; their responsibility for the way in 
 which they use that power is also great in proportion. Their 
 votes may, if given under the influence of ignorance or envy, 
 not only wreck their own fortunes but may also ruin the 
 commercial prosperity and primacy of Great Britain. Were 
 this to be accomplished, working men would themselves be 
 the first to suffer, aye, and the last to suffer too, for they would 
 be compelled to remain in the country, then ruined and 
 desolate, whilst those who possessed wealth could betake 
 themselves to other lands and actually suffer very little loss 
 or inconvenience. The whole fabric of our civilization de- 
 pends upon life and property being made and kept secure, 
 and upon every citizen being able to rely upon the law for
 
 Introduction. xxiii. 
 
 that security. Once take away that assurance from the 
 citi;ien, and he will take his own measures for defending his 
 life and his property, and for resisting to the death those 
 who seek to deprive him of them. This, of course, would 
 mean that we should at one bound be plunged into the abyss 
 of anarchy. Demagogues, with their usual short-sighted- 
 ness, are seeking to convince the uninstructed masses that 
 this is a question which primarily affects the rich, and that 
 the poor have very little concern in it at all. Precisely the 
 opposite of this is the actual fact. The rich, who possess 
 the greater part of the land and capital of the country, can 
 always hold their own, even where anarchy prevails. But 
 can the same be said of the poor ? Undoubtedly not. 
 Under such a condition of thmgs they would be a hundred- 
 fold worse off than they are to-day. That the condition of 
 the poor is in many respects lamentable is not to be denied ; 
 and that every political and social reformer should endeavour 
 to better their condition by legislation — as far as the problem 
 can be dealt with by law — and still more by moral agencies,, 
 is a proposition equally indisputable. It is not to be over- 
 looked, however, that many even of the poorest of the poor 
 are merely suffering the consequences of their own improvi- 
 dence, intemperance, or indolence. These ne'er-do-weels of 
 society would be pretty much what they are under any con- 
 ceivable condition of things. And as for that other large 
 class of the abject poor, who are honest, and thrifty, and 
 sober, who struggle earnestly from day to day to secure work 
 and the subsistence which work brings, who are really the 
 most deserving of sympathy and help because they suffer in 
 silence, making no attempt to advertise their woes, and who 
 would rather die than resort to such infamous practices as 
 have been perpetrated in Ireland with the concurrence and 
 sympathy of whole neighbourhoods ; even of this class it 
 can at least be said that they live in a country where they 
 enjoy unmolested every civil right of citizenship ; where they 
 have absolute religious freedom, where they are free to make 
 the best of their capacities and opportunities, and to rise
 
 xxiv. Introduction. 
 
 from the lowest to the highest ranks ; and where every man's 
 house is his castle — or a sanctuary — which not even the 
 greatest in the land dare to violate or invade. Whatever 
 may be the needs and woes of the working classes in this 
 country they are far and away better off than the same class 
 in any other country on the face of the earth. The great 
 advantages which they now enjoy would disappear, as if by 
 magic, if Irish Communists, English Nihilists, and Radical 
 Destructives could once get the upper hand. The best 
 friends of the working-classes are those who endeavour to 
 attract to this country, and to retain in it, the Capital which 
 is so offensive to the new Radicals in the abstract — though 
 not one of them has any objection to possess as many 
 thousands of pounds as any " bloated aristocrat " or " cold- 
 blooded monopolist" in the world, — but which furnishes em- 
 ployment to our industrial millions ; who are seeking to bring 
 about such changes in our Land Laws as will leave the land- 
 lord undisturbed in the possession of his property, whilst 
 securing to the tenant the full fruit of his labour in the soil ; 
 and who are endeavouring to convince the people that they 
 must look rather to education, to the control of appetite, to 
 industry, and to prudence, than to legislation, for the im- 
 provement of their condition. This is emphatically a poor 
 man's question, and the men who are fighting the poor 
 man's battle are the men who are seeking to conserve the 
 laws and institutions on which the comfort and prosperity of 
 rich and poor alike depend. 
 
 The great Dock strike furnished a remarkable and impres- 
 sive illustration of the truth of what has been said with regard 
 to the dangers which are now threatening society in this 
 country. Whatever genuine grievances some of the dock 
 labourers may have had, there can be no doubt that the 
 strike owed its origin to the action of men who were both 
 Socialists and Anarchists, and whose deliberate purpose is 
 to wage war upon Capital in every form. In one sense this 
 strike was an outgrowth of the Parnell movement (as will 
 be more fully demonstrated in the body of this work). Just
 
 Intyudiidion. xxv. 
 
 as the Irish peasant has been taup;ht to regard the landlord 
 as his hereditary foe, so British working men have been 
 taught to look upon the capitalist as their most deadly 
 enemy. In addition to the dangerous doctrines which have 
 been instilled into the minds of the masses in our large cities 
 by means of revolutionary speakers and unprincipled 
 journals (who are reproducing here all the vicious and corrupt 
 elements of the American Press), the workmg classes have 
 had presented before their eyes an object lesson of the most 
 pernicious character in Ireland ; they have seen the Irish 
 landlord despoiled of property which he held by as good a 
 Parliamentary title as that by which the millionaire holds his 
 ■consols or bank or railway shares; and they have seen this 
 property taken from the landlord and given to the tenant by 
 the arbitrary action of a Parliamentary majority, mainly in 
 ■order that certain men might secure office. What is good 
 for the Irish landlord is also good for the English capitalist. 
 If one can be despoiled by the votes of ignorant masses, and 
 by the capricious action of a Parliamentary majority, why 
 not the other also ? So the dock labourers and multitudes 
 of the working classes have reasoned, and their logic is not 
 so far astray as might at first sight appear. When a British 
 political party, once great and honoured, can ally itself with 
 such a predatory movement as Parnellism, ignorant labourers 
 ■ may be forgiven if they imagine that they may safely act upon 
 ?the principles which have received the countenance and the 
 support of the " Liberal Party "and its leaders. Industrial 
 war, ferocious envy of the rich, base ingratitude and malig- 
 inant enmity towards employers, are some of the first fruits 
 of Parnellism in Great Britain, What its ultimate results 
 might be, were it not sternly checked, it is impossible to say. 
 Everything that is most precious, most useful, and most at- 
 tractive in our social system is threatened by this immoral 
 Socialistic agitation. 
 
 As one who has himself sprung from the labouring classes, 
 and who has their interests at heart, the writer exhorts 
 'Working men with all the earnestness that he can command
 
 xxvi. Introductioru 
 
 to abjure the Communistic and Socialistic teachings which 
 they are now being invited to accept, to turn a deaf ear to 
 the evil counsels of designing men, who, although they may- 
 have once been bona fide working men, have now degenerated 
 into professional agitators, and whose chief concern is to stir 
 up and to maintain strife between employers and employed, 
 and who may be safely trusted to resist any attempt to 
 promote a good understanding between these two classes^ 
 for the simple reason that if such understanding existed 
 their occupation would be gone. 
 
 The writer freely admits, however, that it is not from the 
 working classes, nor even from their "leaders," that the 
 perils which now threaten society draw their vitality. Even 
 agitators and demagogues are comparatively harmless while 
 they are left to themselves. Working within their own 
 sphere, upon their own plane, and among their own equals, 
 they may be left to do their worst without any undue 
 anxiety. It is when they are taken up and patted on the 
 back by rich and aristocratic patrons, and petted by senti- 
 mental people who have more money than brains, that 
 they become really dangerous. For they thereby acquire a 
 standing and an influence, as well as substantial means for 
 carrying out their designs, which they could never have 
 obtained without the countenance and the support of those 
 outside and above their own class. 
 
 Among the many strange things which we have witnessed 
 in this country of late, there has been none more strange 
 than the spectacle of Marquises, Earls, Barons, Baronets, 
 Knights, and M.P.s hobnobbing with avowed Socialists and 
 Communists who are at war with society and with civiliza- 
 tion, and whose principles, if carried out, would produce a 
 revolution amid which not only the Monarchy and the 
 Nobility, but also industry, commerce, and even freedom 
 itself, would all be ruthlessly destroyed. To be sure these 
 titled and wealthy personages have usually some personal 
 end to serve, and wish to use their Socialistic "comrades" 
 merely as instruments to attain that end. Probably, too,.
 
 Introduction. 
 
 xxvu. 
 
 they would, if necessity arose for doing so, cast away these 
 sinj^ular companions as easily and as rapidly as they took 
 them up. But in the meantime incalculable mischief will 
 have been done. By the names and reputations of these 
 noblemen thousands of people have been, and thousands 
 more will yet be, deluded into the belief that the fire-brands 
 whom they thus patronize are not only harmless but are 
 actually promoting the best interests of the community. 
 It is considered immoral for an influential man to lend his 
 name to a fraudulent public company, and thereby to induce 
 honest but uninformed people to put their money into a 
 rotten concern. Is it not a graver crime still for such a man 
 to allow his name to head a list of Socialistic conspirators, 
 and thus to encourage the belief that this conspiracy is 
 nothing more than a wholesome social reform movement, 
 whereas it is in reality a most virulent and poisonous 
 disease which will blight and consume the vitals, and even 
 the very structure, of civilized society? Certain peers and 
 politicians who might be named, have, by coquetting with 
 Nihilistic Socialism, incurred a heavy responsibility towards 
 the nation, and in the stormy times which are coming upon 
 us the nation will not fail to bring this responsibility home 
 to them and to exact from them a fitting retribution. 
 
 During the progress of this work the writer has been at 
 some pains to elicit the opinions of all classes of men upon 
 the subjects which are discussed therein. The Synopsis of 
 the work was submitted to representative men of all parties, 
 who were invited to express their views upon it, and in this 
 way the writer was able to obtain an insight into the minds 
 of many of the most eminent and influential men in the 
 kingdom. The result, while in some respects encouraging, 
 has on the whole been to intensify and deepen his sense of 
 the perils which now menace the highest interests of the 
 nation, not so much from Trade Unions and their Bosses, 
 or even from Socialistic conspiracies and conspirators, as 
 from the more exalted personages who flatter and feed these 
 organizations and their leaders. Without mentioning the
 
 xxviii. Introduction. 
 
 names, or even indicating the politics, of some of the most 
 eminent patrons of Radical-Socialism who have favoured 
 him with their views, the author appends a few of their 
 expressions of opinion, which may be useful as indicating 
 what is passing in the minds of certain men of rank and 
 wealth who are anxious to use the ** Labour Vote " as a 
 means of gratifying their own ambitions. 
 
 One gentleman, a Baronet, wrote in the following terms : 
 
 " I do not believe that landlords and capitalists are the true friends 
 of the working classes, they have ever acted a selfish part and have 
 endeavoured to keep them 'in that state of life in which it hath pleased 
 ■God to call them.' The working man can only elevate himself by union 
 with his fellows, and as I desire to see the great bulk of the people in 
 the enjoyment of greater comforts and more opportunities for self- 
 improvement, I cannot subscribe for a work which is intended to influence 
 them in the direction of reliance upon those who, in the main, do not 
 seek their advancement towards a higher life and a nearer equality." 
 
 In replying to this letter the writer said : 
 
 " I am surprised that you should express the view that land owners 
 and capitalists are not the true friends of the working classes, the more 
 
 so as I have always understood that you are a capitalist yourself 
 
 in the sense that you live upon the proceeds of Capital. Your case, 
 therefore, proves that a capitalist is not necessarily unfriendly towards 
 the labouring classes. If this be true of you, why not also of others who 
 are in a similar position ? 
 
 " It seems to me to be a most unjust assertion that landowners and 
 capitalists ' have ever acted a selfish part and have endeavoured to keep 
 down ' the working classes. They have never tried to keep me down ; 
 they have been much more ready to help me up than have some men 
 who have started with nothing and have accumulated wealth. My own 
 experience upon this point seems to me to be more conclusive than any 
 dictum whatsoever. 
 
 " I share your desire to see ' the great bulk of the people in the en- 
 joyment of greater comforts and more opportunities for self-improve- 
 ment.' But how are they most likely to obtain these benefits ? By 
 treating their employers as their natural enemies, making war upon them, 
 and subjecting them to annoyance and loss, or by regarding their em- 
 ployers as their best friends, whose interests are really identical with 
 their own.? I think in the latter way. I regret that a man in your 
 position should seem to prefer the former one.
 
 Introduction. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 " I have nothing to say against your view that the working man 
 should elevate himself, // he can, ' by union with his fellows,' though I 
 dissent from your opinion that 'the working man can on/y elevate him- 
 self by union with his fellows.' I was a working man myself once, and I 
 elevated myself by c|uite other means. L'nion among working men for 
 the purpose of elevating themselves, is, however, one thing ; union among 
 them for the purpose of ruining their employers and inflicting injury and 
 loss upon the community is a totally different thing. I regret that you 
 can give any countenance to that destructive force the 'New Unionism, 
 which is one of the greatest curses of our time." 
 
 A second gentleman, also a Baronet (who by-the-by has 
 the reputation of driving his workmen, and of having a keen 
 eye to the main chance), wrote in these terms : 
 
 '' I do not sympathise with your object. The dangers you are fearing 
 are very much exaggerated. I have been an employer of labour for 35 
 years, and am glad to say in the course of that period, although I have 
 had one or two serious contentions, I have got on very well with work- 
 people. I am sorry to see, that sprung from the working-classes your- 
 self, you are siding with such men as Lord , and Lord , against 
 
 their interests." 
 
 In replying to this gentleman the writer said : 
 
 " If your experience with working men had been among dock 
 labourers who had been incited by Socialistic demagogues to hate all 
 capitalists, instead of with intelligent artisans, it might have been very 
 
 cifterent. But what is now going on at shows that the contagion 
 
 is spreading to your neighbourhood. 
 
 " You are good enough to express your regret that I, having sprung 
 from the working classes, should now be ' siding with such men as Lord 
 
 ' and Lord against their interests .' I have yet to learn what 
 
 these two noblemen have done or tried to do against the interests of the 
 working classes. 1 do not think it any reproach to stand by their side 
 in defence of the interests of Capital, which, in the long run, will be found 
 to be co-incident with the interests of Labour. I regret that a capitalist 
 like yourself can give any countenance to teachings which, while they 
 tend to injure all classes, will in the end inflict more suffering upon the 
 masses who labour with their hands than upon anybody else besides." 
 
 A third gentleman, who expressed his agreement with the 
 author's view •' that dangers of an Imperial kind underlie 
 many of the popular Socialistic labour doctrines of the
 
 XXX. Introduction. 
 
 moment," and who welcomed "a wholesome protest against 
 such doctrines," nevertheless considered that the Synopsis 
 of this work was " in many points arbitrary and one-sided," 
 and added : 
 
 " Whilst sympathising with the general drift of your argument, I 
 think you should hav^e left room for the play of new Social Forces which, 
 whether we like it or not, are certain to develop. Thus it is a question 
 of guiding these forces rather than suppressing them." 
 
 In replying to this the writer expressed his regret that the 
 points in which his Synopsis was deemed to be " arbitrary 
 and one-sided " had not been specirted, and said that as his 
 only anxiety was to learn and state the truth, he would be 
 exceedingly grateful to any person who would undertake to 
 show him where he was in error. He proceeded thus : — 
 
 " You further intimated that you think 1 ' should have left room for 
 the play of new Social Forces,' which have come to stay, and which re- 
 quire to be guided rather than suppressed. There, again, I wish you 
 could have specified the particular .Social Forces which you have in your 
 mind. If they are described by and embodied in the new Trade Union- 
 ism, then I do not think they are new, neither do I think that they are 
 certain to develop. These are old ideas and forces which have re-appeared 
 in new forms, and which have been exploded and defeated over and over 
 again. Nowhere has the New Unionism been so thoroughly defeated 
 and discredited as in the United States. 
 
 " I am sure you will admit that forces which are in their nature 
 unjust ought to be suppressed rather than guided. Now, I think these 
 new forces are essentially unjust. Let me illustrate my meaning The 
 dock labourers, the Scottish railway men, and the Welsh miners, not only 
 struck work, but they determined not to permit anybody else to work, and 
 thus endeavoured both to injure the property of their employers and to 
 destroy the liberty of their fellow workmen. Such combinations against 
 employers on the one hand, and against non-union workmen on the other 
 hand, are flagrantly unjust .Take again the case of a tradesman who declines 
 to close his shop at certain times because others do so — say Mr. Haile, of 
 Harrow-road; because he declines to do this at the dictation of the Shop 
 Assistants' Association, crowds assemljle round his premises, handbills 
 are distributed imploring his customers not to deal with him, and other 
 similar tactics are resorted to. 
 
 " Surely such new forces as these require to be suppressed rather 
 than guided, for they are incompatible with the first principles of a free
 
 Introduction. 
 
 \xxi. 
 
 civilization. If such machinery were brdujjht into operation a^jainst you 
 in the conduct of your business, I think you would take my view of it. 
 Let working' men strive to imi)rove their condition by all means, but they 
 must do it without entrenching' upon the liberties or damaging the pos- 
 sessions of other people. After all, working men are not the only people 
 who have to be considered. They may have a majority of votes; but all 
 the votes in the world cannot repeal God's moral laws or make two and 
 two any thing else than four.' 
 
 A third Haronet wrote : 
 
 " I think your Synopsis is clearly and temperately expressed, but it 
 hardly seems to me in touch with the present circumstances. I have for 
 some time felt that the old Political Economy must be modified by 
 Social Economy ; the happiness of family life being more essential than 
 the production of wealth." 
 
 From this gentleman the writer desired to know how the 
 laws of Political Economy could ever be modified by Social 
 Economy, for example: How any Social Economy could 
 ever so far modify the law of supply and demand as to make 
 • commodities, including labour, dear where they were super- 
 abundant, or cheap where they were abnormally scarce ? 
 The only reply vouchsafed to him was that the principles of 
 Political Economy, as hitherto understood, could not be 
 admitted to be Laws of Nature, though no doubt demand 
 and supply were facts which had to be taken into account; 
 and further that — "The world is not governed by logic, how- 
 ever clear." Alas ! The truth of the latter observation is 
 only too obvious. Logic, or, in other words, reason, is the 
 last thing that is allowed to have any influence over the 
 ideas or the conduct of our new Social " Reformers." 
 
 Another gentleman, who is the son of a Peer and is more- 
 over associated with a large capitalistic undertaking, wrote 
 thus : 
 
 " I do not agree about the Socialistic tendencies of the late 
 movements in the labour world. I believe if all workmen were members 
 of a Union, agricultural and others, they would be better off and happier 
 in^their relations towards their employers."' 
 
 In reply to this gentleman the writer said : 
 
 "It is no part of my purpose in my forthcoming book to attack
 
 xxxii. Introduction. 
 
 ordinary Trades' L'nions. These Unions may, or may not, be as 
 beneficial to the working classes as their friends hold them to be. This 
 is a matter upon which I am indifierent. If a Trades' I'nion attends to 
 its own proper business, and attempts no dictation to employers and no 
 coercion of workmen, then 1 think it may safely be left to go its own way 
 and to do its own work, and if a workmen wishes to join such a Union 
 he has of course a perfect right to do so. 
 
 '• I should, however, be glad to hear from any earnest supporter of 
 Trades' Unions what can be said in their behalf. Personally I doubt 
 whether they have ever done much good, except in so far as they have 
 been benefit societies for the relief of the sick and the aged : though I 
 think not many Unions are benefit societies in this sense. 1 know it is 
 claimed for the L'nions that they have raised wages; l)ut as far as I can 
 understand the matter, no I'nion can raise wages for very long in defiance 
 of the laws of supply and demand. Where labourers are many, wages 
 will be low, whatever l'nions may do ; where they arc few. wages will be 
 high, even if no Union exists at all. 
 
 " There is not, however, any analogy between the old Trades 
 Unions and the new ones. These latter make it their leading aim to 
 deprive both the employer and the workman of the freedom to which he 
 is justly entitled. They seek to dictate to the employer on what terms 
 he shall conduct his business, while they use violence to prevent the 
 workman from working as he likes, when he likes, and for whom and for 
 what he likes. .Now, I hold these objects to be absolutely illegitimate 
 and immoral, and I think every man who values the liberty which has 
 made England what she is ought to fight this bastard Trades' I nionism 
 to the death. If these L nions were to succeed in their purposes, both 
 the security of Capital and the freedom of industry would be destroyed, 
 and these once destroyed we may say a long farewell to England's 
 commercial and political greatness. This ' New Unionism ' will receive 
 no quarter at my hands. 
 
 " I should be pleased to have your frank criticisms upon the Synopsis 
 of my book. My only anxiety is to learn the truth and follow it. And 
 if you can point out where I am in error I shall take it as a favour. 
 
 " I cannot but regret that a gentleman in your position should have 
 any sympathy at all with the nebulous semi-Socialistic ideas which are 
 floating in the air, and which I believe to be as dangerous as they are 
 impracticable. However, when I discover that men like you are in 
 sympathy with these ideas, I am simply stimulated to redouble my 
 efforts in opposition to doctrines and practices which I believe to be 
 inimical to the highest and soundest interests of our native land." 
 
 The Omnibus strike had just taken place in London, and 
 this gentleman was asked w hat he thought of the destruction
 
 Intyudiiction. xxxiii. 
 
 of the Omnibus Coinpuiiy's propcrt)- and the coercion of 
 their men. He rephed that he did not think any worse of 
 the uneducated men who had committed these outrages 
 than he did of the educated men who refused to give their 
 men a twelve-hour day until they forced them to strike for 
 it, and then conceded it in twenty-four hours. In a further 
 letter the writer said to this ^^entleman : 
 
 ••In my letter I asked you what you thought of the wanton 
 destruction of proi>crly by omnibusmen, and also of the gross coercion 
 and intimidation which certain Unionists exercise upon their fellow 
 workmen, who merely wish to be let alone and to pursue their work in 
 peace. The latter point you i^inore altojjether ; while as to the former 
 you virtually palliate the l.iwlessne.->s and the violence of men who 
 perfectly well know what they are about, on the ground that they are 
 ignorant. If they .ire so ignorant as not to know what respect is due to 
 the law and to other people's property, obviously they are too ignor.int to 
 be entrusted with such powers as they are now seekin;^. You also state 
 that the actions of these ignorant men ;ire much less reprehensible than 
 the conduct of their educated masters in working them for sixteen hours 
 a day. \'ou will perhaps forgive me if I say th.it there is a vast deal of 
 muddle-headed sentimentality abroad as re^jards this question of hours 
 etc. You, and a few other gentlemen of wealth and position who talk 
 in this strain, would no doubt think it very harsh if you were called 
 oppressors, slave-drivers, etc, because you worked your cooks, coachmen, 
 grooms, and other servants sixteen hours a day ; and you would think 
 yourself very badly treated if all these servants formed a union and 
 struck for twelve hours, and at the same time prevented anybody else, 
 Irom doin^ for you the services which they had been .iccustomed to do, 
 and also destroyed your property, unless their terms were conceded. 
 This is a perfectly an.ilogous case. Private gentlemen have no more 
 rights in the eyes of the law than a public company : a public companv 
 ought no more to be subjected to tyranny and spoliation than private 
 individuals. 1 have the misfortune to be a practical man, and I am 
 compelled to look at things from a real and not from an idealist point of 
 view." 
 
 Perhaps one of the most curious letters received bv the 
 writer was from a gentleman who said : 
 
 ''Though an employer of about 1,500 people, my sympathies have 
 always been with the workmen, and 1 assisted the dockers during their 
 strike, so that as your book is largely in the interests of the employers it 
 would notlcommend itself to me."
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 The author, in reply to this gentleman, said : 
 
 *' If you assisted the dockers, I am sure you would not approve ot 
 some parts of my book ; but for that very reason you ought to read it. 
 You say that you are an employer of 1.500 people, but that my book does 
 not commend itself to you because it is ' largely in the interests of 
 ■employers.' That shapes itself in my mind thus : 'My book, being in the 
 
 interest of employers, must be in Mr. 's interest; but because it is 
 
 in Mr. s interest, is it therefore against the interests of his 
 
 ■employes ? Is not Mr. 's interest the interest of those whom he 
 
 ■employs .' ' 
 
 " Your own case proves, I think, the truth of my contention, namely, 
 that to uphold the interests of capitalists is really the very best thing that 
 could be done for the labourers.'' 
 
 These expressions of opinion, which might be added to at 
 much greater length, will suffice to show how crude and 
 confused are the ideas of some very able and intelligent men 
 when they come to deal with such matters as those discussed 
 in this work. These ideas pass muster very well on the 
 platform, and they are greedily swallowed by multitudes 
 who never stop to think or reason ; but they will not bear 
 the cool reflection and the deliberate investigation of the 
 thinker and the logician. Well might the Baronet, before 
 referred to, declare that the world is not governed by logic. 
 Happy would it be for this country, at any rate, if it were 
 governed more in harmony with the methods of logic and 
 less under the impulses which are generated by popular 
 clamour and by hysterical excitement. 
 
 It is a significant fact that not one of the gentlemen whose 
 utterances have been adverted to was able to clearly point 
 out to the writer where he was in error, although all of them 
 were ready enough to find fault with the Synopsis of his 
 work in a general way ; or to explicitly define and defend 
 the principles of the Socialistic Labour Movement which 
 finds so much favour in their eyes. Their inability to do 
 this tended to confirm the judgment of the author in the 
 accuracy and soundness of his views even more perhaps than 
 the cordial commendations of those who approved his work. 
 Perhaps this Introduction may be fitly concluded by a
 
 Jntroditction. xxxv. 
 
 reference to the opinions of one of the most able and eminent 
 and venerable members of the House of Lords, who, 
 iilthouf^h he fully sympathised with the writer's views and 
 aims, yet endeavoured to dissuade him from entering upon 
 this work on the ground that no adequate recompense would 
 ever be received from it for the labour involved in it. This 
 worthy nobleman said : 
 
 " I agree in the opinion you express as to the serious danger to the 
 country which arises from the labour doctrines of the Kadical-Socialisti 
 and the tyranny of Trades Unions. But I regret that I cannot share 
 your hope that this danger can be perceptibly diminished by arguments 
 addressed to the working classes. These arguments, however able and 
 •conclusive, fly over the heads of the working-classes ; who listen to little 
 but the passionate and utterly unreasonable declamations of their leaders, 
 and I do not therefore think there is a |)rospect that the labour your 
 proposed work would cost you would be repaid. In my opinion the 
 •danger resulting from the actual state of feeling among working-men is 
 mainly a natural consec|uence of the great mistake which was made by 
 throwing such an overwhelming preponderance of political power into 
 the hands of the most ignorant classes of the people. This has made it 
 the interest of unscrupulous candidates for power to flatter the prejudices 
 of the uninstructed, and all Administrations of late years have shown by 
 their conduct how much they are influenced by the desire to secure for 
 themselves popularity among those whose support now carries with it the 
 ascendenc) of the party on which it is bestowed. For these reasons I am 
 not satisfied that the work you contemplate would prove of any real use." 
 
 This does not sound very encouraging. Nevertheless, the 
 writer felt constrained to carry out the plan which he had 
 formed, and one reason why he resolved to do so was that 
 he has a somewhat higher opinion of the intelligence of 
 working men than appears to be generally entertained. 
 Over and over again it is said by politicians that it is utterly 
 useless to write books with the view of appealing to the 
 reason or the conscience of the working classes, and it is 
 continually asserted that the only form in which literature 
 is read by these classes is in the shape of leaflets. If this 
 were as generally true as it is represented to be the outlook 
 would indeed be a dark one. The author does not believe it 
 to be true in this unqualified sense, and as he sprang from
 
 xxxvi. Introduction^ 
 
 the working classes he claims to have some knowledge upon 
 the point. There are working men who will read books — 
 even books upon economical and social questions. No doubt 
 the}' area minority, but their influence among their fellows is 
 altogether out of proportion to their numbers. It is to this 
 intelligent minority that the writer appeals. In the present 
 condition of the working classes it is obviously hopeless to 
 expect that the bulk of them will act with intelligence and 
 discretion as regards the vital, social, and political questions 
 which their votes now do so much to decide. Let us never 
 forget, however, that the number of the enlightened and the 
 reasonable among working men is continually increasing, 
 and that the influence and the votes of these men, small as 
 is their number in comparison with working men in the 
 aggregate, will, in co-operation with the moral influence and 
 the political activity of the upper and middle classes, be 
 sufficient to provide a bulwark of defence for the liberties 
 and the institutions of Old England against which the 
 surging waves of Socialism and Anarchy will dash them- 
 selves in vain. 

 
 BOOK I. 
 
 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF '['Uh 
 LABOUR MOVEMENT. 
 
 HISTORICAL.
 
 Ancient Tyrannies, and the Modern Moral Pointed 
 p.v Them. 
 
 " The Greek had no abhorrence for Kings ; the descendant of a 
 hero race, ruling over a people whom his fathers had ruled from time 
 immemorial, was no subject of obloquy, either with the people or with 
 the philosophers. But a tyrant, a man of low or ordinary birth, who by 
 force or fraud had seated himself on the necks of his countrymen, to 
 gorge each prevailing passion of his nature at their cost, with no principle 
 but the interest of his own power, such a man was regarded as a wild 
 beast that had broken into the fold of civilized society, and whom it was 
 every one's right and duty by any means, or with any weapon, presently 
 to destroy. Such mere monsters of selfishness Christian Europe has 
 rarely seen. If the claim to reign by 'the Grace of God' has given an 
 undue sanction to absolute power, yet it has diffused at the same time a 
 sense of the responsibilities of power, such as the tyrants, and even the 
 Kings of the later age of Greece, never knew. The most unprincipled of 
 modern sovereigns would yet have acknowledged that he owed a duty to 
 his people, for the discharge of which he was answerable to God ; but 
 the Greek tyrant regarded his subjects as the mere instruments of his 
 own gratification ; fortune, or his own superiority, had given him extra- 
 ordinary means of indulging his favourite passions, and it would be folly 
 to forego the opportunity. It is the total want of regard for his fellow 
 creatures, the utter sacrifice of their present and future improvement for 
 the sake of objects purely personal, which constitutes the guilt of 
 Dionysius and his fellow-tyrants.'' 
 
 Dr. Arnold.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The Great Dock Strike. 
 
 NO attempt to deal with the industrial history of Enp^- 
 land during the last two years would be adequate or 
 satisfactory without ample reference to the Dock Strike of 
 i88g, and this for two reasons : first, because that strike was 
 the fruitful cause of the industrial disturbances from which 
 we have since suffered, are still suffering, and are yet likely to 
 suffer more ; and secondly, because it showed that the con- 
 ditions which prevail in modern Democracies are favourable 
 to the development of men and of movements which are 
 hostile to that moral freedom which is the glory alike of the 
 individual and of the State, and also to that material pros- 
 perity which is essential to the moral health and progress of 
 the nation, and which is founded upon, and guaranteed by, 
 the fundamental right of individual liberty. 
 
 It is not practicable, however, within the limits of a work 
 like this, to treat of the Dock Strike in detail. All that the 
 plan of the vyork will admit of is a general outline of the 
 events which led up to the Dock Strike, and which character- 
 ised its course. 
 
 The Dock Strike of 1S89, commonly spoken of as " The 
 Great Strike," was the most gigantic and disastrous conflict 
 between Capital and Labour which this century has wit- 
 nessed in England. Yet it commenced in so obscure and 
 unostentatious a fashion that nobody outside the ranks of 
 those immediately interested heard anything of it until 
 several days afterwards, when the mischief was virtually 
 done. The event was esteemed of such slight importance 
 that on the day when it occurred, August 14, the Times did
 
 4 Outbreak of Industrial War. 
 
 jnot think it worthy even of mention in its columns ; not until 
 the 17th did the leading journal find it necessary to refer to 
 the subject, and then only in an out-of-the-way paragraph of 
 twenty-two lines. Five days later " The Strikes in the East 
 End " were mentioned in the Table of Contents, and before 
 many more days had elapsed over a dozen columns of the 
 Times were filled day after day with news of the strike and 
 its attendant circumstances. On the 24th of August 
 journalists and public men first began to realize that the 
 position of affairs was serious. 
 
 Parliament was still sittmg, but a goodly proportion of its 
 imembers had lied away from their irksome duties to the 
 moors and mountains, utterly unaware of the fact that the 
 .greatest industrial war of the day had commenced, and that 
 the security of their property, as well as the liberty of the 
 workman and the commercial prosperity of the nation, was 
 gravely menaced. The Appropriation Bill, which always 
 means that the Session is at its last gasp, was introduced 
 on August 25, and weary legislators had no heart to take up 
 any new task. Had their eyes been open to perceive the 
 gravity of the signs of the times they would have deemed it 
 prudent and patriotic to sacrifice their holidays, well as they 
 had been earned, for one year, and to extend the Session by 
 a month, so that the authority of the Government in its col- 
 lective and executive capacity, as well as of Parliament, 
 might be brought to bear directly upon the strike. As it 
 turned out, Parliament had risen before the crisis of the 
 strike arrived, and the Home Office, in other words Mr. 
 Henry Matthews, Home Secretar}^ was left to deal with the 
 strike uncontrolled. Mr. Matthews, however excellent and 
 able a man he may be, and however well qualified for the 
 ordinary routine of his department, was not capable of deal- 
 ing vigorously and prudently with the serious state of affairs 
 with which he found himself confronted at this extraordinary 
 juncture. A wise head and a strong hand were imperatively 
 needed in the circumstances which had arisen. Mr. Matthews 
 •displayed neither shrewdness nor firmness. His policy was
 
 Mr. Matthews Temporises. 5 
 
 to shut his eyes very hard to events which he did not wish to 
 -see, and to sit immovable in his chair instead of exerting 
 himself to deal with unpleasant duties. When Sir Robert 
 Fowler, on the 27th of August, asked the Home Secretary in 
 the House of Commons " whether his attention had been 
 called to the organized system of intimidation which pre- 
 vailed in connection with the wharves on the Thames, and 
 whether he would direct the police to give protection to 
 those who were engaged in their legitimate business," Mr. 
 Matthews replied ; " I am not prepared to admit that there 
 is anything which can properly be described as an organized 
 system of intimidation ; " though he was constrained to 
 acknowledge that " a considerable amount of pressure " was 
 exercised, " which in some cases passed into acts of intimi- 
 dation, but of a nature very difficult for the police to inter- 
 fere with " ; and he said that the police had orders to render 
 all the assistance in their power when applied to. He also 
 took the opportunity ot uttering some platitudes on the in- 
 convenience and damage which were being inflicted upon 
 the trade of London and upon the general public, and with 
 regard to the desirability of a rational and satisfactory 
 settlement of the dispute. This answer revealed the utter 
 unfitness of Mr. Matthews to occupy such a responsible posi- 
 tion during so grave a crisis, when the property of London 
 capitalists and the liberty of London workmen were at the 
 mercy of an ignorant and fanatical mob, led b}' men whose 
 ruling passion was hatred of the rich — except, indeed, that 
 their personal ambition and inordinate love of notoriety and 
 popularity over-mastered even their Socialistic envy and 
 malice. A different type of man at the Home Office during 
 this month of August — say a man who would have treated 
 conspiracy and crime against the property of capitalists in 
 London as Mr. Balfour treated conspiracy and crime against 
 the property of landlords in Ireland, would have been worth 
 millions sterling to the nation. This fact illustrates the 
 tremendous power for good or for evil which modern 
 Ministers possess, and it ought to lead to greater considera-
 
 6 Conuuercial Optimism. 
 
 tion and judgment being exercised in the appointment of 
 Secretaries of State, especially at the Home Office. Upon 
 Mr. Matthews must rest no small share of the responsibility 
 for the events which disgraced this period of our history, and 
 which sowed seeds of lawlessness, from which bitter harvests 
 will continue to be reaped for many a long year to coma ; 
 though a share of this responsibility must be indirectly borns 
 by those who appointed Mr. Matthews head of the Govern- 
 ment department which most intimately affects the lives and 
 the liberties of British citizens, and who continued him in 
 his post after he had demonstrated his unwillingness or his 
 inability to exert the authority of the law in defence of the 
 most cherished rights and liberties of Englishmen, when 
 they were rudely and contemptuously trampled under- 
 foot by Socialistic mobs and their leaders. 
 
 The commercial world had no more anticipated the strike 
 than the political world, and consequently it was quite as 
 much taken by surprise. Reports from the leading railway 
 companies, made up to June 30, were of a most hopeful and 
 reassuring character. Dividends were higher than they had 
 been for some time past, and at the same time larger amounts 
 had in most cases been carried to the Reserve Funds. The 
 London and Brighton had paid 4:^ per cent, instead of 3 per 
 cent., as in 1888 ; the London and Chatham paid 3^, as 
 against 2\ ; the Manchester and Sheffield paid i:^, against no 
 dividend at all in the previous year ; the Great Western and 
 North-Eastern raised their dividends by i per cent., and 
 the North-Western, Midland, and South Western by | per 
 cent. The receipts of the twelve principal lines were 
 £27,268,000 for the half year, against /'25, 836, 000 for the 
 first half of 1888, an increase of £"1,432,000, or 5^ per cent. 
 The prosperity of the railway companies was, as it always is, 
 a reflex of the general prosperity of trade throughout the 
 country. For the first six months of i88g trade had been 
 expanding, especially the iron and steel trades, and it seemed 
 probable that the expansion would continue. The Times 
 prophesied " that the expansion of business would go on
 
 Storm Signals. 7 
 
 steadily for many months to come, so far as politics are- 
 concerned." 
 
 The Labour correspondent of the Board of Trade adopted 
 the same optimistic tone. On August 15 he said : " During 
 July the demand for labour has in no way fallen off. The 
 market has been stationary and continues so, while at the 
 same time it is characterised by great steadiness, and there 
 is an absence of serious disturbance of any kind. All the 
 great industries are well employed, and work is plentiful. Of 
 the nineteen societies reporting, ten state trade to be " very 
 good," seven " good," and two " moderate." The total 
 membership represented by the societies reporting is 191,023, 
 of which only 3,302 are out of work, or vy per cent, as 
 against 4*6 per cent, for the corresponding month of 1888." 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that the men who were most 
 intimately acquainted with commerce and industry, and most 
 vitally interested in their condition and movements, were 
 utterly unconscious that a blow was about to be struck by 
 Labour for the mastery. Yet these men ought, not merely 
 on the ground of self-interest but on the higher ground of 
 public policy, to have been better informed as to the course 
 of events, and more alert in their judgments. For ominous 
 signs had appeared on the horizon months, or even years, 
 before. Every winter for several years past the " unem- 
 ployed " had put themselves in evidence in ways which 
 showed that they meant mischief. They had marched in 
 procession through the streets of London, and held violent 
 and disorderly meetings in Trafalgar Square and other places,, 
 which culminated in a riot and an attempted sack of South 
 Audley Street and other portions of Belgravia. The autho- 
 rities, as usual, allowed these seditious and riotous assemblies 
 to continue until incalculable mischief had been done, and 
 then they tardily adopted the policy vvhich they ought to 
 have promptly and vigorously initiated at the outset, and 
 excluded the Socialist agitators and mobs from Trafalgar 
 Square and many of the leading thoroughfares of the West 
 End. Owing partly to the vigorous policy of the authorities.
 
 8 ''A Crusade of the Daivn:' 
 
 and partly to the revival of trade before referred to, little had 
 been heard of the Socialists for some months previous to 
 August, i88g. But the}^ were carrying on their incendiary 
 and anarchic operations as actively as ever, while the autho- 
 rities jogged on in sleepy indifference to all that was going on 
 around them. Shut out of the West End (except as regards 
 Hyde Park, where they were practically harmless), the 
 Socialists transferred their propaganda to the East End. 
 Here they were allowed to do pretty much as they willed, 
 though occasionally the authorities — as in the case of Dod 
 Street — excluded them from some places on the ground that 
 they obstructed the thoroughfare. Week after week, and 
 month after month, under the guise of an affected or mistaken 
 loyalt}' to freedom, the Government permitted preachers of 
 plunder and anarchy to sow evil seed in the minds of idle, 
 vicious, ignorant, and disaffected multitudes, the fruition of 
 which could have no other result than to destroy both the 
 liberty of the individual and the national prosperity which 
 was founded upon it. Governments who give licence to 
 demagogues must not be surprised if they find themselve s 
 driven to defend the elementary and fundamental principles 
 of civilization against their most deadly enemies. They who 
 sow the wind must reap the whirlwind. The Dock Strike was 
 the direct result of the Socialistic teaching with which the 
 East End had been deluged, and the men who figured most 
 prominently in it were the self-same men who had been im- 
 prisoned some months previously for violent and seditious 
 conduct in Trafalgar Square. For proof of this we have only 
 to turn to the words of Mr. John Burns himself, who says: 
 " It is now some six years since John Williams, myself, and 
 others, commenced our crusade among the dockers. A 
 crusade of the dawn, I may call it ; for we did our harang- 
 ing amongst the men in the hours of the morning before 
 their work and ours had commenced. I mj'^self, with my 
 wife, have frequently left home at three and four o'clock in 
 the morning, winter and summer ; tramped to the docks? 
 made speeches at three different gates, and returned to begin
 
 "An Apostle of Discontent.'' 9 
 
 my day's work in the West End at seven or eight o'clock, i 
 have done this for weeks and months together. I was doing: 
 it at intervals during the years 1884, 1885, and 1886. . . . L 
 was actively concerned in the spreading movements of the 
 unemployed throughout the whole of the East End of London- 
 Working thirteen hours a day for my own bread and cheese, 
 I made time to do something as a Socialist propagandist, 
 and formed, or helped to form, several new trades unions in 
 various parts of London. The last and most important of 
 these was the Gas Stokers' Trades Union. . . . Many of the 
 meetings of the Gas Stokers' Union were held in the East 
 End, in the neighbourhood of the docks. The dockers came 
 in numbers, and Mr. Mann, Mr, Champion, and myself, 
 addressed thousands of them. They caught the spirit that 
 we were trying to inform them with, and when the gas 
 workers had won their victory, the dockers in their turn 
 became restless. It was that victory, in a word, that induced 
 the strike of the dockers." Mr. Burns describes himself as 
 ** an apostle of discontent," and he says further : " We who 
 were thus openly agitating and spreadiiiij^ discontent in this 
 neglected corner of the world of Labour, learned thoroughly 
 the whole condition, economic and social, of the various 
 classes of dock labourers ; saw how wretched it was, and 
 deliberately set ourselves to make the men revolt against their 
 lot." Describing his intervention in the Dock Strike on the 
 day after it had commenced, he says : " Discontent was sim- 
 mering, I spoke to the men and found them eager and 
 receptive. The end we had been striving after was coming into 
 view. . . . On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, August 15th, 
 i6th and 17th, I spoke thirty-six times outside of wharves, 
 docks, and warehouses. Mr. Mann, Mr. Tillett, and Mr. 
 Champion did as much. We put the match to every corner of 
 the building — sitting on walls, or standing astride of palings.'' 
 Finally Mr. Burns says : " As a Socialist, I rejoice that 
 organized labour has shown how fully it can meet the forces 
 of capitalism, and how small a chance the oppression of 
 labour has against the resolute combination of men who^
 
 lo The Dock Strike Socialistic. 
 
 having found their ideal, are determined to realise it."* 
 This is quite conclusive as to the Socialistic origin and 
 nature of the Dock Strike, and it proves that Mr. Norwood's 
 statement that the strike owed its origin to the deliberations 
 ■of a Socialistic Congress in Switzerland was not so very far 
 wide of the truth. Socialistic it certainly was, and its 
 Socialism was of the Continental type — violent, infatuated, 
 and desperate. The Gas Workers' Union, referred to by 
 Burns, the " Tea Operatives and General Worker's Union," 
 formed in 1886, and the Dock Labourer's Union which 
 sprang out of this, were all Socialistic organizations, having 
 scarcely a point in common with Trades Unions of the 
 ordinary type. From these facts it will be perceived that a 
 vigorous propaganda of a Socialistic character, perilous to 
 the interests of the community, had been openly and vigor- 
 ously carried on in the East End of London for years ; never- 
 theless, statesmen, police authorities, and commercial men 
 were all taken by surprise when the natural fruit of this pro- 
 paganda manifested itself in the fierce attack upon property 
 and liberty which culminated in, and was exemplified by, the 
 Dock Strike. 
 
 The strike commenced on Wednesday, Aug. 14, 1889 — 
 a black Wednesday in English history. A day or two after 
 the half-yearly meeting of the Mill wall Dock Company was 
 held, at which a dividend of 4 per cent. — a \ per cent, 
 increase — was declared. Mr. C. H. Parkes, the chairman, 
 said : " There had been a strike at the East and West India 
 Docks, but he did not think there would be any disturbance 
 at their own docks respecting the question at issue." So 
 little was the gravity of the situation realised. 
 
 On the 1 6th it was announced that 10,000 men were on 
 strike, and 2,000 of these, after holding various meetings, 
 marched in procession on that day to the City, where six of 
 them had an interview with Mr. C. ^L Norwood, Chairman 
 of the Docks' Committee, who received them courteously, 
 but declined to make any promises to them until they were 
 
 * The Nrcu Review, Oct., 1889.
 
 A Blow at Capital. it 
 
 in a "different frame of mind." On the i8th, i,8oo steve- 
 ■< lores, who were in receipt of high wages and had no 
 grievance of their own, joined the strike, which extended to 
 nearly all the docks, including the Millwall. Several 
 meetings were held and addressed by Burns, Tillett, and 
 M'Carthy, and the procession was said to be a mile and 
 three-quarters long, and crusts, penny loaves, bones, and 
 vegetable refuse were carried on poles, ostensibly to show 
 what the dockers lived on ; but singularly enough there was 
 no exhibition of ale, whiskey, gin, &c., to indicate that these 
 "distressed" men could afford to spend thousands of pounds 
 weekly upon intoxicating liquors. On the igth the strike 
 extended to all the docks, and there were the usual meetings 
 and processions. So it went on day after day for a full 
 month.* 
 
 It soon became evident that the strike was not so much 
 an attempt on the part of the dockers to secure a reasonable 
 remedy for actual grievances as an attack upon capitalists 
 as a class, which of course was not at all surprising to those 
 who knew the true " inwardness " of its origin. Bitter and 
 malignant attacks were made upon the Dock Directors, who 
 were denounced in the most coarse and brutal language, 
 although they were guilty of no crime but that of paying the 
 men whom they employed the fair market rate of wages. 
 The utterances of the strike leaders, and indeed the whole 
 spirit which underlaj^ the conduct of the strike, were almost 
 as antagonistic to capitalists in general as they were to the 
 directors of the docks, and there was scarcely any attempt 
 to conceal or disguise this Socialistic temper. Yet singu- 
 larly enough capitalists and employers who were not 
 ■directly interested in the strike were so incapable of 
 •understanding the broad issues which were involved that 
 many of them, actually supported the demagogues who were 
 ■endeavouring to establish a state of things which would 
 
 * For detailed statement as to the course of the Dock Strike see the 
 " Diurnal of Events During the Dock Strike," in Appendi.x A at the end of the 
 (book.
 
 12 Short-sighted Capitalists. 
 
 have deprived every capitalist in the land of his property. 
 This was no doubt due in part to the unpopularity which 
 the Dock Companies had incurred among ship-owners and 
 merchants, who regarded the dock charges as unreasonably 
 high, owing to past mismanagement and extravagant expen- 
 diture on the part of those who controlled the dock property ; 
 but even supposing that this were true, and that ship-owners 
 and merchants had a real grievance against the dock com- 
 panies, they ought to have manifested more common-sense,, 
 not to say prudence and wisdom, than to have attacked the 
 Dock Directors when they were fighting the battle of all the 
 property owners in the land. The ultimate victory of the 
 dock labourers, which has inflicted such serious injury upon 
 the commerce of the nation and entailed the loss of millions 
 upon British capitalists themselves, was largely due to the 
 action of the short-sighted and foolish members of their own 
 class who supported this strike. 
 
 The strike commenced by some 300 labourers in the South 
 West India Dock quarrelling among themselves as to division 
 of the "plus," and by their refusing to resume work until the 
 dispute was settled. No doubt it would have been settled in 
 a day or two but for the intervention of the *' Apostles of 
 Discontent," who saw their opportunity and made the most of 
 it. The flame, so small at first, vigorously fanned by Social- 
 istic windbags, soon spread, and in the course of a few days 
 multitudes of men, numbering tens of thousands, threw up 
 their work and joined the strikers. This was hailed as a 
 wonderful illustration of the " Solidarity of Labour." The 
 power of combination was extolled, and the labourers were 
 told that they had gloriously distinguished themselves by 
 exhibiting such splendid manhood — the manhood consisting 
 in throwing up their work against their will and their better 
 judgment at the command of autocratic demagogues. The 
 sober truth of the matter, however, was that the spread of 
 the strike was almost entirely owmg to the gross intimi- 
 dation which was practised by the strikers upon those who 
 wished to remain quietly at their work. Day after day the.
 
 Barbarism Triumphant. 13 
 
 same story was told of men beingf threatened, assaulted, 
 and driven from their employment by mobs of discontented 
 and lawless strikers who, having refused to work them- 
 selves, determined that nobody else should work either. 
 In view of these facts the high-flown rhetoric of the strike- 
 leaders as to the power and the achievements of labour com- 
 binations is seen to be so much sentimental gush. The 
 power of combination exhibited by labourers during the 
 Dock Strike, so far as it had any reality, rested upon ille- 
 gality and violence. Without the boycott, conspiracy, 
 outrage, and intimidation, the strike would have worked 
 itself out in less than a week in spite of all the power 
 of combination that could have been brought to bear 
 upon it. 
 
 Even with the support which it derived from illegal prac- 
 tices, the strike would soon have been ended if the Home 
 Office and the police had done their duty, which was tc 
 protect the liberties of workmen who desired to follow 
 their employment and who had no quarrel with their 
 employers, and the rights of capitalists whose property was 
 placed m peril by the action of violent mobs, who for days 
 held the larger portion of the East End of London at their 
 mercy. This duty, the primary duty of a Government, was 
 almost entirely neglected, and the employers and merchants 
 and workmen of London found that, although they were 
 living in a city supposed to be the most enlightened and 
 civilized in the world, they might almost as well, as regards the 
 sacredness of their liberty and the security of their property, 
 have been living in the centre of heathendom. Indeed, the 
 latter would in some respects have been the preferable case ; 
 for in a barbarous country, men take effective measures for 
 defending their freedom and possessions by their own efforts. 
 But in a civilized country these police duties are relegated 
 to the civil Government, and if a Government in a civilized 
 country declines to fulfil its obligations towards the citizens 
 of that country those citizens are placed in a position which 
 is actually worse than that of barbarians ; and to this
 
 14 Default of the Govcniricnt. 
 
 position during the Dock Strike tens of thousands of men 
 were reduced in the City of London, simply because the 
 British Government, as represented by the Home Office, 
 failed to fulfil its most fundamental duties. It is a matter 
 for astonishment that this default on the part of the Govern- 
 ment has been passed over so lightly by the British pubhc. 
 For far less serious crimes Governments have been dismissed 
 from ofhce in disgrace, and impeached, and the reputation of 
 statesmen has been irretrievably ruined. In these ultra- 
 democratic times, however, the tendency is to worship the 
 multitude, and a Government which sacrifices the rights of the 
 few because they are few, in order to please the many because 
 they are many, is apt to be commended rather than con- 
 demned. Even in England the majority of the people have 
 not yet learned that the meanest and poorest citizen in the 
 land has an indefeasible right to be protected by the Govern- 
 ment in the exercise of his personal liberty and in the 
 proprietorship of that which is indubitably his own. The 
 Dock Directors had both reason and justice on their side 
 when they complained from day to day that the Government 
 neglected to guard their property against the assaults which 
 were made upon it by crowds of law breakers, and to 
 protect their workmen in the exercise of their liberty to- 
 follow their employment. No greater ill can befall a nation 
 than that its Government should on grounds of mere ex- 
 pediency decline to fulfil the cardinal and fundamental duties 
 which it owes to the community. It is to be hoped for 
 the honour as well as for the prosperity of England that we 
 shall never again witness the pitiable and painful spectacle of 
 an Executive Government giving license to mobs of strikers 
 because they possess votes. 
 
 General circumstances also favoured the Dock Strike, 
 Trade was remarkably good just at the time. Had it been 
 otherwise the strike could never have succeeded in its object. 
 The weather, also was unusually fine. Day after day there 
 was brilliant sunshine and no rain, and as the operations of 
 the strikers were carried on out of doors, this was an almost
 
 Aiistnilian I'\)i/v — diid Selfishness. 15 
 
 indispensible condition of success. If August, 1889, ^^d 
 been like the August of 1891, the strike would have simply 
 been drowned out ; for even the spirits of dock labourers 
 could not have kept up day after day and week after week 
 against incessant and drenching rains, violent thunderstorms, 
 and cold and depressing weather generall\'. In fact, the 
 strike succeeded by a fluke, or a series of flukes, and con- 
 sequently the fact that it did succeed possesses not a t ithe 
 of the importance which its originators have sought to attach 
 to it. 
 
 With all the advantages which the strikers possessed in 
 being allowed their own lawless way by the Government, in 
 possessing the support of many foolish and unthinking 
 persons of wealth, and in being favoured by almost con- 
 tinuous flne weather, it could never have succeeded had not 
 large amounts of money been sent from Australia. This 
 money, as is now known, was sent under an entire miscon- 
 ception of the real facts of the case, a misconception for 
 which the Press of Australia (or rather its correspondents in 
 London) was almost entirely responsible, A large' portion 
 of this money was actually sent by capitalists, who intended 
 it to be used merely for relieving distress in East London, 
 and not as a weapon to tight their brother capitalists with 
 in Great Britain. So far as the Australian funds were con- 
 tributed by Australian working-men, they were due quite as 
 much to their selfish desire to keep English labour out of 
 the Australian labour market as to sympathy with the 
 " down-trodden '' dockers of London. 
 
 If the reader has carefully perused and thoughtfully con- 
 sidered the Diary of events which occurred during the Dock- 
 Strike they will probably have suggested to his mind some 
 very serious reflections. The gravity, the signiflcance, and 
 the far-reaching effects of the Dock Strike have not yet been 
 adequately realised, either by the rulers and leaders of the 
 nation or by the nation itself. Perhaps the most obvious 
 suggestion conveyed to the mind of an intelligent observer 
 by the events which occurred in connection with the Dock
 
 i6 Tlw Wurking-nian ^^ Omnipotent.'' 
 
 Strike is that the industrial atmosphere has been permeated 
 by perverted or inverted ideas as to the rights of property. 
 It was assumed by the dock labourers that they had in some 
 mystic fashion acquired a share of proprietorship in the 
 docks, and that, consequently, they had some right to say 
 how the property belonging to the Dock Companies should 
 be used. Of course this assumption had not the slightest 
 foundation in fact. These men really attempted to appro- 
 priate the property of their employers, to which they had 
 not one jot or tittle of right. The origin of this strike, and of 
 a good many others also, is to be found in this perverted 
 idea with regard to the ownership of property. Masses of 
 working-men have become inflated with a sense of their own 
 importance since they have obtained the franchise, and have 
 become the idols of time-serving politicians. These poli- 
 ticians, with their allies in the Press, puffed up the worjcing- 
 man and encouraged him in the belief that he was part 
 owner of any industrial undertaking to which he condescended 
 to sell his labour. One truculent journalist wrote in these 
 terms : " That the labourer everywhere has at last risen to 
 the level of his principles, that he has learned that his power 
 now is the only really omnipotent one in the Commonwealth, 
 is in itself an incalculable gain to humanity, which will give 
 a tremendous impetus to the cause of progress. The 
 dockers' * tanner,' if this social agitation goes on, as now 
 seems probable, will rank in the history of this period as the 
 humble origin of one of the most far-reaching reforms in the 
 condition of the people ; it will stand as the symbol of the 
 emancipation of the labourer from the tyranny of Capital, 
 and the heroes of this movement, the London stevedores, 
 who were the very first to back the demands of their 
 humbler and more helpless brothers, will have won by their 
 gallant and self-sacrificing action the gratitude of their class 
 through all time."* 
 
 The omnipotent one has been written and preached at in this 
 
 'Reynolds' Newspaper, September 8, 1889.
 
 The Infallible People. 17 
 
 strain for a dozen years past, and it is perliaps not surprising 
 that he has come re.illy to beh'eve that he is omnipotent. 
 Certainly he entertains an exaggerated sense of his own 
 work and worth in the community. He has persuaded him- 
 self, and seeks to persuade others, that he alone creates or 
 produces anything ; that, consecjuently, he alone has the 
 right to appropriate or enjoy anything ; and that, as a 
 further consequence, he has the right to deprive everybody 
 else in the community of what they may possess. He is 
 apparently incapable of conceiving the idea that however 
 valuable may be his work to society, it is work which exists, 
 which can exist, only as the result ot the wealth and enter- 
 prise and labour of other people. It suits him to shut his 
 eyes to the palpable fact that it is only by the employment 
 of the capital and the energy of employers that any v/ork 
 can be provided for him to do. It is, however, a Httle 
 surprising that not merely the general public, but that men 
 who claim to be the leaders of the public, men of education 
 and position, should ignore these vital factors in the problem ; 
 and it can be accounted for only on the supposition that 
 they are so blinded, either by self-interest or by love ot 
 popularity, that the}' have come to regard it as the highest 
 manifestation of intelligence to accept whatever may be 
 decreed by the Infallible People. Our commerce, our ship- 
 ping, our docks, our factories, our mines, our railways, and 
 indeed our whole civilization, are the aggregate result of the 
 exertions of the men who lived before us and who have had 
 the skill and intelligence to devise, and the energy and the 
 money to carry out, these great undertakings. The real 
 constructors of our nation have belonged to the very classes 
 who are now so loftily despised by the people who owe 
 everything to them — the classes who have brains and 
 money, and who for that very reason are able to find 
 employment for the lower order of workers. 
 
 Under the teaching of the Radical-Socialistic demagogues 
 who lead our " free and independent " working men by the 
 nose, it seems to have become the fixed idea of the industrial
 
 i8 The Economical ''Bogey.'' 
 
 classes that the capitalist is their deadly enemy. In their 
 speeches and in their literature the man who has b}^ his 
 industry accumulated money, and who has in most cases 
 risen from their own ranks, and who, moreover, is giving to 
 them employment, is represented as a selfish monster, a 
 voracious ogre, an economical Minotaur, who preys and 
 feasts upon the blood and sinew, the virtue and the happi- 
 ness, of his helpless victims. No idea could of course be 
 more grotesquely or more fundamentally wrong. This in- 
 dustrial monster is invented by crafty men for their own 
 purposes, and he is made to strut and swagger upon the 
 stage, and to give character and colouring to innumerable 
 pages of fiction, in order that his supposed victims, 
 thoroughly alarmed, may throw themselves into the arms of 
 their " leaders " and " saviours." The influence ot the 
 capitalist (or of Capital) is, taking a just and broad view of 
 it, wholesome and beneficent, and, so far from being the foe 
 of the working classes, the capitalist is in reality one of 
 their best friends, since without his brains and money the 
 majority of them would have no work to do. 
 
 Capital and Labour, properly understood, are not antago- 
 nistic, since they are both the same thing, viz., labour, under 
 different forms and in varying degrees of development. The 
 capitalist and the labourer, so far from being rivals and 
 opponents, are in reality fellow-helpers who co-operate in 
 the same good work, viz., the production and distribution 
 of the commodities which society needs for its sustenance 
 or its comfort. How, then, can they be antagonists, seeing 
 that both are labourers and both capitalists ? The money 
 of the employer, which is the accumulated result of Labour, 
 is his capital, and his management of it in his business or 
 estate is his labour ; while the skill and strength of the 
 workman, which are the combined results of heredity, 
 tradition, environment, and personal acquisition, form his 
 capital, and his daily use of that skill and strength con- 
 stitutes his labour. Both these factors, Capital and Labour, 
 aie used in co-operation to produce a common result, which
 
 The Share of Laboiiv. ig 
 
 result, as it could not be produced by either one indepen- 
 dently of the other, so when it is produced belongs to 
 neither one in any such sense as to exclude the other, but 
 to both alike. Labour, however, as its needs are more 
 urgent and immediate, receives its share of the result at 
 once, while the share of Capital is allowed to accumulate ; 
 and, as the contribution of Labour is proportionately much 
 less than that of Capital, its drawings from the common pro- 
 ceeds must of course be less in the same proportion. The 
 labourer who draws his wages weekly receives, provided his 
 wages be fair, his share of the product down ; receives it 
 just as actuiUy as the capitalist receives his when he sells 
 his goods ; and, what is more, the labourer's share has to 
 bs advanced by the capitalist until such time as the latter 
 can turn his goods into money — after a period of weeks, or 
 even months or years. 
 
 The workman, however, because he draws his share 
 weekly, and sees the share of the capitalist remaining in the 
 business and growing, is very apt to get the idea that he 
 does not receive a fair share of the value of the commo- 
 dities which he has helped to produce. But this idea 
 usually arises, first, from his shortsightedness in failing to 
 discern that he really gets his share as he goes along; and, 
 secondly, from an exaggerated and fallacious estimate of 
 the importance of his own work. He helps to produce, but 
 after all he only helps ; whereas he is liable to flatter him- 
 self that he isthe actual and only producer, the skill and 
 energy and money of the employer counting for nothing in 
 his view of the case. Capital is said, and rightly said, to be 
 the accumulated result of Labour. But of what labour ? Of 
 whose labour ? Here is a palace worth half a million of 
 money. Upon this edifice the first labour expended was 
 that of the architect, who although he sat in his office and 
 wore a black coat all the time, and used compass and pencil 
 instead of trowel and hod — his brains instead of his muscles, 
 was the real designer and builder of the house. His mathe- 
 matical and geometrical calculations, his choice of the foun-
 
 20 The Three Factors. 
 
 dation and style, his arrangements and specifications for its 
 soundness and safety and comfort, his estimates of the cost — 
 all this constituted the real building of the house. It was 
 erected in his mind, subjectively and essentially, before any 
 of the other workers so much as touched a spade or a pick, or 
 even knew that the building was projected. Those who came 
 afterwards and gave the house an objective and accidental 
 manifestation merely followed and built over the lines which 
 had been created by and in the architect's mind, just as a 
 scholar imitates the copy set him by his master. Is it to be 
 said that the architect's labour is not an essential part of 
 the capital sum represented by the value of the completed 
 house ? 
 
 Strictly speaking, however, even the architect was not the 
 first labourer. Before he could do his work the owner of the 
 house, his employer, had to do a prior work. In the first 
 place he had to find the money to pay for the house (a part 
 of the transaction which can scarcely be regarded as non- 
 essential even by Radical Socialists). That money was the 
 result of Labour, either of its owner's labour or of the labour 
 of those who went before him. Not only had he to find the 
 money, but he had to do a great deal of actual work as well. 
 He had to think and plan before the architect could think 
 and plan. After all this, as the third step in the process of 
 building the house, come the manual workers, the men who 
 digged the foundations, mixed the mortar, carried the bricks, 
 did the bricklaying, the joinery, the plastering, the deco- 
 rating, who, in short, fulfil the architect's design. Is it to be 
 tolerated that manual labourers, who could never have been 
 employed on the work at all but for the owner's money and 
 the architect's skill, and -who received their full share of the 
 result while they were doing the work, should turn round 
 when the house is finished and say that its value represents 
 their labour alone, and that they have a right to it ? 
 Emphatically not. Yet this, and nothing else or less, is 
 what working men are now said to be entitled to. If this 
 preposterous claim could be enforced (conceded it can never
 
 Two Paid Out — One Left. 21 
 
 be) the result would be that no hou?es would ever be built, 
 since no man would ever be such a simpleton as to lay out 
 his money only to be robbed of it by those whom he had 
 employed. The Capital represented in the house is the result 
 of Labour truly — but of what labour and whose ? Firstly, of 
 those who earned the money with which the house was paid 
 for ; secondly, the labour of the architect who desif^ned it ; 
 and only, in the third and last place, the labour of those who 
 do the rougher and coarser work of putting it together, who 
 were paid |,for their labour at the time. Both the architect 
 and the manual workmen received their share of the value 
 of the house in the shape of payment for their labour, and 
 consequently they have no further claim whatever upon the 
 Capital represented by that house, which now belongs 
 absolutely to the man who proposed and paid for its 
 erection. 
 
 The same process of reasoning may be applied to any other 
 architectural or engineering work — to the Forth Bridge, for 
 example, or to the Manchester Ship Canal, to a railway or 
 to a steam-ship ; while it applies even more forcibly to a 
 merchant's business or to a great industrial concern. It is 
 equally true of the London Docks, of which we have lately 
 heard so much. These docks were constructed by the ex- 
 penditure of millions upon millions of money, which repre^ 
 sented the labour of hundreds of thousands of hard-working 
 people, many of whom lived before either this generation or 
 the one that preceded it. Before they could be built, even 
 when the money was at hand, it was necessary that skilled 
 engineers, men who had technical knowledge of ships and 
 shipping, and of that peculiar kind of building, should devote 
 their ability, acquired by years of expensive education, to 
 making plans, estimates, and calculations. The Docks, like 
 everything else, had to be built subjectively before they could 
 be built objectively. Even after they were built and fully 
 equipped for work, the Dock labourers could have made no 
 use of them without the capitalists, the ship-owners, and the 
 skilled managers. Millions of capital — aye, hundreds of
 
 22 A Pestilent Economic Heresy. 
 
 millions — which has been put into ships and estates and 
 business enterprises all over the world, which Capital is the 
 accumulated result of the Labour of farmers, cattle-breeders, 
 sugar producers, shipbuilders, and traders of all kinds, had 
 to be employed in order to provide the labour by which the 
 dockers subsist. Yet these latter, who represent no money 
 or skill, but simply the coarsest and crudest forms of manual 
 labour — who are the msre scullions of commerce, have taken 
 to putting on airs, and have become so inflated with the 
 sense of their own importance, that they talk as if the Capital 
 represented by the Docks in some subtle fashion actually 
 belonged to them. And all this because Parliament has been 
 generous enough to give them votes which many of them do 
 not know how to use ! 
 
 This notion, that the result of Labour stored up in Capital 
 belongs to the manual worker alone, is one of the most 
 pestilent economic heresies of our time. It arises, in the 
 main, from a total misconception as to the nature of the laws 
 which govern value. Working man have persuaded them- 
 selves, and apparently some other people as well, that it is 
 their labour, and that alone, which confers value upon what 
 they produce. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 However much labour may have been spent upon a com- 
 modity, it acquires no value unless and until what Adam 
 Smith calls an " effectual demand " arises for it. When a 
 commodity is in demand it is valuable ; when it is not in 
 demand it is practically worthless, although as much labour 
 may have been spent upon it in the latter case as in the 
 former. 
 
 " The market price (i/^.the actual price) of every particular 
 commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity 
 which is actually brought to market and the demand of those who 
 are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole 
 value of the rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid in 
 order to bring it thither. Such people may be called the 
 effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand ; 
 since it may be sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the
 
 The Appropriator. 23 
 
 commoJity to market. It is different from the absolute 
 
 demand. A very poor man may be said in some sense to 
 
 have a demand for a coach and six: he might Hke to have it ; 
 
 but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodit)' 
 
 can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it."* 
 
 When a number of men, by the use of their money — the 
 
 result of their labour and that of their predecessors, and by 
 
 the further use of their practical knowledge and technical 
 
 skill, have built up a large and profitable business, and in so 
 
 doing have been benefactors of the community, since thev 
 
 have at once supplied it with the commodities which it 
 
 requires and at the same time afforded employment to 
 
 thousands of men who otherwise either might not have been 
 
 employed at all or have been employed less profitably, they 
 
 are told that the said business belongs in equity, not to 
 
 them, but to the men whom they have already benefited by 
 
 giving them work to do, and who in reality have exerted no 
 
 formative or constructive powers in building up the business 
 
 at all. One of the newspapers which had a great deal to do 
 
 with producing the Dock Strike, and which hailed it as 
 
 though it were the harbinger of the Millennium, said : " There 
 
 are, speaking broadly, only two sets of men mterested in 
 
 the industrial question — the creator of the profits and the 
 
 appropriator of them, the labourer and the capitalist. The 
 
 middleman is a parasite on both. The appropriator has 
 
 hitherto had all the advantages, and has grown through the 
 
 practice of centuries into the belief that the real creator of 
 
 what is called wealth is his bond-slave, with whom he can 
 
 do as he pleases. The strike, to some extent, has been the 
 
 means of bringing the parties into a true relation .... 
 
 The organization of Labour became more than the dream of 
 
 the Socialist ; it was an actuality. Then the noble example 
 
 was followed by others, and the battle of Capital and Labour 
 
 began. And what happened ? The former, with all the 
 
 accumulations of centuries, was helpless ; the latter omnipo- 
 
 * IVeaM of Nations. Vol. I., Page 85.
 
 24 Mr. Punch as an Economist. 
 
 tent. Mr. Norwood was right, the strike was a blow aimed 
 at Capital unrighteously employed,* a blow that will have 
 far-reaching consequences. When Capital is the oppressor 
 of Labour, as it is to-day, or was till this revolt occurred, it is 
 a social anomaly and antagonistic alike to common-sense 
 and justice." t This is a fair specimen of the kind of teach- 
 mg which is now being poured into the minds of the masses 
 (who are voters). The labourer is here represented as the 
 sole creator of wealth, which emphatically he is not ; while 
 the capitalist is held up to execration as the privileged 
 appropriator of what labour creates, which most emphatically 
 he is noc. It might hav= been supposed that even uneducated 
 manual labourers would, by the force of native common- 
 sense alone, have perceived the hollowness of this rubbish. 
 But, no, they accept it all as Gospel truth ; and they act 
 upon the silly and mischievous teaching, greatly to their 
 own hurt. 
 
 The strike party made a good deal of Punch's cartoon, in 
 which the docker is made to say to the director : *' If you 
 would think less of your luxuries and more of my necessities 
 it would be better for the interests of Labour." But with all 
 due respect to Mr. Punch it must be stated that his implied 
 censure of the Dock Directors was wholly beside the mark. 
 To taunt men who are paying the fair market rate of wages 
 with indifference to the welfare of their workmen may be a 
 cheap way of catching a gust of popular applause, but 
 assuredly it is not the way to win the respect of intelligent 
 and reasonable people. Punch was in a much more sensible 
 form of mind the following week, when he represented the 
 docker as about to cut off the head of the goose that laid the 
 golden eggs — viz., Capital. Over this cartoon the strikers 
 did not go into ecstasies. One of their journals said, how- 
 ever, in reference to it that " the docker had no interest in 
 
 * Of course Mr. Norwood never said what is here attributed to him. 
 
 f Reynolds' MrMspaper, Sep. 15, 1889. It would be interesting if ^ifl'/Zi^Wx 
 would state how much it pays its writers. Is Capital the oppressor of Labour in 
 that sanctuary of Democracy ?
 
 The Docks a Bouii to the Casuals 25 
 
 the precious bird except that when Norwood & Co. have 
 sucked the eggs they chuck him the shells." If the ignor- 
 ance of a journahstic M.P, is so abysmal as this, what may 
 be expected from dock labourers ? Everybody knows that 
 the docker has been carrying away some of the golden eggs 
 in his pocket every week, yolk and shell and all. 
 
 The Dock Strike was due mainly to the idea, which for 
 years has been instilled into the minds of the labourers, that 
 the workmen have not received their rightful share of the 
 ])rofits and that their employers have been robbing them. 
 (And most of the subsecjuent strikes have been due to the 
 same notion.) Now, mo^t of these Dock labourers are 
 casual and irregular workers ; many of them are wastrels 
 and ne'er-do-weels ; very few of them have been employed at 
 the docks for live successive years. What share can such 
 men possess in the business, the goodwill, the profits of the 
 docks ? What have they done to establish that business ? 
 Will the Bishop of London, or Sir James Whitehead, or 
 Mr. Sydney Buxton enlighten us on these points ? Boss 
 Burns, fond as he is of dealing with figures, never went into 
 calculations under this head ; he would rather make a fine 
 swinging assertion to the effect that as the profit from the 
 docks for a given year was ;^2 18,000, the dock labourers 
 ought to have — and meant to have — j^ioo,ooo of it, (of 
 course in addition to their usual wages). The London Docks, 
 whatever injustices and abuses may have prevailed in con- 
 nection with them, have been, on the whole and in the main, 
 a boon to the out-of-works in the East-end. In the wages 
 which these men have received out of a concern which they 
 did nothing to establish they have had their full share of its 
 returns. " Public opinion," however, or the hysterical 
 clamour which now-a-days too often passes for it, thought 
 differently, and so in order to gratify the whims of irrespon- 
 sible people, who have no money in the Docks (or anywhere 
 else, most of them), the shareholders, according to Mr. 
 Norwood's statement, were mulcted to the extent of 
 /'i5o,ooo a year to inflate the wages of one class of men
 
 26 Dock Labourers Fairly Paid. 
 
 above the market rate. The strike owed its vitahty entirely 
 to the unintelHgent and irrational sympathy which ic 
 received from people who knew nothing of the merits 
 of the case. A considerable proportion of these persons 
 belonged to the hated capitalistic class against whom 
 the strikers were breathing out threatenings and slaughter. 
 Their love of applause, their desire to curry favour 
 with the voters, their Pharisaic philanthropy, their gene- 
 rosity, or whatever other motives prompted their action, were 
 certainly more conspicuous than their common-sense. Boss 
 Burns was able to boast on August 21st, 1889, that " they 
 were receiving sympathy on every hand because their cause 
 was just. The merchants and people along the route which 
 the procession took had helped them by their money, which 
 showed that public feeling was strong in their favour." 
 On another occasion he boasted that Dock Shareholders, 
 wharfingers, military officers, and Pall Mall mashers had 
 contributed, while aristocrats had condescendingly asked to 
 be allowed to help, and it must be admitted that he had 
 only too much reason for his swagger. 
 
 " Their cause was just." Well, let us see where the 
 justice lay. The Dock Committee pointed out that they 
 were paying their men just double the wages received by 
 agricultural labourers, who received 2\d. per hour, or from 
 14s. to i6s. a week, their hours being twelve per day. This 
 IS a tolerally high estimate for farm labourers, many of whom 
 do not get I2S. a week. Where is the injustice of paying 
 the dock labourer double the wage of an agricultural labourer 
 — the latter being really a skilled workman ? It may be 
 said that the latter can count upon his twelve hours and his 
 six days per week, while the former can reckon oxi nothing 
 certain. But that is a different issue, owing to the nature 
 of the work, and the Dock Company cannot be held respon- 
 sible for it. The incontestable fact remains that their men,, 
 for the actual time they worked, were twice as well paid as- 
 agricultural labourers. 
 
 Take another fact. During the week ending August 17^
 
 The Public Fihlcss. 27 
 
 1889, there were forty-seven gangs of men working at the 
 Millwall Dock. The most earned by any one gang of six 
 men was ;^i8 19s. 8d. for the week of sixty hours, £2, 3s. 3^. 
 per man ; the least earned by anyone gang was ^10 17s. 7d. 
 or £1 i6s. 6d. a man for a week of sixty-two hours. Where, 
 again, is the injustice ? Yet the men at the Millwall Docks 
 went out on strike! The lightermen were so unjustly treated 
 that they could earn only from 50s. to 60s. per week. So 
 they also struck ! In face of facts like these the dunder- 
 headed " public " thought the dockers and other riverside 
 workers so harshly treated that they subscribed some ;^40,ooo 
 for the purpose of compelling the Dock Directors to disgorge 
 their ill-gotten gains ! These Directors were really trustees 
 for some 5,000 shareholders, many of them widows and 
 orphans of limited means, who had received little or no 
 return for their money. What did that matter to " the 
 public " ? There is nothing so unreasoning as the public ; 
 nothing so pitiless and cruel and unjust ; it is continually 
 committing two injustices in the attempt to remedy one. 
 In this case it insisted that the diminished incomes of a 
 small and feeble class should be still further curtailed in 
 order to pay another and numerically (and electorally) stronger 
 class wages above the market rate. Even the Trades Union 
 Congress passed a resolution affirming that a class of men 
 who were twice as well paid as agricultural labourers were 
 " more than justified in the position they had taken up "! 
 
 It may be said that the increased charges imposed upon 
 the Dock Companies have been by them transferred to the 
 shoulders of the public — the consumers. It is certain, how- 
 ever, that the shipowners, though they were very profuse in 
 their advice to and criticisms upon the Dock Directors, did 
 not display any eagerness to pay mcreased dues; nor did the 
 other sections of the pubhc who encouraged the dockers 
 manifest any greater alacrity in putting their hands into their 
 pockets. The intention was that the Dock Shareholders 
 should be bled. Even if the additional cost is now borne by 
 the consumer, what right has a body of irresponsible nobodies
 
 28 To Propitiate Demos. 
 
 to compel the consumer to pay an increased price for his 
 commodities in order that one class of labourers may have 
 their wages inflated above the market rate ? Talk of class 
 legislation, and of taxation without representation ! Here 
 we have them with a vengeance, and in forms peculiarly irri- 
 tating and odious. One of the most serious of the perils 
 which are to-day menacing the stability of our institu- 
 tions is shallow humanitarianism, which is afflicted with 
 lightness in the head and fatty degeneration of the heart. 
 This diseased benevolence, this harum-scarum charity, is a 
 greater danger to the commonwealth than stolid hard- 
 heartedness. In the case under consideration, it caused the 
 interests of the Dock shareholders to be sacrificed, did 
 permanent injury to trade and commerce, and raised the 
 price of commodities, without conferring any commensurate 
 advantage, or indeed any real advantage at all, upon the 
 labourers. It is the case of the Irish landlords over again. 
 The dockers and their sympathisers commanded many thou- 
 sands of votes, and in order to propitiate them and win their 
 votes, the doctrines of political economy and the dictates of 
 justice were thrown to the winds. It is all very well to say 
 that politics had nothing to do with the strike. If it was 
 not a political movement there never was one, and the men 
 who " bossed the show " had political objects in view. The 
 whole thing was conceived and carried out in the interests 
 of a new political body, the so-called " Labour Party," 
 properly described as *' An Association for the Destruction 
 of British Trade, for the Ruin of British Employers by 
 Robbery and Boycotting, and for the Conversion of the 
 Working Classes into Sneaks, Skulks, and Loafers." We 
 are told that Boss Burns has estabhshed his right to a seat 
 in Parliament by his conduct during the Dock and other 
 strikes, while Mr. Sydney Buxton, M.P., one of his henchmen 
 during the former conflict, is said to have won a place in the 
 next Liberal Government ! Mr. Buxton may be quite worthy 
 of such a position ; but that his claim to it should be based 
 upon his conduct during the Dock strike is strikingly indica-
 
 The New ^^ Freedom.'" 29 
 
 tive of the deterioration of modern politics, while it is not 
 very flattering to himself. 
 
 The ideas which have been disseminated among the 
 working classes by industrial agitators with regard to the 
 liberty of the individual workman are as perverted in their 
 ■nature and as vicious in their effects as the ideas with regard 
 to property which we have just considered. It has been 
 proclaimed from every Labour platform that an individual 
 workman who dared to act upon his own judgment and in 
 his own interests, and to oppose the general body of his 
 fellows, was a coward and a traitor. The idea that a work- 
 ing man should be free to act according to his own lights 
 and his own conscience, is denounced as a doctrine of devils 
 by the very men who prate most loudly of liberty. The 
 Trade Union notion of liberty is that the individual workman 
 should efface himself by giving himself over body and soul 
 into the hands of some autocrat or some committee whose 
 orders he is to obey as unquestionably as a slave obeys 
 his owner, however unreasonable or preposterous those 
 orders may be. If he acts this part of a slave, acts as 
 a being who possesses no rational or moral powers, who is 
 incapable of perceiving and judging for himself what is right 
 and wrong, or of acting upon his own convictions of duty, he 
 is said to be manifesting the highest dignity of manhood ; 
 but if he has the courage to act as a truly rational and moral 
 being alone can act, that is, to reason out all matters for 
 himself and to do what he himself believes to be right without 
 regard to the smile or frown of any other being in the universe 
 except his God, he is called in mockery and contempt an 
 ignoble exemplar of unmanliness. For such a man no insult 
 is too vile, no abuse too foul ; assault and maltreatment are 
 regarded as his just deserts; and those who lay violent hands 
 upon him think that they are doing humanity service. Even 
 the murder of such a man would be esteemed as no crime in 
 the eyes of thousands of men whose moral judgments on 
 other matters are fairly sound. For confirmation of this, one 
 only need to study carefully the words which were used and 
 
 E
 
 3o: Terminology — False and True. 
 
 the deeds which were committed during the Dock strike 
 towards men whose only offence was that they dared to set 
 at naught the laws of self-constituted industrial law-givers. 
 These men were assailed in the most scurrilous and violent 
 language, and many of them were in imminent danger of 
 being maimed and murdered, and this at the hands of men 
 who professed to be true lovers of freedom and exalted 
 cnsamples of morality. 
 
 The approbious epithet which is commonly applied by 
 Trade Unionists to the workman who dares to act as a free 
 man, namsly, the term " blackleg," is in itself sufficient proof 
 of the animus which is felt towards his class. The alacrity 
 with which the Press and the public adopted the terminology 
 of the strikers, if not one of the most surprising, was certainly 
 one of the most mischievoas elements in the case. Incalcul- 
 able mischief has been done in the domain of Theology by the 
 thoughtless repetition of a false terminology. This has caused 
 more heresy than all the deliberate efforts of the greatest 
 heretics in the world. However false a term may be, if it is 
 used often enough and long enough it will insensibly exert a 
 great influence upon the mind, and multitudes of people will 
 assume it to represent truth. As in Theology so in Economics. 
 Undoubtedly the terminology in use among Trades Unionists 
 has done immense injury, and for this very reason every 
 person who desires his words to be an expression of pure 
 truth should avoid the use of terms, which, however accurate 
 they may be when used in their true relations, are essentially 
 false when used outside of those relations. Take the term' 
 " blackleg " for example. As defined by the dictionary this 
 term means a swindler, a low cheater, a scoundrel. To apply 
 such a term to men who have not only committed no crime 
 or sin, but who have emphatically been doing well in per- 
 forming their duty in serving the interests of society, is an 
 illegitimate use of language which cannot be too strongly 
 condemned. It is, of course, easy to understand why the 
 strikers employed such terms, for their aim is to cover with 
 odium every man who will not accept his code of morals and
 
 A Bastard of Parnellism. 31 
 
 of freedom from them. But why should ihe newspapers, by 
 using the term " blackleg " instead of the term " non- 
 unionist " or " free-labourer," help to create the impression 
 that these men were guilty of some sort of infamous conduct ? 
 Men who profess to be literary craftsmen ought to jealously 
 guard the purity and the truth of our noble language, and 
 they cannot be held guiltless in this matter. The average 
 human mind is so constituted that the persistent use of such 
 terms as "blackleg" tends by imperceptible processes to 
 create prejudice in the minds of those who hear and read 
 them. 
 
 What is called the " New Unionism " may be said to have 
 been brought to the birth during the throes of the struggle 
 :it the docks. For legitimate Trades Unionism it is perhaps 
 possible that a plausible defence should be made by its 
 advocates ; but for this bastard Trades Unionism nobody 
 can make out a good case. It meets no real need on the part 
 of the working classes ; it performs no useful functions in 
 society ; it is utterly alien to the spirit of the English people 
 and to the spirit of their institutions. It is like its procreator 
 Parnellism, of which it is an exact reproduction, a monstrous 
 excrescence upon the fair face of the community, a rank and 
 poisonous fungus growing upon the trunk of civilisation. In 
 one respect only do Irish Land Leagueism and the New 
 Unionism differ; the former applies itself to agrarian matters, 
 the latter to industrial matters. This is, however, merely an 
 accident. Essentially the two things are one in spirit, in 
 principle, and in aim. Both are the offspring of ultra- 
 Democracy ; they may be said to be the issue of the unhappy 
 marriage which took place between Enlightenment and 
 Ignorance when the State rashly bestowed the Franchise 
 upon every man who rented a cottage or a mud hovel, with- 
 out any regard whatever to his fitness to be entrusted with 
 so powerful an instrument. Men unenlightened and intel- 
 lectually undeveloped who possess the power to vote, in other 
 words the power to set up and to overthrow Governments, 
 to make or mar the fortunes of the nation, are like so many
 
 32 The Dock Strike a Symptom. 
 
 pawns upon the chess board in the hands of an accomphshed 
 player, or, to use a better simile, like so many troops in the 
 hands of a general on the field of battle; they are moved, 
 marched, and massed without any regard to their own will, 
 and with scarcely any consciousness of the aims which they 
 are being used to accomplish. In this condition of things 
 there constantly lurk most alarming dangers to the State. What 
 these dangers are, and what they may yet become, is faintly 
 conveyed to us by the difficulties with which we have had to 
 grapple in Ireland during the past few years, and by those 
 which now threaten the industrial peace and prosperity of 
 the entire kingdom. 
 
 The main significance of the Dock strike lies in the fact 
 that it was symptomatic of the Socialistic disease which is 
 eating so deeply into the very vitals of the Commonwealth. 
 It was the first symptom of a really alarming character, but 
 it has been followed by others scarcely less grave, the chief 
 of them perhaps being the railway strike in Scotland. This 
 malignant Socialistic malady has been re-acted upon by the 
 Parnell movement, which is also Socialistic, and has thereb}- 
 gained an immense accession of strength. Indirectly, but 
 still in a very real sense, the Dock strike in London was one 
 of the fruits of Parnellism. The masses of this country, in 
 addition to the inflammatory and dangerous propaganda 
 which has appealed to their ignorance, and envy, and 
 cupidity, have had presented before their eyes in the case of 
 Ireland an object-lesson which has been even more effective 
 for mischief. They have seen a political party there built 
 up on Rapine; they have seen thousands of voters send scores 
 of members to Parliament for the purpose of transferring the 
 properly ol the landlord to the tenant ; and they have also 
 seen a great English parly ally itself with this predatory agi- 
 tation. Is it any marvel that they have taken the lesson to 
 heart ? If Irish landlords can be attacked with impunitx' 
 with the sanction and assistance of English political parties, 
 why not also British capitalists ? The rude logic of the Dock 
 workers is not so much astray as many people imagine, for
 
 Might is Right. 33 
 
 they have quite as good a right to secure for themselves — it 
 they can — a portion of the property of the Dock Companies 
 as the Irish tenants had to secure a portion of their land- 
 lords' property. Might is the only form of right that the 
 Democracy acknowledges. 
 
 It is a most significant fact that some 40,000 of the 
 East-end workers who struck in connection with the 
 dockers were Irishmen and Roman Catholics, men who 
 were saturated through and through with the spirit of 
 Irish Leagueism. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P., speaking in 
 Manchester on September 27, i88g, in his capacity of Presi- 
 dent of the Irish National League of Great Britain, said: 
 " Allusion had also been made to the struggle which had so 
 triumphantly closed in London on behalf of the Dock 
 labourers. In that struggle he was permitted to take a small, 
 humble, and modest part, and he was glad to say that the part 
 he took aided in some degree the final success of the strikers. 
 A good many of these docker's were men of Irish race, a good 
 many of the labourers throughout the country were men of Irish 
 race too, and Irishmen in England, and Scotland, and Wales, 
 if for no other reason would for their own personal interest and 
 advancement always be found in the vanguard of those who were 
 fighting for better houses, better wages, and greater comfort and 
 enlarged liberties for the working classes in this country. 
 Attacked by Coercion, Ireland had its revenge by the emancipation 
 and uprising of labour in England and in Scotland.'' From all 
 this it is evident that the spirit which animates Land 
 Leagueism in Ireland, and the spirit which animates the 
 Socialistic Labour movement in Great Britain, is one and 
 the same. Not only is the spirit one and the same, but to a 
 large extent the agents which have worked the two move- 
 ments have been one and the same also. Michael Davitt, 
 T. P. O'Connor, John Dillon, and numerous lesser lights of 
 Parnellism have been almost as active in stirring up hatred 
 towards employers among the working classes of Great 
 Britain as they have been in stirring up hatred towards Irish 
 landlords on the part of their tenants.
 
 34 A 71 Appeal to the Packet . 
 
 The Socialistic aspect of the Parnell movement has been 
 too much lost sight of. That movement has appealed to 
 the selfishness and the envy and the greed of the ignorant 
 peasantry, and has persistently instilled into their minds the 
 idea that they ought to arise and possess themselves of the 
 property which belongs to their landlords. Mr. Parnell 
 succeeded where Mr. Butt and Mr. Shaw failed. And why ? 
 Simply because he appealed, in the most open and 
 unabashed manner, not to the heads or the hearts of the 
 smaller Irish cultivators, but only to their pockets. It is 
 impossible to tolerate such teachings as those of Parnellism, 
 much less to allow them to make their impress upon legisla- 
 tion, without paying the penalty for it. The process of 
 exacting that penalty has already commenced. People who 
 are given to look upon the appearance instead of looking 
 into the reality of things imagine that the Parnell movement 
 exists purely for the purpose of obtaining Home Rule for 
 Ireland. This is a complete delusion. The Parnell move- 
 ment exists in order to subvert those fundamental principles 
 of morality, those elementary and old-fashioned notions of 
 right and wrong, which lie at the root of all greatness, both 
 individual and national. It is in its essence anti-social and 
 anarchical, since its triumph would dissolve the bonds by 
 which society is now held together, and would substitute the 
 chaos of barbarism for the settled order of civilization. It 
 is an attack upon property, primarily upon the property of 
 the landlord, and secondarily upon that of the capitalist : 
 while it is also an attack upon liberty, as it seeks to deprive 
 the citizen of the freedom which is his right, viz., the freedom 
 to act as he deems best in his own interests, so long as he 
 observes the law and avoids interference with his neighbour. 
 When the Parnell agitation was started in Ireland shallow- 
 minded and short-sighted people imagined that its effects 
 might be confined to one country and to one class of 
 property. But more acute observers perceived that it must 
 necessarily, if unchecked, affect all kinds of property and 
 spread throughout the United Kingdom. The forecasts and
 
 yii^ntatoi's and their Dupes. 35 
 
 the forebodings of this latter class have already been abund- 
 antly justified. The attack upon landed property is now 
 developing into an attack upon Capital and upon property in 
 general, as well as into an attack upon the liberty of the 
 subject at almost every point. If the Englishmen who aided 
 and abetted the P.irnell movement are not still blinded by 
 political prejudice and rancour they must sometimes stand 
 appalled at the consequences of their own handiwork. They 
 have nursed in the bosom of their party a viper, and now 
 that it is awaking into life it is attempting to strike its 
 poisonous fangs into the very vitals of the body politic. 
 They have sown the wind: they are reaping the whirlwind. 
 But alas ! the reaping cannot be restricted simply to those 
 who sowed the evil seed; the bitter and deadly harvest must 
 be gathered by the whole community. Some of the dock 
 and railway shareholders, shipowners, manufacturers, iron 
 masters, colliery proprietors, employers, and merchants who 
 have suffered so severely in consequence of recent strikes 
 have helped to bring their misfortunes upon themselves by 
 countenancing and propagating Parnellite principles. 
 
 The analogy between the Parnell movement and the 
 Radical-Socialistic-Labour movement which has caused the 
 recent strikes is very close and very instructive. 
 
 1. We have in each case agitators ic'ho exploit distress in order 
 to serve themselves. 
 
 Burns, Tillett, Champion, Mann, McCarthy, Toomey and 
 Co. correspond with Parnell, O'Brien, Heal}', Dillon, and 
 Davitt in Ireland. 
 
 2. We have masses of inen exhibiting the most abject servility 
 to their " leaders,'' and an extraordinary readiness to be deluded 
 and manipulated by those whom they fondly imagine to be seeking 
 their true interests. 
 
 The dockers, like the Irish peasantry, seem to think that 
 when they are allowing themselves to be blindfolded by 
 agitators, and to be led captive by them at their will, they 
 are giving the highest evidences of manhood. Men who can 
 be treated like " dumb, driven cattle," or who follow their
 
 36 A ^ohtical Idol. 
 
 leaders and each other as sheep follow a bell-wether, are not 
 exactly the kind of persons who ought to be allowed by mere 
 force of numbers and of combination to terrorize the rest of 
 the community, and to jeopardize the interests of order, of 
 commerce, and of civilization itself; nor ought they to be 
 granted by the Constitution privileges and powers which 
 enable them to neutralize the political influence of the 
 intelligent and the|reasonable. Whether such men ought 
 ever to have had votes or not is very doubtful, though it 
 would be bootless to discuss the question now that the 
 mischief is done. It is quite conceivable, however — -nay, 
 quite certain — that if the ** Social Revolution " goes beyond 
 a certain stage, society will be compelled to grip it by the 
 throat and to disfranchise those who are working through it 
 against the interests of the nation — their own interest of 
 course included. 
 
 3. The Capitalist in Great Britain corresponds with the Land- 
 lord in Ireland. 
 
 Of both the crime is that they possess something which 
 somebody else wants, and as the somebody else can wield 
 the largest number of votes, politicians of a certain class 
 think it is quite right that he should take this something as 
 his own. Where the masses are concerned might is right ; 
 where the " almighty vote " comes in, common-place con- 
 siderations of morality must take a back seat. In Ireland a 
 holocaust of victims has been sacrificed on the altar of 
 Household Suffrage; in Great Britain the same god is crying 
 out for his prey, and the Radical-Socialistic politicians will 
 make desperate efforts to propitiate him. Irish landlords 
 and English Dock shareholders have already been ground 
 between his iron teeth, and fresh victims are being prepared. 
 
 4. The " land-grabber " in Ireland corresponds with the 
 " blackleg "' in Great Britain. 
 
 The crime of these classes is that they have the audacity 
 to exercise their legal and moral rights, and to use their 
 money and their labour in such ways as they deem most 
 desirable and most profitable. There is no law. Divine or
 
 1 he Ncic Decalogue. 37 
 
 human, against a man taking a farm because the previous 
 tenant was turned out for dishonesty ; neither is there any 
 law against a workman continuing at his work for wages 
 which he deems sufficient, rather than be idle and see his 
 family starve. But according to the new Democratic 
 Decalogue these men are cowards, criminals, traitors, and 
 reptiles ; they are branded as infamous for doing that which 
 they have a legal and moral right to do ; and for exercising 
 their freedom in their own interests they are subjected to 
 insult and injury and outrage. 
 
 5. The boycottiiif^ and intimidation which have been practised 
 in Ireland, and which have made that country a by-word among 
 the nations of the earth, have been imitated in England's capital, 
 the first and greatest city in the world, and in many other 
 centres of industry and commerce. 
 
 The majority of the men who struck at the docks had no 
 grievances worth speaking of Many of them admitted this, 
 and admitted it, strange to say, without any sense of shame. 
 Why did these men, who professed to be satisfied with their 
 wages and with the conditions of their labour, throw up their 
 work ? Partly because they were cowards, unworthy of the 
 name of Englishmen ; partly because they were the dupes of 
 cunning and unscrupulous agitators ; but chiefly because they 
 were intimidated, bullied, and maltreated. Hundreds of 
 men were practically compelled to leave their employment 
 under threats of violence and murder, and many were brutally 
 assaulted. So it has been likewise in connection with every 
 great strike since. In this connection attention may be 
 called to some very significant remarks which were made by 
 Mr. John Dillon on August 24, 1890. He said : " Nothing 
 could have been achieved of all the past advances which have 
 been made since 1880 but for boycotting. We should never 
 have had the Act of 1S81. There would be no Arrears Act, 
 and the Land Commissioners, when they were appointed, 
 but for fear of boycotting would never have given you one 
 shilling reduction in your rents. When we commenced 
 boycotting in Ireland every vacant farm had half-a-dozen- 
 
 2459D7'
 
 38 /;; Praise of Boycotting. 
 
 men looking for it, hedging against the old owner ; and if 
 you had the Land Purchase Act to-morrow in Ireland with- 
 out boycotting and with the land-grabbers in abundance, 
 what price, I would like to know, would you have to pay for 
 your farms ? What was the salvation of the Irish people 
 to-day ? The salvation of the Irish people of to-day is this 
 —that there is no one but the one buyer for each farm, and 
 when a man who is in a farm does not like the price, well, 
 then he can wait until the price comes down." 
 
 Equally significant were certain remarks made by the Star 
 in commenting up3n this subject: "The English labourer 
 and Irish peasant have both the same end at heart, and are 
 using the same methods to enforce it. And they have the 
 same foes to fight. Clanricarde there and Norwood here 
 are all for ' free ' — that is, blackleg — labour. Clanricarde's 
 plan was to produce a reckless and incessant competition in 
 farms, an endless supply of Irish cottiers. Their lives were 
 to be regulated by the beneficent law of supply and demand, 
 freedom of contract, and the rest. It worked out in 
 Clanricarde's eyes as a simple Rule of Three Sum : ' As so 
 many Irish peasants are to so much land, so is my rent.' 
 . The Land and National Leagues stopped all that. 
 They did away with * free competition ' in flesh and blood 
 by the simple method of the Union and the ' boycott ' for 
 ' blacklegs.' . . . The boycott has, doubtless, been op- 
 pressively used, but its general tendency has been to put 
 down outrages by rendering outrages unnecessar}'. So with 
 the New Unionism. It has organised labour to such a point 
 of perfection that * rattening ' is no longer the method 
 which commends itself as either an enlightened or a 
 righteous proceeding." 
 
 6. Picketing, as a method of the " Labour " movement, corre- 
 sponds u'ith moonlighting as a method of the Parnell movement. 
 
 The object of the pickets is, by the use of violence and 
 intimidation, to prevent men from working who have a right 
 and a desire to work ; the object of the moonlighters is, by 
 \aolence and intimidation, to prevent tenants from paying
 
 Economic Lan's Realities. 39 
 
 their rents or takin;^ evicted farms ; the ultimate aim in both 
 cases being to prevent the break-up of the combination which 
 has been set up, in the one instance against the landlord, 
 and in the other against the capitalist. The force of the 
 analogy under this head is not weakened because the pickets 
 did not at first shoot people in the legs, or pour pitch upon 
 their heads, or murder them, as the moonlighters are in the 
 hibit of doing. Considering the aptness, however, with 
 which the strikers have learned the worst lessons of Parnel- 
 iism, and the readiness with which they have adopted many 
 of its vilest practices, they may be expected before very long 
 to imitate the moonlighters to the very letter. The remarks 
 of Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., upon this point apply much more 
 closely than many people are willing to admit. Presiding at 
 a National League meeting during the Dock Strike, Mr. 
 Sullivan said that "when numbers of fellows, labelled black- 
 legs, were engaged to take the strikers' places, the Dock 
 labourers were able to induce them to leave. In a similar 
 case, if such a thing were attempted in Ireland, the parties 
 interfering would be punished severely. The blackleg in 
 England was the landgrabber in Ireland, and if a person 
 attempted to induce the landgrabber to leave the farm by 
 any means the result would be a lengthened term of imprison- 
 ment." Very true. And a most excellent result it would be. 
 It is a result which ought to follow upon picketing as swiftly 
 and as surely as it does upon moonlighting. 
 
 7. The ^'Labour" movement, like the Parnell movement, seeks 
 to interfere K'ith the natural operation of economic laws. 
 
 These laws, whatever may be said against them (and there 
 is something to be said against all laws), are realities ; thev 
 are forces with which we have to reckon ; and to run amuck 
 against them is to display the blind infatuation of a mad bull 
 or a runaway horse. The wages of labour are regulated by 
 the quantity of labour that is in the market. Where the 
 supply of labour exceeds the demand, wages will be low : 
 where the supply is not equal to the demand, wages will be 
 high. In the East-end of London, and in many of our large
 
 40 Strikes Ineffectual. 
 
 towns, there are three times as many workmen as there is 
 work for; consequently those who can get no proper or 
 regular employment are glad to work when, where, and for 
 what they can ; and their working for what they can get is 
 the best thing that they can do in the circumstances of an 
 overcrowded labour market. The effect of strikes is not to 
 diminish the amount of available labour (in the case of the 
 Dock Strike the effect was to increase it, as it attracted more 
 men to London by the prospect of higher wages), and there- 
 fore they do not touch the real evil at all. The Dock autho- 
 rities now employ fewer men and employ them more regularly: 
 naturally they have chosen the strongest and most capable 
 men ; and the thousands of casual labourers who aforetime 
 were able to earn small sums of money at odd times when 
 there was a pressure of work now find themselves out in the 
 cold. How does this benefit the majority of the strikers ? 
 Essentially the conditions are unchanged and unaffected. 
 There are more men than can be employed, and as a conse- 
 quence wages rule low. All the strikes, all the abuse of 
 capitalists, all the sentimental gush, all the worship of the 
 masses, all the emotional charity in the world, will never 
 permanently better the condition of the worker while he 
 remains as multitudinous as he is to-day. Strikes may 
 change the position of a small minority of men for the 
 better ; but upon the ocean of industrial distress they can 
 produce no more effect than Mrs. Partington's mop did upon 
 the Atlantic. Economic laws are stronger than Socialistic 
 gasometers. 
 
 8. Alike in the Parnell movement and in the Labour movement 
 there is a strong tendency to substitute arbitrary opinion for moral 
 law, or, in other words, to set up a new standard of right and 
 wrong. 
 
 Over large tracts of Ireland that is right which Parnell and 
 Co. decree to be right ; that is wrong which they decide to 
 be wrong. If their edicts come into conflict with the autho- 
 rity of Scripture, with the august dictates of the human 
 conscience, or with the doctrines of right and wrong which
 
 Moral Laws v, Arbitrary Opinion. 41 
 
 are accepted throughout the civiHzed world and have been 
 consecrated by the usage of ages, then it is the authority of 
 Scripture and conscience and tradition which must go to the 
 wall, and not the authority of Parnell and Co. Through this 
 setting up of a false and arbitrary standard of right and 
 wrong in Ireland things which are lawful and commendable 
 in themselves have come to be regarded as most heinous 
 crimes. For example, when some of Mr. Smith-Barry's 
 Tipperary tenants paid their rents against the decree of 
 Wm. O'Brien and Co., as they were in honesty bound to 
 do, Mr. T. M. Healy referred to their action thus: "Their 
 SIN was undoubtedly very great, because if their example was 
 imitated the result ivould be that their combination would be 
 smashed, and the heart of William O'Brien broken." Pre- 
 cisely the same spirit was manifested during the Dock Strike. 
 Boss Burns was called, by one of the journals which lauded 
 him to the seventh heaven every da)', " the law-giver of the 
 Democratic Israel." Well, a law-giver in a certain sense he 
 undoubtedly was, for what he said to those overgrown babies, 
 the Dock labourers, was accepted by them as law. Here are 
 some specimens of the Democratic law-giver's wisdom : 
 ^'The end justified the means. Everything that assisted the 
 dockers' strike was moral : everything that retarded their 
 cause was immoral." After this, one ceases to be surprised 
 at picketing, intimidation, boycotting, or anything else. No 
 doubt the strikers who received money at Lusk's warehouse 
 on the understanding that they were at once to begin work, 
 and then never went to work at all, thought they were doing 
 a very moral act. Mr. Tillett deemed their conduct worthy 
 of public praise— though he is a preacher of the Gospel ! 
 Here are some more gems from the Democratic law-giver : 
 ^' The Directors had stated that their backs were up, but his 
 was not yet up. When it was, the Directors would know it. 
 On the previous day they had sat in solemn conclave for six 
 hours, and like the mountain in labour they had brought 
 forth a mouse, which was the offspring of the rat Norwood. 
 . . . If the men accepted the proposal that contract work
 
 42 Honest Work Made Criminal. 
 
 was to be converted into piece work as soon as possible they 
 would be degraded to the contemptible vacillation displayed 
 by Norwood and his dirty crew. . . . They must take 
 unto themselves the wealth they earned in order to keep 
 their mind, body, and soul in decent condition. . . . The 
 letters and speeches of the Directors which had been pub- 
 lished were unworthy of men, and were the language of 
 ghouls in human shape and the sentiments of financial Jack- 
 the-Rippers." In a speech on Sep. 3, i88g, he said that a 
 " Russian vessel laden with eggs had not been unloaded, 
 and the eggs had become rotten, and they had better keep 
 them until the end of the strike and then pelt Norwood witu 
 them." In the same speech he said : " In spite of what had 
 been done for the docks, he repeated they were going to 
 bombard all the dock gates with horse, foot, and artillery 
 tmiil every blackleg was got out of them." Respectable and 
 honest men who went to work against the wish of Bos-; 
 Burns and his supporters were spoken of as criminals, an I 
 as deserving the treatment of criminals. Had they committe i 
 theft or murder they could scarcely have been spoken of in 
 terms more opprobious, and probably they would have been 
 spoken of much more leniently ; just as in Ireland a ma 
 who takes an evicted farm is considered a scoundrel fo 
 whom the pains of hell are too good, while a man who shoot ^ 
 a landlord or a policeman is acclaimed as a hero. There 1 
 not only a palpable distortion, but a complete inversion, o 
 the ideas of right and wrong. And there are no persons s . 
 dangerous to the community as those who call evil good an 
 good evil. Obfuscation of the moral vision is a lesser ev 
 than its obliquity. 
 
 g. The Parnell movement and the " Labour " movement re- 
 semble each other in this vital particular — that they are both pio 
 moted and sustained by extraneous support. 
 
 The Parnell movement would have collapsed years ago 
 but for the sinews of war supplied from America, and th ■ 
 great strikes of the last eighteen months — the Dock Strik<', 
 the gas-stokers' strike, the railway strikes, &c., would in each
 
 Fruit after their Kind. 43 
 
 case have broken down in less than a fortnight had not out* 
 side support been given. In the case of the Dock Strike, it 
 was as we have seen the arrival of Australian money which 
 enabled the strikers to win. 
 
 10. Just as moonlighting^ and other agrarian outrages have 
 followed upon the speeches of agitators in Ireland, so in connectt07t 
 with the '' Labour '' movement intimidation and outrages have 
 followed on the speeches of the leaders. 
 
 Tillett and Burns were never weary of denouncing the men 
 whom they chose to call " blacklegs," and urging that they 
 should be boycotted and treated as traitors. The results 
 were seen in the bullying, the brutality, and the violence 
 which took place in the streets of London, in railway station?, 
 and at the Dock gates. Men who had committed no crime 
 were set upon by hordes of cowardly ruffians and kicked, 
 beaten with straps, stoned, thrown into pools of dirty water, 
 and in some cases their injuries were so serious that they had 
 to be taken to the hospital. These outbursts of brutality 
 were even worse after the strike was settled than while it was 
 going on. In a case heard at the Thames Police-court on 
 September ig, i88g, evidence was given to show that a man 
 named Garfield said to some non-union men : " Would you 
 like some of this soup {producing a stevedore's hook). Burns 
 says we are to pull you blacklegs out of the docks with our 
 hooks. If I had my way I'd rip you up with them." Un- 
 doubtedly the '* Labour " leaders are primarily responsible 
 for the intimidation and outrage which disgrace these strikes, 
 but as is too often the case the leaders get off scot free, while 
 those who acted on their advice (if caught and convicted) get 
 two or three months hard labour. 
 
 Unfortunately the analogy betwixt the Parnell movement 
 and the " Labour " movement cannot be carried to the extent 
 of saying that the law as promptly suppresses intimidation 
 and outrage in Great Britain as it does in Ireland. Offences 
 which are rigorously stamped out in Ireland are allowed to 
 luxuriate in London and Edinburgh. There men are prose- 
 cuted and imprisoned, and very justly so, for boycotting and
 
 44 Geographical Crime. 
 
 intimidation ; here the same practices may be carried on with 
 impunity. Parnellites exulted over the fact that men could 
 do in the East End of London, without let or hindrance, 
 what they would have been punished for doing in Ireland. 
 This state of affairs amounted to nothing less than a national 
 disgrace. All through the recent strikes the authorities have 
 manifested a mysterious tolerance towards picketing, intimi- 
 dation, and violence ; so that men who wished to work, and 
 who had an indefeasible legal right to be protected at their 
 work, were left to the mercy of their persecutors. The re- 
 peated complaints of Dock and railway directors and other 
 employers, that adequate protection was denied to those of 
 their men who wished to work, and their declarations that 
 this condition of affairs was an injustice and a scandal, were 
 both justifiable and reasonable. At one time the London 
 Docks were given up to the rioters, the Police Commissioner 
 declining to take any action in the matter. Compare with 
 this the state of things in Ireland. On September 17, 1889, 
 the very day after the Albert Docks were at the mercy of 
 rioters, the following incident occurred in Ireland. Five 
 persons were prosecuted at Blarney by the constabulary for 
 intimidation in connection with a contemplated strike at a 
 flax mill. These persons had threatened thirty workmen, 
 and caused them to leave the factory, business being stopped. 
 They had a grievance too, for they got only 12s. per week, 
 and skilled foremen were brought from Belfast. The magis- 
 trates expressed their determination to put down such con- 
 duct, and fined the ringleader £"20, or three months' imprison- 
 ment, and three others £1^, or two months. Mr. Munro, the 
 (happily the late) Chief Commissioner of Police, in London, 
 appeared to be more anxious to gain the favour of the lower 
 elements of the populace during the Dock Strike than to put 
 down lawlessness and protect quiet citizens; while even the 
 Home Secretary, it must be repeated, shut his eyes verj^ hard 
 to what was going on, possibly because he did not wish to 
 lose the Government any votes. It has been remarked in a 
 previous sentence in this chapter that Mr. Balfour at the
 
 Boycotting and Picketing. 45 
 
 Home Office and Sir Charles Warren at Scotland Yard 
 would have been worth millions to the commercial interests 
 of the country. There is some reason, however, to fear that 
 even Mr. Balfour looks with greater favour upon intimidation 
 and boycotting in England than he does upon the same 
 practices in Ireland. This may have been excusable at 
 the outset, for neither Mr. Balfour nor any one else was quite 
 able to realise while the Dock Strike was proceeding that it 
 threatened serious injury to the security of property and to 
 the liberty of the subject. If the mischief had grown to 
 anything like the same proportions in Great Britain that it 
 had reached in Ireland, and Mr. Balfour had been called 
 upon to put it down, there is no doubt that he would have 
 acted with as much determination and vigour in the one case 
 as he did in the other. From some remarks which Mr. 
 Balfour made in Parliament on the 8th of July, iSgo, it is, 
 however, clear that even his notions with regard to intimida- 
 tion and outrage in England require a little stiffening. These 
 observations were made in reply to a speech of Mr. Dillon, 
 and it may be well to give the remarks of both speakers. 
 Mr. Dillon said : 
 
 " What had the vigilance men to do ? They went to 
 fairs for the purpose of pointing out the stock of boycotted 
 persons, such as Mr. Smith-Barry or the members of the 
 Property Defence Association. The vigilance men were 
 exactly analogous in their operation to the pickets of English 
 trade unions. When the dockers struck they had 4,000 
 men around the Docks to prevent the blacklegs from 
 entering, and the Dock owners denounced their conduct, and 
 used precisely the same arguments as the Irish landlords 
 used now. But what was the action of the Home Secretary? 
 He made the police allow the system, and the police by-and- 
 by fraternized with the pickets. If the people in Ireland 
 attempted to do what the dockers had done in London, and 
 the gas-stokers had done in Leeds, they would have been 
 cut to pieces or ridden down by the cavalry. Let the people 
 be left without those strong combinations, bound by rule? 
 
 F
 
 46 The Common Law Against Boycotting. 
 
 which were enforced under severe penalties, and what 
 liberty was given them ? The liberty of starvation. The 
 working people of this country were beginning to see that 
 their brothers in Ireland by boycotting were doing nothing 
 more than following m the footsteps of the Trade Unions. But 
 the system of shadowing was carried on not because it was 
 practised by the people in Ireland, but because the right 
 hon. gentleman thought that in it he had discovered a new 
 instrument of torture for his political opponents." 
 Mr. Balfour replied : 
 
 " The hon. member for East Mayo attempted to demolish 
 
 the case I made yesterday with regard to boycotting at fairs 
 
 by telling us that the policy which he recommends in Ireland 
 
 in no sense differs from the policy which the Trade Unions 
 
 have legally adopted in England. I traverse that statement 
 
 absolutely. Pickets in England— at the Dock Strike for 
 
 example — are not allowed to intimidate those that are coming 
 
 in to work, and if they do they break the law. If they inflict 
 
 any suffering, if they threaten or coerce men who desire 
 
 to obtain occupation, they are subject to legal penalties. Now, 
 
 I want to know what parallel there is between the procedure 
 
 of those pickets who cannot threaten, who cannot coerce, 
 
 and who cannot use violence, and the procedure of those 
 
 shadowers at fairs who ruin their victims, and whose object 
 
 is to ruin their victims. There is no parallel. The version 
 
 of the English law which the hon. gentleman has given is 
 
 erroneous as regards shadowers at fairs. Because we have 
 
 had in England a legal case absolutely on all fours with 
 
 these cases in Ireland. We have had a case of shadowing 
 
 at fairs and of boycotting at fairs at Sal ford. It was tried 
 
 before an English judge and an English jury. There was no 
 
 hesitation as to the law laid down by the judge, there was no 
 
 hesitation as to the verdict given by the jury, and judge 
 
 and jury alike agreed that the law — not the coercion law, but 
 
 the common law — was in England and Ireland alike violated 
 
 by these shadowers at fairs. Therefore, it is not open to the 
 
 hon. gentleman to pretend that in denouncing his sub-
 
 Irvational Sympathy. 47 
 
 ordinates as criminals in this matter we are in any way rely- 
 ing upon exceptional Irish legislation, or that we are not 
 •simply vindicating the law common to both countries." 
 
 In spite of what Mr. Balfour says, however, it will be diffi- 
 cult to convince impartial men who have acquainted them- 
 selves with all the facts that the law has dealt as rigorously 
 as it ought to have done, or even as rigorously as it has done 
 in Ireland, with offences which are precisely similar in their 
 nature and purpose. There is point in what the Pall Mall 
 ^Gazeite said on October 4, i88g : " If the strike leaders had 
 been Irish peasants instead of London dockers they would 
 have been laid by the heels long ago ; and as for the insulting 
 •effigies of Mr. Norwood himself, why, if an Irish landlord 
 had been similarly treated under his very nose half of the 
 village would have been put in jail for it." To the same 
 ■effect the Star said on August 27, 1889 : " It isn't necessary, 
 however, to look to Ireland for instances of the same kind 
 of ' conspiracy.' What is going on in London under our 
 •eyes ? Are not the workers in every trade in the East-end 
 being advised and exhorted to combine for the support of the 
 ■dockmen against their employers ? What possible distinc- 
 tion can be drawn between what Messrs. O'Brien and 
 Gilhooly are now condemned for doing, and what Messrs. 
 Burns and Tillett (more power to them !) have been doing 
 •every day for a fortnight past ? Nay, more ; we very much 
 question whether, if only Mr. Matthews had a couple of 
 Removables at work in the East-end, Mr. Buxton, M.P., 
 •could not be packed off to Holloway Gaol for his address to 
 his constituents on Saturday." 
 
 The attitude of the general public towards the Dock Strike 
 may be described as one of irrational sympathy, almost of 
 blind infatuation. One effect of the pseudo-humanitarianism 
 of the age is that the public conscience (or rather the pubHc 
 emotions) is very sensitive to the sufferings of the poor, and 
 almost as sensitive to those which are spurious as 10 those 
 which are genuine. No doubt there is a good deal of un- 
 informed sentiment and of hysterical gush in these dramatic
 
 48 The Pampered East-end. 
 
 manifestations of sympathy ; yet, on the whole, they are 
 rather to be commended, perhaps, than condemned. The 
 pubhc, like women, never reason ; though, also like women, 
 they often hit the mark pretty well without going through 
 any logical process. Sometimes, however, they blunder very 
 badly, and they did so with regard to the Dock Strike. They 
 did not take the trouble to enquire into the facts, to ascer- 
 tain whether the demands of the men were just or not, or if 
 just whether they ought to be, or could be, granted imme- 
 diately or within a specified time. They simply rushed to 
 the conclusion that the Dock Directors were a set of hard- 
 hearted, close-fisted, and selfish monsters, and they took nO' 
 heed whatever of the 5,000 or so of Dock Shareholders, many 
 of them widows and orphans, whose interests are quite as 
 sacred, perhaps, owing to their helplessness, a little more 
 sacred than even those of the dock labourers. That the 
 latter had been down-trodden, oppressed, and treated with 
 brutal injustice ; that they were patterns of forbearance and 
 long-suftering for not having risen in their might and 
 destroyed the Docks and warehouses ; and that they had at 
 last struck because their oppression was too intolerable tO' 
 be longer borne — all these assumptions the public accepted 
 in blind confidence without once taking the trouble to look 
 into the actual facts. If the Dock Strike had occurred any- 
 where but in London, or anywhere even in London except 
 in the East-end, it would have attracted very little notice^ 
 and still less support. But the East-end of London has. 
 been advertised and exploited to such an extent of late years 
 that it has become the spoilt child of philanthropy. As a 
 matter of fact there are other districts in London which are 
 quite as destitute as, and much more dirty and squalid than, 
 the East-end, and yet it is almost impossible to excite any 
 sympathy on their behalf. The facts which were brought to 
 light by the evidence given before the Sweating Commission 
 have tended to make this sensitiveness as regards the East- 
 end even more acute than it was before. It may be doubted^ 
 indeed, whether the publication of these facts has not^jdone
 
 Uneasiness Created by Commissions. 49 
 
 more harm than good ; for while the condition of the sweated 
 work-people has not been appreciably ameliorated a feeling 
 of uneasiness has been created in the public mind. Com- 
 missions of this sort had better never be held at all unless 
 the Government is prepared to at once supply a remedy for 
 any evils which may be brought to light by their investiga- 
 tions. The facts which have already been stated with regard 
 to the actual condition of the Dock labourers in London 
 before the strike show that as a matter of fact these labourers 
 were in a much better position than most other unskilled 
 labourers in the country. Yet the public heedlessly sub- 
 scribed money in order to support men, all of whom were 
 receiving more than the market rate of wages for their 
 labour, and some of whom were earning between £2 and £"3 
 per week. 
 
 The action of the Australians in supporting the strike has 
 already been referred to, and to what has been said upon 
 that point it is not necessary to add much more. The 
 colonial public, however, displayed more amazing folly than 
 even the British public. In the nature of the case the 
 Australians could know but little about the real merits of 
 the dispute ; yet they rashly subscribed thousands, and even 
 tens of thousands, of pounds in support of the strikers. We 
 now know that the bulk of this money was subscribed by 
 Australian capitalists, whose sympathies, had they been fully 
 acquainted with the facts, would have been on the side of 
 the Dock Directors as against the Dock labourers, and this 
 portion of the Australian funds was subscribed purely for the 
 relief of distress. As for that comparatively insignificant 
 part of the money which was subscribed by " Labour" in 
 Australia, it was subscribed rather from selfish than from 
 philanthropic motives, the object of the donors being to 
 prevent British labour from flowing into their markets and 
 so depressing their wages. It is possible, indeed, that some 
 of the contributions of Australian workmen may have been 
 purely benevolent, as a certain proportion of these workmen 
 might have relatives in the East-end of London ; but in the
 
 50 Selfishness Masquerading as BvotherJiood. 
 
 main they were of a very different character, and were sent 
 by men whose one purpose was to keep the Australian 
 labour market to themselves. Probably they will have de- 
 feated their own purpose after all ; for through this strike an 
 immense number of labourers in East London have been 
 thrown out of work, and some of these may find their way 
 to Sydney or Melbourne, Adelaide or Brisbane.* Possibly 
 the strikers in this country and their friends abroad may 
 both have been justified in acting as they did from self- 
 interest, but at least their conduct should be described in 
 truthful terms, and not exalted and glorified as the highest 
 expression of altruism. We have been treated of late to a 
 good deal of swollen talk with regard to the new spirit of 
 brotherhood which has arisen among working men ; but 
 when stripped of its drapery this so-called spirit of brother- 
 hood is seen to be nothing more nor less than the rankest 
 form of selfishness. The various classes of labourers who 
 supported the dockers did so because they saw that the 
 strike would dislocate, even if it did not paralyse, the trade 
 of London, and put the public to serious inconvenience; and 
 because they further saw that if this inconvenience could be 
 carried to sufficient length, pressure would be brought to 
 bear upon the Dock Directors to compel them to concede all 
 the demands of the men, and victory to the Dock labourers 
 would mean victory also to those who had backed them up. 
 Working men generally, both Australian and British, sup- 
 ported the Dock Strike, not out of love for the dockers, but 
 because they saw that the strike could be made to serve their 
 own ends. This was seen more clearly, perhaps, in the case 
 of the stevedores than in the case of any other class of work- 
 men. The stevedores professed to strike out of pure 
 sympathy with the Dock labourers, and their unselfishness 
 in taking this action was extolled to the skies ; they were 
 said to be heroes, splendid examples of self-sacrifice, perfect 
 
 *It is significant that in less than two years after the Dock Strike these 
 Australasian cities had their demonstrations and processions of "unemployed,"' 
 who made frantic appeals to the Government for public relief works, etc.
 
 ^^ Learned from Ireland.'' 51 
 
 prodigies of magnanimity ; and yet it ultimately turned out 
 that the stevedores were really working for their own selfish 
 ends all the way through the piece. The action of the strikers 
 themselves, of the various classes of riverside workmen who 
 sup{)ortcd them, and of the Trades Unionists who subsidised 
 them, was a piece of unmitigated selfishness from beginning 
 to end. And yet the action of all these men was represented 
 by their partisans as a manifestation of generosity such as 
 iiad scarcely ever been paralleled in human history. The 
 religious, the almost ultra-Christian, tone adopted by the 
 strike leaders and their coadjutors was a manifestation 
 either of downright hypocrisy or of purblind fanaticism ; 
 perhaps there was an admixture of both. However this may 
 be, the canting terms in which the strike was spoken of by 
 its originators and defenders was one of its most ridiculous 
 aspects. Mr. W. A. McArthur, M.P., informed a meeting 
 of Nonconformist ministers that — " Thanks to the efforts of 
 Cardinal Manning and Mr. John Burns, they had made, of 
 what the swell clubs at the West-end were apt to describe 
 as the dregs of the East-end of London, a nation of loving, 
 hoping, confident men." The Pall Mall Gazette drew an 
 elaborate parallel between the strike and the revival of 
 religion, the central figure of the revival being John Burns. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in the course of a speech at Hawarden, 
 made much of the fact that the various trades of the country, 
 by supporting the Dock labourers, had shown that working 
 men everywhere intended to make common cause, and he 
 intimated that this fact had invested the Dock Strike with 
 " a social character that may be full of consequence in the 
 future," and he characterised this social fact as being of the 
 very highest importance. He then added these significant 
 words: "I believe that the lesson has been learned from 
 Ireland, and that it is due to the present Government and 
 to its coercive laws in Ireland, and to the necessity which 
 they have laid upon the people of Ireland in different parts 
 of the country which have no connection with one another 
 to associate together for an object which they believe to be
 
 52 Clerical Wiseacres. 
 
 vital to all. I am much inclined to think that the i:-orking 
 men of London have learned this lesson from Ireland." This 
 is true in another sense than that intended by Mr. Gladstone, 
 as has already been clearly shown. The Dock Strike was 
 nothing more nor less than another manifestation of the evil 
 genius of Parnellism. 
 
 One of the most remarkable features of the strike was the in- 
 tervention of a section of the clergy, at the head of whom were 
 the Bishop of London and Cardinal Manning. What in the 
 name of common-sense had these reverend gentlemen to do 
 with the Dock Strike ? What qualifications had they to 
 intermeddle in the matter at all ? Had they the qualifi- 
 cation of knowledge ? Did they understand the matter ? 
 Decidedly not. Yet they undertook to manage the business 
 of the Dock Directors for them. What would Cardinal 
 Manning have said if the Chairman of the Docks had gone 
 to the Archbishop's house in Westminster and undertaken 
 to stir up discontent among the priests, and set them 
 against their Bishops, and point out how the Archbishop's 
 management of ecclesiastical affairs might be improved? 
 How would Cardinal Manning have liked that ? But such 
 a course would be quite as reasonable and as justifiable as 
 the part he took in connection with this strike. His motives 
 may have been of the loftiest character ; but his zeal was not 
 according to knowledge. The same may be said with regard 
 to the Bishop of London. This prelate would have been 
 far better employed in looking after some of his own erratic 
 clergy than in trying to manage the business of the Dock 
 Directors. One of his own Canons at St. Paul's, Canon 
 Scott-Holland, stood sorely in need of a little wholesome 
 episcopal counsel and discipline. This gentleman wrote to 
 the Times denouncing the men who chose to work rather 
 than loaf about the docks during the strike. He said : " Such 
 men {i.e., industrious and independent men) are the despair 
 of British industry. They are the Esaus who sell their 
 birthright for a mess of pottage. They save themselves from 
 starvation to-day at the cost of keeping themselves and their
 
 More Lessons from Ireland. 53 
 
 fellows on the very edge of starvation for ever. The men 
 who would go in for 3d. an hour must be those with least 
 foresight, least intelligence, least self-respect, least sense of 
 corporate responsibility. Their very existence is a proof of 
 the necessity of a vigorous external pressure which will 
 sustain them at the level of their true manhood." 
 
 When an Anglican parson does get infected with Radical- 
 Socialism he takes it badly. All the facts go to show that 
 the men who were at work during the strike were far more 
 richly endowed with the attributes of real manhood than 
 are the ruck and run of dock labourers. The Canon says 
 again : " Let us make it clear that our moral judgment goes 
 wholly against them {i.e., against those who were at work), 
 and goes with those who look around and ahead, and under- 
 stand their social responsibilities, and are loyal to the 
 brotherhood of Labour and to the law of sacrifice for others' 
 good, and are learning to trust one another ; who refuse to 
 cut the ground from under the feet of their fellows, and v/ill 
 not act alone, without reference to the trade society with 
 whose fortunes they are willing to stand or fall." 
 
 This, one may remark in passing, is just how Romish 
 priests talk in Ireland against " land grabbers," and as the 
 result of their so talking the " landgrabber " is boycotted, 
 or maimed, or murdered. Possibly one result of Canon 
 Scott-Holland's foolish utterances may be found in the fact 
 that the Dock labourers, after they got to work, in deliberate 
 violation of a solemn compact, maltreated the non-unionist 
 men, who by this clerical Socialist are said to be " the 
 despair of British industry, the Esaus who sell their birth- 
 right for a mess of pottage, and who keep their fellows on 
 the very verge of starvation for ever." 
 
 Another City clergyman named Allen, curate of St. 
 Nicholas Cole Abbey, wrote thus: " Are not the public expec- 
 ting too much from the strikers in demanding that they shall 
 manifest no display of ill-feeling towards the blacklegs? . . . 
 The employers fought for their asserted right to treat 
 the men unrighteously ; the blacklegs, as they truly say,
 
 54 Truth Sacrificed to Popularity . 
 
 came to their assistance, and but for these traitors to the 
 righteous cause of their class, the strike must have ter- 
 minated much sooner. Think, then, of the day of suffering 
 which these blacklegs, by their action, have inflicted upon 
 the strikers, and say is it not too much to expect that an 
 ignorant and rough class of men, who have undoubtedly 
 been cruelly harmed by these blacklegs, should be willing at 
 once to forget all that and work on equal terms with them ? 
 It would be a fine and splendid piece of self-restraint were 
 they actually to do so. But I for one, much as I wish they 
 would rise to it, would, in view of all the facts of the case,, 
 not be very much surprised that they did not." 
 
 Surely the Bishop of London would have been much better 
 employed m looking after these wild parsons, and confining 
 them to their own legitimate work, than he was in seeking 
 to teach the Dock Directors their business. About the same 
 time the Bishop of Chichester was seriously taking to task 
 a Brighton clergyman, who had listened to some remarks 
 from a lecturer derogatory to the honour of the Virgin Mary 
 without protesting against them. But such letters as those 
 just quoted did far more practical mischief than an obscure 
 lecturer's foolish remarks about the Virgin Mary. Neverthe- 
 less, the Bishop of London did not think it worth his while 
 to issue any admonition to those of his clergy who were 
 disseminating dangerous and poisonous Socialistic teachings. 
 
 As for the Free Church ministers (so-called), their action 
 was, if it be possible, even more ridiculous and mischievous 
 than that of the clergy. All too obviously it was dictated 
 by a desire to curry favour with the populace rather than 
 by a pure zeal for the truth of the Gospel. Proof of this- 
 abounds in every speech they delivered at this juncture. 
 They permitted themselves to be goaded into action by the 
 taunts and threats of two or three newspapers which sup- 
 ported the strike, and by the conceit ol certain Nonconfor- 
 mist ministers who have persuaded themselves that no public 
 question can be settled without their aid. In all that these 
 gentlemen said upon the strike they assumed that the
 
 ^^ Heroic Conduct.'' 55 
 
 labourers were wholly in the right and the directors wholly 
 in the wrong, a fact which in itself showed that they were 
 quite incapable of treating the subject in a fair and judicial 
 spirit. The Rev. C. H. Kelly, who was then President of 
 the Wesleyan Conference, speaking at a meeting at St. 
 George's Wesleyan Mission, Cable-street, E., "assured the 
 strikers of the sympathy of the tens of thousands of 
 Methodists all over the land," which was a most unau- 
 thorized and unwarrantable statement. When reduced to 
 its proper dimensions it amounted to nothing more nor less 
 than Mr. C. H. Kelly's personal opinion. At a meeting of 
 pastors and officers of Nonconformist churches held at the 
 Memorial Hall on September 9, 1889, Dr. Clifford, eloquent 
 as he is, seemed to be scarcely able to find language which 
 could adequately express the admiration which swelled in 
 his bosom for the strikers. He said : " The men deserved 
 more real and extended sympathy even than they had ob- 
 tained. Tlic heroic conduct of the strikers deserved cordial 
 recognition, and philanthropists who had watched them had 
 been constrained to entertain hopes for their advancement 
 which had never been held out before. The spirit v.hich 
 had animated the dockers throughout the strike was ad- 
 mirable, and was due in great measure to the conduct of 
 the leaders — Burns and Tillett." The Rev. J. M'Neill dog- 
 matically asserted that " the concession should be made at 
 once. It appeared at first sight to be a pity that the cause 
 of the dockers was headed by something that was without 
 godliness, but John Burns did not seem to be far from the 
 Kingdom of Heaven, and he was not sure that the Dock 
 Directors would get in." This meeting adopted the follow- 
 ing resolution: "That this meeting of the pastors and 
 officers of the Free Churches of London requests repre- 
 sentatives of all denominations present to wait upon the 
 Dock Directors and the Lord Mayor at once, and represent 
 to them that we are convinced that it is of the utmost 
 urgency that the claims of the men as expressed in their 
 latest proposition of 6d. an hour at once, or on the first of
 
 56 " The Service of the Poor.'^ 
 
 October,/;^ instantly conceded, diVid so end this painful struggle." 
 This is deliciously impudent. 
 
 At a subsequent meeting in the City Temple on Sept. 
 13, where the same speakers appeared (with the same 
 speeches), this resolution was adopted : " That this meeting 
 expresses its heart}^ sympathy with the cause of the Dock 
 labourers, rejoices in the moderation, self-control, and 
 patience which have characterized their efforts to obtain a 
 just wage, and records its satisfaction that the long continued 
 strike appears to be reaching its termination on a fair and 
 just basis." A sensible amendment could find only two sup- 
 porters. Its terms were as follows : " That by their refusal 
 to act in a conciliatory spirit towards the London and India 
 Docks Joint Committee in the face of the concessions 
 granted by the latter ; by their Manifesto of the 30th of 
 August calling upon all trades to strike, though afterwards 
 revoked ; and by the intimidation largely carried on, thereby 
 preventing men who wished to work from earning their 
 living, the strikers have forfeited their right to public 
 sympathy." 
 
 The Rev. H. Price Hughes, one of the orators at this 
 meeting, proposed the above resolution, and among the 
 gems of his speech were these : " The Dock Directors had 
 not a leg to stand upon, except the blackleg. . . . The only real 
 difficulty in the way of a solution was that peculiar quality 
 which American theologians called cussedness. As to 
 intimidation, had there been none on the other side?" 
 Then Mr. Hughes threw some light upon the real motives of 
 the promoters of the meeting in the following words ; 
 " Nonconformists had been caught napping. As a Protestant 
 and Nonconformist inheriting the noblest traditions of 
 freedom and progress, he was ashamed that they had allowed 
 a Cardinal of the Church of Rome to be before them in the 
 service of the poor. It was of urgent importance that they 
 should resolve that night to form a permanent Social Com- 
 mittee who might be ready to intervene in the service of 
 future peace and good-will. The churches must undertake
 
 The ''Majority'' Argument:' 57 
 
 the social as well as the spiritual salvation of the people.'" 
 Dr. Parker, in seconding the resolution, said : " He did not 
 support a strike simply because it was a strike, but when a 
 strike was founded upon moral reasons and could be upheld 
 by honest workmen, and when it was sustained so largely 
 by the Christian sentiment of the nation, he could not but 
 feel that there was something more in it than a merely 
 violent attempt to unsettle the usual course of things. He 
 believed he was right in saying that the majority of the 
 Christian sentmient of the nation was on the side of the 
 working men. The meeting was called by Nonconformists, 
 and they would have been untrue to every tradition which 
 had given them uniqueness and invested them with Divine 
 influence if they had not allowed that place to be used for 
 the purpose to which it was being devoted." The Rev. J. 
 M'Neill, another of the speakers at this meeting, almost 
 surpassed even himself in coarseness and vulgarity. Here 
 is one choice extract from his speech : " Some of the news- 
 papers who were so loud in their condemnation of 
 picketing were not so eager a short time ago to speak out 
 against a more polished form of blackguardism — he referred 
 not to picketing but to Piggoting. As regards the whole 
 Socialistic bogey, the wealthy classes had to fear not 
 Socialism, but Christianity." The Nonconformist ministers, 
 seem to be doing their best to estrange employers of labour 
 and capitalists from their churches. Should they succeed in 
 doing this, as seems very likely, they will simply cut the 
 ground from under their own feet, and they will find that the 
 support of the " masses " — whose tastes do not lie exactly in 
 the direction of religion, for only two per cent, of working- 
 men in London attend church or chapel — is a very poor 
 substitute for the generosity and the exertions of the well-to- 
 do classes who have made their churches what they are. 
 
 Would such men as those who figured at the Memorial 
 Hall and the City Temple, if they were engaging a domestic 
 servant, pay her a third above the market rate of wages out 
 of pure charity? Not they. Still less would they display
 
 58 Preaching v. Practice. 
 
 any such generosity towards a secretary or amanuensis. 
 They would be much more likely to grind the poor fellow 
 •down to a full Ihird below the market rate. Certainly they 
 -would think the wages of a first class Dock labourer much 
 too high for him. These men would, if they wished to pur- 
 chase a new book, after moving their resolutions against 
 flinty-hearted Dock Directors, go straightway to the shop of 
 a discount bookseller, much more solicitous about obtaining 
 threepence in the shilling discount than about fairly remun- 
 erating the author. If they are so anxious to see labour 
 well paid, why do they not pay the full price for their books, 
 and thus do their duty bv the men who write them ? All 
 the fine oratory of these gentlemen is simply so much balder- 
 dash, unless they are prepared to carry out their principles 
 all round, and tax themselves in order to put an end to the 
 •existing cheapness of commodities, which is the real reason 
 why labour is not better paid. But if the under-paid labourer 
 'has to wait for an improvement in his position until these 
 gentlemen are willing to act in this way he will have to wait 
 till Doomsday.* 
 
 The personal aspects of the strike, while they are of 
 •course much more interesting than its impersonal aspects, 
 are also m some respects even more important. John Burns 
 was, in American parlance, '' Boss of the show," and he 
 Jcnew it. Members of Parliament, leading newspapers,, and 
 
 *The writer may here state that he acted for twelve months as the managing 
 editor of a weekly paper which was largely owned by one of the Rev. denouncers 
 of the Dock Directors. He is bound to say that the Doctor never manifested any 
 undue eagerness to pay him above the market rate of wages. He was expected 
 to manage the business of, and do most of the literary work for, the journal ; to 
 spend ten hours a day in the City, as well as his spare hours after he got home, on 
 the work of the paper ; and to do all this for less than 503. per week. On the 
 night that the paper went to press he had to wait to see the first copies printed, 
 iven though it might be midnight, or two o'clock in the morning, and then had to 
 lake a copy to the Doctor's house in order that he might see it an hour earlier the 
 next morning than he would have seen it had it gone by post. When he en- 
 deavoured to increase his income by writing for other journals he was given to 
 understand that his action in so doing was not approved of, the result being that 
 he resigned his position. These remarks are made out of no want of respect for 
 the Rev. Doctor, but merely to show that men must not be judged by their 
 orations at public meetings but rather by their conduct in the concerns of every- 
 day life.
 
 A Labour Boss. 59 
 
 Christian ministers all combined to write up and talk up 
 Boss Burns. Undoubtedly Burns is (or was) a bojia fide 
 workman ; but his ideas on economical and social questions 
 are so crude and erroneous as to make him a veritable danger 
 to society. It is not very long since he was reported to be 
 preaching the doctrine of" Bread or Lead," and distinguished 
 himself in a very inglorious fashion in connection with the 
 "' unemployed " agitations and demonstrations in Trafalgar 
 Square, for which he was sent to prison ; and although he 
 'has since become a County Councillor, and is therefore, a 
 little more diplomatic, he has retracted none of his dangerous 
 anti-social notions. Even during this strike he showed his 
 hand quite clearly enough to open the eyes of all people who 
 are not selfishly blind. In the first place he issued the ** No 
 Work" manifesto; in the second place he threatened to 
 stir up strikes in Glasgow, Southampton and numerous 
 •other ports ; and in the third place he shuffled, to say the 
 least of it, in a very discreditable manner with regard to the 
 agreement which was arrived at through the mediation of 
 the Lord Mayor and Cardinal Manning. According to these 
 ■eminent personages, Burns promised to recommend the 
 •compromise to the Strike Committee, but when he got 
 before the labourers he virtually repudiated the agreement 
 and spoke in quite another strain. No doubt there was a 
 great deal of bounce and brag in what Burns said, as he 
 could not do one thousandth part of what he declared he 
 would do ; nevertheless, he had quite sufficient influence with 
 the Dock labourers to do a great deal of mischief He spoke 
 of certain labour representatives in Parliament as " Miserable 
 -cowardly frauds, miserable dirty humbugs, who, lifted into 
 position by the votes of you men, loaf about the smoking 
 room and the Lobby of the House of Commons instead of 
 showing their constituents the way to decency and comfort 
 by hard work at the Dock gates in the morning. They are 
 too contemptible for comment ; too ridiculous and insignifi- 
 cant for losing your temper." But Burns himself would not 
 object to have the chance of loafing about the smoking room
 
 6o Agitator-in-Chief. 
 
 and lobby of the House ; indeed, there is good reason to 
 believe that a seat in the House of Commons is what he has- 
 been aiming at all along. The remarks quoted with reference 
 to certain labour M.P.'s., afford a good specimen of Burns' 
 elegant and refined style of speech ; but the way in which he 
 spoke of Mr.Norwood, chairman of the Dock Committee, andi 
 his fellow Directors was even more vulgar and brutal. 
 Indeed, his tone in reference to anybody who opposed the 
 strike was insolent and hectoring to the last degree. He 
 cadged for support with the most unblushing impudence, 
 saying : " We don't care for sympathy, give us the 
 dollars." His whole conduct of the strike was of such a 
 character as to show clearly enough that he was nothing 
 more than a blatant agitator, who was exploiting the griev- 
 ances of his fellow workmen, and even those workmen them- 
 selves, for ulterior purposes. Yet the Press, or at any rate a 
 very important section of it, wrote of Mr. Burns as if he were 
 the Heaven-born leader and saviour of the down-trodden 
 masses. The Star said on Sep. 14, i88g : " In John Burns, 
 the typical figure of the strike, the prophet and law-giver of 
 the democratic Israel in its march through the wilderness,, 
 we rejoice to think that labour has found a worthy leader. 
 .... It is a solemn business for John to be thus anointed 
 leader of the democratic hosts in the marchings and battles 
 and tribulations that are to come." 
 
 From being an honest and industrious workman Burns 
 has degenerated into an Agitator-General. By profession an 
 engineer, he doubtless knows something about the engineer- 
 ing trade and those who follow it, and if he had confined 
 himself to that trade he might have been listened to with 
 respect. But he has undertaken during the last two or three 
 years to represent Dock labourers, bakers, cabmen, omnibus 
 and tramway men, gas-stokers, washer-women, railway-men,, 
 miners, and sundry other trades and occupations, and to 
 instruct the public with regard to them all. If Burns were 
 ten times as clever as he is he would be unequal to such a 
 task as this. His object, however, is patent enough ; the be-
 
 The Deriocracy and its Idols. 6i 
 
 all and the end-all of his existence is to set workmen against 
 their masters, the poor against the rich, the quiet and law- 
 abiding against properly constituted authority. In short, he 
 is, to again cjuote his own description of himself, " an apostle 
 of discontent." It is not a very exalted calling, and the only 
 qualifications which are essential to it are a stentorian voice, 
 an iron constitution, proficiency in the noble art of self- 
 defence, a mental incapacity to see anything good or reason- 
 able on the side of capitalists or employers, and an inverted 
 moral sense which calls good evil and evil good. Burns is, 
 however, a teetotaler, and this, in the eyes of thousands who 
 applauded and supported him during the strike, covers a 
 multitude of sins. Because he was a teetotaller hundreds 
 of people rushed to assist him in his work of industrial 
 anarchy. Such is the logic by which some men who are on 
 the whole reputable and fairly intelligent allow themselves 
 to be governed. Burns could do, and probably actually did, 
 more mischief to society during the one month of the Dock 
 Strike than a quietly disposed man would do if he got drunk 
 every day of his life. 
 
 Although Burns was bespattered with flattery of the most 
 fulsome character during the Dock Strike, it was announced 
 shortly afterwards that he was going back to the bench as a 
 working engineer, because £2 per week could not be guaran- 
 teed him as a bare subsistence wage. The Star said on this 
 subject : " Really we don't understand the democracy. John 
 Burns has helped to get the workers here and in the country 
 some hunilreds of thousands of pounds in extra wage, and 
 they grudge him a pittance of 40s. a week to help him advo- 
 cate their claims in the London Parliament." This journal 
 calculated that the working classes had gained through the 
 New Unionism something like ^450,000 in increased wages, 
 as well as considerable reductions in hours in many trades, 
 and declared that Burns had borne a large share in obtain- 
 ing for them those boons. Mr. Sydney Webb made an 
 appeal through the Press for ;^200, which would carry Burns 
 through the remainder of his County Council term. He 
 
 G
 
 62 How Socialists Love One Another. 
 
 stated that " when Mr. Burns left his trade to enter the 
 London County Council he made it clear that he could only 
 continue this work if his sustenance was secured to him by 
 public subscription. Since that time he has drawn from 
 those funds the sum of £2 per week, and £1 per week for 
 casual expenses." Yet, although so much difficulty was 
 experienced in raising sufficient contributions to pay Burns' 
 salary, it was stated that he had received a large number of 
 offers to defray the expenses of a holiday at the close of the 
 Dock Strike, and that certain of his admirers, among them 
 being Mr. Frederick Harrison, had placed their houses at his 
 disposal. There was some talk of raising a sum of ;^3,500 
 for the purpose of purchasing an annuity of /"200 a year for 
 Mr. Burns, but apparently nothing came of it.* 
 
 Mr. H. H. Champion is undoubtedly the most able, as he 
 is also the most gentlemanly, of the strike leaders. During 
 the Dock Strike, however, he decidedly had to play second 
 fiddle to Burns. As a matter of fact, he was too cultured to 
 acquire much influence over the Dock labourers. A Socialist 
 of an advanced type, and a sincere and capable man, he is, 
 nevertheless, distrusted by such brother Socialists as Mr. 
 Hyndman, Dr. Aveling, and John Burns, with whom he 
 worked in former days. He left the Social Democratic 
 Federation some years ago, and it would almost seem that 
 he has now given up the rule of labour agitator altogether. 
 Certainly but little has been heard of him or from him of 
 late, and that little has been mainly on the Australian Strike, 
 in regard to which he placed himself in opposition to the 
 more extreme demands of the men, and on some matters 
 constituted himself virtually the champion of the employers. 
 Mr. Champion is not, in the ordinary sense of the term, a 
 
 *Mr. W. Sanders, secretary of the "John Burns' Wages Fund Committee.' 
 writing in the .S.'ar of March 31st, 1892, said that the only Trade Union which 
 had given them regular support was that of the Dockers, which had contributed 
 ,^1 per week. The letter said that permanent subscriptions had "for the most part 
 been conspicuous by their absence, and, as a necessary result, the funds at the 
 disposal of the committee have shown a constant shrinkage, the outgoings from 
 month to month having always exceeded the incomings, we are, therefore, again 
 obliged to make an urgent appeal for support."
 
 The Labour Party. 63 
 
 workinfj man. He and Mr. Cunninghame Graham, with 
 perhaps Mr. Keir Hardie thrown in, seem to constitute the 
 Labour Party, of which so much was heard a few years ago. 
 The Labour Party, therefore, did not as may have been sup- 
 posed consist of labourers, but rather of men who meant to 
 exploit Labour in order to serve their own purposes. Perhaps 
 the most singular feature of the party was that the two men 
 who virtually created it and ran it for a time are themselves 
 capitalists. When these men are ready to give up keeping 
 an account at their bankers, to distribute their money among 
 the labourers, and work with their own hands, then perhaps 
 people will believe in their sincerity and earnestness. 
 Perhaps it is safe to say that we have heard almost the last 
 of Mr. Champion as a Socialist and a Labour agitator. 
 
 Next to John Burns, Ben Tillett was the most prominent 
 and most popular of the Strike leaders. Tillett is in many 
 ways a remarkable man. After a very hard and chequered 
 career as a youth, he settled down to riverside work in 
 London, and he has been one of the most active agents in 
 promoting the new labourers' unions, such as the Gas- 
 Workers' Union, and the Dockers' Union, of which we have 
 heard so much of late. It was Tillett who sent the Ulti- 
 matum to the Dock companies, and informed them that if they 
 did not concede the demands of the men within a few hours 
 there would be a strike. He is a man of the Cassius type, 
 restless and ambitious, and possessed of the temperament of 
 the enthusiast. He is not unintelligent, and he is a speaker 
 of that common-place and emotional type which is both 
 popular with and dangerous among unskilled labourers. 
 Tillett had more to do with originating the Dock Strike than 
 perhaps any other man. He was one of the witnesses before 
 the Sweating Commission, and the evidence which he then 
 gave with reference to the condition and the requirements of 
 the Dock labourers was the germ from which the Dock Strike 
 sprang. This is only another illustration of the evil which"is 
 done by allowing agitators to air their grievances before Com- 
 missions instead of confining them strictly to matters of fact.
 
 64 Frcachiii^' — and Practice. 
 
 Tillett plays with considerable success the role of a popular 
 preacher, and he frequently appears in certain Nonconformist 
 pulpits. He is said to have induced an audience of working- 
 men on one occasion to call for " Three cheers for Jesus 
 Christ." From so saintly a man one might naturally expect 
 obedience to the laws of Jesus Christ, which are that we 
 should love God with all our hearts and our neighbours as 
 ourselves, and should do unto others as we would they 
 should do unto us. Tillett's methods of carrying out these 
 precepts, however, are to spread discontent among working- 
 men, to mcite them against their employers, and to teach 
 them the sacred duty of boycotting any employer and intimi- 
 dating any workman who dares to defy the dictates of a 
 Trade Union. A record of Tillett's sayings and doings 
 during the Dock Strike forms a curious commentary upon 
 his high-flown sentiments from the pulpit. In an address 
 delivered at the Congregational Church, Approach Road, 
 Victoria Park, on a Sunday evening in August, 1891, Tillett 
 said that " according to his lights he had lived his life and 
 done his work in the spirit of Christ-like love. He might 
 have been wrong in what he had done or said, but the im- 
 pulse for it all had come from the Bible and from the 
 personality of Christ." Tillett is not the first man who has 
 been able to reconcile very crooked practices with very lofty 
 spiritual teachings. Tillett's preaching, like Burns's teeto- 
 talism, was a line advertisement for the strike, and un- 
 doubtedly it seduced many unthinking people into suf)porting 
 a movement which their judgment would have wholly con- 
 demned had they taken one hour's cool reflection upon it. 
 
 If a man can only talk loudly enough and often enough 
 and violently enough upon a platform in these times he will 
 :^oon come to be regarded as an authority upon the matters 
 he talks about. Popularity is nowadays the real road to 
 place and power. Because Tillett had addressed a number 
 of crude, undigested, and impracticable economical theories 
 to crowds of unskilled working-men, and because he had 
 become the vogue among workmen of this class, he was soon
 
 TilleWs " Wisdom:' 65 
 
 accepted by some even among the more intelligent classes 
 as a kind of heaven-sent teacher of social and economical 
 truth, and he was asked to read papers upon the relations of 
 Capital and Labour and similar subjects before religious 
 conferences. It is difficult to adequately express one's con- 
 tempt for the Christian ministers and laymen, who, by sitting 
 at the feet of Ben Tillett, confessed themselves to be in such 
 a state of abysmal ignorance upon the most vital and pressing 
 problems of the day. If they were more ignorant than 
 Tillett, which they presumably were, as they asked him to 
 go and instruct them, their state was pitiable indeed. Yet 
 not only Nonconformist assemblies, but even the Church 
 Congress also, asked this audacious young agitator to go 
 and enlighten their darkness. Before the International 
 Congregational Council, Tillett read a feeble, confused, and 
 incoherent paper upon the relations of Capital and Labour. 
 Here are some gems from this precious production : 
 
 " Nearly all social movements have originated from secular 
 influences." 
 
 " Commercial morality lacks all the attributes of morality 
 which Christ imposes — lacks even the ideal of those who 
 boast only a religion of goodness and mercy derived from a 
 human and not a Divine standpoint." 
 
 " Were our economic morality in keeping with our indus- 
 trial and political advancement, there could not possibly be 
 a sufferer through starvation in the land." 
 
 ** Every new piece of labour-saving machinery and inven- 
 tion, by which results were easily multiplied, has constituted 
 a deterrent to the labourer's advance, and means his conse- 
 quent ineffectiveness on account of the depreciated value of 
 human skill . . . Machinery and science have practically 
 been used for the personal benefit of a few, while the results 
 have de-humanized where they might have blessed the many.' 
 
 *' The insecurity and uncertainty among the poorer classes 
 increase with every million accumulated." 
 
 ** The lame excuses of the rich testify that they realise 
 their wickedness."
 
 65 Honour to Whom Honour is not Due. 
 
 " Let also the great ground landlords be called to account 
 and ground-rent* made to bear the c/n>/ responsibility in the 
 support of the State." 
 
 " Dives is a greater than kings. He absolutely commands 
 the body and lives of the people, and to his whim, his taste, 
 his greed, are sacrificed hundreds of thousands where only 
 hundreds were sacrificed to the barbarian kings." 
 
 " Human labour becomes daily of less value.'' 
 
 In the same paper there were references to *' money devils," 
 to "the vile mockery and farce of municipal and Parliamen- 
 tar}- elections," to the "industrial rack," and to "the Niagara 
 of industrial murder " ; while the churches were told that 
 their members ought " in every election, in every labour 
 trouble, in any conflict between Capital and Labour," to 
 " identify themselves with the cause of the people." All this 
 in the same paper which urged Christian men to "develop a 
 conscious, a Christly sanity in judgment !" t 
 
 None of the parties who came to the front during the 
 strike played a very creditable part. The position of the 
 
 * Not " rent," mark, but only "ground-rent." 
 
 f Since these words were written, Tillett has been elected an Alderman of the 
 London County Council. If this honour was not conferred upon him as a reward 
 for his exertions during the Dock Strike, the action of those who conferred it had 
 no apparent or adequate motive. Whether those exertions were of such a nature 
 as to deserve a reward of this kind, or any reward at all, the intelligent reader will 
 be able to judge from the facts set forth in this work. 
 
 If the majority of the London County Council had merely desired to give 
 recognition to the claims of " Labour," or to emphasize the fact that a man is to 
 be valued for what he is and not for what he has, there mij^ht not have been much 
 ground for complaint ; but in that case they would not have been careful to 
 bestow the highest honours in their gift upon SociaHsiic agitators and leaders of 
 the " New Unionism." Nobody would have quarrelled with their action, or 
 suspected their motives, if they had selected for Aldermanic honours two or three 
 /'atia fi-iie working-men of ability, discretion, and moderation. The fact that they 
 have chosen to confer such distinction upon blatant demagogues, of uninformed 
 n: ind and unbalanced judgment, u ho are chiefly notorious for their malignant 
 alcacKS upon Capitalists, is of itself a sufficient indication of the quality of their 
 motives. Reasonable men can have no confidence in a Council which can so 
 flagrantly misuse its powers. 
 
 We are Americanizing our institutions with a vengeance. Soon no Englishman 
 with a reputation to lose will care to sit in our representative assemblies ; the 
 country will be governed by professional politicians and caucus-mongers ; and 
 municipal and political life will become as corrupt and loathsome here as they are 
 in the United States.
 
