open equally to committee and employees; the offering of prizes to the latter for the best papers on social subjects; and the filling up of positions that may fall vacant with co-operative servants, and not with men taken from outside the movement.

The discussion which ensued maintained a high level throughout, and although, of course, Mr. Maxwell's stricture did not apply at all to a large number of societies, there was very little disposition shown by the delegates to hold up the virtues of the majority as palliatives to the defects of the minority of the societies. Mr. Campbell, a Yorkshire delegate, moved "That in the opinion of this congress the long hours of labour, and the small remuneration given to employees in a large number of co-operative stores, are discreditable to the movement, and opposed to the principles and aims of co-operation; and that the Central Board be requested to take immediate action with a view to bringing the subject prominently before the different sections of the Union." This was carried unanimously; and a proposal, brought forward by Mr. R. H. Tutt, of Plymouth, that the paper should be referred to the sectional boards of the Co-operative Union, and that they should be asked to promote conferences between delegates from the officers, committees, and employees, was also carried.

One of the best speeches made during this debate was that of Miss Webb, one of the few co-operative employees present. Speaking from a work woman's standpoint, she reminded the delegates that it was useless to expect young shop-assistants to be so enamoured of co-operative ideas that they would willingly spend their leisure hours in discussing what was to them purely "shop ;" and she pointed out that, if instruction in co-operative principles were to be effectual, it must be given in business hours. Turning to another point, she reminded her hearers that co-operators were in many cases not above paying women less than men for equal work, and urged that this stain should be speedily removed.

So far the discussion had been carried on with something like unanimity; but this was not to last. Mr. G. J. Holyoake, one of the oldest champions of the co-partnership of labour, brought forward a resolution commending the Scottish Wholesale for their action in admitting their employees to a share in profits, and urging the English Wholesale to adopt a like course. Directly the motion had been seconded, the opponents of profit-sharing moved the previous question. This was put to the congress, and lost by a majority of something like three to two. The division was perhaps the most interesting that took place during the congress. Unfortunately the rapidity with which it was got through prevented any careful analysis of the voting;

it seemed, however, as though the profit-sharers were supported by the old school of Christian Socialists, led by Judge Hughes, and by the bulk of the younger and more enthusiastic delegates; while the opposite camp exhibited a rather curious alliance between the Manchester school and the Fabian socialists. Mr. Tom Mann left the hall before the division, but he was understood to side with the profit-sharers.

The previous question having been lost, the discussion on Mr. Holyoake's motion was continued. Mrs. Sidney Webb, better known as Miss Beatrice Potter, explained her opposition to the motion. Profit-sharing she regarded as a legacy from individualist ideas. Take a parallel case, that of schooling. There at one time the individual master made what profit he could out of his pupils. At the present time the tendency is for the individual to be superseded by a collective body, which pays the masters fixed salaries, and which, though it may raise their salaries or diminish their hours of work to any extent, would never think of inviting those masters to share directly in the profits accruing from the school. So, in like manner, their duty was to pay their employees as high, and work them as little as possible; but to share profits with them was to adopt an entirely wrong policy.

The anti-profit-sharers did not, however, feel themselves strong enough to attempt again to negative Mr. Holyoake's motion, and contented themselves with supporting an amendment, which, while it left the sense of the motion untouched, cut out the invidious comparisons between the Scottish and English Wholesales. The amendment ran― "That we reaffirm the principle of co-partnership of labour as an essential of industrial co-operation, and as the best mode to adopt to create a greater interest by the employees of the movement in its work and advancement; and that we hereby earnestly urge upon all federal bodies to adopt a measure that shall be generous towards their employees." This was carried by a large majority.

On the second day, Mr. Clay, chairman of the Gloucester Cooperative Society, was in the chair, and his introductory speech was largely devoted to a good-humoured bantering of the profit-sharing section. He had always, he said, been in favour of bonus-paying to labour, but he would give it weekly instead of quarterly or half-yearly, by giving the best wages that were paid in the trade, and by working the men shorter hours; by making the rooms clean and comfortable and having them well ventilated; by giving continuous work, and no short time with its corresponding short wages.

The rest of the day was occupied in discussing the Report of the Central Board. The chairman on the previous day had spoken of the

loss the country had sustained in Mr. Neale's death, and now Judge Hughes proposed a resolution expressive of this feeling. Men like Neale, he said, needed no material monument. It might be said of them what Pericles once said of the Athenian warriors, dvdpov èπɩḍavôv Tâσa y Tápos. Mr. J. T. W. Mitchell, as one who had been almost always opposed to Mr. Neale in policy, seconded the motion in a kindly speech. After this resolution, and another proposed by Mr. Holyoake of sympathy with Lord Derby's family, had been adopted in silence, the congress passed to practical business. Mr. E. T. Craig, now in his eighty-ninth year, the founder of "Ralahine," the first profit-sharing farming experiment in which the labourers had a share in the management, moved a resolution in favour of the application of co-operative principles to the cultivation of the soil, urging at the same time that definite schemes should be brought up for discussion at sectional conferences. This was adopted unanimously; but it cannot be denied that co-operative farming has been unsuccessful of late. This year, while a few societies were able to report that their farming transactions had been favourable, many others had to state losses, while some have even found themselves obliged to give up their farms on account of their inability to make them profitable.

