As of Political Economy (2d ed. pp. 128-137) a dead-lock. In the sale of an estate, for instance, A may be willing to sell for £10,000, and B may in his own mind be prepared to give £11,000, if necessary. Could their minds be perfectly known to each other, any price between £10,000 and £11,000 would be possible; but there would even then be a dead-lock arising from the want of any means of determining at what point between £10,000 and £11,000 the eventual price should be fixed. each party in a negotiation, however, conceals his own feelings and intentions as much as possible, B may believe that A will sell for £9000, and by way of dissembling his own great wish for the estate offers only £8000. The combat of desires and fears is only resolved by the lapse of time which tries the patience of both parties, unless, indeed, a third party is called in as mediator. An important negotiation of the kind is, indeed, seldom conducted by the personal meeting of the parties interested. It is handed over to their solicitors or land agents; and, when they come to a dead-lock, the independent opinion of a valuer will be appealed to, if it is obviously for the advantage of all that some bargain should be concluded. Now, as pointed out by Mr. F. Y. Edgeworth, in his remarkable work on Mathematical Psychics, the existence of combinations in trade disputes usually reduces them to a single contract bargain of the same indeterminate kind. The men, for instance, ask for 15 per cent advance of wages all round. Rather than have a strike, it might be for the interest of the employers to give the advance, or for the men to withdraw their demand; a fortiori, any intermediate arrangement would still more meet their views. But there may be absolutely no economic principle on which to decide the question. Mathematically speaking, the problem is an indeterminate one, and must be decided by importing new conditions. It would appear, then, that, even on the grounds of pure economic theory, there are reasons why a conciliator might be properly called in to resolve an industrial deadlock. Far more expedient still must this course appear when we remember that in trade disputes the economic question is often the smallest part of the matter. Masters and men belong to such different classes of society that the least difference of opinion is soon complicated with sentiments of social dislike. Ideas of so-called fairness, justice, generosity, good faith, etc., are implicated. If no mode of allaying the dispute be quickly discovered, it becomes a question of surrender or no surrender. A strike, says Mr. Newmarch, is the end of discussion and the beginning of war. As Mr. Bevan remarks, a casus belli no sooner arises than all prudence is thrown to the winds. Pecuniary losses are of little account to those who are prepared to endure starvation rather than submit to what they esteem "injustice." It is obvious, then, that a trade dispute, especially when it has reached the acute phase of a strike, has little or nothing to do with economics. It is not a question of science, and there is no theoretic reason why conciliators should not be called in, if experience shows that they are usually able to compose matters. In many cases the work of such conciliators will consist in little more than inquiring into the real facts of the case, and impartially and authoritatively making them known to both parties. If either party then confesses to misapprehension, it is clear that the conciliator imports rather than ousts political economy. He acts the part of an economic and statistical inquirer. Even if a difference still exists, the conciliator may be able to suggest some medium course which it will be for the interests of both parties to accept rather than to continue a struggle ruinous to all. As in legal litigation, it is often better to have any decision rather than no decision at all. The conciliator may play the part of scapegrace, and bear the reproaches, provided only that the combatants will accept the terms and try to forget their mutual reproaches. Results of Experience in Conciliation.-The success of the conciliation system has varied much in different trades. From a review of the facts adduced by Mr. Weeks in his valuable report upon the subject, to be presently mentioned, I should infer that success is greatest when there is a multiplicity of rates of wages and prices of work and all kinds of technical details to be settled. In the hosiery trades, for instance, this is conspicuously the case, the lists of prices and rates extending to thousands of items. In such a trade some method of arrangement must be invaluable if not indispensable, as the remarkable success attained at Nottingham by the Board originated by Mr. Mundella sufficiently shows. In many other trades the details are more numerous and perplexing than easily appears to an outsider. Thus, in the building trades generally there are not only the principal rates of wages to be paid, but the rates for overtime, the time of payment, the length of notice, the hours of beginning and ending work, and the intervals allowed for meals. The allowance of "walking time," or the time required for getting to and from the place of work, is also a fruitful cause of dispute. When all such matters are arranged to the satisfaction of both parties, there arises a complete code of working rules, like that prepared by Mr. Davis for the bricklayers and builders of the Staffordshire potteries. Such troublesome details must be settled by custom or by some kind of rule, written or unwritten. The laws of supply and demand cannot settle such details. And if disputes and strikes are shown by experience to be fewest under a system of arbitration, it is difficult to deny the utility of the system. Much less success has so far attended the practice of arbitration in the great branches of mining industry and metallurgy. When a single decision affects in a serious degree the interests of a very large body of men, or a very large mass of capital, it is difficult to induce the parties to submit so important a matter to the judgment of a single mind. The employers affirm that they cannot yield demands for higher wages without suffering a large pecuniary loss. Nothing but necessity, then, can make them yield. The men, on the other hand, will not be satisfied by the assurances of the most respectable arbitrator. Thus either the dead-lock is maintained without arbitration, or the awards of arbitrators are unfortunately repudiated in some cases by the men, or in rare cases by the masters. It is to be hoped, however, that arbitration may make progress even among colliers; there must be many matters relating to modes of weighing, safety of mines, convenience of labour, etc., which might be settled by a board, and an approach to a better understanding about wages should be made through a sliding scale. In several cases, indeed, sliding scale agreements have recently broken down, and the experience of arbitration A very careful and impartial inquiry into the methods Conseils de Prud'hommes. The comparatively brief 1 See also Mr. Weeks' later report on Industrial Conciliation and |