Shall We Work Harder? (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. H. Lever, M.P., writing in the Anti-Socialist says,

“The more consideration I give to the aims and objects of the Socialists the more I am confirmed in my opinion that Socialism cannot possibly achieve social betterment and increased social happiness.

“Whatever poverty we have to-day is entirely due to the fact that the world is not producing sufficient commodities to satisfy the world’s requirements. Not until we have a greater production of all that goes to make for social well-being shall we have a more even distribution of social well-being and comforts and less poverty.”

Now to see if poverty is due to an insufficiency of wealth to meet the world’s requirements.

Mr. Chiozza Money informs us in his “Riches and Poverty” that the annual aggregate income of the United Kingdom amounts to, roughly, £1,700,000,000 or £40 per head of the population, or, assuming that each family on the average consists of five persons, £200 per family.

But is the annual income so distributed that each family receives £200 per annum, or a proportionate sum according to its number ? The answer is obvious to any member of the working class. About half the wealth produced (and corresponding income), or £830,000,000, is taken by about 1 million persons, each with an income of over £160 or, again assuming that each of these persons is the head of a family of live we get 5 million people, while the other half, or £880,000,000, is taken by 38 million persons, all of whom are in receipt of less than £160 per family yearly. But if we extend our investigation a little further we shall find that 1,250,000 persons enjoy an aggregate annual income of £585,000,000. At one end of the social ladder we have ”one third of our population living on the verge of hunger,” while at the other end we have 250,000 persons, or with their dependents, 1,250,000 persons, enjoying an aggregate income of about £450 per head or £2,250 per family.

Yet Mr. “Millionaire” Lever informs us that he is of the opinion that we must first increase the amount of material wealth before we can “achieve increased social betterment.” 

Increase the means of wealth production to any extent you like and it can be shown that the workers would be where they are to-day—in poverty. (An instance is recorded in our issue of March last under the heading “A Cutting Cutting” where a surplus of textile products provided a splendid opportunity for a lock-out of the operatives and a little more starvation.) The introduction of new and cheaper methods of production, and therefore, means of producing wealth in greater abundance, to-day only results in the throwing out of employment many of the workers engaged in the particular industry in which the new methods are introduced, an increase in the army of the unemployed, greater poverty and misery for the workers. True, a reduction in the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life means the cheapening of the cost of living ; but a fall in the cost of living results in the cheapening of the production and maintenance of the worker. The continued and enhanced competition of the workers for jobs soon reduces wages to the new cost of subsistence, while a decrease in wages results in the increased exploitation of the worker, a greater amount of surplus-value or profit for the employers, and an even greater disparity between the two classes. So then, while the means of production and distribution remain in the hands of a small section of the community, any new inventions that may arise to lessen the time necessary for the production of wealth only results in increased affluence and luxury for the few while the great bulk of the people remain in a perpetual state of poverty.

Not until the whole of the means and implements of production and distribution are owned and controlled by, and in the interest of, the entire community, will the great mass of the people enjoy the advantages that accrue from an improvement in the means of wealth production. Then, and not until then, will every new invention be hailed as an advantage to all, either to reduce the collective labour of the community or to increase the comforts and opportunities of its members.

If then, it is possible to produce sufficient wealth to satisfy the requirements of the whole community under the present wasteful competitive system, how much more within the bounds of possibility will it be under a system where competition for existence will be entirely eliminated and where industry will be so organised that only that labour which is absolutely necessary for the production of wealth will be expended, where the large army of people now engaged in the advertising trade, as travellers, policemen, soldiers, man-‘o-warsmen, workhouse officials, flunkeys, judges, lawyers, clerks, priests, and a host of others would be employed in useful, productive labour. These trades and professions arise out of and are necessary under a system based upon the private monopoly of the means of life, and will disappear with their transformation from private to social property.

Mr. Lever continues “The natural order of social progress must inevitably be first to produce material comfort, followed by intellectual, moral and social advancement.” It is something for a member of the capitalist class to recognise the necessity for satisfying the material wants and requirements of the community before any improvement in the intellectual and moral status of the people can be effected. When the means of decent living are assured to all, then and only then will the great mass of the people be elevated from the physical, intellectual and moral enslavement in which they are enveloped to-day. The means of life can only be assured to the whole of society by the demolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This can be achieved when the workers get to understand their true class position, see the necessity for the change and determine to emancipate themselves from the slavery in which they exist to-day, brush aside the idea that “Socialism will not come in our time,” and realise the fact that as soon as the workers, who outnumber the other class by about eight to one, understand and determine to have Socialism, they will get it. As the late Lord Salisbury once said, “Nothing can go against the voice of the people.”

