FEMALE SUFFRAGE.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPEOTAT0112]
Sra,—Since insincerity is the greatest grievance which we suffragists feel to-day against men, we must thank you for the bald frankness of your leader in last week's Spectator. It is refreshing to be spared the thousand-and-one pretexts and pretences by which our opponents evade the real issue between us, and to be taken back to the original battleground on which J. S. Mill wrote his "Subjection of Women" some forty years ago. "Any State that is to be stable and worthy of the love and respect of those who compose it must rest on a union of the sexes," says your article. The possibility of antagonism endangers unity ; therefore wherever two bodies, entities, or organisms exist, one must be held in complete subjection to the other. The argument has been applied throughout history to the relation of rulers and people, Crown and colonies, masters and slaves, employers and employed, men and women, fathers and sons. Only by slow degrees has a different con- ception of unity—as a bond founded on assent and agreement instead of authority—grown up amongst us, and become the most distinctive characteristic of the most liberty-loving nation of the world. In none of the relationships quoted above has this change been more conspicuous and more beneficent than as between men and women. We are asked to-day to resume the position of half-a-century ago, and to declare that the convictions and opinions of one half of humanity can only be tolerated by the other half so long as they are deprived of any practical effectiveness. It is difficult indeed, Sir, to reconcile the first and second portions of your article. After a generous recognition of woman's worth, capacity, and trustworthiness in national affairs, you deliberately proclaim that a franchise which shall exclude the Whole of this worth, capacity, and trustworthiness, and include the rawest male of every class and condition, "is the best and surest foundation on which the State can be built." "No personal rights can be invoked to override the decisions of a State thus constituted " : ergo, women have no personal rights. Again, "let the nation decide" (by a poll of men only) ergo, women are no part of the nation. Now I am profoundly sceptical as to the possi- bility of antagonism between men and women on any merely political question. Experience shows us that considerations of class, family, &c., will always suffice to counterbalance any such danger. The only fear of arousing sex antagonism is through the denial by men to women of that natural inevitable progress and evolution which every race and class of human beings must either pursue or deteriorate by not pursuing. If men had imagination enough to conceive the situation reversed, and woman the physically stronger of the sexes, they might reasonably plead thus : "Because the ultimate appeal to force lies with you, you may justly and safely yield to us some compensating moral or numerical advantage, for the protection of our interests should they ever conflict." I believe women would not be insensible to such an appeal. Men may not always remain so. We must continue to "educate our masters."-1 am, Sir, &c., [Our correspondent has, doubtless unconsciously, not stated our argument quite fairly. We said that to prevent disunion through a vital disagreement the political franchise should only belong to one sex. Next, we urged that, on the ground of physical superiority and an exclusive capacity to undertake the ultimo ratio of war, the sex chosen must be the male sex. We absolutely deny that the possession of the vote by one sex necessitates injustice to the sex that does not vote. Women have been given a complete equality with men before the law, though they have not exercised the vote. They are no more in subjection because they cannot vote at Parliamentary elections than are Peers. Their influence on public affairs is, and will continue to be, enormous, and there is not the slightest fear of their being unjustly treated because they are unenfranchised.—En. Spectator.]