Chapter VIII

The Basis of the Modern Family

Many of those who are interesting themselves in the study of social questions and the structure of society at the present day are of opinion that the Family as an institution has played its part, and must now yield its functions into other hands. They see the change which has come over its organisation in many places only as the change of dissolution; they fix their attention upon the type to which Le Play gave the name of the "unstable Family," and note its degeneracy, and fail to recognise that it is in no sense representative of the modern Family in its true and most characteristic type.

This distinction between the degenerate, unstable Family and the typical modern Family is an essential one. It is not merely a question of how long the members of a Family continue to live together in one house; superficially the two types may be much alike in this respect. It is one of the proofs of the strength of the modern Family that it is able to send its sons and daughters far over the face of the earth without in the least impairing the bond which unites them; while it is one of the proofs of the weakness of the degenerate Family that there is no bond to hold them together at all, or a bond so slender that removal into the next street is enough to sever it. The real nature of the distinction can only become clear as we study the characteristics of the modern Family at its best.) best.

One aspect of this distinction is illustrated by the following quotation from M. Demolins' Les Français d'aujourd'hui: "This type of Family" (i.e. the unstable) " is the natural product of the disaggregation of family communities. Under the régime of the community the tendency is to remain grouped round the land of the Family or the héritier-associé ... under the régime of the unstable Family, the children tend to leave the home as soon as possible, to establish themselves in separate households. So far, this type would seem to be changing towards the particularist Family, but it presents one fundamental difference from this. In the particularist Family the children have been previously formed to suffice for themselves and by themselves, no matter in what profession; to be equal to any situation; to undertake with equal energy, and often with equal success, the most different kinds of work, whether of colonist, manufacturer, or merchant. But in the unstable Family there is no formation energique. They are not trained to obedience, to respect of the paternal authority, to the spirit of economy, as in the family community. Nor are they trained to individual initiative, to zeal for work, to progressive methods, as in the particularist Families. Thus they leave the home without having previously acquired the aptitudes necessary to succeed by themselves."¹

The one characteristic which the essentially modern Family has in common with the unstable or broken-down Family is, that it is not held together by the possession of, or attachment to, a particular piece of land. We have sufficiently dwelt upon the enormous influence which property in land, however small, has upon the organisation of the Family; we now have to consider whether any similar influences remain for a people amongst whom property in land has become so exceptional as to be practically of no importance. Is it the case that when the Family has no property, or only property of such a nature that each member can if he will walk away with his share in his pocket, the Family ceases to be a reality? or are there other forces and connecting links which preserve its strength, though under another form?

Now the influence of the land, as we have seen, is strongest in preserving the unity and continuance of the Family when it forms an industrial basis for the combined work of the various members of the Family. The typical family community is one which is held together by a common industry in which each member can partake, according to his strength or capacity; and the industry which most readily lends itself to the co-operation of a number of persons of differing age or sex is farming and the cultivation of land. In it there is work for all capacities; the weakest can contribute something, the most stupid can give his strength, and the most able can find scope for his skill and organising power. And so it becomes possible to carry into industry the principle of family life, that each gives according to his powers and receives according to his needs. Moreover, and this is important for the question before us, this industrial unity of the Family means that its members are stronger in combination than they would be apart; a real gain is effected by the assignment of work to those most fitted to do it, and thus there is a genuine economic force to hold the Family together.

Is there anything corresponding to this in our modern community; any industrial basis for family life? or is it true that this kind of co-operation has been entirely swept away in a manufacturing country such as England ?

If we look to the landowners themselves it seems clear that, in the higher ranks, at any rate, the land no longer affords—if indeed it ever did—an industrial basis for the family life; many an old Family which has disappeared might have held together much longer if its members could have treated their estate as a business to be carried on by their own energy and capacity. Amongst the farming class I do not know how far it may be the case that farming is still a family industry; but it is generally said that the farmer's sons and daughters are no more content to find their occupation on the farm than the sons of the landed proprietor to carry on the business of the estate. But amongst agricultural labourers the case is somewhat different. It still remains true that the land demands such variety of work as is most readily afforded by the Family, and the man whose Family contains a certain number of women and lads stands a better chance of getting work, or will get better work, than the solitary man who has only his own labour to offer. "In Northumberland and Durham a great many women are employed at work in the fields. They are usually the daughters of the men who are hired by the year, the system being for the farm servants to be hired by families, the sons and daughters living with their parents in cottages let free and situated on the farm, and all working on the same farm. Men with daughters who are able to work are always sought after, and a man with several daughters can command a higher wage than a man who has none.² Thus there is still a definite economic inducement to the members of the agricultural Family to hold together; there is an industrial basis. If the movement towards small holdings should happily continue to gain force in England, it is probable that amongst small holders also the Family will become a genuinely industrial community, finding occupation of various kinds for its members in the management of the holding. This is notably so in the Channel Islands, where much of the land is held by small proprietors and very highly cultivated."

