XI. POLITICAL ORGANISATION

XI. POLITICAL ORGANISATION

[1900-1920]

Fifty years ago, when Professor Brentano described the British Trade Union Movement with greater knowledge and insight than any one else had then shown,[707] nothing seemed more unlikely than that the Movement would become organised as an independent political party, appealing to the whole electorate on a general programme, returning its own contingent of members to the House of Commons, and asserting a claim, as soon as that contingent should become the strongest party in Parliament, to constitute a national administration. For nearly a quarter of a century more, as we have described in a previous chapter, though Trade Unionism was making itself slowly more and more felt in politics, it was still possible for economists and statesmen to believe that “Labour” in Great Britain would organise only to maintain its sectional industrial interests, and that it would impinge on politics, if at all, only occasionally, in defence of Trade Unionism itself, or in support of some particular project of industrial law. By 1894, when the first edition of this book was published, there was already manifest, as we then stated, a great shifting of Trade Union opinion on the

“pressing question of the position to be taken by the Trade Union world in the party struggles of To-day and the politics of To-morrow. In our chapter on ‘The Old Unionism and the New,’ we described the rapid conversion of the superior workman to the general principles of Collectivism. This revolution of opinion in the rank and file has been followed by a marked change of front on the part of the salaried officials, and by a growing distrust of the aristocratic and middle-class representatives of both the great political parties. To the working-man politician of 1894 it seems inconceivable that either landlords or capitalists will actively help him to nationalise land and mining royalties, to absorb unearned incomes by taxation, or to control private enterprise in the interests of the wage-earner. Thus we find throughout the whole Trade Union world an almost unanimous desire to make the working-class organisations in some way effective for political purposes. Nor is this a new thing. The sense of solidarity has, as we have seen, never been lacking among those active soldiers and non-commissioned officers who constitute the most vital element in the Trade Union army. The generous aid from trade to trade, the pathetic attempts to form General Unions, the constant aspirations after universal federation, all testify to the reality and force of this instinctive solidarity. The Collectivist faith of the ‘New Unionism’ is only another manifestation of the same deep-rooted belief in the essential Brotherhood of Labour. But, as we have seen, the basis of the association of these million and a half wage-earners is, primarily, sectional in its nature. They come together, and contribute their pence, for the defence of their interests as Boilermakers, Miners, Cotton-spinners, and not directly for the advancement of the whole working class. Among the salaried officers of the Unions, it is, as we have said, the Trade Official, chosen and paid for the express purpose of maintaining the interests of his own particular trade, who is the active force. The effect has been to intensify the sectionalism to which an organisation based on trades must necessarily be prone. The vague general Collectivism of the non-commissioned officers has hitherto got translated into practical proposals only in so far as it can be expressed in projects for the advantage of a particular trade. Some organised trades have known how to draft and to extort from Parliament a voluminous Labour Code, the provisions of which are exceptionally well adapted for the protection of the particular workers concerned. The ‘particulars clause’[708] and the law against the ‘over-steaming’ of weaving sheds are, for instance, triumphs of collective control which could hardly have been conceived by any one except the astute trade officials of the Cotton Operatives. But there is no attempt to deal with any question as a whole. Trade Unionists are, for instance, unanimously in favour of drastic legislation to put down ‘sweating’ in all trades whatsoever. But no salaried officer of the Trade Union world feels it to be his business to improve the Labour Code for any industry but his own. Thus, whereas the Factory Acts have been effectively elaborated to meet the special circumstances of a few trades, for all the rest they remain in the form of merely general prohibitions which it is practically impossible to enforce. How far it is possible, by the development of Trades Councils, the reform of the Trades Union Congress, the increased efficiency of the Parliamentary Committee, the growth of Trade Union representation in the House of Commons, or, finally, by the creation of any new federal machinery, to counteract the fundamental sectionalism of Trade Union organisation, to supplement the specialised trade officials by an equally specialised Civil Service of working-class politicians, and thus to render the Trade Union world, with its million of electors, and its leadership of Labour, an effective political force in the State, is, on the whole, the most momentous question of contemporary politics.”[709]

The quarter of a century that has elapsed since these words were written has seen an extensive political development of the Trade Union Movement, taking the form of building up a separate and independent party of “Labour” in the House of Commons, which we have now to record.[710]

The continued propaganda of the Socialists, and of others who wished to see the Trade Union Movement become an effective political force, which we have described as active from 1884 onwards, did not, for nearly a couple of decades, produce a political “Labour Party.” So strong was at that time the resistance of most of the Trade Union leaders to any participation of their societies in general politics, even on the lines of complete independence of both Liberal and Conservative Parties, that “Labour Representation” had still, for some years, to be fought for apart from Trade Unionism. The leaders, indeed, did not really care about Trade Union influence in the House of Commons.[711] Many of them, as we have described, remained for a whole generation averse even from legal regulation of the conditions of employment. In national politics they were mostly Liberals, with the strongest possible admiration for Gladstone and Bright; or else (as in Lancashire) convinced Conservatives, concerned to defend the Church of England or Roman Catholic elementary schools in which their children were being educated or carried away by the glamour of an Imperialist foreign policy. They asked for nothing more than a few working-class members in the House of Commons, belonging to one or other of the “respectable” parties, to which they could thus obtain access for the adjustment of any matters in which their societies happened to be interested.

In 1887, at his first appearance at the Trades Union Congress, J. Keir Hardie,[712] representing a small Union of Ayrshire Miners, demanded a new start. He called upon the Trade Unionists definitely to sever their connection with the existing political parties, by which the workmen were constantly befooled and betrayed, and insisted on the necessity of forming an entirely independent party of Labour, to which the whole working-class movement should rally. On the Congress he produced no apparent effect.[713] But, six months later, when a Parliamentary vacancy occurred in Mid-Lanark, Keir Hardie was nominated, against Liberal and Tory alike, on the principle of entire independence; and in spite of every effort to induce him to withdraw,[714] he went to the poll, obtaining only 619 votes. A society was then formed to work for independent Labour representation, under the designation of the Scottish Labour Party, having for chairman Mr. R. B. Cunninghame Graham, M.P., who had been elected as a Liberal but who had become a Socialist. The “new spirit” of 1889, which we have described, put heart into the movement for political independence; and after much further propaganda by the Socialists,[715] at the General Election of 1892 Keir Hardie was elected for West Ham, avowedly as the first member of an independent Party of Labour; together with fourteen other workmen,[716] whose independence of the Liberal Party, even where it was claimed, was less marked than their obvious jealousy of Keir Hardie. There was apparently still no hope of gaining the adherence of the Trade Unions as such; and at the Glasgow Trades Union Congress of 1892 arrangements were made by a few of the delegates to hold a smaller conference, which took place at Bradford, in 1893, under the chairmanship of Keir Hardie, when those who were determined to establish a separate political party formed a society, made up of individual adherents, which was styled the Independent Labour Party. In this the Scottish Labour Party was merged, but it remained without the affiliation of Trade Unions in their corporate capacity. The Independent Labour Party, of which throughout his life Keir Hardie was the outstanding figure, carried on a strenuous propagandist campaign, and during the next two years put up independent candidates at by-elections, with uniform ill-success. At the General Election of 1895, no fewer than twenty-eight “I.L.P.” candidates went to the poll, every one of them (including Keir Hardie himself at West Ham) being unsuccessful. With two or three exceptions, the Trade Unionist members in alliance with the Liberal Party successfully maintained their seats. The establishment of an aggressively independent Labour Party in Parliament still looked hopeless.

With the new century an effort was made on fresh lines. The continuous propaganda had had its effect, even on the Trades Union Congress. In 1898 it could be suggested in the presidential address[717] that a “committee should be appointed to draft a scheme of political organisation for the Trade Union world on the ground that just as trades federation is a matter of vital necessity for industrial organisation, so also will a scheme of political action be of vital necessity if we wish Parliament to faithfully register the effect of the industrial revolution on our social life.” The very next year a resolution--which had been drafted in London by the members of the Independent Labour Party--was carried on the motion of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, against the votes of the miners as well as of the textile workers, directing the convening of a special congress representing Trade Unions, Co-operative Societies, and Socialist organisations, in order to devise means of increasing the number of Labour members.[718] It was urged on the Parliamentary Committee that the Socialist organisations had a right to be strongly represented on the proposed Committee; and the Parliamentary Committee, which had no faith in the scheme and attached little importance to it, nominated four of its members (S. Woods, W. C. Steadman, R. Bell, and W. Thorne), all of whom afterwards became Members of Parliament, to sit with two representatives each from the Independent Labour Party (Keir Hardie and J. Ramsay MacDonald), the Fabian Society (G. Bernard Shaw and E. R. Pease), and the Social Democratic Federation (H. Quelch and H. R. Taylor). This Committee took the business into its own hands, and drew up a constitution, upon a federal basis, for a “Labour Representation Committee,” as an independent organisation, including Trade Unions and Trades Councils, along with Co-operative and Socialist Societies; and in February 1900 a specially summoned congress, attended by 129 delegates, representing Trade Unions aggregating half a million members, and Socialist societies claiming fewer than seventy thousand, adopted the draft constitution, established the new body, appointed its first executive, and gave it, in Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, not merely its first secretary but also a skilful organiser, to whose patient and persistent effort no small part of its subsequent success has been due.

For two years the Labour Representation Committee, in spite of diligent propaganda among Trade Union Executives, seemed to hang fire. The General Election of 1900 found it unprepared; and, though it put fifteen candidates in the field, only two of them were successful. No Co-operative Society joined; the Social Democratic Federation withdrew; scarcely a score of Trades Councils were enrolled; and though sixty-five separate Trade Unions gradually adhered--being only about five or six per cent of the total number--the aggregate affiliated membership of the Party did not reach half a million. Then the tide turned, mainly through the rally of Trade Unionism as it became aware of the full implications of the assault upon it made by the decision in the Taff Vale case, which we have already described. The miners stood aloof only because they preferred to use their own organisation. In 1901 the Miners’ Federation voted a levy of a penny per month on all its membership in order to create a Parliamentary Fund; and the running of as many as seventy candidates was then talked about. During the year 1902 the number of adhering Trade Unions and Trades Councils, and the total affiliated membership, were alike practically doubled. In the next two years the Committee contested no fewer than six Parliamentary by-elections, returning its members in half of them.[719] Meanwhile the Conservative Government obstinately refused to allow legislation restoring to Trade Unions the statutory status of 1871-76, of which the judges’ decision in the Taff Vale case had deprived them. Careful preparation was accordingly made for a successful appeal to Trade Unionists at the General Election which was approaching; and when it came, in January 1906, no fewer than fifty independent Labour candidates were put in the field against Liberals and Conservatives alike. To the general surprise of the political world, as many as twenty-nine of these were successful; besides a dozen other workmen, mostly miners, who again stood with Liberal Party support and were still regarded as belonging to that Party. The twenty-nine at once formed themselves into, and were recognised as, a separate independent party in the House of Commons, with its own officers and whips, concerned to push its own programme irrespective of the desires and convenience of the other political parties. At the same time the Labour Representation Committee changed its name to the Labour Party.

We need not concern ourselves with the Parliamentary struggles of the next three years, during which the Parliamentary Labour Party may claim to have indirectly secured the passage, as Government measures, of the Trade Disputes Act, the Miners’ Eight Hours Act, and the Trade Boards Act, and to have developed something like a Parliamentary programme. It suffered, however, in the Trade Union world, from its inevitable failure to impress its will on the triumphant Liberal majority of these years. What saved the Labour Party from decline, and gave it indeed fresh impetus in the Trade Union movement, was the renewed legal assault on Trade Unionism itself, which in 1909, as we have described, culminated in the Osborne Judgement of the highest Appeal Court, by which the Trade Unions were prohibited from applying any of their funds to political activities and to the support of the Labour Party in particular. The refusal of the Liberal Government for four whole years to remedy this gross miscarriage of justice though conscious that it was not permanently defensible; and the unconcealed desire of the Liberal Party politicians to put the Labour Party out of action as an independent political force, swung over to its side the great bulk of active Trade Unionists, including many, especially in Lancashire, who had hitherto counted to the Conservative Party. By 1913, in spite of a large number of injunctions restraining Trade Unions from affiliating, the Labour Party could count on a membership of nearly two millions, and this number has since steadily grown. The two General Elections of 1910, though dominated by other issues, left the Parliamentary Labour Party unshaken; whilst the accession to the Party of the Miners’ members raised its Parliamentary strength to forty-two. Payment of members was secured in 1911, and the Mines (Minimum Wage) Act in 1912, but not until 1913 could the Government be induced to pass into law the Trade Union Act, which once more permitted Trade Unions to engage in any lawful purposes that their members desired. This concession was, even then, made subject to any objecting member being enabled to withhold that part of his contribution applicable to political purposes--an illogical restriction, because it applied only to the dissentient’s tiny fraction of money, and he was not empowered to prevent the majority of members from using the indivisible corporate power of the Union itself. This restriction, not put upon any other corporate body, was universally believed to have been imposed, in the assumed interest of the Liberal Party, with the object of crippling the political influence of Trade Unionism; and is still bitterly resented.[720]

Whilst it was very largely the successive assaults on Trade Unionism itself that built up the Labour Party, the ultimate defeat of these assaults, the concession of Payment of Members, and the attainment of legal security by the Trade Union Act of 1913, did nothing to stay its progress. At the same time, the injunctions of the years 1909-12, and the fear of litigation, together with a certain disillusionment with Parliamentary action among the rank and file, led to the gradual falling away of some Trade Unions, mostly of comparatively small membership. The very basis of the Labour Party, upon which alone it has proved possible to build up a successful political force--the combination, within a political federation, of Trade Unions having extensive membership and not very intense political energy, and Socialist societies of relatively scanty membership but overflowing with political talent and zeal--necessarily led to complications. It needed all the tact and patient persuasion of the leaders of both sections to convince the Socialists that their ideals and projects were not being sacrificed to the stolidity and the prejudices of the mass of Trade Unionists; and at the same time to explain to the Trade Unionists how valuable was the aid of the knowledge, eloquence, and Parliamentary ability contributed by such Socialist representatives as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, J. Ramsay MacDonald, and W. C. Anderson. Moreover, the complications and difficulties of Parliamentary action in a House of Commons where the Government continuously possessed a solid majority; the political necessity of supporting the Liberal Party Bills relating to the Budget and the House of Lords, and of not playing into the hands of a still more reactionary Front Opposition Bench, were not readily comprehended by the average workman. What the militants in the country failed to allow for was the impotence of a small Parliamentary section to secure the adoption of its own policy by a Parliamentary majority. But it is, we think, now admitted that it was a misfortune that the Parliamentary Labour Party of these years never managed to put before the country the large outlines of an alternative programme based on the Party’s conception of a new social order, eliminating the capitalist profit-maker wherever possible, and giving free scope to communal and industrial Democracy--notably with regard to the administration of the railways and the mines, the prevention of Unemployment, and also the provision for the nation’s non-effectives, which the Government dealt with so unsatisfactorily in the National Insurance Act of 1911. The failure of the Parliamentary Labour Party between 1910 and 1914 to strike the imagination of the Trade Union world led to a certain reaction against political action as such, and to a growing doubt among the active spirits as to the value of a Labour Party which did not succeed in taking vigorous independent action, either in Parliament or on the platform and in the press, along the lines of changing the existing order of society. A like failure to strike the imagination characterised The Daily Citizen--the organ which the Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement had established with such high hopes--and its inability to gain either intellectual influence or adequate circulation did not lighten the somewhat gloomy atmosphere of the Labour Party councils of 1913-14.[721] This reaction did not appreciably affect the numerical and financial strength of the Labour Party itself, as the relatively few withdrawals of Unions were outweighed by the steady increase in membership of the hundred principal Unions which remained faithful, by the accession of other Unions, and by the continual increase in the number and strength of the affiliated Trades Councils and Local Labour Parties. But the reaction in Trade Union opinion weakened the influence of the members of the Parliamentary Party, alike in the House of Commons and in their own societies. A wave of “Labour Unrest,” of “Syndicalism,” of “rank and file movements” for a more aggressive Trade Unionism, of organisation by “shop stewards” in opposition to national executives, and of preference for “Direct Action” over Parliamentary procedure swept over British Trade Unionism, affecting especially the London building trades, the South Wales Miners, and the engineering and shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. The impetuous strikes in 1911-13 of the Railwaymen, the Coal-miners, the Transport Workers, and the London Building Trades, which we have already described, were influenced, partly, by this new spirit. The number of disputes reported to the Labour Department, which had sunk in 1908 to only 399, rose in 1911 to 903, and culminated in the latter half of 1913 and the first half of 1914 in the outbreak of something like a hundred and fifty strikes per month. British Trade Unionism was, in fact, in the summer of 1914, working up for an almost revolutionary outburst of gigantic industrial disputes, which could not have failed to be seriously embarrassing for the political organisation to which the movement had committed itself, when, in August 1914, war was declared, and all internal conflict had perforce to be suspended.

During the war (1914-18) the task of the Labour Party was one of exceptional difficulty. It had necessarily to support the Government in a struggle of which five-sixths of its Parliamentary representatives and probably nine-tenths of its aggregate membership approved. The very gravity of the national crisis compelled the Party to abstain from any action that would have weakened the country’s defence. On the other hand, the three successive Administrations that held office during the war were all driven by their needs, as we have already described, to impose upon the wage-earners cruel sacrifices, and to violate, not once but repeatedly, all that Organised Labour in Britain held dear. The Party could not refrain, at whatever cost of misconstruction, from withstanding unjustifiable demands by the Government;[722] protesting against its successive breaches of faith to the Trade Unions; demanding the conditions in the forthcoming Treaty of Peace that, as could be already foreseen, would be necessary to protect the wage-earning class; standing up for the scandalously ill-used “conscientious objectors,” and doing its best to secure, in the eventual demobilisation and social reconstruction, the utmost possible protection of the mass of the people against Unemployment and “Profiteering.” In all this the Labour Party earned the respect of the most thoughtful Trade Unionists, but necessarily exposed itself to a constant stream of newspaper misrepresentation and abuse. Any opposition or resistance to the official demands was inevitably misrepresented as, and mistaken for, an almost treasonable “Pacifism” or “Defeatism”--a misunderstanding of the attitude of the Party to which colour was lent by the persistence and eloquence with which the small Pacifist Minority within the Party--a minority which, it must be said, included some of the most talented and active of its leading members in the House of Commons--used every opportunity publicly to denounce the Government’s conduct in the war. But although the Pacifist Group in Parliament was strenuously supported in the country by the relatively small but extremely active constituent society of the Labour Party styled The Independent Labour Party--the very name helping the popular misunderstanding--the Trade Unionists, forming the vast majority of the Labour Party, remained, with extremely few exceptions, grimly determined at all costs to win the war.

If Organised Labour had been against the war, it is safe to say that the national effort could not have been maintained. The need for the formal association of the Labour Party with the Administration was recognised by Mr. Asquith in 1915, when he formed the first Coalition Cabinet, into which he invited the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr. Arthur Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders), who became President of the Board of Education. Later on, in 1916, Mr. G. N. Barnes (Amalgamated Society of Engineers) was appointed to the new office of Minister of Pensions. When, in December 1916, Mr. Asquith resigned, and Mr. Lloyd George formed a new Coalition Government, Mr. Henderson entered the small War Cabinet that was then formed, with the nominal office of Paymaster-General; whilst Mr. Barnes continued Minister of Pensions, Mr. John Hodge (British Steel Smelters’ Society) was appointed to the new office of Minister of Labour, and three other members of the Party (Mr. W. Brace, South Wales Miners; Mr. G. H. Roberts, Typographical Society; and Mr. James Parker, National Union of General Workers) received minor ministerial posts.[723]

Throughout the whole period of the war all the several demands of the Government upon the organised workers, the abrogation of “Trade Union Conditions” in all industries working for war needs, the first and second Munitions of War Acts, the subversion of individual liberty by the successive orders under the Defence of the Realm Acts, the successive applications of the Military Service Acts, the imposition of what was practically Compulsory Arbitration to settle the rates of wages--were accepted, though only after serious protest, by large majorities at the various Conferences of the Labour Party, as well as by the various annual Trades Union Congresses,[724] in spite of the resistance of minorities, including more than “pacifists.” The entry of Mr. Henderson into Mr. Asquith’s first Coalition Government, and that of Mr. Barnes into Mr. Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, together with the acceptance of ministerial office by other leading members of the Labour Party--though any such ministerial coalition was in flagrant violation of the very principles of its existence, and was strenuously combated on grounds of expediency by many of its members who loyally supported the war--equally received the endorsement of large majorities at the Party Conferences. From the beginning of the war to the end, the Labour Party, alike in all its corporate acts and by the individual efforts of its leading members (other than the minority already mentioned), stuck at nothing in its determination to help the Government to win the war.

More controversial were the persistent efforts made by the Labour Party to maintain its international relations with the Labour and Socialist Movements of Continental Europe. From the first it was seen to be important to get the representatives of the Trade Unions and Socialist organisations of the Allied Nations, and not merely their Governments, united in a declaration of the aims and the justification of a war that was everywhere outraging working-class idealism. Such a unanimity was successfully achieved in February 1915 at a conference, held in London at the instance of the Labour Party, of delegates from the working-class organisations of France, Belgium, and Great Britain, with Russian representatives, then allied in arms against the Central Empires.[725] Later on, when a Minority Party had been formed among the German Socialists, and when the Austrian and Hungarian working-class Movements were also in revolt against the militarism of their Government, repeated efforts were made by the Labour Party to encourage this revolt, and for this purpose to obtain the necessary Government facilities for a meeting, in some neutral city, of the working-class “International,” at which the Allied Case could be laid before the neutrals, and a basis found for united action with all the working-class elements in opposition to the dominant military Imperialism. After the Russian revolution of March 1917, the Petrograd Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Council actually issued an invitation for a working-class “International” at Stockholm; and the participation of the British Labour Party in this International Congress, which was not then favoured by Mr. Henderson, received at one time no small support from the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. In the end the Government despatched Mr. Henderson on an official mission to Petrograd (incidentally empowering him, if he thought fit, to remain there as Ambassador at £8000 a year). Meanwhile the proposal for an International Congress had been modified, first into one for a purely consultative gathering, and then into one for a series of separate interviews between a committee of neutrals and the representatives of each of the belligerents in turn, with a view to discovering a possible basis for peace--a project to which Mr. Henderson, from what he learnt at Petrograd, was converted. A National Conference of the Labour Party in August 1917 approved of participation in such a Congress at Stockholm; but the French and Italian Governments would not hear of it, and Mr. Lloyd George went back on his prior approval, absolutely declining to allow passports to be issued. Amid great excitement, and under circumstances of insult and indignity which created resentment among the British working class, Mr. Henderson felt obliged to tender his resignation of his place in the War Cabinet, in which he was succeeded by Mr. Barnes, who was getting more and more out of sympathy with the majority of the Party.[726] The Labour Party Executive, in alliance with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, then applied itself to getting agreement among the Labour and Socialist Movements of the Allied Nations as to the lines on which--assuming an Allied victory--the terms of peace should be drawn, in order to avert as much as possible of the widespread misery which, it could be foreseen, must necessarily fall upon the wage-earning class. In this effort, in which Mr. Henderson displayed great tact and patience, he had the implicit sanction of the British Government, and, with some reluctance, also of the Governments of the other Allied Nations by whom the necessary passports were issued for an Inter-Allied Conference in London in August 1917, which was abortive; for provisional discussions at Paris in February 1918; and for a second Inter-Allied Conference at the end of the same month in London, which resulted in a virtually unanimous agreement upon what should be the terms of peace,[727] on a basis already approved on December 28, 1917, by a Joint Conference of the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party, and widely published all over the world. The terms thus agreed were, in fact, immediately adopted in outline in a public deliverance by Mr. Lloyd George as those on which Germany could have peace at any time; and the same proposals were promptly made the basis of President Wilson’s celebrated “Fourteen Points” on which eventually (but only after another ten months’ costly war) the Armistice of November 11, 1918, was concluded. Profound was the disappointment, and bitter the resentment, of the greater part of the organised Labour Movement of Great Britain when it was revealed how seriously the diplomatists at the Paris Conference had departed from these terms in the Treaty of Peace which was imposed on the Central Empires.[728]

