corollary of our existence; but, while admitting its absoluteness, we cannot but admit, in contemplating the design and governance of the Almighty-Ruler of the Universe, how imperative it is that the capitalist who possesses power and means should concede all that can be conceded to the comfort and amelioration of the condition of the working-man, consistently with the general welfare of the state and of society. Placing the two classes-employer and employedon an equal footing as far as civil rights are concerned, it may be and has been argued, that perfect justice is done. It has been said that the employee, if he do not like one situation or locality, can go to another, and that no employer can force a man to work against his will. But it has been proved that this is a very poor sort of justice indeed. It has been found not only that he was entitled to perfect freedom in this respect, but that legislation was actually necessary, as far as it dared to interpose between him and the exactions of his taskmaster.

But legislation could not go far enough in the matter. It could not raise the standard of wages or dictate the terms of the agreement between employer and employee in any respect. But of late years a remedy has been found. The philosopher's stone The philosopher's stone of the working-classes has been discovered "Union is Strength.”

By this they have done what legislation could not do, and which, carried to its ultimate consequences, must create a revolution of no mean magnitude in the social world. It has already emancipated them from a state of servile dependence, and raised them to a position of something like equality with their employers. It was but a few weeks ago that the foreman of a manufacturing establishment in this country, on being requested by the proprietors to discharge one of the hands, refused to do so; and when the employer did so himself, the whole establishment struck work, and the unfortunate proprietor was allowed to help himself

in the best way he could. What the upshot of the strike was we cannot say, but the incident is a very fair indication of the power of which workingmen are beginning to feel themselves possessed; and it is this consciousness of power that has led to the present agitation for a lessening of the hours of labour.

What are the natural tendencies of that agitation, and what its probable results, we have yet to consider.

As we write, the news comes that the operatives in the flax mills of Leeds have struck for a reduction of their time of labour to nine hours a day. "The number of persons on strike," says the telegram, "is estimated at between 10,000 and 11,000." Ten thousand people-an army-in one town! What a power to work with, a power which gives to every request the force of a determinate demand, and one which cannot be lightly disregarded. The nine-hours' movement is the latest development of that restless progressive spirit of civilization of which we have been speaking. It is now about four years old, and is the offspring of the labouring classes in the United States. Several times the matter was brought up in Congress, and urged with more or less energy and force of argument, by those who had undertaken to champion it.

It was thrown out on two different occasions, but was at last carried, and is now in operation in the public works of the different States.

There is, however, one important difference to be noted, and that is, that there it is eight hours instead of nine, but only eight are paid for. And, moreover, so far as these concessions are concerned, no branch of trade is affected thereby, as no branch of trade is dependent on them. What the effect on the men themselves is we are unable to say; but we presume they enjoy their extra time for recreation as best they can, without being either much wiser, richer or happier for the change. The movement next made its ap

pearance in England. Last spring the engineers of Sunderland demanded the reduction of time to nine hours, and stopped work until they got it. The joiners and carpenters of Newcastle and Gateshead followed suit, and in these places held out from May until September, a period of four months. In the latter month the agitation broke out in New York, and on Wednesday, the 13th of September, a procession of over 25,000 persons was held in that city, composed of mechanics and labouring men "on strike." From there the contagion has at last spread to Canada, and bids fair, in a short time, to be raging with considerable fury.

And what are the arguments put forward to justify this despotism of the working classes? Is their time of labour oppressive? Is their condition such as demands amendment? We fear this last question must be answered in the affirmative. In the large manufacturing towns and cities the operative or mechanic does not get his share of the comforts of life, considering his importance in the community, and the amount of labour he performs. This is more especially the case in the large manufacturing centres of England and the United States. There the working-man learns what it is to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, almost before he can comprehend the meaning of the phrase.

He toils on from year to year, he developes his physical and muscular powers, he arrives at manhood, he marries and begets children, and, though he obtains work from one end of the year to the other-regular and un-intermitting work-he finds that he has almost more than he can accomplish to provide the necessaries of life for those dependent on him. If his family be large, his labour has often to be supplemented by that of his wife, to provide even these; and, if he yield at all to the great curse of the civilized world, and spend his pennies in taverns, his way of life is thorny indeed.

And when we consider that this condition of affairs is shared in by what we-both English and American-are fond of designating a free and enlightened people, we cannot wonder that they will do what they can towards amelioration. We cannot wonder that they will league themselves together and do all in their power to improve their position and to render it more in accordance with the plain rules of justice. They argue, and no doubt with reason, that the man who does a hard, honest day's work every lawful day in the year, is entitled to as much of the fruits of his labour as will keep him in decency and comfort. But will a reduction in the hours of labour effect this much desired improvement? We confess we cannot see how. Even admitting that he will be drawing the same amount of wages at the end of the week, will he have gained by the change? Not at all: but, on the contrary, if the movement be a general one in the branch of trade or manufactures to which he belongs, the price of that article will necessarily rise.

