so much as the effective running of the factory, I am sure they would be surprised at the benefits that would accrue. Even the lowest grade worker in a factory may have some idea to put forward which would either reduce factory costs or increase productivity, which would have the effect of enabling that factory to pay higher wages. For, after all, we must lay stress on the fact that half the trouble in the past has been caused by the desire of the employer to capture all the profit. The real profits of an industry from a national point of view are those made before any wages are paid to the workers.

Our problem is to secure an equitable distribution between capital and labour, and our task has been made more difficult by the fact that in days gone by employers took advantage of their employees. Latterly the boot has been on the other leg the employees through their trade unions have been trying to capture the whole of the profits. Committees such as I have outlined would bring the management into closer union with the minds and thoughts of the workers. The managers would come to realise the grievances of the men and remove them when real. They would be able by quiet talk and reasoning to get rid of some of the fallacies which are in the men's minds. These committees would be a means of education to both the management and the employees. Out of these factory committees would come the national committee, before which would be laid matters of national and even international concern. In this way the joint industrial councils would become real parliaments of industry, instead of academic debating societies.

It was always a matter of regret to me that the proposal to elect workers' representatives on the railway board of directors was dropped from the Railway Bill before it became an Act in 1921. This would have been a most interesting experiment; and it was, in my opinion, a pity it was not tried. The time will come when all boards of directors will be opened to a workers' representative. It is only fair that they should be. The responsibilities of a board are not to the shareholders only: they have responsibilities to the workers also. If a factory fail, it is disagreeable to the shareholders, who lose their money, but it is far more serious to the employees, who lose their means of livelihood. There is no better education than the board meeting of a big industrial concern. I have no hesitation in saying that six months' experience on a board of directors by an unprejudiced Socialist would cure him of his theories better than anything else could. He would receive education on all the difficulties, dangers and perils which every business passes through in its daily life. We have all talked a great deal about peace gestures since Mr. Baldwin's speech in the House of Commons on the Trade Union Levy Bill.

There could be no finer peace gesture than the acceptance of my proposal. If a workers' representative came directly on to the board to hear all the discussions, to learn all the difficulties, it would show that there were no secrets to hide; it would lead to a better understanding between the employer and employed; it would eradicate suspicion. In that happy day we might even remove the possibility of strikes and lock-outs, and we would be putting into practice the trade unions' slogan, 'All for each and each for all!' Then all would be working happily together for the increased happiness and prosperity of all.

During the past few weeks there have been some very interesting developments which seem to be heading in this direction. First, there is the experiment that is taking place at the Vauxhall Colliery at Wrexham. This colliery was on the point of closing down, but, through the help of a local fund, it is being continued by the colliers themselves. The local fund guarantees the working of the colliery against any loss, but any profits will go to the workmen. This experiment is, perhaps, the first of its kind. If it succeeds in securing greater output and reducing working costs, then we are very likely making a big step towards a new era in industrial development. It is a national disgrace that our mines should be closing down. Coal is the basis of our industrial supremacy. The fact that this country had such valuable and easily obtained coal has been our greatest asset in the past.

The second rift in the clouds is the conference between employers and employed to consider the state of our shipbuilding. Here there has been a definite effort to consider many of the points raised in my article, and apparently a joint committee of employers and employed is to be set up. This is what I gather from the Press reports of the speech by Mr. John Barr, a director of Messrs. Vickers, Ltd., who acted as chairman at the conference. His suggestion was that these committees shall consider costs of production. This is precisely my proposal. This is a tangible example in concrete form, which I should like to see followed in every industry. These committees, as I have previously pointed out, will serve to educate both sides into the difficulties and fears of the other. The employer will get into touch with his employees, and employees will get into touch with the employer. Their interests will become identical. If they succeed in reducing costs of production and profits are made, then the workmen will benefit.

The main difficulty in our present-day industrial problems is the suspicion and bad blood which exists. I remember at a public meeting during the last election hearing a Conservative working man pilloried from the back of the hall on the ground that he was

the 'gaffer's friend.' Supposing he was, is it impossible to be the 'gaffer's' friend and the worker's at the same time? Let us get away from such an atmosphere of gibes against the hated capitalist, and let the capitalist take a broad view of the trust placed in his care. Capital was never given to the capitalist to exploit for selfish ends. When both sides in this quarrel attack their problems in the right way, then that old trade union motto which I have quoted will have a deeper implication, And what is far more important, British industry will have been saved.

a

My concluding remarks are simple. The trade of our country is in such a parlous state that the outlook is every excuse for that vile person, the pessimist, to be let loose. Pessimism never cures anything to my mind, and I have often myself been accused of being an incorrigible optimist. Our ills can be cured. Serious as our position is, by a long pull, strong pull, and a pull all together we can cure our industrial ills. Those ills are largely of our own making. We hear a great deal about 'ca' canny' among the workmen, but the employers are not entirely free from blame on this score. They do not work so hard or so long as their fathers and grandfathers did. The example of hard work should start at the top. It is marvellous how the electric magnetism of a real worker vibrates upon those who work under him.

