Corps de l’article

In a letter to the editor of the Hamilton Herald in February 1914, entitled “What Would Jesus Say?” W. E. Gilroy, pastor of First Congregational Church in Hamilton, reproached the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association (CMA) for attempting to forestall wage increases to civic labourers. It was unseemly, he stated, that CMA representatives had visited the Board of Control protesting an increase in wages when the civic labourer received less than $400 annually. He concluded by asking what Jesus would say to these men “with the fat rewards of industry, who not only declined to pay decent wages themselves, but who protest when there is a disposition on the part of others to do so. Shame!”[1] In response to this letter, an “ex-Congregationalist” advised the minister to refrain from “lowering himself” to discuss worldly matters and to concentrate on saving souls. If Gilroy was not willing to listen to this advice, the writer added, he would risk his career and compromise the future of his church, as the most reliable congregants who sustained the church would leave. Nor should he rely on the “rabble” for support, because they did not attend church regularly. The working class, he suggested, had historically crucified its champions and would be glad to see the minister leave Hamilton. In concluding, he reminded the minister that it was the masses twenty centuries earlier who had cried, “Barabas” [sic].[2]

The ex-Congregationalist’s letter prompted a heated response from some of the Herald’s readers. The following day, “A Working Man” wrote to the editor and asserted that it was unfortunate that there were not more ministers like Gilroy. Jesus was a worker and therefore the minister was not “lowering himself” when he discussed the subject of wages. Identifying himself as a Presbyterian who did not attend church regularly, he stated that the primary reason why workers did not go to church was that there were too many churchgoers like the ex-Congregationalist, and workers, who were unable to financially support a stylish church and the minister’s salary, were not wanted.[3] The next day, in another letter to the editor, “Vox Populi” also stated that Gilroy was not “lowering himself” when he discussed wages. This minister preached on subjects that were for man’s good because he believed they represented the true spirit of Christianity. He explained that the working man did not go to church because the average minister was forced to preach about subjects that would not alienate his supporting congregants. Countering the ex-Congregationalist’s characterization of the masses crucifying their champion, the writer stated that it was the priests and their circle whose power and tyranny were being challenged by Jesus’ teaching that were responsible for his death.[4] The Hamilton Machinist’s lodge also applauded Gilroy’s actions, passing a formal resolution stating “that one of the city’s ministers, at least, has the courage of his convictions.”[5]

Gilroy’s letter and the responses to it are important. They demonstrate the shared interests and collaboration between some workers and those clergymen who publicly supported their causes. But they also illustrate the fact that ministerial support for labour issues was exceptional. This exchange also suggests that congregations strongly influenced whether or not their ministers discussed labour issues.

There is a rich Canadian religious historiography that examines the awakening of the Protestant churches in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to the social and economic problems as a result of industrialization and urbanization and the efforts of the churches to regenerate this society by applying the ethical teachings of Christianity.[6] This literature focuses primarily on the interdenominational bodies and denominational boards, departments, and committees formed by the churches to deal with these problems and the response of key church leaders who denounced the injustices in society but differed in their vision of the kingdom of God on earth.[7] While this literature has broached the subject of the churches’ response to labour issues and the relationship that developed between the churches and organized labour, it is understated and has been dealt with in a narrow and incomplete way.[8] For example, prior to the First World War this relationship has been discussed only briefly.[9] While this subject has received more attention in the decade following the war, it has been recounted through a series of big events.[10] The discussion of the relationship has also revolved around a small cast of characters, a group of “radical” clergymen in the West that included J. S. Woodsworth, William Irvine, William Ivens, Salem Bland, and A. E. Smith.[11]

Labour historians in English Canada have had little to say about religion.[12] Those who have discussed religion have provided only brief comments on the religious background of labour leaders, their connection with the social gospel, and the use of religious rhetoric.[13] In contrast, British and American historians have paid much more attention to this subject. A number of these studies have been interested in how Christianity reinforces or fuels a class-conscious critique of the capitalist system and have examined the rhetorical and institutional influence of Christianity on a number of labour organizations, the strong religious background of some labour leaders, and the alliances these leaders formed with socially conscious clergymen.[14]

Canadian historians are beginning to seriously consider the contribution of religion to working-class consciousness. Bryan Palmer admits that there is an association between working-class identity and culture, but cautions historians to distinguish between “a consciousness of class,” which considers religion as one aspect of working-class identity and culture, and a “class consciousness,” that is, how religion contributes to a politicized oppositional consciousness in which workers seek to challenge the existing socio-economy system.[15] Lynne Marks applies the term working-class consciousness in her examination of the Salvation Army and the Knights of Labor, but explains that there are different levels of class consciousness: while the Salvation Army represented a distinctive working-class culture and identity, the Knights of Labor represented the politicized oppositional consciousness.[16]

This paper will attempt to shed light on the relationship between the churches and the working class by examining clergymen’s response to labour issues in one urban industrial centre: Hamilton, Ontario. It will look at how popular these issues were in the city’s pulpits and provide a profile of those clergymen and churches that were most committed to responding to these issues and building ties with labour. As well, it will consider how this response coincided with or differed from what was being said by denominational bodies and progressive religious leaders at the national level, as well as other reformers. Finally, it will reflect on the conflicting ideas about what role a clergyman should play and the power congregations had to influence their ministers. In early twentieth-century Hamilton most clergymen were reluctant to embrace the issue of labour both inside and outside the pulpit. However, a small group of clergymen in the city established a stronger relationship with organized labour. With Congregational minister W. E. Gilroy at the helm, this small group displayed a passionate concern for labour, discussing labour issues from the pulpit, striving to engage organized labour, expressing sympathy with its cause, taking the side of labour in its conflict with capital, and making bold demands for change.

