THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.*

THE two Archbishops have published an instructive memoir on the attitude of the Christian Church towards the industrial and educational problems of the time. It has been drawn up by a Committee, appointed by the Archbishops after the National Mission of 1910. Dr. Talbot, the Bishop of Winchester, was the Chairman. Among his colleagues were the Bishops of Oxford, Peterborough, and Lichfield, the Master of Balliol, Lard Henry Bentinek, Mr. W. C. Bridgeman and Mr. Christopher Tumor, with Mr. W. L. }lichens and others to represent employers, and Mr. R. H. TaWney and Mr. George Lansbury to represent the Labour Party. This mixed company of Churchmen and Churchwomen presented a unanimous Report. The only question, as far as we can see, on which they agreed to differ was whether an industry could be suceeesfully managed by a Committee of inexpert workpeople in place of an expert manager. We are sure that to a Continental Socialist it would be a shock to find Mr. Lansbury on such a Committee. For, as a rule, the Continental Labour movement is not merely un-Christian but definitely anti-Christian. There are, of course, Christian Socialists in Germany and Austria, controlled by the Roman Catholio clergy, but they exercise comparatively little influence over the Labour movement as a whole. In Russia the Bolshevik Party is fere- eiouely anti-Christian ; it has marked out the clergy, together with all other educated person, as the prey of its Chinese execu- tioners, and has forbidden the bereaved relatives to put crosses on the victims' graves. Continental Labour is anti-Christian partly because the State Churches have become decadent, but partly also because so many of the revolutionary leaders am Jewe, who, if they have ceased to practise the Jewish religion, cherish the old religions feuds. This is one of the reasons why the "International" has never bad any vitality. Continental Labour on the one hand, and British and American Labour on the other, are separated, broadly speaking, by the distance which separates Atheism from Christianity. Continental Labour stands for the " class-war " of the German Jew, Karl Marx, with all its cruel material- ism. But British Labour, as represented by one of its most advanced advocates, can subscribe to the claim of Christianity • ChriatinnitE and hutushing Problems; 84E9 Os Evart of As Archbishops' nth Comaditse of Inquiry. Landon: S.P.C.X. flu. seal " to offer mankind a body of moral teaching which not only is binding upon individuals in their personal and domestic conduct, but also supplies a criterion by which to judge their economic activity, their industrial organization, and their social institu- tion." " The saoredneas of each human life," we read elsewhere, "the rightfulness of claims for liberty of development and for equality of opportunity and consideration, the duty of mutual help and corporate service—these are the indispensable and sovereign things." We should look in vain through Central m d Eastern Europe for any Socialist leader who seriously believed this, but Mr. Lansbury concurs in it, and nearly every member of his party would support him in so doing.

The keynote of the Report is struck in a preliminary chapter on Christian principles :—

" The Church must not allow itself to be intimidated by the alleged doctrines of political economy, wrongly understood as those doctrines often have bean, into subordinating Christian ethics to economic considerations. It ought to reiterate that the welfare of human beings, including not merely material comfort, but scope for initiative and opportunities for self - developments threogh education and through labour, and freedom to take part in the control of industrial organization and direction of economic conditions and policy, must be the first condition of any industry carried on by Christians. It ought to insist that no economic convenience fuetifies any oppression."

Again,

" It is the message of the New Testament that work is a duty which is incumbent upon all,. that the members of a Christian community should aim at giving rather than getting, and that they should seek the service of others rather than the personal profit of themselves."

Sweating and " ea' canny " are both un-Christian. An inter- esting chapter by the Master of Balliol follows, giving some historical illustrations of Christian thought on Christian rela- tionships, in the New Testament, in the Fathers—some of whom thought that " private property is tolerated as a concession to the weakness of human nature "—and in the mediaeval Church, whose precept was far better than its practice, and, under the influence of the new political economy when religion ceased to count as an active force in commercial dealings, the doctrine of laissez faire seemed to justify any abuses, and Ricardo's monstrous " Wages Fund" theory, which still finds many ignorant believers, persuaded the well-meaning that nothing could be done to help the underpaid workmen except at the cost of their fellow-workmen. " We have to confess, then, the failure of the Church to give a faithful witness in the face of the moral problems which the Industrial Revolution brought forth," though Ruskin's teaching and the work of the Christian Social Union are now bearing fruit. In a farther chapter on "Urban Life and Industry " the Report speaks of the industrial system as " gravely defective " in certain " fundamental respects," and regards " large changes " as necessary, though they " must be carried out gradually, in a spirit of tolerance and of mutual charity and forbearance." The Committee object first of all to the common description of workers as " hands," and remark that workmen "too often have cause to- feel that they are directed by an industrial autocracy," which they resent because it is autocratic. They do not blame the individual employer, who is often more considerate than the workman sub-contractor, but the system:— "The function of industry is to provide the material means of a good social life. It is of. high importance, therefore, that it should be conducted in the manner best calculated to achieve this end, that the most efficient machinery and organization should be used in the production of wealth, that every section of producers should give ungrudgingly the best service of- which it is capable, and that no obstacle should be interposed by private interests to deprive the community as a whole of the increasing benefits which it ought to derive from progreetive improvements in the methods of production. If that con- dition is realized, a country reasonably endowed with natural resources is likely to acquire and retain the means of material prosperity. If that condition is not realized, it is likely to be without them. It is clearly, therefore, the duty of each class to contribute what it can to that end, and clearly wrong to impede its attainment. It has a right to fair treatment and adequate payment for its services. It has no right to any- thing more, or to attempt to extort more by holding the corn. munity to ransom. Such considerations are relevant to the conduct of all classes, both to organizations of workpeople and to organizations of employers. It is as unjustifiable for a group of workers to restrict the output, or to scamp their work,

