The Trades' Union Congress of 1895 Author(s): Clem Edwards Source: The Economic Journal, Vol. 5, No. 20 (Dec., 1895), pp. 636-641 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Royal Economic Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2956653 Accessed: 27-06-2016 10:45 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Economic Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Economic Journal

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 4636 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL comne to, about the number of apprentices in any trade are frequently unfair, it may be advisable to insist that such agreements shall only be made within certain limits; to define these limits is difficult, but as I hope this article has shown is not quite impossible. It is dangerous for- the public to interfere in such matters, but the possible harm that may be caused by such interference may-be almost indefinitely dimin-

y A

A'

N B x

FIG. V. ished if the public realise exactly what the result of their interference is likely to be, If economics is to be of practical use, it should afford -us methods for deriving definite conclusions from definite premises. If our conclusions are to have much practical value, our premises must consist of accurate statistical data. Perhaps in time the Government will give us some statistics. C. P. SANGER

THE TRADES' UNION CONGRESS OF 1895.

THE chief feature of the week's proceedings at Cardiff this autumn, -standing out clear and distinct from all other incidents, was the ex- traordinary coup-d'ettat by which the Parliamentary Committee secured -the adoption of a brand new constitution. It will probably be remem- -bered that when the Norwich Congress was on the point of terminating, -there still remained untouched upon the agenda a large nuimber of resolutions. Many of these embodied proposals for remodelling the standing' orders by which the Congress is governed. However, the -whole of them without distinction were referred to the Parliamentary Committee-the official report merely says ' for consideration.' When the Committee met they elected a small sub-committee, with instruc- tions to draw up a suggested code of new ' orders.' This was done, ;and upon the new code being presented to the Committee as a whole, they resolved-by means, be it said, of the chairman's casting vote

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE TRADES' UNION CONGRESS OF 1895 637 only-to make them immediately operative, without first giving the Congress an opportunity of ratifying, amending, or rejecting them. Briefly, the main effect of the new orders was:-

I. To deprive the Trades Councils of the right of representation. 2. To restrict the choice of delegates to men actually working at, their' trade and to paid union officials. 3. To introduce a system of proxy voting.

The Congress originally sprang out of a Trades Council, and since its inception in 1868 Trades Councils have not only sent a large and important part of its delegation, but have invariably acted the part of host to the Congress, giving the invitation to meet in their particular- town, and making all local arrangements, such as providing lodgings, and a programme of entertainment for the delegates. Embracing, as a rule, all the local branches of the different unions, they are fitted in a way that no other body in the labour world is fitted for this indis- pensable work. But they have carried with them a certain element of' weakness. They have represented at Congress portions of unions, already represented directly. And it was no doubt this weakness of duplicated representation that largely led the Committee to decide to. exclude them from the right of being represented in future. Whether this step was wise time only can prove, but at present it seems doubt- ful whether the advantage gained will be equal to the hurt done by rais- ing the resentment of these Councils throughout the c6untry-at least, so long as the Congress does not exercise an executive control over the individual unions affiliated, but is merely a loosely- knit body for focussing working-class opinion upon matters requiring legislative reform. The case for the second important new order appears very much stronger. This declares that--

'No person can be a delegate to the Trades' Uliion Congress unless he ig actually working at his trade at the time of appointment, or is a permanent paid working official of his trade union.'

There is certainly a good deal to be said in favour of thus making the Congress more definitely expressive of unadulterated trades union opinion. But the immediate effect will be to deprive the Congress of much of its debating strength and picturesque value, for this order at, one fell swoop excludes such well-known labour leaders as John.Burns, Tom Mann, Henry Broadhurst, George Howell, Keir Hardie, and George Shipton, none of whom fulfil the requisite conditions. But the third proposal is decidedly reactionary, for it enables the larger unions to completely swamp the smaller unions by means of proxy voting. For example, the Miners Federation are entitled to 16G votes, which can be recorded by only one delegate if so desired, the Cotton operatives 86, and the Engineers 77. They were entitled to the same number of votes under the old order of things, but then the

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 638 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL

:small unions were safeguarded by the fact that the principle, of ' one mian one vote ' was in operation, and the large unionis never thought of going to the expense of sending their full quota of delegates. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Committee in deciding to put the new orders immediately into force, acted in an unconstitutional manner. The Norwich resolution gave them no right to go beyond cdrawing up a suggested code of orders for the consideration of the affiliated unions, and subject to the decision of the subsequent Con- .gress. Nor was there in the old standing orders a single clause or sentence that could be construed as conferring upon them this power. And that it is entirely opposed to any recognised standard of democratic government in popular assemblies for a committee to legislate for the general body from whom it derives its existence, simply goes without saying. Strangely enough, too, when the validity of the Committee's action was being called in question on the second day of the Congress, not one of them really attempted to justify it on constitutional grounds. Mr. John Burns, who endeavoured to defend them, certainly declared that he believed the Norwich resolution had given them-full power to deal with the matter. But even this thin thread of defence he seems to have since abandoned, for in an interview on the subject reported in the Daily Chronicle, he delivered himself of this amazing Napoleonic dictum as a defence of the Committee's action

'Constitutions are figments. Coups d'etat are given to strong men to show the consistency of their policy when they are right.'

The President ruled that the resolution challenging the Committee's -action should be taken in accordance with the new orders, that is, the very orders called in question. With the Trades Council delegates thus kept out, and proxy voting permitted, the result was of course a foregone conclusion. By 604,000 to 357,000 the Committee were upheld. But then with the true British love of comipromise and disregard for logical principles, -the Congress imitated the celebrated Devonshire jury, who, having found the prisoner not guilty, gravely told him he must not do it again. Having upheld the Committee's decision, they resolved that in future

'No alteration (in the orders) can take effect except by the express desire of the delegates assembled in Congress; the Parliamentary Committee to have no power in framing new orders.'

The annual report of the Parliamentary Committee was perhaps -necessarily a somewhat shadowy document. The only really healthy- looking thing about it was the glowing description of the legislative prospects as viewed in and about the ' merry month of May' last. But prospects are vanity, and so the report dolefully recited how they melted into air, into thin air,' and dissolved, ' like the baseless fabric of this vision,' with the sudden defeat of the Government in June.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE TRADES' UNION CONGRESS OF 1895 639

Commenting upon the recommendations of the House of Commons Unemployed Committee the report declared that:

'Your Comm--ittee taking a comprehensive view of the subject are convinced that the whole question of the unemployed can never be solved by any tinker- ing with the subject by a select committee in the House of Comiimons, or even p)roviding relief in special cases and during special seasons of the year. They are convinced that the state of the land laws of the country, and the numerous nonopolies which exist, must be changed and removed before any real ieiniedy wvill be secured so as to reduce the large army of unemployed, who are, un- fortunately-through no fault of their own-now found starving in the large towns and cities of the country.'

The Presidential address was chiefly takeiu up with a comprehensive .exposition of the lessons for labour to be derived from the results of the General Election. In the course of his remarks, Councillor Jenkins, with the warmth of a typical Welshman, denounced the -action of the Independent Labour Party as ' hopeless,' and as cal- *culated 'to convert the term Labour Candidate into a byword of reproach and mistrust, and to unmiistakably demonstrate that the worst enemies of labour might be those of their own household.' With regard to the eight hours question, he urged that rather than wait indefinitely for the realisation of a legal eight hours day, ' it would -be better that the power they possessed through combination to help themselves should wear out, rather than rust out from disuse.' By which he meant that

'Should Parliament decline to legislate, a splendid opportunity would be -created for a universal demand upon the employers for the voluntary concession of the lesser hours, and let but the unions make the miiovement a national one and be prepared to join issue with capital everywhere on its behalf and he, for his part, had no doubt of the result.'

Great interest centred in the threatened attempt to rescind the cele- brated ' Collectivist ' declaration. After four years' 1 keen struggle between the two schools of I Individualists' and I Collectivists 'into which 'Congress has for several years broadly divided itself, this declaration was first adopted at Belfast in 1893. On that occasion in connection with a scheme for Independent Labour Representation in Parliament, the Congress resolved by 152 votes to 50 that:

'Candidates receiving financial assistance must pledge themselves to slup- port the principle of collectivist ownership anid control of all means of produc- tion and distribution, and the labour prograi-mme as agreed upon from-i tim--e to time by the Congress.'

Last year at Norwich the proposal came up in a different form. MIr. Rudge, of Manchester, moved that ' in the opinion of this Congress, it is essential to the maintenance of British industries to ationalise the land, mines, minerals, and royalty rents; and that the

See Eco.omeic JOUR1NAL, p. 695, Vol. IV.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 640 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL

Parliamentary Committee be instructed to promote and support legisla- tion with the above objects.' Thereupon Mr, Keir Hardie moved as- an amendment:-

'In line two after the word " land," leave out mines, miinerals, and royalty- rents, and insert " and the whole of the means of production, distribution aid- exchange !"'

