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:

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.

County. Population in 1891. Ascertained Trade Unionists in 1892. Number of Trade Unionists per 100 of 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 (without West Ham, included in London). 396,057 3,370 0·85

Gloucestershire 548,886 26,030 4·74

Hampshire (without Isle of Wight, treated separately). 587,578 5,665 0·96

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 (without Bromley, included in London). 737,044 12,445 1·69

Lancashire 3,957,906 331,535 8·63

Leicestershire 379,286 27,845 7·34

Lincoln 467,281 9,480 2·03

London (including Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Richmond, West Ham and Middlesex). 5,517,583 194,083 3·52

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 (without Croydon, Kingston, and Richmond, included in London). 275,638 730 0·26

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 (with York City). 435,897 15,215 3·49

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:

Amalgamated Society of Engineers.

Friendly Society of Ironfounders.

Steam Engine Makers’ Society.

Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland.

United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipwrights.

Operative Stonemasons’ Friendly Society.

Operative Bricklayers’ Society.

General Union of Operative Carpenters and Joiners.

Typographical Association.

London Society of Compositors.

Bookbinders’ and Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union.

United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers.

Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly Society.

Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers.

Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society.

Associated Blacksmiths’ Society.

Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners.

Associated Carpenters and Joiners.

National Association of Operative Plasterers.

Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association.

United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland.

United Operative Plumbers’ Association.

Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association.

United Operative Bricklayers’ Trade, Accident, Sick, and Burial Society.

Amalgamated Society of Tailors.

Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners.

Glass Bottle Makers of Yorkshire United Trade Protection Society.

Durham Miners’ Association.

National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers.

United Pattern Makers’ Association.

National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives.

Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.

Yorkshire Miners’ Association.

United Machine Workers’ Association.

National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association.

Railway Clerks’ Association.

Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers.

National Union of Dock Labourers.

British Steel Smelters.

National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants.

Amalgamated Union of Co-operative Employees.

National Union of Clerks.

Workers’ Union.

Amalgamated Musicians’ Union.

National Amalgamated Union of Labour.

Postmen’s Federation.

Post Office Engineering Stores.

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

Number of Society. Year of Estab­lish­ment. 1850. 1855. 1860. 1865. 1870. 1875. 1880. 1885. 1890. 1900. 1910. 1918.

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 (1902) 6,685 47,220

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]

Year. Building. Mining and Quarrying. Metal, Engineering, and Shipbuilding. Textile. Clothing. Transport. Other Trades. Total, all Unions.

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, Paper, etc. Wood-working. Other Trades.

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:

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.