be gone and probably so much injury inflicted that the ground would never be wholly recovered. The question therefore requires the most serious examination.

Let us take first the rosy view of the coming changes, which is the more prevalent. On what grounds does it rest? One generally finds two reasons given. One is the social changes effected by the War among the men on service, the other is the suppression of ordinary antagonisms at home. In these changes, which are complementary to each other, is discerned the promise of a new harmony and brotherhood. It is an alluring picture, but I am afraid a wholly illusory one. The comradeship of the trenches is a real thing, but the inference drawn from it is mistaken. In the first place the relations between officers and men are personal and depend on personal qualities; not every officer gets on well with his men and earns their affection or respect. But let us suppose that in this War the proportion who do is exceptionally high. Probably it is, because all the conditions are unprecedented. There was never so great a mingling of all classes or so great a crisis for them to face together. If the men who have fought and worked and suffered together in uniform were to be together again in civil life, it would undoubtedly make a great difference. But they will not; they will go their ways and be absorbed in the existing cadres home, and in most cases will not meet again. The officers and men brought into contact in the industrial army will be different and the personal feelings engendered by contact on service will have no hold. In the second place there is all the difference in the world between sharing danger and sacrifice for a common cause and being parties to a dispute about the division of spoils. Nothing unites

at

men so closely as the first; nothing divides them more surely than the second.

And is there any good reason for believing that our workmen-soldiers are harboring thoughts of industrial harmony and good-will? I have a letter from a wounded soldier which tells a very different tale. He had read what I said on this subject last year and wrote to me about it. He joined the Army in the autumn of 1914 and was wounded in the spring of 1916. He had previously been in business with his father as a small employer in unusually close touch with his men, in whom he took much interest, and whose habits and opinions he studied closely. In the Army he was a private, and had therefore lived for more than eighteen months in the closest intimacy with workmen-soldiers who came to preponderate in his regiment. He writes:

I have lived and moved about with them both here and in France and been a keen observer of their ways and thoughts, and I succeeded in getting an insight of the inner workings of their minds a difficult matter to do. I have formed-they have helped me to form an opinion. There will be great industrial strife after the War in this country. I trace it partly to military discipline. Hundreds of thousands of men like myself joined without previous military experience, all anxious to "do their bit," but never up to thirty, forty, or more years of age being subject (except to a limited extent) to any other than their own will: for in civil life the British workingman leads a very independent existence. Military discipline stepped in, is submitted to, lightly at first, but although to the end it is not openly rebelled against, as times goes on it becomes very irksome. . . . Every man is doing his bit and his best, but at the back of his head rebels against what he thinks is an arbitrary military spirit and the

He

knowledge that the country at home has not sought out energetically the slackers earning large wages and hiding themselves, as it were, in munition works, coal mines, etc., while he runs great life risks for 1s. a day. swears hard and long that he will have an easier time when the War is over. I do not think he exactly knows how, but vaguely says he is not going to be a "bloody mug for the employer any more"; and he views with great dissatisfaction the material gap between employer and workman.

This reading of the soldier's mind, derived from observation, runs absolutely counter to the theory of a new era of mutual harmony resulting from the experience of war, and lends the confirmation of inside knowledge to my argument And it is all perfectly natural-the irksomeness of discipline, the contrast between the soldier's lot and the high-waged men safe at home, resentment at the indulgence shown to slackers and the determination to take it out of the employer afterwards.

I

So much for the argument from the workman-soldier. As for the suppression of antagonisms at home, it affords still more shaky ground for optimistic anticipations. There is more unity in some directions, and social barriers in particular have been submerged in common sacrifice; but still more antagonism has been engendered. have another remarkable letter before me which well illustrates both effects. It is from an illiterate working woman, and is mainly filled by a long outburst of angry denunciation and threats directed against politicians, Government Departments, the recipients of honors, business men, aliens, Jews, shirkers, and MacDonald-Snowdens. But the writer, whose bitterness reveals sincerity in every line, makes an exception of "our real nobility," whom she calls "real patriots":

They, like us, have made great sacrifices; their sons are amongst our

boys, their daughters you can see them doing grand work. They, like us, don't want advertising their good deeds. It's only the kind who do more harm to our men whose photos you see in the paper the moment they don a cap and apron. Our true noble nobility is above such class, neither do they want such class of rich catering in war time.

