1 14 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



is plain that anything in the nature of an exact imitation of simple com- 

 petition is almost impossible to attain ' (' Wealth and Welfare,' p. 267 

 et seq.). In the case before us the task of the board would be particu- 

 larly difficult. For, first, even if the lahoar contract were of the simplest 

 possible ty])6 — so much energy jipplied, so many foot-pounds raised, in 

 return for so much standard money — it appears from the mathematical 

 theory of demand and supply that, even if competition between em- 

 ployers and employed were as free as can be supposed, a determinate 

 position of equilibrium would not be reached. And the contracts with 

 which we have to do are not simple. As well explained in the First 

 Report on Wages and Hours of Labour (1894, C. 7567) and elsewhere, 

 the wage-rate proper to each kind of work is obtained by numerous 

 extras and deductions corresponding to variations from a standard article 

 or process with specified price — a standard which is itself far from 

 simple. Here, for instance, is, or was, the definition o! the standard 

 woman's boot: 'Button or Balmoral, li in., military heel, puff toe; 

 7 in. at back seam of leg machine sewn, channels down or brass rivets, 

 pumps or welts, finished round strip or black waist.' The extras (and 

 likewise the deductions) may be presumably calculated on the principle 

 described by Mr. and Mrs. Webb as ' specific additions for extra exertion 

 or inconvenience,' so as to obtain ' identical payment for identical effort.' 

 Are these additions, and also the standard to which they are referred, 

 to be determined objectively as what would result from the play of ideal 

 competition? Or must we call in Socialistic, or, as I prefer to say, 

 Utilitarian, principles of distribution in order to fill in the details left 

 blank by the award of competition? However this deep question is 

 decided, it remains true that on tlio suppositions here made (B I.) the 

 distribution of work and pay between the sexes ought to be conducted 

 upon the same principles as between any other classes of workers. 



11. On the general principle of distribution I have nothing to add 

 to the little that I have said here and elsewhere. T subjoin some sugges- 

 tions for carrying out the principle in the case before us. They relate 

 to the comparative efficiency of the sexes, concerning which assumptions 

 are to be made with caution. There are to be avoided two opposite 

 misconceptions : the one exaggerating the comparative efficiency of men, 

 the other that of women. The first exaggeration is countenanced by 

 Plato when, notwithstanding his admission of women to the highest 

 posts in his Republic, he yet holds that they are inferior to men in all 

 the arts. Even in those arts in which they might be expected to excel, 

 such as weaving and cookery, he seems to say that they are beaten 

 by men. In the modern world, however, it appears that women excel 

 in certain branches of the textile art. ' Having smaller hands they are 

 able to handle the twist and weft with greater dexterity than men ' 

 (Cmd., 167, 79). Superiority is claimed for them, too, in typewriting 

 and in telephoning. As nursery-maids they are certainly more efficient. 

 The opposite exaggeration is committed by feminists when they main- 

 tain, in the words of a generally impartial expert, that ' there is no 

 reason save custom and lack of organisation why a nursery-maid should 

 be paid less than a coal -miner.' No doubt it is difficult to disprove, and 

 even to define, this proposition with reference to employments that are 



