Thisistrue，butIbelievethatnopersoneversucceededinreconcilinghimselftotheconviction，withoutdoingconsiderableviolencetowhatiscalledtheinstinctivesentimentofjustice。Itisnotatallconformabletointuitivemoralitythatawrongshouldceasetobeawrongbecauseofwhatisreallyanaggravation，itsdurablecharacter;thatbecausecrimehasbeensuccessfulforacertainlimitedperiod，societyforitsownconvenienceshouldguaranteeitssuccessforalltimetocome。Accordingly，thosewhoconstructtheirsystemsofsocietyuponthenaturalrightsofman，usuallyaddtothewordnaturalthewordimprescriptible，andstrenuouslymaintainthatitisimpossibletoacquireafee—simpleinaninjustice。
　　Yetonemoreexample，toshowtheeasewithwhichconclusionsthatseemtofollowabsolutelyfromanaprioritheoryofjusticecanbedefeatedbyotherdeductionsfromthesamepremises。Accordingtotheauthor，howeverinadequatetheremunerationoflabourmaybe，thelabourerhasnogrievanceagainstsociety，becausesocietyisnotthecauseoftheinsufficiency，nordidsocietyeverbargainwithhim，orbinditselftohimbyanyengagement，guaranteeingaparticularamountof’remuneration。And，thisgranted，theauthorassumes（atp。394andelsewhere）asalogicalconsequence，thatproprietorsmustnotbeinterferedwith，outofregardtotheinterestsoflabour，intheperfectlyfreeuseoftheirpropertyconformablytotheirowninclination。Now，ifthispointwerebeingarguedasapracticalquestion，onutilitariangrounds，thereprobablywouldbelittledifferencebetweenMr。Thornton’sconclusionsandmyown。Ishouldstandupforthefreedisposalofpropertyasstrongly，andmostlikelywithonlythesamelimitations，ashewould。Butwearenowonaprioriground，andwhilethatisthecase，Imustinsistuponhavingtheconsequencesofprinciplescarriedouttothefull。Whatmattersitthat，accordingtotheauthor’stheory，theemployerdoesnowronginmakingtheusehedoesofhiscapital，ifthesametheorywouldjustifytheemployedincompellinghimbylawtomakeadifferentuseifthelabourerswouldinnowayinfringethedefinitionofjusticebytakingthematterintotheirownhands，andestablishingbylawanymodificationoftherightsofpropertywhichintheiropinionwouldincreasetheremunerationoftheirlabour？And，ontheauthor’sprinciples，thisrightcannotbedeniedthem。Theexistingsocialarrangements，andlawitself，existinvirtuenotonlyoftheforbearance，butoftheactivesupportofthelabouringclasses。Theycouldeffectthemostfundamentalchangesinthewholeorderofsocietybysimplywithholdingtheirconcurrence。
　　Supposethatthey，whobeingthenumericalmajoritycannotbecontrolledexceptbytheirowntacitconsent，shouldcometotheconclusion（forexample）
　　thatitisnotessentialtothebenefitsoftheinstitutionofpropertythatwealthshouldbeallowedtoaccumulateinlargemasses;andshouldconsequentlyresolvetodenylegalprotectiontoallpropertiesexceedingacertainamount。Therearethestrongestutilitarianreasonsagainsttheirdoingthis;butontheauthor’sprinciples，theyhavearighttodoit。
　　Bythismereabstinencefromdoingwhattheyhaveneverpromisednorinanywayboundthemselvestodo，theycouldextorttheconsentoftherichtoanymodificationofproprietaryrightswhichtheymightconsidertobefortheiradvantage。Theymightbindtherichtotakethewholeburdenoftaxationuponthemselves。Theymightbindthemtogiveemployment，atliberalwages，toanumberoflabourersinadirectratiototheamountoftheirincomes。Theymightenforceonthematotalabolitionofinheritanceandbequest。Allthiswouldbeaverywronguseoftheirpowerofwithholdingprotection;butonlybecausetheconditionsimposedwouldbeinjurious，insteadofbeneficial，tothepublicweal。NordoIseewhatarguments，exceptutilitarianones，areopentotheauthorforcondemningthem。Eventhemanifestobligationofmakingthechangeswiththeleastpossibledetrimenttotheinterestsandfeelingsoftheexistinggenerationofproprietors，itwouldbeextremelydifficulttodeducefromtheauthor’spremises，withoutcallinginothermaximsofjusticethanhistheoryrecognises。
