Customs machinery implied by the imposition of a preferential sugar duty, and the probability of counter retaliations by the Powers against whom it is aimed, are in themselves a sufficient bar to such a proposal; that the 'claims for Imperial expenditure' consequent on the ruin of the sugar colonies are not likely to exceed the present cash benefit accruing to the mother country; that the greatest good of the greatest number must prevail, and in the meantime the West Indies must carry on as best they can with their 'minor industries.'

At first sight there would appear to be no compromise possible between two such opposing schools of thought. And yet on closer analysis there seems to be a middle course open by which at once the future of the West Indian colonies may be safeguarded, and the inevitable call on the British taxpayer's pocket reduced to a minimum. The key to a possible solution of the problem is to be found in the relative insignificance of West Indian exports compared with British imports of sugar. The West Indies export roughly 300,000 tons of sugar a year, the United Kingdom imports roughly 1,600,000 tons. The West Indies and Mauritius together can only supply us with about one-fourth of our requirements.

If, on the farthing per pound basis, the net cash profits per annum to the mother country from the bounty system amounts to 3,000,000l. per annum, the net loss to the sugar colonies from the operation of the same causes may, by a converse calculation, be set down as 750,000l. per annum. Treating the Empire as a whole, then, and subtracting losses from profits, there is still a handsome margin of 2,250,000l. The problem looked at from this point of view takes another aspect, and is seen to be rather a question of how best to secure the proportional distribution of profits than how best to equalise the pressure of losses.

There is no need for the mother country to be sacrificed for the good of the colonies, or for the colonies to be sacrificed in the interests of the mother country; there is no need for any rearrangements of our fiscal system. Let a committee of experts work out the actual direct cash effect of the foreign bounties on prices, and, so long as the bounty system holds, let the British colonial producers be reimbursed in a corresponding amount per ton from the Imperial Exchequer. Let the exporter from Demerara be put on the same footing as the exporter from Havre or Hamburg. I have, of course, only taken the farthing per pound and the 21. per ton as the commonly accepted estimate for the purposes of argument and illustration. The actual amount may be more or less, and will vary from time to time with the rise and fall in the amount of the bounties or other direct or indirect aids given by foreign Governments. But, whatever the amount, the proportional distribution of profits as between Great Britain and her sugar colonies will remain constant. Great Britain

will secure three-fourths for herself and pass on one-fourth to her colonies.

So may the 'maxims of the Counter' be modified to meet the needs of Empire. So may Great Britain make amends for the past, and give a guarantee for the future to her sorely tried West Indian colonies. So may the cause of Free Trade within the Empire' be promoted in a form complementary to that lately initiated by Canada. So may we in this year of the Victorian Jubilee recall and obey the behests of the great Elizabethan whose words ring out across the centuries: 'It is the sinfullest thing in the world to forsake or destitute a plantation once in forwardness.'

MAYSON M. BEETON, B.A.

HOW POOR LADIES LIVE

A REJOINDER AND A 'JUBilee' suggesTION

AN article which attacks existing evils, runs counter to prejudices and passions, and arouses wide and deep interest, must inevitably evoke not only criticism, but misrepresentation. To deal in detail with the latter, proceeding in the main from three classes of readers—those who are incapable of clearly understanding what they read, those who do not take the trouble to carefully read what they contradict, and those who read and understand and wilfully misrepresent, to prove their own point and advance their own theories-is impossible within my present limits; and I must confine myself to a consideration of the criticism which has for the most part appeared in the pages of this Review.

The first matter calling for attention is the letter written by Mr. Bousfield, the chairman of the Girls' Public Day School Company, in which he denies the correctness of the figures that I gave with regard to the average salaries of assistant teachers in the Company's schools. My average ranged from 80l. to 100l., my figures being based on the salaries given me by 100 mistresses in the schools, who, it now appears, may be considered, so far as the salary list is concerned, 'junior teachers' or 'teachers on probation,' though the ladies themselves seemed to think they were engaged as 'assistant' teachers, and carried out the work of assistant teachers.

I must digress here to say-it is urgently necessary, as I shall show in a moment—that my inquiries were not conducted en masse ; nor were they obtained in an official manner, but privately and personally; and in the majority of cases were believed by the teachers to be made out of pure curiosity, and for no ultimate object. I mention this because-and it strikingly illustrates the insuperable difficulties that surround every attempt to bring to light the facts as to the work and payment of educated women-some ladies who were good enough to supply me with information for my former article have been identified and censured, apparently for the liberty of action they exercised in enabling the truth to be known!

From the salaries furnished me by these 100 mistresses, I deduced the figures given above. These figures Mr. Bousfield declares

VOL. XLII-No. 245

161

M

to be incorrect.

