ness, at least so far as it affects their comfort and welfare. If these ideals were worked out on a wide scale, it would gradually merge the earners and the capitalists into one body, though, I admit, this would be a matter of slow growth.

As to profit-sharing, by which I mean giving the worker a bonus out of the profits, irrespective of his special work or competence, this is excellent on paper, but difficult of satisfactory application. Most large businesses have ramifications which are unseen by the employees. Few businesses go on year after year exactly on the same conditions. The year's results may be good or bad because of changes in the markets, successful or unsuccessful developments, and so on, and while they would affect the total, the increased share of profit or its disappearance would arise from circumstances of which the ordinary workman might have no knowledge, and over which he had no control whatever.

As to piece-work compared with time-work, there can be no doubt that piece systems should enable the worker to earn higher wages than he would on time, by his being encouraged to feel that added exertions brought at once increased income. I know that many workers have been disheartened because, after a piecerate has been established and men have found out how to increase the output, the employers have reduced the rate. This is a most disastrous proceeding, and must take the heart out of any man who so exerts himself only to find that he is no better off in the long run. It is difficult for the management to arrange a piece scale which will be equitable; it may in the result turn out to produce the worker even less than he would

earn on time, and this, of course, would necessitate a raising of the rate. On the other hand, a slight modification of the process may bring the piece wages up to an altogether unexpected high rate, which, in my opinion, should not be reduced. I offer a suggestion which I have not seen tried, but which may be worth consideration. Let us suppose that various groups of men are working on piece at the same factory. A few, without undue exertion or extraordinary cleverness, earn very high wages, because the rate has been highly pitched; others quite as deserving do not earn enough. It might be possible to arrange that, after the extremely highly paid men have reached a certain sum greatly above their time rate, any excess should be halved, one-half to go to the worker and the other half to be pooled for the benefit of those who are earning less than they expected. This may seem fantastic, but with good feeling and common sense on both sides I do not think it is impossible; at least, I offer it as a better solution than what I consider the objectionable system of reducing the piece rate once fixed.

There is a side of the industrial question which has not had full consideration. It is the monotony and the narrowing of outlook which comes from minute subdivision of labour. Pride in one's work is a source of happiness and brightness, but it is very difficult to be proud of one's work when it consists in repeating thousands of times a day two or three simple hand movements where no training is needed, except the art of using the hands with incredible swiftness, and where judgment, outlook, and all the many sides of human interest which accompanied the work of the oldtime individual artificer are wanting. The deadening

influence, both to body and mind, is extreme. It is greatly to the honour of those who are thus circumstanced that in so many cases they are leading intelligent and helpful lives. How such monotony can be overcome it is difficult to say. One remedy arises from the fact that working hours are being gradually shortened, leaving time for development of life on other sides. I wish on this particular head I could propose any satisfactory remedy.

The vexed question of limitation of output is one which must be faced in the after-war conditions if we are to hold our own for our essential export trade in competition with the world. If it be true that he who grows two blades of grass where one grew before is a benefactor to the race, surely the same idea applies to producing two articles of usefulness where one was produced before. Greatly as I deprecate any idea of limitation of output, I see from the point of view of the worker, who may look at the question only by the week, that he fears excessive diligence may finish his job rapidly and so produce unemployment. He perhaps forgets that the more cheaply work is produced the wider the market, and, if he produces little, he is indirectly depriving his own family of the comforts of life. Against the danger of unemployment the system of unemployment insurance is being gradually developed, and a system of partnership such as I have described would encourage the maximum of production for his own benefit.

There are many other ways of improving the industrial situation. It is said that the usual large employer cannot be in personal touch with his employees. This may be true as regards one individual who em

ploys hundreds or thousands of people; but when the heads of a concern have a right feeling of responsibility to, and friendly interest in, their employees, the personal touch can be maintained, provided employers will place in responsible positions only men and women of sympathetic natures who are guided by fairness and consideration to those whom they control. We need on both sides a better spirit. Amongst employers we need to develop a race of men who will look upon their position, not as a means of making, if possible, great fortunes, but as a trust which they are bound to carry out on the best lines possible, both for their employees and themselves, and who will consider it a point of honour, to promote in any way consistent with mutual self-respect the well-being of those around them. On both sides there is need to realise the primary duty of carrying out faithfully any undertakings that have been entered into, either by themselves or their trade unions. Good faith is the basis of all hearty cooperation. We need men who will look at the difficulties as they arise with a sense of fairness, and will try to realise the difficulties of the position of the man on the other side.

I am hopeful for the future. We have found that we have much to learn from the enterprise of other countries. We have been shaken out of a kind of selfsatisfaction which made us think that we have very little to learn. We must improve our general and scientific education, we must in every possible way bring brains to bear upon the administration of our commercial affairs. The War has brought together. various social classes in a way we could never have anticipated. We are united through a sense of common

danger, common sorrows, and common losses, and in our determination to stand by our country and Empire in the hour of its greatest crisis. Let employers and employees aim at a better understanding of each other's position, and put honour and duty before mere money advantage.

(f) TRANSPORT

MR. F. DUDLEY DOCKER, C.B.

(President of the Federation of British Industries; Chairman of the Metropolitan Railway Carriage and Wagon and Finance Co.)

I have had the advantage of reading the reply that Sir Robert Hadfield has made to your very pertinent questions. In principle I cordially agree with him, and will only add a few lines. Without doubt, it is to the interest of all employers to make their workpeople happy. In my judgment, the relations between Capital and Labour can be put on a firm basis if the representatives of employers and employed are allowed to come together and discuss the problems without interference from politicians and those who make theories a profession.

Surely those who have fought side by side in the ghastly months of trench warfare can be trusted to live in peace together? It must never be forgotten that it is the successful combination of Capital and Labour that is going to carry this War to a victorious conclusion.

The immediate problems that will arise when the War is over are the reinstatement in civil life of a