ON THE CONDITION OF LABOUR

To our Venerable Brethren, all Palriarchs, Primates Archbishops, «nd Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion wilh the Apostolic See.

POPE LEO XIII

Venerable Brethren,

Health and Apostolic Benediction.

It is not surprising that the spirit of revolutionary change, which has so long been predominant in the nations of the world, should have passed beyond polities and made its influence felt in the cognate field of practical ecoromy. The elements of a con- E flict are unmistakable: the growth of industry, and Bon the surprising discoveries of science; the changed CM relations of masters and workmen ; the enormous fortunes of individuals, and the pov tty of the masses; the increased self-reliance and the closer mutual combination of the working population ; and,

Towel tal ad

finally, a general moral deterioration. The momentous seriousness of the present state of things just now fills every mind with painful apprehension ;

wise men discuss it; practical men propose se hemes ;

popular meetings, legislature 's, and sovereign princes, all are oceupied with it—and there is nothing which has a deeper hold on public attention,

Therefore, Venerable Brethren, as on former occasions, when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued Letters on Political Power, on Human Liberty, on the Christian Constitution of the State, and on similar subjects, so now We have thought it useful to speak on the CONDITION OF LABOUR. It is a matter on which We have touched once or twice already, But in this Letter the responsibility of the Apostolic office urges Us to treat the question expressly and at length, in order that there may be no mistake as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it free from danger. It is not easy to define the relative rights and the mutual duties of the wealthy and of the poor, of capital and of labour. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators constantly make use of these disputes to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to sedition.

But all agree, and there can be no question whati ever, that some remedy must be found, and quickly à found, for the misery and wretchedness which press t SO heavily at this moment on the large majority ol | | the very poor. The ancient workmen's Guilds were destroyed in the last century, and no other organisation took their place. Public institutions and the laws have repudiated the ancient religion. Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenceless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of un-

€—— | a ELS NES celis AEN: OR TE PSOE

sem ms.

lomenus just nsion ; iemes ; rinces, which

r occateachol the issued ty, on similar Speak ter on

But c office length, to the for its it free elative

and of

langer ke use and to

whatuickly 1 press rity ol s were Janisaud the Hence c Men ess, to of un-

restrained competition, The evil has been increased by rapacious Usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is neverthelesss, under a different form but with the same guilt, still practiced by avaricious and grasping men, And to this must be added the custom of working by contract, and the concentration of so many branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to la upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself.

To remedy these evils the Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, endeavour to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, io be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that, by thus transferring property from private persons to the community, the present evil state of things will be set to rights, because each citizen will then have his equal share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. Moreover they are eraphatically unjust, because they would rob the lawful possessor, briug the State into a sphere that is not its own, and cause complete confusjon in the community.

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labour, the very reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and to hold it as his own private possession. lf one man hires out to another his strength or his industry, he does this for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for food and living; he thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and real right, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of that remuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly,

que qm Derma SPESE ciens. À

—Ó iA ER

ent Te Miseni eon ilg co un ISI ap ss IR

saves money, and invests his savings, for greater security, in land, the land in such a case is only his wages in another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his own disposa! as the wages he receives for his labour — But it is precise ‘ly in this ower of disposal that ownership consists, whether

the | arty be land or movable goods. The Sorialists, tl ore, in endeavouring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community, strike at the

interests of every wage-earner, for they deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thus of all heme and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in lile,

What is of still greater importance, however, is that the remedy they propose is manifestly against jus ice. For every man has by nature the right to posses, property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal ereation. For the brute has no power of self-direction, but is governed by two chief instincts, which keep his powers alert, move him to use his strength, vr determine him to ac tion without the power of choice. These instincts are self-preservation and the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which are close at hand ; beyond their surroundings the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by sensibility alone, and by the things which sense perceives. But with man :t is different indeed. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of animal nature, and therefore he enjoys, at least as much as the rest of the animal

race, the fruition of the things of the body. But mona. however perfect, is far from being the whole of humanity, and is indeed hum: inity's humble handmaid, made to serve and obey. It is the mind, or the reason, which is the chief en in us who are human beings ; it is this which makes a human being

reater ly his workbe us ‘Os he n this ether Socidl= )ONNSCS* at the e him ius of and of

rer, 1s œainst "ht to

| chief

al crection, keep h, and hoice, )pagairpose eyond ro, for nd by nan it hand, ore he nimal But ig the amble mind, ho are

being

human, and distinguishes him essentially and. completely trom the brute. And on this aecount— viz , that man alone among animals possesses reason—it must be within his right to have things not merely ir temporary an^ wiomentary use, as other living mes have them bh». in stable and permanent posession; he must nave not only things which perish the using, but also those which, though used, remain for use in the future.

