The Trade Union movement, then, among the non-manual workers stands now at a very critical point. It has grown up under the abnormal conditions of the war period; and it is quite certain that nothing like the same rapid growth could have taken place unless these conditions had been present. It has been working largely by methods which are only applicable under these abnormal conditions; and its stability will depend on its power to adapt itself to the new conditions which confront it. When the Labor Party in 1918 came forward with its big scheme of reorganization, and attempted to reconstitute the party on the basis of an effective alliance between the "workers by hand and brain", it was clear that such a movement for a political alliance would be effective only if it found its parallel in a similar alliance in the industrial field. There is no doubt that hitherto the nonmanual workers' associations, however hesitant they have been, have for the most part been tending solely towards the consolidation of an alliance with the Trade Unions of manual workers. They have not for the most part adopted a "strike policy”, although a few of them have done so; but almost all of them have proclaimed that in any dispute arising in industry by which they are likely to be affected they will adopt an attitude of “neutrality", by which they mean that they will not undertake any work which would normally be done by the men who are on strike, or act in any way so as to make the success of the strike action more difficult. They will continue to do their own work in such a case; but they will do no more.

Apart from the difficult question of "neutrality", non-manual workers' associations have shown a tendency to enter into closer relationship with the manual workers by other means. A number of their associations have affiliated directly to the Trades Union Congress. The National Union of Journalists has become a constituent part of the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation. The Draughtsmen's Association has been discussing amalgamation and closer working arrangements with the Amalgamated Engineering Union and other engineering societies. Moreover, a considerable number of the non-manual workers' Unions have formed a federation of their own, the National Federation of Professional, Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Workers,

which has superseded certain smaller attempts at federation which preceded it. One of the first objects of this federation has been to work out a policy defining the relations of the non-manual workers' Trade Unions to the general Trade Union movement. The National Federation of Professional Workers is not yet a fully representative body; for a number of associations still hold aloof from it. But it is a powerful organization with about a quarter of a million members, and speaks more authoritatively than any other body on behalf of the employed non-manual workers.

Recently, fresh influences have been brought to bear upon this new and still hesitant movement. An appeal has been made by the Middle Classes Union and by other bodies for a different solidarity, resulting, not in an alliance between the manual and non-manual workers for the defense of their professional interests and for the winning of a measure of control over their industries and services, but in a semi-political organization of the whole of the middle classes, directed in theory against both the manual workers and the representatives of big business, but in practice operating largely as the auxiliary of the richer classes in the community against the manual workers. The advocates of "Middle Class Unionism" have been very active among the members of the non-manual workers' associations, and have endeavored to set up, against the idea of a union of "workers by hand and brain", the rival idea that the interests of the salary earners are threatened by the claims of what is usually called the “working class". This movement has undoubtedly caused considerable discussion inside the manual workers' associations; and a certain amount of response has been secured to the new appeal, with the result that the supporters of alliance with manual Labor and the "Middle Class" Unionists are at present contending for supremacy in many of those associations which have gone least far towards the adoption of definitely Trade Union methods.

It is easy to understand why this new appeal for "middle class" solidarity has large resources behind it, and an influential backing among the supporters of the present economic system. It is clear enough that the possibility of an alternative industrial and social order to that which now exists depends very largely on the extent to which manual and non-manual workers can

come together and coöperate in its establishment. The principal challenge to the continued existence of the present system in industry comes from the organized manual workers, and their Trade Unions in seeking a change of system, are necessarily and inevitably the principal disturbing factors in our internal situation to-day. More and more the manual workers' Trade Unions are putting forward a claim for the concession to them of an effective share in the control of industry. But it is clear that, even if the manual workers are able to a large extent to challenge the present industrial system and to insist on its modification, their power to create an alternative industrial order is greatly restricted as long as the masses of the technicians and administrative workers side with the classes to which the manual workers find themselves opposed. Manual and non-manual workers together would be capable of running the industrial machine under any system; for together they possess both the manual strength and skill which is necessary for the execution of productive tasks, and the directive and technical ability which are no less essential if work is to be efficiently done. Clearly, then, an alliance between manual and non-manual workers would present the most formidable threat to the continuance of the present industrial system; and those who are anxious that this system shall continue are therefore determined by all means in their power to prevent the consummation of such an alliance. It is undoubtedly a strong argument, from a purely material point of view, that the advocates of "Middle Class Unionism" hold in their hand. They rely on an appeal to the short-sightedness, and also to the timidity, of the employed non-manual worker.