So then, join the S.P.G.B. immediately you understand and agree with its principles, and make one more pillar in the foundation of the Socialist Republic.

H. A. Young

Editorial: Trusts and Soap. (1906)

Editorial from the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was the Liberal Star, mouthpiece of that great progressive, democratic, Liberal and Labour combination of which Mr. Lever is so distinguished a member, that hooted its horn gleefully because it was of opinion that Mr. Lever’s soap combine was undone—smashed by a great wave of popular and righteous Liberal-Labour indignation forcefully and fearlessly expressed out of a knowledge of the rascally rapacity of the capitalists who dominated the Trusts which are so emphatic a feature of American commercialism. The yankee Trust has had a most unhappy time of it, thinks the Star, in endeavouring to fix its tentacles upon British industry. The hard-headed practicability of sober-minded Englishmen is a guarantee of the invincibility of free and unfettered English commerce against the threatening advance of the monopolist market-riggers across the herring pond, even if it were not the fact (which of course it is) that the anti-protectionist policy of the great Liberal-Labour combination aforesaid was in itself a sufficiently insurmountable barrier. Trusts as is well known (in Liberal-Labour circles), are only the accompaniment—the necessary and inevitable accompaniment of production within a tariff ring.

The True Blue Variety.

Instead of which the English Sewing Cotton Trust has just absorbed the few sewing cotton manufacturers who until now have maintained a precarious and financially disastrous existence in competition with the trust which has been able, owing to its command of capital and its control of more highly organised and economical methods of production and distribution which command of practically unlimited capital gives, to show profits on its working of about three million pounds sterling per annum.

Then the tobacco manufacturers after a short, sharp fight with the American trust, found that their only way of escape was by combination, and as a result we have the Imperial Tobacco Co., a true blue British trust operating, not in opposition to its American fac simile, but hand-in-hand with it to control the British and American markets and avoid the waste of competition. Then we have the Wall Paper Trust, a most eminently respectable hall-marked product of merry England. The Railway Companies also, although not yet in the trust stage, are recognising the value of combination and are avoiding unnecessary expenditure over certain competitive routes by pooling receipts and so on.

The Evolution of Capitalist Combination.

It would almost seem that the Star chortle is only possible because of the Star’s stupidity. The Star has been so taken up with its efforts to scintillate that it has forgotten that it is not a celestial body far removed from mundane affairs but quite an earthy sort of a product, whose coruscations depend for success upon the measure of their power to reflect facts. And the facts are that unrestricted competition engenders waste which can only be avoided by combination. Competition goes on until the dwindling margin of profit warns the competitors that they are approaching an abyss. And the smaller the capital at their command the more rapid their approach to the abyss is. They perceive that the competitors who are offering best resistance, to the profit-ebbing tide are those whose larger capitals have enabled them to improve their machinery and perfect their methods so that for them production is cheaper. They have the advantage in competition. Then the smaller capitalist comes to himself and offers the bit of the market he can influence, to his larger competitor. He is swallowed up in a combination or if he is stubborn and stupid he is crushed out. The combination grows snowball wise until out of the tussle of interests emerges victoriously in free trade England or protectionist America—the trust.

Inevitable and Necessary.

The trust form of industry, therefore, is the outcome and the necessary product of the competitive form. It is the highest expression of capitalist production. It has eliminated waste. It produces economically in the least time and with a minimum of effort. It is the perfection of production. But it has in its growth developed something else. It has eliminated the capitalist director—the man who under the old competitive system performed some service at any rate in organising and supervising. He is now, perhaps, hundreds of miles from the seat of commerce; perhaps never sees the mill or the factory and is only concerned in them on dividend days. The direction and organisation of the business has passed into the hands of a managerial staff wage servants all. That is to say the whole process as such is now out of the control of the capitalist class and in the hands of the working or wage-earning class. They produce all wealth but as they do not own the machinery by which that wealth is produced, they do not own the wealth itself. Therein is an anomaly that cannot stand for long. Distribution is out of harmony with production. It cannot remain so. Directly the workers who produce recognise their position and their power they will restore the harmony by appropriating the product of their toil and—out goes the capitalist.

The Cry of Wolf !