The first step away from the agricultural family community is found where the industry is not sufficient to occupy all members of the Family profitably, and some are employed as wage-earners outside, though their earnings are still contributed to the common stock. This is generally the case where the Family is within reach of some manufacturing or mining centre, and may mean a much more prosperous condition than where it is dependent upon agricultural pursuits alone. One great advantage of it is, that it combines the advantages of city with those of country life, ensures a country upbringing for the children, and keeps open the possibility of country pursuits for those members of the Family who are more fitted for them. I believe that on the Continent this combination of town and country life is common; in England the best chance of attaining it would seem to lie in the removal of industries from the great centres of population into the country.

In the days of "domestic industry" this industrial co-operation of the Family was common in manufacture as well as in agriculture; and all its members would be engaged under the control of its head in the production of some article of commerce. But it is seldom that any manufacture can afford the same variety of occupation as in agriculture, the co-operation would be of a less effective nature, and it was easily broken down when machinery and steam power made it profitable to organise the workers into great armies, banded together into groups where the individuals are repetitions of each other instead of being complementary factors. It was perhaps inevitable that such a widespread shifting in the industrial grouping of the people should, for time and to a limited extent, have shaken the Family itself; but it is no longer true, at any rate in England, that the unstable Family with its derelicts is mainly to be found amongst the manufacturing people. The family group has, on the whole, successfully withstood the shock of the change and reorganised itself on another basis.

Where domestic industry still lingers, mainly amongst the "sweated" industries, we find the family co-operation persisting, but in a degraded form, and consisting for the most part in the employment of children at work which is in no sense especially adapted to their strength and powers. But there is one most important branch of industrial co-operation which still prevails in the great majority of Families in nearly all ranks of society; it is that which assigns to the wife the function of manager and spender of the family income and the care of the home and children, while the husband and adult children take the responsibility of providing the income. It is an arrangement which is sometimes abandoned at both extremes of society; wealthy women will sometimes devolve their functions upon housekeepers, nurses, and governesses ; poor women will sometimes abandon them to become wage - earners themselves. But the belief is very strong, and is probably justified, that in such a case the efficiency of the Family is always liable to be impaired, and generally is greatly impaired; and it is certain that where the wife abandons the home for outside work or pleasure the bonds which hold the Family together become of the slightest. But I believe that amongst the wage-earners at any rate there is an increasing tendency for women to devote themselves more exclusively to the work of housekeeping. Generally speaking, they expect to have, and they get, the entire management of the family income; in many cases determining even the amount which the wage-earners-husbands, sons, and daughters alike-may reserve for their own use before handing over the money to her. And both they and their husbands know that their services in the home are far more valuable, even from an economic point of view, than if they were themselves earning. I cannot refrain from quoting in this context the saying of a poor woman of whom Miss Loane writes in her beautiful book, The Queen's Poor. She had allowed herself to be forced into the position of wage-earner:

"I'll regret it once, and that's all my life there's only one rule for women who want to have a decent home for their children and themselves. If your husband comes home crying, and says he can't find any work, sit down on the other side of the fire and cry till he does."