Hamilton is an appropriate site for the study of how clergymen responded to labour issues. During the pivotal period of the Second Industrial Revolution, this medium-size urban centre was transformed into an industrial city that saw more specialization of production as well as the concentration of production into huge factories that extended to the eastern sections of the city.[17] This industrial expansion required the recruitment of new pools of labour, which led to a dramatic increase in the city’s population from 52,634 in 1900 to 155,547 in 1931. Immigrants made up two-fifths of Hamilton’s population and, while three-quarters of these immigrants were from the United Kingdom, a new wave of immigrants arrived from southern and eastern Europe.[18] In comparison to American industrial cities and Canadian industrial cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton had a much smaller number of immigrants.[19] Also, with the exception of a tiny group of middle-class professionals, Hamilton was a city dominated by factory workers and their employers who lived largely separate private lives and, in most cases, attended church in their respective neighbourhoods.[20] The businessmen who controlled the industrial life of the city and lived in the affluent neighbourhoods nestled in the southwest corner of the city worshipped together in the substantial Protestant churches in these neighbourhoods. Factory workers from the British Isles could attend churches in the northern and eastern sections of the city, and immigrants from Continental Europe could attend churches in the heavily populated neighbourhoods at either end of Barton Street.[21] In between the affluent churches in the south end and the modest working-class churches in the northern and eastern sections of the city were several prosperous and historic downtown churches in the central business district (figure 1). For the most part, it was churches located in this area whose ministers discussed social, economic, and political questions and drew in representatives of labour.[22] These churches were not like the socially exclusive churches in other sections of the city, which drew their membership from the neighbourhoods around them. Not only did these churches draw their membership from various sections of the city, they were more socially mixed. Many members were skilled and semi-skilled workers, the same groups that were highly involved in the labour movement.[23] Given the nature of their congregations, it is not surprising that the ministers of these churches expressed sympathy for the labour cause.

Figure 1

Hamilton churches addressing labour issues.

Source: Lloyd Reeds Map Collection, McMaster University.

-> Voir la liste des figures

To establish how clergymen in Hamilton responded to workers and their problems I have relied on four local newspapers: the conservative Hamilton Spectator,[24] the liberal Hamilton Herald[25] and Hamilton Times,[26] and the Labor News. [27] Many of the Protestant churches advertised in the Saturday editions listing the location, the time of service, and sometimes the title of the sermon. While these advertisements help to determine which churches provided Labour Sunday services, the reports on sermons in the Monday issue of these papers have been more useful in understanding the ministers’ teachings on labour issues. I rely very little on church archives in this paper. A few records do exist for First Congregational Church however, there are no membership lists, which are most helpful in determining the socio-economic background of congregants.[28] While approximately 16 per cent of Hamilton’s population was Catholic, what the Catholic churches thought about workers and industrial problems is more difficult to capture because Catholic churches did not advertise in the local newspapers and the papers seldom reported on their sermons.[29] The little evidence gleaned from the newspapers, however, helps clarify where the Catholic Church stood on certain labour issues.[30]

An important part of the job of the clergymen who ministered in industrial communities with large working-class constituencies in the early twentieth century was to balance the expectations of the denominational colleges that ordained them and the local congregations that hired them. In their training, clergymen, especially in the Methodist and Presbyterian colleges, encountered the new current in Protestantism that tried to reconcile a traditional personal evangelism with a new social Christianity that was interested in human welfare.[31] The national leadership of the Protestant churches and some reform-minded Catholics were concerned about the social and economic problems plaguing industrial capitalist society and understood that redressing these problems required not only a vocal response at the national level but also concerted effort at the local level.[32] Denominational colleges began to provide courses on economics, sociology, and modern industrial problems, with reading lists that included the works of Henry George, prominent social gospellers, and British and American social scientists.[33]

The job description of clergymen then was expanding to include not only spiritual provider but moral and social reformer. Clergymen were expected to play a more vocal and active part in the affairs of the city, dealing with questions of public and private morality, and social justice issues such as poverty, political purity, industrial relations, the unequal distribution of wealth, and unjust business practices.[34] Clergymen could begin to redress these moral and social problems from their pulpits. Outside the church walls, clergymen, in a collaborative effort with their colleagues in the community, could declare the official position of the churches on these issues. Hamilton clergymen, for example, saw themselves as important public figures providing an authoritative voice on community issues, especially as they concerned the moral health of its citizens. The Hamilton Ministerial Association (HMA), which formally organized Protestant ministers throughout the city into one representative body, was an important medium to express their opinions on these issues. In addition to meeting regularly to listen to and discuss papers and give addresses at various homes and public institutions in the city, the HMA issued public statements on moral reform.[35] While temperance was the most popular sermon topic, ministers also discussed gambling, immodesty, amusements, and partisan politics.[36] The national bodies of the churches also expected clergymen to familiarize themselves with labour problems. In an effort to reconcile the churches and labour, ministers were urged to talk to the local labour councils about the Christian view on social and industrial relations and to arrange for representatives of labour to give addresses at local churches, informing congregations of social wrongs.[37]

The most important vehicle to demonstrate the churches’ interest in labour problems was Labour Sunday, which was the churches’ response to the labour movement’s organization of Labour Day as a public holiday.[38] The Methodist Department of Temperance and Moral Reform provided its ministers with an order of service and material for sermons for the observance of Labour Sunday.[39] The Social Service Council of Canada (SSCC) dedicated its August–September issue of Social Welfare to labour. It was sent to every active clergyman in Canada and included a message to clergymen, expressing the hope that clergymen would preach a special labour sermon, and it provided assistance for the service.[40]

While clergymen had obligations to their churches, they also had to be sensitive to the needs and wishes of their congregations, as these were also voluntary organizations. It should be noted here that the expectations of a Catholic priest were quite different from those of a Protestant minister because he was sent by his bishop and was responsible to him and the Catholic hierarchy. Protestant ministers, on the other hand, were accountable to the congregation that nominated them to serve their church. This accountability meant that congregations might influence the content of sermons and the style of preaching. Liberal clergymen, for example, who wanted to heed the calls of their churches and offer popular sermons on social, economic, and political questions, and instruct their listeners on the teaching of the gospel on social service, might tread cautiously so as not to offend the financial supporters of their congregations, especially the businessmen who dominated the church councils and could call for a minister’s expulsion.[41] The activities of clergymen outside the church walls were also supervised closely by their congregations and might cause tension. The exchange at the beginning of this article is a case in point. That the stability of their jobs lay in the hands of the members of the church councils may have influenced the activities of the majority of clergymen, but it did not influence all. A few clergymen tenaciously refused to change their sermons and style of preaching to satisfy their congregants. In some cases, these clergymen remained at their churches and in other cases they chose to move where their ministry would be embraced. W. E. Gilroy was one of these men.