　　Itisalmostneedlessformetorepeatthatthesethingsaresaid，notwithaviewtodrawanypracticalconclusionsrespectingtherightsoflabour，buttoshowthatnopracticalconclusionsofanykindcanbedrawnfromsuchpremises;andbecauseIthink，withMr。Thornton，thatwhenweareattemptingtodetermineaquestionofsocialethics，weshouldmakesureofourethicalfoundation。Onthequestionsbetweenemployersandlabourers，oronanyothersocialquestions，wecanneitherhopetofind，nordoweneed，anybettercriterionthantheinterest，immediateandultimate，ofthehumanrace。"Buttheauthorstreatmentofthesubjectwillhaveausefuleffectifitleadsanyofthosefriendsofdemocracyandequality，whodisdaintheprosaicconsiderationofconsequences，anddemandsomethingmorehigh—flownasthegroundonwhichtoresttherightsofthehumanrace，toperceivehoweasyitistoframeatheoryofjusticethatshahpositivelydenytherightsconsideredbythemassotranscendent，andwhichyetshahmakeasfairaclaimastheirstoanintuitivecharacter，andshallcommandbyitsapriorievidencethefullconvictionofasenlightenedathinker，andaswarmasupporteroftheprincipalclaimsofthelabouringclasses，astheauthoroftheworkbeforeus。
　　Theauthor’spolemicagainstthedoctrinescommonlypreachedbythemetaphysicaltheoristsoftheCauseofLabour，isnotwithoutotherpointsofusefulness。Notonlyarethosetheoristsentirelyatseaonthenotionofright，whentheysupposethatlabourhas，orcanhave，afighttoanything，byanyrulebutthepermanentinterestofthehumanrace;buttheyalsohaveconfusedanderroneousnotionsofmattersoffact，ofwhichMr。Thorntonpointsoutthefallacy。Forexample，theworkingclasses，orrathertheirchampions，oftenlookuponthewholewealthofthecountryastheproduceoftheirlabour，andimply，orevenassert，thatifeverybodyhadhisduethewholeofitwouldbelongtothem。Apartfromallquestionastoright，thisdoctrinerestsonamisconceptionoffact。Thewealthofthecountryisnotwhollytheproduceofpresentlabour。Itisthejointproductofpresentlabourandofthelabourofformeryearsandgenerations，thefruitsofwhich，havingbeenpreservedbytheabstinenceofthosewhohadthepowerofconsumingthem，arenowavailableforthesupportoraidofpresentlabourwhich，butforthatabstinence，couldnothaveproducedsubsistenceforahundredthpartthenumberofthepresentlabourers。Nomeritisclaimedforthisabstinence;thosetowhoseperseveringfrugalitythelabouringclassesowethisenormousbenefit，forthemostpartthoughtonlyofbenefitingthemselvesandtheirdescendants。Butneitheristhereanymeritinlabouring，whenamanhasnoothermeansofkeepingalive。Itisnotaquestionofmerit，butofthecommoninterest。Capitalisasindispensabletolabouraslabourtocapital。Itistruethelabourersneedonlycapital，notcapitalists;
　　itwouldbebetterforthemiftheyhadcapitaloftheirown。Butwhiletheyhavenot，itisagreatbenefittothemthatothershave。Thosewhohavecapitaldidnottakeitfromthem，anddonotpreventthemfromacquiringit。And，howeverbadlyofftheymaybeundertheconditionswhichtheyareabletomakewithcapitalists，theywouldbestillworseoffiftheearthwerefreelydeliveredovertothemwithoutcapital，andtheirexistingnumbershadtobesupporteduponwhattheycouldinthiswaymakeitproduce。
　　Ontheotherhand，thereisontheoppositesideofthequestionakindofgoodymorality，amountingtoacant，againstwhichtheauthorprotests，andwhichitisimperativetoclearourmindsof。Therearepeoplewhothinkitrighttobealwaysrepeating，thattheinterestoflabourersandemployers（and，theyadd，oflandlordsandfarmers，theupperclassesandthelower，governmentsandsubjects，etc。）isoneandthesame。Itisnottobewonderedatthatthissortofthingshouldbeirritatingtothosetowhomitisintendedasawarning。Howisitpossiblethatthebuyerandthesellerofacommodityshouldhaveexactlythesameinterestastoitsprice？Itistheinterestofboththatthereshouldbecommoditiestosell;anditis，inacertaingeneralway，theinterestbothoflabourersandemployersthatbusinessshouldprosper，andthatthereturnstolabourandcapitalshouldbelarge。Buttosaythattheyhavethesameinterestastothedivision，istosaythatitisthesamethingtoaperson’sinterestwhetherasumofmoneybelongstohimortosomebodyelse。Theemployer，wearegravelytold，willexpendinwageswhathesavesinwages;hewilladdittohiscapital，whichisafinethingforthelaboutingclasses。
