Englishmen who are not earls are often rich, Mr. Kebbel thinks that the present condition of the House of Commons illustrates the truth of Aristotle's words. He thinks it within the bounds of possibility that, in the course of a few years, the House of Commons may have so far forfeited the respect of the more educated and intellectual classes as to cause them either to stand aloof from public life altogether, or to cast in their lot with any party whose principles may seem best calculated to restore the dignity of government.' If neither of these things should happen, Mr. Kebbel thinks 'it is still possible that the nation at large may appeal to the Crown from the strife of parliamentary factions.' He gives it as his honest conviction that the House of Commons is on a downward course, on which it did not enter yesterday; and that, unless it succeeds ere long in regaining its former hold upon the confidence and respect of the people, the latter would look with indifference, if not with positive satisfaction, at the progress of personal rule.' What will actually occur he does not pretend to say. Perhaps none but men pledged to give a general support to the prerogative would be returned to Parliament.' 'Perhaps the length of the parliamentary session might be considerably abridged.'

To all this I have nothing to say except to express my wonder at the boldness and dexterity with which Mr. Kebbel uses his opportunities of defence as a means of propagandism. The confessions which flow from his pen do not amount to formal proof of the truth of all that I have maintained, but they are more than proof. They reveal in the minds of the men whose political sympathies Mr. Kebbel represents, and in the quarter to which his defence applies, a fund of hostility to parliamentary government which would suffice to defray any number of the small expenditures which I profess to have discovered. The most extravagant conjecture I hazarded was that the time might come when the Crown, brought by its growing prerogative into conflict with the House of Commons, might clear the benches, remove the mace, and send a proclamation to the newspapers.' But Mr. Kebbel, who says that my more extravagant statements confute themselves,' seems ready to endorse the one which I should have felt most difficulty in vindicating, for he imagines that if an Ultra-Radical faction should become predominant in the House of Commons, the Crown would know how to dispose of them in spite of the majority of the nation, without whose sanction they could not have got there. I also ventured to suggest that as personal rule advanced, Parliament might be relieved of most of its present functions, and that most of the business of legislation might be transferred to the Secretaries of State, acting as the immediate servants of the Crown. This seems to be the arrangement of which Mr. Kebbel would approve; for if the length of the parliamentary session is to be abridged, a great part of the work now done by

Parliament must be handed over to the Executive. In short, in his view the prerogative is, sooner or later, to supersede the legislature. Yet, while Mr. Kebbel fills the future with these horrible predictions, he professes to be unable, without superhuman aid, to discern the hostile deities in the act of destroying the Constitution.' Of course my opinions are more favourable than his to the faculty of second sight, and I think he underrates the significance of his own work if he refuses me leave to see in him one of those dira facies of the great gods behind the scenes which portend the ruin of Troy.

By what means the Crown is to play the formidable part allotted to it by Mr. Kebbel in the constitutional changes which 'a few years are likely to bring about he does not say. If it sets itself against the political decision of the majority of the nation as affirmed by the constituencies, the army would seem to be its only resource. A few regiments distributed among the principal towns, and the household troops barracked round Westminster, would no doubt prove a powerful sedative to agitation; and an interval would thus be secured during which the Conservative forces' might rally round the saviour of society. Other force than the army in a contest with the Parliament and the majority of the nation the Crown has none, and it is possibly by a wise prevision that so much care has been taken to isolate the command of the army as much as possible from the authority of the House of Commons. We begin to discern a method in all this madness, and, could it ripen into action, there can be no doubt of the certain result. It would end in civil war as the only alternative of absolute power. The civilian cannot cope with the soldier. A few rifled cannon would for a time be an unanswerable argument in any of our large towns. But, unless the history of our country is to belie itself, the triumph could not be of long duration. England could not live under such a régime. The reviving spirit of freedom would turn the very stones in the streets into armed men; and the Crown, which had been thrust by unwise advisers into the front of the conflict, would fall. Such, in my honest conviction, is the catastrophe which men like Mr. Kebbel, and those in whose behalf he speaks, are doing all they can to pre-arrange; and it is because my loyalty is of a truer stamp than theirs that I have raised my humble protest against disguised incendiaries and their programme of discord and revolution.

HENRY DUNCKLEY.

Jinima

CO-OPERATIVE STORES: A REPLY

TO THE SHOPKEEPERS.

A CONTROVERSY is going on which commands keen public interest, as evidenced by the voluminous correspondence in the daily papers, between the foes and the advocates of co-operative societies. The former, of course, are the shopkeepers, who have had a great meeting at the Office of the District Board of Works at Westminster, though why that should have been placed at their disposal is not apparent nor quite consistent with their complaint of civil servants possibly working during office hours for their co-operative societies. Those societies, when they require to hold a meeting, have to pay for the use of a

room.

As an outcome of this controversy, there has been an almost overwhelming number of new applicants for admission to the stores, and fresh co-operative companies are starting up in all directions.

The complaints against them, and the replies, may be briefly recapitulated as follows:

མཐཱ ། ། ' ? It has been urged and prominently brought forward over and over again that these societies are exempt from stamp duty and income tax. So far as the leading society-the Army and Navy-is concerned, this is not the fact, as it pays both, and, having no interest in doing otherwise, it pays to the uttermost farthing. The Civil Service Supply Association, being registered under the Provident and Industrial Act, although subject to stamp duty, does not, in common with other societies similarly registered, pay income tax; all the rest, being registered under the Companies Acts, pay both.