W. E. Gilroy was born in Mount Forest, Ontario, in 1876. He graduated from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and was ordained in 1900. He was a Methodist by birth and training, but he decided to leave the Methodist Church because its theological standards did not represent his own religious beliefs and experience.[42] Instead, he chose to serve the Congregational Church, because it represented the “ideal of free, independent religion,” did not have formal and complicated creeds, and offered a space “to speak freely and fully the language of democracy.”[43] In 1900, he received a call to become pastor at Broadview Avenue Congregational Church in Toronto, and it was at this time that he was ordained by a Congregational Council. In addition to his ministerial duties at Broadview, he pursued postgraduate work under the direction of James Mavor, professor of social philosophy at the University of Toronto.[44] He also accepted the position of editor of the Canadian Congregationalist and the Canadian Congregationalist Year Book in November 1904.[45] In July 1906, Gilroy resigned as editor of the Congregational journals and pastor at Broadview Avenue Church and accepted the call to Brantford, where he spent the next four years. In early 1911, to the dismay of the citizens of Brantford, the thirty-five year-old minister moved to Hamilton to take over the pastorate of First Congregational Church. Hamilton offered a larger field for the work that he wanted to accomplish.[46] In 1918, after spending almost eight years at First Congregational Church in Hamilton, Gilroy accepted the pastorate of Plymouth Congregational Church in Wisconsin, one of the largest churches in the state, and a church known for its liberal tendencies.[47] He explained that he wanted to live in a community where he could express freely and fully the language of democracy and where there was more freedom in the Congregational Church.[48] Although he did not leave the Church to establish an independent church like the Labor Church or the People’s Church in the West, his decision to serve the Congregational Church in the United States because it was more democratic was a testament to his growing uneasiness and frustration with the mainstream churches in Canada.[49]

Gilroy described himself as an extremist in his opinions on social questions, a champion of unpopular principles and causes, religious and social, who refused to conceal or apologize for his beliefs, and, unlike the majority of ministers, someone who grasped and preached “the essentially revolutionary character of Christianity.”[50] He told his listeners in his farewell sermon to First Congregational in December 1918 that his ministry was not about pleasing people and it was not his policy to avert any discussion just because it might highlight their wrongdoing and make them uncomfortable. Nor was his ministry about erecting large churches or adding members to the membership roll. Instead, it was his duty to preach the true and simple gospel of Jesus Christ, provide a clearer conception of his teaching, and spread the idea of the brotherhood of Christ.[51] His willingness to express his unorthodox views attracted the attention of the Hamilton press, which regularly reported on his sermons and other activities.

Gilroy fully embraced the popular current in Protestantism that attempted to reconcile a personal evangelism and a new Christianity that was practical, democratic, and social. Typical of progressive clergymen, Gilroy espoused a simple evangelical creed that was directly connected to uplifting society. The central focus of this practical social Christianity was the true and simple gospel of Jesus with its goal to apply his moral and ethical teachings of love, brotherhood, and cooperation to bring about the kingdom of God on earth.[52] Following the ideas of American social prophets like the Baptist Walter Rauchenbausch, and the Congregationalist Washington Gladden, Gilroy characterized this new social Christianity as “nothing but a quickening of the old gospel in its breadth and definiteness of application to the whole range of life, both inward and outward, both individual and social.”[53] His commitment to this new social evangelism meant refusing to cede to the demands of those congregants who wanted the minister to simply preach the gospel. “The criterion of a pastor’s success,” he stated, “was not found in the favourable opinion of the people, but in the creation of a fervour for love, righteousness and truth.”[54] This new evangelism was a direct challenge to the evangelical Christianity of the mid-nineteenth century, which filled men with fears about sin and was blind to important social and national issues.[55]

Given his commitment to social Christianity, it is not surprising that Gilroy expressed a serious interest in working-class issues, which were an important part of his ministry from the beginning and evident inside and outside the pulpit.[56] During his seven-year stay in Hamilton, Gilroy remained dedicated to a practical, democratic, and social Christianity and committed to building stronger ties with the working class. He made labour the subject of sermons, organized discussion groups on Sunday afternoons, spoke at meetings of labour organizations, and became the strongest ministerial ally of organized labour in the city. This period was marked by renewed activism among a group of ministers, who, although representing only a small fraction of the city’s clergymen, were dedicated in their support of labour and earnest in their attempts to build stronger ties with labour and understand labour’s struggles. The first challenge for these men was the crisis of severe unemployment that hit the city in 1913.