In the course of an inquiry amongst the secretaries of Trade Unions I have come across one great industry in which a simple type of family co-operation prevails to a very large extent. Amongst coal - miners in many districts it is almost universally customary for fathers and sons to work together; and men who have sons to co-operate with them are considered to have a distinct economic advantage over men who have not. There may be different reasons for this in different parts of the country; in some places it is a housing question, in others no reason is given for the fact, which is simply stated. In Derbyshire "a man with sons will get employed easier than a man without." In Northumberland a man with working sons will more readily get employment than a man without sons working: "In this district the miner has a free house and fire coal. But as there is not a sufficient number of these free houses for the number of workmen employed, the man with working sons always gets the first house vacant." In Cumberland the advantage seems to be due to a different cause : "Fathers may obtain a considerable advantage by their sons if they take them with them as co-partners, which is generally done. The colliery company might only pay a lad 3s. a day for a job, and if the father is a good skilled workman he might take the son with him, and they might earn two full men's wages, which is often done." In South Wales, again, co-operation between fathers and sons is very largely the custom.

So far as I have been able to trace, there is no other considerable industry in which co-operation in the same work exists as a force to hold the members of a Family together. But if we pass now from this industrial co-operation, we find another kind of cooperation, which I will call, to distinguish it from the former, economic, and which is so prevalent amongst English wage-earners as to be typical at any rate of a very large section. I refer to the co-operation which consists in contributions from the wage-earners of the Family towards the maintenance of the common household. The earnings may be derived from entirely different sources, the wage-earners may be working at different trades, or at the same trade, but they have a common end in view - the maintenance of the Family in a state of efficiency. It is very far from being the case that in a typical working-class Family the children leave the home as soon as they are able to support themselves. Whenever we get a collection of genuine family histories, as distinct from bald statements of "man's earnings," we find numerous instances where there are children of working age living at home and contributing their share towards the maintenance of younger and older members; the Family thus fulfilling one of its true economic functions of utilising the strong to support the weak.) A few typical cases may be cited in illustration of this position - the first two are taken from the Budgets published by the Economic Club in 1896, the others from Schulze Gaevernitz's History of the Cotton Industry :

1. Man and wife, son of 22 contributing 15s., daughter of 19 paying for her board, son of 17 contributing 6s., daughter of 13 not earning.
2. Man and wife, son of 22 contributing 10s., daughter giving 7s., and daughter aged 14 not earning. Also two married sons living away who are "good and kind," and two married daughters, one of whom delayed marriage several years in order to help at home.
3. Man and wife, and seven children, eldest 18. Four are working in the same factory as their father. The man's yearly earnings are £98, the children's are £93, and these together form the family income.
4. Man and wife, and seven children aged 18 to 31. Man's earnings £45, children's £168.
5. Man and wife, six children from 14 to 23 years. Man earns 24s. a week, but is much out of work; the children earn £172: 4s. in the year.
6. Next, the family of a miner in Northumberland: man and wife, eight children from 2 to 21; income of father £90, of the two eldest sons £97.
7. Finally, a machine fitter in London: man and wife, six children from 6 to 17; man earns £105, the older children £45

Cases such as these are not exceptional, but could be multiplied indefinitely by any one familiar with the structure of normal working-class life. The co - operation which they illustrate is very strong evidence against the alleged disintegration of the Family; can it also be regarded as a positive tie, tending to hold the Family together? From one point of view it may no doubt be maintained that the claims upon the earnings of the young people tend rather to drive them away from home; that they naturally prefer a life of independence in which they may spend their whole earnings upon their own comfort or pleasures, to a life in which the claims of the household must be satisfied before any surplus can be applied to personal gratification. Numerous cases occur, of course, which justify this view to some extent; nevertheless it is one-sided, and overlooks a whole range of considerations which affect human nature far more deeply than the mere desire for personal gratification. And it also overlooks the simple economic fact that the individual members of the Family get far less value for their money when they spend it as units, when, that is, they are their own housekeepers, than they do as members of a well-organised household, when they share in the services of a skilful housekeeper.

