ling
the payment of wages in cash, and at suitable places.

This slight sketch will suffice to mark the leading features of a large
class of laws which must be regarded as a growth of State socialism.

The following points deserve special attention--

1. These measures are all forced on Parliament by the recognition of
actual grievances, and all are testimony to the failure of a system of
complete _laissez faire_.

2. They all imply a direct interference of the State with individual
freedom--i.e. the worker cannot sell his labour as he likes; the
capitalist cannot make what contracts he likes.

3. Though the protection of children and women is the strongest motive
force in this legislative action, many of these measures interfere
directly or indirectly with adult male labour--e.g. the limit on the
factory hours of women and children practically limits the factory day
for men, where the latter work with women or children. The clauses of
recent Factory Acts requiring the "fencing of machinery" and other
precautions, apply to men as well as to children and women. The Truck
Act and Employers' Liability Act apply to male adult labour.

Sec. 2. Theory of this Legislation.--Under such legislation as the
foregoing it is evident that the theory that a worker should be free to
sell his labour as he likes has given way before the following
considerations--

(1) That this supposed "freedom to work as one likes" often means only a
freedom to work as another person likes, whether that other person be a
parent, as in the case of children, or an employer, as in the case of
adult workers.

(2) That a worker in a modern industrial community is not a detached
unit, whose contract to work only concerns himself and his employer. The
fellow-workers in the same trade and society at large have a distinct
and recognizable interest in the conditions of the work of one another.
A, by keeping his shop open on Sundays, or for long hours on week-days,
is able to compel B, C, D, and all the rest of his trade competitors to
do the same. A minority of workmen by accepting low wages, or working
over-time, are often able to compel the majority to do the same. There
is no labour-contract or other commercial act which merely regards the
interest of the parties directly concerned. How far a society acting for
the protection of itself, or of a number of its members, is justified in
interfering between employer and workman, or between competing
trad