of the contingency, make little or no provision against it, but calmly trust to the funds of their employers, or the contributions of the class to which these belong.  Now, while such a practice exists, the relation of employer and employed is not that of independent contractors, but so far that of the feudal baron and his villeins, or of a chieftain and his ‘following.’  It is, in effect, a voluntarily maintained slavery on the part of the operatives—­a habit as incompatible with political liberty as with moral dignity and progress, and therefore a sore evil in our state.  Obviously, to perfect the system of independent contract, the workmen would need to redeem themselves from that condition of utter unprovidedness in which the great bulk of them are for the present content to live.  Instead of what we see so prevalent now—­a sort of hopelessness as to the benefits of saving—­a dread to let it be known or imagined of them that they possess any store, lest it lead to a reduction of their wages (a foolish fallacy), or deprive them of a claim on their employer’s consideration in the event of a period of depression (a mean and unworthy fear), we must see a dignified sense of independence, resting on the possession of some kind of property, before we can expect that even this stage in the Progress of Labour shall be truly reached.

But is it not just one of the essential disadvantages attending the contract system, or may we rather call it the system of weekly hire, that while it prompts the employer to frugality, by the obvious benefits to him of constant accumulation, it leaves the employed, as a mass, without a sufficient motive to the same virtue, and thus insures their being retained in that unprovidedness which forbids independence and true social dignity?  On this point, were we a workman, we should be sorry to rest in an affirmative, or to allow it to slacken our exertions or sap our self-denial; because if there is a higher development of the labouring state in store for society, it can only be attained by the more speedy perfection of the contract state in the entire independence of the workman.  The writer from whom we have quoted thinks, and with his sentiments we entirely concur, that ’society, in its progress towards an ideal state, may have to undergo modifications, compared with which all previous ones will seem trifling and superficial.  Of one thing only can we feel secure—­namely, that the loyal and punctual discharge of all the obligations arising out of existing social relations will best hallow, beautify, and elevate those relations, if they are destined to be permanent; and will best prepare a peaceful and beneficent advent for their successors, if, like so much that in its day seemed eternal, they too are doomed to pass away.’

ANECDOTE OF THE FIELD OF SHERRIFMUIR.