1^ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE JF8S3 .A4T"'" ""'"'^tty Library oim J^ 1924 030 488 815 The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030488815 WOMAN SUFFRAGE WRONG. WOMAN SUFFRAGE WRONG IN PEINCIPLE, AND PEACTICE. AN ESSAY BY JAIdlBS MicGRiaOB, ALLAN. Author of " The Intellectual Severance of Men and Women," " The Beat Differences in the MiTids of Men and Women," " A Protest against Woman's Demand for the Privileges of Both Sexes," ^-c, * Most respectfully dedicated to the seventeen millions of women — including all wives — in Great Britain and Ireland, who will not be en- franchised by the present final Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill. " It is right to exclude women from political and civil affairs ; nothing is more opposite to their natural destiny, than all that would bring them into rivalry with men, and glory itself wonid be for woman only a splendid mourning-suit for happiness." Madame de Stael : " Germany." REMINGTON AND CO., PUBLISHERS, 18, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. 1890. PREFACE. To some, the title of my work may seem intentionally aggravating. It is certainly not my design to begin by ofEending those whom I wish to convince. But I think it right to them and others, to use a title which shall unequivocally express the purpose of the book. The term " Woman Suffrage " indicates no opinion. Woman Suffrage Advocates, hoping to find their views supported, might have some excuse for complaining that the title was ambiguous, if not deceptive. A title should, as far as possible, declare the nature of the book's contents. My title shows plainly that I oppose Woman Suffrage. I do not attempt to sail under false colours. I have then a right to expect that my opponents will read the book before they attack it, or the author. Hpnest conscientious criticism, however severe, will be welcome. Even abuse from thorough-paced Woman Suffrage Advocates (proving that the abusers could not reply in any other way) will thus directly support the author's views and arguments. It is very natural to impute selfish motives to social, theological, political opponents ; and generally to all who dare to differ from us. Therefore, in spite of the proverb : "Qui s' excuse, s' accuse," I anticipate the charge that I oppose Woman Suffrage, from unworthy personal motives. I grant that some men have been, and are still actuated by selfish motives, in circumscribing women's work. I can understand the principle causing men to object to female interference with male monopoly in professions Ti Preface. and trades. A doctor naturally dislikes female physicians. I myself once shared in this prejudice. I now think it right that women should have at least the option of being attended by their own sex. A lawyer objects to female solicitors and barristers : a clergyman, to female preachers. And by some doubtless, such purely personal feelings prompt objections to Woman Suffrage. But my opposi- tion to Woman Suffrage cannot truly be imputed to fears of personal rivalry. It would matter nothing to me if all women were voters. Some would doubtless like to send me to immediate execution, for writing this book. Others more magnanimous, would merely regard me with pity and contempt, as they regard legislators who oppose Woman Suffrage. I am not a party politician. The arts in which I take most interest. Literature and Painting, have long been successfully cultivated by women. And however their rivalship, may apparently, or really injure male authors and painters, it must eventually tend to elevate literary and pictorial art. Where then is the unworthy personal motive for my writing against Woman Suffrage ? I am unconscious of any such, but should I deceive myself, my error must be apparent in the following pages ; and I shall, to that extent, injure the cause I defend. I believe my motives pure — to publish what I hold to be the truth about Woman Suffrage. If I am right, the publica- tion of my views must prove directly and immediately beneficial. If I am wrong, advantage must indirectly result from the opportunity afforded to Woman Suffrage Advocates, to expose my fallacies. Some seventeen years ago, under the advocacy of the late J. S. Mill, and Mr. Jacob Bright, Woman Suffrage attracted more attention, and came nearer consummation Preface. vii than it probably ever will again. In a lecture — " A Protest against Woman's Demand for the Privileges of both Sexes " (delivered at the Architectural Gallery, Conduit Street, 4th July, and published in TAe Yictoria Magazine, Aug., 1870) — I said: "European and British Women are naturally influenced by the revolt of women in America, where the mania is at its height, while in Britain, the disease has not culminated." My prophecy has been amply fulfilled. The division in the Woman Suffrage Camp is traced in these pages. And for the last ten years, the Movement for the Political Bnfranchise- men of Woman, has dwindled down to a purely selfish, petty, peddling Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill, which if final, insults Women generally, and especially Married Women. Therefore my illustrations and quotations generally date from the time when the battle was con- sistently fought for Woman Suffrage, as a principle ; not as an accident. CONTENTS. PAET FIRST. Woman Suffrage considered in Theory, as a Principle. CHAPTER I. PAGE "Why should Women have the Political Franchise ? .. 3 CHAPTER II. Does the Bible sanction Woman Suffrage? 7 CHAPTER III. The Bible opposed to Woman Suffrage 21 CHAPTER IV. Nature opposed to Sexual Equality 42 CHAPTER V. Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman 69 CHAPTER VI. Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality 99 CHAPTER VII. Marriage and Maternity versus Woman Suffrage 122 PART SECOND. Woman Suffrage considered in Practice, and Detail. CHAPTER I. Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill ... 159 CHAPTER II. Women Politicians involve Women Warriors ! 191 CHAPTER III. Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp 224 CHAPTER IV. Spinster and Widow Voters against Woman Suffrage 250 CHAPTER V. Results of Married Women's Suffrage ... 269 CHAPTER VI. Results of Woman Suffrage in General 293 CHAPTER VII. Woman Suffrage Mania : Conclusion of Diagnosis ... 318 SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. PART FIRST. Woman Suffrage cossideeed in Theory, as a Principle. CHAPTER I. Wliy should women have the political franchise ? — The demand involves a radical alteration in the British Constitution — Dissimulating title: "The Movement for Women'" — Woman's assumed right to vote, not proved — Ask-and-have policy — Subject divided into two parts — Woman Suffrage to be considered in Theory, as a Principle : practically in detail. CHAPTER II. Does the Bible sanction Woman Suffrage ? — The Bible and Sexual Equality — Bible professedly accepted as rule and guide — Tenor and spirit repugnant to Sexual Equality — Enquiry shirked by Woman Suffrage Advocates — They provoke discussion, and must abide its issue — In all Christian states, women excluded from political power — Infidel Woman Suffrage Advo- cates repudiate the Bible, because opposed to Sexual xii Contents. Equality — Purpose of Woman's formation : What ^ Adam earthly head of Eve — Woman Suffrage Advo- cates spurn Scripture account as " the old rib theory — Woman made from man^ for a companion : not coun- sellor — Man created ; woTaaja. formed : the copy of a copy — Man the image and glory of God : woman the glory of man — The tempter beguiled the weaker being — Conjugal subordination binding on all wives — Maidens cannot have greater liberty than Matrons. CHAPTER III. The Bible opposed to Woman Suffrage — From Genesis to Revelation entirely against claims based on Sexual Equality — Texts adduced — No Christian wife could vote against her husband — Alleged servitude in mar- riage — A wife's fidelity involved in her obedience — Man and wife are one according to Scripture — Attempts to allegorise Scripture — Freethinking advocates of Woman Suffrage frankly admit the Bible against them — Mrs. Law — Christianity opposes Woman's Enfranchisement — St. Paul abused for declaring Man's supremacy — A Swedenborgian lady on Sexual Equality— Rabid abuse of "Paul," Bishop Temple, Clergy, author, and all differing from her about Sexual Equality— &>ws of the Times— The Bible con- sciously, or unconsciously, rejected by female Woman Suffrage Advocates— The hypocritical veil sometimes thrown aside— Illustrations — Texts interpreted alike by Orthodox Christians and Infidels, as utterly opposed to all claims based on Sexual Equality Brief address to professing Christians — Conviction that the Bible is opposed to Woman Suffrage. Contents. xiii CHAPTER IV. Nature opposed to Sexual Equality — Woman Suffrage Advocates assume wliat cannot be proved : Mental and Physical Sexual Equality— The Bible truth " woman the weaker vessel " proved — Strong-minded hysterical excitement — Granting woman privileges of both sexes, not Sexual Equality — Man the head of Woman — Equalisation of sexes chimerical — Illus- tration — Female exemplar of Sexual Equality — No personal influence over men — Curious inconsistency — Inveighing against, she copies him as far as she can — Crowing hens ! — Man-woman deplorably fails as a sample of Sexual Equality ! — Not independent of man — Cannot escape from protection of mankind in general — Details of woman's dependence on man — Difference between Sexual Equality in theory, and ^practice — A lady's statement that any woman can defend her virtue ! — If true, no such crime as viola- tion of chastity — Singular defence of women by a woman ! — Received with " cheers " — Author's views supported by Proudhon — Counterfeit Strong-Minded Women, Amazons — Female Independence, legitimate, and illegitimate — Political, involve all rights! — Amazons demand man's rights added to their own — The word virago — Aversion to man — Hate, while copying the tyrant — Amazons destined to extinction. CHAPTER V. Sexual Equalijiy and Subjection of Woman — Really Strong-Minded Women opposed to Sexual Equality — Extracts — Lady M. W. Montagu, Madame de Stael, xiv Contents. Hannah. More, Madame Cottin, Countess Hahn- Hahn, Mrs. Sandford, Mrs. Ellis, Mrs. Jamieson, Mrs. Gore, Baroness Burdett-Coutts opposed to Woman Suffrage ! — Insurrectionary doctrines out- come of concessions to women — Eesults of civilisation reared on sexual non-equality — Sexual Equality destroys Woman's Liberty — Nearest approach to mental and physical Sexual Equality in savage races t — There, women most oppressed and enslaved ! — Negress more nearly equals her lazy lord, whom she implicitly obeys, than European wife her husband whom she despotically rules! — "Subjection of Women " applies to Hottentots ; not to European nations — Awkward fact — Strong-minded ladies pro- gressing backwards ! — Advanced views anticipated by savages ! — Practical Sexual Equality brutalises and enslaves woman — Amusing illustration of Sexual Equality in practice — Destroys chivalry, civility, courtesy — Woman asserting Sexual Equality cannot claim protection — Illustration — Sexual Equality Advocate wants empire for herself and sect — The man-woman shirks man's unpleasant dangerous duties— Proclaims herself in turn equal, inferior, superior to man !— The more woman resembles, the less she governs man. CHAPTER VI. Fallacy of claims based on Sexual Equality Difficultv of one sex understanding the other — Proved in literature — Authors depict women better than authoresses depict men — Novelists cannot disregard influence of Sex on mind, character, conduct — Sexual Contents. xv Equality Advocates attribute all divergence and inequality to Education — ^As reasonably declare woman naturally as big and strong as man^ and all bodily differences, due to disabilities in dress and training ! — A sensible woman's reply to Sexual Equality hypothesis — Theory that woman is un- developed man, uncomplimentary, and false — American ladies ascribe woman's superiority to " greater complexity of physical organisation ! " — Futile attempt to compare man and woman — Axiom — The sexes differ mentally, morally, as they differ physically — Proved by experience, tradition, history, current observation — Neither Sex absolutely superior — Sexual Equality Advocates deliberately insult their sex — " Our Censors and Satirists " {Victoria Magazine, May, 1870)— "The Coming Woman" — This carica- ture of woman repudiated — Eesult of judging women by a purely fanciful standard — Woman ought not to copy a male model. CHAPTER VII. Marriage and maternity versus Woman Suffrage — Woman's mental subordination — Must accept man's teaching — Deficient in Justice — One-sided — Woman never escapes from male control — Chief grievance — Connexion between involuntary female celibacy, and Woman Suffrage agitation — Love not included in woman's regeneration programme — Sex not re- presented by insurrectionary women — The domesti- cated woman — Woman's earthly mission — Maternity — Impossible to over-value the mother's functions — In fulfilling conjugal and maternal duties, woman xvi Contents. does everything ! — Pregnancy and political excite- ment — Cornelia contrasted with man-aping Amazon — British matrons will not join the revolt — Mrs. S. C.Hall eloquently censures "The Movement "—Miss Emily FaithfuU's criticism — Begs the question — Imputes selfishness to opponents — A minority of ambitious women call British women selfish! — Spinsters and Widows do not represent wives and mothers — Why should the vast majority of women enfranchise spinsters and widows ? — Pretence that women are hindered from doing what they dislike to do — British women freest in the world — Various pursuits in which they do, or may engage — Pre- ference for domestic sphere confirms the conclusion — A natural division of duties between man and woman. PART SECOND. Woman Suffrage considered in Practice, and Detail. CHAPTER I. Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill— Three classes of supporters— Bill declared not final : final : uncertain — Inconsistency of co-operators — Mrs. P. A. Taylor —National Woman Suffrage Society — Educating women of England for the Sufirage — Ficform itfagiaame— Victory already won !— Disinterested sup- port by Spinster and Widow-householders— Potential voters ! — No real analogy between male and female household suffrage — Wives the most important members of society — Fallacy of the citizen argument Contents. xvii — Exclusion from burthens a fair offset for exclusion from privileges — Women cannot make, administer, execute laws — Miss Becker's definition of man — Mr. Gladstone in 1870 — Defines Bill as " uprooting tlie old landmarks of tlie country " — His " education " not sufficiently rapid ! — Selfishness of second class female supporters — Bill, if final, partial and unjust — If not final, involves suffrage for vyives — Cannot be logically and consistently supported by any class — Grants too little or too much — Logical results of Woman Suffrage — Electoral rights involve legislative privileges — Female voters imply female representa- tives — Open rupture and deadlock — Woman suffrage advocates cannot logically negative lady legislators — Political Eights include everything. CHAPTEE II. Women politicians involve Women warriors — Hypothesis of woman's right to the suffrage — Gelele, King of Dahome — Army of Amazons ! — More strong-bodied, than strong-minded women — Dr. Drysdale—'' Wher- ever men go, women should accompany them" — Why not let women fight ? — Abolish all disabilities of sex ! — Sexual Equality practically levels all barriers of modesty and decency — If woman may act : she may d/ress lite man ! — Transatlantic fashions — Virago ! — " Pantalettes " and principles ! — Able- bodied female Volunteers — Sailors' chivalry — Press- gang beaten-off by a woman : fights like a devil, and claims all the immunities of woman ! — Platform Paradox — Women-Voters softening Political Ean- cour ! — Fact ; woman embitters strife ! — Illustrations xvni Contents. — French revolution — Theroigne de Mericourt — Can- nibal women ! — Charlotte Corday; Madame Eoland — Barricade battles in 1848: women more desperate than men— Petroleuses in 1871 — Peace Congress, Lausanne — Euskin — How women might abolish war — Woman's association with scenes of violence deteriorates race — Woman has as much right to embrace a military, as a political career — Woman Suffrage Advocates inconsistent — Women-warriors less mischievous than women -politicians — Eev. Mr. Dunbar on women soldiers and sailors — A Woman's Protest against Women Politicians — Woman a noun adjective to the noun substantive Man. CHAPTEE in. Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp, between qualified, and unqualified Women — Spinsters and Widows alarmed at Matrons' demands — "A split in the camp" announced in Victoria Magazine — Cause — Contagious Diseases Acts ! — Bill imperilled — Strife between final, and non-final advocates — A consistent woman suffrage advocate against the Bill ! — Fray between Strong-minded Amazons— Mutual recrimi- nations and accusations of selfishness !— jPot and kettle ! — Cap fits both — Public Opinion — " Ex- travagant and eccentric assertions of female personality" — Miss FaithfuU's logic! — Wives called selfish and insubordinate for refusing to support Spinster and Widow Suffrage — A final bill to en- franchise single women, not Woman Suffrage ! Spinsters and Widows cannot represent wi^res Importance of conjugal and maternal duties Contents. xix Matrons cannot be subordinate to single women — Mr. Knatchbnll-Hugessen — Political Eachels mourn- ing over their massacred innocent ! — Bill opposed by opponents, and advocates of woman suffrage — Excited debate and division at a woman suffrage conference — Mr. Hoskins — " Bill to prevent married woman suffrage " — Mrs. Sims on " worrying " — Mrs. Rose's thorny speech : " pulling opponents to pieces " — Miss Bell refuses to pay taxes — Man in possession behaves admirably ! — Unanimous abuse of legislators opposed to Spinster and Widow Suffrage — Women softening acrimony of political debate ! CHAPTBE IV. Spinster and Widow-voters against Woman Suffrage ! — Miss Becker's versus Mr. Jacob Bright's statement ! — Wives to remain under political disability — Serious complication caused by the Married Women's Property Act — Sir Brskine Perry on its defects — Consistent views of "strong-minded" women: get everything ; concede nothing — Inconsistent refusal of votes to wives possessing separate property — Mr. Gladstone's opinion — Placing wives below single wogien, immoral — Ludicrously unjust to disfranchise women for marrying — Alleged injustice of refusing votes to female tax and rate-payers — Eeply — Eeal injustice of politically incapacitating all wives, and great majority of women by enfranchising 800,000 spinsters and widows — Appeal to Christian women householders — Selfishness of women resolved to en- ffranchise themselves alone — To their advantage whether the bill be final or not — Eugene Sue on XX Contents. Political Women — Bright Bill reckoned up by Irisb Attorney General— Woodall Bill disfranchises wives for ever. CHAPTBE V. Eesults of married women's suffrage : disruption of domestic ties : desecration of marriage — Enfranchised wife voting against her husband at another man's instigation — Mr. Labouchere on woman suffrage — Speech of Mr. (now Sir Henry) James — Clerical and priestly influence — Promotion of matrimonial dis- cord and wife-beating — Temptation to bribery — The Spectator — An electioneering agent dividing man and wife — Opportunities for depravity — Appeal to hus- bands — Wives canvassed for votes during husbands' absence — Speech to this effect suppressed in Victoria Magazine — Theory : elections sweetened and purified by women — Dabbling in political mire and dirt! — Mrs. Bodichon " that polling-booths should be made fit for women " — Fallacy — Begging the question — Man must do things women must not — War ! — Woman when cruel, exceeds man — Gladiatorial shows — Bull-fights — Municipal franchise — " Staggering women-voters supported by staggering men : not their husbands " — Impossible to withhold votes from qualified married women — Saturday Review — Sum- mary of arguments against the bill — British women the freest — Indirect infiuence — Alleged grievance of Baroness Burdett-Coutts not being enfranchised Politics would seriously diminish the number of women distinguished in the fine arts, literature, and other legitimate occupations. Contents. xxi J CHAPTEE VI. Eesults of Woman Suffrage in general — Argument that " enfrancliised women need not vote unless they wish," answered by Mr. Bouverie — Impossible to protect such women : they would be worried to vote — " Worrying " a round game — Argument founded on petitions for, and none against Woman Suffrage answered in Parliament — Speeches of Messrs. Bou- verie, KnatchbuU-Hugessen, 0. Morgan, B. Hope — Disgusting petitions strengthen opposition to Woman Suffrage — Only womanly women influence men — Letters from Public Opinion — "Have women counted the cost ? " — Mr. J. B. McMillan " women trampling present golden grain, searching for a future phantom harvest-field ! " — Spectator — " Impossibility of com- bining Woman Suffrage with safety of a free state " — Graphic picture of a zealous female fighting voter by L. 0. Pike — ^What has the Woman Suffrage agita- tion done for woman ? — She cannot disregard man's good opinion — Eccentric and extravagant assertions of female personality due to man's bad example — Woman reflects her age : holds the mirror up to man — Neither sex isolated in good or evil — Eevolutionary period — Attempt to invert the social pyramid — Woman Suffrage opposed to Conservative principles — Men's dissipation, immorality, irreligion encourage women's assertion of sexual equality and revolt — Womanish men affect mannish women — Man-hating Amazons denounced by The Globe and by The Lad/y's Own Paper. xxii Contents. CHAPTER VII. Woman Suffrage mania — Conclusion of Diagnosis— Por- trait of a woman in revolt — The female man-hater- Female emancipationists : thoughtless children on the verge of a precipice — 8:pectator—" Woman's move- ment in America, doing almost pure harm"— In- temperate and indecent writers — Saturday Review— "A Free Love Heroine'' — Mrs. WoodhuU — Miss Anthony— Division in American Woman Suffrage Camp — Woman's Eights brain-fever attacks both sexes : comparatively harmless in youth : at a later period incurable : sometimes ends in derangement- Reaction in America — Women petitioning against Woman Suffrage — Energetic protests against it, by English women — " A weak-minded female " — Spinster and widow suffrage a singular deadlock — Opponents abused — Contempt of man's opinion — Why each sex must merit the other's esteem — Point of honour in each sex decided by the other — Addison's illustration — Do Women's Rights doctrines tend to womanly modesty? — Platform versus Home — Normal Woman Man's help-meet — The man-woman abdicates her sex's rights by grasping at those of the other ! — Woman's revolt neither universal nor permanent — Mental distinctions between the sexes explain woman's superior religious sentiment — Great ad- vantages to both sexes — Woman influences man by her moral and religious example : not by argument The womanly woman never juggles, or plays tricks with her understanding — Conscience a sure guide Final words. PAET FIRST. s fe WOMAN SUFFRAGE CONSIDERED IN " THEORY, AS A PRINCIPLE. CHAPTER I. WHY SHOULD WOMEN HAVE THE POLITIOAL FEANOHISE ? ""Why should not women have the electoral fran- chise ? " ask zealous Woman Suffrage advocates. Then they proceed to declaim on the injustice of withholding that which its partisans quietly assume, without proof, to be a right ! They are bound, firstly, to answer satisfactorily this question : Why should women have the political franchise? The great majority of men and women still think we should maintain the existing law, based on eternal distinction of sex. We logically throw on innovators the burthen of proof. It is their business to show ample and sufficient cause for a repeal of the law. Woman Suffrage is not the simple straightforward question which the bulk of its interested supporters purposely, or unconsciously, assume it to be. The demand of direct political power for women involves a serious, profound, radical, and alarming alteration in the British Constitution — neither more nor less than asking for the weaker sex, the rights and 4 Woman Suffrage Wrong. privileges of both seses ; an attempt to subvert tue normal relations between man and woman; to obtain for the female half of humanity, in addition to rights inseparable from sex, masculine privileges for which no adequate return can be made ; and to claim for woman an independence of her natural guardian and protector, man — utterly at variance with disabilities imposed on the sex — not by male tyranny, but by nature. "Woman Suffrage is a revolt of woman against man, and Mrs. BuUard, of New York, rightly and honestly called her Woman's Rights Journal " The Revolution." In spite of the dissimulation professing to ignore the term " "Woman's Rights," the struggle for female emanci- pation in America displays the true character and inevitable results of what in our own country is called, with studied vagueness, "The Movement for Woman," but which I propose to show is really a movement against woman ! Political rights include all others ! In demanding as a right a privilege hitherto in all civilised countries confined to man —direct political power — woman virtually asserts Sexual Equality, and claims all man's rights — of course, without his duties ; — a claim manifestly un- just, inconsistent, and absurd. Woman's Suffrage advocates assume woman's right to vote, as flippantly as if discussing some petty local matter at a parish vestry— not a pro- found, religious, moral, political, and social ques- tion, fraught with national welfare and the interests of humanity. With some, this kind of advocacy Why should Women have the Political Franchise? 5 springs from slieer inability to grasp tte magnitude of the subject; with others, from a deliberate determination to perceive or admit no objections whatever to Woman Suffrage. Sophistry and special pleading clearly imply the weakness of the cause needing such artificial support. To grant one woman, on any plea whatever, the political fran- chise, would be the beginning of the end. Such a concession would inaugurate a political, social, moral, religious, and domestic revolution, compared with which all other revolts are but trivial. So far as the agitation has gone, it has proved that the women of Great Britain do not want the franchise. But it has not yet been shown that any woman has a right to it. The claim of agitators is virtually this : " We want the suffrage ; therefore we will force it upon a large number of British women, because they don't want, and have no right to it." Miss Amazon and her " Mates " want the suffrage. That is not a proper reason for granting it. It would not be if, instead of a small minority, the majority of women desired it. Once adopt the ask-and-have policy, and where can we consistently stop ? If we permit women legally to do whatever some women wish to do, and have actually done, we must permit some women to be legislators, some to be soldiers and sailors, and some to wear men's clothes. The Amazonian logic is, that if one woman in a thousand wants the suffrage, therefore it should be forced upon the 999 women who do not desire to meddle directly with politics ! The reason is 6 Woman Suffrage Wrong. obvious. Miss Amazon and " Mates " cannot demand the suffrage for themselves alone. Neither, if they had it, would it be of any use to them, unless extended to other women. The agitators must have a considerable number of women-voters to address, influence, and delude. I divide my work into two parts. In Part First I consider Woman Suffrage in theory, as a principle. In Part Second I analyse it as a proposition in detail. I shall descend from generals to particulars, and examine the proposal for a partial enfranchise- ment of single women and widows, as property holders. I shall show that this fragmentary enfran- chisement, if final, is unjust to women in general; and if not final, is simply preliminary to married woman, or universal Woman Suffrage — a measure opposed to the welfare, true progress, and best interests of both sexes. Meantime (as Woman Suffrage must, for weal or for woe, affect the Eternal prospects of humanity) I shall consider firstly the question in its religious aspect, as befitting a Chris- tian nation. CHAPTER II. DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION WOMAN SUFEBAGE ? " But I would have you know that the head of every man is Chi-ist; and the head of the woman is the man." — 1 Cor. xi., 3. Nominal Acceptance of the Bible. All claims for equal political, civil, and social rights for both sexes, are manifestly based on the assump- tion of Sexual Equality. It would then be most satisfactory to find this vexed question solved in Holy Scripture. Of course, the Bible says nothing directly for, or against. Woman Suffrage. But the Bible says a great deal directly, and indirectly, against that plausible plea of Sexual Equality, on which is virtually based woman's alleged abstract right to the suffrage. The electoral franchise — though nominally but a portion of what are termed woman's rights — actually comprehends all the changes in woman's position, involved in the vague term — Female Emancipation. Political, include all other rights ! All claims for equal political, civil, social, domestic privileges for both sexes,- depend on 8 Woman Suffrage Wrong. the admission, either declared or implied, of Sexual Equality. Hence "Woman Suffrage advocates roundly assert Sexual Equality. They do not attempt to prove it, because it is more convenient to assume what can- not be proved. On this assumed hypothesis, that woman is man's equal. Woman Suffrage advocates labour to prove woman's abstract right to the poli- tical franchise. On this sandy foundation, Sexual Equality, is reared the whole edifice of Woman's Rights. Woman Suffrage advocates meet all appeals to Scripture most significantly. In the discussion on my lecture, " A protest against woman's demands for the privileges of both sexes," Miss Emily Faith- full said : — " Lastly, we are supposed to be setting aside divine teaching. I desire to say most empha- tically, that if I could not reconcile this movement with the highest Christian rule, I would never say another word in its favour. It is true that a few isolated texts may be quoted, which may stagger those who forget that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."* The question is thus brought to a plain issue. Is the movement for Woman Suffrage, or the political enfranchisement of woman, consistent with the highest Christian rule ? Miss Faithfull says it is : I maintain it is not. All Woman Suffrage advocates who do not openly repudiate Christianity, profess to accept the Bible as their rule and guide. They say, a fair interpretation of its precepts and spirit will not be found antago- * Victoria Magazine, Aug., 1870, p^ 354. Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage ? 9 nistic to their movement. But they act most incon- sistently with this profession of implicit faith in the Bible. They ought to welcome every objection which gives them an opportunity to prove that a devout Christian may advocate a social, domestic, and political revolution based on sexual equality and female autonomy. They would do so, if they really believed their principles consonant with the faith founded on the Rock of Ages. If it can be shown that the- Bible is really against their movement, they are morally bound to choose the only logical alternative of defeat — repudiation of Christianity, or Woman Suffrage. Texts neither " few " nor " isolated " prove the whole tenor and spirit of Scripture repugnant to the shibboleth of Sexual Equality, and consequently to "Woman Suffrage, and all alleged "rights" based on that theory. This important subject was fre- quently brought before Woman Suffrage advocates by myself and others, at the Victoria Discussion Society, and elsewhere. Never once was it fairly met. We are told sharply that we are wrong ; that we do not understand the Bible ; that we quote isolated texts dealing with the letter, not the spirit ; that the Bible can be made to prove anything: but our opponents always shirk full and fair discus- sion of this inquiry : — Does the Bible sanction sexual equality and all the claims based thereon ? It is a sore subject. They reiterate their orthodoxy indig- nantly, and hope that in future the Bible may not be imported into debate. They assume that the 10 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Bible is with them, but decline to argue the point. A very convenient mode of begging the question ! If they were sure the Bible supported their views, they would eagerly court, instead of shrinking from, discussion. The Bible is very often unfairly quoted, and thus ostensibly made to support any meaning maintained by ignorant or unscrupulous special pleaders. I despise all such dishonest dealing. But misuse of the Bible cannot render us indifferent to its proper legitimate use and authority. The Bible must throw light on the normal position and duties of man and woman. Woman Suffrage advocates can- not be allowed to ignore all appeals to Sacred Scripture on the convenient, but transparent, sub- terfuge, that the Book is too sacred for everyday use. This is quite as irreverent and hypocritical as deliberate garbling or torturing of texts into forced constructions foreign to their real meaning. This over-strained affectation of reverence to hide real indifference, recalls the quarrel between Parson, and Mrs. Adams. Adams rebuked her for disputing his commands, and quoted many texts to prove the husband the head of the wife, etc. She answered, " It was blasphemy to talk Scripture out of church ; that such things were very proper in the pulpit, but profane in common discourse." Claims are preferred which, if granted, will revolu- tionise Christendom; and yet, forsooth, the Bible must not be imported into the discussion ! Those who make this cool condition, show too plainly their distrust Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage ? 11 of the Bible, and fear that it decides against them. In all Christian States, women are, and have been from time immemorial, excluded from the exercise of direct political power. The exception in the case of reigning queens is accidental, and more nominal than real ; since t.our constitutional Sovereigns reign, and we are governed by a Prime Minister. This exclusion from man's political privileges must be either in accordance with, or antagonistic to, the Bible's teachings and spirit. If the former, no Christian can consistently advocate "Woman Suffrage. If the latter, "Woman Suffrage advocates must court the most searching investigation to prove that for nineteen centuries Christian civilised nations have ignorantly, or wilfully, violated Bible precepts in excluding women from the political franchise. It is remarkable that among revolutionary advocates in politics, religion, and social structure, a number either openly disavow natural and re- vealed religion, or quietly repudiate all Bible pre- cepts which are not exactly to their taste. Mary "WoUstonecraft was the Mother of the Woman's Rights movement. " A Yindication of the Rights of Woman" supplies the arguments rehashed and served up with the sauce piguante of platform declamation. But the disciples have in some respects gone beyond their teacher. Though not orthodox, Mary WoU- stonecraft devoutly believed in God.* Some of our * Her dennnciation of so-called " cunning men '' — the blasphe- mous impostors who delude silly women of all ranks, by impiously pretending to foretell the future — is worthy of a Christian divine. ( See Vol. i.. Chapter XIII.) 12 Woman Suffrage Wrong. platform ladies are avowed Atheists. The late Mrs. Emma Martin, a Deistical writer of considerable ability, defended Woman Suffrage in a well- written article in the Westminster Beview, July, 1854. The late J. S. Mill adopted implicitly his wife's views on Woman Suffrage. The most consistent advocate of Woman Suffrage I ever heard, is Mrs. Harriet Law. She openly repudiates the Bible, on the consistent and logical ground that its teachings oppose that liberty of speech and action which she demands as a representative woman. A lady advocate of Woman Suffrage, signing herself *'Ierne," writes that whatever good Christianity may have achieved, it is now an obstacle in the path of progress! {Examiner, 18th Oct., 1873). Mrs. Besant, an avowed Atheist, at the Co-opera- tive Institute, said : " If the Bible and religion stood in the way of woman's rights, then the Bible and religion must go. The Bible forbade a woman to speak, and that being so, the Bible must stand on one side, for we are going to speak." Here the trumpet gives no uncertain sound ! These, and other repudiators of Christianity, are consistent Woman Suffrage advocates. Purpose of WomavUs Formation. We might expect to find a perfect analogy between God's will revealed in Scripture, and manifested in the physical, mental, and moral structure of His creatures. If the Bible distinctly declares man's supremacy, and emphatically repudiates those Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage? !%■ principles of sexual equality, female autonomy, and self-sufficiency, underlying the present agitation for "Woman's Suffrage, and other alleged "rights," we have a powerful additional motive for reverencing Scripture, and acknowledging it as a guide through time to Eternity. Why, how, and to what end was the first woman formed ? If this question be satis- factorily answered, woman's mission will not remain an insoluble problem. I have heard many declama- tions on Woman's Rights, Sexual Equality, Female Emancipation, Woman Suffrage, etc. None ever afforded me clear and comprehensive answers to this complex question. Instead of patiently un- ravelling the tangled skein, each impetuous, Quixotic, would-be regenerator of society, and redresser of women's wrongs, in the true spirit of special pleading, proceeded summarily to cut the Gordian knot, according to his or her favourite "fad" of what woman's position ought to be. It is impossible to hear and read the nonsense talked and written by clever men and women, without sighing for the decision of some infallible authority. Amid the clash of conflicting opinions, it is a con- solation to appeal to such an oracle. Turn with all singleness of heart to the repository of Grod's Word, the treasury of wisdom and knowledge. The a,ccount of woman's formation in Genesis removes our doubts. Firstly, contrast with rejecters of the Bible, a believer's opinion. The following exposition is by the Authoress of "Pre- Adamite Man." After 14 Woman Suffrage Wrong. describing Adam's solitary condition, slie observes that God provided him the companion he craved. "This, however, was not done at once. God, whose wisdom governs all His acts, chose here also to teach His new-bom son His divine sovereignty, and, therefore, ordered that the result should be the fruit of what, with due reverence, and in a sense consistent with the perfection of His attributes, we may call an experiment made by Himself in a lower field." She describes the creation of the lower animals as intended to make trial whether there might not be one or more whose presence and companionship should prove the help-meet needed. "No other interpretation can be given of the Divine proceedings here described (Gen. ii., 18) : ' And the Lord God said. It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him an help-meet for him. And ' — the result foUows (verse 19) — ' out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he would call them,' etc." This argument is very much strengthened by the peculiar expression of the text, " to see what he would call them." Had the object of bringing the animals to Adam, been merely that he might name them, the word hear would have been far more ap- propriate than the word see. The latter verb certainly implies an ulterior purpose beyond the mere naming of the different creatures ; the oppor- tunity thus afforded Adam to select from amonff Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage ? 