CHAPTER VIII.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

ON reviewing the arguments given in the little treatise now brought to a close, it may perhaps seem to the reader that the results obtained are hesitating and conflicting, if not positively contradictory. We started with the task of determining in what cases the State should or should not interfere with industrial freedom.

Ancient restrictive legislation such as that of the Statute of Apprentices was denounced; and even the slight modern remnant, the practice of apprenticing youths for seven years, was described as slavery; the common law doctrine of non-restraint of trade was held up as wise in the highest degree; yet at the same time the modern Factory Acts were treated as admirable, and additional restrictions were advocated in the cases of mothers-of-young-children employed in factories, shopassistants, and some other cases.

Anything approaching to a government superintendence of industry or official inspection of commodities was treated as out of the question; yet certain branches of trade, it was concluded, could be advantageously regulated by government.

Passing to another branch of the subject, the interference of trade societies in productive industry was, as a general rule, deprecated; yet the existence and proceedings of certain professional unions and newly-created institutes of various sorts were defended. Though it

was held that trades unions ought not to settle the course of trade, yet it was argued that courts of conciliation, if not of arbitration, might decide many matters which, according to the pure principles of political economy, ought to be left to the action of the laws of supply and demand.

All this savours of paradox and contradiction, but only on a superficial view of the matter. The subject is one in which we need above all things-discrimination. Restrictions on industry are not good nor bad per se, but according as they are imposed wisely and with good intentions, or foolishly, and with sinister intentions. Prima facie, indeed, restriction is bad, because Providence is wiser than the legislator-that is to say, the action of the natural forces of evolution will ensure welfare better than the ill-considered laws of the prejudiced and unskilful legislator. But reason is a Divine gift, and where upon the grounds of clear experience interpreted by logical reasoning we can see our way to a definite improvement in some class of people without injuring others, we are under the obligation of endeavouring to promote that improvement. The greater part of the interference of trade societies is objectionable, because, though directed toward the welfare of a part, it is directed against the welfare of the rest of the community. All other industrial problems must be solved by similar careful estimation of the total utilitarian results.

If such be a true view of the case it is clear that there can be no royal road to legislation in such matters. We cannot expect to agree in our utilitarian estimates, at least without much debate. We must agree to differ, and though we are bound to argue fearlessly, it should be with the consciousness that there is room for wide and bona fide difference of opinion. We must consent to advance cautiously, step by step, feeling our way, adopting no foregone conclusions, trusting no single science, expecting no infallible guide. We must neither maximise the functions of government at the beck of quasi-military officials, nor minimise them according to the theories of the very best philosophers. We must learn to judge each case upon its merits, interpreting with painful care all experience which can be brought to bear upon the

matter.

Moreover, we must remember that, do what we will, we are not to expect approach to perfection in social affairs. We must recognise the fact clearly that we have to deal with complex aggregates of people and institutions, which we cannot usually dissect and treat piecemeal. We must often take "all in all or not at all." Tolerance therefore is indispensable. We may be obliged to bear with evil for a time that we may avoid a worse evil, or that we may not extinguish the beginnings of good. In the end we shall not be disappointed if our efforts are really directed towards that good of the people which was long ago pronounced to be the highest law.

THE END.