We have already attempted to sum up the effect of the Great War on the industrial status of Trade Unionism. It is more difficult to estimate its effect on the political organisation of the movement. The outbreak of the war had found the Labour Party, in the see-saw of Trade Union opinion to which we have elsewhere referred, suffering from an inevitable disillusionment among Trade Unionists as to the immediate potency of Parliamentary representation--a disillusionment manifested in the outbreak of rebellious strikes that characterised the years 1911-14. The achievements of the Labour Party in the House of Commons had fallen short of the eager hopes with which the new party had raised its standard on its triumphant entry in 1906. In 1914, it may be said, the Labour Party was at a dead point. The effect upon it of the Great War was to raise it in proportion to the height of the vastly greater issues with which it was compelled to deal. Amid the stress of war, and of the intensely controversial decisions which it had necessarily to take, the Labour Party revised its constitution, widened its aims, opened its ranks to the “workers by brain” as well as the workers by hand, and received the accession of many thousands of converts from the Liberal and Conservative Parties. It made great progress in its difficult task of superimposing, on an organisation based on national societies, the necessary complementary organisation of its affiliated membership by geographical constituencies. It equipped itself during the war, for the first time, with a far-reaching and well-considered programme not confined to distinctively “Labour” issues, but covering the whole field of home politics, and even extending to foreign relations.[729] The formulation of such a programme, from beginning to end essentially Socialist in character, and including alike ideals of social reconstruction and detailed reforms of immediate practicability, together with the wholehearted adoption of this programme, after six months’ consideration by the constituent societies and branches, was a notable achievement, which placed the British Labour Party ahead of those of other countries. Moreover, the formulation of a comprehensive social programme and of “terms of Peace,” based on the principles for which the war had ostensibly been fought--principles which were certainly not carried in the Treaty of Peace--transformed the Labour Party from a group representing merely the class interests of the manual workers into a fully constituted political Party of national scope, ready to take over the government of the country and to conduct both home and foreign affairs on definite principles. Taken together with the intellectual bankruptcy of the Liberal Party and its apparent incapacity to formulate any positive policy, whether with regard to the redistribution of wealth within our own community or with regard to our attitude towards other races within or without the British Empire, the emergence of the Labour Party programme meant that the Party stood forth, in public opinion, as the inevitable alternative to the present Coalition Government when the time came for this to fall. The result was that, aided by the steady growth of Trade Unionism, the Party came near, between 1914 and 1919, to doubling its aggregate membership. When hostilities ceased, it insisted on resuming the complete independence of the other political parties, which it had, by joining the successive Coalition Governments, consented temporarily to forgo; and such of its leaders as refused to withdraw from ministerial office[730] were unhesitatingly shed from the Party. Meanwhile, the extension of the franchise and redistribution of seats, which had been carried by general consent in the spring of 1918, turned out to raise the electorate to nearly treble that of 1910, whilst the new constituencies proved to have been so adjusted as greatly to facilitate an increase in the number of miners’ representatives. When the General Election came, in December 1918, though the Labour Party fought under great disadvantages and it was seen that most of the soldier electors would be unable to record their votes, it put no fewer than 361 Labour candidates in the field against Liberal and Conservative alike, contesting two-thirds of all the constituencies in Great Britain. In face of a “Lloyd George tide” of unprecedented strength these Labour candidates received nearly one-fourth of all the votes polled in the United Kingdom; and though five-sixths of these numerous Labour candidatures were unsuccessful (including, unfortunately, most of its ablest Parliamentarians such as Messrs. Henderson,[731] MacDonald, Anderson, and Snowden), the Party increased its numerical strength in the House of Commons by 50 per cent, and, to the universal surprise, returned more than twice as many members as did the remnant of the Liberal Party adhering to Mr. Asquith--becoming, in fact, entitled to the position of “His Majesty’s Opposition.” It can hardly be said that during the session of 1919 the Parliamentary Labour Party, considerably strengthened in numbers but weakened by the defeat of its ablest Parliamentarians, has, under the leadership of the Right Honourable W. Adamson (Scottish Miners), made as much of its opportunities as the Labour Party in the country expected and desired. The political organisation of the Trade Union world remains, indeed, very far from adequate to the achievement of its far-reaching aims. It is not merely that the average British Trade Unionist, unlike the German, the Danish, Swedish, or the Belgian, has learnt so little the duty of subordinating minor personal or local issues, and of voting with his Party with as much loyalty as he shows in striking with his fellow-unionists, that by no means all the aggregate British Trade Union membership can steadfastly be relied on to vote for the Labour candidates. Nor is it only that the British Labour Party still fails to command the affiliation of as many Trade Unions as the Trades Union Congress, and that the great majority of the smaller and the local societies--less from dissent than out of apathy--remain aloof from both sides of the national organisation. The Trades Union Congress itself, after engendering, as independent organisations, first the General Federation of Trade Unions, and then the Labour Party, has not yet resigned itself to limiting its activities. The General Federation of Trade Unions may be said, indeed, to have now disappeared from the Trade Union world as an effective force in the determination of industrial or political policy. There remain three separate organisations of national scope; the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress which it is now proposed to transform into a General Council, the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, and the members of the House of Commons who form the Parliamentary Labour Party. Unfortunately, between these three groups there has been some lack of mutual consultation, and an indefiniteness if not a confusion of policy which stands in the way of effective leadership.[732] This has prevented the bringing to bear upon the political field of the full force, now almost a moiety of the whole registered electorate of Great Britain, that the Trade Union world may (including the wives of Trade Unionist electors) fairly claim to include. Fundamentally, however, the shortcomings of the political organisation of the Trade Union world are to be ascribed to its failure, down to the present, to develop a staff of trained political officers at all equal to those of the Trade Union organisers and Trade Union negotiators in the industrial field. The Labour Party, which can as yet rely only on the quite inadequate contribution from its affiliated societies of no more than twopence per member annually, has, so far, not succeeded in obtaining and keeping the services, as Registration Officers and Election Agents, of anything like so extensive and so competent a staff as either of the other political parties; and Labour Party candidatures are still run, occasionally with astonishing success, very largely upon that transient enthusiasm of the crowd upon which experienced electioneers wisely decline to rely for victory. What is, however, much more crippling to the Labour Party than the scanty funds with which its constituent societies supply it, and this insufficiency in the staff of trained election organisers, is the scarcity of trained Parliamentary representatives. Down to to-day the great bulk of Labour Members of Parliament have been drawn from the ranks of the salaried secretaries and other industrial officers of Trade Unions, who are nearly always not only men of competence in their own spheres, but also exceptionally good speakers for popular audiences, and, generally, in many respects above the average of middle-class candidates. But as Members of Parliament they have serious shortcomings. They can, to begin with, seldom devote the necessary time to their new duties. They usually find themselves compelled to strive to combine attendance at the House of Commons with the onerous industrial service of their societies. The Trade Unions have, as yet, only in a few cases realised the necessity of setting free from the constant burden of Trade Union work--as they might by promotion to some such consultative office as that of a salaried President--such of their officials as secure election to Parliament; whilst these officers, unable to maintain themselves and their families in London on their Parliamentary allowance for expenses of £400 a year, and afraid lest the loss of their seats may presently leave them without incomes, dare not resign their Trade Union posts. The result is an imperfect and always uncertain attendance of the Labour Members at the House of Commons; a fatal division and diversion of their attention; and an inevitable failure on their part to discharge with the fullest efficiency the duties of their two offices. Equally destructive of Parliamentary efficiency is the omission of the Trade Union world to provide or secure any training in the duties of a Member of Parliament for those whom they select as candidates and whose election expenses they defray with unstinted liberality. The lifelong training which these candidates have enjoyed as Branch and District Secretaries, as industrial organisers and negotiators, and as administrators of great Trade Unions, valuable as it is for Trade Union purposes, does not include, and indeed tends rather to exclude, the practical training in general politics, the working acquaintance with the British Constitution, the knowledge of how to use and how to control the adroit and well-equipped Civil Service, and the ability to translate both the half-articulate desires of the electorate to the House of Commons, and the advice of the political expert to the electorate, which, coupled with the general art of “Parliamentarianism,” constitutes the equipment of the really efficient Member of the House of Commons. Add to this that the very training which the life of the successful Trade Union official has given him, his perpetual struggle to rise in his vocation in competitive rivalry, not with persons of opposite views but actually with personal acquaintances of the same craft and the same political opinions as himself, is, in itself, not a good preparation for the incessant mutual consultation and carefully planned “team-work” which contributes so much to the effectiveness of a minority party in the House of Commons. Add to this again the personal rivalries among members of the Party, the jealousies from which no party is free, and the almost complete lack of opportunity for the constant social intercourse with each other away from the House of Commons that the members of the other parties enjoy--and it will be realised how seriously the Parliamentary Labour Party is handicapped by being made up, as it is at present, almost entirely of men who are compelled also to serve as Trade Union officials. Already, however, there are signs of improvement. Some Trade Unions, whilst willing to spend large sums on Parliamentary candidatures, are demurring to their salaried officials going to Westminster. The Workers’ Educational Association, Ruskin College, and other educational agencies are doing much to provide a wider political training than Trade Unionists have heretofore enjoyed. And as the Parliamentary Labour Party, claiming to-day to represent, not the Trade Unionists only, but the whole community of “workers by hand or by brain,” expands from sixty to four or six times that number--as it must before it can be confronted with the task of forming a Government--it will necessarily come to include an ever-increasing proportion of members drawn from other than Trade Union ranks; whilst even its Trade Union members cannot fail to acquire more of that habit of mutual intercourse and that art of combined action which, coupled with the Parliamentary skill and capacity for public administration of those who rise to leadership, is the necessary basis of successful party achievement.

Meanwhile, the political organisation of the Trade Union Movement, and the enlargement of its ideas on Communal and Industrial Democracy, have been manifesting themselves also in the important sphere of Local Government. After the “Labour” successes at the elections of Local Authorities, which continued for a whole decade from 1892, and placed over a thousand Trade Unionists and Socialists on Parish, District, Borough and County Councils, there ensued another decade in which, in the majority of districts, this active participation in local elections was impaired by the diversion of interest, both to Parliament and to industrial organisation. From 1914 to 1919 local elections were suspended. On their resumption in the latter year, they were energetically contested by the Labour Party, all over Great Britain, on its new and definitely Socialist programme, with the unexpected result that, up and down the country, the Labour candidates frequently swept the board, polling in the aggregate a very substantial proportion of the votes, electing altogether several thousand Councillors (five or six hundred in Scotland alone), and being returned in actual majorities in nearly half the Metropolitan Boroughs, several important Counties and Municipalities, and many Urban Districts and Parishes.

* * * * *

It must be apparent that any history of Trade Unionism that breaks off at the beginning of 1920 halts, not at the end of an epoch, but--we may almost say--at the opening of a new chapter. British Trade Unionism, at a moment when it is, both industrially and politically, stronger than ever before, is seething with new ideas and far-reaching aspirations. At the same time, its most recent advances in status and power are by no means yet accepted by what remains the governing class; its political and industrial position is still precarious, and within a very brief space it may again find itself fighting against a frontal attack upon its very existence. And in face of the common enemy--now united as an autocratic capitalism--Industrial Democracy is uncertain of itself, and almost blindly groping after a precise adjustment of powers and functions between Associations of Producers and Associations of Consumers.

Let us elaborate these points in detail. One result of the Great War has been, if not the actual enthronement of Democracy, a tremendous shifting of authority to the mass of the people. Of this shifting of the basis of power the advance in the status of Trade Unionism and the advent, in British politics, of the Labour Party, are but preliminary manifestations. As yet the mass of the people, to whom power is passing, have made but little effective use of their opportunities. At least seven-eighths of the nation’s accumulated wealth, and with it nearly all the effective authority, is still in the hands of one-eighth of the population; and the seven-eighths of the people find themselves in consequence still restricted, as regards the means of life, to less than half of that national income which is exclusively the product of those who labour, by hand or by brain. The “leisure class”--the men and women who live by owning and not by working, a class increasing in actual numbers, if not relatively to the workers--seem to the great mass of working people to be showing themselves, if possible, more frivolous and more insolent in their irresponsible consumption, by themselves and their families, of the relatively enormous share that they are able to take from the national income. It is coming to be more and more felt that the continued existence of this class involves a quite unwarranted burden upon their fellow-citizens working by hand or by brain. Very naturally there is widespread discontent, and the emergence of all sorts of exasperated criticisms and extravagant schemes.

The truth is, of course, that Democracy, whether political or industrial, is still in its infancy. The common run of men and women, who have only just been enfranchised politically, and are even yet only partially organised industrially, are as yet unable to make full use of Democratic institutions. The majority of them cannot be induced, in the economic pressure to which Capitalism subjects them, to take the trouble or give the continuous thought involved in any effective participation in public affairs. The result is that such Democratic institutions as we possess are, of necessity, still inefficiently managed; and neither the citizen-consumers nor the Trade Unionist producers find themselves exercising much effective control over their own lives. The active-minded minority sees itself submerged by the “apathetic mass”; the individual feels enslaved by the “machine.” The complaint of the “rank and file”--using that term to mean, not any “extremist” minority, but merely the majority, the “common run of men”--comes to no more than that they do not find themselves obtaining the results in their daily lives which they expected, and which they were, as they understood, promised. This, we think, is the explanation of the perpetual “see-saw” within the Labour Movement, decade after decade, between an infatuation for industrial or “direct” action and an equal infatuation for political or Parliamentary and Municipal action--each, unfortunately, to the temporary neglect of the other. Or to state the Democratic problem in a more fundamental form, the see-saw is between the aspiration to vest the control over the instruments of production in Democracies of Producers, and the alternating belief that this control can best be vested in Democracies of Consumers. But it is abundantly clear, alike from history and economic analysis, that in any genuine Democracy both forms of organisation are indispensably required. In the modern State every person throughout his whole life consumes a great variety of commodities and services which he cannot produce; whilst men and women, occupied in production, habitually produce a single commodity or service for other persons to consume. Their interests and desires as producers, and as producers of a single commodity or service, are not, and can never be, identical with the interests and desires of these same people as consumers of many different commodities and services--just as their interests and desires as citizens of a community, or as members of a race which they wish to continue in independent existence, are not necessarily identical with those of which they are conscious either as producers or as consumers.

It is, in fact, now realised that Democratic organisation involves the acceptance, not of a single basis--that of the undifferentiated human being--but of various separate and distinct bases: man as a producer; man as a consumer; man as a citizen concerned with the continued existence and independence of his race or community; possibly also other bases, such as man as a scientist or man as a religious believer. What is wrong in each successive generation is the intolerant fanaticism of the enthusiasts which leads them to insist on any one form of this multiplex Democracy to the exclusion of the other forms. We see to-day uppermost a revival of faith in Associations of Producers, as being, in an industrial community, the form of Democratic organisation most important to the working people. To some one-sided minds, as was inevitable, the all-embracing Association of Producers seems the only form that Democratic organisation can validly take. Interesting to the historian is the intellectual connection of this revival with the previous manifestations, in the Trade Union Movement, of the idea of “Co-operative Production,” whether in the revolutionary Owenism of 1830-34, the Christian Socialism of 1848-52, or the experiments of particular Unions in 1872. As we have explained, the Trade Union, being essentially an Association of Producers, has never quite lost the idea that, so far as industry is concerned, this form of association, and no other, is Democracy. But the new form in which the faith in Associations of Producers is now expressing itself is concerned less with the ownership of the instruments of production (it being to-day commonly taken for granted that this must be vested in the community as a whole) than with the management of industry. According to the most thoroughgoing advocates of this creed, the management of each industry should be placed, not separately in the hands of those engaged in each establishment, any more than in the hands of private capitalist employers, but in the hands of the whole body of persons throughout the community who are actually co-operating in the work of the industry, whether by hand or by brain; this management being shared, by Workshop or Pit Committees, District Councils and National Boards, among all these “workers.”

This conception seems to us too one-sided to be adopted in its entirety, or to be successful if it were so adopted. We venture to give, necessarily in a cursory and generalised form, the results of our own investigations into the management of industries and services by Democracies of Producers and Democracies of Consumers respectively. In so far as we may draw any valid inferences from previous experiments of different kinds, we must note that the record of the successive attempts, in modern industry, to place the entire management of industrial undertakings in the hands of Associations of Producers has been one of failure. In marked contrast, the opposite form of Democracy, in which the management has been placed in the hands of Associations of Consumers, has achieved a large and constantly increasing measure of success. We do not refer merely to the ever-growing development throughout the civilised world, in certain extensive fields of industrial operation, of Municipal and National Government, though from this some valuable lessons may be learnt. Even more instructive is the continuous and ever-widening success, in the importing, manufacturing, and distributing of household supplies, of the voluntary Associations of Consumers known as the Co-operative Movement, which is almost entirely made up of the same class of men and women--often, indeed, of the very same individuals--as we find in the abortive “self-governing workshops” and in the Trade Union Movement. Why, for instance, is it possible for the manual workers, organised as consumers, to carry on successfully the most extensive establishments for the milling of flour, the baking of bread, the making of boots and shoes, and the weaving of cloth, when repeated attempts to conduct such establishments by the same kind of members organised as Associations of Producers have not succeeded?[733]

The Democracy of Associations of Consumers, whatever its shortcomings and defects, has, we suggest, the great advantage of being demonstrably practicable. The job can be done. It has also the further merit that it solves the problem presented by what the economists call the Law of Rent. It does not leave to any individual or group of individuals the appropriation and enjoyment of those advantages of superior sites and soils, and other differential factors in production, which should be, economically and ethically, taken only by the community as a whole. Moreover, management by Associations of Consumers, whether National, Municipal, or Co-operative, gives one practical solution to the problem of fixing prices without competition, by enabling every producer to be paid at his own full Standard Rate, and distributing the various products at prices just over cost, the whole eventual surplus being returned to the purchasers in a rebate or discount on purchases, called “dividend”; or otherwise appropriated for the benefit and by direction of the consumers themselves. Hence there is no danger of private monopoly; no opportunity for particular groups of producers to make corners in raw materials; to get monopoly prices for commodities in times of scarcity, or to resist legitimate improvements in machinery or processes merely because these would interfere with the vested interests of the persons owning particular instruments of production or possessing a particular kind of skill. In short, the control of industries and services by Democracies of Consumers realises the Socialist principle of production for use and not for exchange, with all its manifold advantages. The most significant of these superiorities of Production for Use over Production for Exchange is its inevitable effect on the structure and working of Democracy. Seeing that the larger the output the smaller the burden of overhead charges--or, to put it in another way, the greater the membership the more advantageous the enterprise--Associations of Consumers are not tempted to close their ranks. This kind of Democracy automatically remains always open to new-comers. On the other hand, Associations of Producers, whether capitalists, technicians or manual workers, exactly because they turn out commodities and services not for their own use, but for exchange, are perpetually impelled to limit their numbers, so as to get, for the existing membership, the highest possible remuneration. This kind of Democracy is, therefore, instinctively exclusive, tending always to become, within the community, a privileged body. All this amounts to a solid reason in favour of “nationalisation,” “municipalisation,” and the consumers’ Co-operative Movement, which is reflected in the continuous and actually accelerating extension of all of them, not in one country only, but throughout the civilised world.[734]

But the Democracy based on Associations of Consumers, whether in the National Government, the Municipality, or the Co-operative Society, reveals certain shortcomings and defects, some transient and resulting only from the existing Capitalism, and others needing the remedy of a complementary Democracy of Producers. So long as we have a society characterised by gross inequalities of income, it is inevitable that the conduct of industries and services by Associations of Consumers should be even more advantageous to the rich than to the poor, and of little or no use to those who are destitute. The same trail of a Capitalist environment affects also the conditions of employment. The Co-operative Society, the Municipality or the Government Department cannot practically depart far from the normal conditions of the rest of the community; and thus avails little to raise the condition of the manual working class. If, however, the Associations of Consumers were co-extensive with the community, they would themselves fix the standard. But there is a more fundamental criticism. The Democracy of Consumers, in Co-operative Society, Municipality or State--however wide may be the franchise, however effective may be the Parliamentary machinery, and however much the elected executive is brought under constituency control--has the outstanding defect to the manual-working producer that, so far as his own working life is concerned, he does not feel it to be Democracy at all! The management, it is complained, is always “government from above.” It is exactly for this reason that in the evolution of British Democracy the conduct of industries and services by Associations of Consumers--whether in the voluntary Co-operative Society or in the geographically organised Municipality or State--has had, for a correlative, the organisation of Associations of Producers, whether Professional Societies or Trade Unions. Their first object was merely to maintain and improve their members’ Standard of Life. Without the enforcement of a Standard Rate and protection against personal tyranny, government by Associations of Consumers is apt to develop many of the evils of the “sweating” characteristic of unrestrained capitalism. It is not now denied, even by the economists, that Trade Unionism, in its establishment of the Doctrine of the Common Rule, and the elaboration of this into the Standard Rate, the Normal Day, and the Policy of the National Minimum, has to its credit during the past three-quarters of a century no small measure of success, with more triumphs easily within view. Trade Unionism among the manual workers, like Professional Association among the brain-workers,[735] has emphatically justified itself by its achievements.

But Trade Unionism, though it has gone far to protect the worker from tyranny, has not, as yet, gained for him any positive participation in industrial management. To this extent the complaints of the objectors among the manual-working class are justified. In the perpetual see-saw of opinion in the Labour world the movement towards Parliamentary action and in favour of what we may call Communal Socialism became, at one time, almost an infatuation, in that its most enthusiastic advocates thought that it would, by itself, solve all problems. A reaction was inevitable. The danger is that this reaction may itself take on the character of an infatuation--this time in favour of the universal domination of Associations of Producers, and the “Direct Action” to which they are prone--against which, in the perpetual see-saw, there will come, in its turn, a contrary reaction, in the course of which Trade Unionism itself may suffer.

This is not to say that the legitimate and desirable movement, specially characteristic of the present century, for increased direct participation in “management” of the Associations of Producers--whether of Professional Societies or of Trade Unions, of doctors and teachers, or of miners and railwaymen--has been, in this or any other country, anything like exhausted. In our view, in fact, it is along these lines that the next developments are to be expected. But, unless we are mistaken in our analysis, this does not mean that the Trade Unions or Professional Societies will take over the entire management of their industries or services, for which, in our opinion, no Association of Producers can be fitted.[736] Democracies of Producers, like Democracies of Consumers, have their peculiar defects, and develop certain characteristic toxins from the very intensity of the interests that they represent. The chief of these defects is the corporate exclusiveness and corporate selfishness habitually developed by associations based on the common interest of a particular section of workers, as against other sections of workers on the one hand, and against the whole body of consumers and citizens on the other. When Democracies of Producers own the instruments of production, or even secure a monopoly of the service to be rendered, they have always tended in the past to close their ranks, to stereotype their processes and faculties, to exclude outsiders and to ban heterodoxy. We see this tendency at work alike in the ancient and modern world, in the castes of India and the Gilds of China, in the mediæval Craft Gilds as well as in the modern Trade Unions and Professional Associations. So long as the Trade Union is an organ of revolt against the Capitalist System--so long as the manual workers are fighting a common enemy in the private owner of land and capital--this corporate selfishness is held in check; though the frequency of demarcation disputes, even in the Trade Union Movement of to-day, gives some indication of what might happen if the Trade Union became an organ of government. We see no way of securing the community of consumers and citizens against this spirit of corporate exclusiveness, and against the inherent objection of an existing generation of producers to new methods of working unfamiliar to them, otherwise than placing the supreme control in the Democracies of Consumers and citizens. There is a further and more subtle defect in Democracies of Producers, the very mention of which may perhaps be resented by those Industrial Unionists who seek to curb the “corporateness” of National Gilds by the “self-government” of the workshop. The experience of self-governing workshops shows that the relationship between the indispensable director or manager (who must, like the conductor of an orchestra, decide the tune and set the time) and the workers whom he directs becomes hopelessly untenable if this director or manager is elected or dismissible by the very persons to whom he gives orders. Over and over again, in the records of the almost innumerable self-governing workshops that have been established in Great Britain or on the Continent, we find their failure intimately connected with the impracticable position of a manager directing the workers during the day, and being reprimanded or altogether superseded by a committee meeting of these same workers in the evening! Finally, there is the difficult question of the price to be put on the article when it passes to the consumer. Normally the price of a commodity must cover the cost of production, and this cost is, in the main, determined by the character of the machinery and process employed. Hence, if the organised workers are given the power to decide not only the number and qualifications of the persons to be employed but also the machinery and process to be used, they will, in fact, determine the price to be charged to the consumer--not always to the consumer’s advantage, or consistently with the interests of other sections of workers.[737]

To sum up, we expect to see the supreme authority in each industry or service vested, not in the workers as such, but in the community as a whole. Any National Board may well include representatives of the producers of the particular product or service, and also of its consumers, but they must be reinforced by the presence of representatives of the community organised as citizens, interested in the future as well as the present prosperity of the community. The management of industry, a complex function of many kinds and grades, will, as we see it, not be the sole sphere of either the one or the other set of partners, but is clearly destined to be distributed between them--the actual direction and decision being shared between the representatives of the Trade Union or Professional Society on the one hand, and those of the community in Co-operative Society, Municipality, or National Government on the other. And this recognition of the essential partnership in management between Associations of Producers and that Association of Consumers which is the community in one or other form, will, we suggest, take different shapes in different industries and services, in different countries, and at different periods; and, as we must add, will necessarily take time and thought to work out in detail. One thing is clear. There will be a steadily increasing recognition of a fundamental change in the status both of the directors and managers of industry (who are now usually either themselves capitalists, or hired for the service of capitalist interests), and of the technicians and manual workers. The directors and managers of industry, however they may be selected and paid, will become increasingly the officers of the community, serving not their own but the whole community’s interests. The technicians and manual workers will become ever less and less the personal servants of the directors and managers; and will be more and more enrolled, like them, in the service, not of any private employer, but of the community itself, whether the form be that of State or Municipality or Co-operative Society, or any combination or variant of these. To use the expression of the present General Secretary of the Miners’ Federation (Frank Hodges), manager, technician, and manual worker alike will become parties to a “social” as distinguished from a commercial contract. All alike, indeed, whatever may be the exact form of ownership of the instruments of production, will, so far as function is concerned, become increasingly partners in the performance of a common public service.