This artless letter, from which I have drawn and reduced to coherency the passage quoted, gives both sides of the picture-the drawing together of widely separated classes by common sacrifice and the deep resentment against other classes held to be selfseekers and shirkers. It does not matter whether the judgment is wellfounded or not. The letter faithfully reflects the feelings of the writer's class, and the volume of resentment poured out nearly swamps the expressions of kindliness. The woman is not unjust, she gives honor where she thinks honor is due. But her heart is full of bitterness, and she pours it out with her unskilled and laborious pen. She particularly warns politicians and officials that the working classes are not going to put up with them after the War; and she is a true prophet. There is a deep sea of anger under the surface among the mass of the people.

And the overt antagonisms in public life supposed to have been laid asideis there any real change of feeling or intention? There has been some repression and quite a large amount of co-operation. But the old hostilities survive and occasionally come to the surface even now in the most critical moment of our history. They are only waiting the hour of release to break out again with all the added fierceness of a pent-up force. When the Irish people agree on a plan for governing Ireland, and the Nonconformists treat the Church in Wales decently, I will believe in the vision of

harmony and good-will in public life. Up to now I see very few signs of it.

And when we come to the economic battlefield and the relations of employers and employed, which are at the center of my subject, the case is much worse. Many soothing words have been said about it, and some soothing things have been attempted; but I have watched the signs closely for the last two years, and the opinion I expressed more than a year ago has rather been strengthened than modified. To understand the position one must recall the background of conditions before the War.

The period 1911-12-13 was marked by a wave of strikes unprecedented in number, magnitude, and success. They were prosperity strikes. Trade was rising rapidly after a long depression; workmen demanded a share of the prosperity, and on being refused went on strike. Many employers adopted the usual suicidal policy of refusing demands they can afford to concede until the men strike and then

giving way. It is the most effectual method of encouraging strikes. The example of the seamen at a comparatively early stage in 1911 had a great effect. It is a very difficult industry to organize because of the absences and continual movements of the men and the floating supply of sailors and firemen of all nationalities. Attempted strikes have generally failed and the shipowner laughed at the union; but the men began to strike at one ship after another, and the owners promptly gave way. Business was too good for ships to be held up and a débâcle followed. The success of the seamen opened a floodgate. The climax was reached in the general strike of miners in 1912, in which the Prime Minister intervened, with the result that the Minimum Wage Act was passed. The most frequent, though not the only, cause of dispute

was the rate of wages, and in general the men had the best of it. The trade unions never had such a succession of triumphs, and some of them lost their heads. Irregular and ill-judged strikes took place with consequent failure, of which the London Dock Strike was the most conspicuous example.

This stormy period produced lasting effects on both sides. It led to an extension of conciliation by joint conferences of employers and employed with or without umpires, but this pacific influence was offset by other effects. On the side of employers the struggle left a feeling of exasperation, not everywhere, but in important industries and large areas, and a determination to get even when the tide should turn and the state of the labor market give them the upper hand. That time was approaching with the downward movement of trade in 1914, when the War began. On the side of the employed the effects were more complex and still more ominous. Successes had not brought satisfaction, but rather an appetite for more and a determination to retrieve failures and half-successes by better organization and stronger efforts. Trade unionism made rapid progress, as it usually does in prosperity strikes, partly by the impetus of success and partly by a marked revival of compulsion against non-unionists. Next to wages nonunionism was the most frequent ground for strikes. But the advance of trade unionism was not only greater in degree than usual at such times, but also different in kind and marked by some special features. One of these was the successful organization of unskilled labor and of men engaged in loosely connected occupations. The thing was not new in itself, but its success was unprecedented and so great that this formerly weak branch of organized labor was enabled to take-and keep-a place among the older and

more powerful unions. The Transport Workers' Union is the most conspicuous example. Another special feature was a strong movement towards consolidation both by the merging of separate unions into one and by the federation or closer combination of branches of the same industry. The National Union of Railwaymen illustrates the first; the Miners' Federation of Great Britain represents the second in its most complete form. But consolidation went still farther and proceeded to a fighting alliance between different industries. The Triple Alliance between Miners, Railwaymen, and Transport Workers was the direct outcome of the strikes of 1912, though it was only consummated at the end of 1915. The three organizations, which had experienced varying degrees of failure to achieve their objects, resolved to unite their forces and form one army of irresistible strength. A general strike of miners produces a gradual paralysis of industry, and can be prepared against; but a strike of railwaymen acts instantaneously, and if backed by other transport workers can be made effective. The ponderous weight of the one arm and the quick action of the others make a tremendously powerful combination.

