Meanwhile, sinning once more against the light of dearlybought experience, the British Government continues to meet a purely fictitious agitation against imperialism, unequal treaties, etc., with liberal gestures, conferences and graceful concessions. If there is one conclusion which stands out more clearly than the rest from these records of our early relations with China it is, as the Select Committee at Canton wrote in 1830, that " the situation of foreigners in China is made worse and never improved by tame submission to indignity." During the century which has since elapsed, China has completely failed (indeed, she has never seriously attempted) to adjust her national life to the new conditions created by the inevitable impact of the West; her systems of Government and of administration have collapsed, leaving the nation a helpless prey to self-seeking satraps and political agitators. Nevertheless, amidst the resultant chaos, the reaction of all the politically conscious elements in the nation to anything in the nature of a conciliatory gesture on the part of the foreigner, remains precisely what it was in 1830. For the structural character of an oriental race, deep-rooted in the past, is in no wise changed by a top-dressing of "Western learning," and it remains as true to-day as it was when Abbé Hue wrote, that " this people yields nothing to reason and everything to fear."

J. O. P. BLAND

VOL. 244 NO. 497

L

INDUSTRY, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC OPINION

1. Sidelights on Industrial Evolution. By W. VAUGHAN WILKINS. Jarrolds. 1925.

2. The Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain during the Nineteenth Century. By L. KNOWLES. 4th Ed. Routledge. 1926.

THE

IE industrial situation is not dangerous, but it is very depressing. There is no danger, because we learn in time and, indeed, appear to like learning by experience. But it is none the less depressing to witness a whole people temporarily acting so foolishly as to keep themselves short, if not poor, and deliberately declining to do the things, or to think the way, that would lead them to prosperity. Sections and factions like the Communists or the Socialists or the Capitalists will always be a trouble to us, because from the nature of their position they are almost bound to take a one-sided, partial and biased view; but the only danger in which we stand arises from the remote possibility of one or other or all of these factions acquiring too much influence with the big body of the general public. That is where the danger lies.

The producers, whether employers or employed, never have understood and never will thoroughly understand their relative position in the bigger scheme of things, and will always entertain an exaggerated opinion of their own importance and their own power; but things begin to border on the dangerous when they succeed, as they have to some extent succeeded in recent years, in getting public opinion to use their own coloured spectacles and adopt their own tainted views.

This country is still ruled by the majority, and all the minority organizations, however skilfully controlled, are powerless against the bulk of public opinion. The general strike proved that. It was all over as soon as public opinion made itself felt. Public opinion has very seldom ranged itself against a strike, but when it has, the strike has always failed. If, therefore, we can rely on a sound public opinion the factions may do their worst-they are quite powerless. But it is just because public opinion is not sound on economic questions that industry and all that hangs upon it is such a depressing spectacle to-day.

The danger spots are not indicated by the Red Flag. There is more economic waste labelled with the Union Jack than ever Moscow is likely to inflict upon us. I am not afraid of Communists, but I am of Copec. Comrade Saklatvala makes me smile, but the Bishop of Manchester makes me shudder. The present day politicians almost to a man are quite hopeless. Economically the only difference between them is that of degree. The Communist advocates murder and 20s. in the £. The Socialist stands for graduality, but still 20s. in the £. The Liberals and the Tories have various polite varieties of strangulation, ranging in price from Lloyd George at about 15s., to Winston Churchill, who actually takes 9s. But the underlying principles at the back of them all are the same. They all shout in chorus: "The State will provide." All the producers are tempted at times to join in this chorus. The Socialist hopes through the medium of the State to get wealth without work, and the Protectionist welcomes the aid of the State to relieve him of the unpleasant necessity of meeting competition. The workers' dole and the manufacturers' tariff are the same tune in different keys; the refrain is always : The State will provide." The full title of the composition is: "The State will relieve us all of the stress and strain of the struggle for existence."

