1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7df283594c9e0e5cf1f865607bdb89d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=s%7Eu84-9dh2FFdHlbE3FXCpBPgehnjJxoSNkKC7Ilj73ZD96-inJiO8JEMCaLSGueQl-mYJ-YgO-d44oWfEjwhKOiqDmtT-i6-rhjOwRIGO3P7m%7ELqO7ctD1EkND90gTmiCQt7QtEsP5nYbPKFOcyEvPdeIEwSak%7E7tVoIB3dAzi0zDYqDVwTvLA61kW1%7EAnOkHH8HPinksqR-%7E9eO%7EjQBOhhjr1wV-a2ksN6roOID8yupP4yDvxDiFljjVCYvfluT2TiNUVKBdkxYGzomp8lRbWFCz4cWPBjOOz84lYUiGGIMtmFv8NQE7kKmVa6PuwVkOMjiaaJK9N0jEVgE%7Eh15g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bed438547928007284547ead365188b0
PDF Text
Text
ONE
T347
PENNY.
THE
EMIGRATION FRAUD
A REPLY TO LORD BRABAZON.
By H. M. HYNDMAN.
Reprinted, by permission from the “Nineteenth Century.-’
MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
�0
K
I
|
r« 'gTh-<Z\'
»<!(.[
<
H r.>
'mA
tv,
i >r!
' -■ i
�THE EMIGRATION FRAUD EXPOSED.
T T is natural that at a time when there is serious depression in nearly every one of our great industries, from
agriculture downwards, many remedies should be proposed
for the unemployed labour and “over-population ’’which appa
rently exists in Great Britain. Nor is there any remedy which
is, at first sight, so simple and yet so satisfactory as Emigra
tion. That if there are too many people in these islands they
should go away of their own accord, or be helped away, to
other regions where vast tracts of land lie uncultivated, seems
no doubt a reasonable proposal. No one, I feel sure, would
dispute that, granted the assumption involved in the “ if,” it
would be the duty of the community at large to help those o
the population who are in excess to reach countries where
they could subsist by their labour, provided they could not
get there without such aid. Nor could it, I think, be denied
that emigration, conducted under the control of the people of
England and the inhabitants of our Colonies jointly, would
be better managed than any happy-go-lucky exodus, similar
to that which we have so far favoured. There is nothing in
the nature of the case, certainly, to deter men and women
from going to our colonies situated in a temperate climate or
to America; and millions who have emigrated have found
happy homes and reared healthy families at the cost of rea
�4
sonable labour, though things are not now as they were. All
that need be stipulated for before the State is called in to
direct or to aid such emigration is, that it should be clearly
shown that there is not plenty of room for the people here;
and that circumstances in the country to which they would
betake themselves are such at the time as to warrant their
going or being sent.
This, I venture to think, is as complete an acceptance of
the position taken by Lord Brabazon on State-Directed
Emigration as he himself could desire. It is satisfactory,
therefore, to find that I can fully agree with Lord Brabazon’s
statements concerning the present condition of large number
of the workers in London and our other great industrial
centres. For instance, when Lord Brabazon speaks of “ the
fearful competition existing in the centres of industry which
compels large classes of honest, sober, hardworking men and
women to lead such a bitter struggle for mere existence that
the acquisition of the actual necessaries of daily life is suffi
cient to engross their fullest energies and which leaves them
without the least margin of time or strength for making any
provision against the advent of disease and old age, much
less for the accumulation of capital ”—when Lord Brabazon
writes thus, I say, he but repeats what a “ visionary revolu
tionist ” like myself has been urging for years past. So again
I can heartily agree with what he so forcibly adds : “ Whether
there is or is not a demand for the State direction of emigra
tion, of this I am confident, that means must be found, and
that quickly, to put an end to the fearful struggle for life
which is to be met with in the east and south of London, and
in most of our large towns. The disease has got beyond the
power of private efforts and has assumed proportions too
gigantic to be dealt with by any power short of a Govern
ment or a powerful municipality. Starving men are not to
be argued with ”—this seems to me altogether excellent. . , .
�5
" Whether the Government like it or not, they will have to
take into their serious consideration how best to relieve this
deplorable congestion of population in our large towns.”
There is indeed “ a social malady which, if allowed to con
tinue unchecked, must inevitably end in some fatal national
catastrophe.” Lord Brabazon is also quite right in stating
that the Democratic Federation did its best, and with very
great success, to meet and controvert his special remedy for
this state of things, and I have every reason to believe will
continue to do so. The difference between us therefore is
narrowed to two points. First, whether there is really any
over-population. Lord Brabazon says there is. I say, in
spite of appearances, that there is not. Secondly, assuming
the over-population to exist, whether the time is favourable
for exporting the people. Lord Brabazon says it is. I, again,
say it is not. On this second point, however, I shall not
touch, for if I prove my position on the first it will be un
necessary to go further; and, besides, recent reports of the
state of the labouring population in Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand, to say nothing of the United States, are cer
tainly all against sending out more emigrants.
Before dealing with the main question, I would just add
that we Socialists do not wish to keep the people in wretched
ness in this country in order that we may have them at hand
to make a revolution with, as Lord Brabazon, rather
unreasonably it seems to me, suggests. We are no be
lievers in a revolution of starvelings. At the very time
when the Democratic Federation challenged State-directed
and State-aided emigration, we issued a series of
practical proposals for home colonisation and municipal em
ployment, which are perfectly sound as far as they go,
and would relieve the present distress at once, much
more effectually than the removal of a few th ousand families
could relieve it. These proposals Lord Brabazon has. I
�0
know, seen. The £10,000,000 which was wasted on the war
in Egypt would have far more than carried out the whole
plan. That we are revolutionists I am quite ready to admit;
whether we are visionary remains to be seen. At any rate,
the peer and the revolutionists are both agreed that the
present condition of things cannot go on without leading
to “ some fatal national catastrophe.”
Now for the “ over-population ” and Lord Brabazon's
State-directed remedy for it.
To begin with, as it seems to me, Lord Brabazon proves a
little too much. He says that the “ increase of population
outstrips the increase of the demand for labour,” and goes on
to argue as follow : “ Every ten years between three and four
million more mouths have to obtain food in this country;
and inasmuch as the soil of England is not elastic and cannot
be made to produce a greatly increased quantity of food ; as
England cannot at this moment supply all her sons with an
adequate meal a day ; and as she already has to import half
the food which she consumes—the problem how we are to
feed our surplus population is one which is serious now, will
annually increase in seriousness, and unless solved within a
very few years by some statemanlike measure of relief to
population, will not be long in settling itself, in a very
unpleasant way for some of us, if we decline to grapple with
it whilst it is still capable of easy solution.” Now this argu
ment, if pressed to its logical conclusion, surely means that
one half our present population ought to emigrate. Lord
Brabazon does not mean that, I know, yet that is the fair
deduction from such a statement. But Mr. Samuel Smith
says, and Lord Brabazon fathers his statement, that no
changes in the land laws could do mors’ than put four million
additional people into agricultural employment. Do Lord
Brabazon and Mr. Smith know what that admission involves ?
The total number of people now in agricultural employment
�7
in England and Wales amounts to but 1,300,000 all told.
What an enormous increase of produce, then, would the four
million additional labourers bring about! It is the opinion
of some of the most skilled agriculturists in the kingdom that
under proper conditions this country might easily produce its
whole food supply or its agricultural equivalent. We ought
not to forget that our whole system is one gigantic
machine of waste, and that, for example, whilst we import
every year a large amount of artificial manures, we sweep
down into the rivers and sea, in the form of sewage, at least
£30,000,000 to £40,000,000 worth of manure of the very best
description. What vast changes the proper use of that would
effect! Yet a really scientific arrangement is almost imposs
ible in our existing large cities. With proper application of
machinery, careful dairy and poultry farming, and entire
change of our method of dealing with human manure, it is
almost impossible to say what might not be done with our
lands, if at the same time the present wretched system of
landowning were done away with, and one substituted in the
interest of the whole community. None of those who have
most earnestly opposed State-directed emigration are in favour
of cutting up the land among the 35,000,000 of people. They
do urge, however, that it should be used for the advantage of
the whole people collectively and not for the gain of a class.
Lord Brabazon does not dispute that some increase
might be obtained ; his friend Mr. Samuel Smith virtually
admits that an enormous increase might be obtained ; others
say that our agricultural produce might be profitaby doubled.
Let us begin colonisation at home, then, and try emigration
afterwards.
But we are now dependent on foreign sources for half our
food supply, which we obtain partly in return for goods
exported and partly in payment of interest on capital lent.
To devote more, labour to raising food than we can get it for
�8
by devoting less labour to producing other commodities
which we could then exchange for food, is clearly bad policy, so
long as we command the sea and can carry on such exchange.
It is not the amount of food which can be grown in these
islands that limits population, or what Lord Brabazon calls
the “ supply and demand of labour,” in Great Britain. That
depends upon the state of the world-market for goods, and
the profit which has been made by the capitalist class under
the present conditions of productions. Thus there is “ over
population,” and thousands of men are out of work, all along
the Clyde to-day ; but about two years ago there were not
hands enough to do the business which flowed into the ship
yards, and mere boys not out of their apprenticeship were
coming from other centres to earn 32s. a week as rivetters.
Is this sort of “ boom ” and depression with its accompany
ing periods of over-work, followed by slack time and “ over
population,” due merely to the natural increase of our people ?
Assuredly not. There is some other cause at work to make
useful labourers useless within a period of a few months.
But I deny the actual over-population, so far as labourers
are concerned, altogether. Never assuredly was the power of
man over nature so great asit is to-day. Neverin the history
of the human race was so much wealth raised with so little
labour. Relatively fewer hands are employed in the iron,
coal, cotton, wool, and other industries than was the case a
few years ago; yet a much greater quantity of wealth is pro
duced. A few’ figures will make this quite clear. Thus in the
coal industry 538,829 persons employed in mining and
handling coal above and below ground in the year 1874 ex
tracted 140,713,832 tons of coal. In the year 1883, 514,933
persons produced 163,737,327 tons, an increase of over
23,000,000 tons, though 24,000 fewer persons were em
ployed. In 1874 the miners won 261 tons of coal per
head; in 1880, 334 tons a head ; yet in the latter year 53,896
�9
of them were out of work—became over-population, that is.
In the working of iron and steel 360,356 persons were em
ployed in 1872, and produced and used 6,741,929 tons of pigiron; in 1883,361,343 persons were so employed, and they
produced 8,490,224 tons, or an increase of 1,750,000 tons for
virtually the same number employed 1 In the cotton and
flax industry 570,000 persons used 1,266,100,000 pounds of
cotton in 1874; while in 1883 but 586,470 persons used
1,510,600,900 pounds; In every case a trifling increase or
decrease of persons employed contemporaneously with a
great increase in production. It is the same in every depart
ment. The numbers employed in agriculture in England and
Wales have fallen from 2,010,454 in 1861, to 1,383,184 m 1881,
■of whom but 800,000 are classed as agricultural labourers.
Bear in mind that all this while population has been in
creasing at the rate of 10 per cent, in every ten years ; so that
the numbers of actual workers remain stationary or decrease,
while the whole population increases. If greater and greater
wealth is being continuously produced with the same number
or a less number of hands, surely Lord Brabazon’s argu
ments leak water at every seam. The over-population arises,
then, not from a decrease in the powers of production, but
from their increase. Improved machinery gives greater
wealth to the employing class but renders employment for the
workers more uncertain, substituting in many departments
women’s and children’s low-priced labour for that of men;
and brings about the periods of universal crisis &?ch as that
we are now suffering from—over-production, over-population,
and the rest of it—more often, and renders them more severe.
Has Lord Brabazon looked at the figures of the last census?
The population of England and Wales is close upon 26,000,000.
out of these, 14,786,000 are classed as “ indefinite and un
productive;” and this although there are 1,800,000 of the
domestic class included in the other n,ooo,ooo! Surely the
�IO
over-population in Great Britain, then, consists of a great
portion of these 14,780,000—for even the commercial and
professional classes are included in the other 11,000,000—
and not the unemployed portion of the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000.
of actual producers about whom Lord Brabazon speaks.
Why the 1,800.000 domestic class alone—what can we think
of that vast array of useless persons eating their heads oft
and producing nothing? It is not the “ indefinite and un
productive ” 14,780,000, nor even the domestic servants,
however, who are thrown out starving on the streets in bad
times. No, it is for the most part the artisans and labourers,
who make the wealth these people enjoy, that thus suffer.
Take it from another point of view. Mr. Mundella assures
us triumphantly that the returns to income-tax have increased
from £578,000,000 to £601,000,000 during even these years of
depression. Mr. Mulhall tells us that the total income of the
country is close upon £1,300,000,000. Mr. Giffen informs us
that between 1865 and 1875 the capital of this country in
creased £2,400,000,000 or 40 per cent. That is, the actual
savings did so, after the population had spent its income in the
usual way. Thus capital value during that period, according
to the head of the Statistical Department of the Board of
Trade, who certainly is no friend of the workers, increased
at four times the rate of the increase of population. What
becomes of over-population here ? Again, out of that income
of £1,300,000,000 how much do the producing classes get ? I
say £300,000,000 or less. The highest estimate I have ever
seen is £500,000,000. It strikes me, then, that a rather more
equitable distribution of the results of labour is what we need,
even without making preparation for greater production on
on the land or elsewhere, before we begin to talk of over
population in any sense.
For, be it remembered, Lord Brabazon expressly says that
he and his friends do not intend to ship off the ‘ 2,000,000
�11
to 3,000,000 pauperised and degraded people ’ who, according
to Mr. Samuel Smith (whose figures Lord Brabazon quotes),
are constantly a tax on the community. Not at all. These
we are to have ever with us. But let Lord Brabazon speak
for himself on this point. “ And here it would be well to
make it clearly understood that we ... do not propose that
Her Majesty’s Government should transfer the idle, the
vicious, the ne’er-do-weel, or the pauper from the slums of
London, &c.” Oh, dear, no; that would never do. It is the
able, sober, useful labourers who want work but cannot get it,
the men who are eager to get away and work for their wives
and families but cannot, the very flower of our producing
class, that Lord Brabazon proposes to transport for us. And
these are the over-population ; while the classes which live
in luxury on other men’s labour are, I suppose, essential to
the well-being of the State—the very pillars of the Empire.
How many families of labourers would the £35,000,000 taken
in rent by 8,000 families keep in comfort in return for really
useful work ? How many hundred millions sterling do the
capitalist class take in interest and profit ? Surely a few
questions like these ought to show Lord Brabazon the folly
of his over-population theory.
Or, if not, take France. That is a country with a stationary
or even a decreasing population; and France is on the whole
a wealthy country too. Yet at this moment there is over
population, fearful over-population, in Paris, Lyons, and
Marseilles, Rouen, Roubaix, and St. Etienne, even worse than
there is in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, Newcastle,
Sunderland, Sheffield, &c. How does Lord Brabazon account
for that ? Would he recommend emigration as a panacea to
the hardworking, thrifty, temperate, Malthusian Frenchman ?
Clearly not ; it would be too absurd. Thus we have
worse over-population in France at the present time than
we have in England, and horrible misery for the
�12
producing classes there as here though the one
country has a stationary and the other an increasing
population. Manifestly there is something more in this than
Lord Brabazon thinks. If we emigrated 5,000,000 persons
from England to-morrow, and continued our present system
of capitalist production for profit, individual exchange, private!
property, and so forth, we should equally have over-popula
tion of the producing class at the next period of industrial
crisis. “ It is indeed lamentable to consider how many mil
lions of pounds have been squandered,” as Lord Brazabon
truly says, “ in the maintenance of able-bodied men and
women in our workhouses.” It is still more lamentable to
consider how many hundreds of millions of pounds have been
squandered, and are now being squandered, in the mainten
ance of able-bodied men and women in utter idleness and
degrading luxury from their cradles to their graves. But it is
nothing short of infamous that the whole system of production
for profit throughout the civilised world, as well as in England,
should be based upon the misery and degradation of the
labouring class, that they should have no control over the
exchange of the wealth which they produce, and that when
the greed of the capitalist and the cupidity of the landlord
bring about a period of glut and crisis they should be turned
out workless i»pon the streets, treated as over-population, and
then State-aided to the Colonies, there to be fleeced by the
same classes in 'other ways.
*
Neither America nor our
Colonies offer the openings that they did. There, as here,
the landowner and the capitalist crush the mere wage
labourers, and regard them in times of depression as over
population, and treat them accordingly.
There is plenty for all in this England of ours—plenty of
* Out of a total realised national wealth estimated by Mr. Mul
hall at /8,000,000,000 in round figures, 222,500 families, sayi,200,000
persons out of 30,000 000. own nearly £6,000,000,000.
�food, plenty of raiment, plenty of everything that goes to
make up a healthy and happy life. At this very time, the
power of man over nature, the capacity to produce more and
more wealth with a less and less expenditure of labour, is
growing every day. Every improvement in machinery, every
advance in chemistry, every development in electricity, means
that all mankind could gain greater wealth and greater leisure
at the same time. In agriculture, as in other departments,
the advance in science, the application of machinery, is now
almost as rapid as it has long been in manufacture. Yet the
workers alone do not benefit by this. They work, it is true,
in social union for social purposes, but their product, when
finished, escapes from them into the hands of others; they
are forced to compete against one another for a bare sub
sistence wage : the very improved machines they make and
use hurry on the period of hard times and over-population
for them; if they are not employed at a profit they are not
employed at alland all the while they see those who work
not at all, or very little, living in excessive luxury at the cost
of their degradation. Under any rational system of produc
tion, under any regulated system of collective exchange, they
—ay and all of us—could enjoy a standard of comfort and a
wholesome, happy, leisurely, yet active life, such as has never
been known on the planet. Yet we are told it is utopian and
visionary to urge that the workers should turn the machines
which they make, the land which they till, the commodities
they produce, to the advantage of the whole community.
I say, finally, then, that emigration is not even a palliative
under present conditions; that it is harmful to the country,
and that there is enough and to spare for all here at home.
But I, too, look with sadness to the immediate future. For
when a man like Lord Brabazon, who obviously feels for the
needy and sympathises with the oppressed, can look at our
anarchical society only from the point of view of his own class
�*4
interests, and is led astray by the fallacies of huckster eco
nomy, I despair of a peaceful solution to the inevitable class
struggle even in England ; and I fear that we must pass
through the fiery furnace of “ some fatal national catastrophe ”
to the goal of full economical freedom and organised work
for all.
�SOCIALIST LITERATURE.
The following works are strongly recommended to all who
wish to understand the Social-Democratic movement in
England. Orders, accompanied by stamps, sent to
THE
MODERN
PRESS,
13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.,
will be executed by return of post. Parcels to the value of
One Shilling and upwards sent post free.
“JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy.
Every Saturday, One Penny.
A genuine working class paper, held by working class men as trustees,
edited by an “unskilled labourer,’’ independent of advertisements, and
written gratuitously by working men. Established January, 1884.
Socialism Made Plain.
The social and
political manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation,
issued in June, 1883 : with “The Unemployed,” a
Manifesto issued after the “ Riots in the West End ” on
8th February, 1886. Seventy-first thousand. Crown 8-vo.,
paper cover, price id.
The Socialist Catechism.
By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted with additions from Justice.
Price One Penny. Twentieth thousand.
Royal 8-vo.,
Socialist theories stated, and the vulgar objections to them refuted in
the form of question and answer.
The Appeal to the Young.
By Prince
Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M.
Hyndman, and reprinted from Justice.
Royal 8-vo.,
16-pp. Price One Penny. Tenth thousand.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever pen
ned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years imprison
ment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the
workers.
Socialism and the Worker. By F. A. Sorge.
Price One Penny.
An explanation in the simplest language of the main idea of Socialism.
Wage-Labour and Capital.
By Karl Marx.
Translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., Price One Penny.
This is the only work of the great Socialist thinker which has been
translated into English, and relentlessly criticises capitalist production.
�Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman.
(In reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Article on “ The
Coming Slavery). New Edition. 16-pp., Royal 8-vo.
Price One Penny.
A convincing argument against the laissez faire philosophy.
What an Eight Hour Bill Means. By T.
Mann, (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with
portrait. Price One Penny. Ninth thousand.
John Williams and the History of the
Social-Democratic Federation.
8-vo., Price One Penny.
With Portrait.
Royal
The Chicago Riots and the Class War in
the United States. By H. M. Hyndman.
from Time, June, 1886. Price One Penny.
Reprinted
A sketch of the rise of capitalist monopolies, and a demonstration of the
inadequacy of mere political democracy to remedy their results.
The Facts about the Unemployed.
of the Middle Class.
Royal 8-vo.
By One
Price One Penny.
An appeal and a warning issued in October, 1886, showing the causes of
the present distress, how they can be removed, what steps have already
been taken, and what are the consequences of continued indifference to
hunger and despair.
International Trade Union Congress, held
at Paris, August, 1886.
Report by Adolphe Smith,
Official Interpreter to the Congress. 24-pp., Royal 8-vo.
Price Three-Halfpence.
The Man with the Red Flag.
Being John
Bnrns’ Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious
Conspiracy, on April 9th, 1886. (From the Verbatim
Notes of the official shorthand reporter). With Portrait.
Price 3d.
By EDWARD” CARPENTER, M.A.,
Author of “Towards Democracy,” “ Modern Science,” &c„ &c.
Social Progress and Individual Effort.
An answer to the questions, how far man is conditioned by his material
circumstances, and how far he is their master.
Desirable Mansions.
A criticism of the ineptitude of the conventional life of the well-to-do.
Co-operative Production.
A lecture on the profit sharing system of Leclaire of Paris.
Price One Penny each.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The emigration fraud : a reply to Lord Brabazon
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hyndman, Henry Mayers [1842-1921]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. Reprinted with permission from the "Nineteenth Century". Publisher's list on two unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1886?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T397
Subject
The topic of the resource
Migration
Social problems
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The emigration fraud : a reply to Lord Brabazon), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Immigration
Population
Social conditions
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1158e85b09dfca834c59418580ed93a7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ahE3UBZ%7EidILQEiUlpzMN19RuSoaHJuXtdmVgXvaTucG6CwDICi3BFh-uR1fxfrX8AjNfrS-J3L841wSduRQ-WS3Br-bpJL60CDn0Dzo%7ERR3HGfaj30i2UCG%7EivAOiN6itvpZssGJybQbfkOP4PIfrH58978s3-6eBpNZY%7ECd6Iqf2acBp1t6pXTH4rMHJAS%7Enu1gWxybdnzx5lotyG%7EVjoVpExV%7E4-SxjLj4LdPxodS3UE1uYLVCl-3UamEaKNxZ4CsTubVR7oDb8XQQ347HVBxC%7EGvwfMFJvJGNmz7Rm%7EchTzMaxwLVcwH7n%7EpWYNH-dLGZDW%7EcRBOSv4NIKcB8A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a24dfb5bb13874813cca8f04a22446a9
PDF Text
Text
OU
T2ETZE
Bights nf I’alunir
ACCORDING TO
JOHN RUSKIN.
ARRANGED BY
TLLOIVE^NS BARCLAY.
WITH-INTRODUCTION BY
JAMES HOLMES, Sec. Amalgamated Hosiery Union.
.
. .
“ I know no better definition of the rights of man
SHALT NOT STEAL I
THOU SHALT NOT BE STOLEN FROM:
Thou
what a Society
were that—Plato’s Republic.. More’s Utopia, mere emblems of it!