15 was not long doubtful (verse 20), ' For Adam there was not found an help-meet for him.' Hence the necessity of a still further experiment in Eve's creation. But here in a very special manner, the woman drew her being from what had been already formed. She was not modelled from the dust, like Adam, but derived her body and life from him (verse 21). But though woman was thus, to some extent, one with man, there was a distinctness in the condition of her creation, that marked her present identity, and shadowed forth her future circum- stances.* Her introduction to the world was not like Adam's, amid the rugged ruins of an ancient empire ; she was not disciplined like him ; she had never felt his need, nor, like him, learned by ex- perience to depend directly on God's affluent hand, for the supply of every want as soon as it was known. She had not seen Eden planted, or peopled by the Creator for her ; but Eve opened her eyes on daylight, among the bowers of Paradise, sur- rounded by the blessings which each day of Adam's life had hitherto been accumulating. In her husband she saw her stay and defence, and while to Adam God's first grand lesson was to rely directly • " Extremely significant also is the difference in the accounts of man's and of woman's material formation. Man is formed of the dust of the earth, and therefore shortly after invested with the dominion of the whole earthly globe as deputy and vicegerent of Him from whom cometh all lordship and authority. But woman is taken and created out of the bosom or heart of man. Would human wit have ever invented, or even conceived the possibility of this greatmarvel of creative omnipotence? " (Schlegel, " Philosophy of Life," Lecture IV.). 16 Woman Suffrage Wrong. on Himself; to Eve He pointed out an earthly head under Himself, indeed, but over her, in whom she might repose her confidence, and to whom she might apply in her necessities, at once her guardian, teacher, provider, and husband." Not mucli Sexual Equality to be picked out of this interesting commentary on the Scripture account of Eve's formation; as I stated at the Victoria Dis- cussion Society. Accordingly, Woman Suffrage advocates speak contemptuously of this account as the " old-rib theory," in the same breath that they indignantly repudiate the imputation of infidelity ! Here, then, the cause, object, wty, how, and where- fore of woman's formation are distinctly stated. The cause, that man should not lead a lonely life ; the object, that woman should be a suitable com- panion and help-meet. The experiment of seeking a companion among the lower animals had been tried without success, though not in vain, since by previous ^ disappointment and experience of his solitary state, Adam learned to prize more effectually the acquisition of Eve. "Woman was made expressly to solace man's lonely hours. No one (save a prejudiced partisan of Sexual Equality) will say that the being thus made of, and for, the man, could be superior, or even equal to him. From such an explicit statement can readily be inferred the relative positions of the first pair's male and female descendants. They accord with the lessons of daily observation of sexual distinctions in form and capacity, of anatomy, physiology, and human Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage? 17 experience, and are utterly opposed to sexual equality. Woman was formed not to live apart from man; not to enjoy life by herself, and for herself; to be not man's rival, ruler, servant, or slave; but his intimate companion, comfort, solace, and support — in short, his " help-meet." Sir Walter Raleigh observes : — " Woman was made of, and for, the man, expressly given for a comforter, a companion, not for a counsellor." Another author writes : — " Man, made entirely by (rod — for no creature of a similar nature contributed towards Ms existence — was fashioned immediately after the Divine image, and thus, being a copy of so great an original, perfect, as it were, in his kind. Nature fashioned him in a strife of grandeur, and man stood forth the last complete creation that issued from God's hand. Whereas woman who succeeded, was not so properly created, as formed ; made after man, taken out of his substance, fashioned after an earthly pattern, and thus but man's image, and only a copy of a copy. But this question is not left to be decided by speculative arguments. The Creator's image was not, we are told, common to both, ' He is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.' Thus, then, the con- clusion forced on the mind is irresistible, putting an end to all cavil ; he draws his irradiation directly from the Deity — she only by reflex communication with him."* * " Woman, as she is, and as she should be," Vol. ii.. Chap. XX. 18 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Sexual Equality Disproved hy Man's Fall. If any doubt can still remain as to sexual non- equality, man's supremacy and woman's subordina- tion, it is dispelled by the Bible account of man's fall. Had woman been as strong-minded as man, why did not the most subtile beast of the field directly address Adam ? The tempter wished to destroy man by causing him to disobey his Creator. The command to refrain from the tree of knowledge, was given to Adam, before Eve's formation. Since the woman was not expressly included in the injunction laid on the man, it might have been expected that Adam alone would have been tempted. Instead of acting thus, the wily tempter addressed Eve, well knowing that her mental capacity being less, and her curiosity greater than the man's, the victory would be comparatively easier over her, than over him. " Fearing a repulse from Adam's superior firmness and discernment, he watches for, and finds the unhappy moment when the woman, separated from her husband, opposed to his (the tempter's) wiles, inferior powers of reason and intelligence, with greater softness and pliancy. He addresses himself to a principle in her nature, whose immoderate indulgence has proved fatal to so many thousands of her daughters — curiosity ; curiosity, investigator of truth, mother of invention ; curiosity, prompter to rashness, parent of danger, guide to ruin."* " What means," writes * Hunter, " Sacred Biography," Vol. i., p. 20. Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage? 19 Sir "Walter Ealeigh, " did the devil find out, or what instrument did his own subtlety present him, as fittest to work his subtlety by ? Even the unquiet vanity of the woman. What was the motive of her disobedience? Even a desire to know what was most unfitting her knowledge; — an affection which has ever since remained in all her sex's posterity." The tempter beguiled the weaker being, trusting to her influence over her husband, probably fore- seeing that Adam would not have yielded to direct temptation. Man was for the first time rebuked before his Maker, because he. had unwisely hearkened unto the voice of his wife. While unto woman, God's sentence is distinct : " And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. iii., 16). Female logic contends that these words were addressed to the offending Eve alone, and that, even if their application could be made general, they are only appropriate to wives, and therefore cannot exclude spinsters and widows from political life.* A lady answers a lady thus : " Finally, let a woman daily remember the important command pronounced by God, ' thy husband shall rule over thee,' and that this command was a part of that judgment which Eve, by her transgression, entailed on all her female posterity."t The text will not bear any other construction. " And unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy con- ception ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, * Victoria Magazine, March, 1871, p. 444. t Mrs. King, " Female Scripture Characters," Eleventh Edition. 20 Woman Suffrage Wrong. and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee " (Gen. iii., 16). The husband shall continue to rule over the wife, so long as women bring forth children in sorrow. The Divine com- mand of conjugal obedience was given, not to the offending Eve alone, but prospectively to all wives. So much for the ingenious attempt to elevate women by releasing them from their conjugal allegiance to their husbands ! The latter argument, that married women only are to be subject to their husbands, but that single women are at liberty to enjoy direct political power, and other privileges, from which their married sisters are debarred, cannot be logically sustained. To give spinsters and widows greater privileges than matrons, would be an inducement to women to remain celibate, and places marriage under a stigma. Such a system would tend to destroy marriage, and subvert society. CHAPTER III. THB BIBLE OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE. Texts Against Sexual Equality. FfiOM Genesis to Revelation, the spirit of the Bible is entirely against claims based on Sexual Equality. Let Woman Suffrage advocates ponder these texts : " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the trans- gression " (1 Tim. ii., 10, 11, 12, 13) ; " Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives. Let every one of you so love his wife, even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Bph. v., 22, 23, 24, 25, 33). Will any Christian man or woman attempt to reconcile these texts with permitting a 22 Woman Suffrage Wrong. wife to vote against her husband, to beard him at the hustings, and to be canvassed for her vote by a male electioneering agent, in her husband's absence ? Here are some more texts diametrically opposed to Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage : " Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home ; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church " (1 Cor. xiv., 34, 36). Here, the Apostle makes no distinction between wives and single women. Woman Suffrage advocates contend that maidens and widows should have more liberty than matrons. If it be a shame for a matron to speak in the church, it is a far greater shame for a maiden to violate the rules of decorum regulating her sex and condition. This I take to be the Apostle's meaning. He would have scouted the argument that his precept applied to matrons alone. " If any man think himself a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord " (verse 37). These and many more similar texts naturally drive the most conscientious Sexual Equality advocates to repudiate the Bible and Christianity. But some, eager to reconcile religion with Woman Suffrage, contend that were St. Paul now alive, he would advocate female emancipation ! I think he would not ! I cannot imagine the great Apostle The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 23 sitting at the feet of platform ladies. Such plain texts show the spirit of St. Paul's teaching plainly opposed to all claims developed from sexual equality, and especially to Woman Suffrage. Advocates of such claims complain of what they call the law of servitude in marriage. According to Gen. iii., 16, and the whole tenor of Scripture teaching, the wife promises to love, cherish, and obey her husband. How can any man or woman, who has been married according to the Church service, consistently advocate perfect equality in wedlock ? Is this solemn promise to be ignored or repudiated at will ? Yet Woman Suffrage advocates profess to elevate woman ! How ? By teaching her to cancel her marriage- vow ! If she may break that vow at pleasure in one particular, why not altogether ? Abrogate the obligation to obedience, and there remains none to fidelity ! Woman Suffrage advocates teach : " There should be perfect equality in the married state." St. Paul says just the reverse. And independently of inspiration, his words are in entire harmony with nature, common sense, and common law ! Every well-regulated family must have one head. With divided authority, no discipline can exist. " No servant can serve two masters ; for either he will hate the one, and love the other ; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other " (Luke xvi., 13). Imagine the state of that household where the husband ruled one day, and the wife the next. What sort of discipline could result from such 24 Woman Suffrage Wrong. divided autbority ? Children and servants would do as they liked, and poor paterfamilias would soon be in the Gazette. A lady writer observes: "Let any man try a democracy in his own family for one week; and unless he is surrounded by angels, instead of relatives and domestics, I predict he will soon be weary of it. The democratic spirit has hurried many a parent to an untimely grave, and many a child to infamy and ruin." These platform ladies only pretend to desire equality — what they really aim at is the wife's supremacy ! Conjugal obedience is a pleasure as well as a duty. Every true woman likes to obey her husband in all things lawful. Women despise a hen-pecked husband, as much as men despise a virago. Grive the wife a political vote — place her as far as law will permit, on a perfect equality with her husband ; all marital authority is at an end. Under such cir- cumstances, men would fear to marry. No rational man will put his honour and parental hopes into the keeping of a woman over whom he is to have no control. All these attempts to obtain an ab- normal independence for wives, are so many blows aimed, ignorantly, or intentionally, at the marriage institution. The Bible says, man and wife are one. Women Suffrage advocates say : " They shall be two ! " Independently of Scripture, good wives can quote Madame de Gasparin that " the happiness of women is in obeying ; that they love men of character who command, and do not dislike the firmness of the The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 25 rule ; that an inert and passive obedience does not satisfy a woman; that her love dictates active obedience — to obey by anticipation, by divining the unuttered wish, and never to hesitate, save where obedience might peril the safety of the loved person." This lady supports the Bible view of marriage, and exhibits greater knowledge of her sex than all the platform ladies in the world. No wonder ! They fight for themselves first, and sex afterwards. This, undoubtedly the character of the true normal womanly woman, is indignantly and scornfully repudiated by those, her direct anti- podes, who claim the suffrage for themselves as representative women ! " But I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman is the man. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God ; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Oor. xi., 3, 7, 8, 9). Here the Apostle distinctly refers to the account of woman's formation in Genesis, and bases thereon an argument for man's supremacy. Some seek to avoid the inevitable conclusion against sexual equality, by alleging that the account of Eve's formation in Genesis is not literal fact, but ' allegory."* But if that account be admitted to refer * They here consciously, or unconsciously, follow Mary Woll- stonecraft. See " Vindication," Vol. i.. Chapters II. and V. 26 Woman Suffrage Wrong. in any way, either literally or allegorioally, to woman's formation, it is equally fatal to the new doctrine. Those who try to reconcile sexual equality with Scripture, are compelled to take refuge in the arbitrary explanation of the Mystic Swedenborg. According to this, the chapter does not treat of woman's formation at all. He defines *' a help-meet for man " as " the proprium ! " " Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands ; that, if any obey not the word, they may also, without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste con- versation coupled with fear. Whose adorning, let it be the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel" (1 Peter iii., 1, 2, 3, 4, 7). Here wives are distinctly told to endeavour to win their hus- bands, who may be indifferent to religion — by what means ? By asserting equality, by demanding rights, the privileges of both sexes ? Nothing of the kind ; but by subjection, by chaste conversation coupled with fear, by the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit — by conduct entirely opposed to the "Woman's Eights platform school ! It is impossible to misconceive the Apostle's teaching. The most unscrupulous special pleading cannot twist and torture these and other texts into support of Sexual Equality, and the revolution which it involves. The inspired writer has drawn a beautiful The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 27 and touching picture of womanly gentleness and submission; of what a wife should be. St. Peter was married ; possibly, probably he drew that picture from the life. By no stretch of imagination can we conceive St. Peter (if now in this world) approving of female platform agitators claiming man's rights in addition to their own ! Would the wife convert a sceptical or worldly husband, to be a hearer of the word? Let her be a doer of that word. By her example, may she hope to convert her free-thinking husband. Let her life be a practical sermon. Her Christianity will appear in her docility, in that grand feature of humility which, before the- Gospel had enlightened the world, was never accounted a virtue ! Indi- vidual self-assertion is the characteristic feature of the present heathen agitation for "Woman Suffrage ; a direct abandonment and renunciation of the Christian virtues of humility, modesty, charity, self-sacrifice, obedience, and, generally, all that makes women amiable. The wife led astray by Woman Suffrage advocates, to clamour for the " right " of voting against her husband, by another man's canvass and advice, repudiates the Apostle's command, and wrecks the happiness of her husband, her children, and herself ! Freethinhing Advocates of Woman Suffrage. It is impossible for anyone who respects Revela- tion to ignore, repudiate, or twist these texts into a support of Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage. 28 ' Woman Suffrage Wrong. This is still more apparent from the fact that so many avowed Deists and Atheists advocate sexual equality, etc. Such persons are quite consistent, and set an example of candour and honesty to Womau Suffrage advocates professing Christianity. Free- thinkers see clearly and admit frankly that the Old Testament and New Testament are totally opposed to Sexual Equality ; that the Bible distinctly declares man's supremacy, and calls himthe head of the woman. Freethinkers do not here prevaricate, compromise, nor tamper with the plain, obvious meaning of Scrip- ture. Adopting Sexual Equality, they consequently ignore and repudiate the Bible, and believe that something they call " progress " will enable them to " elevate" woman in direct defiance of Christianity or religion, natural or revealed ! They will not succeed, because (as will be shown) Revelation and Nature unite in declaring that the weaker must obey, and accept protection from the stronger sex. I have heard Mrs. Law inveigh strongly against "Paul" (as she called the great Apostle to the Gentiles) for- those very texts. And it is to her credit (as compared with professedly Christian advocates of sexual equality) that she did not tamper with the plain meaning of Scripture. 8he made no attempt to quibble away or distort the obvious sense of the words : " Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence:" but by refusing to receive them as an authority,- plainly admitted them The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 29 diametrically opposed to sexual equality ; and that woman's emancipation involves renunciation of Christianity. Rev. Mr. Dunbar observes : "A large portion of Woman's Rights advocates laugh at the story of Adam and Eve. An eminent Lutheran divine began his sermon, ' St. Paul says so-and-so, and 1 partly agree with him.' Many promoters of the new move- ment go further. They entirely disagree with SS. Peter and Paul as regards woman's true position, but they forget that as the blessed Apostles were inspired, it is not with them, but with Him who inspired them that they disagree. The thing formed is in querulous accents saying to Him who formed it (her) : ' Why hast Thou made me thus ?.' The real grievance of many Woman's Rights, advocates is, not that they have not their rights as women, but that they are women at all ! They think it unequal on the part of Providence that they should not have been men, with all a man's advantages. They do not wish to be women. The Holy Scriptures are in their tone and spirit strongly antagonistic to the movement, but unfortunately in England, every man is his own Pope, and though holding most of the Bible, many repudiate parts of it, including SS. Peter's and Paul's views on woman's duties and position. This, too, while tenaciously holding to the rest. An elderly lady, on hearing her favourite theory over- thrown by an appeal to St. Paul, replied, ' Ah, yes ; that's where I and Paul differ.' With such persons, of course, argument from a religious point of view 30 Woman Suffrage Wrong. is out of tlie question, but I ask those who have not yet given up the Bible, to read the following extracts from the writings of the two apostles, and say whether reading by the light of common sense and rules of English grammar, their general tone, if not distinct utterance, is not dead against those prin- ciples put forward by promoters of equality and women's rights ? " He enumerates texts quoted, and proceeds : " If any reading these extracts from Holy Scripture see in them, and their general tone and bearing, not a condemnation, but an encourage- ment to the Women's Eights movement, then all I can say is, it would be idle to argue with them, for if the angel Gabriel were to come down from heaven, he would not be able to convince them. It has always seemed to me that there is only a differ- ence in degree between the man who repudiates a portion of the Bible, because that portion does not recommend itself to his private judgment, and the infidel who repudiates the whole, because none of it recommends itself to his private judgment."* A Swedenhorgian Lady on Sexual Equality. In 1872 appeared " Signs of the Times," an abridgment of Swedenborg's twelve volumes {Arcana Gcelestia), with a very original "Dedi- cation," and an " Address to Christians." The authoress, a member of the Victoria Discussion Society, and a strong advocate of sexual equality, * Victoria Magazine, Jan., 1872. The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 31 forwarded me a printed pamphlet of the " Dedica- tion " as intended to be, in which she observes : " It is scarcely worth while noticing such arguments as those by Mr. McGrigor Allan, for as soon as the Bible is understood that poor selfish idea vanishes, and it will then be clearly seen that the name Man, as explained by Swedenborg, is equally applicable to female as to male," etc. She gives a synopsis of the account of Eve's formation from " Pre- Adamite Man," and adds : " On seeing such erroneous ideas set forth by a lady, we need not be surprised to see this gentleman fancy himself a superior creature, because he happens to be of the male sex." She reprints a letter addressed to the Bishop of Exeter (8 Jan., 1870) — the present Bishop of London — in which she writes : " Allow me to say that in this notion you are entirely wrong." After acknowledg- ing a letter from the Bishop's chaplain (Rev. Mr. Sandford), she adds : " The Bishop remains speech- less on this question, and it seems to me that his views are very shallow and defective, as he dis- appeared in Sand-ford." Wit worthy of the wisdom of a lady who thinks she has logically silenced Bishop Temple ! She writes of the Bishop's "blind views," and adds : " I differ from Paul {sic) and the clergy with respect to their application of the resurrection ; and I consider Paul wrong, too, with respect to the esti- mation he sets on woman (1 Oor. xi., 7). Scott says : ' The woman was not originally created separately, but taken out of man, as part of him, 32 Woman Suffrage Wrong. yet inferior to him ; neither was man created for woman's advantage, but woman was created for man's advantage.' And Rev. Dr. Anderson, of Newburgh, Pifeshire, says : ' The words '^ very good" are applicable only to man.' And I say that in this respect Paul, Scott, and Anderson are wrong, and it is evident that none of them understand the story of creation. If they were not selfishly blind, they would see in the account given in the first chapter of the Bible, that Grod created man, male and female, in His own image," etc. According to this female logic, all who differ from her interpretation of the account of creation in Grenesis, are " selfishly blind." She adds : " I have not anywhere met a clergyman who would admit woman man's equal, except Rev. Dr. Tafel, of the New Church," whose letter she comments on thus : " I think that every woman of sense and intelligence would read this letter with satisfaction, but Bishop Temple would not understand it at all ; neither would those clergymen who imagine woman's brains not adapted to the comprehension of such things. Dr. Tafel allows woman to stand on an equality with man ; a great step in advance of opinions held by some men." To Rev. W. Bruce she writes : " I think it would have been more manly and just if you had written a letter and admitted your fundamental error, for it is the error on which all other errors are built ; but the great drawback in some of our literary men of the present day is this, they will not admit of errors in the opinions The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 33 they hold, but, like the Pope, they are determined to uphold by one means or other, their own infalli- bility." This denunciation of infallibility in others, comes well from an anonymous writer, who declares " Paul," the clergy without exception. Bishop Temple, and all who differ from Swedeoborg, Dr. Tafel, and herself, quite wrong ! I take it as a compliment to be classed with those who hold the "fundamental error" of sexual non-equality. Such effusions help to confirm me in that opinion. From this sample of the New Church I am thankful to remain in that old Church founded by Our Saviour and His Apostles. This lady's notion of establish- ing Sexual Equality is to affirm it, and to scold all who differ from her. She observes of woman : " There is no doubt that if she were properly educated, her mental faculties are equal to, if not superior, to those of man." The old story, begging the question^assertion, without a single attempt at proof ! She agrees with Mrs. Law, in repudiating St. Paul's teaching about woman. Both call him "Paul." Mrs. Law consistently avows Infidelity, even Atheism. The other professes Christianity, and while declaring " Paul " and the clergy wrong, accepts every word written by Swedenborg. Of him she always writes respectfully and reverentially, giving him in the title-page of her — or rather his — book, his conventional title of " Honourable." To the great Apostle of the Gentiles, the glorious martyr who sealed his faith with his blood, she 34 Woman Suffrage Wrong. refuses even the attribute of " Holy," prefixed to Ms name by Christians for more than eighteen centuries. "Why is she so bitter against the Apostle ? For this obvious reason. He distinctly declares the sexes not equal. A self-evident propo- sition taught by Nature and Revelation. The book is well-named, " Signs of the Times." A lady advocate of Sexual Equality publishes a synopsis of Swedenborg, in which she undertakes to instruct learned divines ; and to show her fitness for her self-appointed task, begins by assuming the very proposition she ought to prove, and prints in italics puerile denunciations of her opponents, commencing with an inspired Apostle. I should not have delayed so long with this member of the Victoria Discussion Society, but for her assertion of Sexual Equality, and the marked attestation she offers to Mr. Dunbar's observations. Yet it is only fair to state that this lady does not advocate Woman Suffrage. At least, she disapproves of female M.P.'s in this strange phrase : " The woman who yearns for a seat in the Houses of Parliament (sic) may ask herself this question : What is the motive that prom,pts the desire ? Woman might exert her intelligence in instructing and directing the young into paths of honour and duty, but I don't think she would find the Houses of Parliament (sic) a proper field for such specula- tions." A man, whether M.P. or Peer, is satisfied with a seat in one House at a time. But according to this phraseology, the female " statesman" will not be satisfied with less than a seat at once in both The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 35 Houses of Parliament. How it is possible for her to perform the extraordinary and seemingly super- human feat, of occupying a seat in both Houses at once, we are not told. She is to be, at the same time, M.P. and a Peeress. Her piece of sound sense, advising woman not to covet Parliamentary honours, is unfortunately utterly inconsistent with her pet doctrine of Sexual Equality. For, on this hypothesis, woman could justly demand the right to do everything done by man. Nor are deprecia- tions of the clergy and the preference of Sweden- borg to St. Paul the best methods of "instructing and directing the young into paths of honour and duty." The Bible Consciously, or Unconsciously, Rejected. Independently of open Infidelity, a portion of those women who advocate innovations based on Sexual Equality have, consciously or unconsciously, rejected the Bible and Christianity. Seeing only one side of the question — that on which their own immediate interests seem involved — they conclude that they ought to possess certain political privileges and social liberties now confined to men. Hence these women assert " Sexual Equality," and coolly demand the privileges of both sexes as their " rights." They are really indifferent as to whether these " riglits " agree with, or are repugnant to, Scripture. The more intelligent know, or suspect, that the Bible does not sanction Sexual Equality, and its results. These ladies would continually appeal to Scripture, 36 Woman Suffrage Wrong. if they thought it supported their views. A Bible text against their opinions renders them very un- comfortable. These Women Suffrage advocates play at controversy like children. They firstly challenge to debate, and make great pretensions to impartiality in hearing both sides, and allowing thorough freedom of discussion. But they hiss opinions they do not like, and think opponents very unmanly to put forth all their strength to refute arguments of women posing as self- proclaimed equals of men. These " strong-minded " women taboo the Bible as too sacred for discussion, unless tbey can mani- pulate, misinterpret, twist, and distort texts to sup- port Sexual Equality — a doctrine flatly condemned in Scripture. Thus they either ignorantly, or deli- berately, treat the Bible far worse than avowed infidels, who openly reject it, for the very reason that it opposes so-called woman's rights. But these Trimmers do not openly reject the Bible. That course would utterly ruin their cause, and scare away many from even investigating their claims. They rather hope by skilful manoeuvring and com- promise, to pass through Parliament an abortive and inconsistent measure, and so gradually impress the public with the idea that "Woman Suffrage is not anti- Christian. When driven into a corner, they profess great respect for the Bible, but assume that they alone understand it ; that all who differ from them are ijpso facto wrong ; that every text against Sexual Equality can, and must be, explained away ; The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 37 but as this process might not succeed, they, with true worldly wisdom, conclude that the best way to advance Woman Suffrage is quietly to shelve Scrip- ture ! They would like to be able to say of the Bible : "Oh, no, we never mention it; its name is never heard." They will not thank the impulsive compiler of " Signs of the Times " for throwing down the gauntlet to " Paul," Bishop Temple, and the Clergy. When possible, Woman Suffrage advo- cates avoid all allusions to Scriptural texts, and "when forced to notice such, tamper with, distort, and coolly deny their palpable sense. Yet these special pleaders dare to assert that their agitation accords with the highest Christian rule, and taunt us with quoting the letter, not the spirit of the Bible. Some, indeed, do not preserve even this nominal deference for Scripture. The hypocritical veil is either unguardedly or boldly thrown aside. The mere mention of the Bible being opposed to Woman Suffrage, is received with a shrug or a sneer. They plainly indicate that they consider it of no conse- quence whether religion is for or against them. On one occasion, when the Apostolic texts were quoted in debate, a prominent lady advocate of Woman Suffrage exclaimed: " Bother Saint Paul ! " Another plain indicatioh that the Woman Suffrage spirit is anti- Christian ! One lady " bothers " Saint Paul ; another prints her opinion that " Paul " and all the clergy are wrong, and " selfishly blind." Where are we to draw the line of demarcation between 38 Woman Suffrage Wrong. these singular Christians, and those Sexual Equality advocates who openly reject the Bible, like Mrs. Law, Mrs. Besant, and others ? Infidelity is prefer- able to hypocrisy. The open rejection of the Bible, Christianity, and God, by advanced Woman Suffrage advocates, is useful to warn those who really think a revolution of woman's sphere compatible with religion and the Gospel. Women who begin wander- ing from the right path, by setting up their own crude opinions — the outcome of unsatisfied yearn- ings, personal discontent, and ambitious aspirations for worldly distinctions — against the wisdom of ages, are " progressing," more or less speedily, to utter repudiation of Christianity ! The texts quoted are susceptible of only one legitimate construction. They are (as I have shown) interpreted alike by orthodox Christians, Deists, and Atheists, as entirely opposed to Sexual Equality, and consequently to Woman Suffrage, and other alleged " rights" based on that dogma. While heterodox Christians reject certain portions of Scripture, and allegorise others to suit their own views as to Sexual Equality, etc., unbelievers, far more consistently, and with more real respect for Scripture, altogether reject the Bible as the rock- ahead to their platform programme of woman's political enfranchisement. I close this chapter by personally addressing those readers who profess to unite Christian belief with Sexual Equality, Woman Suffrage, etc. You profess that the Bible sanctions your demands, The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 39 in spite of these texts whicli you are morally and logically bound to explain. Your Christian faith obliges you to face these texts. Yet you are uneasy when they are quoted, and, deluded by your self- constituted leaders, object to the Bible being dragged into the controversy. If you were not completely deluded and deceived, you would detect this artifice and reject it with scorn and contempt. "What ! Your leaders dare to tell you to lay aside your Bible, the book which you accept as your rule and guide for time and eternity ! For you indig- nantly repel the charge of infidelity. Is this conduct logical, consistent, sincere ? The Bible is your standard of appeal, the test, the touch-stone of those new opinions, so glibly trumpeted forth from the platform ; and your " guide, philosopher, and friend " tries to dissuade you from consulting your Bible ! You are shocked at those " advanced " Woman Suffrage advocates, who sneer and rail at the Bible. But can you not perceive that these (however deluded) are at least sincere? That Atheists and Deists should demand a thorough revolution in our country's laws and constitution, neither knowing nor caring whether such changes agree with, or oppose the Bible, is natural. The wonder is to find you professed Christians eagerly demanding such changes, perceiving that Atheists and Deists openly denounce the Bible, as opposed to Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage. Can you say you are not convinced ? that I have not satis- factorily proved the Bible opposed to Sexual 40 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Equality ? You can hardly say so, when Atheists and Deists, Woman Suffrage advocates continually quote such texts to prove the Bible does oppose Sexual Equality. Remember that you have not even attempted to prove the Bible favouring the " rights " you demand. Between our respective positions, is this important distinction : I invite — you avoid and deprecate discussion of this crucial question. I, denying Sexual Equality, treat you as rational beings — appeal to your reason to decide. Your platform leaders, declaring women equal and superior to men, actually insult your understand- ings by persuading you not to bring the Bible into the controversy ! Imitate theBereans : search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so or not ; refer to the Bible with a Concordance; turn up all texts con- taining the words " wife " and " woman; " consult commentaries and living authorities of all denomina- tions. It will be interesting to find men differing on Theology entirely agreeing on this question. Compare the opinions of Catholic and Protestant divines. Take time to come to a conclusion. But in the interests of truth and religion, be no longer duped into shunning a discussion continually pro- voked by the pretensions of your party. Your leaders assert Sexual Equality. You echo the parrot cry which they have put into your mouths. You must prove that it exists, before you can demand Woman Suffrage as a right. Before going further in the political and social revolution now inaugu- The Bible Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 41 rated, I ask all professing Christians to consider and reply to these legitimate and weighty objec- tions ; to take up, one by one, these texts which I have conscientiously quoted, and to show, if possi- ble, that they sanction Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage. If you cannot, will not, dare not do this, then, while pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp — Sexual Equality — ^you have already lost your Christian liberty. I repeat that Sexual Equahty and Woman Suffrage advocates must come, sooner or later, to secret or avowed infidelity. It is but a question of time. Meanwhile, I repeat my own heartfelt con- viction, the result of matured thought, that the Sible is opposed to Woman Suffrage.