(1) Popular taste has, since the initiation of the industrial era, steadily improved, but the artistic standard of manufacturers is at least a stage behind. There are at least two causes for this: (_a_) the manufacturer can judge popular taste only by experiment, and this is, on the average, bound to involve expense, and (_b_) when the machinery and processes of manufacture are well established and smoothly running, changes must entail extra costs and reorganization, ranging from the installation of fresh plant to the employment of new designs. For this reason alone the more artistic article must cost more, excepting in those industries (such as the manufacture of dress-material) where change and fashion are normal conditions. In other industries where the product is less subject to variation (e.g. pottery--a firm could produce and sell exactly the same cups and saucers for an unlimited period), the extra cost is necessarily more to be expected. (2) The manufacturer may, and alas too often does, appreciate the commercial value of beauty and _trades_ upon it. That is to say, he manufactures ugly wall-paper and pleasant wall-paper, at practically the same cost. He _could_ be content to make the normal profit from both, but he realizes that many people don’t want to disfigure their walls and will pay more for a pleasing design. He makes them do so, since this behaviour is profitable to him. In this he cannot be censured--rather should we praise him for not doing it more often. Nevertheless, such action will be a drag upon artistic progress, and if it can be prevented at all even the manufacturer in the long run will benefit. Let all who can afford the more beautiful production purchase it, but let them pay the extra price under protest. The manufacturer must be made to realize that it is anti-social to make a profit out of beauty, when by so doing he condemns the less fortunate man to suffer the ugly. As the business-man is at heart as much interested as any other person in the welfare of his fellow-men, this might have some influence. And an independent inquiry (conducted by, say, a group of art-students or a University) might achieve a little. They would try to show us--if they could--why a fabric which is disfigured by a vile design can be cheaper than a plain unprinted cloth, why there is truth in the saying we all hear frequently, “Oh, yes, you all admire the plain, simple costume or frock, but it’s so much more expensive, you know,” and the like.