go THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—The Spectator has always
excelled in giving an accurate account of the principles of Co-operation. The article in your issue of May 26th was a luminous statement of the question before the Dewsbury Congress, and ends by asking for an interpretation of the decision arrived at. I write to give it.
Two sets of resolutions were brought forward. One, by the adversaries of profit-sharing with workmen, which, however, declared that labour should participate in profits "whenever they can be divided with equity;" but prescribed no conditions ensuring its being done.
The other set of resolutions declared in favour of profit- sharing with labour, and proposed that "productive works should be carried on by distinct registered Societies," which vest the management in the members, and prescribes the -" allotment of profits in transferable shares with a federal -anion of all productive Societies." These resolutions bore the names of the President, Mr. Vansittart Neale, and four ex-Presidents, Thomas Hughes, Lord Ripon, Sedley Taylor, and myself. It was evident, from the temper of the Congress, that this series of resolutions could be carried. As co-operators prefer to proceed by common consent, as most conducive to unity and good feeling, a substitute resolution was proposed by me, which affirmed the principle of "profit-sharing with labour, custom, and capital," and referred the question to the United Board in connection with the Wholesale Society, "to report to the next Congress the best plan for giving effect to the principles." This resolution had the advantage of being assented to by both sides, which would ensure it being carried out, as Congress has no execu- tive authority over the Wholesale Society, it being an inde- pendent association. Congress has only a moral authority in these cases. This resolution was carried with acclamation. Then a further motion was made enlarging the scope of my motion by recommending an alliance between all productive Societies, on the principle of "sharing profits and risks between the worker, the capitalist, and the consumer." This was put by the chair as an "amendment ;" but it might have been put as an instruction to the Executive charged with the duty of carrying out the preceding resolution. Mr. Swallow, who moved it, and his immediate supporters intended going farther than the motion carried. I voted for this instruction also, as did Mr. Greening, a strenuous advocate of profit-sharing, and nearly all those who had voted for the previous motion, so that it was carried by a larger number than before, the main resolution being supported by 160 votes, and this enlargement of its scope by 213, none, so far as I observed, voting against it. Thus, the unanimity of the Congress was expressed in favour of fully carrying out the principle for which Mr. Neale, Mr. Hughes, Lord Ripon, Mr. Greening, Mr. Taylor, and myself contended. This would have been done years ago had co-operators understood the case. I put it to the Congress this year as plainly as I could.
The co-operators cannot on their constitution retain the profits due to workmen in their own hands, if they wished it. A aingle capitalist might aggregate in his own hands the por- tion of profits due to a thousand workmen. The total would be desirable and respectable by its amount. But in co-opera- tion, all profit must be distributed. In 1886, the profits made in the wholesale workshops amounted to 29,500, about 29 10s. for each of the men employed in the workshops. Instead of giving it to the men who had earned it. they gave it to 970 stores. These stores dare not keep it, but gave it to 650,000 members, who received a farthing and a half each. Thus 650,000 co-operators, with honesty in their hearts and equity upon their tongues, were induced to deprive 996 workmen of 29 10s. each, for the pitiful bribe of one farthing and a half annually.
Co-operators have stopped this being done in their name, now they understand it. Co-operators who justify inter- cepting the profits of the shopkeeper because they give them to the purchasers, have no right to intercept the profits of employers and keep them themselves, instead of giving them to the workpeople. This has been the co-operative trouble for years. Now the Congress has decided against it decisively. —I am, Sir, &c., Eastern Lodge, Brighton. GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.
Previous page
