The Industrial Revolution supervened in England first. Her landless labourers, her rather uncertain harvests, her severance from the Roman tradition at the religious schism, her growth of sea-power and trade, as well as the invention of James Watt, all contributed to this end. The necessary coal was found in places mostly remote from the great centres of English tradition, and industry grew where the civic heritage was weak and the lands, even the common lands of the market towns, had been enclosed by proprietors, who also often replaced the monks of the Middle Ages as landlords without attempting to fulfil their other functions. The growth of our huge industrial agglomerates on private land with an oligarchic government of landowners, and, since 1830, factory owners and their associates, has naturally had as a result the policy of non-interference, so that crowding has been permitted and even encouraged, and the slum, which is now deteriorating the quality of the population, is the inevitable result, bringing in its train practically all the most serious social problems of our day, the stunting of growth and judgement, the craving for excitement and emotion as a substitute for thought, the aesthetic degradation which carries with it the loss of keenness on one's work. To compensate for this we have only got a vast accumulation of profits in the form of mobile capital, so much of which has been blown into space in 1914-18. The accumulation of capital, it should be appreciated, would have been far less had it not been that industrial primacy and the primacy of the carrying trade happened, as above suggested, to be closely associated in one and the same people.
From England the Revolution has spread along the coal belt through northern France and Belgium, Germany, Bohemia, and Poland to Russia, with characteristic modifications from region to region, according to the local circumstances and social heritage of the people affected. But before proceeding to note these differences it is important to realize one general change which has many aspects. In the old village with its law based on the custom of the neighbourhood, each had his or her place unless cast out: one's status was all-important and not easily changed. In England the labourer became landless, drifted to the factories, made a contract for his labour, and so changed the organization of society from an organization based on status to one based on contract. That change is still going on, and the remnants of old ideas of status have struggled hard against such measures as death duties, super-tax, and the rest, which all tend in the direction of making labour, however disguised, the great medium of exchange. This big alteration from status to contract has affected the whole of industrial Europe and has spread thence as a ferment of change far beyond our continent, but in Europe the change has hardly anywhere gone so far as it has in Britain.
In France coal was far less abundant than it was in England, and the struggle for the soil went in favour of the peasantry rather than of the plutocracy as with us. Both these facts, added to those of the sunny climate, have made the Industrial Revolution far more feeble in France. The antiquity and continuity of life in the market towns has led to the persistence of small industries, often with a very long-standing personal link between master and men; hence the difficulty of the impersonality of industrial organization from which we suffer so badly in Britain is less general in France, though they also have the limited company to contend with. The wealth of the country for so many centuries has encouraged high-class—one might say, luxurious—manufacture, and jewellery, porcelain, and silk are characteristic products.
The persistence of special quality lines in the cloth trade is another feature, but on the whole the story of French industry has been one of half-hearted effort only. The Treaty of Versailles puts an enormous amount of iron ore into the French Customs Union, so that France becomes by far the greatest European producer of iron minerals, though her coal supply is deficient. It remains to be seen whether the French people will develop more industrial activity in consequence of this, and also whether they will go in for increased use of the hydro-electric power they have within their territory.
The Flemings have an old-established industrial and commercial tradition much less divorced from peasant life than in our country. Their Walloon neighbours, on the other hand, have entered into industrialism recently, and their country has changed suddenly from a backward rural area to a very busy manufacturing one, using large quantities of imported raw material. The people were cultivators and stock-raisers by long tradition, and they have tried to keep up this activity in some measure, while a protective customs duty on meat keeps up the stock-raising business. Another traditional (in fact racial) feature here is the genius for co-operation, and this works itself out in widespread insurance schemes maintained by the people.
Among the Germans the background of industrial development was very different from that which we have noted in Britain. Where the river valleys leave the hills for the northern plain are old cities of great dignity and fame, and though they were somewhat decadent after the decay of the Hanse, they were strong enough to keep their common lands and their tradition of city government from the Middle Ages. Coal was found along this zone, and it became industrialized, but the new movement had to respect the cities, which grew often on public land. The old city of Nürnberg developed industrial refinements on the basis of craftsmanship, which owed a great deal to the old business of distributing goods from the East brought up from Venice to its mart. There was thus neither on the one hand the same general growth of slums as in Britain, nor on the other the accumulation of immense profits from slum development to be used as liquid capital for speculative purposes. Moreover, the industrial effort in Germany was contemporaneous with the effort to make Germany a real nation-state, and each movement influenced the other. Much thought was given to the question of the national balance-sheet, and industry was made to help agriculture by conversion of waste products into fertilizers. Thus, though Germany was experiencing the same cityward drift of people as Britain, her agriculture remained in a far stronger position than ours, and with that went the probability of better maintenance of the quality of the people. The wasting of resources on war, the distrust created by aggressive intrigues, the loss of territory and minerals, and the loss of health of the people through the blockade, all imply changes in the situation of the German people, the consequences of which it is difficult to foresee.