It is said that distress is caused to the people heretofore employed by the tradesmen. To this the reply is that at all events one society employs over sixteen hundred servants on terms probably more advantageous than under their old employers. Thus labour is simply diverted from one channel into another. The unfair prestige which is given by the titles Civil Service' and 'Army and Navy' is the latest grievance; but abolish them, and the results, so long as business is conducted on the same principles, will remain the same.

The enormous profits are spoken of; but, taking again the largest society, it is found that it pays only 5 per cent. dividend to its

shareholders, and goes on constantly reducing prices. A threat is held out not to vote for members of Parliament who are not hostile to co-operation; the counter-move is a suggestion from an officer at Stoke not to vote for members who are hostile, and it need scarcely be pointed out that the co-operators or consumers form the great majority, and would be therefore likely to have the best of it.

The tradesmen represent themselves as being the great taxpayers of the country. They have, no doubt, paid taxes in proportion to their numbers and the extent of their trade, but that has been from the profits derived from their customers, who now pay their quota through the stores. Here, again, it is lost sight of that it is not the tradesmen who are the taxpayers, but the purchasers who form the great majority as compared with the tradesmen.

The final and the most important plea is the serious injury that is being done to the tradesmen themselves. This is a matter which deserves the fullest sympathy and the most grave consideration. Sorry as all must be, there is no doubt about it that the shopkeepers must suffer from the process, which will gradually lead to their almost total extinction; and how to alleviate that suffering is the point to which public attention should be directed. To attempt to do so by the abolition of co-operative stores would be futile, as they have taken too deep a root. As well might we demand the extinction of railways and the restoration of the old stage coaches. Progress cannot be impeded. Should the electric light prove a success, no consideration for the losses of the gas companies will prevent its adoption.

But there is one more point, and a vital one-how far has the system of multiplying middlemen and their profits contributed to the prevailing stagnation of trade and the almost universal distress? It is admitted on all sides that the continuous workmen's strikes have driven trade out of the country, as we could no longer compete with foreign labour. Why has this been so? We remember that some thirty or thirty-five years ago artisans' wages were very much lower than they are now, and that young men could marry on much smaller incomes; but why? It was simply because the cost of living was so much cheaper, and that since then the necessaries of life have gradually but largely increased in price. The causes which have led to that increase are matters to be inquired into, and whether the cost of distribution has not been excessive owing to the large profits of dealers, agents, and shopkeepers. The first and natural effect of higher prices on the labouring classes is to induce a strike for more wages to enable them to live. This leads to increased cost of their productions, and these causes acting and reacting upon each other, finally, through strike upon strike, raise the cost of English manufactures to so high a figure that they can no longer compete with the foreign markets.

Trade, therefore, deserts the country, and there is an universal cry

of distress. The only remedy appears to be to reduce the cost of the necessaries of life, so as to enable the workman to correspondingly reduce his wage and thus to attract trade back again. The remedy sought by workmen in strikes is not open to men with definite fixed incomes, such as officers in the Army and Navy and Civil servants, and they, therefore, naturally struggle at the opposite side. As they cannot increase their means to keep pace with increased prices, they not unreasonably try to reduce those prices, and this is what they are now engaged in doing-with what effect remains to be seen, but that it must be to the benefit of all, except, in a measure, the middlemen and tradesmen, there can be but little doubt.

So far the result has been a great reduction, not only at the stores, but in the shops, and thus the general public participate in the advantage, including the shopkeepers themselves for goods they do not deal in; but nevertheless for many things the poor man pays more than the comparatively rich. For instance, for his peck of coal, his pound or two of potatoes, or his bit of inferior bacon, he has to give higher rates than members of the stores. Finally, co-operative societies, by bringing manufacturers and producers face to face with the consumers-saving large intermediate profits, often the result of speculation-are pioneering the way to a new era of moderate prices for the necessaries of life, which will naturally lead to returning trade and to a consequent revival of prosperity.

The complaints of the shopkeepers are those which have been principally dealt with, but in the controversy they have not escaped from counter-charges more serious than those of high prices, which are attempted to be excused on the plea of the credit system and bad debts necessitating a sufficient margin to provide against loss. Adulteration and short weight are denied; but though the denial may be and no doubt is true of many, the fact cannot be overlooked that they were prevalent to so great an extent as to provoke recent legislative enactments for their discontinuance under pains and penalties. And then again there is the charge of giving commission or fees to servants who have the checking of the goods supplied, and of the charges made for them-what this may lead to can be easily understood. And this system is one of the difficulties which have been experienced by the stores, whose goods, in the absence of douceurs, are not in favour where it has prevailed until the heads of the establishment have satisfied themselves as to the cause. Mere Christmas presents are not here referred to, but even these are excluded by dealing on the co-operative plan, and many employers consequently compensate their servants by a liberal gift at Christmas time, and find it to their interest to do so.

The only remedy proposed to meet the co-operative movement is reduced prices with cash payments and no credit; but this, it is feared, is too late. The stores have gained the confidence of the public, and