Give every man what is his—the accurate price of what he has done and
been—no more shall any complain, neither shall the earth suffer any
more.”—Carlyle.
Chas. D. Merrick, Printer, 34, Cank Street, Leicester.
�INTRODUCTION.
He that will not follow truth, is a slave to error, and he that shrinks
from the full examination of all opinions on vital questions, is either more in
love with his own opinions than with truth, which is egotism : or he is afraid
of truth, which is cowardice.
Equality of social condition should be the aim of all good men. The
basis of true worth is manhood and womanhood, touched into sweetness
by fraternity and justice.
Labour is the great equaliser—and all capable men and women in a happy
and progressive community must work either with head or hand or both.
What a revolution would be produced if the words attributed to St. Paul
were applied to Modem Society and enforced; “ If a man will not work
neither should he eat! ” What a driving out of Royal and Aristocratic drones
would take place ; and what a decrease of gout there would be I Then what
should the labourer get for his work ;—a mere pittance in the form of wages,
without any thought as to whether the wages are sufficient or not? No;
emphatically no ! He should have a full reward in the full produce of labour,
so that he might have in health more than enough, then he might provide for
sickness when it overtakes him, and a competence for old age, so that life may
be made worth living to the workers instead of millions of money accumulating
in the hands of a few,—like the Rothschilds—who are said to be worth
£200,000,000, not obtained by labour or honest exchange, but from the produce
of labour, of which the labourers have been spoiled.
These statements, by many, may be thought extreme, and contrary to our
best and greatest thinkers and teachers of Political Economy. Take these
words from one who has been called “ The Father of Political Economy”:—
“ The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labour.”
(Wealth of Nations, chap, 8). Thus we see that our statements are strictly in
accord with Adam Smith. Labour is the foundation of real dignity, for only
by it do we contribute to the well being of one another.
In the title of the pamphlet containing the teachings of the high-toned,
moral, and original teacher—John Ruskin-the same truth is implied. In his
words are couched some of the truest and noblest ideas. But very few working
men have either the time or means to get at the works of great minds like
Ruskin, so the arranger of the following extracts has culled from his book—
“ Unto this last,” some of the best teachings on the question of labour and
wages, which I think has been done wisely and well; and if working men will
only d'ink of the stream brought to their doors, they will be refreshed thereby,
Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the great truths here set forth.
On the organization of labour I would specially call your attention to the
following points . “Training Schools for youth, in which there shall be taught:
(a) the laws of health; (b) habits of gentleness and justice ; and (c) the calling
by which he (the youth) is to live.” These kind of schools exist to day in
Sweden, Germany and Switzerlani ; and to the matter, under the headings
—“ His scheme,”—“ Riches and Wealth,”—“Proof/’—“The whole question
one of justice.”—-“Injustice of the present system,”—“Wages,”—“Cause of
Poverty,”—“The true function of the Capitalist,” and “Last Words.”
Let us all endeavour to become mire thoughtful, competent, intelligent as
workers, making the best we can of our time, money, and energy, for the im
provement of the great body of the world’s workers, and help to make it as
impossible for the idlers to thrive as it is for the drones to live among the bees.
JAMES HOLMES.
�THE
RIGHTS OF LABOUR
According to JOHN RUSKIN.
jlrHE object of this pamphlet is to place before the workers,
in a cheap form, the main views of one of the greatest
thinkers of any age, on a subject that ought to interest them more
than any other. The subject is Political Economy, in other
words, the relation of Capital and Labour. Until working men
understand thoroughly what this relation is, all hope is vain of
bettering their condition as a class.
“Unto this Last,” is the book from which the following extracts
are taken. It met with bitter opposition from all the usual
enemies of the working man—including Press, Priests, and Pro
fessors The author had great difficulty in getting it published ;
a fact not to be wondered at when we consider its revolutionary.
character, combined with the logic, grace, and vigour, of which
he is so capable. The Greeks fabled Plato as born with a nest
of bees in his mouth, emblematical of his future honeyed
words. They said, if the Gods came down to dwell among men,
they would speak the language of Plato. Mr. Ruskin has been
aptly termed “ The modern Platothere can be no doubt the
resemblance'is strong. Mazzini describes him as “The most
analytic mind in Europe.” His lofty morality is a reproach to
bishopdom. He lashes the hypocrite and scourges the oppressor;
Meanness and injustice fall back from his terrific onslaught.
Sweet to the innocent and good ; Gentle to the erring and unfor
tunate. True Philosopher; mighty Poet without the name,
Prophet too; not a visionary, but one who sees the very truth,—no will-o’-the-wisp, but a beacon-light to lighten men’s darkness,—
a great teacher, whose clear, brilliant, and powerful language, is but
the fitting conductor of original and valuable thought. Such
is Ruskin,
’ In order to estimate him the more accurately, we are going to
let him speak for himself, only occasionally making a note or
comment.
�4
Mr, Ruskin’s Objects.
He informs us in his preface, that his first object is to give an
accurate and stable definition of Wealth, and as he believes
“ for the first time in plain English.” His second object is to
show that “ the acquisition of wealth is finally possible only under
certain moral conditions of society—of which, quite the first, is a
belief in the existence, and, even for practical purposes, in the
attainability of honesty.” A third object is the organization of
labour ; but this he only casually touches upon, because he thinks
it simple “if we can once get a sufficient quantity of honesty,” and
impossible if we cannot.
His Scheme.
Mr. Ruskin has a scheme of organization of labour, and the
most extraordinary part, is that dealing with wages, which, it is
contended, should be fixed. “ Lest,” he says, “the reader should
be alarmed by the hints thrown out during the following investiga
tion of first principles, I will state at once the worst of the creed
at which I wish him to arrive :
Firstly—There should be training schools for youth, established
at government cost and under government discipline, over the
whole country; that every child born in the country should, at
the parents’ wish be permitted, and in certain cases be under
penalty required to pass through them ; and that in these schools
the child should, with other minor pieces of knowledge hereafter
to be considered, imperatively be taught, with the best skill of
teaching that the country could produce, the following three things:
(a) —The laws of health and the exercises enjoined by them ;
(b) —Habits of gentleness and justice ; and
(c) —The calling by which he is to live.
Secondly—That in connection with these training schools, there
should be established, also entirely under government regulation,
manufactories and workshops for the production and sale of every
necessary of life, and for the exercise of every useful art. And
that, interfering no whit with private enterprise, nor setting any
restraints or tax on private trade, but leaving both to do their best
and beat the government if they could—there should, at these
government manufactories and shops, be authoritatively good and
exemplary work done, and pure and true substance sold, so that a
man could be sure, if he chose to pay the government price, that
he got for his money bread that was bread, ale that was ale, and
work that was work.
�5
Thirdly.—That any man or woman, boy or girl, out of employ
ment, should be at once received at the nearest government school,
and set to such work as it appeared on trial they were fit for, at a
fixed rate of wages determined every year. That being found in
capable of work through ignorance, they should be taught, or being
found incapable of work through sickness should be tended ; but
that, being found objecting to work, they should be set under
compulsion of the strictest nature, to the more painful and degrad
ing forms of necessary toil, especially to that in mines and other
places of danger, (such danger being, however, diminished to the
utmost by careful regulation and discipline), and the due wages
of such work be retained—cost of compulsion first abstracted—
to be at the workman’s command so soon as he has come to
sounder mind respecting the laws of employment.
Lastly.—That for the old and destitute, comfort and home
should be provided; which provision, when misfortune had been,
by the working of such a system, sifted from guilt, would be
honourable instead of disgraceful to the receiver. For (I repeat
this passage out of my Political Economy of Art, to which the
reader is referred for further detail), ‘ a labourer serves his country
with his spade, just as a man in the middle ranks of life serves it
with sword, pen or lancet. If the service be less, and, therefore,
the wages during health less, then the reward when health is broken
may be less, but not less honourable; and it ought to be quite as
natural and straightforward a matter for a labourer to take his
pension from his parish because he has deserved well of his parish,
as for a man in higher rank to take his pension from his country,
because he has deserved well of his Country.”
Principles first.
So far, Mr. Ruskin’s scheme of organization, as given in his
preface, and which, though apart from his main work, it was
thought worth giving. As regards the expense of carrying out his
scheme, he contends that the economy in crime alone resulting
from the adoption of it, would support it ten times over ; as for
the rest, he bids the reader remember that “ in a science dealing
with, so subtle elements as those of human nature, it is only
possible to answer for the final truth of principles, not for the
direct success of plans. What can be immediately accomplished
is always questionable; what can be finally accomplished, incon
ceivable,”
What Political Economy is.
We now proceed to Mr. Ruskin’s Political Economy proper.
Political Economy, he says, “ consists in the production, preser
vation, and distribution, at fittest time and place, of useful or
�6
pleasurable things. The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time ;
the shipwright who drives his bolts well home in sound wood ; the
builder who lays good bricks in well-tempered mortar■ the house
wife who guards against all waste in the kitchen ; and the singer
who rightly disciplines and never overstrains his voice; are all
Political Economists in the true and final sense. Political Economy
teaches nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life,
and to scorn and destroy the things that lead to destruction. And
if, in a state of infancy, they suppose indifferent things, such as ex
crescences of shell fish, and pieces of blue and red stone * to be
valuable, and spend a large measure of labour which ought to be
employed in the extension and ennobling of life, in diving and
digging for them, and cutting them into various shapes,—or if in
the same state of infancy, they imagine precious and beneficent
things, such as air, light and cleanliness, to be valueless
and peace, trust, and love, by which alone they can possess or use
anything to be prudently exchangeable when the market offers, for
gold, iron, and excrescences,—the only science of Political Econo
my teaches them in all these cases, what is vanity and what
substance.”
“ Theiobject of Political Economy is to get good method of
consumption, to use everything and to use it nobly,—consumption
absolute is the end, crown and perfection of production. Twenty
people can gain money tor one who can use it. The question for
a nation is not how much labour it employs, but how much life it
produces.”
What Wealth Is.
Mr. Ruskin goes on to ask what Wealth is; he draws attention to
the definition of Mr. Mill, who, he thinks, has written the “ most
reputed essay of modern times ” on the subject.
Mr. Mill says,
“To be wealthy, is to have a large stock of useful articles.” “ I
accept this definition ” says our author, “ but let us understand it,
ist.—What does to have mean? and.—What is the meaning of
useful? We will first examine our verb. As thus: Lately in a
wreck of a Californian ship, one of the passengers fastened a belt
about him with two hundred pounds of gold in it, with which he
was found afterwards at the bottom of the sea. Now, as he was
sinking—had he the gold ? or had the gold him ? I presume the
reader will see that possession, or having., consists not only in the
quantity or nature of the thing possessed, but also, (and in a
greater degree) in its suitableness to the person possessing it.
Therefore we must make the have depend upon a can, and say
the possession of useful articles which we can use. Next for our
* Pearls, saphires, and rubies.
�7
adjective. What is the meaning of usefult” It depends on the
person much more than the article, whether its usefulness or
ab-usefulness will be the quality developed in it. When you give
a man half-a-crown, it depends on his disposition whether he is
rich or po.or with it—whether he will buy disease, ruin, and hatred,
or buy health, advancement and domestic love. Thus the moral
elements—human capacities and dispositions, must be taken into
consideration. But the Economists tell us (Mill’s Political
Economy, Book iii. Chap. i. Sec. 2) moral considerations have
nothing to do with Political Economy.” Our author, of course,
here speaks ironically, and leaves us to draw our own conclusions.
Wealth and value are with Mr. Ruskin synonymous terms. Value
he derives from Latin valere, to be well, or strong in life, (if a man)
or valiant; strong for life, (if a thing) or valuable. To be valuable
is to avail towards life ; to make it so avail is to be valiant; and
wealth therefore is “ The Possession of the Valuable by the
Valiant.”
Difference between Riches and Wealth.
Mr. Ruskin makes a distinction between Wealth and Riches.
“ Riches ” he says, “ is a relative word implying its opposite
‘ poverty ’ as positively as the word ‘ north ’ implies its opposite
‘south.’
The force ^of the,guinea you have in your pocket
depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour’s
pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you. The
degree of power it possesses, depends accurately upon the need or
desire he has for it; and the art of making yourself rich in the
ordinary mercantile sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the
art of keeping your neighbour poor. There is precisely as much
poverty or debt on one side, as riches on the other; therefore
riches do not necessarily involve an addition to the actual property,
or well-being of the state in which they exist. The power of
riches is in an inverse proportion to the number of persons who
are as rich as ourselves, and who are ready to give the same price
for an article of which the supply is limited. To become rich wre
must establish the maximum of inequality in our own favour.”
These statements Mr. Ruskin attempts to prove by examples.
Proof.
He supposes “Two sailors cast away on an uninhabited coast
maintaining themselves by their own labour. Their Political Econ
omy would consist in careful preservation and just division of
their possessions. But suppose that one fell ill at a critical time_
�8
him. The companion might say with perfect justice ‘ I will do
this additional work for you, but you must do as much for me
another time. I will count the hours I spend on your ground,
and you will give me the same number whenever I need your
help, and you are able to give it.’ Suppose the disabled man’s
sickness to continue for several years, what will be the positions of
the two men when the invalid is able to resume work? As a
community they must be poorer than if no sickness had taken place.
The healthy man may have toiled with an energy quickened by
the enlarged need, but in the end, his own property must have
suffered by the withdrawal of his time and thought from it. This
is, of course, an example of one only out of many ways in which
inequality of possession may be established, giving rise to the mer
cantile forms of riches and poverty. In the instance before us,
one of the men might from the first have directly chosen to be
idle, and to put his life in pawn for present ease; or he might have
mismanaged his land, and been compelled to have recourse to his
neighbour for food ’and help, pledging his future labour for it.
But what I want the reader to note is the fact that the establish
ment of the mercantile wealth which consists in a claim upon
labour, signifies a political diminution of the real wealth which
consists in substantial possessions.
Take another example, more consistent with the ordinary
course of affairs of trade. Suppose three men, instead of two, to
form a little isolated republic. Suppose the third man undertakes
to superintend the transference of commodities for the other two.
If this carrier, or messenger, always brings to each estate, from the
other what is chiefly wanted at the right time, the operations of
the two farmers will go on ’prosperously and the largest possible
result in produce be obtained. But suppose no intercourse
between the land-owners is possible, except through the travelling
agent, and that, after a time, this agent, watching the course of
each man’s agriculture, keeps back the articles entrusted, until
there comes a period of extreme necessity for them on one side or
the other, and then exacts in exchange for them, all that the dis
tressed farmers can spare of other kinds of produce. He might
eventually become possessed of the superfluous produce of the two
estates, and in some year of scarcity purchase them both for him
self, and maintain the former proprietors thence-forward as his
labourers or servants. This would be a case of commercial wealth
acquired on the exactest principles of modern Political Economy.
But more distinctly even than'in the former instance, it is manifest
that the wealth of the state, or three men considered as a society,
is less than jt would have been had the merchant been content
with juster profit. The operations of the two agriculturalists have
�9
been cramped to the utmost; the continual limitation of the things
they wanted at critical times, together with the failure of courage
consequent on the prolongation of a struggle for mere existence,
without any sense of permanent gain, will have diminished the
result of their labor ; and the stores finally accumulated by the
merchant (the carrier or messenger) will not in anywise be equi
valent to those which, had his dealings been honest, would have
filled at once the granaries of the farmers and his own.
The Whole Question one of Justice.
“ The whole question, therefore, respecting not only the ad
vantage but even the quantity of national wealth, resolves itself
finally into one of abstract justice. It is impossible to conclude
of any given mass of acquired wealth whether it signifies good or
evil, because it may be indicative on the one hand of faithful in
dustries, progressive energies, and productive ingenuities, or, on
the other, it may be indicative of ruinous chicane, mortal luxury,
merciless tyranny. One mass of money is the outcome of action
which has created,—another, of action which has annihilated,—ten
times as much in the gathering of it; such and such strong hands
have been paralysed as if they had been numbed by nightshade ; so
many strong men’s courage broken ; this and the other false direc
tion given to labour, and lying image of prosperity set up. That
which seems to be wealth, may in verity be only the gilded index
of far-reaching ruin—a wrecker’s handful of coin gleaned from the
beach to which he has beguiled an argosy.” Mr. Ruskin con
cludes this part of the subject with a classification of the people
who become rich, and the people who remain poor, respectively, in
a community regulated only by supply and demand. The persons
who became rich are, generally speaking, “industrious, resolute,
proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insen
sitive, and ignorant.” The persons who remain poor are, “ the
entirely foolish, the entirely wise, the idle, the reckless, the humble,
the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the wellinformed, the improvident, the impulsively wicked, the clumsy
knave, the open thief, and the entirely merciful and just person.”
Capital,
Mr. Ruskin next discourses of that kind of wealth known as
Capital. Capital signifies “ head, source, or root. It is a root
that does not enter into vital function until it produces something
else than a root—something different from itself. Capital that pro
duces nothing but capital is only root producing root, bulb issuing
in bulb ; seed issuing in seed—never in bread. “ The best and
�io
simplest type of capital is a well-made ploughshare, and the true
question for every capitalist is not ‘how many ploughs have
you ?’ but ‘ where are your furrows ?’ not, ‘ how quickly will this
capital reproduce itself?’ but ‘ what substance will it furnish good
for life ? What work construct protective of life ? if none, its own
reproduction is useless—if worse than none ffor capital may destroy
life as well as support it) its own reproduction is worse than
useless.” As might be expected from the foregoing, Mr. Ruskin’s
views on the employment of capital are utterly at variance with those
of current political economy
Injustice of the Present System.
“ There is not in history,” says he, “record of anything so dis
graceful to the human intellect as that the commercial text, “Buy
in the cheapest market, sell in the dearest,” could represent an
available principle of economy. Charcoal may be cheap among
your roof timbers after a fire, and bricks may be cheap after an
earthquake................ There are few bargains in which the buyer
can ascertain with precision that the seller would have taken no
less—or the seller, that the purchaser would have given no more.
This prevents neither from striving to injure the other, nor from
accepting for a scientific principle that he is to buy for the least
and sell for the most, though what the real least or most may be,
he cannot tell. In like manner a just person lays it down for a
principle that he is to pay a just price without being able to ascer
tain precisely the limits of such price. Now it is easier to deter
mine what a man ought to have for his work, than what his
necessities will compel him to take for it. There is no equitable
reason in a man’s being poor, that if he give me a pound of bread
to-day I should return him less than a pound of bread to-morrow.
Again, I want a horseshoe for my horse. Twenty smiths, or
20,000 smiths, may be ready to forge it; their number does not in
one atom’s weight affect the question of the equitable payment of
the one who does forge it. The “robbery of the poor because
they are poor,” says our author elsewhere, “ is especially the mer
cantile form of theft. The ordinary highwayman’s opposite form
of robbery of the rich because they are rich, being less profitable
and more dangerous than the robbery of the poor, is rarely prac
tised by persons of discretion!'
Wages.
We must now consider Mr. Ruskin’s ideas on the recompense
of labour, and the method of the recompense. “Perhaps,” says
he, “ one of the most curious facts in the history of human error,
is the denial bv the political economist of the nosihilif-v r>f
�ri
lating wages so as to fix the rate ; while for all the important, and
most of the important labour on the earth, wages are already so
regulated. We do not sell our Prime-ministership by Dutch
auction; nor on the decease of a bishop, whatever may be the
advantages of simony, do we (yet) offer his diocese to the clergy
man who will take it at the lowest contract. Sick, we do not
inquire for a physician who takes less than a guinea : Litigious,
we never think of reducing six-and-eightpence to four-and-sixpence.
The best labour always has been, and is, as all labour ought to be,
paid by an invariable standard, ‘What,’the reader perhaps answers
amazedly, ‘ pay good and bad workmen alike ?”
Certainly ! You pay with equal fee your good and bad phy
sician and prime-minister, why not your bricklayer ? “ Nay, but
I choose my physician. By all means choose your bricklayer; that
is the proper reward of the good workman, to be “ chosen.” The
natural and right system respecting all labour is that it should be
paid at a fixed rate, but the good workman employed, and the
bad workman unemployed. The false, unnatural, and destructive
system is, when the bad workman is allowed to offer his work at
half-price, and either take the place of the good, or force him by
his competition to work for an inadequate sum. So far as you
employ it at all, bad work should be paid no less than good work ;
as a bad clergyman takes his tithes, a bad physician his fee, and a
bad lawyer his costs; this I say partly because the best work
never was nor ever will be done for money at all, but chiefly
because the moment the people know they have to pay the bad
and good alike, they will try to discern the one from the other,
and not use the bad. A sagacious writer in The Scotsman asks
me if I should like any common scribbler to be paid by Smith,
Elder & Co., as their good authors are ? I should if they em
ployed him; but would seriously recommend them, for the
scribbler’s sake, as well as their own, not to employ him. In
practice, according to the laws of demand and supply, when two
men are ready to do the work, and only one man wants to have
it done, the two men underbid each other for it, and the one who
gets it to do is underpaid. But when two men want the work
done, and there is only one man ready to do it, the two men who
want it done overbid each other, and the workman is overpaid.”
Mr, Ruskin goes in for just pay.
On this question of labour and its reward, we will quote one
more extract from him : “ I have been naturally asked several
times, ‘ But what are you to do with your bad unemployed
workmen ?’ Well, it seems to me the question might have
occurred to you before. Your housemaid’s place is vacant—vou
�12
give ^20 a-year. Two girls come for it—one neatly dressed, the
other dirtily; one with good recommendations, the other with
none. You do not, under these circumstances, usually ask the
dirty one if she will come for ^15 or ^12 , and on her consent
ing take her instead of the well-recommended one. Still less do
you try to beat both down by making them bid against each
other till you can hire both, one at ^£12 a-year, the other at ^8.
You simply take the one fittest for the place and send away the
other, not perhaps concerning yourself with the question you now
so impatiently put to me. ‘ What is to become of her ?’ Verily
it is a question of weight. ‘ Your bad workman, idler, and rogue,
what are you to do with him ? Meantime, consider whether it
may not be advisable to produce, as few as possible. If you
examine into the history of rogues you will find that they are as
truly manufactured articles as anything else, and it is just because
our present system of Political Economy gives so large a stimulus
to that manufacture, thafyou may know it to be a false one. We
had better seek for a system which will develope honest men, than
for one which will deal cunningly with vagabonds.
How to get the most Work out of a man.
The greatest average of work and greatest benefit to the com
munity would be obtained from a servant by our present pro
cedure, if he were an engine of which the motive power was
steam, magnetism, gravitation, or any other agent of calculable
force. But the largest quantity of work will be done by this
curious engine man, when the motive force—that is to say, the
will or spirit of the creature is brought to its greatest strength by
its own proper fuel; namely, by the affections.
Observe, I am here considering the affections wholly as a motive
power; not at all as things in themselves desirable or noble. I
look at them simply as an anomalous force, rendering every one
of the ordinary Political Economist’s calculations nugatory . . . .