* * Since writing this, I have read " "Woman : Her Mission and her Life. Two Discourses," by Eev. Adolphe Monod, delivered at Paris, February, 1848. Though well aware that orthodox divines support my opinions, I was struck with the remarkable unanimity between his views and mine. To give a summary or extracts would too much lengthen my work. Eeaders are referred to the original pamphlet, translated from the third edition, by Eev. W. Gr. Barrett. Hall, Virtue, and Co., 25, Paternoster Eow. CHAPTER IV. NATUEB OPPOSED TO SEXUAL EQUALITY. A just biological philosophy is beginning to discredit those chimerical revolutionary declamations on the pretended equality of the sexes, by directly demonstrating, either by anatomical investiga- tion, or by philosophical observation, the radical differences, both physical and moral, which in all animal species, and the human race more especially, so distinctly demarcate them, notwithstanding the preponderance of the specific type. G. H. Lewis. Theee is no plea for Woman Suffrage as a principle, except on the hypothesis of Sexual Equality. Once admit woman, not man's equal, but by the Creator's eternal fiat (declared in Revela- tion and manifested in Wature) compelled to occupy a subordinate sphere, there is no injustice whatever in withholding from her political power, and other exclusively masculine privileges, for which she certainly possesses ample equivalents in her sex's special immunities. If Sexual Equality be a figment of the imagination, all declamations founded on the premisses of woman's abstract right to the political suffrage are so much wind. Physiological and Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 43 psychological distinctions of the sexes I have treated fully elsewhere.* Here, the subject must be treated more summarily. It is, indeed, diflScult to refute arguments for Sexual Equality, since none such exist. That hypothesis is always assumed by Woman Suffrage advocates. They wisely take for granted what never has been, and never can be, proved. We all perceive that woman is not man's equal. She is, on the average, smaller and weaker. This is so generally admitted, that among her acknowledged rights, woman is entitled to man's forbearance, courtesy, chivalry, and protection. Fancy a man offering forbearance and protection to his equal ! Can any idea be more absurd ? He who should really treat a woman as his equal, and conduct himself towards her, in every respect, as to a fellow-man, would be a churl and a brute. And the first to condemn him would be the logical lady who continually casts Sexual Equality in our teeth. But consistency is not part of the platform propaganda. To strike a woman on any pretext or provocation, short of actual defence of life, is considered an act of infamous cowardice. Why ? Because of the inequality between man and woman. Were it otherwise we should not thrill at the eloquent lines in Tobin's " Honeymoon " — " The man who lays his hand upon a woman, Save in the way of kindness, is a wretch, Whom 't were gross flattery to name a coward ! " * " On the Eeal Differences in the Minds of Men and Women," Anthropological Journal, October, 1869. 44 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Do our platform ladies endorse this sentiment ? If they do, they logically refute their fundamental claim in their programme — Sexual Equality ! In shape, organisation, function, woman differs so pro- foundly from man, that we do not expect from her the same labour of hand or brain. Consequently all civilised nations, ancient and modern, have relieved woman from the onerous burthens of citizenship which weigh so heavily on man. During the discussion of my paper : " A Protest against Woman's Demand for the Privileges of both Sexes," Mr. P. S. Johnstone said, " If the men of England like to chain up all the women in cellars, they could do so." This statement elicited ''' loud disapprobation."* In plain English, lady advocates of Sexual Equality hissed the expression of a physio- logical truth which they did not like ! There is a good deal of human nature in men and women. '• D — n nature ; she puts me out," said Paseli. His works amply prove the statement true. For he rarely, if ever, painted a human figure less than eight feet high. Doubtless it is disappointing to find nature lending no countenance to their favourite war-cry of Sexual Equality. But why disapproba- tion ? The gentleman might have parodied Kemble's lines in " The Panel " — " Perhaps it was right to dissemhle your love; But why did you hiss me, my dears ? " He paid them a very high compliment in taking them at their word, reducing to practice the theory * Victoria Magazine, August, 1870, p. 346. Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality.. 45 of Sexual Equality ; speaking to women as candidly as to men. The result showed the " strong-minded" ones could not tolerate their own pet Sexual Equality hypothesis reduced to practice. " Loud disapproba- tion " might have been excusable had Mr. Johnstone said the men ought to chain up all the women in cellars. This he disclaimed. He only said men had the muscular power to do so. Is it not true ? Had he gone still further, and stated that men, if they chose to combine for such an execrable purpose, could destroy all the women, he would have stated an undeniable truth, which, however unpleasant, only shows more forcibly the Sexual Equality fallacy. His object was to state, in striking terms, man's immense advantage over woman in strength. An American sensibly asks, " Why scream at the calm facts of the universe ? " a question to be asked especially of " the Shrieking Sisterhood." St. Peter calls woman " the weaker vessel." What better proof of her inferior logical power, than the " strong- minded " ladies' unreasonable, childish, womanish hysterical excitement at the plain statement of an indisputable fact. And not at all an inappropriate reminder in days when women advocate an insur- rection of women against men. How compli- mentary to female intelligence is such advice ! Suppose that women were so foolish as to rise in armed rebellion against man, is it thought that they would be victorious in the conflict of brute force ? In spite of platform invectives against male tyranny, there is no fear of any such unnatural quarrel 46 Woman Suffrage Wrong. between the sexes. Even viragoes will not bring it about. No true womanly woman fears man's im- mense preponderance in physical force. God has allotted to man his strength, ordaining, that it shall be used to woman's benefit — not injury — not to oppress, but to protect the weaker sex. The eternal bond of Love guarantees, inclines, man to be a little more than just to woman. Masculine women and effeminate men unite to depreciate sexual characteristics — manly strength and womanly beauty — but cannot alter God's evident apportion- ment. Man's superiority in physical force, entirely disposes of all declamations based on a pretended Sexual Equality. Woman cannot claim the privileges of strength added to the immunities of weakness. What do Woman Suffrage advocates mean by Sexual Equality and female emancipation ? To make woman as free as man, and quite independent of his influence and control ? To succeed here, they must first reform human nature, and annihilate the strongest passion — Love. They must isolate the sexes, and render woman thoroughly self-supporting. Even a nation of Amazons could not exist beyond a generation, unless the women occasionally forgot their independence. Had the Author of Nature ever designed such a condition, men and women would not be as they are. Sex could not have existed. Human beings would have been formed like bees. Naturalists know that those species where sex is decidedly demarcated, are far more highly organised than neuters, or hermaphrodites. Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 4*7 What is meant by Woman's Rights? To give woman exactly man's privileges — neither more nor less ? To grant woman the privileges of both sexes is not in accordance with, but contrary to, Sexual Equality. Clearly, then, to grant woman man's privileges, means to exact from her man's duties, responsibilities, obligations, mental and physical labour — neither more nor less. This is impossible: the bare attempt would inflict the most cruel in- justice on woman. Woman Suffrage advocates virtually propose thoroughly to ignore, and prac- tically to abolish sex, as a trivial distinction. There is a limit to reform in this direction. They will not effect their purpose, even by an Act of Parliament. It is a fundamental axiom with lawyers, that Parlia- ment can do everything, except making a woman a man, or a man a woman. Pemale emancipation is, then, a mere ignis fatuus, pursued by visionaries, who mistake their own " fads " for truth. " Man is the head of the woman;" she is "the weaker vessel." The Apostles echo God's fiat. To the end of time woman will lean upon man. The physically and mentally weaker being must claim, and receive support, protection, .guidance, control, government, from the physically and mentally stronger being. No alteration in our laws, no re-modelling of aur social or political structure can ever produce that chimerical Sexual Equality, dreamed and screamed by platform enthusiasts, when woman would be totally independent of man's protection and control. 48 Woman Suffrage Wrong. The platform lady conceives all her class thoroughly self-capable, and consequently regards man, not as friend and protector, but as enemy and rival. She condemns our political and social system, and declares the nation will never prosper until women have votes ; meaning, really, until she and her " mates " sit in Parliament, and hold office. These platform women are no more independent than they are strong-minded. The great majority — womanly women — laugh at their pretensions. No woman can, in the nature of things, ever be so independent as man. Miss Amazon plays like a child at Sexual Equality. She poses and proses on a platform, as an exemplar or fugleman of what she wants her sex to be in the future, quite unconscious that by her dress and address, she offers the strongest warning against that very emancipation which she demands for women, and takes personally to such a ridiculous extent. Just in as far as she departs from man's ideal of womanhood, does this pioneer of female emancipation forfeit some valuable characteristic, and essential privilege of womanly women, and weaken her claim to the especial immunities of her sex. Arguing from exceptions whiish prove the rule, she declares herself man's equal, if not superior, and assumes herself the true type of womanhood. She disdains the plain gold ring (which most women covet) as a badge of " subjec- tion " or " servitude ;" refuses to exchange her maiden name for that of a husband, whom she would be bound, at least, to 'promise, to "love, Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 49 cherisli, and obey." Apparently this is not the type preferred by men. Trom whatever cause, Miss Amazon is like the virgin Queen, thus flattered by Shakspere : — " And the imperial votaress passed on, In maiden meditation, fancy-free." The masculine woman does not influence, but repels ; the womanly woman attracts man. The solemn promise of the wife made at the sacred altar, excites the platform woman, as a red rag excites a bull. She knows not the powerful influence exerted by good wives over husbands. To the end of time, sensible, good men will be indirectly influenced — if not governed — by their wives. We cannot over- rate female influence, so long as woman confines her persuasive power within its legitimate sphere. But this powerful, subtle, and irresistible, because indirect, influence, is not the kind exercised, or coveted, by the platform woman. Miss Amazon detests, because she has abdicated such a personal power, disdains and bequeaths it to womanly, whom she nicknames " weak-minded " women. The plat- form enthusiast does not perceive that if mental strength is tested by personal influence, so-called weak-minded women possess far more real mother wit and energy, than so-called strong-minded women. The man-aping woman sneers bitterly at woman's peculiar characteristic — indirect influence — and calls it underhand, deceitful, false; as if anything could be more false than a woman who has lost the natural instinct of her sex ; as if ■ there 50 Woman Suffrage Wrong. could be a woman so false as she who gives the lie to nature, by trying to pervert herself into a man ! The Amazon's idea of exerting influence over man, is to challenge him to mortal combat, and then to plead her sex to shield her from the effects of her impudence. "Come on, Man!" cries the woman warrior. " There lies my gauntlet ; who's afraid ? But, stay, you must have one band tied behind your back — and, remember, it is cowardly to strike a woman." On these conditions, the battle of " sexual equality" is fought. This is no caricature, but represents two-thirds of the rivalry between man and woman, even when apparently most impartial. Allowance is always made for woman's work. Her sex, so far from hindering, helps her. Man is always heavily handicapped. Miss Amazon aims at direct influence, and has none whatever, except over effeminate men. She poses as man's rival, and is astonished and indig- nant when men take her at her word, and refuse her the advantages of the sex which she repudiates. Manly men detest mannish women. Had Omphale been an Amazon, Hercules would never have spun at her feet. The man-woman naturally regards man as her enemy. But the complaint goes more deeply. She thinks Nature partial and unjust not to give woman a man's brain, a man's muscles, a man's beard. Miss Amazon either makes a virtue of necessity, or remains single on principle. Thus she can more completely and consistently declaim against "male tyranny" and "female slavery," and Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 51 work to regenerate and rehabilitate her " unfortu- nate, down-trodden sisters," as she miscalls the freest, happiest women in the world. Curious illus- tration of consistency and strong-mindedness, that her grand aim in all she says and does, is to become as man-like in thought, word, action, looks, dress, and deportment as possible ! But she is a failure. The jackdaw in borrowed plumes was immediately detected by the peacocks. Miss Amazon cannot altogether become a man. Sex is sex, and even a masculine woman is but a sorry caricature of man. Unwomanly she is, but the assumption of the toga virilis does not convey manly qualities. The Amazon is still hampered by her sex. She cannot evade the Almighty fiat which made her a woman ; she cannot quite unsex herself; she must accept the consequences of being born of the feminine gender. She has a woman's form and face, though neither is improved by the wear and tear of the passions produced by platform oratory. She has, to a much greater extent than she imagines, a woman's nature. In spite of her masculine tastes, ambition, and " strong mind," the masculine woman remains more woman than man. A perfect human hermaphrodite, a being who impartially represents male and female elements united, does not exist. Nature is very tenacious of sex. Miss Amazon should remember the fate of crowing hens. Though nominally an unprotected female, affect- ing to have soared beyond such old-fashioned pre- judices, and to glory in her independence. Miss 52 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Amazon's appearance is forlorn. As a sample of Sexual Equality, female emancipation and womanly autonomy, she is a failure. The world says she has blundered. Miss Amazon retorts upon the world that charge with compound interest. " Society is wrong ; anybody and everybody is wrong, except myself," says Miss Amazon. Moral obliquity hinders the clear mental perception neces- sary to self-knowledge. She has no husband. So far, well. She is not subjected to any individual man ; not living under the sway of any particular " tyrant." Her hatred of men is only less than that of Nero, when he wished the human race had but one neck, that he might sever it at one blow. This prejudice so perverts the " strong mind " that she cannot perceive this self-evident truth : That she cannot dispense with man's protection, in some form, individually or collectively, personally or generally, directly or indirectly — not occasionally, but continually, daily, hourly required, and be- stowed. What a humiliating condition for the Sexual Equality advocate, declaimer on woman's rights, would-be emancipator of herself and sex, from all manly control ! She lives under the pro- tection of her country's laws, enacted, administered, executed by men. And in no country are these laws generally so just, or so impartially administered as in Great Britain. She rails at, and condemns, these laws, without understanding them. One plat- form lady characterises Law as the " thieving busi- Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 53 ness."* Yet so high is the integrity of the British judge, that a hint that he could be bribed, would provoke mirth, rather than indignation. If in ease or affluence, Miss Amazon's fortune has been accumulated by man's industry, and secured to h6r by man's provident and loving foresight. She should reflect that she had two parents, a father as well as a mother. Miss Amazon is protected in life, property, honour, and liberty, by British soldiers, sailors, marines, coastguards, militia, volunteers, yeomanry, police, fire brigade, etc. — all men ! She may employ men servants, whom she could not properly replace by female domestics. All these services, and many more, connected with procuring daily necessaries and luxuries, are performed by men, whom she and other foolish women flippantly call "the odious sex." Imagine what would be the condition of women — especially in the upper and middle ranks, if the men now carrying on this vast machinery were to strike. Yet no thought of gratitude due to the other sex, ever enters Miss Amazon's mind. Her microscopic mental vision discovers nothing beyond flaws and defects in that grand and wondrous edifice of civilised society, patiently- reared in the course of centuries, by men, and over which woman presides morally, and actually, as Queen. " The grand functions of woman * "The fighting, quarrelling, and thieving business is now equally, honourably, and lucratively divided between the army and the law." Mrs. King, on the " Cold Mutton and Buttons " Argu- ment, Victoria Magazine, May, 1871, p. 14. 54 Woman Suffrage Wrong. are maternity and rearing children ; she thus fulfils duties appointed by the Creator, quite as important in the scale of being as those of man. So little demand is there for woman's assistance in those departments which are the essential prerogative of man, that could the male intellect be suddenly suspended or paralysed, there is not sufl&cient con- ception of the abstract qualities of justice, morality, truth, and virtue in all the women at present in the world, to keep civilisation alive for one week. Take away the strong protecting arm of man, and woman sinks into an idiot and a slave."* Furthermore, woman's inevitable dependence on man may be irrefutably proved, and strikingly illustrated, thus : Suppose Miss Amazon, return- ing from the lecture-hall, where she has surpassed herself in asserting woman at once equal and superior to man, and ridiculing the idea that she can, under any circumstances, require protection from the tyrant. While travelling alone, she is suddenly attacked by a male ruffian — a wretch who abuses to woman's outrage, the strength given for her protection. Suppose Miss Amazon loses her courage and presence of mind, when both are most required ; or that she is unprovided with fire-arms ; or lacks nerve to use them ; or that she falls into hysterics ; or, at any rate, that she is unable to defend her life, purse, or virtue, against a man far stronger than herself. In such critical circum- * " The Intellectual Severance of Men and Women," by J. McGrigor Allan, p. 29. Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 65 stances, the strongest minded, most independent, most courageous and energetic woman, feeling her sex's weakness in her manifest inability to cope with a robber, ravisher, or murderer, would gladly- welcome the intervention of guard, passenger, or any other brave man, even if totally opposed to Woman Suffrage. The very possibility of such a practical lesson should teach Miss Amazon the vast difference between Sexual Equality as a platform theory, and Sexual Equality as a fact. And the knowledge that all women travelling alone are exposed to such risks, should make platform ladies blush to sneer at woman's need for man's chivalrous protection. Woman must depend on man for protection. Were it otherwise, every woman travelling alone, would be at the mercy of any rufl&an she met. Yet a lady disdainfully repudiated as an insult, the idea that woman stands in need of man's protection. At the Victoria Discussion Society, 3rd June, 1871, Madame Noel said : " As to the normal state of woman being the protection of man, I have only to say I think very little of a lady who wants father, brother, or somebody to protect her virtue."* This announcement was received with " cheers." Had these impulsive cheerers reflected, some, surely, would have perceived that they had applauded a very doubtful compliment to their sex ! The state- ment implies that every woman is able to protect her virtue against violence. The obvious reply is, * Victoria Magazine, July, 1871, p. 245. 66 Woman SuffragetWrong. that there is in our Statute Book a crime which was until recently a capital offence, and is now oc- casionally punished by imprisonment for life, or for a long term of years ! If every woman can defend her virtue, there is no such crime as violation of female chastity ; every man who has been hanged for the imaginary offence of rape, has been judicially murdered ; and every so-called ravisher, who suffers in any way, on conviction of such a charge, is un- justly punished ! To deny that such a crime can be committed, and to infer that no woman, under any circumstances, can part with that which virtuous women prize beyond life, except volun- tarily, is a very singular defence of women by a woman ! Still more singular is it that such a defence should be received by " strong-minded " ladies, and their male allies, with " cheers." The lady thought she was praising her sex, and so, too, evidently thought the cheering ladies ! Yet no male satirist ever brought so severe a charge against woman. Our wise male legislators, recognising woman's physical weakness, protected her against male violence ; threw a shield round the poorest and most disreputable woman : but lady legislators, defenders of their sex, would take away this shield ! Surely "Whateley and Balzac were right. The arch- bishop defines " woman as a being who cannot reason, and who pokes the fire from the top." The novelist writes : " "Woman is the most logical of beings after the child." These views are supported by an eminent French Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 67 author, in this extract : "I do not regard the ques- tion of marriage, woman, and the family, in the same light as you, or any of the new light party, whose ideas have come to my knowledge. I do not admit that woman has the right to separate her cause from that of man, and to claim for herself a special justice, as if her j&rst enemy and tyrant were man. Whatever reparation may be due to woman, and whatever her right to count as a third with her husband (or father) and children, I do not allow that the most vigorous justice can ever make her man's equal. Also, I do not any the more admit that this inferiority of the female sex constitutes for it either servitude or humiliation, nor that it lessens it in dignity, liberty, and happiness. I maintain that the contrary is truth. I, therefore, consider the sort of crusade which some estimable ladies of this and of the other hemisphere are making in favour of the prerogatives of their sex, not as a symptom of the general renovation which is taking place, but as an exaggerated symptom of a defect belonging distinctively to the sex's infirmity, and incapacity of knowing and governing itself. " No, Madam, you know nothing about your sex. You do not know the first word of the question which you and your associates agitate with so much noise, and so little success. And if you do not understand it, if in the eight pages of reply to my letter, there are forty fallacious arguments ; that springs precisely (as I have already said) from your sex's infirmity. By this word, whose exactitude is 58 Woman Suffrage Wrong. perhaps not irreproachable, understand that quality of your comprehension which, only allows you to seize the connection of things, so far as we men place your fingers on them. There is in woman, in the brain, as in the function of maternity, an incapacity to conquer by itself its native inertia (!) an incapacity which man's mind can alone over- come, and which it cannot always set to work.* " In two words, I can establish, by observation, reason, and facts, that woman, weaker than man in muscular force (which you yourself acknowledge), is not less inferior to him in regard to Industeial, Philosophic, and Moeal Powee; so that, if woman's condition in society should be settled as you claim for her, by the same justice as man's condition, it is all over with her — she is a slave {sic). To which I also add, this is precisely the system which I dis- claim — the principle of pure and rigorous justice, that terrible justice which the Romans compared to an unsheathed sword, y%s stridum, and which obtains * A most shrewd remark, confirmed by daily observation, and true of women's amusements, as well as serious occupations. How dull are ladies, after leaving the dining-room, before the gentlemen have rejoined them ! Even dress and scandal cease to interest. They require the stimulus of male society to overcome their natural inertia. The grand arts of Coquetry and Flirting cannot be very well practised between two women. A male victim is required for vivisection. )Even a lady author admits that " to some women, there is an incomprehensible pleasure in the mere presence of a man ; his appearance gives a zest and excitement to matters otherwise most commonplace." [Mrs. Randolph : " Wild Hyacinth," chap. 28.] An admirable exposure of Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage. Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 59 between individuals of different sexes (qy., of the same sex). What is the principle differing from justice (and which, however, without justice would not exist) felt by all men in the depths of their souls, and which only women distrust ? Is it love ? Not so. I leave it to you to divine (!) And if your penetration succeeds in disentangling this mystery, I consent, madam, to sign your certificate of genius — Bt eris mihi magnus Apollo. But then I shall have gained my cause.* " What has most surprised me since this hypo- thesis of Sexual Equality (newly derived from the Greeks, with so many others) has sprung up among you, is that it counts among its partisans nearly as many men as women. I have long sought the reason of this caprice, which I at first attributed to a chivalrous zeal. I think now that I have found it. It is not to the credit of the cavaliers. I shall be happy. Madam, for your sake and for theirs, that upon this solemn examination, it shall appear that the new emancipators of woman are the loftiest, widest, most progressive, if not the most masculine, geniuses of the age."t Counterfeit Strong-Minded Women ! No term, perhaps, is more abused than that of " strong-minded women." That there are mental differences among women, as well as men, is * Does tlie author mean Pity 1 \ Translation of two articles in December and January Numbers oi Philosophical and Religious Review (1856 and 1857J. Corres- pondence between Madame Jenny D'Hericourt, and M. Proudhon. 60 Woman Suffrage Wrong. apparent. But what constitutes a strong mind in woman, is a vexed question, answered in totally opposite ways, according to our views of woman's legitimate province. Certain women now arroga- ting a special claim to, or rather an actual monopoly of, strong-mindedness, do not hide their light under a bushel. They publish their views by press and platform, saying in effect : " We are the strong- minded." It is affectation to ignore them. They usurp a title belonging to totally different women. I discriminate between women who deserve, and those who assume, the appellation. I believe in really strong-minded women too firmly, to have any faith in the counterfeit. I prefer real, to mock turtle ! To prevent confusion from employing one term ironically, and in good faith, I call counterfeit strong-minded ladies, Amazons I They possess fair average ability, cleverness, great volubility, moral courage, zeal, great confidence, and inordinate self- esteem. Their plausible platform platitudes seem true to superficial hearers. It requires judgment, patience, and experience, to separate wheat from chaff ; the small amount of truth from the large heap of assertions and assumptions. The principal Amazonian tenet — female Independence — is in one sense good and true ; in another, bad and false. Do they demand for woman the best education of which she is capable? That every girl should be trained suitably to capacity and station, to some business or trade, by which she may, if she choose, Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 61 gain a livelihood quite independently of marriage ; not be compelled to accept a husband without love, and ashamed to claim damages for breach of promise. So far, I cordially agree with Amazons ! But this old grievance, conveniently trotted out on plat- forms, is fast becoming, if not already quite, obsolete. It was preached and practised by sensible parents long before modern Amazons were born ! George III. had all his children taught a trade. No in- telligent reader will so far misunderstand me as to suppose I depreciate a proper portion of independence in woman. That kind of independence is a virtue in both sexes. But I maintain that woman's indepen- dent action ought not to be, and never can be, as great as man's ; and, consequently, to take man for her exemplar in this respect, must be fatal to woman's modesty and happiness. However flatter- ing to abnormal female ambition, the theory of Sexual Equality, and the charming vista of privileges opened by such a view, the idea of woman enjoying man's latitude of expression and conduct, is shown by every day experience to be practically impossible, and morally wrong. Decorum utterly forbids each sex to model itself on the other, and that boldness of speech, demeanour, and conduct, so becoming to a man, would be simply intolerable in a woman. The normal relation of the sexes never was, nor can be, equality. Man is woman's natural guardian and protector. Women (Amazons excepted) are well aware of this ; and prefer 'not to remain un- protected females, so that when travelling they may, 62 Woman Suffrage Wrong. in addition to ctivalry and law, have the personal defence of their respective husbands. Our Amazons mean much more than this legiti- mate independence : they seek independence, not individual, but embracing the whole sex. Woman's absolute independence of man, at variance with dis- abilities imposed on the sex, not by male tyranny, but by nature ; to subvert normal relations between male and female, founded on centuries of experience, and sanctified by revelation, distinctly proclaiming the obvious truth : " Man is the head of the woman." Amazonian principles tend directly to female revolt. Women are deceived into the belief that they are slaves, and taught to regard man as their natural enemy. Amazons continually gird at man as woman's oppressor, and advocate a female trades union, totally incompatible with law, marriage, family, home, and actual distinctions of sex. Our Amazons want boys and girls taught, not merely in the same school, but in the same class ; to learn and play together ; * young men and maidens to attend the same college, listen to anatomical and physio- logical lectures, walk the hospitals, dissect and * " On the Separation of the Sexes in Education," by Whateley Cooke Taylor, Victoria Magazine, December, 1870. The writer means well, but has not sufficiently reflected that the promiscuous mingling of boys and girls in the play-ground would have most disastrous results. Listen to the obscene language ; note the obscene acts of boys, when unobserved ! Girls would learn things which no virtuous woman ever knows ! The other day I heard some little boys, about twelve or thirteen, roaring out the most filthy songs, which they seemed to compose impromptu ! Would any mother have liked her daughters to play with such boys ? Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 63 vivisect together ! They vilify medical men and others, who protest against the flagrant abomina- tion of mixed classes. They demand for woman man's education, and man's rights added to her own : woman's right to go wherever man goes, to do whatever he does, share in all his amusements, dress, and work, literally " from pitch and toss to manslaughter." They would thrust her into the struggle for existence, into the most foul and fetid political mire, into the fiercest rivalry with man, in peace and war. Woman Suffrage attacks every- thing established ; announces every imaginable change : Political, involve all rights ! Amazons really want women on juries, in pulpits, at the bar, on the bench, in both Houses of Parliament : women exercising all branches of legislative, j udicial, administrative power; women free to contract and annul marriage at pleasure ; women eligible to all oflfices — civil, naval, military ; women having a right to be whatever man is — soldier, sailor, policewoman, firewoman, navvy. A woman presiding at a public meeting is literally a chairwoman I Of course the logical Sexual Equality advocate indignantly re- pudiates the name, and insists on being called Mrs. or Miss Ghairman I Political Amazons are chiefly spinster and widow householders, who would be enfranchised by the paltry little Bill annually defeated. They represent neither the Woman Suffrage principle, nor their sex; certainly not wives expressly excluded from the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill. Amazons 64 Woman Suffrage Wrong. do most admirably represent a strong individual and class determination to have their own way, and to wield political power, because they believe that votes would lead to other important privileges. Never doubting their own infallibility, the slightest hint that they are mistaken, enrages them. They cannot conceive wise, sincere, honest opposition. They denounce all opponents " in the lump " as " selfishly blind." They accuse men of fearing female rivalry. Imputation of motives is a very favourite, but a round game. I emulate Amazonian frankness, and return the compliment. Their object, wholly self-interested, personally and selfishly ambitious, is to alter every law, custom, institution, usage, opinion, which they imagine to bear oppressively on themselves ! Amazons demand a license of speech and conduct, political and social, sanctioned neither by Divine nor human law : all a man's rights, with- out any curtailment of woman's privileges ; male liberty of speech and action, joined to female impunity. Entrance into every profitable and honourable calling, with little to do, and plenty to get, by a sham competition ; knowing that they have little or no chance in a hond-fide rivalship with man. Repudiating hard, disagreeable, dangerous work, they claim all man's political and other privileges, and to be absolved from discharging all a citizen's onerous, responsible, and dangerous duties. By enfranchisement, Amazons mean woman's (their own) right to do exactly as she likes ; not to Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 65 be ruled, but to rule ; to have her first choice of everything ; to intercept honours, rewards, place, rank, wealth, sinecures — every gratification of vanity, ambition, acquisitiveness, without man's equivalent labour and responsibilities: woman's right to pleasure and profit, minus pain and loss. Amazons will not descend with man, their " equal," into the world's dusty arena, and share in masculine drudgery, obscure toil, danger, and violent death. In the hour of peril, Amazons claim protection from their "equal," like other women. This is the practical programme of the platform propaganda, the logical illustration of Sexual Equality, and Woman Suffrage ! But unable directly to demand these in- consistent and incompatible privileges for them- selves, as individual or class exceptions, they vote themselves disinterested, chivalrous representatives of their oppressed sex ! They, as pioneers of pro- gress, impudently pretend that women in general endorse their extravagant and outrageous assertions of female personality. Amazons say " the move- ment " has passed beyond the sphere of ridicule, while actually ashamed to call " the movement '' by its proper name — " Woman's Rights," implying an agitation which has ceased to be ridiculous, only where it has become positively offensive ! Amazons represent a sect, not a sex. They are, for simple, deluded women, exactly what demagogues are for ignorant, discontented men. Amazons no more represent women, than organisers of noisy Republi- can processions, with flags and red caps, represent 66 Woman Suffrage Wrong. the people. In all ages, masculine ambitious women, spurning the control of religion, law, custom, com- mon-sense, and duty, have sought latitude and license for themselves, demanding liberty for their sex ; modestly constituting themselves its representatives. The word virago (most objectionable as applied to woman) means a man-acting woman, or, shortly, a man-woman. Amazons, boasting themselves as " strong-minded," desirous to obliterate all distinc- tions of sex, repudiate the term viragoes, as a gross insult. Yet to whom can the term be applied so fitly as to them ? They are ashamed to be called, what they are not ashamed to be ! Impossible to show more forcibly the wisdom of adhering to nature, which gives each sex its distinct province. Man ranges the world. Stature, strength, and beard show him intended for an active outdoor life. Woman's existence is more sedentary. Her sphere is home. She should not copy man. Amazons would destroy the social structure, founded on the broad, general distinction of sex. They would train woman to think, feel, talk, dress and act like man in all respects ; to plunge into political turmoil, rival man in all fields of lucrative labour, and to repudiate a domestic sphere. They would make woman, man- acting, man- woman, or a virago ! No fencing with words can disguise the fact : "What hypocrisy to shriek against the name, while glorying in being exactly what the name describes ! Another Amazonian characteristic is aversion to man. They copy, while hating the tyrant ! Men Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 67 who think ill of women, are not strong-minded. Confirmed woman-haters are neither wise nor good men. Amazons, being man-haters, are not strong- minded. Excited by vanity, enthusiasm, and plat- form cheers, Amazons mistake a petty, local, tem- porary popularity for enduring fame. They accept in earnest the ironically-given title of "strong- minded," and dream that it will be confirmed by posterity. Another delusion ! Thinking only of themselves, of their own immediate imaginary per- sonal interests, pursuing popularity at any price, they totally ignore future generations. Their motto is Apres-nous, le deluge ! They leave the labour of making, and providing for posterity, to the majority of sensible women, whom they denounce as " weak- minded" for minding their own affairs. Female demagogues are exceedingly dictatorial, spiteful, and furious against women, who renounce them and all their works. Amazons despise wives and mothers, for condescending to fulfil woman's mission, and being that for which they were formed — " helps-meet " for men. Hating man too deeply to promise to love, cherish, and obey, Amazons leave no pledges to pos- terity. The finest specimens of man-woman are thus destined to complete extinction. The Amazon cannot perpetuate her race. Her urgent mission for Number One, absorbs all her time, energies, and ambition. She leaves the weakness of wedded love to the " down- trodden weak-minded " majority. He would be a bold man, who should propose to an Amazon. Men do not care to court bad copies of themselves. 