It would have been most unfortunate if it had been necessary, after the War, when delay in dealing with many matters which will be most urgent would be disastrous, to arouse contests about alterations in the electorate and mode of election. The new Parliament may, after all, turn out to be fairly representative of the nation, and may set about the practical work of reconstruction at once. It would have been an advantage if the Reform of the House of Lords could also have been disposed of in the present Parliament, but it is not one of the questions upon which the welfare of the country will immediately depend. Everyone admits the need for reform; the abolition of the "backwoods-man" must come; but it is the men of most experience in public affairs who regularly attend sittings of the House of Lords, and they contribute even now a valuable element in promoting useful legislation as well as in revising and amending the Bills initiated in another place. Most of the amendments of the Law which marked the latter half of the nineteenth century were first introduced in the House of Lords.

During this time of severe test, it cannot be denied that the House of Lords has gained in the respect of the nation, that its debates have not only been dignified but often useful and enlightening, nor that, as at other times in its past history, it has shown itself to be quite as ready as the other House to be a guardian of law and of liberty. The business ability of many of its members has also been conspicuous, and the value of the experience of those who have taken part in the government of British possessions beyond the seas and of their knowledge of other countries has been demonstrated.

Of the Crown and its influence it is unnecessary, perhaps unbecoming, to say much. It has made for the unity of the Empire, not only as a symbol, but, so far as the strict limitations of our Constitution permit, as an active force. The existence of the monarchy and the character of three successive sovereigns, and their real personal interest in its people, are among the causes why India has been, and especially why the Native States have been, as a rule, so loyal in this time of danger, when the support of the whole Empire was so much needed. In our own country the example set of ever ready and earnest sympathy with all who are suffering from the effects of the War, feeling its strain and bearing its burdens, from the highest to the humblest, and also of that simplicity of life now so vitally important for all in the time of general self-denial, which is necessary or, at any rate, a duty for all, has been one of the real factors in knitting all classes of the nation together in useful service and willing sacrifice. Could anyone read the royal speech to the nation on July 6th, 1918, and the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Paul's, and of the leaders in Parliament, without feeling what a mighty influence for good there is in the British monarchy? Those words were not decorous platitudes demanded by convention, but the expression of genuine and intense feeling.

The sober freedom out of which there springs Our loyal passion for our temperate kings

is an inheritance of our country which no theoretical discussions about forms of government can interfere with, unless we are insane enough to abandon the practical good sense that has brought the nation safely through so many perils, in deference to some a priori argument about the best form of government, and the logical result of some so-called principles. In politics—always using the term in its broad meaning, and not as denoting the disputes and manoeuvres of parties, like the contests between the green and blue factions of Byzantium—there is a strong presumption that whatever is recommended as "logical" is also foolish. It would be well to prescribe a severe course of Burke for the a priori theorists, and while they are occupied with it, set ourselves to the real work. We should not forget, too, that Court influence, which in some past times fostered corruption in political life, has for eighty years been as a rule a purifying influence. It would not be easy for any Minister, pressed by the political exigencies of the hour, to submit, even for formal approval, to a sovereign who has only the national interest to think of, perhaps most difficult of all to a high-minded and clear-headed woman, a course of action that was dishonourable or mean.

However important the influence of the Crown and the functions of a Second Chamber may be, it is the House of Commons which is the corner-stone of the Constitution. Through it the will of the nation must be expressed, and embodied in definite action. The representatives in that House are those chosen by the nation by regular and legal methods to exercise their judgment, to enact laws, and to control acts of the executive. It is essential not only to maintain, but to restore the position of the House of Commons, and insure for it the respect and confidence of the people. It is impossible to deny that respect and confidence have been shaken, and that the position of the House is threatened from two opposite quarters. We hear it daily spoken of as "that talking shop"; it has been said that it would be better, instead of having a fine statue of Cromwell outside, to have a living Cromwell inside to purge it thoroughly. The story of the officer who, on returning to England after long residence in the East, asked his father if "that nonsense was going on still," represents a feeling which is widespread. The present House of Commons, the existence of which has been necessarily prolonged, has been the subject of bitter and contemptuous criticism. Much of that criticism is unfair. In spite of the fact that its attention had first to be directed to questions directly affecting the War, it has passed the largest extension of the franchise ever made, and in doing so without doubt carried out the wish of the nation. It got rid of the fetters imposed on the free expression of the will of the electors, and the restrictions placed on the free selection of candidates of small means, by putting the expenses of returning officers on public funds, and also by making better provision for the revision of the register of voters. A number of useful Bills have been passed, and it has been a means of eliciting information from the Government which the country ought to have, but which would otherwise have been withheld. It has voted the necessary supplies for carrying on the War, and freely and readily assented to the increased taxation that was essential. Unfortunately it is the practice in a portion of the Press always to give prominence to the strange antics of certain members and the vicious attempts made by some to embarrass the Government in carrying on the War. A scene in the House of Commons is fully reported; the good work done, especially by certain useful committees, passes almost unnoticed. It is true, however, that the character of many of the debates has been regrettable, and that as regards what is perhaps its most important function, namely, the control of expenditure, the House has not been able to exercise its functions as it should.

It was pointed out years ago that the House of Commons was in practice ceasing to be what it ought, according to Constitutional theory, to be, "a deliberative assembly of the representatives of the nation discussing and forming judgments on national policy, instituting legislation and determining its form," and was becoming simply "a body for registering the decrees of a Cabinet." In practice it was assumed to be "the duty of the minority in opposition to find objections to the proposals of the Government, representing the majority, and to occupy time in voting against them as often as possible, and on the other hand that it is the duty of the majority to refrain from discussion, to applaud Ministers, and to make sure that whatever they propose shall be carried by undiminished numbers." In this respect the present House is no worse than its predecessors for the last thirty years; the political truce has indeed improved matters in some respects. It is at least doubtful whether under "pre-War conditions" either the Representation of the People Bill or the Education Bill could have been carried, certainly they would not have been passed in a form to secure so much general consent. Instead of such consent, some measure strongly opposed by a minority might have been forced through by free use of the closure. A new danger has arisen, however, of a still more serious kind, threatening the position of the House of Commons. It is that, instead of national policy being controlled by legislation, settled by a recognised constitutional body elected according to definite rules and representing the nation, the real power of initiative and real directing force may pass to some other body or bodies unknown to the law and representing only a class or even to certain writers in the popular Press. The House of Commons, unless its constitutional powers and its independence are maintained or restored, may become a body for registering and giving legal sanction to the resolutions of some conference or convention indefinite in its constitution, but highly organised for the purpose of making representatives in Parliament mere delegates to carry out the proposals of the majority of those who themselves had acted as delegates of a section only of the community.

The course of revolution in Russia should be a warning to all. Russia is passing through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, where is heard "the continual howling and yelling of a people under unutterable misery, who sit there bound in affliction and iron, and over it hang the discouraging clouds of confusion; death also does always spread his wings over it. In a word it is every whit a dreadful being utterly without order." Had there been in Russia a regularly constituted assembly possessing adequate power and representing the nation as a whole, including the "bourgeoisie"—who also "are God's creatures"—as well as workmen, instead of irregular bodies appealing to the greed and hatred of a class, most of the misery through which Russia is passing might have been prevented, and the prospects of early restoration would have been assured. The British nation is too sane, too used to orderly freedom, to adopt either the spirit or the methods of the Bolsheviks, but we may hear of them even in this country. They may perhaps give serious trouble and interfere with progress on sound lines. The historic House of Commons must be the means of carrying out Reconstruction so far as legislation, and of controlling it so far as State action is required. Some changes in its methods will be discussed in the chapters on Reform, but the maintenance of the Constitution as the best instrument for promoting orderly, peaceful, and real progress is essential.

The peace we need would only be uselessly disturbed, and the practical reforms most urgently required would only be delayed by raising controversial questions about the form of the Constitution. We may well let them alone, and get on with something that will be of real benefit.



CHAPTER IX

PEACE AND DEMOCRACY

There is no more unsafe politician than a conscientiously rigid doctrinaire, nothing more sure to end in disaster than a theoretic volume of policy that admits of no pliability for contingencies.—J.R. LOWELL.

