VII SPEECHES ON TRADES UNIONS AND STRIKES (1868) 1 MR. RUSKIN 1 was certain that political economy as it would one day be understood was a true science. He was not so sure that, as it had been hitherto explained, it was a true science. He had ventured to resist that theory of political economy which laid down that man was a predatory animal by nature, and to assert that he was by nature an affectionate animal, and that his economy ought to be based upon the affections.2 What, he asked, would be the relations of mistress and servant when the former looked upon the latter as a predatory animal? Could a household so constituted [These remarks were made at a special meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, held on July 4, 1868, in the large room of the Society of Arts, John Street, Adelphi, to consider a series of resolutions on trades unions and strikes. The resolution supported by Ruskin was as follows: "That, while lamenting and deprecating the abuses of some of the trades unions, or of the associations of employers, this meeting cordially approves of combinations for legitimate purposes, such as the careful and calm consideration of matters of common interest among both classes." Mr. Gladstone occupied the chair, and was among the speakers. The report here given appeared in the Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1867-1868: London, 1868, pp. 405-407. It has not hitherto been reprinted; but a very similar report appeared in the Observer, July 5; the Times, July 6; and the Daily Telegraph, July 6. This was reprinted in Igdrasil, December 1891, vol. iii. pp. 185-186, and thence in the privately-issued Ruskiniana, part ii., 1892, pp. 207-208. Another report, interspersed with critical replies to Ruskin, appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of July 6, 1868 this was reprinted in the "Notes and Correspondence" of Fors Clavigera, Letter 28. Ruskin refers again to the matter in Eagle's Nest, § 63.] 2 [In the newspapers the report began as follows: "Mr. Ruskin also supported the resolution, and said he hoped that political economy would at some future day become a science; but without wishing to depreciate the labours of its professors, he hardly considered that it occupied that position at present. Too many of its students, like a former speaker, looked upon man as a predatory animal, while man, on the contrary, was an affectionate animal, and until the mutual interest of classes was based upon affection, difficulties must continue between those classes." The "former speaker" was (according to the Pall Mall report) Mr. Dering.] be conducted on proper principles? Before endeavouring to teach political economy as a science, it was necessary to consider whether it required any additions to complete it. No doubt, combination was a safeguard to workmen; but in connexion with it, there were two points to be aimed atone was to meet the abuses which ignorance had introduced, and the other was to direct combination, most quickly and certainly, to the obtaining of the utmost possible good. There was one point in respect to which he felt political economy had especially failed. He heard it perpetually said that trades unions had interfered with the natural law of wages. In a pamphlet published at the office of the Association this passage occurred :— "So far again as trades unions are associated for combined but peaceful action in the matter of wages or hours of work, though I should look on such action as a needless, and even injurious, interference with natural laws, still, in these cases, while we may have to lament ignorance, we have not to condemn crimes" (Measures for Putting an End to the Abuses of Trades Unions, by Frederick Hill). A natural law could not be interfered with. It was not a law at all if it could be interfered with. There were natural laws of the distribution of the wages founded on the particular habits of men at any given time. What was meant by political economists was the operation of the laws of hostility under certain conditions of persuasion in the minds of the two classes. Under these conditions certain results followed. He had drawn up1 the following series of questions with respect to natural laws, which he wished to put to professors of political economy : 1. It is stated in a paper read before the jurisprudence section of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, and afterwards published at their office, that "without the capitalist labour could accomplish nothing (p. 4)."2 But for long periods of time in some parts of the world the accumulation of money was forbidden, and in others it was impossible. Has labour never accomplished anything in such districts? 2. Supposing that, in the present state of England, capital is necessary, are capitalists so? In other words, is it needful for right operation of capital that it should be administered under the arbitrary power of one person? 3. Whence is all capital first derived? 4. If capital is spent in paying wages for labour or manufacture which brings no return (as the labour of an acrobat or manufacturer of fireworks), is such capital lost or not? and if lost, what is the effect of such loss on the future wages fund? 5. If under such circumstances it is lost, and can only be recovered (much more recovered with interest) when it has been spent in wages for productive labour or manufacture, what labours and manufactures are 1 [The newspaper reports omitted most of the above passage ("Before endeavouring . . . results followed "), reading: ". . . on proper principles? The principle of trades union was doubtless a safeguard to workmen, but it should be cleared of abuses introduced by the ignorance of the men, and then directed to its proper end-the introduction of comfort and happiness into as many homes of the kingdom as possible. He had carefully considered and prepared in a loving spirit the following series of questions, which he thought should be put to eminent professors of political economy on behalf of the working men of England."] [Another reference to the pamphlet by Mr. Hill (an Inspector of Prisons).] productive, and what are unproductive? Do all capitalists know the difference? and are they always desirous to employ men in productive labours and manufactures, and in these only? 6. Considering the unemployed and purchasing public as a great capitalist, employing the workmen and their masters both, what results happen finally to this purchasing public if it employs all its manufacturers in unproductive labour? and what if it employs them all in productive labour? 7. If there are thirty workmen, ready to do a day's work, and there is only a day's work for one of them to do, what is the effect of the natural laws of wages on the other twenty-nine? 8. Is it a natural law that for the same quantity or piece of work wages should be sometimes high, sometimes low? With what standard do we properly or scientifically compare them, in calling them high or low? and what is the limit of their possible lowness under natural laws? 9. In what manner do natural laws affect the wages of officers under Government in various countries? 