rule it isn't hard work, but then it isn't well paid, and it's not very dignified, which last we don't mind; but the work should be done by us, not by the idle men of other trades. We should be protected from their competition if there were any rights. These jobs and chances form the hereditary property of our class, the only thing we did inherit. We have the good-will of them, and we can't be expropriated more than any other class save by force and injustice. No doubt some of us are unfortunate at times, still we rub along somehow and don't complain much, and if we now and then come on the rates, why so do our betters. And if you want to benefit the unemployed (from bad trade), let the authorities find work for them, while if unemployed intermittent labourers or ill-paid labourers are to be benefited, let it be at the cost of their employers that profit from their work, or the public, and not at our cost. For ourselves, all we further ask is that you leave us alone."

Thus may urge the casual labourer. It would, in fact, be unjust to either force or drive them away; moreover it would be impolitic, as before said, and largely impracticable. But even if they were all bodily removed and made State slaves, as Mr. Booth suggests and as Carlyle recommended, the State would have a serious task on hand, because on Mr. Booth's calculations the class in question is very numerous. In the district covered by his figures (East London and Hackney) it amounted to 11 per cent., and if we assume the same proportion all over the three kingdoms, out of a population of near forty millions there would be over four millions to be relegated to the in

dustrial communities; or say the proportion was less in other parts of London and generally over the kingdom, let us put them at three millions. This would be a very large body to be dealt with, in addition to our indoor paupers. We need not insist on the very unpromising materials they would be for labourers. They wou'd mostly be men who had never learned any regular calling, but who might be able to do many miscellaneous things. They would not like regular work from the habit of their lives; they would mostly be incapable of it, from want of physical strength or endurance. They could only be kept to it by punishment, which in their case would be cruelty; and even then the work would be bad, and small in amount. So much indeed Mr. Booth admits; that the work would be bad, and probably far from self-supporting. He adds, however, that even now their work is costly to society, forgetting that when they are removed it must still be paid for to the class that takes their place, so that society would still have to pay for it, as well as for the deficiency on the work in the semi penal colonies. Society would, in addition to the inmates of the workhouse, have three or four millions of slaves on hand, sent into captivity for the benefit of the classes of ill-paid labourers just above them, and unjustly expropriated from their hereditary chances because they were somewhat more unfortunate than these classes.

There is little doubt that their absence would raise for a time at least-and if population was not unduly stimulated, would raise permanently,—the condition of the struggling classes just above the displaced casual

class. Profits and interest would indeed be reduced, so far as wages were raised, unless inventions were made or the work done was better or greater in amount, and the elevation of wages would to some extent contract the field of investment which the former cheaper labour made possible, so that a fresh fringe or margin of unemployed labour would be another consequence of the raised wages.

The new

un mployed would not be so numerous, indeed, as the relegated class, but some there would be, the disengaged capital probably going abroad for investment. On the whole, the rest of society would probably he the healthier for the absence of the class; the question is, are we willing and ready to benefit the better class of labourers at the cost of the lower and more unfortunate, at the risk, also, of increasing crime and immorality? I doubt very much whether opinion would be in favour of it, especially as the sacrifice of the lower class would entail a certain sacrifice to the classes receiving profit and interest. I think it would be opposed as tyrannical and unjust, that opinion would set itself against it, and that a rigorous attempt to stop out-door relief would be defeated by voluntary charity. I am afraid, therefore, that this plan for the benefit of the unemployed must also be ticketed with the fatal word "impracticable," though if society generally insisted on it, it would really benefit the existing unemployed, as well as the low-paid labourers. It is not, therefore, absolutely impracticable; it is only relatively so, and for the reason that it is most unlikely that opinion will be in favour of it, at least tor a long time to come.

CHAPTER XI.

AN EIGHT HOURS' WORKING DAY.

I.

A FAVOURITE plan at the present time for absorbing unemployed labour, as well as for improving the general condition of all labourers, is to make eight hours the legal working day, overtime to be paid extra, and at higher rates. This proposal has found more general support than any other, both amongst labourers and social philosophers; it is therefore deserving of a careful consideration.

The view held by its supporters is, that the reduction in time of work would result in an equivalent reduction in the amount of products and services, while society, requiring the same total of both as before, would be obliged to draw on the unemployed labour to supply the deficiency. Those employed would thus have more leisure, with wages undiminished; they might still add to their wages by overtime, while there would be few or none out of work.

Such, in brief, is the theory. Or in figures: the working time being reduced from ten hours (which is about the present average day's work) to eight hours. the resulting quantity of products and services will be

reduced in the same proportion, that is, to four-fifths, leaving one-fifth unsupplied, which the unemployed can furnish. It is assumed in the argument that the quantity of work required, the amount of commodities (the necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries), including the amount of services, is a constant amount, though such is by no means the ca-e, as Professor Cairnes justly points out.' Society can dispense with a large part of the amount if necessary, just as it could stomach far more commodities, conveniences, and luxuries, if it could get them easily.

And in the case supposed of a general reduction in working hours, society will and must reduce the amount of its consumption of all things except absolute neces aries; more especially as a large part of the society that is supposed to require a constant amount of commodities and services is composed of foreigners who purchase our manufactures, and who would certainly purchase less if the prices were raised, which would be the consequence of reduced hours unless wages were reduced, or unless more energetic labour for the shorter day resulted in as great production as before.

Let us trace the possible consequences more fully and specially. Employers will get eight hours' work from their employés instead of ten; that is, they will get only four-fifths work from them, and by consequence only four-fifths the amount of production (or of services) for the same wages, assuming the efficiency of labour to remain the same. Omitting the consideration of services (though the argument equally

"Lead.ng Principles of Political Economy," Part II. c. iv. § 3.