THE NEW SERFAGE IN ENGLAND. T HE contest in Hull is
interesting for many reasons, one being that a powerful Union of the men is facing a powerful Union of the employers, with rather unexpected results. The former will probably be defeated ; and it is chrious to see how angry they get when the right of com- bination, which in their own case they so justly value, is applied against themselves. Unionism among operatives is only "Christianity applied in action ;" but Unionism among masters is a "devilish combination." This appli- cation of two measures to the same acts is, we suppose, human nature being what it is, natural enough ; but it does not raise one's opinion of either the temper or the logic of the Union leaders. It is curious, too, to see how the same leaders give themselves away when they discuss the measures taken for enforcing order. They are enraged with the Mayor of Hull for importing police, and with the Home Secretary for allowing the despatch of a few dragoons. As it is quite certain that the Mayor has no wish to import policemen, and so enrage local voters, and that Mr. Asquith would not allow the interference of soldiers if he could help it, the inference is that the strikers are dis- turbing public order either by threats of riot, or by attack- ing free labourers, which is precisely the impression they ought, as good managers, to avoid producing. Their line, the only line that can lead to victory, is to apply the pressure of the Unions, who can secure abstinence from labour, without breaking the law or irritating the com- munity, which is always, they may rely on it, stronger than any trade or combination of trades. The most curious feature of the whole affair, however, consists in the arguments which it induces some of the journalists to employ in commenting on the struggle. The West- minster Gazette, for example, which is, we have no doubt, conducted by sincere "Liberals," contained on Saturday an article which is redolent of the oldest feudal spirit, turned topsy-turvy only in its application. Mr. C. H. Wilson, as the largest shipowner in the world, is very important to Hull—indeed, his admirers say he niade Hull —and, irritated by the refusal of the Union men to work with free labourers, he is said to have declared that, rather than be beaten in the contest, he would remove his ships from Hull. That is impossible, says the Westminster Gazette ; but if possible, it would not only be "scandalous," but "profoundly immoral," —conduct, in fact, which would be an abuse of Mr. Wilson's resources, with which the com- munity have a right to interfere. Why ? Because the interests of Hull are superior to the interests of any single firm. No doubt ; and the interests of England are superior to those of any single statesman ; but that does not justify England in keeping any statesman at work under threat either of confiscation or of being pronounced immoral. Suppose the men in Mr. Wilson's employ, instead of quitting their work, quitted Hull, declaring they could not labour in a town where he was so influential. That would ruin Hull just as much as Mr. Wilson's action ; and, what would the Westminster Gazette do then ? Would it keep the men in Hull, either by force of arms or ofpublic opprobrium, on the ground that the interests of the community demanded their retention ? That is the very principle of the old villenage which bound the labourer to the soil because, if he were permitted to wander at his discretion, cultivation would stop and the com- munity be injured. The Westminster Gazette would de- nounce such a course as positively evil, as a step bacl; to the darkest ages, as a tyrannical interference with the right of every man to sell his labour freely in the place where he saw a prospect of the best return. We cordially agree with those sentiments, hating slavery and serfage in every form ; but then we should apply them to Mr. C. H. Wilson also. If it is immoral to turn the labourers of Hull into adstricti gleke, serfs bound to reside in a particular place for that place's benefit, it is a fortiori immoral to apply such a coercive principle to a single man selected from the community because he has benefited it so much. The Westminster Gazette is really suggesting that Mr. Wilson is a serf of Hull ; that he Is bound to stop there against his will and make Hull ricli involuntarily ; that he has no right to take either himself,, or his ships, or his money, or anything else that is his, to a port he likes better, and enrich that. We never remem- ber to have seen a more monstrous interference with per- sonal liberty defended in an English newspaper ; and yet we do not doubt that the writer believes himself to be defending liberty all the while. He only forgets that the rights which he would, we are certain, defend at any self-sacrifice in the case of the multitude, are not forfeited because the individual who claims them has grown rich, or owns many ships, or has by any other kind of success proved himself a little more competent than his fellows. Mr. Wilson is a citizen as much as any one of his stokers, and is as entitled to his freedom as any steve- dore. Suppose the Westminster Gazette to be an unusual success, to employ hundreds or thousands of persons, to bring in a splendid revenue, yet to be dependent for all those gocd things upon the ability or popularity or special' gifts of its editor—a state of affairs by no means impos- sible in journalism—would it be utterly immoral, almost criminal, in that editor, if he were dissatisfied with his position, or his pay, or his treatment by his subordinates, to quit the paper, thereby