through a period of great elation, when all the world looks rosy. Then comes the sobering process-it is bound to come, but it is not pleasant, and it involves a violent headache. We must become industrially sober before we can carry on; and we must pay the penalty of that drunken bout in which we have indulged.

To look back for a moment-how did we in Great Britain secure the world markets? How did we become a manufacturing country? Firstly, we got a start. We had coal and iron and a fine sea coast; we were placed geographically in an advantageous position, and we had the pull of the rest of the world. Secondly and this was by no means a thing to be proud of nationallywe sold cheaply, in the markets of the world, very largely because we underpaid our labor, in comparison, for instance, with Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand. Now, to-day, we have lost both those advantages—I am using the word in its economic sense. First, we have no longer got the start; and secondly, as regards the payment of labor, we are much nearer to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States than we have ever been before. Even if there had been no crisis, no great depression, we should have run the great risk of losing our export market, unless we had regained our lost ground by greater efficiency.

Now, what must we do? We must increase our industrial efficiency. I make no apology at all for reiterating the word "efficiency". We have been discussing various ways in which it may be increased, and we must go on studying those ways with all possible care and earnestness. We must work very hard, and we must be bold and progressive, going right out into the world-into Japan, China, and Mexico, and doing all we can to capture those foreign markets.

I think we might do something towards reducing the volume of unemployment by encouraging emigration. I do not look on that as a policy of despair. Recently there has been a tendency for the processes of manufacture to develop more rapidly than the processes concerned with the production of raw materials, so that the manufacturing population is getting topheavy as compared with the population engaged in agriculture, and the

like. To rectify that lack of balance by getting some of our people to go out and produce raw materials will tend towards industrial stability. I think it is extremely important that we should all of us face the fact that there is no smooth road to good times. It is a hard road that we have to tread, and it cannot be made easy by mere kindly sentiment, or even good will. There are certain economic corners that have to be turned; and there are certain economic laws with which we are bound to comply.

Now, is it not possible for us to arrive at some way of meeting the economic situation without Capital and Labor fighting each other? We need unselfish patriotism in industry to-day, just as much as it was needed in the time of war. Here are we as a nation, and, for the matter of that, as a world community, up against very serious economic difficulties, and we shall never overcome them if each party thinks primarily of itself, and only secondarily of the other parties. Can we not approach the problem in a patriotic spirit that embraces the whole world, and ask what service we can render? What can we all do to help this old world to win through, against the tremendous odds which it has to face? We must get rid of suspicion and selfishness, and all engaged in industry must do their part.

The crux of the matter is the human element in businessthe relationship between the employer and the worker. Is it possible, under the existing system of industry, to secure their cordial coöperation? To do so is essential if both Capital and Labor are to be fully and efficiently employed, and if the worker's standard of life is to rise.

Frankly, I think that if, by a process of evolutionary changes, it is not possible to secure such coöperation, the position is absolutely desperate. In a highly industrialized country such as England, dependent for its very life on export trade, which must be fought for, inch by inch, in a keenly competitive world market, to attempt by revolutionary methods to replace the capitalistic system by something else, would be to commit national suicide.

Suppose you overthrow that system to-morrow; what are you going to put in its place? Within a month, if you would avoid starvation, you must substitute a system capable of successfully competing in the markets of the world, and of

getting forty-five million people out of bed in the morning, washed, clothed, fed, and back to bed again every day!

I do not want to shirk any criticism of Capitalism, and certainly not to discourage study and wise experiments as to any desirable changes which may be made in it, but I regard as a dangerous enemy of his country the irresponsible revolutionary whose policy is merely destructive, and who has nothing to substitute for what he takes away. I believe our only hope is to evolve, as rapidly as may be, out of our system as we find it to-day, to something better, and this can only be done by changing men's perspective, their motives and ideals. Change these, and the system will soon remould itself to interpret a new dynamic. The present system, like all others, is merely an instrument for carrying out the desires of the men who made it. Change human desires, replace selfishness by unselfishness; and a spirit of acquisitiveness by a spirit of service, and then, those engaged in industry will develop it in the interest not of a class but of the whole community.

