AN 
 EIGHT-HOURS 
 
 DAY 
 
 THE CASE AGAINST 
 
 TRADE UNION AND LEGISLATIVE 
 
 INTERFERENCE. 
 
 W. J. SH AX BY 
 
 W' 
 
 Printed and Published by 
 JHE LIBERTY REVIEW" PUBLISHING Co., Ltd, 
 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E C, ^ 
 
 1 
 
 Price 
 

 HP 
 S55 
 
 ^nM)X Uttirmitg Jilrmg 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Z89X 
 
 AUM.53.L. : 3.1 pij. 
 
Illlllllllllllll 
 
 ,_,„.,_„ .^^^ ^^g ^gg 
 
 olin 
 
 The date shows when this volume was taken. 
 
 All books not in use 
 for instruction or re- 
 ^'earcii are limited to 
 all borrowers. 
 
 MAY 29)948 . volumes of periodi- 
 
 ^^V cals and of pamphlets 
 
 comprise so many sub- 
 jects, that they are h^ld 
 in the library asmuch 
 as possible. For spe- 
 cial purposes they are 
 given out for a limited 
 time. 
 
 Graduates and sen- 
 iors are - allowed five 
 volumes for tWO weeks. 
 Other studeiits. may 
 have two vols, from the 
 circulating library for 
 two weeks. 
 
 Books not needed 
 during recess periods 
 should be returned to 
 the library, or arrange- 
 ments' made for their 
 return during borrow- 
 er's absence, if wanted. 
 
 Books needed by 
 more than one person 
 are held on the reserve 
 list. 
 
 Books of special 
 value and gift books, 
 when the giver wishes 
 it, are not allowed id 
 circulate. ' 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030078186 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 THE CASE AGAINST TRADE-UNION ; AND LEGISLATIVE 
 INTERFERENCE. 
 
 BY 
 
 W. J. SHAXBY, 
 
 Author of "The Case Against Picketing" and " A Summary of 
 English Legislation on Arbitration and Conciliation^ 
 
 Printed and Published by 
 
 " THE LIBERTY REVIEW " PUBLISHING CO., Ltd., 
 
 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. 
 
 1898. 
 
/v. lao-S"^^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 V 
 
 Preface 
 
 I. Arguments in Favour of an Eight-Hours Day ... i 
 
 II. Arguments Against a Legal Eight-Hours Day ... i 
 
 III. From a Social Aspect 3 
 
 IV. Economic Effects 6 
 
 V. Legislative and Other Proposals 11 
 
 VI. Facts to be Borne in Mind 17 
 
 VII. The Government as Employer 22 
 
 VI 11. Typical Instances of Industrial Action with regard 
 
 to a Forty-Eight-Hours Week 26 
 
 IX. Trade Unions and the Eight-Hours Question ... 31 
 
 X. The Labour Commission Minority Report 38 
 
 XI. Cases of Some Special Industries Considered ... 43 
 
 1 . Agriculture and Fishing ; Domestic Service ; 
 Employment of Seamen 43 
 
 2. Coal Mining 49 
 
 3. Dock and Wharf Labour 55 
 
 4. Iron and Steel Trades (including Ship- 
 building) ... 57 
 
 5. Textile Trades 61 
 
 6. Building Trades 62 
 
 7. Railways 63 
 
 8. Tramways and Omnibuses 67 
 
 g. Municipal and Government Employment 
 
 (with special reference to Gasworks and 
 
 Tramways) 68 
 
 XII A Few Statistics 72 
 
' CONTENTS. 
 
 XIII. The New Zealand Eight-Hours Bill 80 
 
 XIV. Concluding General Summary : The Voice of the 
 
 People and the Decision of the Employers ... 83 
 XV. The Demand for an Eight-Hours Day in the Engi- 
 neering and Kindred Trades, 1897-8 92 
 
 1. The Eight-Hours Question in the Engineer- 
 
 tion and Shipbuilding Trades 93 
 
 2. The Boilermakers' Attitude and the Strike in 
 London 9; 
 
 3. The Engineers' Strike in London and the 
 ensuing General Lock-out and Strike ... 97 
 
 4. Some of the Trade Unions' Reasons for 
 Raising the Demand 123 
 
 5. Some of the Employers' Reasons for Refusing 
 
 the Demand 124 
 
 6. Why some Firms Granted the Demand ... 127 
 
 7. Why so many Firms Reverted to Longer 
 Hours 127 
 
 . Some Personal Observations 130 
 
 Index 132 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The cordial reception given to my little book on " Picketing " 
 in September last has induced the compilation of this summary 
 of a still more important phase of the labour question. The 
 present volume is really a series of notes, so placed as to form, 
 it is hoped, a readable handbook, and drawn up chiefly 
 with the desire of deliberately giving a definite expres- 
 sion of opinion on the subject, but, at the same time, not 
 excluding fair statements of arguments of other sides of the 
 question. It is hoped that the undercurrent of bias bears 
 with it a clear indication that we favour such a voluntary 
 reduction of the hours of labour as considerations for national 
 prosperity and the welfare of every individual concerned 
 will permit ; in fact, as Professor Marshall puts it, " that a 
 general reduction of the hours of labour is likely to cause a ' 
 little net national loss and much moral good." But State 
 interference and trade-union compulsion cannot be too 
 strongly condemned. There is no lack of illustration to 
 show that hitherto voluntary effort has been thoroughly 
 satisfactory. Many experiments have been attempted, either 
 through the personal feeling, the generosity, the sense of 
 duty, or the business interest of the employer, or at the 
 honourable initiative of the employed to secure for themselves 
 more leisure, more healthy conditions of working, or higher 
 wages. If the experiment has failed. State action cannot 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 compel success. If the experiment has succeeded, State 
 action is not necessary. 
 
 That a general reduction of hours of labour will some day 
 be possible is not questioned. The legitimate effort of trade 
 unions towards securing such an end is commendable ; but a 
 clear distinction must be drawn between lawful (using the 
 word in a moral as broader than a legal sense) effort and 
 immoral compulsion or intolerant interference. Peaceful 
 negotiation will solve more difficulties than will recklessly 
 promoted strikes and internecine warfare. 
 
 I believe that, with the exception of Mr. Jeans' recent 
 pamphlet, this is the first attempt to summarize in book form 
 the question of an eight-hours day, with the rights of employers 
 and of the unfettered workmen placed prominently in the fore- 
 ground. Most of the literature professing to deal more or less 
 exhaustively with the subject seems to have unduly emphasized 
 the sentimental and socialistic view of the question at the 
 expense of practical utility. 
 
 We all, whether employers or not, rejoice in the fact that the 
 manual worker has during recent years raised himself to a better 
 social position. He has often been righteously discontented, and 
 moderate discontent, containing all the best elements of ambi- 
 tion, is a good thing ; but, carried to excess, it becomes greed, 
 and inevitably tends to an embittered strife. If a workman is 
 paid — and ungrudgingly paid — higher wages, and if he is given 
 — and willingly given — shorter hours, good and faithful service is 
 expected in return, and employers must insist on his throwing 
 off the incubus of supporting the motley agitator, whose 
 business it is to encourage unwholesome discontent and make 
 strife chronic in the industrial world. If the employers 
 continue to act firmly, with wisdom, and in concert, the 
 State will not be likely to bother itself with labour legislation, 
 but will attend to its functional concerns and ceremonials. 
 
PREFACE. VU 
 
 The only unemployed will then be the self-appointed leaders 
 of that socialist faction which, in the labour world, makes so 
 much noise with so little impression or real achievement. 
 
 What I propose to give in this series of notes is (i) a brief 
 summary of a few of the main arguments for and against 
 restrictive legislation as regards the hours of labour; (2) a 
 short analytical statement of some of the possible and probable 
 effects of an eight-hours day from social, economic, and 
 statistical standpoints ; (3) a glance at the working of some 
 typical tentative experiments in this direction — although no 
 investigation into conditions of success or causes of failure 
 has been attempted ; (4) a risun^ of proposals which 
 have been made at different times, and the attitude towards 
 them of trade unions and of employers and employed in some 
 of the staple industries of the United Kingdom ; and (5), as an 
 appendix, such a selection of facts and quotations about the 
 recent great engineering dispute as will form a short history 
 of its relation to the question before us. 
 
 It is, perhaps, hardly possible at this time of day to throw 
 any new light upon the general question of an eight-hours 
 day, but it is hoped that this attempt to summarize the salient 
 points of the controversy, which has now been raging for 
 several years past, may prove of some use to those who lack 
 the time necessary to an exhaustive study of the arguments 
 which have been advanced for both sides. 
 
 Except where it has been necessary to correct fallacies, I 
 
 have endeavoured not to traverse ground already covered by 
 
 previous treatises on the subject, in most of which many 
 
 valuable facts are incorporated, 
 
 W. J. S. 
 
 April, i8g8. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 I— ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 The following seem to form the chief reasons advanced in 
 support of a demand for a general eight-hours working day : — 
 
 1. That the present hours of labour are often injurious to the 
 health of the workers, and in some industries are a soiirce of 
 danger to the public also. 
 
 2. That by the anticipated absorption of the unemployed 
 the eight-hours day would materially assist in the solution 
 of a very difficult social problem. 
 
 3. That the alleged increase in wages which would follow on 
 the grant of an eight-hours day would produce a fairer division 
 of the wealth which labour helps to create. 
 
 4. That the growing desire for culture among the working 
 classes requires to be satisfied by the grant of additional 
 leisure. 
 
 5. That, practically, the result of the Factory Acts forms a 
 precedent for the enforcement of a legal limit to the hours of 
 adult male labour. 
 
 6. That the present competition between employers would 
 be, in a great measure removed by a uniformity in the hours of 
 labour. 
 
 II.— ARGUMENTS AGAINST A LEGAL EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 The most sound summary of objections to legislative inter- 
 ference is that by Mr. Bradlaugh, stated thus : — 
 
 1. That it is not, and ough't not to be, the duty or business 
 of Parliament to fix the hours during which adults may work. 
 
 2. That, although the shortest hours of labour possible in 
 
2 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 each industry should be sought by, and are beneficial to, the 
 employed, such hours of daily labour should be the subject of 
 separate negotiation and arrangement in each industry, and 
 such arrangements should be arrived at by mutual discussion 
 and understanding between the employers and organized 
 employed. 
 
 3. That, if " eight hours' labour per day " be translated to 
 mean that no work of any description is to be conducted for 
 more than eight hours in each twenty-four hours, the giving 
 legal effect to a prohibition of that kind would certainly be 
 serious to many of the largest industries of the country. 
 
 4. That to prevent men in all kinds of labour from working 
 more than eight hours out of the twenty-four may, and in some 
 cases certainly would, involve a serious reduction of the wages 
 hitherto received. 
 
 Other objections may be summarized thus : — 
 
 5. That the introduction of a legal eight-hours day is an 
 adoption of the system of protection. 
 
 6. That, if wages are increased by this means, profits will be 
 so diminished that many industries will become extinct, thus 
 ultimately swelhng the ranks of, instead of absorbing, the 
 unemployed. 
 
 7. That, unless an international system is possible, foreign 
 competition will drive out the native product. 
 
 8. That the system of inspectorship necessary for the enforce- 
 ment of international regulation is vexatious and intolerable. 
 
 9. That the function of the State is to protect, and not to 
 restrain, the liberty of the subject, and that, therefore, a legal 
 eight-hours day is an infringement of the liberty of an 
 individual to make his own labour contract. 
 
 10. That a legal measure would be unworkable owing to the 
 practical difficulties of defining the limits of each trade, and of 
 effecting the necessary registration of members. 
 
 11. That a legal measure is unnecessary in trades where 
 additional leisure is an economic advantage, for in such trades 
 hours are being reduced spontaneously. 
 
 12. That reductions in hours which have accompanied the 
 rise in wages during the last twenty years have been made in 
 consequence, and not irrespective, of economic conditions. 
 
 Added to these may be given the reasons stated by the 
 Massachusetts Commission appointed in 1866. The Commis- 
 sion opposed the adoption of an eight-hours law for the 
 following reasons : — 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 3 
 
 1. Because they deem it unsound in principle to apply one 
 measure of time to all kinds of labour. 
 
 2. Because, if adopted as a general law in the way proposed, 
 it would be rendered void by special contracts, and so add 
 another to the dead laws that cumber the statutes. 
 
 3. Because a very large proportion of the industrial interests 
 of the country could not observe it. 
 
 4. Because, if restricted, as some propose, to the employees 
 of the State, it would be manifestly /arAa/, and therefore unjust. 
 
 III.— FROM A SOCIAL ASPECT. 
 
 All employers and all partizans, both socialist and anti- 
 socialist alike, are now pretty well agreed that the reduction of 
 working hours to the lowest number possible is desirable — that 
 is, as far as is consistent with the prosperity and welfare of the 
 commercial life of the nation, and as far as is necessary for the 
 health and citizen life of the workmen. 
 
 The whole matter is really a question of contract, " labour " 
 forming the commodity for sale. The contract needs but 
 two parties to it — the seller of labour and the buyer of it ; and 
 in this there is no necessity for the State to interfere. As M. 
 Yves Guyot says : " The workmen can make bad bargains, but 
 they can also make good ones, as the rise of wages during the 
 last fifty years shows. The masters do not always, by any 
 means, have the best of the bargain." 
 
 It is well nigh impossible to over-rate the advantages of fair 
 and open discussion between employer and employed for the 
 drawing up of the mutual agreement or contract upon the 
 conditions of labour. The hours for local industries — indus- 
 tries in which there can be no competition, properly so-called 
 (e.g., railways, tramways, gas-making, etc.) — can be arranged in 
 this way without friction, without injury to either side from a 
 material point of view, and without dislocation of trade. 
 
 We grant, therefore, that a workman, in order to advance 
 himself physically, mentally, and morally, has a right to claim 
 on his side of the labour contract such hours as will ensure him 
 health to enjoy physical recreation, as will give him leisure to 
 cultivate his mind, and as will enable him to combat the evil 
 
4 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 habits too often developed, if not actually induced, by excessive 
 work. We grant also that it should be the aim of every 
 employer to accede to fair demands of this nature, providing 
 that they secure his business interests, on which, be it noted, 
 the interests of the employed wholly depend. But, if the 
 conditions of trade will permit only of excessive hours of 
 labour, the workman is free to accept or reject them or to 
 compromise. The trade must stand or fall by the decision 
 of the labourers. If a trade can only be carried on at the 
 expense of the health, if not of the life, of its workers, they 
 themselves have the power to kill that trade. A country's 
 industries and the Legislature ought not to occupy the posi- 
 tions of a child and a nurse, the latter masticating all the tough 
 pieces of food on the child's plate, and then administering it in 
 the form of pap. Ultra-protection and grandmotherly legisla- 
 tion place the workers in a humiliating position that would not 
 be tolerated for a moment did they once clearly understand it. 
 The duties of the Legislature are to serve the country's 
 interests, not to tyrannically fetter and control them. 
 
 Professor J. E. Thorold Rogers, in a fine piece of writing in 
 "Six Centuries of Work and Wages," has ably summarized 
 these duties : — 
 
 "When a Government goes beyond its proper functions, 
 which are to maintain the public safety, to propound useful 
 and equitable legislation, to arbitrate between interests 
 when it is necessary, to extinguish privileges, to unite 
 efficiency with economy in the administration of affairs, 
 to punish fraud and violence, and to undertake those great 
 offices for which private action, individually or collectively, 
 is inadequate, and attempts to distribute employments 
 among its people, to favour one class at the expense of 
 another, to meddle with the innocent habits of its subjects, 
 and to mould their lives after its own pattern, to coerce the 
 open expression of opinion and to silence criticism on its 
 own proceedings, it makes itself, or those whose affairs it 
 administers, responsible for all the failures of its action, 
 and engenders the belief that, if man is made unhappy, the 
 Government has brought about that result." 
 
 Again, Mr. W. H. Mallock points out in " Labour and the 
 Popular Welfare " — 
 
 " that to secure what they have already got is the hope of 
 all classes, but to increase it by legislation is the hope of 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 5 
 
 the poorer only. It is, of course, perfectly true that the 
 rich as well as the poor are anxious, as a rule, to increase 
 their incomes when they can. But they expect to do so 
 by their own ability and enterprise, and they look to 
 legislation for merely such negative help as may be given 
 by affording their abilities fair play." 
 
 And Mr. James Annand has recently warned against State 
 action in these words : — 
 
 " The legal eight-hours day is the initial measure of 
 
 the movement for the socialization of industry Of all 
 
 the items in the long programme of the Social Democratic 
 Federation it is the one which needs to be most closely 
 watched, because it seems the simplest, while it is the 
 most subtle, and would certainly be the most readily 
 adopted. It appeals to workmen in a way which mankind 
 generally find it hard to resist. It promises them greater 
 leisure from what is often exacting and uncongenial toil. 
 It offers a weapon for use against capitalists ; and its 
 promoters describe it as a measure of social amelioration." 
 
 We have said that the worker is within his rights in asking 
 for more leisure, and in getting it, if he can ; but it is question- 
 able whether the worker of this generation knows how to use 
 his leisure. The uses of leisure may be classified broadly into 
 (i) Amusement; (2) Culture; (3) Service. To fulfil each of 
 these uses a great deal of education that is now lacking is 
 necessary : for amusement, cultivation of the faculties of 
 humour and of appreciation ; for culture, knowledge, artistic, 
 scientific, and social ; for service, warmth of heart and a 
 yearning for a higher life. At present it certainly would not 
 be wise to hastily bestow upon every man a wealth of unaccus- 
 tomed leisure. At the present rate of voluntary and natural 
 progression, the next generation of workmen, who will be much 
 more fitted than this generation to use leisure rationally, will 
 have obtained without any violent upheaval of custom the 
 reduced working hours asked for. The question which is 
 providing so many agitators with a fairly luxurious living will 
 have solved itself. To quote Sir Robert Giffen in his evidence 
 before the Labour Commission : — 
 
 "I think the eight-hours day, to a very large extent, is 
 coming of itself, because in many trades a greater amount 
 of production and better quality of production is thereby 
 
O AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 obtained from the human machine than with any other 
 number of hours that can be devised ; and I think that 
 where that is the case you may leave the eight-hours day 
 very well to come of itself, because it must come. I think 
 that all the evidence which we have of the great reduction 
 of hours which has taken place in the last thirty or forty 
 years in cotton spinning, in cotton weaving, and in the 
 textile trades generally, in railway employments, and in the 
 building trades, I might add, and mining, all points to the 
 fact that, if not an eight-hours day, something very nearly 
 approaching to it, is coming of itself. 1 think that is the 
 conclusion that one must come to from looking at all the 
 facts of the case." 
 
 Mr. Webb thinks — and possibly with reason — ^that more 
 daily leisure to the bulk of' voters will increase the intelligence 
 of the electorate, and give working men an opportunity of 
 becoming competent for the duties of citizenship ; but, as Mr. 
 Webb also says, "Time is of the essence of the matter." 
 Festina lenie — nee praceps neque invitus. 
 
 IV.— ECONOMIC EFFECTS. 
 
 The probable economic results of a general reduction of the 
 hours of labour are variously estimated as follows : — As regards 
 the total product, it is sometimes stated that there will be a 
 decrease in average productivity per worker, but by absorption 
 of unemployed an increase in the total production of the com- 
 munity. On this point, however, Mr. Tom Mann's opinion 
 on three abstract cases is instructive : — 
 
 1. Assuming that the reduction of hours had no effect upon 
 the average output per man, and therefore no effect upon the 
 aggregate produce, there would be no absorption of the 
 unemployed, and no rise in wages. 
 
 2. Assuming that the reduction of hours diminished the 
 aggregate produce without diminishing the average wages per 
 man employed, there would bean absorption of the unemployed, 
 whose labour would raise the aggregate produce to at least its 
 normal amount, and possibly a rise in wages by relief of 
 competition for employment. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 7 
 
 3. Assuming that the greater efficiency arising from shorter 
 hours — i.e., a greater aggregate produce — would more than 
 counterbalance the loss of time, there would be no immediate 
 absorption of the unemployed, and no immediate rise in wages ; 
 but the ultimate effect would be both absorption of the 
 unemployed and rise in wages. 
 
 All supporters of a legal eight-hours day seem agreed that 
 wages will undoubtedly increase, and they argue that, owing to 
 an increased capacity to consume, supply and demand will 
 not be affected. But if cost of production is increased, no 
 additional employment can be created, for, as Professor 
 Rogers says : " Everything which increases the cost of adminis- 
 tering human societies diminishes the resources available for 
 the employment of industry." On the other hand, there is also 
 a unanimous agreement that reduction in wages is the natural 
 effect of a diminished production per worker. In prices it is 
 reckoned there will be no great variation, but it is conceded that 
 the (assumed) increased wages will probably reduce profits and 
 give a smaller interest to capital. Naturally the interest on loan 
 capital will then fall. This, in Sir Robert Giffen's opinion, will 
 certainly result in a withdrawal of capital. Some advocates, 
 on the other hand, argue that, as a greater number of persons 
 will be employed, and as the purchasing power will increase, 
 the market will be extended, trade will expand, and profits will 
 become greater. Hence there will be a cheapening of com- 
 modities, since the produce will be larger. With regard to 
 international trade and foreign competition, the total export, it 
 is urged, will not be affected ; but, in the face of the following 
 figures given by Mr. Tom Mann, how this will be so is not 
 clear. In a report on the eight-hours day question presented to 
 the Labour Commission, Mr. Mann states the average hours 
 now worked in Great Britain to be ten and a-half per day, in 
 America eleven and a-half, in France, Belgium, and Germany 
 twelve, and in Australia eight. With less hours, and conse- 
 quently with less fatigue, efficiency of labour, it is said, will 
 increase; but the effects of a greater strain and a probably 
 shortened time for meals are not taken into account. The 
 intensity of home competition both between worker and worker, 
 and also between employer and employer, will, it is said, 
 be reduced. But, as Professor Hadley explains, these 
 advocates "see that the different workmen in an industrial 
 community compete with one another ; they fail to see that 
 they consume one another's products. In consequence of this 
 
8 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 one-sided view, almost any policy is favoured that reduces the 
 intensity of competition among workmen and producers, even 
 though it may ultimately reduce the amount of wealth that can 
 be divided among the workmen as consumers." Again, inven- 
 tion, according to some, will be stimulated; according to others, 
 it will be deadened, and stagriation, instead of progress, will 
 ensue. ' 
 
 Mr. Sidney Webb, in his book on " The Eight-Hours Day," 
 published in 1891, sums up " thef probable economic results, as 
 far as they can be discerned," as follows : — 
 
 "A general shortening of the hours of labour may 
 slightly decrease the average productivity per worker, but 
 will, by absorbing a part of the unemployed, probably 
 increase the total production of the community. 
 
 " Supply, and therefore demand, will, in the aggregate, 
 not be diminished. 
 
 " No effect will be produced upon prices generally, but 
 some variations up and down may take place in the prices 
 of some particular commodities. 
 
 " Some industries tnay, therefore, be diminished, whilst 
 others are increased ; some few products may no longer 
 be worth producing, once the labour employed is properly 
 treated. 
 
 "Wages generally are more likely to be raised than 
 lowered, though it is possible that they may remain 
 stationary, or even temporarily droop, in a few industries. 
 
 " The aggregate payment in wages will almost certainly 
 be larger, and that for interest on capital smaller, than 
 before. 
 
 " The export trade will almost certainly not be affected, 
 though it may be somewhat varied in its composition. 
 
 " And the main permanent results are likely to be a rise in 
 real time wages, and a fall in the normal rate of loan interest. 
 
 " But even these economic consequences of a sudden 
 and universal shortering of hours, whether by law or by 
 trade-union pressure, are not at all likely to ensue in any 
 perceptible manner upon the gradual and partial shortening 
 which is all that is likely to happen. In industrial organi- 
 zation any sudden change, however good, produces a 
 serious dislocation; but almost any gradual change, 
 however important, can be endured without social injury. 
 Time is of the essence of the matter." 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 9 
 
 This summary we quote with general approval, because it 
 forms a very strong commentary upon the impossibility and 
 unreasonableness of State action. Indeed, the whole of this 
 particular book is a very strong argument against a compulsory 
 eight-hours day. It is a book overladen with figures, and its 
 facts mostly lead to very controversial conclusions, the more 
 obvious conclusions in most cases being against either trade- 
 union or State action. 
 
 The weakness of Mr. Webb's arguing is clear when we read 
 that — 
 
 " a gradual widespread shortening of the hours of labour 
 would not be likely to affect our export trade — (i) because 
 
 former similar reductions have not done so (2) because, 
 
 even now, the English cotton-spinner works fewer hours 
 than his foreign competitors, and finds their competition 
 keenest where their hours are shortest (as in Massachusetts), 
 not where they are longest (as in Russia) ; (3) because 
 it has been theoretically predicted and empirically proved 
 that the reduction would not affect prices generally ; and 
 (4) because other countries are all rapidly increasing their 
 factory legislation also." 
 
 This is the logic that leads to the reductio ad absurdum, that 
 the less work done in any particular industry the better for that 
 particular industry, and the greater the increase in its production 
 and export. A limit to reduction in hours there must be, and 
 that limit has in some industries already been reached. Eco- 
 nomic conditions, such as improved machinery, have up to now 
 secured immunity from possible evils attending former reduc- 
 tions, but it is not to be assumed that the employers are able 
 to continue invention and improvement at the same pace as 
 hitherto. Many processes have now reached their highest point 
 of perfection. 
 
 It would seem as if no two books urging an eight-hours day 
 agree in methods of obtaining it, or in the conclusions deduced 
 from the same facts. Mr. John Rae, like Mr. Sidney Webb, 
 has produced a strong commentary against a compulsory 
 eight-hours day. In 1894, in "Eight Hours for Work," Mr. 
 Rae, after a full inquiry, explodes the most vital argument for 
 cpmpulsory action in these words : — " The prevailing idea, that 
 a uniform eight-hour day will abolish the unemployed, is 
 
 chimerical It stands in absolute contradiction to our now 
 
 very abundant experience of the real effects of shortening the 
 
lO AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 hours of labour, and it stands in absolute contradiction to the 
 
 natural operation of economic forces It is not in the nature 
 
 or power of an eight-hours day to make any serious impres- 
 sion on the number of the unemployed." 
 
 The testimony of Reynold^ Newspaper on this matter seems 
 conclusive. " We remember," said this journal on September 
 Sth, 1897, " the time when the eight-hours day was advocated 
 on the ground that it would be a solution of the question of 
 the unemployed. It was our duty frequently to combat this 
 fallacy. If men can do as much work in eight hours as in nine 
 or ten, there can be no question of the absorption of surplus 
 labour. If, in addition to this, the system of overtime is to be 
 maintained, the result will be that the unemployed will have 
 less chance of occupation than before." 
 
 The report of the Labour Commission thus sums up the 
 alleged economic effects upon the interests of the working 
 classes of a reduction of the hours of labour, and the counter- 
 arguments urged : — 
 
 " The result of such a reduction will- be either to 
 diminish or not to diminish output (or service rendered) 
 per man. In the latter case no one will lose, while the 
 workman will gain in additional leisure. In the former 
 case the cost of production will be increased, but the loss 
 will not fall on the workman. It will fall either on the 
 consumer, who will have to pay a higher price for the 
 commodity, or on the employer, who will be obliged to 
 employ more hands, and who will be unable to recoup 
 himself by reducing wages, because the absorption of the 
 unemployed will relieve the competition of the labour 
 market." 
 
 Against the soundness of this reasoning it is urged — 
 
 " That the working classes are consumers as well as 
 producers, that work alone can create a demand for work, 
 that any serious encroachment on profits and interest 
 would tend to drive away capital from the country, and 
 that, even if it be granted, for the sake of argument, that 
 an eight-hours day would at the outset have the effect of 
 absorbing the unemployed, the evil of want of employment 
 I would before long recur, whereas the remedy of successive 
 reductions of hours is one that would rapidly be 
 exhausted." 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 V.-LEGISLATIVE AND OTHER PROPOSALS. 
 
 The following appear to be the chief legislative proposals for 
 an eight-hours day : — 
 
 1. A more or less rigid Act of Parliament to enforce an 
 eight-hours day upon all trades, commencing with Government 
 departments and contracts, and followed up by eight-hours for 
 railway men and miners and those employed in all local 
 monopolies. 
 
 2. Trade exemption — i.e., the application of an Act of 
 Parliament to all trades, exceptions only being made in the 
 cases of protest on the part of the majority of the workers in 
 any trade, after a legal vote has been taken. 
 
 3. Trade option by legislative enactment — i.e., an Act of 
 Parliament to apply to any trade demanding its application 
 by a majority-vote of all the workers in that trade, the power 
 to grant and to administer the Act lying with the Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 4. Local option — i.e., a local application of the principle of 
 trade option, the power of administration resting with the local 
 authorities. 
 
 5. An Act for dangerous and unhealthy trades, to be applied 
 at the discretion of the Home Secretary, or to be especially 
 enacted as the need arises. 
 
 6. Simultaneous international action. 
 
 7. International trade option. 
 
 The impossibility of a universal law is shown in the following 
 illustration of the divergences in industrial conditions quoted 
 from the Labour Commission Report : — 
 
 " Trades differ endlessly in their circumstances. Some 
 are healthy ; others more or less unhealthy. In some, the 
 labour is severe ; in others, light. In some, work is 
 continuous ; in others, intermittent. In some, the chief 
 strain is on the attention ; in others, on the physical 
 powers. In some, the hours must be practically the same 
 for all the men employed ; in others, there is room for 
 variety. Some trades depend on seasons orpn fashions, 
 or on the weather j others are more regulars In some, it 
 may be practicable to work on the shift system ; in others, 
 not. In some, reduction of hours may lead to more men 
 being employed ; in others, to fewer. In some, it may 
 
12 AN KIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 involve diminution of output, and therewith increased cost 
 of production; in others, counteracting influences may 
 prevent such results from following. In some industries 
 the increased cost may be in large part shifted on the 
 consumer ; in others, it will be a tax — at all events, at 
 first— on profits, or on wages, or on both ; in others, it 
 will check demand and injure consumer, employer, and 
 workman alike. In some, wages may be the chief item in 
 the cost of production ; in others, expenditure on plant or 
 on raw material. Some have foreign competition to 
 reckon with ; others not so. Some trades necessitate 
 processes which cannot be brought to an end at the stroke 
 of the clock ; in others, there is no such difficulty." 
 
 It should also be noticed that in these proposals the wishes of 
 the employing party are apparently not to be taken into account. 
 The workers, as a class, seem reputed to desire autocratic power, 
 and to make capital subservient to labour, instead of allowing 
 each side concerned to exercise the rights of a party to a strictly 
 business contract. It is needless to point out the injustice of 
 dealing with continuous effective labour in exactly the same 
 manner as with the mere preparatory work. 
 
 With regard to precedent, there is a prevailing belief that the 
 eight-hours day is fixed by statutory enactment in the Austra- 
 lasian Colopies. Mr. Jeans points out that this is not so. " Itt 
 1892 a return was obtained on the motion of the late Mr. 
 Bradlaugh, that showed that even in the most 'advanced' of the 
 British Colonies there were no laws in operation affecting the 
 hours of adult male labour. Eight or nine Colonies, including 
 Western Australia, South Australia, and the Cape, have no laws 
 affecting adult labour at all. New Zealand is generally under- 
 stood to be the palladium of the eight-hours day [in section 
 xiii. we reprint the latest Bill] ; but even there no legislation 
 exists on the hours of adult males, except the Coal Mines 
 Act of 1886, which limits certain kinds of mining labour to 
 eight hours a day, exclusive of meal-times and of time spent 
 in preparatory work or in repairs. In Tasmania an Eight Hours 
 Bill has been introduced several times, but it has never been 
 adopted. In Victoria the only law regulating the hours of 
 labour is the Factory and Shop Act of 1890 (which limits the 
 hours of adult females to forty-eight hours per week, subject 
 to power of suspension by the Minister of the Crown to meet 
 the exigencies of trade), and a law affecting adult male labour 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 3 
 
 in mines. In Queensland, although there is no general legisla- 
 tiori on the subject, work in the State railway workshops is 
 limited by the by-laws of the Railway Commissioners to eight 
 hours per day. In Canada the provinces of Quebec and 
 Ontario have a Ten Hours Act for females, but no limit for 
 males." 
 
 The case for a legislative eight-hours day in Great Britain 
 utterly breaks down on the question of overtime. Messrs. 
 Webb and Cox, for instance, say : — 
 
 " We have shown that in mechanical industries overtime 
 must be allowed in the case of unforeseen erhergencies — 
 as, for example, to repair a breakdown of machinery ; that 
 in agricultural and kindred industries overtime must be 
 allowed to prevent the spoiling of materials ; that in 
 certain season trades overtime must be allowed to get 
 through the pressure of work. The limit of overwork 
 allowed need not necessarily be the same in all the various 
 cases covered under these heads. But in all cases some 
 limit should be imposed by Parliament. Further, in order 
 to prevent the danger of overtime, even within these 
 limitations, becoming habitual, we make two suggestions. 
 " The first of these is that a spell of overtime during one 
 part of the year should be compensated for by a definite 
 
 holiday at the slack season Our second suggestion is 
 
 that where casual overtime, from whatever cause it arises, 
 
 cannot be absolutely prohibited, it should be required by 
 
 law that it should be paid for at an increased rate." 
 
 This means that the writers above quoted have no faith in 
 
 their own supposed convictions. They offer a loophole out of 
 
 any Act, and applaud the inconsistency of Mr. Hyndman, who 
 
 suggests in his draft Eight Hours Bill that — 
 
 " in cases of special unforeseen emergency, each person 
 who shall, by reason of such emergency, work beyond the 
 period of eight working hours in any one day, or forty- 
 eight working hours in any one week, shall be entitled to 
 receive, and shall receive, from the individual, firm, or 
 company so employing such person, notwithstanding any 
 stipulation or contract to the contrary, expressed or implied, 
 double the rate of wages per hour which has been paid per 
 hour during the normal working day of eight working 
 hours, for each hour of overtime so worked." 
 
 Mr. Rae's book, entitled "Eight Hours for Work," is similar 
 
14 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 — as I have said — to Mr. Webb's, in that it contains a vast 
 number of disjointed facts and figures which are capable of 
 being strung together in various ways, to allow of varying 
 deductions. The value of the courses advocated in the book 
 — so far as ariy advocacy at all can be discovered — may be 
 gauged when we read that, if we believe in an eight-hours day, 
 " we shall not feel deeply concerned whether it is to come by 
 means of employers' concessions, or of trade-union agency, or 
 of legislation." The method of the coming of the eight-hours 
 day, when it is other than a natural evolution, is just what 
 creates all the difficulty ; and, if a writer is unable to realize 
 that, his work must be of very little assistance in determining 
 important issues. Mr. Rae seems to lean towards Professor 
 Jevons' opinion, that " the State is justified in passing any 
 law, or even in doing any single act which, without ulterior 
 consequence, adds to the sum-total of happiness." Now, the 
 majority enjoying this sum-total consists of the average man ; 
 and although the average man looks to the State — that is, to 
 the judicial powers he helps to support — for his immunity from 
 molestation, for liberty to pursue his own way, provided it does 
 not interfere with another person's way — in a word, for safety 
 — he certainly does not look for happiness. Happiness is a 
 positive possession. The State can only tend negative gifts — 
 chiefly the power to deter. It does not fetter individual 
 freedom — it affords protection from interference. Professor 
 Jevons chose an unfortunate word. And yet Mr. Rae 
 advocates the State usurping to itself what it was formed to 
 prevent in others — interference. The State is a vast com- 
 bination — a joint union of all classes, combined for purposes 
 of defence, not for purposes of attack. Therefore, when Mr. 
 Rae says, " If interference benefits 20,000 persons, while non- 
 interference benefits only 10,000, the State's duty is to interfere," 
 he talks not only nonsense, but pernicious nonsense. For he 
 is urging the combination to be divided against itself— that 
 two-thirds should attack one-third. It is impossible to reconcile 
 such measures of coercion with any ideal of individual freedom, 
 whether that ideal be preconceived or sequent. 
 
 Tersely expressed, the eight-hours day movement is merely 
 a conspiracy originally got up by socialist agitators to un- 
 warrantably increase wages by legislative enactment, and thus 
 prepare the way for a wholesale State regulation of wages. 
 Against all such plausible and alluring, but insidious, proposals 
 as a compulsory eight-hours day, the employed as well as 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 5 
 
 employers must be sternly warned. The danger is clear when 
 we analyse Mr. Webb's contention, that "the community claims 
 the right to prevent a man from selling his excessive labour in 
 such a way as to cause other workers to be compelled to work 
 
 as long as he does In other words, his liberty is to be 
 
 curtailed in order that the liberty of others may be extended." 
 This is simply a theory of confiscation, and it is defensible by 
 no moral law. 
 
 With regard to trade option, it will be remembered that on 
 June 1 2th, 1892, Mr. Gladstone received a deputation from the 
 London Trades Council, and shortly afterwards suggested the 
 scheme of trade option, although, at the same time, he 
 acknowledged the difficulties of establishing a uniform rule, 
 of ascertaining the opinions of the majority of a trade, of 
 defining a trade and a locality, and of recognising legally trade 
 membership, organization, and responsibility. 
 
 The refusal in 1894 of the promoters of the Miners' Eight 
 Hours Bill to accept the principle of local option led to the 
 withdrawal of the Bill. At the Committee stage an amendment 
 that the Bill expire in December, 1899, was accepted and 
 passed. A second amendment, to the effect that only in such 
 districts or mines where a majority of those working under- 
 ground were in favour of the eight hours should the measure 
 be enforced, aroused the intense opposition of the promoters, 
 and when the amendment passed by 112 to 107 the Bill was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 We have chronicled the suggestions for international move- 
 ments, but they are too chimerical to need combating seriously. 
 On March ist, 1897, at the Brussels Gasworks, 186 workpeople 
 struck for three eight-hours shifts, in place of two twelve- 
 hours. On the nth 33 men, for whom only there were 
 vacancies, were received back; and during the strike the 
 supply of gas to the city was not interrupted. A failure as 
 decided as this shows the futility of expecting the universe to 
 become a socialist fraternity within a considerable number of 
 centuries. 
 
 Other proposals are as follows : — 
 
 I. Voluntary action by mutual agreement — «.e., the question 
 of hours to be a condition settled in the labour contract. 
 This is the course favoured by the opponents of socialist 
 legislation; and, in support, the opinion of an extremely 
 temperate writer is valuable. Dr. SchafBe, in his " Theory and 
 
1 6 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 Policy of Labour Protection " commits himself in favour of a 
 legal ten or eleven hours day for industrial work, with special 
 provisions for specially dangerous or exhausting trades, and 
 with freedom of contract below that limit, and brings evidence 
 to show, as he alleges, that such a step has already been 
 justified by experience. But he pronounces emphatically 
 against the universal compulsory eight-hours day ; he is 
 inclined to think that the necessity for a maximum working 
 day, on grounds of protective policy, does not extend much 
 beyond factory and quasi-factory labour, many wage-workers 
 finding sufficient protection in the force of public opinion, in 
 moral influence, and custom. 
 
 2. Coercive action upon employers — i.e., enforcement of a reduc- 
 tion of hours by trade unions acting tyrannically in the alleged 
 interests of their members. This opens up a broad question of 
 trade unionism, whether the functions of trade unions should not 
 be confined to protecting the individual interests of their 
 members, and acting in matters of a provident and friendly 
 character, or whether trade unions shall interfere in the labour 
 contract and attempt to dictate terms to their members, and, 
 by means of organized strikes, force employers to accept them. 
 While patient negotiation such as that carried on by the 
 Cleveland blast furnacemen cannot be complained of, the 
 Penrhyn quarry dispute and the great engineering dispute have 
 brought the question of undue interference to a climax, and once 
 for all shown that employers are masters in their own works, and 
 intend to be. It being thus clear, by undisputed accomplish- 
 ment, that in future no dictatorial policy on the part of any 
 trade-union official will be tolerated, the following contention 
 of Professor A. T. Hadley falls to the ground. In his book 
 on "Economics," published in 1896, Mr. Hadley says: "If 
 the employees were united in a universal strike in the whole 
 trade, for the sake of reduction of hours, they could force a 
 compliance with their demands." " But," he adds, "in many 
 trades a minority of unintelligent employees could defeat the 
 change altogether." Therefore, he proceeds to argue, recourse 
 must be had to legislative enactments. " To be successfully 
 applied, a law reducing hours of labour must be strictly 
 mandatory, and not permissive or optional. The conditions 
 under which overtime is to be allowed must be accurately 
 defined, and the provisions of the law on this subject must 
 be enforced, even in cases where its enforcement involves 
 hardship. It is fatal to the success of an Act if public 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 7 
 
 sentiment justifies individuals in taking the matter of excep- 
 tions into their own hands." 
 