68 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Well for the world, perhaps, that Amazons steel their hearts to Cupid's darts ; but the cause of great weakness to the platform propaganda. Would Miss Amazon only deign to become wife and mother, she might transmit to a second self an Amazonian daughter, her instinctive antagonism to man, and illustrate her principles by showing how to rear an Amazonian family — the girls trained to rule, father and sons severely snubbed, and taught to obey. Amazons will never succeed in regeneration, till they conquer their antipathy to generation. Even should our Amazons condescend to copy their prototypes, and sacrifice their principles for posterity's sake, a self-supporting Amazonian race is extremely pre- carious, if not impossible. Normal women love to please and obey their husbands. The married Amazon would make her husband obey her ! She must then select some poor hen-pecked creature who will allow his wife to rule. If the daughters " take after " their father, the hereditary Amazonian instinct is lost. The chief use of Amazons is to show what women ought not to be. They under- stand neither their sex nor themselves. The strong- mindedness which they so arrogantly claim to mono- polise, belongs to those modest, retiring, domesti- cated women whom Amazons patronise, pity, and misrepresent. In the next chapter, I shall quote from works of Really Strong-Minded Women, to condemn, and confute the fallacies of Counterfeit Strong-Minded Women. CHAPTER V. SEXUAL EQUALITY AND SUBJECTION OF WOMAN. " The female has a cell less in the head — a fibre more in the heart." Chamfort. Really Strong -Minded Women. If Amazons are right. Woman's present position, public opinion, and the great majority of women, ignoring claims made ostensibly for them, but really for the " Shrieking Sisters " themselves, are all radically wrong. I maintain the great majority of women right. Eepudiating revolutionary doctrines, women show sound common sense, and are really far more entitled to be called strong-minded than the revolting minority. I emphatically deny the title of strong-minded to a clique of female fanatics, " long-haired lunatics," vain, conceited, fussy, would- be leaders of their sex. I will strip these jackdaws of their borrowed plumes. " Pompous, sweeping, flippant assertions," shrieks Miss Amazon, hysteri- cally. I proceed to proof. I join issue with Amazons on their own Tom Tiddler's ground of 70 Woman Suffrage Wrong. " strong-mindedness." Their principles are directly and eternally opposed to published precepts of Really Strong-Minded "Women. These novel Amazonian doctrines are denounced by the wisest of men and women. Views of women the most select, second those of the majority. Woman's position is settled by women. Amazons only declaim against Oppo- nents. Really Strong-Minded Women argue, and expose the sophistry which they condemn. Many women distinguished in literature, and otherwise celebrated, have admitted that woman must live under man's protection, and make no pre- tensions to Sexual Equality. Even Mary Wollstone- craft has granted the male to be stronger than the female, in this passage : — " In the government of the physical world, it is observable that the female in general is inferior to the male. The male pursues, the female yields. This is the law of nature, and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favour of woman. This physical superiority cannot be denied, and it is a noble prerogative ! "* Far better entitled to the term strong-minded, than any platform political Amazon was Lady Mary Wortley Montague, authoress of " Letters written during travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, to Persons of Distinction, Literary men, etc." Travelled English- women were then rare. She first gave accurate and trustworthy information respecting life in the Harem. Lady Mary had opportunities which no man could have. Her interesting descriptions * " Vindication of the Eights of Woman," Introduction, p. 3. Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 71 remove much ignorant prejudice on the supposed slavery of Eastern Women — a stock platform subject with Amazons. Lady Mary proves that " the manners of mankind do not differ so widely as our voyage-writers would make us believe." Such a vfoman's opinions on her own sex, are ignored and depreciated only by Amazons. She condemns female literary ambition thus : — ^" The use of knowledge in our sex, beside amusement in solitude, is to moderate passions, and learn to be contented with a small expense, the certain effects of a studious life, pre- ferable even to that fame which men have engrossed. You will tell me I have not observed this rule. You are mistaken. Only inevitable accident has given me any reputation that way. I have always care- fully avoided it, and ever thought it a misfortune." She rebukes a race which has greatly increased — female pedants and pretenders to learning — thus : — " These women are ridiculous, not because they have learning, but because they have it not. One thinks herself a complete historian after reading Bchard's Roman History; another a profound philosopher, having got by heart some of Pope's unintelligihle essays ;* and a third an able divine, on the strength of Whitfield's sermons. Thus you hear them scream- ing politics and controversy." One would almost imagine Lady M. had assisted at a modern Woman's Rights' Convention, or Woman Suffrage * Here the lady is wrong. Pope's meaning is always clear to thinkers. But we must make allowance for some bitterness towards the Satirist of " Lady Mary." 72 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Meeting. She evidently knew the Shrieking Sister- hood of her day ; or her genius enabled her to anticipate the present "Movement." This keen observer would have despised our Amazons chatter- ing to identify their own fancied interests with woman's abstract claim to the franchise. This justly-celebrated and really strong-minded woman declares against giving woman political power, thus : — " I do not complain of men for having engrossed government. In excluding lis from all degrees of power, they preserve us from many fatigues, and perhaps from many crimes." This grand truth is otherwise expressed by Balzac, thus : — " The sanc- tity of women is irreconcilable with the duties and the liberties of the world. To emancipate^is to corrupt them." Madame de Stael was a first-class literary woman : no mere writer of sensation-novels, galvanised into temporary notoriety ; no pretender, or platform declaimer on Sexual Equality and Woman's Rights. Byron observes : — " Never before have those facul- ties peculiar to man, been developed as the possible inheritance of woman." Yet, far from putting forth Amazonian pretensions, this really strong-minded woman powerfully protests against woman's claims to meddle in politics, in the eloquent sentence placed on the title-page of this work. And this celebrated authoress of works which are classics, further observes : " Let women be denied these rare literary talents which, far from gaining them men's affec- tions, make them their competitors, and that ex- Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 73 cessive vigour of mind, that profound faculty of attention, with which great geniuses are endowed. Their weak organs are not formed for this. Let us not, however, be accused as unable to write with warmth, and incapable of describing love. The heart only must serve woman, instead of instruction and experience, and may render her worthy of feel- ing that of which she is incapable of judging. She is indeed exalted by reflection, but weakness and sensibility must ever be the leading features of her character." Finally, she pronounces emphatically against Sexual Equality, thus : — " Grod, in creating man first, made him the noblest of His creatures ; and the most noble creature is that one who has the greatest number of duties to perform."* A contemporary Englishwoman, not so brilliant or original, but equally strong-minded, was Mrs. Hannah More. Her works abound with statements directly opposed to Amazonian theories. She observes : " Each sex has its respective appropriated qualifications which would cease to be meritorious, the instant they ceased to be appropriated. Nature, propriety, and custom have prescribed certain * Contrast with this utterance by a woman of genius, modern women's depreciation of man, as " the odious sex," " things in trousers," " the ruffian man," etc. A young lady observes : " In most marriages there must be a considerable condescension on woman's part. Why should she — refined, sensitive, unselfish, sympathetic, cultured, thrilled in every fibre by indignation at injustice or brutality, enthusiastic in all good — why should such a creature stoop to mate with a being at his best cast in a far coarser mould than herself, if not that she is driven to it by sad necessity ? " (";Britomart," D. T., 26 Sept., 1888). 74 Woman Suffrage Wrong. bounds to each; bounds which the prudent and candid will never attempt to break down ; as indeed it would be highly impolitic to annihilate distinctions from which each acquires excellence, and to attempt innovations by which both would be losers. "Women never understand their interests so little as when they affect those qualities and accomplishments from the want of which they derive their greatest merit. ' This is the porcelain clay of human kind,' says Dryden of the sex. Greater delicacy implies greater fragility, and this weakness, natural and moral, clearly points out the necessity of superior caution, refinement, and reserve. We put the finest vases and costliest images in places of greatest security. So situated, they find protection in their weakness, and safety in their delicacy. Men are formed for the more public exhibitions on the great theatre of human life. Like stronger and more substantial wares, they derive no injury, and lose no polish by being always exposed and engaged in the constant commerce with the world, their proper element, where they respire their natural air, and exert their noblest powers, in situations calling them into action. They were intended by Provi- dence for bustling scenes of life ; to appear terrible in arms, useful in, commerce, shining in counsels." A most interesting analysis and comparison of mental distinctions of the sexes, concludes thus : " As a further confirmation of the different bent of mind in the sexes, we have heard of many female wits, never of one female logician ; of many admir- Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 75 able writers of memoirs, never of one chronologer. The mind in each sex has some natural bias, con- stituting distinction of character ; the happiness of both depends on the preservation and observance of this distinction. Where would be the superior pleasure and satisfaction from mixed conversation, were this difference abolished ? Were the qualities of both invariably and exactly the same, no benefit or entertainment would arise from the tedious and insipid uniformity of such intercourse. Considerable advantages are reaped from a select society of both sexes. Rough angles and asperities of male manners are imperceptibly filed, and gradually worn smooth by the polishing of female conversation, and refining of female taste; while women's ideas acquire strength and solidity by their associating with in- telligent, judicious men. Is it not better to succeed as women, than to fail as men ? to shine by walking honourably in the road marked out by nature, custom, and education, than to counteract them all, by moving awkwardly in a path diametrically opposite? to be good originals, rather than bad imitators ? to be excellent women, rather than in- different men ? " Madame Oottin observes : " Women having neither depth in observation, nor connection in ideas, cannot possess genius. People may ascribe this truth de- monstrated by facts, to their education. They are mistaken ; for how many men of the lowest extrac- tion, surrounded by prejudices, destitute of means, and more ignorant than the majority of women, have 76 Woman Suffrage Wrong. exalted themselves to the summit of glory, by the mere force of their genius ? No woman that I know of, has yet done the like." In denying genius to women, Madame Cottin carries humility too far. The authoress of " The Exiles of Siberia " forms one:^ among the galaxy of eminent literary women who disprove the assertion. Diderot observes : " "When women possess genius, its imprint is more original in them, than in us." Madame Cottin's view, how- ever, finds other lady supporters. Countess Hahn- Hahn observes : " ' Inspiration is the electric shock, and history shows it only received by men.' ' Only by men,' interrupted Faustina, ' and Hebrew prophetesses, Roman matrons who laughed at death, priestesses of Grerman tribes, and heroines of Saragossa :' ' I except the mere impulse. "When woman's heart is moved by love, the electric spark is communicated, and the fire of inspiration flames up. Even then, woman desires only to suffer and die for what she loves. No woman was ever excited to the creating, controlling, world-lifting point — never by inspiration. By intrigue, caprice, likely enough. She amuses herself with these occasionally. But it never entered into a woman's heart to make her lover immortal, like Petrarch's Laura, and Dante's Beatrice. They do not even master art, much less conquer science. That woman remains to be born capable of interesting herself for an abstract idea, to the extent of enduring chains and tortures for its sake, like Gralileo, with. his E Pur si muove. We cannot so much as form an idea of a female Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 11 Socrates.' " Nor, I add, of a female Columbus, Bacon, Newton, Homer, Handel, Milton, and Shak- spere. " In matters intellectual and moral, the long strain beats them dead. Do not look for a Bacona, a Newtona, a Handella, a Victoria Huga. Some American ladies tell us, education has stopped the growth of these. No ! mesdames, these are not in nature. They can bubble letters in ten minutes, that you could no more deliver in ten days, than a river can play like a fountain. They can sparkle gems of stories : they can flash little diamonds of poems. The entire sex has never produced one opera, or one epic, that mankind could tolerate for a minute : and why ? These come by long high- strung labour."* Mrs. John Sandford observes : " Seldom are women great proficients. The chefs d'oeuvres of the sculptress need the polish of the master-chisel, and the female pencil has never yet limned the immortal forms of beauty. Woman's mind is perhaps incapable of the originality and strength requisite for the sublime. Even St. Cecilia exists only in an elegant legend, and the poetry of music, if often felt, and expressed, has seldom been con- ceived by a female adept. A low estimate of female pretensions is certainly not the fault of the present day. "Women are in danger of being spoilt, but they cannot complain that they are little valued. On the contrary, their powers are often too highly rated. Their natural defects are overlooked, and * Charles Eeade : " White Lies." 78 Woman Suffrage Wrong. the consideration in which they are held, the in- fluence they possess, and the confidence placed in their judgment, are in some instances dispro- portionate with their true claims. This is the cause of their occasionally aspiring to situations, and intruding upon ofl&ces for which they are not fit. They are betrayed into overweening conceit of their powers, and willing to put them to proof. The indulgence with which their efforts are treated, prevents their consciousness of failure, even when unsuccessful. A woman obtains distinction for attempts little to the credit of any but a female candidate. Her sex is at once a recommendation and an apology. She should be spared severe criticism, but should not presume on indulgence. Nature assigns her a subordinate place and powers. She should feel this, and not arrogate the superiority of the other sex, while claiming the privileges of her own. The reputation of a clever woman is easily obtained ; less than a schoolboy's learning is sufficient to confer it. Minerva's pretty votaress lisps a page of Virgil, spells an ode of Horace, and is thought a prodigy. Such distinction is tempting, and especially so, when gained at so little cost. It is quite different with the other sex. Many a weary step must a man take to gain the laurel, and often is his meed withholden, even when fairly earned. But the female lei esprit flutters from one fancy to another; writes a sonnet, skims a periodical, deciphers an alphabet, divides a crystal, Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 79 glitters in an annual, and the crown of Oorinne is by acclamation placed on her brow."* Mrs. Ellis observes : " As women the first thing of importance is to be content to be inferior to man, in mental power, in the same proportion that you are inferior in bodily strength."t " Look at all the heroines of romance and reality, at all female characters held up to universal admiration — at all who have gone down to honoured graves, among tears and lamentations. Have they been learned, accomplished women, who could speak many languages, solve problems, and elucidate systems of philosophy ? No ; or if they were, they have also been dignified with the majesty of moral ^ greatness — women who regarded not themselves, their feebleness, or susceptibility of pain, but who, endued with an almost superhuman energy, could trample under foot, every impediment between them and the accomplishment of some great object wholly unconnected with personal exaltation or enjoyment, and related only to some loved being whose suffer- ing was their sorrow, whose good their gain. Never yet, however, was woman truly great, because she had great acquirements ; nor can she ever be great in herself — personally, and without instrumentality — as an object, not as an agent."J The following would lose its piquancy somewhat * " Woman : in her Social and Domestic Character." t " Daughters of England." I " Women of England." 80 Woman Suffrage Wrong. by translation : " On regarde une f emme savante, comme on fait une belle arme : elle est cisel^e artistement, d'une polissure admirable, et d'un travail fort recherche; c'est une piece de cabinet que Ton montre aux curieux, qui n'est pas d'usage, qui ne sert ni a la guerre, ni a la ohasse, non plus qu'un cheval de manage, quoique la mieux instruit du monde."* Mrs. Jamieson observes : " Seldom are -women great proficients : woman's mind is perhaps in- capable of the originality and strength requisite for the sublime. The female pencil has never yet limned the immortal forms of beauty." She adds this pithy truth, entirely opposed to woman's claims for political power : " "Women are illustrious in history, not from , what they may have been in themselves, but in proportion to the mischief they have done or caused. The best female characters are precisely those of which History never heard, or disdains to speak." Groldsmith expresses the same truth, thus : " The modest virgin, the prudent wife, or the careful matron, are much more serviceable in life, than petticoated philosophers, blustering heroines, or virago queens." Distinguished literary men and women completely agree as to woman's true position. Mrs. Gore personifies " Female Domination " in Mrs. Armytage, graphically describes the mischievous consequences of a woman grasping at inordinate power, and frankly states her conviction that in a comparison of intellectual * La Bruyere : " Les Caracteres." Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 81 power " a first-rate woman would make only a third-rate man." The Baroness Burdett-Coutts is not only opposed to Woman Suffrage, but dis- approves of Women being on the School Board. At a meeting of the Dialectical Society, I stated this fact. It elicited this characteristic remark : " More shame for her ! " Thus, women forming a trade union, to obtain what they call their " political rights," would coerce other women to support their views, and freely impute unworthy personal motives to all conscientious opponents. Should Amazons ever get the upper hand, they would carry on " The Movement by a reign of terror." These " elegant extracts " sufficiently display the contrast between " Counterfeit, and Really Strong- Minded Women." Sexual Equality destroys Woman's Liberty ! The independent attitude of Amazons, their irrational claims, and insurrectionary doctrines are the outcome of concessions by the stronger to the weaker sex ; and could not exist but for the high state of civilisation and social structure reared on the practical acknowledgment of sexual non-equality. This flourishing state of affairs, the remarkable degree of liberty permitted women to ventilate imaginary grievances, and have real grievances removed, would be imperilled, destroyed, and rendered impossible by the Sexual Equality principle. Amazons do not perceive that all their declamations about Equality, and all demands based on that false 82 Woman Suffrage Wrong. hypothesis, tend to weaken the immense influence now wielded by womanly woman, solely through the pathetic appeal to man's better, higher nature, continually, silently, but most effectually made by her weakness. In some countries, men and women approach far nearer equality than in Europe and her colonies. Among American Aborigines, in Central Africa, and with savage and semi-barbarous races generally, mental, moral, and physical distinc- tions between the sexes are far less, than in highly- civilised nations. "Were the Sexual Equality doctrine true, it should conduce to the advancement, exalta- tion, rational liberty, and happiness of women. We should then find such countries exhibiting the glorious results of the nearest approach to the Sexual Equality axiom of Amazonian platforms ! Is it so ? The direct contrary is the fact. There, women are really in subjection and slavery. There exists neither gallantry, courtesy, nor pity to woman as " the weaker vessel." There, consequently, the Sexual Equality principle is carried out practically to the bitter end. Among savages, wives have most of the hard work to do, and are made to do it sub- missively and without a murmur. The youth signalises his arrival at manhood, by going home and beating his mother ; treating her exactly as he would another man. The bridegroom who stould omit to knock down, and forcibly carry away his intended ; the husband who should never correct his wife by casting a spear at her, would be expelled from respectable savage society, as dangerous Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 83 innovators on established usages. And the women are not merely patient, but appear quite reconciled to, and even gratified with these customary and striking marks of manhood and devotion. The North American squaw would utterly despise the chief — her husband — who should be guilty of such a breach of etiquette, as to touch with his little finger her burthen, or assist her to hoe her maize, instead of lying asleep in his wigwam, while she labours. Such are the customs where there is the nearest approach to Sexual Equality ; where they do not argue about, but act upon that pleasant hypothesis ! The negress is far nearer equality, in all respects, to her lazy lord, whom she implicitly obeys, than is the delicate European lady to the husband she has promised to obey, but whom she despotically rules ! Curious to learn if there was one strong-minded lady able to draw the logical conclusion that Sexual Equality, instead of adding to, must practically diminish woman's privileges ; I stated this interesting and conclusive fact at the Yictoria Discussion Society. The strong-minded ladies received it with laughter, as they receive every fact which does not suit their theory, or chime in with their preconceived opinions.* Are women competent to discern truth when it involves abandoning a favourite prejudice, and seeing two sides of a question ? It seems not : or Amazons would surely perceive that the immediate result of that Sexual Equality, they covet in words, must strip woman of the privileges she owes to man's protec- * Vietoria Magazine, July, 1871, p. 240. 84 Woman Suffrage Wrong. tion. "What Amazons actually want are man's, added to woman's privileges. A child of fourteen knows that such a condition is not Sexual Equality : that woman cannot be at once treated better than, and on an equality with, man. Amazons who cannot perceive this self-evident truth, prove themselves incapable of reasoning, and deceive themselves. Amazons who do perceive suchi an obvious truth, know that their whole agitation for the privileges of both sexes, rests on a deliberate and transparent subterfuge ! A determination, at all hazards, to uphold the Sexual Equality hypothesis, is not favour- able to the reception of truth. Amazonian advocates are less able to assimilate facts, and weigh evidence impartially, than womanly women, who have not injured their intuitive capacities to observe, per- ceive, and reflect, by futile attempts to demonstrate a contradictory hypothesis leading to a redudio ad absurdum. Amazons may laugh : they cannot deny the very significant and awkward fact, that precisely in countries whose inhabitants present the nearest approach to Sexual Equality, women are really subjected and enslaved ! While in Europe, and European Colonies, where mental and physical inequality of Sex is greatest, women enjoy most liberty ! Here is, indeed, a practical commentary on the text of Sexual Equality ! Had Mill's " Subjec- tion of Women " been written to display woman's condition among Negroes, Hottentots, American Indians, and Australian Aborigines, the title would Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 85 tave been perfectly appropriate. But as to civilised women in Europe and America, " Subjection " is far more nominal than real. Legitimate subordination tbere must ever be, until Amazons can either alto- gether abolish Sex, or cultivate woman's physical strength up to man's standard. When they bring sexual rivalry to a trial of strength, instantaneously the weakest will succumb ; as in those happy savage lands where the platform paradox is reduced from theory to practice ; to which, if they were con- sistent, Amazons would immediately emigrate ! Amazons by laughing, try to conceal the awkward fact that they are progressing backwards. Their merriment is somewhat forced. It is a logical deduction that woman's direct self-assertion tends to defeat its cherished object — liberty ; and so far from disarming man, challenges an appeal to physical force. In most cases of wife-beating, the husband has been provoked by his wife's taunting language. The soft answer turneth away wrath. The woman who so far forgets her sex, as to defy her husband, need not wonder if he so far forgets manhood, as to raise his hand against her ; i.e., treats her as he would a fellow-man who had insulted him ; and thus carries into practice the theory of Sexual Equality, giving woman exactly the same rights as those of man ! Woman's first duty is to curb that unruly member, the tongue. The increase of wife-beating in the humbler classes, and of quarrels, dissensions, and ill-usage of women generally, is directly due to those insurrectionary doctrines taught by Sexual Equality 86 Woman Suffrage Wrong. advocates, who think they beaefit, elevate, and educate women, by a theory long since reduced to practice in Central Africa ! This is the Movement for Women. Advanced views of " Shrieking Sisters " in Europe and America, have long been anticipated by the King of Dahome, and by savages generally I The late Mr. Hain Friswell observes : — " J. McGrigor Allan refers to our citation of his assertion that ' sexual equality ' is typical of savagery — a very acute remark, which, of course, got laughed at by the Victoria Discussion Society. ' Wher- ever women are men's slaves — say in the red tribes of America, New Zealand, Africa, Australian Aborigines — there is, and will be, a near approach to equality, and, indeed, a perfect mental equality.' [Yes ; men excelling only in bravery, brute force, agility and strength ; women in cunning, and cruelty. — Ed. ^. ff.] Of course, the strong-minded ladies received this scientific fact with shouts of laughter ; while transparent fallacies which flattered their pretensions, were greeted with applause." Mr. McGrigor Allan proceeds : " In my paper ' On the Real Differences in the Minds of Men and Women ' {Journal Anthropological Society, October, 1869) I went to the root of .the Woman Question. I submit that I there proved a radical, constitutional, funda- mental distinction in male and female minds, utterly independent of education. All my experience of woman's logical power, acquired from the Victoria and other Discussion Societies, thoroughly supports my conviction, that woman falls as far below man Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 87 in reasoning capacity, as she rises above him in the instinct of intuition. This latter specialty belongs only to women satisfied with being what Grod made them. Amazons grasping at the privileges of both sexes, do not acquire man's logical faculty, but in- variably weaken, paralyse, or lose that intuitive perception defined by Mill as ' a rapid and correct insight into present fact.' ' For woman is not underelopt man, But diverse.' The woman dreaming of Sexual Equality, and de- manding on that ground, man's rights added to her own, is essentially " muddled." Dr. Carl Yogt observes : ' The female type of skull approaches the infants' ; still more that of lower races ; and it is remarkable that the difference between the sexes, as regards cranial cavity, increases with develop- ment of race ; the male European much more excels the female, than the negro, the negress. It has long been observed that among peoples progressing in civilisation, men are in advance of women ; while among those retrograding, the contrary is the case. As in morals, woman conserves old customs and usages, traditions, legends, and religion ; so in the material world she preserves primitive forms, which slowly yield to civilisation's influences. It is easier to revolutionise a government, than to alter kitchen arrangements, though their absurdity has been abundantly proved. Woman preserves in the head formation, the earlier stage from which the race has 88 Woman Suffrage Wrong. developed, or into which it has relapsed. Hence is partly explained the fact that sexual inequality increases with progress of civilisation. To this add the circumstance that the lower the state of culture, the more similar are the occupations of the sexes. Among Australians, Bushmen, and other low races possessing no fixed habitations, the wife partakes in all her husband's toils, and has, in addition, the care of the progeny. The sphere of occupation is the same for both sexes : while among civilised nations, there is a division in physical and mental labour.' "* Our correspondent adds : " It is, indeed, curious to note how the most miserable savages have antici- pated the advanced views of our modern Women's Eights." The Editor concludes : " We hope thinking readers will give us credit for having wisely opposed a movement which all great women — Baroness Burdett-Ooutfcs, George Eliot, Miss Muloch, Mrs. S. C. Hall, etc. — shun and detest, and which, instead of elevating, would depress woman."t Thus practical Sexual Equality tends, not to elevate and free, but to subject and enslave woman. Amazons do not compliment, but insult their sex by assuming woman an inferior man, instead of his supplement, with qualities essentially distinct from his, but equally necessary to complete humanity. Savage man oppresses, subjects, enslaves woman. Oivihsed man is practically subdued by woman. The lord of creation abdicates natural supremacy * " Lectures on Man/' Lecture 3, pp. 81, 82. t Family Herald, 28th October, 1871. Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 89 and authority ; devotes his life to labouring every- day, and all day long, to minister, not merely to woman's wants, but her caprices ; to obtain for her, not only necessaries, but luxuries. The alleged tyrant (the stock subject of Amazonian platform declamation) is actually enslaved by womanly woman ; anticipates her every need or wish, and virtually illustrates M. Necker's usual reply to Marie Antoinette : " Madame, if it be possible, it is done ; if impossible, it shall be done." The so- called Master is effectually ruled by the so-called subject and slave. This, the outcome of centuries of civilisation in the most intelligent Christian nations, must be more or less accordant with natural distinctions and wishes of women generally, or it would not be established. This finely-poised balance of the scale, between manly strength and womanly weakness, intellect and tact, courage and beauty, Amazons are deliberately or blindly bent on destroying ; dreaming that under the battle-cry of Sexual Equality, they will be permitted to add all a man's, to all a woman's privileges ! This will not be the first revolution invoking anarchy, to end in despotism. England executed Charles, to fall under Cromwell's iron sway. France murdered Louis, to be enslaved by Napoleon. The Amazon scouts the idea of womanliness, chivalry, and protection. Men will take her at her word. She declares women can take care of themselves. She will be permitted to try, so far as she, her sect^ and their dupes are concerned. Woman proclaiming equality, demand- 90 Woman Suffrage Wrong. ing all man's rights, aiming at rivalship, or supre- macy, throwing down the gauntlet, and challenging her natural protector to a trial of strength, forfeits all the privileges and influence which she enjoyed and wielded by the very confession of her weakness : and as woman has neither man's bodily nor mental strength, she must become his slave, as she actually is in savage lands. Sexual Equality in Practice. The best way to illustrate the utter absurdity and impracticability of Sexual Equality, is to take the Amazonian assertor at her word. A female of this epicene gender, man-woman, entered a railway car in America and looked about for a seat, evidently expecting some chivalrous Yankee to vacate in her favour. At length she concentrated her gaze upon the nearest male offender — a sturdy Quaker — who remained immovable, although, like the Ancient Mariner, she held him with her glittering eye, and intimated as plainly as looks could testify, that she expected him to "resign his seat. Under these awful circumstances occurred this colloquy : — Quaker : " Be thou one of the Woman's Rights' Convention ? " Amazon {scornfully) : " Yea, verily ; I be." Quaker : " I concluded so from thine appearance. Wilt thou, then, be judged by the principles which thou dost profess ? " Amazon : " Of course ; but what is all this to the purpose ? " Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 91 QjUak&r : " Wax not impatient, friend. Thou proclaimest perfect equality between Man and Woman ? " Amazon : " I do." Quaher : " Thou thinkest, then, woman should be treated exactly like man, neither better nor worse ? " Amazon : " Certainly. I demand every privilege now usurped by man, as my natural right." Quaker : " Be it so, friend. I should not yield my seat to a man. Hadst thou elected to be treated like a woman, I should have surrendered my seat, out of respect to thy sex's weakness ; but as thou desirest to be treated exactly like a man, thou art at liberty to enjoy all a man's privileges, and mayest stand ! " Such was the Quaker's ungallant, but logical, and consistent reply. The man-woman grasping at man's privileges, forfeits at once the consideration due to her sex. Were all men to treat female assertions of Sexual Equality like this worthy Quaker, such practical lessons would bear* fruit. Sexual Equality, in theory, is as tasteless as the white of an egg. The Amazon declaims triumphantly, because she is not taken at her word ; not made to feel, personally and promptly, the utter falsehood of her pet childish theory, delivered like an Axiom in Euclid. Men who listen to her, do not treat her as an Equal; or they would unceremoniously refute, and expose her fallacious sophistry. She is permitted to stultify herself with impunity, treated indulgently. 92 Woman Suffrage Wrong. like a precocious and forward child, "whose revolt is considered more amusing than serious. And if the " sickening prate " were all, the bubble might be permitted to burst ; the windbag might be allowed to collapse, without being punctured. The danger and mischief lie in the effect of platform declamation on inexperienced, credulous, enthusiastic, young, and easily-duped persons of both sexes. Carried into practice. Sexual Equality strikes at the root of all chivalry, civility, common courtesy, deference, and respect from man to woman; abolishes at once and for ever, a multitude of indescribable acts of polite- ness now paid cheerfully, to which usage has so ac- customed women, that they receive them as a mere matter of course, as their undoubted due. The real value and importance of these prescriptive privileges can only be fully estimated, when suddenly discon- tinued; and their discontinuance is the logical, inevitable outcome of reducing to practice, Sexual Equality precepts. No man will pay to a virago, who defies him, the respect given cordially to a womanly woman. The latter attaches great importance to male courtesies which she rightly considers as the acknowledgment of man to womanly virtues. The Amazon savagely affects to deride the omission of courtesies which she has forfeited. It was not the fox's fault, that the grapes were beyond his reach. In calling them sour, he showed more philosophy than is exhibited by the man-woman, who tries to laugh at courtesies daily and hourly paid to other Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 93 women, and for which she secretly pines. Her disappointment may be measured by her bitter attacks on men who pay, and women who receive, politeness which she has lost through her own fault. " When male courtesy ceases to provoke gratitude or reciprocity, it ceases to perform its intended function. When attentions are extorted as a right, their flavour and spirit are gone. When two gaunt middle-aged women blockade the chairs of two inoffensive men, and number one drawls, ' I wonder how long we're to be kept standing,' and the other drawls, ' I don't know what's become of men's gallantry,' the immediate capitulation of the besieged is a tribute to female pertinacity, not to sentimental tenderness. Yet it was from tender- ness to woman's imputed helplessness, that the code of chivalry arose. Woman was supposed weak and powerless, and man's help was dictated by the precepts of Christianity and generosity. Had the earlier age known the institution of strong-minded, middle-aged females of strange attire, voluble tongue, and exacting demeanour, probably the code of chivalry might have been modified. How far modern theories of female education and woman's rights are compatible with this virtue, it is difficult to say. Gallantry was first instituted on behalf of forlorn creatures whose helplessness was one of their strongest charms, and who were as ignorant of ambition as of the alphabet. We do not say it will perish under the Grorgon gaze of learned females elbowing medical students in dissecting rooms, or 94 Woman Suffrage Wrong. of fast women aping the dissolute slang of fast men, but we state the case very mildly when we prophesy that this sexual rivalry will put chivalrous virtues to a very severe test indeed. The exacting woman, the hermaphroditish woman, and the fast woman have an equal contempt for true politeness on man's part, and for its inspiring sentiment."