Rebuilding Britain by Alfred Hopkinson

A >> Alfred Hopkinson >> Rebuilding Britain

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

However important the influence of the Crown and the functions of a
Second Chamber may be, it is the House of Commons which is the
corner-stone of the Constitution. Through it the will of the nation must
be expressed, and embodied in definite action. The representatives in
that House are those chosen by the nation by regular and legal methods
to exercise their judgment, to enact laws, and to control acts of the
executive. It is essential not only to maintain, but to restore the
position of the House of Commons, and insure for it the respect and
confidence of the people. It is impossible to deny that respect and
confidence have been shaken, and that the position of the House is
threatened from two opposite quarters. We hear it daily spoken of as
"that talking shop"; it has been said that it would be better, instead
of having a fine statue of Cromwell outside, to have a living Cromwell
inside to purge it thoroughly. The story of the officer who, on
returning to England after long residence in the East, asked his father
if "that nonsense was going on still," represents a feeling which is
widespread. The present House of Commons, the existence of which has
been necessarily prolonged, has been the subject of bitter and
contemptuous criticism. Much of that criticism is unfair. In spite of
the fact that its attention had first to be directed to questions
directly affecting the War, it has passed the largest extension of the
franchise ever made, and in doing so without doubt carried out the wish
of the nation. It got rid of the fetters imposed on the free expression
of the will of the electors, and the restrictions placed on the free
selection of candidates of small means, by putting the expenses of
returning officers on public funds, and also by making better provision
for the revision of the register of voters. A number of useful Bills
have been passed, and it has been a means of eliciting information from
the Government which the country ought to have, but which would
otherwise have been withheld. It has voted the necessary supplies for
carrying on the War, and freely and readily assented to the increased
taxation that was essential. Unfortunately it is the practice in a
portion of the Press always to give prominence to the strange antics of
certain members and the vicious attempts made by some to embarrass the
Government in carrying on the War. A scene in the House of Commons is
fully reported; the good work done, especially by certain useful
committees, passes almost unnoticed. It is true, however, that the
character of many of the debates has been regrettable, and that as
regards what is perhaps its most important function, namely, the control
of expenditure, the House has not been able to exercise its functions as
it should.

It was pointed out years ago that the House of Commons was in practice
ceasing to be what it ought, according to Constitutional theory, to be,
"a deliberative assembly of the representatives of the nation discussing
and forming judgments on national policy, instituting legislation and
determining its form," and was becoming simply "a body for registering
the decrees of a Cabinet." In practice it was assumed to be "the duty of
the minority in opposition to find objections to the proposals of the
Government, representing the majority, and to occupy time in voting
against them as often as possible, and on the other hand that it is the
duty of the majority to refrain from discussion, to applaud Ministers,
and to make sure that whatever they propose shall be carried by
undiminished numbers." In this respect the present House is no worse
than its predecessors for the last thirty years; the political truce has
indeed improved matters in some respects. It is at least doubtful
whether under "pre-War conditions" either the Representation of the
People Bill or the Education Bill could have been carried, certainly
they would not have been passed in a form to secure so much general
consent. Instead of such consent, some measure strongly opposed by a
minority might have been forced through by free use of the closure. A
new danger has arisen, however, of a still more serious kind,
threatening the position of the House of Commons. It is that, instead of
national policy being controlled by legislation, settled by a recognised
constitutional body elected according to definite rules and representing
the nation, the real power of initiative and real directing force may
pass to some other body or bodies unknown to the law and representing
only a class or even to certain writers in the popular Press. The House
of Commons, unless its constitutional powers and its independence are
maintained or restored, may become a body for registering and giving
legal sanction to the resolutions of some conference or convention
indefinite in its constitution, but highly organised for the purpose of
making representatives in Parliament mere delegates to carry out the
proposals of the majority of those who themselves had acted as delegates
of a section only of the community.

The course of revolution in Russia should be a warning to all. Russia is
passing through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, where is heard "the
continual howling and yelling of a people under unutterable misery, who
sit there bound in affliction and iron, and over it hang the
discouraging clouds of confusion; death also does always spread his
wings over it. In a word it is every whit a dreadful being utterly
without order." Had there been in Russia a regularly constituted
assembly possessing adequate power and representing the nation as a
whole, including the "bourgeoisie"--who also "are God's creatures"--as
well as workmen, instead of irregular bodies appealing to the greed and
hatred of a class, most of the misery through which Russia is passing
might have been prevented, and the prospects of early restoration would
have been assured. The British nation is too sane, too used to orderly
freedom, to adopt either the spirit or the methods of the Bolsheviks,
but we may hear of them even in this country. They may perhaps give
serious trouble and interfere with progress on sound lines. The historic
House of Commons must be the means of carrying out Reconstruction so far
as legislation, and of controlling it so far as State action is
required. Some changes in its methods will be discussed in the chapters
on Reform, but the maintenance of the Constitution as the best
instrument for promoting orderly, peaceful, and real progress is
essential.

