recovered freedom. Questions are so closely involved with each other
that we may seem to be mixing up national trade interests with the ideal
striving for peace and goodwill. Yet, after all, self-interest rightly
understood and regard for the interests of others, with an honest wish
for their welfare, are not feelings mutually exclusive. There is high
authority for saying that "serving the Lord" is not incompatible with
"diligence in business."

It is quite possible to lay too much stress on the necessity for
definite and formal sanctions to enforce agreements. There are cases in
which the enforcement of a definite penalty for a wrongful act or for
breach of an agreement is very difficult, but in which the "sense of
moral obligation," "respect for public opinion," and "reliance on
principles of mutual consent" do regularly operate so strongly that the
rules of conduct laid down are in fact observed. On the Manchester
Exchange thousands of agreements involving millions of money are made,
the breach of which could not be made the ground of a successful action
at law. The number of cases of repudiation of such agreements is almost
negligible. To plead the Statute of Frauds in an action for non-delivery
or non-acceptance of goods under such informal agreements might be a
defence in the law courts, but would not save the defendant from the
indeterminate but effective penalties due to the feeling of his fellows
that he was acting dishonourably. It is instructive to notice that in
dealing with the question of industrial disputes, which are in many ways
analogous to international, at least where they arise between organised
bodies of employers and of workpeople, the Whitley Committee, in a
supplemental report issued in January, 1918, expressed the opinion: (1)
that no attempt should be made to establish compulsory arbitration or
compulsory legislation to prevent strikes and lock-outs; (2) that there
should be standing arbitration councils or panels of arbitrators to whom