and worked at it have been genuine philanthropists who believed in it most thoroughly as the true means of benefiting their fellow-men, the appeal which it makes is addressed to enlightened self-interest, the secret of its success has lain in the manner in which it has brought this force into play, and the instances of its comparative failure may be adduced to confirm this account of the matter.1 A passage from the introductory article in the Co-operative Magazine which disseminated Owen's views will render this clearer. "To induce men to adopt any system or mode of life, though even ever so novel and contrary to their previous habits and prejudices, we conceive that nothing more is necessary than, with giving them the means of making the adoption, to convince them that their happiness, both immediate and future, as well as that of all whom they hold dear, could be essentially promoted by it. That the system of community of property and general co-operation would most essentially promote the immediate and future happiness of all who adopt it, we trust as we already stated we shall be able fully to demonstrate." It is of course true that if each really does his best for the good of all there will be a greater share of happiness for each individual than in a society where every one is striving directly for his own. gain, but "enlightened self-interest can only be attained by the path of self-sacrifice," and co-operators have not always kept this truth before them. Owen's various experiments attracted an extraordinary amount of attention, and though in each case, at New Lanark, at Orbiston

1 See the accounts of Messrs. Briggs' Collieries and of the Paris and Orleans Railway in Mr. Sedley Taylor's Profit Sharing. For the

secret of success see his account of Leclaire, p. 24.

2 Co-operative Magazine, Jan. 1826, p. 8.

3 Miss M. Hart's tract on Ralahine.

and at New Harmony the failure was due to incidental circumstances, and not to defects inherent in the system, we cannot but feel that there was a weakness in the system itself, when it succumbed so completely before these obstacles. The comparative failure in regard to co-operative production also seems to point to a defect in the scheme: the attractive force seems to be insufficient to hold the members together when they have to face a hard struggle, or are involved in losing speculations : self-interest may then prompt men to withdraw from a society of which the prosperity is threatened. Nor so far as common observations of the tone of recent congresses are correct does it appear that the spirit of modern cooperators is so unselfishly devoted to the good of mankind as that which inspired the founders of the movement: it is a frequent complaint that the present generation of members have too little thought for anything but "divi." The efforts at regenerating society through "education and mutual self-interest" which rendered Owen's factory village at New Lanark so remarkable, and attracted philanthropists from all parts of Europe to visit him, seem to possess but little interest for many of those who have profited most by the very partial working out of his scheme.

3. Class Interest.

32. The general tone of middle-class thought may be more clearly understood when we contrast the attitude which Parliament assumed towards another great social movement. Owen and the co-operators hardly came before the legislature at all; in so far as he did so, he would have won the sympathy of the dominant spirits,

G

for his scheme drew forth individual energy and appealed to far-sighted self-interest. Very different was the position of the trade-unionists. Some of the earliest societies were descended from gilds that had worked for the maintenance of the Elizabethan industrial system, while the objects which they had most at heart seemed to be altogether beyond their reach unless Parliament would interfere on their behalf. They were thus in constant contact with the legislature, and they devoted themselves to the apparently hopeless task of demanding protecting laws from a body that seemed entirely committed to the principles of laisser faire.

The actual historical continuity between the craft gilds and the trade-unions has led some writers to neglect the entire difference of the spirit which called them into being. The craft gilds were started in the interest of the public and the craft alike, the trade-unions were formed for the sake of the body of workers alone: thus while the craft gilds were largely occupied in enforcing regulations which were intended to secure excellence of workmanship, this has received comparatively little attention from the modern unions; though of course it has not been so completely forgotten as their accusers would have us believe. Still the central thought which has dominated over the policy of the trade-unions has been that of maintaining the well-being of the workers in a trade. The interest of a class has been put forward as the thing worth striving for.

It is easy to stigmatise such a policy as selfish but this accusation comes badly from those who advocate unlimited competition, and take “every man for himself” as the supreme maxim for social life. The pursuit of class interest may possibly be a narrow aim, but it is at least

far wider than that of the man who is content to scheme for his own personal enrichment and in the pursuit of their class interest trade-unionists have shown an amount of self-sacrifice which can only be described as heroic. It may be selfish heroism perhaps; but let him that is wholly unselfish first cast a stone at them. It is not for us to condemn, but only to trace the results of a movement of which this was the leading thought.

Care for the interest of the class demands first of all that there shall be regularity of employment for those who are engaged in a particular craft. Nothing injures the artisan so much as the fluctuations of trade which render him at one time flush of cash, and at another destitute of the means of getting bread: it is this that keeps him back, that despoils his home of comforts, and that may at the same time induce a recklessness in the use he makes of his money when he gets it. It is infinitely better for him to earn a pound a week regularly than to get two pounds a week for six months and be without employment for the other six, and thus the securing of regular work at a regular wage has been the centre of Union policy.

We are not discussing at present whether this is attainable along with continued success in the markets of the world, or estimating the wisdom of unionist endeavours; we are only taking it as a legitimate object for associated endeavour, and tracing the directions in which it has influenced the demands of labourers.

Piece-work and overtime are two methods by which employers have endeavoured to increase their operations temporarily so as to meet a sudden demand: but the operatives believe that sudden expansions of trade will be followed by sudden contractions, and by opposing

piece-work and overtime they hope to introduce greater regularity into the conditions of employment. This has been interpreted into jealousy of the men who could work fastest and earn most by piece-work; but it is difficult to show that the Union policy has ever been directed against the man who earned much because he worked well, though it has been directed against men-whether good workmen or not-who worked on terms that favoured irregularity of employment for the class.1

It is also most prejudicial to any class to have the women constantly employed while the men are more or less idle the man is the true bread-winner in civilised society, and neither home nor children can be satisfactorily cared for if the women are away all day-thus the opposition to women's labour may be connected with the same feeling. Further it is most degrading to work constantly in dangerous conditions: very risky employments engender reckless habits, and the Unions have sought to maintain the standard of the class by agitating for measures which shall protect the workman at his work. Much of the factory legislation—so far as it is sanitary-might be placed in this category; while efforts to restrain the degradation arising from the overwork of children are also clearly connected with the desire to keep up the standard of living in the class.2

Such in its main outlines have been the planks of the trade-union platform. It is clear that at every point it conflicts with the principles which have been adopted by

1 Trade-unionists have also argued that piece-work is generally bad-work: this is almost the only point where a regard to the quality of work comes out strongly in their policy.

2 On trade-union policy consult Brentano, Zur Kritik der englischen Gewerkvereine, cap. 2.