We see in this evolution a great future for the Trade Unions, if they will, in organisation and personal equipment, rise to the height of their enlarged function. They will need, by amalgamation or federation, and by affording facilities for easy admission and for a simple transfer of membership, to make themselves much more nearly than at present co-extensive with their several industries. They will have to make special provision in their constitutions to secure an effective representation, on their own executive and legislative councils, of distinct crafts, grades, or specialisations, which must always form small minorities of the whole body. They will find it necessary to make the local organisation of their members, in branch or district, much more coincident than at present with their members’ several places of employment, so as to approximate to making identical the workshop and the branch. There would seem to be a great development opening up for the Works Committees and the “Shop Stewards,” brought effectively into organic relation with the nationally settled industrial policy. At any rate, in industries already passing under the control of Associations of Consumers, whether by nationalisation or municipalisation, or by the spread of consumers’ co-operation, there will be great scope for District Councils and National Boards, as well as for Advisory and Research Committees representative of different specialities, in which managers and foremen, technicians and operatives, will jointly supersede the capitalist Board of Directors. But the management of each industry is very far from being the whole of the task. In Parliament itself, and on Municipal Councils, the World of Labour, by hand or by brain, will need to give a continuous and an equal backing to its own political party, in order to see to it that it has its own representatives--specialised and trained for this supreme political function--not by ones and twos, but in force; gradually coming, in fact, to predominate over the representatives of the surviving capitalist and landlord parties. Trade Unionists, in the mass, will not only have to continue and extend the loyalty and self-devotion which have always been characteristic of successful Trade Unionism, but also to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the working of democratic institutions, a more accurate appreciation of the imperative necessity of combining both the leading types of democratic self-government--on the one hand the self-government based on the common needs of the whole population divided into geographical constituencies, and on the other the self-government springing from the special requirements of men and women bound together by the fellowship of a common task and a common technique. The Trade Unions and Professional Societies, if they are increasingly to participate in the government of their industries and services, will in particular have to provide themselves with a greater number of whole-time specialist representatives, better paid and more considerately treated than at present, and supplied with increased opportunities for education and training.

We end on a note of warning. The object and purpose of the workers, organised vocationally in Trade Unions and Professional Associations, and politically in the Labour Party, is no mere increase of wages or reduction of hours.[738] It comprises nothing less than a reconstruction of society, by the elimination, from the nation’s industries and services, of the Capitalist Profitmaker, and the consequent shrinking up of the class of functionless persons who live merely by owning. Profit-making as a pursuit, with its sanctification of the motive of pecuniary self-interest, is the demon that has to be exorcised. The journey of the Labour Party towards its goal must necessarily be a long and arduous one. In the painful “Pilgrim’s Progress” of Democracy the workers will be perpetually tempted into by-paths that lead only to the Slough of Despond. It is not so much the enticing away of individuals in the open pursuit of wealth that is to be feared, as the temptation of particular Trade Unions, or particular sections of the workers, to enter into alliances with Associations of Capitalist Employers for the exploitation of the consumer. “Co-partnership,” or profit-sharing with individual capitalists, has been seen through and rejected. But the “co-partnership” of Trade Unions with Associations of Capitalists--whether as a development of “Whitley Councils” or otherwise--which far-sighted capitalists will presently offer in specious forms (with a view, particularly, to Protective Customs Tariffs and other devices for maintaining unnecessarily high prices, or to governmental favours and remissions of taxation) is, we fear, hankered after by some Trade Union leaders, and might be made seductive to particular grades or sections of workers. Any such policy, however plausible, would in our judgement be a disastrous undermining of the solidarity of the whole working class, and a formidable obstacle to any genuine Democratic Control of Industry, as well as to any general progress in personal freedom and in the more equal sharing of the National Product.

FOOTNOTES:

[707] See his Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart, 1871-72; his more generalised survey, Das Arbeitsverhältniss gemäss den heutigen Recht (Leipsic, 1877), translated as The Relation of Labour to the Law of To-day (New York, 1890); and his article on “The Growth of a Trades Union,” in the North British Review, October 1870.

[708] Sec. 24 of the Factory Act of 1891 provides, as regards textile manufactures, that the employer shall supply every worker by the piece with certain particulars as to the quantity of work and rate of remuneration for it.

[709] History of Trade Unionism, by S. and B. Webb, 1st ed., 1894, pp. 476-78.

[710] The most important sources of information are the Annual Reports of the Trades Union Congress, 1874-1919, and other publications of its Parliamentary Committee; those of the Annual Conferences of the Labour Representation Committee, 1901-5, and of the Labour Party, 1906-19, together with the Party’s other publications, especially Labour and the New Social Order, 1918; the reports and contemporary publications of the Socialist Societies, especially the Independent Labour Party from 1893, and the Fabian Society from 1884; Labour Year Book for 1916 and 1919; History of British Socialism, by M. Beer, vol. ii., 1920; History of the British Trades Union Congress, by W. J. Davis, 2 vols., 1910, 1916; Die englische Arbeiterpartei, by G. Guettler, 1914; Aims of Labour, by Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, 1918; History of the Fabian Society, by E. R. Pease, 1916; History of Labour Representation, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912; biographies of Joseph Arch, Henry Broadhurst, Robert Applegarth, Thomas Burt, John Wilson, J. H. Thomas, W. J. Davis, etc.

[711] The movement for “Labour Representation” (which “at that time meant working-men members of Parliament and nothing else,” History of Labour Representation, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912) was first got under way by George Potter’s London Working Men’s Association in 1866, mentioned at the end of Chapter VI. At the second Trades Union Congress, at Birmingham in 1869, a paper had been read on “Direct Labour Representation in Parliament,” but Congress took no action. A separate “Labour Representation League” was then formed under the presidency of R. M. Lathom, a Chancery barrister, to which many leading Trade Unionists belonged, of which Henry Broadhurst was secretary from 1872 to about 1878, and which sought from the Liberal Party opportunities for the return of a few working-class members; but (as formerly in the cases of William Newton’s contest for the Tower Hamlets in 1852 and George Odger’s at Southwark in 1870) in vain. At the General Election of 1874, as we have already described, fourteen workmen went to the poll; but in ten of the constituencies they were fought by both parties, and only in the other four did the Liberals allow them to be fought by Conservatives alone, with the result that two only (out of the latter four) were elected, namely, Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt. At the General Election in 1880, again with Liberal acquiescence, Henry Broadhurst was added to their number; and in 1885 this was raised to eleven (of whom six were miners). All these, whilst pushing measures desired by the Trade Unions, acted habitually with the Liberal Party. In 1886--the Labour Representation League having faded away about 1881--the Congress appointed a “Labour Electoral Committee” to do the same work; but this was never able to free itself from subserviency to the Liberal Party, and it achieved no success, dying away in 1893. Some personal reminiscences are given in “Labour Representation Thirty Years Ago,” by Henry Broadhurst, M.P., in the Fourth Annual Report of General Federation of Trade Unions, 1903; see also History of Labour Representation, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912.

[712] In a “scribbling diary” of 1884 is the following entry:

“Written by Jas. K. Hardie, born August 15, 1856, married August 3, 1879, began work as a message boy in Glasgow when 8 years and 9 months old, wrought for some time also in a printing office in Trongate, in the brass finishing shop of the Anchor Line Shipping Co., also as a rivet heater in Thompson’s heatyard. Left Glasgow in the year 1866 and went into No. 18 pit of the Moss at Newarthill, from thence to Quarter Iron Works, and again to one or two other collieries in neighbourhood of Hamilton. Was elected Secretary to Miners’ Association in 1878, and for the same position in Ayrshire in 1879; resigned April, 1882, when got appointment unsolicited as correspondent to Cumnock News. Brought up an atheist, converted to Christianity in 1878.”

Keir Hardie, whose kindliness and integrity of character endeared him to all who knew him, was from 1887 down to his death in 1915 the apostle of “independency” in the political organisation of Labour. He sat in the Trades Union Congress from 1887 to 1895 as representative of the Ayrshire Miners; and in the House of Commons from 1892 to 1895 (for West Ham), from 1906 to 1915 (for Merthyr). He was Chairman of the “I.L.P.” from 1893 to 1898, and again in 1914. Pending the publication of a biography by W. Stewart, reference may be made to a biographical Sketch entitled From Pit to Parliament, by Frank Smith; a character sketch by F. Pethick Lawrence in the Labour Record for August 1905; the issues of the Labour Leader for September 30 and October 7, 1915; and an article entitled “An Old Diary,” by F. J. in the Socialist Review, January 1919.

[713] Annual Report of Trades Union Congress, 1887.

[714] It is said that the Liberal Party agents attempted, in vain, to bribe him to withdraw; eventually offering as high a price as a safe Liberal seat on the first opportunity, all his election expenses, and £300 a year--if only he would wear the Liberal badge!

[715] See, for instance, the following “Fabian Tracts,” which had a large circulation among Trade Unionists: No. 6 of 1887, “The True Radical Programme”; No. 11 of 1890, “The Workers’ Political Programme”; No. 40 of 1892, “The Fabian Election Manifesto”; No. 49 of 1894, “A Plan of Campaign for Labour” (History of the Fabian Society, by E. R. Pease, 1916).

[716] These included John Burns (Amalgamated Society of Engineers), J. Havelock Wilson (National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union), Joseph Arch (Agricultural Labourers’ Union), W. R. (afterwards Sir William) Cremer (General Union of Carpenters), G. Howell (Operative Bricklayers’ Society), J. Rowlands (an ex-watchcase-maker), and eight coalminers.

[717] By J. O’Grady (Furnishing Trades), afterwards M.P. for Leeds; Annual Report of Trades Union Congress, 1898.

[718] This was adopted in preference to what was considered a more extreme proposal (moved by P. Vogel of the Waiters’ Union, a Socialist), appointing the Trades Union Congress itself the organisation for independent Labour representation in Parliament; requiring every Union to contribute a halfpenny per member per annum, and making the Parliamentary Committee disburse the election expenses and the salaries of the members returned to the House of Commons (Annual Report of Trades Union Congress, 1899).

It was afterwards stated that the leaders of the Trades Union Congress had had in contemplation the subordination of the Labour Representation Committee to the Congress. But with a different constituency the new body had necessarily to be an independent organisation; and in 1904 the General Purposes Committee reported to the Trades Union Congress, which endorsed the report, that any resolution to endorse or amend the constitution of the Labour Representation Committee would not be in order at the Trades Union Congress (ibid., 1904).

[719] D. J. (afterwards Sir David) Shackleton (Lancashire Weavers) was allowed a walk-over at Clitheroe in 1902; and in 1903 W. (afterwards the Rt. Honourable W.) Crooks (Coopers) carried Woolwich after an exciting contest, and Arthur (afterwards the Rt. Honourable Arthur) Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders) won Barnard Castle in a three-cornered fight.

[720] In some Unions outside influence, notably that of the railway companies, went to the expense of printing and distributing hundreds of thousands of forms by which dissentient members could claim exemption from the tiny “political” contribution; and in the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, in particular, thousands of such claims were made. The number has now greatly diminished (1920).

[721] The Daily Citizen was started by a separate limited company, in which the control was permanently secured to representatives of the Trade Unions and the Labour Party, on November 8, 1912. The total capital raised from the Trade Unions from first to last was approximately £200,000. This important journalistic venture, starting under good auspices, met with untoward circumstances. It was crippled by a legal decision that Trade Unions had no power to subscribe to its cost, or even to make investments in its shares (an inference from the Osborne Judgement, which was reversed by the Trade Union Act of 1913, subject to compliance with the conditions as to political expenditure). Before this set-back could be got over, the outbreak of war upset all financial calculations, and made the conduct of a newspaper increasingly onerous. The paper stopped on June 5, 1915, and the company was wound up, all creditors being paid in full, but the shareholders losing practically all that they had ventured. The failure was a serious blow to the Labour Party, which has been badly in want of a daily newspaper--a lack supplied in 1919 by the energetic and adventurous Daily Herald, which, under the direction of Mr. George Lansbury, has drawn to itself an unusual amount of talent, and now needs only whole-hearted support from the Trade Unions.

[722] It was, for instance, only the determined private resistance of the Trade Unionist leaders of the Labour Party that compelled the Government to abandon its project of introducing several hundred thousand Chinese labourers into Great Britain; a project which, if carried out, not only might have been calamitous in its effect upon the Standard of Life of the British workman--not to mention other evil consequences--but would almost certainly have also led to a Labour revolt against the continuance of the war. In this connection may be noted the valuable work done throughout the war, not in the interests of Trade Unionism only, but in those of the wage-earning class, and of the community as a whole, by the War Emergency Workers’ National Committee (J. S. Middleton, Honorary Secretary), a body which included representatives not only of the Parliamentary Committee, Labour Party, and General Federation, but also of the Co-operative Union, the National Union of Teachers, and other organisations. The valuable though often unwelcome assistance which this Committee gave to the Government by insisting on the redress of grievances that officialdom would have ignored, and by its working out of policy and persistence in agitation on such matters as pensions, limitation of prices, food-rationing, rent restriction, and other subjects, on which its publications had marked results, deserve the attention of the historian.

[723] Subsequently Mr. J. R. Clynes (National Union of General Workers) was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food; and on Lord Rhondda’s death he succeeded him as Minister of Food.

[724] See the printed reports of Labour Party Conferences and Trades Union Congresses, 1914-19.

[725] Report of the Inter-Allied Socialist and Labour Conference, February 15, 1915.

[726] Mr. Hodge succeeded to Mr. Barnes as Minister of Pensions, Mr. Roberts to Mr. Hodge as Minister of Labour, and Mr. G. J. Wardle (National Union of Railwaymen) to Mr. Roberts as Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade.

[727] Memorandum on War Aims (Labour Party), February 1918.

[728] It is difficult not to be struck with the greater breadth of vision, the higher idealism, and (as we venture to say) the larger statesmanship of the Labour Party in its projects and proposals for the resettlement of the world after the Great War, compared with those which the statesmen and diplomatists of the capitalist parties of Great Britain, France, Italy, and, as we grieve to say, also the United States, with the acquiescence of deliberately inflamed popular electorates, succeeded in embodying in the Treaty of Peace. Apart from the indefensible redistributions of political sovereignty, not essentially differing in spirit from those of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 (and probably less stable even than these), against which Labour opinion had strongly protested in advance, it is impossible not to regret the failure to incorporate in the Treaty the proposals, for which the Labour Party had secured the support of the organised working-class opinion of the world, for (i.) the universal abandonment of discriminatory fiscal barriers to international trade; (ii.) the administration of Colonial possessions exclusively in the interest of the local inhabitants, and on the basis of equality of opportunity for traders of all nations; (iii.) concerted international control of the exportable surplus of materials and food-stuffs of all the several countries, so as to mitigate, as far as possible, in the general world-shortage which the Labour Party foresaw, the inevitable widespread starvation in the most necessitous areas, whether enemy, allied, or neutral; (iv.) deliberate Government action in each country for the prevention of unemployment, instead of letting it occur and then merely relieving the unemployed. In questions of foreign policy the Labour Party, inspired by its idealism, has shown itself at its best, instead of this department of politics being, as is often ignorantly assumed, altogether beyond its capacity.

[729] The new constitution and enlarged programme which the Labour Party adopted at its Conferences of 1917-18, after six months’ consideration and discussion by the constituent organisations, were little more than a ratification for general adoption of what had become the practice of particular districts. Thus, the more active Local Labour Parties, such as those of Woolwich and Blackburn, had long welcomed the adhesion of supporters who were not manual workers. The successive annual Conferences had passed resolutions which, taken together, amounted to a pretty complete programme of constructive legislation, wholly Collectivist in principle. Hence the deliberate and formal opening of the Party, through the Local Labour Parties, to “workers by brain” as well as “workers by hand”; and the explicit adoption, as a programme, of Labour and the New Social Order were not such innovations as the newspapers made out and as the public generally supposed. But they created a sensation, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in the United States and in the British Dominions; and they led to a considerable accession of membership, largely from the professional and middle classes, which was steadily increased as the unsatisfactory character of the Treaty of Peace, the continued “militarism” of the Government, and the aggression of a “Protectionist” capitalism became manifest.

[730] Messrs. Barnes, Roberts (who became Minister of Food), Parker, and Wardle.

[731] Mr. Henderson was re-elected to Parliament in 1919 at a bye-election, capturing a strong Conservative seat at Widnes (Lancashire).

[732] A “Joint Board”--from which the General Federation of Trade Unions was afterwards excluded--and, later on, joint meetings of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, did something to remove friction.

[733] For the successive experiments in Co-operative Production by Associations of Producers the student is referred to The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb) (1891); Co-operative Production, by Benjamin Jones (1894); and, for a more recent survey, the supplement to The New Statesman of February 14, 1914, entitled “Co-operative Production and Profit Sharing.”

[734] See Towards Social Democracy? by Sidney Webb (1916); and for recent surveys, the supplements to The New Statesman of May 30, 1914, and May 8, 1915, entitled, respectively, “The Co-operative Movement” and “State and Municipal Enterprise.”

[735] For a recent survey of Professional Association in England and Wales--the only general study of it known to us--see the supplements to the New Statesman of September 25 and October 2, 1915 (“English Teachers and their Professional Associations”), and April 21 and 28, 1917 (“Professional Associations”). The student will note the distinction between two types of associations among professional brain-workers, one having essentially Trade Union purposes, the other (which we distinguish as the Scientific Society) concerned only for the increase of knowledge.

[736] We add as an Appendix an extract from the concluding chapter of our Industrial Democracy, published in 1897, in which we dealt with this point.

[737] We do not discuss here all the difficulties inherent in the government of a large and populous community--such, for instance, as that of combining a large measure of local autonomy (which is what many people mean by freedom) with the necessary unity of national policy and central control (without which there would be gross inequality, internecine strife, and chaos). This difficulty has to be faced alike by Industrial Unionists, Gild Socialists, and the advocates of Democracy based on geographical constituencies. Nor have we mentioned the problems, in which the Trade Unions have their own wealth of experience, as to the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents; between representative assemblies and executive committees; and between executive committees and the official staff. These problems and difficulties (on which we have written in our Industrial Democracy) are common to all democratic systems of administration, whether based on constituencies of producers, consumers, or citizens. It seems to us that constituencies of producers present special difficulties of their own, such as (i.) that of defining the boundaries between industries or services, and (ii.) the problem, within an industry or a service, of how to provide for the representation of numerically unequal distinct sections, groups, or grades, each with its own technique. The further we go in Democracy the more complicated it becomes, and the greater the need for knowledge.

[738] This is well put by an American economist. “The Trade Union programme, or rather the Trade Union programmes, for each Trade Union has a programme of its own, is not the unrelated economic demands and methods which it is usually conceived to be, but it is a closely integrated social philosophy and plan of action. In the case of most Union types the programme centres indeed about economic demands and methods, but it rests on the broad foundation of the conception of right, of rights, and of general theory peculiar to the workers; and it fans out to reflect all the economic, ethical, juridical, and social hopes and fears, aims, attitudes, and aspirations of the group. It expresses the workers’ social theory and the rules of the game to which they are committed, not only in industry but in social affairs generally. It is the organised workers’ conceptual world” (Trade Unionism in the United States, by R. F. Hoxie, p. 280).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

ON THE ASSUMED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TRADE UNIONS AND THE GILDS IN DUBLIN

In Dublin the Trade Union descent from the Gilds is embodied in the printed documents of the Unions themselves, and is commonly assumed to be confirmed by their possession of the Gild charters. The Trade Union banners not only, in many cases, bear the same arms as the old Gilds, but often also the date of their incorporation. Thus, the old society of “regular” carpenters (now a branch of the Amalgamated) claims to date from 1490; the “Regular Operative House-painters’ Trade Union” connects itself with the Guild of St. Luke, 1670; and the local unions of bricklayers and plasterers assume the date of the incorporation of the Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company by Charles II. (1670). The box of the Dublin Bricklayers’ Society does, in fact, contain a parchment which purports to be the original charter of the latter Company. How this document, given to the exclusively Protestant incorporation of working masters, which was abolished by Statute in 1840, came into the possession of what has always been a mainly Roman Catholic body of wage-earners, dating certainly from 1830, is not clear. The parchment, which is bereft of its seal and bears on the back, in the handwriting of a lawyer’s clerk, the words “Bricklayers, 28th June, 1843,” was probably thrown aside as worthless after the dissolution of the Company.

A search among contemporary pamphlets brought to light an interesting episode in the history of the Dublin building trades. It appears that, after the dissolution of the Company, Benjamin Pemberton, who had been Master, and who was evidently a man of energy and ability, attempted to form an alliance between the then powerful journeymen bricklayers’ and plasterers’ societies and the master bricklayers and plasterers, in order to resist the common enemy, the “foreign contractor.” This had long been a favourite project of Pemberton’s. Already in 1812 he had urged the rapidly decaying Company to resist the uprising of “builders,” and to admit Roman Catholic craftsmen. But the Company, which then included scarcely a dozen practising master bricklayers or plasterers, took no action. In 1832 Pemberton turned to the men, and vainly proposed to the “Trades Political Union,” a kind of Trades Council, that they should take common action against “the contract system.” At last, in 1846, six years after the abolition of the Company, he seems to have succeeded in forming some kind of alliance. The journeymen bricklayers and plasterers were induced to accept, from himself and his associates, formal certificates of proficiency. Several of these certificates, signed by Pemberton and other employers, are in the possession of the older workmen, but no one could explain to us their use. The alliance probably rested on some promise of preference for employment on the one part, and refusal to work for a contractor on the other. This close connection between a leading member of the Company and the Trade Unionists may perhaps account for the old charter, then become waste paper, finding its way into the Trade Union chest.

Particulars of Pemberton’s action will be found in the pamphlet entitled An Address of the Bricklayers and Plasterers to the Tradesmen of the City of Dublin on the necessity of their co-operating for the attainment of their corporate rights and privileges, by Benjamin Pemberton (Dublin, 1833, 36 pages), preserved in Vol. 1567 of the Haliday Tracts in the Royal Irish Academy. In no other case, either in Dublin or elsewhere, have we found a Trade Union in possession of any Gild documents or relics.

The absolute impossibility of any passage of the Dublin Companies into the local Trade Unions will be apparent when we remember that the bulk of the wage-earning population of the city are, and have always been, Roman Catholics. The Dublin Companies were, to the last, rigidly confined to Episcopalian Protestants. Even after the barriers had been nominally removed by the Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the Companies, then shrunk up into little cliques of middle-class capitalists, with little or no connection with the trades, steadfastly refused to admit any Roman Catholics to membership. A few well-to-do Roman Catholics forced themselves in between 1829 and 1838 by mandamus. But when inquiry was made in 1838 by the Commissioners appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act, only half a dozen Roman Catholics were members, and the Companies were found to be composed, in the main, of capitalists and professional men. There is no evidence that even one wage-earner was in their ranks. Long before this time the Trade Unions of Dublin had obtained an unenviable notoriety. Already, in 1824, the Chief Constable of Dublin testified to the complete organisation of the operatives in illegal associations. In 1838 O’Connell made his celebrated attack upon them in the House of Commons, which led to a Select Committee. In short, whilst the Dublin Companies were, until their abolition by the Act of 1840, in much the same condition as those of London, with the added fact of religious exclusiveness, the Dublin Trade Unions were long before that date at the height of their power.

The adoption by the Dublin Trade Unions of the arms, mottoes, saints, and dates of origin of the old Dublin Gilds is more interesting as a trait of Irish character than as any proof of historic continuity. Thus, in their rules of 1883, the bricklayers content themselves with repeating the original preface common to the Trade Societies which were formed in the beginning of this century, to the effect that “the journeyman bricklayers of the City of Dublin have imposed on themselves the adoption of the following laudable scheme of raising a Fund for friendly society purposes.” A card of membership, dated 1830, bears no reference to the Gild or Company of Bricklayers and Plasterers from whom descent is now claimed. The rules of 1883 are entitled those of the “incorporated” brick or stone layers’ association, and in the edition of 1888 this had developed into the “Ancient Gild of Saint Bartholomew.” Finally, the coat of arms of the old company with the date of its incorporation (“A.D. 1670”) appear on the new banner of the society. Similarly, the old local society of “Regular Carpenters,” which was well known as a Trade Union in 1824, and was engaged in a strike in 1833 (seven years before the abolition of the “Company of Carpenters, Millers, Masons, and Tylers, or Gild of the fraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the house of St. Thomas the Martyr,” established by Henry VIII. in 1532), adopted for the first time, in its rules of 1881, the coat of arms and motto of the Gild, but retained its own title of “The United Brothers of St. Joseph.” The card of membership, printed in 1887, boldly gives the date of establishment as 1458, whilst other printed matter places it at 1490. The Dublin painters now inscribe 1670 on their new banner, but the earliest traditions of their members date only from 1820. In short, the Irish Trade Unionist, with his genuine love for the picturesque, and his reverence for historical association, has steadily “annexed” antiquity, and has embraced every opportunity for transferring the origin of his society a few generations further back.

APPENDIX II

RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE GRAND NATIONAL CONSOLIDATED TRADES UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, INSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MORE EFFECTUALLY ENABLING THE WORKING CLASSES TO SECURE, PROTECT, AND ESTABLISH THE RIGHTS OF INDUSTRY (1834).

(Goldsmiths’ Library, University of London.)

I. Each Trade in this Consolidated Union shall have its Grand Lodge in that town or city most eligible for it; such Grand Lodge to be governed internally by a Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and Grand Secretary, and a Committee of Management.

II. Each Grand Lodge shall have its District Lodges, in any number, to be designated or named after the town or city in which the District Lodge is founded.

III. Each Grand Lodge shall be considered the head of its own particular trade, and to have certain exclusive powers accordingly; but in all other respects the Grand Lodges are to answer the same ends as the District Lodges.

IV. Each District Lodge shall embrace within itself all operatives of the same trade, living in smaller towns or villages adjacent to it; and shall be governed internally by a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and a Committee of Management.

V. Each District Lodge shall have (if necessary) its Branch Lodge or Lodges, numbered in rotation; such Branch Lodges to be under the control of the District Lodge from which they sprung.

