to a mindless automaton set in motion by the expert. This result is not a necessary outcome of the system. It is the outcome of preconceptions, under the influence of which the sole interest of the community in production is held to reside in quantity of output, the sole interest of the employer in profit, and the sole interest of the worker in wages. But that outlook is shared by so many advocates of the system, that the suspicion with which it is regarded by Labour, with its increasing demand for responsibility and self-respect in the conditions of employment, is no matter for surprise. 6 The standardisation of products and mass production may also have their value in providing indispensable necessaries at a moderate cost; but it is impossible to regard them as an industrial ideal, except on the assumption that the quantity of things produced is the supreme test of human effort. In manufacturing, the great points are quantity and uniformity—the production over and over and over again of the same identical article. This permits organisation in men, methods and machinery.' Yes, but it degrades the worker into an automaton, and deprives him of that pride in his work which alone can make it a fitting expression of his powers, while it robs the product of all human interest or æsthetic value. Whatever use we make of it, especially in meeting the post-bellum crisis, we must not erect it into a principle of our national renaissance. It has been impossible to do more than indicate a general standpoint with regard to these very important matters, and it is equally impossible to argue here the great question of female labour. But there is one thing that must be said. There are social considerations of the gravest importance concerned in the question, to which full weight must be given. To regard the womanhood of this country as a mere reserve of labour-power is to misapprehend the nature of national life. There is little room left to discuss the programmes of the other groups which have been named, but many of them fall, at least to some extent, within the scope of the considerations already urged. To the Guild Socialists and the Reintegrationists all honour is due for their witness to the dignity of labour and its rank as a personal service to the community. But the programme of the Reintegrationists, with its abandonment of machinery and organisation, hardly falls within the sphere of practical politics as a measure for general adoption; and the proposals of the Guild Socialists are exposed to two dangers-that of setting up the tyranny of system within the industry, and that of investing functional units, dealing with man in only one of his phases, with power properly belonging only to the community as a whole. Of the Localists, as well as of those sections of Labour who restrict their recognition of obligations to their own class, it must be said that their denial of the national nexus reveals an imperfect appreciation of forces which have a very real existence, and impoverishes the life of the individual by an arbitrary circumscription of his outlook. The strong point of their case is their recognition of the fact that the sense of civic responsibility must at least begin with participation in the direction of those activities which intimately concern a man in his daily life, and that the mere exercise of a quinquennial vote in an electorate of millions will not suffice for the discharge of his obligations. On the whole, the Whitley Report and the other proposals discussed in connexion with it come nearest to the ideal we have framed for ourselves. They regard work as a form of service rather than as a commodity: they lay greater stress on the status and responsibility of the workers than on total output or even on rates of wages; and they base their schemes of reconstruction on voluntary cooperation. Their purview, however, is limited to the industrial sphere; and it cannot be said that they have fully recognised the connexion between industrial and social problems on the one hand and political on the other. In all these groups and schemes we have found elements necessary to any full conception of national life, and suggestions for the task of reconstruction or the guidance of the renaissance. None of them, however, if taken alone, fulfils the requirements of our touchstone, or affords a means of dealing with all the problems of the post-bellum situation. We shall be doomed to disappointment if we expect to construct for ourselves a programme that will accomplish these ends. The real Vol. 229.-No. 455. 2 G question we have to face is: How can we best ensure the full and conscious participation of every citizen in the national life?' And this cannot be achieved by legislation. It is far more difficult to recognise and accept the obligation which lies upon each one of us to contribute to the reshaping of the national life than to throw the burden upon Government and demand the passing of an Act, or to accept some single institution or reform as the cure for every evil from which we are suffering. The tendency to discharge our obligations thus vicariously will be very strong in the reaction following the strain of the war. Nevertheless it must be withstood. We shall not be saved by systems. What is wanted is a conscious and sustained effort of national service on the part of each one of us. If we wish to take part in this revival we must be humble. It is not for those in power to use their influence,' nor for intellectuals to 'point the way,' but for each of us to contribute what we can, in thought or deed, recognising our fallibility and striving rather to stir others to thought and action than to impose on them our own conceptions. From this it follows that the purpose of this paper is not to put forward a programme, but to plead for a full consideration of policy and purpose before we are committed too deeply to any line of action. Nevertheless, there are certain considerations with regard to particular problems which seem to spring naturally from the principles and conditions we have been investigating; and to an examination of these the second part of this paper will be devoted. C. ERNEST FAYLE. Art. 8.-CHURCH REFORM. 1. Report of the Archbishop's Committee on Church and State. S.P.C.K., 1916. 2. Royal Letters of Business-Resolutions of the Joint Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury. S.P.C.K., 1917. 3. Memorandum of the Council of the Churchmen's Union on the Report of the Archbishop's Committee. Privately printed, 1918. 4. The things that are Cæsar's, and The Genius of the English Church. By Alfred Fawkes. Murray, 1917. 5. Reform or Revolution in the Church of England. By W. W. Jackson. Oxford University Press, 1917. 6. The Church in the Furnace. Edited by F. B. Macnutt. Macmillan, 1917. 7. Can England's Church win England's Manhood? Edited by Bishop Gwynne. Macmillan, 1917. 8. The Revenues of the Church of England. By A. C. Headlam. Murray, [1917]. 9. The Church in the Commonwealth. Roberts. Headley Brothers, 1917. By Richard THE report of the Archbishop's Committee on Church and State marks, though it does not make, a crisis in our history. For it gives official sanction to the oftrepeated protests of thinking men against the deadlock which has resulted from three centuries of political change and of ecclesiastical inertia ; it supplies materials, important though not sufficient, for a reasoned judgment on the whole situation; and it offers a systematic proposal for such reforms as may restore the Church of England to efficiency. The Committee may well feel encouraged by the manner in which their report has been received. For the first time within living memory a substantial plan of Church Reform has evoked widespread interest and occasional enthusiasm. There are some Churchmen and many Nonconformists who condemn the Report on the ground that 'spiritual independence' is destroyed by connexion with the State. One of these critics tells us that 'the prevailing religion of State Churches is a polite paganism touched here and there by a Christian grace.' This is not the place to argue that question. But an admirable answer to the disestablishers is to be found in Mr Fawkes' brilliant and stimulating book on 'The Genius of the English Church.' The critics who really matter are those who approach the Report with some degree of sympathy. Many such, while grateful to the Committee for their scheme, are still more grateful to them for opening a way which may lead to reforms much larger and more hopeful. They desire that the Church of England shall be freed from the fetters which now check her power of service, but not from the venerable ties which unite her to the whole nation. The two main tests, therefore, which they apply to the Scheme are: (1) Does it give promise of a fuller spiritual life? and (2) Will that life be shared by the nation as a whole? Before we search the Report for answers to these questions-a task of no little difficulty, since it is a strangely confused and inconsistent document-we must remark upon an assumption which colours its language in many places. For assumptions are subtle things, which act powerfully by repeated suggestion; and this particular assumption is of great importance, because it not only underlies but undermines the Report. If the connexion between Church and State is at best an evil, which may be minimised but never neutralised, the reader may well ask why the Committee have proposed a plan for its continuance. The reason is that the plan was deliberate, while the assumption was in the main unconscious. One example of this bias may be quoted. The terms of their reference instructed them 'to inquire what changes are advisable in order to secure in the relations of Church and State a fuller expression of the spiritual independence of the Church as well as of the national recognition of religion.' The Report opens with a confession (p. 3) that only one half of the task has been attempted. 'We have concentrated our attention on devising means for this free action of the Church.' That sentence describes a * Roberts, 'The Church in the Commonwealth,' p. 100. |