The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-13 00:00:00

TH E SUN, LONDON, MONDAY- MORNING, JUNE LT, 1 1-70..

ithas of the Duke of SALDANHA, this extraordinary
Portuguese method of summarily pulling down an
old, and summarily building up in its place, a new
Administration. "'Tis a pretty quarrel as it stands"
—this diplomatic estrangement between the powers
that be at Lisbon and at Florence. And all that can
be done, from our own comparatively humdrum and
certainly very common-place point of view, here,
where revolt is not chronic, where the QUEEN'S
palace is not periodically taken by storm, and where
Cabinets are not, month by month, carved out at the
point of the sword, is to be observantly on the alert,
just simply to see what comes of it.

WifrrsuN week was scarcely a week for crongresses.
The warm and brilliant weather conspired with the
festal character of the season to disperse people among
the woods and lanes of the country. It is therefore
net surprising that the attempt to bring them
together in the publio room of a large and smoky
city should have proved a failure. The co-operators
will do well to choose December instead of June for
their next gathering. However, if few persons were
present at Manchester to hear the speeches,
many have had an opportunity of reading what was
said and done. There were various new proposals.
One was the setting aside of a portion of the funds of
Co-operative. Societies for purposes of education—a
very laudable object no doubt—only one would sup-
pose that the class who are provident enough to invest
these savings in one of these societies, would be fully
alive to the value of education, and fully able to pay
the very small sum which is needed to secure ample
instruction for their children. Another proposal
was to establish a co-operative bank, a proposition
of so doubtful a character that it gave rise to many
hours' discussion. It is not easy to see what advan-
tage there is in this proposal. Co-operative funds
in England are doubtless large ; it was stated, for
instance, that they now amount to 21 millions ster-
ling. This, we presume, means the total capital,
much of which must necessarily be held in hand,
in order to conduct the business of the associations;
and as the profits are divided quickly, it is not
easy to see how there can be any large reserve
fund. Even if there were it is very questionable if
any advantage would be secured by entrusting the
money to a special banking organisation. A bank, in
order to earn a profit, must incur a certain amount
of risk in its investments, and there is no reason to
suppose that this would be less in a bank called co-
operative than in any other joint stock bank, which,
in so far as its shareholders share the profits, is also co-
operative.
Reference was made at the Congress to Partnerships
of Industry, and they were spoken of with a degree
of confidence that is scarcely justified by results. No
doubt there are two or three such undertakings
which have been largely successful, and which have
made highly profitable businesses out of those which
were scarcely paying their expenses. No doubt also
it is true that this success is due to the fact that
the employes have been induced to take a personal
interest in the prosperity of the concern. But
to effect this it was not necessary to make them
partners; it was sufficient only to give them an
interest in the production. If it be said that this is
a distinction without a difference, we reply that it is
very far from being so, for capital and labour are
gttamltigilv_ different things. Labour is paid
pelled to wait for its reward, may have to go with-
out any ; and, in consequence of the certain delay
and the possible loss, it looks for a higher return
when a return is made. Labour can not afford to
wait, capital can. That is the one vital dif-
ference between them. Of course, labour may invest
its spare savings in the business, but then in doing so,
labour to that extent becomes capital, and—this is
the point we wish to urge—labour will not do this
until -it is sure of a return. In
other words partnerships of industry are
well enough for an established business
a business which always shews a profit ; but it is not
applicable to a new business, or to one which is liable to
great fluctuations. Everyone who knows anything
about partnerships of industry must be well aware that
there is one such concern in England which having
for its object the manufacture of an article notoriously
uncertain in price, has incurred a loss, and that loss
has to be borne entirely by the capitalists, for the em-
ployes of course receive their wages. Supposing
that hereafter this concern should turn out profitably,
the employes will be entitled to their share of the
profits, although they have borne none of the loss.
Manifestly this is not a sound system, is not a part-
nership in any true sense of the word. It may be
philanthropy, it certainly is not business. Ordinary
commercial principles would imply at least that
capital should have its loss made good, with
interest before labour received any dividend.
Even then the two would not be on the same
footing, for capital would still run the risk of
getting nothing and losing everything, while labour
would have been always sure of a fair day's wages
for a fair day's work. In fact, we are almost ready
to endorse the words of M. PAUL LEVROY-BEAU-
LIEU in the Revue des Deux Mondes, "The system of
participation in profits conceived as a general means
of organising labour is not only a deceptive Utopia
but also a dangerous Utopia."
Far be it from us to condemn the attempts which
have been made to reconcile capital and labour. There
are many undertakings in which the co-operative
principle under some form is applicable. Working
men starting for themselves a business in which little
capital and much labour are required will be nearly
certain to succeed as the co-operative pianoforte
manufacturers and house-painters of Paris have suc-
ceeded. This is all the more likely to happen where
the profit depends to any considerable extent upon
the careful use of the materials intrusted to the
workmen—such as the paints of a house
painter, the coals of an iron foundry, the timber
and the tools used in a mine. Perhaps a
better system still is the system of pre-
given to workmen in proportion to the
amount of the work which they do. The fixed ex-
penses of a manufactory being the same whether
much or no work is turned out, it is clear that the
proprietor's profit increases very much more than
proportionally when the production surpasses
a certain amount, For this reason he
can afford to pay a good deal more than
the ordinary tariff for labour when that labour,
exceeds the ordinary quantity. If a workman gets
wages represented by tile figure 6 for eight hours'
work, an extra hour's work would be worth a good
deal more than an extra unit. 4t Creuzot, the
French establishment best known to all the world
there were in 1851. only 18,300 tons of iron pro-
duced. The system of prizes for extra hours was then
introduced, and the production rose rapidly, until in
seven years it was considerably more than
doubled. M. EUVERTE adopted the same system in the-
works of Terre-Noire, and in ton years the yield rose
from 13,000 to 34,000 tons. But then this system is
no partnership of industry in the strict sense of the
word. There is no combination between capital and
labour. Labour simply gets paid more for a certain
extra quantum of work because it is worth more.
But there is no sharing in either the losses or the
profits. Above all, there is no attempt on the part
of labour to interfere with the management of the
business. It is simply a case of progressive wages.