VI. An unlimited number of the above described Lodges shall form and constitute the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

VII. Each District shall have its Central Committee, composed of a Deputy, or Deputies, from every District Lodge of the different trades in the district; such Central Committee shall meet once in every week to superintend and watch over the interests of the Consolidated Union in that District, transmitting a report of the same, monthly, to the Executive Council in London, together with any suggestions of improvements they may think proper.

VIII. The General government of the G.N.C.T.U. shall be vested in a Grand Council of Delegates from each of the Central Committees of all the Districts in the C.U., to be holden every six months, at such places as shall be decided upon at the preceding Council; the next Meeting of the Grand Council of the C.U. to be held on the first day of September 1834, and to continue its sitting so long as may be requisite.

IX. During the recess of the Grand Council of Delegates, the Government of the C.U. shall be vested in an Executive Council of Five; which Executive will in future be chosen at the Grand Delegate Council aforesaid.

X. All dispensations or grants for the formation of new Lodges shall come from the Grand Lodge of each particular trade, or from the Executive Council. Applications for dispensations to come through the Central Committee of the District or by memorial, signed by at least 20 Operatives of the place where such new Lodge is proposed to be founded.

XI. The Executive Council shall act as trustees for all Funds provided by the C.U., for the adjustment of strikes, the purchasing or renting of land, establishing provision stores, workshops, etc.; or for any other purposes connected with the general benefit of the whole of the Union.

XII. All sums for the above purposes to be transmitted from the Lodges to the Executive Council through some safe and accredited medium.

XIII. District and Grand Lodges shall have the control of their own funds, subject to the levies imposed upon them by the Executive Council.

XIV. The ordinary weekly subscriptions of members be threepence each member.

XV. No strike or turn out for an advance of wages shall be made by the members of any Lodge in the Consolidated Union without the consent of the Executive Council; but in all cases of a reduction of wages the Central Committee of the District shall have the power of deciding whether a strike shall or shall not take place; and should such Central Committee be necessitated to order a levy in support of such strike brought on by such reduction of wages, such order shall be made on all the Lodges; in the first instance, in the District in which such reduction hath taken place; and on advice being forwarded to the Executive they shall consider the case, and order accordingly.

XVI. No higher sum than 10s. per week each shall be paid to members during a strike or turn out.

XVII. All Lodges shall be divided into local sections of 20 men each, or as near that number as may be.

Miscellaneous and Auxiliary Lodges

XVIII. In all cases where the number of operatives in a particular Trade, in any District, is too limited to allow of such Trade forming a Lodge of itself, the members of such Trade shall be permitted to become Unionists by joining the Lodge of any other Trade in the District. Should there be several Trades in a District thus limited with respect to the number of their Operatives, they shall be allowed to form together a District Miscellaneous Lodge, with permission, in order to extend the sphere of the brotherhood, to hold out the hand of fellowship to all really useful Labourers employed productively.

XIX. And, in order that all acknowledged Friends to the Productive Classes may attach themselves to the C.U., an Auxiliary Lodge may be established in every City or Town in the Kingdom. The members of each Lodge shall conform to all the Rules and Regulations herein contained, and be bound in the same manner, and subject to all the Laws of the G.U.C.T.U.; and shall not, in any manner, or at any time or place, speak or write anything in opposition to these Laws or the interests of the Union aforesaid. The Auxiliary Lodge shall be liable to be dissolved according to Article XXII.

XX. Lodges of Industrious Females shall be instituted in every District where it may be practicable; such Lodges to be considered, in every respect, as part of, and belonging to, the G.N.C.T.U.

Employment of Turn Outs

XXI. In all cases of strikes or turn outs, where it is practicable to employ Members in the making or producing of such commodities or articles as are in demand among their brother Unionists, or any other operatives willing to purchase the same, each Lodge shall provide a work-room or shop in which such commodities and articles may be manufactured on account of that Lodge, which shall make proper arrangements for the supply of the necessary materials; over which arrangements the Central Committee of the District shall have the control, subject to the scrutiny of the Grand Lodge Committee of the Trade on strike.

XXII. The Grand Lodge of each Trade to have the power of dissolving any District Lodge, in that Trade, for any violation of these Laws, any outrage upon the Public Peace, or for gross neglect of Duty. All Branch, Miscellaneous, or Auxiliary Lodges to be subject to the same control.

XXIII. The internal management and general concerns of each Grand or District Lodge are vested in a Committee of Management, composed of at least Seven, and not more than 25 Members, each to be chosen by Ballot, and elected by having not less than three-fourths of the Votes of the Members present, at the time of his election, in his favour. The whole of this Committee to go out of office Quarterly, eligible, however, to re-election. The Grand Master, or President, and the Secretary, or Grand Secretary of a Grand or a District Lodge, to be considered Members of its Committee of Management by virtue of their Offices.

XXIV. Each Grand Lodge, in this C.U., to be considered the centre of information regarding the general affairs of its particular Trade; each District Lodge to communicate with its Grand Lodge at the end of each month, and to give an account to it of the number of people Members in the District Lodge--the gross number of hours of labour performed by them in that district--the state of its funds--and any local or general intelligence that may be considered of interest to the Grand Lodge.

XXV. The Committee of Management in each Lodge shall sit at least on one evening in every week for the despatch of business--and oftener if necessary.

XXVI. Each Grand or District Lodge to hold its meetings on one evening in every month; at which meeting a Report of the Proceedings of the Committee, during the past month, shall be laid before the Members, together with an Abstract of the state of the Funds, an account of the prospects of the Society, and any propositions or By-Laws which the Committee may have to suggest for adoption, and any other information or correspondence of interest to the Members. All nominations of fresh Officers to be made at Lodge meetings, and all complaints of Members to be considered and discussed therein.

XXVII. The Grand Master or Deputy Grand Master, President, or Vice-President, or both, shall preside at all meetings of Grand or District Lodges, to keep order, state and put questions according to the sense and intention of the Members, give effect to the resolutions, and cause them to be put in force; and they shall be addressed by Members, during Lodge hours, by their proper titles.

XXVIII. No subject which does not immediately concern the interests of the Trade shall be discussed at any meetings of Committees or Lodges; and no proposition shall be adopted in either without the consent of at least three-fourths of the members present at its proposal--the question to be decided by ballot if any Member demand it. Not less than five Members of Committee of Management to constitute a Quorum, provided the rest have all been duly summoned; no Grand or District Lodge to be considered open unless at least 30 members be present.

XXIX. Each Grand or District Lodge shall have the power to appoint Sub-Committees to enquire into or manage any affair touching their interests, of which Committees the head officers of the Lodge are always to be considered Members.

Of Secretaries

XXX. The duties of a secretary to a Grand or District Lodge are:--To attend Lodge and Committee meetings and take minutes of the proceedings, entering the same in a book to be kept for that purpose.

To conduct all the correspondence of the Society. To take down the names and addresses of parties desirous of being initiated into the Order; and upon receiving the initiation fee from each, and entering the amount into a book, he will give each party a card, by which they may be admitted into the place appointed for the ceremony.

To receive the subscriptions of members, entering the same into a small account book, numbering the Subscribers from No. 1, and following up the sequence in regulation order, giving to each Subscriber a card, on which his contribution or payment shall be noted.

To enter all additional weekly payments, and all levies, into separate small books; all subscriptions and payments to be afterwards copied into a ledger, ruled expressly for the purpose.

The Secretary to be paid an adequate weekly salary; and to be allowed an Assistant if the amount of business require it.

The Secretary of each Grand or District Lodge shall balance his books once every fortnight, and the Managing Committee shall audit them, going over each item of receipt and expenditure with strict attention, checking the same with scrupulous care; and if found correct, three of the Committee shall verify the same by affixing their signatures to the page on which the balance is struck.

Initiation

XXXI. Any of the Officers or Members of a Lodge may be appointed by the Committee of Management to perform the Initiation Service; and to have charge of the Robes, etc., for that purpose; for which the Committee may allow him a reasonable remuneration.

Any party applying to be initiated must bring forward two witnesses as to character and the identity of his trade or occupation.

Of Branch Lodges

XXXII. Branch Lodge Meetings shall be held on one evening in every week, in the respective localities; at which Lodges any motion, proposed by law, etc., may be discussed and considered by the Members previous to its being finally submitted to the Grand or District Lodge Committee.

XXXIII. The Members of each Branch may elect a President to preside at the Branch Lodge, and a Secretary to collect subscriptions or levies for their Grand or District Lodge; who shall also attend meetings of the Committee of Management for instructions and information, and to submit suggestions, complaints, etc., from his Branch Lodge. No salaries or fees to be allowed to officers of Branch Lodges, unless by the unanimous consent of their Members.

Wardens, Etc.

XXXIV. In addition to the Officers before mentioned in these regulations, there shall be, in each Grand and District Lodge a Warden, an Inside Tyler, an Outside Tyler, and a Conductor, whose principal duties are to attend Initiations, and see that no improper persons be admitted into the meetings. These officers to be elected in the same manner, and at the same periods, as other officers.

Miscellaneous Articles

XXXV. Any Member shall be liable to expulsion from the Lodges for any improper conduct therein; and shall be excluded from the benefits of the Society if his subscriptions be more than six months in arrear, unless the Committee of Management shall see cause to decide otherwise.

XXXVI. The G.U.C.T.U. Gazette to be considered the official organ of the Executive Council, and the general medium of intelligence on the affairs of the Union.

XXXVII. Each Lodge shall, as soon as possible, make arrangements for furnishing the means of instituting Libraries or Reading-Rooms, or any other arrangements, affording them every facility for meeting together for friendly conversation, mutual instruction, and rational amusement or recreation.

XXXVIII. In all cases, where it be practicable, each Lodge shall establish within its locality one or more Depots for provisions and articles in general domestic use, in order that its Members may be supplied with the best of such commodities at little above wholesale prices.

XXXIX. Each District and Grand Lodge shall endeavour to institute a Fund for the support of sick and aged Members, and for defraying the funeral expenses of deceased Members, on a similar principle to that of Benefit Societies; such fund to be kept up by small monthly contributions from those Unionists who are willing to subscribe towards it.

XL. Each Grand or District Lodge to have the power of making its own By-Laws for purposes not comprised in these Regulations; but such By-Laws or Laws must not be in opposition to, or in counteraction of, any of the Articles herein specified.

XLI. No Member can enter Lodge Meetings without giving the proper signs, and producing his card to prove his membership, and that he is not in arrears of subscription for more than one month, unless lenity has been granted by order of Committee.

XLII. That a separate Treasurer be appointed for every £20 of the funds collected; and that such Treasurers shall not suffer any money to be withdrawn from their hands without a written order, signed by at least three of the Managing Committee and presented by the Secretary, or one of the other officers of the Society.

XLIII. All sums under £30 shall be left in the hands of the Secretary for current expenses; but no outlay shall be made by him without an express order from the Managing Committee, signed by at least three of its Members.

XLIV. That every Member of this Union do use his best endeavours, by fair and open argument, and the force of good example, and not by intimidation or violence, to induce his fellows to join the brotherhood, in order that no workmen may remain out of the Union to undersell them in the market of labour; as, while that is done, employers will be enabled to resist the demands of the Unionists, whereas, if no operatives remain out of union, employers will be compelled to keep up the price of Labour.

XLV. That each Member of the C.U. pay a Registration Fee of 3d. to defray the general expenses; which fee is to be transmitted to the Executive once in every month.

XLVI. That although the design of the Union is, in the first instance, to raise the wages of the workmen, or prevent any further reduction therein, and to diminish the hours of labour, the great and ultimate object of it must be to establish the paramount rights of Industry and Humanity, by instituting such measures as shall effectually prevent the ignorant, idle, and useless part of Society from having that undue control over the fruits of our toil, which, through the agency of a vicious money system, they at present possess; and that, consequently, the Unionists should lose no opportunity of mutually encouraging and assisting each other in bringing about +A Different Order of Things+, in which the really useful and intelligent part of society only shall have the direction of its affairs, and in which well-directed industry and virtue shall meet their just distinction and reward, and vicious idleness its merited contempt and destitution.

XLVII. All the Rules and Regulations herein contained be subject to the revision, alteration, or abrogation of the Grand Delegate Council.

APPENDIX III

SLIDING SCALES

The Sliding Scale, an arrangement by which it is agreed in advance that wages shall vary in a definite relation to changes in the market price of the product, appears to have been familiar to the iron trade for a couple of generations. “About fifty years ago Mr. G. B. Thorneycroft, of Wolverhampton, head of a well-known firm of iron-masters, suggested to certain other houses that wages should fluctuate with the price of ‘marked bars’--these words indicating a quality of iron that then enjoyed a high reputation. The suggestion was adopted to this extent, that when a demand was made by the men for an advance in wages, any advance that was given was proportionate to the selling price of ‘marked bars.’ The puddlers received, as a rule, 1s. for each pound of the selling price; but on exceptional occasions, a special temporary advance or ‘premium’ was conceded. The terms of this arrangement do not seem to have been reduced to writing, though they remained in force for many years, and were well known as the Thorneycroft scale.”[739]

At the time of the great strike of Staffordshire puddlers, in 1865, a local understanding of a similar nature appears to have been in existence. The joint committee of iron-masters and puddlers, which was established at Darlington in 1869 as the “North of England Manufactured Iron Board,” soon worked out a formal sliding scale for its own guidance. This scale, as well as that adopted by the Midland Iron Trade Board, has been repeatedly revised, abandoned, and again re-established; but its working has, on the whole, commended itself to the representatives of the ironworkers, and has, so far as the principle is concerned, produced no important dissensions among them. “We believe,” said Mr. Trow, the men’s secretary, to the Labour Commission in 1892, “it would be most satisfactory if this principle were generally adopted.... In all our experience of the past we have had less trouble in the periods in which sliding scales have obtained.” The cause of the exceptional satisfaction of the ironworkers with their Wages Boards and Sliding Scales is obscure, but it may be interesting to the student to note that the members of the Ironworkers Association are largely sub-contractors, themselves employing workmen who are usually outside the Union, and have no direct representation on the Board. For a careful statement of the facts as to these Wage Boards and Sliding Scales in the iron industry, see The Adjustment of Wages (by Sir W. J. Ashley, 1903), pp. 142-151, and specimen rules, reports, and scales, pp. 268-307. At present (1920) separate Sliding Scales of this nature are in force for the Cleveland and the North Lincolnshire Blast-furnacemen; the Scottish Iron and the Consett Millmen; Brown Bayley’s No. 1 Mill; the Scottish Enginemen and Steel Millmen; the Staffordshire Sheet Trade; the Midlands Puddling Mills and Forges; and the South Wales and Monmouthshire Iron and Steel Trade.

Widely different has been the result of the Sliding Scale among the coal miners. Its introduction into this trade dates from 1874, though it was not until 1879 that its adoption became common. Since then it has been abandoned in all districts, and it is energetically repudiated by the Miners’ Federation. The following table includes all the Sliding Scales in the coal industry known to us. Between 1879 and 1886 there were a number of informal Sliding Scales in force for particular collieries, which were mostly superseded by the more general scales, or otherwise came to an end. It is believed that no Sliding Scale is now in force in any coal district.

July 24, 1874 South Staffordshire I. Revised 1877. May 28, 1875 South Wales I. Revised 1880. April 13, 1876 Somerset. Ended 1889. February 6, 1877 Cannock Chase I. Revised 1879. March 14, 1877 Durham I. Revised 1879. November 1, 1877 South Staffordshire II. Revised 1882. April 14, 1879 Cannock Chase II. Revised 1882. October 11, 1879 Durham II. Revised 1887. October 31, 1879 Cumberland I. Ended 1881. November 3, 1879 Ferndale Colliery I. (S. Wales). Revised 1881. November 10, 1879 Bedworth Colliery I. (Warwick). Revised 1880. November 15, 1879 Northumberland I. Revised 1883. December 19, 1879 Ocean Colliery I. (S. Wales). Revised 1882. January 17, 1880 South Wales II. Revised 1882. January 20, 1880 West Yorkshire. Ended ? January 26, 1880 North Wales. Ended 1881. February 14, 1880 Bedworth Colliery II. Ended ? January 1, 1881 Ashton and Oldham I. Revised 1882. December 31, 1881 Ferndale Colliery II. ? January 1, 1882 South Staffordshire III. Ended 1884. April 29, 1882 Durham III. Revised 1884. June 6, 1882 South Wales III. Revised 1889. June 22, 1882 Cannock Chase, &c. III. Ended 1883. July 18, 1882 Ashton & Oldham II. Ended 1883. August 24, 1882 South Wales (Anthracite). Ended ? September 29, 1882 Cumberland II. Revised 1884. March 9, 1883 Northumberland II. Ended 1886. June 12, 1884 Durham IV. Ended 1889. November 28, 1884 Cumberland III. Revised 1886. March 12, 1886 Forest of Dean. Ended 1888 ? April 14, 1886 Altham Colliery (Northd.). Ended ? February 25, 1887 Cumberland IV. Ended 1888 ? May 24, 1887 Northumberland III. Ended 1887. June, 1887 Lanarkshire. Ended 1889. October, 1888 South Staffordshire IV. Ended ? January 18, 1890 South Wales IV. Ended ? September, 1893 Forest of Dean. Ended ?

An exposition of the construction and working of Sliding Scales is contained in Industrial Peace, by L. L. Price. Details of numerous Scales are given in the report made by a Committee to the British Association, entitled Sliding Scales in the Coal Industry, which was prepared by Professor J. E. C. Munro (Manchester, 1885), and in the Particulars of Sliding Scales, Past, Present, and Proposed; printed by the Lancashire Miners’ Federation in 1886 (Openshaw, 1886, 20 pp.). Supplementary information is given in Professor Munro’s papers before the Manchester Statistical Society, entitled, “Sliding Scales in the Iron Industry” (Manchester, 1885), and “Sliding Scales in the Coal and Iron Industries from 1885 to 1889” (Manchester, 1889). The whole question is discussed in The Adjustment of Wages (by Sir William Ashley, 1903), pp. 45-71; and in our own Industrial Democracy, 1897.

The proceedings in the numerous arbitrations in the coal and iron trade in the North of England, as well as several others which are printed, furnish abundant information on the subject of their working. A table of the variations of wages under sliding scales was prepared by Professor J. E. C. Munro for the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, and published as Appendix V. to the First Report, 1890 (C 6195).

FOOTNOTES:

[739] Statement furnished to Professor Munro by Mr. Daniel Jones, of the Midland Iron and Steel Wages Board, quoted in Sliding Scales in the Coal and Iron Industries (p. 141).

APPENDIX IV

THE SUMMONS TO THE FIRST TRADE UNION CONGRESS

No copy of the invitation to the first Trade Union Congress has been preserved, either in the archives of the Congress, the Manchester Trades Council, or any other organisation known to us. Fortunately, it was printed in the Ironworkers’ Journal for May 1868. But of this only one file now exists, and as the summons is of some historical interest we reprint it for convenience of reference.

“Manchester, April 16, 1868.

“Sir--You are requested to lay the following before your Society. The vital interests involved, it is conceived, will justify the officials in convening a special meeting for the consideration thereof.

“The Manchester and Salford Trades Council having recently taken into their serious consideration the present aspect of Trades Unions, and the profound ignorance which prevails in the public mind with reference to their operations and principles, together with the probability of an attempt being made by the Legislature, during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce a measure which might prove detrimental to the interests of such Societies unless some prompt and decisive action be taken by the working classes themselves, beg most respectfully to intimate that it has been decided to hold in Manchester, as the main centre of industry in the provinces, a Congress of the representatives of Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade Societies in general.

“The Congress will assume the character of the Annual Meetings of the Social Science Association, in the transactions of which Society the artisan class is almost excluded; and papers previously carefully prepared by such Societies as elect to do so, will be laid before the Congress on the various subjects which at the present time affect the Trade Societies, each paper to be followed by discussion on the points advanced, with a view of the merits and demerits of each question being thoroughly ventilated through the medium of the public press. It is further decided that the subjects treated upon shall include the following:

“1. Trade Unions an absolute necessity.

“2. Trade Unions and Political Economy.

“3. The effect of Trade Unions on foreign competition.

“4. Regulation of the hours of labour.

“5. Limitation of apprentices.

“6. Technical Education.

“7. Courts of Arbitration and Conciliation.

“8. Co-operation.

“9. The present inequality of the law in regard to conspiracy, intimidation, picketing, coercion, etc.

“10. Factory Acts Extension Bill, 1867: the necessity of compulsory inspection and its application to all places where women and children are employed.

“11. The present Royal Commission on Trades Unions--how far worthy of the confidence of the Trade Union interests.

“12. Legalization of Trade Societies.

“13. The necessity of an Annual Congress of Trade Representatives from the various centres of industry.

“All Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade Societies generally are respectfully solicited to intimate their adhesion to this project on or before the 12th of May next, together with a notification of the subject of the paper that each body will undertake to prepare, and the number of delegates by whom they will be respectively represented; after which date all information as to the place of meeting, etc., will be supplied.

“It is not imperative that all Societies should prepare papers, it being anticipated that the subjects will be taken up by those most capable of expounding the principles sought to be maintained. Several have already adhered to the project, and have signified their intention of taking up the subjects Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7.

“The Congress will be held on Whit-Tuesday, the 2nd of June next, its duration not to exceed five days; and all expenses in connection therewith, which will be very small, and as economical as possible, will be equalized amongst those Societies sending delegates, and will not extend beyond their sittings.

“Communications to be addressed to Mr. W. H. Wood, Typographical Institute, 29 Water Street, Manchester.

“By order of the Manchester & Salford Trades Council.

“S. C. Nicholson, President. “W. H. Wood, Secretary.”

APPENDIX V

DISTRIBUTION OF TRADE UNIONISTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

We endeavoured in 1893-94 to analyse the membership of all the Trade Unions of which we could obtain particulars, in such a way as to show the number and percentage to population in each part of the United Kingdom. The following table gives the local distribution of 1,507,026 Trade Unionists in 1892. The distribution was, in most cases, made by branches, special estimates being prepared for us in a few instances by the officers of the Unions concerned. With regard to a few Unions having about 4000 members no local distribution could be arrived at.

Table showing the distribution of Trade Union membership in 1892 in each part of the United Kingdom, with the percentage to population in each case.

------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ | | | Number of | | Ascertained | Trade County. | Population | Trade | Unionists | in 1891. | Unionists | per 100 of | | in 1892. | population. ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ Bedfordshire | 165,999 | 553 | 0·33 Berkshire | 268,357 | 975 | 0·36 Buckinghamshire | 164,442 | 720 | 0·44 Cambridgeshire | 196,269 | 2,855 | 1·45 Cheshire | 707,978 | 32,000 | 4·52 Cornwall | 318,583 | 630 | 0·20 Cumberland | 266,549 | 10,280 | 3·86 Derbyshire | 432,414 | 29,510 | 6·82 Devonshire | 636,225 | 6,030 | 0·95 Dorsetshire | 188,995 | 305 | 0·16 Durham | 1,024,369 | 114,810 | 1·21 Essex | 396,057 | 3,370 | 0·85 (without West Ham, | | | included in London). | | | Gloucestershire | 548,886 | 26,030 | 4·74 Hampshire | 587,578 | 5,665 | 0·96 (without Isle of Wight, | | | treated separately). | | | Herefordshire | 113,346 | 385 | 0·34 Hertfordshire | 215,179 | 1,125 | 0·52 Huntingdonshire | 50,289 | 20 | 0·04 Isle of Wight | 78,672 | 295 | 0·37 Kent | 737,044 | 12,445 | 1·69 (without Bromley, | | | included in London). | | | Lancashire | 3,957,906 | 331,535 | 8·63 Leicestershire | 379,286 | 27,845 | 7·34 Lincoln | 467,281 | 9,480 | 2·03 London | 5,517,583 | 194,083 | 3·52 (including Bromley, | | | Croydon, Kingston, | | | Richmond, West | | | Ham and Middlesex). | | | Norfolk | 460,362 | 4,880 | 1·06 Northamptonshire | 308,072 | 12,210 | 3·96 Northumberland | 506,030 | 56,815 | 11·23 Nottinghamshire | 505,311 | 31,050 | 6·14 Oxford | 188,220 | 1,815 | 0·96 Rutland | 22,123 | 0 | 0·00 Shropshire | 254,765 | 3,225 | 1·26 Somerset | 510,076 | 6,595 | 1·29 Staffordshire | 1,103,452 | 49,545 | 4·49 Suffolk | 353,758 | 14,885 | 4·21 Surrey | 275,638 | 730 | 0·26 (without Croydon, | | | Kingston, and Richmond, | | | included in London). | | | Sussex | 554,542 | 2,810 | 0·51 Warwickshire | 801,738 | 33,600 | 4·19 Westmoreland | 66,215 | 530 | 0·80 Wiltshire | 255,119 | 3,680 | 1·44 Worcestershire | 422,530 | 7,840 | 1·86 Yorkshire, East Riding | 318,570 | 23,630 | 7·42 Yorkshire, North Riding | 435,897 | 15,215 | 3·49 (with York City). | | | Yorkshire, West Riding | 2,464,415 | 141,140 | 5·73 Total, England | 27,226,120 | 1,221,141 | 4·49 ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ North Wales | 451,090 | 8,820 | 1·96 South Wales and Monmouth | 1,325,315 | 88,810 | 6·70 +-------------+-------------+------------ Total, Wales and Monmouth | 1,776,405 | 97,630 | 5·50 ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ Total, England and Wales | 29,002,525 | 1,318,771 | 4·55 ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------- Scotland | 4,033,103 | 146,925 | 3·64 Ireland | 4,706,162 | 40,045 | 0·85 Isle of Man | 55,598 | 75 | 0·13 Guernsey | 35,339 | 1,170 | 3·31 Jersey | 54,518 | 40 | 0·07 Alderney and Sark | 2,415 | 0 | 0·00 ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ Total, United Kingdom | 37,889,660 | 1,507,026 | 3·98 ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------

APPENDIX VI

THE STATISTICAL PROGRESS OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP

It is unfortunately impossible to present any complete statistics of Trade Union membership at different periods. Until the appointment, in 1886, of John Burnett as Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, no attempt was made to collect any statistics of the movement; and the old Unions seldom possess a complete series of their own archives. The Friendly Society of Ironfounders, it is true, has exact figures since its establishment in 1809. No total figures can be given with any confidence.