It is often assumed that a change in the form of Government in Germany would completely alter the attitude and conduct of the nation, and secure permanent peace, but that alone would not be sufficient. It would undoubtedly help; for under a more popular Government it would be easier for a different spirit in the German nation to assert itself. Democracies, however, have from time to time been aggressive, and have claimed to dominate their neighbours. A change far deeper than a change in the form of Government is needed. The claim put forward both by word and deed to impose the German will on others by organised force of any kind must be abandoned utterly, if the world is to be really at peace with Germany and with those whom Germany has been able to compel or to beguile into alliance with her. The conflict is not simply between autocracy or oligarchy and democracy, but between different ideals and diametrically opposed notions of duty. The conception of their State as an organisation carefully arranged to impose its will on others regardless of their feelings and their rights must be eradicated. Democracy and Liberty do not necessarily go together. There may be democracy without liberty, and it is possible though not probable that there may be real liberty without the form of democracy. An enlightened monarch, governing as well as reigning, may express the real will of a nation more truly than the vote of a majority of representatives; and individual liberty may be more secure under such a monarch than when it is dependent on the result of divisions taken when party passion is running high. But such a rule must lack the element of stability. The Antonines pass away and Commodus and Heliogabalus rule in their place. Permanent strength and settled liberty are best secured when the acts of Government are the expression of the conscious will of the nation as a whole, where the people think out for themselves the general lines of action and the Government is their minister. It is not enough that there should be a just rule in which they acquiesce, but it is they themselves who should act—through agents, no doubt—and learn the habit of forming right judgments and acting justly. To deny him a share in political life—that is, in deciding the action of the State to which he belongs—is to deprive a man of one of those "activities of the soul which constitute happiness," to take from him one of the things that makes a full life for those who really live among their fellows. There may always be a few who live apart, contemplative souls

insphered In regions mild, of calm and serene air, Above the smoke and stir of this dim spot Which men call earth.

Some may build themselves a Palace of Art where they may live alone; some may sink themselves in luxury or repose in sluggish indifference, careless of the life of others round them, with neither the heart to feel nor head to understand anything beyond their own immediate wants. But the highest aim and fullest life for man generally—as "an animal more social than the bee"—is

To go and join head and heart and hand, Active and firm to fight the bloodless fight Of science, freedom, and the truth in Christ.

Political action may be one of the means of carrying on that fight. Is it not one of the "rights of man" to be allowed to join in it?

It is, however, not to be forgotten that men acting in the mass, just as men acting individually, may act under sudden impulse, may do under the influence of temporary passion, even of a generous emotion, things which they would regret afterwards, and feel to be an error. Some checks on such sudden action are most essential in a democracy, because there is no appeal from its decision. A reverence for tradition, for those rules of conduct which have stood the test of time, is one restraining influence, but more formal restraints on sudden decisions and violent changes are necessary. A single vote of a popular assembly may not represent the well-considered judgment and permanent will of the people. Steps may be taken which it is impossible to recall. To insist on an appeal from "Philip drunk to Philip sober" is not to deprive him of his real liberty. It is a safeguard, not an infringement of the principles of true democracy, to provide some body of men of experience who can exercise an independent judgment, and who, when some violent change is proposed, have the right and the duty to reply in effect:

Old things may not be therefore true, Oh brother men, nor yet the new; Ah, still awhile the old thought retain, And yet consider it again.

Such a justification, such a statement of the function of a Second Chamber, not directly elected, may provoke a histrionic smile among extreme advocates of so-called popular rights, but has never evoked an argument which can displace it as based on sound reason and common sense. There are some changes, too, which ought not to be made without a specific appeal to the people on that particular issue. To make them as part of the programme, as one plank in the platform of a party dominant for the moment, is not to execute but to evade the real will of the nation. We know by experience how the vote of a popular representative assembly may represent the opinion of "a bare majority of a bare majority;" conceivably anything over one-eighth of the nation. A committee is elected by some eager partisans supposed to represent a party. That party perhaps represents a bare majority of the constituency. The caucus chooses a candidate whose views suit a bare majority of its members who hold the most extreme views. He and others go to Parliament as representing one party, and a majority of such members decides what policy shall be adopted. Party discipline compels the acquiescence of the rest. The machine is cleverly constructed to make the will of certain party managers of mere sections of the constituencies the dominant factor. No wonder that they denounce Proportional Representation as a dangerous fad. Undoubtedly the will of the people must prevail, but the exercise of that will should depend on and be the result of their own deliberate judgment. Whether what is done is a blessing or curse depends not on whether it is the act of an autocrat, of an aristocracy, or of a democracy, but on the character of the act and the spirit which prompts it. A great audience in London recently heard the true position summed up in few words—I quote Dr. Campbell Morgan from memory—"It is said we want to make the world safe for democracy. What we really need is to make democracy safe for the world."



C.—INDUSTRIAL PEACE



CHAPTER X

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS

To secure industrial peace on terms just and honourable to both sides would be to double the national strength whether in industry or citizenship.—MEMORANDUM OF THE GARTON FOUNDATION.

Under this head it will be convenient to treat not only of the steps to be taken to prevent disputes or secure their settlement by peaceful means, and to promote a more hearty co-operation of employer and employed, but also of various other questions affecting industry, such, for example, as increased production and increased saving. Without industrial peace there will be no industrial or commercial prosperity, and without a fair amount of prosperity it will be very difficult if not impossible to preserve industrial peace. As the War proceeds these questions become more and more urgent; after it, they will be more serious and more pressing than ever. Already the need for taking certain steps at once and for preparing a future policy is recognised. Anyone who wishes to have before him a clear statement of the industrial situation and of the effects of the War upon it, cannot do better than read, and read with care, the revised memorandum prepared under the auspices of the Garton Foundation and published in October, 1916. Singularly impartial and judicious, it does not gloss over the difficulties and perils which must be faced, but throughout there is a note of hopefulness—an anticipation of a better state of things—if while "the forces of change are visibly at work we do not allow them to hurry us blindly with them," but "direct them along the path of ordered progress." Some of the specific remedies suggested, of the proposals adumbrated, may be open to criticism—criticism is, indeed, invited—but it is evident that nothing is suggested that has not been the subject of careful consideration of the facts. Some of the proposals have already been put into fairly definite form in the Whitley Report, and have received the approval of the Government. Industrial Councils are to be established. The object of them will be to consider "constructive measures for the improvement of industrial conditions and the increase of efficiency." They will not be confined to specific points of dispute. They are to be established in industries which are "highly organised," where the employer and employed already possess some definite association or union which represents them respectively. There are to be national, district, and workshop councils set up. Their object differs from that of the Conciliation Boards for Arbitration or the Trade Boards established to settle some specific question such as a minimum wage to be paid, or some question that has given rise to a dispute between employers and employed. Such a mode of settlement is a great advance on leaving differences to be settled by an industrial war—a strike or lock-out. The Boards will still be needed, just as arbitration tribunals will be required to settle specific disputes between nations. The aim in both cases is to substitute arbitration for war (or its equivalent) or threats of war. Something more is aimed at in the establishment of Industrial Councils. They contemplate a "continuous and constructive co-operation of Capital and Management on the one hand and Labour on the other." They are not tribunals for the settlement of disputes which have arisen, but joint committees which can discuss and propose methods of dealing with any question affecting working-conditions generally, e.g., the introduction of new machinery and its effect on employment and the status as well as the wages of the workpeople, and even its economic effect generally. Suggestions can be made as to changes which may "increase output or economise effort" and eliminate waste. The effect of any alterations on the health of those engaged in any industry would be within their purview. The idea is to promote co-operation, to make all recognise certain common interests, not merely to adjust competing claims. In international affairs the nearest analogy would be a League of Nations for promoting the common interest of all. While, of course, the main object of such a league is common action to prevent breaches of the international peace by restraining wrong-doers, it should not be the sole object. In the case of Industrial Councils the object is to promote the general welfare of all engaged in the trade and to increase productive efficiency, as well as to secure fair terms between the parties and prevent disputes. If such a Council has been established for any industry Government Departments will consult it, and not the Trade Board, on any questions affecting that industry; but the constitution of the Council should make provision by which Trade Boards can be consulted. Roughly speaking, "the functions of the Trade Board will be called into operation mainly in the case of the less organised trades, and the highly organised trades will be the sphere of the Industrial Councils." These, in their most developed form, will be national, district, and local.

A memorandum which has official sanction states that the chief duty of the Trade Boards, on the other hand, is to fix minimum rates of wages which can be imposed by law. They are needed primarily to insure that in trades where the workers have no official organisation to guard their interest a living wage shall be secured for all. They are statutory bodies set up under an Act of Parliament just passed, and will be connected with the Ministry of Labour, by which their members are largely nominated. The work of such Boards is being extended.