 On the first point, as we have said, the complete defeat of 
 the combined engineers of the whole country shows that a 
 universal strike is not a priori successful, because lock-outs 
 and employment of " free labour " are neither unknown nor 
 despicable weapons in the hands of employers. On the 
 compulsory legislation question we have already, in section ii., 
 summarized objections, and, indeed, the whole of this book is 
 intended to oppose the idea. 
 
 VI.— FACTS TO BE BORNE IN MIND. 
 
 In forming definite conclusions upon the eight-hours question, 
 in addition to the above-mentioned possible and probable eco- 
 nomic effects, the following facts have also to be borne in mind : — 
 
 That the question of an eight-hours day has been raised 
 in response to two imperative demands : (i) a demand 
 for leisure, and (2) a demand for work, which are self- 
 contradictory ; and that the solution of the question lies in 
 the reconcilement of the two demands. 
 
 That the present tendency is towards a general reduction ot 
 the hours of labour, and that the eight hours day is thus coming 
 of itself. 
 
 That the growing tendency of a most dangerous character, 
 to look to the Legislature or the Government to supply 
 immediate remedies for all evils, however arising, in the 
 struggle for existence, is a violation of the spirit of sturdy 
 independence which characterizes the British nation. 
 
 That, as Professor Thorold Rogers points out, the Act of 
 Elizabeth, and the regulations of Quarter Sessions, which 
 prescribed twelve hours' work a day all the year round, only 
 provoked evasions and resistance on the part of employer and 
 employed, 
 
 That the present eight-hours day laws in thirteen of the 
 United States are a dead letter — not one of them is enforced, 
 or attempted to be enforced. 
 
 That in the case of skilled trades carried on by adult men 
 the normal hours of labour, though untouched by the Factory 
 Acts, have shown a tendency of recent years to approximate to 
 nine a day, or fifty-four a week. 
 
 That well-organized workmen have but very rarely lost the 
 
 c 
 
1 8 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 gains really acquired by them in the way of reduction of hours 
 of work, and that the tendency to the reduction of the normal 
 working-day by voluntary efifort and negotiation with employers 
 does not appear to have exhausted itself. 
 
 That the unemployed mainly consist of unskilled labourers, 
 who cannot be absorbed into the skilled industries even if the 
 hours of the skilled artizans are curtailed and vacancies for 
 additional workers created. 
 
 That a distinction must be drawn between an hour of work 
 and an hour of duty. 
 
 That a forty-eight-hours week, being an admission of the 
 right to work overtime, involves increased difficulties with 
 regard to wages. 
 
 That many workmen prefer longer hours five days of the 
 week, in order to obtain a weekly half-holiday. 
 
 That, in Mr. Jeans' words, " when Parliament interfered to 
 limit the hours of women and children in factories, both were 
 being overtaxed beyond their strength, amid surroundings that 
 were not generally so salutary or so sanitary as they should 
 have been. The hours of labour were much longer than they 
 are now ; the education of the children was being neglected ; 
 the health and maternity of the women was being injured, and 
 other objectionable features were common." 
 
 That there is no such thing as a genuine eight-hours working 
 day, and three shifts are thus impossible ; for five days nine 
 and three-quarter hours (including one hour for dinner) are 
 expended, and on Saturday four and a-quarter hours for the 
 half-day. 
 
 That the demand — such as it is — is for eight hours' limited 
 work for nine hours' full pay. 
 
 That the trade-union ideal is the substitution of time work, 
 with a restricted output, for piece-work. 
 
 That, even with the retention of piece-work labour, the cost 
 would be increased if, as Messrs. Webb and Cox argue, " the 
 economic conditions which enable a day's wage to be main- 
 tained with shorter hours will quickly cause a rise in piece 
 rates." 
 
 That, as Professor Hadley states, reductions of hours bear 
 heaviest, not on the employer — not on the man who has money 
 to spend — but on the labour of those who cannot stand the 
 increased speed, and are therefore forced to a choice between 
 a lower standard of comfort or an intensity of strain which 
 they cannot bear. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 9 
 
 That although, according to Professor J. E. Thorold Rogers, 
 "it is plain that the day was one of eight hours " in the golden 
 age of the fifteenth century, a reversion to ancestral practice 
 cannot be regarded as a progressional step. 
 
 That, in Mr. Webb's words, " it is easy to attribute too much 
 importance to the nine-hours day which has been gained in the 
 skilled trades. To a large extent the change from ten to nine 
 was a change in name only." 
 
 That legal action is heartily opposed by the representatives 
 of such diverging political interests as the Liberals of the old 
 school, the modern Conservatives, and by representatives of 
 such opposing principles as the Anarchists and the Liberty and 
 Property Defence League. 
 
 That, on the question of expediency, the only legitimate 
 argument in favour of any further reduction of hours, those 
 most nearly concerned — viz., the employers of labour — are the 
 best judges, and that they, with the public and the workers, 
 alone have the right to decide such question. 
 
 That an eight-hours day will have to abolish seasons, or relax 
 its rigidity by providing for such contingencies, and therefore 
 cease to be an eight-hours day. 
 
 That, in considering precedents and contrasting wages before 
 1850 for long hours with wages after 1850 for short hours, it 
 must be borne in mind that other economic conditions than 
 hours and various contemporary events had their due efiects, 
 and that neither statements that reduced hours necessarily 
 imply higher wages, nor statements that reduced hours 
 must create an equivalent reduction in wages, are legitimate 
 arguments. 
 
 That Sunday work, night work, and overtime, in certain 
 trades and industries, are inevitable. 
 
 That, if the principle of State interference with working 
 hours is conceded, the Legislature may also seek to control the 
 uses of a man's leisure. 
 
 That the growth of the employment of women in almost 
 every branch of industry is a factor which can in no wise be 
 ignored. 
 
 That the schemes for compulsory early closing already tried 
 have resulted in utter failure. 
 
 That definite limitation of hours of work in such cases as 
 those of agricultural labourers, seamen, domestic servants, and 
 persons working at their trades alone and in their own homes, 
 is too absurd a proposition for serious discussion. 
 
20 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 That the maximum working day, applied only to industrial 
 labour, lacks completeness. 
 
 That the working classes are by no means unanimous in 
 demanding a reduced working day. 
 
 That the aristocracy of the manual classes — i.e., the old 
 trade unionists — heartily oppose a legal eight-hours day. 
 
 That, even if the ten-hours day of labour protection be 
 approved as not socialistic, but a purely legitimate State pro- 
 tective regulation, it must be remembered that, in the words of 
 Dr. Schaffle, " the legal eight-hours day threatens to ultimately 
 develop, should socialism as an experiment ever be tried, into 
 a (socially) normal — i.e., maximum — working day of the worst 
 possible kind." 
 
 That the logical sequence to State regulation of hours is 
 State regulation of wages. 
 
 Many more points might be referred to, but it will be 
 sufficient to enumerate these few without enlarging on them. 
 For a last note on this head let us look at some additional 
 opinions upon the functions of Government, from which some 
 sidelights on the question of reduced hours may be thrown. 
 In the introduction to an old edition (1836) of Adam Smith's 
 " Wealth of Nations " M. Gamier summarizes Adam Smith's 
 doctrine by saying that the power by which a nation creates its 
 wealth is its labour ; that the quantity of wealth created will 
 increase in direct proportion as the power increases ; and that 
 the increase of power may take place in two ways — in energy 
 and in extent. He then proceeds to give his view of the 
 functions of Government : — 
 
 " To accomplish the increase of labour in both these 
 
 ways the exertions to be made by its (a nation's) 
 
 Government," M. Gamier says, are "the subdivision of 
 
 labour and the invention and perfecting of machines 
 
 Let the Government, then, direct its attention to the 
 enlargement of the market, by forming safe and con- 
 venient roads, by the circulation of sterling coin, and by 
 
 securing the faithful fulfilment of contract Under this 
 
 second head of the increase of the products of labour the 
 exertions of Government are much more easy. In fact, it 
 has only to refrain from doing harm. It is only required 
 of it that it shall protect the natural liberty of industry ; 
 that it shall leave open every channel into which, by its 
 own tendencies, industry may be carried ; that Govern- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 21 
 
 ment shall abandon it to its own direction, and shall not 
 attempt to point its efforts one way more than another ; 
 for private interest, that infallible instinct which guides 
 the exertions of all industry, is infinitely better suited than 
 any legislator to judge of the direction which it will with 
 most advantage follow. Let Government, then, renounce 
 alike the system of prohibitions and of bounties ; let it no 
 loiiger attempt to impede the efforts of industry by regu- 
 lations, or to accelerate its progress by rewards; let it 
 leave in the most perfect freedom the exertions of labour 
 and the employment of capital ; let its protecting influence 
 extend only to the removal of such obstacles as avarice or 
 ignorance has raised up to the unlimited liberty of industry 
 or commerce ; then capitals will naturally develop them- 
 selves, by their own movement, in those directions which 
 are at once most agreeable to the private interest of the 
 capitalist, and most favourable to the increase of the 
 national wealth." 
 
 This opinion, coming from one of the early-century French 
 economists, after a careful study of Adam Smith, reflects the 
 general views of his period. The modern tendency of the 
 opposing school of economic thought cannot be better illus- 
 trated than by the following opinions expressed by Mr. Sidney 
 Webb. Mr. Webb urges that it may reasonably be contended 
 that prevention of excessive hours of labour, for whatever 
 cause, is one of the essential duties of Government in an 
 advanced industrial community. It is a primary duty of 
 Government to prescribe the plane on which it will allow the 
 struggle for existence to be fought out. The whole history of 
 Government is a long series of limitations of the conditions 
 of the struggle, with a view to raising the quality of existence. 
 No individual competitor can lay down the rules of the combat, 
 nor safely choose the higher plane, so long as his opponent is 
 at liberty to fight on the lower. The power of the Govern- 
 ment should be used to make good the loss of indi- 
 vidual liberty which has been caused by economic develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Here are two definite courses advocated for choice. Accept 
 the teaching of the old economists, with its historical result — 
 a century's growth. Compare the magnitude of commerce a 
 hundred years ago with its magnitude now. Note the mar- 
 vellous strides. Or, join the advocates of the new theories in 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 their experiments with other people's property, other people's 
 labour, other people's capital. 
 
 VII.— THE GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER. 
 
 The results of the inquiry in 1893 by the Secretary of State for 
 the War Department into the adoption of the forty-eight-hours 
 week in private engineering works, the productions of which 
 are analogous to the great ordnance and small arms factories 
 at Woolwich, Enfield, and Birmingham, are stated to have proved 
 satisfactory in every material particular. " As regards the 
 amount and quality of the work done, the change made 
 scarcely any appreciable difference in the proportion borne 
 by wages to output, while there is conclusive evidence of 
 saving resulting from lost time, economy of fuel and gas, and 
 diminution of wear and tear of machinery." The system was, 
 therefore, adopted in the Government Ordnance Factory and at 
 the Pimlico Army Clothing Factory at the end of February, 
 1894 ; it affected nearly 18,000 people employed by the War 
 Office. A reduction of hours to forty-eight per week in the 
 Admiralty establishments, which took effect on July 2nd, 1894, 
 applied to 22,571 persons employed in the Dockyards at 
 Portsmouth, Chatham, Sheerness, Deptford, and Pembroke. 
 A similar reduction was introduced November 8th, 1894, into 
 the Naval Ordnance Department, and affected 925 persons. 
 The average forty-eight-hours week had been in operation at 
 the Woolwich Depot since April 2nd, 1894. It there affected 
 398 persons. The day-work rates and piece-work prices 
 remained unaltered, but certain customary allowances were 
 discontinued. 
 
 The action of the Government was undoubtedly hasty, and 
 it has been severely criticised. Mr. Jeans says : — 
 
 " It is a matter for regret that the British Government 
 have allowed the workmen — or, rather, their representatives 
 in the Dockyard constituencies — to force their hand in this 
 matter. The views entertained by the responsible Ministers 
 do not appear to have been very keenly in favour of an 
 eight-hours day, until, at any rate, a very recent date. It 
 appears that when, in March, 1893, Sir John Gorst and 
 Colonel Lloyd brought in a motion that the conditions of 
 labour in the Dockyards as regards hours, wages, etc., 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 23 
 
 should be such as to set an example to private employers 
 throughout the country, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, 
 speaking for the Government, said that they did not take 
 the motion to mean that ' we should embark in new 
 experiments far ahead of general practice,' and he added 
 that 'the public money is not given for the purpose 
 of experiments such as might lead to heavy loss in private 
 trade, such as the most open-minded and open-hearted 
 employer might shrink from entering on '; while he finally 
 declared that he accepted, in the fullest sense, ' the 
 principle that the terms of Government should be beyond 
 reproach; but I draw a great distinction between that 
 and the proposal that we should forge ahead of public 
 opinion.' " 
 
 It is clear that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was after- 
 wards actuated solely by party motives, and that his later action, 
 in view of his former personal attitude, may justly be unfavour- 
 ably criticised. While protesting against the general principle 
 of the State as direct employer of labour, we hold, however, 
 that where the State has obtained control of work, even of work 
 more fitted for private enterprise, it is rather the duty of the 
 Government to err to the side of granting exceptional terms to 
 its employees than to set a bad example of grinding and 
 sweating. Its conditions of employment should be model, if 
 only as an object-lesson of the impracticability of perfection. 
 
 The whole business conclusively proves the validity of our 
 contention that the State as a general employer is, through its 
 ofiScials, a bungling administrator, for the men are dissatisfied 
 with the conditions reduced hours have imposed ; a direct 
 financial loss, it is stated, has resulted, and — as tacitly 
 admitting the impracticability of the general application of the 
 system, most important of all^ — at Woolwich it is necessary to 
 actually except from its operations stokers and locomotive 
 engine-drivers, and the workmen employed in mills and forges, 
 where the processes are carried on continuously. 
 
 To again quote Mr. Jeans : — 
 
 "The State factories are, in every sense, monopolist 
 institutions. They are not conducted on commercial 
 principles. They have no competition to face or to fear. 
 They have abundant resources at their command, and 
 they are administered under a system which is a law unto 
 itself. All these conditions are reversed in the case of 
 
24 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 private enterprise. The private employer has to face and 
 overcome the most strenuous rivalry in all the markets in 
 the world, including his own. He must make allowances 
 for the depreciation of his plant and machinery. He 
 must keep himself up-to-date in processes and appliances 
 affecting his own special industry, or be left behind in the 
 race. He must so administer his business as to earn a 
 profit, or he cannot live." 
 
 In the engineering dispute, to which we refer later, the men's 
 demands are based in part on the fact that the State gives an 
 eight-hours day ; but, the employers having shown that they 
 cannot do so, the demand should have been instantly withdrawn. 
 The action of the State indirectly suggested the demand ; but 
 the Admiralty cannot be blamed for the prolongation of the 
 dispute. That notoriety belongs to the socialist element in 
 the dispute. The fact that a charitable example has been 
 set does not in itself compel imitation. The employers are 
 within every right in refusing a demand their industry — with 
 the factor of competition included — cannot support. We 
 believe that the vulnerable points in the action of the Admiralty 
 are — first, the lamentable unworthiness of its motives, and, 
 next, the bad general administration ; the latter, however, 
 being capable of remedy. 
 
 From some points of view, there thus appears good ground 
 for such satisfaction that it is not unreasonable to suggest that 
 the State might with advantage turn its attention to its Civil 
 Service Clerical Departments. The advocates of legislative 
 interference with the hours of labour of trades and industries 
 not pertaining to the defence of the State, nor necessary to the 
 carrying on of its business, and over which, therefore, it has 
 no rights of direct control, have surely no knowledge of how the 
 State mismanages its Clerical Departments. The fame of 
 Post Office slavery and official tyranny is world-wide. But 
 less is perhaps known of the immense waste of time and 
 energy, to say nothing of the extra cost involved by overtime 
 pay, in many Government offices and departments in Whitehall. 
 
 Mr. L. J. Jennings, M.P., put the case against red-tape very 
 forcibly in the Fortnightly Review, in August, 1888. " Look, 
 for instance," he said, "at the Admiralty and the War Office, 
 These two departments alone cost the country ;^S63,324 a 
 year. The waste of labour that goes on daily is incredible. 
 At the Admiralty the officials, sitting under the same roof, 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 2$ 
 
 write long letters to one another on the most trivial subjects, 
 just as if they were five hundred miles apart. An immense 
 heap of corespondence may be accumulated about a stick of 
 sealing-wax or a bit of string. The Accountant-General's 
 Department, crammed with extravagantly-paid oiiicials, involves 
 charges for the working staff of ;£63,557 a year, and a pension 
 
 list of ;^32,324 The Secretary of the Admiralty, Mr. Forwood, 
 
 has admitted (First Report of Sir Matthew White Ridley's 
 Commission, Q. 9,751) that, if the salaries were placed on a 
 ' commercial basis,' the expense of the Accountant-General's 
 Office would be brought down to ;^3S,ooo or _;^4o,ooo a year. 
 Why is it not placed on a commercial basis ? It cannot be 
 because the authorities have not a free hand in the ' game of 
 reorganization.' There have been at least five heroic opera- 
 tions of this kind since 1869, at tremendous cost to the country. 
 What sort of commentary is it on the great reorganization of 
 1878-80 — which cost the country ^£'20,000 a year in pensions, 
 and ;^52, 199 in bonuses — that the Department is now found 
 to be filled, as the heads of it allege, with extravagantly-paid 
 
 or incompetent officials? The War Office clerk goes 
 
 leisurely to his duties at ten or eleven, and remains till four or 
 five, his prescribed hours being six each day. And what is 
 the nature of his work? A good deal of it is utterly thrown 
 away. Accounts are audited and reaudited in a purely 
 
 arbitrary and farcical manner Correspondence rolls on in 
 
 huge volumes about trifles light as air — a charge for the use of 
 a cab, a bill of 2s. 6d. for candles, a rent in a soldier's jacket, 
 the loss of a nosebag (actual instances of these cases will be 
 found in the evidence taken before the Army Estimates Com- 
 mittee, 1887 and 1888) may form the theme of an almost 
 interminable number of letters. The cut in the soldier's jacket 
 Was ' inquired into ' by the colonels, lieutenant-colonels, deputy 
 adjutant-general, assistant deputies, and all sorts of high 
 oflScials. The documents were entered into books, signed, 
 stamped, and passed on from one to the other for nearly four 
 weeks." 
 
 A glaring but typical instance of dishonest overtime-working 
 is found in a large Department instituted chiefly in the interests 
 of the intellectual growth of the younger members of the com- 
 munity. Some extra duties recently devolved upon this office, 
 and a certain sum was granted for overtime-pay. It was • 
 found that the additional work could be easily accomplished 
 within the regular hours. The clerks, therefore, received 
 
26 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 (unofficially, of course) orders to waste two hours during the 
 day in order to leave work for the two hours' overtime per 
 night allowed ! 
 
 With such practices as these occurring in State employ- 
 ments, the conditions of which are supposed to be models for 
 all employers to strive after, it is ridiculous in the extreme to 
 urge the State to control the conditions of work in other 
 industries also. 
 
 VIII.— TYPICAL INSTANCES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION WITH 
 REGARD TO A FORTY-EIGHT-HOURS WEEK. 
 
 Adoption of a Forty-Eight-Hours Week. 
 
 After two years' trial by a firm of silver finers in 
 Sheffield (the Sheffield Smelting Company), the result of the 
 adoption of the eight-hours working day was in 1894 reported 
 highly satisfactory. The relative cost of wages both to the 
 quantity of material smelted, and to the quantity of bullion 
 produced, is stated to be slightly less, while practically the 
 same wages have been earned by the men. It is also reported 
 that, while the men in the shorter hours do fully as much work 
 as they formerly did, they " are fresher and brighter in every 
 respect." As typical firms, it may be mentioned that the 
 system has also been permanently adopted by, among others, 
 Messrs. Allan & Co., engineers, of Sunderland, employing 400 
 men ; Hadfield's Steel Foundry Company at Sheffield, and 
 Ransome and Rapier's at Ipswich, and a number of small 
 engineering repair shops in London. The Thames Ironworks 
 and Shipbuilding Company (employing 3,000 men) have 
 worked the eight-hours system since November, 1892 ; but it 
 should be added that a " good-fellowship " scheme of bonus- 
 sharing has also been adopted, and that other special circum- 
 stances prevail. The most recent trials of the system will be 
 found in its adoption by Messrs. Kynoch, gunmakers, of 
 Birmingham, and (from January ist, 1898) by Messrs. Jones 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 2^ 
 
 and Attwood, engineers, of Stourbridge, Worcs., employing 150 
 men. Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, & Co., in the 
 brewing industry, early in 1897 (May 21st), granted an eight- 
 hours day to 176 of their employees, without reduction of pay, 
 and also decided to grant an annual week's holiday, with pay- 
 ment for the same, to the whole of the permanent staff. 
 Messrs. Guinness & Co., brewers, Dublin (from February 21st, 
 1898), voluntarily reduced the hours of their workmen to 465^ 
 per week. 
 
 The published result of an experimental eight-hours day at 
 Messrs. Mather & Piatt's engineering works at Salford, from 
 March ist, 1893, to March 31st, 1894, may be summarized 
 thus : — It was found that, as compared with the six previous 
 years, the ratio of the cost of wages to the turnover increased 
 by 0-4 per cent.; but this was counterbalanced by the decrease 
 to the same extent in wear and tear and cost of consumables. 
 There was a marked improvement in "lost time," its pro- 
 portion to the total time worked having been reduced from 
 2-46 to 0-46 per cent. The piece-workers at first showed a 
 falling off in the percentage earned over what they would have 
 received as day wages ; but, as the year advanced, there was a 
 steady adaptation to the altered conditions, the difference 
 decreasing from 1-76 to 0-78 per cent, on the standard piece- 
 rate wages, and it was expected that even the small balance 
 remaining would soon disappear. It should be mentioned 
 that no overtime whatever was worked, except for break- 
 downs and repairs. Extra men were employed on the 
 double-shift plan to meet extra pressure of work. The chief 
 criticisms against this alleged success are contained in 
 the detailed scrutiny to which Mr. Mather's experiment 
 has been subjected by correspondence in the Times, in 
 Mr. Jeans' book, and in public utterances. From these it 
 appears to be contended, among other objections, that the 
 length of time of the experiment was inadequate; that any 
 gain was mainly due to abolition of overtime and its extra pay ; 
 that the character of work done during the trial year differed 
 materially from preceding years ; that piece-workers have^ a 
 reserve force of from 30 to 60 per cent., which, on reduction 
 of hours, they bring into play to their physical detriment 1 
 that, as the further report promised has not been forth; 
 coming, the announcement of complete success was doubtless 
 premature. ^ 
 
 The coming of the eight-hours day in co-operative establish- 
 
28 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 ments is not very rapid. According to the Labour Gazette, 
 out of 1,123 Distributive Societies, employing 27,712 persons, 
 in Great Britain, in 1896, only 74, employing 2,698 persons, 
 or 9.7 per 100 employees, worked forty-eight hours per week 
 or under, as compared with 9.8 in 1895. Out of 522 
 Productive Societies, employing 9,898 persons, only 40, 
 employing 893 persons, or 9.0 per cent, worked forty-eight 
 hours per week or under, as compared with 7.9 in 1895. 
 These figures are based on returns collected by the Co- 
 operative Union. 
 
 Of typical voluntary experiments abroad a few instances may 
 be given : — The result at a weaving factory in Moravia is given by 
 the Brunn Chamber of Commerce report for 1893 : A 24 J^ per 
 cent, reduction of working hours was accompanied by a 235^ 
 per cent, increase in earnings per hour. Closer observation 
 showed that the weavers working' shorter hours displayed 
 greater industry and efficiency, and seldom left their looms or 
 stood about talking. The hours of all weavers in the estab- 
 lishment were, in consequence, reduced to eight, including 
 intervals, and a considerable saving in working expenses has 
 resulted. A similar success is stated to have attended the 
 experiment made in the sheet iron works of Schnidelwald 
 (Bohemia). 
 
 An experimental reduction of working hours was undertaken 
 in May, 1894, in a paper mill at Dobrush, in the province of 
 Moghilev (Russia). The result has been described by the 
 director of the mill in a pamphlet. It appears that a change 
 was made from two twelve-hours shifts to three eight-hours 
 shifts. In order to complete the third shift fifteen more men 
 had to be engaged, bringing up the total number of shift 
 workers to 193. The actual amount paid in wages to the 193 
 men between May ist and October ist, 1894, came to 
 £^\o los. more than was paid to the 178 men during the 
 corresponding period of 1893, or 2s. 7d. per head less per 
 month for the original set of men. The extra cost in wages 
 does not amount to i per cent., and there has been no other 
 additional expenditure. The director states that the operatives 
 have conscientiously fulfilled the obligations they undertook in 
 return for the more favourable conditions of work ; that the 
 product has suffered neither in quality nor in quantity, and 
 that a great improvement is observable in the health and 
 spirits of the men. 
 
 The following list, which does not pretend to be exhaustive, 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 29 
 
 but which is typical of voluntary action taken by English firms 
 during the past year, is compiled from the Labour Gazettes 
 issued in 1897 : — 
 
 Hours reduced to forty-eight per week. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Class of Workmen. 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Previous Hours 
 per Week. 
 
 1897. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jan. 4 
 
 Dyers (Male) 
 
 103 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 54 
 
 )) 
 
 „ (Female) 
 
 167 
 
 »j 
 
 5° 
 
 'an. 8 
 
 Shop Repairers 
 
 400-500 
 
 London 
 
 54 
 
 Mai. I 
 
 Ship & Engine Smiths 
 
 37 
 
 
 54 
 
 Mar. s) 
 
 Ironfounders 
 
 S4 
 
 
 54 
 
 -Apr. 5 J 
 
 Dressers 
 
 Labourers 
 
 13 
 
 ZI 
 
 
 54 
 54 
 
 June I 
 
 Iron & Brass Founders 
 
 15 
 
 
 54 
 
 May I 
 
 Lithographic Artists & 
 
 
 
 
 
 Engravers 
 
 90 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 51 
 
 July 9 
 
 Printers 
 
 78 
 
 London 
 
 52 
 
 Oct. I 
 
 Engineers 
 
 250 
 
 Stafford 
 
 54 
 
 In a later section dealing with statistics (section xii.) will be 
 found the official reports for the years 1894, 1895, 1896. 
 
 From slight information of this nature it is impossible to 
 draw any conclusions as to the success of the experiments — nor 
 are the official reports more explicit — more especially as it 
 is not clear whether or not wages were simultaneously 
 reduced. The cases enumerated, however, are so few that the 
 value of complete data — even if obtainable — is doubtful. We 
 have, therefore, not investigated the specific cases. 
 
 Reversion to Longer Hours. 
 
 On the other hand, it may be instanced that, on May 4th, 
 1896, 100 workpeople in engineering works at Plymouth were 
 increased from forty-eight to fifty-four; and on July 27th, 
 1896, 100 brassworkers at Leeds were similarly advanced ; 
 and Messrs. J. & F. Howard, of Bedford, manufacturers of 
 agricultural tools, employing 500 men, reverted on June 12th, 
 1895, to fifty-four hours. 
 
 Recently many of the London engineering firms who con- 
 ceded the eight-hours day to their men have found it necessary 
 
30 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 to revert to the old hours. Messrs. Caird & Rayner, who tried 
 the system for twelve months, said in September, 1897 : — 
 
 " Experience during the past year has proved that work 
 executed on that system has certainly been most costly, not- 
 withstanding the fact that our new works, and modern 
 machinery and appliances, have given us special facilities for 
 more economical working than formerly. We may state 
 that, since we voluntarily gave the eight-hours day, we have 
 experienced more trouble than previously from the inter- 
 ference of the various unions in the regulation and appor- 
 tionment of our work. The conviction that our very 
 existence depended upon having complete control and a 
 free hand in the management of our works led us unhesi- 
 tatingly to throw in our lot with the Employers' Federation. 
 
 Other instances are given in the summary of the engineering 
 dispute. 
 
 Negotiation for Adoption of Reduced Hours. 
 
 The following are instances of the refusal (i) of workpeople 
 to accept a forty-eight-hours week offered by the employers ; 
 (2) of employers to adopt, until after repeated application and 
 peaceful negotiation, a forty-eight-hours week at the desire of 
 their employees : — 
 
 1. In 1894, according to the Labour Gazette, a firm in the 
 pottery trade " informed the workpeople that an eight-hours 
 day will be introduced at once if they will make suggestions as 
 to the way it is to be worked. The workpeople, however, have 
 made no response. The potters themselves do not, on an 
 average, work eight hours a day." 
 
 2. The report of the Cleveland Ironmasters' Association for 
 1894 makes reference to the application of the blast-furnace- 
 men for an eight-hours shift, which the Association was unable 
 to entertain owing to the increased cost which would thereby 
 be caused. Four firms (all non-associated), however, adopted 
 the eight-hours shift, and at the end of the year ten furnaces 
 out of ninety-four in blast were working the shorter shifts. On 
 December 20th, 1894, " figures were submitted by the men 
 for certain works showing a probable increase in the necessary 
 staff of about 20 per cent, (viz., from 443 to 533). They were 
 prepared to accept a reduction in wages to the extent of 
 receiving pay for seven days a week, instead of seven and a 
 half, as at present (Sunday work being no longer paid for 
 extra)." 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 3 1 
 
 The ironmasters' reply, dated January 28th, 1895, entered 
 in detail into the question, concluding that, " even on the most 
 favourable showing of the men, they are asking the Cleveland 
 ironmasters to pay, in the aggregate, wages to an amount much 
 in excess of what is now the case." As regards the West Coast 
 districts in which the eight-hours shifts prevail, the reply said : 
 " In such of the other districts as have adopted the eight-hours 
 shift, its eflfect appears to have been much the reverse of 
 beneficial to the trade, as evidenced by the falling-ofF in the 
 output of those districts and otherwise." Figures were given 
 showing the recent falling-ofif, both in the proportion contri- 
 buted by Great Britain to the world's output of pig-iron, and 
 in the number of tons of iron and steel exported from the 
 United Kingdom. " It is the cheapness of the iron made in 
 Cleveland which has secured the amount of work which has 
 fallen to this district ;" and, in view of the keenness of foreign 
 competition, it is " essential to the very existence of our local 
 trade that nothing should add to the causes which are so 
 actively in operation to deprive us of the markets which remain 
 to us." Finally, readiness was expressed to go carefully into 
 any schemes which "make the cost of an eight-hours shift no 
 greater than one of twelve hours." 
 
 Ultimately an agreement was signed that the scale at present 
 in use should not terminate before March 31st, 1897, and 
 that with three months' notice. 
 
 On December 7th, 1897, at an interview between the 
 associated ironmasters and the delegates of the blast-furnace 
 men from the associated works, it was agreed to bring the 
 three-shift system into operation on December i8th, and to 
 renew the sliding scale to December 31st, 1900. 
 
 IX.— TRADE UNIONS AND THE EIGHT HOURS 
 QUESTION. 
 
 CoxsiDERABLE difference of opinion on the subject of an 
 eight-hours day appears to exist among the trade unions. 
 Trade unions, on the whole, the strongest in particular, really 
 
32 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 object to State regulation, and only through the weakness of 
 the organization of certain trades agree to such proposals. In 
 some cases, where the union officials are in favour of regulating 
 and reducing the hours, the members themselves are opposed 
 to it. In most unions, moreover, where there is a majority of 
 members in favour of regulation, there is a strong minority 
 against it. In spite of this, however, it seems that the principle 
 of depriving the individual of his full freedom of contract in 
 settling his hours of labour is accepted, if not altogether 
 approved, by the bulk of the trade unionists in the country. 
 Indeed, as Mr. Mann has pointed out, such freedom is irre- 
 vocably lost already, inasmuch as modern business establish- 
 ments can be conducted only on the basis of uniformity in the 
 men's hours of labour. The individual, he says, has practically 
 no voice in determining how long he is to work ; he must work 
 either the same hours as his fellows, or not at all. And it is 
 here that the trade unions find themselves in an embarrassing 
 position — in fact, in a dilemma. Nearly all trade unions have 
 enrolled a larger number of members than the trade can 
 accommodate, in order to prevent wages being lowered by 
 competition of non-unionist labour. They are consequently 
 compelled either to expend much of their funds in support of 
 their unemployed members, or to adopt a policy seriously 
 diminishing the power of their employed members to pay their 
 subscriptions. 
 
 In passing, it is interesting to record in detail the disposal of 
 the _;^2,232,29o expended in 1893 (the year of the great mining 
 strike) by the 677 trade unions which, in that year, made 
 returns as to membership, income, expenditure, etc., to the Board 
 of Trade. In 1893 the amount of expenditure by trade unions 
 per head for certain benefits (calculated on the basis of the total 
 membership of all societies, and not on the membership of the 
 societies with a particular class of benefits) was i is. $d. for dispute 
 benefit, expended by 328 societies ; 8s. id. for unemployed, 
 travelling, and emigration, by 373 societies ; 53. 5d. for working 
 and other expenses, by 669 societies ; 3s. gd. for sick and 
 surgeon benefits, by 225 societies ; is. lod. for superannuation 
 benefits by 89 societies ; is. sd. for funeral benefit, by 385 
 societies ; is. for grants to other trade unions, by 400 societies ; 
 5d. for accident benefit, by 98 societies; and is. lod. for other 
 benefits, grants, etc., by 387 societies ; making a total of 
 ^1 iss. 2d. (including an average unspecified expenditure). 
 This total expenditure per head was j£i is. 46. in 1891, and 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 33 
 
 j^i 8s. 6d. in 1892. Compared with the years 1891 and 1892, 
 it is seen that nearly the whole of the increase in income and 
 expenditure has been used for expenses in the conduct of 
 strikes specified as "disputes benefit." This benefit in 1891 
 was — as it should be — less than the unemployed and sick 
 benefits; but in 1893, while the unemployed benefit rose from 
 3s. iid. in 1891, and from 6s. 3d. in 1892 to 8s. 2d., and the 
 sick benefit remained exactly the same, the disputes benefit 
 has risen from 3s. 7d. in 1891, and from 7s. 6d. in 1892, to 
 IIS. sd. per head ! 
 
 The only later similar figures available are for the 
 year 1894. From these it appears that the dispute benefit 
 in that year dropped to 3s. 8d. per head, and that working 
 expenses increased to 6s. per head. The other averages came 
 out about the same. The total expenditure in 1894 was 
 j^r, 786,980 by 822 trade unions, on behalf of 1,256,832 
 members. In 1895 and 1896, as the number of persons in- 
 volved in strikes was less than for the four years preceding, 
 the above averages were little affected, and in 1896 the average 
 dispute expenditure was at its lowest. 1897 is the year of the 
 great engineering dispute, which has exhausted all the available 
 benefit funds of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and 
 has impoverished many smaller societies ; the aggregate 
 dispute benefit has consequently been enormous, and will, I 
 imagine, average considerably over ;£i per unionist (the total 
 number of whom the Board of Trade estimates at i J^ millions). 
 
 Hitherto we have not mentioned any alleged effect of an 
 eight-hours day on strikes, because the effect on strikes can 
 only be an indirect result of the effect on wages, and this latter 
 is itself one of the main controversial points of the question. 
 How would an eight-hours day affect wages ? Wages would 
 remain the same, or they would be reduced, or they would be 
 increased. If reduced, the workman will bear his fair share of 
 the cost of making the change, and justice to all concerned 
 will be the result of voluntary reduction. But it is quite clear 
 that there are no intentions on the part of the employed 
 generally to accept reduced wages. Quite the contrary. 
 Hence, if wages are increased or unchanged, the employer, 
 and, therefore, the industry itself, suffers. With regard to 
 strikes, then, it is sufBcient to show the very slight direct con- 
 nection with hours of labour by quoting from the Report of 
 the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on the 
 Strikes and Lock-outs of 1893. "Strikes as to working hours 
 
34 
 
 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 have been so few in number and importance as to hardly call 
 for notice. It is sufficient to point out that there have been 
 only lo strikes during the year " — out of a total of 782 strikes 
 affecting 636,386 persons — " in which the question of working 
 hours was involved, and only 1,191 persons were affected by 
 them. As measured by numbers of persons, the strikes were 
 in the majority of cases successful, only 66 persons being con- 
 cerned in those partially or not at all successful." 
 
 The Report for 1894 says : " Questions as to hours of labour 
 have not caused much trouble during the year, although there 
 
 were 23 disputes arising therefrom involving 6, 105 persons." 
 
 The total of 1,061 strikes during the year affected 324,245 
 persons, in 3,713 establishments. 
 
 In 1895, out of 876 disputes affecting 263,758 workpeople, 
 only 12 (affecting 2,858 persons) were on hours of labour, and 
 these were, " as a rule, unsuccessful in the case of demands for 
 reduction of hours, but successful in the case of resistance to 
 extension of hours." 
 
 In 1896, out of 1,021 disputes affecting 198,687 workpeople, 
 " the question of hours of labour was the principal cause of 
 only 26 disputes, affecting 3,658 workpeople, though the 
 question of hours entered in a minor degree into many dis- 
 putes classed under the head of wages." 
 
 Reverting to the attitude of trade unions, the eight-hours 
 question has for some years past formed one of the chief 
 subjects for discussion at the annual "Trade Union Congress, 
 and the opinions of delegates have been taken by voting. The 
 following table shows the result of the voting at seven of the 
 last eight Congresses : — 
 
 
 
 Number of Totes 
 
 Number of votes 
 
 Number of 
 
 Total 
 
 Congress held at 
 
 Year 
 
 for Legislatire 
 
 agst. Legislative 
 
 Delegates 
 
 Number of 
 
 
 
 
 Intervention. 
 
 not Voting. 
 
 Delegates. 
 
 Liverpool ... 
 
 1890 
 
 193 
 
 155 
 
 109 
 
 4S7 
 
 Newcastle . . . 
 
 1891 
 
 285 
 
 183 
 
 84 
 
 SS2 
 
 Glasgow 
 
 1892 
 
 205 
 
 15s 
 
 13s 
 
 495 
 
 Belfast 
 
 I«93 
 
 97 
 
 18 
 
 26s 
 
 380 
 
 Norwich 
 
 1894 
 
 240 
 
 20 
 
 118 
 
 378 
 
 Cardiff 
 
 iSgs 
 
 182 
 
 so 
 
 98 
 
 330 
 
 Edinburgh . . . 
 
 1896 
 
 211 
 
 34 
 
 98 
 
 343 
 
 From this table it would appear that, although the actual 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 35 
 
 number of votes against legislative intervention has been much 
 diminished during the four years 1 893-1 896, the proportion of 
 delegates who remain neutral on the question and refrain from 
 voting has for the last three years remained constant at 30 per 
 cent. 
 
 At the Trade Union Congress held at Birmingham in 
 September, 1897, 381 delegates attended as representing, it 
 is claimed, 1,093,191 workers. The following resolution was 
 proposed : — 
 
 " Seeing that the eight-hours working day is one of the 
 most important preliminary steps towards the ultimate 
 emancipation of, the working class, and will lessen the 
 number of unemployed, improve the quality of work, and 
 increase the health, strength, and intelligence of the 
 workers, this Congress declares that the time has arrived 
 when the hours of labour should be limited to eight per 
 day in all trades and occupations in the United Kingdom, 
 and that the Parliamentary Committee be instructed to 
 draft a Bill on the lines of this resolution, with a view of 
 getting it passed through Parliament." 
 
