TOPICS OF THE DAY.
FEMALE SlJEFRAGE.
OUR readers will not need to be told that we view with the utmost satisfaction the fact that the Women's Suffrage Bill was last week in effect defeated in the House of Commons, and that there is no prospect of it being revived this Session. Before we deal with the merits of the question we must express our desire not to say anything which can possibly be misinterpreted, or .which can seem, even in the minutest degree or on the smallest point, dishonouring to or depreciatory of women. We say this out of no mere sense of courtesy or chivalry. The matter is one too deep and too serious even for those feelings, essentially noble and useful as they are. It is in the fullest sincerity that, we express our belief in woman's capacity for the highest work, moral and intellectual. The woman's brain is as sound, her heart is as brave, and her natural instincts and impulses are as worthy of trust as those of men. Her love of and devotion to her country, and her capacity for sacrifice for the State, have again and again been proved to be no whit less great than those of men. In a moment of national peril we would trust the courage and steadfast- ness of the women of Britain with an assurance as absolute as we would trust those of our men. The women are the daughters of their fathers as much as the men are the sons of their mothers. He who seeks to deny political authority to women on any ground of alleged inferiority will never find firm rock for his foundations. He is in effect denying the mysterious unity in diversity between the sexes which, just because it is one of the greatest mysteries of life, is also one of its greatest and strongest
° realities.
Why, then, do we deny to women that ultimate political power to choose and maintain the supreme sovereignty in the State which is given by the vote ? It is because women are not men, and because of the diversity in unity of which we have spoken. Any State that is to be stable and worthy of the love and respect of those who com- pose it must rest on a union of the sexes. That is a vital necessity. But such union must be endangered by a division, and so a clash of authority, between the sexes. As long as supreme political authority is confined to one sox, this conflict, by its nature the most terrible and most anarchic of which the human intellect can conceive, is avoided. If, however, political authority is given to women—and if it is given at all it must be given on the same terms as to men—that conflict is always a menacing possibility. Woman's supremest moral gifts render it, if women are to use their authority, some day or other inevitable. The best of women are by nature anxiously conscientious, and conscious in an intense degree of anything in the nature of trusteeship. If they believe they have a duty to perform, they will press it to the issue at all costs, and will demand a decision. Right and wrong are to them things absolute, and not subjects about which compromise is possible. Hence, if men and women were to differ on the rights and wrongs of a political problem, women would not be constrained by any thought of prudence from asserting and compelling obedience to their view. As long, however, as women are without direct political power there is no fear of a conflict of conscience arising. They can advise, they can influence, and in these senses even control, without feeling obliged to force matters to an issue. They can, in a word, acquiesce in decisions of which they disapprove without any sense of moral wrong. As the responsibility for action was not theirs, acquiescence need not mean a breach of trust.
This argument does not of course necessarily point to supreme political authority resting with men. It indicates merely that there must be no sharing of authority between the sexes, and that power must be confined to one of I hem. But granted that, in order to preserve the moral union of -the sexes, direct power can only belong to one, that power must necessarily be with the male sex. Physical strength belongs to the male, and universal experience shows that women have not the combative faculty or the capacity to bear arms, and that in a physical conflict on a large scale between men and women any issue but the victory of the male is inconceivable. To summarise our argument, if the moral union of the
community is to be maintained, that supreme political authority of which the Parliamentary vote is the sign and symbol can only belong to one sex, and, for physical reasons, that sex must be the male.
Those who will bear these essential considerations in mind will find no difficulty in meeting the plea that women have a right to a vote if they possess those property qualifica- tions which at present give the vote to a man. The property qualification is, in truth, an unsound basis for the suffrage, because it assumes that the most important function of the State is taxation,—i.e., the taking of certain percentages from a man's property in order to carry on the work of the State. In reality, legislation is the essential work of Parliament, —that is, the making of the laws which con- strain a man's life and liberty, and the life and liberty of those who are dependent upon him. The voter claims to have a share in directing the affairs of the nation because he is a constituent part of the nation, and is ready in the last resort to devote not only his property but his life to defending the honour, the safety, and the integrity of the State of which he is a member. Manhood suffrage, under a proper and reasonable system of registration, is the best and surest foundation on which the State can be built. It secures for the laws the maximum of sanction. No personal rights can be invoked to override the decisions of a State thus constituted, and such a State has a moral justification for claiming the supreme sacrifice from each one of those who compose it.
Before we leave the subject of the vote for women we desire to touch on one practical point. It is to formulate a demand that no legislation of this kind shall ever become law before it has been submitted to a direct vote of the people of Britain. The necessity for such a direct vote is obvious. It is stated that more than four hundred Members of Parliament on both sides pledged themselves, in the heat of the Parliamentary contest, to vote for a Bill granting the suffrage to women. Yet it is notorious that the majority even of this House of Commons do not at heart desire such a change in the Constitution. If they really desired it, the Government would have been forced to introduce a Bill themselves conferring the suffrage on women. Owing, however, to these pledges, which were only left unredeemed because of the decision of the Speaker, the present House of Commons might very easily be induced to pass the Bill. But if the Bill were tb pass the Lower House there is no security whatever that the Lords would reject it. The Unionist Party managers are said to be in favour of the Bill because they imagine that it would give them an enormous increase of political power. It is significant to note in this context that the Leader of the Opposition took no part in the debate. All this means that it is quite conceivable that the measure may some day pass through both Houses of Parliament, although the vast majority of the electors are opposed to it. The only way to prevent such a result is to insist that a clause shall be added to the Bill directing that it shall not come into operation till a poll of the people has been taken thereon, and the assent of the majority of the voters on the Parliamentary register obtained. After receiving such sanction, however much be might deplore the result, no good citizen could do anything but acquiesce in the law. If, on the other hand, a change so epoch-making has not received a sanction of this kind, it will be impossible to expect anything approaching true acquiescence.
For ourselves, be the risks what they may, we would far rather, now that the point has been raised, put it to the test, and let the nation decide. If it is suggested that we are proposing to make men judges in their own cause, we can only say that this is done no more by a Referendum than by a vote in a Parliament chosen exclusively by men. The advantage of a direct poll of the people is that the question would be decided on its merits, and not mixed up with a hundred other problems, legislative and administrative, such as affect the minds of men when they choose a Parliament under the Septennial Act.
Previous page