Detailed discussion of the character of the work which may be expected to be done by the councils and of its probable effects would be beyond the scope of this volume, and would require special knowledge of the industries concerned. It will vary in different industries and in different places. In some, success may be confidently expected, in others there will probably be failures. The aim of the proposal is certainly one to be desired, and the method for attaining it promises many beneficial results. There appear to be some dangers involved which it may be well to consider. Useful work may be hindered owing to, first, the time and attention required for the meetings and discussions of the various councils, and the risk that clever and fluent talkers may prolong debate and generate friction and may perhaps exercise an undue influence. Probably this will not be found a serious danger. Experience over a considerable district shows that those who are chosen by the Trade Unions to represent them are usually clear-headed and businesslike men, who grasp a point quickly and, while carefully guarding the interests of those whom they represent, are fair-minded and ready to do all they can to promote the national interest also. Secondly, there may be a tendency to interfere too much in questions of management, even where full and detailed knowledge of trade conditions of the moment and of possible appliances that may be used is required, and prompt action may be necessary. A man steering a boat in a storm would hardly succeed if he had to consult a committee before moving the helm. The object of the councils would not be to undertake the general management of the business, but should be directed to the relation of workers and management, to secure efficiency and greater production, a fair participation in and distribution of the benefits derived from success, and wholesome conditions for those engaged in the work, and to avoid dispute by agreeing action beforehand wherever possible. Thirdly, in this as in most other cases where power is given to representatives of organised bodies, there is a risk of undue interference with the liberty of those who do not belong to them or who are in a minority. A dead level of uniformity may be secured, experiments and new lines of action by enterprising and original minds may be interfered with. The old problem of reconciling high organisation and corporate action with individual liberty may present itself in an acute form.

Already before the War the tendency to crush out individuality was becoming stronger and stronger, the private firms of manufacturers were being squeezed out by highly organised combines, or tempted by high prices offered to hand over their businesses to them. In banking, similarly, the absorption and amalgamation of smaller banks has been going on with startling rapidity. The personal relationship between the customer and the banker, who would grant loans and overdrafts because he knew the character and position of the borrower in each case, will no longer exist. The business was safe enough when the manager of a country bank probably knew whether a customer's butcher's bills were becoming excessive. Now everything must be referred to London for decision according to some fixed general rule. The convenience and the accommodation of the man with a small account count for very little. A more serious question is the effect which these amalgamations may have on the relations between bankers and those who are engaged in manufacturing business.

The old personal relationship between the mill-owner and his employees, when his garden adjoined the mill yard, when they spoke of him by his Christian name, and he knew their family affairs and was ready to help in time of difficulty and distress and to take a lead in any local effort or support any local charity, has been rapidly disappearing. There still are, however, many employers to whom the happiness and welfare of their workpeople is a matter of deepest concern. They have a human interest in them, and take a pride in improving the conditions of their life. They have other aims than simply securing as big a dividend as possible for the eager shareholders of a huge combine. It is, no doubt, usually large employers of labour who are thus able and willing to make provision for the welfare of the people in their employ. Some have established libraries and reading-rooms, and have provided classes for giving instruction likely to be useful to the boys and young men engaged in their works. Conditions of labour would be greatly improved if the example of the best firms in such matters were generally followed.

The more complete organisation of trades under powerful councils may tend to a virtual monopoly being obtained by a limited number of large and influential firms, and the result may be prejudicial to the consumer by limiting competition. That is not certainly the object, but it may be an incidental effect of the organisation which is needed for full development of the system of councils. In some cases State support and control acting in conjunction with private firms of great influence is to be introduced to unify an industry under one management. Support and control may possibly be necessary in some cases, but the extension of such methods should be jealously watched. In the manufacture of dyes, for example, it seems that the Government and a very powerful manufacturing firm or combination are arranging to act together. Those outside this combination will have no chance of competing. In this particular case the scheme may be useful, but careful provision is necessary to protect customers for the commodities produced. It may become a very serious thing for manufacturers of piece goods when struggling to maintain their position in the world markets, and the slightest addition to cost of production may close a market to them, if they find that they cannot purchase the dyes they require in the cheapest market, or those who dye goods for them must increase their charges, because one organisation can fix prices, and import from abroad is prohibited in order to protect a special home industry.

Possibly it may be necessary for a time to give such protection to certain industries, involving a preliminary expenditure of a large capital; but the fact that the dye industry had gone from England to Germany was, in the opinion of many, due not so much to free and open competition as to the circumstances that (1) the German producers paid more attention to systematic chemical research bearing on the industry, and (2) that our absurd patent law operated to throttle English production. The founder of the successful firm of Levinstein, Limited, Mr. Ivan Levinstein, seeing by his own experience how our patent laws prevented the development of the dye industry in England, devoted years of work to obtain an alteration of these laws, but with only partial success. The Government, after very long delays, attempted to deal with the matter, but it is not yet satisfactorily settled. A Bill on the subject is now before Parliament. A list can be given of more than a dozen cases—there may have been many others—in which the Badische-Anilin Fabrik was plaintiff against firms in this country. The result was to aid the rapid development of the huge works near Mannheim now used to manufacture poisonous gases, while the works in this country were crippled. Strangely enough, it was an English chemist (Sir W. Perkin) who made the discoveries which led to the development of this industry; but it is generally possible where competition is keen to take out subsidiary patents for small improvements which really enable the subsequent patentee to command the market. Sometimes the root invention for some reason cannot be made the subject of a valid patent, or the patent for it expires before its full commercial value has been realised, and the minor improvements give the holder of patents for them a virtual monopoly.

All along the line, too, the big firm is favoured at the expense of the smaller. The position of the small tradesman is often a very hard one. The shopkeeper in a village or small town near the metropolis pays heavy rates for the upkeep of roads which are torn to pieces by the heavy motors of the great distributing firms delivering goods to those who would otherwise be his customers, perhaps with petrol specially exempted from taxation. The firm which by widespread advertisements can induce people to buy an article with some familiar name attached, reaps a gigantic fortune, while the man who makes the same article and cannot spend money on advertisement gains a mere pittance. The advertisements which disfigure the country are not taxed, as in other countries, and the issue of advertising circulars has been subsidised by the Post Office, which delivered them at a rate lower than that charged for delivery of the letters, or even the postcards, of the poorest, though the trouble involved is the same. The patent laws, again, have been exploited to protect the large manufacturer, who fences some form of production by taking out a string of patents often where there is no meritorious invention at all. The rubbishy specifications are flourished in the face of a poor competitor, and form a basis for threats which a man who is not wealthy dare not resist, knowing the heavy cost of fighting any patent action whether successful or not. "To him that hath shall be given" ought not to be a maxim to guide legislators or any department of Government.

To return from this digression. One great advantage of the councils would be that those who represent the workmen upon them will probably be men who are actually engaged in manual work in the trades concerned, or have been so engaged, and who will look at each question practically. The agitator who lives on grievances and disputes, the politician "on the make," or the well-meaning and half-informed enthusiast from outside, is not likely to find a place on councils whose object it is to see how interests which investors, managers, and workmen have in common can best be promoted, and how the share of each in the work and its profits can be more fairly assigned and distributed instead of attention being concentrated on matters in which their interests seem to be in conflict.

Another difficulty of more direct importance with regard to the proposed councils is already arising. The relative powers and position of the shop stewards chosen by the men in each works and of the unions representing industry as a whole in any district have to be settled. There are also overlapping unions competing for influence and support, and sometimes doing so by making excessive demands. The events of the next few months may lead either to an accentuation or to a partial solution of these questions which are perhaps the most serious at present affecting industrial peace. It is better not to anticipate. Prophecy might be falsified too soon and too palpably, and the position, which changes from week to week, is too critical for anyone to discuss unless he has full and exact knowledge of the facts and clear understanding of the way in which undercurrents are setting.



CHAPTER XI

LONG HOURS

Our life is turned Out of her course wherever man is made An offering, or a sacrifice, a tool Or implement, a passive thing employed As a brute mean, without acknowledgment Of common right or interest in the end. —WILLIAM WORDSWORTH.

