A third suggestion in harmony with the two preceding is to receive the employee into the family of the employer, giving her all of the family privileges, including a seat at the table. This plan finds many advocates among intelligent, conscientious employers who are earnestly trying to find a way out of present troubles. But there are several objections to it. One is the fact that such a policy is a distinct deviation from all economic tendencies of the century. A hundred years ago under the domestic system of manufactures the masterworkman received his apprentices into his family, and no other arrangement seemed possible. The factory system has revolutionized this manner of life, and a return to it in manufacturing industries would be as impossible as a restoration of the feudal system itself. The attempt to return to what was once a common custom in many parts of the North is an attempt to restore the patriarchal relationship between employer and employee in a generation which looks with disfavor on paternalism in other forms of labor. Another objection to the plan is its inherent impossibility. John Stuart Mill could conceive of another world where two and two do not make four, but it must in this world be at present an impossibility to conceive of a family in which the idea of unity is not an essential feature. The very foundation of a family is its integrity. Four plus one half can never equal five, and no one can ever be more than a fraction in any family into which he has not been born, married, or legally adopted. The family circle cannot be squared, and if it could be, the curve of beauty would be lost. Moreover, even if the plan could be carried out, it would not meet the needs of the majority of employees or of those who would become such if the conditions of service were more favorable. _What domestics as a class desire is the opportunity of living their own lives in their own way._ This is what other occupations offer to a greater degree than does domestic service, and it is one reason for the preference for them. The desire is not always on the part of the employees for the same friends, the same amusements, the same privileges, the same opportunities, the same interests, as those of their employers, but it is to have such friends, such amusements, such privileges, such opportunities, such interests, as they personally crave. Even what would be in themselves the greatest advantages often cease to be such when the element of personal choice in regard to them is removed. Still another objection is the failure of the plan to subserve the best interests of the employer, even granting that it is best for the employee. It grows out of the nature of the family, as previously suggested. Comparatively few persons are willing, except as a business necessity, to open their homes even temporarily to those compelled to board. The privacy of home life is destroyed to even a greater extent by the attempt to make household