6

representative women' being brought into closer touch with Government departments. But, as far as Government is concerned, there are no representative women. There are no women with a mandate from their fellows to represent them in political matters. Whilst women have no votes they cannot have accredited political representatives. Labour questions are involved and difficult, and when factory laws are ignorantly and theoretically drafted, without due regard to the practical interests of some section of workers, it is no comfort to those workers to know that some distinguished' woman favoured among politicians has been consulted about their affairs. This sort of socalled representation is no safeguard to anybody; if it were, men would never have felt the need for democratic institutions, and England might still be peaceably governed by irresponsible rulers who, by right of birth, consider themselves and one another fit to coerce the multitude for their good. Practically we recognise, as far as men are concerned, that the only safety for the governed lies in the fact that their governors in some way depend on them, and are therefore sensitive not only to their needs but to their judgment. A politician must have the countenance and support of his constituents, and it is to his constituents that in the last resort he must make his appeal. Without constituents you cannot have representation. Under a fair system if a woman wanted to be representative of the aspirations of a female factory population she would have to be prepared to stand up for what they really wanted, not her theories of what they ought to want, unless of course she could convert them to her theories. But until women have votes it is impossible that they should get true and honest representation from other women, who, however wise and cultured and distinguished they may be, can only have any influence as long as their views please the men in power. One of the lesser evils attendant on the present voteless condition of women is the fact that there is no test for the working value of women politicians, no means of gauging their influence and claims to be representative of other women. The truth is, the power of the few women of the upper classes who by their position and social influence are able to keep in touch with legislation is no comfort at all to the mass of the working women, who want to be governed by people who are responsible to them, and to whom it will therefore come as a matter of course to consider their interests and consult their intelligence, and the fact that men will anxiously consult distinguished and philanthropic ladies does not touch the point at issue. Nor does the example of American institutions. The strange thing about America is that it is often quoted to us as an ideal country where public opinion has such a high standard that barmaids would not be tolerated, and anti-suffrage societies flourish. And most splendid of all, the highly cultured and advanced State of Oregon has just defeated a woman suffrage resolution by 10,000 votes. when one comes to inquire into the actual political and moral con

dition of American towns one begins to wonder whether anti-suffrage societies, barmen, and an enlightened masculine electorate are to be wholly congratulated on their political results, one hears bitter complaints of the public-houses as centres of political and moral corruption, and of the masses of ignorant and often alien voters whose vote and interest is for sale. The consumption of spirits per head is much larger in the United States than it is in England; over and over again lurid flashes of light have been thrown on the social and economic condition of the great American cities, a condition which is usually attributed by Americans to the influx of ignorant emigrants and the enormous foreign and often very retrograde element that has thus been introduced into the electorate. It is inaccurate to assert that the American women-suffrage agitation has been defeated, because as yet it is only partially successful; victory in four States may seem a very small thing, a little result for forty years' work, and yet this is perhaps a short-sighted and impatient view. Some of us were tempted to envy the swift revolution by which the Finnish women gained complete political freedom. But it may well be that here in England what we lose in speed we gain in stability, and Englishwomen who are slowly working forward towards the greater life may comfort themselves with the thought that much of the work of a rapid revolution may be undone by the inevitable reaction that dogs its steps, whilst the work of evolution, plodding steadily on through the storm of its own reactions, is founded on an everlasting basis of security.

EVA GORE-BOOTH.

A MINIMUM WAGE FOR HOME WORKERS

THE problem of what are usually, but very vaguely and by no means always accurately, described as 'Sweated industries' is one which has forced itself upon the attention of several of the great European countries, and also of Australia and the United States of America. In almost all thickly populated districts, and especially where, as in old countries, women are at least as numerous as men, there are a large number of people who depend for their livelihood upon earnings which are pitiably small and often irregular and uncertain.

Many attempts have been made to give a precise definition of the word 'sweating.' My own view is that the term should only be applied to the employment of people under conditions and at rates of payment which, in addition to being extremely low, deprive them of a fair and reasonable share of the price which the employer obtains for the articles which are produced. 'Sweating' appears to involve that an employer is obtaining an excessive and unfair profit by squeezing down to an altogether inadequate figure the payment which he makes for his work, or that an intermediary or middleman steps in between the original employer and the actual worker, and 'sweats' the payment which was really intended to be made for the work by retaining in his own hands a much larger proportion of the original payment than any service he may render can be said fairly to entitle him. If there be 'sweating,' there must be a 'sweater.' To describe a man as a 'sweater' is to use a term of opprobrium. It implies that he is taking undue advantage of those whom he employs by paying them much less for the work they do, and the time they work, and also probably providing them with far less satisfactory conditions under which they work, than the price or payment which he receives, or the terms and conditions under which the work could and should be done, render necessary. In a word, he 'grinds the face of the poor,' takes advantage of their necessities and ignorance, and imposes upon them rates of payment and conditions of work which are extremely meagre and unsatisfactory, in order that he may obtain an exceptional profit. That is 'sweating' pure and simple, as I understand the term. Were this really the problem which had to be dealt with, were it even the chief part of it, its solution would be comparatively simple. But as

the Select Committee of which I had the honour of being Chairman, which was appointed by the House of Commons early last year to consider the conditions of labour in trades in which home work is prevalent, say in their Report which was issued as Parliament rose for the summer recess :

