The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-09-07 00:00:00

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 187'2.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN THE

LAND.

The agitation which during the spring and
part of the summer characterised many agricul-
tural districts received on the whole a very fair
settlement, so far as any settlement was effected.
Here and there farmers came forward and readily
proposed to increase the wages of their men ; in
many more eases the organisation among the
agricultural labourers was so determined and
persistent that the employers felt that it was
their best policy to give way; and on the whole
the labourers have certainly gained the advant-
age. Whether they will be able to maintain this
advantage, whether in the trying time of winter,
when agricultural labour is more plentiful than
the demand for it, the farmers will insist on re-
ductions, remains to be seen. Lord Derby the
other day entered into the general subject of
wages and urged that there were many indica-
tions of a probable fall in their rate, and we be-
lieve that the noble lord—who appears never to
speak on a subject till he has well studied it—is
right. But without entering on the discussion
of this view of the relations between employers
and employed, let us turn to a most remarkable
statement, and a most liberal offer made by the
Right Hon. H. B. W. Brand, Speaker of the
House of Commons. Speaking to his farm lab-
ourers on the tilynde estate, Sussex, the right
hon. gentleman touched on the relations between
capital and labour. This part of his address
was probably understood clearly by very few who
heard it, but he soon made a proposal which all
could at once appreciate, and which in a moment
deeply inteiested his hearers. He says that if
any of his labourers will invest money with him
he will give them a minimum interest of 21 per
cent as is given in the savings banks, and he
will do more than this, as shall be stated in his
own words. He says, " I will, supposing the
profits of the farm amount to more than 24 per
cent. for the money I have invested, give you
rateably precisely the same interest upon the
capital you lend me. That is to say, supposing
I get 10 per cent. as profit on the capital I have
invested on the farm, you shall have 10 per cent.
on your .t. 5 instead of 21. So you see you will
be in this position, that you will never get less
than you receive at present, and if the farm re•
turns more you will have the benefit of it."
Now we hold that this spontaneous proposi-
tion is one of considerable importance. It may
be at once admitted that as a pecuniary arrange-
ment the savings of a few farm labourers who all
the year round only earn enough to live on and
have precious little to put by cannot be of much
importance to a landed proprietor, the heir to
the barony and estates of Deere, and the recipi-
ent of £5,000 a year as Speaker of the House
of Commons. But this is not the question. The
matter is of considerable importance to his lab-
ourers, some of whom Is save, but of special
moment as far as the principle is concerned.
Mr. Brand makes his labourers actually partners
in his business. They may, if they choose, en-
joy a limited partnership, just as capitalits en-
joy this, under the Limited Partnership Act, but
with this great difference—that whereas capital-
ists who invest money in a firm take the risk of
losses and share profit and loss alike pro ',obi
with the other partners, these labourers are sure
of 2f per cent. as a IllilliLLUM, even should there
be a balance of loss on the whole year, and
should be any surplus profits over this '2l, the
men share and share alike—pro pita or propor-
tionately with their master. The liberality of
this arrangement is beyond question, but, as we
have said the importance of the matter lies in
the admission of a principle. This principle is
not wholly good or evil, and while in some cases
, it might be advisable, in others it would be on
many grounds objectionable. Employers indeed
may well be on their guard against the develop-
, !tient of this principle of limited and one-sided
partnership. At prtscnt the system is, we be-
lieve, wholly, or almost wholly voluntary and
spontaneous on the part of those few firms that
have adopted it, but the system is very cuptivat.
ing with working men, and what is now granted
as a favour aud accepted as a boon may ere long
be demanded as a right. In a scathing exposure
of the revolutionary demands of the Interna-
tionalists, as given in the London City Press, we
notice that these gentry insist that there should
be " no more wages, hut participation of profits;
no more masters, but elected employers," and
we doubt not that these socialists and commu-
nists will rejoice at what Mr. Brand has pro-
posed, as it will be regarded as so far favouring
their views as to the ownership and cultivation
of the land. So far as this gentleman's conduct
is concerned, it is kind-hearted, liberal, and
beneficent, and could we be certain that similar
partnerships elsewhere would stop at this point
of proportionate interest on mere savings, it
would be well if the system were extended; but
we venture to think nevertheless that the prin-
ciple is it dangerous one, and we boldly assert
that the overwhelming majority of employers
I throughout the kingdom will think so too.