“Speeches are constantly made but seldom read. England is sick of the Irish question (!) but has no other ready to put in its place. Claims for shorter hours and higher wages are rising in every trade and business, and this is the only subject that really touches public opinion; it is not, however, an easy one for candidates to make capital out of, for opinion in the electoral masses has not pronounced in favour of or against a compulsory eight hours; which is the main question in dispute. The cat has not jumped yet, when it does pledges and opinions will be swallowed, and a dishonest scramble will follow.”
Many cats have jumped since then, but the main outlines of politics are not essentially different.
I confess that I was impressed by the extent to which the problem of the unemployed existed in a country with apparently limitless possibilities. Meetings of these men took place constantly near the Queen’s Statue during 1892, and perhaps a portion of a letter which I wrote to Lord Derby may be worth recording as at least a first-hand impression of what took place at the time.
“As to the unemployed, they present the usual features of the class, somewhat intensified by local colour. A kind Government not only provides a free Labour Bureau to meet their case, but has obtained for them certain buildings belonging to the Municipality as sleeping and smoking-rooms, and to the ‘married destitute’ is now distributing orders for free rations. I understand that about 9,000 entered their names on the books of the Labour Bureau, but only some 200 have so far proved themselves qualified for free rations. What I am, however, trying hard to make out is why, when everyone tells you ‘there is work for everyone in this country if he likes’—‘everyone can make money here’—‘this is the working-man’s paradise,’ etc., etc., there should be such numbers of men out of work and undoubtedly so much real destitution. Possibly two incidents which have occurred lately may assist in the solution of the problem. A contractor took a number of men from the Labour Bureau to do certain works near the Harbour. He tried to sort them with a view to giving the less efficient 6s. a day, the others to have 7s. or 8s. a day when proved capable of earning it. They all struck, and even the Minister for Works backed them up, saying the contractor must not do that—he must give all the men standard wages, but might send away the inefficient ones and have others in their place.”
Of course the wages in Australia have risen enormously in the last twenty-five years. At the time I wrote, as far as I recollect, miners had about 14s. a day and other skilled labourers somewhere from 10s. to 13s. The men employed by the contractor were probably unskilled. I continue my letter:
“Yesterday I visited a large Government Asylum for women ... no poor law here. It comes to exactly the same thing, only, instead of the rates, Government supports the institution. But the interesting thing was this—connected with this women’s asylum is a farm, and the Matron’s husband (an ex P. & O. captain) has voluntarily taken it in hand. He wanted labour, and observed that in a neighbouring Government Asylum for men there are numbers of men capable of doing plenty of work, but not up to the 7s. to 10s. a day standard. He asked permission to have some of these men, and has now about 40 employed about the farm, giving them board and lodging at this Women’s Asylum and from 3d. to 1s. a day. I saw some at 3d. doing 4ft. draining, and I talked to one, a bricklayer, who was doing excellent work for 1s. a day. I calculated with the Master what his board and lodging were worth (meat about 2½d. lb.) and it came to about 1s. a day, so with 1s. wages on six days that was about 13s. a week.”
I remark that had Trade Unions found out that these men, whom masters would not employ at full rates, were working instead of sitting with folded hands, it would doubtless have been stopped. Meantime, though ancient history, this is not altogether unenlightening.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
One rather amusing incident took place in Parliament. “Eight hours” was the Trade Union rule, but was not enforced by law at the time of which I write. A measure was brought into the Legislative Assembly (the Lower House) to make it legally obligatory. First came the preamble, which was accepted, then Clause Two stating that Eight Hours should be the legal working-day, which was passed with acclamation, then the various clauses with penalties attached which would oblige employers and employed to abide by the new law. All these were promptly negatived. It seems to have struck somebody that two clauses expressing an academic opinion looked a little isolated, so a member brought forward a third clause stating that nobody was to be obliged to work eight hours if he did not want to do so. This was accepted with equal unanimity, and the Bill stood practically thus: 1st. Name. 2nd. Eight hours is a legal working-day. 3rd. No one is obliged to work eight hours. I believe that the whole thing evaporated in a burst of laughter and never went to the Upper House, but of course every sort of stringent regulation as to working-hours has come in since.