Approximately one thousand unemployed workers attended a mass meeting at Association Hall in January 1914. Gilroy chaired this meeting. Joining him on the platform were Mayor John Allan, Controller T. S. Morris, Labour MLA Allan Studholme, Labor News editor Samuel Landers, and William Kinch, president of the East Hamilton Progressive Association, a working-class residents’ association, as well as a number of local ministers.[57] At this meeting, ministers not only expressed their sympathy for the struggles of unemployed workers, they demanded that the city take action. A few embraced leadership. Almon Abbott of the Anglican Christ’s Church Cathedral told the audience that he was in sympathy with the object of the meeting, that the duty of the church was to the rich and the poor, and that the church understood that the unemployed wanted work, not charity.[58] He described how daily between 9:30 and 11:00 a.m. he was inundated by the unemployed. Through the generosity of his parishioners he was able to provide for many, but many refused to take any money, stating that they wanted work, not charity. Those who had accepted money, groceries, or coal, Abbott explained, did so out of necessity to support their wives and children.[59] If work could not be provided, he said, it was time to organize an associated charity that would unite all charitable institutions of the city to help with relief and prevent distress.[60]

The Baptist on the platform, W. B. Tighe, agreed that immediate attention was necessary and told the unemployed that the church supported their demands for work from the city, even if this meant a slight increase in taxes. He insisted that men should not be measured in monetary value and work should be provided at any cost. Like Tighe, the Anglican E. J. Etherington demanded that the city provide work for the unemployed. While referring to the upright character of their mayor, Etherington disagreed with his charity plan. He placed the onus of the unemployment problem on the manufacturers who were responsible for drawing these men here. It was their responsibility to supply work now. T. McLachlan of St. James’s Presbyterian also pointed the finger at employers. He rejected the argument that the unemployment problem was the result of money being tight, since only a few months ago there was a lot of evidence of money. He facetiously stated that the money “must still be somewhere, the earth did not open and swallow it.” He alleged that it was in the hands of a select few who “hang on to it for their own selfish gain, showing by doing this that they, the millionaires, have the country completely under their control.” Banks Nelson of Knox Presbyterian demanded immediate action from Vancouver to Halifax. He argued that if all of the unemployed had smallpox, they would be taken care of quickly, and though unemployment was not as serious as an epidemic, it still required immediate action.”[61]

Gilroy was the most outspoken minister on the unemployment problem, and this subject was the focus of several of his sermons at First Congregational. In a sermon in late 1913, Gilroy told his congregation that unemployment was not only a symptom of hard times, but an indicator of the inadequacy of the social and industrial system. He found it difficult to watch willing, competent men begging for work and vigorously challenged the assertion that the unemployed were unemployable.[62] All the Hamilton newspapers reported a sermon given by Gilroy just over a month later, in which he stated that unemployment was the fundamental economic question of the day and admitted that at present there were no immediate or effectual remedies to the problem. He did, however, offer a few reflections. First, authorities should have realized the acuteness of the situation and started civic work programs earlier. Second, unemployment was not only a labourer’s problem, but an employer’s problem. Admitting that there were many employers who cared only for accumulation, he also conceded that an increasing number of employers were concerned about the conditions of their employees and tried to retain them for as long as possible. Third, the public had to be disabused of the pejorative characterizations of the unemployed. Gilroy stressed that most workers wanted to find work, the unemployed were not responsible for this unemployment, and thrift did not protect workers from depression. The solution to this dire problem, suggested the minister, was to revolutionize industries. Industries run for the public good instead of private gain and greed would eliminate unemployment, and Christianity, he added, would usher in the “democratization of industry.”[63] The unemployment problem continued to be an important concern for Gilroy in the ensuing months. In April, he again chaired a meeting of the unemployed in Association Hall and attended a meeting of the unemployed at the YMCA.[64]

That clergymen from different denominations and different areas of the city joined together during a moment of social crisis to express their sympathy for unemployed workers and passionately demand that action be taken to solve this devastating problem is important. While ministers previously came together as a united group to tackle moral issues such as temperance and to mediate a strike, this was the first time ministers assembled with workers to have a serious discussion of their economic problems.[65] Most ministers at the meeting agreed that the city should provide work for the unemployed, but some probed deeper into what they believed were the underlying causes and prospective solutions to this problem. They argued that employers should be responsible for providing work for their employees and even highlighted the serious shortcomings of the industrial capitalist system, especially the unequal distribution of wealth.

The immediate solution to the unemployment crisis was war. In the spring of 1915, war-related manufacturing provided a needed boost to the Canadian economy, not only resulting in substantial profits for employers but relieving unemployment and increasing union membership. Tension quickly developed between manufacturers and the International Association of Machinists (IAM) in Hamilton and Toronto. Machinists were not happy with the intensification of the work and the lack of improvement in wages and working conditions. The federal government’s rejection of a fair-wage clause in war production contracts and its extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to include all the war production industries forced munitions workers to take more aggressive action. In Toronto, machinists got increased wages and a nine-hour day without strike action. This settlement, however, did not alleviate the mounting hostility in Hamilton and in a few firms in Toronto where machinists encountered intransigent employers bitterly opposed to trade unionism. On 11 April 1916, with the threat of a general strike in all of the machine shops in Hamilton and Toronto and the knowledge that the IAM leaders no longer could control their members, the government appointed a three-member royal commission to investigate the situation. The commission endorsed the demands of labour, recommending an increase in pay, certain overtime rates, and a fifty-hour working week. The workers accepted these recommendations, although they had demanded more and received less favourable conditions than in the majority of Toronto shops. The majority of establishments in Toronto agreed to the recommendations, but Hamilton manufacturers rejected them and refused to meet with representatives of the union.[66] On 12 June 1916, after the manufacturers refused to meet the basic demands of the workers, between 1,500 and 2,000 struck at over thirty plants in Hamilton.