 It was declared that for the motion — i.e., favouring legislation 
 — 923,000 votes were recorded, as opposed to 141,000 against. 
 The Congress also passed, without opposition, the reso- 
 lutions : — 
 
 " That this Congress is of opinion that the total abolition 
 of overtime on new work should have the immediate 
 attention of the Parliamentary Committee, with a view 
 to legislative effort for such abolition ; and, pending this, 
 it be a recommendation to all societies affiliated with 
 Congress to by all means possible restrict or abolish 
 overtime in their respective trades." 
 
 " That it be an instruction to the Parliahientary Com- 
 mittee to introduce a Bill limiting the hours of work in 
 bakehouses in Scotland to eight per day." 
 
 " That this Congress hereby approves of the Forty-eight 
 Hours Bakehouses Bill, 1897,' etc. 
 
 The only alternative to State regulation is trade-union regula- 
 tion, and this has been already attempted (with, to the workers, 
 disastrous results) ih many cases — e.g., in the engineering and 
 shipbuilding trades. Mr. Webb contends — and in this con- 
 tention we agree with him — that it is inexpedient to leave 
 
36 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 matters solely in the hands of trade unions, (i) because their 
 action is more effective among well-organized workers than 
 among less fortunate ones, who need help the most ; (2) 
 because trade-union methods generally involve an expensive 
 strike, which, even if successfuC leaves no guarantee that the 
 advantages gained in good times will not be taken away in 
 succeeding periods of depression ; and (3) because such 
 regulation excludes the public from a voice in the matter. 
 Mr. Webb argues, therefore, that an Act of Parliament is the 
 only method by means of which the latter can express their 
 consent to be so taxed. But here in the argument we part 
 company with Mr. Webb. We object to a universal regulation 
 of hours at all, but offer as an alternative to regulation, either 
 State or trade union, voluntary negotiation and mutual arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Webb's actual words are worth quoting : — 
 
 " We thus see that even those unions which were 
 powerful enough, under a happy conjunction of economic 
 conditions, to win a nominal nine-hours day are not 
 powerful enough to make that nominal gain a reality. 
 They cannot be relied upon to win an effective eight- 
 hours day. In some cases, possibly, they might be 
 successful in substituting the figure 8 for the figure 9, 
 just as in 1873 they substituted 9 for 10. But this 
 substitute, unless accompanied by strict provisions against 
 habitual overtime, is hardly worth struggling for. It 
 would merely amount, in the majority of cases, to a Slight 
 gain in money wages, and still leave untouched all the 
 physical, intellectual, and social evils that flow from 
 protracted hours of labour." 
 
 And again : — 
 
 "A trade union can effectively assert the will of the 
 majority only by means of a strike. A strike involves loss 
 of wages and physical and mental suffering to the striker, 
 semi-starvation to his family, and the loss of the comforts 
 and luxuries that labour and love have gathered within the 
 home. To the tradesmen of the district it involves loss of 
 custom, the accumulation of credit, and, in not a few 
 cases, bankruptcy. To the employer it means, in the first 
 place, the cessation of a mechanism by which he earns his 
 living and provides for his family ; in the second place, it 
 
AN EiGHT-HOURS DAY. 37 
 
 necessitates a purely profitless outlay in order to keep that 
 mechanism, whatever it may be, ready for future use ; and, 
 thirdly, it involves, as a rule, considerable expense in 
 order to start work again. 
 
 " Finally, to the general public a strike means the inter- 
 ruption of the ordinary working of the machinery of 
 society— an interruption which would, in some cases, be 
 absolutely unendurable, and in all cases must entail serious 
 personal and pecuniary troubles to thousands of individuals 
 who are powerless to control the cause of that interruption. 
 Trade-union action is, in fact, anti-social in proportion 
 as it is powerful, and endurable only when it is not 
 effective. On these grounds we suggest that trade-union 
 action is an objectionable method of obtaining the eight- 
 hours day, even in cases where it might possibly prove 
 successful. But, as we have already shown, these cases 
 are rare." 
 
 Mr. Mather, M.P., whose experiment is mentioned in 
 section viii., thus, in a great measure, expresses the contrary 
 views : — 
 
 " The cry for legislation to settle the conflict between 
 the natural and laudable aspirations of working men and 
 the fears and doubts of employers is a danger to the whole 
 field of industry. Mutual responsibility and mutual 
 benefits can only be secured by mutual arrangements. 
 A rigid law passed by members of an Imperial Legislature 
 whose votes are often given haphazard, or for party 
 reasons, or for ' a safe seat,' can never provide a remedy 
 for such conflicts as those which arise in the industrial 
 world in connection with complex questions of wages and 
 hours of labour. There are, of course, simple questions 
 of protecting some work-people in dangerous employments 
 or unhealthy occupations, which may require the State to 
 assume the responsibility of prescribing the limit of hours 
 per day during which adult men may be exposed to such 
 
 conditions But the great manufacturing industries of 
 
 the country, as a whole, if they are to be secure and 
 prosperous, must be conducted by arrangements mutually 
 planned and carried out by the trade unions and the 
 
 employers Surely such a mode of dealing with this 
 
 important question can be universally adopted in all 
 trades. The peculiarities of each can thus be specially 
 
38 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 met, while the continuity of industrial development and 
 success is secured." 
 
 But with regard to Mr. Mather's reference to trade unions 
 we wish to add one word of caution. We acknowledge that 
 when the trade unions are really representative, and embrace 
 all the workers in a particular firm, the employer may just as 
 well treat with trade-union officials, if only on grounds of 
 expediency and convenience, provided they are disinterested 
 and honest working men. In cases where dealing with trade 
 unions does not involve a neglect of unorganized labour, or a 
 strike, of even small extent, by all means let employers deal 
 with trade unions. However great the antipathy to the " new," 
 and would-be almighty, trade unionists, the influence, and in 
 many ways the usefulness, of trade unions, when viewed from 
 the standpoint of their proper sphere — that is, when considered 
 as friendly, beneficent, and provident societies — cannot be 
 disregarded; Where the danger lies is in accepting the blatant 
 self-assertion of the "labour leader"; in recognising such a 
 self-constituted egoist, who speaks of "my Society," as the 
 representative of a body of honest workmen ; in dealing with 
 other than a legally responsible committee, really representative 
 of the interests involved ; and in neglecting the claims of the 
 greater number of the industrial population, the "free" 
 labourers, the independent unorganized. 
 
 In view of the fact that, according to the latest statistics, 
 there were in 1897 in existence 466 associations of employers in 
 the United Kingdom, a universal recognition of the liberty 
 and rights of organized labour can no longer be justly withheld 
 by employers ; but there is a serious danger that the liberties 
 and rights of the voiceless majority of workers may be com- 
 pletely overlooked, while the employers and their associations 
 are engaged in combating the abuses of trade unionism, and 
 in teaching the more advanced workmen to comprehend, and 
 to make a rational limit to, their demands. 
 
 X.— THE LABOUR COMMISSION MINORITY REPORT. 
 
 A SPECIFIC proposal for legislation to limit hours of labour has 
 been made by four of the trade-union representatives who 
 served on the Labour Commission, and embodied in a minority 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 39 
 
 report. This report acknowledges, as one of the reforms at 
 which it aims, " the securing by appropriate law of an eight- 
 hours day for every manual worker." A first recommendation 
 is that " eight hours should be at once prescribed by an Order 
 in Council as the normal maximum working day in all Govern- 
 ment departments. The practice of workiiig overtime should, 
 by the same order, be strictly limited to cases of special 
 emergency, to be certified in each instance by the minister 
 responsible to Parliament for the department, and published in 
 the London Gazette." These four Commissioners also think 
 that it would be desirable to embody in an Act of Parliament 
 corresponding provisions with regard to all persons in the 
 service of local governing bodies in the United Kingdom. 
 Next follows definite mention of certain industries to which the 
 signatories consider a legal eight-hours day can be almost 
 immediately applied — viz., railways, coal mines, textile factories, 
 shops, tramways. Finally is given the detailed recommendation 
 of a " development of the system of Administrative or Pro- 
 visional Orders, by which so large a part of modern legislation 
 is effected. An Eight-Hours Act should be passed, laying 
 down the principle of a maximum working day, and authorizing 
 its application to particular industries, after due inquiry, by 
 Orders similar either to those made under the Factory and 
 Workshop Acts, or to the Provisional Orders laid • before 
 Parliament on other subjects. 
 
 " Under such an Act the Home Secretary, pending the 
 creation of a Minister for Labour, might be empowered to 
 direct inquiry to be made into the hours of labour of an 
 industry, when called upon to do so by a resolution of 
 either House of Parliament, or of any town or county 
 council, or by the trade council of any town in which the 
 industry was carried on, or by any registered trade union 
 or employers' association in the trade concerned. The 
 Home Secretary would appoint, for the purpose of the 
 inquiry, a commission of three or four experts, with full 
 powers of investigation, both of the circumstances of the 
 industry and the wishes of those engaged in it, whether 
 employers or employed. At the conclusion of its inquiry 
 the Commission would report — (a) what were the facts as 
 to the hours of labour; (b) what appeared to be the 
 predominant opinion among the members of the trade as 
 to the regulation by law of their working hours ; (c) what 
 
40 AN EK5HT-H0URS DAY. 
 
 regulation of the working hours, if any, was desirable, 
 including the arrangement of the working day or week, 
 the provision to be made for emergencies, seasons, etc.; 
 (d) precisely to what trade or group of allied trades the 
 regulation should extend ; and (e) whether the case was 
 one in which the regulation of the hours of labour could 
 be more suitably remitted to the local authorities of the 
 districts in which the industry was carried on. Upon 
 receipt of the report, the Home Secretary would, if he 
 deemed it advisable, issue an Order, either prescribing 
 such a regulation of the maximum hours of labour, with 
 such provisions for emergencies, seasons, etc., as might be 
 required for the trade, or else conferring upon town or 
 county councils, in particular districts, the power of 
 regulating the hours of labour within limits specified by 
 the Order. The Order of either kind may be required 
 to be laid before Parliament, and, after the lapse of forty 
 days, would become law, unless either House, before the 
 expiration of that time, presented an address against 
 the Order, or any part thereof. In this way we 
 believe that it would be possible promptly to secure 
 an eight-hours day for all manual workers, with a due 
 regard for the circumstances of each trade and the 
 interests of the whole community, and without seriously 
 encroaching upon the time of Parliament." 
 
 This proposal certainly does not appear very feasible ; but, 
 when compared with the greater number of the other proposals 
 made in this same report, it can only be described as extremely 
 moderate. A brief examination of some main features will 
 probably be all that is necessary to expose the impractical 
 nature of the scheme. 
 
 First, with regard to the recommendation of an inquiry. A 
 committee of inquiry is to be called into existence by the 
 mere formal asking for it. The committee will be at full 
 liberty to draw from Government finances, and to expend, 
 after the inexperienced and wasteful manner of committees, 
 practically any sum it likes for the discussion, in the usual 
 languid fashion, of a most vital question — one which, in many 
 cases, afi"ects the life of an industry. The valuable time of 
 trade experts, business men, large capitalists, and brain workers 
 in general is to be at the disposal of a committee created 
 on the demand of a town council ! of a trade council ! of 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 4 1 
 
 a trade union ! of an employers' association ! But it is 
 hardly likely that much trouble will be occasioned by the 
 demands of the latter. Employers' associations are chiefly 
 defensive, and formed to check, by wise measures, or, at least, 
 by reasonable actions, the egregious attitude of the new trade 
 unions. 
 
 It must be mentioned, however, that the adoption of this 
 proposal would involve the legal recognition of trade unions 
 and employers' associations. It seems to us that the time has 
 come when this measure cannot long be delayed, but it is 
 a very serious step, and one in itself requiring full consideration. 
 The legal recognition, of which we would approve, must be 
 granted in such a way that equal rights are left to those who do 
 not desire to delegate the making of their labour contracts to a 
 more or less representative body. In other words, only recog- 
 nition, not protection, is what we desire for trade unions. At 
 present the only responsible labour legally recognised as such is 
 free labour. Trade unionism is simply in its essence a contract- 
 ing-out to avoid the legally-recognised individual responsibility. 
 We strongly uphold the principle of contracting-out, and, 
 therefore, the right to combine ; but we still more strongly 
 uphold the right of every individual to exercise his own 
 judgment, and to choose whether or not he shall contract- 
 out and combine, or rely upon his discretion and independence. 
 
 Next, as to the composition of the committee — a commis- 
 sion of three or four experts. What are to be the qualifications 
 of an expert, and what his connection with the trade ? It is 
 not probable that the nomination of three or four men by a 
 Home Secretary would be satisfactory to the whole of a trade. 
 Suppose the committee to consist of three and the Home 
 Secretary ; objection would be raised by the employed if they 
 are represented by one only of the three. Supposing the com- 
 mittee to consist of four — two duly-accepted representative 
 employers, and two duly -accepted representative employees, 
 and the Home Secretary with a casting vote. The Home 
 Secretary might just as well give his decision without the aid 
 of his committee. The cases of attempted arbitrations in the 
 boot and shoe industry — and, indeed, in the majority of large 
 strikes — show that a deadlock must result from equal repre- 
 sentation. Agreement will be impossible. The composition 
 and report of the Labour Commission is proof positive. For 
 all the effect of the huge unparalleled inquiry conducted by the 
 Commission upon the individual opinions of the Commis- 
 
42 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 sioners, the various reports embodied in its final volume might 
 just as well have been issued as its first volume. 
 
 Thirdly, as to full powers of investigation. This is a charm- 
 ingly official phrase ; for all the practical value it possesses, for 
 its graceful absurdity, for its smooth glibness, it might have 
 emanated from the suave President of the Board of Trade 
 himself. Every commission, as a matter of fact, nominally 
 possesses these " full powers of investigation "; but they are 
 understood to be ultra vires, and no commission ever yet 
 attempted to put them into execution. It would have been 
 very amusing to watch the Labour Commission taking legal 
 proceedings to extract from the oflBcials of the Miners' Federa 
 tion their views on the Labour Question. If, in the case of 
 a Parliamentary Committee such as this proposal contemplates, 
 it should be attempted, public opinion would not permit the 
 •direful penalties of fine or imprisonment attached to this 
 treason of disobedience. It is the inalienable right of the 
 individual to speak or to hold his tongue. Modern committees 
 cannot be endowed as mediseval inquisitions. 
 
 Finally, as to the heads under which the commission is to 
 report: — "(a) What were the facts as to the hours of labour.^' 
 In this we suggest the addition of these words : " So far as the 
 •commission has been able to obtain reliable information." 
 This will give the commission a loophole for excuse when the 
 impartiality, the completeness, or the accuracy of its facts is 
 ■questioned. The experts can reply : " Our facts are strictly 
 official; we have repeated what we have been told," 
 
 ''^(b) What appeared to be the predominant opinion among the 
 members of the trade as to the regulation by law of their working 
 hours J' The majority of the employed, the free labourers, must 
 certainly be represented in the constitution of the commission, 
 and full means taken to secure a true representation. There 
 is a task laid upon the State ! By Governmental agency un- 
 organized labour is to be represented, and, therefore, in a 
 degree, organized. There should be a good opening here for 
 some of those unemployed " labour leaders " who were 
 stranded by the wave of disgust which passed over the country 
 before the last General Election, but which, alas, has continued 
 its roll ever since. 
 
 " (c) What regulation of the working hours, if any, was de- 
 sirable, including the arrangement of the working day or week, 
 the provision to be made for emergencies, seasons, etc." We have 
 •only space to remark that the reported number of alternative 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 43 
 
 desirable regulations, arrangements, and provisions will vary 
 directly as the number of commissioners //«j one for the Home 
 Secretary. 
 
 " (d) Precisely to what trade or group of allied trades the regu- 
 lation should extend." Ignotum per ignotius. Confusion worse 
 confounded. To define the undefinable. 
 
 This particular proposal, in short, seems to us to unite the 
 evils both of trade option and of local option methods of 
 applying a legal eight-hours day. It embodies, either definitely 
 or inferentially, the main points of difficulty contained in every 
 scheme yet put forward ; and it bases its arguments, from its 
 very first specific proposal, on a purely ideal estimate of human 
 nature, character, and capacity. 
 
 XL— CASES OF SOME SPECIAL INDUSTRIES CONSIDERED. 
 
 Hitherto our remarks on the eight-hours day have applied to 
 the general aspect of the question, and, with the exception of 
 the typical instances detailed in section viii., have expressly 
 excluded more than a passing reference to particular industries. 
 We now propose very briefly to look more carefully into the 
 special conditions attaching to certain important industries, and 
 to see how far it may be possible and practicable to apply pro- 
 posals for an eight-hours working day, and how far such proposals 
 are valid or justified. 
 
 I. AGRICULTURE AND FISHING ; DOMESTIC SERVICE ; 
 EMPLOYMENT OF SEAMEN. 
 
 Before considering the trades in which definite and more or 
 less practical proposals have been made, it is desirable to give 
 a few reasons why, in preceding sections, we stated that certain 
 industries and occupations could not possibly work an eight- 
 hours day, and that these cases were too absurd for serious 
 discussion. In agricultural occupations, fishing, and domestic 
 service, alone, a total of 4,868,386 persons are engaged, repre- 
 senting 30 per cent, of the total occupied persons of all ages 
 (16,543,233) of the United Kingdom. As regards seamen, we 
 can only say that the number employed in British registered 
 vessels in 1895 was 239,612. With regard to Agriculture, 
 which affords occupation to some 2,461,048 persons, in 
 England, the hours of actual work and the hours of an ordinary 
 
44 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 agricultural labourer's absence from his home vary considerably. 
 The former range from eight and a-half to twelve hours, the 
 latter from ten to thirteen and a-half hours, in spring, summer, 
 and autumn, the approximate average working time being ten 
 hours. This working time is, however, extended in cases 
 where the labourers have a considerable distance to walk to 
 their homes. Men in charge of stock have generally longer 
 hours than ordinary labourers. In the winter time, or for 
 about three months, the hours of the ordinary labourers are 
 generally only from light to dark, but in hay-time and in 
 harvest work is much prolonged, and it would be fair to reckon 
 that the overtime during these busy periods would make up 
 for the shorter hours of winter. The Assistant Agricultural 
 Labour Commissioners did not report any demand or expres- 
 sion of a desire on the part of the labourers for a compulsory 
 shortening of the hours of labour in agricultural work ; and, 
 indeed, those hours do not seem to have been generally the 
 subject of serious complaint. Mr. Mann, in his evidence 
 before the Labour Commission, stated his belief that regulating 
 the working hours of the farm labourers would remedy the 
 present irregularity of employment caused by the influx of the 
 agricultural labourers into towns. He acknowledges, however, 
 that in the application of an Act compelling municipal and 
 county authorities to limit the hours to forty-eight per week, or 
 less, in any trade within their jurisdiction where a three-fourths 
 majority of the adult workers of either sex demanded it, an 
 exception should be made for harvest-time. We say that at 
 other seasons also, such as at sowing-time, requiring special 
 atmospheric conditions ; at turnip-hoeing, requiring dry 
 weather; and at lambing-time, when shepherds spend many 
 hours of the night in attending to the sheep, exceptions must 
 be made. Again, Mr. Mann states that the present condition 
 of agriculture affords a conspicuous object-lesson of the failure 
 of sectional control. It is difficult to understand how the 
 State will successfully " nationalize " the agricultural industry 
 if, as the " coUectivists " desire, its inaugural act of grace will 
 consist of tyranny — the tyranny of insisting on a farmer watch- 
 ing the floods sweeping away his haystacks, and seeing his 
 calving cows and littering swine dying for want of attention, 
 simply because he himself possesses but one pair of hands and 
 the strength of one man, and because his men — well, as regards 
 his men, the State, in Mr. Mann's rhetoric, is engaged in turn- 
 ing " into more profitable channels the energy formerly expended 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 45 
 
 in fighting against nature and bolstering up decaying in- 
 dustries." 
 
 But Mr. Hyndman, the representative of the extreme social- 
 ists, who want legislation for a universal maximum eight-hours 
 day, in reply to the question, " Do you apply the eight-hours to 
 agriculture?" says: "Yes, except in cases of unavoidable 
 necessity, such as getting in crops when rain was threatening, 
 or cases of that kind." 
 
 And Mr. Webb says : — 
 
 " In agriculture, for example, such strictness (absolute 
 prohibition of overtime) would be fatal. There are 
 many agricultural operations which must be done 
 promptly, or not at all. Fruit must be picked when it 
 is ready, or it will rot ; the proverbial hay must be 
 made while the sun shines ; and the corn must be 
 harvested before it begins to spoil. In such cases as 
 these a rigid eight-hours day would be absolutely in- 
 applicable." 
 
 The Auer motion itself, which formulates the demand for 
 an eight-hours day in the most comprehensive manner, 
 admits of a specially-regulated extension only to agricultural 
 industry and forestry. These contradictions are typically 
 socialist, and incline one to ask : " What, then, is all the 
 socialist fuss about ?" 
 
 Fishing, too, is chiefly a seasonal occupation. The 1891 
 census gives 65,642 persons occupied in the industry. In the 
 fishing industry on the East Coast it is stated there are some 
 2,000 men who work on the profit-sharing system, which is re- 
 garded by the trade as the only remunerative method. There 
 are no fixed hours of labour, and the hours worked, especially 
 in steam fishing-boats, are alleged to be excessive. In these 
 boats, it is said, the men work on an average fifteen hours 
 a day for seven days a week, and the work is very hard and 
 monotonous as well as dangerous. In spite of this, it was 
 stated before the Labour Commission, on behalf of the 
 National Federation of Fishermen, that the men in the North Sea 
 would prefer longer periods of rest on shore to a reduction of 
 hours of labour at sea, which they consider hardly practicable. 
 
 It may here be mentioned that the coopers' trade is often 
 dependent upon some other industry, the fluctuation of which 
 affects the coopers directly. For instance, at Hull it depends 
 upon the oil trade, and on the east and west coasts of Scotland 
 
46 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 upon the fishing. These facts are arguments in themselves. 
 Certainly, if it were possible to obtain a more even method 
 of working in the fishing industry, the coopers and the 
 fishermen would do their utmost to bring it about voluntarily. 
 In occupations of this nature^ if the trades themselves cannot 
 arrange their hours with perfect satisfaction, how can the State 
 arrange for them ? 
 
 Domestic Service is the typical instance of the " living in " 
 system. The census of 1891 showed that 2,341,696 persons 
 were engaged in domestic offices or services. The servant 
 receives, in addition to wages, board, lodging, and sometimes 
 clothing. Complaints as to long hours worked by domestic 
 servants were received by the Labour Commission ; but, 
 unless domestic service itself is totally abolished — that is, 
 unless all servants sleep off the premises and only come to 
 work at fixed hours, and unless all other attendant present 
 conditions, such as the above-mentioned allowances, are swept 
 away, no State regulation of hours is possible. The treat- 
 ment of the domestics is a matter for each employer in his 
 individual capacity to settle. The absolute absurdity of State 
 interference is obvious. Do the eight-hours advocates demand 
 State fixing of family meal times and inspection of all domestic 
 arrangements ? Do they wish to re-introduce Curfew ? 
 
 The following is a summary of some ridiculous evidence 
 given before the Labour Commission by Mr. G. W. Greenman, 
 member of the Social Democratic Federation, who had 
 initiated the London Domestic Servants' Union, which then 
 included some 700 members : " As a remedy for the present 
 long hours, which were stated to average eighteen per day, 
 the witness advocated that the day's work of domestic servants 
 should be restricted by law to eight hours. Eight con- 
 secutive hours would be preferable ; but, if this were found 
 impracticable, the duties might be so distributed that each 
 servant should work only eight hours altogether during the day. 
 If a parlour-maid could not be in attendance at breakfast and 
 at supper without working more than eight hours, two parlour- 
 maids must be kept. The witness complained that the custom 
 of living in flats tended to decrease the number of servants 
 employed, and that numbers of people who used to keep 
 large households in England now live more cheaply on the 
 continent, but did not see that his proposal, which increased 
 the cost of housekeeping, would also increase both these 
 tendencies, and consequently add to the number of the 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 47 
 
 unemployed. An Eight-Hours Act which included domestic 
 servants would be enforced by means of the labour exchange 
 which the witness hoped to see established. Servants engaged 
 through the exchange would be subject to certain rules, and if 
 these were broken by the employer, ' the servant would go 
 to his labour exchange, and have all grievances rectified.' 
 The witness was of opinion that servants would be ready to 
 report infringements of their rules, although he admitted that 
 in occupations already regulated by law a similar readiness 
 did not exist. He did not wish the law to interfere in house- 
 holds where the domestic work was done by the owner's wife 
 and daughters. It was only where work was carried on for 
 wages that restrictions were necessary. The eight-hours system 
 had not yet been adopted by any of the employers who were 
 favourable to the Union ; but the witness promised to suggest it 
 to them." After this evidence is any further argument required ? 
 The standard hours in Sea Service are twelve a day, in four- 
 hour watches, and it is stated that, as a rule, only six hours are 
 occupied with the actual work of the ship, the men during the 
 remainder of the time being merely on duty. The official 
 holidays are given, with payment, and on Sundays there is no 
 work except the manoeuvring of the vessel. A witness before 
 the Labour Commission, however, denied that the daily work 
 on board ship occupied only six hours, and stated that the 
 amount of Sunday work was very considerable. The hours, 
 he said, are four on and four off ; but, as the time from 4 to 8 
 p.m. is divided into two watches of two hours each, called 
 " dog watches," the hours vary from ten to fourteen a day. 
 They are necessarily unfixed, being subject to the exigencies 
 of the service. Other witnesses calculated the average at 72 
 or 80 hours a week, and at 106 or 107. Judging between the 
 various statements, these estimates appear to be excessive; 
 but, whether strictly accurate or not, it is quite clear that the 
 seaman is not employed in actual, physical, continuous work 
 for this period of time. In these cases no distinction seems to 
 have been drawn between actual work and methods of passing 
 away the time. Such work as steering, looking out, turning 
 yards round, hoisting, setting and lowering sails, is not con- 
 tinuous ; and, as Mr. G. A. Laws says, " the greater part of 
 the time on duty he (the seaman) is smoking his pipe on the 
 forecastle deck or promenading the deck, the same as he would 
 be in his garden if he were at home ; it is not work, it is merely 
 exercise, and no more.' 
 
48 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 Firemen have shorter hours, generally eight hours a day, 
 four on and eight ofif j but in some of the smaller vessels the 
 rule is four hours on and four off. On a few vessels belonging 
 to one firm the firemen have a six-hours day, and it is stated 
 that quicker passages are made in consequence of the reduced 
 hours. Firemen work a certain amount of overtime, through 
 having miscellaneous duties to perform ; and thus the average 
 hours of those on an eight-hours shift are said to be ten a day. 
 
 Again, before the labour Commission, representatives of 
 the National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen's Union 
 advocated an eight-hours day for all seamen, maintaining that 
 there is no more difEculty in applying it to sailors than to sea- 
 going firemen, who have had a customary eight-hours day for 
 many years, and that any work in excess of eight hours a day 
 is injurious to health. Representatives of the North of Eng- 
 land Sailors and Firemen's Union expressed the same opinion, 
 and added that the reduction of hours would diminish the loss 
 of life at sea by causing more men to be employed and a 
 better look-out to be kept. It was stated that the reduction of 
 hours in the case of firemen had resulted in increased 
 efficiency, and that the same result might be expected in the 
 case of sailors. 
 
 It was pointed out by several witnesses that hours of labour 
 at sea must depend on the requirements of the service, and 
 that to limit the discretion of officers in this respect by a 
 definite restriction would be to subvert discipline and endanger 
 life and property. 
 
 Again, it was stated by a representative of the North of 
 England Sailors and Firemen's Union that, unless an adequate 
 manning scale were first enforced by law, the establishment of 
 a legal eight-hours day would increase the dangers of sea ser- 
 vice, and also that legislation is unnecessary, since a reduction 
 of hours can be brought about by the action of trade unions, 
 as in the case of firemen. The National Amalgamated Sailors 
 and Firemen's Union advocated a legal eight-hours day on the 
 ground that to demand reduction of hours by trade-union 
 methods would lead to continual strikes, and a concession 
 gained in that manner would be easily lost. It is proposed 
 that an Eight-Hours Act should allow overtime to be worked 
 at sea in case of necessity, of which necessity the captain must 
 be the judge. 
 
 Several other ardent advocates of an eight-hours day for sea- 
 men agree that at present such a measure must be delayed 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 49 
 
 until a manning-scale, is established; but they appear to be 
 divided on the question of the effect upon the number em- 
 ployed, and cannot be made to see that a vessel would be 
 •obliged to carry an unnecessary number of hands. 
 
 No reference to hours of labour of seamen occurs in the 
 Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854-90 ; nor, so far as we are aware, 
 have any amendments empowering the Board of Trade to deal 
 ■with hours of labour been made. 
 
 The trade disputes which have arisen so frequently of late 
 years in the shipping trade have mostly been due to questions 
 of principle, such as that of working with non-unionists, or of 
 supporting the position of a federated organization. Very few 
 have been direcriy concerned with questions of hours. Those 
 •employed in the sea service appear to be satisfied with the 
 conditions of labour, and do not desire reduced hours. 
 
 To sum up, we say with Lord Farrer that in at least three 
 branches of labour — men employed on board ship, farm labour, 
 and domestic service — a strict eight-hours day would be simply 
 •out of the question. 
 
 COAL MINING. 
 
 In the United Kingdom there were 692,684 persons 
 •employed in 1896 in or about coal mines : comprising half 
 a million men and boys employed underground, two-thirds 
 of whom are " getters." From time to time proposals have 
 been made to apply a fixed eight-hours day to the mining 
 industry, and these culminated in the withdrawal after refer- 
 ence to Committee of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill in August, 
 1895, ^^^ i° the dropping, before second reading, of the same 
 Bill reintroduced in 1896, and in its crushing defeat by 227 
 votes to 186 at the second reading, May sth, 1897. It is 
 worthy of notice that the Parliamentary Committee of the 
 last Trade Union Congress regards this defeat as " a serious 
 blow at the general policy of the Congress in respect to a 
 legislative eight-hours day"; and that at Birmingham in 1897 
 the Congress unanimously resolved " That this Congress 
 instruct the Parliamentary Committee to assist the miners 
 at the opening of Parliament next year in getting as many 
 members to ballot for the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill as 
 possible, and when the Bill is down for second reading the 
 Parliamentary Committee assist the Miners' Federation in 
 whipping up members to attend the House of Commons in 
 :support of the Bill." The Bill, which has been 'regularly 
 
 E 
 
so AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 promoted and rejected for several years prior to 1895, 
 proposes to enact that " a person shall not, in any one day 
 of twenty-four hours, be employed underground in any mine 
 for a period exceeding eight hours from the time of his leaving 
 the surface of the ground to the time of his ascent thereto, 
 except in case of accident"; and makes the employer, or 
 his agent, and not the workman, liable to penalty for contra- 
 vention of this enactment. 
 
 Again, the Coal Mines Regulation Bill proposes to enact 
 that " No person under the age of twenty-one years shall 
 be employed in, or allowed to be for the purposes of 
 employment in, any mine below ground for more than eight 
 hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours." 
 
 By far the larger proportion of workers in and about 
 mines consists of adult labour, and it is urged that for these 
 no protective legislation is necessary. The main justification 
 of the Factory Acts, or part of them at least, is that they 
 protect the helpless workers — the women and children, who, 
 without legislative help, are unable to obtain just and fair 
 conditions of labour. The extension of the principle to adult 
 male workers cannot but have an evil result. 
 
 In illustration of the connection between the nature of the 
 work and the length of hours in coal mines, it may be stated 
 that in Durham the "hewers" and "stonemen," who perform 
 the most laborious work in the mines, work seven and 
 eight hours per day respectively.' The boys who sit on 
 the shafts or " limmers " have comparatively light work (their 
 hours vary from ten to twelve), and the men who work twelve 
 hours have little to do beyond watching the " fan " and " ven- 
 tilating engines." 
 
 The hours of labour in mines have been reduced con- 
 siderably by voluntary effort in late years. Thus, in North- 
 umberland, between 1850 and 1890, the hours of hewers 
 appear to have been reduced from sixty-six to forty-four 
 hours a week, and the hours of boys from seventy-tv/o to sixty- 
 six or sixty. The short hours of hewers in this district are 
 said to be dependent on the double-shift system, which was 
 brought about by the different method of working the mine. 
 The "wedge " system required two men working together ; the 
 " blasting " system requires only one man to be at the coal- 
 face at a time. The hours of mechanics in Durham have also 
 been reduced in this same period by thirteen and a half hours 
 a week. In Derbyshire the hours of "miners generally" 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 5 1 
 
 have been reduced by fourteen and a half hours a week ; in 
 the Wigan district, by six to twelve hours; in Staffordshire 
 (Burslem), by eleven hours ; in the Burnley district, by twenty 
 hours ; and in the Barnsley and Normanton district, by 
 eighteen hours. A similar reduction has taken place in other 
 districts. 
 
 The chief economic arguments of the workers are contained 
 in the evidence of the representative of the Lanarkshire miners, 
 which, on this point, may be summarized thus : The employers 
 conceive that the more trade they do the more they will make, 
 whereas the opposite is the case. A smaller output would 
 give a better price, better wages, and higher profits. And 
 it is now common knowledge that we are depleting the 
 country of minerals, and, by and by, we shall run short. 
 But matters could be adjusted by the workmen Umiting the 
 supply, and producing for home Consumption instead of for 
 foreign competition. 
 
 The " main body of miners act up to their professions. It 
 appears from the evidence before the Labour Commission 
 relating to the South Wales coalfield that they frequently absent 
 themselves from work in order to prevent coal becoming too 
 plentiful ; and the representative of the miners in the West of 
 Scotland district said : " In 1886 the stronger men voluntarily 
 limited their labour to the production of half-a-crown's worth 
 of coal a day, in order to carry out the principle of an eight- 
 hours day, and to raise the rate of wages. No longer being 
 able to expand the productive power of their hands so as to 
 supply exceptional demands, the employers were prevented 
 from accepting specially large orders and lowering their prices 
 in order to obtain them. Prices, indeed, were not only main- 
 tained, but raised, and a corresponding increase in the rate of 
 wages was the result." The evidence was afterwards con- 
 firmed by the representative of the coal owners in the same 
 district. 
 
 But the benefit of better natural conditions enabling America 
 to work the coal so much more cheaply than in England must 
 inevitably lead to American competition in coal production, 
 especially if selling prices are advanced. Even now coal is 
 sent from Australia and used in Liverpool. According to 
 Professor Percy, more than half of the 200,000,000 tons of 
 coal produced each year in this country is consumed in manu- 
 factures, the bulk of which have to compete in foreign markets 
 with foreign goods. Hence any permanent increase other than 
 
52 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 market fluctuations in the selling price of coal will seriously 
 affect the iron and steel and cotton industries. 
 
 In addition to the economic and other arguments of general 
 application mentioned in preceding sections, two arguments 
 peculiar to the miners' case are urged : (i) That reduced hours 
 would probably result in a decrease in the number of accidents, 
 which, it is alleged, occur chiefly during the later hours of the shift. 
 This argument, however, is not borne out by statistics, which 
 show that, in the ten years from 1881-92, in coal mines during 
 the flrst four hours 125 fatal explosions have taken place, but 
 only 80 after the fourth hour. The total number of deaths in 
 the first period of the shift was 1,202, and in the latter period 
 744. With regard to accidents from falls of roofs and sides, 
 the general experience of mining engineers is that the greater 
 number occur during the first two or three hours of the shift. 
 Apart, however, from the statement that the number of acci- 
 dents in mines is not causally connected with the present 
 length of hours, it is urged that, under a legal eight-hours day, 
 the safety of the mine would be endangered by the attempt to 
 obtain the same output in the shorter time, because the 
 men would be tempted to hurry over their work and neglect to 
 examine their working places carefully. Moreover, unless the 
 double-shift system were adopted, the faces would travel more 
 slowly, in consequence of the loss of working power in the pit, 
 and would, therefore, be more liable to be broken and crushed. 
 Finally, the reduction in hours might also lead to winding the 
 men out of the mine at greater speed, which would increase 
 the danger of the operation. (2) That reduced hours are 
 necessary on account of the particularly unhealthy, dangerous, 
 and laborious nature of the work, and of the extreme discom- 
 fort of working conditions. With regard to this, it does not 
 appear that coal-mining is an unhealthy occupation, even when 
 allowance is made for the probability that weakly men either 
 avoid entering such an occupation or soon abandon it. Dr. 
 Ogle states that coal miners are one of the healthiest sets of 
 men in all the trades that he has examined. The death-rate 
 of coal miners in every county in which he has examined is 
 lower than the death-rate of males of corresponding ages in 
 the rest of the county, or of the whole county including them. 
 He also states that " the death-rates of coal miners are sur- 
 prisingly low. In spite of their terrible liability to accident, 
 and their constant exposure to an atmosphere vitiated by coal- 
 dust, by foul air, and by an excessively high temperature, the 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 53 
 
 comparatively mortality of these labourers is considerably 
 below that of all males." This low death-rate is possibly 
 accounted for by the fact that the conditions under which coal 
 miners work are invariably constant. The miners are pro- 
 tected against all changes of weather, and work under an 
 equable temperature all the year round. With regard to the 
 danger, laboriousness, and discomfort attending the work, it is 
 shown by statistics that coal-mining is much safer than many 
 surface employments ; in the years 1893, 1894, 1895, and 
 1896 the numbers of fatal accidents per 1,000 employed 
 (underground workers) were 1-552, 1-598, 1-488, and 1-480 
 respectively. Further, with the exception of the coal 
 hewer, the work is much lighter than that of quarry-men, 
 agricultural labourers, or almost any other class of rough 
 surface labour, while it is by no means so incessant; and, 
 beyond the fact that the occupation of a miner involves a 
 daily bath, and very occasional working (for hewers only) in a 
 wet seam, the workers are, in reality, infinitely more comfort- 
 able than those in many other employments. 
 
 In addition to the above replies to the arguments of the 
 eight-hours movement supporters, it is stated that a legal eight- 
 hours day ignores the variations in strain involved in different 
 occupations, and prevents the men from making up for shorter 
 hours in slack times by longer hours in good times. It would 
 be unjust to the slow workers, because it would throw out of 
 employment the men with the least advantages of strength and 
 skill. 
 
 Three alleged practical methods of working a legal eight- 
 hours day have been suggested : one uniform eight-hour shift 
 for all workers, including boys ; a double shift of eight hours 
 for men and boys ; three shifts of hewers and two of boys, 
 (i) The first would involve a reduction of about thirty per 
 cent, in the number of hewers, and an increase of an hour 
 and a half in their day's work. The period of coal drawing 
 would be limited to six and a half hours. The expenses of 
 the collieries would be increased so much that they could not 
 compete with other districts. (2) The second method, a 
 double shift of eight hours, would involve a double output. 
 This difficulty could be removed in certain districts by the 
 restriction of the area worked. The safety of the mine would, 
 however, be endangered under this system. In the first 
 place, the repairing work done in the period intervening 
 between the two shifts would not give the mine time to 
 
54 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 cool, and the increased production of gas would be dangerous, 
 especially in South Wales. In the second place, it is com- 
 plained that " workmen will not leave the stall or heading to 
 one another's advantage." On the other hand, it is thought 
 that it would tend to reduce accidents by concentrating the 
 work on a smaller area, and enabling the faces to travel faster. 
 It would also diminish the area which required ventilation, 
 and both the roof and the coal would be improved. (3) The 
 third method — three shifts of hewers with two shifts of boys — 
 is a more possible solution of the peculiar difiSculties in 
 connection with the adoption of an eight-hours day in mines. 
 It would involve a great deal of night work, and the work- 
 men would probably raise serious objections to any extension 
 of this system. Difficulty would be found in obtaining the 
 requisite number of boys. The output of coal would be largely 
 increased, and the time for examining the mine as to safety and 
 allowing it to cool would be too short. The stonemen could 
 not do the work in time. The hewers in working forward in 
 the coal face would get in front of the " stone canches," and 
 their work would be rendered enormously more difficult. It 
 is further stated that the danger of accidents in the mines 
 would be increased if the " stonemen " fired shots while the 
 hewers and other regular day workmen were in the pit. A 
 considerable amount of time would be lost in the changing 
 of the various shifts of men and boys, and there would be 
 greater liability to accidents in consequence of " the increased 
 travelling on the engine planes." Finally, a large increase of 
 surface labour and two sets of horses and ponies would be 
 necessary, without proportionate increase of the work to be 
 performed. Even if these fundamental difficulties were over- 
 come, the owners' and miners' associations in Durham and 
 Northumberland still consider that legislative limitation of the 
 hours of underground labour would injure the coal trade. 
 A certain number of collieries in Durham at the present time 
 are, however, worked according to this system. " These are 
 nearly all deep mines, where the workings are carried on to a 
 considerable distance from the shifts owing to their great depth. 
 The extremely heavy cost of working these mines" made it 
 necessary to " secure the greatest extension of time for coal 
 drawing." The system of three shifts of hewers and two of 
 boys was, therefore, adopted. An eight-hours day from bank 
 to bank for all the underground labour would reduce the actual 
 average working time at the face for coal hewers in these mines 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 55 
 
 from five hours twenty minutes to four hours. This would 
 involve a " serious loss of output, and enormously increase the 
 cost of working." It is stated that it would " not be practicable 
 to work this system (in these mines) with less than the existing 
 hours of work." 
 