If the term 'sweating' is understood to mean that the employer grinds the face of the poor' by making an altogether inadequate payment for work upon which he obtains a large and quite disproportionate profit, your Committee are of opinion that, although there are cases of this kind, sweating of this description is not the most important factor in the problem which they have had to consider.

Only those who have little or no direct and personal practical business experience can doubt that it can only be in special and exceptional cases and circumstances that the operation of the ordinary laws of business competition will fail to reduce the profits of manufacturers, merchants, contractors, dealers, and shopkeepers to an average percentage, which experience has shown to be usual and reasonable, when all the conditions under which the business is carried on are taken into consideration.

The real problem is the serious and deplorable fact that, as the Committee say:

The earnings of a large number of people-mainly women who work in their homes-are so small as alone to be insufficient to sustain life in the most meagre manner, even when they toil hard for extremely long hours. The consequence

is that, when those earnings are their sole source of income, the conditions under which they live are often not only crowded and insanitary, but altogether pitiable and distressing.

The Committee refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether the evil is greater now, either actually or relatively to population, than it was when a House of Lords Committee reported on the subject in 1890. No conclusive evidence on the point is available, and the testimony of individuals is for the most part of very little value. Few of them have had precisely the experience which would enable them to express a reliable opinion; fewer still possess the very rare faculties of accurate observation and memory and unbiassed judgment which, in the absence of carefully recorded facts and statistics, are essential if anything like a trustworthy comparison is to be made between the conditions which prevailed twenty years ago and now. Those who are engaged in agitating for reform usually have the evils brought so frequently and prominently before them that they are apt to form an exaggerated view of their extent and prevalence, and to think that they are greater and wider spread than ever before, when the truth is they have only been more fully investigated and exposed, and consequently they bulk more largely in their eyes and in those of the public. When at the same time an energetic propaganda is being carried on by two such active bodies as the Tariff Reformers and the

Socialists, who have convinced themselves that what our country needs is a revolutionary change in our commercial system on the one hand and in the economic basis of the social fabric on the other, and who, consequently, are constantly unconsciously yielding to the temptation to seize and drag to the front and exaggerate anything and everything that will lend itself to the suggestion that the social and economic condition of the people is deplorably bad and is steadily growing worse, we need to be carefully on our guard against the blinding of our eyes to obvious facts, and the warping of our calmer judgment which may result from being compelled to listen to the constant jeremiads and the persistent pessimism of these modern Jeremiahs. My own impression, for what it may be worth, is that Miss Squire's opinion that there has been a considerable improvement since Lord Dunraven's Committee sat is well founded. There are few people who are more capable observers and more competent to give an opinion on this subject than Miss Squire of the Home Office, and I am disposed to attach greater weight to her judgment and that of Miss Collet, of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, on points like this than to the testimony of others whose opportunities of obtaining accurate information are less extensive, or whose position and interests render them, unconsciously, less impartial observers. Be that as it may, it is certainly true that, to quote the words of the Report of our Committee,

If 'sweating' is understood to mean that work is paid for at a rate which, in the conditions under which many of the workers do it, yields to them an income which is quite insufficient to enable an adult person to obtain anything like proper food, clothing, and house accommodation, there is no doubt that sweating does prevail extensively. . . . It still exists in such a degree as to call urgently for the interference of Parliament.

The Report of our Committee sounds a note of warning on one or two points which should be clearly understood and always borne in mind. All statements as to rates of payment, earnings and number of hours worked, should be received with great caution; this is especially so when they are made by anyone but the actual worker. Even when the information is obtained direct from the worker, the possibilities of misconception are great. The inquirer and the informant are apt to assume, often erroneously, that each understands precisely the meaning which the other attaches to phrases and terms which are

It is worthy of note that, in spite of the greater extent to which, during the last twenty years, young women have become teachers, clerks, typists, nurses, etc., the census returns showed that a smaller proportion of females over ten years of age were employed in occupations, in England and Wales, in 1901 than in 1891. It was satisfactory that the decrease was between the ages of ten and fifteen, and from twenty-five upwards. Notwithstanding the fact (which is all to the good) that there were considerably fewer boys under fifteen and men over sixty-five employed in 1901 than in 1891, there were, in proportion to population, more males over ten years of age employed in 1901 than in 1891. That was as it should be-more men and fewer women employed in occupations other than domestic duties.