is founded, and unless they can feel from day to day that its benefits are being fairly distributed, there would appear to be a duty devolving on the State. The State may then protect them in either of two ways. It may investigate for them, or it may itself manage this kind of business. In the case of the administration of sick funds alone, small societies ought to be sufficiently regulated by the watchfulness of their members, although, as men become oftener sick the older they grow, there is a liability of the funds that were found ample when the members were young, being found the reverse as a proportion of them become old. Mr. Scudamore has pointed out, in his evidence given before the Friendly Society Commission, that the difficulty of detecting malingering in the members of such a society virtually precludes the possibility of Government conducting sick benefits. With objects, however, which cannot be fulfilled till many years have passed, there is an imminent risk of all private societies, particularly small societies, failing to meet them. Then the State may demand either the fulfilment of certain qualifications in the nature of guarantee before the authorisation of such societies is granted, or it may undertake the functions of these societies itself. The former method is, to a certain extent, adopted already, but however perfect such a machinery of registration may be, the degree of security will still be very imperfect, and in cases of failure the members might fairly conclude that the State had contributed by its authorisation or registration of such societies as afterwards failed, to bring about their loss, for it had, in fact, set its mark of approval upon a society that should have been discountenanced. The second method, namely the undertaking of the functions of these societies, is the one most open to the State, and not subject to such objections.

In the words of Mr. Frank Ives Scudamore's evidence

before the Friendly Societies Commission :- I think that the Government has a peculiar right to get the insurance business for this reason, that insurance business deals with the remote future, and although the future of no Government is absolutely secure, the future of this Government is a great deal more secure than that of any private institution can ever hope to be. Government can give far greater security than any private institution can for something which is to occur at a remote period of time.' We have already noticed how the superior security afforded by the Government savings banks has been appreciated by the people, and there can be no doubt that were the limit of amount at which any one may insure his life reduced from 20l., which it is at present, to 5l., an immense boon would be conferred on the working classes. Working men cannot, and scarcely ever do, insure for so high a sum as 20l.; for, as a rule, they calculate only on leaving their families free of debt, and, therefore, such a sum only is required as will re-imburse the outlay on the funeral expenses. As yet, however, the working classes receive no benefit from anything that has been attempted by Government in this direction.

Trades unions are then on no grounds the appropriate organisations for the management of such funds, even though by law they should be decreed to be preserved separate and distinct from those intended for trade purposes. Mr. William Thomas Thornton states the case clearly when he says:-'A modification . is that unions, without formally dissolving in order to reconstitute themselves as independent societies, should keep the funds destined for different operations completely separate, so that the provision for provident purposes should no longer be liable to be swept away in trade disputes. This plan is pronounced by experienced unionist functionaries to be impracticable: whether really

so or not it would certainly prove ineffectual. The proposed separation, if made, could certainly not be maintained. It is not to be supposed that when reduced to extremity, unionists could hold any money of their own sacred, or that they would scruple to use to-morrow's provision for to-day's sustenance, when the only apparent alternative was their doing away with to-morrow's need by perishing immediately from starvation.'

The interest of the masses of the people, therefore, demands that benefit societies having their benefits realisable only after a lengthened period of years shall be supplanted by the State. The State could with the largest amount of benefit to everyone concerned conduct the business of life-insurance, deferred annuities, and deferred endowments, as well as banking, which it has already undertaken. The security would then be as perfect as possible, and in consequence the prudential habits of the working classes would be stimulated, and their material position appreciably improved.

Trades unions would then be relieved from such functions which, we have seen, they can never perform to the assured benefit of their members. What, then, in that case, it may be asked, would be left for trades. unions to do? Important duties would remain, which they would be able to perform all the more successfully that their hands were relieved from the performance of others which do not properly belong to them.

Thus, there would still remain a necessity for organisation and for meetings, and contributions among the members, in order that the position of the particular trade with reference to the relations between employers and employed should be discussed: representatives, again, must be appointed to sit at the boards of conciliation, so as to put forward the views of the workmen, which they would be fully acquainted with from the course and

points of the previous discussions. Then in cases of accident, the unions would meet to determine how the subject of the accident is to be relieved; and in cases where neglect on the part of the employer is alleged, an investigation might be demanded, and parties appointed in the interest of the members and of those injured or killed, to watch the course of such investigation. There are also the interests of the workman as regards political influence to be considered, and then the employment of such in the procuring of laws to reduce existing abuses, or to establish the most healthy practicable conditions under which work can be carried on. By the combination of various trades unions, building societies might be successfully established, also benefit funds for sickness; for in the first, a large corporate power is required to deal successfully with the business of acquiring land, entering into contracts, borrowing money, &c.; and in the second, it is a necessity in order that cases of malingering should be readily detected and reported, that the members of a benefit society with such an object should live as closely together as possible, for even in the best of circumstances it is found difficult always to detect such cases.

These and many other duties will lie always fairly within the province of a trades union, or a combination of such unions. Such organisations, indeed, appear to be indispensable to insuring the best practicable conditions in which the workman shall expend his labour, and thus in securing to himself the maximum of benefit from such expenditure, he will also secure to the community as a whole a more ample share of the product of his

labour.

It may be objected that the system of conciliation as above described is regarded with too great an amount of favour, as too complete a panacea, as it has been termed, for the industrial ills which afflict the workman.

There are other systems which are often regarded as affording the workman the best prospects in the future, and we shall now endeavour to describe these, and estimate them at their true value There are, first, those of co-operation, and, second, those affecting the distribution of a proportion of profits among the workmen. The former have already been tried, and with very varying success. They have thriven well when the circumstances have been very favourable, but they have often succumbed to adverse influences, and it may be said generally that the ground must be prepared beforehand in a special way for their reception. When they do succeed, it is because a special effort has been made by special men, because they adopt principles of action greatly healthier than those otherwise at work, or because the circumstances in which they exist are abnormal.

It will be necessary to illustrate these statements. There are, then, three several systems of co-operation, namely, co-operative distribution, which flourishes chiefly in Great Britain; co-operative production, which has thriven pre-eminently in France; and co-operative credit, which has extended itself remarkably in Prussia and Germany. The first of these systems, namely co-operative distribution, is that which is best known in this country, for it has been adopted both by rich and poor, and it has found a footing in almost every average-sized village throughout the country. By its means, the distribution of the various articles of household consumption of a good quality and at a cheap rate has been carried on with great advantage to the community that has adopted it. But the reasons for such success are not difficult to discern. In retail shops generally there exist three disadvantages, with which the business they conduct has to contend. First, the system of credit is almost always that on which purchases are made, the result being that