110 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



apprehended; notably Francis Walker (' Wages Question,' cli. v. and 

 ' Political Economy,' Art. 343 et seq.). There may occur the ' strange 

 and paradoxical result ' described by Marshall (' Principles of Econo- 

 mics,' vi., iii., 8; cp. iv., 1): employers adhering to old methods which 

 require only unskilled workers of but indifferent character, who can be 

 hired for low (time-) wages. Suppose that some doctrinaire despot 

 imbued with misinterpretations of the classical economists as deeply as 

 Lenin wuth the worst interpretations of Marx' dogmas, should insist on 

 absolutely um-estricted competition (subject only to prohibition of force 

 and fraud). He would rule out minimum tragc and standard of life, 

 and other fine phrases (as he would describe them), which disguise 

 the fact that wages are determined by supply and demand. He 

 would prohibit combinations of workpeople. If such conditions could 

 be enforced there would probably result throughout a considerable 

 part of industry a breakdown, or at least a gradually deepening 

 depression. To this dcbdcle the competition of women would largely 

 contiibute. It would be jDai-ticularly effective owing to three incidents. 

 First, the minimum of requirements for efficiency, of axjtual as distinct 

 from conventional necessaries, is less for a woman than a man (in the 

 ratio of 4 : 5 according to Eowntree). This circumstance might acquire 

 a dangerous importance in a struggle for bare life, though not of 

 much significance, it may be hoped, in prosperous conditions. Secondly, 

 wives and daughters are apt to be subsidised ; and though subsidies do 

 not always lead to the offer of work on lowered terms, this result 

 may be anticipated in the case contemplated. Last, and not least, 

 the woman worker has not acquired by custom and tradition the same 

 unwillingness to work for less than will support a family, the same 

 deteiTnination to stand out against a reduction of wages below that 

 standard. Altogether, if we are convinced that some action must be 

 taken to avert the evils which have been glanced at (cp. Marshall, vi., 

 xiii., 12), it seems that our question (A) cannot receive a categorical 

 answer in the affirmative. 



5. I dismiss section A with the following cautions: («) Let us not 

 forget the general presumption in favour of laissez faire. It may be 

 true that the top of a hill is not so high as that of a neighbouring J 

 mountain. It may be probable that by getting down from the hill and " 

 getting up on the mountain we shall ultimately attain a position higher 

 than the hilltop. But the transition, over unknown ground perhaps, 

 is not without danger. For example, many who have left the simple 

 path of Free Trade in order to attain greater prosperity through the 

 protection of infant industries have not bettered themselves. (P) Let 

 us remember that there are limits to the effects of regulation. It is 

 well to prescribe : ' The best way to secure the necessary advances in 

 wages would be to set up Trade Boards for all industries and instruct 

 them to bring minimum wages for men as well as women as soon as 

 possible to a level which would fulfil the conditions indicated above 

 (enabling the man to marry and support a family and the single woman 

 to live in decent comfort). Tlic rise will ])e made possible by the 

 increase of productivity.' But unfortunately, such is the uncertainty 

 of human affairs, the required increase of productivity does not always 



