บทที่ บทที่ 54 · Like That

In the olden days the work of the world had been done by independent

workmen who sat in their own little workshops in the front of their

houses, who owned their tools, who boxed the ears of their own

apprentices and who, within the limits prescribed by their guilds,

conducted their business as it pleased them. They lived simple lives,

and were obliged to work very long hours, but they were their own

masters. If they got up and saw that it was a fine day to go fishing,

they went fishing and there was no one to say “no.”

But the introduction of machinery changed this. A machine is really

nothing but a greatly enlarged tool. A railroad train which carries

you at the speed of a mile a minute is in reality a pair of very fast

legs, and a steam hammer which flattens heavy plates of iron is just a

terrible big fist, made of steel.

But whereas we can all afford a pair of good legs and a good strong

fist, a railroad train and a steam hammer and a cotton factory are very

expensive pieces of machinery and they are not owned by a single man,

but usually by a company of people who all contribute a certain sum and

then divide the profits of their railroad or cotton mill according to

the amount of money which they have invested.

[Illustration: MAN POWER AND MACHINE POWER]

Therefore, when machines had been improved until they were really

practicable and profitable, the builders of those large tools, the

machine manufacturers, began to look for customers who could afford to

pay for them in cash.

During the early middle ages, when land had been almost the only form

of wealth, the nobility were the only people who were considered

wealthy. But as I have told you in a previous chapter, the gold and

silver which they possessed was quite insignificant and they used the

old system of barter, exchanging cows for horses and eggs for honey.

During the crusades, the burghers of the cities had been able to gather

riches from the reviving trade between the east and the west, and they

had been serious rivals of the lords and the knights.

The French revolution had entirely destroyed the wealth of the nobility

and had enormously increased that of the middle class or “bourgeoisie.”

The years of unrest which followed the Great Revolution had offered

many middle-class people a chance to get more than their share of

this world’s goods. The estates of the church had been confiscated by

the French Convention and had been sold at auction. There had been a

terrific amount of graft. Land speculators had stolen thousands of

square miles of valuable land, and during the Napoleonic wars, they had

used their capital to “profiteer” in grain and gun-powder, and now they

possessed more wealth than they needed for the actual expenses of their

households and they could afford to build themselves factories and to

hire men and women to work the machines.

This caused a very abrupt change in the lives of hundreds of thousands

of people. Within a few years, many cities doubled the number of their

inhabitants and the old civic centre which had been the real “home” of

the citizens was surrounded with ugly and cheaply built suburbs where

the workmen slept after their eleven or twelve hours, or thirteen

hours, spent in the factories and from where they returned to the

factory as soon as the whistle blew.

Far and wide through the countryside there was talk of the fabulous

sums of money that could be made in the towns. The peasant boy,

accustomed to a life in the open, went to the city. He rapidly lost

his old health amidst the smoke and dust and dirt of those early and

badly ventilated workshops, and the end, very often, was death in the

poor-house or in the hospital.

[Illustration: THE FACTORY]

Of course the change from the farm to the factory on the part of

so many people was not accomplished without a certain amount of

opposition. Since one engine could do as much work as a hundred men,

the ninety-nine others who were thrown out of employment did not like

it. Frequently they attacked the factory-buildings and set fire to the

machines, but Insurance Companies had been organised as early as the

17th century and as a rule the owners were well protected against loss.

Soon, newer and better machines were installed, the factory was

surrounded with a high wall and then there was an end to the rioting.

The ancient guilds could not possibly survive in this new world of

steam and iron. They went out of existence 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

1832, 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 of Jacobinism and violence, the English

government placed the Duke of Wellington, who was now in his eightieth

year, at the head of the army, and called for Volunteers. London was

placed in a state of siege and preparations were made to suppress the

coming revolution.

But the Chartist movement killed itself through bad leadership and no

acts of violence took place. The new class of wealthy factory owners,

(I dislike the word “bourgeoisie” which has been used to death by the

apostles of a new social order,) slowly increased its hold upon the

government, and the conditions of industrial life in the large cities

continued to transform vast acres of pasture and wheat-land into dreary

slums, which guard the approach of every modern European town.