And though it may not affect him directly or materially, still, "what is sauce for the goose," according to the time-honoured proverb, "is sauce also for the gander"; and the other branches of trade and manufactures will necessarily do the same thing; and the price of everything affected thereby will naturally rise ten per cent. to balance the account. This is inevitable. Even assuming that the manufacturer and other employer of regular labour will be induced to concede one hour out of the day's work, and pay the same price for the balance, it cannot be supposed for a moment that he is going to hand over to his employees a tenth part of the value he is accustomed to receive from them.

The merest tyro in human affairs would laugh at such an idea. He would tell you that the manufacture, whatever it may be, must be raised in proportion; and the farmer, finding he has to pay more for manu

factured goods, must raise his produce accordingly; and the employee in turn must pay more for both. This is the circle in which the current of trade runs, and in which—no matter how the current may for the time being be disturbed-the common level must be maintained. Thus, if the operatives in boot and shoe factories demand the nine hours' system, and it is conceded to them, boots and shoes will inevitably rise all over the country; and, if this be the case with other fabricated articles in general use, there will follow an upward tendency in every article of household consumption. The result would be just the same as if the labouring power of the country were reduced by one-tenth, creating a scarcity of labour. Every one knows that when this has been the case, high prices have ruled. The operation of trade in this respect is as simple as the action of a water course, which goes up hill or down hill according as it finds its proper level. It will be easily seen then that the workingman would gain but little pecuniarily by the change.

There is another phase of the subject, and one which, notwithstanding it has been already pretty thoroughly discussed in the press and elsewhere, it would be well to consider. This is the system of coercion-the tone of absolutism which the Labour League has thought proper to adopt. Without laughing as Punch did, a year or two ago, when a body of tailors on strike in London published their "ultimatum," it is impossible to regard the action of the League as other than ill-advised and foolish. When one considers the impractibility of applying any inflexible rule to all parts of the country, and to all departments of trade, the folly is at once apparent. What may be expedient in one case may be wholly inexpedient in another. Where it may be simple justice in one case, it may involve a gross injustice in another. Thus there are some trades which are peculiarly exhausting, and some which

are peculiarly unhealthy; while others, on the contrary, are not only neither of these, but are absolutely conducive to health and happiness when engaged in at the moderate rate of ten hours per day. Of the two former classes are iron-smelting, painting, stone-cutting, and glass-blowing. These are occupations the least of all to be envied, and those engaged in them are entitled to as much indulgence as possible in this respect. In opposition to these may be placed such occupations as that of a carpenter, a machinist, or a civil engineer, where the interest is so well sustained, where the proportions of physical and mental labour are so nicely balanced as to render them a pleasure rather than a burden. In cases like these there would be an injustice, not only to the employer but to the workmen themselves, in forcing them, if such a thing were possible, to work a smaller number of hours than they found expedient and profitable. In some cases again, and eminently those first above mentioned, very little risk is incurred in shortening the hours of labour, inasmuch as those branches of trade are not subject to such international competition as to be affected materially by a change of this kind; while others, on the contrary, such as the manufacturers of cottons, woollens, and leathers might suffer very sensibly from this cause. Nor does it seem that the operatives in these branches are at all oppressed by working ten hours a day. Tanning, without being peculiarly fatiguing, is notoriously a healthy occupation, while the work in cotton and woollen factories is so light as to be supplied chiefly by boys and girls. It may be said that this very fact would make it desirable to shorten the hours of labour. It may be urged that ten hours work is too great a strain on the physical endurance of one of premature years, but those who have had opportunities of observing, must have noticed that the great majority of boys and girls employed in factories go to and leave their work with just as much cheerfulness as others

1

more fortunately situated go to or leave school; and, that they are, the year through, as healthy, contented and happy. And then there is, besides the impracticability of, attempting to apply one rule to all branches of industry with anything like justice, the apprehension and distrust which may arise from the imperative, dogmatical manner in which the League has gone to work. We grant them the most perfect right to speak of their "ultimatum," and use any expressions with which an unabridged Webster may provide them, or which may be used by any other class of people, proletarian or capitalist, gentle or simple. But there can be no doubt that when a comparatively small body of workmen—at least a small proportion of the population of the country-can league themselves together and demand that this or that system shall be adopted one or two months hence throughout the land, it is time that society should wake up to a knowledge of the fact, that money is no longer the ruling power of the commercial world, and that the old terms of master and man must be speedily reversed. It is time it should awake if only to realize the new position in which it stands, and learn to adapt itself to the new order of things. There can be no doubt that the threatening stand which the working-men have taken is unwise. Every one must admit that it is calculated to sow distrust between the two great classes of society, and to frighten capital from the country. It is not the interest of the capitalist only, but that of the workingman in particular, that the most cordial understanding should exist between the two. To destroy this is to discourage the investment of capital in those very branches of industry which employ the greatest number of people.

