the state a greater independence and a recognition of their intrinsic worth because they, as it, embody in some sense a real will over and above the wills of their members.  This doctrine of corporate personality is of great interest and complexity, and has not yet been satisfactorily worked out.  But I shall not discuss it now because it will not help us far towards a solution of the problem of what are the proper relations between associations and the state, be they personalities or not.

Recent writers have mainly attempted to solve the problem by the principle of differentiation of function.  This will certainly help us in considering the relation of church and state.  For we can say that the task of the political organization is to maintain the conditions of the good life, leaving the work of developing the meaning of the good life, the fostering and inculcation of ideals, to voluntary associations.  The state will then maintain a certain minimum of moral behaviour, while the more delicate and freer work of inspiration is left to individuals and voluntary associations.  This will not always provide a clean-cut and sufficient differentiation.  The state must make up its own mind what is essential to the maintenance of the good life, the voluntary associations may hold that what the state ordains is flatly evil, as the state may hold that what a voluntary association teaches is subversive of all that makes a common ordered life possible, and both must be true to the facts as they see them.  When such conflict arises, as it has arisen lately, if the only answer we can give at present is the old answer given by Dr. Johnson, ’The state had a right to martyr the Early Christians, and they had a right to be martyred,’ yet at least we are farther on if each side honestly recognizes the importance of the work that the other has to do.

When we come to the problem raised by the present position and claims of Trade Unions, differentiation of functions is less satisfactory.  Let us first look at the problem as it confronts us to-day.  There was a time when the state was doubtful whether it should allow trade unions to exist.  The Political Economy prevalent in the earlier part of the nineteenth century taught that trade unions were either unnecessary or useless—­unnecessary in so far as economic relations, if unhindered by regulations from the state or from combinations, were regarded by economic optimism as themselves producing satisfactory social conditions; useless where Political Economy had substituted for optimism a belief in ‘iron laws’ whose results no combination or government regulation could affect.  We now see that economic relations, just because they are possible between men who have no common purpose, need regulation inspired by a common purpose, and can be affected by such regulation.  The growth of governmental interference with industry and of trade unionism are part of the same movement to control the working of economic relations with a view to maintaining