The following tables may be useful as placing on record such comparative figures as we have been able to collect:

1. Amalgamated Society of Engineers. 2. Friendly Society of Ironfounders. 3. Steam Engine Makers’ Society. 4. Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland. 5. United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipwrights. 6. Operative Stonemasons’ Friendly Society. 7. Operative Bricklayers’ Society. 8. General Union of Operative Carpenters and Joiners. 9. Typographical Association. 10. London Society of Compositors. 11. Bookbinders’ and Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union. 12. United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers. 13. Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly Society. 14. Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers. 15. Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society. 16. Associated Blacksmiths’ Society. 17. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. 18. Associated Carpenters and Joiners. 19. National Association of Operative Plasterers. 20. Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association. 21. United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland. 22. United Operative Plumbers’ Association. 23. Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association. 24. United Operative Bricklayers’ Trade, Accident, Sick, and Burial Society. 25. Amalgamated Society of Tailors. 26. Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners. 27. Glass Bottle Makers of Yorkshire United Trade Protection Society. 28. Durham Miners’ Association. 29. National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers. 30. United Pattern Makers’ Association. 31. National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. 32. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. 33. Yorkshire Miners’ Association. 34. United Machine Workers’ Association. 35. National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association. 36. Railway Clerks’ Association. 37. Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers. 38. National Union of Dock Labourers. 39. British Steel Smelters. 40. National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants. 41. Amalgamated Union of Co-operative Employees. 42. National Union of Clerks. 43. Workers’ Union. 44. Amalgamated Musicians’ Union. 45. National Amalgamated Union of Labour. 46. Postmen’s Federation. 47. Post Office Engineering Stores.

Table showing the Membership of certain Trade Unions at Successive Periods, from 1850 to 1918 inclusive.

--------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- Number | Year | | | | | | | | | | | | of | of | 1850.| 1855.| 1860.| 1865.| 1870. | 1875. | 1880. | 1885. | 1890. | 1900. | 1910. | 1918. Society.| Estab- | | | | | | | | | | | | |lishment.| | | | | | | | | | | | --------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- 1. |1851[740]| 5,000|12,553|20,935|30,984| 34,711| 44,032| 44,692| 51,689| 67,928| 87,672|110,733| 298,782 2. |1809 | 4,073| 5,685| 7,973|10,604| 8,994| 12,336| 11,580| 12,376| 14,821| 18,357| 17,990| 28,586 3. |1824 | 2,068| 1,662| 2,050| 2,521| 2,819| 3,871| 4,134| 5,062| 5,822| 8,566| 14,401| 27,206 4. |1831 | 814| 1,381| 2,084| 3,046| 2,766| 4,346| 4,664| 5,611| 6,198| 7,504| 7,880| 7,961 5. |1832 | 1,771| 3,500| 4,146| 8,621| 7,261| 16,191| 17,688| 28,212| 32,926| 47,670| 49,393| 95,761 6. |1832 | 4,671| 8,093| 9,125|15,483| 13,965| 24,543| 12,610| 11,285| 12,538| 19,419| 7,055| 4,929 7. |1848 | 340| 924| 1,641| 4,320| 1,441| 4,832| 5,700| 6,412| 12,740| 38,830| 23,284| 34,441 8. |1827 | 535| 1,180| 2,228| 6,986| 8,008| 10,885| 4,420| 1,734| 2,485| 7,727| 5,653| 12,000 9. |1849 | 603| 1,288| 1,473| 1,992| 2,430| 3,600| 5,350| 6,551| 9,016| 16,179| 21,436| 11,602 10. |1848 | 1,800| 2,300| 2,650| 2,800| 3,350| 4,200| 5,100| 6,435| 8,910| 11,287| 12,230| 12,940 11. |1835 | 420| 340| 500| 748| 915| 1,670| 1,501| 1,788| 2,910| 4,064| 5,027| --[741] 12. |1834 | 1,567| 3,040| 4,086| 4,599| 5,801| 7,251| 4,989| 4,560| 5,367| 6,536| 6,854| 15,118 13. |1849 | 500| 897| 1,355| 1,606| 1,776| 2,005| 1,963| 1,985| 2,123| 2,409| 916| 775 14. |1841 | 375| 452| 508| 530| 570| 650| 690| 740| 860| 963| 983| 228 15. |1844 | 200| 110| 330| 449| 280| 390| 258| 277| 304| 433| 703| 746 | +------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- | |24,737|43,405|61,084|95,289| 95,087|140,802|125,339|144,717|184,948|277,616|284,538| 551,075 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16. |1857 | -- | -- | 856 | 1,815| 1,590| 2,113| 2,002| 2,335| 2,300| 2,933| 2,953| 17,238 17. |1860 | -- | -- | 618 | 5,670| 10,178| 14,917| 17,764| 25,781| 31,495| 65,012| 55,785|} 124,841 18. |1861 | -- | -- | -- | 4,453| 3,585| 6,642| 4,673| 4,535| 4,742| 9,808| 3,964|} 19. |1862 | -- | -- | -- | 4,441| 2,461| 3,742| 3,211| 2,110| 4,236| 11,009| 6,522| 4,110 20. |1863 | -- | -- | -- | 4,250| 5,328| 17,561| 10,707| 13,128| 16,961| 23,950| 37,361| 40,000 21. |1866 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,457| 1,821| 1,890| 2,344| 2,162| -- | 5,241| 7,500 22. |1832 | ? | ? | ? | ? | 1,537| 1,679| 2,232| 2,666| 5,350| 11,186| 10,907| 13,000 23. |1865 | -- | -- | -- | ? | 242| 1,965| 1,346| 1,246| 4,298| 5,270| -- | --[742] 24. |1832 | ? | | ? | ? | 3,850| 7,350| 3,282| 1,975| 1,725| 3,428| 1,655| 2,950 25. |1866 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4,006| 14,352| 12,583| 13,969| 16,629| 13,439| 12,143| 29,422 26. |1853 | -- | ? | ? | ? | 10,518| 14,257| 11,834| 16,579| 18,145| 18,384| 22,992| 24,806 27. |1860 | -- | -- | ? | ? | 792| 1,120| 1,061| 1,522| 1,899| 2,840| 2,450| 2,800 28. |1869 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,899| 38,000| 30,000| 35,000| 49,000| 80,260|121,805| 126,250 | | | | | +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- | | | | | |142,530|266,321|227,924|267,907|343,890|546,135|559,316| 944,992 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 29. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 5,271| 4,633| 3,582| 7,958| 8,675| 7,373| 25,000 30. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 418| 824| 1,241| 2,205| 4,604| 7,214| 10,290 31. |1874 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4,311| 6,404| 10,464| 23,459| 27,960| 30,197| 83,017 32. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 13,018| 8,589| 9,052| 26,360| 62,023| 75,153| --[743] 33. |1858 | -- | -- | ? | ? | ? | 8,000| 2,800| 8,000| 50,000| 54,475| 88,271| 100,400 34. |1844 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 276| 279| 455| 2,501| 3,769| 4,843| 23,374 | | | | | | +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- | | | | | | |297,615|251,453|300,701|456,373|707,641|772,367|1,187,073 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 35. |1902 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6,248| 6,685| 47,220 | | | | | | | | | | | (1902)| | 36. |1897 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,550| 9,476| 66,130 37. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 9,214| 17,076| 40,564 38. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 13,388| 14,253| 45,000 39. |1886 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 10,467| 17,491| 40,000(?) | | | | | | | | | | | | | [744] 40. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 7,551| 22,426| 83,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | (1919) 41. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6,733| 29,886| 87,134 42. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 82| 3,166| 35,000 43. |1898 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 2,879| 5,016| 230,000 44. |1893 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3,286| 6,182| 14,649 45. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 21,111| 16,017| 143,931 46. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 23,180| 37,892| 65,078 47. |1896 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 940| 3,500| 14,000 | | | | | | | | | | +-------+-------+--------- | | | | | | | | | | |106,629|189,046| 911,706 | | | | | | | | | | +-------+-------+--------- | | | | | | | | | | |814,270|961,413|2,098,779 --------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------

We have suggested that it is doubtful whether, in 1842, there were as many as 100,000 enrolled and contributing members. A quarter of a century later George Howell and others could talk vaguely of a million members, but we doubt whether this number was reached until the years of good trade that followed 1871. In 1878-80 there was a great falling off, and we doubt whether the aggregate of a million was again reached until 1885. In 1892 we recorded a million and a half. Not until the end of the century were two millions attained--a number doubled by 1915, and in the last four or five years again increased by over fifty per cent.

Table showing the aggregate Trade Union Membership in groups of Industries at the end of each of the years 1892-1917 inclusive.[745]

-----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+--------- | | | Metal, | | | | | | | Mining | Engin- | | | | | Total, Year.|Building.| and | eering, |Textile.|Clothing.|Transport.| Other Trades. | all | | Quarry-| and | | | | | Unions. | | in | Ship- | | | | | | | |building.| | | | | -----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+--------- 1892| 157,971 | 315,272| 279,534| 204,022| 83,299 | 154,947 | 307,313 |1,502,358 1893| 172,870 | 318,112| 266,813| 205,546| 80,768 | 142,084 | 293,224 |1,479,417 1894| 178,721 | 307,276| 263,572| 214,331| 81,786 | 123,896 | 266,718 |1,436,300 1895| 179,283 | 280,065| 269,169| 218,805| 78,560 | 120,475 | 261,479 |1,407,836 1896| 193,341 | 279,977| 303,518| 217,950| 76,997 | 134,877 | 287,805 |1,494,465 1897| 215,603 | 283,054| 319,745| 218,619| 75,852 | 183,994 | 317,131 |1,613,998 | | | | | | | +--------+--------+-------+ | | | | | | | |/Printing,| Wood- | Other\| | | | | | | | Paper, |working.| Trades.| | | | | | | | etc. | | | 1898| 232,040 | 366,731| 312,444| 240,895| 69,954 | 147,957 | 54,436 | ---- | 264,074|1,688,531 1899| 249,988 | 445,706| 335,746| 245,301| 66,777 | 163,685 | 56,727 | ---- | 284,640|1,848,570 1900| 253,412 | 524,150| 342,079| 245,438| 67,183 | 171,599 | 57,228 | ---- | 294,615|1,955,704 1901| 248,967 | 530,953| 338,468| 243,474| 65,660 | 169,199 | 58,274 | ---- | 311,766|1,966,761 1902| 245,141 | 532,082| 337,064| 246,829| 64,094 | 158,714 | 59,062 | ---- | 310,321|1,953,307 1903| 238,141 | 529,028| 337,122| 244,081| 61,713 | 159,051 | 60,138 | ---- | 301,769|1,931,043 1904| 225,149 | 501,764| 334,822| 246,473| 58,598 | 159,788 | 62,428 | ---- | 306,087|1,895,109 1905| 205,179 | 496,828| 340,364| 266,416| 60,394 | 167,017 | 62,368 | ---- | 321,807|1,920,373 1906| 196,492 | 571,336| 361,453| 302,968| 59,806 | 190,155 | 64,451 | ---- | 367,145|2,113,806 1907| 193,190 | 703,344| 376,805| 354,427| 68,810 | 238,813 | 68,221 | ---- | 403,136|2,406,746 1908| 177,718 | 719,384| 365,134| 362,540| 65,637 | 230,642 | 72,970 | 41,797| 353,505|2,388,727 1909| 162,278 | 722,639| 359,838| 366,445| 65,882 | 224,037 | 71,531 | 39,240| 357,177|2,369,067 1910| 156,985 | 731,305| 370,055| 379,644| 67,158 | 245,223 | 74,275 | 38,881| 382,816|2,446,342 1911| 173,182 | 752,419| 415,176| 436,927| 74,423 | 513,538 | 77,252 | 45,474| 530,512|3,018,903 1912| 203,773 | 757,147| 479,471| 478,097| 91,855 | 514,724 | 76,807 | 50,853| 635,107|3,287,884 1913| 248,647 | 915,734| 538,541| 515,684| 105,929 | 699,952 | 84,414 | 64,442| 813,772|3,987,115 1914| 235,828 | 870,198| 557,769| 497,494| 102,538 | 705,501 | 92,283 | 64,296| 796,902|3,918,809 1915| 228,475 | 857,183| 633,502| 507,731| 114,085 | 737,004 | 97,290 | 65,210| 886,313|4,126,793 1916| 229,272 | 877,694| 695,347| 530,411| 121,656 | 803,872 | 97,669 | 69,403|1,012,623|4,437,947 1917| 257,286 | 941,120| 847,202| 627,919| 149,756 | 903,109 | 109,586 | 83,369|1,360,165|5,287,522 -----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+----------+--------+---------+---------

FOOTNOTES:

[740] Established January 10, 1851. The membership given for 1850 is that with which the amalgamation started.

[741] Merged in the National Union of Bookbinders and Machine Rulers, 1911.

[742] In 1902 joined with the Operative Cabinet and Chair Makers of Scotland to form the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association.

[743] Amalgamated in 1913 with the United Pointsmen and Signalmen and the General Railway Workers’ Union to form the National Union of Railwaymen.

[744] In 1917 the members of the British Steel Smelters were merged in the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.

[745] [From Labour Department’s Reports on Trade Unions for 1900, 1905-7 and 1912, Cmd. 773, 4651 and 6109, and Labour Gazette.]

APPENDIX VII

PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO TRADE UNIONS

In the first edition of this book we gave a list, 45 pages long, of books, pamphlets, reports, and other documents bearing on the workmen’s combinations. In Industrial Democracy, 1897, we gave a supplementary list, 23 pages long. We do not reproduce these lists, to which the student can always refer; nor have we attempted to bring them down to date. The really useful material for Trade Union study is to be found in the publications of the Trade Unions themselves--the innumerable editions of rules, the thousands of annual and monthly reports, the voluminous lists of piecework prices, the intricate working agreements, the verbatim reports of conferences, delegate meetings and proceedings before Conciliation and Arbitration Boards--which are ignored by the British Museum, and are practically never preserved in local public libraries. We made an extensive collection in 1891-97, which we have deposited in the British Library of Political Science, attached to the London School of Economics and Political Science, where it has been, to some extent, kept up to date, and where it is accessible to any serious student. Some old pamphlets and reports of interest are in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. Of Trade Union publications since 1913 the most extensive collection is that of the Labour Research Department, attached to the Labour Party, 34 Eccleston Square, London.

APPENDIX VIII

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRADE UNIONISM TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRY

In our work on Industrial Democracy, published in 1897, we formulated the following tentative conclusions with regard to the participation of the workmen’s organisations in industrial management, and the relation of Trade Unionism to political Democracy:

“This survey of the changes required in Trade Union policy leads us straight to a conclusion as to the part which Trade Unionism will be expected to play in the management of the industry of a democratic state. The interminable series of decisions, which together make up industrial administration, fall into three main classes. There is, first, the decision as to what shall be produced--that is to say, the exact commodity or service to be supplied to the consumers. There is, secondly, the judgement as to the manner in which the production shall take place, the adoption of material, the choice of processes, and the selection of human agents. Finally, there is the altogether different question of the conditions under which these human agents shall be employed--the temperature, atmosphere, and sanitary arrangements amid which they shall work, the intensity and duration of their toil, and the wages given as its reward.

“To obtain for the community the maximum satisfaction it is essential that the needs and desires of the consumers should be the main factor in determining the commodities and services to be produced. Whether these needs and desires can best be ascertained and satisfied by the private enterprise of capitalist profit-makers, keenly interested in securing custom, or by the public service of salaried officials, intent on pleasing associations of consumers (as in the British Co-operative Movement), or associations of citizens (the Municipality or the State), is at present the crucial problem of Democracy. But whichever way this issue may be decided, one thing is certain, namely, that the several sections of manual workers, enrolled in their Trade Unions, will have, under private enterprise or Collectivism, no more to do with the determination of what is to be produced than any other citizens or consumers. As manual workers and wage-earners, they bring to the problem no specialised knowledge; and as persons fitted for the performance of particular services, they are even biassed against the inevitable changes in demand which characterise progressive community. This is even more the case with regard to the second department of industrial administration--the adoption of material, the choice of processes, and the selection of human agents. Here, the Trade Unions concerned are specially disqualified, not only by their ignorance of the possible alternatives, but also by their overwhelming bias in favour of a particular material, a particular process, or a particular grade of workers, irrespective of whether these are or are not the best adapted for the gratification of the consumers’ desires. On the other hand, the directors of industry, whether thrown up by the competitive struggle or deliberately appointed by the consumers or citizens, have been specially picked out and trained to discover the best means of satisfying the consumers’ desires. Moreover, the bias of their self-interest coincides with the object of their customers or employers--that is to say, the best and cheapest production. Thus, if we leave out of account the disturbing influence of monopoly in private enterprise, and corruption in public administration, it would at first sight seem as if we might safely leave the organisation of production and distribution under the one system as under the other to the expert knowledge of the directors of industry. But this is subject to one all-important qualification. The permanent bias of the profitmaker, and even of the salaried official of the Co-operative Society, the Municipality, or the Government Department, is to lower the expense of production. So far as immediate results are concerned, it seems equally advantageous whether this reduction of cost is secured by a better choice of materials, processes, or men, or by some lowering of wages or other worsening of the conditions upon which the human agents are employed. But the democratic state is, as we have seen, vitally interested in upholding the highest possible Standard of Life of all its citizens, and especially of the manual workers who form four-fifths of the whole. Hence the bias of the directors of industry in favor of cheapness has, in the interests of the community, to be perpetually controlled and guided by a determination to maintain, and progressively to raise, the conditions of employment.

“This leads us to the third branch of industrial administration--the settlement of the conditions under which the human beings are to be employed. The adoption of one material rather than another, the choice between alternative processes or alternative ways of organising the factory, the selection of particular grades of workers, or even of a particular foreman, may affect, for the worse, the Standard of Life of the operatives concerned. This indirect influence on the conditions of employment passes imperceptibly into the direct determination of the wages, hours, and other terms of the wage contract. On all these matters the consumers, on the one hand, and the directors of industry on the other, are permanently disqualified from acting as arbiters. In our chapter on ‘The Higgling of the Market’ we described how, in the elaborate division of labour which characterises the modern industrial system, thousands of workers co-operate in the bringing to market of a single commodity; and no consumer, even if he desired it, could possibly ascertain or judge of the conditions of employment in all these varied trades. Thus, the consumers of all classes are not only biassed in favour of low prices; they are compelled to accept this apparent or genuine cheapness as the only practicable test of efficiency of production. And though the immediate employer of each section of workpeople knows the hours that they work and the wages that they receive, he is precluded by the stream of competitive pressure, transmitted through the retail shopkeeper and the wholesale trader, from effectively resisting the promptings of his own self-interest towards a constant cheapening of labour. Moreover, though he may be statistically aware of the conditions of employment his lack of personal experience of those conditions deprives him of any real knowledge of their effects. To the brain-working captain of industry, maintaining himself and his family on thousands a year, the manual-working wage-earner seems to belong to another species, having mental faculties and bodily needs altogether different from his own. Men and women of the upper or middle classes are totally unable to realise what state of body and mind, what level of character and conduct, result from a life spent, from childhood to old age, amid the dirt, the smell, the noise, the ugliness, and the vitiated atmosphere of the workshop; under constant subjection to the peremptory, or it may be brutal, orders of the foreman; kept continuously at the laborious manual toil for sixty or seventy hours in every week of the year; and maintained by the food, clothing, house-accommodation, recreation, and family life which are implied by a precarious income of between ten shillings and two pounds a week. If the democratic state is to attain its fullest and finest development, it is essential that the actual needs and desires of the human agents concerned should be the main considerations in determining the conditions of employment. Here then we find the special function of the Trade Union in the administration of industry. The simplest member of the working-class organisation knows at any rate where the shoe pinches. The Trade Union official is specially selected by his fellow-workmen for his capacity to express the grievances from which they suffer, and is trained by his calling in devising remedies for them. But in expressing the desires of their members, and in insisting on the necessary reforms, the Trade Unions act within the constant friction-brake supplied by the need of securing employment. It is always the consumers and the consumers alone, whether they act through profit-making entrepreneurs or through their own salaried officials, who determine how many of each particular grade of workers they care to employ on the conditions demanded.... Thus we find no neat formula for defining the rights and duties of the individual in society. In the democratic state every individual is both master and servant. In the work that he does for the community in return for his subsistence he is, and must remain, a servant, subject to the instructions and directions of those whose desires he is helping to satisfy. As a Citizen-Elector jointly with his fellows, and as a Consumer to the extent of his demand, he is a master, determining, free from any superior, what shall be done. Hence, it is the supreme paradox of democracy that every man is a servant in respect of the matters of which he possesses the most expert proficiency, namely, the professional craft to which he devotes his working hours; and he is a master over that on which he knows no more than anybody else, namely, the general interests of the community as a whole. In this paradox, we suggest, lies at once the justification and the strength of democracy. It is not, as is commonly asserted by the superficial, that Ignorance rules over Knowledge, and Mediocrity over Capacity: In the administration of society Knowledge and Capacity can make no real and durable progress except by acting on and through the minds of the common human material which it is desired to improve. It is only by carrying along with him the ‘average sensual man,’ that even the wisest and most philanthropic reformer, however autocratic his power, can genuinely change the face of things. Moreover, not even the wisest of men can be trusted with that supreme authority which comes from the union of knowledge, capacity, and opportunity with the power of untrammelled and ultimate decision. Democracy is an expedient--perhaps the only practicable expedient--for preventing the concentration in any single individual or in any single class of what inevitably becomes, when so concentrated, a terrible engine of oppression. The autocratic emperor, served by a trained bureaucracy, seems to the Anglo-Saxon a perilously near approach to such a concentration. If democracy meant, as early observers imagined, a similar concentration of Knowledge and Power in the hands of the numerical majority for the time being, it might easily become as injurious a tyranny as any autocracy. An actual study of the spontaneous democracies of Anglo-Saxon workmen, or, as we suggest, of any other democratic institutions, reveals the splitting up of this dangerous authority into two parts. Whether in political or in industrial democracy, though it is the Citizen who, as Elector or Consumer, ultimately gives the order, it is the Professional Expert who advises what the order shall be.

“It is another aspect of this paradox that, in the democratic state, no man minds his own business. In the economic sphere this is a necessary consequence of division of labour; Robinson Crusoe, producing solely for his own consumption, being the last man who minded nothing but his own business. The extreme complication brought about by universal production for exchange in itself implies that every one works with a view to fulfilling the desires of other people. The crowding together of dense populations, and especially the co-operative enterprises which then arise, extend in every direction this spontaneous delegation to professional experts of what the isolated individual once deemed ‘his own business.’ Thus, the citizen in a modern municipality no longer produces his own food or makes his own clothes; no longer protects his own life or property; no longer fetches his own water; no longer makes his own thoroughfares, or cleans or lights them when made; no longer removes his own refuse or even disinfects his own dwelling. He no longer educates his own children, or doctors and nurses his own invalids. Trade Unionism adds to the long list of functions thus delegated to professional experts the settlement of the conditions on which the citizen will agree to co-operate in the national service. In the fully-developed democratic state the Citizen will be always minding other people’s business. In his professional occupation he will, whether as brain-worker or manual labourer, be continually striving to fulfil the desires of those whom he serves; whilst as an Elector, in his parish or his co-operative society, his Trade Union or his political association, he will be perpetually passing judgment on issues in which his personal interest is no greater than that of his fellows.

“If, then, we are asked whether democracy, as shown by an analysis of Trade Unionism, is consistent with Individual Liberty, we are compelled to answer by asking, What is Liberty? If Liberty means every man being his own master, and following his own impulses, then it is clearly inconsistent, not so much with democracy or any other particular form of government, as with the crowding together of population in dense masses, division of labour, and, as we think, civilisation itself. What particular individuals, sections, or classes usually mean by ‘freedom of contract,’ ‘freedom of association,’ or ‘freedom of enterprise’ is freedom of opportunity to use the power that they happen to possess--that is to say, to compel other less powerful people to accept their terms. This sort of personal freedom in a community composed of unequal units is not distinguishable from compulsion. It is, therefore, necessary to define Liberty before talking about it; a definition which every man will frame according to his own view of what is socially desirable. We ourselves understand by the words ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom,’ not any quantum of natural or inalienable rights, but such conditions of existence in the community as do, in practice, result in the utmost possible development of faculty in the individual human being. Now, in this sense democracy is not only consistent with Liberty, but is, as it seems to us, the only way of securing the largest amount of it. It is open to argument whether other forms of government may not achieve a fuller development of the faculties of particular individuals or classes. To an autocrat, untrammelled rule over a whole kingdom may mean an exercise of his individual faculties, and a development of his individual personality, such as no other situation in life would afford. An aristocracy or government by one class in the interests of one class, may conceivably enable that class to develop a perfection in physical grace or intellectual charm attainable by no other system of society. Similarly, it might be argued that, where the ownership of the means of production and the administration of industry are unreservedly left to the capitalist class, this ‘freedom of enterprise’ would result in a development of faculty among the captains of industry which could not otherwise be reached. We dissent from all these propositions, if only on the ground that the fullest development of personal character requires the pressure of discipline as well as the stimulus of opportunity. But however untrammelled power may affect the character of those who possess it, autocracy, aristocracy, and plutocracy have all, from the point of view of the lover of liberty, one fatal defect--they necessarily involve a restriction in the opportunity for development of faculty among the great mass of the population. It is only when the resources of the nation are deliberately organised and dealt with for the benefit, not of particular individuals or classes, but of the entire community; when the administration of industry, as of every other branch of human affairs, becomes the function of specialised experts, working through deliberately adjusted Common Rules; and when the ultimate decision on policy rests in no other hands than those of the citizens themselves, that the maximum aggregate development of individual intellect and individual character in the community as a whole can be attained.

