prise to regulate and direct its employment." Is there not just here a very pregnant suggestion? Can it be doubted that there is a necessity for some originating and directing faculty in every large or small establishment? Do business enterprises run themselves by mere manual effort? Suppose that we could set in operation to-morrow an industry created by a hundred co-operatives, each man and woman in his and her respective place, at the loom, in the office, at the engine or in the mart. They are all co-operating, each aiding in the department for which their training and skill have fitted them to produce a given article and get it into the market. Is that all that is required? Take an army of a hundred thousand men, thoroughly equipped, each man at his post of duty, the soldier and the officer, with quartermaster, commissary and engineering departments in complete working order, waiting for the bugle blast which is to summon them to battle, and imagine the bugle blast sounded. There is no head, no general to command or direct operations. How long will they march? What will such an army accomplish? It would be the body, limbs, organs and physical structure, with no spirit to animate or guide, and would be quickly annihilated.

It will not do to say that in the case of a co-operative manufacturing establishment or commercial enterprise, there is not the need of an intelligence to lay out the work and plan the operations. Without an active, alert brain, to watch the markets, to study the commercial situation, forecast the future, and be constantly alive so as to take advantage of opportunities for buying and selling, to avoid disaster, such a mere physical aggregation, if it were possible to work at all, would be at the mercy of the rival enterprises, controlled, commanded and directed by the keen, shrewd executive and administrative proprietorship of the man or men who could conduct their operations with the business experience, knowledge of men and sound judgment which are required in this age of rivalry and competition. All this is conceded in the remarks of the author of the bill referred to, that "the employers are the greatest benefactors of mankind. They They promote industry, foster a spirit of enterprise, conceive all the great plans to

which the possibilities of civilization invite them." Where is all this to be found, I would ask, in a mere aggregation of laborers, however skilled in their respective arts, or however diligent in their attention to duty, where each man simply stands at his post and does his allotted task?

But we will suppose the suggestion to be made, that there could be a managing board, whose duty it would be to fulfil all the requirements, demanding skill, judgment, experience and tact, and to perform all the offices of superintendence. How is such a board to be constituted? Whether composed of one man or several men, it must be the choice of the members of the society. Is it a lesson taught by experience that the selection by the popular voice in any enterprise or combination will be of those best fitted (assuming that there will be any of the co-operators at all qualified) to control and plan wisely and well? Will there not be factions and conflicts, jealousies and differences as to policy and methods? Will not the managing offices be sought after, bargained and struggled for, as political office that carries honors or emoluments? Will not those who have to do the drudgery be constantly striving to secure the positions which will give them manifest advantages over their brethren? Or are men and women to strip themselves of all the motives and jealousies and ambitions that ordinarily characterize them, when they become co-operatives? Will the man best adapted prudently and successfully to conduct the affairs of such an establishment be selected by common consent?

Suppose that in such an establishment of aggregated labor there are those fitted in all respects to compete in all matters of management with those whom they must constantly encounter in the world of trade, it would be like picking up as in its natural element a diamond in a stone quarry. "The thought, attention, intelligence and skill," to quote again, "necessary to originate profitable labor is, in fact, a separate department of human activity." Precisely so; and here is observable the fallacy of the argument which would dispense with an employer. It rests upon the hypothesis that when a vast manufacturing or other establishment is once set in motion it has only to keep moving like an automaton.

But let it be assumed that in all such aggregations of labor there will be found men of the requisite mental calibre and experience prosperously to manage its affairs-and this is a pretty generous concession, for in this land men do not go begging long for recognition when possessed of such practical qualificationsis it likely that they are going to undertake the discharge of such duties for the same compensation paid them at the spinning-jack, or behind the counter? In short, must not labor, whether aggregated or not, pay a premium for its direction and management? I have barely glanced at this suggestion. It might easily be amplified.

But again to assume what is thus taken for granted by the advocates of cooperation, that the laboring class can perform for themselves the functions of an employer, that they possess in themselves the intelligence to organize into co-operative relations, does it follow that they will "enjoy the entire benefit of their own labor?" Is there any way whereby "intelligent labor can avoid paying a premium to those who originate its employment and direct its activities?" Is it possible for labor, however intelligent, successfully to conduct its enterprises and compete with rival concerns, without paying a premium to somebody, and will it make any practical difference to the men who do the work, for their usual wages, in their several places, whether this premium is paid to an individual or committee of their own selection? After all is not every employer so selected by the men whom he employs?

