Trades-Unions too have done much to sever what was left of the old ties.Workmen are now obliged,in self-defence,to act in bodies.In every workshop there are men who are attached to their masters,and who on occasion of a strike do not care to come out,but are yet compelled to do so in the common interest.Before this obligation was recognised by public opinion,the effect of Unions was,no doubt,to embitter the relations between masters and men.This was especially the case between 1840 and 1860.
Since the latter date,however,Trades-Unions have distinctly improved the relations between the two classes.Employers are beginning to recognise the necessity of them,and the advantages of being able to treat with a whole body of workmen through their most intelligent members.Boards of Conciliation,in which workmen and employers sit side by side,would be impossible without Unions to enforce obedience to their decisions.In the north of England,at the present moment,it is the non-unionists who are rejecting arbitration.And the reason why such Boards have succeeded is,because the employers have of their own accord abandoned all ideas of the feudal relation.They used to say that it would degrade them to sit at the same board with their workmen;but it is noticeable that directly the political independence of the latter was recognised,as soon as he possessed the franchise,these objections began to disappear.The new union of employers and workmen which is springing up in this way,is based on the independence of both as citizens of a free state.The employers meet their workmen also in political committees,on School Boards and similar bodies,and the two classes are learning to respect one another.Thus this new union bids fair to be stronger than the old one.
Still the question remains,Can this political independence of the workman be combined with secure material independence?
Until this is done he will be always at the mercy of his employer,who may practically stultify his political power by influencing his vote,as Mr George asserts is done in New England.Among the many solutions of this problem proposed in our own country two deserve especial prominence.The first is that of the English Positivists.Comte,although he had but a glimpse of the English Trades-Unions,understood the meaning of them far better than Mill.Inspired by him,Mr Frederic Harrison and his friends deny the possibility of solving the labour question by co-operative production or any such schemes.They rely on a gradual change in the moral nature of capitalists;not that they expect the old system of feudal protection to return,but they hope that the 'captains of industry'of the future will rise to another conception of their position,will recognise the independence of the workman,and at the same time be willing to hand over to him an increased share of their joint produce.This belief may seem ridiculous,and we must expect for a long time yet to see capitalists still striving to obtain the highest possible profits.But observe,that the passion for wealth is certainly in some senses new.It grew up very rapidly at the beginning of the present century;it was not so strong in the last century,when men were much more content to lead a quiet easy life of leisure.The change has really influenced the relations between men;but in the future it is quite possible that the scramble for wealth may grow less intense,and a change in the opposite direction take place.The Comtists are right when they say that men's moral ideas are not fixed.The attitude of public opinion towards slavery was completely changed in twenty or thirty years.Still I am obliged to believe that such a moral revolution as the Comtists hope for is not possible within a reasonable space of time.