This b »mes still more Clear! evident if we consider man's nature a little more deeply. For man, comprehending by the power of his reason things innumerable, and joining the future with the present —being, moreover, the maste of his own governs himself by the foresight of his counsel, ui the eternal law and the power of God Whose P vidence governs all things. Wherefore it is in hi power to exercise his choice not only on things which regard his present welfare, but also on 1 which will be for his advantage in time to c Hence man net only can possess the fruits of

earth, but also the earth ifself; for of the products ile earth he can make provision for the futur Man's needs do not die o it, but recur; satisfied | day, they demand new supplies to-morrow. Natu therefore, owes to man a storehouse that shall nev fail, the daily supply of his daily wants. And thi; he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth,

Nor mu st we, at this stage, have recourse to the State. Man is older than “the State; and he holds the right of providing for the life of his body prior to the formation of any State. And to say that God has given the earth to the use and enjoyment of the universal human race is not to deny that there can be private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please, but

i lan der tti — eie m i e

rm pite: mitur ae AD

quit M Qo LOEO PUOI A

Jones D UNIS SV RS D

zii cel A7

——— nr ait RE

x SE han rss =

rather that no part of it has been assigned to anyone in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry and the laws of iadividual peoples. Moreover the earth, though divided among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all; for there is no one who does not live on what the land brings forth. Those who do not possess the soil, contribute their labour; so that it may be truly said that all human subsistence is derived either from labour on one's own land, or for some laborious industry which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself or in that which is exchanged for what the Jand brings forth.

Here, again, we have another proof that private ownership is according to nature's law. For that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance by the earth, but not until man has brou;;ht it into cultivation and lavished upon it his care and skill. Now, when man thus spends the industry of his mind and the strength of his body in procuring the fruits of nature, by that act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates—that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his own personality ; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his own, and should have a right to keep it without molestation.

These arguments are so strong and convincing that it seems surprising that certain obsolete opinions should be revived in opposition to what is here laid down. We are told that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and the fruits of their land, but that it is unjust for anyone to possess as owner either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has cultivated. But those who assert this do not perceive that they are robbing man of what his own labour has produced. For the soil

anyone session dustry ver the ceases r there brings tribute that all our on which tself or brings

private or that and for nee by ito eul- ] skill.

of his ng the m that s—that mpress be just n, and tion,

rincing pinions re laid te per- X their Sess as or the ) assert man of he soil

which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition ; it was wild before, it is now fruitful; it was barren, and now it brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved it becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man’s sweat and labour should be enjoyed by another? As effects follow their cause, so it is just and right that the results of labour should belong to him who has laboured.

With reason, therefore, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have maintained the opposite view, has found in the study of nature, and in the law of Nature herself, the foundations of the division of property, and has consecrated by the practice of all ages the principle of private ownership, as being pre- -eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human life. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws—laws which, aslong as they are just, derive their binding force from the law of nature. The authority of the Divine Law adds its sanction, forbidding us in the gravest terms even to covet that which is another's :— Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife ; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, ner his maid-servan!, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything which is his.

The rights here spoken of. belong to each in-

dividual man, are seen in a much stronger light if

they are considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations.

In choosing: a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty either to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to virginity, or to enter the bonds of

I Deuteronomy v. 21.

ner hele

esi ene cis on Een itm ut

RA

A tete Ve

Se

Th ash a a ale

b gentes eo E dC vicos Eat te ae Rs ma a Sean iot

BET oe checa a d di

optische 2 bit i vale lit VA TE GM Di meti PD

marriage. No human law can abolish the natural and primitive right of marriage, or in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage, ordained by God's authority from the beginning. Increase and multiply. Thus we have the Family; the * society " ofa man's own household ; a society limited indeed in numbers, but a true “society,” anterior to every kind of State or nation, with rights and duties of its own, totally independent of the common wealth.

That right of property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must also belong to a r.an in his capacity of head of a family; nay, such a person must possess this right so much the more clearly in proportion as his position multiplies his duties — For it is a most sacred law of nature that a father must provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly nature dictates that a man's children, who carry on, as it were, and continue his own personality, should be provided by him with all that is needful to enable them honourably to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of profitable property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by a power within itself, that is to say, by the father. Wherefore, provided the limits be not transgressed which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists, the Family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of those things which are needful to its preservation and its just liberty.