There is no doubt that among the causes of unrest one of the most serious, probably much more so than either employers or workmen are generally conscious of, is the long hours of work. Those who have had to hear questions arising out of labour disputes have noticed the state of tension produced by the weariness and strain of too prolonged and continuous work. Even in the domestic circle an overworked man is often found less amiable and more ready to find fault. A harassed manager and a deputation of jaded workmen may be really very good fellows and yet find that some comparatively small question raises strong feeling and mutual recrimination, and then leads to rash action resulting in open strife, strikes, and lock-outs, and the judicial proceedings which may be necessary in consequence of them. "A Skilled Labourer," writing in the Quarterly Review, mentions as the first of the four principal grievances of workmen—"the hours are too long." Long hours have been accepted on both sides partly because during the War the call of the country for increased output, especially of munitions, was so urgent, and partly because it was thought that higher profits would thereby be obtained, and certainly higher wages earned. It seems, however, well established that longer hours do not necessarily mean increased output. There is a limit to the time during which a man can do even routine work effectively. If men were to be regarded only as machines for turning out work of a certain class, very long hours would be bad business. Where the work involves special skill and thought the evil results of long hours, even measured simply by the gross amount done, are still more serious. Everyone who has had to do with young students and still more with parents disappointed by their sons' failures must again and again have found that the cause of failure was too many hours devoted to reading. The students acquired the habit of sitting over their books worrying their minds, but really absorbing nothing. A senior wrangler has been known to find five or six hours a day of real work at mathematics as much as he could stand. Of course, work involving little hard physical exertion and hardly any mental effort can go on much longer, but the very monotony which in some ways makes it easy, has a deadening effect. A factory operative minding a "mule" being asked: "Is it not very hard work always watching and piecing threads?" answered, "No, but it is very dree work." But the evil effects of too long hours are not confined to the fact that unrest or disputes arise from the state of feeling produced nor to the diminution of production due to fatigue. Recurrent strains continued over a long period indeed deteriorate even things which are inanimate. The "fatigue of metals" has been the subject of careful investigations. It is time that fatigue of human beings, even looked at as machines, were more fully considered.[5]

The great and often permanent physical injury caused by too prolonged work is specially serious for women. Many women are such willing workers that they go on overtaxing their strength. Among girls and women students the fatigue from overstrain in preparing for examinations, from which boys and men may rapidly recover, often results in permanent physical and even mental degeneration. Many who have watched the effects of such continuous study would advocate a complete sabbatical year in which systematic study should be suspended entirely for girls at some period between fourteen and eighteen.

It is impossible to have a healthy nation if the majority, or any very large part of it, work for excessive hours even in the factories where the best methods are employed to make the conditions as healthy as possible. Medical men of the highest authority regard the influence of too prolonged hours of work as one which urgently demands attention. Enlightened and experienced men of business like Lord Leverhulme have expressed very strong views on the subject. Man, however, cannot be looked on as a mere machine for production, nor is even health the only question for him as a human being. He must have time for other pursuits, for recreation, for a fuller life. As civilisation and education advance this need becomes stronger. The duller the work the greater the need for those who have any natural mental activity to find resources of interest outside. The pleasure derived from literature and science should be open to all. No one who knows working people can deny that the demand for it exists. A fitter on weekly wages used to show in a poor cottage one of the best collections of British butterflies and moths, made entirely by himself. Many of them had been captured late at night on Chat Moss. A hair-dresser has told how to watch the habits of birds was the delight of his Sunday bicycle rides; his assistant called attention to some little known poet whose works had a special appeal for him; another said it was the study in his rare holidays at the seaside and in local museums of some form of animal life—the name of it, now forgotten, would convey no meaning to most University graduates—that made his interest in life. You may find a large audience of workmen interested in a lecture on Shelley, and some of them as well acquainted with his poems as the lecturer. Such cases as these may perhaps be exceptional, but given opportunity and sympathetic help and advice, they might be multiplied almost indefinitely. Other men want time for cultivation of allotments, which ought to be within the reach of thousands of urban workers who find in them a perennial source of interest. A growing number take a keen pleasure in seeing something of the beauties of their own country. Tramping through the Yorkshire dales and knowing them well, it was interesting to meet one who knew them better, and to find that he was a chimney-sweep, who saved up his earnings to spend his holidays regularly there.

The success of the Workers' Educational Association shows both the strength of the demand among the workmen, and sometimes, too, among working women, for intellectual life and their capacity to make use of any opportunities offered for regular study. It is to be hoped that its promoters will not forget that some branches of natural science and literature, opening new realms of interest removed from the ordinary cares of life, are at least as important subjects for study as economic and social problems, and that one of the most important of such problems is how to give those who must earn their daily bread by work that is often dull and wearisome, the opportunity of sharing as far as possible in the intellectual life. We may well wish Mr. Mansbridge and his friends success as pioneers in the work of reconstruction, and renewed and extended activity when the pressure of War requirements is removed. It is to be hoped that the original ideals of the Association may never be forgotten.

The aim of the Association is neither technical, i.e., to make workmen better qualified for their special work, nor to attain a higher general education with a view to their obtaining employment of a different class and ceasing to be manual workers. It is to enable them, while continuing to earn their living by manual work, to participate in the fuller life given by intellectual activity. There are some subjects which can be pursued and studied thoroughly with pleasure and profit without any long or exact preliminary training. With some wise guidance in reading and some stimulating criticism to help him, the workman can really obtain all that is important from the study of the literature of his own language—to learn to know and to enjoy the best that has been written. It is of no importance that he will probably not become a "literary expert," able to trace the influence of this or that obscure writer of one age or country on the literature of another. It is to be hoped that he will not learn the kind of literary jargon affected by so many modern critics, or attempt in his essays to imitate those who think that obscurity indicates profundity. There are some sciences, too, especially certain branches of natural science, which can be pursued by men whose time is mainly taken up by manual work.

The idea of erecting an educational ladder by which all will proceed from the elementary to the secondary school and thence to the University, is a false one. Any such ladder must continue to be narrow at the top. It is impossible in any economic conditions that we are likely to see in our time that the majority of our people will be able to devote their whole lives to study until the age at which a University course can be finished. Indeed, for all classes there is a modern tendency to prolong the school period unduly, to keep boys under the discipline and following the methods of the secondary school until nineteen years of age, so that they finish a University course, which is also becoming more prolonged, after twenty-three, and then at last take up their vocational training. Neither parents nor the nation can afford to make such a course the normal one. It is no doubt of the greatest importance to secure a career for special talent so that poverty shall not prevent a really able boy or girl following such a course of study as would enable his or her talents to have their full scope. The old Grammar Schools, especially in the North of England, afford many examples of poor boys who by means of their school and University scholarships were enabled to obtain the best training the country could give, and so attain the highest positions in Church and State. These must necessarily be the few. It is a cruelty by means of scholarships to tempt those who have neither the financial means nor exceptional talent to try for a career in which there will really be no opening for them. Even with the limited number of scholarships which local authorities have been able to offer, there have been many cases in which bitter complaints have been raised that young people had been induced to prepare themselves for some walk in life in which there was no demand for their services. Of course, the more knowledge is required in various industries the more scope there will be for those who have had a long training, but there is nothing more injurious to the State than to turn out a number of persons who have had a prolonged academic training, but who are not able to do something for which there is a demand, and for which the world is willing to pay. The results of such a course of action may be seen on a large scale in India. In one of the colleges of an Indian University in a large manufacturing town, fourteen young men—very agreeable and frank, outspoken fellows—met at random in one of the hostels, were asked what, on completing their college course, they intended to do; twelve answered to become "pleaders," and two hoped for something in the Government service. None proposed to follow manufacturing industry, agriculture, or commerce. The legal profession which they proposed to enter was so crowded that pleaders are said to have been competing with each other to obtain cases by a kind of Dutch auction regarding fees, and also to promote litigation wilfully in order to obtain a living. It is from a kind of "intellectual proletariat" in all countries, that dangerous political agitators are drawn who take up political life not to improve the conditions of their fellows, but to find some sort of a career for themselves, having no useful occupation to turn to.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 5: Since the above lines were written I hear that a Committee of Inquiry has been appointed by the Government to report on the subject.]



CHAPTER XII

WAGES[6]

How shall we better distribute the product of industry, and allay the unrest of which we hear so much? There's only one way—by improving our methods of production. To effect this the earnest and active co-operation between those engaged in industry must be employed.

... No longer must a man be supported by his union when he refuses to mind two lathes because the custom of the factory confines him to one. No longer must an employer assign as a reason for cutting prices that the man's wages are too high.... Each side must endeavour better to understand the outlook of the other.—SIR HUGH BELL.

The second grievance mentioned in the Quarterly article already referred to is: "The wages are too low." To remedy this grievance, increased productivity, along with greater economy in working, is the first essential in order to obtain the funds out of which higher wages can be paid; the second, to get a fair allocation and distribution of the profit made. Increased benefit will also be a stimulus to better work.