 An Errini^ Lord Mayor, 67 
 
 men, the conduct of their leaders, and the attitude of the 
 general public have all been sufficiently described. It remains 
 now only to say a few words with reference to the action of 
 the mediators, the Press, and the police. 
 
 Of the mediators, Sir James Whitehead, the then Lord 
 Mayor, was the most conspicuous. It must be confessed 
 tliat he did not come well out of the business. Some people 
 even maintained that he was largely responsible for having 
 created the strike, inasmuch as he was said to have declared 
 at the annual meeting of the East London Church Fund, 
 held at the Mansion House on April 8, 1889, that "The only 
 remedy for the economic difficulties of East London is to be 
 found in a general strike, and if you, my lord" (turning to the 
 Bishop ot Bedford), "will organize it, you will have the 
 moral and monetar}' support of the Lord Mayor." Sir James 
 Whitehead denied the accuracy of this report ; but while 
 denying it he substantially admitted that he had used words 
 to a somewhat similar effect. A correspondent of the Morninf^ 
 Post, writing under date Sep. 9, 1889, declared that the 
 words above quoted were used by Sir James Whitehead 
 in the presence of the Bishop of Bedford, Canon Body, 
 Mr. Howard Vincent, M.P., and others, and if this cor- 
 respondent was in error, his statement was capable of being 
 easily disproved. At all events. Sir James Whitehead 
 admitted that his sympathies were all along with the men, 
 and he brought all his influence to bear upon the Dock 
 Directors in order to induce them to yield to the demands of 
 the strikers. By what authority did he do this? His position 
 as Lord Mayor certainly gave him no right to do it. If the 
 trade of London was being injured, it was bemg injured more 
 by the obstinacy of the men than by the persistency of the 
 Directors ; for before the Lord Mayor had intervened at all 
 the Directors had made most substantial concessions to the 
 labourers. Besides, what did the Lord Mayor know about 
 the business of the Dock Companies ? It was a matter in 
 which he had no more concern than any other citizen, 
 especially as he wished it to be understood that he acted
 
 68 The Philanthropic Arbitrator. 
 
 only in his capacity as a private citizen, and his use of a 
 position which had been ^Wen to him by the whole body of 
 citizens merely in the interests of one class of the community 
 was an illegitimate use of his influence. Sir James White- 
 head is, it is understood, a director of Pawson & Co., Limited, 
 and he is also believed to be interested in Harrod's Stores 
 in Kensington. In relation to the latter establishment there 
 have been loud complaints (chiefly in the Star) as to the 
 employes being overworked and under paid ; whilst at the 
 present time an attempt is being made to stir up agitation 
 in such City vvarehouses as Pawson & Co.'s. Now, supposing 
 the workmen in both these establishments were to strike for 
 more wages while they were being paid as well as the 
 employes of other similar establishments, and that Sir James 
 Whitehead and his fellow directors because they declined to 
 grant these demands were abused and vilified in the most 
 scurrilous terms ; and suppose, further, that the public sym- 
 pathy were to be given to the workmen, and that all attempts 
 to fill their places were prevented by boycotting and intimi- 
 dation : and suppose, once more, that the Lord Mavor were 
 to intervene on behalf of the workmen and ajjainst the 
 directors, how would Sir James Whitehead like the position? 
 The bungling and ludicrous efforts of Sir James Whitehead 
 and his fellow mediators, however, had at least one satisfac- 
 tory effect — they made it impossible for the game of the phil- 
 anthropic arbitrator to be repeated. In his parting address 
 to the Common Council, Sir James Whitehead said that "he 
 had the honour to successfully engage as negotiator " during 
 the Dock Strike, and that he believed the action he took on 
 that occasion " was perfectly satisfactory both to the masters 
 and men," and that it demonstrated perhaps more than any- 
 thing else during his year of office " the great influence for 
 good which the Mansion House has exercised on all occasions 
 in all that tends to the welfare, not only of the citizens and 
 of those connected with the Metropolis, but of the country 
 at large." Anything more ridiculous than ihese statement'? 
 could scarcely be conceived; for it is perfectly notorious that
 
 win ell icas tlie Worse ? 69 
 
 the action of the negotiators was not successful, as the Dock 
 labourers refused to accept the settlement agreed upon at 
 the Mansion House, while the Dock Directors accepted the 
 final settlement only under protest. Neither masters nor 
 men were satisfied with the action of the mediators, whik- 
 the general public slowly reached the conclusion that the 
 philanthropic arbitrator was usually a partisan, whose 
 prejudice utterly disqualified him for a position in which 
 impartiality was the essential requirement.* 
 
 Cardinal Manning was another prominent philanthropic 
 arbitrator, and although he displayed a commendable desire- 
 to understand the difficulties of the Dock Directors and to 
 deal as tenderly with them as circumstances would permit, 
 vet he was to all intents and purposes a partisan of the men. 
 Had he been otherwise it is scarcely probable that a deputa- 
 tion representing 100,000 men engaged in the waterside 
 industries of London, would have waited upon the Cardinal 
 on the occasion of his attaining his silver jubilee and pre- 
 sented him with an address and a cheque for ^^160. The 
 address, it is said, " bore grateful testimony to the Cardinal's 
 services to the dockers and others concerned in the great 
 
 *Sir Henry Isaacs incurred a tjood deal of unpopularity (to use no stronger 
 
 term) because he allowed his name, during his Lord Mayoralty, to be associated 
 with the Hansard Union and thus, as it is alleged, by the influence of his office 
 as well as his personal influence, induced people to put their money into that 
 concern in the faith that it was a sound and profitable undertaking. It may be 
 the fnct that Sir H. Isaacs deserves all the censures which have been passed upon 
 him for his conduct in this matter; upon that point no opinion can with propriety 
 be expressed here. But it is a debateable point whether .Sir James Whitehead, 
 by using the influence of the Lord Mayoralty on the side of the Dock strikers, did 
 not inflict more serious injury upon British commerce than Sir H. Isaacs did by 
 his action in connection with the Hansard Union. The writer, for one, believes 
 that he did. Yet the very men who condemned Sir H. Isaacs for what they 
 declared to he an illegitimate use of his high position commended Sir J- Whitehead 
 for using the same position in a way which is by many pronounced to be equally 
 illegitimate. The acMon of the latter gentleman certainly resulted in greater 
 damage to national prosperity than that of the former, and therefore in a greater 
 destruction of national wealth. 
 
 In City circles an abnormal sensitiveness is being manifested just now with 
 regard to the propriety of the high official* of the Corporation mi.xing themselves 
 up with the affairs of public companies. This may be all very well within reason- 
 able limits. But might not those who are so jealous of the honour of the Corpora- 
 tion take precautions against the Lord Mayoralty being used as an electioneering 
 agency and as an instrument for stabbing Capital in its very vitals?
 
 70 TJic Neiv Police Code. 
 
 strike of 1889." In replying to this deputation Cardinal 
 Manning said that " he held it to be one of the first laws of 
 liberty that all men who worked should combine together in 
 a union, and the Dockers' Union was a lawful association of 
 men using their liberty rightly and justly. There were two 
 kinds of Capital. Gold and silver were dead Capital ; Labour 
 and skill were live Capital. Skill and Labour came first ; 
 money came next." What reasonable or just action could be 
 expected from a man who, in view of the gross outrages which 
 had occurred in connection with the Dock Strike, could affirm 
 that the members of the Dockers' Union were using their 
 liberty rightly and justly ? 
 
 The conduct of the Police authorities during the Dock 
 Strike was astounding. Mr. Monro, who was then Chief 
 Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, seemed to have 
 two fixed ideas : one was that he ought to take no action in 
 cases of intimidation until the facts were brought to his 
 notice, or in other words, until violence and outrage had 
 actually occurred ; and the other idea was that he ought to 
 regulate his action by the movements of public opinion. 
 The correspondence which took place between Mr. Norwood 
 and Mr. Monro is exceedingly instructive, and the reader 
 would do well to carefully consider it.* Mr. Monro asked 
 for information with regard to intimidation, and Mr. Norwood 
 promptly produced it. Then Mr. Monro delicately hinted 
 that this information was " coloured." He said : " I am 
 quite prepared to make every allowance for information given 
 in trying times being coloured by anxiety or excitement ;" 
 whereas the information given was fully substantiated by 
 incontrovertible facts. Mr. Monro further said : " The pitbUc 
 very rightly are not ready to extend such allowance to police 
 action under difficult circumstances. The public held the 
 police responsible for acting with promptitude tempered by 
 judgment and discretion, and the action taken in the present 
 instance I am fully prepared to defend." Clearly Mr. MonrO' 
 
 * See Appendix A.
 
 The Enemies of Order Jubilant. 71 
 
 regarded it as his duty to govern his conduct according to 
 the indication of the popular will. This was a new doctrine, 
 even for our ultra-Uemocratic times, and a doctrine of the 
 most dangerous character. The distinction of having found 
 out that it is the first duty of an executive officer in this 
 country to please a section of the public (for his reference could 
 only be to a section, inasmuch as a large part of the public 
 were opposed to his views and his conduct) belongs to Mr. 
 James Monro. Mr. Norwood, in replying to these incautious 
 observations of the Commissioner, said severely : " My 
 Committee are led to infer, with extreme reluctance, that 
 you regard popular approval as the standard by which to 
 test the efficiency of the discharge of your public duties." 
 Such journals as the Star encouragingly patted Mr. Monro 
 on the back. " We cheerfully acknowledge," said this journal- 
 " that in the management of the Metropolitan Police through, 
 out this strike there has been a marked and most welcome 
 change from the spirit which was rampant a few months 
 ago. It is due to Mr. Monro to say that his refusal to listen 
 to alarmist ravings like the above, and his resistance to 
 strong pressure from influential quarters, has contributed a 
 great deal to the peaceful character of the strike. A very 
 small failure of tact would have imported a very different 
 spirit into the struggle. As it is, the good feeling between 
 the police and the dockers has been one of the most 
 astonishing features of the movement. The Star has had to 
 raise its voice loudly against ' Warrenism,' but it will be 
 ready to raise it just as loudly to welcome any sign that the 
 days of Warrenism are over. May this be such a sign ! " 
 If a Chief Commissioner directly responsible to the Govern- 
 ment could act in this manner, what would be the state of 
 things if the control of the London police were permitted to 
 go into the hands of the County Council, and the Commis- 
 sioner was elected by that body ? 
 
 With such an example at headquarters, it is not surprising 
 that the rank and file of the police should have manifested 
 a lenient disposition towards ruffianly intimidators. It ap-
 
 72 The Police and the Dockers. 
 
 peared to be the one anxiety of the police to be on good 
 terms with the strikers at any cost. Within certain limits 
 this was a very commendable spirit, but when it went to the 
 length of shutting the eyes of authority to breaches of the 
 peace and to assaults upon industrious citizens, and to 
 leaving the Docks at the mercy of infuriated mobs, the price 
 paid for it was a little too costly. " Early in the strike the 
 friendly relations were set up between the crowd and the 
 representatives of law and order, which were maintained 
 without a break throughout the trving weeks that were to 
 follow." • 
 
 " A word must be said as to the attitude of the leaders of 
 the rank and file towards the force, for the great strike will 
 always be memorable for the extraordinary improvement 
 of relations which it was the means of bringmg about 
 between populace and police. No doubt the policy of masterly 
 inactivity indicated by the Home Secretary served to reduce to a 
 minimum the friction inevitable to a labour contest, which meant 
 the turning loose into the streets of so vast and unwieldy a 
 mass of men as the waterside labourers of London. The police 
 kept themselves in the background as far as possible, and their 
 conduct when action was necessary was friendly and forbear- 
 ing in the extreme. Considering the extra work and worry 
 which the strike imposed on a body of men whose duties at 
 the best of times are no sinecure, it is hard to over-estimate 
 the self-restraint, good temper, and judgment which they 
 showed. After the anxious days had been tided over, while 
 the strike was fermenting, the duties of the police became 
 mainly ornamental. The city force escorted the procession 
 just as they would escort a Lord Mayor or a prince, the 
 metropolitan police chatted with the men and deemed it an 
 honour to get a nod or a word from the leaders. As soon 
 as reinforcements arrived at the East End, Burns would give 
 out that 2,000 police had come down there, and that they 
 meant to let them enjoy their holiday and go back refreshed 
 
 • •' The Story of the Dockers' Strike." Page 35.
 
 The Folly of the Press. 73 
 
 to look after their clients at the West-End. . . . The 
 police seemed to have felt instinctively that Burns was for 
 the time chief constable of London. Superintendent Foster, 
 on relinquishing his charge as the city boundaries were passed 
 by the procession, would have Burns' cab stopped so that he 
 might shake him by the hand, and the posse of police form- 
 ing upon either side relaxed their stern bearing and broke 
 into nods and smiles as the cab drove on again. . . . The 
 Dock labourers will not soon forget their treatment by the 
 police through the long crisis of the strike. Burns' 
 acknowledgments on the victorious Sunday expressed 
 the feelings of all his followers, and the words he used of 
 Superintendent Foster, that he was a man first and after- 
 wards an officer, applied with equal force to the rank and 
 file." * 
 
 The action of the Press was almost as amazing and 
 as unaccountable as that of the authorities. Almost 
 with one accord the newspapers co-operated with the 
 agitators and demagogues to puff the strike into im- 
 portance. The sensational reporter and the time-serving 
 editor have much to answer for with reference to this 
 matter. The strike chanced to fall (perhaps rather 
 w-as calculated to fall) during the silly season, when news- 
 papers are desperately anxious to clutch at sensational copy 
 of any description. As the Saturday Review very aptly put 
 it : " Deep has answered to deep, tub-orator to newspaper 
 reporter, and there has been a loud re-verberation of noise 
 about the greatness, the novelty, the serious significance of 
 the strike. Naturally the strikers on principle have heard 
 
 ♦ " Story of the Dockers' Strike." Pages 115 and 116. In a report of an 
 interview published in the Star, September 16, 1889, Burns said : ''Singularly 
 enough, another result of the strike has been to rehabilitate the police. They are 
 now as popular as they were before the old Trafalgar-square days. In particular 
 the city police, under Superintendent Foster, behaved splendidly, and the super- 
 intendent himself gave us a first-rate testimonial when he told me that he had not 
 seen a single drunken man in one of our processions through the city.' "And 
 Mr. Monro — how did he behave?" "Well, the metropolitan force were inclined 
 to be a little fractious at fir.'st, but when they got to know the men, they vied with 
 the city police in their attentions, and everything went merry as a marriage bell."
 
 74 ^ Disgusting Exhibition. 
 
 all this roared by the tub-orator and duly echoed by the 
 Press, with the sense that they are doing something very 
 novel and deserving of the attention of Europe. It is a 
 pleasing excitement to hear of London threatened by famine 
 or darkness — better than naval manoeuvres by far ; for after 
 all, the striker on principle is taking part in the show. 
 There is, perhaps, less excuse for the newspapers which 
 repeat this nonsense, and the so-called friends of the people 
 who listen to it, without pointing cut that the first to suffer 
 by famine will be the poorest, and that the loss of gas 
 will be most grievous to those who can least afford to pay 
 for candles." 
 
 The way in which Mr. Norwood was spoken of through- 
 out the strike, although it showed that the British Press 
 enjoys not only freedom but licence, was, nevertheless, a 
 scandalous and a disgusting exhibition. Nothing was too 
 vile to say of Mr. Norwood, whose only crime was that he 
 declined to yield to clamour what he could not conscien- 
 tiously yield to justice ; and that as a trustee for 5,000 share- 
 holders he had striven to protect their interests. Considering 
 that the Dock labourers were being paid the market rate of 
 wages, and were receiving double the wages of an agricultural 
 labourer (who is a skilled workman), Mr. Norwood may well 
 be excused if he declined to yield to exorbitant demands and 
 plundering threats immediately. Yet for this he was held up 
 to execration from day to day by certain journals of the baser 
 sort. One of them published a line-drawing of Mr. Watts' 
 " Mammon," by Mr. Henry Holliday. This disgraceful 
 picture was headed in large black capitals " Earthly, 
 Sensual, Devilish ! " and it was intended to be a represen- 
 tation of Mr. Norwood, who was trampling upon a young 
 man while he tightly clutched a fragile maiden by the neck. 
 Mr. Holliday appended this hysterical description to the 
 picture : 
 
 " Mr. Watts has kindly allowed me to translate into a 
 line-drawing his impressive picture of * Mammon,' which 
 cannot fail to have a powerful influence on those
 
 ^^ Mammon.'' 75 
 
 who are watching this gigantic struggle of Labour against 
 Capital. 
 
 " The companies, who, having squandered their capital in 
 reckless competition, try to suck dividends out of starving 
 labourers, are truly typified in the vulgar loutish monster 
 whose heavy hand and foot crush and blight the youth and 
 maiden that have fallen into his clutches. 
 
 " Look at his dress of gold brocade, worn not for beauty 
 or dignity, of which his sordid mind knows nothing, but for 
 display, serving only to make his brutish nature more offen- 
 sively conspicuous. 
 
 " Look at the lack-lustre eyes, blind to whatever things 
 are lovely and of good report, conscious only that he has 
 some poor creatures in his grip and means to keep them 
 there. 
 
 " What are the wasted, weary, joyless lives of a hundred 
 thousand families to him ? Has he blundered with his 
 capital ? Let the labourers suffer, not the blunderer. So it 
 has been in the past, and so he means it to be in the future, 
 but a stronger than he is at hand. The Angel of Brother- 
 hood has risen, and Mammon for the first time is trembling 
 before a world-embracing power that ere long will pronounce 
 his doom." 
 
 This same journal, commenting on September 3, i88g, 
 upon Mr. Norwood's reply to the shipowners, said : " When 
 we think of the atrocity of this business we are reminded of 
 the great picture of Mr. Watts. It is called " Mammon." 
 The Mammon of Mr. Watts is something worse than 
 Milton's Mammon, whom the poet drew as the least erect 
 spirit in all Hell. It is a loathsome, mis-shapen, fire-breath- 
 ing monster of death and claw, with one iron talon fixed 
 deep in the back of a stricken child, and by the finest touch 
 of all this hideous vampire's face is crowned by a pair ol 
 ass's ears. How does Mr. Norwood like the picture ? " * 
 
 *0n September lo the strikers carried an effigy of Mr. Norwood, which repre- 
 sented him as a dog, muzzled and dressed up in convict's clothes, with a label 
 stating that he ought to have penal servitude for life. Multitudes of people sa^^
 
 76 Chronic Disturbances. 
 
 It is now time to ask what the real results of the strike 
 have been, and what good it has really accomplished. For 
 some little time after the strike was settled the Dock labourers 
 were, of course, jubilant, but as the months went on their 
 tone changed to one of the deepest depression, and this de- 
 pression has continued ever since. The settlement come to 
 at the strike proved to be no settlement at all, but an un- 
 settling of everything. From that time until now " trouble 
 at the docks" has been intermittent, and disputes and strikes 
 of constant occurrence, and most of these strikes have been 
 of a perfectly wanton and unjustifiable description.' At one 
 time they struck because they wished to be paid for meal 
 times in flagrant violation of the terms of their agreement 
 with the masters ; at another time they struck in order to 
 force clerks and foremen into the Dockers' Union. In short 
 these disturbances became so constant as to be virtually 
 chronic, the result being that employers could never rely 
 with certainty upon getting their work done, and the natural 
 consequence of this was that they took their work elsewhere. 
 Australian liners, on their way from Port Philip and Sydney, 
 were ordered to deliver their cargoes of wool at Grimsby, not 
 on the Thames. P'oreign shippers sent their goods to Hull 
 and Harwich instead of to London, and it was announced 
 that some of the great lines to the East were making arrange- 
 ments to desert the port of London. Ship-owners stated that 
 the foreign trade with London had been reduced to the extent 
 of many thousands of tons. The London Direct Sea Trades 
 Association passed a resolution in November of 1889 to the 
 
 this ; but far greatL-r multitudes were inl'ormed of it through the mews- 
 papers. 
 
 in tlie course of an interview which was reported in the Star of September i6, 
 18S9, Burns said : " Please convey the expression oi my thanks, and the thanks 
 of the council and the men for the money tlie .b^zr has raised and the help it has 
 rendered the strike. We have really been very handsomely treated by you and by 
 the Press all round. Pressmen are rather a cynical lot, but really they seem to have 
 developed a real enthusiasm over the strike. One ot them — a good old crusted 
 Tory — hardly ever came to see me at Wades Arms without putting half a 
 sovereign in my hand." 
 
 * For a complete account of these strikes see Appendices.
 
 Trade Driven from London. 77 
 
 effect that, owing to the enormous increase in the cost of 
 labour, the great delays in the working of ships, and the 
 diversion of the best of the trade to other ports, it might 
 soon become necessary for shipowners engaged in near trades 
 seriously to consider the advisability of ceasing to run their 
 vessels. A manifesto to the men was also adopted and 
 ordered to be published. The manifesto reminded the men 
 that tens of thousands of tons of goods have been lost to the 
 London trade, and that a large part of the foreign trade was 
 being diverted from the water-carriers to the railways in 
 consequence of the exorbitant demands and reckless action 
 of London workmen. Each day brought further news of 
 trade leaving London. Ship-owners could follow trade to 
 other ports, and, if necessary, work under other flags. The 
 destruction of the trade of London would be absolutely 
 disastrous to working men, who were adjured to take 
 warning in time. 
 
 How much trade has been driven from London by the 
 Dock Strike it is difficult to tell ; but the amount is probably 
 greater than outsiders have any idea of, and it is safe to 
 assert that it will never come back. Matters would have 
 been even worse in this respect had not the shipowners 
 formed in their own defence the Shipping Federation, the 
 object of which is to resist the tyranny of Trades Unions, 
 and the nature of which will be fully described in a subse- 
 quent chapter. Suffice it to say here that ever since the 
 Dock Strike, and as a direct consequence of it, the relations 
 between employers and employed in the shipping and Dock 
 industries have been strained almost to the breaking 
 point. 
 
 Looking at the Dock labourers themselves, it is impossible 
 for any candid and well-informed person to say that they 
 have gained anything by the strike. Scarcely, indeed, was 
 the strike over before the process of disillusionment com- 
 menced. The Pa// Mall Gazette, which frantically supported 
 the strikers and excelled most of its contemporaries in its 
 bombastic eulogies of the dockers and their leaders, found 
 
 H
 
 78 Vicious Protection. 
 
 out on the day that the strike ended that " the lot of the 
 casual labourer at the East End does not promise to be a 
 very happy one in the coming winter." It was perceived 
 that the re-organization of labour by the Dock companies on 
 a permanent basis would lead to the selection only of the fit- 
 test and strongest men, while the weaker and more incompe- 
 tent casuals would be thrown to the wall. " Hence," sorrow- 
 fully remarked the Pall Mall, " whatever advantages the 
 strike has secured for the men, it is obvious that it has not 
 solved the whole labour problem of the East End." But 
 men who had their eyes open saw all this before. They 
 never expected the strike to better the condition of the 
 casuals, or to solve the labour problem ; on the contrary they 
 knew all along that the casual would be left in the lurch, and 
 the labour problem rendered more difficult of solution. 
 
 Even the permanent labourers have not been benefited, for 
 there are fewer of them required in the Docks than ever be- 
 fore, simply because London has lost much of its trade; and 
 in addition to this the Dockers' Union issued its edict that 
 no man should be permitted to work in the Docks unless his 
 name was on the Union books. Not only this, but when 
 the Dockers Union had secured a certain number of members, 
 it closed its books against all new comers. The Union there- 
 fore said to a man who wished to work in the Docks : " You 
 will not be allowed to work in the Docks unless your name is 
 on our books, and we shall not place your name on our books 
 because our members are already sufficient to do all the work 
 that there is to be done." This is Protection in its most 
 vicious form, and yet the men who combine to protect them- 
 selves in this way are in other respects the most ardent of 
 Free Traders. During the winter of 1891, 8,000 members of 
 the Dockers' Union, after they had resorted to all these 
 dodges to keep :he work in their own hands, were out of 
 employment, while 3,000 more were employed only on half 
 time. It is very clear, therefore, that neither the casual 
 labourers nor the permanent labourers have gained any real 
 benefit from striking, but rather the opposite, although the
 
 Disillusionment. 79 
 
 strike is believed to have cost one way and another no less 
 than two millions sterling. 
 
 The only persons who have benefited from the Dock Strike 
 are " Messrs. Burns, Tillett, Mann, Champion & Co., 
 Limited, Agitators," who exploited labour in a new fashion 
 for their own ends. As for the ignorant and credulous fellows 
 who allowed them.selves to be duped by these astute gentle- 
 men, they are, we repeat, worse off than ever. The strike took 
 place in August, 1889. Before the winter of that year had 
 fairly begun thousands of these deluded men, who had built 
 such great hopes upon " the higher industrialism," were 
 cruelly disillusioned, and realised that their misery had been 
 rendered more abysmal and hopeless than before. The lot 
 of the casual labourer, hard enough previously, is now despe- 
 rate and intolerable, simply because his " brethren " of the 
 Dockers' Union have made it impossible for him to earn a 
 shilling, or to get a crust of bread. During the winter of 
 1891 the state of things among the dockers was worse than 
 it was during the winter of 1890. Their Union, which started 
 with such a fanfaronade of trumpets, and which was to do 
 such wonderful and glorious things, found itself with g,ooo 
 unemployed members on its hands, the said members being 
 ready to devour their " leaders," while Mr. Tom Mann, the 
 chairman of the Union, endeavoured to conciliate the infu- 
 riated victims by talking about *' municipal workshops." 
 Processions and agitations of the '' unemployed " were again 
 resorted to, an extension of out-door relief was clamorously 
 demanded from the Government, and private charity once 
 more busied itself in offering premiums to loafers who will 
 never work while they can drink, and who will drink as long 
 as " philanthropy " continues to supply them with better 
 wages for doing nothing than they could earn by honest 
 industry. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that 9,000 members of the 
 Dockers' Union were out of work, and that in the midst of 
 one of the most bitter winters of the century, the unemployed 
 showed no disposition (as usual) to accept work even when
 
 8o Robbery by Coercion. 
 
 it was offered to them. Why ? Because they relied upon 
 charity coming to their help. The men at the Victoria Docks 
 threw up their work at the beginning of the year (i8gi) 
 because the employers refused to pay them for the dinner 
 hour, in other words because they were not allowed to take 
 out of their employers' pockets money for which they ren- 
 dered no equivalent. What is this but an attempt at robbery 
 by coercion ? This was too much even for Tom Mann and 
 Ben Tillett, who ostentatiously condemned the " irrespon- 
 sible mdividuals " and " mischief makers " who caused the 
 strike. But the fact that a body of men, who were paid the 
 wages which they had bargained for, could strike in such a 
 way at such a time shows how far the work of deterioration 
 has gone. 
 
 Mr. W. Beckett Hill, who was a sympathiser with the 
 men during the Dock Strike, wrote to the Times on January 3, 
 1891, in the following terms : " Speaking from my own 
 knowledge, the Victoria and Royal Albert Docks were 
 seldom fuller of ships ; and there never has been a time 
 during the last fortnight that we have been able to get suffi- 
 cient labour either for loading or discharging, io say nothing 
 cf getting a fair day's work fron the labourer wheji he does choose 
 toii'ork. The Richmond Hill arrived on December 21, and is 
 not yet discharged. Tliirteen days have not yet completed an 
 operation which in Liverpool, Glasgow, New York, or Montreal 
 would take three days.'' . . . Every day there are strikes 
 and stoppages on some ridiculous pretext or other. On 
 Thursday they struck all day because the Dock Company 
 would not pay them for meal hours, a stipulation which was 
 made by the Dock Company and actually agreed to by the 
 men's representatives after the long successful last year's 
 strike, and now, in this period of so-called distress, it forms 
 an excuse for not working. Yesterday and to-day the corn- 
 men, who can easily make 12s. 6d. per day in the discharge 
 of grain at the ordinary rates, have struck for an advance of 
 50 per cent., which would bring their earnings up to nearly 
 one pound per day ; the evident aim of the labourer being to
 
 Slums on the Brain. 8i 
 
 get enormous wages on one day, that he may dispense with 
 work during the rest of the week, having enough for his own 
 public-home enjoyments, and leaving his family to be supported by 
 charity. In such a state of affairs it is not surprising that 
 discipHne and insubordination are completely absent. The 
 foremen have lost all control over the labourers. . . . The 
 sooner a general lock-out and a stoppage of the demoralizing 
 charitable supplies takes place, the sooner London shipping 
 business will be put more on a level with other ports i^ 
 economy and despatch." About the same time a correspon- 
 dent of the Standard stated that men were required to stow 
 material from the ship-side into a barge. With great diffi- 
 culty two or three men were obtained at lod. per hour. The 
 next day an offer of is. per hour failed to induce anybody to 
 work, every man holding out for is. 6d. per hour, while 
 some declined to move under 2s. 6d. Eventually the work 
 had to be done by men from a distant part of London. 
 After this it is not surprising to learn that the Paddington 
 Vestry failed to get men to clear the snow from the streets 
 at fourpence an hour. Three hundred men a day were re- 
 quired, but never more than 140 could be got, and one day 
 only a beggarly four-and-twenty turned up. This was the 
 stale of things which prevailed during the bitterest weather 
 ever witnessed by this generation, and when outcries about 
 the " distress " were heard on every hand. Why should 
 these men work when they and their families can be sup- 
 ported in idleness and luxury by the "charity" of people 
 who have got more money than brains ? The East End has 
 been turned into a loafer's paradise, and the trade of the 
 port of London is being ruined by the cranky people who 
 have got slums on the brain. It is a pity that society cannot 
 devise some means by which the hysterical old women (of 
 both sexes) who supported and prolonged this Dock Strike 
 could be made to bear the additional e.^pense which it has 
 caused by augmenting and aggravating distress in the East 
 End. Buc this, alas ! is impossible. That patient beast of 
 burden, the taxpayer, the hard-working and honest and
 
 82 The Docker and His Beloved ''Leader.'' 
 
 quiet citizen, will have to do what he usually does — pay for 
 the follies of faddists and agitation-mongers. 
 
 A good deal was heard at one time about a grand co-opera- 
 tive scheme which the Dockers were going to inaugurate 
 The middleman was to be eliminated entirely, and the portion 
 of profits which he formerly pocketed was to go direct into 
 the pockets of the men. The scheme has been tried, and 
 although the Directors of the Docks and the shipowners gave 
 it all the assistance in their power, it has virtually tailed. 
 Mr. Tillett has admitted this in his evidence before the 
 Labour Commission. 
 
 The net result of all this is that the Dock labourer is 
 thoroughly convinced that he has been cruelly deceived, and 
 not unnaturally he is disposed to turn fiercely upon the leaders 
 who have deluded him. It is notorious that those leaders 
 tiave had the utmost difficulty in retaining their hold upon 
 the men. Mr. Tom Mann, the President of the Dockers' 
 Union, has more than once been censured, and his eagerness 
 to be relieved of the responsibilities of his position, as shown 
 by his resignation of the Presidency at the last Dockers' 
 Congress at Hull clearly proves that he is not very comfort- 
 able in it.* In fact, the leaders of the dockers are alarmed 
 at their own handiwork. They see that the crowds of the 
 unemployed are larger than ever, and the only suggestion 
 they have to make with regard to them is that they should 
 all be supported out of the rates. 
 
 One of the most serious features of the Dock Strike was 
 that it showed, as Mr. Champion boasted, that half a dozen 
 men of his own type could paralyse the trade of the port of 
 London. John Burns boasted at the Poplar Town Hall that 
 he himself would do this if the Dock Directors did not keep 
 faith with their men. Mr. Burns is, as everybody knows, a 
 blusterer and a braggart (as witness his regret that the law 
 
 * In 1890, Mann announced that he would stick to his post tlirough thick and 
 thin in spite of twenty votes of censure from " the scalawags, whose only thought 
 was dooze." 'l"his is Mann's opinion of the inuch-bepraiseti Dock labourer. 
 
 At the time of writing this a strike is going on at the Carron and Heimitage 
 Wharves which threatens to spread to the Docks and other riverside industries. 
 Full particulars of it will be found in Appendices.
 
 A Dangerous Anomaly. 83 
 
 would not permit him to challenge Mr. Walter Pollock, editor 
 of the Saturday Review, to a duel, Mr. Pollock being one of 
 the most expert swordsmen in England) ; yet even Mr. 
 Burns could accomplish this feat if he were supported blindly 
 by the Dock laDourers, and those who stood with them 
 through this strike, and if the police authorities and the 
 Government were to wink at picketing and intimidation as 
 they did during the month of August, 1889. What is more, 
 Mr. Burns and his coadjutors will not hesitate to paralyse 
 the trade of London if they see that this step is needful to 
 gratify their ambitions, and to secure their ulterior purposes. 
 Burns said in Hyde Park on August 25, 1889 : " The six- 
 pence represented something that had been too little in the 
 past, and must be considerably augmented in the future. 
 The present strike was a peaceably organised revolution of 
 the skilled and unskilled workmen of the port of London, 
 and it was tiie l>reliminary skirmish preceding bigger battles 
 which they hoped to have in the future.'' In the same spirit 
 Reynolds' Newspaper said on September 8, 1889 : " The 
 immediate issue of the present strike is now of comparatively 
 no import. What it has suggested, the stimulus that it has 
 given to the sacred cause of Labour everywhere, and the 
 enthusiasm that it has awakened all the world over, are the 
 great fruits that will soon be gathered — the harvest that will 
 in the coming time plentifully satisfy the wants of those who 
 have sown the seeds, and who have hitherto been permitted 
 to take only the gleanings. The dockers have now practically 
 gained all they ask for, but their struggle has gone far to the 
 emancipation of the whole race of toilers." It is certainly a 
 singular anomaly that a few thousand labourers, ignorant and 
 unskilled, should hold at their mercy the commerce and the 
 prosperity of the earth's commercial capital, the largest and 
 wealthiest city in the world, and should stand between the 
 nation's prosperity and its ruin. Really, if this is what the 
 most perfect Government in the world brings us to, we can- 
 not lose much by at once exchanging such Government for 
 anarchy. If the Executive Government would abdicate its
 
 84 A Blow Aimed at Capital. 
 
 functions in a straightforward manner, people who own pro- 
 perty and who cherish their hberty would know what they 
 had to do, and would take effective steps for defending what 
 they hold to be precious. At present, however, this function 
 of defending the freedom and the possessions of the citizens 
 is supposed to belong to the Government. 
 
 In the United States, from whence we have received a 
 good deal of democratic doctrine, a short shrift is given ta 
 strikers who attempt any sort of violence or lawlessness. In 
 that Republic of Freedom the police would baton, and even 
 shoot, on what we should consider very slight provocation, 
 anybody who should attack the persons or the property of 
 others. The same may be said of Paris. The events atten- 
 dant upon recent strikes seem to indicate that we should do 
 well to imitate the wholesome rigour of these Democratic 
 Republics. 
 
 During the progress of the strike, Mr. Norwood stated its 
 object in these terms : " The strike is a blow aimed at 
 Capital. It has gone far beyond the category of a mere 
 dockers' strike, and has developed into an organised attack 
 upon Capital and an outburst with a view of raising the rate 
 of remuneration for employment over the entire East of 
 London." For a time it seemed as if this object would 
 really be accomplished, and there can be no doubt that but 
 for the vigorous action of the employers in forming the 
 Shipping Federation the mischief done by the strike would 
 have been much more serious than it was. It was pointed 
 out by the Spectator during the strike that while the body of 
 the people have amazingly progressed in "good feeling," 
 they have made no progress at all in the " sense of justice." 
 They "grow in kindliness, but not in fairness ; 'n ability to 
 perceive their adversary's suffering, but not in ability to 
 discern his point of view." That is just it. Injustice is 
 cloaked by sentiment. Such progress as can be made by the 
 sacrifice of justice is not desirable, however much " good 
 feeling" may characterize it. What we want is not merely 
 good feeling, but just and honourable action.
 
 Three Lessons. 85 
 
 Viewed broadly, the bock Strike is seen to be unique in 
 its kind. Nothing like ic was ever seen before ; nothing like 
 it will ever be seen again. It was an experiment which can 
 never be repeated. Never again will circumstances all com- 
 bine to favour such an uprising of disaffected working-men. 
 Such uprisings there may of course be, and perhaps on almost 
 as large a scale, but when working-men do rise in this way 
 they will find the capitalists better prepared to meet them ; 
 they will find the Government less complacent ; and most 
 important, perhaps, of all, they will find that there will be no 
 foreign subsidies either from Australia or from anywhere else. 
 We may continue to hear the " high falutin " which is in 
 vogue among labour agitators as to the international character 
 of labour movements, the solidarity of Labour throughout the 
 world, and the universal determination of working-men to 
 strangle the hated capitalist ; but all this will end largely in 
 smoke, and the working-men of one nation will never sub- 
 scribe thousands of pounds to assist the working-men of 
 another nation, even to emancipate themselves from the 
 " slavery of wagedom." 
 
 A general review of the Dock Strike suggests very forcibly 
 three lessons. The first is, that political power, used by a 
 democratic majority tor its own selfish ends, may prove an 
 instrument for the destruction of civilization itself. It is 
 conceivable that a majority under a Democracy might, by 
 confiscatory laws, deprive every landowner or capitalist of 
 his property ; but it is not conceivable that a State in which 
 this had been done could continue to exist as a civilized 
 nation. It must inevitably fall back into barbarism and 
 anarchy. 
 
 The second lesson is,that emotional philanthropy, unguided 
 by reason and unrestrained by prudence, may prove a danger 
 to the State second only to the cupidity of a democratic 
 majority. As much mischief was done during the Dock 
 Strike by mistaken kindness as by wanton violation of 
 economic and of civil law. 
 
 The third lesson is, that those citizens who possess
 
 86 Our Glory — and Our Danger. 
 
 property and wish to keep it, who have liberty and desire to 
 exercise it, will have to ar.n themselves in their own defence. 
 More and more they must trust in their own right hand, and 
 less and less in the protection of the Government. Under a 
 wise and sound Constitution it may be prudent to rely upon 
 the Government fulfilling its primary obligations towards the 
 community in general ; but it is clear that under a Democratic 
 Constitution, where the rulers are the mere creatures of the 
 popular vote, it will not do to place too much reliance upon 
 the Government discharging its executive duties and its 
 administrative responsibilities. For it is quite probable that 
 in a crisis v/here the Multitude, whose voting power is 
 supreme and omnipotent, array themselves against a class, 
 the class may find itself sacrificed in order that the Multitude 
 may be propitiated. In this respect we in England are 
 under a grave disability as compared with the people of the 
 United States. Their written Constitution, their Supreme 
 Court, and the independence of their Executive, both of the 
 popular vote and of Parliament, during their term of office, 
 give them advantages which we do not possess, and afford 
 guarantees as to the security of property, the continuity of 
 national policy, and the stability of national institutions, 
 which it is becoming more and more difficult to secure in 
 Great Britain, where, with the existence of Household 
 Suffrage, and an Executive dependent from day to day upon 
 the popular will, a gust of political passion, even of political 
 madness, may sweep the Government from office without a 
 day's warning.* 
 
 • Three months after the above words were written, the Duke of Argyll, 
 speaking at Edinburgh, on Mprch II. 1892, said: "We were the only civilized 
 people in Europe — he put aside Russia, for that was only a semi-civilized empire, 
 and he put as'de Turkey, which was a semi-barbarous empire— which hn.d not a 
 written constitution. Practically we were the only people in the world in that 
 position. They all had organic statutes. There were none with us. This was 
 our glory ; he hoped it would not become our danger. How did it come about? 
 It was because for i.ooo years our Constitution had been a growth, and not an 
 invention. It had risen gradually through storm and sunshine, through peace and 
 war, fitting from lime to time new institutions or new modifications of institutions 
 to new desires or interests on the part of the people, and never recording them, or 
 \ utting in a verbal form some of the fundamental principles on which the liberties
 
 What Parliament Can Do. 87 
 
 of mankind depend. Their very revolutions had been revolutions in the name and 
 for the sake of law. Theirs was a history absolutely peculiar in the world. The 
 danj^er was tiiis— that their lives, their liberty, and their property depended on a 
 code of accepted doctrines which were nowhere recorded or expressed; which 
 were, in fact, like the air they breathed— they were hardly conscious of it until it 
 had been disturbed Let them be all the more watchful of those who |vut a rough 
 hand upon this mechanism of infinite fineness. He thought that the written con- 
 stitution of America had had an enormous effect upon the education of the people, 
 and he was not at all sure that we mi{jht not be obliged to take some such similar 
 course. In this country they might pass a Bill which would destroy the Monarchy, 
 disorganize Parliament, impair the independence of the judges, and corrupt the 
 very foundations of justice. He doubted if that was a sale condition for a great 
 people to remain in. Any individual member of Parliamciu at any moment might 
 produce a Bill cuttin'^ to the roots their whole system, which Bill, by accident or 
 by temporary excitement, he might get passed. There was no security for a full 
 consideration of it by the real intellect and heart and mind of the nation." Lord 
 Salisbury has more than once called attention to the same national danger, and 
 proposed similar safeguards.
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 Miscellaneous Strikes. 
 
 THE Dock Strike, bringing forth fruit after its kind, soon 
 proved itself a prolific mother of industrial mischiefs. 
 The spirit of which the Dock Strike was but one mani- 
 festation soon spread to nearly every branch of labour through- 
 out the land. Time would fail to tell of the numerous and 
 various strikes which occurred during the two years succeed- 
 ing the Dock Strike, and which may be more or less distinctly 
 traced to the Socialistic-Labour movement which ha? digni- 
 fied itself with the title of the New Unionism. It is computed 
 that over 2,000 strikes occurred in the year 1889 alone, and 
 probably as many occurred during the succeeding year. It 
 is obvious, therefore, that the task of enumerating all these 
 trade disputes, and dealing with them according to their 
 merits or demerits, is practically an impossibility. In the 
 London Docks the settlement of the Great Strike by no means 
 proved to be a settlement of the differences between the 
 Directors and their workmen. Their relations between these 
 two classes have been more or less strained ever since, and 
 more than once there has been a fresh outbreak of strife, 
 though on these occasions the Directors have proved more 
 than able to hold their own in spite of the much-belauded 
 Dockers' Union. In fact what has occurred since the strike 
 of 1889 amply proves the truth of the forcecasts which were 
 made at that time by those who were unfriendly to the strike. 
 If any of the labourers have benefited at all as a result of 
 the strike — which is doubtful — they are but very few of the 
 total number employed in the Docks, the great majority 
 being distinctly worse off than they were before ; while the
 
 Uninn Bosses Aroused, 8q 
 
 increase in the Dock dues necessitated by the advance of 
 the labourers' wages has been transferred from the shoulders 
 of the Dock companies and ship-owners to those of the 
 general public. Discontent has been seething among the 
 Dock labourers ever since the strike was " settled," and more 
 than once they have been ready to turn upon their so-called 
 leaders and tear them to pieces. It is notorious that Mann 
 and Tillett have had the greatest difficulty in holding on to 
 their positions, and in quelling the turbulent spirit which has 
 been rife among the Dock labourers owing to the non-fulfil- 
 ment of the hopes which were created and the promises 
 which were made during the strike of i88g. All this merely 
 corroborates the statement made in the previous chapter that 
 it will never be possible for Socialistic agitators to create a 
 second Dock Strike. 
 
 Within the limits of this chapter it will be possible to glance 
 only at a few of the principal strikes which followed upon the 
 heels of the Dock Strike, and of even these few only the 
 broader aspects can be noticed.* 
 
 Taking these miscellaneous strikes in the order of their 
 importance, undoubtedly the first place must be given to the 
 strike of gas-stokers at the South Metropolitan Gas Com- 
 pany's works. The origin of this strike was singular. The 
 Directors of the Company offered to give their men an 
 interest in the business under a co-operative plan of profit- 
 sharing, the aim of which was of course to attach the men to 
 the concern by a stronger bond than that which is provided 
 by a mere weekly wage, arid thus to avert strikes in the 
 future. This proposal of the Company was denounced with 
 great indignation by Trade Unionists as an attempt to rob 
 the men of their rights of combination, and on this ground 
 it was bitterly opposed by the Union Bosses, who saw that 
 the policy of the Directors would be fatal, if not to Trade 
 Unions themselves, at all events to the facility with which 
 
 * Detailed information with respect to all the principal industrial conflicts which 
 occurred between August, 1889, and June, 1892, will be found in the Appendices 
 to this work, to which the reader is referred.
 
 go Mr. George Livcsey. 
 
 they have hitherto been used to create industrial conflicts. 
 Hence the strike. 
 
 In Mr. George Livesey, the energetic Chairman of 
 the South Metropohtan Gas Company, the strikers met 
 a foeman worthy of their steel. He quickly proved him- 
 self to be a man of determined will and of infinite re- 
 source. When attacked by the strikers he met blow with 
 blow, never yielding an inch of ground, holding his own 
 with a vigour and tenacity which made Englishmen eveiy- 
 where feel that the spirit of their forefathers had not quite 
 died out after all. By dint of almost super-human efforts 
 Mr. Livesey kept the gas-works going and supplied the con- 
 sumers with what had become to them a necessary of life, 
 although for part of the time the gas supplied was to some 
 extent inferior in quality and deficient in quantity. The 
 places of the strikers were promptly filled up, so that when 
 the strike ended in a complete victory for Mr. Livesey the 
 men who had been foolish enough to give up profitable em- 
 ployment under excellent masters at the bidding of Trade 
 Union agitators found themselves left out in the cold without 
 employment. Many of them, according to all accounts, 
 have never had any work since. 
 
 What this effort cost Mr. Livesey none but himself can 
 fully know ; but it is obvious that no man could endure such 
 a strain as that to which he was subjected for many weeks 
 without suffering an anxiety which sometimes deepened into 
 agony. It was one of those crises which not only indicate 
 what is in a man, but which also take a great deal out of a 
 man. Years of steady and continuous toil would have a less 
 wearing effect than weeks of such tension and exertion as 
 Mr. Livesey had to go through at this time. The financial 
 interests involved were of great magnitude, as maybe judged 
 from the fact that the struggle cost the gas company nearly 
 ^70,000. At the half-yearly meeting on February 18, 1891, 
 the Report showed that there had been a deficiency of over 
 £■50,000, and that the Reserve Fund had been heavily drawn 
 upon to meet 'the expenses of the strike. There had been
 
 The ^' New Unionism'' Staggers. 91 
 
 an advance in wages of ^^15,000 as compared with the corre- 
 sponding half-year two years previously. But Mr. Livesey 
 was able to state that the workmen were happy and con- 
 tented, owing to the profit-sharing arrangements, the success 
 of which had satisfied the Board that the principle which 
 they had applied was a sound one. The men had not only 
 given up " the sacred right to strike," but they had also 
 saved since the previous June ;^2,g86, of which they had in- 
 vested £i,6^y m the shares of the Company. One conse- 
 quence of the strike was that, although the price of gas 
 remained about the same, the shareholders had to be con- 
 tent with a smaller dividend. 
 
 So resolute was Mr. Livesey in his attitude, and so clearly 
 did he perceive the magnitude of the issues which were in- 
 volved in the contest, that he declared that he had decided to 
 shut up the works altogether rather than yield to the demands 
 of the New Unionism. Of course he was supported in this 
 energetic action by his fellow Directors, and by the hearty co- 
 operation of the officers, the foremen, and the loyal workmen, 
 to whom, as well as to Mr. Livesey, the greatest praise is due 
 for the heroic stand which they made against the tyranny of 
 a combination of Trade Unions, and for the way in which 
 they vindicated British energy and pluck. Under the blow thus 
 dealt by Mr. Livesey the New Unionism reeled again. 
 Another such defeat would probably have proved the end of 
 the pretentious organization which had been called into 
 being by Messrs. Burns, Tillett, and Co., and which for a 
 few brief weeks had strutted proudly across the stage to 
 the terror of the capitalists of the country and of 
 the community in general. Had there been a George Livesey 
 at the head of the Dock Directors the industrial history of 
 England during the past two years would probably have been 
 very different from what it has been. 
 
 So great was the admiration felt for Mr. Livesey's action 
 in opposing the strikers and their Unions that a testimonial 
 of ^2,216 was subscribed, part of which was spent in a 
 portrait of Mr. Livesey, which now hangs in the Board room
 
 92 Mr. Livesey Honoured. 
 
 the Company, the balance of -£'1,750 being presented to 
 him in the form of a cheque. This money was devoted by 
 Mr. Livesey to philanthropic purposes in South London. 
 The promoters of the testimonial stated their conviction that 
 M r. Livesey's firm action was not only of great service to the 
 whole of the community, but was " probably of the greatest 
 benefit to the men themselves as protecting them from an 
 attempt to subject them to coercion in its worst form." The 
 men themselves would appear to be of the same opinion, for 
 on the 20th of September, i8go, they presented the Direc- 
 tors of the South Metropolitan Gas Company with an ad- 
 dress which set forth the men's appreciation of the profit- 
 sharing system which had been introduced at the works. 
 Mr. Livesey, in response, expressed a hope that the system 
 might prove an encouragement to thrift and induce the men 
 to make provision for old age or disablement. Mr. Livesey's 
 victory seems to have been an admirable thing both for the 
 company and its workmen, for, speaking nearly a year after 
 the strike, he said : " They were masters of their business ; 
 their workmen were willing to let them be so, and had no 
 wish to dictate to them. They never now threw down their 
 tools and asked for the orders of their Union as to what they 
 were to do. They now felt that if they had any grievances 
 they could safely go to their superior officer and get them 
 redressed." * 
 
 The second strike in point of importance which occurred 
 during the period under review was that which took place at 
 the Bute Docks, Cardiff, and which was virtually a struggle 
 
 * On juae 5, 1890, Mr. Livesey was advertised to take the chair at a meeting 
 in South London, which was called to protest against the proposals of the Govera- 
 ment with regard to compensating the holders of licences. Mr. Livesey was, 
 however, unable to gain a hearing owing to the frenzied conduct of a considerable 
 number of men in the meeting who demanded that he should be " chucked off" 
 and " run out " of the meeting. Finally Mr. Livesey and Sir Wilfrid Lawson 
 retired from the meeting. It may be stated that Mr. Livesey has for many years 
 been one of the principal supporters of Temperance Reform in the South of 
 London, and that he has devoted money and labour vrithout stint to philan- 
 thropic efforts in that district. His treatment at this meeting is a typical illus- 
 tration of the intolerant, and almost insane, spirit which animates the more 
 ignorant adherents of Socialistic labour movements.
 
 Tactics of the New Unionism. 93 
 
 for supremacy between the Shipping Federation and the 
 National Seaman's Union. The Shipowners' Union had 
 instituted a shipping register where any seaman might, on 
 payment of is., enter his name. From this register the 
 Federation's crews were manned. The Seaman's Union, 
 fearing that preference might by these means be given to 
 non-Unionists, entered into an alliance with the Dockers' 
 Union, whereby both Unions agreed to co-operate in boy- 
 cotting vessels which shipped their crews from the Shipping 
 Federation instead of the Seaman's Union. In accordance 
 with this decision the Glen Gelder, an Aberdeen steamship, 
 was blocked, while other vessels were compelled to ship 
 Unionists. The tactics adopted by the labour leaders during 
 this strike were precisely similar to those which they had 
 adopted elsewhere. Their policy was, by combining all the 
 torces of Labour, to concentrate their attack upon the Bute 
 Dock Company, and thus compel them to yield. But they had 
 reckoned without their host. Cardiff is fortunate enough to 
 possess a man who to an almost unrivalled knowledge of the 
 industries of South Wales adds an amount of ability and 
 fortitude which are seldom excelled, \o wit, Sir W. T. Lewis, 
 the Marquis of Bute's agent and manager. This gentleman 
 proved himself to be as formidable and resourceful an 
 antagonist of the New Unionism in Cardiff as Mr. Livesey 
 had been in London. Certain of the tippers employed in 
 the Bute Docks intimated to the foreman that they would 
 not shoot coals into a particular ship, the Glen Gelder, any 
 longer, for the reason that it belonged to the Shipping 
 Federation and was manned by a Federation crew. They 
 requested that the boat should be taken out of the Dock. 
 The Trade Unions also approached Sir W. T. Lewis and asked 
 him to give a guarantee that the men should not be com- 
 pelled to load ships carrying non-union crews. He emphati- 
 cally refused to give any such undertaking, and, in conse- 
 quence, all the 'men came out on strike. However, there 
 was abundance'of free labour in Cardiff, and men who were 
 willing to work were employed, and they were protected 
 
 I
 
 94 Sir W. T. Leivis's Victory. 
 
 by the Borough and the County police forces, who were 
 assisted by a detachment of soldiers. In these circum- 
 stances the Dock Company soon had the whole of their 
 cranes working, and the strike, so far as they were con- 
 cerned, was at an end. Mr. J. H. Wilson, of the Seaman's 
 Union, tried his best to block all the vessels in the port, 
 but with only indifferent success. Owing to the firmness 
 of Sir W. T. Lewis, and the support which was given to 
 him by the ship-owners, the strike had never very much 
 heart in it, and it soon simmered out. Thus another 
 deadly blow was struck at the New Unionism which had, 
 nevertheless, succeeded in throwing one of the most flourish- 
 ing towns in the country into temporary idleness and 
 disorder, the natural results of which were only prevented 
 from showing themselves, to the great injury of the dis- 
 trict, by the firmness with which the agitators and their 
 dupes were met by Sir W. T. Lewis and his supporters. 
 Sir William deserved a testimonial for his discreet and 
 determined action quite as much as Mr. George Livesey 
 did, and had he been given by the chances of war the 
 first opportunity of showing his prowess as an antagonist 
 of the New Unionism, his efforts would, no doubt, have 
 received some public recognition. Both employers and 
 workmen in South Wales are heavily indebted to Sir W. 
 T. Lewis, not merely for what he did during the strike 
 which has just been referred to, but still more for the 
 action which he has taken to prevent strikes, and at the 
 same time to insure to the workmen fair wages, inasmuch 
 as he is the author of the Sliding Scale which is in force 
 in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and which auto- 
 matically regulates wages in accordance with prices. It 
 may be stated that the Marquis of Bute declared his deter- 
 mination to entirely close the Docks for a period rather 
 than yield to the Trade Unions. 
 
 It is significant that the New Unionism put forth all its 
 strength in connection with this strike at Cardiff. All its prin- 
 cipal leaders, including Mr. J. H. Wilson, of the Seaman's
 
 Trade Union Impudence. 95 
 
 Union, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, and John Burns were on the 
 spot doing their utmostto rally their forces. In spite of all their 
 exertions, however, they were ignominiously defeated. Their 
 original demand was, as already indicated, that non-unionists 
 should be dismissed ; but when they found that they were 
 not going to carry things their own way they soon began to 
 moderate their tone and ultimately they were glad to present 
 a humble plea that unionists should be placed on the same 
 footing as non-unionists. This was in fact asking for nothing, 
 simply because the Dock Company had all along stated that 
 its wharves were open to unionists and non-unionists alike. 
 There never was a more impudent demand than that which 
 was put forth by the Seaman's and Dockers' Union in con- 
 nection with this Cardiff strike, namely, that the Dock Com- 
 pany should employ unionists only, and their attempt to 
 enforce this condition upon the Company by a wanton strike, 
 which injured not simply this particular Company but the 
 whole trade of the district, was not only an unsuccessful piece 
 of strategy, but was also a high-handed attempt to coerce 
 employers which was as unrighteous as it was arbitrary. 
 Towards the end of the strike Sir W. T. Lewis consented to 
 see Tom Mann, merely as a matter of courtesy and not as a 
 representative of any Union but merely as an individual, Sir 
 William's position being that he recognised no Union at all, 
 either of men or masters. He informed Mr. Mann that all 
 the places in the Docks had been filled up, and when Mr. 
 Mann, in singular contrast to his bravado on platforms, en- 
 treated Sir William to be merciful because he was strong, he 
 was told that justice came before mercy. Mann, notwith- 
 standing all that had occurred, had the hardihood to suggest 
 to Sir W. T. Lewis, that he should discharge the men who 
 had taken the places of the strikers and reinstate the latter. 
 Sir William, to his honour, utterly refused to entertain the 
 suggestion for a moment, and herein his conduct presents a 
 most favourable contrast with that of some other employers, 
 who have been mean enough to discharge the very men by 
 whose assistance they have been able to minimise or neutra-
 
 96 Mob Violence in Southampton. 
 
 lise the effects of a strike. In consequence of Sir W. T, 
 Lewis' firm attitude the strike leaders again began to indulge 
 in tall talk, and declared that they would call out 
 the whole of the workmen, invite the co-operation of all 
 the Trade Unions and so on. But it was talk and nothing 
 more. In the end they had to submit to a humiliating de- 
 feat with the best grace possible. The strike in Cardiff, like 
 that in South London, ended in the Unions being vanquished 
 and in the victims of the Unions losing their employment, al- 
 though the leaders of these Unions were not one penny the 
 worse. 
 
 The third strike in point of importance which occurred 
 during the period under review was the Dock Strike at South- 
 ampton, which was caused solely by the interference and the 
 arrogance of the newly formed Dockers' Union. In South- 
 ampton, as in London, the Dock Company and their employes 
 were working amicably together until this Union, for its own 
 purposes, came in between them. When the trouble began 
 the Dock Company consented to increase wages to 6d. per 
 hour by day and yd. per hour by night, though at the same 
 time, perceiving what manner of men they had to deal with, 
 they quietly arranged to place their labour on a new and 
 sounder basis by engaging permanent workmen at a guinea 
 per week. This, of course, did not suit the agitators who were 
 fomenting the disturbances. Very soon all the labourers in 
 the port, coal, corn, and general porters, seamen and firemen, 
 as well as the dockers were out on strike, with the result that 
 the trade of the town was thoroughly paralysed. Pickets 
 were stationed all round the Docks and railways to prevent 
 labourers from being imported. Matters quickly assumed a 
 threatening aspect, and on the very day of the strike rein- 
 forcements of police were obtained from London and from 
 the headquarters of the Hampshire County Police, whilst the 
 soldiers in Winchester barracks were ordered to be kept in 
 readiness should their services be required. An engine, 
 which was about to cross from the station to the Dock, was 
 taken possession of by a crowd of enraged strikers, who
 
 Rulers Negotiate with Rebels. 97 
 
 seized the engine driver by the throat, threw him into the 
 
 roadway, and backed the engine into the station again. A 
 
 riot was anticipated, and the Mayor hastily convened the 
 
 Watch Committee. An interview was held between these 
 
 gentlemen and the representatives of the Dockers' Union, at 
 
 which it was agreed that the mails should have free access to 
 
 the Docks, and that passengers by American liners should 
 
 also pass without molestation, the Mayor stating that no 
 
 *' blacklegs " should enter the Dock that night. Surely this 
 
 was a singular compact to be entered into by the Mayor and 
 
 Watch Committee of a leading sea-port, especially when it is 
 
 added that the agreement further specified that " in case of 
 
 breach of faith, the Dockers' Union were to take what steps 
 
 they liked to prevent workmen from going into the Docks." 
 
 The spectacle of the responsible magistrates of Southampton 
 
 parleying with a set of ruffians, whose only followers were a 
 
 band of discontented and disorderly workmen, and entering 
 
 into something like an armistice with them, tho ugh from one 
 
 point of view it was nothing better than a ridiculous farce, 
 
 was nevertheless calculated to cause uneasy reflections as to 
 
 the course which events were taking. Clearly it was the 
 
 duty of the Mayor and Watch Committee to repress, promptly 
 
 and sternly, any outbreak of lawlessness, and at the same 
 
 time to give proper protection to the respectable workmen of 
 
 the town who were willing to pursue their callings. The 
 
 stupidity of these Southampton magnates stands out still 
 
 more clearly in view of the fact that Southampton, owing to 
 
 its lack of enterprise and its failure to make the best of its 
 
 natural advantages, years ago allowed most of its trade to 
 
 drift to London, and in view of the further fact that owing to 
 
 the effects of the Dock Strike in London it had at this very 
 
 juncture a chance of getting back some of the business which 
 
 it had allowed to go to the Metropolis. During the few 
 
 months which had elapsed between the Dock Strike in London 
 
 and the Dock Strike in Southampton the trade of the latter 
 
 port had looked up very considerably indeed. 
 
 To the credit of the Mayor of Southampton, however, it
 
 g8 Sold by Paid Agitators. 
 
 must be stated that he telegraphed for 250 soldiers on the 
 very day that he allowed himself to palaver with the strikers. 
 The next day the windows of his business establishment were 
 broken, and the crowds in the streets were charged by the 
 soldiers with fixed bayonets, many people being seriously 
 injured. The Mayor's private residence had to be placed 
 under the protection of the military, and additional troops 
 were telegraphed for. Every part of the Docks, and even of 
 the town, was rigorously picketed, nobody being allowed to 
 work, while all kinds of malicious injuries were done to 
 property. And what was it all for ? Simply in order that 
 the high-blown pride of a few of the New Unionist agitators 
 might be flattered by the recognition of their Union on the 
 part of the employers. The recognition of the Union was 
 positively the only question in dispute, and the employers,, 
 who acted like reasonable and common-sense men and thus 
 presented a singular contrast to the conduct of the local 
 rulers, steadfastly refused to give to the Union the recogni- 
 tion which it demanded. 
 
 The Southampton strike did not last many days, and it 
 ended in a more decisive defeat for the New Unionism than 
 any that had preceded it. The masters refused to see any of 
 the leaders of the dockers, or to enter into any agreement 
 with them, and in view of this firm attitude the Executive 
 of the Dockers' Union in London quickly found it expedient 
 to repudiate their agents in Southampton, and to declare 
 that the strike had been begun without their authority and 
 against their advice. The workmen were thoroughly well 
 beaten, and the masters, having had the good sense to con- 
 duct their business in their own way and to reject the advice 
 and intervention of fussy busy-bodies, were able to resume 
 business with their freedom and power unimpaired. Several 
 of the rioters were sent to prison, and many of the labourers 
 found that their places had been occupied by others, whilst 
 all of them had lost a considerable sum in wages, only to 
 find in the end that they had been befooled. " Paid agitators 
 have sold us," was their cry when they were advised to
 
 Carpenters Sillier than Dockers. gg 
 
 resume work without having gained by the strike any one of 
 the objects for which it was started. There has been 
 exceedingly little trouble at the Southampton Docks since 
 this strike ended. 
 
 The other principal strikes which occurred during the 
 period which we are considering were those which took 
 place at Silvertown, London (where the New Unionism 
 received another smashing blow), the Tailors' Strike in 
 London, the Bakers' Strike in London, the Cabmen's 
 Strike in London, the Carpenters' Strike in London, the 
 Brickmakers' Strike in Kent, the Gas-stokers' Strike in 
 Leeds, the strike at Manningham Mills, Bradford and 
 the strike at Messrs. Doulton's in Lambeth. Perhaps 
 the most unreasonable of all these strikes was that of 
 the London Carpenters, who demanded that their hours 
 of work should be reduced to 47 per week, whilst at the 
 same time their wages should be increased to lod. per hour. 
 This is an admirable illustration of the present fanatical 
 temper of working-men. Carpenters are skilled artisans, and 
 not rude labourers like the dockers, and, moreover, their 
 Trade Unionism is of the old and not of the new order. If 
 any class of men in the country might have been expected to 
 exhibit intelligence, reasonableness, and self-control, surely it 
 was the carpenters ; yet these men showed such an incapacity 
 to comprehend the issues involved, and so entirely miscalcu- 
 lated their strength and the power of those against whom it 
 was directed, that they actually went on strike, and remained 
 on strike for nearly six months, in order to enforce upon 
 their employers terms more preposterous than any that have 
 ever been demanded by any body of workmen in this country. 
 The master builders of London, because they declined to 
 practically commit suicide by granting these terms, were 
 struck against, and their businesses brought to a standstill, 
 immense loss being inflicted upon thousands of people. 
 Nevertheless, the Trade Union Congress and the Executive 
 Committees of numerous Trade Unions not only passed reso- 
 lutions of sympathy with the London carpenters, but also
 
 loo Imbecility at Leeds. 
 
 assisted them with funds. No doubt their motives in so 
 acting were selfish, for if carpenters are to work only 
 47 hours per week, less than eight hours per day, and are to 
 receive 6s. 8d. a day for it, it is certain that all other artisans 
 will soon demand the same terms. It would almost seem 
 that the more extreme and absurd are the terms demanded 
 by any body of strikers the more likely are they to receive 
 support, not merely from the New Unionism, but also from 
 the older Trade Unions as well. The Carpenters' Strike 
 was ultimately settled by a compromise.* 
 
 The strike at Leeds demands notice, if only for the reason 
 that the conduct of the Leeds Corporation was such as to 
 make it doubtful whether the local authorities of South- 
 ampton or those of Leeds showed the greater incapacity and 
 imbecility. The strike arose out of a dispute which occurred 
 between the Gas Committee of the Leeds Corporation and 
 their workmen. The Committee issued notices to their men 
 intimating that they would in future be required to work 
 upon certain conditions, which were duly set forth. The 
 men declined to submit to these conditions and struck work, 
 both of which things they had a perfect right to do. Other 
 men were engaged to take their places. These new men, 
 however, were not allowed to enter the gasworks in conse- 
 quence of the violence and intimidation to which they were 
 subjected by the workmen on strike. It was at this point, 
 as is usually the case in these strikes, that the strikers put 
 themselves in the wrong ; it is at this point, too, that 
 employers are put to the test, and show either their strength 
 or their weakness. At Leeds the Corporation succeeded 
 only in demonstrating its utter impotency. Some of the 
 new men who did succeed in entering the gasworks soon 
 threw up their work owing to the terrible threats which were 
 made against them. Serious disturbances occurred in the 
 town, and for more than one night Leeds was left in total 
 darkness. The gas-workers and their sympathisers armed 
 themselves with formidable sticks to which hooks, spikes, 
 *For fuller information see Appendices.
 
 Corrupting Influence of the Popular Vote. loi 
 
 and nails were attached, and with these they attacked the 
 pohcc, who vigorously defended themselves with their batons, 
 the result being a very large number of broken heads. The 
 military had to be called out, and violent riots occurred, 
 during which several officers, soldiers, and constables were 
 seriously wounded. Anarchy threatened to reign supreme 
 for the time. These events showed how thoroughly the 
 labourers of Leeds, like those of London, had learned the 
 lessons which had been taught by recent events in Ireland. 
 They also indicated some of the dangers which lurk in the 
 ownership of gas and water works by Municipalities. Just 
 now there is a strong demand in certain quarters that works 
 of this class, in London and all our large cities, should be 
 placed under the direct control of the County or Town 
 Councils. Whatever may be said in favour of this course, 
 such events as those which occurred at Leeds show that its 
 dangers are such as to outweigh its advantages. If the Leeds 
 Gas Works had been in the hands of private owners we 
 should not have witnessed such a deplorable spectacle of 
 feebleness and indecision as was presented by the members 
 of the Gas Committee. These gentlemen knew that the 
 strikers were their own constituents, and that they could 
 send them about their business at the next election. No 
 doubt they were honourable men enough, and in any other 
 circumstances would have acted in a manly and dignified 
 spirit, but in the actual circumstances in which they found 
 themselves they acted very much like the American Judge, 
 who is elected by the popular vote, and who therefore, with 
 all his love of justice in the abstract, manages so to manipu- 
 late matters in his Court as to secure re-election. The Gas 
 Committee at Leeds, after quarrelling: with their men, in- 
 volving the town in riot, and causing a loss to the gasworks 
 of ;£'20,ooo, made an abject surrender to the strikers, to 
 whom they yielded practically everything, in addition to 
 which they had the unspeakable meanness to discharge the 
 free labourers who had come to their help at a dangerous 
 crisis, merely giving them a few pounds by way of compen-
 
 I02 Strike Riots in Bradford. 
 
 sation. The action of Mr. George Livesey in London, and 
 of these anonymous pigmies in Leeds, marks the difference 
 between the action of a man who is strong and indepen- 
 dent and the action of men who are merely creatures of the 
 popular vote. 
 
 The strike at Manningham Mills, Bradford, originated 
 with the weavers. But in March, 1891, all the spinners and 
 skeiners struck work in sympathy with the weavers, some 
 5,000 hands thus being idle. On the 4th of April, Mr. 
 Watson, one of the Directors, informed the spoolers and 
 skeiners that unless they decided to return to work arrange- 
 ments would have to be made for removing the machinery 
 elsewhere, and consequently the spoolers, to the number of 
 200, expressed their willingness to return to work. No doubt 
 the remainder of the strikers would have done the same in 
 the course of a short time if they had been left to themselves. 
 On April 12th, however, Ben Tillett and other stormy petrels 
 appeared upon the scene and addressed a meeting in connec- 
 tion with the strike. The authorities had prohibited the 
 holding of this meeting in the Town Hall Square, and in view 
 of a threat to hold it in defiance of this prohibition, 150 
 police were held in readiness for action. Mr. Councillor 
 Sanders, of Rotherham, followed by crowds of people, made 
 two attempts to hold a meeting in this Square, but the people 
 were dispersed by the police. The next day still further 
 attempts were made to hold meetings in the Square, and the 
 military were in consequence called out. The Riot Act was 
 read, and bayonet charges were made. The Town Hall 
 windows were broken, and considerable damage was done 
 to other property. At one of these meetings a leaflet was 
 circulated headed, ** Communists Appeal to Criminals." It 
 was of a most violent character, and was signed " Your 
 Brothers and Comrades in the Social Revolution, the Shef- 
 field Group of Communists and Anarchists." During the 
 riots stones an<l other missiles, including open knives, were 
 thrown at the police — another indication that the lower class 
 of English working men were not at all indisposed to
 
 Distress Follows the Agitator, 103 
 
 • mitate the tactics which had been so freely resorted to in 
 Ireland. 
 
 It is a significant fact that this outbreak of violence in 
 Bradford coincided with the arrival upon the scene of Mr. 
 Ben Tillett and his coadjutors. Tillett seemed to have 
 profited, however, by his experiences in Cardiff, and conse- 
 quently he did not take any prominent part in the meetings 
 which were prohibited by the authorities ; but all the same 
 his influence, which was not an influence for good, made 
 itself felt. The authorities at Bradford acted like men who 
 have true northern grit in them, and made it clear that they 
 meant to stand no nonsense. The result was that they soon 
 succeeded in putting down the disorder, as is always the case 
 where men in authority act with vigour and dispatch. The 
 Directors of the Manningham Mills stood to their guns, and 
 refused either to concede the demands of their workpeople 
 or to submit the matter to arbitration. The upshot of the 
 matter has been that much of the business has been removed 
 from Bradford, and that many of the strikers now find them- 
 selves without employment. Bradford has long been one of 
 the most prosperous towns in the North of England : but 
 since the agitators of the New Unionism threw their shadow 
 across it, thousands of its inhabitants have suffered distress 
 more bitter and extreme than has been known for genera- 
 tions.* 
 
 The dispute which occurred at Doulton's Potteries was in 
 some respects more instructive than any of those which have 
 
 • Perhaps no man has done so much for Bradford as the eminent inventor 
 and manufacturer, Mr. S. Cunliffe-I.ister, now Lord Masham, the former proprietor 
 of, and still the principal shareholder in, the Manningham Mills. Yet when Lord 
 Masham appeared in Bradford in April, 1892, to deliver a lecture upon Protection 
 and Free Trade, he was unable to gain a hearing, although the chairman besought 
 the audience to listen to him on account of his great age and his labours for the 
 good of the town. It was all in vain, however, and Lord Masham had finally to 
 deliver his lecture simply to the reporters, who had the greatest difficulty in hear- 
 ing it on account of the continual disturbance. An assemblage of lunatics would 
 have behaved more rationally than did these exemplars of the New Unionism. Whilst 
 Lord Masham, Bradford's greatest benefactor, is thus treated, Mr. Ben Tillett, a 
 promoter of industrial strife and ruin, is accepted as the Labour candidate for the 
 representation of East Bradford in Parliament. Truly the ways of the Democracy 
 are— to put it mildly — peculiar.
 
 104 Dictating to Employers. 
 
 "been noticed, inasmuch as it affords a more flagrant example 
 of the arrogance of Trade Unions, and of the tyranny with 
 which they attempt to enforce their views upon employers. 
 Sir Henrj' Doulton, being anxious to train up really skilful 
 potters in order that his celebrated ware might be kept up 
 to its high level of excellence, encouraged the training of 
 boys in the art of " Throwing " on the potter's wheel, an art 
 which can only be learned proficiently by those who begin it 
 in early life. With this object in view, he secured indentured 
 apprentices as required, and also introduced a modification 
 of the system of apprenticeship by substituting the payment 
 of a bonus for legal compulsion, such bonus being paid to 
 each youth who completed his term in a commendable 
 manner. These voluntar}' agreements, made between the 
 lad and his parents on the one hand and the firm on the 
 other hand, were found to work very satisfactorily, and as 
 the result of the system the lads tramed in this handicraft 
 at Lambeth and Burslem received the highest awards, and 
 also the freedom of the City, at the exhibition which was 
 held by the Turners' Company at the Mansion House some 
 time ago. Sir Henry Doulton states that he has been able 
 to develop this art only by the patient training of youths in 
 "Throwing," and by selecting those youths who have shown 
 exceptional skill and taste in this difficult craft. When 
 several vacancies occurred in December of i8gc three lads, 
 who were sons of journeymen employed by the firm, were 
 put in training. " At this point," says Sir Henry, " I was 
 surprised by receiving a demand from a Trades Union, 
 ' Affiliated to the London Trades Council,' that there should 
 in future be only one apprentice to every seven journeymen. 
 I urged on a deputation of the workmen that under such 
 conditions past progress would have been impossible, and 
 that had such a cast-iron rule existed in the past, few, if any, 
 of those present would have been trained as potters. I 
 pointed out that in the past there was no excessive employ- 
 ment of learners, nor was this so at the present time. On 
 the contrary, the proportion at present was less than at any
 
 Trade Uniofi Tyranny Ruinous to Trade. 105 
 
 time during,' the last fourteen years. As to the future, I felt 
 convinced that the numbers in training were absolutely 
 needed. Within two hours I received the following notice : 
 
 " ' London Potters' Trades Society, 
 " * Affiliated to the London Trades Council, 
 " ' Society House, 2nd Dec, 1890. 
 " ' To Sir Henry Doulton. 
 
 " ' Dear Sir, — Having heard the report of the deputation 
 you received this morninp^, and your determination to keep 
 the three boys in dispute on the wheel, it is our duty to 
 inform you that at a mass meeting of your employes, labourers 
 excepted, this afternoon, it was unanimously decided that, 
 unless you agreed to take the three boys in question off 
 immediately, every piece worker will cease work at once, and 
 every day workman on Thursday next at 6 p.m. This com- 
 prises the following branches : Throwers, Stone Moulders, 
 Terra Cotta ditto, and Lathers.' " 
 
 Of course no employer who respected himself could yield 
 to such an impudent attempt at coercion as this. Were he 
 to do so he would simply acknowledge that he is incapable 
 of understanding or of conducting his business, and that he 
 is willing to hand over its management to those whom he 
 employs and pays. Sir Henry Doulton says : *• The action 
 taken in this case is an instructive illustration of some 
 modern developments of Trades Unionism. Such a tyran- 
 nous attempt to exercise unlimited control over the employer 
 I have felt bound to resist, because I believed that the prin- 
 ciple contended for would only result in ultimate ruin to the- 
 trade. That I have been completely successful is due to no 
 want of stubborn obstinacy on the part of the workmen. But 
 I have to point out that such contentions as the present, 
 even if they secure to the Unions their unreasonable 
 demands, must certainly end as disastrously to the English 
 working man as to our own present national supremacy in
 
 io6 Trade Unionism Socialistic. 
 
 manufacture, and would but prove fatal to improvement and 
 extension in our national industries."* 
 
 The strike which followed upon Sir Henry's determination 
 not to be dictated to or coerced lasted for three months. All 
 the works of the firm, including those in South Staffordshire 
 and at Burslem, were picketed. Other firms of potters were 
 warned against supplying Doulton's with goods, and their 
 works were also picket-d. Men who had been for years 
 working for the firm at excellent wages were forced by 
 intimidation to leave their employment, and thus their 
 families were in mid-winter deprived of the necessaries of life. 
 Nevertheless, the London Trades Council sanctioned and 
 upheld the strike, and appealed to all the affiliated Unions 
 to support the men. In Sir Henry Doulton's words : 
 "Agitators have been continually employed to incite the men 
 against their employers, and all the resources of modern 
 Socialistic warfare have been brought into play, regardless 
 of the ultimate result to the trade and manufacture." In the 
 end the men had to unconditionally surrender to Sir Henry 
 Doulton, as is always the case where an employer shows that 
 he has a backbone, and does not mean to be squeezed. But 
 how abysmal must be the folly of Trade Union leaders and 
 workmen who thus attack an employer who has practically 
 created a new industry, and thereby found profitable employ- 
 ment for something like 5,000 persons, and who, after 
 making a malignant attempt to injure the employer (who has 
 been to them a benefactor), are compelled to unconditionally 
 surrender, only to find that they have succeeded in injuring 
 nobody but themselves and their families. This strike, it 
 may be remarked, was not strictly a product of the New 
 Unionism, but was promoted by the older Trade Unions — 
 
 ♦ On August 15, 1890, a coal merchant stated to Mr. Dickenson, the magis- 
 trate at the Thames Police Court, that he employed a number of coal porters at 
 his wharves and warehouses at a wage of 28s. per week, and that he had now 
 received a letter from the Coal Porters' Union stating that unless he paid the 
 wages laid down by them they would not allow any of his workmen to commence 
 work on Monday morning. He wished to know whether this was not an act of 
 intimidation. The magistrate stated that he could give no advice on the subject, 
 and advised the applicant to go and consult a solicitor.
 
 Be-fooling Farm Labourers. 107 
 
 which is only one more proof of the fact that the spirit of the 
 new Sociahstic Labour movement is permeating and domi- 
 nating Trade Unionism as a whole. 
 
 While these strikes were going on in all parts of the 
 country Tom Mann and Ben Tillett were on the stump trying 
 to incite other workmen against their masters, and to create 
 still more strikes. Mann visited Lincolnshire, where he 
 addressed the agricultural labourers in the same strain as he 
 had spoken to the dockers in London. He urged these men 
 to join the Dockers' Union, though what such a Union has 
 to do with farm labourers is not very apparent, and told them 
 that if they did so the Dockers' Union would assist them to 
 obtain shorten hours and higher wages, and also to get a freer 
 access to the soil by means of allotments and small holdings. 
 Of course Mann's real object was to prevent the labourers 
 going into the towns, and thus competing with the dockers 
 for work. At Derby, Mann addressed a number of brick- 
 layers who were on strike, and told them of the great 
 things he proposed to do through the Labour Commission, 
 of which he had been appointed a member.* 
 
 Ben Tillett also visited Lincolnshire and parts of 
 Oxfordshire, while Tom McCarthy bestowed his attention 
 upon the Isle of Wight. The burden of their speeches was 
 that the labourer's wages and dwellings were disgraceful ; 
 that they ought to combine for higher wages ; that they 
 ought to be able to get the land that was out of cultivation ; 
 that the ** Union meant to stop the drain of labourers into the 
 towns where the women sink to a life of shame and the men 
 die in the workhouse " ; and that " the Union wanted to give 
 every man and woman a chance to live in their own country." 
 Apparently these gentlemen were too blinded by passion to 
 
 * By-the-by, when English gentlemen are] appointed members of such a 
 Commission as this they usually think it becoming, as honourable men, to abstain 
 ifrom taking any side upon the matters into which they have been appointed to 
 inquire while that inquiry is in progress. The capitalists and employers on the 
 Commission have scrupulously observed this unwritten rule. Mr. Tom Mann 
 has evidently a different code of honour, as he thinks there is nothing indecent in 
 playing the part of a violent labour agitator at the same time that he is sitting 
 <upon a Labour Commission, presumably in a semi-judicial capacity.
 
 io8 The Fruits of Agitation. 
 
 perceive that there was any amount of land to be had in the 
 country, and at a merely nominal price, by those who had 
 the money to hire and work it. But of course what they 
 meant to convey to their hearers was that public money 
 should be used in order to provide small farms for labourers 
 who were unable to find money for themselves. 
 
 Another noteworthy fact is that whilst men were throwing 
 up their work and their wages in all parts of the country, 
 and thus reducing themselves and their families to want, the 
 greatest distress prevailed in various districts, and piteous 
 appeals for assistance came from all quarters. The winter 
 season of 1890-gi was one of the most severe that we have 
 experienced in this country for a very long time, and even if 
 the working classes had been as fully employed^as possible 
 there would have been privation enough among those whose 
 occupations were stopped by the weather. But the extreme 
 and bitter character of the winter was not allowed to 
 influence the calculations of the labour agitators, who went 
 on with their mischievous work utterly regardless of its effects 
 upon those who might suffer from cold and want. Possibly 
 they counted upon the weather as an ally, and thought they 
 had a better chance of success with the charitably disposed 
 than they would have in ordinary seasons. It is a singular 
 fact that men who went on strike on the most ridiculous 
 pretexts were not at all ashamed to appeal to charity the 
 very week after they ceased work, although they had been 
 receiving good wages, and still less were they ashamed of 
 asking the very people who suffered through their foolish 
 conduct to assist them in living in idleness, A still more 
 astounding fact was that many of the employers ^who had 
 suffered injury and loss through the strikes of their workmen 
 were willing to give liberal subscriptions towards the support 
 of those workmen and their families. 
 
 While these strikes were going on in this country, similar 
 conflicts were taking place in other countries. At J^otter- 
 dam some 5,000 Dock labourers, anxious to emulate their 
 fellows in London, went on strike. The Dutch authorities,
 
 Fruits of Unionism in Australia. 109 
 
 however, acted in a most vigorous manner, which contrasted 
 strongly with the supineness of the Home Office in London 
 during our Dock Strike. When the strikers began to riot, 
 the poHce at once charged them with bayonets, and troops 
 were called out, several volleys being fired into the crowd. 
 As a natural consequence the strike was practically over as 
 soon as it had commenced. The Australians, who had done 
 so much to keep the London Dock Strike alive, now found 
 that they had quite enough to do to cope with their own 
 labour troubles. Retribution followed sharply upon their folly 
 in supporting the London strikers. At Melbourne the gas- 
 stokers went on strike ; the sea-board traffic was practically 
 stopped by a strike of the seamen ; at Newcastle the mine 
 owners decided to close the pits ; foundries were stopped 
 for want of fuel ; and it was found necessary in the principal 
 cities to strengthen the police force and to swear in special 
 constables. Australian workmen appealed to England for 
 aid, and the Dockers' and other Unions responded by sending 
 large donations. The United Trades Committee sent 
 £3.500, the United Labour Council £3,250, Amalgamated 
 Engineers £1,600, the Gas Stokers £300, the Bricklayers 
 5^250. Parliamentary Committee £1,978, London Trades 
 Council £r,ooo, Sailors and Fireman's Union £1,000, the 
 Boiler Makers' £500, Docker's Union £1,000.* In Sydney- 
 serious rioting occurred, and the streets were cleared by the 
 police and the troops. The Government of New South 
 Wales resolved to buy up all the rifle ammunition in 
 Sydney, to prevent its getting into the hands of the strikers. 
 In fact the strike threatened to resolve itself into a fierce 
 struggle between the forces of Authority and of Anarchy, 
 and the resources of the Australian Governments were 
 severely taxed to prevent the forces of Anarchy from becom- 
 ing supreme. Happily they realised the gravity of the crisis 
 and showed no weakness, and so in the end they triumphed. 
 This general strike in Australia was a logical development of 
 
 *Mr. Clem Edwardes, representing the Docker's Union, actually appealed to the 
 English churches for support towards the Australian Dock Strike. 
 
 K
 
 no The Strike Mania. 
 
 the Trades Unionism which has been petted and flattered in 
 those colonies for many years. It was in the main a struggle not 
 only for the recognition of the Unions, but for the right of 
 those Unions to dictate to the employers that they should 
 employ only Unionist workmen ; in other words it was a 
 mortal combat between Free Labour and Trade Unionism. 
 Free Labour triumphed. A remarkable feature about this 
 strike was that Mr. H. H. Champion, who was a leader of 
 the Dock Strike in this country, took a strong stand against 
 the extreme pretensions of the Trade Unions in Australia. 
 
 As illustrating the manner in which the strike mania spread, 
 and the ridiculous lengths to which it sometimes went, the 
 following incidents may be noticed. At Millville Glass 
 Works, New Jersey, United States, the tending boys left 
 the factories as a protest against the employment of fourteen 
 Jews, the result being that 3,000 adult workmen were locked 
 out. At Barcelona, Spain, a meeting of funeral mutes was 
 held, and a strike for higher wages was decided upon. At 
 the Heko Palace, China, 10,000 workmen were engaged in 
 restoring and decorating the palace. Three thousand 
 carvers and a number of carpenters struck for higher wages. 
 They were receiving three meals a day and 2,000 " cash " ; 
 but they demanded 7,500 " cash " a day. When the em- 
 ployers refused to give the advance a signal gun was fired, 
 and thousands of carvers, carpenters, and masons began to 
 make threatening demonstrations. The police were unable 
 to cope with the strikers, and Guards, Cavalry, and the 
 Rifle Brigade were soon on the spot and surrounded the 
 malcontents. The aff"air ended in a compromise, the men 
 being allowed 4,000 " cash " per day. Three hundred girls 
 employed at Willington Quay, on the Tyne, went on strike 
 because their employers had declined to recognise the 
 National Labour Federation, which the girls had recently 
 joined. At Kilburn 300 laundry women went on strike and 
 marched to the principal laundries where the women 
 continued at work. At several places they smashed the 
 windows, and succeeded in getting the laundry women to
 
 Boys Imitate their Fathers. iii 
 
 turn out, and a strong force of police had to be requisitioned 
 to prevent further rioting. The women demanded 3s. 6d. 
 for a day of eight hours, and beer money in addition. At 
 Newington, near Sittingbourne, the hop pickers struck for 
 an advance of wages. Excited by drink, they gathered 
 round the farmer's house and demanded more money, and 
 when he refused to give it they threatened to kill hiiTi. In 
 Oct., i88g, a number of schoolboys struck in Bermondsey, 
 and paraded the streets in procession, some of them armed 
 with sticks, and visited a number of the neighbourmg schools. 
 They hurrahed and shouted, and sang " We are all on strike, 
 And we are as happy as can be ; We mean to keep it up, 
 For we've got the £ s. d." In Woolwich, Plumstead, and 
 Charlton several hundred boys struck for shorter hours, and 
 went about armed with sticks to induce the boys of other 
 schools to come out, and where they refused the malcontents 
 broke the school windows. At Poole's Park schools, Lennox 
 Road, Finsbury Park, 70 boys determined to go on strike, 
 got out of the playground in the middle of the afternoon, 
 armed themselves with sticks and stones, and marched in 
 procession through the streets shouting out their demands 
 for " Shorter hours, no cane, and no home work." At 
 Liverpool 200 boys went on strike for fewer home lessons 
 and shorter hours. They held a meeting on a piece of waste 
 ground during the dinner hour and resolved not to go back, 
 and when the masters appealed to them they were refused a 
 hearing. At Swansea 150 seventh standard scholars paraded 
 the streets, and smashed the wmdows of several of the 
 schools. Among the documents received at the London 
 School Board on Oct. 10, i88g, v/as one which read thus : 
 
 " To the London School Board. 
 
 " Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — A meeting of the 
 schoolboys of Kennington and Lambeth met on the Albert 
 Embankment to-day. Unless the demands are granted they 
 will keep away from school : free education ; one free rneal 
 a day; no home lessons ; no punishment (by caning). The
 
 112 Curses come Home to Roost. 
 
 boys and girls will meet at same place later on, and parade 
 the streets, and extend it to the whole of London. A speedy 
 answer will oblige." 
 
 These facts are of interest as illustrating how the 
 strike fever was "in the air," and how multitudes of people 
 were affected by it. Even the quarrymen of Mr. 
 Charles Stewart Parnell struck work, and attacked the house 
 of the foreman, and threw his wife into a dangerous illness 
 from fright. Mr. Parnell threatened to close the quarries if 
 the rioting continued. Curses, like chickens, come home to 
 roost, and the man who had directed boycotting and violence 
 to be used against others in the most cruel and systematic 
 manner was now served with his own sauce. When a dinner 
 was given at the Naval Exhibition to representatives of the 
 Press on Sep. 9, i8gi, the German waiters who had been 
 appointed to attend upon the guests struck on the ground 
 that they had not received fair treatment at the hands of the 
 Press. Mr. Mackenzie Ross, the manager, paid the insolent 
 fellows their wages then and there, and turned them out of 
 the building, fresh waiters being summoned by telephone 
 from other parts of the grounds. 
 
 The principal strikes which have been referred to in this 
 chapter have several features in common ; they all clearly 
 reveal the animus and the tactics of the New Unionism, and 
 accentuate its dangerous characteristics ; and they all show 
 that a new and mischievous force is at work in the industrial 
 world, or at all events that new weapons are being wielded 
 by an old force. The facts tell their own story, and they 
 would not be made any more impressive by rhetorical em- 
 bellishments ; they may well be left, therefore, to speak for 
 themselves, as they will certainly do in the case of intelligent 
 and interested readers, to whom they will suggest not a few 
 grave reflections and forebodings.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Railway and Omnibus Strikes. 
 
 CLOSELY connected with the Dock Strike in Cardiff, 
 which was dealt with in the last chapter, were the rail- 
 way strikes which took place in South Wales, of which 
 Cardiff is the centre. For two years this important indus- 
 trial region was torn by sharp dissensions ; rumours and 
 threats of strikes were of constant occurrence ; and several 
 strikes of a disastrous nature actually occurred. In August, 
 1890, just a year after the Dock Strike in London, rumours 
 of serious trouble began to circulate in and around Cardiff. 
 The men had given in their notices, which were to expire on 
 August 6th, when it was declared, from 150,000 to 200,000 
 men would be on strike. The Railway Companies issued 
 announcements warning the public that there might be con- 
 siderable delay in the running of the trains owing to the 
 action of the men ; they also gave instructions to their officers 
 to take on all the men who required work without any re- 
 gard to Trade Unionism, and thousands of applications for em- 
 ployment were received as soon as the requirements of the 
 companies were made known. Mr. E. Harford, of the Railway 
 Men's Amalgamated Society, boasted that the men had 
 ^100,000 at their back, and that they could, if necessary, 
 procure another ^100,000, and prolong the strife for six 
 months. Ben Tillett, as a matter of course, also appeared 
 upon the scene, though it is not quite clear what he had to 
 do with railway men — except, indeed, that like all agitators, 
 his interest lies in fomenting strife between employers and 
 their workmen, and in making bitter and foolish attacks upon 
 capitalists. Tillett said in Cardiff, at the end of July, i8go,
 
 114 ^^^^ Issue at Cardiff. 
 
 that " if the railway authorities thought they could take ad- 
 vantage of the men they miscalculated, and there would be 
 war to the bitter end." By-the-by, men of this type always 
 talk of " war to the bitter end," but if the employers talk in 
 the same strain they are denounced as callous and cold- 
 blooded brutes. 
 
 On August 5, the Directors of the South Wales Railway 
 Companies met and passed a resolution strongly condemning 
 the demand of the men that none but members of their 
 Union should be employed at the Docks. A deputation of 
 railway men, accompanied by Mr. Harford, waited upon the 
 Directors, who declined to meet anybody but their own work- 
 men, and consequently Mr. Harford and his deputation had 
 to retire. On the same day the Executive of the Cardiff 
 Chamber of Commerce also condemned the demand of the 
 men with reference to the employment of non-union labour 
 at the Docks, and the general feeling of the Chamber was 
 that to yield to such a demand would be most impolitic, and 
 that a lock-out would be the less of two evils. A letter was 
 also sent from the Chamber to the three Railway Companies 
 declaring that the right of Free Labour in the port of Cardiff 
 ought to be maintained at all costs. A correspondence on 
 this point took place between -^ir W. T. Lewis, the manager 
 of the Bute Docks, and Mr. W. Riley, the Chairman of the 
 Cardiff Chamber of Commerce. Sir William said he had 
 had an interview with some of the men, who made it a con- 
 dition precedent to discussion that the Dock Company should 
 undertake to employ none but Trade Unionists, to which con- 
 dition he had flatly refused to agree. Mr. Riley, in reply, 
 said that the merchants of the port would strengthen the 
 hands of the Dock Directors by every means in their power, 
 even to the extent of ordering a lock-out, rather than that 
 Free Labour should be excluded from the Bute Docks. At 
 the largest meeting of shipowners ever held in Cardiff, which 
 took place on the same day, the following resolution was 
 passed : " That this association protests most strongly against 
 the arbitrary and tyrannical conduct of the Seaman's,
 
 ' ' Instructions from L eaders . " 115 
 
 Engineer's, Docker's, and Labourer's Unions at Cardiff, as 
 evinced in the present dispute, and considers that the time 
 has arrived when, in the interest of government, and of com- 
 merce generally, a firm and continued stand should be made 
 against such conduct : that this Association binds itself to 
 use all legitimate means to preserve for employers the right 
 to engage Free Labour, and decides that the shipo\vners of 
 the United Kingdom be requested to support this Associa- 
 tion by keeping their vessels away from the port pending the 
 dispute ; and that the thanks of the Association be tendered 
 to the Directors of the local Docks and Railways for the firm 
 stand they are making." 
 
 Strenuous efforts were made to avert the strike by Lord 
 Aberdare, Lord Dunraven, and other men of mfluence who 
 were immediately interested in the district, and also by such 
 men as Cardinal Manning and Lord Brassey, who were not 
 so interested. To these men the representatives of the 
 working men appealed, but without any practical effect. 
 On August 6th the Railway Strike began. The drivers and 
 firemen and guards of the trains on the Taff Vale, Rhymney^ 
 and Barry Railways left their engines during the night, and in 
 the morning the signalmen, " according to instructions from 
 their leaders," left their duties, after placing all signals at 
 danger. Scores of thousands of men were thrown into idle- 
 ness, and the whole trade of South Wales was paralysed. 
 Hundreds of railway men from the Midlands and other dis- 
 tricts were imported for the purpose of carrying on the rail- 
 way traffic, and these were housed in barricaded huts which 
 had previously been erected for their reception. One little 
 incident will give an idea of the state of things which was 
 produced by this wanton Railway Strike. The morning mail 
 leaves Cardiff for the Rhondda Valley at half-past three a.m. 
 The railway men held a meeting a few hours previously, and 
 graciously condescended to allow the mail to be run as usual, 
 in order that the public might not be " unnecessarily dis- 
 commoded " (that blessed public to which the strikers look for 
 the £ s. d.) The necessary men were accordingly in attendance
 
 ii6 The Elementary Demand of Labour. 
 
 at ihe Taff Vale station, together with a posse of policemen 
 in charge of the Chief Constable. Just before 3 o'clock, how- 
 ever, telegrams arrived from the stations along the line 
 " intimating that it would be dangerous to run the mail, 
 the railroad for miles in the whole of the district being 
 dotted with men." Clearly these fellows meant mischief; 
 consequently the train did not run, and the mails were 
 conveyed by road " under a special guard provided by the 
 -men." 
 
 The objects of this South Wales strike were ostensibly to 
 secure the following conditions of labour for the men ; i, a 
 ten hours working day, or a week of sixty hours ; 2, Over- 
 time, up to eight hours, to be paid at time and a quarter ; 
 3, Sunday work to be paid at time and a half. The real 
 purpose of the fight, however, was different from and greater 
 than any of these things, although it was carefully kept in 
 the background. That purpose was to secure the recogni- 
 tion of the Railway Men's Union ; that is to say, the Directors 
 were re(|uired to recognise this Union in such a sense as to 
 be ready to confer with its representatives, who had nothing 
 whatever to do with the inanagementof their lines of railwa}', 
 anr] to be ready also to exclude non-union men from the ranks 
 of their workmen. In other words they were asked to prac- 
 tically \ield the management of their business into the hands 
 ot their workmen, and to support the Unions in their odious 
 tyranny, by declaring that no man was fit for employment on 
 their lines unless he wore the Union badge. In fact they 
 were to become the cats-paws of the Trade Unions One of 
 the organs of the strikers, referring to the demands just 
 enumerated, said : " Be they right, or be they wrong, they 
 did not at this moment concern the vital /joints of the dispute. 
 That concerns a much more elementary demand of labour — 
 the right of presenting its case collectively and not individu- 
 alh'"; a round-about way of saying that the Trade Unions 
 were to be conceded the right of managing the business of 
 the employers. In resisting this impudent demand the Cardiff 
 employers were opposing the most iniquitous coercion of
 
 // Free Trade, Free Labour, iiy 
 
 modern times, the tyranny of Trade Union combinations, 
 and they opposed it not less in the interests of Labour than in 
 their own interests. For mcontestably it is the first interest, 
 the most elementary right, of the working man, that he shall 
 be free to sell his labour in the best market that he can find, 
 and that when he has found that market, and is willing to 
 supply his labour on the terms offered to him, no third party 
 shall be permitted to step in between him and his new 
 employer, and enforce conditions upon both himself and 
 that employer which neither of them desires. It is one of 
 the anomalies of the order of things which the New Unionism 
 proposes to establish that the very men who are most 
 enthusiastic in praise of Free Trade are at the same time 
 most indignant in their denunciations of Free Labour. 
 The New Unionists wish to maintain Free Trade 
 in order that they may have cheap food ; they also 
 wish to protect labour in order that they may obtain high 
 wages. They have not the sense to perceive that the 
 Free Trade system is based upon Free Labour, or in 
 other words upon the competitive system, or in still 
 other words upon the right of labour to circulate through all 
 places and all industries without artificial impediments being 
 placed in its way. Nor are they capable of discerning that 
 if they were to succeed in putting Labour into shackles they 
 would at the same time bring back Protection in its most 
 harsh and unmitigated form. If Capital is to be at the 
 mercy of supply and demand under a system of Free Trade, 
 so must Labour also be at the mercy of supply and demand 
 under a system of Free Labour. Political Economy may 
 be scoffed at as old and outworn, but it will quickly prove 
 that it has sufficient vitality and strength to teach its igno- 
 rant detractors that if the nation is to continue to be sub- 
 jected in its industrial life to the fierce competition of the 
 whole world arising from Free Trade, then the individual 
 workman must also submit to the unrestricted action of the 
 same competitive forces which are at work in the sphere of 
 labour. It is perhaps conceivable that we might have Free
 
 ii8 The Railway Strike in Scotland. 
 
 Labour without Free Trade ; it is not conceivable that Free 
 Trade can be maintained without Free Labour. 
 
 The capitahsts of South Wales were, on the whole, fairly 
 united in resisting the attacks of the Trades Unions. They 
 displayed some weakness, however, in ultimately consenting 
 to confer with Mr. Harford, after having at first refused to 
 recognise him or have any dealings with him. Ultimately 
 terms of settlement were arranged between Mr. Inskip and 
 Mr. Harford, the former representing the Companies and the 
 latter the men, the terms agreed upon being as follows : — 
 I. That the Companies were to pay for at least a week's 
 work of 60 hours, " subject to the condition that the men 
 will not be paid for time lost during the monthly holiday at 
 the collieries, or through strikes, or other unusual inter- 
 ruptions of labour at undertakings connected with the rail- 
 ways." 2. The piloting and shunting day to be 11 hours, 
 but six hours per week to be allowed for each man, and the 
 allowance for meals to be cancelled. 3. The time for signal- 
 men to be 10 hours per day, but 12 hours in the week of 
 seven days to be allowed off; the men of each Company to 
 resume their work m order of seniority as the traffic could 
 be restored ; and that men who went on strike were not to 
 interfere with those who refused to do so." On the whole 
 there never was a strike more inexcusable than this in South 
 Wales, which, although it did not last long, cost a quarter 
 of a million of money. The most unsatisfactory feature of 
 it was that the Unionists were able to claim a victory, owing 
 to the fact that the Raihvay Directors, after repudiating Mr. 
 Harford, afterwards accepted him in the capacity of pleni- 
 potentiary on the part of the men. 
 
 If the Railway Strike in South Wales was wanton, that 
 which occurred in Scotland at the end of 1890 was wicked. 
 This strike was marked by every feature by which the 
 hostility and the malignity of the men towards the Railway 
 Companies could possibly be manifested. The time when 
 it occurred, namely, just before Christmas, was precisely 
 the one time of the year when the interests of the railway
 
 The Methods of Trade Unionism. iig 
 
 shareholders could be hit the hardest. In Scotland the 
 Christmas railway traffic is much heavier than it is even in 
 England, and the consequence was that by striking at this 
 particular time the Companies could be subjected to a loss 
 of many thousands of pounds a day. Moreover, the attack 
 was so organised as to include the three principal railways 
 of Scotland, and thus paralyse the traffic, not in one district 
 alone but throughout the whole country ; indeed, everything 
 indicated that the plans of the strikers had been cunningly 
 devised and carefully matured beforehand. The workmen 
 manifested the most utter disregard both as to the property 
 of the Railway Companies and the safety of the public. 
 Signalmen came out wholesale. Many of the signal-boxes 
 were left empty without any warning, the fact only being 
 discovered by drivers and guards when they reached the 
 boxes, and the trains had to crawl along cautiously without 
 the line being signalled clear. This difficulty was partly 
 overcome by drafting station masters and other officials, who 
 had been promoted from the post of signalman, into the 
 chief signal-boxes, and by switching the less important 
 stations ; but, of course, to carry on railway traffic under 
 such conditions was so difficult as to be almost impossible, 
 and was as dangerous as it was difficult. Pickets were 
 placed at all stations, and some of these were instructed to 
 stop the trains, which they actually endeavoured to do. 
 Lawlessness, violence, and outrages were freely resorted to ; 
 indeed, not even- the Dock Strike in London was disgraced 
 by more infamous attacks upon life and limb, liberty and 
 property, than was this Railway Strike in Scotland. Signal- 
 boxes were wrecked, stations were damaged to the extent of 
 hundreds of pounds, stones were dropped from bridges upon 
 locomotives with the object of injuring drivers and stokers, 
 attempts were actually made to wreck trains. Even the 
 dynamiter is not a more malignant foe to society than the 
 train-wrecker. Serious rioting occurred in the streets of 
 many towns, and peaceable men who wished to work were 
 ferociously assaulted and grossly intimidated, some of them
 
 I20 Emulating Irish Leaguers. 
 
 being seriously injured and most of them thoroughly ter- 
 rorised. More than once we have had occasion to note that 
 workmen on strike in England have displayed a ready apti- 
 tude to imitate the odious and the wicked practices of the 
 village ruffians of Ireland. The conduct of the railway 
 strikers in Scotland showed that they could excel even the 
 dockers of London and Cardiff in their emulation of the 
 baser sort of Irishmen. Some of the Scottish strikers, dis- 
 guised by masks, went about in the dead of night committing 
 wilful damage to railway engines and blocking the lines. 
 Clearly this was our old friend. Captain Moonlight, taking a 
 turn upon Scottish soil. It was not a very long step from 
 practices of this sort to maiming and shooting peaceable 
 men and women in their beds. Rowdyism was not, however, 
 permitted to be triumphant. The authorities of the Scottish 
 towns were fully alive to the danger, and on the whole they 
 acted with commendable vigour and promptitude, both 
 military and police being freely used. Matters were com- 
 plicated by the fact that many of the railway employes lived 
 in houses belonging to the Railway Companies, and that 
 some of these were evicted. At Motherwell, while these 
 evictions were proceeding, both the military and the police 
 had to charge a mob, and several people were injured. All 
 this was, of course, most lamentable and regretable, but the 
 strikers, and the strikers alone, were responsible for it. 
 These men had the right to refuse to work if they chose to 
 do so, but the fact that they went on strike gave them no 
 right whatever to retain the possession of property which 
 did not belong to them, and to garrison their homes against 
 eviction after the fashion of Irish Leaguers, whose too suc- 
 cessful practices they were evidently once more trying to 
 imitate. 
 
 The fight was conducted with true northern stubbornness, 
 and lasted some five weeks. During this time the Railway 
 Companies carried on their traffic as they best could, and 
 naturally, even the best was very inferior. The North 
 British Company, which had to bear the brunt of the attack.
 
 Mr. John Walker. 121 
 
 and was at the same time considered the weakest, had as its 
 general manager Mr. John Walker, a man of extraordinary 
 strength of will and firmness of character who, like Sir W. 
 T. Lewis, Sir Henry Doulton, and Mr. George Livesey, 
 from the first determined that he would not be beaten. 
 No doubt his example strengthened the managers of the 
 other Companies involved. As usual, there was no lack 
 of men who were willing to work and fill the places of the 
 strikers ; indeed, it was only by the employment of these 
 men that the Companies were able to carry on any traffic at 
 all. The Caledonian Company were able to actually fill up 
 every position which had been left vacant by the strikers. 
 The Railway Directors from the first took up the position 
 that the men must return to work as a condition precedent 
 to their grievances being considered, simply because they 
 had violated their contracts by leaving their employment 
 without notice, and this contention on the part of the 
 Directors was eminently reasonable. When the strike had 
 lasted some time, as usual busybodies of various kinds, some 
 of them more or less eminent, began to offer their services 
 as mediators. But both the North British and the Cale- 
 donian Directors, wiser than the London Dock Directors, 
 positively rejected mediation, and declined to concede either 
 the 10 hours day or the 60 hours week, while they decidedly 
 refused to recognise the Executive of the Amalgamated 
 Railway Workmen's Society. The point all along insisted 
 upon by Mr. Walker was that the men had broken their con- 
 tract by not giving legal notice, and that in order to put 
 themselves in a proper position they must resume work. 
 Until they did that the Directors could neither enter into 
 negotiations with them nor accept the intervention of out- 
 siders. 
 
 Of course the Directors were violently abused for doing 
 what the workmen claimed to have a perfect right to do, 
 namely, to fight in defence of their own interests. Evidently 
 the lessons of the London Dock Strike, the Southampton 
 Dock Strike, and the strikes at Liverpool and Cardiff had not
 
 122 The Tail Wags the Dog. 
 
 been lost upon the Scottish Railway Directors. They per- 
 ceived what the New Unionism was aiming at, and they also 
 realised that unless they were prepared at once to hand over 
 their property to a set of professional agitators and those 
 who were deluded by them., they must make a resolute stand. 
 That they were perfectly justified in taking up the position 
 they did was made abundantly manifest in March, i8go, 
 when the North British Railway was unable to declare any 
 dividend on its ordinary stock, on which it had paid 3^ per 
 cent, for the corresponding period of the previous year, 
 whilst it paid onl}- i^ per cent, on the preference stock. The 
 Caledonian Company, whose receipts up to the time of the 
 strike had shown an increase of ;£'22,3io for the correspon- 
 ding period of the previous year, had to face a deficit of 
 3^12,549 in consequence of the strike, the result being that 
 instead of paying 5^ per cent, as it did in 1889, it was only 
 able to pay 3f per cent. During the five weeks of the strike 
 the gross losses of the three principal railways were estimated 
 at £"112,793. The total depreciation in the value of the 
 North British ordinary stock during the strike was said to 
 be ;£2,322,285. Nevertheless, the amount spent by the Rail- 
 way Directors, though undoubtedly considerable, was wisely 
 spent in resisting the impudent attempt of Trade Union 
 officials to secure the practical control of these railways for 
 all future time. 
 
 A singular feature in connection with this Scottish Rail, 
 way Strike was that it w^as commenced by the unauthorised 
 action of a handful of men in Glasgow, and commenced 
 against the wishes of the Union leaders. These leaders, 
 however, instead of making a resolute attempt to stop a 
 strike of which they did not approve, and announcing that 
 they would resign their positions if the strike went on, feebly 
 yielded to the malcontents, and ultimately not only sanc- 
 tioned the strike but loudly commended it. Verily a signi- 
 ficant illustration of the fact that as regards modern labour 
 movements it is not the dog that wags the tail, but the tail 
 that wags the dog. Trade Unions would not commit such
 
 Generalship Acquired. 123 
 
 foolish blunders as they often do, and spread strife and ruin 
 over entire districts, if they were managed by shrewd and 
 strong men. These Unions require nothing so urgently as 
 good generalship. Mr. Henry Tait, the secretary of the 
 Scottish Railway Men's Union, was supposed to be the 
 leader of the members of his society. Surely a weaker leader 
 never appeared upon the industrial battlefield. Had he been 
 a strong man he would have put down his foot at once when 
 a few malcontents endeavoured to override the opinion of the 
 Union, and he would have stamped out the rebellion, and 
 thus have prevented a strike. As it was, he feebly allowed 
 himself to be overruled by an extreme section, and 
 eventually had the mortification of enduring a humiliating 
 defeat* 
 
 The result of the Scottish Railway Strike was another 
 crushing defeat for the New Unionism, as the men had 
 practically to accept the terms of the Companies at the 
 end of a protracted struggle, so that while they practically 
 gained nothing, they lost their wages during the five weeks 
 of the strike. What is more, many of them permanently lost 
 their situations, for the Companies, more noble than the Gas 
 Committee at Leeds, declined to dismiss the men who went 
 to their assistance and whom they had permanently engaged, 
 and took back the strikers only to fill up vacancies. No 
 doubt many a railway workman in Scotland down to the 
 present hour curses the day that he first listened to the 
 advice of labour agitators. Thus ended the first attempt of 
 the New Unionism to invade Scotland. 
 
 John Burns, who appeared at this time to think that no 
 strike could be conducted without his wise counsels, as a 
 matter of course went to Scotland to do what he could to 
 embitter the struggle, and his action must be briefly noticed 
 before we pass from the subject. He signalised his advent 
 
 * Mr. Tait, although he countenanced this most wanton strike, and actively 
 co-operated with men who committed the crimes and outrages enumerated above, 
 has since been appointed a member of the Labour Commission. It would really 
 seem that the House of Commons is eager to encourage the " Apostles of Discon- 
 tent " by singling them out for exceptional honours.
 
 124 John Burns and the Journalists. 
 
 into Scotland by showering abuse upon the clergy, and he 
 subsequently made a scurrilous attack upon the editors and 
 reporters of Scottish newspapers. He said : " They could 
 trace in the lying misrepresentations some of the handiwork 
 of impecunious reporters. He pitied these gentlemen; they 
 were more the victims of the degraded capitalist than even 
 the signalman. They could not expect honour or truth to 
 come out between the sandwiching of Scottish ^^5 notes. It 
 was impossible for them to be what they were not. He did not 
 blame them ; he pitied them more than the prostitute who sold 
 her honour on the streets." The Glasgowand West of Scotland 
 Branch of the Institute of Journalists passed the following 
 resolution upon the matter, by 27 votes against 8 : " That 
 this meeting of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Branch 
 of the Institute of Journalists indignantly protests against 
 the attacks — particularly those of the 26th and 27th of 
 January — made by Mr. John Burns, of London, on Scottish 
 journalists, which he has neither withdrawn nor attempted 
 to substantiate, and which the meeting regards as a gross 
 calumny ; and, further, the meeting invites the co-operation 
 of the Council of the Institute in London, and of the Com- 
 mittees of the various districts throughout the kingdom in 
 dealing with the matter, and in protecting the members ot 
 the profession from such attacks." The Scottish reporters 
 declined to report the speeches of a man who had thus 
 vilified them, and they were supported in this course by 
 their editors, the result being that Burns and his friends 
 set up a whine about his being boycotted. These men 
 are ready to preach boycotting of the most vigorous character 
 against capitalists and employers, but when journalists who 
 had been traduced declined to report the speeches of their 
 traducers, which was not boycotting at all, the traducer 
 and his admirers at once began to howl like whipped curs. 
 The appeal of the Glasgow Committee to the Institute of 
 Journalists did not seem to produce any great effect, and 
 Burns appears to have made no attempt to substantiate 
 his charges, neither does he appear to have formally with-
 
 The Omnibus Men. 125 
 
 drawn them. It is not surprising that Burns found Scot- 
 land too hot for him, and that he has since thought it 
 prudent to leave it severely alone. Happy Scotland ! 
 
 The Omnibus Strike, which occurred in London at the 
 beginning of June, i8gi, was in every respect one of the 
 most important of the strikes which have taken place during 
 the last two years. There is, however, one essential 
 distinction between the Omnibus Strike and most of the 
 others, inasmuch as it was in the main an effort to obtain 
 shorter hours of w'ork, and it must be admitted that in this 
 case the men had some reason on their side. Nevertheless, 
 they were not content to strike merely against excessive hours 
 of labour ; for whilst they asked for shorter hours they also 
 asked for increased wages. Moreover there can be no doubt 
 that, so far as the General Omnibus Company was concerned, 
 the discontent of the men was almost entirely owing to the 
 introduction of the ticket system which put an end to the 
 pilferings by means of which the men had for years largely 
 increased their wages. If they could have retained the 
 privilege of pillaging their employers they would never have 
 struck against their hours, even had they been longer than 
 they actually were. For many years they had submitted to 
 these hours without any murmuring, and the Company had 
 reprehensibly winked at the dishonesty of its employes. 
 Only a few weeks previously the omnibus men had refused 
 to join in the movement of the "white slaves of the tram 
 cars." It was only when the Company had resolved upon a 
 sweeping reform in the interest of its revenues that the dis- 
 content of the men burst forth. This very circumstance 
 was sufficient in itself to prove that the men had raised a 
 false issue and that they were not sincere in their conduct. 
 The pretensions put forth on their behalf to the effect that 
 they were groaning under the oppression of their employers, 
 and that they desired shorter hours in order that they might 
 spend more time with their families, in intellectual pursuits, 
 and in recreation, were all so much cant, and were designed 
 simply to delude the public. If the men had struck under
 
 126 Ignorance Qualifies the Agitator. 
 
 such conditions as would have convinced the public that 
 their only object was to reduce their hours of labour, their 
 action would have commanded general sympathy and sup- 
 port ; but as it was, the reasons which were alleged in justi- 
 fication of their action were simply laughed out of court. 
 However, the strike, no matter what its real causes or its actual 
 purposes, served the purposes of the omnibus men's leaders 
 admirably. Wherever a strike is there will the agitators be 
 gathered together. They were in full force on this occasion, 
 headed by Mr. Thomas Sutherst, who, being a barrister, 
 presumably does not understand much about the omnibus 
 business. But perhaps his very ignorance of the subject 
 was one of the best qualifications he could have for the part 
 he was to play, as indeed seems to be the case with most of 
 these popularity hunters ; if they knew a little more they 
 would not talk such arrant nonsense, or act with such in- 
 sufferable arrogance, as they now do. The leaders of 
 ignorant and fanactical labourers must not themselves be 
 too well informed or too sober-minded. 
 
 The Omnibus Strike was accompanied by all the well- 
 known features which have characterised every great strike 
 which has occurred since the Dock Strike. There were 
 plenty of men ready to take the places of the strikers ; the 
 strikers by violence prevented their places being taken by 
 those men ; they also injured the property of their employers, 
 cutting harness, overturning omnibuses, and even for some 
 days refusing permission for the horses to- be fed and 
 watered. At the very commencement of the dispute, the 
 two Companies concerned offered to concede the 12 hours' 
 day, but they refused to give any increase of wages. As the 
 men professed to be fighting simply for shorter hours, that they 
 might have more time to spend with their wives and children, 
 this concession ought to have satisfied them ; but they 
 refused to accept it and continued the struggle, the end of it 
 being that they had practically to accept the Directors' 
 terms after all. In this case, as in the others we have 
 noticed, the men showed that they had not the least disposi-
 
 Difficulties of Omnibus Proprietors. 127 
 
 tion to consider the circumstances and the difficulties of 
 their employers. Owing to the repeated reductions of fares, 
 the omnibus traffic was being conducted at such cutting 
 rates that only very meagre profits were being earned, while 
 at the same time the men were being paid really good wages, 
 and if anything were getting more than their fair share of 
 the profits earned by the joint exertions of the Labour and 
 Capital which were employed in the omnibus trade. It is 
 true that the London General Omnibus Company had kept 
 up its dividend to 12 per cent., but this had only been done 
 by drawing upon the accumulations of past years, which had 
 been earned under more favourable conditions than those 
 which now exist ; whilst the London Road Car Company 
 was a new enterprise which was only just emerging out of 
 the difficulties which it had to encounter in its initial stages. 
 These facts counted for nothing, however, with the fanatical 
 workmen, and still less with their more fanatical leaders, all 
 of whom in fact seemed to have been thoroughly imbued 
 with the idea which is now so common, that workmen are 
 entitled to seize any great industrial enterprise which they 
 deign to serve, and appropriate its profits for themselves, 
 without any regard whatever to the rights and interests of 
 those who have established and supported the enterprise by 
 their brains and their money. The result of the Omnibus 
 Strike was virtually another defeat for the New Unionism. 
 Exceedingly little has been heard of Mr. Thomas Sutherst 
 and his satellites since this fiasco. 
 
 Since the Omnibus Strike concluded there has been a 
 good deal of friction between the principal Omnibus Com- 
 panies and their workmen. Much complaint has been made 
 on the part of the latter that the Company has discharged 
 many of its employes without rhyme or reason ; but the 
 Company claims that it has only discharged those men who 
 have proved themselves to be lazy, incompetent, or dis- 
 honest. The explanation of the matter is very simple ; the 
 relations of the two classes have been embittered by 
 the strike, the result being that each looks upon the other
 
 128 Diamond cut Diamond, 
 
 with distrust, and also with some degree of resentment, and 
 that each part}' is ready to pounce upon the sHghtest fault 
 on the side of the other. This is what we may expect to 
 become very common among us in future if these industrial 
 conflicts are perpetuated. Hitherto employers in this 
 country have, on the whole, manifested a considerate dis- 
 position towards their workmen, but let them once be 
 thoroughly convinced that their workmen do not care two 
 straws either for them or their business, and they will cease 
 to care two straws for the workmen. This is only human 
 nature. And working men will find when matters reach 
 this stage, and the normal attitude of masters and workmen 
 towards each other becomes one of suspicion and hostility,, 
 that it is the workman who will be placed at a disadvantage. 
 His slightest failure of duty will be pounced upon, and 
 he will be discharged. Masters will no longer, as they have 
 often done in the past, continue to employ workmen when 
 they have really nothing for them to do, of course to their 
 own loss ; nor will they, as they have also frequently done in 
 the past, put up with an imperfect or unprofitable servant 
 from motives of compassion. All the tender emotions of the 
 human breast will be excluded from the management of 
 business, in which ruthless severity and unpitying justice 
 will hold indisputed sway. To workmen it may be empha- 
 tically said — " With what measure ye mete it shall be 
 measured to you again."* 
 
 The Omnibus Strike in London was largely occasioned 
 by the success of a similar strike in Paris. In relation to 
 their Omnibus Strike the Parisian public acted precisely 
 like the London public had done with regard to their Dock 
 Strike ; while the French Government gave even more 
 encouragement to the strikers than our own Government 
 gave to the dockers. Indeed, M. Constans, Minister of the 
 
 • Many other Strikes, some of them of great importance, have occurred 
 during the last two years and a half besides those dealt with in the first 
 Book of this work. The details of the greatest of these Strikes will be found 
 in the Appendix, and the reader is recommended to make himself familiar 
 with the facts there set forth whilst he is reading Book I.
 
 The Curse of Demos-worship. 129 
 
 Interior (Home Secretary), went so far as to inform the 
 Paris Omnibus Company that if it did not come to terms 
 with its workmen he would municipahse its property, which 
 practically meant that he would confiscate it. This, for a 
 Minister of a free Republic, was a most arbitrary course, all 
 the more reprehensible because it was dictated by the basest 
 motives of expediency. The curse of Demos-worship is 
 over French politics as well as our own. So strong a 
 measure was unprecedented in the annals of civilised 
 nations, as it was unparalleled in its folly and in its blighting 
 effects. A few more steps of the same kind would have effec- 
 tually driven all capital out of France, and substituted desola- 
 tion for the prosperity of that thriving country. One of the 
 lessons which Democratic Governments have got to learn is 
 that they cannot ride rough-shod over moral and economic 
 laws with impunity. Retribution will dog, with the inevit- 
 ableness of fate, the footsteps of any Government which 
 sacrifices the fundamental rights and liberties of its intelli- 
 gent and prosperous citizens for the sake of gaining the 
 temporary support of other citizens who are neither pros- 
 perous nor intelligent. And sooner or later such a Govern- 
 ment will be overwhelmed in disgrace and disaster, and 
 will perish amid the execrations of an indignant people 
 whose interests it has betrayed. To the credit of M. 
 Constans, however, it must be admitted that if he momen- 
 tarily lost his head over the Omnibus Strike he soon 
 recovered himself. When the Paris railway men, en- 
 couraged by the success of the Omnibus Strike, thought 
 they would try their hands as well, the Minister of the 
 Interior greatly surprised them by offering to place at the 
 disposal of the Railway Companies a corps of army men 
 who had been specially trained in railway work. The 
 result of this action on his part was that the Railway Strike 
 collapsed at once. Furthermore, when the Paris bakers 
 imitated the tactics of the omnibus and railway men, and went 
 on strike, M. Constans supplied bakers from the army to the 
 employers, who not only got their bread better baked than
 
 130 ' Republican Liberty. 
 
 before, but also made larger profits out of its sale. The 
 bakers, seeing that they were thus checkmated, gave in 
 at once. Mr. Matthews, or any other gentleman who may 
 hold the post of Home Secretary in this country, might very 
 profitably take a few lessons from the action of the French 
 Minister of the Interior. In this old monarchical country we 
 should not perhaps submit quite so readily to independent 
 action on the part of Ministers as they do in Republican 
 France ; at all events there would be a loud and fierce outcry 
 if our Ministers were to supply army men to take the places 
 of strikers — though if this had been done during the Dock 
 Strike it would have been an immense service to the nation; 
 but at any rate we are entitled at the very least to expect 
 that our Government will take up an impartial attitude 
 between the two combatants in a strike, and give favour to 
 neither, but a fair field and legitimate protection to both. 
 
 The fashion in which railway strikes are dealt with in 
 another Republic of Liberty, namely, the United States, is 
 also very significant. They had a strike going on in 
 connection with the New York Central Railway at the same 
 time as the South Wales strike was proceeding in this 
 country. But the way in which the two strikes were treated 
 by the authorities is very significant indeed. There, as 
 here, the Companies had plenty of men willing to work in 
 place of the strikers ; but there, not as here, the men willing 
 to work were efficiently protected, and not left at the mercy 
 of crowds of frenzied strikers. The State militia was called 
 out to supplement the efforts of the police in the work of 
 protecting free labourers, and the result was that trains were 
 freely run by non-unionists under the protection of the 
 authorities, with the consequence that the strikers lost their 
 places. The American Railway Companies, however, do 
 not merely depend upon the police and the military ; nor 
 indeed do American employers generally. They rely upon 
 that peculiar institution of their own — the Pinkerton Police. 
 During railway strikes the Companies engage Pinkerton 
 detectives, who are fully armed, to accompany and protect
 
 The Pinkerton Police. 131 
 
 the trains. During this strike on the New York Central a 
 large number of these police rode on the cars in order to 
 terrorise the crowds along the lines, and one of them shot at 
 a boy of fifteen for throwing a stone, while another shot 
 into the crowd and was arrested by the State police, who 
 were immediately attacked by Pinkerton's men. A fight 
 ensued between the two bodies of police, which resulted in 
 the rescue of the man who had been arrested. The Pinker- 
 ton Police also fired a dozen shots into the crowd, while on 
 another occasion twenty shots were fired, and persons were 
 wounded by each shot. The Vice-President of the New 
 York Central Railway said he considered the firing of the 
 Pinkerton Police was fully justified.* These seem strange 
 and almost barbarous practices to English minds, but we 
 are only too likely to become so familiar with them as to 
 take them in the same matter-of-fact way as the Americans 
 do. American employers have been driven to adopt these 
 savage and brutal methods of defending their property by 
 the brutal and savage attacks which are made upon them 
 and their possessions by such organisations as the Knights 
 of Labour, which does not hesitate to wreck trains, and 
 endanger the lives of innocent passengers, in order to defeat 
 the Companies and maintain its own authority and prestige. 
 The New Unionism here is travelling on precisely the same 
 lines as have been followed by the Unions in America, and 
 the ultimate results will be the same here as they have 
 proved to be there. If things go on as they are now going 
 we shall soon have our Pinkerton Police, and all the rest of 
 the accessories of real industrial war. Sir Edward Watkin, 
 presiding at the half-yearly meeting of the Manchester, 
 Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railwa}' on January 21, i8gi, 
 said : " Why should a man derange the whole commercial 
 arrangements of a good part of the kingdom because 
 he could not get more than the market rate of wages ? 
 
 * The result of the strike on the New York Central was that the men had 
 to unconditionally surrender, although they had lost ;^i8,ooo, whilst the 
 company lost ;^40,ooo.
 
 132 Railway Companies and the Public. 
 
 Railway strikes ought not to be allowed at all, but 
 should be put down by the strong arm of the law. The 
 stoppage of a railway should be rendered an impossibility in 
 the interests of the public." To rely upon the " strong arm 
 of the law " is all very well as long as that arm is active and 
 efficient, but suppose the " strong arm of the law " should 
 prove to be but a broken reed ? What then ? Men may be 
 deluded and entrapped by it once, as the Dock Directors 
 were, perhaps even two or three times, but afterwards they 
 will prefer to rely upon their own strong arms, and ignore 
 the strong arm of the law altogether. 
 
 The consideration of these railway strikes suggests such 
 questions as these : 
 
 Ought strikes to be possible on railways at all ? 
 
 Is it in accordance with sound public policy, to say 
 nothing of public convenience, that engine-drivers, guards, 
 and signalmen should be permitted to leave their posts 
 without a moment's warning ? 
 
 When such strikes do occur, how ought they to be dealt 
 with ? 
 
 These are questions of vital importance, and they should 
 receive the careful and unprejudiced consideration of every 
 intelligent citizen. The public as a whole seem to be far 
 too much disposed to look upon Railway Companies as 
 privileged monopolists, and enemies of the common good, 
 instead of regarding them as powerful promoters both of 
 social comfort and of commercial prosperity, which they 
 undoubtedly are. If Parliament has conferred certain 
 privileges upon Railway Companies, it has done so because 
 it believed itself to be acting in the interests of the commu- 
 nity as a whole, and not because it wished to enrich railway 
 shareholders ; besides which railway enterprise is subjected 
 to legal regulations and restrictions such as are not imposed 
 upon ordinary commercial undertakings, so that the rail- 
 ways have to pay for their privileges. The tendency now- 
 adays is to harass and handicap railway enterprise by 
 heaping upon the Companies one disability after another,
 
 State Interference with Railways. 133 
 
 and by continually intermeddling with their affairs and thus 
 diminishing their power of self-government. There is grave 
 danger that this tendency will be pushed a great deal too 
 far. Railways, like other commercial enterprises, should be 
 interfered with by the State as little as possible. Wise 
 rulers exhibit their wisdom by never thrusting their hands 
 into the management of private business undertakings 
 except when they are absolutely forced to do so. It is quite 
 certain that as regards the railways of our own country the 
 State has quite as much to do with them as it ought to 
 have, and probably a great deal more than is good for 
 them. Yet every Session a few fussy members of Par- 
 liament demonstrate their folly by proposing all sorts of 
 Socialistic schemes for the better regulation of railways by 
 the State, apparently in sublime unconsciousness of the fact 
 that our railways are ten times better managed than are the 
 railways in countries where they are owned and worked by 
 the State. John Burns told the railway workers in Hyde 
 Park on May iith, i8go, that unless their demand for 
 shorter hours and higher wages were conceded by the Com- 
 panies he and his friends would " nationalise " the railways. 
 He is only one degree more silly than some of his Parlia- 
 mentary patrons. 
 
 The assumption which generally underlies these attacks 
 upon railways is that they are immensely wealthy corpora- 
 tions, and that their Directors and Shareholders are drawing 
 exorbitant salaries and dividends. This idea is, in the 
 main, entirely fallacious. No doubt there are a few fortu- 
 nate people who happen to be holders of original stock in 
 our largest Railway Companies, and these derive a hand- 
 some revenue from their investments ; but the majority of 
 the Shareholders, who have had to purchase their stock at 
 high prices, seldom receive more than four per cent, upon 
 it, while they very often receive less. Even this modest 
 dividend will soon be seriously diminished, even if it does 
 not vanish altogether, under the spiteful intermeddling of 
 vain and ignorant politicians. No class of property has
 
 134 Decrease of Railway Dividends. 
 
 suffered more since i88g, the year of the Dock Strike, than 
 railway property. In that year there was a large increase 
 of railway dividends, simply because the railways added 
 :£'4, 131,000 to their receipts, whilst their expenditure in- 
 creased by only ^^2, 332, 000. In 1890 the receipts, or gross 
 revenue, again showed a large increase, but the expenditure 
 showed even a larger augmentation, owing chiefly to the 
 higher cost of labour, coal, and iron. Since then receipts 
 have diminished, although the expenditure has continued 
 to increase, which simply means that the money which 
 should have gone into the pockets of Railway Share- 
 holders in the shape of profits has gone into the pockets of 
 workmen in the shape of increased wages. During the half 
 year ending June 30th, i8gi, over half a million was added 
 to the receipts of the fifteen leading English railways ; but 
 the whole of this half million, and even something beyond 
 it, was swallowed up by extra expenditure. Consequently 
 dividends were cut down by from one-half to one per cent. 
 Some Companies could not even pay these reduced dividends 
 without dipping largely into their reserve funds or carrying 
 forward exceptional expenditure. Everything indicates that 
 the tendency of railway stocks is, and is likely to be for 
 some time to come, downwards. Nevertheless, railway 
 workmen, and the agitators who thrive upon their discon- 
 tent, and even not a few members of Parliament, are doing 
 their very utmost to cripple the energies and to still further 
 reduce the revenues of the proprietors and the Directors of 
 our railways. This is indicated not only by the wanton 
 character of the strikes which have recently occurred, and 
 the absolute indifference which railway workmen have 
 manifested with respect to the interests of their employers, 
 but also by such incidents as that which occurred in relation 
 to the dismissal of a station-master on the Cambrian 
 Railway. This gentleman had given evidence before a 
 Committee of the House of Commons, in the course of 
 which he made statements which reflected seriously upon 
 the management of the Cambrian system. He was after-
 
 The Cambrian Railway Case. 135 
 
 wards dismissed by the Cambrian Directors for alleged 
 irregularities and failure of duty. This action of the 
 Directors was misrepresented by some of their detractors, 
 who sought to make it appear that they had dismissed the 
 station-master solely on account of the evidence which he 
 had given before the Parliamentary Committee, and had 
 thereby seriously infringed the privileges of Parliament. 
 Two of the Directors, Mr. Buckley and Mr. Maclure, and 
 Mr. Conacher, who was then the General Manager of the 
 Cambrian Railway, were summoned to the Bar of the 
 House of Commons to answer for their breach of Par- 
 liamentary privileges, and after a debate, which served 
 mainly as a vent for the utterance of a number of foolish 
 and malignant criticisms, the three gentlemen in question 
 were seriously admonished by the Speaker that nothing 
 of the sort must occur again. To men of common sense 
 the whole of these proceedings appeared to be singularly ill- 
 advised. Nobody succeeded in proving that the station- 
 master had been dismissed because he had given the 
 evidence in question ; nobody could disprove the statement 
 of the Directors that the real ground of the dismissal was 
 that the station-master was faulty. If a Railway Company 
 is not to be at liberty to dismiss one of its servants for grave 
 defaults of duty, simply because that servant happens to 
 have been a witness before a Parliamentary Committee, 
 then we may bid good-bye to the prosperity of our railways, 
 for it is absolutely certain that they can only be managed 
 successfully by men who have the same freedom of action 
 as other business managers enjoy. Railways do not exist 
 primarily to provide employment for a certain number of 
 workmen, still less for any particular workman of proved 
 incapacity, although a great many shallow-brained people 
 nowadays appear to think that they do. 
 
 As regards the relation of the State, and the duty of the 
 State, to such institutions as railways, it may be admitted 
 that the State is not at liberty to treat them in precisely the 
 same manner as it treats an ordinary private enterprise.
 
 136 Relation of the State to Railways. 
 
 When the State grants exceptional privileges and rights, it 
 may legitimately impose certain exceptional obligations. 
 This it already does in relation to railways, as we have 
 pointed out. Whether it ought to do more than it now 
 does in this direction is a debatable point. The exact degree 
 in which the State should interfere as regards any parti- 
 cular matter must be decided according to circumstances. 
 It is quite right that the State should extend its protection 
 to railway servants with the object of making their occupa- 
 tion as safe as possible ; but it is not right that the State 
 should determine what hours of labour those servants 
 should work, or what wages they should receive for their 
 labour. Demands are continuall}- being put forth, more or 
 less plainly, that the Government should take such matters 
 as these out of the hands of railway managers and settle 
 them itself; but it is certain that were the State to do this 
 the last condition of railway workers would be worse than 
 the first. 
 
 It may be that the State might with safety do something 
 more than it does at present in the way of preventing 
 railway strikes. During the Scottish railway strike the 
 Leith Town Council passed a resolution to the effect that : 
 " Should differences arise between the Railway Companies 
 and their servants in regard to hours of working, wages, or 
 any other matter which cannot be settled amicably, it 
 should be referred for settlement to a Board fairly represent- 
 ing the Companies and their servants, and on no account 
 should the service be interrupted." There is nothing to 
 prevent such a Board as this being voluntarily formed by 
 the capitalists and the labourers who are interested in 
 railways without any action whatever on the part of the 
 State. The fact that such a Board has not been formed 
 seems to show that the time for it is not yet. When it is 
 required it will grow up naturally. If it does grow up in 
 this way it will be likely to do good service ; but if it were 
 an artificial creation of the State, forced upon those who 
 did not desire it, it would either be inoperative or operative
 
 Responsibility of Railway Servants. 137 
 
 only for evil. Railway Companies may be trusted, for the 
 sake of their own interests, to make such arrangements as 
 are most likely to be conducive both to the good of their 
 workmen and to the prosperity of their business. It is a 
 pity that the workmen cannot equally well be trusted to do 
 those things which will at once promote their own welfare 
 and the progress of the Companies whom they serve. The 
 contention that Railway Companies, because they enjoy a 
 position which is somewhat in the nature of a monopoly, 
 must therefore be content to bear exceptional burdens of 
 responsibility, applies with equal force to the servants of 
 Railway Companies, who are also in a sense serv^ants of the 
 public, and therefore cannot be allowed the same measure of 
 irresponsible freedom as is given to an ordinary labourer. 
 But this is a view of the matter which is entirely lost sight 
 of by the workmen and their Unions. They are all for 
 placing exceptional restrictions upon the Companies, whilst 
 they assume that the servants of the Companies are to stand 
 on precisely the same footing as the servants of private 
 employers. But if ever the day comes when the State 
 should decide to still further restrict the liberties of railway 
 Directors, the servants of those Directors will find that 
 their liberties will be curtailed in a proportionate degree, 
 and they will be no longer able to jump off their engines, 
 and march out of their signal cabins, without notice, unless 
 they are content to bear the severe punishment which the 
 State will then undoubtedly impose. 
 
 The Railway Companies will find that the most effectual 
 way of preventing wanton strikes on the part of their work- 
 men will be by meeting the combinations of the workmen 
 with a combination of their own. Let them form a Railway 
 Federation, as the shippers have formed a Shipping Federa- 
 tion. If they will do this, and act together as one man, 
 every railway standing by every other railway, they will 
 take the one step which will be more effectual than any 
 other in bringing their workmen to their senses. Were 
 they to do this, they would be able to concentrate their
 
 138 A Railway Federation Needed. 
 
 united strength upon any point that might be attacked, and 
 to supply free labourers who had been properly trained in 
 railway work wherever a strike occurred. In the presence 
 of such a Federation a strike of railway men, however highly 
 organized, however widespread, and however well supplied 
 with funds, would be practically hopeless. The men would 
 perceive it to be so, and consequently they would never 
 enter upon a strike under such circumstances. Here, as 
 elsewhere, the best way to preserve peace is to be fully 
 prepared for war. If along with this the Railway Companies 
 would organise and train a special protective police force of 
 their own, they would be able to contemplate the move- 
 ments of the Trade Unions without the slightest feeling of 
 alarm, and in the calm confidence of conscious strength. If 
 the Railway Companies as a whole would act upon the 
 suggestions here indicated, they would not only preserve 
 peace and prosperity within their own borders, but they 
 would most effectually stamp out the agitation which is 
 continually going on with the object of compelling Parlia- 
 ment to shackle railway enterprise.* 
 
 * Discharged soldiers, many of whom leave the army every year and go to 
 swell the Army Reserve, afford most excellent material for Railway Companies, 
 Dock Companies, etc. There is difficulty in finding such men ordinary 
 employment ; but they are an invaluable class where habits of discipline and 
 loyalty are essential. If the Railway Companies were wise they would engage 
 every such man of good character as soon as he left the army.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Insubordination in the Public Services. 
 
 IT was remarked in the first of these chapters that a 
 citizen of a civihzed community would, if deprived of 
 the protection which it is the duty of a civihsed 
 Government to afford him, be in a distinctly worse position 
 than a barbarian in a savage country, inasmuch as 
 the latter is compelled by his circumstances to stand pre- 
 pared at any moment to defend his life and his property to 
 the death ; whereas the civilized citizen is trained to rely on 
 the action of the civil Government for the protection of 
 himself and his property, instead of upon his own right arm. 
 How completely the English or American citizen is at the 
 mercy of the Executive Government of the day will appear 
 on very slight reflection. We have the police force to guard 
 us from assaults and murder, from garrotters and burglars, 
 from mobs and riots, and to secure order and tranquility in 
 our streets and public places. For defence against the 
 foreign invader we rely upon our army and navy. Under 
 the conditions of modern life the multifarious and complex 
 operations of business can only be conducted by corres- 
 pondence and by telegraph, and for the proper conduct of 
 this correspondence we depend upon a body of men who are 
 the servants of the State. In great cities, where fire is a 
 constant peril, and is apt to sometimes prove a veritable 
 scourge, we have a body of specially trained firemen to cope 
 with this danger. 
 
 Now, it is obvious that the community is absolutely at 
 the mercy of these] different orders of its own servants. If 
 by any possibility these classes of public officials could be 
 induced to combine against society in general, society would
 
 140 The New Tyranny. 
 
 find itself not only defenceless against both internal and 
 external foes, but it would also find itself bereft of the first 
 necessities of existence, and reduced to a state of absolute 
 paralysis, so that none of its proper functions could continue 
 to be discharged. Commerce would be impossible ; anarchy 
 would reign supreme. And what we have witnessed during 
 the last two years clearly indicates a design on the part of a 
 numerous body of persons to make war in this way upon 
 the community. The tyranny of the Stuart kings, to 
 emancipate ourselves from which we paid so terrible a price, 
 was liberty itself in comparison with the more rank and 
 odious tyranny of a Socialistic Democracy. A despotic king 
 is powerless as compared with an army of voters who are 
 actuated by cupidity and malignity. It has taken us three 
 centuries, and has cost us an incalculable price, both in 
 brains and blood, to win for this nation the liberties which 
 it now enjoys ; but, looking at what has occurred during the 
 past few months, it is quite conceivable that those liberties 
 may be destroyed in one short day of madness on the part 
 of our democratic masters. The nation is menaced by 
 graver perils than any of those which it has encountered 
 during its stormy past, graver because more insidious as well 
 as more destructive, and yet neither our people nor their 
 rulers seem to have their eyes open to the dangers which are 
 impending. That the people generally should be so blinded 
 is perhaps natural, and somewhat excusable ; but that such 
 fatuity should be displayed by our rulers is melancholy 
 indeed. 
 
 It has been the writer's duty in dealing with recent 
 events to pass some severe strictures upon the conduct of 
 the Government in dealing with these attacks upon society, 
 more especially in connection with the London Dock Strike; 
 and it was intimated that the seeds then sown would bear a 
 bitter harvest, and cause serious trouble in the future. In 
 partial justification of these words we may point to the 
 significant fact that Nemesis began to track the footsteps of 
 the Government from the very moment that it first failed in
 
 The Fruit of their Own Doings. 141 
 
 its duty towards the peaceful and prosperous citizens from 
 whom it derives its strength. Before many months had 
 elapsed the Government found itself in conflict with various 
 classes of its own servants, who were in a state of insubor- 
 dination and rebellion, and it was compelled to do in its 
 own defence precisely what it ought to have done in defence 
 of the Dock Directors. Military, police, postmen and 
 firemen, inflamed by the harangues of incendiary Socialists, 
 and encouraged by the uninformed sympathy of the public 
 and the supineness of the Administration, thought that they 
 would mete out to their employer, the State, the same 
 measure that it had meted out to the owners of Dock 
 property. In this there was a touch of ironical justice. 
 Why should not Mr. Matthews and Mr. Monro be made to 
 taste of the bitter fruit which they had compelled the poor 
 Dock Directors to swallow ? It seems morally certain that 
 if the Dock Strike had been met by the Executive Govern- 
 ment with prudence and vigour we should have heard 
 nothing of strikes on the part of the servants of the State. 
 The pusillanimity of the Government was a direct encourage- 
 ment to its own servants to rise against it. Not even a 
 powerful British Administration can escape the operation of 
 the law which everywhere and evermore is true : " They 
 have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." 
 
 The attempted strike on the part of the Metropolitan 
 Police — for it was not more than an attempt — failed, owing 
 partly to the decisive action which was taken by the authori- 
 ties and partly to the steadiness of the older members of the 
 force. The trouble began with the younger men, who were 
 more susceptible than their seniors to Socialistic teachings, 
 and also inclined to estimate a present increase of pay more 
 highly than a pension which seemed to be far distant. These 
 men were receiving for work, which, on the whole, is neither 
 unpleasant nor laborious, wages above the market rate, with 
 an assured increase if they behaved themselves, and with the 
 certainty of an ultimate pension. They demanded, however, 
 that 27s. should be the wage on entering the force, 30s. on 
 
 M
 
 142 The Metropolitan Police. 
 
 entering the second-class, and 33s. on entering the first ; that 
 six years should be the limit of time before entering the first- 
 class ; that the duties should consist of an eight hours' shift 
 out of every twenty-four ; that the pension should be two- 
 thirds of the wages ; that after twenty-four years' service an 
 unconditional release from duty should be granted ; and that 
 there should be reasonable remuneration for extra duty. 
 These men had, of course, the right to make these demands 
 (although they were palpably unreasonable), and they had 
 also the right, if their demands were refused, to leave their 
 employment. If they had sent in their notices, given up 
 their clothes, and betaken themselves to some other work, 
 they would have acted in a manly and straightforward 
 fashion. But straightforward and manly conduct is not to 
 be expected from the modern working man of the advanced 
 type, who, instead of acting upon his own reason and judg- 
 ment, places his manhood at the disposal of some wily agi- 
 tator whom he blindly follows. It must, however, be borne 
 in mind that ordinary constables are drawn from the ranks 
 of unskilled labourers, and a considerable proportion of 
 Metropolitan constables, as regards intelligence, and honour, 
 and morality, are not very excellent specimens even of the 
 class to which they belong. Looking at the men themselves, 
 it is not much more surprising that they should follow 
 fiery demagogues than that the Dock labourers should do 
 the same thing ; but looking at the circumstances of the two 
 classes there is certainly a marked difference, inasmuch as 
 the policeman was well paid, well clothed, and had bound 
 himself to obey the discipline of the force. The police had 
 fraternized with the Dock labourers a good deal during the 
 great strike, and, in fact, had almost made common cause 
 with them, and it was to this fact that their demoralization 
 was largely due. It must be admitted, however, that the 
 discontent in the police force was not confined to the 
 common constables ; a certain number even of the inspectors 
 were influenced by it, and these latter commenced an agita- 
 tion on their own behalf for higher wages. They asked that
 
 Insubordination at Bow Street. 143 
 
 a divisional inspector should be paid £4 a week, a first-class 
 inspector £3 los., a second-class inspector £'^, and other in- 
 spectors in proportion. If superior officers could lend them- 
 selves in this way to agitation, we cannot be surprised at the 
 action of the men under them. 
 
 On July 6th, i8go, the discontent which had been smoul- 
 dering:^ among the London police burst forth, and culminated 
 in an act of serious insubordination. At Bow Street, when 
 130 men were paraded for night duty they refused to obey 
 the orders of the inspectors, the reason they assigned being 
 that they disapproved of the transfer of one of their number, 
 who had been particularly active in the agitation, to another 
 division. When the superintendent arrived and took the 
 names of a number of the men, they gave way and marched 
 off to duty. Some hundreds of constables in plain clothes 
 drawn from all parts of London had assembled in front of 
 the Bow Street station, and these men were as ready to 
 engage in a riot as were the roughs whom they were supposed 
 to control, many of whom had also assembled in the 
 vicinity. Thirty-eight of the insubordinate constables were 
 at once suspended, and to fill their places fifty men were 
 drawn from other divisions. When these fifty men 
 emerged from the station they were groaned at and hissed 
 by their own comrades, and for a time it seemed as if there 
 would be some rough work. The Bow Street constables sent 
 the following notice to the Press Association: " The con- 
 stables at Bow Street have this day decided, in the interests 
 of townspeople and householders generally, that it will be 
 desirable to close their premises early on Monday night, and 
 safeguard by all possible means the entrance, as a strike of 
 London policemen is now inevitable, and will take place at 
 all divisions simultaneously at g.15 p.m." The leaders of 
 the movement claimed that at least 8,000 men would join 
 them, and asserted that they had been promised a large 
 amount of support both in London and the provinces. John 
 Burns himself could not have surpassed these Bow Street 
 constables in impudence and in arrogance.
 
 144 -^ Police Riot. 
 
 The threatened strike was to take place on July yth. On 
 
 the morning of that day, however, Sir Edward Bradford, 
 
 the Chief Commissioner of Police, who had only just 
 
 assumed office, visited Bow Street Station and dismissed 
 
 fifty of the men who had refused to go on duty on the two 
 
 previous evenings. The ceremony of dismissal was marked 
 
 by brevity and sternness. The name and number of each 
 
 man was announced to Sir Edward, and then he addressed 
 
 the culprit in these terms : " You are liable to be prosecuted 
 
 for this refusal of yours to do duty when called upon. It is 
 
 a very serious offence. You are not fit to be a policeman if 
 
 you cannot think for yourself and act for yourself, instead of 
 
 being led away by others. The only punishment for such 
 
 an offence is instant dismissal. Right about face ! March ! " 
 
 This action of the Commissioner spread dismay among the 
 
 disaffected constables, who, but for their leaders, would all 
 
 have settled down quietly to their duties. But the leaders 
 
 determined to continue the agitation, and to go out on strike 
 
 shortly after nine o'clock on the evening of the 7th, " and to 
 
 take steps to prevent other men who have not joined them 
 
 from going on duty." One man who had been dismissed 
 
 said he would knock down the first constable who left the 
 
 station-house on duty. Thousands of persons assembled in 
 
 the neighbourhood of Bow Street at about nine o'clock in 
 
 the evening, and scenes of tumult, disorder, and riot took 
 
 place. Several policemen and inspectors were roughly 
 
 handled, and for a time their lives were in danger. On two 
 
 occasions earthenware spitoons were flung from the upper 
 
 windows of the police-station at Superintendent Fisher, and, 
 
 of course, these could only have been thrown by constables. 
 
 The mounted police being unequal to the work of clearing 
 
 the streets half a troop of the ist Life Guards were called 
 
 out, and their efforts were quickly effectual, although rioting 
 
 and disorder continued more or less until one o'clock in the 
 
 morning. Much damage was done to property, many persons 
 
 were injured, and several were taken prisoners. Twenty 
 
 more constables were suspended on the 7th. Although the
 
 The Provincial Police. 145 
 
 centre of the disaffection was at Bow Street, it spread more 
 or less to all the stations in the Metropolis, at many of which 
 great difficulty was experienced in getting the men to go on 
 duty. Nevertheless, the mischievous attempt to induce 
 thousands of policemen to strike, and thus leave London at 
 the mercy of ruffians and burglars, signally failed, owing 
 more to the stern action of Sir Edward Bradford than to 
 anything besides. Altogether some fifty-five constables were 
 dismissed the force, and a number of others were suspended 
 or degraded. By a merciful providence Mr. Monro had 
 ceased to be Chief Commissioner before this insubordination 
 in the police force came to a head, and the office was now 
 occupied by a man who was made of sterner stuff. It is 
 almost appalling to reflect upon what might have taken 
 place if the flabby and incapable Mr. Monro had still been 
 chief of the Metropolitan police. If Sir Charles Warren 
 had remained at the head of the force, or if, when he 
 resigned. Sir Edward Bradford had been appointed his 
 immediate successor, it is highly probable that the honour 
 of the Metropolitan police would never have been tarnished 
 by such disgraceful proceedings as those which occurred in 
 connection with this unprecedented rebellion. 
 
 The police in the provinces were not greatly aff"ected by 
 the events which occurred in London, probably because 
 Socialistic demagogues have not the same facilities for con- 
 ducting their nefarious operations in small towns as they 
 have in the Metropolis. At Bradford, however, the police 
 were for some time agitating for an eight hours day, and the 
 Watch Committee of that town, on the nth of August, 
 i8gi, actually recommended the Town Council to adopt an 
 eight hours day for the police, and to engage a number of 
 additional officers in order to make the scheme practicable ; 
 but the Council had the good sense to reject the recommen- 
 dation by thirty votes against sixteen. It is surprising that 
 a Watch Committee in such a town as Bradford could have 
 so little regard for the ratepayers as to make such a foolish 
 proposal. No town has suffered more severely in con-
 
 146 The London Postmen. 
 
 sequence of trade depression and labour agitation than 
 Bradford, as we have already seen, and the distress which 
 has prevailed there would have been even more acute than 
 it has been if this absurd recommendation of the Watch 
 Committee had been acted upon ; for the cost of the police 
 force would have been largely increased in consequence. 
 Why should men, who are already receiving above the 
 market rate of wages, have their remuneration still further 
 increased, largely at the cost of people who are much worse 
 off than they are? An addition of is. a week to every 
 policeman's wages in London would mean an extra cost of 
 3^25,000 a year, which of course, the ratepayer would have 
 to find. But who cares for the ratepayer nowadays — 
 especially if he belongs to the middle classes ? 
 
 While this wave of insubordination was passing over the 
 Metropolitan police a similar spirit was at work among the 
 London postmen. These men also threatened to strike, 
 and if Trade Unions and strikes were proper at all among 
 servants of the State (which they are not), then it must be 
 admitted that the postmen had more reason to be discon- 
 tented than the policemen. At the same time their wages 
 were quite up to the market rate, as is proved by the fact 
 that if one man steps out of their ranks there are ten others 
 ready to take his place ; their hours are not excessive, and 
 their work is of a healthy and interesting nature ; they are 
 clothed by the State, and in addition to all this each man is 
 able to look forward to a pension. If they were dissatisfied 
 with their wages and the conditions of their labour, they 
 were at perfect liberty to try and improve them by legitimate 
 means ; but for men in such a position to strike is not only 
 an act of disloyalty to the Government which employs them, 
 it is also an outrage upon the community. If they did not 
 like their work or their wages they were at liberty to leave 
 them ; they were not compelled by the State or by anybody 
 else to continue in their position. The London postmen, 
 however, like most of those who have struck at the instiga- 
 tion of the " new Unionism," were fighting mainly for the
 
 Merciful Seventy of Mr. Raikes. 147 
 
 privilej^e of forming ;i Union among themselves and for the 
 recognition of that Union by the Postmaster-General. The 
 secretary of their Union, a Mr. Mahon, had nothing what- 
 ever to do with the Post-Office, and knew nothing of its 
 working except what was told him by the disaffected men. 
 Moreover, Mahon is a well-known Socialist, who has had a 
 hand in almost every Socialistic agitation which has taken 
 place, either in London, Glasgow, or other large cities 
 during the past few years. Nevertheless, this person had 
 the impudence to correspond with the Postmaster-General 
 in the capacity of Postmen's representative, and he actually 
 expected to be recognised and received in that capacity. 
 Of course, Mr. Raikes declined to have anything to do 
 with him. 
 
 On May i6th, 1890, a meeting of postmen was held on 
 Clerkenwell Green, in defiance of the regulations of the 
 Department. Forty men who attended this meeting were 
 fined or suspended. Many of these men had served from 
 eight to thirty years, and one of them was in receipt of 35s. 
 per week. He had three stripes, all of which were taken 
 away from him, and the forfeiture of each stripe meant the 
 loss of a shilling per week, besides which another two 
 shillings a-week was deducted from his wages. When this 
 occurred it was defiantly announced that the Postmen's 
 Union would see that " none of the men who had been 
 punished suffered pecuniary loss," and would " quietly but 
 actively organise resistance to Mr. Raikes." It may be 
 admitted that Mr. Raikes acted with some severity, but in 
 such a case as this the most merciful policy is to be 
 rigorously severe at the outset. 
 
