danger and anxiety. Everything passed off peaceably and smoothly; and yet, it can hardly be doubted that there was ground for apprehension, and that a small spark might have lit up a fearful flame. We cannot but remember the riots that have taken place in the past. At Mold in North Wales, during the summer of 1869, the most formidable riot occurred that has been seen in England and Wales for the last twenty-five years. A preconcerted attack was made by an organized mob of miners upon a large force of military and police, with the intention of rescuing one of their fellows from the custody of the officers of the law. Two men had been tried by the magistrates for assaults arising out of a trade dispute, and the men had been leniently treated and sentenced to a small term of imprisonment. There took place what can only be described as a fearful battle. The soldiers behaved with unexampled patience and selfrestraint. They were not ordered to fire until there was a real danger of destruction. As it was, no less than 50 per cent. were hors de combat, requiring surgical assistance. The soldiers got

back to Chester with uniforms torn, rifles broken, each of them a mass of blood and bruises. The law was fully and sternly vindicated at the assizes by a sentence of ten years' penal servitude. The men were not then in union. Since then they have come under the leadership of wiser men, unionism is becoming firmly established, and we see the idea of arbitration making way among them. What if there are a few backslidings and breaches of faith under trying circumstances? Very likely there will be; but such events will not be exaggerated by the employers, who know well enough that such a progress cannot be wrought in an hour, and that it really is more rapid than any of us could have anticipated at the time of the Mold Riot in 1869. The result is very striking: a bright outlet to a dark and difficult problem.

The truths of political economy serve us as lights to indicate our way, and prevent our deviating into wrong paths, but do not admit of precise application to settle disputes as to wages or prices. Economical laws represent certain abstract tendencies, but do not give us equations

or ratios, from which we can deduce the required solution. All attempts in this direction are vain and fruitless. Consequently, it becomes necessary, and is the essential condition of a successful arbitration, that the disputants should agree upon some fact, some proportion, or some principle, by which the settlement may be effected. This is not in any way a conclusion from political economy, though knowledge of the economical truths is a valuable safeguard; but it is a purely arbitrary and empirical arrangement. The printed reports of the coal trade arbitrations are exceedingly interesting for the clever way in which the questions of profits, prices, and wages are discussed, but at the same time they offer the most convincing proof of how impossible it is to use political economy for the purposes of judicial investigation. The practical question always is, "How are the wages to be computed? are they to depend on the profits?" The employers say, "Certainly not; wages do not depend on profits. To attempt to carry out such a scheme would be to make labour participate in the profits without

G

bearing the risks and the losses incidental to the use of capital. Besides, how could the wages of a district be regulated proportionally to profits? Profits vary in the same trade according to the circumstances and conditions of each separate manufactory. They depend upon whether the management is economical and efficient, the locality and situation good or bad, and numerous other conditions. Moreover, equal capitals do not in fact give equal profits. Probably no two factories or shops would give the same result." Then, with reference to prices, employers and employed practically adopt this attitude. To a certain extent much that has been said with regard to profits applies to prices. Wages have nothing to do with prices; circumstances may render prices high and wages low, at the same time there is a sort of recognized feeling that the price of a manufactured article may be used as a rough, unskilful, but practical, mode of settling the question.

The truth is, that these arbitrations will not be satisfactory unless they are based on all the facts, relative to prices, profits, and the demand

and supply of labour, and are determined by some arbitrary but fixed rule, which alone can prevent the arbitration from being a mere compromise. Generally this is a ratio agreed upon between prices and wages. A certain date is fixed upon, at which time the wages were considered to be satisfactory to the men and the profits to the master. This becomes the practical ideal, a just and desirable condition of trade; and the arbitrator's aim, when acquainted with all the facts, is to approximate to this ratio, as far as he can do so without injury or injustice. I do not believe that there is any other rational theory of these arbitrations.

It is said to be a great obstacle in the way of successful arbitration that the coal-owners are very unwilling to bring their books into court. The argument used to compel them to produce their books is, that if the settlement is to be on the price basis the average selling price of the district can only be obtained by examining the books of all the firms in the association. Such an argument savours of the legal arbitrator. I