If the master, instead of endeavouring to get as much work as
possible from the servant, seeks rather to render his appointed
and necessary work beneficial to him, and to forward his interests
in all just and wholesome ways, the real amount of work ultimately
done, or of good rendered by the person so cared for, will indeed
be the greatest possible. Nor is this one whit less true because
indulgence will be frequently abused and kindness met with in
gratitude. For the servant who, gently treated, is ungrateful,
treated ungently, will be revengeful; and the man who is dishonest
to a liberal master, will be injurious to an unjust one. And as
�i3
with servants, so with employees. The only means which the
master has of doing justice to the men employed by him, is to ask
himself sternly whether he is dealing with such as he would with
his own son, if compelled by circumstances his son had to take
such a position. As the captain of a ship is bound to be the last
man to leave his ship in case of wreck, and to share his last crust
with the sailors in case of famine, so the manufacturer in any
commercial crisis or distress, is bound to take the suffering of it
with his men, and even to take more of it for himself than he
allows his men to feel—as a father would in a famine, shipwreck,
or battle, sacrifice himself for his son.
The true function of the Capitalist.
For the manufacturer’s or merchant’s function in a state is to
provide for it as the soldier’s is to defend it, the physician’s to keep
it in health, and the lawyer’s to enforce justice in it. It is no more
the function of the merchant to get profit, for himself, than it is a
teacher’s to get his stipend. The stipend is a due and necessary
adjunct, but not the object of his life, if he is a true teacher, any
more than his fee (or honorarium) is the object of life to a true
physician. Each has a work to do irrespective of fee—to be done
at any cost. All of which sounds very strange : the only real
strangeness in the matter being, nevertheless, that it should so
sound. For all this is true, and that not partially nor theoretically,
but everlastingly and practically; all other doctrine than this
respecting matters political being false in premises, absurd in
deduction, and impossible in practice, consistently with any pro
gressive state of national life.” It is impossible to do justice to
Mr. Ruskin in a short pamphlet like this. Those who are interested
in Political Economy (which is essentially the science of the
working-man), should co-operate to get his book and study for
themselves. One or two more extracts and we must draw to a
close.
The Cause of Poverty.
Speaking of the poor, our author says, “ Their distress (irres
pective of that caused by sloth, minor errors, or crime), arises on
the grand scale from the two reacting forces of competition and
oppression. In all the ranges of human thought, I know none so
melancholy as the speculations of Political Economists on the
population question. It is proposed to better the condition of the
labourer by giving him higher wages. ‘ Nay,’ says the economist,
‘ if you raise his wages, he will either people down to the same
point of misery at which you found him, or drink your wages away.
�14
He will, I know it ! ’ Who gave him this will ? Suppose it were
your own son of whom you spoke, declaring to me that you dared
not take him into your firm, nor even give him his just labourer’s
wages, because if you did, he would die of drunkenness, and leave
half a score of children to the parish. ‘Who gave your son these
dispositions?’ I should enquire, ‘ Has he them by inheritance or
by education ? By one or the other they must come ; and as in
him so also in the poor. Either these poor are of a race essentially
different from ours, and unredeemable, (which, however often
implied, I have heard none yet openly say,) or else by such care
as we have ourselves received, we may make them continent and
sober as ourselves—wise and dispassionate as we are—models
arduous of imitation.”
Are there too many of us ?
“ There is not yet, nor will yet for ages be, any real over popula
tion in the world ; but a local over-population, or more accurately,
a degree of population locally unmanageable under existing circum
stances, for want of forethought and sufficient machinery,
necessarily shows itself by pressure of competition; and the taking
advantage of this competition by the purchaser to obtain their
labour unjustly cheap, consumates at once their suffering and his
own. The multiplication of animals is checked only by want of
food, and by the hostility of races ; the population of the gnat is
restrained by the hunger of the swallow, and that of the swallow
by the scarcity of gnats. Man, considered as an animal, is indeed
limited by the same laws : hunger or plague, or war, are the
necessary and only restraints upon his increase—effectual restraints
hitherto—his principal study having been how most swiftly to
destroy himself, or ravage his dwelling-place; and his highest
skill directed to give range to the famine, seed to the plague, and
sway to the sword. But, considered as other than an animal, his
increase is not limited by these laws, but by his courage and his
love. His race has its bounds, but these have not yet been
reached, nor will be reached for ages. The art of life has yet to
be learned. It is one very awful form of the operations of wealth
in Europe that it is entirely capitalists’ wealth which supports unjust
wars. Just wars do not need so much money to support them. They
are waged gratis. Nations like France and England have not
grace nor honesty enough in all their multitudes to buy an hour’s
piece of mind with—purchasing of each other ten millions sterling
worth of consternation annually : a remarkable crop—half thorns,
half aspen leaves—sown, reaped, and granaried by the ‘ science ’ of
the modern Polit:cal Economist teaching covetousness instead
of truth.............
�i5
Last Words.
“ Nevertheless, I desire to leave this one great fact clearly stated,
There, is no wealth but life, life including all its powers of love, of
joy, and of admiration. That country is the richest which
nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings ;
that man is wealthiest who, having perfected the functions of his
own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both
personal, and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
Strive then to make Economy the law of the house ; strict, simple,
generous ; waste nothing and grudge nothing; care in no wise to
make more of money, but care to make much of it; remembering
always the great, palpable, inevitable fact—-the rule and root of all
economy—that what one person has, another cannot have ; and
that every atom of substance, of whatever kind, used or consumed,
is so much human life spent—so much life spent either in
preventing and slaying of life, or in gaining more. Consider
whether, even supposing it guiltless, luxury would be desired by
any of us, if we saw clearly at our sides the suffering which accom
panies it in the world. Luxury is indeed possible in the future—
innocent and exquisite ; luxury for all and by the help of all : but
luxury at present can only be enjoyed by the ignorant. The
cruelest man living could not sit at his feast, unless he sat blind
fold. Raise the veil boldly—face the light. What is chiefly
needed to-day is the desire for a life rich by joyful human labour.
Scenes smooth in field, fair in garden, full in orchard; trim,
sweet, and frequent in homestead ; full of currents of undersound ;
triplets of birds, murmur and chirp of insects, deep-toned words
of men and wayward trebles of childhood. We need examples of
people who will show what the maximum quantity of pleasure is
that may be obtained by a consistent well-administered com
petence, modest, confessed, and laborious. Who will decide for
themselves that they will be happy in the world, and resolve
to seek—not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher
fortune, but deeper felicity : making the first of possession, self
possession and “ honouring themselves in the calm pursuits of
peace.”
What working man is there that will not reverence
these far-seeing and noble utterances of a great and good man,
devoted to the cause of the poor and down-trodden—showing the
truth and demanding justice.
At all events, reader, unless you have had a previous intro
duction, may we not count on having awakened an interest in you
to examine still further into the teachings of John Ruskin,
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The rights of labour : according to John Ruskin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ruskin, John [1819-1900]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Leicester
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: The binding process has trimmed the bottom edge too close to the text, taking away the last line on p. 7 and cutting through the last line on p. 10. Printed by Chas. D. Merrick, 34 Cane Street, Leicester.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T400
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Barclay, Thomas (arr)
Holmes, James
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The rights of labour : according to John Ruskin), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Political Economy
Social conditions
Social conditions;Socialism
Socialism
Working Classes
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b301a68be1f55e804215950bbe9f119e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kWMPyF3%7Eqsh1F%7EdEwr3yhIpVWiT2md1VYXnZuv93ZA736V71JW-L0d%7EdC-1KO4TeECxIsL50HhN%7ETbynGuPzKYHFX5mWFcUvhbR0qe7E48dLiz5FfJwlshNT7Znku8Jc%7EIVdybaD9q2so3mndLXKItXz6XNCDuJKyJp%7Em5XFCg5N9iRrUJ0mRJLk8G7DXLpaBP0GXyMpfzvSrkw3IZ5346kae6DYRA8fxwjAskmpTAtqkUFtgSA9mwRcGOvEmibvcLRBpTvHOAA68rYOsZN4tRKuFSc0bCnesn4N2PcvY57EM7CygADvkkn5h3cxyw0keb99F8mcvTdrlVHzlBHqiA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3ac5e4aba3cf4cadcbe3461f71e8d658
PDF Text
Text
403
MODERN SOCIALISM.
BY
ANNIE BESANT.
LONDON
FKEETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 6.
�LONDON
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
G3, ELEET STREET, E.C.
�*
MODERN SOCIALISM.
Great changes are long in the preparing, and every
thought that meets ultimately with wide acceptance is
lying inarticulate in many minds ere it is syllabled out by
some articulate one, and stands forth a spoken Word. The
Zeitgeist has its mouth in those of its children who have
brain to understand, voice to proclaim, courage to stand
alone. Some new Truth then peals out, sonorous and farsounding as the roll of the thunder, melodious to the ears
attuned to the deep grand harmonies of Nature, but terrible
to those accustomed only to the subdued lispings of artificial
triflers, and the murmurs which float amid the hangings of
courtly halls.
When such an event occurs a few hearken, study, and
then rejoicingly accept the new Truth; these are its
pioneers, its apostles, who go out to proclaim it to the as
yet unbelieving world. They meet with ridicule, then with
persecution; for ever the new Truth undermines some
hoary Lie, which has its band of devoted adherents living
on the spoils of its reign. Slowly,- against custom and
tradition, against selfishness and violence, even against
indifference, deadliest foe of all, this band of devoted
teachers makes its onward way. And the band grows and
grows, and each convert becomes in his turn a pioneer;
until at last the victory is won, and the minority has
become the majority; and then the time comes for some
new Truth once more, and the old struggle is gone over
afresh, and so again and again ; and thus the race makes
progress, and humanity climbs ever upward towards the
perfect life.
During the last century and a quarter the social problem
has been pressing for solution on all who have brains to
�4
MODERN SOCIALISM.
think and hearts to feel. The coexistence of wealth and
penury, of idle prodigality and laborious stint; the terrible
fact that “ progress and poverty ” seem to march hand-inhand ; the growing slums in large towns; the huge for
tunes and the starving poor; these things make content
impossible, and force into prominence the question: “Must
this state of things continue ? Is there no possible change
which will cure, not only palliate, the present evils ?
Great hopes have sprung into being from time to time,
each in turn to be blighted. Machinery was to double
production and diminish toil, to spread comfort and suffi
ciency everywhere. It made cotton-lords and merchant
princes with one hand, and with the other created a prole
tariat unlike aught the world had seen, poor in the midst
of the wealth it created, miserable in the midst of luxury,
ignorant in the midst of knowledge, savage in the midst
of civilisation. When the repeal of the Corn Laws was
striven for and accomplished, once more hope rose high.
Cheap food was to put an end to starvation. Alas! in
the streets of the wealthiest city in Christendom, men and
women perish for lack of a loaf of bread.
Nor is this persistence of misery and of squalor the only
sign which troubles the brain and the heart of the student
of the social problem. He notes the recurring crises in
industry, the inflations and depressions of trade. At one
time all is prosperous; demand is brisk, and supply can
scarce keep pace with it; wages rise, full time is worked,
production is enormously increased. Then a change creeps
over all; supply has overtaken, has surpassed demand;
the market is glutted; the warehouses are filled with
unsaleable goods; short time begins; wages fall; mills are
closed; furnaces are damped out; many workers are dis
charged. Then the unemployed in the large towns increase
in number ; the poor-rate rises ; distress spreads upwards.
After a while the depression passes ; trade improves ; and
the whole weary circle is trodden once more. Nor is this
all; although there has been “ over-production ” there is
want of the necessaries of life; there are unsaleable clothing
goods in the warehouses, and half-naked people shivering
outside; too many blankets, and children crying them
selves to sleep for cold. This monstrous absurdity, of com
modities a drug in the market, and human beings perishing
for want of those very commodities, stares us ever in the
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
5
face. Cannot human brain discover some means to put an
end to this state of things, a state which would be ludicrous
were it not for the horrible suffering involved in it ? Some
say, this must always be so; that the poor shall be for
ever with us; that commercial crises are inevitable; that
these evils' are not susceptible of complete cure. If tffis
indeed be true, then I know not that any better advice can
be given to humanity than that given to Job by his wife,
to “ curse God and die ”. But I think not so meanly of
human intelligence ; I believe not that our present indus
trial system, little more than a century old, must needs be
eternal; I believe that the present system, devised by man
and founded in greed of gain, may by man be changed;
and that man’s growing power over external nature may
be used to bring comfort and wealth to each, and not, as
now, to enrich the few at the cost of the enslavement of
the many.
Various attempts to bring about a better social state
have been made by earnest and noble-hearted men during
the last hundred years. I leave aside such systems as
those of the Moravians, because they cannot be regarded
as in any sense schemes for the reconstruction of society.
They, like the monastic communities, were merely attempts
to create oases, fenced in from the world’s evils, where
men might prepare for a future life. The efforts I allude
to are those classed as “Socialistic”; they were really
■crude forms of Communism. With these the name of
Robert Owen will be for ever associated.
Owen’s first experiment was made at New Lanark, in
connexion with the cotton-mills established there by Mr.
Dale, his father-in-law. He became the manager of these
in 1797, and set himself to work to improve the condition
•of the operatives and their families. The success which
attended his efforts, the changes wrought by education
and by fair dealings, encouraged him to plan out a wider
scheme of social amelioration. In 1817 he was asked to
report on the causes of poverty to the Committee on the
Poor Laws, and in this report he dwelt on the serious in•crease of pauperism which had followed the introduction
of machinery, and urged that employment ought to be
found for those who were in need of it. He “ recommended
that every union or county should provide a farm for the
employment of their poor; when circumstances admitted
�6
MODERN SOCIALISM.
of it, there should be a manufactory in connexion with it”
(“Robert Owen,” by A. J. Booth, p. 70). On the farm,
buildings were to be built for housing the laborers, con
sisting of “a square, divided into two parallelograms by
tl^e erection of public buildings in the centre ” ; these would
consist of “a kitchen, mess-room, school-rooms, library
and lecture-hall. The poor would enjoy every advantage
that economy could suggest: the same roof would cover
many dwellings : the same stove might warm every room :
the food would be cooked at the same time, and on the
same fire : the meals would be eaten from the same table,
in the society of friends and fellow-workers. Sympathies
now restricted to the family would be thus extended to
a community: the union would be still further cemented
by an equal participation in the profits, an equal share in
the toil............ Competition is the cause of many vices;
association will be their corrective” {Ibid, pp. 70-72).
Soon after this report, Mr. Owen published a letter, urging
the reconstitution of “the whole of society on a similar
basis”; the lowest class was to consist of paupers, to be
drafted into the proposed establishments; the second of
the “working-class”; the third of laborers, artisans, and
tradesmen, with property-of from £100 to £2,000; the
fourth of persons unable or unwilling to work, owning
from £1,000 to £20,000; these were to employ the second
class. The workman was to be supported by this class in
comfort for seven years in exchange for his labor, and then
was to be presented by it with £100, so that he might
enter class three; if he remained as a worker for five years
more he was to have £200.
A community of workers, as recommended by Owen, was
started in 1825, under the management of Abraham
Combe, at Orbiston, nine miles east of Glasgow, and it
began well; but Combe died in 1827, and with his death
the whole thing went to pieces. A few months before the
settlement at Orbiston, Robert Owen sailed for America,
and he purchased a property named Harmony, consisting
of 30,000 acres in Indiana, from the Rappites, a religious
communistic body. He advertised for inhabitants, and
gathered together a mixed crowd; “there were some
enthusiasts who had come, at great personal sacrifice, to
face a rude life and to mix among rude men, who had no
object but to work out the great problem of a New Society;
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
7
there were others who fancied they could secure abundance
with little labor, prepared to shirk their share in the toil,
but not to forego their share in the reward ” {Ibid, p. 106).
In the following year, 1826, “New Harmony ” inaugurated
a system of complete Communism, much against OwSn’s^
judgment; a number of small independent communities'^
were soon formed, eight of these having already broken
off from New Harmony early in 1827, the difficulties
attendant on widely extended common life being found
insuperable. In 1828, Robert Owen was forced to confess
that his effortshad failed, and that “families trained in
the individual system ” could not suddenly be plunged into
pure Communism with success. It boots not to dwell here
on his further efforts in England. Robert Owen’s experi
ments failed, but out of his teaching arose the co-operative
movement, and the impulse to seek some rational system
of society has, since his time, never quite died out in
England.
In America, a large number of communities have been
established, mostly religious in character. Erom the
careful account given of them by Charles Nordhoff, the
following brief details are taken (all numbers relate to
1874). The Amana community consists of 1,450 members ;
they have a property of 25,000 acres, and live in seven
small towns; they are Germans, very pious and very
prosperous ; their head is a woman, who is directly inspired
by God. The Harmony Society, Economy, near Pittsburg,
consists of followers of Rapp, who founded the society in
1805. They are all Germans and number 110, in addition
to about 100 hired laborers and some sixty children. They
live in comfort, and have clearly done well unto themunto themselves, owning now a very large amount of pro
perty. The Separatists of Zoar, Ohio, are, once more,
Germans: they started in 1817, have now about 300
members, own 7,000 acres of land, and are prosperous
exceedingly. The Shakers, established in 1792, are scat
tered over several States,-number about 2,415, own about
100.000 acres of land, are divided into fifty-eight commu
nities, and are wealthy and prosperous ; the members are
American and English. The Perfectionists of Oneida and
Wallingford are American, and the first attempt by them
at communal living took place in 1846. They number 521,
and own 894 acres of land. They also are prosperous.
�8
MODERN SOCIALISM.
The Aurora and Bethel Communes, in Oregon, are German,
or 11 Pennsylvania Dutch ”; they started in 1844, and now
number some 600 persons: their property extends to
23,000 acres, and they live in much comfort. The Icarians,
founded by Etienne Cabet in 1848, are nearly all French;
ch^have hitherto been less fortunate than the preceding
societies, in consequence of mismanagement at the start;
a heavy debt was incurred early in the movement, and
members fell off; but a few resolute men and women
settled down steadily in Iowa, with 4,000 acres of land,
and 20,000 dollars of debt; they had to give up the land
to their creditors, but managed to redeem nearly half of it,
and they are now 65 in number, own 1,936 acres,
have no debts, and have acquired a large live stock. They
still live very plainly, but are on their way to prosperity,
having conquered all the difficulties amid which they
started; their constitution is perfectly democratic and they
are without religion. A Swedish community at Bishop
Hill, Illinois, was formed by a pietist sect which emi
grated to America to escape persecution in 1846-1848.
They were terribly poor at first and lived in holes in the
ground, with a tent for a church, but gradually acquired
property; until in 1859 they owned 10,000 acres of land,
worth 300,000 dollars, and some magnificent live stock.
Unfortunately their piety led to such extreme dullness that
the younger members of the society revolted: debt was
incurred, individuality was advocated, the property was
divided, and the community ceased to exist. Lastly, there
are two small communities, founded in 1871 and 1874 ; the
former, the Progressive Community, at Cedar Vale, consists
partly of Russians; it possesses 320 acres of good land,
and has only eight members, of whom one is a child. The
second, the Social Freedom Community, consists of three
adults and three lads, Americans, and has a farm of 333
acres.
The whole of these societies can only be regarded as in
the nature of experiments, and as such they are extremely
interesting; each community has succeeded in gaining
comfort and independence, but these small bodies, living
chiefly by agriculture in a thinly-populated country on
virgin soil, while they show the advantages of associated
labor, really offer no data for the solution of the problems
which beset a complex society. They are a return to more
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
9
primitive forms of living, not an onward social evolution,
and they are only possible in a “ new country ”. Further,
while they are communistic so far as their own members
are concerned, they are individualistic and competitive in
their aspect to the outer world; each small group holds.Wrs
own property, and transacts all its business on the old lines
in its dealings with the rest of the nation. This is, of
course, inevitable, since each is encircled by competition;
but it must not be overlooked that all these organisations,
like co-operative societies at home, are nothing more than
enlarged families, and are essentially individualistic ; win
ning sufficiency for their own narrow, isolated circles, but
leaving untouched the question of national poverty. They
are arks, rescuing their inmates from the deluge, but they
do nothing to drain away the seething ocean of misery.
We turn next to Socialism, as distinct from Communism.
The distinction between these, though recognised by so
orthodox an economist as John Stuart Mill, is generally
ignored by those who oppose any radical reconstruction of
Society. Mr. Mill divides into two classes the assailants
of the present system of purely individualistic property :
“ those whose scheme implies absolute equality in the
distribution of the physical means of life and enjoyment,
and those who admit inequality, but grounded on some
principle or supposed principle, of justice or general
expediency, and not, like so many of the existing social
inequalities, dependent on accident alone. At the head of
the first class, as the earliest of those belonging to the
present generation, must be placed Mr. Owen and his fol
lowers. M. Louis Blanc and M. Cabet have more recently
become conspicuous as apostles of similar doctrines (though
the former advocates equality of distribution only as a
transition to a still higher standard of justice, that all
should work according to their capacity, and receive
according to their wants). The characteristic name for
this economical system is Communism, a word of conti
nental origin, only of late introduced into this country.
The word Socialism, which originated among the English
Communists, and was assumed by them as a name to
designate their own doctrine, is now, on the Continent,
employed in a larger sense; not necessarily implying
Communism, or the entire abolition of private property,
but applied to any system which requires that the land and
�10
MODERN SOCIALISM.
the instruments of production should be the property, not
of individuals, but of communities or associations, or of
the government” (“Principles of Political Economy”,
Book II., chap, i., sec. 2). Communism implies the complete abolition of private property, and the supply of the
wants of each individual from a common store, without
regard to the contributions to that common store which
may, or may not, have been made by the individual.
Socialism merely implies that the raw material of the soil
and the means of production shall not be the private pro
perty of individuals, but shall be under the control of the
community; it leaves intact a man’s control over himself
and over the value of his work—subj ect to such general
laws as are necessary in any community—but by socialising
land and capital it deprives each of the power of enslaving
his fellows, and of living in idleness on the results of their
labor instead of on the results of his own. It may be that at
some future time humanity shall have evolved to a point
which shall render Communism the only rational system;
when every man is eager to do his share of work ; anxious
not to make too much for his own enjoyment: holding the
scales of justice with a perfectly even hand; his one aim
the general good, and his one effort the service of his
brethren; when each individual is thus developed, law will
have become unnecessary, and Communism will be thenatural expression of social life; perfect freedom will be
the lot of each, because each will have become a law unto
himself. But to that stage of development man has not
yet attained, and for man as he is Communism would mean
the living of the idle on the toil of the laborious, the
rebirth, under a new name, of our present system.
Modern Socialism is an attempt to get at the root of the
poverty which now prevails ; to find out how fortunes are
made; why commercial crises occur; what are the real
relations of capital and labor at the present time.
In speaking of “fortunes”, I do not here include for
tunes made by gambling, as on the Stock Exchange. They
fall under another category, for in gambling, whether on
the Stock Exchange or on the card table, wealth is not
really made; it only passes from one pocket to another.
The gambler, or the burglar, may “ make a fortune ” sofar as he is himself concerned; but it is not done by the
creation of wealth, but only by transferring wealth already
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
II
existing from, the pocket of its temporary possessor into
his own ; in both businesses the profits are large because
the risks are great, and the penalty for failure heavy for
the moment.
Socialism, as an industrial system, is chiefly concerned
with fortunes in the making, with the way in which the
wealth created by associated labor passes into the handsof individuals who do little or nothing in exchange for it.
These fortunes arise from the ownership of the instrumentsof production, or of the raw material out of which wealth isto be manufactured; from the ownership, that is, of capital,
or of land.
Production.
