economic condition of the country, and it is well worth while to consider how far such a notion was well founded. Can it be that the United Kingdom has been pursuing for years past a losing trade, and that at the end of the yearly transactions she finds herself in debt by so many millions? According to the theories previously held of the balance of trade, trade is profitable, or the balance is in our favour, if we get as the result a good balance in gold. It is unprofitable, or the balance is against us, if we have to pay gold in balance of our debt. It does not appear, however, that there was any drain of the precious metals from the United Kingdom during all these years. The import of bullion was not registered at the Custom-house before the year 1857. But comparing the accounts of bullion since 1860, the imports have exceeded the exports by several millions a year. They were as follows: There is no evidence, therefore, that England paid for the balance or excess of imports over exports of merchandise in bullion, and there is reason to doubt whether she is even indebted for the same. It is a fallacy to take the tables of the trade of the United Kingdom as an evidence of the amount of her indebtedness to other nations. Assuming the substantial correctness of the valuation, there are facts and circumstances connected with such tables that tend to lessen their actual significance. Entries are made for goods shipped which may never arrive at the ports of destination, and thus produce no indebtedness. All clandestine and smuggled trade finds no admission in the tables prepared by the Custom-house authorities. Whilst goods exported are declared at their value here, taking no account of charges, freight, and insurance; goods imported are declared at their value here, but including freight, charges, insurance, profits, and commission. The tables must be considerably corrected before the real excess is obtained from one side or the other. It should be remembered, moreover, that trade is not the only element of international indebtedness. England is a great storehouse of capital, and from her stock the railways and public works of many States are largely supplied, and the Governments of many States derive the means for replenishing their shattered treasuries. But interest has to be paid for capital so lent, and sooner or later, by means of a sinking fund or otherwise, the principal itself must be returned. Thus not a small portion of the excess of imports of merchandise represents the payments due to England on account of capital so lent. And the excess beyond all these deductions largely represents British capital invested in foreign merchandise, some time coming in the shape of bills and currencies, and other times in produce and other commodities. The British market, it should be remembered, has great attraction to the foreign producer and merchant. It regulates prices; it affords convenience, inasmuch as British consignees are ever ready to accept drafts for advances upon consignments; it is at hand in case of need for transferring the produce to any other market. As large portions of our exports are sent in consignment on British account in all the great emporia of trade, so large portions of our imports come hither in consignment on foreign accounts.' The best way of ascertaining whether the excess of imports into the United Kingdom indicates a state of trade disadvantageous to her economic condition, is to look to the foreign exchanges. If England did really owe the excess to foreign nations, would there not be a constant excess of bills of exchange on England in the foreign markets, and would not the exchanges in consequence be permanently against England? But the exchanges are generally in her favour, and the British sovereign holds its own against the money of all other countries. There is no reason, therefore, for any anxiety respecting the balance of trade in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. The depression of trade which lasted from 1874 to 1878, and which was not limited to England, was only a reaction from the excessive speculative excitement of 1872 and 1873. Foreign competition was not a factor in it. The productive power of England was unaffected. The condition of the people continued excellent. The cost of production was lower. Capital was abundant, and there was no reason to doubt that with the maintenance of peace and the recurrence of good harvests at home and abroad, the trade of the United Kingdom would speedily resume its wonted activity. On the question of the excess of imports over exports, see two able papers, one on The Progress of the Foreign Trade of the United Kingdom, 1856-77, by William Newmarch, Esq., F.R.S., Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. xli. p. 187, and a paper on The Growing Preponderance of Imports over Exports,' by Stephen Bourne, F.S.S., same Journal, vol. xl. p. 19. 2 See Table of Foreign Exchanges, London on Paris, from 1825 to 1878, in the Appendix, CHAPTER X. WORK AND WAGES. Relations of Employers and Employed.-Recent Strikes.-Action of Trade Unions.- Principles involved in such action.-Royal Commission on Trade Unions and on the Master and Servant Act.-Reform in the Criminal Law. Rates of Wages. A PROMINENT feature in the recent history of productive industry in the United Kingdom has been not only a rise in wages but a more vigilant attention paid by the labouring classes to the state of the markets, with a view to secure for themselves therefrom a proportionate benefit. Incredulous of the operation of economic laws by which any increase of wealth must of necessity, if utilised, further the demand of labour and produce a rise in wages; impatient to appropriate such benefits as soon as possible, and almost contemporaneously with the producers and manufacturers themselves, the demand of labourers, sometimes too hasty and sometimes excessive, has produced a condition of irritation and friction between masters and men which proved most inimical to national interests, and results in many cases most disappointing to all parties concerned. For a considerable period a succession of strikes has occurred in almost every branch of productive industry. In 1871, there was a strike of engineers for a reduction of the hours of labour from ten hours a day to nine for the same pay, equivalent to a 10 per cent. increase of wages. In the same