The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-06-11 00:00:00

LORD DERBY ON CO-OPERATION.

The 13th annual congress of delegates from co-operative
societies in Great Britain and Ireland held its first sitting on
Monday in the Albert-hall, Leeds. The subjects set down
for discussion during a three days' session are (1) organiza-
tion and education, (2) the surplus funds of co-operative
societies, (3) the fundamental principles of co-operation,
(4) co-operative production, . (5) the land question
in connexion with co-operation, () the necessity of a
manual on auditing, and (7) reform in the constitution and
representative character of the Central Board. The num-
ber of delegates present was 178, exclusive of 45 members
of the Central Board. The hall, which has sitting accomoda-
tion for about 1,000 persons was filled. Among those on the
platform were the Earl of Derby, who delivered the
inaugural address, Lord Houghton, the Hon. R. O. A. Milnes,
Mr. Barran, M.P., Mr. Tathain (Mayor of Leeds), Mr. Alder-
man Carter, Mr. T. Hughes, Dr. Gott, vicar of Leeds; Mr.
Lloyd Jones, Mr. Hodgson Pratt, the Rev. Mr. Hargrove,
Mr. Bell, president of the Leeds Co-operative Society;
Mr. Holyoake, Mr. E. 0. greening, and Mr. T. W. Reid.

Lord Derby on entering the hall, was received with loud
and enthusiastic cheering, which was renewed again and
again when he rose to deliver his address. Alter some pre-
liminary observations, his lordship proceeded to say :
Voluntary associations on a large scale, asking no
help from the State, but only freedom and not inter-
ference, are a marked and peculiar characteristic of
the age; and it is to my mind not the least of the
many merits of the co-operative movement that it is
kept strictly within the limits of that principle. It
does not clamour for public money ; it does not ask
that its opponents shall be put down by law; it does
not override free contract or meddle with individual
liberties. Even those who oppose it most strongly,
and whose personal interests suffer by its extension,
do not venture to contend that the supporters of the
new principle are not clearly within their rights. Icon-
fees that personally I have a great distrust of the philan-
thropist who says—and a good many are saying it in
various forms— If you agree with me that so and so
is right, do help me to force everybody to do it." We
are not free, depend upon it, from danger on that
side ; and Mr. Mill's book on liberty—one of the
wisest books, as I think of our times—is quite as much
needed now as when it was written—perhaps rather
more. Well, then, starting from this point, that co-
operation is an essentially voluntary movement, let
us see what we expect it to do for us, and what
reasons we can give for our belief. In the first place,
I assume as a thing needing no proof that co-operative
industry sets its face against all shams, all dishonest
work, all making of an article to look like some-
thing which it is not (a laugh), all the tricks and
dodges by which the ingenious seller is in the habit of
tempting the ignorant buyer. (Laughter.) And in
putting forward that claim on its behalf I am not ad-
vancing any claim on the part of the co-operators to
special virtue. I should have no great faith in the
permanence and extension of a movement which re-
quired on the part of its promoters a standard of
morality and character considerably higher than that
which generally prevails. To frame a society perfectly
unselfish, in which a man should consider his neigh-
bour's interest as he does his own, is a pleasant dream.
(Laughter.) Under the stimulus of religious enthusiasm
it seems to be sometimes realised on a small scale and
for a limited time ; but, so far as the world has gone
yet, experience has not been favourable to such at-
tempts. Well, then, you ask why do I say that co-opera-
tive work is pretty sure to be honest work. For this
reason, that under the system you have adopted, you
put duty and interest on the same side, or, at any
rate, you do not put them in opposition to each other.
(Cheers.) The object, as I understand it, where dis-
tribution is concerned, is to make the interest of the
buyer and the seller identical; in fact, they are the
same people. You get rid of the otherwise inevitable
antagonism. Whether nominal profits are large or
small, whether prices are high or low, is a matter of
no moment where the money only comes out of one
pocket to go into the other. (Laughter.) Nobody
wants to cheat himself, and the temptation to dis-
honest practices is withdrawn. They die out as the
'habit of smuggling disappears with free trade—(hear,
hear)—or as drunkenness disappears when liquor cannot
be got at—(laughter)—and in this way, without fuss
or parade or pretensions to superior virtue, you put
an end, so far as you are concerned, to a class of
evils against which moralists have been preaching from
the earliest days of civilization with about the
measure of success which preaching usually accom-
plishes. (Laughter.) All that is necessary to add on
this head is that the good you do is not limited to your
own members. You set an example which the outside
public in its own interest will take care is not lost.
Where stores have led the way shops must follow. In
the next place I suppose we may take for granted that
where co-operation comes in the system of dealing on
credit dies out, and I think it is hardly possible to
overrate the economical and social gain by that result
alone. (Hear, hear.) Debt is the universal plague of
this country. The State is in debt as we know, to
the tune of about nine years of its income. The
great towns have started later in the race, but I am
bound to say they ace making up for lost time and
borrowing largely—l will not say recklessly.