* Here is another illustration of Sexual Equality in practice. A well-known Woman Suffrage advocate said : " I treat my wife in all respects like my equal." Of course this gentleman never meant to state an untruth ; but very little reflection will show that he uttered a transparent fallacy. Treat his wife like an equal^ — say his fellow-man, indeed ! He treats her a great deal better. On the hypothesis of Equality, he would not protect her ; for no one offers protection to an equal. Suppose this gentleman walking with his wife : a ruffian shoves against, strikes, or other- wise insults her. The husband would either take the law into his own hands and punish the assailant ; or, at least, would protect and defend his wife from further insult or injury. This would not be treating her like an equal, but like what she is — a weaker being requiring man's protection. If under such circumstances, a husband folded his arms and said : " Now, Mary Anne, is the time to carry into practice, Amazonian Sexual Equality principles. You have often proclaimed yourself my equal, when wishing to share in some amusement, pleasure, or benefit, which I thought an exclusive male privilege. * Saturday Review, 23 March, 1876. Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 95 It is only fair that you should stick to your colours, and show yourself my equal, when danger is incurred. I shall not insult you by offering protection to my equal. There is only one man — your equal. Fight it out, and may the best man win. I shall not interfere, except as backer and bottle-holder. Guard your bosom well ! " This would be treating a wife hke an equal ! Of course, ladies who cheered the utterance, "I treat my wife as my equal," would be the first to call him who did not defend his wife, an unmanly cur. Equally, of course, they would deny that in so doing, they refute their grand Sexual Equality principle, and bid farewell to logic, and consistency ! Amazons must either approve the non-defending husband, or abandon Sexual Equality. You might as well expect a lay figure of the fashions, to abandon her dress-improver until M. Worth, of Paris, or some other autocrat, orders her to go into another uniform ! Sexual Equality is reduced to practice, when a husband not only neglects to protect his wife from insult, but beats her himself; i.e., settles domestic quarrels, as he would a squabble with another man ! The finest illustrations of Sexual Equality are found among savages abroad, and at home. Why blame a man for beating his equal ! If woman really be man's equal, how can she claim protection from him ? Why should he fight for his equal ? Let her protect herself. If she be his rival, demanding a fair field and no favour; de- termined, if she can, to beat man in the race for power, pelf, or daily bread ; why should man stand 96 Woman Suffrage Wrong. aside and let himself, wife, and family, starve, that JVIiss Amazon may walk over the course, or win in a canter, in a sham competition ? Woman must decide to be one thing or the other. She cannot claim at once protection and equality. One or other must go. Sexual Equality declamations prove the term " strong-minded " totally misapplied. Evidently Miss Amazon, under the war cry Sexual Equality, really wants empire for herself and sect ; if not for the sex. She covets male, added to female privi- leges ; man's liberty, added to woman's non- responsibility, an impossibility ; the male citizen's rights, without his duties ; man's advantages, without surrendering her own. While this modest, logical, and consistent woman, declares herself man's political and social equal, and demands the suffrage as a right ; she resents as un gentlemanly, unmanly, cowardly, him who, taking her at her word, ac- cording to her professed self-valuation, should treat her unceremoniously, exactly like bis fellow-man. The Sexual Equality declaimer, demanding all manly privileges, stickles for all courtesies and amenities paid by the stronger to the weaker sex, depending solely on evident admitted Sexual non-equality; thus, in the same breath, advocating Equality, and non- equality ! Hear Miss Amazon declaim : She seems to think neither of sect nor self, but only of her sex. Yet she thinks of sect more than sex, of self more than sect or sex. When anything is to be gained, the so-called Woman's friend advocates stern, un- Sexual Equality and Subjection of Woman. 97 compromising Sexual Equality : " I am man's equal ; no sex in mind. Inferior in muscle, perhaps, but equal in intellect, far superior in morality — a plat- form saint ! " with a very shrill voice, and self- esteem strongly developed ! But when there is hard, manly work to be done, danger to be faced, severe physical or mental toil to be endured, responsibility to be incurred, or, in short, any distasteful duty ; then Miss Amazon changes her coat, and note, thus : " Remember that though strong-minded and massive, I am still a fragile woman, weaker than the male ruffian — only physically weaker, mind ! I claim all privileges due to my sex's superior delicacy. Don't seriously ask me to unsex myself, to forget I am a lady, to undertake hard, dirty, dangerous work. If you were a gentleman, you would not throw Sexual Equality in my teeth. I use that phrase in an Amazonian sense. Sir, you have neither courtesy, chivalry, gallantry, nor manhood ! " The Amazon shirks man's unpleasant, dangerous, disagreeable duties, under the plea that she should not be expected to perform them, although she claims to be a full citizen as to emoluments ! Chameleon-like, she changes her colours ; satyr-like, she blows hot and cold, and is at once Man's Equal, inferior, and superior ! But through all her changes, she never loses sight of the main chance, and Number One ! She entrenches herself in all the feminine outworks of propriety, civility, attention, courtesy, deference, and those still more solid exactions ex- pected by the sex in right of its weakness, H 98 Woman Suffrage Wrong. established by custom, usage, and law, on the natural basis of non-equality ; cheerfully bestowed by all gentle and manly men, and graciously received by all gentle and womanly women. Eousseau settles Sexual Equality pretensions thus : " Decide to educate women like men; the latter will cordially assent. The more closely woman resembles man, the less will she govern him. Then, indeed, men will really become the masters." The masculine, man-like woman, the virago, is always without influence (except over poor hen-pecked creatures), inspires repulsion in, and excites antagonism from, manly men. Words cannot paint or exaggerate the moral power wielded by gentle womanly woman. Such is the normal type of womanhood, not ashamed of submission to her natural head, celebrated by poets and painters, beloved, sought after, almost worshipped by manly men ! Amazons habitually aiming at making woman a kind of monster, totally repugnant to man's ideal, are foolishly contending against Nature. CHAPTER VI. FALLACY OF CLAIMS BASED ON SEXUAL EQUALITY. " For woman is not undevelopt man, Bat diverse." Tennyson : " The Pirincess." Were male and female minds not radically different, one sex would find no diflBculty in understanding the other. It is much easier to understand one of our own, than one of the other sex. Hoffman obse??ves : — " Un homme jamais ne connait une femme " — Woman is an enigma to man, and the converse is also true. " Woman's a riddle : find it out,'' wrote Anne of Swansea. A very high order of literary genius is required to depict successfully characters of the other sex. Acute critics soon detect, by the disproportionate finish of male and female characters, the author's sex. lb is exceed- ingly difficult to describe, from within, characters of the sex to which the author does not belong. Authoresses generally fail in describing men's conversation among themselves. Male authors have the same difficulty as regards women, nor do they revel (like ladies) in describing female costume ! 100 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Men have certainly succeeded better in delineating women, than women in delineating men. We cannot even conceive a woman looking into a man's mind, as Shakspere, Milton, Byron, Tennyson, and other great poets have scanned the female heart. Lady novelists muster strongly ; but no lady novelist has given us studies of men comparable with those of female character by Sir Walter Scott, Richardson, Fielding, or Balzac, of whom Groethe said that each of his best novels seemed dug out of a suffering woman's heart. Were a novelist utterly to disregard the influence of Sex on mind, character, conduct, and represent his female personages, thinking, feeling, talking, acting exactly like men, the novel — whether the result of ignorance or bad taste — would be condemned as intolerable. All readers with the slightest knowledge of life and manners, would revolt against the outrageous error of burlesquing human nature by thus confounding the sexes. Yet Sexual Equality advocates desire to reduce to practice in real life, what is insufferable in a work professing to depict male and female character. Such reformers think sex a trivial, artificial distinction ; denying natural, original, eternal differences in mental constitution, and attributing all intellectual divergence and inequality between the sexes, to — Education ! Suppose a zealous Sexual Equality advocate said : " Woman is naturally as big and as strong as man." No sensible woman would believe him ; she would see it was not so : the cases of women excelling men in Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 101 size and strength being exceptions proving the rule, that woman is smaller and weaker than man. But the S* E. A. might reply: " You jump to a wrong con- clusion by comparing the sexes as they now exist. True ; advantages of size and strength are generally on man's side at present, though there are many exceptions ; but were there none, you wrongly infer that such differences are natural, and have always existed. They are nothing more than results of dis- abilities in dress, physical training, and restraints imposed on women by centuries of male tyranny. Turn over a new leaf, dress and train boys and girls together, and exactly alike; give men and women the same gymnastic exercises, and equal day's labour; and you will soon see that Nature will recover her rights. All artificial distinctions of size, bulk, shape, strength, carriage, beard, features, complexion, skull, brain, voice, grace, manner, etc., will gradually disappear. Woman will be man's equal in all respects." A sensible woman would laugh heartily at this doctrine of primitive physical Sexual Equality, per- haps not aware that a similar scheme of physical education was seriously suggested by Plato ; though, as if to checkmate Amazons of the period, the Greek philosopher declared woman in every respect weaker than man I Sexual Equality is quite a modern invention. Speaking for her sex, the sensible woman might say : " Woman can never become as big and as strong as man. Distinctions of size and strength are inseparable from sex. Nor would we, 102 Woman Suffrage Wrong. if we could, become a kind of inferior, undeveloped man; because, in that case, we should lose our beauty, grace, and all feminine influence over the other sex, obtained alone by the charm of our weak- ness. And what should we gain by proclaiming sham Sexual Equality ? The right to rival man, not merely in light and remunerative occupations, where there is little to do and plenty to get, but also in hard physical toil, as soldiers, sailors, marines, militia, volunteers, police, special constables, coast- guards, fire-women, plough-women, navvies, farm- labourers, etc. ; in short, attempt all those difficult and dangerous employments which men now do for us. For it is easily seen that our so-called masters really toil for us.* Sexual Equality involves the immediate sacrifice of woman's dearest privilege, the abandonment of all claim to man's protection. Besides, we see clearly that we are made on a pattern very different from that of the rougher sex. Man is made for strength ; to work for, support, and pro- tect woman. She is made for beauty and grace ; to please, comfort, solace, and assist man; to be his help-meet, his best friend, which rivalry always hinders man being to man. We think the female quite as excellent as the male type. Amazons insult us by holding up for our imitation, either in shape or conduct, a male model ! " What you say about dress, is all nonsense. Dress is plainly the consequence, not the cause, of sexual diversity in form. Woman differs from man, * See " The Lady's Answer to the Knight," Butler's "Hudibras." Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 103 in shape, not because she has dressed differently for thousands of years ; but it is on account of this original and eternal difference in shape, that she has dressed differently in all civilised nations. And among savages dispensing with costume, and where there is the nearest approach to mental Sexual Equality, the physical types of man and woman are quite distinct. Public opinion endorses the law prescribing a distinct costume for each, and administered with impartial severity towards all offenders who infringe a regulation so essential to morality and decorum. And women cannot insult and degrade their sex more, than by wearing male costume. True; men-milliners decree female fashions in dress, and male hair-dressers dictate to woman how she shall wear her own, and other persons' hair. But this is woman's own fault. The " Subjection of Women " in these and other fashionable particulars, cannot be attributed to man's tyranny supported by physical force and legal enactments. Men in general would only be too glad to rescue women from their blind obedience to Fashion. Crinoline had its day, and it is said caused the death of 40,000 persons from fires and other accidents. Fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, lovers protested in vain. Yet men did not legislate against crinoline ; leaving woman perfectly free to wear a dangerous, immodest costume. The fashion reigned ten years, and the sex declared by Amazons to be enslaved, and to be man's mental equal, and moral superior, clung to it, as if from spite and perversity, and did 104 Woman Suffrage Wrong. not abaDdon it one day the sooner, because it was fatal to the lives of others beside its wearers. These facts are conclusive against Sexual Equality, and Woman's Subjection ; although they prove that Woman must remain under Man's control, because incapable of independent thought and self-guidance, to an equal extent with him. We are perfectly satisfied with the general division of labour, duties, and privileges between the sexes, knowing that man desires to remove all real grievances which admit a remedy from legislation. We accept man's supremacy and leadership established by Nature, consecrated by Religion, along with his love, pro- tection, esteem, and reverence. We will not attempt to supersede, rival, or oppose man ; because we see that the women who do attempt such things, come to grief, are ignominious failures, and — so far as they represent us — bring our sex into contempt : they lose all the engaging qualities of woman, with- out acquiring the strength, profundity, and majesty of man. We prefer to look up to men, rather than to men-women. Thanks for your good intentions. Womanly qualities cannot be properly developed, without a womanly education. We, therefore, prefer to remain as God made us — Women." To say : woman would have a male mind if she trained for one, is quite as absurd as to say : she could develop masculine bodily strength. Mental Sexual Equality Advocates may be surprised to learn it is a great deal more absurd. Women who excel men in physical strength, are far more numerous Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 106 than women who excel or equal men in mental vigour. For one really strong-minded woman, there are 600 strong-bodied women. The argument founded on exceptions, is far more favourable to physical, than to mental equality. The normal woman is essentially womanly, and cannot be mas- culine in body or mind. Mental Sexual Equality is flatly contradicted by every-day experience, history, tradition, anatomy, and physiology. Man's mental supremacy is an accomplished fact. Sexual Equality Advocates admit it as the basis of their argument for a revolution. " True," say they, " man has this mental advantage, but it is usurped. Woman has every intellectual faculty of man, innate, unde- veloped, dormant. Educate her like man, and she will become his mental equal." Strange that this discovery should be made so late ! To tell women towards the close of the nineteenth century, that they have all unconsciously male minds, may elicit the inquiring chorus, ' ' Why did you not say so before?" This Sexual Equality hypothesis is as uncomplimentary as untrue. Its advocates assume woman undeveloped, because not displaying man's mental qualities. By what logic do they demand from woman, man's mental, more than his physical power ? Woman is no more undeveloped because she lacks man's close reasoning faculty, than man is undeveloped because he lacks woman's tenderness, and cannot nurse a baby. It is woman's pride, charm, glory, to differ decidedly, mentally, and bodily, from man. Moreover, we shall see that it is utterly 106 Woman Suffrage Wrong. impossible to explain how this primitive Sexual Equality, if ever possessed, was ever lost by woman. Rousseau observes : " Emilius is man ; Sophia is woman. There is their whole glory. In the exist- ing confusion of sexes, it is almost a prodigy to belong to one's own." Lord Shaftesbury writes : " The sexes have now little other distiuction than that of person and dress. One has advanced into boldness, the other has sunk into effeminacy." Yet when this was written, women made no demand for political privileges. They had not then discovered an abstract right to legislate for the country which they are not called on to defend ! Intellectual Distinctions. Old-fashioned grammarians ungallantly defined the masculine, as the more worthy gender. This has raised a counter assertion on woman's part. More correctly, they set themselves to reverse it with a vengeance. Some American ladies go far beyond equality, and ascribe woman's alleged superiority to " the greater complexity of her physi- cal organisation." Curious specimen of Trans- atlantic female logic ; chaste, elegant, lucid, and not at all pedantic ! The argument that because the mother's share in developing the child, is so much greater than the father's, therefore woman is man's superior, is certainly a most curious specimen, even of female reasoning. Unfortunately for the hypo- thesis, the inference drawn is the direct contrary of what is really deducible from the premisses. Pre- Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 107 cisely on account of this important difference ia sexual organisation, devolving on the female parent the maternal functions — gestation, parturition, lacta- tion, and the child's earliest education — woman has always occupied, and must ever occupy, a position subordinate to man's, in thought and action. Bat if (as they say) man is "played-out," and must " cave-in " before woman, his superior, then this American hypothesis at once abandons the British Sisterhood's position of Sexual Equality. Here are three distinct views : Woman inferior to ; woman equal to ; woman superior to man. All are wrong. " Nay," urge Sexual Equality Advocates, " woman, neither superior nor inferior, must be man's equal." No ; that does not follow. The fallacy is the futile attempt to compare man and woman. They offer no common standard of measurement, and therefore no ground of comparison. We might as well com- pare animals of different species, or one colour with another. The primitive colours, red, yellow, blue, constitute solar light. We cannot conjpare them, or call one colour superior to another. It is not strictly correct to say man is superior to woman in size, bulk, strength, intellect, and courage ; for it is no mark of absolute inferiority in woman to be shorter, smaller, weaker, less intellectual, less courageous than man. In short, though there is no sexual equality, one sex is neither absolutely inferior, nor superior to the other. It does not, then, imply non-development or inferiority, that woman's mind exquisitely corres- 108 Woman Suffrage Wrong. ponds with her body, and consequently differs aboriginally, and intrinsically, from man's mind. I say it axiomatically : There must be natural, radical, primitive, and permanent distinctions in mental and moral conformation of male and humanity, corres- ponding with those in physical sexual organisation. All experience, tradition, history, observation con- firm the facts that men and women do so differ. Anatomists, physiologists, students of history and man-science, physiognomists, artists, observers of human nature, in all climates, under all circum- stances, and in all states of society, conclude sexual influence on mind as natural, ordained, inevitable, and independent of education ; as sexual influence in producing physical inequalities of size, strength, bulk, shape, etc. Relatively to sphere and functions, woman is quite as excellent as man, in reference to his province. To call one sex absolutely superior to the other, is philosophically false, and even impious, as it implies that Omnipotence and Omniscience are not equally discernible in each sex ! Man and woman constitute the human species. Bach sex, in developing its special qualities, characteristics, func- tions, and faculties, accomplishes the designs of Providence. By being psychically distinct, by think- ing and acting differently, man and woman approach more nearly to perfection — so far as that is attainable here — than they could, by resembling one another, and confounding their respective distinctions. A perfect man and a perfect woman do not exist ; but a high type of manhood and a high type of woman- Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 109 hood never did, and never will assimilate in mind or body. They may marry, and be in all respects mated and congenial ; but this will never result from the husband becoming effeminate, or the wife mas- culine. The very terms manly and womanly types, preclude any such metamorphosis. A masculine woman and an effeminate man are the worst possible types of their respective sexes. One cannot be the echo or counterpart of the other. There will be neither similitude nor equality. They must repre- sent respectively distinct human ideals. They will differ psychologically to the philosopher's mental eye, as decidedly as they differ physically to the material vision of physiognomist and artist. This view is far more complimentary to woman, than to imagine her an undeveloped being merging her womanhood in vain attempts to copy man ! But Sexual Equality is the basis of Woman Suffrage, and other claims to be developed there- from ! According to this hypothesis, Sex does not naturally influence mind. There is a quasi-condi- tional mental equality. Woman might, could, would, or should have a male mind, if she were only edu- cated like man ! Then the converse must be true — if not, why not ? Man would have a feminine mind, if educated like woman. The man-woman apes man. The celebrated voluptuary, Mademoiselle de I'Enclos, observes : " J'ai vu que les hommes ne s'etoient point du tout maltrait^s dans la distribution des roles, et je me suis faite homme." But with all her mental cultivation and personal charms, this remark- 110 Woman Suffrage Wrong. able woman must ever be a warning to her sex.* Eousseau observes : " Aussi Mademoiselle de 1' Bnclos a-t-elle passe pour un prodige. Dans le mepris des virtus de son sexe, elle avait, dit-on, conserve celles du notre. Enfin on dit qu'elle s'^toit faite homme : h. la bonne heure. Mais avec toute sa haute reputa- tion, je n'aurais pas plus voulu de cet homme-la pour mon ami, que pour ma maitresse." Dider6t observes : " There are masculine women, and femi- nine men; and I confess I would never make a friend of a masculine woman " (homme-femme). Claims based on Sexual Equality require that woman should cease to be womanly ; that all mental and moral sexual distinctions should be attributed, not to nature, but to art. At all hazards, the Amazon must maintain her darling theory of primitive Sexual Equality. The alleged grievance that woman has become artificially inferior to man by male oppres- sion, the demand for Woman Suffrage, and other claims for man's rights, are founded on the platform dogma that Woman is as good as man — and a great deal better, too ! British advocates hold the first ; American advocates the latter view. Platform ladies should decide which theory will make the best hustings cry. The Coming Woman! Sexual Equality Advocates hold woman, not an integral part of humanity, not a being designedly * Her own natural son fell in love with her, not knowing her to be his mother. When compelled to communicate to him the fact Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. Ill differing from man, mentally and bodily ; but a degenerate being, a mentally-undeveloped man, who must, by some means or other, be remodelled according to the manly standard. To maintain this extraordinary position. Sexual Equality Advocates are obliged to begin by deliberately insulting their sex. They say to woman : " How is this ? You might have a man's mind; you ought to have a man's mind; and yet you have not got a man's mind." Then they roundly abuse the majority of their sex, for being as God made them — womanly in mind, sentiments, tastes, inclinations, as well as in body. This is no imaginary statement. According to Mr. Charles Reade, " the Coming Man will be an ugly customer, who will go in with his left." On the Sexual Equality programme, the Coming Woman will be a far more formidable personage. Fore- warned is forearmed. The poor lord of the creation, learning what he has to expect, will know that he is "played-out," and will probably " cave-in, right away." An article, " Our Censors and Satirists," evidently written by a lady, contains this stupendous passage : " Women have a long lee- way to make up. The treatment of centuries, by themselves, and others, has left its brand upon them in the distor- tion, if not arrest, of their development, in the transmission of defect from mother to daughter, through forced habits and false ideas, such as would of his birth, the unhappy young man rushed into the garden, and fell upon his sword ! — See the anecdote related in The World, Vol. i., No. 28. 112 Woman Suffrage Wrong. almost appear to demand a recombination of their elements, to eng,ble them to make use of the endow- ments they now possess, and unfold those which still lie dormant."* There ! Does not that take readers' breath away ? I have heard, and read, much non- sense about Sexual Equality, etc., but nothing so utterly absurd as this. Nonsense feebly expresses its inanity. It is a fine specimen of " gallimathias double" of that double-distilled nonsense, unintelli- gible to reader and author, like the Scottish definition of metaphysics : " When the person wha is spoken to, dinna ken what the person wha speaks, means, and when the person wha speaks, dinna ken what he means himsel — yen's metapheesics." Old-fashioned amateur painters used to write under their attempts, the names of the animals respectively caricatured. The lady writer should, at least in a note, have given readers some clue to the ghost of idea so effectually smothered in words. If the sentence means anything, it is that all women must be taken to pieces — not vivisected, or cut up a la Wainwright, but metaphorically dis- jointed, and re-combined ; put together again after a totally different fashion, before they can use their dormant faculties. One thing is quite clear. This lady reformer has the most artless, undisguised, profound contempt for her own sex. She tells us plainly with charming candour, " a woman's thoughts about women." She thinks them all — Amazons excepted — absolute failures, " ne'er-do- * Victoria Magazine, May, 1870. Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 113 weels," good for nothing, until, not merely reformed, but revolutionised, completely rehabilitated. She libels — under pretence of defending women. She lifts up her heel against her own familiar friends. A pretty defence ! Lady readers may well say : " Save us from our friends." No male censor or satirist — foolishly undervaluing woman, because she " cannot reason and pokes the fire from the top," — ever said, or wrote anything so unnecessarily severe, so ridiculously unjust, so absolutely untrue, as this friendly criticism by some Mrs. Candour who volunteers to defend her sex ! Juvenal satirised women of corrupt pagan civilisation. This anony- mous lady censor condemns Christian women. The fallacy of this wholesale depreciation of women, by one of themselves, evidently results from accepting the erroneous premiss of an original mental sexual equality. If we could admit that man and woman once possessed equal mental capacity, and if this mental equilibrium be the normal condition of male and female humanity ; then undoubtedly it would be a correct inference that existing women are deficient in mental power, degenerate, and very far from what Nature meant them to be. This Ama- zonian hypothesis of a primitive sexual intellectual equality — how first lost we are not told — must be defended coute qui coute. This lady libels her sex in the most cavalier manner. It curiously illustrates this new " Movement for Women," that a believer in original Sexual Equality, is compelled to estimate existing female intelligence 114 Woman Suffrage Wrong. at a much lower rate, than advocates of Sexual non- equality ! Our lady reformer sees her sex through the discolouring medium of her hypothesis. I cannot discover these blemishes. I repudiate this caricature of women. Measured by a female standard, they seem no more deficient propor- tionately than men. " Miss Amazon, your blue spectacles deceive you : lay them aside." " A truce to impertinence, sir ; I wear no spectacles." " Abandon your hypothesis. This alleged sexual equality and independence never did, never can exist. This mental divergence between man and woman (denounced by you as artificial and in- jurious) is natural, beneficial, and irremovable. The women you calumniate are quite worthy of the men." ""What would I be without my hoop ? " said the fashionable lady 160 years ago. Amazons are nothing without their hypothesis. On this rests "Woman Suffrage, the whole "Woman's Eights' edifice. The female logician begs the question. To contra- dict her is rude. Accept her premisses ; you arrive at her conclusion. Deny her premisses : she fiercely denounces you, as the enemy of her sex. This is her way of showing that she has a strong mind, and can reason as correctly as a man ! One more effort to convince her sex's defender, that she may be mistaken in her wholesale depre- ciation of women : " You perceive, madam, or made- moiselle, that the great majority of men admire, love, court, marry, respect, protect, cherish, vene- rate — even worship these so-called weak-minded. Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 115 stunted, undeveloped, ignorant women; and dis- regard, laugh at, detest that small minority of rectangular ladies which you represent — " " The great majority of men are fools," interrupts Miss Amazon. "Well, you admit the fact. Perhaps, the strong-minded sisters are now undergoing that singular process ' a recombination of their elements,' whatever that means. Your class or sect is in a transition state. Hence the haggard looks of Amazons struggling for the qualities and rights of both sexes. Women you call weak- minded, we men call womanly. They indirectly rule mankind. We willingly acknowledge their in- fluence. The so-called strong-minded, or man-like, or man- woman, or virago, is without appreciable influence. Men loathe her. A woman's control over man, diminishes in direct ratio as she resembles him. The only exception to this rule, is that of a poor miserable hen-pecked mortal, as poor a specimen of manhood, as a virago is of womanhood. You unconsciously weaken, instead of strengthening your sex's influence." " Enough," shrieks Miss Amazon; "we are not appreciated, because you men, things in trousers, are very little, if at all, wiser than the dolls, ball-room women, or poor tame domestic drudges, whom you flatter, deceive, cajole, inveigle, oppress, enslave, subject in marriage, and " " Love I But if there be no such difference in male and female minds, you utterly abandon your theory of an enormous gulf between the two. You refute your own assertion that women have a 116 Woman Suffrage Wrong. long lee-way to make up. You eat your own words. You illustrate woman's logical inferiority. The difference actually existing between male and female minds, I call natwral; you artificial! Whatever the cause, men prefer womanly, to manly, women ; ball-room and domestic, to platform and wild women." Does Miss Amazon include self and sisterhood, among the poor, stunted, dwarfed, distorted, arrested, undeveloped women? If not, why not? How does the small compact, rectangular Amazonian phalanx escape the alleged universal degeneracy of women ? The treatment of centuries must have branded them as well as others. This lady wield- ing an untried two-edged weapon, logic, hurts her- self far more than her opponents. Her argument proves nothing, or too much. Either all women are not poor artificial, distorted, weak creatures, or if such, then censor and censured are all in the same boat. " Mais que diable allait elle faire dans cette galore?" Have the shrieking Sisterhood not escaped the degeneracy of centuries ? Then they ai'e no exceptions to the rule. They also are victims of forced habits and false ideas. How dare they then assume ridiculous airs of superior wisdom, lecture other women (to say nothing of statesmen), their equals or superiors, and conclude themselves infallible ? Amazons must say, or think, they have made up their own lee-way, recombined their own elements, developed their own dormant faculties, etc. Then, other women may be equally, or more Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 117 fortunate. Women who retain female accomplish- ments, refuse to rave on platforms on subjects they ought not to understand, and differing totally from the man-woman's type of womanhood, are not necessarily inferior beings. Amazons may select either horn of the dilemma. ,If they have not made up their own lee-way, their abstract denunciations of the sex include themselves. Anyway, they are not fit to be reformers, and to teach dogmatically their " fads " of female regeneration. I, believing in Sexual wow-equality, protest against this monstrous caricature of women, by a Sexual Equality lady advocate. Women are not distorted, arrested, undeveloped beings ; do not demand " a recombination of their elements," whatever that may mean. Beautiful maidens, the life of house- holds, comely matrons, helps-meet for worthy husbands, their heart's deepest rest, pride, solace, joy ; fond mothers, earthly providence of children, venerable dowagers, and grandmothers ; charming elderly ladies, whose years have but matured the soul's beauty ; these, and other womanly types are not physically, mentally, or morally undeveloped ! Let women repudiate this libel on them, by a woman who proves her utter inability to understand her sex which she so singularly professes to defend. Woman, " the weaker vessel," is no more perfect than man. But from the original womanly standard, she has departed less than man, from the primitive manly type. It is high time to denounce in plain words, this pitiful pretentious platform cant which shame- 118 Woman Suffrage Wrong. lessly dares to advocate a male pattern for woman, and to stigmatise her as weak-minded because she is womanly. The man-woman scolds her sex, and looks down on them literally from her own platform. Why ? Because women — thank heaven ! are un- like her — the brazen new type of Emancipated Amazonian Woman, a nondescript, neither male, nor female ; because they will not revolt under her, but persistently remain in their normal sphere, refuse to agitate for the rights of both sexes, and are too utterly indifferent to politics, to petition for, or against Woman Suffrage. See the result of casting away all lessons of ex- perience, and judging actual women by a purely fanciful standard. The Coming Woman, the fault- less monster, will to all the privileges — unite all the qualities of both sexes ! She will lecture, write dictionaries, will compose masterpieces on history, poetry, painting, music, the drama ; and while regu- lating national affairs, be a model of grace, beauty, and motherhood ! The platform Amazon flatters herself, and bodies forth, an air-drawn woman of the future, by disparaging women of the present. The censor of her sex declares : Woman has been once, and will be again man's equal, or superior. Meantime she is undeveloped, because she falls below the male type, and does not adopt man as her model. This phantom woman, in nuhtbus, is not altogether an imaginary portrait, but evidently a reflex of the platform Amazon herself. Her own idol, she complacently poses as Wordsworth's Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 119 " perfect woman nobly plann'd ! " She is certainly not the poet's ideal of " a phantom of delight." She is indignant that men and women will not worship, but rather ridicule the brazen image.' Miss Amazon is persuaded that she is a sample of The Coming Woman. She is the faultless fugleman. Undeveloped, i.e., all women — Amazons excepted — have only to obey the word of command : " Eyes right, and copy Miss Amazon." Blinded by this blazing self-worship, she sees nothing to praise, but everything to blame in all worthy women unlike herself. These she denounces en masse, as un- developed, weak-minded, purposeless beings, utterly worthless and past improvement, until revolu- tionised, and " recombined " on the platform per- fection pattern. Gratifying intelligence, as the chimerical process of " re-combination " is obviously ridiculous and impossible. Amazons soundly abused Mr. Bouverie for having, in the heat of debate, called celibate women " failures." The lady-censor, calmly composing, applies a much more .offensive term to all women. Asked which he preferred — man as he is, or man as he is to be. Lamb said : " Man as he is not to be ! If the Coming Woman is to model herself on the Amazonian platform pattern, I infinitely prefer woman as she is not to be." Accept for argument's sake, the cool assertion that all women — with or without Amazons — are but one remove from imbeciles. That is the polite, logical, and charitable conclusion of the lady defender 120 Woman Suffrage Wrong. of her sex against censors and satirists ! I ask this female Juvenal, how woman in this deplorable semi- idiotic state, can be fit for political power, social enfranchisement, professional life, independence, and all the responsibilities involved in Sexual Equality, when the platform seed has germinated, and pro- duced revolution ? Women, as she describes them, are utterly unfit for their present freedom — far less competent to rival men in political and professional life ! I further ask this believer in Sexual Bquahty, how woman, if once man's equal, could possibly sink to such abject inferiority as they are credited with by their pretended champion ? To enfranchise such wretched failures would be more mischievous than letting lunatics vote. Amazons taunt woman- suffrage opponents with classing women among felons, idiots, and infants. The charge is glaringly false, preferred against decent people who would protect women from .the contamination of mixing in a contested election. But were it true, complaint of depreciating women, comes with bad grace from one who entertains such a contemptuous opinion of her sex, that she ranks women as hopeless failures, requiring a miracle to develop their latent faculties ! If she were right, to give women votes, is quite out of the question. The lady logician kills three birds with one stone. 