 The past year (1897) has witnessed the second attempt of 
 the Miners' Federation, which represents, perhaps, one-half of 
 the miners in Great Britain, to extend its powers by including 
 the Durham miners, and so, it was hoped, get rid of their 
 opposition to the legal eight-hours day. The Durham miners, 
 against the advice of their leaders, but after ballot in October, 
 1896, renewed the application for membership on wages ques- 
 tions to the Miners' Federation ; it was accepted early in 1897, 
 and they were admitted into federation for the second time. 
 The reaffirming, on May 29th, of their opposition to the legal 
 eight hours resulted in their second expulsion, because, having 
 themselves solved their " hours " difficulty, the Durham miners 
 cannot conscientiously press the demand for a legal "eight 
 hours from bank to bank in all mines for all persons working 
 underground." 
 
 Finally, with regard to the present hours worked, it is stated, 
 on the authority of the British Iron Trade Association, that 
 there are only two principal coal-mining districts in the United 
 Kingdom where the hewers at present work more than eight 
 hours a day — viz., Nottinghamshire and Monmouthshire j and 
 even in these districts the hours are about eight at the face. 
 Tables collected from Mr. Provand's return show that in general 
 the average week's work is less than forty-eight hours for under- 
 ground labour, and not much over that limit for above-ground 
 labour. 
 
 DOCK AND WHARF LABOUR. 
 
 In dock labour about a quarter of a million men are 
 employed at the various ports in the United Kingdom, and 
 about one-third of the whole number at the port of London. 
 Perhaps no work is more irregular in respect to overtime- 
 working than that of the dockers, coal-porters, lighter- 
 men, riverside labourers, riggers, stevedores, etc., as a class. 
 But this very irregularity forms an important argument 
 against a legal eight-hours day. For, if it were possible, both 
 employers and workmen would desire, and work, a regular 
 day ; the former, if for no worthier motive, at least as business 
 men, to save the cost of expensive overtime ; and the latter for 
 
56 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 equally material and obvious reasons. No amount of legisla- 
 tion can change natural conditions. 
 
 On the whole, however, there is also a good deal of uni- 
 formity in the hours of dock labour in different districts. The 
 most usual working day appears to be ten hours in summer 
 and eight in winter, with time allowed for meals. Where it 
 extends to twelve hours the meal time is generally longer. 
 
 The great difficulty of the docks is connected not so much, 
 with the employed as with the unemployed. The tendency is. 
 for all the idle loafers, and all the unemployed of the unskilled 
 labouring classes, thrown out of work by their own strikes^ 
 inefficiency, or laziness, to drift to the docks. 
 
 Mr. Charles Booth has outlined a scheme to diminish 
 the evils of irregular and casual dock work, into which it is. 
 unnecessary to go. It is worth noting that Mr. Booth 
 estimates the number of permanent men (dockers) required 
 at 16,000, as compared with over 22,000 regularly competing, and 
 that he expressly deprecates legislative interference in the matter. 
 
 Since the 1890 dock strike the companies have successfully 
 attempted a better organization of labour. For instance, 
 the London and St. Katherine's Dock now employs 3,500 
 permanent men — 1,600 on the first list (weekly labourers), 
 and 1,900 on the second list (preference men). The remaining 
 work performed by casual labour has been reduced from 
 thirty to forty per cent, to an average of six and a half per 
 cent. It is impossible to wholly eliminate the casual element, 
 on account of the varying demand for labour caused by distur- 
 bances in the field of work which are quite beyond the Com- 
 pany's control or calculation. The "wool sales," for instance, 
 may one day need the employment of 2,500 extra hands, while 
 on another only fifteen casual men may be required. Again, 
 the irregular arrival of ships at all times of the day and of the 
 year makes it necessary that the trade should be under the 
 most elastic conditions. 
 
 It is chiefly in connection with the conditions of labour in 
 the port of London that the question has arisen of the applica- 
 tion of an eight-hours day to this industry. The normal day's 
 work in the docks is about eight hours, and it is proposed that 
 this or a proportionate weekly number should be the prescribed 
 maximum. 
 
 A novel argument used against the short hours system is- 
 that many who have had experience of the system of short 
 hours and hard work in American ports consider it more 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 57" 
 
 physically trying than the opposite practice. It is further 
 maintained that the amount of overtime usually worked in 
 the London docks and wharves — namely, about two or 
 three hours — could not be usefully restricted by making 
 the men give place to another set of men, because this 
 practice would increase the chances of casual labour men, 
 and thus maintain the very class of labour which it is 
 desired to discourage. It is also stated that the men them- 
 selves would object to being turned off a job, and deprived 
 of the opportunity of working overtime at a higher rate. 
 
 At annual Congresses of the Dockers' Union the question 
 of the form in which an eight-hours day should be adopted 
 has been discussed, with the result that a large majority are: 
 against the proposal for a literal eight-hours day, and in 
 favour of a forty-eight-hours, week. It is stated that the 
 adoption of the latter is very generally thought to be prac- 
 ticable, whereas the unavoidable irregularity due to seasonal 
 causes, tides, and weather is a bar to the adoption of the former. 
 
 With regard to an actual eight-hours day with two (or 
 three, unless night work is abolished) shifts, it is feared by 
 a foreman at the docks that the shift system would lead to- 
 quarrels between the gangs relieving each other. Again, an 
 employer of wharf labour thinks that relays might be very 
 advantageous if the amount of overtime were constant from 
 day to day ; but, since it is not, there would be difficulty in 
 equalizing the shifts. An arrangement by which the gangs 
 would overlap, one beginning early and the other ending late,, 
 would be unsuited to the nature of wharf work. To employ 
 short gangs for any part of the day would cause the work to be 
 delayed. 
 
 IRON AND STEEL TRADES (INCLUDING SHIPBUILDING). 
 
 According to 1891 census returns, the numbers employed in^ 
 the engineering and shipbuilding industries in Great Britain 
 were: Machines and implements, 342,000; ships and boats, 
 70,517; iron and steel industries, 380,193; total, 792,710.- 
 The members of the National Society of Blastfurnacemen and 
 the Amalgamated Society of Enginemen, Firemen, and Boiler- 
 men, and the Associated Society of Scotch Millmen, are in 
 favour of an eight-hours day. On the other hand, the great 
 ■ majority of men belonging to the Associated Iron and Steel. 
 Workers of Great Britain are strongly against an eight-hours, 
 day. The puddlers also offer a steady resistance to the 
 
58 
 
 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 proposal of their employersto reduce their hours. The Boiler- 
 makers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society, all the 
 •employers belonging to the Iron Trades Employers' Association, 
 and the Iron Masters of Cleveland (with the modification 
 allowed on p. 59 following) are distinctly opposed to an 
 eight-hours day. The usual arguments, that an eight-hours 
 day would call into demand a large part of the "surplus 
 labour" of the country, would result in moral and physical 
 benefit to the employed, and would involve no appreciable 
 economic loss to the community, are brought forward with 
 -special reference to the iron, engineering, and shipbuilding 
 trades. 
 
 But the demand for legal limitation of the hours seems more 
 often to arise from the excessive hours consequent on systematic 
 -overtime. Apart from the grievance of " systematic overtime," 
 there would be little demand in many industries for a compulsory 
 ■eight-hours day. 
 
 In the boilermakers' and iron and steel shipbuilders' trade it 
 is stated that a legal reduction of hours is unnecessary, because 
 the average hours in shipbuilding yards are now less than 
 'eight. The utter impossibility of doing away with all overtime 
 is shown in the case of the repairing branch of the trade. 
 " Perhaps two or three thousand hands are dependent upon the 
 repairing of the boiler for the starting of the engine in the 
 morning." And, again, it is quite impossible to stop a job at a 
 ,given point. In the words of an employer : " To do away with 
 all overtime would be exceedingly inconvenient, and detrimental 
 to all concerned : to the customer, the employer, and, I think, 
 to the men themselves." 
 
 On the question of foreign competition, it will suffice to 
 quote the following figures supplied by the British Iron Trade 
 Association : — Out of a total of 24,404,000 tons of pig-iron pro- 
 'duced by the five leading nations in 1890, and 10,273,000 tons 
 in 1870 — 
 
 As compared with 
 1870. 
 
 •Great Britain produced 
 United States „ 
 ■Germany ,, 
 
 France „ 
 
 Belgium ,, 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 59 
 
 With respect to engineering it is claimed that the industry 
 is not developing relatively to the expansion of the world's 
 industries. The increase in value of exports of machinery and 
 engines in 1895 over 1886 was in the United Kingdom 50 
 per cent.; in the United States, 250 ; in Belgium, 300 ; in 
 Germany, 85 ; in France, 34 ; in Switzerland, 40 ; in Sweden, 
 100. 
 
 Again, between the periods 1865-9 (before the 9 hours) and 
 1870-4 (when the nine-hours system came into operation), 
 the British increase was equal to 65 per cent., but that of 
 Belgium to 125 per cent. As between 1860-4 and 1890-5, Great 
 Britain has increased 250 per cent., and Belgium 400 per cent. 
 
 One other point which has some bearing on the present 
 hours is worthy of note. According to tables prepared by Dr. 
 Gritton, when vice-president of the Lord's Day Observance 
 Society, the percentage of Sunday work in the iron and steel 
 trades is 9-13, which, excluding gas-making with 18 per 
 cent., is the largest out of seventeen leading industries. In 
 shipbuilding the percentage is very small. 
 
 An experiment in working a forty-eight-hours week has been 
 made by Mr. Allan, a marine-engine builder, Sunderland, who 
 inaugurated a forty-eight-hours rule early in 1892. The daily 
 hours are eight and three-quarters on five days of the week, 
 and four and a quarter on Saturday. No overtime is worked, 
 except in cases of emergency. Between 300 and 400 men are 
 employed. They are all paid by the day. When the shorter 
 hours were introduced Mr. Allan made an arrangement with 
 the men whereby they should accept a five per cent, reduction 
 in wages, to be restored if no loss of production proved to be 
 the result. At the end of six months the five per cent, was 
 restored, there being no loss of production ; so that the men 
 now receive as much for the forty-eight hours as they did 
 formerly for the fifty-three hours per week. In fact, the men 
 did not really do more than forty-eight hours per week under 
 the old system. They are now much more punctual, and the 
 improvement in this and other respects, visible at the time of 
 the change, is being steadily maintained. The physical 
 improvement in the workers is especially noticeable in the 
 boys. 
 
 An instance of an industry where, by working very long 
 hours, high earnings can be gained by piece-work is the occu- 
 pation of certain classes of workmen engaged at blast furnaces 
 in the pig-iron trade. In the Cleveland district the furnaces 
 
6o AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 are worked continuously; until recently the practice was. 
 alternate shifts of blastfurnacemen — i.e., the men who super- 
 intend the heating of the furnaces — on duty for twelve hours 
 each, and with duty on alternate Sundays. However, as we 
 have stated in section viii., the Cleveland district now works 
 three shifts by a similar arrangement to that holding in blast, 
 furnaces in Lancashire and Cumberland, and it is worthy of 
 remark that this scheme, which affected 5,000 men, has, owing 
 to the continuous character of the wprk, necessitated the 
 employment of about 500 more men. The logical sequence 
 is the demand made early in 1898 for an eight-hours- 
 day for all men working day and night shifts, and the 
 masters have consequently appointed a sub-committee to» 
 compare existing conditions in Cleveland with those in the 
 Barrow district. This industry, together with the manufac- 
 tured iron trade, where puddlers — i.e., those who attend ta 
 the charging of the furnace with the metal for melting — and 
 millraen — i.e., those employed in the finishing departments — 
 work alternate shifts, is, it is said, eminently adapted by its 
 nature to a general system of three eight-hours shifts, the result, 
 of which would also be to somewhat increase the output. Various 
 attempts, however, made by employers to introduce a three- 
 shift system into puddhng have failed on account of the 
 resistance of the puddlers themselves (who earn from 6s. to 8s. 
 per shift), the men having a strong objection to what they 
 consider the unreasonable hours of commencing work under 
 the three-shift system. In the mill department there is also a 
 strong objection on the part of the men, who prefer to 
 work the long hours, by which they can earn 20s. a day or 
 more. 
 
 The so-called "eight-hours dispute " in the engineering trade 
 is dealt with elsewhere. But it will be convenient to here 
 give the opposing arguments of supporters and combatants. 
 At the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company's 
 Works, where the system has been in force for over five years, 
 the chairman (Mr. Hills) has submitted the following considera- 
 tions in favour of the system : — 
 
 "The men, having breakfasted before coming to work, lose 
 no time in the break that would otherwise be necessary for that 
 meal. 
 
 " The men, not starting work on an empty stomach, com- 
 mence with greater determination. 
 
 " The forty-eight-hours system gives immunity from strikes^ 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 6l 
 
 and the perfect contentment, and consequent good behaviour, 
 of the men." 
 
 On the other hand, a correspondent, who signs himself "A 
 Twenty Years' Member of the A. S. E.," has made the following 
 objections to the eight-hours system : — 
 
 " I. The long absence from food in the early part of the 
 ■day, breakfasting early, and fasting until noon. 
 
 " 2. If a man is late out at night on enjoyment, etc., he can 
 now lose a quarter, but under the eight hours he would have to 
 lose the day. 
 
 " 3. Men working double shift would, by restricting the 
 night shift to forty-eight hours; pay, receive i8s. to 20s. less 
 for the night-shift pay, or a reduction of 8s. to los. per week. 
 
 " 4. By wanting to get as much work done for the forty- 
 •eight hours as the fifty-three would harass the life out of a 
 man, and make many shops a perfect pandemonium, as I am 
 assured one shop is since they worked on the forty-eight hours. 
 
 " 5. When a man gets aged he will most assuredly have to 
 go, to make room for younger and stronger men, in order to 
 produce the absolute maximum. 
 
 " 6. The proposed three-shift system would fill the shops 
 with more boy labour, and in slack times two shifts of men 
 would be walking about with nothing, or next to nothing, to do." 
 
 One point on the importance of machinery must not be 
 overlooked. It is impossible, according to competent autho- 
 rities, for machines, which do at least seven-tenths of the work, 
 to increase the output, assuming they are at present worked to 
 their full capacity. If, as is alleged in Messrs. Mather and 
 Piatt's experiment, the machines do in forty-eight hours what 
 they did in fifty-three hours, the workmen have hitherto not been 
 giving their full output. 
 
 TEXTILE TRADES. 
 
 With reference to the textile industry, which, according to the 
 census of i89i,then gave employment to 1,465,023 persons, the 
 arguments in favour of an eight-hours day may be briefly summed 
 up as follows : (i) That a restriction of hours, while likely to 
 conduce to the physical and moral welfare of those employed, is 
 especially desirable for the purpose of providing work for the 
 unemployed; although, on the other hand, other advocates 
 assert that the output of the present workers will not be 
 decreased ; (2) that it will not reduce wages nor cause trade 
 to suffer from foreign competition, because any increase in the 
 
62 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 cost of production may be avoided by improvements in 
 machinery or the improved efficiency of the workers, or, at 
 any rate, it is argued, the increase will not unduly affect wages, 
 since it has not done so in the past ; and (3) that, even if these 
 dangers were incurred, they must be risked, on the ground that 
 reduced hours would mean " the greatest good of the greatest 
 number." 
 
 Against an eight-hours day it is urged : (i) That a further 
 reduction is not necessary for the physical and moral well- 
 being of the workers ; (2) that it would inevitably increase the 
 cost of production, and so render English manufacturers unable 
 to compete successfully with their foreign rivals ; and (3) that 
 an arbitrary limitation of hours is inapplicable to trades which 
 are subject to alternating busy and slack periods. 
 
 Before the Labour Commission, one advocate of the eight- 
 hours day believed that the curtailment of the hours would 
 reduce the number of paupers, and consequently lower the 
 rates, and that this would counterbalance any economic loss 
 involved. Some other witnesses were asked to explain whether 
 they would advocate a further reduction of hours if, in the 
 course of a few years, " fresh crops of unemployed " had arisen ; 
 but they declined to give any decided opinion on this point, 
 although they considered that it might then be advisable to 
 reduce the hours from eight to seven, or even six. It would, 
 however, be better to try the effect of the eight-hours day first, 
 " and then they would see." 
 
 BUILDING TRADES. 
 
 The various branches of the building trades, including 
 labourers, probably employ between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 
 persons. 
 
 The secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and 
 Joiners is unable " to see his way clear " to support a general 
 eight-hours day, as it might not be advantageous to trades such 
 as plasterers, bricklayers, and painters, which are subject, more 
 or less, to the severity and inclemency of the weather. The 
 secretary of the Dublin United Trades Council states that 
 " season trades " and " trades of fashion " could not work an 
 equal number of hours in the busy season and in the slack 
 season. Other working bricklayers, house-painters, etc., state 
 that hours are necessarily irregular, and that a uniform regula- 
 tion is impossible. It is also contended that most of the men 
 would be against the prohibition of overtime, because they need 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 6$ 
 
 it in the summer to wipe off the debts incurred in the winter. 
 Again, there is an objection from carpenters and joiners that, 
 owing to importation from foreign countries, where men work 
 longer hours for lower wages, an eight-hours day would not be 
 satisfactory in England unless it were also international. The- 
 Amalgamated Society of Coopers also disapprove of an eight- 
 hours day, because they fear they would not be able "to retairt 
 the same rate of wages." 
 
 Against this, in August, 1897, the National Amalgamated 
 Society of Painters and Decorators, representing, it is said, 
 7,800 members, and affiliated with the Federation of Ship- 
 building and Engineering Trades (whose vote on the general 
 question of hours is recorded in section xv, later), passed a vote 
 in favour of the eight-hours day. The 17-days' strike of the 
 Edinburgh and Leith stonemasons in the same month was 
 successful in obtaining the reduction demanded — viz,, from 5 1 
 to 45 hours per week — a change which affected 2,500 work- 
 people, and dated from February 15th, 1898. In December,, 
 1897, the Aberdeen joiners withdrew their demand for an eight- 
 hours day after conference with the employers, who declined 
 to concede the reduction. On January 27th, 1898, the Scottish 
 Building Trades (Employers') Federation resolved to use every 
 effort to resist the introduction of the eight-hours day as- 
 "most uncalled for and likely to prove highly injurious to the 
 general interests of trade." 
 
 RAILWAYS. 
 
 The question of the hours of labour of railway servants, who, 
 according to the General Report on Railway Accidents, 
 numbered 465,112 in 1895, was made, in 1891, the subject 
 of inquiry before a Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons. Before this Committee, with regard to State 
 interference, the most extreme course advocated was that 
 the length of the working day should be restricted by direct 
 legislation to a maximum of eight, ten, or twelve hours. No 
 practical scheme has, however, been framed to meet the difficulty 
 of providing in an Act of Parliament for cases in which 
 adherence to the prescribed limit may be found impossible. 
 It was admitted by every witness who dealt with the subject, 
 and it is obvious at every stage of the evidence, that such 
 cases must necessarily occur from time to time owing to 
 circumstances over which the companies have no control. 
 This fact was most apparent in the cases of the " running 
 
»64 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 ■department," for all practical persons allow that in the 
 -working of trains it is impossible to avoid occasional detention, 
 from unfavourable weather, exceptional press of trafific, the 
 unpunctuality of services running in connection, and a variety 
 ■of other causes of delay. Among the witnesses who advocated 
 ■direct legislation with regard to hours of labour, there were 
 only three persons actually employed on railways, and these 
 represented engine drivers and signalmen on the North British 
 Railway and brakesmen on the Caledonian Railway. Those 
 who urged it most strongly were the official representatives of 
 the Railway Workers' Union, and of the Scotch and Irish 
 branches of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. 
 The secretary of the Irish branch alone offered any definite 
 scheme, in the form of a draft Bill, which is in itself an illustra- 
 tion of the practical difficulties to be faced. The proposed 
 Bill prescribes a limit of ten hours to the day's work on 
 railways, but with no penalty for infringement except a fine 
 imposed on the company in the form of an advanced scale 
 •of payment to the workman for all overtime to the extent of 
 two hours. Any case where the day's work exceeds twelve 
 hours is to be reported to the Board of Trade, who are 
 to impose a penalty on the company for the offence, unless the 
 ■overwork be shown to have been caused by circumstances 
 beyond the company's control. Other witnesses who advo- 
 •cated direct legislation either left the question of provision 
 for exceptions, and of penalties under an Act, entirely un- 
 touched, or recommended the appointment of a board of 
 arbitration equally representative of the companies and their 
 staff, to discriminate between individual cases, but did not 
 ■define the province of such a body in conjunction with an 
 Hours of Labour Act. The plan proposed by one of the 
 Board of Trade Inspectors of railways, that the booked 
 time in the case of drivers, signalmen, and head guards 
 only should be limited to twelve hours, and that cases of 
 ■overtime should be reported and explained, is not attended 
 with the same difficulties ; but it appears, on the whole, from 
 the evidence, that booked times exceeding twelve hours are 
 decidedly rare. Witnesses representing the railway companies 
 iinanimously protested against such legislation, which would 
 involve the railway companies, and eventually the public, in 
 great expense, and would affect railway servants very un- 
 ■equally. Most of the witnesses representing railway employees 
 ■were opposed to all legislation on hours of labour, and 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 65 
 
 a number of memorials were handed in, protesting against 
 it on behalf of men employed on various railways. The 
 most emphatic opposition proceeded from representatives of 
 the running staff, including engine-drivers, firemen, and 
 guards. The ground of objection most frequently urged 
 by these witnesses is that the shortening of hours, at least 
 as hitherto effected, obliges them to lodge away from home at 
 night ; and they prefer to have the working arranged so that 
 they may reach home, though to do so they may have to remain 
 longer on duty. Recent demonstrations (February, 1898) by 
 ■drivers and guards attached to fast passenger express service 
 add supplementary objections that, after a long journey in a 
 •comparatively short time, they would be compelled to make 
 up their eight hours by working local trains. 
 
 Sir H. Calcraft, the permanent Secretary to the Board of 
 Trade, and Major Marindin, Inspector of Railways, pointed 
 •out further objections to a statutory limitation, as unnecessary 
 and inexpedient. It is unnecessary because the force of public 
 opinion, and motives of true economy, will deter railway 
 •companies from overworking their servants in future, and 
 inexpedient because the difficulty of conforming to an 
 absolute rule would cause either constant breaches of law, 
 or, under certain circumstances, a total paralysis of traffic. 
 The efiect of a uniform maximum might be in some cases 
 to aggravate rather than diminish the length of hours. 
 
 With reference to proposals for extending the powers of the 
 Board of Trade, it is urged that the working of a railway 
 is a matter for detailed consideration, determined by con- 
 stantly varying circumstances; and no experience could suggest, 
 or forethought construct, any abstract regulation which would 
 be useful and equitable in practice. Moreover, the control 
 of hours of labour implies the control of capital expenditure, 
 and touches the independent administration of a railway to 
 such an extent as to affect the final responsibility of the company 
 for its safe working and commercial success. A business 
 placed in so anomalous a position must ultimately be taken 
 over by the State for want of private capital. The issue by the 
 Board of Trade of a mere recommendation would be open 
 to no such objections, and would exercise a certain moral 
 influence. 
 
 The argument that, as an increased wage bill cannot be met 
 by increased efficiency, it must be met by increased passenger 
 fares — an expedient which its advocates consider likely to 
 
 F 
 
66 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 succeed; because the majority of passengers are persons com^ 
 pelled to travel ! — hardly calls for a serious reply. 
 
 The result of the Select Committee's Report was the 
 Railway Regulation Act of 1893, providing that the Board 
 of Trade, on the receipt of a formal complaint from any 
 determinate body of railway servants as to their excessive 
 hours of labour or insufficiency of intervals of uninterrupted 
 rest (with special reference to Sunday duty), shall investigate 
 the matter, and, if the grievance appears genuine, shall require 
 the company to reduce their hours within reasonable limifs. 
 In cases where a company fails to submit the required schedule 
 of times for duty, the Railway and Canal Commissioners are 
 empowered to exercise their jurisdiction according to the 
 Railway and Traffic Act of 1888. This Act of 1893, however, 
 does not apply to the clerical staff or those employed in the 
 company's workshops. 
 
 The first report of the Board of Trade on the working of this 
 Act shows that during the year the powers of the statute 
 were set in motion in 72 cases, aflfecting 31 companies. 
 No difficulty was experienced in inducing the companies 
 to deal promptly and effectively with such hours of labour, and 
 the revised schedules submitted have always brought the actual 
 hours down to twelve or under. 
 
 The second report stated that during the second year 156 
 complaints were received and inquired into. Special reference 
 is made to " the fact that certain classes of railway servants, 
 notably drivers and firemen, seem to be opposed to drastic 
 action being taken on their behalf," the chief reason apparently 
 being the consequent loss of overtime pay. It is claimed that 
 
 " the effect of the Act has been to make the twelve-hours 
 
 booked day the maximum on our railways "; but from the 
 evidence before the Committee, as we have already pointed 
 out, it appears that cases of booked times exceeding twelve 
 hours were even then extremely rare. 
 
 The third and fourth reports refer respectively to 97 
 and 76 cases investigated and dealt with. The latest report 
 says : " The Great Western Railway Company, at a recent 
 revision of the hours of signalmen, reduced to ten the hours 
 at upwards of 240 cabins; and the North-Eastern Com- 
 pany have reduced to eight the hours of shunters at over 
 twenty of the principal goods yards, including some at which 
 the Board have pressed for the reduction of the hours to ten 
 without success. The Board also understands that the 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 6^ 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Company have reduced the hours at 
 sixty-eight cabins to ten and at forty-one to eight, and 
 that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire [now known 
 as the Great Central] Company have reduced them at 
 twenty-nine cabins to eight and at forty-seven to ten. 
 The London and North-Western and Great Western Joint 
 Railways have reduced the hours at twenty-four cabins to ten, 
 and at one to eight ; while the Cheshire Lines Committee 
 have reduced them at eight cabins from ten to eight. Three 
 other companies — the Midland, Manchester, Sheffield and 
 Lincolnshire, and North British — have reduced the hours of 
 shunters at busy yards to eight ; and the Midland, Great 
 Northern, and Lancashire and Yorkshire have lowered the 
 hours of goods guards to sixty a week." And all this is 
 voluntary. 
 
 TRAMWAYS AND OMNIBUSES. 
 
 The chief difficulty with regard to an eight-hours day for 
 tramway servants and omnibus men is the question of its 
 financial practicability. Apart from this, there seems to be no 
 reason why a double-shift system should not be introduced. 
 Both employers and employed agree that a reduction of hours 
 must involve a reduction of wages or an increase in fares. The 
 managers of the London General Omnibus Company and the 
 North Metropolitan Tramways Company, and the President of 
 the Tramways Institute, agree that an eight-hours day at the 
 present rate of wages would drive the companies into bankruptcy, 
 and that any increase in fares would considerably diminish 
 profits. With regard to the present wages, it may be mentioned 
 that drivers receive from 22s. 6d. to sos. per week, and con- 
 ductors from 14s. to 40s. per week, and that the hours vary 
 from 10 to 15 J4 per day. 
 
 Clearly legislation cannot improve the conditions of working. 
 The question of hours seems to be one for the men to decide. 
 It is only possible for the men to work an eight-hours day by 
 their consenting to receive less wages. 
 
 The secretary of the London General Omnibus Company has 
 stated that since the establishment of a twelve-hours day a very 
 large proportion of the men have petitioned the company to let 
 them go back to the long hours, on condition of increased pay, 
 and that " a good many of the drivers had resigned and gone 
 into the employ of private omnibus proprietors, where they got 
 higher wages and worked longer hours." This official at the 
 
68 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 same time stated that since the strike ninety per cent, of the 
 men had memorialized the company to let them go back to 
 the old hours and get is. extra per day. 
 
 The instance of the Huddersfield Corporation Tramways 
 which work the double-shift system is given in the next 
 section on " Municipal and Government Employment." 
 
 This industry is one in which the eight-hours day advocates 
 are reduced to sentimental appeal. Mr. Webb, for instance, 
 acknowledges : " It is, of course, quite possible that the 
 increased cost of working tramways under an eight-hours law 
 would render unprofitable, and therefore prevent, the building 
 of new lines in districts where, under present conditions, the 
 margin of profit would be small. This is an obstacle which 
 
 meets the social reformer at every turn In this case the 
 
 public have to choose between a possible increase in cheap 
 means of locomotion and the continued oppression of a large 
 class of workers. Those who urge this objection to a general 
 reduction of tramway hours will have to show that the gain to 
 the public by extensions of the tramway system in a few 
 districts will outweigh the social loss resulting from the over- 
 work of the whole class of tramway men. The interests of 
 the many would, in this case, be sacrificed for the benefit of the 
 few." This is not the kind of argument by which a commercial 
 nation may be persuaded. For natural economic conditions of 
 supply and demand it substitutes a compulsory charity and a 
 reactionary sentimentalism. 
 
 MUNICIPAL AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 ( With particular reference to Gasworks and Tramways.) 
 
 From the returns received by the Labour Commission, in 
 reply to an inquiry into the conditions of municipal and 
 Government employment, it appeared that there was but little 
 experience under municipal management of the system of 
 eight hours wprk a day. The experiment where it had been 
 tried occurred almost exclusively in the comparatively large 
 towns. Most of the cases where it was found were corpora- 
 tions with a population of 100,000 or over ; and the rest, 
 though not falling under this category, were towns of a con- 
 siderable size, such as Halifax and Darwen. Among the small 
 corporations and local boards no definite mention of the system 
 was made, though the hours in some cases were short enough to 
 make it probable that it had been practically adopted. With 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 69 
 
 very few exceptions, the eight-hours system (where it had been 
 introduced at all) occurred only in the gasworks of the various 
 corporations. This was the case in Birmingham, Salford, 
 Leicester, Manchester, Nottingham, and other towns. It was 
 found in a few waterworks, and in miscellaneous departments 
 of some corporations. Generally speaking, it had, as at Man- 
 chester, been introduced in consequence of a petition from 
 the men. Very few of the returns gave any information as to 
 the results of the introduction of the system, but it is probably 
 to be assumed that it had been successful where nothing was 
 stated to the contrary. At Middleton, however, although in 
 December, 1889, the gas stokers, among other things, requested 
 and obtained the establishment of an eight-hours shift, by 
 April, 1890, they asked to revert to the old system. At 
 Middlesborough the gas manager stated that the men did more 
 relative work under the eight-hours system than when working 
 twelve hours a day, but that in consequence of the decrease in 
 absolute returns it cost twelve per cent. more. At Newcastle, 
 on the other hand, there was a conspicuous instance of the 
 successful introduction of the system. For five years, it was 
 stated, the Corporation had destroyed part of the town refuse 
 by fire. The operation was carried on in furnaces requiring 
 pretty constant attention. For 3j4 years the men worked 
 alternate shifts of twelve hours each, but in the winter of 
 1889 a new arrangement was made, at the request of the men, 
 of three shifts of eight hours. The result was that " with 
 identically the same furnaces the amount burnt was so largely 
 increased that the cost per ton was slightly reduced." At 
 Blackburn Gasworks it is proposed to accede to a request for 
 eight hours, but to reduce wages 2s. a week. This was done 
 at Leicester in June, 1896, and seems to represent the modern 
 policy. 
 
 It is convenient here to say a few words about the eight- 
 hours day in other gasworks. The men claim that it has 
 worked successfully where it has been introduced — namely, in 
 the South Metropolitan Gasworks, in the Toxteth Park Works, 
 in the Bristol Works, in the Commercial Gas Company's works 
 at Poplar, and in the Gaslight Company's works at Beckton 
 Station. Gas, however, they acknowledge to be a " monopoly," 
 and " not exactly on all fours with articles that have to be 
 exported and sold in foreign markets in competition with others." 
 Hence the arguments of the gasworkers on this point have only 
 a limited application to the general question. With this reser- 
 
70 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 \ation, however, the evidence of the gasworkers clearly 
 supports the contention as to wages at all events. For 
 instance, the secretary of the Gasworkers' Union claimed that 
 more work was done in eight hours now than was formerly 
 done in twelve. More frequently it is stated either that the 
 output is relatively larger, though absolutely less, or that more 
 work is now turned out in an hour, though the output is 
 necessarily less in eight hours than in twelve. Wages, 
 generally speaking, are maintained, and the majority of gas- 
 workers throughout the kingdom are now working eight hours 
 a day for better wages " on the whole." 
 
 On the other hand, by some employers in the gasworks it 
 is stated that the change to the eight-hours day has been by 
 no means an unqualified success in its effect upon the quality 
 of the work or upon the behaviour of the men. One effect is 
 that old stokers,or men of inferior physique,have to be dismissed, 
 as the work is much more severe per hour than it was before. 
 The increased cost of production is estimated in various works 
 at sixteen, six, ten, and twenty per cent. But owing to other 
 causes consequent on the concession of the eight-hours day, and 
 the further demands of the men, the increased cost of twenty 
 per cent, in the South Metropolitan Gas Company was subse- 
 quently raised to forty-four per cent., and in another case to 
 forty-eight per cent. The employers expressed themselves as 
 much disappointed by this result. The increased cost, it was 
 stated, fell partly upon the price of the gas and partly upon 
 the dividends of the shareholders ; but the increased price of 
 gas does not seem to have affected the consumption of gas, or 
 the business as a whole. 
 
 These facts are representative of the gradual working out of 
 the problem of the hours of labour by the non-competitive 
 industry of gas-producing. On the whole, the experiments 
 appear to be proceeding satisfactorily, but whatever is the 
 ultimate result, whether the system of reduced hours is 
 upheld, or whether a reversion to the longer hours becomes 
 imperative, it is clearly shown that voluntary action is in 
 its own way and time finding its own solution to modern 
 labour difficulties. State interference can result only in 
 harm. 
 
 The Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, constructed in 
 1880, were for some years the only tramways worked by a 
 corporation. The Corporation intended to lease the lines 
 to a company, but no tenders were received, as the under- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 71 
 
 taking was regarded as unprofitable j and, therefore, in 1882 
 the Corporation obtained special powers to work the lines 
 itself. The men worked twelve hours daily until May, 1888, 
 when the Corporation introduced a sixteen-hours day with 
 two shifts. Wages were consequently reduced, the drivers' 
 twenty per cent, and the conductors' ten per cent. A vote 
 taken on the popularity of this arrangement resulted unani- 
 mously and favourably. The increased traffic resulting from 
 running the trams sixteen hours a day has practically balanced 
 the increased outlay necessitated by two shifts of men. The 
 present wages are 26s. per week for drivers, and 21s. per 
 week for conductors — rates which compare most favourably 
 with the 21S., 19s., and 17s. 6d. paid per week for a ten-hours 
 day in Sheffield, one of the latest municipalities to start business 
 in trams. Without expressing any detailed opinion on the 
 principle underlying the growth of municipal activity, beyond 
 chronicling a protest against the undertaking of businesses 
 intended to yield profit, the following figures may be quoted 
 as showing that in this case the loss on the enterprise is not 
 occasioned by the reduced hours of working : — 
 
 MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS : HUDDERSFIELD. 
 
 Year ended 
 March 31st. 
 
 Income. 
 
 Expenditure. 
 
 Deficiency. 
 
 Special rate in £ 
 
 to help meet 
 
 Deficiency, 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 189s 
 
 1896 
 
 £ 
 23,186 
 26,295 
 25,598 
 27,898 
 
 £ 
 39.812 
 33.590 
 28,071 
 29,861 
 
 £ 
 16,626 
 
 7,295 
 2,473 
 1,963 
 
 d. 
 5 
 4 
 2/2 
 
 No other Corporation working its own tramways has an 
 eight-hours day. Glasgow, Sheffield, and Blackpool each work 
 60 hours per week ; Plymouth works 62}4, Leeds works 66, 
 and Liverpool now works 72 for a six-days week, with Sunday 
 work optional. The tendency is in every case towards reduc- 
 tion ; and the policy of large towns to municipalize this 
 industry is rapidly becoming general. 
 
72 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 XII.— A FEW STATISTICS. 
 
 NUMBERS OF WORKERS, ETC. 
 
 The total industrial population, male and female, in the 
 United Kingdom, according to the last census, is 9,02S,902> 
 This number represents the total occupied persons, exclusive 
 of professional, domestic, commercial, and agricultural and 
 fishing classes, but includes many who are already practically 
 working on an eight-hours day or less — e.g., the majority of the 
 i>76o,7SS engaged in "working or dealing in mineral sub- 
 stances," and certain minor industries, such as seamen 
 and some of the textile trades, which either cannot sup- 
 port an eight-hours day or already have it. The additional 
 7>5i7>33i occupied persons, again, include those employed in 
 industries to which a forty-eight hours week cannot possibly 
 be applied — e.g., 2,341,696 engaged in domestic offices 
 or services, and 2,526,690 in agricultural and fishing occu- 
 pations ; and the 2,648,945 in professional and commercial 
 occupations, to which a legal industrial eight-hours day would 
 not apply. These few totals suffice to show the enormous 
 amount of work involved in proposals to apply Acts of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 The operation of the present Factory Acts in 1894 required 
 an army of 88 inspectors, whose salaries and travelling expenses 
 alone amounted to over ;^35,ooo. In 1895 ^^^ number of 
 inspectors had increased to 96, and in 1896 to in. And it is 
 noteworthy that with the increase the Annual Reports have 
 ceased to record the salaries paid. In 1896 the travelling ex- 
 penses alone came to ever ;^8,4oo. Then, again, assuming that 
 the undertaking of all this work is the wish of the whole number 
 of organized workpeople, there would still remain about 
 7,500,000 workpeople whose opinions have as yet not been 
 voiced. 
 
 The total membership of 1,330 trade unions for the year 
 1896 was 1,487,562, or, allowing for the membership of 
 Unions not making returns to the Board of Trade, about 
 one-fifth of the total industrial population eligible for trade- 
 union membership. The membership may be classified as 
 follows : — Building Trades, 196,283 ; Mining and Quarrying, 
 284,806 ; Metal, Engineering, and Shipbuilding, 301,506 ; 
 Textile Trades, 212,491; Clothing Trades, 76,800; Trans- 
 port, 133,774; Printing Trades, 50,913; Woodworking and 
 Furnishing, 36,141; other trades, 194,848. Proposals to 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 73, 
 
 rule the majority by the organized minority are obviously 
 quite inconsistent with all principles of individual freedom 
 and justice, and a vote of the whole industrial population would 
 be absolutely necessary before any just legal measure could 
 be adopted. In addition to this, the views of the employers 
 would have to be obtained, and for this purpose the impos- 
 sible feat of defining an " employer " and a " trade " would 
 have to be attempted. 
 
 TIME-WORK AND PIECEWORK. 
 
