inventor, work is facilitated, toil is abridged, and remuneration is increased. Capital can be expended profitably only in this way, and the benefit of such expenditure cannot be withheld from the very poorest. Although the actual wages were now paid by the same amount of gold of the same quality as before, the receiver would be enabled to purchase a greater number of better articles than before. This is because machinery is now employed to perform quickly and well operations that were executed formerly by hand labour. Consequently, at the present day twenty articles may now be turned out at the same cost as ten, five, or even one some years since. This result, so highly beneficial to everyone, could not have been attained without the continual expenditure of capital; and had this expenditure been interrupted or checked, the means or comforts of civilization would have been in some degree lessened. But when articles of general consumption are thus cheapened all over, everyone is able to purchase greatly more of them than formerly, and thus there is a greater demand for labour, and wages rise.

The influence, then, of capital is of two kinds: first, it cheapens everything which is the product of labour; and, second, it increases the reward of labour. He, therefore, who attacks capital is an enemy of society and of the workman in particular, for he derives the most perceptible benefit from its application. With him it changes poverty into comfort; with the wealthy it produces only a superior degree of ease or enjoyment. This idea is well stated by M. Frederic Bastiat, in his 'Essays on Political Economy': If there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to any other that capital be formed, accumulate, abound and superabound, it is certainly the class which borrows it directly or indirectly; it is those men who operate upon materials, who gain

assistance by instruments, who live upon provisions produced and economised by other men.' And again :—' It is never more possible for capital to tyrannise over labour than when it is scarce, for then it is it which makes the law, it is it which regulates the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more impossible to it than when it is abundant, for in that case it is labour which has the command.'

While all this, however, may be acknowledged by the workman to be true, there may still lurk a feeling of dissatisfaction with the idea of complete resignation to what is accounted to be an unsatisfactory condition of things. Capitalists who have made capital rapidly are too apt to lose sight of their real position; too apt to forget from what they have sprung, and how they have risen. They are too apt to credit their own personal abilities with the change, forgetting that circumstances often unseen and accidental have had everything, or a great deal, to do in the matter. The air of haughtiness which is often adopted by the nouveaux riches as employers towards their workmen becomes all the more insufferable when the change in the position of the former has been witnessed in all its stages; and the old men particularly cannot easily regard an air of pride and superiority on the part of him who was perhaps their former associate, with equanimity. In these circumstances, an abrupt message to the workmen that they are required to work so much additional time, or receive so much less remuneration, cannot fail to act like a match to gunpowder. The demand is resented as an insult, and there arises perhaps an industrial war, pernicious if not disastrous to both sides.

Now, upon the continent of Europe there are not so many new capitalists, for industrial undertakings do not often lead so rapidly to the accumulation of large fortunes, and there is in general much less jealousy existing

between employer and employed than is the case in Great Britain. And the friction is not so great, partly because there is often a systematic effort made to avoid it. Masters meet their men face to face in the Conseils de Prud'hommes, which are boards established to conduct business between both sides in a conciliatory manner. In some countries, trade combinations are prohibited by law. In Holland, the law prohibits combinations amongst workmen, which have the raising of the rates of wages, or the reduction of the hours of labour, for their object. Yet the general impression in that country appears to be that the working of this law, as compared with the results of an opposite state of the law in England and in some other countries, is such that there is little probability of any change being made for some time to come. The law as it now stands is not found to work badly or oppressively; . . . and where masters and men are forbidden to fight, they learn to arrange their differences by more gentle and civilized means.'1 And in a later report, dated 1870, the same reporter says:'Workmen's clubs and trades unions abound in every town in the country. Every trade has its society, and every tradesman, citizen, and labourer is a member of one or another. The law allows such societies to discuss with full liberty all questions connected with the relations of master to man, and to use all amicable and legitimate means for effecting a change in those relations. What it prohibits is a hostile demonstration of a whole class against another, or of a whole body of workmen against a common employer. This law is respected by all parties, and meets, I have reason to believe, with general approval.'

In 1806, the Conseils de Prud'hommes were first

1 Reports on the Condition of the Industrial Classes, &c. Report by Mr. Sidney Locock, dated The Hague, December 10, 1869.

legally established in France, and they were established with the view of putting an end, by means of conciliation, to the small disputes which arise, either between employers and workmen, or between foremen, workmen, and apprentices.

These boards have proved eminently successful in attaining the object stated, for it is ascertained that upon an average 19-20ths of all disputes that come before them are thereby amicably settled. Parties bringing cases before these courts must appear in person, not through the intervention of a lawyer. Should the court of conciliation fail to arrange matters, then the case is referred to a court of judgment or arbitration. In either of these courts, or in any committee that may be delegated by any of them to arrange matters for small committees are often appointed to effect the same objects—the number of judges on either side is the same; that is, there are an equal number of employers and workmen who act together.

Mr. Frederic Bernal reports from Havre, on March 1st, 1872,1 in regard to the nature and operation of these boards, as follows:-The Conseil de Prud'hommes, or board of experts, is an admirable institution, and might, with certain modifications, be advantageously introduced into our own industrial legislation. Instituted in 1806, the board is divided into two divisions, and consists (in this town) of a president, vice-president, secretary, and 24 judges. The president and vice-president are appointed by the central government; the secretary by the préfet of the department, and the judges are elected by the qualified voters. The election for these latter takes place every three years, when one-half of them retire, being, however, eligible for re-election. Half of the judges are masters, half workmen, each side electing Reports on the Condition of the Industrial Classes, &c.

1

their own judges. The election is held in the ordinary manner, and is presided over by the sous-préfet, or mayor. The qualifications for a voter are-for a master, that he be 25 years of age, able to read and write, holder of a license during five years, and a resident in the district for three years; for a workman, that he be 25 years old, able to read and write, and engaged in his trade for five years. The qualifications for judges are the same, with the exception that they must be 30 years of age.

'The Conseil de Prud'hommes is essentially a tribunal of conciliation. The first bureau endeavours to arrange disputes amicably; but, should it fail to do so, they are sent before the second bureau, whose decision is final, unless the sum in dispute exceeds 200 francs (87.), when an appeal can be made to the tribunal of commerce. They have, otherwise, full power to enforce their decisions. The cases brought before them comprise every kind of dispute between masters and workmen, but not domestic servants, and the average number per annum in this town (Havre) of these cases is about 1,000.'

In this country, Mr. Mundella, M.P., possesses the honour of being the first to introduce the system of conciliation. In 1860, the first board was started in connection with the trade of hosiery, in which he was engaged, with the object of endeavouring to arrest the evils that arise from industrial conflict. The consciousness of a good cause has fortified the resolutions of those who have inaugurated the system of conciliation in this country, and has led them to combat successfully many difficulties and discouragements.

The masters and men meet and mix together, and talk over the differences that may have arisen, and settle them by mutual concession in the spirit of forbearance, avoiding, if possible, even the voting against each other.