November 21, 1918 
LAND &> WATER 
o( the legislation on factory conditions, a maximum eight- 
hour day, the prevention of ' sweating ' and unhealthy trades 
necessary to protect the workers against exploitation and 
oppression, and the prohibition of night work by women 
and children." 
Finally, the Labour Party programme, which appeared 
in the Titnes of November 14th, speaks of " the need for an 
international agreement for the enforcement in all countries 
of uniform legislation on factory conditions, maximum 
working hours, the prevention of sweating and unhealthy 
trades, and similar industrial reforms." 
Labour Legislation 
The international policy proposed in monotonously uniform 
terms upon the occasions which I have noted has much to 
commend it. If the stage in factory legislation which this 
country has reached is a good thing in itself — if, relatively 
speaking, it humanises work and promotes true efficiency — 
that legislation will, prima facie, be good for other nations. 
Some of the labour conditions which in England are taken 
90 much for granted are elsewhere the object of strenuous 
effort. Take the attitude of the French towards la semaine 
Mttglaise : an attitude no Englishman can observe without 
a little pride and more than a little pity. The past autumn, 
for instance, has witnessed a vigorous agitation in the tailoring 
and dressmaking industry fn Paris, la semaine anglaise being 
among the points eventually gained by the workpeople. 
The following is from a rapturous letter by a midinette quoted 
in L' Information Ouvriire et Sociale of October 31st ; "La 
patronne dont ott m'a dit beaucoup de mal ricemment et qui 
certes nefait pas encore parliciper ses oitvriires d ses h£n6fices, 
« tout de mSme accordi d son personnel la " semaine anglaise." 
Pensez si nous sommes heureuses ; tout I'apres-midi du saniedi 
pour courir d notre tour les grands magasins et nous occttper 
de notre coquetterie — je parle pour mot, c'est un peu mon 
dlfaut — et nitre plus obligee de passer une partie de la nuit 
pour arranger un corsage ou mime raccommoder nos has. Vous 
n'atez pas idie combien les bas de soie s'usent vite, et combien 
Us yeux se fatiguenta travailler sous la lampe, sans compter 
que le petrole. . . ." There can be very little harm in work- 
people in every land under the sun having Saturday after- 
noon off and resting on Sunday. There are other points, 
too, in which reform is as obviously desirable, and even 
more urgent. 
To these general humanitarian grounds Labour thinks 
that the present juncture adds both opportunity and neces- 
sity. It is desirable that the public should realise this point. 
The war has brought the allied nations closer to each other 
90 that, having done so much in concert, and done it success- 
fully, they might well lay down regulations in common for 
industry. From these friendly possibilities a regenerate 
Germany need not be excluded in advance or absolutely. 
Regeneracy would require, of course, to be demonstrated. 
But, whether Germany came in or stayed out. there would 
be no incongruity in any League of Nations that may emerge 
from the welter of warfare defining broad principles of factory 
legislation. I shall say nothing at this point about the 
practicability of this intrinsically attractive idea. 
It may be argued, however, that the present circumstances, 
while offering an opportunity, disclose an interest so pressing 
as to amount wellnigh to compulsion. If the friendly possi- 
bilities mentioned above are not explored or realised, if no 
League of Nations, or only a perfunctory one, takes shape, 
very severe competition may set in among the manufacturers 
•f Europe. Under the pressure of competition the whole 
position of Labour everywhere would be endangered. Where 
Labour is weakest the fall in wages and the deterioration of 
conditions would be at a maximum. "Exploitation" in 
certain areas would drive other better-paid groups or nations 
to protect their own standards by tariff barriers which might 
have to be made impassable. The alternative to a League 
•f Nations may really be, on the economic side, not to go on 
again as before the war, but to lapse into acutely exclusive 
nationalism. It is no exaggeration to suggest that Europe 
might then become the scene and the victim of an organised 
•rgy of undercutting, of dumping, of thoroughly unfair 
competition, and of many other evils. Labour shrinks from 
this prospect, though, so far as regards political sentiment, 
it is just as patriotic and as "national" as any other class 
•f the community. But it has enough solidarity with the 
men of its own class in other European countries to believe 
that no interests worth serving can be served by acquiescence 
in bad labour conditions, which connote exploitation, in any 
part of Europe. Thus at the present juncture Labour is 
unavoidably driven to press for more uniform conditions 
throughout Europe. Its campaign is likely to obtain support 
Irom the manufacturers who fear dumping and the effect of 
" unfair" competition. On the other hand, those who believe 
in importing at the very cheapest rates may be expected to 
oppose the Labour policy. But cheapness, obviously, is not 
everything. 