On the other hand, the bond of professional unity, when once it has been brought into existence, is not easily severed. The nonmanual workers still find their standard of life seriously threatened, and are likely in the near future to encounter even more obvious threats to it as the attempt is made to apply the reductions in wages which are forced upon the manual workers, to their nonmanual colleagues. There is no chance now that the non-manual workers will find themselves exempt for any considerable time from demands for big reductions in wages and salaries. The reductions are being pressed, first, upon the organized groups of

manual workers; but it is certain that the turn of the non-manual workers will come before long.

When it comes, will the non-manual workers' associations hold together and be prepared to adopt a considerably more militant policy than has hitherto been demanded of them? Will they take the risks, usually heavier in their case than in that of the manual workers, involved in actual conflicts with their employers? These are the questions which are before all these associations at the present time. I believe the answer will depend to some extent upon the degree of unity which can be secured among the non-manual workers' associations themselves. Hitherto there has been a considerable degree of isolation, and a serious lack of common action and policy. This was doubtless inevitable in the earlier stages of a new movement which was still attempting to find its feet; but it is clear that the prospects of success for the non-manual workers' associations in the more difficult times that are coming will depend largely on their capacity to act together and to frame a common policy.

At the moment, the principal question is whether the idealism of that minority which is aiming at an efficient industrial system based on the common conduct of administration by the "workers by hand and brain", acting in close alliance and participating in control according to their various functions and capacities, will be strong enough to overcome the appeals to "middle class" solidarity on the one hand, and on the other the mere timidity and fearfulness of taking risks which characterize so many of the members of the salaried classes. No one can answer this question at the present time; but the answer to it may go far towards the determining of the future course of industrial organization in this country; for manual and non-manual workers together can, if they will, become powerful enough to do what neither can do apart, and it may be that the prospects of the coming of a democratic industrial system depend, more than upon any other single factor, upon the conclusion of a real alliance, industrial as well as political, between the "workers by hand and brain."

G. D. H. COLE.

THE TOUCHSTONE OF BELIEF

BY EDWARD S. MARTIN

MR. HERBERT E. MILES contributed to the October number of the Atlantic Monthly the correspondence on religion between himself and John Burroughs, and contributed to THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW of the same month the article "Shall Progress Reach the Bible?" They are in a way connected contributions, because the same reflections and aspirations that caused Mr. Miles to seek the correspondence with Mr. Burroughs, led him also to publish in this magazine the article about the reconstruction of the Bible.

It will be found that Mr. Burroughs in the Atlantic letters dissented very heartily from Christianity, which he described as a whining, simpering, sentimental religion, and announced himself a Pantheist, whose only God was the one he saw daily and hourly about him, and is identical with nature. He seemed to have the idea that the Christian God was antagonistic to creation and the development of life. Christianity, he said, turns its back on nature and relegates it to the devil. Mr. Miles was distressed at these views, and the correspondence is the record of an effort, not very successful, to bring Mr. Burroughs to a better understanding of Christianity. Mr. Miles apparently believes that Mr. Burroughs was hindered from such an understanding by some things that are in the Bible, and he certainly believes that many other people are so hindered, because his proposal is for a revision and rearrangement of the Bible, which would remove objections to it which he believes to be reasonable, and help to bring into association with the churches fifty million people in the United States who now have no such association.

Of course, he would leave out a good deal, including what he calls "the offensive sex-narratives of Genesis", and the "obsolete and confused ritual regulations of Leviticus and Deuteronomy", and "Jonah and similar pure fiction; accounts of fierce and