home. In the latter contingency, Capital will lose heavily, and the more it loses the more bitter it will become and the more acute will be the differences with Labour.

Now, if it were possible to convert the nation into a single commercial entity, the danger referred to would be averted. Obviously this desirable consummation can only be achieved by composing the differences between Labour and Capital. Unless this be done, the nation cannot be made a single commercial entity. A permanent settlement of those differences cannot be expected in this generation, but their temporary adjustment over an admittedly difficult period of economic recovery and development is comparatively easy, and ought to be attempted.

In no other country is Labour so well organised as in the United Kingdom, and for that reason the possibilities of an arrangement are greater. At the same time, for want of an agreement, the superior organisation of Labour forces in this country may spell greater disaster abroad; and it may easily happen that, while Capital and Labour are higgling over terms of employment, other nations will be working the ground and taking the orders. And one of those other nations will be Germany.

Industrial peace after the War will be worth a great deal to Capital. What is Capital prepared to offer for this essential foundation of its own prosperity? Upon the answer to that question depends the ultimate success of British enterprise abroad.

Now as to policy. It is not my intention to criticise the past attitude of employers generally towards trade unionism. The War has been responsible for many

changes of view-point, not the least significant of which is the State's re-valuation of Labour's share in building up the resources of the nation. Labour, therefore, will expect a similar re-valuation at the hands of the employers. The time has come for a full and frank recognition of trade unionism and of the principles for which it stands. Too much energy has been expended in the past in disputes over this one question. Nothing will be lost and much will be gained by this single concession, if such it can be called, on the part of Capital. That point settled, the way will be clear for the discussion of other matters. For instance, there is the question of agreements, Capital's chief safeguard against industrial disturbance. Provided Capital is prepared to offer terms that will prove acceptable to Labour, there should be no difficulty in fixing up agreements for a period, say, of three years, what time our position abroad would be in process of being established. All that is wanted is a fair offer in the matters of wages, hours, and general conditions of employment. The exact terms can be arranged at conferences between the representatives of Labour and Capital.

It would be a profound mistake for Capital to ignore the trade unions, to attempt to crush them, or even to try to outwit them, for be it remembered that trade unionism is one of the few institutions in this country that will emerge from the War stronger and more powerful than they were before. Capital must be prepared to negotiate.

It is here that the State will step in to assist in a settlement, for some of the demands that Labour will put forward will entail legislation. The operations are

by no means confined to the industrial field. The aid of Parliament will have to be invoked to enforce the minimum wage and the maximum working hours in those sections of industry where organisation is weak. The State must assist in providing guarantees to Labour, in the shape of Acts of Parliament, for a larger share of health, wealth, and happiness in the good times that are coming when the War is over.

(b) PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIVES MR. JAMES O'GRADY, M.P.

I have not time at this moment to answer the questions. I can only say that I should rejoice at the success of any movement resulting in the old antagonism and bitterness between Capital and Labour being buried and never to be resurrected.

MR. F. W. Jowett, M.P.

I am sorry that I cannot give a brief reply to the two questions, and I am not in a position to prepare full replies. I might however add, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that I do not share the optimism implied in Mr. O'Grady's reply. I do not foresee any movement that is likely to remove the antagonism between Capital and Labour. On the contrary, I believe the pre-war conflict will be renewed, and perhaps with greater intensity.

(c) EDUCATIONALISTS

MR. H. SANDERSON FURNISS

(Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford)

(1) (a) The answer to the question, "What will be the industrial situation after the War?" would seem to depend to a large extent on the attitude of the men now in the Army who will be going back into industry. How far will they have been permanently influenced by the military machine? Will they come back prepared to be drilled into any kind of work to which their employers choose to put them, and on any terms that may be imposed from above; or have they been thinking and talking in the trenches, and will they return with an unwillingness to accept the conditions that prevailed before the War, and a determination that they will be treated as men, and not merely as wage-earners ?

I (b) One of the most prevalent ideas just now as to industry after the War appears to be that a large increase in production will be essential. No doubt increased production was necessary before the Warfor the national income was insufficient for our needs -and it will be more necessary after the War, but not so much more necessary as is sometimes supposed. Organised Labour should make it clear that it will not consent to increased production unconditionally and at all costs. It is, however, of the utmost importance that restriction of output, both by employers and employed, should be abandoned, and it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise some method of

securing the maximum of efficiency in production without the risk of undue strain upon the workers, and with adequate guarantees against rate-cutting by the employers. Full and frank discussion between employers and employed must be insisted upon, and the workers must formulate a definite policy, and be able to show that it is practicable. The workers must obtain more and more control in industry, and must insist on having the opportunities for education and the training of capacity which are necessary if this object is to be attained in the near future.

The position of Capital—or, rather, of the owners of capital-and the employing classes after the War will be extremely strong, and public opinion will probably be inclined to support them in their desire to get as large a share as possible of the work that will be necessary for repairing the damage done by the War, and in their efforts to capture new markets, and will be inclined to resent the interruption of industry and the friction caused by disputes. It will, therefore, be particularly necessary that Labour should be able to make its voice heard, and, also, that it should be able to show that it has reason on its side.

I (c) The sooner people give up thinking of individual States as commercial entities, and realise the world-wide nature of commerce, the better. If, the moment this War is over, we are going to organise ourselves on a military basis with a view to the next war, there is no doubt something to be said for the British Empire and the Central Powers each attempting to make themselves self-sufficing economic units. But, then, we should have to abandon all hope for the future peace of the world.