LORD RIPON ON CO-OPERATION.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1368, 4 July 1878, Page 3

LORD RIPON ON CO-OPERATION.

The tenth annual congress of delegates of co-operative societies commenced at Manchester on April 10th, in the Co-operative Hall, Downing street. Lord Ripon presided. Lord Ripon delivered the inaugural address, the first part of which reviewed the progress and present position of co-operative associations. He read the statistics of the movement as they were obtainable for 1875. Looking to the fact that those figures were three years old, there must be now over 500,000 {persons who were members of cooperative societies, with a share capital of over £5,000,000, and doing a business which he imagined could not be estimated at less than a receipt of £20,000,000 a year for goods sold, A quarter of a century had covered the country with co-operative stores ; it might bo destined that the next quarter should in like manner greatly increase the number of productive associations, and that could best be done by following in the same course which has led to success in the case of the stores—by cautious progress, by an adherence to principle. The task appeared to be difficult. The small success which had hitherto been made showed that it was so. Tho noble lord went on to refer to the proposal to apply co-operation to agriculture, an experiment in which he expected much difficulty ; but supposing it to proceed on a sound basis it would deserve success. He doubted the propriety of a method ho had seen suggested, that the land to be hired or purchased should be divided into small Hold - ings. Greatly as he desired the existence of what his friend (Mr Thornton), in an interesting book, had called peasant proprietors, it seemed very doubtful whether the legislation commonly thought likely to promote that result, and which on other grounds might merit support, would really have the effect of bringing small properties into the hands of a numerous class. Concentration in agriculture and other industry was a system not purely good, it had countervailing evils ; still, it was tho tendency of the times, and no just legislation —that was to say, no permissive legislation —would overcome it. Tho advantages of small properties would not attach to small holdings or occupations, and though there might be some sort of co-operation between these small farmers in tho case that appeared to be in contemplation, yet he believed a scheme of that kind would try the experiment of agricultural co-operation on most-unfavorable terms, and would afford the advantages neither of small properties nor of cultivation on a large scale. Among the questions then occupying the attention of friends of cooperation was that of whether in all cooperative institutions some share of tho profits should not be given to all who wore

employed, and he expressed surprise that any doubt on the subject should exist. He always supposed that the close and intimate union of capital and Labour and sharing of the profits of the joint undertaking between them was the essence of co-operation, and that bodies which did not follow this rule were simply joint-stock companies. Turning to another point, there was an apparent danger of overcentralisation besetting this movement. Centralisation prevented that active variety and spontaneous life which was the essence of all true freedom and natural development. The argument applied more to political centralisation than to such as could exist in a movement like that; but even there the evil of over-centralisation was great. The co-opera-tive movement, while resting on certain large and fertile principles, should be free to develope itself in every direction, to try all kinds of experiments, to have the benefit of varied experience, and thus gradually assume, as time went on, in its various branches the forms most suited to the circumstances of our country and our times. The despotic instinct was strong in all men, and in none often stronger than in those who were firmly convinced that they had got possession of a useful idea or an admirable scheme. There was no likelihood of the co-operative system superseding cither joint-stock associations or the employment of workpeople by a capitalist. There was another form of combination called the industrial partnership, in which a share of the profits was allotted to labor, and it had been objected to because it was said the element of benevolence entered into it; but with every desire to see workpeople in the position of making free and equal contracts with their employers, he did not wish to banish mutual benevolence from their relations or to make the trade contract between them their sole bond of union. If ho might say it without offence, there was a great deal of cant in this denunciation of benevolence. The thing needful was, not to put an end to mutual goodwill, regard, and affection between those engaged in a common industrial undertaking, but to encourage, develope, and strengthen those feelings, and it was because he believed co-operation tended to do that that he took part in the present meeting. He should, therefore, desire the extension of industrial partnerships, but he feared that, on the whole, experience had not been as favorable to their practical possibility as he once ventured to hope. He did not doubt that there were many difficulties in the way of their eetabli-hment, or that they were altogether inapplicable to some kinds of undertakings ; but he believed them to be an important development of the co-operative principle. Joint-stock companies were in some cases indispensable, as in that of railways, and he rejoiced to see the working classes taking shares In associations of limited liability. They resembled co-operative associations in the combination of numerous small capitals, but they made no attempt to bring capital and labor into those closer ties which are the distinctive feature of co-operative institutions. Looked at from the point of view of the general public interest, what an advantage it must be that the working classes should have brought within their reach the industrial education which must result from taking an active part in the management of and possessing a direct share in associations, whether for distribution or production! How much more truly would they understand and appreciate the necessary conditions of industrial success, the teachings of economic science, and the real possibilities of trade! He would not enter on such an occasion into the fiercely contested question of the good or harm of trade unions, and ho hoped that no remark of his would be supposed to have an application to the labour disputes in Lancashire, the rights and wrongs of which he bad no means of judging. But it would not bo denied that trade unions are essentially organisations for combat. Strikes and lock-outs, he said, are acts of industrial warfare, and those who engage in them, employers or emploved, incur a very grave responsibility, just as a Government incurs a very grave responsibility which engages in war. He was not one of those who thought that a Government ought never to go to war. On the contrary, occasions might arise from time to time when it was their clear duty boldly to take this great responsibility. But it seemed to him, and the thought was brought home now with terrible reality when peace and war might be trembling in the balance, that the burden of proof always lay, and ought to lie, on those who involved their country in war. They might remember that when a Queen’s ship is lost, under any circumstances whatever, the captain is always put on his trial that he may show it was not his fault that the vessel was lost; and that was the principle that he desired to see applied to a Government that involved their country in war, for an unjust or unnecessary war—a war to which no duty calls us, or which is not demanded by the clear vital interests of the country is the greatest of political crimes. So it was, he said, in its degree, with industrial conflicts. He did not think that strikes were never justifiable, but that the burden of proving their necessity pressed heavily on those who engaged in them. As to arbitrations in labor disputes, he was not in the least inclined to join in their disparagement. It could not be denied that these arbitrations contemplate capital and labor as two opposing, if no longer hostile, forces, and they did little to unite them on the basis of common interest. But, on the other hand, the underlying tendency of the co-operative movement, that which formed the essence of its life and constitution and the secret of its progress, was its tendency to unite the opposing armies. So it was not so much what was past, as what it was capable of in the future, that formed its claim to support. Co-operation was no panacea ; ho believed in none, and co-operation would not make men moral, though it gave opportunities of moral training, but he did say that co-operation tended to bind men together, and give them common instead of conflicting interests. The noble lord was much cheered on concluding his address, and received a vote of thanks on the motion of Mr T. Hughes, supported by Mr Holyoake and others.