When this circular was issued, slot-meter consumers were already paying 3s. 5d. (less a rebate of something under one penny per thousand), so that the increase now demanded was greater in their case. In December 1917 the price was again raised, the announcement being made as before:-'For slot-meter consumers in proportion.' In this circular also freight charges were mentioned as being in part the cause of the unpleasant necessity. A fraction over 3s. 9d. is regarded as the pre-payment equivalent of the quarterly 38. 1d., therefore the second increase brought the credit price almost up to that which Labour had been paying since the previous June. And the price to Labour was again increased in proportion.*

The question of Labour's attitude towards profiteering is one which clearly has another side. To what extent has Labour been guilty of demanding excess profit? The case against the workers will be familiar to all readers. Briefly, they have been accused of earning twenty pounds a week and of wallowing in luxury owing to the war. Their reasoned answers to such charges are seldom or never given publicity. In the summer of 1916 the Chairman of a munitions committee was told that certain men were earning 201. per week. This evidence being doubted, it was stated in corroboration that 'Quite ordinary men were earning four and five pounds per week.' Therefore it would appear that the twenty-pound-a-week man was four times as good as the best of the ordinary. At that time five pounds was the pre-war equivalent of fifty-five shillings. Moreover, abnormally long hours were being worked, so that more and better food was an imperative necessity, while the workman's home employment had perforce to be abandoned. In discussing working-class earnings there is one peculiar consideration often overlooked by persons of education. In normal times the workman labours, as a rule, for something either a little above or a little below a living wage, and wears himself out all the time. He can set aside nothing for physical depreciation, much less show a profit. The community's excuse for this has always been the same:- Economic laws are inexorable.

* There is no desire to make invidious selection. Unless some definite instances be adduced, the charge of 'vague generalisation' may be incurred,

The supply exceeds the demand, hence the low rate of pay.' If for a period the conditions are reversed, and the demand exceeds the supply, must the converse of that law be set aside lest perchance Labour should profit even for a relatively short period?

Food shortage, as distinct from food costliness, has had many unfortunate effects of which by no means all have yet come to the surface. Class hatred has been to some extent exacerbated, and Labour contends that, as a consequence of the negligence of successive Governments in spite of reiterated warnings, we have no national storehouses, and that very little wisdom has been shown in the selection of food controllers. Concerning these officials, it is contended that they were drawn from the wrong class, and that, if they were vested with sufficient powers, they have been careful not to exercise those powers. Proof of this argument is found in the fact that important articles to which they affixed a price have promptly disappeared from the market. Tea, margarine, meat and rabbits are all commodities which have passed through these stages. For the sake of brief demonstration it may be well to consider only the case of the elusive rabbit. It has been estimated that for a period of ten weeks immediately preceding the fixing of the price, 80,000 rabbits were offered weekly for sale on the London markets. In the eleventh week, ending Jan. 19, 1918, only 500 were available. And the apologists were quick to prove too much. 'Rabbits,' cried one section, must not be killed just now; they are tending their young.' Weather conditions' was the explanation offered by another section; 'frost and snow have made it difficult to get rabbits.' As though this were not enough, we had other plausible persons urging that all the conies were drowned in their holes by the recent rains, while it was impossible to shoot them, since sporting cartridges were unobtainable.

At the close of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, when the poor had learned by bitter experience that their only hope of obtaining any share of certain foodstuffs lay in patient waiting hour after hour in a queue, it was unfortunate that certain journalists and others should have deemed it in good taste to sneer at the enforced procedure. Presumably these ill-timed efforts at humour

were the work of national importance undertaken by persons not themselves affected by the grave discomfort. As one result, authentic stories (which had been wellnigh forgotten) of motor-cars used by their owners at the commencement of the war for the collection of food. stuffs in bulk were revived and given a stamp of permanency which they would not otherwise have obtained. It may be of interest to note here that Labour saw and came very near to adopting a drastic course which would have hastened the movements of authority toward a solution of the difficulty. It would have been a simple matter for the men to abandon their work in favour of standing on the kerb, thus relieving their women-folk of that unpleasant necessity.

Considering the question of food shortage generally, it should not be forgotten that better conditions of employment have raised thousands of families from a position just below the hunger line to a point above it, while in other cases increased muscular output each day has demanded an increase of food. Hence much of the enhanced consumption among the working classes is perfectly reasonable. It is at least depressing to find charges of extravagance constantly made by persons who have been accustomed to their share of this world's

goods throughout their entire lives. Is it the rich or the poor man who consumes most of the earth's produce, and for whom most human energy is expended? What constitutes extravagance?

