150

THE EIGHT HOURS MOVEMENT

Henry Mayers Hyndman was born in 1842. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was a friend of Mazzini and Garibaldi, a Socialist and member of the International. During the War of 1914-18 he took his stand on the side of the Entente. He died in 1921.

Charles Bradlaugh (1833-91) was the famous free-thinker and Radical Member of Parliament for Northampton.

The subject of the debate between Hyndman and Bradlaugh was: 'Will Socialism benefit the English people?' The debate took place at St. James's Hall, London, on April 17, 1884.

FROM The Times, AUGUST 23, 1892.

Mr. Hyndman is naturally jubilant in his letter to you of the 19th, because the United States have passed an Eight Hours Law, similar in principle to the Bill which he drafted for his debate with Bradlaugh, except that the United States have confined to Government employments what he designs for all. But the question of a legal limitation of the hours of labour should be decided by arguments not by enactments, at any rate until an enactment shall have proved beneficial in practice, when it will have become an argument. Mr. Hyndman, therefore, has still to answer Bradlaugh's arguments, contained in the verbatim report of the debate between them—an instructive pamphlet, but liable, like all pamphlets, to be mislaid and forgotten. It would be well, then, to recall the substance of Bradlaugh's arguments against a legal limitation of the hours of labour, especially at the present moment when, for good or ill, labour questions have become problems for Parliament.

The first argument is that a limitation to an equal number of hours does not discriminate between different employments. As Bradlaugh urged, eight hours in a quicksilver mine would be absurd and murderous; but there are other occupations where more than eight hours is not too much. We all

know instances of quiet railway stations where a porter, like a domestic servant, is wanted occasionally throughout the day without suffering any hardship. It would be unjust to require a railway to have shifts of eight hours in such cases. I know a signal-box at a junction of some importance where you may see the man frequently cultivating his own garden by the side of the line when he is not wanted in his box. An eight hours law is inapplicable to this and many other intermittent employ

ments.

The second argument is that, at the same rate of wages per diem, a limitation to a less number of hours would tend to increase the cost of production, except in the extreme cases where workmen would do the same amount of productive work in fewer hours. Bradlaugh quoted the Northumberland and Durham coal arbitrations for December 1875, as proving that in consequence of a voluntary reduction of the hours of labour the cost of production, taken as if at the same rate of wages, had been increased by 21 per cent. Now, as he pointed out, the increase of the cost of production would tend to make it no longer worth while to retain or invest capital in businesses where the return is already low, and also would be specially fatal to industries affected by foreign competition. He took as an instance the textile trades, which since his death, it should be observed, are now beginning to think of going for eight hours. Here profits are low, and prices cannot be raised because Lancashire is competing with the foreign markets of the world. If then wages were maintained, hours reduced, and cost of production consequently increased, profits must sink, so that capital would tend to withdraw, and the textile trade of England with the world gradually shrink and disappear. Mr. Hyndman had indeed said in the debate that we need not trouble much about crush

ing capital. But in reply Bradlaugh used these telling words:

'The speaker says capital can take care of itself. Unfortunately 'it can, but the working man cannot; and if you drive our industries to other countries of the world, what will happen? There will be more hunger here.'

Accordingly, the third argument is that a forced limitation of the hours of labour would not, on the whole, benefit workmen themselves. It is supposed that it would cause the employment of the unemployed. But, as Bradlaugh said, either wages would remain the same and cost of production increase or wages would decrease. In the former case, with the diminution of capital, more workmen could not be employed. In the latter case more might be employed, but workmen at the expense of workmen, the less deserving at the expense of the more deserving, the unskilled at the expense of the skilled. In neither case would the working classes benefit as a whole. The former alternative is likely to happen to some extent, because in the present state of affairs it is probable that, reduction of hours notwithstanding, wages would be artificially maintained by the violence of trade unions, the sympathy of sentimentalists, and the support of demagogues. By these means a section of the working classes might gradually absorb the profits of capital and the dividends of companies; nay, even practically transfer to themselves that complete ownership of the means of production, which Mr. Hyndman makes no secret of regarding as the ultimate end of the eight hours movement. But it is a mistake to suppose that this artificial transfer from one pocket to another would entail a general employment of the working classes; for much of the capital would be abstracted before it could be absorbed, and the remainder would be absorbed by some workmen, while the rest would be worse off than before. No power on earth could

maintain wages, reduce hours, increase cost of production, lessen profits, diminish capital, and then employ the unemployed.

The fourth argument is that a legal limitation of the hours of labour would be a coercion of trade. As Bradlaugh said, however much a man wanted to work more than eight hours for wages, he would be prevented by law. This compulsion would take away the opportunity of thrift, and curtail the workman's freedom. Inspection would be necessary to prevent men from working more than the legal number of hours at the same rate of wages. Referring to the fact that work is often taken home, Bradlaugh asked, 'Are you going to allow the police spies to come into your home and say how long you shall work?' Mr. Hyndman will answer that the espionage would be exercised by a system of fines imposed on the employers, not on the employed. But in many cases it could only be effective by seeing that the workmen themselves did not exceed the hours by private arrangement. His own Bill contemplated informers to be rewarded by half the fines. The whole industry of the country would be blighted by the evil eye of spies and sycophants.

The last argument is the consequence that a coercion so inimical to the freedom of trade would not be obeyed. The legal limitation, in spite of espionage, would be evaded when it became contrary to the wishes of employer and employed, and all the more because the ordinary conscience would not condemn the evasion. Bradlaugh rightly concluded that the hours of labour should be severally settled by conciliatory conferences. It is a matter for contract and for conscience, not for coercion and law. 'Nam si velis quod nondum vetitum est, timeas ne vetere; at si prohibita impune transcenderis, neque metus ultra neque pudor est.' Oxford, Aug. 20.

X

154

The strike of Taff Vale Railway employees took place in August 1900. It lasted for only ten days, and resulted in the return of the men to work without any increase of wages. In the Taff Vale picketing case which followed, the House of Lords, acting as the Final Court of Appeal, gave a judgement (July 22, 1901) which made trade unions liable to be sued for damages on account of injuries sustained through unlawful conduct of persons acting on their behalf. The second Baron Penrhyn (1836-1907), who had taken over practically bankrupt quarries from his father in 1885, and made them prosperous, was faced with a prolonged strike from 1897 to 1903, although the stoppage was not complete. He refused to negotiate with the union. The strike was formally declared at an end on November 13, 1903. Case used to say: 'Lord Penrhyn is the greatest man in England.'

The strike of the men employed in the Grimsby steam trawlers lasted from the middle of August into October (1901). On September 17 the offices of the Owners' Federation were wrecked in a riot and set on fire.

FROM The Times, OCTOBER 7, 1901.

Some years ago I addressed to you a number of letters, which, if their warnings had received more attention, might have saved some of our present difficulties in dealing with the labour question. For example, whereas I urged that, when crime had been committed, conciliation and arbitration would be injurious because they would condone crime, conciliation and arbitration have since that time been largely established without any distinction of circumstances. But when one contemplates the criminal violence which has attended disputes so near together as that on the Taff Vale Railway in South Wales, that at the Penrhyn Quarries in North Wales, and that now proceeding in the East of England at Grimsby, one cannot help asking this questionHow is it that those who commit these crimes think that the dispute will nevertheless end in their favour? It is because they expect on the one hand to escape punishment, and on the other hand to recover their places by conciliation or arbitration of some kind.