THE RIGHT TO WORK.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9145, 14 May 1908, Page 7

THE RIGHT TO WORK.

There is some very good reading in the speeches of Members of the House of Commons on the second reading of the Unemployed Bill. The principle laid down in the Bill was that everyone who was out of work had a right to demand work, and the promoter of the Bill explained the machinery to attain this end. But both mover and seconder (Ramsay MacDonald) begged the question when they affirmed that the principle had been accepted of the “right to work. ’’ Mr- Miaddison, a Labour member, moved an amendment, that the House “cannot entertain a measure which, by wasting the resources of the nation, would throw out of work more persons than it would assist.” In his speech, which was a vigorous reply to the statements (they were not arguments) of the mover and seconder, he said that in a circular sent out by the Labour Party, the Bill was described as ‘ ‘ the first inevitable step to Socialism. ” So that there was no doubting the parent of the measure. “What was the nature of the work,” he asked, “that was to be provided ; were they going to put boiler-makers to ploughing or were they going to put weavers to drain digging? They had to fall back on land schemes, and if there was one- fallacy in the House of Commons —and there were many—it was that the cultivation of the land needed no skill. He was a " compositor by trade, and he would sooner go to jail than go to the.land {loud laughter and cheers), and he would serve his country better there. There was probably nothing in which'they could lose money quicker than in the land. He was a great believer in getting back to the land, but he always passed the luxury on to other people (laughter). There was nothing to offer in this Bill but large, ruinous, and costly land schemes.” Proceeding, he said. “The right to work could not stand alone. The righ. to work had been put on a parallel with the right to five —and the right to work must, if the State was to undertake it, be followed by a control over the lives of the men to which no self-respecting persons woudl submit. They should pause before they accepted a flimsy thing called the rieht to work. There was a ricn domain for social reforms on which the House might enter with safety, and to the adventage of the people, bat that solid ground must not be confused by the treacherous morass of State Socialism, the grave of individual liberty and of national strength.” He concluded a sturdy speech by declaring the Bill was not worthy of being considered by Parliament. The seconder of the amendment said, “It would destroy character, lower wages, weaken trades unions, intensify unemployment, and prove disastrous to the people it was desired to help.” Mr Grayson, husky with much open-air speaking, declared for the Bill, as was to be expected. “It was the duty of the Government to find a remedy for the unemployed problem. All we want is money,” and he was momentarily staggered by the great burst of brighter with which the latter statement was greeted. He did net realise that there lay the whole gist of the Bill—Money. But money provided by the taxpayer or ratepayer.