The Story of Mankind [164]
and then the workmen tried to organise regular labour
unions. But the factory-owners, who through their wealth
could exercise great influence upon the politicians of the different
countries, went to the Legislature and had laws passed
which forbade the forming of such trade unions because they
interfered with the ``liberty of action'' of the working man.
Please do not think that the good members of Parliament
who passed these laws were wicked tyrants. They were
the true sons of the revolutionary period when everybody
talked of ``liberty'' and when people often killed their neighbours
because they were not quite as liberty-loving as they
ought to have been. Since ``liberty'' was the foremost virtue
of man, it was not right that labour-unions should dictate to
their members the hours during which they could work and
the wages which they must demand. The workman must at
all times, be ``free to sell his services in the open market,'' and
the employer must be equally ``free'' to conduct his business
as he saw fit. The days of the Mercantile System, when
the state had regulated the industrial life of the entire
community, were coming to an end. The new idea of ``freedom''
insisted that the state stand entirely aside and let commerce
take its course.
The last half of the 18th century had not merely been a
time of intellectual and political doubt, but the old economic
ideas, too, had been replaced by new ones which better suited the
need of the hour. Several years before the French revolution,
Turgot, who had been one of the unsuccessful ministers of
finance of Louis XVI, had preached the novel doctrine of
``economic liberty.'' Turgot lived in a country which had
suffered from too much red-tape, too many regulations, too
many officials trying to enforce too many laws. ``Remove this
official supervision,'' he wrote, ``let the people do as they please,
and everything will be all right.'' Soon his famous advice of
``laissez faire'' became the battle-cry around which the economists
of that period rallied,
At the same time in England, Adam Smith was working
on his mighty volumes on the ``Wealth of Nations,'' which made
another plea for ``liberty'' and the ``natural rights of trade.''
Thirty years later, after the fall of Napoleon, when the reactionary
powers of Europe had gained their victory at Vienna,
that same freedom which was denied to the people in their
political relations was forced upon them in their industrial
life.
The general use of machinery, as I have said at the beginning
of this chapter, proved to be of great advantage to the
state. Wealth increased rapidly. The machine made it possible
for a single country, like England, to carry all the burdens
of the great Napoleonic wars. The capitalists (the people
who provided the money with which machines were bought)
reaped enormous profits. They became ambitious and began
to take an interest in politics. They tried to compete with the
landed aristocracy which still exercised great influence upon
the government of most European countries.
In England, where the members of Parliament were still
elected according to a Royal Decree of the year 1265, and
where a large number of recently created industrial centres were
without representation, they brought about the passing of the
Reform Bill of the year 1882, which changed the electoral
system and gave the class of the factory-owners more influence
upon the legislative body. This however caused great
discontent among the millions of factory workers, who were
left without any voice in the government. They too began
an agitation for the right to vote. They put their demands
down in a document which came to be known as the ``People's
Charter.'' The debates about this charter grew more and
more violent. They had not yet come to an end when the revolutions
of the year 1848 broke out. Frightened by the threat
of a new outbreak
unions. But the factory-owners, who through their wealth
could exercise great influence upon the politicians of the different
countries, went to the Legislature and had laws passed
which forbade the forming of such trade unions because they
interfered with the ``liberty of action'' of the working man.
Please do not think that the good members of Parliament
who passed these laws were wicked tyrants. They were
the true sons of the revolutionary period when everybody
talked of ``liberty'' and when people often killed their neighbours
because they were not quite as liberty-loving as they
ought to have been. Since ``liberty'' was the foremost virtue
of man, it was not right that labour-unions should dictate to
their members the hours during which they could work and
the wages which they must demand. The workman must at
all times, be ``free to sell his services in the open market,'' and
the employer must be equally ``free'' to conduct his business
as he saw fit. The days of the Mercantile System, when
the state had regulated the industrial life of the entire
community, were coming to an end. The new idea of ``freedom''
insisted that the state stand entirely aside and let commerce
take its course.
The last half of the 18th century had not merely been a
time of intellectual and political doubt, but the old economic
ideas, too, had been replaced by new ones which better suited the
need of the hour. Several years before the French revolution,
Turgot, who had been one of the unsuccessful ministers of
finance of Louis XVI, had preached the novel doctrine of
``economic liberty.'' Turgot lived in a country which had
suffered from too much red-tape, too many regulations, too
many officials trying to enforce too many laws. ``Remove this
official supervision,'' he wrote, ``let the people do as they please,
and everything will be all right.'' Soon his famous advice of
``laissez faire'' became the battle-cry around which the economists
of that period rallied,
At the same time in England, Adam Smith was working
on his mighty volumes on the ``Wealth of Nations,'' which made
another plea for ``liberty'' and the ``natural rights of trade.''
Thirty years later, after the fall of Napoleon, when the reactionary
powers of Europe had gained their victory at Vienna,
that same freedom which was denied to the people in their
political relations was forced upon them in their industrial
life.
The general use of machinery, as I have said at the beginning
of this chapter, proved to be of great advantage to the
state. Wealth increased rapidly. The machine made it possible
for a single country, like England, to carry all the burdens
of the great Napoleonic wars. The capitalists (the people
who provided the money with which machines were bought)
reaped enormous profits. They became ambitious and began
to take an interest in politics. They tried to compete with the
landed aristocracy which still exercised great influence upon
the government of most European countries.
In England, where the members of Parliament were still
elected according to a Royal Decree of the year 1265, and
where a large number of recently created industrial centres were
without representation, they brought about the passing of the
Reform Bill of the year 1882, which changed the electoral
system and gave the class of the factory-owners more influence
upon the legislative body. This however caused great
discontent among the millions of factory workers, who were
left without any voice in the government. They too began
an agitation for the right to vote. They put their demands
down in a document which came to be known as the ``People's
Charter.'' The debates about this charter grew more and
more violent. They had not yet come to an end when the revolutions
of the year 1848 broke out. Frightened by the threat
of a new outbreak