NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18296, 12 January 1923, Page 6

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

DEVASTATION IN IRELAND.

A statement of the compensation provided in respect of destruction of life and property in Ireland was made in the House of Lords recently by the Duke of Devonshire Secretary for the Colonies. Ho said the total sum awarded in respect of pre-truce personal injuries for which the British Government was liable was £2.600,000, nearly all of which had been paid. In the case of persons killed or 'injured who could not claim to be supporters of cither Government the compensation was estimated at approximately £240,000, and the two Governments had agreed to divide the liability equally. Speaking of pre-truce injuries to property, he said that at the outset the Shaw Commission received no less than 30,000 claims. Out of about 20,000 claims which it was expected would come within the terms of reference, awards amounting to £1,041,354 had been made in 1250 cases. The sum paid by the Provisional Government in respect of pro-truce damage to property was £460,000, including £330,000 paid to a number of British insurance companies and underwriters. The Government had further advertised their intention to pay other awards amounting to £267,000. As regards posttruce injuries to persons, both Governments had agreed that cases of British soldiers being killed or wounded since the truce should be submitted to members of the Shaw Commission in order that they might assess the compensation payable, and that in respect of such acts committed by the British forces they should be submitted to the same tribunal. As regards post-truce injuries to property- which had been enormous, the Parliament of Southern Ireland recognised that the responsibility for compensation rested upon the Irish people, and had passed a resolution recognising it as a national liability, although, after a fixed date, the liability woold rest on the local authorities, now primarily responsible On November 16 the Dail voted £5,000,000 as the estimated amount thai would be payable in the current financial year ending March 31 in respect of posttruce injuries. That sum was in addition to the vote of £5,000,000 for pretruce injuries. A further sum would be required after next March. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. Reviewing the position in regard to the proposed Channel tunnel, Mr. Robert Donald, in a letter to the London Times, says all engineering difficulties have long since been overcome; its economic and commercial advantages are admitted; its political influence is accepted. The military objections to the scheme have almost disappeared. At the same time, it is recognised that the war has affected the construction of the tunnel in two respects: it will be necessary to go deeper below the bed of the ocean, and to protect the tunnel from depth charges. It is also considered to be necessary to make the exit of the tunnel a considerable distance inland from Dover. The pre-war estimate for the cost of the tunnel was £12,000,000. We may safely double that figure now. Steel," which would be largely used (there would be two separate tunnels for trains, and two smaller drainage tunnels), is now cheap, and recent improvements in boring machinery will lessen the cost and shorten the period of construction. France, according to latest reports, is ready to do her part of . the constructionhalf-way across—and is prepared to find half the cost. As the tunnel will add enormously to railway traffic, it is expected that railway companies on both sides of the Channel will nssist in financing the enterprise. It is believed that the capital could be raised privately, but as the tunnel would probably be under, the joint control of England, France, and Belgium, governmental control should carry with it some guarantee to investors.

A PARLIAMENT OF INDUSTRY. The question of an "industrial Parlia- ! merit " has been widely discussed in Brit- j ain during recent months, its formation j being urged by many candidates in the election campaign. The proposal has been supported in the journal of tne Industrial League and Council by Mr. Fred Bramley, assistant-secretary of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, but he maintains its functions should he primarily devoted to promoting conditions which will make for peace. "If any representative attempt is made to create an I industrial Parliament," he says, "we shall have to be careful,, in the first instance, to avoid mistakes. Personally, I am convinced that no attempt should be made to utilise such a body for the purpose of negotiating wage questions or other working agreements relating to the conditions of labour. During negotiations dealing with the hours and wages of labour two definite economic interests are represented. Both sides are professionally occupied, during such negotiations, in protecting separate, if not distinct, economic interests, and it is not possible, in such an atmosphere, to develop the mutual aid which is absolutely indispensable for the effective organisation of an industry. Questions could be dealt with such as the cost of production in relation to prices, the state of each industry in relation to foreign competition, the training of apprentices, and welfare conditions in factories. The promotion of a greater degree of efficiency, secured not so much by speeding up the worker as by eliminating waste of energy, and similar questions, could be considered with profitable results. Such efforts would undoubtedly lead to a clearer understanding. The workers' representatives would get to know more regarding the economic difficulties of industrial organisation, and, by closer contact and "the development of the human relationship, disputes could be settled more easily. In other words, I believe that industrial peace is the more easily obtained by being more indirectly pursued, and the opportunity ' for considering questions of common interest, "provided by an industrial Parliament, would lead to an enormous saving of the economic waste now involved in industrial strife." PEACK IN INDUSTRY. This presentation of the proposal has been warmly supported, in a letter to the London Times, by Sir William Noble, the shipbuilder, as a contribution toward the solution, of the problem of industrial strife. "These are wise counsels," he writes of Mr. Bramley's article, "for they point to a real weakness in our present industrial organisation absence of adequate machinery to bring the responsible representatives of employers' organisations ' and employees" organisations into touch, except at times when open warfare between them is threatened. In normal times— peace, after all, is still the normal condition of industry does the Engineering and the National Employers' Federation meet the Amalgamated Engineering Unions? Docs the National Federation of Iron and Steel ; Manufacturers meet the Amalgamated Society of Steel and Iron Workers ? '. Does the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation meet the Amalgamated Union of Shipbuilding, Engineering, and Constructional Workers ? Does the National Federation of Building Trades Employers meet the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives ? Does the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners* Association meet the Northern Cities Textile Trades Federation ? Does the Federation of Master Printers meet the Printing Trades Federation ? Yet the interest of both these various sets of organisations is the development and success of the industries in which together they are engaged, on which together they are dependent. If a Parliament of Industry would provide the means ,by which the two chief partners in industry could be brought face to face to discuss their professional interests, all objection to its formation vanishes, and it comes within almost measurable distance of achievement."