Let us take the case of the possessor of capital employed
in manufacture. This man desires to obtain more wealth
than he can produce alone, more than he can individually
produce even with the help of machinery. He must con
sequently hire others, who, in exchange for a certain fixed
sum to be paid to them by him, shall allow him to take
over the whole results of their labor, and to pocket the
difference between those results and the fixed sum paid
by him. This fixed sum is known as wage, and is “the
market price of labor”. We have therefore here twoclasses face to face with each other: one is a class which
is the owner of capital, that is, which possesses the instru
ments of production; the other is a class which possessesthe labor-force, without which the instruments of produc
tion are useless, but which must perish if it cannot get
hold of some of those instruments. (Behind the capitalists
is a third class, the land-owning, with which the capitalist
has to come to terms ; that will be dealt with afterwards.)
This second class stands therefore at this disadvantage; that
while the capitalist can, if he pleases, utilise his own labor
force for his own subsistence, it cannot subsist at all except
with his consent and aid, being shut out from the raw
material by the landowner, and from the instruments of
production by himself. Put a naked man on fertile soil in
a decent climate and he will subsist; he will live on fruit
and berries while with his hands he fashions some rough
tool, and with the help thereof makes him a better one
out of the. raw material he will form an instrument of pro
duction with those original instruments of production given.
�12
MODERN SOCIALISM.
him bv nature, his fingers and the muscles of his body;
then with his instrument and the raw material at his feet
he will labor and win his livelihood. But in our complex
society this opening is not before him; the raw material
is enclosed and trespassers are prosecuted; if he picks fruit
for food, he is a thief; if he breaks off a bough to make
a rough tool, he is arrested ; he cannot get an instrument
of production, and if he could he would have nothing to use
it on; he has nothing but his labor-force, and he must either
sell that to someone who wants it, or he must die. And the
sale must be complete. His labor-force is bought for so
much down per week or per month ; it no longer belongs
to himself, it is owned by his master, and he has not any
right over that which it produces; he has sold it, and if he
wants to resume possession he must give notice of his wish
to the owner thereof; having resumed possession it is of no
use to him; he can only live by selling it to somebody else.
He is “free”, in so far that he is able to change his
master; he is a slave in that he must sell the labor force
in his body for food. The man whose labor-force has been
sold to another for life is regarded by all as a slave; the
man whose labor-force is sold for stated terms is regarded
by most as free; yet in comparing the conditions of the two,
it is well to bear in mind that the slave, in becoming a
chattel, becomes of value to his master, and it is the
interest of the latter to feed him well and to keep up his
physical strength as long as is possible; also in old age he
is fed and housed, and can die in peace amid his fellows.
Whereas the wage-earner has no such value, but it is his
master’s interest to get as much work out of him as is
possible, without regard for his health, there being plenty
to take his place when he is worn out; and when he is
old, he is separated from wife and child and is left to die
in the prison we call a workhouse. The slave is valuable,
as the horse and the ox are valuable, to his owner; the
wage-earner is valuable only as a garment, which is cast
into the dusthole when it is worn out.
It may be answered that the wage-earner by good for
tune, industry, and thrift, may be able so to save of his
-earnings that he may escape the workhouse, and may even
himself become independent and an “ employer of labor ”.
True. So might a lucky slave become free. But the
truth that some may rise out of their class does not render
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
13
satisfactory the state of the class, and the very fact that
such rising is held out as a reward and a stimulus is an
admission that an escape from the proletariat must be the
natural longing of every proletarian. The rising of a few
does not benefit the proletariat as a whole, and it is the
existence of this unpropertied proletariat which is the evil
thing.
To this proletariat, waiting to sell its labor-force, the
capitalist goes, for it is here that he will be able to obtain
the wealth-making strength which he requires. The next
question is: What determines the wage which he is to
pay ? That is: what fixes the market price of labor
force ? Putting on one side temporary and comparatively
trivial causes, which may slightly affect it one way or the
other, there are two constant determinants : population,
and standard of living. The market-price of labor-force
will largely depend on the quantity of labor-force in the
market; if the supply exceed the demand, the price will
be low; if the demand exceed the supply, the price will
go up. If an employer requires fifty laborers, and two
hundred laborers compete with each other for the employ
ment he offers, and if the employment stands between
them and starvation, he will be able to beat down their
price until it touches the lowest point at which they can
subsist. The more rapid the multiplication of the prole
tariat, the better for the capitalist class.
The other determinant is the “standard of living” or
“standard of comfort”. Wage can never sink beyond
the point at which a man and his family can exist thereon;
this is the extreme limit of its fall, inasmuch as a man
will not work unless he can exist on the results of his
work. As a matter of fact, it does not often sink so low;
the wage of an ordinary operative is more than barely
suffices to keep him and his family alive, but large num
bers of the laboring poor are habitually underfed, and are
liable to the diseases brought on by low living, as well as
to premature aging and death arising from the same cause.
It is a significant fact that the deathrate of the poor is
much higher than the deathrate of the rich. Wage is
lower in countries in which the standard of living is low,
than in those in which it is, by comparison, higher. Thus
in parts of Scotland, where oatmeal is much used for food,
and children run much barefoot, wage is normally lower
�14
MODERN SOCIALISM.
ih.an in. England, where wheaten flour and shoes and
-stockings are expected. Any general lowering of the
standard of living is therefore to be deprecated—as the
wide substitution of cheap vegetable food-stuffs for more
■expensive articles of diet. The standard of living also
(and chiefly, in any given country) affects wages through
its effect on population. Mill points out (“ Principles of
Political Economy,” Book II., chap, xi., sec. 2) that
“wages do adapt themselves to the price of food ”, either
(«) from children dying prematurely when food rises, and
wages were before barely sufficient to maintain them, or
(J) from voluntary restriction of the growth of population
when the laborers refuse to sink below a certain standard
of living. In each case the diminution of labor supply
■causes a rise of wage. “Mr. Ricardo”, says Mill, “con
siders these two cases to comprehend all cases. He as
sumes, that there is everywhere a minimum rate of wages:
-either the lowest with which it is physically possible to
keep up the population, or the lowest with which the
people will choose to do so. To this minimum he assumes
that the general rate of wages always tends; that they
■can never be lower, beyond the length of time required for
a diminished rate of increase to make itself felt, and can
never long continue higher.” This is the “iron law of
wages ”, and it is the recognition of its truth which, among
other reasons, sets Socialists against the wage-system of
industry. [It must not be forgotten that the phrase
“ordinary operative” does not include all the workers.
There is a large class which obtains barely subsistence
wage, and those who are not regularly employed are on
the very verge of starvation. The hard lot of these must
not be left out of sight in impeaching the present social
state.]
The capitalist, then, buys as much labor-force as he
desires, or as his means allow, at the market price, deter
mined in the way we have seen. This labor-force he pro
poses to utilise for his own advantage; with some of his
capital he buys it; some of his capital consists in machinery,
and the labor-force set at work on this machinery is to
produce wealth. The labor-force and the instruments of
production are now brought together ; they will now pro
duce wealth, and both they and the wealth they produce
are the property of the capitalist.
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
15
Our next inquiry is : Where does the capitalist look for
his profit ? He has bought machinery; he has bought
labor-force ; whence comes the gain he is seeking ? The
profit of the capitalist must arise from the difference be
tween the price he pays for labor-force and the wealth
produced by it; out of this difference must be paid his
rent, the loss incurred by wear-and-tear, and the price of
the raw material on which his machinery works; these
provided for, the remainder of the difference is his “profit”.
The analysis of the way in which this profit arises is, then,
the task that comes next.
In Karl Marx’s “Das Capital” may be found a carefully
•elaborated exposition of “ surplus-value ”. The term is a con
venient one, and the student will do well to read his 7th chap
ter, on the “production of use-value and surplus-value”;
in reading, he must remember Marx’s definitions of value
and use-value, which of course govern the whole. Value
is human labor incorporated in a commodity; use-value
is that which in a commodity satisfies some human want.
The “ use-value ” of Marx is identical with the “ intrinsic
natural worth” of Locke. Locke says: “The intrinsic,
natural worth of any thing, consists in its fitness to supply
the necessities, or serve the conveniences of human life ”
(“Considerations of the Lowering of Interest,” etc., Locke’s
Works, vol. ii., p. 28, ed. 1777). As an instance of the
production of surplus-value—that is of the difference be
tween the capital which the capitalist expends in produc
tion and that which he possesses when the production is
complete—Marx takes the case of the manufacture of ten
pounds of thread. The capitalist buys ten pounds of
cotton at 10s.; wear-and-tear of machinery in the spinning
of the cotton into thread raises his expenditure to 12s.;
further, six hours of work are necessary to turn the ten
pounds of cotton into ten pounds of thread.
Now suppose that a man in six hours is able to produce
sufficient to maintain himself for a day;—that is that he
produces as much as might be exchanged for a day’s con
sumption of the necessaries of life. Let us value this at
3s. in money. That 3s. which is the monetary equivalent
of his six hours’ labor must be added to the cost of pro
duction of the thread ; its value has therefore risen finally
to 15 s. If the capitalist now sells his ten pounds of thread
for 15s., he will only receive back as much as he has
�16
MODERN SOCIALISM.
expended ; he will have made no profit. But suppose the
working day be of twelve hours instead of six, the wages
paid will none the less be fixed at 3s. by the standard of
living; but in that second six hours the operative can
transform another ten pounds of cotton into another ten
pounds of thread; as before, cotton and wear-and-tear will
-amount to 12s.; but these ten pounds of thread have a
value of 15s. as had the previous ten pounds, although they
have only cost the capitalist 12s. Hence the final product
of the day’s labor has a value of 30s., but has cost the
capitalist only 27s. The value added by the operative in
the second six hours has brought him no equivalent; it is
“ surplus-value”, value added by him over the value whose
equivalent he receives in wage; this creation of surplus
value is the aim of the capitalist.
Now without tying ourselves down to the exact figures,
given by Marx, we may yet see by a little thought that his
position as to “ surplus-value ” is essentially correct. If a
capitalist buys £1 worth of raw material; if his machinery
is depreciated say by the value of one shilling in workingup the raw material; if he pays in wage 5s. for the labor
force expended on it; he will most certainly not be content
with selling the finished product for 26s. He demands a
“profit” on the transaction, and this profit can only be the
difference between that which is paid to labor, and the
value, in the ordinary sense of the word, which labor
creates.
It is sometimes objected that nothing is gained by
Marx’s divisions of “value”, “ surplus value ”, and “ex
change value”, but that, on the contrary, they transport
economics into a metaphysical region away from the solid
ground of facts. It is urged that it is better to represent the
conditions thus: that the worker produces a mass of com
modities ; that the capitalist sells these commodities for
what they will fetch in the market, the price being fixed,
not by the duration of the labor embodied in them, but by
the relative utilities of money and commodity to buyer and
seller; that the capitalist gives over to the producer suffi
cient of the results of the sale to enable the producer to
exist, and pockets the remainder. This presentment is a
statement of the facts as they are; Marx’s “value” is
a metaphysical abstraction, corresponding to nothing exist
ing at the present time, however true it would be under
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
17
ideal conditions. The main point to grasp, however, is
obvious, whichever of these presentments is thought pre
ferable. Capital, under our present industrial system, is
the result of unpaid labor—a matter to be further con
sidered later in this essay. But it must be remembered
that, as a matter of fact, the profit made by the capitalist
is not a fixed quantity, as is the “ surplus value ” of Marx; z
but that the capitalist not only preys on the worker, but
also on the necessities of the consumer, his profit rising
and falling with the changes of demand and supply. The
phrase “ surplus value ” is, as I have said, a convenient
one, but it might well be extended to cover the whole
difference between the price paid to labor for the com
modities it produces, and the price obtained for those com
modities by the capitalist employer of labor. It is in this
wide sense that the phrase is used in the following pages,
not in the metaphysical sense of Marx.
We are now in a position to understand how large for
tunes are made, and why Capital and Labor are ever at
war.
Before the commencement of the Industrial Period—
which may be fairly dated from the invention of the Spin
ning Jenny in 1764—it was not possible to accumulate
great wealth by the employment of hired labor. By hand
work, or by the use of the very simple machines available
prior to that date, a single operative was not able to pro
duce sufficient to at once support himself and to largely
enrich others. “Masters and men” consequently formed
a community of workers, without the sharp divisions that
now exist between capitalist and “hands”; and the em
ployer would have been as much ashamed of not working
deftly at his trade, as the son of a Lancashire cotton-lord
would be if he were suspected of throwing a shuttle in
one of his father’s looms. Under these conditions there
was very little surplus-value to be absorbed, and there
were consequently no great aggregations of purely indus
trial classes. The introduction of machinery multiplied
enormously the productive power of the operative, while it
did not increase the wage he received. A man receiving
3s. for a day of twelve hours, produced, we will say for the
sake of illustration, surplus-value to the amount of Is.;
after the introduction of machinery he received the same
wage and produced an enormously increased surplus-value.
c
�18
MODERN SOCIALISM.
Thus the fortunes of the lucky possessors of the new
machinery rose by “ leaps and bounds ”; lads who began
at the loom were owners of palaces by middle age; even
later on, after the first rush had spent itself, I have myself
met Lancashire cotton-lords who were mill-hands in their
youth; but most certainly their wealth had only been made
by the results of the toil of many becoming concentrated in
the hands of one.
Another step was taken to increase surplus-value. De
pending, as it does, on the difference between the value
produced by the worker and the amount paid to him as
wage, it is obvious that if it be possible to obtain the same
amount of produce from purchased labor-force while re
ducing the purchase-money, the surplus-value will become
larger. This step was soon taken, for it was found that
many machines could be superintended by a woman quite
as effectively as by a man, while female labor-force was
purchasable in the market at a lower rate. Hence the
large introduction of female “hands” into cotton mills, and
as married women were found more “docile” than un
married—docility increasing with the number of mouths
crying for bread at home—there came the double curse on
the producers, of male labor being pushed aside by female
labor at lower wage, and of untidy home and neglected
children, bereft of mother’s care. Yet another step. Child
labor was cheaper even than woman-labor, and by utilising
children, with their pitiful wage, surplus-value might be
swollen to yet larger proportions; and as wives had fought
with husbands for wage, so children now fought with
fathers and mothers, until verily a man’s foes in the labormarket were they of his own household.
There was, however, a way of increasing surplus-value
apart from the amount of daily wage. The lengthening of
the hours of labor has obviously the same result in this
respect as the lowering of wage. The very zenith of the
production of surplus-value, the most complete exploitation
of the producers, the perfect triumph of the capitalist ideal
of free contract and of laissez-faire, were reached when little
children, at nominal wage, were worked from fifteen to
sixteen hours a day, and princely fortunes were built up
by human sacrifice to the devil of greed, in fashion that
shall never, so help us tongue, and pen, and arm, be again
possible in this fair English land.
�19
MODERN SOCIALISM.
We have at the present time no exact figures available
which can enable us to judge of the precise amount of sur
plus value produced in the various departments of industry.
In America, the Bureaus of Labor Statistics help us, and
from these we learn some suggestive facts.
Average wage paid
to worker.
1850
1860
1870
1880
..
£49 12
58 8
62 0
69 4
Extra net value pro■ duced by worker.
..
£41 16
65 10
69 0
64 14
(Taken from Laurence Gronlund’s quotation of these re
turns in his 11 Co-operative Commonwealth”, chap. i. The
same figures, as regards total net produce and wages paid,
have appeared in a capitalist work.) I trust that we shall
soon have in England Labor Bureaus similar to those now
existing in the United States and in Canada. Charles
Bradlaugh, M.P., has succeeded in passing a resolution in
favor of the official publication of similar statistics through
the House of Commons, and among the many priceless ser
vices he has done to the workers, the obtaining of these is by
no means the least. Exact knowledge of the present state
of things is a necessary precedent of organic change, and
the figures supplied by the Labor Bureaus will give us
the very weapons that we need.
The absolutely antithetical interests of Capital and
Labor have necessitated—and must continue to necessitate
while the present system lasts—a constant and embittered
war. As Capital can only grow by surplus value, it strives
to lengthen the working day and to decrease the daily
wage. Labor struggles to shorten the hours of toil, and
to wring from Capital a larger share of its own product in
the form of higher wage. While Capital is the possession
of one class, and Labor is the only property of the other,
this strife must go on. There can never be industrial
peace until this root of war be pulled up, and until Capital,
under the control of the community, shall be used for the
fertilisation, instead of for the oppression of Labor.
Since large fortunes are made by manufacturers, and
there is no source of wealth save labor applied to natural
objects, it is clear that these fortunes are due to the fact
that the manufacturers are able to become the owners of
c2
�20
MODERN SOCIALISM.
the means of production and of labor-force; even these very
means of production, with which the present labor-force
works, are but past labor-force crystallised. The wage
earners must produce sufficient to maintain themselves
from day to day and to increase the capital of the wage
payers, else they will not be employed. Hence arises
another evil, the waste of productive force. Men are not
employed because their labor-force, embodied in the neces
saries of life, will spread sufficiency and comfort throughout
the community. They are only employed when the articles
produced can be sold at a profit by a third party; their
products, fairly exchanged for the products of their fellow
laborers—woven cloth, say, for shoes—would clothe warmly
the shivering population ; but above the cloth produced by
the one, and the shoes produced by the other, stand the
capitalists, who demand profit for themselves ere the cloth
shall be allowed to shield the naked back, or the shoes
keep off the pavement the toes blued by the frost. If the
employment fails, the wage-earner is out of food; but the
erstwhile wage-payer has the capital made by the former
to live upon, while its maker starves. The capitalist, truly,
cannot increase his capital, unless he can buy labor-force ;
but he can live on his capital. On the other hand the
labor-force must perish unless it can find a purchaser.
Lotus put the position plainly, for as the great majority
•of people think the arrangement a perfectly fair one, there
is no need to cover it over with a veil of fine phrases and
roundabout expressions. The owner of raw material and
of the means of production faces the unpropertied pro
letarian, and says to him : “I hold in my hands the means
of existence; unless you can obtain the means of existence
you will die; but I will only let you have them on one
condition. And that is that you shall labor for me as
well as for yourself. For each hour that you spend in
winning bread, you shall spend another in enriching me.
I will give you the right to win a hard existence by your
labor, if you will give me the right to take whatever you
produce beyond that bare existence. You are perfectly
free to choose ; you can either accept my terms, and let
me live on your work, or you can refuse my terms, and
starve.” Put so baldly, the proposition has a certain
brutality in it. Yet when we Socialists argue that a system
is bad which concentrates the means of existence in the
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
21
hands of a propertied class, and leaves an unpropertied
class under the hard condition of winning only the right
to exist on such terms as may be granted by the propertied ;
when we urge this, we are told that we are incendiaries,
thieves, idiots, or, at the mildest, that our hopes of freeing
these enslaved ones are dreams, mere castles in the air.
We have now reached the foundation of modern So
cialism. We say: As long as the industrial classes are
divided into capitalists and proletarians, so long must con
tinue the present strife, and the present extremes of wealth
and of poverty. It is not a mere modification, but a com
plete revolution of the industrial system which is required.
Capital must be controlled by labor, instead of controlling
it. The producers must obtain possession of their own
product, and must regulate their own labor. The present
system has been weighed in the balances and found wanting,
and on the wall of the capitalist banqueting-room is written
by the finger of modern thought, dipped in the tears and
in the bloody sweat of the over-tasked proletariat: “Man
hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. It is divided
among the myriads thou hast wronged.”
Competition.
Strife is the normal condition of the whole industrial
world; Capital strives against Labor, and Labor against
Capital, lock-outs and strikes being the pitched battles of
the struggle; capitalists strive against capitalists for profits,
and the list of the vanquished may be read in the bank
ruptcy court; workers strive against workers for wage, and
injure their own order in the fratricidal combat. Every
where the same struggle, causing distress, waste, hatred,
in every direction ; brothers wronging brothers for a trifling
gain ; the strong trampling down the weak in the frantic
race for wealth. It is the struggle of the wild beasts of
the forest transferred to the city; the horrible struggle
for existence, only in its “civilised” form hearts are
wrenched and torn instead of limbs.
It is constantly urged that competition is advantageous
because it develops capacity, and by the struggle it causes
it brings about the survival of the fittest. The allegation
may be traversed on two grounds : granting that capacity
is developed by struggle, it is yet developed at great cost
of suffering, and it would be more worthy of reasoning
�22
MODERN SOCIALISM.
beings to seek to bring about the capacity and to avoid the
suffering; to borrow an illustration which suggests itself
by the very word “ struggle ”, we know that actual fighting
develops muscle, endurance, readiness of resource, quick
ness of the senses ; none the less do we regard war as a
disgrace to a civilised people, and we find that the useful
capacities developed by it may be equally well developed
in the gymnasium and the playing-field, without the evils
accompanying war. So may education take the place of
competition in developing useful qualities. Further we
deny that “the fittest ” for social progress survive in the
competitive struggle. The hardest, the keenest, the most
unscrupulous, survive, because such are the fittest for the
brutal strife; but the generous, the magnanimous, the
just, the tender, the thoughtful, the sympathetic, the very
types in whose survival lies the hope of the race, are
crushed out. In fact, competition is war, and the very
reasons which move us to endeavor to substitute arbitra
tion for war, should move us to endeavor to substitute
co-operation for competition.
But it is urged, competition among capitalists is advan
tageous to the public, and it is shown that where two or
three railway lines compete for custom, the public is better
served than where there is only one. Granted. There is
an old adage which says that “when thieves fall out,
honest men come by their own ” ; none the less is it better
to stop thieving, than to encourage it under the hope that
the thieves may fall out, and some of the stolen goods be
recovered. So long as capitalists are permitted to exploit
labor, so long is it well that they should compete with each
other and so have their profits lessened; but it would be
still better to stop the exploitation. Accepting the railway
instance, it may be rejoined that the German State railways
have comfortable carriages that can hold their own against
all comers, and that whereas a railway company, eager for
dividends, can only be forced into providing decent carri
ages by fear of losing customers to a rival, a State railway
is managed for the benefit of the public, and improvements
are readily introduced. Our post-office system shows how
improvements are made without any pressure of competi
tion ; it has given us cheaper postage, cheaper telegraphing,
and is giving us cheaper parcel-delivery ; so that we can
send from London a letter to Wick for a penny, a telegram
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
23
thither for sixpence, and a parcel for threepence; it is a
matter of pride to the Postmaster-General of the day, as a
public servant, to improve his department, although he is
protected by law (save in the case of parcels, only just
undertaken) from competition.
Even some economists who approve of competition see
the need of limiting its excesses. Mr. R. S. Moffat, for
instance, approves of it and thinks that “competition is
not only the best, but the only practical means of meet
ing” “the conflicting natural conditions, between the
exigencies of an unknown demand and the fluctuations of
an uncertain supply”, “that ever has been, or is ever
likely to be, discovered” (“The Economy of Consump
tion,” p. 114, ed. 1878). Yet Mr. Moffat points out that
“ the material cost of competition includes two items: first,
superfluous production, or wasted labor; and secondly, illbalanced distribution, or misdirected labor ” (p. 115); and
he declares: “Not content with promoting a healthful
industry, it enforces tyrannous laws upon labor, and exacts
from the free laborer an amount of toil which the hardest
taskmaster never succeeded in wringing from the slave.
It disturbs by its excesses the balance of industry which
its moderation had established. In times of prosperous
production it accumulates stocks till they become a nuisance
and a source of the most serious embarrassment to pro
ducers, who do not know where to turn for employment to
their productive resources ; and in adverse times it gambles
with them, and deprives consumption of their support at
the very time for which they were provided” (pp. 116, 117).