The peace we need would only be uselessly disturbed, and the practical
reforms most urgently required would only be delayed by raising
controversial questions about the form of the Constitution. We may well
let them alone, and get on with something that will be of real benefit.

CHAPTER IX

PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

_There is no more unsafe politician than a
conscientiously rigid doctrinaire, nothing more sure to
end in disaster than a theoretic volume of policy that
admits of no pliability for contingencies._--J.R. LOWELL.

It is often assumed that a change in the form of Government in Germany
would completely alter the attitude and conduct of the nation, and
secure permanent peace, but that alone would not be sufficient. It would
undoubtedly help; for under a more popular Government it would be easier
for a different spirit in the German nation to assert itself.
Democracies, however, have from time to time been aggressive, and have
claimed to dominate their neighbours. A change far deeper than a change
in the form of Government is needed. The claim put forward both by word
and deed to impose the German will on others by organised force of any
kind must be abandoned utterly, if the world is to be really at peace
with Germany and with those whom Germany has been able to compel or to
beguile into alliance with her. The conflict is not simply between
autocracy or oligarchy and democracy, but between different ideals and
diametrically opposed notions of duty. The conception of their State as
an organisation carefully arranged to impose its will on others
regardless of their feelings and their rights must be eradicated.
Democracy and Liberty do not necessarily go together. There may be
democracy without liberty, and it is possible though not probable that
there may be real liberty without the form of democracy. An enlightened
monarch, governing as well as reigning, may express the real will of a
nation more truly than the vote of a majority of representatives; and
individual liberty may be more secure under such a monarch than when it
is dependent on the result of divisions taken when party passion is
running high. But such a rule must lack the element of stability. The
Antonines pass away and Commodus and Heliogabalus rule in their place.
Permanent strength and settled liberty are best secured when the acts of
Government are the expression of the conscious will of the nation as a
whole, where the people think out for themselves the general lines of
action and the Government is their minister. It is not enough that there
should be a just rule in which they acquiesce, but it is they themselves
who should act--through agents, no doubt--and learn the habit of forming
right judgments and acting justly. To deny him a share in political
life--that is, in deciding the action of the State to which he
belongs--is to deprive a man of one of those "activities of the soul
which constitute happiness," to take from him one of the things that
makes a full life for those who really live among their fellows. There
may always be a few who live apart, contemplative souls

insphered
In regions mild, of calm and serene air,
Above the smoke and stir of this dim spot
Which men call earth.

Some may build themselves a Palace of Art where they may live alone;
some may sink themselves in luxury or repose in sluggish indifference,
careless of the life of others round them, with neither the heart to
feel nor head to understand anything beyond their own immediate wants.
But the highest aim and fullest life for man generally--as "an animal
more social than the bee"--is

To go and join head and heart and hand,
Active and firm to fight the bloodless fight
Of science, freedom, and the truth in Christ.

Political action may be one of the means of carrying on that fight. Is
it not one of the "rights of man" to be allowed to join in it?

It is, however, not to be forgotten that men acting in the mass, just
as men acting individually, may act under sudden impulse, may do under
the influence of temporary passion, even of a generous emotion, things
which they would regret afterwards, and feel to be an error. Some checks
on such sudden action are most essential in a democracy, because there
is no appeal from its decision. A reverence for tradition, for those
rules of conduct which have stood the test of time, is one restraining
influence, but more formal restraints on sudden decisions and violent
changes are necessary. A single vote of a popular assembly may not
represent the well-considered judgment and permanent will of the people.
Steps may be taken which it is impossible to recall. To insist on an
appeal from "Philip drunk to Philip sober" is not to deprive him of his
real liberty. It is a safeguard, not an infringement of the principles
of true democracy, to provide some body of men of experience who can
exercise an independent judgment, and who, when some violent change is
proposed, have the right and the duty to reply in effect:

Old things may not be therefore true,
Oh brother men, nor yet the new;
Ah, still awhile the old thought retain,
And yet consider it again.

