joint-stock development. The Co-operative movement had in England a Socialistic origin: for its founder was Robert Owen. As Mr. Seligman says very truly in the _Political Science Quarterly_: “Owen was the founder of the Co-operative movement in England, a fact often ignored by those who glibly use the word to-day with an utter failure to discern its true significance.” And Owen himself avowed that his grand ultimate object was “community in land,” with which he hoped would be combined “unrestrained co-operation on the part of all, for every purpose of human life.” It is thus important to associate co-operation with Robert Owen--_clarum et venerabile nomen_--because there are many persons who suppose that co-operation began with the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844. What the Rochdale movement really did was to commence the process of joint-stock shop-keeping, a very different thing from that which Owen had in view. A powerful impetus was given to co-operation by the Christian Socialist movement under Maurice and Kingsley. “Of all narrow, conceited, hypocritical, anarchic and atheistic schemes of the Universe,” said Kingsley, “The Cobden and Bright one is exactly the worst.” The orthodox economic conclusions of the day fared badly at Kingsley’s hands. “The man who tells us,” said he, “that we ought to investigate Nature, simply to sit patiently under her, and let her freeze, and ruin, and starve, and stink us to death, is a goose, whether he calls himself a chemist or a political economist.” These Christian Socialist leaders felt deeply the anguish and poverty of the workers and the selfish apathy of the rich. “Mammon,” says Kingsley, “shrieks benevolently whenever a drunken soldier is flogged; but he trims his paletot and adorns his legs with the flesh of men and the skins of women, with degradation, pestilence, heathendom, and despair; and then chuckles complacently over his tailor’s bills. Hypocrite! straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.” All this is very admirable; but cheap clothes are not made solely or chiefly for Mammon, but for the masses, who are poor people. It is part of the sad irony of the situation that the great majority are obliged to accept the alternative of cheap clothes or none at all. And as the English climate and the British matron combine to exercise an absolute veto over the latter form of prehistoric simplicity, it follows that one portion of the working-classes must, in order to be clothed, connive at the sweating of another portion.