• TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SUFFRAGE DEBATE.
'EVERYTHING connected with woman suffrage seems to go topsy-turvy when the question reaches Parliament. For example, the House of Commons on Tuesday night in reality rejected the Bill for the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to women on the municipal register. Yet in form it passed the second reading of the Bill by a large majority. Again, the leaders of the two political parties changed sides. Taken as a whole, the Bill must be said to be a Liberal measure. The majority of the Liberal Party, the Labour Party, and certainly the majority of the Cabinet are in the abstract in favour of giving votes to women. But the Liberal Prime Minister made the strongest of all the strong speeches against the Bill, while the Leader of the Opposition and of the Conservative Party, though un- questionably the majority of his followers in the country are against him, spoke and voted for it. To make the play of cross-currents more complete, a large proportion of those who spoke against the Bill, and are regarded by the women with special enmity as opponents of their cause— for example, Mr. Winston Churchill and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—prefaced their speeches by strong declara- tions in favour of the general principle that women should have votes. On the other hand, various supporters of the Bill, like Lord Hugh Cecil, explained to the House that though they meant to vote for it, they disapproved of the necessary consequence of their act,— the abolition of the distinction of sex in the matter of the Parliamentary vote. For ourselves, we can recall no such flagrant example of Members voting for a measure for impossible reasons, or of Members voting ap-ainst it for reasons which will not bear examination. Needless to say, we do not wish to inquire too closely into the reasons which influenced men to take what we believe to be the right side, but we are bound to say that a great many of the speakers against the Bill founded their speeches on exceedingly flimsy and unstable arguments,—discovered, in fact, in Charles Iamb's illuminating phrase, " a right line in obliquity."
In our opinion, the speaker who came best, not only intellectually but politically, out of the dialectical welter of the debate was Mr. Asquith. Nothing, indeed, since he has been Prime Minister has become him better than his speech on Tuesday. He, at any rate, did the right thing for the right reasons, and chose sound and stable ground on which to base his arguments. He boldly set aside all the attempts to show that there is something in the moral or intellectual calibre of women which unfits them to make up their minds on political subjects. He took instead the firm ground of sex distinction. He set forth, as he said, " an intelligible principle which is capable of being stated in plain English." He declared that, having regard to the social and political expediency of such a country and such an Empire as ours, it was necessary to maintain the distinction of sex which had always been treated as lying at the root of our Parliamentary system. That principle involves no adverse reflections whatever on the intellectual capacity of women. We have to deal in politics not with individual cases, not even with classes. " We have to deal with causes and tendencies, physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual, operating and inter- acting on a large scale and over a wide field." He added that it was quite impossible to determine " what will be the practical consequences both to women as a sex and to this country as a State of such a measure or any measure of political enfranchisement, by confining your attention to the intellectual capacity of this woman or that, or even of women as a whole." Very able too was the way in which Mr. Asquith pricked the bubble of theso-called democratic argument. " Democracy wages war against artificial and not against natural distinctions." It would be impossible to stop at the present Bill. That could only be a first step. But if, as you must, you extend the suffrage to the other sex on equal terms, " with whom will the ultimate political control of this country rest ? " If women once possess the vote they will certainly claim, and justly claim from their point of view, the right to sit in the House of Commons and to hold office. Mr. Asquith admitted, of course, that women would not all vote in one camp and men in another. But he went on to point out that we might very well find that on some particular issue in particular constituencies' the male vote would be dominated and overborne by the female vote. That is a point which Mr. Asquith might well have elaborated. The party politician is not dependent only on the majority on the electoral register. Owing to the rigidity of our party system, what he has to consider most is the majority of the majority. When a point of acute controversy arises he has got to plot and plan to catch and . keep the " odd man " inside his own party. If he does not, that " odd man's " desertion may bring him to political ruin. But when once women have votes on the same qualifications as men, the "odd man" may well become the " odd woman."—On the hypothesis that the women's vote would be divided between the two parties, the probability is that in both parties there would be a female majority.— " I cannot risk offending my female supporters. They control the situation," would be only too likely to become the dominating feeling of a Member of Parliament on an issue in which sex tendencies were operating to some extent in antagonism.
