tion of the mode of operations of the Light Castings Association, the Wall Paper Manufacturers' Association, and many more. He seems, however, to have been alone on the Commission in his stalwart faith in ancient methods as a safeguard against this modern development, for the majority go so far as to say that :

We doubt whether public apprehension will be set at rest until the State has armed itself with the necessary powers to deal with anti-social actions by monopolist trusts and combines (342).

This ebullition of definiteness, however, was transient; they hasten to say that it would in their 'view be unwise to set up special machinery for dealing drastically by the application of sanctions with anti-social actions in these' (the food trades) 'and not in other trades.'

The second possible method that may be adopted against trusts is to endeavour by prohibitions and penalties to curb their activities. It would go outside the scope of this article to review the record of the various national endeavours in this direction as furnished by the Trust Committee, but in that great headquarters of combines, the United States, they have tried the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and State and Federal actions innumerable beside a multitude of decisions by the courts. The results, after some thirty years of strenuous endeavour, are found to be notoriously insufficient. The Dominions, Germany, and other countries have adopted anti-trust legislation in various forms with equally disappointing results, and the experiences of our own farcical Anti-Profiteering Act of 1919-which secured the punishment of a few humble retailers at the outside should surely be sufficient to convince us of the futility of this method of proceeding.

There is a third possible method, namely, that of direct State intervention in some form, and this Commission believes that, although 'there are cases when intervention by the State may be necessary and desirable-for example, in time of war or national emergency-the Government might again be forced to assume control, or even to trade itself' (325).

It is evident that the Commission has not taken the trouble to explore the methods we adopted during the war. These varied from a power to investigate costs, and fix prices in consequence, by agreement or otherwise, with power to control stocks and distribution if need be, to direct State manufacture and trading. An infinite variety of methods was adopted; and to assume, as the Commission does, that there are no intermediate possibilities between a well-intentioned, but certainly impotent watching, to complete State conduct of the whole business from start to finish, is to display a most astonishing ignorance of what actually occurred. The fact is, neither the Prime Minister nor Sir Auckland Geddes held offices which brought them any firsthand experience of what we were doing.

We often found that the power to act was as potent as the actual exercise of the power itself. I myself was responsible at the Ministry of Munitions for the first comprehensive application of our powers over costs and prices, and it is well known that the result, as applied to the ammunition programme for 1916 alone, reduced our costs by something like 400,0ool. per week as compared with previous prices. Sir Hardman Lever, Sir John Mann and their officials made investigations hundreds of times, and it was rare that we failed to reach an agreement. But there would have been no agreement if we had not had the other powers in the background, as our dismal experiences in the autumn of 1915 of efforts to reduce costs without them abundantly proved. Nor have I ever heard of a case wherein, notwithstanding the reductions, the manufacturers were not left with a wholesome profit.

It is amazing that the Commission should accept Lord Vestey's statement (316-317) that the net trade profit by the Union Cold Storage Company on all meat handled by the Argentine Freezing Works' in 1924 was 0.213 of Id. per pound. It is true that it safeguards itself by saying that it thinks that 'this figure does not convey a correct idea of the normal profit,' and it finds, for instance, that from January to June the profit on chilled beef was 0.76 of Id. per pound. I am making no accusation against Lord Vestey; it entirely depends upon what is included in the expression 'handled by the Argentine Freezing Works.' It would be interesting if the Commission had had the power to turn, say, Sir Hardman Lever or Sir John Mann on to a problem of this kind. Let me quote an example of the kind of thing we found scores of times. On a contract for filling 30,000 primers per week the costs per hundred as provided by Lever's department and by the contractor were as follows :

After allowing for the cost of inspection and adjustments, a price of 11s. 3d. per hundred was agreed upon, the company to take all risks due to defective parts except rejections on firing proof due to bad metal.

The Commission, as already quoted, thinks that direct intervention might be necessary in a time of 'national emergency.' But is it unfair to describe the present as a time of national emergency, when we have a million and a quarter people out of work, and a prodigious diminution in the purchasing power of those who are at work? It should not be forgotten, also, that the actions we were compelled to take in a time of war were at a time when, presumably, every patriotic instinct was aroused. Nevertheless plenty of people were to be found who were ready to exploit our necessities to the uttermost, and it is just silly to think that we are going to achieve equal, or better, results by a body which is to have no statutory power, but whose duty it is to be 'to study current and future problems of wheat and meat supplies and to issue periodical reports' (336). There is no getting away from the fact that, although it was encumbered by the difficulties of scarcity and all the complicated expense of Food Committees, rationing and the rest-none of which, it is to be hoped, we shall ever need to see again-the Food Ministry managed to distribute Australian meat with an average difference of about 2d. a pound between the dock-side and the retail price, and, although it made losses on some things and gains on others, the results of its transactions left the country with a profit on its operations as a whole of 6,391,365l.; and its administrative charges, including all the cost of rationing, were less than half of I per cent.