Clergymen in Hamilton responded with sympathy and encouraging words of support for machinists. Some stepped in to try to mediate. Several ministers were on a committee that was trying to avert the strike. Joining Mayor Chester Walters, Controllers Morris and Robson, Fair Wage Officer E. N. Compton, Canadian IAM Vice-President J. A. McLelland, and MP T. J. Stewart were Dean Owen of Christ’s Church, Rev. Ross of James Street Baptist, Rev. Daniel Drummond of St. Paul’s Presbyterian, Rev. J. E. Fitzpatrick as chairman of the Hamilton District Methodist Conference, Rev. Gilroy as president of the Hamilton Ministerial Association, Rev. P. W. Philpott of Gospel Tabernacle, and Rev. John Mahoney of St. Mary’s Catholic Church. Although their initial role was to act as mediators, a number of ministers did not hesitate to place themselves on the side of labour. Gilroy told the audience at First Congregational Church the evening before the strike that, although guarded in his statements as president of the Ministerial Association and member of the committee that was trying to avert the strike, he wanted to make sure the public knew the facts. First, it was the employers who refused the recommendations of the royal commission. Although the employees were being held responsible for the impending strike, they had agreed to the commissioner’s report and, therefore, could not be accused of disloyalty or being unpatriotic. Second, it was plainly evident that the conflict was not instigated by “foreigners,” as the newspaper advertisements of the Employers’ Association suggested. Owen asserted, “We can’t do anything. When the manufacturers refuse to let us hear any more than one side of the argument, naturally we favor the side we hear.” P. W. Philpott commented that the employees had made many concessions while the employers had done nothing. When Controller Cooper suggested that a subcommittee be appointed to meet with the men and ask them to consider postponing the strike, the Methodist spokesman, J. E. Fitzpatrick, said he could not favour the motion because it placed the burden on the men all over again.[67] Unquestionably the boldest display of support for labour was the attendance of Gilroy and Presbyterian minister Banks Nelson, at a mass meeting of the strikers held at Savoy Theatre. Joining the two ministers on the platform were the city’s mayor, three controllers, an MP, a Labour Department official, and the strike leader, J. A. McLelland. All the speakers conceded that the men were in the right. Gilroy told the crowd that there were no alternatives open to the strikers and that their demands were fair and reasonable.[68]

A number of ministers were unreservedly willing to take the side of labour during the machinists’ strike in 1916. Their preferred role as unbiased mediators changed when attempts at mediation failed, and they made sure that the public knew the facts, and blamed the employers, not the employees, for the strike. That Gilroy and Nelson went beyond support from the pulpits and also directly engaged with strikers at their mass meeting was also significant, because it demonstrated that a few ministers made a serious effort to understand workers’ struggles and build stronger ties with organized labour in the city.

The crises of unemployment and the machinists’ strike were two key events that saw Hamilton clergymen coming together to support workers in the second decade of the twentieth century. In addition to these events, a few clergymen regularly discussed labour issues both inside and outside the pulpits during this period.

No minister in Hamilton understood the struggles of the working class better than Gilroy. His sermon on tuberculosis at First Congregational in December 1913 was a testament to this understanding. It discussed how social and environmental conditions affect people and focused on the question why workingmen were not able to save. He told the congregation that while there were many cases of improvidence and incompetence that could explain why workingmen were not able to save, his own study of social conditions demonstrated that the primary reason why workingmen could not save was because of the low wages they received. Among “ordinary wage-earners,” he reported, more received under two dollars a day than over.[69] He proceeded to draw up a budget on the basis of that wage and estimated the workingman’s chances to save. Taking off fifty-two Sundays and three holidays and not allowing any lost days as a result of sickness or any other cause, his earning would have been $620 a year. He created a budget, admitting that many would see it as unreasonably low.[70]

Rent at fifteen dollars a month

$180.00

Heating, lighting, and cooking

$50.00

Clothing

$50.00

Furniture and household effects

$25.00

Bread: 400 loaves at five cents

$20.00

Milk: one quart a day at Mayor Allan’s price

$29.20

Butter: two pounds a week at thirty cents

$31.20

Meat: ten cents a day

$36.50

Church, amusement

$15.00

Insurance

$15.00

Car fare: five cents a day

$18.25

Totaling $525, this estimated budget, Gilroy pointed out, allowed only forty-seven cents per day for the family for food, allowed nothing for contingencies, and hardly any margin for feeding and clothing children. Nor did his wage estimate allow anything for loss of time. Any fair-minded man, he concluded, could see how it was that the mass of sober, industrious workingmen were unable to save. As a matter of fact, when they did save, it was through a lowering of the reasonable standard of healthy living.[71]

Gilroy also offered unconditional support for the right of labour to organize, as well as recognition and appreciation of the ability of unions to improve the conditions of workers.[72] Basing his Labour Sunday sermon in 1916 on “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” Gilroy had only positive words for trade unionism to the large congregation attending the service:

I consider this day one of the great things that the labor men have brought about. It is not only for their work that I praise men. The trade unions not only settle strikes, but also bring about better conditions in the shops, for the employees. Prior to the organization of unions men were working for wages they could hardly live on, and their places of employment were not sanitary. The unions have secured sanitary conditions for their men and in time they will overcome the low wage question. When the fathers of this scheme started their movement they fought a hard battle, but they gained bit by bit and were successful in bringing out excellent results.[73]

He proceeded to tell them that former stovemounter and present Labour MLA Allan Studholme, who was sitting in the congregation that evening, was one of the greatest supporters of trade unions and that they owed credit to him and other loyal labour men.[74]

Gilroy was not the only clergyman in the city to voice his support of unions. Two years later Banks Nelson lent his full support to the formation of a local civic employees’ union. He stated that he sympathized with the city’s garbagemen, who deserved higher wages and better working conditions.[75] What is important about this response and distinguishes Gilroy and Nelson from the official bodies of the Protestant churches and other social reformers was that these two local ministers were not lecturing their audience about the kinds of leadership and methods the churches expected organized labour to adopt.[76] Catholic priest John Mahoney of St. Mary’s Church also supported trade unions. However, he, like other reform-minded Catholic leaders, followed closely the proclamations of Pope Leo XIII, explaining to the congregation at St. Mary’s that workers had the right to form a union to improve their conditions and pointed out that trade unions protect employers by encouraging collective bargaining and opening the way to peacefully settle differences. He added, however, that unions must remain within the limits of justice and promote sound principles. This meant that unions must stay clear of those socialist agitators who promoted class hatred.[77]

