COMMERCE, LABOUR, AND THE CREED OF CHRIST.—II.
IT-must not be supposed that Mr. Murray preaches only to the working-man. He is, in truth, far more severe on the employer than on the employed class. He speaks, indeed, very stern words to the employers. He does not object to the way in which they make their money, but to the way in which they too often spend it. They have no true idea of the stewardship of the wealth which comes to them. They are not dutiful in spending. They are neither good citizens nor good Christians in their way of life.
In one sense we- are entirely with Mr. Murray. A man who does not determine that ho will be careful in his per- sonal expenditure, and that he will neither make a pig of himself nor a pig-sty of his home and become what Horace so well called the fattest swine in the herd of Epicurus, deserves every possible.condemnation. But remember that to condemn is one thing and to attempt to penalize or to legislate a, human being into a higher ethical position and into nobler action is quite another. If we are to have freedom, and we believe freedom is the foundation of all ethics and of all human betterment—the last and the final social word—we must give a man freedom to do wrong as well as freedom to do right. If not, he will not really be a free man but a slave. But the slave has no virtues and can have none. He is good because he is forced, because he is not allowed to be bad.; not because his mind is set on truth and righteousness. The man who is " tied .up from doing ill " must never be paraded as the good citizen.
Of course, it is inevitable that there should be many interferences with freedom and with the liberty of choice ; but do not let us pretend that we can make men better in themselves by forcing them to behave welL What we accomplish with one hand we destroy with the other. We manufacture serfs, not good citizens, by Acts of Perlis, meat. We want to lead men to self-control, not to control them externally by the fear of punishment. The citizens of Paraguay were virtuous enough, but they were despicable specimens of humanity.
Where, then, is the remedy for what Mr. Murray very rightly describes as the absolutely pagan way in which the women of the comfortable classes and the richer classes spend the money which their men make ? The special selection of the women is not ours but Mr. Murray's. He preaches a strict Christian stewardship in regard to money and the setting of strict limits to ostentation and luxury, and in this we are wholly with him. When, however, he goes on to say that if this could be stopped we , should have less labour unrest and that our labour troubles would largely disappear, we think he is losing touch with realities. We do not want to frighten the rich into forgoing, or rather concealing, their selfish luxuries. If we do, we shall pro- bably find them making common cause with the worst section of the working-classes—for remember that all manual labourers are not emotional saints. The poor have their vices as well as the rich. We must not talk as if the luxuries of drinking and gambling were unknown to them.
We do not want to see the worst profligates of both classes winking at each other behind our backs with a- " If you will help us to keep the hands of these d—d puritans off our Rolls-Royces, our champagne, and our bridge parties, we will help you to keep your beer, your whippets, and your weekly ' bits ' on the horses spotted for you by the tipsters-of the Star and of the Daily Herald." It seems to us that the-proper way to attempt to cure this evil is to make the rich ashamed of their more unseemly and undignified luxuries. We hope readers will not think it a case of " nothing like leather " if we say that we believe publicity is the best medicine for these evils. Do not let us pretend that either the working men who spend what they do spend on drink and on racing are angels, or that the large section of the employing class, who are like them on a larger scale, are wicked men. Let us be perfectly plain about the matter and make both sides, if we can, ashamed of wallowing in their sties, humble or magnificent. By this, of course, we do not mean that men are to give up their pleasures and those carrots of such different shapes and sizes by means of which they are now induced to trot instead of slouch along the road of life. The real test of luxuries is, " Are these things making me soft ? " If they are, a man, in order to save his own soul, and, curiously enough, also to save his body, must cut them off. We all know that a rich man's children, if their parents keep them too tightly in hand, are only hardened m the desire for luxuries. Much the best chance is to teach them to feel the sense of noblesse oblige in the matter of soft living. So with the grown-up children of the State. Prohibition of a thing not malum in se is apt to provoke rather than to restrain.