ruining it, and. transfer his powers to some other paper or locality ? The Westminster Gazette would indignantly deny the liability of its editor to be so, "enslaved," yet wherein would his case differ, in the ' event supposed, from that of Mr. Wilson ? Each brings work to persons and wealth to a place, and each, in departing, injures those persons and pro tanto cripples that place. Moreover, each owes his wealth, in a degree, to the labour of those whom he quits, and to the orderli- ness of the place which, to the extent of his means, he, in departing, ruins. We do not write in the least as opponents of Trades- unions. We have always maintained that, except in the ease of soldiers, which rests on a different principle of morality, the right of the individual to be master of him- self involves his right to combine with others ; that com- binations for good terms of employment are perfectly just ; and that the operation of Unions has been, on the whole, decidedly beneficial. We would, moreover, gladly see them extended to unskilled and half-skilled labour, because we see a tendency, whenever those classes are not combined, to pay the individuals which compose them a wage too low to maintain a civilised life. We would gladly see the mini- mum pay of urban labour raised from 15s. to 20s. a week,, even though the amenity of life among the professional and propertied classes were distinctly diminished by the, change. But we cannot conceal from ourselves that the New Unionists are urging claims which involve either a, complete industrial revolution, the Commune becoming. the sole employer of labour, or the reduction of the em- ployers to the very slavery from which their men are emanci- pated. We see it asked whether masters ought to be free to combine, whether an association like the Federation of Shipowners is not "an anti-social evil." We hear of demands publicly made that neither police nor military, should intervene in any Labour quarrels,—that is, in fact, that the men should always be free to use physical force even in breach of law. We receive every week proposals for the compulsory splitting-up of estates, for the " muni- cipalisation' of urban properties, for the expropriation of all mines, quarries, fisheries, or other industries based upon any quality inherent in land or water. More than this, wg see the right of men to property in their own labour attacked as if the very claim to it were a crime, as if the man who chooses to keep outside a Union were a kind of pirate to be put an end to by force, and with as little scruple as if he were a tiger or a shark. These are radii cally unjust claims ; and we think it most unfortunate and most ominous that, owing partly to a perverted idea of philanthropy—that is, to the notion that only a crowd can suffer—and partly to the competition for votes, many journalists have displayed towards such extreme claims a special toleration. They, at least, ought to be impartial, for they are both employers and em- ployed; but they are amongst the least impartial in the community. They write on both sides as if they were writing of wars, in which the only thing to be considered was comparative force ; and urge both sides to extra efforts with a recklessness of which in actual warfare they would show themselves ashamed. We doubt sometimes if anything done by masters would be condemned as harsh by the Times, or if anything done by men short of positive crime would seem to the Chronicle deserving of reprobation. The result is that strikes grow more bitter, that the policy of the Kingdom may be influenced by the relation of the parties to labour, and that the cordial agreement which is the essential condition of good wages and short hours, because it is the essential condition of the strict organisa- tion, without which force is perpetually wasted in un- profitable muddling, is further off than ever. The journalists are more responsible, and, we are bound to add, more mischievous than even the Labour agitators. 'The latter are under strong temptations ; they must show their men results to keep their influence alive ; they are, to the most singular degree, victims of the illusion that 'strong language and effective language are synonymous ; and they are reckoned by those they address very nearly ,at their value. The journalists are reckoned as far more influential than they are, because of their impersonality ; they can be fairly impartial if they please, without suffer- ing for their moderation ; and that they do not please, but 'by preference storm and bluster and shriek, is one of -the worst signs we recognise in the hour. The Labour question is far and away the most serious one of our day,—so far, we are heartily with the most furious .advocates of either side ; but it cannot be settled if either party are to be treated as mere villains, immersed in sel- fishness, and needing to be put down by the community at large. The men have a clear right to abstain from labour rather than work with other men whose conduct they dislike ; and the employers have a clear right if they do abstain, to fill their places with labourers less prejudiced or more in want of wages. Till those two cardinal rights .are acknowledged, there can be no moderation in the struggle between the parties, and no sincere justice in the .comments passed upon their conduct. Imagine the con- dition of opinion under which an honest writer can sen- =tence a shipowner like Mr. C. H. Wilson to be " interned " in Hull because he has made Hull so rich that he cannot in justice to its people be allowed to go whither he may ,please.
Previous page