During Gilroy’s time in Hamilton, clergymen further demonstrated their understanding of labour’s struggles by more closely scrutinizing the actions of employers.[78] A number of ministers criticized capitalists for their preoccupation with wealth and negligent treatment of employees.[79] In a sermon entitled “What Is the Greatest Need of Hamilton?” Gilroy argued that the well-being of Hamilton lay in improving its social environment and eradicating the slavery of its workers. He did not think that the abolition of liquor would solve all of society’s problems and chose to focus instead on other abominations like “the man in the commercial world who, perhaps, might have started life with worthy ideals” but “became so engrossed in a sordid desire to achieve wealth that he forgot all that was essential for the leading of a good Christian life, and even deprived himself of the small necessities of life in the pursuit of riches.”[80]

In June 1911, a large group of railway employees attended Charlton St. Methodist Church, to listen to W. J. Smith, future field secretary of the Department of Social Service and Evangelism, speak about the fraternal feature of the railwayman’s organization. Smith not only applauded the organization for taking care of their own poor, aged, and infirm, but condemned the railway companies for overworking men and firing them if they refused to work on Sundays.[81] In his Labour Sunday sermon in 1913, W. B. Tighe told the congregation at Wentworth St. Baptist that the greatest threat to the world was not Germany or the big fleets and armies, it was the “the social evil and the laws made by the rich man for the rich man.”[82] John Mahoney admitted to the congregation at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in his Labour Sunday sermon in 1916 that there were still immoral businesses solely concerned with dividends. These employers treat their workers like machines, he stated, tending to them as little as possible, working them to their limits, and discarding them when they were worn out. Echoing critiques in the Catholic press, Mahoney stated that the worker “is but a number, a cog in the machine operated by relentless taskmasters to grind out profits for myriads of shareholders.”[83] Although Mahoney was critical of the treatment of workers, he welcomed any effort of capitalists to treat their employees more justly and humanely and praised the increasing number of employers who were sharing their profits with their workers, implementing the eight-hour day and giving one day’s rest for employees to spend with their family and to worship God. Employers who treat their workers justly, he argued, were rewarded with loyalty.[84]

Gilroy made it clear that industrial democracy would bring about social change. In his sermon to First Congregation in January 1914 entitled “Will Socialism Save Society?” he referred to the wide problem of unemployment in Hamilton and stated that the only solution to this problem was the democratization of industry. The nation was approaching the democratization of the political institutions and he believed the movement would continue.[85] He acknowledged that some would label these ideas socialism. After explaining that there were numerous classes of socialism, Gilroy concluded that the one common denominator on which they all agree is that some form of cooperation should replace the competition in industry. “In so far as that is Socialism,” Gilroy proudly stated, “I am a Socialist.”[86] That he was a socialist, but not of the Marxist type, he made very clear in his address to the socialists of East Hamilton, at a meeting held in Swale’s Hall in April 1914. Cooperation, the bringing of classes together, and eradication of class distinction, Gilroy argued, not class tyranny—of either capital or labour—would accomplish better economic conditions.[87] These comments suggest that Gilroy, like other ministers, recognized diversity in socialism, but wanted to affiliate the term with social cooperation.[88]

Although in the years leading up to the war Gilroy believed that labour should concentrate on democratizing the industrial rather than the political sphere, his position on labour’s participation in politics changed over the next couple of years.[89] Not formally tied to the Independent Labour Party (ILP), he agreed nevertheless with its goal to establish an independent voice for labour in politics.[90] The Brantford ILP’s request that he become a candidate for the party in the 1917 federal election and his address to the East Hamilton ILP on profit-sharing in the United States suggests that he supported labour’s participation in politics.[91]

In addition to discussing labour issues in the pulpit on Sunday mornings and attending and addressing the meetings of labour organizations, ministers also used their churches as a social space to organize classes for workingmen to study social questions on Sunday afternoon.[92] It should be no surprise that in Hamilton it was Gilroy and Nelson who had established the closest connection with organized labour.[93]

One of the ways Gilroy connected with organized labour was the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon (PSA), a movement started by non-conformists in late-nineteenth-century England in an effort to attract more working-class men to the church.[94] The PSA at First Congregational sought to attract workingmen to its meetings by inviting labour leaders to give addresses. In October 1913, the Labour MP for Durham, England, spoke on the plight of children.[95] At a meeting a month later, Allan Studholme, who attended services at First Congregational and was honorary president of the PSA, spoke on “The Social Revolution.”[96] He also gave “A Chat about Social Questions” in July 1914 and spoke at meeting two years later with fellow Hamilton labourist Harry Halford.[97] In 1917, Laura Hughes, a spokeswoman for labour, spoke to the PSA on the lack of enforcement of the factory acts.[98] The PSA also tried to attract workingmen by advertising in the Labor News as well as inviting “men” seeking employment to use their employment department.[99]

Workingmen in the city could also attend non-denominational men’s mass meetings at Knox Presbyterian to listen to addresses by labour leaders and clergymen and discuss social questions. Like the PSA, these meetings were advertised in the Labor News. [100] In January 1911, James Ballantyne of Knox Church, Toronto, gave an address to the men entitled, “Is the Church Opposed to the Workingman?”[101] “Work and Wages” and “Slum Life in Toronto” were two topics for discussion the following fall. In November 1912, Allan Studholme spoke on “Labor and Religion.”[102] In December and the following February, Labor News editor Sam Landers addressed the men.[103] “Labor Has Everything to Lose by War” was the title of an address given by James Simpson, the Toronto socialist, in March 1915, in which he argued that Christ preached the gospel of peace.[104]

