In the late years of the nineteenth century, "capital" and "labour" were enlarging and perfecting their rival organisations on modern lines. Many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. It was moreover a step away from individual initiative, towards collectivism and municipal and state-owned business. The railway companies, though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders, were very unlike old family business. Meanwhile the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting, trams and other services to the taxpayers.
The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners;and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. During the nineteenth century, America, Africa, India,Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital, and British shareholders were thus enriched by the world's movement towards industrialisation. Towns like Bournemouth and Eastbourne sprang up to house large "comfortable" classes who had retired on their incomes, and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders' meeting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand "shareholding" meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilisation.
The "shareholders" as such had no knowledge of the lives, thoughts or needs of employees in the company in which they held shares, and their influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. The paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the workers and their demands, but even he had seldom familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employers had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business. Indeed the mere size of operations and the number of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. Fortunately, however, the increasing power and organisation of the trade unions, at least in all skilled trades, enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. The cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each other's strength and understand the value of fair negotiation.
56. The author says that old family firms
A．were ruined by the younger generations.
B．failed for lack of individual initiative.
C．lacked efficiency compared with modern companies.
D．were able to supply adequate services to taxpayers.
57. The growth of limited liability companies resulted in
A．the separation of capital from management.
B．the ownership of capital by managers.
C．the emergence of capital and labour as two classes.
D．the participation of shareholders in land ownership.
58. The text indicates that
A．some countries developed quickly because of the emergence of the limited liability
companies.
B．the tide of industralisation would widely benefit British shareholders greatly.
C．shareholders contributed a lot to the fast growth of the British economy.
D．the system of shareholding impaired the management of modern companies.
59. We learn from the text that
A．shareholders often cast negative influence on the well-being of workers.
B．owners of traditional firms enjoyed a good relationship with their employees.
C．limited liability companies were too large to run smoothly.
D．trade unions had a positive role on workers and the management.
60. The author appears to be very critical of
A．family firm owners.
B．shareholders.
C．managers.
D．landowners.
参考译文
19世纪晚期，“资本”和“劳动力”都在向着现代的方向扩大和完善它们的互相对立的组织。许多老公司都被雇佣管理人的有限责任公司取代了。这些改变符合新时代的技术要求，它动用了一个很大的专业技术元素，防止了效率的降低。因为正是这种效率降低常常毁掉了继干劲十足的创业者之后第二代或第三代家族企业的前程。而且它也从个体创造向着集体主义和地方企业及国有企业迈进了一步。那些铁路公司，尽管仍是私有企业，运营目的仍是使持股人获得利润，但已和旧式的家族企业很不相同。与此同时，强大的地方政府也介入商业，为纳税者提供照明、电车和其他服务。
有限责任公司和地方企业的发展有着重要的影响。资本和工业这种大规模的缺乏人情味的运作大大增加了持股人的数量以及他们作为一个阶级的重要性。这个阶级成为国家生活中一个代表无责任财富的要素．他们没有土地，不用承担土地所有者的责任；同样他们也不用承担企业经营的责任。在19世纪，美洲、非洲、印度、澳大利亚和欧洲的部分地区依靠英国的资本得以发展，而英国持股人也因此从世界工业化运动中获得利益。诸如伯恩茅斯和伊斯特本这样的城市很快被建设起来供那些富有的阶级居住，他们不再工作，靠他们的收入生活，他们除了领取分红和偶尔参加一下股东会议向管理部门发号施令以外与社区没什么关系。从另一个方面看，“持股”意味着闲暇和自由，维多利亚晚期很多人把这些闲暇和自由当作他们的伟大文化的最高目的。
这些“持股人”对他们所持股的公司中雇员的生活、思想和需要一无所知。而他们对劳资关系的影响也是很不好的。代表公司的受雇经理人和工人以及他们的需求有更直接的关系，但即使是他也很少像通常处在旧式家族企业家长制度下的雇主那样熟悉工人们的私人状况。其实，单是公司运作的规模和牵涉到的工人的数量就决定了这样的人际关系是不可能的。但是幸运的是，工会日益增长的力量和日益扩大的组织，至少在技术性行业里是如此，使工人能够与雇佣他们的公司的经理平起平坐。罢工和闭厂的残酷磨练教会了劳资双方尊重彼此的力量和理解平等协商的价值。
责任编辑：sealion1986