But more important than this economic consideration is the fact that in the normal Family, where even an average amount of mutual consideration and affection has prevailed, the child's main interests and pleasures are centred in or gather around the family group. They are not confined to it; the school life and school companions, later on work and work companions, afford interests which may become competing, but which normally are complementary. But the home is the centre, both in a material and moral sense, from which he starts each day afresh, and to which each day takes him back at night. Were there no deeper influence at work this merely physical fact would in itself constitute a habit of mind and body of great effect. But the mind of the child is even more deeply rooted in the Family as its centre; his earliest words, ideas, modes of thought, are those he gathers from parents and brethren; and each day he takes back to them the new words and ideas which he gathers in the outside world, and they again are moulded and interpreted by the Family. He recounts his exploits, tells of his companions and teachers, is subjected to praise or criticism, and listens to similar narratives from other members; and next day he returns to the outside world to collect fresh material to be thrown into the Family mould. Even in Families where there is less than the normal show of affection, the habits formed in this way are so strong that they do not break without some special stress being put upon them. When the authority of the parents has been wisely and not harshly maintained, another powerful influence is present to hold the young folk under the shelter of their guidance and experience; and when the crowning joy of family life is added in the mutual affection which comes of joys and sorrows shared in common, and of tender care repaid with loving gratitude, then nothing short of the love of man for woman, the love which demands a new Family, is strong enough to loosen the bonds of the old.

And even this will often not prevail at once where the needs of the old Family are such as to constitute a serious claim. The boy (or girl) who contributes from his first earnings towards the family income does so with pride; he feels that his position has approximated to that of the head of the Family; the claim upon him is regarded as a privilege rather than a burden. And if the claim is not pressed tyrannically or selfishly, this attitude towards it persists long after the freshness of novelty is worn off; the first childish pleasure passes into a sense of duty which is no more oppressive than any other duty in life, and the strengthening sense of responsibility for the weaker members of the Family becomes gradually too firmly rooted to be broken down by any desire for any mere personal gratification. The very fact of the claim being made is far more powerful to hold the Family together than to disintegrate it.

The sharing in a common responsibility must count, then, as a strong influence in holding the Family together; and will help to explain what I believe to be a fact, that amongst the wage-earners the claims of the Family are frequently even more fully recognised than amongst the more prosperous middle-class, where the dangers of poverty are more remote, and where the young people are seldom called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of the household.

Finally, we may ask, Is there, in the modern Family, anything to correspond to the family tradition which arises in connection with the possession of land, and which we have seen to be such a powerful factor in preserving the unity and continuity of an "old" Family?

What is needed to support such a tradition is some permanent interest, with which the family name may be connected, and in which successive generations may share; something, in short, which corresponds to the "cult" of the old patriarchal Family. Such an interest does exist, and to a very large extent, in the work in which the Family is engaged. When for generation after generation son succeeds to father in his occupation, all the conditions for establishing an old tradition are present; the pride of good workmanship, no less noble than the pride of great deeds, becomes a family heirloom; the family name becomes known and respected within the limits of the trade; and the inheritance of skill and experience and knowledge upon which each generation enters afresh has the great advantage over material property that no system of Primogeniture is required to keep it intact, since it may be shared in freely by all the sons without suffering diminution.

But does this continuity of work really exist to any considerable extent in the modern Family? I have no hesitation in affirming that it does, in varying degrees, but amongst almost all classes. In trade and commerce and banking, the great "houses," with their long traditions, are too well known to need mentioning. In the professions there would seem to be less definite continuity as between the various branches, though it may be regarded almost as a matter of course that the sons of professional men will themselves enter one or another of the professions. And the following extract from an article by Bishop Welldon, on the "Children of the Clergy,"³ seems to indicate a considerate amount of specialised continuity. The article is primarily in exaltation of members of the clerical profession, but it serves to illustrate the point. He explains how he has examined the parentage of every person entered in the Dictionary of National Biography, "and if I confine myself to the centuries succeeding the Reformation, during which the Protestant clergy have been allowed to marry, it is safe to assert not only that the clerical profession has sent out an immense number of children who, according to the language of the Bidding prayer in the ancient universities, have 'served God both in church and state' with success and distinction, but that no other profession has sent out so many children equally successful and equally distinguished. It is a reasonable expectation that children will be found to attain their preponderant distinction in the profession of their fathers, and the Dictionary of National Biography bears it out. The continuous renown of such families as the Yorkes and Coleridges in the law, of the Wordsworths and the Summers in the Church, of the Darwins in science, of the Arnolds in literature, is familiar to students of modern English life. As literary men have been in large proportions the sons of literary men, politicians of politicians, lawyers of lawyers, and actors of actors, so have clergymen habitually been born and bred in clerical homes. I find then as many as 350 names of more or less well-known men who have not only been sons of clergymen, but have themselves been clergymen."