“For our analysis helps us to disentangle from the complex influences on individual development those caused by democracy itself. The universal specialisation and delegation which, as we suggest, democratic institutions involve, necessarily imply a great increase in capacity and efficiency, if only because specialisation in service means expertness, and delegation compels selection. This deepening and narrowing of professional skill may be expected, in the fully-developed democratic state, to be accompanied by a growth in culture of which our present imperfect organisation gives us no adequate idea. So long as life is one long scramble for personal gain--still more, when it is one long struggle against destitution--there is no free time or strength for much development of the sympathetic, intellectual, artistic, or religious faculties. When the conditions of employment are deliberately regulated so as to secure adequate food, education, and leisure to every capable citizen, the great mass of the population will, for the first time, have any real chance of expanding in friendship and family affection, and of satisfying the instinct for knowledge or beauty. It is an even more unique attribute of democracy that it is always taking the mind of the individual off his own narrow interests and immediate concerns, and forcing him to give his thoughts and leisure, not to satisfying his own desires, but to considering the needs and desires of his fellows. As an Elector--still more as a chosen Representative--in his parish, in his professional association, in his co-operative society, or in the wider political institutions of his state, the ‘average sensual man’ is perpetually impelled to appreciate and to decide issues of public policy. The working of democratic institutions means, therefore, one long training in enlightened altruism, one continual weighing, not of the advantage of the particular act to the particular individual, at the particular moment, but of those ‘larger expediencies’ on which all successful conduct of social life depends.

“If now, at the end of this long analysis, we try to formulate our dominant impression, it is a sense of the vastness and complexity of democracy itself. Modern civilised states are driven to this complication by the dense massing of their populations, and the course of industrial development. The very desire to secure mobility in the crowd compels the adoption of one regulation after another, which limit the right of every man to use the air, the water, the land, and even the artificially produced instruments of production, in the way that he may think best. The very discovery of improved industrial methods, by leading to specialisation, makes manual labourer and brainworker alike dependent on the rest of the community for the means of subsistence, and subordinates them, even in their own crafts, to the action of others. In the world of civilisation and progress, no man can be his own master. But the very fact that, in modern society, the individual thus necessarily loses control over his own life, makes him desire to regain collectively what has become individually impossible. Hence the irresistible tendency to popular government, in spite of all its difficulties and dangers. But democracy is still the Great Unknown. Of its full scope and import we can yet catch only glimpses. As one department of social life after another becomes the subject of careful examination we shall gradually attain to a more complete vision. Our own tentative conclusions, derived from the study of one manifestation of the democratic spirit, may, we hope, not only suggest hypotheses for future verification, but also stimulate other students to carry out original investigations into the larger and perhaps more significant types of democratic organisation.”

In 1920, after nearly a quarter of a century of further experience and consideration, we should, in some respects, put this differently. The growth, among all classes, and especially among the manual workers and the technicians, of what we may call corporate self-consciousness and public spirit, and the diffusion of education--coupled with further discoveries in the technique of democratic institutions--would lead us to-day to include, and even to put in the forefront, certain additional suggestions, which we can here only summarise briefly.

There is, in the first place, a genuine need for, and a real social advantage in giving recognition to, the contemporary transformation in the status of the manual working wage-earners, on the one hand, and of the technicians on the other, as compared with that of the manager or mere “captain of industry.” This change of status, which is, perhaps, the most important feature of the industrial history of the past quarter of a century, will be most easily accorded its legitimate recognition in those industries and services in which the profit-making capitalist proprietor is dispensed with in favour of public ownership, whether national, municipal, or co-operative. This is, incidentally, an important reason for what is called “nationalisation.” It is a real social gain that the General Secretary of the Swiss Railwaymen’s Trade Union should sit as one of the five members of the supreme governing board of the Swiss railway administration. We ourselves look for the admission of nominees of the manual workers, as well as of the technicians, upon the executive boards and committees, on terms of complete equality with the other members, in all publicly owned industries and services; not merely, or even mainly, for the sake of the advantages of the counsel and criticism that the newcomers may bring from new standpoints, but principally for the sake of both inspiring and satisfying the increasing sense of corporate self-consciousness and public spirit among all those employed in these enterprises.

In the second place we should lay stress on the change that is taking place in the nature (and in the conception) of authority itself. In our analysis of 1897 we confined ourselves unduly to a separation of spheres of authority. Whilst still regarding that analytic separation of “management” into three classes of judgements or decisions as fundamentally valid, we should nowadays attach even more importance to the ways in which authority itself, in industry as well as in the rest of government, is being rapidly transformed, alike in substance and in methods of expression. The need for final decisions will remain, not merely in emergencies, but also as to policy; and it is of high importance to vest the responsibility for decision, according to the nature of the case, in the right hands. But we suggest that a great deed of the old autocracy in industry and services, once deemed to be indispensable, is ceasing to be necessary to efficiency, and will accordingly, as Democracy becomes more genuinely accepted, gradually be dispensed with. A steadily increasing sphere will, except in matters of emergency, be found for consultation among all grades and sections concerned, out of which will emerge judgements and decisions arrived at, very largely, by common consent. This will, we believe, produce actually a higher standard of industrial efficiency than mere autocracy could ever hope for. Where knowledge is a common possession the facts themselves will often decide; and though decisions may be short, sharp, and necessarily formulated by the appropriate person, they will not inevitably bear the impress of (or be resented as) the dictates of irresponsible autocracy. We may instance two large classes of considerations which will, we think, with great social advantage, come to be matters for mutual consultation in those committees and councils which already characterise the administration of all industry on a large scale, whether under private or public ownership, and which will, in the future, be increasingly representative of all grades of workers by hand or by brain. To such committees and councils there will come, as a matter of course, a stream of reports from the disinterested outside costing experts, which will carry with them no coercive authority, but which will graphically reveal the efficiency results, so far as regards cost and output, of each part of the enterprise, in comparison both with its own past, and with the corresponding results of other analogous enterprises. Similarly, there will come a stream of financial and merely statistical reports from equally disinterested outside auditors and statisticians, making graphic revelations as to the progress of the enterprise, in comparison with its own previous experience and with the progress of like enterprises elsewhere. Further, there will be a stream of what we may call scientific reports, also from disinterested outside experts, not only describing new inventions and discoveries in the technique of the particular enterprise, but suggesting, in the light of recent surveys of the work, how they could be practically applied to its peculiar circumstances. These three classes of reports, all of them by disinterested experts, engaged in keeping under review all analogous enterprises at home or abroad, and having neither interest in, nor authority over, any of them, will, we suggest, be discussed by the members of the committees and councils on terms of equality; the decisions being taken, according to the nature of the case, by those in whom the responsibility for decision may be vested.

But there will be a second extensive class of reports of a different character, conveying not statements of fact but views of policy. There will, we must assume, be reports from those responsible, not merely or mainly for satisfying the existing generation of consumers, producers, or citizens, but for safeguarding the interests of the community as a whole, in the future as well as in the present. There will be the reports from the organs of the consumers or users of the particular commodity or service (such as the District Committees representing telephone users set up by the Postmaster-General as organs of, criticism and suggestion for his telephone administration). Finally there will be reports conveying criticisms and suggestions from committees or councils representing other enterprises, or other sections of producers (whether technicians or manual workers), which may have something to communicate that they deem important. These reports will, none of them, come with coercive authority, but merely as conveying information, to be considered in the consultations out of which the necessary decisions will emerge.

Opinions may differ as to the competence to take part in such consultations of the selected representatives of the manual workers and the technicians respectively. We are ourselves of opinion that, taking the business as a whole, such representatives will be found to compare, in competence, quite favourably with the average member of a Board of Directors. But whether or not the counsels and decisions of great industrial enterprises are likely to be much improved by such consultations--and we confidently expect that they will be--we suggest that it is predominantly in this form that the principles of Democracy may, in practice, be applied to industrial administration; and that it will be for the Professional Associations of the technicians and the Trade Unions of the manual workers to prove themselves equal to the transformation in their status that this or any other application of Democracy involves.

But here we must pause. In a future work on the achievements, policy, and immediate controversies of the British Labour and Socialist Movement we shall give the historical and the psychological analysis, in the light of the experience of the past few decades, upon which we base our present conclusions.

INDEX

Aberdare, 514

Aberdare, Lord, 276-7, 285

Aberdeen, cotton-weavers of, 82; tailors of, 79

Abnormal place, 513-16

Abraham, William, 596

Acetylene Welders, 495

Acland, Sir A. H. Dyke, 308

Actions for damages, 597-634

Actors’ Association, 507

Actuarial position of T.U., 267-8

Adamson, W., 699

Admiralty Constructive Engineers, 507

Agricultural Labourers, 136, 144-6, 328-34, 405, 416, 439-40, 488-9, 624, 648

Agriculture, Royal Commission on, 648

Albert Hall, 666, 669

Alison, Sir Archibald, 170, 173

“All Grades Movement,” 525-6

Allan, Wm., 210-14, 232, 234 (life), 233-40, 243, 248, 350, 362, 419.

Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association. See Cabinet Makers

Almshouses, provided by the Liverpool Shipwrights, 39

Althorpe, Lord, 132

Amalgamated Association of Boot and Shoe Makers, 436

Amalgamated Association of Miners, 306, 349, 511

Amalgamated Engineering Union, 488, 551

Amalgamated Metal Wire and Tube Makers’ Society, 359

Amalgamated Society of. See Carpenters, Engineers, Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Boot and Shoemakers, Builders’ Labourers, Card and Blowing Room Operatives, Metal Planers, Railway Servants, Tailors, Watermen and Lightermen

Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers, 744

Amalgamations and Federations, 546-554

American Federation of Labour, 135, 556

Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers (Cotton and Calico), 70, 75

Amicable Society of Woolstaplers, 83

Anderson, W. C., 699

Anti-corn Law League, 174, 176

Applegarth, Robert, 232, 233-40, 236-7 (life), 248, 350, 362, 391, 419, 680

Appleton, W. A., 556

Apprentices, 27, 29, 38, 45, 47, 83, 267

Apprentices, Statute of, 47, 59, 66, 250-51

Arbitration, 29, 71, 226-7, 337, 643

Arch, Joseph, 329, 334, 680, 682

Armstrong, Lord, 315

Arnot, R. Page, 489, 511, 524, 532, 633, 662

Ashley, Sir W. J., 4, 5, 13, 15, 29, 511, 735-7

Ashton, murder of, 122

Ashton, Thomas, 311, 356

Ashton-under-Lyne, strikes at, 119, 122

Ashworth, 169

Asquith, H. H., 528-9, 636, 645, 692

Assinder, G. F., 599

Associated. See Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Engineers, Iron-forgers, Railwaymen, and Shipwrights

Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, 439, 505, 527, 530, 535, 539, 545. See also Railwaymen

Associations of Consumers, 706-18

Associations of Producers, 653-63, 704-18, 752-62

Atchison’s Haven, 10

Austin, Michael, 596

Ayrshire Miners, 681

Bachelor Companies, 4, 5, 6, 7

Baernreither, Dr., 220, 300

Baker, C., 634

Bakers, 369, 438, 559

Bamford, Samuel, 96, 164

Bank Officers’ Guild, 505

Barker, Ernest, 414

Barnes, Geo. N., 490, 692-3, 695, 698

Barnsley, first working-man Town Councillor elected in, 305

Basketmakers, 14, 45, 438, 552

Bass, Michael, 523

Bass-dressers, 336

Beale, C. G., 530

Beamers, 477

Beehive, the, 36, 254-5, 298

Beer, M., 131, 157, 162, 175, 414, 680

Beesly, Professor E. S., 222, 231-2, 236, 238, 246, 250, 263-4, 269, 275, 288, 293, 298, 312, 341, 362, 415, 510. See Positivists

Belfast, 123, 136, 523

Belfast and Dublin Locomotive Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Trade Union, 523

Bell, Sir Hugh, xiv

Bell Inn, Old Bailey, 205, 243, 245

Bell, Richard, 526-7, 601, 684

Bell, Robert, 58

Benbow, William, 163-4

Bennett, T. R., 246

Bentham, Jeremy, 96, 178

Bernstein, Eduard, 652

Besant, Mrs. Annie, 396, 399, 402

Bevan, G. Phillips, 347

Bibliography, 751

Birmingham, building trades of, 129; “Builders’ Parliament” at, 130; tailors of, 32; Trade Unionism in, 358-9; Trades Council of, 280, 329-30, 399; trades procession at, 177

Birtwistle, Thomas, 309

Bit and Spur Makers, 92

Blackburn, 307, 697; riots at, 344

Blackburn List, the, 226

“Black-coated proletariat,” 503-9

Blacklisting, 284, 598

Blacksmiths, Associated Society of. Scotland. See Smiths

Blastfurnacemen. See Ironworkers

Bleachers, 478, 480

Block Printers, Glasgow, 552

Blok, P. J., 24

Boa, Andrew, 290

“Board of Green Cloth” at Dublin, 104

Boilermakers, 174, 205, 230, 247, 259, 261-2, 314, 321-2, 348, 353, 365, 378, 428-31, 490-91, 559, 744

Bolton, calico-printers at, 79; cotton operatives of, 81, 92, 307; engineers of, 207-8

Bondfield, Miss Margaret, 496

Bookbinders, 23, 77, 79, 91, 176, 188, 196-7, 201, 244-5, 437-8, 744

Boot and Shoe Operatives, 57, 68, 77, 79-80, 143, 150, 192, 228, 236, 336, 407, 436-7, 493-4, 744. See also Shoemakers

Booth, Charles, 375, 380-81

Bowerman, C. W., 362

“Box Club,” 36-7

Boy labour, 202

Brace, W., 692

Bradford, woollen strike of 1825, 111

Bradlaugh, Charles, 289, 370-71

Bradninch, woolcombers in, 34

Brainworkers, inclusion of, 697; organisations of, 503-9

Bramwell, Lord, 279, 363

Branch meeting, description of, 446-8

Brassey, Lord, 269

Brassfounders. See Brassworkers

Brassworkers, 323, 353, 358-9, 430-31, 486-8, 744

Braziers, 80, 91

Breeches Makers’ Benefit Society, 24

Brentano, Dr. Luigi, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 39, 47, 52, 209, 212, 339, 677

Brett, Lord Justice, 285

Bricklayers, 125, 169, 223, 226-32, 241, 245, 275, 282, 354, 365, 407, 428-9, 431-3, 559, 744

Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company, Dublin, 721-4

Brickmakers, 241, 267-9; Hebrew in Egypt, 2

Brief Institution, 40, 67

Bright, John, 35-6, 178, 247, 293, 382

Brighton Trades Council, 558

Bristol, 14, 33, 35, 53, 133, 243, 252, 350

British and Foreign Consolidated Association of Industry, Humanity, and Knowledge, 167

British Association of Steel Smelters. See Steel Smelters

Broadhead, W., 268-9

Broadhurst, Henry, 240, 285, 289, 295, 311-12, 325, 353, 362-3, 365, 370, 372, 395, 401, 408, 635, 680

Brontë, Charlotte, 89

Brooklands Agreement, 476

Brooks, J. G., 655

Brougham, Lord, 156, 178

Brushmakers, 14, 45, 75, 84, 91, 438

Buchez, 225

Builders’ Labourers, 125, 483

“Builders’ Parliament” of 1833, 130; of 1918-19, 483, 649

Building Trades, early combinations, 8-11; lock-out in 1833, 150; in 1860, 228-32; in 1912, 690; nine hours movement in, 312-17; statistics of, 407, 428-9, 431-3, 481-3

Bull & Co., 343

Bullinger, 4

Burdett, Sir Francis, 69, 109

Burgess, Joseph, 412

Burnett, John, 19, 36, 211, 314-15 (life), 316, 325, 347, 368, 423, 530

Burns, John, 298, 375, 383, 385 (life), 387-8, 396, 400, 402-3, 407-13, 419, 490, 636, 682

Burrows, Herbert, 402

Burt, Thomas, 181, 289-90, 296, 307, 340, 342, 362, 510-11, 625, 635, 680

Burton, hatters of, 53

Bussy, J. F. Moir, 524

Buxton, Lord, 404

Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, 264

Byron, Lord, 89

Cab-fare regulations, 9

Cabinetmakers, 76-8, 83-4, 136, 243, 248, 290, 389, 432-3, 481, 744-5

Cabmen, 369

“Ca’ Canny,” 487

Cairns, Earl, 275

Calender-men, Glasgow, 110

Calhoun, J. C., 167

Calico Engravers of Manchester, 80

Calico-printers, 45, 56-7, 70, 75, 79, 90, 121, 193, 436

Callender, W. R., 272

Cambridge, tailors of, 68

Campbell, Alexander, 30, 240, 243, 249-53

Campbell, G. L., 366

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 635

Candidatures, independent, 287-9

Canning, 60

Capitalist, elimination of, 673-6

Card and Blowing Room Operatives, Amalgamated Association of, 435, 475-80. See also Cotton Operatives and Textiles

Carlisle, cotton-weavers of, 82

Carmarthenshire, coal-miners of, 44

Carmen, 439-40

Carpenters, 18, 75, 110, 125, 169, 192, 202, 224, 228-32, 245, 254, 259, 265-7, 313, 319, 323-4, 343, 346, 354-5, 391, 415, 432-3, 481, 744; Company of London, 18; of Dublin, 721-4

Carpet-weavers, 112, 224, 435-6

Cartwright, 36

Census of Trade Unionists, 741-750

Central Institute, 593

Chalmers, G., 62

Chamberlain, Joseph, 370, 373

Champertors, 67

Champion, H. H., 387, 400

Chandler, F., 354

Channel Isles, etc., T.U. in, 743

Chapel, 27, 74, 489

Character Note, 29, 284

Chartism, 164, 174-8, 649, 653

Checkweigher, 302, 304-6, 466, 489

Chester, hatters of, 53

Chimney-sweeps, 136

Chinese Labour, 691

Chippers and Drillers, 548

Chipping Norton case, 332

Christian Socialists, the, 215, 225, 246, 263-4, 707. See also Hughes, Ludlow and Neale

Churchill, Winston, 494, 501

Cigarmakers, T.U. among, 438

“Citizen Guard,” 544

City of Glasgow Bank failure, 345

Civil Service, 507-8; Arbitration Tribunal, 508-9

Clark, W. S., 601, 607, 634

Clayden, A. W., 329

Clerical Workers’ Union of Ireland, 473

Clerks, 440, 473, 504-5, 744

Clode, 3, 6

Clothiers, 33-6, 40, 67-8, 151

Clothiers’ Community, the, 40

Clothing Trades, statistics of, 428-429, 436-7

Clothworkers’ Company, 5, 33-4

Clyde, depression on, 346; engineers on, 690; ferment on, 656, 659; shipyard workers of, 256; shorter day on, 316; strike on, in 1877, 343; “Weekly Pays” on the, 552

Clyde Workers’ Committee, 488, 640, 659

Clynes, J. R., 497, 692

Coachmakers, 46, 80, 230, 423, 438, 744

Coal Industry Commission, 511, 518-22, 648, 662-3

Coal-miners. See Miners

Coal-porters, 18, 439, 500-501

Cobbett, Wm., 94, 96, 132, 154-5; the younger, 253

Cobden, Richard, 178, 383

Cohen, H., 599, 601

Cokemen, 434, 512, 549

Cole, G. D. H., 485, 524, 532, 553, 633, 637, 660

Cole, Percy, 491

Colliery Clerks, 513, 549; Enginemen, 434, 512, 549; Mechanics, 434

Combe, Delafield & Co., 150

Combination Acts, 64, 251

“Committee Liquor,” 203

Common employment, 364-6

Common Rules, 758

Composite Branches, 483

Compositors, 27, 57-8, 77-8, 169, 176, 181, 196, 198-9, 201, 205, 361, 389, 398-9, 415, 437-8, 492-3, 606, 666, 671, 744, See also Typographical

Conditions of Employment, 754

Confédération Générale de Travail, 655

Conference of Amalgamated Trades, 263-83

Confiscation of funds proposed, 140

Congress, Trades Union, origin of, 280-81; description of, 561-6; summons to, 738-740

Congreve, Richard, 269

Connolly, T., 248, 273; James, 472-3, 655-7

Conscription, 639-40, 666-7

Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, London. See Bookbinders

Conspiracy, law of, 67, 367, 598; to injure, 598

Constitution of Labour Party, 697; of Trade Unions, 716

Consumers, organisation of, 762

Contagious Diseases Acts, 237

Contracting Out, 366

Cook, A. G., 399

Co-operative Employees, 504, 559, 744; Movement, 225, 647, 675, 752-62; production, 168, 194, 225-6, 335-6, 650-51, 659, 707-8; Society of Smiths. See Smiths; Union, the, 545, 691; Wholesale Society, 541; workshops, 194

Coopers, 74-5, 104, 230, 350, 423, 438, 548, 685

Co-partnership, 653

Copper-miners, absence of T.U. among, 434

Cordwainers. See Boot and Shoe Operatives

Corn Production Act, 475, 498

Costing experts, 761

Cotton-spinners, 7, 41, 56, 81, 92, 116-24, 127, 151-2, 170-71, 176, 181, 191, 226, 259, 307-13, 415-16, 423, 435, 475-80, 744

Cotton-weavers, 56-9, 81-2, 86, 109, 307-13, 344, 435, 475-80

Coulson, Edward, 233-40, 248, 252, 255, 282, 362

Coventry, 95

Cowen, Joseph, 316

Cox, Harold, 391, 393

Craft Gilds, 4-21; labourers excluded from, 43

Cranmer, Archbishop, 4

Crawford, William, 296, 303-4, 391

Crayford, calico-printers of, 193

Cremer, Sir W. R., 248, 289, 682

Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, 282-3, 290-91, 364

Crompton, Henry, 265, 278, 282, 284, 286, 298, 338, 362, 374. See Positivists

Cromwell, combinations reported to, 3

Crooks, W., 685

Cross, Viscount, 291, 312, 618, 624

Cruikshank, James, 20

Cubitt’s, Messrs., strike at, 150

Cunningham, Dr. William, 9, 15, 16, 49, 52, 55, 62, 308

Curriers, 37, 45, 46, 59, 90, 92, 181, 236

Customs officers, 507

Cutlers, 73, 80, 92, 108, 241

Cutlers’ Company, 39

Daily Citizen, 689

Daily Herald, 502, 542, 689

Dale, David, 328, 339

Danter, 255, 318

Dartmouth, 34

Davenport, W., 30

Davis, J. E., 251

Davis, R. J., 503

Davis, W. J., 281, 324, 356, 358-9 (life), 368, 391, 395, 401, 554, 601, 680

Davitt, Michael, 473

Defoe, Daniel, 35

Delahaye, Victor, 385

De Leon, Daniel, 656

Demarcation disputes, 247, 353

Democracy, nature of, 704-18; analysis of, 752-62

Deportation of Clyde workers, 640

Deputies, 513, 549

Derby, hatters of, 53; potters of, 133; “turn-outs” of, 137-8

Devon, clothiers of, 33-5, 68

Devonport, Lord, 501-2

Dilke, Sir Charles, 238, 494, 617

Dilution, 637-43.