There is another aspect of the question, however, and one which makes it incumbent on employers to move very cautiously in the matter. It will not do for them, however much they may be convinced of the justice of the

step to accede too hastily to the demand for a reduction of time. We believe some may be led to do this from a fondness for the little temporary popularity they may gain by it, without duly considering the consequences which are to follow. It is possible that the action of a single firm may cause such a disturbance in that particular branch of trade as to be fatal to the standing, not only of themselves, but of many others in all parts of the country. A whole department of manufactures may be placed in such a position in relation to other countries as to be entirely destroyed.

Canada is now struggling in the manufac ture of cottons, woollens, and other staple branches of commerce to compete with other and older countries, where, notwithstanding that labour is very much cheaper there than it is here, or can be expected to be for many years, they have strenuously opposed for the most part any concession of this kind. We have already seen that such a movement if generally carried out must inevitably raise the price of manufactured goods and must. in an inverse proportion to this increase. lower our ability to compete with other countries; and this too when many are crying out against the small modicum of protection afforded to our manufacturers already. This is a phase of the subject which requires the most careful consideration.

The great difficulty with writers on this question generally is that they can only see it from one point of view-either as employers or employees; and some of them, in their eagerness to establish their case, step right over the question, and unconsciously argue against themselves. Thus, a writer in a prominent daily journal, discussing the matter on behalf of the working-men, says that if the labour of 5000 men a day were reduced by an hour each, 500 men would not be lost to the community, as they would still remain as consumers, while other 500 would come in to make up the difference. This, on examination, will be found to be

very poor logic, if indeed it contain any logic at all, for its argument is rather implied than stated. We cannot see how either the working-man or the country is to be benefited by the result which is pointed out. If that man is a blessing to his country who makes two blades of grass to grow where one grew before, then surely 500 men who produce nothing, but who are fed by the labour of others, must be the very reverse. This is the true light in which to place the question. And again, how is it to benefit the working-man that every thing he has to buy, already higher than he has been accustomed to pay for it, owing to a reduction of abour, is raised still higher by the fact that there are so many more to feed who produce nothing? The same writer goes on toask "what right have the buyers in Europe to expect that Canadian workmen will manufacture at a figure to suit their pockets? especially as many of this class came here to escape the degradingly low wages prevailing in some parts of that continent ?" This is the most childish argument imaginable.Does the workman anywhere ever manufacture to suit the pockets of the buyer? Or, as we suppose he means, what right has the manufacturer here to produce a cheap article so as to suit the pockets of the buyer elsewhere?

Except it is to support himself and find employment for his workmen, we confess the question is unanswerable. If his employer did not manufacture so as to compete with other countries, whether cheap abour is employed or not, what would be the result to the workman? Would he get higher wages? Scarcely! The employer having no market would be obliged to shut ap his establishment, and the workman would be obliged to return to the "degradngly low wages" of which he speaks. This would be the inevitable result, and will probably be found to be the result of a too hasty adoption of the nine hours' system in many branches of business.

There are, however, many favourable points. in connection with the movement which are worthy of consideration.

There is every day an increasing disposition in the world to consider the workingman as a thinking, reading, intelligent being, the equal of his employer in every re spect but that of wealth, and the position which wealth commands. There is an increasing disposition to consider him as one whose birthright is an equal share of what joys and comforts the world will afford, and one entitled, by the laws of justice and equity, to every amelioration of his position, which can, with a due respect for the rights of others, be accorded him. This principle is so thoroughly recognized in the neighbouring States, that many establishments are conducted on the joint-stock or mutual interest system; and in others, where they have been unable to concede the nine hours' movement, they have given to their employees a trifling interest in the business, and so tided over the difficulty entirely. This method was found to be most effectual, and one of the best that could be pursued in those parts of the country where labour was scarce, and where the business would suffer materially by the withdrawal of any portion of its force. But what are the other advantages which might be expected to follow a general adoption of the nine hours' system? One of them would undoubtedly be, that in large manufacturing towns and other places, where the labour market was crowded, the work to be done, and the wages to be distributed, would be more equally divided among those who stood in need of them. The "out of employment'' class would stand a chance of receiving something to do; their families would be provided with the necessaries of life; and a vast deal of misery and discontent saved to the community. This certainly would be a great object gained. There would be fewer paupers in the poor-house, and society would be relieved to a great extent from a burden, which, instead of diminishing, goes on in