 On July 8th matters at the Post-office reached a crisis. 
 The men at the General Post-office refused to go out with 
 the 8 o'clock delivery of letters, though they went out with 
 the 9 o'clock delivery. On the same morning a number of 
 Unionist postmen drove some seventy non-union men out of 
 the Parcel Post Depot at Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell. 
 There were several free fights and the non-unionists pluckily
 
 148 Defeat of the Postmen'' s Union. 
 
 stood to their guns, but in the end were overpowered. Most 
 of the non-union men at the Central office were removed to 
 the underground stores and guarded by pohce, and such of 
 them as were allowed to work were similarly guarded. Feeble 
 attempts were made by the strikers to picket the Post-office, 
 but for the most part they were ridiculously ineffectual. 
 About 100 men employed at the Mount Pleasant Post-office 
 were discharged on July gth, and the authorities announced 
 that immediate suspension or dismissal would follow in the 
 case of men at every office who refused to obey orders, or 
 who molested men who were at work. The Postmen's 
 Union, or in other words Mr. Mahon, Socialistic agitator, 
 announced that all the men would be called out from the 
 Metropolitan Post-offices, and Mahon valiantly boasted that 
 if they found the public against them " as well as Mr. Raikes 
 and his minions, they would be prepared to fight the public 
 too." All this, however, was so much " bluff." In spite of 
 Mr. Mahon's frantic efforts, and the "orders" which he 
 issued to the men, the strike could not be made to " catch 
 on." The great mass of postmen proved too sensible to 
 throw up their livings and their pensions, and consequently 
 the work of the Post-office, though greatly delayed and dis- 
 organised, went on much as usual, and the public were very 
 little inconvenienced. There can be no doubt, however, 
 that the situation was a critical one, and that thousands of 
 the men would have struck with alacrity had there been the 
 slightest sign of weakness on the part of Mr. Raikes. His 
 firm and just treatment of the men who disobeyed his 
 orders, who left their work, and who assaulted their loyal 
 comrades, was the means of saving London from a veritable 
 peril. So the "Great Postmen's Strike," like the "great 
 police strike," fizzled out without doing any great damage, 
 and covered its promoters with ridicule. Several of the poor 
 fellows who were foolish enough to give up a constant 
 situation, with good wages, in the Post-office, have never 
 been employed since, and every month or two there has 
 been a wail on behalf of these men. Originally there were
 
 Worried out of Existence. 149 
 
 some 400 of them, most of whom had wives and families, 
 but 50 of them were taken back by Mr. Raikes, in August, 
 i8gi, although even these were disrated and deprived of 
 their pensions. No doubt the punishment inflicted upon 
 these men exercised a wholesome deterrent effect upon the 
 majority of their comrades. Still, a large number of Metro- 
 politan postmen seemed to be incapable of learning wisdom 
 even from the misfortunes which had overtaken the wilder 
 spirits among them, and a few of them still persisted in 
 agitation and in attempts to organise a Union. It was 
 announced in October of last year that a new Postman's 
 Federation was to be established, and it was stated that this 
 pretentious organisation would avoid the faults and the 
 follies of the defunct London Postman's Union, and would 
 embrace every postman in the United Kingdom. Probably 
 this announcement meant nothing more than that a few 
 agitators of the Mahon type were striving to spread dis- 
 affection among the postmen, and to establish some kind of 
 a Union in which they could secure good berths for them- 
 selves. However this may be, nothing seems to have come 
 of the effort, and during the last year marvellously little has 
 been heard about Trades Unionism among postmen. If the 
 postmen are wise they will have nothing more to do with 
 Unions, Federations, or agitations, especially as their pay 
 and the conditions of their labour have lately been improved. 
 The death of Mr. H. C. Raikes, who was Postmaster- 
 General during these troubles, almost irresistibly compels 
 attention to the significant fact that during the past two 
 years three of the men who were most prominent in the 
 fight with the " new Unionism " have died. Mr. C. M. 
 Norwood, the chairman of the London Docks Committee, 
 who waged so stout a battle with the Dock labourers, and 
 with the public, and with the Government, died about a 
 year and a-half ago. Mr. John Walker, manager of the 
 North British Railway, who had to bear the brunt of the 
 railway strike in Scotland, also died not long after Mr. 
 Norwood. It is extremely probable that the end of these
 
 150 A Lower Deep Still. 
 
 two men was hastened by the extraordinary excitement and 
 worry and labour which they had to undergo in consequence 
 of the attacks which were made upon the great commercial 
 undertakings of which they were at the head. Perhaps this 
 was even more true of Mr. Raikes, who died at the end of the 
 Session of i8gi. For weeks and months he had to pass 
 anxious days and sleepless nights owing to the insubordina- 
 tion and confusion which were created in his department 
 by the pestilent demagogues who have become the plague of 
 modern society. If ever a man was harassed and worried 
 out of existence, H. Cecil Raikes was that man. Yet one of 
 the Radical papers which had most brutally attacked him 
 during his lifetime thought it decent to head a leading 
 article thus — "Poor Raikes" — and to say that Mr. Raikes 
 "killed himself with fighting the British public." No. He 
 killed himself by fighting, and fighting valiantly too, on 
 behalf of the British public against those who are its most 
 dangerous enemies, namely. Socialistic labour agitators and 
 their dupes, and unprincipled and ignoble time-servers who 
 disgrace the noble profession of journalism. 
 
 With policemen in London refusing to go out on duty, 
 and actually turning themselves into rioters, and with post- 
 men declining to fulfil their duties and imitating the most 
 blackguardly of the Dock labourers in their assaults upon 
 the more reputable members of their class, it might well 
 have been supposed that the lowest depths of disgrace and 
 of danger had been sounded. But in this lowest deep a 
 lower deep still was opened. Some even of our soldiers 
 so far forgot the honour of their profession and their duty 
 to the State that they allowed themselves to imitate the dis- 
 creditable conduct of the policemen and postmen who went 
 on strike. Serious as is any breach of discipline among the 
 civil servants of the State, insubordination among its mili- 
 tary servants is still more alarming ; and even the British 
 army has not proved impervious to the subtle Socialistic 
 contagion which has been abroad of late. Several incidents 
 have occurred of a very ugly and disquieting character, and
 
 Mutiny! 151 
 
 although the whole truth is not known with regard to them, 
 quite enough has leaked out to show that a very grave state 
 of things exists. First of all, the 2nd Battalion of the 
 Grenadier Guards refused, in July of 1890, to obey orders, 
 thus imitating the conduct of the pohce by a mutinous 
 breach of discipline. For this wanton act of rebellion the 
 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards was punished by 
 being sent to Bermuda, where it was detained for about a 
 a year. Moreover the 3rd Battalion of the same regiment, 
 while stationed at Chelsea Barracks, imitated the conduct 
 of the 2nd Battalion ; the ist Company of the Battalion 
 refused to parade when ordered to do so ; the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 
 and 8th Companies also manifesting a decided disinclination 
 to obey orders. The authorities made light of these inci- 
 dents, in doing which they were not wise, for in these 
 matters it is best that the whole truth should be known. 
 What is more, the chief officers of the army, and the heads 
 of the War Office, did not act in such a manner as to con- 
 vince the public that they realised the gravity of the position, 
 or that they meant to deal with these rebellious servants of 
 the State with wholesome rigour. What would the Iron 
 Duke have said if during his lifetime a whole Company of 
 one of the crack regiments of the British Army had refused 
 to heed the bugle call, and had only consented to go on 
 parade after being coaxed and cajoled by their officers ? 
 Such an incident was enough to make Wellington, Colin 
 Campbell, Havelock, and the rest of our fine old heroes turn 
 in their graves. 
 
 At Exeter Barracks, August, i8go, the 52nd Battery of 
 the Royal Horse Artillery cut up about forty saddles and 
 sets of harness in order to call attention to what they con- 
 sidered their grievances. A similar incident occurred at 
 Chatham during the same month among the men of the 
 Army Service Corps, and three of the drivers deserted. At 
 Cork three soldiers of the Welsh Regiment threw down 
 their helmets, and refused to take them up again until com- 
 pelled to do so at the point of the bayonet. They then put
 
 152 Socialism in the Army and Navy. 
 
 them on backwards, made grimaces at their officers, and 
 when marched off under arrest exhibited the utmost inso- 
 lence and defiance. The ist and 3rd Companies of the 2nd 
 Battahon of the Coldstream Guards also refused to obey 
 marching orders in July, i8gi, the men manifesting a most 
 insubordinate spirit, for which some of them were punished, 
 although the officers seem to have acted with contemptible 
 weakness in dealing with these mutineers. At Sheerness a 
 detachment of gunners belonging to number 20 Battery, 
 Royal Artillery, refused to work, and broke out of barracks, 
 twelve of them being sentenced to confinement to barracks 
 for twenty-eight days, and twelve others for fourteen days. 
 The same spirit also manifested itself among our bluejackets. 
 Twenty-four of them belonging to H.M.S. Bellerophon seized 
 some of the ship's boats at Newport, Rhode Island, and 
 endeavoured to escape. The deserters were pursued, and 
 as they offered some resistance one of them was shot, and 
 another cut down with a cutlass. During the visit of the 
 French Squadron to Portsmouth in the summer of i8gi all 
 leave was stopped on board the British war-ships at Spithead, 
 the result being that the crews manifested a spirit almost 
 bordering on mutiny. The situation was so serious that the 
 commanding ofiicers of several vessels held a consultation 
 with regard to it. A deplorable state of things was declared 
 to exist in connection with the British navy, and a very 
 uneasy impression prevailed in Portsmouth in consequence. 
 Very disquieting accounts also reached England as to the 
 state of discipline among the crews of some of our Mediter- 
 ranean warships. 
 
 The fact of these things occurring pretty nearly at the 
 same time, and also that they possessed certain features in 
 common, indicates that they had a common origin. What 
 that origin was cannot be doubted. Socialistic agitators 
 have been able to reach some of the younger men both in 
 the military and naval services, and thus the seeds of dis- 
 affection and rebellion have been sown. There is abundant 
 reason to believe that the state of affairs, both in the army
 
 The Problem of Democracy. 153 
 
 and navy, is much more serious than the authorities repre- 
 sent it to be. A system of agitation has been thoroughly 
 organised in the services of the State, and deputations from 
 both the army and the navy have actually waited upon 
 certain agitators and requested them to organise a general 
 strike against military orders and conditions. 
 
 The gravity of all this was sufficiently evident. Un- 
 happily, there were not many signs of the real nature of the 
 situation having been realised by those who are at the head 
 of the great defensive departments of the State. Unless all 
 this insubordination on the part of soldiers, marines, police- 
 men, postmen, and the other servants of the nation is 
 repressed with a stern hand there are troublous times ahead. 
 All these classes of men may have their grievances ; but the 
 redress of those grievances should be sought in a legitimate 
 manner. The formation of Trade Unions among servants 
 of the State, with the usual incidents of strikes and outbreaks 
 of violence, is nothing short of downright mutiny, and mutiny 
 is a crime which must be severely punished by any Govern- 
 ment which intends to retain the respect or to conserve the 
 prosperity of a civilized nation. Democratic Govern- 
 ments must learn how to make their authority obeyed 
 and feared if they wish to preserve Democratic institutions. 
 If they cannot or will not learn how to do this, then it 
 is certain that they will have to make way for some 
 other form of Government more worthy of the support 
 of reasonable men. Nations have always preferred a 
 military despotism which has ensured to the majority of the 
 people security of life and property, even when it has 
 seriously curtailed their liberties, to a form of government 
 which has not been able adequately to safeguard the 
 possessions and the lives of the people, although it might 
 theoretically and nominally give them greater freedom. Of 
 what use is liberty when no man can rest assured that he 
 will be able to retain his own ? Under such conditions 
 liberty is nothing more than a name : it is a mockery of 
 man's highest hopes. As it has been in the past so will it
 
 154 Democracy must be Checkmated. 
 
 be in the future. History will repeat itself. Wherever a 
 Government proves to a community that it cannot perform 
 the most elementary functions of a Government, and protect 
 the community from the ravages of the lawless and the 
 unprincipled, the community will rise in its might and 
 sweep such a Government away. Sooner or later, in some 
 form or other, measures will be adopted for preserving the 
 sanctity of human life and the security of personal property. 
 The nation is greater than any Government ; the conserva- 
 tion of the 'nation's fundamental rights is of infinitely 
 greater moment than the perpetuation of any particular 
 form of government. That is a good Government, what- 
 ever its name or form, which efficiently fulfils the true 
 functions of government, which are of a much more simple 
 and modest character than scientific politicians often 
 represent them to be. Democratic government is on its 
 trial, and it is by no means certain that it will emerge 
 triumphantly from the test to which it is being subjected. 
 Already it shows signs of breaking under the strain. At all 
 events, this is the case in England ; if it is not true of the 
 United States or of France in the same degree, it is because 
 those countries are really less Democratic than our own, 
 notwithstanding their republican form of government. 
 Where a written Constitution exists, and where elaborate 
 checks have been provided in order to counteract the 
 vagaries of the voting multitude, the Executive is able to 
 put on the brake in a way that cannot be imitated by our 
 own Government. Events are at once vindicating the 
 wisdom of the framers of the American Constitution, whose 
 one great aim was to checkmate extreme Democracy, 
 and demonstrating the urgency of similar methods being 
 adopted in this country in order to save the best of our 
 institutions from utter ruin. If our Governments continue 
 to pander to the prejudices and to the selfishness of the 
 more ignorant portions of the electorate, as successive 
 Governments have done during the past few years irrespec- 
 tive of their political complexion, the result must be a
 
 Ill-judged Leniency. 155 
 
 catastrophe in one form or another. Nothinj^; can be more 
 instructive or significant than the contrast observable in the 
 attitude which is assumed by the Executive of this country 
 towards recent disturbances and that which is assumed 
 towards similar movements by the Executive in the United 
 States. What is the explanation ? Simply this, that in 
 this country the Government is entirely dependent from day 
 to day upon the popular will, while in that country it is 
 virtually independent of the popular will during the Presi- 
 dential term. The lesson surely is that we shall, in this 
 respect, have to imitate their example, and so revise our 
 political arrangements as to place our Executive Govern- 
 ment in a position where it will no longer be constantly 
 tempted to truckle and pander to the popular vote. It is 
 not too much to affirm that such discreditable proceedings 
 as those which took place in connection with the police and 
 the postmen in London could not possibly have taken place 
 in the United States. There these outbreaks would have 
 been nipped in the bud, and no mercy would have been 
 shown to the ringleaders. As a matter of fact nobody ever 
 heard of such things taking place in the United States of 
 America. They have had their strikes, some of them 
 extensive and characterised by violence, but they have never 
 spread to the services of the State. 
 
 The tolerance which was exhibited by the Government 
 towards the demagogues who stirred up this rebellion 
 among the civil and military servants of the country was a 
 mistaken policy. Leniency towards such enemies of society 
 is an injustice to society itself. Many of the constables, 
 postmen, and soldiers who disobeyed orders and refused to 
 work were severely punished, some of them so severely that 
 they will suffer for many years to come, if not all their lives, 
 and their' punishment was just. But is it just that while 
 they endure these heavy penalties those who led them on 
 should escape scot free ? Here, also, it is a case of Parnell- 
 ism over again. Many a weak and ignorant Irishman has 
 been sentenced to penal servitude for crimes which he had
 
 156 Preachers of Rebellion. 
 
 been incited to commit by men who were too intelligent to 
 perpetrate those crimes themselves. The clever member of 
 Parliament, who has persuaded and impelled the half idiotic 
 peasant to murder his landlord or to shoot a landgrabber, is 
 allowed to snap his fingers at the law, while his deluded 
 victims are sent to a convict's doom. Still, a few of these 
 Irish agitators have been prosecuted for inciting to boycot- 
 ing, intimidation, and murder, and several of them have 
 been sentenced to imprisonment. Why have not some of 
 the labour agitators, who have clearly taken the leaders of 
 the Irish League as their models, also been prosecuted and 
 imprisoned ? During the postmen's strike, Mr. Mahon was 
 reported to have stated at a meeting of disaffected postmen, 
 which was attended by some of the " blacklegs," that the 
 latter ought to be " picked up " and run out. When a man 
 incites to violence in language of this sort, it is merely 
 farcical for him to state that he does not advocate violence 
 at all. Similar language has been used in connection with 
 most of the strikes which we have noticed, and especially in 
 connection with the Dock strike, and as a direct conse- 
 quence of this talk workmen have been maltreated and the 
 property of employers destroyed ; yet nobody has been 
 brought to book for it. Perhaps it is not astonishing, con- 
 sidering the corrupting influences of democracy, that the 
 Government should wink at this preaching of lawlessness 
 so long as it is directed merely against ordinary workmen 
 and their masters ; but it might have been supposed that 
 even the Government would have been stimulated into action 
 when preachers of rebellion strove to turn their own servants 
 against them, as was the case in connection with the police 
 and with the postmen and the military. But even in these 
 cases they were content to look on and do next to nothing. 
 It is no justification of their conduct to say that they were 
 not able to act with effect under the existing law. If they find 
 that existing laws are not sufficient to enable them properly to 
 carry out their duties as an Executive, their business is to get 
 new laws made which will remedy the defects of the old ones.
 
 Lackeys of Demos. 157 
 
 They can do this quickly enough when they are thrown into 
 a panic by two or three dynamite explosions, which are not 
 one-thousandth part as dangerous to the life and prosperity 
 of the nation as the virulent Socialistic movements which we 
 have adverted to. As the British Government could ask 
 Parliament to arm them with special powers for dealing 
 with dynamiters, and as the French Government could ask 
 the Chamber to pass special laws against Anarchists, so 
 they could if they chose ask their respective Parliaments to 
 strengthen their hands by making the laws against strike 
 leaders and strikers more stringent. And no doubt they 
 would do this were it not for their fear that votes would 
 be alienated from their parties by such vigorous action. 
 Household suffrage has undermined the sturdiness which 
 formerly characterised British Governments, and has trans- 
 formed them into mere lackeys of Demos. 
 
 There is one other reflection which may well be sug- 
 gested to a thoughtful mind by the events which have been 
 recounted in this chapter. It is that some special measures 
 should be taken by the State to impress upon its servants 
 the fact that they occupy a position of exceptional responsi- 
 bility. Radical-Socialists are ever ready to point out that 
 such corporations as Railway Companies, Water Companies, 
 and so on, inasmuch as they are granted special privileges 
 by Parliament, ought to be subjected to proportionate re- 
 strictions. How much more forcibly does this principle 
 apply to those who serve the State in the Army and Navy, 
 the Post-office, and the police force ? Surely all these men 
 occupy a favoured position, and possess many advantages, 
 such as fixed and regular incomes and pensions for declining 
 years, which are not enjoyed by the working-classes gener- 
 ally. Ought they not, therefore, to be placed under special 
 and rigorous regulations, and made to realize their responsi- 
 bility to the Government and to the nation ? Undoubtedly 
 they ought. It is intolerable that policemen, postmen, and 
 soldiers should go on strike in the same jaunty fashion as a 
 number of street-sweepers might do. But this is an aspect
 
 158 A Task for the Government. 
 
 of the matter which is studiously ignored by Radical poli- 
 ticians and agitators. They are all for imposing disabilities 
 upon capitalists who have placed their money in railways 
 and water works, on the ground that these Companies receive 
 certain privileges from the State ; but they are just as 
 decidedly against imposing disabilities upon Labour, even 
 where, as in the case of the great State departments, it also 
 occupies a privileged position. But what is sauce for 
 Capital is sauce for Labour tocK To thoughtful men it is 
 obvious that one serious task to which the Government will 
 before long have to address itself in this country is that of 
 protecting the community against the selfish and capricious 
 action of its own servants. The work will be a difficult one, 
 owing to the fact that political power has now been placed 
 almost entirely in the hands of the working classes, the 
 majority of whom seem bent upon using that power mainly 
 for the purpose of gratifying their whims and their resent- 
 ments ; nevertheless, it is a work which will have to be 
 done if England is to remain a great and prosperous 
 nation.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 On Some Socialistic Tendencies observable in Recent 
 Legislation and Municipal Action, and in the 
 Professions of Public Men. 
 
 IT is not proposed at this point to define the nature of 
 Sociahsm, to discuss the question of its practicabiHty, 
 or to indicate what would be its results were it possible to 
 secure its adoption. The purpose of this chapter is simply to 
 glance at certain indications which have been given of late 
 as to the direction in which we are travelling, and thereby 
 to call attention to the dangers which threaten the commu- 
 nity. We are on an inclined plane, and if we go on as 
 we are now going we shall by-and-bye find ourselves at the 
 bottom of it. It has been quite too much the fashion to 
 mock the earnest men who have been trying to arouse the 
 nation to a sense of the perils which are impending by 
 reason of the stealthy but rapid advance of Socialism. 
 Prominent among these men have been the Earl of 
 Wemyss, and those who are associated with him in the 
 work of the Liberty and Property Defence League.* The 
 only fault of these men has been that they were able to see 
 further and more clearly than the majority of their country- 
 men. Like all enthusiasts they may have sometimes 
 indulged in a tone of exaggeration ; but making proper 
 allowance for this there nevertheless remains a solid sub- 
 stratum of reality at the base of their declarations. There 
 is no reason, however, to adopt an alarmist tone ; all that 
 it is intended to convey here is that there is cause, and 
 
 * To avoid misapprehension the author deems it needful to state that he 
 is not a member of this League, though of course he is to a large extent in 
 sympathy with its objects.
 
 i6o Are we all Socialists now ? 
 
 serious and sufficient cause, that all citizens who do not 
 wish to see Socialism triumphant among us should at once 
 bestir themselves. 
 
 No doubt there is a sense in which, as Sir William 
 Harcourt sa3's, " we are all Socialists now." On this point 
 it may be well to observe that many of our public men 
 are getting into the habit of juggling with the term Social- 
 ism. The words of Sir William Harcourt just quoted 
 supply one illustration of this habit. When it is said that 
 " we are all Socialists now," it is not of course meant that 
 we are all Socialists in the proper and literal sense of that 
 term, but that we are Socialists in some looser and vaguer 
 sense of it. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in an article upon 
 the Labour Question in the Nineteenth Century for Nov., 
 1892 (to be noticed more at length presently), says : "A 
 man who is in favour of our factory legislation is a State 
 Socialist — so is a supporter of the Poor Law, of Free 
 Education, of the Artisans" Dwellings Act, or of the 
 Vaccination Laws." This is another illustration of the 
 indefinite and injurious use of the term Socialism which has 
 just been condemned. When Mr. Chamberlain affirms that 
 a man who supports certain legislation is a Socialist he is of 
 course correct; but then he might just as well say that a 
 man who lives in the social state at all is a Socialist : for 
 obviously no man can live in neighbourhood with others 
 without being in a certain sense Socialistic, that is in the 
 sense of associating himself with his neighbours for certain 
 common purposes. But this kind of Socialism is not what is 
 meant when we speak of Socialism as that condition of the 
 social organism which is in contrast with the principles of 
 Individualism and free competition. There is a natural 
 Socialism and there is a political Socialism. The natural 
 Socialism is that which is inherent in the position of man in 
 the social state ; political Socialism is an artificial theory of 
 political doctrinaires like Lasalle and Marx, which it is 
 sought to impose upon society in place of the social order 
 which has hitherto prevailed. Now Mr. Chamberlain and Sir
 
 Unworthy Artifices of Politicians. i6i 
 
 W. Harcourt, in the passages just cited, speak of Socialism 
 in its naturalistic and non-objectionable sense, though they 
 do not think it worth while to explain the fact : indeed this 
 is an artifice on their part to mislead unthinking people. By 
 using the term Socialism in two distinct and opposite senses, 
 without stating when they use it in the one sense and 
 when in the other, the}' confuse the thought of the hearer 
 or reader in order that he may be led to accept as harmless 
 that which is in reality a deadly poison. Neither of the two 
 politicians named has the courage to avow himself to be a 
 Socialist out and out, but each of them desires, for his own 
 purposes, to induce the electors of this country to accept 
 more extreme forms of Socialistic legislation than they have 
 been willing to accept hitherto. The artifices of these 
 political jugglers are utterly unworthy of men who pose as 
 statesmen, and but for their serious consequences they 
 would merely excite the derision of rational and thoughtful 
 people. 
 
 The truth is that it is impossible for any man to be an 
 Individualist, in the literal sense of that term, unless, like 
 Robinson Crusoe, he inhabits an island absolutely alone. 
 Such a man, living a solitary life, doing everything for 
 himself, and depending upon no other human being for any 
 office or service whatsoever, would be literally an In- 
 dividualist. No man can be this who is a member of a 
 community, and who is related to other members of the 
 community as husband, father, son, servant, master, or in 
 any other way ; such a man must be content to do and bear 
 some things as a consequence of his association with others 
 which he would not bear or do were he free from that 
 association.* 
 
 Clearly, therefore, when a member of a civilized 
 communitv claims to be an Individualist, he does not use 
 
 * The late Charles Bradlaugh said, in the last article he wrote : " I am an 
 Individualist as far an one u-isely can be in such a country as our own. If I were 
 in the great north-west of the Dominion, far away from Ottawa or Montreal, 
 or if I were in Western Australia, 500 miles or more from Perth, I should be 
 still more Individuahst." — The New Revien', February, 1891.
 
 i62 Collective Work to the Government . 
 
 the term Individualism in the bare and naked sense in 
 which it would apply to a Crusoe. What he means is that 
 the individual should be asked to give up so much of his 
 freedom in the interests of the community as is necessary 
 for the order and progress of the community, and no more ; 
 or in other words, that personal freedom should be limited 
 only by such restrictions as are found to be essential to the 
 peace and prosperity of the whole society. It will be found 
 in practice that such limitations and restrictions as these 
 are compatible with the exercise and enjoyment of complete 
 individual freedom. The authority of the Government and 
 the liberty of the subject are in no wise fundamentally 
 opposed to each other. Where there is no law there is no 
 liberty. Perfect freedom is perfect obedience to a perfect 
 law. It is in a society ordered and governed by law, and 
 not in a society without law, that individual freedom can 
 attain its fullest development and its noblest fruition. 
 
 We are all Socialists, therefore, in the sense that we 
 wish to see those works which cannot be carried out by 
 individual enterprise undertaken by the Government ; for 
 where an undertaking, which is necessary and beneficial, is 
 clearly beyond the ability and the scope of private exertion 
 there can be no infringement of the rights or the privileges 
 of the individual in such an undertaking being carried on by 
 the State. The Post Office may be taken as an illustration. 
 No doubt individual skill and energy have even been able to 
 organise and to carry on a postal service of more or less 
 efficiency ; indeed, the postal service in China at the 
 present time is carried on entirely upon this principle, and 
 it is said to be in many respects superior to even our own 
 service. At all events it is extremely doubtful whether the 
 Government of China could do the business half as 
 well as it is done b}- individual skill and capital.* 
 But probably it is the fact that in this country the 
 
 * The mar%'ellous efficiency with which Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons 
 conduct their tourist operations all over the world may be regarded as an 
 indication of what individual enterprise could do in these days in the way of 
 conducting a postal service.
 
 Individual Work to the Individual. 163 
 
 utmost ability and exercise of individual enterprise would not 
 give us a postal service equal to that which we now enjoy. 
 Even this, however, is to some extent a supposition, as we 
 have no adequate experience to guide us on the point ; for 
 since the age of railways and steamboats set in there has 
 been no attempt to organise a postal service in this country 
 by private capital and energy. Such colossal business 
 establishments as those of W. H. Smith & Son, which 
 distribute millions of newspapers annually, have developed 
 their arrangements to such a degree of efficiency that as 
 regards the carriage and distribution of newspapers they 
 leave the Post Office far behind, and thus show us what 
 may be done in this direction. Waiving the element of 
 doubt in the case, however, we may assume that the 
 Government of this country can conduct the postal service 
 more expeditiously, efficiently, and cheaply than private 
 enterprise could do. But even if we grant this it does not 
 follow from it that the Government (the term is used to 
 denote both national and municipal government) could do 
 the same thing with regard to railways, or water and gas 
 companies, or tramway and omnibus companies, all of which 
 stand on an entirely different footing from the Post Office. 
 Yet the fact that the Government conducts the postal and 
 telegraphic services is constantly being used in support of 
 the proposition that all capital and all the means of 
 production should be handed over to the State.* 
 The true principle with regard to all these matters 
 appears to be this — that what can be best accomplished by 
 the State should be relegated to the State, and that what 
 can be most efficiently performed by private enterprise 
 should be left in the hands of individuals ; or in other words, 
 that we should have just as much Socialism as is necessary 
 
 * In the United States the telegraphic service is not only in the hands of 
 private enterprise, as not long ago was the csise here, but is mainly in the 
 hands of one man — Mr. Jay Gould. It is not contended that the service there 
 is as cheap and effective as our own ; but the fact that the telegraphic system in 
 such a vast and wealthy country as the United States is in the hands of a great 
 monopolist, and that it nevertheless meets the necessities of that country, is 
 certainly a striking example of what can be done by individual effort.
 
 164 Slaying Freedom of Contract. 
 
 to prevent Individualism from degenerating into anarchy on 
 the one hand, and from being burdened with tasks that it 
 cannot adequately perform on the other hand. Such a 
 Socialism will not repress or cripple Individualism, but will 
 expand and strengthen it, and enable it to work at the 
 highest pitch of freedom and efficiency. Let us accept the 
 fullest degree of Socialism that is consistent with the largest 
 and most thorough Individualism. This is a safe principle 
 to go upon. 
 
 Unfortunately our legislators have not been content to 
 legislate upon this basis. During the last few years a 
 number of most important Acts of Parliament have been 
 imposed upon the country which are in their nature 
 unnaturally Socialistic — Socialistic in the evil political sense, 
 in the sense that they have placed in the hands of the State 
 duties which can be successfully performed only by 
 individual citizens. Of this character are the various Irish 
 Land Acts which have been passed by Mr. Gladstone, and 
 by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour ; for in this matter 
 statesmen of both parties have gone seriously astray. The 
 evil example of Mr. Gladstone, instead of warning off 
 Conservative statesmen from these dangerous shoals and 
 quicksands, has lured them towards them, almost to their 
 destruction. If there is one sphere in the world where 
 freedom of contract should be allowed full play it is in the 
 letting and hiring of land. All experience shows that where 
 men are allowed to act in these matters upon their own 
 judgments, and according to their view of what is best for 
 their own interests, the results are on the whole much more 
 beneficial than they are where the State undertakes to 
 decide for these men what it is best for them to do. Facts 
 abound in Ireland itself which condemn all this recent land 
 legislation as both mischievous and futile. It has done 
 immense harm in one direction without doing the least 
 good in the other. It is Socialistic as regards the tenant 
 but Individualistic as regards the landlord ; it is a com- 
 promise between the two principles, and therefore partakes
 
 Socialistic Experiments on Land. 165 
 
 of the vices of both without reaping the full advantages of 
 either. A tenant who has had his rent fixed by law, that is 
 upon Socialistic principles, afterwards proceeds to sell his 
 interest in his farm in the open market where free com- 
 petition prevails, that is upon Individualistic principles ; so 
 that the tenant has the advantage of Socialism as against 
 his landlord and the advantage of Individualism as against 
 his brother farmer. To the poor landlord, however, who is 
 thus treated by his tenant on the principles of Socialism, 
 the system is wholly disadvantageous, as the State does 
 nothing for him but take away a portion of his lawful 
 property — land ; while he is utterly deprived of any benefit 
 which he might reap by the free sale of the remaining 
 portion in the market of open competition. All these Land 
 Acts have been conceived in the interests of one class, 
 other classes being despoiled and robbed to gratify the 
 cupidity of that one. The effect of Mr. Gladstone's early 
 Irish land legislation was to cut down rents by wholesale, 
 and to fix these reduced rents for a term of years, all of 
 course in the interests of the tenants. Other Acts followed 
 which wiped out arrears of rent to the extent of millions of 
 pounds ; in other words they relieved the tenants of the 
 payment of their lawful debts, and deprived the landlords 
 to whom these debts were due of their property ; while still 
 further Acts did for leaseholders what had previously been 
 done for mere yearly tenants, that is reduced their rents and 
 fixed them for a term of years, thus enabling substantial 
 and well-to-do farmers to break the contracts into which 
 they had freeh* entered with their landlords. Mr. T. W. 
 Russell, M.P., has been in the habit of boasting of this 
 breaking of leases as one of the proudest achievements of a 
 Unionist and Conservative Government. In a speech at 
 the Buckingham Street Board School, Caledonian Road, 
 Islington, on April 26th, 1892, Mr. Russell said : " The 
 present Government, simpl}- called ' a coercionist Govern- 
 ment,' opened the door of the Land Court to 50,000 
 leaseholders, and already 35,000 of them had passed
 
 1 66 // Ireland, why not England? 
 
 through the Court and obtained reductions averaging 26 
 per cent, of their rentals. That u'as coercion, but it was 
 coercion against the landlord/' From beginning to end this 
 class of legislation was Socialistic ; it used the power and the 
 resources of the State to hand over the property of the 
 minority to a dishonest and clamorous majority, which is 
 just what all Socialistic legislation would do. The Parnell 
 movement was Socialistic as well as revolutionary ; but its 
 Socialistic aspect has been overshadowed by its revolutionary 
 character. The Socialistic element in it was, however, 
 really the more dangerous of the two. 
 
 Already Parliament is being urged to adopt similar 
 Socialistic experiments with regard to land in Great Britain, 
 *' Do we not want any Land Acts for England ? " asks Sir 
 William Harcourt, and similar tendencies are observable in 
 the speeches of other politicians. The demand that Ireland 
 and Great Britain should be governed by precisely similar 
 laws is really a demand that the principles of the Irish 
 Land Acts should be applied to the rest of the kingdom, 
 although the fact seems to have been lost sight of by most 
 of the people who indulge in this silly talk about equal laws 
 for Ireland and Great Britain. When the conditions and 
 customs affecting land tenure in two given countries are 
 wholly dissimilar, how can the land laws of those countries 
 be exactly alike ? In Ireland houses, farm buildings, and 
 other improvements are often the work of the tenant, 
 although, by the bye, a great deal too much appears to have 
 been made of that fact, as the rentals of the holdings were 
 low in proportion. But the fact itself was the main reason 
 which was urged in support of this peculiar land legislation 
 for Ireland. In Great Britain, however, it is the landlord, 
 and not the tenant, who erects all the buildings and makes 
 all the permanent improvements. This has not prevented 
 an outcry being raised against British landlords similar to 
 that which was raised against Irish landlords ; nor a demand 
 being made that they should be subjected to the same sort 
 of treatment. In Wales, where the landlords have not only
 
 The Political Blight. 167 
 
 effected all the improvements but have given substantial 
 reductions of rents, and where the tenants have not been 
 seriously affected by the fall in prices of agricultural pro- 
 duce, an agitation is being promoted with the object of 
 securing for Wales Land Acts and Land Courts similar to 
 those which have been given to Ireland. Mr. Gladstone 
 himself, who seems to be possessed by a perfect mania for 
 destruction, is not ashamed to give his active support to 
 this agitation. Almost any other man would have been so 
 appalled by the desolation which his handiwork had 
 wrought in Ireland that he would for very shame have 
 avoided such agitation and legislation ever afterwards. But 
 Mr. Gladstone's genius for creating ruin is still unsatisfied ; 
 he sighs for new worlds to plunder and to burn ; and there- 
 fore he is eager to assist in degrading the landlords of Great 
 Britain to the same depths of humiliation and of poverty 
 through which their Irish brethren have been made to pass. 
 Mr. Gladstone is himself a landlord, as was Mr. C. S. 
 Parnell, and to say the least neither of these gentlemen has 
 distinguished himself by being excessively generous to his 
 tenants. There is scarcely one landlord out of all whom 
 they have denounced who could not show a better record in 
 this respect than either of them. To serve political if not 
 personal ends they have induced the electors to pass a 
 series of Land Acts which compel landlords to do what 
 neither of the authors of these Acts has ever done towards 
 his tenants. '■'" 
 
 More than once already in the course of this work it has 
 been pointed out that the noxious influence of Socialistic 
 land legislation in Ireland is spreading like a blight through- 
 out the whole of the United Kingdom. The following 
 
 * The Bauer, a Welsh vernacular newspaper, contained an article in one 
 of its issues in August, 1890, written by a Nonconformist minister, which 
 concluded thus: " Undoubtedly landlordism {landlord iaeth) in Wales has been 
 the author of tyrannical and atrocious deeds. But a blessed thing it is to 
 think that the present system of landlordism is drawing to an end, and the 
 day of its funeral is at hand — 
 
 " Oh, heavenly jubilee, 
 Let me see the morning dawn."
 
 1 68 Mr. Fuller, M.P. Pilloried. 
 
 additional instances may be given in order to emphasize 
 this fact. Mr. Fuller, M.P. said some time ago in a speech 
 at Maddingham that — " His advice to every tenant farmer 
 was not to pa}' his rent rather than pay it and starve. He 
 maintained that was the right doctrine to preach any- 
 where. They had no right to allow rent to be paid when the 
 people were starving. If they had a farm which did not pro- 
 duce a profit they had better not pay the rent than starve." 
 When Mr. Fuller's attention was called to this quotation 
 he acknowledged it to be correct, and stated that he could 
 not understand an\one disagreeing with his views of 
 " morals and politics." He added : " A law which legalises 
 an impossible rent, and leaves no alternative but starvation, 
 does not meet my idea of moral politics, even in Ireland." 
 Dr. Alcock, a resident of the neighbourhood, in repl}' asked 
 Mr. Fuller : '* Does such a law exist (if you mean by starva- 
 tion want ended in death) in any portion of the British 
 Isles ? What is the object of poor rates and our elaborate 
 system of poor relief? Is it not to prevent destitution and 
 starvation ? Or do \ou think it less dishonourable to rob a 
 landlord than to seek public relief? . . . You are 
 endeavouring to educate, or rather demoralize, the members 
 of your constituency, so that when a bargain into which they 
 may have deliberateh- entered turns out unfavourable to the 
 extent of threatening famine the}' are not to fulfil their 
 engagements. How far is this teaching from saying ' Thou 
 mayest steal if thou thinkest it to thy advantage to steal?' 
 Is not this the doctrine of plunder ? " Mr. Fuller replied 
 that — " The law of Ireland enforced the payment of rent 
 whether the rent is fair or impossible to be made from the 
 land. My answer to the second question is that the 
 ' workhouse ' and ' starvation ' are in the eyes of many 
 synonymous terms. In reply to the third question I deem 
 it equally as dishonourable for a landlord to impose an 
 impossible rent as for a tenant to agree to pay the same, 
 when (as is specially the case in Ireland) no other means of 
 subsistence is within his reach. In the former case the
 
 TJie Three F's for Great Britain. 169 
 
 dishonourable action is legal ; in the latter it is illegal." 
 This balderdash may be left to speak for itself. But it is 
 necessary to remind the reader that the rents of which Mr. 
 Fuller complains in Ireland are not fixed by the landlord, 
 but by the Land Courts. 
 
 At a meeting of Lancashire tenant farmers held at 
 Preston on Oct. 29, 1892, the following resolution was 
 passed : '*' That this association of Lancashire tenant 
 farmers earnestly impresses upon the Minister for Agricul- 
 ture the necessity of an immediate Act of Parliament by 
 which a Land Court empowered to fix fair rents and give 
 security of tenure to the tenants, the ordering of necessary 
 buildings and repairs, and giving free sale to tenants' 
 improvements, will be secured." Yet at this same meeting 
 it was admitted that English landlords were spending a 
 large amount of mone}- upon improving their properties, 
 and that many of the farmers " lived in houses of more 
 than ordinary style and quality, most of them new, and 
 both houses and out-buildings were fitted up with the most 
 modern and convenient appliances and equipment for 
 successful farming." An estate in Northamptonshire was 
 specially referred to "where money was being very liberally 
 spent in modernizing the houses and out-buildings, and 
 effecting improvements in the condition of the farms." 
 Notwithstanding the fact that British landlords are doing 
 all this, and at the same time reducing the rents, the 
 farmers urge that Land Laws and Land Courts similar to 
 those in Ireland are imperatively necessary ! 
 
 At a meeting of the Farmers' Club, held at Newcastle- 
 on-Tyne on Oct. 29, 1892, several of the speakers advocated 
 the formation of " Land Courts for England similar to 
 those established in Ireland," and the representatives of the 
 club were instructed to support the proposal to establish 
 Land Courts to fix judicial rents at the National Agricultural 
 Conference. 
 
 Mr. T. E. Ellis, M.P., a Welsh agitator, who was 
 appointed one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury in
 
 170 House Courts! 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Government after the General Election of 
 1892, speaking at the annual meeting of the Welsh National 
 Council at Rhyl on Nov. 10, 1892, said : " The tithe system 
 was the buttress of the English establishment in Wales, 
 and clergy and land owners had played into one another's 
 hands, and the people had to struggle against both. The 
 tithe system was intolerable when the clergy and the tillers 
 of the soil were not in harmony. That was true of the 
 system of rent also when landlord and tenant were estranged in 
 language, in religion, and in politics. The system would 
 ultimately breed revolt." 
 
 Mr. Michael Davitt, M.P., speaking to the Irish National 
 Federation in Dubhn on July 28, 1892, said : "The Irish 
 representatives could claim to be the most democratic in 
 Parliament, and to be the spokesmen of a movement which 
 had won the most signal of all labour triumphs in the 
 direction of State interference. They deprived the landlords of 
 the power of fixing remits, and they secured the consent of Parlia- 
 ment to the Socialistic principles in the Agricultural Labourers' 
 Dwellings Act.'" 
 
 It may be noted in passing that many of our politicians, 
 not content with desiring to extend the principles of the 
 Irish Land Acts to British land, also demand that they 
 shall be applied to other kinds of property as well, especially 
 to house property. Mr. B. D. Knox, in a letter to the 
 Times of Feb. 17, 1892, said : " Mr. Boodle (the Duke of 
 Westminster's London agent) and his supporters conveni- 
 ently ignore the fact that London leaseholders are forced to 
 accept whatever terms the London landlords choose to 
 impose upon them, there being as yet no Court of Arbitra- 
 tion to decide renting and rating questions. Formerly the 
 150,000 Irish leaseholders were in precisely the same position ; 
 but now, owing to legislation promoted by the present Government 
 and Lord Cadogan — ground landlord of Chelsea — they can 
 obtain relief in the Land Courts. What I have ever urged, 
 both before the Town Holdings Committee and in the 
 columns of the Times, is that London leaseholders should
 
 Much Wants More. 171 
 
 be similarly protected by the institution of a House Court 
 or Commission." Lord Wemyss showed, in a letter which 
 appeared in the Times on July 22, 1892, that the bribes 
 (jffered to the electors in the shape of the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, Small Holdings' Act, and Free Education, had 
 all failed of their intended effect because the other side had 
 offered larger bribes still. He added : " The necessary 
 result of all this is general demoralization to the extent 
 that a London West-end vestry has, in committee of the 
 whole vestry, resolved that a Court should be established, 
 before which any town tenant who thinks himself over- 
 rented may appear and have his rent reduced, while all 
 sub-letting and all dealings in land and houses in London 
 arc to be prohibited by law." 
 
 Although the greater part of the time of Parliament 
 during the past twenty years has been spent in legislating 
 for Ireland, with the result that Socialistic principles of the 
 most deadly and blighting character have been established 
 in British legislation, the one palpable result of it all is that 
 the Irish tenants, for whose benefit all this mischief has 
 been done, are more discontented than they ever were.* 
 
 * This appears to be equally true of the crofters of the Highlands, 
 on whose behalf similar legislation has been carried out, for Mr. Fraser- 
 Mackintosh, one of the crofters' representatives, said in the House of 
 Commons on May lo, 1892 : "The condition of the crofters was much worse 
 than it was before the passing of the Crofters' Act ; and he would say that if 
 three-fourths of the Act was struck out it would be an excellent Act." The 
 debate on this occasion was upon a resolution of Mr. Caldwell proposing to 
 amend and extend the Crofters Holdings Act. Such legislation, which is 
 invariably put forward as "final," just as invariably requires amendment 
 and extension within a few years. 
 
 On November 19, 1892, the Fermoy Board of Guardians adopted a 
 resolution "impressing upon the Government the urgent necessity for follow- 
 ing the example of the Conservative Government in making a temporary 
 reduction in the statutory rents fixed in 1881, in order to make the rents more 
 equitable." The reasons urged in support of this were short yields of 
 produce and a fall in prices. The Middleton Board of Guardians adopted a 
 similar resolution on the same day. A few days afterwards a number of 
 persons who had purchased their farms under the Ashbourne Acts complained 
 that their annual instalments were too heavy, and prayed to have them 
 reduced. Some of the tenants on the Ponsonby Estate who had purchased 
 their holdings petitioned the Evicted Tenants Commissioners to enquire into 
 and reconsider their cases, on the ground that they had been coerced into the 
 contracts to purchase. The Times said in a leading article on Nov. 28, 1892:
 
 172 A Trinity of Evil. 
 
 This is significantly indicated by the fact that during the 
 Session of 1892 three proposals were brought forward by 
 Irish members with the object of doing still more for the 
 Irish tenantry — of course at the expense of the landlords. 
 Taking these proposals in the order of their introduction, 
 we come first upon the " Evicted Tenants' (Ireland) Bill," 
 which was introduced b\' Mr. O'Kelly, who moved its second 
 reading on 12th March. The object of this measure was to 
 compel landlords by law to reinstate in their farms tenants 
 who had been evicted from those farms because they refused 
 to pay the rents, which in most cases had been fixed by the 
 Land Courts and not b}- the landlords. For this pre- 
 posterous Bill 174 members voted, and the majority against 
 the second reading was onl}- 55. A still more significant 
 fact was that such men as Sir George Trevelyan and 
 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, both of whom were subsequently 
 appointed Cabinet Ministers in Mr. Gladstone's Govern- 
 ment of that year, supported the Bill. Sir G. Trevelyan 
 said " the third clause of the Bill really made compulsory, 
 under the penalty of having to give a fair rent, that power 
 which was voluntary under the Purchase Act. Was this 
 principle either wonderful or new ? Was it not the case 
 session after session, that while in one session the House 
 established a principle and made it voluntary, in a sub- 
 sequent session it was found that the principle would not 
 work, and it was consequently made compulsory ?" In 
 explanation of this it should be stated that Section 13 of 
 Mr. Balfour's Irish Land Purchase Act enabled tenants who 
 had been evicted from their farms to purchase those farms 
 under the Act, provided that they could agree with their 
 landlords and that the Purchase Commissioners were willing 
 to sanction the terms. This concession to as mischievous 
 a body of men as ever cursed a country was ill-advised ; 
 
 " Judicial rents clearly do not call it forth (i.e., gratitude — ' that rare emotion 
 in the Irish breast ') for in Ulster e\-en IVIr. T. W. Russell is clamouring for 
 abatements and throwing out dark threats of what he will do if they are 
 refused. Elsewhere there are ominous signs of refusal to pay the instalments 
 of the purchase money under the Ashbourne Act."
 
 A Ridiculous Commission. 173 
 
 but at all events this principle was permissive and not 
 compulsory, and it did ncj injustice to the landlord, but was 
 likely rather to work for his good. As was generally 
 expected, the clause was to a great extent inoperative, and 
 upon this fact Mr. O' Kelly based his demand for a com- 
 pulsory measure. 
 
 The rejection of Mr, O' Kelly's Bill left the evicted 
 tenants in their former position. As a result of the General 
 Election of 1892 Lord Salisbury's Government was ejected 
 from office, and its place was taken by a Government 
 headed by Mr. Gladstone, in which Mr. John Morley 
 resumed his former post of Irish Secretary. One of 
 his first actions in that capacity was to appoint a 
 Commission to deal with the evicted tenants. This 
 Commission was presided over by Sir James Mathew, 
 an Irishman who occupied the position of an English 
 judge, who was taken from his proper judicial duties to 
 preside over this Commission. His first act as president 
 was to deliver an impassioned address of the most partisan 
 character, which would have befitted an Irish agitator of 
 the type of Davitt, Dillon, or O'Brien, but which in the 
 mouth of the president of such a Commission was simply a 
 scandal. It pre -judged the very issues which had to be 
 inquired into, and condemned, before a word of evidence 
 was heard, the landlords who formed one of the parties to 
 the case. The result of this action on the part of Sir James 
 Mathew was-that the Commission was discredited before it 
 even got to work, and became simply a laughing stock to 
 the country. Counsel for the landlords were forbidden 
 to cross - examine witnesses who brought unfounded 
 charges against them, and the counsel who had been 
 retained for the landlords left the Commission declaring it 
 to be " a farce and a sham," and that they would no longer 
 *' prostitute their position " by taking any part in it. The 
 landlords declined to appear in any way way before the 
 Commission or to tender any evidence. Some evidence 
 (so-called) was taken by the Commission, but for the most
 
 174 Necessity makes strange bedfellows. 
 
 part it was nothing better than a tissue of idle tales.* The 
 significant fact in connection with this Commission is that 
 it should have been appointed at all, as it was absolutely 
 without a precedent or a parallel in British history. It was 
 part of the price which had to be paid by Mr. Gladstone 
 and his colleagues for the support of the Irish party, who 
 were their masters and who dictated to them their policy. 
 A more humiliating or disgraceful spectacle was never 
 presented by the Government of a great countr}. ! In order 
 to conciliate their Irish allies, whom they had formerly 
 denounced as miscreants and criminals of the vilest type, 
 they had to make terms with a pack of swindlers. Mr. 
 Pierce Mahony, M.P., speaking at Galway a few days after 
 Mr. O'Kelly's Bill had been discussed in Parliament, said : 
 " Last week they brought in a Bill to reinstate the evicted 
 tenants. Of course that Bill was voted down by a hostile 
 majority. But what did that Bill propose to do ? It pro- 
 posed that every evicted tenant should be reinstated in his farm, 
 and that if the farm was occupied by any tenant put in since the 
 eviction, that that tenant should be turned out of the farm as not 
 belonging to it, and that the rightful tenant should be put back 
 in his farm. That was a pretty strong proposition. 
 They (the anti-Parnellites) had to vote for it, and the 
 Liberals voted for it also, including Mr. Gladstone himself, 
 Sir William Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, 
 and Sir George Trevelyan. And what did all that mean ? 
 It meant that these men icere pledged to the principle, and that if 
 they came into power they would be obliged to deal icith it on the 
 
 * At the time of writing the Commission is still sitting, so that nothing 
 further can be said as to its proceedings or its Report. 
 
 t Mr. J. C. Wheeler, in a letter to the Times of November ii, 1892, 
 drew a contrast between the treatment of hardworking people in Great 
 Britain who put their money into rotten building societies and banks and the 
 dishonest Plan of Campaign tenants in Ireland. The former got sympathy, 
 but nothing else; as regards the latter, "an English Go\ernment — as the 
 price of their continued existence — appoints a Commission to see how they 
 can have their losses made good to them, at the expense of the unlucky 
 country whose working classes invest in building societies, and who them- 
 selves will be called on to contribute thereto out of such of their savings as 
 may be left to them."
 
 That Blessed Word — " Compulsion.'' 175 
 
 lines of the Bill which they supported.'" Mr. Mahony was 
 right. They had to deal with it ; they had no option. And 
 their mode of deahng with it was to appoint a Commission 
 in such terms and on such conditions as to raise the pre- 
 sumption that the whole case had been pre-judged ; that the 
 evicted tenants were to be reinstated at any cost ; and that 
 the Commission was appointed simply to give a cover of 
 legality and of decency to these unjust proceedings. 
 
 The second of the proposals which Parliament was 
 asked to sanction in 1892 was one made by Mr. Kilbride, 
 and was embodied in the following resolution : " That on 
 grounds both of justice and expediency it is desirable that 
 tenants in Ireland should be enabled to compel their landlords 
 to sell to them their holdings, under the Land Purchase 
 Acts, at a fair price." Such a proposition had never before 
 been heard in the British House of Commons. What it 
 demanded was that every Irish tenant should be empowered 
 to compel his landlord to sell to him his holding, and if it 
 had been adopted by the House of Commons the principle 
 of compulsorily expropriating landlords at the mere will of 
 their tenants would have been made universal in Ireland. 
 The poor landlord was to have no option in the matter at 
 all ; the tenant, omnipotent because of his aggregate 
 voting power, was to have things all his own way. To 
 have carried out this policy of universal compulsion would 
 have involved the expenditure of about eighty millions 
 sterling, in addition to the fifty millions which have already 
 been devoted to land purchase in Ireland, and for this 
 enormous sum the British tax-payer would have had to be 
 responsible. Mr. Kilbride, who is himself an evicted 
 tenant, based his demand for universal compulsion upon 
 the fact that several Land Purchase Acts for Ireland had 
 already been passed by Parliament, and that these Acts were 
 so limited in their scope and so partial in their operation 
 that only a few of the Irish tenants could participate in 
 their advantages. He said : " One man on one side of the 
 road was found paying the full judicial rent, without the
 
 176 The Penalty of Error. 
 
 slightest prospect of his ever acquiring any further property 
 in the soil, while another man on the opposite side of the 
 road, having purchased under the Ashbourne Act, got from 
 25 to 30 per cent, reduction (on judicial rent). This state 
 of things could not continue, and there would be no finality 
 to the Irish land question except by the adoption of 
 compulsory purchase." Mr. Knox, who seconded the 
 resolution, said that " the Land Purchase Act had not been 
 successful because it did not contain compulsory powers of 
 sale such as were asked for by this Bill. The Bill was 
 drawn on the lines of well-considered English and Irish 
 precedents. The English Allotments Acts did not at first 
 contain any compulsory powers, but the House was forced 
 to give such powers to the Count}' Councils. The Irish 
 Poor Law Boards had also compulsory powers of a cognate 
 kind in relation to labourers' cottages and plots of land. 
 The present position of things put a premium upon 
 disorder, for the peaceable tenant who paid his rent could 
 not get as good terms as the lawless tenant who did not 
 pay his rent, or paid it at irregular intervals." Mr. 
 Campbell-Bannerman, who is now one of the leading 
 members of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, said that Mr. 
 Kilbride's resolution " was a reasonable and natural one 
 from the point of view of the Irish members," and that when 
 those members "found that a measure passed for their 
 country had produced much grievance by the inequality of 
 its application, there was surely nothing inconsistent in 
 their coming forward and asking that the measure should be 
 made universal in its application " ; though at the same 
 time he stated that " the indefinite extension of the system 
 of pledging British credit for the sake of the tenantry was 
 a thing which the public would hardly contemplate with 
 equanimity." Mr. Kilbride's proposition was too much 
 even for those who had supported Mr. O'Kelly's. 
 
 All this strikingly illustrates the evils and the dangers 
 which have followed from the wanton action of Parliament 
 in violating every sound principle of economics and of morals
 
 Business m Irish Land Paralyzed. 177 
 
 in its dealiiif^s with Irish land. As is always the case with evil 
 doers, the fact that one wrong step had been taken, instead 
 of being regarded as a reason why that wrong step should 
 be retraced, was made a plea for taking a series of other 
 wrong steps. " You have passed Land Acts establishing 
 judicial rents," said these Irish members, "but you have 
 also proceeded to pass Land Purchase Acts, and under these 
 latter tenants may pay 25 or 30 per cent, less annually than 
 they would pay as judicial tenants, and yet at the end of a 
 given term they become possessors of the freehold of their 
 farms. How can you expect the judicial tenants, who are 
 paying 25 per cent, more than State-aided purchasers, but 
 who will never be anything but tenants, to be contented ? 
 You are bound by every principle of fairness to place the 
 judicial tenants in the same position as the State-aided 
 purchasers, in other words to make every tenant the owner 
 of his farm. It is true that many of the landlords will not 
 sell their land. What of that ? Make them do it. 
 They are but few and have little political power ; we are 
 many and we can work our own will." Mr. T, A. Dickson, 
 who supported Mr. Kilbride, admitted that "the recent 
 Land Purchase Act had paralysed land purchase in Ireland, 
 which could be proved by the evidence both of tenants and 
 of landlords." Of course ; what else could be expected ? 
 As regards Irish land, Parliament has trampled under foot 
 every sound business principle, and the result has been 
 chaos and desolation. It is impossible for rational business 
 principles to be observed between man and man in relation 
 to the letting or the sale of Irish land, simply because it 
 has been made the sport of party politicians and rendered 
 unsaleable. Every new Land Act simply makes confusion 
 worse confounded. Mr. Kilbride's remedy would have been 
 a very Irish one, for it would simply have aggravated the 
 disease. Nevertheless, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, the leader of 
 the Irish Nationalists, told the Gladstonians in answer to 
 their statement that the time was not yet ripe for universal 
 compulsion, that " the Irish members had convinced Par-
 
 178 ^^ Endowing a Sordid Conspiracy. ^^ 
 
 liament of the necessity for many a principle for which 
 when they began to enforce it the time had not seemed 
 ripe." This simply meant that the Gladstonians, should 
 they ever come into office, would be compelled by their 
 Irish task-masters to adopt Mr. Kilbride's proposition. 
 After what has occurred in relation to the evicted tenants it 
 is not at all improbable that Parliament may soon be asked 
 to compulsorily expropriate every landlord in Ireland. Mr. 
 Kilbride's resolution was defeated by a majority of gi, the 
 figures being 86 for and 177 against. 
 
 The third proposition which Parliament was invited ta 
 
 adopt in relation to Irish land during the Session of 1892 was 
 
 one by Mr. Roche, who introduced a Bill ostensibly for the 
 
 amendment of the Land Purchase Act of 1892. In reality, 
 
 however, the object of the measure was to relieve the evicted 
 
 tenants of the consequences of their dishonesty and folly by 
 
 reinstating them in their holdings and furnishing them with 
 
 a considerable sum of public money drawn from the Church 
 
 Surplus Fund. Sir Thomas Lea said that the effect of the 
 
 Bill would be "to place the evicted tenants in a better 
 
 position than that which the honest tenants occupied," and 
 
 he characterized this as " a most immoral proceeding." 
 
 Mr. Dunbar Barton forcibly characterized the Bill as a 
 
 device for " endowing a sordid conspiracy." The Bill was 
 
 rejected by a majority of 76, the figures being 144 for, 220 
 
 against. But that such a Bill, which coolly proposed to take 
 
 £100,000 of public money and hand it over to a set of men 
 
 whose only distinction was that they had endeavoured to 
 
 swindle their landlords, and who in consequence of their 
 
 flagrant dishonesty had forfeited their farms, should have 
 
 been introduced into Parliament at all is a fact of the 
 
 utmost significance. When such legislative proposals as 
 
 those which have just been adverted to can be introduced 
 
 into Parliament without protest, and can even command the 
 
 support of powerful parties in Parliament, it is obvious that 
 
 those healthy and lofty principles which should guide and 
 
 govern the conduct of our public men have been corroded.
 
 Land Purchase Acts Socialistic. 179 
 
 The Land Purchase Acts which have been more than 
 once referred to are at once the effect and the evidence of 
 the Socialistic tendency which is now so marked in political 
 thought and action. Such measures as the Ashbourne Acts 
 and Mr. Balfour's more recent and more generous (to the 
 tenants) Land Purchase Act, whatever may be said in their 
 defence, are essentially Socialistic, as their active principle 
 is to take money which belongs to the whole people and use 
 it for the benefit of a small section of the people,''' a section 
 which in the main consists of the more undeserving. It is 
 of course sought to make out some sort of an exceptional 
 case for these measures, inasmuch as they were applied to 
 Ireland, where all the ordinary principles of land tenure have 
 been disorganized and practically destroyed by Mr. Glad- 
 stone's Land Acts ; and it must at least be admitted, in 
 justice to the Conservatives, that they were not the first 
 to enter upon this disastrous legislation. They can plead 
 that it was Mr. Gladstone who made the tenants part owners 
 of their holdings, who established Land Courts, gave the 
 three F's, and who first proposed a gigantic scheme of land 
 purchase, and that if he had not done any of these things 
 they would not have countenanced any departure from true 
 economical principles in Ireland.! This defence cannot be 
 
 * During the debate on the Small Holdings Bill, on May loth, 1892, 
 Mr. Storey, M.P., said that he feared " the same tendency to increase the 
 amount advanced would be shown in this Bill as had appeared in the case 
 of the Irish Land Purchase Act. Many hon. members on his own side of 
 the House showed a desire to compel the Government to advance the whole 
 of the money .... So far as he was personally concerned he was not 
 afraid to say in the House of Commons that this was a bad method of 
 dealing with the public money." It may be hoped that in regard to the 
 social legislation of the future Liberals will in the main be true to the prin- 
 ciples of their party, and thus form a bulwark against the incursions and 
 ravages of Socialistic error, the more so as many Conservatives are proving 
 false to the truth. 
 
 t During the debate on Mr. Caldwell's proposal to apply the Crofters' 
 Act to leaseholders, on May loth, 1892, the chief argument urged in support 
 of this step was that the same thing had been done in Ireland. Mr. J. B. 
 Balfour said that "the Scotch crofter should not be denied that which had 
 been accorded to his Irish brother." The answer to this on behalf of the 
 Government was that "there was no analogy" between Ireland and the 
 Highlands. Mr. A. J. Balfour contended that Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of
 
 i8o The Opportunity of Socialism. 
 
 regarded as valid. Under Mr. Gladstone's land legislation 
 judicial rents were fixed for 15 years, but the Conservatives 
 revised, and of course reduced, them before half this term 
 had expired ; leaseholders were excluded from the operation 
 of Mr. Gladstone's Acts, but Lord Salisbury admitted them 
 within the sphere of that operation ; Mr. Gladstone merely 
 proposed to devote British credit and British money to 
 enable Irish tenants to purchase their farms ; but Lord 
 Salisbury and Mr. Balfour actually carried this proposal 
 into effect at a cost of about fifty millions sterling. All 
 this they did without sufficient warrant or justification, and 
 instead of making things better by doing it they have made 
 them worse. This action on the part of Conservative and 
 Liberal Governments alike is really due, not to the im- 
 perative and overwhelming necessities of the Irish tenants, 
 as they seek to make it appear, but to the pressure of 
 Socialistic principles and forces, which, if they were not 
 created by Household SuftVage, at all events found in House- 
 hold Suffrage their opportunit}'. That this is so is evident 
 from the fact that legislation similar to that which has been 
 given to Ireland is now demanded for the rest of the king- 
 dom. Utterly regardless as to what they have said respect- 
 ing the peculiar conditions and needs of the Irish people, 
 politicians are now beginning to ask why the resources of 
 the State cannot be used to purchase farms for British 
 peasants as well as for those of Ireland. A good deal of 
 this feeling underlies the agitation in favour of Allotments 
 
 1881 first interfered with Irish leases, and that it interfered with them funda- 
 mentally, leaving only "fragments of leases" to be dealt with by the Con- 
 servative Act of 1887. He condemned Mr. Caldwell's proposal on the ground 
 that it would "for the first time in the history of legislation in this country 
 introduce a provision into a Bill which deliberately broke contracts between 
 landlord and tenant." He added: "Did they think if they interfered with 
 the matter of leases and contracts between landlord and tenant that a single 
 landlord in any part of the three kingdoms would be idiot enough to make 
 a contract in future ? ... If once they began to break those leases he did not 
 see why any leases should be left untouched; if leases were to be broken, he 
 did not see why other contracts should not be also ; and if all contracts 
 were to be thus interfered with, or placed in danger, he did not see how the 
 community could hold together." The Lord Advocate said substantially the 
 same thing.
 
 Nemesis Lying in Wait. i8i 
 
 and Small Holdings Acts. The labourers of Great Britain, 
 with the example of Ireland before their eyes, do not see 
 why farms and houses should not be purchased for them by 
 the State, and let or sold to them on terms as favourable as 
 farms and houses are let or sold to Irish peasants. It is 
 quite possible that there may be grave troubles ahead of us 
 with regard to this question of small holdings and other 
 similar questions. A terrible Nemesis may await the Govern- 
 ment of the country and inflict a heavy retribution for the 
 folly and the wickedness which have been perpetrated in 
 Ireland. The Government may find that it has aroused a 
 spirit in Great Britain also which can be propitiated only 
 by sacrificing to it the principle of free contract and the 
 property of the land-owners and capitalists. But British 
 landlords are hardly likely to be as supine and complacent 
 as were those of Ireland. 
 
 The Small Agricultural Holdings Bill which was passed 
 by the Conservative Government in 1892, and for which they 
 are disposed to take to themselves much credit, belongs to 
 the same class as the Irish Land Acts. It is Socialistic in 
 its spirit and methods, and it is utterly opposed to those 
 principles which experience has proved to be sound and 
 wholesome. Earl Cadogan, in moving the second reading 
 of the Bill in the House of Lords, said that — " It applied to 
 Great Britain, and extended the principle embodied in the 
 Ashbourne and other Acts relating to Ireland, namely, that 
 on certain conditions public money should be advanced to 
 existing tenants for the purchase of their holdings." This 
 extension of the principles of the Irish Land Acts to Great 
 Britain is spoken of as though it were the most natural and 
 beneficial thing in the world. No doubt the motives of the 
 authors of this Act were very commendable, as not im- 
 probably Mr. Gladstone's motives may have been with 
 respect to his Irish Land Acts. Conservative statesmen 
 profess great concern for the agricultural labourer and the 
 small cultivator ; they protest that they desire to keep on 
 the land those who are on it, and to bring back to it many
 
 1 82 The Small Holdins's Delusion. 
 
 e>" 
 
 who have left it ; to re-create the old yeoman class which 
 has been destroyed ; and so to bring back prosperity to 
 our agricultural districts. These are most worthy and 
 desirable objects, and if they could be accomplished by 
 means good in themselves, and likely to produce permanent 
 effects, everybody would rejoice. The old yeomen, how- 
 ever, were considerable farmers, holding from loo to 500 
 acres of land, and they died out because they could not farm 
 at a profit. How, then, can an Act which merely created 
 small holdings of one acre up to fifty acres bring back the 
 yeoman ? And if the yeoman could not farm compara- 
 tively large farms at a profit, how can these small holdings 
 be made to pay ? Sir John Lawes, who is one of our 
 greatest authorities on agriculture, says : " The British 
 yeoman is dead. You may spend the amount of the 
 National Debt and yet fail to bring him to life again." 
 Experience amply proves that small holdings will not pay 
 under natural conditions, and that they have been given up 
 and absorbed into large estates, simply because it was 
 unprofitable to retain them. If such holdings will not pay 
 under the natural conditions which are produced by 
 economic causes, will they pay under artificial conditions 
 created by the State ?'•' Clearly not. Experience, reason, 
 and common sense alike warn our legislators against 
 making such experiments as these; but unhappily these 
 qualities, which would be paramount in any well ordered 
 
 * Mr. Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons on May 9, 1892, that 
 " The landlord, if willing to let at all, was willing to let at 2 per cent, on the 
 capital, and the county authority could only let at a rate equivalent to 
 4 per cent." 
 
 The late Sir James Caird demonstrated that the plan of buying out 
 landlords as a cure for the poverty and the discontent of the tenants is an 
 economic sham and delusion, as it would place the tenant in a distinctly worse 
 position. A case is given in illustration thus; — " A farmer purchases 20 acres 
 of freehold land for /i,ooo. This will not return him more than 3 per cent., 
 or £2,0 per annum. ' He requires a capital of /^2oo to stock his farm, and 
 profit on this at 10 per cent, would be ;^2o, so that his returns for the year 
 would be only ;^50. But for this ;/^i,2oo he could hire 120 acres of land from 
 a landlord, from which he would expect and would receive, if he knew his 
 business, a return of 10 per cent., making ;^i20. His income would be more 
 than doubled by his use of the landlords capital."
 
 Experimenting on the " Corptis Vile.'' 183 
 
 condition of society, are at a discount in the eyes of 
 democratic politicians. As Mr. Chamberlain says: " Under 
 democratic institutions the people will insist that at least 
 an effort shall be made to remedy confessed evils "; and if 
 the people insist that the attempt shall be made on lines 
 which every intelligent man knows to be dangerous and 
 disastrous, well, the will of the people under democratic 
 institutions is law, and therefore it must be done, be the 
 consequences what they may. The Small Holdings Bill 
 was avowedly put forward as an experiment. This is the 
 age of political experiment. It is true that most of the 
 experiments have been tried before, and that they have 
 always failed, but that does not seem to operate as a check 
 upon the imagination or the enthusiasm of our democratic 
 politicians. No doubt we shall have a whole multitude of 
 experiments of a Socialistic character during the next few 
 years, all started on the initiative of " the people," and those 
 who pretend to speak in their name, but the cost of which 
 will fall upon those who own property, and therefore are 
 supposed to be outside the charmed circle of " the people.'"" 
 As regards this Small Holdings Act, the object of which 
 is to place small holdings within the reach of those who 
 desire them, it may be asked — Why was it necessary? 
 There were thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres 
 
 * The Earl of Rosebery, in a speech at Edinburgh, on May 12, 1892, 
 said: — "Our democracy is not a fierce democracy, but it demands that it 
 should be recognised as a democracy, and that, as you have estabUshed a 
 democracy, you shall frankly and practically recognize it ; that your Govern- 
 ment, springing from the people as it does, must be a Government by the 
 people and for the people. One thing is perfectly certain. I believe that 
 some of these questions are not ripe for solution ; but in the absence of that 
 ripeness much experimental legislation will, in my belief, have to be carried 
 through. How these experiments will result I cannot at this moment predict. 
 Many of those who are urging them on have not altogether an adequate idea 
 of all the various balances of interests involved ; but of this I am certain, 
 that, unless free and frank recognition is given to the necessity of experi- 
 mental legislation of this kind, the Liberal party when it comes next into 
 power, will find itself divorced from the great mass of the people. Some of 
 these experiments have been tried and are being tried in our colonies ; some 
 of them have been tried and are being tried in the most remarkable popular 
 body which at this moment exists in this countrj' — I mean the London 
 County Council."
 
 184 Af the Cost of Ratepayers. 
 
 of land in the market which could be had in large or small 
 quantities by any purchaser, and if, as was alleged, there 
 were also multitudes of people who desired to obtain 
 this land, why did they not purchase it." Simply because 
 they had not got the mone}-. The people who had money 
 did not want land ; the people who wanted the land 
 had not got the money. The object of the Small Holdings 
 Act was to provide the money for those people who were 
 said to want land and to be unable to obtain it, and this 
 money is to be found at the risk and cost of the ratepayer. 
 Parliament empowers the County Councils to raise millions 
 of mone}- by borrowing from the State or elsewhere, and to 
 use this money to bu}- land and then to resell it in small 
 holdings of from one acre up to fifty acres to persons who 
 may be deemed suitable and who are willing to comply 
 with the conditions laid down. All this is to be done at 
 the expense of the ratepayers, and as the ratepayers in 
 country districts consist mainly of farmers and tradesmen, 
 these people will be taxed for the purpose of carrying out 
 this experimental policy, and the case of the farmers will be 
 peculiarh- hard, inasmuch as they will be taxed in order to 
 set up in business men who will compete with them. There 
 is much to be said in support of the contention that if the 
 State desired to make such a risky experiment as this, it 
 should have done so at the risk of the taxpayer, or the 
 country in general, and not merely at the expense of the 
 ratepayer, or of particular localities. 
 
 From whatever point of view this Small Holdings x\ct 
 may be regarded, it cannot be looked upon as a sound or a 
 
 * Mr. Chaplin stated in the House of Commons on May gth, 1892, that 
 " he had made a number of enquiries during the last few months, and he was 
 astonished to find what a large number of farmers, in a prosperous condition, 
 there were who had been agricultural labourers themselves, or who were the 
 sons of agricultural labourers." This fact, which ought not to be astonishing 
 to any resident in a rural district, is in itself an emphatic condemnation of 
 Mr. Chaplin's ]5ill. For if some labourers can become farmers without the 
 aid of legislative crutches, why cannot others do likewise ? And if labourers 
 are thus developing into farmers in considerable numbers, where is the need 
 of this questionable legislation ?
 
 " Amendments.'' 185 
 
 hopeful policy. The discussion of the Bill in Parliament 
 was marked by several features of a most instructive 
 character. At the instance of Sir Walter Foster, an effort 
 was made to introduce the principle of compulsion into the 
 Bill, the chief reason alleged in favour of this course being 
 that the same principle had been incorporated in the 
 Allotments Act. But even Mr. Chaplin declined to be a 
 party to compelling landlords by force of law to sell any 
 part of their property which might be coveted by any 
 would-be small farmer or by a County Council. If this 
 engine of compulsion could be used against landlords the 
 result would be that all their best land would be forcibly 
 taken from them and the poor land left on their hands, so 
 that their estates would be practically ruined. Mr. Seale- 
 Hayne endeavoured to introduce the same principle in an 
 indirect manner by moving an amendment empowering the 
 Local Government Board to authorize a County Council to 
 take land compulsorily for any term not exceeding 99 years. 
 Mr. Gladstone supported this amendment, and most of his 
 followers voted for it, though its principle was entirely 
 opposed to the object of the Bill. The aim of the Bill was 
 to create peasant proprietors ; the aim of this particular 
 amendment was to create peasant leaseholders. Mr. R. T. 
 Reid said that " the real argument in favour of the amend- 
 ment was the certainty that after three or four years, 
 compulsory powers of acquiring freeholds would be inserted 
 in some future Bill." Mr. Jesse Collings, not satisfied with 
 placing a man upon a small farm by the help of public 
 funds, proposed that the County Council should be permitted 
 to lend money for the purpose of erecting the buildings and 
 effecting the improvements which might be necessary to 
 turn the land into a properly equipped farm. During the 
 discussion on this amendment Mr. R. T. Reid said that he 
 could not refrain from asking " Where all this was to end. 
 Why was a man who was already to some extent the 
 favourite of the Legislature to have, in addition to other 
 benefits which were being conferred upon him, money
 
 1 86 ** YoiL have done it in Ireland.'' 
 
 advanced for the purpose of erecting farm buildings ? " Mr. 
 Reid contrasted the position occupied by numbers of small 
 struggling tradesmen in villages, who could earn but a bare 
 subsistence, with that of the favoured owners of small 
 holdings who were being helped at their expense. Even 
 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who can never do enough for Irish 
 tenants, even though they may be lazy and dishonest, soon 
 tires of helping English tenants. Speaking on this amend- 
 ment he said he thought " that they had already done 
 enough for those whom they were to assist in getting small 
 holdings. Once the tenant was in possession there was no 
 reason why he should have more done for him than any 
 other small farmers who had not had the great advantage 
 of having money advanced to them by the State for their 
 holdings." Mr. Haldane, Q.C. moved the addition of a 
 new clause to the measure which would have had the effect 
 of making a small holding personal property instead of real 
 property. One of the strongest points urged by those who 
 supported this amendment was that the same change had 
 been effected in Ireland (it is interesting to note how all 
 through these discussions the evil precedents of Irish land 
 legislation are perpetually invoked). Mr. Shaw-Lefevre 
 said : " All the arguments used last year in respect to Irish 
 tenants who became owners were equally applicable to 
 persons who purchased small holdings under this Act." 
 Mr. Chaplin admitted that " it was true the same principle 
 had been adopted in Irish legislation, but there was a 
 reason for it in the case of Ireland which did not exist in 
 the case of England." Ultimately the principle of Mr. 
 Haldane's amendment was incorporated in the Bill, but it 
 was struck out again in the House of Lords. 
 
 To treat of all the Socialistic measures which have been 
 brought before Parliament and the country during the last 
 twenty years, or even during the last ten, would require 
 more than the 600 pages of this book. It is not, however, 
 essential to the purpose of this work that these measures 
 should be treated exhaustively ; for that purpose is, not to
 
 Propitiating the Electors. 187 
 
 expound in detail this Socialistic legislation, but simply to 
 convince the reader that the trend of thought and action in 
 the political world is downwards tow-ards the morass of 
 Socialism. To illustrate and establish the truth of this 
 view it is not necessary to do more than look at what has 
 taken place during the one year 1892. The doings of 
 Parliament during that year have already in part been 
 reviewed ; but there are a few other matters which occupied 
 the attention of the House of Commons in the course of 
 that session which claim a brief notice in this chapter. 
 But before dealing with them a word or two may be said 
 in regard to the Free Education Act, which is one of the 
 Socialistic measures that have been passed during the last 
 two years by a Conservative Government. It may be 
 admitted that in some respects this matter stands on some- 
 what the same footing as the Post Office ; that the State 
 can supply a cheaper and better system of education for the 
 common people than could be supplied by private enter- 
 prise ; and that it is clearly in the interests of the 
 community that children should not be allowed to grow up 
 in ignorance, which unfortunately many parents would 
 allow them to do unless they were compelled to provide 
 them an education. Where the Conservatives went astray, 
 however, was in assuming that because the State compelled 
 a man to educate his children it was therefore also compelled 
 to defray the cost of that education.- It would be just as 
 
 * The Saturday Review, dealing with the P'ree Education Act in its issue 
 of July 18, 1891, said: "For what, in substance, is the object of that 
 measure ? Its object is to provide out of the national revenues gratuitous 
 education for a certain class of the community who are able to defray its cost 
 themselves. In what intelligible sense can that be described as action on the 
 part of the State for the promotion of the ' well-being of the people ' ? Would 
 it promote the well-being of the people, or only the comfort and convenience 
 of a particular class, if the Legislature were to pass an Act authorizing the 
 purchase of boots and shoes at the public charge, and the distribution of the 
 same among all children in attendance at schools where the fee does not 
 exceed ninepence a week ? And if not, why not ? Those who cannot pay 
 for their children's education are already provided for by law. This Bill is 
 designed for the benefit of those who would merely rather not pay, and 
 whom it is hoped to propitiate as electors by compelling a number of other 
 people to pay for them." The Saturday Revieiv added that this was not the
 
 1 88 Master and Idol. 
 
 logical to say that because the State compels a man to feed 
 his children and to prevent them from running about the 
 streets naked, it is also compelled to provide their food and 
 clothmg. It is just as much the duty of the parent to 
 educate his child as to feed or clothe it, and it is not the 
 duty of the State to relieve the parent of these obligations. 
 The action of the Government in taking this duty into its 
 own hands, instead of compelling parents to perform it, is 
 an experiment which cannot be viewed without regret and 
 apprehension by those who desire to see the more robust 
 qualities of the individual citizen developed, and who wish 
 to keep the spheres of State action and private action as 
 clearly apart as possible. Even those who regard the 
 experiment as one that may be justified on exceptional 
 grounds, and who look upon the Free Education Act as one 
 of those Socialistic measures which do not violently interfere 
 with the operation of individual exertion, and who therefore 
 supported the Conservative Government in its dubious 
 course, may yet have serious cause to repent their conduct. 
 The Socialists regard the Free Education Act as a large 
 concession to their demands and as a triumph of their 
 principles. Having got so much, they ask, as is their w'ont, 
 for more. Now that children get their lessons free, they 
 must also have their meals free. And if food, why not 
 clothing ? If food and clothing, why not dwellings ? We 
 may live to see the day when a Conservative Government 
 (so-called) will propose to do all these things on the ground 
 that they logically follow from this concession of Free 
 Education.'' 
 
 kind of " paternal government " with which Conservatism ever has been, or 
 ever ought to be, associated. 
 
 The Standard, speaking on the same subject on June 22, 1S91, said : " We 
 may all regret that the necessity has arisen ; but we may depend upon it that, 
 under the method of government on which we have entered, such necessities 
 will arise very frequently. The working man is not only our master, but our 
 idol, and principles count for little when votes have to be secured." 
 
 * Some months after these words were written a deputation waited upon 
 the London School Board (on Nov. 18, 1892), and presented a memorial 
 asking the Board to petition Parliament in order that they might have the
 
 A Blow at the Maqistvacy. i8g 
 
 A brief glance may now be taken at tbe Socialistic 
 proposals, other than those already noticed, which were 
 brought before Parliament during the year when this work 
 was written, 1892. Several proposals were made in relation 
 to an Eight Hours' Day, fixed by legislaticjn, but as these 
 will be dealt with in their proper order in a subsequent 
 chapter, nothing further need be said about them here. The 
 same remark will apply to the Shop Hours Hill, which was 
 introduced by Mr. Pro\"and, the object of which was to 
 limit the hours of female assistants in shops to 74 hours per 
 week. 
 
 Mr. Scale- Hayne introduced a Bill dealing with the 
 Commission of the Peace, which, if it had been carried, 
 would have introduced the thin end of the wedge with 
 regard to the election of magistrates by the popular vote. 
 The objects of this Bill were to enable County Councils to 
 appoint a certain number of justices of the peace in 
 proportion to the population ; to make all chairmen of 
 urban sanitar\' authorities justices ; to abolish the property 
 qualification for the magistracy ; and to compel a number 
 of gentlemen who at present hold Her Majesty's Com- 
 mission to retire from the Bench on the ground that they 
 had ceased to perform magistrates' duties. Under this Bill 
 the London Count^• Council would have been able to 
 
 power to feed and clothe the children of parents out of employment . A coster- 
 monger named White, who spoke in support of the memorial, said that "as 
 workmen they contributed to the rates, and they recognised that economic 
 co-operation and collective action in this matter would enable the people to 
 provide food for their families better than the present individual method." 
 As to the allegation that many of the unemployed were drunkards and loafers 
 and did not deserve consideration, " he thought it would be seen that to make 
 a distinction was ridiculous." The Rev. R. Plummer asktd the deputation 
 whether they had formed any estimate of the cost of their proposal, to which 
 the reply was — "That is totally irrelevant. We do not care what the cost is ; 
 the children should have breakfast and dinner and tea." The Rev. Stewart 
 Headlam said that "the proposal to feed all children uas a thoroughly 
 economic proposal." The Rev. J. Coxhead said that children were thus 
 fed in Paris, and it could be done with equal reason and out of equal wealth 
 in London. Professor Gladstone stated that in other countries where there 
 was State education the difiiculty of feeding the children had cropped up, 
 and it had been in some way or other necessary to feed them.
 
 igo Payment of M.P's. 
 
 appoint 500 magistrates for the metropolis, and other 
 County Councils would have been able to appoint a pro- 
 portionate number. It is easy to see that this would have 
 opened the door to patronage and favouritism of the most 
 odious nature, and that the Bench would have been 
 swamped by a host of new magistrates whose only qualifica- 
 tion for the position would be that they were the wire- 
 pullers and the hangers-on of political parties, and whose 
 action would soon have brought the administration of justice 
 into contempt. Of course the real object of this measure 
 was to deal a blow at the influence of the class from whom 
 magistrates are now chiefly drawn, and by indirect means 
 to cripple the power of property owners. 
 
 Another proposal of a somewhat analogous character 
 was that for the payment of Members of Parliament on the 
 ground that " the principle of gratuitous public service 
 upon which representation in this House is at present based 
 limits the freedom of constituencies in the selection of 
 their representatives." This resolution was moved by Mr. 
 Fenwick, but the principle of it was accepted at Newcastle 
 as a part of the policy of the Liberal party. The proposal 
 was defeated by a majority of 65, the figures being 162 for 
 and 227 against. The payment of members occupies the 
 first position in the programme of the Labour Party, and 
 this in \tse\{ \s prima facie evidence that the antagonists of 
 capital are convinced that a system under which Members 
 of Parliament were paid would work into their hands, 
 which no doubt it would do as far as it had any effect at all. 
 Even Mr. Chamberlain, who has gone much further in the 
 direction of the Labour Party than any other statesman of 
 Cabinet rank, declares that " it seems absurd that the 
 country should be made to pay from ;£'20o,ooo to ;£"6oo,ooo 
 a year to remunerate persons who do not wish to be paid in 
 order to meet the case of some score or dozen of gentlemen 
 to whom this remuneration is an absolute necessity if they 
 are to fulfil duties to which their fellow citizens would 
 willingly call them."
 
 Lawlessness at Eastbourne. 191 
 
 A singular measure which was brought before the House 
 of Commons during this Session was entitled " The East- 
 bourne Improvement Act, 1885, Amendment Bill," the 
 object of which was to repeal a clause in the Eastbourne 
 Improvement Act, under which the local authorities were 
 empowered to prohibit street processions with music. 
 Under this Act the authorities of Eastbourne had sup- 
 pressed the street processions of the Salvation Army. But 
 this body declined to obey the law, defied the magistrates 
 and the public opinion of Eastbourne, and carried on their 
 processions in spite of the prohibition. The result was 
 that the police authorities had to put down the demonstra- 
 tions by force. Crowds of people as a matter of course 
 were attracted to witness the conflicts which occurred 
 between the police and the Salvationists, and some of the 
 rougher elements of these crowds soon began to act on their 
 own account, and to attack the members of the obnoxious 
 sect. These processions and disturbances took place on 
 Sundays, and for weeks and months parts of Eastbourne 
 were turned into a pandemonium, to the annoyance and 
 disgust of all peaceable inhabitants. If ever there was a 
 case where the law should have been rigorously enforced 
 this was the case. The Salvationists had no real grievance, 
 as they were the aggressors, and deliberately set themselves 
 to outrage the feelings and the wishes of the majority of 
 the people of Eastbourne, and to defy properly-constituted 
 authorities. Instead of supporting the Eastbourne authori- 
 ties, however, in upholding the law, certain politicians 
 introduced a Bill to repeal the law which was so distasteful 
 to the Salvationists, and which they had resolved not to 
 obey. In other words, they proceeded upon the principle 
 that when a law is deliberately defied the best plan is, 
 not to punish the law breakers, but to alter the law in 
 deference to their wishes. This course of action was sup- 
 ported by such men as Sir Henry James, Mr. Leonard 
 Courtney, Mr. H. H. Fowler, and Sir Edward Clarke, on 
 the ground that it would be wise to deal with the subject in 
 p
 
 1 92 Local Optionists against Local Option. 
 
 a spirit of conciliation. The latter gentleman, who then 
 occupied the position of Solicitor-General, seemed to suggest 
 in his speech that as the Salvationists were total abstainers 
 and non-smokers they ought to be permitted to do as they 
 liked. A singular feature of this matter was that the repeal 
 of this clause in the Eastbourne Act, which gave to the 
 authorities an optional power of dealing with street pro- 
 cessions, was advocated by those who in other directions 
 are the strenuous advocates of Local Option. These people 
 would give Home Rule to Ireland on the ground that a 
 majority of the Irish people, and of the Irish people alone, 
 desire it ; they would give the majority in Eastbourne itself 
 power to close all public houses and thus prevent the 
 minority purchasing a glass of beer ; and yet when an over- 
 whelming majority of the people of Eastbourne desired to 
 retain the power to put down processions which they did 
 not want, these zealous advocates of Local Option in other 
 directions were the people who deprived them of that 
 power. There is good reason to believe that those who 
 advocated the repeal of this clause were actuated by political 
 and not merely by moral considerations. A General 
 Election was close at hand, and the aggregate voting power 
 of the Salvationists was considerable. In many towns their 
 votes would decide the election, and members for these towns 
 who wished to retain their seats, and knew that the contest 
 would be a very close one, did not care to incur the hostility 
 of a compact body of voters. At all events the palpable facts 
 are, first, that Mr. Booth, the head of the Salvation Army, 
 declared to the Parliamentary Committee that he would not 
 obey a law that his conscience did not approve, and that if 
 the law were done away with and bye-laws were substituted 
 which he considered valid, he would feel himself obliged to 
 obey them ; and that this Committee in deference to the 
 wishes of Mr. Booth, and against the wishes of the people 
 of Eastbourne as a whole, recommended the repeal of 
 the law. The second reading of the Bill was carried by 
 269 against 122, a majority of 147. The Mayor of East-
 
 An Irrational Land Bill. 193 
 
 bourne, commenting upon this result, said that before long, 
 as a logical outcome of the House's decision, an Act would 
 probably be passed decreeing that all orders to Municipal 
 bodies should be forwarded by " General Booth " or his 
 successors. 
 
 Another extraordinary measure introduced during this 
 Session was entitled " The Local Authorities (Purchase of 
 Land) Bill," which was introduced by Mr. Haldane, Q.C. 
 The object of this Bill was to arm County Councils with 
 compulsory powers to acquire any land that was necessary 
 in the interests of the population whom the Councils 
 represented. It is an established principle of British 
 legislation that when local authorities are empowered to 
 compulsorily obtain land, the purpose for which the land is 
 required must be clearly specified. That principle was 
 wholly ignored in this proposed measure, which would have 
 enabled County Councils to speculate in land, and would 
 have made them gigantic land-jobbers. That alone would 
 be objectionable enough ; but the Bill would have enabled 
 County Councils to do much more than this. They could 
 cause any piece of land which they might covet to be 
 valued, and after such valuation they were to have the 
 option of purchasing the land at any time during the 
 ensuing twenty years ; in other words, the land would be 
 hung up for that time, and would be practically worthless to 
 its owners, because it would be unsaleable. With the 
 option of the County Council hanging over the land there 
 would be no inducement either for the owner to develop it 
 or for anybody else to acquire it. More than this, the 
 seller (if a man can be called a seller whose land is taken 
 from him by force) was not to receive any increase which 
 might take place in the value of his land between the time 
 it was valued by the County Council and the time when 
 they finally purchased it, unless that increase could be 
 proved to be due to his own exertions. If it were due to 
 the increase of population, the opening up of the district, or 
 to a general rise in the price of land, all the increase was to
 
 194 ^ Specimen of Democratic Justice. 
 
 go to the County Council. The unfortunate owner was to be 
 sacrificed on the altar of the god " Unearned Increment." 
 More even than this, if there should be a fall in the value of 
 the land between its valuation and its purchase, the loss was 
 to fall upon the owner and not upon the County Council. 
 That is to say, if this Bill had become law, a County 
 Council might ear-mark a certain piece of land, say on the 
 ist of January, 1894, and not purchase the land till the year 
 1914, during the whole of which period the land is virtually 
 useless to its owner. Suppose the value of the land to be 
 3^2,000 when it is valued, and that it increased during the 
 20 years to ^^3,000, the owner is, nevertheless, to be paid 
 only the ;;r2,ooo, although the County Council have had 
 their clutches upon the land during the whole of the period. 
 But supposing that the value of the land in 1914 has 
 decreased to -£1,750, the owner is to receive only this sum, 
 although his land, when it was virtually taken from him, was 
 valued at £2,000. Even this is not all. A County Council, 
 after thus valuing and ear-marking a piece of land, might 
 decline to purchase it even at the end of the twenty years, 
 and demand a second valuation, and a new option extending 
 over another twenty years, and so on indefinitely. In this 
 way they could go on for ever. This is a specimen of the 
 kind of legislation which is coming to be more and more in 
 favour with our democratic legislators. Mr. Asquith, Q.C., 
 who was appointed Home Secretary in Mr. Gladstone's 
 Administration of 1892, seconded Mr. Haldane, and stoutly 
 defended his Bill, whilst Mr. H. H. Fowler, Mr. Campbell- 
 Bannerman, Sir George Trevelyan, and Mr. John Morley, 
 all members of Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1892, voted 
 for the measure. A more grotesque, or preposterous, or 
 irrational Bill was never introduced into the British House 
 of Commons, and yet it was supported by politicians of 
 such rank as those mentioned. The phenomenon is 
 explicable only on the principle that these gentlemen think 
 any stick good enough to beat a dog of a landlord with. 
 One palpable result of recent "reforms" is that a strong^
 
 The Cambrian Railway Directors. 195 
 
 feeling of hostility has been developed in the minds of 
 large masses of the population against both land owners 
 and capitalists, and that, as a consequence of this, 
 politicians who desire to please these multitudes of voters 
 are eager to pose as reformers who are willing to more 
 equally distribute the wealth of the country. The poorer 
 classes believe that in some way their votes will enable 
 them to get a larger- share of the good things that are 
 going, and they are bent upon using their votes for that 
 purpose, and the politicians who must climb to power by 
 the votes of these people, if they attain power at all, 
 sedulously foster these delusions in the minds of their dupes. 
 " Only send us to Parliament," say they, "and you shall see 
 a magical transformation as regards the distribution of 
 wealth ; you who are now so poor shall become richer, and 
 those who are now so rich shall become poorer." Conse- 
 quently when these gentlemen get to Parliament they are 
 bound to make a show of zeal in this direction, and one 
 way in which they do it is by supporting such Bills as that 
 of Mr. Haldane, and by taking every opportunity of dealing 
 a blow at those whose only crime is that they possess 
 property. One significant illustration of this spirit was 
 manifested in the case of the Cambrian Railway directors, 
 who were summoned to the Bar of the House of Commons 
 on the ground that they had infringed the privileges of the 
 House by dismissing one of their station-masters for giving 
 evidence before a Parliamentary Committee. The facts of 
 the case were simple. This station-master, John Hood, did 
 give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee, and he 
 was subsequently dismissed from his post. The directors 
 said that he was dismissed, not for having given the 
 evidence, but for irregularities in connection with his 
 duties. Of course they were not believed by Radical 
 politicians, and in consequence of the agitation aroused by 
 some of these gentlemen the matter was brought before 
 the House of Commons. Mr. J. W. Maclure, M.P., Mr. 
 J. F. Buckley, Mr. W. R. Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher
 
 196 Malignity towards Capitalists. 
 
 appeared at the Bar of the House of Commons and stated 
 that if they had unintentionally infringed any of the 
 privileges of the House they expressed their unqualified 
 regret. After the matter had been discussed, these gentle- 
 men were admonished by the Speaker. The whole case 
 that was got up against the directors was of the flimsiest 
 description. The great fault charged against them was 
 that they wished to deter railway servants from giving 
 evidence before Parliamentary Committees ; but it is certain 
 that their enemies wished to deter railway directors from 
 doing their duty by their shareholders and the public. For 
 if an incompetent or an unfaithful railway servant is not to 
 be dismissed because he has chosen to go and give evidence 
 to a Parliamentary Committee, it is obvious that there is an 
 end to all discipline on railways. The debate which took 
 place on this question of privilege was of a most instructive 
 character, as indicating the implacable malignity of a 
 certain school of Radical politicians towards employers 
 and capitalists. Mr. T. P. O'Connor moved an amendment 
 the object of which was to compel the Cambrian Railway 
 Company to reinstate Hood in his position, and this was 
 supported by Sir George Trevelyan, though Mr. Gladstone 
 thought that it would be "a very novel and in some respects 
 a questionable method of proceeding for this House 
 to come to a decision, which it has no power to enforce, 
 that one individual should compensate some other in- 
 dividual to whom it thinks injustice has been done." As 
 regards the reinstatement of Hood, Mr. Gladstone said : 
 " It is quite obvious that in any case where this House 
 might be inclined to advise, and especially if it were 
 inclined to enforce, the reinstatement in office of a person 
 dismissed from it by competent authority, this House 
 would incur an undefined but a very serious responsibility 
 in the consequences which might follow or which might be 
 supposed — and even perhaps not unjustly supposed — to 
 follow from that reinstatement." Mr. T. P. O'Connor's 
 amendment was rejected by a majority of 115, the numbers 
 being 159 for and 274 against.
 
 Angling for the Railway Vote. 197 
 
 Hood was ^dorified as a martyr, and was rewarded by 
 a testimonial, to which a number of Conservative and 
 Unionist Members of Parhament subscribed. In these days 
 the surest road to notoriety, and even to pecuniary reward, 
 is through insubordination.'' No doubt these Members of 
 Parhament had their eye upon the railway vote, which is a 
 greater power than even the Salvationist vote, when they 
 got up this professional pity for Mr. Hood and this profes- 
 sional indignation against his former employers. Sir 
 Michael Hicks-Beach, who was Chairman of the Select 
 Committee on the Hours of Labour of Railway Servants, 
 which enquired into the action of the directors with regard 
 to Hood's case, said in a letter to Mr. Maclure on June 16, 
 1892 : " A careful consideration of all the evidence satisfied 
 me that Hood's statements with respect to the accident at 
 EUesmere in Nov., 1887, and the men on duty on the night 
 of Friday, Nov. 4, were not correct, and that he was 
 not, generally speaking, a trnstworthy servant of the Cambrian 
 Railway Cujnpany.'" The entire incident is a significant 
 indication of the harm which is done by the intermeddling 
 of Parliamentary Committees between employers and their 
 servants. t 
 
 * Mr. John Hood wrote to the Times some months after these events, in 
 connection with the Thirsk railway accident, and stated that he was a share- 
 holder in the North Eastern Railway. Yet he was represented as being a 
 poor man, almost on the verge of starvation, in consequence of his dismissal 
 from his post. 
 
 t It may be well to give the findings of the Committee's report, which is 
 contained in a Blue Book issued on April 2nd, 1892 : — " (i) That the aforesaid 
 allegations in reference to the witnesses Edward Kingstone, Alfred Thomas, 
 and John Spink were unfounded. (2) That the witness John Hood was, by 
 a resolution of the directors of the Cambrian Railway Company, at a meeting 
 held on the 6th day of August last, dismissed from the service of the com- 
 pany, mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence given by 
 him before your Committee, and laid before the directors by John Conacher, 
 then manager of the said railway ; and, further, that James Frederick 
 Buckley, John William Maclure (a member of this House), and William Bailey 
 Hawkins, directors of the said company, and the said John Conacher, did, at a 
 meeting at Crewe on the 30th of September, 1891, held in consequence of an 
 application by the said John Hood for the rehearing of his case, at which the said 
 John Hood was present, call him to account, and censure him for the evidence 
 he gave before your Committee in a manner calculated to deter other railway 
 servants from giving evidence before your Committee. Your Committee have
 
 igS One Law for Employers. 
 
 In striking contrast with the eagerness of a certain 
 section of the House of Commons to whitewash Hood and 
 to discredit the Cambrian directors was the reluctance of 
 the same section to take any notice whatever of another 
 alleged breach of privilege in which the chief actors were 
 not railway directors but railway servants. The facts are 
 these. On June 23rd, i8gi, Robert Collingwood, a mineral 
 guard on the North Eastern Railway, gave evidence before 
 a Parliamentary Committee on the hours of railway servants. 
 Collingwood was the Secretary of the Tyne Dock Branch of 
 the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and in con- 
 sequence of the evidence he gave the Committee of this 
 branch, on July 4th, passed a resolution calling upon him 
 to resign his secretaryship. Eight days later, at an open 
 meeting of the Branch, presided over b\' Mr. J. J. Harris, of 
 the Newcastle Trades Council, this resolution was con- 
 firmed and Collingwood's evidence was condemned as " a 
 libel upon the men of Tyne Dock." In consequence of this 
 resolution Collingwood at once sent in his resignation as 
 Secretary. The matter came before the Parliamentary 
 Committee on July i6th, i8gi, when Thomas Hunter, a 
 mineral guard, and William Irving, a fireman, both in the 
 employ of the North Eastern Railway Company, were 
 examined as to what occurred at the meetings at which 
 Collingwood's evidence was discussed. When it became 
 clear that certain members of the Parliamentary Com- 
 mittee and other members of Parliament were determined 
 
 not deemed it to be part of their duty to express any opinion as to how far the 
 conduct of the said John Hood, and the irregularities disclosed by his 
 evidence, as well as the character of his evidence, were calculated properly to 
 forfeit the confidence of the directors of the Cambrian Company." The last 
 sentence is a singular one. Surely it was the duty of the Committee, if they 
 inquired into tlie case and judicially pronounced upon it, to express an 
 opinion as to whether Hood was dismissed for his misconduct as a servant, or 
 simply for giving his evidence. Spink was a signalman on the Great Eastern 
 Railway, who was dismissed after he had given evidence before the Com- 
 mittee. It was proved that his dismissal was in no way due to his having 
 given evidence, but to irregularities in the discharge of his duties. Yet it was 
 sought to affix to the railway officials the odium of having dismissed him 
 because he appeared before the Parliamentary Committee !
 
 Another Laiv for Workmen. igg 
 
 to bring' the case of the Cambrian directors before 
 Parhament, certain other members of the Select Com- 
 mittee called the Committee's attention to what had 
 been done in the case of Collingwood, and contended 
 that the charge against Mr. Harford, the Secretary of 
 the Amalgamated Railway Servants Society, and those 
 who had worked with him, was practically the same as 
 that brought against the Cambrian directors, namely, that 
 their action was calculated to deter railway servants 
 from appearing before the Committee. Collingwood himself 
 appeared before the Committee on April 4th, 1892, and 
 stated that in consequence of the evidence which he had 
 given in the previous June he was called upon to resign his 
 secretaryship. He said : " The Society objected to the 
 evidence which he gave, and had, as far as they could, 
 prejudiced him in the eyes of his fellow workmen with 
 consequences disastrous to himself. . . . The Society 
 had done their best to show that the evidence he gave 
 before the Committee was a misrepresentation of the facts, 
 and was not to be relied upon, and they had condemned 
 others who had given evidence which was not to their liking^ 
 He also stated that he had been held up to execration in 
 articles which appeared in the Railway Review, the organ 
 of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, of which 
 Mr. Harford was the editor. In one of these articles, dated 
 June 3rd, i8gi, which was headed " Renegades," Colling- 
 wood was referred to as follows : " We do not deny for one 
 moment that there have been, and probably are, men like 
 Mr. Collingwood who preach on the platform one thing and 
 practise quite another ; but we indignantly repudiate the 
 statement that the National Programme is the huge fraud 
 this recreant erstwhile supporter of it would have us believe. 
 Although Mr. Collingwood and his coadjutors exhausted all 
 their available resources in playing the traitor to their 
 former colleagues, they after all did not represent that 
 element in the Amalgamated Society to which it owes its 
 influence. Indeed, the members of Mr. Collingwood's own
 
 200 Winking at hitimidation. 
 
 ^ 
 
 branch have already repudiated the views he expressed." 
 In a second article, which appeared on July loth, 1891, and 
 was headed " Retribution," Collingwood was charged with 
 having deliberately kept from the Parliamentary Committee 
 figures which would have shown that he had worked in 
 certain weeks 86 hours, 83^ hours, 83I hours, and with 
 having done this " for the same reason that he lent himself 
 to mislead his fellow workmen by his famous or infamous 
 memorial ; in fact, because he was the servile tool of the 
 officials." In answer to Sir Henry Tyler, Collingwood 
 stated that the course which had been adopted with regard 
 to himself was in his opinion calculated to intimidate others 
 from giving evidence before the Committee ; and he 
 expressed his belief that railway servants had actually been 
 afraid to give evidence because they had seen these articles 
 in the Railway Review. Now if such treatment as this of 
 Collingwood's was not calculated to deter other railway 
 servants from giving evidence, unless their evidence should 
 be in accordance with the wishes of the Union officials, it 
 is useless to talk about intimidation in any case whatever. 
 Collingwood was held up to execration before his fellow 
 workmen as a traitor and as one who had promoted 
 an " infamous " memorial, and in consequence of the feeling 
 thus excited against him he was compelled to resign a 
 position of honour and trust to which his comrades had 
 elected him, and was made to suffer in other ways. In 
 spite of all this, the bulk of the Liberal members of the 
 Parliamentary Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants, 
 and a few even of the Conservative members, contended 
 that the case of Collingwood was not analogous to that of 
 Mr. Hood, and that the action of Mr. Harford and the 
 other officials concerned did not constitute a breach of 
 privilege. Apparently those who took this view were in the 
 majority, for no mention was made of the case in the report 
 which the Committee made to Parliament. It is impossible, 
 in view of the facts which have been adduced, to resist the 
 conclusion that the Cambrian directors were hailed to the
 
 Protection of Witnesses. 201 
 
 Bar of the House of Commons for no other reason than 
 that they were capitahsts and represented comparatively 
 few electors, and that Mr. Harford and his fellow officials 
 were allowed to commit precisely the same offence with 
 impunity because they had behind them a numerous and 
 solid body of electors, who would be prepared to avenge 
 themselves on any Member of Parliament who had the 
 courage to support railway directors even when they were 
 in the right.* One of the members who did support the 
 Cambrian directors during the debate in Parliament, Mr. 
 Milvain, Q.C., lost his seat at Durham in consequence of 
 his action, and when it was proposed that he should stand 
 as a Conservative candidate at Newcastle in opposition to 
 Mr. John Morley, the hostility manifested towards him by 
 the railway servants was so marked that he had to decline 
 the invitation. From all this it is evident that a railway 
 servant may steal a horse whilst a railway director may not 
 look over the hedge. 
 
 A cognate matter which arose out of these discussions 
 respecting the intimidation of witnesses may here be briefly 
 noticed. Two Bills were introduced in the session of 1892 
 for the purpose of protecting witnesses who gave evidence 
 before Parliamentary Committees or at other public 
 enquiries. One of these was introduced by Mr. R. A. 
 Yerburgh, the other and the more important one was 
 introduced by Sir Charles Russell. This measure makes 
 it a misdemeanor, triable by a court of Summary Jurisdic- 
 tion, for any person without lawful excuse to prevent, or 
 endeavour to prevent, a witness from giving evidence, or to 
 deprive a witness of his employment, or otherwise damnify 
 him, by reason of his having given evidence. The offences 
 
 • William Ellis, an employe of the Great Eastern Railway Company, 
 informed the Select Committee in July, 1891, that a number of his fellow 
 workmen were opposed to legislative interference with the hours of labour on 
 railways, and in consequence a resolution was submitted to the branch of 
 the Amalgamated Society of Servants, of which he was a member, proposing 
 that he should be censured. No notice whatever was taken of this by the 
 Parliamentary Committee.
 
 202 Tenderness towards Trades Unions. 
 
 under the Act were to be punishable by imprisonment for 
 periods not exceeding six months, or by fines not exceeding 
 iTsoo in any one case, and the Court was to be enabled to 
 direct that the fine, or any portion of it, should be handed 
 over to the person who might have suffered on account of 
 his evidence. The backers of the Bill were Mr. John 
 Morley, Mr. Bryce, Mr. T. Burt, Mr. C. Fenwick, and Mr. E. 
 Robertson. Another Bill of a similar character was actually 
 passed through Parliament in this session, and during the 
 discussion of this measure in Committee Mr. Fenwick and 
 others exhibited serious anxiety that the privileges of Trades 
 Unions should not be curtailed. One clause of the Bill 
 stated that any person who should "hinder" or "in- 
 timidate " witnesses from giving evidence should incur the 
 penalties. Mr. Fenwick objected to these words as being 
 too wide in their application, and said that if " a trade 
 society had passed a resolution beforehand declaring that it 
 was inexpedient that its members should give evidence 
 before an inquiry, their case might come under this section." 
 That, of course, would be a terrible state of things. Several 
 other speakers objected to the word " intimidation " appear- 
 ing in the Bill at all, on the ground that it had never been 
 defined. Mr. Darling, Q.C., truthfully characterised the 
 position of these speakers when he said they " thought that 
 if a number of workmen wished to prevent a fellow work- 
 man from giving evidence no objection ought to be raised, 
 but that if employers were to interfere with their workmen 
 in the same way their conduct would be reprehensible." 
 That exactly hit the nail on the head. When the measure 
 reached the House of Lords serious objection was taken to 
 it bv Lord Morris, Lord Watson, and Lord Halsbury, then 
 Lord Chancellor, and in consequence of these objections 
 Lord Herschell inserted an amendment in one of the 
 most important clauses which would enable an employer 
 to dismiss a servant for wrong-doing when it would be an 
 offence under the Act to dismiss him for the evidence he 
 had given. Lord Halsbury said the Bill "was supposed to
 
 Socialism in Municipal Affairs. 203 
 
 affirm the principle that witnesses should be protected in 
 giving evidence, but he did not like the mode in which the 
 Bill was framed. The severe penalties which were possible 
 under the Bill afforded a clear indication that the measure 
 had not been well considered in its details." 
 
 We may now glance briefly at some indications of the 
 progress of Socialism which have recently appeared in the 
 sphere of municipal government. The Local Government 
 Act which was passed a few years ago b}^ the Government 
 of Lord Salisbury has introduced changes of a deep and far- 
 reaching character into our municipal life. In the first 
 place it has created County Councils in every district of the 
 country, and these Councils are elected not only upon the 
 principle of Household Suffrage but also upon the principle 
 of Female Suffrage, and the principle of " one man one 
 vote," so that the vote of the poorest labourer in the village 
 exerts as much effect in creating the County Council and 
 determining its character as the vote of the largest land- 
 owner in the county does. The immediate result of this 
 change has been to seriously diminish the influence of the 
 classes who had heretofore been most active and powerful 
 in the local government of the counties, and to introduce 
 into county government a class of men who are to a great 
 extent strangers to the w^ork, and who in many cases were 
 elected on purely party grounds, without any regard what- 
 ever to their qualifications for that work. Men of this latter 
 class are naturally more concerned to please their con- 
 stituents than to secure efiicient and economical govern- 
 ment, and at the same time they are imbued with the new 
 Socialistic idea that the people are to be saved from all the 
 ills which afflict them by Governmental action. It is 
 obvious that the action of such men within the sphere of 
 local government must be detrimental to the true interests 
 of society at large. That the influence of many County 
 Councils, upon which men of this class are dominant, is 
 detrimental to the public good has been abundantly de- 
 monstrated. Perhaps the most signal illustration of this
 
 204 Progressives outwitting Moderates. 
 
 fact is supplied by the London County Council, and 
 therefore it will be desirable to pay a little attention to the 
 proceedings of this body. 
 
 The first County Council which was elected in London 
 under the new Act contained a majority of Radicals, who 
 in the municipal sphere styled themselves Progressives, but 
 it also contained a powerful minoritj^ of Conservatives, who 
 in the municipal sphere called themselves Moderates. The 
 latter were caught napping at the first election, as they 
 permitted themselves to be deluded by their opponents into 
 the belief that the contest would not be fought upon party 
 grounds, whereas it was so fought by the Progressives, who 
 took advantage of the Radical organization all through the 
 Metropolis to secure a victory. Owing partly to this 
 singular simplicity and ineptitude on the part of the 
 Moderates, and partly to the invincible apathy of the 
 average London ratepayer, the Progressives secured a 
 majority, and accordingly were able to mould the policy of 
 the Council in harmony with Radical principles and 
 purposes. One of the first actions of this majority was 
 to augment its power by filling the larger number of 
 Aldermanic posts by other Radicals. The Council, thus 
 composed, during the first three years of its existence made 
 itself look exceedingly ridiculous by venting its spite in 
 various wa}s upon land owners and property owners 
 generally, its very impotency to carry out its wishes merely 
 serving to increase the contempt which its action excited. 
 The Progressives chafed under the restrictions which 
 Parliament had wisely imposed upon the Council's taxing 
 powers, and were much more concerned about breaking these 
 fetters than about doing the work for which the Council had 
 been called into existence. The Moderates who had been 
 hoodwinked and outwitted, and the men of business whose 
 interests were threatened, took matters very quietly during 
 the first three vears of the Council, and comforted them- 
 selves with the reflection that the next election would 
 completely change the condition of affairs by putting a
 
 The Apathy of London Electors. 205 
 
 Moderate majority in power. As the second election drew 
 near earnest and strenuous efforts were made by a few men 
 to arouse the people of London to a sense of the dangers 
 of the position, but these efforts were only partially success- 
 ful ; and the reason for this was that many even among the 
 Moderates were half-hearted in their work. Those among 
 them who had the courage to act independently and without 
 regard to political organizations, and who were prepared to 
 oppose and condemn errors of both political parties alike, 
 were a mere handful. The spirit of compromise and the 
 fear of estranging the popular vote were strong even in 
 some of the leaders of the Moderates, and these men 
 effectually paralyzed the action of their party. In addition 
 to this, scarcely any impression could be made upon the 
 well-to-do voter. The natural result was another victory 
 for the Progressives, and this time their triumph was much 
 more pronounced than it was even on the first occasion. 
 Out of the 118 Councillors elected, 83 were Progressives and 
 only 35 Moderates. Again, the majority of Aldermen were 
 taken from the Radicals, and three of them were labour 
 agitators, of whom the most notorious was Mr. Ben Tillett. 
 Those who have studied the social and political movements 
 of the last few years, especially in connection with the 
 questions that affect Capital and Labour, will know what 
 to expect from a County Council of which Mr. John Burns 
 and Mr. Ben Tillett are members. ^•■ 
 
 * On January 30th, 1889, a Manifesto was issued by the Social Demo- 
 cratic Federation to the unemployed, urging that the London County Council 
 should grant the following " reasonable demands " : " That no contracts should 
 be given to employers who worked their men over eight hours a day or paid 
 less than Trade Union rates of wages ; that various kinds of public works 
 should be set on foot, and ' fair wages ' paid to the men employed on them ; 
 that the administration of the Poor Law should be less ' harsh and cruel ;' 
 that in order to meet the additional expense all empty houses should be 
 immediately rated up to their full rack-rental valuation." This Manifesto 
 runs: "To-day, Thursday, 31st Jan., the new County Council for London, 
 composed almost exclusively of members of the classes which rob you of 
 your labour when you toil and jeer at your sufferings when you are out of 
 work, meets for the first time. The Council, as a whole, fairly represents the 
 average middle-class ratepayers, but is not as yet definitely pledged to Social 
 reaction. Henceforth the County Council for London forms a rallying-point
 
 2o6 A Victory for Socialism. 
 
 The success of the Radical Socialists in thus capturing 
 the County Council was the most signal victor}- that Socialism 
 has yet achieved in this country. The electors who sup- 
 ported the Progressives were working for no other purpose 
 than the advancement of a Socialistic Labour Programme. 
 Mr. Sidney Webb (of whom more anon) was one of the 
 Progressives elected, and this gentleman in his book on 
 "The London Programme," demands reforms which would 
 cost London 128 millions sterling, which would be equal 
 to a rate of four millions a year, or something like 3s. in the 
 pound. As the rates in some London parishes are already 
 from 5s. to 8s. in the pound, this addition would be no 
 trifle. But of course Mr. Webb and his coadjutors intend 
 that all this taxation shall be squeezed out of the owners of 
 property for the benefit of the working classes. Mr. John 
 Burns boasts that he and the seven or eight labour members 
 who support him on the Council are " marching towards a 
 Commune." If ever there was a policy of " plundering and 
 blundering " it is the policy of the London Progressives, 
 and that policy is supported by the London Liberal and 
 Radical Union. What they demand is brieily this : That 
 no street improvements are to be effected until those who 
 live in immediate contiguit}- to the improved district can be 
 compelled to contribute more largely to their cost than 
 residents in other parts of London (this is the principle of 
 "betterment"); that the control of the police is to be 
 vested in the County Council ; that the Corporation of the 
 City is to be abolished, and its powers (and of course its 
 property and revenues) transferred to the Council ; that the 
 
 for all who suffer under grievances due to our infamous social system. Our 
 comrade, John Burns, the Revolutionary Social Democrat, who worked so 
 hard for our cause in the street, now sits in the Council Chamber — a working 
 man returned specially to champion the claims of working men. The 
 unemployed this year are as numerous as in previous years, and yet more 
 miserable ; but nothing whatever has yet been done to organise their labour 
 on useful works. The time has now come when the workers, as an organized 
 body, are at last awaking to a sense of their own power. We call upon you, 
 therefore, to act heartily with us in the class war which your oppressors have 
 forced upon us."
 
 An Appeal to Envy and Cupidity. 207 
 
 property of great private corporations, such as the gas, dock, 
 and water companies, are to be " acquired " by the Council 
 at less than their market value ; that public charities are to 
 be administered without any regard to the intentions of those 
 who founded them; that "large" salaries are to cease; 
 that ground landlords are to be deprived of a portion of 
 their property ; that work undertaken by the Council or for 
 it is to be performed under conditions prescribed by the 
 Trades Unions ; that working people are to be provided 
 with dwellings at rents " sufficient to secure the Council 
 against loss " ; and that all open spaces controlled by the 
 Council are to be adapted for the purpose of public 
 meetings, and that those open spaces which are now 
 "nominally" vested in the Crown are to be transferred to 
 the Council, and also used for open air meetings. This is 
 the Programme which was put forward by the London 
 Liberal and Radical Union, on Dec. g, 1891,* and it was on 
 this Programme that the Progressives won the election a 
 few months later. It was an unblushing appeal to the envy 
 and the cupidity of working class electors, and it served its 
 
 * Mr. Sydney Webb says: — "No authoritative exposition of the 
 ' London Programme ' has been given. The phrase has indeed gradually 
 come to be used with two different meanings. London has been the main 
 source of the influences which have transformed the declared programme of 
 the Liberal party from the half-hearted and merely political reforms, advoca- 
 ted in 1887, to the long string of Radical and Socialistic measures which 
 compose it in 1891. The measures of social reform which, in 1889 and 1890, 
 were adopted as part of the Liberal policy, have often been described as the 
 programme of London, in distinction from the more political changes 
 demanded by provincial Liberals." Again Mr. Webb says : — " It is not 
 surprising that the Trades Union Congress should now twice have declared 
 in favour of ' land nationalization ' by large majorities, or that the bulk of the 
 London County Council should be returned on an essentially Socialist plat- 
 form. The whole of the immediately practicable demands of the most 
 exacting Socialist are, indeed, now often embodied in the current Radical 
 programme." The objects for the attainment of which Liberals and Radicals 
 have, according to Mr. Webb, joined hands, are thus defined by that gentle- 
 man : — "Complete shifting of burdens from the workers, of whatever grade, 
 to the recipients of rent and interest, with a view to the ultimate and gradual 
 extinction of the latter class ; to raise, universally, the standard of comfort 
 by obtaining the general recognition of a minimum wage and a maxiynum 
 working day ; the gradual public organization of labour for all public purposes, 
 and the elimination of the private capitalist and middleman." 
 
 Q
 
 2o8 A Triumph of the " New Unionism.'' 
 
 turn, for these electors voted for it by thousands in the 
 simple faith that it was all true and would surely be fulfilled. 
 They had been promised that they should have dwellings 
 at low rents, cheap travelling by rail or tramway, free 
 libraries and museums, and various other boons. What 
 was greater than all, and really included all, they had been 
 led to believe that the London County Council would 
 become employers of labour on a vast scale, and that all 
 this labour would be paid for at the highest Trade Union 
 rates. The victory of the London Progressives was 
 really the triumph of the new Trade Unionism, which 
 is another name for Socialism.* The avowed policy 
 of the London County Council is to municipalize such 
 undertakings as tramways, water supply, gas supply, the 
 docks and so on. If these undertakings were acquired 
 by the Council thousands of labourers, skilled and un- 
 skilled, would be in the direct employ of the Council, 
 and when matters once came to this pass the Trade 
 Unions would be absolute masters of the situation. 
 Every class in London would be at the mercy of Trade 
 Union tyranny. For if the men at the municipal water 
 works came out on strike for six hours a day and double 
 wages, the Trade Union Secretary by lifting up his finger 
 could call out the men at the municipal gas works, while 
 other secretaries could call out the men who attended to the 
 drainage and drove the municipal tram cars and omnibuses. 
 *' Sympathy " would exist between all these classes 
 of workmen, and when this sympathy became active 
 during a strike they could simply paralyze the whole 
 business of London. The police, being then under the 
 control of Messrs. Burns and Tillett, would defend the 
 
 * Mr. Goschen, in a speech at Pimlico on March 8th, 1892, said : " The 
 County Council election had been won on a programme which had been placed 
 before the electors mainly on the principles of what was known as the Socialist 
 party." He also intimated that certain politicians " who might be feeling a 
 sentiment of triumph that they had contributed to the capture of London," 
 would probably find out by and bye that they " had themselves been captured 
 in a way which might be extremely disagreeable to them on some future day.
 
 Municipalizing the Tramways. 209 
 
 pickets and punish the " blacklegs." This is the blissful 
 condition of things which the London Progressives are 
 trying to bring about, and some so-called Conservatives are 
 virtually assisting them to do it. Of course if they could 
 accomplish their insane purpose their protege, the working 
 man, would be worse off than he has ever been before ; for 
 in the first place working men would be attracted to London 
 in swarms, and would thus increase competition in the 
 labour market ; and in the second place those who now 
 employ working men, and thus enable them to subsist, 
 would betake themselves and their capital to other places. 
 
 That part of the Progressive policy which was to take 
 immediate effect relates to the acquisition of tramways by 
 the Council, and in regard to this action was speedily taken. 
 In the first place the Council asked Parliament for powers to 
 construct a tramway over Westminster Bridge and to carry 
 it on to the Thames Embankment, which tramway it was 
 also to own. Powers were also sought to compel certain 
 Tramway Companies to use this new line when it was con- 
 structed, and to enable the Council to run their carriages 
 over the lines of these Companies. The Council also 
 insisted that the men employed by these Companies should 
 not work more than ten hours daily, and as tramways would 
 be practically of little use if they were run only ten hours 
 per day, the object clearly was to compel the Companies to 
 employ a double shift of men. At the same time it was not 
 intended that the wages of the men should be in any way 
 reduced, but that the double shift of men should involve 
 double the amount of wages. If this resulted in loss to the 
 Companies and drove them out of the business so much the 
 better, as the Council could then work the lines itself, and 
 as for any deficiency that might result from the Council 
 working the tramways, why it would be made good from the 
 rates. It would almost appear that the real purpose of this 
 Bill was to confer a " boon " upon labour by inserting the 
 thin end of the wedge in regard to the reduction of hours. 
 In thus acting the Council were simply carrying out the
 
 2IO Subsidizing Labour from the Rates, 
 
 Programme of the London Liberal and Radical Union, 
 which has already been adverted to, and which pressed the 
 acquisition of the Metropolitan tramways as a matter of 
 great urgency. It also insisted that the tramwaj's, when 
 acquired, were to be worked on the " policy already 
 initiated," in other words, by men who should work an 
 eight hours day, a six days week, and receive Trade Union 
 rates of wages. On this plan two distinct sets of men 
 would be required for the work of the tramways on week 
 days, and also a distinct reserve of men for Sunday traffic, 
 all of whom would be paid at Trade Union rates. Even 
 supposing that these wages did not exhibit a tendency to 
 increase (which they probably would), it is obvious that the 
 expenses of working tramways on this system would be 
 enormous, and would result in very serious loss. This loss 
 would have to be made up from the rates, but as these are 
 paid chiefly by the well-to-do the poor would be able to 
 travel at the expense of the rich. Clearly this is the 
 cunning calculation of the London Progressives. 
 
 Undoubtedly the County Council has the power to 
 acquire the property of the Tramway Companies at the 
 expiration of their present lease, and it is as little beyond 
 question that Parliament contemplated the probability of 
 their exercising this power. If they give the Tramway 
 Companies a fair price for their property, no injustice is done 
 so far. The point to be borne in mind, however, is that the 
 Council proposes to acquire the tramways for an ulterior 
 purpose, and that purpose is that it may introduce new 
 conditions of labour more favourable to working men. 
 Perhaps there might be no serious objection even to this if 
 the Council were in the position of a private employer who 
 would have to bear the cost of making this experiment. 
 But the Council has the rates of London to fall back 
 upon, or in other words it has the power to put its hands 
 into the pockets of the people who pay the rates, who 
 belong chiefly to the upper and middle classes, and from 
 this source to make up any deficiency which Socialistic
 
 Injustice to Ratepayers and Employers. 211 
 
 experiments may involve. Now this is obviously unjust in 
 two directions : first, it is unjust to the ratepayer that his 
 money should be taken to pay working men fancy rates of 
 wages ; and in the second place it is unjust to the private 
 employer, who is subjected to unfair competition. A mem- 
 ber of a County Council may propose to double men's 
 wages with a light heart, as the cost will not come out of his 
 pocket, but to the private employer it is a very different 
 matter. The mere proposal to acquire the tramways, or to 
 acquire other commercial undertakings, at a just rate of 
 payment, is not of course Socialistic ; but to propose that 
 these commercial undertakings shall be worked by a public 
 body in the interests of one class of the community mainly, 
 and at the cost of all other classes, is essentially Socialistic. 
 And this is precisely what the London County Council 
 proposes to do ; from beginning to end its policy in these 
 matters is dictated by a desire to please and serve " the 
 Labour Vote." 
 
 Not content with adopting this policy with respect to 
 tramways, the London County Council has also intermeddled 
 with railways. Here, again, it is merely carrying out the 
 mandate of the London Liberal and Radical Union, the 
 manifesto of which instructed the Council to " press for 
 increased facilities at cheap rates on all tramways, subways, 
 and railways." It instituted mquiries with reference to the 
 service of workmen's trains provided by the thirteen Com- 
 panies having termini in the Metropolis, and the results of 
 these enquiries were embodied in a series of elaborate 
 reports, which were evidently published for the purpose of 
 bringing pressure to bear upon the Railway Companies to 
 provide more workmen's trains. Perhaps there was no 
 great harm in this, although it is difficult to see what the 
 London County Council has specially to do with the ques- 
 tion. The Cheap Trains Act of 1883 did what was thought 
 to be necessary by Parliament in the matter, though it left 
 a large discretion to the Railway Companies, and properly 
 so, as to how they should carry out its provisions. One
 
 212 Harassing Railway Companies. 
 
 Railway Company, the Great Eastern, carries workmen at 
 the rate of ten miles for id., but it does it on commercial 
 principles, as the Company can make the traffic pay at this 
 rate. But this is owing to the fact that it serves a very large 
 and populous district, which i^ almost exclusively inhabited 
 by working men, and it does not follow that a railway 
 differently situated can or ought to do the same thing. 
 Nevertheless, those who are agitating for cheap travel would 
 make ever}' Railway Company do what the Great Eastern 
 is doing, even though it w^ere done at a loss ; in other words, 
 they would compel Railway Companies by Act of Parliament 
 to carry passengers at a loss, which would simply be making 
 every passenger a present at the expense of railway share- 
 holders. When the Central London Railway Bill was 
 before Parliament in March, 1891, a condition was imposed 
 upon the Railway Company that workmen's trains should be 
 run from Shepherd's Bush to Cornhill for about one-fourth 
 of the fare demanded by the omnibus proprietors who cover 
 the same distance. The Company urged that every mile 
 of the line would cost about ;£"6oo,ooo to construct, but at 
 the same time they were willing to run workmen's trains at 
 ^d. per mile. This did not satisfy the Committee, who 
 insisted th^rt workmen should be carried the whole six miles 
 for a penny. In addition to this the Company was ordered 
 to run three workmen's trains each way every da3^ Mr. 
 Pember, Q.C., who appeared for the Railway Company, 
 said that he thought this very hard, as it would put the 
 Company in a worse position than any other railwa}-, as 
 no Company carried a passenger six miles for a penny. 
 Mr. Bolton, M.P. actually proposed that the Company 
 should be made to run six workmen's trains each way 
 every day instead of three. It would appear that he 
 desired to have the railway constructed entirely for the 
 benefit of working men. Mr. Stuart, M.P. supported this 
 proposal in the House of Commons, but the House by 
 two to one refused to do anything so preposterous. Such 
 a condition would probably have prevented the line being
 
 Free Travel. 213 
 
 made at all. Other proposals of a similar character have 
 been made from time to time during the last two or three 
 years whenever a Railway Bill has been discussed by Par- 
 liamentary Committees or by the House of Commons ; but 
 these need not be more particularly referred to. 
 
 From such proposals as those just noticed to free travel 
 is not a long step, and this step the London County Council 
 is courageously prepared to take. On October 25th, 1892, 
 this Council considered certain recommendations of its 
 Parliamentary Committee with regard to a new street from 
 Holborn to the Strand. One of the recommendations of 
 this Committee was : " That provisions be inserted in the 
 Bill to enable the Council to re-house the remainder of the 
 displaced working population in other districts of London 
 or in a suburb to be selected by the Council, and to provide 
 for such persons as may be removed to a suburb free transit by 
 traifi or tram as mentioned in this Report." Mr. Westacott 
 proposed that this particular recommendation should be 
 omitted from the Report, on the ground that a very dan- 
 gerous principle would be established by adopting it. He 
 said : " They were now beginning to provide something 
 free. If the principle was right to provide this free transit, 
 if a working man was late at night and missed his last train 
 or tram and liked to take a cab home, the Council would 
 have to pay for it. This was the thin end of the wedge, 
 and they would have free trains, free trams, free lodgings, 
 and free everything else." Mr. Westacott's amendment 
 was, however, defeated, and the recommendation of the Com- 
 mittee adopted. Free railway travel is a familiar Socialistic 
 proposal ; but it is somewhat startling to find a representa- 
 tive body in the Metropolis of the world giving to it their 
 support. How the expense of this free travel is to be pro- 
 vided for, whether it is to come out of the pockets of the 
 railway shareholders or out of the ratepayers generally, we 
 are not told. Out of one or the other it must come, and 
 out of whichever it comes the result will be pretty much 
 the same in the end, inasmuch as one class of people would
 
 214 Incompetency of Municipal Bodies. 
 
 be carried on the railway at the expense of another. It is 
 one mark of your thorough-going SociaHst that he never 
 stoops to consider prosaic questions of finance, but proposes 
 in the most jaunty fashion that this, that, and the other 
 thing should be provided gratuitously. In principle, how- 
 ever, there is no essential difference between the proposal of 
 the County Council to pay the travelling expenses of work- 
 ing men out of the rates, and the proposal of certain 
 statesmen that part of the cost of workmen's dwellings 
 should be defrayed out of public funds.* 
 
 Before leaving this question of municipal action, a word 
 or two may be said as to the competency of municipal 
 bodies to undertake such functions as those which some of 
 our new County Councils are anxious to assume. All the 
 evidence that can be obtained upon the subject goes to 
 show that whenever a public body undertakes to meddle 
 with building speculations, or to become landed proprietors, 
 or lodging house keepers, the door is not only opened to 
 a good deal of patronage and corruption, but in the end 
 the enterprise is visited with ignominious failure. The 
 City Improvement Trust of Glasgow, upon which two 
 millions of the ratepayers' money has been spent since 
 1866, is a case in point. According to a recent valuation 
 nearly half the assets of the Trust have vanished through 
 " depreciation." From a commercial and financial point 
 of view the enterprise is a complete failure. Not only so, 
 but the Glasgow Corporation, by entering the land market 
 with unlimited capital as a buyer, disturbed and demoralized 
 that market, and subsequently when it had to go into the 
 market as a seller it injuriously affected the market in the 
 
 * There is one feature in connection with the removal of working; people 
 from the central districts of London to the suburbs which is usually over- 
 looked. Some of these suburbs have been inundated by new tenants of this 
 description, and the result has been that the School Board precept has been 
 increased by 50 per cent., the Poor Rates largely added to, and demands 
 created for public parks and free libraries. All this of course means a heavy 
 additional burden of taxation for middle-class people, who in return have the 
 pleasure of being out-voted at every election by their new neighbours.
 
 A Lesson from Glasgow. 215 
 
 opposite direction. A writer on the subject, who is 
 evidently well informed, says : " The Glasgow Improvement 
 Trust case, in short, may serve to prove to the general 
 public what every owner of house property, estate agent, 
 town surveyor, and architect in the United Kingdom has 
 known for years, that an elective municipal body is quite 
 incapable of managing property of this description economi- 
 cally or profitably.* On September 23, 1891, a deputation 
 from the Strand Improvement Committee waited upon a 
 Committee of the London County Council in order to urge 
 that body to construct the proposed new road connecting 
 Holborn with Waterloo Bridge without further delay. Mr. 
 Keevil stated that a plan for the making of this thorough- 
 fare had been in existence for 75 years, and Mr. Dowsett 
 stated that if the improvement had been taken in hand 
 by a private company it would have proved a very profit- 
 able commercial undertaking. 
 
 A Report on the Municipal Ownership of Public 
 Works was presented to the President of the United 
 
 * Glasgow has an admirable service of tramcars and omnibuses, pro- 
 vided by a private company, which carries 24,000,000 passengers annually, 
 and pays ;^30,ooo a )ear rent to the Corporation, ^'30,000 in wages, and 
 /30,ooo for forage, etc., besides ;^3,ooo in rates and taxes. The Company's 
 lease expires in 1894, ^.nd new " conditions of let " ought to have come before 
 the Corporation in July, 1889, but they were held over until the municipal 
 elections drew near, and at these elections many candidates, under Socialistic- 
 Labour pressure, pledged themselves to deal rigorously with the Company. 
 The new " conditions of let " limited future leases to five years (a breach of 
 a former agreement) ; the Corporation is to have power to intermeddle with 
 the working of the lines, and to start competing lines, without giving com- 
 pensation ; the carrying of mails and parcels, which brought /'6,ooo a year, was 
 to be discontinued ; advertisements inside the cars were prohibited ; the men 
 were to have a ten hours' day, free uniform, and no overtim.e, at a cost to the 
 shareholders of ;^i3,ooo a year. Altogether the conditions were so vexatious 
 and ruinous as to suggest that they could only have been suggested by 
 malignity towards capitalists. Yet the Corporation haughtily refused to 
 discuss objections to, or modifications of, them. Here we have a Company 
 which has mvested an enormous capital in the faith that it would be treated 
 justly, and has bv its expenditure benefited the city. Yet it is treated so 
 inequitably, at the instance of Socialists who are able to influence the 
 elections to the City Council, that its shares fall from ;^i6 to £(j in two or 
 three years without apparent reason. The Glasgow shareholders, who knew 
 their neighbours and saw what was coming, sold out their shares to English 
 people before any serious depreciation took place.
 
 2i6 Bit and Bridle Required. 
 
 States early in 1892, a summary of which appeared m 
 Bradstrcefs. Even this Report, which declared generally 
 in favour of the public ownership of tramways and gas 
 and water works, recommended that these enterprises 
 should not be worked by the municipalities, but should 
 be let to the highest responsible bidder, which course 
 offered the best prospects from the standpoint of com- 
 bined economy and efficiency. The London County 
 Council, however, has done its best to repel the contractors 
 who would undertake such work under its auspices. The 
 Earl of Wemyss, in an address to the Paddington Tax- 
 payers' Defence Association on Nov. 13, 1892, referring to 
 the pronounced tendency of the time to transfer public 
 works from the hands of voluntary and private enterprise 
 to the hands of the Municipality or the State, said : " The 
 latest ambition of the London County Council was to 
 rebuild any part of the Metropolis without the help of a 
 contractor, and it was evident that the so-called ' Labour 
 Party ' were on the way towards the realization of their 
 aims when all the instruments of production would be in 
 the hands of a labour-governed State. It was his belief 
 that, unless bit and bridle were applied in restraint of the 
 people who assumed the style and title of Progressives, the 
 ratepa}-ers would soon be cast into a sea of Socialism."* 
 
 Before concluding this chapter it is necessary to take 
 note of some recent utterances of certain prominent public 
 men, which clearly indicate the trend of events. In the 
 addresses and speeches of the candidates who asked the 
 
 * At the time of writing this Mr. Tom Mann and Mr. Sidney Webb were 
 giving evidence before the Labour Commission in support of the municipaliza- 
 tion of the London Docks and other undertakings. Their evidence will be 
 dealt with in a subsequent part of this work. 
 
 The London County Council has also just decided to form a new Works 
 Department, abolish the contractor, and conduct its own building operations. 
 This also will be adverted to later on. 
 
 On Friday, Dec. 9, 1892, the Council resolved to promote in Parliament 
 a measure for taxation of ground values. A Liberal member of the Council 
 describes it as "practically the thin end of the wedge of confiscation," and 
 indignantly adds: "They even had the audacity to make it retrospective in 
 its action."
 
 Liberal and Tory Socialists. 217 
 
 suffrag-es of the constituencies at the last General Election 
 there is abundant and striking evidence of the growth of the 
 spirit which looks to the State for the amelioration of the 
 condition of the people, and this is of course the distinctive 
 note of Socialism. It is not practicable, however, to deal 
 with these utterances ; but one or two representative and 
 illustrative facts may be given. During the contest in North 
 Hackney in May, 1892, it was stated, in reply to the rumour 
 that a Labour candidate would be put up, that there was no 
 need for such a candidate, as Mr. Arrowsmith Meates had 
 *' promised all that the labour voters could wish, and a good deal 
 more." Mr. Meates was the Liberal candidate. Mr. Bous- 
 field, his Conservative opponent, went almost as far in the 
 Socialistic direction. He advocated a graduated income 
 tax, the rating of ground values, and other measures of the 
 same kind ; but not content wath this he advocated some- 
 thing very like municipal or national workshops, which is 
 one of the most persistent and extreme demands of the 
 Socialists. Mr. John Morley, criticising Mr. Bousfield's 
 address in a speech at the National Liberal Club on May 
 24, 1892, said: "There is one more article in this programme 
 (Mr. Bousfield's address) which did strike me as rather a 
 strong order for a Tory — that all those, he says, who are 
 temporarily unemployed should be dealt with by some perma- 
 nent organization, sufficiently elastic to meet all the various 
 demands that may be made upon it. Does he really expect 
 the electors of North Hackney to believe that a Tory party 
 are going in for an ultra-communistic measure of national 
 workshops ? That language either means nothing, which 
 is probably what it does mean, or else it means the ultra- 
 communistic device of national workshops." Sir A. K. 
 RoUit read with pride, at a' meeting held at Islington in 
 support of his candidature on July 2, 1892, the following 
 testimonial which he had received by telegraph from Mr. 
 Thomas Ashton, Secretary of the Miners' Federation of 
 Great Britain : "Sir A. K. Rollit is a tried and proved 
 faithful representative. Working men may trust him. He
 
 2i8 Destructive Conservatives. 
 
 voted for the Miners' Eight Hours' Bill on the 23rd of 
 March last. No candidate, Liberal or Conservative, is 
 deserving the working class vote more than he." Another 
 Conservative candidate, well known to the writer, issued an 
 enormous number of handbills, on which was printed a 
 letter from Mr. Tom Mann, recommending the said candi- 
 date to the electors. Things have reached a pretty pass 
 when Conservative candidates have to beg testimonials 
 from Labour agitators and Socialistic demagogues. 
 
 We may now advert to the utterances of a few prominent 
 political leaders, who exert considerable influence upon the 
 opinions of the country. Those on the Liberal side may be 
 left out of the question, as, whatever may be their real 
 views, the exigencies of their position compel them to 
 profess sympathy with the objects and the methods of the 
 Radical Socialists, though it may be hoped that a good 
 many of them will, as the battle becomes closer, return to 
 the soundness of opinion on social and economical ques- 
 tions which has distinguished the Liberal Party in the 
 past.-'' Conservatives, however, are naturally expected to 
 use their influence in order to conserve those political 
 doctrines and institutions which have been tested by 
 experience, and have served the country in good stead ; and 
 when men who call themselves Conservatives eagerly join 
 hands with those whose teachings and purposes are destruc- 
 tive, simple and honest people may well regard them as 
 consummate hypocrites. Unfortunately, this is exactly the 
 position of many modern " Conservatives," who, in their 
 eagerness to gain popularity with the unthinking multitudes, 
 
 • Mr. Chamberlain, in a speech at Sunderland, on October 21, 1891, said : 
 " It has been the great glory of the Liberal Party to remove privileges, 
 imposts, limitations of every kind, and to leave the individual free to make the 
 best of his talents and opportunities." Still he is not satisfied. He now 
 wants the Unionists and Conservatives to join in establishing new privileges 
 and limitations, and thus take away the freedom which has been won for the 
 individual. It may be confidently predicted that the advance of Socialism 
 will develop new lines of cleavage between our political parties, and that both 
 Liberals and Conservatives will be found standing shoulder to shoulder to 
 resist a common enemy.
 
 Blessing the Dock Strike. 219 
 
 out-do the Radicals by encouraging demands for State help 
 which are born in ignorance and envy and are doomed to 
 perish in disappointment and disgrace. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., who was Lord Salisbury's 
 Solicitor-General, speaking at Doncaster on October 10, 
 i88g, gave his benediction to the Dockers' Strike, in the 
 success of which he said he rejoiced, as "the claim of the 
 strikers was a fair and a reasonable one." He also stated 
 that he regarded it as a piece of great good fortune that 
 during the greater part of this strike Parliament was not 
 sitting, so that the agitators who headed it were able to 
 discharge their duties without being harassed by a tempest 
 of mischievous questions from both sides of the House. He 
 even commended the moderation shown by the strikers, at 
 which he appeared to be surprised, and also " the feeling 
 of sympathy that existed between different classes of 
 labourers." Those who have really studied the facts of the 
 Dock Strike, and have seen how the dockers actually 
 behaved, and are capable of realising that this " sympathy" 
 was a most ignoble form of selfishness, will know how to 
 estimate such utterances as these. They will also be able 
 to measure the almost unfathomable ignorance and to 
 appraise the infatuated optimism which distinguish some 
 of our public men. Not content with this, however. Sir 
 Edward Clarke proceeded to advocate the amendment of 
 the law of employers' liability by urging "that the simplest 
 plan would be to abolish the doctrine of common employ- 
 ment," which simply means that an employer should be 
 made responsible for all accidents which may happen to 
 workmen in his employ, whether they are due to his fault, or to 
 the worhnan's, or to any other cause whatever, and that he 
 should be made legally liable to compensate the workman 
 who is thus injured by causes over which he (the employer) 
 has no control. Sir Edward Clarke has a burning zeal, 
 somewhat rare in a lawyer, for " simplicity " in legislation, 
 and he thinks that legislation in regard to this particular 
 matter should be simphfied by enacting " that a workman
 
 220 A Conservative Labour Party. 
 
 should be entitled to recover from his employer, whoever was 
 in fault, even if the injury he had sustained was owing to 
 want of care on the part of his fellow servant," and, of 
 course, even if the injury was due to want of care on 
 his own part. This is Sir Edward Clarke's notion of 
 Conservatism and of political justice ! This gentleman is 
 never tired of glorifying what has been done by the 
 Conservative Party in the direction of legislative inter- 
 ference with industry and commerce, and his great anxiety 
 appears to be that they should travel further along the 
 same road. In an address at Plymouth on December 30, 
 1891, he said : " They did not know such a thing as 
 the Labour Party as distinguished from the Conservative 
 Party itself. The Conservative Party had for the last half- 
 century been a Labour Party, and it was associated with 
 the labour movement, and the improvement of the social 
 and material condition of the working classes. The time 
 might possibly come, though it did not seem near at hand, 
 when the Labour Party would be not a separate and 
 distinct organization from the Liberal Party, bid part of their 
 own organization.'" There has been much talk of late in 
 certain quarters as to the probability of a Labour Party 
 being formed within the Conservative Party, and Sir 
 Edward Clarke's words seem to indicate that such an idea 
 is stirring even in the minds of some Conservative leaders. 
 
 Sir John Gorst, another pohtician who has held high 
 office in Conservative Governments, has, for some inscrut- 
 able reason, been set up, or has set himself up, as an 
 authority upon the Labour Question. During the last few 
 years he has made speeches upon this subject in nearly all 
 parts of the country. What his position on these questions 
 is may be judged from the fact that he advocates complete 
 freedom of combination for workmen ; legislation for the 
 settlement of labour disputes and for preventing loss of 
 life at sea ; amendment of the Employers' Liability Act ; 
 raising the age at which child labour shall be permitted 
 to commence from 10 to 12 ; free education ; allotment
 
 Sir John GorsVs Proposals. 221 
 
 grants, and a Ministry of Labour. These subjects he 
 regards as ripe for legislation, while the questions of hours 
 and the condition of the Poor Law are, he thinks, ready 
 for inquiry. In a speech at Chatham, in Feb., i8gi, 
 referring to the relation of the State to the working classes, 
 he said that he thought the Government might stipulate 
 with contractors that they should treat their workpeople 
 fairly, and might interfere to prevent over-work in Indian 
 factories, and restrict the hours of work in unhealthy occu- 
 pations and on railways. Sir John Gorst is never tired 
 of praising Trades Unionism and its achievements, and 
 he thinks Conservatives should not merely set about the 
 study of the labour question, but should " pledge them- 
 selves to a distinct programme of reforms in the conditions 
 of labour." Among the proposals which Sir John Gorst 
 has made recently in his various speeches are these — 
 that "the Government and the great municipalities who 
 are large employers of labour should try the experiment 
 of an eight hours day, because then if a mistake was 
 made the people would have to bear the burden in increased 
 rates and taxes, and if it led to increased efficiency it would 
 be a good example to other employers of labour throughout 
 the country;" that "both the Government and the muni- 
 cipalities have a perfect right to require as a condition 
 which the contractors under them are to fulfil that they 
 should pay proper wages, and work the people they em- 
 ployed for proper hours :" that " if a proper scheme could 
 be devised by which persons interested in a particular 
 trade could determine what hours should be worked for 
 that locality, in principle he saw no objection to such a 
 course "; that " an employer should be liable for any loss 
 of life and damage to limb incurred by a workman in 
 the ordinary pursuit of the business upon which he was 
 employed ;" and that compulsory Courts of Arbitration 
 should be established for the settlement of trade disputes. 
 When a Labour Commission was appointed by the Con- 
 servative Government much surprise was expressed that
 
 222 Moderation Grows with Knowledge. 
 
 Sir John Gorst was not made a member of it. The fact 
 seems to indicate that his colleagues did not value him 
 at his own estimate. There is reason to believe that 
 there was some intention of appointing Sir John Gorst 
 to be a member of the Commission, and that the 
 intention was abandoned owing to the determined oppo- 
 sition of certain members of the Cabinet who could not 
 tolerate his extreme views on such subjects as employers' 
 liability. Another significant fact is that Sir John Gorst 
 was not even a witness before the Commission, though 
 it might have been supposed that a gentleman who 
 was so ready to pose as an authority upon industrial 
 questions on the platform would have been equally eager to 
 give the Commission the benefit of his wisdom and 
 knowledge. As a law3-er he no doubt understands the 
 ordeal of cross-examination, but it would be hardly com- 
 plimentary to suppose that so redoubtable a champion of 
 Tory Democracy would be frightened at the prospect of a 
 few searching questions from members of the Commission. 
 It is not without significance perhaps that Sir John Gorst 
 attended the Trades Union Congress in 1892, and that 
 when he went to Ireland to investigate the condition of the 
 agricultural labourers he chose Mr. Michael Austin, who is 
 an official of a labour organization, as his guide. There is 
 some reason to believe, however, that even Sir John Gorst's 
 views have undergone a little modification in the direction 
 of moderation, as is usually the case when a man's 
 knowledge increases. At all events it is obvious from stray 
 remarks which he now and then lets fall that he knows in 
 his inmost heart that Parliament can do very little to really 
 improve the conditions of the working classes. He said at 
 Lawford on June 27th, 1892, that "he did not think that 
 wages could be raised or hours of labour shortened by Acts 
 of Parliament, but a good deal could be done for the people 
 by law, and there were many things ripe for legislation in 
 the interest of the people if Parliament had leisure to 
 attend to them." At Ashton-under-Lyne, on Dec. 8th,
 
 Mr. Davitt's Rejection. 223 
 
 1891, he said : " The interests of Capital and Labour were 
 to a great extent identical, and any law which impaired the 
 efficiency of production was as disadvantageous and ruinous 
 for the working people as it was for the capitalists. ... If 
 Labour took too much it would kill the goose that laid the 
 golden eggs ; and if the capitalist kept too much he would 
 injure himself by getting poor work." At Manchester on 
 Dec. 7th, i8gi, he said: "He did not want to give a man 
 anything, but he wanted every man who was willing to put 
 his labour into the land to have the opportunity of getting 
 the land into which to put his labour," which is of course a 
 mere platitude.* 
 
 In connection with the Labour Commission it deserves 
 to be noticed that Mr. Michael Davitt was nominated as a 
 member of it at the instance of Mr. Justin McCarthy, who 
 had been asked by the Government to nominate a 
 representative for Ireland. But that an ex-Fenian and an 
 ex-convict should be invested with the Queen's Commission 
 as a "trusty and well beloved " person was too much even 
 for democratic Conservatives, and the Government declined 
 to accept Mr. Davitt's nomination, the reason alleged being 
 that his political views were too extreme. But as a matter 
 of fact his views upon labour questions were no more 
 extreme than those of several other members of the Com- 
 mission. Mr. Herbert Gladstone declared, in a speech at 
 Hackney on April loth, i8gi, that " Mr. Davitt was as fit 
 as Lord Hartington, or anybody else, to sit upon the Com- 
 mission." The refusal of the Government to accept Mr. 
 Davitt as a member of the Commission aroused great 
 dissatisfaction among the Irish members, who declared their 
 intention of raising a discussion on the matter in Parlia- 
 ment, and their action was supported by a number of 
 Liberal members of the House of Commons. The signifi- 
 
 * Lord Randolph Churchill has given utterance to some very extreme 
 views on labour questions during the last few months, but as he is no longer 
 a considerable force either in Conservative politics or in the country generally, 
 no detailed notice of his views is necessary. They are interesting merely 
 as the vagaries of a whimsical and vacillating Tory Democrat. 
 
 R
 
 224 ^^^^ Donkey and the Carrots. 
 
 cance of the incident lies in the fact that such a man as 
 Michael Davitt should ever have been nominated for such a 
 position. 
 
 Some attention may now be bestowed upon two or 
 three striking articles which have recently appeared in the 
 " Reviews." One of the most extraordinary of these was 
 written by Mr. Edward Dicey, a Unionist writer of repute, 
 which appeared in the Nineteenth Century for August, 1891. 
 The gist of this article was that Mr. Dicey insisted that the 
 Unionist party should, in order to maintain its own unity 
 and existence and to preserve the Union, promise to tinker 
 the House of Lords, gerrymander the House of Commons, 
 bring in an Eight Hours' Bill, and adopt other similar 
 measures, all in order to win the working-man's vote. Mr. 
 Dicey did not appear to believe in any of these things 
 himself, but for the purpose of securing votes on behalf of 
 the Union he would make promises with regard to them 
 which he knew were not likely to be fulfilled, and which, 
 as far as they could be fulfilled at all, would be harmful 
 both to the working-man and to the nation. To use his 
 own eloquent simile, he would induce the ass (the working- 
 man elector) to jog along by holding over his ears a stick 
 with a bunch of carrots (the aforesaid promises) : " " The 
 carrots may never be reached, but the donkey will run 
 after them notwithstanding." Mr. Dicey evidently took 
 some other people to be asses as well as the working-man ; 
 but as nothing more has been heard of his article and 
 nothing has come out of it, we may hope, for the credit of 
 Liberal Unionism, that he stood almost alone in making 
 his cynical suggestions. Nevertheless, a good many other 
 Unionists have spoken in a way which indicates that they 
 are not averse to dangling the bunch of carrots before the 
 donkey if he can only be made to travel their road and 
 subserve their ends. 
 
 In the Nineteenth Century for November, 1892, there 
 appeared an article on " The Labour Question," by Mr. 
 Joseph Chamberlain, who, besides being one of the most
 
 Mr. CJiamberlain''s New Programme. 225 
 
 eminent and vigorous and influential politicians of the 
 country, has succeeded Lord Hartington as leader of the 
 Liberal Unionist party — a party which, in proportion to its 
 numbers perhaps contains more of the intelligence and the 
 wealth of the country than any other party. In this article 
 Mr. Chamberlain put forward a new Programme, of which 
 the main features are these : — 
 
 1. Legislative enforcement of proposals for shortening 
 the hours of work for miners and others engaged in dan- 
 gerous and specially laborious employments. 
 
 2. Legal enforcement of trade regulations for the 
 earlier closing of shops. 
 
 3. Establishment of tribunals of arbitration in trade 
 disputes. 
 
 4. Compensation for injuries received in the course of 
 employment, and to widows and children in case of death, 
 whenever such injuries or death are not caused by the fault 
 of the person killed or injured, 
 
 5. Old age Pensions for the Deserving Poor. 
 
 6. Limitation and control of pauper immigration. 
 
 7. Increased powers and facilities to Local Authorities 
 to make town improvements, and prepare for the better 
 housing of the working classes. 
 
 8. Power to Local Authorities to advance money and 
 to afford facilities to the working classes to become the 
 owners of their dwellings. 
 
 This programme is the most advanced, or in other words 
 the most reactionary, programme that has ever been put 
 forward in this country b}^ the leader of a respectable and 
 intelligent party. It is saturated through and through with 
 the spirit and principles of Socialism, and indeed is the 
 most daring and dangerous attack upon private property 
 and upon the liberty of the subject which has ever been 
 made, either in England or in any other civilized country, 
 by a man of Mr. Chamberlain's rank. In the course of the 
 article Individualists are sneered at as " the Gradgrinds of 
 the present day," although it is admitted that the enormous
 
 226 By Leaps and Bounds. 
 
 and marvellous developments of intelligence and prosperity 
 which have been made in this country during the last fifty 
 years have been made under, and are due to, the principles 
 of Individualism ; the old Trades Unionism is depreciated 
 and the new Trades Unionism magnified. Socialism, pure 
 and simple, of the Continental order, is shown to be ridiculous 
 and impracticable ; but State Socialism is commended as a 
 wise and necessary political development, though wherein 
 State Socialism differs essentially from simple Socialism it is 
 impossible to discern. Mr. Chamberlain advocates an 
 Eight Hours Bill for miners ; the compulsory early closing 
 of shops ; the amendment of the law of employers' liability 
 by the abolition of the doctrine of common employment ; 
 old age pensions ; and the extension of the powers of 
 municipalities in the direction of providing employment and 
 dwellings for the working classes. Some of these subjects 
 will be dealt with more in detail in subsequent portions of 
 this work. The point to be emphasized here is that the 
 leader of one of our great political parties is actively 
 advocating the adoption of a programme of a more extreme 
 and Socialistic character than has ever before emanated 
 from a statesman of position and authority. The fact 
 clearly proves that we are advancing towards Socialism by 
 leaps and bounds. This programme could not be carried 
 out without the most violent and arbitrary interference 
 with the incontestable rights of the individual and an 
 alarming extension of the sphere of State action. Such 
 an invasion of inalienable human rights as is here proposed 
 is as immoral as it would be dangerous.* 
 
 • An article appeared in the Contemporary Review for the same month, 
 November, 1892, by Mr. William Mather, M.P., in which he proposes a 
 scheme for regulating the working hours of miners by the principle of Local 
 Option, which principle, be it observed, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chamberlain, and 
 Sir John Gorst also accept. As the plan of Mr. Mather will be fully criticised 
 in a subsequent chapter, nothing further need be said in regard to it here. But 
 of course it is one indication of the Socialistic tendencies with which this chapter 
 deals. It may be added that Lord Cross said at Stratford on May 24th, 1892, 
 that " he was entirely in favour of any movement under which persons con- 
 nected with any trade could say that they would work eight hours a day and 
 no more."
 
