example will spread; and, mark this, new springs of capital will be available, for there is a strange, silent force of moral pressure towards an enterprise which is seen to be beneficent. There is, I know, an untold eagerness on the part of many to use for common purposes the wealth which they hold, if only it can be shown that the good which is within their reach will not be outweighed by permanent harm. The union of capital and labour will be accomplished, not in one way, but in many ways; for co-operation is not so much an organization as a principle, not so much “a state within a state" as a spirit which quickens and moulds every member for the most effective service of the whole body. Thoughts crowd upon thoughts, and hopes rise beyond hopes, but I must leave them unuttered. I have trespassed too long on your patience with the speculations of a student, and I cannot deal with the details through which they must be made practically effective. But the subject on which I have spoken is one to which I am drawn, not only by the office to which the remnant of my time has been given, not only by the traditions of the See in which I have been called to serve, but even more by the earliest associations of my school life, and by the convictions which have grown firmer through years of busy and varied toil. I have dared to express great aspirations, because I believe more confidently as the years go on that men are moved by lofty motives. For me, co-operation rests upon my Faith. It is the active expression, in terms of our present English life, of the articles of my Creed. Viewed in the light of the facts which I hold to be the central facts in history, I recognize in it an inherent tendency to complete man, to guard the family, to unite the State, to harmonize nations. It is, as I regard it—and you will allow me to speak out my whole heart-man's spontaneous welcome given to the promises of God. It is a proof on the scene of our working world that the Gospel is not an illusion, but an ideal brought into the homes of men. It is may I not say it? -a special call to England; for, as we have been reminded by one (Professor Marshall) who two years ago was your president, England led the way in the industrial evolution of modern It is, Europe by free and self-determined energy and will. then, for England to overcome the secondary evils which have arisen in this period of transition by a fresh exertion of the same national characteristics. I ask you, then, to accept joyfully the part which has been entrusted to you. In order to fulfil its highest possibilities-and I know none higher-you do not need to compass violent changes, you do not need to countenance class animosities, you do not need to call for State intervention, you do not need to lessen one whit the responsibilities of individual men; but you do need to be penetrated by the spirit of co-operation, you do need enthusiasm and faith-the enthusiasm which recognizes that the highest blessing is realized, not in being ministered unto, but in ministering; the faith which looks far beyond the mountain-tops and the clouds which often cover them to that light of heaven from which they draw their transitory glory. Do I seem to have indulged in dreams? I cannot admit the charge for one moment. I have been taught to pray day by day that the Kingdom of God our Father may come on earth. And I believe that He Who enjoined the petition wills its fulfilment through that service of men which He has made possiblea service in which each man with all his powers, all his endowments, all his possessions, recognizes that he is the servant of his fellow-men, working with them for one end—the reign of righteousness. B. F. DUNELM. THE ETHICS OF MONEY INVESTMENT1 1. THE most striking feature in the industry and commerce of the present day is the enormous power of capital. The possession of hoards of wealth would give the owners influence in any age, and many of the phenomena connected with capital and finance are observable under the Roman Republic or the Plantagenet Kings. But the age of invention and the industrial revolution have opened up to the owner of capital a new and an unexampled position; he may embody his wealth in machines, and thus take a ruling position in all kinds of industry and trade. There may have been giant capitals in bygone days, but it is only in the present time that giant capitals are associated with giant industry. And the effectiveness of this force is most clearly seen when we examine its results. The rapidity with which the resources of the world have been developed-or, to put it in the other way, the rapidity with which the facilities for future development are being used up-is startling. Rapid colonization, world-wide commerce, enormous production-with, as their natural consequence, rapid multiplication—are going on everywhere. Enterprises, like the Forth Bridge or the Canadian Pacific Railway, exhibit in most striking forms the power of modern as contrasted with the slower operations of ancient capital. 2. In all discussions as to the future of Society, the existence of capital and the power of capital are really taken for granted. The point round which such discussions usually move, is one as to the control of capital. Ought this mighty force to be left to the control of private persons, or should it be entirely controlled by the nation, or, perhaps, by municipalities? Or others would A paper read before the London Ethical Society, March 23, 1890, by the Rev. W. Cunningham, D.D. ask, What kinds of enterprise should be undertaken by private persons, and what kinds by the State? Or others might set the question in another form: How far should it be controlled by private persons and how far by public bodies? Now, this evening I should prefer to leave all these questions as between Socialism and Individualism on one side; and this for several reasons. The question how capital ought to be controlled, what is right and wrong in the use of it, is similar in many respects, though not in all, whether the controlling power is a public body or a private person. Either a public body or a private person may be wasteful or may be oppressive in their management of accumulated wealth. For the purposes of this inquiry, therefore—an ethical one-the question who controls capital may be left on one side, as we wish to fix our attention on the principles which should guide any and all who exercise this kind of industrial and commercial power. 3. As, however, there is often a certain tendency to misunderstand a paper from attempts to read between the lines and see the bearing of the argument on fundamental issues that are not explicitly raised, I think it worth while to state my own position on those matters, and thus give you the personal equation of the writer. So far as I see, public capital, either national or municipal, is likely to replace private capital in very many directions. I believe that such management of enterprise is often better and cheaper, and that therefore it must be substituted for the employment of capital by private individuals in all sorts of ways. But I see no likelihood of public being substituted for private management everywhere. While there is much more public management of capital, too, there are few signs of the public formation of capital. Public capital has been for the most part formed by individuals and loaned to the Governments; and with the constant waste of capital and depreciation of capital, there will always be need for the formation of new capital. Personally, then, while I recognize a socializing tendency, I do not expect that it will go so far as to oust private capital from business of every kind, or that the State will be able to dispense with the aid of individualism, so far as the formation of new capital is concerned. I therefore hold that the ethical questions connected with the individual management of capital are likely to be of permanent importance; but if any one disagrees, and makes a different forecast of the future economic development, he will surely admit that they are of pressing importance now, and are likely to be of importance for an indefinite period. 4. There are other reasons why we may adopt the individualistic standpoint, for the purposes of this discussion, whether our leanings are on the whole socialistic or not. For one thing, as changes in individual conviction are, under democratic Governments, the motor-power for changes in public policy, it is easy to include questions of the right and wrong use of public capital, if we start from the point of view of the individual citizen; but it is not so easy if we start from the standpoint of public policy to discuss merely personal morality in any detail. Further, there is a mass of very acute casuistry in regard to the right use of money—a body of doctrine which has been thought out with great clearness by the schoolmen; and we may possibly make more progress in these very difficult questions if we take a standpoint from which we can draw upon their results, rather than try to build up the whole on the basis of some new principle of our own. I trust that on all these various grounds it may be clear that, while I adopt an individualist point of view in the present paper, I desire not to raise the question between individualism and socialism; in asking the Ethical Society to assume an individualist standpoint to-night, I only do so as a matter of convenience for the sake of examining the subject before us. 5. So far for the standpoint. There is, however, a preliminary objection which we must face. The ordinary, respectable member of society has no conscientious difficulties about investments, because it has hardly entered his head that questions of right and wrong enter into the matter at all. It is wise to see that your money is safe; it is well to get as good a return as you can: these are the only considerations that enter into the mind of the ordinary man of probity and good sense-say, the family solicitor -when he advises in regard to investments of capital. The |