THE STATE IN RELATION TO

LABOUR.

CHAPTER I.

PRINCIPLES OF INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION.

WE are about to deal in this little Treatise with the proper methods and limits of legislation in matters. relating to labour-that is to say, the operative or handicraft classes. We have to distinguish, as far as possible, between cases in which individuals should be left at liberty, as being the best judges of their own interests, and those cases in which some kind of authority should interfere, in order to ensure or increase their welfare. Imagine, for the sake of illustration, that there is in some factory a piece of revolving machinery which is likely to crush to death any person carelessly approaching it. Here is a palpable evil which it would be unquestionably well to avert by some means or other. But by what means? It is obvious that there are many possible courses to choose between, and much to be said for and against each particular course.

In the first place, it may fairly be said that the

B

individual workman is bound to take care of himself, and to be especially wary when approaching machinery. Mere common sense, we might think, would lead people to avoid negligent conduct likely to be instantly and inexorably punished with sudden death, or the most fearful and painful mutilation. As a general rule, at least, adult persons must take care of themselves, and observe where they are going. If everybody is to go in leading-strings, it is obvious that there will be no persons left to act as leaders. It may well be urged, too, that the more we guard people from palpable dangers, the more heedless they will become, and the more likely to fall victims to some unforeseen danger. But a little observation and reflection show that to such general rules and arguments there must be exceptions. It is all very well for theorists and "cabinet philosophers" to argue about what people ought to do; but if we learn from unquestionable statistical returns that thousands of hapless persons do, as a matter of fact, get crushed to death, or variously maimed, by unfenced machinery, these are calamities which no theory can mitigate.

Evidently there must be cases where it is incumbent on one citizen to guard against danger to other citizens. If one man digs a pit in search of coal, and, not finding coal, leaves the hole uncovered, to be half hidden by grass and brambles, he is laying a mere trap for his neighbours; he might as well at once lay man-traps and spring-guns in the old-fashioned way. Are all neighbours to grope their way about in constant fear of a horrible, lingering death, because he dislikes the trouble of filling up or covering the pit he has made? So obviously unreasonable was such neglect, that we find a customary law existing in

1

the Forest of Dean two hundred years ago, requiring every owner of an abandoned pit to cover it over. Now, revolving machinery is in many cases quite on a par with uncovered coal-pits. When the putting up, at inconsiderable expense, of a few bars of wood or iron will remove all danger and difficulty, surely it is much better simply to put them up, and avoid all metaphysical argument.

Unfortunately the metaphysician cannot be kept at bay in so simple a way. Having once decided that the fly-wheel ought to be fenced, we have but raised a series of questions relating to the person who ought to put up the fences, and the other persons who have either a right or a duty to take care that he puts them up. We might, in the first place, assume that the owner of dangerous machinery would fence it from motives of mere humanity, if not from those of self-interest. But here again experience proves the existence of unaccountable thoughtlessness, if not heartlessness. Before the Legislature began to interfere, hardly any owner of machinery thought of incurring the small additional percentage of cost requisite to render the machinery safe to the operatives. Plenty of documentary evidence exists, moreover, to show that legislation on the subject was distinctly opposed by factory owners. In other cases mere thoughtlessness and indifference can alone be charged against the owners. In one of the reports of factory inspectors we are told that when the inspector remonstrated against the dangerous unfenced condition of a fly-wheel, the owner calmly remarked that it had no doubt killed a man not long before; he made no objection to erecting the necessary fence, the idea of