The Commission recites (329-331) a number of objections to national intervention. The first is that it would 'cease to reflect the normal working of supply and demand.' Perhaps it would as the system works at present, but that in itself might not be any great loss, if the wheat ramp of the summer of 1924 or the sale of calves in the Argentine at the price of chickens in 1922 whilst the price of veal at home remained as high as ever, are examples of the operation of the 'present system.' If it comes to that, the Manitoban wheat pool and the New Zealand Meat Board interfere with the 'normal' demand of the grain and meat corporations, but they are of enormous help to the producer, who renders the most vital service of all. It is true also, as is objected, that public interference would necessitate the adoption of various rules, checks, and so forth. But would it be any loss if we had some influence over the decisions of the 'Freight Committee,' which decides how much meat we are to be allowed to have, and how much it is to cost? There might also, as it is contended, be an improper use ' of political influence' sometimes. Abuses ought to be checked by every manner of means, but, for all that, we build battleships, provision an Army, conduct a Post Office, trams,

• Trading Accounts and Balance-sheet, with Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, No. 126, July 1922. VOL. XCVIII-No. 581

C

and other public services. Personally I am inclined to have more faith in the disinterestedness of the British public service than, for example, in that of the bean speculators Lord Balcarres tells us of, or of the Buenos Ayres 'Conference' and the hosts of other corporations and agencies whose sinister figures come so prominently into the pages of this Report.

It is tempting to develop this theme further, but it would take me too far afield. Some aspects of it are set out in Mr. W. R. Smith's minority report. He, like Mr. Ryland, has courage and faith, although their faiths are of a very different complexion.

It would, however, be unfair to the Royal Commission to lead the reader to suppose that it has no suggestion to make for dealing with the combines and trusts that nourish themselves so generously on the body of the people. For 'while your Commissioners are not prepared to recommend any novel experiments in trading as being likely to reduce food prices, they would view with still greater reluctance a complete lack of effective supervision' (334). In a later paragraph we are provided with the formula for this 'effective supervision,' and it would be little short of a crime on my part if I failed to quote it in full: 10

In the absence of general anti-trust legislation, the Food Council should not be sterilised, but, on the contrary, should be required to investigate the action of persons, firms or associations when there is reason to believe that they are behaving in a manner contrary to the public interest, for example, are fixing food prices unfairly. When the Council is satisfied as a result of its investigations that a person, firm, or association is behaving in a manner contrary to the public interest, it should be the Council's duty to instruct that person, firm, or association to desist from such behaviour. If necessary the Council would issue consequential directions. In the event of noncompliance, the Council should report the circumstances to the President of the Board of Trade, who should lay the report before Parliament. For the moment we suggest no further sanction

...

(344).

Would it be possible to adorn this masterpiece? Who but Mr. Turveydrop could give an appropriate lesson in deportment to Messrs. Armour, Swift, Vestey and Company? The threat of it will surely keep them awake at nights. They will 'desist from such behaviour.' They will not dare to be naughty boys, for, if they are, the Food Council will tell the President of the Board of Trade about it. Rather than this should happen, the 'Freight Committee' will release its grip; the provincial markets will be made free; the grain speculators in Chicago will cease to operate; the master bakers will present a testimonial to Mr. Harding, and the parents of that 60 per cent. of the country children who have no meat every day will be able to buy more; the soul of John Bright will be satisfied, and the hold on the garners that are full of plenty will be relaxed, and they will freely yield all manner of store.

1925

THE WIDOWS, ORPHANS AND OLD AGE
CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL

WHEN Mr. Winston Churchill was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer he was hailed as a financial saviour who would be able at the same time to grant us much-needed remissions of taxation and to provide the funds for vast schemes of social reform. To all appearances he has achieved the impossible. General taxation has been reduced, and nothing is to cost us more except death and silk stockings. At the same time a scheme of social reform is to be instituted the cost of which to the State, according to the very able memorandum of the Government Actuary, is 746,000,000l. The secret of the miracle is that the remissions of taxation are reserved for the present financial year; the burden falls on future years, and is a permanent burden from which there can be no escape in the lifetime of the present generation.

This huge capital expenditure represents the cost of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill.

The present article represents an attempt to describe the more salient features of that Bill, the political, social and financial complications of which are almost beyond understanding. It is impossible within the limits of an article to deal with more than the most salient features.

The scheme represents one more stage in a long course of legislation the object of which is the relief of the poor. That legislation is passing through its natural course of development. It began with the stage in which relief was confined to the destitute. It passed on to legislation for those who were poor without being destitute. The present scheme relieves many of the poor and many who are not poor. The last stage of all, the Act to relieve the rich of their riches, is reserved for a Communist Government.

In the year 1597 Queen Elizabeth's Government passed an Act for the relief of the poor. It decreed that every parish should be taxed for the purpose of setting to work all such persons as, having no means to maintain them, used no ordinary and daily trade to get their living thereby, and for and towards the necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among them being poor and not able to work. It was no doubt acclaimed