Rico, Hawaii, and (after 1906) the Philippines. And America is now bent on creating, by bounty in some form, a great American merchant navy, equipped for all trades, at the very time when she is drawing larger and more widely separated areas under the reservation of her coastal laws. No serious-minded person has ever proposed, as Lord Lansdowne seems to have assumed, that the whole coasting and intercommunication of the British Empire should be closed against the ships of all foreign countries. What is proposed, what is indeed rapidly becoming imperative, is that we should close our coasting and colonial trades against the shipping of all countries which exclude our shipping from their equivalent trades; but only so long as they exclude us. This portion of the Navigation Laws should be revived, not for the purpose of Protection on our part, but to enable us by reservation to promote a general policy of reciprocity in shipping.

It is worth recalling what the Cecil Select Committee had to say about the inter-imperial coasting trade. Their recommendation was that

means should be taken to obtain the removal of foreign laws and regulations which exclude the British shipowners from the trades appropriated by various foreign Powers to their own shipping as 'coasting trade,' and that, if need be, regulations for the admission of foreign vessels to the British and colonial trade of this Empire should be used with the object of securing reciprocal advantages for British shipowners abroad.

The reservation by foreign nations of their coasting trades to their own ships is practically a form of subsidy, and that is a measure of Protection. But for our part we have to consider that the maritime industry is absolutely our most important industry, because upon it depends not only the prestige but even the very existence of the Empire. It is quite certain that but for our resources in mercantile marine we could not have retained our position in South Africa. It was our power on the sea that prevented us from being swept into it. This, therefore, is a matter which we must regard from a broader point of view than that of the schools. We cannot submit to suffer any loss in shipping because the Cobdenites, for example, should say it would violate our economic policy if we resist.

The position, as stated by the Cecil Committee, is this: While the British coasting trade is absolutely open to them as to the vessels of all nations, the United States reserve, as a coasting voyage restricted to vessels of their own flag, the voyage from New York to San Francisco, and the voyage from San Francisco to Honolulu. France reserves the trade between French ports and Algeria; and Russia reserves to its own flag the trade between the Baltic and the Black Sea, and between all Russian ports in Europe and Eastern Asia.

These restrictions undoubtedly affect British trade to a considerable extent, even if they have kept American, French, and Russian vessels from competing with us in international trade. There is no more

reason why American vessels should be allowed to trade when they please between Liverpool and Melbourne, or between London and Calcutta, than that British vessels should be allowed to trade between New York and San Francisco, or between San Francisco and Honolulu. We have submitted to the injustice hitherto because there have been too few American vessels in ocean trade to make it serious, but the position is altered now by the expansion of American territory and the development of American maritime commerce.

There is, however, no need for prohibition. At the last Conference of Colonial Premiers in London the subject of Imperial coasting trade was fully discussed, in the light of certain Treaties of Commerce and Navigation submitted by the President of the Board of Trade. And the Conference came to this resolution :

That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the Colonies and the United Kingdom should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire and in other countries, and to the advisability of refusing the privileges of coastwise trade, including trade between the Mother Country and its Colonies and Possessions, and between one Colony or Possession and another, to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality, and also to the laws affecting shipping, with a view of seeing whether any other steps should be taken to promote Imperial trade in British vessels.

The recommendation of the Colonial Premiers was only for inquiry and consideration of the matter, while that of the Select Committee on Shipping Subsidies was that ' means should be taken' to establish reciprocity in coasting trade relations-not, of course, the entire exclusion of foreign vessels from the Imperial or even the British coasting trade, but equality of conditions. The coasting trade of every nation which seeks to enter our coasting trade should be open to our vessels, and all vessels entering into the carrying trade of the British Empire should come under the regulations as to construction, loading, equipment, and manning which British vessels have to comply with.

As to this, the Report of the Select Committee is not very conclusive. It says:

The idea naturally occurs, what would be the effect of reserving to all British ships the Imperial coasting trade within the British Empire? Several witnesses spoke in favour of it, one of the most emphatic being resident in Australia. Some of these views were subject to the qualification that reciprocal advantages should be given to those countries whose coastwise trade is open to British shipping. One or two other witnesses were not prepared to express a definite opinion, and looked upon reciprocity with suspicion. Another condemned the reservation of the coasting trade on the ground of high policy.

The objection on the ground of high policy is based on the fear of retaliation by the nations whose vessels we might exclude from our coasting trade, or inter-imperial carrying trade. But these nations could only retaliate by excluding our vessels from their own

coasting trade, and this they do already-America and Russia absolutely, and France partially.

When giving evidence before the Cecil Committee, Sir Robert Giffen urged the desirability of excluding foreign subsidised ships from the coasting trade of the British Empire. Confronted by Colonel Ropner with the statement that the tonnage of foreign vessels trading between British ports is only 9 per cent., Sir Robert was questioned, and answered thus:

278. Then if we confined our coastwise trade to vessels under the British flag only, all we could gain would probably be the 9 per cent. carried now in foreign vessels, would it not? (Ans.) My point in making the suggestion was not on a question of gain to ourselves, it was more a question of making it difficult for the foreigner in that particular thing to come into competition with our ships; but even 10 per cent., supposing we were to gain it all, would be a considerable addition to the shipowners interested in these particular trades. . . . 282. It is generally supposed by a section of shipowners that all we could gain by our proposed coastwise legislation would be the 9 per cent. which is now carried in foreign vessels, and that there is a great danger of foreign countries making reprisals, that they might take much more from us than we could possibly gain by any such legislation. What do you say as to that? (Ans.) There is always that danger to be considered in any measure of that kind that we may adopt; but if you find that under the present system your shipping is exposed to very great dangers, and that relatively it is not holding its own quite as it used to do, then you must face difficulties and dangers on every side in order to maintain your own shipping. 283. May I take it generally that you are of opinion that foreign nations are already doing their very worst as far as our shipping is concerned, and that we cannot lose anything by this proposed legislation of restricting the British trade between British Colonies and the Mother Country to the British flag? (Ans.) I am quite sure, so far as the proposal I have made is concerned, that foreign countries are already doing what I am suggesting we ought to do. They have no cause of complaint whatever.