For a crowded country like ours to maintain a leading position in industry is obviously a necessary condition either of welfare or progress. It is of first importance to secure work of high quality. A highly civilised and trained nation must hold its own by the superior quality of the articles produced as well as by being able to supply both its own needs and to compete in prices with others by the quantity of output. It may be possible, for example, to hold the market for fine spinning when other countries are well able to supply coarse yarns from their own factories. Hitherto this country has been able to maintain a lead in industry largely through causes which are no longer operative. Thus, we had (1) a settled Government when Germany and Italy were divided into a number of small and inefficient and often very badly governed States, when France was exhausted and unsettled, and when America was only in its infancy; and (2) the advantage due to the fact that the great discoveries and inventions which advanced industry were mostly made in Britain, when industry was developing at the close of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century. Many of these inventions were made by manual workers who, by intuitive genius, saw what was needed to meet the requirements that arose in practice. There was not then that fund of accumulated scientific knowledge and experience in existence which anyone must have before he can make any advance or improvement to-day. There was an interesting print published some forty years ago giving portraits of the Englishmen who had made contributions to practical science and who might have been assembled together in one room in 1808. It included many who made their inventions as manual workers. Murdock, who invented a new lathe, and developed the use of coal gas, worked until over forty years old for a wage of a pound a week; Davy had been apprenticed to an apothecary; Bramah, who invented a new hydraulic press, once worked with a village carpenter; Bolton and Watt and Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam hammer, were practical engineers. Never in the world's history has there been such a galaxy of practical talent and inventive power as those whose portraits are shown in this picture. Now a larger amount of preliminary knowledge as to what has already been done and of the sciences is necessary, in most cases at least, before useful inventions can be made. The more widely this scientific knowledge can be made available throughout all classes in the country the greater is the possibility of maintaining our lead. It is also important to maintain, so far as technical education can give it, skill in carrying out methods already established and improving them, and also in making the worker more adaptable to new conditions and altered circumstances instead of being a mere machine able to do one class of work only, and adhering simply to the one rigid method which he may have learnt. But knowledge and training are not all that is wanted. It is essential that all classes connected with industry should realise that increased production in established and well-understood industries is essential, and that it can only be obtained, first, by willing and vigorous work on the part of the workman, aiming at producing as much as possible in the hours during which labour can be efficiently carried on without detriment to health or depriving the labourer of the opportunities of enjoying a life outside his daily routine; and, secondly, by the increased use of the best machinery and labour-saving appliances and working such machinery to its fullest capacity. Instead of that, it has often been the policy to restrict the production of each man's labour, one reason being lest there should not be enough employment to go round, and also to view the introduction of machinery which might displace labour with hostility and suspicion. In order to give the leisure which the workman needs for a full and healthy life, and to provide a wage which will enable him to secure the comforts which he rightly desires, as well as to obtain adequate remuneration for those who manage businesses, and interest on their money for those whose capital is to be embarked in them, increased production is necessary; but it cannot be expected that workmen will realise this or desire the result unless they know certainly that they will obtain at once a benefit from it. It has too often been the case that where some new invention has been made, or new machinery introduced, or the conditions of trade have enabled an industry to be more profitable, the workman has not shared in the benefits obtained until he has pressed for an increase of wages, even to the extent of striking or threatening to strike. The faults and jealousies leading to restricted production are not all on one side. Cases have arisen when a manager has let out a piece of work to a group of workmen at a price which has resulted in a larger output in a given time at less cost, though the amount paid to each man has been higher owing to increased diligence, yet the employers raised objections, because the wages earned were "more than such men ought to have."

It is essential if the workers are to make it their aim to increase production and to use every effort with that object, that they should know that of a certainty, and at once, they will get a benefit from what is done. At present it is commonly the case that in order to obtain an adequate wage the worker works overtime, and presses to have overtime work, because the rate of pay for overtime is higher, and that during the normal hours of work he does less. Cases have actually been known in which the worst class of workmen play during the greater part of the week, and then have gone, during the War at all events, to work for the week-end, including Sunday, at a very high rate of wages at some other place. In the short time of working at abnormal rates they have gained as high wages as the steady and efficient workman who keeps steadily at work through the normal hours. As long as such conditions exist we shall not have the shorter hours which are necessary for healthy and happy life, and we shall have the friction and irritation which arise from too long hours of work. A higher rate of wages during shorter hours of work, when the work is done with vigour and efficiency, and the certainty that the wage will be increased if results are favourable, are necessary conditions for industrial welfare and industrial peace. The wage system should be so designed as to make it clear that the wage is a share in the industry's earnings which is to advance as these earnings advance. A "regulated slide of wages rising with the prosperity of the industry as a whole" would help to secure this without friction. Methods of industrial remuneration giving an assurance of thus sharing the benefit of increased or more economical production are required. A valuable work on such methods, which are already very various, was published by the late Mr. David Schloss many years ago. New methods will, no doubt, be found. The problem, however, is one for judicial treatment by those who have devoted special study to it.

The methods already tried include the more general adoption of piece-wage, progressive wage arranged in various ways giving a fixed rate for the hours worked plus an additional sum proportionate to the excess of output over a fixed standard, collective piece-work, contract work, co-operative work, sub-contract, profit-sharing in various forms including special bonus, product-sharing, and industrial co-operation.

Each method should be considered on its merits, in the light of the experience already gained, and having regard to its applicability to each class of industry. The aim and the principles which must guide endeavours to achieve it are clearly stated by Mr. Schloss:

"But while a reduction of hours of labour, say to eight hours in the day, may readily be admitted to be on grounds both economic or social highly desirable, yet it is no less desirable that during those eight hours every working man in the country shall use his best available tools and machinery, and, performing as much labour as he can perform without exerting himself to an extent prejudicial to his health or inconsistent with his reasonable comfort, produce an output as large as possible. In the interest of the people as a whole it is expedient that the remuneration of the labour of the industrial classes shall be increased, and since this remuneration is paid out of the national income, it is a matter of great importance not only that the working classes shall succeed in obtaining for themselves a far ampler share in the national income than they at present receive, but also that the productive powers of the working classes shall be exercised in a manner calculated to secure that this income shall be of the largest possible dimensions."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 6: This chapter is intended to refer to what may be regarded as normal conditions. In some cases the recent rise in wages has been excessive. The present position is chaotic, and the ill-advised manner in which the 12-1/2 per cent. advance was made has added to labour troubles and will cause great difficulty in the future.]



D.—RELIGIOUS PEACE



CHAPTER XIII

CO-OPERATION

Children of men! the Unseen Power, whose eye For ever doth accompany mankind, Hath looked on no religion scornfully That man did ever find. —MATTHEW ARNOLD.

This is not the place to discuss the merits or demerits of any theological views or of any system of Church government, but the question of the influence of religion on the life of the State and the way in which and conditions under which it can be rightly exercised cannot be overlooked. There is no doubt whatever that religious influence might be a most potent and useful factor in Reconstruction, using the word in the broadest sense. There are some branches of work in which no other known influence can effect what is required. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are needs of humanity which religion alone can satisfy, and looking only to social improvement, the power of religion has been proved again and again, especially in dealing with the cases that seem most difficult and almost hopeless. In India, for example, there are certain debased tribes which are habitually criminal, and have, in fact, by tradition devoted themselves to the commission of crime. The only agency which has been able to effect a reclamation and improvement of these tribes is the Salvation Army, which, by general consent, even of those who have no sympathy with its particular religious views, has achieved wonderful results. There is no doubt, too, that some of the worst parts of certain seaports in our own country have been vastly improved by the same agency. This has been done by a definite appeal made on religious grounds, and those who have made it have been inspired by religious motives. It required, however, a body which had peculiar methods of its own to do it. The basis of the action, also, of such organisations as the Church Army and the Young Men's and Young Women's Christian Associations is definitely religious, and the vigorous and successful way in which their work has been carried on by such associations is due mainly to the influence of religion. It would be well for our present purpose to treat the question from a position, whether real or assumed, of absolute detachment from any particular religious belief, and from any special religious community. Looked at even from such a detached position, it appears that the first condition required to enable religious influence to be effectively exercised is to secure religious peace. It is impossible to deny that there has been a kind of jealousy and hostility between those who hold different opinions about theological and ecclesiastical questions which injures the work of all. Anyone, for example, who was in the habit of meeting educated Indians at the time of the Kikuyu controversy could not have helped noticing the harm done to the cause of the Christian religion by that controversy. There were Indians, whose attitude to Christianity before might almost have been called wistful admiration, seeing the brighter hope and fuller life it opened to all classes, and the universal brotherhood of men which it proclaimed, who then spoke in an altered tone, and their feeling seemed to be tinged with a half-concealed and almost contemptuous pity. How much beneficial action might be taken by religious bodies acting in co-operation! There is a deep truth in a remark once made by the late Bishop of Manchester, Dr. Moorhouse, when speaking of possible co-operation on a certain matter between people belonging to different religious communities: "It would be so easy did we only recognise how large is the area covered by things on which we agree, how important they are, compared with those on which we differ." Some have felt so keenly the injury done by religious differences that schemes have been put forward for corporate union of a number of different Churches. Such union may or may not be possible, but, even if it is, is it best to bring about such a union by any compromise under which one side gives up part of what it regards as useful and important in exchange for a similar concession on the other? May not a kind of confederation between different bodies for certain purposes, each maintaining its separate existence, be better than formal incorporation? May there not be a unity of spirit and bond of peace between those whose views differ, without either party giving up the iota to which he may attach importance? Forms devoutly prized and helpful to one man may be repellent and a hindrance to others.

