shop at fourteen will have acquired at eighteen what in former times could scarcely have been obtained at the age of twenty-one, and hence a three, four, or five years' apprenticeship, according to the nature of the trade, will serve the purpose equally well as the full term of seven years in the past. It is when he commences to learn the handicraft that the real work of technical education must begin. The youth can only be taught the scientific principles which specially pertain to his craft, and their application in the workshop, after he has begun to learn his trade; and this instruction should be continued side by side with the experience gained in his daily labour. Apprenticeship, in some form or other, will still be needed, nay, is imperative in properly learning a trade, as nothing can possibly supersede it. Technical education will assist in developing and guiding the latent skill and acquired expertness of the boy, and thereby produce a class of handicraftsmen who, in the higher branches of art workmanship, will be second to no similar class of workmen in any part of the world.

§ 82. The initial steps have been taken, the foundations have been laid, plans have been suggested, schemes formulated, and the materials are ready to hand. Much, however, even of preliminary work remains to be done. The working people have to be stimulated and prepared to receive this instruction, and to seek for it, as not only a valuable but indispensable auxiliary to the training of the workshop. The difficulties surrounding the subject are still great, but they are not insurmountable. Active opposition has been abandoned, but apathy is almost a greater obstacle to be overcome. The seed has been sown; it is fructifying in the ground; but it will only mature by careful watching and aiding, according to its kind. In due time, if we faint not, do not neglect duty and opportunity, the nation will reap a plentiful harvest. It is essential for the full development and permanent success of technical education, that it should have Government aid, and be under Executive control. By no other means shall we be able to reach the furthermost nooks and corners of these islands, and bring the blessings of so beneficent an enterprise home to every door. Local initiative and supervision are necessary. Local effort will infuse life and

activity into the movement. The nerve centre must, however, be the Education Department; the pulsations will then be regular, the nerve power healthy, and the circulation complete through all the ramifications of the body politic, to the minutest extremities.

§ 83. One other weighty consideration might be urged for prompt and vigorous action in this matter of technical training. Great efforts have been and are being made by our competitors on the continent of Europe, and in America, to train the artisan classes of their respective countries, extending over a long series of years. Three-and-twenty years ago we were informed by Messrs. Creed and Williams, and subsequently by reports issued by the Education Department, as to the efforts which were being made, and the progress which had resulted therefrom, in Belgium, in France, in parts of Germany, and in other countries. Since that date further investigations have been made, and other reports have been published, all confirming the conclusion that England was lagging behind in technical education. The relative condition of British workmen in this respect has not improved in an equal ratio with that of foreign workmen; whilst the superiority of foreign employers in technical skill to that of British employers is more apparent still. What is being done abroad for the industrial classes, should at least be imitated at home. With such extended technical and scientific training our workmen need not fear the competition of the world.

CHAPTER VI.

I. PIECE-WORK.

II. HOURS OF LABOUR.

III. SYSTEMATIC OVERTIME.

1.-PIECE-WORK.

§ 1. THERE is, on the mind of the public, a general impression that trade unions, individually and in the aggregate, are diametrically opposed to piece-work, and that there is a firm determination to "put it down," and stamp it out, in all the trades of the country. One simple and very obvious fact will show that this conclusion is a false one; it has arisen from popular prejudice, caused by misrepresentation on the one hand, and from inadequate information on the other. There are many trades in which piece-work is the general rule, and the workmen. in those trades would as strenuously resist the introduction of day-work, as in other trades they endeavour to restrict piecework within the narrowest limits. In the tailoring trades, in shoemaking, and in most of the other industries engaged in the manufacture of articles for personal wear, payment by the piece is nearly universal, for the simple reason that one man can do his part independently of another; he is thus responsible to himself for the amount of work to be done, and the wages to be earned, and to the master for the quality of the work performed. In the printing trades much of the work is done by the "piece," for the same or similar reasons. The same method of work is adopted in many other trades, where the payments can be calculated in a fair and equitable manner, and the practice can be easily and methodically carried out. In a speech delivered by Mr. Mundella, M.P., at a meeting of the National Association

S

for the Promotion of Social Science, on March 20, 1876, he is reported to have said that no less than 90 per cent. of the manufactures of this country was paid for by the piece; a portion exceeding, he stated, that of any other country in the world. Possibly 90 per cent. might be an exaggerated estimate, although quite unintentional on the speaker's part; there is, however, this much of truth in the statement, namely, that the quantity of work done by the piece is far greater than most people have been led to suppose, or can even imagine. This fact was so forcibly impressed on the mind of Mr. Mundella, that he repudiated strongly the assumption that workmen in all trades were equally opposed to the system of piece-work, and that they resisted it whenever they could do so, no matter how desirable it might be, or how advantageous to the employer in the first instance, and indirectly to the consumer.

§ 2. Supposing only 75 per cent. of the ordinary manufactures of the country were paid for by the piece, that is a large proportion of the whole; and many reasons can be given why in certain trades piece-work is not feasible, and cannot well be adopted, in consequence of the "complications and difficulties," as Lord Brassey terms them, that lie in the way. In many discussions which have taken place on this subject, it is generally assumed that the only obstacle to the universal adoption of piece-work is the obstinacy of the workmen, and that this opposition is unreasonable and indefensible. The only thing that can be said in favour of such speakers and writers is that they are totally unacquainted with the actual conditions of labour in the workshop, and the requirements of the trades upon which they sit in judgment; and even when they do make inquiries, they usually confine themselves to one side only. In a paper on this subject by Mr. Frederick Hill, the writer quotes the opinions of several masters, but not one answer from the workmen ; Mr. Hill should know that these ex parte statements would not be accepted in a court of law. No sound conclusion can be arrived at except by hearing both sides; and in this matter, of the relative value of piece-work as against day-work, each and every case must be decided on its own merits, all the surrounding circumstances and conditions being properly and

carefully considered and examined by judges competent to decide.

§ 3. In discussing this question it is necessary to define accurately what is meant by piece-work, in order to avoid the confusion which exists in the minds of many persons, by whom it is confounded with sub-contracting, or the gang or butty system, both of which differ materially from what is commonly understood as piece-work, and must be argued on vastly different grounds. (1) Sub-contracting is the sub letting of portions of the original contract to smaller masters, who take certain parts of the work and engage the workmen requisite for its completion. This is sometimes necessary in the case of very large undertakings, such as the construction of railways, canals, water-works, extensive drainage, etc., where careful supervision by a single individual is well-nigh impossible, by reason of the many difficulties in his way, arising from distance, diversity of work, and the multifarious details which would be bewildering to one man's brain. But sub-contracts are not, as a rule, favoured either by architects or engineers, for they know full well that in too many cases where the original contractor is a man of high character, and holds himself responsible for the due execution of every clause in his contract; the sub-contractor, on the contrary, is frequently a mere task-master, who is utterly regardless of the quality of the work. He is almost entirely irresponsible, his only care is to get as much work done as possible in a given time, in order "to draw on account" as much as he can from week to week, or month to month, as the case may be. So recklessly scamping has been the work of subcontractors that in many contracts a clause is inserted forbidding any portions of the work being sub-let. Architects and engineers know by experience that the supervision of work is always more expensive under sub-contracts, than it is where they are not permitted, and that "clerks of works," with high salaries, have to be engaged to watch every portion of it as it proceeds, in order to see that it is well and properly done. Many a railway tunnel has fallen in, many bridges have given way, and many a house has split asunder, mainly as the result of this system of sub-contracts, which, if the work had been done by