or, because they supply some indispensable article, to use their strong economic position to tax the community, as it is foe

manufacturers to do the same by combining to raise prices. Nor can such conduct be condoned merely because, in the one case as in the other, it sometimes originates as a measure of self-defence against undesirable conditions."

In considering the problem of the co-exiatence of poverty and riches the Committee incline to overstate the inequalities of distribution. Much of the so-called income of the wealthier classes is reinvested in industry, thus maintaining and increasing employment. Moreover, the war has greatly reduced that income -and enlarged the workman's share of the product.

The Committee touch on the antagonism between employer and employed, and suggest that' the community is partly to blameein so far as it has accepted " the conception of industrial life as a etruggle in which each individual or group is justified in taking what can be obtained by persuasion or threate." " Co-operation for public service, not competition for private gain," is, they urge, the true principle of industry.

They proceed to state certain practical conclusions, the first of which is that the nation should " secure a full living wage and reasonable hours of labour to all workers in " industry. They define a " living -wage "as " a wage adequate to maintain the worker, his wife and family in health and honour, and to enable him to dispense with the subsidiary earnings of his children up to sixteen years." Such a wage "ought to be the first charge upon every industry." The Committee confess that they are thinking, not of the miners and other highly paid classes, but rather of the unorganized workpeople, who are etill the majority, and for whose benefit they recommend as extension of the Trade Boards' Aot. Next, it is the duty of Christians, they urge, to cope with the problem of unemployment. Casual labour, especially at the docks, is the most mischievous form of unemployment, and yet, they think, the most easily remediable.

They suggest that dock labourers, for example, should be en- couraged to cultivate -allotments in their spare lime, as the Antwerp dockers do. We might learn a good deal, indeed, from Belgium in regard to allotments generally. The Government and the Local-Authorities might, by taking thought, postpone contracts until trade was slack. The Committee express a guarded approve of the unemployment insurance scheme, but they are quite sure that unemployed persons should be adequately maintained ; we may add that a great deal depends

on the way in which unemployment benefit is administered, since-it is apt to be abused by lazy and unscrupulous people.

The Committee dwell on the need for diminishing child labour, for protecting women workers, and for better housing. They suggest that Local Authorities should be given fuller power,- and allowed "to 'do any work in the sphere of local • government which they are not forbidden to do." On the question of profits they remark, very cautiously, that " there is no moral justification for profits which exceed the amount needed to pay for adequate salaries to the management,

a fair rate of interest on the capitol invested, and such reserves as are needed to ensure and maintain the highest efficiency of production and the development. and growth of the industry. Judged 'by that 'standard, the profits obtained in aortal° indus- trial undertakings are, we cannot doubt, excessive."

But they admit that " adequate stimulus to enterprise, to initiative, and to the highest efficiency of work should be mein, tained." 'It is by no means clear to us that large profits are immoral. Large profits and high wages usually go together, and, more often than not, are due to the exceptional talent of the manager or the foresight of hie predecessors. As we have said, the Committee do not agree on the possibility of Committee management, which as applied in Ramia has closed nearly all the factories and turned 'the workmen adrift, but they do agree that" the demand for an increasing share in the control of those industrial conditions upon which the livelihood of the worker

depends is one which Might to be met." They propose, therefore, "(d) That it should be the normal practice in organised trades for' representatives of employers and workers to confer at regular intervals upon such questions affecting the trade ae may be suitable for common consideration. (2) That repre- sentatsves of the workers ahould be.normally and germane permanently amociated with the management in matters'their livelihood and comfort, and the welfare- of the business, such OA the fixing and alteration of piece-rates, the improvement of processes and machinery, and the settlement of the terms upon which they are to be introduced, workshop discipline, and the establishment of the mavirretm possible security of employment."

The first proposal coincides with the Whitley Councils and the Industrial Conference ; the second proposal has been adopted by many enlightened employers, with good results. The Com- mittee's general idea is that those engaged in industry, whether employers or workmen, owe a duty to the community, and that the community in turn owes a duty to them. If this elementary principle were borne in mind, Great Britain might soon become a very much happier country.