class, would not be a desirable thing if it could be prevented it would scarcely be an argument for a total change in our industrial system, as desired by Cairnes, still less for the further social and political changes desired by advanced Socialists.

According to Comte also (writing in 1850) the tendency was to the greater concentration of capital in the hands of individual capitalists; he thought the tendency a good one; far from desiring to thwart it by human volitions, he affirmed that the tendency would necessarily and beneficially lead to a more pronounced Capitalism instead of to Socialism, and with the capitalists ruling in the political as well as the industrial sphere;-so differently did the philosophers forecast the future from the same assumed tendency.

Now if the tendency were really to the concentration of capital in ever fewer hands, with a mighty mass of ill-paid and discontented workers, and with no great middle class lying between, then indeed the transition to Socialism more or less complete would be much easier to accomplish, and in some shape it would probably come; at least it would be easier to expropriate a comparative few; it would be almost impossible to prevent it, the forces of might and justice added to envy being adverse, and with no mediating middle class. Both might and morality would be on the side of the labouring class, and the fall of such a plutocracy might be safely prophesied. But Marx happily was mistaken as to the tendency. The tendency is not to the greater and greater fortunes of individual capitalists. That tendency did however, exist during and for a certain time after the industrial

revolution, especially in England so long as she had a comparative monopoly of the continental as well as other foreign markets. And the tendency was so marked, it lasted so long, and some men became so rich, that Marx may be excused for generalizing too hastily from it, as undoubtedly he did. That tendency has now almost ceased in England, from increased competition, from the want of the old opportunities, from increased wages, from the spread of companies, and other causes; and though it did exist at the time Comte wrote, according to M. Leroy-Beaulieu it has ceased in France, the law moreover having there considerably assisted to check it by the equal partition of inheritances amongst the children.

The real tendency at present is to the greater massing together of separate portions of capital owned by many capitalists, small, great, and of moderate dimensions; to the concentration of capital certainly, but not to its concentration in single hands; to the union of capitals for a common purpose, while still separately owned. The tendency is to the creation of companies and unions of companies; to the transformation of the larger businesses into companies with larger capital, the original owner retaining a large portion of the shares, and possibly a large influence in the management, if the business is in a sound condition. The tendency is also to give business ability without capital chances of becoming rich through the management of such large concerns, and greatly to increase the number of directors of industry who, without being large capitalists, may in time become considerable capitalists.

II.

THE tendency to the concentration of capital, then, does exist as a fact, and Socialism might conceivably come as the end of the tendency; only it will not come as the result of its concentration in the hands of a few mammoth millionaires, for the tendency is not towards such in any country save the United States, and even there the tendency is not marked, or it only shows itself in comparatively few instances. It might conceivably come as the result of a universal syndicate and monopolistic régime, which, if the monopolists greatly abused their position, might necessitate the State either to regulate stringently or itself to occupy and undertake those industries whose abuses proved incorrigible. But if a partial Socialism came in this way, it would give the present system a much longer lease of life, both because the process of monopolistic occupation will probably be slow, and because the capitalists of a given country will not be, as Marx prognosticated, a small number, but hundreds of thousands, probably millions, who would oppose a very powerful resistance to State occupation of a given industry, unless where such occupation was manifestly beneficial for the great majority.

The great multitude interested, the great number of owners of capital, whether in large or small portions, including the more intelligent artisans, would certainly make it difficult or impossible to expropriate them, would indefinitely delay the process, and only those industries could be taken over by the State the

functions of which were discharged to the detriment of the community.

If indeed every province of production, distribution, and transport were occupied by syndicates and monopolies; if they abused the natural strength of the monopolist's position by raising prices to the utmost, and especially prices of the prime necessaries, while at the same time trying to reduce wages to the lowest point; if, in short, they were animated solely by egoism, and without conscience, or humanity, or public spirit, the public outside the industrial world, the large and intelligent middle class outside the industrial class, would probably side with the labouring class in pressing on the Government the suppression of the worst of them and the undertaking of their functions.

But, in the first place, the universal occupation of the industrial field by monopolies, and the extinction of competition, is very far off; in the second place, where any large combinations show too much corporate selfishness they can be pulled up by State supervision, and in certain cases great potential combinations can be nipped in the bud, their formation can be prevented by the State refusing permission to the companies to unite as "contrary to public policy" or to public interest; because a company is, in a certain sense, a creation of the State, as is likewise a Union, and neither should exist, or receive permission of the State to come into being, if deemed likely to prove inimical to the general weal, so that the State could always check early or altogether the formation of possibly objectionable unions. Where, as

in a case like that of railways, they were necessary, it would not be desirable to prevent their formation; they could always be checked if they abused their position, and conditions should always be attached to the concession of powers and privileges to them. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that the industrial field will ever be occupied by a few colossal and irresponsible syndicates, or that the State will be driven to substitute itself for them, save possibly in a very few

cases.

Lastly, the Syndicates would have to be devoid not only of conscience, humanity, public spirit, but also, what we can less easily suppose to be absent, common sense and prudence, if they tried to extort the highest prices in cases of necessaries supposed to be controlled by them, or, on the other hand, to reduce wages to the lowest point, on the ground that labourers had no alternative work; such would be dangerous policy for themselves, though no doubt there would be a temptation to it which might prove too great for some employers. Only in such a case of abuse would the State be called upon to interfere and either strictly regulate or itself undertake the function abused.

But the result of these several considerations is to put off universal Socialism indefinitely as a natural evolution, and points merely to the introduction of such partial applications of State Socialism as peremptory public exigence may require, in those cases where a social function could not be entrusted to private enterprise, whether monopolistic or competitive.