demands, and the result was a vote of about 6 to 1 in favour of striking. Strike notices had been issued, to expire on March 15, but were held back in view of the inquiry, though only until March 22.

Punctually on March 20 the Commission reported, but in three discordant documents, as was inevitable from its composition. The Government's nominees signed one, the miners' representatives a second, and the coal-owners a third. The last made some concessions; they offered an advance of 1s. 6d. instead of 1s. a day and seven hours instead of eight. The miners' representatives found all the demands justified, and declared that, 'in the interest of the consumers as much as in that of the miners, nationalisation ought to be, in principle, at once determined on.' This Report bears internal evidence of having been prepared at leisure before the conclusion of the inquiry. The third Report, signed by the Chairman and the three other Government nominees, recommended a seven hours' day from July 1919, to become a six hours' day in July 1921, and an advance of 28. a day. It further declared that the present system of ownership and working in the coal industry stands condemned, and some other system must be substituted for it, either nationalisation or a method of unification by national purchase and/or by joint control.' It also urged that colliery workers should have an effective voice in the direction of the mines, and suggested a levy of 1d. per ton on coal raised to be applied to housing.

This Report was received with general approval and was accepted by the Government 'in spirit and in letter.' The Miners' Federation took another ballot on acceptance of the terms; and this resulted in a majority for acceptance larger than the previous one for a strike. But the subsequent announcement by the Government in July that the concessions would entail raising the price of coal by 6s. a ton caused a great shock and aroused an angry controversy. The miners' spokesmen contended that the increase was unwarranted and a mere political trick on the part of the Government; but the calculations of the Coal Controller's department have withstood the adverse criticisms, and the price has been maintained. All that the public understands is that concessions have been made to the miners at its own cost.

Whether it should have been something less than 6s. & ton or not is a minor consideration. In any case the miners' gain was everybody else's loss. And no return consideration was given either in increased production or in diminished strikes. The former went on continually falling and the latter rising.

Meanwhile the inquiry was resumed by the Sankey Commission on the question of nationalisation, which had been left over; and the six members who had already pronounced judgment on it continued to sit-in imitation of the Alice-through-the-looking-glass procedure of sentence first, evidence afterwards, including their own. The proceedings were of a piece with this travesty of judicial methods. It soon became apparent that one object was to promote the class war by holding up to odium the royalty owners, including one who had nothing to do with the administration of the property of which he is the titular owner, and who is incapacitated by physical affliction from answering for himself. The deadly animus revealed by this hitting below the belt revolted the public, who do like fair play. The Commission produced the four Reports referred to above, which were published on June 23. I have indicated the amount of agreement between them. It is comparatively small, and is overwhelmed by the amount of disagreement which reveals irreconcilable antagonism.

The most salient facts are that the Chairman recommends nationalisation, and is, so far, in accord with the six members who decided for it beforehand; and that the other six members are against it. The Chairman is entirely independent, and must be held to have regard solely to the public interest. He is judicially minded, being a Judge of the High Court, and accustomed to weigh evidence. He allowed extraordinary latitude, it is true, in the conduct of the inquiry; but that was probably a pure matter of policy, and, if the advantage taken of it affected his judgment at all, it would rather be adversely to the members who brought discredit on his tribunal than in favour of them. In any case I think his opinion ought to carry great weight. What are his reasons for recommending nationalisation? And what is the form of nationalisation he recommends ?

B

1

and

His reasons, concisely stated, are the following:

(1) The unique place occupied by the coal industry in ational life.

(2) The right of other industries and consumers generally have a voice in deciding the amount of coal to be produced nd the selling price.

(3) The competition between many private owners and porters prevents the industry from getting the full value the export trade.

(4) The system of inland distribution prevents the conimer from getting coal as cheaply as he should.

(5) Lack of capital in some mines and of proper manageent in others prevents development to the best advantage of e nation.

(6) Multiplicity of owners makes it impossible to effect onomies by standardising materials and appliances, which ould be made possible by unification under State ownership.