Before we leave Mr. Asquith's speech we should like to say a word about the admirable sentences with which it concluded. Here he dealt with the veiled threats which have been freely used as to the results which would follow- the virtual rejection of the Bill owing to the refusal of the Government to give facilities for its passage. He met these threats in exactly the right spirit,—without bombast or defiance, but with quiet determination. We are far from thinking that these threats of violence will neces- sarily prove futile and unreal. Considering the state of hysterical excitement into which the supporters of the suffrage have worked themselves, we should not be at all surprised if acts of culpable, nay, criminal,- folly were committed. It is perfectly conceivable, we had almost said likely, that some hysterical girl will be so far carried away as to think she can win the martyr's crown by becoming (shall we say ?) the Charlotte Corday of her cause. It is more likely, however, that the women who have been wrought up to the state of wild excitement in which we now see them by the rhetoric of their leaders will choose another path, and attempt to sacrifice themselves rather than their opponents to the cause. If men attempted any such folly as some form of self- destruction in order to gain their end, we confess we should treat such insanity of purpose with very little compunction. _But we are bound in the case of the misguided women who are now said to be contemplating action of this kind to say that not only we, but the vast majority of men, would be deeply moved by pity. It must not, however, be supposed for a moment that such natural compunction would have the effect upon the male voters desired by the suffragists. Though men would be deeply moved, it would. be in a direction exactly contrary to that in which the women, on the hypothesis with which we are dealing, expect them to be moved. If once women were to resort to some fantastic form of suicide in order to extort the vote, the result, we are certain, would be an enlightenment among men which would put an end for a generation to all possibility of a successful issue to the suffrage agitation. The majority of men would at once feel a terrible sense of responsibility for what had happened. They would recognise as by a lightning- flash that they had paltered with the question far too long, and were deeply to be blamed for their weakness in not giving the straight answer required by a straight question. " If we had only made it clear from the beginning, what is the fact, that we cannot and will not share the sovereignty of the political State with women, things so terrible as this could never have happened. All the more need, then, for at once making the fact clear to them beyond all possibility of mistake. If we do not do so instantly, the responsibility for further ill will be upon us in an even stronger degree." That, we are convinced, would be the attitude of the men of the nation. In a sense, no doubt, there would be a panic amongst them, but it would be the kind of panic which would compel, not the grant to the suffragists of what they desire, but a general, and, if you will, violent and precipitate, determination to end all the cant, humbug, disingenuousness, and actual deception which have too long poisoned the public consideration of this problem.
Undoubtedly a great responsibility does already rest upon male politicians for having allowed this question to get out of hand, and for not having faced it honestly and honourably from the beginning. The evils that have arisen are, in truth, based upon a very commonplace, and apparently small, moral delinquency in the male,—the inability of the ordinary man to say " No " frankly and straightly to a woman. Why a man does not like to say " No ' to a woman, but much prefers to put her off with some indirect answer which is really a deception, is a psychological problem of no small complexity,—but undoubtedly it is a fact. The categorical negative is one always invoked with difficulty by men in dealing with women. There are plenty of men who find no difficulty whatever in saying " No " to one of their own sex, and indeed delight in doing so. They will, however, catch at any subterfuge in order to avoid saying it to a woman. They cast about to say something which sounds like " Yes," though at heart they hope and believe that the woman will understand that they mean " No."—In this respect there is a curious analogy in the relations between States. Diplomatists in their intercourse hardly ever give a direct " No." They avoid it even when the actual moment for the arbitrament of war has arrived. Negotiations are actually broken off with some phraseology which, though it may clearly mean " No," is careful not to say " No."—The moral, we had almost said the physical, inability of men to say " No " frankly to women has in the present case been fruitful of consequences the evil of which can hardly be exaggerated. We venture to say that scores of Members of Parliament during the last twenty years have got themselves into difficulties over the franchise question simply because, though they at heart meant " No," they could not bear to say it plainly to the importunate suffragists. The result has been that again and again " Yes " has been said in the confident hope and belief that somehow or other it would remain inoperative,--a, pious opinion which need go no further than empty words.
Nothing would bring home to men more their wrong- doing in this respect, and the necessity which is now upon them to play a sincere part, than such action by the extreme section of the suffragists as we have indicated above. If we were inclined to take up the attitude which we should certainly take up in the case of any other political question of immense moment to the country, we should view with the utmost com- placency the threats of the women,—nay, we should rejoice in them, as involving the utter ruin of the move- ment to which we are opposed. We confess, however, that here the overmastering instinct of sex does affect us very deeply. Feeble as the admission may seem, we should regret to see the question settled in this short and painful manner. Though we fully understand that all danger will be over if the women take to doing violence either to their antagonists or to themselves, and that if they keep quiet the struggle will be pro- longed, and therefore must to that extent be said to be doubtful, we cannot wish for violent courses. The women opponents of the extension of the suffrage, who we confess are much more practical and successful opponents of our common enemy than men can hope to be, will probably regard our conclusions with some contempt. Possibly our conclusions deserve it. At any rate, the illogical conclusion of hoping that the advocates of the suffrage will not be so foolish as utterly to ruin their cause illustrates extremely well the difficulties and con- fusions which are introduced by the intrusion of sex into political controversy. The example which we admit we afford of male irrelevancy and irresolution when we are engaged in a fight with women constitutes an argument of tremendous force against those who desire that men should. part with their political sovereignty in the State, and hand it over to those whom Nature has deprived of the physical force required to support that sovereignty.
Previous page