A few nights ago it was my pleasure to hear my friend (but political opponent) Mr. J. H. Thomas speak at a timber trade banquet. He was appealing as a Socialist to a company of merchant princes, to whom his politics were anathema, but his appeal was non-party on behalf of our suffering masses. He spoke of the spirit of 1914, when all minds were centred on how much we could give, and not how much we could get. If that spirit can once again be uppermost in the minds of both employers and employed, then, and only then, will a solution of our difficulties be at hand. That solution cannot come by legislation, nor by fostering a party or class controversy. It can only come in answer to that fervent prayer of the Prime Minister, 'Give peace in our time, O Lord.'

JOHN R. REMER.

THE ALCOHOL QUESTION IN SWEDEN

EACH of the four States in the north of Europe is at the present moment pursuing its own interesting experiment in the alcohol question.

Finland, the nearest neighbour of Sweden on the east, adopted total prohibition during the war, and still keeps it. Prohibition in Finland has had both good and bad consequences; and it is not too much to say that it has given many bitter disappointments even to its warmest partisans. Nevertheless, prohibition is still supported by an overwhelming majority in the legislature; and there is every probability that there can be no serious question of repealing prohibition in the immediate future.

Norway, the western neighbour of Sweden, also during the war, introduced prohibition for all drinks of a stronger alcohol content than 14 per cent. Owing to the force of circumstances, however, Norway has found it expedient to abolish prohibition so far as concerns wine. The prohibition of spirits still continues, but its effect has been such that the political parties are at present engaged in a violent and uncertain struggle as to its continued existence.

Denmark has entered on the path of a high tax on alcohol. The considerable rise in the prices of alcoholic drinks which has been a consequence of this has had a highly restrictive effect. Thanks to the markedly thrifty character of the population, Denmark has in this way been able to obtain results which would be inconceivable under similar circumstances in her neighbour States in the north of Europe.

In Sweden, even before the war, the foundation had been laid for an organisation of the trade in alcoholic drinks which exhibits an absolutely distinctive combination of various measures for the limitation of the injurious effects of alcohol. The entire manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks in Sweden has been made the subject of a monopoly. It has been left for the local authority to decide whether trade in such drinks should be allowed to take place or not, and very far reaching restrictions have been imposed on the trade. The most important of these restrictions is that the sale has been made dependent on an individual control ove

r

the buyers, intended to regulate consumption and to exclude those who abuse alcohol from access to it.

This Swedish system for the organisation of the trade in alcohol was long the battle-ground for a violent struggle, which, however, has now been succeeded by a remarkable tranquillity. For the present, at any rate, there has been a lull in the attacks, which came from two opposite camps, that of the opponents of restriction and that of the champions of prohibition. No Swede in anything like a responsible position at the present moment is in favour of a return to the conditions that prevailed before the coming into existence of individual control. The situation of the champions of prohibition can be made clear in the simplest way by putting together the three following events in the sphere of temperance politics.

In a voluntary plébiscite which was arranged by the Swedish prohibition organisations at the close of the year 1909 more than 1,800,000 citizens over eighteen years of age gave their vote in favour of total prohibition, while not quite 20,000 voted against it.

In a consultative plébiscite which, in accordance with the decision of the Riksdag, took place in August 1922, when the present alcohol law had been in force for a period of about three years, 889,000 men and women over the age of twenty-three voted for the introduction of total prohibition, but 924,000 against it.

A few weeks ago the Swedish Riksdag unanimously rejected a private motion in favour of a total prohibition of alcohol after a declaration by representatives of the prohibitionist members of the Riksdag that prohibition legislation is not at the present time practical politics.

Politically, therefore, the Swedish system is very firmly rooted. And what has it been able to achieve ?

From the point of view of organisation its result is that both the wholesale and the retail trade in alcoholic drinks has been emancipated from every trace of private profit. No economic force presses forward selling from behind in order to make the total mount up. Not even the restaurant-keepers who serve alcoholic drinks in connection with food have any advantage in making the consumption of alcohol at their restaurants rise above a certain limit. The State takes the profit of the sales, and the consequence is that the Swedish people in 1923 spent more than 10,000,000l. on the purchase of spirituous liquors and wines; more than half of that sum, or nearly 5,500,000l., went to the Exchequer. The total receipts of the Swedish State from taxes, custom dues, excise, and various charges amounted to not quite 28,000,000l. in that year. Hence about one-fifth of the total revenue of the State was derived from the manufacture, import, and sale of alcoholic drinks.