I want to say a few words to employers. Employers are sometimes called captains of industry, and I would like us to regard ourselves as captains. Now, a good Army captain, while doing his utmost to win the war, is ever mindful of his men. He often has to lead them into danger-sometimes to death— yet he seeks, whenever it is possible, to secure their safety and wellbeing. He is more mindful of them than of himself. He does not refuse the privileges of an officer, but neither does he abuse them, or forget that they entail proportionate responsibilities. So I appeal to employers for intense sympathy with the men they are leading.

Now this must take practical form, and I think that there are five things we must do.

First of all, with regard to wages-let us always ask ourselves how much can we afford to give, not how little can we induce men to work for. There is no blinking the fact that the standard of many of our working people is too low. We want to raise it, and we cannot do so with soft words and with kindly thoughts. In the main, we must raise it by efficient administration and organization, and every time we fail, or slack, or do slipshod

work, we are not only cheating ourselves, but our men. We are defrauding them. Let us work, not merely for dividends, or profits, but to make it possible for industry to pay a better wage to its rank and file workers. Perhaps this cannot be done to-morrow. Wages may even have to drop, but let us do all we can to avoid that contingency. If, as a last resort, we cannot help it-well, our men will say: "They have done their best." I can quite conceive that especially at a time like the present it may be advisable for those responsible for the conduct of industry, to say to their men: "We admit that the wages paid are not as high as we should like to see them, but we dare not make them any higher. We dare not handicap ourselves in relation to our competitors. But let us make a bargain of this kind. We will pay the standard wage. We will pay at the market price for whatever supplies of capital we need for the maintenance and development of our industry. After that, if there is any profit, let us divide it. Let us come to some fair arrangement." That scheme might be a very sound one. If we do not make the profit, the men will not get it, and neither shall we, but if we do, we shall go to the men and say: "Here it is. We have earned it through our joint activities."

With regard to hours, we do not want to go back to the twelvehour day. But, in existing circumstances, it would be opposed to the interests of the workers to reduce hours below the level which makes for the maximum productivity, assuming, of course, that it leaves a reasonable amount of leisure to the worker.

With regard to security, in outlining the kind of policy which an employer who really recognizes his responsibility as a captain of industry would pursue, I am quite sure that we must do all we can to get rid of the horror of economic insecurity. We ought to have done so decades ago. But here I will only say that industry must accept, unless the State does it, the responsibility for maintaining in periods of enforced idleness the reserve workers who are necessary for the functioning of industry. In some way or other this must be done, and I want to ask all employers of labor who read these words whether they can work out some way of minimizing any risk of temporary unemployment which may be run by their workers if they increase production.

Finally, there is the status of the worker. I look upon this as something which will follow from a real sympathy felt for the worker by the employer. We live in a democratic country, but to some extent democracy has to cease when the worker passes the factory gates. But the sympathy for which I have appealed will make the thoughtful employer ask himself—"Is it reasonable that just because I happen to represent capital, which is only one of the essential factors in successful industry, while the other man represents labor, another essential factor in industry, I should always dictate the terms under which we both work?" It is only fair that working conditions should be jointly agreed upon. Those are the five practical applications which I think we may give to our sense of sympathy with the workers-Wages, hours, security, a share in the profits, and improved status.

Now I want to ask any workers who happen to read these words, to go half way to meet any employer who is honestly trying to help them. I want to ask them to unite with employers in solving the great difficulties which confront us at the present time. I want them to create a public opinion against the slackers -I want them, like employers, to keep the thought of service in their minds. I want them to spare some sympathy for the industrial administrator who is up against great difficulties. I want them to consider these problems of industry without selfishness and without suspicion, to confer frankly with the employers over the difficult problems which confront both.

On those lines I believe we can get a solution of our present difficulties. But for a country that goes on losing eighty-six million working days in a year-as Great Britain did in 1921, through strikes and lockouts-there is no solution possible. And so, as generally happens when we discuss any political or social or industrial problem, it finally resolves itself into a spiritual problem. Let us be unselfish. Let us keep the thought of the other man constantly in our mind. Let us be willing to spend our lives with unflinching determination in the service of the community, and then we shall win through.

B. SEEBOHM ROWNTREE.