There is much to be learnt from a saying quoted by Sir Edwin Pears in writing of certain Mahommedan sects: "The paths leading to God are as numerous as the breaths of His creatures; hence they consider religious toleration as a duty." Toleration does not mean simply abstinence from the thumbscrew and the rack or even the repeal of the Conventicle or the Five Mile Act, but appreciation of the religious opinions and practices of others, and due respect for them. Without formal union there may not only be peace and goodwill between bodies which keep up their separate organisations, they might also act together heartily and effectively both in philanthropic work and in combating certain evils for which the influence of religion is the most effective cure. It is a good sign of the times that a joint volume has already been published on Religion and Reconstruction, containing essays by a number of those whose views no doubt differ widely, but who find no difficulty in uniting in a common undertaking. The book contains essays by Bishop Welldon, Dr. Orchard, Monsignor Poock, and others representing different communions, and they appear to have had no difficulty at all in a joint enterprise of this kind.

Is there any sufficient reason why the leaders of religious thought belonging to other denominations should not be invited sometimes to speak in the pulpits of the National Church? They would not use the occasion for attacking Episcopacy. Conversely it might be a wholesome thing if a Bishop or other well-known Episcopalian clergyman occasionally spoke to the great congregations in such familiar London meeting-places as the Newington Tabernacle or the City Temple. They might be trusted not to choose Apostolic Succession as their subject. Joint religious services have already been held, and the practice might be extended. The Bishop of London has been seen in Hyde Park on the platform with representative men from the Wesleyans, Independents (it is pleasanter to use the old name rather than "Congregationalist," which may be correct, but is hideous), and Presbyterians, with a band from the Salvation Army in attendance. Such things do good, and are the best reply to the orators by the Reformers' Tree, whose most effective weapon is to sneer—not unnaturally—at the enmity amongst Christians. A "church" parade for the Volunteers has in a village been held in the Baptist chapel, and many who had never entered a Nonconformist place of worship before, felt how real "unity of spirit" did exist.

Another fruitful opportunity for joint work is in the realm of study and of theological education. This object would be promoted by the establishment in our Universities of theological faculties where a part—it may be a large part but not the whole—of the training of those who intend to enter the ministry or for other reasons to devote themselves to theological study may be carried on. Such a faculty has been instituted with marked success in Manchester. No test is imposed except tests of knowledge, but the faculty has been said to be the most harmonious in the University. Whatever body he belongs to, whatever Church he wishes to serve, the student could not fail to gain profit from studying the language of the New Testament under a scholar like the late Professor Moulton, and would never find anything that—to use the words of the founder of the University—"could be reasonably offensive to the conscience of any student." Already the effect of such a faculty in advancing theological study and still more in uniting members of different communions in the pursuit of truth has been most marked.

There is one point, however, in considering the influence of religion on Reconstruction which must be borne in mind. Untold harm has been done in the past by the intrusion of the lawgiver or the judge into the domain of religion, and, on the other hand, by the intrusion of the minister of religion into the domain of the legislator or the magistrate. It is essential that in dealing with any question of legislation or political action the clergy and ministers of all denominations, if they take part at all, should speak as citizens, and not professionally. They, in virtue of their office, ought not to be, and they have the highest authority for not claiming to be, judges or lawgivers. They have not, and ought not to claim, any authority to decide on the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar; any such claim must be strenuously resisted. The use of religious sanctions as weapons of political warfare is not wholly obsolete. We hear of it from across St. George's Channel—it should be condemned like poison gas on the battlefield. And, lastly, it must never be forgotten that there are certain things with regard to which attempted suppression by law is certain to result in evil and disaster. With regard to these things the influence of religion, on the other hand, may be all-effective if it is kept absolutely distinct from any question of legislation or of legal penalties. The spheres of religion and the criminal law must never be confused. Shakespeare, "the mirror of human nature" for all time, once blended bitter irony with infinite pathos. "Measure for Measure" has its warning for every age. It would be well to study the ugliest as well as the most beautiful parts of that drama, and see what it really means, and what is its lesson.

Exercised within its proper sphere the influence of religion may still be as potent a force now as in the past. It may inspire the right frame of mind in dealing with every question, may encourage hope, sustain faith, and diffuse charity.

Reiterated until wearisome we hear the question asked, "What is wrong with the Church?" sometimes from outside with a tone almost of contempt, with little, or no care, for remedy if anything be wrong; sometimes from within with a note of anxiety, uncertain whether it is safe to confess openly the fact that anything can so be wrong. To the question coming from within the Church, a voice might answer from the outer galilee, "Is not what is wrong with the Church—like what is wrong with most of us—thinking, perhaps talking, too much of itself, considering what figure it makes in the world, rather than in self-forgetful devotion giving itself to the work set before it, to delivering some message in which it intensely believes as necessary for mankind?" It has been likened to a bride; is not the bride too self-conscious, thinking whether her garb is not fine enough or too fine, her possessions too small or too large, her influence too weak or opposition to it too strong? How much discussion is devoted to the question, what phrases must be repeated, what forms adopted, to pass the janitor who guards her doors! As has been truly said, the really useful reform for all of us would be that each should do his appointed work at least ten per cent. better than he has done it before. The work to be done should be the special work assigned to each and for which each is best fitted. We long for peace, but in settling the constitution of a League of Nations it will be the jurist not the churchman who will help us. In aiming at political or industrial peace the practical good sense of the statesman, the employer, and the workman will best point out what is wanted; the Church, as such, is better out of the way in framing legislation. But suppose even that we establish securely international and political, industrial and social peace, is that peace all we need? Shall we not still in youth be restless, anxious about the future of our own lives and the lives of those nearest to us, unsettled by ambitions for what we may not attain, disappointed at the little progress we make; restless all through life, disturbed by thoughts of what we desire but cannot have; restless, most of all, in age, knowing that attainment is no longer possible, and, if we have attained anything, feeling how little it is worth? Who will take for his proper sphere to show the way to a peace which may pass the understanding of those who, in disappointment and loss and vain endeavour, which will go on even if the dreams of national and social progress and improvement are realised, and alike in failure or success, will need that peace more and more as long as the life of man lasts? Sometimes we see among those round us calm faces the living "index of a mind" at peace, which make us feel that there are those working in our midst in whom that peace exists. Let her tell the way to that and the answer would be, "There is nothing wrong with the Church; she is fulfilling her mission; ever, as of old, will glad welcome greet the footsteps of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace." [7]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 7: The word "Church" is used in the sense which each reader chooses to attach to it. Definition in such matters leads to dissension.]



Part III

RETRENCHMENT



CHAPTER XIV

STATE EXPENDITURE AND INCOME

Political economy, as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects, first, to provide plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people or, more properly, to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves, and, secondly, to supply the slate or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services.—ADAM SMITH.

Taking first the second of the two objects mentioned by Adam Smith, it will be convenient under the heading of "Retrenchment" to treat not only the question of economy in the expenditure of the State, but also the other side of the account, and consider what general lines of action should be adopted to make revenue balance expenditure, in the first place by reducing expenditure, and, in the second, by increasing revenue, in view of the fact that the absolutely necessary expenditure will be enormously enhanced to meet the interest on the National Debt. Assuming that the War were to end in the spring of 1919, the debt will probably amount to about seven thousand millions after allowing for loans due from the Allies and Dominions so far as they are likely to be then recoverable. Taking interest at 5 per cent. with a sinking fund of only half per cent., it is estimated that the permanent annual charge in respect of the Debt will then be about 380 millions. No doubt part of the Debt bears interest at a lower rate than 5 per cent., but a portion has been borrowed at a higher. This is on the assumption that the War will end within this financial year. Even if the War does end within the financial year, much of the expenditure occasioned by it must go on during the period of demobilisation, and during part of that period the Debt will probably go on growing, as it can hardly be expected that sufficient revenue can be raised by taxation to meet this continued expenditure directly due to the War. There will also be for many years to come a very heavy expenditure on pensions, and, whatever other savings may be effected, the duty of providing pensions for injured and disabled sailors and soldiers is paramount, and the provision must be made generously.

