The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-31 00:00:00

THE STTN,

S ?MIT of the P11131.1C JOUP.NALS.
FROM THE MORNOG PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TDIES.-1:. is surprising that a body of men so
intelligent as that of whiLh on:. engineering trades are
composed should form such a mistaken c stimate of
things around them as to conceive that they are able
to dictate the terms on which their labour should be
employed. Their attempt is utterly hopeless. It
may do serious injury to the manufacturers, ard
will infallibly bring misery and ruin upon themselves ;
but it most certainly can never abolish overtime or
piecework, nor circumscribe the use of machinery.
On the contrary, its immediate tendency will be to
stimulate those very practices of which the workmen
complain, and if the ultimate result be not the de-
struction of the trade altogether for the benefit of the
foreigners, it must be something which would be
little less detrimental to the interests of the opera-
tives. Let us suppose that a strike of this sort is re-
solutely carried out on both sides. The men cease
working at a particular factory, and all other fac-
tories of the district, in self-defence, turn out their
hands. Some thirty firms will thus have their
business suspended, and some 30,000 mouths will
be deprived of bread. What follows next ? Each
party is endeavouring to force the others to terms ,
but what is the relative power of their resources ?
The workmen can do literally nothing but what they
have already done. Their means of action are con-
fined to simple inaction. They subsist fur a time
upon funds which were provided, not against this con-
tingency, but against sickness or destitution, and
when these funds are exhausted they must either
starve, beg, seek some new trade, or return to their
work on just such terms as the exasperated masters
may offer. The manufacturers, on the other hand, are
few in number, possessed of a large aggregate capital,
and compelled by the instincts of self-preservation to be
inflexible in their purpose. They may be ruined by the
stoppage, but they know they must be ruined by con-
cessions which would destroy the independence of
contract between the employers and the employed.
As a mere question of endurance, it is certain they
could outlast the men, for the damage to their business
would be mitigated by a common understanding and
forbearance. But, though the question is one of en-
durance simply with the men, it is not so with the
manufacturers. The men can do nothing but sit idle
and consume their savings, for they have only one
capacity, and their plan consists in making this capacity
unavailable. The masters, however, do a great deal
more. Instead of sitting idle, they apply all the
powers of experience, combination, and capital, both to
modify their present difficulties and to provide against
such emergencies in future. They first look about
for fresh hands, and, if all the skilled workmen are
included in the strike, they endeavour to create others.
They take men from other trades, perhaps from other
countries, and, by dint of pains and expense, they soon
make them such workmen as they want. The conse-
quence of this proceeding is, that the number of
skilled hands is largely increased, and all the evils
of competition increased too. What the trades
complain of at this very moment is the glut of
labour, and this glut they will make heavier
than before. Already the demand for labour is so
much greater than the supply that it is described as
a grievance when one workman, by means of over-
time or piece-work, gets more than his share; and
what, then, is it likely to become when 50 or GO
per cent. has been added to the number of opera-
tives in the trade ? This was the very fault com-
mitted by the engine-drivers on railways. They
presumed ou the rarity of their skill and on the
small number of procurable hands. They reckoned,
therefore, on coercing their employers by a general
"strike," but the end was that recruits were picked
up from all quarters, and drilled to the trade, so
that by and by the employers of engine-drivers had
just twice as many men to choose from as before.
But this is not all. When manufacturers are
thus left in the lurch by their men, they become
naturally eager to provide against such desertions
for the future ; and they turn to machinery.