“ It is upon laborers”, he says, “ not only as individuals,
but as a class, that the great burden of over-production
falls” (p. 119).
I propose to consider, I., the evils of competition; II.,
the remedy proposed by Socialism.
I.—The Evils.—Many of these lie on the surface; others
become palpable on very slight investigation. They affect
the capitalist manufacturer; the distributor; the con
sumer ; and the producing classes.
An ingenious capitalist sees a want and devises an article
to meet it; or he devises an article and sets to work to
create the want. He places his article before the public,
and a demand for it arises. The article either supplies a
real want, or it becomes “the fashion”, and the demand
�24
MODERN SOCIALISM.
increases and outstrips the supply. Other capitalists rush
in to compete for the profit which is to be made; capital
flows rapidly into the particular industry concerned ; high
wages are offered; operatives flock to it; the supply swellsuntil it overtops the demand. But when this point is
touched, the supply is not at once lessened; so long as
there is any hope of profit, the capitalists manufacture;
wage is lessened to keep up the profit, but this expedient
fails; short hours are worked ; at last the market becomes
thoroughly overstocked. Then distress follows, and while
capital seeks new outlets, the operatives fall into the great
army of unemployed; and very often the small capitalists,
who went into the rush just when profit was at its highest,,
and who have not sufficient capital to hold out against the
fall, and to await a rise, meet the fate of earthenware
pots, carried down a torrent among iron ones. When this
happens, the result of their speculative folly is held up as
an example of the “risks run by capitalists ”. Nor is this
the only way along which a small capitalist sometimestravels to the bankruptcy court. He often borrows money
“to extend his business”, and if the business shrinks
instead of expanding, he becomes bankrupt. In the uni
versal war, the big capitalist fish devour the small fry.
And, after all, even the “successful man” of our com
petitive society is not one whose lot is to be envied by
the healthy human being. Not for him the pure joy in
natural beauty, in simple amusements, in intellectual
triumph, which is the dower of those unstained by thefight for gold. For the successful competitor in com
mercial war Nature has no laurel-crown. He has bartered
himself for a mess of pottage, and his birthright of healthy
' humanity is gone from him for evermore. Well doesMoffat write his fate : “The man who strives to make a
fortune contemplates his own ease and enjoyment, not the
good of society. He flatters himself that through his
superior skill, tact, wisdom, energy, or whatever quality it
is he thinks himself twice as strong in as his neighbors,
he will be able to do in half a lifetime what it takes them
* their whole lives to do. For this he toils and sacrifices hishealth ; for this he rushes upon reckless speculations, and
hazards his character and reputation; for this he makes
himself indifferent to the rights and callous to the feelings
of others; for this he is sordid, mean, and parsimonious.
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
25'
All these are the means by which, according to different
temperaments, the same end is pursued. And what is the
end? An illusion, nay, worse, a dishonesty. The man
who pursues a fortune is not qualifying himself for any
other course of life besides that which he at present lives.
He is merely striving to escape from duty into enjoyment.
And the fever of the strife frequently becomes his whole
existence; so that when he has obtained his object, he finds
himself unable to do without the excitement of the struggle ”
(p. 220). Surely in judging the merits of a system it is
fair to take into account the injuries it works to its most
successful products. Its masterpieces are the withered and
dehumanised; its victims are the paupers and the suicides.
Nor can we leave out of account in studying competitive
production the waste of material, and of the time spent in
working it up, which result from over-production. The
accumulation of stock while the demand is lessening means
the making and storing of unneeded wares. Some of these
are forced into the market, some lie idly in the great
warehouses. The retail dealers find themselves over
stocked, their shelves laden with unsaleable goods. These
fade, and spoil, and rust away—so much good material
wasted, so much human labor spent for nought, monu
ments of a senseless system, of the barbarous, uncalcu
lating blindness of our productive force.
More heavily yet than on the capitalist does competition
press on the distributor. A dozen traders compete for the
custom which one could satisfactorily supply. The com
petition for shops in a thickly populated neighborhood
drives up the rent, and so adds to the retailer’s burden. He
is compelled to spend large sums in advertising, striving
by brilliancy of color or eccentricity of design to impress
himself on the public mind. An army of commercial
travellers sweeps over the country, each man with his
hand against his neighbor in the same trade, pushing,
haggling, puffing his own, depreciating his rival’s wares.
These agents push their goods on the retailer, often when
no real demand for them is coming from the public, and
then the retailer puffs them, to create a demand on his
supply. Nor must we omit from notice the enormous
waste of productive energy in this army of canvassers,
advertisers, bill-posters, multiplied middlemen of every
kind. The distributive work done by these is absurdly out
�:26
MODERN SOCIALISM.
of proportion to their number. We see several carriers’
carts half-filled, instead of half the number filled; each
carrier has to deliver goods over the whole of a wide area,
so that a man may have to drive five miles to deliver a
single parcel at a house a stone’s throw from a rival office.
Yet each man must receive his full day’s wage, and must
be paid for the hours he is compelled to waste, as well
as for those he spends in useful work. It is the ■ same
thing in every business. Three or four carts of each
trade daily down each road, covering the same ground,
supplying each one house here and one there, losing time,
wearing out horses and traps, a foolish shameful waste.
And all these unnecessary distributors are consumers when
they might be producers, and are actually making unneces
sary work for others as well as for themselves.
Short-sighted people ask: Would you add all these to
the crowds of half-starving unemployed now competing
for work? No, we answer. We would not add them to
the ^employed; it is only in a system of complete com
petitive anarchy that there could be unemployed labor on
the one hand, and people clamoring for the necessaries
of life on the other. We have already seen that under
the present system men are only employed where some
profit can be made out of them by the person who hires
them. Under a saner system there would be none unem
ployed while the food and clothing supply was insufficient,
and the turning of non-productive consumers into produc
tive ones would only mean shorter hours of labor, since
the labor necessary to supply the consumption of the
population would be divided among a larger number than
before. If wealth be the result of labor applied to raw
material, poverty may come from the pressure of popula
tion on the raw material which limits the means of sub
sistence, but never from the greater part of the population
working to produce wealth on raw material sufficient for
their support.
On the consumer falls much of the needless additional
expense of advertisements, canvassers, and the rest. The
flaming advertisements we see on the walls we pay for in
the price of the puffed articles we buy. The trader feels
their burden, and tries to recoup himself by adding u
fraction of it to the price of the goods he sells. If he is
forced to lower his nominal prices in consequence of the
�MODERN SOCIADISM.
27
pressure of competition with his rivals, yet by adulteration
he can really raise, while he seems to lower, them. The
nominal width of fabrics does not correspond with the
real; woollen goods are sold of which the warp is cotton ;
tobacco is sold damped unfairly to increase its weight;
sand is mixed with sugar; lard or dripping with butter ;
chicory with coffee; sloe-leaves with tea; turnip with
orange in marmalade ; foreign meat is offered as home
grown ; damaged flesh is chopped up for sausages; until,
at last, as Moffat caustically remarks: “It is not rogues
and vagabonds alone who have recourse in trade to ex
pedients which could not be justified by a strict theoretical
morality. When this incline is entered upon, there is no
resting upon it. Morality itself becomes subject to com
petition ; and the conventional standard of trade morality
gets lower and lower, until the things done by respectable
people can hardly be distinguished from those done by
people who are not respectable, except by the respectability
of the people who do them” (p. 154). And in all this
adulteration the consumer suffers in health, comfort, and
temper. Not only does he pay more than he should for
what he buys, but he buys a good deal more than he
pays for.
Heaviest of all is the burden on the operative classes,
and they suffer in a double character, both as consumers
and producers. As consumers, they share the general in
jury ; as producers, their case is yet more serious. If they
are in work, their wages are driven down by the competi
tion for employment; they are the first to feel a lessening
demand in lengthened hours, in lower wage; as the de
pression goes on, they are thrown out of work; illness not
■only incapacitates them for the time, but their place is filled
up, while they lie helpless, by the eager waiters for hire ;
when they combine to strike for fairer treatment, the fringe
of unemployed labor around is used against them by the
employers ; the lowest depth is reached by the crowd who
at the dockyard gates at the East of London literally fight
for a place in which the foreman’s eye may fall on them,
and out of the struggling hundreds units are taken on for
the day at miserable wage for heavy exhausting work, to
be turned out at night to undergo a similar struggle next
morning.
The only classes who gain by competition are the big
�28
MODERN SOCIALISM.
capitalists and the landlords. The big capitalists engaged
in manufacture gain by the crushing out of their smaller
rivals, and by their ability to hold over stocks produced
when wages are low until prices are high. Capitalists
who only lend out money on usury, and live on the interest
thereby obtained, flourish when the demand for money is
brisk. Most of all do landlords, who live on rent, profit
by the struggle. In a growing neighborhood rents of
commercial premises rise rapidly, and the shopkeeper finds
himself heavily taxed by the landlord, who imposes on him
practically a graduated income-tax for his own advantage.
Thus the chief gainers by competition are the idlers who
are permitted to hold the nation’s soil, and who live in
luxury on the toilers, laughing to see how the fratricidal
struggles of those who labor turn to the advantage of
those who lounge. And so the strain of living constantly
increases for the one class, while the luxury and ostenta
tion of those who levy tax on toil become ever greater,
and more aggressive by the contrast.
II. The Remedy.—These evils can be radically cured
only in one way; it is by the substitution of co-operation
for competition, of organisation for anarchy in industry.
The relation of employer and employed must disappear,
and a brotherhood of workers, associated for facilitation
of production for use, must replace the band of servants
toiling for the enrichment of a master by profit. The full
details of socialised industry cannot be drawn at length ;
but it is not difficult to see that the already existent co
operative societies offer a suggestive model, and the trades
unions a sufficiently competent means for change. Pro
bably each industry in each district will organise itself,
and own, for use, all its means of production; thus the
miners of Durham, for instance, organised in their lodges,
with their central executive, would form the mining trade
society of that district; all the mines of that district
would be under their control, and they would elect their
officers of all grades. So with all mining districts through
out the land. These separate trade societies would be
federated, and a General Board elected by all. The
elements of such a self-organised industry exist at the
present time, and the more closely the miners can band
themselves into district unions, and the unions into a
national federation, the more prepared will they be to play
�.MODERN SOCIALISM.
29
their part in the great industrial revolution. It is probable
that something of the nature of the royalties now paid to
the individual mine-owners will be paid into the National
Exchequer, in exchange for the right to work the national
soil. A similar organisation would be needed for each
productive industry, and probably representatives of each
separate industry would form a central Industrial Board.
But, I repeat, these details cannot now be laid down autho
ritatively, any more than the details of the present in
dustrial competitive system could have been laid down
before the Industrial Period. On these details Socialists
would inevitably differ considerably at the present time,
and no special scheme can be fairly stamped as “ Socialist ”
to the exclusion of the rest. But on this main principle all
Socialists are agreed; that the only rightful holders of
capital are industrial groups, or one great industrial group
—the State, i.e., the organised community; that while
individuals may hold private property for use, none should
hold capital—that is wealth employed in production—for
individual profit; that while each may have property to
consume and to enjoy, none should be allowed to use
property to enslave his neighbor, to force another to work
for his advantage.
The revolution in distribution will be as great as that
in production, and here again co-operation must take the
place of competition. We already see the beginnings of a
distributive change in the establishment of huge stores for
the supply of all the necessaries of life, and the way in
which these are crushing out the smaller retail shops.
Housewives find it more convenient to go to the single
building, than to trudge wearily from shop to shop. Goods
bought in very large quantities can be sold more cheaply
than if bought in small, and economy, as well as con
venience, attract the purchaser to the store. At present
these stores are founded by capitalists and compete for
custom, but they are forerunners of a rational distributive
system. The very enmity they create in the minds of the
small traders they ruin is paving the way for the com
munity to take them over for the general advantage.
Under Socialism all goods manufactured by the producers
would be distributed to the central store of each district;
from this central store they would be distributed to the
retail stores. Anyone who thinks such distribution im-
�30
MODERN SOCIALISM.
possible had better study the postal system now existing ;
we do not have post-offices jostling each other as dobaker’s and butcher’s shops: there are sufficient of them
for the requirements of the district, and no more. The
letters for a town are delivered at the General Post Office;
they are sorted out and delivered at the subordinate offices ;
the distribution of the correspondence of millions is carried
on by a Government Department, quietly, effectively,
without waste of labor, with celerity and economy. But
then in -the Post Office co-operation has replaced com
petition, organisation has replaced anarchy. Such a system,
one hundred years ago, would have been pronounced
impossible, as the Conservative minds of to-day pronounce
impossible its extension to anything except letters and
telegrams and parcels. I look for the time when the
success of the Post Office will be repeated—and improved
—in every department of distribution.
Capital.
We have already seen that Capital is accumulated by
withholding from the producer a large part of the value he
produces, and we have now to look more closely into the
growth of Capital and the uses to which it is put. A
glance over the historical Past, as well as the study of
the Present, inform us that Capital has always been—as
indeed it always must be—obtained from unpaid labor, or,
if the phrase be preferred, by the partial confiscation of
the results of labor. In communities the economic basis of
which was slave-labor, this fact was obvious; the owner
confiscated the whole products of his slaves’ toil, and he
became a capitalist by this process of continued confiscation ;
while the slave, fed, clothed, and housed out of the fruit
of his own labor by his master, never owned anything as of
right, nor had any property in that which he created. As
civilisation advanced, serf-labor replaced slave-labor; here
also the confiscation of the results of labor was obvious.
The serf was bound to give so many days of work to his
lord without payment; this service rendered, the remainder
of his time was his own, to produce for his own subsist
ence ; but the lord’s capital increased by the confiscation
of the results of the serf’s labor during the days whereon
he worked for his lord. In modern times “free labor”
has replaced serf-labor, but in the present industrial system,
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
31
as truly as in slave and in serf communities, Capital resultsfrom unpaid labor, though now from the unpaid labor of
the wage-earner. We may search the whole world over,
and we shall find no source of wealth save labor applied
to natural agents. Wealth is never rained down from
heaven, nor is it ever a spontaneous growth; unless indeed
wild fruits taken for food be counted wealth, and even to
these must human labor be applied in the form of picking
ere they can be used. It is the result of huipan labor;
and if one man has more than he has produced, it neces
sarily follows that another man has less than he has pro
duced. The gain of one must be the loss of another. There
are but sixteen court cards in the fifty-two, and if by in
genious shuffling, packing, and dealing, all the court cards
fall to one player, only the lower cards can remain for the
others.
Separating “Capital” from “Wealth” we may conve
niently define it as “wealth devoted to purposes of profit”,
and as “wealth is the result of labor applied to raw ma
terial”, Capital becomes the result of labor devoted to
purposes of profit. John Stuart Mill says the “ accumu
lated stock of the produce of labor is termed Capital ”.
Macleod: “ Capital is any Economic Quantity used for the
purpose of Profit ”. Senior: “Economists are agreed that
whatever gives a profit is properly called Capital ”. Some
thing more, however, than the activity of labor is implied
in the existence of Capital. There must have been saving,
as well as production. Hence Marshall speaks of Capital
as “the result of labor and abstinence”; Mill of Capital
as “ the result of saving ” ; and so on. It is obvious that
if the products of labor were consumed as fast as they
were made, Capital could not exist. We have, therefore,
reached this certainty when we contemplate Capital; some
one has worked, and has not consumed all that he has
produced.
Under these circumstances, we should expect to find
Capital in the hands of industrious and abstinent pro
ducers. But as Mill very justly points out: “In a rude
and violent state of society it continually happens that the
person who has Capital is not the very person who has
saved it, but some one who, being stronger, or belonging
to a more powerful community, has possessed himself of
it by plunder. And even in a state of things in which
�32
MODERN SOCIALISM.
property was protected, the increase of Capital has usually
been, for a long time, mainly derived from privations
which, though essentially the same with saving, are not
generally called by that name, because not voluntary. The
actual producers have been slaves, compelled to produce
as much as force could extort from them, and to consume
as little as the self-interest or the usually very slender
humanity of their task-masters would permit.” How
many of our great capitalists have produced and saved
until they accumulated the fortunes they possess ? These
fortunes are greater than any human being could save
out of his makings, even if he lived most abstemiously,
instead of with the luxury and ostentation of a Rothschild
or a Vanderbilt. But if they have not made and saved,
how come they to possess ? Mill gives the answer, though
he did not mean it to be applied to modern industrialism.
“Ina rude and violent state of society ” Capital is not in
the hands of the producer and saver, but in the hands of
those who possess themselves “of it by plunder”—legal
ised plunder, in our modern days. The “saving” is not
voluntary; it is “derived from privations ” ; the “actual
producers ” are wage-earners, who are “ compelled to pro
duce as much as” pressure can extort from them, and to
“consume as little” in the form of wage as they can be
beaten down to by the competition of the labor-market.
These men “ have labored, and” others “have entered into
their labors ”.
A very brief comparison of those who produce and save,
and those who possess themselves of the results of labor
and abstinence, will suffice to show the inequality which
characterises the present system. The worker lives hardly
and dies poor, bequeathing to his children the same neces
sity of toil: I do not forget that the more fortunate workers
have shares in Building Societies, a few pounds in the
Savings Bank, and even an interest in a Burial Club, so
that the parish may not have the expense of burying them ;
but I say that these poor successes—vast indeed in the
aggregate, but paltry when the share of the individual is
looked at—bear no kind of reasonable proportion to the
wealth created by the worker during his life-time. On
the other hand the capitalist either starts with inherited
wealth, grows richer, and bequeaths the increased wealth
to his children; or he begins poor, saves a little, then
�33
MODERN SOCIALISM.
makes others work for him, grows rich, and bequeaths his
wealth. In the second generation, the capitalist can simply
invest his wealth and live on the interest; and since all in
terest must be paid out of the results of labor, the workers
not only lose a large proportion of their produce, but this
very confiscated produce is made into a future burden for
them, and while the fathers build up the capitalist, the
children must toil to maintain his children in idleness.
Capital may also be accumulated by the ownership of raw
material, since no wealth can be produced until labor can
get at this. The question of rent will be considered under
the head of Land; here we are only concerned with the
fact that wealth appropriated in this way is investible, and
on this also interest can be obtained.
Now the enormous burden placed on labor by the invest
ment of money at interest, is not appreciated as it ought
to be. The interest on the National Debt, including terminable annuities, amounted in 1884-5 to £28,883,672 12s.;
how much is paid in dividends on railway, tram-car, and
companies’ shares, it would be difficult to discover. Mr.
Giffen, in his “ Progress of the Working Classes ”, esti
mates that the capitalist classes receive from capital—ex
cluding “wages of superintendence” and salaries—some
£400,000,000 a year. In 1881, the income-tax returns
quoted by Mr. Giffen show that the income from capital
was no less than £407,000,000, and in estimating those in.
Schedules B and D (Part I.) Mr. Giffen certainly takes care
to make the gains on “idle capital” as small as he can.
Mr. Giffen takes the aggregate income of the whole nation
at about £1,200,000,000, so that according to his own
figures Capital takes more than a third part of the national
income. I should be prepared to contend that the burden
on the producers is heavier than he makes out, but even
taking his own calculations the result is bad enough. For
all this money which goes to capitalists is money not earned
by the receivers—mark that all which is in any sense
earned, as wages of superintendence, etc., is excluded—and
by . all this is lessened the share of the produce of labor
which goes to labor.
We have already dealt with the way in which the worker
suffers injustice when capital is invested in machinery
owned by private individuals; we have now to consider
the portion of it used as loans, cases in which the capitalist
D
�34
MODERN SOCIALISM.
takes no part in the management of any industrial con
cern, but merely lends his money at usury, living on the
interest he receives. There is so much confusion of thought
on this subject, so much idea that a man has “a right”
to invest money at interest, that it is necessary to try to
get at the “bed-rock” of the question. Take the case of
a man who earns 30s. in a week; suppose he spends 20s.
and saves 10s. For the 20s. he spends he receives their
equivalent in commodities, and these he consumes; he has
had his “money’s worth”, and he is content, and if he
requires more commodities he knows he must labor again
to earn their equivalent in money. The 10s. he has saved,
however, are to have a different fate; they represent, also,
so much possibility of possession of their equivalent in
commodities which he could consume; but he desires to
defer this consumption to a future day, to defer it, perhaps,
until he is too old to give labor in exchange for his needs.
One might suppose that the equivalent of commodities for
the 10s. would be as satisfactory as the equivalent of com
modities for the 20s. But it is not so. He desires to in
vest his 10s. at interest; let us suppose he invests it at 5
per cent.; at the end of twenty years he will have received
back his 10s. by instalments of 6d. a year, and will have
exchanged it for 10s. worth of commodities; yet at the end
of the twenty years he expects to receive back in addition
his full 10s.; to have spent it all, and yet to find it un
diminished ; so that for his 10s. saved he expects to receive
20s. worth of commodities in twenty years, to have his
labor paid for twice over. In the case of money only is it
possible to eat your cake and have it, and after you have
eaten it to pass it on as large as ever to your descendants,
so that they may eat it and yet find it, like the widow’s
cruse, ever miraculously renewed.
Those who defend usury do so generally on its supposed
collateral advantages, rather than on its central theory. It
is argued that “ if a man gets no interest on his savings, he
has no incitement to work ”. To this it may be answered: (a)
That there is clearly no incitement to work on the part of
those who live on interest, since their money comes tumbling
in whether they work or idle ; it is the labor of others on
which the interest-receiver lives. (J) That the incitement
to work would be greater if the reward of work were not
diminished by the imposition on it of a tax for the benefit
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
35
of the idle ; surely the abstraction of £400,000,000 annually
for interest can hardly act as an incitement to those whose
Habor returns are diminished to that extent. (<?) That the
real incitement to work is the desire to possess the result
of labor, and that the more completely that desire is satis
fied the greater will the incitement become. Would the
incitement to tramcar employees be lessened, if the necessity
of paying 10 per cent, on shareholders’ capital no longer
kept down their wages ? But, in truth, this argument as
to incitement to workers is either ignorant, or disingenuous.
'The mainspring of the worker’s toil is, as a matter of fact,
•compulsion, not the incitement of hope of reward. Had
he control over the product of his own labor, then thp
desire to obtain more might incite him to work harder, as,
indeed, has been found to be the case with piece-work, and
in co-operative undertakings: with his fixed wage it is to
him a matter of indifference how much or how little he
produces. The desire for interest is an incitement to the
capitalist to press his wage-toilers to work harder, so that
■after he has satisfied his own power of consumption he
may lay by all the surplus value he can squeeze out of
them, and increase the capital he has out at interest. The
higher the interest obtainable, the greater the compulsion
to work put upon the producers. But this compulsion is
■clearly an evil, not a good, and in the case of the tramcar
employees just cited, it is compulsion which forces them to
accept the long hours of labor, and the compulsion is exer
cised in order to obtain interest for the shareholders.
