534 



NA TURE 



[October 21, 1922 



agree with Prof.'. Edgeworth when he points out where 

 other things are equal an employer is likely to have 

 a preference for the male owing to the " secondary " 

 drawbacks of the female. Prejudice and restricted 

 opportunities may be responsible for what truth there 

 is in the charge that " a woman is not so useful in 

 the case of a breakdown or a runaway." But it is 

 quite indisputable that the probability of her early 

 marriage is a real drawback to a woman's industrial 

 efficiency. These secondary differences, however, are 

 so difficult to measure accurately that the reduction 

 on their account of the woman's rate per unit of work 

 below that of the man is not a wise or scientific policy. 

 It is better to allow them to make their influence felt 

 upon the occupational distribution of the sexes rather 

 than upon their pay. Of the " tertiary " differences 

 also (of which the illustration given is " the presence 

 and influence of a master — as contrasted with a 

 mistress — in dealing with the bigger boys ") the same 

 is true ; but there is no evidence to show whether 

 these tertiary differences predominantly favour the 

 male rather than the female. 



We now restore the abstracted circumstances of 

 family life. A man normally has, or expects to have, 

 a family to support; a woman normally has not. 

 While the average number of dependants supported 

 by a woman from her earnings has often been greatly 

 underestimated, there is certainly no disputing the 

 general result of Messrs. Rowntree and Stuart's figures, 

 which show that this average is much higher for a 

 man than for a woman. The candid will admit that 

 here is the real obstacle to equal pay for equal work ; 

 the logical will consider the possibilities of endowment 

 of motherhood as a way out of the difficulty. Prof. 

 Edgeworth summarises the pros and cons of State 

 endowment of motherhood as follows. The proposal 

 is attractive because (1) it would for the first time 

 make competition between the sexes both free and 

 fair ; and (2) it would make possible the distribution 

 of resources in such a way as to meet the requirements 

 of the larger family better than is done at present, 

 when the wage paid to a man tends to be adjusted 

 to the presumption that he maintains a family of 

 approximately 4-4 persons, which he quite certainly 

 does not. Against these advantages Prof. Edgeworth 

 sets the following : (1) the scheme is socialistic and 

 bureaucratic, (2) it would almost certainly involve a 

 transference of resources from the rich to the poor 

 and would therefore probably check saving, (3) the 

 effect on the contributor would be " depressing," and 

 there would be (4) a great stimulus to population, 

 and (5) no security for the improvement of the race, 

 but only a prospect of " the ruin of the great middle 

 class to which England owes so much." 

 NO. 2764, VOL. I IO] 



We gather that Prof. Edgeworth regards these dis- 

 advantages as conclusive. He turns from the State 

 endowment of motherhood to consider one or two 

 other suggestions, the principal of which is his own 

 proposal that the members of Trade Unions might 

 themselves contribute a quota of their earnings to a 

 fund to be distributed among the wives of members 

 in accordance with the size of their families. In regard 

 to this proposal Prof. Edgeworth does not commit 

 himself beyond the canny statement that it would 

 be much less open to objections than the endowment 

 of motherhood by the State. 



Prof. Edgeworth's address is open to little criticism 

 from those who grant his premises. All will applaud 

 his careful analysis of his subject. It is, however, at 

 least open to question whether his whole treatment 

 of the matter does not suffer immensely from the 

 limitations which he has imposed upon himself. In 

 his first approximation the assumption that " regulated 

 competition " (a very vague concept) is a royal road 

 to ideal distribution is open to serious criticism. 

 Secondly, any discussion of endowment of motherhood 

 which assumes outright that (a) transferences of 

 resources from rich to poor would be entailed, and 

 that (b) these are objectionable, rests on questionable 

 ground. To the present writer this double assumption 

 appears fatal to Prof. Edgeworth's conclusions regard- 

 ing the right relation of the basis of payment to family 

 circumstances. Barbara Wootton. 



Fishing and Fishing Lore. 



Fishing from the Earliest Times. By W. Radcliffe. 

 Pp. xvii + 478. (London : J. Murray, 1 92 1.) 285.net. 



THE literature connected with fishing is already 

 so extensive that a new volume is liable to be 

 subjected to scrutiny to see whether it can justify its 

 birth by furnishing new matter or new ideas. As the 

 more obvious gaps in the literature of the subject 

 become fewer, the tests will necessarily become more 

 searching. Mr. Radcliffe's book, fortunately, can claim 

 a definite raison d'etre, and may receive an enthusiastic 

 welcome as filling a decided gap, one which it is curious 

 should have so long remained void. His aim has been 

 to provide a history of the fishing art and craft from 

 the earliest times down to about a.d. 500. The title 

 scarcely does justice to the contents of this versatile 

 volume, which is far from being restricted to the 

 consideration of actual fishing practices. These, 

 indeed, probably occupy but a third of the book. The 

 remainder is very largely concerned with what may 

 be classed as the folk-lore associated with fish, fishing, 

 fishermen, and fish-consumers, and with other details 