Still another difficulty presents itself -on close scrutiny. In a large manufacturing establishment, we will say, there must be a great diversity of labor and equal diversity of skill and proficiency, not to speak of conscientious disposition to do faithful work. These necessitate diversity of wages. Suppose it to be possible to conduct a co-operative industry, in which each operative should receive a sum for his work proportioned to the skill and proficiency he brings to the task set him, who is going to determine what each laborer shall receive? How is the scale of wages to be adjusted?

Go a step farther and suppose the enterprise to be satisfactorily set in opera

tion and a scale of wages justly arranged at the outset, how is the condition of this state of things to be insured? What if dissatisfaction should arise among the operatives, in respect to the matter of wages? One man's labor is worth more or less than another's, according as it involves greater or less thoroughness or skill in its performance. Under the present system, the employer pays for labor what he thinks it worth. But what if under the co-operative system the workmen should take it into their heads that they were not getting their just proportion of wages? Is it in the nature of things that A should be content to work alongside of B for less wages, when they are co-partners equal in interest? Yet suppose that the management has seen fit to give B a larger wage, for the reason that he does more or better work. Will there be any magic in the term "co-operation" which shall exorcise the spirit of discontent and jealousy, or allay the disposition to agitate for an equality of wages? What is there in the constitution of such an aggregation of individuals that shall relieve it from the ordinary consequences of discontent in the class of the employed?

Let us suppose the case of a knit-goods manufactory. The spinners take a notion that they are not getting enough pay for their work, and they ask for more. Who is to settle the matter? The knitters and the winders, the carders and the finishers, are all interested that the wages shall not be increased for any other class of workers, because their own profits will be correspondingly diminished. Because a set of men are working for a concern in which all are interested as co-owners, does it follow that they will remain content to take the wages given them? If you start out with the plan of leaving wages to be paid as, at present, they are earned and distributed, and give profits to each equally, the same objection will be met. It would not do to give to one man or class of men employed more than another, where they are equally interested, and yet such an equal division would give to the industrious and skilled workman no more or larger share in the resultant profit than that given to the careless or less faithful worker. Senator Stanford argued that the jealousy and watchfulness of each co-worker would

assure better and higher excellence. On the other hand, this very supervision, criticism and jealousy, the one of the other, would inevitably create dissensions and differences which would find expression in dissatisfaction with the amount received in wages or profits by each. It is not to be expected that in a large co-operative establishment there would be that oneness of purpose or that harmony of operation that may be found where the partners are but two or three in number.

But now let it be supposed that such an establishment can be made feasible, wherein, first, sufficient capital is combined to give all the contributors employment; that the ordinary traits of human nature have been eliminated, so far as that a hundred men and women will work faithfully and harmoniously side by side, at rates of wages adjusted to the satisfaction of all, and that this adjustment will be permanent; that the aggregation of individuals thus combined has within itself the ability and experience essential to the general management of its operations, and that there has been a consensus of judgment, harmoniously expressed, as to the particular person or persons best adapted and qualified for such management; suppose, also, that the persons thus selected are content to work for the same wages that they would receive as mere operatives, bookkeepers, or salesmen, let us see what practical results, in the way of profits, might be expected to ensue to the individual co-operator.

I will take for the purposes of illustration, the business of manufacturing knitted goods. Let us suppose that there are a hundred persons ready to cooperate, in proper proportions, as carders, spinners, knitters, etc. To purchase the plant of buildings and machinery necessary to furnish employment for these hundred people will require a capital of fifty thousand dollars. That is a fair estimate in this particular line of business, and as to which alone I am qualified to speak. This will make the contribution of each stockholder the sum of five hundred dollars, on a cash basis. It is to be assumed that the hundred coowners will realize the profit which is to result from a successful prosecution of the business. As things go, ten per cent. upon the investment, over and above the legal interest, would be regarded as a

fair profit. This would make five thousand dollars per year. Now take this aggregate profit and divide it among the one hundred stockholders, and the result will be that each of the fortunate individuals receives the munificent sum of fifty dollars per annum, or twenty dollars more than if his money had been put out at the legal rate of interest! It would seem as if there could be nothing very alluring in this after all. In addition to this fifty dollars per annum as profit (and of course it is upon the hypothesis that he had five hundred dollars to start with), the only other comfort he could take would be in the fact that he had ninety bosses instead of one. Would any man with five hundred dollars in esse, with the opportunities which even this small sum has for multiplying itself, care to venture it all upon such hazard in order to obtain so meagre a return?