Machines will work day and night without tiring
or complaining. Machines never "strike," and
never refuse to perform their duty. Already a
vast amount of manual labour has been superseded
by machinery, and what if the system could be
carried further ? How convenient would it be if
everything could be done by these arms of iron,
and the troublesome element of humanity reduced to
a mere nominal figure! These are the natural re-
flections of manufacturers at a " strike," and what is
the consequence? Why, all the resources of capital,
patience, and ingenuity, are employed to devise some
new machinery ; some instrument which will do the
work of fifty hands with the supervision of one. The
machinery of our office—that machinery which in its
effects has been little less than second discovery
enof
the art of printing—originated ain the impulse giv
to science and enterprise by the unreasoning combi-
nations of artisans. Already the amalgamated trades
are conaplaining of the use of machines, which dis-
pense with the employment of skilled hands, and yet
they have entertained a project which must infallibly
set people thinking how skilled hands may be dis-
pensed with
esides, still further. Is not this a sheer act of
suicide ? B apart from all these improbabili-
ties of success, cannot the workmen see that success
would only prove their own destruction? Suppose they
won the power of dictating, or, at any rate, of control-
ling the scale of wages by considerations totally dis-
tinct from the state of the labour-market, the condition
of trade, and the returns of the commodity produced
—suppose not only the day's wage, but the amount
and quality of the work to be performed, were regu-
lated by a council of workmen, without any respect
to the profits accruing from the transactioli n—
tohwhat
would be the result ? This appears, in reaty, e
the society's " executive," and what consequences are
to follow ? Do not the workmen see that the whole
case of their employment is a bargain ; that is to say,
an arrangement to which there are two parties, and
that, without employment arties no bargain can be
made and no occur? The ultimate ob-
ject, we will say, is the production of a certain article
in iron, which is to be sold at a rate producing profit,
and it is a portion of this profit which constitutes
the workman's wage. Without profits there can be
DO wages, for there is no other source from which
wages are to come. If, therefore, such steps
are taken as will destroy profits, or sensibly
reduce them, or render it an impossibility
to calculate on either profit or loss, thero
e
will be no inducement to the bargain, and n
person will invest his capital in the employment of
machinists or engineers. The workmen seem to
imagine that there must always be persons impelled
to employ ironsmiths by considerations like those
which compel ironsmiths to seek employment. But
this is not the case. If ironsmiths could succeed in
conquering ironmasters, the result would be, not that
ironsmiths would get their own terms, but that iron-
smiths would never be
employed at all. Unless
all the artisans of all countries of the world entered
into a " solidarity," we should be supplied with manu-
factures from that State where masters and men were
allowed to make their contracts independently. We
have discussed this question on abstract grounds, be-
cause, in point of fact, the particular points now
contested are but of secondary importance. As a
matter of opinion, we do not think that
overtime and piecework have been shown to
constitute such grievances as Mr. W. Newton
would make out, and we regret to say that we ob-
serve strong reasons for believing that these demands
are only the forerunners of a pure Socialist code. But,
whether the "Council" means right or wrong, it is
plain that the masters could not yield without permit-
ting an entire social revolution. Concession would
transfer to the employed a power which the nature of
things lodges on the employers, and this change would
of itself destroy all the considerations by which capital
is attracted to trade. The alternative may occasionally
be hard for the men, but it is unavoidable. They must
rely for the security of their fair rights on the interest
of the masters to keep things smooth, and on the opera-
tion of that opinion which does not tolerate any reme-
diable wrong. In this position they would have the
sympathies of the public, but their present attempt
suggests nothing but indignation against the dupers
and pity for the dupes.
POST.—We do not wonder that a morning con-
temporary, through whose columns the coup di ad in
Lord John Russell's Cabinet, and the grounds on which
it had been struck, were exclusively and officially pro-
claimed to the world, has already manifested an eager
anxiety that his readers should forget all he was ins
strutted
dteor
considered
y
on Wednesday last. He would now
as a recorder of events—" a tell
Her
of the history of the times in his own way." e
will enter into no "disputation"—none ! If reasons
were as plenty as blackberries, he would not render
one to any antagonist so superfluous as to demand it.
The public must decide; and if the public will only
be sensible enough to be guided by him, it shall be
saved the trouble of thinking, and an exceedingly
pretty judgment on the case shall be pronounced in its
name—and so, no more ado. It is a pity that
our wise contemporary should already have
deviated so far from_ the course which he
thus complacently prescribes to himself. Had he
simply " told the history of the times," without de-
bate or controversy about the matter, his chapter of
(what he admits
to have been) the coup d' itat, would,
setting forth as it did the Ministerial act and the
Ministerial explanation, would have been followed by
"the most correct, and independent judgment which
he could form upon the proceedings of the Cabinet,
and there an end. " Others," no doubt, might have
" disputed " his conclusions, and time might have
" disproved " them ; but what then—if " others "
and "time" were so unreasonable as to decide against
him—as the philosopher said-30 much the
worse for " others " and for "time." But
then, to give a story exactly as it happens,
and to leave the heroes of it to speck for themselves,
without any subsequent alterations, would by no
means be " telling history in our contemporary's own
way." The Ministers who chose him for their organ