11 The incitement to thrift will disappear.” But (a) the
interest obtainable by “thrift” is too small to serve as an
incitement, for the savings of the industrious poor are not
sufficient to give interest enough to subsiston. The Savings
Banks are resorted to as a convenient place wherein to put
money saved for future use; it is the safe keeping of the
money “for a rainy day ”, not the trifling interest, which is
the attraction to the anxious poor. The small amount per
mitted to an individual and the low interest are sufficient
proofs of this assertion; no one must put in more than £30
in a year, the interest is only 2-| per cent., and this is not
paid yearly, but is added to the principal. And this future
necessity is the real incitement to thrift. A man earns, say,
sufficient this week to support himself for a fortnight;
having satisfied his needs, he does not want to satisfy them
d 2
�36
MODERN SOCIALISM.
twice over ; he knows that some years hence his power of
work will have disappeared, while his necessity of consump
tion will remain, and he defers his consumption of half theresults of his labor till that time. Why should he look
for added power of consumption as a reward for deferring
his consumption for his own convenience? Without in
terest, thoughtful people would save, for the sake of com
fort in their old age. It may however be conceded that
the incitement to annex the results of the thrift of others—the only way in which big fortunes can be made—will
disappear with the disappearance of interest, and the pos
sibility of living idly by taxing the labor of others.
• “ It will not be possible to get money for railroads, tramcars,
etc., if interest on share capital disappearsi But the indes
tructible reason for making railroads, tramways, etc., is theneed for the conveniences they afford. And Socialism
would place the making and carrying on of all means of
transit in the hands of local bodies, municipalities, and soforth, who would raise the requisite funds from the com
munity which is to enjoy the increased facilities. Thesefunds would be used in remuneration of the labor expended
on them, and none would have a right to levy a perpetual
tax on the public on the pretence of having lent the
money originally employed in the construction. Now a
man claims the right to tax all future labors and all future
consumers for the benefit of his posterity, as a reward
for having worked and saved, or mostly as a reward for
having transferred into his own pockets the results of his
neighbor’s toil. It is time that the immorality of this claim
should be pointed out, and that people should be told that
while they may rightly save and live on their savings,
they ought not to use their savings for the enslavement
and the taxing of other people. An effective step towards
the abolition of interest might be taken by the closing of
the sources of idle investment, the taking over by local
bodies of the local means of transit, the gas and water
supply, etc., while the central authority takes over the
railways. The question of compensation would be solved
with the least amount of injustice to exploiters and ex
ploited by paying over a yearly dividend to shareholders
until the dividends amounted to a sum equal to the nominal
value of the shares held; thus a £100 share would be
extinguished by the payment of a sum of £ 10 annually for
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
37
ten years, leaving the shareholder richer than he was
originally by all the interest received during the past, but
terminating his right to tax within a brief period.
There is, however, one argument in favor of interest
which brings conviction to many minds; an individual
wants to perform a piece of productive work, but has no
•capital and is unable to do it; he borrows the capital and
performs the work; since the man who lent the capital has
facilitated the doing of the work, ought he not to share
in the product, which would have had no existence but for
his capital ? Now it might be answered to this that if his
capital is returned to him in full he has lost nothing by
the transaction, but has, on the contrary, gained the ad
vantage of having his money taken care of without trouble
to himself, and returned to him uninjured at the time that
he requires it. But the real answer is that interest is in
evitable so long as Capital remains in private hands, so
long as individuals are permitted to annex the results of
the unpaid labor of others, and so manufacture a lien on
all future industry. Interest will only be abolished when
the results of the past unpaid labor of many are held by
the many to facilitate the future labor of many. Now,
industry can only be carried on with the permission and
the assistance of those whose stores of wealth have been
piled up for them by thousands of patient toilers; and that
permission and assistance can only be gained by taxing
labor for the enrichment of the lender. In the future those
vast stores will be used to carry on production, and while
labor will constantly replace the capital it uses in produc
tion, it will not also be taxed for the benefit of individuals.
Interest and private property in the means of production
must stand and fall together. At the present time no law
against usury could be passed, and even were the passing
of such a law possible it would be a dead letter, so
thoroughly is the present system built on the paying of
interest. All Socialists can do for the moment is to expose
the fundamental dishonesty and injustice of usury, and so
pave the way for a better state of things.
Apart from the abuse of Capital here indicated Capital
has a function which, of course, no Socialist ignores. Capital
is necessary for all forms of industry, and its function is:
to save labor, as by machinery; to facilitate it, by the in
troduction of improvements therein ; to support it while it
�38
MODERN SOCIALISM.
is employed in production, and until its products are ex
changed. The true use of the savings of past labor is ta
lighten future labor, to fertilise production. But in order
that it may be thus used, it must be in the hands of the
community instead of in the hands of individuals. Beingas it is, and must be, the result of unpaid labor, it should
pass to the community to be used for the common good,
instead of to individuals to enrich them to the common
loss.
Land.
It is hardly necessary to argue, at this time of day, that
Land, i.e., natural agents, ought not to be the private pro
perty of individuals. No absolute property in land is in
deed recognised by the laws of this realm, but the proposi
tion that land ought not to be private property goes, of
course, much further than this legal doctrine. It declares
that the soil on whieh a nation lives ought to belong tothe nation; that those who cultivate it, or who mine in it,
and who for practical purposes must have for the time the
exclusive usufruct of portions of it, should pay into the
national exchequer a duly-assessed sum, thus rendering an
equivalent for the privilege they enjoy, and making the
whole community sharers in the benefits derived from
natural agents.
The present system of permitting private ownership of
land has led to three great and increasing evils ; the esta
blishment of an idle class, which grows richer by increas
ingly taxing the industrious; the divorce of the really
agricultural class from the soil; the exodus from the country
districts into the towns.
Private ownership of natural agents must inevitably re
sult in the first of these three evils. These natural agents
are the basis of wealth; the very subsistence of the nation
depends on their utilisation; yet a comparatively small class
is permitted to claim them as private property, and to appro
priate the rent to its private use. Hence, one of the first
charges on the results of labor is rent, and rent, be it
noted, not to the community, but to an individual who has
acquired the legal right to stand between labor and land.
Now just as wage is determined practically by the standard
of living, so is rent determined by the same thing. The
landlord exacts as rent the value of the produce minus the
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
39
subsistence of the tenant, and in many cases, if the farmer’s
receipts sink and there is no corresponding lowering of
rent, the farmer cannot even subsist, and becomes bank
rupt. Hence, if a farmer improves the land and so obtains
from it larger returns, the landlord steps in and raises his
rent, claiming ever as his, produce minus subsistence, and
confiscating for his own advantage the results of the labor
and invested capital of the farmer. Thus also with the
spread of commercial prosperity comes a rise in the tax
levied by the landlords; as towns grow larger the land
around them becomes more valuable, and thus the Stanleys
grow wealthy by the growth of Liverpool, and the Gros
venors and Russells by that of London : competition drives
up rents, and landlords may live in Italy or Turkey, and
become ever wealthier by the growth of English trade, and
the toil of English laborers. Moffat points out (“ Economy
of Consumption,” p. 142) that part of the retailer’s profit,
and possibly the larger part of it “ is purely local, and
which he could not carry away with him. It distinguishes
the site of his business, and resolves itself into rent. If
the retailer owns his own premises, he may be content with
this part of his profits, and handing the business to another
become a landlord. If they are owned by another, the owner,
unless the retailer is able to find other suitable premises
within a moderate distance, will be able to levy all the
extra profit from him in the shape of rent. Hence the
rapid rise of rents in the central localities of large towns.”
Socialists are accused of desiring to confiscate property but
the regular and uncensured confiscation of the property of
busy people by idlers, the bloodsucking of the landlord
leeches, pass unnoticed year by year, and Society honors
the confiscators. The expropriation of small cultivators
has been going on for the last 400 years, partly by big
landlords buying up small ones, and partly by their thefts
of common land. The story of Naboth’s vineyard has been
repeated in hundreds of country districts. The exorbitant
rents demanded by landlords, with the pressure of Ameri
can competition aided by capitalists on this side, have
ruined the farming class, while the absorption of small
holdings has turned into day-laborers at miserable wage
the class that formerly were independent tillers of the soil.
Attracted by the higher wage ruling in manufacturing
towns this dislanded class has flocked into them, has
�40
MODERN SOCIALISM.
crowded into unsuitable houses, increased the slums of our
great cities, and, under most unwholesome conditions has
multiplied with terrible rapidity. This exodus has been
further quickened by the letting of formerly arable land
for sheep-pasture, and the consequent forced migration of
the no longer needed tillers. And thus have come about
the under-population of the agricultural districts, and the
over-crowding of cities : too few engaged in agricultural,
and too many competing for industrial, employment; until
we find our own land undercultivated, and even in some
districts going out of cultivation, while food is being im
ported to an alarming extent, and the unemployed are
becoming a menace to public tranquillity. The effect on
England of revolution abroad is apt to be overlooked in
studying our own labor difficulties. A considerable portion
of our imports represents rent and interest from estates
abroad and foreign investments. This portion would sud
denly stop as regards any country in which a revolution
occurred, and foreign workmen were, in consequence, no
longer subjected to exploitation for the benefit of English
capitalists. Now this likelihood of foreign revolution is
yearly increasing, and Europe is becoming more and more
like a boiler with armed forces sitting on the safety valve.
The first attempt to move in the right direction is the
Land Cultivation Bill introduced into the House of Com
mons by Charles Bradlaugh. This proposes to expropriate
landlords who hold cultivable land waste; to give them,
as compensation, payment for twenty-five years equal in
amount to the annual value of the produce obtained from
the confiscated land—so that if there is no produce there
will be no payment; to vest the land in the State, and to
let it, not sell it, to cultivators. Thus, if the Bill passed,
a large area of land would be nationalised early in next
year. Such an Act, followed up by others taking over all
land let on building leases as they run out—probably pay
ing to the present landlords, for life, the original ground
rents ; making the Land Tax an adequate rent paid to the
State; taking back without compensation all common lands
that have been stolen; breaking up the big estates by crush
ing taxation; steps like these, if taken with sufficient
rapidity, may effect a complete Land Revolution without
violence, and establish Socialism so far as the ownership of
natural agents is concerned.
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
41
It is of vital importance to progress in a Socialist direc
tion that an uncompromising resistance should be offered
to all schemes for the creation of new proprietors of the
soil. Peasant cultivators, paying rent to the State, are
good. Peasant proprietors are a mere bulwark, raised by
landlords to guard their own big estates, and will delay the
realisation of the true theory that the State should be the
only landowner. It is also important that Socialists should
popularise the idea of communal, or co-operative, farming.
There can be no doubt that cereal crops can be raised most
economically on large holdings, and such holdings should
be rented from the body or bodies representing the com
munity by groups of cultivators, so that both large and
small farms should be found in agricultural districts. But
it must be distinctly stated that the Socialisation of Land
without the Socialisation of Capital will not solve the social
problem. No replanting of the people in the soil, no im
proved balance of agricultural and industrial production,
will by themselves free the wage-slaves of our towns.
Means of production, as well as natural agents, must come
under the control of the community, before the triumph of
Socialism can be complete. The tendency of Radicals to
aim only at the nationalisation of land has an effect, how
ever, which will ultimately prove of service. It irritates
the landlord class, and the landlords devote themselves to
proving that there is no essential difference between pro
perty in Land and property in Capital. Just as they helped
to pass the Factory Acts to restrain capitalists as a retort
for the capitalist agitation against the Corn Laws, so they
will be likely to help in nationalising Capital in revenge
for the nationalisation of Land.
Education.
For the successful maintenance of a Socialist State a wide
and thorough system of national education is an absolute
necessity. A governed people may afford to be ignorant;
a self-ruling community must be instructed, or it must
perish. And the education contemplated by Socialism is
a very different thing from the paltry modicum of know
ledge deemed sufficient for the “masses” to-day. Under
our present system education is a matter of class, and it
is a misnomer to call it “national” ; it is partly supported
by the parents of the children who attend the Board
�42
MODERN SOCIALISM.
Schools, and partly by the rates and taxes; it is limited to
the mere elements of learning; the one object of the
teachers is to cram the children so that they may pass
stated examinations, and thus obtain a Government grant
per head. Under Socialism the whole system will be
revolutionised, as the one aim then will be to educate in
such a way as will ensure the greatest possible healthy
development of the young, with a view to their future
position as members of a free community.
The foundations of complete social equality will be laid
in the school. All the children will be educated in the
communal schools, the only distinction being that of age.
Boys and girls will not be separated as they are now,
but a common education will prepare for common work.
Every child will be led through a course, which will em
brace a thorough training in the elements of the various
sciences, so that in after life he may feel an intelligent
interest in each, and if his taste so lead him acquire later
a fuller knowledge of any special branches. He—and
“ he ” here includes “ she ”—will be instructed also in the
elements of art, so that the sense of beauty may be
developed and educated, and the refining influence of
instructed taste may enrich both mind and. manners. .A
knowledge of history, of literature, and of languages will
widen sympathy and destroy narrowness and national
prejudices. Nor will physical training be forgotten;
gymnastics, dancing, riding, athletic games, will educate
the senses and the limbs, and give vigor, quickness,
dexterity, and robustness to the frame. To this will be
superadded technical training, for these educated, cultured,
graceful lads and lasses are to be workers, every one of
them. The foundations of this technical training will be
the same for all; all will learn to cook and scrub, to dig
and sew, and to render quick assistance in accidents; it
is probable also that the light portions of household
duties will form part of the training of every child. But
as the child grows into the youth, natural capacities will
suggest the special training which should be given, so. as
to secure for the community the full advantages which
might accrue from the varied abilities of its members. No
genius then will be dwarfed by early neglect, no rare
ability then perish for lack of culture. Individuality will
then at last find full expression, and none will need to
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
43-
trample on his brother in order to secure full scope for
his own development. It is probable that each will learn
more than a single trade—an easy task when brain acute
ness and manual dexterity have been cultured—so as topromote adaptability in the future industrial life.
Now to many, I fear to most, of my readers, this sketch
of what education will be in a Socialist community will
appear a mere Utopian dream. Yet is it not worth while
for such to ask themselves: Why should not such an
education be the natural lot of every child in a wellordered community ? Is there anything in it superfluous
for the thorough development of the faculties of a human
being? And if it be admitted that boys and girls thuseducated would form nobler, completer, more many-sided
human beings than are the men and women of to-day,
is it not a rational thing to set up as an object to beworked for the realisation of an idea which would proveof incalculable benefit to the community ?
It is hardly necessary to add that education, in a Socialist
State, would be “free ”—i.e., supported at the public cost,
and compulsory. Free, because the education of the young
is of vital importance to the community; because classdistinctions can only be effaced by the training of children
in common schools; because education is too important a
matter to be left to the whims of individuals, and if it be
removed from the parent’s direction and supervision it is
not just to compel him to pay for it. Compulsory, because
the State cannot afford to leave its future citizens ignorant
and helpless, and it is bound to protect its weak members
against injustice and neglect.
Two objections are likely to be raised: the question of
cost, and the question of unfitting persons for “the dirty
work of the world, which someone must do ”.
As to cost. It must not be forgotten that this education
is proposed for a Socialist community. In such a Statethere would be no idle adult class to be supported, but
all would be workers, so that the wealth, produced would
be much greater than at the present time. Now according
to the figures of anti-Socialist Mr. Giffen, the aggregate
income of the people is at present about £1,200,000,000 ;
of this the workers are assigned by him £620,000,000;
deduct another £100,000,000 for return from investments
abroad; this leaves £480,000,000 absorbed by the non
�44
MODERN SOCIALISM.
producing class. (It must be remembered, further, that a
large number of the “workers” are unnecessary distribu
tors, whose powers could be utilised to much better purpose
than is done to-day.) The wealth producers have to bear
the Church on their shoulders, and provide it with an
income variously stated at from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000
a year. They have to bear the “landed interest”, with
its appropriation in rents, royalties, etc., of something like
£200,000,000. They have to bear the ultimate weight of im
perial and local taxation, estimated at about £120,000,000
for the present year. All these charges, by whomsoever
nominally paid, have to come out of the wealth produced
by the workers. Is it then to be pretended that when the
idle class has disappeared there will not be wealth enough
produced for the education of the children, or that their
■education will be as heavy a burden as the drones are to
day ? Nor must it be forgotten that there are millions of
acres of land that would produce wealth if labor were sent
to them, and that plenty of our idlers will there find produc
tive work which will enormously increase the national wealth.
Nor also that the waste which results from luxurious idle
living will be of the past, and that a simpler, manlier rate
of expenditure will have replaced the gluttony and intem
perance now prevalent in the “ higher circles of society ”.
But it will indeed be of vital importance that the propor
tion of workers to non-workers shall be considered, and
that there shall not be in a Socialist community the over
large families which are a characteristic of the present
system. Families of ten or a dozen children belong to
the capitalist system, which requires for its success a
numerous and struggling proletariat, propagating with
extreme rapidity, so as to keep up a plentiful supply of
men, women, and children for the labor-market, as well
as a supply of men for the army to be food for cannon,
and women for the streets to be food for lust. Under a
Socialist regime, the community will have something to
■say as to the numbers of the new members that are to
be introduced into it, and for many years supported by it;
and it will prefer a reasonable number of healthy, welleducated children, to a yearly huge increase which would
overburden its industry.
As to unfitting persons for work. So long as manual work
is regarded as degrading, education, by increasing sensi
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
45
tiveness to public opinion, tends to make people shrink
from it, at least if their sensitiveness is greater than their
intelligence. But even now an educated person of strong
will and clear judgment, who knows that all useful work
is worthy of respect, finds that his education fits him to
perform work more quickly and more intelligently than is
possible to an ignorant person ; and respecting himself in
its thorough accomplishment he is conscious of no degra
dation. Weak persons, compelled to labor for their bread,
and aware that manual work is considered to place the
worker in a subordinate social class, feel ashamed of the
inferior position assigned to them by public opinion; and
knowing by experience that they will be snubbed if they
treat their “ superiors” as equals, they live down to their
social rank, and long to raise their children into a class
above their own. One consequence of the absurd artificial
disadvantage attached to manual work, is that the children
of the more successful workers crowd the inferior profes
sional occupations, and a man prefers to be a clerk or a
curate on £90 a year to being an artisan on £150. But in
the Socialist State only idleness will be despised, and all
useful work will be honored. There is nothing more
intrinsically degrading in driving a plough than in driving
a pen, although the ploughman is now relegated to the
kitchen while the clerk is received in the drawing-room.
The distinction is primarily a purely artificial one, but it is
made real by educating the one tvpe while the other is left
ignorant, and by teaching the one to look on his work as
work “fit for a gentleman”, while the other is taught that
his work is held in low social esteem. Each reflects the
surrounding public opinion, and accepts the position
assigned by it. In Socialism, both will be educated
together as children; both will be taught to look on. all
work as equally honorable, if useful to the community;
both will be cultured “ gentlemen ”, following each his
natural bent; the ploughman will be as used to his pen
as the clerk; the clerk as ready to do heavy work as the
ploughman; and as public opinion will regard them as
equals and will hold them in equal honor, neither will feel
any sense of superiority or inferiority, but they will meet
on common ground as men, as members of a social unity.
As to the physically unpleasant work—such as dealing
with sewers, dung-heaps, etc.—much of that will probably
�46
MODERN SOCIALISM.
be done by machinery, when there is no helpless class on
whose shoulders it may be bound. Such as cannot be
■done by machinery, will probably be divided among a
large number, each taking a small share thereof, and the
amount done by each will thus become so insignificant,
that it will be but slightly felt. In any case the profound
■selfishness, which would put all burden on a helot class,
and rather see it brutalised by the crushing weight than
bear a portion of the load on one of its fingers, must be
taught that Socialism means equality, and that the divine
right of idlers, to live at ease on the labor of others and
to be shielded by the bodies of the poor from all the un
pleasantnesses of the world, is one of the notions against
which Socialism wars, and which must follow the corre
lative superstition of the divine right of kings.
Justice.
The pretence that under the present system there is one
law for rich and poor is so barefaced a piece of impudence,
that it is hardly worth while to refute it. Everyone knows
that a rich man is fined for an offence for which a poor
man is sent to gaol; that no wise man goes to law unless
he has plenty of money ; that in a litigation between a rich
and a poor man, the poor man practically stands no chance,
for even if he at first succeeds the rich man can appeal,
and secure in the power of his money-bags wear out his
poor antagonist by costly delays and by going from court
to court. The poor man cannot fee first-class counsel, seek
out and bring up his witnesses from various parts of the
•country, and keep a stream of money continually running
through his solicitor’s hands. There might be the same
law for him as for the rich man, if he could get it;
but it is far away behind a golden gate, and he lacks the
key which alone will fit the wards of the lock. Yet surely
one of the primary duties of a State is to do justice among
its members, and to prevent the oppression of the weak
by the strong. In a civilised State justice should be dealt
out without fee or reward; if a man gives up his inherent
right to defend himself and to judge in his own quarrel,
he ought not to be placed in a worse position than he would
be in if society did not exist. Lawyers, like judges,
should be officials paid by the State, and should have no
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
47
pecuniary interest in winning the case in which they are
engaged.
The administration of justice in a Socialist State will be
a very much simpler matter than it is now. Most crimes
arise from the desire to become rich, from poverty, and
from ignorance. Under Socialism poverty and ignorance
will have disappeared, and the desire to grow rich will
have no raison d'etre when everyone has sufficient for com
fort, is free from anxiety as to his future, and sees above
him no wealthy idlers whose luxury he desires to ape, and
whose idleness is held up to him as a matter of envy, as
the ideal state for man.
Amusement.
There is a curious inconsistency in the way in which
people deal with the question of amusement at the present
time. We should have an outcry about “pauperisation”
and “ interference with private enterprise ”, if anyone pro
posed that the theatres should be open to the public without
•charge. Yet Hyde Park is kept gorgeous with flowers,
Eotten Eow is carefully attended to, a whole staff of
workers is employed, in order that the wealthy may have
a fashionable and pleasant lounge ; and all this is done at
the national expense, without any expression of fear Jest
the wealthy should be pauperised by this expenditure on
their behalf. Nor is complaint made of the public money
spent on the other parks in London; the most that is
suggested is that the money wanted ought to be taken
from the London rates and not from the national taxes.
No one proposes that the parks should be sold to the
highest bidder, and that private enterprise should be
encouraged by permitting some capitalist to buy them, and
to make a charge at the gate for admission. It is signi
ficant that once anything gets under State control, the
advantages are found to be so great that no one would
■dream of bringing it back under private exploitation. In
some parks a band plays, and people are actually de
moralised by listening to music for which they do not pay
directly. Nay more ; the British Museum, the National
Gallery, the South Kensington Museum, are all open free,
and no one’s dignity is injured. But if the National
Gallery be open free, why not the Eoyal Academy ? If
a band may be listened to in the open air without pay
�48
MODERN SOCIALISM.
ment, why not in a concert room ? And if a concert may
be free, why not a theatre ? Under the present system,
the Royal Academy, the concert, the theatre, are all private
speculations, and the public is exploited for the profit of
the speculators. The National Gallery and the Museums
are national property, and the nation enjoys the use of its
own possessions. In a nation which has gone so far in
the direction of providing intellectual amusement, it cannot
be pretended that any principle is involved in the question
whether or not it shall go further along the same road.
A nation which collects the works of dead painters can
hardly, on principle, refuse to show the works of living
ones; and we Socialists may fairly urge the success of
what has already been done in the way of catering for the
public amusement as a reason for doing more.
