[544]Address to Trade Unionists in Justice, January 24, 1885.
[545]Weiler was the delegate of the Alliance Cabinetmakers’ Society, and came from London. The Congress Report gives the following account of his paper: “After reviewing the position of the working classes under the present system, and comparing it with the state of things eighty years ago, he contended that the best means of bettering their position was to reduce the hours of toil. The result of this would be, first, to give every worker a better chance of employment, and thus lessen that sort of competition which was caused by hunger and want; secondly, it would give them time and opportunity for rest and amusement, and that cultivation of their minds which would enable them to prepare themselves for the time when the present system of production would collapse, and the time of this collapse was not so distant as some supposed.” The paper was received with much applause, and Weiler received the thanks of Congress. No resolution was passed.
[546]History of the British Trades Union Congress, by W. J. Davis, vol. i. p. 133.
[547]The Return moved for by George Howell regarding the Woolwich and Enfield engineering works showed that, during 1884 and 1885, more than half the artisans worked overtime, the average per week for each man varying from 9.4 hours in some shops to 17.8 in others.
[548]11,966 of its members voted for an Eight Hours Day, and of these 9209 declared in favour of the enforcement of the eight hours limit by law. The total votes given for an Eight Hours Law was 17,267; against it, 3819.
[549]The votes in favour of an Eight Hours Day were 39,656; against it, 67,390, of which 56,541 were cast on behalf of the Cotton-spinners and Weavers. In favour of an Eight Hours Law, 28,511; against it, 12,283. The votes of the different trades, and a summary of the Congress proceedings on this subject, are given in The Eight Hours Day, by Sidney Webb and Harold Cox, 1891; see also History of the British Trades Union Congress, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii. pp. 7-8.
[550]The clause was moved by S. Williamson, Liberal Member for Kilmarnock, and seconded by J. H. C. Hozier, Conservative Member for South Lanarkshire. It received no support from the “Labour Members,” and was rejected by 159 to 104. See the Eight Hours Day, by Webb and Cox, 1891, p. 23.
[551]The “National Conferences” of the miners are a feature peculiar to the industry. Besides the periodical gatherings of the separate federations, the miners, since 1863, have had frequent conferences of delegates from all the organised districts in the kingdom. These conferences were, until 1889, held under the auspices of the National Union; subsequently they were summoned by the Miners’ Federation. The meetings, from which reporters are now excluded, are consultative only, and their decisions are not authoritative until adopted by the separate organisations. See Die Ordnung des Arbeitsverhältnisses in den Kohlengruben von Northumberland und Durham, by Dr. Emil Auerbach (Leipzig, 1890, 268 pp.).
[552]The “Fair Trade” attack had arisen in the following manner. At the Bristol Congress in 1878, certain delegates, who were strongly suspected of being the paid agents of the organisation then agitating for the abolition of the foreign bounties on sugar, attempted to force this question upon the Congress, and made a serious disturbance. These delegates afterwards became the paid representatives of the “Fair Trade League,” an association avowedly composed of landlords and capitalists with the object of securing a reimposition of import duties. The Front Bench steadfastly refused to allow the Congress to be used for promotion of this object, and were exposed in return to what the Congress in 1882 declared to be “a cowardly, false, and slanderous attack, ... an attempt at moral assassination.” Instead of fighting the question of Free Trade versus Protection, the emissaries of the Fair Trade League developed an elaborate system of personal defamation, directed against Broadhurst, Howell, Shipton, and other leaders. For instance, Broadhurst’s administration of the Gas Stokers’ Relief Fund in 1872 was made the pretext for vague insinuations of malversation which were scattered broadcast through the Trade Union world. At the Congress of 1881 the “Fair Trade” delegates were expelled, on it being proved that their expenses were not paid by the Trade Union organisations which they nominally represented. A renewed attack on the Congress of 1882 ended in the triumphant victory of the Parliamentary Committee, the complete exoneration of Broadhurst and his colleagues, and the final discomfiture of the “Fair Trade” delegates. See Henry Broadhurst: the Story of his Life, by himself, 1901; History of the British Trades Union Congress, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910.
[553]Report to Congress of 1884. This is another instance of the abandonment of the more generous views of Applegarth and Odger.