Two interesting suggestions were made, which did not however lead to any definite resolution. One was that an effort should be made to get the principles of co-operation definitely taught in the elementary schools. The other was a proposal to enlarge the Co-operative News into a daily newspaper, which should contain as much news of public interest as the other great dailies, but which should endeavour to avoid that party spirit which makes many of our present newspapers so untrustworthy.

Towards the end of the sitting a resolution was moved by Mrs. Sidney Webb, endorsing the scheme drawn up by a joint committee of trade-unionists and co-operators, for marking with a trade-union label all goods made under fair conditions. This was seconded by Mr. Ben Jones, and was carried without opposition, though undoubtedly a number of the delegates were not inclined to think that the scheme would effect much. Another important measure, which was also carried unanimously, was the establishment of a joint committee, to consist of four representatives from the Trades Union Parliamentary Committee and four more from the Co-operative Union, to act as arbitrators in any dispute that may unfortunately arise between co-operative societies and their employees.

The third day was mainly devoted to two papers by Mr. C. J. Beckett, and Mr. R. H. Tutt. After the chairman for the day, 2 D

VOL. III.-No. 3.

Mr. W. H. Brown of Newport, had given a short introductory address, in which he urged upon the delegates the need of bringing co-operation into touch with the poorest classes, and spoke warmly of the admirable work being done by the Women's Co-operative Guild in that direction, he called on Mr. Beckett to read his paper on "Overlapping." This sounded dry and technical, but in Mr. Beckett's skilful hands it became really interesting. It was fatal to the success of the movement, he urged, that different co-operative stores and societies should be trying to cut out their brethren, and yet this was happening in many cases. The causes were numerous. Sometimes individual stores were originally planted too close to one another, and thus were obliged to bid for the same custom. At other times it was found that a large and successful store would wantonly go out of its way to catch trade and to cater for it; and an unhealthy rivalry was thus created between the big brother, who was well able to take care of himself, and that lesser one, who had quite as much as he could manage to fight the common foe.

The same undue rivalry existed, Mr. Beckett went on to urge, between wholesale and productive manufacturing societies. Retail stores found both competing for their custom. "In pops, for example, the boot and shoe traveller of the Wholesale society on this side of the Tweed; that he sings, as is his duty, to the praise of the Wheatsheaf brand, and in the major key, too, goes without saying. sooner has he taken his departure than the representative of another Leicester co-operative boot and shoe making establishment appears upon the scene; it is he who has got the genuine article, for are not co-operators told they should only wear boots and shoes of the Reliable Eagle brand?'"

But no

The four worst effects of overlapping were, according to Mr. Beckett

1. The weakening of the potency of the movement.

2. The encouragement of a desire for large dividends,—a desire which undermines the whole movement.

3. A general disregard of the duties which co-operators owe to one another.

4. The narrowing of the aims and the deadening of the sympathies of co-operators.

The discussion which followed was short, but thoroughly to the point. Mr. Blandford, of the Labour Association, pointed out that,, though overlapping in distribution could and should be put a stop to, in productive businesses the geographical nearness or distance of competing societies was a factor of comparatively small importance. Mr. Vivian, secretary of the same association, urged that the difficulty might be

met by the development of local specialities in each of the productive businesses; while some central body might advertise the products of the different societies upon equal terms. It may be mentioned, by the way, that this is one of the things which the Labour Association is actually doing. It was suggested during the discussion that the Co-operation Union should be empowered to expel any societies which remained proof against all schemes of frontier delimitation; but the congress, without definitely committing itself to this step, passed a general resolution instructing the Central Board to devise some means for putting a stop to the evil.

...

Mr. R. H. Tutt was then called upon for his paper on "The Position Co-operators ought to take with regard to the Social and Industrial Problems of the Present Time," of which perhaps the most interesting part was that in which he gave his view of the attitude which co-operation should adopt towards socialism. "In the abstract, the aims of co-operation and socialism are alike. . . . But as soon as co-operators and socialists set out on the journey which they must make to reach their goal, . . . the paths taken by co-operators and socialists begin to diverge. Co-operators, in their journey, have chosen the road which points to voluntary association and self-help. Cooperators aim not only at effecting a more equitable distribution of wealth, and in improving the conditions of life of working men, but also at making intelligent, methodic, liberal-minded, and independent men, who shall be capable of utilizing with wisdom the capital which is constantly accumulating under their care. Experience has taught them that it is by self-help and self-culture such men are made."

At the same time, socialists are to be regarded as valuable allies. "It is to socialism that modern thought is tending; it is socialism that is engaging the attention of the philosopher and philanthropist, the politician and the divine; encouragement should therefore be given to any means that may be offered for an interchange of opinions between co-operators and socialists."

A brief discussion followed the paper, and then, after the usual votes of thanks had been passed, including one to the Dean of Bristol for his sermon on behalf of co-operation, a very successful congress came to an end.

E. R. YOUNGHUSBAND.

THE INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL.-A "Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Industrial and Provident Societies," brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Mather, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Charles Fenwick,