It is a comforting suggestion and one which I should be glad enough to accept, if it contained merely a small proportion of truth. But twenty-five years of the workings of this idea have landed us with a permanent million of unemployed, a stunted general standard of living, a disgruntled working class, and an ever-increasing shortage of housing accommodation-to name only some of its chief results. When the public sees all this, and that process is now beginning, things will change and an upward movement will set in, notwithstanding Communists or Socialists or Protectionists. I am not overlooking the war, but I have always doubted the war as an economic argument. It gave us scarcity and it gave us increased producing power-both of which would appear to be good for subsequent trade. I am one of those who believe that the Socialism which was tacked on to the war cost as much as the war itself.

When the conversation is of economics or of industry the fashion is to start with the fixed idea that things are wrong, and we only differ as to how they should be altered. Some want to

abolish, others want to modify--but all are for change. That is because the politician cannot offer us a single loaf of bread or a single penny bun. All that he can do is to promise to get somebody else to do it some other way. He lives by change. I see little hope of good from the sort of discussion that is common amongst us to-day. We have for the moment accepted the totally erroneous view that the State can provide, and the discussion is almost wholly concerned with the amount of the provision and for whom it should be made. From week to week our interest shifts from widows to miners or from disabled soldiers to hollowware manufacturers. But the process is always the same. We arrange that somebody shall be relieved of a natural obligation at the expense of somebody else. This beneficent idea is possible of achievement if applied to a small minority, but it breaks down completely when applied to everybody. And yet that is what we are trying to do.

There is only one remedy, only one way out, only one hope— the public must be educated in economic truth and must be made to think economically. It is no use, indeed it is very dangerous, to discuss miners or widows or soldiers if you are totally ignorant of, or deliberately ignore, the fundamental truths and facts that underlie everybody's troubles, and we must therefore return to fundamentals. Suppose, for instance, that the public as a whole really understood that the total production of the world had never in history been sufficient to maintain the population of the world in decency, a new complexion would be given to politics. Suppose it were next realised that the productive capacity of the world is now sufficient to provide a higher standard of living than has ever been known. Should we then be willing to continue. the process of throttling our productive capacity either by trade union restrictions or legislative obstruction?

Could we not, from that point, move on—always keeping big simple issues in mind and avoiding the sophisticated complications of the politicians to one or two other easily grasped general considerations? For example, productive capacity resides in the individual, but if half of the individuals, through the State or the Union or the Combine, are sitting on committees forbidding the other half to produce, we limit our total capacity.

Public opinion can only be useful to industry if it will apply itself to broad general principles; it cannot be of service in connection with details or technicalities. The democratic principle

will have to be discarded if democracy insists on attempting to do the impossible. Provided we recognise that the function of the State is to facilitate the activities of the individual, the democratic principle will survive; but if we continue to insist upon the falsehood that the State can take the place of the individual, then we are at the beginning of the end of civilization itself. As Burke well said :

To provide for us in our necessities is not in the power of government. It would be a vain presumption in statesmen to think they can do it. The people maintain them, and not they the people. It is in the power of government to prevent much evil; it can do very little positive good in this, or perhaps in anything else.

And again :

My opinion is against an overdoing of any sort of administration, and more especially against this most momentous of all meddling on the part of authority-the meddling with the subsistence of the people.

Laisser faire is out of fashion, and it is no longer possible to say to the electors that industry has nothing to do with them and that the government must leave things alone. But it is possible and reasonable and necessary to say that if the electors want to manage industry or anything else they must think as a nation and not as a faction. They must legislate with a view to the interests of the whole and not of a part. Only so can they promote the interests of all the parts. Nor is it unreasonable or unfair to say to the electors that they must consider and decide on what general principles they will govern. Government at the moment is a shuffling compromise between Communism and Individualism.

I would like to get back to eighteenth century habits of thought, when philosophy and logic occupied the intellectual abilities that are now absorbed in framing formulas, on points of detail that do not arise, for the consideration of some committee which knows nothing about them. The public mind ought to be thinking of the broad general principles of work and wealth, property and competition; for unless the principles are right there is no hope for the right settlement of the details.

The subject of work gives perhaps the best illustration of the difficulties of the whole matter. Most of us have the picture upside-down and fail to comprehend the origin, the purpose or the effect of work. The individual may be pardoned if he