It seems possible that some of the superior efficiency as parents which is here claimed for the clergy may have been due at one time to the system of church patronage already referred to; but that would only be one of the causes tending to an hereditary occupation. The point is, that it does exist to a large extent.

But it is perhaps when we come to the industrial classes, the people to whom their calling is their one great possession, that the tendency to continuity is most marked. It is especially striking when the supply of labour is highly organised, and something like the conditions of a monopoly have been established. Here we find all the characteristics of an aristocracy repeating themselves: the same exclusiveness and family pride, and the same uninterrupted succession of generation to generation. It is in the old days of the "crafts" that we find this continuity of labour best illustrated, just as it is in the old days that we find the most extreme form of the feudal Family based upon property; and the following extract from The Baxter Books of St. Andrews gives two good instances :—

"... There were several remarkable families—remarkable for the long period in which their members were associated with the craft. It is not surprising that the connection in several instances should have been a very long one, when it is remembered that to succeed to the right of entry into a craft was almost equivalent to a down-setting for life. Very frequently the eldest son was devoted to his father's trade, whilst the younger ones had to branch off into other pursuits. The craft was a wider family. Many of the members were united by blood, many by marriage. The means of communication between the inhabitants of a city and other districts were few in number and rudimentary in character. There was a strong tendency for men to remain in the place of their nativity, to marry with neighbours' daughters, and to trade and associate with those whom they had known from boyhood. For generation after generation the rights of membership were handed down with as much care, and doubtless as much pride, as was the inheritance in landed property in higher circles. I have casually instanced the Honeymans. They, the Duncansons, and the Arthurs were the most prominent families. The two former ran each other very close in the duration of their trade dynasties, and as far as our records can assist us, the advantage lies with the Honeymans to the comparatively trifling extent of twenty years in a period of nearly 210.

"The tables of these two families are interesting:—

"The Duncanson succession is as follows:—

The Baxter Books of St. Andrews, p. lxxix sq.

The bakers have ceased to be an organised craft, and so the genealogies find no record to-day; but relics of the system are still abundant in other trades. "Barge-builders", writes Mr. Burns, "are an ancient craft, and boast an ancestry of trade that would startle and eclipse the Percys and the De Veres." The watermen and lightermen on the Thames afford a similar illustration. "I came across a case to-day a man named Dudley, pierman and waterman at Battersea Park Pier" (how this recalls the Earl of Leicester and Queen Elizabeth in Kenilworth!). "His sons watermen, Dudley himself, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, licensed watermen also. Write or, better, go to Watermen's Company Hall. Examine the registers and you will find for centuries the same names and families on the roll of membership."

Acting upon this advice I went to the Hall, and in that quaint old building found abundant confirmation. The exclusiveness of the calling is to some extent kept up by a Union amongst the men, and both the Union and the Court of the Company favour the apprenticeship of the sons and relations of members, though there is no rule against outsiders, and these are not infrequently admitted. But (it was explained to me) this is mostly in connection with the Family: a young member gets fond of a girl, and introduces her brother, and so on. Cases are so numerous of the trade running in families that the difficulty was rather to find exceptions than instances. Name after name was mentioned of men whose ancestors for generations had been watermen before them. Unfortunately the oldest registers had been destroyed by fire, but finally one was produced dating from early in the eighteenth century, and we ran over a few pages of it, noting the names of men whose descendants still remained on the books, and they were very numerous. Of those who have dropped out of the ranks some have risen to high social standing; others have vanished, just as in the pages of Debrett or Burke old families disappear or become merged in others.

When we come to the less highly organised and exclusive trades it is difficult to prove the continuity for far back, because of the absence of genealogical records; but that it exists to a large extent is sufficiently shown by the following statements which have been kindly furnished by the secretaries to the Unions in the various trades instanced:—

"Hand-Frame Knitters.—Yes, it is customary in our trade for the sons to follow the same employment as their fathers; the custom prevails to a very great extent. The oldest family that I can trace back in Calverton is the family of B. Thomas B. was born at Papplewick in the county of Notts in the year 1724, and followed the trade of hand-frame knitting; his son John was born at Papplewick in the year 1755, but migrated to Calverton in the county of Notts, and died in the year 1833. Seth B., son of John B., was born at Calverton in the year 1806, and died in the year 1882. John B., son of Seth B., although sixty-eight years of age, is still working at the trade; also several of his sons."