Sir Robert Giffen might here have been more emphatic. The reservation would only be against those countries which adopt reservation, and which, therefore, have no reprisals to make. And there is another highly important consideration in this connection. The reservation of our coasting trade might have little appreciable effect on our shipping to begin with, but it would have a very material effect if it prevented the creation and multiplication of subsidised merchant navies. If America knew that we were resolved to revive a portion of the old Navigation Laws if we are shut out of her coasting and colonial trade, she would certainly not vote State money for the building and sailing of ocean steamers.

Has, then, the time not come when the British nation must make up its mind with regard to its greatest industry? Are we, or are we not, to leave that industry open to the fleets of all nations, while any of them debar our vessels from any part of their domestic or colonial trades? Are we to be content to allow other nations to cut into our colonial carrying trade to what extent they like, while they deprive us of trade we have won by long endeavour?

BENJAMIN TAYLOR.

1904

THE AMERICAN WOMAN

AN ANALYSIS

1

IN the course of an article contributed to this Review some months ago, and dealing with the influences and effects of commercialism, I had occasion to comment upon the remarkable development taken by the American woman, which seemed to me to be extremely significant. My remarks, however, have been so universally misunderstood in the United States, and in some cases so oddly wrested from their simple meaning, that I have thought it desirable to explain more fully the position I intended to take up. This has involved a more intricate and intimate treatment of the subject than was possible in my former article.

Controversies have battled about the position and status of woman, probably ever since the sexes were conscious of each other. That war of the sexes which the conditions of their severance involve has been responsible for the readjustment of their relations from time to time. But the whole tendency of life and experience has been to emphasise the position and claims of man. The old fable which relates how woman was stolen from the ribs of man may be taken to convey the traditional inferiority of woman, a theory which had its origin in epochs beyond historical reach. It is quite true that among certain races the matriarchal principle of society holds, and seemingly holds successfully; but the matriarchal system has undoubtedly arisen by the way, through the operation of local forces, needs, or superstitions, and by the direct abdication of man from his original rule and domination. That rule followed naturally and inevitably from his physical superiority. The foundations of feminine nature are as simple and as easily traced as those of the male nature. They take their rise in physical facts, and are responsible for all the moral and mental properties appertaining to the sex. Both sexes are united by obedience, or subjection, to two ultimate laws, the law of self-protection and the law of reproduction; but in their obedience, or subservience even, to these primal instincts they manifest the differences that separate them. The divergence of the woman in physical structure from the 'Nineteenth Century and After, November 1903.

man implies, as cannot be too loudly reiterated, a mental and moral divergence. The supposed mysteries surrounding her sex are seen to be not mysteries but logical results in the light of those basal demarcations, and when man shrinks in wonder from the complexity of his partner, it is only because he has not the key to see how simple and inevitable is her nature. Woman is unintelligible only because she is not undeveloped man but diverse.' With the understanding of her physical differentiation man may proceed comfortably to explore

her secrets.

This article does not propose to enter into an elaborate disquisition on the nature of woman, but merely after indicating the sexual distinctions to examine their application to the civilisation of the United States. The broad characteristic of the female sex is the inferiority of physique which it necessarily derives from its enforced functions. This inferiority is partly muscular, but mainly nervous. The muscular deficiency entails exemption from the more onerous forms of bodily labour. From primitive savagery to the civilisation of the West this exemption has prevailed, for though the savage keeps his wives at manual labour in the fields he reserves for himself the violent hazards of war and the chase. As civilisation mounted, it is obvious that this exemption increased, until it has now reached under certain conditions its climax of absolute relief for the woman. The nervous constitution of woman is responsible for the larger part of her character. Her functions create an emotionalism which is intermittent, violent, irrational, and often unselfish. But this, so to speak, is mere staccato in her; it is not her normal mood, which goes to an ordinary andante. By the laws of her descent and heritage she must preen herself and decorate for her master; hence she has gathered an inordinate vanity, or at least the capacity for it. She loves jewels and colours, and she delights in such gifts as the man who has chosen her may offer at her altar. By these is she not discovered to her rivals as the chosen woman? Vanity baffled and vanity triumphant are jointly responsible for most of her acts and sentiments. Jealousy to her is less what a man understands by jealousy than that same baffled vanity. In consequence of this dual control, wherein she swings, she has developed a defective taste. That is to say, her taste has been perverted by her appreciation of the gifts of man as tributes to her beauty. A man will take a thing to eat or wear or use somehow, because, whether it be bad or good, he likes it. A woman's possessions are rather the fruit of her vanity than her taste. She acquires things not because she likes them or needs them, but because they represent self-esteem, gratification, the humiliation of rivals. When you have learned how greatly woman hinges on her vanity, you have then to reckon with that emotionalism of which I have spoken. It is, at its extremes, sudden, abrupt, precipitous, and blind. Consequently it may commit woman to the most heroic of sacrifices; and it may also plunge her in