German industry utilized Polish labour in large quantities, and was much concerned with the westward-flowing Slavonic stream which was said to be altering the character of the German people. On the other hand, a German stream of organization flowed eastward and south-eastward, and the industrial fever made great strides in the latter half of the nineteenth century in Bohemia, in Austria proper, in Upper Silesia, and in Poland. In Bohemia it emphasized the differences between German and Slavonic elements of the people; in Upper Silesia and in Poland the Germans were mainly found in the towns, especially in the leader class, and often difference of language and sentiment between masters and men was a very undesirable feature.
Polish industrial centres were correspondingly notorious for their bad social conditions before the war.
The industrial fever spread to Russia, and of its entry into that country we get a useful sketch in Kropotkin's Fields, Factories, and Workshops. Here was a country with marked seasonal cycles, and often at first manufacture was made a winter occupation, and was hoped by some to offer a means of rescuing many of the people from some of the evils of the severe Russian winter. In the Ukraine Poles seem to have done a good deal of the industrial organization, and it was natural that German experience should carry great influence. It was said that the co-operative, even communist, traditions of the people accounted for much in the form of organization of industry, the guilds or artels being a distinctive feature. Needless to say that, with transport ill developed, education neglected, and self-government impossible under the Tsar, Russian industry was of doubtful efficiency and social conditions bad. One must, however, remember that industry was only beginning.
In addition to the main zone of industry which we have now followed along the coal zone from Britain to Russia, the attempt was made near small coalfields elsewhere, and even at times away from coal, to glean some of the wealth industry brought. About 1895, however, hydro-electric power became transmissible over long distances and thus much more applicable. This change created new regions of industry in Scandinavia and around the Alps. Both Sweden and Norway use this power, and it has made an immense difference, especially to Norway. In the case of Norway the weakness of class distinctions has led to the careful organization of good social conditions, in spite of serious difficulties because of the very limited sites available. In Switzerland, South Germany, and Italy, up to 1914, the use of hydro-electric power was creating a valuable community of interest and problems that was drawing the whole region together, while Switzerland was becoming strong economically in a way undreamed of before. Post-war developments will need to be watched with care and breadth of view. Hydro-electric power was being developed in pre-war France, and will probably be a great help to that country if greater care is taken on the social side than was taken in the early stages of the movement. It has been claimed that a hydro-electric power system could be developed all around the Iberian plateau, and something is said to have been done recently towards its development. In the British Isles only a few spots can give enough power to make an installation an economic success in the present state of knowledge, so that in a water-power age Britain would have a minor position. It seems doubtful at present whether this form of power will become anything more than an accessory. It is noteworthy that in the Alpine region it helps a population fundamentally inclined to patient detailed work to build up an industry in fine electrical machinery partly developed from an old watchmaking tradition.
The utilization of tidal power has been debated, and a scheme for the Severn estuary, as well as one for the north coast of Brittany, has been elaborated. Should this line of development be followed in the future, Britain's position and the power of the tides at several points would assist greatly.
For the present, however, the fashionable power is oil, of which, so far as is known, Britain has only a very little, and in which the whole of Western Europe is also poor. But oil is rather easily transportable, and Western Europe's powers of transport are being used to exploit sources of oil in such places as are not already in the sphere of influence of the United States of America. However this may be disguised, it is none the less an indication of Europe's increasing dependence on other regions for what her industry needs. Large amounts of raw products now come from outside Europe, and if power also comes from afar, Europe's advantages will be restricted to her climate in its relation to efficiency, her capital, her tradition of skill which she has endangered by the enormous amount of specialization developed among her workers, and her ownership and control of transport by sea. On this last point it is noteworthy that the great advance made by the United States of America does not seem to be fully maintaining itself.
