practical purposes, political economy is inseparably intertwined with many other branches of social philosophy. Except on matters of mere detail, there are perhaps no practical questions, even among those which approach nearest to the character of purely economical questions, which admit of being decided on economical premises alone."

The following quotation from Mr. Kettle raises the point in question. He says: "If a board made a decision which took wages out of capital it 5. would be most unjust; and on the other hand, if the board took profit out of wages, that would be equally unjust. But it afforded the means of ascertaining exactly what the value of the labour was at that particular time; in fact, it was a mart and market, where both parties were independent dealers, where the market price was arrived at by the discussion by the board; and if a dispute arose as to what was the market price, by discussing the grounds upon which the two parties based their respective claims the true value was ascertained. But the decision must be based on what was just

and equitable at the time, and not on what might be forced from one side or conceded by the other." If the words "just and equitable" meant "after full consideration of all the moral and social circumstances of the case," then I have no objection to and can heartily accept this view. But if it means that the rigid adherence to certain rudely estimated economical relations between capital, profits, prices, and wages, are to be treated as absolute facts to be directly applied, and that, all other social and moral facts being excluded, they are to form the sole basis of the arbitration, that is a fallacy which, sooner or later, must destroy the usefulness of courts of arbitration. Mr. Kettle has, indeed, expressly advocated this separation between the moral and economical laws, and that the former must be disregarded in coming to a practical decision on these matters. But in practical judgments and actions they cannot be separated. Both are necessary parts of every practical conclusion, as inseparable as are the sensory and motor nerves in the living body by which physical action is governed. Not only must the economical and moral be combined, but they must

be rightly combined, or error and failure will surely follow.

Courts of arbitration, then, have a great work before them, limited in extent and temporary; namely, to bring about peaceful relations, and get rid of strikes and lock-outs. To the further carrying on of this work we must look to boards of conciliation, which, still more than courts of arbitration, are calculated to draw the masters and men nearer together. A board of conciliation can achieve that at which arbitration should aim, that is, a moral and religious settlement, necessarily based on a due regard to all economical conditions and facts. Mr. Kettle has done good service by insisting on the business character of boards of arbitration. Business does not exclude, but should be based on and subordinate to, justice and morality.

Business facts and economical facts have to be determined irrespective of other considerations. But the moment we step from dealing intellectually with facts to applying them practically to conduct, our economical conclusions must be combined with social and moral considerations. There

}

is nothing in such a picture that may not be accomplished, that has not been already accomplished; any one could point to employers who have perfectly succeeded in this, and whose names are household words among the working classes. It is not to the lower and narrow-minded employers that we look with hope, but to those of a different type, who realize the inadequacy and the unsatisfactory state of the present system, who can look forward to an industrial development, the extent and precise nature of which we do not clearly understand, but which we perceive is going on before our eyes, and which we are bound by everything we revere to further, and not to hinder.

CHAPTER III.

CONCILIATION.

E have seen that in every conciliation board there must be some method of final decision, that is, arbitration in some shape, and that there can be no permanent system of arbitration without conciliation. The development of arbitration and conciliation in industry is characterized by the increasing prominence of conciliation; whereas arbitration, though a necessary, tends to become a less and less important feature. Mr. Mundella must be regarded as the inventor of systematic industrial conciliation. The first board was started in his own trade of hosiery in the year 1860. Prior to that time the history of the relations be

D