Page:The Commonweal (IA 0544678.0001.001.umich.edu).pdf/16

14 the present social system of England. Even while that monopoly lasted the markets could not keep pace with the increasing productivity of English manufacturers; the decennial crises were the consequence. And new markets are getting scarcer every day, so much so that even the negroes of the Congo are now to be forced into the civilisation attendant upon Manchester calicoes, Staffordshire pottery, and Birmingham hardware. How will it be when Continental, and especially American goods, flow in in ever increasing quantities—when the predominating share, still held by British manufacturers, will become reduced from year to year? Answer, Free Trade, thou universal panacea?

I am not the first to point this out. Already in 1883, at the Southport meeting of the British Association, Mr. Inglis Palgrave, the President of the Economical section, stated plainly that “the days of great trade profits in England were over, and there was a pause in the progress of several great branches of industrial labour. The country might almost be said to be entering the non-progressive state.”

But what is to be the consequence? Capitalist production cannot stop. It must go on increasing and expanding, or it must die. Even now, the mere reduction of England's lion's share in the supply of the world's markets means stagnation, distress, excess of capital here, excess of unemployed workpeople there. What will it be when the increase of yearly production is brought to a complete stop?

Here is the vulnerable place, the heel of Achilles, for capitalist production. Its very basis is the necessity of constant expansion, and this constant expansion now becomes impossible. It ends in a deadlock. Every year England is brought nearer face to face with the question: either the country must go to pieces, or capitalist production must. Which is it to be?

And the working class? If even under the unparalleled commercial and industrial expansion, from 1848 to 1868, they have had to undergo such misery; if even then the great bulk of them experienced at best a temporary improvement or their condition, while only a small, privileged, “protected” minority was permanently benefitted, what will it be when this dazzling period is brought finally to a close; when the present dreary stagnation shall not only become intensified, but this its intensified condition shall become the permanent and normal state of English trade?

The truth is this: during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have to a certain extent shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the greater mass had at least a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why since the dying-out of Owenism there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly the English working class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally—the privileged and leading minority not excepted—on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England. .

The proverbial parental relation of “the wish” to “the thought” is more easily realised if ignorance of French is knocking about. Several London journals, in dealing with the exposé of the police spies of Paris by the French Socialists, indulged in a maliciously free translation of the phrase “execution des espions.” This they rendered “execution of divers spies,” not knowing that “execution” here means “exposing.” The French correspondent of the Weekly Dispatch, in our judgement the best of that ilk, was the first to notice and “execute” this blunder.

Socialists and dynamitards are not, as the American correspondent of the Daily News seems to think (by telegraph) convertible or even collateral terms.

The crock calling the kettle smutty. Sir Stafford Northcote falling foul of Professor Thorold Rogers.

New work in India. “India for the Indians—and for England.” The author is the Secretary of the National Liberal Club. He deserves to be.

The first special address to the Manchester Geographical Society has been delivered by Mr. Arthur Arnold, M.P. The subject was “Our Commercial Opportunities in Western Asia.”

Mr. Arthur Arnold is a Radical. He has nothing better to talk about than our—Commercial Opportunities.

The Bishop of Manchester has been preaching on the manifesto of the Socialist League, and is much disturbed by it. His remarks on it are well meaning and amiable, and it must be said that he does not dare to deny the corruption and oppression of society which we assert; but his criticism is for the rest founded on the complete ignorance of Socialism which is the usual condition of the “educated” classes. We hope Dr. Fraser will take the occasion to correct this ignorance which the issue of our literature will give him.

A letter, signed “G. J. Holyake,” recently appeared in the Daily News. It was as fill of fine phrasing as Mr. Holyoake's letters generally are. “Lurid figures on the horizon” became, a few lines down, under a temporary forgetfulness, “the fiery figures of strange platforms.” It is not, however, with the imagery but with the reasoning that we have to do, though the two are curiously closely related. It is the plea, or rather the special pleading, for co-operation as it is to-day that calls for attention. “Many of the stores have more Capital than they know what to do with.” They bear the banner, “Profit sharing with labor.” Industry is to have “an equitable portion of the gain.” But the three words we have italicised are as many impossibilities without unpaid labor and exploitation somewhere. Mr. Holyoake's co-operators as well as the capitalist individuals or companies, do “steal capital” and do “put their hands in” the pockets of others. Every farthing of their profit comes from the unremunerated toil of some of their fellow-men.