It seems highly probable, therefore, that the annual Debt service will ultimately amount to nearly 400 millions, and may be much more if the War goes on over 1919. It is a gigantic burden to bear. Mr. Bonar Law has stated in the House of Commons that a loan of one thousand millions represents the labour of ten million men for a whole year, so we may take it that the annual charge for the National Debt will require the whole labour of four million men to meet it, and that this charge will be continuous for many years. The normal expenditure after the War, apart from Debt service, has been reckoned to be 270 millions. It will certainly be more unless rigid economy is practised and all the new schemes which are being proposed involving expenditure of money are carefully scrutinised to see whether the expenditure is such as the country ought to undertake in view of its financial obligations. As the Debt service will be practically constant and irreducible unless revenue largely exceeds the total annual expenditure, which is very improbable, it is clear that a strong effort must be made to reduce this expenditure and also, so far as possible, to increase the State revenue. Unless this is done there will be a deficit even after the War, and the Debt will have to be increased to meet it. There is no question of greater urgency, and it must be resolutely faced. We shall probably find a disposition, both in the Government and in Parliament, to shirk it. The influence of the extension of the electorate will, in all likelihood, be against rather than in favour of economy. There is a common assumption that people can get the State to pay for things instead of paying for them themselves; that there is no need to practise personal economy or to save because the State will provide. Wage-earners who began by practising some self-denial in order to save have said, "What is the use of troubling? The man who saves is really no better off than the man who spends all his earnings, as the State will provide what is required to meet the needs of the latter."

What, then, can be done to reduce expenditure? It is impossible to do more than indicate in outline the machinery by which this expenditure is or might be controlled. During the War, for various reasons, the regular and ordinary checks on extravagance and waste have almost ceased to operate. The situation seems to have been getting worse until the appointment of a Special Committee of the House of Commons on National Expenditure in July, 1917. The Committee consisted of men with business knowledge, and its reports have furnished valuable suggestions. On such a subject anybody who has not direct access to documents and definite personal knowledge of the work and expenditure of various departments, and also some personal experience in State finance, may well hesitate to express an opinion, and will prefer to quote the views of those who have fuller information and better means of judging. There has been much waste; what has gone on has even been described as a "wild orgy of extravagance." The phrase has been used not only by irresponsible critics, but by business men whose words carry weight. Let us call two witnesses out of many available.

Mr. H. Samuel, in speaking of the work of the Select Committee, as late as June 19, 1918, said, in the House of Commons, "that the Committee had formed the opinion that in some cases the staffs of Government departments had been swollen beyond all estimation; that they were frequently ill-organised; that there was much waste of labour and consequently of money in their establishments; that the Treasury had not risen to the occasion during the War, and the Committee had regretfully come to the conclusion that the War Office had been adopting a deliberately obstructive attitude." Mr. Runciman on the same occasion stated that "lax expenditure and loose control over distribution of public money went far beyond the immediate departments concerned. It went down into every factory, and the general effect was a scale of national extravagance from which we should recover after the War only with the greatest difficulty."

We shall not recover at all except by immediate, determined and, above all, methodical action. Small economies, as Mr. Gladstone long ago pointed out, are not to be despised. It is no doubt right to put up notices in Government offices not to put coal on the fire after three o'clock, but these savings will not go far when half a million can be thrown away on the bogs and rocks round Loch Doon with no useful result of any kind, and yet nobody seems to be made responsible for this waste, nor can anyone say why it was allowed. We hear again and again of improvident contracts and extravagant purchases, and also of absurd cost incurred in supervising minute details. Why cannot clear general authority to act on the spot in certain matters be given to some responsible person, instead of instituting a system of checks which often cause great delay as well as expense? A water pipe at a camp wants some slight repair, costing less than half a sovereign. No one there has authority to give an order, a well-paid official must be sent a day's journey to inspect, and incurs expenses far exceeding the cost of the work to be done. Why is good agricultural land taken for a site when there is plenty of land near which is waste or of little value? Why does a well-known firm which has a telephone and a post-bag think it worth while to pay L15,000 for an introduction to a Government Department? Why have we heard again and again of prices paid for goods greatly in excess of the price for which they could be obtained from well-established firms in the trade? Such instances could be multiplied, but enough has come to light publicly, and been proved, to show how essential it is to have some authority to deal with such matters and stop the leakage which becomes a torrent. Apparently there has been an improvement lately in many respects, but we are yet a long way from perfection.

There will be an immense dead weight of influence against economy owing to the fact that so many persons are interested in keeping up and increasing expenditure. As was said in the debate above referred to, "It looks as if London were becoming a huge bureaucratic town where everyone will be working in some Government department or other." One might say everyone of all ages, remembering a remark made by someone entering a building near Whitehall, and seeing the crowd of girls and boys in the corridor, "I thought I was coming to a Government office, but it seems to be a creche."

For efficiency as well as for economy a thorough revision of the executive departments of the Government is necessary. There is no doubt that the present system has grown up at haphazard. It would be difficult for anyone to form a clear idea of the duties assigned to or powers conferred on the various departments, to say who in each department has authority to do certain acts, or is responsible for seeing that they are done properly.

To get the best account of the executive departments in England as they existed before the War we must go to America. Professor A.L. Lowell's book may be taken as the standard work on that subject. The chapters on the Executive Departments, the Treasury, and the Civil Service give a clear and interesting account of the administrative arrangements of the British Government. He shows how new departments have grown up from time to time to meet some new want as it arose, but their powers are often ill defined. Various Boards were created, but in some cases it became an established practice that the Board should not meet, or a Committee of Council was set up and the work carried on under the supposed direction of "my Lords." It was a mere fiction. There has been no clear and consistent scheme for distributing the work of Government between the various departments on any intelligible principles.

All are spending money, some of them enormous sums. Staffs are growing inordinately, much of the work is duplicated, much consists in communications with other departments which would be unnecessary if the work of each were better defined.

It should be clear in each department who has authority to decide any particular question, to incur expenditure, to enter into binding agreements. The executive government of the country is in a chaotic state, relieved to some extent by the good sense and good feeling of the members of the great army of officials who carry it on. No one can deny that the Civil Service is not only pure, but, taken as a whole, its members individually are both able and industrious. It is better organisation that is required. Some of the new Ministries ought to be scrapped directly the War is over, and the business of others continued only so far as necessary for winding up. But these new departments will die hard.

Since the War new departments have grown up like mushrooms, sometimes without any clear statement of their functions or powers being made, and there has not been time to settle them at leisure by a course of practice. The result is overlapping, friction which would be intolerable but for the good-natured forbearance which English people have for a state of confusion, waste of time and money in sending minutes, and in correspondence between different departments, and often delays which have had most unfortunate results. Does anyone know exactly what are the respective functions and powers of the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Pensions, the Ministry of National Service, the Board of Works, the Ministry of Food Control, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the War Trade Department, the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Committee on Food Production, the Restriction of Enemy Supply Committee, the Priorities Committees, the Ministry of Munitions, etc., etc. The list might easily be extended.

A thorough revision of the executive departments is necessary if government is to be both efficient and economical. There is plenty of good material in the Civil Service, and it will always be easy to obtain more. It is the system or want of system that is wrong.

The next question is to provide or restore a more effective general control over expenditure and impose checks on the growing expenditure which has been so marked in recent years, even before the War.

The ordinary machinery for dealing with and controlling expenditure is or should be fourfold.

(1) The spending departments make definite estimates or are supposed to do so. Since the War, this has not been the rule. Of course, there are many cases in which it would have been absolutely impossible to let the items of proposed expenditure be published or discussed in the House of Commons; but, as soon as War requirements permit it, proper estimates should again be prepared and pressure put upon the departments to reduce them. At present the pressure is all the other way; the heads of the departments apparently like to have a large establishment as well as to extend their jurisdiction. It is not merely to give their department more importance and a claim therefore to higher salaries; sometimes it is the natural tendency of the vigorous man to enlarge the scope of his influence. Boni judicis, says the old maxim, ampliare jurisdictionem. ("It is characteristic of the good judge to extend his jurisdiction.") It would be a good thing if instead of estimates being laid directly before a Committee of the whole House of Commons, where some small item is often the subject of long and acrimonious debate and millions are passed without comment or consideration in a few minutes, the estimates of each department were fully considered as a whole by some small competent Committee of the House, uninfluenced by party feeling, and representatives of departments could be asked questions on their estimates.