This was seconded by Mr. Tom Mann, supported by Mr. John Burns, M.P., and finally parried by 219 votes against 61. As a protest against the decision, the Northumberland and Durham Miners, and the Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders, three of the- largest and best organised unions in the country, intimated their intention of not again sending delegates to the Congress. There is no doubt that this feeling of hostility to the collectivist declaration was shared by the executives of many other unions. Indeed it was openly stated among the Cardiff delegates that several of the Parliamentary Committee who belonged to such unions had voted in favour of making the new standing orders immediately operative, so that they might, by the exclusion of the Trades Council delegates, and the greater strength given to the larger and more conservative unions (by the use of the ' proxy' vote) secure the rescission of this, to them, obnoxious proposal. A delegate of the Cotton Operatives gave notice of rescission at, Cardiff in the following terms:-

' That the resolutionl passed on the fourth day of Congress last year, aild reported on page fifty-three (Congress report), and also placed No. 11 List of questions submitted to Parlialmlentary candidates, be rescinded, and that the resolution proposed by Mr. J. J. Rudge, of Manchester, stand in its place.'

While the ' mover' was speaking a socialist delegate rose and pointed out that the standing orders required that 'all resolutions. shall be printed and sent out to the trades,' that Mr. Rudge's resolu- tion, forming, as it did, a constituent part of the motion for rescission,. had not been- so printed and sent out; and that therefore& the motion was out of order. The point came like a ' bolt from the- blue,' the President held it to be valid, and the whole debate came thus to a sudden and untimely end. Whether the 'rescission' would have been carried is of course doubtful. It is interesting, however, to observe that resolutions were carried in favour of nationalising mines, minerals, railways, and municipalising docks, and also a conglomerate motion which, after protesting against rate aid for voluntary schools, declared that the present system of national education should be so altered as to make 'our children worthy citizens of a co-operative commonwealth.' Resolutions were carried in favour of raising the -age of child labour to fourteen, which would mean the abolition of the half-timers, and of payment of County Councillors' expenses while attending to their-

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms JOINT ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED 64f

public duties. There was also the usual heavy crop of 'h ardy annuals,' which were adopted almost without discussion; and for the first time- for many years the agenda were entirely cleared before the delegates. rose from their labours. A particularly interesting incident was the- reception of two delegates from the American labour organisations,. and the election of two members of the Parliamentary Committee to, return the compliment next year. CLEM EDWAARDS

JOINT ASSOCIATIONS o0 EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED IN FRANCE. AND BELGIUM.

THE aim of this paper is to discover, if it is possible to do so by- means of literary and statistical evidence. whether there now is vitality- in a form of industrial association which hardly finds root among: English-speaking peoples but which appears in certain European countries and is definitely established in one only, viz. France. It is. not proposed to attempt a complete answer to the question raised,. but to bring together some suggestive figures after drawing from' French and Belgian critics an estimate of an interesting, and in origin generously inspired attempt to reconcile conflicting industrial forces. T'he question: What is a joint association (syndicat mitxte) as. understood in France ?-is one that has already occupied some attention in this country. A description might be briefly attempted, in passing,. of the associations as mixed iunions of employers and employed, formed for pronmotion of conciliation and support of technical education. When Sir Stephen Condie's admiirable summary on French Labour- Associations appeared as an English Foreign Office Report 1 in 1892 the- first clue was given in an accessible English form to the general charac- ter of industrial association in France-a movement in spirit, historical origin and aims, so unlike all that is linked with Trade Unionism in England that it is fortunate we are able to simply translate the French terms and call organisations so distinct by names other than those with which we are familiar here. From the limits of this paper it is impossible to trace again the striking history of the sudden annihilation of old forms, and the slow and painful reconstruction of new forms, of industrial association, since June, 1791. For that, reference must be made to the Report of the Secretary to the late Labour Commission which undertook a far wider- research than Sir S. Condie's into the nature of these various organisa- tions. Of this second Report M. de Rousiers, in an appreciative- review,2 said that it had brought together a series of views bearing on the origin of social conditions which enables Englishmen to truly I 'Relations between Capital and Labour,' Foreign Office Miscellaneous Series, No. 258, 1892. 2 In La Science Sociale, January, 1894.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:45:38 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms