not to be crushed. Everything points to the fact that it is in the interest of farmers and labourers to make fresh efforts to settle differences and prevent the causes of difference from arising. Moreover, the farmers must awaken to and accept the new state of things. Travelling with an agricultural labourer on the railway last year, I began to question him as to his contract in the harvest that he was going to perform, and said, "I suppose you are satisfied to take what is given you, without making terms?" "No, no," he said; "no more of that. I haven't been to hear Joseph Arch for nothing." There can be no doubt that the combination among the agricultural labourers has given an immense impulse towards the complete accomplishment of that labour revolution which I have defined by the word "independence," and which is the condition and basis of the future organization of industry.

TTEMPTS have been made from time to time to bring the provisions of the law to enforce the awards of arbitrators,

and to establish courts of arbitration,

like the conseils des prud'hommes in France. These attempts have failed, though they have been favourably regarded by employers and employed, and very considerable powers have been freely given by the legislature. I have already explained in Chapter II. how, by bringing the rules agreed on by the board to the notice of employers and employed, the rules become the contract binding in law upon both sides. There are now three statutes relating to arbitration, but they are founded upon

the principle of free contracts between employers and employed. Their only effect is to give greater facilities for the formation of such contracts, and for the proving and enforcing the same. They do not take away any of the ordinary legal rights which every workman or employer possesses in his capacity of citizen, of claiming compensation for breach of contract in the courts of law.

The first statute, the 5 Geo. IV., chap. 96 (1824), gives very considerable powers of compulsory arbitration on application by either party to a justice of the peace. Referees can be appointed, but in the event of their not acting the magistrate is empowered to arbitrate and give his decision, and a machinery is provided for carrying out this compulsory arbitration. Section 2 limits the act to subsisting contracts. The act does not contemplate the formation of permanent boards or councils, or the fixing of future wages and prices. There is, however, a remarkable passage in section 3, the meaning or effect of which I do not pretend to interpret, or even to understand: "But nothing in this act shall authorize any justice to establish a

rate of wages, or price of labour or workmanship, at which the workman shall in future be paid, unless with the mutual consent of both master and workman."

In 1867 another act was passed, 30 & 31 Vict., chap. 105 (Lord St. Leonard's act): "An Act to establish Equitable Councils of Conciliation to adjust differences between Masters and Men." This act gives power to the Home Secretary to license permanent councils of conciliation. Why they are termed "equitable," or why "councils of conciliation," it is difficult to see; because the act limits their operation to the existing contracts enumerated in section 2 of the 5 Geo. IV., chap. 96. They would only be permanent courts of arbitration, with a special legal patronage, and special methods of enforcing awards, summoning witnesses, &c. I do not believe that any licences have been applied for, and the statute has in effect been quite inoperative.

Lastly we come to the act of 1872 (Mr. Mundella's act), passed by the legislature in deference to the views of Mr. Kettle and the wishes of several of the Trades Union Congresses. This statute gives all

the powers that can be given for the establishment of permanent boards of arbitration that are consistent with the principle of freedom of contract. These boards have authority to fix future wages or prices, and power to enforce their awards by legal process. But the act only gives improved facilities for carrying out Mr. Kettle's plan, and awards can only be enforced as breaches of contract.

It is unnecessary to enter upon the question of whether an arbitration council under this act is a better mode of procedure, for either workman or employer, than the county court or the court of petty sessions; probably most persons would agree with me in thinking it worse than a county court or stipendiary magistrate, and probably not better as a court of justice than the court of petty sessions presided over by the ordinary justices of the peace. But this is not the difficulty. The real difficulty is, that most of the awards fixing rules or making contracts for a future period are subject to a very short notice. Therefore the contract is limited by the notice.

In the building trades, for example, the board