 Seventy-four per cent of all classes of the work-people in. 
 the United Kingdom, including those employed in agricul- 
 tural and in domestic service, appear to be employed in 
 industries in which time-wage is the most prevalent system. 
 Excluding agricultural and domestic service, the percentage: 
 is reduced to about sixty-one. " Women workers are most 
 frequently employed in piece-work trades, except in the case 
 of domestic servants, the great numbers of whom are suffi- 
 cient to turn the balance in favour of time-work. Thus, if 
 domestic servants be excluded, only forty-three per cent, of 
 women appear to be engaged in time-work trades ; while, if 
 they be included, the proportion is raised to seventy-one per 
 cent." As time rates of wages are variously calculated by the 
 hour, the day, the week, or the year, there exists no reason 
 why, in the case of seventy-four per cent, of the total indus- 
 trial population, the question of the hours of labour should 
 not be discussed in bargaining for employment. We may, 
 therefore, say that in the case of seventy-four per cent, of 
 the working classes the total time to be bestowed for such, 
 and such a wage forms the chief item in the labour contract. 
 In the remaining twenty-six per cent, the employed really 
 possess more control over their hours of working than the 
 employer ; for in this case the rate of wages forms the chief 
 consideration in the contract, and the hours worked vary witlv 
 the rate of working. 
 
 DIVISION OF WEALTH. 
 
 One of the arguments in favour of a reduced working day 
 is that a more equal division of wealth will be obtained. 
 Some figures given by Mr. W. H. Mallock will show that 
 labour already gets by far the larger proportion of the 
 increasing national wealth. Erring, for argument's sake, ir^ 
 favour of the claims of labour, we may estimate the total- 
 
74 
 
 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 incomes of the United Kingdom about the year 1800 and 
 at the present day to be respectively ;^2 20,000,000 and 
 ^1,300,000,000. Part of this income is due to increase 
 in population. But the population has increased only from 
 15,000,000 to 37,000,000 — that is to say, in the proportion, 
 not of 220 to 1,300, as wealth has, but of 220 to 540. That 
 means that, while labour has produced ;^S4o,ooo,ooo, the 
 ability of the employing class has produced the remaining 
 ^760,000,000. Sir Robert Giffen estimates the income of 
 the lower grades of wage-earners of the labouring classes 
 at ;£'633,ooo,ooo, and of the higher grades at, at least, 
 ;^i 50,000,000. Thus labour in this country, while it pro- 
 duces at the utmost ;^540,ooo,ooo, receives at least (to cut 
 ■down Sir Robert Giffen's estimates, which may be considered 
 optimistic) ;^75o,ooo,ooo. 
 
 TENDENCY OF RECENT CHANGES OF HOURS GENERALLY. 
 
 From the reports on "Wages and Hours of Labour," 
 issued by the Board of Trade, details of changes in hours are 
 obtainable. The following table is summarized from the four 
 reports already issued, and enables a comparison to be made 
 between the changes of hours of labour in the four years 
 1893-4-5-6 :— 
 
 
 1893- 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 No. of separate individuals whose 
 hours of labour were changed : ... 
 
 By increases 
 
 By decreases 
 
 1.530 
 33.119 
 
 128 
 77,030 
 
 1,287 
 21,448 
 
 73.616 
 
 34,6SS 
 
 Total 
 
 Net amount of reduction in working 
 hours perweek 
 
 Average amount of reduction per 
 week for all those whose hours of 
 labour were altered 
 
 34,649 
 68,937 
 
 1.99 
 
 77,158 
 311,545 
 
 4.04 
 
 22,735 
 44.105 
 
 1.94 
 
 108,271 
 78,533 
 
 0.73 
 
 Thus the tendency throughout the four years was towards a 
 gradual shortening of hours of labour. A large proportion of 
 the changes have occurred in the building trade. In 1893 
 they were 13,265; in 1894, 10,162; in 1895, 12,600; and 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY, 
 
 75 
 
 in 1896, 79,730 ; of the total affected. In 1896 the readjustment 
 of working rules in the building trades involved a trifling 
 increase in the average hours worked, but in nearly every 
 case it was accompanied by increase in the hourly rates of 
 wages. The large excess of the reductions recorded in 1894 
 over those which took place in the other years was mainly 
 accounted for by the introduction of the eight-hours day in 
 Government establishments. 
 
 Compared with 1895, the increase in 1896 in the total 
 number of hours reduced is most noticeable in the metal, 
 engineering and shipbuilding, and the woodworking trades. 
 On the other hand, the amounts of the reductions in 1896 are 
 much below those of 1895 in the building and mining and 
 quarrying trades. 
 
 In the following table the changes in hours of labour of 
 workpeople in the employ of public authorities, and of those 
 in private establishments, are distinguished for each of the four 
 years 1893-6. It will be seen that the reductions in the 
 working hours of both classes reached a maximum in 1894 
 — the year in which the average forty-eight hours week was 
 adopted in Government workshops. In 1895 there was a 
 slackening in the movement for reduced working hours ; 
 but in 1896 the total amount of the reduction in the hours 
 of workpeople in private establishments was about double that 
 of 1895. 
 
 Employers. 
 
 No. of Work- 
 people affected. 
 
 Total amount 
 of reduction in 
 hours per week 
 
 Average amount 
 
 of reduction 
 
 per week. 
 
 / Public Authorities 
 io93-[ Private Establishments 
 
 / Public Authorities 
 i094-[ Private Establishments 
 
 / Public Authorities .. 
 ^°95\ Private Establishments 
 T Sq6 / P"bli<^ Authorities 
 iByo^ Private Establishments 
 
 1.693 
 32.956 
 46.313 
 30,845 
 
 2,038 
 20,697 
 
 5.057 
 103,214 
 
 hours 
 
 7.596 
 61,341 
 185.971 
 125.574 
 10,840 
 33.265 
 13.383 
 65,150 
 
 hours 
 
 4-49 
 1.86 
 4.02 
 4.07 
 5. 32 
 1. 61 
 2.65 
 0.63 
 
 OFFICIAL REPORTS ON THE " EIGHT HOURS DAY. 
 
 The following are taken from the above-mentioned Reports 
 on Changes in Wages and Hours of Labour : — 
 
76 
 
 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 1894. 
 
 " It may be of interest, in view of the attention attracted^by 
 the movement in certain trades for the reduction of hours'to 
 eight per day, to summarize here the more important^of 
 the changes of this character which took place during the 
 year. By " eight-hours day " is usually meant a week Jof 
 forty-eight hours. In some branches of the pig-iron and 
 chemical industries, however, in which seven days' work is the 
 rule, the introduction of eight-hours shifts has only resulted in 
 the reduction of weekly hours to fifty-six. Excluding these 
 cases, we have 57 cases reported to the Department of 
 the introduction of the eight-hours day during 1894, affecting 
 altogether 51,586 persons. Of these the vast majority (viz., 
 43i°39) '^sre Government employees. Of the remaining 8,547, 
 361 were employees of four local authorities, leaving forty-two 
 cases, affecting 8,186 persons, of the introduction of the eight- 
 hours day in private establishments. 
 
 These may be classified as follows by trades : — 
 
 Groups of Trades. 
 
 No. of Cases. 
 
 No. of 
 Persons affected. 
 
 Building trades 
 
 Metal trades... ... 
 
 2 
 8 
 
 140 
 I.S4S 
 
 Engineering 
 
 Coal Mining 
 
 Textile 
 
 8 
 2 
 2 
 
 996 
 654 
 197 
 
 Boot and Shoe 
 
 3 
 
 484 
 
 Printing ... ... 
 
 Chemical Workers ... 
 
 1 
 
 1,037 
 393 
 
 Other Occupations ... 
 
 6 
 
 2,740 
 
 Total 
 
 42 
 
 8,186 
 
 One case was reported in which a firm introduced an eight- 
 hours day for cabinet-makers in April, and reverted to the fifty- 
 one hours week in November, owing to the failure of the 
 experiment." [This refers to the case of 80 cabinet-makers 
 at Lochwinnoch, Renfrewshire.] 
 
 1895. 
 
 Incidentally it may be here mentioned that in the year 1895 
 a similar reversion from the eight to the nine hours day took 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 77 
 
 place in the same district, and particulars are given in the 
 November Labour Gazette for 1895, as follows : — 
 
 " The proprietor of a silk mill in Renfrewshire com- 
 menced in April, 1894, a four weeks' trial of the eight- 
 hours day (from 535^ hours per week) for the work- 
 people in his employ — no alteration being made in the 
 prices paid to piece-workers, or in the weekly wages of 
 the time-workers. The experimental period was after- 
 wards extended to twelve months. According to par- 
 ticulars furnished by the proprietor, there was a material 
 reduction in the output under the shorter hours, re- 
 sulting, as far as he could judge, in a decrease of 7J^ per 
 cent, in the average earnings of the piece-workers. He 
 consequently felt compelled to abandon the shorter 
 hours. The number of workpeople affected at the com- 
 mencement of the experiment was seventy-seven — viz., 
 fifty-seven piece-workers and twenty time-workers." 
 
 The following is the official report for 1895 '• — 
 
 "In 1894 not only were a large number of persons affected 
 by the introduction in Government workshops of the average 
 eight-hours day, but no less than 42 cases were reported 
 of the introduction in private establishments of a week 
 of forty-eight hours, the number affected by these cases being 
 8,186. 
 
 In 1895, on the other hand, the tendency was in the other 
 direction ; in fact, of the 1,287 persons whose hours were 
 lengthened no less than 680 were employed in establishments 
 which reverted from the forty-eight hours week to longer 
 hours. Only 823 men are known to have been affected 
 during the year by the adoption of a forty-eight hours week, 
 of whom 149 were employed in private establishments and 
 674 in post-office factories. 
 
 If we also include the case of adoption of an eight-hours 
 day for seven days a week (making a fifty-six hours week), we 
 find that 1,032 men secured an eight-hours day, while 723 
 reverted from an eight-hours day to longer hours, the net 
 effect being an average reduction in the hours of the 1,755 
 persons affected of about i-6 hours per week." 
 
 1896. 
 
 The following is the official report for 1896 : — 
 
 " During 1896 there was an increase, as compared with 1895, 
 
78 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 in the number of workpeople whose hours of labour were 
 reported to have been reduced to forty-eight per week, and 
 there were fewer cases of a reversion from forty-eight to longer 
 hours of labour. 
 
 The total number of persons reported as having their hours 
 of work reduced to forty-eight per week in 1896 was 1,314 
 (483 of whom were workpeople in private establishments, and 
 831 employees of public authorities), as compared with 976 
 in 1895 (149 in private establishments, and 827 in the employ 
 of public authorities). Of the 483 workpeople in private 
 establishments, 329 were employed in the wood-working and 
 furnishing trades, 125 in the fur trade, and 29 in the printing 
 trade. 
 
 In addition to the above, a certain number of cases have 
 been reported of the adoption of an eight-hours working day 
 for seven days per week. If these be included with the fore- 
 going, we find that the total number reported as obtaining an 
 eight-hours day in 1896 was 1,488, as compared with 1,032 
 in 1895. 
 
 There were 4 cases reported in 1896 of a reversion from 
 forty-eight to longer hours, affecting 263 persons, 200 of whom 
 were employed in brass and engineering works. The corres- 
 ponding number in 1895 was 723. 
 
 These figures are exclusive of 418 persons in the Army 
 Ordnance Department at Woolwich Dockyard, who had their 
 winter hours increased to forty-eight per week, so as to assimilate 
 them with those obtaining in other departments at Woolwich. 
 
 The progress of the eight-hours movement during the four 
 years, 1893 to 1896, is shown in the following table. It will 
 be seen that 1894, the year of the introduction of the average 
 eight-hours day in Government establishments, was also the 
 year in which the movement made the most progress in 
 private establishments. In 1895 the number of workpeople 
 in private establishments who obtained an eight-hours day 
 was very small, and was largely overbalanced by the number 
 who reverted to longer hours of labour. In 1896, however, the 
 reversions to longer hours were less important than the cases 
 of adoption of the eight-hours day. 
 
 Altogether, during the four years — so far as known to the 
 Board of Trade — the eight-hours day has been adopted for 
 56,223 workpeople, of which number 1,121 are known to have 
 subsequently reverted to their former hours of labour. These 
 1,121 persons include 655 workpeople in engineering estab- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 19 
 
 lish merits, loo brass workers, 70 iron workers, 77 silk opera- 
 tives, 80 cabinet makers, and 139 others. Of the remaining 
 55,102 workpeople 45,421 are in the employ of public 
 authorities. The 9,681 others include 553 iron workers, 
 500 steel workers, 870 brass and other metal workers, 
 1,193 workpeople employed in the engineering and ship- 
 building trades, 651 in coal mining, 120 in the textile trades, 
 484 in the boot and shoe trades, 1,058 in printing establish- 
 ments, 419 in chemical works, 2,000 ammunition makers, and 
 1,833 employed in miscellaneous trades. 
 
 These figures include a few workpeople who are employed 
 for seven days per week. 
 
 Table showing the Number of Workpeople affected by reductions to, 
 and reversions from, the Eight-Hours Day, in the four years 1893 to 
 1896, distinguishing between Workpeople employed in Private Estab- 
 lishments and those in the employ of Public Authorities : — 
 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Total in 
 four years. 
 
 Reductions to the eight 
 hours day : — 
 Workpeople in private 
 
 establishments 
 Employees of public 
 authorities 
 
 1,304 
 229 
 
 8,690* 
 
 43,400 
 
 i63t 
 869 
 
 565 
 923 
 
 10,722 
 
 45.421 
 
 Totals 
 
 Reversions from the 
 eight-hours day to 
 former hours of 
 labour : — 
 Workpeople in private 
 establishments 
 
 1.533 
 
 52,090 
 
 1,032 
 723 
 
 1,488 
 263 
 
 56,143 
 986 
 
 * In addition, 80 workpeople had their hours of labour reduced to forty- 
 eight per week in April, but reverted to their previous hours of labour in 
 November. 
 
 t 55 of these workpeople reverted to their longer hours of labour 
 in March, 1897." 
 
So AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 XIII .-THE NEW ZEALAND EIGHT-HOURS BILL. 
 
 The following New Zealand Bill, printed as it was returned 
 from Committee, is given as a specimen of the harmful legisla- 
 tion we are fighting. The Canterbury Times (Auckland), of 
 October 14th, 1897, thus criticised it : — 
 
 " It is difficult to conceive it possible that any Govern- 
 ment can seriously contemplate passing into law a Bill 
 such as this, which would have the effect of crippling 
 every industry in the Colony, and killing many of them 
 outright. To curtail industrial employment will inevitably 
 entail loss and suffering on nearly every working man. 
 He will either have to submit to a material reduction in 
 his annual earnings, or lose his employment altogether. 
 In those trades particularly which are subject to fluctua- 
 tions, depending upon the seasons, and in which extra 
 earnings, made in unlimited overtime during the busy 
 spell, have to carry a man over lengthy periods of 
 slackness, the operation of the Bill would be most disas- 
 trous. It is surely monstrous to so restrict the liberty of 
 a working man that only on twenty-eight days in a 
 year is he to be permitted to work overtime, and then 
 only by permission of an inspector ; while, under existing 
 circumstances, the overtime earnings, in many cases, make 
 an appreciable difference to his income. The eight-hours 
 system is already firmly established by custom ; and it is 
 insulting to the intelligence and capacity of any man to 
 forbid him to work an extra half-hour, if he so pleases, 
 without obtaining the written permission of the inspector. 
 Moreover, it is only the factory workman who is by 
 this Bill precluded from earning overtime money. The 
 employee under the Government, or, in fact, any outside 
 employee, is not so restricted. There is no reason why 
 this invidious discrimination should prevail. We are 
 convinced that, if this question is submitted to the con- 
 sideration of those chiefly concerned, they will never 
 consent to have their liberties so seriously restricted, and 
 their earning capacity so unnecessarily curtailed." 
 
 Progress on this Bill was reported from time to time : but, as 
 at the end of the session the matter was still outstanding, the 
 Bill has lapsed in the usual way. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 8i 
 
 [as reported from the labour bills committee, i2th 
 
 November, 1897.] 
 
 Rt. Hon. R. J. SeddoH. 
 
 EIGHT HOURS. 
 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 
 Title. 
 
 6, On emergency involving danger 
 
 I. 
 
 Short Title. 
 
 workers may work longer 
 
 3. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 To whom Act to apply. 
 
 Eight hours established as a 
 
 hours. 
 
 3 
 
 7. Application of penalties. ^ S 
 
 4* 
 
 8. Double wages recoverable if 
 
 
 working- day. 
 
 worker employed in breach 
 
 5- 
 
 Workers not to be employed 
 
 of Act. 
 
 
 more than eight hours a 
 
 9. Factories Act modified. Pro- 
 
 
 day. Penalty. 
 
 viso. 
 10. Working-day in certain cases 
 not lengthened. 
 
 A BILL INTITULED 
 
 An Act to define and regulate the Hours of Manual Labour 
 
 in certain Cases. 
 
 Title. 
 
 BE IT ENACTED by the General Assembly of jNew Zealand 
 in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as 
 follows : — 
 
 1. The Short Title of this Act is " The Eight Hours Act, short Title. 
 '897^' ., . 
 
 2. In this Act, if not mconsistent with the context — Interpretation. 
 " Day " (other than a working-day) means any period of 
 
 twenty-four hours : 
 
 " Week " means any consecutive period of one hundred 
 and sixty-eight hours : 
 
 "Employer" means any person, company, or local 
 authority employing any worker for hire, reward, or 
 maintenance to perform any kind of skilled or un- 
 skilled manual labour ; antl includes any foreman, 
 manager, agent, or servant of an employer who is 
 expressly or impliedly intrusted by such employer 
 with authority to engage, pay, or discharge any 
 worker, or to superintend his work : 
 
 " Worker " means any person of any age or either sex 
 employed for hire, reward, or maintenance to perform 
 any kind of skilled or unskilled manual labour. 
 
 3, Except where the employer is a local authority this Act To whom Act t« 
 shall apply only to workers employed in factories registered apply- 
 under "The Factories Act, 1894" (not being dairy factories), 
 
 or in or about mines. 
 
 4. In all contracts for the employment of a worker, a day Eight hours 
 shall be deemed to be a "working-day," meaning thereby a established as m 
 period of [eight consecutive working-hours (exclusive of such ^°™°g"°*y- 
 interval for meals as is agreed on or customary) on each of five 
 
 days in the week, and of five consecutive working-hours on one 
 day in the week ; and every such contract shall be construed 
 accordingly. 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 Wnken 
 
 employed in 
 excess of 
 working-day to 
 be paid over- 
 
 New Proviso. 
 Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed 
 to increase the number of working-hours in a working day in 
 any case where, by custom, agreement, or statute, such number 
 is not more or less than as hereinbefore prescribed. 
 
 5. (i.) Except in the cases and subject to the conditions 
 authorized and prescribed by section fifty-five of " The Factories 
 Act, 1894," it sbaUeet fee tewfolforany erapJeyer to«mploy any 
 w»ker te w-erk for mrr e4 han eight worki ng hour s in -any one day, 
 «r ior siore than forty fiv e working hours in any brs week, or to 
 dismi ss any worker ier refusing to ^o so. and this Act, any em- 
 ployer ■who during any day or week employs any worker ■'or any 
 period in excess of the legal working-hours shall pay to the 
 worker, by way of overtime, wages for such period at such rate 
 as is agreed on, being in no case less than half as much again as 
 the ordinary rate of wages, or other remuneration. 
 
 Struck out. 
 
 Penalty. 
 
 On emergency 
 involving danger 
 workers may 
 work longer 
 honrs. 
 
 Application of 
 penalties. 
 
 Double wages 
 recoverable if 
 worker employed 
 in breach of Act. 
 
 (2.) For the purposes of the last-preceding subsection 
 hereof, section fifty-five of "The Factories Act, 1894" 
 (excepting the first paragraph thereof), shall extend and 
 apply to every worker as defined by this Act. 
 
 (3.) If any employer commits any breach of this section, 
 he is liable to a penalty of not less than five nor more than 
 twenty pounds, to be recovered by proceedings instituted by 
 an Inspector of Factories before a Stipendiary Magistrate 
 alone, whose decision shall be final, 
 
 6. In any such proceedings it shall be a sufficient defence 
 if the defendant satisfies the Magistrate that such breach was 
 caused by any special unforeseen emergency involving danger 
 to life or property, and that he has paid or agreed to pay to 
 each worker overtime for the period during which he was 
 employed in excess of the legal working-hours at a rate agreed 
 on, being in no case less than half as much again as the 
 ordinary rate of wages. 
 
 7. All penalties recovered under this Act shall be paid into 
 the Public Account, and form part of the Consolidated Fund. 
 
 8. In any case where any employer employs any worker, 
 in breach of this Act, for any period in excess of the legal 
 working-hours, then, irrespective of the penalty to which the 
 employer thereby exposes himself, he is liable to pay to the 
 worker wages for such period at double the ordinary rate, 
 and such double wages may be recovered by the worker with 
 full costs of suit, any contract or agreement to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. 
 
 Factories Act 9 6* "The Factories Act, 1894" is hereby modified in so 
 
 modified. far as it-ia ^r.y wa y conflicts with this Act, but not further or 
 
 otherwise : 
 Fioviso. Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall be con- 
 
 strued to in any way affect the provisions of " The Factories 
 Act, 1894," respecling holidays or the hours for commencing 
 or ending work, or the intervals for meals. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 83 
 
 Struck out. 
 
 110. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to 
 lengthen the working-day in any case where, by custom, 
 agreement, or statute, it is less than as hereinbefore prescribed. 
 
 Working-day in 
 certain cases not 
 lengthened. 
 
 New clauses. 
 
 V. It shall not be competent for a worker to in any way No contracting 
 contract himself out of the benefit of this Act, or otherwise °"'* 
 deprive himself of the benefit thereof. 
 
 8. If any employer commits any breach of this Act he is Penalty, 
 liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, to be re- 
 covered by proceedings instituted by an Inspector of Factories 
 before a Stipendiary Magistrate alone, whose decision shall be 
 final. 
 
 XIV.— CONCLUDING GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND THE DECISION OF THE 
 EMPLOYERS. 
 
 This volume being in itself intended only as a summary of 
 what can be said on the eight hours movement, it is hardly 
 necessary to attempt to condense its main features into a few con- 
 cluding paragraphs. In conclusion, therefore, we wish chiefly 
 to urge two practical points, which, as it seems to us, not only com- 
 prise the crucial test of the question of a legislative eight-hours 
 day, but form its solution. To the ofificious servant of the State, 
 to the office-retaining-at-any-cost and time-serving member of 
 Parliament, to the " h "-transposing mob-orator and arch- 
 agitator, to the well-meaning and muddle-producing busybody, 
 sometimes miscalled philanthropist, our advice in this: "Mind 
 your own business." To the conscientious employer and to the 
 honest worker we say : " Don't tolerate impudent interference 
 in affairs which concern you and your living only. Combine, 
 if you feel so disposed, but act as a combination with no 
 more tyrannical coercion than as an individual." To the 
 consumer no less than to the producer the issue of this 
 question is committed, in full reliance on his common sense. 
 With the public at large — and this is the first vital point we 
 wish to urge — rests a definite decision on the whole subject. 
 Public opinion has been compared to a policeman flashing 
 the light from his bull's eye into the dark corners of the bye- 
 ways of life, and bringing out of its hiding-place all that is foul 
 
84 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 and intolerable. Public opinion, like a policeman, is not 
 infallible ; it has its weaknesses, and still needs a good deal 
 of educating ; but, on the whole, its judgment is fairly accurate, 
 and on a matter which concerns its own comfort and con- 
 venience the voice of the public always speaks with Jno 
 uncertain sound. 
 
 But a warning must be uttered against the danger of mis- 
 taking for the voice of the public the braying of the agitator, 
 the cooing of his innocent victim before slaughter, the shriek- 
 ing during the process, or the complacent self-advertisement 
 of the subscription-dunned public man. The real voice of 
 the public is quiet, but authoritative when heard. A national 
 reaction against trade-union interference has set in, and will 
 infallibly envelop the Legislature. We believe that the present 
 temper of the country tends more and more in the direction 
 of legislation restraining trade-union action than further 
 restricting the freedom of a man to work for the good of 
 himself and his family up to his full strength, if he so chooses. 
 A.S Mr. Webb has said|: " Every wage-earner is interested in 
 any Eight Hours Bill "; but he is interested in the sense that 
 resistance is his best policy. 
 
 Instances of legislative interference in this very question, 
 and of its dead failure solely because the public had not 
 desired it, and doubted its wisdom, are numerous. 
 
 "A writer in the 'Dictionary of Political Economy, 
 1894,' reminds us that, of the fifty-two eight-hours trades 
 in Melbourne, not one got the eight hours by law ; for, 
 though the miners got the eight-hours law in 1883, many 
 of them had the eight hours long before. He shows, too, 
 that in Victoria, where the eight-hours laws has been 
 passed, its operation has been suspended on petition from 
 the workers ; also that the unemployed question is more 
 acute there. Finally, he shows that in the United States, 
 where, in the first heat of the movement, twenty-five 
 years ago, eight-hours laws were passed, all of them have, 
 for one reason or another, long been mere dead letters. 
 From all of which we judge that, while we cannot but 
 wish that the conditions of life were such that an eight- 
 hours working day could universally prevail, it were 
 better to bring it about by education, moral suasion, 
 public opinion, and legitimate trade-union agency, than 
 by resorting to unconditional coercive legislation, which 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 85 
 
 may do irreparable damage to industry, commerce, and 
 social well-being. The unfettered right of working men 
 to sell their labour to the best advantage is a priceless 
 boon, and honest industry may be discouraged by the 
 State stigmatizing it as a legal crime." 
 
 So reads a recent report to the Eight Hours Demonstration 
 League, made by the Auckland Employers' Association, in 
 their opposition to the Eight Hours Day Bill, which seems 
 likely next session to become New Zealand law. 
 
 Mr. Charles Fairfield, writing in 1890 in "A Plea for 
 Liberty," said : — 
 
 " The first local circumstance, or condition, favourable 
 to the success and permanence of the eight-hours rule 
 in Victoria is the protective tarifif. The second condition 
 is the absence of keen competition among workers of all 
 grades themselves. The third is the settled policy which 
 regularly provides ateliers nationaux, or employment for 
 that class which is supposed to be all-powerful at election 
 time on State railways and so-called productive public 
 works, thus ' keeping a market ' for labour and creating 
 a standard of hours and wages which private employers 
 cannot compete against or vary. The fourth, correlated, 
 of course, to the last, is the now inevitable financial, or 
 borrowing, policy of the various colonial governments, 
 which re-acts upon local banks and credit institutions. 
 Colonial land legislation and the concentration of popula- 
 tion in large cities are also favourable conditions. How 
 many of these, it may be asked, exist in Great Britain ?" 
 
 The most striking commentary on the effect of this policy is 
 afforded by a consideration of the present bankrupt state of 
 all the Australian colonies. 
 
 In spite of the oft-repeated prediction of Mr. Augustine 
 Birrell, Q.C., M.P., that the eight-hours day for miners will, 
 before long, be compulsorily recognised by legal enactment, 
 we know that the miners of Durham and Northumberland 
 have not yet resigned their manliness of independence into the 
 keeping of the State. When they voiced their opinions at 
 the International Miners' Conference at Aix-la-Chapelle in 
 May, 1896 — and again in London in 1897 — they showed no 
 signs of wavering. Yet, on June ist following, Mr. Birrell 
 prophesied to the miners of Fife and Clackmannan, at the 
 
■86 AW EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 celebration of their own twenty-sixth eight-hours day ahni- 
 versary, and on September sth, 1896, to miners at Lochgelly, 
 that the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill would soon receive the 
 support of all the miners' representatives in the House of 
 Commons. It is well known that the result in Fife and 
 Qackmannan is that the cost of working the coal has increased, 
 and the quality of it deteriorated ; but that does not affect 
 the general principle of legislative interference, it only puts 
 one more nail in its coffin. 
 
 Since these forecasts were delivered the annual Bill has once 
 again been rejected by the House of Commons, by a greatly 
 increased majority, and the Durham miners have, at the cost 
 of their severance from the Miners' Federation, reiterated 
 their firm opinion against legislation. 
 
 It is undeniable that in many parts of the country, and in 
 many industries, an eight-hours day is worked, and that by 
 the force of the public opinion of that particular part or 
 industry. This has come about because of the special con- 
 ditions attaching to the locality or to the industry, and there 
 is no reason why the extension of the movement — and its ex- 
 tension is undoubted — should not in time reach the climax 
 of a general eight-hours day, with, of course, the necessary and 
 unavoidable exceptions. National improvements reached by 
 natural means are far more permanent and beneficial than 
 similar results attained by the working of artificial laws and 
 compulsory action, which has garnered the corn in the green 
 ear before it was ripe. This is well put by Mr. Geoffrey 
 Drage, M.P., in his statement of "The Labour Proble^n." 
 Mr. Drage says :— 
 
 " Actual experience is at present so little advanced that 
 no satisfactory conclusion can be based upon it. The 
 individual instances where the shorter day has been 
 adopted are, on the whole, favourable; but so far they 
 are so few as hardly to establish a general principle. 
 Moreover, the failures as well as the successes must be 
 taken into account ; and in practice much depends upon 
 the peculiarities of the trade. One point, however, may 
 be noticed. This is that wherever the eight-hours' day 
 has been introduced hitherto it has always been done by 
 means of a mutual agreement between employers and 
 employed. In such a case all involved — employer, fore- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 87 
 
 men, and workmen — are put on their mettle to make the 
 experiment a success. This incentive would, however, not 
 exist where the hours of labour depended upon legislative 
 enactment ; and hence the success of the trials hitherto 
 made affords no presumption in favour of legislation, 
 though it does so to some extent in favour of a voluntary 
 reduction of hours by those interested in the trade." 
 
 Even the limited application of the principle by means of 
 trade or district option, or trade exemption, gives rise to 
 technical and other difficulties, especially in the case of 
 unorganized industries. Trades which are admittedly danger- 
 ous to health, or concern the public safety, stand in a diflferent 
 relation to the question. On this ground the hours of railway 
 servants are already regulated by statute law. At the same 
 time, Mr. Drage argues that — 
 
 " The objections which seem to prohibit any legislative 
 interference with hours of labour, unless in exceptional 
 cases, do not apply to the further voluntary curtailment 
 of hours which may be brought about in any trade by 
 agreement between the employers and workpeople. 
 Organized effort upon the part of the employed has 
 already done much in this direction, and there seems oo 
 reason to suppose that it cannot go further still. But, 
 whilst the growing desire for more leisure in which to 
 carry on self-culture, and fulfil the duties of citizenship, 
 Bpon the part of the workers must appeal to the sympathy 
 and respect of all right-minded employers, as well a; of 
 the general public, it cannot be doubted that a more 
 intelligent knowledge of the complicated conditions of 
 the trade in question will often enable the employees to 
 appreciate the grave difficulties and possible injury con- 
 nected with a further restriction of hours which they may 
 have overlooked." 
 
 Mr. Annand, too, strongly denounces legal compulsion. In 
 a letter to the Times, published on October 4th, 1897, he 
 said : — 
 
 " As a panacea for our social ills I regard it as grotesque. 
 So large an earthquake was surely never dosed with so 
 small a pill. As a measure for the increased comfort aqd 
 well-being of the workmen, I think it is more than doubt- 
 ful. As an economic change, I think it is risky, but may 
 
88 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 be tried without serious peril, if employers and workmen 
 so agree. I think the employers know best where and 
 when and whether such a change can be safely and 
 profitably made. I repeat that the experience of a 
 Government Department is nothing to go by, even if we 
 had such experience. For my part, I have never seen 
 the slightest attempt scientifically to tell us what has 
 really been the result of the experiment made in this 
 country. What is true of governments is true of special 
 firms, who, for various reasons, find it practicable to work 
 the shorter day. They are no general guide. All this 
 as regards a voluntary eight-hours day. A legal eight- 
 hours day for everybody is not intended, I hope, for 
 serious discussion, even although the Trades Union 
 Congress has once more declared in its favour. A legal 
 eight-hours day, for anybody outside women and children, 
 I have always held to be an unjustifiable interference with 
 the liberty of the workman ; to my m^ind his acceptance 
 of it would be the most striking proof of decadence which 
 we see in our time." 
 
 The question of reduced hours must be viewed from three 
 standpoints^that of the public, of the employed, and of the 
 employer. It is in connection with the latter that we wish to 
 urge the second important point. A rigid eight-hours day is 
 acknowledged to be impossible. We are convinced that, on 
 the part of the employed, there is no genuine demand for it, 
 either sectionally or universally. On this point Mr. James 
 Mawdsley may be considered as voicing the opinions of those 
 whom reduced hours affect, and as recently as March 27th, 
 1898, he wrote to the eflFect that, if organized workmen really 
 wished to abolish overtime, they could do so ; but, as a matter 
 of fact, they not only worked overtime cheerfully, but in the 
 iron trades especially, " measured up the attractiveness of a shop 
 by the amount of overtime they can put in." Eight-hours is a cry 
 adopted by socialist and dreaming reformers, merely as a means 
 of advertising their agitation, and thus earning a good subscrip- 
 tional living. That being so, we urge upon the employer to see 
 that he treats his workmen well. We do not wish to be senti- 
 mental, or to scream to him "in the name of humanity," as a 
 meaningless phrase has it ; we do not wish to trespass upon 
 his business concerns ; but we do wish to point out that, with 
 modern appliances and comparative ease of elaborate pro- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 89 
 
 duction, there exists a grave danger of turning out ephemeral 
 butterfly work. 
 
 There is probably at the present day very little justification 
 for a repetition of the charge made by Mr. Thomas Burt in 
 the Contemporary Review in 1889 — viz., that "at present in 
 some industries the hours are scandalously and injuriously 
 long," and that "in nearly every case" such overlong hours 
 "could, with advantage to everybody concerned, and injury to 
 none, be greatly reduced." Again, it is not a true statement 
 of the case to assert, as did Mr. J. Burnett (now the Labour 
 Correspondent of the Board of Trade, then the representative 
 of the Amalgamated Engineers) in an attack on overtime, that 
 " every man who works overtime four quarter days takes away 
 a day's ^ork from another man "; or to allege, as did another 
 speaker at the " Industrial Remuneration Conference" in 1885, 
 that " it would certainly be better that ten men should work 
 six hours per day, and all be employed, than that six men 
 should work ten hours per day, and the other four men go 
 about idly as paupers." As Mr. Bradlaugh pointed out at the 
 time, the cure for want of employment does not lie in forcing 
 "ten. to struggle for subsistence miserably where six might 
 thrive comfortably." 
 
 But the employer must see to it that his men work the most 
 suitable hours, all things considered ; that, to maintain quality 
 of output, national trade, bodily health, social security, and 
 individual independence, working conditions are the best 
 compatible with the service due to all conflicting interests 
 and obligations. The advice given by Professor Thorold 
 Rogers, as the result of his deep historical studies, seems to 
 us worthy of full quoting, and of careful consideration by 
 employers. Professor Rogers said : — 
 
 " I stated in a previous chapter that [in the fifteenth 
 century] the day was one of eight hours' work, and 
 grounded my opinion on the fact that winter wages were 
 reckoned to be payable only in the months of December 
 and January, and from the fact that extra hours, some- 
 times as many as forty-eight in the week, are frequently 
 paid for by the King's agents when hurried work was 
 needed. These hours, of course, were not continuous, 
 being broken for nonschenes, dinner, and supper in the 
 summer, and for nonschenes and dinner in the shorter 
 days. During the winter solstice it seems that only the 
 
90 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAV. 
 
 dinner time was allowed. Even when the Act of Elizabeth 
 and the regulations of the Quarter Sessions prescribed a 
 day of twelve hours all the year round — for this is in effect 
 the meaning of the clause — two hours and a half were 
 allowed for rest, and the day was brought down, on an 
 average, to nine hours and a half. But this was pre- 
 cisely one of those prescriptions which labourers would 
 be sure to resist, and employers would find it expedient 
 not to insist on. That it was evaded is, I think, clear, 
 from the fact that the Quarter Sessions' ordinances 
 constantly call attention to the law, and remind artizarjs 
 of the penalties they incurred — a penny for every hour 
 of absence. Employers were very likely to discover 
 that the labourer's resistance to an excessively loiig 
 day was not entirely personal, and that the work might 
 suffer from the workman's weariness or exhaustioh. 
 Now, the quality of the work in the old times pf 
 which I have written is unquestionable. It stands 
 to this day a proof of how excellent ancient masonty 
 was. The building, from the construction of which 
 I have inferred so much as to work and wages, is 
 still standing as it was left four centuries ago. I aiti 
 persuaded that such perfect masonry would have beesn 
 incompatible with a long hours day. You may still see 
 brickwork of the next century, which I venture on asserting 
 no modern work would parallel ; and, within five minutes' 
 walk of it, Roman brickwork, probably sixteen centuries 
 old, which is as solid and substantial as when it was first 
 erected. The artizan who is demanding at this time an 
 eight-hours day in the building trades is simply striving to 
 recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries 
 ago. It is only to be hoped that he will emulate the 
 integrity and thoroughness of the work which his ancestor 
 performed." 
 
 But if, as in the engineering trade, the employers severally 
 OF as a united body find that without anticipated dire results 
 they are unable to give an eight-hours day to their workmen, 
 they must refuse firmly, and without wavering abide by theix 
 decision. Their battle-cry, " No third parties ! no inter- 
 ference !" was both honourable and just. 
 
 It may with truth be urged that in these views there is 
 displayed a want of " humanity," or at least a lack of senti- 
 nent and sympathy. To such criticism it must be repli^ 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 9 1 
 
 that exhibitions of an unhealthy sentiment have for 
 some time past obscured the issues of all social and indus- 
 trial problems. We all know and feel only too well that 
 poor sempstresses are sweated and ground down till, for a 
 bare starvation existence, they sew their fingers to the bone> 
 that some railway employees are compelled at times to remain 
 on-duty till they fall asleep from sheer fatigue ; that some 'bus 
 conductors, owing to their hurried opportunities for meals and 
 too long hours of standing and exposure in all weathers, suffer 
 agonies of ill-health ; that coal-getting is in some instances 
 attended by imminent risk to life and limb. We know and 
 acknowledge all this, and we could, had we the mind to do so, 
 write reams of piteous whining about it all, and with perfect 
 truth. But this shows the picture in only one light — the light 
 too often so highly coloured that the sole results are explosions 
 of weak and ridiculous sentimentalism and outbursts of worth- 
 less gush that move no one to activities of relief, but merely to 
 cries aloud to the Legislature, the Legislature. Our task has 
 been to endeavour to show the picture in a full and steady 
 light, a light — as we think — of common sense and reason, and 
 to summon all thinking and intelligent fellow-subjects to over- 
 throw this legislative Baal who heareth not, and whose power 
 exists only in diseased and slothful imaginations. 
 
 Any oppressions that may be in our midst are all heaped up 
 upOn a helpless minority by a minority. They must affect the 
 minority chiefly, for otherwise where is our national health ?-^ 
 and as a nation we are healthy and prosperous. In the hands 
 of you, the majority, whose toil, although sometimes doubtless 
 far from pleasant and a sad delight, is yet not an insufferable 
 hardship ; in the hands of you, the public, with your power to 
 speak as the voice of a trumpet in the full blaze and glory of a 
 cloudless noon-day, is the fate of the weaker workers. And to 
 you, the employers, we say it is only by the might of individual 
 example that the victory of good living for your workmen, with 
 unfettered liberty, will be won. 
 
92 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY, 
 
 XV.— THE DEMAND FOR AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY IN THE 
 ENGINEERING AND KINDRED TRADES : 1897-8. 
 
 It is proposed to give, as an appendix in diary form, some 
 facts in connection with the dispute in the engineering trade, 
 selected to show the connection between the dispute and the 
 demand for an eight-hours day, and the result in that con- 
 nection. It is convenient to preface these facts with a statO' 
 ment showing the position of a similar demand about the same 
 time from the shipbuilding and kindred sections of the engi- 
 neering trade, although the issue of that demand in no way 
 affected the engineering strike in progress at a later stage of 
 negotiations with the employers concerned. 
 
 Similarly, although the attitude of the boilermakers had no 
 immediate effect upon the dispute, it is convenient to record 
 their negotiations and decisions in the matter. The strike, in 
 defiance of the Executive, of the members of the London 
 section of the Boilermakers' Society of course forms an incident 
 in the strike proper. 
 
