CHAPTER XXVI

DEAD FLIES IN THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

In the year 1913 Messrs. Fred. B. Smith and Raymond Robins, the leaders of the “Men and Religion Movement” in America, paid a visit to Australia. They were received with open arms, and everywhere they gathered immense audiences of men to listen to their remarkable message. Mr. Smith has, since his tour, given his impressions of the conditions in Australia with singularly clear penetration. He says:

“Here we found that from the law-making end about everything that could be dreamed of for the good of the people has been done. Raymond Robins was simply overwhelmed with the magnitude of their legislation upon these questions. They have an eight-hour day universal labour law. They have a minimum wage law. They have an old-age pension Act. They have stringent laws concerning the operation of dangerous machinery without adequate protection for the workmen. There is not another land on earth with so little poverty in it. From the material standpoint they have reached a very high standard.”

This is true photography. Mr. Smith kept his eyes open during his stay in the Commonwealth. But he was not blind to the other side of the picture. He continues:

“The striking thing is that while these men have been engaged in passing the most arbitrary industrial laws they have permitted, in many cases, the loosest ones to exist upon the great moral questions. The public bars are loosely run. Gambling is permitted at race tracks and cricket matches. A people may pass laws until Doomsday, and they alone will not make people good, righteous, nor happy. There is no other such final evidence upon this point as that given in Australia.”

This is the problem the churches in Australia have to face. The growth of freedom has not meant the growth of morals. On every hand we perceive the perversion of this wonderful liberty. In this Garden of Eden the snake has already appeared.

Thus I have learned in five years that a perfect climate, a perfect social environment, and an almost perfect social and industrial legislation, together fail to produce morality. When the law was passed forbidding all work in shops, warehouses, and factories after midday on Saturday, it was thought that the Sunday morning services in the churches might gain as the result. At least, the ancient plea, “too tired because of hard work until late on Saturday night,” would be impossible. But the increased facilities for pleasure have led, in many instances, to the entire secularisation of the Sunday. Much wanted more, more demanded the most. And so, for very many, the Christian Sunday has gone, being replaced by a day of pleasure, sometimes pure, and often riotous. It is not that the people who spend the Sunday on the Bay, or in the gully, or at the seaside, or on the golf course, or at the picture show, have any intellectual hostility to religion--many of them never dream of cultivating their intellectual life in any direction whatever; they simply do not care.

This problem, newly worked out amidst ideal conditions of living, affords food for thought for those persons who imagine that a Garden of Eden alone can make a man what he ought to be. Australia is the place to annihilate illusions of that kind.

Mr. Smith has put his finger upon another of Australia’s sore places thus:

“We are all agreed that in Australia, in a larger sense than in any other place we have ever worked, ‘Labour’ and the Church seemed estranged. To speak of one man as a ‘Labour’ man and another as a ‘Liberal’ is almost synonymous with saying that one is an anti-Church and the other a Church man.”

The fact is, generally speaking, undoubted, but why it should be so is difficult to understand. The common statement made by Labour leaders is that the Church is wholly pledged to capitalism and to the classes. No statement is more completely false. As a matter of fact, one of the radical causes of many troubles and injustices in our social system (I should not be far astray if I said it was _the_ radical cause) is the iniquitous gamble in land which Australia deliberately allowed, and even fostered, in its early days. The vicious system of the Old World was transferred to the new soil, with the result that the present generation is paying usurious interest for the social sins of the fathers. House rents are wickedly high. Many commodities cost four times their real value because shopkeepers are compelled to pay absurd rents for their premises.

Many of the Socialists in Australia fail to allow for this. Churchmen are not responsible for the iniquities of the system. The greatest sinners in the olden days were men who knew far better the interior of a saloon than the interior of a church. And it ought to be said that the leaders of social reform in Australia to-day are men connected with the Church.

It is difficult to write about these things without appearing to be unsympathetic. The present writer, therefore, may be allowed to say that all his sympathies are with men who are struggling for justice. Labour men in Australia are right in demanding certain readjustments which will give them a freer manhood and a fuller share of the good things of life; but many of them are wrong in their temper and in their methods. Further, many of them are unfair in certain of their demands.

Take a concrete instance. A year ago there was in progress a lesser strike, involving some sixty or eighty men in an establishment which employs over 1,500 men. And why the strike? Will it be believed that, put in plain terms, the men struck for _less money_? The proprietor, who is a just and generous man, offered these particular men a new system of piece-work, by means of which they could earn as much as 17s. per day. It was a definite offer of advancement, yet it was refused in favour of the old system, which fixed (I believe) 12s. per day as a stated wage and apart from piece-work. Rather than accept the new system the men went out upon strike. To an ordinary person this seems an act of pure folly, going dead against the men’s interests. It is an instance of a caucus imposing a tyranny. The first and the chief need of Australia, from an industrial point of view, is the establishment of friendly relations between employers and employed. At present suspicion and acrimony reign, with disastrous results.