All these movements have been going quietly forward during the War; but they are not the whole story. Other forces were evolved and came to the surface in the storm-periodpsychological forces, which are of the utmost significance today. A new generation had grown up among workmen, imbued with the fighting spirit proper to youth, more highly educated and more ambitious than their fathers. Among them were men of intellectual capacity, trained in history and economic theory and with a receptive ear for new ideas. The Labor Colleges and cognate educational agencies, the free libraries and courses of lectures,

were beginning to bear fruit, and they have continued to bear it. Such men have a different conception of the status of Labor from their fathers, and their bent is towards industrial revolution. Everyone remembers the appearance of Syndicalism in 1911. Socialists, who saw in it an enemy to their own theories, pooh-poohed it as a mere bogey and nothing is heard of it now. It was always numerically weak and it seems to have died out. But that is a superficial view. Socialists showed more concern about Syndicalism than was compatible with the indifference they professed, and they should recognize that numbers are not a sound measure of influence. If they were the Socialists could claim little, for they are themselves numerically weak though stronger than the Syndicalists.

The real point is that the appearance of Syndicalism was a sign. It revealed the spirit of revolt advancing. It was a leaven, and a stronger leaven than Socialism. But Socialism was a leaven too, and both have been working all the time. So have others more or less allied, more or less opposed, to them, as they to each other. I neither approve nor condemn them; nor am I concerned here with the differences and distinctions between them, though I know very well what those are, having studied them closely and continuously here and in other countries. I speak of them merely as a dispassionate observer at pains to understand their meaning and effects, and I see in them various manifestations of the same spirit of revolt against the existing economic order. Their principles differ and they point in different directions, but they are all united in aiming at the abolition of "Capitalism," as it is called in their vocabulary. Organized labor is the instrument on which they rely, and they work ceaselessly in its ranks to foster discontent and promote

strife; for good relations between employers and employed are the greatest obstacle to the realization of their aims. Their efforts are generally regarded with an inconsistent mixture of contempt and anger because they are numerically weak and the great mass of our workmen pay little attention to their theories. That is a mistake. Englishmen in general hate theories, and English workmen have even less taste for them than other classes. The Scots, with their hereditary bent for theology and metaphysics, are different. But these doctrines do not work by direct conversion or proselytizing. Their influence is more subtle. They work by the feelings, not the intellect; they appeal to the sense of justice and liberty which is, I believe, stronger in the English people than in any other. And they have another line of advance which is working a great change within the unions. The spirit of revolt is capturing the organized force of labor, not at the center but at the circumference, and manipulating it to its own purposes through the younger generation mentioned above. The great bulk of the members take no part in the affairs of their union. They do not attend meetings or even take the trouble to vote when a ballot is taken. Many cordially hate the whole thing; most are indifferent. Naturally the conduct of affairs falls into the hands of those who do take an interest in it; and among them the young men, better educated, better equipped for discussion, keen, voluble, primed with theories and arguments, gain the sway. Their influence is in the local lodges and the workshops, and this explains the revolt against the authority of the executive, which has become such a conspicuous feature of our trade unionism and is converting industrial democracy into something approaching industrial anarchy. The effect is to

nullify collective bargaining and paralyze conciliation.

This, then, was the position before the outbreak of war. Mutual antagonism between employers and employed, inflamed by three years of conflict; on one side exasperation waiting for the turn of the tide, on the other profound distrust and suspicion, appetite whetted but not satisfied, the consciousness of growing strength, and all worked upon by an organized ferment of irreconcilable hostility to the very existence of employers. I put the case strongly because it needs stating, but I do not mean to imply that the state of things described was universal. It varied very much in different industries and different parts of the country. In some relations were good and even better than they had been; but over a large part of the industrial world my account is not exaggerated. I can call two wellknown and highly optimistic witnesses, one on each side. In a recently published volume on After-War Problems, edited by Mr. W. H. Dawson, are two chapters on the relations of employers and employed, one by the late Sir Benjamin Browne, the other by Mr. G. H. Roberts, M.P. Both make the very best of the present prospects, but both are constrained to admit a bad state of things before the War. Sir B. Browne says "There is no doubt that before the War the relations between labor and capital were most unsatisfactory-far more so than they are normally.” Mr. Roberts says "In pre-War days employers and employed were drifting rapidly into a state of mutual suspicion and illconcealed antagonism." The terms are comparatively mild, as they naturally would be from gentlemen representing the opposite camps and anxious to avoid provocation, but they are for that reason all the more corroborative of my account which is that of a