At the annual meeting of the Notts Chamber of Agriculture, Lord Belper and the Duke of St. Albans denounced the recent utterances of Mr. Chamberlain on the land question. Naturally.

The steady and self-contained attitude of the London population under the influence of dynamite explosions was well shown by the ubiquitous stampede that followed upon a clap of thunder on the day or night week after the Westminster folly and crime.

Mrs. Natalie Liebknecht's translation of Mrs. Lynn Linton's novel “Joshua Davidson,” published some years ago in the Neue Welt, and lattelylately [sic] issued as a volume with an introduction by Wilhelm Liebknecht, has been prohibited by the Prussian Police Government, under one of the articles of the Anti-Socialist Law.

Professor Voeglin of Zurich, the ardent advocate of International Factory Legislation, lately gave a most interesting lecture on this subject at Bâle. He gave the following statistics regarding child labor in the various European countries:—In Germany children of 12 to 14 may be worked for 6 hours; from 14 to 16, 10 hours. France, boys of 10 to 12 (under certain conditions); boys from 12 to 16 (under certain conditions) 12 hours. England, children under 13, 6-6$1⁄2$ hours; young persons and females, 10-10$1⁄2$ hours. Austria, children of 10 to 12 prohibited; from 12 to 14, 10 hours' from 14 to 16, 12 hours. Denmark, children of 10 to 14 may be worked 12 hours; young persons of 14 to 18, 12 hours. Netherlands, child labor for children under 12 prohibited. Spain, boys under 13 and girls under 14 may be worked 5 hours; boys of 13 to 15 and girls of 14 to 17, 8 hours. Italy and Belgium, no laws.

“Job,” says a daily paper, “should have been chairman of the City Companies' Commission.” Exactly: Job with a short “o.”

workers hail with great rejoicing the appearance of your new paper, and hope it soon will come out weekly. For a paper that commences with its first appearance to expose grievances should be well supported by the working classes. I am able to support your correspondent, J. Lane, in what he says about my trade, for he does not exaggerate when he says that coats are made for 6d., vests for 3d., and trousers for 4d., and find your own linen thread; but he should also say “and your own sewing machines, etc.,” thus reducing your wages by 2s. 6d. per week. For this not only saves the employer going to the expense of buying machinery, but it saves him paying the rent of a workshop. Thus the masters get all these advantages without giving the work hands any more remuneration for all the expense they have to go to, and how many hundreds are there (not being able to get the necessary security to enable them to buy a sewing machine) who are therefore forced (owing to the severe competition which exists for starvation wages in our trade) to fly to the sweaters, who can give them any wages they like. Our greatest curse seems to be that we do not know each other, for if we knew and trusted each other we should be able to organise for the overthrow of the accursed system which is crushing into an untimely grave our best men and women. For its is only the cunning foxes that dare not speak their mind, or in other words, those who are devoid of any principle, that are able to get on now. You must not speak or you are sacked, and this in a country that boasts of being the most enlightened and free. Now a sweater goes to shop, and by greasing the hand of the trimmer or taker-in he is enabled to get work and employs a few hands. For an example I will take one who lives not far from me. He employs hive hands, and they make on the average 100 coats, 100 vests and 100 trousers per week. Now he pays one woman 12s. 6d. per week and one man 25s. per week, the other three gurls get from 2s. 6d. to 3s. per week. He only wants those girls to put on buttons, or holes, and fell bottoms or sleeve linings, so that when they ask for a rise they get the sack and have to look out for other employment. Fancy 2s. 6d. to 3s. per week! Is it possible for them to live on this money? I say, empathetically, No! They have in most cases to eke out a living by becoming the mistresses or tools of