Direct action, 663-73, 712

Directory of Trade Unions, 244-5

District Committee, 221-2, 449; Councils, 547

District Delegate, 322, 462-3

Dock Foremen and Clerks, London Society of, 440

Dockers, 401-5, 416, 420, 439, 497-502, 744

Document, the, 130, 150-51, 164, 193, 215-16, 244, 255

Doherty, John, 107, 117-18, 122, 124

Dolléans, E., 175

Dorchester labourers, 138, 144-8

Dowlais iron workers, 224

Drake, Barbara, 637

Dronfield, William, 240, 252, 257-8

Druitt, 278-9

Drummond, C. J., 398

Drummond, Henry, 277

Drury, John, 184, 186

Dublin, 14, 37, 53, 76, 104, 172, 243, 551, 721-4

Dugdale, 6

Duncombe, Thomas Slingsby, 185-7, 193-5, 277

Dundee, 136

Dunning, T. J., 23, 188, 228, 240, 243, 245, 252, 321

Dunsford, Martin, 34

Durham, coal-miners of, 44, 181-2, 186, 304, 342, 349, 386, 391-2, 511-12, 517

Dyer, Colonel, xiv

Dyers, 100, 243, 436, 478, 480, 552

Eastern Counties Labour Federation, 405. See also Agricultural Labourers

Edinburgh, compositors of, 58; trade clubs of, 177; Trades Council of, 242, 252; Upholsterers’ Sewers’ Union at, 336

Educational Institute of Scotland, 473

Eight Hours Bill, textile agitation for, in 1867-75, 309; general, 387, 390-92, 408, 648

Eight hours day, 402-3; demanded in 1834, 151; on the railways, 535

Elcho, Lord. See Wemyss, Earl of

Eldon, Lord, 105

Election expenses, 368

Electioneering by Trade Unions, 274-5

Electrical Trades Union, 488, 551

Elizabeth, Act of, 47-9

Ellenborough, Lord, 59-60, 144

Ellicott, Dr., Bishop of Gloucester, 332

Ellis, Sir T. Ratcliffe, 530

Ely, Bishop of, 3

Emblem, 450

Emigration, 201-2, 328

Employer and Workman Act, 291, 625

Employers’ Associations, service of, 479; as combinations, 73

Employers’ liability, 364-6, 370, 373

Employers of Labour, National Federation of Associated, 326-7

Employment Exchanges, 646

Engels, Friedrich, 186

Engineering and Shipbuilding Federation, 552-3

Engineers, 174, 176, 178, 196-7, 201, 204-24, 230, 232-4, 245, 255, 259, 261, 313-17, 346, 348, 353, 355, 384-5, 408, 415-16, 420-21, 551, 555, 559, 636, 643, 692, 744; statistics of, 407, 428-31, 484-490; strike of 1836, 206; strike of 1852, 214-16; strike of 1897, 484-5

Enginemen, 440

Equalisation of funds, 220

Erle, Sir William, 195, 264, 279

Evans, D., 511

Evans, Frederick, 523

Eversley, Lord, 228

Excess Profits Duty, 641

Excise officers, 507-8

Exeter, 34-5, 136

Fabian Research Department. See Labour Research Department

Fabian Society, 375, 399, 414, 561, 642, 662, 680-82, 684

Factory Acts, 679

Factory Acts Reform Association, 310-13

Factory inspectors, 371-2

Fagniez, 3, 7, 8

Fairbairn, Sir W., 84, 205

Fair Trade League, 394-5

“Fair Wages” agitation, 398-9, 558

Farr, Dr. William, 228

Farriers, 46

Farringdon, prosecution of labourers at, 332

Farwell, Lord Justice, 627

Faulkner, H. V., 175

Fawcett Association, 508

Fawcett, Henry, 228, 238, 312

Federal Council of Secondary School Associations, 506

Federation of British Industries, 545

Federation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, 355, 421, 552-3

Federation of Organised Trade Societies, 356

Felkin, W., 38, 52, 169

Feltmakers’ Company, 28, 30, 52-3

Female Umbrella Makers, 337

Fenwick, Charles, 362

Fernehough, Thomas, 260

Ferrand, M.P., 186

Fielden, J., 132, 151, 158

Fielding, Sir John, 54

Figgis, J. N., 611

Filesmiths of Sheffield, 80

Findlay, Sir George, 525

Finlaison, 268

Flannel-weavers of Rochdale, 127

Flax Roughers, 473; workers, 133, 435-6

Flint Glass Makers, 181, 183-4, 197, 199-202, 228, 230, 379-80, 423, 744

Forbes, Archibald, 329

Foreign policy of Labour Party, 695-6

Foremen, 440, 506

Forest of Dean Miners’ Association, 434. See also Miners

Forster, W. E., 228

Foster, Thomas, 118-20; (another) 648

Foxwell, Professor H. S., 58, 155, 157, 162, 308

Framework-knitters, 14, 38-9, 51, 51-2, 62, 75, 88-9, 94, 121

Franchise, 368, 372, 624, 672

Franklin, Benjamin, 27

Free Colliers of Scotland, 20

Freemasons, 19

French Polishers, 432-3

Friendly Benefits, 222, 445, 620-21

Friendly Societies, 19, 24; Act for, 261

Friendly Society of Oddfellows, 19

Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons. See Stonemasons

Friendly Union of Mechanics, 208

Friendly United Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland, 207. See also Smiths

Friziers, 91

Frost, Williams, and Jones, Newport Chartists, 177

Froude, J. A., 48

Furnishing Trades, 481

Fynes, Richard, 90, 124, 181, 186

Gaevernitz, von Schulze, 339, 414

Galloway, 61, 205

Galton, F. W., 23, 97, 150

Gammage, R. G., 175

Garibaldi, 247

Garment Workers. See Tailors

Garton Foundation, 648

Gascoyne, Colonel, 71

Gas-stokers, London (1872), 284-5; strike of (1834), 138, (1888) 395. See Gas-workers

Gast, John, 84-5, 107, 111, 115

Gas-workers, 402, 406, 420, 439, 497, 499

Gateshead Trades Council, 561

Geddes, Sir Auckland, 536-7

Geddes, Sir Eric, 536-8

Geldart, W. M., 609, 634

General Federation of Trade Unions 554-7, 603-4, 700

General Labourers’ National Council, 499

General Railway Workers’ Union, 405-6, 524, 530. See also Railwaymen

General staff, need for, 546

General Union of Carpenters. See Carpenters

General Union of Sheet Metal Workers. See Sheet Metal Workers

General Union of Textile Workers, 480

General Workers, 497-502

George, D. Lloyd, 509, 518, 522, 527, 537-9, 541, 543-4, 645, 692, 694-5

George, Henry, 375-6, 389

Gierke, O., 611-12

Giffen, Sir Robert, 424

Gig-mill, 48

Gild of St. George, Coventry, 6

Girdlestone, Canon, 329

Gladstone, W. E., 248, 262, 284-6, 302, 365

Glasgow, calico-printers of, 75; cotton operatives of, 56, 58-9, 89, 170-71; gilds of, 14; labourers’ society in, 417; stonemasons of, 347; Trades Council of, 240, 242-3, 252-3, 258, 280; violent Trade Unionism of, 165

Glass-bottle Makers, 259, 423, 441, 744

Glass-workers. See Flint Glass Makers and Glass-bottle Makers

Glaziers of London, 66

Gloucestershire, clothiers of, 33-5; weavers of, 50; woollen-workers of, 33-4, 50

Glovers, 43, 437

Goderich, Lord. See Ripon, Marquis of

Gold, Silver, and Kindred Trades Society, 551

Goldasti, 20

Goldbeaters, 37, 91

Gompers, Samuel, 556

Gorgon, the, 99

Government of Industry, 752-62

Government officials, 507-8

Graham, Sir James, 60, 185

Graham, R. B. Cunninghame, 386, 682

Grain-porters, 501

Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, 125, 417; rules of, 725-733

Grey, Sir George, 185

Grinders, 80, 260

Gross, Dr., 15

Grote, George, 178

Guild Socialism, 548, 660-1

Guilds. See Craft Gilds

Guile, Daniel, 233-40, 238 (life of), 252, 291, 362

Gurney, J, and W. B., 89

Gurney, Russell, 275

Haddleton, 197

Halévy, Élie, 648

Halifax, woollen-workers of, 35

Hall, Rev. Robert, 94

Halliday, Sir Leonard, 4

Halliday, Thomas, 289

Hallsworth, Joseph, 503

Halsbury, Lord, 610, 614

Hamilton, A. H. A., 33

Hammond, J. L. and B., 70-71, 82, 86, 89, 100, 105, 112, 115, 144

Hanley Trades Council, 558

Hansom, 130

Hardie, J. Keir, 396, 681-4, 688

Harford, E., 390

Harrel, Sir David, 530

Harrison, Frederic, 246, 262, 263, 265, 267, 270-71, 273-4, 275, 279, 284, 286, 295-7, 298, 362, 374, 610. See also Positivists

Harvey, George, 511

Hasbach, Dr. W., 329, 405

Hatters, 28, 30, 45, 52-3, 68, 90, 437. See also Feltmakers’ Company

Headlam, Rev. S. D., 399

Heath, F. G., 329

Henderson, Arthur, 490, 529-30, 666, 669, 680, 685, 692, 694-5, 699

Henson, Gravener, 38, 77, 81, 89, 94, 100, 105

Hepburn, Tommy, 124

Herald of the Rights of Industry, The, 158

Herbert, Hon. Auberon, 329

Hewins, W. A. S., 49

Hexham, hatters of, 53

Hibbert and Platt, 214

Hill, Frank, 14, 228

Hill, Frederic, 257, 272

Hilles, Richard, 4

Hobhouse, Benjamin, 69, 70

Hobhouse, John Cam, 122

Hobson, S. G., 660

Hodge, John, 491, 692, 695

Hodges, Frank, 517, 673-5, 715

Hodgskin, T., 162

Holders-up. See Boilermakers.

Holland, John, 124

Holland, Lord, 70

Holyoake, G. J., 302

Holy town, miners of, 193

Hornby v. Close, 262

Hosiery-workers, 435-6. See also Framework-knitters

Hour, payment by the, 245-6

House of Call, 69, 77, 445

Hovell, Mark, vi, 158, 164, 170, 175

Howell, George, 12-13, 17, 27, 30, 40-41, 65, 71, 100, 105, 139, 144, 170, 173, 188, 195, 228, 240, 245, 248, 255, 275, 281, 285-6, 289, 291-2, 295, 298, 325, 329-30, 352, 361, 370, 372, 391, 395, 416, 599, 601, 616-17, 623, 665, 682, 748

Howick, Lord, 146

Hoxie, R. F., 717

Hozier, J. H. C., 393.

Huddersfield, 125

Hughes, Judge Thomas, Q.C., 216, 228, 244, 246, 265, 270, 274-5, 282, 290, 263-4, 341. See also Christian Socialists

Hughson, David, 32, 34

Hull, ropemakers of, 91; Trade Unionism at, 136

Hume, James Deacon, 158

Hume, Joseph, M.P., 72, 81, 99-168, 142, 186, 251, 277, 415

Humphrey, A. W., 237, 275, 289, 604, 680

Humphries, E., 195

Hunt, D. R. C., 599

Hunt, Henry, 96, 164

Hunter, Thomas, 170

Huskisson, W., M.P., 60, 105-6

Hutchinson, Alexander, 153, 207-8

Hutton, R. H., 228, 246

Hutton, W., 177

Huysmans, Camille, 666, 669, 670

Hyde, spinners’ strike at, 117

Hyett, W. H., 111

Hyndman, H. M., 376-7, 387, 400, 409-11

“Illegal men,” 59

Incorporation of Trade Unions, 596

Independent Labour Party, 384, 652, 680-84, 692

Independent Order of Engineers and Machinists. See Engineers

Index numbers, 339

Industrial Conscription, 639-40

Industrial Courts Act, 1919, 643

Industrial Remuneration Conference, 380

Industrial Unionism, 656-9

Industrial Unions, 548-50

Industrial Workers of the World, 655

Industries, difficulty of delimiting, 714

Ingram, Dr. J. K., 26

Initiation Parts, 149

Injunctions, 599, 600, 688

Inspectors, 504-5

Insurance Agents, 440, 507

Inter-Allied Conferences, 693-6

Interlocutor, 581

International Association of Working-men, 235-6, 248, 297, 316, 379, 396-7, 421, 666, 693-6

International Federations of Trade Unions, 555-6

Intimidation, 597

Ireland, laws in, 68-9; Trade Unionism in, 472-3

Irish Bank Officials’ Association, 505

Irish Clerical Workers’ Union, 505

Irish Labour Party, 473

Irish Railway Workers’ Trade Union, 524

Irish Teachers’ Society, 473

Irish Textile Workers’ Federation, 473

Irish Trades Union Congress, 473

Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, 492, 552, 749

Iron and Steelworkers, Associated Society of. See Ironworkers

Iron Forgers, Associated Fraternity of, or Old Smiths, 205

Ironfounders, 78, 121, 174, 176, 198-9, 200-203, 205, 213, 226, 233, 245, 261, 319-20, 348-9, 353, 391, 415, 429-30, 488, 685, 692, 744

Irongrinders, 744

Ironmoulders. See Ironfounders

Iron shipbuilders. See Boiler makers

Iron Trade--Midland Wages Board, 734-5; North of England Wages Board, 734-5

Ironworkers, 240, 259, 273, 324, 339, 349, 430-31, 491-2, 734-5; of Dowlais, 224; of Staffordshire, 256; sliding scales of, 734-5

Jackson and Graham, 290

Jackson, Col. Raynsford, 344

James, 37

James of Hereford, Lord, 206, 493, 610, 615-16, 618, 626

Jeffrey, Lord, 72

Jevons, H. Stanley (the younger), 186, 511, 516

Jewish Unions, 478

Joiners. See Carpenters

Joint Board, 700

Joint Committees. See Arbitration, Whitley Councils

Jones, Benjamin, 225, 708

Jones, Daniel, 734

Jones, Lloyd, 243, 298, 329, 340-41 (life), 510

Jones, W. C., 341

Journalists, 493, 507

Journeyman Fraternities, 4-9

Journeymen Steam Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights Friendly Society, 204-20. See also Engineers

Jude, Martin, 182, 299

Junta, the, 233-98

Jupp, 18

Jury service, 367-8, 372

Justices of the Peace, 372, 594

Kane, John, 240 (life of), 273, 286, 289, 299, 324, 339

Karslake, Sir John, 275

Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir James, 228

Keeling, F., 500

Keelmen, 44

Kenney, Rowland, 524, 527

Kettel, F. E., 329

Kettle, Sir Rupert, 338-9

Kidderminster, 112; carpet-weavers of, 224

Kitchen-range, etc., Fitters’ Union, 323

Knight, Charles, 141, 178

Knight, Robert, 322, 324, 351, 355, 378, 421, 554

Knights of Labour, 135

Laboratory workers, 506

Labour and the New Social Order, 679, 697

Labour Commission, 595-6, 602, 650, 735

Labour Department, 596

Labour Elector, The, 387

Labour Electoral Committee, 680

Labour League, London and Counties, 417, 439

Labour members, characteristics of, 701-2

Labour Party, 604

Labour Representation League, 287-9, 680

Labour Research Department, 225, 542, 561, 751

Labour Standard, The, 298

Labour Time, 162-3

Labourers, no early organisation among, 43; statistics of, 428-9, 438-40; increase of, 497-502

Lacemakers, 435-6, 441, 559

Ladies’ Shoemakers’ Society, 238

Laisser-faire, 56

Lanarkshire, cotton-weavers of, 58, 170

Lancashire Federation of Protection Societies, 478

Lancashire Miners, 182, 433, 511

Land Nationalisation, 389, 390, 395

Langford, 32

Lansbury, George, 689

Larkin, James, 472-3

Lathom, R. M., 680

Laundresses, T.U., 336

Law, Bonar, 668

Law reforms, 367-8

Lawrence, F. Pethick, 681

Lawrence, Miss Susan, 494, 496

Laws, Mr., 287

Layton, W. T., 527

Lead miners, absence of T.U. among, 434

Leathergrounders, 92

Leatherworkers, 437, 552

Lee, H. W., 501

Leech, H. J., 293

Leeds, 35; clothing trade of, 35, 40, 127; Clothiers’ Union, 133, 147

Leeds, Huddersfield, and Bradford District Union, 147

Legal assaults, 597-634

Legal Minimum Wage, under Trade Boards Act, 494-5; under Corn Production Act, 498; under Mines Act, 514-16

Leicester, 94, 125, 137; hosiery workers of, 335; Trades Council, 558; woolcombers of, 36

Levi, Leone, 424

Levine, Louis, 655

Lewis, Sir G. C., 247

Liberty, analysis of, 757

Lichfield, Earl of, 254

Life Assurance Agents. See Insurance Agents

Linen Weavers, 436

Link, The, 402

Liquor, 448; allowance, 203-4

Litchfield, R. B., 246

Liverpool, building trades of, 128-130; dockers of, 405; hatters of, 53; ropemakers of, 91; shipwrights of, 551; Trades Council, 242-3, 252, 354-5

Liverpool, Lord, 105

Liverpool Sailmakers’ Friendly Association of Shipwrights, See Shipwrights

Liverpool, Trades Guardian Association of, 243

Lloyd, C. M., 160

Local Government elections, 305, 399, 413; employees, 508; successes, 703-4

Local versus Central Administration, 714

Lock-out, the, 255-6; of agricultural labourers, 332, 334

London and Counties Labour League, 417, 439

London Carpenters’ Company, 18; city companies of, 14; coal-porters of, 18; early combinations in the City of, 2, 3; framework knitters of, 14, 38, 51-2; joiners’ company of, 18; shipwrights’ company of, 18; Trades Council, 231, 236, 238, 285, 333, 558-60; woodsawyers of, 18

London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, 188, 196

London Society of Compositors, 181, 399, 415, 437-8, 492

London Working Men’s Association, 298, 680

Londonderry, Lord, 90, 166, 186

Longe, F. D., 228

Looms, renting of, forbidden, 48

Loveless, George, John, and James, 144-6, 148

Lovett, Samuel, 96

Lovett, William, 84, 114, 145, 156, 157, 172, 174

Lowe, Robert. See Sherbrooke, Lord, 285

Lucraft, Benjamin, 235, 289

Luddites, the, 87-9

Ludlow, J. M., 14, 26, 216, 228, 246, 264, 341. See Christian Socialists

Lushington, Sir Godfrey, 228, 246, 264

Lushington, Vernon, 264

Macarthur, Miss Mary, 494, 496

Macclesfield, hatters of, 30

McConnel and Co., 308

McCulloch, J. R., 23, 99, 197

Macdonald, Alexander, 240, 249, 252, 277, 286, 289, 290, 299, 300 (life of), 301-7, 338, 342, 362, 393, 510, 680

MacDonald, J. Ramsay, 23, 337, 529, 666, 669, 684-5, 688, 699

McGowan, Patrick, 118, 120

Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society, 744-7

Machine Printers, 744. See also Compositors

Machine Workers. See Engineers

Machinery, export of, 100, 103

M’Hugh, Edward, 582

MacManus, A., 619

Madox, T., 612

Maitland, F. W., 611-12

Maitland, General, 88

Man, The, 134

Management, analysis of, 752

Manchester--Association of T.U. Officials, Manchester and District, 324; brickmakers of, 268; building trades of, 130-31, (strike of 1846) 193; carpenters of, 343; cotton-spinners of, 81; lengthening of hours at, 348; painters of, 275; Trades Council, 243, 280, 558-60, 738-40

Mandamus, 600

Manley, Thomas, 22

Mann, Tom, 383-4 (life), 396, 402, 406-7, 409, 412-14, 419, 490, 595-6, 651-2, 657-8

Manners, Lord John, 186

Manning, Cardinal, 332, 404

Marcroft family, the, 152

Marine Engineers’ Union. See Engineers

Marlborough, Duke of, 332

Marshall, James, 170

Martineau, Harriet, 141

Marx, Karl, 162, 235, 297, 367, 376, 389

Masons. See Stonemasons

Master and Servant, law in 1844, 185-6; Act of 1867, 249-53

Match girls, London strike of, 402

Maudsley, 61

Maurice, Rev. F. D., 228

Mavor, James, 524

Mawdsley, James, 379, 479, 596

Mawdsley, Thomas, 311

Maxwell, William, 598

May, John, 33

Mayhew, 11

Mechanics’ Friendly Union Institution, 208

Mechanics’ Magazine, the, 197

Medico-Political Union, 506-7

Melbourne, Lord, 138-48

Memorandum on War Aims, 695

Memorial of Freedom and Peace, 593

Menger, Anton, 155, 157, 162

Mercantile Marine Offices, Superintendents of, 507

Merchant Shipping Acts, 607

Merchant Taylors’ Company, 3, 6

Mersey Quay and Railway Carters’ Union. See Carmen

Merton College buildings, 10, 11

Mess, H. A., 500

Middleton, J. S., 691

Midland Iron Trade Board, 734

Miles, Wm., 185

Military Service Acts, 639-40

Mill, James, 96, 157

Mill, John Stuart, 287, 617

Millers, 59, 438; of Kent, 59-60

Millmen. See Ironworkers

Millwrights, 45, 69, 83-4, 92, 204-6

Miners, 415, 510-22, 624, 690; Amalgamated Association of, 289; Co-operative Production and, 335; Association of, G. B. and I., 181, 182, 186, 299, 517-18; Eight Hours Act, 686; Federation, 393-4, 408, 433-4, 510-22, 538, 549-50, 553, 555, 648, 661, 662-3, 665, 668, 673-5, 685, 715; Minimum Wage Act, 687; of Ayrshire, 681; of Carmarthenshire, 44; of Durham, 44, 124, 166, 182-3, 296, 304, 335, 338, 342, 349, 386, 391, 392, 434, 511-12, 517, 744; of Holytown, 193; of Lancashire, 111-12, 123, 143, 182-183, 188, 392-3, 433, 511; of Lothian, 434; of Midlands, 349, 393, 511; of Monmouthshire, 89; of Northumberland, 124, 127, 182, 296, 335, 338, 340, 342, 347, 349, 386, 391-2, 433, 511-12; of Nottingham, 258; of Scotland, 192, 393, 434, 511; of Somerset, 44; of Staffordshire, 124, 511; of South Wales, 89, 343, 349, 434, 511, 640, 690; of Yorkshire, 124, 182, 228, 230, 256, 301-2, 304-5, 335, 338, 349, 370, 392-3, 433, 510-11, 522, 744; reorganisation of, in 1858, 300-7; statistics of, 407, 428-9, 433-4; strike of 1810, 90. See also Iron-miners, Lead-miners, Copper-miners.

Miners’ Attorney-General, the, 183

Miners’ Next Step, the, 657

Minimum to Sliding Scale, 340-42

Minimum Wage Commission, 648

Mining Association of Great Britain, 553

Ministry of Reconstruction, 647-8

Mogul Case, 598

Molestation, 597

Moncrieff, Lord, 343

Moore, Peter, 251

Morley, Samuel, 310, 332

Morris, William, 377

Morrison, James, 131

Mottershead, 289

Mulineaux, Thomas, 30

Mundella, A. J., 264-5, 274-5, 282, 288, 290, 310, 338-9, 362

Municipal Employees’ Association, 508

Munitions, Levy, 641; Ministry of, 637-43; Munitions of War Acts, 637, 643; Tribunals, 639, 643, 646

Munro, Prof. J. E. Crawford, 308, 734-7

Murphy, J. T., 490, 659

Musical Instrument Makers, 92

Musicians, 744

Mutual Association of Coopers. See Coopers

Mutuality, 487

Nash, Vaughan, 404

National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, 551, 744. See also Furnishing, French Polishers, Cabinetmakers, Upholsterers

National Amalgamated Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union. See Sailors.

National Association for the Protection of Labour, 120-24

National Association of Miners, 299-300

National Association of Operative Plasterers. See Plasterers

National Association of United Trades for the Protection of Labour, 186-95

National Association of United Trades, 277

National Companies, 160

National Cordwainers’ Society, 192

National Council of Colliery Workers, 550

National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, 482-3; of Colliery Enginemen, 550; of Colliery Mechanics, 550; of Deputies, 550; of General Workers, 499-500; of Mine Managers, 550; of Professional Workers, 506-7; of Women Workers, 495

National Guilds, 660-61

National Industrial Conference, 648

National Insurance Act, 475, 495, 498, 503, 555, 636, 689

National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers. See Brassworkers

National Transport Workers’ Federation, 500-502, 538, 543

National Typographical Association, 181, 191

National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. See Boot and Shoe Operatives

National Union of Clerks, 505; of Dock Labourers. See Dockers; of General Workers, 692. See also Gas-workers; of Miners, 300-307, 511-12; of Railway Clerks, 524; of Railwaymen, 530-46. See also Railwaymen; of Teachers, 440, 473, 506; of the Working Classes, 156

National United Trades’ Association for the Employment of Labour, 192

Nationalisation, 651; of the coal supply, 517-22; of Mines Bill, 662-3; of railways, 534.