 Towards the Abyss. 227 
 
 All this may well suggest the reflection — What are we 
 coming to ? What with the violation of contracts and the 
 confiscation of property in Ireland ; an enormous expendi- 
 ture of public money for the purposes of relieving parents 
 of the primary obligation of providing for the education of 
 their children and of setting people up in the small farming 
 business ; and all this on the part of Conservatives as well as 
 Radicals ; and then on the top of it all, schemes for old age 
 pensions, and what not, it is difficult (or rather it is not diffi- 
 cult) to discover where we stand or whither we are going. 
 The situation is both anomalous and dangerous. No very 
 far-reaching mischief has perhaps been done as yet ; but we 
 are on an inclined plane, sliding rapidly downwards towards 
 the abyss of Socialism. It is high time that our political 
 leaders pulled up in their perilous career, and set their 
 faces like a flint against the revolutionary torrents which 
 threaten to sweep away so much of what is precious and 
 vital in our national life and institutions. If they decline 
 to do this and continue to attempt the impossible task of at 
 once swimming with those currents and yet moderating the 
 force of their flow, they will, by-and-bye, find themselves at 
 the bottom of the gulf and their parties dashed to pieces, 
 while the country will be left at the mercy of a pack of 
 Socialistic wolves. 
 
 The strain of Socialism which runs through the utter- 
 ances of so many of our politicians is one of the most ugly 
 and disquieting features of the time. It is true that 
 these Socialistic ideas are vague, intangible, nebulous, 
 floating about in the upper air, and incapable of being 
 reduced to rational and practicable forms ; but they are all 
 the more dangerous for that. The spectacle witnessed 
 during the General Election, of a few hundred men cram- 
 ming their hundreds of thousands of hearers with ideas 
 which they themselves have never half digested or under- 
 stood, is not calculated to make one very hopeful as to the 
 future. Ignorance can only produce fruit after its kind. 
 We have had a perfect deluge of Socialistic legislation in
 
 228 Socialistic Strategy. 
 
 Ireland during the last dozen years, and it has been shown 
 that the results of all these measures have simply been that 
 the landlords have been crippled while the tenants have 
 received no real benefits, and that the country has been 
 plunged into turmoil and anarchy ; that the law has been 
 defied and morality trampled under foot ; that the idle, the 
 dishonest, and the criminal classes have triumphed at the 
 expense of the industrious, the virtuous, and the law- 
 abiding ; that liberty has been destroyed, property rendered 
 worthless, and religion contemned ; and, finally, that the 
 capitalists of the world for years shunned Ireland as though 
 it were plague-stricken (as indeed it was). Yet with this 
 object-lesson before our very eyes, we are invited, and by 
 Conservative as well as Radical politicians, to enter upon a 
 series of Socialistic experiments in Great Britain with 
 regard to Capital and Labour, the land question, the 
 housing of the poor, old age pensions, the supply of gas and 
 water, and the municipalization of docks, tramways, rail- 
 ways, and other public undertakings. Such experiments 
 can here and now produce only such results as have been 
 produced in other times and countries by similar experi- 
 ments, and those results have been uniformly disastrous. 
 
 The strategy of the Socialists is to work by under- 
 ground means. " The thin end of the wedge " policy is in 
 high favour with them. Their tactics now are to induce 
 County Councils, municipal corporations, and even the 
 House of Commons itself, to adopt measures of State 
 Socialism such as those which have been adverted to, the 
 effects of which would be to limit the area of private enter- 
 prise and to extend the area of State action and control. 
 The taking of docks, tramways, water works and gas works 
 out of the hands of the present proprietors, and placing 
 them under municipal control, with the ulterior object of 
 joining hands with Trade Unions in order to increase 
 wages and to force from the Legislature an Eight Hours 
 day and other similar measures, and the insertion of 
 provisos in contracts to the effect that the contractor shall
 
 The Danger of Fabianism. 229 
 
 pa}' Trades Union rates of wages, are Socialistic measures, 
 inasmuch as the principle involved is that the general 
 taxpayer shall be mulcted in order that some working men 
 may obtain higher wages, and more favourable conditions of 
 labour generally, than they could secure in a fair and open 
 market. If these measures were to be carried, and the 
 State were to hx the hours and the wages of labour, they 
 would not only be detrimental to the community at large 
 but specially injurious to working men. Yet our politicians, 
 instead of pointing out the true value and effect of these 
 proposals, indirectly encourage them in order to secure the 
 working men's votes, or rather the votes of the ignorant 
 and unthinking among workmen. The pliability of modern 
 politicians, and their readiness to yield to Socialistic 
 pressure, are perhaps more serious in themselves than any- 
 thing that has been actually carried out, because they are 
 symptoms of the fatal inability of democratic statesmen to 
 make a stand for principle. Socialism is not the less virulent 
 because it is insidious, and its ultimate effects will not be 
 the less deadly because they are brought about slowly and 
 gradually instead of violently and rapidly. The Fabian 
 Society and its sympathisers, who aim at permeating the 
 political thought of the day with Socialistic ideas, and thus 
 stealthily undermining the 'principles which lie at the base of 
 civilized society, constitute a much graver danger to the 
 community than the revolutionists who preach sedition and 
 violence in Trafalgar Square. The effects of this change 
 of policy on the part of the Socialists may be plainly 
 discerned in the platform utterances of our politicians, and 
 in the manifestoes and programmes which are continually 
 being put forth by our political organizations. The Times, 
 commenting upon the " Newcastle Programme," on Dec. 
 loth, i8gi, said : " Individual freedom, individual effort, the 
 abolition of restrictions and obstacles, are no longer the 
 objects for which Radicalism is striving. The Newcastle 
 Programme is saturated with ideas of limitation and com- 
 pulsion, the despotism of the majority, and the meddlesome
 
 230 Nobbing Trades Unionism. 
 
 action of the State." These are precisely the ideas and 
 the aims of the Socialists, and they have now become the 
 ideas and the aims of our political parties. 
 
 A cardinal fact in connection with recent developments of 
 the Labour Movement is that Socialism is endeavourmg to 
 " nobble " Trades Unionism and to convert it into an 
 instrument for the accomplishment of its own ends. With 
 what success it has pursued this object may be judged 
 from the fact that John Burns is able to boast that, out 
 of the sixty resolutions passed at the Trades Union 
 Congress in i8go, forty-five were of a Socialistic character, 
 and from the further fact that the proposal in favour 
 of a legislative Eight Hours day, which was defeated at 
 the Dundee Congress in 1889 by 88 to 63, was carried at 
 Liverpool in i8go by 193 to 155. Here we clearly perceive 
 the hand of the New Trades Unionism. These are its 
 triumphs, and they are as important and significant in their 
 way as the success of the Dock Strike. The Socialists mean 
 to either bend Trades Unionism to their purpose or to 
 break it. Appearances indicate that they will succeed in 
 doing the former ; for they have already managed to dis- 
 credit Trades Unionism of the old type in the eyes of 
 working-men as reactionary. Trades Unionists who are not 
 in sympathy with Socialism are nowadays regarded with 
 pity and contempt by the majority of their fellow members. 
 Socialists conceived and carried out the Dock Strike, and 
 the other similar strikes which have succeeded it. Never 
 should it be forgotten that the Dock Strike was virtually 
 originated at a Socialist Congress in Switzerland, and that 
 it was talked of for days upon the Continent before anything 
 was known of it in this country. Friedrich Engels, the 
 successor of Karl Marx, telegraphed to the strike leaders : — 
 " I envy you your work in the Dock Strike. It is the 
 movement of the greatest promise we have had for years, 
 and I am proud and glad to have lived to see it. If Marx 
 had lived to witness this ! " Mr. Norwood, who conducted 
 the fight at the docks on behalf of the shareholders, said
 
 England's Destiny. 231 
 
 that he respected old Trade Union Leaders Hke Mr. Burt 
 and Mr. Howell, and that if they had had men of that kind 
 to deal with, they could have got on tolerably well, even 
 under Trades Unionism. He added — " But the Socialistic 
 Trade Union man, I greatly fear, has very different views 
 than those of the mere amelioration of the masses and a fair 
 consideration of the position of the employers. Has he 
 not ulterior schemes, vague and visionary schemes, of 
 social and political revolution behind him ? I doubt if he 
 cares very much for the general prosperity of the workmen 
 and their employers." 
 
 What we are coming to may be judged from what took 
 place recently in France during two short days. A measure 
 was passed by the Chamber, and was only stopped by the 
 Senate, which would have made an employer liable to three 
 months' imprisonment for dismissmg a workman on account 
 of his belonging to a Trades Union. M. Constans, Minister 
 of the Interior, went out of his way to induce the glass 
 blowers to take back two ringleaders whose dismissal was 
 the signal for a strike. An attack was made in the Chamber 
 upon the Paris and Lyons Railway Company, because they 
 had dismissed an official who, contrary to his own promise 
 and to the rules of the Company, had become a candidate 
 for the Municipal Council. M. Guyot, Minister of Public 
 Works, promised that such a thing should not occur again, 
 and he pressed the Company to take the man back. Even 
 all this has been outdone by the lack of vigour which was 
 shown by the French Government in connection with the 
 Carmaux Strike. 
 
 A late German Ambassador to the Court of St. James 
 is said to have affirmed that European diplomatists believe 
 it to be the destiny of England to be the first nation to 
 succumb to State Socialism. Two or three years ago we 
 should have laughed the very idea to scorn ; but the matter 
 wears a different complexion now. Socialism, thanks to 
 the stupidity of a portion of the British public, and to the 
 supineness of the British authorities, has of late won more
 
 232 A Wave of Madness. 
 
 than one remarkable victory. It is now arming itself for 
 further exploits. There is serious trouble ahead. A dead 
 set is to be made against the capitalist and against property 
 in all its forms. 
 
 Clearly Herbert Spencer is right in denouncing the 
 error, which he says pervades the thinking of all parties, that 
 Social evils admit of immediate and radical measures, and 
 when he exclaims — " Socialism seems like a wave of madness 
 passing over the country." 
 
 The two great bastions upon which the greatness of 
 this nation, and of every other civilized country, is built, 
 are the liberty of the individual and the security of property ; 
 and the very breath of that liberty, the very foundation of 
 that security, are those laws and institutions which have 
 been bequeathed to us by the wisdom of our ancestors, and 
 tested by the experience of centuries, and which would be 
 ruthlessly torn up and destroyed by the political insanity 
 which describes itself as Socialism.
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 PROPOSED LEGAL AND POLITICAL 
 
 SOLUTIONS 
 
 OF LABOUR PROBLEMS ; 
 
 OR THE 
 
 RELATIONS OF POLITICS AND LAW 
 TO CAPITAL AND LABOUR.
 
 "Labour maybe congratulated on the manifest desire now exhibited 
 by society to accord to it fair, and even liberal, remuneration. That this 
 may to some extent be attributed to the stand which workmen have by 
 combination and organization made in defence of their interests, may be 
 fairly conceded. To combination for such legitimate objects no reasonable 
 person can, or does, object ; but when trade organizations are used for the 
 purpose of imposing arbitrary restrictions on labour, of depriving the work- 
 man of his right as a free citizen to work how and as he pleases ; or of 
 arbitrarily reducing the hours of work without a corresponding diminution 
 in wages, such as may be dictated by the law of supply and demand, then it 
 seems to me that the real friend of the working man is not his leader who 
 preaches such pernicious doctrines, opposed alike to political economy and 
 common sense, but rather he who bravely warns him of blind leaders of the 
 blind, who, be their motive what it may, are luring him to inevitable and 
 certain disaster . . . That the unsound and unwise policy pursued by the 
 Trade Unionism of to-day, if persisted in, will result in permanently injuring 
 the trade of the country, I firmly believe. The agitation for the statutory 
 restriction of labour to eight hours, or any number of hours arbitrarily fixed, 
 conflicts with the principle of freedom which we have always, and rightly, 
 regarded with pride ; it is repulsive to our inborn feelings, and would make 
 slaves of freemen. . . No Trade Union, Parliament, or Power has a right to 
 restrain the energy or restrict the will of any individual . . . Would that 
 we could apply to working men the words of Matthew Arnold :— 
 
 "In their own tasks all their powers pouring. 
 " These attain the mighty life you see." 
 
 A mighty life ! because free from pernicious limitations, and characterized 
 by the ceaseless concentration of power and energy which constitute the only 
 real high road to success. A mighty life ! because inspired by teaching, 
 which is Divine, to work,— and work with might,— while it is called to-day. 
 When workmen burst the fetters with which Trade Unionism is surely 
 binding them ; when they return to the good old days of freedom of contract 
 and earnest work ; when they recognize, what is as old as the hills, that "in 
 all labour there is profit; but the talk of the lips "—of which we hear so 
 much in these later days— " tendeth only to penury;" then— but not till 
 then— may they expect to emerge from the dismal shade of progressive 
 Socialism, and walk in the path of real progress." 
 
 J. H. Macvicar Anderson, Esq., 
 President of the Royal Institution of British Architects. — 
 " The Times," Nov. 8th, 1S92.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 On the Limitations of Law. 
 
 THE purpose of this chapter is to show that legislation 
 is powerless to do much for the weal of the working 
 classes, and that consequently it is a vain thing to trust in 
 it. Laws passed by Parliaments are not the only laws, nor 
 are they the most powerful laws, which exist in this world. 
 Moral laws, which are ingrained within the very constitu- 
 tion of things, and written deep down in the nature of man 
 himself, have to be reckoned with. Almost as fundamental 
 in their character, and as certain in their operation and 
 effects, are the social and economic laws which prevail in 
 a highly civilized community, and these have to be reckoned 
 with also. Political Economy, which is now so much 
 derided by flippant and shallow persons, is merely the 
 scientific statement of the results of experience ; it is an 
 exposition and classification of what is perceived to be in 
 existence around us. Whatever may be said in its dis- 
 paragement, it is, in the main, as true in its nature, as 
 imperious in its dictates, as invulnerable in its strength, and 
 as inevitable and unerring in its effects, as the Moral Law 
 itself. Just as it is impossible to conceive of a condition of 
 things under which theft and murder would not be crime, 
 or adultery would not be sin, or under which two and two 
 would not make four, but something different from four, so 
 is it impossible to conceive of a condition of things under 
 which commodities, including the work of labourers, would 
 be dear if they were superabundant, or cheap if they were 
 abnormally scarce. The slightest observation and reflection 
 on the part of any man of average intelligence would suffice 
 to convince him that the production and distribution of the
 
 236 Fighting against God. 
 
 commodities which are needed to feed and clothe, to refine 
 and amuse, the people of a civilised community, are regulated 
 by laws which, although they have never been passed by 
 any human Legislature, and although they are invisible and 
 silent in their operation, are as real and effective as are 
 those laws which govern the inmost life of rational beings, 
 and much more real and effective than any laws which can 
 be devised and enforced by human authority. The supply 
 of provisions, for example, to London, the largest city in 
 the world, is as directly subject to the control of law as is 
 the compass of the mariner on board the ship, or the courses 
 of the planets themselves. Why is it that the five millions 
 of people in London receive every day practically what is 
 sufficient for their needs, no more and no less? Why is 
 there not sometimes a plethora of food, and at other times 
 a famine ? Simply because the law of supply and demand 
 controls the market, attracting precisely what is required in 
 sufficient, and not much more than sufficient, quantities, and 
 sternly repelling what is not needed at all. If the laws of 
 Parliament come into conflict with these mysterious but 
 mighty laws of Nature, that is to say, laws of God, it is the 
 laws of Parliament which will have to go to the wall. In 
 Sociology and Economics, no less than in Morals, men will 
 find that it is a vain thing to contend against God. 
 
 No delusion is more common nowadays than that which 
 supposes that a Legislature, by its vote, can override and 
 counteract the great laws which govern human character 
 and conduct. This delusion permeates Socialistic teaching 
 of all kinds, and traces of it may be found in the utterances 
 and writings of men who would not describe themselves as 
 Socialists, but v.'ho have certainly come under the influence 
 of Socialistic heresies. The common people are being taught 
 by " teachers " who are almost as ignorant as themselves, to 
 look to the State as much as possible and to themselves as 
 little as possible ; whereas the true teaching is that they 
 should look to their own brains and energy primarily, and 
 to the help of the State only secondarily. As a matter of
 
 True Function of the State. 237 
 
 fact, what the State can do for any man, even at the best, 
 is next to nothing. It is not the function of the State to do 
 things for a man, but only to place him in a position where 
 he can do things for himself. It can guarantee his liberty, 
 protect him in the possession of his property, guard him 
 against molestation, and in this way give him a fair field for 
 the employment of whatever powers he possesses, and this 
 is about all it can do. The State may, as it is now doing in 
 hundreds of thousands of cases, ensure to a child a good 
 education, and give him a fair start in life, but when once he 
 has got that start grandmother State can do very little more 
 for him, and she must leave him to run alone. This is the 
 condition of things which has been ordained by a wise 
 Providence, and to this condition the nature of man is 
 adjusted ; to adapt it to any other condition it must be 
 violently wrenched, and even then it will soon assert its 
 inherent tendency and revert to its normal condition. No 
 Socialistic system has ever permanently established itself on 
 this earth, and no such system will ever succeed in so 
 establishing itself. Socialists are simply engaged in a futile 
 effort to change the constitution and course of nature. Pity 
 it is that so much ability, energy, and enthusiasm, and 
 genuine and generous love of the race, should be devoted to 
 an end so palpably artificial and unattainable. 
 
 It is not surprising that working men, under the influence 
 of such teaching as that above referred to, should devoutly 
 believe that their salvation should come by law through the 
 State rather than by liberty without the State. Let us, 
 however, test the matter practically for one moment. What 
 are the things which the w^orking classes most ardently 
 desire at the present moment ? If we may judge from the 
 utterances of those who profess to be their leaders, from the 
 literature which is supposed to give voice to their wants and 
 wishes, and to the demands which are put forward in con- 
 nection with strikes, the things they most desire to obtain 
 are these three: (i) Higher wages; (2) Shorter hours; 
 (3) Some provision for their old age. Now, within proper
 
 238 Where Wages Come From. 
 
 limits, these demands are reasonable enough, and if, within 
 such limits, the working classes can secure what they ask, 
 well and good. But the question is : By what methods are 
 these things to be obtained ? 
 
 Take first the question of wages. Where do wages come 
 from, and of what do they consist ? According to Adam 
 Smith " the funds which are destined to the payment of 
 wages" are of two kinds : first — "The revenue which is over 
 and above what is necessary for maintenance ; and, secondly, 
 the stock which is over and above what is necessary for the 
 employment of their masters." He explains this by stating 
 that a man who has a greater income than is required to 
 maintain his own family employs some of his surplus 
 income in maintaining servants ; and that when an in- 
 dependent workman has a greater stock than is sufficient to 
 purchase the materials of his own work, and to maintain 
 himself till he can dispose of it, he uses the surplus in order 
 to employ journeymen that he may make a profit by their 
 work. The old idea of political economists, that wages are 
 drawn from a fixed fund, is now ridiculed as absurd. But 
 is it absurd ? It is obvious that a man who has no surplus 
 income cannot employ servants, and that a man who has no 
 surplus stock cannot employ workmen, and these surpluses of 
 income or stock, although they cannot perhaps be regarded 
 as fixed in the sense that they do not fluctuate, are certainly 
 fixed in the sense that they have been appropriated to pay 
 the wages of labour. The employers of the United Kingdom 
 require so much labour during the present year, and in order 
 to pay for that labour they have set apart a certain propor- 
 tion of their resources, and the portion so set apart may 
 certainly be legitimately regarded as a wages fund. These 
 employers will repeat the same process next year, and so on 
 year by year afterwards. 
 
 What proportion of his means an emplo}er shall pay in 
 wages to those who work for him is determined, not by his 
 own caprice or by the demands of the workman, but by the 
 standard of the value of wages which has been fixed by
 
 Back into Darkness. 239 
 
 economic laws, which standard is fixed independently of 
 both the individual employer and the individual workman. 
 As Adam Smith says : " The money price of labour is neces- 
 sarily regulated by two circumstances : the demand for 
 labour and the prices of the necessaries and conveniences 
 of life." 
 
 It is obvious that the State as such has, and can have, 
 nothing to do with determining how much money employers 
 are to devote to the payment of wages, or with determining 
 the amount of labour which is available to supply the 
 demand for labour, or with determining the price of " the 
 necessaries and the conveniences of life." It follows that 
 the State, were it to undertake to decide what wages should 
 be paid to labour, would be stepping out of its legitimate 
 sphere, and acting in an arbitrary manner, and by so acting 
 it would do an infinite amount of mischief which would be 
 compensated by no good effect whatever. A more hare- 
 brained proposition was never made than that wages should 
 be fixed by the State. It is absurdly impracticable, so im- 
 practicable indeed as to be a mere chimera. It could never 
 be carried into effect under such conditions as exist in this 
 country, and from that point of view it might be dismissed 
 as the wild dream of a set of fanatics. Nevertheless, as 
 multitudes of working men believe that it is practicable for 
 the State to do this, and intend as far as they have power to 
 make the State do it, it is necessary to meet it with argu- 
 ment as though it were a rational proposition. 
 
 There is nothing new in the suggestion that the State 
 should regulate wages, although some of those who are 
 advocating it speak of it as if it were a heaven-sent revela- 
 tion. The experiment has been tried in this country as well 
 as in other countries, and it has lamentably failed. To 
 advocate the fixing of wages by the State is not progress ; 
 it is plunging back into the darkness of the Middle Ages. 
 In ancient times wages were fixed both by general laws 
 which applied to the whole kingdom and by special orders 
 of the justices in each county. Dr. Burn, who is quoted by
 
 240 They Have Been Tried Before. 
 
 Adam Smith as an authority on such matters, says : " By 
 the experience of above 400 years it seems time to lay aside 
 all endeavours to bring under strict regulations what in its 
 own nature seems incapable of minute limitation ; for if all 
 persons in the same kind of work were to receive equal 
 wages, there would be no emulation, and no room left for 
 industry or ingenuity." As late as the time of George III., 
 an Act was passed which, under heavy penalties, prohibited 
 all master tailors in London, and within five miles around 
 it, from giving, and also their workmen from accepting, 
 more than 2s. y^A. a day, except in the case of a general 
 mourning. Of this Act the workmen complained, not so 
 much with regard to the wages which it enacted they were 
 to receive, as with regard to its effect in placing the incom- 
 petent and lazy workman upon an equality with the ablest 
 and most industrious. Singularly enough, however, modern 
 workmen support Trades Unions, although they have pre- 
 cisely the same effect as had the 8th of George III. in placing 
 good and bad workmen upon a common level. It will be 
 seen, therefore, that the experiment of fixing wages by the 
 State has been tried in this country for over 400 years, and, 
 as Adam Smith puts it, " experience seems to show that 
 law can never regulate wages properly, though it has often 
 pretended to do so." 
 
 But this is not all. If wages are to be regulated by the 
 State, they can be reduced as well as raised, though the 
 workman, in contemplating the action of the State in this 
 matter, seldom reflects that it would cut two ways. Perhaps 
 modern workmen imagine that they are so omnipotent in 
 political affairs that they could compel the State to raise 
 wages and prevent it from lowering them ; but therein they 
 imagine a vain thing. Again, if the State is to dictate to 
 the capitalist how he is to spend his money, which it would 
 virtually be doing if it told him what amount of wages he 
 has to pay his workmen, why should not the State go further 
 and fix the price of bread, of meat, and of all other articles 
 of food, and of clothing as well ? Unless the State did this
 
 Lessons from their Failure. 241 
 
 its work would only be half done, for it is obvious that the 
 value of a man's wages depends upon the quantity of com- 
 modities that they will purchase. The purchasing power of 
 a sovereign may be 25 per cent, greater when things are 
 cheap than it is when they are dear. If, therefore, the 
 State is to regulate wages in the interest of the workman, 
 it must also proceed to regulate the price of those goods 
 which the workman requires for himself and his family, so 
 that his wages may go as far as possible. This also has 
 been tried in our own country, for attempts were made to 
 fix the price of provisions and clothing, and thus regulate 
 the profits of merchants and shopkeepers. The Assize of 
 Bread, which was a relic of the ancient usage referred to, 
 existed down to the time of the Georges. And certainly it 
 was quite as sensible a proceeding to fix the price of bread 
 and other provisions as to fix the rate of wages. If it were 
 possible for the latter to be again practised in this country 
 it would almost certainly have to be accompanied by the 
 former, as was the case in ancient times. 
 
 The history of those ancient times is fraught with 
 instruction for us who live to-day. However much our 
 environment may differ outwardly from that of our fore- 
 fathers we really live under the same moral and economical 
 laws as they did, and the operation of those laws must 
 necessarily produce the same effects now as it did then. 
 Time was — and that not so long ago, measured by the life of 
 the nation — when the labourer had no rights whatever in this 
 country. The most primary and fundamental right of all, 
 namely, personal liberty, was denied to him. He was a 
 slave ; at first a slave in the most literal and absolute sense, 
 and afterwards a slave with a modicum of the rights of a 
 free man. In those times the farm labourer and the 
 domestic servant v/ere always, while even the skilled artisan 
 was sometimes, the absolute property of their masters ; they 
 were bought, sold, and let without any regard to their own 
 desire or will, just like an ox or a horse ; they produced 
 nothing whatever for themselves, and their children were
 
 242 Security and Freedom. 
 
 born to the same miserable heritage. It took centuries to 
 transform the Enghsh slave, the fruit of whose labour was 
 entirely appropriated by his owner, into a free workman, 
 who could freely exchange his labour with capital for his 
 own advantage. During the transition period represented 
 by those centuries the grossest ignorance prevailed on all 
 economical questions and the most monstrous injustice was 
 continually perpetrated by the strong at the expense of the 
 weak. The great truth that the interests of all classes of 
 producers is essentially one and the same was then but 
 dimly perceived, and the results were that one class would 
 make use of the most unscrupulous and unjust means to 
 benefit itself at the expense of other classes, and that the 
 Legislature exercised an arbitrary power which created a 
 general sense of insecurity, and therefore paralysed the 
 energies of national industry. Labour was not free ; capital 
 was not secure. Security is not only the first right of 
 capital, but it is the one condition which is indispensable to 
 its stability and its fertility ; likewise freedom is not only the 
 primary right of the labourer, but it is the one condition 
 which is essential to the constant exertion and the efficient 
 development of his powers. These two rights, the security 
 of capital and the freedom of industry, will, under righteous 
 laws and conditions, be interchangeable ; the capitalist and 
 the labourer will both meet each other as free men ; and the 
 capitalist will be able to freely exchange his capital for 
 labour, and the workman to freely exchange his labour for 
 capital. Where this equilibrium exists as the result of 
 freedom both the labourer and the capitalist are in posses- 
 sion of their fundamental rights. All the conditions that 
 are necessary to make capital productive and labour efficient 
 are present ; freedom balanced by security will stimulate 
 production to the utmost ; production will lead to accumula- 
 tion ; and accumulation to exchange. Experience shows 
 that under slavery, when labourers can be deprived of all 
 property in their labour, idleness, ignorance and incom- 
 petency abound, and general industry is enfeebled to the
 
 Effects of Unjust Laws. 243 
 
 point of paralysis. No man will work willingly when he is 
 to be deprived of the power of disposing of the fruits of his 
 labour at his own will and in his own way ; no man will 
 exert himself to work skilfully when the same scanty pittance 
 is doled out to all, without any regard to the difference in 
 their abilities, their knowledge, and their energy. Under 
 such a condition of things there can be no accumulation on 
 a large scale, no security for what is accumulated, and 
 therefore no real wealth for anybody. Poverty will be 
 the inevitable lot of oppressor and oppressed alike. To 
 violate the freedom of industry is to destroy the security of 
 property. While slavery existed in this country, either in 
 its absolute form or in the more modified form of villeinage, 
 there was no such thing as freedom of exchange between 
 capital and labour. As the necessary results capital accumu- 
 lated slowly, and labour was unproductive ; the land did not 
 produce the tenth part of a modern crop ; and the country 
 was constantly on the verge of famine. 
 
 In order to remedy these evils, which really flowed from 
 laws which were morally unjust, and which therefore 
 violated sound economical principles, other unjust laws 
 were passed which merely aggravated these evils instead of 
 removing them. When the woollen manufacture was intro- 
 duced into England in the reign of Edward III. it was 
 carried on exclusively by foreigners ; but as the trade 
 extended new hands were wanted, and the bondmen of the 
 villages began to run away from their masters and took 
 refuge in the towns. If the slave could conceal himself from 
 the pursuit of his lord for a year and a day he was entitled 
 to his freedom for ever. The desertion of the villages by 
 many of the bondmen emboldened those who remained 
 behind to demand their natural rights. The nobility began 
 to complain that the villeins refused to perform their 
 accustomed services, and that the corn remained uncut upon 
 the ground. In the 25th year of Edward the Third's reign, 
 in 1351, an Act was passed which recognised for the first 
 time the class of free labourers. Not until then was it
 
 244 Laws on Wages. 
 
 admitted by English law that a labourer might be a free 
 exchanger. Into his full rights as a free exchanger the 
 labourer did not, however, enter until centuries afterwards. 
 Through centuries of English history men were compelled 
 to work by law, to continue at work, to receive a fixed price 
 for their work, to remain in one place, and to follow one 
 employment. While such oppressions and restrictions 
 existed the labourer could not be really free ; as labour was 
 not free property could not be secure ; as property was not 
 secure nor labour free the two could not unite heartiW for 
 the purpose of production ; and where capital and labour 
 could not cordially co-operate in producing there could be 
 no certain and rapid accumulation of wealth. 
 
 In the year 1349 England was ravaged by an awful 
 pestilence, which destroyed the people by multitudes. The 
 result was a scarcity of labour, and in harmon}- with the 
 natural operation of the great principle of supply and 
 demand, the remaining labourers refused to work unless 
 they were paid at double rates. In 1351 the " Statute of 
 Labourers " was passed to regulate wages. This statute 
 decreed what should be paid to hay makers and reapers and 
 threshers ; to carpenters and masons ; and tilers and 
 plasterers. If a man could get work at the wages stated he 
 was not allowed to quit his own village, and labourers and 
 artisans who escaped from one district to another were 
 subject to imprisonment. In 1360 the Statute of Labourers 
 was confirmed and new penalties were attached to it, one of 
 which was that workmen who left their homes were to be 
 burned with the letter F in the forehead. While the wages 
 of labour were thus fixed by statute the price of wheat 
 fluctuated in a most extraordinary manner, sometimes being 
 as low as 2s. a quarter and at other times as high as 
 £1 6s. 8d. In 1376 the House of Commons complained 
 that masters were compelled to give their servants higher 
 wages to prevent them running away, and that the country 
 was covered with staf-strikers and sturdy rogues, who robbed 
 in every direction. The villages were almost deserted by
 
 Laws on Spending. 245 
 
 the labourers fleeing to the towns, where the absurd restric- 
 tions of the law were to a great extent evaded, and to 
 prevent the total decay of agriculture labourers were forbid- 
 den to move from place to place without letters patent,* 
 and any labourer who could not produce such a letter was 
 to be put in the stocks and imprisoned. If a boy had 
 been brought up to the plough till he was 12 years of age he 
 was compelled to remain a farm labourer all his life. In 
 1406 it was enacted that all children of parents who did not 
 possess land should be brought up in the occupation of their 
 parents. It is obvious that where such laws as these 
 prevailed there could be no really productive industry, no 
 accumulation of wealth. 
 
 It is found in most departments of human conduct that 
 when one wrong step has been taken it is necessary to take 
 another wrong step in order to repair the consequences of 
 the first one, and that instead of making matters better this 
 second wrong step really makes them worse, and in turn 
 necessitates still other wrong steps being taken. So our 
 legislators found it to be with respect to their attempts to 
 over-ride the laws of Nature by the laws of man. Having 
 decided by Act of Parliament what wages industry was to 
 receive, they next found themselves compelled to determine 
 how the workmen should spend their scanty earnings. In 
 1363 a statue was passed to compel workmen, and all 
 persons not worth 40s., to wear the coarsest cloth called 
 russet, and to be served once a day with meat, or fish, and 
 the offal of other victuals.! In order to preserve something 
 like a balance between the wages of labour and the prices of 
 provisions, the magistrates were empowered to make procla- 
 mation twice a year, according to the price of commodities, 
 how much every workman should receive. Naturally the 
 
 * The Statute 5th Elizabeth compelled artificers, under the penalty of the 
 stocks, to assist in getting in the harvest. 
 
 t In 1 461 the King of France issued an ordinance decreeing that good and 
 fat meat should be sold to the rich, while the poor should be allowed to buy 
 only the lean and putrid.
 
 246 Laws oil Prices. 
 
 system did not work well. In 1496 a new Statute of Wages 
 was passed, the preamble of which recited that the former 
 statutes had not been executed because " The remedy by 
 the said statutes is not very perfect." This new statute 
 endeavoured to fix wages by iron-bound rules : a new scale 
 of wages was adopted for all trades ; the hours of work and 
 of rest were prescribed and regulated by law ; and in order 
 to prevent labour being transferred from one district to 
 another heavy penalties were enforced. A fixed scale of 
 wages necessitated a fixed scale for regulating the prices of 
 provisions. A statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII. 
 says : " That dearth, scarcitie, good cheape, and plentie of 
 cheese, butter, capons, hens, chickens, and other victuals 
 necessary for man's sustenance happeneth, riseth, and 
 chanceth on so many and divers occasions that it is very 
 hard and difficile to put any certain price to any such 
 things." 
 
 This seems to show that the blind law-givers of that 
 time were at length beginning to open their eyes to the 
 absurdity and futility of their proceedings. Nevertheless, 
 they went on making new scales, and passing new laws, 
 which, whatever their intention, had the effect of crippling 
 both industry and capital, and thus prevented them from 
 joining hands to produce an abundance which, fairly dis- 
 tributed in the shape of profits and wages, would have 
 contributed to the prosperity of every class in the nation. 
 The justices, upon whom was laid the duty of maintaining 
 a just balance between wages and prices, complained both 
 of the onerous nature of their task and of the impossibility 
 of properly carrying it ;out. The statute, 5th Elizabeth, 
 acknowledged that these laws " could not be carried in 
 execution without the great grief and burden of the poor 
 labourer and hired man." In 1601 what is known as the 
 Poor Law was passed, and it was passed firstly for the 
 support of the impotent and aged poor, and secondly for the 
 purpose of setting the unemployed labourers to work. The 
 iniquitous laws which have been referred to created a host
 
 Ancient Errors Revived. 247 
 
 of paupers, who had to be maintained at the expense of the 
 owners of property. The history of those times impressively 
 illustrates the utter inability of law to properly regulate the 
 wages of labour, the prices of food, or other matters of the 
 like kind ; while it also proves that the mere attempt to do 
 these things on the part of the Legislature is the surest way 
 to render labour unproductive and property insecure, and 
 thus to cut the nerves of national industry and dry up the 
 springs of national wealth. 
 
 There is nothing new under the sun. The nostrums 
 which are now being proposed by Socialistic demagogues as 
 a cure for the ills of labour have all been proposed before, 
 and tried, and this in our own country : and they have 
 ignominiously failed. Hundreds of years ago the State 
 tried the experiment of regulating the hours of labour ; 
 having intermeddled with the hours of labour it felt con- 
 strained to interfere with the wages of labour ; having tried 
 to fix the hours and the wages of labour, it proceeded to 
 determine how the labourer was to spend his wages ; with 
 what results we have seen. Having been delivered from 
 this Egyptian darkness and oppression by the light of 
 knowledge and the power of truth, it might have been hoped 
 that we had for ever left such folly and tyranny behind us. 
 But lo ! the errors of 400 years ago are now proclaimed to 
 us as heaven-sent truths, and we are exhorted, with a con- 
 fidence which could only be born of ignorance, to do the 
 very things which our forefathers tried to do and failed to 
 accomplish. Perhaps this would not matter very much if 
 the government and the destiny of the country had not been 
 placed in the hands of Ignorance. Again we hear 
 clamorous voices demanding that Parliament should decide 
 how long men are to work and interfere with the freedom of 
 the workman in various other directions in the most arbitrary 
 manner. It may be taken for granted that if the State 
 does take upon itself to regulate the hours of labour it will 
 find, as it has aforetime, that it cannot stop here, but must 
 go forward and deal with wages as well. And if the State is
 
 248 Grandmother State. 
 
 again to decide what amount of wages a workman is to receive 
 weekly, what is there to hinder it from again deciding how 
 he is to spend those wages ? What is sauce for the capita- 
 hst is sauce for the labourer ; and if the capitalist is to be 
 compelled to spend his money, not according to his own 
 inclination, but according to the decree of the State, the 
 workman must submit to the same subordination. In that 
 case the State might decide that the 6,500,000 adult males of 
 the working classes, in spending igs. a year each upon 
 tobacco, are making an unwise and hurtful use of their 
 money, and on that account prohibit them from so spending 
 it in the future. The working class families of this country 
 have each an average income of £g^ per annum, and of this 
 they spend ^^20 on luxuries, and of this ^£'20 about 3^17 los. 
 is for intoxicating drink and tobacco alone, including the 
 taxes thereon. While the working classes spend over one- 
 fifth of their incomes on luxuries they spend on the average 
 less than one-tenth of their income, or ^£'8, on house rent. 
 The State, if it ever came to fix wages, might decide that 
 these wages should be so spent as to provide ;£'2o for house 
 rent and ;^8 for luxuries, including beer and tobacco. How 
 would the working man like to have the State intermeddle 
 in his affairs in this way, saying how much he is to receive 
 for his labour, how much he is to pay in rent, how much he 
 is to spend on luxuries and amusements, and what price he 
 is to pay for his bread and bacon, tea and sugar, and all 
 other commodities. The whole thing is preposterously 
 absurd. But it would not be m^ore ridiculous for the State 
 to do the other things here specified than for it to fix the 
 rate of wages. The State, properly understood, has no 
 control whatever over the amount of money which is 
 available for the payment of wages, and the power to 
 increase or decrease that amount is altogether beyond its 
 scope. It follows logically that this domain is one from 
 w^hich the State should be rigorously excluded. 
 
 With regard to the question of hours, the working 
 classes of this country would be acting wisely if they agreed
 
 Wise Use of Leisure. 249 
 
 to " let well alone." The hours of labour for adult workmen 
 are as short in this country as is consistent either with the 
 continued commercial prosperity of the nation or with the 
 welfare of the working classes themselves. During the last 
 fifty years the hours of labour have been shortened by 20 per 
 cent, (although wages have increased 100 per cent, within 
 the same period), and the average number of hours now 
 worked by our factory population is 56^^ per week, while 
 artisans work only 51 hours per week. No reasonable man 
 can say that these hours of labour are excessive. Even 
 those who work 56!- hours per week have 21 hours of actual 
 leisure weekly, besides Sundays, and in addition to this they 
 have about a fortnight's holiday per annum. We hear a 
 great deal of sentimental nonsense nowadays to the effect 
 that the working classes ought to have more leisure to im- 
 prove their minds, elevate their characters, and refine their 
 lives. But are they capable of makmg a wise use of any 
 additional leisure ? The best answer to this question is to 
 ask how they use the leisure which they have at present. 
 If they do not make a wise use of the 21 hours per week 
 which they enjoy now, they would not make a wise use of 
 42 hours were it given to them. It is well for them, if they 
 only knew it, that they should work as many hours as they 
 do now. At all events there is no likelihood of their hours 
 of labour being reduced at present. In France and Germany 
 textile factories are running 28 per cent, longer time than 
 our own, and machine factories 15 per cent, longer ; in 
 Austria the excess is 18 per cent, for textile factories, and 
 27 for machine factories ; in Russia, from 28 to 50 per cent. 
 for textile factories, and 38 per cent, for machine factories ; 
 in Switzerland the excess is 18 per cent, and 27 per cent, 
 respectively ; in Belgium, 28 per cent, and 20 per cent. ; in 
 Italy from 23 to 60 per cent, for textile factories, and 38 per 
 cent, for machine factories ; in Holland the figures are 28 per 
 cent, and 23 per cent, respectively; and even in the United 
 States the hours in textile factories are 8 per cent, more 
 than our own, and in machine factories 15 per cent. more.
 
 250 A Masked Purpose. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that on the ground of foreign com- 
 petition alone we cannot afford any further reduction of 
 hours. 
 
 Under these circumstances it does not appear to be of 
 much practical use to further discuss the question of reducing 
 the hours of labour, especially as the subject will be fully 
 dealt with in a subsequent chapter. It is sufficient to 
 point out that in the case of adult working men the State 
 cannot decide what number of hours they are to work with- 
 out infringing their liberty, and that consequently the State 
 would be acting illegitimately and arbitrarily were it to fix 
 the hours of labour for such workmen ; and, further, that if 
 the State decided that all workmen were to labour for eight 
 hours daily, and to receive for that labour the same amount 
 of wages as they now receive for nine or ten hours, the State 
 would simply be putting its hand into the pockets of the 
 employers and transferring their money to the workmen 
 without giving them any equivalent in return, and this, 
 however disguised by a show of legality, would be an act of 
 down-right robbery. If, on the other hand, the State should 
 fix an Eight Hours' day, and proportionately reduce the wages 
 of the workmen, these latter, however much they may talk 
 about desiring more leisure, would not thank the State for 
 its pains. The real object underlying this agitation for 
 shorter hours is to obtain more wages, of course at the cost 
 of employers, either in the shape of extra pay for overtime 
 on the part of those who are at work at present or in the 
 shape of additional wages for new men whom the employers 
 might have to engage. On either supposition money would 
 betaken out of the employers' pockets, though in the one case 
 it would go to increase the wages of men who are well paid 
 already, and in the other case it would be paid to men who 
 are not at present employed because there is no demand for 
 their labour. The Eight Hours movement is a scheme for 
 compelling the employers of the country to support surplus 
 labourers, and the State is asked to use its power to coerce 
 employers into doing this through the machinery of an Eight
 
 Old Age Pensions. 251 
 
 Hours' day. If the State, yielding to this clamour, were to 
 act in the arbitrary way suggested, it would be guilty of as 
 wanton and wicked an act of tyranny as ever disgraced the 
 annals of a civilized country. 
 
 It is urged that it is the duty of the State to make 
 provision for workmen during their disablement by sickness 
 and in their old age. But it is no more the duty of the 
 State to do this than to fix the amount of wages that a man 
 shall receive, or to dictate how he is to spend those wages. 
 The utmost duty that lies upon the State in this direction is 
 to prevent people dying from starvation, when they are ill 
 or too old to work, and this it already does through the 
 operation of the Poor Law. Any provision beyond this 
 should be made by the individual man for himself. It may 
 be said that it is altogether impossible for the average 
 working man to make any provision for the future, but in 
 view of the figures which have been given as to the expendi- 
 ture of the average working man on beer and tobacco, it will 
 be very difficult to substantiate this statement. In presence 
 of this fact it is childish to tell us that working men cannot 
 provide pensions for themselves, and it is wicked to propose 
 that as they will not make such provision, but spend their 
 money in other ways, it should be made for them at other 
 people's expense through the State.* If a man is to have a 
 pension when he reaches a certain age it is obvious that he 
 can only have it because property has been accumulated on 
 his behalf, upon the returns of which he can live when he is 
 no longer able to work. Whose duty is it to accumulate 
 that property ? Clearly it is the duty of the man who is to 
 live upon the property and not of any other being or body 
 whatsoever. Thousands of working men do thus accumulate 
 
 * During the examination of Mr. John Taylor, Secretary of the Sheffield 
 Gas Workers and General Labourers' Union, before the Labour Commission, 
 Mr. Mundella asked : " You must be aware that the amount of money spent in 
 "intemperance would provide the most ample superannuation fund for the 
 "working classes of the country ? " " Yes," replied the witness, " but pro- 
 " vided the money were not spent in that way it would not be saved, as the 
 " workmen would then discover that they needed it for other purposes."
 
 252 How to Secure a Pension. 
 
 property, and thereby support themselves in their old age. 
 Hundreds of thousands of working men might do this if 
 they really wished to do it. The State possesses no money 
 except what it takes out of the pockets of the people, and it 
 is out of this that old age pensions would have to come. 
 
 Any working man who wishes to provide for himself a 
 pension of 5s. a week after he is 65 has every facility for 
 doing so. All that he has got to do is to save 13d. a week 
 between the ages of 18 and 25, and invest it at interest in 
 the Post Office Savings Bank. When he is 25 he will be in 
 possession of ;£'20 us. 8d., and for that sum the Post Office 
 will sell him a deferred annuity of £13, or 5s. a week, to 
 become payable immediately after he reaches the age of 
 sixty-five. There is scarcely a young working man in the 
 kingdom who could not provide for himself a pension in this 
 simple and effectual manner. By paying gd. a week in the 
 case of males, and lod. in the case of females, beginning at 
 20 years of age, a man and wife might purchase an annuity 
 of ;^I2 a year each on attaining the age of 60, and at the 
 same time assure a sum of £12 in the case of death when- 
 ever it might occur. A man of thirty may purchase through 
 the Post Office an annuity of ;/^io, to commence when he 
 reaches the age of sixty, by paying down a lump sum of 
 £24 3s. 4d., or by an annual payment of £1 8s. 4d. till he 
 reaches the age of sixty. There is scarcely a working man 
 in the country who, if he would give up smoking and 
 drinkmg, might not secure himself an annuity of this kind. 
 If it be said that it is too much to expect that men will give 
 up smoking and drinking, the obvious reply is that if they 
 do not think it worth while to deny themselves these 
 injurious luxuries for the sake of securing a quiet and happy 
 old age, they have no right to expect that other people will 
 think it worth while to undertake this duty for them. 
 When the writer was in the Rosses, one of the poorest 
 districts in Ireland, he found that the most abject of the 
 peasant farmers could spend more upon tobacco in a year 
 than the whole rent of his holding? amounted to, and, on a
 
 Communism I 253 
 
 low estimate, these people spend twice as much on whisky 
 as they do upon tobacco. Yet the State has interfered to 
 reduce the rents of these peasants, or, in other words, to 
 take from the landlord a certain proportion of his property 
 and hand it over to tenants who can afford to spend three 
 times as much on whisky and tobacco as their rent amounts 
 to. Now the Government is invited to do the same sort of 
 thing in relation to working men in Great Britain. 
 Although the working classes can afford to waste during the 
 course of their lives what would secure them a handsome 
 competence in their old age over and over again, they come 
 hat in hand to Parliament and ask that they may be 
 supported out of public funds during their old age. The 
 comfortable maintenance of people in their declining years, 
 we repeat, can only rest upon the acquisition of property in 
 some form or other. A working man who wishes to have 
 this kind of independence when he gets old must acquire 
 property. It is nonsense to say that the working man 
 cannot do this in view of the fact that he can afford such an 
 expenditure on luxuries as has been alluded to, and in view 
 of the further fact that thousands of working men, including 
 even agricultural labourers, are actually doing it at the 
 present time. The State cannot make such provision for 
 working men on principles of equity ; the only way in which 
 the State could do it would be by devoting property to that 
 object which would be sufficient to cover its cost. Whose 
 property is it which is to be devoted to this purpose ? 
 Clearly it is not the property of the people who are to be 
 provided for, for if they possessed this property there would 
 be no need to make provision for them. The property 
 belongs to other people, that is, to employers, capitalists, 
 landlords, and to those among the working classes them- 
 selves who have been industrious, temperate, and frugal. 
 This demand that the State should make provision for 
 working people indiscriminately in their old age is essen- 
 tially Communistic. It means that the property of those 
 who have been diligent, honest and provident, and who by
 
 254 Employers' Liability. 
 
 the use of those qualities have reached a position of comfort 
 or affluence, should be appropriated for the support of those 
 who have not been diligent, or honest, or provident, but 
 who have squandered the resources which, had they been 
 husbanded, would have sufficed to place them also in a posi- 
 tion of comfort and independence. It is of the essence of all 
 Socialistic schemes that they take what belongs to the most 
 reputable members of the community and squander it upon 
 the least reputable. If the proposals which are now being 
 put forward with regard to State provision for old age could 
 be carried out the higher working classes would themselves 
 be the largest sufferers, inasmuch as they would be taxed in 
 order to support those members of their class who degrade 
 it and retard its progress. The working man's worst foes 
 are ever those of his own order — excepting, perhaps, the 
 politicians who wish to climb to power upon his shoulders, 
 and who will therefore delude and exploit him in the most 
 cruel and unscrupulous fashion. 
 
 There are two other questions in respect of which 
 changes in the Law are persistently demanded in the 
 interests of the working classes. These are the Law of 
 Employers' Liability and the Law of Conspiracy. 
 
 Taking the former question first, the reader will bear in 
 mind that such men as Sir John Gorst, Sir Edward Clarke, 
 and Mr. Chamberlain, politicians of considerable influence, 
 have practically identified themselves with the Trade Union 
 leaders in demanding that the liability of the employer with 
 regard to accidents should be largely extended. The Trade 
 Union demand is that the doctrine of common employment, 
 which now limits the liability of employers to those accidents 
 which are due to their own faults (about 20 per cent, of the 
 whole number) should be abolished, in order that those 
 accidents which are due to the workman's own fault (over 
 25 per cent, of the whole) should also carry with them a 
 claim for compensation against the employer. This is the 
 Trade Union notion of justice ! And some of our leading 
 politicians, to whom we might naturally look for the con-
 
 Punishing the Employer. 255 
 
 servation of those principles which ensure both justice and 
 freedom to employers and employed alike, are not ashamed 
 to endorse this preposterous demand. Mr. Chamberlain, 
 however, who is far and away the most eminent of these 
 Radical-Socialistic politicians, is not quite so irrational as to 
 absolutely identify himself with a demand of this nature. 
 What he advocates is: " Compensation for injuries received 
 in the course of employment, and to widows and children in 
 case of death, whenever such injuries or death are not 
 caused by the fault of the person killed or injured."* Let it 
 be carefully noted what this involves. Not only is the 
 workman himself who is injured in the course of his em- 
 ployment to be compensated, but whenever these injuries 
 result in death, the compensation is to be extended to his 
 widow and children, provided the injury or death is not the 
 direct consequence of the workman's own action. See how 
 this point is put. Why did not Mr. Chamberlain say that 
 no workman or his family should be able to claim compen- 
 sation from an employer except the injuries or death were caused 
 by the fault of that employer? The law as it now stands makes 
 an emplo3'er liable to pay compensation to workmen who 
 have been injured or killed through his fault. No just law 
 can do more than this. The alterations in the law which 
 are demanded by Trade Unions, and some of which even 
 Mr. Chamberlain now advocates, would be monstrously 
 unjust to employers. Mr. Chamberlain perceives that it 
 would be a very unwise policy (the injustice of it does not 
 seem to trouble him very much) to double at one stroke the 
 burden which employers now have to bear in respect of 
 accidents. In another direction, however, he goes even 
 further than the Trade Unionists. The latter ask that em- 
 ployers should be made liable to pay compensation in respect 
 of all accidents which may be caused either by their own 
 fault or by the fault of their workmen, or a little over half 
 of all the accidents that occur ; but Mr. Chamberlain boldly 
 
 * The Nineteenth Century, November, 1892.
 
 256 Burdening the Consumer. 
 
 demands that the victims of all accidents, to whatever cause 
 those accidents may be due, and also the wives and children 
 dependent upon them, should be compensated. He evidently 
 hankers after the thorough-going compulsion of the Germans, 
 whose law " grants compensation in every instance as being 
 a public right arising out of the natural obligation of the em- 
 ployer to compensate every workman injured in his service/'' and 
 he thinks that " the recognition of the universality of the 
 right to compensation is the only merciful, and indeed the 
 only logical, principle " ; but he perceives that the English 
 people are not Germans, and that " in practice it would be 
 impossible, as well as unjust, to throw the burden invariably 
 and exclusively upon the employer." Who, then, is to bear 
 the burden ? The community ! " The only way of meeting 
 the case with any regard to equity is to acknowledge that 
 the cost of providing compensation is really a charge 
 attached to the business in which the accidents occur." 
 For the wanton carelessness and the criminal folly of reck- 
 less workmen, to which causes many accidents are due, 
 other workmen, who form the majority of the community, 
 are to be compelled to pay in the shape of giving an increased 
 price for their commodities. For even Mr. Chamberlain 
 does not venture to propose that this compensation should 
 be raised by special and direct taxation. No ; the more 
 subtle method of making it a "charge on production, to be 
 reckoned and ultimately paid for in the price of the com- 
 modity produced," is that which commends itself to his 
 judgment. For in this way some working men could be 
 made to pay for the faults of other working men without 
 knowing it ! As for those industries in which this simple 
 method of taxing the product would not be practicable, why 
 "the result must be secured by making the employers liable 
 primarily, leaving them to protect themselves and to average 
 the expense by a system of insurance. This proposal would 
 not injure employers, who would recoup themselves in every 
 case from the consumers." And the bulk of the consumers 
 would belong to the working classes ! It may be taken for
 
 Wanton Meddlesomeness. 257 
 
 granted that in those happy days when we shall be subjected 
 to the beneficent tyranny of Trade Unionism, when every- 
 body has to pay for the workman's carelessness but that 
 workman himself, accidents of all kinds will alarmingly 
 increase and that the burden imposed by them upon the 
 community will be correspondingly great. 
 
 It is simply wanton meddlesomeness to endeavour to 
 disturb, as far as its main features are concerned, the present 
 law of Employers' Liability, and no statesman would 
 propose to disturb it unless he had his eye on the working- 
 class vote.* This law adequately meets the justice of the 
 case. Mr. Chamberlain, it is true, pronounces it to be " a 
 half-hearted compromise ; " while he acknowledges that " it 
 throws the burden of compensation on the employer when 
 it can be proved that the accident is due to defects of plant for 
 which he is assumed to be responsible, or to the negligence of the 
 superintendents whom he has appointed.'''' What more does 
 justice require? Nothing! But Trade Union selfishness 
 and political exigency require more. Mr. Chamberlain 
 complains that the law " leaves all other causes of injury 
 without redress," or in other words, that it provides no 
 compensation with respect to accidents which are caused by 
 the workman's carelessness, or which are due to pure 
 casualty, or to the act of God. Herein the law does 
 excellently well. Pity for those who suffer from these 
 accidents is a very exalted sentiment, and we may all agree 
 that they are " proper objects of public sympathy, and 
 should receive the most liberal treatment " through bene- 
 volent channels, but not through those of taxation. Justice 
 to every man and to all men at all times is a nobler senti- 
 ment still, and this is opposed to the compulsory taxation 
 of an individual or a community for the relief of misfortune. 
 But in these ultra-democratic days the august form of 
 Justice is hidden beneath an ugly and distended mass of 
 
 * Just as these sheets were passing through the Press it was announced 
 (on Feb. i) by Mr Asquith, the Home Secretary, that he proposed to introduce 
 an Employers' Liabihty Bill on the following Thursday.
 
 258 The Law of Conspiracy . 
 
 pseudo-humanitarianism, and her voice is stifled amid the 
 angry battle cries of contending self-seekers. Just as 
 Artemus Ward, in the ardour of his patriotism, was ready 
 to sacrifice all his wife's relations in the American War, so 
 some of our politicians, in their zeal to promote the public 
 welfare, are eager to be inordinately generous at other 
 people's expense. There is one aspect of this matter which 
 appears to be generally overlooked, and that is that if com- 
 pensation for the victims of accidents is to be enforced by 
 law, through processes of taxation, the result will be that 
 employers and the community in general, instead of meeting 
 the cases of these victims with a large and generous charity, 
 as they now do, will throw charity to the winds and refuse 
 to do one jot or tittle beyond what they are compelled to do 
 by law. If this were to take place it is certain that the case 
 of those who suffer through accidents would be changed for 
 the worse.* 
 
 The Law of Conspiracy is one of the utmost complexity 
 and difficulty. It has for centuries perplexed the minds of 
 legislators and lawyers. Probably there are but few even 
 among trained lawyers themselves who could give a lucid, 
 concise, and yet comprehensive statement of that law ; still 
 less can a plain, non-legal writer hope to succeed in making 
 such a statement. Nevertheless, the matter is one of such 
 vital moment that it is impossible to pass it over altogether, 
 especially as scarcely a year passes without Parliament being 
 urged to alter this law in the interests of the Trade Unions. 
 
 During the Dock Strike in London the Law Jotwnal, in 
 writing on this subject, said : " As London is suffering at 
 the present time from an epidemic of strikes it is well to- 
 recall on what terms the right to strike and lock-out, both 
 equally illegal combinations at common law, has been con- 
 ceded to workmen and employers. The offences usually 
 known as intimidation and picketing, and punishable with a 
 fine of ;^20 or imprisonment with hard labour for a term not 
 
 * Complaint has been made that the colHery proprietors did not subscribe 
 to the Tondu Relief Fund as generously as they ought to have done. Such 
 complaints may be expected to become very common shortly.
 
 " Bombarding.^' 259 
 
 exceeding three months, form a series of acts, all done with 
 a view to compel any person to abstain from doing, or to do, 
 any act which such person has a legal right to do or to 
 abstain from doing, wrongfully or without legal authority. 
 These acts are — using violence or intimidating the person 
 or his wife or children, or injuring his property, persistently 
 following him about from place to place, hiding his tools, 
 clothes, or other property, or depriving him of, or hindering 
 him in the use of, them, watching or besetting his dwelling 
 house, or the place where he works, carries on business, 
 happens to be, or its approaches, and following him with 
 two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in any 
 street or road. The words ' wrongfully and without legal 
 authority,' in what may be called the intention clause, 
 qualify all the acts which follow, and the proof of the 
 right or legal authority would lay on the defendant. 
 Intimidation and picketing are offences already tolerably 
 familiar in strikes. But a new development, which goes by 
 the name of ' bombarding,' seems to have arisen. The opera- 
 tion seems to be for crowds of strikers to surround the place 
 of business of non-strikers and shout with all their might 
 until they come out. This would no doubt come under the 
 head of besetting in the Act of Parliament, and it is the 
 latest form of blowing down the walls of Jericho." 
 
 It is not so certain, however, that this "bombarding" 
 would come under the head of " besetting," for the one thing 
 which the framers of the law seem to have been most 
 anxious to do is to give strikers as much license as possible. 
 For example. Section 7 of the Conspiracy Act, 1875, says : 
 *' Attending at or near the house or place where the person 
 resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, 
 or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to 
 obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a 
 watch or besetting within the meaning of this Section."* 
 
 * The following letter appeared in The Times of September 5, 1891, during 
 the Carpenters' Strike: — -"Your correspondent is quite right when he calls 
 the modern system of picketing 'cursed intimidation.' Picketing is no 
 longer the placing of two or three men at the entrance of a workshop for the
 
 26o It cuts two ways. 
 
 This is so indefinite as to leave open a dozen loop-holes of 
 escape for the offenders, and to make the interpretation of 
 the law a matter of the utmost difficulty to the Judges. 
 What it comes to is that boycotting is lawful so long as it 
 confines itself to moral means, to advice, or to persuasion ; 
 and that it is unlawful when it resorts to physical 
 violence, or passes into molestation, persistent annoyance, 
 or terrorism. Lord Bramwell truthfully said in the House 
 of Lords, on March 6, 1891, that legal picketing would 
 never pay its way. Everybody knows that as a matter of 
 fact such picketing can hardly be said to exist. Whenever 
 picketing is carried on it is carried on more or less illegally. 
 During the dock strike at Cardiff one of Mr. J. H. Wilson's 
 fellow agitators upbraided the men for neglecting picketing 
 duty, and stated that it was not the number of " captures " 
 they might make that was important ; over and above that 
 "the presence of the pickets had a wholesome effect in 
 keeping away men who, if they had a clear ground, would 
 become blacklegs.'" Picketing is in fact a weapon which has 
 been invented by Trade Unions for the purpose of destroying 
 the liberty of those working men who decline to join such 
 Unions. The demand of these Unions is not simply that 
 working men should have absolute freedom to combine for 
 any lawful purpose, but also that they should be armed with 
 powers to destro}- the freedom of those working men who 
 decline to join their combinations. The former demand 
 must necessarily be conceded in a country whose constitu- 
 tion is democratic and whose institutions are free ; the 
 
 purpose of gaining information, or even of reasoning with those workmen who 
 wish to work. Now the scheme adopted is to send as many as 60 or 100 
 strikers to any point where men are working, to surround these with a 
 threatening mob, to menace them with death and disablement, to follow them 
 home and bespatter their houses with mud, and to post offensive notices 
 respecting them about their residences. People who are not subjected to this 
 kind of thing when they choose to w^ork while others wish them to be idle 
 may say, ' Oh, but all this is illegal ; men doing such things can be punished,' 
 and so on. Quite true ; but before you cook your hare you have to catch 
 him, and it is no easy matter for a workman who is surrounded by a hundred 
 antagonists to take his man to a police-station and to charge him with having 
 broken the law. The fact is that the picketing in force is simple tyranny, and 
 should be illegal."
 
 Whom the Law of Conspiracy Protects. 261 
 
 second demand must also necessarily be refused in such a 
 country. The same great principles of liberty which enable 
 working men to combine must also preserve the freedom of 
 the other working men who wish to stand aloof from these 
 combinations. Every individual man must have absolute 
 liberty to join a Trade Union or not as he himself chooses. 
 This is the rock upon which is built that fabric of freedom 
 which is our national glory and which has done more than 
 anything besides to build up our national greatness. It is 
 this fundamental principle which is persistently attacked by 
 Trade Unions, and their attacks are the more pernicious 
 because they are made in the name of that liberty which in 
 practice they deny. It is an infamous prostitution of the 
 august name of Liberty to invoke it in support of practices 
 which strike at the very root of personal freedom. 
 
 The Law of Conspiracy, which is represented as being 
 antagonistic to the interests of working men, really exists to 
 guard those interests. Mr. Edmund Robertson, in a letter 
 to The Times of Oct. 28, i8gi, said : "The Act of 1875 is 
 limited strictly to trade disputes between employers and 
 employed. Combinations of working men which cannot be 
 brought within that category are exposed to the full rigour 
 of the common law doctrine of conspiracy. Not long ago 
 some Trade Unionists were punished as conspirators under 
 the common law because there was no evidence of a dispute 
 between employer and employed. A dispute between 
 masters and men is protected ; a dispute between two 
 sections of the men is not." It will be observed that Mr. 
 Robertson's complaint is that working men are " exposed to 
 the full rigour of the common law doctrine of conspiracy." 
 No special legislation hostile to their class has been passed 
 to curtail their liberties, but they are simply left to be dealt 
 with by the common law like other people. What hardship 
 is there in this ? Professor Case has pointed out that Mr. 
 Robertson makes some valuable admissions in the words 
 just quoted. He says : " From these admissions it is plain 
 that the common law of conspiracy protects, not masters,
 
 262 The Two Tailors of Tooley Street. 
 
 but workmen against combinations of workmen, and that 
 the abolition of the law would enable workmen to combine, 
 not against a master — that they can do already — but against 
 a fellow workman. The common law of conspiracy is the sole 
 protection of workmen against workmen. . . . Really, the 
 abolition of the common law of conspiracy would give some 
 workmen the unjust liberty of combining against others; 
 and would deprive other workmen of the just liberty of 
 freely contracting for employment. Nor could such com- 
 bined tyranny be to the general interest of the working 
 classes. It would be the immediate interest of Trade Unions, 
 But the Trade Unions are not the working classes. At their 
 last Congress the Trade Unionists admitted that only 
 1,302,855 men were represented, while 9,000,000 workmen 
 are still unorganized. The real question is whether the 
 abolition of the common law of conspiracy would be for the 
 good of all workmen, organized or unorganized. At present 
 if a combination of workmen conspire to prevent an unor- 
 ganized workman from being emplo\ed they can be punished 
 as criminal conspirators under the common law. If Mr. 
 Gladstone gets rid of that common law of conspiracy an 
 unorganized workman would have no redress against such a 
 combination of workmen.* This, no doubt, would be 
 pleasant for the minority of workmen who are combined in 
 Trade Unions ; but how would it be to the interests of the 
 majority of the working classes ?"'t From all this it is 
 evident that no man has so vital an interest in the law of 
 conspiracy being maintained as the workman who wishes to 
 preserve his liberty. 
 
 Mr. Edmund Robertson proposed the following motion 
 in Parliament on March 22, 1892 : "That the common law 
 doctrine of conspiracy, by which persons are made punish- 
 able for combining to do acts which in themselves are not 
 
 * Mr. Gladstone evidently intends to make an effort to get rid of this law ; 
 for a Bill to " amend the Law of Conspiracy " was announced in the Queen's 
 Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament (1893). 
 
 t Letter to the Times, December 26, 1891.
 
 Protecting Trade Unionists. 263 
 
 criminal, is unjust in its operation and ought to be 
 amended." This resokition seems very plausible, and no 
 doubt a good many people were misled by it. In the 
 abstract it may seem to be illogical, and even unjust, that 
 persons should, under the common law of conspiracy, be 
 " punishable for combining to do acts which in themselves 
 are not criminal." But the real question is whether this 
 law is necessary as a safeguard of individual freedom, and 
 experience proves that this question must be answered in 
 the affirmative. To talk as if the liberty of the subject con- 
 sisted simply in the unrestricted right of combination is to 
 take a one-sided view of the matter. The liberty of the 
 subject must also have regard to the rights and the freedom 
 of those against whom combinations are directed. What is 
 required is that the law shall impartially guard the freedom 
 both of those who choose to combine and those who choose not 
 to combine. This the common law of conspiracy does, and 
 it is just because it does it that the Trade Unionists are 
 anxious to secure its abolition. But for the same reason all 
 people other than Trade Unionists should do their utmost 
 to maintain it. Trade Unions enjoy all the liberty which 
 they can justly exercise without infringing the rights of 
 others. If the law is defective at all, its defect is that it 
 gives too much licence to Trade Unionists and strikers. 
 Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 
 of 1875, already referred to, enables workmen to combine 
 even to injure their masters, so long as they abstain from 
 collectively doing any act which would be a crime were it 
 done by an individual ; but the common law of conspiracy 
 declares that whether they do or do not commit acts which 
 would be crimes if committed by one man, they may not 
 combine to injure a fellow workman. If the common law of 
 conspiracy could be fused and blended with the special law 
 of 1875 Trade Unions would no longer be liable to be 
 charged with criminal conspiracy against the rights and 
 liberties of individual working men. Trade Unionists, of 
 course, perceive this, and what they are asking for is the
 
 264 Law of Conspiracy Beneficent. 
 
 liberty to combine to injure a fellow workman as they are 
 now at liberty to combine to injure an employer. 
 
 Properly understood, there is no law more just in its 
 nature or more beneficent in its effects than the common 
 law of conspiracy, simply because its essential and active 
 principle is the protection of individual liberty against com- 
 bined oppression. It makes an act which is lawful when 
 done by one person criminal when done by a combination of 
 persons, and if this principle were abolished a combination 
 to ruin a man by conspiring to commit acts designed to 
 injure him would riot be criminal, provided that none of 
 these acts was in itself a crime. Had there been no 
 common law of conspiracy the Plan of Campaign in Ireland 
 could not have been suppressed as a criminal combination. 
 It was not a crime for an individual tenant to refuse to pay 
 his rent to his landlord, or to pay his rent to some other 
 person ; but both law and common sense held that when all 
 the tenants on an estate refused to pay their rent to the 
 landlord, and paid it to third parties, the action constituted 
 a criminal conspiracy against the landlord, and was there- 
 fore punishable. It is not too much to say that Ireland 
 could not have been governed at all, except as a Crown 
 Colon\-, during the last few years, but for the law of criminal 
 conspiracy. It was by the application of this law that the 
 Land League, the National League, the Plan of Campaign, 
 boycotting, and intimidation, and other criminal conspira- 
 cies, were suppressed, and the reign of terror which they 
 had created brought to an end. The idea that what are 
 called " Coercion Acts " create new crimes is entirely 
 erroneous ; they are simply extraordinary methods of apply- 
 ing the common law. The common law is quite capable of 
 dealing with such immoral and illegal conspiracies as have 
 been the curse of Ireland of late years ; and similarly it is 
 quite capable of dealing with any form of illegal trade com- 
 bination in any part of the Empire. The report of the 
 Trade Union Commission, some of the members of which 
 were eminent Judges and lawyers, says : " The party assailed
 
 A Safeguard of Liberty. 265 
 
 may be able ... to defend himself against the attacks 
 of one. It becomes a very different thing when he has to 
 defend himself a^SLinst many combined to do him injiuy. . . . 
 The law has therefore, and it seems to us wisely and justly, 
 established that a combination of persons to commit a wrongful 
 act with a view to injure another shall be an offence, although the 
 act if done by one would amount to no more than a civil injury.'' 
 Lord Justice Bowen, in the Mogul steamship case, said: 
 " Of the general proposition that certain kinds of conduct 
 not criminal in any one individual may become criminal if 
 done by combination among several there can be no doubt. 
 The distinction is based on sound reason, /or a combination 
 may make oppressive or dangerous that which, if it proceeded 
 only from a single person, wotdd be otherwise. In the applica- 
 tion of this undoubted principle it is necessary to be very 
 careful not to press the doctrine of illegal conspiracy beyond 
 that which is necessary for the protection of individuals or 
 the public." From these authorities, and still more from the 
 facts of experience, it is obvious that the common law of 
 conspiracy is really a most vital and essential safeguard of 
 individual liberty, and that it could not be abolished without 
 placing that liberty in imminent and constant jeopardy. 
 Nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone, who is the leader of the 
 Liberal Party and Prime Minister of the country, says : 
 " We must get rid of that common law of conspiracy."* 
 Those who, like Mr. Gladstone, desire to abolish this law, 
 apparently for no other purpose than to bribe agents of the 
 National League who boycott in Ireland and agents of the 
 
 * It was Mr. Gladstone who thus defined boycotting: " This process of 
 boycotting is, according to the hon. member (Mr, Dillon), a legitimate and 
 proper process. What is meant by boycotting ? In the first place it is com- 
 bined intimidation ; in the second place it is combined intimidation made use 
 of for the purpose of destroying the private liberty of choice by fear of ruin 
 and starvation. . . By boycotting he (Mr. Dillon) means nothing but 
 
 merely ruining men who claim to exercise their private judgment in a direction 
 opposite to his." The "private liberty of choice" to which Mr. Gladstone 
 refers, and also the "claim to exercise their private judgment," could not 
 have existed in Ireland during the last few years but for the operation of the 
 common law of conspiracy. Yet he would now get rid of this law. How are 
 the mighty fallen !
 
 266 Mr. Bompas's Decision. 
 
 Trade Unions who intimidate in England, evidently would, 
 if they could, pass a statute something like this : " Be it 
 enacted that any number of persons may, without com- 
 mitting a crime, combine to annoy, injure and ruin any 
 man who declines to join their combination, his family, and 
 his trade, and to deprive him of his freedom to exercise 
 private judgment and choice, and may do any act whatsoever 
 in furtherance of the ends of such combination, provided 
 that no such act is in and of itself a crime in the eyes of the 
 law." 
 
 In Jan., i8gi, the celebrated decision of Mr. Bompas, 
 Q.C., Recorder of Plymouth, was pronounced. Certain 
 strike leaders in Plymouth endeavoured to force an em- 
 ployer, Mr. Treleaven, to dismiss his free workmen by 
 threatening to order a strike of his unionist workmen if he 
 refused to comply with their demand. The actual words 
 used were these : " Inasmuch as Mr. Treleaven still insists 
 on employing non-union men, we, your officials, call upon 
 all union men to leave their work. Use no violence, use no 
 immoderate language, but quietly cease to work, and go 
 home." The question before the Recorder was whether 
 this action on the part of the strike leaders constituted 
 intimidation within the meaning of the Conspiracy and 
 Protection of Property Act. Mr. Bompas decided that it 
 was intimidation in this sense, on the ground that it was a 
 strike not to benefit the workmen but to injure the master. 
 He held that a strike to benefit workmen was a legal combina- 
 tion ; but that a strike to injure an employer was an illegal 
 combination. On appeal, however, Mr. Bompas' decision 
 was reversed by the Court of Appeal, the Judges of which 
 held that " intimidation " should be confined to the use 
 of violence to the person, or to actual damage done to 
 property, and they refused to recognise that a contingent 
 injury to the business of an employer came within the scope 
 of intimidation. 
 
 Whatever may be the state of the law, however, it is 
 obvious that common-sense is rather on the side of Mr.
 
 The Common-sense View. 267 
 
 Bompas than on the side of the Judges who reversed his 
 decision. What Mr. Bompas decided was that men may 
 combine to strike to obtain any advantage for themselves, 
 better wages or shorter hours for example, but that they may 
 not combine to injure men who are not members of their com- 
 bination by preventing a master from employing these men. 
 Mr. W. M. Thompson declared that the object of nine strikes 
 out of ten was to prevent masters from employing free 
 workmen, and although this may be exaggerated there is a 
 great deal of truth in' it. The Times, commenting on Mr. 
 Bompas' decision, said : " It decides in effect that every 
 strike organized for the purpose of crushing free labour — • 
 that is to say, the majority of the strikes undertaken by the 
 New Unionism — is illegal, and can be made the subject of 
 criminal proceedings." Mr. Bompas himself said : " A 
 strike for the purpose of compelling employers not to 
 employ other persons, or to alter the terms of employment 
 of such other persons, is illegal, and renders all persons 
 engaged in it liable to proceedings under this Section." 
 Again we say that reason is on the side of Mr. Bompas 
 rather than on the side of the Judges. If strikes for such 
 purposes as those referred to by Mr. Bompas are not illegal, 
 then most decidedly they ought to be, for they are direct 
 attacks upon the liberty of the employer and of the non- 
 unionist workman. These persons are as much entitled to 
 be protected in the exercise of their freedom as Trade 
 Unionists are. It is unfortunate in every sense that Mr. 
 Bompas' decision was not upheld, for it would have deprived 
 Trade Unions of none of their legitimate freedom, whilst it 
 would have supplied a much-needed safeguard to the 
 liberties of those who will not be coerced into Trade 
 Unions. Of course Trade Unionists protested that their 
 Unions would become impossible if Mr. Bompas' decision 
 was held to be good law ; but what they meant was, not that 
 Trade Unions would become impossible, but that it would 
 have been impossible for these Unions to continue to resort 
 to the picketing, intimidation, and oppression upon which
 
 268 The Workman an Exchanger. 
 
 they have heretofore mainly rehed. That would have been 
 a very beneficent result. 
 
 The working man in this country is in the full enjoyment 
 of all his rights as a free exchanger, and these rights are 
 guaranteed to him by the law. No man can be entitled to 
 more than this. Labour, as a property, is entitled to the 
 same protection that Capital is entitled to ; that — and no 
 more. The right of a man over his own labour is absolute ; 
 no Government or individual has any authority to interfere 
 with it. As an exchanger of labour for capital the labourer 
 ought to be assured that the exchange shall be in all respects 
 as free as the exchanges of any other description of property. 
 Adam Smith says: "The property which every man has 
 in his own labour, as it is the foundation of all other 
 property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The 
 patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity 
 of his hands ; and to hinder him from employing this 
 strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, 
 without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of this 
 most sacred property." M. Say, a French economical 
 ■writer, defines the right of property to be "the exclusive 
 faculty guaranteed to a man or body of men to dispose at 
 their own pleasure of that which belongs to them." The 
 working man therefore should have the right to dispose at 
 his own pleasure of his property — labour. His rights as an 
 exchanger have been defined as follows : "That he shall not 
 be compelled to part with his property by any arbitrary 
 enactments without having as ample an equivalent as the 
 general laws of exchange will afford him ; that he shall be 
 free to use every just means, either by himself or by union 
 with others, to obtain such an equivalent ; that he shall be 
 at full liberty to offer that property in the best market that 
 he can find, without being limited to any particular market; 
 that he may give to that property every modification which 
 it is capable of receiving from his own natural or acquired 
 skill, without being narrowed to any one form of producing 
 it. In other words, natural justice demands that the working
 
 His Equality with the Capitalist. 269 
 
 man shall work when he please, and be idle when he please, 
 always providing that if he make a contract to work he 
 shall not violate that engagement by remaining idle ; that 
 no labour shall be forced from him, and no rate of payment 
 for that labour prescribed by statutes or ordinances ; that he 
 shall be free to obtain as high wages as he can possibly get 
 and unite with others to obtain them, always providing that 
 in this union he does not violate that freedom of industry 
 in others which is the foundation of his own attempts to 
 improve his condition ; that he may go from place to place 
 to exchange his labour without being interfered with by 
 corporate rights or monopolies of any sort, whether by 
 masters or workmen ; and that he may turn from one em- 
 ployment to the other if he so think fit, without being 
 confined to the trade he originally learnt, or may strike into 
 any line of employment without having regularly learnt it 
 at all. When the working man has these rights secured to 
 him by the sanction of the laws and the concurrence of the 
 institutions and customs of the country in which he lives 
 he is in the position of a free exchanger. He has the full, 
 uninterrupted, absolute possession of his property. He is 
 upon a perfect legal equality with the capitalist. He may 
 labour cheerfully with the well-founded assurance that his 
 labour will be profitably exchanged for the goods which he 
 desires for the satisfaction of his wants, as far as laws and 
 institutions can so provide. In a word, he may assure 
 himself that if he possesses anything valuable to offer in 
 exchange for capital, capital will not be fenced round with 
 any artificial barriers, or invested with any unnatural pre- 
 ponderance, to prevent the exchange being one of perfect 
 equality, and therefore a real benefit to both exchangers." 
 
 This is the position of the working man in this country 
 to-day. As regards the exercise of his freedom, the security 
 of his property, and the right to dispose of that property in 
 his own way, he is on an absolute equalit}^ with the capitalist. 
 Law has virtually done for him all that it can do ; for it has 
 placed him in a position where he is able to make the most
 
 270 An Anomaly and an Infamy. 
 
 of his advantages and opportunities. His further progress 
 must depend upon himself. If he exercise his rights and 
 use his hberties wisely, for the development of his own 
 character and the legitimate pursuit of his own advantage, 
 his position, favourable as it now is, will continue to improve; 
 but if in his blindness he should so use his opportunities as 
 to injure the interests and restrict the rights of those around 
 him, it is morally certain that the time will come when he 
 will be deprived of much of the freedom and power which 
 he now enjoys. The sad and bitter history of recent strikes, 
 the evidence which they have afforded in regard to the 
 selfishness, the blindness, and the malignity of some among 
 our working men, plainly indicate that we have reached a 
 critical point in our industrial history. It has been demon- 
 strated that whilst working men have the fullest liberty 
 of combination, the liberties of employers and of some 
 working men are continually menaced by those combina- 
 tions. We have seen thousands of workmen and hundreds 
 of employers deprived of their fundamental right to freely 
 exchange the property which belongs to them. Masters 
 who wished to carry on their business, and workmen who 
 wished to pursue their avocations, were alike hindered from 
 doing so by mob violence and Trade Union tyranny. Such 
 a state of things in a country which glories in being the 
 cradle and the home of liberty is not only an anomaly 
 but an infamy. The tolerance which has been displayed by 
 the police authorities and the Executive Government towards 
 combined ruffianism has constituted nothing less than a be- 
 trayal of the essential principles of British law and a crime 
 against the natural and civil rights of British citizens. 
 Judges and magistrates have, in the main, done their duty 
 without fear or favour, and punished lawbreakers according 
 to their deserts ; but no condemnation can be too severe as 
 regards the indifference and inefficiency which have been 
 manifested by the executive authorities. If a revision and an 
 amendment of the law should be provoked it may be taken 
 for granted that the law will not be altered entirelv in the
 
 New Laws Unnecessary. 271 
 
 interests of Trade Unionists. The strong right arm of the 
 law must be strengthened, not weakened. The rights and 
 liberties of an employer of labour or of a non-unionist work- 
 man are as sacred and inviolable as those of a Trade 
 Unionist ; and when our legislation fails to practically recog- 
 nise this fact the knell of England's greatness will have been 
 sounded. For England can only remain a great, a free, a 
 progressive, and a prosperous country as long as the poorest 
 and obscurest peasant in his cottage is as fully guaranteed 
 in his rights and liberties as is the proudest of her peers in 
 his palace. 
 
 It is not necessary to create new laws either to enlarge 
 our liberties or to conserve them ; all that is needed to 
 effect this is a wise and just administration of our old laws. 
 It is the administrator rather than the legislator whom we 
 chiefly require. Legislation indeed is much more likely to 
 curtail our freedom than to extend it. Over-legislation, 
 combined with ineffective administration, is fast depriving 
 Englishmen of their most precious rights and privileges. 
 The laws of this country, taken as a whole, are superior to 
 any others in the world. Lord Thring, one of our greatest 
 authorities upon this subject, says : " The English Statute 
 Book is even now long and uncouth in form. But in sub- 
 stance it is the most just and righteous law that ever was 
 devised by and for a nation." This being the case, it is a 
 great pity that we are not more contented with British law. 
 It has been, said that good laws execute themselves. Under 
 normal conditions this is no doubt true; but under abnormal 
 conditions such as have prevailed in Ireland for years past, 
 and such as prevailed temporarily in England during the Dock 
 Strike, the exact contrary is the case. In such times, when the 
 unthinking populace are apt to be led astray by demagogues 
 and to run mad with excitement and passion, the cool head 
 and the strong hand of the prescient and resolute ruler are 
 required. Mr. Balfour's triumphant success in Ireland 
 shows what a determined administrator can do when he 
 acts in harmony with those great moral forces which appeal 
 
 u
 
 272 The Problem of Democracy. 
 
 with almost irresistible power to the hearts and consciences 
 of mankind. When the administrative policy established by 
 Mr. Balfour was supplanted by the weaker policy of his 
 political opponents dishonest and lawless men in Ireland at 
 once took fresh encouragement and crime again began to 
 rear its head in that ill-fated land. One of the questions 
 constantly and forcibly suggested b}- recent events is this — 
 Can law be justly and persistently enforced under demo- 
 cratic government ? This is a question of profound and 
 vital importance. What has occurred among us of late 
 years appears almost to force us to answer this question 
 in the negative. In the United States, where democracy 
 is checked and checkmated in a hundred ways, the 
 President is armed with powers far more absolute than 
 those which are possessed by our constitutional monarch, 
 and besides this the Executive Government is virtually 
 independent of the popular vote. Among ourselves the 
 Crown has been gradually shorn of the powers which it once 
 exercised, and those powers have been nominally transferred 
 to Parliament and the Government. But as Parliament and 
 the Government are the creatures of the popular will, which 
 nowadays means that they are virtually appointed by the 
 working class vote, they are constantly subject to the pres- 
 sure of most powerful temptations to gratify the class of 
 voters which is numerically the most powerful. The addition 
 of millions of new voters to the electorate, consisting mainly 
 of the uneducated and the unthinking, without the intro- 
 duction of proper safeguards against popular prejudice and 
 fury into the Constitution, has virtually placed the fortunes 
 of the nation in the hands of those who are least capable of 
 taking an intelligent part in its government. Lord Salisbury, 
 speaking in the House of Lords on February i, 1893, used 
 these remarkable words: "There is no country in the 
 
 WORLD WHERE PROPERTY IS NOW SO INSECURE AGAINST 
 LEGISLATIVE ATTACK AS IT IS IN ENGLAND." This is a 
 
 startling truth, which every English citizen should lay to 
 heart. The sudden and excessive transfer of political
 
 A Constitutional Defect. 273 
 
 power into the hands of the working classes, without at 
 the same time correspondingly strengthening the influence 
 of other classes, is the gravest defect in our Constitution 
 and is a standing peril to the national welfare, which, 
 if it be not removed or reduced, may drag even this 
 proud and mighty nation down to dishonour, decay, and 
 desolation.* 
 
 * M. de Blowitz, the Paris correspondent of The Times, writing on the 
 Panama scandals on December 20, 1892, said: " The moral of these events, 
 which are striking Europe with amazement, and almost with pity, is that 
 the fear of the mob governs the decisions of the Executive. . . . Hatred, distrust, 
 mob law seem to be the natural results of universal suffrage."
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Recent Action of Parliament on Labour 
 
 Questions. 
 
 AFTER what was said in the last chapter as to the 
 inabihty of Parhament to material!}- change the 
 essential conditions which ultimately determine economic 
 issues it is not necessary to further elaborate the point 
 here. It may, however, be well to state that the one 
 thing which legislation can do, and which it ought to 
 do, with regard to the labouring classes, is to protect 
 the weaker workers, that is women and children, against 
 oppression and violence, and to ensure to workers of 
 every class that their occupation shall, so far as it is 
 possible, be conducted under such conditions, sanitary 
 and otherwise, as will protect their lives and their 
 health. The Factory Acts were passed in the interests of 
 women and children, though they have incidentally had the 
 effect of also fixing the hours of labour worked by adult 
 males. But this effect was undesigned and accidental, for 
 it was no part of the direct purpose of the Acts to prescribe 
 what number of hours men should work. These Acts were 
 humanitarian in their nature ; and they were called for by 
 the selfish and inhuman conduct of husbands and fathers, 
 who drove their wives and children into the factories, in 
 order that they themselves might have the more to spend 
 upon drink and low racing pursuits, even more than b}- the 
 harshness of some of the employers. It is a great mistake 
 to suppose that the conduct of employers constituted the 
 main reason for the passing of these Acts. The women and 
 children needed to be saved, not merely from the grinding 
 tyranny of some of their masters, but from the almost incon-
 
 A Reproach of Trade Unionism. 275 
 
 ceivable brutality of many of those who ought to have been 
 their natural and affectionate protectors. It is notorious 
 that working men are, in the main, indifferent, not to say 
 callous, where only women and children are the persons 
 chiefly concerned. The greatest opponents of the Factory 
 Acts were the working men, who profited by the enslave- 
 ment of their wives and children. It is morally certain that 
 Lord Shaftesbury would have found it absolutely impossible 
 to carry the Factory Acts if household suffrage had then 
 existed. One of the reproaches of Trade Unionism is that 
 it has attempted little or nothing to improve the conditions 
 of labour for women and children. It is not intended to 
 convey the idea that the majority of factory workmen were 
 of the ruffianly type just described ; but it is notorious that 
 a considerable proportion of them were of this type (as is 
 still the case) ; and it was the conduct of this minority 
 which caused the abuses that led to the passing of the Acts. 
 The point emphasized here, however, is that Parliament, in 
 passing the Factory Acts, aimed at nothing beyond protect- 
 ing women and children from unduly severe labour, and also 
 at protecting men, equally with women and children, against 
 insanitary arrangements and against unprotected machinery 
 which might be dangerous to life and limb. 
 
 It might have been supposed that after fifty years of 
 factory legislation we should have approached somewhere 
 near finality. Yet scarcely a Session of Parliament passes 
 without some new Factory Act (or Acts) being introduced. 
 During the Session of 1891 no less than four such Bills were 
 introduced ; two of them, aimed specially at the sweating 
 system, were brought in by Lord Dunraven and Mr. Sydney 
 Buxton ; while the other two, which more strictly aimed at 
 regulating labour in factories, were introduced by Sir Henry 
 James and Mr. Henry Matthews, who was then Home 
 Secretary. Now, as the author of this work was for some 
 years an operative cotton spinner, it is not perhaps pre- 
 sumptuous in him to assume that he knows a little more 
 about factory life and labour than any of the gentlemen just
 
 276 Amending the Factory Acts. 
 
 referred to ; and he has no hesitation in saying that, so far 
 as his knowledge' of the matter goes, there was no real 
 necessity for any one of these Bills. Neither the workmen 
 nor the employers asked for them. The fact is that the 
 majority of both these classes are convinced that they have 
 been regulated quite enough, and possibly a little more than 
 is good for them. These Factory Acts, now that operatives 
 are working onl}' fifty-six hours a week, under conditions 
 which are in the main as pleasant and wholesome as it is 
 possible to make them, are simply so many attempts at 
 erandmotherlv interference, and there is onlv too much 
 reason to believe that they are often undertaken from a 
 desire to angle for votes rather than out of pure zeal for the 
 working classes. As regards one point, indeed, a slight case 
 was made out by Sir Henry James, and that is with regard 
 to excessive steaming in weaving sheds. This practice ma}' 
 in a few cases have been carried to an extent which, 
 however beneficial to the fabrics being woven, is injurious to 
 the health of the operatives. But if Sir Henry James 
 thoroughly understood the northern folk he would know 
 that they do not need to rely upon the help of Parliament 
 when once they have made up their m.inds to demand an 
 improvement in the conditions of their labour. Trade 
 Unions are nowhere so strong as they are in the textile 
 industries, and it is paying but a poor compliment to those 
 Unions to assume that they cannot deal with so trivial a 
 matter as that of excessive steaming in weaving sheds 
 without coming to Parliament for help. The factory 
 population of Lancashire and Yorkshire are, on the whole, 
 living under conditions which are ten times more wholesome 
 than those which prevail in the slums of London and other 
 large towns, and even in some of our countr}' villages. If 
 our politicians will be tinkering and peddling at such 
 questions as these the}' might at all events begin at those 
 points where the evils are most flagrant and pronounced. 
 There are thousands of cases in which six, and eight, and 
 ten people, children, young men and women, and adults of
 
 Rushiui^ to Extremes. 277 
 
 mature a^e, are all sleeping together in one room. Yet 
 instead of dealing with such gross and palpable abuses as 
 these our Home Secretaries are pottering about with factory 
 Bills, which it is pretended will improve the conditions of 
 people working in factories, whose condition is in the main 
 so good that it does not need any improvement at all. 
 Clearly some of our statesmen, and among them a few of 
 the most able and eminent, have been badly bitten by the 
 prevailing mania to flatter and worship the Working Man. 
 
 One of the greatest dangers of Parliamentary action 
 with regard to labour questions is that it is apt to rush 
 to extremes. This tendency has strongly manifested itself 
 during the last few sessions, notably in that of i8gi in 
 connection with the Government Factory Bill. That Bill 
 proposed that the labour of children in factories should 
 commence at the age of ten. An extreme section of the 
 House of Commons, led by Mr. Sydney Buxton, insisted 
 upon the age being raised to eleven, and this was actually 
 carried against the Government. It was also proposed that 
 the earliest age at which work could commence should be 
 thirteen, the main argument of those who took this view 
 being that as the Berlin Conference agreed to this age, and 
 as the British Government was officially represented at this 
 Conference, it was morally bound to carry out the decision 
 of the Conference in this respect. Properly understood, 
 however, the action of the Berlin Conference simply demon- 
 strated that our Government were extremely unwise in 
 having an}thing at all to do with it, as they thereby 
 restricted their freedom of action. The Lancashire mem- 
 bers strongly opposed the raising of the age even to the 
 limit proposed by the Government Bill, and there can be no 
 doubt that they truly represented the preponderating 
 opinion of all classes in our manufacturing districts. It is 
 the duty of a British Government to legislate, not in 
 accordance with the whims of a Conference of doctrinaires, 
 whether held at Berlin or elsewhere, but in accordance with 
 the desires of the people from ^\•hom it derives its authority
 
 278 Dilletante Youths. 
 
 and whose interests it is its first duty to guard. Upon no 
 point have we been treated to a greater deluge of sentimental 
 balderdash than upon this question of children beginning to 
 work at too early an age. Of course it was a barbarity to 
 compel children to work in factories at the tender age of 
 five, six, or seven, as was formerly the case ; but the Factory 
 Acts have changed all that. Experience proves that the 
 half time system which prevailed up to the time when the 
 Government passed their Factory Act of i8gi was, in the 
 main, beneficial to all classes. Boys who are destined to 
 earn their living in factories do not require the same 
 education as boys who are destined to be clerks in counting 
 houses. Proficiency in many a trade can only be acquired 
 in the fullest degree by commencing it early in life ; and the 
 probability is that a boy who has to learn a handicraft \v'\\\ 
 acquire it much more perfectly and with much greater ease 
 to himself if he is apprenticed to it at the earliest practicable 
 age, and compelled to give half his time to that and the 
 other half to school. We are overrun in this country with 
 dilletante youths who have been taught to believe that they 
 ought to earn their living in a black cloth coat and that it 
 is quite beneath their dignity to soil their hands with any 
 kind of hard work. We are burdened with tens of thousands 
 of such practically useless creatures, who can find no such 
 work to do as their taste inclines them to, and who there- 
 fore sponge upon their relatives and friends — many of whom 
 are women. At the same time we are so short of deft and 
 skilful artisans that we have to import them from other 
 countries. Yet our enlightened rulers persist in making 
 arrangements which will still further increase the number 
 of the lazy gentlemen referred to and still further diminish 
 the number of proficient handicraftsmen. Consequently we 
 shall be compelled to maintain many thousands more of idle 
 clerks and at the same time to send to other countries for a 
 larger number of men to do the real work of this country. 
 There was a great deal of philosophy in the remark which 
 was made to a London magistrate some time ago by a coster-
 
 Reform by Commission. 279 
 
 monger, who said that the streets were full of educated men 
 who could get nothing to do, and that he thought it would 
 be wiser to teach his boy to earn an honest living with a 
 costermonger's barrow than to send him to swell the ranks 
 of the educated unemployed. The subject of child labour 
 may be dismissed with this general remark : if the working 
 classes wish their children to remain at school till they are 
 thirteen or fourteen years of age they have only to cease 
 spending so large a proportion of their incomes on injurious 
 luxuries, such as drink and tobacco, and devote the money 
 now worse than wasted to the purpose of giving their wives 
 and children more leisure ; if they were to do this there 
 would be no actual necessity for any child to work before he 
 was thirteen, and no necessity for any married woman to 
 work at all. But it is perfectly hopeless to expect that 
 Parliament can do much as regards reducing the amount of 
 child labour and of married female labour in the present 
 condition of affairs. There must be a stupendous moral 
 advance on the part of working men before there can be 
 any marked improvement in relation to these matters. And 
 moral advance does not come by way of Acts of Parliament. 
 Without dealing with the numerous subsidiary matters 
 (beyond those already alluded to) which have cropped up in 
 Parliament during the last two or three Sessions (which 
 indeed the exigencies of space will not admit of), attention 
 may be called to the action of Government and of Par- 
 liament in appointing the two Commissions of which we 
 have heard so much of late — namely, the Sweating Commis- 
 sion and the Labour Commission. No doubt the motives 
 which led to the appointment of these Commissions were 
 excellent ; nevertheless one is constrained to affirm that 
 more harm than good is likely to be the result of their 
 inquiries. That evils exist under what is called the 
 Sweating System there can be no doubt whatever ; but it is 
 ■questionable whether any good result can be obtained by 
 merely calling public attention to these abuses through the 
 Reports of the Sweating Commission. If Parliament were
 
 28o Moral Maladies, Moral Remedies. 
 
 prepared to follow up its investigations by issuing Draconian 
 decrees prohibiting the abuses referred to there might be 
 some sense in the action which it has taken. But then this 
 is precisely the thing which Parliament cannot do, and as it 
 cannot do this it might just as well, or better, have done 
 nothing, and have left these abuses to be cured by that 
 alone which is able to cure them, that is a growth in the 
 morality of our people as a whole. It may be said that 
 incalculable good has been done by merely dragging these 
 facts into the light. But this is a very debateable point. 
 Publicity has its drawbacks as well as its advantages. 
 What is called public opinion has no more inherent power 
 to heal these social and moral diseases than has Parliament 
 itself. Where the malady is moral the remedy must be 
 moral also. The Sweating System and its results are due 
 mainly to one master cause, and that is the demand on the 
 part of the public that its commodities shall be cheap, and 
 when the public is unselfish enough to be willing to pay 
 a third or a half more for its commodities in order that 
 those who produce them may be well paid, then we shall be 
 within sight of the reforms which are desired. Manufac- 
 turers and middlemen (commonly called " sweaters ") are 
 not responsible for the existence of the Sweating System : 
 they are but the servants of the public, who produce what 
 the public demands and is willing to pay for ; consequently 
 the really responsible party is this same public. But the 
 general public is a very awkward quantity to deal with, as 
 Parliament and social reformers have found out long ago. 
 
 The investigations and reports of the Sweating Commis- 
 sion, although they have not produced a single good result 
 of a definite and tangible character, have certainly done a 
 great deal of harm indirectly. Ben Tillett's evidence before 
 the Sweating Commission was really the germ from which 
 the Dock Strike sprang. The facts disclosed before the 
 Commission have been made a peg by all sorts of political 
 and philanthropic busybodies, who have endeavoured to 
 hang upon them Socialistic proposals of the most pernicious
 
 Families and Factories. 281 
 
 nature. During the Session of i8gi Lord Dunraven, who 
 was Chairman of the Sweating Commission, introduced a 
 measure which would have enormously extended the scope 
 of the Factory Acts, and would have prohibited the employ- 
 ment of children under twelve years of age. It would also 
 have compelled the registration of all workshops, and any 
 house where more than five persons were employed would 
 have been deemed a workshop. Those " domestic factories 
 and workshops " where not more than five persons are 
 employed were exempted from the provisions of the Act with 
 regard to cleanliness, ventilation, &c. ; but even in these the 
 child or young person was not allowed to work more than ten 
 and a half hours a day, and not after four o'clock on Satur- 
 days. Even where the workers were members of the same 
 family they were to be bound by these hard and fast rules; 
 if they were starving for food they were not to be permitted 
 to work beyond the prescribed hours in order to obtain it. 
 Unless the head of such a household had proved before a 
 magistrate that " the persons so employed are members of 
 the same family," and had received a certificate " setting 
 forth the number of persons so employed and the relation- 
 ship between them," his house would be regarded as a 
 " workshop " to which the drastic provisions of the Factory 
 Act would be applied. Mr. Sydne}' Buxton brought in a 
 similar measure, but even more ridiculous. This Bill pro- 
 posed to turn every room or place, whether used as a 
 dwelling-house or not, where three or more persons were 
 employed, into a " workshop," which was to be visited by 
 inspectors, and subjected to the same regulations as 
 factories, although the three persons employed might be 
 man and wife and child. The measure also proposed to 
 make the employer responsible for the sanitary condition of 
 ever}' house, garret, cellar, or shed where three people were 
 working for that employer, even though the work might 
 have been given out to them by a middleman. The object 
 of this provision was of course to coerce all employers to 
 build workshops and have all work done on their own
 
 282 Interference with Contracts. 
 
 premises. These are the notions of our modern poHticians 
 with regard to the hberty of the subject ; these the methods 
 by which they propose to enlarge the freedom of the people ! 
 Mr. Buxton is a Radical; Lord Dunraven is a Conservative; 
 but both appear to be equally bent upon restricting the 
 liberty and damaging the property of the British citizen. 
 Lord Dunraven's action is prompted by a belief that "legisla- 
 tion with a view to the amelioration of the people suffering 
 under the Sweating System is urgently needed ; " but what he 
 fails to realise, and has certainly failed to prove, is that the 
 amelioration desired can be effected by legislation. Mr. 
 Sydney Buxton, not content with introducing the measure 
 already referred to, proposed during the same Session this 
 resolution: "That in the opinion of this House it is the duty 
 of the Government in all Government contracts to make 
 provision against the evils which have recently been dis- 
 closed before the House of Lords Sweating Committee, and 
 to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuses arising 
 from sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the 
 payment of the rate of wages generally accepted as correct 
 for a competent workman in his trade." Strange to say the 
 Government (a Conservative Government) and the House of 
 Commons (mainly composed of men of education and 
 wealth) accepted this resolution, and the fact that they did 
 accept it is alone sufficient to prove either their utter incom- 
 petence to deal properly with economical questions, or their 
 utter indifference to the vital issues at stake when such 
 questions are handled. If they had learned but the mere 
 A B C of economics they would know that it is a perilous 
 and a fatal device for Parliament to violently interfere with 
 the security of accumulations and the freedom of contracts 
 and exchanges. 
 
 During the same Session of 1891 a Royal Commission 
 was appointed by the Government to inquire into the rela- 
 tions between Capital and Labour. Upon the work of this 
 Commission very great expectations are being built in certain 
 quarters ; indeed its appointment is regarded as marking the
 
 Tory Democracy . 283 
 
 openin<^ of a new epoch in the relations between Labour and 
 Capital. Those expectations are probably destined to prove 
 illusory. No doubt the Commission may do some good ; but 
 it is equally certain that it may do infinitely more harm. If 
 inquiry alone were the object in view, that is, if the Govern- 
 ment would be content to elicit the facts impartially and 
 exhaustivel}^ and then leave the public to judge of the matter 
 for itself, without forcing on any special legislation upon the 
 subject, the result could scarcely be other than good and to the 
 advantage of capital and commerce — and therefore of labour. 
 But will the Government be content with a mere investigation 
 of this kind ? It is doubtful. It is practically certain that 
 when the Commission has issued its Report there will be a 
 demand for legislation thereon, not only from the Labour 
 Party, but from the " Progressive Conservatives," some of 
 whom bid fair to out-Radical the Radicals and out-Socialist 
 the Socialists. As already indicated, there are obvious and 
 ominous signs that a Conservative Labour Party is about to. 
 emerge into being, and for this we have no doubt mainly to 
 thank Lord Randolph Churchill, whose influence upon our 
 politics from beginning to end has been of a distinctly 
 mischievous character. He has influenced such men as Sir 
 John Gorst, Sir Albert Rollitt, Mr. Bartley, and other Con- 
 servative M.P.'s, who are striving to emulate him in his 
 worship of the Democracy. A Radical Democracy is bad 
 enough ; but a Tory Democracy is, if possible, even worse. 
 Radical Democracy and Tory Democracy are now engaged 
 in the congenial task of outbidding each other for the votes 
 of the working classes. Between the two both the liberty of 
 the citizen and the property of the capitalist are in exceeding 
 great danger of finding themselves annihilated. It is rapidly 
 coming to this — that those among us who still retain the 
 old English love of freedom, and who believe in the inviola- 
 bility of the rights of property, will have to make a firm 
 stand against the designing agitators, the political popularity 
 hunters, and the unprincipled vote-mongers who are rapidly 
 dragging our grand old country down to the level of the
 
 284 " Wild Ideas:' 
 
 American Republic. Those members of the Conservative 
 and Liberal Unionist parties who have not yet been infected 
 by the prevalent Socialistic mania, especially those of them 
 ■who are in Parliament, may render a signal service to their 
 country by saving it from the cataclysm by which it is now 
 threatened. If things go on as they are now going the day 
 is not far distant when every citizen who possesses property 
 will thank God that we have a House of Lords which is not 
 dependent upon popular favour. 
 
 The Labour Commission has been made a vehicle for the 
 publication of what the Duke of Argyll calls the "wild ideas" 
 ■of professional agitators. Much of the " evidence " which 
 has been presented before the Commission has been of such 
 a nature as to turn the proceedings into something like a 
 burlesque. Such witnesses as Ben Tillett, Henry Quelch, 
 Tom Mann, and Tom M'Carthy have simply poured into 
 the ears of the Commissioners a stream of Socialistic 
 twaddle. For facts one looks in vain from these men ; 
 ■opinions are there'in wild profusion. Tillett told the Com- 
 mission that the docks should be municipalized and placed 
 "absolutely under popular control" ; that "the State should 
 co-operate with the local bodies to erect municipal work- 
 shops to provide employment for all desirous of obtaining it, 
 to provide technical education for youths and also for men 
 if they wished it " ; and further that " the State should 
 provide them also with all the necessaries of life providing 
 they worked " — and so on. In answer to Lord Derby, 
 Tillett said that the State ought ultimately to be the 
 universal employer. And this is the sort of stuff which is 
 called " evidence," and which such men as the Duke of 
 Devonshire, Lord Derby, and Mr. Courtney are compelled 
 to listen to. Mr. Quelch, being asked by Mr. Collings if he 
 called it liberty for a number of men to combine to keep 
 others out of work, replied that he did not call it liberty, but 
 " he believed men had a right to combine to keep out those 
 who would not work in harmony with them." Mr. Falvey, 
 a corn porter, thought that labour-saving machinery ought
 
 Encouraging Socialistic Loquacity. 285 
 
 to be " very heavily taxed " in proportion to tiie amount of 
 labour saved. These are merely specimens of the " wild 
 ideas" which have been aired before the Commission, and 
 which have thus acquired a publicity which they could 
 never have otherwise obtained. 
 
 The Labour Commissioners made a grand mistake when 
 they threw their meetings open to the public and decided 
 that the proceedings should be published from day to day. 
 This was a direct encouragement to loquacious persons of 
 the agitator type to preach Socialism before the Commis- 
 sion. These people do not care how much time they waste 
 or how far they succeed in bringing the Commission into 
 contempt if only they can get a good paying advertisement. 
 It is not the function of a Royal Commission to collect and 
 record opinions, but to collect and record facts. This 
 seems to have been too much lost sight of by the Labour 
 Commission. The Duke of Devonshire, the President, has 
 stated that he intends, as fas as his influence goes, to make 
 the Commission useful, and no doubt he means this ; but 
 notwithstanding the good intentions of the President and 
 some of his colleagues it is in the highest degree improbable 
 that the Commission will play any important part in re- 
 adjusting the relations between Capital and Labour.* 
 When the Sweating Commission was appointed great things 
 
 * The Duke of Devonshire (then the Marquis of Hartington) said on 
 June 24, 1891 : '' I hold that the appointment of that Commission, constituted 
 as it is, impHes a pledge and involves an obligation. It can scarcely be 
 that such an inquiry as we have undertaken by a Commission, composed of 
 men representing such various interests as those who constitute this Com- 
 mission, could fail to discover some evils to be redressed, some remedies to be 
 applied, and I firmly believe that it is with the intention of discovering those 
 evils, and if possible arriving at those remedies, that the Commission has been 
 appointed. It is quite possible that the remedies suggested and the conclu- 
 sions arrived at by the Commission may not be the wisest, and when this 
 inquiry is finished it is the honest and the settled determination of the 
 Government to apply, as far as Parliament can apply, the remedy for the 
 evils that may be disclosed and to cure the grievances which may be found to 
 exist." This seems to point definitely to legislation as the result of the Com- 
 mission, though it is evident from the qualified language of the Duke ("as 
 far as Parliament can apply") that he well knows that the power of Par- 
 liament in such a matter is exceedingly limited.
 
 286 All Impossible Task. 
 
 were expected from it. Nevertheless, it has done practically 
 nothing, and nobody can say whether it ought to have done 
 anything, or, if it ought to have done anything, what it 
 ought to have done ; and just so will it be with the Labour 
 Commission. The relations between Capital and Labour 
 are of such magnitude and such complexity, and they touch 
 vital interests at so many points, that it is a matter of the 
 utmost difficulty to clearly understand them, and a danger 
 of the gravest kmd to rashly interfere with them. The 
 essential elements in the case are utterly unsuited for 
 Parliamentary treatment ; any recommendations which the 
 Commission may make to Parliament are likely to be of a 
 very vague character ; and any attempt which Parliament 
 may make to carry out those recommendations will almost 
 certainly end in making matters worse than they were 
 before. The Commission will accumulate in its Reports a 
 vast mass of miscellaneous information and opinions, and 
 that is about all it will or can do. Even this is much, if 
 politicians would only be content to think so, and the infor- 
 mation thus acquired and tabulated will be worth all the 
 labour and expense of the Commission apart from legislation- 
 altogether. As regards any practical usefulness, beyond 
 informing and educating the countr}- upon these questions, 
 the Commission will leave matters virtually as they were 
 before. The Government, and the Commissioners as a 
 bodv, may be actuated by the best intentions, but if they 
 aim to bring Capital and Labour into harmony, by Act of 
 Parliament the task which they have undertaken is an 
 impossible one. 
 
 The constitution of the Commission has been a good 
 deal criticised from different standpoints. The Labour part}' 
 contend that their side of the case is not sufficiently repre- 
 sented, and that capital is over represented. People of this 
 class were grievously offended because Michael Davitt was 
 not placed on the Commission, but even a Government 
 which desired to conciliate the turbulent working-class 
 element drew the line at the ex-convict. Yet it is difficult
 
 A Pestilent Class. 287 
 
 to see what better claim such men as Tom Mann and Henry 
 Tait have to sit on the Commission than Michael Davitt. 
 His opinions and aims are not one whit more dangerous 
 than theirs. It is true the}' have not been convicted of 
 treason-felony ; it is equall}' true that they have been 
 associated with strikes which have been marked by violence 
 and crime. Mann is nothing more nor less than a Socialistic 
 demagogue. He has taken part in nearly all the Socialistic 
 movements which have occurred in the United Kingdom 
 during the last ten years, and he has sedulously endeavoured 
 to instil into the minds of working men ideas of the most 
 malignant and poisonous nature. It would be difficult to 
 point to any part of this agitator's public work and say — 
 " There he did good." Nevertheless he is promoted to a 
 seat upon the Royal Commission on Labour, where he is 
 supposed to represent the true interests of the working 
 classes. His presence on the Commission at all events 
 proves one thing, and that is that the profession of agitator 
 and demagogue is in these times a sure and easy way to a 
 certain sort of eminence. The Government have not done 
 wisely in thus stimulating the ambitions of a very undesirable 
 and pestilent class of men. It was, of course, but simple 
 justice that labour should be well represented on the Com- 
 mission, but why did not the Government select genuine 
 labourers for the work, men who would have come straight 
 from the factory, the ironworks, and the plough, and who 
 would have been independent of Trade Union influences ? 
 There are hundreds of such men in the country who are 
 honestly and quietly earning their livelihood, and who are 
 using their influence, not to create industrial envy or strife, 
 but to promote peace and goodwill between employers and 
 employed. Some of these men have ten times more real 
 ability to represent labour than the noisy demagogues who have 
 been placed on this Commission, and yet they are entirely 
 passed over. Our rulers seem anxious to teach working 
 men that they can only be honoured in proportion as they 
 make themselves a nuisance and a danger to society. This 
 
 V
 
 288 Nairowness of " Labour Leaders.^'' 
 
 is not a lesson which wise governors would be anxious to 
 teach. 
 
 When the Commission was appointed it was subjected to 
 severe criticism at the hands of some of the so-called labour 
 leaders which admirably illustrates the narrowness which is 
 one of their most prominent characteristics. John Burns 
 thought the selection of the Duke of Devonshire as Chair- 
 man " singularly unfortunate," as the Duke had " hitherto 
 been regarded as a man destitute of all knowledge of social, 
 economic, and political questions affecting the labouring 
 classes ; " whilst the Earl of Derby " had not the knowledge 
 of economical and industrial questions with w^hich he was 
 commonl}- credited." Of course Mr. Burns thought that 
 there ought to have been " one or two Socialists of the 
 militant type" on the Commission, and it is perhaps not 
 difficult to divine who he had in his mind when he made 
 that remark. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said, on April 14, 
 1891 : " If I had the editing of a labour paper I would on 
 Friday have got one of the sharpest-tongued and razor- 
 edged sentence writers that I could pick up in Fleet Street, 
 and got him to give shape to my opinions, and to have 
 riddled and ridiculed this Commission, at any rate in its 
 character of being anything like a complete representation 
 of the cause of labour." Mr. Pickard, M.P., spoke in a 
 similar strain. The idea which underlies all these criticisms 
 is that such men as the Duke of Devonshire and Lord 
 Derby, because they are landlords, and such men as Sir 
 W. T. Lewis and Sir Edward Harland and Mr. George 
 Livesey, because they are large employers of labour, must 
 necessarily be actuated by hostility towards the working 
 classes. They are deliberately represented as men not to 
 be trusted where the interests of labour are concerned. Yet 
 there is not one of these men, nor one of their colleagues of 
 their own class in life on the Commission, who has not done 
 ten times more for the true interests of labour than the men 
 who pass upon them these petty and spiteful strictures. But 
 it is part of the game of all " labour leaders" to represent
 
 Fault of the Labour Commission. 289 
 
 landlords and capitalists as ogres who prey upon the very 
 life-blood of the working classes, and to stir up odium 
 against them. This is the chief portion of the agitator's 
 stock in trade.* 
 
 The chief fault of the Labour Commission seems to be 
 that it has, to a large extent, lost sight of the terms of the 
 reference under which it was appointed, by which it was 
 instructed "to enquire into the questions affecting the rela- 
 " tions between employer and employed, the combinations 
 " between employer and employed, and the conditions of 
 " labour which have been raised during the recent trade 
 " disputes in the United Kingdom ; and to report whether 
 " legislation can, with advantage, be directed to the remedy 
 "of any evils that may be disclosed; and, if so, in what 
 " manner." But the Commission has shown a marked 
 indisposition to enquire very closely into the causes of 
 recent strikes and lock-outs, and still less into the means 
 
 * Months after the above portion of this chapter was written, a Special 
 Correspondent of the Times said, on January 7, 1S93, speaking of the Labour 
 Commission: "The reports of its proceedings have ahnost ceased to attract* 
 public attention, and it is doubtful whether men expect any fruit, other than 
 the plentiful harvest of Blue-books, from its deliberations. . . . Witnesses 
 come and witnesses go, complaining sometimes of grievances that are dead 
 and gone, giving a great deal of irrelevant evidence, indulging in a vast 
 amount of mutual recrimination, ventilating many crude schemes of munici- 
 palization, of conciliation, and so forth. . . . It is inquiring into the 
 relation between employer and employed everywhere, on the Continent — at 
 the Hague, for example — and in America ; it is compiling a precis of an 
 immense amount of literature ; it is collecting information which may be 
 useful and interesting some day to the student, but it is giving too much 
 freedom to its witnesses, it lacks the practical spirit, it is not sufficiently 
 careful of the present, and the world is moving onv^ards." The Times itself 
 said, in a leader on December 15, 1S91, a few months after the Commission 
 was appointed : " At first blush the Commission seems to be likely to be 
 barren in results. It will add many more volumes to the pile reared by the 
 Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade ; mountains of sand in which 
 the student painfully digs to find scattered grains of wisdom. Some of the 
 necessary conditions of the inquiry are unfavourable, many of the witnesses 
 are really advocates, not the less such because free from the restraints binding 
 professional advocates. Others are experts, with all the proverbial infirmities 
 of such witnesses ; some members of the Commission have, as their questions 
 show, if we did not know it otherwise, pronounced opinions on the matters 
 under investigation ; and there is a danger that there will get on the notes not 
 a few facts which are not facts, figures not the result of actual counting, and 
 crude theories extemporized for controversial purposes."
 
 2go The Precedent of 1S67. 
 
 and methods of those who have promoted these strikes ; in 
 other words it has exhibited too great a tenderness towards 
 the susceptibihties of the leaders of the " New Unionism," 
 The Commission would do well to imitate the example of 
 the Labour Commission of 1867, which was appointed to 
 enquire into the " rattening " practices of the infamous 
 Broadhead and his coadjutors at Sheffield. A sub-Com- 
 mission was sent to Sheffield, and was empowered to grant 
 a full indemnity to all workmen who should give such 
 evidence as to implicate themselves in an}- criminal pro- 
 ceedings, and the result was that they elicited some remark- 
 able and instructive facts as to the operations of the Trade 
 Unionists. In the course of this work it has been made 
 abundantl}' clear that the " New Trade Unionists " have 
 resorted to violent and illegal methods for the purpose of 
 injuring the property of employers on the one hand and of 
 depriving the workmen of freedom of choice as regards their 
 labour on the other hand. It is at these points that close 
 and searching inquiry is necessary ; if they are shirked the 
 Commission will be little better than an elaborate and 
 solemn farce. So far this part of the subject, which is the 
 most vital and essential of all, has, to sa}^ the least, received 
 but scanty attention. There has been a pronounced' ten- 
 dency to make the Trade Unions and their officials the 
 channels through which the Commission receives its in- 
 formation, whilst employers and workmen who are opposed 
 to Trade Unions, and who have been injured by them, have 
 been far too much ignored. Paid agitators, Trade Union 
 officials, fussy faddists, and self-seeking politicians, find no 
 difficulty in getting before the Commission, as their expenses 
 are paid, and the path is made easy and pleasant for them all 
 along; but the poor fellows who cannot afford to lose their 
 work to hang about a Committee room in London, because 
 it means semi-starvation, are practically without any voice in 
 the matter. Why have not sub-Commissions been sent to 
 Southampton, to Cardiff, to Edinburgh, and Glasgow, with 
 full instructions to enquire into the Dock and Railway
 
 Trade Unionists and the Commission. 291 
 
 Strikes which have taken place in those districts ? Why 
 has not a special inquiry been made in the East end of 
 London with regard to the Dock Strike ? Such inquiries 
 as these, made on the spot, and continued week after week 
 until the evidence is complete, w^ould be simply invaluable, 
 as they would dig out the facts which are now buried and 
 make them available for use. If the evidence taken by the 
 Commission, and the Report which it may make thereon, 
 are to command the respect and confidence of the general 
 public, representation and effect must be given to the views 
 of the gas-stokers, the dock labourers, and the railway men 
 who were driven from their work in London, Leeds, Liver- 
 pool, Salford, Southampton, and other places by the violence 
 and the intimidation of the " New Unionists," or who lost 
 their occupations in those places through blindly following 
 the advice of Unionist leaders who afterwards left them in 
 the lurch. These are the men whose evidence and experience 
 would be of inestimable value. But, then, these poor fellows 
 are now scattered all over the country, tramping about in 
 search of work, and therefore they are not in a position to 
 come forward and offer their evidence. They ought to be 
 sought out by such sub- Commissions as have been referred 
 to. If the Labour Commission is unfaithful to the terms of 
 its reference as regards a searching scrutiny into the real 
 causes of recent labour difficulties a suspicion will be created 
 that its action in this respect is dictated by a desire to make 
 things as pleasant as posssible for the Trade Unionists, and 
 such suspicion will beget a distrust, which will be reasonable 
 and well grounded, with regard to the whole of its pro- 
 ceedings. It is a significant fact that the appointment of 
 the Labour Commission was not cordially welcomed by the 
 Trade Unionists, although they are always clamouring for 
 the investigation and redress of grievances which they allege 
 to exist in connection with labour. It is not surprising that 
 this should be the attitude of Trade Unionists when the 
 revelations made before the Commission of 1867 are called 
 to mind. What is called the " New Trade Unionism " is as
 
 2g2 The Shrine of Demos. 
 
 much like the Trade Unionism of Broadhead & Co. as one 
 pea is to another. If the present Commission does its dut}' 
 as fearlessly and as thoroughly as the Commission of 1867 
 did its duty, and brings the nefarious operations of the 
 "New Trade Unionism " into the clear light of day, it will 
 be seen that the Trade Unionists had excellent reasons for 
 not hailing the appointment of a Labour Commission with 
 acclamation. There is this difference, however, between 
 the Labour Commission of 1867 and that of 1891 ; political 
 power had not then been transferred from the hands of the in- 
 telligent and propertied classes into the hands of the ignorant 
 and impecunious classes ; now this has been done, with the 
 result that the government and the fortunes of the country 
 are at the mercy of those who least understand government 
 and who have least to lose through unwise legislation. It 
 may be taken for granted that the Labour Commission, like 
 other public and political bodies, w411 feel itself called upon 
 to pay homage at the Shrine of Demos. 
 
 On the whole it would be well for those who are seriously 
 interested in the relations between Capital and Labour, 
 and who desire to see these relations re-adjusted upon a 
 thoroughly equitable basis, not to expect much practical 
 assistance either from the Labour Commission or from Par- 
 liament. If they do expect much they are doomed to bitter 
 disappointment. Parliament and politicians do not possess 
 the secret of regenerating humanity ; and it is only out of 
 such regeneration that the ideal relations between Capital 
 and Labour can be evolved.* 
 
 * Just as this is being written it is announced that Mr. Gladstone's 
 Government have resolved to form a new Labour Department. This, how- 
 ever, turns out to be merely an expansion of the Labour Bureau which has 
 been in existence for some years. A new office, that of Commissioner for 
 Labour, has been created, and Mr. Llewellyn Smith has been appointed to the 
 post. There is to be a newspaper in connection with the department, which 
 is to collect current information about labour and trade. This extension of 
 the functions of the Labour Bureau will no doubt make it more efficient as an 
 intelligence department, and will therefore increase its educational influence. 
 To this extent the new departure may produce good results. But to expect 
 anything further than this is merely to court disappointment. Such a depart- 
 ment cannot, in the nature of things, do much to change the fundamental 
 conditions which determine the relations of Capital and Labour.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 On the Demand for an Eight Hours Day, and on the 
 Shortening of the Hours of Labour Generally. 
 
 ONE of the legal solutions which it is proposed to apply 
 to the labour problem is the enactment of an Eight 
 Hours day for all who work. Those who advocate and 
 demand such a law represent that it would prove almost a 
 panacea for all the ills under which labour groans. Its 
 effect is to be magical. Once we get this law, the unem- 
 ployed are to cease out of the land ; although there is to be 
 less work, that is, less production, there is at the same time 
 to be more wealth ; and every class of the community is to 
 have its condition improved simply because those who have 
 to work will do less work than they ever did before. How 
 all this is to come about we are not told. Our Socialistic 
 " reformers " are great adepts at using grandiloquent 
 language, and vague and glittering generalities form the 
 principal part of their stock in trade. They do not con- 
 descend to details ; they are too cunning for that ; for they 
 know that once they got down to details everybody would 
 perceive that their schemes are too flimsy and absurd to 
 admit of sensible men spending a moment's thought upon 
 them. Not one of them has yet deigned to inform a waiting 
 and a wondering world what the Eight Hours day really 
 means, what it involves, and what it excludes. As regards 
 the individual workman, would he be allowed to work 
 exactly eight hours a day at his trade, no more and no less, 
 and would the working of overtime be made a penal 
 offence ? If he would not be allowed to work longer at his
 
 294 Questions Evaded. 
 
 own trade, would he be allowed to work at any other occu- 
 pation, say at cultivating his own garden or attending to 
 some business which he carried on independently of his 
 occupation as a workman ? Mr. Herbert Gladstone asked 
 some such question as this during the examination of a 
 witness before the Committee on the Hours of Railway 
 Servants, but it is not recorded that he received any satis- 
 factory answer. With regard to wages, would the workman 
 under an Eight Hours law receive the same wages as he 
 receives now, or would he receive less wages, or more ? 
 And how would the employer be affected by an Eight Hours 
 law ? Would he be permitted, where it was practicable, 
 say in a cotton or a woollen factory, or in a flour mill or a 
 machine shop, to run his establishment during the whole 
 twenty-four hours, having three separate sets of workmen, 
 working eight hours each at exactly the same rate per hour 
 as he pays his men now ? If so, it is obvious that the 
 employer w^ould, if anything, be in a better position than he 
 is in now, since he would run his factory every hour of the 
 day and night, except Sunday, without paying any more 
 wages proportionately than he now pays ; while, at the same 
 time a larger number of men could be employed ; though, of 
 course, if all our factories and workshops were to work more 
 than double the time that they are now working it would 
 lead to an immense increase in production and a glut in the 
 market, and therefore ultimately to a fall in prices and a 
 reduction in wages. 
 
 These questions are asked only by way of illustrating the 
 utter confusion in which the whole subject is left by the 
 wonderful gentlemen who tell us that all wealth is the result 
 of labour, and then tell us in the next breath that the surest 
 way to get more wealth is to have less labour. Nevertheless, 
 the aims of the advocates of an Eight Hours day, although 
 they are not clearly and definitely expressed in plain 
 language, are obvious enough to those who can look 
 underneath the surface. Their first object is to throw dust 
 in the eyes of the public and to lead them off on false issues.
 
 Ulterior Aims. 295 
 
 so that they may thereby gain something which would never 
 be accorded to them if their real aims were manifest. 
 What they are actually working for is to gain an increase of 
 wages by underhand methods. They wish to earn more 
 money and at the same time to do less work. They would 
 not be content even to take for forty-eight hours' work the 
 money which is now paid to them for fifty-six hours' work. 
 This point was brought out clearly by the deputation which 
 waited upon Mr. John Morley at Newcastle on August 21, 
 1892. A Mr. John Scott stated on that occasion that the 
 application of the Eight Hours system would make labour 
 more scarce and therefore increase wages. Mr. Morley, 
 who was anxious to convince the deputation that Parlia- 
 mentary interference with the hours of labour also involved 
 interference with the wages of labour, asked : " But by an 
 Eight Hours Bill you do expect a rise in wages ? " Mr. 
 Scott's answer was : " Most undoubtedly." Mr. Morley 
 rejoined : " Therefore, one of your motives I may take it, for 
 arguing for an Eight Hours Bill is the expectation that it 
 would be a wages Bill as well as an hours Bill, indirectly ? " 
 The truth of this was admitted.* 
 
 Under an Eight Hours law overtime would of course 
 commence as soon as the eight hours period was up, and as 
 overtime is paid at higher rates than ordinary time a man who 
 worked ten, eleven, or twelve hours would earn considerably 
 more than he would by working the same number of hours 
 
 * Further light was thrown by this same deputation upon the ulterior 
 objects of the advocates of an Eight Hours law. Mr. Robert Scott stated 
 that one of their aims was to get at " the large sum the idle rich appro- 
 priated." A Mr. Barber said : " The working classes simply ask for the same 
 protection for their labour, which was their only wealth, as the land-owning 
 and capitalistic classes at present had in the numerous Acts of Parliament by 
 which their interests were sustained." Mr. John Scott stated that the Eight 
 Hours law was required to enable them to carry on "a war with their 
 ■employers," and to keep a grip on what they had " on some previous occasions 
 wrested from their employers." Mr. Morley said; " I listened with very great 
 sympatliy, as far as its spirit goes, and its sentiment goes, to the speech of Mr. 
 Scott, and I have listened with sympathy to all your speeches, except perhaps 
 Mr. Hill's." Surely it is an ominous fact that a Cabinet Minister of Mr. John 
 Morley's eminence should have apparently sanctioned the principle of appro- 
 priating the money of " the idle rich," and of dividing it among working men.
 
 296 Conspiracy Law and Eight Hours. 
 
 at present, although his work would be worth no more than 
 it is now to his master. Consequently, the master, if he 
 employed several hundred men, would have to pay something 
 like ;£'ioo per week (in many cases ;^20o or £300 a week) in 
 additional wages, although he would get no additional labour 
 for it ; in other words this money, paid for what would then 
 be overtime, would be taken by law out of the employer's 
 pocket and no equivalent would be rendered to him. Pro- 
 fessor Case has clearly shown that the demand for an Eight 
 Hours day is inseparably connected with the demand of the 
 Trade Unionists for an amendment of the Conspiracy Law. 
 He points out that if the Law of Conspiracy were amended 
 in the sense desired by Trade Unionists the law would be 
 too weak to protect the freedom of labour; that combinations 
 of Trade Unionists would be able to obtain a monopoly of 
 employment in every district and in almost every business 
 establishment ; and that nobody outside the combination 
 would dare to apply for employment, or, that if he did apply, 
 no employer would dare to engage him. Professor Case fur- 
 ther shows that as long as the Conspiracy Law is able to 
 effectually protect the freedom of employment hours cannot 
 be shortened without ultimately diminishing wages, inas- 
 much as more hands would be required, which would increase 
 the cost of production, and thus raise prices. A rise in prices 
 would lead to a contraction of the demand, and then prices 
 would have to fall again." Thereupon in a state of free labour 
 wages as well as profits would be diminished, with the result 
 that more men would be employed for shorter hours at less 
 wages. This is not what Trade Unionists want ; they want 
 shorter hours with the same, or higher wages. But now, 
 suppose they could first weaken the Conspiracy Law so as 
 to obtain monopoly of employment. Why, then, if the 
 hours of work were also shortened, the same effects would 
 follow, except the last. On the ultimate fall of prices to the 
 level of demand, instead of sharing the loss between wages 
 and profits, as they could not help doing in a condition of 
 free labour, they would now, as monopolists of employment
 
 Monopolists of Employment. 297 
 
 under a weak Conspiracy Law, defy the employer either to 
 engage other workmen or to reduce their own wages, if he 
 is to get any work done at all. Hence an employer would 
 have to maintain high wages of more men at shorter hours, 
 and suffer the whole loss entailed by high cost of production 
 at low prices out of his own pocket. When we consider 
 the objects of Trade Unionists together we cannot avoid, 
 nor could the}- prevent, the sequences that to weaken the 
 Conspiracy Law would be to deter competition for employ- 
 ment ; which would give a monopoly of employment to 
 combinations of Trade Unionists; which would enable them 
 to shorten hours without diminishing wages ; which would 
 require more workmen at the same wages from Trade 
 Unions ; which would raise the cost of production all round, 
 not demand, nor permanent prices ; which would, without 
 affecting the wages of the monopolists of employment, 
 diminish the profits of the employer. So long as the 
 monopoly of employment could be maintained under a weak 
 Conspirac}' Law, the monopolists could even go on raising 
 their wages until the}' had absorbed the remaining profits. 
 Thereupon, workmen would have become practical owners. 
 Meanv.'hile, not all the profits would have remained — the 
 greater part of realizable capital would have gradually and 
 imperceptibly been diffusing itself over more profitable parts, 
 of the globe. Hence the Trade Union monopolists would 
 have to some extent enriched themselves and become small 
 capitalists, and this is perhaps enough for them ; but the 
 great majority of workmen would be worse off than before 
 and the country would have lost capital.* 
 
 It is often represented that Trade I'nionists wish to 
 abolish overtime; but this is in the main an utterly fallacious 
 
 * Professor Case, letter to the I'/ww, Sept. 24, 1891. The Professor adds : 
 " Freedom of ownership, of employment, of contract, must, one would think, 
 command a \-ast majority in all classes, high and low, against a minority — a 
 million or two of workmen, as the Trade Unionists themselves confess they 
 are, unjustly attem.pting to create for itself an artificial monopoly of employ- 
 ment, if not of ownership. Nevertheless, an effort is needed, for elections are 
 apt to be turned by a solid minority pursuing a definite end between opposite 
 parties."
 
 298 Overtime Desired. 
 
 idea. Whatever Union officials and platform agitators may 
 say the bulk of the working men will insist upon working 
 overtime w^hen they have the opportunity. It is not un- 
 common for artisans, even when they are members of the 
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers, to leave one workshop 
 for another, not because they are going to be paid higher 
 wages or work shorter hours, but because they will be 
 allowed systematically to work overtime. A short time ago 
 a number of men employed on one of our principal railways 
 struck for a reduction of hours. Their demands were 
 granted, and the hours of work reduced. A few weeks later 
 the same men struck again because the manager refused to 
 give them enough overtime employment ; that is to sa}- they 
 virtually struck for longer hours. What they were after all 
 the time was not actually shorter hours but increased wages 
 for about the same time as they had worked formerly. This 
 is a typical instance, and it shows that the movement for 
 shorter hours is really used only to mask a demand for 
 increased wages.* Let the Trade Unions who are now 
 
 * On Aug. 22, 1892, a deputation of workmen from the Cambrian Naviga- 
 tion Collieries waited upon Mr. D. A. Thomas, M.P., managing partner of 
 the Company, and requested him to abandon the eight hours bank to bank 
 system. Mr. Thomas promised to return to the old hours, and stated that 
 the new system had been more costly to the Company and that it was im- 
 practicable in the South Wales Steam Coal Collieries. 
 
 Mr. R. G. Hall, managing director of the London General Omnibus Com- 
 pany, stated on Aug. 27, 1892, that the men had " inundated the Company 
 with petitions praying to be allowed to work the full time," and at last " came 
 by deputation to this office." Mr. B. O. Hillyard stated in the Times of 
 Aug. 19, 1892, that most of the London omnibus drivers were dissatisfied 
 because they were not allowed to work the full hours and earn the extra 
 shilling per day, and that they felt they had been harshly dealt with by the 
 Company in this matter owing to the intervention of the Union. 
 
 Mr. W. Kingham, secretary of the London General Omnibus Company, 
 stated in his evidence before the Labour Commission on May 5, 1892, that : 
 " Since the establishment of a twelve hours day a very large proportion of the 
 men had petitioned the Company to let them go back to the long hours on 
 condition of increased pay," and that " a good many of the drivers had re- 
 signed and gone into the employ of private omnibus proprietors where they 
 
 got higher wages and worked longer hours If the hours were 
 
 reduced to eight per day the Company would either have to lower the wages 
 or make the public pay higher fares." 
 
 Mr. H. A. Jones, secretary of the London Omnibus Carriage Co., stated 
 that since the strike 90 per cent, of the men had memorialized the Company 
 to let them go back to the old hours and get one shilling extra per day.
 
 The Root of the Evil. 299 
 
 agitating for an Eight Hours law say distinctly that they 
 wish to be paid under the Eight Hours law at the same rate 
 per hour as they are paid now ; that they wish all overtime 
 to be abolished ; and that they think it right for the manu- 
 facturer to run his works for sixteen or twenty-fours hours 
 per day as he may see fit, using the men in day and night 
 shifts, and then the public will believe that the Eight Hours 
 movement is what it professes to be, namely, a scheme for 
 giving employment to more men and not an attempt to 
 secure an increase of wages for the men who are employed 
 already. No doubt there are people among us, amounting 
 in the aggregate to a considerable number, who actually 
 desire to shorten the hours of labour to eight hours per day; 
 but they are in the main Socialists. 
 
 When we look deeply enough into this demand that the 
 labour day should be restricted to eight hours we have these 
 two fundamental facts at the bottom of it — first, that the 
 people who make this demand (to put it mildly) have no 
 relish for labour ; and secondly, that they are dominated by 
 an utter misconception of the true nature of labour. When 
 Darwin was in South America he asked two unemployed 
 cowboys why they did not work. One of them said he was 
 too poor and the other that the days were too long. It is a 
 pity that Darwin did not make this the germ of an Essay on 
 " The Ingenuity of Idleness." A man in whom laziness is 
 inbred will never have any difficulty in finding reasons why 
 he should not work. The distaste for hard work which is 
 gradually taking possession of so many of those who call 
 themselves "the working classes" is one of the most melan- 
 choly features of our times. When the writer was in Ireland 
 he met a shrewd old farmer who had accumulated a pretty 
 good fortune and whose one trouble was that his sons would 
 never get up till twelve o'clock at noon. The Irish peasant 
 farmers as a class never think of getting up at four, five, or 
 six o'clock as our English farmers do, and putting in two or 
 three hours' work before breakfast. They are seldom out 
 before eight or nine in the morning, and this lack of industry
 
 300 ''At Work:' 
 
 and application is far more to blame for the condition of 
 these people than the alle^e^ed exactions of their landlords. 
 It is related of the late Mr. Herbert, of Muckross, that he 
 visited a number of his tenants rather early one morning 
 and found that they were all in bed, and that he afterwards 
 sent them a night-cap apiece. A gentleman wrote to The 
 Times on Sept. 17, iSgi, to say that he asked a cabman who 
 had regularly driven him to the City every morning for 
 years if he would engage a cab to be at his door at 8. 20 a.m., 
 as a member of his family wished to be at Fenchurch Street 
 Station at nine o'clock. The cabman said he could not carry 
 out the arrangement, and when asked why he said — " Well, 
 jou see, 8.20 is a bit too early to suit most of us." This 
 speaks volumes as to the condition of London cabmen, who 
 are said to be over-driven, oppressed, and trodden underfoot 
 by callous proprietors. No wonder the gentleman who 
 relates the fact should have seriously thought of transferring 
 his son from the high stool in Fenchurch Street to the 
 ■dicky of a hansom cab. Another correspondent in The 
 Times stated that he one day watched for ten minutes four 
 carpenters who were at work upon the roof of an unfinished 
 house. One of them stuck to his work steadily ; the second 
 knocked in three nails, giving three blows to each; the third 
 did somewhat the same ; the fourth did absolutely nothing. 
 He further states that he saw two men at the Natural 
 History Museum, who appeared to be deeply interested in 
 the contents of the cases, and he was delighted to see the 
 British working man employing his leisure in so rational 
 and so intelligent a manner. After a considerable time, 
 however, he discovered that the men were " at work " fixing 
 blinds. He had a similar experience at the British Museum. 
 He states that he once ventured to suggest to a man who 
 was painting his vinery that for a man to sell a day's or an 
 hour's work and then to idle away a part of it was as dis- 
 honest as for a tradesman to sell short weight or short 
 measure. " The workman," he says, " seemed astonished 
 at my effrontery, but otherwise unaffected, so far as I could
 
 Labour a Necessity. 301 
 
 see." This gentleman thinks that " if we can compound for 
 eight hours' work in place of ten hours' dawdling the com- 
 munity would be a gainer indeed, but anyone who hopes for 
 such a consummation must be of a sanguine temperament." 
 This gentleman's experience is not at all singular, as anyone 
 may see who keeps his eyes open. Indeed, at the Eight 
 Hours demonstration which w^as held in Hyde Park one 
 summer Sunday in i8gi several of the leaders explained 
 that when they get the Eight Hours they will agitate for 
 six, and when they get six they will agitate for four or 
 three. Why have they not the courage of their convictions? 
 Let them boldly announce as their programme — ■" The 
 Total Abolition of Work." When that programme w^as 
 adopted, as a sage in the Hyde Park crowd remarked, 
 " work would be a pleasure." 
 
 The misconception which prevails as to the true nature 
 of labour is really at the root of most of our industrial 
 troubles. And this misconception is in its very nature 
 moral. The Creator has ordained that labour shall be the 
 lot of man, and man can no more escape from this necessity 
 than he can elude the law^ of gravitation. Mr. H. M. Stanley 
 said at Swansea on October 3rd, 1892 : " He had been in 
 every continent, and wherever he went the impression be- 
 came more fixed that man should work so that he might 
 eat, and the man who transgressed that law should die. 
 No matter how many labour men they got into Parliament, 
 they would never be able to legislate away the necessity for 
 work. Work must be done for good wages if they could be 
 got, for bad wages if they could not, and the sooner working 
 men understood that the sooner the labour difficulty would 
 be got over." In the same speech Mr. Stanley said that 
 what concerned him more than the depression in trade 
 were the " indifference to work, the lassitude, and the 
 languor which he had seen among the working classes.* He 
 
 Col. Stanley Bird, in his evidence before the Labour Commission on 
 Nov. 22, 1892, said : "A workman did not do half the work now that he 
 formerly did in an hour, notwithstanding the increased wages he received and
 
 302 Labour a Delight 
 
 was told that the Democracy was rising ; it seemed to him 
 that they had the idea that work in a future time would 
 no longer be necessary, but his experience of this world 
 told him that this was wrong." Yet while labour is a neces- 
 sity it is also a delight. He who knows not the joy which 
 springs out of honest labour is no true man. The nature 
 of man is wisely adapted to his environment. The earth 
 will yield him but little unless he bestows upon it diligent 
 toil ; but such toil will be rewarded by abundant harvests. 
 And these harvests will be the least valuable part of the 
 return which the man's labour will bring him ; the greater 
 and more valuable part of the reward of labour will be 
 found in the alertness, the strength, the health, and the 
 discipline and development both of mind and of body which 
 surely accompany it. Labour properly understood is not a 
 curse but a blessing ; it is the sweetener of life, the balm of 
 sorrow, the spring of joy. It is the divinely appointed 
 means by which man wins those external commodities 
 which are necessary to his bodily sustenance ; by which he 
 satisfies his innate love of the beautiful ; by which he 
 nourishes and cultivates his mental faculties ; in a word, 
 by which he greatens all that is noblest in his own nature 
 and mounts God-ward. For God Himself is the greatest 
 Worker in His own universe. 
 
 All good things in excess become evil things. Labour is 
 no exception. Labour in excess is a dreary and monotonous 
 drudgery, out of which all the brightness and sweetness of 
 true and wisely moderated labour have been crushed. A 
 
 the greater purchasing vahie of those wages. The workman did not give his 
 best energies during the hour, and this statement was borne out by every 
 builder in London. Instead of doing a fair hour's work he did as Httle as he 
 could." Mr. Mundella remarked that that was rather a serious allegation. 
 Col. Stanley Bird replied — "Very serious, but I make it with full knowledge 
 of what I say. We get a good deal less work out of the men per hour than 
 we ever did. A bricklayer would formerly lay 1,000 bricks in a working day 
 of 10 hours, but now a man will not lay more than from 300 to 400 in a day 
 of nine hours. The letting of brickwork was now at 90s. per rod instead of 
 from 30s. to 40s., and in the joinery trade from the same cause it cost as much 
 now to produce the work by machinery as when the men had to do the whole 
 of the work by hand."
 
 Excessive Labour. 303 
 
 true labourer is one who finds the keenest enjoyment of Hfe 
 in his labours ; a drudge is one for whom even life itself has 
 scarcely any charm. The surest way to blunt the edge of 
 man's natural sensibilities and appetites is to overburden 
 him with severe toil. That which in moderation is the very 
 zest of life is in excess the curse of existence. But what is 
 excessive labour ? Some people would think two hours of 
 hard work a day excessive ; others would cheerfully work 
 for sixteen hours a day and feel little fatigue. No reasonable 
 man can, looking impartially and dispassionately at the 
 general condition of our working population, say that the 
 bulk of them work too many hours. Socialistic theorists 
 dream of a time when all labour will be practically abolished. 
 Such fanatics must be as blind to the laws of human 
 nature itself as they are to the laws of the universe. The 
 abolition of labour, if it could be accomplished, would turn 
 this world, not into a paradise, but into a purgatory. Some 
 men who are not Socialists, seem to have been brought 
 under the spell of Socialistic teaching with regard to this 
 point. In a very thoughtful little book, written by a 
 Conservative employer who was recently a candidate for 
 Parliament, there are these sentences : " In speaking of 
 leisure I give to the term its widest scope, in which it 
 embraces all the hours not devoted to the labour pursued to 
 earn a livelihood. According to this ideal, leisure, instead 
 merely of a golden hour or two snatched out of the toiling 
 and sleeping, twenty-four, should claim them all with the 
 exception of one or two devoted to labour. . . . The condi- 
 tion of the civilized working classes of the future, as fondly 
 sketched in them (that is, in modern theories), whilst 
 exempting youth and age from all labour, shall impose upon 
 the adults only a mere modicum of it, and enable them 
 to devote the greater portion of their time to ennobling pur- 
 suits." The late William Hoyle estimated that the total 
 amount of labour needed to provide for the wants of a 
 human being would be as follows : " Food, half an hour's 
 labour daily ; clothing, fifteen minutes daily ; houses, &c., 
 w
 
 304 Ideal Leisure. 
 
 half an hour's labour ; " that is an hour and a quarter's 
 labour per day all told. The estimate proceeds upon the 
 assumption that ever}- member of the community will do his 
 or her share towards producing food, clothing, and dwellings. 
 Such an assumption vitiates the entire proposition and 
 makes it little better than farcical. There has never been a 
 civilized community in which every man and woman did his 
 or her share towards producing the things mentioned ; and 
 there never will be such a community. One of the distinc- 
 tive marks of a civilized society, which perhaps more than 
 anything else differentiates and distinguishes it from a 
 barbarous community, is that it possesses a large number of 
 what political economists call "• unproductive labourers," 
 that is, of people who, instead of growing food, spinning 
 clothing, or building houses, are engaged in ministering to 
 the higher needs of civilized man. Clergymen, law3'ers, 
 doctors, artists, musicians, authors, actors and such like 
 persons are not in the conventional sense productive 
 abourers, that is to say, their labour is not bestowed upon 
 producing wealth in the shape of provisions, clothing, 
 machinery, &c. Nevertheless, they perform functions 
 which are in the highest degree important, and they 
 minister to the needs and to the enjoyment of civilised 
 society in ways which make them simply invaluable. Most 
 of the fault which is found by Socialistic and semi-Socialistic 
 " reformers " with the existing condition of things relates, 
 not to the production of wealth, but to its distribution. The 
 mere production of food is a simple matter ; the distribution 
 of it would be almost as simple in a community where all 
 the members were manual labourers and nothing more. In 
 a barbarous society all might be in the strict economical 
 sense productive labourers ; in a civilized society they never 
 can be. To demand, therefore, that every person shall be 
 in this sense a productive labourer is practically to demand 
 that civilization itself should be abolished. While man 
 remains what he is, and the principles of civilization 
 remain what they are, unproductive labourers will remain
 
 Who are Producers ? 305 
 
 with us, and political economists will have to reckon with 
 them. 
 
 It may he worth while, however, to point out that the 
 so-called unproductive labourers are really the only true 
 producers in the community. What is commonly called 
 production is not strictly production at all. The men who 
 are engaged in producing food, clothing, houses, machinery, 
 etc., do not really create anything whatever ; they merely 
 change the form and change the place of the things which 
 they handle. Change of form and change of place are the 
 ends of all ordinary human labour; the former being effected 
 by manufacturing processes, and the latter by commercial. 
 " Man cannot create material things. When he is said to 
 produce things he really only produces utilities. In the 
 mental and moral world, indeed, he may produce new ideas. 
 But in the physical world all that he can do is to either 
 re-arrange matter so as to make it more useful, as when he 
 makes a log of wood into a table ; or to put it in the way of 
 being made more useful by Nature, as when he puts seed 
 where the forces of Nature will make it burst out into life."* 
 It will be seen, therefore, that the very class who are despised 
 and derided by political economists as non-producers are 
 really the only true producers among us. The poet is the 
 real "maker." The man who writes a great book, giving to 
 the world new ideas, has actually produced something which 
 did not exist before, which is more than can be said of the 
 work of the farmer, the labourer, or the artisan. Yet 
 political economy has arbitrarily distinguished the latter 
 classes as productive labourers and the other classes as unpro- 
 ductive labourers. But political economy is essentially a 
 materialistic science. 
 
 Let us now see how matters stand as regards the number 
 of hours which are actually worked by our people. The 
 hours of labour in our factories are fifty-six and a half per 
 week ; among artisans, fifty-one hours per week ; so that 
 even our factory operatives possess twenty-one hours of 
 
 * Professor Marshall, " Principles of Economics," page ii6.
 
 3o6 Political Economy Materialistic. 
 
 leisure per week, besides the Sunday, and in addition to 
 about a fortnight's hohday per year. Probably this is as 
 much leisure as they know how to spend wisely ; that is, 
 with profit to themselves and to the community. At all 
 events nobody can say that these hours of labour are ex- 
 cessive. During the last twenty-five years the hours of 
 labour of the working classes have been shortened by at 
 least twenty per cent., and their wages have increased by 
 about one hundred per cent., whilst the purchasing power 
 of money remains pretty much the same, so that their 
 condition has improved enormously. This fact is clearly 
 brought out by a Parliamentary Return on the hours of 
 labour which was issued in March, i8gi. This Return 
 shows that in most occupations the hours of labour have 
 been steadily decreasing, and that nine hours seems to be 
 about the average day except in collieries, where it is much 
 less. In 1850 the London painters and decorators worked 
 sixty hours per week, now they work fifty-two and a half; 
 cabinet-makers' hours have been reduced from seventy-two 
 per week to fifty-six and a half; bakers from seventy-two to 
 fifty-four; tailors seventy-two to fifty-six and a half ; brick- 
 makers from sixty-four in summer to fifty-four, and from forty- 
 five in winter to thirty-eight ; dock labourers from fifty-nine 
 in summer to fifty-three and a half, and from fifty-three in 
 winter to forty-eight and a half. These facts prove that 
 matters are going on most satisfactorily for the working 
 classes, whose hours of labours are being gradually reduced 
 by the action of educational, social, and moral causes, and 
 that there is not the slightest necessity to interfere in the 
 matter by law, or, in the striking words of Mr. John Morley, 
 to "thrust an Act of Parliament like a ramrod into all the 
 delicate and complex machinery of British industry." Of 
 course there are occupations in which the hours of labour 
 are still too long. Many railway servants, omnibus and 
 tram-car drivers, cabmen, shop assistants, barmen and 
 barmaids, and other classes work several hours per day 
 more than they ought to do. But probably there will never 
 be a time when somebody will not have to work longer than
 
 Actual Hours of Labour. 307 
 
 they ought. Indeed, there are some occupations, such as 
 domestic servants for example, where from the nature of 
 the case the hours of labour must always be long. 
 
 How are the hours to be reduced in those cases where 
 they are now excessive ? Is the matter to be left to the 
 gradual but certain operation of economic laws, or is it to 
 be dealt with in an arbitrary and violent manner by Parlia- 
 ment? That is the question which has to be decided. The 
 bulk of the Trade Unionists, impelled by the Socialistic 
 element among them, are clamouring for the interference of 
 law. Yet the Durham miners, without any such law, have 
 got an Eight Hours day ; in fact they do not work eight 
 hours a day, and their latest demand is that they should not 
 spend more than seven hours a day in the pit. If the 
 Durham miners have secured this without the assistance of 
 Parliament why cannot the other miners of the country do 
 the same ? What necessity is there for Mr. Pickard, or any 
 other miners' representative, to bring in an Eight Hours 
 Bill? The London Omnibus men, as we have seen, recently 
 secured a reduction of their hours of labour from sixteen to 
 twelve without any assistance from law. It is true they 
 struck before they obtained reduced hours ; it is equally 
 true that the concession of a twelve hours' day was granted 
 to them almost before the strike commenced. There is 
 no real need for any legislation at all upon the matter. 
 Education, reformation, elevation — these are the things 
 required and not legislation ; in other words, the means to 
 be used for securing a reduction in the hours of labour 
 where they are now excessive should be moral, and not 
 political. The Socialistic Trade Unionists, however, are 
 not content to seek a reduction of hours merely in those 
 occupations where they are still too long ; they demand a 
 reduction of hours to eight per day in all trades, although, 
 as we have seen, the hours are moderate and reasonable in 
 nearly all our great industries. That is to say, the Eight 
 Hours agitation is being used by the Socialists as an instru- 
 ment for accomplishing their ulterior aims. 
 
 An Eight Hours law, such as is indicated by the
 
 3o8 Legislation Unnecessary. 
 
 utterances of those who advocate it, would be a piece of 
 odious and intolerable t}ranny, Mr. Watson, Secretary of 
 the Railway Workers' Union, stated before a Select Com- 
 mittee of the House of Commons a little time ago, that no 
 man should be allowed to earn any money after he had 
 completed his eight hours labour, however much he might 
 wish to do so, and that if such a man spent any of his leisure 
 time in making shoes for a shop he ought to be punished. 
 Mr. Henry Tait, the General Secretary of the Scottish 
 Railway Servants, and now a member of the Labour Com- 
 mission, said : "I would say that however anxious a man 
 might be to work more than the allotted time he ought not 
 to be allowed to do it. I do not see that a man is to be 
 entitled to work longer than the Act of Parliament fixes." 
 Mr. Harford, Secretary of the Amalgamated Railway 
 Servants of England, has expressed similar views, and holds 
 that penalties should be inflicted upon men who worked more 
 than eight hours. Much more evidence to the same effect 
 has been given before this Committee and the Labour 
 Commission. If an Eight Hours law could be carried in 
 accordance with the views of such men as these the condi- 
 tion of the working man in this country would be absolute 
 slavery. To talk of his liberty under conditions which 
 would not permit him to earn a penny for himself or his 
 family after his legal eight hours were over, and which 
 would hale him before the magistrates to be fined and 
 imprisoned if he did so work, would be a bitter mockery. 
 Lord Norton said in a letter to The Times of May 7, 1892, 
 that — " No labourer has ever made a fortune without the use 
 of extra hours of labour," and this is an important truth. 
 Thousands of working men who have been impoverished 
 and forced into debt by reason of illness or misfortune have 
 been able subsequently to retrieve their position by working 
 overtime, which they would not be aPowed to do under the 
 tyranny which would impose upon them an Eight Hours 
 day. If such men had not been free to make the best of 
 their time and energies when they had the chance to work
 
 Eight Hours Tyranny. 309 
 
 and the power to work they could never have recovered 
 themselves, and would have fallen to the lowest social 
 stratum. Moreover, the lif^ht of Nature and of Reason is 
 sufficient to sliov/ a man that he should " make hay while 
 the sun shines ; " that he should work longer hours when he 
 is young and strong, so that he may have the advantage of 
 shorter hours when he is old and weak ; that he should 
 make the best of his opportunities while health is given him 
 so that he may have somewhat to depend upon in sickness; 
 that although he may take things easily in winter, when 
 frost and snow and rain and fog prevent him from building 
 or ploughing, he should make up for this lost time during 
 the golden days of summer ; that, in a word, he should work 
 hard and long when the crop is ripe and rich opportunity 
 invites him to an ample reward for his labour. But where 
 political blindness and folly are in the ascendant these 
 rational and common-sense views are thrust into the back- 
 ground.* 
 
 During the Session of 1892 an Eight Hours Bill was in- 
 troduced by Mr. Conybeare and Mr. Cunninghame Graham, 
 which provided that on and after January ist, 1893, no 
 person should work, or cause or suffer any other person to 
 work, on sea or land, in any capacit}^ for more than eight 
 
 * Sir Henry Parkes, the Australian statesman, referring to the question 
 of the Eight Hours day in his autobiography, says : " Can the legislature 
 determine the number of hours of labour for a free citizen who is in the 
 possession of his health and strength, and all his rights and privileges, and the 
 mental capacity 'to direct his own movements, without a flagrant innovation 
 of his individual freedom ? The question is not one of eight hours, or of nine, 
 or of seven hours ; but it is whether the law shall interfere with the free man 
 in the exercise of his right to labour in his own way according to his own will 
 and sense of duty. If one man is protected in his rights of property, shall not 
 the man who has no property be protected in his rights of labour ? And is a 
 free legislature morally justified in exercising this species of tyranny over the 
 subjects of a free country ? . . . The legislature cannot fix the hours of 
 labour because there is no finality in its decision ; in extending an acquiescence 
 to the fixing of the hours to eight we only acknowledge the competency of the 
 legislature to fix the hours, it may be eight or it may be eighteen, according 
 to the legislative will for the time being." This touches the core of the 
 question. Sir Henry Parkes believes that eight hours is enough for a man to 
 ■work, but he holds that the length of the working day should be settled, as 
 other matters are settled, between employers and employed themselves 
 without the interference of the legislature.
 