 The membership of the trade societies affected, given in the 
 Labour Gazette in July, 1897, was as follows ; — 
 
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers 9i>9i9^ 
 
 Steam Engine Makers' Society 8,400 
 
 Amalgamated Society of Toolmakers 2,390 
 
 United Machine Workers' Association 4^I29 
 
 United Society of Smiths and Hammermen 950 
 
 London and Provincial Society of Coppersmiths 418 
 
 London and District United Society of Drillers 350 
 
 London United Society of Brassfinishets 379 
 
 London and Provincial Society of Hammermen 253 
 
 Scientific Instrument Makers' Trade Society 641 
 
 Total 109,829 
 
 The four first-named unions are of national extent, the membership 
 of the remainder being chiefly in London. 
 
 The Federated Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers in 
 January, 1897, comprised over 700 of the leading engineering 
 firms of the United Kingdom. 
 
 The facts selected are here arranged under the following 
 heads : — 
 
 I. The Eight-Hours Question in the Engineering and Ship- 
 building Trades. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 93 
 
 2. The Boilermakers' Attitude and the Strike in London. 
 
 3. The Engineers' Strike in London and the ensuing General 
 Lock-out and Strike. 
 
 4. Some of the Trade Unions' Reasons for raising the 
 Demand. 
 
 5. Some of the Employers' Reasons for refusing the 
 Demand. 
 
 6. Why some Firms granted the Demand. 
 
 7. Why so many Firms Reverted to Longer Hours. 
 
 8. Some Personal Observations. 
 
 I. THE EIGHT HOURS' QUESTION IN THE 
 ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADES. 
 1896. Nov. 11th. — ^At a meeting in Hull the question of hours of 
 labour was discussed by the Federation of the Shipbuilding and 
 Engineering Trades of the United Kingdom (comprising the following 
 sixteen trade unions, with a total membership of 173,451 : Black- 
 smiths, Associated; Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders; Brass- 
 founders, United Association ; Carpenters and Joiners, Amalgamated 
 Society ; Carpenters and Joiners, Associated ; Carpenters and Joiners, 
 General Union ; Cabinet Makers, Amalgamated Union ; Iron- 
 moulders of Scotland, Associated ; Machine Workers, United ; 
 Painters and Decorators, National Amalgamated ; Patternmakers' 
 Association, United ; Plumbers, United Operative ; Shipwrights, 
 Associated ; Smiths, Co-operative ; Steam Engine Makers ; Ship- 
 wrights, Liverpool Trade and Friendly Association. 
 
 189T. Feb. — The questions framed and ultimately issued by the 
 Executive Committee of the Federation to the respective committees 
 of' the affiliated societies were : 
 
 " I. Is your Executive Committee in favour of a movement to cur- 
 tail the hours of labour? 
 
 2. If so, to what extent? 
 
 3. Are you in favour of taking a vote of the whole of the federatea 
 societies upon the question?" 
 
 May 26<A.— At the annual meeting in Hull the following expres- 
 sions of opinions were recorded : Boilermakers. — i. Yes. 2. An eight- 
 hour day. 3. Yes. Ironmoulders. — i. Yes. 2. An all-round 5r hours. 
 3. Yes. Brassfounders. — i. Yes. 2. An eight-hourg day. 3. Yes. 
 Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners. — In favour of shortening hours 
 of labour wherever it can- be done, but object to organised effort to 
 secure uniformity; better to leave the question in the hands of the 
 workmen in the various localities. 3. No. Associated- Carpenters 
 and Joiners.— I. Yes. 2. Forty-five hours per week. 3. Yes. 
 Painters.— I. Yes, in shipyards. 3. Yes. Blacksmiths (Associated). 
 —I. Yes. 2. Fifty-one hours. Shipwrights (Associated).— i. Yes. 
 2. Forty-eight hours. 3. Yes.— Smiths (Co-operative).—!. Against 
 any alteration. i ^ • ^i. ^ j- 
 
 It was, therefore, decided to take a vote on the basis that no dis- 
 tinction could be made between the various sections of any trade ; 
 and it was unanimously agreed that the aggregate vote should count. 
 
94 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 and that the result should be in the hands of the secretary not later 
 than 1st Sept., 1897. The questions for voting upon were reductions 
 to (i) 51, (2) 48, (3) 45 hours per week. 
 
 June Slst. — Mr. William Mosses, the secretary, issued a general 
 letter to the affiliated societies to this effect. 
 
 Jvit/ SSrd. — ^A meeting, at Newcastle, of the Executive Committee 
 of the Federation carried a resolution to the effect : " That we re- 
 spectfully approach the Employers' Federation of Engineering and 
 Shipbuilding Trades, requesting a conference between them and this 
 Executive, to consider the advisability of reducing the working hours, 
 the conference to be held at an early date." 
 
 August 5th. — The Employers' Federation replied to this proposal, 
 stating that, while they were at all times ready to meet representatives 
 of their workmen, the present was not a time when the subject would 
 be likely to receive the calm and dispassionate consideration its im- 
 portance demanded. They, therefore, thought it would be better to 
 postpone the matter tor the present, but in the meantime they would 
 be happy to consider any further representations on the subject. 
 
 Sept. 18th. — ^A letter addressed to Messrs. Biggart and Robinson, 
 secretaries to the Federated Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers, 
 apprised them of the fact that a meeting of the Federation of Engi- 
 neering and Shipbuilding Trades, held on Sept. i6th at Carlisle, to 
 consider the hours' question, resolved to request the Employers' 
 Federation to hold an immediate conference in order that the trades 
 may give personally the result of the recent vote : explain their posi- 
 tion and policy with regard to the question, whilst formally requesting 
 a reduction of the present hours : and learn the exact nature of the 
 employers' objection to a reduction of hours. 
 
 Seft SSrd. — A similar letter was addressed to Mr. J. Muirhead, 
 secretary, Shipbuilders' Federation, Glasgow, and to representatives 
 of employers at Sunderland, Hartlepool, Belfast, and Aberdeen. 
 
 Oct. 5th. — In final reply to the request contained in this and some 
 supplementary explanatory correspondence, in full meeting of the 
 Executive Committee the employers again declined to meet the 
 Federation in conference, and requested the men to " accept the 
 resistance which is at present being offered by our members to the 
 demand of engineers and others to enforce a reduction of the working 
 hours as an evidence of their sincerity, and of their conviction of the 
 impossibility of granting such a demand." 
 
 Oct. nth.— At a meeting of the Federated Trades held at Carlisle 
 it was resolved : " That this Executive Council appoint a deputation 
 to approach the Board of Trade to use their influence under the recent 
 Conciliation Act to discuss with them the present industrial position." 
 Mr. Knight (chairman), Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Mosses 
 (secretary) were appointed as the deputation to wait upon Mr. 
 Ritchie, the President of the Board of Trade. The following is the 
 final detailed result of the federated trades' vote upon the reduction 
 of hours question : 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 95 
 
 
 Number of Votes. 1 
 
 Total 
 
 number 
 
 of Votes. 
 
 Total 
 
 Member- 
 
 ^ ship 
 
 in 1896. 
 
 Associations. 
 
 For 
 SI hours. 
 
 For 
 48 hours. 
 
 For 
 45 hours. 
 
 Boilermakers 
 
 Brassfovmders 
 
 Carpenters & Joiners' (Assd.) 
 
 „ (Gen. Union) ... 
 
 „ (Amalgamated) . . . 
 
 Cabinet Makers 
 
 Ironmoulders 
 
 Plumbers' (Operative) 
 
 Patternmakers 
 
 Mill Sawyers 
 
 Painters 
 
 Blacksmiths' Association ... 
 
 Machine Workers 
 
 Liverpool Shipwrights 
 Enginemen and Cranemen... 
 Shipwrights' Associated ... 
 Co-operative Smiths 
 
 6,627 
 
 704 
 
 417 
 
 84 
 
 209 
 
 2.S03 
 289 
 380 
 102 
 442 
 689 
 
 375 
 315 
 572 
 16S 
 
 13.873 
 
 23.392 
 
 1.397 
 172 
 
 647 
 
 352 
 454 
 739 
 989 
 508 
 
 1,418 
 259 
 
 4.144 
 
 75 
 
 264 
 
 2.S17 
 228 
 
 1,070 
 
 52 
 
 450 
 
 139 
 
 10 
 128 
 119 
 100 
 
 8 
 
 342 
 
 5 
 
 II 
 
 6 
 
 170 
 
 10 
 
 31,089 
 
 2,153 
 
 1.039 
 
 870 
 
 571 
 3,08s 
 1,147 
 1,469 
 
 618 
 
 2,202 
 953 
 
 4.144 
 461 
 
 585 
 
 3,259 
 
 403 
 
 40,776 
 3,898 
 8,000 
 S.669 
 
 Ijio 
 6,761 
 
 3,636 
 1,178 
 7,690 
 2,767 
 3.499 
 1.039 
 8,118 
 
 14.23s 
 861 
 
 
 37,555. 
 
 2,620 
 
 54,048 
 
 167,376 
 
 [The total membership of each association is extracted from the 
 returns given in Mr. Burnett's Report on Trade Unions in 1896. They 
 represent the numbers actually in benefit. The total membership 
 in 1896, 173, 45r, claimed by the Federation represents the total num- 
 ber paid for at time of meeting in May, 1897. Hence the apparent 
 discrepancy of 6,000. In the above figures the Mill Sawyers, who 
 joined in 1897 with a membership of 2,581, have been included. The 
 membership given above is of course for 1896.] 
 
 Oct. 27iA. — Mr. Ritchie, with Sir Courtenay Boyle and Mr. H. 
 Llewellyn Smith, received the deputation which claimed to represent 
 nearly 200,000 employed, a number of whom had by ballot, as de- 
 tailed above, declared for an eight-hours' day. On behalf of the 
 Board of Trade, Mr. Ritchie declined to interfere at the present 
 juncture. 
 
 2. THE BOILERMAKERS' ATTITUDE. 
 
 1897. April 30th. — ^The employers were served with the following 
 application for concession of the eight-hours' day : 
 To the Employers in the Engineering, Machine, and other indus- 
 tries, employing members of the undermentioned Societies in 
 London and District. 
 
 Gentlembn, — For some considerable time past the undermentioned 
 Societies have had under their serious consideration the advisability 
 ef approaching you vfith a view to reduction of the working hours, 
 and after full deliberation have decided to request you to concede 
 the Eight Hours' Working Day without reduction of pay. 
 
 The Government of the country granted the same to their Em- 
 
96 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 ployees in the Royal Ordnance Factories and Dockyards in the year 
 1893. 
 
 This example was followed by the Thames Limited, and numerous 
 other firms, and quite recently the Ship Repairers' Association of the 
 Port of London have instituted the Eight Hours' Day on both old 
 and new work. [A statement which the Association in question says 
 is absolutely untrue.] 
 
 We feel you will at once recognise the fairness and equity of our 
 desire, which has proved beneficial to those who have received this 
 concession, and satisfactory to those who have given it. 
 
 We request respectfully that your answer shall be forwarded to us 
 not later than 26th May, i8gy, the concession to take effect at the 
 commencement of the week following the date of reply. 
 Societies forming the Joint Committee : 
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 
 Boilermakers, Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society, 
 Steam-Engine Makers' Society, 
 United Society of Smiths and Hammermen, 
 London and Provincial Society of Coppersmiths, 
 London United Society of Drillers, 
 United Machine Workers' Association. 
 Signed on behalf of the above-named Societies, 
 
 Davtd Brown, Secretary to Joint Committee. 
 91, Castle Street, Battersea, S.W. 
 
 May S8th. — The following further letter was issued : 
 " Gentlemen, — ^I am instructed by the Joint Committee to inform 
 you that all overtime must cease pending the concession of the re- 
 quest of Joint Committee, viz. : — the eight-hours working day without 
 reduction of pay. Our members are instructed to cease working 
 overtime after this week." 
 
 June 18th. — In reply to a letter from the Employers' Federation, 
 asking if the demands of April 30th and notice of May 28th have been 
 made with the sanction of the Boilermakers' Society, Mr. Robert 
 Knight, the secretary of the Society, wrote : " My Executive Council 
 has had nothing whatever to do with the stopping of overtime 
 in the London district. As there is no arrangement between the 
 London and District Association of Engineering Employers and the 
 Executive Council of this Society, the question of overtime has always 
 been left to each branch in London to decide for themselves." 
 
 July 3rd. — On this date the engineers' strike commenced. The 
 Boilermakers' Executive Council wrote to the Employers' Federation 
 stating that they had issued definite instructions to their members 
 not to leave employment or to enforce the 48 hours by a strike, and 
 that the Society is therefore " not in any way taking any part in the 
 stoppage of work in the London district." 
 
 July 10th. — The following questions, in addition to the three men- 
 tioned above (May 26th), were formulated and issued in a manifesto 
 to all the branches of the Boilermakers' Society: 
 
 "First. Are you in favour of seeking a general reduction in the 
 hours of labour in connection vpith all the Federated trades, who com- 
 pose all the trades in the shipbuilding and engineering, with the ex- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 97 
 
 ception of the Amalgamated Engineers, and number 173,451 mem- 
 bers ; or, Second. Are you in favour of joining the London District 
 Committee of the allied trades for an eight-hours' day for the London 
 district?" ' 
 
 August S9th.—The result of the voting was that 25,433 "plield the 
 policy of acting in co-operation with the Federated Trades to obtain 
 reduction of hours, against 3,403 in favour of joining the London Com- 
 mittee for 48 hours for the London district. The votes upon the 
 hours' questions are given in the table under date Oct. nth above. 
 
 THE BOILERMAKERS' STRIKB IN LONDON. 
 
 July SSrd — The London District Committee of the Boilermakers' 
 Society issued the following notice to the several Employers of a re- 
 solution, as follows : — 
 
 "Resolved that in future our members must discontinue working 
 overtime on new or old work unless the Employers concede the eight 
 hours on the before-mentioned class of work, both in principle and 
 payment." 
 
 Sept. 1st. — ^In reply the Secretary of the Shipbuilders' and En- 
 gineering Employers' Association of London wrote stating that the 
 resolution had had the careful consideration of thirteen firms con- 
 cerned, who regretted their inability to accede to the request in view 
 of the serious damage which such a step would result in to this port. 
 
 Oct. nth. — ^At a meeting of representatives of both .Associations an 
 agreement was signed to abide by the agreement of Jan. 23rd, 1892, 
 and to adjust in conference any disputed questions. 
 
 Nov. 16th. — Notwithstanding the advice of their Executive Com- 
 mittee, who had meanwhile suspended the London District Committee 
 and Delegate from OfiSce, and had also stopped all Donation Benefit 
 and Strike Pay, the men went out on strike on Oct. 15th and re- 
 mained out until this date, when they returned to work uncondition- 
 ally. 
 
 3. THE ENGINEERS' STRIKE IN LONDON AND THE 
 ENSUING GENERAL LOCK-OUT AND STRIKE. 
 
 1897. April SOth. — ^The above-quoted letter of this date was issued 
 to some 800 employers in London. 
 
 May S6th. — ^A letter was addressed by the London Engineering 
 Employers to the Joint Committee of Trades stating that a public 
 meeting of employers had been held, and that the matter was receiving 
 careful attention, although no definite reply to the letter of April 
 30th could be given by the date named, viz., May 26th. 
 
 May S8th. — ^The London Association of Engineering Employers 
 were informed by the Joint Committee that all overtime would cease 
 to be worked pending the concession of the request for an eight- 
 hour working day without reduction of pay, and thereupon referred 
 the matter to the Federated Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers, 
 with which body they are affiliated. 
 
 June 6th. — The Employers' Federation announced to the Joint 
 
 H 
 
98 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 Committee that after the most careful consideration the employers 
 had resolved that they could not grant any reduction in the existing 
 hours. They also asked for an assurance from the Joint Committee 
 that the stoppage of overtime would be Vfithdrawn. 
 
 June SSth. — The Joint Committee, not replying to several communi- 
 cations from the Federation, served notices on three London firms, 
 viz., Messrs. Humphrys, Tennant, and Co., Messrs. Thorneycroft, 
 and Messrs. Middleton, for a strike on July 3rd by the whole of the 
 members represented by the Committee, if the demand was not then 
 conceded. In the case of each firm a ballot of the men had resulted 
 in favour of a strike. 
 
 July 1st. — A joint meeting of representatives of the Employers' 
 Federation of Engineering Associations, the Associated Shipbuilders, 
 and the Iron Trades Employers' Association was held at Manchester, 
 when it was resolved : 
 
 " That, in the event of the members of the trade unions represented 
 by the Joint Committee of those unions for securing a reduction of 
 the working hours in London from 54 to 48 per week going out on 
 strike as threatened, in any workshop belonging to a member of the 
 Federated Employers, notices will immediately be given by the mem- 
 bers of the associations affiliated to the Federation that a reduction 
 of hands of 25 per cent, will take place of the members of such unions 
 in their employment." 
 
 This resolution was telegraphed to all parties concerned. 
 
 July 2nd. — The Joint Committee of the London Trade Unions 
 issued the following manifesto : 
 
 " Fellow Trade Unionists of Great Britain and Ireland, — ^You will 
 doubtless have been acquainted with the fact through the Press that a 
 powerful combination of trade organisations, composed of the follow- 
 ing societies [here follows a list of the trade unions] of the engineer- 
 ing, shipbuilding, and metal trades, has decided to obtain an eight- 
 hour day (vrith no reduction of wages) in the London district. The 
 employers in this district have been personally interviewed by deputa- 
 tions, and also negotiations have been opened. So successful has the 
 method of proceeding been that up to July rst no less than T52 firms 
 have conceded the eight-hours' day as requested. But the northern 
 employers, viewing with alarm the peaceful method of concessions 
 and generous treatment extended to the London workmen by the 
 London employers, commenced using all the resources at their com- 
 mand to induce, cajole, coerce those who had not conceded to join 
 the ranks of their Federation, promising all support possible, mone- 
 tary and othenvise, if they would only endeavour to stem the tide of 
 progress now being made by the London workmen. 
 
 We have not far to search for the reason as to why the employers 
 of the north became so suddenly interested in their southern com- 
 peers and their workmen. It is quite clear the only reason they in- 
 terfered came from the fear that, should the London workmen succeed 
 in peacefully establishing that earnestly-desired and popular reform, 
 an eight-hours day, their employees would not be long before they 
 demanded the same concession. It is pleasing to note that the em- 
 ployers' success up to the present has not been phenomenal; but in 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 99 
 
 laying the case clearly before you we are bound to admit they have 
 managed to joint up with them some of the less liberal employers in 
 this district — employers who have never had a very high reputation 
 for generous behaviour, and who have never paid their workmen more 
 than the compulsory minimum of cur trade organisations. The first 
 step taken to compel into line those employers who had not granted 
 our request was the issue of a notice to cease working overtime. Upon 
 this the Federation threatened severe measures, but we refused to 
 be coerced, and intimated the stoppage of all overtime. The next 
 step in this important movement was taken last Monday in accordance 
 with instructions of the full Joint Committee, when an ultimatum 
 was issued to three London firms to the effect that unless an eight- 
 hours day was conceded to their employees on July 3rd all members 
 represented by the Joint Committee would cease work Saturday, July 
 3rd. The above notice has been construed into a casus belli by the 
 Employers' Federation, and to-day we are in receipt of the following 
 telegram [given above under date July ist.] 
 
 Fellow-unionists, we have given you our position up to date, with 
 the full confidence that we shall have your full sympathy and support 
 in bringing to a successful issue the desirable reform which it is the 
 determination of this Joint Committee to enforce at all hazards. 
 Hoping that the Federated Employers, through extending the area 
 of the struggle, will bring about a universal eight-hours day throughout 
 the United Kingdom. 
 
 Signed on behalf of the Joint Committee. 
 
 Albert Bisbt, A.S.E. 
 
 John Btttleb, Boilermakers. 
 
 Henky Cooper, Steam Enginemakers. 
 
 Joseph Shba, Hammermen. 
 
 John Lindset, Smiths and Drillers. 
 
 David Brown, A.S.E. , Secretary. 
 
 July 6th. — The threatened strike having duly taken place, dis- 
 charge notices in accordance with the resolution of July ist were 
 given or posted by the Federated Employers throughout the country. 
 
 July 7th. — The A.S.E. issued to its branches a recommendation 
 that, in the event of notices being given to the 25 per cent., all over- 
 time of any kind be stopped, and a retaliatory notice issued for all 
 men to cease work simultaneously with the 25 per cent. 
 
 July 8th. — The Joint Committee of the allied trade unions issued 
 the following ofl&cial notice to the various centres throughout the 
 country, calling upon the men to cease work on July 13th : — " Fellow 
 trade unionists, — ^In order to secure uniformity of action in carrying 
 into effect your votes on the eight-hours day without reduction of pay, 
 whenever a notice is posted that 25 per cent, will be discharged on a 
 certain date, the remaining 75 per cent, must hand in their notices, 
 so that all may leave simultaneously. On behalf of the committee, 
 
 (Signed) "Albert Bigbt. 
 
 "Hbnut Cooper. 
 "David Brown, Secretary." 
 
lOO AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 July ISth.— With reference to .the action of the employers the 
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers issued the following manifesto : 
 
 To the Public. 
 
 "The lock-out notices posted at the instigation of the Employers* 
 Federation of Engineering Associations takes effect to-morrow, and 
 thereby a heavy blow is dealt upon the engineering trade of the 
 country, and untold suffering inflicted upon countless thousands of 
 inoffensive and helpless labourers and their families. Yet, if actuated 
 only by selfish motives, we, as organised workmen, would find no 
 cause for regret in what has been done, inasmuch as the eight-hours 
 movement must be immeasurably advanced thereby. 
 
 THE EIGHT HOTrRS MOVEMENT. 
 
 The eight-hours day is to trade unionists a cherished aspiration, 
 having its roots far back in the ever-recurring conflicts which have 
 been coincidental vpith the growth of the factory system of industry. 
 Its economic possibility has long been theoretically established, and 
 many of the most enlightened and sympathetic employers have put it 
 into practice, vnth immense advantage to their employees and without 
 loss to themselves. Yet there has lurked in the mind of the average 
 man a fear of decreased output, foreign competition, and other bogies, 
 a fear of which will be dispelled as the publicity now given to the. 
 matter has time to do its work. The whole question has been trans- 
 ferred by the act of the employers from the academic to the practical 
 sphere, and the public mind is being familiarised vrith the beneficial 
 results of the eight-hours system as worked in the workshops of the 
 Government, as well as in those of Messrs. Allans, Hills, Johnstons, 
 Keiths, Widdins, and others too numerous to mention. 
 
 THE CONDITIONS IN LONDON. 
 
 Let us briefly re-state the case. For two years trade has been im- 
 proving, as have also been the conditions of labour. The London 
 engineer, however, with that moderation which has always charac- 
 terised him, has refrained from putting forward any claim for higher 
 wages, although wages have in the time been raised elsewhere, and 
 doubtless could have been here. He has, indeed, concentrated his 
 attention upon that reduction of the working day which, owing to the 
 peculiar geographical and residential conditions surrounding him, had 
 become an absolute necessity. It should be remembered that the 
 last few years have witnessed a remarkable transformation. Inner 
 London has been beautified and improved by new lighting, by man- 
 sions for the well-to-do, by better railway facilities, and a more com- 
 plete system of transit generally. 
 
 All this we welcome because it has expedited business, and tended 
 to the general good. But it has its harsh side for the workman, who, 
 owing to increased rents, has been pushed further out and away from 
 his work. , Starting at the factory at six o'clock has necessitated 
 getting up at four or five in the morning, and nine hours in the work- 
 shop frequently means twelve to fourteen hours away from home. 
 He has started work on an empty stomach after a long journey, and 
 therefore unfit to do his best, and he has left it with a sense of wrong 
 
 wrong 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. lOI 
 
 rankling in his mind. Hence the claim in London for an eight-hours 
 day, a claim which has been recognised by most of the employers as 
 fair and reasonable, which has been conceded to about 7,000 of our 
 members, and which was in a fair way to being conceded by the 
 others but for the intervention of the federation before mentioned. 
 
 FOBEIGN COMPETITION. 
 
 The question now is. Who will pay the cost of the change? Ex- 
 perience proves that neither capital, profits, nor loss of trade has 
 hitherto borne it. The workman works for the same wage for eight 
 hours as he has been getting for nine, because he knows that 
 it will be met by fewer breaks in the day, more efficient work, and 
 saving in gas, coal, lubricants, and other incidentals in the cost of 
 production. It is urged that if the home trade was capable of giving 
 the eight hours the foreign competitive market would not admit it, 
 and the employers have issued figures giving the wages at Stettin, 
 Havre, Elbing, and other places where the wages are about one-half 
 of those of the English workmen. But in this they have really pro- 
 tested too much, as it must be obvious that, if we have maintained our 
 ground with a difference of 100 per cent., we are not likely to be 
 affected by a change in regard to which it is matter of opinion 
 whether or not cost will be increased thereby. 
 
 The contention is really at variance with the facts. The foreign 
 market in engines, machinery, and ships has been made in this coun- 
 try because we have outdone the foreigner in quickness and intensity 
 of output, which are incompatible with long hours and low wages. In 
 a word. Great Britain has conquered the world by relatively high 
 wages and short hours, and, better still, by maintaining that standard 
 can she alone preserve it. Invidious comparisons between what 
 foreign workmen receive at foreign ports for different work and under 
 different conditions to those which prevail here will not avail the em- 
 ployers much. What they have got to get over is the fact that Eng- 
 land's hold on the world's markets is not only absolutely but rela- 
 tively greater than ever it was. In amount of labour per pound paid 
 or shillings per hour worked employers here are better served, and 
 ships such as the North German Lloyd's, which can be built only in 
 20 and 22 months at Bremen and Hamburg, can be turned out by 
 firms like Messrs. Harland and Wolffs' in half the time at the same 
 price, and a better job made, because the hours are shorter, wages 
 higher, and good organisation, which never accompanies low wages 
 and long hours, is in force. We have held our own up to now in 
 spite of the croaking of the pessimists, and we shall continue to do so 
 Vfith an eight-hours day. 
 
 We have it on the authority of a Naval expert that the eight-hours 
 day, judged by its product of the battleship Fugi, has been a marked 
 success. In point of workmanship the ship in question was one of 
 the best, if not the best, in the recent naval review at Spithead. She 
 was built at the yard of the Thames Limited, which at this moment 
 has orders on hand amounting to ;^2,ooo,ooo, where the eight hours 
 has been in 'operation four years, and has resulted in placing the firm 
 in a better position than ever before. It has been successful where 
 
102 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 ever it has been tried, and there is abundant proof that the fears of 
 foreign competition are groundless. 
 
 TEE BEAL OBJECT. 
 
 The real object of the lock-out is to crush the Amalgamated Society 
 of Engineers. This has been admitted by Dr. Haswell, one of the 
 Federation secretaries, who to a Press representative on Saturday 
 said that the employers had widened the area of the dispute to the 
 utmost limits- so as to ruin our finances, and because we had pressed 
 upon them a question which had not been discussed at a conference 
 recently held on other matters. The Employers' Federation is prac- 
 tically controlled by the firm of Armstrongs, of Elswick, whibh tor 
 years has paid dividends on paid-up capital ranging from r5 to 17 per 
 cent. For these men to talk of foreign competition is an insult to 
 common sense. 
 
 We venture to place the true position before the public, knowing 
 as we do that public opinion is after all the final arbiter in these 
 matters. It is for you to decide whether these pseudo-Napoleons of 
 Newcastle are to ruthlessly dislocate the whole trade of the country 
 with impunity in the foolish endeavours to cripple the A.S.E., or 
 whether, on the other hand, the workman is to be allowed quietly, 
 peaceably, and calmly to work his way upward to increased leisure, 
 fuller home life, and greater freedom, with the unfailing concomi- 
 tants of mental, moral, and physical development which are the true 
 sources of a nation's greatness." 
 
 July 19th. — The Amalgamated Society of Engineers issued a 
 second manifesto. The following extracts relate to the hours ques- 
 tion : 
 
 " We shall continue to put the case for eight hours as strongly and 
 as courteously as we can, and we feel sure that as the lessons of ex- 
 perience, as well as the facts and figures from official sources, are 
 assimilated by the public mind, the adoption of the eight-hours day 
 is assured. 
 
 OVEBTIME. 
 
 But there are one or two side issues upon which we desire to make 
 ourselves perfectly clear. First, in regard to the sincerity of the de- 
 mand. Mr. Siemens told a Daily News representative the other 
 day that, in his opinion, what we really wanted was increased pay 
 for overtime. The Times newspaper of Saturday last stated that 
 " the engineers have no desire to be restricted to an eight-hours day, 
 nor do they at present restrict themselves to a nine-hours day; they 
 are simply endeavouring to get overtime rates for the ninth hour. ' 
 This is untrue and unfair. We venture to add that it is unbecoming 
 for a journal of the standing and influence of the Times to give 
 currency to that which is so at variance vrith the easily-ascertained 
 facts. In singling out the firms recently where action should be 
 taken, a main consideration on our part was that certain shops had 
 been run on the overtime principle in spite of our constant protesta- 
 tions. 
 
 The engineers have consistently and persistently urged the limita- 
 tion of overtime, and, where possible, its entire abolition. For many 
 years this has been pressed upon employers, and perhaps more than 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 103 
 
 anything else from our side, because we have had bitter experience 
 of its evil effects. 
 
 TKB employers' EEDEaATION' AND OVEKTIME. 
 
 Only four months ago two of the alleged acts of aggression cited 
 against us by the Federation of Employers, and upon which lock-out 
 was threatened, were ' the arbitrary stoppage of overtime at 
 Sunderland and ffartlepool, and the arbitrary restrictions of over- 
 time on the Clyde, at Belfast, and at Barrow.' We quote from 
 letter of Employers' Federation dated 26th of February, r897. . . . 
 
 LEISTTRB — NOT COIN. 
 
 At the conference which was subsequently held we urged the em- 
 ployers to restrict overtime to its very lowest limit. We quoted dis- 
 trict by-law in force in the districts regulating overtime, and ranging 
 from 18 hours to 32 hours per month. We sought to arrange on the 
 lower limit, which was actually in force in the district where our 
 membership was largest, and we are now willing and anxious to 
 make that lower limit applicable in the federated area or out of it. 
 
 THE CASE POE BIGHT HOUBS. 
 
 We ask only that the eight-hours day should be discussed fairly 
 and squarely on its merits. Upon this ground we claim the Times 
 on our side, if, as stated in its columns on Saturday, the question is 
 to be settled upon the manner in which employers hold their own in 
 competition with other countries. We have already shown that pro- 
 fits have not been lessened by the curtailment of 25 years ago ; that 
 the trade has more than doubled in the period, and that our output 
 is much more rapid than on the Continent, where the hours of labour 
 are relatively longer. Let us now bring the matter right up to date. 
 The Board of Trade returns of exports for the six months ending 
 June 30th are just to hand, and show an increase of engineering pro- 
 ducts compared with the first six months of 1896, amounting in value 
 to ^^432,395, the figures of total general exports showing a slight de- 
 crease. The quarterly returns of 'Lloyd's Register,' just published, 
 show that the gross tonnage of ships under construction is larger than 
 at any time for eight years. On June 30th there were on the stocks 
 merchant vessels and warships of r, 218,756 tons, as against i,o8r,447 
 for the same time last year, in the course of which there were 
 launched in this country 72 per cent, of the output of the whole 
 world, including those built on and for the great American lakes. 
 One yard turned out more than those of all Germany put together; 
 and in the same yard there is now upon the stocks a twin-screw 
 steamer of no less than 20,000 tons for the Hamburg-American 
 Steamship Company, who tried and failed to get it built in Germany 
 in less than 22 months, whereas it will be built here in less than 
 twelve months. All this shows that the employers here have little 
 difficulty in holding their own. 
 
 THB Times in 1871. 
 
 We venture, therefore, to suggest to the Times a reconsidera- 
 tion of the question in the light of its advocacy of the nine-hours day 
 
104 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 in 1871, which was won under precisely the same circumstances as 
 obtain at present. Then, as now, the firm of Armstrong was the 
 centre of opposition; then, as now, a federation of employers was 
 founded for the purpose of resisting the demand ; and then, as now, 
 we were met with exactly the same arguments. Sir William (now 
 Lord) Armstrong wrote to the Times urging ' that a reduction 
 from 59 to 54 hours per week would mean a loss to the employers of 
 17 per cent.' ; that they had to ' suffer severe competition both by 
 foreign makers and those at home ' ; and that the men ' had fixed 
 a hard and fast line which allowed of no negotiation whatever.' But 
 the Times of those days had a clear perception of the economic 
 and other advantages of shorter hours, and on the nth of September, 
 i87r, in the course of a leading article, it said : ' It is alleged, and 
 we believe it, that the engineering trade in the north of England is 
 now most prosperous, and that masters are making large profits. 
 If it be reasonable that the workmen should from time to time obtain 
 a share in the augmented profits on business, there is certainly no 
 way in which they could more profitably claim this advantage than in 
 a decrease of the hours of labour.' 
 
 JTJSTIPICATION BY REStJlTS. 
 
 True, the change then effected was from 10 to 9 hours, but recent 
 experience of the Government, as well as that of private firms, proves 
 that the margin of increased productivity due to relatively short 
 hours of labour is not yet exhausted. That the nine-hours day had 
 been entirely successful, and that the evil prognostications of Lord 
 Armstrong have been entirely falsified, is evidenced in the fact that 
 his firm last year netted a clear profit amounting to ;^358,ooo; and 
 yet these men, swollen with the pride of pelf, blinded by prejudice, 
 and insensible to the finer feelings of humanity, are allowed to con- 
 spire together and to cajole other employers throughout the country 
 to plunge an industry into confusion, and to bring misery into thou- 
 sands of homes. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We will have further opportunities of addressing you as the 
 struggle continues. Meantime, we may say that there have come to 
 us many gratifying assurances of goodwill from the Continent and 
 America, showing that this movement has wider signification than 
 can be expressed in official returns or figures of profits. It voices a 
 world-wide desire, not only for fuller life, but for a more equitable 
 social adjustment. In spite of machinery and subdivision of labour, 
 the life of the people is still absorbed in work, and increased powers 
 of production have, on the whole, not brought that leisure and in- 
 creased comfort we had a right to expect. Hence the chorus of 
 approval which has greeted the efforts of the engineering and allied 
 trades, and which (has proved that we voice the sentiment of friends 
 of freedom both at home and abroad. The eight hours will not 
 create a new heaveii or a new earth unless coupled with a restriction 
 of overtime ; it will do but little for the unemployed, but its conces- 
 sion will give new hope to the weary worker everywhere." 
 
 August Jf(h. — A statement issued by Col. Dyer on behalf of the 
 employers deals with the hours question as follows : 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. lOS 
 
 THE REAL NATURE OF THE CLAIM. 
 
 " The forty-eight hours demand is described as ' a popular one.' 
 If so, it is assuredly due to the fact that neither the system de- 
 manded nor its effects upon the industry are understood. The pre- 
 sent working vfeek in London is fifty-four hours. The Amalgamated 
 Society of Engineers demands that in future it shall be forty-eight 
 hours — that is to say, that there shall be six hours less work each 
 week, and that these six hours shall be paid for as if they had been 
 worked. iSix hours a week is nearly six weeks per year; so that 
 what the demand of the Society means is that the employers shall 
 give their workmen six weeks' additional holiday every year, and full 
 wages for it. Looked at thus, the request ceases to appear the 
 trifling affair it is often supposed to be. But it means a great deal 
 more than this. It means that during the six weeks the employer 
 shall not only pay wages for work which is not performed, but shall 
 lose all the benefit of the costly machinery forming his stock-in- 
 trade, and shall continue to pay his rent, his rates, his taxes, and all 
 other fixed charges, just as though his works were in full operation. 
 Stated in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence, the case may be put 
 thus: — ^That an employer who pays ;£i,ooo per week in wages i« to 
 be called upon to pay nearly ;£o,ooo every year for services never 
 rendered and for time never worked. The effect of so serious a 
 handicapping of the British manufacturer in his efforts to obtain a 
 share of the markets of the world must be clear to every one at a 
 glance. 
 
 It is argued that a man can produce as much in eight hours as he 
 can in nine, and the public has been gravely assured by the Amalga- 
 mated Society of Engineers that the extra six weeks asked for will, 
 if granted, not only increase the prosperity of the country, but will 
 assist the employer to face foreign competition on more favourable 
 terms. Experience does not warrant the former of these conclusions. 
 It has not been shown that a man can produce as much in eight 
 hours as he can in nine. 
 
 But, whatever may be the truth as regards the man, it is plain 
 that a machine is incapable of turning out as much work in forty- 
 eight hours as in fifty-four, unless there has hitherto been a deliberate 
 restriction of output. It is true that workmen in charge of 
 machines do restrict the output ; and the growth of the evil is a 
 matter of grave concern to the employers. But the concession of an 
 eight^hours day would be no guarantee against the continuance of 
 dilatory tactics. And, assuming a machine to be worked at its full 
 capacity, it is manifest that it must produce the more the longer it 
 is worked. What the Amalgamafed Society of Engineers requires, 
 therefore, is not merely an additional holiday of six weeks a year for 
 each man, but an additional holiday of six weeks a year for each 
 machine, whose work is infinitely more costly. Clearly the cost of 
 manufacture would be enhanced enormously, and it is cost which 
 tells against British goods in foreign markets. 
 
 The officials of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers light- 
 heartedly dismiss foreign competition as a bogey. More responsible 
 people are, however, aware that it is only too stern a reality. Not 
 only are foreigners securing a large and increasing share of foreign 
 
Io6 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 markets at the expense of the British manufacturer, but both Con- 
 tinental and American machinery is being imported in increasing 
 quantities into this country. Hitherto British commodities have 
 held their own in so far as they have held it in consequence of their 
 superior quality. But this advantage is bound to disappear as 
 machine vfork displaces hand work, and, invited to decide between 
 two machine-made articles varying only, or mainly in price, the 
 foreign buyer will naturally choose the cheaper. Now it must be 
 obvious that the production of a machine will be similar whether the 
 machine is located in London or in Hamburg, on the Tyne or on the 
 Weser, and that the output for the week must be directly proportional 
 to the number of hours the machine works. Accordingly, if the 
 working hours in London are S4> and those in Hamburg are 59^, it 
 needs no argument to demonstrate that the productive power of the 
 machine at Hamburg will exceed that of the machine in London in 
 the proportion of 59^ to 54. Nor need it be urged that, inasmuch 
 as the Hamburg employer will get, if the present demand were 
 granted, ti^ hours per week more out of his machine than the 
 London employer, the former will be able to undersell the latter. 
 
 It is also to be observed that the cost of the machine-produced 
 articles must be influenced by the wages paid to the machine worker, 
 and since wages in Hamburg are 24s. for 59^ hours' work, whereas 
 in London they are 38s. for 54 hours' work, the cost of the article 
 is proportionally increased in London. In face of these facts it is 
 idle to talk of foreign competition as a figment of the imagination. 
 
 POSITION OP THE WORKMEN IN THE EMPLOYMENT OP THE 
 FEDERATED EMPLOYERS. 
 
 It is urged that as the introduction of labour-saving machinery has 
 increased the volume of engineering produce in Britain, and has 
 greatly facilitated operations formerly performed by hand, the work- 
 man should have his share of their resultant benefit. That is the 
 pretext for springing the demand for a forty-eight hours week upon 
 the London employers, with the unconcealed intention of afterwards 
 addressing it to those in the rest of the country. The answer to this 
 is that the workman is, and for long has been, receiving the ienefit." 
 
 Aug. 9th and 11th. — ^A.S.E. manifestoes were issued ostensibly 
 criticising the employers' statement of the 4th inst. and their general 
 policy, but containing no serious reference to the eight-hours question. 
 
 Aug. 33rd. — In a letter to the Times Mr. Barnes acknowledged 
 that the struggle was provoked on the votes of only 2,500 members 
 of the A.S.E., opposed by 300 votes, in March last, out of a member- 
 ship of nearly 10,000. 
 
 Aug. S9th. — ^An eight-hours day demonstration was held in Hyde 
 Park. 
 