All very simple. Curious the Star hasn’t seen it! Well, perhaps not so curious. Perhaps the Star does see it but wants to stave off the inevitable as long as possible by shouting wolf. But it won’t do. Trustification is inevitable and just as inevitable is the appropriation by the working class for their own use of the undertaking perfected by capitalism. Try as it may, capitalism cannot destroy that germ within itself which will presently outgrow the shell in which it is evolving to maturity. Then behold a revolution. Capitalism (production for profit) dead. Socialism (production for use) on its feet, established and secure.

As for Mr. Lever’s soap combine, it may of course happen that by vociferously crying wolf the Star and the Daily Mail and the rest of the organs may inspire a successful opposition to this particular organisation. They may even kill poor Mr. Lever of the great Liberal-Labour combination. But they will not kill the soap trust. That is going to happen. Whether it is Mr. Lever’s or not doesn’t matter. The trust’s the thing. “We’ve got to have it whether we like it or not” as the poet puts it.

Peace where there is no Peace.

Indeed, at the present moment there are indications that the free and independent firms who are outside the soap trust are forming themselves into a combine in order to combat the plaguy and malignant trust. In other words they are forming a trust of themselves to fight a trust of others than themselves. And in this delightful occupation it must be a great satisfaction to them to know that they have the sympathies of a trust-hating, hard-headed British nation and the active support of those champion “trust-busters” the Star and the Daily Mail ! We are a great people !

Work, You Workers, Work (1948)

From the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bonus systems, payment by results, co-partnerships, piece work, profit sharing, all these and other schemes we have known. Each and every one has the same objective—to get a little more effort out of the workers, to encourage them to expend their utmost on the job.

Of the co-partnership and profit sharing schemes we hear little these days. Some years ago they were quite popular propositions. Probably one of the largest and most widely publicised of these schemes was the one introduced by Lever Bros, at Port Sunlight. The idea was to share a portion of the profits produced in the industry amongst the workers. This should give them an interest in the business and encourage them to serve it more zealously.

The American journal “Fortune,” which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be considered a working class magazine, in its December, 1947, issue, deals with this Lever profit sharing scheme and its failure. On page 204:

“But he (W. H. Lever) seemed obsessed with sharing profits. He concluded that profit sharing was fine provided it resulted in better production . . .” 

and on page 207:

“The idea of direct profit sharing continued to obsess him even after Port Sunlight was built, and he decided to make qualified employees 'co-partners' with whom he shared some of the amount available for ordinary (common) dividends. For a while his scheme worked. The dividends, however, amounted to so little per capita that their effect on production and efficiency over a long time was debatable, and the practice was discontinued after Lever died.”

For the employer it was a matter of an additional investment. The workers were induced to consider that they had an identity of interest with him. The greater the increase in profits resulting from their better production and increased efficiency, the greater would be their dividend—and the dividend of the employers. Unless the amount of increased profit to the employer was greater than the amount he paid out in dividends to his employees, then it was a bad investment for him. Also to be taken into account, of course, was the fact that the “identity of interest” idea is a fine deterrent to strikes and is a means of persuading workers to soft pedal their wage demands. Labour disputes and high wages would tend to affect profits and the co-partner would fear that he might not get a good ”divi.” In practise, the amount received by the worker was so infinitesimal, that the scheme failed in its object At least, the Lever one did.

As we have said, not much is heard of these profit sharing schemes these days and in the collapse of the Lever scheme we see the reason. But a new method has arisen to encourage the workers to foster this idea of an identity of interest with their exploiters. A cheaper method, too. It does not even require that the employer shall disgorge the small amount of wealth that the profit sharing proposition necessitated.

Listen-in at Trade Union branch meetings, Trades Council meetings and other places where workers gather to talk about their wages and conditions. You will hear some one get on his feet and trot out this kind of thing: “ Now that it is 'OUR' industry, we must moderate our demands. We must work to get it on its feet. We must increase our production and efficiency. We are all share-holders now, we must work to make the industry pay. We must not ask for too much . . .” And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

That is how it is put over today. Old man Lever allotted a portion of his dividends to get the utmost out of his workers. Today we find working class supporters and defenders of the Labour Party (they are all on the defensive now) falling over themselves to give of their damnedest without even the meagre dividend that Port Sunlight workers collected as an inducement.

If nationalised industry were engaged in producing goods or services for use, this point of view would be understandable. Then, better production and increased efficiency would result in more goods and better services for the workers themselves. But nationalised industry, as with all forms of capitalist industry, is engaged in the production of goods and services for sale with a view to a profit being made in the process. This fact is not disguised, not even by the advocates of nationalisation. The workers produce a quantity of wealth in excess of the amount they receive in the form of wages, salaries, etc. This surplus goes into State coffers and forms the fund out of which is shared the dividends to the investors in Government bonds.

