February 23, 1917.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

389

appears to have an increasing effect upon the
industrial users on the Continent.

The question of increased freight rates was dis-
cussed by the Central Executive of Great Britain.
Alterations in the scale are reported in another
column.

In a report issued this week Sir Bichard Redmayne
states that the number of persons engaged at mines
in 1915 was 200,763 fewer than in the previous year,
the total value of the minerals raised amounted to
£170,460,949, an increase of £24,597,917 on the total
for 1914. The output of coal reached 253,206,081
tons—over 13,000,000 below that of 1914.

A Board of Fuel Research has been appointed by
the Committee of the Privy Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research. The better utilisation of our
fuel resources is one of the objects in view.

The special restrictions upon the exportation of
British coal to Norway have been removed.

A meeting of representatives of employers and
workmen in the coal trade in the Federated area of
England was held in London on February 16 to
consider an application by the men for an additional
advance of wages to meet the increased cost of living.
After a long discussion the meeting was adjourned
until February 28.

The South Wales Miners’ Federation has reversed
the previous decision regarding “ combing out.”
Several colliery lodges expressed strong disapproval
of the rejection of the scheme which had been agreed
upon by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and
the Government.

The Board of Trade have made an Order under
the Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 9G taking
possession as from March 1 of all coal mines in the
United Kingdom, other than those in South Wales
and Monmouthshire, of which possession was taken
on December 1 last.

In accordance with the Defence of the Realm
Regulation made on February 16, the Board of
Trade have made an Order taking possession of a
number of canals as from March 1. They have also
constituted a committee to control the canals taken
over. Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, C.M.G., is chairman
of this committee; and the other members (in
addition to representatives of the Government
departments concerned) will be Mr. A. J. Ash, Mr. A.
Peploe, Mr. A. J. Saner and Mr. J. T. Williams.

As we approach what promises to be
Organisation the last phase of the Titanic struggle
Of now in progress, the question of the
Industry, organisation of industry becomes
more than ever pressing. In the
midst of the prevailing excitement occasioned by
the frenzy which has induced Germany to throw to
the winds every vestige of consideration for inter-
national rights, we seem to have lost sight for the
moment of the great problem of reconstruction with
which we must sooner or later be confronted. In
the early part of last month the chairman of Messrs.
Cammell, Laird and Company mourned the shapeless-
ness of British industrial life as a whole, and even
advocated the, perhaps, rather startling proposition
that rings or trusts in business are essential to
industrial prosperity. Although this statement will
not be generally accepted, few will deny its truth if,
for the aggressive phrase “ rings or trusts,” we
substitute the comparatively harmless word “ associa-
tion.” The need for association has lately been widely
advocated in many quarters, and certain industries
had already long ago made a definite and successful
move in this direction. But the movement for a
wider and more powerful organisation of industry as
a whole has not yet seemed to materialise in a truly
effective form.

The Employers’ Parliamentary Association, a body
representing about 40 federations and associations of
employers, in its last annual report, fully recognises
the pressing need for the establishment of an all-
embracing organisation which will be able to focus
trade opinion, and present quickly and authoritatively
the balanced judgment of industry upon all questions
affecting producers’ interests. The same idea arose
in other quarters, with the result that three separate
movements were set on foot for the formation of a

centralised organisation of employers. For practical
purposes these have now been reduced to one—the
Federation of British Industries, to which the
Employers’ Parliamentary Association is now stated
to be affiliated. The Federation of British Industries
has already been widely supported, and it now
includes between 40 and 50 trade associations and
over 200 private firms, embracing all the most
important manufacturing industries in the country.

It is not easy to see precisely what effect this
affiliation will have upon the activities of the
Employers’ Parliamentary Association, but the step
that has been taken induced Sir Charles Macara to
retire from the presidency which he has held since the
inauguration of the association five years ago. His
reason for dissociating himself from this association
is that the objects of the two bodies are so divergent
that in his view satisfactory affiliation seems to be
impracticable. The stated objects of the Council of
the Employers’ Parliamentary Association are to watch
and take action with respect to any Bills affecting the
interests of trade, free contract or labour, or with respect
to the action of national or local authorities affecting
any of these same interests. Unfortunately, the obj ects
of the Federation of British Industries are not quite
clear. No definite statement of policy seems yet to
have been made. It appears, as now constituted, to
suffer from the disadvantage of being both a federa-
tion of associations and also a federation of employers.
Certain critics have expressed dissatisfaction because
it has not yet made clear its attitude with regard to
so fundamental a question as Free Trade or Protec-
tion. In fact, however, the Federation of British
Industries has scarcely yet had time to find itself.
There are so many directions in which organisation
is wanted, that its policy may reasonably be permitted
to remain nebulous for a time. Let us only look, for
instance, at the list of subj ects which were dealt with
last year by the executive committee of the Employers’
Parliamentary Council. These included (a) Industrial
Unrest, (3) Industry and Finance, (<?) Alien Indebted-
ness, (d) Scientific Industrial Research, (y) Patents,
(/) Transport Facilities, (y) Ministry of Commerce,
(Ji) National Insurance Act, (f) Federation of British
Industries. Truly, this is a formidable list of
questions for a single committee, and any one of
them is a problem in itself that would tax the
powers of any organisation to solve.

