The virtues of discipline and goodwill which have been at work, even if unconsciously, amongst our armies are effecting an influence which is bound to bring about a new and better psychology amongst us all, and must surely lessen the menace of discord and misunderstanding between Capital and Labour. This menace still prevails amongst those of us who retain our old environment, but it is impossible not to hope and believe that the coming of peace will herald a dawn of better things, just as in nature there is a constant renewal of life and hope with the dawn of each new day.

The problem, briefly stated, is that at the end of the War we shall be confronted with an impoverished Europe. National capital will be heavily mortgaged; taxation will be enormous, burdening corporations and individuals alike. If Labour is to benefit by such a condition, it will have to be by something more efficacious and far-reaching than guilds. How can Labour benefit by guilds? The panacea so offered is of no more value than-boot-laces. The only way out is by a sincere and well-meant co-operation. The result of the ancient guilds, whatever their motives, was to improve the standard of craftsmanship. The aim of trade unions seems principally to raise wages without a proper corresponding obligation. Labour and Capital must unite to improve the output as regards quantity and quality.

We must get back to the simplest obligations of life -generous treatment by employers and whole-hearted duty to the employed. A materialistic ideal (the German), for one or the other will wreck the interests of both. This means our faith in the old and true belief

that only by fair-minded dealing between man and man, between one class and another, can Freedom and Happiness ever reign in the world.

MR. A. J. PENTY

I find it difficult to group my thoughts on industrial conditions after the War under the headings you suggest, but I will do my best to summarise my ideas in my own way.

For the moment all I can see is further disasters ahead, because I cannot discern any signs whatsoever that the people have learnt the lessons which one would have thought the War would teach them. Our national faith in materialism, with its concomitants of science and commercialism, still remains for the most part unshaken. So long as that faith remains, there can be no hope of a change for the better. This may be, of course, that for the moment we have little choice in the matter, and that, however much we may inwardly suspect the blessings of science and deplore the spirit of commercialism, we are yet compelled to make use of the one and to tolerate the other, in order to prosecute the War. When, however, peace is declared, the day of reckoning will be nigh at hand, and I should not be surprised whatever happens. To steer the ship of State over the troubled waters of the ensuing years will need the exercise of statesmanship of the highest order, and I think it is questionable whether it will be available.

There will, in the first place, be an unemployed problem of prodigious dimensions to cope with, for the demobilisation of the forces and the closing of the

munition factories make this inevitable.

What should

be done? Well, I think that as many of the workers as possible should be put upon the land, and, with this end in view, the wages of agricultural workers should be made equivalent to those of industrial workers. This is the one thing to be done, but such a revolution would require time to give it practical effect, and in the meantime the people would need to be fed. If the Government are wise, they will deal boldly and firmly with the food problem, or I feel sure there will be an outbreak of physical violence. Public bodies and individuals possessing surplus wealth should be urged to spend freely. Many of the Greek temples were built to mitigate the stress of unemployment. A generous expenditure of surplus wealth would get back money into circulation, and upon success in this direction most things depend.

Meanwhile, I would draw attention to another danger which threatens us-" Scientific Management." Fabians and capitalists appear to be agreed that our one hope lies in increasing the volume of production, and to this end they advise the adoption of " Scientific Management." What these wiseacres leave us in doubt about is how this increased output of goods is to be disposed of. The same people who advocate an increase of output also tell us that after the War there will be a decreased purchasing power among the belligerent nations. How they reconcile these conflicting ideas, and how any wise statesmanship is to be based upon them, I am entirely at a loss to understand. Yet these ideas are very widespread. I am meeting them everywhere. Perhaps some day, when we no longer do our thinking in watertight compartments,

we shall come to understand that the disease which has inflicted the modern world is one which might be described as "industrial gluttony," and that just as the glutton, by reason of his greed, fails to benefit by the food he eats, so a community which produces in excess of real needs (as ours does) remains poor because its organs become incapable of assimilating its produce. The most hopeful event, I think, is the appointment of a Food Dictator to fix prices. I hope this is the first step towards the establishment of a Political Dictator, for of such our country is in sore need. Only a dictator could deal with the complex problems which our society presents. Further, the fixing of prices appears to me to be the first step towards the establishment of guilds, as it will lay the foundation on which they may be built.

(g) LAW

SIR ROLAND K. WILSON, Bart, M.A., LL.M. The only remarks I have to make on the six questions to which you invite replies are:

As to (1) (c), I cannot for one moment think of the nation either as a commercial or (as Mr. H. G. Wells would have it) as an economic entity. The United Kingdom does not trade as a unit, nor consume as a unit. The only matters that interest me are the gains and losses, the happiness or unhappiness, of individual producers and individual consumers.

As to (2) (c), I deem that the policy of the State after the War-assuming that it ends in a peace and not merely in a truce-should be as unlike as possible

to its policy during the War. In a great War such as this, while a strictly just apportionment of the necessary sacrifices is no doubt desirable, it may have to be subordinated to the primary object of beating the enemy, so as to get back as quickly as possible to normal conditions. We have to obtain the man-power, the munitions, the money, the food supplies, where and how we can, within very narrow time limits. In time of peace, with a fair prospect of its continuance, the primary aim of the State should be to see justice done between man and man within its own jurisdiction, and between nation and nation to the extent of its power and influence. And in pursuit of this aim, the less it concerns itself about classes in the abstract, whether labelled Labour and Capital or anything else, and the more it deals with individual cases on their merits, the better. But to do this effectually, very drastic reforms are needed in our machinery of civil justice, which is a matter outside the scope of your questions.

(h) POLITICS

(1) Democratic

MR. G. K. CHESTERTON

I hope you will not think I mean to dismiss your very important questions too crudely, if I make my answer as compact as I can. I think I could answer all six points at once by saying that, within some measurable time after the War, I think there will be either a revolution or slavery. Even the last three questions are covered; for, while the completion of