Nationalization of the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange—The Labour Addendum to the Whitley Report, 1918—The Industrial Programme of 1918—Land Nationalization—The Control of Industry—Labour’s Report to the Industrial Conference, 1919—Nationalization of the Coal Industry. It will be sufficient to review the Labour Party’s official socialistic policy in regard to home affairs starting from 1918. Previously to that date, a number of resolutions had from year to year been passed, formally as hardy annuals, at the Trades Union Congresses and the Labour Party’s Conferences advocating nationalization of land, railways, mines and the municipalization of a number of services of public utility. But from and after 1918 the matter assumes a different complexion. Nationalization of the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange In 1918, at the Nottingham Labour Party Conference a stock resolution was passed in these terms: “That the Labour Party press for nationalization of all the means of production, distribution and exchange.” The arguments of the proposer were that because of the existence of landlordism and the power of the landlords, the people had been driven off the land into towns and overseas, with the result that this country had to depend on other countries for food-stuffs. There was no discussion, and the resolution was passed _nem. con._ The Labour Addendum to the Whitley Report, 1918 The now famous “Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed,” known as the “Whitley Committee,” which advocated the institution in industries of Joint Industrial Councils, Joint District Councils and Works’ Committees, presented the last of their five Reports to the Prime Minister in 1918, dated July 1, 1918 (_Parliamentary Paper_ 1918, Cd. 9153). The Trade Union members[4] of the Committee who signed the report appended this note: “By attaching our signatures to the General Reports we desire to render hearty support to the recommendations that Industrial Councils or Trade Boards, according to whichever are the more suitable in the circumstances, should be established for the several industries or businesses and that these bodies, representative of employers and employed, should concern themselves with the establishment of minimum conditions and the furtherance of the common interests of their trades. “But while recognizing that the more amicable relations thus established between Capital and Labour will afford an atmosphere generally favourable to industrial peace and progress, we desire to express our view that a complete identity of interests between Capital and Labour cannot be thus effected, and that such machinery cannot be expected to furnish a settlement for the more serious conflicts of interests involved in the working of an economic system primarily governed and directed by motives of private profit.”