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

from weak-minded females who desire to assimilate
their condition to that of their strong-minded sisters,
the world would find out that there is a great deal of
ingratitude in the attacks made upon female re-
formerss.

GREEK BRIGANDAGE.

The editors of La Grece have written to the Times
in acknowledgment of the interest expressed by that
journal in the affairs of their country on the ques-
tion of brigandage. They believe that the real
cause of the perpetuation of brigandage in Greece is
the impunity that prevails under the system of the
Government. They subjoin an extract from their
journal which furnishes some particulars of the num-
ber of crimes lately committed in Greece, and the
corresponding list of punishments inflicted. It is
stated in this account that the band of brigands
lately exterminated in Naupactia by the incensed
inhabitants of the district, who were indignant at
the recent events, was composed exclusively of
brigands who upon previous 'occasions had fallen
within the power of the law. All of them had been
condemned to death upon the verdicts of j uries—
some had been condemned several times—and yet rot
one of them had suffered the penalty prescribed. The
Official Journal has lately given a nominal list of
brigands who have, been captured since the
accession of the Zaimis Ministry. The number
is about eighty-three. Every year the same number
of armed brigands are captured, but they are after-
wards permitted to escape, and of course they resume
their iniquitous profession. The most significant part
of the statement is the paragraph which shows that
the single band of Takos Arvanitakos previous to its
last bloodyexploit had murdered upwards of eighty
citizens, and no one spoke about it. The murder of
foreigners of the importance of the last victims led to
that retribution which the blood of eighty victims
failed to procure.