Only seven teachers,' he says, 'are earning 70l., the average being nearly 120l.' It is clearly impossible for me to either refute or to subscribe to this vague statement. What I want to know is how many teachers get 75l., how many 80l., how many 85l., and how many 90l. Why did not Mr. Bousfield give the exact figures? Again, my difficulties in arriving at a true conclusion are increased by Mr. Bousfield's inability to see that for the purposes of this inquiry the arithmetical average does not accurately represent the actual salaries; yet surely any practical person will see that the distinction is vital. If, of six teachers in one school, five are earning 100%., and one 400l., it is obvious that while the arithmetical average is 150l., the real salary of five of these teachers remains at 1007. Finally, upon my application to Mr. Bousfield to permit me to obtain the exact returns from each head-mistress, I have been met with an unqualified refusal. What is the object of this secrecy? and cannot Mr. Bousfield see that, if ' erroneous statements' are made, he is responsible for them? Consequently, until I am furnished with the details now refused, my position remains precisely where it did, and is in no way affected by the fact that many thousands of pounds are paid in salaries. Meanwhile I am perfectly willing to admit that, in asserting the Company during its existence had opened twenty-five schools instead of thirty-five, I made an error, based on a list which I had good reason for believing to be the latest issued. I also agree with Mr. Bousfield that the salaries paid by his Company compare favourably with those of other Companies, many very wealthy, and notably one under the highest clerical patronage, where the remuneration of the teachers is so low that the children are being practically educated at their expense.

I have said that one of the grievances of which a writer on controversial matters may justly complain is the ascribing to him of sentiments and views which are not borne out by anything that he has written. Let any impartial person re-read my article, and ask if there is a single word or line to justify Miss Eliza Orme's assumption that I regard millinery, or dressmaking, or book-keeping, as 'below the dignity of a lady.' So opposed is the whole tenor of my article to this view, that one of my chief reasons for urging the establishment of an Employment Bureau was that, by accurately acquainting itself with the fields of labour where skilled work is wanted, it would operate in educating women to 'rigidly train themselves for this real demand.' But Miss Orme has no desire to see such an organisation established, advancing this singular reason against any attempt to bring facts to light, and methodise them and distribute them. 'Who,' she asks, are the impartial judges to decide between a real and an artificial need for women's work?' implying that because the body of persons appointed to the task would not be infallible, we must therefore acquiesce in the present condition

6

of chaos; we must let tyranny and fear prevail, so that the real working woman dare not speak for fear of losing her bread; let loose and foolish suggestions go unchecked (as, for instance, the original suggestions gravely put forward in a magazine a few months ago, that 'poor ladies could make a livelihood by going around to men's chambers and tying their neckties for evening parties;' or another equally practical one, that a 'good income might be made by picking up curios and re-selling them at a profit to wealthy Americans'); leave girls to lightly rush into the struggle for existence, and find out for themselves its heart-breaking nature, with its fight to keep a footing, and never-ceasing accompaniments of anxiety for the future and terror of sickness; and finally permit comfortable emancipated ladies, with bankers' balances, to scream upon every platform that it is the 'golden age' for women, which only just wants the one consummating touch of female suffrage to be the millennium.

Let me tell Miss Orme that the body which should constitute the direction of this Bureau would consist of men and women practically conversant with the problem they were endeavouring to elucidate; whose function it would be to patiently and impartially collect facts, and whose efforts, even if they were mingled with errors and blunders, would be the first step in obtaining and diffusing the truth. Miss Orme questions the correctness of my assertion that 'unless a girl be very expert, and in addition an accomplished shorthand writer and French and German scholar, she can make but the most wretched pittance.' By wretched pittance' I mean 1l. 58. or 1. 108. a week. If we examine Miss Orme's statements, we find that whilst denying the general truth of what I state, and maintaining that good shorthand is unnecessary, she actually strengthens my position by adding the qualification that the typewriter must be a 'college graduate,' who can then make an 'excellent income by typewriting.' A woman who has spent two or three hundred pounds on a college education will presumably not become a typewriter unless she have capital to set up a business, but it is really of no consequence whether she has been to college or not. I repeat she must be a good shorthand writer as well as typist, a good French and German scholar (I am of course only speaking of these languages in so far as they bear upon commercial matters), and have received the ordinary education given to girls in higher grade schools. The evidence for this conclusion is based upon the practical opinions held by the heads of various shorthand schools where female pupils are trained, and still more upon my own most valuable personal experience gained week by week in connection with the employment column of Hearth and Home, a paper devoted to women's interests-where my advice is sought by girls about to earn their livings, by those wanting work, by those in ill-paid situations, and by employers. I cannot find a single fact in Miss Orme's arguments that induces me to alter my convictions; nor can I see that