And

It would seem, therefore, that even were it possible to conduct an establishment employing a hundred operatives in such a manner that the profits would not be less than accrue to the individual employer of a similar number of persons, and that these profits should be proportionately distributed among them, the practical advantage to the employé of such a system would be so insignificant as scarcely to merit consideration. when it is understood that even this result can be attained only by the harmonious working together of a hundred men and women of various dispositions and interests, a contented and faithful performance by each of the work given him to do, an agreement as to the general management and the wise and prudent selection of experienced and far-seeing managers, together with a disposition on the part of the latter to exact only ordinary wages, any practical result so far as the individual is concerned is reduced to almost zero.

It may be said that the only true test of the practicability of this theory of cooperation must be found in actual experiment, that no harm can come from advocating such experiments, and that therefore objections of the foregoing nature are "irrelevant and impertinent,' as the lawyers say. If indeed some philanthropic capitalist, who has faith in this panacea for all the troubles which fall to the lot of the worker with but little capital, would inaugurate a number of estab

Another ingredient in happiness is physical comfort. We are all much better fed than we were sixty years agobetter housed, better clad: all along the line the standard of comfort has been advanced. The huge barracks in which the working-classes of the great cities now live are not pretty, but consider how much more comfortable they are than the old court of tumble-down cottages, with a street about four feet wide. The The new barracks are fully provided with water; they are kept in a sanitary condition as good as any palace of prince or peer; they are light and airy go into any of the old courts in London-there are a few still at Westminster - and see for yourselves the dirty, dilapidated dens in which the people formerly lived. Then, while you think of the advanced standard of comfort, remember the cheap bread, the cheap tea, the cheap meat, the cheap butter, cheese, bacon, eggs, and fruit, which are now offered to the workingman. Not only have his wages gone up, but their purchasing power has advanced as well. If instead of eighteen shillings a week, he now gets thirty; and, if a shilling now could buy twice as much as a shilling did sixty years ago, the standard of comfort for this man and his family has been advanced indeed.

This standard of comfort, this increase in solid happiness, has by long custom and usage become the right of the people. They consider it as much their right as any of the liberties secured by Act of Parliament. This new right constitutes a danger, because a national disaster might run food up to famine prices, and then we should see, what we have not seen for a long time, the tigerish side of the Anglo-Saxon.

We have learned that the old revolutionary cry has quite died away and is almost forgotten. This also is partly the result of the increased comfort. At the At the same time the advance of democratic ideas has been most marked. Slowly, but surely, the whole power in the country has passed into the hands of the House of Commons. The dominant idea at the present moment of the English people is that the country must be governed for them and by them. This would have seemed a most terrible thing sixty years ago. That we should be governed by workingmen! Incredible! It is, however, the fact; we are governed by the people.

Only, what the prophets did not understand, the governing power is delegated by the people to representatives who are not, as a rule, workingmen; one or two workingmen are in the House and doing well; the people, however, are very chary of electing one of themselves; they prefer to send to the House as their representatives such men as John Morley and James Bryce-scholars and students, responsible persons whom they know and can trust; they will not send demagogues and windbags and political adventurers.

You know how they treat the House of Lords; so long as it gives no trouble it may remain; but only on condition that it is recruited from new families. If it were to obstruct any really popular movement—which the House will not do- we should see what would happen. Meantime, the people look abroad and judge for themselves; they observe that the great colonies are all republics and are doing well under republican institutions; if we were not doing well under our institutions, it is certain that the revolutionary cry would be heard again.

As regards work and wages, the people are firmly persuaded that they are entitled to be the dictators; they think that they have a right to exact what wages they think are fair and to work for such hours as they think right. There have been desperate struggles, in which the employers have lost huge sums of money, while the men have suffered terrible privations. It is not for me to discuss in this place the right or the wrong of trades unions; it is enough to state that the workingmen hold this belief and are ready, whenever possible, to act on it.

It is sometimes maintained that the British workman is a socialist—well, it is certainly true that socialism exists in his ranks; yet he is not a socialist. Out of the vague socialism which floats about everywhere are springing up ideas; not adopting the theory of universal equality of work and pay, whether to the able man or to the fool; but ideas as to the rights of labor, ideas as to the power and the share which should be allotted to capital. That these questions should be discussed by the working-classes whom they so closely concern appears to me most wholesome for the State. Capital was formerly a despot; capital took what it pleased and tossed the workman what it pleased; capital can do so no longer.