The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-05-27 00:00:00

THE MIGRATION OF LABOUR.

Mr. F.lmend W Holland, of 65, Philpot street, London,
router date Slay l:Kh, has nest the following lettcr to The
Tinws ;a d as It is a matter of general Interest, Ps republica-
tion nu.y interest mat y re .der, who may not hare an oppor-
&unity of perusing the Journal to which It originally op.
peered :--

Having Fiat returned from a short visit to I,an•
caslure, and satisfied my,elf by personal inquiry as to
the genuineness of the ilecnand for labour there, and as
to the likelihood of its permanence, if not txtelision,
I venture to offer one or two remarks upon the above
euNect.

In the first place, as to the kind of labour in demand.
Female and juvenile labour is that principally in re.
quest in the cotton mills. So great is the demand for
this labour that in snme localities there are as many as
1,000 looms unworked, while in others fresh operations
remain in abeyance from the sheer want of hands.
1 hen there is a demand for strong unskilled labourers
at railway making; probably upwards of 2000, of
these could find employment. And lastly, then le in
some places a brisk demand for mechanics, plasterers,
painters, Au

The arcoud class of labourers should, Stfl it seems to
me, be supplied by the agricultural districts—such
counties as Suffolk and Ibirsetshire and the other
southern counties. What is required to bring about
the migration of surplus labour from these cuunties is
the organisation of intelligence, as well as encourage-
mebt given to suitable labourers to save their wages
during the comb- g harvest, in otter that they may be
able to pay their way to the North in the autumn.
The object would be worth striving for, 3.. to 3s. oil. a
day in Lancashire being better than remaining where
labour is at such a dismount that at best it is only just
possible to keep body arid siul together during six
mouths in the year, and that often not without the
assistance of the workhouse.

I Toe first kind of labour would be most readily drawn
I from London. The question, however, naturally arises
as to what species of individuals are suited to the work.
The, evidvi.ce given to us in Lancashire upon this point
WAR to the effect that any woman, not above forty, who
had been accustomed to use her fingrrs, and hod
ordinary adaptability, c, uld soon learn the millwork.
Bethnabgreen weavers would he, of course, peculiarly
fitted for the work in the weaving department, and we
had the opportunity of conversing with one of these in
Lancashire who had come from Spiraltields. He was
doing well and did not regret his move from London.
One word as to the morale of the workpeople who
alone will do in Lancashire. This is a most important
matter. It is no use for indolent dissolute people,
with irregular habits, to go there. People who got up
at nine o'clock in the u.orning, and are invariably
shr Illng in to their work an hour behind lime, are of
no use in Lancashire, where regular, monotonous, con.
tinuous work is the order of the day. Many persons
who take op the qr.estion of finding employment for
the distressed poor seem to me not to lay sufficient
stress upon this point. They seem to act as though
people's habits can be changed by merely shifting
their pirsous from one part of the earth's surface
to another. In Americo, in Canada, and in Australia
I have seen emigrants who have been sent out, or come
out, apparently under thip impression. The idea is
wholly delusive ; and so it happens that in ninetylilne
cases out of a hundred emigrant. of the wrong tuora/e
have only crorsod the sea to swell the ranks of the
lapsed classes in the towns in the New Country, just as
they did in those of the Old.

_
Lancaehire sir will not wholly counteract London
diesipation and drink; and a healthy tnigration of
lithoor will. I fear, then only be eitiuly carried out when
the truth of sour remark.; upon the Permlaeive 1311 in
to-day', leader has been verified.

The f. 'lowing are extracts from the leader in The Times,
referred to In the foregoing letter—
The Licensed Victuallers and their allies would do
well to consider the tone of the recent debate on the
Permissive Bill. We explained to them at the outset
of their recent agitation that they were protesting

against a compromlee, and that their remonstrances
would probably provoke an attack of a very different
character. That event has occurred ; and, though Sir
Wilfred Lawson's propoeals were rejected by a decided
majority, the temper of A large and powerful party in
the country was revealed. The advocates of a Pro-
hibitory Bill may be few, because, they are the repre-
sentatives of estretne opinione only, but behind them
COllle, a solid phalanx of reformers bent npon accom•
plishing a particular object, that object being neither
more nor lea, than the very object of Mr. Bruce's Bill.
Once more we invite the attention of brewers and
publicans to the broad fact that what they denounce is
the very thing which, in some way or other, come
Government or other will assuredly be compelled to
dm.

