LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE SINGLE-WOMAN FRANCHISE. [To THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—One or two objections to Mr. Woodall's proposal to ex- tend the franchise to single women who are householders have occurred to me which should, I think, have some consideration. in the first place, it seems to me an entirely anomalous arrange- ment to select from the women of the nation a small and special class, such as householding spinsters and widows, and to say of them, "These of all the women of the nation deserve a special privilege hitherto exercised only by men." Suppose the bachelors of the country were singled out, and were made eligible candidates for some civil or judicial office, and all married men were excluded, should we not recognise in such a measure a prinui facie injustice? What have the single women done, what is there in their case that demands Parliamentary repre- sentation, other than that which so far has shown such ample justice to women ? The proposal is a direct injustice to married women. If women are to have the franchise at all, one would say at once, "Let it be extended to the largest class of women, —to that which contains the greatest number of the wise, and noble, and useful of their sex." I suppose no one would deny that the wives and mothers of England possess a larger share .of genius, and virtue, and sacrifice, and even of physical health, than any other class of the gentler sex. If they do not, the men must be very great fools, or must adopt a principle of selection that ignores the qualities I have named. The married women are, at any rate, a selected class ; and, I also venture to affirm, they are more entirely in correspondence with their .environment than single women. They touch life at a greater .number of points, and, by their maternal relations and their interest in the future of their children, they are more directly related to questions of legislation and public policy. If a ques- tion of peace or war is involved, who is the better fitted to promounce an opinion or give a vote upon it—the mother of sons
who may be called to fight, or a maiden aunt, whose affections have not been so powerfully evoked as a mother's ? It is not a sufficient objection to this to urge that married women are already represented. by the votes of their husbands ; for it is well known that as society becomes more complex and more culti- vated, variations of opinion on all questions between husband and wife become more frequent, and instead of being intoler- able, as they were in a more barbarous social state, are sources ,of interest and advantage. The single women now are just as well represented by the votes of their brothers, and uncles, and cousins as are the wives by their husbands. Parliament did not hesitate to pass the Married Women's Property Act, though that Act touched a question that occasions more family dissensions than politics. The law now recognises every married woman as a separate entity, holding and disposing • of her property as she pleases, and supplementing her 'husband's representation in certain cases by her own. By that Act, I believe, she may be a householder in her own right. Where is the logic, then, of the measure which falls behind the view which the law has already taken of the rights of wives, denies their right, though householders, to vote for a Member of the House of Commons, and confers that right on householding spinsters and widows on the ground of property ? Besides, this measure would in many cases do the parties it first enfranchises -a subsequent injustice in maintaining their qualification to be on the register while they remain single, but depriving them of it directly they marry. Would not that add an extra .difficulty to those often now felt in deciding upon the over- tures which the social sentiments originate ?
With the claims of the State on the one side and the solicita- tions of the unit on the other, might not the complaint often be heard, "I am in a strait betwixt two " ? Might not the State also at such junctures suffer the loss of qualities it had just learnt to appreciate—unless, indeed, it were made possible (at any rate in the event of lady Members of Parliament) that a change of state should involve an elevation to the House of Lords, —a very doubtful advantage, I fear, in the estimation of many. Seriously, this proposal of Mr. Woodall implicitly postulates the principle of female Members of Parliament. If single women are to vote, they ought also to be eligible as representatives ; -and if that point were reached, our whole legislative and social system would be revolutionised. Throughout the history .of all civilised nations the limited functions of women have been recognised, in the interests of the vitality of the State.
The law at present forbids their employment in certain trades, they could not well fight in our armies, sail our ships, or pro nounce legal judgments. The functions of Parliament are of this class—i.e., they are functions, especially those that are military, that require to be discharged by men. In the formation of public opinion, which is the real governing power in a civilised country, women may, ought to take their share. The organisa- tion of that opinion into law, and its application to the life of the nation, is the work of men. Besides, there must be a certain amount of selection and sub-selection of the representatives of the whole population, after the wants of all classes have been provided for; and the introduction of all women, married and single—for any distinction between the two before the law is in my judgment unjust and odious—would swell the aggregate of citizens into such an unwieldy mass that the machinery of the State would not work smoothly. Every person cannot vote ; every enthusiast cannot be in the House ; and where only a few typical persona have to be selected, the line must be drawn at the men. This arrangement is in harmony with a great fact that marks man in all stages of his development,—the organic unity of the family. The domestic headship of the home is dual. In its foreign policy—its relation to government and business—its natural and sufficient representative is the man.
I believe Mr. Woodall's Bill is opposed to the wishes of the majority of married women in the country, to say nothing of the present electorate. It is really demanded by but a small minority ; and there are means of meeting the small agitation that is raised in its favour other than by raising the question as an amendment to the Franchise Bill.—I am, Sir, ficc.,
Previous page
