interest in the concern, the chances are that any equitable arrangement will be welcomed. In all such cases the men must feel that the scheme is not merely intended to give greater security to capital, and larger profits to capitalists, but that it is also intended to benefit labour and the labourer. On any other basis the system cannot permanently succeed, and ought not to succeed. Equity and justice demand that the arrangement shall be mutual; then, and then only, will it assist in solving the labour problem by making the interests of workmen and employers identical, in so far as each has a direct and permanent share in the prosperity of the concern.

§ 20. It can scarcely be said that any great scheme of profitsharing, on the system of the Maison Leclaire, has been fully tried in this country. Partially it has been, and is being tried, but its successful application to British industry is still in its experimental stage. The Maison Leclaire system has been successfully extended in various directions on the Continent of Europe, in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries; but in England the experiments have been, and are, mostly of a tentative character. Professor Sedley Taylor has explained with great clearness the system of Leclaire, and its suitability to British industrial enterprise, and he took pains to ascertain the attitude of the leading English trade unionists to the scheme. There was at that time, 1879-80, and onwards to 1884, no opposition to the principles of the scheme on the part of any leading trade union official, or of any prominent man in the trade union ranks, or known to be specially identified with labour. The opposition which had been shown in one or two instances was against what was regarded as a spurious system introduced by one or two firms as an experiment. A participation in profits ensures to the workmen all that trade unionism strives to attain, provided that the principles upon which that participation is worked out and administered are economically sound and equitable. Mr. Sedley Taylor has correctly stated what the "essential requisite" for the success of the participatory system is: "It consists in mutual confidence between employer and employed. The workmen must feel assured that the chief of a house, in introducing these altered industrial

relations, is not merely led by self-interest, but has their material and moral elevation at heart, and intends to be personally at hand with counsel, suggestion, and active co-operation, in order to secure from the system the full benefits which it has elsewhere been the means of conferring on the working classes. The head of the house, on his side, must be able to rely on the workmen for the zealous, sustained, and concerted efforts, on which the efficacy of the whole system depends." This is the kernel of the whole question. It practically means that to be successful, like the Maison Leclaire, the employer and the employed shall be of a high order in their class; that they shall be actuated by social and moral aims; that self-interest shall be regulated and under control, subordinated, in fact, to the common good of all, on terms mutually advantageous and beneficial to all engaged in the undertaking.

§ 21. The question is have we arrived at a stage in our social and industrial system and history when these principles can be applied with advantage? In exceptional instances, yes; universally, no. And what is called the new trade unionism rather obtrudes obstacles to any successful realisation of the Leclaire system. It seeks to effect by statute, and by municipal law, what can only be effected by mutual arrangement, on equal terms of negotiation. State regulation will make wages slaves, not emancipate them. It has no higher conception than that hiring by the day, week, month, or year, at so much per day, for so many hours, is the normal condition of industry. It perpetuates the very system which the men, in their speeches, condemn. At the very best it could only attain to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, with the doubtful addition that wages might be levelled down, instead of being levelled up. In productive co-operation at its best, or profit-sharing, on the Leclaire system, wages would be but part appropriation of profits, until the annual balance-sheet was made up, when all would participate in just proportions according to the contribution of each to the joint concern. Capital and labour in alliance will create identity of interests, evoke the highest order of skill, produce the best workmanship, and give to each its rightful dues, by mutual participation in the results of industrial enterprise.

CHAPTER XIII.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES IN THEIR RELATION TO TRADE

UNIONS.

