10th March, As regards the share of production to which the labourer is entitled, it is easy enough to propound theories on the subject. It is when we come to put them into practice that we find ourselves in deep waters. Mr. Ruskin says: "The abstract idea, then, of just or due wages, as respects the labourer, is that they will consist in a sum of money which will at any time procure for him at Jeast as much labour as he has given, rather more than less." We must retrain from the temptation of quoting the passages, gems of English, eloquent and unsurpassed, in which Mr. Ruskin expounds this idea, They will be found in "Unto his Last," in the chapter entitled " Qui Judicatis Terram." We confess that as an idea this appears to us to penetrate to the root of the matter, to be an idea as true as it is beautiful. We must confess also that the difficulties of putting it into practice seem almost overwhelming. But of what abstract idea may not the same be said? It sounds simple to say that wages are settled by the Jaw of supply and demand and that a fair wage is the most which the employer can be persuaded to give or the labourer to accept. But it is so much easier to discover what is the least a man can be prevailed upon to accept, than to determine what is his just due. We are inclined to think Mr. Ruskin's views would have been received with leas derision if they had been expressed. in a more conventional style. Let us put his abstract idea of a fair wage into maintaining the mill buildings and machinery, and supposing it cost £5,000 to suitably feed and clothe his employees, the latter would then be entitled to half the produce. If, on the other hand, the up-keep cost £9,000 and the employees £1,000, then only a tenth of the produce would fall to the labourer's share, But the principle here laid down, viz,, that a man is entitled to a share in what he has helped to produce corresponding to the importance of his share in producing it, is, it will be observed, not so very different from Mr. Ruskin's after all, We are not sure that the Apostle Paul was not the first to enunciate it when he wrote: "Tf any will not work, neither let him eat." It certainly appears to us a principle the abstract justice of which it would be difficult to dispute. But how does it work in practice? The results are before us. This century has witnessed a mechanical advance with which no previous period of our history can compare. In almost every branch of industry machinery has displaced human labour. In one of his last year's speeches the Duke of Devonshire gave some interest ing examples of what we mean. In 1856 aluminium cost 360s. per pound. Owing to improved methods of treating the metal it can now be purchased for 2s, per pound, A machine has recently been introduced into the bottle-making industry, which, for every seven gross produced by the old method of mouth-blowing at 8s. 10d. per gross, produces eighty gross of bottles at 8d. per gross. And these are only two instances out of hundreds which could be readily given. "The real tendency of our industrial progress at the present day is to eliminate everything in the nature of mechanical human labour, and that everything which is of a purely mechanical character will, sooner or later, be carried on by mechanical agency." It is true that at the same time there has been a reflex action by which the sphere of labour has been enormously enlarged. Railways, it was said on their first introduction, would throw out of employment an army of carriers road and caval. (We know now that the railways, in addition to their own servants, provide more work than ever to the carriers who feed their lines, Since the introduction of machinery labour is more plentiful than ever it was before. But what we wish to point out is this, that, while the introduction of machinery has increased the amount of labour, it has diminished its relative importance as a factor in production. And here we see our law in operation, England has gained enormously in wealth by the introduction of machinery, but the labourer's share compared with the capitalist's has been proportionately reduced. Is not this just? As a factor in production he does less, it is only fair he should receive less in proportion. It is notorious that he does receive less, The inequalities of rich and poor in our great cities have become so marked as to constitute a serious menace to our social polity.
It may be just that the labourer should receive less than he did, but how much less? Or as Ruskin would put it, how much more than the least to which he is entitled. Meanwhile the Inbouter is proclaimingin his own fashion his belief that his share is not enough, It is doubtful if he will be much moved by abstract theories. The reply. will have to take a more practical form, How then, is the division between capital and Jabour actually made? First there is the portion required for the upkeep of plant and machinery. Secondly, the amount paid in wages. And lastly, the profit which remains after these two disbursements have been made, We have already seen that unless this profit averages at least as much as that derived from land, the capitalist will withdraw his money, to the great detriment of that particular iudustry and to the certain loss of the labourers engaged mit. We have also seen that a state of free competition tends to an. equalisation of profits, so that the capitalist's share is kept within due bounds relatively to other capitalists' shares. It does not follow, however, that the same effect is produced re-natively to the share due to the labourer. The exact contrary is indeed asserted and so far believed that many interesting attempts have been made to devise some practical scheme for a more equitable division, Ca-operation was at one time considered a panacea for all injustice done to labour and in its distributive form it has been worked with benefit to the consumer. But no cooperation can be of any avail which is not 2 eu-operation of producers, and, although attempts in this direction have been made, none, so far as we know, has met with any degree of success. 'I'he difficulties inherent in any scheme of the kind seem insurmountable. All the labourer's savings must be invested in one business, in the management of which he can have but little control; if that fails, he loses not only his employment but the savings which should have supported him while seeking for new work, 'The scheme which at present seems to meet with most favour is that known as thesliding scale. If profits are good, the labourers' wages are raised; if profits fall, wages are reduced. Of course, as in the case of the recent strike of shipbuilders at Belfast and on the Clyde, masters and men may dispute the fact of increased profits, or the reverse. There may also be difficulties in fixing the sliding scale ite
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.