Page images

this country, of remuneration for extra exertions of the workpeople employed in large concerns by bonuses calculated on the increased profits of those concerns supposed due to such extra exertions. It is evidently only in cases where that supposition is consistent with facts that, on the principle for which we have contended of suum cuique, the workman is entitled to recognition in proportion to the extra profits which, by the hypothesis, are due to the extra investment of what may be termed personal capital, manual or mental, in the shape of supererogatory zeal and diligence on his part over and above the ordinary day's tale of work which could be demanded of, or enforced


him by his employers.

Somewhat too much has been made by sensation-economists, and effect-writers generally, of the few instances (they might be counted on the fingers of one hand) of advantageous results from awarding to workpeople, in addition to their wages, some stated proportion of the annual profits of the concerns they work for. The only real principle of universal application is that every one should be paid his due,—wages to whom wages are due, profits to whom profits. Work-people can have no right to additional pay (though Trades' Unions have often claimed it for them) on account of additional efficiency given to their labour by improved machinery, set up and paid for by their employers. They can have no claim to share the profits of capital which they have not invested, or the remuneration due to the ability and experience of the directing heads of concerns. In a word, what work people have alone a right to is the value of their contribution to products. In establishments, whether such as M. Leclaire's at Paris, or Messrs. Briggs' at Methley, where the economy and efficiency of the conduct of the concern in great measure depend on the unsuperintended voluntary zeal and diligence of the individual workmen, the recognition of extraordinary profits as due to extraordinary exertions is at once just and politic. But there is a manifest incongruity, and a certain source of future misunderstandings as grave as any that arise at present between employers and work people, in the conception of the universal adjustment of the rewards of work-people to the commercial success of establishments, into the operations of which the element of manual labour enters in degrees so different.

What has been most conspicuous in France has been the failure, in a great majority of instances, of purely operative associations for productive purposes ; and the main cause of failure has been pointed out, as we conceive, correctly, by Mr. Fane, in a despatch to Lord Stanley, dated March, 1867. It has been a


[ocr errors]

great mistake,' he says, 'in the procedure of the working-classes in France that they have preferred societies of production to building societies, loan societies, and those which may be termed societies of consumption. The latter should come first; for their tendency is to endow the workman both with the capital and the prudence, without which his participation in the productive form of society is seldom satisfactory.'

While the large majority of the operative associations, which came up like mushrooms in the revolution year 1848, have failed to maintain their ground, those which survive and flourish in general owe their vitality and vigour to original independence of State aid, and adherence to the plain principles, which, under any form of industrial association, are essential to success. Of these principles none is more vital than that which rigidly and unswervingly attributes suum cuique ; and the most successful operative association in Paris is that which has most stoutly asserted it.

And here we have a crow to pick with Mr. Thornton. At page 428 of his volume on · Labour' he roundly denounces the Rochdale Co-operative Manufacturing Society (an off-shoot from the far-famed Rochdale Equitable Pioneers) as Iscariot of the tribe' of co-operation,— one that bade fair to be their glory, but has become their shame. And why? Simply because this manufacturing association divides its profits only amongst its shareholders, and remunerates the workpeople it employs with wages for work done. Now, Mr. Thornton, two pages previously, had described the Paris masons as

the most considerable of all the French societies,' and all its doings with complacency,—including the frock coats' (by the way, an incorrect translation of frac, which means a dress-coat) that the shareholders of that society wear on Sundays (just as if their black coats distinguished them from the Sunday dress of our skilled artizans here). But what Mr. Thornton omits to state is that the Paris association which he glorifies adopts precisely the principle of the Rochdale association which he denounces-the principle of dividing profits only amongst shareholders, and of remunerating the workmen they employ by wages.

We humbly submit that neither Rochdale nor Paris working societies should have a Judasstigma fixed on them merely because they carry out that principle in their practical working. We shall have the revered Leclaire himself next stigmatized as the Iscariot of industrial partnership, because in his establishment also the associates' alone share profits, the large majority of employés, termed 'auxiliaries,' receiving wages only. Mr. Fawcett is too urbane a writer to stigmatize as Iscariots' those co-operative associations in this country which call capital from without in aid of the contributions of their working shareholders,—nay worse, pay wages to their non-associated work people. But, on the other hand, while Mr. Thornton quietly ignores the fact that those foreign associations, which he himself cites as most exemplary for skilful and successful management, are precisely those which have taken the same course on the largest scale, Mr. Fawcett sets fact at direct defiance in his statement of their proceedings. Of course, we do not suppose for a moment that his mis-statements are of his own invention. But we cannot acquit him of “ crass negligence' in failing to acquire more accurate information of the true state of facts which inconveniently oppose his theories.

• It ought to be stated,' says Mr. Fawcett, that the co-operative masons in Paris nerer employed any labourers but those who were shareholders ; the advantage of adopting this rule is very apparent, and unfortunately English Societies have not adopted a similar regulation.'

We beg to state that it is not the English that is here at variance with the French practice; but Mr. Fawcett's statement respecting the latter that is at variance with facts.

