that there is now only—to use an academic phrase—a "cash nexus" between them. Of course that may be the case in some instances, but if it is to become universal it is much to be deplored. One may even be sufficiently optimistic to believe that it is impossible for people to work together long, in the relationship of employer and employed, without the establishment of a very real mutual respect and affection. We must all of us know some old employees, old servants who have been and are some of the best friends we have ever had. The writer has, in the course of his own experience, often had to appeal to employers of labour to help an old servant in time of trouble, and he has almost always found that the sense of obligation—when the service has been good service—has been freely recognised.
If it were possible to tabulate any statistics as to the extent to which this spontaneous and honourable sense of obligation operates as a repairing force in society, I think it would surprise some of those who talk glibly about a "cash nexus." The old age pension fund alone, for instance, which is the natural outcome of this feeling, must be of enormous proportions. There is hardly any firm of size or standing that has not its list of pensioners. The number of those pensioned by smaller firms or private employers is almost innumerable. Then there is a form of quasi pension which, as Mr Charles Booth says, is met by the provision of "suitable light work at wages which are based upon the needs of the recipient rather than upon value of the services rendered," and "is based upon a kindly social usage." Almost every firm in London has a few old employees retained upon these terms. In the country upon a great number of farms, upon almost every estate, it is still the custom to maintain this "kindly social usage."