As it is, with the exception of a few places, the poor,
whose lives most need the light of amusement and of
beauty, are relegated to the very lowest and coarsest
forms of recreation. Unreal and intensely vulgar pictures
of life are offered them at the theatres which specially
cater for them; they never have the delight of seeing
really graceful dancing, or noble acting, or of hearing
exquisite music. Verily, the amusements of the wealthier
leave much to be desired, and theatre and music-hall alike
pander to a low and vulgar taste instead of educating and
refining it; but still these are better than their analogues
at the East End. Under Socialism, the theatre will be
come a great teacher instead of a catch-penny spectacle ;
and dramatists and actors alike will work for the honor
of a noble art, instead of degrading their talents to catch
the applause of the most numerous class of an uneducated
people. Then an educated public will demand a higher
art, and artists will find it worth while to study when
patient endeavor meets with public recognition, and crude
impertinence suffers its due reproof. Theatres, concerts,
parks, all places of public resort, will be communal pro
perty, open alike to all, and controlled by elected officers.
Conclusion.
It remains, in conclusion, to note the chief objections
raised to Socialism by its opponents. Of these the .most
generally urged are three: that it will check individual
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
49
initiative and energy; that it will destroy individuality;
that it will unduly restrict personal liberty.
That it will check individual initiative and energy. This
objection is founded on the idea that the impulse to initia
tive must always be desire for personal money gain. But
this idea flies directly in the face of facts. Even under the
individualistic system, no great discovery has ever been
made and proclaimed merely from desire for personal
money profit. The genius that invents is moved by an
imperial necessity of its own nature, and wealth usually
falls to the lot of the commonplace man who exploits the
genius, and not to the genius itself. Even talent is moved
more by joy in its own exercise, and in the public approval
it wins, than by mere hope of money gain. Who would
not rather be an Isaac Newton, a Shelley, or a Shakspere,
than a mere Vanderbilt ? And most of all are those of
strong individual initiative moved by desire to serve their
“larger self”, which is Man. The majority of such
choose the unpopular path, and by sheer strength and
service gradually win over the majority. We see men and
women who might have won wealth, position, power, by
using their talents for personal gain in pursuits deemed
honorable, cheerfully throw all aside to proclaim an un
popular truth, and to serve a cause they believe to be
good and useful. And these motives will become far more
powerful under Socialism than they are now. For the
possession of money looms unduly large to-day in conse
quence of the horrible results of the want of it. The
dread of hunger and of charity is the microscope which
magnifies the value of wealth. But once let all men be
secure of the necessaries and comforts of life, and all the
finer motives of action will take their proper place.
Energy will have its full scope under Socialism, and in
deed when the value of a man’s work is secured to him
instead of the half being appropriated by someone else, it
will receive a new impulse. How great will be the in
centive to exertion when the discovery of some new force,
or new"application of a known force, means greater com
fort for the discoverer and for all; none thrown out of
work by it, none injured by it, but so much solid gain
for each. And for the discoverer, as well as the material
gain common to him and his comrades, the thanks and
praise of the community in which he lives. And let not
�50
MODERN SOCIALISM.
the power of public opinion be undervalued as a stimulus
to exertion. What Greek athlete would have sold his
wreath of bay for its weight in gold ? Only one kind of
energy will be annihilated by Socialism—the energy that
enslaves others for its own gain, and exploits its weaker
brethren for its own profit. For this kind of energy
there will be no room. The coarse purse-proud mediocrity,
who by sheer force of pushing brutality has trampled
his way to the front, will have vanished. The man who
grows rich by underpaying his employees, by being a
“hard business man”, will have passed away. Energy
will have to find for itself paths of service instead of
paths of oppression, and will be honored or reprobated
according to the way in which it is used.
That it will destroy individuality. If this were true, the
loss to progress would indeed be incalculable. But So
cialism, instead of destroying individuality will cultivate
and accentuate it, and indeed will make it possible for
the first time in civilisation for the vast majority. For
it needs, in order that individuality shall be developed,
that the individual shall have his characteristics drawn out
and trained by education; it needs that he shall work,
in maturity, at the work for which his natural abilities fit
him ; it needs that he shall not be exhausted by excessive
toil, but shall go fresh and vigorous to his labor; it
needs that he shall have leisure to continuously improve
himself, to train his intellect and his taste. But such
education, such choice of work, such short hours of labor,
such leisure for self-culture, where are all these to-day for
our laboring population ? A tremendous individuality,
joined to robust health, may make its way upward out
of the ranks of the handworkers to- day; but all normal
individuality is crushed out between the grinding-stones
of the industrial mill. See the faces of the lads and
lasses as they troop out of the factory, out of the great
mercantile establishments; how alike they all are ! They
might almost have been turned out by the dozen. We
Socialists demand that individuality shall be possible for
all, and not only for the few who are too strong to crush.
That it will unduly restrict personal liberty. Socialism,
as conceived by the non-student of it, is an iron system,
in which the “ State ”—which is apparently separate from
the citizens—shall rigidly assign to each his task, and
�MODERN SOCIALISM.
51
deal out to each his subsistence. Even if this caricature
were accurate, Socialism would give the great majority
far more freedom than they enjoy to-day ; for they would
only be under the yoke for their brief hours of toil, and
would have unfettered freedom for the greater portion of
their time. Contrast this compulsion with the compulsion
exercised on the workers to-day by the sweater, the
manager of the works or business, and above all the
compulsion of hunger, that makes them bend to the yoke
for the long hours of the working day, and often far into
the night: and then say whether the “freedom ” of Indus
trialism is not a heavier chain than the “tyranny ” of the
most bureaucratic Socialism imagined by our opponents.
But the “tyranny of Socialism”, however, would consist
only in ordering-—and enforcing the order if necessary—
that every healthy adult should labor for his own subsist
ence. That is, it would protect the liberty of each by not
allowing anyone to compel another person to work for him,
and by opening to all equal opportunities of working for
themselves. The worker would choose his own work
certainly as freely as he does now : at the present time, if
one class of work has enough operatives employed at it,
a man must take some other, and I do not see that
Socialism could prevent this limitation of choice. At any
rate, the limitation is not an argument against Socialism,
since it exists at the present time.
Imagine the glorious freedom which would be the lot of
each when, the task of social work complete, and done
under healthy and pleasant conditions, the worker turned
to science, literature, art, gymnastics, to what he would,
for the joyous hours of leisure. For him all the treasures
of knowledge and of beauty; for him all the delights of
scenery and of art; for him all that only the wealthy
enjoy to-day; all that comes from work flowing back to
enrich the worker’s life.
I know that our hope is said to be the dream of the
enthusiast; I know that our message is derided, and that
the gospel of man’s redemption which we preach is scorned.
Be it so. Our work shall answer the gibes of our oppo
nents, and our faith in the future shall outlast their
mockery. We know that however much man’s ignorance
may hinder our advance ; however much his selfishness
may block our path; that we shall yet win our way to the
�52
MODERN SOCIALISM.
land we have seen but in our visions, and rear the temple
of human happiness on the solid foundation stones of
science and of truth. Above all sneer and taunt, above all
laughter and bitter cries of hatred, rings out steadily our
prophecy of the coming time :
‘ ‘ O nations undivided,
O single People, and free,
We dreamers, we derided,
We mad blind men that see,
We bear you witness ere ye come that ye shall be.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Modern socialism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 52 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T403
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Modern socialism), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Social change
Social conditions
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8899bef81859b5fc9cc65c3c51911504.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MPNHJYRLxZUhk9lRDEtOPcN%7E8FqfHonLf7JFao%7EG9gdT58CvplAWhUtpS0baXiK0t2s4mr6-L8GwWYEOgK33yZJiqsG6oHgQ4VAhD1fQUXVzo2CVQOLShkcBSLLAB%7EjAcXnREKdbPl2vh2fd3AGlD0K-54wAuRUNLOxY0olmXjoXD-0CVdxvIAR9Q76yQumTFyQra6x1X8yVJ33P4BFKtL3OzXsOhlVg5APUKt-j6VURhbtFfrxiJFjjBlpRUJOYdsrauwxvCj2NkIfnCeluie%7EI3LuiZlIRuSzoLxLVQS7S94GP4T%7ER7ppjgVnuT3xja4fbLLr6mSKDux4hyTmukA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1590b35f31ab4ac8c7b0436856512bd0
PDF Text
Text
PRICE ONE PENNY.
Oh Slaves of these laborious years,
Oh Freemen of the years to be :
Shake off your blind and foolish fears,
And hail the Truth that makes you free.
WHAT
A
COMPULSORY
8 Hour Working Day
MEANS
By
TO
THE
TOM
WORKERS.
Mi .zV TV ’2V ,
(Amalgamated Engineers).
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
Agent
for
U.S.A., W. L. ROSENBERG, 261, EAST TENTH
STREET, NEW YORK CITY.
�The Emigration Fraud Exposed.
By
H. M. Hyndman. With a portrait of the Author.
Reprinted by permission from the Nineteenth Century for
February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price id.
The Socialist Catechism.
By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted with additions from Justice.
price id. Fifteenth thousand.
Socialism and the Worker.
Sorge.
Royal 8-vo.,
By F. A.
Price id.
An explanation in the simplest language of the main idea of Socialism.
The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter
Programm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from
the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper
cover, price 6d.
Social Progress and Individual Effort.
Desirable Mansions.
Co-operative Production.
By Edward Carpenter.
Price id. each.
The Appeal to the Young.
By
Prince
Peter Kropotkin.
Translated from the French by
H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo.,
16-pp. Price one penny. Tenth thousand.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever pen
ned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years imprison
ment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the
workers.
John Williams and the History of the
Social-Democratic Federation.
8-vo., price id.
With portrait.
Royal
The Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
And W. L. ROSENBERG, 261, East Tenth Street, New
York City.
�EIGHT HOURS A DAY.
-------------- ♦--------------
HE appalling amount of distress that exists in
every town in Britain must arrest the atten
tion of all duty loving men and women. No
one who sees the effects of want and the fear
of want can passively behold the dire poverty of a large
section of the workers. Rather will he probe and probe
until he finds the cause of the disease. Socialists have
probed and they find the disease of WANT to be spread
by the profit-making system upon which all industry
and Society itself is based. They know that five or
six centuries ago, without machinery, Englishmen
obtained for their work sufficient to keep them in
vigorous health and that they were not subject to
periodical trade depressions; and when they further
reflect upon the fact that the working day then consisted
of no more than eight* hours, no wonder that Socialists
are discontented with the present state of affairs, and
that they resolve to use every means in their power to
replace the present discord, misery, and anarchy, with
harmony, happiness, and order.
The effect of our so-called labour-saving machinery
(used really by its owners to save wages and not labour)
is to cause continual distress amongst the workers by
mercilessly throwing them out of employment without
any compensation. It may then take a man often
* See “Work and Wages” by Thorold Rogers, M.P.
�months, sometimes years, to find an occupation of any
kind and when found it is at a price much below that
he was in receipt of before the machine disturbed him.
Yet the machine has increased the ease and rapidity of
wealth-production. This increase of wealth is of course
enriching some one—a class of which many perform but
little really useful work while the bulk of them serve
no function useful in any way to the community. Look,
again, at the effect of increased Scientific Knowledge.
By a better knowledge of Chemistry and Metallurgy
tons of metal are now extracted from the ore with the
labour of fewer men than must formerly have been
employed to produce one hundredweight. What I am
concerned about is, that in spite of our advanced methods
of producing wealth, the workers as a class get only a
subsistence wage, whilst an increasing number of them
cannot get the barest necessaries of life.
Optimist Politicians are unwilling to admit that this
is so. Anxious to make out a good case for the present
basis of Society, they ignore the plainest of facts, so in
confirmation of my contention I will quote from one or
two non-Socialists. Professor Thorold Rogers, the
present M.P. for Bermondsey, says on pages 185-6 of
“ Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” written in 1884.
It may be well the case, and there is every reason to fear it is the
case, that there is collected a population in our great towns which
equals in extent the whole of those who lived in England andfWales
six centuries ago; but whose condition is more destitute, whose
homes are more squalid, whose means are more uncertain, whose
prospects are more hopeless than those of the poorest serfs of the
Middle Ages and the meanest drudges of the mediaeval cities. The
arm of the law is strong enough to keep them under, and Society
has no reason to fear their despair; but I refuse to accept the
superficial answer that a man is an admirer of the good old times
because he insists that the vaunts of civilisation should be examined
along with, and not apart from its failures. It is not possible to
give the solution of one problem, the growth of opulence, and to
refuse all attention to the other problem, the growth of penury.
Joseph Cowen M.P. speaking at a Mechanics’
Institute at Newcastle, alluded to the labouring section
as “ a hybrid class doomed to eat the bread of penury
and drink the cup of misery. Precarious labour provided
them with subsistence for the day, but the slightest
�5
interruption threw them destitute. A week of broken
weather brought thousands of these industrial nomads
to the brink of starvation. An inscrutable influence
seemed to sink them as it elevated those around and
above them. Society, ashamed and despairing, swept
them, like refuse, into dismal receptacles, where
seething in their wretchedness, they constituted at once
our weakness and reproach. How to sweeten these
receptacles and help their forlorn occupants to help
themselves was the problem of the hour. If Society did
not settle it, it would in time settle Society.”
To this Socialists answer that there is no permanent
way of sweetening the lives of the class referred to
except by the complete annihilation of the profit-mongers
as a class, by forcing them all into the ranks of the
useful workers. This will be apparent when it is realised
that under the present system we are working to supply
profits to profit-mongers instead of working to supply
the legitimate requirements of the entire community,
and when it is borne in mind that Shareholders and
Employers are contented with nothing less than the
Highest possible profits, it will also be seen that on the
other hand we (the workers) can have nothing more
than the lowest possible wages. To establish Society
nn a proper basis is therefore the work of every rightminded man or woman.
Demagogues have been at work—with good inten
tions perhaps—but they have misled the workers from
the true cause of their troubles. Among the blind
leaders of the blind may be mentioned the Malthusians,
the Teetotallers, the Financial Reformers, and wellintentioned Radicals. The first mentioned have taught
that there are too many people in the country, and that
the only way of bettering our condition is by curtailing
the population, and this in face of the fact that every
year wealth in this country is increasing much faster
than population. The Temperance advocates hammer
away at the blessings of sobriety as though drunkenness
was the cause of poverty, when the fact is the other
Way about. Well nigh as fast as they surround an old
toper with influences that prevent his drinking tastes
�6
being gratified, another fills up the hole out of which
he was lifted. It is a useless expenditure of energy to
be continually preaching temperance and thrift. Let
all be blest with leisure, food, and healthy enjoyments,
as they might be if the economic basis of Society was
as it should be, and then these matters will all right
themselves. The only reason people spend time upon
these panaceas is because they fail to understand the
law of wages, which is that all above a bare subsistence
wage shall go to profit mongers as profit. The only
way out is to destroy the profit mongers.
The same argument applies to the financial reformer.
All sensible persons are of course agreed that the
country should be governed as economically as is con
sistent with efficiency, as also all are agreed that we
should live soberly. But the reformer fails to see that
if we curtail taxation to its lowest possible minimum,
reduce it if you will 90 per cent., not one farthing of it
would be saved to the workers. The Iron Law would
still be in force which says, “ So much as will keep life
in you and no more shall go to you, O ye workers, so long
as the profit making system remains.”
These economic questions cannot be understood in a
sufficiently clear manner by the mass of the workers
while they are absorbed twelve, fourteen, sixteen, and
even more hours a day while in work, and when out of
work are walking about with the pangs of hunger eating
out their vitals, and the blackness of despair staring
them in the face at every turn. Now suppose those of
us who can see these things in something like their
grim reality, decide that come what may, we at least will
do our part towards obtaining remunerative employment
for all, and at the same time sufficient leisure that all
may have a little breathing time after their work, what
course can we take ? To this I reply, there is one way
by which it can be done, viz., by at once concentrating
our efforts towards the establishing of an eight hours
working day.
Let us examine a few figures in order to see clearly
how this would affect us. We have something like
7,000,000 adult workers in the British Isles, working
�7
nominally under the nine hours system, leaving overtime
out of consideration for the moment. Let us see how
many more hands would be put in employment if we
struck off one hour per day from those in work. It is
roughly estimated that of the above mentioned workers
there are about 900,000 now out of work, representing
a total population of 3I or 4 millions of men, women,
and children who cannot get the barest necessaries of
life. Now strike off one hour per day from the 6,000,000
in work. The result would be an immediate demand
for 750,000 additional workers to keep up production
at its present rate, and remembering that these 750,000
would immediately begin to buy more food, clothing,
and general comforts, this of course would give an im
petus to trade, and so add greatly to the comfort of
the entire community for a year or two. These advan
tages, however, would soon be swallowed up by fresh
displacements of labour due to more efficient machinery
and advancing scientific knowledge; but, during the
year or two that it gave relief, see how immensely it
would add to the leisure and therefore to the general
intelligence of the workers. And increased intelligence
means more active discontent with our conditions of
life, and in due course a hastening of the overthrow of
the present capitalistic domination.
I am fully aware that there are some who claim to
have a knowledge of the workers who contend that the
very success of an Eight Hours Movement would
simply mean a perpetuation of the present wretched
system, as the people would become more contented if
the conditions of life were made more tolerable. This
I hold to be the very reverse of truth. As a workman
who has worked from early boyhood on the farm, down
the mine, and in the engineer’s shop, I repudiate such
a slanderous statement. What means the continually
increasing restlessness of late years of those workmen
who are now, relatively to their former position, in a
passable state of comfort ? I contend that it is in
large part due to the additional leisure obtained under
the nine hours system, though most of its advantages
have now been swallowed up by more rapid machinery
�and the cursed system of overtime we still tolerate.
I ask myself what has been my guide in the formation
of my opinions on social and political subjects, and,
risking being charged with egotism, I reply that I have
ever endeavoured to get correct views upon these and
other subjects by fashioning my ideas upon the best
models I could find, and the more leisure I had the
better my opportunity for finding good models. I can
understand a middle-class man holding this—to me—
absurd theory. I can also understand some workmen
reflecting the opinions of these theory-loving, poverty
accentuating blockheads merely because they are
middle-class. But I cannot understand a workman
who through youth and early manhood has been
battling against long hours in order that he might attend
the institute, listen to the lectures, and read the works
of able men, and by these means has succeeded in
having a mind worth owning—I say I cannot under
stand such an one hindering rather than helping in a
shorter hours movement. He practically says by such
conduct that the leisure he used so well as to become a
man thereby, others will use so ill that they will con
tinue fools. But men generally love what is best for
all, and are prepared to do their part towards carrying
it out so soon as they understand clearly what course
they should take. Let those of us who see (or think
we see) further than the average man, do all in our
power towards enabling him to see as clearly as we do,
and then, unless I am incapable of reading aright the
lesson of life, he too will become in his turn an earnest
and an energetic worker for the elevation of his class.
I must apologise to some readers who may think that
none of this reasoning is necessary. I emphasize it
because I know there exist philosophers who strain at
gnats and swallow camels, who talk of ameliorating
human suffering, but hang back instead of assisting a
movement the success of which must for a dead certainty
largely ameliorate the pangs of the hungry men, women,
and children who are now in the throes of despair.
Another section raise the objection that however
desirable it may be to curtail the hours of labour,
�remembering the severe competition of other countries
it is simply impossible either to raise wages or shorten
hours unless a similar movement takes place on the
Continent. I will endeavour to answer this first by
showing that the English workers produce more per man
than any of the Continental Nations, and second, by
showing that with regard to our staple industries
Foreign Competition is a bogie used by the Employer
to frighten the workers into accepting harder terms in
order that their master may make a greater profit. It
may be of some service to point out the relative wealth
per annum produced by the useful workers of this and
other countries. I am assuming that the reader is clear
concerning the source of wealth, that there is no other
source than useful Labour, so that, having sufficient
Raw Material for Workers to exercise their ingenuity
upon, it will be seen that the more workers, the more
the aggregate wealth, as in all ages men have been able
to produce by their labour more than they and their
families required for ordinary consumption. Quoting
from Mulhall’s “Statistics,” we find that Britain with a
Population of 36 millions produces wealth to the amount
of £1,247,000,000 per annum ; France with 37I millions
of people produces annually ^”965,000,000 (or with a
million and a half more people about three-quarters the
amount the English make; Germany, population
45 millions, wealth per annum, ^850,000,000 ; (or two
thirds only of our amount); Russia with 80 millions of
people, creates per annum only ^760,000,000, Austria,
38 millions population, only ^602,000,000 per annum ;
and simarlarly with the smaller nations. These figures
will serve to show that our method of producing wealth
is a more effective one than that in vogue on the Con
tinent, as although they generally work longer hours per
day than the English yet the result of their year’s work
compares unfavourably with ours. The important
lesson to be learnt here is this, that it is not the amount
paid as wages that decides whether or not one country
can compete successfully with another ; or rather, it is
not the countries where wages are low that compete
most successfully with this country. This will be seen
�IO
when it is realised that the severest competitor we have
to-day is America, a country that pays at least 25 per
cent higher wages than are paid in this country.
This of itself should be sufficient to encourage those
timorous mortals who are always attributing our ex
hausting toil to the competition of the lung hours of the
Continent. The time may arrive when, with an equally
advanced method of production, low paid labour will
produce wealth as effectively as better paid labour, but
that time has not yet come. By way of proving this
let me here instance the Iron Shipbuilding industry.
Many have been the disputes between employers and
employed in this industry during the past two or three
years, the employers continually urging that the Con
tinental shipbuilders are getting all the trade, or at any
rate will do so, unless our workmen submit to reductions
in wages and longer hours. This argument was ad
vanced repeatedly during the year 1885, so in order to
thoroughly test the matter a delegation of workers was
despatched to the Continent to bring back precise in
formation upon the subject. They found that Germany
was our chief competitor in Iron Shipbuilding, and
that during the year 1885 that country produced 22,326
tons of shipping. But in this country one firm on the
Clyde during the same period turned out 40,000 tons.
France produced 10,000 tons, and Russia 7,867 tons—
total for the two countries 17,867 tons. But the river
Tyne alone launched no less than 102,998 tons. The
Belgium output was 5,312 tons, that of Holland 2,651
tons, of Denmark 3,515 tons. To sum up, the whole
of the Continental output was a little over 50,000 tons,
while that of the English shipyards was 540,282 tons,
or nearly eleven times as great as that of all the yards
on the Continent put together. With facts like these
before us is it not high time we demanded that our
hours were curtailed so as to give a chance to those
who now walk about in enforced idleness, without
waiting for the Continent to take simultaneous action.
The Americans, who pay their mechanics better wages,
have had to concede the demands of their workmen for
the eight hour working day—not universally, it is true,
�II
because a universal demand was not made. Just astheir success stimulates us, so our success will stimulate
the Continental workers, and we shall find that they
are as well prepared as we are to deal vigorously with
the exploiting classes.
To Trade Unionists I desire to make a special appeal.
