Five Years Under the Southern Cross: Experiences and Impressions

by Frederic C. Spurr

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.