　　Supposehimtodoso，whatdoesthelabourergainbytheincreaseofcapital，ifhiswagesmustbekeptfromrisingtoadmitofitstakingplace？
　　"Workmenaresolemnlyadjured，nottotrytogettheirwagesraised，becausesuccessintheattemptmustbefollowedbyafallofprofitswhichwillbringwagesdownagain。Theyareentreatednottobetterthemselves，becauseanytemporarybetteringwillbefollowedbyareactionwhichwillleavethemasilloffasbefore;nottotrytoraisethepriceoflabour，becausetoraisethepriceistolowerthedemand，andtolowerthedemandistolowertheprice。Asifagreatdemandforlabourwereofanyotherusetothelabouterthanthatofraisingthepriceoflabour，orasifanendweretobesacrificedtomeanswhosewholemeritconsistsintheirleadingtothatsameend。Ifallthepoliticaleconomyopposedtotrades’
　　unionswerelikethis，trades’unionswouldbequiterightinopposingpoliticaleconomy。"
　　Whatistrueis，thatwagesmightbesohighastoleavenoprofittothecapitalist，ornotenoughtocompensatehimfortheanxietiesandrisksoftrade;andinthatcaselabourerswouldbekillingthegoosetogetattheeggs。And，again，wagesmightbesolowastodiminishthenumbersorimpairtheworkingpowersofthelabourers，andinthatcasethecapitalistalsowouldgenerallybealoser。Butbetweenthisandthedoctrine，thatthemoneywhichwouldcometothelabourerbyariseofwageswillbeofasmuchusetohiminthecapitalist’spocketasinhisown，thereisaconsiderabledifference。
　　Betweenthetwolimitsjustindicated——thehighestwagesconsistentwithkeepingupthecapitalofthecountry，andincreasingitparipassuwiththeincreaseofpeople，andthelowestthatwillenablethelabourerstokeepuptheirnumberswithanincreasesufficienttoprovidelabourersfortheincreaseofemployment——thereisanintermediateregionwithinwhichwageswillrangehigherorloweraccordingtowhatAdamSmithcalls"thehigglingofthemarket。"Inthishiggling，thelabouterinanisolatedcondition，unabletoholdoutevenagainstasingleemployer，muchmoreagainstthetacitcombinationofemployers，will，asarule，findhiswageskeptdownatthelowerlimit。LabourerssufficientlyorganisedinUnionsmay，underfavourablecircumstances，attaintothehigher。This，however，supposesanorganisationincludingallclassesoflabourers，manufacturingandagricultural，unskilledaswellasskilled。Whentheunionisonlypartial，thereisoftenanearerlimit——thatwhichwoulddestroy，ordriveelsewhere，theparticularbranchofindustryinwhichtherisetakesplace。Sucharethelimitingconditionsofthestrifeforwagesbetweenthelabourersandthecapitalists。Thesuperiorlimitisadifficultquestionoffact，andinitsestimationseriouserrorsmaybe，andhavebeen，committed。
　　But，havingregardtothegreatlysuperiornumbersofthelabouringclass，andtheinevitablescantinessoftheremunerationaffordedbyeventhehighestrateofwageswhich，inthepresentstateoftheartsofproduction，couldpossiblybecomegeneral;whoeverdoesnotwishthatthelabourersmayprevail，andthatthehighestlimit，whateveritbe，maybeattained，musthaveastandardofmorals，andaconceptionofthemostdesirablestateofsociety，widelydifferentfromthoseofeitherMr。Thorntonorthepresentwriter。
　　Theremainderofthebookisoccupiedindiscussingthemeansadoptedorwhichmightbeadoptedbytheoperativeclasses，forobtainingallsuchadvantagesinrespectofwages，andtheotherconditionsoflabour，asarewithinthereachofattainment:asubjectcomprehendingallthequestionsrespectingtheobjectsandpracticesofTrades’Unionism，togetherwiththewholetheoryandpracticeofco—operativeindustry。AndhereIamnearlyattheendofmydisagreementswithMr。Thornton。Hisopinionsareineveryrespectasfavourabletotheclaimsofthelabouringclassesasisconsistentwiththeregardduetothepermanentinterestoftherace。Hisconclusionsleavemelittletodobuttomakearésuméofthem，thoughImaystilldissentfromsomeofhispremises。