special motives into play and produced a certain number of men such as he describes. But officialism thwarted them at every turn and nearly broke their hearts; and the war also produced a much larger number of official incompetents. I speak of what I know from direct observation of one capital department of war organisation; and the revelations that keep dropping out show that the same defects prevailed in others.

But does any one seriously argue that private enterprise and initiative, which have created and developed all our industrial and commercial activities, are worth nothing? They are not so indispensable in coal-mining as in younger industries, but they cannot be abandoned without real loss. No State department can or ought to exert the enterprise and initiative of a private concern. It ought not to risk the loss of public money, and would be severely condemned if it did. Nor can officials act with freedom, because the responsibility goes back to the Minister through the chain of offices. He must protect himself by rules for their procedure, and they must protect themselves by sticking to the rules. This is red tape and is absolutely inevitable. There is a certain, not a problematical, loss of energy. And it is not a question of incentive. A great deal has been made of the motive of public service. Certain members of the Coal Commission, who make much of it, showed their own regard for it by threatening to resign if something was said or done which they did not like; and Mr Smillie showed his when he declined the invitation to become Food Controller. But, even if the alleged efficacy of this motive be granted, it does not touch the point, which is that the atmosphere created by official hierarchy, promotion by seniority, routine and red tape is intolerable to men of energetic and adventurous disposition; it suits those who like a secure and set career, equally devoid of risks and great prizes. It attracts and creates the type; it represses zeal.

Some loss is therefore certain. And what of the gain? The gain on which Mr Justice Sankey calculates is the absence or diminution of industrial strife. If we got it, the price might not be too high; but, if we did not get it, there would be no gain at all to set against the loss. What is the prospect?

In the first place, experience proves that public employment by the State or the municipality provides no immunity against strikes in any country; and the examples of France and Australia go to show that, the more democratic the Government, the greater the liability to such strikes. Australia is classical, for it has been the scene of very large and determined strikes against the State under a Labour Government, in State coal mines, shipyards and railways. Then we have the war record, which is invoked to prove the altruistic influence of public service. The Government intervened between employers and employed and took control of important industries. Far more trouble occurred in these industries than in those left outside Government control. It is true that the Government did not own them; but the strikes and threats to strike, which occurred in an unending series, were against the State, against conditions determined by Government, and were carried on by men virtually employed by the State in public services. The last big strike, which was that of the Yorkshire miners in July last, is particularly instructive, because it occurred after the conclusion of peace and was directly attributed by the miners' leaders to the interference of the Government between mine

owners and miners. As Mr Lloyd George said in the House of Commons, it was a strike against the State.

Further evidence is furnished by the origin of the demand for nationalisation and the manner in which it has been pressed. It was a purely sectional demand, the miners' 'national programme,' put forward in their own interests and presented to the Government with threats. Nothing was said about the public interest until the impolicy of antagonising public opinion became evident; and the miners' own scheme clearly indicated the intention of running the industry in their own interests. There is only too much ground for the misgivings entertained by Mr Justice Sankey himself, in spite of his optimism, They find expression in the provision forbidding strikes until the dispute has been before the local and the district mining councils. No milder restriction could be framed, and the objection to it raised by the miners' representatives on the Commission throws a most sinister light on the prospects of peace under

nationalisation. The unfavourable inference inevitably drawn from it was fully justified by remarks let fall by Mr Duncan Graham, M.P., at the meeting of the Scottish Miners' Federation at Ayr on Aug. 14:

If the mines became the property of the nation, the miners would need to be more determined than ever in their policy and more vigorous in the trade union organisation, because, instead of fighting local employers, they would be fighting the Government.'

The speaker's subsequent attempt to explain away this statement only made it worse; it is too explicit to be explained away. He may have been expressing his own opinion only, but he occupies a responsible position, and his remarks met with applause and were not repudiated. They have found an echo in the newly-formed federation of postal unions, which has formally adopted the strike policy.

