as a last resort, instead of a strike or lock-out. In some boards there is an arbitration rule, by which, if any such dispute does arise which cannot be settled otherwise, an independent arbitrator shall be appointed. In other systems there is a standing referee, whose decision is final. In others the chairman of the board has a casting vote.. A conciliation board has standing committees, regular times of meeting, and is in fact a machinery for accommodating the conflicting interests of employers and employed.

Conciliation has unquestionably sprung from arbitration. The first established system of arbitration was seen in France at the beginning of this century, and was due to the general impulse given by the French Revolution and to the destruction of class distinctions. Certain legal tribunals were created by law, called the "conseils des prud’hommes." They were composed of employers and employed, and were authorised to determine disputes that might arise between capital and labour; but they had no jurisdiction which enabled them to settle disputes as to future wages or prices,

or to fix terms of employment. In Belgium, moreover, these courts seem to have had a semi-criminal jurisdiction to punish misconduct by the infliction of a fine, like the late Masters and Servants Act. Probably arbitration in England owes its origin to these "conseils des prud'hommes." Throughout the century disputes have been settled between employers and employed by resort to arbitration; and in some trades-as, for example, in the pottery trade the practice arose of inserting an arbitration clause in labour contracts. About 1850 the principle of arbitration was advocated as the best means of insuring peace between labour and capital. But it was not, as far as I can learn,1 until 1860 that any permanent system or board of arbitration came into actual operation. The two men who have been most instrumental in this work, and whose names will long be remembered in connection with this movement, are Mr. Mundella and

'There was a board in existence earlier than this in the silk trade, and also in the printing trade, but they did not last. See Chapter VI.

Mr. Rupert Kettle. Mr. Kettle, a lawyer and judge, naturally approached the subject from a legal point of view. Mr. Mundella, a manufacturer, and himself sprung from the working classes, went straight to the practical and moral end implied by the word conciliation. If his route to the right result was more direct, Mr. Kettle's was of even greater experimental value, constituting an experience that could not well be dispensed with. It is very satisfactory to find that both routes of this noble emulation converge, each affording strength to the common conclusions. Mr. Kettle's scheme was based on a simple, yet admirable, application of the principles of the common law. A code of working rules was drawn up by the representatives of employers and employed. These rules were posted up in the workshops, and a copy was given to every workman engaged. The working rules thus brought to the notice of the parties became a contract binding between each employer and every workman he engaged, which could be enforced at law. But it was very soon found, in confirmation of Mr. Mundella's view, that the real

difficulties were not relative to past, but to future prices and arrangements. Mr. Kettle says that 'differences upon the terms of a future contract, arising from the difficulty of foreseeing the future rate of wages," are most liable to lead to disputes. Mr. Mundella says: "If we had only to discuss quarrels that have arisen about the past state of prices we should have almost nothing to do, because it is rarely that there is any dispute what shall be the rate this week, but the dispute is, what shall be the rate next week." It was soon evident that a legal system of adjudication was limited by the shortness of the notice to which the actual contract was invariably subject. However valuable these contracts or codes of working rules may be, their value is impaired and lessened when, as is the case in the building trades, each side can put an end to the contract at any moment, without notice, or with very short notice. Moreover, such a plan was too cumbrous for the rapid adjustment of small differences. It became, therefore, necessary to introduce a rule for conciliation. A sub-committee, or smaller body of employers and employed, was appointed to meet

oftener, and deal with the smaller matters as they arose. This, which was first looked upon as subsidiary, gradually assumed greater prominence, and has now become the really essential and vital part of the system. It is not too much to say that the condition of all systems of arbitration being permanently successful is, that full prominence should be given to this feature of conciliation by a small committee. Mr. Kettle admits that "a union of conciliation and arbitration would not be inconsistent. An arbitration court did, in fact, include conciliation, and so much was this true that sixteen out of twenty cases were settled by conciliation." But he still adheres to the opinion that the legal form and aspect of arbitration is the best. The difference between Mr. Kettle's view and Mr. Mundella's is well expressed by the words sometimes used to designate their respective systems, namely, "an arbitration court," and "a board of conciliation." Mr. Kettle thinks that an umpire is required to act as judge between the parties, that "an arbitrator would be able to keep before the disputants those great and fundamental rules of commercial economy