Forexample，thesameprincipleswhichleadhimtoacquitemployersofwrong，howevertheymayavailthemselvesoftheiradvantagetokeepdownwages，makehimequallyexculpateUnionistsfromasimilarcharge，evenwhenhedeemsthemtobemakingashort—sightedanddangeroususeofthepowerwhichcombinationsgivethem。ButwhileIagreewiththeauthorthatconductmaybe"grovellingandsordid"withoutbeingmorallyculpable，Imustyetmaintainthatifthereare（asitcannotbedoubtedthatthereare）demandswhichemployersmightmakefromlabourers，orlabourersfromemployers，theenforcementofwhich，evenbythemostinnocentmeans，wouldbecontrarytotheinterestsofcivilisationandimprovement——tomakethesedemands，andtoinsistonthemasconditionsofgivingandreceivingemployment，ismorallywrong。
　　Again，theauthormostjustlystigmatisestheEnglishlawofconspiracy，thatreservedweaponofarbitraryandex—post—factocoercion，bywhichanything，thatacourtoflawthinksoughtnottobedone，maybemadeacriminaloffenceifdoneinconcertbymorethanoneperson——alawofwhichamostobjectionableusehasbeenmadeagainstTrades’Unions。
　　ButIcannotgoentirelywithhimwhenhelaysitdownasanabsoluteandself—evidenttruth，thatwhateverislawfulwhendonebyoneperson，oughtnottobeanoffencewhendonebyacombinationofseveral。Heforgetsthatthenumberofagentsmaymateriallyaltertheessentialcharacteroftheact。Suppose，merelyforthesakeofillustration，thatthestateofopinionwassuchastoinducelegislatorstotolerate，withincertainlimits，theprosecutionofquarrelsandtheredressofinjuriesbytheparty’sownhands;asisthecasepractically，thoughnotlegally，inallcountrieswhereduellingprevails。If，undercoverofthislicense，insteadofacombatbetweenoneandone，abandofassailantsweretosetuponasingleperson，andtakehislife，orinflictonhimbodilyharm，woulditbeallowabletoapplytothiscasethemaxim，thatwhatispermittedtoonepersonoughttobepermittedtoanynumber？Thecasesarenotparallel;
　　butiftherebesomuchasonecaseofthischaracter，itisdiscussable，andrequirestobediscussed，whetheranygivencaseissuchaone;andwehaveafreshproofhowlittleeventhemostplausibleoftheseabsolutemaximsofrightandwrongaretobedependedon，andhowunsafeitistolosesight，evenforamoment，oftheparamountprinciple——thegoodofthehumanrace。Themaximsmay，astheroughresultsofexperience，beregardedasprimafaciepresumptionsthatwhattheyinculcatewillbefoundconducivetotheultimateend;butnotasconclusiveonthatpointwithoutexamination，stilllessascarryinganauthorityindependentof，andsuperiorto，theend。
　　MydifferencewithMr。Thorntonisinthiscaseonlytheoretical;forIdonotknowofanythingthatoughttobelegallyinterdictedtoworkmenincombination，exceptwhatwouldbecriminalifdonebyanyofthemindividually，viz。，physicalviolenceormolestation，defamationofcharacter，injurytoproperty，orthreatsofanyoftheseevils。WehearmuchinvectiveagainstTrades’UnionsonthescoreofbeinginfringementsofthelibertyofthoseworkingmenonwhomakindofsocialcompulsionisexercisedtoinducethemtojoinaUnion，ortotakepartinastrike。IagreewithMr。Thorntoninattachingnoimportancewhatevertothischarge。Aninfringementofpeople’slibertyitundoubtedlyis，whentheyareinduced，bydreadofotherpeople’sreproaches，todoanythingwhichtheyarenotlegallyboundtodo;butIdonotsupposeitwillbemaintainedthatdisapprobationneveroughttobeexpressedexceptofthingswhichareoffencesbylaw。Assoonasitisacknowledgedthattherearelawful，andevenuseful，purposestobefulfilledbyTrades’Unions，itmustbeadmittedthatthemembersofUnionsmayreasonablyfeelagenuinemoraldisapprobationofthosewhoprofitbythehigherwagesorotheradvantagesthattheUnionsprocurefornon—Unionistsaswellasfortheirownmembers，butrefusetotaketheirshareofthepayments，andsubmittotherestrictions，bywhichthoseadvantagesareobtained。Itisvaintosaythatifastrikeisreallyforthegoodoftheworkmen，thewholebodywilljoininitfromameresenseofthecommoninterest。Thereisalwaysaconsiderablenumberwhowillhopetosharethebenefitwithoutsubmittingtothesacrifices;andtosaythatthesearenottohavecbroughtbeforethem，inanimpressivemanner，whattheirfellow—workmenthinkoftheirconduct，isequivalenttosayingthatsocialpressureoughtnottobeputuponanyonetoconsidertheinterestsofothersaswellashisown。