There is a great part for the Church to play in the promotion of a better feeling among the people, but before this can be done some of the Socialist leaders will have to attend to a little reading, and cease to blacken a religion the alphabet of which they do not understand.

In point of fact, the Labour men see but two classes: the working classes, whose interests lie in high wages, low rents, and cheap land; and the non-working classes, whose interests lie in low wages, high rents, and dear land. It is obvious that there is room both for information to be imparted to, reconciliation to be effected between, and justice accorded by these parties. The Council of Churches has instituted a “Labour Sunday,” in which the radical principles underlying the relation of master and man are expounded according to Christ. There is far too much suspicion on the part of the workers against the Churches. Perhaps “suspicion” is too mild a term to employ in view of the following extracts taken from official Labour papers. _The Tocsin_ said a year or two back: “Take it any road you will, religion is a curse and a snare and a delusion and a malicious sham.” Another Labour paper, _The Worker_, remarked: “When the Labour movement has to turn to God for help, it will be God help it indeed.... Its (the party’s) creed is purely materialistic, concerning no world but this world. Labour writes on its doorposts, ‘Wanted.--A Saviour; no God need apply.’” Ministers of religion are described as “wolves in sheep’s clothing, Pharisees, whited sepulchres, who call themselves teachers of Christianity, reptiles to be loathed, who, under the cloak of religious authority or clerical superiority, help to rivet more firmly the chains of injustice and wrong.” Of the Churches it is said: “Taking them as a whole, they are the sanctuaries of the sweater, the oppressor, and the Customs defrauder.” It would seem almost hopeless to reason with men of this type. They have no discrimination. They have nothing but opprobrium to pour upon the Churches and upon Christianity. Theirs is a bitter and a wild crusade. It may be that certain types of religion which have flourished, and still to an extent flourish, have irritated them, and that with reason, but this wholesale attack is pitiful. Some of the workers appreciate “Labour Sunday”; others regard it as an insult. Happily, not all the Labour men outside the Churches are of this inflammable and virulent type. The Church in Australia has all its work cut out to reconcile the Labour party with the Evangel.

A man who speaks plainly about these things is likely to become unpopular. Two years ago I got into trouble through telling a few cold truths about the conditions of Australian labour. The affair came about thus: Labour was very scarce in certain trades, notably the building trade. Builders and contractors could not obtain nearly sufficient men to enable them to fulfil their contracts in time. High wages were paid and offered, but the shortage continued. Some of the men took advantage of this fact to further their own interests. One gentleman in particular was pointed out to me as by no means a rare case. He was in receipt of over £4 per week. Pay-night was Friday, and this gentleman, having received his salary, went in for a “good time” on that same evening--so “good” that he was unable to appear at work on the Saturday. With several cases of this order before me, I remarked to a reporter that some Australian workmen needed to take a more honourable view of work. They needed to learn the meaning of Mr. Ruskin’s prophetic word concerning work as a factor in making character. Many of the workmen simply work for their pay, and they work as badly as they can. They have no conscience in their labour. And then I cited the cases named above.

This is how the chief Labour paper in Australia refers to the matter:

“Work is merely a means to an end, and there is nothing in it except for what it brings. The reason Mr. Spurr does not work is because he gets the products of labour he requires without producing them himself. As a matter of fact, the employing class simply want the workers to toil like galley slaves in order that they may make huge profits--and do no work. Manhood! Who are the men who spend their lives in arduous toil because they have been told it is right to work hard? The workers! Who are the unfortunates who see their wives becoming shrivelled-up drudges, careworn and ugly in middle life--while the employer’s wife blooms with health and good feeding? Who are the victims who watch their sons and daughters being drawn into the drudgery of the factory when they ought to be at school? Who are the patient slaves who toil on, trying to prevent their daughters from being flung on the streets after they themselves have been sucked dry in the mill of labour and flung on the scrap-heap? The workers!”

Now, if this had been written in England, or in some parts of England, where wages are short and hours are long, there would have been point in the remarks. But in Australia there is an eight-hour day, and the wages are high, being fixed by wages boards. It is not the question of sweating nor over-work that is here raised, but the question of remunerative labour. The sweating and the grinding employers have no greater enemy than the present writer. But when an employer pays (as in the case cited) a liberal wage, he has the right to expect conscientious work from his men. And it is not conscientious when a man, by taking a day off for drinking, hampers and harasses his employer, who admittedly pays him well. I repeat, a number of Australian workmen need to take a more dignified and honourable view of work. Conditions of labour there are better than in any other part of the world. It is a thousand pities that certain paid “leaders” are eternally seeking to foment a bad spirit between masters and men.