For the immediate future the incalculable water-power available in the monsoon lands, the immense and easily workable deposits of coal in Shansi (North China), the coal and oil available in and near the United States of America, the huge water-power that might be utilized in several parts of America, the possibilities of tidal power in many regions, and the production of power-alcohol from equatorial vegetation, are all interesting factors of a situation the precariousness of which for the thickly populated areas of Western Europe is obvious to all. With their organization based upon skill and patience, the peoples of Central Europe may well go on developing, perhaps even exploiting, the Russian and Turanian lands on their eastern flank, as these latter do not seem likely to become industrial for some time. On the other hand, a Sino-Japanese development of industry on a large scale is always possible, and, if wisely managed, should have the benefit of the skill, taste, and honesty of the Chinese merchant as well as of the skilful industry of the Chinese workman, whose frugality and cheerfulness would make him a formidable competitor. The signs of the times are thus in favour of the departure of industrial primacy from Europe, however much political effort may contrive to delay the change.
Before following out this thought it will be best to mention some of the collateral developments in European and other lands more indirectly affected by industrialism. The huge factory populations need food, and the imported food supply of Europe is an enormous problem. Cereals and some fruits may be carried with ease, but the factory hands and especially the miners and furnacemen need meat, and though meat can be carried in refrigerators or alive, yet imported meat suffers through transport. While therefore Australia, Argentina, and other regions are very busy supplying stock products, there is a good deal of stock-raising and dairy work to be done in Europe. Holland and Denmark have specialized in this matter, and the latter made herself a centre for dairy produce from Holland and Lithuania and even Russia before 1914. With political and social peace Ireland would undoubtedly develop in this way. Several hill regions, like Central France and parts of Switzerland, were also busy stock-raising, and are likely to prosper in this direction if European industry maintains itself.
In Switzerland the high ledge-pastures or alps have a remarkable growth of hay in spring after the snow melts, and this gives advantages over our British high lands. For their better utilization it would be necessary to improve the breeds of grasses, and important experiments for this purpose are in progress in Wales. In the Highlands of Scotland the population is decreasing fast, and thus Britain is losing a most valuable element in her population, an element trained to endure hardness and traditionally interested in serious thought.
The large financial resources of industrial populations and the thriftlessness so inevitably developed under the circumstances of their life in its present anarchic phase, further lead to a demand for luxury foods, flowers, and so on, and Holland and the Channel Islands are notable providers of these extras. The increase of fine machinery and other factors make it fairly certain that olive oil will have a good market for a long time, even if pea-nut oil is used alongside of it. Olive oil and fruits offer opportunities for the Mediterranean.
Thus practically every part of Europe is directly or indirectly brought into the process of industrial development, and all are increasingly dependent on the world outside, however much the German people may have tried to maintain their agriculture.
This dependence and the precariousness of Europe's industrial position, added to the fact that with an effort and some amount of goodwill the peoples of Europe could grow to understand one another, especially in view of their common debt to the Roman heritage, make it unthinkable that what is practically civil war can be tolerated much longer in Europe. Before 1914 the Labour Movement was clearly working towards the weakening of the idea of the nation-state and its sovereignty, but the events of 1914 showed that the movement had not yet gained a real hold on men's imagination. The new League of Nations movement is an evidence of development of the same line of thought among the thinkers of the Continent, and is slowly gathering momentum through the creation of institutions with laws for their guidance, and the promise of the growth of a body of lawyers as interested to maintain those institutions as the lawyers of the nation-states have been to maintain that form of organization. The League has had to take up the question of the relations of Europe to distant lands, and has stood for a principle of trusteeship, the fate of which is trembling in the balance. The more hopeful Europeans see signs of the growth of co-operation, and find indications of it even as between France and Germany. Britain is torn between the attitudes of solidarity with Europe and of aloofness from Europe and association with distant lands of English speech. Perhaps the improvement of the League of Nations scheme or its transformation after discussions with the leaders of the United States of America will give a means to put an end to this dilemma by reconciling both aims.
Therein lies one of the greatest hopes for the salvaging of civilization, though Britain's other problem of rescuing her population from degenerative tendencies due to industrialism is as clamant for solution if the world's peace is to develop. That industry should spread, that every people should maintain an agricultural background, and that the peoples of Europe should find means to co-operate in matters of imports from the tropics, transport arrangements, and labour conditions, must be the hope of all who think of the future seriously, even if this means the discarding of ambitions of power which in less critical times disguised themselves under the cloak of patriotism. This does not mean the destruction of patriotism, but rather its ennoblement into a passion for the well-being and the health of future generations of the people, for the enrichment of each heritage of language, literature, tradition, and art by active effort, and for the growth of that toleration which is the accompaniment of self-control and its attendant liberty and peace.
[NOTE.—The writer wishes to express his most sincere thanks to his friends and fellow workers in the fields of research concerned, especially to Miss R. M. Fleming and Mr. H. J. E. Peake, and the late Professor V. Giuffrida-Ruggeri.]