Allthatlegislationisconcernedwithis，thatthepressureshallstopattheexpressionoffeeling，andthewithholdingofsuchgoodofficesasmayproperlydependuponfeeling，andshallnotextendtoaninfringement，orathreatofinfringement，ofanyoftherightswhichthelawguaranteestoall——securityofpersonandpropertyagainstviolation，andofreputationagainstcalumny。Therearefewcasesinwhichtheapplicationofthisdistinctioncangiverisetoanydoubt。Whatiscalledpicketingisjustontheborderwhichseparatesthetworegions;butthesoledifficulty’inthatcaseisoneoffactandevidence——toascertainwhetherthelanguageorgesturesusedimpliedathreatofanysuchtreatmentas，betweenindividualandindividual，wouldbecontrarytolaw。Hooting，andoffensivelanguage，arepointsonwhichaquestionmayberaised;buttheseshouldbedealtwithaccordingtothegenerallawofthecountry。Nogoodreasoncanbegivenforsubjectingthemtospecialrestrictiononaccountoftheoccasionwhichgivesrisetothem，ortoanylegalrestraintatallbeyondthatwhichpublicdecency，orthesafetyofthepublicpeace，mayprescribeasamatterofpoliceregulation。
　　Mr。ThorntonentersintoaminuteexaminationofthelimitstotheefficacyofTrades’Unions——thecircumstancesinwhichincreasedwagesmaybeclaimedwithaprospectofsuccess，and，ifsuccessful，ofpermanence。ThesediscussionsImustcontentmyselfwithrecommendingtotheattentionofthereader，whowillfindinthemmuchmatterofgreatvalue。Inthepresentarticlethereisonlyroomforthemostgeneralconsiderations，eitherofpoliticaleconomyorofmorals。Undertheformeraspect，thereisaviewofthequestion，notoverlookedbytheauthor，buthardly，perhaps，madesufficientlyprominentbyhim。Fromthenecessityofthecase，theonlyfundoutofwhichanincreaseofwagescanpossiblybeobtainedbythelabouringclassesconsideredasawhole，isprofits。Thisiscontrarytothecommonopinion，bothofthegeneralpublicandoftheworkmenthemselves，whothinkthatthereisasecondsourcefromwhichitispossiblefortheaugmentationtocome，namely，prices。Theemployer，theythink，can，ifforeignorothercompetitionwilllethim，indemnifyhimselffortheadditionalwagesdemandedofhim，bycharginganincreasedpricetotheconsumer。Andthismaycertainlyhappeninsingletrades，andeveninlargebranchesoftrade，underconditionswhicharecarefullyinvestigatedbyMr。Thornton。Thebuildingtrade，initsnumeroussubdivisions，isoneofthemostsalientinstances。Butthoughariseofwagesinagiventrademaybecompensatedtothemastersbyariseofthepriceoftheircommodity，ariseofgeneralwagescannotbecompensatedtoemployersgenerallybyageneralriseofprices。Thisdistinctionisneverunderstoodbythosewhohavenotconsideredthesubject，buttherearefewtruthsmoreobvioustoallwhohave。Therecannotbeageneralriseofpricesunlessthereismoremoneyexpended。Buttheriseofwagesdoesnotcausemoremoneytobeexpended。Ittakesfromtheincomesofthemastersandaddstothoseoftheworkmen;theformerhavelesstospend，thelatterhavemore;butthegeneralsumofthemoneyincomesofthecommunityremainswhatitwas，anditisuponthatsumthatmoneypricesdepend。
　　Therecannotbemoremoneyexpendedoneverything，whenthereisnotmoremoneytobeexpendedaltogether。Inthesecondplace，eveniftheredidhappenariseofallprices，theonlyeffectwouldbethatmoney，havingbecomeoflessvalueintheparticularcountry，whileitremainedofitsformervalueeverywhereelse，wouldbeexporteduntilpriceswerebroughtdowntonearlyorquitetheirformerlevel。Butthirdly:evenontheimpossiblesuppositionthattheriseofpricescouldbekeptup，yet，beinggeneral，itwouldnotcompensatetheemployer;forthoughhismoneyreturnswouldbegreater，hisoutgoings（exceptthefixedpaymentstothosetowhomheisindebt）wouldbeincreasedinthesameproportion。Finally，ifwhenwagesroseallpricesroseinthesameratio，thelabourerswouldbenobetteroffwithhighwagesthanwithlow;theirwageswouldnotcommandmoreofanyarticleofconsumption;arealriseofwages，therefore，wouldbeanimpossibility。