The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-28 00:00:00

MR. RoinUCK ON CAPITAL AND LABOTIZ

On Monday evenfng Mr. Roebuck addressed an immeiii6
audience of the working men of Sheffield on capital and
labour. The Mayor presided. The address was given on
the invitation of the Chamber of Industry, a newly-
established institution in the town. Some thousands could

hot gain admittance, and the hon. member was unable for
about half an hour to get through the crowd, though
escorted by the police. It was said there was a determina-
tion to prevent him from entering the hall at all. On
account of Mr. &shuck's well-known opinions respecting
trades unions, popular feeling is rather strong against
him.

Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded to address himself to the subject
of the evening's discussion :-1. Labour—what are its rights,
what are its duties? 2. Capital—what are its rights, what are
its duties? Labour is that human exertion, mental or bodily,
which produces or tends to produce or procure articles
which are destined to human use. Both are needed ; the
one without the other is powerless. One important obser-
vation here suggests itself. There is a limit set by the
nature of things to both sides of this division. The limit
to the downward course of wages is this—the labourer
must have sufficient to maintain himself and family after
that fashion to which by his habits he is accustomed.
If he cannot obtain this he disappears ; if he is able he
leaves the country ; if not he starves, and with him
disappears production also ; so that it at once appears that
the subject of his wages is of vital importance to society.
On the other hand, by the nature of things, a limit is set
to the downward course of profits. If the share which the
capitalist obtains of the joint produce is not sufficient to
reward him for the forbearance which has led him to save,
and also to pay him for the risk he has run, he ceases to
save—there is no further provision for reproduction, and
again production ceases. The rate of wages depends upon
the number of labouters to be employed and the quantity
of capital ready to employ them. Upon this natural law,
as it is sometimes called, depends eventually the rate of
wages. Now comes the all-important question—Can any-
thing, ought anything, to be done, either by human pru-
dence or by human law, to regulate the proportion of
the reward bestowed on labour and capital ? Men have
in different ages and in different countries adopted
different modes. The Chinese of the present day, the
Greeks in olden time, limited the number of their people
by infanticide. This horrible proceeding cannot be suf-
fered or even contemplated by any Christian country. In
France we are told that the population is kept down, and
certainly it does not there increase, by the prudence which
suggests late marriages. In England the favourite plan
for limiting the number of labourers to be employed seems
to be trades unions, which in my opinion is not the least
cruel of the means employed. (" Oh, oh ! " and " Hear.")
Now, let us see how and why it is that I look upon these
combinations in this light. The working man in the battle
of life finds himself unprotected and exposed when alone.
Not only is he weak before the capitalist, but be is weak
before Nature herself, and he discovers that by combkta-
tion with his fellows he can guard against and ward off
many of the evils by which his lot is beset. I now
arrive at the point when I can make it appear what I
meant when I said trades unions were the means employed
in England to limit the number of the labourers to be
employed. The cruelty thus perpetrated has not, I think,
been sufficienly dwelt upon. One of the favourite means
employed to this end is the limitation imposed by various
trades upon the number of apprentices to be taken by the
master. Let us learn the true character of this proceeding,
which I believe I shall be able to chew to be cruel, selfish,
and grossly unjust. And, first, as to its cruelty. Now,
if there is one privilege which you as working men ought
to hold more sacred than another it is the privilege to pro-
vide, without let or hindrance, for yourself and your
families by your own honest industry. The limitation of
the field of employment falls at once as an evil upon the
working men. A beneficent Providence has given the man
the wide world upon which to employ himself, and industry
and talent to provide means of subsistence and enjoyment.
Man has too often in his cruelty stepped in and forbidden
his fellow-man using this great boon of God. Let us take
an individual instance, and thus illustrate the force of this
position. I will not take a fictitious instance, but I will
not mention names. The thing I am about to describe
has happened in your midst, and, perhaps, the person who
narrated the facts to me is present. I will endeavour to
be as accurate as I can, and I hope not to over-colour the
transaction. The brother and brother's wife of John
Thomas—the name is fictitious, but I use it for convenience
—both died, leaving a boy of about 10 years of age. John
Thomas felt as a good man should feel, and took the
helpless orphan to his home and cherished him ; but
Thomas was not rich, and the only means of providing
for the.boy and enabling him to get his own bread was to
teach him his own trade. Thomas had a son of his own,
and apprenticed both boys to himself ; he was shortly
afterwards waited on by the authorities of the union, who
said they did not object to his having his son as an ap-
prentice, but that his nephew was not the son of one who
was or had been a member of their trade, and that he
must at once discharge the boy from his indentures.
" But the boy," said Thomas, " is the son of my brother,
who is dead. The boy's mother is also dead, and it is my
duty to protect him, and to provide for him the means of
getting his bread. I can only do this by teaching him my
trade. I have not the means of putting him out else-
where, and if I don't teach him he must grow up in igno-
rance and idleness, and be a burden to himself and all con-
nected with him." "We can't help it," said the deputation ;
"it is against our rules." " And I," answered Thomas,
" can't help that. I will not treat my dead brother's child
thus cruelly ; I will not desert him." Well, the answer was,
"We shall take all the hands out of Mr. So-and-so's shop
until you comply with our demand and obey our rules
and they were as good as their word. I have not heard
what was the result. Now, consider this case. The first
effect proposed was to shut a poor boy out of an honest
livelihood. The sufferer was one of themselves, one who
had been visited by a terrible calamity, and who, there-
fore, should have been dealt with mercifully and ten-
derly ; but the hearts of those who dealt with
him were as hard as the nether millstone, and
not only were they cruel but they were also pre-eminently
selfish. The poor boy was to suffer, but who was to gain ?
Why, the very men who laid down this cruel rule to lessen
their own labour, to increase their own enjoyment, risked
without pity or shame the well-being of the orphan child
of one who had been a fellow working man. I suppose that
these men would have shrunk from infanticide, and would
have called me a libeller if I said they were guilty of a
crime very litt'e, if at all, less black than infant murder.
But what wes this cold-blooded cruelty but something very
like murder? The hon. and learned gentleman conclnded
by expressing his b 3lief that the most important leg d pro-
vision that w, s needed was to render clear and to enforce
the law of conspiracy. The best thing the men could do was
in all things t ) obey the law, to be gentle and forbearing,
and to be honest.