Now, observe what was stated in Wednesday'll
debate. The amount expended by the people of this
country, and mainly by the working classes, in intexit
eating drinks exceeds A:100,000,000 a year. The money
spent upon beer alone is twelve times that spent upon
cotton goods and clothing. In some towns there is one
publicLonse to every dozen families, and all these liquor
shops, as a rule drive a good trade. Mr. Wheelhouse
considered interference with this traffic not more
justifiable than interference with the traffic in
butchers' meat; but he forgot that the consump-
tion of beef bore no resemblance whavever to
the consumption a beer. People do not eat more
beef than is good for them ; too often they du
not eat se muds AB they need. The blot in the
drink trade is that it Is bailed upon excessive
demand. Other thinga if a man cannot afford
them, he will dispense with, but not with dank. A
▪ ,r can be found for liquor when it can be found
for nothing else— not even for clothing, fen I, or food.
At least one-half of the money which goes to the pro.
tits of dealers in liquor is diverted from better pur-
poses, and turned only to sensual or sottish indulgence.
That is the simple troth ; and, though we think it or.
jut to describe trader. In drink Ai "interested in
pandering to the vices of the people," there is no
denying that the interests on behalf of which they
made no desperate a stand are created by vicious habits.
The very magnitude of these interests of which so much
was said, does but external the magnitude of the evil.
Ilrewers and publicans cannot keep what they have
got unless crime, pauperiem, and popular &moral:.
ration are to remain as they are.

It is very hard -in fact, it is impossible—to any
that a man shall not have the power if buying a
glass of beer, but there is no hardship in saying
that where the consumption of beer is vastly in excess
of any rational requirements the train: should be
curtailed. It is not, indeed, merely the excess itself,
but the corresponding privation, which must be con-
sidered. The money lavished in intoxicating drinks
is abstracted from the slender resources of
struggling household. What the husband gains—
if he can be said t 3 gain—the wife and children
lose. Intoxication comes on one side, pauperism on
the other, so that the evil is twofold. Some corres-
pi,ndents asked us the other day if we remembered
the amount of taxation contributed to the Revenue by
the Malt and Spirit Duties. and if we could explain
how it was to be replaced after the anticipated opera-
tion of Mr. Bruce's Bill. The answer is obvious.
When less ls spent in drink there will be so much more
for tea and sugar, for house rent, and for fifty other
purposes on which expenditure Is desirable. The
Revenue would never suffer from the enrichment and
elevatien of the people. Suppodng the Permissive
Bill had been carried, and the drink trade, which is
not very probable, actually stopped, what would be
the result? Why, that £100,000,000 a year would be-
come available for the purchase of the harmless luxuries
of life.

The liquor dealers cannot too soon convince them.
selves that it is only a question of time and terms. . . .
There will certainly be interference with the trade,
and, as there must be compensation, the question is
what form the compensation should take. The
Licensed Victuallers themselves have suggested the
pion if gradually buying out traders by • tax levied
on the trade, and the idea is reasonable, because
as the number of liquor shops Is lessened the profits
of the survivors would be presumably increased.
It may be objected that, if these irofits thus sur-
vive, the drink traffiz. must survive also, and thus the
object of legislation would be missed. But the result
would probably be a distribution of effect in various
directions. The dealers bought out would have to
give up something ; those who bought them out would
give up something ; and consumers would give up
something in their turn. What the country would
gain is a reduction in the number of publichouses, and
that is what the working men whose petitions were
presented profess to desire. They all believe that the
multiplication of liquor shops does produce increase of
drunkenness, and that drunkenness declines in pro-
p. rtion an there shops become fewer. That reform,
thee, ought to be within our reach. It would leave
the Drink Trade with this grievance still—that le.s
money would be spent in drink ; but the proces,, as it
seem., would be more tolerable and the result, perhaps,
not loss satisfactory.