With some it is motived by the desire to secure for wage labour in all “Christian” States conditions compatible with human dignity and self-respect. This was the basis of the Pope’s negotiations with the labour parties and with certain of the more high-minded sovereigns and princes. Others demand it in the combined interests of international equilibrium of competition and of Labour Protection, believing that these two may be brought into harmony by the international process, since if industry were equally weighted everywhere, and the costs of production, therefore, approximately the same everywhere, protected nations would not suffer in the world’s markets. The first, the more “idealist” motive prevails most strongly among Catholics, and contains no doubt a deeper motive—namely, the preservation of the social influence of the Church. At the International Catholic Economic Congress at Suttich, in September, 1890, this view prevailed, with the support of the English and Germans, against the opposition of the Belgians and French.
The light in which international Labour Protection is viewed depends upon whether the one or the other motive prevails, or whether both are working together.
Two results are possible. Either limits will be set to the right of restricting protection of employment and protection in occupation by means of universal international legislation, or the interchange of moral influence between the various governments will be brought about by means of periodical Labour Protection Conferences and through the Press, which on the one hand would promote this interchange of influence, and on the other hand would, uniformly for all nations, demand and encourage the popular support of all protective efforts outside the limits of the State.
Before the Berlin Conference it was by no means clear what was expected of international Labour Protection. Since the Conference it has been perfectly clear, and this alone is an important result.
The international settlement which Prince Bismark had opposed ten years before did not meet with even timid support at the Berlin Conference. England and France were the strongest opponents of the idea of the control of international protective legislation. This can be proved from the reports of the Berlin Conference.
The representative of Switzerland, H. Blumer, in the session of March 26, 1890, made a proposal, which was drawn up as follows:—
“Measures should be taken in view of carrying out the provisions adopted by the Conference.
“It may be foreseen on this point that the States which have arrived at an agreement on certain measures, will conclude an obligatory arrangement; that the carrying out of such arrangement will take place by national legislation, and that if this legislation is not sufficient it will have to receive the necessary additions.
“It is also safe to predict the creation of a special organ for centralizing the information furnished, for the regular publication of statistical returns, and the execution of preparatory measures for the conferences anticipated in paragraph 2 of the programme.
“Periodical conferences of delegates of the different governments may be anticipated. The principal task of these conferences will be to develop the arrangements agreed on and to solve the questions giving rise to difficulty or opposition.”