We say, at least equal rights; for since the domestic household is anterior both in idea and in fact to the gathering of men into a common wealth, the for-

I Genesis 1. 28.

natural ay limit rdained ease and ociety "' indeed 0 every os of its Ith.

as been persons, head of is right position | law of ] necesinilarly rry on, should enable ant and . Now lept by he can family, 1e socis to say, nits be he very it least pursuit rvation

domesfaet to he for-

mer must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the latter, and which rest more immediately on nature. If the citizens of a State— that is to say, the Families—on entering into association and fellowship, experienced at the hands of the State hindrance instead of help, and found their rights attacked instead of being protected, such association were rather to be repudiated than sought after,

The idea, then, that the civil government should, at its own discretion, penetrate and pervade the family and the household, isa great and pernicious mistake. True, if a family finds itself in great difficulty, utterly friendless, and without prospect of help, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid; for each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the walls of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, the public power must interfere to force each party to give the other what is due; for this is not to rob citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the State must go no further: nature bids them stop here. Paternal authority can neither be abolished by the State, nor absorbed; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and, to speak with strictness, the child takes its place in civil society not in its own right, but in its quality as e member of the family in which it is begotten. And it is for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father" that, as St. Thomas of Aquin say^, * before it attains the use of free-will, it is in the power and care ofits parents." The Nocialists, therefore, in setting aside the pareut and introduciag the pro-

* St. Thomas, Summa Theologict, 2a 2% ON alt. IS

Soe Genes stagno Senne NE re a cip cac itn

meen repas ret ro fe o

vidence of the State, act against natural justice, and threaten the very existence of family life.

And such interference is not only unjust, but is quite certain to harass and disturb all classes of citizens and to subject them to odious and intolerable slavery. It would open the door to envy, to evil speaking, and to quarrelling ; the sources of wealth would themselves run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry ; : and that ideal equality of which so much is said would in reality be the levelling down of all to the

same condition of misery and dishonour.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Sucia ism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected ; for it would injure those whom it is intended te benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of

mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. Our first and most fundamental principle, therefore, when we undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This laid down, We go on to show where we must find the remedy that we seek.

We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which belong to Us. For no practical solution "of this question will ever be found without the assistance of Religion and of the Church. Itis We who are the chief f guardian of Religion and the chief dispenser of wh: it belongs to the Church, and We must not by silence neglect the duty which lies upon Us. Doubtless this most

serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides Ourselv es—of the rulers of States of employers of labour, of the wealthy, and ol the working population themselves for whom We plead. But We affirm without hesitation, that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church. It is the Church that proclaims from the Gospel

ce, and

but is asses of ntolera- ", to evil wealth ild have idustry ;

is said ll to the

ucla ism, ejected ; nded te rights of and disnd most

underes, must his laid find the

, and in ee OF

ever be d of the

rdian of

longs to rlect the is most ie efforts f States, d of the 'e plead.

striving

Church.

Gospel

those teachings by which the conflict can be put an end to, or at the least made far less bitter; the Church uses its efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by its precepts the life and conduct of men; the Church improves and ameliorates the condition of the working man by numerous useful organizations ; does its best to enlist the services of all ranks in discussing and endeavouring to meet, in the most practical way, the claims of the working classes; and acts on the decided view that for these purposes r2course should be had, in due measure and degree, to the help of the law and of State authority.

Let it be laid down, in the first place, that humanity must remain as it is It is impossible to reduce human society io a level. The Socialists may do their utmost, but all striving against nature is vain There natarally exist among mankind innumerable differences of the most important kind ; people differ in capability, in diligence, in health, and in strength ; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of inequality in condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community ; social and public life can only go on by the help of various kinds of capacity and the playing of many parts ; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which peculiarly sits his case. As regards bodily labour, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have been wholly unoccupied ; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight, became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation of his sin. Cursed be the earth in thy work ; in thy labour thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life | In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on this earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must be

I Genesis lil. I7.

rmn mper mm nere

IU E Lá

ER ma ou o ant POTS? ie Roos x

LN RSEN Pi i io Ne ~ a :

Mmm entere memes

* RT MRC ut nig doque A has Fe mua

RER TES ospiti eos