Such a justification, such a statement of the function of a Second
Chamber, not directly elected, may provoke a histrionic smile among
extreme advocates of so-called popular rights, but has never evoked an
argument which can displace it as based on sound reason and common
sense. There are some changes, too, which ought not to be made without a
specific appeal to the people on that particular issue. To make them as
part of the programme, as one plank in the platform of a party dominant
for the moment, is not to execute but to evade the real will of the
nation. We know by experience how the vote of a popular representative
assembly may represent the opinion of "a bare majority of a bare
majority;" conceivably anything over one-eighth of the nation. A
committee is elected by some eager partisans supposed to represent a
party. That party perhaps represents a bare majority of the
constituency. The caucus chooses a candidate whose views suit a bare
majority of its members who hold the most extreme views. He and others
go to Parliament as representing one party, and a majority of such
members decides what policy shall be adopted. Party discipline compels
the acquiescence of the rest. The machine is cleverly constructed to
make the will of certain party managers of mere sections of the
constituencies the dominant factor. No wonder that they denounce
Proportional Representation as a dangerous fad. Undoubtedly the will of
the people must prevail, but the exercise of that will should depend on
and be the result of their own deliberate judgment. Whether what is done
is a blessing or curse depends not on whether it is the act of an
autocrat, of an aristocracy, or of a democracy, but on the character of
the act and the spirit which prompts it. A great audience in London
recently heard the true position summed up in few words--I quote Dr.
Campbell Morgan from memory--"It is said we want to make the world safe
for democracy. What we really need is to make democracy safe for the
world."

_C.--INDUSTRIAL PEACE_

CHAPTER X

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS

_To secure industrial peace on terms just and honourable
to both sides would be to double the national strength
whether in industry or citizenship._--MEMORANDUM OF THE
GARTON FOUNDATION.

Under this head it will be convenient to treat not only of the steps to
be taken to prevent disputes or secure their settlement by peaceful
means, and to promote a more hearty co-operation of employer and
employed, but also of various other questions affecting industry, such,
for example, as increased production and increased saving. Without
industrial peace there will be no industrial or commercial prosperity,
and without a fair amount of prosperity it will be very difficult if not
impossible to preserve industrial peace. As the War proceeds these
questions become more and more urgent; after it, they will be more
serious and more pressing than ever. Already the need for taking certain
steps at once and for preparing a future policy is recognised. Anyone
who wishes to have before him a clear statement of the industrial
situation and of the effects of the War upon it, cannot do better than
read, and read with care, the revised memorandum prepared under the
auspices of the Garton Foundation and published in October, 1916.
Singularly impartial and judicious, it does not gloss over the
difficulties and perils which must be faced, but throughout there is a
note of hopefulness--an anticipation of a better state of things--if
while "the forces of change are visibly at work we do not allow them to
hurry us blindly with them," but "direct them along the path of ordered
progress." Some of the specific remedies suggested, of the proposals
adumbrated, may be open to criticism--criticism is, indeed, invited--but
it is evident that nothing is suggested that has not been the subject of
careful consideration of the facts. Some of the proposals have already
been put into fairly definite form in the Whitley Report, and have
received the approval of the Government. Industrial Councils are to be
established. The object of them will be to consider "constructive
measures for the improvement of industrial conditions and the increase
of efficiency." They will not be confined to specific points of dispute.
They are to be established in industries which are "highly organised,"
where the employer and employed already possess some definite
association or union which represents them respectively. There are to be
national, district, and workshop councils set up. Their object differs
from that of the Conciliation Boards for Arbitration or the Trade Boards
established to settle some specific question such as a minimum wage to
be paid, or some question that has given rise to a dispute between
employers and employed. Such a mode of settlement is a great advance on
leaving differences to be settled by an industrial war--a strike or
lock-out. The Boards will still be needed, just as arbitration tribunals
will be required to settle specific disputes between nations. The aim in
both cases is to substitute arbitration for war (or its equivalent) or
threats of war. Something more is aimed at in the establishment of
Industrial Councils. They contemplate a "continuous and constructive
co-operation of Capital and Management on the one hand and Labour on the
other." They are not tribunals for the settlement of disputes which have
arisen, but joint committees which can discuss and propose methods of
dealing with any question affecting working-conditions generally, e.g.,
the introduction of new machinery and its effect on employment and the
status as well as the wages of the workpeople, and even its economic
effect generally. Suggestions can be made as to changes which may
"increase output or economise effort" and eliminate waste. The effect of
any alterations on the health of those engaged in any industry would be
within their purview. The idea is to promote co-operation, to make all
recognise certain common interests, not merely to adjust competing
claims. In international affairs the nearest analogy would be a League
of Nations for promoting the common interest of all. While, of course,
the main object of such a league is common action to prevent breaches of
the international peace by restraining wrong-doers, it should not be the
sole object. In the case of Industrial Councils the object is to promote
the general welfare of all engaged in the trade and to increase
productive efficiency, as well as to secure fair terms between the
parties and prevent disputes. If such a Council has been established for
any industry Government Departments will consult it, and not the Trade
Board, on any questions affecting that industry; but the constitution of
the Council should make provision by which Trade Boards can be
consulted. Roughly speaking, "the functions of the Trade Board will be
called into operation mainly in the case of the less organised trades,
and the highly organised trades will be the sphere of the Industrial
Councils." These, in their most developed form, will be national,
district, and local.