That Charles Stelzle, during his visit to Hamilton in 1913 and again the following year, spoke at Knox Presbyterian and First Congregational churches again confirms the close ties between Gilroy and Nelson and organized labour.[105] Stelzle, head of the Department of Church and Labor and the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, wrote prolifically for the Canadian and American labour press, including the Labor News, throughout the early twentieth century and was a dedicated supporter of organized labour.[106]

While Gilroy and Nelson provide the best examples of the connections being made between the churches and organized labour, they were not alone in their efforts to establish a closer relationship between the two sides. On Labour Sunday 1915, Allan Studholme—along with Walter Rollo, prominent member of the Labor party in the city—attended First Methodist, and H. S. Dougall of Wesley Methodist Church, a minister vitally interested in labour, was expected to attract a large number at the Hamilton District Trades and Labor Council in December 1918.[107]

While this passionate and consistent support for labour by a small group of ministers should not be overlooked, it also should not be overstated. The abysmal participation of churches in Labour Sunday service was a testament to lack of interest of the majority of churches in labour issues. Gilroy pointed out to his congregation on Labour Sunday 1916 that, while ministers throughout Canada were asked to refer to Labour Day, the majority would not.[108] He was right. Even though the Hamilton Herald reported that large numbers of union men turned out to listen to sermons on Labour Sunday in 1916, only five churches in the city were reported as participating in Labour Sunday.[109] The highest number of churches participating in Labour Sunday was seven in 1912, while four churches participated in 1911 and three in 1915 and 1917. That very few churches participated in Labour Sunday was not exceptional. Low participation characterized the decade preceding Gilroy’s arrival and the decade following his departure.[110] It should not be surprising that Gilroy and Nelson, the two most outspoken supporters of labour in the city, provided fewer Labour Sunday services during this period than other churches in the city. In his Labour Sunday sermon in 1916, Gilroy expressed his reluctance to preach on the subject of labour, not because he did not want discuss this subject, but because there was a tendency to emphasize the cause on the day set, while it was underemphasized at all other times. He decried the churches’ long failure to pay attention to social questions and the tendency to adopt a patronizing attitude toward labour, sentimentalizing about the dignity of labour and glory and justice of its cause, but neglecting to champion labour during times of crisis.[111] The fact that clergymen who provided Labour Sunday sermons during this second decade chose to emphasize the dignity of labour confirms Gilroy’s concerns.[112]

Gilroy’s seven years in Hamilton were an important time for the church and organized labour in the city. During this period, Gilroy, leading a few other clergymen, demonstrated their commitment to labour issues not only from the pulpit but during the unemployment crisis and machinists’ strike, Sunday afternoon men’s meetings, and at meetings of labour organizations in the city. That workingmen recognized and welcomed the efforts of these clergymen was evident in the presence of labour leaders and unions in the church pews, the advertisements of the Sunday afternoon men’s meetings in the Labor News, and the public support of Gilroy, as demonstrated at the beginning of the chapter in the letters to the editor of the Hamilton Herald.

When Gilroy left for Wisconsin, a few familiar voices continued to support the cause of labour and maintain strong ties with organized labour. One was the popular preacher Banks Nelson of Knox Presbyterian. Nelson had attended the mass meeting of unemployed workers that Gilroy chaired in 1914, was the only other clergyman besides Gilroy to attend the mass meeting of machinists during their 1916 strike, and also reached out to workingmen through Sunday afternoon meetings. In December 1918, Nelson attracted the attention of the Labor News as a result of his outspoken support of Bolshevism. Nelson questioned the negative characterization of Bolshevism in the press and called for a closer examination of who the Bolsheviks were and what Bolshevism was. His plan to publish the Bolshevik program was a step in this direction.[113] The minister’s vocal support of Bolshevism was welcomed by the Labor News, but his comments were not appreciated by all of the members of his church. Conservative MP T.J. Stewart stated that the church’s members did not accept the system employed by the Bolsheviks and it was going to be discussed at the annual meeting of the session.[114] Unquestionably, Nelson had the strongest connection with organized labour after Gilroy’s departure. On several occasions the Labor News reported on the addresses he gave at independent labour party meetings.[115] In February 1919 the paper told its readers about his upcoming sermon on “Strikes Good and Bad,” noting that the minister had “created such a stir in this district owing to the most uncompromising manner in which he has defended working class ideals” and told its readers that “with strikes so largely entering into our lives today the workers should not lose this opportunity of hearing the matter discussed by one whose sympathies are undoubtedly with us.”[116] In May 1921, delegates to the convention of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers’ Association of North America were invited to listen to Nelson’s sermon in honour of the visitors entitled “The Metal Worker.”[117] His sermon entitled “One Big Union” given in September 1922 also signals his interest in labour issues of the time.[118]

A few other clergymen in the city continued to sympathize with the struggles of labour and make a connection with organized labour. In 1919, members at a meeting of the Hamilton Trades and Labor Council accepted the invitation forwarded by H. S. Dougall of Wesley Methodist to attend church on Labour Sunday. Recording Secretary H. G. Fester rejected the narrow-minded views of a few delegates who continued to view the church as an “oppressor of the working classes” who “pandered to the rich members of their congregations.” He stated that Dougall supported labour’s position and the Methodist Church was making a concerted effort to free itself from the influence of the capitalist and moneyed class.[119] Dougall’s support of labour was evident in his 1919 Labour Sunday sermon entitled “Social Unrest.” Dougall told his audience, which included the local trades and labour council, the Independent Labor Party, and Richard Butler, who had organized printers in the city decades earlier, that if he was eligible he would have his name registered on the roster of a labour union because he believed that only the unification of the forces of labour could secure justice and attain its share of production. He admitted that the church did not have a good record on its relationship with labour and conceded that rich capitalists controlled the church. He used this opportunity, however, to illustrate that he was sympathetic to labour by pointing to employers as the source of the current social unrest. He used the example of one local employer to illustrate that employers treated their employees as automatic machines, not as human beings. When he asked the management of this large firm that employed hundreds of girls if any steps were being taken to improve the housing conditions, provide entertainment, and safeguard the moral health of its workers, he was told that the firm was not interested in the employees after they left the shop. He proceeded to argue that it would not be huge unions, destructive strikes, Prussianism and Bolshevism, or even conciliation boards, but instead a fundamental change to the existing wage system that would solve social unrest.[120] According to Dougall, this meant a new system that would follow a producer cooperative where the working farmer borrows money from the capitalist to stock and improve his farm, pays the capitalist a fixed rate of interest, and retains the profits for himself.[121]