 Aug. 31st. — The Employers' Federation, in reply to Mr. Barnes' 
 statement that working hours in America were fewer than here, cir- 
 cularised the following figures from the official statistics of the 
 Government Labour Bmreaus : 
 
AW JilUHT-HOURS DAY. 107 
 
 State of New York.— Brooklyn, Buffalo, Dunkirk, Schenectady, 
 Troy, New York, members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 
 including engineers, blacksmiths, machinists, and patternmakers, 
 work Monday to Friday ten hours, Saturday nine hours — say 59 hours 
 per week. Ironmoulders work in Albany ten hours from Monday to 
 Friday, and ten on Saturday ; Brooklyn, ten and nine ; Buffalo, ten 
 and ten ; Auburn, ten and nine ; Elmira, ten and one-sixth and nine 
 and one-sixth ; Long Island, ten and nine ; and New York ten and 
 ten respectively, or say 59 and 60 hours per week. Machinists work 
 in Albany ten and nine ; Auburn, ten and nine ; Brooklyn, ten 
 and five, nine, and nine and eight ; Buffalo, ten and ten ; and New 
 York ten and nine respectively, or say 53 to 60 hours per week. In 
 Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, and North Carolina, the 
 average hours per week are, for machinists, 58.18; ironmoulders^ 
 S7.9; patternmakers, 59.0; engineers, 60.0. 
 
 Sept. 5th. — ^The Employers' Federation issued an analysis of the 
 claim that over 200 firms in London had conceded the eight-hours 
 day since the agitation began. The analysis dealt with 140 firms out 
 of the 215 firms claimed by the officials of the A.S.E. as having con- 
 ceded the forty-eight hours in London : 
 
 No. of 
 Firms. 
 
 Not in existence i 
 
 Unknown ; not in directories 
 
 In financial difficulties - ., 
 
 Entered twice under different names 
 
 Government shops entered three times ... . 
 Small jobbing concerns working solely for the 
 
 Trinity House (!) 
 
 Not in the Engineering Trade 
 
 Makers of Specialities 
 
 Patternmak,ers (one with three men) 
 
 Working eight hours before agitation began . 
 
 Deny having granted eight hours 
 
 Conceded under pressure of work or compulsion, and waiting only 
 
 opportunity to revert to nine hours 9 
 
 r4a 
 
 " The largest firms said to have conceded," the statement proceeds, 
 " are the two makers of fire engines. One of them has conceded 
 pro tem., on condition that the old system be restored if the men do 
 not win. The other has granted an advance in wages in lieu of the 
 reduction in hours. 
 
 Thii disposes of 140 out of the 'glorious total.' Of the remainder 
 the analysis is not yet complete ; but the following notes are illus- 
 trative and instructive of how the list is made up : — 
 
 (a) An ' engineering firm ' in Deptford, the full establishment of 
 which consists of a father and two sons. They have mutually agreed' 
 to concede the eight-hours day to each other. A happy family arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 (b) A concern which takes out its dividend in philanthropy. Mag- 
 nificent, but not business. 
 
 15 
 
 s. 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 larger firms 51 
 
 I 
 
 28 
 
 IS 
 
 4 
 
 .4 
 
Io8 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 (c) A carpet depot, which knows nothing about either engineers or 
 eight hours. 
 
 id) A small foundry, employing three or four men, has not granted 
 the eight-hours day. 
 
 (e) A model-maker employing three men. 
 
 (f) A concern employing only piece-work men on outdoor work; 
 never did work more than 50^ hours. 
 
 {g) A large American concern with a branch in London, to which 
 it was intended to transfer most of the business, under pressure (the 
 hands being all union men) conceded the eight-hours day, but now 
 doing as much as possible of their work in America. This is a case 
 of British trade unionism destroying British industry. 
 
 {h) A concern which granted the eight-hours day because too busy 
 to resist the demand, but working overtime ever since. 
 
 These are typical cases." 
 
 Sept. 6th. — The Employers' Federation issued a statement of wages 
 paid and hours worked at Li^ge, Antwerp, and Ghent, to disprove the 
 engineers' contention that foreign competition was "bogey." At 
 Liege and Antwerp " the working day is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. for 
 six days, less one hour per day for dinner — 60 working hours per 
 week. In some places work stops at 4 p.m. on Mondays, but in 
 these cases only 58 hours are paid for." At Ghent " the day 
 averages ri hours, sometimes six hours being worked before, and 
 sometimes after dinner. Stoppage two hours earlier on Mondays 
 takes two hours off the day." And, the statement adds, " overtime 
 (Antwerp) counts after 12 hours' work. Night work gets time and 
 half. Belgium employers use precisely the same machines as we do, 
 and get 12 hours per week more out of them than the A.S.E. would 
 permit here." 
 
 Sept. 8th. — A similar statement was issued showing that in Saxony 
 the hours worked average 64 per week. 
 
 September 17th. — ^At a meeting of employers in London the follow- 
 ing resolutions were carried unanimously : 
 
 " This meeting is of opinion that the demand of the Joint Com- 
 mittee for a 48 hours week, if acceded to, would be ruinous to the 
 •engineering trade of the country, and that it is the duty of every em- 
 ployer to strengthen the hands of the Employers' Federation in re- 
 sisting the dictation of the trade unions as to the conditions under 
 which their industries shall be carried on." 
 
 " This meeting is of opinion that, having regard to the almost 
 unanimous resistance of employers throughout the country to the de- 
 mand for a 48 hours week, the time has now come when those who 
 have experimentally granted the concession are justified in reverting 
 to the 54 hours week." 
 
 Oct. 5th. — At Leeds the Executive Committee of the Federated 
 Employers resolved that : 
 
 "The demand for a reduction of the working hours to forty-eight 
 per week has been carefully considered, and the employers can only 
 Tepeat that the conditions of the engineering and allied trades do not 
 admit of any reduction of hours." 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. I09 
 
 Oct. 15th. — ^The Employers' Federation issued their complete 
 analysis of the firms claimed to have conceded in .London. They 
 state that, excluding the philanthropic firms (such as the Thames Iron 
 Works), the ship repairers, the coppersmiths, and the printing 
 machine workers, the list does not include twelve firms of importance 
 who have granted the eight-hours day in the belief that it will be 
 advantageous. It is added : " The London district covers 75,000 
 acres, and contains 800 so-called engineering firms, of whom only 
 about 8 per cent, can be said to have conceded the demand. Thirty- 
 one firms on the list, who conceded under pressure, have since aban- 
 doned the eight-hours system as impracticable. Among those who 
 have conceded are many who have only done so temporarily, and 
 subject to the issue of the struggle. Others who have conceded 
 charge to their customer a percentage on the cost of labour, and are 
 
 therefore indifferent to that cost There are sixty-six, or 
 
 — ^if we add the small firms, employing on an average 4^ men each — 
 ninety firms who have acceded to the demand of the Amalgamated 
 Society of Engineers, and 276 who are resisting it. And this is how 
 London is won ! " 
 
 Oct. SOth. — Sir Courtenay Boyle wrote on behalf of the Board of 
 Trade to the Secretaries of the two Associations concerned suggesting 
 a withdrawal of " the demand for a 48 hours' week made by the 
 Joint Committee on the Federated Employers in London " and a 
 conference " to discuss and settle the hours of labour." 
 
 Oct. S7th.—Ia replying the Employers' secretaries observe : " The 
 employers are convinced that they cannot reduce the working hours, 
 as the keenness of foreign competition is increasing every day, and 
 the fact that Great Britain has no monopoly in labour-saving 
 machines places the manufacturers of all countries on an equal foot- 
 ing as regards quality, and possible quantity of output per hour. 
 Those countries, therefore, are handicapped where limitations are in- 
 sisted upon as regards the time during which machine-tools may be 
 
 Both parties expressed willingness to meet in conference, but, 
 while the employers insisted on each side having its own chairman, 
 the employed desired an independent chairman. 
 
 21^^ 3rd.— In. view of this general assent a further suggestion was 
 made by the Board of Trade as to the matter for consideration in 
 
 ''°Thr'Amalgamated Society of Engineers on this date issued a 
 manifesto which, while scarcely referring directly_ to the eight-hours 
 day question, yet possesses great interest as typical of the unscru- 
 pulous statements circulated under the methods of the fighting trade 
 unionism. In illustration we need quote only a few sentences : 
 
 TO WORKMEN OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, AND 
 OTHER COUNTRIES. 
 
 " Onlv a small part of the fight is due to our action. The eight- 
 hour°dLwa" being peaceably negotiated in the London engineering 
 works Tw^-thirds of the shops had accepted the shorter day, and 
 Tly ihree haS been struck. The Federation then began a pitiless 
 
no AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 war against trade unionism, and locked out at least 50,000 men in the 
 country who had taken no part in the London dispute or negotiations, 
 had made no demands on their employers, and had no quarrel with 
 them." 
 
 Nov. 5th. — The employers passed the following resolution at Man- 
 chester : 
 
 " That, without prejudice to the opinions expressed on many occa- 
 sions by the Federated Employers on the subject of any diminution 
 of the hours of labour, the Executive Committee of the Federation 
 assent to a conference on the basis suggested by the Board of Trade." 
 
 Nov. 9th. — The employed accepted the draft basis of discussion 
 assuming that the claim for reduction of the hours of labour will be 
 included. 
 
 Nov. 17th. — ^It was agreed at a preliminary interview at the West- 
 minster Palace Hotel that each side should have 14 representatives 
 and appoint its own chairman, and that until the termination of the 
 conference " the employers will suspend any notices not already 
 carried into effect, and will not post further notices; and, secondly, 
 the affiliated societies will not interfere in any way with men who 
 may be in employment at any time during the conference." 
 
 Nov. SJith, S5th, and S6th. — ^The conference of representatives of 
 the federated engineering employers and representatives of the 
 affiliated societies held its first sittings in the Westminster Palace 
 Hotel, London. There were present : — 
 
 On behalf of the employers — Colonel Dyer (since deceased), of Sir 
 W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. (Limited), Newcastle-on- 
 Tyne and Manchester ; Sir Benjamin C. Browne, of R. and W. 
 Hawthorne, Leslie and Co. (Limited), Newcastle-on-Tyne ; Sir Ben- 
 jamin Dobson (since deceased), of Dobson and Barlow (Limited), 
 Bolton ; Messrs. C. E. Allan, of Workman, Clark and Co. (Limited), 
 Belfast ; George Clark, of George Clark (Limited), Sunderland ; 
 John Donaldson, of John I. Thomycroft and Co., Chiswick; W. 
 H. Ellis, of John Brown and Co. (Limited), Sheffield; A. P. Hen- 
 derson, of D. and W. Henderson and Co., Glasgow ; George 
 Jessop, of Jessop and Appleby Bros., Leicester; J. Hawthorn Kitson, 
 of Kitson and Co., Leeds ; John Laird (since deceased), of 
 Laird Bros., Birkenhead ; S. R. Piatt, of Piatt Bros, and Co. 
 (Limited), Oldham ; R. Sinclair Scott, of the Greenock Foundry 
 Co., Greenock ; Alexander Siemens, of Siemens Bros, and Co., 
 Westminster ; Thomas Biggart and James Robinson, secretaries of the 
 Federated Employers; Major A. H. Hope, secretary of the Iron 
 Trades Employers' Association; and Leslie Field, secretary of the 
 London Engineering Employers' Association. 
 
 On behalf of the affiliated societies — Messrs. Alfred Sellicks, Alfred 
 W. Golightly, Joseph Hooson, Albert Taylor, Frank H. Rose, James 
 Ratcliffe, John Wlittaker, George Ferguson, George N. Barnes, 
 general secretary, as representing the Amalgamated Society of En- 
 gineers; Messrs. Craven, Shae and Bigby, as representing the Joint 
 Committee; J. Swift, as representing the Steam-engine Makers' 
 Society; and M. Arrandale, as representing the United Machine- 
 workers' Association. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. Ill 
 
 Colonel Dyer acted as chairman of the employers' representatives, 
 and Mr. Sellicks as chairman of the societies' representatives. 
 
 Nov. SOth, Dec. 1st, 2nd, and Srd. — Conference was resumed. On 
 the last day the following resolution was submitted in writing to the 
 other side for consideration : 
 
 CLAIM FBOM THE MEN'S KEPRBSENTATIVBS. — ^DECEMBER 3RD, 1897. 
 
 " That, having regard to the increasing efficiency of labour due to 
 improved machinery and greater intensity, the trade unions here re- 
 presented claim the introduction of an eight-hours day or 48 hours 
 week." 
 
 And the following reply was received : 
 
 REPLY PROM THE PBDERATBD EMPLOYERS. 
 
 " The employers have carefully considered all the arguments which 
 have been advanced in support of a 48 hours week, and as these do 
 not in any way change the views already expressed by the Federated 
 Employers they have resolved that they cannot consent to any reduc- 
 tion in the hours of labour. 
 
 All experience goes to show that any diminution of the hours of 
 labour, even with reduced wages, entails a diminished production un- 
 less an amount of pressure and severity is used towards the men, 
 which is injurious to them and distasteful to the employers. The 
 trade of the country also will not bear any increase in the cost of 
 production, which increase must inevitably follow any reduction ;of 
 the hours of labour. Although the trade of this country is still 
 supreme over that of other countries, the alarming extent to which 
 orders are passing from us proves that our supremacy is rapidly 
 diminishing. While our trade increases to a certain rate, that of 
 almost every other civilised country is increasing in a far greater pro- 
 portion, and, therefore, foreign competition cannot be dismissed as a 
 bugbear. 
 
 In every branch of our trade we find that the competition of 
 America, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries is rapidly in- 
 creasing. We would point out that employers spend a great part of 
 their lives and energies in personally studying those , questions, and, 
 being in direct communication with the Government officials and 
 leading business men in other countries, they know from actual ex- 
 perience where the encroachments come in and how they increase, 
 and they also know by what efforts they have been able to save trade 
 that would otherwise have passed away from this country. We are 
 convinced that, in the interests of our workmen as well as ourselves, 
 and in the interests of the trade of this country, no reduction in the 
 hours of labour can be entertained, even apart from the question of 
 wages. 
 
 We cannot but refognise, from the discussion which we have 
 had this morning on the subject of shortening the hours of labour, 
 that the real difficulties which underlie this important question have , 
 not been thoroughly considered by those who advocate it. Taking 
 one instance only, we point to the fact that you have admitted that 
 the question of how to work double shifts on the 48 hours system 
 
112 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 without resorting to overtime has not even been considered by you. 
 The necessity for working double shifts is one which frequently pre- 
 sents itself to the employers, especially those engaged in the produc- 
 tion of heavy engineering work, and it is one to which they have to 
 give most anxious consideration. 
 
 The employers have means, not available to the public, of know- 
 ing and understanding how very serious is the element of foreign 
 competition. Beyond all foreign competition it must also be borne 
 in mind that engineering appliances of all kinds are conveniences 
 which are adopted in proportion to their cheapness, and that even a 
 very slight increase in price will cause them to be dispensed with to 
 a serious extent, and thus reduce the volume of production, which is 
 the best safeguard for the employment of a large number of the work- 
 ing classes. Any course which does reduce the cost of an article in- 
 sures a considerable increase in its production, and to that extent in- 
 creases the demand both for skilled and unskilled labour. If this 
 country is restricted in reducing the cost of articles of general con- 
 sumption, it follows that not only will the consumption decrease, but 
 the countries which are r(Ot so restricted vrill be placed on more 
 advantageous terms than ourselves, and secure an increasing propor- 
 tion of the expanding trade, and therefore increase their opportunities 
 of finding employment for their working population." 
 
 The employers thus declined to consent to any reduction of the 
 hours of labour; and their proposals on freedom of employment, 
 piecework, overtime, rating of workmen according to ability, appren- 
 tices, selection, training, and employment of operatives, and pro- 
 posals for avoiding future disputes, were sent to ballot of the men. 
 
 The 14 delegates representing the men issued from the Westmin- 
 ster Palace Hotel an address to their fellow members throughout the 
 country, in which they say : " The question of the reduction of hours 
 of labour was at last reached, and very briefly discussed. We put in 
 the claim for the 48 hours week, and, after an interval, the employers 
 read us a reply, in which they, in effect, refused any reduction." 
 
 Bee. 7th. — A reprint of the conference notes on the eight-hours de- 
 mand was issued by the Employers' Federation, and attention was 
 called to the " meagre character of the case presented in support of 
 the demand." 
 
 CONFEBBIfOE BETWEEN BEPBBSBNTATIVES OF THE EBDERATED 
 
 EMPLOYEES AND BEPEESENTATIVES OF THE 
 
 AUXLIATBD TEADE UNIONS. 
 
 Verbatim report of the Proceedings, so far as relating to the 
 Demand for a 4S Hours Working Week. 
 
 "Colonel Dyer: Now, Mr. Sellicks, we are ready on the 'hours' 
 question. ' 
 
 Mr. Barnes : This is the proposal, 'That, having regard to the in- 
 
 Sten^itl ^^ 1'°^''' °^ '^''°"v ^^^ *° improved machinery and greater 
 intensity, the trade unions here represented claim the introluction 
 of an eight-hours day or 48 hours week.' That completes the 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. II3 
 
 mattei. We submit that as a basis of discussion. Endorsing all that 
 has been done and said from the beginning of the dispute by every- 
 body concerned, we think that we stand on strong ground in regard 
 to that. I would only refer to the agreement with Mr. Mather (of 
 Mather and Piatt) four or five years ago. You will remember that 
 at that time Mr. Mather made a formal arrangement virith the Amal- 
 gamated Society of Engineers and other unions, who agreed to with- 
 hold any further demand for an eight-hours day for twelve months 
 pending the experiment they had entered upon. That agreement 
 was honourably carried out. We have had not only twelve months' 
 reference of that in Messrs. Mather's, but four or five years since, 
 and the result to our mind is entirely satisfactory. Mr. Mather has 
 not only spoken to the experience of twelve months, but more re- 
 cently up to date, or nearly up to date, he puts it, that he is subject 
 to the same competition as you all are, and he is not engaged in any 
 speciality, and notwithstanding that he has found the eight-hours' 
 day eminently satisfactory. He says that the two hours in the morn- 
 ing are not worth having from his point of view, having regard to all 
 the facts, and he says it has resulted in improved health and better 
 time-keeping, and it has not been any detriment to him or anybody 
 else. You have also Mr. Allan's experience and the testimony of the 
 Postmaster-General, who publicly said that in the factories of the 
 postal service the eight-hours day has worked satisfactorily. You 
 have also the testimony of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and other 
 Government officials — the whole of it in the same direction. We 
 have also Mr. Keith, in regard to the point about machinery that 
 has often been mentioned. It has been stated that the output of 
 machinery must be proportionate to the number of hours worked. 
 Mr. Keith, of Arbroath, a practical engineer, has given testimony 
 directly contrary to that, and has stated that not only has the output 
 for hand work increased per hour, as compared with the former out- 
 put, but that the output of machinery has also increased, so that he 
 has found it satisfactory. In addition to that you have Mr. Hills, of 
 the Thames (Limited), who has testified also in the same direction. 
 I want to refer now to a letter by Mr. Yarrow to the Times a 
 few weeks ago, and the deductions drawn from it in the Shipping 
 World. He has been in America, and he comments there upon the 
 hours of labour and the conditions in America. Of course, we all 
 know that the normal working week is longer in America than in this 
 country, but he points out that owing to the climatic conditions the 
 Americans do not work as many weeks in a year as we do here, and 
 that, according to the Shipping World, they do not work more 
 than 42 weeks each year, which, at 60 hours a week, comes out at 
 2,520 hours. 
 Colonel Dyer ; That is shipbuilding. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : No, it is not shipbuilding. He is talking more par- 
 ticularly about the railway shops and other shops. I think it is in 
 last week's Shipping World, whereas in this country we work 
 fifty weeks in the year at 53 hours a week, coming down to 2,650 
 hours a year, it comes out that this country works considerably more 
 than they do in America. Taking the figures as given vrith wages, 
 we find the American earns on the whole about ;^t26 a year as against 
 
 I 
 
114 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 £ios earned in this country for a year. Then, with regard to the 
 Continent, a good deal has been said about the hours of labour being 
 longer, and no doubt they are longer. We all admit that, 
 but in regard to the output I think that is altogether a 
 different thing, as far as we know, from the actual testi- 
 mony of our members who have worked on the Continent. I 
 may say that I was talking to a man in Bolton only a week or two 
 ago who had been there immediately before that, and he told me that 
 the system of working there — a very inferior organisation — one man 
 having to do a bit of blacksmith's work, turning, and fitting, in many 
 places, so that the output is nothing to what it is herej and he told 
 me the jobs that he thought could be done here in a week would take 
 more than a fortnight over there. Altogether, I think we must admit 
 that the output on the Continent is not as much as it is here, hour for 
 hour. I would like to refer to another branch of the question, with 
 regard to the apprentices, that we discussed here briefly yesterday. 
 Here you have a decided advantage as compared with the Continent. 
 It comes out in the report of the delegation from the Iron Trades' 
 Association that went over there two or three years ago, that the per- 
 centage of boys in Belgium is less, and in Germany 7 per cent. less. 
 In the engineering workshops it shows you have a decided advantage 
 in that respect. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Where does that come from ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes : From the report of the delegation of the Iron Trades' 
 Association that went over to Germany, Belgium, and Sweden, I 
 think last year, but I could not be sure, so that on the whole, looking 
 art the matter froin our point of view, and also with a careful con- 
 sideration of all available data that we can get to hand, we think that 
 the eight hours could be introduced into your workshops with de- 
 cided advantage to the workpeople concerned, decided advantage to 
 the health of the men, and general tone and better time-keeping 
 would prevail, and altogether the eight hours could be introduced 
 without detriment to you or anybody else. We are willing to discuss 
 with you the conditions under which it would be worked, financially 
 or otherwise, with regard to shifts and any changes that might be 
 necessary to make, but we think that you should discuss this matter 
 with the view of reducing the hours of labour something proportion- 
 ately to the increase and efiSciency of labour that has existed since 
 1872, on the occasion of the last peaceable reduction. I don't think 
 it is necessary for me to say anything further, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Is there anything further that anyone wishes to 
 mention ? 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : No, Colonel Dyer, I don't think we have anything 
 to add to that, but I remember that when we were talking this matter 
 over before, we instanced Woolvnch Arsenal as an instance, and you 
 retorted that it was run on the taxpayers' money and was not a 
 competitive institution, and assuming that you are likely to take that 
 view now, I would like to say that it is not altogether that — that Wool- 
 wich Arsenal and Enfield have really been put upon a competitive 
 basis. Although they make for the War Office, they also manu- 
 facture for the Admiralty and the Indian Government, and the Indian 
 Government and the Admiralty are in no sense compelled to go to 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 15 
 
 Woolwich for their goods, if they can get them cheaper elsewhere. 
 Therefore, while they are able to retain very largely the work for these 
 departments, it is done upon an entirely competitive basis. I wish 
 to say this in order to disarm you, if I may use the term, that you 
 may not use the arguments that you used before when we were dis- 
 cussing the question at our last conference. I have had that, of 
 course, from the War Office. Another very strong point urged by 
 the department in favour of the present system is this — ^you know that 
 they have a sick-fund in the Arsenal — ^their percentage of sickness 
 since the introduction of the eight hours has fallen wonderfully, and 
 this is a very strong point in my opinion, one of the strongest in 
 favour of shortening the hours of labour, that the sickness has fallen 
 ofi to a very large extent, and also that there is a great diminution 
 less broken time, and the two hours before breakfast have been 
 experience in all shops that, as Mr. Barnes has pointed out, there is 
 less broken time, and the two hours before breakfast have been 
 utilised in bed, and very often, as you yourself have shown, there 
 have been times, even when workmen were working overtime and 
 broken time, when the normal hours had scarcely been reached. I 
 think that is about all I care to say upon the question, and you pro- 
 bably would like to retire to discuss it. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Before we do that I should like to make one remark 
 vidth regard to the competition work at Woolwich Arsenal. It is 
 perfectly true that they are in direct competition. When the Admiralty 
 want work done there they send to Woolwich for a price, but the ex- 
 perience has been that the price Woolwich gives is very seldom 
 adhered to, and when the price does not meet cost then they have to 
 pay more. I know that for a fact, so that really there is no competi- 
 tion. On the other hand, as far as I have been able to gather, Wool- 
 wich does not work eight hours. I have their books of rules. I 
 only mention this as you go along. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Except where the double shift is concerned. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : That is one question you will have to consider. 
 Assuming 48 hours a week, how do you propose to work a double 
 shift? 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Oh, I don't know. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : But these are questions that you force us to con- 
 sider. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : We have not had much experience in that, Colonel 
 Dyer. Do you mean as to hours? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Well, yes ; how do they do on the north-east coast, 
 Mr. Ratcliffe? 
 
 Mr. Rose : Mather's men go off at three o'clock in the morning. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Mr. Ratcliffe probably knows. 
 
 Mr. Ratcliffe : I may say that the system that is followed in Sun- 
 derland, at Allan's works, is that they commence at 7.30 in the morn- 
 ing and work till five. The double shift commences at five o'clock 
 and continues till 1.15 in the morning. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : Do you mean the terms? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : No ; it is the hours. I understand you to say that 
 tt begins at five p.m., and goes on till when? 
 
Il6 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 Mr. Ratcliffe : A quarter-past one. I may say that there is a 
 separate arrangement made in respect to the running of the machines. 
 Suppose the machines continue running all night, there are machines 
 that have separate engines to drive them. So far as I am informed, 
 there are two separate engines on the works, and they continue the 
 whole night till the following six o'clock in the morning. That is 
 the system at the Scotia Iron Works. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : That is the system you would propose ? 
 Mr. Sellicks : No, I don't say that. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : It is a most serious thing, and a difiScult thing, to 
 consider this question if we have no information before us. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : On the whole we would rather assume all that, be- 
 cause here the men coming on have an opportunity of seeing their 
 mates coming off, and knowing the arrangement. 
 
 Colonel Dyer: Do you admit the necessity of over-lapping? 
 Mr. Barnes : Yes. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : But you only overlap at one end, and how are you 
 to get over that difficulty? 
 
 Mr. Ratcliffe : There is the other advantage. 
 Colonel Dyer: How do you get over that difficulty? 
 Mr. Clark : I do not see how you can get over it without overtime. 
 Colonel Dyer : I am speaking for our own works. We are bound 
 almost always to work double shifts, and I want to know before I can 
 go into this discussion with my colleagues, because many of them do 
 the same thing, how are you going to work the double shift? 
 
 Mr. Barnes : It is not absolutely necessary to see their mates at 
 both ends. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Pardon me. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : I have worked, and I never saw my mate. I saw 
 him at night. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : You may have to give him a thing that he ought to 
 know. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : That is easily arranged. I used to leave notes for 
 him, and he used to leave them for me. There was no difficulty in 
 going on with it. I went off at six and he came on at eight, or vice 
 versa. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : That is a point that is essential, and needed by all 
 mechanical works where there is overlapping. So essential is it to 
 consider the question that when they do work double shifts they do 
 away with the eight hours at Woolwich. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : Last year I worked there, and I only saw my mate 
 once. 
 
 Mr. Clark : What hours did you work in the night shift there ? 
 Mr. Barnes : Long hours. There is no doubt about that. They 
 were too long — somewhere about loi or ii. 
 
 Mr. Clark : Did you work right round to make the time ? 
 Mr. Barnes : No ; I went off at six o'clock, and the other man 
 started at eight. There were always two hours that the machines 
 were not running. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : In the rules of the Arsenal it is laid down that the 
 two shifts shall overlap, and how are you going to do that? 
 
 Mr. Barnes : In regard to the rules, they lay down rules that are 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. II7 
 
 never observed, but I am speaking of the actual facts, which are, as I 
 say, that a man only sees his mate at one end and not at the other. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : But it is laid down as as axiom that in case of 
 double shifts it is absolutely necessary that they should overlap, and 
 so important is it that it is in the printed rules of the Arsenal that 
 they do overlap, and I want to know from you how you propose to 
 work 48 hours a week vfith a double shift and have no overtime? 
 
 Mr. Barnes : Frankly speaking, I do not see how it can be done. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : How could you overlap at both ends ? There is 
 only one method of doing it, by splitting it into two periods. 
 
 Mr. Donaldson : May I say something about the competition with 
 India? I have it on very high authority that the whole of the 70,000 
 men fighting on the frontier have had no munitions of war from 
 Woolwich at all, they were all manufactured in India, and for ;£8o 
 they can get as much as would cost ;f 120 in Woolwich. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : You have carriage and other outlays. 
 
 Mr. Donaldson : By reason of that there is about ;^20o,ooo of 
 work that might be done elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : In India they have been preparing to do their own 
 work, and that is not due to the introduction of the eight hours. 
 Surely Mr. Donaldson knows that? 
 
 Mr. Donaldson : But it is a question of competition. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : They have been preparing for years to do their own 
 work in India. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : They did it when I was in India 25 years ago. 
 
 Mr. Laird : I suppose it is the equivalent to a night and day shift 
 that is sometimes worked at Woolwich. I think we ought to know 
 how it is proposed to do it. 
 
 Mr. Hooson : They work from Monday at six o'clock to the follow- 
 ing Monday without intermission, and it would be easy to work three 
 shifts. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : How are you to feed 7 
 
 Mr. Hooson : I refer to Cammell's, in ShefiSeld. I have worked 
 without intermission, on Sundays and no meal hours. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Do you propose eight-hour shifts and no meal 
 hours? 
 
 Mr. Hooson : From Monday at six o'clock till the following Mon- 
 day. It is quite a common occurrence at some machinery. 
 
 Mr. Ellis : That is solely as regards heavy machines, which will 
 run possibly three or four hours singly with casual attention, and the 
 men are quite well able to get their meals while the machine is going, 
 without attending to the work in any way; and I think, with refer- 
 ence to that point, the good time which the men work in those shops 
 is very strong evidence that the conditions under which they work as 
 regards hours in no way damage their health." 
 
 Dec. nth. — ^The ballot resulted in rejection of the employers' pro- 
 posals by 68,966 votes to 752. 
 
 Dec. nth, 15th, 16th, 11th. — Conference was resumed. The em- 
 ployers again refused the demand for a 48 hours' week, and also de- 
 clined a proposal for a 5r hours' week and for reference of the hours 
 
Il8 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 question to arbitration. The verbatim report issued later (Jan. 7th, 
 1898) of the discussion on Dec. 17th was as follows : 
 
 HOXraS OF LABOtJB. 
 
 " Colonel Dyer : I feel quite confident that if we try on both sides 
 to get a larger volume of production, that the employment of skilled 
 and unskilled will be there, and the more is the volume increased; 
 and if we want to get shorter hours of labour the only thing is to run 
 the foreigner out of competition, and then come and ask for that, 
 and I don't think it will be refused ; but till that time comes I think 
 it hopeless to hope to compete with America and the Continent if we 
 reduce the hours of labour below what they are at present. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Then your reply, I presume, is that no reduction of 
 hours at the present time is possible? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : I think that is our feeling very strongly. It is not 
 that we have not thought about the matter. I want to correct an 
 impression that appears to have got abroad that when we handed you 
 that written statement the last time we met, that was a prepared 
 statement. I can assure you that there was not one single line of it 
 ever thought of, for every line of that was written and thought out 
 after we had seen you and had received your arguments in favour of 
 the eight hours. It was entirely composed after you had spoken. 
 
 Later on the following passed : — 
 
 Mr. Barnes : Will you be willing to consider this matter in three 
 months time? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : In three months time we shall hardly have got to 
 work. 
 
 Mr. Barnes : It is exceedingly doubtful unless you make some con- 
 cession on the hours. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : I do not see there is any prospect of any concession 
 on the hours. 
 
 Then after some desultory discussion, — 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : What I gather is that you have fully made up your 
 minds, and I do not feel disposed to discuss the question any further ; 
 but I think we ought to understand where we are. For instance, our 
 terms of reference from the Board of Trade were that we were to do 
 so and so, we have not arrived at an agreement, although we have 
 agreed as far as we have gone, but now you have given us a blank 
 refusal on the hours question, and we ought to know our position 
 now. The terms were laid down by the Board of Trade, and then a 
 resumption of work was to take place. Now, we had better talk 
 about that if we are not coming to an agreement. It seems to me 
 that we are a long way oft it by the attitude you have adopted — such 
 an uncompromising one that I did not expect it. I expected that you 
 would be a little more reasonable. What is our real position when 
 we leave here to-night? 
 
 Colonel Dyer: What is your position? Are you prepared to settle 
 or not with the men? 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : In the absence of any advance from your side on the 
 question of hours, we certainly would not undertake to order the 
 men back to work without consulting them. Now, then, in the event 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. II9 
 
 of the men accepting those terms, what is your idea about the re- 
 sumption of work? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : I think — ^I am speaking entirely for my own 
 opinion — I should say that they should resume work at once. I should 
 like to consult my colleagues before I actually say so, but that is my 
 opinion, and I cannot conceive why we go on quarrelling in this way. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Does that mean part of the men, or all the men? 
 
 Colonel Dyer : All the men we can find employment for, and as 
 quickly as they can be found employment for. In the first three 01 
 four weeks they would all be absorbed, because there is a large 
 amount of work put aside which could be caught hold of, and there 
 is a large amount of work which can be got provided the dispute was 
 at an end. 
 
 And later : — 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : We have asked you for the 48 hours, and your reply 
 is "no reduction," and I think you have not done yourselves justice 
 in this matter. I suggest that we compromise the matter. Give us 
 51 all round. It is only a reduction on a part of the men covered by 
 your federation, and it only means three hours in London — not a 
 great deal. You have given rises of wages equal to it when trade has 
 been good, and if you will give us that, the men will return to work 
 on Monday. 
 
 Colonel Dyer : Yes, a rise of wages. I did not think there would 
 be very much difficulty before this dispute, but when you come to 
 hours it is a thing altering the whole condition of labour, and you 
 are not only asking for the wages you get yourselves, but asking us 
 to pay out a large sura of money for which we get no return what- 
 ever. Wages have been easily adjusted by consultation, but when 
 you come to the question of hours we are taking a leap in the dark 
 of which we know nothing, and we don't like taking that leap. 
 
 Mr. Sellicks : Our proposal to the employers is that they should 
 give us the Ji hours, and I say on my own responsibility — and if our 
 fellows don't agree there shall be a row — that they will start work on 
 Monday morning." 
 
 After an adjournment Colonel Dyer stated that after every con- 
 sideration of the proposal the idea of shortening hours could not be 
 entertained. 
 
 " It is evident," the report adds, " that the only reason for the re- 
 presentatives of the allied trade unions not proclaiming the end of 
 the strike was their failure to obtain a reduction in the working week. 
 They had as trade unionists accepted all the conditions of working 
 which have been so falsely described as antagonistic to trade 
 unionism." 
 
 Dec. SOth. — ^A circular, signed by the 14 representatives of the 
 men at the conference, was issued to the affiliated societies affected 
 by the dispute in the engineering trade. The document refers to 
 the proposed object of the dispute thus : " We much regret that on 
 the hours question we failed to induce the employers to recede 
 from their former position, although the discussion was fuller and of 
 a more friendly character than on the last occasion. On the whole 
 the proposals as set out do to some extent risk your interests, but 
 your delegates ventured to offer on your behalf a return fo work on 
 
120 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 the basis of a 51 hours' week, which, however, the employers declined. 
 We desire, as we are sure all concerned do, a return to work and 
 some degree of certainty of lasting peace and return of goodwill. We 
 therefore ask you to record your votes as shown in accompanying 
 ballot paper, returnable to general office not later than the 27th inst." 
 The ballot paper was arranged thus : 
 
 ALLIED trades' CONTBRENCB. 
 
 "Those in favour or against acceptance of employers terms as sub- 
 mitted herewith : — 
 
 In favour of employers terms 
 
 Against 
 
 Please put X opposite ' in favour ' or ' against ' as you may desire to 
 vote. Also vote for or against endorsement of offer made by men's 
 delegates at Conference. The offer made was provisional acceptance 
 of employers terms and a return to work on the basis of a 51 hour 
 week throughout the federated area : — 
 
 For offer of 51 hours 
 
 Against " 
 
 Dec. SSrd. — The following telegram was made public : 
 " To Messrs. Sellicks and Barnes, London. 
 
 Dear Sirs, — ^We observe it widely reported in the Press that in the 
 ballot now in process a vote is being asked on a 51 hours' week. We 
 disclaim the slightest intention to interfere with the affairs of the 
 allied unions, but we are desired by our Committee, in case of mis- 
 apprehension, to send you the present communication. As stated at 
 the recent Conference, the employers cannot recede from the position 
 distinctly intimated at the commencement of the dispute — that no re- 
 ductions of hours can be made, and that, before any settlement can 
 take place, the present demand must be dropped. The effort made by 
 the allied unions to compromise on the basis of a 51 hours' week hav- 
 ing been declined, the employers regret that the question of 51 hours 
 should have been introduced into the vote, owing to the danger of its 
 confusing the issue. The subject of this communication being of im- 
 portant general interest, we are giving it to the Press. 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 Thomas Biggart and James Robinson, Secretaries." 
 
 Dec. 30th. — The result of the ballot was communicated to the Em- 
 ployers' Federation as follows : 
 
 1. Votes in favour of or against acceptance of employers' terms : 
 
 For, r,o4r ; against, S4.933- 
 
 2. Votes for or against endorsement of provisional acceptance of 
 employers' terms, and return to work on the basis of a 51 hours' week 
 throughout the federated area : 
 
 For, 8,515 ; against, 42,080." 
 
 Dec. 31st. — In reply a telegram was despatched by the Federated 
 Employers to Messrs. Sellicks and Barnes worded thus : 
 
 " We have to acknowledge receipt of your communication convey- 
 ing result of ballot. The truce is therefore at an end." 
 
 Later a statement was issued by the employers reiterating their de- 
 cision to stand firm by their refusal to reduce hours of labour. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 121 
 
 1898. Jan. 1st. — Congress of 198 trade unionists, claiming to re- 
 present 1,500,000 employed, was held at the Memorial Hall, Farring- 
 don Street, London. 
 
 Jan. 6th. — The London Trades Council issued an appeal to all 
 labour organisations for financial assistance in accordance with the re- 
 solutions of the Congress on the ist inst. 
 
 Jan. 13th. — ^The London Joint Committee resolved : 
 
 " That we intimate to the Employers' Federation that the demand 
 for an eight-hours day, or forty-eight hours week, be withdrawn. 
 
 That before such intimation is given the above resolution to be 
 sent to the executive councils of the societies represented on the Joint 
 Committee, for their approval or otherwise, the replies to reach the 
 Joint Trades Committee, the Nelson Inn, Blackfriars, London, not 
 later than the first post on Saturday, January 15th. 
 
 That the consideration of whatever steps are necessary for an 
 organised return to work on the part of our members stand adjourned 
 until Saturday." 
 
 Jan. 16th. — ^The following notice was sent to the Employers' 
 Federation and to the three London firms struck : 
 
 "Allied Trades Joint Committee. Lord Nelson, Blackfriars: — ^I 
 am instructed to inform you that the demand made by the above 
 committee for an eight-hours working day, or 48-hours week, on July 
 3rd, 1897, has now been withdrawn. — David Bbown, secretary." 
 
 Jan. 19th. — ^The Employers' Federation, in acknowledging the 
 notification of the withdrawal of the demand for a 48-hours week, re- 
 quired "the acceptance of the conditions of management mutually 
 adjusted at the recent Westmiiister conference," and contingent on 
 this acceptance agreed to restart a portion of the men and to fill up 
 vacancies as rapidly as possible. 
 
 Jan. Sltt. — ^The A.S.E. issued a letter to its members recommend- 
 ing them to vote for the terms submitted by the employers. 
 
 Jan. S8th. — The final agreement as to conditions of management 
 was ratified by 28,588 votes to 13,727, and signed as follows : 
 
 " On behalf of the Federated Engineering and Shipbuilding Em- 
 ployers, 
 
 Henbt C. S. Dyer, President. 
 
 Thomas Biggart 1 - ^ . 
 James Robinson | Secretanes. 
 On behalf of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 
 
 Geo. N. Babnes. 
 Joseph Hooson. 
 On behalf of the London Joint Committee, 
 
 Albert Bigbt, who signs for 
 United Society of Smiths and Hammermen, 
 London and Provincial Society of Coppersmiths, 
 London United Society of Drillers, 
 London United Society of Brass Finishers, 
 London and Provincial Society of Hammermen, 
 Amalgamated Society of Tool Makers, Scientific 
 
 Instrument Makers, 
 Marine and General Engineers' Society." 
 