The co-operative society of Paris masons consisted of eighty shareholders (alas! can we speak of any Paris society in the present tense ?). That society was so far from cutting all connection with the tyrant capital' outside its pale (as Messrs. Thornton and Fawcett think essential to purity of principle in all co-operative societies), that it set out by raising a capital of 300,000 francs, and as the associated workers could not subscribe such a capital amongst themselves, they had recourse to bourgeois capital seeking commercial investment (one wonders what rational principle was against their doing so). Their able manager, M. Cohadon, has made the following public statement of their proceedings :

• In this prosperous association capital exercises its function side by side with labour. In the division of profits 60 per cent. is assigned to labour, 40 per cent. to capital. The working shareholders receive a fixed salary, regulated by the quantity and quality of their work (wages, in short, for piccework] they then share the profits-just as they would have to share the losses in case of ill success.'

• This co-operative society,' says M. About, in his chapter on Co-operation, employs hundreds of work people, and pays them fixed rates of wages, which are paid definitively, and nowise as first instalments on account. Nothing can be more contradictory to the pure theoretic principle of co-operation.' But hear Mr. Cohadon, who takes a practical view of the subject (Mr. Fawcett's bête noire-a practical man, and a man of business) :

• The


The reason,' says M. Cohadon, 'why it is impossible not to employ auxiliaries, is that you cannot turn back large orders – if you do, you lose your customers. In theory an association should employ its members only: in practice this is impossible. It is equally impossible to award to auxiliaries a share of profits. In the first place, how can you always be sure to make profits? And if there are losses, how can the auxiliaries be expected to take their share of these? It is inadmissible in principle that those who take no share in losses should take shares in profits.'

• If work people themselves,' says M. About, the moment they have to handle capital, adopt the received principles of social economy, it is because those principles are true.'' No stricter enforcers of orthodox economical principles than associated workpeople, when their visual orbs are purged with the euphrasy and rue of self interest in enforcing them! M. Blaise, another practical man of the manufacturing region of the Vosges observes on this point:

• In the legal point of view, the rules which govern co-operative productive associations are identical with those which govern other employers of labour ; in a moral point of view, they proceed pretty much in the same manner. Like those, they employ wage-paid workpeople under the name of auxiliaries ; they pay them no more than others do, and no more guarantee them permanent employment. Nay, the workpeople complain of being more hardly dealt with by operative associations than by other employers. These societies, when their members possess those rare qualities, commercial, technical, and governmental, which secure success, are doubtless profitable to those who form them, or are admitted into them; but they constitute an addition to the previous body of employers; and even if their numbers multiplied to the utmost supposable extent, as they never can comprise more than a comparatively small fraction of the labouring class, they do not appear destined to exercise any considerable influence on the economic condition of the masses.'

If the contemplated industrial Utopia of the economical school at present in the ascendant might be comprised in the formula of every operative his own capitalist,' their contemplated agricultural Utopia might be formulated in like manner as 'every labourer his own landlord.' Now that something may be done in the way of approximation to both these Utopias-that shares may be allotted to the savings of operatives in industrial establishments, and allowance made in extra pay for their extra exertions beyond the exigible day's tale of labour—that the agricultural labourer ought to be restored to the contact he has too generally in this country lost with the soil he cultivates, and supplied with a plot of ground sufficient to occupy his hours of leisure, and supplement his wages of labour at slack seasons— none will deny who have duly noted the effects of what has been already done in these directions. By all means encourage the upward struggles of industry, exceeding in its efforts and energies the mere day-labour sufficiently remunerated by day-wages. But don't imagine that you can elevate all labourers into proprietors, whether of commercial or manufacturing establishments or landed estates. Don't imagine that if you can cut all Ireland up into cottier-crofts to-morrow (since merely to convert her half million tenant-farmers, according to Mr. Mill's recipe, into (mis-called) peasant-proprietors would be discovered the day after to be a measure not half revolutionary enough in the interest of the outlying majority of non-tenant labourers), you could ipso facto invest Irishmen with the indefatigable industry and skill for small culture transmitted from age to age among the Lilliputian landowners and still more Lilliputian tenant-farmers of East Flanders. It may further be affirmed that such enthusiastic English and Irish champions of peasant-proprietorship as Mr. Mill, Mr. Thornton, and Mr. Cliffe Leslie, have greatly exaggerated the agricultural regimen of Belgium as the paradise of peasant-proprietors. Their chief authority, M. de Laveleye, in his treatise on Belgium in the Cobden Club volume, by no means recommends the land system of Flanders to foreign imitation. On the contrary, he says expressly, the system of tenure of land in Flanders (the pet province of our exclusive enthusiasts of peasant-proprietorship) is anything but worthy of imitation. There are too many tenant-farmers, and too few peasant-proprietors; the leases are excessively short, and the rents exceedingly high.


Just the state of things Lord Dufferin had predicted that Mr. Mill's project for investing Irish tenantry with proprietary rights and powers over their present holdings infallibly would produce in Ireland :

'It is probable,' says Lord Dufferin, that within a very brief period of the new land settlement a considerable proportion of the original occupiers will have found it convenient to devolve their interest on others, under the conditions proposed by Mr. Mill. The community will then be divided into two important classes-peasant-landlords and peasant-tenants.

In what respect would the then condition of affairs be an improvement on the present? You would not have got rid of “landlordism ; you would only have substituted an innumerable crowd of needy landlords for the present more affluent proprietors. Evictions for non-payment of rent would be as rife as ever, for the necessities of those to whom the rent was due would preclude them from exercising the indulgence now extended to their tenants by the present proprietors; while dispossession for other causes, such as waste, extrava


« PreviousContinue »