Navvies, 439. See also Labourers

Neale, E. Vansittart, 216, 341. See Christian Socialists

Neale, Professor, 264

New Age, the, 660

New Sarum, Cordwainers at, 57

“New Unionism,” the, of 1833-34, 153-67; of 1845-52, 195-204; of 1889-90, 414-21

Newcastle, potters of, 133; ropemakers of, 91; Trades Council, 252

Newcastle-on-Tyne--engineers’ strike at, 315-16; gilds of, 14; shoemakers at, 24

Newton, George, 258

Newton, William, 206-24, 234, 243, 680

Newton-le-Willows, trial of engineers of, 209-10

Nine Hours’ Bill, 311-12, 625

Nine Hours’ Day, 245, 391, 397; attack on, 347, 355; in building trades, 228-32; movement in engineering and building, 313-17

Nixon, J., 340

Non-Unionists, 441, 443; refusal to work with, 295-6

Normal Day, the, 246

Normansell, John, 305

North of England Manufactured Iron Board, 734-5

Northern Counties’ Amalgamated Association of Weavers, 423, 478

Northern Star, The, 166, 174-7, 181-2, 186, 216

Northumberland Miners, 181-2, 304, 340, 342, 347, 349, 386, 391-2, 511-12, 625, 744

Notes and Queries, 34

Nottingham, 52; framework knitters of, 52; Hosiery Board, 338; stockingers of, 62; Trades Council, 252, 558

O’Brien, J. Bronterre, 178

Obstruction, 597

O’Connell, Daniel, 148, 171, 173

O’Connor, Fergus, M.P., 174-5, 177-8, 182, 188. See Northern Star

Odger, George, 233-98, 238 (life), 243, 245, 247-8, 361-2, 680

O’Grady, J., 683

Oldham, cotton operatives of, 307; strike of, in 1834, 151-2; cotton spinners of, 41, 559; strike of, in 1871, 310; engineers of, 214

“One Big Union,” 114

Onslow, Serjeant, 61-2

Operative Society of Bricklayers. See Bricklayers

Operative, The, 213

Orage, A. R., 660

Osborne Judgement, 608-34, 686

Osborne, W. V., 608-9, 628

Ouseburn Engine works, 335

Outrages, Glasgow, 165, 170-71; Manchester, 268; Sheffield, 259-260, 268

Overlap. See Demarcation

Overlookers, 477

Overmen, 434, 513, 549

Over-steaming, 679

Overtime, 317; in Government Departments, 390-91; prevalence of, 348

Owen, Robert, 130, 132, 134-5, 154-64, 167-8, 177, 251, 341, 409-10, 418-19

Owenism, 653, 707

Oxford, Cordwainers at, 5

Pacifists, the, 691-6

Packing-case Makers, 432

Painters, 125, 275, 432-3, 481, 548; of Dublin, 721-4; of Liverpool, 128; of London, 66

Paisley, operatives at, 23; weavers of, 23

Papermakers, 68, 77, 90, 92, 438, 493

Paris, Comte de, 272

Parker, James, 692, 698

Parliamentary Committee of Trades Union Congress, 361, 554-6, 700; cotton officials demur to alliance with, 310; origin of, 281, 283

Parnell, Sir Henry, 172-3

Particulars Clause, 679

Patent laws, 368-9

Paterson, Mrs., 336-7 (life)

Patrimony in apprenticeship, 83

Patternmakers, 205, 353, 430, 488, 551; society formed, 322; statistics of, 745, 749

Payment by Results, 643; in engineering, 485-7

Payment of members, 368, 374, 631

Peasant proprietorship, 368, 389-390, 395

Pease, E. R., 414, 680

Peel, Sir Robert (the elder), 57, 60; (the younger), 139

Pemberton, Benjamin, 721-2

Pension Committee, 594, 646

Penty, A. J., 660

Percy, M., 511

Perthshire, 136

“Philanthropic Hercules,” 114

Pianoforte Makers, 230

Picketing, 278, 598, 607; legalisation of, 291

Picton, Sir J. A., 40

Piecers, 435; associations of, 7

Piecework Lists in cotton industry, 307-9

Pilots, 440

Pinmakers, Corporation of, 42

Pioneer, or Trades Union Magazine, The, 131

Pipemakers, 91

Pit Committee, 521

Pitt, William, 69, 71

Place, Francis, 32, 61, 73, 84-5, 89, 94, 96-110, 114, 117, 156, 159, 175, 251, 415, 416

Plasterers, 125, 354, 432-3, 744; of Dublin, 172, 721-4

Platers’ Helpers, 353-4, 360

Plimsoll, S., 354, 370

Ploughmen’s Union, Perthshire, 136

Plumbers, 125, 169, 316, 348, 429, 432-3, 481, 744

Podmore, Frank, 130, 160

Police Union, 509

Political expenditure, 632

Pollock, Sir F., 597

Poor Man’s Advocate, The, 117, 120

Poor Man’s Guardian, The, 114, 134, 136, 142-3, 155

Porters, 442

Positivists, 246, 262-4. See Beesly, Crompton, and Harrison

Post Office annuities, 248, 296-7; employees, 507-8, 539; Savings Bank, 262

Post Office workers, 440, 744; union of, 508, 661

Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, 507-8, 662

Postmen’s Federation, 507-8

Potter, Edmund, 274

Potter, George, 231

Potter, George, 248, 252, 254-5, 272-3, 289, 298, 361, 680

Potters, 133, 147, 168-9, 181, 185, 192, 201, 438, 552; and co-operative production, 336; of Staffordshire, 123; of Wolverhampton, 143; Union, 181, 197

Potters’ Examiner, The, 197, 202

Precious metals, workers in, 431, 551

Premium Bonus System, 643

Pressmen, 27; prosecution of, 78; See Compositors

Preston, carpenters of, 75; cotton-spinners’ strike of 1836, 169; gilds of, 14

Price, Rev. H., 112

Price, L. L., 338, 736

Printers. See Compositors, Pressmen, and Typographical

Printing Trades, statistics of, 428, 437-8, 744-9

Prior, J. D., 240, 324, 362-3, 372

Prison Officers’ Federation, 507

Production for use, 709

Professional Association, 711-12

Profiteering Act, 675

Profit-sharing, 403

Publicity, use of, 222-3

Puddlers. See Ironworkers

Pugh, Arthur, 491

Purcell, A., 560

Quarrymen, 433-4

Quittance Paper, 208.

Radstock Miners’ Association. See Miners, Somersetshire

Rae, Sir William, 95

Railway Clerks’ Association, 504-5, 523, 534, 539, 545, 661, 744

Railway Telegraph Clerks’ Association, 523

Railway Working Men’s Benefit Society, 523

Railwaymen, 365, 390, 407, 439, 442, 504-5, 522-46, 550, 559, 600-634, 661, 666, 684, 687, 690, 744; statistics of, 407, 744-9

Railway Women’s Guild, 497

Ramsey, conference at, 117

Rattening, 260

Raynes, Francis, 89

Razor-grinders, 184, 343

Reade, Charles, 257

“Red Van” Campaign, 405

Reform Act of 1832, 155-6, 177; of 1867, 248; of 1918, 698

Registrar of Friendly Societies, Chief, 261, 423, 619

Renals, E., 339

Rennie, 84

Representative actions, 602

Restoration of Trade Union conditions, 642-3

Restraint of trade, 67, 262, 617

Revolution in Thought, 649-76

Rhondda, 514

Ribbon-weavers, Coventry, 95

Ricardo, David, 178

Richmond the spy, 89

Rick-burning, 144

Riley’s Memorials, 3, 6

Ripon, Marquis of, 215, 244

Rites of admission, 127

Roberts, G. H., 666, 692, 698

Roberts, W. P., 182-5, 210, 510

Rochdale, flannel-weavers of, 127; Pioneers, 177, 225

Roebuck, J. A., 148

Rogers, J. E. Thorold, 10, 49, 56

Rollit, Sir Albert, 501

Roman Catholic Unions, 478

Ropemakers, 91, 438

Rose, George, 61, 70

Rosebery, Lord, 374

Rosenblatt, F. F., 175

Rosslyn, Lord, 108

Rotherhithe Watermen, 11

Rowlands, J., 682

Rowlinson, John, 208

Ruegg, A. H., 599

Rules, Trade Union, 651

Rutland, Duke of, 332

Ryan, W. P., 473

Saddlers, 92; of London, 3

Sadler, Michael, 123

Sailmakers, 46, 120, 430

Sailors, 405-6, 438, 440, 500-501, 607, 665; on North-East Coast, 104, 106, 108

St. Leonards, Lord, 230

Salisbury, bootmakers of, 57

Samuel, Herbert, 508

Sankey, Mr. Justice, 518-22, 668

Saturday half-holiday, 229; Oldham Spinners’ strike for, 310

Saw-grinders, 260

Sawyers, 433

Scale Beam-makers, 92

Scalemakers, 92

Schoenlank, Dr. Bruno, 25

Scissorsmiths, 39, 80

Scott, W., 124

Scottish Farm Servants’ Union, 498-9

Scottish National Operative Tailors’ Society. See Tailors

Scottish Society of Railway Servants, 524-5

Scottish Typographical Association, 181, 423, 437, 482. See also Compositors

Scottish United Operative Masons, 196

Seagoing Engineers’ Union. See Engineers

Seaham, 166

Secondary School Teachers, 506

Secular Education, 628

Self-governing Workshops, 225

Selley, Ernest, 329, 405

Selsby, 209-10, 234

Senior, Nassau, 103, 139-41, 173

Serfdom of miners, 89

Sewing-machine, introduction of, 228

Shackleton, Sir D., 685

Shaen, Roscoe & Co., 275

Shaftesbury, Lord, 293, 434

Shale Oil-Workers, 434

Shaw, Lord, 626

Shearmen of Dundee, 136; of Wiltshire, 144

Sheet Metal Workers, 431

Sheffield, 94; carpenters of, 232, 236; conference at, 257; cutlery made, 39; gilds of, 14; Mercantile and Manufacturing Union, 73, 80; outrages at, 259-61, 263, 268-9; prosecution at, 184-5; Trades Council, 242-3, 252, 280, 299; United Trades of, 184, 187

Shepton Mallet, woollen-workers of, 51

Sherbrooke, Lord, 285

Sheridan, R. B., 57, 71

Ship Constructors’ and Shipwrights’ Association, 551. See also Shipwrights

Shipton, George, 240, 290, 298, 325, 331, 362, 395, 406, 408

Shipwrights, 45, 77, 247, 353, 429-30, 490-91, 551; of Deptford, 85; of Liverpool, 39-40, 71; of London, 104, 110; of Newcastle, 106; of the Clyde, 256

Shirland Colliery, 335

Shirt and Collar-makers, Women’s Society of, 336

Shoemakers’ wages in London in 1669, 21; of Wisbech, early combination of, 3

Sholl, S., 37, 55

Shop Assistants, 440, 503-4, 744; of Sheffield, 109; organisation among, 136-7; statistics of, 745-749

Shop Stewards, 488-90, 659, 690

Shopmen, Railway, 531

Shorrocks, Peter, 278-9

Short Time Committees, 194

Show Stewards, 716

Sidgwick, Henry, 308

Sigismund, the Emperor, 20

Silk-weavers, 37, 54-5, 66, 68, 98, 112, 121, 435-6; at Coventry, 95; at Spitalfields, 37; at Dublin, 37

Silversmiths, 80, 91, 551

Simpson, Mrs., 141

Six Acts, the, 95

Six Hours’ Day, 517-22

Skelton, O. D., 414

Slaters, 432

Slesser, H. H., 601, 607, 634

Sliding Scales, 338-42, 391, 510, 734-7

Slosson, P. W., 175

Smart, W., 511

Smillie, R., 513

Smith, Adam, 23, 49, 55, 73, 162

Smith, Adolphe, 379

Smith, Frank, 681

Smith, Sidney, 216, 287, 347

Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn, 404

Smith, Toulmin, 8

Smiths, 46, 121, 205, 207-8, 213, 323, 430-431, 487-8, 491, 744; early clubs of, 46. See Blacksmiths and Engineers

Snowden, Philip, 688, 699

Social Contract, 674, 715

Social Democratic Federation, 376-377, 384-5, 387-9, 400, 409-14, 652, 685

Social Science Association Report, 14, 23, 227-8

Socialism, revival of, 374-414

Socialist Labour Party, 659

Socialist League, 388

Society for National Regeneration, 132

Society for obtaining Parliamentary Relief, 62

Somers, Robert, 272

Somerset, clothiers of, 33-5; coal-miners of, 44; weavers of, 49, 51, 65; woollen-workers of, 33-4, 49, 51

South Metropolitan Gas Company, 403

South Wales, depression in, 343; miners of, 511, 514, 640, 690, 692; ferment among, 657, 659

Sparkes, Malcolm, 483, 648

Spitalfields, 37, 54-5, 61, 66, 98, 112

Spyers, T. G., 596

Stabilisation of Wages, 643

Staffordshire, ironworkers of, 256

Stalybridge, cotton-spinners of, 2

Standard of Life, the, 303, 369

“Standardisation” on the railways, 535-46

Stationers’ Company, 27

Stationmasters, 504-5

Statistics, 422-44, 741-50

Status, rise in, 634-6

Statute of Apprentices, 47-9; repeal of, 57-61. See Apprentices

Statute of Labourers, 250

Steadman, W. C., 362, 684

Steam-engine makers, 203, 205. See Engineers

Steel-smelters, 430, 491-2, 552, 559, 692, 744

Steffen, Gustav, 86

Stephen, J. Fitzjames, 70, 279

Stephens, Rev. J. R., 302, 309

Stevedores, 403

Stockholm, 694

Stocking Makers’ Association, 52

Stockingers. See Framework-knitters

Stockport, cotton-spinners of, 41

Stone, Gilbert, 511

Stonemasons, 125, 127, 149, 151, 166, 172, 176, 184, 191, 196, 199, 200, 202, 213, 223, 226-32, 241, 243, 248, 274, 277, 313, 316, 319-20, 343, 347, 348-9, 354, 383, 408, 429, 432-3, 744; early combinations among, 8; Friendly Society of Operative, 8; of Scotland, 174; of Sheffield, 80

Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular, The, 185, 196, 202

Strike, first use of the word, 46; “in Detail,” 199-200; origin of the term, 46; the General, 163-4, 658, 671-3; the right to, 664

Strikes of 1876-89, 347; in 1891-99, 603; in 1900-1910, 603-4; of miners (1912), 513; of police, 509; of railwaymen, (1912) 508-530, (1919) 535-46

Stroud, woollen-workers of, 50

Sturgeon, Charles, 277

Summons to the first T.U. Congress, 738-40

Supply and Demand, 201

Surface workers, 513

Sutherland, Sir William, 541

Sweating, 371, 380-81

Swinton, Archibald, 170

Swinton, potters of, 133

Swiss Railway Management, 760

Symes, Inspector, 509

Symons, J. G., 170

Syndicalism, 654-9, 690

Taff Vale Strike and Case, 526, 600-608

Tailoresses, 136

Tailors, 44, 77, 97, 192, 259, 319, 360, 369, 371, 478, 551, 555, 744; early combination of, in London, 3; First Grand Lodge of Operative, 149; of Cambridge, 68; of London, 67-8; of Nottingham, 75; of Sheffield, 80; statistics of, 436-7; strike of, in London, 1833, 149; strike of, in 1867, 278

Tankard-bearers, 42

Tanners, Bermondsey, prosecution of, 143

Tape Sizers, 477

Tarleton, General, 71

Taunton, 35

Taylor, Henry, 331

Taylor, Sir Herbert, 138, 141

Taylor, W. C., 48

Taylor, William, 23

Teachers, 505-6

Teachers, National Union of, 691

Tea-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union, 403-4

Technical Engineers, Society of, 506

Telegraph clerks, 440

Terra-cotta, 354

Tester, John, 127

Textile Factory Workers, United Association of, 435, 478, 623

Textile Operatives. See Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Woollen-workers, etc.

Textile Trades, statistics of, 428-9, 434-6, 475-80, 744-9

Thomas, J. H., 524, 526, 543-4, 680

Thompson, James, 36

Thompson, J. B., 181

Thompson, Colonel Perronet, 148

Thompson, William, 116, 162

Thorne, Will, 402, 497, 684

Thorneycroft, G. B., 734

Thornton, W. T., 272

Ticket-collectors, 504

Tildsley, John, 175

Tillett, B., 402-3, 406, 414, 501

Times, prosecution by the, 78-9

Tinplate Workers, 92, 431, 492; Co-operative Production and, 336; of Wolverhampton, 243; strike of, 194-5

Tiverton, 33-5, 93; woollen-workers of, 34, 35

Tolpuddle, 145

Tomlinson, 139

“Tommy Shops,” 89

Trade Boards, 647; Acts, 475, 494-495, 686

Trade Disputes Act, 606-8, 686

Trade Disputes Commission, 605-6

Trade Union Act of 1913, 631-4, 687

Trade Union conditions, 637-43

Trade Union, definition of, 1; and the wage-system, 1; legal definition of, 617; life, 444-71; origin of term, 113

Trades Advocate and Herald of Progress, The, 211

Trades Councils, 242-9, 354-5, 453-7, 557-61, 685; exclusion from Congress, 557; federations of, 557; in Labour Party, 557; meetings in Municipal Buildings, 558

Trades Journal, The, 171, 208

Trades’ Newspaper and Mechanics’ Weekly Journal, The, 111

Trades Union Congress, 350, 358-375, 700, 738-40

Trafalgar Square, 386-8

Tramping, 451-2

Transport and General Workers’ Union, 472-3, 499, 656

Transport workers, 438-40; in Ireland, 472-3

Trant, William, 3

Treasury Agreement, 637-8, 642

“Triple Alliance,” the, 516, 517

Trollope & Sons, 229, 328

Trow, Edward, 735

Truck, 50, 89, 371

Trusts, 675

Tucker, 268

Tuckwell, Miss Gertrude, 494

Tufnell, E. Carlton, 141

Turner, Ben, 480

Turner, William H., 5

Tyneside and National Labour Union, 439

Typographical Association, 181, 423, 437, 482. See also Compositors

Typographical Society, 692. See also Compositors

Unemployed agitation, 385, 387-8

Unemployment benefit, 644, 646

Unemployment, failure to prevent, 644; prevention of, 696

Union Pilot and Co-operative Intelligencer, The, 124

Union of Post Office Workers, 508, 551. See also Post Office Employees

United Garment Workers’ Trade Union, 551. See also Tailors

United Kingdom Alliance of Organised Trades, 258-9

United Signalmen and Pointsmen, 524, 531

United Textile Factory Operatives’ Association, 478

United Textile Factory Workers’ Association, 435, 478, 623

United Trades Association, 207

United Trades’ Co-operative Journal, The, 121

United. See Boilermakers, Brassworkers, Bricklayers, Coachmakers, Curriers, Machine-workers, Patternmakers, Pilots, Plumbers, Stonemasons, etc.

Unskilled Labourers. See General Workers

Unwin, George, vi, 5, 12, 18, 29, 30, 34

Upholsterers, 432-433; Sewers’ Society (first women’s union), 336

Vehicular workers, 442

Verinder, F., 329

Villiers, Rt. Hon. C. P., 186

Vincent, Charles Bassett, 523

Vincent, J. E. Matthew, 329

Vogel, P., 684

Voice of the People, The, 117, 122-4

Wade, Rev. A. S., 147

Wage, a legal minimum in Gloucestershire, 50

Wage-System, relation of Trade Unions to the, 1

Wages in London in 1669, 21

Waiters’ Union, 684

Wakefield, cloth trade of, 35

Wakefield, E. G., 35, 61

Wakley, Thomas, 148, 171, 173, 186

Wallace, 106

Wallas, Professor Graham, vi, 32, 62, 89, 97, 175

Walton, A. A., 289

Wapping Society of Watermen, 11

War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, 642

War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, 691

War Office and strike-breaking, 247, 332-3

War, Trade Unions during the, 636-649

Warde, Mark, 128

Wardle, G. T., 689, 695

Warehousemen, 442, 503-4

Warpdressers, 477

Waterguard Federation, 507

Watermen, London, 11, 14, 21

Watermen’s Protective Society, 11

Watson, Aaron, 181, 296, 511, 625

Watson, R. Spence, 339

Watts, Dr. John, 211

Weavers, an Act touching, 48, 50; Paisley, 23. See also Cotton-weavers

Webb, J. J., 37

Weeks, Joseph D., 338

Weiler, Adam, 389-90

Wellington, Duke of, 145

Wemyss, Earl of, 253

West Bromwich Miners, 434

Whewell, 617

Whitbread, W., 68, 69

White, George, 40, 57, 61, 76, 77, 81, 89, 94, 100, 105, 251

Whitley Councils, 490, 646-8, 718

Widnes election, 699

Wilkinson, Rev. J. Frome, 128

Williams, John, 146

Williams, J., 387, 400

Williams, J. E., 526

Williams, R., 497, 500

Williamson, S., 393

Wilson, J., 511

Wilson, J. Havelock, 406, 665-6, 669-70, 682

Wilson, John, 680

Wiltshire, shearmen of, 144; weavers of, 49; woollen-weavers of, 65; woollen-workers of, 49

Winters, Thomas, 195

Wisbech, shoemakers of, 3

Witanagemot, 20

Wolverhampton, 248, 259; Building Trades Joint Committee, 308; tinplate workers of, 243; (strike), 194-5; Trades Council, 399

Women Clerks and Secretaries, Association of, 505

Women in Engineering, 638, 642-3

Women in Trade Unionism, 335-6, 424, 426-7, 474, 494-7

Women’s Co-operative Guild, 497

Women’s Labour League, 497

Women’s Protective and Provident League, 336

Women’s Wages, 424, 642

Wood, G. H., 86, 308

Woods, Samuel, 362, 684

Woodsawyers, 18

Woolcombers, 36-7, 44-5, 90, 127, 436, 480

Woollen Cloth Weavers, Act of 1756, 50-51

Woollen Cloth Weavers, Fraternity of, 66

Woollen Workers, 40-41, 435-6; of Yorkshire, 123, 125; statistics of, 480

Woolstaplers, 37, 45, 83, 90, 178, 203; London Society of, 203; Old Amicable Society of, 37

Woolwich, 697

Worcester, Gild Ordinances of, 8; Trades Council, 558

Workers’ Union, 498-9, 744

Working Men’s Association, 255, 298, 680

Working Rules, 228

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 364-6

Works Committee, 490, 647, 707, 716

Worsted manufacture, 36-7

Wright, Justice R. S., 68, 279, 362

Yearly bond; 44, 89, 169

Yeomen, 4, 5, 6

Yorkshire, clothiers of, 35-6, 67; miners, 182, 301, 304-5, 349, 370, 433, 510-11, 522, 744

Young, Ralph, 340, 342

Young, Robert, 490

THE END

Printed in Great Britain by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.

OTHER WORKS BY

SIDNEY AND BEATRICE WEBB.

Those who read the History of Trade Unionism will want to know how far the Trade Union, as an industrial device, is an economic success--how its operations affect the National Being--whether it is a cause of loss to the employers--what effect it has on prices.

These questions, and many more, are explicitly answered in

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY

=12s. net=

which The Times described as

“A permanent and invaluable contribution to the sum of human knowledge.... We commend to the public a book which is a monument of research and full of candour.... Indispensable to every publicist and politician.”

See also

PROBLEMS OF MODERN INDUSTRY.

=7s. 6d. net.=

Eleven short studies by the same Authors.

THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY.

=5s. net.=

A series of Addresses to Works Managers by Sidney Webb on such problems as Reducing Costs, Systems of Payment by Results, How to Prevent “Ca’ Canny,” Fatigue and Accidents, the Changing Status of Employers and Wage-Earners, etc.

THE PUBLIC ORGANISATION OF THE LABOUR MARKET.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=5s. net.=

A description and an attempted solution of the Problem of Unemployment and the Unemployed.

THE BREAK-UP OF THE POOR LAW.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=7s. 6d. net.=

The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. A description of the policy now adopted by the Government in the Bill being prepared by the Minister of Health for the Abolition of the Poor Law, and the Supersession of the Boards of Guardians by the Local Health, Education, Lunacy, Pension, and Unemployment Authorities.

THE PREVENTION OF DESTITUTION.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=10s. net.=

A comprehensive and practical programme of how it can be done.

ENGLISH POOR LAW POLICY.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=7s. 6d. net.=

The “Missing Link” in histories of the Poor Law--an analysis of the successive transformations of the policy of the Government and the Guardians since the “Principles of 1834.”

GRANTS IN AID: A CRITICISM AND A PROPOSAL.

By SIDNEY WEBB.

=6s. net.=

The only book on this important subject, affecting every Local Government Official and Councillor, and every Ratepayer.

THE PARISH AND THE COUNTY.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=16s. net.=

A new picture of English Country Life since 1689, drawn from original records.

THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

2 vols. =25s. net.=

How the Municipal Boroughs and London Government grew into their present forms.

THE STORY OF THE KING’S HIGHWAY.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=6s. net.=

How the English Roads became as they are--from the chariot of Boadicea to the motor omnibus.

THE HISTORY OF LIQUOR LICENSING IN ENGLAND.

By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB.

=2s. 6d. net.=

A record of experiments in policy with regard to the public-house, from Henry VIII.

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.

Published by

GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN, LIMITED.

THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.

=2s. 6d. net.=

By BEATRICE POTTER (Mrs. Sidney Webb).

“Without doubt the ablest and most philosophical analysis of the Co-operative Movement.”--The Speaker.

SOCIALISM IN ENGLAND.

By SIDNEY WEBB.

=2s. 6d. net.=

“The best general view, of the subject from the moderate Socialist side.”--The Athenæum.

* * * * *

Published by THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP (25 Tothill Street, Westminster), and GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN, LIMITED.

HOW TO PAY FOR THE WAR.

Edited by SIDNEY WEBB.

=6s. net.=

Containing The Development of the Post Office, A Public Service of Railway and Canal Transport, The Nationalisation of the Coal Supply, A State Insurance Department, and a Revolution in the Income Tax.

FABIAN ESSAYS IN SOCIALISM.

=2s. net=

The New Edition (50th thousand), with Introduction by Sidney Webb.

TOWARD SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?

By SIDNEY WEBB.

=1s. net.=

A survey of Modern Social and Industrial History since 1840, with a description of tendencies.

MEN’S AND WOMEN’S WAGES: SHOULD THEY BE EQUAL?

By Mrs. SIDNEY WEBB.

With Portrait. =1s. net.=

A suggested solution of a difficult problem.

GREAT BRITAIN AFTER THE WAR.

By SIDNEY WEBB and ARNOLD FREEMAN.

=1s. net.=

A guide to study of “After-War Problems.”

Published by NISBET & CO., LIMITED.

THE RESTORATION OF TRADE UNION CONDITIONS.

By SIDNEY WEBB.

=1s. net.=

A description of the problem and a suggestion for its lasting solution.

Published at THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP (25 Tothill Street, Westminster).

REPORT ON THE WORKING OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

=1s. net.=

REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE ALL OVER THE WORLD.

=1s. net.=

SOCIALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM.

=1s. net.=

THE BASIS AND POLICY OF SOCIALISM.

=1s. net.=

SOCIALISM AND NATIONAL MINIMUM.

=1s. net.=

Transcriber's Notes

A number of typographical errors were corrected silently.

Table of Contents augmented with “Other Works”.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us