"French Polishers. —Yes. I know a family named C. that have been in this industry for four generations."

"Type-Founders. - It is customary in our trade for sons to follow the same employment as their fathers. Our late manager, Mr. J. N., also his brother W., were the second generation of N.'s having been typefounders. John N.'s son and grandson are working as type-founders still. There is also another instance of four generations having been type-founders, and that is the family of the late G. M. Mr. M. was at the time of his death a Justice of the Peace, and also had the distinction of being the only working man near E. who was ever appointed to hold the above office. My own grandfather was a type-founder, and the male members of our family with one exception have been type-founders for three generations. It is quite a common thing to see father and son working in the same shop."

"Papermakers. -1. Stockport. It is customary for fathers to take their sons into the paper-mills with them as their assistants, and there are many instances at present of three generations working in the same mills. 2. Maidstone. Yes. We have families who have followed the same work for a hundred and fifty years."

"Coopers.—1. Edinburgh. It is customary for sons to follow their fathers: at present we have several families placed that way-three, four, and even five sons following their fathers in the trade. It is quite common for two generations, and in several cases we have even the third generation among us. 2. London. It is customary for sons to take to the same work as their fathers, and there are many instances of families who have followed the same work for several generations. I can't prove this, but believe there has been an Isaac R. a cooper for three or four hundred years." (The writer signs himself Isaac R.)

"Printing-Machine Managers.— In our branch of the printing trade many instances could be quoted of the son following the same branch as the father and the grandfather. At the present time we have many members whose fathers and grandfathers were members of the Trade Society."

"Iron-Founders.— It is customary for fathers to place their sons at the same trade: I have known the third and even the fourth generation to be engaged in the same trade."

"Bricklayers.—It certainly largely prevails. I have frequently worked with three generations in one family."

"Patternmakers—Ours is a comparatively modern industry. About fifty per cent follow their fathers' trade, but seldom more than one son from one family."

"Tinplate Workers.—1. The custom for sons to take to the same work as their fathers largely prevails, and there are instances of families having followed the trade for several generations. 2. I would say that a very large proportion take to the same work as their fathers in the iron and steel trades, and there are many instances of sons following fathers for several generations in the same employment."

In the large localised industries this continuity of work is almost universal. Amongst the miners in all parts of the country generation follows generation with rare exceptions. In Northumberland some of the sons "are put to teaching or go to some trade. But you may take it that the large number go to the pits, as their fathers did before them. I am acquainted with many families that can trace back for four generations that their forefathers have worked in the pits." In Cumberland, Durham, Derbyshire, Nottingham, and South Wales we find the custom universal. It is the same in the textile trades; and these two great industries alone include a large proportion of the workers of the country.

From a small minority of Unions I hear that it is not customary for sons to follow their father's work. In some cases definite reasons are assigned for it. One Association writes: "A very large number of the members themselves have so many disadvantages to contend with, that they make every effort to put their sons to some other trade"; and others as well cite the bad condition of the particular trade as a reason why sons are no longer following their fathers. But where the father has a skilled trade in which there are fair prospects for the future, it is the rule rather than the exception that he will pass it on to his son.

In the absence of a trade union it becomes increasingly difficult to show this continuity; but here and there one gets glimpses of facts which bear witness to it. "There are a great many shepherds in Northumberland, both on the low ground and among the Cheviot Hills, the whole of which are let in sheep farms. The great majority of these men in the Border districts are the sons, grandsons, or greatgrandsons of shepherds. They are said to 'run in families,' and there are instances where a family has followed the calling of shepherd for many generations. Few men who have not been so bred and trained are to be found working as shepherds in these districts."⁴

The following case, which came under my notice recently, illustrates the continuity in one of the more humble branches of the ecclesiastical profession. An old widow, Mrs. A., was applying for a pension, and based her claims upon her family record. She and her late husband had been for twenty-five years sexton and sextoness at a city church, where before marriage her husband had been pew-opener and bellringer. His father had been organ-blower in the same Parish church for fifty-six years, his uncle was Parish schoolmaster, and his grandfather had been Parish beadle, keeper of the fire-engine, and street keeper of the Parish in the days before policemen were thought of. A similar continuity existed in the family's secular employment; for Mr. A. had worked with the same firm as his father before him, and as also Mrs. A.'s father and brother. How strongly the family bond was felt is shown by the fact that Mrs. A., having no children of her own, adopted and brought up an orphan nephew of her husband's, with whom she now lives. This nephew is a book-keeper by trade, but has started a stationery shop in addition, to provide employment for his young daughters. His wife is much attached to old Mrs. A., and says they will always care for her, pension or no pension.