§ 1. In an article in the Contemporary Review of January, 1887, the Rev. W. Walter Edwards stated that "the materials are wanting from which a connected history of the friendly society movement, from its beginning, could be compiled." This is scarcely accurate; the materials are not wanting, they are abundant enough; that which is wanted is the time, the patience, and the means to collect, assort, arrange, and tabulate the mass of facts lying here, there, and everywhere, only awaiting the requisite skill of a painstaking worker and ready writer to be made available for future use. Certain qualifications are, however, absolutely necessary in the person who undertakes such a task; (1) he must have a full and complete knowledge of working men and their movements, in order to see where and how all the diversified particulars, so collected and arranged, appropriately apply; and (2) he must possess capability and aptitude to be able to deal with them in the aggregate, and to deduce therefrom the proper and legitimate conclusions. Mr. Edwards, in his otherwise excellent paper, has committed the capital error of supposing that trade unions are friendly societies in the same sense as the Oddfellows and Foresters, and that in using their funds for strike purposes they are violating the first law of their existence. This is a blunder quite unworthy of a writer whose sympathies on the whole are broad and generous, and whose intentions are unmistakably good, in so far as his information enables him to estimate closely the value of the numerous circumstances which surround and govern those

two favourite forms of association among working men, and to judge aright as to their application. He also appears to be unacquainted with the historical relationship existing between these typical societies, and the causes which led to their development on independent lines in the latter part of the last century.

§ 2. The basis, the primary object, and the government of trade unions differ very materially from those of friendly societies. In the former, the friendly society purposes are secondary and subordinate; in the latter they constitute not. only the principal, but the whole design of the institution. Their scope and intention are widely dissimilar, and to confound the one with the other is to mistake an incidental feature for the fundamental principle, and to suppose that the whole is contained in a part, which is physically impossible. The inability to distinguish between the essential nature of trade societies, and the characteristics which have grown up in connection with them, has produced much perplexity in the minds of those who have attempted to discuss their merits, and define their position in the country, as one of the great economical forces which is in constant operation, socially and industrially, in the body politic of the nation. Although it is true that the main objects of these two forms of organisation are not identical, they are by no means antagonistic. There are certain elements which are common to both, but one of them has aims and ends which the other has not, and therefore they should be kept quite distinct and apart when treating of their several functions. The absence of clear and definite views on these points has led to serious errors on the parts of writers and public men, and to demands for legislative interference which, if adopted, would utterly destroy the distinctive character of trade unions, without giving any corresponding advantage to compensate the workmen for the loss which they would sustain, if the unions were emasculated or abolished.

§ 3. It is not necessary to enter into details, either with regard to the history or working of friendly societies. In the following remarks it is intended simply to deal with them in their relation to trade unions, to show how and why they differ, and to point out the difficulties in the way of complete amalga

mation. As already stated, the early guilds embraced both trade and friendly benefits in much the same way as the better class of trade unions do now, only more restricted. When the guilds declined, or were suppressed, the only legal mode by which the working classes were able to retain the power of organisation was by means of benefit clubs. These ultimately developed into the modern friendly societies. In the transition from the old state of things to the new conditions of industrial life, these societies supplied the link from the earlier trade guilds to the trade unions of the present time. During the intervening period, from 1793 to 1824, combinations of workmen for the protection of labour were illegal, and to the members of such societies were positively dangerous. The benefit society alone was unmolested, so long as it did not extend beyond the town or place where it was established, and did not embrace other objects. If by law the one form of association was not favoured at the expense of the other, by actual statute, at least it did not go out of its way for the purpose of suppressing the one, as was the case with the other.

§ 4. In consequence of this many of the earlier trade unions took the form of benefit societies, as a cloak to cover their chief design. This was not the fault of the men, but rather of the law which had necessitated it. The legislature tried hard and persistently to suppress the free association of workmen for trade purposes, just at the very time when it was most needed. The result was that societies for mutual aid sprang into existence, which had the effect of keeping up constant intercourse with large numbers of men, and provided a means whereby they were able to consult together, and pursue other objects not directly within their province. Not only were such associations a necessity of the times, they are also an important element in human nature, the desire for which cannot possibly be rooted out. But the law-makers were blind to all this; they attempted repression, and the men resorted to the only mode of organisation then possible, namely, the Friendly Society, which, to a limited extent, at least, was permissible. Even this right was, however, but slowly recognised by the State; it was not until the year 1793 that the first Friendly Societies' Act was passed; the