year the colliers of Northumberland and of Dean Forest, Gloucestershire, and the ironworkers of North Staffordshire, all turned out together. Some 40,000 colliers and miners of South Wales in Monmouthshire came to a resolution to appeal for an advance of 10 per cent. on their wages. In 1872 the Warwickshire Agricultural Union came into existence. And there was also strike of joiners, followed by lock-out by the masters, by which both masters and men equally lost. In 1873 the ironworkers in South Wales struck. In 1874 there were not a few local strikes. In 1875 a strike in South Wales of ironworkers produced a loss of wages of 3,000,000l. Year after year strikes of more or less extent took place, in most cases producing the greatest inconvenience and losses as well to masters as to men. And the great agents in the animation and conduct of such strikes have been the trades unions, whose councils direct the actions of the labourers all over the kingdom. The principal objects which trade unions have in view are the regulation of the supply and demand of labour, and the supervision of the rate of wages. By controlling the labour of their own members, by endeavouring to equalise the supply of labour all over the country, by regulating and restricting the admission of apprenticeship, by hindering the employment of boy and woman labour, and by putting obstacles to the employment of nonunionists, one in one way and one in another, trade societies have laboured to maintain a monopoly of labour, with a view to reduce that competition among labourers which is so formidable a barrier to the rise of wages. Nay more, in the hope of spreading the work among as large a number of members as possible, they, or some at least of such trade unions, have prohibited working overtime. But legally and economically many rules of the trade unions are essentially erroneous. It is wrong to restrain the labour and industry of any individual or number of individuals; it is prejudicial to fetter industry, and so to diminish production. The wages of labour, like the price of an article, must be regulated by supply and demand. In some special cases, where wages are in any measure governed by custom, or where the labourers are in a position so low as to be under the necessity of working on wages insufficient to pay for the simple cost of living, a trade society may, by granting temporary help with a view to resistance, operate some reform of wages, though with the almost certain result of either lessening production and so causing a diminution of employment, or of stimulating the introduction of machinery. Whenever, moreover, the rate of profit is larger than is necessary to provide for the interest of capital and a legitimate remunera tion for the employer's service, a trade society may, by a vigilant supervision, operate upon the margin which may exist between the rate of wages and the rate of profits, and in all probability succeed in securing part of the same for labour, unless defeated either by the competition of labourers among themselves or by foreign competition. But eventually, any advantage which trade unions can procure for labourers, apart from what would flow to them as a matter of course from the working of economic laws, can only be temporary, for supply and demand are sure to assert their sway. Unfortunately for commerce, such trade unions have endeavoured to gain their object by recommending to their clients and friends a strike, or the simultaneous and joint cessation of work by all the persons employed in any establishment or inapproximate equivalent to the loss of wages thereby incurred being provided for by a dustry, the means of sustenance or some common fund. Only, as might have been expected, the resort to a 'strike' by the labourers has been met by a corresponding means of defence on the part of the employer, a lock-out,' and thus many disputes relating to wages and other differences, often trivial in character, have embittered the relations of capital and labour, and greatly hindered the progress of labour all over the country. The contentions thus raised by the labouring classes were frequently brought before the Legislature. In 1866 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the organisation and rules of trade unions and other associations, whether of workmen or employers, and on the effect produced by such trade unions and associations on the workmen and employers respectively, and on the trade and industry of the country, with power to investigate any recent acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong alleged to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by such trade unions or other associations. Consequent on the report of this Royal Commission, the law on trade unions was altered by the Act of 1871. Previous to that time the purposes of a trade union being deemed of the character of restraint of trade, no contract entered into by such union or by any member of the same could be enforced at law. The Act of 1871 removed such disability, and declared that the existence of such conditions shall not of itself render the association unlawful so as to render any member of such trade union liable to criminal prosecution for conspiracy or otherwise, or render void or voidable any agreement or trust arising therefrom. A few years after a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the Master and Servant Act, 1867, and of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Commissioners recommended that breaches of contract should be divested of everything of a penal character and rendered entirely of a civil nature, and moreover that no person shall be liable to be indicted for conspiracy by reason only of the object of the combination being to force or control the action or will of any master or workman in any matter relating to the mode of carrying on his business or work, unless the means of coercion to be resorted to shall be one of those mentioned in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Accordingly an Act was passed in 1875 (38 & 39 Vict.), whereby an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act, committed by one person, could not be punishable as a crime. The following rates of wages in some of the principal industries are from the miscellaneous statistics published by the Board of Trade, from returns obtained in the chief centres of industry :- |