1. She writes the most utterly nonsensical sentence that Women's Rights litera- ture has produced. 2. She insults her whole sex. 3. She urges the strongest, most conclusive prac- tical argument against Woman Suffrage and Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. 121 female emancipation. Curious to find these three- fold attestations in The Victoria Magazine I An Amazon unconsciously turns the Movement for "Women into ridicule ! A Sexual Equality Advocate exhibits the fallacy of claims based on Sexual Equality ! A defender of her sex against Censors and Satirists looks down with withering contempt on women ! The Amazon is not the only reformer who despises the class whom she affects to pity, and, puffed up with vanity, praises herself in — The Coming Woman ! CHAPTER VII. MAURIAGE AND MATEENITT verSUS WOMAN SUFFEAGE. " In the normal condition of things, woman's mission is not merely to bring forth, and suckle children, but to attend to their early education ; while the father provides for the family's subsist- ence. Everything that affects this normal order, necessarily induces a perturbance in the evolution of races." Broca on " Anthropology." Neaelt two centuries ago, a lady, criticising the insurrectionary women of lier day, wrote thus: — " If some women think they have outgrown that novice state the Apostle supposes, and want no teaching, I believe they want the very first principle which should set them to learn, viz., knowledge of their own ignorance ; a science which so grows with study and consideration that Socrates, after a long life spent in pursuit of wisdom, gave this as the sum of his learning : ' This only I know, that I know nothing.' This proficiency seems much want- ing to our female Talkers, who in this seem to con- fute the common maxim, and give what they have not, by making their ignorance visible to others, though it be undiscernible to themselves; and to Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 123 such we may apply Zeno's sarcasm to a talkative youth : ' Their ears are fallen into their tongue.' Such a degenerous age do we now live in, that everything seems inverted, even sexes ; whilst men fall to the effeminacy and niceness of women, and women take up the confidence and boldness of men." * In all ages, ambitious women have spurned the control of Religion, Law, and Custom. Seeking latitude for themselves, they have demanded it for the sex which they misrepresent, while modestly con- stituting themselves its representatives. The fact that such women continually incite their sex to an unsuccessful revolt against man's so-called tyranny, is a strong practical evidence for man's natural supremacy. The natural eternal subordination of woman to man, is fully exemplified in her exaggerated artless admiration of the masculine attestations of sovereignty — strength, courage, intellect. To the magical influence of the latter quality, women are more abjectly subject than men. Woman has ever been, is now, and ever will be, under man's guar- dianship. Mentally, woman stands towards man in the relation of child to adult. She receives his dogmatic teaching on every point — political, social, religious, moral, and in the actual conduct of life. Even our Amazons are led by men. Our fashion- able women go in, and out of uniform, at the command of a man — ^M. Worth of Paris. One might * " The Ladies' Calling," by the Author of " The whole Duty of Man," generally attributed to Lady Dorothy Packington. 124 Woman Suffrage Wrong. have thought that' in the making and arrangement of her Dress (Eve's fig-leaf) woman might have dis- pensed with man — but it is not so ! She is as incapable of discovering principles for herself, as of inventing logarithms, a 'moral system, or writing books like Newton's " Principia," Locke's " Essay- on the Understanding," or Darwin's " Origin of Species." In the highest human mental quality, where man approaches nearest Deity — Justice, women are notoriously, lamentably, palpably defi- cient. Most of them know not what it means : and never practise it. Women make the warmest friends, the deadliest enemies; but the slow and cautions deliberation, the mental grasp, and far- reaching insight into, and analysis of mingled motives, essential to Justice, are far and away beyond them. That capacity is not even dormant, and cannot therefore be developed by cultivation. Women never see two sides of any question; and are always biassed towards that view which favours, or seems to favour the interests of themselves, or of those whom they love. Were mental Sexual Equality aught but a chimera, born of Amazonian ambition, it would long ago have produced practical results : the strong- minded woman would ere this, have established her pretensions; and the occupation of the Shrieking Sisterhood would be gone. Had the sexes ever been originally equal in mind, present inequality could never have existed. Woman's vaunted auto- nomy, originality, and individuality of thought and Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 125 action, in matters of moment, are far more nominal than real. Where are those so-called strong-minded women, these profound and original thinkers who illustrate the principle that mind is utterly uninflu- enced by sex ? As demonstrated (Chap. V) sexual equality, physical, mental, and moral, is much more nearly approached in savage, than in civilised races. In Europe and America, the great majority of women are individually steered through life, by the reflecting brain, strong will, guiding hand, and protecting arm of a husband, a father, a brother, son, or other relative. Where a woman has no such tie, she has her spiritual director. Catholic or Protes- tant (the office is similar, differing only in name), her father confessor, her favourite preacher, who keeps her conscience, and whom she regards as a hero, or demigod. If there is one woman without such a director, she is guided by man-made public opinion, supplemented by oracles uttered by men in past ages. Answers to correspondents in various journals show that women confess themselves to editors, even more confidentially than to priests. Woman never escapes from male control, direct or indirect, personal or impersonal, traditionary or present. She is always ruled by some man, either living, or governing from the grave. However superior in her sex's estimation, however strong- minded and mentally independent a woman may really be, she embodies her ideal' of masculine superiority in some man, whose teachings — oral or written, or printed — whether delivered from arm- 126 Woman Suffrage Wrong. chair, pulpit, or platform, she accepts with implicit reverence, making him to all intents and purposes, an infallible judge, from whose decision there is no appeal. The adoration of the devotee being some- times misplaced, does not invalidate the significance of the fact, of which I leave Sexual Equality advo- cates to make the best they can. Mentally, morally, spiritually, the female is prostrate before the male, though the meek idolater often adores a brazen god. Even Amazons in revolt, are neither original, nor independent. Still governed by men's authority, they have simply exchanged their leadership. For example, strong-minded agitators for "Woman Suffrage believed Mr. John Stuart Mill the greatest of philosophers, and best of men.* Why? Not because they understood his philosophy, or really sympathised with his Liberal principles. Women may accept party nicknames, but they are far too imperious and fond of power, to be real Liberals at heart. Had they been swayed by Liberal principles, they would surely have preferred glorious John Bright to his brother Jacob, who never would have been heard of in politics, had he not been John's brother. Yet the strong-minded women preferred little Jacob to grand old John. Why ? Because little Jacob took charge of a Bill for woman suffrage, which the elder brother opposed. There- fore Jacob Bright was considered the profoundest * Therein differing decidedly from Professor Blackie, who said of Mill : " He never was a man at all. He was a wretched wrinkled creature." Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 127 of politicians, and, next to J. S. Mill, the father of "Woman Suffrage. A short and ready way of esti- mating philosophical and political worth ! Women wanting to vote, do not look beyond purely personal interested motives. Whoever gratifies their love of power, is their friend. Whoever opposes it, is their enemy. This is their rough-and-ready method of settling the vexed Woman Suffrage question. They cannot see two sides of a question, or conceive a person opposing their pet-project, conscientiously desirous to benefit their sex at large. Whether woman accepts or rejects man's sway; whether at war or at peace ; whether orthodox or heterodox ; she cannot take a single step without man's leader- ship and gu idance : and in flying from natural and easy subordination, she rushes into real slalvery. But under all circumstances, the female must look up to the male sex. Nature's voice echoes Revela- tion : "The head of the woman is the man." The real difficulty is how to obtain for every marriageable woman her " best right " — that to a natural protector, or, in plain English, that harm- less domesticated animal called a husband. The great, the chief, or almost only grievance of which women have to complain, is that conveyed in the title of Eussell's once celebrated song, " Why don't the men propose ?" The head and front of man's offending, the principal cause of the excitement and agitation, is the large and increasing class of celibate women. Marriage being the normal condition of humanity, it is superfluous to point out the intimate 128 Woman Suffrage Wrong. connection between involuntary female celibacyj and the Woman Suffrage agitation. A writer truly observes : " A woman is positively and distinctly created that she may become a wife and mother. If she misses this destiny, there is something wrong somewhere — ^it may be in herself, it may be out of herself. But a woman is a complicated piece of mechanism, as clearly intended for wifehood and motherhood, as the eye to see. You may make an old maid, or a nun, or a nurse, all her life of her; but if you do, she is qud woman, a failure, what- ever great and noble things she may do, or what- ever she may accomplish, to raise the standard of human effort, and kindle the lamp of human hope." This extract from an article in " The Girl of the Period Miscellany" (looked down upon as "trivial" by Amazons), contains a profound truth, meriting most serious consideration. A wise and hopeful " Movement for Women," indeed, which entirely ignores the claims of posterity, and puts aside as of no consequence, human nature's strongest instinct, all powerful for weal or woe ! Love, properly regulated, and consecrated by Religion, leads to marriage, maternity, domestic happiness, the source of purest joys, parental affection, and all individual and national virtues. Not regulated, it leads to prostitution, misery, all imaginable evil, double damnation for man and woman. Living in illicit intercourse, the sexes mutually curse, instead of blessing each other. Yet .Love is not included in the Amazonian platform programme for woman's Marriage and Maternity -v. Woman Suffrage. 129 regeneration. Nature is to be altogether expelled. Love has nothing to do with the purely personal political ambition of Miss Amazon and sect. Nay, nlore, Loveis essentially antagonistic to the woman- suffrage claim based on Sexual Equality. For true love teaches a woman to pay proper respect to him whom she considers worthy to be the father of her children. So Miss Amazon scorns a passion which might make her womanly, end mistaken ambition, and cause her to love someone better than herself. Such a woman does not understand, and cannot represent her sex. The author quoted knows more of woman's nature, and needs, than all Amazons, spinsters, and widows agitating, by means of votes, to rise above, represent and legislate for British matrons. The great majority of single and married women care nothing whatever about the political franchise. "With few exceptions, woman suffrage finds no favour with happy wives, mothers, and all domesticated womanly women. They have not yet discovered the frightful grievance afflicting them. Though told that they are miserable and enslaved, they persist that they are happy and free. They are in the condition of the happy Eton boys depicted by Gray : — " Yet, ah ! why should they know their fate, Since sorrow never comes too late, And happiness too swiftly flies 7 Thought would destroy their Paradise. No, more ! where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." 130 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Such contented women miglit reply to their in- terested agitators : — " We have found woman's mission, and woman's rights. You, ambitious Amazons, are still seeking both." There can be no question which class better represents their sex. The highest womanly type is maternity. She who is wife and mother fulfils her destiny ; she loves, and is beloved. She is protected. Her conjugal and maternal instincts are satisfied. The strong salutary yearnings of woman's heart are never fully gratified short of maternity. Rachel's pathetic cry to Jacob : " Give me children or I die," expresses a profound physiological truth applicable to all women healthy in mind and body. Woman's moral and mental faculties find ample employment in being a companion to her husband, and superintending the education of their children. Women who properly discharge conjugal and maternal duties, are the best specimens of their sex, and are working far more efl&ciently for man- kind's mental and moral progress, than Amazons preaching Sexual Equality, and claiming the suffrage as a right. In thus fulfilling her normal functions, woman may be said to do everything. The world would go on without female politicians, but without wives and mothers there would be no posterity ; and when conjugal and maternal duties are slighted, unwillingly undertaken, and imperfectly discharged, then farewell to present happiness, and the hopes of posterity. Neither Amazons nor fashionable women under- Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 131 stand tte duties of maternity. It is not enough to bear children " in a poor make-shift sort of way," according to the old schoolmaster in " Adam Bede." Children should be nursed, not merely handed over to foster-mothers, or brought up (oftener brought down) by hand, to live or die ; not dragged-up, but educated according to individual disposition. The earliest education belongs exclusively to mothers. The reply to the question : " What is woman's earthly mission ? " is given in one word, understood in its grandest, most comprehensive sense — Mater- nity. It is all over with humanity, when that ofi&ce is slighted. What a noble profession to be a wife and mother in Israel ! Among God's people, it was so considered, and should not be otherwise with Christians. In no possible way, can women in general, better discharge their mission ; fulfil their share of duty ; or more thoroughly aid the cause of human welfare and progress. It is a very super- ficial view to regard the varied range of maternal duties as merely temporary, trivial, secondary, and of no importance beyond the time actually occupied in their ostensible discharge. We cannot overrate the influence of maternal functions on posterity. Every man's future depends mainly on his physical, mental, moral, and spiritual education ; the straight- ness of his limbs, robustness of his body, general strength of constitution, the bent given to his mind in the plastic years of infancy, childhood, youth. These are pre-eminently the Mother's work. Nay, we might say : — the future career of every human 13 2 Woman Suffrage Wrong. being is influenced by the mother, even before the child sees the light, from the moment of conception ! Lavater observes : " Were it possible to persuade a woman to keep an accurate register of what happened in all the powerful moments of imagi- nation during pregnancy, she then might be able to foretell the chief incidents philosophical, moral, intellectual, and physiognomical, which would happen to her child." An expectant mother's health imperatively demands rest, quiet, freedom from harassing cares, from physical toil, and mental anxiety. There are times when every married woman should consider her body as a sacred temple, which enshrines " a second principle of life." If at such times, a woman will go forth to preach in the streets, or strain her voice at public meetings, to teach the pleasant doctrine of Sexual Equality, or mingle with political strife ; if she will take undue mental or bodily exercise, or both ; will expose herself to excitement, and violent emotions, she need not ascribe it to any mysterious dispensation, but to natural law, that she has a still-born child ; or that her unhappy offspring is an idiot, or otherwise marked with some monstrous imperfection signally testifying to the culpable indiscretion of the mother.* "The sins of the parents are visited * For stating this indisputable truth, almost in these very words, I was interrupted, hissed, and hooted at by ladies at The Victoria Discussion Society ! Superfluous to say my remarks were materially softened in the report of my speech. See Victoria Magazine, June, 1871, p. 123. Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 133 upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Conjugal, maternal, and domestic duties, being incompatible with political functions, we find normal women, utterly indifferent to Woman Suffrage. The Mother has neither time nor inclination to try and pervert herself into a poor imperfect copy of a man. Fashionable fri- volities, pleasures, intrigues, ambition, have no interest for the happy domesticated woman. Politics and public life are her aversion. She leaves them to men, and men-women, as contentedly and naturally as she does the toils, dangers, honours, and horrors of war. She has other duties, quite as important (if not more so) to humanity. Her sanctuary is Home. The Family is her kingdom. She finds the prattle of her children more musical than Miss Amazon's platform shriek. The house- mother reigns in the hearts of husband and children. Tell her that all men are odious tyrants, and all women slaves, until spinsters and widows vote ; and she will laugh at an assertion con- tradicted by her own happy lot. Prove to her from Mill's " Subjection of Women," that she is a poor oppressed, down- trodden worm, that she should join the grand revolt of woman against man : and she will point to her husband and children ready to die in her defence. She smiles at the poor worldly, personal, selfish ambition of Amazons claiming political power, and returns their shrill, undignified attacks and imputations of selfishness on all women who do not join them, with quiet scorn. She 134 Woman Suffrage Wrong. thoroughly understands them, and " The Move- ment." Her sound common sense is unperverted by sophistry, and absurd self-contradictory theories. She sees that spinsters and widows agitate for their own supposed personal interests, and do not repre- sent their sex at large ; far less wives and mothers. The mother who presents good citizens to the State, has certainly discharged her mission. It is difl&cult to see in what other way women in general could better benefit society. Madame de Stael asked Napoleon, whom he considered the greatest woman ? He replied : " She who has had most children." This reply intended to mortify Madame de Stael, or perhaps conveying the genuine opinion of the military man who regarded men as chavr a canon, is not true. I would give the palm to her, who has best fulfilled conjugal and maternal duties, by the most unremitting care and attention to the education of her children. An anonymous author observes: "A true mother, a Cornelia, is more useful in the sight of Grod and Man, than all the accomplished women of rank, and half-witted authoresses that ever lived — of more true and universal value, than all the fearless viragos, that ever adorned history's wide page, or that are to be gathered together from earth's four quarters. ' These,' said Cornelia, pointing to her children, ' are my jewels, my pastime, my operas, my amuse- ments.' " * Napoleon asked Madame Campan : * " Woman as she is : and as she should be," Vol, ii., pp. 26, 27 and 283. Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 135 " What is wanting that the youth o£ France may be well educated ? " She replied : " Good mothers ! " " Here," said Napoleon, " is a system of education in two words." Groldsmith observes : " Women famed for valour, political skill, or learning, leave the duties of their sex, to invade the privileges o£ ours." Eousseau writes : " Your wonderfully clever woman imposes on none but fools. You can generally discover the artist, or friend who guides her pencil or pen — the discreet literary man who secretly dictates her oracles, and elabo- rates her impromjptu good things. All this mockery and pedantry are unworthy a good sensible woman. Such pretensions serve but to disgrace real talent, when it exists. The true woman's dignity is to remain unknown. Her glory lies in her husband's esteem. Her pleasures are in the family circle. Tell me candidly, reader, which employment gives you the better opinion of a lady, and most decidedly challenges respect ? to behold her occupied in work suitable to her sex, going over weekly accounts, trimming a frock for her baby ; or at a table littered with papers, love letters, and correspondence on gilt-edged note paper, scribbling verses? When there are none but sensible men in the world, every learned lady will die unmarried. ' Quoeris cur nolim te ducere, Galla ? Diserta es.' "* Ask the happy matron, what is woman's mission ? When she pressed her first-born babe to her bosom, * " Emilius and Sophia," Vol. It. 136 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Nature dictated the reply — Maternity. To this response she cannot be unfaithful. Which is the more agreeable form of womanhood, or would make the better picture — Miss Amazon gesticulating on a platform, raving of woman's abstract right to vote; or a young mother nursing her child ? Public taste has already answered the question. Even men favouring woman suffrage, can hardly prefer the platform Amazon to the young mother. Which is the more womanly woman, and better representative of her sex? Which has the really stronger, better balanced mind, more cultivated faculties, the warmer heart — the higher, more conscientious sense of religion, morality, duty ? Which is the less selfish, and exerts the most powerful influence over men ? Which would be preferable as a life companion? Which would make the better nurse in sickness, and consoler in sorrow ? Which, if left a widow, would mourn longer, and more truly ? All these questions can have but one answer. All right- thinking men prefer domestic, to platform women. The Bx-itish matron will not join the Woman Suffrage agitation. In vain she is told that the vote, now looming hazily in the extreme distance, must some day be hers; and stimulated by the prospect of enjoying the new pleasure of disobeying her husband ; of exciting his jealousy by being can- vassed in his absence by a smart young male electioneering agent ; of becoming an electioneering agent herself, canvassing men, and purchasing votes by smiles and kisses ; of voting squabbles with her Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 137 husband at home, of bearding him at the hustings, and voting against him at the poll. A minority of wives advocating Sexual Equality, think it old- fashioned and weak-minded to be guided by husbands whom they promised to love, cherish, and obey. But the typical British matron is not tempted by such singular privileges, and considers them totally opposed to her ideas of conjugal duty. There is plenty of work for woman, without forc- ing her into politics. Yet involuntary celibacy offers material for a grievance eagerly utilised by Woman Suffrage agitators. Naturally, a number of impressionable women, feeling keenly, not reflect- ing deeply, listen curiously to female demagogues, who propose to give their dormant energies some vent, however abnormal : confiding, impulsive women consult seeming immediate individual interests, and approve measures tending to subvert the social structure. Naturally, also, Amazons air their theories of political economy, and try to per- suade simple women (who accept them as leaders and Mentors) that all woman's hardships and suffer- ings are traceable to the want of a vote : and that the sure remedy for all disabilities would be Woman, or more correctly Spinster and Widow Suffrage. Some platform lecturers virtually represent Woman's sphere as consistingofonly two vocations — Marriage and Politics ! Unless we could turn all single women into men, woman suffrage would not cure, but intensify the evil. The ambitious woman judges all women by herself. She, an abnormal, assumes 138 Woman Suffrage Wrong. herself a typical, -woman. She glories in having sufficiently unsexed herself, to plunge con strepitu, and con amore, into all the work which man must do. She resents the application of the word womanly, confounding it with weak-minded, and considers it degrading. Certainly, it is no more appropriate to Amazons, than to Mrs. Quickly, who indignantly repudiates the word woman, thus : " Who ! I ? I defy you ! I never was called so in mine own house before ! " Miss Amazon might just as reasonably reject the word woman. When women cease to be womanly, that word has lost all its pathos and meaning. Still, even the most man-like woman, however unwomanly, is not quite a man. Though she thinks she can do man's work better than man, exceptions only prove the rule. She wants a vote ; therefore, her method of solving the vexed question, is that all unmarried women, spinsters, and widows should plunge into political and public life ; should rush helter-skelter to the polls, the mixed lecture-classeS) and dissecting-rooms ! Her idea of woman's mission is to rival, oust, and " best " man, in all possible ways. This is her rough-and-ready method to give all women suitable congenial employment. Are we to assume that every single woman of twenty-five has lost all hopes, or desire of marriage ? Because a woman, from whatever cause, does not fulfil those functions for which she was clearly designed. Nature will not immediately work a miracle, and radically change that woman's organisation ; alter the whole Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 139 current of her tastes, wishes, instincts, aspirations ; unsex and transform her into a man -woman, a hermaphrodite, that she may do man's work im- perfectly. Such an epicene being, neither man nor woman, would be a monster. A mother cannot delegate her natural duties to her husband, to undergo great physical and mental toil ; or to under- take any task, taxing all man's undivided energies, from chopping wood, to chopping logic. Can it be seriously thought that a healthy, blooming maiden, naturally hoping to be a wife and mother, should, would, or could, thus give the lie to Nature, and throw herself heart and soul into man's mental and physical toil, merely because she happens to be un- married? No; so long as she is young enough to be married, she will not desire to engage in occupa- tions which popular opinion pronounces unfeminine, because diametrically opposed to conjugal and maternal functions, and certain, more or less, to impair her beauty, and lessen her chances of marrying. In no country do women retain grace and beauty so long as in Grreat Britain and Ireland. It is then diflB.cult or impossible to fix the age at which matrimonial expectations are laid aside. But when that age has arrived, and all hopes of wife- hood and motherhood are over, a woman is far too old to begin life all over again, after the platform pattern, and to descend into the political arena as man's rival. Nature has formed a young healthy, blooming woman for a specific purpose — to be man's solace. 140 Woman Suffrage Wrong. joy, heart's rest, "help-meet" — not his enemy, rival, ruler, dictator, or caricature. The Amazon thinks herself an improvement on Nature, and poses on a platform, as a pattern for other women to admire and copy. Nature, however, is of a different opinion. She declines to have her most admirable work, a gentle, loving, tender, womanly woman, perverted into a poor, imperfect, weak, ridiculous travestie of man — a being craving the special privileges of both sexes. To attempt this, is to degrg-de the sex. Nature continues obstinately to enforce her rights, in spite of temporary restraints and aberrations. The Amazon is accidental, ab- normal. Nature prefers the womanly woman — " A creature not too bright or good For human nature's daily food." A Woman s Warning! Mrs. S. 0. Hall eloquently protests against Woman Suffrage, thus : " It is a matter for deep regret, for intense sorrow — be it spoken to their shame — that women have recently inaugurated a movement for what they call ' Woman's Rights,' and that among its zealous, but unthinking advo- cates, are a very few — Women of Letters : not many, if any, whose views are entitled to much attention, but those who push and clamour, will force aside the judicious and just : the foolish are proverbially bolder than the wise, and those who are silent may seem to consent. I believe this Movement pregnant with incalculable danger to men, but Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 141 especially to women : that if the claims be con- cededj and women be displaced from their proper sphere, Society, high and low, will receive such a shock as must convulse and shatter the social fabric, which no after conviction and repentance can restore to its natural form. I address this warning from the vantage ground of the old experience, that " ' Doth attain To something of prophetic strain.' - " I earnestly entreat women to beware of lures, that in the name of ' Electoral Rights ' — the beginning of the end — would deprive them of their power and lower their position under a pretence to raise it. I warn women of all countries, all ages, all conditions, all classes ! And I humbly urge on the Legislature to resist demands opposed to wisdom, mercy, and religion. " "When women cease to be women, in all that makes them most attractive — inevitably the result of concessions asked as rights, indeed daringly demanded on the principle that the Constitution shall recognise no distinction between women and men* that whatever men do, women shall be entitled to do — it is mental blindness which cannot foresee the misery that must follow the altered relations and changed conditions of both. I do not consider it a degradation, but whether it be so or not, I am quite * Eeaders are requested to observe that the words in the text, which I have italicised, virtually declare Sexual Equality — the unproved, and unprovable dogma — underlying Woman Suffrage and other claims. Hence the space devoted to expose that fallacy. 142 Woman Suffrage Wrong, sure women's leading, guiding, and controlling impulse is to render themselves agreeable to men — by beauty, gentleness, forethought, energy, intelli- gence, domestic cares, home virtues, toil-assistance, in hours of ease, in sickness, or amid perplexities, anxieties, disappointments, and labours : it is so, and ever will be so, in spite of the ' strong-minded,' who consider and describe as humiliation, that which is woman's glory, and should be her boast. It is easy to fancy women doing man's work with a smile and a sob : we have some sad examples of so revolting an evil ; a few such cases in England, many more in Continental countries. I have seen in Bavaria, a woman harnessed with a cow to the plough, the men and horses being away drilling for the war ; and in the black country, women are bend- ing all day long under shameful burthens from coal- pit to barge.* Agitation to limit women's work to work for which Nature designed them — physical and intellectual — would be a duty and a glory ; but that is not what the ' strong-minded ' want. Those who might be expected to make their way to high places in professions, or as merchants, bankers, or even manufacturers or traders, must be the best of the sex. But are not the best most needed to rock the cradle, and, in the higher sense of the phrase, to sweep the hearth, ministering to man's needs * This is practical Sexual Equality : which never can, or will be redressed, on the Amazonian theory that women should do what- ever man does. Once admit that women need protection, Miss Amazon and " Mates " have no pretence to agitate for votes J Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 143 and comforts, and so promoting his interests and happiness, as well as her own ? Are the feeblest and worst to be put aside for the duties of wifehood and maternity ? or are ' emancipated ' women to ignore the sacred influences of home?" " "Woman's immense power will surely be lessened by its public manifestation — by proclaiming that ' she rules ' — by an independence that destroys all trust — by a spirit of rivalry, and a struggle for pre- eminence, which are, in fact, moral and social death ! Yes, woman has immense power. The mother makes the man ; long before he can lisp her name, her task of education is commenced ; and to be effective, it must be continuous. Alas for those who can only teach occasionally, by fits and starts, — at wide intervals, between which there must be blanks or worse ! To many that destiny is inevit- able ; but what woman so utterly sins against nature, as to work for, and seek it ? It is no exag- geration to say ' those who rock the cradle, rule the world.' The future rests mainly with the mother : foolish are all, and wicked are some, who strive for laws that would deprive her of her first, greatest, holiest rights to try a wild experiment which, under the senseless cry of ' equality ' would displace women from the position in which Grod has placed them, since the world's beginning, for time and Eternity."* This was published in The Victoria Magazine, Feb., 1871, and so far as possible, its effect was * " The Book of Memories." 144 Woman Suffrage Wrong. sought to be neutralised, by a comment in which Miss Emily Faithfull has recourse to the petitio principii, the most favourite figure of lady logicians. She completely begs the whole question at issue, as she did in replying to my Paper, " A Protest against Woman's Demand for the Privileges of both Sexes." She there stated that my explanation of wives' and mothers' indifEerence to the so-called Movement for Women " attributed to women who have secured for themselves the full measure of earthly happiness, an amount of selfishness almost incredible."* The maker or endorser of this state- ment, either deliberately misrepresents, or totally misconceives the drift of my paper. The cool assertion really amounts to a charge of selfishness against all women opposed to Women Suffrage ; that is, to the great majority. No one capable of draw- ing a logical inference from premisses, will impute such an inconsequential deduction to me. Precisely the same charge of selfishness is hurled against Mrs. S. 0. Hall, with a will, but not skill, thus : " We quote this as the utterance of a woman who has for years freely used every intellectual power she possesses, [yes; but legitimately] — whatever differences of opinion we may have on the point in question, no one will be hardy enough to suggest that Mrs. S. 0. Hall ever thought it necessary to hide her own light under a bushel — because she was a woman ! Why, she has earned a pension from government for her public services ! Mrs. S. C. * Victoria Magazine, Aug., 1870. Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 145 Hall observes, we fear too truly, that few ' women of letters' are to be found 'among the zealous but unthinking advocates ' of what she terms the movement. Alas ! for the hardness of our hearts, and the selfishness of human nature. Those alone cry out wbo/eeZ the pinching shoe {i.e., spinster and widow householders !) . The happy well-fed authoress sits by her study-fire, and looks at the pleasant reward of her work drawn from her publisher, in the shape of a well-earned cheque, and asks why other women make demands opposed to- wisdom, mercy, and religion. She has all she wants ; why are they not satisfied ? And then she calls the poor mortals who are not blessed with facile pens, but equally conscious of cold and hunger, and who ask leave to work for their daily bread according to their particular gift and station, unfeminine." The above utterly misstates Mrs. Hall's views. She. does not call unfeminine, poor women who ask leave to work for daily bread. On the contrary, she pleads for, and tries to save them from their pre- tended friends, but real foes : — The women she does call unfeminine, are those who demand the suffrage not for poor hard-working women, but for themselves as householders. The womanly woman trying to save her sex from what she conscientiously believes temporal and eternal ruin, may retort with interest the charge oi " selfishness" on ambitious women who, wanting personal political power, misrepresent it as an infallible remedy for all female disabilities. Much indeed they care for the female masses, who 146 Woman Suffrage Wrong. grasp their own enfranchisement by a Bill expressly excluding married women ! " Alas ! for the hard- ness of our hearts, and the selfishness of human nature." Here is a most valuable warning Protest against "Woman Suffrage from a gifted Woman, whose opinions are entitled to serious consideration, as an exponent of literary and married women. In con- demning this agitation for female enfranchisement, Mrs. S. C. Hall was just as sincere, honest, and eager for her sex's welfare, as Miss FaithfuU and other ladies lecturing in favour of Woman Suffrage. The Matrons of Great Britain and Ireland, and of all civilised nations, set their sex the excellent ex- ample of minding their own affairs, and doing their duty in that state of life unto which it has pleased God to call them. They believe " Charity begins at home." Their first obligation is to their husbands, and families. They — the foremost, most responsi- ble women — entrusted with preserving the human race, and training the rising generation — are " twitted " with being " selfish " because, obeying a pure womanly instinct, and agreeable to common sense, they think that women should not meddle directly -vjith. polities or war; and refuse to join noisy discontented revolutionary women — agitating to overthrow the social fabric, and inveighing against male tyranny ! Analyse this charge of " selfishness " which — (according to Miss FaithfuU) Mrs. Hall and I prefer against all women opposed to women suffrage. "Who is most selfish — spinsters advocating, or wives Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 147 opposing woman suffrage ? Spinsters and widows wishing to subvert their country's laws and institu- tions — or wives wishing to preserve both ? Wives do not wish to enfranchise themselves or others. Spinsters profess to advocate Woman Suffrage, for all women's benefit. But note this significant fact. Spinster and Widow householders will be alone en- franchised, should Mr. Woodall's Bill become Law. The great majority of women will be as they were — all wives are expressly excluded from voting. Yet we, and they, are called on to make an Act of Faith in the complete disinterestedness of Spinster and Widow advocates of a so-called Woman Suffrage Bill which will enfranchise only themselves and a small minority of women. Impute no motives, bring no charge of self-interest against these public spirited Spinsters and Widows, even when they frankly avow that it is with them a purely personal question ; that as payers of rates and taxes, they demand the Suffrage ! Then, a fortiori, we have far more cause for believing in the sincerity and disin- terestedness of wives and other women, who would maintain the law as it is. Platform ladies had better let the charge of selfishness alone. That two-edged sword can be wielded far more effectually against, than by them. For if the Woodall Bill passes, they will have votes, and will be benefited so far as voting can be considered a benefit. But if the Bill do not pass, the women opposing it will be exactly as they are. Imputation of personal motives is then far more applicable to women who 148 Woman Suffrage Wrong. advocate, than to women who oppose Woman Suffrage. Female agitators for woman suffrage are chiefly Spinster and Widow-householders, who would be enfranchised by the passing of Mr. Woodall's Bill. These single women represent neither the Woman Suffrage principle, nor the sex at large. They represent their own personal interests, or rather what they conceive such. Amazonian agitators are a sect, professing to represent a sex. Are these ambitious spinster and widow-householders natural and fitting representa- tives of British wives and mothers ? If accredited representatives, why do they not show their credentials ? If they have none to show, they speak for themselves alone ; seek only their own en- franchisement, and so far from representing, actually betray woman suffrage as a principle ! They have, in short, elected themselves to lead and represent wives, and graciously permit British matrons to think for themselves, under spinster and widow tuition. But the apex of absurdity, vanity, and impudence is reached, when ambitious spinsters and widows actually dare to stigmatise as " weak- minded and selfish," happy, contented, domesticated women because they have no sympathy with the so-called " Movement for Women." A movement it is, so revolutionary, that it is high time to reflect whither it tends ? Gentle, refined, cultivated, sensible, womanly women perceive plainly that there must be a decided division of duties between the Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Siiffrage. 149 sexes; that directly in proportion to civilisation's advance, do tte respective spheres of man and woman diverge; and that to unite and confound them, is really to retrograde towards barbarism ; that woman is formed for private, man for public life ; and that man ought to work for the woman. They therefore wisely refuse to be dragged into the whirlpool of politics, merely to gratify the un- natural, unwomanly aspirations of a few ambitious Amazons; and warn their sisters that female suffrage will lower the womanly standard, imperil the marriage-institution, and unsettle the social fabric. For thus judging for themselves, these really representative women are fiercely denounced as weak-minded, selfish beings, thinking only of their own comfort, and utterly indifferent to the wrongs and sufferings of their less fortunate sisters ! Such a charge comes strangely from spinsters and widows, trying at all costs, to pass a merely fragmentary measure of woman suffrage, for their own enfranchisement ! Even on the low ground of expediency, and self-interest, why should the vast majority of women help to enfranchise a few spinster and widow-householders ? How will that benefit the sex at large ? Platform ladies virtually plead : — " Only help us to get the suffrage, and trust to us. We will do great things for all of you." But the Majority will not be cajoled, and think the charge of selfishness more appropriate to women who accept the Spinster and Widow Bill as final ! 150 Woman Suffrage Wrong. As Mrs. Hall feelingly observes : " Agitation to limit women's work to work for whicli they were designed by Nature — work physical and intel- lectual — would be indeed a duty and a glory. But that is not what the strong-minded want." No, indeed ! This cry is not on behalf of poor toil-worn women actually doing work unsuitable to their sex, in factory, field, and mine. The suffrage is de- manded not to relieve these, but for independent women householders. As among savage races, so in the humbler ranks, many British women work too hard at uncongenial labour. Women ought not to toil in field, factory, and mine, nor carry heavy burthens, nor otherwise engage in long-sustained physical or mental work. Even protracted confine- ment in shops, in post-offices, and in dressmaking, tells severely on woman's fragile frame. And this more particularly applies to married women far advanced in pregnancy. But such real grievances cannot be remedied consistently with a Sexual Equality revolutionary agitation, whose principle is to excite women to rival men in all departments of toil, with hand and brain. This must inevitably cause women to labour harder than ever, by thrust- ing them into competition with men, in political and professional strife. And how are brutal wife- beaters to be taught to respect woman, as "the weaker vessel," when women triumphantly defiantly proclaim themselves rivals, equals, superiors of men, and ask for no favour at their hands ? Woman really needs man's protection. If she spurn it, as Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 151 his equal, slie will soon be told to take care of herself. Exceptionally gifted women demanding votes for themselves, may occasionally cant and whine about poor women for the sake of political capital ; but Amazons are either supremely in- different to the wants and wishes of women in general forced to depend on men : or are utterly ignorant of woman's nature, if they really think their theories reduced to practice, would benefit and elevate the sex. In either case, they are unfit to represent women : How indeed can Amazons under- stand womanly women, whom they sneer at as weak- minded ? Woman Suffrage Advocates artfully pretend that women are legally disabled from doing all things they do not choose to do. According to platform platitudes, woman unenfranchised, has no other resource but marriage from interested motives, to live. If she do not marry, or take to dissecting dead human bodies, and living lower animals, along with medical students ; improving mind and morals with mixed classes ; and if she cannot dabble iu political mire, then her whole life is a blank ! The platform lady coolly and purposely ignores the great social, industrial, and professional liberty enjoyed by women in Western Europe, and pre-eminently in Great Britain and the United States. The Amazon pathetically enumerates all occupations in which women do not engage, and then triumphantly assumes that Law, or public prejudice, acts as a barrier to preclude them. Women now undertake 152 Woman Suffer age Wrong. yarious artistic, literary, industrial, and mechanical pursuits.. They are authors, writing books of all kinds, science, history, fiction ; contributors to magazines, journalists. They are teachers, school- mistresses, governesses, painters, poets, sculptors. They write, edit, print, publish periodicals. They are largely employed as clerks in post-offices, and counting-houses. As professional singers, dancers, actresses, they rival and surpass men. Though moralists may object, yet of all public professions, the Stage offers the most legitimate field for the display of female energy and talent. Female triumphs of play, opera, and ballet, do not in any way interfere with those of male performers, since there can be no envy, where there can be no ex- change of business. We enjoy hearing a well- executed opera, or seeing a well-acted play or ballet; agreeably assured that the rivalry of the sexes is not invidious. Actors and actresses may do their best, and so far from injuring, actually aid and support each other. Stage rivalry is confined to persons of the same sex. Tenor and bass covet not the applause bestowed on soprano and contralto. Signer Basso does not emulate the piercing notes of Signora Squallini. Nor does M. Cabriole complain that he is excelled by his pupil Mademoiselle Entrechat. As dancers, women surpass men, not only in natural grace, and elegance of attitude and movement, "the poetry of motion," but also in lightness and activity. Girls show an aptitude for dancing, which boys do not possess. And yet, though they dance better, women are taught by men ! Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 153 No law hinders women from entering into busi- ness, as contractors, architects, civil engineers, financiers, bankers, directors, promoters of com- panies, merchants. They possess the municipal franchise. The three learned professions are not all closed to them. They may become apothecaries. They are becoming doctresses. Except Law, Divinity, the political franchise. Army, Navy, civil service, police,* coastguard, militia, volunteers, marines, fire-brigade. Parliament, administrative and judicial appointments, women are not legally ■disabled from selecting any occupation. To repre- sent women as having no alternative but marriage, unless woman suffrage opens out a political career, is doubtless a very effective platform argument, but totally untrue ! Quite independently of marriage, ■and home, there are many arenas in which women may legitimately display their talents to advantage, and turn to account their shrewd mother-wit, tact, quickness of perception, in making a living. And one profession is specially and entirely their own, of which man's rivalry and tyranny can never deprive them — the noble profession of wife and mother — their earthly mission of Maternity. " All very well, sir," says Miss Amazon, "but we see women do not engage in a tithe of the professions, businesses, trades, which men graciously open to us. How is that, sir ? " The reason is obvious, and supports my disproof of Sexual Equality. " For woman is not undevelopt man. But diverse:" * Women are, I believe, employed in the detective department. 154 Woman Suffrage Wrong. does not hanker after man's stormy, bustling, active life, but has very different tastes, aspirations, pursuits. Women do not engage in a tithe of occupations permissible, because they do not care to do so. Womanly instinct teaches such occupa- tions more suitable to males, than to females. Woman generally prefers the part for which she was manifestly designed, the domestic sphere, the apostolically-defined mission — to " guide the house," which echoes the Divine command in Genesis, " to be a help-meet for man," while he, in turn, works, provides for, protects, and defends woman. "All tommy-rot,'' cries Miss Amazon, with a shrill, sneering, unwomanly laugh. " Hundreds of thousands of poor women are now toiling for a bare subsistence." " I know, regret, deplore, mourn over it." " That is no answer, sir. It completely disproves your assertion of a division of labour for the sexes." "Not in the least, most logical of beings after a child ! Go to these toil-worn women : Ask them if they are happy, thus earning by long-protracted work, a bare crust ? Ask them whether they would not prefer to their wretched hovels, comfortable homes kept up by good husbands, who would labour for them and for their children ; blessing, and being blest, doing domestic work suitable to their strength and wishes, instead of their present hateful uncongenial toil, which, in a few years, will rob them of strength and beauty, and leave them prematurely helpless, worn-out, and old ? I know the answer you will get. You know Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Stiff rage. 155- it too. Yet you will persevere preaching pernicious platform doctrines, tending to deprive women of all they most covet, husbands, children, homes; en- couraging this terrible rivalry in work which pro- duces such distressing results. You will do this, because consistent with your pet paradox — Sexual Equality — on which you claim Spinster and "Widow Suffrage; and hope to force your own way some day into Parliament ! You do not seriously sym- pathise with these poor toiling women. You perpetuate their slavery, to gratify your own am- bition, directly and indirectly; actually arguing against legislation to limit women's hours of labour, and to protect them from their task-masters ! Because you determine to rival man, you would force all women to do the same. But look round on numbers of women not thus compelled to labour for a living. Such, by their own free choice of con- genial occupations, confirm the conclusion irresis- tibly drawn from Non-Sexual Equality — man's greater size, strength, endurance, and corresponding mental distinctions ; that there is, and must ever be, a broad natural division of duties between man and woman, quite independent of all legal disabilities and social disqualifications. Hence the fabric reared on such a natural distinction, though it may require reform and emendation, is not rotten, cannot be radically wrong. For thus choosing to abide as Revelation and Nature declare she ought to be, the great majority of women, including the best and wisest, are scolded, and nick-named weak-minded 156 Woman Suffrage Wrong. and selfish; poor distorted, arrested, undeveloped beings, by ambitious Amazons wanting the franchise for themselves, and knowing quite well that Spinster and Widow Suffrage, if final, directly insults all married women, and leaves women in general just as they are now." END OP PAET FIEST. PAET SECOND. WOMAN SUFFRAGE CONSIDERED IN PRACTICE AND DETAIL. CHAPTER I. ANALYSIS OP THE WOMAN SUPPEAGB BILL. Passing from principle to practice, from theory to detail, I find "Woman Suffrage even less defensible in its concrete form, than as an abstract proposi- tion. This will at once appear, by considering the various supporters of the measure, past, and pre- sent. These may be ranged in three classes. I. Those who supported woman suffrage as a prin- ciple, claiming woman's abstract right to a vote as well as man. Such would grant the suffrage to any householder, irrespective of sex or condition, and should universal male suffrage ever become^law, they would demand womanhood suffrage. II. Those opposed to Woman Suffrage as a principle, who would on no account enfranchise wives ; but would give votes to spinster and widow-householders, by way of completing representation of property! Such regard the present Bill introduced by Mr. Woodall, as a final measure, and think that no further extension of the franchise would be de- 160 Woman Suffrage Wrong. manded by "women, or if demanded, should be sternly refused. Both these classes are equally honest and sincere ; but not, I think, equally con- sistent. III. These supporters are trimmers, since they do not say whether they regard this Bill as final or not. I conclude that they only profess to be satisfied with this Bill, secretly hoping and be- lieving that it would only be an instalment of a much more sweeping measure to be subsequently granted ! How can these three classes conscientiously and consistently co-operate ? I respect most the con- scientious and consistent advocate of the first class. He fairly states what he means to claim ; a gradual enfranchisement, to be in time extended to all women. He does not sail under false colours. We know the worst, and can conjecture the full extent of the political and social revolution which must be faced, should even a limited measure of woman suffrage become law. We are warned beforehand that it ought not to be, and cannot be a final measure. Forewarned is fore-armed. I have already dealt with the principle of Woman Suff- rage. Evidently between advocates and opponents of Woman Suffrage as a principle, there are no common premisses on which to argue. I, utterly opposed to Woman Suffrage on principle, believe it would prove a curse to woman, and of course to man' — to humanity ; that the claim of any person's abstract right to vote is absurd ; and that man is morally justified in excluding woman from direct Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 161 interference in government or war. Women suff- rage advocates deny, or dispute these positions. We have then nought in common on this question, save honesty of conviction and consistency in action. If my opponent has read the first part of my work, and is not convinced, it would be futile to prolong the argument as to the principle of Woman Suffrage. There, we must part fair foes, and agree to differ. But with regard to Woman Suffrage in its concrete form, in practice and detail, the question assumes an aspect wholly different. Strange as it may at first appear, the zealous advocate, and zealous opponent of Woman Suffrage as a principle, are actually drawn together to oppose the present Bill. The history of the woman suffrage movement during ten years has almost, if not quite, practically answered my question to advocates of the first class long since formulated, and now repeated. How can you, advocating woman's abstract right to the suffrage, consistently and conscientiously co-operate with supporters who would enfranchise, not the female sex, but only a small section, unmarried ; who obstinately refuse to recognise the principle of woman suffrage : and with supporters who pretend to consider the present demand a final settlement ? Honest opponents are clearly entitled to ask its supporters : — " On a question so vitally important, tell us at least what you really want. Do you propose to represent property, or woman ? Only a small accidental addition to electoral constituencies, or the first step towards the greatest of political, M 162 Woman Suffrage Wrong. moral, and social revolutions, fraught with weal or woe to the human race? Agree firstly among yourselves. Is this Bill to be final, or only the first instalment of a much larger measure ? " To this most reasonable question, two, if not three, distinctly antagonistic answers are returned. Supporters of the first class say : " The Bill is not, cannot, shall not be final," Supporters of the second class say : "The Bill is, must, shall be final." Third-class supporters, say : " Never mind whether it be final or not. Time will show. Pass the Bill on its own merits." But it is impossible to estimate its merits, or demerits, until it be determined whether the Bill would be a final settlement or not. Tor if the Bill be final, it should, ipso facto, alienate every supporter of woman suffrage as a principle. If the Bill be only a preliminary instalment of a much more sweeping measure of woman suffrage, it should, ipso facto, alienate every supporter of woman suffrage as an accident. Third-class supporters who talk glibly of passing the Bill on its own merits, either do not, or do understand, what the compli- cated question involves. In the first case, they are deceived. In the second, they deliberately deceive others. Thus, all three classes of Supporters re- spectively occupy false positions ! Here then we behold Universal Woman Suffrage Advocates, allied with soouters of such a measure, who would only enfranchise female property-holders ; and not these, if married. That is, we see people differing in toto on the great question of Womanhood Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 163 Suffrage, uniting to enfranchise certain spinsters and widows, and to pass a Bill which, if final, is a mere abortive measure to the first class ; and if not final, must eventually lead to enfranchising wives, or possibly even to universal woman suffrage ; equally condemned by second-class supporters ! And both these classes accept the co-operation of Trimmers, who will not say whether the Bill should be final, or not; either because they are too ignorant to have an opinion, or too insincere to express one. First and second class supporters, entirely disagreeing on Woman Suffrage as a principle, both make the property qualification the basis of enfranchisement. Advocates of woman's personal right of voting, should scorn the compromise of votes given merely as a property qualification ; should reject the pitiful gift doled forth to unmarried female householders, and resolutely refused to wives. Such advocates are most inconsistent supporters of a Bill which betrays their principle. Second-class supporters who would not enfranchise wives, ought not to support a Bill which, if it ever become law, will certainly be used as a formidable weapon, by advocates openly avow- ing their determination, sooner or later, to en- franchise all women. Both classes, sincere in their respective convictions, should scorn assistance from agitators either too ignorant to understand this complicated question, or too dishonest to avow their opinions, and say whether they support this Bill as an instalment, or a final measure ! Second-class supporters believe that by passing 164 Woman Suffrage Wrong. this Bill, the vexed question would be settled satis- factorily. Settled it might be if this Bill become law, but not in the sense imagined by those who think the extension of Woman Suffrage could, or would stop there. The majority of supporters simply ask for an inch, that thej may take an ell. This cannot be denied in face of this printed declaration of " The National Society for Woman's Suffrage," 17th July, 1869. Mrs. P. A. Taylor said : — " No delay, no obstacle will daunt us ; we do not expect to win easily, or soon ; we may have to work for five, ten, or fifteen years ; we know that in the end we shall be successful ; and we will not put off our armour till the battle is won. And we have this satisfaction, that whilst we are working, and waiting for the victory, we are educating the women of England for the franchise." Thus twenty years ago, we were plainly told that the first fragmentary measure of woman suffrage would be accepted with no particular thanks, or gratitude; in a sort of thank-you-for-nothing spirit. Certainly not as a final measure ; but only on the understand- ing that half a loaf is better than no bread. Male and female Advocates then expressly put their feet down, on a Principle, that every woman, married or single, should eventually have a vote. Nay, so sanguine were their hopes, that self-congratulatory p^ans were sung by some who thought the battle virtually decided in their favour ! A lady observes : " So much for woman suffrage, which we believe will soon become the law of the land. Already Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 165 signs of weakness may be observed in tbe opposing force. So many leading men have given in their adhesion to the cause, that the general crowd are changing their tone, and beginning to wonder why so much is said on so trivial a subject. We have written laughingly, not because we think little of the battle's importance, but because we believe victory already won. With so many of the best heads of England on our side, we are sure of triumph."* And yet the armour (whether used metaphorically, or referring to crinoline) was put off before the battle was won. All this boasting, glorification, and pro- phetic declaration only heralded a compromise far worse than a defeat. Just five years later, in 1874, " The Woman Suffrage Society " accepted Mr. Forsyth's Bill containing this clause, abrogating the whole woman-suffrage principle : " Provided that no married woman shall be entitled to vote in such election." " The Woman Suffrage Society," in 1869, says : " We are educating the women of England for the suffrage." Five years later, the same Society eats its own words, and accepts a Bill which expressly declares that no wife shall vote. That is, the Society deliberately betrays the very cause it was established to support; places marriage under a stigma ; and declares that women, socially the foremost, and morally the best — shall, ipso facto, not vote. " We are educating the women * Victoria Magazine, March, 1871. The best male heads then in faTOur of woman suffrage, might be counted on the fingers ! 166 Woman Suffrage Wrong. of England for the franchise." That sounds grand. Wives swelled the chorus. But five years later, spinsters and widows come in with this amendment : — " Provided that no married woman shall vote." " Parturiunt montes ; — nascetur ridiculus mus." " How are the mighty fallen ! " Spinsters and widows were too eager to exercise political power. They grasped at a shadow, and lost the substance. Such selfishness was naturally resented, and alienated all consistent advocates of "Woman Suffrage, as a principle. Madame B. A. Yenturi withdrew from the Society, on account of this clause. This lady very properly gave the Society its true and new name, " The Spinster and Widow Suffrage Associa- tion." Even this title does not fully designate the Society. For so long as they accept a Bill distinctly limiting votes to single women, they are in effect, " The Spinster and Widow Anti-Wife Suffrage Association." It was indeed curious to find universal woman suffrage advocates, and partial or accidental woman suffrage advocates, both basing the voting-right on possession of property. Mr. Bouverie, M.P., said in the House : " The hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill* argued that women had property, and that it was right that property should be repre- sented. Such an argument would have come very well from the opposition, but it seemed strange that * Mr. Jacob Bright, who, on this account, was considered by woman suflfrage advocates, to have a better head than the late John Bright, who to the last opposed woman suffrage ! Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 167 it should be advanced by the very men who had always upheld the personal right of voting."* We can now test the pretensions of spinsters and widows in comfortable circumstances, claiming to represent their sex on the franchise question. They alone would be enfranchised. Like previous ones, the present Bill does not touch the principle of woman suffrage, but to condemn it. Its most effi- cient and practical champions avow hostility to that principle. Mr. Woodall asks votes, not for spinsters and widows generally, but only for those already sufficiently independent to be house-owners or occu- piers ; leaving the great majority of spinsters, widows, and all wives, unenfranchised. Are these spinsters and widows (all more or less independent, and some rich) the most proper persons to represent women in general, or to redress the grievances of wives, and of women condemned to earn their daily bread ? If not, then spinsters and widows will naturally consider their own personal interests first. They are human and ambitious. But they claim the suffrage that it may be utilised on behalf of downtrodden women in general, not for themselves in particular ! Yet their eagerness to possess political power is quite inconsistent with such pro- fessions. "Were they such disinterested champions of womanhood suffrage, they would not clutch eagerly at votes for themselves. They would re- pudiate so partial a measure of enfranchisement, or only support, and accept it, on the clear under- * 12 May, 1870. 168 Woman Suffrage Wrong. standing that it sbould not be final, but an instal- ment of a much more comprehensive measure. 'They would denounce any Bill containing a clause disen- franchising married women. The "Woodall Bill seeks to enfranchise only the very class which least requires protection; with fewest grievances to redress. What will spinsters and widows do with the franchise, if they get it ? Exercise it for their own benefit, while the vast majority of women go without ? Pursue the agitation for woman suffrage, or rest and be thankful; or copy men, and having got the franchise themselves, hinder its extension to other classes ? If they rest satisfied with their own en- franchisement, they will forfeit the sympathy of their sex; of wives; of all advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle. If they extend the agita- tion, they will alienate those practical friends who obtained the franchise for spinsters and widows, on the express stipulation that it should never be further extended. It is contended that female tax and ratepayers should have votes. Eeflect to what this plausible plea leads. First-class advocates openly avow — third-class advocates chuckle over, but do not avow ; and second-class advocates apparently do not admit ; that if on any pretence whatever, one woman is enfranchised, sooner or later, the whole sex must be enfranchised. Why should spinster and widow enfranchisement settle the question ? How could that allay the agitation for married woman suffrage ? Second-class advocates may allege that household Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 169 suffrage will not necessarily lead to universal suffrage for women, any more than it does for men. But the fallacy of this argument lies in this fact, that there is no real analogy between male household suffrage, and female household suffrage ! The man house- holder (being generally married) is a more important member of society than the single man. "With women, it is generally the reverse. The matron who must not vote, is cceteris paribus, a more impor- tant member of society, than the spinster or widow householder, whom this Bill would enfranchise. If then we break down the present barrier, and say sex shall not exclude from electoral power, provided a certain property qualification exists, we shall not be able to stop there, and draw a hard-and-fast line between spinsters and wives holding property : nor will wives submit to see themselves politically dis- abled, as compared with unmarried women-voters. Wives will not be pacified by being told that they have no real cause of complaint. They w*ill reply that, giving votes to spinsters and widows on4y, and expressly excluding wives, places the former politi- cally above the latter ; thereby reversing the social order, and actually casting a slur upon marriage. They may add that respectable matrons are far more worthy of being entrusted with votes, than a pro- portion of female householders, or house-occupiers, who have dispensed with the marriage ceremony ! The stereotyped argument is that tax and rate- paying women should enjoy all the privileges accorded to tax and rate-paying men. Women rate- 170 Woman Suffrage Wrong. payers naturally regard this as conclusive, since it would give them votes ! But let readers clearly comprehend the scope of this argument for spinster and widow voters. It is proposed to enfranchise certain women, not as women, but as citizens. That is, because they are already, more or less independent, they and tJiey alone of their sex, shall have this male privilege of voting ! Citizens' privi- leges are accorded to men, not merely on a property qualification, but also in right of sex ; and properly so, because from men, are exacted citizens' duties, fraught with toil, danger, and considerable con- sumption of valuable time — from which all women are exempted, solely in right of sex ! This fact alone (the corner-stone of a civilised social struc- ture) deals a death-blow to all theories of Sexual Equality, with persons capable of reflection. Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P., said : — " No reason has been given for excluding women from the franchise, beyond the fact that they are women." Had he possessed his distinguished brother's logical faculty, Mr. Jacob Bright would have perceived that this fact constitutes and involves the very strongest reasons for excluding them ; so long as it can be said per contra : — No reason can be given for exclud- ing women from the burthens imposed on male citizens, beyond the fact that they are women ! Exclusion from burthens, is a fair offset against exclusion from privileges ; to all logical thinkers. Not of course to platform Amazons, who aro-ue thus : " Woman is man's equal, therefore woman Analysts of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 171 should have man's rights added to her own." The gentler sex are not expected to serve in army, navy> marines, militia, volunteers, police, coastguard, fire brigade; on juries ; nor to render the State various other arduous services required in time of need from all able-bodied men. In all civilised states, women have been, and are, dispensed from war's perils, and from a great number of dangerous occupations, in right of sex — (which even Amazons admit to be physically weaker than the male) — and on account of important maternal functions devolved on wives, not by man's unjust legislation, and tyrannical oppression, but by the Creator's fiat. Each sex has its special naturally- appointed duties, and corresponding privileges. Woe to nation, race, or individual, wh ere such an equitable. Divinely-disposed division of labour — mental, and physical — is not jealously respected, and zealously guarded ! Can woman carry arms in her country's defence ? Can she capture smugglers, robbers, thieves, murderers ; patrol the streets, protect pro- perty during night, or quell a riot ? Exceptional Amazons will be dealt with in next chapter. But on behalf of "Woman, man's help -meet ; not rival and enemy — as the true champion of her natural rights and dearest privileges (which sexual equality would scatter to the winds) — I reply : No ; — gentle loving precious woman cannot do — ought not to attempt such things. We expect, and exact such offices from man alone ! Woman is no more capable of making, administering, and executing laws, than of 172 Woman Suffrage Wrong. defending the country at hazard of her life. Milton, echoing the inspired volume, observes : — " Laws are masculine births. Nothing is more away from the law of God and Nature, than that a woman should give laws to man." Woman can no more discharge man's special duties, as citizen, soldier, politician, ■ jurist, legislator, judge, statesman, general, admiral, etc., than man can fulfil woman's special conjugal and maternal functions. Each sex is strong, precisely where the other is weak. Bach therefore is the other's supplement ; not substitute. Such is the ordinance of Infinite Wisdom. It is a mere juggling with words, to apply to woman, the term citizen, in the sense in which it is applied to man. Woman, more delicate and frail, always more or less an invalid, can never be a full citizen.* This provision for sexual non-equality, is with persons possessed of common sense and justice, reckoned as compensation for excluding women from direct political power. That they may, and do influence by tongue and pen, privately, and from platform, is well known. And it is ridiculous to say that women are not represented in Parlia- ment, because they cannot vote. The great * " For male and female, there is no serious difference of opinion or sentiment, until the age of puberty. Then how great the dififer- ence. The boy springing into manhood, is at once and for ever developed, and so far as sex is concerned, completed. Whereas the woman, for a period varying from 20 to 30 years, is an admir- ably-constructed apparatus for the most mysterious and sublime of Nature's mysteries — the reproductive process " (" On the Keal Differences in the Minds of Men and Women," Anthrop. Journ., Oct., 1869). See Essay, for explanation of term in text. Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 173 majority of men cannot vote. Unquestionably, non-voting men and women are indirectly repre- sented. Besides, the fair, legitimate means of influencing legislation open to both sexes, non- voting woman's influence is here far stronger than that of non-voting man. The pre-eminence given to questions affecting woman, sufficiently proves this fact. Since then ordinary observation, hourly experience, respect for women, men, nature, pos- terity, Revelation, Divine and human laws, compel us to make such important distinctions in the duties imposed on men and women; it is absurdly, wickedly unjust to ask legislators to make no dis- tinction in the privileges of the sexes. Indeed such a claim is intolerable, and impossible of fulfilment. Men treat women much better than their equals. Sexual Equality, instead of adding to women's rights, would strip them of those which they now enjoy as a matter of course, and cannot properly value until lost ! The logical man-woman wants to be treated like a man, and a woman too ! Makers, administrators, and interpreters of our laws, legislators, judges, lawyers, ministers of Religion, upholders of time-honoured institutions which have made the United Kingdom, prosperous, great, in the van of progress, the freest of all nations, past or present, cannot treat this all-important Woman Suffrage question, as a mere matter of sentiment and gallantry ; or as the " trivial subject " which it was misrepresented to be, by a lady writer in The Victoria Magazine previously quoted. 