 3IO A Significant Vote. 
 
 hours in any one day of twenty-four hours, or for more than 
 forty-eight hours in any one week, except when, on the 
 apphcation of a majority as ascertained by a ballot vote of 
 the workers in any trade or occupation, the Secretary of 
 State should by order exempt such trade or occupation from 
 so much of the Act as prohibits working longer than eight 
 hours in each twenty-four or forty-eight hours in each week. 
 It was also provided that any employer, manager, or other 
 person who should knowingly cause or suffer any person 
 subject to his or her authority or commands or in his or 
 her employment to work more than eight hours in any 
 one day of twenty-four hours or for more than forty-eight 
 hours in any week, should, on conviction, be liable to 
 a penalty of not less than ;^io nor more than ;£'ioo 
 for every such offence.* Mr. Leake introduced an Eight 
 Hours Bill for miners, the second reading of which he 
 moved on March 23rd, the numbers being 160 for and 
 272 against the measure, a majority of 112. The signifi- 
 cance of the figures lies in the fact that 160 members of 
 the House of Commons should have voted for a Bill of this 
 character. A still more significant fact is that Mr. Cham- 
 berlain, the leader of the Liberal Unionist Party in the 
 House of Commons, supported the measure both by voice 
 and vote. He has since argued in favour of an Eight Hours 
 Bill for miners in his article on "The Labour Question" 
 which appeared in the Nineteenth Century and which has 
 already been adverted to. In this article Mr. Chamberlain 
 
 * Mr. Gladstone pointed out in a speech at Gorebridge on July 5, 1892, 
 that all the Eight Hours Bills he had seen placed the penalty of breaking the 
 laww all cases and exclusively upon the emplover, and added: " I must hesitate before 
 I can subscribe to that principle. Are the miners a body of independent men 
 or are they not ? If these miners are in servitude then it would be very hard 
 to inflict upon them any portion of the penalty of the breach of the law, but 
 if they are independent men, and if the law is broken, they may have had just 
 as much, they may have had more, to do with the breach of the law than the 
 employer. I frankly own to you that it is to me a matter on which I must 
 reserve my entire liberty whether it would or would not be fair in the adoption 
 of an Eight Hours Bill for miners to lay the entire penalty for breach of the 
 law upon the employer only — that is, upon one of the two parties to the 
 breach."
 
 A False Analogy. 311 
 
 treats the question of regulating the hours of labour by legis- 
 lation, as indeed he treats every similar question, from the 
 standpoint of expediency. On the principle involved he is 
 absolutely silent. That the State should interfere in these 
 matters, and legislate for grown men as if they were chil- 
 dren, is apparently accepted by him as a necessary and a 
 wholesome political development, though it is contrary to 
 all our traditions and experience, and introduces into our 
 legislation a new principle of a most pernicious character. 
 He endeavours, indeed, to show that this would not be an 
 innovation in our laws, inasmuch as we have already certain 
 Acts of Parliament, which he names, notably the Irish 
 Land Acts, " all of which directly or indirectly have limited 
 free contract in the alleged interests of the community." 
 That all these Acts may have been unsound and dangerous 
 is a point which is wholly ignored. All that we are told is 
 that as we have limited free contract by adopting these Acts 
 we might as well limit it still further by adopting other Acts 
 even more extreme. The important point, however, is that 
 there is really no analogy betwixt the Acts which Mr. Cham- 
 berlain enumerates and the one which he is urging us to 
 adopt, as there is not one of them which prescribes that adult men 
 shall work only so many hours per day, or per week, and which 
 imposes penalties and punishments upon them if they work longer 
 hours than those prescribed. Mr. Chamberlain's position is, 
 not that the legislative enforcement of a general Eight 
 Hours day is wrong in principle, but that it is impracticable 
 as a matter of policy. On this ground, and on this ground 
 alone, he flings it aside as a matter which is for the present 
 outside the range of practical politics. He says that — " It 
 would be waste of time to consider so vast a proposition at 
 the present moment" ; and that "there is absolutely no 
 evidence that the workers in the majority of trades would 
 accept such an arrangement." If the majority of the 
 working classes were to say that they desired such an 
 arrangement, why, then, Mr. Chamberlain would give it to 
 them. As on grounds of expediency Mr. Chamberlain is
 
 312 Mr. Chamberlain's Attitude. 
 
 against an Ei.i^ht Hours day for all workmen, so on the 
 same grounds he is in favour of something being done in 
 the direction of the hours of labour being regulated by the 
 legislature. This something is that an Eight Hours day 
 should be established for miners. He urges that the miners 
 have a very strong case, and asserts that "their employment 
 is admittedly dangerous, disagreeable, and unusually labori- 
 ous." Speaking at Rugeley on July 17, 1892, Mr. 
 Chamberlain said : " My view is that eight hours' work is 
 as much as is good for anyone — except a member of Parlia- 
 ment — as much as is good for anyone in laborious and in 
 continuous employment. . . . But in the case of such 
 hard work, such laborious work, and such disagreeable work 
 as mining, I have come to the conclusion — and as I am a 
 shareholder in mines I have some right to speak on the 
 subject — that eight hours is as much work as a man can do 
 well. Now, that being the case, it is a good object to seek 
 to reduce labour in mines, at all events to a maximum of 
 eight hours, and I for one see no objection in principle 
 whatever if the majority in any district desire to restrict the 
 labour to eight hours to give to their decision a legal 
 sanction." 
 
 With regard to the notion that the miners' occupation 
 is specially dangerous to health and life, on which notion 
 Mr. Chamberlain bases his demand for exceptional legisla- 
 tion for miners, it is simply unfounded. All the evidence 
 that can be obtained on the matter goes to show that miners 
 as a class are more healthy and long lived than many other 
 classes of workmen. It would be possible to enumerate 
 several other occupations which make larger demands upon 
 the physical and nervous energy than that of the miner, and 
 which consequently lead to a more rapid impairment of 
 health and to a premature grave. Dr. Arlidge, in his 
 newly published work entitled " The Hygiene, Diseases, 
 and Mortality of Occupations," says upon this point : 
 " Additional reasons why coal and iron and stone miners 
 enjoy considerable immunity from phthisis compared with
 
 Dr. Arlidge on Mining. 313 
 
 men in other industries are to be found in the general 
 conditions of Hfe surrounding them. They escape the evils 
 of sedentary work ; their -hours of labour are shorter than 
 many indoor occupations ; the circumstances of their 
 emplo}'ment place a bar to riotous living except the oppor- 
 tunities they make for it when work is ceased; and statistics 
 show in fact that their mortality from alcoholism and contin- 
 gent diseases is low. Add to these considerations that they 
 are preserved to a great extent from the inclemencies of the 
 weather, enjoy a more equable climate than out-door 
 workers, and that they are a well-nourished body of men — 
 at least they should all be so were their wages properly 
 applied. They awaken public sympathy largely because of 
 their work underground ; for aversion to darkness is ingrained 
 in human nature. Still, there are no decisive facts to prove 
 that work in the dark, per sc, is a distinct injury to human 
 beings. The horses in pits, which remain for months and 
 even years underground, are fat and flourishing ; and 
 miners are seldom underground above eight hours at a 
 stretch, and not that every day in the week. Besides, we 
 have yet to learn that the six months darkness falling to the 
 lot of dwellers near the Pole is productive of serious bodily 
 harm. It might be a subject for discussion whether a 
 collier in his pit — of almost uniform temperature — is not 
 better off than the farm labourer, who is compelled to work 
 long hours and in all weathers, and frequently in operations, 
 equally laborious with those of miners, if not more so. 
 Certainly his physical surroundings are superior to those of 
 mill hands and of most people occupied in trades."* In 
 view of such evidence as this, which anybody who has lived 
 in a mining district (as the writer has done) knows to be in 
 accordance with experience and fact, what becomes of the 
 
 * In a paper read before the Section of Economical Science at the British 
 Association on Aug. 25, 1891, Dr. ArHdge said : " Were the evidence of the 
 production of a high death rate to be accepted as the criterion for curtaihng 
 working hours mining would not challenge the first place, but would be 
 surpassed by several other occupations, and especially by the manufacture of 
 cutlery and of pottery."
 
 314 Darkness and Health. 
 
 pretentious superstructure which Mr. Chamberlain and 
 others have erected upon this shaky foundation ? They 
 have based their demand for an Eight Hours day for miners 
 upon shifting sands. Their one great argument for such an 
 Eight Hours day is demonstrated to be false. If they wish 
 to convince common-sense people that the cause they are 
 advocating is a safe and a sound one they will have to adopt 
 very different tactics. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain treats in a very jaunty fashion the 
 grave objections which exist against an Eight Hours day 
 being conceded to miners. He thinks "it is not at all 
 certain that the change would increase the cost of produc- 
 tion," as the miners by working harder while they were at 
 it might make up for shorter hours ; and if they did not and 
 the price of coal were to rise in consequence, why, then, the 
 increased cost would fall upon the consumer and not upon 
 the workman or his employer. Poor consumer ! \\'ho 
 cares one jot about him ? But these short-sighted advocates 
 of the Eight Hours day and other Socialistic nostrums per- 
 sistently overlook the fact that the working classes them- 
 selves constitute the largest body of consumers in the 
 country, and that therefore any increase in the price of coal, 
 or other commodities, will injure them more than anybody 
 else. 
 
 In spite of all Mr. Chamberlain may say, however, it is 
 certain that an Eight Hours day for miners would increase 
 the cost of production. Old collieries, which are much 
 more expensive to work than new ones, can only just be 
 kept open under present conditions, and the margin of 
 profit earned by them is so small that, if an Eight Hours 
 day were to be adopted, they would at once have to be 
 closed. The closing of these pits would greatly diminish 
 the output of coal, and a diminished output would mean an 
 increased price for all coal that was raised. It would also 
 mean that all the miners now employed. in these older pits 
 would be thrown out of work. Mr. George Cold well, ex- 
 President of the South Lancashire and Cheshire Coalminers'
 
 The Voice of Experience. 315 
 
 Association, stated before the Labour Commission that a 
 legal Eight Hours day would lessen the output very consi- 
 derably, and materially increase the cost of production, and 
 in times of depression lead to the closing of a good many 
 collieries. He added that he would be very glad if the men 
 would work eight hours daily, or forty-eight per week. Mr. 
 G. W. Macalpine, a colliery proprietor, said that a reduction 
 of the hours of work would undoubtedly reduce the output, 
 and increase the cost of production ; and that even if the 
 men were to hew as much coal in seven and a half hours as 
 in eight hours the output would be reduced, because of the 
 limitation of the hours of winding coal. Mr. A. Sopwith, 
 Vice-President of the Cannock Chase Coal Owners' Asso- 
 ciation, thought that an Eight Hours day would reduce the 
 drawing of the collieries of his district by one hour. Mr. 
 W. Fairley, mineral agent to the Marquis of Anglesey, 
 affirmed that a compulsory Eight Hours day would reduce the 
 output, and also the miners' wages, by at least twelve per 
 cent, where they were on piece-work. Mr. F. Parker Rhodes,. 
 Secretary to the South Yorkshire Coal Owners' Association, 
 declared that a compulsory Eight Hours day would lessen 
 the drawing power of the pit, and necessarily reduce the 
 output ; and he added that a very small restriction in the 
 output of coal would have a serious effect on the trade. 
 Mr. A. M. Chambers, colliery proprietor, stated that in his 
 collieries a compulsory Eight Hours day would lead to a 
 reduction in the output of from 20 to 25 per cent., and that 
 the men could not possibly increase their output per hour 
 if their time was reduced. Mr. Edward Jones, a former 
 President of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal 
 Owners' Association, stated that a certain colliery during 
 the year 1891 worked for twenty-five weeks fifty-four hours 
 from bank to bank, and for twenty-seven weeks only forty- 
 two hours from bank to bank ; and that the increased cost 
 in the twenty-seven weeks of short time, as compared with 
 the twenty-five weeks of full time, was gd. per ton. Mr. 
 George Wilkinson, manager of several large collieries in
 
 31 6 Coal-owners' Evidence. 
 
 Wales, said that an Eight Hours day would reduce the out- 
 put of a large colliery by lOO tons a day and would increase 
 the cost IS. per ton. Other witnesses stated that an Eight 
 Hours day would mean not more than five hours actual work 
 at the face, and that a compulsory reduction of the miners' 
 time would make them so anxious to earn as much as 
 possible within the time that they would neglect those 
 precautions which are essential to their safety, and that 
 the number of mining accidents would consequently very 
 largely increase. 
 
 Professor C. M, Percy, of the School of Mines, Wigan, 
 writing in The Times of Aug. 24, said: "An Eight Hours 
 day in mines would either reduce wages or increase cost ; I 
 believe it would do both. At present we probably have 
 an average eight hours actual working day representing 
 from nine to ten hours from bank to bank. The pro- 
 posed legislation would give us about six hours actual 
 work. We cannot put up prices at will, because we 
 have no monopoly in our industries. America runs us 
 ver}^ close. There is quite a possibility that before long 
 America will send coals to England. Here in England 
 our coal lies very deep and is expensive to work ; in 
 America the coal lies near the surface and is worked so 
 cheaply that coal equal to anything in England is put in 
 barges and in railway waggons at 3s. a ton. Even now coal 
 is sent from Australia and used in Liverpool. Miners ask 
 for an Eight Hours day believing that the hours of labour 
 can be reduced and the rate of wages maintained. That could 
 only be done by increasing the selling price, and I have just 
 shewn that we cannot control the selling price. The price of 
 coal is fixed b}' v/hat those who consume it in manufactures 
 can afford to pay," The Professor further stated that out 
 of the 200,000,000 tons of coal produced each year in this 
 country more than half is consumed in manufactures, the 
 bulk of which have to compete in foreign markets with 
 foreign goods. He added : " At the present time the 
 iron and steel and cotton industries of the United King-
 
 Two Weighty Opinions. 317 
 
 dom are very depressed, and an increased price for coal 
 would ruin them. ... I am satisfied that the 
 inevitable result of an eight hours bank to bank day for 
 miners brought about by Parliamentary interference will be 
 to reduce miners' wages, increase the dangers of mining, 
 raise the cost of production, and seriously injure mining 
 as an industry and all other industries associated with it." 
 
 Mr. John Nixon, a colliery proprietor, who states that 
 he has had over fifty years' experience in the practical 
 working and general management of collieries in the North 
 of England and in the deep pits of South Wales, said, in 
 Tlic Times of December 8, 1891 : " With the keen competi- 
 tion of Australian coal for use in our steamers on their 
 return voyages as far back as Suez, Assam coal at Calcutta, 
 and on the Eastern part of India, Nagasaki coal used in 
 steamers trading with Japan, China, and San Francisco, 
 and our English steamers using Pocahontas coal for their 
 return voyages from America, the colliery owners of this 
 country, instead of being in a position to bear the extra cost 
 which, it must be known to all acquainted with colliery 
 operations, is necessarily involved in a reduction of the 
 working hours, will require the co-operation of their work- 
 men more than ever in producing the coal at a reasonable 
 cost, which certainly, from my experience, cannot be done 
 without regular work from day to day for at least fifty-four 
 hours per week, or by the introduction of the double shift, 
 by which the maximum output is obtained v/ith the least 
 possible number of men exposed to the risk of accident at 
 any one time." Mr. Nixon also stated that French and 
 German coals were competing successfully with British coal 
 in markets which were formerly exclusively supplied by this 
 country ; that the greater the output obtained at a colhery 
 during the twenty-four hours the more regularly could the 
 colliery be kept at work, and the better able would colliery 
 owners be to give good wages to their workmen and at the 
 same time to compete successfully in foreign markets and 
 supply our own manufacturers with fuel at reasonable
 
 3i8 Foreign Competition. 
 
 prices ; that diiring prosperous times the coUiers worked 
 intermittently and thus reduced the output, thereby increas- 
 ing the cost of getting the coal, sometimes to the extent of 
 doubling the costs of the colliery proprietor ; and finally 
 that the mining legislation of the last twenty years, which 
 has done so much to improve the condition of underground 
 workmen, has been carried out entirely at the expense of 
 the colliery owner. Such evidence as this, which might be 
 multiplied a hundred-fold, coming as it does from men who 
 have a practical knowledge of the mining industry, and 
 whose whole interests are bound up with it, is worth a 
 thousand times more than all the declamation and sophistry 
 of politicians, and in any common-sense condition of affairs 
 it would be deemed absolutely conclusive, and would at once 
 knock this agitation for an Eight Hours day for miners 
 upon the head. 
 
 '' To those who say that the miners can obtain what they 
 want by voluntary effort, Mr. Chamberlain says, firstly, that 
 past experience shows the difficult}' of combination for such 
 a purpose to be so great that it is insuperable ; and secondly, 
 " that the alternative to legislation is the pressure put upon 
 recalcitrant employers and workmen by means of strikes and 
 of the boycott ; and it seems unwise to resort to what are 
 barbarous means of commercial warfare in order to enforce 
 the views of the majority, when legislation offers an effective, 
 economical, and powerful way of securing the same result." 
 The answer to all this is that if miners or any other class of 
 workmen are not sufficiently in earnest about reducing their 
 hours of labour to be able to combine for the purpose of 
 securing that reduction, they have no right to expect other 
 people to do for them what they might do for themselves if 
 they were united and resolute ; and that " barbarous means 
 of commercial warfare," when confined within proper limits, 
 are by no means so terrible as they are represented to be, 
 and have done pretty good service in the past — besides 
 which they are a necessity while human nature remains 
 what it is. Mr. Chamberlain fondly imagines that he
 
 Local Option. 319 
 
 perceives indications of a change of opinion among the 
 miners of the North, who have hitherto stoutly resisted 
 legislative interference with the hours of labour ; but since 
 Mr. Chamberlain's article was written the result of the 
 ballot which has been taken among the Durham miners 
 upon the Eight Hours question, has been published, and the 
 figures show 12,684 for an Eight Hours Act and 28,217 
 against it, being a majority of 15,533 against the measure. 
 This does not seem to indicate any probability of agreement 
 among the miners themselves on this subject. 
 
 The want of unanimity among miners on the question 
 of the Eight Hours day has led Mr. Chamberlain to pro- 
 pose that the principle of Local Option should be applied 
 to the matter, so that the miners of any district who desire 
 to adopt an Eight Hours day may be empowered to adopt 
 it irrespective of the action of miners of other districts. 
 Enamoured as he is of this principle, however, Mr. Cham- 
 berlain's utterances upon it are of the most vague and 
 inconclusive character. By what machinery he would 
 apply the principle he does not tell us, and until he gives 
 us more definite proposals on this point there is nothing 
 to criticise or to answer. Mr. Gladstone, whose course 
 upon the Eight Hours question has been most eccentric, 
 and has exposed him to the severe criticism of Mr. Cham- 
 berlain and others, has gone out of his way to express his 
 approval of the principle of Local Option. Speaking at 
 Gorebridge on July 5th, 1892, he said : '* Would it be 
 possible to introduce into the mining business, for the pur- 
 pose of imposing legally an Eight Hours limit, that which 
 is called in the case of the liquor laws Local Option ? i 
 do not presume to give you a positive opinion. All I 
 can say is that until universal unanimity has prevailed, 
 and in cases where local unanimity exists, I should be 
 very glad indeed to see that principle of Local Option 
 made available to avoid the difficulty of violent interfer- 
 ence with the individual freedom of bodies of men that are 
 unwilling to give it up, and on the other hand to give full
 
 320 Mr. Gladstone on the Tight Rope. 
 
 scope to the honourable and legitimate aspirations of the 
 miners of a district like this, who value the Eight Hours 
 for high social and moral purposes, and who are unanimous 
 in their desire to attain it." On July 8th, 1892, speaking 
 at West Calder, Mr. Gladstone said : " Possibly it might be 
 worth consideration whether this difficulty can be met, and 
 the local desires of different mining communities respected 
 and conciliated, by introducing into the law of mining labour 
 something like that good plan which has been proposed for 
 the regulation of the liquor traffic — I mean what is known 
 by the name of Local Option. ... I think it well worth 
 your consideration whether the plan of Local Option can be 
 so framed as to allow the limitation to be imposed where it 
 is desired and to be dispensed with where it is not desired. 
 That, you know, is the plan proposed for the liquor traffic, 
 that the country shall be divided for the purpose into small 
 and well-chosen districts, and that there the control, and in 
 some points conclusive control, shall be given to the people 
 themselves of the liquor laws of the district. ... I 
 think it will be a great public advantage gained, and I do 
 not despair of it if that principle of Local Option is made the 
 instrument for the solution of this most important, but not 
 altogether easy, problem." Again, speaking at Penicuik, 
 on July II, 1892, the same right hon. gentleman said : " I 
 think it will be a real advance if by some harmonious 
 measure, some measure not likely to set the mining class at 
 variance with itself, we can make some progress towards 
 allowing limitation of the hours of work in the nature of a 
 local limitation according to the views and convictions 
 which might prevail. I object, at least I feel it difficult, to 
 accept local limitations whenever there is no unanimity 
 among those on behalf of whom they are asked, and I think 
 it will be a very great gain, if we should find it practicable, 
 to deal with this question of mining labour — I leave other 
 and more difficult subjects at present aside — to deal with 
 this question of mining labour on the principle on which the 
 advocates of temperance are seeking and desiring to deal
 
 Mr. Mather's Scheme. 321 
 
 with restrictive laws — namely, on the principle of Local 
 Option, and according to the local sense of the people." 
 
 Mr. W. Mather, M.P., alone among our legislators, so 
 far as is known to the writer, has had the courage to formu- 
 late a scheme by which this principle of Local Option could 
 be applied and enforced. Mr. Chamberlain is no doubt 
 acquainted with Mr. Mather's proposals, but he does not 
 say whether he is in favour of them or not. Mr. Gladstone, 
 however, has been at pains to commend Mr. Mather's 
 scheme, which is one of the most irrational and unjust that 
 was ever brought forward by a sober-minded legislator. 
 The salient features of the scheme are these : That the 
 Miners' Unions of the United Kingdom are to be constituted 
 by Act of Parliament corporate bodies, and empowered to 
 determine by a resolution of the majority of their members 
 what number of hours shall constitute a working day for 
 miners ; that under this Act, if passed, the employers of the 
 miners would be excluded from any share in deciding the 
 question as to how long their paid workmen are to work 
 daily for the wages which they (the employers) have to pay, 
 the employers merely receiving an intimation that such a 
 resolution is intended to be passed, together with a state- 
 ment of the miners' reasons for altering the hours of the 
 working day, and also an invitation to confer with the 
 Miners' Unions as to the best method of carrying out the 
 proposed change ; that at the expiration of the said notice 
 the Miners' Union would be entitled to pass a resolution 
 forthwith fixing the hours of labour at eight per day, or 
 seven, or six, or even four (for no restriction is proposed to 
 be placed upon the discretion of the Miners' Unions as re- 
 gards this point), and the employers would be then bound to 
 accept it as a rule of the trade until altered or repealed by 
 the Union which originally passed it. 
 
 The extraordinary fact is that Mr. Mather is himself an 
 employer of labour, and that he professes to have treated 
 the subject from the point of view of an employer. It is 
 beyond doubt that he was actuated by the most excellent
 
 322 Manacling Employers. 
 
 motives in propounding this scheme ; but it is a melancholy 
 fact that good men with excellent intentions have often 
 done more harm in the world than men whose motives were 
 obviously of the basest character. Mr. Mather appears to 
 have been moved to take this action by the conviction that 
 " the early imposition of some restriction in the direction 
 indicated is inevitable," and to have made this proposal as 
 a conscientious man under a due sense of his responsibility 
 as the representative of an important constituency in Par- 
 liament, and with an honest belief that it would, if carried 
 out, be beneficent in its effects in relation to both employers 
 and employed. It is stated that a large number of members 
 of Parliament regard his proposals "as a satisfactory 
 solution of the Eight Hours difficulty so far as underground 
 labour is concerned." 
 
 Mr. Mather's scheme, it will be observed, would impose 
 upon the employers of coal miners restrictions and disabili- 
 ties of a character hitherto unheard of in British legislation ; 
 for it would compel those employers to stand aside, speech- 
 less and powerless, while the Union to which their men 
 belong settles the length of the working day, and in so 
 settling may decide that these employers shall pay a given 
 amount of wages for a much smaller amount of labour than 
 they have been accustomed to receive for the same amount 
 of wages in the past. In other words, the scheme would 
 allow the workmen to bind their employers hand and foot 
 whilst they proceeded to appropriate the property of these 
 employers for themselves. In any domain but that of 
 politics this would be called highway robbery with violence ; 
 but politics have a singular power to change the moral 
 qualities of conduct, at all events in the eyes of men whose 
 views of morality have been perverted by political bias or 
 expediency. This scheme would cripple the employers of 
 miners by denuding them of all power to defend or control 
 their property, and then afterwards insult them by politely 
 inviting them to confer with their workmen, who have 
 already made up their minds to despoil them. That an
 
 Perfervid Views. 323 
 
 employer should himself propose that a whole class of other 
 employers should be subjected to such indignities and 
 impositions as this scheme would place upon the coal 
 owners, and that all this should be proposed to be done in 
 the name of political progress and under the pretence of 
 doing justice, is an astounding fact even for these topsy- 
 turvy times, and it is more melancholy than it is astounding. 
 Mr. Mather intimates that the plan he would immediately 
 apply to mines and miners might in the dim and distant 
 future be also applied to all other industries, for he says : 
 " Believing as I do that no principle should be applied in 
 legislation to one special industry which would not be 
 equally applicable to all others as occasion arose, I hold 
 that my plan is as capable of being applied to all industries 
 where trade combinations exist of sufficient magnitude to 
 merit recognition on the part of the legislature as being 
 authoritative and representative of the general interests of 
 their trades." 
 
 Mr. Mather expounds and defends his scheme with all 
 the fervid enthusiasm of a fanatic. He says : " I am prepared 
 to justify and defend the placing of this power in the hands 
 of the Miners' Unions at once on the ground that their 
 industry is of a nature to command the assent of all to the 
 shortening of the hours to the lowest limit consistent with its 
 prosperity and further development^ But, as we have seen, 
 men who are entitled to be regarded as authorities on the 
 mining industry (which Mr. Mather is not) declare that 
 hours have already been shortened to the lowest limit con- 
 sistent with the maintenance of the industry at its present limits, 
 to say nothing of its further development. As to the state- 
 ment that the occupation of the miner is of such a nature as 
 to command the assent of all to a further shortening of 
 hours, it is a gross exaggeration. The proposal to further 
 restrict the hours of miners does not command the assent 
 of all the miners themselves, and perhaps not of a very 
 considerable majority among them ; whilst outside the 
 ranks of the miners the majority is certainly the other way.
 
 324 Selfish Cliques. 
 
 As to the idea that the occupation of the miner is excep- 
 tionally unhealthy and dangerous, which evidently underlies 
 the words of Mr. Mather just quoted, we have seen that it 
 is an utter fallacy. 
 
 To Mr. Mather has been reserved the distinction of 
 proposing to give Trade Unions, who act purely from 
 interested and selfish motives, absolute power to decide how 
 long men are to work daily without any regard whatever to 
 the interests of those who employ these men. Parlia- 
 ment, and even the London County Council, are supposed 
 to act in the interest of the community as a whole ; but 
 nobody supposes a Trade Union to do other than act in the 
 interests of its own members. It is a narrow, prejudiced, 
 selfish clique. Such a clique would, by Mr. Mather's 
 scheme, be armed with power over employers such as even 
 Parliament itself could not exercise without imperilling the 
 commercial interests of the nation. Mr. Mather has 
 evidently unbounded faith in the wisdom and self-control of 
 Miners' Unions ; for he proposes to place in their hands 
 powers of such magnitude and at the same time of such 
 delicacy as to be without a parallel. These Unions, which 
 are managed and manipulated by a few officials, would be 
 able to ride rough-shod over non-unionist workmen and 
 employers ; in other words, the liberty of the free workman 
 and the property of the colliery proprietor would be abso- 
 lutely at their mercy. What right have Unionist miners, 
 that is to say virtually the few officials who speak and act 
 in their name, to decide what number of hours non-unionists 
 are to work ? Mr. Mather, and those who think with him, 
 apparently hold the opinion that the wishes and the interests 
 of non-unionist miners are not worthy of being taken into 
 account ; but it would puzzle them to prove that the desires 
 and the welfare of these men are not just as sacred as those 
 of the unionists. Look at the character of the men to 
 whom they would entrust these enormous powers. Are 
 they in the main reasonable and intelligent men, who act 
 with moderation and with a just regard to the rights of
 
 The Durham Miners. 325 
 
 others ? Are they actuated by a desire to live at peace 
 with their employers, and to promote the interests of those 
 employers in every way that is possible to them ? The 
 conduct of the Durham miners, the very class of men who 
 would exercise these powers, during their recent strike, will 
 supply the answer. What did these men do ? They refused 
 to accept a moderate reduction of wages which the state of 
 trade had rendered necessary if the pits were to be kept 
 open, and they made this refusal in the face of the fact that 
 their wages had been increased during a comparatively 
 recent period by something like 50 per cent., and they 
 struck work, thus laying idle one of the most busy and 
 prosperous districts in England. Nobody questions their 
 right to do this, though everybody may well question their 
 wisdom in doing it. But did they stop here ? By no 
 means. They went far beyond this point, and assaulted 
 other workmen, destroyed the property of their masters, and 
 even refused to allow the pumps of the collieries to be 
 worked in order that the collieries might be preserved from 
 destruction, the result being that several of them came nigh 
 to being rendered useless and valueless. If ever men were 
 actuated by enmity towards their masters, by a malignant 
 desire to injure those masters, these men were. At some of 
 their meetings they passed resolutions that no vote should 
 be given to a coal owner at any election. To these men and 
 to their like Mr. Mather would give power over employers 
 and their property which would be virtually absolute. 
 
 For, essentially, Mr. Mather's proposal is that the capital 
 of the coal owners shall be placed absolutely at the mercy of 
 the labour which they employ to work their mines, and 
 which never could be employed but for their money. Of 
 course it is not stated in so many words that this is the 
 object of the proposal ; indeed, Mr. Mather is careful to 
 point out that he would strictly limit his proposal to deter- 
 mining the hours of labour. But, then, no man shows 
 better than he that the question of wages is inseparably 
 bound up with the hours of labour. If you propose to pay a
 
 326 Labour has no Vested Rights. 
 
 man the same amount of money for working eight hours as 
 he formerly received for working ten, then you increase his 
 wages although you give him actualh' no more money. He 
 supplies less labour for the same wages, and therefore what 
 labour he does supply costs more to the man who purchases 
 it. If Mr. Mather's scheme were put into operation, and 
 every Miners' Union throughout the country passed a 
 resolution to the effect that no miner should work more 
 than six hours a day, the effect would be that the employers 
 of these miners would receive less labour for the same 
 expenditure than they received before ; in other words, they 
 would receive less coal to sell than they did before, and 
 consequently their gross receipts would be proportionately 
 reduced. The capital value of their mines would in this 
 way be depreciated, which is the same thing as if a given 
 sum of money were taken out of their pockets and put into 
 the pockets of the men whom they employ. These mines 
 have been made what they are by the brains and the money 
 of the men who own them ; but they would be virtually 
 taken out of the hands of these men and handed over to 
 another body of men who, although they have had a share in 
 the creation of this property, have no vested rights in it ; for 
 although workmen have been empWed in the mines all 
 along, their share of the product of the mines has been paid 
 to them week by week or month by month, so that they 
 have no accumulated property in the mines themselves. 
 
 Let us look at the case fairly. Here is a gigantic 
 industry in which an enormous amount of capital has been 
 sunk. The value of the coal produced in the United 
 Kingdom during 1891 was seventy-four millions sterhng, and 
 this will enable us to form some idea of the immense value 
 of our coal beds, and of the fixed capital which is engaged in 
 working them. In the working of these mines Capital has 
 entered into partnership with Labour, the necessary condi- 
 tion of the partnership being that Labour should be paid its 
 share of the profits at once, while Capital waits for its share 
 until the product can be reahsed. The whole value of this
 
 Property Involved as well as Hours. 327 
 
 capital is virtually dependent upon the proper conduct of 
 Labour, upon the reasonableness, the sobriety, the justice, 
 and the industry of working miners. The partnership was 
 entered into on the ground of freedom of contract, or in 
 other words on the principle of allowing the two parties to 
 the bargain to make their own terms. This principle would 
 be completely upset if Mr. Mather's proposal were carried 
 into practice, and Labour would be placed in possession of 
 absolute power over Capital, even to the extent of depriving 
 Capital of all share in that which is its own property, and 
 exclusively its own property ; for it is demonstrable that if 
 the hours of labour were shortened many of our collieries, 
 especially the older ones, could not be kept open. If they 
 were closed through the adoption of shortened hours of 
 labour, whose property would be sacrificed ? The property 
 of Labour ? No ; for the labourer could go elsewhere, and 
 take with him all the property he ever owned. The 
 property that would be thus sacrificed would belong to 
 Capital ; the money loss would fall entirely on the employer. 
 Under Mr. Mather's plan there is nothing to prevent miners 
 from voting for a six hours day, or even a four hours day, if 
 they so wished. It is not only the hours of the men that 
 are involved in this question, although the matter is treated 
 as if nothing else were at issue ; but it is also the property 
 of the employers which is at stake. Can any precedent be 
 quoted for placing the property of a whole class of employers 
 at the mercy of Trade Unions ? 
 
 It may be said that this way of putting the case is 
 strong ; that it is exaggerated ; that the labour of working 
 men is their property, which they have a right to sell upon 
 what terms they choose, and that if a majority of them in a 
 given district resolved that four hours labour shall be sold 
 at the same price as nine hours labour has hitherto been 
 sold for, they are perfectly within their right. This is true 
 in one sense, but not in another. It would be strictly true 
 where the w^orkman approached the employer as an in- 
 dividual, and where the employer was able to deal with his
 
 328 " Deliver or Die.'' 
 
 workmen one by one. It is not true where the workmen 
 have entered into a combination against the employer, and 
 where circumstances exist which virtually coerce the 
 employer either into granting the demands of the men or 
 shutting up his works. Suppose for example, that Mr. 
 Mather's scheme is passed into law, and that under this law 
 the miners of the county of Durham passed a resolution 
 declaring that they would not work in the pits longer than 
 four hours per day, and that this resolution was presented at 
 the employers like a pistol to their heads. What are they 
 to do ? A huge labour combination has been formed against 
 them, which combination is armed by Parliament with 
 powers of life and death over them. They have but two 
 alternatives ; they must either concede the demands of the 
 Miners' Unions, or they must close their pits. Probably 
 they would elect to do the latter at once, as they would 
 know very well that they would have to do it ultimately 
 even if they granted the men's demands. By closing their 
 pits they are losers in two ways : in the first place, the whole 
 of the money sunk in their pits, that is, their capital value, 
 has disappeared, for collieries which are allowed to remain 
 idle soon become valueless ; in the second place, the profits 
 which they have been accustomed to earn from the working 
 of their capital in their business, or their annual income, 
 has also disappeared. They have lost everything except 
 what they may happen to have invested in some other 
 enterprise than coal mining. Now in the presence of a case 
 like this it is not enough to say that the miners in passing 
 the resolution to work only four hours were merely dealing 
 with their own property — their labour, and that they were 
 quite within their rights in acting as they did. Even sup- 
 posing that they were within their rights politically, were 
 they so morally ? It may be said that such a case as is here 
 supposed could never happen. A few years ago it would 
 have been thought impossible and preposterous that a 
 scheme so irrational and so unjust as that of Mr. Mather 
 could ever have been deliberately and soberly proposed by a
 
 Kicking against the Goads. 329 
 
 reputable and estimable member of Parliament. Never- 
 theless, it has been proposed. The only consolation about 
 the matter is that a scheme so inherently absurd carries 
 with it its own defeat. At the very moment of its birth the 
 seeds are implanted within it which will sooner or later seal 
 its doom. It is self-destructive. The powers of a majority 
 are after all very feeble and limited ; there are some things, 
 and these the most vital and fundamental, which a majority 
 cannot do. For example, a majority cannot say that 
 2-1-2 = 5; or that stealing is not a crime ; or that forni- 
 cation and adultery are not sins ; or that sugar which is 
 worth only 3^. per lb. shall be sold at 2,s. a lb. in the 
 market ; or that a workman whose labour is worth only 
 2s 6d. per day shall be paid los. a day for it ; or that 
 Christianity is a huge imposture. These questions, and 
 many others like them, cannot be settled by vote. It is 
 conceivable that a majority might vote that two and two 
 should make five (which is no whit more foolish than 
 many things that majorities have done), but it is not 
 conceivable that such a vote could in anyway effect the true 
 relations of these arithmetical factors. Whatever majorities 
 may say or do, two and two will always make four, and will 
 never make anything else : crime will always be crime and 
 sin always sin, and never anything different ; and the value 
 of commodities, of which labour is one, will always be con- 
 ditioned by the law of supply and demand. No Act of 
 Parliament, no majority vote, can ever make labour cheap 
 where it is scarce, or dear where it is plentiful. For 
 majorities to attempt to change the nature, or reverse the 
 action, of the great laws which the Creator has written into 
 the constitution of things, is simply to kick against the 
 pricks. Under this scheme a majority of miners in a given 
 district might vote that the}- would work only four or six 
 hours per day. But what would be the result ? Simply 
 that the men who employ and pay the miners would refuse 
 to pay or employ them any longer, and that the mines 
 would be shut up, and the workmen left without any work
 
 330 The Logical Conclusion. 
 
 to do. What, then, would be the effectual value of their 
 vote ? Such a vote, when it comes into conflict with the 
 reahties of things, will simply be made the sport of those 
 great forces which it has been insane enough to defy. It is 
 proposed that a majority shall do what no majority in the 
 world's history has ever yet been able to effect. 
 
 It seems almost a pity that Mr. Mather should have 
 stopped where he did. Why had he not the courage of his 
 principles ? Why did he not push them to their logical 
 conclusion ? Would it not have been well, while he was 
 about it, to say that an Act should be passed " consti- 
 tuting the Miners' Unions in the several mining districts of 
 the United Kingdom corporate bodies for the purposes of 
 this Act, and empowering them to determine by resolution 
 of a majority of their numbers the number of hours that 
 shall constitute a working-day in mines, and also to determine 
 to whom the said mines belong, such resolution to have the 
 force of law, the infraction of which would be subject to 
 penalties provided in the Act." All the words quoted are 
 Mr. Mather's, except those italicized, and those are not one 
 whit more foolish than the rest. It would be quite as 
 reasonable and just to ask the miners to declare by vote 
 whether the mines really belong to the men who have con- 
 descended to work in them, or to the men who have merely 
 bought and paid for them, as to ask them to thus declare 
 how long they will work. If they should proclaim by vote, 
 as they probably would, that the mines belong to the 
 miners, and that they should be appropriated by them for 
 their own use and benefit without any compensation to the 
 reputed and the legal (though legal titles count for little 
 with the Democracy) owners — well, the vote of a majority 
 of Trade Unionists is an inspired and sacred deliverance 
 which must not lightly be set at nought or even questioned. 
 " The Voice of the People is the Voice of God ! " If a 
 million of " the People " vote that our landed proprietors 
 have no right to their landed estates, and three-quarters-of- 
 a million vote the other way, the voice of the million is the
 
 Why not Wages too ? 331 
 
 Voice of God and that of the three-quarters-of-a-million the 
 Voice of the Devil. Such are the ethics of Demos! Some- 
 how, one cannot quite convince one's self that they are any 
 improvement upon the principles of the old-fashioned 
 Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are principles of 
 Individualism and of sanity. 
 
 Why, one may again ask, set up the barrier at the limit 
 of hours and debar other questions ? Why not include the 
 question of wages, and treat it on the same footing as that 
 of hours ? If miners (unionist miners) may fix their hours 
 of labour by vote, why not also the amount of their wages ? 
 One is as reasonable, as just, and, one may add, as practicable 
 as the other, and not more so. If men may vote that they 
 will work only eight hours per day, or six, why may they 
 not vote that they will accept nothing less than los. a 
 day for doing it ? It might be wise (after the wisdom of 
 Democracy) for Mr. Mather to so amend and enlarge his 
 proposal as to give the workmen this power. It would 
 merely be amplifying a principle already involved ; for 
 men who can vote in combination how long they will 
 work for a given sum virtually fix the price of their labour. 
 Clearly it is not anticipated that the miners will vote them- 
 selves less wages when they vote themselves less work, for 
 Mr. Mather says : " No doubt the effort will be made to get 
 shorter hours uniformly worked throughout the trades with- 
 out reduction of wages ; and so long as the working men can 
 accomplish this without causing capital to be withdrawn 
 from manufactures or the flow of enterprise to be checked it 
 will be a gain to capital and labour alike." Exactly ; so long 
 as they can accomplish this without these consequences following. 
 But how long will that be ? It is therefore actually proposed 
 that the working men should have power to say that they 
 will give less work for the same money, or in other words, 
 power to raise their own wages. Mr. Mather's scheme thus 
 affects wages, but covertly and indirectly. He thinks it would 
 be a grand thing if the working classes could have the right 
 of fixing their own hours of labour, for he says : " The right
 
 332 Providing for the Unemployed. 
 
 of determining the hours of labour by the working classes 
 would lead to the solution of the problem of providing for 
 the deserving unemployed by methods at once natural and 
 effective." In plain English, if working men could of 
 themselves say how short hours they would work, the men 
 who are now employed would do so much less work, and to 
 supply that deficiency of labour a number of other workmen 
 would be required, for whom the employers would have to 
 pay. This method of providing for the unemployed is 
 characterized as "natural and effective." Effective it would 
 undoubtedly be — in depleting the employers' pockets. But 
 would it not be a grander thing still if working men could be 
 empowered to vote themselves a large wage as well as a 
 small working day ? Suppose, for example, that they voted 
 themselves a minimum wage of ten shillings per day, and a 
 working day of six hours, what a wonderful effect it would 
 have in absorbing the unemployed into the ranks of the 
 noble army (then nobler than ever) of Labour ! Of course 
 it would absorb all the employers' profits as well, and there- 
 fore all the capital upon which our industries depend, and 
 ultimately bring about the ruin of our trade and commerce. 
 But, then, that would not matter. None of these things is 
 of any account as compared with the paramount importance 
 of allowing the working man to do what he likes. Certainly 
 these consequences never seem to enter into the calcu- 
 lations of those who propose such schemes as these. 
 Parliament has tried its hand at fixing the wages of labour, 
 and it has conspicuously and lamentably failed. The 
 London County Council rushes in where Parliaments fear 
 to tread, and, under the inspired guidance of John Burns, it 
 is going to teach the world how to regulate both hours and 
 wages, despite all laws, Divine or human, legal or social, 
 and to demonstrate how happy we shall all be when the 
 principles of political economy have been actually banished 
 to Saturn. 
 
 Labour is a commodity. The workman is the man who 
 sells that commodity : the employer is the man who buys it.
 
 The New Politics. 333 
 
 Hitherto it has been supposed that the purchaser of a 
 commodity ought to have some voice in fixing the price of 
 it ; but here we have propounded a new principle of PoHtical 
 Economy, viz., that the seller of an article is to have the 
 sole right to determine its price, while the purchaser is to 
 be compelled by Act of Parliament to pay the price which 
 has been thus decided for him by an antagonistic party. 
 For all this and nothing less is, as we have shown, involved 
 in the proposal that miners should be enabled to fix their 
 hours of labour without any respect to the wishes or 
 interests of their employers, who are to be rendered com- 
 pletely powerless in the matter. If this is the superior 
 morality, the larger freedom, and the truer justice of the 
 much belauded new Political Economy, most of us will 
 prefer to abide by the old. " The old is better." Truly 
 such "Liberal" principles play sad havoc with our liberties ! 
 Before passing to notice the effects of an Eight Hours 
 Act upon production and industry it is necessary to say a 
 few words with regard to the question of the early closing of 
 shops. Shop assistants generally have not participated as 
 fully as some other classes in the reduction of hours which, 
 as we have seen, is gradually being brought about by 
 social opinion. Nobody disputes that it is desirable, if it 
 be practicable, to reduce the hours of labour of people who 
 are engaged in retail trade of all kinds, including, of course, 
 barmen and barmaids. The only point in dispute is as to 
 whether this, reduction of hours is to be brought about by 
 legislation or by other means. During the Session of 1892 
 Mr. Provand introduced a Bill to amend the law relating to 
 the employment of women and young persons in shops : the 
 main objects of which were to limit the shop hours of 
 women to seventy-four per week. Had such a measure 
 been proposed merely for the protection of girls under the 
 age of 18 something might have been said for it ; but this 
 measure applies to adult women of all ages. Now women 
 are certainly as much entitled to their liberties as men are, 
 and they are even more entitled to have access to employ-
 
 334 Legislating for Adult Women. 
 
 ment made as easy for them as possible. This Bill was 
 carried, on the second reading, by a majority of 23, the 
 figures being 175 for and 152 against. It was pointed out 
 during the debate that the certain effect of the measure 
 would be to compel employers to discharge many of their 
 female assistants and take male assistants in their places, 
 and it is difficult to see how this can promote the interests 
 of women who want to work. Apart altogether from this 
 incidental effect of the Bill, the principle of the measure was 
 radically unsound. That principle is that adult women shall 
 be forbidden by law to work more than a certain number of 
 hours. Surelv a woman of full age is entitled to work as 
 many hours per day as she thinks it necessary or desirable 
 to work without let or hindrance from anybody. Of course 
 the advocates of such measures as these always appeal to 
 the Factory Acts in justification of their action ; but Mr. 
 Matthews, who was then Home Secretary, showed that this 
 particular Bill went beyond even the Factory Acts. Any- 
 body can see at a glance that there is no analogy whatever 
 between a shop and a factory, or between the work of a 
 factory operative and the work of a shop assistant, and 
 therefore what may be justifiable in the case of the one is 
 utterly unjustifiable in the case of the other. However, the 
 Act was carried. What effects it will produce remains to 
 be seen. It is almost certain that it will have to be 
 repealed, or otherwise allowed to become a dead letter, 
 within a very short time. But that such an Act should be 
 passed by the British House of Commons opens up a vista 
 of alarming possibilities. Mr. Sydney Buxton said during 
 the debate, "It was true they were not proposing to legis- 
 late for men, but he was bound to say that in his opinion 
 they would find it impossible to refrain from doing so sooner or 
 later if they legislated for women;"" and Mr. Isaacs (a Con- 
 servative !) refused to support the Bill because it did not go 
 far enough, as it failed to deal with domestic servants, the 
 one class which ought to receive attention. It is certain 
 that domestic servants work longer hours than shop
 
 Why not Domestic Servants ? 335 
 
 assistants, and if Parliament interferes to protect the latter 
 it is difficult to see why they should not do so in the case of 
 the former. What happy days those will be when the cook 
 and housemaid, having worked the hours prescribed for 
 them by law, will be able to snap their fingers in their 
 employers' faces and tell them to do the work themselves ! 
 Evidently this is what we are coming to. Of course the 
 result will be that thousands of families will prefer not to 
 have servants at all, which will lead to thousands of women 
 who are now employed having no work to do, a state of 
 things which would be a hardship to the women themselves 
 and an evil to the community in general.* Many of those 
 long hours which they and their assistants are compelled to 
 work advocate that a permissive power of closing the shops 
 of a district should be placed in the hands of a majority in 
 that district ; but whether the voting power is to be placed 
 in the hands of shopkeepers only, or of shopkeepers and 
 their assistants, we are not told. Mr. Chamberlain is the 
 most prominent among the public men who advocate com- 
 pulsory early closing, and he is of opinion that Local Option 
 provides the best means for securing it. In his article on 
 the Labour Question he deals with the subject at length, 
 but it is noteworthy that his treatment of it leaves matters 
 in a state of vagueness and uncertainty. Perhaps when he 
 comes to define his scheme a little more closely he will 
 follow the example of Mr. Mather. That gentleman pro- 
 poses to give. the power entirely to working miners, their 
 employers being absolutely excluded from all share in the 
 consideration of the matter, and perhaps Mr. Chamberlain 
 will in like manner propose that the shop assistants alone 
 who are greatly concerned about the shop-keepers and the 
 
 * The debate on this measure was significant as showing that some Con- 
 servatives of the type of Mr. Baumann have " advanced " a long way in the 
 direction of SociaHsm, whilst Radicals like Mr. M'Laren are opposed to 
 Socialism root and branch. Mr. Matthews made the refreshing admission 
 that he belonged to the " exploded school of Individualism " which Mr. 
 Baumann derided. One would scarcely have supposed, however, from Mr. 
 Matthews' action (or inaction) during the Duck Strike that he was a 
 pronounced Individualist.
 
 336 Pity the Poor Majority. 
 
 shall have the voting power, and that the shop proprietors 
 shall be compelled to stand aside whilst their workmen 
 decide how long their shops are to remain open. For are 
 not the assistants the larger body — the majority ? That, 
 for politicians of Messrs. Chamberlain and Mather's stamp, 
 settles the question. The one thing of paramount im- 
 portance in these days is that the working man should be 
 allowed to do what he likes. It is to be regretted, however, 
 that Mr. Chamberlain, while he was about it, did not enter 
 into particulars. When a man of his standing undertakes 
 to present an elaborate programme to the country, dealing 
 with matters of the most vital moment, he ought to state 
 explicitly what he means. It is impossible to form any 
 judgment on the merits of his Local Option scheme for 
 early closing until we know how and by whom the suffrage 
 is to be exercised. Writing to a Glasgow correspondent on 
 September 21, 1892, Mr. Chamberlain stated that "any 
 scheme for early closing which he could approve would 
 admit of local and trade discretion, and might include any 
 plan which was found suitable by persons engaged in the 
 trade." Mr. Gladstone himself could not be more diplo- 
 matic or oracular than this. What is meant by "persons 
 engaged in the trade ? " And what is " local and trade 
 discretion ? " 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's great point in regard to the shop- 
 keepers is that legislation in their case is an absolute 
 necessity, because " voluntary action is impossible." And 
 why is voluntary action impossible ? " Because a minority, 
 however insignificant, have in this case more than the usual 
 power of coercing the majority." Pity the poor majority ! 
 They are burning with ardent desire to close their shops, 
 and yet they cannot do it because the minority persist in 
 keeping their shops open. A minority coercing a majority ! 
 Was ever such pitiful stuff foisted upon the British public 
 in the name of argument by a public man of Mr. Chamber- 
 lain's rank ? As a matter of fact the minority have no 
 power at all to coerce the majority. Both classes are
 
 Tyranny Masquerading as Liberty. 337 
 
 simply exercising their freedom to do what they think best. 
 The majority in some districts think it best to close their 
 shops, and accordingly they do close them ; but the 
 minority think it better to keep their shops open, and open 
 they are kept accordingly. But this does not suit the New 
 Socialistic coercionists. They are so fond of liberty that 
 they want not only their own share of it but other people's 
 as well. Those shopkeepers who exercise their liberty to 
 close early are not content to allow others to exercise their 
 liberty to close late. And why ? Because they are afraid 
 that they may lose a little chance custom. And mainly for 
 this paltry reason Mr. Chamberlain would have Parliament 
 pass an Act which would allow these miserly tradesmen, 
 who are afraid of losing a few shillings (or rather afraid of 
 their neighbours gaining a few shillings), to tyrannise over 
 their competitors. 
 
 Speaking on this subject at Birmingham, on September 
 14, 1892, Mr. Chamberlain said : " The only remedy is 
 legislation. In my opinion you are simply wasting your 
 time when you try to get these voluntary arrangements. . . 
 My view is that, taking the majority of any trade — I do not 
 care which, the grocers, the butchers, the drapers — I should 
 be perfectly satisfied that if those gentlemen met, and, by a 
 majority of two-thirds, decided that it was unnecessary 
 to keep their shops open longer than, say, ten hours a 
 day — I only take the figure as an example — I should 
 be perfectly satisfied in that case that their decision 
 should be submitted to the City Council — which would 
 represent, mind you, not the shopkeepers alone, but the 
 whole community — and that if the\' were prepared to give 
 their opinion also that the arrangement was a reasonable 
 one, I should be prepared to give them force and authority 
 to give it the power of the law. And I am perfectly certain 
 that, while, as I have said, you will do very little by any 
 voluntary arrangement, if legislation of that kind could be 
 •carried, in a very short time all the abuses of which we 
 complain would be entirely remedied." In his Nineteenth
 
 338 New Crimes. 
 
 Century article he virtually repeats all this in the following 
 words : " Accordingly it is impossible to secure a reform 
 without the aid of legislation. No general Bill or stereo- 
 typed conditions are asked for. All that is necessary is to 
 give powers to the local authorities in each district, on the 
 application of a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths of 
 any trade, to approve of regulations prepared by the repre- 
 sentatives of the trade, and dealing with holidays and the 
 hours of closing — and after approval to enforce them by 
 summons and fine. This plan would allow of the experiment 
 being tried in different ways and in different places, and 
 there would be ample opportunity of securing the pubhc 
 convenience and full power to prevent injustice." 
 
 So that under this plan the liberty of the individual shop- 
 keeper would be entirely taken away ; if any shop-keeper 
 refused to obey the dictation of the majority, the local 
 authorities would prosecute and punish him ; new crimes 
 would be created, and that which the moral law of God 
 does not declare wrong would be pronounced wrong by 
 the laws of man. In such a state of society liberty and 
 justice would be impossible ; to speak of them would be the 
 merest mockery. If it is desired to bring law into con- 
 tempt, to destroy all good-will among neighbours, and to 
 throw every community in the country into a state of 
 perpetual and barren turmoil, there is no more effectual way 
 of doing it than by adopting Mr. Chamberlain's plan. 
 
 It will be seen that Mr. Chamberlain, in order to secure 
 a favourable reception for his early closing scheme, pro- 
 claims the utter futility of voluntary action. Nevertheless, 
 by voluntary action thousands of shops are actually closed 
 early. It is nothing to the point that in the very same 
 neighbourhood where many shops are closed at an early 
 hour a few shops are kept open till a late hour. If some 
 shopkeepers can thus close early, and ignore the action of 
 their rivals who keep open late, other shopkeepers can do 
 the same if they choose. If a shopkeeper is not competent 
 to decide for himself how long he ought to keep open, or if
 
 Let Well Alone. 339 
 
 he pleads that he is unable so to decide on account of the 
 action of his neighbours, that is his own affair. Because he 
 is a weak man or a jealous man, that is no reason why the 
 State should have to decide for him in these matters. If 
 the men who keep their shops open late do a large amount 
 of business, that very fact is a proof that they are meeting a 
 public need ; if they do practically no business at all, then 
 the men who have closed earlier have suffered no injury. 
 At present, upon the voluntary principle, things are going 
 on very well. Shopkeepers who wish to close their shops, 
 and can afford to do so, do it ; other shopkeepers who 
 cannot afford to close early are at liberty to keep open. The 
 man who closes early is not bound to follow the example of 
 the man who closes late ; the man who closes late is content 
 to deny himself the advantages of closing early in order that 
 he may secure chance custom, and so eke out his often 
 scanty income. There never was a case, notwithstanding 
 all that is said to the contrary by Mr. Chamberlain, where 
 legislation was less needed than in regard to the early 
 closing of shops. But, of course, what Mr. Chamberlain 
 and the Socialistic politicians generally wish to do is to 
 coerce every man into compliance with the wishes of the 
 majority. So the shopkeeper is to be coerced into closing 
 his shop by a certain hour. And then Mr. Chamberlain 
 airily remarks that this is only applying the principle which 
 has already been applied through the Factory Acts ! Yet there 
 never was an Act passed in this country which decreed that the 
 owner of a factory should close it at cevtain hours. All that the 
 Factory Act did was to say that certain individuals who 
 were comparatively weak and helpless, namely, women and 
 children, should not be employed in the factory for more 
 than a certain number of hours per day. There is some- 
 thing to be said for similar laws in relation to the same 
 classes of people who are employed in shops, and if Mr. 
 Chamberlain would limit his proposal to the protection of 
 women and children in shops it would be accepted with 
 practical unanimity. But he is merely trying to throw dust
 
 340 The Small Shop-keepers. 
 
 into people's eyes when he endeavours to persuade them 
 that there is any analogy at all between the Factor}' Acts 
 and such an Early Closing Act as he is now advocating. 
 This proposed new Act would decree that a man should 
 close his shop at a certain hour of the day, and it would, if 
 he refused to do so, subject him to fine and perhaps imprison- 
 ment. This would be an encroachment upon both private 
 and public liberty which is absolutely without a parallel in 
 English legislation. 
 
 Before passing from this part of the subject, there are 
 three general remarks which may be made: i. That such 
 legislation as Mr. Chamberlain advocates would harass and 
 injure the small and struggling tradesman. The large 
 traders would be ver}- little affected by it, for most of them 
 do voluntarily all that they could be compelled to do by an 
 Early Closing Act. But many a little retailer who can 
 barely keep his shop open under present conditions would 
 simply be crushed out of existence under the new conditions 
 which it is sought to create. No class in the community 
 are more deserving of consideration at the hands of our 
 legislators than small shopkeepers. They fulfil a useful 
 function in the community ; the}- pay heavy rents and 
 rates and taxes ; they find employment in the aggregate 
 for a vast multitude of young men and women ; and they 
 constitute one of the most valuable and conservative forces 
 of the middle classes and of our society in general. Yet the 
 one thing that our legislators seem to be anxious to do is to 
 pile upon the shoulders of this struggling class one burden 
 after another until their annihilation is effected. The spirit 
 in which the shopkeeper is regarded by early closing 
 enthusiasts was clearly illustrated in the case of Mr. Haile, 
 the Harrow Road cheesemonger, whose case excited so 
 much attention about a year ago. Mr. Haile agreed to close 
 his shop at five o'clock on Thursdays, in concert with the 
 other tradesmen of the neighbourhood. For two weeks this 
 was done ; but some of the customers complained that the 
 early closing of the shop put them to great inconvenience,
 
 The Working Classes and Early Closing. 341 
 
 and therefore Mr. Haile naturally declined to continue the 
 arrangement to close early. The consequence was that his 
 premises were beset by a crowd of shop assistants and 
 others, who assembled opposite to his place of business in 
 large numbers, and distributed handbills, advising people 
 not to shop after five o'clock, and shouting out, " Down 
 with the sweater," and, " Boycott the sweater." The 
 " Dead March " was also played by a drum and fife band in 
 front of the shop. As a matter of course customers were 
 prevented from entering the shop, and police protection had 
 to be given to Mr. Haile and his property. All this was 
 done, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Haile engaged extra 
 hands, so that each assistant could have an evening off once 
 a week. These proceedings, which are quite in harmony 
 with the spirit of Radical-Socialism, significantly illustrate 
 the idea of liberty which is entertained by members of Trade 
 Unions and Early Closing Associations. Happil}^ the law 
 proved powerful enough to protect Mr. Haile, and to punish 
 his persecutors. But the law would soon be shorn of its 
 power to do this if our new " reformers " could get their 
 way. 
 
 2. It may be noted in the second place that, as shops are 
 usually kept open late in working-class neighbourhoods, and 
 therefore in order to meet the convenience and the needs of 
 the working classes, these classes will be the chief sufferers 
 from enforced early closing. It is said that working men, 
 who are themselves so eager to receive shorter hours of 
 labour, will be glad to do anything in their power to secure a 
 similar boon for those who are engaged in shops. But, as a 
 matter of fact, there is no evidence whatever that this is the 
 disposition of the average working man. It is notorious that 
 working men are, in the main, indifferent, not to say callous, 
 where only women and children are the persons chiefly 
 concerned. The greatest opponents of the Factory Acts 
 were the working men who profited from the enslavement of 
 their wives and children. It is morally certain that Lord 
 Shaftesbury would have found it absolutely impossible to
 
 342 The Working Man Tyrant. 
 
 carry the Factory Acts if Household Suffrage had then 
 existed. One of the reproaches of Trade Unionism is that 
 it has attempted httle or nothing to improve the conditions 
 of labour for women and children. The working-man 
 enthusiast for Eight Hours is as exacting a tyrant as ever 
 existed in regard to those who are his servants, and he 
 would be mad with indignation if his wife or children were 
 to turn round, when they had done eight hours work in the 
 day, and tell him that he had no further claim upon their 
 services until to morrow.* Apart from all this, there is the 
 fact that the working man himself has ver\- little to do with 
 shopping, a part of the household econom\- which devolves 
 upon the working man's wife. Working men's wives are 
 not, like ladies, able to do their shopping when the}- please ; 
 they must do it when they can. There would be a revolt 
 amongst the women of the working classes immediately, if 
 shops were prohibited from being open more than ten or 
 twelve hours per day ; and if ever these women got the 
 Franchise an Act so obnoxious to them would speedily be 
 repealed. 
 
 * Mr. Alexander Wylie, of Glasgow, says in his work, " Labour, Leisure, 
 and Luxury : " " In our own works we have the wives and daughters of riveters 
 atid others employed in the ship-building works of Dumbarton (restricted by 
 their Trade Unions to 51 hours labour per week, and earning during this time 
 £2 to ;^io) sent without scruple by their luxurious lords and masters to do their 
 56J hours, the wages which they earn being often swallowed up along with 
 the larger gains of the men in their weekly debauch, which often curtails 
 their very limited appointed hours of weekly labour by iS or 27." Mr. Wylie 
 adds: " I say to the working men of Great Britain — to those who do not 
 work more than 56^ hours per week— before they seek further to abridge their 
 own hours of labour and seek for what in many cases is only time for more 
 luxurious ease and debauchery, let them devote themselves to the manlier, 
 nobler, more chivalric task of better educating their children and enfran- 
 chising their wives and children with that leisure which would tend so much 
 to the comfort, refinement, and happiness of their homes; and though, for 
 nothing else, they should not seek to lessen by one iota their present 
 moderate hours of labour." 
 
 A lady who signs herself Georgiana Kingscote wrote to The Times on 
 August 30, 1892, and related the following incident, which she declares to be 
 perfectly true :- — A Kent labourer returned to his house a few weeks pre- 
 viously at about five o'clock, and was asked by his wife where he had been. 
 " To a meeting about the Eight Hours," he answered, "and we'll get our 
 eight hours too. Now then, woman, make haste and get my tea." " Go and 
 get it yourself," said the wife ; " my eight hours are over."
 
 The God Majority. 343 
 
 3. The third remark is in regard to Local Option. Of 
 late years some of our politicians have developed quite a 
 mania for this principle. Not so long ago it was thought 
 absurd even that the liquor traffic should be regulated on 
 permissive principles, although it is conceivable that some 
 sort of a case might be made out in favour of allowing a 
 majority of electors to control a traffic of so peculiar and 
 dangerous a character as the liquor traffic. Now opinion is 
 in danger of swinging round to the other extremity, and 
 men who formerly ridiculed the idea of applying Local 
 Option even to the liquor traffic are themselves in favour of 
 applying it to the regulation of workmen's hours, to the 
 closing of shops, and so on. In the opinion of these people 
 the matter is exceedingly simple, and Local Option is 
 simply one form of honouring and applying the sacred 
 principle of Democracy, that the majority ought to rule. 
 Politicians, like barbarians, have their forms of fetish 
 worship. The fetish which is worshipped by the ruck of our 
 politicians is The Majority. The god Majority must be 
 worshipped under all circumstances and at all costs. 
 Christian men find it difficult to imagine how debased 
 heathen can worship such hideous monstrosities as heathen 
 idols often are ; enlightened and rational citizens find it 
 almost as hard to comprehend how their rulers and law 
 makers can bend the knee, stifle the conscience, and deaden 
 the intellect before an ignorant and tyrannical majority." 
 
 Reverting-to the subject of an Eight Hours law, there 
 are two or three points which still remain to be dealt with. 
 
 * Sir John Lubbock, writing to the promoters of the Half HoHday move- 
 ment for shop assistants at Chester, early in February, 1873, said: "The 
 excessive and unnecessarily long hours of labour of shop keepers and shop 
 assistants seems to me the most pressing subject at the present moment, and I 
 believe nothing short of legislation will suffice, as it is now always possible 
 that the reasonable wishes of the minority should be defeated by a small 
 selfish majority." He also stated that he and others would do their utmost 
 to bring the question before Parliament this session. 
 
 It may here be noted that Mr. Provand (whose Shop Assistants Bill, which 
 has already been referred to, was carried last Session) introduced a Bill as 
 soon as Parliament opened this year to amend his Act of last year. Thus are 
 tradesmen harassed and subjected to perpetual worry and suspense.
 
 344 ^ Socialistic Stratcgem. 
 
 One fact which is too much overlooked is that the Eight 
 Hours movement is a strategem of the Sociahsts, an instru- 
 ment by which they mean, if possible, to make some 
 advance toward their final aim, which is to nationalize land, 
 capital, and all other means of production. During the 
 discussion which took place at the Trade Union Congress, 
 on September 8, 1892, upon the question of an international 
 reduction in the hours of labour, Mr. C. Fenwick, M.P., the 
 Secretary of the Congress, read a letter which had been 
 addressed to that body by Charles Gurkly, President of the 
 Organization Committee of the International Working 
 Men's Congress for 1893. That letter contained the 
 following sentences : "If nothing else had grown out of 
 recent International Congresses than the great legal Eight 
 Hours movement, their existence would have been justified. 
 You in Great Britain and Ireland, whose immense demon- 
 strations in favour of the legal Eight Hours day in 1890, 
 1891 and 1892, did so much to force this question to the 
 front, do not need to be told that these International Eight 
 Hours demonstrations grew out of the International Paris Con- 
 gress of 1889." The significance of this declaration is very 
 great. One might almost affirm it to be obvious, were it 
 not that so much that is significant in relation to other 
 questions appears to be utterly lost upon our politicians, 
 whose aptitude for closing their eyes to unwelcome facts, 
 and ignoring the real drift and trend of the forces with 
 which they dally, is astounding. It is well, however, to 
 have it placed upon record that the Eight Hours agitation 
 which at present disturbs, and in the near future may 
 dislocate, British industry is in no sense of British origin ; 
 that, therefore, it is not in the nature of a remedy which 
 British workmen have been forced to devise for themselves 
 in consequence of any grievances or ills from which they 
 suffer ; but that it is purely the outgrowth of international 
 Socialism, which is a fanatical and violent revolutionary 
 movement, aiming at the confiscation of all property, and 
 the suppression of all liberty, and which is essentially
 
 Two Forms of Robbery. 345 
 
 opposed to the temper and the institutions of the Enghsh 
 people. The Eight Hours movement is simply one of the 
 instruments which Continental Socialism proposes to use in 
 the accomplishment of its aims ; by which the workman is to 
 be deprived of his liberty on the one hand and the capitalist 
 of his property on the other hand. Because, in seeking to 
 attain these ends, the Socialists profess that they are going 
 to employ what they call legitimate and constitutional 
 means, the ends themselves are not one whit more virtuous, 
 though many people delude themselves into the belief that 
 they are. It is just as wicked to rob a man through the 
 collective action of his enemies acting in concert at the 
 ballot box as it is for one of those enemies to knock him 
 down on the highway and rifle his pockets. The former 
 course is, if anything, the more wicked of the two, as it is 
 certainly the more cowardly ; inasmuch as it does not leave 
 the person attacked so good a chance of defending himself 
 as the latter course would. 
 
 The most prominent advocates of the Eight Hours day 
 in this country, Mr. H. H. Champion, Mr. Tom Mann, and 
 Mr. Sydney Webb, are all pronounced Socialists. The 
 amount of frothy and fanatical rubbish which they write and 
 talk upon the subject is portentous and amazing. There is 
 only one thing more astonishing, and that is that newspaper 
 and review editors, the organizers of Radical meetings, and 
 even the Labour Commission, all seem anxious to provide 
 these propagandists of Socialism with opportunities for 
 flooding the public mind with their pernicious nonsense. 
 One of the pet ideas of these men is that the adoption of an 
 Eight Hours day will somehow result in work being found 
 for all who are now unemployed. Mr. Tom Mann said 
 before the Labour Commission, on November 15, 1892 : 
 " The effect of their hours being reduced would be to cause 
 wages to rise, so that in a short time more wages would be 
 obtained for the short hours than were formerly obtained 
 for the long hours. This advance of wages would not 
 necessarily reduce profits ; if the factor of increased efficiency
 
 346 Socialist Doctors Differ. 
 
 entered, it would not only increase the output per man, but 
 in conjunction with other factors would increase the capacity 
 and opportunity to consume, and so extend the market." If 
 Mr. Mann understands this he is probably the only person 
 in the countr\- who does so. Even he did not condescend 
 to explain it, and he certainly could not prove the truth of 
 it to save his life. Yet he is one of those who are for ever 
 telling us that all wealth comes from labour — that is, from 
 mere manual labour, apart altogether from the action 
 of those elements of brain and money which are equally 
 factors in production. But why does not Mr. Mann, in the 
 hypothesis that all wealth is produced by labour, show us 
 how the diminution of labour can result in an increase of 
 wealth ? Common-sense people would suppose that if 
 labour produces wealth, then the more labour we have the 
 more wealth we shall have, and that, consequently, what we 
 want is not that labourers should work as little as possible, 
 but as much as possible. 
 
 Whilst Mr. Mann assures us that short hours would lead 
 to an increase of production, and also to an increase of wages 
 and profits, Mr. Champion assures us that the opposite 
 result would follow, that is, that the cost of production 
 would be increased, and therefore the amount of it lessened. 
 Mr. Champion has no patience with the view " that the 
 Eight Hours day simply means that the worker will get his 
 present wages and earn them in the shorter time by 
 increased intensity of application to his work " ; and he 
 further says, and rightly, that " if this were the result 
 expected by workmen there would have been no Eight 
 Hours demonstration in Hyde Park on Sunday, and if this 
 were expected by employers they would have no objection 
 to a change which would alter neither the cost of produc- 
 tion nor their power over their own hands." Mr. Champion 
 is at least honest. He says, " The workman has no inten- 
 tion, if hours be reduced from twelve to eight, to take 
 one-third less wages or of working 50 per cent, harder. He 
 looks to the employment of 50 per cent, more men to do the
 
 Labour Trusts. 347 
 
 same amount of work, and further anticipates that the 
 consequent depletion of the surplus in the market by lessen- 
 ing the competition for employment will enable the greater 
 number then employed to obtain more, rather than less, 
 for the eight hours work than the smaller number now 
 employed do for the twelve hours work. In a word, the 
 working man's aim is not merely to get more leisure, 
 but mainly to drive up the price of labour {the only commodity he 
 has to sell) by a restriction of its supply. Thus the 
 Eight Hours movement, if it means anything at all, means a 
 higher cost of production due to a higher wage bill." A 
 higher cost of production would, of course, mean higher 
 cost of commodities, and this would hit the working class 
 harder than any other class, though Mr. Champion thinks 
 that it would inflict most loss upon the non-producing con- 
 sumers, while the working classes would be more than 
 compensated for the smaller producing power of their 
 shillings by the fact that they would have many more of 
 them. Mr. Champion admits that if shorter hours were 
 adopted, and steps were taken to prevent the flooding of the 
 labour market by poorly-paid foreign labour, and a general 
 rise in wages followed, " many industrial establishments 
 would be closed in a few weeks ; " that " industries already 
 severely pressed by foreign competition would be destroyed 
 unless measures were taken to protect them from the 
 poorly-paid labour of other races ; " and that " industries 
 that depend on their export trade would have to be 
 abandoned in many cases or supported by bounties."* He 
 
 * These quotations are taken from a letter of Mr. Champion's in The Times 
 of May 3, 1892. 
 
 Mr. G. C. Trewbly, Chief Engineer of the Gas Light and Coke Co., stated 
 before the Labour Commission, in June, 1892, that : "The Eight Hours system 
 introduced at the request ot the workmen had increased the general expendi- 
 ture on wages by more than ten per cent. Shortly after the system came into 
 operation they lound that they did not get the same return from the coal, and 
 that the men did not do their work so well ; but things had improved, and the 
 men were doing their work in a satisfactory manner." 
 
 In August, 1892, an Act was passed in the United States which enacted 
 an Fight Hours day for workmen who were directly or indirectly em- 
 ployed in the American public service, or in carrying out public works of 
 any kind for the Government. Intentional violation of the provisions of the 
 Act is deemed a misdemeanor, and every such violation may be punished by a
 
 348 Labour Leaders and Foreign Trade. 
 
 thinks, however, that home industries which are protected 
 from foreign competition would not be injured by the rise in 
 wages, as all employers in these industries would com- 
 pensate themselves for the higher wages by demanding 
 higher prices. One characteristic of men of the type we are 
 now considering is that they care nothing about that part of 
 our industry and commerce which is engaged in supplying 
 the needs of foreign countries ; in other words they are 
 quite ready to see the whole of our export trade taken from 
 us. Mr. Tom Mann said before the Labour Commission, 
 on November 15, 1892 : " He did not think it desirable that 
 England should continue to be the workshop of the world ; 
 therefore he was not desirous of seeing England keep the 
 largest possible proportion of the world's trade. He was 
 quite prepared to see Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, and 
 the people of every other country producing what they 
 required for their own sustenance and development, and 
 his own country doing the same, and not more than that." 
 Yet it is certain that if we lost our export trade at least half 
 our factories, workshops and warehouses would have to be 
 closed, and the people employed in them turned adrift. And 
 such men as Mr. Mann are supposed to be the " friends of 
 labour " par excellence ! Of course all arguments which go 
 to show that an Eight Hours day would lead to the loss of 
 our trade in foreign markets are lost upon men of this type.* 
 
 fine not exceeding 1,000 dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six 
 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court. 
 Mr. Hyndman wrote to The Times of August igth exulting over the passing of 
 this Act. It might be well, however, for advocates of such legislation to 
 restrain their elation until it is seen how the Act works. If there is any 
 country in the world where Acts of Parliament are passed without any inten- 
 tion of carrying them into effect it is the United States. It was announced on 
 December 11 that the American estimates for the present year already showed 
 that the Eight Hours law had increased the cost of working various public 
 departments from 10 to 25 per cent. 
 
 * Mr. Walker, who is engaged in the Dundee jute trade, stated before the 
 Labour Commission that this particular industry was increasing on the Con- 
 tinent and in America far more rapidly than it is here, and he added these 
 striking remarks : " If the hours of labour were reduced half-an-hour a week — 
 that is from 56 to 55^ hours, supposing wages to remain the same, there would 
 be a loss of /io,ooo per annum to the spinners of Dundee. If the hours were 
 reduced from 56 to 48 per week there would be a loss of ;^275,ooo per annum. 
 The more heavy standing charges would remain the same though the hours
 
 Less Employ ment ^ More Work ! 349 
 
 There never was a more preposterous idea than that 
 want of employment and the poverty caused thereby can be 
 remedied by the adoption of an Eight Hours day, or in 
 other words that more men can be employed by providing 
 less employment. The proposition carries on its very face 
 evidence of its monstrous absurdity. Let us suppose that 
 the Eight Hours day were adopted to-morrow, and that in 
 consequence of its adoption all unemployed men who are 
 able and willing to work were set to work, and that matters 
 are so nicely adjusted that all working men are actually able 
 to work eight hours per day. How long will it be before 
 the equilibrium is disturbed ? In the course of a few years 
 those who are now boys will have become men, and a new 
 army of labourers will demand admission into the field of 
 labour. It is evident that during the same time some of the 
 old labourers will have died ; but it is certain that there will 
 still be a large excess of workmen over the number required 
 to fill these places. How is work to be found for these new 
 men ? Clearly by still further reducing the hours. As Mr. 
 Tom Mann puts it : " If as machinery developed, as the 
 means of production proved more perfect, and as society 
 made progress, a surplus population w-ere again created, the 
 hours of labour would again have to he readjusted, revised, and 
 reduced to the extent necessary to enable everyone to be employed.''^* 
 So we should have to adopt a six hours day in order to 
 prevent another class of unemployed being created. But as 
 population would continue to increase the same difficulty 
 would recur in a few years, and to meet it the hours of 
 labour must be reduced to four. Still population would in- 
 crease, and the same difficulty would again have to be dealt 
 with in the course of a few more years. Then the hours of 
 labour would be reduced to two. Population would still 
 grow and new labourers continue to be produced, and the 
 old difficulty would once more have to be faced. Then the 
 
 were reduced. An Eight Hours day would ruin the trade, and, for his own 
 part, he would at once remove his works to India." 
 
 * Evidence before the Labour Commission, November 15, 1892.
 
 350 A Reductio ad Absurdum. 
 
 hours of labour would have to be reduced to one per da\% 
 and finally to no work at all, and thus we are landed in an 
 absurdity, which nevertheless logically follows from the 
 position of those who assume that the adoption of an Eight 
 Hours day would get rid of scarcity of employment and the 
 poverty consequent upon it. We are asked to believe that 
 the country in which least labour is performed will be the 
 wealthiest ; that the country in which no labour was per- 
 formed at all would be a paradise ! But there never yet was 
 a country in which man has not lived in obedience to the 
 law that he should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, 
 that he shall live by his labour ; and whatever elevation may 
 await the race by reason of the higher development of 
 civilization there never will be such a country on this earth. 
 How would an Eight Hours day affect wages? Either 
 wages would remain the same, or they would be reduced, or 
 they would be increased. If they were reduced the 
 workman would bear his fair share of the cost of making the 
 change ; but it is abundantly clear that the workman has no 
 intention of doing anything of this sort. His fixed idea is 
 that he can, and that he will, get the same wages for eight 
 hours' work as he now gets for ten or twelve. Professor 
 Percy says he does not believe that one miner in a hundred 
 would ask for an Eight Hours day if he believed it meant a 
 reduction in wages, and the same is undoubtedly true of 
 other classes of workmen. But then the workman does not 
 believe this ; he is taught not to believe it. If wages were 
 either to remain the same under an Eight Hours law as 
 they are now, or were to be increased, that would mean 
 that somebody had either to pa}- the same wages for less 
 work or more wages for less work. Who would have to 
 pay this ? Clearly the intention is that the employer should 
 pay it. Even Mr. Tom Mann says : " He would grant that 
 the gain of the worker would come from the employer's 
 profits ; "* and Mr. Champion intimates that it is " the 
 
 * Evidence before the Labour Commission, November i6, 1892.
 
 Profits of Capital Decreasing. 351 
 
 almost universal belief of the workman that the trade of this 
 country will stand this increase of wages." On what this 
 universal belief is based it is difficult to imagine ; for all the 
 facts in the case go to prove that the margin of profit in all 
 industries is so small that a very slight increase in the 
 cost of production would destroy it and lead to these indus- 
 tries being stopped altogether. According to Mr. Giffen, 
 less than one-third of the total wealth produced in the 
 country goes to the capitalist. This is certainly not an 
 exorbitant share, and according to the report of every 
 railway and steamship company, and indeed of almost every 
 other commercial enterprise, the above is constantly being 
 lessened.* Mr. Bradlaugh, in his debate with Mr. Hyndman 
 on the Eight Hours question, proved from the Northumber- 
 land and Durham arbitrations for December, 1875, that in 
 consequence of a voluntary reduction of the hours of labour, 
 the cost of production, taken as if at the same rate of wages, 
 had been increased by 21 per cent. Where the cost of pro- 
 duction is increased the tendency is to prevent capital being 
 invested or retained in businesses where the margin of profit 
 is already very small, whilst it would be simply fatal to 
 those industries which are struggling for life against keen 
 foreign competition. Among these industries are the textile 
 trades, the cotton trade of Lancashire and the woollen trade 
 of Yorkshire, which are now beginning to agitate for Eight 
 Hours. In these trades profits are low, because the com- 
 petition of the whole world has to be faced. If the 
 cost of production were largely increased by the adoption 
 of shorter hours and the maintenance of the same rate 
 of wages these great national industries would dwindle 
 
 * " It is, however, right to point out that, while the share of the aggregate 
 wealth produced in the country which now falls to labour is larger than it 
 was twenty years ago, a corresponding diminution has taken place in the 
 share which falls to capital ; in other words, that while wages have risen, 
 profits have fallen ; and that this is obviously a process which cannot be con- 
 tinued beyond a certain point. This point has, we think, been very nearly, if 
 not quite, attained already. A time may therefore come when capital will 
 lose all inducement to lend itself to the work of production, and if the 
 employer is driven out of the field, the labourer will necessarily suffer with 
 h.\m." — Report of Commissioners on Depression of Trade. Clause 83.
 
 352 Eight Hours' Fanatics. 
 
 away. This might give satisfaction to Mr. Tom Mann and 
 a few others hke him, but what would become of the 
 hundreds of thousands of persons employed in these indus- 
 tries ? It will be seen, therefore, that an Eight Hours law, 
 if enacted, would seriously injure our national industries, 
 whilst at the same time the results anticipated from it by 
 the enthusiasts who are striving to force it upon the country 
 could never be realised. A common-sense view of the 
 matter shows at a glance that shorter hours of labour would 
 mean less work ; less work would mean less production ; 
 less production would mean less wealth ; less wealth would 
 mean less capital ; less capital would mean less demand for 
 labour. How can such a state of things benefit anybody ? 
 It would not benefit anybody, least of all the working man, 
 who besides having his work and his wages reduced, would 
 be subjected to coercion and espionage which would be 
 intolerable.* To the employer in thousands of cases, an 
 Eight Hours Bill would be simply fatal. x\nd what com- 
 pensating advantages would be gained ? The idea that the 
 increased leisure acquired by the working classes under an 
 Eight Hours law would be devoted to intellectual pursuits is 
 a beautiful illusion. Nothing is more certain than that 
 under the conditions which now prevail among the working 
 
 • Mr. Bradlaugh, referring to the fact that work is often taken home, 
 asked : " Are you going to allow the police spies to come into your home and 
 say how long you shall work ? " Mr. Hyndman's answer was that the 
 espionage would be exercised by a system of fines imposed on the employers, 
 not on the employed ; but his own Bill contemplated informers to be rewarded 
 by half the fine. Under such a system the country would be over-run and 
 cursed with spies and informers. 
 
 As illustrations of the fanaticism of the advocates of the Eight Hours law 
 the following facts should be noted : Mr. James Evans, of the Neath and 
 Swansea Miners' Association, was asked before the Labour Commission what 
 he would do if it were proved that a compulsory Eight Hours day would 
 result in lessening production and injuring British trade. His answer was: 
 " I would insist upon an Eight Hours day being adopted in the coal trade all 
 over England." " Even if a large section of those employed disagreed ? " he 
 was asked. " Yes," was his reply. Mr. Tom Mann stated before the Labour 
 Commission, on November i6, 1892, that — " He would allow the employers a 
 voice in saying whether a change should be brought about, but he did not think 
 they should be taken as having an equal voice with the ivorkmen, because the numbers of 
 the workmen were so much more numerous." This is, of course, Mr. Mather's 
 doctrine.
 
 spiritual Element in Capital. 353 
 
 classes as a whole this leisure would be mainly spent in 
 ways that are harmful both to these classes themselves and 
 to the comiimnity at large. The time may come, we all hope 
 it will come, when working men will have been so far raised 
 by intellectual and moral means above the position which 
 they now occupy that they will be able to use increased 
 leisure for the advantage of themselves and of everybody else. 
 But that time is not yet. 
 
 Violent interference on the part of Parliament with the 
 natural relations which exist between Labour and Capital, 
 and with the normal operations of economic laws, would 
 disturb and dislocate trade, impair credit, and shake the 
 security of capital to a degree that is almost incalculable ; 
 and Parliament, were it to arbitrarily enact an Eight Hours 
 law, would be interfering with natural economic laws and 
 relations, and such interference would probably have the 
 immediate effect of destroying the margin of profit, already 
 greatly reduced, which alone enables our industries to exist. 
 The employer would, if the Socialists who are clamouring 
 for the Eight Hours day got their way, be hit in two w^ays, 
 as the returns from his fixed capital, his plant, etc., would 
 be decreased, although the charges on this fixed capital 
 remained the same, and he would also have to pay more 
 wages for less work. Under these circumstances the 
 margin of profit would be destroyed and capital would 
 betake itself elsewhere. Factories would be closed ; manu- 
 factures would diminish ; and the supremacy of England as 
 the first industrial nation in the world would pass to some 
 other people more worthy of it. No law can compel capital 
 to remain where it is unable to earn any profit ; even if a 
 law could be conceived which would have the effect of 
 retaining capital here under the circumstances supposed, its 
 vitality could not be preserved from decay. Capital which 
 ceases to work profitably soon ceases to be. There is a 
 spiritual element in capital — credit, confidence, an atmo- 
 sphere in which men breathe comfortably — an environment 
 which gives them a guarantee of security. Once let this
 
 354 Political Economy and Presumption. 
 
 spirit — intangible but actual, undefinable but realisable — be 
 affrighted by the rude violence of ignorant politicians, and 
 it will silently and imperceptibly vanish. When it is gone men 
 of business will be conscious that the foundation upon which 
 they have built has been taken from underneath their feet. 
 
 If there is any branch of industrial operations where 
 Individualism as opposed to Socialism ought to have full 
 sway it is in regard to the regulation of the hours of labour. 
 Adam Smith says : " The statesman who should attempt to 
 direct private people in what manner they ought to employ 
 their capital would not only load himself with a most 
 unnecessary attention but assume an authority which could 
 safely be trusted not only to no single person but to no 
 council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so 
 dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and 
 presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." 
 These be wise words. Our statesmen would do well to lay 
 them to heart, Alas ! We not only have among us 
 numerous individuals who have folly and presumption 
 enough to think themselves fit to exercise such power as 
 this, but we have also public bodies, the London County 
 Council for example, who exhibit the same folly and pre- 
 sumption. The House of Commons itself is not free from 
 this dangerous spirit. Parliament never manifested such 
 an almost ungovernable tendency to thrust its hands into 
 the private affairs of the citizens as it does now ; at the 
 same time we have never had a Parliament so ill qualified to 
 deal discreetly with these delicate and complicated matters 
 as the Parliament which the Democracy was pleased to give 
 us at the General Election of 1892.* 
 
 * Mr. R. Giffen, of the Board of Trade, gave some valuable evidence on 
 the Eight Hours day before the Labour Commission at its closing sittings at 
 the end of January, 1893. Referring to the diminution in the hours of labour 
 which has taken place during the last twenty years in textile trades, in railway 
 employment, and in the building trades and mining, he said that something 
 approaching to an Eight Hours day was coming of itself. "The effect of this 
 would be a reduction of production, which would necessarily mean a reduction 
 of the wages of those producing ; there would be no increase of remuneration, 
 and he doubted whether there would be any provision of employment for 
 those who are unemployed." Whilst admitting that in some employments, 
 such as railways, mining, chemical works, etc., which were attended with 
 danger to life, there were reasons for restricting the hours of labour even for 
 adults, he stated that " in these cases legislation should be on public 
 grounds and not on grounds of Local Option. The public should decide that 
 there was a sufficient reason for regulating the hours in particular trades."
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Dangerous Consequences of Legal Interference 
 WITH Contracts, Accumulations, and Exchanges. 
 
 NO branch of human knowledge is more interesting or 
 instructive than that which relates to the commonest 
 things around us — to the Wants of Man and the Means of 
 satisfying them ; which classifies and explains the laws 
 which govern the Production, Distribution, and Consump- 
 tion of those articles which are essential to the subsistence 
 and the comfort of the human race, those articles of Utility 
 which are commonly called Wealth ; which exhibits the natural 
 operation of the principles which govern the production and 
 distribution of all exchangeable properties and commodities. 
 This science is called Political Economy. It is no part of 
 the object of this work to expound the principles of that 
 science, though in a subsequent chapter some explanation 
 of these principles, and of the modifications which they have 
 recently undergone, will be attempted. Political Economy 
 has gained a bad reputation among the sciences ; it is stig- 
 matised as " the dismal science ; " and the fashion just now 
 is to depreciate and contemn it. For this. Professors of 
 Political Economy are themselves largely to blame. They 
 have darkened counsel by words without knowledge, and 
 they have overlaid the few great and simple principles of the 
 science with such mountains of technical and irrelevant 
 matter in the shape of exposition and commentary that they 
 have made it almost impossible for plain men to dig out 
 their meaning, and consequently have discouraged them 
 from giving any serious attention to the science. Nothing 
 more forbidding to intelligent readers could well be imagined 
 than some laboured and abstruse works on Political
 
 356 Political Economy and Working Men. 
 
 Economy which might be named. A business man of 
 average capacity would have to read them ten times over 
 and study them for ten years before he could make out their 
 drift and purpose. Such works, however valuable they may 
 be to students, are of no use whatever to the ordinary man 
 of the world. Yet this is the man who most needs to be 
 educated in regard to these matters. If any class in the 
 community needs to be instructed as to the nature and the 
 w^orking of those great principles with which Political 
 Economy deals, it is the class which lives by its labour, or 
 in other words those who are commonly called " working 
 men ; " and this instruction is more necessary than it was 
 even in former times, simply because these men have now 
 been placed in possession of political powers which make 
 them virtually the masters of our industry and commerce as 
 well as of our Government. These men are sellers of 
 labour ; their industry is a purchaseable or exchangeable 
 commodity ; and it is regulated by the same laws as every 
 other exchangeable property. What working men most 
 need to be instructed in, therefore, is the application of the 
 universal laws which govern all exchanges to the direction 
 of that particular exchange which they are most interested 
 in carrying forward rapidly, certainly, and uninterruptedly — 
 the exchange of Labour for Capital. Such instruction 
 would save them from most of the errors and dangers into 
 which they are now liable to fall, into w^hich indeed multi- 
 tudes of them have fallen, to their own great loss and to the 
 detriment of the community. 
 
 If Political Economy teaches one thing more clearly than 
 another it is that violent interference with the natural .laws 
 which govern the production, distribution, and consumption 
 of commodities, either arbitrarily on the part of a despotic 
 Government or more indirectly and insidiously on the part 
 of a tyrannical Democracy, must be injurious to the true 
 interests of society. 
 
 Let us first of all consider the significance of the terms 
 just used. In doing so it will be necessary to go back to
 
 First Principles. 357 
 
 tirst principles. There are three conditions which are 
 absokitely necessary for the production of Utility, which 
 term includes everything that is essential to the support and 
 the comfort, the refinement and the enjoyment, of human 
 life. These three conditions are : — 
 
 1. That there shall be Labour; 
 
 2. That there shall be Accumulations of former labour, 
 or what is called Capital ; 
 
 3. That there shall be Exchanges. 
 
 Of these three Labour is undoubtedly the first in the 
 order of time, as it is the parent of all wealth. When the 
 first man was placed upon the earth he had a future beyond 
 him, but no past behind him. There were no storehouses 
 for him to draw from which had been filled by the ex- 
 perience and the labour of men who had lived before him ; 
 he stood in the great universe, solitary and naked. It is 
 difficult for us to imagine the absolute helplessness of a 
 human being placed in such a position. We may, however, 
 form some conception of his condition by reflecting upon 
 the state of a nian who should be cast upon a desert island 
 without clothes or fire or tools. It is obvious that such a 
 man would be reduced to the most abject and pitiable 
 impotence. Even if he had obtained a high degree of 
 knowledge and skill in a civilized land before he was cast 
 upon this island, it is evident that in his present circum- 
 stances this skill and knowledge would not only be of no use 
 to him but would be much worse than useless, because they 
 would compel him to chafe under and kick against the hard 
 necessities of his present condition. His desert island 
 might have a genial climate, be free from ferocious animals, 
 and spontaneously produce fruits of the earth in great 
 abundance. In spite of all this he would be doomed to un- 
 remitting toil in order to maintain a bare and miserable 
 existence. Before he could eat a mouthful of food or drink 
 a mouthful of water he must procure them for himself; 
 before he could wear any garment he must make it ; before 
 he could have a hut to dwell in he must build it ; before he
 
 358 Loivest Condition of Labour. 
 
 could have a couch to he upon, any utensils to use, or any 
 furniture, however rude, he must provide them all for 
 himself. If for a day he neglected his labour, or were 
 unable to perform it through illness, he would hunger ; if 
 for a few days he would die of starvation. What would be 
 the main cause of this man's helplessness ? Clearly this — 
 that he would not be able to take advantage of accumulations 
 of former labour ; and without this his own labour could not 
 be put to a profitable use. In such a case as that here 
 imagined the power of labour would be seen in its lowest, 
 that is, in its least productive, condition. It has been said 
 that a man has greater natural wants and fewer natural 
 means than any other animal. Certainly it is true that he 
 has greater natural wants, but it is taking a low view of his 
 nature to suppose that he has fewer natural means, simply 
 because the reason and understanding which distinguish 
 him from the brute creation constitute the natural means by 
 which Providence designed that he should have dominion 
 over the earth, the sea, and the animal creation. Neverthe- 
 less, a man in such a condition as we have supposed, 
 utterly destitute of the means which human reason and 
 intelligence have accumulated around ever}- individual in the 
 social and civilized state, would be much more helpless than 
 even a brute of the forest. Labour, therefore, in itself and of 
 itself, is but a feeble creature ; it is not until it calls Capital 
 to its aid that its real strength and greatness are attained. 
 As it has been well put : "In the ver\- outset of the journey 
 Labour doubtless took the lead. In the dim morning of 
 society Labour was up and stirring before Capital was 
 awake. Labour did not then ride ; he travelled very slowly 
 on foot through very dirty ways. Capital at length as 
 slowly travelled after through the same mire, but at a 
 humble distance from his parent. But when Capital grew 
 into strength he saw there were other and more agreeable 
 modes of travelling for both than Labour had found out. 
 He procured that fleet and untiring horse Exchange ; and 
 when he proposed to Labour that they should mount
 
 Capital Rides in Front. 359 
 
 together he claimed the right, and kept it, for their mutual 
 benefit, of taking the direction of the horse. For this 
 reason, as it appears to us, we are called upon to assign to 
 one of the companions, according to the practice of the old 
 Knights Templars, the privilege of sitting before the other — 
 holding the reins indeed, but in all respects having a com- 
 munity of interests, and an equality of duties as well as 
 rights, with his fellow traveller." The old proverb says : 
 " When two men ride on one horse one man must ride 
 behind." In the case we are considering Capital and 
 Labour are riding on the one horse Exchange. Formerly 
 they were content with their respective positions. Capital 
 sitting in front and holding the reins ; but lately they have 
 been in perpetual dispute as to which should take the first 
 place. Such disputes are vain, for the simple reason that 
 they can never change the nature of things, and it is in the 
 nature of things that Capital should ride in front, determine 
 what road should be taken, supply eyes and brains for the 
 enterprise, and provide sustenance for the journey. From 
 this position Capital can never be deposed. It is well that 
 it cannot, for were it otherwise Labour would be the first to 
 suffer. Capital and Labour are destined to journey together 
 to the end of time, and their journey will be made all the 
 easier and pleasanter if both parties understand and recog- 
 nise that the first place belongs of right and of necessity to 
 Capital. 
 
 Labour, apart from Capital, is, as has been intimated, 
 helplessness itself. In its very lowest condition, without 
 the assistance of any accumulations from former industry, 
 it is scarcely possible for it to exist at all, and instances of 
 its existence in this condition are therefore very rare. Ross 
 Cox, a Hudson's Bay trader, got lost in the woods of the 
 North-West of the United States during the early part of 
 the present century. Having fallen asleep in the woods, he 
 missed all traces of the large party with which he was 
 travelling. As the weather was very hot, he had left all his 
 clothes with his horse when he had rambled from his friends.
 
 360 Impotence of Labour Alone. 
 
 He had nothing to defend himself against the wolves and 
 serpents but a stick ; he had nothing of which to make 
 his bed but long grass and rushes ; he had nothing to eat 
 but hips and wild cherries. He would undoubtedly have 
 perished if he had not fallen in with some Indians. The 
 condition of this man during this time illustrates the 
 absolute impotence of Labour apart from accumulations of 
 former Labour. The man was strong and healthy, able to 
 work, and indeed possessed of a knowledge of the acquire- 
 ments of civilized life ; but all this availed him nothing in a 
 position where he was not able to avail himself of the aid of 
 Capital. 
 
 Peter, the wild boy, who was discovered in Germany 
 about 150 years ago, and afterwards brought to this country, 
 and the Savage of Ave3Ton, who was discovered about ninety 
 years since in France, were also illustrations of Labour in its 
 lowest condition. But as they were in no sense civilized they 
 could not be conscious of the needs of the civilized man, as 
 Ross Cox would necessarily be ; their wants and desires 
 were not raised above those of the brutes. They supplied 
 their wants after the fashion of brutes. Peter, who was 
 enticed from the woods by the sight of two apples, did not 
 like bread, but he eagerly peeled green sticks and chewed 
 the rind. After he had been in this country some years he 
 was apprehended in Norfolk as a suspicious character and 
 put into prison ; the prison by some means took fire, and 
 Peter was found in a corner enjoying the warmth of the 
 flames without any fear. The Savage of Aveyron could use 
 his hands for no other purpose than that of gripping, and 
 his sense of touch was so defective that he could not dis- 
 tinguish a raised surface from a smooth one, or a carving 
 from a painting. These are extraordinary instances. It is 
 hardh- possible to find even among savages a human being 
 reduced so low as to be unable to avail himself of the aid of 
 Capital, or the accumulations of former labour. 
 
 When a man is able to avail himself of such accumula- 
 lations his condition, however helpless it may be as
 
 Labour with Accumulations. 361 
 
 compared with the condition of a man in the civiHsed and 
 social state, is immensely better than it would be were he 
 absolutely without the assistance of former accumulations. 
 A Moskito Indian, who was left by accident on the island of 
 Juan Fernandez, in the year 1681, illustrates the condition 
 of the man who is left upon a desert island without any 
 direct social aid, but who has some help to his labour in 
 consequence of a small accumulation from former industry. 
 This man had nothing with him but his gun and his knife, 
 with a small horn of powder and a few shot. When he had 
 spent his powder he made his knife into a rude saw by 
 notching it, and with this he cut the barrel of his gun into 
 small pieces, with which he made harpoons, lances, hooks, 
 and a long-bladed knife, having first of all procured a fire by 
 means of his gun flint and apiece of the gun barrel. Before 
 he made these instruments he was obliged to live upon 
 seal's flesh, but after he had got them he refused to eat seal 
 any longer because he was able to kill goats and catch fish. 
 He built himself a little house, lined with goats' skins, and 
 lived in a tolerable degree of rude comfort, although he 
 was left alone on an uninhabited island. He had a 
 constant supply of goat's flesh and fish, which he was 
 able to cook ; he had a house lined with goats' skins, and 
 bedding of the same material ; and he had clothing also 
 made from the skins of animals. He had no helper, and 
 was totally unable to avail himself of those advantages 
 which surround even the poorest individual in the civilized 
 and social state ; yet he had these slight accumulations of 
 former labour, in the shape of the gun, the knife, and the 
 flint which he chanced to have with him when he was left 
 behind, and these, simple as they were, made a marvellous 
 difference in his condition. They enabled him to give to 
 his labour a profitable direction : or, in other words, to give 
 to his natural supplies a utility and a value which they 
 never could have possessed apart from these instruments. 
 No human being could well have less about him in the 
 shape of accumulations from former labour ; yet even with
 
 362 Man an Exchanger. 
 
 these he was able in a very real sense to subdue the powers 
 of nature to himself. To man, if he is to labour profitably, 
 instruments of labour are absolutely essential, simply 
 because he is not provided with natural instruments for 
 securing food as the inferior animals are ; in other words his 
 natural powers must be aided by accumulations from former 
 labour, that is by Capital. This accumulation in some 
 slight degree the Moskito Indian had, and it enabled him to 
 maintain existence in tolerable comfort even amid the 
 severe conditions in which he found himself. Still, the 
 condition of the Moskito Indian was only one degree 
 removed from the lowest and least productive state of 
 labour. It is not enough for a man to labour, or even to 
 labour with the aid of former accumulations ; he must go 
 forward to a higher condition still, and become an ex- 
 changer as well as a labourer. 
 
 This brings us to consider for a moment or two the 
 principle of Exchange. Archbishop Whately has defined man 
 to be " an animal that makes exchanges." No other animal 
 does this. Whatever power of instinct or of reason an 
 insect or a quadruped may possess (and some of them 
 possess such powers in a perfectly marvellous degree), not 
 one of them has any idea of exchanging with his fellow 
 something which it does not want for some other thing 
 which it desires to possess. Even barbarous human beings 
 have very imperfect ideas with regard to Exchange, though 
 all but the very lowest of them have some idea of it. The 
 principle of Exchange can operate fully only where civiliza- 
 tion has attained considerable development ; for this 
 principle is the beginning and the end of all civilization on 
 its material side, and indeed may almost be said itself to 
 constitute civilization. Without it, however much the 
 members of a community might labour, and whatever 
 advantages they might possess by reason of accumulations 
 from former labour, they would always be poor and miser- 
 able. Labour is profitable and accumulations valuable only 
 where the principle of Exchange is in free and full opera-
 
 The Basis of Exchange. 363 
 
 tion ; in other words where every labourer can be sure of 
 exchanging the surplus of what he produces for those things 
 which are essential to the sustenance and the enjoyment of 
 his life. Labour is practically useless apart from Capital ; 
 both Capital and Labour are practically useless apart from 
 Exchange. Without Exchange man would be doomed to 
 constant labour, and yet his accumulations would be so 
 small that he could never rise above a condition of 
 wretchedness ; with Exchange he is certain of securing for 
 himself the results of his own labour, and of thus making 
 the best possible provision for his own wants ; in short, 
 this principle of Exchange makes man the ruler both of 
 himself and of the creation of which he is the head. 
 
 Society, whether rude or refined, is a system of ex- 
 changes. Every man in it, unless he be an idler, is an 
 exchanger ; that is to say, he exchanges the surplus of any 
 commodity which he may produce or possess for some other 
 commodity which he desires. In a rude state of society the 
 exchange is carried on by barter ; in a refined state of 
 society the value of the exchange is represented by money. 
 Where money is used the exchange, although not so direct, 
 is incomparably more rapid. Under this system of ex- 
 change two persons are benefited, simply because each 
 obtains what he wants through the store possessed by others 
 of what they do not want. Now, of course, an exchange is 
 in the nature of an agreement, and the very foundation of 
 that agreement is the security of individual property. 
 Where the principle of individual appropriation is not acted 
 upon there can be no exchange ; and where there is no 
 exchange there can be no production. No man w^ould 
 labour to cultivate or to manufacture anything beyond what 
 he needed to eat and use for himself if the value of what he 
 produced was not secured to him. Before a man can be in 
 a position to exchange he must be in a position to accumu- 
 late, and before he can be in a position to accumulate he 
 must be assured of the secure ownership of what he pro- 
 duces. Where this assurance of security was lacking the
 
 364 Individual Appropriation. 
 
 strongest would obtain the largest share of everything going, 
 and the prevailing sense of insecurity would inevitably 
 prevent or destroy all accumulation. But where the 
 principle of appropriation is fully acted upon, in other words 
 where every man's property is secured to him against all 
 the world, and where he can be assured of exchanging his 
 surplus commodities for the things which he desires, there 
 production and accumulation will go rapidly forward. 
 Accumulations and exchanges are absolutely dependent 
 upon the principle that there shall be private property and 
 that private property shall be inviolable. No security, no 
 exchange ; no exchange, no accumulations ; no accumula- 
 tions, no capital ; no capital, no labour ; no labour, no 
 production ; no production, and the earth would be a desert 
 and a marsh, and mankind a race of savages. Where the 
 principle of appropriation is universally acted upon there 
 will be unlimited exchange ; where there is unlimited ex- 
 change there will be large accumulations ; where there are 
 large accumulations there will be profitable labour ; where 
 there is profitable labour there will be large production ; 
 where there is large production there will be a social and 
 civilized community ; and in such a community, where large 
 accumulations have been stored, the poorest man has a 
 greater certainty of supplying all his wants, and of supplying 
 them with much more ease, than has the richest man in a 
 community which is unsocial and uncivilized, simply be- 
 cause the greater the store the greater is the certainty that the 
 poor man's labour, or in other words his power of adding to 
 that store, will obtain a fair share of what has been gathered 
 together by previous labour.* It is the great principle of 
 Exchange which supplies the motive for production and 
 accumulation, Alexander Selkirk, when he was on his 
 desert island, never thought of providing any store beyond 
 what was needed to supply his own personal necessities. He 
 
 * " It is a great misfortune to be poor ; but it is a much greater misfortune 
 for the poor man to be surrounded only with other poor like himself." — 
 M. Say.
 
 Appropriation of Land. 365 
 
 luid no motive for such a thought, simply because there 
 were no human beings within his reach with whom he might 
 exchange his surphis commodities for theirs. So would it 
 be even with a man who lived in a populous country if he 
 were not allowed to securely possess and to freely exchange 
 the surplus of what he produced for the surplus of some 
 other producer. It is easy to see, therefore, that in order 
 to throw back the civilized world into a state of barbarism 
 it is only necessary to abolish private property and freedom 
 of exchange. 
 
 The principle of appropriation applies to land in the 
 same way and to the same extent as to other kinds of 
 property, and where there is no appropriation of land to in- 
 dividual owners there can never be anything but imperfect 
 production and partial accumulation. Man never advances 
 from the nomadic or the hunting state into the pastoral and 
 agricultural state until the land of the country has been 
 appropriated to individuals. Indian tribes, even though 
 they have recognised the security of individual property, and 
 also the principle of exchange which rests upon the security 
 of property, have nevertheless remained poor and wretched 
 because the principles of appropriation and exchange 
 operated imperfectly and irregularly, and did not apply to 
 the land. It has been estimated that each Indian required 
 a thousand acres for his maintenance. The supplies of food 
 among them were so scanty that if a large number of them 
 assembled together on hunting expeditions they soon had 
 to disperse in consequence of the failure of food supplies. 
 The land required to maintain one person where it was un- 
 enclosed and unappropriated would maintain hundreds after 
 it was enclosed and appropriated. The fact that these 
 Indians laboured without appropriation in this respect pre- 
 vented their labour from being profitable. They depended 
 upon the spontaneous and chance productions of the soil, 
 instead of cultivating the soil and compelling it to produce ; 
 they did not so cultivate and compel it because there was no 
 appropriation of the soil, which is the most efficient natural
 
 366 Imperfect Appropriation. 
 
 instrument of production. If they had utiHsed and directed 
 the productive power of the earth to the growth of food they 
 would have become rich. But they could not have done 
 this without previously appropriating the soil. They 
 had learned the wisdom and necessity of appropriating the 
 spontaneous products of the soil after they had bestowed 
 labour upon obtaining them ; but this last step towards 
 making their soil productive, namely, the appropriation of 
 that soil, was not taken. Therefore they remained poor. 
 Where there is no property in land there will be no cultiva- 
 tion ; where there is no cultivation there will be no wealth. 
 Some of the Indians carried the principle of appropriation 
 almost to a division of land, for each tribe, and sometimes 
 each individual had an allotted hunting ground, which had 
 been appropriated, imperfectly perhaps, by the first comer, 
 whose right had often been contested with violence by later 
 comers ; but still this was enough to show that they had 
 approached the limit which divides the savage from the 
 civilized state. There is no principle which differentiates 
 civilization from barbarism more markedly than that great 
 principle which considers all capital and all land as appro- 
 priated. Where such appropriation does not exist there is 
 no security for individual property ; where there is no 
 security for individual property there is no social improve- 
 ment ; the principle of exchange cannot operate, and each 
 man must make everything he requires for himself, instead 
 of confining his attention to one thing and exchanging the 
 surplus of that one thing for such other commodities as he 
 requires ; where there is no exchange there is no motive for 
 accumulation, and consequent!}- abject poverty prevails. 
 Under such conditions Labour will always be unproductive. 
 One of the greatest blessings of the ci\-ilized state is that it 
 immeasureably increases the power of production. Those 
 who would abolish private property in land, and make its 
 ownership national or municipal instead of individual, 
 would, if they could succeed in carrying out their purpose, 
 effectually put an end to profitable production. Any change
 
 Self -asserting Principles. 367 
 
 in the ownership of land, any holding of it in a common 
 stock or a co-operative partnership, which did not secure to 
 every man his fair share of what the partnership produced, 
 would not last a week. Even under such a plan the culti- 
 vators of the land would be exchangers amongst themselves, 
 and the principle of individual ownership would still have to 
 be recognised. Every man would have to be guaranteed in 
 the possession of his individual share of the fruits of the 
 enterprise. If this guarantee were withheld he would not 
 produce or accumulate anything beyond what he needed to 
 consume himself. Whatever devices may be resorted to by 
 politicians in dealing with the land the great principles 
 which we have been discussing will assert themselves. No 
 man will cultivate the land unless the fruits of his labour 
 are assured to him ; he can have no assurance that he will 
 gather these fruits unless the land is appropriated. What 
 is everybody's business is nobody's business ; land which 
 everybody owns will get nobody to cultivate it. To apply 
 the principle of appropriation to other forms of property and 
 to withhold it as regards land would be absurd. Where 
 appropriation is thus limited exchange will be imperfect ; 
 where exchange is imperfect accumulations will be small ; 
 where accumulations are small labour will be unproductive. 
 Credit, which plays so large a part in the transactions of daily 
 life among civilized men, which indeed may be said to be the 
 very foundation of commerce and prosperity, could not exist 
 at all apart from the principle of appropriation. Those 
 tribes w^hich do not desire to " replenish the earth " by cul- 
 tivation, but seek only to appropriate the means of existence 
 which the earth has spontaneously produced, may labour 
 and exchange, but they will labour and exchange in a way 
 that will not promote the accumulation of wealth, and will 
 therefore remain poor and miserable. " Imperfect appro- 
 priation — that is, an appropriation which respects personal 
 wealth, such as the tools and conveniences of an individual, 
 and even secures to him the fruits of the earth when he has 
 gathered them, but which has not reached the last step of a 
 A2
 
 368 Mistakes of Rulers. 
 
 division of land — imperfect appropriation such as this raises 
 up the same invincible obstacles to the production of utility, 
 because with this original defect there must necessarily be 
 unprofitable labour, small accumulation, unlimited ex- 
 change." 
 
 The great truth which it is desired to enforce in this 
 chapter is that Labour, Accumulation, and Exchange must 
 be allowed to work in harmony with their natural relations 
 and laws, and that attempts to interfere with their normal 
 operations either by legislation or by illegal violence will 
 certainly recoil upon the head of society, and bring in their 
 train a series of heavy misfortunes and disasters. On this 
 point we are not left without experience to guide us ; for un- 
 fortunately rulers of nations in the past, acting either from 
 ignorance or from selfishness, have been but too ready to 
 try experiments in this direction. It is a melancholy re- 
 flection that the calamitous results of this experience do not 
 seem to have produced the impression which might have 
 been expected upon the minds of men in the present genera- 
 tion. No doubt this is largely owing to ignorance, and it 
 may be hoped therefore that in proportion as this ignorance 
 is dissipated men will see it to be both wise and safe to act 
 in harmony with economical laws. 
 
 In these times we have nothing to fear from the arbitrary 
 action of monarchs. For the Crown does not now conceive 
 it to be its duty or its interest, as it once did, to make war 
 upon capital. The House of Commons has no need now 
 to complain, as it did in the time of King Henry, that the 
 monarch seized upon whatever suited his royal pleasure — 
 food, implements, horses, or anything else in the shape of 
 accumulated labour. In the reign of Henry the Third a 
 statute was passed to remedy excessive distresses, from 
 which it appears that the King's officers were in the habit of 
 seizing farmers' oxen while they were ploughing, and restor- 
 ing them only after enormous exaction. Lord Bacon tells 
 us that it was a practice of the King's purveyors to extort 
 large sums of money by threatening to cut down favourite
 
 Effects of Despotism. 369 
 
 trees which grew near mansion houses. Before the Charter 
 of the Forest no man could dig a marl pit on his own 
 ground, lest the king's horses should fall into it when he 
 was hunting. Despotism of this kind would depopulate any 
 country, however fertile, by rendering capital insecure and 
 consequently unproductive. Mr. Fraser, an English 
 traveller, writing of the desolation of some parts of Persia, 
 owing to the exactions of tyrannical rulers, says : " Such is 
 the character of their rulers that the only measure of their 
 demands is the power to extort on the one hand and the 
 ability to give or retain on the other." Labour will never 
 exert itself when it is to be robbed of its accumulated 
 results. Montesquieu lays it down as a maxim that lands 
 are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility but in pro- 
 portion to their freedom. In the dark ages of England's 
 history the king plundered the capitalists, the capitalists 
 plundered the labourers, and the labourers in turn plundered 
 the capitalists again. Harrison, an old historical writer, 
 tells us that during the single reign of Henry the Eighth 
 72,000 thieves were hanged in England. What a lurid 
 light this one fact throws upon the misery of those times ! 
 As the whole of the kingdom did not at that time contain 
 half a million of grown up men one man in ten must have 
 been " devoured and eaten up by the gallows." Amid such 
 universal plunder as then prevailed the insecurity of pro- 
 perty was so great that accumulation was rendered almost 
 impossible, and consequently there was little or no produc- 
 tion. The laws which were passed in those times of 
 ignorance were as unjust in their effects upon industry and 
 capital as were the arbitrary exactions of the king and his 
 nobles. These laws which, as we have already seen, 
 attempted to regulate everything in connection with labour, 
 food, etc., effectually destroyed the freedom of labour and 
 the security of property, and thus prevented Capital and 
 Labour from cordially uniting their energies in the process 
 of production. It has been said that Louis XIV. of 
 France wasted as much capital and labour by per-
 
 370 Despotism of Democracy. 
 
 petually interfering with the freedom of trade as he 
 did by his ruinous wars. Unquestionably our own 
 Government might, by framing one law which should 
 unsettle the relation subsisting between Capital and 
 Labour, create among capitalists a universal sense of inse- 
 curity, and thus do infinitely more mischief than would be 
 done by a war upon the largest scale, however wanton and 
 wicked that war might be. Once convince Capital that it 
 can no longer work with security and the result will be that 
 the productive energy of the country will instantly slacken 
 and begin to decay ; the fields will become barren ; the 
 towns will lose their inhabitants ; the roads grow impassable 
 through neglect ; the canals would be choked, the railways 
 would be deserted, the rivers would break down their banks, 
 and the sea would make inroads upon the land. England 
 may conceivably become what it was 2,000 years ago, a 
 universal marsh, and London may again become what it 
 once was, namely, a wilderness for howling wolves ; and all 
 because the assurance which every man now possesses that 
 he will be allowed to enjoy his own property has been 
 destroyed. For everything which has gone to the raising 
 of England out of the slough in which she existed 2,000 
 years ago, and to the making her what she is to-day, has 
 been built upon the security of property and the consequent 
 productiveness of Labour. The whole fabric rests upon 
 that simple principle. Destroy that principle, and the 
 fabric will be dissolved in a twentieth part of the time which 
 it has taken to build it. 
 
 The despotism of monarchs is a thing of the past in this 
 country. What we have now to fear, as has already been 
 pointed out, is the more terrible despotism of mobs. The 
 pendulum has now swung to the opposite extreme. Parlia- 
 ment is no longer the creature of the monarch, subservient 
 to his imperious will ; but it is the creature of the 
 Democracy, and it is subservient to the more imperious will 
 of " the people." Tyranny which is hydra-headed and 
 million-handed is much more difficult to deal with than
 
 Tyranny of Collectivism. 371 
 
 tyranny which can use only one head and one pair of hands. 
 A monarch who mis-used his power might be deposed from 
 his throne and beheaded ; but no such summary measures 
 can be adopted in the case of a tyrannous Democracy. Let 
 us not beguile ourselves with the delusion that because the 
 absolutism of monarchy is over we have therefore nothing 
 to fear as regards the invasion of our liberties and our rights 
 by despotic power ; that we are in no danger of suffering 
 from arbitrary and unjust enactments on the part of Parlia- 
 ment. It cannot be too often repeated that the new tyranny 
 is worse than the old ; that the tyranny of Collectivism in 
 its various forms of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and over- 
 legislation, is much more to be dreaded than the tyranny of 
 kings and nobles, inasmuch as it is more omnipresent, 
 gripping with its clammy fingers every department and 
 almost every detail of the citizen's life. Despotism of 
 the old order was of a rough and ready character, and was 
 compatible with the enjoyment of a large liberty on the part 
 of a majority of the people, simply because it was impossible 
 that its oppressiveness could be extended to everybody ; but 
 despotism of the new style, which uses to accomplish its 
 purpose Acts of Parliament which apply to every citizen in 
 the country, is much more difficult to escape. It were more 
 tolerable for the men who lived under the Henrys and the 
 Charleses than for those who in the near future will (unless 
 things greatly alter) live under the Socialistic demagogue 
 and the Trade Union Boss. 
 
 In view of what Parliament has done in relation to Ire- 
 land during the last few years it will not do for us to lull 
 ourselves into a false security. No more foolish or iniqui- 
 tous laws were passed by the British House of Commons in 
 the Middle Ages than the Irish Land Acts which it has 
 passed recently. These Acts not only violated contracts 
 which had been voluntarily entered into by both parties, but 
 they also interfered with the natural relations which existed 
 in Ireland between landlord and tenant, between property 
 and industry, and they virtually condemned that individual
 
 372 An Object Lesson. 
 
 appropriation of land which hes at the foundation of all 
 wealth, civilization, and progress. For individual owner- 
 ship they have substituted dual ownership. Really it would 
 be just as sensible for Parliament to decree that every horse 
 in Ireland should have two owners as that every piece of 
 agricultural land shall have two owners. What are the re- 
 sults of these Land Acts in Ireland ? That the tenant's 
 industry and the landlord's property are placed in antago- 
 nism ; that the motive which the landlord formerly had for 
 improving his land has been destroyed, whilst no similar 
 motive has been created in the mind of the tenant ; that the 
 free sale of land in Ireland has been rendered impossible, 
 and that a sense of insecurity has been created which 
 frightens capital away from the shores of that country : in 
 short, that things have been turned upside down. Nobody 
 has gained from this legislation, for whilst the landlords 
 have been impoverished the tenants are not one whit better 
 off than they were before. Indeed, the state of things pre- 
 vailing in Ireland ought to operate as a solemn warning to 
 our rulers not to repeat the experiments which they have 
 been trying in that unfortunate country, even if it does not 
 induce them to undo their evil work. There can be no 
 doubt that this work will have to be undone before Ireland 
 can really enjoy the prosperity to which her natural advan- 
 tages entitle her. The principle of individual ownership of 
 land will have to be again reverted to, and it is perhaps the 
 greatest recommendation of Land Purchase Acts that they 
 tend to re-establish this principle. So infatuated, however, 
 are many of our statesmen with this innovating and destruc- 
 tive legislation that Mr. Chamberlain exultingly points to 
 the fact that Acts of Parliament have been passed to limit 
 freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland, 
 and eagerly urges that we ought therefore to proceed to pass 
 further Acts of Parliament to limit freedom of contract be- 
 tween the capitalist and the labourer. 
 
 In addition to these Irish Land Acts Parliament has 
 interfered during the last few years between Capital and
 
 Parliament and Wages. 373 
 
 Labour in all sorts of ways. We have already noticed the 
 resolution which was adopted by the House of Commons 
 requiring all Government contractors to pay what the Trade 
 Unions are pleased to require as "fair" wages. In adopting 
 such a resolution Parliament has trespassed beyond its 
 proper functions. All that it is entitled to claim from those 
 who contract to do its work is that they will do that work 
 soundly and thoroughly. What arrangements these con- 
 tractors make with their workmen is no concern of Parliament 
 or anybody else. The workmen are perfectly well able to 
 take care of themselves, and that fact is the surest safeguard 
 against any improper advantage being taken of them by the 
 employer. No Parliament can compel employers to pay 
 their men higher wages than they deserve, or than the con- 
 ditions of their business will warrant, for any length of time. 
 By improperly interfering in these matters Parliament will 
 harass the employers and make it very difficult for them to 
 conduct their business, and it will also add to the cost of 
 the public work, but this is about all it will be able to do. 
 Lord George Hamilton boasts that, as First Lord of the 
 Admiralty, he had the placing of contracts to the value of 
 something like forty millions of pounds, and that he gave 
 these contracts only "to those who were in the habit of 
 paying fair wages to workmen " ; in other words he per- 
 mitted one of the great spending departments of the Gov- 
 ernment to be conducted in obedience to the behests of the 
 Trade Unions. It is difficult to see what a Cabinet Minister, 
 who is the servant of the whole nation and not simply of 
 Trade Unions, can find to be proud of in such a fact as this. 
 Owing to the action which has been taken by Government 
 and Parliament in this matter the pretentiousness and self- 
 importance of Trade Unions have been swelled to a 
 dangerous degree. It is not at all an uncommon thing for 
 the secretary of some obscure Trade Union to write to a 
 Cabinet Minister, and to take him to task because the Gov- 
 ernment has given contracts to tradesmen against whom 
 the Trade Unionists of the district happen to have a
 
 374 Petty Proceedings in Parliament. 
 
 grudge.* Such trumpery proceedings as have occurred 
 frequently of late are altogether beneath the dignity of the 
 British Parliament. Surely if there is an}- public body in 
 the country which ought to conduct its business on common- 
 sense principles it is the House of Commons ! 
 
 When Millbank Prison was sold a few months ago by 
 the Government it was offered for sale on the special con- 
 dition that the purchasers would be compelled to pay a 
 minimum wage of 6jd. per hour to all the men whom they 
 employed, and the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works 
 and Public Buildings stated that they would enforce this by 
 putting into operation, if necessary, a clause forfeiting 
 
 * On April 5, 1892, a memorial which had been addressed to the Corpora- 
 tion of London by the Bermondsey Vestry was considered at a meeting of the 
 City Commission of Sewers. The memorial protested against the low wages 
 of the City scavengers and street sweepers, and expressed regret that the 
 City, with all its wealth, which rightly belonged to the whole 0/ Loudon, did not 
 treat the men which it employed well, or pay them the Trade Union rate of 
 wages. Mr. Alderman Treloar, the chairman, characterized the memorial as 
 " presumptuous and impudent," and Mr. Graham King said he never re- 
 membered " a more impudent communication." Mr. B. Turner. Chairman 
 of the Streets Committee, said a considerable number of persons were em- 
 ployed out of charity, as they were physically incapable of doing much work, 
 and that if the Vestry and other agitators persisted in this annoyance these 
 persons would be dismissed, and would thus lose the wages they were receiving. 
 
 Mr. C. J. Drummond, Secretary of the London Society of Compositors, in 
 August, 1891, endeavoured to induce the Marylebone Vestry to give their 
 printing work to a firm which paid the Trade Union rate of wages. The 
 Vestry declined to take any action in the matter, or to receive a deputation of 
 ratepayers on the subject. 
 
 A meeting was held in Trafalgar Square, on December 18, 1892, by the 
 Amalgamated Society of Tailors, " for the purpose of protesting against the 
 London County Council giving its clothing contracts to firms that do not pay 
 Trade Union rates of wages." The following resolutions were passed : (i) 
 " That this meeting, while condemning the action of the London County 
 Council in refusing to adhere to their Trade Union rate of wages resolution 
 in the giving out of their contracts for clothing, strongly urges that and other 
 municipal bodies to undertake the manufacture of all future clothing contracts 
 without the intervention of a middleman or a contractor ; " (2) " That this 
 mass meeting of w^orking men and women pledges itself to organise at once in 
 their various Trade Unions, as the best means of checking the rapacious greed 
 of Capitalism, and further pledges itself to educate and agitate for the over- 
 throw of the present competitive system of monopoly, and for the establish- 
 ment of a system wherein the means of life shall be in the hands of the 
 producer." 
 
 On August 5, i89i,the Leeds Town Council resolved by 16 to 13 to require 
 contractors with the Corporation to observe the recognised rates of wages and 
 hours of labour, and to forbid sub-letting.
 
 The Public and Trade Unions. 375 
 
 deposit money and all right to the buildings bought. What 
 was the result ? That when the first portion of the build- 
 ings, which originally cost £10,000 in materials alone, was 
 put up for sale, only ;£'6oo could be obtained for it. If the 
 Government had not insisted upon such an absurd con- 
 dition as the one just noticed no doubt the price realised 
 would have been four times as large. Thus is the 
 public made to suffer in order to gratify the whims 
 of politicians and the arrogance of Trade Unions. The 
 Trade Union Congress of 1892 passed resolutions calling 
 upon the Government not to buy its lead pencils for the 
 Civil Service from Bavaria, to exclude foreign pauper 
 labour, and " to prohibit blacklegs from being imported 
 from abroad during strikes and lockouts ; and to stamp all 
 goods produced by trade unionists, so that public-spirited 
 persons may not knowingly purchase commodities produced 
 under unfair conditions." But why does the Government 
 buy its pencils from Germany ? Simply because they can 
 get a better article for the price than they could obtain in 
 this country. Whose fault is that ? It is the fault of the 
 British workman.* If he wants to remedy this state of 
 things let him produce better goods for the same money 
 than the German workman can produce. That would be the 
 
 * English artisans are constantly complaining that work which they ought to 
 do is given to workmen abroad, but they fail to realise that this is mainly owing 
 to their own conduct. The London Society of Lithographic Printers passed 
 a resolution some time ago expressing regret at " the tendency of the proprie- 
 tors of illustrated journals to have their chromo-lithographed supplements 
 executed abroad," and urging workmen to "patronise only those journals 
 which are produced in this country." ■ It seems that there are about 8,000 
 skilled workmen engaged in this industry in Great Britain, besides 16,000 
 lads. Out of 800 members of the London Society 16 per cent, uere then out 
 of employment. 
 
 In September, 1892, it was stated that the previous three months had been 
 the worst that English printers had known for many years, as a large amount 
 of book and other work had been sent into the country, the result being that 
 many London compositors were out of work, whilst London firms had run 
 their composing rooms at a serious loss. The litho and colour printing trade 
 was declared to be in a still worse state, loud complaints being made by the 
 men that benevolent and other institutions sent large orders to the continent, 
 where labour is so much cheaper. Even our provincial firms, though their 
 ■wages are much lower than in London, are finding it impossible to compete 
 with Germany and Holland.
 
 37^ Labour Protectionists. 
 
 common-sense course. But the only idea of the British 
 workman nowadays seems to be that he should be protected 
 at every point by Parliament. Trade Unionists of the new 
 type are the most arrant Protectionists among us where 
 competition with their labour is concerned, although they 
 are most extreme Free Traders where foreign competition 
 with the British producer is concerned. If the unionist 
 workman chooses to strike, he thinks that Parliament 
 should not only allow him the privilege of striking but 
 should also, in order to protect him, deny to his employer 
 the right of engaging other workmen, and deny to other 
 workmen the right of taking the work which he leaves. He 
 has also evidently got the idea into his head that Parlia- 
 ment ought to prohibit the manufacture, or sale, or use of 
 any articles that do not bear the T^ade Union stamp, for 
 clearly this is what is indicated by the third of the resolu- 
 tions to which we have just adverted.* 
 
 This perpetual interference on the part of Parliament in 
 matters affecting labour at the instigation of Socialistic 
 Trade Unionists has done nobody a particle of good, least 
 of all the people in whose interests the action is supposed 
 to have been taken. Mrs. Fawcett felt herself compelled 
 some time ago to protest against schemes of social legisla- 
 tion which, though designed to protect women from over- 
 work, were likelv to result in depriving them of their 
 employment altogether. If it be true that the work of many 
 
 * John Burns, speaking in the London County Council on Nov. 25, 1892, 
 said that — "When it proved in the interest of the community he admitted 
 that he was a Protectionist, and when Free Trade was unobjectionable he 
 would be a Free Trader " Referring to some remarks which had been made 
 respecting Scotch firms, he said that " too frequently Scotchmen were a 
 nation of blacklegs, who indulged in some of the worst forms of sweating. 
 He was one of those who believed that Scotchmen had had quite enough out 
 of London in the past, and he was not anxious that they should have any 
 more. In his opinion London men ought to have the preference, especially 
 in times of great distress. Mr. Torrance had said that 30 per cent, of the 
 shipwrights on the Clyde were out of work, but they ought to remember that 
 45 per cent, of the shipwrights in London were at present unemployed." It 
 did not occur to Mr. Burns to explain why so many London shipwrights were 
 unemployed. The fact is largely due to the action of himself and a few other 
 Socialistic agitators.
 
 Trade Unions and Female Labour. 377 
 
 women is underpaid, it is equally true that it is better for 
 these women to work for low wages than not to be able to 
 work at all. Women are the first to suffer from the schemes 
 of the Trade Unionists, who in their secret hearts look upon 
 women as their rivals, and wish to drive them out of the 
 field. Fear of female competition has much more to do 
 with their " humanitarian " devices than anxiety to pre- 
 vent women from being over-worked. Women can afford 
 to work for less wages than men, because they do not spend 
 a large proportion of their wages in drinking, smoking, and 
 gambling. A deputation of women nail and chain makers 
 waited on Mr. Matthews when he was at the Home Office 
 to protest against Parliamentary interference with their 
 labour, their contention being that such interference with 
 the labour of adult women would narrow the field of em- 
 ployment for women. They specially objected to a provision 
 in Lord Dunraven's Bill that no girl should work at the 
 nail and chain trade until she was 16, on the ground that 
 this would virtually be driving women out of the trade, as 
 the necessary dexterity in the handicraft must be acquired 
 whilst young. 
 
 The principal dangers which threaten us in these times, 
 so far as the security of property and the freedom of labour 
 are concerned, arise from Socialism and the Labour move- 
 ment, which are so intimately related that they may for all 
 practical purposes be regarded as one and the same. This 
 Socialistic Spirit is manifesting itself in three forms : first, 
 as Socialism pure and simple ; secondly, in the Socialistic 
 developments of the Labour movement ; and thirdly, in the 
 Socialistic action of municipal bodies. 
 
 As to Socialism pure and simple, but little need be said 
 in regard to it here, as it will be fully discussed in subsequent 
 chapters. Such Socialism, however, boldly enunciates the 
 principle that accumulation is in itself an evil, a position so 
 preposterous that it is hardly worth while to spend a mo- 
 ment's labour in refuting it. Individual Socialists are not 
 at all averse to accumulating on their own behalf, and it
 
 378 Socialism De-humanizing. 
 
 would be possible to name several Socialistic leaders who 
 have a large balance at their bankers. They regard accu- 
 mulations as an evil only when they are in the possession 
 of others, and they certainly do not show any eagerness to 
 divide their own accumulations with other people. Rousseau 
 advises Governments not to secure property to its posses- 
 sors, but to deprive them of all means of accumulating ; and 
 the same writer advocated the savage state, in which there 
 should be no property, in preference to the social state which 
 is founded on appropriation. Herein he was consistent, for 
 Socialism would really be a return to barbarism, to the 
 brutality and misery of savagery. Among the brutes each 
 labours to obtain what it desires from sources which are 
 accessible to all, and when it can it plunders the sources of 
 others. Socialism would throw back the race into its 
 primitive degradation, and reduce man almost to the level 
 of the beasts of the forest. 
 
 The second form of Socialism, or that which is mani- 
 festing itself in and through the Labour movement, is really 
 the most serious danger which confronts us to-day. The 
 working man in this country is, as has already been pointed 
 out, in the condition of a free exchange. The law guar- 
 antees to him the absolute possession of his property, 
 that is his labour. In the eye of the law he is on a perfect 
 equality with the capitalist. He is able to work under the 
 stimulus of the assurance that he can exchange his labour 
 for the money of the capitalist on terms of perfect equality, 
 as the capitalist has no advantage, so far as law is con- 
 cerned, over the labourer, and thus the exchange is made 
 beneficial to both parties so far as laws and institutions can 
 give it this character. The English working man is no 
 longer a slave ; he is a free labourer ; no labour is forced 
 upon him or from him, and no rate of payment for that 
 labour is prescribed for him by law; he is free to work when 
 he pleases, and be idle when he pleases — provided he breaks 
 no contract by remaining idle ; he is free to obtain the 
 highest wages that he can possibly get, and even to unite
 
 A Pernicious Doctrine. 379 
 
 with his fellows in obtaining these wages, on the condition 
 that he does not by this union destroy that freedom of in- 
 dustry which belongs to others no less than to himself, and 
 without which he could not have taken one step towards 
 improving his own condition. Natural justice can demand 
 no more than this. The working man is in the possession 
 of all the rights to which he can be entitled as an exchanger. 
 The most fundamental of those rights is that he shall not 
 be compelled by arbitrary enactments to part with his 
 property without having the fullest equivalent which the 
 general laws of exchange will afford him. Having attained 
 this position the English working man ought to be content. 
 Actually, however, he is more discontented than he ever 
 was, and his discontent is mainly due to the action of poli- 
 ticians and demagogues, who wish to use him for their own 
 ends, and whose wiles he is not acute enough to see through. 
 Doctrines are now being taught to working men by 
 Socialistic agitators which are of the most delusive and 
 dangerous character. They are not new doctrines by any 
 means : they have been taught for centuries past, and they 
 have been exploded over and over again ; yet they are being 
 taught to-day with more energy than ever. Take one such 
 doctrine as an example. It is taught by the Socialistic 
 leaders of the New Trades Unionism that the labour of the 
 workman shall not yield any profit to the capitalist, or in 
 other words that all the results of labour should be appro- 
 priated by the labourer himself. What does this amount 
 to ? Simply this — that if the capitalist is not to be allowed 
 a profit upon his capital he is virtually deprived of his 
 property ; he is to lend or give his capital to the labourer 
 without a profit or without the freedom to withhold his 
 capital if no profit could be obtained upon it. This doctrine 
 was taught by a lecturer on Political Economy in the early 
 part of this century, who complained that "the labourer is 
 not allowed to work, unless, in addition to replacing what- 
 ever he uses or consumes, and comfortably subsisting him- 
 self, his labour also gives a profit to the capitalist on all the
 
 380 Another Redudio ad Absurdiim. 
 
 capital which he uses or consumes while engaged in pro- 
 ducing."* This principle is called by the writer " a 
 principle of slavery." This is the contention of the New 
 Unionism, the advocates of which are always speaking of 
 the " slavery " of wage earners. As this is a vital point it 
 will be well to probe it to the bottom. It is contended that 
 the capitalist should not receive a profit upon the employ- 
 ment of his capital. But if he did not do so it would 
 remain unemployed, it would be useless. According to this 
 doctrine, capital, which is the accumulation of former 
 labour, ought to be the property of the present labourers ; for 
 obviously if it is not to be allowed to return a profit to the 
 capitalist he may as well give up the trouble and anxiety of 
 taking care of it. Suppose, then, that the working men of 
 1893 were to divide their employers' capital amongst them, 
 and were to work more advantageously to themselves with 
 the profits of the capital which they had thus appropriated. 
 Ten years from now a new class of labourers would rise up 
 to claim their share in the spoil. According to the original 
 doctrine upon which the labourers of 1893 acted, the 
 labourers of 1903 would have a better title to the money 
 than the labourers of 1893, who would have become 
 capitalists ; because those of 1903, not being capitalists, 
 contribute more labour to procure some of the capital by 
 exchange. Consequently they would dispossess the 
 labourers of 1893 ; and these having once more become non- 
 capitalists would acquire a new title to the capital, and 
 would again dispossess the labourers of 1903 ! This is the 
 absurd consequence in which we are landed by the doctrine 
 that the accumulation oi former labour belongs to the present 
 labourers, and that the best title to the accumulation is to 
 have added nothing towards it, but only to. be willing to 
 add. Strabo mentions a priest whose right to the priest- 
 hood was acquired by having murdered his predecessor ; 
 similarly our Socialistic Trade Unionists teach working men 
 that their right to the possession of the property of the 
 capitalist is to be acquired by dispossessing him. 
 * Hodgskin's " Popular Political Economy."
 
 Principle of Exchange Destroyed. 381 
 
 Put in another form the case may be stated thus : 
 Capital is the old labour stored up for exchanj^e with new 
 labour ; persons who attach exclusive value to the new 
 labour as against the old labour say that the new production ■ 
 should be stimulated by the old production, without allowing 
 the old production to be exchanged against the new ; that 
 is that the old production should be an instrument for the 
 reward of new labour, but not a profitable instrument to its 
 possessor, " The doctrine, therefore, amounts to this ; 
 that Labour shall exchange with Labour, but not with the 
 products of Labour, or that there shall be no exchange 
 whatever ; for if the present labourers are to have the sole 
 benefit of the capital the principle of exchange, in which 
 both exchangers benefit, is destroyed. There must be an 
 end of all exchanges when the things to be exchanged are 
 not equally desired by both parties. If the capitalist is to 
 lend or to give the capital to the labourer without a profit, 
 or without a perfect freedom which would entitle him to 
 withhold it if no profit could be obtained, the balance is 
 destroyed between capital and labour. Accumulation is 
 then at an end ; because the security of the thing accumu- 
 lated to the accumulator is at an end. The security is at 
 an end, because, if the new labour is to have the advantage 
 of the old labour without compensation or exchange, the 
 new labour must take the old labour by force or fraud ; for 
 the new cannot proceed without the old ; Labour cannot 
 stir without" Capital. Accumulation, therefore, being at an 
 end, labour for an object beyond the wants of the hour is 
 at an end. Society resolves itself into its first elements. We 
 return to the powerless condition, first of the North 
 American Indians ; and thence, having overturned the 
 security of property which they respect, we go backward to 
 the state of man in the lowest depth of brute degradation, 
 such as scarcely exists amongst the rudest tribes." 
 
 The contention of the new labour among ourselves to- 
 day is that it ought to have the advantage of the old labour, 
 or capital, without paying for it ; and in order to get pos-
 
 382 Plotting against Employers. 
 
 session of this old labour, or the accumulations of the past, 
 it is endeavouring to induce Parliament to pass all sorts of 
 laws for the protection of the new labour to the disadvan- 
 tage of the old labour. Trades Unionists are asking for 
 Eight Hours Acts, for the abolition of the Common Law of 
 Conspiracy, for the abolition of the doctrine of common 
 employment, and other similar enactments, because if these 
 laws were passed they would, as we have already pointed 
 out, be able to form such powerful combinations against 
 employers that the employers would be absolutely at their 
 mercy. In other words the}^ would be able to take from 
 their employers their capital by a gradual process, and to 
 transfer it to their own possession. This is the purpose 
 which lies at the bottom of all the schemes of Socialistic 
 Trade Unionism. 
 
 The time has come to tell English working men, and to 
 tell them with no uncertain voice, that as they have been 
 raised to the position of free exchangers and placed upon a 
 perfect equality with the capitalist, they are morally bound 
 to use their power in harmony with those laws by which 
 exchanges are governed. Once let working men imagine 
 that they can obtain some of the capital of the employer, or 
 all of it, without giving an equivalent in exchange for it, and 
 let them make but one attempt to carry this idea into 
 practice, and the stores which they desire to plunder would 
 vanish as if by magic. They might once divide among 
 themselves the property of the capitalists, but they would 
 never be able to repeat the process, for the simple reason 
 that the capital would never again be produced while this 
 feeling of insecurity existed. The accumulation of property 
 depends upon the principle that property shall be secure ; 
 let the security be destroyed and the accumulation will 
 cease. If the idea now so prevalent among working men, 
 that the capital of the emploj'er can be seized or used with- 
 out a fair exchange of labour being given in return for it, 
 could be carried into practice the principle of exchange 
 would be destroyed ; because it is of the essence of that
 
 Led Captive by Trade Unions. 383 
 
 principle that both exchangers should benefit, whereas in 
 the case supposed the labourer alone would benefit. This 
 would bring all exchanges to an end. Exchange at an end, 
 accumulation would be at an end, because the accumulator 
 would have no security that what he had accumulated 
 would be assured to him. Accumulation being at an end, 
 all labour would be at an end, except what was necessary to 
 provide for the present hour. Society would then and thus 
 be resolved into its primary elements. 
 
 The third danger to which we are exposed in these times 
 by reason of Socialism lies in the tendency of public bodies 
 to act in the interests of Trade Unionists at the expense of 
 all other classes. This disposition has been more flagrantly 
 manifested by the London County Council than by any 
 other public body, though some other municipalities have 
 gone a long way in the same direction. Much has already 
 been said upon the general policy of the London County 
 Council, but it is impossible to avoid making a few com- 
 ments at this stage on its treatment of labour questions and 
 its method of dealing with contracts and public works. On 
 May 17, 1892, Mr. John Burns moved in the Council : "That 
 all the contractors be compelled to sign a declaration that they 
 pay the Trade Union rate of wages, and observe the hours 
 of labour and conditions recognised by the London Trades 
 Unions, and that the hours and wages be inserted in and 
 form part of the contracts by way of schedule, and that 
 penalties be enforced for any breach of agreement." Mr. 
 Beachcroft truly said that the real meaning of this motion 
 was to make the Council the mouthpiece of the Trade 
 Unions, and to compel Trade Unions throughout the 
 country to raise wages to the level of the London rate. He 
 urged the Council not to commit itself blindly to so grave a 
 principle without further consideration. Mr. Roberts 
 moved as an amendment : " That a special committee be 
 appointed to consider in what manner the Council can 
 require its contractors to pay all employed on work for the 
 Council the standard rate of wages." The amendment was 
 
 B2
 
 384 Harassing Contractors. 
 
 rejected by a majority of 3, the numbers being 52 for it and 
 55 against it. On May 25 the discussion of the matter was 
 resumed, when Mr. Costello moved as an amendment : 
 " After the first word ' That ' to insert the words, ' except 
 as regards work intended by the Council to be done outside 
 London.'" Mr. Sydney Webb seconded this, but after a 
 long discussion it was rejected by y^ votes against 32. On 
 May 27 the matter was further considered, and Sir Thomas 
 Farrer moved the following amendment : " To omit the 
 w'ord * London ' in the second line, and insert after the 
 words ' Trades Unions ' the words * in the place or places 
 where the contract is to be executed.' " The object of this 
 amendment was to allow country contractors and country 
 workmen to do London work at country prices ; whereas 
 the object of Mr. Burns's motion was to apply London 
 prices and rules to the country contracts, and thus prevent 
 Londoners getting the benefit of the cheaper labour of the 
 country. The amendment was carried by 60 against 50, 
 and Mr. Burns's resolution, thus amended, was adopted. It 
 will be seen that Mr. Burns's object w^as to set London 
 workmen free from the competition of their fellows in the 
 country, and thus to protect the interests of the London 
 workman at the expense of the London ratepayer. Even as 
 it stands, however, the resolution declares that the rate of 
 Visages and the hours of work are to be such as Trade Unions 
 approve, and this has been accepted as the principle to 
 which all future contracts are to be subject. Henceforth 
 any contractor who wishes to work for the London County 
 Council must be prepared to state what wages he pays, and 
 the number of hours worked by his men, in his contract, 
 and he must be prepared to submit to penalties if they are 
 not adhered to. One member of the Council suggested that 
 a clause should be inserted in every contract providing that 
 if any contractor does not pay his hands the full wages he 
 has undertaken to pay he shall have double the deficit 
 deducted from the amount due to him under the contract, 
 and that the Council should be at liberty to use the money
 
 oppressive Conditions. 385 
 
 to make up to the workmen the wage which they oup:ht to 
 have received ; and he further suggested that every con- 
 tractor should be bound to keep time books and wage books 
 open to inspection by the Council, and that, whenever asked, 
 he is to make and deliver a declaration that his practice has 
 been in agreement with his books.* Such resolutions could 
 
 • The Special Committee of the Council to which the " fair wages " 
 question was submitted reported in December, 1892, that they had recom- 
 mended the Council to adopt this second suggestion, namely, that the 
 " Contractors should keep proper time books and wages books in connection 
 with the contract work, and such books shall at all times be open to the 
 inspection of such person or persons as may be appointed by the Council for 
 this purpose, and the Contractors shall, under a penalty, be bound to make 
 and deliver to the Council, whenever required, a declaration that the hours 
 and wages set out in the time and wages books are correct, and that he has 
 paid the several sums charged therein." The Committee further reported 
 that it did not think it desirable to recommend the Council to adopt the first 
 proposal, as it miglit be somewhat difficult to apply. 
 
 It may be well to give the Standing Orders which were adopted by the 
 Council in December, 1892, in regard to fair wages, and therefore we append 
 them : — 
 
 "I. There shall be kept at the County-hall a list of the rates of wages and 
 the hours of labour to be paid and observed by the Council in works which 
 are in the nature of construction or manufacture, and which the Council may 
 resolve to carry out without the intervention of a contractor. The list shall 
 be settled by the Council on the recommendation of the Works and Stores 
 Committee, and shall be based on the rates of wages and hours of labour 
 recognized by the various Trade Unions in London, and shall form part of 
 the standing orders of the Council. The list shall at all times be open to 
 public inspection. 
 
 "2. In inviting tenders for work to be executed within 20 miles of Charing 
 Cross the advertisements and instructions for tender shall state that, in the 
 case of all workmen to be employed by the contractor, he will be required to 
 pay wages at rates not less, and observe hours of labour not greater, than the 
 rates and hours set out in the Council's list, and that such rates of wages and 
 hours of labour will be inserted in a schedule and will form part of the 
 contract, and penalties shall be enforced for any breach thereof. 
 
 " 3. When the contractor in connection with the works contracted for 
 intends to employ labour at a greater distance than 20 miles from Charing 
 Cross he shall be required, in addition to the above, to insert in the said 
 schedule the names of the various classes of labour which he intends to 
 employ, together with the places where such labour will be employed, and the 
 rates of wages and hours of labour to be paid and observed in respect to each 
 class of labour, and no tender shall be accepted unless the rates of wages and 
 hours of labour inserted in such schedule be proved to be the rates and hours 
 recognized at the date of the tender by the Trade Unions of the district where 
 the work is to be done, and such schedule will be added to and will form part 
 of the contract, and penalties shall be enforced for any breach thereof. 
 
 " 4. In all contracts for the supply of any raw material or manufactured 
 articles, other than clothing, a condition shall be inserted that, with regard to 
 all materials or articles produced or manufactured or supplied by the 
 contractor, the contractor will in the production or manufacture or supply 
 thereof (as the case may be) pay and observe the following rates of wages and
 
 386 Hoist with its own Petard. 
 
 have but one effect, namely, to deter contractors from taking 
 work under the Council subject to such oppressive condi- 
 tions. Reputable tradesmen would, of course, decline to have 
 anything to do with a body which required them to keep 
 open books and to make declarations as frequently as any 
 fussy member of the Council might require them. One 
 result of this action very soon appeared. The contractors, 
 thus insulted and repelled, declined to have any further 
 dealings with the Council, and the result was that the 
 Council was compelled to take a further downward step, 
 and resolved to establish a new Works Department for 
 the purpose of carrying out building and other operations, 
 which had previously been entrusted to contractors. Mr. 
 Arthur Arnold (a Progressive) said in the Council on Nov. 
 22, 1892 : " Why was it that they were obliged to consider 
 this matter ? It was in consequence of the policy of the Council 
 in the past with regard to fair wages and the fair wages clause. 
 They had placed themselves in such a dilemma towards 
 contractors in London and elsewhere that practically for 
 their own advantage and interest they were bound to estab- 
 lish this department so that they might keep the contractors 
 in order." How this experiment will work remains to be 
 seen. One thing only is certain, and that is that it will 
 impose a heavy burden upon the ratepayers. This Works 
 Department will be compelled by the Radical-Socialistic 
 majority of the Council to undertake vast enterprises on 
 conditions which no sensible contractor would consider for 
 a moment, and the result will be reckless mismanagement 
 and gross extravagance. But as the members of the Council 
 will not have to pay for the consequences of their mistakes, 
 as a private contractor would, they will undertake these 
 tremendous responsibilities with a light heart. 
 
 hours of labour, viz. : — (a) Where the production, or manufacture, or supply 
 thereof is carried on within 20 miles of Charing Cross, the rates of wages and 
 hours of labour appearing in the Council's list, {b) Where the production or 
 manufacture or supply thereof is carried on at a greater distance than 20 
 miles of Charing Cross, the rates of wages and hours of labour recognized b)- 
 the Trade Unions of the district where it is carried on. Provided that this 
 standing order shall not apply to the production or manufacture of articles 
 not produced or manufactured by the contractor."
 
 A Creature of Socialism. 387 
 
 It has already been pointed out that the London County 
 Council is the creature of Radical-Socialists and Trade 
 Unionists. A majority of its members were returned by 
 these classes, and were returned by them for the purpose of 
 carrying out their ideas and aims with regard to labour. It 
 must at least be admitted in justice to these persons that 
 they have made no secret of their intentions ; that on the 
 contrary they have declared all along that if they did get a 
 majority on the Council they would use their power to pro- 
 mote the interests of Trade Union workmen and of the 
 Socialistic Labour Movement generally. Men like Mr. John 
 Burns, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Steadman, and others, were 
 placed on the Council by working men's votes, and they are 
 there to carry out the working men's mandate. The adop- 
 tion of these resolutions with regard to fair wages, 
 contractors, etc., is an earnest of what has yet to come. 
 If the London ratepayers generally should suffer in 
 consequence of the imposition of an additional burden 
 of taxation it must be admitted that the ratepayers 
 generally deserve so to suffer ; for by their apathy they 
 allowed the Progressives to capture the County Council, 
 and to thus secure the opportunity of using it as an 
 instrument for the advancement of Socialism. The evil 
 example of the London County Council has affected the 
 London School Board and Municipal Corporations through- 
 out the country.* 
 
 Sir Thomas Farrer, who is himself one of the Progres- 
 
 * One incidental result of such action as that of the London County 
 Council is that certain philanthopists have been encouraged to make experi- 
 ments in Economics with funds which were contributed by charitable persons. 
 Mr. William Booth, for example, has started a match factory, in which the 
 match girls are said to be paid above the market rate. This is not fair com- 
 petition. If Mr. Booth's enterprise should fail he has simply to shut up his 
 factory without personally losing a penny. It is very easy to make these 
 experiments at the cost of the charitable public, but men who have to do 
 business on business principles and show a return to proprietors for their 
 money must be just before they are generous. Match girls even at Bryant 
 and May's earn on the average more than the agricultural labourer does, and 
 Bryant and May by establishing their factory in East London have conferred 
 immense benefits upon that district.
 
 388 A Candid Friend. 
 
 sive members of the Council, has felt himself constrained to 
 oppose its action in relation to these labour questions. 
 Before the Labour Commission on Jan. 27, 1893, he said 
 that "the action of the Council on the labour question had 
 caused many to doubt the wisdom of transferring to it public 
 undertakings, and had considerably damped his o\vn ardour 
 with regard to the acquisition of the water supply, so that 
 he was almost inclined to think with Sir John Lubbock that 
 the water should remain in the hands of the companies." 
 He stated that the Council had raised the wages of the men 
 employed in the parks and open spaces to 6d. an hour, and 
 thus increased the labour bill by ;^6,ooo a year, and that this 
 action instead of producing contentment among the men 
 had done precisely the opposite ; and that the effect of the 
 action of the Council in favour of Trade Union wages would 
 be to exclude all men who were not of full strength from the 
 service of the Council, or else it would lead to men who are 
 not capable of doing a full day's work receiving the same 
 pay as is given to those who are thus capable. In answer 
 to the Duke of Devonshire, Sir Thomas Farrer said that 
 the indisposition of the Council to properly pay brain work 
 was as significant as its disposition to over-pay muscle work, 
 and that it led to even greater waste. He stated that the 
 Council had been driven to execute its own work instead of 
 employing contractors " by its own previous dealings with 
 contractors' wages, which had made it impossible for con- 
 tractors to tender except at an exorbitant price." As to the 
 question of municipalities directly employing workmen Sir 
 Thomas Farrer said, speaking from experience of many 
 years in the public service, that it was almost impossible 
 for a public body to induce the men it employed to 
 rise to their best level, and that the evil most to be 
 feared from municipal employment was the slackening 
 of endeavour, though the increase of wages was also 
 to be feared. Finally Sir Thomas Farrer stated that the 
 dealings of the London County Council in connection 
 with labour showed that it "acted very hastily, and
 
 Work Sent out of London. 389 
 
 embarked on enterprises which were imperfectly understood 
 hy it:"^ 
 
 Sir Thomas Farrer also issued a pamphlet in which he 
 subjected the policy of the Council with regard to labour 
 questions to severe criticism, and pointed out that its 
 ulterior effects would be disastrous in the extreme. In the 
 pamphlet Sir Thomas declares that — "No dream, and no fiat 
 of a democratic assembly, can increase the funds out of 
 which wages are paid, or make the remuneration of labour 
 greater than the product of labour." He also says : " There 
 is a notion abroad that there is some unlimited fund called 
 capital out of which all wages may be indefinitely raised if 
 only the workmen will combine to raise them. . . . No 
 dream can be more baseless. . . . There is no such 
 thing as an inexhaustible fund out of which to pay wages. 
 The fund out of which wages as well as profits are paid is 
 the constantly accruing produce of industry, and it is only 
 by increasing this produce that wages can be increased all 
 round. Further, any excessive demand on this fund by any 
 one class of work or workmen must diminish the share of 
 it which the other classes would otherwise get, either by 
 making the produce of their own labour dearer, and thus 
 lowering real wages ; or by exhausting the fund, and thus 
 
 * With all its anxiety to please Trade Unionist Workmen, the County 
 Council has not succeeded, one reason being that it sends much of its work out 
 of London. In October, 1892, a Committee of the Council recommended that 
 the contract for clothing for its park keepers and other servants for 1893 
 should be given to a Bristol firm, whose tender was about 25 per cent, lower 
 than the tender of two London firms. The difference was, of course, due to 
 the difference in wages and rents and not in the price of materials. The 
 London sempstresses were therefoie deprived of this work in winter, when 
 trade was slack, whilst the park keepers of the Council (who are voters) were 
 receiving -^6,f 00 a year in the shape of extra wages. 
 