True, an increase in production and efficiency in State industries does not mean an increase in the amount paid out as interests to bondholders. Neither does it mean an increase in wages. It may possibly result in an increase in the salary of the chairman of the “Board” or the “Executive," or in a fine, fat, five-figure pension to these "high” officials when they retire. It may also, by increasing the amount flowing into the State coffers, be a means of defraying national expenditure, and so help to alleviate the burden of taxation borne by the exploiting class. We know that finally it will result in an excess of commodities over and above the amount that the markets can absorb. Then we shall get from the Labour Party the same nauseating idea trotted out in slightly different words. “Sorry, fellows—an economic blizzard—tighten your belts and pull 'YOUR’ industry through.” Probably the blame will be put on to the Russians or maybe, the “Yanks,” It will be difficult for them to apportion the blame to the bankers as has been done in the past. It would sound rather puerile to tell us that it was “OUR” nationalised Bank of England that is holding up credit, or doing something or other to cause a financial and economic crisis. Anyway, it will be the workers who will be cajoled to make sacrifices to help "THEIR" industry through the difficult times. The rate of interest to the investor is guaranteed. He will not be worried. It is no longer his headache. He is the holder of “gilt edged.”

There are all sorts of things in store for the working class whilst Capitalism remains. There are no end to the reasons why they should work harder, more efficiently and be patient. Another war will make it necessary for the workers to make sacrifices to pull "THEIR” country through. After a war or after a trade depression there will be the need to produce more to recapture the foreign markets. It will always be possible to concoct some excuse for cracking the whip.

It is interesting to watch how this increased efficiency idea works out. For example, London’s nationalised transport. An agreement has recently been signed by the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers Union adjusting the rates of pay of drivers and conductors of buses, coaches and trolley buses. At the same time, these contracting parties have agreed upon a letter to the effect that they will jointly recommend to the Minister of Transport that the existing rule shall be relaxed to enable eight standing passengers to be carried, instead of five as at present. This, so the letter says, is with the object of increasing the efficiency of the service to the public.

London Transport’s new 70-seat, eight feet wide trolley bus is now in operation in areas on the west Side of London. The Surrey Comet, reporting on the inaugural run of the first of these new vehicles, says (21/2/48):

"The extra width of six inches on the new buses is taken up by having the gangways four inches wider with an additional inch on each seat This should give greater comfort to the standing passenger . . .”

So better production and increased efficiency in this nationalised industry will mean that, (1) Drivers will drive bigger buses; (2) Conductors will pack in a few more passengers; (3) Passenger will be able to enjoy the increased standing comfort, or should we say more passengers will be able to enjoy the decreased discomfort, and (4) last, but by no means least, all passengers will pay their fares, thus increasing the takings per bus when the additional standing passengers are carried.

There is no advantage here that would make it advisable for the workers to moderate their demands for increased wages or better working conditions. We suggest to all workers that they should regard the State in the same way as they should regard any other employer, as an opponent who is out to get as much energy from his employees for the price that he pays, as is possible. The workers, in turn, should endeavour to get the highest price (wage) and best conditions of sale for the energy that they sell, as they possibly can. All increased efficiency should be directed to this end, and to the struggle to abolish the system of Capitalist exploitation.

To paraphrase Prime Minister Attlee :

"This year, let us all put into our struggle that spirit that will make our class free.”

W. Waters

Jottings. (1911)

The Jottings Column from the April 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Will Thorne has introduced a Bill in the House for the Nationalisation of the Railways and Canals. What have the tripe shops done amiss ?

* * *

In a leading article describing the history of the Socialist Movement in France, which appeared in the “Labour Leader” (24.2.11), the writer, Mr. J. F. Mills, states:

“To Blanc must be accorded the credit for theoretically bringing Socialism down from the empyrean to the solid earth. The conquest of political power by the masses and the democratic State as the great instrument of social transformation, and the right to work, … all these principles reveal Blanc’s originality, and proclaim his right to be entitled ‘The Father of Modern Social-Democracy,’ or if Marxists dispute his right to the word ‘father,’ then let us say ‘grandfather.’ ”

* * *

As a Socialist, I am not in the least concerned about the principles of Louis Blanc, nor yet his right to the titles claimed for him by the writer quoted—except to suggest that “grandmother” would, perhaps, have been more appropriate. If by “originality” is meant Blanc’s experiment of the national workshops, then it is about on a par with the “originality” of the Labour Party in their schemes of social reform, and so on.

