TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. ASQUITH'S SURRENDER.
IT was once remarked of a great financial magnate and captain of industry : " What you've got to consider is not what he says, but what's going on in his head." This dictum is even more applicable to politicians than to men of business. The words of their speeches do not much matter. What we have to consider is what is going on, or has gone on, in their heads, and this we can very often discover from outside considerations far better than from the actual phrases in their public utterances. It is, for example, more material to concern ourselves with what was going on in the Prime Minister's head than with the actual words of his answer to the deputation about female suffrage. Clearly what went on was surrender. To all intents and purposes the Liberal Government and Party must now be said to be pledged to the extension of the suffrage to women,—certainly the most momentous event that has taken place in the world of politics in the present genera- tion; possibly the most momentous in the whole of our political history. The indications of what was going on in the Prime Minister's head and of the approaching surrender were patent before the actual announcement. On Tuesday Lady Carlisle, a noted leader of the move- ment in favour of votes for women, begged a meeting of Radical ladies to hold their hands and have patience till Mr. Asquith had given his answer to the deputa- tion of Liberal Members of Parliament favourable to the suffrage which was to wait upon him on Wednesday. Any one with the slightest experience of political life knew what this meant. It meant that pourparlers had been taking place between the suffragists and the Government, that terms of surrender had been arrived at, and that they would be announced by the Prime Minister to the deputation. Those who took this view had not to wait long for con- firmation, for Thursday's papers contained the text of the concordat between the Prime Minister and the advocates of " Votes for Women." It is true that some of the extreme agitators have expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the terms agreed on ; but. the general satisfaction expressed by the bulk of the suffragists makes it clear that they are parties to the agreement, and that a political " deal " has been made under which the Government do not merely withdraw their opposition to female suffrage, but are pledged to include it, in fact if not in name, in the scheme of Parliamentary reform which they intend shall be the last act in their legislative career.
We all know the story of the American politician who declared that he was in favour of the Prohibition-law, but " agin " its enforcement. The Prime Minister has dis- covered a variant on this form. He is " agin " female suffrage, but he is in favour of it being passed into law. He will not put it into a Government Bill, but if somebody else puts it there he will not vote against it, but rather will use all the power at his command to get it passed. Whether after this it will be possible to maintain that Mr. Asquith is the strong, stern Prime Minister who means to have his own way, and who will either lead his party and his Government on his own terms or not at all, is a question which we hardly think worth discussing. What now concerns us, and all who agree with us in opposing the extension of the political suffrage to women, is : How can we best organise opposition to a measure destined to effect so vast and so evil a revolution ? We have no desire to suggest that Mr. Asquith and his colleagues really want to pass a Reform Bill containing woman's suffrage in the present Parliament. On the contrary, it is pretty clear that what they want is to use " Votes for Women " as part of their election-cry when they appeal to the constituencies, and to have the support of the suffragists at the next General Election. This they would not be sure of having if the Bill were to pass, though they would be sure of it if female suffrage Isere the issue at the elections. The wiropullers are calcu- lating, no doubt, that the Free-trade cry has become hopelessly antiquated, and that they will be the gainers if they can completely change the issue. A great demo- cratic Reform Bill, including the extension of the suffrage (though apparently one leaving Ireland with forty Members too many, and England with forty Members too few), will, they contend, be the best possible way of rally- ing to their support not only the regular battalions of Liberalism, but those outside forces of Labour and Socialism which have of late been inclined to oppose them. Judged from the point of view of the caucus and the political "boss," the move is a very clever one, and will tend to prevent the extremists from breaking away from the Liberal Party. All minor differences are to be sunk on the great question of abolishing plural voting; making it easier to get on to the register, and, lastly, preventing the difference of sex from being a disability in the exercise of the suffrage. Mr. Asquith did not explain exactly what he meant by saying that the proposal for giving votes to women must be a democratic one ; but we have little doubt that what he intended was that the suffrage is not merely to be given, as in the case of the municipal suffrage, to widows and old maids, but to all women over twenty-one who can qualify as householders. It is obvious that to give the vote simply to old maids, widows, and married women with property of their own would be to increase the Conservative vote,—an act of self- sacrifice to which the Liberal Party managers are not likely to consent with any satisfaction. We may expect, therefore, that the democratic proposal to which the Government will agree will in some way or another enable a man and his wife to qualify for the same house. The woman, that is, will be recognised as a joint householder with her husband. But if this is a true interpretation of ' the suffrage on a democratic basis,' it is clear that the names on the suffrage roll will be doubled, or rather more than doubled, as there are more women over twenty-one years of age in the country than there are men. We are faced with a proposition to make the odd woman the person to whom will be entrusted in the future the duty of finally determining the destinies of the nation and of the Empire.
