QUESTIONS UPON CHAPTER XXVI.

1. How has unskilled labour been affected by the increasing demand for skilled labour?

2. Give an example of the evils resulting from the great competition of unskilled labour.

3. How would one branch of unskilled labour be affected by a rate of wages disproportioned to the rate of other branches?

4. What regulates the price paid for labour by the wholesale manufacturer ? 5. What other kind of labour produces the miseries which so frequently result from unskilled labour? How was this remarkable in the state of Ireland previous to the famine?

6. Give an instance of the effect of uncapitalled labour in manufactures.

7. Where, and with what success, is chair-making carried on upon the factory principle?

8. What is the present result of the competition between retailers with small capital and retailers with large capital?

9. How has the itinerant trader been ruined by the shopkeeper?

10. Mention some itinerant trades which have passed away, and some which still remain.

11. What are the causes which place itinerant traders amongst the "dangerous classes?"

12. Give some account of a branch of industry which in London has a very perfect organization.

13. What is the real difference between the organized labour which produces a London watch and the isolated labour which produces a Pembroke table by a garret-master?"

66

14. What is the theory contained in the principle of Communism? What is the main objection to this theory?

15. Show how competition must exist if the whole world were to become communistic.

16. Give some account of M. Louis Blanc's system for the "organization of labour" as applied to literary industry.

17. What two conditions would be necessary for the practical working of this scheme?

CHAPTER XXVII.

Law of partnership-Limited liability-Co-operative principle-The Rochdale Pioneers-Moral benefits of co-operative societies-Material benefits of cooperation-Duties of the employed-Duties of employers.

AT

T the date of the last edition of Capital and Labour' there was a great controversy going forward upon the expediency of having the Law of Partnership altered, so as to admit of a limited liability, as in the United States and other countries. Against the opinions of many experienced persons, but chiefly those of very large capital, that principle is now working amongst us in every direction. It has no doubt been carried to excess, and has produced some evils and many absurdities. But there can be no doubt of the vast good to society which has been produced by overcoming the former determination of the Legislature to impose unlimited liability on all members of non-incorporated companies. The defects of the former law were clearly pointed out by Mr. Rickards, professor of Political Economy in the University of Oxford. This law," he said, in his evidence before Commissioners, "differs from those which govern the relation of partnership in France, Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and the United States. It is also at variance with the recognised principles of political economy. By fettering the employment of capital it tends to produce a periodical congestion of it, which is only relieved from time to time by the waste of vast sums in bubble speculations. As the law restricts the use of capital, it consequently limits the demand for labour. It increases the gulf, in this country too wide, between capitalist and labourer, by withholding those facilities.

66

which a wise policy would multiply, for uniting and identifying the two classes of producers. The association of small capitals is precisely that object which, with a view to raise the condition of the working classes, to extend the market for labour, and thereby increase the national wealth, a prudent government should favour and encourage."

Upon the general question of an alteration of the Law of Partnership, Mr. G. W. Norman, a director of the Bank of England, thus expressed his opinion: "The extreme difficulty, if not the legal impossibility in England, of giving clerks or workmen a salary proportioned to the profits of an employer, without making them partners in the widest sense, I consider a vast practical evil. It seems to me that the system thus checked is of so highly beneficial a nature, that it merits every encouragement that the law can give it. It would at once enable an earnest wish on the part of a portion of the operative class to be met in a way most satisfactory to their feelings." An Act to amend the Law of Partnership was passed in 1865. The following clause shows how important is the change to the great body of mechanics and others who could never formerly hope to have their condition advanced in proportion to the prosperity of any concern to which they had devoted their best exertions: "No contract for the remuneration of a servant or agent of any person engaged in any trade or undertaking shall of itself render such servant or agent responsible as a partner therein, nor give him the rights of a partner."

It is by judicious changes such as these, that what has been called the antagonism between capital and labour is rapidly yielding to the conviction, on the part of the great body of labourers, that the road is fairly opened to them to become capitalists. There is one highway now trodden by many eager and hopeful toilers, which, a comparatively short time ago, was a narrow and unfrequented by-path.

Co-operation is not a new thing in England. Two centuries and a half ago, Shakspeare became a considerable land proprietor at Stratford, out of his share of the profits

of a co-operative enterprise; and, in the same profession of a player, Allen acquired a sufficient fortune to found Dulwich College. In those companies of players of the Elizabethan era there were shareholders with varying interests-some having a capital in the building and properties of a theatre, combined with their other capital of histrionic skill. The joint proprietors lived in great harmony together, and treated each other with affection as friends and fellows.

The co-operation which many earnest thinkers hold to be desirable to establish in England is precisely this sort of united industry. They have no desire to attempt the introduction of a fallacious equality, such as communism proposes; but they desire to combine men in common labours, according to their respective degrees and qualifications. He who brought to the undertaking capital only should receive a share of profits proportioned to its value and hazard-the wear and tear of implements-the deterioration of stock. He who brought great administrative skill, and took the higher office of trust and responsibility, should also receive a share in proportion to the rarity of these qualities; and so of those who were skilful and trustworthy in a lesser degree. The great body of the workers would receive their due shares under a scale founded upon experience. But capitalist, inventor, manager, and labourers,-all would have some ultimate interest in reference to profits.

Co-operation, especially co-operation for consumption, has asserted, during the last twenty years, its practical advantages in a way that has entirely taken it out of the former range of impracticable theories. The success of the Rochdale Pioneers' Society has probably been the main cause of giving such an impulse to these associations that their number throughout the country now exceeds five hundred. We take the liberty of borrowing from Professor Fawcett's Economic Position of the British Labourer,' not only the most recent, but the most concise and yet interesting account of the great co-operative Rochdale Society :

--:

"In 1844, twenty-eight poor Rochdale weavers appeared to be impressed with the conviction that their lot might be improved if they adopted some united action. They had seen that generation after generation of working men had supported various schemes which had ended either in disaster or in disappointment. Communism had failed as a practical measure, and those who had joined a popular agitation for a new political charter had received no adequate compensation for the self-sacrifice which they were often compelled to endure. These poor Rochdale weavers were shrewd and intelligent. After they had calmly reflected upon the various modes which had been propounded for improving the lot of the labourer, they calmly arrived at the conclusion that they had little chance of immediately increasing their income, although it was easily within their power to economise their expenditure. They knew that they purchased the commodities which they consumed at a price which greatly exceeded the wholesale price; moreover, adulteration was not unfrequently resorted to; and thus it often happened that the articles which the labourer purchased were not only dear, but also impure. These weavers therefore determined to create a sufficient sum by weekly contributions to enable them to purchase, on the same terms as the wholesale trader, a few simple commodities, such as tea and sugar. In the first instance, each of these twenty-eight weavers agreed to give twopence a week to the common fund. They were so poor that it was not without a struggle that this weekly contribution was raised to threepence a week. At length the amount thus collected somewhat exceeded 201., and trading operations were commenced. A room was taken as a store in Toad Lane; this store was in the first instance opened only for a few hours during one day in the week. At the outset some preliminary difficulties were encountered; thus a few of the subscribers who lived at a distance from the store found some inconvenience in dealing there, and consequently the amount of business