10. "If any man will not work, neither should he eat." Does this law apply to all classes of society?1 These were questions which workmen wanted solving, for them, and in their name he submitted them for solution. 2 Mr. Ruskin was willing to second the amendment with a slight modification. He thought it strange that the Association, whilst trying to solve this question, should meet in a room where working men could not watch the discussion. The main object of the meeting was to give information 1 [Compare Sesame and Lilies, § 136.] 2 These remarks were made at the adjourned special meeting on July 15, 1868, and were printed in the Sessional Proceedings, pp. 425–426. A shorter report ap peared in the Daily Telegraph, July 16, 1868. The newspaper report was reprinted in Igdrasil, December 1891, vol. iii. pp. 186-187, and thence in the privatelyissued Ruskiniana, part ii., 1892, pp. 208-209. Mr. Newmarch had moved: "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the interests of both workmen and employers, instead of being opposed, are in harmony and indeed identical; it being, for example, for the benefit of each class that that rate of wages should always be adopted which, on the one hand, is not so high as to drive away capital, and, on the other, not so low as to drive away labourers." Mr. Tom Hughes opposed the motion, and Colonel Torrens moved the following amendment: "That it is expedient in the interests both of workmen and employers that wages should, so far as the fluctuations of trade may permit, be so adjusted as to avoid equally those extreme rates which tend to drive away capital and those depressed rates which are inadequate to afford the working man comfortable subsistence for himself and his family."] 3 [The words "Mr. Ruskin... modification" are here inserted from the newspaper report, which continued: "It was strange that on the great problem of the age, which every day becomes of more cruel importance on one side, and of greater pecuniary importance on the other, which is exciting evil passions on both sidesevil most influential where it is concealed-the discussion should be slipped away into a room where the working man could not watch it."] Then to workmen, but it was not they alone who wanted it. In 1862,1 he challenged, without result, Mr. J. S. Mill to give him a definition of wealth, which was confused with money, but had nothing to do with it. In a luxuriant country, where you could get everything you wanted without it, money would be worthless; as it would be equally in a country where you could not for a fortune obtain a grain of corn or a draught of water. Wealth was represented by the possessions of a country, and not by the symbol, money-a truth which it was not to the interest of capitalists to make known. Such simple things were evaded in discussions, and many of us required to be told them. He objected to the distinction drawn between employers and employed. We ought all to be employed; and we ought to work with the right means at the right things. came the distinction between capital and labour. Capital meant tools to be used by labourers, who ought not to have to borrow them and pay for the use of them, but who ought to be masters of their tools, whether they were pickaxes or steam-engines. Capital was wanting, but was it absolutely necessary it should be in the hands of one person? Savings in the bank were capital; let labourers unite and obtain tools with those savings. Some people worked at things that were useless and wrong, and capital paid for labour which was not of much use. It was necessary men should know whether they were usefully employed or not. He would suggest a resolution in this form: "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the interests of workmen and their employers are at present opposed, and can only become identical when all are equally employed in defined labour and recognised duty, and all, from the highest to the lowest, are paid fixed salaries, proportioned to the value of their services and sufficient for their honourable maintenance in the situations of life properly occupied by them." He would, however, ask Mr. Torrens to alter his amendment by proposing that wages should be adjusted "by a fixed standard.” 4 [The newspaper in a shorter version of this passage gave incorrectly "1858." The reference is to the Preface of 1862 to Unto this Last (see above, p. 18).] [The words "He objected . . . employed" are here inserted from the newspaper report.] 3 [In the newspaper report: "finally, at the request of the meeting, he submitted the amendment he had prepared, as follows . . ."] [In the newspaper report he asked Colonel Torrens if he would alter his resolution by inserting after "so adjusted" the words "by a fixed standard.” Colonel Torrens declined to insert the words "because he thought it impossible to fix a standard," and ultimately a new resolution, of a non-committal character, was adopted. Subsequently another subject was discussed, the following motion being proposed: "That, considering how important it is that a knowledge of some of the simpler laws of political economy, on the practical application of which such momentous interests depend, should be acquired before the mind becomes biassed and the passions aroused, this meeting is of opinion that, however elementary the school, such instruction should always form part of the education." Mr. Vernon Lushington opposed, on the ground that political economy was indeterminate, and that arbitration was the proper remedy. Mr. Ruskin," says the report, "strongly supported the motion. Principles must be taught before arbitration is possible."] VIII EMPLOYMENT FOR THE DESTITUTE POOR AND CRIMINAL CLASSES (1868) 1 To the Editor of the " Daily Telegraph"1 SIR, Your admirable leader of to-day 2 will do great good; but it will do more if you complete it by pointing out the chief reason for the frequent failure of almsgiving in accomplishing any real benefit to the poor. No almsgiving of money is so helpful as almsgiving of care and thought; the giving of money without thought is indeed continually mischievous; but the invective of the economist against indiscriminate charity is idle, if it be not coupled with pleading for discriminate charity, and, above all, for that charity which discerns the uses that people may be put to, and helps them by setting them to work in those services. That is the help beyond all others; find out how to make useless people useful, and let them earn their money instead of begging it. Few are so feeble as to be incapable of all occupation, none so faultful but that occupation, well chosen, and kindly compelled, will be medicine for them in soul and body. I have lately drawn up a few notes for private circulation on possible methods of employment for the poor. The reasons which weighed with me in not publishing them have now ceased to exist; and in case you should think the paper worth its room in your columns, and any portion of it deserving your ratification, I send it you herewith, and remain your faithful servant, DENMARK HILL, S.E., Dec. 24. J. RUSKIN. 1 [From the Daily Telegraph, December 26, 1868, under the heading given above Reprinted in Arrows of the Chace, 1880, vol. ii. pp. 191, 192.] 2 [A Christmas article on Charity.] 3 See the following pages.] |