OUR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN 1901. 535 



would lay 1,000 or 1,200 bricks in a day. In America, we are given 

 to understand, the figure is even higher. Now, by an unwritten but 

 mercilessly enforced trades-union law, a man must not lay more than 

 400, and if he works for the London County Council — that is to say, 

 for the ratepayers — he must not lay more than 330. Our correspondent 

 quotes a case of a building put up for the school board in which the 

 average output of the bricklayers was 70 bricks a day. Yet these are 

 men receiving the highest current rate of wages, a rate very greatly 

 in excess of what was paid when 1,000 bricks were laid per day. This 

 is typical of what goes on in every trade, though it may not always be 

 so easy to give exact figures." 



The United States consul at Liverpool, Mr. Boyle, in his annual 

 report for 1901,* gives a most interesting description of the lengths 

 to which this restrictive policy is carried. "The charge is made," he 

 says, "that there is a general disposition on the part of British work- 

 ingmen to obstruct as much as possible the use of labor-saving machin- 

 ery, and to limit its output whenever the employers add machinery to 

 their plant; and also that, in certain trades, the rule is 'one man, one 

 machine,' whereas in America one man will attend to two or three 

 machines. It is furthermore charged that there is an increasing dis- 

 position on the part of British workingmen to shirk work, and to use 

 all expedients to perform as little labor as possible during the hours 

 for which they are paid. These charges are made with great particu- 

 larity against trades-unionists. There is, it is to be noted, a growing 

 tendency throughout the country to shorten the hours of labor, while 

 at the same time there is an upward movement in wages. As a rule, 

 trades-unionists deny the charge of obstructing the use of labor-saving 

 machinery and limiting the output; and they retort that employers 

 are lacking in enterprise in not fitting up their factories with up-to- 

 date plants. It is undoubtedly true, however, that, speaking generally 

 and quite apart from the question of trades-unionism, English manu- 

 facturers find it almost impossible to get the same amount of product 

 from machines as is obtained in America. There are two reasons that 

 account for this, independent of any agreement, expressed or implied, 

 on the part of trades-unionists to limit the output. The first reason 

 is that, as a rule, the British workman is not as adaptable as the Ameri- 

 can workman — he does not so readily get command of new appliances 

 as the American workman ; and the second is that it is not the custom 

 of the country for an Englishman, whether mechanic, clerk or laborer, 

 to work as hard as an American." In Consul Boyle's opinion, Hrades- 

 unionism has an influence in England far beyond what it has in the 

 United States'; but he adds: 'It is but just to say that there is greater 



• See 'Advance Sheets of Consular Reports,' No. 1222 (December 24, 1901). 