Having set out these concrete reasons, he acknowledges e argument that the defects enumerated could be moved by unification short of State ownership, and troceeds to give further reasons.

༦

(7) The difficulty of carrying on the industry on the old les, caused by the bad relations between owners and miners, d the apparent impossibility of bettering them under the esent system of ownership. Many of the workers think ey are working for the capitalist, and a strike becomes a ntest between labour and capital. This is much less likely apply with the State as owner; and there is fair reason to pect that the relationship between labour and the comunity will be an improvement upon the relationship between bour and capital in the coal-fields.'

(8) New aspirations of miners resulting from education, ad their growing ambition to take 'their due share and terest in the direction of the industry.'

(9) The counter-attitude of the owners, expressed by Lord inford, who said on behalf of the Mining Association that, f the owners are not to be left complete executive control, ey will decline to accept the responsibility of carrying on e industry,' and will be driven to nationalisation though Key regard it as disastrous to the country.

(10) With regard to the loss of incentive under State vnership, this problematical risk is outweighed by the rtainty of the continuance of industrial strife.

The last paragraph contains the heart of the matter. To shun the evils that we know, we are advised to fly to others that we know not of, but which it is hoped are less. The deciding factor in the argument is the certain continuance of industrial strife under private ownership; and I am afraid that it cannot be gainsaid. It is not that all miners will refuse to work for private owners; many prefer it and have no desire for State ownership and control. In some coalfields the old system would work quite well with a reasonable readjustment of relations. In others there is no prospect of peace on any terms under it. Even if the men were compelled to work by dire necessity after an unsuccessful strike, they would do so grudgingly and sullenly; and after an interval the ferment would rise again, for a young generation is always coming on, full of fight and ambition, schooled in revolt against the existing order. To expect anything else is to cherish a blind delusion. If all were shareholders and co-partners in the concern it might be different; but that is not offered, and would be refused if it were, for nationalisation as a door into the millennium has become an idée fixe with too many. Nothing will dislodge it but its demonstrated failure, which involves & trial.

But that does not conclusively settle the matter. The continuance of industrial strife is the evil that we know what are those we know not of under nationalisation? And how does the balance stand? Two questions here arise-the loss involved in abandoning private ownership, and the gain to be expected from State ownership.

·

Mr Justice Sankey's Report recognises a loss, which he calls the loss of incentive.' He calls it 'problematical" and minimises it. He devotes some paragraphs to the subject of State service and admits that hitherto 'State management of industries has failed to prove itself free from serious shortcomings'; but he thinks these are due to neglect of proper training, and argues from the war experience that it is possible to provide a class of administrative officers who combine the strongest sense of public duty with the greatest energy and capacity for initiative.' It is dangerous to argue from war experience to ordinary routine administration; but, if that evidence is called, it should be taken as a whole. The war brought

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

But does any one seriously argue that private enterrise and initiative, which have created and developed ll our industrial and commercial activities, are worth othing? They are not so indispensable in coal-mining s in younger industries, but they cannot be abandoned without real loss. No State department can or ought exert the enterprise and initiative of a private concern. t ought not to risk the loss of public money, and would e severely condemned if it did. Nor can officials act with freedom, because the responsibility goes back to the linister through the chain of offices. He must protect imself by rules for their procedure, and they must rotect themselves by sticking to the rules. This is red ape and is absolutely inevitable. There is a certain, not problematical, loss of energy. And it is not a question f incentive. A great deal has been made of the motive f public service. Certain members of the Coal Comission, who make much of it, showed their own regard or it by threatening to resign if something was said or one which they did not like; and Mr Smillie showed is when he declined the invitation to become Food ontroller. But, even if the alleged efficacy of this otive be granted, it does not touch the point, which is at the atmosphere created by official hierarchy, prootion by seniority, routine and red tape is intolerable men of energetic and adventurous disposition; it suits hose who like a secure and set career, equally devoid f risks and great prizes. It attracts and creates the ype; it represses zeal.

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