Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

ong disused but well aligned canal on the Euphrateshese two canals bringing 60,000 new acres under cultivaion. The shortage of plough oxen was met by importaion from India, the difference in prices making the ransaction profitable. Scientific experiments in cotton ad already been commenced, and valuable results were btained. Tests of sugar, beet and various types of wheat were made, and disease in plant life generally and lates in particular examined. Cattle breeding was eceiving attention, and the surplus stock in military rass and dairy farms was made available for the civil population.

It was at this point that the war ended. The future f Mesopotamia is still undecided; and, till the political ituation is clear, it is hazardous to predict its economic uture. Immediately after the armistice we occupied Iosul, a province which is even richer than Irak. Its pil is better suited to wheat; irrigation is necessary for ummer crops only; and it abounds in springs. Irak self comprises 12,000,000 acres of irrigable land of mazing fertility, of which at least 10,000,000 remain to e developed; it produces the finest dates, except those Tunis, in the world; it is rich in salt and abundant in il. There are sulphur springs and bitumen and gypsum eposits. The climate in the plains even in the hot months is not unbearable; if hill stations were proided on the vine-clad slopes of Kurdistan, living would e delightful. The population at present is scant but rolific, and would rapidly expand under healthy conitions. Mesopotamia is a land of great promise. The ifficulties in the way of reconstruction are considerable; nd problems and the adjustment of rights between rab cultivators and city proprietors call for skilled andling; but, given good government, the future of this ortion of Arabia may quickly develop a prosperity no ss complete and much more profitable to the world at rge than that which it enjoyed in the days of Haroun1-Raschid.

[graphic]

Art. 10.-THE BATTLE OF THE MINES.

WHEN Parliament reassembles for the autumn session, the battle of the mines will begin in earnest. Hitherto there have been only preliminary skirmishes. The mischief of it is that it will almost certainly be a battle, a conflict of interests and prejudices and theories, fought with a determination which may well lead to violence before it is over. It ought not to be so. If ever there was a question for calm and dispassionate deliberation, for sane counsel, for sincere and concerted effort to find the best solution, it is this. For it is an economic question, proper to be decided by cold facts and calm reasoning, but incapable of being rightly decided by passion or prejudice or force. There is no need to dwell on its importance or its difficulty. Every one is by now fully conscious of the first, and the discussion that has already taken place demonstrates the second. But the more important it is, the greater the need for a right settlement; and the more difficult it is, the greater the need for calm counsel. Nor does the real object justify any other way of reaching a decision. It is single and clear -the best way of conducting the mining industry in the national interest. If the national interest is realised and kept in view as the true object, the impossibility of attaining it by a trial of strength or by any other road than reason and agreement becomes obvious.

It is not too late yet, and the assumption of an inevitable battle may prove erroneous. If so, it will be only through a strong and general conviction that fighting is folly, and that an agreed solution, which alone can be lasting, is best in the end for all parties. Such a conviction necessarily produces a desire to avoid fight ing and reach agreement. In a sense it exists already. The general public have it, being sick of these struggles in which they are the sport of sectional antagonisms. And probably no one would deny the proposition in so many words. Even those champions of peace who saw in the cessation of the great war merely an opportunity for 'getting on with the only war that really matters, even these excited advocates of strife are by way deprecating violence, though their policy infallibly leads

[graphic]

of

to it. The out-and-out inciters to violence are few and of little account-just tub-thumpers, or mentally unbalanced fanatics or slinking knaves. There is therefore an atmosphere in which settlement by reason is possible; and such change of opinion as has recently -occurred is in that direction. Prudence has made some way against pugnacity.

But all this, though it opens up a possibility, is wholly insufficient for realisation. Its negative influence will disappear in a moment when matters come to a practical Issue, unless it develops into a positive and strong determination to seek a settlement by united counsel; and of such determination there is no sign. The notes of defiance may be a little less loud, but there is as yet no thought of anything but fighting. The idea of sincere co-operation between opponents in finding the best solution has never entered their heads or any one else's, so far as one can see; and the insatiable pugnacity of human nature, which has been illustrated throughout che civilised world every day since the war, will certainly ssert itself once more unless a great effort is made to heck it.

In these circumstances and with this dire prospect before us I suggest that all parties make an effort to pproach the question in a less combative and more accommodating spirit; for, if it be fought out, none will merge unscathed from the conflict. It is quite useless or them to protest that they do not want a conflict when what they mean in their hearts by that is that ome one else should give way to them. On those terms very one desires peace; and in that sense the German Kaiser could lay his hand on his heart and swear that e did not want war. It is quite certain that the coal dustry will be carried on upon some system or other n the end; and any system that is adopted after a onflict can obviously be adopted before it.

What is the obstacle? Nothing but the state of en's minds. They hold tenaciously by their preossessions and will not yield until compelled by force f circumstances. The frequent use of the fatal word principle' reveals their determination. There are such ings as principles of conduct which ought to over-ride amediate expediency; but they do not apply to a purely Vol. 282.--No. 461.

2 F

economic question such as the organisation of the coal industry. The word 'principle' in this connexion means nothing but a preconceived opinion; and its use denotes a particularly obstinate determination to stick to that opinion. It suggests high moral ground and fortifies resolution. When men do or refuse to do something 'on principle' they slap themselves on their moral chests and feel very fine. So the demand for nationalisation and the opposition to it acquire a seeming moral value by being referred to principle, and the hearts of the antagonists are hardened. But there is no principle in the matter, which is entirely one of expediency. There is only opinion for and against, which can be changed without any sacrifice of principle. If men would divest themselves of preconceived opinions for a moment and approach the question with open minds, it would look quite different to them, and agreement would be marvellously facilitated. If the dominating thought in their minds was the imperative need of agreement, and if they would set before themselves the idea of going as far as possible towards it instead of yielding as little as they can, the thing could be done.

There is some common ground which may serve as a starting-point. It is recognised all round that the old order is gone for good, and that there must be a large change. All sections of the Coal Commission either demand it or virtually accept it; the Government have recognised it, and the public expect it. Some persons may deplore it, but no one openly opposes it or urges that the coal industry should be carried on precisely as before-which is, indeed, plainly impossible. This is something to go upon, though not very much. Divergence begins at once in the attitude towards change in itself; some grudge it and want it to be as small as possible, others clamour for the most violent transformation all at once.

These extremes represent the elements of conflict in its most acute form; if they would modify their respective attitudes the tension would be lessened all round. I suggest that the first would lose nothing and gain a good deal by a fuller and franker acceptance of the idea of change. Such changes are inevitable; History is a record of them; and, as we look back on it, we see how futile and foolish a dogged resistance was.

« VorigeDoorgaan »