-
After briefly alluding to the credit system in trade,
his lordship proceeded—Now, I do not enter into the
difficult question of how far and under what circum-
stances business may fairly be done on the basis of
credit instead of cash, but I contend that in the ordi-
nary affairs of life the very best service which could
be rendered to any man would be to make it impos-
sible for him to buy anything, necessaries excepted,
until he had got the money in hand to pay for it—
(cheers)—and this is practically the result which would
ensue in every community exclusively supplied on
co-operative principles. The first point of your
charter is, I take it, "No adulteration ; " the second,
"No running into debt." These two objects may,
I suppose, be attained, and, in fact, are attained, by
many associations which have not accepted the
peculiar features of the co-operative system. (Cheers.)
Any association may set up a joint-stock company for
the purpose of supplying themselves, and run it on
the principle of paying ready money, and yet not be
co-operators at all as we read the meaning of the word.
What I understand to be your distinctive principle is
this that the worker should be paid according to the
results of the work; that he should be wholly or in
part his own employer. Now, what an outsider or
casual inquirer would naturally ask about that princi-
ple is, how does it act as regards quantity and quality
of industrial productions? How does it affect the
happiness and comfort of those who adopt it? And
how does it bear on the relations between labour and
capital? These three, I think, are the main heads of
our inquiry. As to the first, it must strike any im-
partial observer that more work is likely to be done,
and that it is likely to be better done, on the co-
operative system than on that of ordinary wages, and
for a very simple reason. In the former case every man
is working for himself—for others also, no doubt,
but among others for himself; in the latter caae he
is working for an employer, with whose interest he
cannot be expected to identify himself very warmly.
It is only human nature that his zeal should be stimu-
lated by knowing that he personally is to reap what
he sows; whereas the man employed by the day or
hour can scarcely be expected to care to do more than
is required to secure himself from dismissal.
(Laughter.) But that is not all. In co operative in-
dustry the master's eye is everywhere. I have heard
it affirmed, whether truly or not I cannot judge, that
in occupations wife's, men are hired by the day,
it is an unpopular thing for any one to do more
than his mates (laughter), and that the exhibi-
tion of more than ordinary industry and skill is
likely to be resented rather than imitated and
admired. But introduce co-operation, and every
working man is an employer and an overlooker too.
The master's eye is literally everywhere. Slow work or
scamped work means so much less return to the asso-
ciated body, and those who are working together have
the strongest possible interest, not only in doing
their own appointed task, but in seeing that every-
body else does his. (Cheers.) Then as to the effect
on the workman himself. It is a commonplace
to say that labour in which we take a keen interest
almost ceases to be labour at all, and that a very light
task performed on compulsion and as mere drudgery is
felt to be heavy. (Cheers.) And if at the same time
the worker knows that in every stroke of work he is
helping his own comrades, not pulling against them;
that the more he does the more he earns
their goodwill, and not their envy or jealousy; and if,
further, he has reason to suppose that in however
subordinate a capacity he is helping on a movement
which is for the permanent benefit of his country, he
has motives to impel and feelings to encourage him
which the ordinary labourer has not, and which may
very well carry him over difficulties and discomforts,
such as are incidents to every form of employment.
(Cheers.) It is sometimes objected, " Division of pro-
fits is very well where there are profits to divide; but
how if there are no profits, only losses?" Well, to that
I answer, "Supposing a private business, be it a mill or
a shop or anything else, collapses in consequence of bad
times, is the man who works in it for wages free from
the results of failure?" No; he loses his employment,
and in a dull state of trade he may not, possibly, find
another. The utmost that he gains is that his wages
may be kept on a little longer while the employer is
slowly consuming his capital ; and if a co-operative
undertaking, no matter what, be worked with skill
and care, it ought to be able to command as much
capital to meet a temporary emergency as a similar
undertaking in private hands. (Cheers.) My third
point is that of all the ten thousand schemes hitherto
proposed—and there is a new one about every six
weeks (laughter)—for closing the long-standing differ-
ences between labour and capital, co-operation is
that which promises the largest results with the
fewest drawbacks. (Cheers.) 1 will not occupy time
by speaking of what we all know; the waste of
capital and the waste of labour (which is the same
thing). the ill-feeling, the bitterness which. trade dis-
putes carry with them. In such disputes we feel that
the result is lamentable, yet we hardly know whom
to blame. Is the capitalist wrong in refusing to pay
higher wages than the market price? Certainly not.
He is not bound to do it, and if he did, his neighbour
who has fewer benevolent impulses or scruples would
undei sell him. Is the working man wrong in trying
to get the best price he can for his labour and in com-
bining with others for the purpose? Certainly not.
It is both his natural and his legal right. Yet, both
being in the right, millions of money are squandered,
social feuds are created, sometimes riot and disturb-
ance follow. Where there is on both sides a wish to
discover reasonable terms of peace the intervention of
an impartial third party who shall hear both sides and
decide is often effectual in bringing about an understand-
ing. But arbitration is not always an applicable remedy;
in fact, it is a remedy which can only be applied when
disease is on a fair way to be cured. (Cheers.) Two
parties to a dispute who both agree to refer it to an
umpire are already half-way to an understanding; but
when each is convinced of being in the right and
quite convinced that the other is unreasonable, what
chance is there of their consenting to refer the
matter? And let me add that in laboursquestions, as
far as my own experience goes, arbitration is never a
wholly satisfactory process. I have sat more than
once as umpire, and never without a feeling that I
was asked to pronounce a judicial decision in a
matter in which really there is no law to appeal to.
There is usually not much doubt as to the facts. The
question whether or not such and such a payment for
labour is a fair one is in its nature insoluble. You
cannot untie the knot; you have to cut it, and when
it is cut, when the strike is over and work begins
Again, though the dispute is settled for a moment, the
cause of it remains, the dormant antagonism of inte-
rests is not removed. You co-operators meet the diffi-
culty, or rather you turn it. You say, "There shall be no
conflicts of interests where we are concifned, for two
, partt/Vs shill be filenttoal ; the employer shall be also