 The Amalgamated Society of Chippers, Drillers, and Ship Fitters of 
 London complained in August, 1892, that whilst many of their members were 
 walking the streets the County Council had sent to the Barrow Ship Building 
 Company for six new sluice boats, although this Company had at that time 
 contracts for sixteen vessels on hand, while ship-buildmg on the Thames was 
 almost at a standstill. They also complained that Palmer's, of Jarrow, got 
 39,000 tons of Government work in one year while the London workman had 
 next to nothing to do ; that the London and Clacton Steam Boat Company 
 got its steamers from Denny, of Dumbarton ; and that the London and 
 Victoria Steam Boat Company sent to the Clyde for new ships.
 
 3 go Confidence Shaken. 
 
 lowering money wages as well ; or by both processes." 
 These are elementary truths, but the majority of Sir 
 Thomas Farrer's colleagues on the London County Council 
 are evidently in need of such primary instruction.* 
 
 The one broad and palpable result of this intermeddling 
 on the part of Parliament and of municipal bodies between 
 employers and their workmen is that confidence has been 
 shaken. When this takes place, from whatever cause, the 
 immediate effect is that a chill is sent to the very heart of 
 our commercial system, that its vitality is impaired, and 
 that its energies are enfeebled and its activities slackened. 
 " The instant that any circumstances take place which 
 weaken the general confidence in the security of property, 
 credit is withdrawn. The plant remains — the tools and 
 warehouses stand — the shops are open ; but production 
 languishes, labour is suspended. The stocks of consumable 
 commodities for the maintenance of labour may still in 
 part exist, but they do not reach the labourer through 
 the usual channels. Then men say, and say truly, 
 confidence is shaken ; the usual relations of society 
 are disturbed. Capital fences itself round with prudence 
 — hesitates to go on accumulating — refuses to put its 
 
 * The Earl of Rosebery has gone out of his way to commend the action of 
 the London County Council in abolishing contractors. He said in Exeter 
 Hall, on December 15, 1892, that the Council had done "what no other 
 municipality has done to the same extent— that they are determined to raise, 
 elevate, and benefit the working men who serve under them. And now they 
 are about to proceed in the direction of experiment. They are about to try 
 and do away with the intervention of contractors. And I hope they will 
 succeed. ... I say that this is a great gain — that we have a Council 
 willing and bold enough to make these great experiments, and I doubt not that we 
 shall reap the benefit of it in the end." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, on May 
 31, 1892, said : " The London County Council has given great attention to the 
 treatment of the labour which they employ ; but if they have occasion to give 
 orders they have to look to the conditions under which those orders are to be 
 executed. This is undoubtedly opening the door highly favourable to the 
 wants and wishes of the labouring community. ... It appears to me 
 that it is sound in principle, and there ts no reason xi'hy it should not gradually find 
 acceptance among the municipal bodies and other elected bodies of the country." Mr. 
 Gladstone was careful to point out, however, that he did not believe it would 
 be wise for the Guvernment departments to imitate the example of the 
 London County Council.
 
 Insecurity of Property in England 391 
 
 existence in peril, withdraws in great part from pro- 
 duction — 
 
 • Spreads its light wings, and in a moment flies.' " 
 
 When despotism prevailed in the dark ages of our 
 country's history and rendered property insecure, confidence 
 was shaken, and therefore productive energy was suspended, 
 and the people were poor and wretched. If confidence 
 should be again shaken, though by the foolish and arbitrary 
 actions of elected bodies instead of monarchs, the same 
 results will ensue. A sense of insecurity will again lead to 
 a suspension of productive energy, to the cessation of accu- 
 mulations, to the migration of capital to other countries, 
 and in the end to the idleness and impoverishment of our 
 working classes. Already these results have begun to show 
 themselves in consequence of the treatment to which capital 
 has been subjected in recent years. The Marquis of Salis- 
 bury, speaking in the House of Lords on January 31, 1893, 
 used these remarkable words : " I believe if it were possible 
 to ensure a large application of capital to the land very 
 many of the effects of agricultural depression might be 
 averted. But in respect of that and of other depression 
 I only entreat your lordships to beware of remedies which 
 affect to deal with depression, and only do so by shaking 
 the belief of men in the sanctity of contracts and the 
 security of property. What we really staffer under is want of 
 confidence. I do not say that most of it comes from political 
 causes ; it comes from causes of great variety ; but one of 
 the elements, and one which I fear will last the longest, is 
 the apprehensions which are being caused in the minds of 
 the owners of capital and the owners of property, partly by 
 legislation which has been already adopted, and very 
 
 MUCH MORE FROM THE DOCTRINES WHICH ARE FREELY 
 PUBLISHED BY ARTISANS AND THOSE WHO HAVE RULE IN 
 THIS COUNTRY AT THIS TIME. THERE IS NO 
 
 COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHERE PRO- 
 PERTY IS NOW SO INSECURE AGAINST 
 LEGISLATIVE ATTACK AS IT IS IN ENGLAND ;
 
 392 Let Things Alone. 
 
 and depend upon it, you will feel the evil results of such a 
 state of things in a gradual diminution of confidence, and in 
 a gradual withdrawal of capital, producing an aggravation 
 of the depression under which we labour." If all our states- 
 men would act upon the principles here enunciated we 
 might look to the future with greater confidence than we 
 can do at present. When Colbert, Prime Minister to Louis 
 XV. of France, asked a committee of merchants what 
 measures Government could adopt to promote the interests 
 of commerce he was answered in these words : " Let us 
 
 ALONE, PERMIT US QUIETLY TO MANAGE OUR OWN BUSI- 
 NESS." Lao-tse, the Eastern sage, says : " The real art of 
 Government consists, so far as possible, in doing nothing : 
 all the people want (apart from the punishment of crime), 
 and what is best for them too, is to be let alone." To 
 thus let men alone, at all events where such questions as 
 land and capital and labour are concerned, is the beginning 
 and the end of political wisdom.* 
 
 If the British working man is not content with his 
 position as a free exchanger, and with a position of absolute 
 equality with the capitalist before the law ; if he is not wil- 
 ling to exchange his labour with the capitalist according to 
 the ordinary laws of exchange, by which both parties are to 
 
 * The impossibility of resisting or reversing the operation of economical 
 laws is forcibly illustrated by the following facts. On April 8, 1891, the 
 shareholders of the Work-Women's Co-operative Association, Limited, was 
 held under the presidency of Mr. Francis Peek. It was stated that no profit 
 had been made on the year's working ; that money had been lost in the 
 endeavour to better the condition of the women employed in making shirts, 
 and that as the directors realised that their endeavours were hopeless they 
 would discontinue the work ; that it was impossible to pay the shirtmakers a 
 living wage and make a profit at the same time. Mr. Peek stated that he was- 
 in favour of giving up the experiment altogether. Mr. John Hall stated that, 
 while the association had paid its women workers only 14s. 5d. per week, the 
 large tailoring firms of East London paid iSs. per week. Mr. David Schloss 
 said he hoped the experiment of paying good wages to the unskilled would 
 yet prove a success. 
 
 In August, 1891, the Small Farm and Labourer's Company announced that 
 it was unable to declare a dividend, and the experiment seemed likely to end 
 in total failure. If a Company cannot make small holdings pay, how is the 
 individual land-owner likely to do it, much less the poor labourer ? In theory 
 petite culture is very attractive ; but it does not seem likely to turn out well ini 
 practice— at all events in England.
 
 Industry's First Right. 393', 
 
 benefit ; if he should make vain attempts to secure the 
 property of the capitaHst without giving a proper equivalent 
 for it, in other words by force or fraud, and to that end 
 should use his political power in combination with his 
 fellows in order to check or suspend the natural laws of ex- 
 change, and thereby render the use of capital unprofitable 
 to the capitalist — then England's progress will be stayed^ 
 she will at once begin to fall backwards, and the glowing 
 hopes of her noblest sons will be doomed to extinction amid 
 the darkness and ruin which must inevitably follow upon the 
 destruction of the security of property, which is the first 
 right, as it is also the first interest, of industry /■= 
 
 * During a debate in the House of Lords on the Welsh Land Question on 
 February i6th, 1893, Lord Salisbury said : " I demur ab initio to the claim 
 " that Parliament has a right to interfere, if it does interfere, between the 
 "contracts of landlord and tenant, or has a right to say how much rent the 
 " tenant shall offer or a landlord receive. These are questions with 
 "WHICH Parliament has no right to interfere. If it threatens to 
 
 " INTERFERE IT WILL STRIKE A FATAL BLOW AT CONFIDENCE, AND WILL. 
 " disorganise, not only THE INDUSTRY OF AGRICULTURE, BUT ALL THE 
 " INDUSTRIES WHICH DEPEND FOR THEIR EXISTENCE UPON THE MAINTENANCE 
 "OF PRIVATE RIGHTS AND THE STABILITY OF THE L\W."
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Manhood, not Law, the Great Desideratum. 
 
 WHEN Napoleon was asked by a lady what was the 
 greatest need of France, his reply was — " Mothers, 
 Madam." If a wise man were asked what is the greatest 
 need of England to-day, his reply would be — " Men." The 
 worst blight that can afflict a nation is the decay of its man- 
 hood. This blight is now falling upon our country. 
 
 " 111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, 
 Where wealth accumulates, and men decay." 
 
 If these oft-quoted lines were meant to convey the idea 
 that the decay of man is a necessary consequence of the 
 accumulation of wealth they are palpably absurd. Men 
 decay, in the sense that their number decreases, not where 
 wealth accumulates but where wealth cannot accumulate ; 
 or in other words where production cannot be profitably 
 carried forward by reason of the tyranny of the monarch or 
 the defective administration of the rulers, or where unwise 
 and unjust laws render property insecure. In the case of 
 Ireland we have before our own eyes an example of a nation 
 where men are decaying. They are decaying in the sense 
 that their number is being seriously diminished, so seriously 
 in fact that if the process goes on that country will be de- 
 populated. Ireland could never have been thus depopulated, 
 however, unless Irish manhood had first of all degenerated. 
 Decay of manhood preceded the decay of men. The char- 
 acter of the Irish people is such that any man whose property 
 or business is dependent upon them for a profitable return
 
 The Curse of Ireland. 395 
 
 can have no assurance that he will ever get that return^ 
 The instability of the Irish character creates the insecurity 
 of Irish property. To make matters worse in that country,, 
 laws have been passed which, as we have already pointed 
 out, have unsettled all the relations which exist between, 
 landlord and tenant, between parties who voluntarily entered 
 into contracts, each for his own advantage, and which have 
 loudly proclaimed to capitalists : " Do not invest your money 
 in Irish land, or even in Irish securities of any kind, for- 
 recent legislation proves that you have no guarantee against 
 violent hands being laid upon it any day, either by the 
 populace, or by the Government, or by both." Where such 
 a state of things exists as we now see in Ireland wealth never 
 can accumulate to any very large extent, and men must 
 inevitably decay. The great law is that where property 
 is secure it will grow and fructify, and will produce 
 thirty, sixty, or a hundred-fold ; that where it is in- 
 secure it cannot grow at all, but must cease to be. 
 Ireland, so far as its Celtic population is concerned, 
 is a nation destitute of the more robust and exalted 
 attributes of manhood, and therefore a continual curse 
 rests upon the country, making it a trouble both to itself 
 and to its neighbours. 
 
 In Great Britain we observe a very different state of 
 things. Wealth is accumulating at a rate so vast that 
 nothing like it has ever been seen in the world. In 1870 
 real and personal property in the United Kingdom was 
 valued at six thousand millions of pounds ; while the total 
 income of the United Kingdom was estimated in 1884 to be 
 ^1,342,129,500. These figures are so vast that it is almost 
 impossible for the mind to grasp them. No such totals 
 were ever before known in the history of mankind. Along- 
 side of this increase of wealth, and as a necessary conse- 
 quence of it, we see that the population instead of decreasing 
 is increasing at the rate of 1,000 per day. Industry is 
 organized on so gigantic a scale, and at the same time with 
 such perfect skill and efficiency, that it constitutes one of
 
 396 Condition of British Agriculture. 
 
 the wonders of the world. Our commerce penetrates to the 
 ends of the earth ; our ships traverse every sea ; our mer- 
 chants are in touch with every people that inhabits the 
 globe, savage or civilized. Never since the world began was 
 there a nation which has conducted such vast industries, or 
 which has created wealth at so rapid and so prodigious a 
 rate ; which has possessed such a contented and thriving 
 population ; or which has carried Christian and civilized 
 enterprise to such perfection. Great Britain indeed exhibits 
 • every sign of material prosperity except one, and that is that 
 her land is not being cultivated with the thoroughness and 
 efficiency which ought to characterize a really prosperous 
 nation. Agriculture is the first industry, and the mother of 
 all other industries ; it is also the most fundamental and 
 essential of all industries, since it can never be superseded 
 by any other even in the most advanced state of civiliza- 
 tion ; for all peoples live from the earth as well as upon it. 
 Great as are our other industries, agriculture is greater still. 
 It employs more men and more capital than any other of 
 our industries to-day. It is the master source of all the 
 nation's wealth. Yet while other industries flourish, 
 agriculture droops ; while the towns are being filled to re- 
 pletion the rural districts are being depopulated. The 
 causes which have produced this lamentable state of affairs, 
 and the means which should be employed to remedy it, con- 
 stitute a problem of the most vital and urgent nature. It is 
 a thousand pities that we have no statesman, no political 
 party, courageous enough to grasp the problem and to 
 grapple with it until it is solved. We are making a fatal 
 mistake in regard to this matter, and the consequences of it, 
 which must be reaped sooner or later, will be disastrous and 
 ruinous. 
 
 Even in Great Britain, however, signs of decay are 
 beginning to manifest themselves. Our wealth is vaster, 
 and our population larger than they ever were before ; but 
 is the average Briton as strong, as robust, as resourceful as 
 he used to be ? Our commerce is greater, but our men are
 
 Civilisation Enfeebling. 397 
 
 smaller. We have more people, but each one counts for less 
 than was the case in the old time. We have greater institu- 
 tions than we ever had before ; but home, the first and 
 greatest institution of all, is not the grand training school 
 that it was formerly. Even our physical development as a 
 race is by our vices being checked, and there is a danger of 
 our becoming a stunted and dwarfed people. All this, 
 serious as it is, counts for little in comparison with the 
 graver fact that the intellect of the average citizen is 
 deteriorating, and that his moral fibre is weakening. Rare 
 indeed is it nowadays to meet a man — a true, self-reliant, 
 vigorous and independent man ; a man who knows his duty 
 and means to do it, though a legion of devils oppose him ; a 
 man with Intellect, Will, Conscience all finely developed, 
 alert and strong, and attuned to the deepest harmonies of 
 God's universe. Soon we shall have to say with the 
 prophet : " Run ye to and thro through the streets of 
 Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad 
 places thereof, if you can find a man, if there be any that 
 exerciseth justice, that seeketh the truth (or ' good faith ') ; 
 and I will pardon it." Like Diogenes, the Cynic, we shall 
 have to take a lantern and search our highways for a perfect 
 specimen of manhood. When Sir Humphre}^ Davy was 
 congratulated on the brilliance and splendour of some of his 
 chemical discoveries he replied : " My greatest discovery 
 was a man." He found Faraday. It is to be feared that 
 the chances of making such discoveries, notwithstanding 
 the veneer and polish given to our modern life by superficial 
 education, will become fewer and fewer. The Englishman 
 of the grand old type is likely to become as extinct as the 
 Dodo. 
 
 This enfeeblement of the individual man is partly due to 
 civilization itself. In a civilized community men come to 
 depend more and more upon each other, and less and less 
 upon themselves. What a man would naturally do for 
 himself if he lived apart he almost as naturally expects 
 the community to do for him when he lives in association.
 
 398 The Ruin of Individuality. 
 
 In the course of generations this habit tends to produce a 
 condition of helplessness. Civilization is as fatal to the 
 robuster qualities of manhood as barbarism — perhaps more 
 so. Civilization in excess tends to become self-destructive. 
 It is only when it is balanced and restrained by great 
 moral principles that it can be preserved in purity and 
 vigour. Civilized man lives in the social state ; he depends 
 upon associated action ; he has found out the power of 
 mutual help and of combination. This power, used within 
 its legitimate sphere, adds to the power of the individual as 
 well as of the community ; but when pushed beyond that 
 sphere it becomes a weakness and a danger to both. The 
 standing temptation of the civilized man is to depend upon 
 the State, or the government which represents the State, for 
 everything ; for what it cannot do as well as for what it can 
 do ; and the result is that the individual neglects to do what 
 he ought to do for himself, and that as the State cannot do 
 it for him it does not get done at all. We seem to have 
 reached a condition somewhat like this just now. If there 
 is one stream of tendency which is stronger among us than 
 another at the present time it is this disposition to trust in 
 the law and in the State in relation to matters which neither 
 the State nor the law can properly deal with. 
 
 It may be thought that the view here taken is too pessi- 
 mistic. It may be well, therefore, to descend into a little 
 further detail. That the gregariousness of man may be the 
 ruin of the individual is made sufficiently obvious by the 
 recent achievements of Trade Unionism. What have we 
 witnessed during the past two or three years ? We have 
 seen hundreds of thousands of British workmen turning 
 against their employers, throwing up their work, and sub- 
 jecting themselves and their families to suffering and 
 privation amounting almost to starvation, and producing 
 general disturbance and unsettlement in the industrial 
 world. And why ? Because they were bidden to do these 
 things by agitators who have constituted themselves their 
 " leaders." No sensible man can for a moment believe that
 
 Workmen in Swaddling Clothes. 399 
 
 everyone of these men was convinced in his reason and his 
 judgment that the course he was taking was right ; that he 
 was acting as an intelhgent, rational, and responsible being 
 ought to act. As a matter of fact we know that thousands 
 of the men who acted in this way did it against their better 
 judgment. Why, then, did they do it at all ? Because they 
 had not the manliness and the courage to act upon their 
 own convictions of duty ; they were afraid to oppose the 
 wishes and commands of their fellows, though they knew 
 them to be wrong; they lacked moral strength, and there- 
 fore they played the coward. It is well-known that soldiers 
 who are over-trained become abjectly and absurdl}^ incap- 
 able when deprived of their officers, and it would appear 
 that working-men may be so over-organized that the in- 
 dividual workman may become incapable of standing alone. 
 This is not manhood ; it is baby-hood. It seems probable 
 that our Trade Unions will before long be able to announce 
 that they have annihilated the race of working men and 
 have substituted for them a race of working babies. The 
 desire which is now so prevalent among the working classes 
 for external aid, their groping after and their reliance upon 
 the arm of the State, and their consequent failure to use 
 their own brains and their own right hands, is really a form 
 of weakness which is as pitiable as it is perilous.* Hitherto 
 in this country we have proceeded upon the principle that 
 adult men can take care of themselves, and that they will 
 both prosper better themselves, and better promote the 
 prosperity of the community, when they are left to do so, 
 and this principle has proved to be a safe and a sound one. 
 Consequently it ought not to be departed from unless the 
 most conclusive reasons can be adduced in favour of that 
 course. No such reasons have been adduced, nor can they 
 be. That is certainly a peculiar kind of progress which 
 would coddle grown-up men as though they were babies, 
 
 * " No one knows what I want as well as I do myself, and I am sure that 
 no one will take one-tenth part of the pains that I should take to get it for 
 me." — Lord Bi'amwell. 
 
 C2
 
 400 Legislative Pap. 
 
 and which assumes that they are incapable of managing 
 the most elementary matters pertaining to their occupations 
 and their interests. Both Parliament and Trade Unions are 
 doing their best to put our workmen into swaddling clothes, 
 and to feed them with legislative pap, instead of allowing 
 them to grow and strengthen in the bracing atmosphere of 
 freedom. It was not in this way that Englishmen were 
 made great in the past ; nor can they in this way be made 
 great in the present or the future. This Socialistic senti- 
 mentalism, this weak-headed and weak-kneed collectivism, 
 is belittling and enfeebling the individual man. Even the 
 Trade Unionists come cringing to Parliament, and begging 
 it to settle for them how many hours they are to work, thus 
 confessing their own impotency ; or in the words of Mr. 
 Mather, M.P., they ask Parliament to " deprive them of 
 some portion of their free will and independence !" ''' Surely 
 a system which has degraded men to such humiliating weak- 
 ness is unworthy of the encomiums which are passed upon 
 it by politicians who flatter and fawn upon the electors of 
 the working classes. 
 
 What can be more contemptible than to see millions of 
 sane grown-up men asking the State to educate them, to 
 save them from drink, to protect them against over- work ; 
 or in other words confessing that of themselves they are 
 incapable of attaining knowledge, of exercising temperance 
 and self-control, or of settling with their employers the 
 
 * The Times, commenting on Sir Henry James' address at Bury on factory 
 legislation, on June 5, 1892, expressed some surprise at the implied advice 
 which Sir Henry gave to his hearers to rely more and more on direct legisla- 
 tive help — " It is a little strange that such help should be needed to the extent 
 to which his remarks show that it is needed. In most matters the working 
 classes have a way of their own of insisting on what they deem their rights. 
 . . . . It seems, however, that in matters bearing directly on their health, 
 or comfort, or safety as workers they can do nothing to help themselves. The 
 workshop may be insanitary ; the machinery may be unfenced ; the informa- 
 tion to which they have a claim may be refused them, but they go on quietly 
 working all the same under conditions contrary alike to law and to natural 
 justice. Their only hope is in the inspector, and if this functionary is not at 
 hand, or if he is too busy or too negligent to attend to them, the mischief is 
 beyond cure. We note the fact, but we can give no adequate explanation 
 of it."
 
 Abject Helplessness. 401 
 
 conditions of their daily labour.* The hypochondriac who 
 has persuaded himself that he cannot walk is just as helpless 
 as though he were paralyzed, although his legs are really as 
 good as they ever were. Working men who have persuaded 
 themselves that their condition can never be improved 
 except by State aid, and who therefore neglect to use those 
 powers of self-help with which they are endowed by Provi- 
 dence, are in a condition of helplessness as abject as that 
 of the hypochondriac. In both cases the helplessness is 
 imaginary, not real, and yet it is the more real for being 
 only imaginary. It is certainly more difficult to cure than 
 any actual malady whatever. The inevitable result of this 
 helplessness is despair. The man has omitted to do what 
 he ought to have done to help himself, he thinks that the 
 State cannot help him, and the result is desperation. In 
 September, 1891, a labourer named Henry Bruce broke two 
 of the plate glass windows of Mr. Benson, the jeweller, on 
 Ludgate Hill. When Bruce was brought before the Recorder 
 of London charged with the offence he stated that he was 
 out of employment through no fault of his own, and that he 
 denied the right of the law or the State to dictate to him 
 and say that he should not commit crimes, while at the 
 same time it deprived him of the opportunity of doing work. 
 " He believed in collective ownership and equal distribution. 
 He was the victim of a system of which he had no control. 
 He knew he could not claim the right to force an employer 
 to give hirti work, but he claimed the right to have the work 
 provided for him, so that he might get the necessities of 
 life. The County Council ought to provide municipal work- 
 shops. He believed only in the law of Nature, which was 
 the only law he recognised. The classes received eightpence 
 out of every shilling the workman earned, and in return they 
 
 * The Spectator said about a couple of years ago : " The working class in 
 all countries are seeking some external help, some magical drug, some scien- 
 tific go-cart, which will give them the strength to do what they ought to do, 
 and in the end must do, in reliance on themselves alone. The signs of this 
 disastrous change are thickening on all sides."
 
 402 Destroying Personal Responsibility. 
 
 gave him nothing. He denied the right of any law or State 
 to deny him work, or to make it a crime when he was driven 
 to acts of desperation. He did not break the window for 
 the purpose of bringing forward pubhc or international 
 questions ; he did it from the necessity of the time ; from 
 the circumstance of his being poor and unable to get work ; 
 owing to the state of the law he was driven to an act of 
 desperation," All this nonsense was lost upon the Recorder, 
 who very properly said that — " Nothing could be more mis- 
 chievous to persons of the labouring class than anything 
 which imperilled the safet}' of property, because almost 
 every one was possessed of some kind of property," and he 
 sent Bruce to six months' hard labour. Now in this man 
 we have a perfect illustration of the effects of Socialistic 
 teaching ; he may be regarded as the finished product which 
 is turned out by such men as John Burns, Tom Mann, and 
 Ben Tillett. The man's allegation that society was really 
 responsible for the crime which he had committed because 
 it had not done for him what it ought to have done, and his 
 attempt to justify his action on this ground, significantly 
 illustrates the despair which is born of this imaginary help- 
 lessness. What could be more contemptible than to see a 
 man like this Henry Bruce, a not unintelligent workman, 
 smashing the windows of a man who had done him no 
 harm, simply because he imagined that he had a grievance 
 against society ? This was the act not merely of an unre- 
 flective and irresponsible child, but of a maniac. If this 
 temper should take possession of thousands and tens of 
 thousands of our working men, the results will be calamitous 
 indeed.* And this Bruce is a type of multitudes who 
 inhabit our large cities. 
 
 * Tom Mann told a fashionable meeting at the Mansion House on May 12, 
 1891, that parental brutality was only one development of generations of 
 faulty economics ; that the state of things which produced parental neglect 
 and cruelty is the outcome of bad social conditions In other words Mann 
 teaches that in the main parents who starve and torture and murder their 
 children are not themselves responsible for doing these things, but that the 
 responsibility lies upon society. This is only one illustration of a tendency 
 which is manifest in the speeches and writings of men of this class, who are
 
 Weakening Incentives to Thrift. 403 
 
 The scheme for providing pensions by means of State 
 aid for all workmen when they reach old age, which is being 
 promoted by Mr. Chamberlain and other well-intentioned 
 men, and the favour with which that scheme has been 
 received in certain quarters, are also signs of the decadence 
 of manhood among us. It is no part of the duty of the 
 State to make any such provision for either workmen or 
 professional men, except such provision as it already makes 
 through the Poor law. It has already been shown that if a 
 man is to have a pension when he reaches a certain age he 
 can only have it because property has been accumulated on 
 his behalf, upon the returns of which he can live when he 
 is no longer able to work, and that it is the man's own duty, 
 and not the duty of any other being or body, to accumulate 
 this property. It has also been shown that thousands of 
 working men do thus accumulate property and thereby 
 support themselves in their old age, and that hundreds of 
 thousands of working men might do this if they really wished 
 to do it. With the spread of education and the growth of 
 habits of thrift there is reason to hope that the number of 
 workmen who thus accumulate property will increase every 
 year. But such slow and natural progress as this is too 
 gradual for our go-ahead " reformers." They want to pass 
 a law enacting that the State shall provide every working 
 man (by-the-bye, why working men only ? — why not pro- 
 fessional men as well ?) with a pension in his old age. 
 What ^vould be the result if they could get their law passed ? 
 Simply this — that those working men who are now provi- 
 dent would become improvident (for why should they save 
 their money when the State is going to provide for them ?) ; 
 and that those who are now improvident would become 
 more recklessly prodigal than ever. This Socialistic remedy 
 would be worse than the disease which it is meant to cure ; 
 
 persistently instilling into the minds of the worthless and criminal classes the 
 idea that society has made them what they are ; and that therefore they are 
 not responsible for being what they are nor for doing what they do ; but that 
 this responsibility rests upon society. A more false and dangerous doctrine 
 it would be impossible to conceive.
 
 404 Attitude of Friendly Societies. 
 
 our last state would be worse than the first. It is a hopeful 
 sign that the leaders of the Friendly Societies which have 
 done so much to promote provident habits among the 
 working classes are strongly opposed to this scheme of 
 State pensions. The Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, 
 which contains 750,000 members, aixi whose receipts 
 amount to ;£'i,ooo,ooo a year, are strongly opposed to State 
 pensions. The Grand Master, Councillor Bytheway, speak- 
 ing at Atherston, on August 24, i8gi, said : " None of them 
 wanted State interference or control. He did not consider 
 it the duty of the Government to do for the industrial 
 classes what they could accomplish for themselves. They 
 were much obliged to Mr. Chamberlain, but would rather 
 that he did not interfere, his proposal being little better 
 than parish relief, of which the great majorit}- desire to be 
 independent." He added : " We have won our position 
 for ourselves ; let us maintain it for ourselves. Let no 
 promise of rate-aided subsidy, which would doubly tax the 
 thrifty, prove the excuse for Government interference with 
 the internal working of the Manchester Unity of Odd 
 Fellows." Grand Master Campkin said at Salisbury, in 
 May, 1891 : " The suggestion of State interference and the 
 general adoption of the Post Office system would remove 
 the social and individual effort which had done so much to 
 secure that universal interest which is taken by all members 
 of Friendly Societies, and which has acted as a great 
 educational power in planting the principles of self-govern- 
 ment, self-help, and self-dependence. They resented such 
 interference in their affairs, which they felt would necessarily 
 be a result of any State subsidy." Mr. G. J. Broadley, the 
 High Chief Ranger of the Order of Foresters, said in an 
 address at the annual High Court, on August 3, i8gi, that 
 — " determined opposition should be offered to preference or 
 patronage being given through any State fund, for such a 
 course must obviously be more or less destructive of our 
 work," and further that "the stimulating atmosphere of 
 independence should not be exchanged for an enervating
 
 Working Men's Dwellings. 405 
 
 system of mechanical obedience to State management and 
 control, the certain sequel to State subsidy." The Execu- 
 tive Council of this Order stated in their report of January, 
 1893, that in their opinion the policy of complete freedom 
 from any financial association with the State as regards 
 old age pensions is the only safe policy, and that the 
 acceptance of the extension of the system of State pensions 
 would deal a heavy blow at the very principles which their 
 Order had been working for sixty years to extend and 
 perpetuate. Self-respect, self-reliance, and self-dependence 
 had been potent factors in the improvement of the condition 
 of the workers in the past, and they were convinced that 
 they were the true factors for the successful solution of the 
 problem of help in old age in the future.* 
 
 The arguments in favour of individual and against State 
 aid with regard to pensions apply with even greater force to 
 the subject of improved dwellings for the working classes. 
 Such dwellings we all desire to see, but it is no part of the 
 business of the Government to provide or to assist in pro- 
 viding them at the public expense. In fact, the Govern- 
 ment could not actually do anything effective in this matter, 
 however much it might be disposed to do so, until the mass 
 of the people had made a great advance intellectually and 
 morally, and then there would be no need for the State to 
 do these things for the people, inasmuch as they would do 
 them for themselves. Mr. Chamberlain, and other politi- 
 cians like him, in supposing that the condition of the people 
 would be improved by turning the State into a huge building 
 society, imagine a vain thing. 
 
 * Sir William Harcourt, speaking at a meeting of Odd Fellows, at Derby, 
 on September 29, 1S91, said : " It was a great satisfaction to feel that men by 
 their own industry and by their own good management had placed themselves 
 in possession of such magnificent accumulated resources as those to which the 
 Secretary had referred. There was no other country in Europe, he ventured 
 to think, in wlaich such a statement could be made. They had grown to be 
 what they were by self-government — first of all in the Government of the 
 State, and secondly in their local self-government. In his opinion the man 
 who set aside one shilling or five shillings out of his own thrift or self-denial 
 was more to be commended than the man who set aside ;^io under the com- 
 pulsion of some external power."
 
 4o6 Cowards — Gentle and Simple. 
 
 There is one other great fact, or rather series of facts, 
 which illustrate the decay of British manhood, namely the 
 ease with which modern workmen are coerced and intimi- 
 dated by those who are bent on evil courses. Perhaps the 
 most astonishing feature in connection with recent strikes is 
 that working men, instead of resisting such coercion and 
 intimidation, have yielded to it without an effort. Over 
 and over again we have heard of bodies of men leaving their 
 work at the dictation of gangs of low ruffians, and protesting 
 all the time that they had no fault to find with their em- 
 ployers or their wages, and that they wished to continue 
 their work. Why did they not continue it ? Why did they 
 not stand up in defence of their own rights, even to the 
 extent of engaging in a pitched battle if necessary ? Why ? 
 Because the spirit which animated their fathers has largely 
 died out of them. They have become ignoble, pusillani- 
 mous, and craven-hearted. They are no longer men ; they 
 are slaves to agitators. Unions, Federations, and all the rest 
 of the evil brood. When thousands of men work or cease 
 to work according to the orders they receive from some 
 demagogue, where is their manhood ? Such action would 
 well become a slave plantation, but it is an anomalv and a 
 curse in civilized society. Mr. C. M. Norwood, commenting 
 on the lessons of the Dock Strike, on October 3, 1889, re- 
 marked on the absence of courage exhibited b}- all classes 
 during the crisis. He did not think it ver\- strange that the 
 poor labourer should succomb to the brutal violence of the 
 strikers, though even in his case it seemed strange that 
 masses of men had not the spirit nor the power of combina- 
 tion to set the pickets at defiance. " Stranger still was the 
 manner in which City merchants submitted day by day 
 without remonstrance to main avenues of commerce beinsr 
 invaded by processions of men headed by a few agitators, by 
 which vehicular traffic was for the time entireh^ suspended, 
 and that in the immediate neighbourhood of an important 
 railway station. Indeed, of the many communications and 
 suggestions which I received during the strike the greater
 
 The Return of Slavery. 407 
 
 part were either anonymous or made under strict conditions 
 of secrecy, even in the case of gentlemen of undoubted 
 wealth and holding positions of great influence."* 
 
 If our working men (and other men) are content to sub- 
 ject themselves to this new slavery no power on earth can 
 save them. Men who can manifest so abject a spirit are 
 incapable, as they are unworthy, of being saved. They are 
 fit only to degenerate, decay, and perish. 
 
 "That strong men, whose fate is their own will, 
 With all the high attainment in their scope 
 That noblest dreams of good can picture forth — 
 That these should choose a willing slavery 
 Near proves them fools unworthy to be free. 
 For what avails it that the world is fair 
 With visions of the glory that might be, 
 If men love blindness rather than the light 
 Of skies grown golden with a promised dawn " ? 
 
 In the times of the Anglo-Saxons slavery existed in this 
 country. It has been conjectured that the Normans con- 
 quered England so easily, and oppressed it so grievously, 
 mainly because the bulk of the English people were slaves. 
 William the Conqueror depopulated the entire country 
 between the Humber and the Tees, swept away 100,000 
 inhabitants, and converted the district into a dreary desert 
 sixty miles long, which for years remained without houses 
 
 * The St. James' Gazette of September 19, 1889, said : " It is little to the 
 credit of Englishmen that they should allow themselves to be frightened out of 
 doing their duty by mob violence, and we should be slow to believe that such 
 a change has come over the national character. It must be admitted that 
 the least pleasant aspect of the strike has been the way in which its leaders 
 have traded on cowardice and dread of personal inconvenience. The spec- 
 tacle of men turning out, not because they had any real grievance but for fear 
 of being molested, was not a very edifying one ; and the success which at- 
 tended the operations of the wandering mobs of strikers justifies the belief 
 that they have only got to menace and intimidate sufficiently to drive orderly 
 labourers from their work. The fact is, Londoners have had so little ex- 
 perience of anything like riot, and have been accustomed to trust so com- 
 pletely to the police for protection, that they seem to have lost the art of self- 
 defence. . . . Division of labour is an admirable thing ; but because we 
 have an excellent police force we must not assume that the duty of self- 
 protection is at an end. . . . It is on this excessive dependence on the 
 public authorities, and this nervous dread of anything at all like violence, that 
 people like Mr. Burns, and the Trafalgar Square agitators, and the bullies of 
 the docks are able to trade."
 
 4o8 Effects of Slavery. 
 
 or inhabitants. How came he to be able to do this ? 
 Because the people were slaves. In the reign of Henry II. 
 the slaves of England were exported in large numbers to 
 Ireland. The civilization of ancient Rome was based 
 upon slavery, and consequently it was unable to withstand 
 the attacks of barbarous invaders. Rome itself, even in its 
 palmiest days, was surrounded by so many thieves that 
 during the insurrection of Catiline they formed a large and 
 important acquisition to his arm\\ Poland is one of the 
 richest corn-growing countries in Europe, and yet it is one 
 of the poorest. Over and over again it has been partitioned 
 by its conquerors. Poland is said to have fallen "without a 
 crime." But it has also been said, and with truth, that the 
 " crime " of Poland was that she allowed her labourers to 
 be enslaved. If Englishmen should allow themselves to be 
 enslaved England will become an easy prey to some mightier 
 nation. Slavery takes many forms, but whatever guise it 
 assumes it is the same in its essence. Its effects are deadly 
 and ruinous. If our working men become the slaves of 
 demagogues, and of the political machines which dema- 
 gogues know so well how to manipulate, the effects upon 
 our industry and our wealth will be as calamitous as were 
 the effects of slavery in the United States or in our own 
 colonies. 
 
 Men, whose boast it is tliat ye 
 Come of fatliers brave and free, 
 If there breathe on earth a slave 
 Are ye truly free and brave ? 
 If ye do not feel the chain 
 When it works a brother's pain 
 Are ye not base slaves indeed — 
 Slaves unworthy to be freed ? 
 
 They are slaves who fear to speak 
 
 For the fallen and the weak ; 
 
 They are slaves who will not choose 
 
 Hatred, scoffing, and abuse. 
 
 Rather than in silence shrink 
 
 From the truth they needs must think ; 
 
 They are slaves who dare not be 
 
 In the right with two or three.
 
 Manhood — the Great Desideratum. 409 
 
 The Duke of Wellington said that the Battle of Waterloo 
 was won on the playing fields of Eton. A significant 
 saying ! Similarly one may say that the great battle which 
 has to be fought out in the near future between the forces of 
 Socialism and Spoliation on the one hand and the forces of 
 Individualism and Justice on the other hand, will be won in 
 the homes, the schools, and the workshops of our land. It 
 behoves all who have to do with the training of the young 
 to endeavour to imbue their minds with sound and whole- 
 some truths as to the sacredness of individual liberty and 
 the security of individual property. 
 
 Lord Brassey said, in moving the address in the House 
 of Lords on January 31, 1893 : " It would be fatal to the 
 interests of labour to do anything by meddlesome legisla- 
 tion to weaken the spirit of self-reliance which was a 
 characteristic virtue of the British workman." It has been 
 made abundantly clear in the course of this work that this 
 vital mistake has been made by our rulers, and that 
 " meddlesome legislation " has already done much, and 
 threatens to do much more, to deprive the British working 
 man of this " characteristic virtue." Until this tendency 
 towards over legislation is checked, and until our workmen 
 revert to the steady self-reliance and the manly indepen- 
 dence which have made them what they are, there is not 
 much room for hope as regards the future. It is not more 
 laws that we require but more manhood. 
 
 These words of Frederick W. Robertson have an especial 
 application to the point under consideration : " There is a 
 cowardice in this age which is not Christian. We shrink 
 from the consequences of truth. We look round and cling 
 dependently. We ask what men will think — what others 
 will say — whether they will not stare in astonishment. 
 Perhaps they will ; but he who is calculating that will 
 accomplish nothing in this life. The Father — the Father 
 who is wath us and in us — what does He think ? God's 
 work cannot be done without a spirit of independence. A 
 man has got some way in the Christian life when he
 
 410 Manly Powers. 
 
 has learned to say, humbly and yet majestically, * I dare 
 to be alone.' " 
 
 " Never be it ours 
 to see the sun how brightly it will shine, 
 
 And know that noble feelings, manly powers, 
 
 Instead of gathering strength, must droop and pine; 
 
 And Earth, with all her pleasant fruits and flowers, 
 Fade, and participate in man's decline."
 
 AUTHOR'S NOTE IN CONCLUSION. 
 
 It will be observed from the Synopsis of this work that, 
 as originally planned, it was to consist of twenty chapters 
 in four Books ; it will also be perceived that only ten of 
 those chapters, in two Books, appear in the present 
 volume. This fact requires explanation. The author, 
 soon after commencing the preparation of the work, found 
 that the territory which he had mapped out was so ex- 
 tensive, and that the mass of materials which he had to 
 deal with was so great, that the 600 pages allotted to 
 the work were not more than half sufficient if the ground 
 was to be fairly covered and the subject treated with 
 anything like thoroughness. Moreover, a series of mis- 
 fortunes, the details of which need not be stated here, 
 led to the suspension of all work on the book for about 
 six months. During this time events were marching 
 rapidly and adding to the already large mass of material 
 which demanded treatment in a work like this. The 
 result was that the author found himself at the end of 
 the 600 pages which he had allotted to the work before
 
 412 Author's Note. 
 
 he had concluded the tenth chapter. Under the circum- 
 stances it became a matter of some difficulty to decide 
 what had better be done. Three courses presented them- 
 selves : first, the whole twenty chapters might have been 
 compressed into the 600 pages ; secondly, the book might 
 have been swollen to double the size which had been 
 estimated for ; and thirdly, the book might be issued in 
 an incomplete form, leaving the remaining portion to be 
 dealt with afterwards. On the whole the latter alterna- 
 tive seemed to be preferable to either of the others ; for 
 the author would not have cared, either for the sake of 
 his own reputation or in the interests of his important 
 subject, to have issued a skimpy and fragmentary work ; 
 whilst the enlargement of the book to 1,000 or 1,200 
 pages, besides making it unwieldy, would have added 
 considerably to the financial responsibilities, already suf- 
 ficiently heavy, which he had undertaken. He therefore 
 decided to issue the book as the reader now sees it, in 
 which, he believes, the first half of the subject is treated 
 with sufficient breadth and amplitude. If this volume 
 should meet with a cordial reception at the hands of 
 those who are chiefly interested in questions affecting 
 Capital and Labour means will no doubt be found for
 
 Author's Note. 413 
 
 completing the work by the issue of the second volume. 
 The desire, and indeed the purpose, of the author is to 
 thus complete the work. In the second volume the two 
 concluding Books of the work, namely — " Proposed Revo- 
 lutionary and Socialistic Solutions of Labour Problems ; 
 or the Relation of Democracy to Liberty and Property," 
 and — " The True Solution of Labour Problems Economi- 
 cal and Moral ; or the Wisdom of Profiting by Past 
 Experience," will be comprehensively dealt with; whilst 
 in the Appendices a " Diurnal of Events " in connection 
 with the Scottish railway strike, the Durham miners' 
 strike, and other labour disputes, will be given. In 
 the second part of the work Socialism in its various 
 forms will be fully discussed, and likewise Trade 
 Unionism, and the New Political Economy. This second 
 volume, if the way were made clear, might be issued in 
 three or four months. 
 
 The author is greatly disappointed that he has not 
 been able to carry the work to completion in one volume 
 as he intended. He can only plead that during the pre- 
 paration of the work matters connected with Capital and 
 Labour, Socialism, etc., have developed so rapidly as to 
 make it difficult to keep pace with them ; and also that
 
 414 Author's Note. 
 
 the inherent importance of the subject is so great that 
 any expenditure of time, energy, or money is worth while 
 if it be directed to enhghtening and directing the public 
 mind upon those most vital problems which are involved 
 in it. He trusts that this will be a sufficient justification 
 for the course which he has taken in the eyes of those 
 who understand the gravity and realise the urgency of 
 these subjects; what may be thought of his action by 
 people who are ignorant of, or indifferent to, these stu- 
 pendously important matters is wholly immaterial.
 
 DIURNAL OF EVENTS DURING THE 
 
 RECENT STRIKES. 
 
 APPENDIX A.— THE DOCK STRIKE. 
 
 Tuesday, August i},th, 1889. — Dock Strike commenced in South 
 West Iiidii Dock amjng 300 casual labourers, who quarrelled as to 
 the division of the " plus," and refused to work. 
 
 Friday, August iGt/i. — Announced that io,ooo men were on 
 strike. After holding meetings, 2,000 men marched in procession 
 to the city, where six of them hal an interview with Mr. Norwood. 
 
 Moniay, August i()th. — The Stevedores, to the number of 1,800, 
 though in receipt of high wages, and having no grievance of their 
 own, joined the strike, which extended to practically the whole of 
 the docks. Several meetings held, addressed by Burns, Tillett, and 
 M'Carthy. A procession, said to be a mile and threequarters long, 
 was held, and in it were carried on poles, crusts, penny loaves, 
 bones, and vegetable refuse, to illustrate the docker's daily fare. 
 
 Tuesday, August zoth. — Strike extended to all Docks. Usual 
 meeting and processions. At evening meeting, Burns, replying to 
 the statement of the masters that their expanses would be increased 
 by ^100,000 a year if they granted the increase asked for by the 
 labourers, said : " His answer to that was that the Dock Companies 
 divided a profit of ;^2 18,000 per year, and that if they paid another 
 ;^ 100,000 a year in wages they would still have a profit of 
 ;£, 1 18,000 to share, which he thought a very good sum." He also 
 sai I that he had received telegrams from Liverpool, Glasgow, 
 Grimsby, and Hull, stating that the dockers there approved of the 
 London Strike, and that if freights were taken from London to 
 these places they also would strike for the same wages as the men 
 in London had struck for. 
 
 Mr. Toomey, of the Stevedore's Society, gave a report of the day's 
 picketing. Delegates from Millwall, Victoria Docks, and Albert 
 Docks reported that they had " got every man out." Delegates 
 from Tilbury Docks stated that ihey had brought out 1,000 men. 
 Companies were trying to get Coolie labour, but the Coolies refused 
 to work under the circumstances. 
 
 a
 
 ii. Appendix A. 
 
 Wednesday, August 2isL — Strike spread still further. Struggle 
 kept up day and night by relays of men watching the gates, lest 
 strangers should be got in to do the work required. Masters 
 placarded the district with posters offering permanent employment 
 to 1,000 men at twenty shillings per week. 
 
 Usual meetings held, followed by procession, in which 20,000 
 men were said to have taken part. At the Dock House they 
 " roared and growled violently." At the evening meeting Burns 
 boasted " that he had made a clean sweep of the Docks, and there 
 were very few blacklegs left in now." Announced that Amal- 
 gamated Society of Engineers had sent ^25 towards the strike 
 fund, and Amalgamated Society of Painters ^^55 ; also that 
 merchants and people along the route of the procession had helped 
 them with money. Tillett announced that he and another man 
 had brought oat 3,500 men from the Surrey Commercial Docks, 
 and that they had also been successful with ihe men at the Millwall 
 Docks. 
 
 Dock Companies were said to have taken up a firm attitude, and 
 they believed the strike would soon be over. 
 
 Thursday, August 22nd. — Strike entered on new phase, and ex- 
 tended to general labourers, about 4,000 more strikers being added 
 10 the number. Pickets ascertained that men from Liverpool had 
 come to work in the Docks. Forty of them found at the East 
 India Docks were induced to come out, and six of them were 
 immediately dispatched to Liverpool to try and prevent other men 
 from coming. 
 
 Meetings, marches, processions again the order of the day. The 
 leaders, Burns, Tillett, and others, rode in a vehicle at the head of 
 the procession like lords, their dupes tramping after. Dock Com- 
 panies made their first tactical mistake in recognising the Strike 
 leaders, who met the Directors and managers at the Dock House. 
 This conference, however, seems to have been brought about by 
 officious third parties. 
 
 Reporting the result of this interview. Burns said that he and 
 Tillett had put the following questions to the Dock Directors : " (i) 
 Do you concede the four hours' call ? Answer. — Concede liberally 
 when there are four hours left of the working day. (2) Do you 
 decline to give up your right to engage labour at any hour? — Yes, 
 We will not exercise it arbitrarily, but cannot allow you to dictate. 
 (3) What have you to say about contract work? — We cannot see
 
 Appendix A. iii. 
 
 our way to do without contract work ; we find contract labour 
 better. (4) You do not object to pay 6d. an hour? — Not for con- 
 tract work, and would be willing to extend the contract system. 
 (5) What about the//«^ system ? — We are willing to consider your 
 objections favourably and to adopt in lieu the contract system of 
 the London Docks. (6) There are complaints on the part of the 
 men of bad language and brutal conduct by the contractors ? — We 
 have always endeavoured and are most anxious to remove cause 
 for such complaint. (7) Would you entertain the question of the 
 contract rates being raised from 6d. to 8d. from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 
 and IS. from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. ? — No." The meeting of strikers was 
 asked whether it would accept or refuse these conditions, and it 
 unanimously rejected them. 
 
 At this meeting Tom Mann said : " The Companies had got a 
 few blacklegs to sleep in the docks, and they were trying to arrange 
 with certain butchers and bakers in the East End to supply these 
 men with food ; but the strikers had been to the butchers and bakers- 
 and asked them whether they were going to carry out the orders, 
 and they had declared they would not." 
 
 Friday, August z^^rd. — Strike still extending. This entirely due 
 to picketing. What picketing meant may be judged from a circular 
 which was sent to the papers by the proprietors of Hay's Wharf, 
 which had been given to one of their men and of which this is a 
 copy : 
 
 ♦' NOTICE TO ALL MEN 
 
 WORKING IN HOLDS AND ON 
 
 THE QUAYS. 
 
 As Men, 
 
 We beg you to clear out at once, or we must inform 
 you the consequences must be extremely serious. 
 
 Alfred Cremer." 
 
 Pickets succeeded in getting into the Docks, and communicated 
 with men from Liverpool who were working there. " After a good 
 deal of persuasion the pickets brought them out." In the early 
 morning Burns and other leaders visited the Surrey Commercial 
 Docks, from which and from the riverside they brought away 
 3,500 men who joined the strike. Great meeting held on Tower 
 Hill ; procession afterwards ; eight brass bands, many drum and 
 fiife bands ; flags and banners ; allegorical groups in waggons ; boats 
 fully manned ; illustrations of the dockers' children contrasted with 
 sweaters' children, of the sweaters' dinners contrasted with the
 
 IV. Appendix A . 
 
 dockers' dinners, &c., were displayed. Procession was said to 
 number 70,000. 
 
 Tillett, presiding at the meeting on this day, said that men 
 obtained by the Companies from Southampton and Liverpool had 
 been got out of the Docks and sent back. More trade societies 
 were coming forward to help, the shipwrights that morning having 
 sent £100 He denied that they had intimidated any one. "They 
 sent twelve men to reason with the men at work, and by the force of 
 that reasoning they brought out 3,000." 
 
 Dock labourers visited Spratt's biscuit manufactory in Bermondsey 
 and induced fifty men to come out, causing the stoppage of the 
 works. 
 
 Meeting of master-lightermen and barge owners held. Stated at 
 the meeting that the wages of lightermen in the port of London 
 were very good, and there were few who did not earn jQi 5s. per 
 week ; but taking advantage of the strike they were endeavouring 
 to obtain increased pay. 
 
 Meeting of ship-owners held, attended by between sixty and 
 seventy representatives of great shipping firms. Message sent from 
 meeting to the Dock Committee asking for information as to the 
 real merits of the dispute. Mr. Norwood, Chairman of Dock Com- 
 mittee, proceeded to shipowners' meeting, where he explained the 
 facts of the case, and stated that compliance with the demands of 
 the men would involve an addition of ;^i 50,000 a year to the 
 working expenses of the Dock Companies. Meeting resolved to 
 take no direct action with reference to the strike. 
 
 Applications for employment received by Dock Committee froni 
 all parts of the country. Committee stated that they would have no 
 difficulty in carrying on their business if the men they engaged 
 could be prctected from intimidation. Legal opinion was being 
 taken as to what action could be adopted against the intimidators. 
 Dock Companies stated their belief that the strike had been care- 
 fully prepared, and that its issues would affect other interests beside 
 their own. They pointed out that although from 40,000 to 50,000 
 men were on strike, only 4,000 of these were employed at the 
 Docks. 
 
 " Bonded Warehouse Keeper" wrote to the Times to say that 
 labourers at the Tea and Bonded warehouses had been ordered by 
 the mob to turn out, although they were satisfied with their wages
 
 Appendix A. v. 
 
 and their work (mostly piece-work). All the Dock and public 
 warehouses hav^e thus been clearedof their hard-working and orderly 
 labourers, who, anxious to resume their employment, are quite 
 unable to do so owing to the reign of terror which prevails. 
 
 "A Wharf Owner" suggested in the Times that a counter 
 agitation against the coercion of the strikers should be organised, 
 and said that if a few courageous and active men would call large 
 meetings of the "employed" the result would be a determined 
 resolution to resist the threats and violence made by the strike 
 leaders and their agents. 
 
 Explanations appeared in the Press from the Dock Companies. 
 i\[r. Morgan, Secretary of the Joint Committee, stated that the rate 
 of pay for Dock labourers for day work was 5d. an hour for a day 
 ot eight hours, with 6d. an hour overtime after 8 p.m. ; that under 
 the " plus " system the men received not less than 5d. an hour and 
 overtime at 6J. out of the fixed rate, and divided the surplus, if 
 any, at the end of the job in certain proportions; the average 
 weekly receipts of the permanent and preferable labourers were 
 from 20S. to 25s. per head. As regards the third class of labourers, 
 the casuals, Mr. Morgan stated that these men were taken on as 
 they were required ; that they were unskilled ; that no inquiry was 
 made as to their antecedents or capabilities; and that they received 
 the same rate per hour as the preferable labourers. 
 
 Mr. Morgan summarized the demands of the strikers thus : i, 
 That casual labourers should not be discharged with less than four 
 hours' pay, however little time they worked ; 2, That men should 
 be engaged at two fixed times daily, namely, at eight o'clock and 
 twelve o'clock; 3, That piece-work should be entirely abandoned ; 
 4, That wages should be raised from 5d. an hour to 6d. for ordinary 
 time, and from 6d. an hour to 8d. for overtime ; 5, That the pay 
 under the contract should be raised to 8d. an hour and is. an hour 
 overtime. He pointed out that to concede demand numbers 
 2 and 3 would be to transfer the management of the Docks from 
 the owners of the property to their workmen, and that the rise of 
 wages demanded by numbers 4 and 5 would be an advance on 
 labour expenditure of at least 25 per cent. With regard to the 
 first demand the Committee were willing to substantially concede 
 it. He further stated thit these demands were sent to a deputy- 
 superintendent of the West India Dock in the form of an
 
 vi. Appendix A. 
 
 ultimatum on the morning of the 13th inst., and a reply peremp- 
 torally demanded before noon the same day. As it was impossible 
 for the Committee to comply with such a demand the strike com- 
 menced that afternoon. Mr. Morgan further stated that the strike 
 had evidently been carefully pre-arranged ; that it was not based 
 on any substantial grievance, as the majority of the men assured 
 the superintendents that they left their work with the greatest re- 
 luctance, and only under the threat of personal injury, and were 
 ready and willing to return if secured against molestation ; and 
 finally, that the Committee's invitations for labour had met with a 
 response from all quarters, so that there would not be the slightest 
 difficulty in resuming work at the Docks if protection was given to 
 the men by the authorities. 
 
 Col. Griffin stated that the men at the Surrey Commercial Docks 
 were of a superior type, casual labour not being employed ; that 
 many of them had been working in the Docks for years at a very 
 high rate of wages ; that in spite of the strike at the West India 
 Docks the men at the Surrey Docks had continued their work as 
 usual until the morning of the 21st, when they were visited by 
 deputations from the north side of the Thames, and compelled by 
 threats of violence to leave their employment. There was no dis- 
 pute of any kind betwixt the Surrey Company and their men. 
 
 Colonel Birt, Manager of the Millwall docks, pointed out that his 
 Company allowed the shipowners to discharge their cargoes, except 
 in the case of grain. The Company had also granted to its work- 
 men the minimum numbsr of hours which the strikers demanded, 
 and none of its labourers earned less than 6d. an hour, aud miny 
 much more Men employed in " working out " grain earned pd. an 
 hour On the 21st of August Colonel Birt had an interview with 
 the Millwall men and asked if they had any complaint to make. 
 They answered no, and one of them, acting as spokesman for the 
 rest, stated that their sympathies were with the Company ; that 
 they had not struck, and had left their work only because to have 
 continued would have endangered their lives. Colonel Birt further 
 said with emphasis: "There is no quarrel between the Millwall 
 Company and its men. All both ask is that they may be left alone ; 
 but this is not granted them. Yesterday afternoon a detachment 
 of those on strike assaulted the dock police, broke into the Dock, 
 and forced their way on board two foreign vessels which were 
 quietly doing their own work with their own crews, and used
 
 Appendix A. vii. 
 
 threats of so serious a character that the captain of one, a German, 
 felt it necessary to claim the protection of his Ambassador, and the 
 captain of the other was desirous of immediately taking his ship 
 out of dock with the cargo on board." 
 
 Atigust 24///. — Ever fresh adherents joining the strike. Mr. 
 Sydney Buxton appeared upon the scene, and said he thought the 
 men " were asking nothing unreasonable, and they had his warmest 
 sympathy." 
 
 Stevedores issued a manifesto, in which they said : " We, the 
 Union Stevedores of London, knowing the condition of the Dock 
 labourers, have determined to support their movement by every 
 lawful means in our power. We have therefore refused to work 
 because of the Dock Company employing scabs and blacklegs who 
 are taking the places of the Dock labourers on strike. We do this 
 not to inconvenience the brokers, shipowners, or master stevedores, 
 as our quarrel is not with them ; but we feel our duty is to support 
 our poorer brothers. We are promised the help of the Seaman's 
 and Fireman's Union, and we now appeal with confidence to 
 members of all Trades Unions for joint action with us, and especially 
 those whose work is engaged with shipping: sea-going engmeers 
 and fitters, boiler makers, ship carpenters and decorators, ship- 
 wrights, iron shipbuilders, caulkers, etc., and also the coal heavers, 
 ballast men, lightermen and their watchmen." The Manifesto ended 
 with an appeal to the public at large for contributions and support 
 on behalf of the Dock labourers. 
 
 Proposal made on this day to call out " all the men from Beckton 
 and other gas works, and put London in total darkness," in order 
 to bring pressure to bear upon the Dock Companies, and a large 
 ■number of the gas workers expressed their willingness to give the Gas 
 Company notice that, unless the Dock labourer's demands were 
 conceded, though they had no quarrel with the Company, they 
 would come out in forty-eight hours and put the East of London in 
 total darkness. 
 
 In consequence of threats which had been made to fire the 
 warehouses, the police were largely reinforced and the fire brigade 
 kept river float under full steam. 
 
 Some of the Dock Companies more hopeful. They pointed 
 out that the agitation, through which they were the first to suffer, 
 had vastly extended, as was originally intended, and that all the 
 •events which had transpired had shown that it had been most care-
 
 viii. Appendix A. 
 
 fully pre-arranged. They also pointed out that the shipowners 
 had been deserted by their employes^ the stevedores, over whom 
 the Dock Companies had no control ; and further that the Direct0'"s 
 of the Docks were simply in the position of trustees for the 
 proprietors. 
 
 Mr. J. O. Philips, Secretary of Gas, Light, and Coke Company, 
 wrote to the Times to say that they used every year a million and 
 three-quarters of tons of coal, nearly all of which, in consequence 
 of disputes between the coal owners and the Railway Companies, 
 now came by sea. He added : " Every day large steamships 
 belonging to our coal contractors are entering the river, and every 
 hour now brings me telegraphic messages that such and such a 
 ship has arrived, but cannot be discharged in consequence of the 
 coalfillers, lightermen, tug firemen, and others engaged in our 
 business (some of them earning as much as \os. a day wages) having 
 been by intimidation forced io leave their work a7id go out Ofi strike. 
 The inconvenience so loudly complained of in the City of London, 
 caused by mobs of men, headed by brass bands, perambulating its 
 thoroughfares, is doubtless great, but what I want the public 
 to consider is that it is as nothing compared with the incon- 
 venience and positive danger which will result to the entire Metro- 
 polis if, by reason of the present state of things being allowed to 
 continue, our coal supply is stopped and London be in consequence 
 put in darkness." 
 
 Major Banes, M.P., a wharfinger, wrote to the Times in these 
 terms : " Now, sir, there is no doubt of this — whatever may be the 
 result of the strike, and hoivever much the men may obtain for their 
 labour, it will never affect nor lessen the number of the boor unfortunate 
 creatures who have been so often described as flooding the neighbourhood 
 of the Docks and whari'es seeking casual labour, -^ind whose condition, 
 and the causes of it, are deserving the pity and consideration of 
 every philanthropic mmd. I have ventured to make these remarks 
 in the interest of both sides. I employ a large number of labourers 
 myself at the Colonial and Granite wharves, and although I en- 
 deavour and wish to keep on good terms with my men and to 
 encourage willing and cheerful service, / am a sufferer from the 
 strike, as the 7ahole of the??i have been turned out, not from any com- 
 plaint they had to make but, as they expressed themselves, unioillingly 
 and solely, I believe, tn sympathy with the grievances felt by the 
 labourers at the Docks^ 
 
 It is worthy of note that Major Banes states, not that his men 
 had turned out. but that they had been turned out. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Vickers, in a letter to the Times, said : " At present the
 
 Appendix A. ix. 
 
 whole of the import and export trade of London is dislocated and 
 at a standstill. Let the joint committee, before more mischief is 
 done, yield the id. or 2d. per hour and otherwise satisfy the 
 reasonable demands of the men. No live-and-let-lwe shipowner or 
 merchant jvould begrudge the amount or refuse to have his charges 
 auginented to that extent, and so put an end to a struggle that is 
 inflicting a greater loss than the amount in dispute can possibly beT 
 
 Shipowners, as a body, however, did not manifest any alacrity to 
 pay increased charges, and thus assist the Dock Companies out of 
 their difficulty. At night it was proposed to unload a New York 
 ship of a cargo of meat in Millwall Docks. Clerks were taken down 
 to act as labourers, and the vans also came down, but the pickets 
 soon collected crowds and the drivers declared that they were 
 concerned for their lives. The police were on the spot and pro- 
 mised to give protection, but the drivers still held to prospective 
 dangers, and so the food was left to spoil. 
 
 August 25. — {Sundiy.) Procession to Hyde Park, where meeting 
 was held, at which nearly 100,000 persons were computed to be 
 present. Mr. M'Carthy, secretary of the Stevedore's Society, pre- 
 sided at one of the platforms, and said : '' The word must therefore 
 go forth from that meeting that they would be no longer governed 
 by men who were not of themselves. They earned the bread they 
 ate, and they would have the control of the profit they earned too. 
 . . . They did not desire to utter threats, for they were con- 
 scious of their power ; but he might state that the Gas Workers' 
 Union were considering that day the important question whether 
 they would give notice to the various Gas Companies to stand out 
 and put London into darkness unless the demands of the Dock 
 labourers were conceded. (Loud cheers.) . . . Through the 
 agency of the organization known as the Sailor's and Fireman's 
 Union every port in the kingdom should be blocked." 
 
 Tillett, speaking at same meeting, said : " The shipowners were 
 taking their side, and recognized the fact that by this strike the 
 groundwork had been laid for a Federation of Labour. . . . Their 
 victory would be a victory of bread and butter." 
 
 John Burns said : "It was twelve days since that a i&w degraded 
 Dock labourers met together and decided to resuscitate the Trade 
 Union which capitalism had almost crushed out a few months 
 before. They met and decided that 5d. an hour was not enough 
 for a man and his wife and children, and as a result the most 
 remarkable labour movement of modern times had followed. These 
 men were the embodiment of weakness, and everything poor and 
 insignificant. They were the despair of the social reformer, and
 
 X. Appendix A. 
 
 theghos' of the milk-and-water politician, and had been regarded by 
 political economists and by all men as the embodiment of the 
 worst specimens of the degraded labourer of all countries. In 
 twelve days, howevei, the Dock labourer had shown the country 
 th^t he intended to take his position amongst the ranks of working 
 men. . . . Some of the papers suggested that the leaders should be 
 a-rested, and if this was not so serious a proposal it would be con- 
 temptible, ridiculous, and comical. For those leaders, though, he 
 could say that if hell itself were at their feet they would jump into 
 it rather than desert the dockers. . . . The men had made their 
 demands of the Directors courteously, perhaps too much so, but 
 there must be no mistake in this matter. Underneath the patient 
 suffering and orderly behaviour of the Dock labourer during the 
 last few weeks a power had grown which would make the Directors 
 yield and concede the irreducible minimum. . . . Then they [the 
 Dock companies] amalgamated, and put up the rates from 6d. to 
 IS. a ton at a jump. What was sauce for the Directors' goose was 
 going to be sauce for the docker's gander, and if they could raise 
 6d. for themselves they must raise id. for the dockers. The 
 amalgatnation of the two great companies had made a difference of 
 ^^234 000 a year in the profits, and the dockers meant to have 
 £bQ>,ooo or ;^"8o,ooo of that before the agitation was finisiied. They 
 intended to have their pound of flesh, and he should like to ask the 
 Directors what would induce them to abxndoti it. The letters and 
 speeches of the Directors which had been published 7oere unworthy of 
 men^ and were the language of ghouls in human shape, and the senti- 
 ments of financial y^ack the drippers. (Loud laughter.) But the 
 women were setting a good example to them, for in one street they 
 had erected a banner with the words on it, No rent paid in the East 
 of London till the docker gets his tanner^ 
 
 Burns concluded thus : " The present strike was a peaceably 
 organized revolution of the skilled and unskilled worlcmen of the 
 port of London, and it was a preliminary skirmish preceding 
 bigger battles which they hoped to have in the future." (Loud 
 cheers.) 
 
 Burns announced the programme for the following day, Monday, 
 in these terms : " All the dock gates were to be picketed as usual. 
 Not a single man must leave his post, and no stranger or straggler 
 must touch a bit of cargo. The pickets must get hold of him and 
 persuade him by the means so admirably successful in the past 
 (laughter), and only too well known to themselves, in courteous, 
 firm, and bold language to clear out and join the strikers." 
 
 At numbe: two meeting Mr. Toomey, of the stevedores, presided, 
 Tom Mann, in his speech, said : " A large American cattle vessel 
 came up the river that morning, and there was no one to get the
 
 Appendix A. xi. 
 
 cattle out, and the men would rather see them thrown into the 
 Thames than go to work under present circumstances. The Sea- 
 man's Union was stopping men from coming from Southampton 
 and Liverpool, and other places. If that society gave their men 
 instructions to come out they would do so, and not a man would 
 put to sea." (Cheers.) At this meeting it was stated that Crosse 
 and Blackwell had offered their men los. each to go and clear a 
 vessel, but they refused to do so. Three cheers were given for 
 those men. 
 
 A circular, unsigned, headed " Lightermen's Work and Wages 
 Committee," and dated from a public-house in Philpot Street, Com- 
 mercial Road, was forwarded to Master Lightermen and Barge 
 Owners, in which it was stated that " Representative employes of 
 most of the lighterage firms in committee have to-day considered 
 the urgent necessity there is for the rearrangement of their present 
 excessive hours of labour and the present scale of wages. They 
 have come to the conclusion that the following in future constitute 
 the scale of hours and wages : Day to commence at 7 a.m. and 
 terminate at 7 p.m. — wages, 6s. ; night to commence at 7 p.m — 
 wages, 6s. A night's work to consist of one job only. The job to 
 mean barge to dock and docking, barge to wharf and watching, de- 
 livering at steam, in dock or otherwise. Sunday, same as other day, 
 6s.; one job only, as above. All reasonable railway, waterage, or 
 other expenses to be paid. Orders to be given at City offices not 
 later than 7 p.m. — By order." 
 
 As to these proposals, they were stated to be unworkable. First, 
 the number of licensed men in the port of London was insufficient 
 to carry them out ; and secondly, because if they could be conceded 
 a great increase would have to be made in the charges. The 
 Master Lightermen discussed the question whether the Watermen's 
 Company had power to insist on the lightermen going to work and 
 thus preventing injury to the trade of the port. The employers 
 thought that if the Company were powerless, or if they were unwill- 
 ing to use their power, the privileges of the lightermen should be 
 withdrawn and the river thrown open. 
 
 The following manifesto, having especial reference to the Strike 
 at the Surrey Commercial Docks was issued and widely circulated 
 on the South side : 
 
 ' To the Dock labourers and others now on strike. — Comrades, 
 the time has now arrived for us to do something practical to meet 
 any future emergencies. We have, therefore, formed a Union to 
 be called 'The General Labourers' Union of Rotherhithe.' We
 
 xii. Appendix A, 
 
 have elected a provisional committee, secretary, treasurer, and pre. 
 sident. Rules will be submitted for your approval. 
 
 " Our appeal now is that every docker should join the Union. 
 It has been asked, What are we out on strike for ? Our answer 
 is — on principle for our comrades at East London and justice to our- 
 selves. Our demands are : i. That all men working in connection 
 with the grain department, viz., trimmers, to be paid in future 6d. 
 per hour between the hours of 7 and 5, and 8d. per hour overtime, 
 2. That all employed in the wood department, viz., stevedore^, 
 labourers, or lumpers, be paid Sd. per hour, and is. per hour over- 
 time. Not to muster at corner or taken on till a quarter of an 
 hour before working, and directly men are taken on pay to start. 
 These agreements to be secured in writing and to be permanent. 
 Fellow-workmen — Let no man go in until your committee determine 
 that your demands are satisfied. 
 
 " By order of the committee, 
 
 "J. J. Richmond, President. 
 
 " The General Labourers' Union, Grand Surrey Coffee Tavern, 
 Lower Road, Rotherhithe " 
 
 August 2bth. Mr. Sydney Buxton had an interview with Col. Birt, 
 and discussed with him the question of casual Dock labour. It 
 appeared that the Companies had given to this class of labour wages 
 which would amount to 4s. 2d. a day if the men were fully engaged. 
 Millwall labourers were of a superior class — skilled labourers who 
 were employed on the piecework system. Col. Birt quoted from 
 the Companies' books an instance of a corn gang who earned a 
 sum that amounted to is. 8d. an hour each. He pointed out that 
 much work which formerly employed casual labourers had now 
 ceased to exist. Formerly much sugar was warehoused, and this 
 the casual labourers could handle ; now there was no sugar ware- 
 housed. Keen trade competition was so fierce, from the fact that 
 the consumers demand articles at the lowest price, that products 
 from over the seas go into consumption at once, hence there is no 
 labour in warehousing goods to the extent that formerly existed. 
 Col. Birt expressed his sympathy with casual labourers, but he held 
 that thedockswerenot responsible for finding employment for all the 
 men who failed in everything else, and then came to the Dock gates. 
 General Steam Navigation Company notified the suspension of 
 their service on the Boulogne station. For several days previously 
 their agents had declined freights and carried passengers only. Now 
 the passenger traffic was stopped by the strike. Several boats from^
 
 Appendix A. xiii. 
 
 the Continent with fruit and tomatoes on board were lying in the 
 river. Their cargoes were spoiling. 
 
 The P. and O. steamer Khedive, unable to get the whole of her 
 cargo aboard in the Albert Dock owing to insufficient labour, pro- 
 ceeded to Thames Haven to complete loading, but the lightermen 
 at Thames Haven would have nothing to do with loading the vessel, 
 so she had to put back to Albert Dock. 
 
 Vessels laden with butter had to leave London and proceed to 
 Harwich, whence the cargo was despatched by rail. The strikers 
 on learning this suggested calling out the Great Eastern Railway 
 Company's servants. A large vessel which arrived in the Docks 
 with an immense quantity of frozen meab from South America had 
 to sail on to Liverpool for the purpose of discharging the cargo 
 Large quantities of Ostend rabbits could not be landed, and some 
 traders who smuggled a number of their shop assistants into the 
 Docks in order to bring away the rabbits had to stop the work. 
 
 At the Coal Exchange it was stated that all trade in seaborne 
 coal, about one-third of the total supply of London, was at a stand 
 still. Efforts were being made to induce the coal men at the 
 various railway stations to join the ranks of the strikers. 
 
 A number of men from the East End marched as a " deputation " 
 to coal depots at Highbury, HoUoway, St. Pancras, King's Cross, 
 Camden Town, &c., for the purpose of getting coal carmen and 
 coal heavers to turn out on strike for an advance of id. a ton. 
 Several vans and coal trolleys laden with coal-heavers visited the 
 different coal bays and wharves. Within a short space of time the 
 men struck work and joined the strikers, the result being that 
 within a short time the different bays were all closed against 
 business. 
 
 There were indications that the Dock Strike would not be con- 
 fined to London. Several Shipping Companies issued instructions 
 to have cargoes disembarked at Southampton, and other ports, in- 
 stead of London, so as to avoid delay. When the instructions were 
 read out at Southampton dissatisfaction was loudly expressed among 
 the Dock labourers, and indications of sympathy with the London 
 men were emphatically given. The Trade Union and other so- 
 cieties were expected to issue general instructions to the whole 
 shipping ports of the United Kingdom, that in the event of any 
 Shipping Company trying to effect the landing of cargo at any
 
 xiv. Appendix A. 
 
 Docks other than usual the men were to go out on strike to give an- 
 impetus to the demands of the London Dock men. 
 
 Emboldened by success, the strikers and their pickets became 
 more aggressive than ever. The few men venturesome enough ta 
 continue to work at the Docks were afraid to enter the streets at 
 the conclusion of the day's labour, and they had to live within the 
 gates. Indeed, the pickets told off by the strikers to watch all who 
 entered and left, occasionally questioned Custom House officials as 
 to their business when these men happened to be out of uniform. 
 
 The Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners met 
 at the Corn Exchange Tavern, Mark Lane, Mr. Samuel Williams, 
 of Lambeth, presiding. Mr. Williams said : "The master lighter- 
 men did not desire to enter into any of the differences between the 
 Dock labourers and the Dock Companies, out of professed sympathy 
 with the former of whom the working lightermen had struck. This 
 professed sympathy was the only reason assigned by the lightermen 
 when they first went out. They said that they were quite satisfied 
 with their position and wages, but that they were in danger of 
 losing their lives if they stopped at work. The Dock labourers 
 had nothing to do with the lightermen nor the lightermen with the 
 Dock labourers, and if the lightermen of to-day gave way to threats 
 they were a very different class to those he had had to deal with in- 
 former days. The fact that the lightermen had gone out had en- 
 couraged the strikers, and while at first the lightermen did not 
 claim any benefit for themselves from the strike, yet now an un- 
 signed circular, dated from a publichouse, had come to hand making 
 demands which, if complied with, would render it impossible to- 
 carry on business. These demands put out of sight the fact that 
 the lighterman's trade was regulated by the tides and not by fixed 
 hours. He then remarked upon the grave position in which the 
 lightermen had placed themselves, as privileged workers on the 
 Thames, by throwing up their work." 
 
 A letter was sent from this meeting to the clerk of the Water- 
 men's Company, calling attention to the fact that licensed watermen 
 employed by members of the association had, without previous 
 notice ot any kind, abruptly left their barges and lighters since the 
 22nd inst., and had refused to work, out of sympathy, as they 
 alleged, with the Dock labourers. The letter went on to say : "We 
 are desired to state that a very large amount of property therefore 
 remains afloat in barges entirely unprotected at great risk, and to 
 the detriment of the interests of the port of London. Under these 
 circumstances we are requested to call the attention of your 
 honourable court to the distinct violation of the Watermen's Com-
 
 Appendix A. xV. 
 
 pany's Act, by which certain privileges granted to the lightermen 
 and watermen of the river Thames became void and ceased to exist, 
 and to inquire what steps you propose to take." The letter added 
 that the committee considered that they were entitled to employ 
 any suitable men in navigating, and this without restrictions. 
 
 During the discussion, speaker after speaker said that his men 
 had left him suddenly, although they had no complaint to make as 
 to wages, declaring that they were " compelled " to come out. 
 There was a decided expression of opinion to the effect that the 
 lightermen, who are protected labourers (no one unless licenced, 
 after apprenticeship, being entitled to navigate on the Thames) had 
 forfeited their privileges. The meeting unanimously declared that 
 they would not deal with "Burns and Co.," political agitators. A 
 number of placards and handbills, more or less directly of a 
 threatening character, were exhibited, and the opinion was ex- 
 pressed that protection should be given to the nnen who would 
 work. 
 
 A letter was also sent from the meeting to the Commissioner of 
 the Metropolitan Police, calling attention to the fact that the 
 strikers had engaged a steam tug to act on the Thames in intimi- 
 dating workmen, and suggested that the police should employ 
 other means than the antiquated row boats of patrolling the 
 river. 
 
 During the procession cheers were raised whenever tresh bodies 
 of strikers, who had just turned out, came up, or when the informa- 
 tion was sent " that another big lot had come out." In Mile-end, 
 Peak, Frean & Co.'s men joined, and the men from M'Dougall's 
 chemical works. When the men in these works struck one of their 
 number came to the employers and said that the men were intimi- 
 dated. The same man had been haranguing his fellows in the mills 
 in tue course of the morning. Nearly 400 men turned out from 
 Johnson Brothers, carmen and contractors. Great excitement ran 
 aloiig the line when the word was passed that 7,000 men were 
 coming out of the Thames Ironworks at Blackwall. Further efforts 
 were made to get the men out of all the large carrying companies, 
 and strong appeals were made to Pickford's men, and to Carter, 
 Paterson, and Co.'s men, as well as the labourers of the various 
 railway companie:?. la some instances the men expressed themselves 
 willing, and came out. 
 
 At the meeting ^on this day Burns said: "They had men that
 
 •xvi. Appendix A . 
 
 day brought by the employers from Leith. The Dundee Shipping 
 Company had sent men from Dundee; but their pickets had got 
 them out. He had heard that others were coming, and also some 
 from Aberdeen. Well, if the employers did that they would fetch 
 the men out at Dundee and Aberdeen too. (Cheers.) He hoped 
 the men would now quietly disperse, and let every man do his best 
 to watch the gates and picket every place." 
 
 The Dundee Shipping Company had brought 70 men from 
 Dundee and had landed them at the Dundee Dock. The pickets 
 in the afternoon got in and prevailed on 66 to come out. These 
 men afterwards went to one of the chief committee rooms, expect- 
 ing to get strike pay or be sent home. The committee refused to 
 send them back or allow them anything. 
 
 Mr. H. J. Morgan, Secretary Docks Joint Committee, sent to the 
 Press a letter which he had received from one of the newly-ap- 
 ipointed men in the Docks, of which the following is a copy : 
 " Copy of letter dated August 25, 1889. 
 Sir, — As one of the newly-appointed permanent men who have 
 remained at work in the London Dock during the strike, I beg 
 respectfully to bring under your notice the following facts, which 
 will account for so many men leaving their work. They have done 
 so under the influence of extreme terror, being unable to enter or 
 leave the Dock with safety, and have in many instances been robbed 
 and most brutally assaulted. If some means could have been found 
 for getting them in and out of the Dock with safety I am confident 
 not a man at this department would have left. They were satisfied 
 with their pay ; many of them a few weeks ago would have eagerly 
 accepted permanency on the committee's terms. On Friday even- 
 ing five of them were so violently assaulted on leaving the Dock 
 that they were unable to come to work on Saturday. They were 
 men who had worked for a number of years at the same warehouse, 
 doing responsible work. The papers all speak of the orderly conduct 
 of the strikers, and no doubt their processions through the streets 
 are conducted in a peaceable manner ; but let the writers come 
 down to the Dock-gates and see the terror-stricken men going round 
 from gate to gate seeking to get out with safety, and finding at 
 every gate a mob waiting for the express purpose of half-murderitig 
 them, and they would alter their opinion. On Saturday morning 
 the rumour was spread that the strikers had the names of all those 
 remaining at work and had appointed gangs of men to wait at 
 every gate and settle all those who came out- In consequence of 
 this the men at once left work, not to join the strikers but out of 
 sheer fright. As I have myself been savagely assaulted, and still 
 kbear the marks, I speak from experience. I write this more par-
 
 Appendix A. xvii. 
 
 ticularly in the hope that you may be able to arrange some means 
 whereby the men may enter and leave the Docks with safety. 
 
 I am, Sir, yours respectfully, 
 
 The Chairman London and India Docks Joint 
 Committee. 
 
 Messrs. B. M. Tite & Sons, coal merchants, of Bridge Wharf. 
 Cambridge Heath, wrote to the Times as follows : " All our men 
 at Spitalfields coal depot, as well as those of other coal merchants 
 have had to stop work this morning owing to a mob connected with 
 the Dock strikers having been down and threatened them. We are 
 informed that a number of the gang had screw wrenches to take 
 off the van wheels, and in some cases the horses had been taken 
 out of the vans and the harness cut. All our men want to work 
 and are perfectly satisfied, and it appears to us that interference 
 with trade in this manner must do the Dock strikers' cause great 
 harm." Such proceedings as these, however, instead of doing the 
 Dock Strike harm seemed to have the opposite effect. A large 
 section of the public seemed to positively enjoy the spectacle of 
 employers being attacked and their property destroved. 
 
 Another correspondent of the Times gave the following testimony : 
 " During this week I have witnessed the most open intimidation 
 practised by the men on strike — howling crowds going from dock 
 to dock and warehouse to warehouse, stoppine business and 
 threatening vengeance on all who did not comply with their 
 demands, until now there, are thousands who are out who had no 
 desire to strike, but were compelled to do so, not onlv Dock labourers, 
 but carmen, lightermen, regular men, and many others, and what is 
 worse still is that those who dare to hnnestlv work for their wages 
 are being brutally maltreated and threatened with worse if they dare 
 attempt to work in defiance of the strikers' wishes. I saw several 
 men severely injured to-day on Tower-hill (the blood being made 
 to flv in all directions) by gangs of strikers, and the police who 
 ought to have been there came up when the damage was done. I 
 want to know if this is English liberty ; if so I prefer a strong 
 despotism. If this is civilization, what is barbarism? Wh:^t are 
 the authorities for if not to protect peaceable citizens in earning an 
 honest livelihood .? " 
 
 Still another Times correspondent, after relating facts which 
 corroborated the charges of intimidation, violence, and outrage 
 made against the strikers, said : " In a word, the - professional 
 working man ' is at his old games, and the sooner he is shown that 
 those old games must give way to honesty and commonsense the 
 better will it be for the communitv in general. I would earnestly 
 
 h
 
 xviii. Appendix A. 
 
 exhoit the charitable public to refrain from contributing in anyway 
 to the prolongation of the misery already caused by this strike. 
 This strike is not a spontaneous outbreak on the part of men who 
 have been the subjects of oppression. There is evidence tending 
 to prove that it originated outside the labourers, and that it is kept 
 going by terrorism." 
 
 The Ti»ies itself in its leading article of this day, Aug. 26, said : 
 ''The Dock Directors have assented to the contention of the Dock 
 labourers that men should be engaged for not less than four hours 
 at a time, and they do not object to raise the pay from 5d. an hour 
 to 6d., provided that the work is contract work. But the strikers 
 have an insuperable objection to contract work. . . But the strikers 
 do not stop here. They go on to demand that they shall be 
 engaged at two fixed periods of the day, in order that they may be 
 saved the exhausting wait at the Dock gates. This is a boon that 
 every one would fain wish to see granted, but the burden of proving 
 that it is possible lies upon those who ask for it. The essence of 
 modern shipping business is that it shall be capable of being trans- 
 acted at short notice and at high pressure ; and if the hands are 
 not ready to the occasion, there is danger that shippers will have 
 recourse to some other port. This is unfortunate, but it is a hard 
 fact, and unless some ingenious device can be discovered for curing 
 it, the inconvenience must be endured. . . . The strikers have 
 hitherto conducted their strike in a peaceable fashion, and upon 
 the main issues public sympathy is with them. In our columns 
 full publicity has been given to the contentions of the Dock Com- 
 panies, which are thus roughly attacked upon emerging from a 
 period of depression. But it is also apparent from the general 
 tenour of our correspondence that there are not wanting men of 
 moderate views who consider that the dock companies ought in fair- 
 ness to mete out rather more liberal measure to their anploycs now 
 that brighter times are dawning This is the view which the ship- 
 owners, among others, are reported to take. If so, it may fairly oe 
 assumed that they are ready to bear without grumbling any small 
 increase of dock charges which a concession to the strikers would 
 involve. This seems to meet the objection that any rise in these 
 charges would drive shipping to other ports. . , . There is, of 
 course, the dispute as to the part intimidation has played in 
 augmenting the number of the strikers. They have used the 
 questionable expedient of picketing freely, and those who agree 
 with the conclusion of a Royal Commission, that the moral persua- 
 sion nijminallv aimed at by picketing often develops into persuasion 
 of a rougher kind, will be disposed to regard this in itself as sufiticient 
 evidence of intimidation. Besides picketing, we have circulars, 
 such as that which has been widely posted up in the neighbourhood
 
 Appendix A. xix. 
 
 of the Docks, begging every man to ' clear out at once, or we mi;st 
 inform you the consequences mus: be extremely serious.' The 
 slight ambiguity of such language would not protect its uttertrs 
 from criminal proceedings if it were addressed to definite 
 individuals." 
 
 At various places along the route wharfingers and consignees 
 met the leaders, and begged them to allow some of the men to 
 unload certain cargoes in cases of great emergency, for which they 
 would nandsomely pay ; but m every instance a positive refusal 
 was given, except in one case, and that was where some ice was 
 most urgently required for the patients at one of the asylums. 
 
 At the meeting Burns boasted : "They not only had the public 
 with them, but the Press was also on their side." 
 
 August 27///. — The strike fever proved so contagious that a 
 Manifesto was issued warning men that if they struck without the 
 authority of the Strike Committee no pay would be given to them. 
 About 2,500 or 3,000 were added to the list of discontented ones, 
 these coming principally, if not entirely, from the Isle of Dogs. The 
 Ironworkers of Messrs. Westward and Bailey discussed the situation, 
 and a deputation of strikers waited upon them, with the result that 
 1,200 of the men employed by this firm threw down their tools. 
 Similarly influenced, between 500 and 600 men in the service of the 
 Copenhagen Oil and Seed-Crushing Mills yesterday joined the ranks 
 of the strikers, followed by 700 or 800 of the employe's of the Chemical^ 
 Copper Ore and Phosphate Company. 
 
 At last the police authorities woke up to the fact that the state of 
 things existing in London was really dangerous. The gates of the 
 Docks were vigilantly guarded, and no one allowed to enter until he 
 had given a satisfactory explanation of his business. (Why was not 
 this done on the first day of the strike?) Warehouses and stores 
 were securely locked in view of an attack by the strikers, and 
 artillery and cavalry were under orders in barracks to be in 
 readiness at a moment's notice. (Why was not this also done at 
 the commencement of the strike. .'') 
 
 A message was conveyed into the Docks from the strikers outside 
 to the effect that if the permanent men who had been taken on 
 as substitutes did not at once cease work they must abide by the 
 consequences. As the result of this about 40 of the new hands 
 relinquished their employment, thus reducing the labourers
 
 XX. Appendix A . 
 
 actively engaged to about 320, in place of the thousands of Dock 
 men on strike. 
 
 Ben Tillett had an interview of over an hour's duration with the 
 Joint Committee of the Docks. He insisted on 6d. an hour, employ- 
 ment for not less than four hours at a time, and the abolition of the 
 contract system. The Directors in a written reply, stated that 
 while they regretted the continuance of the strike they were unable 
 to agree to these proposals. (Why did they recognise Tillett, or any 
 other of the strike leaders at all .?) 
 
 There was the usual procession to the City, which was very 
 large, some enthusiasts reckoning its numbers at 100,000. It 
 took an hour to pass one point, casual Dock labourers were in 
 front. There were large numbers of carters, who, in most cases, 
 carried banners inscribed with the names of the firms by whom they 
 were employed, and stating that they were only out on 
 principle. 
 
 At the Surrey Commercial Docks Company's meeting a com- 
 munication from a body called the " Committee of Deal Porters " 
 was considered It contained proposals which the Directors stated 
 would virtually, if conceded, hand over the management of the 
 Docks to these men. The men employed at these Docks had left 
 their work without any intimation to their employers that they 
 had any grievance or any grounds for dissatisfaction. The return of 
 the week ending August 17th, the last complete week before the 
 strike, showed that the corn porters of the company had earned 8s. a 
 day of ten hours. 
 
 The Millwall Docks Company, in order to place before the public 
 the real merits of the dispute as it related to themselves and their 
 men, had extracted the figures of the earnings of all the gangs for 
 the week ending August 17th : There were 47 gangs working that 
 week, and the most earned by any one gang of six men was 
 -£i?> 19s. 8d. during the week of sixty hours, or ^3 33. 3d. per 
 man — a wage far beyond that of artisans, The least earned by any 
 gang amounted to £10 17s. 7d., or £1 ibs. 6d. a man for a week 
 o^ sixty-two hours. The diflference in the earnings was owing to 
 a fiifference in the ships to be unloaded. 
 
 A meeting of Wharfingers, Granary-owners, Alaster-lightermen, 
 representatives of Shipping Companies, and others, was held at the 
 Cannon Street Hotel for the purpose of proposing united action
 
 Appendix A. xxi. 
 
 on the situation. Resolutions in favour of the contract system being 
 revised, and in favour of a minimum of 2s. being paid to any man 
 employed, and in favour of the Committee of Wharfingers, Granary- 
 keepers, and Dock Workmen being appointed to negotiate a settle- 
 ment of the dispute were adopted. Mr. Besley emphatically asserted 
 that things were driven so tine that the merchants of London could 
 not pay any more than they were paying at present. Mr. H. Lafonc 
 explained some of the differences which had taken place in the 
 charges of the port since the last strike in 1872, when the wages 
 were fourpence an hour. " At that time the charge for working 
 jute was 7s. per ton ; it was now is. gd. How, he asked, was it 
 possible for an employer to pay 6d. or even 5d. an hour with such a 
 reduction as that? Gambler was lis. 3d. in 1872 ; it was now 4s. 
 Shellac was £2 los. lod. then ; now it was £\ 7s. 6d. He could 
 quote a good many other cases of a similar sort. It was decidedly 
 not fair that the working classes should suffer from the competition 
 between the wharfingers and the Dock Companies. He hoped that 
 an arrangement would be made with all the wharfingers that the Dock 
 Companies should charge a legitimate price for the work done and 
 should pay a legitimate rate of wages to the workmen." 
 
 At this meeting Mr. Wiggington, who said he was a waterman 
 and lighterman,declared " the capitalists had now aroused the latent 
 brains that were lying idle in the East End, and there would in the 
 future be such a labour octopus organised in the East of London as 
 would challenge any capitalist who would like to fight." 
 
 In the afternoon a meeting was held at 36, Mark Lane, strikers 
 being represented by Messrs. Burns, Tillett, Champion, and Mann ; 
 Messrs. H. Lafone, W. Smith, and A. Humphrey representing the 
 wharfingers. The various issues involved in the strike were dis- 
 cussed for several hours. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill, Burns asked the men " if it was 
 their wish that there should be no arbitration, no compromise, no 
 surrender, let them hold up their hands." (Great cheering, and 
 cries of " Every hand up 1") 
 
 At a later meeting in front of the West India Docks, Burns said: 
 ^' Let the Dock Directors listen to his speceh now. He tiozv stood in 
 front of their gates ivithin the heariitg of their officials, and told 
 them that they were not going to give in. It had oeen said at the 
 Cannon Street Hotel meeting that he had done good service in keep- 
 ing law and order, that he had opposed violence, and that he had 
 prevented London from being in flames. But he ivoiUdwnv tellthe 
 Doclc Directors if they did not concede the detnands of these men
 
 xxii. Appendix A. 
 
 that these flood-gates of disorder which he had tried to stop viiglit 
 he hrolcen open, and that such violence might break forth in such a 
 manner that he would not be able to control ^ He also intimated 
 that he had reason to believe that a messenger would arrive in a 
 very short time with the news that the strike was settled and the 
 victory was won. 
 
 Between eight o'clock in the morning and the afternoon of this 
 day only two goods vans arrived at the West India Dock, the usual 
 number between those hours being about three hundred. 
 
 Much difficulty was experienced in dealing with the mail boats. 
 A leading stevedote, assisted by several officials of Messrs. Anderson, 
 Anderson & Co., was working in the hold of the Liguria, of the 
 New Zealand Line, with the object of getting the mails aboard so 
 that the vessel might proceed to Australia, when a threat came 
 from the strikers to the effect that if they were found working in any 
 other vessel the consequences to them would be very serious. They 
 ceased operations, but by this time the loading of the vessel had 
 been completed. Then a fresh difificulty arose, the firemen — mem- 
 bers of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union — refusing to come on 
 board out of sympathy with the strikers, and thus the vessel 7C'as 
 detained ivith her cargo and mails. 
 
 The New Zealand Shipping Company's vessel, the Reuapehu, was 
 loaded by the apprentices and ofificers of the vessel, assisted by the 
 passengers, and it was decided to attempt to get her off at once. 
 And although the Company were of opinion that they zvould suc- 
 ceed in getting her away, the '■'pickets'"' ivere exeeedins^ly busy in 
 intimidating the firemen. " Ai present thev are willing to resume 
 their duties, but they are expected at the eleventh hour to go over 
 to the strikers. Should the firemen secede, the mail will be further 
 delayed. Up to the present a week has elapsed since the apnninted 
 time of her departure. The lateness in the despatch of the mail will 
 cause considerable anxiety and loss to the commercial icorld in 
 New' Zealand.'''' 
 
 The strike extended among the coal depots situated around the 
 termini of the Midland, Great Northern, and North Western Com • 
 panics in the N. W. district. The bays were almost deserted, al- 
 though large numbers of men stated that they were quite satisfied 
 with their wages, but that thjy dare not resume work owing to the 
 intimidation practiced by the ringleaders. Parties of strikers visited 
 the different coal yards, and when they found a yard unprotected
 
 Appendix A. xxiii. 
 
 they entered in a body and compelled the men to leave their work. 
 Most of the principal coal yards were closed. 
 
 A deputation of brokers from Mincing Lane called upon the 
 Dock Directors with reference to the gravity of the situation. 
 
 Sir Roger Lethbridge, M.P., Mr. Isiacson, M.P., Mr. George 
 Howell, M.P., Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., and Mr. Causton, M.P., also 
 called and saw the Directors " With a view of learning whether their 
 services would be of any use in effecting a settlement." They 
 stated that they had no bias to one side or the other, which did not 
 prevent some of them from expressing an opinion that the con- 
 cessions ought to be on the side of the Directors. 
 
 It was stated that the Dock Companies had an offer made to 
 them to supply 3,000 Belgian labourers at 4^d. an hour, and that 
 they had decided not to accept it at present. 
 
 Large quantitic;s of frozen meat were lying on board several 
 vessels in the Docks, one of these carrying 32,000 carcasses, and 
 the other 35,000. Messrs. Nelson Brothers, Dowgate Hill, to whom 
 most of the meat belonged, took doivn to the Docks some of their men 
 from the stores ^ hut on account of the threatening attitude of the sinkers 
 they were obliged eo desist in discharging the meat, of lahic/i tney ob- 
 tained only 180 carcasses. These were sent to the market, which was 
 totally paralysed, and fetched high prices, from i^d. to 2d. per lb. 
 higher than the previous week. The carcasses sold were to be 
 counted by the hundreds whilst on the usual market day some 
 30,000 to 40,000 carcasses are disposed of by Messrs. Nelson 
 Brothers alone. The meat which found Us way to the market was 
 sent by mil, as the vans by ichich it is usually carted ivere incapacitated 
 from use by being deprived of tlieir wheels and shafts and turned 
 over on tlieir sides by the strikers. It was feared that the refrigera- 
 tors on board these vessels would have to stop for lack of coal, 
 and the stoppage of the refrigerators would of course involve the 
 spoiling of the whole cargo and immense inconvenience and loss. 
 
 Mr. Sydney Buxton wrote to the Times urging the shipowners to 
 accept a "slight increase" in the Dock dues in order to help the 
 Dock Directors out of their difficulty, and he intimated that "a 
 most serious responsibility will rest on them (the shipowners) if they 
 altogether decline to move." Incidentally Mr. Buxton stated that 
 the demand of the strikers for increased wages "seems to be almost 
 unanimously endorsed by public opinion."
 
 xxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 Messrs. F. B. Cameron & Co., of St. Pancras Road stated in the 
 Junes that their men were compelled on Monday afternoon by the 
 threats and yells of a mob of two or three hundred men to leave 
 their work, although they were satisfied with their pay and willing 
 to work. Their men resumed work on Tuesday morning, but were 
 again compelled to stop by mobs from other districts, Messrs. 
 Cameron added : " We have no wish to see the right of public 
 meeting curtailed, but when it comes to the parading of mobs to 
 intimidate those who are willing to work, some steps ought to be 
 taken to stop it." 
 
 A correspondent of the Times stated the following facts which had 
 come under his own observation : " On Friday morning the work- 
 men at a wharf which I need not now name started to unload a 
 steamer which had just arrived, bringing to London, among other 
 cargo, a large quantity of perishable provisions. The work proceeded 
 as usual until midday, when a deputation from the strikers waited 
 upon the workmen and induced them to leave work. The 
 manager of the wharf tried to reason with the deputation, pointing 
 out that his men were well-paid, well satisfied with their treatment 
 and had no desire to leave their occupations, but the only answer 
 he could get was that the men were to come out, and come out they 
 must. An offer of more money was rejected, the deputation stating 
 that it was not a case of more money, but of augmenting the 
 number of rr.en on strike. Ot course the wharfmen left their work, 
 and business at that, as at all the other wharves along the Thames, 
 is now suspended. W^hen the manager remonstrated with his own 
 men for the shabby way in which they were treating masters who 
 had always been very good to them, they replied what were they to 
 do, tor if they remained at work they would be marked men, and 
 would go in danger of their lives." 
 
 The Times in its leading article said : " It must be confessed that 
 the conduct of the strikers during the last two days, and the motives 
 avowed by their most recent auxiliaries,are not calculated to advance 
 the strike in public esteem." 
 
 Referring to the allies of the Dock labourers who were striking in 
 every direction, not out of sympathy with the dockers or "on prin- 
 ciple," but avowedly for their own selfish purposes, the Times said : 
 "Their claims may or may not be justified in themselves, but it 
 will obviouslyadd enormously to the difficulty of the Dock labourers' 
 demands, if they are to be complicated with demands put forward 
 on behalf of their nominal friends. Moreover, in the public in- 
 terests there must be a limit to this mulcting of A, B, and C, in 
 order to bring pressure to bear upon D. It has already gone quite
 
 Appendix A. xxv. 
 
 far enough. Then, again, evidence is accumulating that intimida- 
 tion is playing an appreciable, if not an important, part in this 
 strike. We see no reason to alter our opinion that sympathy with 
 the Dock labourers was the motive force that induced most of the 
 riverside workmen to go out on strike. But the letters and reports 
 which have appeared in our columns show that the handful of men 
 who are wilhng to work in setting the imprisoned shippmg free are 
 subjected to very palpable intimidation, and in several instances 
 have yielded to it. So, too, we read that devices, which can only 
 be compared to the rattening which formerly made trade unions 
 odious, have been resorted to in order to prevent the conveyance of 
 frozen meat from the Docks to the market. We do not say that 
 these are more than the unauthorized actions of groups of un- 
 organized men, but they constitute a very serious infraction of 
 personal liberty, and must be sternly repressed." 
 
 The Times ventured to affirm that " the increase in pay which the 
 Dock labourers demanded is pronounced by public opinion to be 
 prima face not unreasonable," and also that " public opinion is with 
 the Dock labourers in the principle of their objection to the contract 
 system with its incidents of imposition and sweating," though it 
 pointed out that the remaining demands of the dockers were not so 
 reasonable. The demand that labourers should not be taken on 
 except at two stated times in the day, which formed an essential part 
 of the dockers' case, was pronounced by the Times to be untenable, 
 as the hurry and high pressure of modern shipping traffic would not 
 brook the slightest delay. The refusal of the strikers to submit any 
 of their demands to arbitration was also animadverted upon by the 
 Times, which reminded them that a strike in the ship-building yards, 
 though on a much smaller scale than the present Dock Strike, sent 
 all the ship-building trade of London to the Clyde, where it has 
 stayed ever since, 
 
 An inquest was held at the Poplar Town Hall on the death of 
 William Hunt, 43, a dock labourer, of 3, Cross Street, Poplar, who 
 had committed suicide owing to the fear of being injured by the 
 strikers at the Docks. It appeared that i 3 years ago the deceased 
 signed on the permanent staff" of the West India Dock Company, 
 and was, therefore, liable to be sent to prison for three months if he 
 left without notice. He had been in to work during the strike, and 
 the night before his death he said, " My God, I am done for, as the 
 men say they will murder anyone who goes in to work." This 
 seemed to prey very much on his mind, and on Friday, after 
 seeing that the house was properly fastened up, he destroyed himself.
 
 XX vi. Appendix A. 
 
 August 28. — The strikers' procession showed a great shrinkage, 
 and presented a ragged and degenerate appearance. 
 
 Crowds of shipowners, merchants, and trade representatives sur- 
 rounded the Dock House eager to learn results as affecting prices, 
 inasmuch as any increase in wages, however small, would mean an 
 increase of rates, involving an equal increase in prices to the 
 consumer. 
 
 Conference was held, lasting from 11 o'clock in the morning 
 until 6 in the evening, between the Dock Directors, strike leaders, 
 the wharfingers, etc. Late in the evening the result of the con- 
 ference was announced in the following letter : 
 
 " Dock House, 109, Leadanhall-street, E.G., August 28. 
 
 " Gentlemen, — We have the honour to report to you that we 
 have this day seen Mr. Tillett, Mr. Burns, and other gentlemen. 
 The following were submitted as the demands on the part of Mr. 
 Tillett and his party : 
 
 '•Outsiders called in not to be discharged with less than 2s. pay. 
 
 "That contract work should be abandoned and a system of 
 piecework substituted by which the men shall receive the total 
 gross receipts of the job direct from the comoanies, drawing in the 
 meantime a minvnuni of 6d. per hour ordinary time and 8 J. per 
 hour overtime for their work so long as the job lasts. 
 
 '• The shares of the p/us to be divided as follows, the share of each 
 man and the foreman to be equal : 
 
 "Pay to be 6d. an hour and 8d. per hour overtime. 
 
 " Overtime to be reckoned from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 
 
 " We enquired ivhether the demand of 6d. an hotir tvas an absolute 
 condition, as, that being luithdrazvn, 7ve were of opinioti that all the 
 other points might be arranged to the satisfaction of both parties. The 
 answer was that the rate of kid. an hour was vital. Mr. Birt having 
 stated that the compatiies could not consent to this, the conference was 
 suspended. 
 
 " We are, gentlemen, your obedient servants, 
 
 " G. R. Birt, General Manager, Millwall Dock Company. 
 " J. Griffin, General Manager, Surrey Commercial Dock Co. 
 " H. W. Williams, | General Managers, London and India 
 '' E. H. Bailey, j Docks Joint Committee. 
 
 " We, the undersigned, having been present, testify to the 
 accuracy of the above report. 
 
 '• Hugh C. Smith. 
 
 " Hy. Lafone."
 
 Appendix A. xxvii. 
 
 The gentlemen representing the wharfin_5ers nmade an alternative 
 proposal, which was not accepted by either party, that the men 
 should be paid 4s. a day for a day of nine hours, and that they 
 should not be paid less than 2s. for a "shift." 
 
 Complaints of workmen as to intimidation, especially in the East 
 and South East, were general and Litter. At some of the Board 
 schools the children reported that they could not bring the fees 
 because " Father must not go to work." 
 
 A meeting of coal merchants at the Coal Exchange met to con- 
 sider the demands of the coal-wharf workers and carmen. It ap- 
 peared that some of the employers had already granted the 
 demands of the men, namely, id. a ton extra for loading and 6d. 
 extra a day for carters, and the meeting, in view of this fact, decided 
 to grant the men's terms. It was stated, however, that the employers 
 proposed to form a strong Union in order, in future, to meet com- 
 binations of the men. 
 
 A meeting of the Watermen's Company was held to consider 
 the strike of the watermen, and the following resolution was 
 passed : 
 
 "That in consequence of the Freemen of the company having 
 very suddenly left their employment without assigning any cause 
 beyond their sympathy with the Dock labourers, and a certain 
 amount of intimidation on the part of others, thereby causing enor- 
 mous loss to the commercial interests of the Port of London, the 
 attention of Freemen be called to the 64th section of the Companies 
 Act, which provides : ' If ariy lighterman or waterman, to whom a 
 license is granted in pursuance of this Act, is guilty of such mis- 
 conduct or acts of incompetency while working as a lighterman cr 
 waterman as, in the opinion of the said court of mastei, wardens, 
 and assistants, to disqualify him, either wholly or partially, from 
 holding such license, such court may, after hearing what he has to 
 urge in his defence, and subject to an appeal to the said Conserva- 
 tors of the River Thames, who may revoke or modify the order of 
 the said court, endorse, suspend, or cancel altogether any licence 
 he may hold.' The above section explains to the Freemen the 
 grave responsibility they have incurred, and the court therefore 
 earnestly advises the men to return to their work without further 
 delay" 
 
 The police had a steam tug on the Thames (apparently for the 
 first time) to protect river workers from the intimidation of the 
 strikers, who had engaged the tug James Yates.
 
 xxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 The New Zealand mail steamer, the Reuapehu, left the Albert 
 Docks at 12.30. 
 
 One thousand men marched to Erith to bring out the coal 
 porters employed at the wharves of Messrs. Beadle, Bros. Some 
 delegates had been down on the previous day and tried to induce 
 the men to go out on strike. The men, however, refused, and the 
 delegates threatened that they would come the next day in such 
 numbers as to make them come out. A deputation of twelve men 
 had an interview with Messrs. C. and F. Beadle. Some of the 
 demonstrators told Messrs. Beadle's men that if they did not come 
 out they would be boycotted, and never allowed to work again at 
 any of the London wharves or depots. One man threatened to 
 throw an employe of Messrs. Beadle into the Thames if he did not 
 strike. After an hour's conference it was announced that Messrs. 
 Beadle had given way, and agreed that no more coal should be un- 
 loaded at their wharves until the dispute was settled, and they had 
 given the men los. to drink their health and ^5 towards the funds. 
 
 A firm of coal merchants at King's Cross had a dozen coal vans 
 laden for retail in the neighbourhood. The strikers took the 
 horses out of the vans, and were evidently intent on mischief when a 
 body of police appeared on the scene and passed out the vans by 
 a back entrance. 
 
 At Westbourne Park Station the coal companies tried to start a 
 few laden wagons; but when these appeared in the streets the strikers 
 removed the horses and turned them hDose, and then emptied the 
 coals into the streets. 
 
 Tillett, addressing a meeting at the Docks, said they were only 
 asking for an extra id. an hour, and that was nothing to arbitrate 
 about. Burns said : " The fact of the matter was that he had been 
 too polite with the Dock Directors, and they had construed his 
 politeness into a desire to surrender. They never made a greater 
 mistake, for to-day they were far stronger and in a better position 
 than ever. In the bag which he had over his shoulder to-day he 
 had the first missive which they had received from the workmen of 
 other countries. He had that morning received from the working 
 men of New York a cheque for ten guineas, and a cheque for five 
 guineas from the sailors of Hamburg. He also had a letter from the 
 stevedores of Southampton, saying that if any attempt was made 
 there to injure the London strike by taking the freight there they 
 would strike. T/ie?i he also had cheques from some of the Doclc Direc- 
 tors, wht'ch, he tho2ight, showed that some were on their side. The
 
 Appendix A . xxix. 
 
 money was coming in fast, and they were doing their very best to 
 reorganize their commissariat. They had further received many 
 applications from men of other kinds of business asking whether 
 they shall come out, but that he thought at present would be a mis- 
 take, as it would weaken their resources. In one trade alone 30,000 
 more offered to come out, but his answer was that when they had ,£^ot 
 what they waiitea and 7von this battle, then they 7vould consider other 
 }?iovements.''^ 
 
 He also boasted that men in other trades had received an 
 advance of no less than ^^200,000 a week in consequence of the 
 Dock Strike. (Of course he did not say that this ^^200,000 would 
 be paid by the general public in the shape of an increased 
 price for commodities.) He also stated that the Post Office carmen 
 were going to strike unless they got an advance of from 2s. to 4s. a 
 week. 
 
 It was stated that there were 70,000 carcasses of Australian mutton 
 waiting to be unloaded at the Docks, and that the strikers had re- 
 moved the embargo from the Deptford consignments which were 
 now allowed to enter London without any interruption. 
 
 A meeting of shipowners was held at the offices of the P. and O. 
 Company. Mr. Sutherland, M.P., presided. A letter from Lord 
 Brassey urging the shipowners to agree to a small increase in the 
 Dock dues, and thus enable the Dock Companies to concede the 
 demands of the men was considered, and it was deciJed to take no 
 action upon it. 
 
 In various parts of London there were processions of labourers, 
 strikes, and attempts to induce men to leave their work. In South 
 London there was a procession of waterside labourers carrying a 
 banner bearing the words, "6d. and 8d., No Surrender, No More 
 Slavery at 3s. lod. a day." (How many unskilled labourers in all 
 parts of the country would be glad of such " slavery " as 3s. lod. a 
 day for nine hours work ?) 
 
 A severe strain was put upon the Metropolitan and City police 
 forces, owing to the large number of men required to keep order in 
 the East among the strikers, and to protect firms who asked for 
 protection. Some districts were almost denuded of policemen. 
 The want of extra men was much felt. 
 
 Mr. T. Sutherland, M.P., replying on behalf of the shipowners 
 to Mr. Buxton, said : "In the opinion of many shipowners, a very 
 slight addition to the charges now levied would place London at
 
 XXX. Appendix A. 
 
 such a disadvantage that the construction of a co-operative dock 
 would become absolutely necessary to prevent the trade from leaving" 
 the port." 
 
 He also intimated that the remedy proposed by the shipowners 
 for the solution of existing difficulties was that they should be 
 allowed to discharge their cargoes themselves. 
 
 August 29. — The Titnes Special Correspondent, after traversing 
 the Docks, attending the strikers' meetings, conversing with strike 
 leaders, &c,, summed up the situation thus : 
 
 "The men, convinced that their demands are reasonable, and 
 receivmg from all quarters the most substantial proofs that the 
 public generally is of the same opinion, will not abate their demands 
 by one fraction. ... It is not too much to say that every day 
 during which the strike endures, vastly as it may injure the mer- 
 cantile community, and great as the suffering of the strikers may be, 
 promises to increase the strength and the power of passive resis- 
 tance possessed by the Dock labourers." 
 
 He further said : 
 
 " The remarkable thing about this strike is that Capital, save in 
 so far as it is represented by the Joint Docks Committee is for the 
 most part closely in sympathy with the objects which the Dock 
 labourers desire to secure." 
 
 He mentioned that in one of the most squalid districts of the 
 East End he saw a notice put up by the lessee or the owner of a house 
 to ttie effect that, although he disapproved of strikes generally as 
 tending to produce permanent injury to trade, he was yet so firmly 
 convinced of the justice of the Dock labourer's cause, that he had 
 determined to let his tenants occupy their rooms rent free until the 
 Strike came to an end. 
 
 Referring to the announcement made by the Docks Committe*; 
 late on this afternoon, setting forth the conditions which they were 
 prepared to adopt, the Times correspondent said : 
 
 *' It does not convey to the ordinary mind the full idea of the 
 concession of every particle of the men's demands." 
 
 And he seemed to think that this was a matter of reproach to the 
 Directors. The announcement referred to was as follows : 
 
 "London and India Docks Joint Committee, Dock-house, 
 109, Leadenhall Street, E.C., Aug. 29. 
 
 "The Joint Committee have decided to adopt the following con- 
 ditions for extra labour at the Docks under their control :
 
 Appendix A. xxxi. 
 
 '* I . The 5d. rate per hour, with 6d. per hour overtime, to apply to 
 all labour not piecework, but men taken on before noon if discharged 
 by the Dock Company to receive not less pay than 2?. 
 
 "2. Present contract work to be converted into piecewok as far 
 and as soon as practicable, under which the men will be paid not 
 less than 6d. per hour, with 8d. an hour overtime, and divide the 
 surplus, if any, between them, all payments being made to the men 
 under the supervision of ihe Dock officials. 
 
 "3. The hours of overtime shall be — at the Docks andup-town 
 warehouses from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. 
 
 '* 4. The Committee will use their best endeavours to obtain from 
 the Government a prolongation of Customs' hours, which, if 
 granted, will have the effect of extending the time during which 
 pay may be earned. 
 
 " By order, 
 
 " Henry J. iMoroan, Secretary." 
 
 Referring to the public sympathy with which the strikers' pro- 
 cessions was received, the Times' correspondent said : 
 
 " And it was impossible not to notice the welcome which the 
 processionists received as they passed through the City, and that 
 not merely from persons of their own class, but also from people 
 occupied in much higher walks of life. A significant point is that 
 at the corner of Mincing-lane the cheers were louder than any- 
 where else — yet Mincing- lane has already suffered much, and may 
 yet suffer much more from the effects of the strike." 
 
 The correspondent further said : 
 
 " The river is full of --teamers lying low down in the water, and 
 obviously ready to discharge their cargoes. Of these strange tales 
 are told. One iron steamer contains, it is said, a cargo of butler,, 
 which under the strong August sun is rapidly becoming liquid. 
 Another has communicated with Leith in order to ascertain 
 whether there would be any chance of discharging cargo there, 
 and has received the answer that there would be none. Here and 
 there, by extraordinary exertions on the part of the crew and clerks, 
 a vessel is enabled to steam out to her destination, but the net 
 result of the present state of affairs is that the trade of the greatest 
 port in the world is paralysed, and has received a blow which, even 
 thougn it should not be permanent, must yet be seriously felt for 
 many months to come. . . . The post had brought in money 
 in abundance. Mr. Burns read out to his wife and Mrs. Aveling 
 the list of cheques and post-office orders received, and I was careful 
 to notice thai some of them, amounting to considerable stnns, came- 
 from very well-knotvn ptopIeT
 
 xxxii. Appendix A. 
 
 The committee of wharfingers and granary keepers proposed the 
 following for the acceptance of the directors of the amalgamated 
 companies : 
 
 " I. That Dock rates should be settled by representatives of the 
 Docks and wharfingers interested in the various classes of imports, 
 and by granary keepers for grain. 
 
 " 2. In the meantime the present dock-rate book (published the 
 ist of Januarv, 1889) shall be taken as the standard rates net, and 
 blank rates at once fixed, the printed list of discounts being 
 abolished in so far as the Docks are concerned, and that no 
 wharfinger or granary keeper shall quote less rates for any class ot 
 work, and subject only to a discount of 10 per cent. These con- 
 ditions only to be varied in cases where the docks and wharfingers 
 in any particular trade have working arrangements. In such cases 
 rates are to be put up, as soon as practicable, 10 per cent, (which is 
 an equivalent to the rise of wages) to be added. 
 
 " 3. The American clauses in the bill of lading to be inoperative 
 in so far as the wharfingers and granary keepers are concerned. 
 
 ''4. Wages and conditions made with the men : That contract 
 work shall be abandoned, and a system of piecework substituted, by 
 which the men shall receive the total gross receipts of the job direct 
 from the companies, drawing in the meantime a minimum of 6d. 
 per hour ordinary time and 8d. per hour overtime, for their work 
 so long as the job lasts, the shares of the plus to be divided as 
 follows : The share of each man and each foreman to be equal. 
 Pav to be 4s. for nine hours, with an allowance to the men of half 
 an hour for dinner ; if less than nine hours' work to be 6d. per 
 hour. Overtime 8d. per hour. Overtime to be reckoned at 6 p.m. 
 to 6 a.m. 
 
 " We, the undersigned representatives of dock workers and others 
 now on strike, pledge ourselves to have the following terms faith- 
 fully carried out at each dock, whirf. granary, or warehouse where 
 the above terms are agreed to : (i) That each man shall not work 
 at any dock or wharf on less wages or less terms than those stated 
 as above. (2) That men shall immediately return to work at all 
 docks, wharves, or granaries whose terms per list herewith have 
 been agreed. (3) That all lightermen shall at once resume work, 
 agreeing to submit any grievance they may have to arbitration." 
 
 John Burns stated that the Custom-House men had contributed 
 very liberally towards the strike fund. 
 
 Mr, Samuel Williams presiding at a meeting of Master 
 Lightermen, expressed his regret that the working lightermen should 
 have yielded to the strike movement, and " in their alleged
 
 Appendix A. xxxiii. 
 
 sympathy with the dock labourers, have lost all sympathy for the 
 employment upon which they existed." At this meeting a com- 
 munication from the Work and Wages Committee of Lightermen 
 was considered, and it was stated that the demands of the men 
 meant 50 per cent, increase on the rates charged. Mr. Graves stated 
 that his firm had ten steamers and 150 barges, and that the rates 
 were so finely drawn that firms in the trade could make only 5 per 
 cent. The Chairman moved the following resolution which was 
 unanimously adopted : 
 
 "That, considering that the advance of 10 per cent, on wages 
 accorded in the year 1872 has not been maintained on the rates of 
 lighterage then ruling, the Association of Master Lightermen and 
 Bargeowners tiere assembled in general meeting rind it to be im- 
 possible and impracticable to accept the terms set forth in a circular 
 dated 22nd inst., signed by Mr. R. lies, received on the 27th on 
 behalf of working lightermen, the further advance therein 
 demanded, amounting to nearly 50 per cent., and the conditions of 
 time in lieu of tide being inconsistent with the working of lighterage 
 business. The Association of Masters unanimously decline the new 
 terms, and adjourn this meeting for one week to give the men time 
 to consider their position. Meanwhile the masters are willing to 
 receive the men on the old terms, provided all waterside business 
 is resumed, which terms allow the men to earn from jQz los. to ^^ 
 per week." 
 
 Burns, in his speech on Tower Hill, said : 
 
 "The Directors, who had given in on every point but one — the 
 penny — would have to give in on that, and he believed his prediction 
 would be fulfilled that very day. The Dock Companies were 
 already suflfering from paralysis, and in a short time, if the present 
 state of affairs continued, they would be suffering from lumbago 
 and toothache as well." 
 
 The Dock Companies secured numbers of labourers from the 
 country who were at work in the Docks. But most of these were 
 got out and induced to leave their employment. The men at work 
 in the Docks lived and slept inside, but representatives of the 
 strikers oftentimes in disguise, managed to get inside the gates and 
 induced the new men to join the strike. 
 
 It was stated that the " loss incurred, even by the most prudent of 
 the strikers, is now irremediable, owing to the pledging of their 
 few things and the backwardness in rent," and also — " It is evident 
 on all sides that men would willingly resume the labours they have 
 thrown up if they could do so with safety ; but owing to the picket 
 
 c
 
 xxxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 parties engaged in watching the Dock entrances and other places of 
 business they are afraid to do so." 
 
 About 50 Greenock men sent to work on one of the P. and O. 
 boats were, to use Mr. Burns' phrase, " captured at the Dock gates " 
 and later in the day were marching in the procession. 
 
 A number of clergymen, fearing " that the suspicion that the 
 movement is merely the result of revolutionary agitation " would 
 prevent the public from liberally subscribing, expressed their con- 
 viction " that the labourers out on strike are actuated simply by a 
 sense of undue oppression and injustice." The names of 
 these clergymen are as follow: — The Revs. J. H.Lester, rector 
 of South Hackney and Canon of Lichfield ; A. E. Dalton, vicar of 
 All Hallows, East India Docks ; D. G. Cowan, vicar of St. John's, 
 Isle of Dogs ; E. C. Mackenzie, Christ Church, CubittTown ; J. G. 
 Adderley, Christ Church Mission, South Bromley ; H. A. Kennedy, 
 All Hallows, East India Docks ; Harry Wilson, vicar of St. 
 Augustine's, Stepney ; A. Cocks, St. Augustine's, Stepney ; R. W. 
 Harris, mission chaplain to the Bishop of Bedford and secretary 
 East London Church Fund ; W. H. C. Malton, assistant chaplain 
 London Hospital ; and A. B. Winter, St. John's, Bethnal. 
 Green. 
 
 The Glenogle, a ship which arrived aome days previously with a 
 cargo of tea, was being unloaded partly by city clerks and partly 
 by labourers. In view of any molestation, a guard of police, com- 
 manded by an inspector, watched the vessel as she lay in the South 
 West India Dock, and challenged all unauthoris«d persons who 
 approached her. (Why was not this done in the case of every ship 
 from the very commencement of the strike?) 
 
 The strike extended to the Dover Docks. A deputation from 
 the London Docks visited that place with the result that the 
 men engaged in unloading timber in the Granville Dock suddenly 
 struck for an increase from 4^d. to 6d. per hour. 
 
 It was announced that the strike was telling seriously upon the 
 trade carried on between Manchester and foreign countries, and 
 also upon general trade in the North of England. 
 
 Mr.E. S. Norris,M. P., writing to The Times, said that his colleagues 
 on the Dock Board were humane and kind-hearted men who would 
 have been ready to redress any grievances which had been properly 
 brought before them, and that the labourers, through their so-called
 
 Appendix A. xxxv. 
 
 representatives, "made a peremptory demand and gave us about two 
 hours to decide upon very grave questions, involving most important 
 issues to the proprietors we are elected to represent." 
 
 Mr. Norris added : " The strike is evidently — as it is proved 
 to be — a widely-organised scheme to destroy confidence between 
 employer and employed. It is the worst form of coercion by those 
 who assume to condemn and denounce coercion. It is an attempt 
 to bring down the skilled and honest workman to the level of the 
 labourer, unskilled and too often indolent and idle. 
 
 "Honest workmen have been assaulted and injured, and, in one 
 case I know of, a poor man has been driven out of his mind by 
 positive fear and anxiety. Depaid on it, that although the Directors 
 have received much in the way of vituperation and abuse, they are 
 fighting the country's battle. " 
 
 A correspondent of The Times stated that he had been an 
 employer of labour on a large scale in the City of London for nearly 
 40 years. During the whole of this period he had had no disputes 
 with his workmen which had not been instigated from the 
 outside. 
 
 He continued : " I have spared no expense to ensure their health 
 and comfort. My partners and I, many years ago, set aside a 
 portion of our profits to inaugurate a provident fund in their behalf 
 Several thousand pounds have been paid out of that fund by way 
 of superannuation and life assurance, and over ;/^ 10,000 remains 
 in the hands of the trustees at this time. 
 
 " At the conversion of our business into a joint stock company we 
 lent our employes money to take up shares, and they now hold 
 ^100,000 worth. We are only concerned with the unfortunate Dock 
 dispute as outsiders. The strike fever has, however, extended to 
 our branch of business. Yesterday a deputation from another 
 ■house waited upon our men, and asked them to go out. They 
 refused. To-day, however, they say that if they adhere to their 
 determination they are convinced they will go in peril of theit 
 Jives, 
 
 ^'JVbr is this an idle threat. For only bringing in a load of coals to us 
 yesterday the carman hid his head cut open. 
 
 " All this seems a poor return to a man who has been all his life a 
 true friend to working men, and is now spending time and money 
 in trying to help them to elevate their social position and maintain 
 their just rights. Bui a much more serious aspect of the case arises 
 from the fact that the struggle is attended with such an amount of 
 terrorism that freedom of contract is destroyed, and law-abiding 
 citizens go in peril of their lives."
 
 xxxvi. Appendix A . 
 
 August 10. — "No Work" Manifesto issued. The text of the 
 manifesto was as follows : 
 
 " Wades Arms, Jeremiah-street, Poplar, London, E.,- 
 "30th August, 1889. 
 
 " To the Workers of London. 
 
 " On Wednesday afternoon representatives of the Dock labourers^ 
 in the course of a discussion with the spokesmen of the Dock 
 Companies, were informed that on one point alone of the demands 
 of the men would there be any difficulties in arriving at a settle- 
 ment namely, on the question of raising the rate of pay from 5d. 
 to 6d. an hour for ordinary time. This afternoon, however, the 
 Directors have definitely stated that they will only pay fd. an 
 hour for ordinary time and 6d. overtime. Further, instead of the 
 immediate and total abolition of the contract system the Directors 
 simply pledged themselves to do away with it as soon and as far as 
 practicable. This phrase in the mouths of such men as the 
 Directors have, during this struggle, proved themselves to be, 
 means that the concession is to be a mere farce. 
 
 " Meanwhile the vacillation and incompetence of the Dock Direc- 
 tors is inflicting cruel suffering upon tens of thousands of Dock 
 labourers and their families. These privations have been borne 
 with a good-tempered heroism which has excited the warm sym- 
 pathy of the public, and enlisted the active support of skilled and 
 organized labour throughout our country. In our former Manifesto 
 we urged workers of trades not directly connected with the Docks 
 to remain at work, and to avoid causing inconvenience to the 
 general community. Our studied moderation has been mistaken 
 by our ungenerous opponents for lack of courage and want of 
 resources. We are, therefore, compelled to take a step which we 
 could wish had not been forced upon us, and which we are fully 
 aware may be followed by the gravest consequences. 
 
 "We now solemnly appeal to the workers in London of all grades,, 
 and every calling, to refuse to go to work on Monday next unless the 
 Directors have before 12 noon on Saturday, 31st of August, officially 
 informed this Committee that the moderate demands of the Dock 
 labourers have been fully and frankly conceded. These demands, 
 from which the men have never swerved, are : — (i) The minitnuni 
 rate of pay to be 6d. per hour ordinary time, and 8d. an hour over- 
 time under the Company ; or, under contract system, 8d. an hour 
 ordinary time, and is. an hour for overtime ; (2) overtmie to be 
 counted from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. ; (3) no man to be employed for 
 less than four hours.
 
 Appendix A, xxxvii. 
 
 '* (Signed) — Benjamin Tillett, John Burns, H. H. Champion, 
 Tom Mann, James Toomey, A. Mansfield, W. Carr, W, Booth, 
 Geo. James Smith, A. Field, John Dowling, T. Benmore Denis 
 Driscoll, P. Regan, John Regan, Geo. Pearson, Michl. Tighe, John 
 Hornback, Francis Mollison, Wm. Stone, Jonathan B. Ruark, 
 James Nightingale, John Harrington, Chas. Allen, Cornelius Ruark, 
 ■Geo. Perritt, John Walls, Chas. Campbell, Robert lies, W. W. 
 Gillespie, S. Leask, James Neal, Robert Passman, James M'Dade, 
 Joseph A. Clarke, G. Harvey, G. R. Bartlett, G. W. Smith, J. G. 
 Wilson, Daniel M'Carthy, A. Dawson, T. M. Williams, George 
 Donaldson, T. H. Camp, C. Miller, Thomas M'Carthy." 
 
 The above signatures include all the representatives of the 
 Stevedores and Sailors and Firemen's Union, with the most 
 important of the East London trades. Every delegate present 
 signed the manifesto. 
 
 Meetings took place betwixt representatives of Shipping Com- 
 panies, wholesale tea merchants, Messrs. Burns and Champion 
 being present on behalf of the strikers. The result was the issuing 
 of the following document : 
 
 " 36, Mark-lane, London, Aug. 30, 1889. 
 
 " Proposed agreement between Dock Companies, Wharfingers, 
 Granary Keepers, and Workmen. 
 
 " Wages and conditions made with men : Outsiders called in 
 not to be discharged with less than 2s. pay. 
 
 " That contract work shall be abandoned and a system of 
 piece-work be substituted, by which the men shall receive the 
 total gross receipts of the job direct from the Companies, drawing 
 in the meantime a minimum of od. per hour for ordinary time, and 
 8d. per hour overtime for their work so long as the job lasts. The 
 shares of the plus shall be divided as follows : The share of each 
 man and each foreman to be equal. Pay for casual work to be 6d. 
 per hour for the first four hours if only working that time ; if for 
 longer, then at the rate of 4s. for nine hours, and 6d. per hour 
 from nine to twelve hours, with an allowance of half an hour for 
 dinner. 
 
 " Overtime 8d. per hour. Overtime to be reckoned from 6 p.m. 
 till 6 a.m., or 8 p.m. till 8 a.m. 
 
 " Regular men may be engaged at not less than 24s per week, 
 
 "We, the undersigned representatives of Dock workers and 
 others now on strike, pledge ourselves to have the following terms 
 faithfully carried out at each dock, wharf, granary, or warehouse, 
 where the above terms are agreed :
 
 xxxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 "i. That men shall not work at any dock or wharf on less wages 
 or worse terms than those stated as above. 
 
 '•2. That men shall immediately return to work at all docks^ 
 wharves, or granaries where terms as per list herewith have been 
 agreed. 
 
 " 3. That all lightermen shall at once resume work, agreeing to 
 submit to any grievances they may have to arbitration. 
 
 "4. Coal workers to resume work at once. 
 
 •' To avoid any delay in work being resumed, it is requested that 
 each Dock Company, wharfinger, or granary keeper will consent to 
 the above terms in writing. It is most important that these should 
 be in the hands of Mr. H. Lafone, 36, Mark-lane, as early on Satur- 
 day as possible." 
 
 Mr. Norwood stated, that nearly every word he had uttered, 
 publicly or to the reporters, had been distorted. 
 
 The Dock Directors stated that a gentleman had been to their 
 office and offered to supply 4,000 men at 45d. per hour, and that 
 the offer had been repeated that day. There were plenty of men^ 
 however, in London willing to go back to work, and there would 
 be no difficulty in carrying on work at the Docks if it was not for 
 intimidation. The Directors wished the public to remember that 
 they were trustees for the shareholders, and not a philanthropic 
 institution, or a Government, or a House of Commons, and to ask 
 them to sacrifice the interests of their shareholders to gratify a 
 mistaken public sentiment was absurd. Wages at the Docks were 
 higher than in most ordinary firms. 
 
 Cardinal Manning appeared upon the scene. He called upoa 
 Alderman Sir A. Lusk, acting Lord Mayor, and the two afterwards 
 proceeded to the Dock Hou^e, where they had an interview with 
 the Committee. The Cardinal addressed the Committee at some 
 length on the gravity of the crisis, the injury which was being done 
 to trade, &c., and urged the sacrifice even of a problematic divi- 
 dend in preference to a continuance of a state of things which might 
 increase in intensity, and lead to far-reaching and deplorable results- 
 Sir Andrew Lusk followed on the same side, and insisted that the 
 Dock Companies had no right to take up an isolated and untenable 
 position, which they were not strong enough to carry through, and 
 which, until the inevitable surrender, had created great injury to 
 trade, great privation among the poor, and considerable irrita- 
 tion to the public. Mr. Norwood replied, thanking the Cardinal
 
 Appendix A . xxxix. 
 
 and the Alderman for their well-intentioned efforts, and stating the 
 Committee's view of the position. But the Directors afterwards 
 stated that they were able to explain various matters on which 
 Cardinal Manning had not been informed before. Another way of 
 saying the Cardinal was in ignorance in regard to the very matters 
 upon which he ought to have been thoroughly well-informed before 
 he presumed to instruct practical business men. 
 
 An appeal was issued by leading employers of labour and was 
 posted in the East of London. It called upon the working men 
 lately in the employment of the signatories to forthwith return to 
 duty, and thus end the present state of affairs, which, the appeal 
 said, " if continued will have a disastrous effect upon the interests 
 of the nation at large, upon the interests directly of the Port of 
 London, and will permanently injure the business by which working 
 men have hitherto earned their livelihood. The employers on the 
 river," the appeal went on to say, " are not connected with the 
 dispute between the Dock Companies and their employes, and no 
 good object, but the reverse, can be attained by paralysing the 
 carrying trade of London by water, and thus diverting traffic, both 
 coastwise and continental, to the railway routes" This was 
 signed by the following companies and firms : The General Steam 
 Navigation Company, J. Hartley and Co., J. Owen, Leach and Co., 
 D. C. Thomas and Co., W. France (Limited), Little and Johnston. 
 Arnati and Harrison, Antwerp Shipping Company, Treport Ship- 
 ping Company, Hagan and Co., Jacobs and Co. (South Devon 
 Wharf), Sollas and Sons, Tees Union Shipping Company, Tyne 
 Shipping Company, Little Western Steam Shipping Company, 
 Henry Burden, junior, and Co., of Poole, J. Greig (Free Trade 
 Wharf), Phillips and Graves, Amsterdam Steam Shipping Company, 
 Netherlands Steam Shipping Company, North German Lloyd's, 
 Thule Steam Shipping Company, Stockholm Steam Shipping 
 Company, Clyde Shipping Company, Carron Company, London and 
 Edinburgh Shipping Company, Aberdeen Steam Navigation Com- 
 pany, Dundee, Perth, and London Shipping Company, and W. H. 
 Carey and Sons. 
 
 Colonel Birt stated that the question of extra pay for the lowest 
 class of labour at the rate of artisan's pay was complicated by de- 
 mands on the part of labourers who were receiving from 30s. to £2 
 a week, and who required 20 per cent, additional if the other out- 
 side labourers were successful.
 
 xl. Appendix A. 
 
 Considerable apprehension began to prevail in the East End as 
 to the probable conduct of the strikers. It was stated that, al- 
 though the men had been well-behave ,1 up to the present, they had 
 now got an idea that the Dock Companies were trying to starve 
 them into submission. "So strong is this feeling becoming that 
 should the leaders of the agitation give the men the least encou- 
 ragement to commit acts of disorder and violence, opportunities 
 would soon be found by a large number of those now out of em- 
 ployment to wreak their vengeance on some of the large firms 
 concerned in the dispute." 
 
 Burns, visiting the Docks in the early morning, learned that on 
 the previous night some men had been induced by certain whar- 
 fingers to recommence work under the impression that they had the 
 sanction of Mr. Burns and other leaders to do this. Tillett, how- 
 ever, on hearing the facts, visited the pi ices where these men had 
 begun to work, whereupon they at once suspended their labour and 
 again went out on strike. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill Burns said that a letter had been 
 just put into his hands. The writer was a shareholder of the Steam 
 Navigation Company, and had sent a ^5 note to the strike fund. 
 In his speech he said: " The Directors of the Dock Companies had 
 apparently losr all idea of consistency, and they had no more idea 
 of fair fighting than they had of managing their own Docks. In 
 fact they were the very embodiment of everything that was un- 
 gentlemnnly and discourteous. Their obstinacy was quite criminal, 
 and might lead to disastrous consequences. The attitude of the 
 Dock Directors reminded him of the Egyi)tian chameleon, which 
 one day was green and the next yellow ; but these Directors would 
 be as blue as possible before they were done with them. They had 
 decided to fight the Directors, and would do so resolutely hand over 
 fist before they would give way in this agitation. The Directors 
 had stated that their backs were up ; but his (Mr. Burns') was not 
 yet up. When it was the Dock Companies would know it. On 
 the previous day they had sat in solemn conclave for six hours, and, 
 liketheraountainin labour, they brought forth a mouse, which was the 
 offspring of the rat Norwood, The Directors on Monday would not 
 arbitrate ; on Wednesday they conceded four of the five points de- 
 manded by those on strike; and yesterday they turned a complete 
 somersault, and issued a manifesto which the Dock Labourers 
 utterly repudiated and would have nothing to do with. They 
 would have no sd. an hour, but would continue in their present 
 position until they got the ' tanner.' They had decided to have 
 four hours clear, and any man working less than that time should
 
 Appendix A. xli. 
 
 be entitled to 2s. This the Directors were willing to give. If the 
 men accepted the proposal that contract work was to be converted 
 into piecework as soon as practicable, they would be degraded 
 to the contemptible vacillation displayed by Norwood and his dirty 
 crew. They had heard of Norwood in the Plimsoll agitation, and 
 therefore they could not be surprised at anything he did. They 
 were now face to face with a bigger agitation than that raised by 
 Mr. Plimsoll." Burns then read the no-work manifesto, which was 
 received with loud cheers, and said that " not an inch of the ground 
 would he yield until the industries of London were paralysed and 
 the Dock Directors had to concede to the labourers under pressure 
 what they now refused in the name of humanity, justice, and fait 
 play." 
 
 Mr. Wilson, Secretary of the Seaman's and Fireman's Union, 
 said that if the directors obtained " scabs " from the country to load 
 the ships, not a single fireman nor sailor would work on the vessels. 
 He also said that if the coal owners of Northumberland and Dur- 
 ham insisted on loading ships by means of " scabs" he would go 
 and ask the miners to refuse to work if any part of that coal was 
 for working any of the vessels now lying in the Docks. 
 
 Burns stated that he had communicated with all the continental 
 ports, and that the labour newspapers of Belgium, France, and 
 Germany were notifying their working men not to come to 
 England. 
 
 Mr. Cuninghame Graham, M.P. said there had never been 
 such a strike in the history of Labour, which was international not 
 national. He advised them to object to all offers of arbitration, as 
 plenty of help was coming in. Every trade was on their side, 
 and b}'- paralysing all industry and thereby showing their strength 
 victory would be sure to follow. 
 
 It was stated that the leaders of the strike had appointed picket- 
 ing parties to wait on all the large firms with a view to inducing 
 all the workmen, both skilled artizans and labourers, to stay away 
 from their work on Monday and swell the ranks of the strikers. 
 
 Mr. James Mitchell, manager of the Dunde-e Wharf, stated that 
 out of the 70 men brought from Dundee he had induced 21 to stay, 
 the other 4q had been called on by the pickets and fetched out. 
 Most of them after^vards came to him again and begged him either 
 to take them on to work again or to send them home, as the Strike 
 Committee would not allow them anything after the pickets had 
 got them out. Thirty-three delivery men whom he had obtained
 
 xlii. Appendix A. 
 
 yesterday morning had given him notice that they were going out^ 
 and the remainiug 21 Dundee men had also done the same. 
 
 The Secretary of the Gas, Light and Coke Company stated that 
 the labourers employed by the Company for transferring the coal to 
 the stages have now joined the strike, and the stokers, though 
 themselves still working, are so far in sympathy with the strikers 
 that they refuse to stoke any coal brought by outsiders to the stages. 
 They will use up the coal which yet remains, and which was brought 
 to them before the strike began ; but if the Companies bring in 
 new hands, of whom, by the way, there is no lack, the stokers will 
 at once throw down their tools." 
 
 Thus it appeared probable that the gas mains of the Company 
 would be deprived of gas. When this is done a temporary vacuum 
 is formed which soon becomes filled with atmospheric air. This 
 forms a very dangerous compound, which has caused most dis- 
 astrous explosions. 
 
 Meeting of Working Lightermen was held to consider the follow- 
 ing proclamation which had been issued by the Court of the 
 Watermen's Company : 
 
 "That in consequence of the Freemen of the Company having 
 very suddenly left their employment without assigning any cause 
 beyond their sympathy with the Dock labourers and a certain amount 
 of intimidation on the part of others, thereby causing enormous 
 loss to the commercial interests of the port of London, the atten- 
 tion of the Freemen be called to the 64th Section of the Com- 
 pany's Act, which provides — ' If any lighterman or waterman to 
 whom a license is granted in pursuance of this Act is guilty of such 
 misconduct or acts of incompetencv while working as a lighterman 
 or waterman as in the opinion of the said Court of Master Wardens 
 and assistants to disqualify him either wholly or partially from 
 holding such license, such Court may, after hearing what he has to 
 urge in his defence and subject to an appeal to the said Conser- 
 vators of the River Thames, who may revoke or modify the order 
 of the said Court, endorse, suspend, or cancel altogether any license 
 he may hold.' The above Section explains to the Freemen the 
 grave responsibilities they have incurred, and the Court therefore 
 earnestly advises the men to return to their work without further 
 delay.— L. S. Whvte, Clerk." 
 
 The tone of the meeting was in favour of standing firm by the 
 men's demands. 
 
 Stokers of the Kingston Gas Company asked for the eight-hour
 
 Appendix A. xliii. 
 
 system and at the same time for an increase of pay. The Directors 
 granted both points, and in addition decided that work should 
 cease on Saturday at one o'clock instead of four. 
 
 The Welsh iron workers in the district of Ebbw Vale, served 
 notices upon their employers for an advance of lo per cent, in 
 wages. 
 
 Three thousand mechanics at Keighley struck for an advance in 
 wages. 
 
 On it becoming known at Liverpool that Dock labourers were 
 required to work the Allan line of steamers sailing from London, 
 there was a great rush of labourers at the Liverpool office of the 
 firm. In facb, the help of the police had to be invoked to maintaia 
 order. One hundred men were selected and left Liverpool by 
 special train for London. 
 
 A public meeting to express sympathy with and organise help 
 for the London Dock labourers was held in Smith Street Board 
 Schools, Birmingham, under the presidency of Councillor Whate- 
 ley. A committee was appointed, and it was determined to make 
 workshop and street collections, to issue collecting cards, and to 
 invite subscriptions from several trade societies, A considerable 
 sum was at once subscribed, including ids. and an offer of los. per 
 week as Ijni; as the strike was peaceably conducted, from the well- 
 known ex-Chartist, the Rev. Arthur O'Neill. 
 
 The Wharf Labourers' Union of Brisbane, Australia, and the 
 Federated Seamen's Union of the same city, sent respectively £iS'^ 
 and j^ioo to the editor of Reynolds' Newspaper, to assist the 
 striking labourers in London. 
 
 As a van laden, with bedding, which it was supposed was for the 
 men employed in the Docks, proceeded down the Whitechapel 
 Road it was attacked by the strikers. A large body of men followed 
 the van till it reached Great Garden Street, and here the blankets 
 and other bedding material were torn into shreads. A body of 
 police succeeded in rescuing the van, which was removed by them 
 under a strong escort to a place of safety in the vicinity. 
 
 Mr. Sydney Buxton wrote to The Times a letter in which he 
 said : 
 
 " The question in dispute has thus resolved itself into the demand 
 on the part of the men that a vii7iiviiim wage of 6d. an hour and 
 8d. an hour overtime shall be paid for time work. More than this
 
 xliv. Appendix A. 
 
 the men have not asked ; less than this they are not in a position 
 to accept ; and I should be much obliged if I might attempt to put 
 the case of the men before the public in as few words as possible. 
 I write, it must be understood, solely on my own responsibility. 
 
 "On the moral and social ground, the men argue that 5d. an 
 hour (the amount now given) is, even for regular work, a very 
 low pay, while for irregular work it amounts simply to a starvation 
 wage. 
 
 " Moreover, if the Company is not in a position to meet this 
 small addition to their aimual labour bill, the wharfingers have 
 shown them how, in conjunction with themselves, they can, by a 
 slight rearrangement of the rates now charged, recoup themselves, 
 and that the general public as consumers would, I feel sure, be 
 perfectly ready to bear their share of the burden. 
 
 "The justice of the men's claims has been admitted by the 
 wharfingers, who, if only the Dock Company could agree, are pre- 
 pared practically to pay the men on the terms, and in the mode 
 demanded. 
 
 "The justice of the men's claims is, it is understood, generally 
 admitted also by the shipowners 
 
 " The demand of the men is not a great one, and it could be 
 met without injury to the interests of the Dock. The responsi- 
 bility for any disorder that may arise from the prolongation of 
 the strike will rest on the shoulders of the Directors if they 
 allow any personal feeling or false pride to stand in the way of an 
 immediate and satisfactory settlement of the dispute." 
 
 Mr. Edward Boyle, a Dock Director, stated in the Times, that 
 the total gross profit of the Docks for the past six months was 
 ;^234,ooo on a capital of ^17,000,000. He said that: 
 
 "Of the 90,000 men alleged to be on strike only about 5,000 
 are the Docks' labourers. Of all the labour employed less than 
 one-third is paid for at 5d. per hour, and this, although the lowest 
 price, is the dearest labour obtained. In 1872 the wages were 
 raised from 4d. to 5d. per hour, and certain charges 25 per cent. 
 The charges have long since had to be reduced, but the wages 
 notwithstanding all the Dock troubles, have never been lowered." 
 
 He also expressed the opinion that : 
 
 " The extent of the present stri'ce appears to many to be largely 
 due to certain Members of Parliament, would-be Members of Par- 
 liament, and others who rush into and support an agitation about 
 which some of them know little, and are too busy and too care- 
 less carefully to inquire. .... Subscriptions to the strike mean 
 a continuation of the present mob law, with all its thousand-and- 
 one inconveniences."
 
 Appendix A. xlv. 
 
 Mr. H. R. King, Secretary of the Society of Jourmymen Book- 
 binders, wrote to the Times with reference to the "Nj Strike" 
 Manifesto in these terms : 
 
 " Sir, — At an Executive meeting of this Society this evening, it 
 was resolved that this executive, whilst deeply sympathising with 
 the just and moderate demands of the Dock labourers, emphatically 
 protest against the rash and unwarrantable manifesto of the Strike 
 Committee calling upon men totally unconnected with the occu- 
 pation of the men alTected to come out of work, and thus render 
 the situation more involved and the possibilities of help less. They 
 warn all members of their own trade not to heei such advice, but 
 to remain at work and give such pecuniary help as they can possibly 
 give on such an emergency. We further earnestly exhort all other 
 trades not immediately connected with the dispute pending to join 
 with them in the endeavour to prevent such a fearful calamity as the 
 advice contained in the manifesto issued to-day would undoubtedly 
 bring about. At the same time this Committee sends £<^ to Mr. 
 Burns as a temporary help until further empowered." 
 
 Mr. Hugh C. Smith, of Hayes' Wharf, wrote to the Times to say 
 that without a rise in the rates no rise in wages was possible. 
 
 Major Banes, M.P., writing to the Times, said : 
 
 " I have been to-day engaged with the wharfingers (of whom I 
 am one) and the Dock Directors endeavouiing to effect a settle- 
 ment ; but I am astounded to find, and sorry to say, that the 
 interference of persons on both sides who are practically ignorant 
 of the facts, who, it would seem, only seek to interpose for political 
 purposes, or their own personal interests and aggrandisement, has so 
 confused and mystified the real question that I am not surprised a 
 satisfactory settlement, which ought to be, and could be, made in a 
 very short time by practical men only meeting and discussing the 
 differences that exist, has been so prolonged, and, in my opinion, is 
 as far off as ever, unless it be one forced on by exigencies. This, I 
 fear, will not only be unsatisfactoy, but will leave behind it the 
 bitterness and ill-feeling, which, in the interest of all concerned in 
 the welfare of the country, should never exist between employers 
 and employed." 
 
 A correspondent of the Times, connected with the coal trade, 
 wrote to say that on the previous day at Warwick Road depot and 
 West Kensington a mob of men entered the coal yards, and, in spite 
 of the loaders and carmen at work stating they had received the 
 advance and were satisfied, this crowd of men, of unknown trades, 
 presumably from the East-end, proceeded to stop all work, pitch- 
 ing those men who refused from the trucks, breaking weighing-
 
 xlvi. Appendix A. 
 
 machines, turning the coal already loaded out of the vans, and 
 cutting the harness from horses — this in full view of a small body 
 of police, who did not attempt to interfere. 
 
 Another correspondent wrote to say that he was about to send 
 a cheque for ^50 to the Strike Fund, but when he heard of the 
 " No Work Manifesto," he determined to keep his £$0 in his 
 pocket. 
 
 The Times in its leader assumed that the arrangement agreed to 
 ■by the Dock Companies, as it practically conceded the whole of the 
 •men's demands, would be accepted by them, and the strike thereby 
 ended ; and it congratulated the inhabitants of the Metropolis 
 upon what it hoped was the conclusion of a most irritating and 
 vexatious quarrel. The Times proceeded thus : 
 
 " This arrangement has come just in time to save the situation 
 on both sides. The Dock Companies cannot be congratulated 
 upon the manner in which they have dealt with the crisis. A little 
 strategical ability would have enabled them to effect a retreat from 
 an essentially untenable position, in which they were exposed to the 
 hostility of their workmen on one side, and of their customers on 
 the other. Their insistence upon their right to unload vessels, 
 instead of leaving shipowners to do their own work in their own 
 way, is at the bottom of the whole mischief. In order to carry 
 ■ out that system and malte a profit out of it they have had recourse 
 to means for procuring labour which are indefensible upon any 
 principles but those of the harshest and most reckless competition. 
 Their permanent servants are, we believe, fairly treated and well 
 paid, but the casual labourers required by the exigencies of the 
 work they have taken upon themselves must rank among the most 
 wretched of the industrial classes. It is all very well for the 
 Directors to plead that there is an enormous surplus of such labour, 
 and that the men they employ are at least better off than if they 
 had no employment at all. But the fact remains that they have 
 encouraged the growth of this wretched and shiftless class by their 
 daily distribution, haphazard, of an uncertain quantity of employ- 
 ment, and that the relations established between them and these 
 casual labourers are of a thoroughly demoralizing and inhuman 
 kind." 
 
 The obvious remedy for this state of things, in the opinion of the 
 Times, was to allow the shipowners to do their work in their own 
 way and to charge a fair rent for the use of the premises, and it 
 •concluded that this would in future be done. As a matter of 
 fact, however, it has not been done. The zeal of the shipowners
 
 Appendix A. xlvii. 
 
 for doing it, although it was very fervid during the Dock Strike 
 seems to have cooled down very considerably since. 
 
 With regard to the strikers, the Times thought the strain of the 
 ■situation was becoming too severe for them, and that they were on 
 the eve of forfeiting that public sympathy which was their main 
 stay, and then it proceeded thus : 
 
 " Even those most favourably disposed towards them could not 
 but feel that the manifesto posted yesterday morning at the head- 
 quarters of the strike committee altered the aspect of the whole 
 movement and necessitated a reconsideration of the issues involved 
 from the point of view of public interest. That manifesto, calling 
 upon a 1 the trade associations of London to order a general strike 
 on Monday unless the Companies made unconditional surrender, 
 was nothing less than a deliberate attack upon the social organi- 
 sation of the Metropolis. However keenly the public may sympa- 
 thise with the desire of the Dock labourers to roast their pig, it 
 cannot be expected to view with favour an attempt to burn down 
 its house in order to attain that end. Dock labourers after all are 
 only a small fraction of the inhabitants of London, and they must 
 contrive to fight their battles with weapons less destructive and far 
 reaching than those to which their leaders recommended them to 
 resort. Indeed this manifesto, taken together with the somewhat 
 truculent utterances of Mr. John Burns, will lead many to review 
 the conduct of the strike in a less charitable frame of mind. Wild 
 projects for throwing the whole Metropolis into confusion after offers 
 had been made conceding by far the larger part of the men's 
 claims arouse the suspicion that the leaders had other objects and 
 aims than the ostensible one of improving the condition of the 
 casual labourers. In this connection it will be remembered that 
 the very sudden and peremptory summons to the Dock companies is 
 somewhat difficult to reconcile with a bond fide desire for an amicable 
 settlement. There is some suspicion of an experiment in this 
 agitation, designed to test the feasibility of larger schemes. It will 
 be well for those who have made it not to delude themselves with the 
 notion that they will be permitted to apply coercion to society at 
 large. A little further development of the intimidation which had 
 begun to show itself in rather too prominent a manner would have 
 called for energetic measures, while under no circumstances can the 
 feeding and lighting of the Metropolis be allowed to lie at the 
 mercy of any body of labourers, however genuine may be their 
 grievances." 
 
 August 31J/. — General disappointment felt on account of the 
 failure of the attempts which had been made to settle the dispute.
 
 xlviii. Appendix A. 
 
 The "No Work" Manifesto universally condemned as a crimi- 
 nal blunder. The Times special correspondent said " it was a 
 blunder because in the first place it alienated the sympathy of the 
 public from the men temporarily and from their leaders perina- 
 7ientlyr 
 
 The Dock Directors claimed that the leading wharfingers were 
 with them, and this was confirmed by several of the wharfingers 
 themselves. 
 
 The Dock Directors said the terms which had already been 
 offered to the strikers were very liberal, and the public were very- 
 foolish to say that the Directors should give in. It was a matter 
 which affected many interests, and the shipping owners had abso- 
 lutely refused to submit to any increase in their rates. 
 
 In the afternoon further conference took place between the re- 
 presentatives of the various interests concerned, Burns, Champion, 
 and Tillett being present. It was stated that Tillett and Burns had 
 had serious differences, one point in dispute being as to who was 
 really the head of the strike. 
 
 Burns and Tillett submitted to the Dock Directors the following 
 proposition, which was the outcome of previous conferences be- 
 tvyixt a section of the wharfingers, headed by My. H. Lafone, and 
 the strike leaders : 
 
 " 36, Mark-lane, London, August 30th, 1889. 
 
 " Proposed agreement between Dock Companies, Wharfingers, 
 Granary-keepers, and Workmen. 
 
 " Wages and conditions made with men : 
 
 '• Outsiders called in not to be discharged with less than 2s. 
 pay. 
 
 "That contract work shall be abandoned, and a system of piece- 
 work be substituted by which the men shall receive the total gross 
 receipts of the job direct from the companies, drawing in the 
 meantime a minijmim of 6d. per hour ordinary time, and 8d. per 
 hour overtime, for their work as long as the job lasts. 
 
 " The shares of \h.Q plus to be divided as follows : 
 
 " The share of each man and each foreman to be equal. 
 
 "The pay for casual work to be 6d. per hour for the first four 
 hours, if only working for that time ; if for longer, then at the rate 
 of 4s. for nine hours, and 6d. per hour from nine to 12 hours, with 
 an allowance of half-an-hour for dinner. 
 
 " Overtime 8d. per hour. Overtime to be reckoned from 6 p.m. 
 till 6 a.m , or 8 p.m. till 8 a.m.
 
 Appendix A. xlix. 
 
 ■" Regular men may be engaged at not less than 24s. per week. 
 
 "We, the undersigned, representatives cf Dock Workers and 
 others now on strike, pledge ourselves to have the following terms 
 faithfully carried out at each dock, wharf, granary, or warehouse 
 where the above terms are agreed on : 
 
 *' I St. That men shall not work at any dock or wharf on less 
 wages or worse terms than those stated above. 
 
 '* 2nd. That men shall immediately return to work at all docks, 
 wharves, or granaries where terms as per list herewith have been 
 agreed to. 
 
 " 3rd. That all lightermen shall at once resume work, agreeing 
 to submit any grievance they may have to abitration. 
 
 " 4th. Coal-workers to resume work at once. 
 
 "To avoid any delay in work being resumed, it is requested 
 that each Dock Company, Wharfinger, or Granary-keeper will con- 
 sent to the above terms in writing. It is most important that these 
 consents should be in the hands of Mr. 11. Lafone, at 36, Alark- 
 lane, as early as possible." 
 
 After the conference the Dock Committee issued the following 
 statement : 
 
 "August 31st. 1889. 
 
 "London and India Docks Joint Committee. 
 
 " During the day Mr. Burns, accompanied by Mr. Tillett, called 
 at the Dock-house, and had an interview with the Docks Joint 
 Committee, and submitted a proposal which, he stated, he thought 
 would not be rejected by those whom he represented. This pro- 
 position is subjoined, 
 
 " The Joint Committee, having, in consultation with the repre- 
 sentatives of the other Dock Companies and with the leading 
 wharfingers and warehouse-keepers in London, given the most 
 serious and careful consideration to this proposition, sent the fol- 
 lowing reply : 
 
 "' Dock-house, 109, Leadenhall-street, 
 
 August 31st, 1889. 
 
 " ' Sir, — The Joint Committee, after consultation with the leading 
 wharfingers and representatives of the other Dock Companies, regret 
 that they are not prepared to entertain the proposal submitted to 
 them by you to-day. The committee feel bound to add that they 
 have the assurance of those wharfingers that the statement made 
 by you that the latter had assented to the proposition is incorrect. 
 
 "' I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " ' C. M. Norwood, Chairman. 
 ^"Mr. Burns.' 
 
 d
 
 1. Appefidix A. 
 
 " The committee take this opportunity of repeating that they 
 are willing at all times to see any of their servants who may be 
 selected by the general body, and, subject to the conditions of their 
 notice of the 29th inst., to discuss any question in regard to which- 
 those in their employ may consider there is ground of complaint. 
 
 " By order, 
 
 "Henry J. Morgan, Secretary." 
 
 Tillett, in an interview, stated that the strikers had received 
 over ;^90o that day, including large sums from Australia, and 
 also that Cardinal Manning had throughout the strike been 
 " a most cordial sympathiser with the strikers." 
 
 At a meeting in Southwark Park, Mr. H. Quelch, speaking as a 
 leader of the Social Democratic Federation, entirely carried the 
 meeting with him in a denunciation of what he characterised as 
 the mad manifesto which the Strike Committee had issued, calling 
 for a general strike. He was glad to learn it had that morning been 
 withdrawn ; but the mischief it had done was most deplorable. 
 He was astounded when it was issued, and the branch of the La- 
 bourers' Union, which he had joined, at once passed a strong, 
 resolution condemning it, which was sent to the Central Committee, 
 If the manifesto had not been withdrawn, he was certain it would 
 have proved a miserable fiasco. Not one man in 100 would have 
 responded to it. He believed a general strike would be legitimate 
 if it were thoroughly acted on and due time were given to prepare 
 for it, but to call for a general strike without proper organisation 
 would have caused such a paralysis in every direction that London 
 would have been starving by Wednesday. He was certain the 
 manifesto was the work of an enemy to the cause of Labour, a 
 Socialist, whose name had not appeared much during the strike, 
 but who had great influence over John Burns, and who had injured 
 the workers on a former occasion. 
 
 A meeting, convened by Liberal and Radical Associations, in sup- 
 port of the strikers was held at London Fields, which was ad- 
 dressed by Mr. J. Stuart, M.P., Mr. Cremer, M.P. and Mr. J. 
 Rowlands, M.P. 
 
 At the meeting on Tower Hill, Mr. Henry, Secretary of the 
 Central Democratic Club, alluding to the criticisms of the London 
 Press, stated that he cared nothing for the capitalist press of the
 
 Appendix A. \\, 
 
 Metropolis, which was written by " jacltasses for people who paid 
 them very well to write jackasseries." 
 
 Burns announced the receipt of ^"loo from the compositors of 
 London; ^250 from the Dock Labourers' Association of Aus- 
 tralia; £2> from Lady Ripon, and £$ from Mr. Samuel Plimsoll. 
 
 Tillett read the following letter : 
 
 "I am a Dock Shareholder without a dividend. I do not want one 
 at the expense of the badly paid labourers. I send you ^5 for 
 the strike fund, and hope you will hold on firmly, and then you will 
 win. — Yours truly, A Dock Shareholder." 
 
 Mr. Tom Mann said negotiations were going on between the 
 representatives of the Dock Labourers and the Wharfingers, but 
 they were only being conducted on the lines laid down in the mani- 
 festo which the Strike Committee had issued. The coalheavers 
 were demanding an increase of ^d. per ton, and if it was not 
 granted, London would in 36 hours be in darkness. The Gas 
 Workers would take up the cause of the Coal Labourers, and even 
 now negotiations were proceeding with the Durham and other 
 miners to prevent coals not only being sent to the London ports^ 
 but their being taken out of the pits. 
 
 Mr. Cuninghame Graham. M.P., addressing the strikers at the 
 East India Dock gates, said: "They were not fighting merely 
 for the increase of id. an hour, but were fighting a battle be- 
 tween the capitalists and the down-trodden Dock Labourers. 
 They were on outpost duty in a great battle betwixt Capital and 
 Labour that was now raging in every industrial centre in Encr- 
 land, Scotland, France, America, Italy, and Spain. It was for 
 this that the Dock Labourers had been called out, and if they 
 went on persevering as they had done in the past, victory would 
 be theirs." 
 
 During the speeches a Socialist flag was brought on to the 
 ground, whereupon the greater number of those present demanded 
 that it should be taken down, saying they did not want Socialism 
 brought into the strike. 
 
 Mr. Cuninghame Graham, M.P. significantly said : " Revolu- 
 tions are not made with rose water." 
 
 At a meeting held on Clerkenwell Green in support of the 
 dockers, the speakers spoke in high terras of how the police had 
 performed their duties, and said that they knew that they as a body 
 had some genuine grievances that ought to be remedied, besides 
 which they were entitled to an increase of wages, ard that if they
 
 Hi. Appendix A. 
 
 wished for assistance after this strike was terminated they would 
 assist them. 
 
 [ There was a good deal of this fulsome eulogy of the police during 
 the strike, which might almost be taken as prima facie evidence 
 that the police did not do their duty. It is significant that a strike 
 occurred among the police themselves shortly afterwards.] 
 
 Three thousand tailors struck in the East End, their demands 
 being that their hours of labour should be reduced to a maximum 
 of \o\ a day without any decrease in wages. The masters were 
 willing to reduce the number of hours, subject to a corresponding 
 reduction of wages. 
 
 Committee of the Great Eastern Railway workmen at Stratford 
 asked the Mayor of West Ham to call a public meeting at the 
 Stratford Town Hall " for the purpose of expressing sympathy with 
 the Dock labourers on strike, and to raise a fund on their behalf." 
 
 At Messrs. Beadle Brothers, Erith, who cringed before the strikers 
 in so contemptible a manner, the strike still continued. Messrs. 
 Beadle offered certain concessions, and stated that the yards would 
 be opened on Monday when, if their men refused to go in, they 
 would refuse to employ them any more, and would get other labour 
 to carry on the business. Their premises were closely picketed. 
 
 The superintendent of the main drainage works at Crossness, near 
 Plumstead, wrote to the Central Strike Committee requesting, for 
 the sake of the public health, that the labourers who had been 
 engaged in the purifying process might be allowed to return to 
 their work. These men, more than one hundred in number, all 
 struck at the bidding of a deputation from the committee. It does 
 not appear that they had any special complaint. The strike of the 
 men engaged in constructing the extension works at the same outfall 
 was of less consequence to the public, although it suspended a con- 
 tract involving ^250,000, and threw nearly four hundred brick- 
 layers, excavators, and other workmen out of employ, Mr. Webster, 
 the contractor, had recently increased his labourers' wages from 
 5d. to 5^d. an hour, but they now demanded 6d., although their 
 employment was continuous. 
 
 At Bourne, Lincolnshire, sixteen Dock strikers from London were 
 brought up on a charge of vagrancy. Large parties of these men 
 were passing through the country to Boston, Grimsby, and Hull in 
 search of work. They visited farmhouses in bodies demanding food.
 
 Appendix A. liii. 
 
 Septetnber i. — Another demonstration in Hyde Park, attended 
 by much smaller numbers, however, owing probably to the issue of 
 the "No Strike" Manifesto. Tom Mann said they had not come 
 to celebrate victory but to insist upon a fresh declaration of war. 
 He contended that the strikers had commanded the sympathy of the 
 public, as shown by the facts that ^500 had come from Australia, 
 £^00 from London compositors, another ^100 from London 
 machine printers, and ;!^200 from the Co-operative Wholesale 
 Society. 
 
 Mr. Cunincrhame Graham, M.P., "dealt sharply with the avari- 
 cious shareholders who had refused to pay the men sufficient to 
 properly maintain life." 
 
 Mr, Steadman, secretary of the Barge Builders' Society, blamed 
 the Trades Council for not supporting the strikers at first, and 
 denounced some leading trade unionists. 
 
 Mr. Douglas, of the Boiler Makers and Steam Ship Society, urged 
 that there should be a general federation of all labour, not (he said) 
 with an idea of injuring Capital, butin order to secure to the workers 
 their share of the capital they created. He advised his fellow- 
 workers, if called upon to repair ships loaded up by "rat" latjour, 
 to " open up " the repairs, and then refuse to finish them. 
 
 Mr. M'Carthy, Secretary of the Stevedores, boasted that they had 
 behind them the sympathies of the whole United Kingdom, from 
 the lowest trade to those who occupied life's most prominent 
 positions. He concluded in these terms : 
 
 " What had they at their backs now, and what had the Dock 
 Companies ? The Dock Companies had vanity and stupidity. The 
 strikers had the bulldog tenacity of the Englishman, the enthu- 
 siastic spirit of the Irishman, and the fierce pertinacity of the Scotch- 
 man. With these three qualities united they would never rest till 
 they had crushed the Dock Companies — until they came to the 
 strikers on their bellies like the serpents they were and gave way. 
 Moreover, they would yet have, by means of the Lo''ndon County 
 Council, or some similar body — and they would never rest till they 
 got it — the control of the Dock Companies." 
 
 John Burns said that so far as he was concerned the strike was 
 just begun. Referring to the negotiations which had gone on, he 
 said : 
 
 *' No more interviews until Williams, the Secretary, and Nor- 
 wood the Chairman had had to resign through pressure from public
 
 liv. Appendix A. 
 
 opinion and from the Shareholders ; no more interviews until the 
 Directors completely climbed down." He also said : 
 
 " The strike had passed through three phases. The first was one 
 of contempt ; the second was one of pity ; aud the third was one 
 of respect and admiration. He was not a Jingo, he was a cosmo- 
 politan, if ever there was one ; but he must say that he was proud 
 of being a Briton that day, and of being a citizen of this grand 
 old London of ours. It seemed to him, knowing what he knew 
 about the strike, that for the first time during this century the people 
 of London, rich and poor, had risen to the level of London's best 
 traditions. It was, indeed, remarkable that 130,000 men should go 
 through the City of London saluting and being saluted by the 
 police, while the middle-class men from their office windows who 
 formerly frowned upon them, now relaxed into a smile, and accom- 
 panied that smile with a material contrioution towards the strikers' 
 support. The strike had touched the chords and had touched the 
 pulses of the City, and he believed it had touched them to such an 
 extent that the citizens would respond to the strikers' application to 
 the extent of winning the fight right through the line. There had 
 been several intermediaries in the strike. One of the best was 
 Cardinal Manning. To see the venerable, grand old Cardinal, full 
 of high tastes and of the best culture, a man of strong nervous 
 temperament, a man full of genuine pity and sympathy, going at 80 
 years of age into the same room as the rat Norwood was a shock- 
 ing sight indeed. Let them ju<;t picture one of the true types, one 
 of the best types of the Englishman degrading his past life, 
 degrading his character, by trying to negotiate with a man who had 
 lost all sense of decency, all regard for manly and gentlemanly con- 
 duct. He was surprised that Cardinal Manning's presence did not 
 make him leave the room abashed, ashamed and degraded at his 
 infamous conduct during the strike The Dock Direc- 
 tors would yield, but it took a long while. Well, it took a boa con- 
 strictor a long while to swallow a rabbit or a pig, and befon; it did 
 do so it had to lick it all round until it could swallow it. The Dock 
 Directors were licking the Dockers' *' tanner '' and they would have 
 to swallow it at a gulp. Some people were under the impression 
 that the strike could not go on much longer. Let them make no 
 mistake. ^2,000 came in on Saturday. Nearly ^^1,000 came from 
 the colonies, and that was the kind of federation Britons appre- 
 ciated — a federation that would weld by human sympathy and by 
 material action workers' rights throughout the world into one 
 
 mass Let them remember that if there was one thing 
 
 that should urge them on to victory it was the moan of their hungry 
 children and the suffering of their patient wives, on whose behalf 
 he urged them to go forward and to make greater sacrifices, so that
 
 Appendix A. Iv. 
 
 success might be reached. He had done his speech but not his 
 work. On the following morning they would resume the cam- 
 paign with horse, foot, and artillery. There would be no show 
 parties on the morrow. Every one of the Dockers must turn out 
 with renewed vigour and renewed determination. They must clear 
 out all the blacklegs that were left in the London Docks. They 
 would have them out and they would have them in — out ot the 
 Docks and into their ranks. He was not pleased with one or two 
 speakers who had twitted some sections of society. He must say, 
 and he said it not disrespectfully, that the masher of Pall IMall had 
 thro\rn aside his masherdom and had helped the Dockers in this 
 strike. The middle-class man with any salt in him had generously 
 subscribed. The aristocrat himself had come to the Committee 
 
 Pooms and had asked to be allowed to help This was 
 
 the truth, that in the East End of London two millions of people, 
 by that strike and by that agitation, had landed themselves on a 
 higher plane, had sunk their petty vices, had become morally and 
 ethically infused with an ideal that they could not attain to without 
 the strike. To the workmen who were selfish, to the workmen who 
 were ignorant, to the workmen who were prejudiced, he specially 
 addressed himself, and asked them to raise themselves to the level 
 of the Docker, and to raise themselves to the level of the Docker's 
 wife, who, with pinched face and child in arms, had learnt to suffer 
 and be strong." 
 
 After Burns' speech, a man pressed through the crowd and 
 handed Burns a sovereign with the words " from an American 
 citizen." Mr. Burns again rose and said that: "Three days ago 
 three ships came into the port of London maimed by American 
 sailors. These sailors were asked to unload the cargo at 2s. 6d. 
 and 2r>. 6d. an hour. They declined to do it and joined the strike. 
 That moment an American capitalist handed him a sovereign towards 
 the strike. They would give a cheer for the American stars, and 
 the stripes they would give to Norwood and his gang." 
 
 Ben Tillett said : " He had worked on this question without help 
 for 2i years, but he was ashamed to say that now the so-called 
 labour representatives were absent while the most momentous 
 struggle of modern times was taking place, and the greatest move- 
 ment that ever roused London was seething and swelling on every 
 hand. The poorest of the poor had been lifted from the gutter, 
 and men who had long been despised were holding up their heads. 
 Men who had suffered in silence and had only groaned out their 
 misery were now rising m their strength, but the Broadhursts and 
 the Shiptons were not to be seen. They had got so used to being 
 the lap-dogs of society that they forgot the duty they owed to the
 
 Ivi. Appendix A. 
 
 men who made them what they were, and the very men who ought 
 to have helped the Dockers had stood aloof." 
 
 During the procession to the Park there was a halt of half-an- 
 hour at Westminster. The Times correspondent said : " Apparently 
 money was not scarce among the processionists ; certain it is that 
 the consumption of beer was very large and that the publichouses 
 in the neighbourhood were crammed to repletion." 
 
 It was announced at the Hyde Park demonstration that the strike 
 leaders unreservedly withdrew the '* No Work " Manifesto, and 
 had issued in its place another manifesto, which ran as follows : — 
 
 " Manifesto. 
 
 " Wade's Arms, Jeremiah-street, Poplar, Sept. i. 
 
 " Fellow-countrymen, — Since Thursday night we have received' 
 ample evidence that it is the Dock Directors alone who are respon- 
 sible for delaying the settlement of the dispute. During the last 48 
 hours we have had convincing proof that the public opinion amongst 
 all classes declares that the demands of the Dock labourers are just 
 and reasonable, and we have been inundated with offers of assist- 
 ance, provided that our attack is confined to the few men who are 
 willing to plunge the Metropolis into anarchy rather than admit, 
 themselves to be in the wrong. We are determined to show that 
 we are not actuated by such miserable vanity as our opponents, and 
 that the working classes are as superior to the Dock Directors in 
 true nobility of character as in capacity to manage their own busi- 
 ness. We therefore hereby cancel our appeal to the workers of 
 London to come out on strike on Monday, and invite them instead 
 to strain every nerve and to make every sacrifice to supply us with 
 the sinews of war. Especially we ask the organized trades in the 
 provinces as well as in London to send us at once the largest con- 
 tributions they can afford. Though the Dock Directors remain 
 obdurate, a certain number of the wharfingers and granary keepers 
 have offered to give terms to their men which, though falling short 
 of the original demands of the men, we might have advised them to 
 consider, had they been conceded by the whole of the masters ; but 
 we cannot divide our forces in the face of an enemy so unscrupulous 
 as the Dock Directors. While thanking these tew masters for their 
 conciliatory attitude, we determine that the strike among the Dock 
 labourers and allied trades shall go on until the whole question is 
 settled by the granting of every item of the moderate demands 
 originally made by the men. In spite of the irritation engendered 
 by the conduct of the Directors and the terrible sufferings their 
 obstinacy is causing, we have sufficient confidence in the courage
 
 Appendix A. Ivii. 
 
 and self-restraint of the strikers to be assured that they will maintain 
 th« demeanour which has won them the sympathy of the public. 
 We believe the public will respond to our call for help with a 
 promptitude and generosity that will enable us to relieve the suffer- 
 ing. Meanwhile the docker starves, but does not surrender." 
 
 At Darlington a demonstration of North Eastern Railway servants 
 was held to demand a ten hours day with extra payment for over- 
 time and Sunday duty. 
 
 At Sheffield three meetings were held in support of the strikers 
 in London. They were all convened and addressed by local 
 Socialists. 
 
 September 2nd. — The deadlock at the Docks still continued. The 
 shipowners were growing restive, and were in a state of something 
 like revolt against the Dock Companies. A deputation, headed by 
 Sir Donald Currie, waited upon the Dock Directors and submitted 
 a resolution from the ship-owners, which stated that they considered 
 it essential to the conduct of their business that they should have 
 from the Dock Companies the power to discharge as well as load 
 their vessels, and to make their own arrangements with their men, 
 Mr. Norwood, in reply, said : " He had already expressed the 
 opinion that it would be possible to allow the shipowners, on 
 reasonable terms and conditions, to discharge their own ships. He 
 had held that view for some time, and having consulted his col- 
 leagues, he could state that at a fitting moment they would be pre- 
 pared to enter into the whole question. That moment would be 
 when the great pressure now put upon the Dock Directors to the 
 occupation of their whole time had passed." Mr. Norwood further 
 stated that the Dock Companies had not for one hour ceased to 
 perform their duties in the Docks. They had continued the un- 
 loading of all ships ; and he reminded the ship-owners that if they 
 had controlled the stevedores in their employ, as the Dock authori- 
 ties had succeeded in controlling some of the workmen, the dead- 
 lock would never have been so great. In the course of his speech 
 he also said : 
 
 " One of the aspects of the strike was more important, perhaps^ 
 than any other. The strike was now no longer a mere Dock 
 Strike, but was an agitation aimed at Capital and employers 
 generally. He, with his colleagues, had come to that conclusion 
 somewhat earlier than other people, because, although allegations 
 of incompetence were frequently hurled at the heads of the Board, 
 they still had some little information, and he maintained that the
 
 Iviii. Appendix A, 
 
 strike hadbecome an organized attack upon the outposts of Capital 
 with a view of raising the amount of pay for labour throughout the 
 entire arm}' of Labour in the East End of London. The Dock Com- 
 panies had abundance of hands willing to work. They only wanted 
 protection for those men who were frightened from the premises at 
 which they were at work by the most brutal attacks ever perpe- 
 trated or designed on the liberty of Englishmen. If they could get 
 that they would not have the slightest difficulty in carrying out their 
 share of the business of the port." 
 
 The Dock Directors sent a telegram to the Chief Commissioner 
 of Police warning him that some 6,000 or 7,000 men were to march 
 to the Docks, taking the West India Ducks first, with the object of 
 not leaving a single man in the Docks, and a letter was sent to the 
 Home Secretary conveying the same news. 
 
 An official declaration was made by the Joint Committee of the 
 Dock Companies that they would have no further communication 
 or converse with either Burns or Tillett, whom henceforth they 
 refused to recognise. (Why did they not take this sensible course 
 on the very first day of the strike ?) 
 
 At daylight, gangs of men, who had evidently been drilled as 
 pickets, placed themselves in front of the Dock entrances and other 
 large centres of employment. No person entered the Dock with- 
 out first being button-holed by these pickets, and many men who 
 had come early in the hope of earning a few shillings made a 
 hurried escape in order to get out of harm's way. 
 
 When the strikers found that men had been conveyed into the 
 Tilbury Docks by rail direct, they made serious threats against the 
 Railway Companies. 
 
 Near Wapping Station the strikers had a large blackboard on 
 which was drawn a gallows with a man hanging, and the words 
 " Norwood's doom," and the words "Ashes to ashes and dust to 
 dust. If God don't take Norwood the dockers must." 
 
 A special meeting of wharfingers was held, attended by the prin- 
 cipal wharfingers of the port, at which the following resolution was 
 passed : " That the Docks having agreed to substitute piece-work, 
 for contract work and to give a muiimum pay of 2s., and further 
 to consider any grievances their own servants may have, this meeting 
 considers its terms should be accepted by their men." 
 
 The following proclamation from the authorities of Watermen's 
 Hall to the lightermen was extensively posted :
 
 Appendix A. lix. 
 
 "To the Lightermen of the River Thames. 
 
 " At a special meeting of the court of the Watermen and 
 Lightermen's Company, held on Wednesday, the 28th August, 
 1889, the following resolution was passed : 
 
 " ' That in consequence of the freemen of the Company having 
 very suddenly left their employment, without assigning any cause 
 beyond their sympathy with the Dock Labourers and a certain 
 amount of intimidation on the part of others, thereby causing 
 enormous loss to the commercial interests of the port of London, 
 the attention of the freemen be called to the 64th section of the 
 Company's Act, which provides : 
 
 " ' "Penalty on Misconduct or Incompetency. — LXIV. — If any 
 lighterman or waterman to whom a licence is granted in pursuance 
 of this Act, is guilty of such misconduct, or acts of incompetency, 
 while working as a lighterman or waterman, as in the opinion of 
 the said court of master, wardens, and assistants, to disqualify him, 
 either wholly or partially, from holding such license, such court may 
 after hearing what he has to urge in his defence, and subject to an 
 appeal to the said Conservators of the River Thames, who may re- 
 voke or modify the order of the said court, endorse, suspend, or 
 cancel altogether any licence he may hold." 
 
 " The above section explains to the freemen the grave responsi- 
 bility they have incurred, and the court therefore earnestly advises 
 the men to return to their work without further delay." 
 
 " Louis S. White, Clerk. 
 "Watermen's Hall, London, E.G." 
 
 At a meeting held on Tower Hill, Tillett, in the course of his 
 remarks said "the Dock Directors had dug their own grave and 
 had already sunk into it. They would soon want the Dockers to 
 pull them out, and as long as he had health he would hound 
 Mr, Norwood from pillar to post." 
 
 Burns, after announcing a number of subscriptions, said that on 
 Saturday ;!^2,ooo came in, and ^500 was collected. He was re- 
 ceiving offers of help from every town in England. He also said, 
 referring to the demonstration on London Fields, " that the two 
 labour representatives there were miserable humbugs, who loafed 
 about the smoking-room and lobby of the House of Commons. 
 Their revenge would come when these men next asked for their 
 votes." 
 
 He stated that on Sunday, after the meeting at Hyde Park, he 
 was invited to meet Cardinal Manning, and his interview with the
 
 Ix. Appendix A. 
 
 Cardinal convinced him that the strike would soon be brought to a. 
 successful conclusion. He also said they were receiving contri- 
 butions from the Directors and Shareholders of Dock Companies 
 themselves. He continued : " Now that the Directors would not 
 have reasonableness they would have hard slogging — as hard as they 
 could give. If they were not able to win with one round of the 
 gloves they v/ould take them off and try another. At the demon- 
 stration on the previous day he collected in his hat ^40 in ten 
 minutes. At that gathering they saw society represented in all 
 grades, from the aristocratic officer in the Guards, from whom he 
 managed to wheedle half-a-sovereign, down to the most degraded 
 from the slums. After the proceedings in the park they decided 
 not to have a procession through the City that day, but to bombard 
 the Docks with horse, foot, and artillery." 
 
 Mr. Burns further stated that when the strike was over the 
 Dock Labourers would have to form Unions, and no stevedore must 
 be allowed to put goods on a ship with, or work by, non-union men. 
 
 Four hundred porters at Willow-walk Station sent up a memorial 
 to the Directors asking for a rise of 2s. a man. 
 
 Two hundred boys employed by Messrs. Hawkins, carmen and 
 contractors, came out on strike for an increase of 2s. per week, 
 their present wages being ids. per week. They marched with ban- 
 ners through the neighbourhood and collected subscriptions. 
 
 A head official of the National Line of steamers stated that the 
 leading shipping firms were in entire sympathy with the men. 
 
 It was stated that certain brokers were suffering to the extent of 
 nearly ^^200 per day on account of demurrage, besides other losses 
 which were due to the strike. 
 
 At Chatham some strikers visited a steamer named the Adam 
 Smith, at Scott's Wharf, and managed, by strategy, to reach the 
 vessel's side. They were met by the captain, who said that if his 
 men would remain loyal, he would undertake to pitch overboard 
 any striker who attempted to board the vessel. The men working 
 on the steamer cheered the announcement, and the strikers thought 
 discretion the better part of valour. 
 
 Messrs. Haymer, Messrs. Parker & Co., Messrs. Lambert, Bros.,, 
 large coal merchants in Rochester, agreed to give their men the 
 advance of wages asked for, but the men declined to resume 
 work until all the firms had gone in. The price of coal had risen 
 2s. per ton.
 
 Appendix A. Ixi. 
 
 Mr. Randell, M.P. for Gower, addressing a meeting of colliers 
 on the Dock strike, cordially supported the attitude of the 
 Dock labourers, and moved the following resolution, which was 
 carried unanimously : " That this meeting of Welsh miners 
 pledges itself to support the men on strike at the Docks and 
 wharves of London, and calls upon all Welsh workmen to assist 
 the labourers in obtaining their rights." A substantial sum was 
 collected and sent to Mr. Burns, and Mr. Randell, who is 
 organizer of 50,000 tin-plate workmen of South Wales, Monmouth- 
 shire, and Gloucestershire, said that contributions would be forth- 
 coming from that body. 
 
 At Liverpool, some men working on the Methley Hall asked for 
 an advance from 5s. per day to 6s. and from 8d. an hour overtime to 
 IS. an hour. The master porters declined to give the advance, and 
 'the men ceased work. 
 
 A Renter's telegram from Melbourne stated that universal sym- 
 pathy was there felt with the London Dock labourers, and that 
 meetings were being organized and subscriptions opened. 
 
 At a meeting at Melbourne ^1,500 was collected on behalf of 
 ^the London Dock labourers, and a resolution passed condemning 
 the action of the Directors. 
 
 A telegram from Chicago stated that the Trades' Assembly of 
 that city had passed a resolution which, dwelling upon the 
 sympathy of the masses with the London strikes, advises the 
 •employer class to consider the possible advantages of joining with 
 the labouring class in establishing a mmimum wage rate sufficient to 
 enable the least skilled to live decently, and introducing a normal 
 working day of eight hours with steady employment for all workers. 
 
 Sir J- Whittaker Ellis, in a letter to the Times, emphasized the 
 fact that the struggle had acquired a national importance, and was 
 no longer a mere question of commerce but a question of State. 
 Among other things he said: " We have trifled too much lately 
 with political economy. Nevertheless, its decrees are unalterable 
 •either by Dock Companies or Labour strikes. Labour is a com- 
 modity as much as tea or Consols. It must be free to sell itself 
 in the best market, and to makes its own bargain without inter- 
 ference ; but it is the duty of the State to see that Labour can 
 bargain with Capital on equal terms, and that organizations of 
 professional agitators do not transgress the law by threats of personal 
 injury or social ostracism now termed boycotting.
 
 Ixii. Appendix A. 
 
 " The accounts given of the action of the strikers proceedings 
 from yard to yard, and by threats and acts of violence coercing the 
 men who would otherwise be only too glad to remain at work, are 
 too numerous and uncontradicted not to justify the assertion that 
 the State has not done its duty, and that mob law has been allowed 
 to prevail ; while the proportions which the movement has assumed 
 entitle us to say that it is no longer a question of commerce. It 
 has become a question of State. 
 
 " We now have to consider the other side. It will be urged, and 
 fairl}', that unless this violence be used the labourers are compara- 
 tively, if not absolutely, in the hands of the Dock Companies. 
 
 " Whether this is so or not I will not stay to inquire, it is- 
 enough for this to be urged to render it an affair not of commerce 
 but of the State. The State must meet the responsibility thrown upon> 
 it, if it does not it will only put off an evil day ever to increase in 
 intensity; the price «vill be the same, but the number of the Sibyl- 
 line books will continue to decrease. 
 
 " Having carried matters thus far, I am bound to put forward 
 what I believe to be the duty of Government. There are two 
 courses open, one is to institute a court of inquiry as to the com- 
 plaints of the men and the ability of the Dock Companies to meet 
 their demands. Should the court so appointed arrive at the fore- 
 gone conclusion that the men ought to have more money, but that 
 the Dock Companies cannot afford to pay more (again a foregone 
 conclusion), no doubt the British public will agree to the differ- 
 ence being paid out ot the Consolidated Fund, or perhaps Sir A. 
 Lusk and others who have proffered their gratuitous advice will 
 raise a voluntary subscription. 
 
 "The other course, and that which I venture to say is the more- 
 statesmanlike, is to reduce the number seeking work at the Dock 
 entrances until supply and demand raise the wages of the men by the 
 natural action of economic law. This is only to be effectually done by 
 providing for the superabundant population by State colonization. 
 Mill says : ' There need be no hesitation in affirming that coloni- 
 zation in the present state of the world is the very best affair of 
 business in which the Capital of an old and wealthy country can 
 possibly engage.' " 
 
 He pointed out that the difficulty with which the Dock Com- 
 panies were really contending was the difficulty of dealing with re- 
 dundant populations, which had been the study of statesmen and 
 politicians of all times. 
 
 At the Trade Union Congress, which opened in Dundee, the 
 following resolution was unanimously adopted amid loud applause r
 
 Appendix A. Ixiii. 
 
 *' That this Congress is of opinion that the Dock labourers of London 
 are more than justified in the position that they have taken up, and 
 considers that their employers are acting in a most tyrannical and 
 arbitrary manner in refusing the moderate demands of the men. 
 We, therefore recommend the trades of the United Kingdom to 
 render the labourers their utmost financial support, believing that 
 it will be conducive to the national interest that the condition of 
 the labourers should be improved." A collection of _^io was made 
 at the Congress on behalf of the London Dock labourers. 
 
 The Times, in its leader of this date, alluding to the disappoint- 
 ment of the anticipations which had prevailed as to a settlement of 
 the strike, said : 
 
 " It was believed that a coalition, which the Dock Companies 
 could not resist, had been formed between the wharfingers, the 
 shipowners, and the Dock labourers. But, while a certain number 
 of the wharfingers had agreed to the Dock labourers' terms, it now 
 appears that a number of the leading firms, so far from authorizino- 
 the arrangement proposed by Mr. Lafone, took their stand on the 
 side of the Dock Companies. In default of unanimity among the 
 wharfingers, the shipowners naturally hang back, and the Dock 
 Companies refuse to give way." 
 
 It pointed out that a new factor had entered into the struggle, 
 namely, foreign money, which had added to the staying power of 
 the strikers. On the question of an increase of rates, or an increase 
 of charges, the Times said : 
 
 " There are few people competent to pronounce offhand how far 
 the rise in Dock rates, which, it is said, must accompany a sur- 
 render to the labourers' demands, is a thing which the shippino- 
 trade will tolerate. We can only point to the sympathy which ship- 
 owners and merchants have largely shown with the men's demands 
 as evidence, so far as it goes, that other portions of the community 
 are willing to share the increased burden with the Dock companies." 
 
 After encouraging the strikers for a couple of weeks, the Times 
 seemed at last to have found out that they were not quite so worthy 
 of its encouragement as it had at first supposed them to be, as will 
 appear from the following remarks : 
 
 " The intemperate character of some of those who have been 
 chosen, or have chosen themselves, as the leaders of the Dock 
 labourers is bearing fruit. The manifesto calling upon the whole 
 body of the London workmen to strike in a body to-day, unless the 
 demands o* the Dock labourers were conceded, was orally with- 
 drawn by the speakers in Hyde Park yesterda3\ It ought
 
 Ixiv. Appendix A. 
 
 never to have been issued. It was a wicked and reckless attempt 
 to sacrifice the interests of four millions of Londoners to the claims 
 of, comparative!)' speaking, a handful of persons. It had not even 
 the excuse of being effective from the tactical point of view. No 
 chaos that could have been produced in other trades could have 
 made the position of the Dock Companies worse. We do not 
 believe for a moment that any attempt to give effect to the manifesto 
 would have been successful, but such an attempt would have at 
 once turned public sympathy into indignation. The issuing of the 
 manifesto was as blind a move as it was reckless. So utterly mis- 
 calculated was the power of its utterers that it was withdrawn under 
 pressure from the very trade-unions which it was intended to incite 
 to action. If the Dock labourers are wise, the failure of this abomin- 
 able manifesto will teach them how little Mr. John Burns's leader- 
 ship is likely to hasten a settlement of the dispute. We say nothing 
 of the hectoring and gratuitously insulting tone which this gentle- 
 man has observed towards his opponents, in both their public and 
 their private capacities, although it is evident that that has 
 embittered the course of negotiations. Mr. Burns is not the only 
 person who has performed the converse process to that of throwing 
 oil upon troubled waters. He has now met with an auxiliary, whose 
 harangues, while not competing with those of Mr. Burns in oflfen- 
 siveness, are perhaps more remarkable for the inflammatory senti- 
 ments they express. Mr. Cuninghame Graham's} remark, that 
 ' revolutions are not made with with rose-water,' is open to the 
 obvious rejoinder that neither are they supi^ressed with rose-water. 
 It is a calamity for the strikers to own allegiance to such leaders as 
 these, whose blatant vindictiveness is the very thing to stiffen the 
 backs of the Dock Directors. 
 
 " The conduct of the strike, which began with a promise of 
 studious moderation, has, in fact, developed tendencies which, 
 unless speedily checked, must inevitablv estrange from it all public 
 good-will whatever. Intimidation, in particular, is playing a very 
 definite part in the maintenance of the strike. The violence of the 
 mobs gathered at the entrances to the Docks, and led by the 
 pickets placed there by the strike committee, eflfectually prevents 
 any exercise of free will by labourers who might be willing to assist 
 the Dock Companies. These scenes go far to justify the condem- 
 nation passed upon the practice of picketing by a Royal Commis- 
 sion many years ago, as one which often leads to actual intimida- 
 tion. It is instructive to notice that Mr. Burns yesterday enjoined 
 his hearers to 'clear out all the blacklegs that were left in the 
 London Docks.' If it is necessary that the strike should continue, 
 it must b? conducted with a proper regard for personal freedom. It 
 ,must be confessed that the police have too often remained passive
 
 Appendix A. Ixv. 
 
 spectators of the rowdy violence offered to men who wished to be 
 allowed to exercise their right of working for whomever they 
 plesed. Perhaps the reason has been that the police were in in- 
 sufficient force. But the avenues to the Docks do not cover so 
 extensive an area that they are not capable of being thoroughly 
 protected. It is the duty of the authorities to see that the game is 
 played fairly, not with loaded dice." 
 
 Mr. T. Sutherland, M.P., writing to the Times, said that the P. 
 and O. Company alone had lost ;^ 15,000 by the strike in a fort- 
 night. 
 
 September ^rd. — Strike still in full force, and dead-lock between 
 Companies and dockers complete, although more work was being 
 done in the Docks than during any previous day of the strike. It 
 seemed probable that a solution of the difficulty might be found 
 through the action of the ship-owners, who were still pressing their 
 demand that the Dock Companies should allow them to discharge 
 their own vessels. The answer of the Directors was that although 
 they were well disposed towards the proposal of the ship-owners, 
 they could only express their regret that they saw serious difficulties 
 in the way of complying with their proposal at this juncture ; and 
 further, that as soon as the pressure of the strike was over they 
 would be willing to meet the Committee named in Mr. Sutherland's 
 letter of August 31. If in view of all this the men had been 
 inclined to resume their work temporarily upon the terms last 
 offered by the Dock Companies, an arrangement would speedily 
 have been made by which the hiring of men for loading and un- 
 loading the vessels would have been left entirely in the hands of the 
 ship-owners. 
 
 Money in support of the strikers was still coming in abundantly, 
 the natural effect of which was to encourage the men to hold out 
 to the bitter end. 
 
 Numbers of the labourers waited upon the Directors and ex- 
 pressed their willingness to return to work were it not for the fear 
 of the consequences. 
 
 As soon as daylight broke gangs of pickets took up their position 
 at every Dock entrance and in front of the wharves. Men who 
 came to work were waylaid and persuaded to join the strikers. 
 Another device of the strikers was to appoint several labourers to 
 offer themselves to the managers as willing to work. When these 
 got inside the Docks they at once set to work to persuade all the 
 
 e
 
 Ixvi. Appendix A. 
 
 other men at work to come out. Before breakfast, almost all the 
 labourers had by these means been induced to join the strikers. 
 The sailors on board the vessels also assisted the strikers by giving 
 them information as to what was going on inside the Docks. It 
 was estimated that the pickets on duty on this day numbered 
 15,000. 
 
 The strike epidemic was still spreading. About 6,000 tailors in 
 the East End were out on strike, besides a large number of Jewish 
 cigar makers, cigarette makers, and boot finishers. 
 
 The Dock Committee pointed out to the public that while the 
 agricultural labourer was paid only 2^d. per hour, 5d. per hour was 
 paid at the Docks even to the most inferior class of labourers — the 
 casuals. They also expressed regret at the violent attacks which 
 were being made upon Mr. Norwood, and stated that throughout 
 the strike Mr. Norwood had acted with the unanimous approval of 
 all his colleagues in every respect, and that every one of them 
 wished to take his full share of the responsibility for everything 
 that had been done. 
 
 It was announced that the Lord Mayor, Mr. Alderman White- 
 head, was expected from Scotland in a day or two with a view of 
 using his utmost efforts to bring about a settlement of the strike. 
 It was stated that his lordship had all along been in favour of the 
 contention of the men with regard to a rise in their wages. He 
 was returning to intercede with the Dock Committee to come to a 
 settlement with the labourers, and he would, if necessary, " con- 
 vene a public meeting of the citizens of London to bring turther 
 influence to bear on the parties to the strike to lead to a termination 
 of the dispute in as speedy and as satisfactory a manner as possible." 
 
 A conference took place between the Dock Directors and repre- 
 sentative shipowners. Mr, Norwood, who presided, said he could 
 not see how the carrying out of the shipowners' suggestion could 
 be beneficial, as the shipowners could not discharge their ships unless 
 they had lightermen, and the lightermen did not show any disposition 
 to resume work. He begged the shipowners not to persist in their 
 demands at the present moment, although assuring them that the 
 Dock Directors had every disposition to regard their wishes with 
 respect. Sir Donald Currie, M. P., expressed his regret that there 
 was no chance of an immediate acquiescence in the proposals of the 
 shipowners by the Committee. Mr. Norwood, in the course of some
 
 Appendix A. Ixvii. 
 
 further remarks, mentioned that two ships of the Allan Line had 
 been for days in the Millwall Dock unable to discharge, although 
 this line always discharged their own ships. Ultimately a letter 
 was given to the shipowners' representatives signed by Mr. Norwood 
 on behalf of the Dock Committee which was as follows : 
 
 " Gentlemen, — The Joint Committee, having carefully considered 
 the request made by a deputation of shipowners that they should, 
 as a provisional step and subject to arrangements hereafter to be 
 made, be permitted to discharge their ships themselves, regret that 
 at this juncture they see very serious difficulties to such step. 
 
 •' The Joint Committee reiterate most emphatically their inten- 
 tion at the earliest possible moment, when the pressure of the 
 strike has passed, to meet the committee named in Mr. Suther- 
 land's letter of the 31st of August, and, with the view of facili- 
 tating this object, suggest that the committee above referred to 
 should appoint a small body of their practical officers who could 
 be called in to assist to meet those of the Joint Committee in the 
 discussion of the necessary preliminary details." 
 
 At a subsequent meeting of shipowners the following resolution, 
 moved by Mr. T. Sutherland, M.P., and seconded by Sir Donald 
 Currie, M.P., was passed : " That a reply be sent to Mr. Nor- 
 wood's communication informing him that the shipowners have 
 learned with much regret that the Joint Committee have not 
 seen fit to comply with the request to allow owners to do their own 
 work, and that with reference to that part of Mr. Norwood's com- 
 munication suggesting the appointment of practical officers to dis- 
 cuss this question the shipowners desire to state thai the committee 
 named in Mr. Sutherland's letter of Saturday was specially desig- 
 nated as a committee of practical men qualified to discuss any 
 proposals made by the Dock authorities, and that this committee 
 will be prepared to wait on the Dock authorities for this purpose 
 whenever called upon by the latter to do so." 
 
 The Watermen's Company issued another warning to the lighter- 
 men in the following terms : " The attention of the freemen of the 
 Watermen and Lightermen's Company is earnestly called to the 
 provisions of the 66th section of the Company's Act (22 and 23 
 Victoria c. 133): 
 
 "'No barge, lighter, boat, or other like craft, for the carrying of 
 goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be worked or navigated within 
 the limits of this Act unless there be in charge in such craft a 
 lighterman licensed in manner hereinbefore mentioned ; or an ap- 
 prentice qualified as hereinbefore mentioned ; and if any such craft 
 be navigated in contravention of this section, the owner thereof
 
 Ixviii. Appendix A. 
 
 shall, in respect of such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding ;^5, 
 subject to this proviso, that no such penalty shall be payable if the 
 owner proves, to the satisfaction of the magistrate or court before 
 whom the case is heard, that he is unable, for the usual compen- 
 sation, to obtain the services of any such lighterman or apprentice.' " 
 
 Mr. Graves, Maaster Lighterman, of Botolph House, left his 
 counting-house to take up work on the river, in order to show his 
 men that he was not afraid of threats. He told his men to go 
 below if they were frightened. The Master Lightermen supported 
 the Dock Company in resisting an increase in wages on the ground 
 that rates ruled too low to admit of an increase, and they pointed 
 out that competition now rules the markets of the world, the use of 
 the telegraph levelling all profits to the mmzmmn, and contended 
 that while this keen competition affected stock, plant, &c., there 
 'was no reason why it should stop short of labour as it had hitherto 
 done. 
 
 In the early morning Mr. Burns addressed a meeting at the Tidal 
 Basin, and then proceeded to the Custom House. A number o{ 
 Metropolitan police, both mounted and on foot, were present, d?iif on 
 heing told by Mr. Burns that their services were not likely to he 
 required, they went away. Burns announced that he had received 
 ;^ 1 5,000 from Australia, and they expected the total receipts of the 
 day to reach ;^3,ooo. Referring to the battle which was being 
 waged betwixt the Dock Companies, the wharfingers, and the ship- 
 owners, he said that after these parties had weakened each other 
 the Dock Labourers would step in and knock the stuffing out of 
 the three of them. He alluded to the presence of the mounted 
 police at the meeting, and said the strikers did not need the police^ 
 and could keep the peace well enough without them. If they 
 thought he was going to be intimidated by the presence of the 
 police they were very much mistaken. " Up to now their relations 
 with the police had been most cordial, and he knew that the men 
 on strike had the sympathy of those in the force. ... In spite of 
 what had been done for the Docks, he repeated that they were going 
 to bombard all the Dock gates with horse, foot, and artillery until 
 every blackleg was got out of them." After a vote had been taken 
 pledging the labourers to continue the strike. Burns mentioned that 
 a " Russian vessel, laden with eggs, had come into those Docks, but 
 the captain had refused to allow the men sent by the consignees to 
 u iload, as they were not competent men. Now the eggs had be-
 
 Appendix A. Ixix. 
 
 come rotten, and they had better keep them till the end of the 
 strike, and then pelt Mr. Norwood with them." 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill, Tillett said that Mr. Norwood had. 
 opposed Mr. Plimsoli when the latter was fighting for the lives of 
 the sailors. With reference to the Trade Union Congress, he was 
 glad to say that Mr. Shipton and Mr. Broadhurst had altered their 
 tactics and were now going to help. Burns, speaking at the 
 meeting, said that they had received ^^30 from the East End branch 
 of the Ironfounders' Society, and ;^20o by the first post at the 
 " Wades Arms," in addition to ^1,500 from Melbourne. Referring 
 to the police, he said that when he started to speak at the Tidal 
 Basin that morning there were one or two horse patroUers there. 
 But he gave them a hint that they were not wanted and they quitted* 
 He was glad to hear that 500 extra police had been sent from Scot- 
 land Yard to the London Docks, as it meant that the men were to 
 have a holiday, and that there would be 500 more converts to the 
 Dock Strike and 500 more " tanners." He further said that if Sir 
 Donald Currie took his boats to Southampton he would be jumping 
 out of the frying-pan into the fire, as he, Burns, wanted an hour or 
 two's holiday, and he would go to Southampton and make it im- 
 possible for a ship to be loaded. 
 
 Strikes were spreading in the West-end, most of the men at the 
 large engineering works being out. The moving spirit in this revolt 
 was John Williams, the Socialistic leader. 
 
 Widespread discontent manifested itself in the Liverpool Docks, 
 where most of the men struck work in the South Docks, although 
 many of them were receiving 5s. a day and 8d. an hour overtime. 
 
 At Rochester extra police aid was secured to protect the men who 
 were working in unloading ships from the threatened violence of 
 large gangs of coal whippers, who were marching about the city in 
 gangs, wearing blue, white, and red rosettes. 
 
 One hundred thousand relief tickets, each representing is. in 
 value, were this day distributed in the East End. 
 
 At a meeting held in Bermondsey, Burns boasted that the " No 
 Work Manifesto " had added to the strike funds about ^'2,500 a day^ 
 and that there would soon be strikes at Southampton and Glasgow, 
 where the shipowners talked of sending their ships, as they had 
 talked of sending them to Liverpool. The Committee had stopped 
 t heir game there (at Liverpool) for there was a strike there now.
 
 Ixx. Appendix A. 
 
 A meeting of the Tyneside and District Labourers' Association 
 at Newcastle, resolved to forward £i\o to the Dock Strike 
 Fund. 
 
 A telegram from New York stated that mass meetings had been 
 held at Philadelphia and New York, at which resolutions expressing 
 sympathy with the Dock labourers in London, and pledging those 
 present to aid them as far as possible, were passed. 
 
 Mr. John Lowles, a London County Councillor, writing to the 
 Times said : " I can quite confirm the statement signed by the lead- 
 ing East End clergy, which has already appeared in your columns, 
 that the movement is a spontaneous one, that the men's grievances 
 are real, and have not been fomented for personal or political 
 purposes.-" 
 
 Mr. J. Dodson, writing to the Times, said that the shipowners and 
 merchants were precisely the men who were responsible for the 
 past mismanagement,the ruinous extensions, and the present poverty 
 of the Docks, and that the Docks were the victims. He explained 
 the matter thus : 
 
 " The merchants and shipowners got upon the Dock directorate 
 in overwhelming numbers (and at large salaries) and were in sole 
 command for years — the voice of the proprietors at the meetings 
 being always drowned by the votes of Directors and their London 
 friends. 
 
 " And how did they use their power ? Simply for their own advan- 
 tage ; shipping charges were reduced and millions expended on new 
 Docks of no use to any one except to bring down rates on shipping. 
 And this contmued till dividends had fallen from 5 down to \ and 
 even nil per cent. And now, forsooth, the ' Docks ' are the 
 offenders ; the plundered proprietors are the troublers of the stream, 
 and to be punished and made a scapegoat for other people's sins by 
 payi.ig impossible wages and working at a loss that shipowners may 
 escape a rise in rates, and be able to pay themselves and their con- 
 stituents unjust dividends." 
 
 Another correspondent of the Times succinctly summed up the 
 situation in these terms : 
 
 " The shipowners are most anxious to have the goods delivered, 
 but certain labourers, under the lead of Socialistic or ultra-Demo- 
 cratic persons, contend that they alone have the right to unload 
 those ships, at certain wages fixed by themselves; while thousands 
 of other labourers, willing to do the work, are prevented, through 
 the interference of the autocratic strikers. 
 
 " Is this reasonable or fair ? Have we any authorities able to pro-
 
 Appendix A. Ixxi. 
 
 tect persons willing to work, or are we to pass under the rule of the 
 mob ? If our law allows such a state of things, surely it is time it 
 was altered, giving protection and freedom to all. 
 
 " It will be a satisfactory result of the present crisis if it should 
 demonstrate that combination either of employed or employers is 
 in restraint of trade and subversive of national prosperity." 
 
 The Times in its leader said : 
 
 " The strike drags along, but it has lost its early vigour. The 
 Dock Directors have refused to recognise the representative capacity 
 of Mr. Burns or Mr. Tillett in any further negotiations. But the 
 struggle will apparently be settled not by negotiation but by sheer 
 endurance. . . . We may assume for the present that there is 
 no way of setting trade in motion again short of a surrender by one 
 of the two parties in the dispute. No signs of wavering are shown 
 in Leadenhall Street, but is it the same with the strikers ? . . . 
 It is sad that hunger should be the principal arbiter in a strike. But 
 it is the main incident of a strike just as bloodshed is of a war. 
 The strikers enter upon the fray knowing what they may be called 
 upon to taste, and, to use Mr. Cuninghame Graham's expression, 
 * Social revolutions are not made with rose water.' " 
 
 The Times further stated that the Dock Labourer had its syra 
 pathy in his attempts to raise his wages and his standard of living, 
 and it seemed to commit itself to the view that the Dock Labourer 
 ought to be paid '' an exceptional rate of wage while he is at work." 
 It pointed out that the strikers had " immensely bettered their 
 position," inasmuch as they had obtained the minimum payment of 
 2S., the promise of the abolition of the contractor, and, under the 
 new order of things which was to supplant the contract system, 
 they were to receive 6d. an hour and 8d. overtime. " So that they 
 will obtain the wages they asked for, provided they consent to work 
 at what is, no doubt, somewhat high pressure." Practically, the 
 Dock Labourers had got all they ever asked for, besides which 
 there was a fair prospect that the men would soon cease to be the 
 servants of the Dock Companies and become the servants of the 
 shipowners. The Times further said : " The shipowners have com- 
 mitted themselves indirectly to the principle of paying a higher rate of 
 wages for the same work that the Dock Labourer now performs for 
 the Dock Companies." Notwithstanding the fact that the Dock 
 Directors had conceded practically all that the men asked for, the 
 Times censured the Directors for being " hard and unbending in 
 manner."
 
 Ixxii. Appendix A. 
 
 At the Trade Union Congress Mr. Richard, the president, in his 
 address, said, referring to the Dock Strike, that the Dock Companies 
 had no conscience and were chiefly composed of men who fulfiDed 
 none of the duties of employers, but whose only interest is in the 
 amount of dividend which can be squeezed out of the bone and 
 sinew of the labourer. 
 
 September \th, — The strike seemed to be wearing itself out, and 
 men were returning to work in increasing numbers, the result being 
 seen in the movements of traffic both on the river and in the 
 streets. 
 
 Mr. Neville Lubbock, on behalf of the Docks Committee^ 
 denied that the labourers were continuing the strike because the con- 
 cessions made by the Directors were considered insufficient, and he 
 challenged the Strike Committee to allow the men to decide for 
 themselves by withdrawing their 12,000 pickets. If these were 
 witndrawn the Docks would be filled with men anxious for employ- 
 ment. The Dock Committee also stated that they regarded it as an 
 absurd contention that where labour was superabundant a higher 
 rate of wages should be given than where it was scarce, this propo- 
 sition being involved in the doctrine that because the casual la- 
 bourer was unable to obtain a full week's work his rate of pay 
 should be increased. The real purpose of the strike was to obtain 
 an increase of pay to all labour throughout London, and if it had 
 succeeded in this purpose the effect would have been to increase the 
 supply of labour while decreasing the demand for it. 
 
 The Dock officials declared that they had little faith in the power 
 of the Lord Mayor to eff^ect any change of the situation ; in fact, 
 both sides resented the intrusion of arbitrators. The leaders of the 
 strike were not anxious to depose themselves, while the Dock Com- 
 panies considered that they knew their business better than any one 
 else. The latter stated that the strike would have been at an 
 end long ago but for the intervention of outsiders. 
 
 A novel sight was witnessed on the river. A barge, which was 
 evidently laden witn perishable goods, was being navigated down 
 the river by a gentleman attired in a frock coat, and silk hat. 
 He was assisted in his endeavours by a young man, who was 
 equally well dressed. These two appeared to unconcernedly stand 
 ^he jeers and flouts which were freely bestowed on them by the 
 lightermen and watermen out on strike.
 
 Appendix A. Ixxiii. 
 
 Mr. Lafone had interviews with Messrs. Burns and Champioa 
 during the day, the result being that the following agreement was 
 drawn up : 
 
 " 36, Mark-lane, London, Sept. 4th. 
 
 '* Agreement between Dock Companies, Wharfingers, Granary- 
 keepers and Workmen, 
 
 "Wages, and conditions made with men. Outsiders called in not 
 to be discharged with less than 2s. pay. That contract work shall 
 be abandoned, and a system of piece-work be substituted, by which 
 the men shall receive the total gross receipts of the job direct from 
 the companies, drawing, in the meantime, a minimum of 6d. per 
 hour ordinary time and 8d. per hour overtime for their work so 
 long as the job lasts. The shares of the ' plus ' to be divided as 
 follows : The share of each man and each foreman to be equal. 
 Pay for casual work to be 6d. per hour ; no pay for dinner time. 
 Overtime 8d. per hour, overtime to be reckoned from 6 p.m. till 
 6 a.m. or 8 p.m. till 8 a.m. We, the undersigned, representatives of 
 Dock workers and others now on strike, pledge ourselves to have 
 the following terms faithfully carried out at each Dock, wharf, 
 granary, or warehouse where the above terms are agreed : First, 
 that men shall not work at any Dock or wharf on less wages or worse 
 terms than those stated above ; secondly, that men shall immediately 
 return to work at all Docks, wharves, or granaries where terms as 
 per list herewith have been agreed ; thirdly, that all lightermen 
 shall at once resume work, agreeing to submit any grievances they 
 may have to arbitration ; fourthly, coal workers to resume work at 
 once. (Signature of Dock, wharf proprietor, or granary-keeper.) 
 The above scale of pay is agreed to subject to the representatives of 
 the men carrying out their part of this agreement." 
 
 Mr. Champion said that if these proposals were accepted by the 
 Strike Committee " the men would be allowed to work at any wharf 
 whose owner signed, though picketing would prevent the men from 
 entering other wharves." 
 
 At the morning meeting on Tower Hill, Burns stated that he 
 had received over;^3oo by the first post that morning. Contribu- 
 tions had arrived from all classes of society. They had received 
 ;^20 from the Walsall Trade Union, ^^5 from Lady Stanley of 
 Alderley, and £$0 from the Marquis of Ripon, besides fifty ;2^io 
 notes from some of the principal merchants. 
 
 Referring to Mr. Norwood, he said : 
 
 '*He would negotiate with the 'old gentleman' himself to
 
 Ixxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 settle the strike, and he would do it with a greater feeling of 
 pleasure and pride than he would with Mr. Norwood, who had 
 become simply disreputable in the eyes of the commercial world. 
 If the men wanted someone else to negotiate, he would willingly 
 stand aside, but would advise the men to insist on Ben Tillet, 
 their official secretary and accredited representative, being present 
 when the negotiations were conducted. Mr. Norwood had played 
 the last ace he had got up his sleeve. Like the heathen Chinee, 
 that gentleman had produced several aces, and he was capable of 
 producing a ievi knaves, as he made them himself." 
 
 He also stated there was a Dockers' strike in Liverpool that 
 day, and he would do his best to get a strike in Glasgow the 
 next day, and in Southampton the day after. " Sir Donald Currie 
 must not sit on the fence much longer, but decide either for or 
 against the men. He believed Sir Donald Currie would choose the 
 former course, and the sooner he did the better." 
 
 It was stated that a better system of picketing would be put in 
 force on the following day, and that a strong effort would be 
 made to draw out the men who were still at work in the wharves 
 along Tooley Street. At Hay's Wharf a proposal was made by the 
 superintendent that the men should resume work as permanent 
 hands at 2 is per week, 5d. per hour to be paid for overtime between 
 5 p.m. and 8 p.m., and 6d. per hour between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. 
 This proposal was submitted to Tom Mann at the City of Salisbury, 
 Tooley Street, the headquarters of the Tooley Street men, but he 
 promptly declined to give it any support. 
 
 A manifesto, signed by H. Quelch, was issued calling on the corn 
 porters and general labourers on strike at the granaries along 
 Bermondsey wall to refuse to return to work unless they received 
 5s. lod. per day ; an advance of lod. 
 
 At a meeting outside Butler's Wharf, addressed by Tom Mann, 
 the terms proposed by Mr. Lafone as a basis for settling the strike 
 were rejected until the case of the other wharves was settled. At 
 another meeting in Southwark Park, also addressed by Mann, a 
 show of hands proved unfavourable to the acceptance of Mr. La- 
 fone's proposals. 
 
 A meeting of foremen lightermen, held at the " Black Bull," 
 Upper Thames Street, unanimously resolved that all the foremen 
 present would undertake the navigation of craft, and would assist 
 their employers by every means in their power during the 
 strike.
 
 Appendix A. Ixxv. 
 
 A meeting of workmen employed at the Royal Small Arms Fac- 
 tory, Enfield Lock, was held in support of the Dock Strike Mr. James 
 Rowlands, M.P., was the principal speaker. Referring to the 
 statement of the Directors that they could get plenty of men at 5d. 
 an hour, he said .- " If they could, then the Directors were desirous 
 of practising the old game of playing off one class of workers against 
 another. That was the game that used to be successful in skilled 
 trades, but which Trade Unions rendered abortive now." 
 
 John Williams, addressing the discontented labourers of Messrs. 
 Mawdesley and Sons, and other firms in Westminster Bridge Road, 
 said that, " if they could not get a crust by sending in petitions, 
 then they must stop the production of goods at that factory, while 
 they gave the producer, the hard working labourer, a starvation 
 wage." 
 
 At a special meeting of the St. Albans City Council, Councillor 
 Herlock, ex-Mayor, endeavoured to bring before the Council the 
 question of the Dock Strike, with a view of inducing the Council to 
 subscribe " something substantial " to the Dock funds. The subject 
 was, however, ruled out of order. 
 
 The Dock Strike at Liverpool ended owing to the demands of 
 men, namely 6s. a day and is. an hour overtime being conceded. 
 
 Twenty thousand is. relief tickets were distributed by the Strike 
 Committee. Some men succeeded in getting hold of several tickets, 
 which they afterwards sold at half their value, and spent the money 
 on drink. One man obtained no fewer than seventeen is. tickets 
 on one day. 
 
 A public meeting was held at the Stratford Town Hall in support 
 of the Dock Strike. Mr. Forrest Fulton, M.P,, sent a subscription 
 of ^i, and Mr. Archibald Grove sent two guineas. A resolution 
 was carried "expressing the heartfelt sympathy of the inhabitants 
 of West Ham for the struggling Dock labourers, and manifesting 
 its detestation of the meanness displayed by the Directors under the 
 advice of Mr. Norwood ; that their method of resistance having 
 become a public scandal, the meeting pledges itself to do its utmost 
 in support of the dockers by providing them with supplies until 
 their moderate demands are conceded." 
 
 John Burns, speaking at this meeting, said that during the past 
 nine months he had succeeded in forming no less than nine Unions 
 the last of them being that of the gas-stokers ; that victory, indeed 
 was the primary cause of the Dock labourers rising. He further 
 said that " Mr. Norwood in his actions had ceased to be a gentle-
 
 Ixxvi. Appendix A. 
 
 man. He had lost the attributes of a man and had come to appear 
 as a financial roue ox a commercial debauchee." 
 
 A meeting in support of the Dock Strike was held in Birming- 
 ham, at which it was decided to ask the Mayor to convene a town's 
 meeting to elicit more extensive sympathy. Mr. Jesse Collings ex- 
 pressed his hearty sympathy with the workmen, whose demands he 
 considered just and reasonable. 
 
 The Rev. Harry Jones, writing to the Times, expressed his 
 approval of the attempt which was being made by the Dock 
 labourers to "realise better corporate life, and so for the future be 
 enabled to protect themselves " ; and he criticised those who had 
 talked about the godlessness of East London, as there had been 
 much self-sacrifice and a display of genuine compassion on behalf 
 of the dockers. He thought this corporate life would tend to raise 
 a class and "to check individuals in their efforts to help themselves 
 by climbing over their neighbour's backs. Thus we may see a 
 righteous spirit at work in such as ' Strike with those who strike,' 
 though they are personally losers by their display of compassion." 
 Mr. Jones had, however, serious misgivings as to the result of this 
 effort to realise corporate life among the dockers, for he went on to 
 say : 
 
 " As ' Docking,' so to speak, becomes a more distinctly recog- 
 nised vocation, must not the residue of the unskilled and unattached 
 (whose hunger is none the less because their fingers are all thumbs) 
 be inevitably blocked out by the advent of what would be virtually 
 a fresh Trade Union ? I am afraid that the rumour of increased 
 wages at the Docks will at first bring more loose wanderers up to 
 London, to be repelled if a new combination of, and cohesion 
 among, dockers is to survive its birth. The pressure of a swarm 
 of fresh vagabonds upon the ranks of resident East London 
 labourers would, it is to be feared, presently tend to frustrate all 
 efforts to define their position and to give them corporate influence." 
 
 September 5. — Two or three thousand men went to work this 
 morning as a result of the Lafone agreement, and more work was 
 being done on the riverside than had been done for weeks past. 
 
 The strike leaders thought the other wharfingers would be com- 
 pelled to follow the Lafone section, as they could never endure the 
 sight of Mr. Lafone and his party making extraordinary profits in 
 consequence of the dearth of the markets. The Dock Directors, 
 however, treated the action of Mr. Lafone and his followers very
 
 Appendix A. Ixxvii. 
 
 lightly, believing that the main question, namely, the relations of 
 their labourers and themselves was practically unaflFected by it. They 
 knew that the greater part of their business was of such a nature 
 that it could not be performed without the use of the Docks. 
 
 The tone of the strike leaders was still cock-a-hoop. This was 
 owing chiefly to the fact that money was coming in fast. They 
 stated that they placed no confidence in the word of the Directors, 
 and the Directors on the other hand, were so exasperated with the 
 strike leaders that they would not meet them. This personal feel- 
 ing, perhaps, did more than anything else to delay a settlement. 
 
 The special correspondent of the Times, dealing with the ques- 
 'tion of intimidation, said : 
 
 "Some influence is at work among the men which is sufficient 
 to cause great terror. For the most part men appear to fear not so 
 much immediate violence as that they may become marked men ; 
 and it is quite certain that many hundreds of men would return to 
 work if they dared. . . . It is beyond doubt that a brutal 
 assault, followed by robbery, was committed on the third ofllicer of 
 the Clan Graham, the Lascar crew of which were frightened almost 
 out of their senses by menaces before she sailed for Glasgow." 
 
 In the Docker's procession of this day an effigy of Mr. Norwood 
 'was carried on a gibbet. 
 
 A further conference was held between the shipowners and Mr. 
 Norwood, the upshot being that Mr. Norwood stated that the ship 
 owners could not be allowed to discharge their ships pending a meet- 
 ing of the Committee which was to deal with the question. The ship- 
 owners also put to Mr. Norwood this question : "Do you see any way 
 for the arrangement of the present dispute, looking to the transfer 
 ■of trade from London to other ports ?" To which Mr. Norwood 
 replied : " We will not meet the men more than we have done." 
 
 At the Dock House it was stated that the stevedores had applied 
 to the Strike Committee to be allowed to go to work, as they held 
 that the strike ought to terminate. This permission was refused. 
 Much indignation was expressed as to the picketing system at the 
 Docks, and it was asked how long would be tolerated in general life 
 in the City this prevention of the men from following their employ- 
 ment. It was added that even the Salvation Army, if it attempted 
 the infliction of constantly interrupting the commercial traffic of the 
 City of London would be stopped. As to the proposals of the 
 shipowners and the meetings under Mr. Lafone, they were dismissed
 
 Ixxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 with the remark that if the Dock Companies had been allowed to 
 deal with their business without interference the strike would have 
 been ended long ago. 
 
 Owing to the prevailing intimidation Sir Henry Le Marchant, one 
 of the Dock Directors, called upon Mr. Monro, the Chief Commis- 
 sioner of Police, and stated that the Companies had to encounter 
 great difficulties owing to the threats which were made to their 
 men. In confirmation of this the Secretary of the Docks Com- 
 mittee also sent the following letter to the Chief Commissioner : 
 
 " Sir, — 1 have the honour to state that we understand from many 
 of our men that they would be willing to work if they were assured 
 of protection by the police from violence on returning to their 
 homes. I have, therefore, to request that you will authorize your 
 district superintendent that if he should be of opinion that any man 
 may reasonably apprehend violence, to afford him whatever pro- 
 tection he may consider is best calculated to preserve him from 
 injury. 
 
 "I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " H. J. Morgan, Secretary." 
 
 The following notice was also posted by the Committee of the 
 Docks : 
 
 " Important Notice. — Conviction and Imprisonment for Intimi- 
 " dation and Threatening. 
 
 " Whereas Dock labourers and persons employed in the Docks 
 desirous of attending to their lawful employment have been intimi- 
 dated and threatened and interfered with in the performance of 
 their duties by evil-disposed persons inside and outside the Dock 
 premises, notice is hereby given that several convictions have taken 
 place, and severe sentences of imprisonment have been passed by 
 magistrates upon persons who have intimidated and threatened 
 Dock labourers and persons employed in the Docks desirous of at- 
 tending their lawful employment. And further take notice that, 
 upon complaint being made to the London and India Docks Joint 
 Committee of any act of intimidation or threat to any of their work- 
 men or persons employed by them the Directors will immediately 
 order those persons intimidating or threatening to be prosecuted 
 according to the law. — By order, H. J. Morgan, secretary, Dock- 
 house, 109, Leadenhall- street, E.C., Sept. 5, 1889." 
 
 Mr, Richard VVaters, of Lower Thames-street, offered a sub- 
 stantial reward for information as to the persons who maliciously
 
 Appendix A. Ixxix. 
 
 took his barge Turbot, which was loaded with white lead, from her 
 moorings and left her to float to the " condemned hole " where she 
 was found. The barge had been loaded by non-strikers. One of the 
 Master-lightermen warned the agitators not to come aboard his 
 craft, as his men were all armed. 
 
 Whilst Burns was addressing the strikers on Tower Hill he 
 received a communication that the Bishop of London was at the 
 Clergy House in Trinity Square, and would be pleased to confer 
 with him on the situation. Accordingly Burns and Champion went 
 to see the Bishop, with whom they had a long conference. 
 
 At a meeting of Master-lightermen and Barge Owners the fol- 
 lowing resolution was proposed : " Upon condition that the men 
 return to their work upon the old terms when the dockers' strike is 
 settled sufficiently for waterside business to be resumed, the com- 
 mittee will recommend the adjourned meeting of masters on Thurs- 
 day next to appoint a committee to meet an equally representative 
 body of the men, to include one man out of each firm, to discuss any 
 legitimate grievances they had to bring forward." 
 
 But it was ultimately rejected in favour of an amendment, which 
 was as follows : "That this meeting of Master -lightermen, having 
 in view the probability of the strike soon ceasing, resolves to invite 
 the men to resume work at once on the old scale of wages and old 
 management, and pledges itself to listen to any alleged grievances 
 that the men suffer from, and, if possible, to endeavour to ame- 
 liorate them." 
 
 Three members of the Working Lightermen's Committee desired 
 to attend this meeting that they might hear the arguments of their 
 employers on the situation, but the meeting unanimously decided 
 that it would not receive them. 
 
 At the meeting on Tower Hill a number of men had the figure of 
 a man suspended to a pole in the act of being hanged. Under- 
 neath were the words "For Norwood." Ben Tillett boasted that 
 they were able to get out 10,000 men as pickets while the Dock 
 Companies could not get lOO. " He would tell Mr. Norris, the 
 member for Limehouse, that the shouts of the men were his 
 funeral dirge, so far as Parliamentary life was concerned. If the Dock 
 Companies did not give in within a very short time, not only would 
 the blacklegs be got out, but all the permanent hands as well." He 
 said that certain strikers, having been told that if they were willing 
 to go to work they could draw something on account at Messrs. 
 Tatham Bros, office in Gracechurch-street, went and drew some-
 
 Ixxx. Appendix A. 
 
 thing on account, but did not go to work. He seemed to think 
 this was a very virtuous act. 
 
 Burns, referring to the fact that a number of men had gone to 
 work under the Lafone agreement, said that 8,000 or 10,000 men 
 would go into full work, " and they would have to hand over a 
 day's pay to those who were fighting the Dock Companies. . . . 
 What had been done by the Strike Committee was the best pos- 
 sible under the circumstances, and was the only way to bring the 
 Dock Companies face to face with insolvency and bankruptcy. 
 This course would commend itself to shipper after shipper." He 
 announced that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers on the fol- 
 lowing day proposed to make a levy of 3d. a member, which would 
 produce about ^700. At this meeting several subscriptions were 
 handed to Burns, including half-a-sovereign from a Baptist 
 minister. 
 
 The master of the Watermen's Company stated that the lighter- 
 men, who, as a class, were respectable and trustworthy, had been 
 misled. They now showed an anxiety to return to work, and many 
 of them had returned on the old terms. They repudiated all the 
 leaders, the self-appointed chiefs of the tribe, and stated that they 
 came out at first in bona Jide sym^SLihy with the Dock Labourers, 
 but that capital had been made out of their readiness to come out 
 by the self-appointed leaders insisting on fresh demands. They all 
 repudiated the " Work and Wages Committee." 
 
 Messrs. Wallace, Butler, Appleby and other contractors of the 
 Surrey Commercial Docks, waited on Tom Mann in Southwark 
 Park to inform him of their readiness to accede tD the demands of 
 the men, and to signify the same in writing if he would prevail 
 upon the men to start work the next day. Work could be 
 found for 3,000 men. Mann put this proposal to the meeting, which 
 it decided in favour of. Messrs, Wallace and Appleby, two con- 
 tractors, also addressed the meeting, and promised to refuse to 
 unload vessels containing timber and grain. 
 
 Sir Donald Currie addressed the men who were working on board 
 the Grantully Castle, who had been brought from various parts of the 
 kingdom. After thanking them for the work they had done, he said 
 it would be his duty to see in Parliament that they (the Steamship 
 Company) had a right to arrange \vith thetr own men for their own 
 work m their own way. He held that working men, whether at sea
 
 Appendix A. Ixxxf. 
 
 or on land, were entitled to make their own arrangements without 
 restriction or domination or intimidation from anybody. They 
 were now exercising that right on board that ship without injuring 
 any of their fellow-workmen. 
 
 In the West End, John Williams said that if strikes were to suc- 
 ceed, they must prevent employers from getting supplies from other 
 countries or districts. " For instance, if miners went out on strike 
 in Northumberland, they must stop the production of coals, not 
 only in Northumberland, but in Durham and elsewhere. ... It 
 was impossible for working men to live on less than 6d. an hour. 
 He quoted Lord Brassey in his 'Work and Wages,' where the 
 author said he had always found English labour the most profitable, 
 and that one Englishman was worth three Germans and six Chinese, 
 &c. Mr. Williams, at a meeting at Hastings at which Lord Brassey 
 spoke, asked him if this was the case, why had he not paid the 
 English navvy three German's wages ? . . . His purpose was to 
 form a federation to consist of labourers and mechanics. Let all 
 classes of workmen drop distinctions, so that when the mechanics 
 struck the labourers would stop work, and when the labourers struck 
 they would not go out without the mechanics. Hitherto they had 
 lost many strikes through not being willing to drop the distinctions 
 of trade. They were all fighting for one common purpose. They 
 must be like the Knights of Labour, now so powerful in the United 
 States as to be able to dictate terms to employers and boycott those 
 firms that are against the strikers." 
 
 At a meeting held outside Maudslay's works, Williams delivered 
 "a scathing denunciation of employers who sucked the blood of the 
 labourer." 
 
 The editor of Reynold's Newspaper received a further sum of 
 :^9oo from Australia toward the Strike Fund. Nearly ^4,000 had 
 been collected in Melbourne in aid of the strike. Meetings were 
 being held nightly in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart, and 
 other towns, at which resolutions of sympathy with the strikers 
 were passed. At a meeting in Brisbane, the chairman announced 
 that over ^500 had been collected from all classes of the inhabi- 
 tants, including Cabinet ministers, and nearly all the members of 
 the Queensland Parliament. 
 
 Burns stated that the men who had gone to work at Butler's 
 wharf had that day contributed £\'] los. 6d. to the Strike 
 Fund. 
 
 Some ot the wives of the men on strike at East Greenwich sus- 
 
 /
 
 Ixxxii. Appendix A. 
 
 pended across the entrance to Marsh-lane, facing the Greenwich 
 Workhouse, the following inscription : 
 
 " Landlords, please don't call for your rent. Our husbands are 
 out on strike. We will pay when the strike is over." 
 
 The workmen at a number of large steel works in Wales issued 
 notices demanding an advance of lo per cent., about 8,000 men 
 being affected. 
 
 The Royal Mail Steamer Tainui, the sailing of which had been 
 twice postponed, was booked to sail from London on the following 
 Wednesday. The cause of the delay was the inability to get coal 
 and cargo on board. "The assistance of men from Dundee is now 
 being invoked in loading her with a view of getting her off by the 
 above date. The men now loading are berthed on board and are 
 not allowed to leave her, in order to prevent their being subjected 
 to intimidation." 
 
 Mr. Hugh C. Smith, writing to the Times to say that Mr. Lafone 
 did not represent the wharfingers as a body, said : " Mr. Lafone is 
 the manager of Butler's Wharf, which is the property of the Land 
 Securities Company, and tea is warehoused there under an agree- 
 ment with certain importers at rates which rise or fall with the price 
 of labour, so that neither he nor his company has any direct interest 
 in the cost of the labour ?" 
 
 Mr. Edmund Kimber, M.P., writing to the limes as a Shareholder 
 of the Docks, who had never received any dividend, said, 
 *'At present we receive no dividend on our ;^2, 500,000 
 of ordinary stock, and are not likely to get any, no matter 
 what the issue of the strike. The income of the Docks is 
 not sufficient to pay the interest on the _^2, 400,000 of debentures 
 and mortgages, and we cannot pay our creditors. . . . The Lon- 
 don and St. Katherine's Docks, though not in Chancery, and though 
 able to pay its creditors, cannot pay a dividend to its ordinary 
 Shareholders on about ;^5,ooo,ooo of it? capital. Therefore about 
 jTy, 500,000 of Dock capital is already unproductive. If 6d. in- 
 stead of sd. an hour is paid to the labourers, it means that 
 ;^3,ooo,ooo of the debenture capital of both Companies is to go with- 
 out interest. We know, of course, for several years past the build- 
 ing of big ships has been against the capacity of our Docks, and 
 that we cannot expect a dividend from obsolete property, but to ask 
 that ^10,500,000 should be unproductive of the slightest profit, as 
 Mr. Burns does, out of a total of about ^17,000,000, is perfectly 
 preposterous.'* 
 
 Mr, Kimber further stated that there were about 1,500 share-
 
 Appendix A. Ixxxiii. 
 
 holders in the East India Dock Companies, and about 3,000 in the 
 London and St. Katherine Dock Companies, and added : " I look 
 upon this struggle as a most providential event for the purpose of 
 dispersing business to other ports and stopping the growth of 
 London, which is already too much overgrown, as the strike itself 
 proves." 
 
 Mr. J. H. Haynes, late manager of Paul's Wharf Bonded Ware- 
 houses, said in a letter to the Times: "In spite of the general 
 acceptance of the law of supply and demand, it is now conceded 
 that the casual Docker was not to be paid less than 2s. a day. This 
 evidently involves the admission of the principle which is bringing 
 actual support to the strikers — that a man ought not to be paid a 
 starvation wage whatever may be the state of the labour market." 
 
 A former trusteee for shareholders ventured to put in a plea in the 
 columns of the Times " concerning the interests of the poor share- 
 holders, many of whom are widows and orphans of very limited 
 means. These invested their little earnings m the share stock of 
 the great London Dock Companies at a time when the stock was at 
 a premium and considered the safest security for ladies to invest in. 
 Since then there has been a terrible fall in the value of such stock, 
 which has oftentimes yielded but little or no interest, to the great 
 distress of many a shareholder. I personally know a widow and 
 two ladies who have been shareholders for over 30 years who have 
 suffered great straits from the sadly diminished dividends. And 
 now that there has been a little revival of trade and hopes have 
 been raised of better dividends, there comes this unfortunate strike, 
 which must dash all hopes of any increase, at all events for the 
 present. Surely the sympathies of the public will be on the side of 
 these sufferers, rather than of those who have brought about such a 
 disastrous state of things." 
 
 The Tim^s, in its leader, intimated that the strike leaders were 
 " firm in their resolution to bring the Dock Companies face to face 
 with insolvency and bankruptcy," and declared that intimidation 
 was the backbone of the strike : 
 
 *' There are, Mr. Tillett declares, 10,000 men engaged as paid 
 pickets, charged with the duty of preventing their fellows from 
 going back to work at the Docks. It is the presence of these watch- 
 men which keeps the strike alive. If they were withdrawn, it would 
 very speedily collapse, and the street-marchers and processionists 
 would find themselves, to their dismay, left out in the cold. But 
 while the pickets remain in their places the mass of the men do not 
 venture to return to work. The risk would be more than the poor 
 creatures dare face. Of downright violence and outrage the
 
 Ixxxiv. Appendix A, 
 
 instances have not been numerous, but there have been quite enough 
 of them to intimidate. When 20 men have had their heads broken, 
 it is an effective notice to all the others that it may be their turn 
 next." 
 
 Assuming that the strike would succeed, the Times proceeded to 
 discuss its probable consequences : 
 
 "Let us assume that the strike succeeds, and that the men obtain 
 the advance of wages which they are standing out for as their right. 
 They are so numerous already that there has not been work for all 
 of them. With higher wages, the attraction will be greater and 
 more effective, and the ranks of the supernumeraries will be corres- 
 pondingly swollen. Is it likely, however, that with so many more 
 men pressing for employment the advanced rate of pay will be 
 maintained? Things, it is reasonable to suppose, will by-and-by go 
 back to their old footing, and the dearly-bought victory will thus 
 prove unsubstantial and nothing worth. If the labourers become 
 what they have never been as yet, an organised body, they may keep 
 wages at a higher level, but only by the total exclusion of the 
 casual outsiders who serve now to keep them down." 
 
 September 6. — A conference took place at the Mansion House, at 
 which the Lord Mayor (Sir L Whitehead), the Bishop of London, 
 Cardinal Manning, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir J. Lubbock, Sir Andrew 
 Lusk, Mr. Burns and Mr. Tillett were present. The Lord Mayor 
 suggested that the men should return to work at 5d. per hour until 
 March, pending re-arrangements in the meantime. Mr. Burns 
 refused to accept this proposal, and was supported by Cardinal 
 Manning: " It was pointed out that the additional cost incident 
 upon a rise of wages need not fall upon the Dock Companies, as it 
 would be for them and the shipowners and merchants so to adjust 
 their charges as to throw the additional expense, if any, on the con- 
 sumers. But it was thought that provided the principle of paying 
 6d. per hour was conceded, it might be a reasonable and fair com- 
 promise to postpone its operation for a few months. It was, there- 
 fore, resolved by the Lord Mayor and his colleagues to recommend 
 the men and the Companies to agree to the 6d. per hour rate com- 
 ing into operation on and after January i next. The other terms 
 already conceded were taken for granted as being no longer under 
 dispute." When the resolution of the Committee was conveyed to 
 Mr. Burns and Mr. Tillett, they expressed their willmgness to 
 recommend the men to accept this arrangement. The Lord Mayor, 
 the Bishop of London, and Cardinal Manning, subsequently sought 
 an interview with the Dock Committee, before whom they laid his
 
 Appendix A. Ixxxv. 
 
 decision. Mr. Norwood would commit himself to nothing beyond 
 stating that his colleagues and himself were willing to consider the 
 proposal, and would give their answer the next day. 
 
 Considerable influence had been brought to bear upon the Lord 
 Mayor to induce him to call a meeting of the citizens at the 
 Mansion House for the consideration of the subject. Some 
 important amounts had been spontaneously offered to the Lord 
 Mayor for the support of the strikers. *' The Lord Mayor particu- 
 larly desired it to be known that he appeared only in his private 
 capacity." 
 
 The Times Special Correspondent said : *' Among the strikers 
 generally there is a tone of considerable confidence inspired partly, 
 no doubt, by the remarkably successful performances of thtir 
 pickets. There is also another cause for confidence in the fact 
 that the Strike Committee have really abundant funds at their dis- 
 posal. According to Mr. Champion they had yesterday morning 
 no less than ;!^7,ooo to their credit, and money was still coming in 
 abundantly." 
 
 Several thousand men assembled at the gates of the Surrey 
 Commercial Docks willing and resolved to return to work, and it 
 was only by the personal intervention of Mr. Burns that they were 
 prevented. Subsequently, a manifesto forbidding work at the 
 Surrey Commercial Docks without the authority of the South Side 
 Central Committee was posted. 
 
 At the main lines railway stations in London were watched to 
 see whether men from the country were brought to work in the 
 docks. " Several small parties of men have been detected, and in 
 each case, after being spoken to by the picketers, they have refused 
 to work. One or two ships now in the river have been loaded by 
 men who refuse to have anything to do with the strike. These 
 vessels are now being watched, and the crews, after being inter- 
 viewed, have refused to sail. At the present time there are two 
 vessels now in the river ready to proceed to sea, but they are un- 
 able to do so owing to the fact that no seamen can be got to work 
 them. Mr. Cahill, the superintendent of the West India Dock 
 Police was prepared to give men who wish for employment all 
 necessary protection, but the men are not afraid of being molested 
 or interfered with in any way inside the Docks ; it is after they 
 have left their day's employment that the cause for alarm is felt." 
 
 Great dissatisfaction among some of the men employed at the 
 Albert and Victoria Docks, who wished to return to work, but 
 were forbidden to do so by the strike leaders.
 
 Ixxxvi. Appendix A. 
 
 " Many of the men simply came out on strike on principle, and 
 now they have an opportunity of returning to work at a good re- 
 muneration they are told not to do so, although in proof of their 
 sympathy with the movement they have voluntarily offered to 
 contribute one day's pay a week towards the Strike Fund. This 
 refusal to be allowed to resume work also applies to a number of 
 firemen, principally employed on some telegraph ships which are 
 now in the river." 
 
 The Dock Directors, referring to the attendance of police with 
 the demonstrations, stated that it would be more to the purpose if 
 the police would protect the men who were desirous of returning 
 to work. So far from this protection being afforded intimidation 
 was openly practised by the picketing from Fenchurch-street Station 
 down to the Docks at Milvvall. Picketing, they stated, was intimi- 
 dation, and if the pickets were withdrawn the numbers anxious to 
 come to work would be seen. Not only was there intimidation 
 but there had been cases of violence, a sufficient number to cause 
 dread to the men. There was also the threat that if they went 
 into work they would be " marked men " when the strike was over. 
 If, the Direct jrs said, the police had no difficulty in accompanying 
 the processions, some men might be spared to protect the indus- 
 trious who wished to work. 
 
 Burns, addressing the labourers at the Dock gates, said : " He 
 found there was an attempt on the part of one or two parsons to 
 bring about a settlement over the heads of the men's representa- 
 tives, but they were not going to submit to any such interfer- 
 ence." 
 
 A deputation of lightermen and tug captains waited upon Sir 
 Donald Currie to offer to the shipowners of London their very best 
 services, as they did not wish it to be thought that in the event of 
 a fair settlement with the labourers they should be responsible for 
 any hindrances to the working of the shipping in the port of 
 London. 
 
 The Rev. C. H. Kelly, President of the Wesleyan Conference, 
 speaking to 700 labourers on strike at a free breakfast at St. 
 George's Wesleyan Mission, Cable-street, " congratulated the men 
 on their good behaviour, and said that he was confident that not 
 one in a thousand desired to be disloyal to the law of the land. 
 He had no intention of interfering with Capital and Labour, 
 although he thought the men before him, in virtue of their mus- 
 cular arms, were as much capitalists as Dock Directors. He assured
 
 Appendix A. Ixxxvii. 
 
 the strikers of the sympathy of the tens of thousands of Metho- 
 dists all over the land." 
 
 A meeting of Custom Officers of the Out-door Department was 
 held at the London Tavern to protest against any extension of 
 official hours. The meeting recorded its opinion in the following 
 resolution: "The trade of the Port of London suffers no appre- 
 ciable inconvenience by reason of the present Custom hours, and 
 the meeting protests against any extension or unfavourable altera- 
 tion of their hours of employment without due compensation." 
 Major Banes, M.P., who supported the resolution, expressed the 
 opinion that the unfortunate strike of Dock labourers would have 
 been settled almost at the outset had it not been for the inter- 
 ference on both sides of people who knew nothing of the question. 
 
 Three hundred outdoor labourers turned out on strike at 
 Parkeston, Harwich, for an increase of 2d. per hour for night-work 
 and id. for day-work. The strikers had an interview with Mr. 
 Birt, the General Manager. Orders were given not to take on the 
 strikers, and 200 new men were, drafted in. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill Mr. Tillett said that a distinguish- 
 ing feature of their meetings was that their audiences represented 
 all classes, including the Pulpit, Parliament, and the Press. 
 
 " He desired to thank the latter for the service they had rendered 
 the labourers during the present agitation. The Press had proved 
 itself worthy of public confidence and the best friends to the 
 claims of the working men, who helped to make the wealth of 
 the country. So long as he had any money he would buy all the 
 papers he could as a small return for the help which the Press had 
 given them. If he mixed up much longer with Press men he was 
 afraid he should become as conceited as they were. They still 
 continued their picketing, for that was a religious duty, and they 
 were going to observe it. . . . They were now being held up to 
 the world as something to stir up other men to fight for their 
 rights. Up to the present they had fought fairly and squarely. 
 When Major Banes, the member for West Ham, said he had re- 
 ceived a letter from him, and added that he (the major) was a friend 
 of the people, he told an untruth in each case. The dockers were 
 tightening their grip on the enemy. They had got one class of 
 men to give way and concede to their demands, and they would 
 now demand from the Dock Companies what they were not able to 
 give. That day there would be such a demand on the Dock Com- 
 panies that they would not be able to meet them, and they would 
 become a by-word for all that was mean and contemptible."
 
 Ixxxviii, Appendix A. 
 
 Burns at the same meeting said, '' It was now all over but the 
 shouting. The race was over and the prize was waiting for them. 
 Mr. Norwood was surreptitiously withholding from them that prize 
 which public opinion and their own exertions had won. As he 
 before said it was all done but the shouting. Yesterday Sir Donald 
 Currie did a little of that for them. The money was still coming 
 in. They had received ;^6oo that morning — j^20o from small 
 sources and ^^400 from the Executive of the Amalgamated Sea- 
 man's and Fireman's Union ; and if it continued to come in as ii 
 had dene they would probably have to consider the advisability of 
 increasing their relief by 50 to 60 per cent. And then it was said 
 they were caving in. The Docker was not starved as he was a 
 week ago, and what was more, he was sturdier and more determined 
 than ever. The reason they had been able to have a rest that 
 morning was that the pickets were doing their duty, and were 
 doing it so quietly, so admirably, and so scientifically, that the need 
 for arousing enthusiasm did not now exist. ... Sir Donald 
 Currie's speech yesterday was the ' rift in the lute.' It meant that 
 he would enter into negotiations by means of intermediaries to 
 have his ships unloaded on their own terms. Sir Donald Currie 
 said the strike should ne^er have been begun. They knew all 
 about that. It was brought about by the selfishness and incompe- 
 tency of Sir Donald Currie and other shipowners who countenanced 
 the existing condition of things in the Docks. Such a condition 
 of things as had been would never be countenanced again. If, as 
 Sir Donald Currie had said, the stevedores and labourers were good 
 workmen, why did not they recognise their qualities and give them 
 their just demands. The speech of Sir Donald Currie was that of 
 a despairing man who had looked to the Dock Company for hope 
 and setdement of the question ; but to-morrow he would come to 
 the men, who would heartily welcome him as they did the whar- 
 finger.*, to assist in applying a stick to the backs of the Dock Di- 
 rectors. Altogether, Sir Donald Currie's speech was an impolitic 
 one He took the opportunity of thanking the Times and othtr 
 newspapers for the magnificent way in which they had stood bv 
 the men. They had all done the working man a service which ic 
 would be impossible to appreciate too much. The impartial way 
 in which the Times had treated the strike and printed article after 
 article in favour of the men, proving they were right in what they 
 were doing, deserved their thanks. The reporters had taken 
 great pains to secure accurate information, and the result of 
 that honest investigation was that everyone of the newspapers 
 were on their side. It was their duty as men to recognize that." 
 
 f Referring to a statement that 200 men would have gone in but 
 for him, Burns said :
 
 Appendix A. Ixxxix. 
 
 " He would guarantee that those men would not go in if they 
 saw the tip of his straw hat, and he was sure if the Dock labourers 
 were each offered £50 not a single one would go in. He expected 
 to see the Dock Company issue a manifesto calling on the Home 
 Secretary, as a means of preserving the peace, to pass an order that 
 no straw hats should be worn. He had grave ideas of sending his 
 hat round to every place where a strike was needed, and so do the 
 work by proxy. ... He had not been able to distinguish be- 
 tween his dockers and the police, for they both had nothing to do. 
 "When the strike was over he would suggest that the labourers should 
 get up a subscription to present 20 volumes of books to the library 
 of every police station in London. By the last piece of policy they 
 had taken off Mr. Norwood's right arm. (A voice : ' You should 
 have taken off his head," and laughter.) No, they would preserve 
 his head for Madame Tussaud's. ... On the previous day dur- 
 ing the piogress of their magnificent procession through the city 
 more money was collected than ever. Every one, except the Dock 
 Directors were on their side — even the weather. Cardinal Man- 
 ning, the Bishop of London, the Earl of Dunraven, Sir John Lub- 
 bock, and all impartial men of the City of London said the dockers 
 had suffered too long, had been too patient, and too hopeless. Sym- 
 pathy was pouring in on every side ; and as for himself he was 
 almost getting sick and tired of the congratulations that were being 
 showered on him for the unassuming part he had played in this 
 struggle." 
 
 The Central Strike Committee refused to ratify the arrangement 
 which had been made between Mr. Tom Mann and the Contractors 
 of the Surrey Commercial Docks. Mann went at once to a mid- 
 night meeting at Deptford and informed the men of what had taken 
 place. The result was greeted with loud cheers. By 4.30 a.m. the 
 following notice was posted in the neighbourhood of the Surrey 
 Docks : " September 6. — Dockers' Strike. To all concerned. No man 
 must commence work without the authority of the South Side 
 Central Committee, Sayes Court, Deptford. By order, Tom Mann, 
 Ben Tillett, John Burns, H. H. Champion, Hugh Brown (trea- 
 surer)." 
 
 The Contractors who were parties to the arrangement with Mann, 
 unaware of what had transpired, met near the Docks for the purpose 
 of engaging hands. Mann met them and told them what had taken 
 place. At a subsequent meeting it was sought to justify the action 
 of the Central Strike Committee by alleging that the Contractors 
 were only middlemen, and that the men ought to have a guarantee 
 from the Directors themselves. In the evening, Mann, addressing
 
 xc. Appendix A. 
 
 a meeting at Sayes Court, said that whether the course which had 
 been taken by the Strike Committee was a wise one or not, " they 
 must accept it and not waste time in jangling, but get to work 
 afresh and stick at it until they got the 6d. and 8d. for the Docker. 
 The peculiarity of the position on the Surrey side was that they 
 were not fighting for these terms merely, but had to deal with the 
 demands of men who were receiving higher terms than these. It 
 was difficult to adjudicate when some sections were paid piece- 
 work, some by the measure, and some by the hour ; and they had 
 to hasten to get their demands put in a clear and definite form. He 
 advised them to strengthen their pickets, and said, tuith a full sense of 
 what he was saying, that it was their duty to let the traitors know 
 that they had good right hands. At the same time he hoped that as 
 they had not had to resort to violence they might have no necessity for 
 conwiencijig it^ 
 
 The men of the General Steam Navigation Company, to the 
 number of 240, resumed work on the understanding that they were 
 to have an all-round pay of 6d. per hour, to include overtime. 
 
 The men on strike in Vauxhall, Lambeth, and Pimlico now num- 
 bered 1,000. At a meeting, John Williams dwelt on the necessity 
 of a strong organization amongst the men, such as the Knights of 
 Labour in America. There the labourer was able to control his 
 master and the industry of the country, but only by a vast union of 
 men of all trades. 
 
 September 7. — The situation remained substantially the same as 
 it was before the intervention of the Lord Mayor, the Bishop of 
 London, and Cardinal Manning, as far as the prospects of a settle- 
 ment were concerned. The Strike Committee rejected the terms 
 proposed by the intermediaries, although they had been accepted 
 under protest by the Docks Commitee, and Messrs. Burns and 
 Tillett gave the Lord Mayor and his colleagues the lie direct as to 
 the part which they had taken in the negotiations. 
 
 The Committee of Conciliation summoned by the Lord Mayor 
 met to receive the reply of the Dock Directors to the proposal 
 which had been made to them by the Committee, and assented to 
 by the Strike leaders on the previous day. Cardinal Manning, the 
 Bishop of London, Mr. Sydney Buxton, M.P., were in attendance 
 with the Lord Mayor, Burns and Tillett also being present. At 5 
 o'clock in the afternoon the following letter was delivered to the 
 Committee on the Dock Directors behalf :
 
 Appendix A. xci. 
 
 " Dock House, 109, Leadenhall Street, Sept. 7th. 
 
 " My Lords, — My Committee have deliberated very anxiously 
 upon the proposals verbally laid before them last night by your 
 lordships with a view to the termination of the present labour 
 strike — viz.. that in addition to the concessions already publicly 
 notified, the payment to our casual labourers on and after January 
 ist next shall be raised from 5d. to 6d. per hour for the time of 
 actual work. 
 
 "My Committee have acted throughout under a grave sense of 
 their responsibility, and they are fully prepared to vindicate their 
 course of action in a dispute about the merits of which there has 
 been a vast amount of misrepresentation and misunderstanding. 
 
 *' They feel, however, that the situation has been so altered by 
 the circumstance of your lordships' having thrown the weight of 
 your great influence into the scale, and by the gravity of the repre- 
 sentations which you have made to them with regard to the public 
 peace, that they are no longer free to exercise their unfettered 
 judgment, and must yield to a pressure from without, which they 
 venture to regard as a very dangerous departure in disputes between 
 employers and workmen, and one that may have very far-reaching 
 consequences in the future. 
 
 " They have therefore decided, under the conditions which I now 
 have to bring before you, to accept the terms which, as my com- 
 mittee understand, your lordships are prepared to recommend to the 
 strikers, and to which you confidently expect them to agree. 
 
 " The conditions under which my committee are prepared to 
 accede to these terms are : 
 
 " I. That the existing strike shall be terminated, and that all the 
 men connected with docks, wharves, and the river return to work 
 on Monday morning. 
 
 *' 2. That the strikers and their leaders shall unreservedly under- 
 take that all labourers who have been at work during the strike 
 shall be unmolested, and be treated in every way as fellow-labourer 
 by those who have been out on strike. 
 
 " 3. That we receive an acceptance of this arrangement from the 
 leaders of the Strike through your lordships in the course of this 
 evening. 
 
 " In acceding to these conditions, my Committee are largely 
 influenced by the assurance of your lordships that shipowners and 
 merchants and the public generally are willing to bear an increase 
 in rates and charges.
 
 xcii. Appendix A. 
 
 '• I have the honour to be, with much respect, your lordship's 
 obedient servant, " C. M. Norwood, chairman. 
 
 '• To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, 
 "The Right Rev, the Bishop of London, and 
 " His Eminence the Cardinal Manning." 
 
 The position of the Dock Directors gave great satisfaction to the 
 Lord Mayor and his colleagues, and Messrs. Burns and Tillett 
 promised that it should have their adhesion, and left to communi- 
 cate it to the Strike Committee. Before leaving, however, the 
 following endorsement had been written at Mr. Burns' request on 
 the letter of the Joint Committee : 
 
 " Mansion House, Sept. 7. 
 
 " We, the undersigned, accept these terms on behalf of our- 
 selves, and also agree to recommend them to the men out on strike, 
 subject to the condition that the Dock Companies do not displace 
 or directly or indirectly show resentment to any of the men who 
 have participated in the strike. 
 
 *' James Whitehead, Lord Mayor. 
 
 "Henry E., Cardinal Archbishop. 
 
 " F. LONDIN. 
 
 " Sydney Buxton." 
 Late in the evening the following letter was received by the Lord 
 Mayor : 
 
 *' United Dock Labourers' Strike Committee, 
 Wade's Arms, Poplar, E., 
 
 " My Lord, — We have received your communication from Mr. 
 Norwood with the statement signed by yourself and by the Bishop of 
 London, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and Mr. Sydney 
 Buxton, M.P. It is impossible to accept any terms without con- 
 sulting the various Strike Committees. We notice with regret that 
 Mr. Norwood's letter contains no provision for increase in the pay 
 for overtime to 8d. per hour. We beg to express our thanks to you 
 for the trouble you have taken in the matter, and to assure you 
 that we will let you know the decision of the men at the earliest 
 possible moment. 
 
 "We are, your lordship's faithfully, 
 
 " Benjamin Tillett. 
 
 " John Burns. 
 
 "Tom Mann. 
 
 " John Toomey. 
 
 " H. H. Champion. 
 "To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor."
 
 Appendix A. xciii. 
 
 To this communication the subjoined reply was at once sent to 
 Mr. Tillett : 
 
 ** Mansion House, Sept. 7. 
 
 " Dear Sirs, — We quite understand, and we made it clear to the 
 Dock Committee yesterday, that the 8d. per hour overtime is to 
 stand on the same footing as the 6d. pet hour for ordinary work. 
 There can be no doubt in our minds that the reply of the Joint 
 Committee covers this ; but if, in your answer you will include 
 this as one of the terms of acceptance, we shall be glad, as it will 
 settle the point definitely. We are awaiting your reply, as you will 
 see from Mr. Norwood's letter that acceptance this evening is a con- 
 dition on which the Committee rely. 
 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 '• James Whitehead, Lord Mayor. 
 " Henry E., Cardinal Manning, 
 
 *' F. LONDIN. 
 
 "Sydney Buxton. 
 " To Mr. Benjamin Tillett and colleagues." 
 
 After another lengthened wait, the Lord Mayor and his col- 
 leagues received the following letter between 10 and 11 o'clock : 
 
 "Wade's Arms, Poplar, E., Sept. 7. 
 
 " My Lord, — It is impossible for us to give you an answer to-night, 
 as we have to see the lightermen and others concerned in the strike. 
 Pending a definite and official answer from them, it is our opinion 
 that they will not accept the terms of the Dock Company. Mr. 
 Norwood must know that for us to accept the terms without a full 
 consultation would be idle, and that such a consultation cannot take 
 place at a few hours' notice, when the men concerned are spread 
 over so large an area. As soon as their decision is known it will 
 be communicated to you. 
 
 " We are, your lordship's faithfully, 
 
 " John Burns. 
 
 " H. H. Champion." 
 
 The Lord Mayor immediately conveyed this intimation to the 
 Dock Directors, who were waiting at the Dock House, and there 
 for a time the negotiations concluded. 
 
 At a quarter-past eleven at night the following manifesto was 
 issued by the Strike Committee : 
 
 " Manifesto of the General Committee of the Dock Strikes, 
 Wade's Arms, Jeremiah Street, Poplar, E., Sept. 7, i^.Sg. — Fellow-
 
 xciv. Appendix A. 
 
 <;ountryrnen, a statement has been published to the effect that the 
 strike is over and that the representatives of the labourers have 
 agreed that work shall be resumed in the Docks at the former rate 
 of wages, on the condition that 6d. an hour and 8d. per hour over- 
 time shall be granted by the Companies on January i, 1890. This 
 is absolutely untrue. Such a proposition has been made to the Dock 
 Companies by some influential persons who desire to see the strike 
 ended. The Directors are willing to accept it, but the men are not 
 inclined to grant to the Dock Companies who have opposed them 
 terms more favourable to the masters than those which have been 
 agreed to by the wharfingers. The position briefly is this : The 
 Dock labourers are willing to return to work for any wharf, or 
 dock, or shipping companies, representatives of which will sign and 
 forward to the Strike Committee an agreement to give the terms 
 acceded to by the wharfingers, including a fiiinimum wage of 6d. 
 per hour ordinary time and 8d. per hour overtime. The stevedores 
 and sailors and firemen, who have no dispute of their own to settle, 
 and have come out 'on principle' solely to support the labourers, 
 are willing to return to work as soon as the Dock labourers are 
 satisfied. The stevedores and sailors and firemen will work for 
 any shipping company who will give the 6d. and 8d. overtime to the 
 labourers and agree to employ Dock labourers only to dis- 
 charge. The stevedores and sailors and firemen will also work 
 for those shipowners who have signed the agreement and have 
 vessels to load only on condition that so long as the Dock Com- 
 panies hold out against their labourers these shipowners do not 
 work goods from the Dock Companies or from craft loaded by the 
 Dock Companies. The lightermen, however, have determined to 
 stand by their circular of August 22, and if the terms therein 
 demanded are conceded by their masters, they will return to work 
 provided that the labourers and stevedores and sailors and firemen 
 are satisfied. By order of the General Committee of the Dock 
 Strike, Ben Tillett, John Burns, Tom Mann, H. H. Champion. 
 J. TooMEY (Stevedore), J. M. Walsh (Sailors and Firemen), 
 R. Iles (Lightermen)." 
 
 The Strike Committee had not the courtesy to communicate a 
 copy of this manifesto to the Lord Mayor, although it was issued 
 as a reply both to the Dock Committee and the Conciliation Com- 
 mittee. Some of the statements of the manifesto are absolutely 
 irreconcilable with the attitude which Messrs. Burns and Tillett 
 assumed in the presence of the Lord Mayor and his colleagues both 
 •on Friday and on Saturday, 
 
 The following telegram was received from Sydney : " At a meet-
 
 Appendix A . xcv. 
 
 ing of the Sydney trades in aid of the London Dock Strikers, at 
 which Mr. Kelly presided, 20,000 persons attended and were ad- 
 dressed by Mr. John Dillon and twenty colonial members of 
 Parliament. A sum of ^^1,200 was collected." 
 
 It was announced that at Sayes Court, the head quarters of the 
 South London Committee, the news that the strike was to be 
 ended and the increase of wages to stand over till January was 
 received with consternation and disgust. 
 
 Twenty-five imported Dock Labourers on their way to the 
 Docks, under the guidance of the Dock oflficials, and under the 
 escort of a number of detectives who were prepared to identify any 
 persons who might be guilty of intimidation, were detected by the 
 pickets, who brought every species of persuasion to bear upon them. 
 They were beginning to hustle the "foreigners," as they were 
 termed, and an outbreak of violence seemed imminent, when Burns 
 appeared on the scene and told the men that if they did not desist 
 from disorderly behaviour " he would break the jaw of the first 
 man who made a noise." This scene took place in Billiter Street. 
 Another incident of the day is thus described by the special cor- 
 respondent of the Times : "An individual, one of a body, was on 
 his way into one of the Docks to do what, when all is said and 
 done, any man has a right to do if he chooses — namely, to accept 
 work when it was offered. The pickets remonstrated and somebody 
 in the crowd enforced the remonstrance with quicklime, and abso- 
 lutely and for ever destroyed the eyesight ot the victim. The 
 leaders repudiate the action ; they say that it was not done by one 
 of their men on picket duty ; they say that it was done in a mo- 
 ment of passion, and that if they could ; nd the offender they 
 would hand him up to justice. For my own part I believe they 
 could find him perfectly well if they liked, for it is obvious that 
 the pickets must actually have seen the dastardly deed committed, 
 and while I understand that rash acts may be committed I cannot 
 but think it a peculiar coincidence that momentary subservience to 
 the influence of passion should coincide with the possession of 
 quicklime, which is not the sort of commodity that the average 
 law-abiding citizen carries about in his coat-pocket." 
 
 The Lord Mayor was very seriously annoyed at the treatment to 
 which he had been subjected at the hands of the Strike Com- 
 mittee and Messrs. Burns and Tillett, while the Bishop of London 
 and Cardinal Manning could scarcely have felt very comfortable 
 under the slight which had been put upon them.
 
 xcvi. Appendix A. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill Tillett said : " If ever their minds 
 were made up to fight the Directors it was now. The struggle was 
 more intense and their feelings the more bitter and determined as 
 what they wanted to gain became the more necessary and impera- 
 tive. They must not waste the past days of trial and struggle — 
 those four weeks of horrid life. After such a four weeks' struggle 
 they could hardly be expected to be calm and collected. Mr. 
 Morgan challenged them to take their pickets away, and he would 
 return a challenge. Let him tell the actual truth to the men he 
 engaged. All along the line the Directors had lied, and Sir Henry 
 Le iMarchant had been one of the most active of the crimps. That 
 those men should stoop to such dirty work was only evidence of 
 their incapacity to rule as Directors. If they ceased to cajole and. 
 lie to the men every picket would be taken away. The men from 
 Cardiff were made drunk and were not told where they were going. 
 The Dock-house in Leadenhall Street should be called Ananias 
 Hall. In no case where men had been brought to the Docks had 
 they been told the true position of affairs. Lord Randolph 
 Churchill had actually commended the men for their sobriety and 
 orderlmess ; and when they got such words from politicians of that 
 stamp — when they got the venerable grand old Cardinal Manning 
 to sympathise with them ; when they had got a dignitary of the 
 Church supporting them, and when they were ushered into the 
 Lord Mayor's best room — he did not know if they would yet be 
 shown into the Lord Mayor's worst room (Burns — " We've both 
 been there before ") (laughter) — he contended they had great 
 room for encouragement. He told the Dock Companies that un- 
 less they paid attention to the little they had asked for they would 
 ask for a lot more." 
 
 Burns at the same meeting said : " The previous day he had to 
 laud the Press. That morning he found there was a conspiracy 
 among them to adulate the dockers. If this continued he should 
 have to do something desperate. All the papers, with the exception 
 of the Morning Post, took the side of the dockers, remarking on 
 the moderation of the men's demands and the extraordinarily good 
 conduct they had displayed." He also said, " Their system of 
 pickets outside the Docks was perfect, but that inside wanted a 
 little re-organisation, and that having been perfected, in a day or 
 two they would have all the blacklegs out; and if the strike were 
 not over in three days there would not be lOO blacklegs in the Port 
 of London." 
 
 At Birmingham a town's meeting was held under the presidency 
 of the Mayor, Alderman Burrow, who said he did not think there 
 had ever been a case in which sympathy had been so universally
 
 Appendix A. xcvii. 
 
 extended to strikers, and without question the admirable conduct 
 of the men had done much to evoke that sympathy, Mr. Jesse 
 CoUings said he had seen casual labourers standing by hundreds 
 waiting for an hour or two's work, and he agreed that one of the 
 best outcomes of the strike would be that the regular Dock La- 
 bourers would be recognized as a class and a continuous occupation 
 secured to a smaller number of men, who might thus be enabled 
 to live in decency and comfort, for it was better to have a small 
 number of men living in a tolerable way than to have a larger 
 number reduced to a common dead level of misery, in which none 
 could live. (A voice : " What's to become of the others?") Those 
 men were a part of the accumulation of unemployed labour, and 
 they would be much better off on the land if provision were only 
 made for them. 
 
 At a meeting of corn merchants and granary keepers, Mr. Keen, 
 who presided, said the employers had invited their men to meet 
 them that afternoon. But the men would not go in unless Mr. 
 Wiggington was allowed to come also as their delegate. The question 
 whether Mr. Wiggington be allowed to come in was put to the 
 meeting, which, by a great majority, decided to see the men by 
 themselves. On this decision being given, the men stated that 
 they would not go in without their representatives. Another 
 attempt was made to induce the meeting to receive the men on their 
 own conditions, but it was lost by a large majority. 
 
 A number of grain carriers at the Bramley Moor Dock, Liver- 
 pool, struck for the advance of pay which had been granted at the 
 South Docks, namely, 6s. a day and is. an hour overtime. They 
 were offered 5s. 6d., but this they refused. 
 
 Sir H. Le Marchant, one of the Dock Directors resigned his seat 
 on the Board as a protest against the action of the Board in 
 deciding to take the proposals of the Lord Mayor's Committee into 
 consideration. 
 
 The Preston Trades' Council decided to make a grant in aid of 
 the London Dock Labourers who were on strike, and requested 
 the deputies to bring the matter to the notice of their respective 
 trades with a view to obtaining pecuniary support. To receive sub- 
 scriptions the offices of the Council were opened nightly, instead of 
 once a week as is usual. 
 
 A newsagency stated that a reporter obtained an interview with
 
 xcviii. Appendix A. 
 
 'Sir John Lubbock on Saturday, and asked whether it was true that 
 the strike leaders had accepted the terms proposed at the Conference 
 •on Friday. Sir John repHed that it was. to the best of his belief. 
 He was not present at the interview, however, and would prefer the 
 iLord Mayor's authority being obtained for the statement. The 
 reporter then waited upon the Lord iMayor, and saw at the same 
 time the Bishop of London. The Lord Mayor said that the terms 
 had undoubtedly and unmistakably, in the presence of himself and 
 the Bishop of London, been accepted by Messrs. Barns and Tillett, 
 who were the only leaders spoken to by the members of the Con- 
 ference. Mr. Champion, in a later interview with Mr. Soulsby, had 
 also expressed his entire concurrence with the proposal. The terms 
 were that the men should resume work at 5d. an hour until the ist 
 of January, when the extra penny would be granted. All other 
 demands to be agreed to. " This," said the Lord Mayor, " would 
 give the Directors an opportunity in the meantime of making such 
 readjustments as might be necessary to enable them to meet the 
 rise in wages." The Lord Mayor and the Bishop of London 
 received with extreme surprise the announcement that Burns and 
 Tillett had repudiated the proposals, and the Lord Mayor more 
 ■than hinted that in this case the strike must come to a conclusion 
 without any further assistance on his part. In a later interview with 
 Sir John Lubbock that gentleman expressed his belief that Burns 
 'intended to fall in with the proposals, but wished the Dock Com- 
 panies first to make the concession. He agreed that it was 
 impossible that the strike leaders could have misunderstood the 
 terms of the recommendation. 
 
 Sept. Zth. — Third Sunday demonstration of the Strikers 
 held in Hyde Park. M'Carthy, of the Stevedores, presiding at one 
 of the meetings said the men were very excited when they heard 
 that the strike had been settled, and begged that their leaders would 
 not sell them by signing any such compromise. They would have 
 no surrender until there was a complete surrender of the Dock 
 'Companies. . . . They meant to go on fighting until the 
 battle was won, because they were more likely in the end to have 
 complete victory. While the men were supported so nobly by the 
 public they would not yield until the demands they had made were 
 granted. Mr. Douglas, a boiler maker, said : " The Dock Com- 
 panies could charge the shipowners more ; the shipowners would
 
 Appendix A. xcix. 
 
 charge the merchants more ; and the merchants would put up the 
 price to the retail dealers." 
 
 H H. Champion said they would probably hear from the 
 Mansion House some statement which might be prejudicial to the 
 strikers' cause, and therefore he desired to explain the present 
 position. Reveiwing the negotiations at the Mansion House, he 
 denied that Burns and Tillett had in any way agreed to counte- 
 nance the men going in on the chance of getting the 6d. an hour 
 on the ist January, or had in any way accepted the proposal. 
 " Whatever might be said by the Lord Mayor or by the Bishop of 
 London the speaker took it they would believe Messrs. Burns and 
 Tillett before they would believe the Lord Mayor and the whole 
 bench of Bishops. The negotiations were commenced by Cardinal 
 Manning, who was respected by all men, and who, after the last 
 meeting, sent for Mr. Burns and himself, and said he was anxious 
 to see the strike ended in the interests not only of the 40,000 Ro- 
 man Catholics in the East End work, but also in the interest of the 
 others, for whom the Cardinal had no less regard." He declared that 
 the men could not accept less than the 6d. and 8d. for which they had 
 fought so long, and pressed for a continuance of public support. 
 He also committed himself to the astonishing assertion that "the 
 present struggle had shown that social and economical freedom 
 could be obtained without recourse to violence and without great 
 waste of wealth." The following resolution, moved by Tillett, was 
 carried unanimously, amid cheers for the British public who had 
 helped them and for the colonies : " That this meeting of Dock 
 labourers expresses its regret at its inability to accept the terms 
 offered by the Dock authorities — viz., the concession of all de- 
 mands to be granted on the ist January next. While thanking his 
 Worship the Lord Mayor, his Eminence Cardinal Manning, the 
 Bishop of London, and Mr. Sydney Buxton for the keen interest 
 taken to effect a settlement of the strike, we respectfully submit to 
 the Dock Companies, in view of the immediate action taken by 
 the wharfingers in conceding the demands of the men, that to the 
 ist of October would be ample time to readjust working arrange- 
 iments." 
 
 Burns, speaking at another platform, said : "The starving wives 
 and children of the dockers were at their back, not urging them 
 on, but of the two things dragging them backwards, and asking 
 them to accept any conditions that would terminate a fight in which 
 the suffering, the pain, and the weakness had been on one side. 
 This battle had been brought about, not by the extravagant de- 
 .mands of the men ; it had been brought about and continued by
 
 c. Appendix A. 
 
 the criminal obstinacy of men who had become a synonym for every- 
 thing that EngHshmen of all classes of society had a right to repro- 
 bate. They had all along the line and right through the fight 
 shown a disposition to yield everything but the all-essential points, 
 which they would not yield, whoever the intermediaries and the 
 negotiators might be. . . . They could not yield any more, they 
 would not yield ; no, they would rather go back humiliated, they 
 would rather go back disappointed than surrender any point, either 
 in point of time or substance of their demand." 
 
 Alluding to the fact that the strikers had on the previous Friday 
 expressed their willingness to accept the intervention of the Lord 
 Mayor, Burns continued : " Unfortunately for the strikers, and, he 
 thought, for the Lord Mayor, that functionary had been away from 
 town during the time the strike had been on, and consequently he 
 did not know what the strikers had been doing, or the conditions 
 under which they had fought, and the temper and attitude of their 
 opponents. That was a difficulty for the men on strike ; but they 
 were willing to accept the Lord Mayor's intervention." 
 
 Burn's description of what occurred at the Mansion House was 
 as follows : '' Mr. Ben Tillett and himself went to the Mansion 
 House. The Bishop of London, Cardinal Manning, and Mr. 
 Sydney Buxton, M.P., were present. They were asked by the 
 Lord Mayor whether they would terminate the strike if the men's 
 terms were conceded in March next. (Loud and prolonged cries 
 of "No.") To that he gave an unhesitating "No." Mr. Ben 
 Tillett and he said onFriday they were willing that the strike should 
 terminate, and, if necessary, they would not object to put it to the 
 men that the Dock Companies should have, in the words of the 
 Bishop of London, 'a little breathing-time to arrange their Dock 
 rate-book.' (Hisses.) But they did not pledge themselves, and 
 they had not done so. They did not pledge themselves on Friday, 
 and after the Lord Mayor had stated what he would suggest, and 
 after telling the Lord Mayor all that they were willing to do, 
 namely, to put to the men any condition that might be discussed, 
 Mr. Tillett and he went away. . . . On Saturday they had another 
 interview, at which they were asked whether the men would accept 
 the ist of January and not March as a means of terminating the 
 strike. After a long discussion the strike leaders stated that if 
 the Docks Committee conceded this officially — as they did, for 
 he had got it in his pocket — they would put it to the men, and 
 if the men accepted it it would be his duty and the duty of hia 
 colleagues to obey. Then Mr. Tillett did say that he would re- 
 commend the adoption of these terms to the men but he under- 
 stood and made it clear that whatever he might recommend in
 
 Appendix A. ci. 
 
 that direction would not be accepted. He and Mr. Tillett did 
 consult the Executive Committee on Saturday night and they 
 unanimously rejected the terms. In fact, a concession by the 
 Docks Committee which granted the whole of the men's demands, 
 but which deferred the date upon which they should be officially 
 and definitely conceded only made the men more determined than 
 ever to stick out." He further said that the men felt very much 
 annoyed that the Docks Committee, after evasive subterfuges, after 
 misstatements and misinterpretations of their position and that of 
 the Dockers should, at the last moment, by conceding the Dockers' 
 demands, admit that all along the Dockers had been in the right, 
 and that they had been in the wrong. He gave as another reason 
 why the Mansion House settlement could not be accepted that they 
 did not get the terms until five o'clock on Saturday evening, which 
 made it impossible for them to settle the matter between then and 
 Monday morning. (Although the strikers' Ultimatum was sent to the 
 Dock's Committee and an answer demanded within two hours at 
 the beginning of the strike ! !) Burns continued : 
 
 " No more negotiations for him ; he had done with them, and 
 he would wash his hands of the lot. If it was fighting was wanted, 
 he was the man. He asked the meeting if they accepted the Lord 
 Mayor's terms. (Loud cries of " No.") Were they going to sur- 
 render? (Loud cries of "No.") Was that their final 'No'? 
 ("Yes.") Were they going to fight on until they won? (Loud 
 cries of *' Yes.") Let all those in favour of the terms printed in 
 the Sunday papers hold up their hands. (No hand was held up.) 
 All those in favour of January or March hold up their hands." 
 (Hisses.) 
 
 At another platform Burns made a speech, in which he said that, 
 ^* The Directors would only yield to measures of force, and they 
 could have them if they wished, for the men were now fit for a 
 flogging campaign. The criminality of the present strike rested with 
 the Directors." 
 
 Previous to the start of the procession from the West India Dock 
 Road a gentleman accosted Mr. Burns, and asked what he could do 
 to get his ships unloaded. He stated that he had three vessels — the 
 Helvetia, the France, and the Erin — all lying in the Albert Dock. 
 On the decks of each was a large quantity of manure, which in its 
 present putrefying condition might be the means of causing a fever, 
 and so bring about incalculable harm. He wanted to know whether, 
 if he paid the price the men demanded, some of them could be
 
 cii. Appendix A . 
 
 got to work. Mr. Burns said that, if the shipper would sign an^ 
 agreement to pay the price asked, men could easily be found to do 
 what he wanted, and could commence any time to suit himself. 
 
 After the meeting in Hyde Park, Mr. Tillett, the Chairman of 
 United Joint Strike Committee, waited upon the Lord Mayor at the 
 Mansion House, and asked him to lay before the Dock Direc- 
 tors the proposition that the new terms should commence on 
 October ist instead of January ist, as conceded by them. The 
 Lord Mayor demurred to this, on the ground that the time pro- 
 posed was totally insufficient to enable the Dock Committees to 
 make the necessary readjustments preparatory to the conceded rise 
 in wages. His Lordship, however, agreed to use his good offices 
 with Mr. Norwood and his colleagues to get from them the further 
 concession of an earlier commencement of 'the increased terras 
 than New Year's day, and he lost no time in making a suggestion 
 to that effect to Mr. Norwood, who promised to lay it before his 
 Committee. 
 
 The representative of a news agency had an interview this evening 
 with Mr. Tillett. who had moved a resolution at the Hyde Park meet- 
 ing, proposing that the Dock Companies should so arrange their rates 
 as to be able to grant the men's demands on the ist of October. 
 Tillett said that after his resolution had been adopted he went 
 straight to Cardinal Manning, who expressed his sorrow that the 
 men had not in the first instance adopted the course which he 
 had advised them to follow. At the same time he said he had 
 adopted means to defend his position by writing to the Press. On 
 hearing of the terms of Mr. Tillett's resolution his Eminence ex- 
 pressed the view that the alteration of the date to the ist of 
 October was a fair way to meet the case, and he said he hoped 
 that his colleagues would agree to it, and that it would be the 
 means of a settlement. They would all have to consult before 
 taking united action. The resolution of Mr. Tillet would, his 
 Eminence thought, ensure the confidence of the public in the 
 strikers,. and if it was not accepted by the Dock Authorities the 
 responsibility would rest with them. His Eminence then wrote 
 a letter which Mr, Tillett, according to directions, conveyed 
 to the Lord Mayor. His Lordship, after reading it, said he 
 thought that the men had dealt unfairly with him in not accept- 
 ing his proposition after the sacrifices he had made to effect a
 
 Appendix A. ciii. 
 
 settlement, Mr. Tillett defended his own position by saying that- 
 he agreed to the proposition for the ist of January as the date of the 
 new terms commencing, but the suggestion was unanimously re- 
 jected by the men all along the long. His Lordship practically 
 said that Mr. Burns and Mr. Tillett ought to have resigned when 
 the men refused the proposition ; but Mr. Tillett replied that that 
 step would have had the effect of playing into the enemy's hands. 
 But as they saw an indication of a desire on the other s'de to meet 
 thera, they on their side would show a conciliatory spirit, and endea- 
 vour to meet the Company in as fair a manner as possible ; but 
 their limit was the ist October. His lordship at first said, that 
 unless the men unconditionally accepted his proposal he would' 
 wash his hands of the matter; but subsequently he undertook to 
 strongly recommend to both sides that an agreement should be 
 made to date from the ist of December. He was now meeting 
 them half-way in suggesting three months as the period, at the 
 end of which the new terms should come into operation. The 
 interview then closed. 
 
 The amount collected in the halls of the West Central Mission 
 was j^ 50 17s. bd. 
 
 September ()ih. — The Lord Mayor, the Bishop of London, and 
 Cardinal Manning stated their view of their negotiations, and of the 
 conduct of Messrs. Burns and Tillett in relation thereto in the 
 following letter to the Times : 
 
 " To THE Editor of ' The Times.' 
 
 " Sir, — We desire to place before the pubhc through your 
 courtesy the recents facts relating to our action in this unfortunate 
 conflict. 
 
 " On iriday morning last a conference took place at the Mansion 
 House, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, at which Cardinal 
 Manning, the Bishop of London, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Andrew 
 Lusk, and Mr. Sydney Buxton were present. Various schemes 
 were discussed in the hope of arriving at a basis of settlement whicb 
 might be acceptable to both parties to the dispute. 
 
 " Eventually it was decided to place before the representatives of 
 the labourers a suggestion that we should be allowed on their be- 
 half to propose to the Dock Directors that they should concede the 
 advance from 5d. to 6d., but that it should not come into force 
 until the ist of March. 
 
 '• Later in the day Mr. Burns and Mr. Tillett called at the Man-
 
 civ. Appendix A. 
 
 sion House at the request of the Lord Mayor, who had also sent 
 invitations to Mr. Champion and Mr. Mann ; the latter, however, 
 were not accessible and did not attend. We placed our suggestion 
 before Mr. Burns and Mr. Tillett and particularly pointed out that, 
 owing to the great accumulation of work caused by the strike, the 
 men could on the 5d. scale earn more during the next few months 
 than they would under ordinary circumstances be able to do on 
 the 6d. scale. Messrs. Burns and Tillett demurred to the ist of 
 March being fixed for the increased wages to commence ; they were 
 anxious that the new conditions should be deferred for a month 
 only. In the end, and after considerable discussion as to the word- 
 ing of the proposal to be put before the Directors, in which Messrs. 
 Burns and Tillett took part and suggested various alterations, it 
 was agreed that the ist of January be substituted for the ist of 
 March. Messrs. Burns and Tillett consented to these terms being 
 placed before the Directors on their behalf and promised to recom- 
 mend their acceptance by the men. 
 
 ''The same evening the Directors accorded us an interview, and, 
 aiter hearing us fully, promised to give their best consideration to 
 our proposals and especially inquired whether we could assure 
 them that the men would assent to our suggestions. We replied 
 that we had the best reason for believing that they would. 
 
 " On Saturday afternoon we received a letter from the Directors, 
 which will appear in your columns concurrently with this, agreeing 
 to the terms proposed and making only one or two stipulations. 
 This letter was placed before Messrs. Burns and Tillett, who at 
 once acquiesced in the conditions of the Directors, but they de- 
 manded that the Dock authorities ' should not displace or directly 
 or indirectly show resentment to the men who have participated 
 in the strike.' 
 
 "Messrs. Burns and Tillett then left us, promising to use their 
 best efforts to induce the whole of the men to agree to what they 
 had accepted. 
 
 " Later in the evening we received a communication from the 
 representatives of the men asking whether 8d. per hour for over- 
 time was also conceded. To this we replied that we had ' made it 
 clear ' to the Directors that this was to be so ; but we added that 
 the men should * include this as one of the terms of their accept- 
 ance.' 
 
 "In all particulars, therefore, the men secured every point for 
 which they had bargained except that the time for the new rates 
 of payment was deferred until the ist oi January in order to per- 
 mit the Directors to make such ' readjustments in the administration 
 of their business as would enable them to meet the rise ni wages.' 
 
 " We are now at a loss to understand how Messrs Burns and
 
 Appendix A. cv. 
 
 "Tillett can have appended their names to a manifesto which is a 
 repudiation of what we all understood they had agreed to ; and, 
 should they persist in continuing the strike, we feel that they will 
 justly forfeit the sympathy which has hitherto been shown them 
 and their cause. 
 
 " Having expressed on frequent occasions our good feeling towards 
 the men in their endeavour to obtain adequate remuneration for 
 their labour, we now trust they will listen to counsel which we be 
 ilieve to be for their good. 
 
 " We are, &c., 
 
 " JAMES WHITEHEAD, Lord Mayor. 
 
 "HENRY E. CARD. MANNING. 
 
 '^F. LONDIN. 
 
 " P.S. — We, perhaps, ought to add that Sir John Lubbock's pro- 
 posal to the effect that as many men as possible should be entered 
 on a list by the Dock authorities and that the rate of pay to these 
 should be increased to 5^d. per hour, with a guaranteed minimum 
 of 17s. a week was put by us before Messrs. Burns and Tillett and 
 unhesitatingly rejected, while ours was adopted." 
 
 The Times itself said : *' The letter which we publish this morn- 
 ing from the three important dignitaries through whom the nego- 
 tiations were conducted will put the public in full possession of the 
 facts. The proposals to the Directors were not made until Messrs: 
 Burns and Tillett, as representatives of tne men, had accepted 
 them as satisfactory and had engaged to use their influence to 
 induce the men to agree to them. It was in reliance on an assurance 
 as to this that the Directors conceded what was asked of them, 
 adding, however, certain minor stipulations, particularly to the effect 
 that the men who had been at work during the strike should not be 
 subjected to any annoyance or ill-treatment by the others. Messrs. 
 Burns and Tillett made no objection, and again promised to use 
 their best efforts to secure the general acceptance of a compromise 
 which, as the letter shows us, had been changed from its original 
 terms so as to be more favourable to the men. When a further 
 question was raised whether the eightpence per hour for overtime 
 work was also granted, the reply to the men's representatives was 
 that this was certainly a part of the arrangement. It appeared, 
 therefore, that the business w^as now over. The demands of the 
 men had been met as far as their leaders had thought it necessary 
 to insist that they should be, and it only remained for the general 
 committee to signify their approval of what had been done, and to 
 announce formally that work at the Docks was to be resumed. 
 This pleasant illusion has been dispelled. The terms, after all said.
 
 cvi. Appendix A. 
 
 have not been accepted, and Messrs. Burns and Tillett have given 
 their public approval to the refusal of the committee to agree to 
 them. The speeches delivered yesterday in Hyde Park read 
 strangely side by side with the Lord Mayor's letter. The willing- 
 ness of the Dock Directors to submit to a compromise of the dis- 
 pute has been treated as a confession of weakness ; the concessions 
 which they were prepared to make are valued only as a sign that 
 more may be gained if the men stand out. The engagements 
 entered into at the Mansion House are set aside and repudiated 
 in mocking words. Messrs. Burns and Tillett deny that they in 
 any way countenanced them, and their word, as Mr. Champion 
 declares, will be believed by the men rather than that of the Lord 
 Mayor and the whole bench of Bishops. After this specimen of 
 good faith and of gratitude to their best friends, we find it hard to 
 attach much importance to an alleged renewal of the negotiations, 
 in which the Lord Mayor is again to be an intermediary between 
 the Dock Directors and Mr. Tillett. . , . Saturday was an eventful 
 day. It began with a display of picketing, and the City learned 
 for the first time what the thing really is. A body of men, on their 
 way to work at the Docks, were detected by the pickets, who began 
 at once to hustle them and to do all they could to intercept them 
 by main force. The appearance of Mr. Burns on the scene, and 
 his intervention with the pickets, put an end for the time to the 
 open violence with which the would-be workers were threatened. 
 The pickets protested that they were doing the work they were set to 
 do, as no doubt they were. But it would hardly have been prudent to 
 allow them to go thus to work in Billiter Street, and Mr. Burns ac- 
 accordingly did his best to prevent this, and with a fair measure of 
 success. It is not the first time, our reporter tells us, on which Mr. 
 Burns has given proof of his influence with the men. When 
 some ill-conditioned, half-hearted fellow complains at a public 
 meeting that he is not allowed to go back to his work, Mr. Burns' 
 way is to put himself in a fighting attitude and thus to restore 
 harmony. On Saturday morning, in Billiter Street, there was not 
 so opportune an occasion for interference of the kind, and Mr. 
 Burns accordingly, though as ready to fight as ever, thought it best 
 to fight on the other side, against the pickets, and not against the 
 blacklegs. He was as successful in every way as he could have 
 wished. The pickets were quieted for the moment, but they re- 
 turned presently to their duty. The imported workers were fol- 
 lowed into the railway station, were attended on their way to the 
 Docks, and were duly hustled and knocked about when they 
 attempted to enter. Finally, out of some 29 men, 16 effected their 
 escape and went resolutely to work. But they had sufiered losses 
 by the way. Some of their party may have yielded to argument;
 
 Appendix A. cvii. 
 
 others to downright force. One poor fellow had quick-lime thrown 
 in his eyes, and he has been blinded for life — an incident in the 
 campaign which the leaders of the men are loudly professing to 
 regret, and which they have been doing their utmost to explain 
 away. It is the kind of result which we may expect from the 
 organized system of interference which picketing avowedly is. 
 When men who love bawling and hustling on their own account 
 are paid for bawling and hustling and are taught to look upon 
 them as duties in their common cause, we cannot be surprised 
 that they occasionally overstep the line and do their appointed 
 work a little more effectually than their employers can venture 
 to approve." 
 
 The Times further said that the men had done their best in more 
 ways than one to put themselves publicly in the wrong, and that 
 their breach of the Mansion House compact was "an act of folly," 
 no less than of bad faith. "It has become clear, too, as the strike 
 has proceeded, that the men have not been satisfied to allow to 
 others the freedom of action which they were claiming and exer- 
 cising for themselves. Either the line between moral and physical 
 persuasion has not been drawn or the distinction has not been kept. 
 This has been notorious for some time, but never has there been 
 so distinct a proof of it or one which will so forcibly compel public 
 attention to it as was offered on Saturday, when a would-be-worker 
 at the Docks was blinded for life by having quicklime thrown in his 
 eyes." 
 
 The Times' Special correspondent stated that " the hearts of 
 those at the Wade's Arms are at the present moment in a state of 
 elation. From America they have received abundant sympathy- 
 but no dollars ; from Churchmen and Nonconformists in general 
 they have received much sympathy and some money. The receipts 
 from public collections have been, I should imagine, growing less ; 
 but the great source of support has been Australia. Yesterday 
 ^4,000 came from that source alone, ^^3,000 being addresssed to 
 Mr. Burns under cover at the Times Office. This, no doubt, is a 
 great increase to the strength of the men ; indeed, it may almost be 
 said that if they are supplied with money in such an abundance as 
 this they may be tempted to remain on strike for an unreasonable 
 time." 
 
 Both parties to the dispute absolutely held out against any further 
 concessions or compromises. The Dock Companies, although will- 
 ing to concede the 6d. per hour and 8d. overtime, would not put it 
 into operation until New Year's Day, whereas the men insisted 
 upon its dating from October i. The Lord Mayor and his Com-
 
 cviii. Appendix A. 
 
 mittee, pocketing the slight which had been put upon them by the 
 strikers, continued their well-intentioned efforts to effect a settle- 
 ment. The Committee of Conciliation, consisting of the Lord 
 Mayor, Cardinal Manning, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Sydney 
 Buxton had a prolonged conference with Messrs. Burns, Tillett, 
 Mann, Champion, lies, Toomey, and Walsh. As the Lord Mayor, 
 however, immediately left London until Friday, and the Bishop of 
 London returned to Wales, it was evident that they did not expect 
 much progress towards a settlement. The Lord Mayor handed over 
 to the Strike Committee _^ 1,200 which he had received from Ade- 
 laide '* for the benefit of the strikers," and ^500 from the Amalga- 
 mated Miners' Association, Broken Hill, Australia, " for the use of 
 Dock labourers " ; and he also forwarded to Mr. Sydney Buxton, 
 M.P., ^1,000 received from Brisbane for the relief of sufferers in 
 connection with the Dock strike, and ^xoo from Lord Brassey tobe 
 administered by the Relief Committee in East India Road, 
 
 More men were working in all the Docks in spite of the efforts 
 which were made to get at them by the pickets. 
 
 Burns received a report to the effect that a wharfinger having 
 paid the new terms until the men had cleared off the greater part of 
 the accumulation of goods on his wharf, proposed to reduce the 
 wage to 5d. an hour. Burns at once despatched a messenger to the 
 men connected with this wharf, telling them if they did not receive 
 the price agreed upon they were at once to cease work and picket 
 the premises. 
 
 The Dock Directors stated that they were compelled to refuse 
 further information as to the state of affairs in the Docks, because 
 they had found that the publication of these facts universally re- 
 sulted in an increased activity on the part of the pickets. The 
 Directors also said : "As to the question of picketing and inter- 
 fering with the freedom of men going to work the Directors con- 
 sidered that what was going on now in the east of London was a 
 disgrace to any civilised community. Whatever powers were 
 existing to give freedom of action to working men were in abeyance 
 in the east of London, for the men there were really living under 
 a reign of terror. The Lord Mayor, it was stated, had asked that 
 men should be allowed to go into their old places when the strike 
 had been brought to an end. The Directors said that, with all 
 respect to his Lordship, they could not concede that point, for, as a 
 matter of fact, the places of many men who had gone out on strike
 
 Appendix A cix. 
 
 had been filled up. There did not exist any vindictive feeling 
 whatever towards the men who had gone out, but the company 
 could not and would not displace those who had come in. As to the 
 proposal that the 6d. and 8d. an hour should begin on the ist of 
 October, the Directors said that they had gone to the extreme limit 
 of their concessions in the offer they had made to commence the 
 rise of pay in January next. The Lord Mayor, a Director said, 
 came to the Directors with what was known in trade as a 'firm 
 offer,' and as such it was accepted. Beyond that the Directors 
 could not go." 
 
 At the Corn Exchange, Mark Lane, a meeting of the grain-traders 
 was held and a resolution passed calling upon the Government to 
 put down picketing and to stop the intimidation now rampant in 
 connection with the strike. 
 
 Subsequentlyadeputation from the meeting, consisting of Mr. John 
 Aste, Chairman of the Corn Exchange, Mr. Grimsdale, and Mr. 
 Podger, had an interview with Mr. Sanders, one of Mr. Matthews's 
 private secretaries, for the purpose of asking that some official steps 
 should be taken to put an end to the intimidation now being prac- 
 tised by the various pickets. The deputation laid the whole matter 
 before Mr. Sanders, who promised to communicate with the Home 
 Secretary, with the view to an appointment. 
 
 The new proposal to fix December ist as the date for granting 
 the full demands of the men found little favour. Tom Mann ex- 
 pressed his entire opposition to such a compromise being proceeded 
 with, and said the men would reject it. He endorsed Tillett's pro- 
 posal as to October ist, but he felt the gravest doubt as to whether 
 he should be able to prevail upon the South London men to accept it. 
 
 Among the matters dealt with by the South Side Strike Com- 
 mittee was an application by Mr. Lafone, of Butler's Wharf. Mr. 
 La/one wished to send a barge down to Tilbury Docks for a consign- 
 ment of tea. The Waders Arms .Committee refused a similar 
 atplication from the same gentletnan on Satarday on account oj 
 Mr. Laf one's having unloaded timber as well as general goods from 
 a vessel at his wharf on that day. The South London Cofnmi'ttee, 
 though assured by him that it was impossible to get at the goods 
 without removing the timber and though he offered to pay the Dock 
 rates for unloading ti?nber, refused the application. This action of 
 the committee will, it is said, result in 200 of Mr. Lafonis meji 
 having nothing to do.
 
 cxr Appendix A. 
 
 Fifty men who had agreed to go to work in the Albert Docks left 
 the Dock-house in a body for that purpose. They travelled by the 
 io'37 train from Fenchicrch Street^ but so energetic were the striker's 
 pickets that only eleven of the " blacklegs " reached their destination. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill, Tillet said that he resented very 
 much being made use of by the Lord Mayor in the way shown in 
 that morning's papers : " There had been an exhibition of spleen 
 on the part of the Lord Mayor which was unworthy of a great 
 citizen. They respected his Lordship's position, and hoped that he 
 in turn would respect theirs. He hoped the Lord Mayor's mind 
 would be as large and generous as the minds of other men whose 
 interests had to be considered. He could tell the Lord Mayor that 
 he put no more value on his influence and position, if it was not 
 for the right, than he did on that of the humblest of the starving 
 Dock Labourers." 
 
 Referring to the state of affairs in the Docks, Tillett said : " The 
 men there only had to say they would knock off work when the 
 foremen had to grovel and lick round them in order to keep them 
 on." He proceeded to thank the members of the Press there for 
 contributing three guineas towards the Strike Fund, and said they 
 would get a harvest of pence and silver that day which had been 
 collected at the various chapels on the previous day. " The Dock 
 Companies were now hoping to defeat them through their stomachs, 
 but the Company had been defeated by the public, who had filled 
 the Dockers' stomachs. . . . They wanted the Dock Directors to 
 give up some of their luxuries so that they might have some of the 
 necessaries of life." 
 
 Burns said he had received £i\ from British Trade Unions, sums 
 of money from various parts of the country, one large cheque from 
 Australia. He estimated the street collections of the previous day 
 at ^500 to ^600, and added, " One could afford to have a little 
 impudence on receiving ;!^5,ooo by one post." 
 
 *' He had seen a letter in the newspapers that day from the Lord 
 Mayor. He had not said a harsh word in this dispute about any 
 man except Norwood and Williams. On them, he confessed, he 
 had been somewhat rough ; but one had to be rough on rats at all 
 times. . . . The fact was their willingness to settle had been re- 
 garded as overtures to surrender. Their sweet reasonableness had 
 been construed as the conduct of men who were goaded on to accept 
 terms by hungry, despairing men at their backs. That was not so. 
 They were better organized than ever. Money was coming in as 
 fast as they could reasonably expect, and in proportion as whar-
 
 Ai}pendix A. cxi. 
 
 fingers and shipowners accepted their terms so did their liabilities 
 diminish and their prospects of victory increase. The morale of 
 the men was excellent, and that morning he had seen enough to 
 justify him in pushing forward their claims to the bitter end. " 
 
 A large meeting of the pastors and officers of the " Free 
 Churches " of London, was held at the Memorial Hall — "For the 
 purpose of promoting extended and concerted action in relation to 
 the strike." Rev. Dr. Hannay, who presided, said that " It was not 
 proposed to record or suggest judgment on the present strike either 
 on the one side or the other, although no doubt the majority of 
 those present had formed a definite opinion on the question, and 
 probably in the main in one direction." Dr. Clifford said : " The 
 heroic conduct of the strikers deserved cordial recognition, and 
 philanthropists who had watched them had been constrained to 
 entertain hopes for their advancement which had never been held 
 out before. The spirit which animated the Dockers throughout the 
 strike was admirable, and was due in a great measure to the conduct 
 of the leaders — Burns and Tillett." 
 
 He proposed the following resolution : " That in the judgment 
 of this meeting of ministers and members of Free Churches in Lon- 
 don (i) it is certain that the severity of the distress consequent 
 upon the Dock labourers' strike will be more acutely felt for several 
 weeks after the strike has ceased to monopolize public attention 
 than it is now, and that, therefore, it is desirable that all our 
 •Churches should arrange to increase their contributions to the relief 
 fund by collections and subscriptions as promptly and as largely as 
 possible ; (2) that with the view of stimulating practical sympathy 
 in receiving and distributing funds, this meeting resolves to appoint 
 a committee to enter mto correspondence with the Churches, call- 
 ing their attention to the urgency ot the need, and offering to dis- 
 tribute where necessary any funds through the Churches, the Strike 
 ■Committee, and other existing agencies." 
 
 The Rev. J, M'Neill, in seconding the motion, said, " it was 
 necessary to let the country know that the Dock men were not a 
 mixture of Bill Sikes and his bulldog ; but that, on the contrary, 
 they had as much human nature in them as Mr. Norwood. The 
 concession should be made, and made at once. It appeared at first 
 sight to be a pity that the cause of the Dockers was headed by 
 something that was without godliness ; but John Burns did not 
 seem to be far from the Kingdom of Heaven, and he was not sure 
 that all the Dock Directors were in it." 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Carlile said that there were 40,000 men then out 
 of work on the Surrey side and the scenes were most pitiful.
 
 cxii. Appendix A . 
 
 Dr. Lunn, of the Wesleyan Central Mission, proposed to move.- 
 as a rider : 
 
 " That this assembly is of opinion that the time has come for a 
 public expression of opinion on the part of the Nonconformists of 
 London in support of the Dockers in their presetit struggle, and 
 that the Committee be requested to give expression to that sym- 
 pathy, and to raise funds for the help of the Dockers and their 
 families." 
 
 After a discussion, this rider was not pressed, and the main reso- 
 lution was put and carried unanimously. 
 
 The Rev. J. M'Neill next moved : 
 
 *' That this meeting of pastors and officers of the Free Churches 
 of London requests representatives of all denominations present to 
 wait upon the Dock Directors and the Lord Mayor at once, and 
 represent to them that we are convinced that it is of the utmost 
 urgency that the claims of the men, as expressed in their latest 
 proposition, of 6d. an hour at once, or on the ist of October,, 
 should be instantly conceded, and so end this painful struggle." 
 
 Rev. W. CuflF seconded the motion, which was carried. 
 
 The dustmen in the employ of Messrs. Hobbs and Co., Pad- 
 dincrton, struck work for an advance of wages and sought the assis- 
 tance of John Williams, the Socialist leader, who held what he called 
 a Parliament of Labour outside Messrs. Hobbs' gates. He said 
 the responsibility for this strike must rest with Messrs. Hobbs and 
 Son. " What the strikers ought to do was to cripple the trade of 
 the yard entirely. Could they get the day men out ? (Yes.) No 
 force must be used ; but under the law of conspiracy relating to 
 Trade Unions they had power to place pickets at the gates." 
 
 The Great Eastern Railway Company's men at Parkstone Quay, 
 having declined the offer of Mr. Birt, the General Manager, of 
 £i is. 6d. for a week of six days, twelve hours a day, with extra 
 pay for overtime and Sunday work, free passes on the line, and 
 privilege tickets for their wives and families, the Company at 
 once took steps to replace them, and the offer of permanent employ- 
 ment at £\ IS. and overtime quickly secured the 300 men required 
 from villages and towns in East Anglia. None of the men who 
 struck were taken on again. 
 
 The strike of grain carriers at the Bramley Moor Dock, Liver- 
 pool, terminated. The 6s. per day and is. an hour overtime being 
 granted by the masters. 
 
 Major Banes, M.P., in a letter to the Times, on the action of Mr.
 
 Appendix A. cxiii. 
 
 H. H. Lafone, said that he had posed as the representative of the 
 wharfingers, and yet had for purposes best known to himself, *' been 
 in constant communication with the Strike Committee, and at the 
 same time furnishing the Press with information that has led to 
 reports so inaccurate and misleading that, in my opinion, the pro- 
 longation of the strike and the bitterness engendered are more due 
 to that fact than anything else." Major Banes also intimated that 
 Mr. Lafone had " little interest or practical experience as a wharfinger, 
 being simply the representative of the Land Security Finance Com- 
 ipany who hold Butler's Wharf." 
 
 Messrs. Hollingworth, Perry, Barnes, Knight, Mahoney, Kelly, 
 Lynch, and Lockett, who described themselves as " The leaders of 
 the men who cart, pile, and deliver wood cargoes after being dis- 
 charged from the ship in the Surrey Commercial Docks," stated in a 
 letter to the Times that at the time of the strike the men at these 
 Docks were in full work earning from forty shillings to fifty 
 shillings a week. " The whole of these men, both gangers 
 and strappers^ when they suddenly left tvork, stated that they went out 
 under compulsion from the strikers^ luho came ovet from the north side 
 .of the Ihaines^ and we believe that they would at on^e resufnework ij 
 allowed to do so. Why are they not allowed to return, especially as 
 the strike leaders professed to have ititervened only on behalf of men 
 who cLre receiving ^d. an hour ? Failing a rational answer to this 
 question the public would do well to consider whether they are acting 
 rightly in subscribing money for the support of men luho could be 
 earning frotn 405. to ^os. per weeky 
 
 Mr. Andrew Low, in a letter to the Times, said that it was very 
 easy for the Lord Mayor, the Bishop of London, and Cardinal 
 Manning to interview Dock Directors and instruct them how to 
 conduct their business, but he suggested that these eminent per. 
 sonages should accompany the next gang of labourers who were 
 sent to the Docks and witness the treatment which they received 
 from the pickets. " Let them address a few words of advice to 
 those interfering with the men who are anxious to work for the 
 Dock Company's pay. Let them instruct the?n in tlu duty oj 
 Christian forbearance to men who have as much right to work as 
 they have to remain idle, and see what effect tfiey will produce. 
 Tfiey are, at all events, certain of a large audience. No doubt after 
 an experience of this kind the Dock Directors will be more ready 
 to listen to their counsel, if they are still in the humour to tender 
 it." 
 
 Mr. Low further said : " Some of tfie Dock Company^ s officials tfiis 
 
 h
 
 cxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 morning found 29 men who were perfectly ready to go to the Docks and 
 work for ^d. an hour. They got them with difficulty through the pickets 
 at Fenchurch Street and into the train, but four of the pickets went 
 into the same train with them, and, on arrival at the Docks, made 
 signals to the meti picketing outside the station, who broke into the 
 station and so hustled and annoyed the ?nen that x^^of them were lost, 
 and only 16 got safely into the Dock?' 
 
 September loth. — A telegram from Melbourne stated that the 
 donations collected throughout Victoria in aid of the London 
 strikers amounted to ;^io,ooo, and those in New South Wales to 
 /4,ooo. 
 
 A deputation of hghtermen went to the Home Office to complain 
 of the resolution passed by the corn brokers, in which they ap- 
 pealed to the Home Secretary to afford protection to men who were 
 willing to work. The lightermen stated that they had in no case 
 practised intimidation. Picketing they admitted ; but they con- 
 tended that it had been confined within legal bounds. 
 
 An exciting scene took place at Fenchurch Street Station shortly 
 before noon. Thirty " blacklegs " on the way to the Docks were 
 followed to the railway station by a crowd, Superintendent Foster 
 guarding the dockers with a force of police. On reaching the 
 barrier on the departure platform several men made a rush, but 
 were prevented from getting through. They returned to the street 
 groaning and hooting. Earlier in the morning a body of 40 men 
 went by the Great Eastern from Fenchurch Street to the Docks. 
 
 At the Millwall Docks there was a new departure. Shipowners 
 had asked the Dock Directors whether permission would be given 
 to men from the outside to discharge ships. Consent was readily 
 given. The Strike Committee allowed the men to work on the 
 ships on condition that the ships' cargoes should not be discharged 
 into the Dock Company's warehouses or barges. 
 
 On behalf of the Dock Directors it was stated that the amount 
 involved in the dispute had been put by some people at ^30,000 
 per annum, by others at ^150,000 per annum and by a strike 
 leader at ^^70,000 per annum. A Director said it had 
 been stated " that such a small amount should not be the cause 
 determining the continuance of this dispute." People who made 
 such statements, he added, forgot the two small words " per an- 
 num." The sums mentioned, capitalized on the 3 per cent, tables^ 
 meant from one million to five millions sterling.
 
 Appendix A. cxv. 
 
 Cardinal Manning, accompanied by Mr, Sydney Buxton held a 
 three hours' conference with the Strike Committee in the Wade 
 Street Catholic School-house, the proceedings being private. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill Tillett said : "If ever they were in 
 a position to congratulate themselves, it was at the present time. 
 On the previous day close on^7,ooo came in and they had promises 
 of more to follow. The day before there was an influential meet- 
 ing of the Nonconformist body, and the debate which took 
 place was almost too much on one side, for they now had 
 nobody to fight. . . . All through these troublous times there had 
 been mutterings and murmurings of resentment, but ill-feeling had 
 been kept under by great restraint, and he had never lost sight of 
 the fact that there was great danger to the great commercial heart 
 of this world through the strike being prolonged. He had never 
 whittled down his own responsibiUty, and if the Dock Directors 
 had looked all round, instead of croaking about sending the trade 
 of London away, they would have acted as the men had done 
 and met them fairly and squarely, and allowed them to return to 
 work. If the trade of London had been dislocated and the traffic 
 diverted, the responsibility for it must fall upon the Directors. 
 What would it cost them to accede to the men's demands ? Not 
 more than ^^6,000, and what would be their return ? The Direc- 
 tors would clear not only ;^5,ooo but ^10,000 the first day that 
 work was resumed. Yet for the sake of their dignity, or rather 
 their ass-like obstinacy, they would not make the concession de- 
 manded. Where was their dignity? Like the bullies and cowards 
 that they were, when they got a good thrashing they called out 
 ' Police.' " 
 
 Burns at the same meeting said : " He had to announce that 
 they had received another jf 1,000 that morning from Australia. 
 Since Monday morning ^7.000 had come from Melbourne and 
 Adelaide alone. That did not look like losing. The subscrip- 
 tions in the streets were as large as ever, and the collections from 
 the churches and chapels were coming in very fast, while the 
 amount of support from ordinary sources was not at all disappoint- 
 ing. He had one word to say about the English-speaking races 
 in America. i'he Australians had responded to the Dockers' 
 appeal with a generosity that was really striking. The Americans 
 had also responded to the Dockers' appeal. In characteristic 
 fashion they had sent a lot of long-worded sentiments and sym- 
 pathy, but as for ' spondulicks ' or dollars, nary a red cent. Now, 
 that was not in keeping with the nation that boasted of the stars 
 and stripes floating above its head. He was indeed surprised, 
 and he was ashamed of the American workmen, who boasted so
 
 cxvi. Appendix A. 
 
 ■much about their solidarity, their self-sacrifice, and their labour 
 organizations. They had left unsupported the pioneers of a labour 
 movement the effect of which would be felt all over the world 
 He was ashamed that the American workmen, with all their 
 ■boasting and bluffing, had not sent a single shilling to help the 
 Dock labourer in his trouble." 
 
 The procession passed through the City, and it was noticed that 
 there was a considerable diminution in numbers. The dockers, 
 however, were very enthusiastic and groaned vigorously on passing 
 the Dock office m Leadenhall-street. When the men on their 
 return journey reached Philpot-street, E., two babies, born a week 
 ago, were brought into the street for the strike leader to kiss. Mr. 
 Burns received the infants from the nurses and bestowed the wished- 
 for caress on each child, amid enthusiastic manifestations, especially 
 from the assembled women. 
 
 Tom Mann, at a meeting in Southwark Park, said the way the 
 public had supported the movement was something startling. 
 Cardinal Manning, and those acting with him, had in effect said to 
 them at the Mansion House : " Do not insist upon the terms being 
 granted at once. The Directors are already in the gutter, but do 
 not stamp on them." Referring to the letter which had appeared 
 in the Tvnes from the deal gangers, Mann said it was evidently in- 
 tended to make the men look despicable and endeavour to stop the 
 public contributions. " They made out that the men might now 
 be at work in the Docks earning good money but for their ' cussed- 
 ness.' These men were traitors and rascals, and must be regarded 
 as their enemies. Let them use no violence towards them, but let 
 them treat them as social lepers who had done their best to destroy 
 them." 
 
 Mr. E. S. Norris, M.P., in a manly letter to the Times, in which 
 he said that he would rather risk his seat than disguise his opinions in 
 this crisis, paid a tribute to the intelligence and honesty of the 
 working men of the East End. He said : 
 
 " As one of the Joint Committee, may I take this opportunity 
 of saying, for myself at least, that the coarse abuse levelled at the 
 chairman individually is unfair and untrue ? We are all acting in 
 union and prefer to share the responsibility, and we reject the abuse. 
 You, Sir, severely deprecated some days ago such forms of coercion 
 as have been attempted and used towards us, and even in the inter- 
 vention from the Mansion-house pressure of no ordinary nature has 
 been applied. Where is this to end 1 The country surely will not
 
 Appendix A. cxvii. 
 
 tolerate in perpetuity that which interferes with freedom of contract 
 and the mutual relations between supply and demand." 
 
 Mr. James Taylor, of Middlesborough, in a letter to the Times,. 
 said that he had been a wharfinger for over 45 years. He pointed 
 out that the wharfage business of London had suffered enormously 
 during the last twenty or thirty years, the sugar trade having all but 
 left it, and also the rice trade, and the ale and porter trade, while 
 the warehousing of grain for trans-shipment coast-wise was ail-but 
 obsolete. He further pointed out that the competition of Glasgow, 
 Liverpool, Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, &c., told heavily against trade 
 in London, and that improved Continental lines of steamers to 
 America and the East now carried goods which formerly came to 
 London for trans-shipment, giving the three-fold labour of putting 
 into lighters, conveyance by lighter, and shipping into the export 
 vessel. As regards Dock labourers and their work, Mr. Taylor 
 said : 
 
 " The work is not exhaustive ; it is intermittent, it is carried on in 
 the open air, and any strong man can easily work overtime on 
 occasion. The proposed rate of payment would enable men to earn 
 6s. to 7s. a day if fully employed. Compare this with the work and 
 pay of our ironworkers, of miners, of men shut up in the mills, in- 
 factories, and chemical works, or with the long hours, hard 
 work, and small pay of the agricultural labourer, and the 
 position of a Dock labourer with the new rate of pay- 
 ment is far beyond them all I see it is estimated that 
 
 the number of men out on strike, with their allied and kindred 
 trades — lightermen, carmen, coal workers, &c. — will reach 200,000; 
 the increased pay demanded is equal to is. per day, that is ;^ 10,000 
 per day. This demand, if conceded, is enough to dislocate the ship- 
 ping trade of London. It is impossible that, in the face of super- 
 abundance of labour, it can permanently be maintained, and to just 
 such an extent as the demand is forced will the men be injured on. 
 whose behalf the agitation has been made." 
 
 Mr. A. A. Frey, in a letter to the Times, corroborated the state- 
 ments of Mr. Taylor as to the loss of trade experienced by London, 
 which was no longer the depot of the world. In spite of this loss of 
 trade the rates of lighterage had been reduced 25 per cent. Mr. Frey 
 said that general lighterage business, under the most favourable con- 
 ditions, does not give a return of 5 percent, on capital invested. He 
 also protested against the system of picketing " with its threats, its 
 entering of men's names who are at work in the Black Book, also
 
 cxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 the stoning of men on the barges. The farce of the police launch 
 incessantly following in the rear of the strikers' hired tug, has 
 already been commented upon by the Press. Surely picketing of 
 this sort is intimidation, and illegal, and should be prevented." 
 
 A correspondent of the Times, who described himself as a trustee 
 shareholder in the London and St. Katharine Docks, said : 
 
 " I. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the wages which the 
 men have been receiving represent the full market value of their 
 services. 
 
 " 2. The many millions of money which were spent in creating the 
 Docks were spent not to found a * trust for the public,' or for the 
 ' Port of London,' nor to establish a philanthropic institution, but 
 to create a commercial undertaking to be managed on business 
 principles and to produce a profit for the shareholders. 
 
 " 3. The earning of a dividend is of the utmost importance to 
 many of the shareholders, a substantial number of whom are 
 widows and orphans in very reduced circumstances, and who are 
 deserving of the sympathy of the public." 
 
 He thought the reasonableness of the Directors position was evi- 
 dent from the fact that but for intimidation they could get as many 
 men as they wanted on their own terms. This Dock Shareholder 
 further thought that " Persons who are charitablv inclined might do 
 well to put their inclinations into practice at their own expense and 
 not at the expense of unfortunate people whose only crime is to be 
 shareholders in a Dock Company" ; and further, that " the essence of 
 mediation is a compromise, and that pressure exercised on those who 
 have already given up much to compel them to give up everything 
 to those who decline to give up anything is not mediation at all." 
 He thought that the Docks might just as well be shut up for a year 
 or two as to be open at a loss. 
 
 At the Thames Police Court, George Owen was charged with 
 intimidation. He threatened William Tinker, a carmen in the employ 
 of Messrs. Fardell, and attempted to unharness his horses. He was 
 sentenced to two months hard labour. 
 
 At West Ham, William Bitts, Dock labourer, was charged with 
 intimidating James Scanlan, a Dock constable, " by besetting the 
 place where he carried on his business at Connaught Road, Royal 
 Albert Docks." When the constable opened the Dock gate to 
 let in a van Bitts rushed into the Docks, and was afterwards 
 found concealed beneath some tarpaulin. When asked what he 
 was doing there, he said : " I am here to mark those who work."
 
 Appendix A. cxix. 
 
 He was told to leave the Docks, and he then said to the constable, 
 *' When I get out of the Docks I will knock your brains out." 
 Mr. Bagallay, the magistrates said it must be clearly understood that 
 picketing was illegal ; that was, picketing in the sense of intimida- 
 ting men to prevent them from going into work, either by using 
 language of a threatening character, or by hanging about the Docks. 
 He sentenced the prisoner to two months hard labour. 
 
 September nth. — The 7/i»^^' Special Correspondent stated that 
 one of the sights of the morning was to see the imported labourers 
 formed up in column, and escorted by the City Police, running the 
 blockade of the pickets. Three batches of labourers were thus con- 
 veyed to the Docks this morning. The strikers, however, claimed that 
 they had intercepted 150 men from Liverpool at Willesden, and 
 that as soon as they reached Euston they started back to Liverpool. 
 The Times' Correspondent said: " It is an extremely difficult thing 
 to obtain evidence of individual cases of intimidation for the simple 
 reason that the men are afraid to give it." The same Correspon- 
 dent said : " Mr. Tillett I regard as a serious obstacle to compro- 
 mise in any form. His speech in the Park on Sunday shows him 
 to be extremely anxious to claim credit for himself, and to pose as 
 a leader, and though he is intellectually a pigmy beside the others, 
 his feeble jokes and assertive manner are not unpopular among the 
 men." 
 
 Mr. Hankey, Deputy Chairman of the Docks Committee, and 
 Mr. Boyle, had an interview with the Chief Commissioners of Metro- 
 politan Police, " in order to ascertain whether steps could be taken 
 to put down intimidation." They stated that since Saturday, in 
 consequence of more vigorous action on the part of the City Police, 
 the Directors had been able to send men down to the Docks with 
 much less molestation on the part of the pickets than before. Mr. 
 Neville Lubbock entered his protest against the men who had 
 returned to work being denominated as "blacklegs." He thought 
 they were perfectly honest men, and had a right to go to work if 
 they thought fit. He was not sure that the term might not be 
 properly applied to those who were endeavouring to intimidate 
 honest workers. 
 
 Pickets were exceptionally active in the City during the day, and 
 a great body of them surrounded the Dock-house. As soon as any 
 new men emerged from the Dock-house they were surrounded by 
 pickets, who, by means of persuasive words, followed sometimes by
 
 cxx. Appendix A. 
 
 taunts, endeavoured to induce the new-comers to abandon their 
 journey to the Docks. Such expressions as " Have you got no 
 shame in you ? " and " You will be marked men," were frequently- 
 heard, and every now and again some intending worker, yielding 
 to the influence of these ejaculations, would fall out of the 
 ranks. 
 
 Pickets were stationed outside the Docks, and prevented any 
 labourers going in by the public entrances. 
 
 There were strong bodies of pickets on the river as well as on 
 land. The Sayes's Court Committee passed a stringent prohibition 
 on mid-stream unloading which applied from Westminster Bridge to 
 the Nore. 
 
 It was announced that the strikers had now between ^ii,ooo 
 and ^12,000 in hand, between ;^5,ooo and ^6,000 having been 
 received from Australia this day. 
 
 In consequence of the steamers Ormuz and Tainui, bound for 
 Melbourne and New Zealand, having shipped " blackleg " crews of 
 seamen and firemen, the secretary of the Seaman's and Fireman's 
 Union was instructed to communicate with the Federated Seaman's 
 Union of Australia, requesting that body to refuse to load or unload 
 ships so manned. Mr. Tillett addressed a meeting at Tilbury. He 
 states that there are 36 ships lying in the stream there unable to sail 
 for want of crews. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill, Tillett said, referring to the money 
 they had at their back, " that meant cannon, shot and shell, and un- 
 less the Dock Directors gave in they were going to bombard the 
 Dock House at once. . . . Their position was now far stronger 
 than it was last week, for they had on their side money, public sym- 
 pathy, and justice. If the Dock Companies did not give in, the men 
 would be able to prolong their holiday and receive as much forstand- 
 ing about as they got for sweating in the Docks." 
 
 Later in the day Tillett said they were getting gold from the 
 diggings, and Australia was a perfect mine. They had had yards and 
 yards of sympathy from America, but not a single dollar. With 
 all their boastings about the eagle and the stars and stripes on 
 their banner, with all their vauntings about their labour institu- 
 tions, the Americans had not sent their fellow working-men anything 
 with which to provide the ammunition of war. 
 
 At a meeting of London Congregational ministers held at the 
 Memorial Hall, the Rev. G. D. Macgregor, chairman, moved, and
 
 Appendix A. cxxi. 
 
 the Rev. Dr. Parker seconded the following resolution, which was 
 carried : " That this Board desires to express cordial sympathy 
 with the Dock Labourers in their present struggle, believing that 
 their claim is substantially just and reasonable." 
 
 A correspondent of the Times said : " Watching the strikers' pro- 
 cession just now in Tower Street, one of the men, who evidently 
 knew me, as I am constantly in the Docks, broke through the 
 ranks and told me that he and two-thirds of the procession would 
 gladly return to work, even at sd. per hour, if the rest, who were 
 not ' Dockers ' at all, did not intimidate them." 
 
 September \2th. — Prospect of a settlement of the strike again 
 appeared more favourable. Cardinal Manning had a long inter- 
 view with the Dock Directors, who afterwards said that they con- 
 sidered that the terms they agreed to as to the 6d. an hour being 
 conceded from the ist January next were the only terms they would 
 be justified in abiding by, and what they had now to say was that 
 if the leaders of the strike had other terms to propose they should 
 first agree among themselves and submit them, when the Directors 
 would consider them. The Directors had had nothing from the 
 men sufficiently " firm " to act upon, and could not discuss any other 
 subject or point than the ist of January proposal unless they had 
 from the men a direct offer. The Directors accepted Cardinal 
 Manning as a mediator on behalf of the men, but they could not 
 go into the discussion they had had with his Eminence except to say 
 that they had discussed all the points with him. 
 
 The Mansion House Committee of Conciliation issued the fol- 
 lowing announcement : " Cardinal Manning and Mr. Sydney 
 Buxton, M.P., who have been in constant communication with the 
 Lord Mayor and Sir John Lubbock, M.P. (President of the London 
 Chamber of Commerce), had a prolonged interview with the Joint 
 Committee at the Dock House, and afterwards with the representa- 
 tives of the Strike Committee at the Mansion House. On both 
 sides a most amicable feeling was shown. It is, of course, impos- 
 sible to make any definite announcement as to the termination of 
 the strike until the final agreement between the Joint Committee 
 and the Dock Labourers shall have been signed and published by 
 them. We believe, however, that any delay now existing is only 
 because the questions pending between the other parties interested 
 have not as yet been finally settled. It is, however, hoped that 
 to-day a satisfactory solution of these points may be arrived at and 
 the strike terminated. Apart from these extraneous questions we 
 understand that all matters have been amicably arranged."
 
 cxxii. Appendix A. 
 
 This memorandum was submitted by Mr. Burns to the Strike 
 Committee, and was discussed at length. 
 
 Mr. T. Sutherland, M.P., said that the Dock Directors apparently 
 thought that the increase in their working expenses by the con- 
 cession of the 6d. per hour would have to be borne by the ship- 
 owners in the form of increased rates. This, he was of opinion, 
 was not a proposition which the shipowners could endure. It 
 would, he seemed to think, have one of two effects — it would either 
 drive away the trade from the Port of London or it would force a 
 new Dock Company into existence. 
 
 The master-lightermen continued to insist that the raising of 
 rates which would necessarily be involved in a concession of the 
 men's demands would have the effect of driving away trade from 
 the Port of London, and in support of their contention they 
 pointed to a great strike among the men which took place some 
 years ago, and which so effectually drove away from the port the 
 cotton trade, and one or two other trades, that they have never 
 returned. 
 
 In some granaries on the south side of the river the men went 
 to work under a mistaken notion that the Lafone settlement ap- 
 plied to their case, whereas under the terms of the South side 
 Manifesto the casual hands were entitled to demand 5s. lod. per 
 day. 
 
 The police escorted a load of beds and bolsters, and a large quan- 
 tity of beer into the Lady Dock. The pickets were naturally irate 
 at this, and a telegram was at once despatched to the tradesman 
 who had supplied the articles imploring him for the sake of the men 
 on strike not to send any more. A local publican, who is supply- 
 ing a large number of meals to the " blacklegs " in the Docks, has 
 been denounced by the men. 
 
 At the Tower Hill meeting Tillett said : 
 
 " The usual shoal of falsehoods had come from the Dock House, 
 and the leaders of the strike were doing their best to give morality 
 to the men whom the Dockers had demoralised. They had been 
 able to spoil Mr. Norwood's little game, and the recent events 
 would be a lesson to him and to them also. The Dock labourers 
 in Liverpool were getting 5s. a day, and half-a-crown whether they 
 worked one, two, or five hours, and these docks charged a less rate 
 than the London Docks. Let each man do his part willingly, cheer- 
 fully, and, above all, he urged them to restrain themselves. They
 
 Appendix A. cxxiii. 
 
 must not forget that a look from a docker's eye was sufficient to 
 paralyse a blackleg, and they would be able to talk to these men 
 when they returned to work." 
 
 Burns said that his absence from Tower Hill on the previous 
 day was partly owing to the fact that he had to go to the bank to 
 receive ^2,000 that had come for them from Australia. After 
 that meeting he was going to the bank to get another ^2,000 that 
 had been received from Melbourne and Sydney. He declared 
 that the men who had been to the Home Office with the alleged 
 charges of intimidation, had failed most signally. ''Having failed 
 with Mr. Matthews, they went to Mr. Monro. Now that gentle- 
 man was a sensible ftllow, and the fact that he had through the 
 strike kept his men in the background was an evidence of his good 
 sense." 
 
 An important meeting of master-lightermen was held at the 
 Corn Exchange Tavern. Mr. Wiggington again sent a very urgent 
 request that he might be admitted to the meeting, but the meeting 
 unanimously declined to admit him. A committee was appointed 
 to deal direct with the lightermen. Mr. Groves contended that 
 the masters were the men's best friends. "The masters had had a 
 very great struggle in the Port of London for the last seven years 
 to maintain any trade at all. The rates had worked down to 
 almost nothing, and the earnings net had not exceeded 5 per cent., 
 after allowing for the charges of the business. If the basis of business 
 was destroyed by unreasonable demands in the labour market, the 
 labour market must perish with business. The matter resolved 
 itself simply into a question of supply and demand. (Cheers.) If 
 prices were put up, the trade in the Port of London in the next 
 three years would drop off one-half. Since the great strike of 1872, 
 the cotton, rice, and indigo business had gone, and London could 
 not now rank as the central port of the world. It really had not got 
 much trade beyond what was required to support its four millions 
 of population. The business which came to London as a central 
 market would shortly be driven away, and the new port at Grimsby, 
 and places like Liverpool and Southampton would get it." 
 
 The plate-layers of the Great Western Railway Company in the 
 London district sent to the Directors the following memorial : 
 
 "We respectfully demand of the Directors that our wages be 
 increased from 3Ad. per hour, or i8s. per week, to 5d. an hour, or 
 25s. per week. We submit that ours is a skilled labour, requiring 
 intelligence and care; that we incur great hardships through want 
 of rest, having to attend sudden calls at all times and in all sorts of
 
 cxxiv. Appendix A . 
 
 weather; that we incur great personal risk of life and limb in the 
 execution of our work. Consequently we consider we are entitled 
 to be classed with other bodies of skilled labourers who receive not 
 less than 6d. per hour, and even up to is, per hour. We venture 
 to assure the Directors that it would be to the Company's interest to 
 enable their workmen to support decent homes and to live better, 
 so that they might arrive at their work strong and vigorous instead 
 of, as is too often the case, going to their heavy labours in a feeble 
 condition from want of proper support. We also respectfully re- 
 quest that your honourable Board will direct that our wages be paid 
 weekly instead of fortnightly." 
 
 The freedom of the Borough of Kendal was presented to the 
 Lord Mayor of London (Sir Tames Whitehead), who in his reply 
 said, referring to the Dock Strike, that he had been able to bring 
 the parties to reasonable terras and conditions, and the only thing 
 required now was to fix the time when the increased remuneration 
 should be given. "At the present time, unfortunately, there were 
 strong feelings indulged in by both sides, and although he confessed 
 his feelings were with the men for adequate payment, yet he thought 
 they were at present showing an unreasonable disposition towards 
 the Dock Directors " 
 
 The Times in its leader said : *' Matters have gone too far for 
 any other solution to be possible than the granting of the new rate 
 of wages at one date or another," and it added: 
 
 " Whether the solution will benefit either side is quite another 
 question and one that need not be discussed at the present moment. 
 The men and their leaders have deliberately made their demand, 
 and stuck to it persistently, supported by a good deal of public 
 sympathy and by large subscriptions from England, and from 
 the colonies. If they find, in the course of a few months, that a 
 closer organization of the work by the shipowners and Dock Com- 
 panies has led to a very great diminution in the demand for 
 labour; if they find that the business of loading and unloading 
 becomes more and more a matter for skilled labourers, to the 
 complete exclusion of the *' casual " who now looks to the Docks 
 as his only way of escaping the workhouse ; if all this happens, 
 and if simultaneously the trade of the Port of London were to de- 
 crease very seriously the strikers will only have themselves to thank. 
 But this is not the immediate question." 
 
 At the Thames Police-court, Asher Cohen, tailor, was charged 
 with intimidation and assault. He met an apprentice outside the 
 workship in the morning, and said: "You must not go in, we 
 are out on strike." The apprentice was going into the work-
 
 Appendix A. cxxv. 
 
 shop when Cohen punched him in the face, and knocked him 
 down. The proprietor of the workshop said that Cohen was 
 continually annoying him, and ordering his men to come out on 
 strike, saymg that if they did not do so they would be killed. Mr. 
 Lushington sentenced Cohen to three months hard labour. 
 
 At Greenwich Police-court, James Sears was charged with 
 threatening and intimidating a fireman on the steamship Hotspur, 
 lying in the Surrey Commercial Docks. The prosecutor was un- 
 loading timber in the Docks with others, when the prisoner went 
 up and said that if they worked on the morrow they would have 
 their necks broken. Chief Inspector Popes said the prisoner had 
 no right in the Docks. There was a constable at the gates in con- 
 sequence of there being so much intimidation, but he was called 
 to other parts of the Docks. Mr. Marsham sentenced the prisoner 
 to one month's hard labour. 
 
 At Woolwich a Dock labourer, named William Daley, was 
 charged with threatening and assaulting certain men who worked 
 in the Royal Albert Docks. The prisoner was one of a dozen 
 pickets who were armed with big sticks. He said to the prosecutor, 
 " You must go back, you are a blackleg, and shall not go into the 
 Docks. If you don't go back we will do for you." The men 
 replied that they were going into the town and not into the Docks, 
 when the pickets fell upon them with their clubs, and felled them 
 to the ground. Mr. Marsham sentenced the prisoner to three 
 months hard labour. 
 
 The Tiines^ in its leader of this date, said : " That the two parties 
 to this ruinous conflict should be allowed without interference to 
 inflict upon neutral persons, upon the capital, and upon the nation 
 an accumulating loss is a remarkable testimony to the freedom of 
 our institutions." Commenting on the efforts which were being 
 made to settle the strike the Times continued : 
 
 " As regard the Dock labourers, it must be admitted that, as 
 long as large sums continue to arrive from Australia and other 
 sources, their power of endurance will not be seriously impaired. 
 It is significant that able-bodied paupers at the East End work- 
 houses are unusually few for the season of the year. Can they 
 have found it more profitable to go out on strike ? The central 
 question for the strikers is not so much how they can keep them- 
 selves and their families fed, although there must be many among 
 he throng whom the relief distributed fails to reach. It is rather 
 how the Dock Companies are to be prevented from obtaining out-
 
 cxxvi. Appendix A. 
 
 side labour. We are glad to observe that the intimidation overtly- 
 practised by the pickets and unofficial loafers who besiege the 
 Dock gates has received a check. The police authorities have 
 become more alive to the duty of protecting labourers, willing to 
 work, from threats and molestation ; and the Dock Companies 
 themselves have met the organization of the strikers with an organi- 
 zation of their own." 
 
 In the same article the Times said : " It is dawning upon the 
 public mind, indeed, that whatever may be the issue of the strike, 
 the casual Dock labourer will be a loser." 
 
 Septetnber I'^th. — Prolonged conferences betwixt the Lord Mayor, 
 Cardinal Manning, and Mr. Sydney Buxton, the Directors of the 
 Dock Companies, the Shipowners, the Master-lightermen, the 
 Working-lightermen, and the Strike leaders. The Mansion House 
 Committee said : 
 
 " The result of their negotiations, shortly stated, is that there 
 are practically no differences now existing between the Joint 
 Committee of the Dock Companies and the various classes of men 
 in their employ, and that as soon as settlements have been effected 
 by mutual agreement or concession in the few other interests con- 
 cerned, all classes of dock, river, and wharf labourers, can go in 
 on the understanding that such of the new terms as are deferred, 
 shall come into force on the 4th of December next, as proposed by 
 the Mansion House Committee.'' 
 
 The Dock Directors said the public seemed at last to be realising 
 the fact that the result of the strike would be injurious to the 
 Port of London, injurious to the men employed, and likely to 
 increase the distress in the East of London. The resistance shown 
 by the Directors to the demands of the men had, from the first, 
 been dictated by the conviction that these results would follow 
 upon the success of the demands. The Directors further said 
 there was much less difficulty in conveying men into the Docks 
 owing to the assistance given by the City Police, whose chief con- 
 sidered that men willing to work should be protected. Regret was 
 expressed that this idea did not penetrate the mind of the Chief 
 Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. 
 
 After Burns had consulted with the Dock Committee, he an- 
 nounced the conclusion of the strike so far as they were concerned. 
 He said they were unable to take any steps towards issuing a 
 Manifesto until they knew that the lighterman and watermen were 
 also willing to work. On the part of these latter, however, it was 
 
 I
 
 Appendix A. cxxvii. 
 
 announced that they were in favour of continuing the strike unless 
 their own terms were conceded. But ultimately the lightermen 
 passed the following resolution : 
 
 " In order to assist in terminating the strike, we are ready to 
 accept the principle of payment of 6s. for a i2-hours-day's work, 
 and one job to constitute a night's work, all other questions to be 
 submitted to an equal number of masters and men to be decided 
 upon mutually, and an umpire to be nominated by the Lord Mayor. 
 If these terms are accepted to-morrow (Saturday) by the masters 
 we are ready to return to work on Monday morning, the arbitra- 
 tion to commence forthwith." 
 
 Considerable dissatisfaction existed among the South-side strikers 
 in consequence af the General Steam Navigation Company's men 
 having gone into work at less than the manifesto scale of charges, 
 and attempts were being made to draw them out again. The men 
 had started work at 6d. an hour all round, with nothing extra for 
 overtime instead of 7d. per hour, and gd. overtime. Tom Mann 
 denied that he had advised the men to accept the lower rate, and 
 said he considered it the duty of the men who had resumed work 
 to leave at once until the terms of the manifesto were agreed to. 
 The Council at Sayes's Court passed the following resolution : 
 *• That this Council considers that the action of the Steam Naviga- 
 tion Company's men in returning to work is detrimental to the 
 interests of those employed in the same class of work who are now 
 on strike, and pledge themselves to support all bona fide men now 
 out from the said Company." 
 
 At the New Cross Station on the South Eastern Railway twelve 
 pickets from Deptford dropped upon a party of *' blacklegs," who 
 were going down with their gear by rail to Charlton to work as 
 stevedores on a vessel lying out in the river there. The men on 
 being discovered took to their heels and left their gear behind them 
 at the station, to the intense amusement of the passengers. 
 
 At a meeting held at the City Temple, Mr. W. M' Arthur presi- 
 ding, the Rev. Dr. Clifford moved : 
 
 " That this meeting expresses its hearty sympathy with the cause 
 of the Dock labourers, rejoices in the moderation, self-control, and 
 patience which had characterised their efforts to obtain a just wage, 
 and records its satisfaction that the long continued strike appears 
 to be reaching its termination on a fair and just basis," (Cheers.) 
 The Rev. J. M'Neill seconded the resolution. Mr. Drury, amidst 
 great uproar proposed as an amendment : " That by their refusal to
 
 cxxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 act in a conciliatory spirit towards the London and India Docks 
 Joint Committee, in the face of the concessions granted by the 
 latter ; by their manifesto of the 30th of August, calling upon all 
 trades and every calling to strike, but afterwards revoked; and by 
 the intimidation largely carried on, thereby preventing men who 
 wished to work from earning their living, the strikers have 
 forfeited their right to public sympathy." (Uproar.) Mr. J. Evans 
 seconded the amendment, which was only supported by the hold- 
 ing up of two hands. The resolution was carried. It was then 
 agreed, on the motion of the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, seconded 
 by Dr. Parker, that appeals should be made to the Nonconformist 
 churches in London tor practical sympathy in the shape of con- 
 tributions. 
 
 It was announced that the condition of a large number of the 
 smaller class of tradesmen, whose prosperity depends upon the 
 custom of the Dock labourers had become very serious, and several 
 had been completely ruined through the strike. 
 
 The following large subscriptions in support of the strike came 
 to hand : ^273 los. from the members of the Victoria Parliament ; 
 ^500 from the Bendigo miners ; ^"500 from Hobart Town ; ;^200 
 ifrom Launceston, Tasmania ; and ^2,150 from Melbourne. 
 
 At a meeting on Tower Hill, Burns said : 
 
 " He could assure the members that the picketing organisation 
 was just about perfect, and as a matter of fact they had practically 
 the trade and the commerce of London in their hands. . . . The 
 victory was soon coming ; they had their man down, but for the 
 sake of their wives and children they would forbear jumping on his 
 chest. . . • The strike would leave some permanent effects. 
 They had had five weeks of agitation such as London had never 
 before seen. That was only the preliminary for better education 
 among them, and for that to be followed by better organisation. . . . 
 Another lesson was that the old purblind political economy of the 
 past had broken down. The strike proved unmistakably that the 
 lowest workmen, degraded though they might be, had still a great 
 deal of manhood left in them. It also showed that there was a 
 great deal of the old Adam in them. ... At one time he 
 despaired of the middle classes of England helping or ever think- 
 ing of their condition Educated men had played on their poverty 
 and lack of combination in the past. There was now a feeling of 
 remorse on their part at the poverty their selfishness had involved. 
 Unrestricted competition had now received a deathblow at the hand 
 of the Dock labourer."
 
 Appendix A . cxxix. 
 
 September i6th. — Mansion House Committee of Conciliation 
 reassembled to investigate certain hindrances which were 
 operating to prevent a resumption of work in some of the docks. 
 Mr. R. A. Hankey and Mr. Neville Lubbock, members of the 
 Dock Committee, informed the Mansion House Committee that 
 difficulty was being experienced by the refusal of the strikers to 
 go to work with those who had been working while the strike 
 was in progress, thus violating the 6th clause of the agreement, 
 namely : " Strikers and their leaders to unreservedly undertake 
 that all labourers who have been at work during the strike shall 
 be unmolested, and treated as fellow labourers by those who have 
 been out on strike." On the other hand the strike leaders pro- 
 tested that they had been working hard to remove all friction, 
 and that nothing was further from the wish of the men than to 
 molest those who had thought differently from themselves, or to 
 coerce them into joining the Union. They further complained of 
 the overbearing demeanour of some of the officials in the docks, 
 and of their engaging strangers in preference to strikers, thus 
 disregarding the 7th head of the agreement, namely : " In 
 employing fresh men after the strike is ended, the directors will 
 make no difference between those who have and those who have 
 not taken part in it, and will not directly or indirectly show 
 resentment to any of the men who have participated in the 
 strike." 
 
 Mr. Burns addressed 4,000 dockers, and told them that " the 
 victory which was won by them on Saturday was only a pre- 
 liminary to greater victories which would be obtained through 
 the organization which they had now so satisfactorily started." 
 
 At the Albert Dock many men refused to accept employment 
 on the terms of the agreement. In the afternoon a disturbance 
 took place inside this dock, which threatened to become a riot. 
 The new hands addressed insulting remarks to those who had 
 been at work during the strike, and ultimately assailed them 
 with stones and pieces of wood, and also drenched them with 
 water. Some of the men were bodily injured. The few dock 
 police present were utterly incapable of dealing with the 
 disturbance. 
 
 At the East and West India Docks the strikers declared that 
 they would not do a stroke so long as the " blacklegs " were kept 
 on. Some of them interviewed Mr. Beck, the Superintendent, 
 i
 
 cxxx. Appendix A. 
 
 and stated that they objected to work with non-union men. Mr. 
 Beck replied that they had no right to attempt to hinder these 
 men from earning a liveHhood. In order to carry on the trade 
 during the strike the Dock Company advertised for able-bodied 
 men, to whom permanent employment was offered at one pound 
 a week. Any of the strikers could have accepted these terms, 
 but instead of doing this they gave themselves up to Messrs. 
 Burns and Tillett, and these men had now agreed to a compact 
 in which the employers promised to show no resentment towards 
 the strikers whilst the latter undertook to show no animosity to 
 the non-union men. The Company would carry out their part 
 honourably ; but if they were asked to turn out non-unionists 
 before the strikers came in the reply was — " No ; we will not do 
 it." The Company would not take on any more permanent men 
 unless there should be another strike, and then of course they 
 must do so, for they were determined to carry the work on strike 
 or no strike. Some of the men said they did not wish the 
 " blacklegs " to turn out but to become unionists, whilst others 
 said they need not be got rid of at once but should be gradually 
 weeded out. 
 
 At the Royal Albert Dock 500 strikers entered and proceeded 
 to their work. On finding that 250 non-unionists were engaged 
 they declared their determination to have the " blacklegs " removed, 
 stating that they would not work with them. The dock superin- 
 tendent was so alarmed that he withdrew the " blacklegs " from 
 work, stating that he did so only temporarily to avoid disorder, 
 and protesting that the Company were determined not to throw 
 over these men. 
 
 At the Victoria Docks a party of non-unionists were working 
 in the hold of the City of StockJwhn, when a number of unionist 
 " coalies " arrived, and seizing large lumps of coal called upon 
 the " blacklegs," with fearful oaths and curses, to come out. 
 Ultimately the latter left the ship. Similar incidents occurred in 
 the Millwall and Surrey Docks. 
 
 John Burns, speaking to the men at the West India Dock, said : 
 " If the Dock Company thought they were going to violate the 
 terms of the agreement which they and the men's representatives 
 had signed, by God he would have another strike and clear every 
 man out. If the Dock Company committed a breach of faith, 
 then he would paralyze the trade of the Port of London. Unless
 
 Appendix A. cxxxi. 
 
 the Company stuck to the agreement he would be Hke Shylock, 
 and insist upon his pound of flesh. But it was asked whether 
 they should work with men who did not belong to the Union. 
 To that question he gave an unhesitating ' No.' They had no right 
 work with men who did not belong to the Union.'" 
 
 Mr. Sydney Buxton, presiding at a meeting in the Town Hall, 
 Poplar, on this evening, said : " He hoped that the strike had 
 brought to an end the sweating system in this trade, and also in 
 nearly all other industries. They had done more in four weeks 
 to destroy that system than a hundred Royal Commissions could 
 do in 50 years. He hoped that before many years had passed, 
 the docks, instead of being in the hands of private individuals 
 and worked simply for the benefit of the shareholders, would in 
 some way be under public control and worked in the interests of 
 the port of London, and consequently in the interests of the working 
 man. At the same meeting Burns said : " The ship-owners had 
 met that day and had put before the Company the advisability of 
 paying the expenses of the blacklegs to their homes. If many of 
 them were at home they would be in Millbank or Wandsworth 
 prisons. He believed the suggestions of the ship-owners would 
 be largely carried into effect. . . . Leave the blacklegs to 
 the ship-owners, stevedores and others, and in three days they 
 would be as rare as the Dodo or the Mastodon. They must take 
 unto themselves the wealth they earned in order to keep their mind, body, 
 mid sold in decent condition, so that when they died they could say that 
 they lived better lives than those who preceded them.'' 
 
 September lyth. — At the West India Docks, 150 of the strikers 
 left their work at 8.30, at a signal which was suddenly given, 
 and attacked the " blacklegs." Some of these latter were chased 
 all over the docks and were very roughly treated, two or three 
 being removed to the hospital. The few dock constables present 
 •were utterly unable to cope with the rioters. Ultimately a few 
 Metropolitan police arrived and the disturbance was suppressed, 
 the 150 men being marched out of the docks. After their ejection 
 they asked to see Mr. Beck, who stated that he would have 
 nothing to say to them in consequence of their disgraceful con- 
 duct. He had only to tell them that now they had been turned 
 ■out of the dock they would never be allowed in again. He also 
 assured the men who had been attacked that the Dock Company 
 would stand by them, and as far as they were able would protect 
 them from further violence. 
 
 At the Albert Dock even more serious disturbances occurred, 
 which were commenced by the loafers who did not profit by the
 
 cxxxii. Appendix A. 
 
 resumption of work. A number of men who had broken the 
 agreement were paid off at this dock. 
 
 Mr. Williams and other dock officials went to the Mansion 
 House to see the Lord Mayor on the subject of these disturb- 
 ances, but he was not in. His secretary promised to telegraph 
 to Messrs. Burns and Tillett. 
 
 Some of the dock managers stated in the afternoon that 250 
 permanent men were penned in a corner at the Albert Dock and 
 surrounded by a threatening mob, and that about 60 Metro- 
 politan and dock police were endeavouring to protect them. The 
 mob were on the Dock Company's property. 
 
 At the Tilbury Docks none of the permanent men offered 
 themselves for work, as they were afraid to do so. At the 
 Victoria Dock no of the permanent men did not put in an 
 appearance. 
 
 Sir H. Le Marchant and Mr. Boyle, dock directors, and Mr. 
 Williams, the manager, called upon Mr. Monro, the Chief Com- 
 missioner of Police, and asked that an increased force of 
 constables might be placed at the docks. Mr. Monro required a 
 written statement of the grounds on Avhich the application was 
 made, and this was at once drawn up by Sir H. Le Marchant. 
 Mr. Monro then stated that he had telegraphed to the district 
 police superintendent to inquire if there was a riot, although I\Ir. 
 Williams who had just come from the docks had given him full 
 information as to the rioting that was going on. Mr. Monro 
 stated that he could do nothing further and that the dock 
 directors must apply to the local police. 
 
 A leading ship-owner who visited the Albert Dock stated that 
 he had never witnessed anything more serious than the state of 
 affairs there, although he had seen rioting in China and else- 
 where. 
 
 The Joint Committee passed a resolution instructing super- 
 intendents at all the docks and warehouses " to protect to the 
 utmost of their power the men who had been at work during the 
 strike, and, if necessary for this purpose, to suspend operations 
 in any warehouse or on board any ships." 
 
 September i8th. — The dock officials adopted the policy of 
 keeping the strikers and the non-unionist workmen apart, the 
 two classes working in separate gangs.
 
 Appendix A, cxxxiii. 
 
 Early in the morning two dock directors and Mr. Bailey, one 
 of the managers, visited the Albert Dock before the gates were 
 opened. On their return to the Dock House they intimated that 
 practically a dead lock prevailed at the Albert Dock. 
 
 Mr. Norwood, Chairman of the Dock Committee, wrote a 
 letter to the Lord Mayor, in which he stated that the disgraceful 
 scenes which had occurred in the docks on the two previous days 
 were still proceeding. He said : " Two of my colleagues who 
 were at the Royal Albert Dock this morning when the gates were 
 opened and have just returned from there, report that the men 
 on strike still refuse to acknowledge that they are bound by the 
 arrangement arrived at on Saturday, and demand, with violent 
 threats, the dismissal of the men who have stood by us during 
 the strike as the sole conditions of resuming work. ... I 
 venture to press very urgently upon your lordship that my Com- 
 mittee have a right to call upon you and your colleagues of the 
 Mansion House Committee to interfere by expressing publicly 
 and at once your disapproval of this breach of faith, and by every 
 means in your power to aid us in our efforts to protect our men 
 and to resume the business of the port. My Committee feel 
 bound by every consideration of good faith to protect the men 
 who have stood loyally by them in their hour of need. And this 
 must be my excuse for thus addressing you." In answer to this 
 letter the Lord Mayor and Cardinal Manning had an interview 
 with the dock directors and expressed their readiness to do all 
 they could to secure a proper fulfilment of the agreement. 
 
 Mr. Norwood wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Police in 
 the following terms : " I desire on behalf of my Committee once 
 more to draw your very urgent attention to the fact that at the 
 Royal Albert Dock a large number of workmen are at the 
 present time being intimidated and subjected to threats of the 
 most violent kind, with every probability of the threats being 
 carried into effect, for no other reason than that they are working 
 for their lawful employers, and that my Committee are powerless 
 to cope with this condition of things unless adequate protection 
 to life and limb is afforded by the guardians of the public peace 
 under your direction. I must venture to add that my Committee 
 feel that they have very grave cause to complain in their own, 
 which in this matter is also the public interest, of the lack of any 
 efficient support from the Executive ever since the commence- 
 ment of the strike in dealing with wholesale picketing and other 
 illegal acts of intimidation openly committed and proclaimed in 
 the public thoroughfares, and that in regard to the immediate 
 subject of this letter, unless effective measures are taken after
 
 cxxxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 the ample warning that you have received, my Committee will 
 confidently appeal to public opinion as to whether the forces of 
 law and order have been effectively used." 
 
 Mr. W. W. Green, writing to the Times, said : "I was 
 amongst the crowd outside the Wades Arms on Saturday night, 
 when Burns declared the strike over, and as the large gathering 
 dispersed I said to one of the men, ' I suppose you are glad it is 
 settled ? ' ' Well, I don't know as I am,' was the reply, ' I am 
 not a docker.' ' No,' replied a working chap, who overheard the 
 remark, ' you are one of those thorough loafers who have lived 
 well on this strike, and would like to see it last until Christmas.' " 
 
 The Times in its leader said : " The nominal termination of the 
 dock labourers' strike has been followed by a period of disorder 
 arising from the behaviour of the men who have been on strike 
 towards those who have, notwithstanding the strike, accepted 
 employment from the Dock Companies. These men had merely 
 exercised the liberty of every British subject to follow his lawful 
 calling. Yet they were for two days the objects of brutal 
 violence at the hands of the late strikers, who, moreover, 
 attempted to secure their dismissal by refusing to work so long 
 as the ' blacklegs ' were employed. We regret to say that this 
 organized intimidation was partially successful. Although the 
 dock directors were staunch to the men who had helped them 
 during the crisis, these preferred in many cases losing the perma- 
 nent employment which they had obtained to facing the brutality 
 of the returned hands. . . . We confess that it seems to us 
 more probable that the offenders will find a more cogent 
 argument in the presence of a strong police force than in the 
 logical demonstrations of the Lord Mayor and Cardinal JNIan- 
 ning. They can have been under no illusion as to the meaning 
 of the agreement signed on their behalf. If they have chosen to 
 ignore it, it is to a great extent because Mr. Burns has lost no 
 opportunity in the course of the strike to denounce the ' black- 
 legs,' and has taken no great pains, since the strike ended, to 
 enforce upon the men the observance of this clause of the agree- 
 ment." Referring to the action of the Chief Commissioner, the 
 Times said : " It is a matter of some importance as opening up 
 the question whether the police authorities have really done 
 their best to repress intimidation during the strike. Early in 
 its career Mr. ^Matthews, when questioned in the House con- 
 cerning the prevalence of intimidation, gave a somewhat oracular 
 reply, ivhich may have tended to blunt the zeal of the police. We are 
 bound to admit that Mr. Norwood's complaints of the lack of 
 effective support from the Executive in dealing with open intimi- 
 dation at the dock gates have much to justify them."
 
 Appendix A. cxxxv. 
 
 September igth. — Mr. Monro, in a letter to Mr. Norwood, con- 
 tended that the Metropolitan Police had during the strike 
 afforded " the utmost protection within their power and within 
 the law to life and property," and that the public owed them a 
 debt of gratitude. He added : " As to the question of picketing, 
 you will not expect me to enter into a discussion of legal ques- 
 tions connected with picketing in general, or to define the limits 
 within Avhich picketing may or may not be within the law. The 
 police have acted throughout in accordance with their view of 
 the law on the subject, and I am not prepared, as at present 
 advised, to depart from the policy hitherto pursued. For this 
 policy, and for the action of the police taken in accordance with 
 this policy, I am fully responsible, and should, unfortunately, 
 your views differ from mine as to such policy or action I can 
 only regret the circumstance, and leave the decision of the 
 questions on which we may differ to any higher authority to 
 whom you may be advised to appeal." In reply, Mr. Norwood 
 stated that his Committee made no complaint against the police 
 as individuals, but they complained " That the directions or 
 absence of directions from head quarters, and generally the utter 
 inadequacy of measures taken by you for the protection from 
 violence of workmen peacefully engaged in following their lawful 
 occupation, have afforded direct encouragement to disorder and 
 violence, and have practically paralyzed the efficiency of the 
 police force in discharging their primary function of preserving 
 the public peace and preventing outrage. My Committee 
 observe that you accept the full responsibility for this pohcy, but 
 as the result of pursuing this policy has been that, for many 
 weeks, disorderly crowds have been permitted to assemble at the 
 dock gates and elsewhere, and to practise every form of intimi- 
 dation, while more recently large numbers of unoffending work- 
 men have in broad daylight been subjected to personal violence 
 with impunity by their assailants, my Committee are unable to 
 recognise in the position taken up by you an appreciation of the 
 obligations of your office in a great public crisis. . . . You 
 have thought it consistent with your sense of public duty to look 
 on while the condition of things which I have described has been 
 perfectly notorious, and to act only after outrages have been 
 actually committed, and again, only where my Committee (the 
 limits of whose power to do so are obvious) have been able to 
 bring you particular instances with chapter and verse."
 
 cxxxvi. Appendix A. 
 
 Mr. John Burns stated at a meeting of cabmen at St. Andrew s 
 Hall, Newman Street, that ;^40,ooo had been received in support 
 of the Dock Strike, and that there would be a balance of ;^8,ooo. 
 Of this £"2,000 or £'3,000 would be used for the relief of existing 
 necessitous cases, and they would probably pay back the sums 
 which had been given them by Trade Unions. " Some of the 
 money would be used, too, in starting Trade Unions among the 
 workmen of the port of London, who had hitherto been unor- 
 ganised." 
 
 September list. — The Star said: "It is only right to compli- 
 ment Mr. Monro on his attitude towards the Norwoodites. A 
 party of these individuals. Sir Henry Le Marchant at the head 
 of them, went crying to the Chief Commissioner on Tuesday 
 Avith one of the cock and bull stories of riotous behaviour at the 
 docks which they have been so sedulously propagating from the 
 Press all through the strike. Their terrible yarns, however, 
 about rioters in possession of the docks, and their appeals for 
 extra police to disperse the ' mob,' were met by the Chief 
 Commissioner with the politest and blandest contempt ; and 
 when Sir H. Le ]\L enquired in indignant amazement whether 
 Mr. Monro actually declined to act, the answer was ' distinctly 
 yes.' The fact, of course, was that while these people were 
 declaring a riot to be still in progress absolute tranciuillity 
 prevailed at the docks." 
 
 September 26th. — The St. James Gazette said : "Mr. Norwood 
 has smitten Mr. Monro hip and thigh. Challenged to prove that 
 a system of organised intimidation was in force at the docks, Mr. 
 Norwood has produced the reports of two cases tried at the West 
 Ham and Thames Police Courts. At West Ham, on Sep. 19, 
 Mr. Baggallay made the following remarks : ' It was really time 
 for the authorities to take steps to put a stop to these offences. 
 The poor fellows were entitled to be protected either in going to 
 their work or at their dinner. It was evident they were not 
 sufficiently protected.' At the Thames Court, on the 24th, Mr. 
 Lushington said that he had ' ample proof ' that from the 
 beginning the strike had been attended with riotous violence and 
 organised intimidation.' .... That is one part of Mr. 
 Norwood's reply to Mr. Monro. But the second part is more 
 crushing. Most incautiously and most wrongfully the Conimis- 
 sioner of Police had written that his conduct was to be 'judged 
 by the public' Says Mr. Norwood : ' My Committee are led to 
 infer, with extreme reluctance, that you regard popular approval 
 as the standard by which to test the efficiency of the discharge 
 of your public duties.' "
 
 Appendix A. cxxxvii. 
 
 October yd. — A special meeting of the shareholders in the 
 docks was held at the Cannon Street Hotel to receive a report 
 from the directors on the recent strike. Mr. Norwood presided 
 and delivered an exhaustive address, dealing with every aspect of 
 the question. He said that though the ostensible object of the 
 strike was to improve the condition of the casual docker — " There 
 could be no doubt in the minds of those who had the opportunity 
 of closely watching its various phases that the recent strike was 
 a deliberately planned Socialistic movement, directed in the first 
 instance against the docks as presenting apparently the weakest 
 link in the chain of employment, but really designed to embrace 
 within its operation all branches of the wage-earning, classes of 
 the Metropolis. He had received information from more than 
 one independent source that the strike was finally determined 
 upon by the Socialistic section of the Labour Congress held in 
 Switzerland a few weeks previously, and that the outbreak was 
 the topic of conversation in labour circles in Germany some days 
 before it actually occurred here." He showed that August w^as 
 selected as the time of attack because the pressure of business at 
 the docks is then very great, while the supply of castal labour is 
 lessened by hop picking and harvest employment, in addition to 
 which some of the principal dock officials are absent on their 
 holidays. He also pointed out that the strike was directed by 
 avowed Socialistic leaders. He declared that the Committee 
 "had to contend throughout against a hostile public opinion, 
 formed for the most part in utter ignorance of the merits of the 
 case, and fed by gross mis-statements. An ideal docker was 
 evolved out of the inner consciousness of kind-hearted sentimen- 
 talists very different indeed from the actual casual. ]\Ierchants 
 and others in the City actually furnished material as well as 
 moral aid to the strike, and many days elapsed before the voice 
 of common-sense and experience found expression, even in the 
 public Press." -Mr. Norwood further stated that Liberal and 
 Radical associations had the impertinence to send resolutions to 
 the Committee on the strike, and that Radical politicians and 
 newspapers " supported the strikers with more than usual bitter- 
 ness and personality." The younger clergy wxre as a rule 
 sympathisers with the strike. Even a section of the shipowners 
 assumed a hostile attitude and greatly embarrassed the Joint 
 Committee, and at the same time led the strikers to regard the 
 shipowners as their allies. Referring to the " constant and 
 ill-timed interference of outside and irresponsible persons," Mr, 
 Norwood said that " though they generally admitted their 
 ignorance of the details of dock management, and altogether 
 ignored the economic effect of supply and demand on the price of
 
 cxxxviii. Appendix A. 
 
 labour as on other commodities, they were all equally confident 
 that the cause of the strikers was a just one, and that the rich 
 Dock Company could and should accede to the ' small increase ' 
 of wages demanded. It was, in fact, a repetition of the old 
 formula — philanthropic A generously relieving the wants of B 
 at the expense of C." In concluding his address Mr. Norwood 
 dealt with some characteristics of the strike which appeared to 
 him " to demand serious attention in relation to the future." 
 These were: i. The strange apathy exhibited by the City in 
 regard to the disturbance and loss of business and the permanent 
 injury to trade ; 2. The absence of courage exhibited by all 
 classes during the crisis ; 3. The attitude of the Government 
 and its Executive towards organized intimidation and violence. 
 Mr. Norwood declared that during the strike London was " the 
 wonder and the laughing-stock of the civilized world." He 
 predicted that the success of the strike would result in further 
 labour disturbances, and that the Post Office employe, the rail- 
 way servant, and the police constable would soon be discontented 
 with their position. (This prediction was fulfilled to the letter 
 before many months were over.) Mr. Norwood's closing words 
 were these : " History, it is said, repeats itself. Given, for in- 
 stance, a timid, popularity-seeking Government, an incompetent 
 Home Secretary, an apathetic plutocracy and a sentimental 
 public on the one hand ; and an able and unscrupulous pro- 
 fessional agitator, backed by all the strength of the Trade 
 Unions to lead the movement on the other, and the result is not 
 very difficult to surmise. Mr. Burns has shown us how the 
 maritime trade of the port can in a few days become paralyzed. 
 A little more picketing with its attendant intimidation and 
 violence, and every railway out of London would be stopped, the 
 City plunged into darkness, the food supply arrested, and the 
 Metropolis compelled to submit, for the time at least, to any con- 
 ditions that the strikers might impose upon it. This may be 
 thought a fancy picture, but I venture to assert that it is well 
 within the reach of possibility unless steps are taken, and that 
 promptly, to confront the extreme pretensions of labour." 
 
 November 15. — A statement was issued by certain ship-owners,, 
 who were anxious that the public should know what serious re- 
 sults had followed the disputes at the docks, to the effect that 
 foreign trade with the port of London had been reduced to the- 
 extent of many thousands of tons, and that many shippers^ 
 rather than risk a repetition of the inconvenience and loss tO' 
 which they had lately been subjected, were sending goods in- 
 tended for London to other ports, notably Hull and Harwich^
 
 Appendix A. cxxxix. 
 
 It was stated that four Australian liners bringing wool cargoes 
 would deliver at Grimsby instead of in the Thames, and that the 
 great bulk of this wool trade was expected to leave London for 
 Grimsby. 
 
 November 16. — Mr. H. J. Morgan, Secretary of the Dock's 
 Committee, wrote to the Press stating that " There were still 
 difficulties existing at the docks between the labourers and the 
 Company in spite of the agreement of the 14th September." He 
 added : " My directors, with the view of insuring peace in the 
 interests of the port of London, have made further material con- 
 cessions beyond those contained in the agreement. From the 
 first there have been violations of the agreement. The majority 
 of the labourers have constantly refused to work with the so- 
 called ' blacklegs.' The Company have notice of a demand on 
 the part of the men for payment for meal times, which demand 
 was expressly negatived in the agreement. Last Monday a 
 strike took place at the Tilbury Docks because the foremen and 
 clerks employed there refuse to join the Union ; my directors 
 having left them entirely at liberty to follow their own wishes in 
 this respect. . . . We are now threatened with a general 
 strike at all the docks under the management of the Joint Com- 
 mittee if the foremen and clerks referred to maintain their deter- 
 mination to refuse to enter a Union." 
 
 November 18. — The St. James's Gazette asked: "What has 
 been done with the ;^48,ooo subscribed for the Dock Strike ? 
 We are informed on the authority of a news agency that the 
 audit of accounts has at last been completed. We shall be glad 
 to hear how much of the money was expended, to what person 
 each disbursement was made, and what value was received, or 
 what services were performed, in return for cash paid — e.^., What 
 proportion of the money went to the relief of the dockers and 
 what to the payment of pickets ? " The same journal quoted as 
 follows from a report of the proceedings of the Melbourne Trades 
 Hall Council from the Melbourne Age of October 27. 
 
 " The Secretary : ' Information has been received that Mr. 
 Burns is using the funds received from Melbourne to assist other 
 objects than the dock labourers on strike.' 
 
 " Mr. Gration : ' It is time he was stopped at that game.' 
 " The President : ' Of course it must be recognised that Mr. 
 " ' Burns is a free lance. He has nothing to do with the dock 
 " ' labourers, but is ready to fight anybody's battle.' " 
 
 On this morning there was not a single applicant for work at 
 the Tilbury Docks, the men refusing to work because the
 
 cxl. Appendix A. 
 
 foreman and clerks at Tilbury would not join the Docker's 
 Union. At the other docks these men had formed Unions of 
 their own, which satisfied the dockers. 
 
 November igth. — The St. James's Gazette, which all along main- 
 tained that the dock strike was " a reasonable one and under- 
 taken for a reasonable object," said in its issue of this date : " It 
 cannot be denied that the course of events in the Port of London 
 is tending to justify the more gloomy anticipations of those who 
 asserted that the ultimate consequences of the dockers' strike 
 would be evil, . . . The success of the movement has, to 
 begin with, apparently turned the heads of a great many of those 
 who took part in it. The lightermen and some others seem to 
 have become more than a little intoxicated with a sense of their 
 power. They are beginning to demand and dictate in obedience 
 to a mere passion for dominion, or a purely selfish regard for 
 what they believe to be their own interests. Again, one result 
 of the strike has been the formation of a Committee which is 
 obviously striving to establish itself as a permanent body. Its 
 aim, to judge from what we see of its actions, is to seize dicta- 
 torial power over the management of the trade of London. We 
 can at least account in no other way for this decision to force on 
 a strike at the Tilbury Dock. There is no question here either 
 of wages or of organization of work. A strike has been set 
 going purely to force the clerks and foremen into the Dockers' 
 Union. Nothing can be more contrary to the professed princi- 
 ples of unionism than this tyrannical effort to compel men to join 
 the organization of another trade. ... In short, striking is 
 tending to become a permanent occupation — to the profit, 
 possibly of Conmiittees and of loafers who benefit by strike pay, 
 but to the reverse of profit to the genuine workman. ... In 
 view of the excitement of the misled labourers and the pertina- 
 cious folly of those who mislead them — in view, too, of the 
 ruinous practical consequences of both to the labourers them- 
 selves (for the loss of trade by London will mean at least 
 temporary starvation to them) — it is, we trust, not untimely to 
 ask those whose voices would be listened to, to utter a word of 
 warning. Her Majesty's Ministers — who are after all responsi- 
 ble for the peace of the country — might, even without exceeding 
 their office, give a little good advice. . . . But there are 
 others who have been officiously busy in these matters, on whom 
 we think it is incumbent in honour to speak. Mr. Sydney 
 Buxton, Sir James Whitehead, Cardinal Manning, Lord Brassey 
 are the foremost among the persons of whom we are thinking. 
 They have taken upon themselves to act on all these matters as 
 members of a Committee of Conciliation, as arbitrators, or what
 
 Appendix A: cxli^ 
 
 not. They have given "awards" and apphed " pressure." It is 
 not competent to them to withdraw as mere private persons 
 now unless they are prepared to accept the ignoble position of 
 those who, after helping to set mischief in motion, are too 
 cowardly to attempt to stop it. . . . If they are honest men, 
 if they have been really inspired by a desire to help the poor, if 
 they have not been mere time-servers, mere popularity-hunters, 
 mere seekers for expedients to ward off a present difficulty, let 
 them come forward and warn their clients of the inevitable con- 
 sequences to themselves of the unwisdom and the purblind 
 selfishness of which they are now guilty," 
 
 June nth, 1890. — Mr. Tom Mann, President of the Docker's 
 Union, speaking at a meeting of that body, held in the large hall, 
 Hack Road, Victoria Docks, said : "There were 900,000 work- 
 men in London ; less than 200,000 were organized. Suppose 
 they were all enrolled in labour organizations in how much better 
 a position would they be placed ? The sphere of Trade 
 Unionism ought to be so increased as to take in all workmen, 
 and then they could demand the full fruits of their labour." 
 
 July 2,0th. — The proprietors of the London and St. Katherine 
 Docks met at the Cannon Street Hotel, Mr. Norwood presiding. 
 He stated that the amount of net profit, after payment of in- 
 terest on debentures and preference stocks, was ^46,000, and 
 that the directors recommended the payment of a dividend on 
 the capital stock at the rate of i^ per cent, per annum. The 
 foreign trade had fallen off owing to labour difficulties. The in- 
 crease of wages alone amounted to ;^70,ooo for the half year, 
 though at the time of the strike the dockers' leaders had esti- 
 mated the rise at ;^30,ooo. The increase of wages had more 
 than neutralized the increase in rates which the Company had 
 found it necessary to impose. Taking everything into consider- 
 ation they were /"i 2,000 out of pocket. Notwithstanding this, 
 the men were lazy and worked worse than they had ever done, 
 giving less for 6d. an hour than they used to give for 3d. They 
 put no heart into their work. The ship workers used to make 
 I OS. or I2S. a day ; now they made 15s. or 20s. Still the work 
 was bad, and ship-owners complained that they could not get 
 their large ships discharged. Frequently men would knock-off 
 for a slight shower, though they were working under cover for 
 the whole time. In fact, the men were so prosperous that they 
 did not wish to work six days a week. They liked to have a day 
 or two for pleasure and drinking. But in spite of all this the 
 directors ivere powerless to act in face of piiUic opinion. The public 
 attitude at the time of the strike was a disgrace to the annals of London..
 
 cxlii. Appendix A. 
 
 They had been through a great SociaHstic revolt of labour which 
 might have been stamped out if they had not foolishly allowed it 
 to spread. . . . Unfortunately, at the time of the great strike they 
 were not alloived to manage their own business. Ecclesiastics, dignitaries 
 ■of the Church, and political adventurers of all sorts had invaded the dock 
 district and hampered the action of the directors. What business had 
 the Bishop of London, Cardinal Manning, Alderman Whitehead, 
 and other officious persons, to interfere in the Company's 
 affairs ? . . . He was prepared to give 6d. an hour, but he 
 wanted sixpenny-worth of work in return. The Company in- 
 tended to stand by its non-union employes. . . . The Social- 
 istic Trade Union man was not merely seeking to ameliorate his 
 condition ; he had ulterior schemes in his head, vague and vast 
 schemes of social trouble and revolution." 
 
 The East and West India Dock shareholders also met. Mr. R. 
 A.Hankey, the Chairman, stated that their labour bill had increased 
 by ;;<f 90,000 during the half-year. One of the shareholders, Mr. 
 Meade, stigmatized Sir James Whitehead, Cardinal Manning, 
 and the other mediators as " inexperienced meddlers," while 
 another shareholder, named Hodgson, characterized them as 
 •"incompetent muddlers." 
 
 July 31s/. — The Star, commenting on the meeting of the dock 
 shareholders, declared that the port of London was sinking 
 deeper and deeper into the slough, and added : " The present 
 state of things clearly cannot continue. The ship-owners were 
 complaining the other day that trade is leaving the port, and the 
 evidence shows this to be so." 
 
 The St. fames' Gazette said : " All competent opinion is unani- 
 mous on tlie point that the work done at the London docks is not 
 now done as it used to be done before Mr. Burns ' enthused ' the 
 dock labourers. Men work slowly and badly ; they refuse to 
 obey orders ; and ship-owners and consignees are discovering 
 that London is becoming a worse place every week to have 
 cargoes unloaded. What is the result ? That the trade of the 
 port of London is decreasing and will continue to decrease." 
 
 August gth. — 700 men were out on strike at Tilbury Docks, the 
 reason being that three non-union men were employed. These 
 three men had been told several days previously that if they did 
 not join the Union no man would work with them. A deputa- 
 tion from the men, headed by Mr. Nicholls, the district repre- 
 sentative, waited upon Mr. Coton, the acting Superintendent, 
 asking that in future none but unionists should be employed.
 
 Appendix A. cxliii. 
 
 Mr. Coton replied that the dock officials could not give such an 
 undertaking. Thereupon the men unanimously decided to 
 remain out, and requested their officials to at once make prepara- 
 tions for a continued strike as they were determined to insist 
 upon their demand that only Unionists should be employed. 
 
 August i^th, — The Millwall Dock shareholders met under the 
 presidency of Mr. C. H. Parkes, who said that in consequence of 
 the strike they had lost a certain amount of trade, and had 
 besides been obliged to give up certain work — unloading cotton 
 seed for instance, as the result of which their men had received 
 ;^7,ooo less in wages. He said a minority of the men were 
 " unreflective " and " loud talking," which was a very dis- 
 agreeable fact. If a gang of men were dissatisfied they actually 
 knocked off work at once, causing much inconvenience. He 
 expressed the opinion that only a very deep depression of trade, 
 which would enable the Company to remodel their wages arrange- 
 ment, could permanently settle the labour question. In the 
 meantime they meant to use machinery more. The trade at the 
 docks had decreased by 135,177 tons, and the receipts by 
 ;^7,47i. He compared the Company to a vessel which had 
 weathered many storms, but which was now being forced on the 
 rocks by its own crew. A dividend of 3 per cent, was declared. 
 August lyth. — A meeting was held in Hyde Park to celebrate 
 the anniversary of the Dock Strike. Mr. Tom Mann, speaking 
 from one of the platforms, said that the membership of the 
 Union had increased in six months from 30,000 to 56,000, and 
 contended that the strike had resulted in adding ;^30o,ooo a year 
 to the wages of the river-side workers. " The chief difficulty 
 confronting them now was the question of ' blacklegs.' These 
 men came from the agricultural labour class — men who in their 
 own industry only earned gs. or los. a week, and were thus 
 easily tempted. At an early date they intended to call a Congress 
 of all the Unions representing town industries in order to move 
 against this common danger, and they would send missionaries 
 over all the rural districts to see what could be done with the 
 labourers." 
 
 Mr. John Burns stated that the income of the Dockers' Union 
 was ;/f28,ooo, and that " every docker in London ivas bound to he a 
 member of the Union. ' No ticket, no work ' ; that is our principle 
 of working now." Out of the 180 strikes conducted by the 
 Union during the year, 178 had been won. He said they in-
 
 cxliv. Appendix A. 
 
 tended within the next 12 months to take over co-operatively the 
 whole loading and unloading of ships out of the hands of the 
 contractors, shippers, and middlemen who were doing it now. 
 He declared that there were 300,000 more Trade Unionists in 
 London alone than there were before the strike, all gaining a big 
 increase of wages. " The development of the labour movement 
 amongst the Government services was a significant thing. The 
 stand which the soldiers and sailors were making against tyranny 
 would henceforth relieve the Army and Navy of the brutal treat- 
 ment and the pettifogging and irritating regulations from which 
 they had suffered. The sort of treatment which the Army had 
 been receiving would not be tolerated by an educated soldiery." 
 He warned the rich and the aristocracy that they must be pre- 
 pared to part with much of their wealth and many of their 
 privileges in aid of their less fortunate countrymen. 
 
 Mr. Ben Tillett said that the Dockers' Union had within a 
 year put out one arm to the North of Scotland and the other to 
 the South-west of Ireland, and had embraced the whole United 
 Kingdom. Besides its own extension it had been the mother of 
 over 100 other Unions, and had added hugely to the wages of 
 them all. He declared that the victory at Cardiff, from which 
 place he had just come, was one of the most complete on record, 
 and he contradicted a statement to the effect that Sir W. T. 
 Lewis had discharged a number of his men because they were 
 Unionists. " Sir W. T. Lewis dared do no such thing." 
 
 Mr. W. Thome, of the Gas Stokers' Union, said that the 
 members of his Union had added ^100,000 to their wages during 
 the year. 
 
 Mr. C. Blackwell (glass blower) expressed his desire to get rid 
 of the capitalist altogether. He denied the possibility of capital 
 and labour getting along amicably, " and inasmuch as it was the 
 employer's object to obtain as much work for as little pay as 
 possible, it was the duty of the worker to do as little and receive as much 
 as he possibly could." 
 
 Mr. F. Hammill (engineer) threatened to introduce the boy- 
 cotting system into England so far as the " blackleg " was con- 
 cerned, and denounced the treatment of labourers in the Govern- 
 ment establishments, remarking that with discontent in the 
 Army, the Navy, the Police, and the Post Office, if Government 
 did not grasp the situation and grant concessions, upon them 
 must rest the responsibility for the open and sanguinary revolu- 
 tion that must ensue.
 
 Appendix A. cxlv. 
 
 The following resolution was passed at the various platforms 
 in the Park : — " That this mass meeting of workers express 
 unbounded satisfaction at the solid advantages secured by means 
 of the great dock strike of last year, observe with pleasure the 
 rapid organisation of labour, and the repeated successes secured 
 by the Trade Unions throughout the country, and pledge 
 ourselves to use every effort in the future to better the condition 
 of the workers. At the same time we observe with regret the 
 strike failures sustained by Trade Unions during the past year, 
 and believe the same to be mainly owing to the plentiful supply 
 of blacklegs obtained by employers from the ranks of the lowest 
 paid and unorganised, and are of opinion that the source of 
 supply should be cut off by the organisation of all labour, and 
 finding employment for the unemployed by reducing the hours of 
 labour to a maximum of 48 per week, whereby more men will be 
 employed ; and pledge ourselves to use every legitimate means, 
 including Trade Union effort and legal enactment, to bring this 
 about. We also hereby record our grateful gratitude to Aus- 
 tralia for their assistance to us last year." 
 
 August 18. — The Star, referring to the jubilation of the dockers 
 on the previous day, said : " The whole record of industrial 
 agitation shows nothing so remarkable as the transformation 
 wrought during the past year in the conditions of life of the 
 London riverside population. . . . To-day the docker's 
 name all the world over is the watchword of the new awakening 
 of labour, and he who then seemed furthest from the reach of 
 organization is the standing example of its power. . . . The 
 labour world has benefited in a much wider sense from the revolt 
 and triumph of the dockers. The complete emancipation of 
 labour has been brought nearer." The same journal had said on 
 August 1 6th : " Since the docker has arisen and fled from 
 captivity he has brought with him the great army of the 
 ' sweated,' the obscure millions of this great city, and of the 
 oppressed of the vast labour world outside. The music to which 
 the dockers march to the park to-morrow is the Song of Labour's 
 Redemption, a true nineteenth century * Song of Miriam.' . . . 
 Every man who is worth his salt will join in the docker's Psalm 
 of Thanksgiving to-morrow, but don't let him forget the First 
 Lesson as well." (The First Lesson was to "Stick to his Union, 
 keep up his subscription, back his leaders, and take their 
 advice.") 
 
 August 19. — The following resolution of the Executive of the 
 Docker's Union was published : " That, recognising that our 
 metropolitan membership is quite equal to the labour require- 
 
 k
 
 cxlvi. Appendix A. 
 
 ments of London, resolved that instructions be sent to each 
 branch secretary in the nietropohtan area that no candidates for 
 membership be accepted after 13th August, 1890, except by 
 special sanction of the district committee ; and each district 
 committee be informed that no man known to be physically weak 
 or otherwise incompetent is to be accepted under any considera- 
 tion. Special arrangements are to be made for the enrolling of 
 those engaged in special industries, such as brewery men, saw- 
 yers, &c." The St. James s Gazette^ referring to this resolution, 
 said : " Here is protection of vested interests with a vengeance ; 
 and, if the Docker's Union is not a return to the Guild system of 
 the Middle Ages, it is something very much Hke it." 
 
 August 20. — The London correspondent of the Birviingham 
 Gazette, referring to the claim of Mr. John Burns that his 178 
 strikes had increased wages by ^700,000, asked : " But how 
 many millions have the 178 strikes cost ? If the true cost of the 
 whole number of strikes could be tabulated in plain figures the 
 total would be appalling. It is said that the South Wales strike 
 just closed has cost from half to three-quarters of a million 
 sterHng. Add to that the dockers' and gas workers' strikes in 
 London, and the cost of these three will not be less than 
 /"2,ooo,ooo. Allow the very modest average of /" 1,000 loss on 
 each of the other strikes, and we get a figure of about ^'4,000,000. 
 But this is the lowest minimum. Directly and indirectly the 
 country must have lost something like ten millions sterling on the 
 178 strikes about which Burns and his supporters are so 
 jubilant." 
 
 Mr. Drummond, a trustee of the Docker's Union, and other 
 gentlemen waited upon Mr. Coton, the Superintendent of the 
 Tilbury Docks, in order to settle the dispute. Their proposal 
 was that the Dock Company should recognise the Union men 
 and be always ready to employ them in preference to non- 
 unionists, and that no non-unionists should be employed while a 
 union man remained disengaged. Mr. Coton was said to have 
 accepted this arrangement verbally, but to have refused a signed 
 agreement. The deputy Superintendent of the docks, however, 
 declared that they had not yielded one iota, and that the Com- 
 pany would not make any distinction between unionists and non- 
 unionists. 
 
 August 2ist. — An early morning meeting was held at Tilbury 
 Docks when Mr. Drummond and others urged the strikers to 
 return to work, but only about a dozen expressed themselves
 
 Appendix A. cxlvii, 
 
 willing to do so. A deputation sent by the strikers to the Execu- 
 tive of the Docker's Union returned with the reply that as the 
 men had gone out without the Executive's permission they must 
 return to work. 
 
 Mr. Morgan, Secretary of the Docks Committee, wrote to the 
 Press to say that the demand made by the delegates to the super- 
 intendent of the Tilbury Docks to the effect that the Company 
 guarantee to employ only union men, and to give union men 
 priority, had been refused, the Superintendent stating that he 
 would show no favour to either side. 
 
 It was announced that as the result of a conference between 
 the representatives of the various ship-owners' associations, a 
 union of steamship owners was to be formed with a capital of 
 ;^8o, 000,000 to fight the Trade Unions. 
 
 The Daily Chronicle announced that the dockers' leaders were 
 of opinion that the time for co-operation had arrived, and that the 
 perfection of their organization justified them in attempting it. 
 *' They have a body of men capable of doing the work which is 
 to be done, and it is now so strong that they have closed their 
 books against other entries. Thus controlling the labour supply, 
 they are in a position to negotiate with the Dock Company for 
 the purpose of taking over the loading and unloading of ships, 
 this being in effect the basis of the new scheme which is under 
 discussion by the dock directors. . . . The scheme as yet is 
 purely tentative, but as it is understood that all the directors 
 view it favourably there is every probability that it will before 
 many weeks are past be carried into practical effect." The ob- 
 ject of this scheme was to abolish the middleman, the Executive 
 of the Docker's Union contracting direct with the Dock Com- 
 pany. The Docker's Union would have become virtually a 
 Labour Company, giving employment only to its own members 
 •or shareholders, and the Executive of the Union would deal as a 
 principal with the dock directors. 
 
 August 22nd. — The strikers at Tilbury Docks returned to work 
 unconditionally, the Dock Company having refused to yield to 
 any of their demands. 
 
 August 2^th. — Mr. John Burns, speaking at a meeting of dockers 
 on Tower Hill, said : " The shippers were without the shadow of 
 a doubt trying to emulate Livesey. These men said that if the 
 tyranny of the Unions was to be continued they would organise 
 gangs of police in the name of the law who were known in 
 America as the ' Pinkerton Gang.' On behalf of the dockers,
 
 cxlviii. Appendix A. 
 
 not only of London, but of the United Kingdom, he said that the 
 first gang of ' Pinkertons ' who came into force in this country 
 would have their hair lifted in less than 24 hours. ... If 
 the capitalists thought they were going to get a ' Pinkerton 
 Gang ' armed with bludgeons and revolvers in this country the 
 game was up, and it would be bludgeon to bludgeon." With 
 reference to the closing of the books of the Docker's Union he 
 said they had been reasonable, and had let all the men have 
 twelve months to decide which way they would go. " All the 
 men who had not joined should have done so, and those who 
 would not deserved to be kept out for the remainder of their lives. 
 The dock gates had too long been the refuge of the criminal 
 tramps, &c., who had dragged down the wages, increased the 
 working hours, and greatly injured the docker's condition. 
 When the docks were shut, and the men outside could not get 
 work, they should go to the guardians and throw themselves on the 
 shoulders of the capitalist class. If there were more men at the 
 docks than there was work for, these men should go to Parliament 
 and ask for relief work, and a legal eight hours working day, 
 which would give work to the thousands and thousands of un- 
 employed. They were not going to give 3,000 or 4,000 loafers 
 work, and bring in ne'er-do-wells who outbid the legitimate 
 docker, and brought his wife and children near to starvation. 
 By closing their books they had done the very best thing possible, 
 inasmuch as it would make the agricultural labourer know that 
 the docks were not cess-pools, where anyone could go to from 
 North, South, East, or West." 
 
 August 2^th. — The Star said under the head of " Boycott and 
 Blackleg": "The two Johns — John Dillon and John Burns — 
 were very much in evidence yesterday, and their talk ranged 
 over kindred topics. John the Irishman spoke in his eloquent, 
 incisive way of the blessing of the Irish Union — the National 
 League — in dealing with the Irish ' blackleg ' by means of the 
 peaceful ' boycott.' John the Englishman expatiated on the 
 same subject with an English application. English labourer and 
 Irish peasant have both the same end at heart, and are using the 
 same methods to enforce it, and they have the same foes to fight. 
 Clanricarde there, and Norwood here, are all for ' free ' — that is,, 
 blackleg — labour. . . . The Land and National Leagues stopped 
 all that. They did away ivith * free competition'' in flesh and blood by 
 the simple method of the Union and the ' boycott ' for ' blacklegs.'' " 
 
 August 2yth. — The Times stated that the establishment of a direct 
 line of steamers between Hamburg and Calcutta as a result of 
 the dockers' strike appeared likely to injure the trade of the port
 
 Appendix A. cxlix. 
 
 of London. Two steamers of the new line, which was mainly 
 supported by British capital, had arrived in Hamburg with full 
 general cargoes of Indian produce, which had been discharged 
 there. Before the formation of this line such cargoes were con- 
 signed to London, and the goods trans-shipped to Hamburg. 
 Other boats were being built for the firm, which was an assured 
 success, owing to the cost of working in Hamburg being less 
 than in London, 
 
 A ugust ^oth. — The Shipping Gazette stated that it was doubtful 
 whether the shipping interest of the port of London had even yet 
 fully appreciated the effects of the recent dock strike. " The 
 port of London, for reasons which are by this time pretty well 
 known, is gradually but surely losing its position as the centre of 
 the world's commerce. Even the trade of our own Indian 
 Empire is leaving us. We now see that British capital, though 
 it can never be independent of labour, cannot be cribbed and 
 confined in its operations. It will seek channels where it has 
 free and fair play, and where the ordinary laws of political 
 economy are still more or less operative. Mr, Mann stoutly 
 denied the other day that the dockers w^ere giving a bad day's 
 work for a good day's pay. We are sorry that we must disagree 
 with him. We are in possession of facts and figures which show 
 either that Mr. Mann is hopelessly ignorant of the true state of 
 affairs or that he is deceiving the public upon whom he relies for 
 moral if not for material support." The Shipping Gazette then 
 proceeded to state certain facts, one of which was that a steamer 
 which was discharged in 3 days and ig hours in i88g took 
 10 days and 3 hours to discharge in 1890, although she had 500 
 tons less cargo ; another fact was that three steamers which were 
 each less than 8 days loading in 1889 were in dock 10, 12, and 13 
 days respectively in 1890. In 1889 cargoes were discharged at 
 the rate of 44 tons per hour, but at the rate of only 34 tons per 
 hour in 1890. In the case of another line of ships which discharge 
 their own cargoes, the rate of discharge was 44 tons per hour in 
 1889 and only 29 tons per hour in 1890. " These figures show 
 that the docker, now he is better paid, works not better but 
 infinitely worse, and that he has secured an advantage for which 
 he has as yet given no return whatever." 
 
 September ^th. — The Executive of the Docker's Union issued a 
 statement in which they said : " Many complaints have been 
 received by the Executive from the Dock Company and ship- 
 owners of the delays caused through ineffective work and the
 
 cl. Appendix A. 
 
 numerous petty disputes which arise. That our men arc at fault to 
 some extent is admitted. Hence the willingness of the Executive to 
 seriously consider some other basis of working arrangement than 
 that now in vogue. But after admitting this we are bound to say 
 that a ship discharged, under the old nigger-driving method of a 
 year ago, in 60 hours cannot be discharged under proper condi- 
 tions in less than 75 hours, or one-fourth more time than under 
 the old sweating system." 
 
 September icth. — Mr. Tom Mann, in the Dockers' Monthly, 
 defended the action of the Executive in closing the Union books. 
 He said : " The Dockers' Union has not shut its gates definitely 
 nor does it intend to, but inasmuch as the Dockers' Union exists 
 primarily in the interests of dock labourers, to justify its existence 
 it must make the conditions of employment better for its mem- 
 bers than if no such Union existed. . . . To go on enrolling 
 members indiscriminately, even if all who presented themselves 
 as candidates were physically fit, would simply mean that every 
 extra man enrolled would seriously injure the position of existing 
 members. By enrolling all who present themselves the chief 
 value of unionism disappears and starvation again becomes boss. 
 What law of morality says that the dock gates and the Dockers' 
 Union must be opened to all when to do so means such terrible * 
 competition for bread that our last state would be worse than the 
 first ? None that we know of. And what is more we shan't do 
 it. England for the English, and the docks for the dockers, is a 
 maxim we believe in, and mean to carry out. Having helped 
 ourselves by means of Unionism we shall use the power of com- 
 bination and our voting power as citizens to do two things : 
 (1), to reduce the hours of labour; and (2), to establish in large 
 towns municipal factories and workshops, where all those who 
 cannot get work under ordinary conditions shall have oppor- 
 tunity afforded them by the community, whose bounden duty 
 it is to see that every person has the means of an honest 
 livelihood." 
 
 September 26th. — A strike which had occurred at the \'ictoria 
 and Albert Docks came to an end. Some of the labourers went 
 on strike because other labourers refused to contribute funds 
 towards the relief of the Australian dockers. It was announced 
 that the Dock Company had gained a complete victory, and that 
 " no attempt was now being made to make the contributions to 
 the Australian strike fund any other than voluntary." 
 
 October i^th. — The St. James's Gazette said : " After a year's 
 trial of the agreements made, varied, amended, and broken
 
 Appendix A, cli. 
 
 between the dock directors and the dock labourers, it looks as if 
 we were going to return to the state of things which prevailed 
 before the great strike. The directors have been so bullied and 
 cajoled, first by the leaders of the agitation, and then by followers 
 whom those leaders could not control, that they have declined to 
 renew the agreement and practically they will cease to recognise 
 the Union. Members of the Union can take the work or leave 
 it ; they must work alongside the non-unionists or not work at 
 all. Those who accept the directors' terms will be reasonably 
 assured of permanent employment together with certain advan- 
 tages after prolonged service." 
 
 December 20. — The Star said : " Mr. Tom Mann pluckily 
 announces that he will stick to his post through thick and thin. 
 Not twenty votes of censure by ' the scally-wags whose only 
 thought was booze,' he said last night, would kill him as the 
 leader of the dockers. It will be a cold day for the dockers if 
 they are foolish enough to get rid of Mann. . . . Although 
 he has been giving his life to the dockers' cause it seems that 
 some of the Unions have passed votes of censure on him. Just 
 now the dockers are more than ever in need of the guiding hand 
 and the wise counsel of Mann. Many of them are out of 
 employment, and work is growing scarcer." 
 
 December 22. — The Star said : " The gloomy spectre of starva- 
 tion hangs over the East-end. When the inhabitants of the 
 West-end will this week be over-eating themselves thousands of 
 the dockers, according to Mr. Tom Mann, will be at death's 
 door for want of food. It is distressing to be told that there are 
 just now 8,000 members of the Union out of employment, and 
 that 3,000 are only working three days a week. And work is 
 daily becoming scarcer and distress more intense." 
 
 The St. jfames's Gazette, referring to the above figures said : 
 " The lack of work, and the consequent misery, which is felt 
 more keenly at this season of the year than at any other, result 
 in part from the folly of the Dockers' Union in doing their best 
 to ruin the trade of the port of London. The men have only 
 themselves to thank for their present position — a position which 
 has been aggravated by the Australian strike, of which they set 
 the example. Ships from Australia which should have arrived 
 have been delayed by the strike, and thus retribution has come 
 in a double sense." 
 
 jfamiary lyth, 1891. — A serious disturbance occurred at the 
 Victoria and Albert Docks, where discontent had smouldered for 
 some time, now and then breaking out in small strikes. In con- 
 sequence of these continual disputes the newly-formed Shipping
 
 clii. Appendix A. 
 
 Federation introduced into the Albert Dock a number of non- 
 unionists, who were boarded and lodged on a vessel — the Scotland. 
 On this date a band of Unionists marched to the Scotland with 
 the intention of attacking the Federationists ; but the latter, 
 armed with picks and shovels, soon routed their assailants. 
 During the row three or four re\olver shots were fired by a 
 Federationist. The growing strength of the Shipping Federation 
 greatly irritated the Docker's Union, and further disturbances 
 were threatened, in consequence of which the Federation decided 
 to coal as many of the boycotted steamers as possible alongside 
 the Scotland in the Royal Albert Dock. Some of the men who 
 struck because Federationists were engaged were receiving from 
 8s. to IIS. per day. 
 
 January 2gth. — A docker wrote to the Star to point out that 
 whereas the new Unionism had professed its intention to do away 
 with sweating, to distribute more work, and to employ more 
 hands, its new co-operative scheme would produce precisely the 
 opposite effects, as it would give the younger and stronger men a 
 monopoly of work and exclude the old and the weak ; and this 
 would be done by the very men who were always ready under 
 the old system to accuse employers of boycotting if the old men 
 were passed over. 
 
 At the half-yearly meeting of the London and St. Katherine 
 Dock Company, Mr. W, E. Hubbard said that the results of 
 the year's working were very unsatisfactory. " Goods were no 
 longer brought to London alone for distribution. Goods went 
 direct now to the country that wanted them. The labour 
 struggles had given a great momentum to trade departing from 
 London to the benefit of Antwerp and Hamburg. The threat- 
 ened strike had caused great anxiety, but since October last 
 there had been a marked improvement in this respect. The 
 determination of the directors to hold to certain principles, and 
 to engage suitable labourers regardless of the Union, had met 
 with success, and some of the errors of the strike of 1889 had 
 been remedied. The middleman had almost completely dis- 
 appeared, but he could not promise how long the present 
 arrangements would exist. In the summer the officials of the 
 Union might fight out the question among themselves. To 
 such a proposal the Board would offer a strenuous resistance, 
 but they did not count a conflict. The Metropolitan police 
 authorities were now giving them all the assistance they could 
 desire." (It was announced a few days after this that the
 
 Appendix A. cliii. 
 
 Albert and the Victoria Docks were strongly guarded by the 
 Metropolitan police in addition to the dock company's police ; 
 that the whole of the dock premises were closely patroled by the 
 police in pairs, while three galleys of the Thames Water Police 
 constantly watched the water ways ; that strong guards were 
 stationed at each entrance ; and that outside the docks the 
 police were also closely picketed and assisted by mounted men. 
 Query — Why could not all this have been done eighteen months 
 before, when the great strike was in progress ?) 
 
 Febrnary 4th. — The shareholders of the East and West India 
 Docks held their meeting, Mr. Hankey in the chair. He stated 
 that the increase in receipts during the half-year had been 
 /"37,ooo, but he was sorry to say that the whole of it had been 
 absorbed in increased expenditure. The increase of wages and 
 salaries was ;^2 1,000, and the cost of labour was 20 per cent, 
 more than it was before the strike. One reason of the bad 
 tmies was the diversion of trade to Antwerp and Havre and 
 other ports abroad. That diversion was owing to improved 
 accommodation in continental ports, and to the labour diffi- 
 culties here. Traders were frightened at the uncertainty that 
 prevailed in London, and were thereby induced to send their 
 goods as straight as they could to their destination. Mr. Meade, 
 one of the shareholders, described the 20 per cent, increase in 
 wages as " disastrous in the extreme." 
 
 Fehruary ijth. — The Strike Committee, sitting at the Wades 
 Arms, Poplar, issued the following notice: "United Labour 
 Council of the Port of London. — Notice. — On December 5th 
 last a Manifesto was issued calling on all affiliated Unions to 
 refuse to do any work on the boats of the following Companies, 
 Shaw, Saville & Co., New Zealand Shipping Co., and British 
 India Co., until they agree to sign on their crews at the ship- 
 ping offices and to employ members of the N.A.S.F.U. only. 
 This Manifesto is hereby withdrawn. — By Order of the 
 ■Council." The ship-owners, who had amply provided them- 
 selves with free labour, stated that they were prepared to dis- 
 cuss any grievances the Unionists might have now that the 
 boycotting notice was withdrawn. 
 
 Fehruary iSth. — It was announced that in spite of the with- 
 drawal of the boycotting manifesto the blocking of vessels was 
 still maintained, and that strikers declined invitations to resume 
 work. In these circumstances the Shipping Federation continued 
 its preparations for bringing in free labour, and it was expected
 
 cliv. Appendix A. 
 
 that there would be a thousand men located in the Albert docks 
 before the end of the week, 
 
 February igth. — The Executive of the Shipping Federation 
 passed the following resolution : " That this Council adheres to- 
 the public notice passed and issued on the 13th inst., and is 
 surprised that the withdrawal of the Wades Arms Manifesto has 
 not been followed by the resumption of work. Subject, however, 
 to the ' block ' on the boycotted lines of other ships in London 
 and outposts being removed forthwith, and the men returning to 
 work, this Council will be prepared, if desired, to meet respon- 
 sible representatives of the various labour Unions interested in 
 ship work accompanied by actual workers interested," 
 
 March yd. — Mr, J. H. Wilson, secretary of the Seamen's and 
 Firemen's Union, requested Mr, Laws, secretary of the Shipping 
 Federation, to inform him whether the Shipping Federation 
 insisted upon Union men taking Federation tickets, Mr, Wilson 
 said he was prepared to call the men out at all ports if this con- 
 dition were insisted upon. Mr, Lawes replied : — " The position 
 is simply this : — Certain riverside Trade Unions are boycotting 
 vessels until the owners agree to employ seamen and firemen of 
 one particular Union only, and although the Wades Arms 
 Manifesto of the 5th December has been nominally cancelled the 
 boycott continues, thus obliging the Federation to employ other 
 labour. When the Unions withdraw from this position the 
 trouble will end of itself. It is important to add that men. 
 Union or otherwise, who desire to go to work will be employed 
 so far as there are vacancies. They will, of course, have to accept 
 work with those they find on board the vessels, without reference 
 to whether the other workmen belong to any particular Union or 
 to no Union," 
 
 March i6th. — For the first time members of the Docker's 
 Union consented to work harmoniously with Federation men. 
 The Federation engaged one gang of Union dockers and eleven 
 gangs of Federation dockers for the British India steamer Tara, 
 and they all worked agreeably together. 
 
 July 1st. — This being the stevedores' annual holiday, the men 
 who were loading the P, and O, s.s. Mirzaporc in the Royal 
 Albert dock refused to continue work unless they received double 
 pay. The Company refused this demand and obtained men 
 from the Shipping Federation, who worked so well that the 
 vessel sailed at her appointed time.
 
 Appendix A. civ. 
 
 July 2nd. — The stevedores who had refused to work on the 
 Mirzapore unless they got double wages were refused employment 
 on putting in an appearance this morning, as the Company had 
 determined to keep the Federation men engaged on the day 
 previously. The Royal Albert docks were strongly guarded by 
 police in case of any disturbance. 
 
 July i^th. — Mr. Ben Tillett stated before the Labour Com- 
 mission that the relations between employers and employed at 
 the docks were very much better for twelve months after the 
 strike, but latterly the conditions of settlement had been departed 
 from. " The Dock Companies had broken the agreement by 
 closing the books. They should be made to keep all accounts 
 that affected the men open to inspection. The co-operative system 
 at the docks had not been a big success. He believed in the principle, 
 but the fact that the Companies did not favour the system had 
 produced distrust amongst the men." 
 
 Mr. Welch, a member of the Docker's Union, complained to 
 the Commission that " the promoters of the great strike had 
 miserably failed. It was true that wages were better per hour, 
 but there were fewer hours for the casual man. A larger 
 number of men got permanent work, and the lot of the casual 
 was worse." 
 
 July i6th. — Mr. Hubbard, Chairman of the Docks Joint 
 Committee, stated before the Labour Commission that the 
 capital invested in the docks was i6^ millions. There were 
 218 administrators and officers in the employ of the Joint 
 Committee, 546 salaried clerks, 438 clerks on wages, 572 
 foremen, 1,438 other weekly servants, including 303 police 
 and the dock-master's staff. Of permanent labourers there 
 were about 1,750, and of other labourers usually employed 
 there were 6,120. The total number of staff-officers and 
 labourers was 9,333. Of the work at the docks 59 per cent, was 
 piece work, and for this work the average weekly wage was 
 £1 los. 9d.; the remaining 41 per cent, was day work, for which 
 the average weekly wage was;^i 5s. 5d. 
 
 ynly ^oth. — A general meeting of the East and West India 
 Dock Company was held, I\Ir. R, A. Hankey presiding. Mr. 
 Hankey, referring to the labour question, said that 60 per cent. 
 of the Company's work was piece work, and the amount of wages
 
 •clvi. Appendix A. 
 
 paid on the average to the men employed was £i los. gd. per 
 man ; and the other 40 per cent, was day work, and the wages 
 for that came out at £1 5s. 5d. per week per man. 
 
 September i^th. — Mr. Ben Tillett dehvered two addresses in 
 Belgrave Congregational Church, Leeds. He stated in the 
 evening address " that the representative governing institutions 
 of the country were at present practically monopolised by the 
 wealthy classes, and contended that this was a condition of 
 things which should soon be altered." 
 
 September lyth. — (Note. A strike commenced among the 
 labourers employed at the Carron and Hermitage wharves, 
 Wapping, on this date, and lasted till October 14. The strike 
 was marked by a considerable amount of intimidation and 
 violence, though the Metropolitan Police were much more alert 
 than they were during the great dock strike. The strike was of 
 a most wanton character, and was forced on by the leaders of the 
 labourers without a shadow of justification. A detailed state- 
 ment of the incidents which marked this strike from day to day 
 would here occupy too much space. They will, however, be 
 included in the Appendices to Vol. 11.) 
 
 September 22nd. — The annual Congress of the Docker's Union 
 was opened at Hull, under the Presidency of Mr. Tom Mann. 
 The Report, which was read by Mr. Ben Tillett, the Secretary, 
 was devoted mainly to criticism of the Shipping F'ederation. It 
 stated " that if any evidence were necessary to convince the 
 veriest addlepate of the necessity for active resistance to the 
 attacks of the capitalists, the unscrupulous conduct of this body 
 in bribing and deception practised upon all their dupes would 
 surely convince those whose interest it was to maintain truth 
 and fair play. It was an aggressive body, which, while 
 whining about the brutality of the Trade Unionists, had yet 
 armed men with bludgeons, revolvers, and a supply of intoxicants, 
 to be guilty of the worst ruffianism. In every dispute the same 
 demoralization had continued. Aided very often by the police, 
 who were directed in their movements by the officials of the Feder- 
 ation in London, the most reprehensible conduct had obtained, 
 and thousands had literally starved through the squandering 
 of the shipowner's money in attempts to defeat the legitimate 
 objects of Trade Unionism. In London, Cardiff, Gloucester, and 
 Hull the agents of the Federation had established centres merely 
 to induce men to leave regular work and a fair competence to 
 serve their purposes and then to be cast adrift. \\'herever the
 
 Appendix A. clvii.. 
 
 Federation had not been successfully resisted wages had come 
 down, and more exacting and oppressive conditions of labour had 
 been imposed, thus proving the aim and the object of the 
 Federation to be the reduction of wages." 
 
 Septeviber 2yd. — Mr. Tom Mann delivered his address as. 
 President of the Docker's Union Congress. He condemned the: 
 low pay in the Yorkshire textile trade, stating that there were 
 thousands of fathers of families in Yorkshire who did not average 
 more than i6/- a week, while out of their labour employers were 
 amassing large fortunes. He insisted that Trade Unionists 
 should purchase only Trade Union made goods, and suggested 
 that the way to insure this would be for Trade Unionists to ally 
 themselves with the co-operative movement, and take an active 
 part in its management. He had discovered that there was room 
 for improvement in the conditions of labour in Hull, because he 
 found in the Borough Engineer's department that persons were 
 employed 66^^ hours per week (How awful !) If Trade Unionism 
 was to complete its work it must bring about such changes in 
 their industrial system as should throw the burden — if there 
 must be a burden — upon the whole community and not upon one 
 or two unfortunate sections. It was not practicable to give 
 workers a wage that would keep them while they were not at 
 work, but there should be municipal workshops, under Govern- 
 ment legislation, to which people out of work could go. He 
 stated that the special points which were urgently pressing for a 
 solution were these : i, abolish overtime ; 2, limit working hours 
 to a maximum of 48 a week ; 3, press for a solution of the inter- 
 mittent employment difficulty ; 4, pay close attention to the 
 question of purchasing those goods only that are made and 
 distributed under Trade Union conditions ; 5, run an increasing 
 number of workmen for Town Councils and on all local authori- 
 ties ; 6, press for a State Board of Arbitration ; 7, take all 
 necessary steps to educate each other in the true principles of 
 industrial co-operation with a view to ultimately conducting the 
 productive and distributive trade of the country on a co-operative 
 basis. "When all this was done the labour question would have 
 been solved, and they might then delve into subjects that should 
 furnish them with new desires, new tastes, new aspirations and 
 enjoyments, and which would be found by the endeavour to- 
 justify those tastes and aspirations."
 
 clviii. Appendix A. 
 
 Immediately after delivering this address Mr. Mann announced 
 his resignation of the presidency of the Union, stating that his 
 reason for taking this step was that he considered it " wrong in 
 principle and unwise in practice for one having no status as a 
 member to be connected as an official with the Docker's Union." 
 {Why did not Mr. Mann perceive that his interfering in the con- 
 cerns of the dock labourers was unwise and wrong at the outset ? 
 The unfortunate dockers would have been much better off if such 
 men as Mann and Burns, who knew practically nothing of their 
 work, would have left them alone). Perhaps the fact that the 
 reports submitted to the Union spoke of a decrease of members, 
 of "desertion and indifference," of "secessions," of a district 
 which had " practically surrendered its title to be called a Trade 
 Union district," of " lack of unity and trust," of men who had 
 " lost touch and sympathy with the movement " — and so on, 
 may have had something to do with Mr. Mann's decision to re- 
 sign. 
 
 The Tivies stated in its leader that Mr. Mann " resigns the 
 presidency of the Docker's Union, as he assumed it, without any 
 clear explanation of his motives." 
 
 Septembey 2\th. — The Mayor of Hull, Mr. Alderman Wood- 
 house, gave a reception to the delegates attending the Docker's 
 Congress. In addressing the delegates he said they were the 
 representatives of a great labour organization, which was called 
 into being by a memorable strike — memorable alike for the 
 success it had achieved, for the popular sympathy which it 
 aroused, and the public support which it received. Mr. Tom 
 Mann in an address of thanks on behalf of the delegates, said 
 that the reception emphasized the contrast between the position 
 which the working man had occupied in the past and the position 
 which he occupied now. He added that '■^ at one time he was 
 opposed to all authorities, hut he was less hysterical now, the restdt, no 
 doubt, of close study of the labour problem. The conclusion that he had 
 now come to was that the working men must work out their own salvation. 
 What they wanted and meant to have was a higher culture, and 
 they would not be satisfied until one of their number had become 
 the occupant of a civic chair." 
 
 October 13^/?.— The Annual Report of the Executive of the 
 National Union of Dock Labourers, an organization which was 
 formed at Glasgow in i88g, about the same time that the 
 Docker's Union Avas formed in London, was issued. The total 
 receipts for the year amounted to ^12,512. Among the items of 
 expenditure were ^2,306 for salaries, ^353 for sundries, ^83
 
 Appendix A. clix. 
 
 *' misapplied by branch officers and committees." The com- 
 mittee of one branch " misappropriated ^25 is. 4d. to providing 
 themselves with a public dinner at Christmas." The committee 
 claimed to have shown that " the gross superstition of the 
 dependence of the labourer upon the capitalist has been exploded, 
 while the utter helplessness and uselessness of Capital without 
 Labour has been demonstrated." They added : " There is no 
 ground for doubting that the real relation of the employer to the 
 workman is simply this — to secure the largest amount of the best 
 kind of work for the smallest wages ; and, undesirable as this 
 relation may be to the workman, there is no escape from it 
 ■except to adopt the situation and apply to it the common-sense 
 commercial rule which proffers a commodity in accordance with 
 the price." 
 
 October i^th. — It was announced that not only the Dock 
 Companies, but also the wharfingers, of the port of London had 
 come to the determination to substitute permanent for casual 
 labour in every department. The Times correspondent, referring 
 to this scheme, said that it would no doubt be decried as an 
 attempt to "crush the Union," although it was nothing of the 
 kind, as it had been formulated with an absolute disregard for 
 the Union. " No man will be asked, I am convinced, whether he 
 is or is not a member of any Union ; but the promoters of the 
 scheme are alive to the fact that, like Mr. Livesey's famous 
 profit-sharing scheme, it may involve the extinction of the dock 
 and riverside Union as an inseparable accident. It is, indeed, 
 notorious that the Union leaders have always been opposed to 
 the permanent system, for the obvious reason that a man in 
 constant employment is not likely to join in a foolish strike for 
 the sake of meddling with the business of other people, when by 
 so acting he is throwing up a valuable situation. In fact it is 
 not too much to say that the Docker's Union cannot maintain its 
 present characteristics and co-exist with a system of permanent 
 labour in the port of London. This the promoters of the scheme 
 see clearly enough, but they are not inclined to go out of their 
 way to cherish the Union. Their objection to it is, curiously 
 but really, not its strength but its weakness. If you deal with 
 the Amalgamated Engineers, for example, they say, ' you have 
 to face a formidable foe ; but an agreement made with them is 
 effectual ; an agreement made with the dockers' leaders is so 
 much waste paper as often as not.' . . . Under these 
 circumstances it would be rash to expect the scheme to be 
 carried into effect without resistance on the part of the Union ;
 
 clx. Appendix A. 
 
 but there is a strong determination to carry it out in spite of all 
 resistance."''' 
 
 October i6th. — Mr. Ben Tillett, in a letter to the Times, said: 
 " A special note of exultation is struck by the anticipated break- 
 ing up of the Docker's Union, arguing that we obtain our best 
 constituents from the casuals. The position is exactly the 
 reverse. The casual is our one weak point — a man who is not 
 able to maintain his existence, leave alone subscribe to a Union. 
 . . . We have not the desire to feed the class hatred of our 
 men, or play upon their excitability, for a living, not even so 
 much as the editor and reporter have over a class newspaper 
 maintained by capitaHst readers. . . . The idea formulated 
 
 • It may be well to quote here the agreement betwixt the Dock Company 
 and their permanent hands, and also to state that five classes of labour are 
 now employed in the docks — permanent men, weekly men, men who obtain 
 preferential employment, men who keep to a particular department, and 
 casuals. Since the strike the object of the Dock Company has been to 
 diminish, and as far as possible abolish, casual labour. The agreement is as 
 follows : 
 
 LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS. 
 
 Memorandum of Engagement of as Permanent Labourer at the 
 
 . Dated this day of , 189—. 
 
 Engagement. — Terminable on either side at seven days' notice from any 
 pay-day. 
 
 Wages. — 24s. per week of six days of eight working hours, between 6 a.m. 
 and 6 p.m. ; overtime pay at current rates. 
 
 Sickness. — Half-pay after first two days' absence, during pleasure of 
 directors, on production of medical certificate, and proof that the subscription 
 to an approved benefit society for sick benefit of los. per week is maintained. 
 
 Leave. — Three days annually in addition to general holidays. 
 
 Pension. — Without deduction from wages, according to scale, to any per- 
 manent labourer, if incapacitated for work by circumstances beyond his own 
 control after at least 15 years' service. The right to pension after 15 years' 
 service is only forfeited by the labourer's resignation or by the termination of 
 his engagement on account of indolence or other fault. Service under this 
 agreement to count for pension as from the , 18 — . 
 
 Dismissal. — A permanent labourer is subject to summary dismissal for 
 misconduct. 
 
 , Secretary. 
 
 For the London and India Docks Joint Committee. 
 
 SCALE OF PENSIONS. 
 
 Per week. 
 
 At any age, after completion of 15 years' service .. .. 6s. 
 
 II 55 years of age ,, 25 ,, .... 7s. 
 
 II 56 I, „ 26 ,, .... 7s. 6d. 
 
 ., 57 M .. 27 „ .... 8s. 
 
 II 58 11 I. 28 „ .... 8s. 6d. 
 
 .1 59 II II 29 II .... gs. 
 
 „ 60 I, ,, 30 II .... 9s. 6d. 
 
 II 61 ,, ,, 30 II .... IDS. 
 
 I, 62 ,, „ 30 ,, .... los. 6d. 
 
 II 63 „ I, 30 ,, .... IIS. 
 
 •I 64 „ ,, 30 ,1 .... IIS. 6d. 
 
 II 65 „ ,, 30 II .... I2S.
 
 Appendix A. clxi. 
 
 is too good to be true, bad as it is. The same dock directors, 
 the same wharfingers, exist and control wharf work to-day as 
 they did in i88g. Those who allowed such damnable conditions 
 to fester under their noses are the same men that will not scruple 
 to-day to mete out the same vile treatment. . . . We have 
 tried to remove the prejudices of the men, but find a past full of 
 sorrow, sufferirig, torture, the resentment of which does often 
 oppose reason." 
 
 May i^th, 1892. — The Times stated that there were rumours of 
 further trouble at the docks, although the managers stated 
 that there was no ground for apprehending a general strike. 
 " Measures have been taken to collect the opinions of the various 
 officials on the spot at the various docks, and the result is the 
 expression of a unanimous belief that the relation between the 
 dock labourers and their masters has never been so completely 
 peaceful and friendly as it is now. This result is due no doubt 
 to the successful establishment of that system of permanent and 
 semi-permanent labour which has always been advocated in the 
 columns of the Times. The casual element has now been reduced 
 so low that, of nearly 8,000 men employed, only a fraction over 
 15 per cent, are casuals." 
 
 yitly 28fh. — The general meeting of the London and St. 
 Katherine docks was held, Mr. W. E. Hubbard presiding, at 
 which a dividend of 2| per cent, was declared. Referring to the 
 state of labour at the docks, Mr. Hubbard said he was glad to be 
 able to speak more favourably. The labourers were working 
 well, and were giving a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. 
 The Committee were persevering in their endeavours to organize 
 employment so that it should be more regular and constant than 
 in the past, and they had a body of 3,400 men, or about half the 
 average employes, whose work was constant and who were ensured 
 at least a full week's \vages. The wages earned throughout the 
 docks were well maintained, every man receiving something like 
 27s. or 28s. a week. The tonnage entering the docks had ex- 
 ceeded that of the same period last year by no fewer than 80 
 ships and 204,000 tons, showing an improvement of 13 per cent., 
 and when compared with 1890, the figures were 16 per cent, 
 better, and not less than 25 per cent, better than those of 1889. 
 The increase of tonnage at the five chief continental ports had 
 not been more than about 1 1 per cent. 
 
 September 26th. — It was announced that the Executive Com- 
 mittee of the Docker's Union had been compelled to give up 
 their efforts to organize the farm labourers, as these efforts in- 
 volved too great a drain on the funds of the Union. It was
 
 clxii. Appendix A. 
 
 suggested that the National Agricultural Labourers' Union 
 should take over the work. 
 
 October nth. — The half-yearly Balance Sheet of the Docker's 
 Union stated that the branch receipts for the half-year were 
 ;^6,270 8s. 4d.; that the membership was about 30,000 ; that the 
 income had exceeded the expenditure by more than ^2,000 ; and 
 that the total assets of the Union amounted to ^"8,668 13s. lod. 
 
 November 15^/1. — Mr. Charles Booth delivered an address to the 
 Statistical Society on the subject of dock labour. He stated that 
 the Docker's Union and the South Side Labour Protection 
 League both arose out of the Dock Strike of 1889, under the 
 excitement of which the two Unions probably had about 20,000 
 London members between them. Their membership had now 
 decreased to 10,000. Mr. Booth submitted an elaborate scheme, 
 the object of which was to more perfectly organize labour in the 
 docks, so that over-lapping might be prevented. He estimated 
 that his scheme would entirely dispense with the services of 
 about 6,000 dock labourers, though he thought the change would 
 act more in cutting off the incoming supply of labourers than in 
 any other way, and that a great improvement would be effected 
 in some of the poorer parts of London by the regular work being 
 given to the dock labourers. 
 
 November 2^th. — A meeting of dock directors, wharfingers, and 
 warehouse keepers was held at the Dock House, Leadenhall 
 Street, to hear a statement from Mr. Charles Booth with 
 reference to his plan for organising riverside labour. Mr. 
 Hubbard took the opportunity of showing what progress had 
 been made at the docks in giving the work to permanent 
 labourers, and pointed out that permanent employment was now 
 practically secured to 3,200 men as against 1,400 a year ago, and 
 that 60 per cent, of the work at the docks was performed by 
 men on weekly wages. 
 
 December i^th. — A manifesto was issued and extensively dis- 
 tributed and placarded throughout the East-end by the Free 
 Labour Association. It was as follows : " Fellow Workers — It 
 is calculated that there are in London alone 100,000 men, with 
 300,000 women and children dependent upon them, out of 
 employment at the present time. That this is a deplorable state 
 of things all just and humane persons will admit, but, unfortu- 
 nately, though for many weeks various schemes have been 
 suggested, nothing has been uttered as to the real cause of a 
 greater portion of the evil — namely, the continual strikes in all
 
 Appendix A. clxiii. 
 
 trades during these last few years. Strikes which have driven 
 tons of shipping into the hands of the foreigners ; strikes that 
 have displaced 20,000 men ; strikes that have caused thousands 
 of women and children to enter the workhouse, and sent their 
 husbands to the doss house ; strikes that have proved themselves 
 the greatest curse that ever visited London ; strikes that have 
 cost the workmen of London during the last three years ;^g52,ooo 
 in wages alone. Who are the authors of these strikes and their 
 consequent starvation and ruin ? The New Unionist leaders. 
 Their policy produced every one of them^a policy which chiefly 
 took shape in an attempt to crush dock-owners, ship-owners, 
 wharfingers, in fact, everybody who demurred to their will. At 
 the same time whilst with a loud voice they claim freedom of the 
 subject and freedom of action for themselves, they do their best 
 to stifle it in others. They and their agents mercilessly crush 
 and debar from work all who are unwilling or unable to pay into 
 their Unions. They stopped ships in the most frivolous manner, 
 without any regard for the pecuniary loss of the owners or the 
 inconvenience of the passengers. They called men out of the 
 docks and wharves without any dispute arising, simply because 
 some goods had arrived from a place where one was pending. 
 ' On principle strikes ' they call them. In fact they attempted 
 to assume the position of dictators and tyrants of, not only the 
 port of London, but of every port in the kingdom. The result of 
 it all is that you — their tools and victims — are walking the streets 
 starving while they are in good positions among the upper ten. 
 Had they been men with practical knowledge of the causes and 
 effects which govern trade, and in thorough sympathy with you, 
 and not Socialistic agitators, who simply use the working man as 
 a tool in furtherance of their programme, your position would be 
 different from what it is to-day." 
 
 December 2gih, 1892. — On this date a letter appeared in the 
 Times signed by the Revs. S. A. Barnett, Canon Scott-Holland, 
 H. Price Hughes, Peter Thompson, Messrs. J. W. Benn, M.P., 
 S. Buxton, M.P., Percy Bunting, Sydney Webb, and other 
 public men. This letter stated the results of an inquiry which 
 had been made into the condition of the unemployed in London. 
 It asserted that there was no evidence of any general lack of 
 employment throughout London as a whole, beyond what was 
 usual in the winter season, the building trades, indeed, which 
 employed 150,000 men, being exceptionally busy. This state- 
 ment was quahfied, however, by the following observation : — ^" In 
 marked contrast to the general evidence we find a consensus of 
 authoritative testimony that the number of men without employ-
 
 clxiv. Appendix A. 
 
 ment about the docks and parts of the river-side, east and south- 
 east of the City, is considerably greater than is usual at this time 
 of the year." The distress caused by lack of employment in the 
 ship-building and engineering trades of London, which employ 
 something like 65,000 men, was stated to be very acute. The 
 letter further stated : " The centre of the area of distress appears 
 to be the docks, but we were surprised that there is no diminu- 
 tion in the average amount of work paid for by the Joint Com- 
 mittee of the Dock Companies this year as compared with last 
 year. On examining the figures of the men employed each day 
 from April i to November 30, kindly supplied by the Joint 
 Committee to Mr. Charles Booth, the explanation of this paradox 
 is found in the fact that the number of the men in permanent, or 
 nearly permanent, employment at the docks has been consider- 
 ably increased. The extreme fluctuations in the total employed 
 from day to day have been mitigated. This better organization 
 of labour is a fact of great hopefulness, but it brings with it the 
 result that the casual labourers get even less than their former 
 amount of work. . . . The Committee have also been in- 
 formed, by good authorities, that the ^/Ms/-permanent staff both 
 at the more central docks and at certain large wharves has been 
 recruited to a considerable extent, not from the ranks of the 
 casual dock labourers, but from men drawn partly from the 
 country, partly from other quarters of London. Dock labour, 
 then, in London is affected by two influences quite apart from 
 the depression in trade which affects general labour — (i) Its 
 casual labour is in course of elimination ; (2) even some of its 
 regular work is leaving London for Tilbury. . . . There is 
 being effected, we may well hope, a permanent decasualization 
 of labour at the docks. In fact, the situation in certain parts of 
 East London is less analogous to that of 1889 than to that of 
 1886-7, ^\'hen so much of the ship-building trade left the Thames." 
 The letter indicated that the " essential fact " of the situation 
 was that " the better organization of labour at the docks is per- 
 manently depriving whole classes of their means of subsistence," 
 and it contemplated the removal of these classes from the neigh- 
 bourhood of the docks to other places where work could be 
 provided for them. 
 
 Note to the Reader. — The original plan of this work 
 included a detailed statement of the incidents which have 
 occurred in connection with all the principal strikes of the last 
 two years in diary form, but as the work proceeded the author 
 found, greatly to his regret, that the exigencies of space would 
 not admit of this purpose being carried out. He has, however.
 
 Appendix A. clxv, 
 
 collected all the materials in connection with the strikes, and 
 the facts will appear in the Appendices to the second volume. 
 The value of such a detailed statement, in a concise form, for 
 the purpose of reference, is obvious. 
 
 The Dock Strike is, however, far and away the most important 
 of all these strikes, as it was in fact their progenitor, and therefore 
 it has been thought well to give an absolutely exhaustive state- 
 ment of facts in relation to that strike. This, so far as the 
 writer is aware, has not been done before. The doing of it here 
 has taken up much valuable space, which the author would 
 gladly have devoted to a fuller discussion of some of the impor- 
 tant principles dealt with in the body of the work ; but on the 
 whole he is inclined to think that he has after all made the best 
 possible use of this space, as he has placed within reach of all 
 who are interested in these matters data which will enable them 
 to form a clear conception of the nature of the Socialistic Labour 
 movement, of which the Dock Strike is the most remarkable 
 symptom. 
 
 It may be said in general that the other principal strikes, 
 such as the Scottish railway men's strike, the dock and rail- 
 way strikes in South Wales, the omnibus men's strike, the 
 Durham miners' strike, the carpenters' strike, and the gas 
 stokers' strike, were all marked by the same prominent features 
 as the Dock Strike. They exhibited the same arrogant, in- 
 tolerant, and aggressive spirit on the part of the Trade 
 Unions and their leaders ; the same hostility towards capi- 
 talists and towards the men who dared to exercise what used 
 to be considered the most fundamental and indubitable right 
 of a true Englishman — personal freedom ; and the same 
 ambition to subjugate society to the dictatorial and tyrannous 
 rules of Trade Unions, which in spite of their swelling preten- 
 sions, do not represent more than one quarter of the working 
 men of the Kinsrdom.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Accumulation, 360 
 
 Admiralty contracts and trade 
 
 unionism, 373. 
 Administration more important than 
 
 legislation. 271. 
 Adults, legislating for, 334. 
 Agitators, honour conferred upon, 
 
 287. 
 Agriculture, condition of British, 
 
 396. 
 Agricultural Labourers, Mann 
 
 and Tillett among, 107. 
 
 Appropriation, 367 ; credit based 
 upon, 368. 
 
 Appropriation essential to accumula- 
 lation and exchange, 363 ; of land, 
 365 ; imperfect, 366. 
 
 Argyll, Duke of, on the insecurity of 
 British institutions, 86 ; on the 
 Labour Commission, 284. 
 
 Arlidge, Dr., on the health of miners, 
 312. 
 
 Army, the, insubordination in, 151 
 and 152. 
 
 Arnold, A., on the policy of the 
 London County Council, 386. 
 
 Arrogance of Trade Unions, at 
 Cardiff, 95; at Doulton's, 105-106; 
 in South Wales, 114. 
 
 AsQuiTH, H. H., on Mr. Haldane's 
 Land Purchase Act, 194. 
 
 Australia, support from, for the 
 dockers, 15, 49 & 50; industrial 
 conflicts in, 109. 
 
 AvEYRON, the Savage of, 360. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, on the exactions of the 
 King, 368. 
 
 Balfour, A. J., on boycotting and in- 
 timidation, 46-47 ; on Irish and 
 Scotch leases, 179; success of, as 
 an administrator, 271. 
 
 Balfour, J. B., on the Crofters, 179. 
 
 Bannerman, Mr. Campbell, on Mr. 
 Kilbride's resolution, 176. 
 
 Barton, Dunbar, on Mr. Roche's 
 Bill, 178. 
 
 Beachcroft, R. M., on trade unions 
 and the London County Council, 
 383- 
 
 Berlin Conferf.nce and children in 
 factories, 277. 
 
 Bird, Col. Stanley, on the laziness of 
 workmen, 301. 
 
 Blowitz, M. de, on uni%-ersal suffrage. 
 273- 
 
 BoMPAs, H , decision of, on intimida- 
 tion, 266-267. 
 
 Booth, W., and Eastbourne, 192. 
 
 Bousfield, W. R., on national 
 work shops, 217. 
 
 BowEN, Lord Justice, on the Law of 
 Conspiracy, 265. 
 
 Boycotting as an instrument of 
 terrorism, 37 ; the Star on, 38. 
 
 Bradford, Sir Edward, vigorous 
 action of, 144. 
 
 Bradford, strike riots at, 102-103 '< 
 vigour of the authorities at, 103 ; 
 Watch Committee of and the police, 
 M5- 
 
 Bradlaugh, Charles, on Individual- 
 ism, 161. 
 
 Bramwell, Lord, on Boycotting, 260. 
 
 Brassey, Lord, on'British manhood, 
 409. 
 
 Bread, Assize of, 241. 
 
 Britain, wealth of Great, 395. 
 
 Broadhurst, H., on the Labour Com- 
 mission, 288. 
 
 Bruce, H., on his crime, 401.
 
 Index. 
 
 clxvii. 
 
 Burns, John, an " Apostle of Discon- 
 tent," 8-IO ; his abuse of the dock 
 directors, 41-42 ; as a revolutionist, 
 59 ; as Agitator-General, 60 ; his 
 wages fund, 61-62' bluster of, 82 ; 
 and the Scottish journalists, 124 ; 
 on the nationalization of railways, 
 135 ; a Communist, 206 ; on the 
 Duke of Devonshire and the Earl 
 of Derby, 28S ; and Protection, 376 ; 
 on contractors and the rate of 
 wages, 383. 
 
 Bi;te Docks, strike at, 92-96. 
 
 Buxton, Sydney, Bill of, on work- 
 shops, 281 ; resolution of, on 
 Government contracts, 282. 
 
 Cadogan, Earl, on extending the 
 principles of Irish land legislation 
 to Great Britain, 181. 
 
 Caird, Sir James, on the abolition of 
 landlords, 182. 
 
 Cambrian Railway Directors and 
 the Parliamentary Committee, 135, 
 195-197- 
 
 Capital identical with Labour, 18 ; 
 profit of deferred, 19 ; first right 
 of, 242 ; treatment of under Mr. 
 Mather's scheme, 325-330 ; profits 
 of, decreasing, 351 ; spiritual ele- 
 ment in, 353 ; true relation of, to 
 Labour, 359. 
 
 Capitalist regarded as an enemy by 
 workmen, 18. 
 
 Capitalists, malignity towards, 196. 
 
 Cardiff, dock strike at, 92 ; railway 
 strike at. 113-116. 
 
 Carpenters' Strike in London, 99. 
 
 Case, Prof., on the Law of Con- 
 spiracy, 261 and 296. 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. J., on Socialism, 
 160 ; on democratic demands, 183 ; 
 his new Labour Programme, 225 ; 
 on employers' liability, 255-257 ; 
 on eight hours for miners, 310-314 ; 
 on Local Option for miners, 319; 
 and early closing of shops, 335-340 ; 
 on freedom of contracts, 372. 
 
 Champion, H. H., as a Labour agi- 
 tator, 62-63 ; on the effects of an 
 eight hours day, 346. 
 
 Chaplin, H., on labourers becoming 
 farmers, 184. 
 
 Citizen, the English, at the mercy 
 of the Executive Government, 137. 
 
 Civilization, enfeebling effect of, 
 
 397- 
 Clarke, Sir E., on labour questions, 
 
 219-220. 
 
 Clergy, the, and the Dock Strike, 
 
 52-54- 
 Clifford, Rev. Dr., on the dockers, 
 
 55- 
 Coal owners, evidence of on the 
 
 eight hours day for miners, 315 ; 
 
 to be placed at the mercy of the 
 
 miners, 325. 
 
 Colbert and the French merchantSi 
 
 392. 
 Collectivism, tyranny of, 371. 
 
 Collings, Jesse, on advancing money 
 for small holdings, 185. 
 
 COLLINGWOOD, Robert, treatment of 
 by Amalgamated Society of Rail- 
 way Servants, 198-200. 
 
 Commission, the Trade Union, and 
 the Law of Conspiracy, 265. 
 
 Commission on Sweating, 279 ; on 
 Labour, 282. 
 
 Communism, 253. 
 
 Compulsion to be applied to land- 
 lords, 175-177 ; to the Small Hold- 
 ings Act, 185. 
 
 Confidence, ruinous effect caused 
 by the impairment of, 390. 
 
 Congress, the Trade Union, and 
 foreign labour, 375. 
 
 Conservatives, and Irish legislation, 
 179-180 ; destructive, 218. 
 
 Conspiracy, Law of, 258-268 ; Mr. 
 Robertson on, 262 ; workmen pro- 
 tected thereby, 263-264 ; attitude 
 of trade unionists upon, 296. 
 
 Constans, M., and strikers in Paris, 
 129. 
 
 Contracts, Parliamentary interfer- 
 ence with, 282, 371 and 393. 
 
 Contractors, the London County 
 Council and, 384-389.
 
 clxviii. 
 
 Index. 
 
 Cook, Thomas, & Son, examples of 
 individual enterprise, 162. 
 
 Co-operative Schemes at docks, 
 failure of, 82. 
 
 County Council, the London, and 
 Ben Tillett, 66 ; first election of. 
 204 ; second election of, 205 ; and 
 the tramway companies, 209 ; 
 action of on wages, 383-389 ; a 
 creature of Socialism, 387. 
 
 Cox, Ross, an illustration of the 
 lowest condition of labour, 359. 
 
 Credit, based on appropriation, 368. 
 
 Crown, arbitrary exactions of the, 
 368. 
 
 Darling, C, on protection of wit- 
 nesses, 202. 
 
 Darwin and the cow boys, 299. 
 
 Davitt, Michael, on Irish Social- 
 ism, 170; his nomination as a 
 Labour Commissioner rejected'. 223. 
 
 Decay, indications in Great Britain 
 of. 396. 
 
 Democracy on its trial, 154 ; cor- 
 rupting influences of, 155 and 156 ; 
 demands of, 183 ; and the admin- 
 istration of law, 272 ; checkmated 
 in the United States, 272 ; Tory, 
 283 ; despotism of, 370. 
 
 Despotism, effects of. 369. 
 
 Devonshire. Duke of, on the Labour 
 Commission. 285. 
 
 Dicey. E., on Unionist Policy, 224, 
 
 Dickson, T. A., on land purchase 
 Acts, 177. 
 
 Dillon, John, on boycotting, 37, 45. | 
 
 Docks, London, a benefit to the East 1 
 End poor, 25. 
 
 Dock Labourers, condition of, com- | 
 pared with farm labourers, 26 ; 
 wages of, 27. 
 
 Dock Strike, commencement of, 3 ; 
 result of Socialistic teaching, 8 ; ; 
 an attack upon capitalists, 11 ; 1 
 occasion of, 12 ; success of due to j 
 
 ' intimidation, 12; political objects j 
 of. 28 : symptomatic of Socialistic 
 disease, 32; W. E. Gladstone on, I 
 51; W. A. M'Arthur on, 51 ; action 
 
 of Cardinal Manning in relation to, 
 69 ; effects of upon trade, 76, 77 ; 
 results of to the dock labourers, 
 77-80 ; three lessons from the, 85, 
 86. 
 DouLTON. Sir Henry, and trade 
 unions, 104-106. 
 
 Dunraven, Earl of, and the Factory 
 Acts. 281. 
 
 Durham miners, disposition of, 325. 
 
 Dutch Authorities and dock strikers, 
 109. 
 
 Early Closing, tyranny of, 338 ; 
 legislation on unnecessary. 338 ; 
 would harass strugglins; tradesmen. 
 340 ; would inconvenience the 
 working classes, 341. 
 
 Eastbourne Improvement Act 
 Amendment Bill, 191. 
 
 East End, a loafer's paradise, 81. 
 
 Eight Hours' Movement, con- 
 nection of with the demand for an 
 amendment of the conspiracy law, 
 296 ; tyranny of, 308 ; would in- 
 crease cost of production, 314; a 
 Socialistic strategem, 307 and 344 ; 
 advocates of, Socialists, 345 ; the 
 absurdity of, 349 : how it would 
 affect wages, 350 ; fanaticism of the 
 advocates of, 352 ; true purpose of 
 the, 250, 294. 
 
 Ellis, T. E., on tiihe and rent. 170. 
 
 Employers, proposed treatment of 
 under Mr. Mather's scheme. 322 ; 
 Liability of, 254-257 ; trade unions, 
 plotting against, 382. 
 
 England, disability of. as compared 
 with the United States, 86. 
 
 Errors, revival of ancient, 247. 
 
 Evicted Tenants in Ireland and 
 
 Parliament, 172; Commission on, 
 
 173- 
 Exchanc;e, paramount importance 
 
 of, 362 ; basis of, 363 ; principle of 
 
 destroyed, 381. 
 
 Experience, teachings of, 368. 
 
 Expenditure, regulation of by the 
 State. 240. 245. 248. 
 
 Experiment, the age of political, 
 183 ; Earl of Rosebery on, 183.
 
 Index. 
 
 cJxix. 
 
 Fabianism, danger of, 229. 
 
 Factory, Legislation, 275 ; Act of 
 1891, 277. 
 
 Fanaticism of the eight hours ad- 
 vocates, 352. 
 
 Farmers, demands of British, 169; 
 Irish tenant, and recent legisla- 
 tion, 171 and 372. 
 
 Farrer, Sir Thomas, action of on 
 wages and contracts, 383 and 389. 
 
 Fenwick, C, on protection of wit- 
 nesses, 202. 
 
 Foster, Sir W., on compulsion, 185. 
 Fraser, Mr., on tyranny in Persia, 
 
 369- 
 Free Education, 187-188. 
 
 Free Exchanger, the English work- 
 man as a, 242, 268. 
 
 Free Labourers, first recognition 
 
 of. 243, 
 Free Trade and Free Labour, 117. 
 Free Travel, 213. 
 
 Friendly Societies and old age 
 pensions, 404. 
 
 F's, The three, demanded for 
 Great Britain, 169, i8r. 
 
 Fuller, G. P., pilloried, 168. 
 
 Gas Stoker's Strike in South 
 London, 89; at Leeds, 100. 
 
 Giffen, R., on the share of the 
 capitalist, 351 ; on the Eight 
 Hours question, 354. 
 
 Gladstone, W. E., on the Dock 
 Strike, 51 ; his "mania for destruc- ' 
 tion, 167 ; on Station-master Hood's ' 
 case, 196 ; on the Law of Con- 
 spiracy, 265 ; on the eight hours' 
 question, 310 ; on Local Option 
 and the eight hours' day ; on the 
 treatment of labour by the Lon- 
 don County Council, 390. 1 
 
 Gladstone, Iferbert, on Mr Davitt, ' 
 223 ; on the Eight Hours day, 294. 
 
 Glasgow City Improvement Trust, 
 214. 
 
 Gorst, Sir John, on labour ques- \ 
 tions, 220-223. I 
 
 Goschen, G. J., on the County 
 Council election, 208. 
 
 Gould, Jay, and United States 
 telegraphs, 163. 
 
 Government, default of the Execu- 
 tive, 13-14 ; 43-45 ; ihe Executive, 
 and the liberties of the citizens, 
 137; and its servants, 141; de- 
 pendent upon the popular will, 
 155- 
 
 Great Britain, dissimilarity be- 
 tween Ireland and, 166. 
 
 Guards, The Grenadier, mutiny 
 among, 151, 
 
 Haile, Persecution of Mr., 340. 
 
 Haldane, R. B., proposal of to 
 make small holdings personal pro- 
 perty, 186; absurd Land Bill of, 
 193- 
 
 Hamilton, Lord George, and Gov- 
 ernment contracts, 373. 
 
 Harcourt, Sir W., on Socialism, 
 160 ; on self-help among working 
 men, 405. 
 
 Harford, E., and the case of Col- 
 lingwood, 199. 
 
 Harrison on the number of thieves 
 in England, 369. 
 
 Healy, T. M., on paying rent, 41. 
 
 Helplessness among working men, 
 
 401. 
 Hill, W. Beckett, on the disposition 
 
 of the dock labourers, 80. 
 
 Holland, Canon Scott, foolish 
 utterances of, 52-53. 
 
 HoLLiDAY, Mr. Henry, disgraceful 
 picture of, 74. 
 
 Hood, the case of Station Master, 
 134; 195-197- 
 
 Hours of labour not excessive, 249 ; 
 305-307 ; State should not inter- 
 fere with, 250. 
 
 House Courts, demand for, 170. 
 
 Household Suffrage, victims 
 sacrificed to. 36. 
 
 Hughes, Rev. H. Price, on the 
 dock strike, 56. 
 
 Humanitarianism, unwholesome, 
 28; 47-49.
 
 clxx. 
 
 Index. 
 
 Ignorance, destiny of the country 
 in the hands of, 247. 
 
 Indian, Moskito, 361. 
 
 Individual appropriation funda- 
 mental, 364. 
 
 Individual, enfeeblement and ruin 
 of the, 397 and 398. 
 
 Industry, first right of, 393. 
 
 Insecurity of liberty and property 
 in England, Duke of Argyll on, 
 86 ; Lord Salisbury on, 272 and 
 391 ; ruinous effects of, 370 and 
 391- 
 
 Intimidation, decision of Mr. Bom- 
 pas, Q.C, upon 266-267. 
 
 Ireland, dissimilarity between Great 
 Britian and, 166 ; land legislation 
 for, 371 ; the curse of, 395. 
 
 Irish, character of the, 394. 
 
 Irish tenants, discontent of, 171. 
 
 Isaacs, Sir Henry, compared with 
 Sir J. Whitehead, 69. 
 
 James, Sir Henry, and the Factory 
 Acts, 276 and 400. 
 
 Kelly, Rev. C. H., on Methodist 
 sympathy with the Dock Strike, 
 55- 
 
 Kilbride, D., proposition of on Irish 
 Land Purchase, 175. 
 
 Knox, D. B., on house courts, 170. 
 
 Labour, identical with Capital, 18 ; 
 Profits of realised immediately, 
 19 ; not the only factor in pro- 
 duction, 19; first right of, 242; 
 hours of being reduced, 249; 
 Commission on, 282 ; a necessity, 
 301; a delight, 302; evil of exces- 
 sive, 303 ; has no vested rights, 
 326 ; Trusts, 347 ; feebleness of 
 apart from Capital, 358 ; Parliamen- 
 tary interference with capital and, 
 373 ; trades unions and females, 
 377- 
 
 Labour Commission, Duke of Devon- 
 shire on, 285; futility of, 286; 
 undesirable members of, 287 ; fault 
 of, 289-292 ; of 1867, 290. 
 
 Lao-tse on government, 392. 
 Labour Department, the new, 292. 
 
 Labourer, rights of the, 268 ; equality 
 of with the Capitalist, 269. 
 
 Labourers, freedom of first recog- 
 nised, 243 ; Statute of, 244. 
 
 Labour Movement and economical 
 laws, 39. 
 
 Labour Party, the true title of, 
 28 ; a Conservative, 220. 
 
 Labour subsidies, 210. 
 
 Lancashire tenant farmers and the 
 three F's, 169. 
 
 Landlords, impoverishment of Irish, 
 372 ; proposal to compulsorily ex- 
 propriate Irish, 175. 
 
 Land Purchase Acts, mischievous 
 effects of, 175-176 ; T. A. Dickson 
 on, 177 ; proposed plan of in 
 Great Britain, 193-194 ; recommen- 
 dation of, 372. 
 
 Land, Socialistic experiments on, 
 165 and 371. 
 
 Lawes, Sir John, on the British 
 Yeoman, 182. 
 
 Law of Conspiracy, 258-268 ; Prof. 
 Case on, 261 ; Mr. Robertson's 
 resolution, 262 ; whom it protects, 
 263. 
 
 Laws, invisible, 235. 
 
 Lea, Sir T., on evicted tenants, 178. 
 
 League, Liberty and Property 
 Defence, 159. 
 
 Leeds, gas stokers' strike at, 100 ; 
 impotency of the authorities at, loi 
 
 Legislation, limited powers of, 236. 
 
 Leisure, wise use of, 249 ; ideal, 304. 
 
 Lewis, Sir W. T., as an antagonist of 
 the New Unionism, 93-96. 
 
 Liability, Law of Employers', 254- 
 
 257- 
 Liberty, trade union notions of, 29. 
 
 Livesey, George, action of, in re- 
 lation to gas stoker's strike, 90; 
 testimonial to, 91. 
 
 Local Option opposed by Local 
 Optionists, 192 ; application of to 
 the Eight Hours' question, 319 ; 
 
 I Mr. Mather's proposed application 
 
 I of, 321 : mania for, 343.
 
 Index. 
 
 clxxi. 
 
 London County Council, its inter- 
 ference with railway companies, 21 1. 
 
 Louis XIV., injury to trade by, 369. 
 
 Mahon, Mr. and the London post- 
 men, 149. 
 
 Mahony, Mr. Pierce, on the Libera^ 
 party and evicted tenants, 174. 
 
 Majority, limited power of, 329 ; 
 worship of the god, 343. 
 
 Mania, the strike, 110-112. 
 
 Mann, Tom, and the infuriated dock- 
 ers, 79-82 ; evidence of, on the 
 effects of an Eight Hours day, 345 
 and 349 : views of, on our foreign 
 trade, 348 ; on parental brutality, 
 402. 
 
 Manhooo, England's need of, 394 
 and 397 ; decay of in Ireland, 394 ; 
 impairment of by trades unionism, 
 398 ; indications of its decay in 
 Great Britain, 406. 
 
 Manning, Cardinal, and the Dock 
 Strike, 69. 
 
 M'Arthur, W. a., and the Dock 
 Strike, 51. 
 
 Masham, Lord, treatment of, at Brad- 
 ford, 103. 
 
 Mather, W., scheme of, on the hours 
 of miners, 321. 
 
 Mathew, Sir James, as president of 
 the Evicted Tenants Commission, 
 173- 
 
 Matthews, Mr. Henry, weakness of, 
 in dealing with the Dock Strike, 
 4-6 ; masterly inactivity of, 72. 
 
 M'Carthv, Justin, and Mr. Kilbride's 
 resolution, 177. 
 
 Members of Parliament, payment of. 
 190. 
 
 Miners, Eight Hours Bill for, 310; 
 occupation of, not dangerous to 
 life, 312. 
 
 M'Neill, Rev. J., on the Dock 
 
 Strike, 55 and 57. 
 
 MillbankPrison, demolition of, 374. 
 
 Moderateo, apathy and weakness of 
 the London, 204-205. 
 
 Monro, Mr. James, as Chief Com- 
 missioner of Police, 70-71 ; his 
 correspondence with Mr. Norwood, 
 70. 
 
 Montesquieu on the freedom of 
 land, 369. 
 
 Morley, Mr. John, and evicted ten- 
 ants, 173 ; on the Eight Hours 
 Movement, 295. 
 
 Municipal bodies, incompetency of, 
 214; ownership of public works by, 
 215 ; and their employes, 388. 
 
 Navy, the, insubordination in, 152. 
 
 Newcastle Programme, the, 229. 
 
 New Laws unnecessary, 271. 
 
 Nixon. J., on foreign competition in 
 the coal trade 
 
 Nonconformist Ministers and the 
 Dock Strike, 54-58. 
 
 North British Railway and the 
 strikers, 121-122. 
 
 Norwood, C. M., and Mr. Monro, 
 70 71 ; abuse of by the Press, 
 74-75 ; on the true character of 
 the Dock Strike, 84 ; on trade 
 unionism, 231 ; on the cowardice 
 of modern Englishmen, 406. 
 
 O'Connor, T. P., on the Dock Strike, 
 33 ; on station-master Hood, 196. 
 
 O'Kelly, Mr., and evicted tenant's 
 Bill, 172. 
 
 Old Age Pensions, 251-254. 
 
 Omnibus strike in London, 125 ; in 
 Paris, 128 ; omnibus proprietors 
 and their workmen, 127. 
 
 Over Legislation, 271 and 409. 
 
 Overtime desired, 298. 
 
 Pall Mall Gazette on London 
 dockers v. Irish peasants, 47. 
 
 Paris, strikes in, 129. 
 
 Parker, Rev. Dr., on the Dock 
 Strike, 57. 
 
 Parliament, unlimited power of, 87; 
 recent action of on labour questions, 
 274-292 ; interference of with con- 
 tracts, 282 ; the creature of Democ- 
 racy, 370 ; interference of with 
 contracts, 393.
 
 clxxii. 
 
 Index. 
 
 Parnellism, analogy between the 
 New Trade Unionism and, 32-43 ; 
 Socialistic aspect of, 32-43 and 
 116; M. Davitt on, 170. 
 
 Payment of M.P.'s, 190. 
 
 Pensions, old age, 251-254 and 403 ; 
 attitude of Friendly Societies on, 
 404. 
 
 Percy, Prof., on Eight Hours' day 
 for miners 
 
 Persia, effects of tyranny in, 369. 
 
 Personal responsibility destroyed 
 by Socialism, 402. 
 
 Peter, the wild boy, 360. 
 
 Philanthropy, emotional, 85. 
 
 Picketing akin to moonlighting, 38 ; 
 Lord Bramwell on, 260. 
 
 Pinkerton police, methods of, 131. 
 
 Poland, the crime of, 408. 
 
 Police, insubordination among the 
 Metropolitan, 143: riotous conduct 
 of, 144. 
 
 Police authorities and the Dock 
 Strike, 70-73. 
 
 Political Economy, nature of, 235 ; 
 simplicity of, 355 ; importance of 
 to working men, 356 ; first princi- 
 ples of, 357. 
 
 Poor Law first passed, 246. 
 
 Postmen, attempted strike of, in 
 London, 147. 
 
 Post Office, proper undertaking for 
 the State. 162 ; facilities for obtain- 
 ing Annuities, 252. 
 
 Potteries, strike at Doulton's, 103- 
 
 106. 
 Press, action of, in relation to Dock 
 
 Strike, 73-75. 
 
 Printers, complaint of the litho- 
 graphic, 375 ; competition of for- 
 eign with English, 375. 
 
 Producers, the true, 305. 
 
 Production, three factors in, 20-22 ; 
 suspension of, 370. 
 
 Progressives, Moderates outwitted 
 by, 204 ; the policy of, 206. 
 
 Profit Sharing at the South Metro- 
 politan Gas Works, 89. 
 
 Property, affected by Parnellism, 
 34 ; the great law of, 395. 
 
 Protection, as working men want 
 it, 78, 117 and 376; John Burns 
 on, 376. 
 
 Provand, a. D., the Bill of, on shop 
 assistants, 333. 
 
 Provisions, prices of fixed by law, 
 241. 
 
 Public Opinion irrational, 25-56. 
 
 " Punch " on the Dock Strike, 24. 
 
 Raikes, Mr. H. C.,on the Postmen's 
 Union, 147; worried to death, 149. 
 
 Railway Companies, prosperity of 
 in 1889, 6 ; and the public, 132 ; 
 profits of, 134 ; and the State, 136 ; 
 federation of needed, 137 ; interfer- 
 ence with by the London County 
 Council, 211. 
 
 Railway Servants, responsibility 
 of, 137. 
 
 Railways, strike at Cardiff, 113-116; 
 in Scotland, 118; in the United 
 States, 130. 
 
 Reid, R. T., on small holdings, 185. 
 
 Republican Liberty, 130. 
 
 Responsibility, destruction of per- 
 sonal, 402. 
 
 Reynolds' Newspaper on the Dock 
 Strike, 16 and 23; on the sacred 
 cause of labour, 83. 
 
 Rights, working man in full posses- 
 sion of his, 379 and 382. 
 
 Robertson, E., on the Law of Con- 
 spiracy, 261. 
 
 Robertson, F. W., on standing 
 alone, 409. 
 
 Roche, J., Bill on Irish Land Pur- 
 chase, 178. 
 
 Rollit, Sir A., and the labour move- 
 ment, 217. 
 
 RosEBERY, Earl of, on political ex- 
 periments, 183 ; on the London 
 County Council and its workmen, 
 390. 
 
 Rotterdam, dock strike at, 108. 
 
 Rousseau, savage state advocated 
 by. 378.
 
 Index. 
 
 clxxiii. 
 
 Rulers, mistakes of, 368. 
 
 Russell, T. W., on Lord Salisbury's 
 Government, 165 ; on rent abate- 
 ments, 172. 
 
 Salisbury, Marquis of, on the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, 
 16 (Introduction) ; on the insecu- 
 rity of property in England, 272, 
 391 ; on Parliamentary interference 
 with contracts, 393. 
 
 Salvationists at Eastbourne, 190- 
 
 193. 
 Say, M., on the rights of property, 
 
 268 ; on the misfortune of the poor 
 
 man, 364. 
 
 Scotland, railway strike in, 118; 
 outrages in connection with the 
 railway strike in, 119. 
 
 Seale Hayne, Mr., on leases for small 
 holdings, 185 ; on " reforming " the 
 Magistracy, 189. 
 
 Self-help, 236 and 399. 
 
 Shaw-Lefevre, Mr., on evicted 
 tenants, 172 ; on English tenants, 
 186. 
 
 Shops, early closing of, 333. 
 
 Slavery in England, 241 ; return of, 
 407 ; debilitating effects of, 408. 
 
 Small farm and Labourers Co., 392. 
 
 Small Holdings Act, Socialistic, 181 ; 
 futility of, 182 ; unnecessary, 183. 
 
 Smith, Adam, on value, 22 ; on 
 wages, 238-239 ; on the poor man's 
 property, 268 ; on regulating the 
 hours of labour, 354. 
 
 Smith, W. H. & Son, compared with 
 the Post Office, 163. 
 
 Socialism, the Dock Strike a mani- 
 festation of, 10 ; in the Army and 
 Navy, 152 ; two senses of, 160 ; 
 Mr. Chamberlain on, 160 ; Sir W. 
 Harcourt on, 160 ; in Irish Land 
 Acts, 164 ; in the sphere of 
 Municipal Government, 203-216; 
 three forms of, 377 ; dehuman- 
 izing effect of, 378. 
 
 Socialists, strategy of, 228. 
 
 Southampton, dock strike at, 96 ; 
 magistrates of parleying with strike 
 leaders, 97. 
 
 South Metropolitan Gas Com- 
 pany and their workmen, 89. 
 
 South Wales strike, objects of, iiG ; 
 weakness of capitalists of, 118. 
 
 Spectator, The, on the disposition of 
 the electors, 84. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, on Socialistic 
 madness, 232. 
 
 Standard, new moral. 40-41. 
 
 Stanley, H. M., on the necessity of 
 labour, 301. 
 
 " Star," the, on boycotting, 38 ; on 
 conspiracy in England and Ire- 
 land, 47; on John Burns, 60; on 
 the John Burns wages fund, 61. 
 
 State, the responsibility of servants 
 of, 157 ; true function of the, 237 ; 
 interference of with wages, 239. 
 
 Statute of Labourers, 244 ; of 
 wages, 246 ; of 5th Elizabeth, 246. 
 
 Storey, S., on the Small Holdings 
 
 Bill, 179. 
 Strike mania, 110-112. 
 Sullivan, T. D., on Land Grabbers 
 
 39- 
 SuTHERST, Mr. Thomas, and the 
 
 omnibus strike, 126-127. 
 
 Sweating Commission, 279. 
 
 " Times," The, on Sir Henry James 
 and factory legislation, 400. 
 
 Thrift, weakening the incentives to, 
 
 403- 
 Thring, Lord, on British Law, 271. 
 
 Tillett, Ben, as a strike leader, 
 63, and 103, 113 ; his preaching 
 and practice, 64 ; his views on 
 economic and social questions, 
 65 and 66. 
 
 Tory democracy, 283. 
 
 Trades Unionism, fruits of in Aus^ 
 tralia, 109 ; among Servants of 
 the State, 153 ; captured by So- 
 cialism, 230 ; inconsi<;tent with 
 liberty, 261 ; a reproach of, 275 
 and the Labour Commission, 291 ; 
 Trade Unionism, destructive of 
 manhood, 399. 
 
 Trade Union Commission on the 
 Law of Conspiracy, 264.
 
 cl: 
 
 Index. 
 
 Trade Union Congress and foreign 
 labour, 375. 
 
 Trade Unions petted by Govern- 
 ments, 373 ; and female labour, 
 377 ; inimical to freedom, 29-30 : 
 terminology of, 30 ; the New, 
 31 ; analogy between the New 
 Trades Unionism and Parnellism, 
 32-43 ; powers proposed to be given 
 to, by Mr. Mather, 324. 
 
 Tramways, municipalization of> 
 209-210. 
 
 Trevelyan, Sir G , and evicted 
 tenants, 172 ; on Stationmaster 
 Hood, 196. 
 
 Tri;sts, labour, 347. 
 
 Tyranny, the new, 140 and 370 ; of 
 the Eight Hours system, 308. 
 
 Tyrant, the working man, 342. 
 
 Unemployed, tactics of the, 7-8 ; 
 providing for the, 352. 
 
 Unionism, the new trade, defeat of 
 at Cardiff, 96 ; at Southampton, 
 98; in Scotland, 123; triumph of 
 through the London County Coun- 
 cil, 108 ; pernicious teachings of, 
 379-382. 
 
 United States, advantages of as 
 compared uith England, 86; 
 Government and Democracy, 272. 
 
 Utility, conditions necessary to the 
 production of, 357. 
 
 Value, laws which govern, 22. 
 
 Wages, nature and source of, 236 ; 
 interference of State with, 239 ; 
 attempts to regulate, 240, 244, 245; 
 Mr. Mather's scheme and, 331 ; 
 
 how affected by an Eight Hours 
 day, 350 ; interference of Parlia- 
 ment with, 373 ; Sir Thomas 
 Farrer on, 389. 
 
 Walker, Mr John, and the Scottish 
 railway strike, 121. 
 
 Watkin, Sir Edward, on railway 
 strikes, 131. 
 
 Webb, Sidney, on " The London 
 Programme," 206-207. 
 
 Wemyss, Earl of, and Socialism, 159 ; 
 on Government bribery and its 
 attendant demoralization, 171 ; on 
 the aims of the Labour party, 216. 
 
 Westacott, Mr., on free travel, 213. 
 
 Whitehead, Sir James, and the 
 Dock Strike, 67-68 ; his action 
 contrasted with that of Sir H. 
 Isaacs, 69. 
 
 " Wild ideas " at the Labour Com- 
 mission, 284. 
 
 Witnesses, protection of, 201-202. 
 
 Women, legislating for adult, 334. 
 
 Work, distaste for, 300. 
 
 \VoRKiNG Man, status of, 246; 
 "posIHcJirTTf— the- British, 268-269; 
 the tyranny of, 342 ; importance of 
 Political Economy to, 356. 
 
 Working Men, perverted ideas of, 
 16-18. 
 
 Women, legislating for adult, 376. 
 
 W0RKW0^1 EN'S CO yOper.'ltiv^f^gg'-iria- 
 
 tion, 392. 
 Yeomen, attempt to re-create the 
 class of, 182.
 
 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Among the Subscribers to this work are the following 
 noblemen and gentlemen : — 
 
 His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch. 
 ,, ,, the Duke of Rutland, 
 KG. 
 The Most Noble the Marquis of 
 
 Bath. 
 The Most Noble the Marquis of 
 
 Bute. 
 The Most Noble the Marquis of 
 
 Zetland. 
 The Right Hon. the Earl of Sel- 
 borne. 
 „ ,, the Earl of Derby, 
 
 K.G. 
 „ ,, the Earl of Yar- 
 
 borough. 
 ,, „ the Earl of Home. 
 
 „ „ the Earl of Strath- 
 
 more. 
 „ „ Earl Grey. 
 
 ,, ,, Earl Percy. 
 
 „ ,, the Earl of Cran- 
 
 brook. 
 „ ,, the Earl of Love- 
 
 lace. 
 „ ,, Earl Fortescue. 
 
 „ „ Viscount Strath- 
 
 allan. 
 ,, „ Viscount Melville. 
 
 „ „ Viscount Sher- 
 
 brooke. 
 „ ,, Lord Kelvin. 
 
 „ ,, Lord Burton. 
 
 „ ,, , Lord Egerton of 
 
 Tatton. 
 „ ,, Lord Sackville. 
 
 I, „ Lord Mount- 
 
 Stephen. 
 „ ,, Lord Northbourne. 
 
 II ,, Lord Stalbridge. 
 
 It ,, Lord Leconfield. 
 
 II » Lord Addington. 
 
 II ,, Lord Tredegar. 
 
 II ,, Lord Amherst of 
 
 Hackney. 
 >• ,, Lord Masham. 
 
 ■ > ,, Lord Armstrong. 
 
 ■> ,, Lord Ribblesdale. 
 
 The Marquis of Granby, M.P. 
 Baron Oscar Dickson. 
 Baron G. de Worms. 
 Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P. 
 
 ,, ,, Evelyn Ashley. 
 
 ,, ,, Sir T. D. Acland. 
 
 Sir John Lubbock, M.P. 
 Hon. Justice Madden. 
 
 ,, Evelyn Hubbard. 
 
 ,, H. W. Fitzwilliam. 
 Lady Meu.x. 
 
 Sir William Mackinnon, Bart. 
 Sir J. T. D. Llewelyn, Bart. 
 Sir Humphrey de '1 rafford, Bart. 
 Sir Henry Peto, Bart. 
 Sir J. Stirling Maxwell, Bart. 
 Sir Spencer Maryon Wilson, Bart. 
 Sir W. Welby Gregory, Bart. 
 Sir F. Milner, Bart., M.P. 
 Sir Robert Jardine, Bart. 
 Sir Tatton Sykes, Bart. 
 Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart. 
 Sir C. Lowther, Bart. 
 Sir John Ramsden, Bart. 
 Sir T. W. Evans, Bart. 
 Sir W. Worsley, Bart. 
 Sir J. Muir, Bart. 
 Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.M.G. 
 Sir William Smith, LL.D., K.B 
 Sir W. T. Lewis, K.B. 
 Sir Henry Doulton, K.B. 
 Alderman Sir W. Lawrence, K.B. 
 Sir W. C. Leng. KB. 
 Sir R. Webster, O.C., M.P. 
 Sir B. C. Brown.^K.B. 
 J. G. A. Baird, Esq, MP. 
 William Mather, Esq., M.P. 
 Samuel Smith, Esq., M.P. 
 H. F. Pease, Esq., M.P. 
 H. S. Foster, Esq., M.P. 
 M. A. Shaw Stewart, Esq., M.P. 
 B. L Cohen, Esq., MP. 
 George Di.xon, Esq., M.P. 
 William Jacks, Esq., M.P. 
 A. Graham Murray, Esq.. O C . 
 M.P. 4. VJ ■ 
 
 E. W. Beckett, Esq., M.P.
 
 List of Subscribers. 
 
 R. T. Gurdon, Esq. 
 
 Walter Morrison, Esq. 
 
 S. R. Piatt, Esq., J. P., D.L. 
 
 Arthur Pease, Esq., J. P. 
 
 S. S. Lloyd, Esq.. J. P. 
 
 Henry Lee, Esq., J. P. 
 
 John Walter, Esq., J. P. 
 
 Quintin Hogg, Esq. 
 
 Walter Hazell, Esq. 
 
 James Hack Tuke, Esq. 
 
 George Cadbury, Esq. 
 
 T. F. C. Vernon Wentworth, Esq. 
 
 S. Arthur Peto, Esq. 
 
 Howard Morley, Esq. 
 
 Frank Debenham, Esq., Alderman 
 
 L.C.C. 
 Clement M. Royds, Esq. 
 M. Crackanthorpe, Esq., Q.C. 
 Gerald R. Hardy. Esq. 
 G. W. Medley, Esq. 
 W. J. Hammond, Esq. 
 J. P. Thomasson, Esq. 
 A. K. Loyd, Esq. 
 
 G. B. Longstaff, Esq.. M.D., L.C.C. 
 W. M. Cross. Esq.. C.C. 
 Richard Cory. Esq., J. P. 
 John Maple. Esq. 
 
 George Crowson. Esq. 
 
 Nathaniel L. Cohen. Esq. 
 
 Thomas Fielden, Esq. 
 
 Col. R. Williams, D.L. 
 
 Alexander M'Arthur, Esq. 
 
 C. T. D. Acland, Esq. 
 
 J. H. Tritton, Esq. 
 
 H. A. Giffard, Esq., Q.C. 
 
 G. A. Spottiswoode, Esq. 
 
 George Livesey, Esq. 
 
 Guy Pym, Esq. 
 
 Nicholas H. Bacon, Esq., J. P. 
 
 Joseph Ruston, Esq., J. P., D.L. 
 
 T. A. Denny. Esq. 
 
 Henry Irving. Esq. 
 
 A. Shuttleworth. Esq. 
 
 W. E. H. Lecky, Esq. 
 
 Joseph Pike, Esq., J. P. 
 
 F. D. Mocatta, Esq. 
 
 F. J. Savile Foljambe, Esq , J. P., 
 
 D.L. 
 Mrs. J. G. Richardson. 
 Messrs. Bass, Ratcliffe, & Gretton. 
 The Midland Railway Co. 
 Messrs. Hamlyn & Co. 
 
 (Buckfastleigh),
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 Form L-9-15wi-2,'36 
 
 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 UCLA-Young Research Library 
 
 HD8390 .B79i 
 y 
 
 L 009 501 569 9 
 
 H3) 
 
 S5S0