economic question such as the organisation of the coal industry. The word 'principle' in this connexion means nothing but a preconceived opinion; and its use denotes a particularly obstinate determination to stick to that opinion. It suggests high moral ground and fortifies resolution. When men do or refuse to do something 'on principle' they slap themselves on their moral chests and feel very fine. So the demand for nationalisation and the opposition to it acquire a seeming moral value by being referred to principle, and the hearts of the antagonists are hardened. But there is no principle in the matter, which is entirely one of expediency. There is only opinion for and against, which can be changed without any sacrifice of principle. If men would divest themselves of preconceived opinions for a moment and approach the question with open minds, it would look quite different to them, and agreement would be marvellously facilitated. If the dominating thought in their minds was the imperative need of agreement, and if they would set before themselves the idea of going as far as possible towards it instead of yielding as little as they can, the thing could be done.

There is some common ground which may serve as a starting-point. It is recognised all round that the old order is gone for good, and that there must be a large change. All sections of the Coal Commission either demand it or virtually accept it; the Government have recognised it, and the public expect it. Some persons may deplore it, but no one openly opposes it or urges that the coal industry should be carried on precisely as before—which is, indeed, plainly impossible. This is something to go upon, though not very much. Divergence begins at once in the attitude towards change in itself; some grudge it and want it to be as small as possible, others clamour for the most violent transformation all at once.

These extremes represent the elements of conflict in its most acute form; if they would modify their respective attitudes the tension would be lessened all round. I suggest that the first would lose nothing and gain a good deal by a fuller and franker acceptance of the idea of change. Such changes are inevitable; History is a record of them; and, as we look back on it, we see how futile and foolish a dogged resistance was.

The process is not continuous; there are intervals of stability in which the next active change is matured; but, when the time comes for consummation, the step must be taken. Resistance only stimulates the forces at work and makes the process more violent and painful; co-operation smooths and modifies it. We are in the throes of a great change now, as every one can see; and the way to make it as beneficial and as little harmful as possible is to take a frank part in it.

On the other hand, those who are demanding an extreme form of change are making an equal mistake. They are running the risk of failure by their violence. They excite opposition and turn the general readiness to accept change into hesitation and doubts of the outcome; they alienate sympathy by imperatively demanding too much and overstating their case. The change

will in any case be a great experiment; and the less violent it is the better its chance of success. The economic structure of society is not like a political system and will not bear the same treatment, because it is not a system but an organic growth. Yet changes even in a political system are best accomplished by successive steps; a too violent revolution is followed by reaction and restoration. Much more is gradual change necessary in the economic sphere. Too great a shock paralyses the organism, as they have discovered in Russia. The Bolsheviks have had to take several retrograde steps, according to no less an authority than Lenin himself; and they will have to take more or perish. The lesson has not been lost upon the public here; and, though nationalisation of the mines is a small matter compared with the Bolshevik revolution, the most ardent advocates of the one are persistent eulogists and defenders of the other. If the British public connect the two, it is chiefly their doing. The result is a wellgrounded fear of going too far and inaugurating too large a change with disastrous results.

To put the matter on the lowest plane, a stiff-necked attitude is bad tactics. For this thing will eventually be decided not by miners or mine-owners or Government or even Parliament (except formally), but by the weight of public opinion; and its suffrages will incline to those who show themselves the more moderate, the more who

conciliatory and the more mindful of the public good. The public do not love either miners or mine-owners; both have squeezed them to the utmost in their selfish struggles. There is no desire to gratify either, no enthusiasm for the old system or for the proposed new one, but an uneasy distrust of the whole business and of the arguments on all sides. An ounce of real disinterestedness and goodwill would carry more weight than tons of argument. If need be, the decision will be referred to a popular vote; and this seems at present the most probable course. In that case the verdict will fall against any proposal bearing the marks of sectional interest or based on purely theoretical grounds or backed by threats of compulsion.

But a solution by common understanding would be preferable if it can be attained. There is no approach to it yet except on a few points to be mentioned presently; but there is plenty of material in which to look for one. We have before us the outlines of five schemes, not counting that of the Miners' Federation. It has not been withdrawn, but it seems to have passed tacitly into abeyance; and its interest now lies chiefly in the light it throws on the attitude of the Federation. It is not, however, dead; and its influence is seen in the vital modifications of Mr Justice Sankey's scheme proposed by the miners' representatives and Socialists on the Coal Commission.