But to attribute to Blanc that which Marx really accomplished, is a piece of unblushing effrontery indeed. To Marx, and Marx alone, is to be attributed the placing of Socialism on a scientific basis. He it was who discovered and established the great law of economic determinism, which may be briefly stated thus : Morals, laws, and political conditions grow out of, and are determined by, economic conditions.

The application of this law spells revolution and the end of wage-slavery. But as the “Labour Leader’s” policy is anti-revolutionary, it must expect the opposition of Socialists.

* * *

The same writer in a further article (10.3.11), in the midst of a tirade against Marxists (whom he refers to as Ishmaelites, Irnpossibilists, etc.), says: “Revolutionary Socialism (Marxism) is becoming merely a catchword . . .” And he remarks further on upon the scanty following of Marx, which following, he alleges, is chiefly confined to the Continent. Yet on the front page of the same issue we find an advertisement of a biography of Marx (published by the people who issue the “Labour Leader”) eulogising him, and in which occurs this passage: “Karl Marx, founder of modern scientific Socialism, under whose banner ten million voters are enrolled.” No wonder the workers are misled !

It might interest our modern Rip Van Winkle to know that not only is Marxism not dead or dying, but that it is, on the contrary, very much alive indeed—though, perhaps, it is not apparent to those suffering from that aggravated form of mental myopia prevalent in the I.L.P.

* * *

Speaking of the forced labour in the Congo, and the necessity for its abolition, Sir Edward Grey said (27.7.07): “If it is to come to an end it is essential that without delay the natives should be put in possession of large tracts of territory, which will enable them to keep themselves. Otherwise they will have no means of livelihood.”

This must have preyed on the mind of Mr. W. H. Lever, for we learn from the Brussels correspondent of the “Standard” that “the Minister for the Colonies has just come to an agreement with Messrs. Lever Bros., Port Sunlight, for the formation of a limited company, with a capital of £1,000,000, for the planting of palm-oil trees, and the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of oil products in the Congo.”

Is Mr. Lever going to do for the poor natives what he has done for the Sunligliters—socialise and Christianise business relations ? Will he extend to them his noble scheme of co-partnership, with its five per cent. certificates and the “feeling of brotherhood and partnership” ? Or (as I strongly suspect) is he going out there in order to still further augment his already bloated income ? If the latter, then he will have an easy thing on, for the cruel treatment of the natives under the Belgian administration will have rendered them easy victims for the exploiting process upon which the success of the scheme will largely depend.

* * *

That Mr. Lever (like William the Little) fondly believes that he is endowed with a divine mission is evident from the following statement made by him in the first number of the “Anti-Socialist” (Feb., 1909) :

“We cannot wisely disregard the very basis on which human nature was founded by a Divine Creator, viz., self-interest. We can only direct self-interest, as its Creator in tended, into beneficent and utilitarian channels, and check and control it from becoming a curse and a clanger to society.”

No one, I am sure, will accuse Mr. Lever of disregarding the “Divine” authority. It has been left to Mr. Lever and his kind to “check and control” it from permeating the brains of the workers. When it does do so, and the workers begin to “check and control” for themselves, it will be a bad look out for the class to which Mr. Lever belongs.

* * *

Mr. J. C. Wedgwood, M.P., has resigned his membership of the Fabian Society because his opinions are no longer in accord with the aims of the society. He has not joined the S.P.G.B.

Tom Sala

Jottings. (1921)

The Jottings Column from the July 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reading the Press from day to day we are kept fally informed of the plots that are hourly discovered and which are intended—so we are usually told—to undermine the edifice of the British Constitution and to bring to ruin and decay the civilisation upon which rests our "glorious Empire." Full details have been collected of Sinn Fein plots in England, Irish plots in Russia, German plots in Palestine, Jewish plots in Germany, Communist plots in Timbuctoo, and so on without end.

Lord Birkenhead (famous for his connection with the Ulster plot) was telling the Cotton Conference at Manchester the other day what he knew about the plot of the Bolsheviks to extend the coal strike in England to a general stoppage. After referring to the source of information as "detected intercepted documents," he went on to pay a tribute to the "traditional commonsense of the British people," and to say that owing to the "sanity and sobriety of the British working man" the sinister plot had been shattered, and, he hoped, shattered beyond recall. "However misguided the miners may have been, their loyalty to their leaders and endurance typified the spirit of loyalty and determination which enabled Great Britain to make such a special contribution to the winning of the war." ("Manchester Guardian," June 23, 1921.)