How long, how long will you be content with the present
half-hearted policy of your Unions? I readily grant
that good work has been done in the past by the
Unions, but, in Heaven’s name, what good purpose are
they serving now ? All of them have large numbers
out of employment even when their particular trade is
busy. None of the important Societies have any policy
other than that of endeavouring to keep wages from
falling. The true Unionist policy of aggression seems
entirely lost sight of; in fact the Unionist of
to-day should be of all men the last to be hope
lessly apathetic, or supporting a policy that plays
directly into the hands of the capitalist exploiter. Do
not think I am a non-Unionist myself, and therefore
denounce Unionists. T take my share of the work in
the Trade Union to which I belong, but I candidly
confess that unless it shows more vigour in the future
than it is showing at the present time (June, 1886)
I shall be compelled to take the view—against my will
—that to continue to spend time over the ordinary
squabble-investigating, do-nothing policy will be an
unjustifiable waste of one’s energies. I am quite sure
there are thousands of others in my state of mind—e.g.,
all those who concurred with T. R. Threlfall, the pre
sident of the Trades Union Congress, when, in his
Presidential Address, he told the delegates assembled
at Southport that a critical time had arrived in the
history of Trades Unions, and that in the future they
must lead or follow, and that they could not hope to re
tain advanced men with their present policy. In his
magnificent address Mr. Threlfall did all a man could
do to stir the Unionists up to take action in regard to
the Eight Hour working day, but one looks in vain at
each and all of our important Trade Societies to find
any action being taken in the matter. It is not enough
�12
to say their funds are low. Their funds are not too
low to get up an agitation upon this subject. All over
the country they have excellent organisations which
might be used in the first place as the means for instruct
ing their own members up to the required standard, and
then spreading information amongst the non-Unionists,
skilled and unskilled alike. When the bulk of these
understood the pros and cons of the case the combined
forces could make a demand for the immediate passing
of an Eight Hours Bill, the details of which could be
settled by a duly qualified committee.
While this is being done attention should also be
made to another important item alluded to by Mr.
Threlfall viz., the payment of election expenses out of
the local or Imperial rates and the support of Members
of Parliament in a similar manner. When this is done
we shall be able to command the services of those
whom we believe in because of their merits, irrespective
of what the depth of their pocket may be.
Let me now invite attention to the effects of an
Eight Hour Bill upon some of our monopolies. Let us
take the Railways as a representative concern, using
round figures such as will convey a correct idea to the
ordinary reader without confusing him. The Blue Books
bear out the following statements •>—At the present time
the Annual Income of the British Railways may be put
at ^70,000,000, of this vast sum one half goes to the
Shareholders, who do no useful work whatever; one
fourth to keep up rolling stock, permanent way &c.;
and the remaining fourth to the workers, (including
managers’ and superintendents’ salaries).
The man who has not paid attention to Railway
Income and Expenditure will denounce this as trash or
probably by a stronger term. He will probably say
that the figures must be wrong, as Railway Shareholders
get only some 5 per cent on their capital. Exactly, but
where nearly all make the mistake is in not making the
distinction between percentage on money invested and
percentage of Income. There are nominally more than
^920,000,000 invested in Railways in the British Isles,
and 5 per cent on this means about five-eighths of the
�total income, the entire income of 70 millions amounting
only to 8 per cent on the investments. Consequently a
Railway Company paying 4^ per cent to Shareholders
actually pays more than half of the total income to
these utterly useless individuals, leaving the remainder
to go in about equal proportions to rolling stock and
permanent way and as wages and salaries to Employees.
This gives about 18s. per week to the 350,000 persons
engaged on Railways in the British Isles. When we
remember that superintendents and managers get very
large salaries, we see that those who do the hard work
and have the longest hours get much less than 18s.
Now that we realise the enormous amount the idle
shareholders take, let us see how generously they behave
to those in their employ. At Nine Elms are situated the
cleaning sheds of the South Western Railway. Until
recently the “dirty cleaners” at this yard received
£i os. 6d. per week. Instructions have been issued
from Waterloo to curtail their wages from 20s. 6d. to
15s. at one stroke. On the same line, at Waterloo
terminus, the parcels porters commence work at 5.20
in the morning and keep on till 9.45 in the evening with
one Sunday off per fortnight, their wages being from
18s. to 22s. per week.
Now assuming the average day on Railways to be
12 hours, what loss would it inflict on the Shareholders
if a Bill were passed enforcing an Eight Hours’ Working
Day ? We have seen that the Employees get about
a quarter of the total income or about ^"17,000,000.
To curtail the hours by one third means of course putting
one half more men in work than are at present employed.
To pay these at a similar rate to those already working
would require £8,500,000 or less than one per cent on
the nominal value of the shares, so that a Company
paying 4^- per cent now, would, if one half more men
were employed still pay 3^ per cent to the Fleecing
Shareholders. What arrant nonsense then it is to urge
that the Company cannot afford to curtail hours.
Let us look now at the condition of our Colliers.
Here we have men devoting themselves to underground
toil from boyhood to old age, the majority never having
�14
the opportunity of paying a visit to the Capital or any
•other large town, practically kennelled in the earth, tied
down with capitalistic chains,
Spending a Sunless life in the unwholesome mines,
for the wretched pittance of about 18s. per week.
Surely an Eight Hours Bill requires no urging from
me on behalf of those who work in and about the mines ;
when we remember that of the value of coal raised
•annually in this country (about £66,000,000) one third
•only goes to the colliers who raise it.
An item worth mentioning also was pointed out by
Sir Lyon Playfair in his address before the British
Association at Aberdeen in 1885, whilst deploring the
fact that the exhaustion of the British coalfields made
the coal increasingly difficult to get. It was proved
that not only has man’s ingenuity conquered these
obstacles, but owing to the increased power of steam
•engines and hand-labour-saving appliances, two men
now produce as much as three men did twenty years
-ago. Yet coal is dearer now than it was then !
Thirty years ago eight sailors were required for the
management of every 100 tons of shipping. Now, ow
ing to improved machinery, less than half that number
suffice. In twenty years the consumption of fuel on our
ocean-going steamers has been reduced by one half,
chiefly owing to the use of compound engines in place
•of single ones as formerly. Thus on every hand a
greater result is being shown with less labour. And it
must be so or else there is no meaning in material pro
gress. But “ less labour ” means under our existing
system, and must mean so as long as industry is con
trolled by the idle classes, not “ more leisure ” or
shorter hours all round, but less wages, more unemployed,
poverty, famine, and physical and moral degradation.
What then can be more rational than to ease the
burden of those in work and the starving stomachs of
those who are out, by shortening the working day ?
See what is going on in the watch-making industry,
a fine example of the effects of machinery. Among the
exhibits at last year’s Inventions Exhibition was that
of the Waltham Watch Co. Some machines were there
�T5
at work making screws for watches, of which it took
250,000 to make up a pound in weight. These machines
were so perfectly made, that at the Company’s Factory
in Massachusetts, one boy keeps seven of them going.
The best wire to make one pound weight of screws costs
ten shillings, but after this wire has been converted into
screws by passing through this automatic machine, the
screws are worth /’350, or seven hundred times the cost
of the material. Imagine the number of men here
thrown out of employment; the watches in large part
being made by girls, and the enormous profits going to
the owners of the machinery.
Take another case, that of Bryant and May’s Match
Factory in East London. Two years ago this firm was
formed into a Limited Liability Company. Their work
girls are most miserably paid, getting only some 8s. per
week, and the Company refused to increase their pay
when they made a demand a short time since. And
yet that Company, during the first six months of its
existence, after paying all working expenses, actually
paid over ^33,000 to shareholders, who had not done a
single stroke of work towards producing it. These girls
are working ordinary factory hours, io^- per day They
cannot live in comfort on such a miserable pittance as
they are receiving. How many girls are compelled by
this sort of thing, to take to the streets ?
The above is only typical of what all our large firms
are doing. Armstrong, Mitchell and Co., the great
engineering firm at Newcastle-on-Tyne, for instance,
last year after deducting for working expenses and
depreciation of stock, paid to shareholders ^162,000.
Whatever improvement may come through more
efficient machinery etc., its effect, while owned by, and
used for the profit of, the employing class, will be to
throw men out of work and swell the already too full
pockets of the capitalists. If we do not decide to cur
tail the hours of labour, what then can we do ? Allow
things to go from bad to worse ? That is what most
assuredly will happen, unless we absorb the Unemployed
into the ranks of the employed by rigidly suppressing
overtime, and curtailing the nominal nine hours per day
to something less.
�i6
The question will be asked by some, “ What about
wages if we work an hour a day less, are we to have an
hour s less pay ? ” Most certainly not. Even when the
curtailing principle was only partially applied 15 years
ago by the Trade Unionists this did not happen. On the
contrary in many instances the workmen were soon able
to get a rise in actual wages in addition to the curtail
ing of hours. The reason we cannot command a better
wage now is because the Employer can say, “ If you
don’t like it you may go, others will be glad to take your
place,” but, as I think I have shown, if we make Eight
Hours the labour day then the Unemployed will be
absorbed and the workers will be able in their turn to
dictate terms to the Employer.
In conclusion I appeal to the workers of Great Britain
to join hands over this business and let us make it a
success. In a measure of this kind Liberal and Tory,
Christian and Freethinker, Unionist and Non-Unionist,
Mechanic and Labourer, Radical and Social-Democrat,
Teetotaller or Vegetarian, whatsoever be your creed or
sex, unite on common ground and let us fight this
battle of the workers with vigour, with energy and
determination. Be no longer apathetic. Take pleasure
in the performance of your duty as an honest citizen
and the result will be a hastening of that glorious time
when the domination of a class shall be a matter of
History, and when all shall have enough work and
none shall have too much.
For further information on all these subjects read “JUSTICE ”
every Saturday, One Penny, which is owned by working men,
edited by a working man, and independent of capitalist support.
Also, if willing to assist in attaining these objects, write to H. W.
Lee, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What a compulsory 8 hour working day means to the workers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mann, Tom [1856-1941]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. : ill. (port.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK. Publisher's list on p. 2. Portrait of Mann in oval on front page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1886?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T396
Subject
The topic of the resource
Working conditions
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (What a compulsory 8 hour working day means to the workers), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Social conditions
Socialism
Working Classes
Working Conditions
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/abaa3b968d2b605afef2a38d68db5f33.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=m3lRgYmylpQIMk54QqXKpo1L%7EbtMfP%7ExaxbGKMsv2kes21iatFfjTUR2CyLVxosdlHOxoiHNe29cRKgPX9Qti1H-n-7Z7q4xdqJL70Acyhulf5wO4fMofjcoKpVi%7EqDrUXjfPQu0YpA3RXpZomX-PkNfEJgNQ49ZhPXPiVOMw1z99Pm-ppaP%7ER-Y-xaB1EwiANqJl2iYeSrHZFs61-ctLtBu810Cm9Zjkbtkmejm59D4OMY9BXicj-Io5pzseGdSzvZjcmWi2o%7EV57z27SL8xDExN8zVC3Sca%7Exf0z4IVQrooZms5KeXZHd2kW2k34Cs-ZVZEE5F%7EmOyCVtkZir%7EGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d50665091f5b7b4de90cf53fb8d649b7
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
T4O/
POLITICS for the PEOPLE.—No. I.
MINING RENTS
— AND —
ROYALTIES.
By J. MORRISON
DAVIDSON,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
Author of “Eminent Radicals,” “The New Book of Kings," “Book of
Lords,” “ Useless, Dangerous,
and
Ought
to be
I
I For Special Prices for quantities to distribute in
to the Publishers.
I
Abolished,” &c., &c.
Mining Districts apply
LONDON :
I
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
agAgent for U.S.A, W. L. Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New \ ork City.
�The Co-operative Commonwealth:
Exposition of Modern Socialism.
Gronlund, of Philadelphia.
paper, price is.
an
By Laurence
Demy 8-vo., cheaper edition,
“ The book, while just as readable and captivating as Henry George’s
Progress and Poverty, is far more logical and thoughtful: at the same time,
it is in a masterly manner adapted to the Anglo-Saxon public.”—New York
Volkszeitung (one of the largest Socialist papers in America).
“ The best account of German or State Socialism in English.”—New
York Sun (the largest capitalist newspaper in the States).
“The grandest and highest minded statement of Socialism I have ever
seen.”—H. D. Wright, Chief of Massachussetts Bureau of Labour Statistics.
The Emigration Fraud Exposed.
By
H. M. Hyndman. With a portrait of the Author.
Reprinted by permission from the Nineteenth Century for
February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price id.
The Socialist Catechism.
By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted with additions from Justice.
price id. Fifteenth thousand.
Socialism and the Worker.
Sorge.
Price id.
Royal 8-vo.,
By F. A.
An explanation in the simplest language of the main idea of Socialism.
The Appeal to the Young.
By
Prince
Peter Kropotkin.
Translated from the French by
H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo.,
16-pp. Price one penny. Tenth thousand.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever pen
ned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years imprison
ment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the
workers.
Are You a Social-Democrat ?
tinted paper.
"Why
4-pp., on fine
Price 5s. per 1,000, post free.
am a Social-Democrat.
I
4-pp., on
fine tinted paper. Price 5s. per 1,000, post free.
The above with announcement of Lectures, meetings, &c.,
printed on last page, 8s. per 1,000, 28s. for 5,000.
The Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
And YNL L. ROSENBERG, 261, East Tenth Street, New
York City.
�MINING RENTS AND ROYALTIES.
F there be one thing in this world more astonishing
than that individuals should claim private property
in the surface of this planet, and have their claims
allowed by the Legislature of a free country, it
assuredly is that they should pretend to have a right
to the contents of its interior. A coal-hewer descends
into the bowels of the cold earth, and with infinite
toil and danger raises a ton of fuel for tenpence or
even eightpence. Another man, calling himself a
landlord, who is meanwhile, perchance, gambling at
Monaco or bear-hunting in the Rocky Mountains,
successfully exacts a toll of thirteen or fourteen pence
per ton on the entire output of a mine, or, it may be,
a score of mines ! Could there be a more startlinganomaly ? “ O Lord what fools these mortals be ! ”
is all the comment that any rational being can, in the
circumstances, make.
I
�4
Yet this was the kernel of the case which the
influential deputation of Members of Parliament, who,
in April, 1886, brought the question of mining royal
ties before the Liberal Home Secretary, had to sub
mit. True, Mr. Childers’ mind was a taint la 1 asa
as regards mining royalties, and not one of the
deputation ventured to suggest their nationalisation
—the only true remedy for the serious evils com
plained of. Still much good was effected by the
bare recital of the atrocious exactions which the land
lords habitually make both on mine lessees and
miners.
Mr. Stephen Mason, representing one of the
divisions of Lanarkshire, where trade depression is
peculiarly severe, instanced the case of a ducal high
wayman who preys on the mining industry of the
district to the extent of ^114,000 per annum. His
method of blackmail is this :—He benignly grants
leases for twenty-one years at fixed “ rents,” varying
from Z500 to ,£5,000. These are payable whether
the mine is worked or not. If worked, the moment
a certain output is attained “ royalties ” come into
play. These vary from çd. to is. 6d. per ton. No
mediaeval Rhine robber ever devised a more effectual
system of brigandage. Indeed, the landlord is the
undisputed master of the situation, and it is a marvel
that he has not succeeded long ere now in completely
�5
destroying the industrial supremacy of the country.
Mr. Mason told of an instance where a company
spent ^50,000 to get at a seam of coal.
They
reached it, but found that rent and royalty would
together absorb every penny of profit.
The land
lord would, nevertheless, have his entire pound of
flesh. Consequently the machinery has been stand
ing idle for four years !
But it is when leases come to be renewed that the
landlords’ harvest is really ripe.
Mr. Conybeare,
who represents a mining division of Cornwall,
revealed a state of things in his neighbourhood of a
singularly aggravated kind. When the lease of the
Dolcoath mine was renewed a fine of ,£2 5,000 was
exacted, The Duke of Bedford, in the case of the
Devon Great Consols Mine, levied a £20,000 fine.
As for the unfortunate lessees they might like it or
lump it. If they lumped it their engine-houses and
all their improvements went to the landlord without
compensation.
The landlord, moreover, on the
ground-rent monopoly principle, charged from five to
ten times agricultural value for the surface.
As to the amount ofannual tribute paid by the nation
on its mineral wealth to the landlords, no exact figures
can be given. But it is has been estimated that in the
year 1883 they pocketed on coal and iron ore alone
the vast sum of eight millions sterling. This enor
�mous drain in the face of falling and stagnant mar
kets, it is not too much to say accounts for half the
privations which working men are now suffering from
low wages and no wages. Our two staple industries
are admittedly iron and coal. They are controlling
elements in rails, ships, and manufactures of every
description. Every private toll levied on them is a
blight on every related form of employment.
Mr. Mason gave an instructive example of the
effect of a comparatively low royalty.
In Scotland
the minimum royalty on pig-iron is 6s. Some
of the Cleveland royalties on the other hand do
not exceed 3s. 3d. per ton. What is the con
sequence ? Scotland, where all the other conditions
of production are rather more than equal, is invaded
weekly by Cleveland iron to the extent of from 6,000
to 7,000 tons.
Nor is this the worst.
Differential home dues
might be endured, but to handicap the British iron
trade in its strenuous grapple with foreign competition
is a much more serious affair.
In most parts of
Germany the royalty on pig iron is 6d. per ton ; in
France it is 8d., and in both these countries royalties
are national dues, and not, as with us, private black
mail.
In Belgium the ordinary State royalty is
is. 3d. per ton, and even that handicap not
improbably accounts in no small degree for the pre
valent turbulence in that country of miners.
�7
I quote the following weighty sentences from an
admirable address by Mr. William Forsyth, the
eloquent President of the Scottish Land Restoration
League:—“Out of the eighty blast furnaces in
Cumberland forty are at this moment standing idle,
and the others are but partially employed.
There
are many causes which might have the effect of
keeping these forty blast furnaces idle. They might
be idle for want of capital; they might be idle for
want of men willing to work. Well, gentlemen, the
Cumberland furnaces are put out not because of any
lack of capital, for only within the last week or two
a company of employers there were willing to sink
£20,000 in raising iron-ore, and were only prevented
from doing so by the landlord’s ultimatum that he
would not reduce his royalty of 2s. 6d. per ton on
the ore which might be raised. The company found
thatwith this charge they could not raise ore as cheaply
as it could be imported from Spain, and they, therefore, abandoned their project.
Neither can it be
that there are not men able and willing to work, for
an ironmaster in Cumberland writes saying that
there are thousands of men unemployed who would
be glad to find work of any kind in order to save
their wives and children from starvation.”
“ I am informed that the girders of the St. Enoch
Railway Station, in our city, were imported from
j
�8
Belgium, and we know that the Barnsley Railway
Station was built of imported iron. ’ The Midland
Railway Company is at present importing large
quantities of iron and steel sleepers from Belgium.
The streets of London, Liverpool, Dublin, and
Belfast are being laid with tramway rails of foreign
manufacture.
Our Glasgow Municipal Buildings
are at this moment being built with iron girders
brought from Belgium, and paid for from the taxes
collected from the people of Glasgow. On looking
up at these girders we see in prominent letters the
name “ Maclellan,” and in our innocence we think
that if the cost of these buildings is great at any
rate the work is done by our own people.
But this
is not so. The ironmaster to whom I have referred
is himself the owner of eight furnaces specially
adapted to the manufacture of pig-iron and steel rails.
Four of these furnaces are idle, and yet he is actually
importing thousands of tons of iron and steel from
Belgium and Germany.”
Talk of high wages and short hours of labour
“ driving trade out of the country ! ” Why, if these
royalty footpads are not speedily got rid of there will
soon be neither trade nor wages left in it.
One
blast furnace produces in a week six hundred tons of
pig-iron. On that quantity the landlord’s royalties
amount to ^202 ; while the wages of the employes
�9
—managers, engineers, chemists, workmen all told—
average less than one half, or ^95.
The royalties
on British steel rails paid to the landlords amount
to 9s. 6d. per ton ; in Belgium they average is. 9d.
Is it any wonder that the Indian Department of
Government is monthly sending out to India thou
sands of tons of imported iron and steel rails and
sleepers ? Is it any wonder if in most cases it costs
about three times as much to construct a mile of
British railway as any other ?
A Cunard liner making the double or return jour
ney across the Atlantic consumes four thousand one
hundred and twenty-five tons of coal. This means a
royalty to the landlord of ^206 5s., or more than
the wages of the entire crew from captain to cabin
boy. Ina word, the owners of steamers pay to the
lords of land a tribute of ,£274,100 per annum. Of
course passengers and the producers of exports and
the consumers of imports are the ultimate victims.
What, then, is the remedy for this ruinous system
of exploitation ? Is it to be cured, as the deputation
suggested, and as Mr. Conybeare’s Mining Rates
Bill weakly proposes, by establishing a sliding scale
as between landlords and mine-lessees ? Certainly
not, unless the State is to step into the landlord’s
shoes. Every scheme to enable landlords to rob in
moderation is bad.
�IO
We are not without examples of the true solution
of the royalty problem in other lands.
In Germany, speaking generally, the Prussian law
of 1865 prevails. It vests all mineral royalties in
the State. No freeholder can raise minerals on his
freehold without a concession from the Government.
He dare not even, after due notice, prevent private
persons irom entering on his land to bore for the
discovery of minerals. The concessionaire of a mine
is entirely independent of the lord of the surface.
Concessions are made to any qualified person or
persons by a district oberbergamt, or office, on certain
conditions.
Concessionaires must (1) pay to the
State in royalty and inspection dues 2 per cent, per
annum on net produce ; and (2) form a- Benefit
Society, or Knappschajt Verein, for their workmen,
they contributing one-half the funds, the “ hands ”
the other. The Knappschaft Verein supports and
doctors invalid and injured miners, pensions widows,
and educates children free of expense.
In France private royalties were abolished at the
Revolution and made national property. The pre
sent law bears date 1810. It is the same in principle
as the German law. The concessionaire pays 5 per
cent, net produce to the State plus 10 centimes per
franc additional to form an Accidents Relief Fund.
A strictly limited rent is also payable to the lords of
the surface.
�11
The Belgian law (1810) is in the main similar to
the French law', but concessions made under the law
of 1837 are of a less favourable character, and
in some cases the dues mount up to 4s. in the
pound.
But we need not go beyond the limits of our own
Islands for a sound model of mining legislation. An
admirable Act of the Scottish Parliament (1592) still
in force, but audaciously set at defiance by the land
lords of Scotland since the union with England,
appoints a “ Master of the Metals,” with full State
control of all mines and minerals in the realm. He
is to secure 10 per cent, to the State, and is allowed
5 per cent, for inspection dues, &c. “ And by reason
that the said miners are in daily hazard of their lives
by the bad air of the mines and the danger of falling
in the same, and other infinite miseries which daily
occur in the said work, therefore our Sovereign Lord
(James VI.) exempts said miners from all taxa
tion whatever, both in peace and war, and takes
them all, their families and goods, in his special
protection,” &c.
This is the sort of thing that is wanted, and not
sliding scales to. give perpetuity to a system of pal
pable robbery, by which the State is defrauded of
some ten millions sterling per annum. And the
robbers !
�12
What are they ? The drones of the community !
They feed on the mechanic’s labour ;
The starved hind for them compels the stubborn glebe
To yield its unshared harvest.
And yon squalid form, leaner than fleshless misery,
Drags out his life in darkness in the unwholesome mine
To glad their grandeur.
Many faint with toil
That few may know the cares and woes of sloth.
r
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mining rents and royalties
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Davidson, John Morrison [1843-1916]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12, [4] p. ; 19 cm.
Series title: Politics for the People
Series number: No. 1
Notes: Publisher's advertisement p. 2. List of reviews of 'The New Book of Kings', by the author, on four unnumbered pages at the end. Tentative date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T401
Subject
The topic of the resource
Working conditions
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mining rents and royalties), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Mining
Royalties
Social conditions
Socialism
Working Classes