There are two main groups into which all existing
trade questions naturally fall. These are (1) internal
factors, such as the relations between capital and
labour, and (2) the external factors, such as the
promotion of home and foreign trade. What appears
to be lacking at the present time is a concise statement
of the position in regard to each of these main
groups. An attempt in this direction was recently
made by Messrs. Sidney Webb and Arnold Free-
man, in a pamphlet entitled “ Great Britain After the
War,” which is an excellent example of clear and
concise exposition, and remarkably fair, notwith-
standing the well-known leaning of at least one
of the authors towards nationalisation. Another
elaborate production of a similar nature is the
memorandum on the “ Industrial Situation After
the War,” drawn up by the Garton Foundation.
This is the work of a group of men of very varied
views, and is an attempt to analyse the more per-
manent causes of industrial friction and inefficiency.
Its freedom from bias is everywhere apparent. It
faces every problem with courage and insight.
Thus, it shows, with much truth, that important as
the tariff question is, it is not in any case a primary
one. The first necessities of the situation are
increased output and industrial peace. We cannot,
however, quite agree with the authors that this
question is mainly political and should be argued on
political grounds, but with a due allowance for its
economic effects. It would rather appear that the
political and economic aspects are mutually destructive*
It would be preferable, we think, to test every
question by reference to the fundamental problem of
production, which, as the authors justly state, is the
foundation of industrial welfare.

How much the situation would be cleared if this
simple proposition were made the test of every point
in dispute! We arrive, then, at the intelligible
principle that whatever promotes production is good,

and whatever restricts it is bad. Even such
debatable matters as the eight hours day and the
Factory Acts could be safely submitted to this test,
for production is certainly not promoted either by
unlimited hours of work or by dangerous or unhealthy
practices..

We are not proposing now to enter into these
problems in detail, but would merely indicate that an
ideal Federation of Industries would be one which
includes both employer and employed, working
together for the sole object of considering every
means of stimulating production, whereby alone
this country can hope speedily to recover from the
effects of the war. To introduce politics is to throw
grit into the machine, and to foster that same
internal friction that we all wish to see eliminated.

Amongst the numerous committees
Imperial set up by Mr. Asquith’s Govern-
Preference- ment was one on Commercial and

Industrial Policy, presided over by
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and composed of
representatives of whom several were recognised
before the war as pronounced advocates either of
Free Trade or Tariff Reform. It was a body of men
of such diverse views that no one would have been
surprised if they had failed to find any common
basis of agreement. But the war has changed many
things, and none so conspicuously as the national
outlook upon questions of fiscal policy. Lord
Balfour’s Committee, therefore, were able to come
to such a measure of unanimity as to draft certain
resolutions, which were subscribed to by all but two
of its members, and even these latter expressed
general sympathy with the conclusions therein con-
tained. Briefly, the Committee recommends that the
Government should now declare their adherence to
the principle of Imperial Preference, with a wider
range of Customs duties than has hitherto prevailed
under our so-called Free Trade system. The Com-
mittee has apparently brought forward these resolu-
tions at the present moment in view of the forth-
coming Imperial Conference. They harmonise with
the opinions already expressed by Dominion
statesmen at former colonial conferences, both in
1902 and in 1907 ; and their acceptance in principle
by the British Government would clear the way, at
the great colonial meeting shortly to take place, for
the discussion of their practical bearing. It should
be clearly understood that Lord Balfour’s Committee
has gone no further than to enunciate certain abstract
principles, adopted in the light of experience gained
during the war ; and it reserves the consideration of
the practical questions involved in their application
to be dealt with in a subsequent report.

It would be premature to attempt to anticipate this
fuller discussion of a subject which bristles with
difficulties in respect not only of our relations with
the self-governing Dominions and with India, but
also of our fiscal policy towards our Allies. As
regards the latter, the ground has to a large extent
been already cleared by the Paris Conference, the
provisions of which could scarcely have been put into
practice in the absence of a declared policy of the
kind now advocated. With regard to the resolutions
themselves, it will be impossible for anyone who
has any regard for the safety and welfare of the
Empire to refuse adhesion to them. The sum and
substance of the proposals are formulated in the
declaration that special steps must be taken to
stimulate production within the Empire. This should
at once serve to raise the question above the limita-
tions of party questions. Conjointly with this object
it is desirable so to reconstitute our commercial
policy that Germany will not again be able to secure
directly or indirectly the control of any one of our
key industries, or of the raw materials upon which
they are based. Upon these points we believe there
will be general agreement, for we have now
experienced the dangers arising from our past neglect
to look after our own interests in this respect.

There will, of course, be in some quarters an
attempt to show that Imperial Preference is not
essential to the attainment of the objects which Lord
Balfour’s Committee has in view. There are
probably still some ardent believers in Free Trade
who cherish the visionary hope of universal adhesion