The Bee-Hive. — 1875-10-02 (London, England)

BEE- HIVE and elsewhere, many times, the special reasons why old habits, whether evil or good, cling to Sheffield, and her special industries, more than to the workers in any other parts of Great Britain. And I have also pointed out, as I now do again, that the brickmakers are men who in the time referred to, had from time to time, improvised unions, under the pressure of the moment, when they have any quarrel on hand with their employers. Whilst the trades of Sheffield as a rule are small local trades full of small local jealousies, and influenced by small personal interests, properly speaking, the brickmakers are not trades unionists, nor have I ever heard of any man as a leader amongst them whose advice joined with that of other leaders, or singly by itself, could draw them into sin. The evil done by the Sheffield men and by the brickmakers is, I admit, very bad, and worthy of every strong epithet you can apply to it; but your horror will not prove your case. To do this it will be necessary to take the great known organizations of the kingdom—in all great national industries— those immense bodies of men who are under the advice of leaders and who to a great extent are influenced by the advice given. There were, up to within the last few weeks, two great miners, associations, numbering together somewhere about 200,000 men.  These are now for the most part in one society. At the head of which is Alex. Macdonald, M.P. for Stafford, to whom you addressed your angry private letter, and to whom you said in your mild, negative way, "you would not be sorry "if he showed it to me. These miners have frequently disagreements with their employers and with each other. Point me to a list of their murders, tell me where they commit their outrages against person or property. Two hundred thousand men, not highly instructed, not without evil passions in certain of their numbers, not without that spirit of revenge too frequently seen in society, men who had to be gathered together as they were, and controlled and directed with such moral power as was possible to leaders under circumstances so unfavourable. Are not these men, I ask, now pursuing their labour quietly and peaceably, contending for their rights without violence, bloodshed, or injury to person:or property? Then, again, look at the great Society of Amalgamated Engineers. Do the leaders of these men hold their eyelids down whilst their followers are executing privately-planned murder? Look, again, at the well-organised society at the head of which Daniel Guile stands. Do you think ho would have no protest to make if the members of the Ironfounders' union were tyrannizing over each other by brute violence? Look again at the building trades; look at our factory operatives; look everywhere. Take all the trades you can find, especially those who have leaders; leaders to whom they look up, and whose advice they follow. I say, take all of them, and make out a list of their offences for the last ten years, and publish it to the world; and if at any time, or in any country you can find a parallel to the peacefulness and order that marks tho conduct of the trades unionists of Great Britain, then I shall at once admit that there may be some justification for your condemnation of trades unions and their leaders.  I am sure you cannot do this, and I may say also that I am sure you will not make allowance for the fact, that what of wrong conduct is to be seen in these unions is generally the result of the men making strikes against the advice of their leaders, and doing other wrong things that neither their leaders nor associates can be fairly held accountable for. The men who lead as trades unionists are no more served with an unswerving and universal obedience than the leaders in any other movement, and it is simply ungenerous to hold them responsible for every act of their followers. Let them be judged like other men, and they will, I am certain, stand the test as well as any men in the kingdom occupying positions of trust and confidence. I have not in this case replied to your private letter. I have confined myself to that to which you had previously committed yourself to, and I beg to say in conclusion that private letters are out of place in such a controversy, especially letters like that you have sent to Mr. Macdonald, which appears to me to be marked private simply because it is utterly unfit for publication.