What prospect of peace or better service does all this portend? I can see none. And all there is to set against it is some belated expressions of concern for the public interest and of personal belief in improvement. But no pledges are given, and no action is taken as an earnest of goodwill. On the contrary, if we look to the practical side-which is what really matters to the public-we see a steadily dropping output when all allowance has been made for holidays and incidental disturbances.

I can discern no way out so long as the problem is approached in the present frame of mind. The emphatic endorsement of nationalisation by the Trades Union Congress adds great weight to the demand and cannot be ignored. But the Government cannot buy a little more tenure of office by merely yielding to the minatory attitude of the Congress; this would only ensure their greater damnation in the end. On the other hand, there is no need for them to hold rigidly by their own scheme, which seems quite hopeless, so far as can be judged from the scanty indications given by the Prime Minister. It would have been better to adopt the scheme outlined in Sir A. Duckham's Report, which is the best-reasoned of the Commission's various utterances. Agreement might conceivably be found somewhere between the proposals of Sir A. Duckham and those of Mr Justice Sankey, the

two detached members of the Commission. But there will be no possibility of it without a spirit of agreement. On both sides there should be a more open mind on the subject of nationalisation. On the one hand, its possibility should be frankly recognised; and, on the other, there should be equal recognition of the right to demand some effectual guarantee or convincing proof of public benefit before the nation is asked to consent to such a leap in the dark. For the nation's consent must be asked either by a referendum or a general election.

At any rate there is material for negotiation; and before Parliament reassembles negotiations will have begun. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress will have brought before the Government the resolution passed on Aug. 10, peremptorily rejecting the Government's scheme (without knowing what it is) and demanding the adoption of the 'majority report.' The Government may reply that their scheme has been misunderstood, and may ask what is meant by the majority report.' Here is an opportunity for the Miners' Federation to prove their good faith. Are they prepared to accept the Sankey recommendations regarding strikes, the composition of the mining councils, the disposal of subsidiary undertakings and compensation to royalty owners? Another way of lessening public distrust would be for every lodge to pass a resolution pledging themselves to do their best in the national interest. But the most convincing and the only true test is a practical trial or period of probation.

I put forward these suggestions for the avoidance of a disastrous conflict, but have little expectation of their being acted on. We are much more likely to have a great battle leading to a general election. For my own part I should like to see the Labour Party form a Government, for there will be no peace and no stability until its discordant elements exchange the easy business of criticism and agitation for practical administration, and shoulder the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of the country.

A. SHADWELL.

Art. 11.-IRELAND AND FEDERALISM.

1. Federal Government: Its Function and Method. By Prof. G. B. Adams. New York: Knickerbocker Press. 1919.

2. Report of the Proceedings of the Irish Convention, 1917-8. [Cd. 9019.]

3. Forms of Government within the Empire: Memorandum printed for the use of the Irish Convention.

4. Irish Peace and an Irish Settlement. Articles and Correspondence in 'The Times,' 1919.

FEDERALISM has long been advocated as a means of closer union, of more formal union, between the United Kingdom and the five Dominions, and possibly India and other parts of the Empire, but recently it has been more often suggested as a means of meeting three distinct problems within the United Kingdom itself: namely, first, the congestion of work in the Parliament of the United Kingdom; secondly, the Irish claim for selfgovernment; and, thirdly, the Ulster objection to any such concession. In view of the proposed appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to consider federal devolution in connexion with the first matter and the present state of the Irish question and the Ulster difficulty, the time seems opportune for examining this suggestion. The object of this article is not to consider the need for devolution in the United Kingdom, or the merits or demerits of the demand in Ireland for selfgovernment, or of the Ulster attitude thereto, but merely to inquire how far federalism is applicable to or helpful for the solution of these problems. Federalism, however, is a term little understood and vaguely used; it therefore appears necessary, first of all, to ascertain, as far as is possible in a limited space, what federal government really means.

Prof. Adams's book discusses, from the standpoint of a political philosopher, the function and method of federalism; but more useful for present purposes is the section on federal government in the 'Memorandum on Forms of Government within the Empire,' which it is understood was written by one of the Secretaries of the Irish Convention and circulated among the members for