The meeting listened to the hon. member with, on the
whole, patient attention, but the lecture so abruptly con-
cluding without dwelling upon the sins of capital, the
audience abandoned themselves for a time to a sort of jury,
The subsequent speakers were impatiently heard, and- one
of them was refused a hearing. A vote of thanks to Mr.
Roebuck for his address and undaunted advocacy of the
commercial interests of the country was defeated by a large
majority.

In seconding a Tote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding,
ROEBUCK said : You have come to hear a discussion
which deeply interests working men. You have come to
hear one express his opinions about it who has no interest
in the matter but the good of his country. I am not a
master manufacturer ; I am not an artisan ; but I have
been for many years before my countrymen. I have studied
deeply all that concerns the good government of my coun-
try— (hear, hear)—and when asked to state my opinions I
have boldly stated them, careless of the result. (Cheers.)
It has been my fate, sir, often to be opposed to what is
called public opinion, but in the long political life
that I have led I have found my countrymen coming
round to my opinions, and never receding from them.
(" Oh, oh l" and interruption.) Aye, aye ! (Further
interruption.)
Nov, don't interrupt. I am not going to
trouble you long. It is not my habit to make long-winded
speeches, but I say to you that I, deeply considering this
matter, and having solely the interests of my country at
heart, have told you to-night what I believe to be the
truth ; and I ask you all, yea, one and all, when you go
home, and to-morrow read what I have said, to prove your
own minds, to ask yourselves this question—" Is he right,
or is he wrong ? (Hear, hear.) Can he be wrong ? Can
he be right? And might I not have been wrong in hooting
him the night before ? " (Cheers.)
On leaving the hall Mr. Roebuck was followed by a
large orowd, who hooted him.

MR. BRIGHT'S CLASSICAL STUDIES. —Mr. Car-
michael informs us, from the unsuspicious testimony of a
colleague, that Mr. Bright, who was his pupil, is an excel-
lent Latin echolar. It is creditable alike to master and
pupil that a warm friendship still exists between them,
and that Mr. Bright in writing has acknowledged the
advantages he derived from his classical studies, pursued
at the Walmgate Bar School, York.—Church Timm

A WOMAN BURNT TO DEATII.—An inquest has
been held at the Middlesex Hospital on the body of
Catherine Bell, aged 48, who resided with her husband, 4
12, Gresse-street, Rathbone-place. Eliza Bell, daughter
of the deceased, aged 8 years, stated that her mother, who
wore a light cotton dress, with a crinoline, was standing
in front of the fire, and in turning round to thread a
needle her dress became ignited. She tried to doublo
up her mother's dress,- but was unable to extinguish
the flames. The jury returned a verdict of accidental
death,