Hardly anyone will deny that the international Labour 
policy, in the boiled-down form in which I have put it forward, 
contains a great and a humane European ideal. Nor is this 
policy an enemy of nationalism. When M. Jouhaux claims 
that the worker is "a citizen of the world" he does not mean 
to sweep away the patriotic sentiments. That would be a 
peculiarly forlorn hope just now. The Labour Party seeks 
to make the relations of nations friendlier by removing 
certain powerful causes of economic strife. 
Ideas and Action 
If the Labour ideas are both good and timely, the question 
arises next how they may be seriously discussed with a view 
to action being taken. The Labour Party is well aware 
that it will encounter grave difficulties when it reaches the 
stage of concrete and detailed proposals. Immediate success 
is not to be hoped for on many points. But no matter how 
great the difficulties or how small. the probable success, no 
unfavourable view on these two points should interfere with 
the claim of Labour to have a formal opportunity given 
for the discussion of the main matter. 
Let us look at the proposals of the party as set out in the 
Times of November 14th : 
The Executive Committee, therefore, recommend tliat 
the Emergency Conference should adopt the following 
resolution : 
"That this Special Emergency Conference of the 
Labour Party reaffirms the demand of the Inter-Allied 
Conferences of February and September, 1918 : 
" (i) That, in the official delegations from each of 
the belligerent countries which formulate 
the Peace Treaty, the workers should have 
direct official representation. 
" (2) That a World Labour Congress should be 
held at the same time and place as the 
Peace Conference that will formulate the 
Peace Treaty closing the war. 
" (3) That this Conference demands that the 
Government should afford faciUties for the 
fulfilment of the above proposals." 
Proposal (i) is otiose, if Mr. Lloyd George on taking office 
in December, 1916, made the Labour Party a premise to 
that effect. In any case, the existence of the Coalition, 
which may be presumed, would automatically ensure Labour 
representation. But (i) means more than this. It emphasises 
the bringing of industrial conditions within the purview of ' 
diplomacy. There is no d priori reason against this, while 
there are plausible and strong arguments of fact in its favour. 
But, granted that diplomacy is to enter on this new field, 
it does not follow that at the Peace Conference diplomacy 
can conveniently handle labour questions, or, indeed, handle 
them at all. The English delegation at the conference 
cannot, for example, call in the same breath for South-West 
Africa to be handed over to General Botha and for every- 
body in the Vaterland to be given Saturday afternoons off. 
What, for Labour, is essential is that the conference should 
boldly proclaim labour conditions matters for international 
diplomacy to arrange. The conference must go further. It 
must provide both a platform for discussion and machinery 
lor settlement. As the' questions that will come up are 
numerous and extremely unlikely to be settled together or 
all at once, the platform and the machinery would have to 
be of a permanent sort. 
Proposal (2) is ijaiveif it means that the Labour Congress is 
to consist of Labour only. Even if, as (2) virtually admits, 
the international charter of Labour is hardly a matter for 
the diplomatic Peace Conference, it is still, most assuredly, 
a matter for diplomacy. The Government must be repre- 
sented. And not only they, but the employers' organisa- 
tions as well have an indefeasable right to be present. Labour 
amelioration has proceeded in this country by agreement 
between employers and workmen perhaps as much as by 
State action. The methods of conciliation and arbitration 
are at least as likely to answer internationally as statutory 
prescription. If (2) may be read as pointing to an inter- 
national court of arbitration in which both sides shall be 
represented, i.e., employers and workpeople, an.d diplomacy 
shall occupy the chair, it is difficult to quarrel with it. Who 
could quarrel with a glorified committee on production dis- 
pensing Sunday rest with both hands throughout Europe ? 
If proposals (i) and (2) are as reasonable, if, properly 
interpreted, they are as unavoidable stages in evolution as 
they can very readily be shown to be, proposal {3) need 
give no trouble. 
