organised labour, an ancient sore on the British body, rise up and
complicate these well-laid schemes for economic expansion? As with the
question of practicability of the Paris Pact, there is a wide difference
of opinion.

On one hand, you find the air full of the menace of post-war
unemployment and the problem of replacing the woman worker by the man
who went away to fight. To offset this, however, there will be the
undoubted scarcity of male help due to battle or disease, and the
inevitable emigration of the soldier, desirous of a free and open life,
to the Colonies.

On the other hand, there is the conviction that unrestricted output,
having registered its golden returns, will be the rule, not the
exception, among the English artisans. England's frenzied desire for
economic authority proclaims a job for everybody.

I asked a member of the British Cabinet, a man perhaps better qualified
than any other in England to speak on this subject, to sum up the whole
after-war labour situation, as he saw it, and his epigrammatic reply
was:

"After the war capital will be ungrudging in its remuneration to labour;
and labour, in turn, must be ungrudging in its output."

No one doubts that after the war the British worker will have his full
share of profits. As one large manufacturer told me: "We have so gotten
into the habit of turning our profits over to the government that it
will be easy to divide with our employees." Here may be the panacea for
the whole English labour ill.