The moral side of labour seems to me to be insufficiently emphasised. One of the speakers at an annual demonstration hinted that a six hours’ day was a desirable goal to aim at. The suggestion was received with great applause. And the reason given was that when the actual needs of a community have been supplied work should cease and play begin. One speaker announced as his ideal for the twenty-four hours, eight hours’ work, eight hours’ play, and eight hours’ sleep. He left no place for work of another kind, i.e. the work of study, of information, and of culture. This omission is symptomatic; it represents a real omission in the life of many young Australians. Work, play, and sleep, in the sense intended by many out there, will not conduce to the building of a great nation. Not so have the great world-empires been built up. Not so has Britain risen to her supreme position. One cannot help feeling that work is not yet invested with the dignity and sacredness which belong to it. It is too frequently, amongst Australians, regarded as a yoke which must, willy-nilly, be borne for a certain number of hours per day, and which ought to be thrown off at the earliest possible moment. The glory of work has not yet dawned upon the minds of many of this new generation in this new country. Their fathers knew it, rejoiced in it, and succeeded by means of it. The sons take life far too easily and light-heartedly. It is their peril that they do so. Another thing is that the term “worker” is too frequently restricted to one class of the community. A “worker” is almost exclusively conceived to be a person who toils with his hands, and soils them in the effort. Workers with brain and pen are often spoken of contemptuously, as if they did not know the meaning of labour. A friend of mine, a leading doctor in the city, told me a story which is typical of the thought of many workers. He attended a football match last season played between two teams, one of which was the University team. As the University men emerged from the pavilion to take the field a voice was raised in the crowd, “_Here come the loafers_,” and the remark met with not a little laughter. And these “loafers” are the coming physicians, journalists, and teachers of the State! The gulf created by prejudice between toilers with the hand and toilers with the brain needs speedily bridging. And it may be added that for these “loafers” there is nothing so easy as an eight hours’ day. This is a kind and sympathetic criticism, and it is not superfluous.

As an illustration, on the other side, of what can be done and is being done to make labour a worthy thing, so far as agriculture is concerned, it may be well to describe some developments to which Australia is committed. At Ballarat we saw, in full operation, the work of the Agricultural High School. It was a perfect revelation to us. Here, for the first time, a new type of agriculturist is being produced. The old type, both at home and here, is well known, strong, hard-working, dogged, and not too well educated. The new type is entirely different from the old. This high school has been established by the Director of Education for the purpose of giving a broad and liberal education to the young men and women in whose hands the cultivation of the soil rests. It is an experimental college, but its success is already so striking that similar institutions will certainly spring up all over the Commonwealth. It claims to be the best-equipped school for experts in Victoria. The pile of buildings, which cost £13,000, is very imposing, and beautifully situated on the outskirts of the city. It is surrounded by eighty acres of land, used for experiments, as well as for the practical purpose of supplying the institution with vegetables. The whole land is carefully mapped out into certain lengths, upon each of which a trial is made of the value of various phosphates and manures. Thus, before a student passes in the work of practical agriculture, he knows exactly what is the fertilising power of every manure in the market. He also knows the cost of production; hence he can tell immediately whether or not his land will pay at a certain price.

The staff of teachers includes seven Masters of Arts, a Doctor of Philosophy, two Bachelors of Arts, and others. The curriculum is most thorough. The one idea of the institution is to produce intelligent students who can unite science to labour. The course of training includes carpentry, book-keeping, commercial correspondence, history, botany, art, chemistry, mathematics, languages, and cooking. Think of the old-fashioned farmer and his wife with these accomplishments! We watched the students at work, and a healthier or more intelligent body of maidens and youths it would be impossible to find. The girls, no matter what their station, take their turn in cookery. Each day the kitchen is served by these young ladies, who cook the food, serve the meals, and then wash up. There are no servants to do the dirtier work. Everything is done by the young ladies themselves. We had the honour of lunching with the director and some of his staff. The meal served to us was, he assured me, just the ordinary meal of the establishment. Not a single extra dish had been created in honour of the visitors. It was the daily sixpenny meal. We had for sixpence five courses, including tomato soup, beautifully cooked fish, meat, and vegetables, a tasty pudding, cheese, and coffee.

This combination of the literary with the practical is a splendid idea. No student leaves the institution with only theoretical knowledge.

It ought to be said that the land upon which the experiments are made is exceedingly poor, and this is its great advantage for purposes of education. No poorer land is likely to be bought by these students when they set up for themselves. They know, therefore, how to make the best of the worst. Science pitted against a poor soil has conquered. The introduction of artificial manures has produced the most surprising results. The buildings of the institution are modern in every respect, the ventilation and the lighting being perfect.

In the matter of agricultural education, as shown in the Ballarat High School, Victoria is ahead of the Old Country. Is it not possible to adopt the best features of this school and apply them to the conditions in the Old Land? The soil is the radical and the burning question at home. The congestion of England in her towns and cities can only be relieved as the rural life of the country is revived. The poorest soil can be made productive by the use of scientific methods. The Scottish delegation to Australia were greatly impressed by what they saw at Ballarat. May not the mother learn a little from her daughter? The redemption of the land in England and Ireland would solve many of the social difficulties at home.