THE PARLIAMENT OF LABOUR.
A7first sight, there is something very bewildering about the doings of the Parliament of Labour. The dele- gates begin by unanimously electing a President who offers' a strenuous if veiled protest against the New Unionism, and displays to the full the tone and temper of the old Societies. Next, they adopt a system of .voting which turns the Con- gress into little better than a public meeting, and robs it of a great part of its significance,—a decided victory for the New Unionism. Then they deal with the Eight- Hours question, and allow themselves to be blown first in one direction, and then in the other, by conflicting tempests of opinion. A resolution is carried in favour of a universal compulsory Eight-Hours Bill. An amendment follows, however, which takes the whole sting out of this by making it permissive. Finally, yet another s mendment is agreed to which asserts, first, that there should be a legal eight- hours working-day ; and secondly, that the majority of the workmen in any trade shall have the right to prevent its operation in their particular trade. The explanation of the uncertainty of aim thus displayed by the majority of the trade-unionists is, we believe, to be found in the curious mixture of shrewdness and senti- mentality which characterises the English working man. No one who has talked intimately with the superior members of the labouring class can have failed to note the sort of double intellectual standpoint which they frequently adopt. As regards matters within their own immediate ken, they are hard-headed, practical, common-sense individualists. Outside these they are dreamy socialists. The man who, when speaking of the conditions which govern his own trade, under which he has acquired his own house, or which regulate his savings, is as clear-sighted and reasonable as possible, falls the moment he gets upon the general labour question, or " the condition of the people," into the slip-slop cant of the Fabians. His native common-sense and shrewdness are all kept for "the particular." They vanish at the first sight or sound of Labour with a big ." L." He will allow himself to be worked into a fever-heat of indignation over the oppressions prac- tised in a particular industry, forgetting entirely that he is enduring quite as severe conditions himself without any special sense of hardship. Instead of his own experience making him take the hardened view, as might be expected, he is often as super-sensitive to stories of over- work as the softest-hearted of fine ladies. That this should at first seem unintelligible, is perhaps natural, but a moment's reflection will supply the explanation. The ordinary man, when he considers his own trade, remembers the almost invisible limitations and compensations which tend to make his toil endurable. When, however, he considers the labour of others, he dwells solely on the naked facts, and ignores the compensating conditions. His imagination cannot construct them, and apparently the argument that as he feels, so in all probability will men feel in other trades, does not strike home. That the working men are to be blamed for taking up this attitude, we do not for a moment desire to say. We are inclined, indeed, to think that it is the natural one. Many so-called educated people experience much the same sort of feeling. Business men, for example, often wonder how a. leader-writer on a daily paper can possibly endure his life. Yet, as a matter of fact, he endures it very well, and wonders whether life can be worth living when spent in the City from ll till 6. No doubt educated people do not grow sentimental enough about other people's hardships to desire to interfere by means of legislation with the con- ditions under which they get their living. This is, how- ever, to be partly accounted for by the fact that they and their neighbours are all pretty well off, and that there is no fear of actual starvation to quicken the sensibilities. The working man, however, lives so near the precipice, that he is specially nervous about those who are also close to the edge. Confidence in himself, and acquaintance with the path, make him disinclined to be personally timid ; but his knowledge of the abstract danger renders him anxious that mankind in general should be provided with a hand-rail. Hence, we take it, comes the over-sentimen- tality for others, mixed with shrewdness and common- sense as regards their own particular affairs, which distinguished the delegates at the Congress. The resolu- tion finally adopted by them was exactly what might. have been predicted as the result of this double attitude. The delegates voted for 'a universal eight-hours day, but allowed the members of each particular trade not to accept the law. This compromise commanded the support of the delegates because each man who voted for it was able to feel that it would set free a number of unfortunate slaves in other trades, and yet leave his own trade free to work as long as it liked. It provided, in fact, for the general as- piration in favour of socialistic legislation, and yet allowed a means of escape for the individual. It is, no doubt, a. pity that the Congress should have bound itself to anything so vague and unpractical. Still, it does not, we believe, show that the working men are in any sense going to take a " header" in favour of Socialism. " The State shall manage our affairs," is not their maxim, but rather, " The State shall manage yours, but I'll manage my own."
But though we are able to find a modified amount of satisfaction in the result of the controversy over the Eight- Hours question, we can find none whatever in the other principal act of the Congress,—the resolution adopted as to the system of voting. If we wished the Congress ill, and desired to see workmen stultify themselves, we should applaud the system under which one delegate is given as much power as any other, and the voting is taken by show of hands. Since, however, we are sincerely anxious that the Trade-Unions should maintain their position and authority, we look upon the decision of Tuesday as nothing- less than suicidal. We have no desire to support either the Old Unionists or the New in the controversy. That is quite another matter, and need not enter into the present discussion. What, however, we do desire is to see the Trade-Unions endow their Congress with sufficient autho- rity to make its decisions upon practical questions really of moment. This can be done only in one way,— by making the public feel that the Congress is really representative, and that a majority of its members can be relied on to speak for a majority of the working men. Now, how can this end be best accomplished ? Surely not by practically allowing any body calling itself a Trade-Union to send delegates in proportion to the mem- bers it claims to include. The plan agreed to at Liverpool last year was to allow one vote to be recorded for every thousand constituents represented by a delegate. In this way, a guarantee was obtained that the voting should really represent the working men. Under the present system, however, that of a mere majority of the electors present, it is impossible to attach any real significance to the votes. They may mean a great deal, or they may mean nothing, according to the composition of the majority. As one of the members of the Congress asked, how can we tell whether the delegates are bond-fide representatives, unless they submit to some such test as that devised by the Liverpool Congress ? That the majorities are and will be largely de- lusive under the new system of a show of hands, is, we think, proved by the fact that it is supported by the New Unionists. If they can show immense numbers of bona fide. members, why should they mind the plan of giving a vote to every thousand constituents ? If, however, as is often alleged, their boasted numbers are fictitious, and they are largely bogus combinations—heads without bodies—it is easy to see why they favour the new scheme. It hides their naked- ness, and gives them a preponderance over the old-fashioned Unions. That this view will ultimately press itself upon the chief trade-unionists, we do not doubt. The New Unionism, like most other things, will come in for a period of reaction, better counsels will prevail, and we shall once more see the Congress restored to its former position. Formerly one could rely. upon the decisions of Congress being what they professed to be, expressions of opinion on behalf of so many hundred thousand men. Now, however, no such value can be attached to them, and the Trade- Union Congress has ceased to occupy its former position as a true Parliament of Labour.
Previous page
