Present state of public opinion in England. CHAPTER VII STATE AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT AND REGULATION 1. Extent of State and Municipal Industrial Enterprise. 93. THE question of State and municipal organisation and regulation of industry is in a less advanced stage in England than on the Continent, and while the socialistic tendencies of legislation abroad have been increasing in force in recent years, England has done comparatively little in the direction of multiplying State industries and enlarging the sphere of public property in the means of production. Municipalities have to some extent recently extended the scope of their work, but the total expenditure by local authorities in the United Kingdom does not appear to have increased in proportion to the increase in either population or the wealth and resources of the country. In spite,' Mr. Giffen stated in his evidence before the Labour Commission, of all the tendency for Government and municipalities to take over and do things which private enterprise would otherwise have done, the proportion (of the general expenditure of the country) administered by Governments is not really increasing.' Intervention in the organisation and regulation of industry on the part of the State varies from the direct execution of work by Government or the direct interference with industrial relations by Acts of Parliament, to the indirect results brought about by the collection and publication of trade statistics by a Government Labour Department. Directly, Government interference may take the form of increased labour legislation, restrictions on contracts executed for public bodies by private enterprise, or even the direct execution of, or artificial creation of, work. In- [93.] directly, the Government may influence industrial conditions by attempting to adjust the supply of labour to the demand by means of labour registries, by the publication of trade information obtained through a Labour Department, by the administration of Poor-Law relief, or by the provision of some system of State insurance. Although State and municipal interference in this country is at present in an early stage of development, the attitude adopted towards the question by the central and local authorities, and by working men, appears in recent years to have undergone a considerable change, and the central and local governments have been made increasingly conscious of their responsibilities, in so far as they are themselves, whether directly or indirectly, employers of labour. In the main, this change appears to be the outcome of the increased political power of the working classes, through their representatives in Parliament and on the local boards, and no doubt it is also partly due to a growing sense of collective responsibility. The great majority of recent Government interventions in England, according to Mr. Goschen, have been undertaken for moral rather than for economic ends. 'I believe,' he states in his Addresses,'' that certainly in the case of the Factory Acts, and to a great extent in the case of the Education Acts, it was a moral rather than an economic influence the conscientious feeling of what was right, rather than the intellectual feeling of ultimate material gain; it was the public imagination touched by obligations of our higher nature which supplied the tremendous motive power for passing laws which put the State and its inspectors in the place of father or mother as guardians of a child's education, labour, and health.' It is impossible to determine how far the increased labour legislation of this century is due to this growing moral sense accompanying the industrial development of the country, and how far to the influence of the workingclass votes. Grievances with regard to the conditions of labour in Government and municipal employment are now [93.] openly ventilated by the workmen's representatives, and are therefore, to a large extent, remedied by the pressure of public opinion. The attitude adopted by the Government towards its workpeople was manifested in the reception of a deputation from the London Reform Union by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman at the War Office. This deputation urged the adoption of a shorter day in Government workshops in order to avoid the dismissal of the men, the extension of the system of Government clothing factories in substitution for the contract system, and other matters relating to labour reform,' such as the adoption of a 'minimum living wage' and 'a system of co-operation between the different Government departments,' so as to avoid 'periodical wholesale dismissal.' It consisted partly of working men and women, who themselves urged the necessity of reforming their conditions of labour, and made specific complaints with regard to certain Government departments. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's reply to the deputation is noteworthy, because, while acknowledging a recent change of attitude on the part of the Government, it at the same time contained a clear recognition of the limitations set upon the action of the Government as a leader of public opinion. 'Was it not,' he asked, 'a very remarkable thing that of late the Government departments had entirely departed from the old argument, which used to be deemed sufficient-namely, that they could get plenty of labour at such terms as they offered? They could not now get any public department to use that argument. They now admitted to the fullest degree that it was to their interest, as well as their duty, to pay such wages as would enable a man or woman to live in decency.' Although Mr. Campbell-Bannerman had previously stated in the House of Commons that he was willing to accept in the fullest sense the principle that the terms of Government employment should be beyond reproach,' he drew a distinction between that and the other proposal,' viz. that Government should forge ahead of public opinion.' A Government cannot embark in new experiments far ahead of the general practice, and is, moreover, bound to be the [93.] more cautious because its members are dealing not with their own but with the taxpayers' money. The plan of directly urging upon responsible members of the Government reforms in the conditions of employment of Government servants, by means of a deputation of representatives, has been twice adopted on a large scale since the deputation to Mr. Campbell-Bannerman referred to. In March 1895 a large deputation of trade unionists, representing the Trade Union Congress of 1894, was received by Mr. Asquith, the Home Secretary; and again in November 1895 a deputation of about 250 delegates, representing the Trade Union Congress of 1895, waited upon the Home Secretary and representatives of the President of the Local Government Board and of the Postmaster-General, and was subsequently received by the President of the Board of Trade, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary to the Treasury. Except, however, in the case of the two last-mentioned Ministers and the Postmaster-General, the points urged by the deputation had reference rather to questions affecting the welfare of the working classes generally than those of Government employés in particular. In February 1891 the House of Commons passed a resolution to the effect that it is the duty of the Government,' in all Government contracts, 'to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, to insert such conditions as may prevent the evils arising from sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen.' The Government has also introduced the eight hours' day into some of its establishments. The London County Council has, however, gone further both in the direct and indirect control of industry, and its example has been followed by many other local bodies. The London School Board election of November 1888 and the London County Council election of January 1889 were 'followed by an immediate consideration of the wages paid T [93.] by the contractors working for those bodies, and by the passing of resolutions to give contracts only to fair houses.' Early in the year 1889 the Council passed a resolution requiring contractors for the Council to make a declaration that they paid such rates of wages and observed such hours of labour as were recognised as fair in their trades.' But as this declaration was found to be too general in its terms, in the spring of 1892 the Council decided that all contractors be compelled to sign a declaration that they pay the trade-union rates of wages, and observe the hours of labour and conditions recognised by the trade-unions in the place or places where the contract is executed, and that the hours and wages be inserted in and form part of the contract by way of schedule, and that penalties be enforced for any breach of agreement.' Standing orders were, therefore, drafted by which contractors were bound while carrying out work for the Council. Besides specifying the trade-union rates of wages and hours of labour, these orders secured that overtime should only be allowed in accordance with tradeunion rules. The contractor was unable to escape from these restrictions by sub-contracting, because this was forbidden without the consent of the Council, and such consent was only given provided that the contractor entered into an agreement to secure the observance of these conditions on the part of the sub-contractors. Where no organisation exists, the Council has undertaken itself to fix the minimum wages, the maximum hours of work, and the conditions to be observed in all contracts. According to the evidence given before the Labour Commission, the fair contract clauses laid down by the Government appear in some trades to have yielded satisfactory results. Thus, in the building trade the resolution was said to have brought about quite a revolution in the system of tendering for contracts, which has had its moral effect upon other contracts and other work.' But complaint was made by various witnesses from the clothing trade of the unsatisfactory nature of this resolution. The clauses are in themselves difficult |