3. As to the question, Why does Labour distrust not merely the Government, but also its own leaders? Here, again, we must remember that Labour is human. Why do human beings distrust one another? Always as the result of either ignorance or experience, or both. Labour distrusts the Government both because of experience and because of ignorance; it distrusts its own leaders as the result, mainly, of experience. And in each case the distrust is something more serious than mere want of confidence. It is that most unpleasant of all doubts which casts serious reflexions on the honesty of the distrusted.

For the ignorance which leads Labour to distrust the Government successive Governments are to blame. This ignorance is of two kinds, being in part congenital and

in part the result of that policy which withholds information from the public. The congenital ignorance of to-day is the fault of Governments and of educationalists two or three generations back. Since this fault is being perpetuated in its entirety by the authorities to-day, it will of course continue to act throughout two or three generations to come. Here let it be admitted that the congenital ignorance from which Labour suffers, and which no one can remove in a moment, is to some extent an excellent reason for that other ignorance which ministerial action fosters. A little knowledge of certain present occurrences would undoubtedly be bad for the suddenly informed, if only because they have not the breadth of outlook, the comprehensive mental grasp, which can only be obtained by the individual whose forbears have read abundantly and intelligently. In the ranks of Labour we find the highest living authorities on working-class matters generally. This is the knowledge which Labour would be well advised to use for its own real advancement both now and in the future. That Labour does not and cannot be expected to understand international affairs is the fault of men dead and gone. If it is reasonable to blame our ancestors for having bequeathed us nothing, then also it is reasonable for us to bestir ourselves on behalf of posterity, and try to remedy the defect.

Labour is, however, particularly well informed about one thing-and that is the treatment it has received at the hands of this and former Governments. Too many assurances, amounting almost to promises but remaining unfulfilled, will undermine the confidence of any recipients. Bitter indeed is the anger when, at a later date, persuasive oratory is more carefully examined and found to have been a mere husk. The House of Commons had its faith in orators worn out many years ago. Labour is approaching the same condition.

The individual who, having trusted another, comes ultimately to suspect him cannot be charged with ignorance. Labour distrust of Labour leaders is the result of experience. So far back as August 1913 we find the Press asking, 'Is there a Labour Party?' While there is Labour there will always be a Labour Party, though it may reasonably be hoped that, in spite of events likely

Vol. 229.-No. 455.

20

to happen in the near future, Labour may see the wisdom of devoting more attention to matters more important than the return of Members to the House of Commons. Reference has already been made to some of the accusations brought against Labour Members. Baldly, the position is this. Labour feels that, when its representatives attain a certain eminence, they are in danger of being bought.' This suggestion seldom or never implies actual bribery; the term is used to convey the notion of influence obtained even by ordinarily courteous address. Labour is not used to common politeness from its social superiors, and only Labour can understand how vast is the influence which may be exercised in this way. Democracy wants leaders who will remain democrats. Hence the Shop Stewards, whose origin and influence will be dealt with more fully presently. Labour has learned by bitter experience that the Leader, be he Member of Parliament or mere Trade Union official, who reaches a certain eminence is apt to soar beyond the reach of his followers. The position is bizarre; much might be written of informal workshop discussion on the questions involved. One man says, 'Wouldn't you do the same if ever you had the luck to get there?' But his mate replies, 'Ain't you tired of letting them climb on your back and give you a kick on the dome as they hop to the next stage?'

In short, on the one hand, Can a man remaining in the ranks lead from that position?' On the other, Can a leader remain in, or even in touch with, the ranks?' There lies the crux of the problem.

4. The direct influence of Syndicalist doctrine on Labour in this country is negligible. It is true that in the workshop, the mess-room and the market-place the man who suggests going the entire animal is sometimes given a hearing; but almost invariably he is regarded as a fanatic, whose claim to attention rests solely upon the fact that he can amuse the crowd who, being always human, appreciate the innocence which invites leg-pulling. Though the Universal Strike has never been seriously contemplated, yet in the years 1911-12 there were enough simultaneous strikes in this country to make it abundantly clear to the British workman that he and his would be the first and the greatest sufferers under