Determined as we are to oppose the extension of the political suffrage to women, and believing as we do that in the end the common-sense of the nation will prevent legislation so disastrous, we do not hide from ourselves that there are a great many dangers and difficulties ahead of us. The Unionist Party, demoralised, distracted, and disunited as it is, is by no means in a fit condition to carry on its true and legitimate work of withstanding anarchical proposals. The Unionist politicians will un- questionably be severely tempted to let the Female Suffrage Bill pass, granted that they can make certain modifications therein,—modifications which, while appear- ing to give the vote on equal terms to women, will in reality cut out a great number of working women and make old maids, widows, and women possessed of private property the preponderant portion of the female voters. For example, a married woman might be precluded from attaining qualification for a house of which her husband was legally the owner or occupier, and might only be placed on the register if she were possessed of sufficient independent property to give her a qualification. No doubt the Liberal Party would never propose such a scheme, and would greatly dislike compromising upon it. Suppose, however, that after long discussion it were found that the House of Lords would allow the passage of the Bill on some such compromise as this, and would not allow it otherwise, it might well be that the upholders of female suffrage would insist that half a loaf was better than no bread, and, looking forward to future extensions of the suffrage, would insist upon the Lords' amendment being accepted. In such circumstances it is quite possible that the Liberal Party would find that they had gone too far to draw back, and, though annoyed and perplexed, would have to yield. In fact., they would have been caught in their own trap. Wishing not to pass the Bill, but merely to put it in the shop-window, and to use the cry of " Votes for Women " at the next General Election, they would have been counter-tricked into a position which would suit them very much less well than that of being able to appeal to the country against the " monstrous refusal of the Lords to pass a system of democratic electoral reform."
In view of these possibilities, we have no hesitation in saying that moderate Unionists, and, indeed, all moderate men who agree with us in opposition to the extension of the suffrage to women, must lose no time in exerting their influence upon the Unionist leaders to induce them to take the line of firm opposition to the proposals of the suffragists and to meet them with a clear and unmis- takable negative. If they do this, they need have little fear of the consequences. We are convinced that if the plain issue of votes for women is put before the country at a General Election, the party which honestly and honourably declares that only one sex is to have the exercise of the political franchise, and that that sex is to be the male sex, will carry the day. If, however, instead of maintaining a bold and honest front, an attempt is made to use the question for party ends and to gain a temporary party victory, the result will be a further weakening and demoralisation of the Unionist Party, and another step will have been taken towards the formation of that Central com- bination which, as we have so often pointed out, is the chief danger now threatening the Unionists as a political party.
This is not an occasion on which we can discuss fully the merits of the suffrage question. Our view is too well known to our readers to make this necessary. In case, however, of any misunderstanding, let us say once more that we resist the extension of the suffrage on the ground that women are women and not men, and that therefore it is not right that they should give decisions on matters which may demand a resort to the ultimo, ratio,—the use of those arms of defence and offence which women are precluded from using. We do not oppose the extension of the franchise because we hold women to be inferior to men either in intellect or character, but solely, as we have said, because they are women and not men. The fact that the ground upon which we oppose the exten- sion of the franchise is so simple and so clear is not an argument against it, but in its favour. That which is fundamental, essential, and dominant in argument is invariably simple and direct. When a woman asks us : " Why am I not to have a vote ? " we reply : "Because you are not a man." That is the only reason, but it is sufficient. To say this in no way involves the assertion that men are worthier than women, or that women are incapable of high political thought. What it does assert is that only one sex can wisely be given the final control of political affairs, and that it is fitting that this sex should be the male, because it is in the hands of the male that Nature has placed the ultimo, ratio of physical force.
Previous page