The schemes are: (1) Mr Justice Sankey's; (2) the miners' modification of it; (3) the scheme of the mineowners and other employers on the Commission; (4) Sir A. Duckham's scheme; (5) the Government's scheme, I have just said that they have something in common; and the first point is the ownership of coal as mineral. There is complete agreement in these pronouncements that coal shall be acquired by the State and become the property of the nation; and there is nearly complete agreement that it shall be bought from the present owners at a fair valuation. The only dissentients are the miners on the Commission, who separate themselves from their Socialist colleagues on this point and do not agree that any compensation shall be paid to the owners. But they are not very emphatic about it, and suggest a

'compassionate allowance' in cases of hardship. We may, therefore, assume that there is not likely to be a very determined opposition to buying out the royalty owners, as they are called, though some attempt will be made to confiscate their property.

Acquisition by the State at a fair price will undoubtedly meet with general support from the public at large. The reasons for it are clear, and will commend themselves to the common sense of the community. Coal is too important a national asset to be left subject to the caprice of private individuals in regard to its use or neglect. The instances of obstruction to its exploitation may not be numerous, but there should be no opportunity for obstruction at all. No one can doubt that, if its importance had been realised in the past, it would have been reserved to the Crown like the precious metals. It is, in fact, a precious metal, though it has not been treated like one; and, since it is a wasting asset, there is all the more need to remedy a state of things that is contrary to the national interest. It is true that misuse of the power conferred by ownership might be prevented in other ways, but the conclusion reached by the colliery owners and other employers on the Coal Commission that the most effective way is the transference of ownership to the State will command general, though not universal, assent.

It would, however, be foolish to expect that this preliminary question of the ownership of the mineral will go through without a conflict. Even if State acquisition be agreed to, differences will arise about the compensation to be paid, and will probably be very sharp. The Government have given no indication of their views except that they propose to raise a fund for improving miners' housing out of the purchase value of the royalties. Mr Lloyd George was silent about the mode of assessment in his speech on Aug. 18; and the Reports of the Royal Commission contain three different utterances on the subject, apart from the refusal of the miners to pay anything. This is a highly important matter, for, whether the transference of coal from private to State ownership will act as a precedent or not-a question referred to later-the method of assessing the purchase value certainly will. The prospect is a conflict

so heated that all chances of an agreed settlement will disappear.

I suggest, in accordance with the line of argument laid down above, that this unfortunate prospect might be obviated if the opponents of State acquisition were to yield with a good grace on the ground of public interest, and the miners in return would lay aside their obvious animus against the royalty owners, so ostentatiously displayed at the Coal Commission's inquiry by misstatements of facts, malicious inuendoes and attacks on individuals which had to be withdrawn. This display made a very unfavourable impression, and justly; it is equally stupid and unsportsmanlike, for the royalty owners are no more responsible for their birth and station in life than the miners. Nor does any one who knows both suppose that if they were exchanged for so many miners the latter would behave differently.

Such a mutual advance as that suggested would take much bitterness out of the conflict, improve the atmosphere all round, and greatly increase the chances of further agreement. And there is more in it than that. The nationalisation of minerals would be a farreaching change, entailing effects which are not recognised in any of the Coal Commission's Reports or in public discussions of the question. The State, as owner, would be able to impose conditions on the working of its property, and thus be in a position to exercise a large measure of control over the conduct of the industry without direct interference. This control would gradually extend with the granting of new leases until it covered the whole field. It might, indeed, be applied at once to existing leases by provisions included in the arrangement for taking over the royalty rights. It would enable the State to protect the interests of consumers and workmen, to insist on efficient management, the amalgamation of collieries, and any other measures thought desirable for the most economical and beneficial exploitation of the coal supply. It might, indeed, be so applied as to do all that is really needed. After all, the mineral itself is the essential thing; and its ownership carries the right to the last word. The present owners are to be bought out because their position gives them too much power over the working; the same power