Here, however, as in so many other things, we have got to find out the via media. One must be a Whig and a Moderate in the relations of Capital and Labour as in all other relations. We come now to Mr. Murray's practical proposal, which is as follows :— " We want in the industrial areas the setting up of a statutory body which shall gather up all these fragmentary agencies and powers into itself, so that it, with the knowledge of all the industrial and business life of the community, shall be thorn to be appealed to, to set a standard of behaviour, to maintain an. atmosphere of goodwill within the limits of the area of which it is the authority. We have all these isolated agencies, all these individual men, all these philanthropic centres, and all those Whitley Councils, but no Whitley Council represents the com- munity. No Chamber of Commerce does, no Trades Council does, and no Trade Union. We want something that will supersede the narrowness and the special interest of these bodies and build up the business life of the community into something vivid and decisive, something that knew its own mind, some- thing that was well rooted in the social sense, something• that was inspired by good social feeling, something that by being there in the midst of the community, appealed to in times of trouble, and empowered by Parliament to take action in times of trouble, and generally to shepherd and watch over the whole affair of industry—by setting up such a something, I do believe, in this lucid moment after the War, when we have still the pressure of the War lessons upon us, when the nation's will is still used to action—very soon it will get tired of action and we shall have a phase of inaction in which the Government will never do anything—but the War taught us as a nation to have an idea and try to carry it out ; and I- should like to see the strengthening of the national will which the War brought used to bring about an establishment in the localities of statutory bodies representing the whole of the community, and not any hole-and-corner organization; to which Parliament and the public might look for the keeping of the peace and the diffusing of the spirit which would enable • industry to be happy and contented and profitable for us all."
That is excellent, but here again we believe that the chief weapon, and perhaps, indeed, the only weapon, which " the statutory body " could use would be that of publicity. It should not wait till there was a, disturbance in industry. It should be watching the respective interests of Capital and Labour and also of the Consumer and the State in every commercial sphere very closely. But it should, of course, do more than- wait and watch. It should warn, advise, admonish and interpret. For example, if it found that the employers, or some of them, were not conducting their business in a proper spirit of partnership, we see no reason why the Statutory Body should not admonish them and either make them mend their ways or force them to prove that if they gave a larger share of the profits of industry to their employees they would make it impossible to keep their works going.
In the same way, if it could be shown that the men were practising ca' canny in any industry with the open or tacit approval of their Union, or, at any rate, without its censure, or, again, were deliberately limiting the use of machinery in order to create more jobs, and were, in effect, acting on the ruinous Marxian policy that the way to get abundance is to make an artificial scarcity, the great engine of publicity should be employed. Let the facts and all the facts be given to the world and the consequences be plainly described. We admit that there are hundreds of difficulties in the course we propose, but we do think that far more use could be made of publicity than is made at present.
In any case, we wish every possible success to this admirable movement towards a " Christian Order of Industry and Commerce," and we endorse in principle, though we should have stated it rather differently, the following appeal :- " Industry must be regarded primarily as a National Service. Employers and Administrators, in common with all engaged in industry, must be animated by the Christian spirit. It is the spirit actuating a system that matters. Any part of the present or other system that is against the spirit must 'be eliminated. It is the responsibility of leaders of industry and employers of labour, by virtue of their position, to endeavour to remove from industry any evil existing in it."
We sincerely trust that the movement will get wide public support. All people who are interested should write to " The Secretary of the National Movement towards a Christian Order of Industry and Commerce, 24, Great Russell Street, London, W.C. 1," and ask for the explanatory papers. To show how comprehensive the movement is, we may note that the names of the vice- presidents are Lord Hambleden, Mr. Arnold S. Rowntree, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree, and Mr. Angus Watson. The General Council, over which Mr. Sydney Pascall presides, is also full of good names.
We will end with one word of warning, and that is that all concerned must remember that a business may be killed by kindness as easily as a human being. We ask the heads of this movement to remember that there is nothing wicked in a profit. On the contrary, there is much that is good and much to be proud of. No business will ever really flourish which does not make a profit. We have had so much silly talk of late about profiteers and profiteering that people are inclined to think that a profit is always something to be ashamed of. To work for .a profit is natural, reasonable, and morally sound, so long as those who work keep before them ethical considerations and remember that they are men dealing with men, not machines dealing with abstractions. No man must ever say " a profit right or wrong " any more than " my country right or wrong." He must determine that, though he may make a profit, it shall be made with honour and a good conscience, and with due respect for that charity and love which is the first and the last word of the religion of Christ.
(Concluded.)
Previous page