I think, then, it is no exaggeration to say, that wherever we find an industry of any degree of specialisation, as distinct from unskilled and unspecialised labour, there we may find to a greater or less extent a continuity of work binding the generations together, and affording a basis for continuous family life as real and firm, if not as tangible, as landed property itself.

Finally, underlying all others, there is one fundamental bond which I have not yet dwelt upon it is the primitive instinctive attachment which, with rare exceptions, binds parent to child throughout the whole range of the animal world. It is sometimes called the maternal instinct. as if it were confined to the mother; but though the father may occasionally be more reticent in his demonstrations, it is very doubtful whether his feeling is not just as real and compelling in the first instance. Though the physical tie is not so close as that between the mother and her infant, yet the protective instinct of the strong towards the weak is perhaps even more strongly developed in the man than in the woman.

This elementary instinct forms one element, but only one, in the basis upon which the Family is built up. Unless it is supplemented and strengthened by other influences it is apt to wear away and suffer degradation as the children pass beyond the days of infancy and lose the first touching appeal of helplessness. It is notably so amongst the "unstable" Families, where the organising influences of the forces we have been considering never come into play. Yet even here the protective instinct will linger long after every other sign of affection seems to have vanished. Parents who will neglect and even ill-treat their children themselves, will furiously resent any approach to interference or ill-treatment from outsiders.

But the higher influences which form the main persisting strength of the typical modern Family tend to be entirely absent in the unstable Family; it is, indeed, their absence which causes, and to a certain extent constitutes the instability, and differentiates it from the stable Family. If we take first industrial co-operation, we may look for it in vain amongst these Families except in the degraded form already referred to, in which the children are engaged in the sweated "home industries"; even the wife's function is hardly differentiated from that of the husband, and it is just as likely as not that she will be the principal wage-earner. Economic co-operation in its true sense also fails; the children's earnings may be impounded so long as they are young enough to submit, but the sense of mutual responsibility is undeveloped, and no claim is felt beyond the claim of superior force. Nothing is more noticeable to those who have been in touch with these unstable Families that even where the fathers themselves have been skilled artisans, they have neglected to ensure that their children were taught a trade, and have allowed them to drift into the ranks of "unskilled labour"—the ranks, that is, of those with no training aptitudes or skill to hand on to their children when the time comes. They are like the rich man who has dissipated the estate of the Family, and casts its members without resources adrift upon the world.

How these unstable Families have come to lose these organising influences is another question. M. Demolins would seem to hold (see p. 194) that they are the product of the disintegration of patriarchal Families, and that they are by race unfitted to achieve the strength of family life without the support of the larger family community, and the family property behind them. But it would be hard to show that the wreckage of family life which exists in most of our large towns is for the most part racially different from the strongly organised community in and upon which they live, though where the Irish element is strong, as in Glasgow and Liverpool and certain quarters of London, it certainly contributes an unduly large share.

But if we go behind the question of race we find the same causes at work, both in the disjecta membra of the family communities which M. Demolins has in mind, and in the wreckage of our towns. In both cases the individual has been taught to rely upon other than his own strength—in the one upon the "family community," in the other upon Poor Laws, charities, and other adventitious aids; in both cases the children lack the training which is necessary to their salvation: "They are not trained to obedience, to respect of parental authority, to the spirit of economy nor are they trained to individual initiative, to zeal for work, to progressive methods." It is family life alone, with its claims and responsibilities, its continuity of interests and sympathies, which can reorganise these drifting atoms of humanity, and bring them back into the main current of social life; and, fortunately for humanity, the Family is an institution with an inveterate power of reasserting itself in the absence of unwise interference.

Notes