52 POLITICAL ECONOMY 



porate capacity, but with the leading hand as their representa- 

 tive. As it would be very inconvenient to the men to wait for 

 the completion of the job before receiving payment, they are 

 each paid the usual weekly wages, and the balance due to them 

 when the work is done is paid to the leading hand for distribu- 

 tion. He is sometimes, indeed generally, allowed by his mates 

 rather a larger share than he would get if the division were 

 made strictly according to the wages at which each man is rated 

 in the shops. It appears that some leading hands took it into 

 their heads that they might keep the balance to themselves, as 

 probably at law they might have a right to do. The union 

 very properly stopped this. All the men are working by the 

 piece, and all should make like profit. If any one of them 

 skulked his work, the others would either force him to quit the 

 gang, or at the least would take care never to work associated 

 with him again. This was explained to the Commission by Mr. 

 Allan, but it was apparently not very clearly understood. 



The limitation of apprentices is a common but not universal 

 rule among trade-unions the object being to keep up wages by 

 preventing competition. This condition directly injures all ap- 

 prentices who are excluded under it, and we think it therefore 

 an improper condition in the contract between master and man. 

 It is highly valued by the men as a very powerful means of 

 raising wages ; and while they admit that this is the general 

 scope of the rule, they defend their conduct by several argu- 

 ments which deserve consideration. First, they say that they 

 are willing to enter into a bargain to work for their masters, but 

 not to teach ; that they do not, in fact, impose this condition 

 injurious to a third party, but simply refuse to enter into 

 a special subsidiary contract to teach, that being no essential 

 part of their business. This is so far a sound argument, that we 

 think it would be unanswerable if they would allow masters to 

 employ apprentices in distinct rooms, taught by workmen who 

 did not share this objection to the education of competitors ; 

 but neither masters nor men will look at this as a practical issue 

 from the difficulty. Unless, therefore, the men allow appren- 

 tices to work along with them they do exclude young men from 

 the trade, and make their injury a condition upon which the 

 society man will work. Another argument is, that if no limita- 