122 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 The only reference to hours of labour contained in the terms thus 
 signed is the overtime clause, wliich is as follows : 
 
 3. — OVEBTmi!. 
 
 " When overtime is necessary the Federated Employers recommend 
 the following as a basis and guide : — 
 
 That no man shall be required to work more than 40 hours' over- 
 time in any four weeks after full shop hours have been worked, 
 allowance being made for time lost through sickness or absence 
 with leave. 
 In the following cases overtime is not to be restricted, viz. : — 
 Breakdowns in plant. 
 General repairs, including ships. 
 
 Repair or replace work, whether for the employer or his cus- 
 tomers. 
 Trial trips. 
 It is mutually agreed that in cases of urgency and emergency re- 
 strictions shall not apply. 
 
 This basis is to apply only to members of the Trade Unions who are 
 represented at this Conference. 
 
 All other existing restrictions as regards overtime are to be removed. 
 It is understood that, if mutually satisfactory to the Local Associa- 
 tion of Employers and the workmen concerned, existing practices re- 
 garding overtime may be continued. 
 
 Note. — These overtime conditions are precisely the conditions now 
 in operation in various places, though in many Federated Workshops 
 no limitation whatever exists at the present time. In many cases 
 this will be the first attempt to regulate or prevent excess of overtime, 
 this will be the first attempt to regulate or prevent excess of overtime." 
 
 Jan. Slat. — ^Work was resumed generally. 
 
 Feb. 3rd. — The following is the Times summary of this date of 
 the failure of the attempt to secure an eight-hours day by Trade 
 Unions' compulsion : 
 
 " Much irreparable loss has been incurred. Trade has gone else- 
 where vpith no probability of returning. Delicate machinery has been 
 injured by lying idle. Profits and wages to the amount of some 
 millions have been lost. Many workmen who for years subscribed to 
 the union in the belief that they would in old age or when out of 
 employment receive a pension or allowance are now with good reason 
 alarmed as to their future. The union itself must be exposed to a 
 severe strain, for the men who are not employed will claim ' benefit ' 
 money, and the young members will not be punctual in their pay- 
 ments of subscriptions. Habits of idleness have been contracted by 
 not a few who, before the strike, were industrious. We must not, 
 however, be blind to the set-off, such as it is, to these evils. There 
 is an end of certain delusions which have flourished for years in every 
 workshop in the country. We shall hear for some time less talk about 
 unions being able to enforce their will whenever they care to put forth 
 their full strength. There will not be the constant interference with 
 internal arrangements, which had reached a well-nigh intolerable 
 pass ; and employers will be what for some years they have scarcely 
 been, masters in their own workshops. The struggle has been a 
 lesson to the aggressive unionists. The union is not ' smashed,' but 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. I23 
 
 its leaders are much more reasonable. They will talk good sense for 
 some time to come." 
 
 4. SOME OF THE TRADE UNIONS' REASONS 
 FOR RAISING THE DEMAND. 
 "A trial of strength with this [the Employers'] Federation was in- 
 evitable, and the present is as favourable an opportunity as was likely 
 to be presented to us. Trade is brisk, the weather good, and the 
 issue a popular one." — (Report of the A.S.E., July, 1897). 
 
 "The men must remember that this eight-hours question is in 
 its essence a wage question, and not an hours question at all." — (Mr. 
 John Burns, M.P., the same month). 
 
 At a. meeting of engineers held in Manchester, July 28, 1897, Mi. 
 Burns also said : " It was not for them to trouble about trade ; that 
 was the masters' business." His epigram that " trade follows the 
 agitator " is already a quite historic saying. This recalls what Mr. 
 Barnes said about the same time : " This country cannot always be the 
 workshop of the world, neither is it desirable that it should be so." 
 And Mr. Mann at a mass meeting in Leeds, on July 26th, said : " We 
 shall not remain contented for ever with an eight-hours day. Demo- 
 cracy is now shaping itself not merely to get an eight -hours day — that 
 is by the way — but in order to get their feet effectively planted for 
 something else." 
 
 " We have so far out-generaled Col. Dyer as to have averted the 
 fight upon an unpopular issue, and to have shunted it on to a question 
 upon which we ought to get, and I believe will get, the support of 
 our fellow-workmen." — (Mr. G. N. Barnes in a letter dated Aug. 
 and, r897, to a Dundee newspaper.) 
 
 From the history given above it is clear that the dispute was not 
 really to obtain reduced hours, in spite of the A.S.E. earlier mani- 
 festoes. Its real intentions and issues are beside the present question, 
 and cannot be now touched upon. When the Times agrees with 
 Reynolds' the fact is beyond doubt. On July r7th, 1897, the 
 former said : " Consequently all the pretty and pathetic things we 
 hear about the workman wanting more time with his family, or more 
 leisure for self-improvement, are quite beside the question. The eight- 
 hours day can be argued on its merits when it is brought forward 
 fairly and squarely. There is no eight-hours movement in question 
 just now, but merely an attempt to get higher wages by raising a 
 false issue." 
 
 The latter said, on January 9th, 1898 : " Let it be clearly under- 
 stood that, although all along this has been called a fight for an eight- 
 hours day, it is, in reality, nothing of the kind. It is simply a 
 struggle for higher wages — namely, that overtime shall begin to count 
 ■ after eight hours have been worked. This will be no benefit to the 
 unemployed, nor, indeed, does it involve any great principle. We 
 should like to see all overtime worked by supernumerary men, on 
 the principle of double shifts. Eight hours is long enough to labour 
 in the more arduous manual trades. The engineers' contest would 
 have been much more ardently supported had it been actually, and 
 not merely nominally, a fight for a working day of eight hours, or 
 forty-eight hours a week, with no overtime." 
 
124 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 5. SOME OF THE EMPLOYERS' REASONS FOR 
 REFUSING THE DEMAND. 
 
 " And now, why should that demand be resisted ? Is eight hours 
 not as reasonable and workable a day in engineering as it has (re- 
 putedly) been found in some other trades ? The answer is, No ! — 
 and it is emphasized by the voices of upwards of two hundred em- 
 ployers all over the kingdom. These gentlemen know their business. 
 They are among the most extensive and most experienced employers 
 of labour in the world. They have an enormous aggregate capital 
 invested in engineering establishments, and very many of them are 
 also largely interested in other industries so closely connected with 
 engineering that operations in them must soon be suspended if the 
 strike of engineers is prolonged. Is it likely that these gentlemen 
 would face such a loss as a strike implies if they could avoid it bjr 
 what foolish commentators call a small concession? The demand 
 for eight hours is accompanied by the condition that there shall be no 
 reduction in pay to compensate for the reduction in labour. That 
 means that labour in the future is to cost one-ninth more (six houis 
 per week) than it is costing at present. Put in that way, the enormity 
 of the demand begins to be seen — but only partially seen. For in- 
 stance, the casual observer may say : ' Well, if you cannot give the 
 eight hours without reduction, why not offer it with proportionate 
 reduction of pay ? ' The reply from the employers' side to this is 
 emphatic and conclusive, but the general public has not yet heard it. 
 It is this, that no proportionate or possible reduction m the wages 
 of the men would compensate for the loss of the producing powtr of 
 the machinery employed. The loss of one-ninth of the output of a 
 machine per day amounts to vastly more than the increase of one- 
 ninth in wages. It amounts to so enormous a sum that it cannot be 
 paid out of the industry. Well-established and wealthy engineer em- 
 ployers, who have gone carefully into the matter, and who (like most 
 engineer employers) are always interested in the welfare of their men 
 and willing to meet them in every reasonable way, frankly admit that 
 the expenses and reduced output of an eight-hours day will simply 
 wipe them out of the industrial field. 
 
 It would place them in a condition in which it would be absolutely 
 impossible to compete with Belgian, French, and German makers. 
 These foreigners employ precisely the same tools as British employers 
 do, but they run a lathe or drilling machine or other tools for 60 
 hours per week, which the trade unions want our employers to run 
 for only 48 hours per week. The difference of the locality makes no 
 difference in the quality of the work done by machines of this sort. 
 It is not a question of individual skill or capacity, but of mechanical 
 power. It is said, no doubt, that an active, skilful operative can 
 turn out as much work in eight hours as in nine — ^if he likes. But 
 the same cannot be said of a machine. It has its maximum capacity, 
 and it is, or should be, already running at that. You cannot make 
 it run any faster in eight hours than in nine, but you will simply do 
 one hour's less work with it. And no amount of argument or sophis- 
 try can alter that fact. It is so hard and substantial that the engineer 
 employers have rooted themselves upon it. 
 
 As to the theory that men will do as much in eight hours as they 
 now do in nine, reference may be made to the experiences of em- 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 12 f 
 
 ployeis after the adoption of the nine-hours system. Some three or 
 four years ago, Mr. Jeans, of the Iron Trades' Association, took a 
 canvass of employers on the question. ' When the nine-hours system 
 came ,into operation years ago, did you find that the men worked 
 proportionately harder, so as to produce about as much with shorter 
 as with longer hours ? ' And of fifty replies to this question not one 
 was in the afiSrmative ; indeed, some replies were to the effect that 
 less work is done per hour now than under the ten-hours system. 
 
 At the time of the Mather and Piatt experiment at Salford (which 
 proved nothing, as it was conducted under the auspices of the A.S.E. 
 with a distinct object), one of the large engineering firms made a 
 calculation of the cost of adopting the eight-hours day. It was found 
 to mean in this particular work a loss in wages of £ns° V^^ week, 
 and a loss in time, on plant, and in working charges of £tso per 
 week. The reduction in this single works then would have meant a 
 loss of ;^i,2oo per week. This was in T894, and much new machinery 
 has been introduced since, so that the loss now would be even greater. 
 On this basis, however, we estimate that the concession of the eight- 
 hours day without reduction in pay in the engineering trade of the 
 United Kingdom would involve to the employers a loss of not lets 
 than six millions sterling per annum. How does that strike your 
 sentimental economist and your emotional philosopher? Can a loss 
 of six millions per annum be justified in order to allow a hundred 
 thousand men an additional hour of idleness per day?" — (Fairpla/y, 
 July rs, 1897.) 
 
 " The men's statement that extra output per hour would be the re- 
 sult of shorter hours is an entire fallacy, as we all know from our past 
 experience. However much theorists may attempt to prove to the 
 contrary, data taken from our prime cost books clearly show that, on 
 jobs which have not been re-organised, and on which the manual 
 labour remains the same, the productive results of the men have, for 
 some years past, been actually less than they were formerly — and we 
 are sure your own experience will confirm this." — (Private Statement 
 issued to employers in July, 1897.) 
 
 This latter Statement was accompanied by a table showing rate of 
 wages and percentage of increase since 1891. This table shows that 
 for journeyman fitters and turners in the Manchester district the high- 
 est wages paid for 48 hours' actual work up to iSgr was ;^i los. 2^A. ; 
 up to r896, £t ros. gid. ; up to r897, ^r 12s. 7d. ; viz., at the rates 
 of 34s. per 54 hours, 34s. per 53 hours, and 36s. per S3 hours respec- 
 tively. A concession of the demand of 36s. for 48 hours would mean 
 an increase of 19^ per cent., r7 per cent., and ro^ per cent, respec- 
 tively over these preceding rates. As regards overtime it would 
 mean a corresponding high increase. The following note was ap- 
 pended to the table : 
 
 "The increase of as. which was given last year to all classes of 
 labour alike, irrespective of the rates of wages then paid, would con- 
 siderably increase the above percentages on the lower paid labour, 
 such as drillers, borers, etc. It is not too much to state that, taking 
 the average in the ordinary shop of all the men and trades employed, 
 a rise of 25 per cent, all round would be a moderate estimate of the 
 increase in wages that would have been granted in the last 6 years, 
 if the present demand were conceded. 
 
126 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 "As regards the overtime, it must be noted that it has been cal- 
 culated on the basis of 2 hours being worked for each of the 5 days, 
 a total of to hours in the week, whereas, in some shops the men do 
 not work overtime more than 4 days in the week, as they object to it 
 on Monday. If the list were revised so that only 8 hours were cal- 
 culated at ' time and quarter ' the last 2 hours would have to be ' time 
 and half,' still further raising the percentage of increase. 
 
 " How do these figures compare with the bare statement put forward 
 by the men's representatives ' that they have only had a 2s. rise in 
 25 years ' ? " 
 
 Col. Dyer, in an article in Oassier's of November, 1897, wrote : 
 " Whatever the leaders may say to the contrary, the men will work 
 long hours if they can, and this desire for shorter hours of labour 
 only gives to the workmen additional reasons for doing so." 
 Mr. Benjamin Taylor, F.R.G.S., in the same issue wrote : 
 " The success of the eight-hours day system as a permanent method 
 of working has never been demonstrated. The success of experi- 
 ments has been lavishly enough advertised, but these experiments 
 have probably been made under the special favour of the A.S.E., 
 with selected men and a common understanding to bring out the best 
 results. Their success, if any, is due to special nursing. Such con- 
 ditions cannot be permanent nor applicable to all shops. On the othei 
 hand, in very many cases in which the eight-hours system has been 
 adopted experimentally, it has been abandoned as impracticable, ex- 
 pensive, and in various ways objectionable. London firms who con- 
 ceded under pressure have quickly abandoned the eight-hours day. 
 And, although our output was not appreciably re- 
 duced after the adoption of nine hours, our foreign competitors at 
 once increased their hold on our foreign markets much more rapidly 
 than we did. In the period 1870-74, for instance, when nine hours 
 came into force, we increased our exports by only 65 per cent, in 
 value (though this was the time of highly inflated prices), while 
 Belgium increased hers by 120 per cent. In the succeeding five years 
 we actually decreased about i per cent., while Belgium made a 
 further gain of 30 per cent. At the present time our most formidable 
 competitors in engineering are the United States (where the working 
 week is 58 to 60 hours) ; Germany (where the working week is 60 
 to 64 hours) ; and Belgium (where the working week is 60 to 66 
 hours)." 
 
 Sir Benjamin C. Browne vprote to the Press on Aug. 12th, 1897, 
 contradicting the impression that the results of the dispute of 1871 to 
 reduce the hours from 59 to 54 were altogether favourable. He asserts 
 that, as a matter of fact, the effect was to crush a number of small firms 
 out of existence. Of the eight Newcastle employers and four Gates- 
 head employers who fought the battle of the 59 hours week only five 
 are still left in business, and the remainder have succumbed to the 
 pressure of increased expenses and keener competition. In Sir Ben- 
 jamin's opinion the reduction of hours would have been still more 
 disastrous but for the exceptional events which created a demand for 
 engineering work, such as the opening of the Suez Canal and the 
 destruction caused by the Franco-Prussian war. Even vrith these 
 mitigating circumstances, a crash came a few years later which ruined 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 12? 
 
 many employers and threw numbers of workmen out of a place. No 
 such counteracting benefits are now available; on the contrary, 
 vigorous foreign competition has to be encountered; and Sir Ben- 
 jamin's prediction is that, if the eight-hours day is carried, a large 
 body of men will no longer be able to find employment, or wages 
 must be reduced. 
 
 "It certainly seems to me that both theory and experience go to 
 show that to grant the eight hours would alienate much trade, 
 annihilate still more, and before long throw numbers of men out 
 of work. If only given in London it would be a severe blow to all 
 constructive engineering in that city. Of course, the repair shops, 
 of whom many have conceded it, are much longer in feeling the ill 
 effects, but all experience shows that a concession like that given in 
 one centre spreads very rapidly all over the country. 
 
 The object of the Federation in resisting the eight hours was not 
 to break the union, but to save the trade. In the early part of this 
 year, the A.S.E. made five demands on us — advances of wages 
 (which we granted), higher lodging allowances, higher pay for trial 
 trips, and restriction of overtime, on all of which we made offers that 
 they considered satisfactory. The fifth demand was the machine 
 question, on which we could not agree ; but while this was unsettled 
 the demand for eight hours was made in London, and the employers 
 were given very little time to decide what answer to give." — (Letter 
 from Sir Benjamin C. Browne, published in the Times of August 
 26th, rig;.) 
 
 6. WHY SOME FIRMS GRANTED THE DEMAND. 
 
 " The firms who' have conceded the eight-hours day in London are 
 mostly repair shops, or those in which the value of the engineering 
 work is small as compared to the total output, whilst there are in- 
 stances in which the financial position of the firm is not such as to 
 enable a fight to be carried out." — (Letter from Mr. G. R. Dunell in 
 the Times of rath July, rSg;.) 
 
 " There is, for instance, an eight-hours day in the Government yard 
 at Woolwich, established by a Ministry impressed with the sanctity 
 of the working man as an elector ; but the Woolvfich yard has not to 
 face foreign competition; what labour it lacks on the short day it 
 makes up for by expensive overtime ; there is nobody to check the 
 costs ; the nation does not expect a profit ; and whatever the piper 
 has to be paid the taxpayer is always there to pay it. Then there is 
 also the Thames Iron Works, where the eight-hours day has been in 
 force for two or three years; but it is notorious that the Thames 
 Iron Works are run on philanthropic rather than on economic prin- 
 ciples, that they do not pay any dividends, and that they have even 
 to ask for supplementary votes to make up losses incurred on Govern- 
 ment contracts." — {Jf'airplay, July t5th, 1897.) 
 
 7. WHY SO MANY FIRMS REVERTED TO LONGER 
 
 HOURS. 
 
 Messrs. Hodgson and Stead, Egerton Iron Works, Salford, in 1895 
 completed a year's experiment of the 48 hours system. " The 
 results," they say, "were fairly satisfactory, though not such as we 
 
128 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 confidently expected. However, we decided to continue the experi- 
 ment another twelve months, and still more carefully Watch its work- 
 ing. During this period we found our manufacturing department 
 not yielding anything like the percentage of the first year; therefore, 
 we came to the conclusion that, in our case, the advantages claimed 
 for the 48 hours system were inoperative, and on July gth, 1896, we re- 
 turned to the 53 hours week." — (Letter from the firm to the Em- 
 ployers' Federation, July, 1897.) 
 
 Messrs. J. Richmond and Co., of London, on September 23ad, 
 1897, on reversion to a 54 hours week, said ; 
 
 " We did not enter upon this step without mature and careful con- 
 sideration, but we have, during the last three months, been watching 
 most closely the effect of the eight-hours day in our shops and on 
 the cost of production, and we are sorry to say that we could not do 
 otherwise than form a decided opinion of the fact that, instead of 
 the men doing more work per hour (we do not say more in eight hours 
 than nine, but work per hour) they are doing less, and our books 
 amply show this, as a great deal of our work is of a special description 
 and such as we are constantly reproducing. It is consequently an 
 easy matter to draw comparisons, and our books show us that the 
 work has cost far and away more than the difference in wages paid 
 between a 48 and a 54 hours week. Whether the fact of getting less 
 work out of the men is due to some extent to the excitement which 
 prevails, with the result that while at work they are more or less dis- 
 contented, we do not know, but certainly the same vexatious, and 
 very often obnoxious, conditions still existed, till at last we found it 
 practically impossible to carry on our business under such conditions, 
 and we concluded (if absolutely necessary) it would be better for us 
 for the time being and until matters were on a more settled basis to 
 close our works altogether, or, at any rate, to do the best we could 
 with any chance assistance we could get hold of from non-unionist 
 men. If absolute figures or extracts from our cost books would be of 
 any service to you we should be glad to furnish such, or show you or 
 representatives of the Masters' Federation the actual entries and 
 memoranda of the work carried on in our works during the last three 
 months." 
 
 Mr. A. Normandy, of Victoria Dock Road, London, E., who granted 
 the demand, but on October isth, 1897, was compelled to revert to 
 the old system, in reply to a letter from his unionist workmen appeal- 
 ing against the reversion, epitomised the position thus : 
 
 " 1. Present eight-hours movement really amounts to asking masters 
 and their customers to pay nine men full wages for doing eight men's 
 work. 
 
 2. Masters look on this as the last straw, forcing them to com- 
 bine. They have, for many years, put up with a good deal from 
 their men. 
 
 3. You say our notice that employment would only be given on 
 the nine-hours per day basis leaves our old servants no alternative 
 but to stand by their societies, and you explain the hardship thereof. 
 
 4._ I regret this as much as you do; but whose fault is it? You 
 admit you are throwing up good employment because you dare net 
 disobey your society. iNow this is a form of slavery. 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 1 29 
 
 5. You have a perfect light to combine, to get as much as you can 
 reasonably expect, and to subscribe to a strike fund, but, for youi 
 own protection, this fund should be administered. by leaders elected, 
 or re-elected, every year by all the men. 
 
 6. You are wise to subscribe to a fund for providing against sick- 
 ness, old age, and depression of trade, but to give your leaders power 
 to stop all this if you do not obey their orders is most unwise. See 
 what a hold it gives them over you, you are no longer free men. 
 
 7. No doubt your leaders act for the best, as they think ; but we 
 are all liable to error, and the masters , think your leaders' policy 
 makes it more and more difficult to secure orders, and consequently 
 work for the men, and that, sooner or later, it vrill be ruinous for the 
 men and for the prosperity of the country. 
 
 8. Can you not see that by continually forcing up wages, reduc- 
 ing hours of work, and prohibiting men doing as much as they could 
 easily do, eventually maJces everything you buy dearer, unless it is of 
 foreign manufacture, and then the foreigner gets wages which should 
 have come to you? 
 
 9. The system of terrorizing men from working on terms you do 
 not like, but which suits them, is cowardly and unjust 
 
 10. As to your remarks about our having agreed to give same 
 wages for eight hours as we did for nine hours, our employees, at a 
 most awkward time, told us their societies would order them out on 
 strike unless we gave way, and finding other employers had one by 
 one been thus attacked and had given way we had to do the same. 
 
 11. Also shortly before and after we had given way as to eight 
 hours, and also at a most awkward time, a rise in wages was asked 
 for by some departments ; we demurred, as we were paying best 
 London wages, but we were told wages were higher in our district, 
 and that societies had ordered the men to come out on strike if we 
 did not give way, so we had to do so. 
 
 12. I regret to add that although many of our men have served 
 us well for many years others have wasted time, some to a disgraceful 
 extent, knowing how difficult it then was to replace them, and this 
 is getting worse and worse instead of better. 
 
 13. The men are greatly mistaken in thinking foreigners cannot 
 turn out good work. I see plenty of it in my travels, and they work 
 longer hours for less wages ; but we could beat them if our men were 
 only reasonable, but, unfortunately, they are misled. 
 
 14. Lastly, the masters have been forced into combination by 
 the societies having for many years acted up to fheir mistaken notions 
 as to what is best for the men. These societies do not appreciate the 
 difficulties, anxieties, and expenses masters have to contend with, and 
 masters have a right to their own opinions as well as the men, and 
 men should not abuse them for acting thereon. 
 
 Yours faithfully, A. Nobmandt. 
 P.S. — The few who still give the eight hours may be influenced 
 by special circumstances, possibly by being extra busy as a result of 
 other masters' misfortunes." 
 
 The cases of other typical engineering firms, such as Messrs. Caird 
 and Rayner, have already been referred to in the foregoing text. 
 
130 AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 
 
 8. SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 This, then, is a short diary of some of the events of the 
 dispute, so far as they relate to the eight-hours day. From the 
 selection of facts given, the attitude of trade unionists and^of 
 employers will be readily appreciated. The above extracts 
 from documents and statements of proceedings, while pro- 
 fessing to give the main facts, are only intended to be typical, 
 and by no means exhaustive. It has been necessary, therefore, 
 to omit all details of the local extension of the dispute ; of the 
 numerous manifestoes in which appeals were made for financial 
 aid ; of the opinions and actions of many important persons 
 and firms interested, as well as of members of both Houses 
 of Parliament, the clergy, professors of political economy, and 
 representative bodies sympathizing with one side or the other. 
 We have also reserved for a future occasion the discussion of 
 the effects of this struggle upon trade, upon the movement 
 towards extended combination — both on the part of employers 
 and of employed — upon the almost moribund ideal called 
 "socialism," and upon the pubUc. The serious factors of 
 competition and output have been strenuously maintained 
 by the employers' statements, and their genuine import is 
 widely recognised. On the other hand, the men's case for 
 reduced hours was so weak that, from the first, it was quite 
 untenable. On this count a simple statement of what each 
 side has said is of itself probably more eloquent than a 
 rhetorical dissertation. It is clear, if only from the voting, 
 that the question of reduced hours was merely an incident in a 
 crisis of relationship between the engineering employers and 
 the irresponsible agitators who had secured power over the 
 workmen. Thus, on the collapse of the strike, the Daily 
 News acknowledged "absolute victory for the employers on 
 the hours question "; the Daily Chronicle was too depressed to 
 . produce even a leading article ; and the majority of the press, 
 which originally supported the men's demands, deliberately 
 tutped round and said the whole thing was a regrettable mistake. 
 Indeed, the gradual shifting of contemporary criticism, as the 
 dispute progressed, away from the hours question to the latest 
 fashion in the economic world — viz., writing up the method of 
 fixing wages, etc., now termed " collective bargaining " (which, 
 however, is by no means new, but, as a method, has always been 
 
AN EIGHT-HOURS DAY. 13I 
 
 a part of the wages system), affords a deeply-interesting study 
 of how modern press criticism is influenced. 
 
 In a treatise dealing with this particular dispute only, and 
 the studies to be drawn from it, we should naturally include 
 much interesting and quite relevant matter— e.^., the history 
 of the short hours movement; the other great industrial 
 disputes on the question of hours of labour, with their many- 
 branching issues ; a comparison of the position in England 
 with legislative and voluntai-y action abroad ; and the infringing 
 questions of competition — native and foreign — overtime, de- 
 marcation of work, interference of trade unions in working 
 conditions, piece-work v. time-work, and the influence of labour- 
 saving machinery, and so on. On most of these points a 
 general endeavour has here been made to bring out the leading 
 features ; but, as we have only attempted a general summary, a 
 special chapter has not been devoted to each particular situa- 
 tion. The eight-hours question in the engineering industries, 
 with great attention paid to the practical side of the subject, 
 is well depicted, it may be mentioned, by Mr. J. Stephen 
 Jeans in his recently-issued pamphlet, "Labour Problems of 
 To-day." 
 
 The chief question we are here concerned with is that of 
 legislative enactment, and, touching this, the tardy interference 
 in this dispute by the Board of Trade, under the auspices of 
 the Conciliation Act, affords a valuable object-lesson. It is 
 useless to look to the Government for forced help in industrial 
 crises. The difficulties arise in natural course, and must solve 
 themselves in natural sequence. The Board of Trade, the 
 administrator of labour legislation as regards industrial concerns, 
 in dealing with this dispute, admittedly failed, not only in its 
 negotiations which were resented by the employers, repudiated 
 by the employed, and despised by the public, but also in its 
 lesser duties — in supplying authoritative impartial information, 
 for instance. That the promoters of Labour legislation are 
 aware of its failure is the strongest possible argument against 
 an extension of such legislation. And that such is the case is 
 the clearest lesson to be learnt from this dispute. 
 
INDEX 
 7, io8, 114 
 
 Abroad, hours worked. 
 Accidents, 52 
 Agriculture, 43-5 
 Auer motion, 45 
 Australia, 12, 51, 84 
 
 Bakehouses, 35 
 
 Board of Trade Reports, 74-9, 131 
 
 British Iron Trades Association, 55, 
 
 "4. I2S 
 Building, 62-3, 72, 74, 75, 76 
 
 Canada, 12 
 
 Carpenters and Joiners, Amalga- 
 mated Association, 62, 93, 95 
 
 Citizenship, 3, 6 
 
 Cleveland blastfurnacemen, i6, 30-1, 
 S9-6o 
 
 Competition : Foreign, 2, 7, 9, 24, 
 31, 51, 58, loi, 106, m, 118, 124 
 
 Competition : Home, I, 3, 7 
 
 Labour, 10, 32 
 
 Contract, labour, 3 
 
 Consumers, 10 
 
 Co-operation, 27-8 
 
 Coopers, 45, 63 
 
 Culture, I, 3, 5 
 
 Danger (physical), i, 11, 48, 52-3 
 Definitions, difficulties of, 2, 72 
 Division of wealth, 73 
 Dock labour, 55-7 
 Domestic service, 46-7 
 
 Early closing, 19 
 Efficiency (personal), 7, 65, III 
 Employers' associations, 38, 41 
 Engineering, 29, 57-61, 75, 76, 92- 
 
 131 
 Exports, 7, 8, 9, 103, 126 
 
 Factory Acts, I, 50, 72 
 Fishing, 45-6 
 
 Gasworks, 59, 69-70 
 Government service, 11, 22-6, 75, 
 76-9, 1 14-5, 1 16-7, 127 
 
 Health, i, 3, 11, 18, 35,48, 52-3, 59 
 
 Industries, effisct of reduced hours 
 upon, 2, 3, 7, 8 
 
 Inspectorship, 2, 72 
 Interest on capital, 7, 8, lO, 65 
 Instances cited :— 
 Allan & Co. (Sunderland), 26, 59, 
 
 113, 115-6 
 Bohemia (sheet ironworks), 28 
 Cabinet-makers at Lochwinnoch, 
 
 76 
 Caird & Rayner (London), 30, 129 
 Guinness & Co. (Dublin), 27 
 Hadfield's Steel Foundry (Shef- 
 ,.- field), 26 
 Hodgson & Stead (Salford), 127 
 J. & F. Howard (Bedford), 29 
 Jones & Attwood (Stourbridge), 26 
 Kynoch (Birmingham), 26 
 Leeds brassworkers, 29 
 Mather & Piatt (Salford), 27, 37-8, 
 
 61, 113, 125 
 Moravia (weaving factory), 28 
 A. Normandy, 128-9 
 J. Richmond & Co., 128 
 Ransome & Rapier (Ipswich), 26 
 Russia (paper mill), 28 
 Sheffield Smelting Co., 26 
 Silk mill in Renfirewshire, 77 
 Stonemasons (Edinburgh and 
 
 Leith), 63 
 Thames Ironworks & Shipbuilding 
 
 Co., 26, 60, 96, 101, 109, 127 
 Truman, Hanbury, & Buxton, 27 
 Invention, 8 
 
 Joiners (Aberdeen), 63 
 
 Labour Commission Report, 10 
 Leisure, i, 3, 5, 10, 17, 19 
 Local option, 11, 15 
 
 Machinery, 9, 61, 106, 124 
 Massachusetts, 9 
 
 Commission, 2 
 
 Mines, 11, 13, 15, 39. 49-SS> 72. 75. 
 
 76, 85, 86 
 Miners' Federation, 42, 55 
 Municipalities, 68-71, 74-9 
 
 Negotiation (voluntary) recom- 
 "mended, 2, 3, 15-16 
 Newspapers quoted : — 
 
 Canterbury Times (Auckland), 80 
 
 Daily News, 130 
 
INDEX. 
 
 133 
 
 Newspapers quoted : — 
 
 Fairplay, 124-5, 127 
 
 Reynolds' Newspaper, 10, 123 
 
 Times, 102-3, 122, 123 
 New Zealand, 12, 80-3, 85 
 
 Opinions quoted : — 
 James Annand, 5, 87 
 G. N. Barnes, 123 
 Augustine Birrell, Q.C., M.P., 85 
 Charles Booth, 56 
 Charles Biadlaugh, 1, 12, 89 
 Sir Benjamin C. Browne, 126-7 
 John Burnett, 89 
 John Bums, 123 
 Thomas Burt, M.P., 89 
 Sir H. Calcraft, 65 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 
 
 M.P., 23, 113 
 Geoffrey Drage, M.P., 86-7 
 G. R. Dunell, 127 
 Col. Dyer, 126 
 Charles Fairfield, 85 
 Lord Farrer, 49 
 Mons. Gamier, 20 
 Sir Robert Giffen, 5, 7, 74 
 Yves Guyot, 3 
 
 Prof. A. T. Hadley, 7, 16, 18 
 H. M. Hyndman, 13, 45 
 J. S. Jeans, 12, 18, 22-5, 27, 125, 
 
 131 
 Prof. Jevons, 14 
 Mr. Keith, 113 
 W. H. Mallock, 4, 73 
 Tom Mann, 6, 7, 32, 44, 123 
 Major Marindin, 65 
 James Mawdsley, 88 
 A. Normandy, 128-9 
 Postmaster-General, 113 
 John Rae, 9, 13, 84 
 Prof. J. E. Thorold Rogers, 4, 7, 
 
 17, 19. 89-90 
 Dr. Schaffle, 15, 20 
 Adam Smith, 20 
 Benjamin Taylor, 126 
 Sidney Webb, 6, 8-9, 13, 15, 18, 
 
 19. 21, 36, 45 
 Mr. Yarrow, 113 
 Overtime, 10, 13, 18, 19, 27, 36, 48, 
 S5> 57, 58. 62, 102, 121 
 
 Painters & Decorators, Amalgamated 
 Society, 63, 95 
 
 Parliamentary interference and re- 
 straint condemned, i, 2, 4, ii-i7> 
 19, 56, 65, 88 
 
 Pauperism, 62 
 
 Population, 72 
 
 Prices, 7, 8, 10, 51, 70 
 
 Printing, 29, 72, 76 
 
 Production, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 51, 70, 
 77, III, 127 
 
 Profits, 2, 7, 10, 51, 68 
 
 Public opinion, 36, 83-4, 86, 91 
 
 Railways, 11, 12, 39, 63-7, 87 
 Russia, 9, 28 
 
 Sea service, 47-9 
 
 Seasons, II, 13, 19, 56, 57, 62 
 
 Shipbuilding, 29, 57-61, 72, 75 
 
 Shops, 39 
 
 Strikes, 33, 36, 48, 49 
 
 Strikes referred to : — 
 
 Brussels gasworkers (1897), 15 
 
 Coal miners (1893), 32 
 
 Dock strike (1890), 56 
 
 Edinburgh stonemasons (1897), 63 
 
 Engineers' dispute (1 897 -8), 16- 
 
 17, 24, 35. 92-131 
 Penrhyn Quarry (1896-7), 16 
 
 Textile trades, 39, 61-2, 72, 76 
 Time-work and piece-work, 73 
 Trade exemption, 1 1 
 
 option, II, 15 
 
 unions, 31-8, 72 
 
 Congress, 34-5, 49 
 
 membership, 72 
 
 Tramways, 39, 67-8 
 
 (Huddersfield), 70-1 
 
 Unemployed, i, 2, 6-7, 8, 9-10, 18, 
 32. 33, 34, 35. 47. 56, 58. 61, 84, 
 104, 123 
 
 United States, 17, 58, 84, 106-7, 113 
 
 Wages, abroad, 106, io8 
 
 Wages, decrease in, 2, 7, 8, 30, 33, 
 
 67,71 
 
 disputes, 34, 122 
 
 increase in, 1 , 2, 6-7, 8, 14, 
 
 51. 59. 70, 105, 125 
 
 State regulation of, 20 
 
 Women, employment of, 19, 73 
 
Price 6d., by post yd. 
 
 The Truth About the New Zealand 
 
 COMPULSORY INDUSTBIAX. 
 
 Conciliation and Arbitration Act. 
 
 AJV EXPOSURE OF A MISCHIEVOUS STATE 
 SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT. 
 
 With a Summary of English Legislation Warning 
 Against all Similar Compulsory Measures. 
 
 Contents : — 
 I. THE NEW ZEALAND COMPULSORY INDUSTRIAL 
 CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT. (By F. 
 G. Ewington.) 
 II. OPINION OF "THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD." 
 in. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION. (By W. J. 
 Shaxby. ) 
 [A History of the Movement in Great Britain ; showing how 
 Voluntary Methods have been More Successful than Legislation. ] 
 i. A Summary of Legislation to Date. 
 ii. A Distinction between Arbitration, Conciliation, 
 
 AND Mediation. 
 iii. The Proposed and the Actual Legislation of 1896. 
 iv. Trade Objections to Compulsory Measures. 
 V. The Decision of the Labour Commission against 
 Compulsion : How its Recommendations have 
 Operated. 
 
 The Failure of the Recommendations for Experimental 
 
 Action : The Teaching of New Zealand. 
 The Labour Department : Its Partiality. 
 The Failure of the Conciliation Act of 1896. 
 What Remains to be Done. 
 The Needed Repeal of the Conciliation Act of 1896. 
 
 "The Liberty Review" Publishing Co.. Limited, 
 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G. 
 
Fourth and Enlarged Edition, in the Press. Price is. 6d., 
 by post IS. gd. 
 
 THE CASE AKAINST PICKETM. 
 
 By W. J. SHAXBY. 
 
 Contents : — 
 I Why Picketing should be Made Illegal. 
 II. How TO Deprive Picketing of its " Power 
 AND Sting." 
 
 III. The Collected Wisdom of Royal Commissions. 
 
 IV. Conflicting Interpretations of "Intimidation." 
 V. The Law and Practice in the Colonies and 
 
 Abroad. 
 VI. The Present Legal Position in England. 
 
 VII. Free Labour v. Trade-Union Tyranny. 
 
 VIII. A Summary Memorandum. 
 
 IX. Appendix. Latest Representative Opinions. 
 With a Draft Bill and Index. 
 
 " Fonns a valuable addition to the existing literature dealing with 
 trade unions." — North Star (Darlington). 
 
 "The manual will be of great service in informing employers of 
 labour and non-unionists how fer the law, as it stands, affords them 
 protection." — Yorkshire Post. 
 
 " Mr. Shaxby takes up rather an extreme view with regard to 
 strikes and labour questions generally ; but, though in some respects 
 bis conclusions may be biassed, his book is a valuable contribution to 
 the discussion of a question which is becoming of very considerable 
 public importance." — Scotsman. 
 
 "What can be said gainst picketing from a legal and anti-trade 
 
 union point of view is given Trade unionists will be able to learn 
 
 something of their opponents' case." — Star. 
 
 " The book should be read alike by employer and employed ; in fact, 
 it should have a place in the library of all connected with the industrial 
 work of the country." — Glasgow Evening Times. 
 
 " Elaborate and, indeed, able treatment of the subject." — Sarty 
 Dock News. 
 
 " The pamphlet is admittedly written in defence of the Individualist 
 as opposed to the Socialistic point of view, but it is written with every 
 consideration for the ' rights of labour.' " — North British Advertiser. 
 
 "Perhaps, however, the case could not have been stated more con- 
 cisely or more clearly ; and, while we differ from the author's conclu- 
 sions, we commend his work to those who desire to see the strongest 
 arguments that can be used on the other side." — Reynolds' Newspaper. 
 
 " It should be consulted by every person who has, or is likely to 
 have, difficulties with his workpeople."— Ti^r^z/e Mercury. 
 
 "The Liberty Review" Publishing Co., Limited, 
 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. 
 
READ THE 
 
 LIBERTY REVIEW. 
 
 The Organ of Free Labour, Free Contract, and Free Trade. 
 
 Edited by FREDERICK MILLAR. 
 
 Published on the isth of each month, price 6d., by post 7d. 
 Annual Subscription, post free, 7s, 
 
 Office: 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G. 
 
 Recently Issued. Price Sixpence. 
 
 Trade Unionism in Relation to Wages. 
 
 By JAMES BIRKS, 
 Author of "Trade Unionism: A Criticism and a Warning" etc. 
 
 Press Opinions : — 
 
 " Contains a few home truths on trade unions which are 
 not always welcomed by Labour leaders. There is much in 
 the pamphlet worthy of serious thought." — Birmingham 
 Gazette. 
 
 "Trenchant and vigorous Unsparingly lays bare the 
 
 weaknesses of the trade-union citadel. In support of the 
 attack much valuable supplementary testimony is adduced." 
 — Liberty Review. 
 
 " Is a spirited argument to the effect that trade unions 
 have not been the cause of increasing wages, but in some 
 cases, by trying to force them up, have reduced the amount 
 of employment." — Yorkshire Post. 
 
 " Provides working men with food for reflection, and that 
 of a kind that is seldom prepared for them." — Belfast 
 Evening Telegraph. 
 
 " The Liberty Review " Publishing Co., Limited, 
 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. 
 
r»- 
 
 L