Another figure who stood out for his support and understanding of the struggles of workers was clergyman turned politician E. J. Etherington, rector of the Church of St. Thomas Anglican for fifteen years. His liberal ideas and interests in politics and labour led to a strained relationship with his congregation and eventual resignation. Although he was offered a number of other charges, he turned them down because the stipend was not enough to support his large family.[122] Etherington decided to take a leave of absence from the diocese, and it was during this time that he worked as an inspector of munitions and supplies, visiting factories in eastern Ontario. Experience in this job led him to testify at the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations in 1919.[123] His testimony before the commission showed his sympathy and understanding of the struggles of workers. He explained that the widespread unrest and discontent of the working class was the result of unemployment. He noted the poor working conditions he had witnessed in the factories as an inspector, and criticized the inequality of the rich and poor before the law, citing the Lord’s Day Act and prohibition as the most obvious examples of class-based legislation. Etherington’s testimony also included an explanation of workers’ disillusionment with the churches. Embittered by his own conflict with the church, he testified that workers were absent from the churches because ministers were not free to tell the truth. While reproaching the churches, he underlined that social unrest was a spiritual problem. Men, he argued, had to learn again the revolutionary character of Christianity, which would bring clarity to this problem.[124] Etherington also spoke out in support of the ILP in 1919 and two years later won the party’s nomination for the federal riding of East Hamilton. His sponsorship of social security legislation and other workers’ issues, however, could not defeat the Conservatives’ campaign for tariff protection and saving jobs for Hamilton workers. In 1923, Etherington became the ILP nominee for the Board of Control and was elected, but resigned after one year and left politics.[125]

Hamilton lost a true champion of labour when Gilroy left the city in 1919. While a few ministers continued to voice their support for labour, they were very much in the minority.

This examination of the response of clergymen to labour issues in early-twentieth-century Hamilton has not only helped to build a better understanding of the relationship between the churches and labour, it has demonstrated the importance of examining this subject at the local level. What is interesting about the Hamilton clergymen who embraced labour issues and reached out to labour leaders and their organizations was that their outlook and actions differed considerably from those of the national bodies of the churches and the religious press. Ministers like Gilory and Nelson were not interested in lecturing their audiences about the dangerous aspects of unions and their leadership or questioning the efficacy of strikes. Instead, they applauded the efforts of unions and, in the case of the machinists’ strike, became actively involved in labour disputes. Also, their main priority was not sending a message of capital and labour working together to achieve social harmony, nor did they emphasize that the source of change was the individual. They understood that systemic social and economic change was needed.[126] These champions of labour did what labour leaders wanted clergymen and the churches to do: understand and publicize labour’s needs, take action by condemning unjust employers, take the side of labour during strikes and lockouts, and meet with unionists.[127] They practised an activist Christianity that saw them voice their support for working-class organizations such as trade unions and the ILP, position themselves on the side of unemployed and striking workers, castigate employers for their inequitable treatment of workers, and seriously question the existing social structure. These were the same men who established ties with organized labour by discussing labour issues regularly from the pulpit, organizing non-denominational meetings on Sunday afternoons to discuss social questions, addressing working-class groups, and receiving attention in the labour press for their efforts.

What is perhaps more striking about the response of Hamilton clergymen to labour issues, and again underscores the importance of studying this subject at the local level, was the indifference to or disregard of labour issues by the majority of ministers. Very few ministers embraced the role of social reformer and answered the calls of the national Protestant bodies to address social and economic issues, participate in Labour Sunday, or reach out to local trade unions. That so few churches in Hamilton discussed labour issues raises the question of the extent to which traditional Christian beliefs were being abandoned and replaced with a new social Christianity that placed the churches in a social-activist role.[128]

The reluctance to heed the calls of the national leadership and address these issues also suggests the power of congregations in determining the role ministers played.[129] Clergymen who ministered to the affluent churches in southern areas of the city perhaps felt compelled to stick to preaching the gospel and not make the wealthy capitalists who sat in the pews and sustained the church uncomfortable by discussing subjects like the unequal distribution of wealth and unjust business practices. The social and economic problems that workers struggled with daily was also not a popular topic in the pulpits of the smaller, modest churches in the heart of Hamilton’s working-class neighbourhoods. The ministers at these churches offered evangelical services that included inspiring sermons and stirring hymns.[130] What differentiated the congregations of these working-class neighbourhoods from the congregations of the downtown churches that supported labour’s cause was that they had more unskilled workers and fewer skilled workers. Unskilled workers were not as active in the labour movement and, therefore, their ministers may have been less inclined to provide a social activist religion. The members of churches like First Congregational and Knox Presbyterian, on the other hand, included many skilled and semi-skilled workers who were more likely to be active in the labour movement and want the resumés of their ministers to include the role of social reformer. These congregations were drawn to a practical Christianity in which ministers played a very public social activist role in the city.

The study of the relationship between the working class and religion does not offer straightforward answers. The responses of ministers like Gilroy and Nelson illustrate that religion can draw attention to class divisions and provide a critique of the industrial capitalist system. On the other hand, the lack of attention to these issues by the majority of clergymen underlines the role religion played in maintaining the existing social order.