The reader will at once conclude that this sounds fishy, and that there must be something behind it all. Of course there is. Turning to another part of the same paper we find in the political correspondent's report that a conspiracy had been revealed which was led by Lord Birkenhead and included Churchill, Lord Beaverbrook, and others, the purpose of which was the overthrow of the Prime Minister in order to alter the basis of the Coalition. In this case also the plot was shattered—not because of the "traditional common sense of the British people," but because Churchill did not see his way clear to success.

The connection between the two instances is obvious. Everything depends upon being able to secure the support of the working-class population of the country by means of their votes, hence the talk at Manchester and the Press reports.

Which is bluff, purely and simply. For their own purposes they have other methods, also, which are not supposed to be the concern of those outside. The British workers may possess those qualities attributed to them by Lord Birkenhead, but they will certainly have to be applied in a different direction if they are ever going to come into their own.

--0--

The dishing of the Communists by the Labour Party over the question of affiliation to that body will certainly rile them. In seeking affiliation they not only prove that, stripped of all their pseudo-revolutionary trappings, they are nothing but a party of opportunist reformers, but also that they haven't a platform strong enough to stand on. Their understanding of Socialism is certainly in need of a tonic when they claim that by joining forces with the anti-Socialist left wing of Liberalism they can better serve the interests of the workers. That exhortation to the trade unionists to "watch your leaders" is really funny.

--0--

Lever Brothers, Ltd. report a profit of £3,270,091 in 1920, after providing for depreciation, insurance, etc. This compares with £2,439,067 in 1919. The fixed dividends on the preference and the prefered ordinary shares are to be paid, and the ordinary, held by the Lever family, will have 20 per cent. paid on them, absorbing £456,000. This is 2¼ more than in 1919. Not very bad considering these rotten times.

--0--

Some little time ago the Editor of "John o' London" invited well-known people to state in his journal what particular book they would place in the hands of a young man of 21 in the belief that it would tend to form both his mind and character to his life-long advantage. Lord Leverhulme was one of those who was invited to have a shot. He replied—you've guessed it—Smiles's "Self Help"!

Tom Sala

Exhibition Review: Port Sunlight (2018)

Based on ‘The New Frock’ by William Powell Frith

Exhibition Review from the October 2018 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a truism to say that art and commerce are closely related: under capitalism, artists have to earn enough to live, commercial galleries have to survive, and other galleries often need to attract sponsorship from companies. Rarely, though, is the relationship quite as close as that involving William Lever (1851–1925).

Lever was the son of a wholesale grocer, and he expanded the family business by having soap manufactured in pre-wrapped bars. Then he set up the firm of Lever Brothers, which made the soap itself, initially in Warrington but then at a larger purpose-built factory on the Wirral. He used the brand name Sunlight, and the area where the factory was situated was termed Port Sunlight. As his company expanded, both in Britain and overseas, employing 85,000 workers at its height, he became immensely rich.

His initial interest in art was to buy paintings that could be copied and have the word ‘Sunlight’ and an advertising slogan added, so that they could be used as posters. One of the best-known was based on the painting ‘The New Frock’ by William Powell Frith (who objected to the use of his art for commercial purposes). Later Lever acquired a taste for collecting, and built up a substantial collection of paintings, sculptures, furniture, textiles and porcelain. Much of this can be seen at the Lady Lever Art Gallery, which opened in 1922. There are many portraits, such as one of Emma Hamilton as a Bacchante, and a number of works by Pre-Raphaelites such as Rossetti and Burne-Jones (both associates of William Morris).

Many of Lever’s workers were housed in the specially-built Port Sunlight village. A few minutes’ walk from the art gallery are the Port Sunlight Museum and a worker’s cottage. It is often described as ‘an original garden village’, but it was run in a very authoritarian way: for instance, all the houses had gardens but tenants were not allowed to keep chickens in them, and there were strict rules on taking in lodgers. Houses were rented from Lever Brothers, and losing your job meant losing your home. The ideas behind the village were not just philanthropic, as Lever believed that children who lived in a slum would grow up to be ‘a danger and terror to the State’.

Lever Brothers became part of the giant Unilever company in 1930, and from 1979 houses in Port Sunlight were sold when they became vacant, as Lever’s paternalistic approach to housing his employees had long been unfashionable. The village now looks like a rather anachronistic settlement, though both art gallery and museum are well worth visiting.

Paul Bennett