SHOP HOURS.
THE unanimity of the House of Commons on Social questions is becoming wonderful. The abstract con- siderations, the objections of principle, which once ruled debates such as that which Sir John Lubbock originated on Tuesday, have disappeared. Even difficulties of detail and application are hinted at only to be put aside. They are treated as part of the sacrifice which Members of all opinions hasten to offer up on the altar of philanthropic legislation. We wish we could think that this unanimity was the unalloyed product of the enthusiasm of humanity. But coincidences are sometimes difficult of explanation, and suddenly awakened zeal on behalf of classes which have votes, and have shown that they know how to use them, must certainly be reckoned among coincidences. The circumstances of the moment invest this zeal with a degree of respectability which, but for them, it could 'hardly claim. If it were openly avowed that, as the end of Con- servative action is to put and keep the Conservative Party in power, any policy is Conservative which wins the working- class vote, the conclusion might seem cynical. But when Unionist is substituted for Conservative, the formula becomes quite patriotic. Any sacrifice that promises to maintain the integrity of the Empire must be cheerfully submitted to • and what sacrifice can be cheaper than that of a principle which was never held intelligently ? It would be easy, however, to underrate the part which genuine conviction does play in the conversions going on all around us. The air is full of a qualified Socialism,—a, Socialism which is eager to make the lot of the poor easier and happier without much thought of what is to follow. The straitest-laced individualist finds his convictions slipping away from him whenever he is confronted by unmistakable suffering. To pension old age, to give dinners to hungry children, to make the workman's leisure longer and his pay higher,—these are now held to be the true ends of legislation ; and it is pleasanter to accept them en bloc than to ask inconvenient questions as to the consequences of applying them. Sir John Lubbock's resolution commits the House of Commons to a measure which goes beyond anything that it has yet taken in band. Hitherto, we have limited the occasions of interference between workmen and employers, as regards hours' to two,—inability on the part of the workers to protect themselves, and injury done to the public by reason of their omission to protect them- selves. The Factory Acts are a long-standing instance of the first kind ; the Government proposals with regard to the hours of railway-servants are an instance of the latter kind. Women and children have been protected because they are weak. Railway-servants are to be protected because an overworked servant is likely to be an inefficient servant, and. inefficient service on railways is a fruitful cause of accidents. The law has not yet undertaken to say that adult males in ordinary employment shall not work as many hours as they think proper. This, however, is what Sir John Lubbock is prepared to do. He declares that "the excessive and unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops are injurious to the comfort, health, and well-being of all concerned," and ought to be restricted by the action of the local authorities. We cannot say that his speech made good the latter part of his resolution. He drew a piteous and perfectly true picture of the sufferings which these long hours inflict upon women, and if it had. been women alone that he proposed to protect, he would have com- pletely proved his point. But he did not show why, in order to do this, it was necessary to protect men. Why cannot shopmen organise themselves as easily as artisans ? Why should not a Shopmen's Union become as powerful as any other Trade Society ? Mr. Asquith did essay to deal with this part of the subject. The reasons be gives for protecting men, as well as women and children, against over-long hours, are two. First, he says, in retail trade, you cannot separate ages and sexes. "Operations are in- extricably mixed up, and young and old, male and female, work side by side." We are not completely satisfied by this argument. Might it not be turned with equal force the other way ? If operations are thus inextricably mixed up, might we not expect that if the work of one section is stopped, the work of the other section would stop too ? At all events, this plan has never been really tried. An Act of 1892 does, indeed, prohibit the employment of young persons under eighteen for more than seventy-four hours a week, and this Act, Mr. Asquith tells us, has produced no serious result. But the very fact that it has failed, makes it useless for Mr. Asquith's purpose. Had it succeeded in its special object, and in nothing more, had it limited the labour of young persons under eighteen to seventy-four hours a week without effecting any corresponding reduc- tion in the hours of ahopmen and adult shopwomen, it might fairly be argued that indirect prohibition of over- long hours had come to nothing. But as it has failed alto- gether, as young persons under eighteen have continued to work more than seventy-four hours a week, the point to be ascertained is still left in doubt. We do not know whether a seventy-four hours' limit for young persons of both sexes would mean a seventy-four hours' limit for adults of both sexes, or whether, in order to deal with the question effectively, we must, in Mr. Asquith's words, "ignore distinctions and look to the whole body of employs," The second reason he assigned in support of his contention was the impossibility of bringing a whole trade into line on a question of this kind. Many times a trade has been on the eve of attaining early closing—has actually attained it even—and then some one man has insisted on making his shop an exception, and one by one i all the rest have followed n the same bad track. But why should this be the case if the shopmen were strong and united ? The sinning employer cannot open his shop unless he has some one to serve in it, and if no shop- man was to be had, who would stay later than the custom of the district countenanced, he would have to put up his shutters when the rest did. We must own, however, that this objection does not make much impression on us. Shop- keeping is hardly difficult enough to be counted as skilled labour, and the vacancies caused by a strike among shop- keepers would probably be easily filled up from outside. The real objection to Sir John's Lubbock's Bill is that the experiment of strictly limiting the hours of labour in shops in the case of women and young people, has never been fairly tried, and, consequently, that we are still ignorant whether, if this restriction were imposed effectu- ally, any other would be needed.
Nor, we confess, are we very sanguine as to the re- sult of entrusting the enforcement of such an Act to the local authorities. Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Asquith contend that all that is wanted is a Bill to carry out "the general wishes of the shopkeeping community," and that this can be best done by the local authority. But against this we have to set the fact that the enforcement of the Act of 1892 has been left to the local authorities, and. has in consequence been a conspicuous failure. The pro- visions of the Act are perfectly plain. No yoting person under eighteen is to work in a shop for more than seventy- four hours a week. But, like all Acts of the kind, it requires a staff of inspectors to see that it is obeyed ; and. for this purpose the local authorities are em- powered to appoint inspectors. How many local autho- rities have appointed them in England and Wales ? Four county authorities out of 49; 35 boroughs out of 226. The blame of this failure," says Mr. Asquith, "is to be ascribed to the limited scope and illogical character of the Act." Why are we to take this as the cause ? There is nothing to show that it would not have succeeded if the local authorities had cared to put it in force. Why are we to assume that, though the great majority of the local authorities have allowed the powers given by this Act to lie unused, they will all be eager to use similar powers given them by another Act ? If the shop- keeping community is really anxious to shorten the hours of labour in shops, and can be trusted to stimulate the action of the local authorities in that direction, how is it that they have allowed the Act of last year to remain a dead-letter ? We greatly fear that it will be found that the shopkeepers have no strong feeling upon the subject, and that if the local authorities are to wait until they have ascertained their wishes, they will wait a long time. We do not doubt that the detailed application of such an Act as Sir John Lubbock wishes to see passed may and must vary with local conditions. The precise hours during which shop-people should be employed, the day of the week to be chosen for a half-holiday,----these are points which must be left to the local authority. But to determine how many hours in all shall constitute a day's work, and to enact that there shall be a half-holiday in every week, is the work—if of anybody—not of the local authority, but of Parliament.
Previous page