A memorandum which has official sanction states that the chief duty of
the Trade Boards, on the other hand, is to fix minimum rates of wages
which can be imposed by law. They are needed primarily to insure that in
trades where the workers have no official organisation to guard their
interest a living wage shall be secured for all. They are statutory
bodies set up under an Act of Parliament just passed, and will be
connected with the Ministry of Labour, by which their members are
largely nominated. The work of such Boards is being extended.

Detailed discussion of the character of the work which may be expected
to be done by the councils and of its probable effects would be beyond
the scope of this volume, and would require special knowledge of the
industries concerned. It will vary in different industries and in
different places. In some, success may be confidently expected, in
others there will probably be failures. The aim of the proposal is
certainly one to be desired, and the method for attaining it promises
many beneficial results. There appear to be some dangers involved which
it may be well to consider. Useful work may be hindered owing to, first,
the time and attention required for the meetings and discussions of the
various councils, and the risk that clever and fluent talkers may
prolong debate and generate friction and may perhaps exercise an undue
influence. Probably this will not be found a serious danger. Experience
over a considerable district shows that those who are chosen by the
Trade Unions to represent them are usually clear-headed and businesslike
men, who grasp a point quickly and, while carefully guarding the
interests of those whom they represent, are fair-minded and ready to do
all they can to promote the national interest also. Secondly, there may
be a tendency to interfere too much in questions of management, even
where full and detailed knowledge of trade conditions of the moment and
of possible appliances that may be used is required, and prompt action
may be necessary. A man steering a boat in a storm would hardly succeed
if he had to consult a committee before moving the helm. The object of
the councils would not be to undertake the general management of the
business, but should be directed to the relation of workers and
management, to secure efficiency and greater production, a fair
participation in and distribution of the benefits derived from success,
and wholesome conditions for those engaged in the work, and to avoid
dispute by agreeing action beforehand wherever possible. Thirdly, in
this as in most other cases where power is given to representatives of
organised bodies, there is a risk of undue interference with the
liberty of those who do not belong to them or who are in a minority. A
dead level of uniformity may be secured, experiments and new lines of
action by enterprising and original minds may be interfered with. The
old problem of reconciling high organisation and corporate action with
individual liberty may present itself in an acute form.

Already before the War the tendency to crush out individuality was
becoming stronger and stronger, the private firms of manufacturers were
being squeezed out by highly organised combines, or tempted by high
prices offered to hand over their businesses to them. In banking,
similarly, the absorption and amalgamation of smaller banks has been
going on with startling rapidity. The personal relationship between the
customer and the banker, who would grant loans and overdrafts because he
knew the character and position of the borrower in each case, will no
longer exist. The business was safe enough when the manager of a country
bank probably knew whether a customer's butcher's bills were becoming
excessive. Now everything must be referred to London for decision
according to some fixed general rule. The convenience and the
accommodation of the man with a small account count for very little. A
more serious question is the effect which these amalgamations may have
on the relations between bankers and those who are engaged in
manufacturing business.

The old personal relationship between the mill-owner and his employees,
when his garden adjoined the mill yard, when they spoke of him by his
Christian name, and he knew their family affairs and was ready to help
in time of difficulty and distress and to take a lead in any local
effort or support any local charity, has been rapidly disappearing.
There still are, however, many employers to whom the happiness and
welfare of their workpeople is a matter of deepest concern. They have a
human interest in them, and take a pride in improving the conditions of
their life. They have other aims than simply securing as big a dividend
as possible for the eager shareholders of a huge combine. It is, no
doubt, usually large employers of labour who are thus able and willing
to make provision for the welfare of the people in their employ. Some
have established libraries and reading-rooms, and have provided classes
for giving instruction likely to be useful to the boys and young men
engaged in their works. Conditions of labour would be greatly improved
if the example of the best firms in such matters were generally
followed.

The more complete organisation of trades under powerful councils may
tend to a virtual monopoly being obtained by a limited number of large
and influential firms, and the result may be prejudicial to the consumer
by limiting competition. That is not certainly the object, but it may be
an incidental effect of the organisation which is needed for full
development of the system of councils. In some cases State support and
control acting in conjunction with private firms of great influence is
to be introduced to unify an industry under one management. Support and
control may possibly be necessary in some cases, but the extension of
such methods should be jealously watched. In the manufacture of dyes,
for example, it seems that the Government and a very powerful
manufacturing firm or combination are arranging to act together. Those
outside this combination will have no chance of competing. In this
particular case the scheme may be useful, but careful provision is
necessary to protect customers for the commodities produced. It may
become a very serious thing for manufacturers of piece goods when
struggling to maintain their position in the world markets, and the
slightest addition to cost of production may close a market to them, if
they find that they cannot purchase the dyes they require in the
cheapest market, or those who dye goods for them must increase their
charges, because one organisation can fix prices, and import from abroad
is prohibited in order to protect a special home industry.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13