To compare small things with great, a committee of this kind has been found of the highest value in institutions where there are various departments requiring large expenditure. It is usually then felt by each person who sends in an estimate that it is to the credit of his department not to make claims for expenditure which cannot be justified. When the scale and character of the expenditure have been scrutinised and the estimate has been passed, it is much better to leave a very free hand as to the exact mode of expenditure. Outside control then becomes irritating, and is itself a cause of extravagance; it means more accounts, more correspondence, more consideration of papers.

(2) The Treasury is supposed to have the function of control, but a change appears to have taken place, and it has now to a great extent lost its control, and has even itself become a spending body. Professor A.L. Lowell, in the work above referred to, after speaking of the Treasury as the department which exhibits in the highest degree the merits of the British Government, points out that even ten years ago, "with the waning desire for economy and the growth of other interests, the Treasury has to some extent lost its predominant position; although it will no doubt maintain its control over the details of expenditure, one cannot feel certain that its head will regain the powerful influence upon general or financial policy exerted thirty years ago." A very guarded statement, as was becoming in an author writing in another country at a time when the tendencies to which he alludes were only beginning to show themselves. Things have advanced during the last ten years in the direction Professor Lowell indicated as probable, and it is high time that this advance should be stopped.

We might venture to ask, indeed, the following questions: (i) Has not the Treasury during the last ten years lost a large portion of its control, and since the War almost its whole control over expenditure on a large scale? (ii) Is the Treasury not more concerned with paltry details than in imposing any real check on the extravagance of spending departments? (iii) Has not the policy sometimes been actually to encourage expenditure, and has not there been one case at least, even of introducing vexatious taxation where the amount collected is far less than the cost of collection? (iv) What has the Treasury done to prevent or control "the orgy of extravagance" since the War began? The department of State which has to do with revenue, with getting as much as possible and spending only what is necessary, which has the duty of "making both ends meet," ought to resume its functions and regain its influence so that the Government may be conducted "on strict business principles," to use Professor Lowell's phrase, "as it was throughout a great part of the nineteenth century."

(3) The Cabinet should exercise more controlling power, and recognise its collective responsibility for keeping down expenditure. As Professor Lowell points out, the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Cabinet was one of almost commanding influence. In Mr. Gladstone's time his powerful personality, regularly exercised in favour of national economy, did certainly have a great effect in preventing extravagance, and some other Chancellors of the Exchequer no doubt used an influence in that direction, but can it be safely asserted that there is in the Cabinet as a whole sufficient attention given to retrenchment?

(4) Lastly, the House of Commons is supposed to control expenditure. That control has generally been used, and quite rightly, as a means of calling attention to grievances, and as giving an opportunity for criticism of the executive; but the House of Commons should also put pressure on the executive to curtail expenditure, not so much by discussing small details which would be far better dealt with by such a small Estimates Examination Committee as suggested, but by using its influence generally against an increase of expenditure unless a clear case for it is made out. During the War, Parliamentary control, at least until the appointment of the Committee above mentioned, seems almost to have gone. The House of Commons does not now exercise its influence as it ought, to check extravagance, and probably the more widely the electorate is extended, as already said, the less will the House of Commons care to exercise rigid control in favour of economy. It is always an easy way of getting popularity to be what is called "generous" when dealing with other people's money. Everyone who looks after the public interest by trying to prevent expenditure, whether national or local, which is not imperatively called for, is styled mean and narrow-minded, and his task is a thankless one. Everyone who wants money spent will be able to make out a plausible case, either that the amount is so small or the object is so important that what he asks must be granted, and he will have some eager constituents to back him up. The best chance for economy is to have a body of men whose decisions the House will respect and not overrule, except for really good cause, who have both the knowledge and the strength of character to go through the estimates and call attention to the cases in which substantial reductions could be effected, or proposals for increased expenditure refused. It will not be an agreeable task, and now probably less popular than ever. The masses admire lavish expenditure whether by public bodies or by the private person who spends his money "like a gentleman," and it is to be feared there will not be much help from the women electors, as women, although they may practise economy occasionally themselves, usually regard it as a most objectionable virtue in a man. How often in families do we find the mother and sisters will admire the self-indulgent idle youth who spends money freely even if he borrows from them, rather than the steady, plodding son who, by rigid economy and personal self-denial, helps to provide them with the means of livelihood!

Turning to the other side of the account, what can be done to increase the revenue of the State? It has been estimated that for the year 1919-20 it will amount to L900,000,000, but of this L300,000,000 is excess profits duty, which can hardly continue—in its present form at least—beyond the period during which additional expenditure above the permanent normal requirements is needed, in order to carry out demobilisation. Putting the permanent charge to meet interest on debt and the cost of the public services at L670,000,000, there may be a deficit even if the present rate of taxation is maintained, and the normal expenditure remains at its existing level. There will be no surplus for the reduction of debt, or to meet new demands. Some new sources of revenue must, if possible, be found, and the old ones require readjustment.

Income tax, if levied on the present system, has touched the extreme limit. A rate of taxation willingly borne to meet the cost of war while danger threatened will be felt more and more burdensome as time goes on. To meet a higher income tax there will be pressure to increase salaries paid by the Government and all public authorities. An official salary fixed at L5,000 a year when income tax was one shilling and sixpence, may be thought insufficient when it is nearly ten shillings including super-tax. Persons have incurred liabilities for rent and other fixed payments which they are not able to reduce. All along the line there will be claims for higher payments for services rendered or goods supplied. On the other hand, industrial undertakings will have to pay more for the capital they must borrow to carry on and develop their work, and 6 per cent. instead of 4 per cent. will have to be paid for debenture capital now raised by the best industrial companies. For those who have money to lend, the burden of tax may thus be practically met by an increased income, but for those whose money is locked up in permanent investments there will be no indirect relief in higher rates of interest. Income tax, house duty, and rates will absorb so much that the margin for voluntary expenditure will be small even out of incomes that are nominally high.

The death duties, especially where a deceased person leaves a large family, already cause much hardship. A general increase in the existing rates of estate duty cannot be made without discouraging thrift. It is a hardship if it is made impossible for parents to make reasonable provision for children some of whom may from various causes be unable to earn for themselves. On the contrary, where there are no children and no widow to be provided for, death duties might be much increased without causing hardship. A very much higher legacy duty might be charged in the case of large sums passing on death to persons other than the widow, direct descendants, or other near relatives of a deceased person. On small legacies the present rates should suffice, but there is no moral claim for distant relatives to be allowed to take large sums. Would there be any real hardship in imposing a heavy duty of, say, 25 per cent. on gifts over, say, L1,000 to collateral relations not dependent on the testator or to strangers? Or there might be a graded scale according to the remoteness of the relationship. In case of intestacy it would be often a real advantage to take the whole property for the State, if there were no relations within the third or fourth degree, i.e., uncles and aunts, and nephews and nieces being in the third degree, first cousins in the fourth. Economists for the last hundred years—Bentham, Mill, and others—have advocated such a change. Nearly every judge or officer of the Courts who has to do with the administration of estates would support a change which would do away with much wasteful litigation and disappoint no reasonable expectations. No source of revenue should be neglected if it can truly be said that by imposing the additional taxation proposed there will be (i) no dislocation of trade or hampering of industry or commerce; (ii) no discouragement of thrift; (iii) no real hardship; (iv) no great expense incurred in collection in proportion to the amount raised. It is only sheer stupidity that refuses to adopt a means of raising even a small amount when the method proposed for doing so would have positively beneficial results in other ways.

The land increment duty should be a warning as regards cost of collection. That cost relatively to the amount produced has been enormous. But actual cost of collection as returned, represents only a small part of the expenditure really caused by the tax. The time taken up in making returns and filling up forms and obtaining the necessary advice in doing so is a burden on those who own even the smallest landed property and causes real hardship and injury. It discourages people from acquiring small properties.

The only other source of additional revenue in immediate contemplation appears to be the luxury tax. If this can be levied so as to fall on articles which are really luxuries, i.e., things not required for full and healthy life, the effect of such a tax should be wholly beneficial. If, notwithstanding the tax, people go on buying such luxuries the State will gain. If, on the other hand, the effect of the tax is to check expenditure on luxuries it will be a gain to the country, because its productive power and its purchasing power will be used to obtain articles which are really valuable and do promote national welfare. The idea that those who spend money on luxuries are helping trade, and so benefiting others, ought to have been exploded long ago. If the industry which has been devoted to producing articles which are really useless were diverted to producing things of utility, the aggregate of human happiness would be greatly increased. A difficulty in applying the tax is that the price of an article is little criterion as to whether it is a luxury or not.