174 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Miss Becker made the grand discovery that the word Man, scientifically used, comprises both sexes. Hence the lady logician argued — (and doubtless proved satisfactorily to self and party) — that woman, in addition to woman's rights ; is clearly entitled to all the rights of man, including of course such a trifle as the political franchise, which, as women outnumber men, would, as womanhood suffrage, enable women to rule men directly, as they now do indirectly. Eevising barristers, however, being men and lawyers, were too obtuse, or preju- diced to see the logical force of this clever argument, and relentlessly struck female names off the rolls of voters. The inventor of this argumentum ad fcemi- nam, proves far too much ! If the word Man is to be wrested from its purely scientific meaning, and applied politically to give women the franchise — if it is to comprehend women so far as man's privileges are concerned, it must also comprehend women, so far as man's duties and burthens are involved ! Our legislators are asked to abrogate the law; our judges and lawyers to interpret and stretch the law, so as to confer — not on women in general — not on the foremost, most important women — not on wives, and mothers charged with educating the rising generation — not even on the poorest, most helpless women, but on a favoured class comprising comfortable, independent and wealthy women — the privileges of both sexes! And the refusal of such demand is resented as a great injustice to this class, and to women in general ! The reply is virtually Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 175 this : — The demand of certain women for man's privileges, is as unreasonable as would be the demand of certain men for women's privileges — exemption from citizens' duties, male burthens, toils, dangers involving hazard and sacrifice of life. To grant this demand, made not as a request, but as a Bight, would be to ignore all distinctions between man and woman, to subvert nature and the constitution, to destroy the foundations of law, order, social and domestic happiness. In 1870 Mr. Gladstone said : " I cannot recognise either the necessity or desire for this measure which would justify such an un- settling, not to say uprooting of the old landmarks of society." This sound observation was made previously to the then Premier's " education" in the principles of Woman Suffrage. Since then Mr. Gladstone was "got at" by some of the platform ladies, and the " grand old man " began immediately, like a weather- cock, to veer to the wind. At Greenwich, when power was slipping from him, he made a bid for popularity in these words : — " How, in an age when from year to year more and more women are be- coming self-dependent members of the community, how without tampering with the fundamental laws that determine providentially their position in the world — how are we to remove the serious social inequality under which I, for one, think they labour." Here, Mr. Gladstone very cleverly execu- ted his favourite verbal manoeuvre of sitting on two stools. He would not promise to vote for Woman 176 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Suffrage, but he gave it a word of encouragement. Not nearly enough, however, to please platform ladies, and they were ready to twitch one stool from under him. His " education " did not proceed fast enough. They will never be satisfied till he goes into the same lobby with Mr. Woodall. An Irish lady, Miss Downing, comments on what she calls an oracular passage thus : — " I feel I ought to be ashamed of my want of knowledge on a question of such vital importance, but I really was in utter ignorance as to any fundamental laws determining providentially my position in society, and am still very sceptical as to Providence having had any hand in the extraordinary mixture of arbitrary laws and absurd social customs which go to make the present position of woman." Miss Downing has not quoted Mr. Gladstone quite correctly. This lady was one of the pleasantest Woman Suffrage advocates I ever met. I hope she has discovered that there are certain fundamental laws determining not merely the inter-relations of the sexes, but involving to some extent the position and career of every human being; and that in opposing "Woman Suffrage the Eight Hon. Mr. Gladstone was a more intelligent friend to woman, than Mr. Jacob Bright. That change in the views of Ministers and Mem- bers of Parliament dignified by the title of " educa- tion," commonly means neither more nor less, than inducing them to retract their own valuable inde- pendent opinions deliberately formed on the merits of the question, in deference partly to party and Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 177 popular clamour ; partly to coaxing and wheedling. Thus Mr. Bruce was induced to yield as to abolition of " The Contagious Diseases Acts." The part played by some women in this indecent agitation conclusively negatives the assertion that they have not enough indirect political influence ; and warns against trusting the impulsive sex with direct political power. The infatuated Ninus was allured into delegating his imperial power to his queen Semiramis. She made use of it to cut off his head ! " So far as we can judge from the action of their leaders, the great advantage of giving women votes, would be to enable them to join more vigorously than ever, in discussions about contagious diseases. We are perhaps blinded by prejudice, but the specimen we have had of the political influence of women in this respect, does not encourage us to think that either they, or the country would be much improved by conceding them ex- tended rights. The chief effect on legislation would probably be a stronger clerical influence, and a greater disposition to exceed the bounds within which legislation can be useful; the effect on women themselves, would be to encourage the behef that sentiment will supply the place of reasoning. What- ever other advantages may resillt, the very last quality that would be encouraged, is that which we are assured is specially deficient in female educa- tion — a thorough and- systematic cultivation of mind. That is not the quality which specially succeeds in modern politics. If education means an orderly 178 Woman Suffrage Wrong. development of the faculties, an inducement offered to women to leave the station for which they are fitted, is so far an incitement to develop in a wrong direction."* " But female householders are a small minority. They would not swamp male voters. Give them the franchise. Extend it no further. Expressly exclude married women." Such is the virtual demand of supporters of the present bill, which can be urged consistently only by second-class advo- cates pledged to oppose any further extension of the franchise. And before it can be urged to any practical purpose by them, they should be able to guarantee that granting so much, will not involve greater concessions. It cannot be urged by first- class advocates, or by women eligible for the fran- chise, claiming to represent their sex on this question, without utterly abandoning every atom of principle on which they base the demand for Woman Suffrage. If no further concession is to be granted, it means : Only relax the law, founded on obvious distinctive functions of sex, sufficiently to let a certain number of women become possessed of electoral privileges, and then slam the door in the faces of all the rest ! The cool selfishness, illogical character, and matchless impudence of this demand, almost surpass belief. But it is so written in the bond — i.e., in the Woodall Bill. Women who would be enfranchised by this bill, are some affluent, some prosperous, others in middling circumstances • • Saturday Review, Nov. 11, 1871. Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 179 but all, more or less, independent, above the world. None could be married, and consequently would have no direct personal interest in redressing the wrongs of wives; yet these are professed as the principal reason for granting Woman Suffrage. The suffering wife is a favourite platform platitude pleaded by Miss Amazon. She never intends to marry, but proves her sincere sympathy for her married sisters, by logically and consistently accept- ing votes for herself and " mates " conditionally, that the great majority of women and all wives shall remain for ever unenfranchised ! Observe that the Woodall Bill expressly says this, and if it means the contrary, all who help to pass it are either deceivers, or deceived. Note the demoralis- ing effect of the suffrage only in perspective ! Women, who after obtaining the franchise, should then rest and be thankful, indifferent, if not actively hostile to its extension to their sisters left out in the cold, are selfish beings, utterly unworthy of the suffrage, and not representatives of their sex. Such do not deserve the support of first-class advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle. On the other hand, those who declare (as many women did, and possibly some stilL do) that they are not fighting a petty selfish class battle, but labouring to educate women in general for the suffrage, plainly warn us that any Woman Suffrage Bill (no matter what the restrict- ing clauses introduced to slip it through Parlia- ment) is not intended to remain a final measure ! A final bill is partial and unjust, for it abandons 180 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Woman Suffrage as a principle. If not final, no one should advocate it who opposes Woman Suffrage in general. But how serious the responsibility for persons opposed to enfranchising wives, to aid in passing a bill which will be considered as the first instalment of universal woman suffrage ! Thus the bill cannot be logically and consistently supported by any of the three classes of its advocates ! The bill asks either too little, or too much. Citizens are eligible for many ofl&ces besides voting. Advo- cates of the bill are not merely, consciously or unconsciously, preparing for universal women suffrage. They menace the constitution with a still more serious revolution. Consistently with principle and equity, they cannot concede to women the electoral privilege and nothing more. If a woman may elect, why may not a woman be elected to Parliament? This view, not at all chimerical, and never fairly met, is clearly stated by Mr. Bouverie, M.P., thus : — " If women once get ad- mission to the House, it would be difficult to say where matters would end. If they conceded electoral power to women, they could not refuse them legisla- tive, judicial, or administrative power. All the great branches of political power would have to be given to women." • Logical Results of Woman Suffrage. Advocates and opponents of Woman Suffrage, as a principle, are both directly interested in opposing a measure seeking to enfranchise a minority of Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 181 women by a "fluke." The plausible plea that women will never get their " Rights " until they are directly represented, involves two glaring fallacies. 1. It directly insults all men, and espe- cially Parliament. 2. It proves far too much. For it is a good and valid plea for enfranchising all women — not a mere handful ! How will it benefit women generally, to enfranchise a fraction of woman- kind, some rich, and all more or less independent ? To grant Spinster and Widow Suffrage only, and call it Woman Suffrage, is a delusion and a snare, adding insult to injury. It is simply the representa- tion of Pro;perty held by certain women, all of whom must be unmarried. The vote on these terms is an invidious privilege in which the majority of women and all wives, even if property-holders, are forbidden to share. Women signing petitions for so-called Woman Suffrage, are grossly deceived. They are ignorantly supporting a measure which deliberately declares that the great mass of women never shall be enfranchised ! It is women suffrage accidentally; and to this extent only, that some half-a- million or more women would become electors — but not one married woman, however great her real property. If final as declared, this measure deceives, mocks, and insults the great mass of unenfranchised women, all wives, and all honest advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle. As we shall see, Spinster and Widow Suffrage does not settle — but simply creates a far more serious grievance than what it professes to remedy ; and 182 Woman Suffrage Wrong. thereby intensifies a very pretty quarrel, or mortal struggle of ten years' standing — Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp ! The plausible platform plea is tliat woman's interests are not sufficiently considered. The vote is claimed that women may return to Parliament members pledged to carry certain measures which their female constituents deem conducive to their interests. I do not admit the validity of this plea : The married woman's property act, and other legislative measures to protect women's interests, prove the charge untrue. I appeal to facts as evidence that the Legislature is perfectly willing to remedy all real grievances, especially affecting women; and that they can, without votes, obtain any measure tending to their real interests. Already women put a very strong pressure on Parliament, by legitimate and by illegitimate means. Among the latter are " bogus " woman suffrage petitions, largely signed by female servants, and other women not eligible for the suffrage, should Mr. Woodall's bill become law ; a double deceit. Parliament is thus led to believe that the demand for woman suffrage is far more general than it is ; and poor, silly, ignorant female dupes (like poor Hodge, pining for three acres and a cow) actually sign petitions in aid of a Bill to prevent the enfranchise- ment of women in general ! Also by coaxing and wheedling M.P.'s to vote against their judgment and conscience. " A considerable number of M.P.'s have at times voted for woman's franchise, in a sort Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 183 of complimentary way to women, never believing that it would be carried. The boast of its advocates that the measure may be carried, and the parade of promises of support that they have received, have led many to perceive the abyss into which their thoughtless civility was leading them. Most have recanted. Some will vote against any Bill for giving women votes ; others, who have been loudest in professing their approval, will somehow keep away whenever the vote is taken. Revile me, ladies, if you will, but do not fancy I deceive you."* Under protest, then, I assume, merely for argu- ment's sake, the platform hypothesis that woman's interests require the protection of women voters. Suppose then the Woodall Bill carried : Spinster and Widow Suffrage have become law. Here are its logical and inevitable results : These women-voters will, or will not directly influence elections. If not, the measure, ipso facto, fails. Then, and in that case, there will be a cry that the female con- stituency must be indefinitely increased. But suppose these 800,000 women-voters influencing elections — to the extent of returning certain mem- bers pledged to vote as told. These may be called women's men, as being under political petticoat * Truth, 11th April, 1889. Mr. Labouchere may not have followed 80 long, and so closely as I have, the Woman Suffrage Movement. But the expression " Eevile me, ladies," shows that he is well acquainted with the manner in which its lady advocates receive opposition! 184 Woman Suffrage Wrong. government. Suppose these women's men do not satisfy their female constituents, acting like other representatives, or even more independently. They grow weary of receiving orders from " strong- minded " female deputations ; are " not frightened by a female fuss,'' parasols, umbrellas, and hisses. The Spinster and Widows' men pluck up a spirit, become recalcitrant, exercise independent judgment, and are ashamed of advocating a feminine policy totally repugnant to their own better judgment. No very extraordinary supposition. All conscientious thinking M.P.'s occasionally refuse to be bound by party allegiance, and the bellowing of a caucus-led mob. In short, the women's men combine, wax valiant, muster up courage to disobey their lady constituents; flatly refuse to vote as told, and determine to follow the promptings of their own sweet wills ; alleging, as some excuse, that spinster and widow voters do not represent the wishes of the vast majority of women, and wives : and that they, the women's men, perceive a divided duty. Result — open rupture and deadlock ! Then, and in that case, what is the value of this measure of Woman Suffrage ? Spinster and Widow voters, in Scriptural phrase " took men," i.e., re- turned to Parliament women's men, to be — accord- ing to Mr. Herbert Spencer — mere mouthpieces of their constituents, so many Don Quixotes, to be ever occupied in redressing women's wrongs, and to do nothing else. And these women's men flatly refuse to do the Spinster and Widows' bidding; Analysts of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 185 will no longer tilt at windmills with female Quixotes ; ridicule the very cause they enlisted to serve ; and openly repudiate the sickening cant that British women, the freest, happiest, most cherished and honoured in the world — are classed with felons, idiots, lunatics, outlaws, and minors, because they have not votes ! Something like a real grievance at last ! And spinsters and widows are not the mera to let the occasion slip. They will urge that their interests are not properly promoted by men ; that they women-voters, are mocked, deceived, and betrayed, by the possession of votes, practically useless; that to wield real electoral power, and influence legislation, they must be represented by women. They will logically add : " If permitted to elect, why should not we be elected to Parlia- ment? If we may legislate indirectly, why not directly ? We have tried women's men, and found them worse than failures — deceivers, traitors. No more women's men for us ! Women can represent women far more effectually than mere men. We will return women representatives to Parliament." " Tall talk ! " you say. But 800,000 women will proceed to action. " What then ? Let them elect a woman. She could not take her seat." No ; but she could, and would try! There would be " scenes " far more exciting than those of the Bradlaugh incident. Only imagine a strong-minded, strong-bodied, duly elected lady, forcing her way into the House. There might be several — but one 186 Woman Suffrage Wrong. is enough to test the case. Would door-keepers dare to keep her out ? If she once got in, would the combined wisdom of Parliament, measured against her female wit, ever get her out, or keep her out ? Suppose she sat down and threatened to holla " Fire," if interfered with. Would the Serjeant-at-arms venture to obey the Speaker's order to remove the incomplete member vi et armis ? Suppose that grave official and the lady M.P. per- forming an involuntary pas de deux, a novel kind of waltz, an impromptu "No Popery" dance, from the table to the door ; could Honourable members preserve their gravity ? But even were " the resources of civilisation " competent to eject the intruder, could the House pass calmly to the order of the day ? Would not legislators be harassed by painful memories, and by still more painful fore- bodings — to say nothing of imminent danger. Imagine Trafalgar Square filled with women in revolt ! Imagine the incomplete lady member weeping, with dishevelled hair, making political capital out of her sufferings, exhibiting marks of personal violence ; appealing to an Amazonian army awfully arrayed, ready and willing to copy the excesses of Parisian women at Versailles 6th October, 1789.* * Eeaders deeming this picture overcharged, should refer to " The Modern Woman" (Truth, 14th June, 1888). The article describes women forcing themselves into the Ladies' Gallery to hear a debate on a particularly revolting subject. The Speaker's warning given by the attendants, was " treated with flaunting insolence and impudent contempt." Nor would they listen in Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 187 Seriously, however, how long would the present law restricting membership to men, remain un- changed ? If 800,000 women can talk themselves into possession of votes, they will soon talk women into Parliament. I challenge rational consistent women suffrage advocates to reply satisfactorily in the negative. Advocates of women voting, cannot consistently object to women legislating. In en- franchising women, they make a much more radical change in the constitution, than in sanctioning female Members of Parliament. If some women are better fitted than some men to vote ; the same or other women are better fitted than other women to legislate. Mrs. Weldon might be returned at the head of the poll. If so, that persevering lady would take her seat or know the reason why. You let 800,000 women overleap the constitutional barriers now restricting electoral power to man. Do you really expect this female constituency and their male allies, suddenly to stop short in their self-sketched programme of political power ? Little they know of human, of womanly, and of political woman's nature, who think the agitation for silence. " At the conclusion of one speech, these nasty-minded women, actually, in violation of all rules of the House, began applauding with their fans on the grating in front — a proceeding so grossly irregular and indecent as to compel a stern cry of ' Order ! Order I ' from the Speaker, and a significant hand-wave from the Leader of the House, to show that the most careless men present were guiltless of such an indignity, and that it remained for the Modern Woman to prove her contempt for common decency, and ostentatiously boast her lower proclivities." 188 Woman Suffrage Wrong. political power would subside with Spinster and Widow suffrage ! Why should it ? You have given 800,000 women sufficient power to make them wish for more ; and you have excited very natural envy in the mass of women for the suffrage. It will then be too late to say to ambitious women burning to distinguish themselves, and to extinguish man's monopoly in the Senate : " Think what you ask. If women may become legislators, they may become ministers — anything and everything they fancy." Women-electors will then openly say, what they now only think. " Of course we may ! So you men have just discovered the game we women have been playing, and with your valuable help, are now on the point of winning. You clever inconsistent advocates of women suffrage should have thought of the consequences, before assisting us to pass Mr. Woodall's bill. Had you at first put your feet down against Woman Suffrage, you would have been consistent. You foolishly helped us to electoral power, thinking that would settle the question. A.s if we would have been satisfied with this paltry modicum of political power, even if married women would have tolerated the invidious distinction of Spinster and Widow voters represent- ing, and betraying their sex! We. now fight their battle, and our own. We defy you to withhold from duly-elected women, legislative power. That gained, you have simply conceded woman's right to hold office in any, and every department of the public service. You have forfeited all right to say : Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 189 'Thus far, and no further. This occupation is womanly; that is not,' Political power includes everything ! " Women electors would say very much more. But this is more than enough logically to silence their present allies, who simply think that Spinster and Widow Suffrage will settle the vexed question. Settle it, in one way, it certainly would — but not as they think. Consider the view that this driblet of woman suffrage would, and ought to settle the Woman Suffrage Question. We were told in 1869 that women were educating the Women of England for the Suffrage. And in 1871 that the victory was already won ! In face of these facts, can it be seriously believed that women want nothing more than the representation of property, accidentally possessed by spinsters and widows ? This partial success in gaining the electoral franchise, would only stimulate women and their allies to greater efforts. Then, and in that case, I — a straight- forward, independent, conscientious, consistent Woman Suffrage opponent — do not hesitate to state my conviction that the great mass of women, re- maining non-electors, are simply deceived, hood- winked, betrayed, and aggrieved. Absurd to pretend that giving votes to 800,000 spinsters and widows, will materially benefit or satisfy the grand majority of women. The mass of women will be quite as much directly unrepresented as they are now ; while actually forbidden to agitate for a larger measure of woman suffrage, lest forsooth 190 Woman Suffrage Wrong. they should thereby jeopardise the votes mono- pohsed by a favoured minority. Add to this injustice, that female non-electors would be mocked by the pretence that the Woman-Suffrage Question was settled by admitting 800,000 Spinsters and Widows to the suffrage ! A measure which actually places a political stigma on Holy Matrimony ; does not distinguish between reputable, and disreputable female householders, and expressly excludes all wives ; ought not to become law. Vainly will you labour to convince women-electors, and non-electors that their respective claims are unreasonable. Is it reasonable to seek to redress the wrongs of wives, by enfranchising spinsters and widows? Is it reasonable to seek to remedy the grievances of female operatives at hard uncongenial toil utterly unsuitable to women, by proclaiming Sexual Equality ; a doctrine which, reduced to practice, thrusts women out into the world without any claim for protection, into the most severe com- petition, most uncompromising rivalry with man, and makes her a slave ? Spinster and Widow- Suffrage has no raison d'etre, as a final measure. It should be steadily resisted by advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle ; or only supported, on the express condition that if passed, it is but the instalment of a much wider extension of the suffrage. CHAPTER II. WOMEN POLITICIANS INVOLVE WOMEN WAEEIOES ! Abe woman suffrage advocates prepared for women becoming legislators, office-holders, ministers, secre- taries of state, heads of departments in civil, military, and naval affairs, governors, generals, admirals, bishops, soldiers, sailors, etc. ? If they say, " Yes," they will not have proved woman's right to such occupations; but they will be at least consistent woman suffrage advocates. If they say, " No," I challenge their reasons. Mean- time, I will endeavour to prove that in thus limiting woman's sphere, they are totally inconsistent with their own professions ; eat their words, and nullify their own arguments for Women Suffrage ! To me — a consistent opponent of that measure — all these " rights " and many more appear included in the direct exercise of political power by women ; and logically follow from granting woman suffrage. Political rights include everything ! If you make woman a citizen, you concede to her all a citizen's rights, and you entail upon her all a citizen's duties. 192 Woman Suffrage Wrong. I now argue on the hypothesis that woman suffrage is a right. If you contend that woman can become a complete citizen, be consistent; have the courage of your opinions, and " go in " boldly for a real measure of Woman Suffrage. Logically and consistently demand for women legislative, judicial, administra'- tive powers ; in short, all the privileges, and all the duties of both sexes. No woman's rights champion can show why woman should be excluded from a military, as well as a political career. It is not yet said that we should copy that enlightened African monarch Gelele, King of Dahome, and raise an army of Amazons. But I challenge any Woman Suffrage advocate to show satisfactorily why we should not so utilise our surplus women. Many more women are exceptional in jphysical, than in mental vigour. For one woman really meriting the much misapplied term strong- minded, there are 500 undoubtedly strong-bodied. On the plea of sexual mental equality, political power, and the right to labour in any profession, are claimed for women. Such claims logically sweep the whole field of industry, and include the right of all martially-inclined, able-bodied women to act independently of vulgar prejudice, and follow the prompting of their own sweet wills, as to enlisting in the army and navy, entering the militia, volun- teers, and all branches of the public service, civil and military ; even should we stop short of our manifest right to compel women to share with their equals and fellow citizens — men — in defending our Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors' ! 193 common country. If the sexual equality theory be reduced to practice, women must be compelled to do their share of all the dangerous work now monopo- lised by man ; a result of their pet hypothesis not yet perceived by logical platform Amazons ! But, observe, the question here, is not man's right of forcing women to accept all the burthens along with all the privileges of citizenship; but of granting woman's right to select any profession or career, of her own free choice — no matter how laborious, dangerous, or how much opposed to previous con- ceptions of what is womanly or the reverse ! Here, observe, I argue logically on my hypothesis, and leave woman's rights advocates far behind ! What excuse can they find for preventing women from voluntarily entering the military service ? " She must vote, because she wishes to vote," cry woman suffrage advocates. Ergo: If she wishes to fight, she must be permitted to fight ! Female regiments might at first be formed. But surely in these days of advocacy for mixed medical and surgical classes, such a restriction on female liberty will appear manifestly unjust. Be consistent; vote for mixed regiments, as well as for mixed classes. Prudes will think the suggestion indelicate. But under the new and original state of society, to which woman suffrage must inevitably bring us, vulgar prejudices will disappear. Men and women- soldiers serving promiscuously in the ranks, will excite no more surprise and animadversion, than male and female medical students hearing lectures, 194 Woman Suffrage Wrong. studying anatomy, dissecting, vivisecting, and walking the hospitals together. Dr. Drysdale, a warm woman suffrage advocate, observes : — " Wherever men go, women should accompany them." According to his view, our soldiers and sailors should all be married, and their wives should accompany them on active service, regard- less of expense ! It is only stretching the point a little further, to permit wives to accompany their husbands to the battle field. If, in an age when logically and consistently, women can be no more constrained, repressed, and protected than men, this proposal seems too barbarous ; if it be urged that expectant mothers should on no account be permitted to peril their unborn infants, such an objection could not at first seem to apply to un- married women soldiers. Yet cynical critics will urge that unless we can abolish human passions and extincts, as well as women's political disabilities, it will be extremely difl&cult, if not impossible, for male and female soldiers campaigning together, and for male and female sailors on board the same ship, to live as chastely as the Mount Lebanon Shakers, or other spiritual soldiers ! There are several well-authenticated instances of martially-minded women, who have concealed their sex under the manly garb, and braved all the toils and dangers of many campaigns. Such women must have been actuated by very strong military ardour. Woman Suffrage annals do not furnish an exact analogical instance. Platform Amazons speak. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 195 "think, feel, and live like man." They copy his dress very closely. Some American ladies have gone still further, and have actually adopted the tyrant's dress. But they have not yet attempted to disguise their female individualities — to pass them- selves off on the world as men, that they might personate male voters. Thus, female warriors have given stronger intimations of their wishes, than female politicians have yet done of theirs. In a new state of society, one sex will not be more con- strained than another : every woman will emulate man's independence — freedom of thought, speech, and action ; and do precisely what seems right in her own eyes. There will be a great increase in female warriors. The martial spirit is now very widely diffused, especially among Amazonian insurrectionary women, demanding political, and other involved rights, and urging women into a hostile attitude towards men. Not a few women will then, and even now, endorse the sentiments of that fine strong-minded sample — Medea : — " Yet will they say We live an easy life at home, secure Prom danger, whilst they lift the spear in war : Misjudging men ; thrice would I stand in arms On the rough edge of battle, e'er once bear The pangs' of child-birth."* " There's a good time coming, girls," when women will be eligible for anything, and everything, " from pitch-and-toss to manslaughter." Enlightened pos- terity will welcome, and improve on Dr. Drysdale's * Potter's " Euripides." 196 Woman Suffrage Wrong. suggestion that " women should accompany man everywhere." Advocates, eager to remove woman's political disabilities, should give us a bill more straight- forward, consistent, thorough, and comprehensive than this poor abortive measure of compromise ; this bill which gives the vote to concubines and courtesans, possessing establishments, while refusing it to all wives, even when possessing property in their own right.* While we are legislating, let us not stick at half measures. Give us a bill to remove woman's natural disabilities, a bill to abolish sex altogether. Let the medical mixed classes women turn their attention to remedying the injustice of Nature, who with true feminine obstinacy, persists in devolving child-bearing on women. Let men- women " go ahead " until able to say with Moliere's Mock Doctor : — " Nous avons change tout cela." Permit every woman to do wJiat her hand findeih to do — what seems right in her own e^es.f Let female * " This Bill ought to be opposed, whenever it does come for- ward, by every friend of woman. It grants to Hagar, what it denies to Sarah ; it gives women votes, and then disqualifies them, if they marry. A woman has to elect between the social rights of a wife, and the political rights of an elector. The former is a dis- qualification to the enjoyment of the latter. I am not surprised, therefore, that all the principal advocates of female suffrage among women are bitterly opposed to it." (Truth, 11th April, 1889.) I The expression of the italicised sentence at the Victoria Dis- cussion Society, elicited approval in the shape of " Hear, hear :" {Victoria Magazine, August, 1870). Either the approving ladies did not understand that I spoke ironically, or perceiving that I did, they endorsed my words literally. No one who has attended these Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 197 modesty, female weakness, female virtue take care of themselves ! Female warfare will at once provide for all, or most of our surplus women. Women who have got no work to do, may convert them- selves into Military Amazons ; provided, of course, that they have the required girth round the chest which satisfies our recruiting sergeants. Thus, all our unoccupied women will be absorbed by army, navy, marines, militia, volunteers, police, coast- guard, fire brigade, navvies, etc. And, considering the present state of Piccadilly, and other "West End thoroughfares at midnight, this would be a very great blessing ! There might be exclusively female regiments for prudes, who still cling to old-fashioned notions of propriety— should any such women sur- vive the march of progress. Women who unite strong minds to strong bodies, " mens sana in corpore sano" will discard vulgar prejudices. If their martial tastes lead them to the military profession, they will set an example of independence by enter- ing mixed regiments, just as some women prefer mixed classes.* The active stirring life of a campaign meetings can really believe that women will be satisfied with the imperfect modicum of the franchise doled forth in Mr. Woodall's little Bill. * At the Victoria Discussion Society, I heard a young lady say she saw no impropriety in mixed classes ! Charity suggests a hope that this lady did not know what she was talking about. Will anyone, with a name, dare to advocate male and female medical students listening together to lectures on certain diseases affecting certain portions of the human body ? Should there be a professor depraved enough to lecture, and women depraved enough to remain, all medical students who respect their mothers and sisters, 198 Woman Suffrage Wrong. will be tlie best cure for many female complaints resulting from a sedentary life ; and when political disabilities are removed, women who now go through a regimen, may prefer to go through a regiment ! The title of Knox's work, against " The Monstrous Regiment of "Women," may then be taken in its most literal sense. The objection that female dress is unsuitable for soldiering and sailoring, I regard as a mere cavil. The future enfranchised woman will not retain any special garb distinctive of sex. She will abandon that characteristic mark of woman's subjection. Under her present political disability, the law accounts it a misdemeanour for a man, or a woman, to assume the dress distinctive of that sex to which he or she does not belong. Public Opinion endorses the law, and womanly modesty still makes most women shrink from the bare idea of donning the manly garb, and thus confounding sex. But con- sistent "Woman's Rights Advocates must consider all this as prejudice due to her present abject con- dition. When the new female philosophy based on woman's suffrage, shall have elevated woman to the lofty height of man's equal, or superior, such views will be regarded as antiquated and absurd. "Who will then dare to prescribe to strong-minded eman- cipated women, any dress characteristic of sex? "Why should the enfranchised unsexed woman wear the dress, when she has abandoned the chief should quietly quit the lecture-room ; and thus render impossible the sin and wickedness of mixed classes ! Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 199 characteristic of womanhood ? Political rights in- clude all others ! The principle of Sexual Equality pressed home, consistently carried out, and acted on, must infallibly level all barriers of modesty and decency. Humanity would sink from civilisation to a savage — a bestial state. If there be no moral and mental distinctions between man and woman — if woman be capable of doing — ought to do, and be permitted to do everything that man now does — if there be no employments exclusively male and female — if youth and maiden are to be educated together, work together, attend mixed classes, and together explore the hidden recesses of human bodies living and dead — on what plea should we maintain a difference in dress between the sexes ? Why wish to do so ? Why preserve the mere husk, or outward form, and semblance of womanhood, when modesty, the inward spiritual light of woman's soul, is fled ? Logically from the premisses on which is based a demand for Woman Suffrage, it would be manifestly, absurdly, transparently unjust to attempt to retain the disability of distinctive sexual costume, even if in the whirl and throes of such a moral, and social convulsion, we could hope to cling to this remnant of decency, propriety, and common sense. Once establish the proposition that woman has an indefeasible right to act in every respect, in- dependently of, and Uke man, and (since the greater privilege comprehends the less) the corollary is in- evitable — that woman has a right to dress in every 200 Woman Suffrage Wrong. respect like man ! To this tappy goal of progress, this deadlock of decency, British emancipationists have not yet brought women ! Lessons of morality and religion instilled into women, under man-made laws, are not so easily unlearned. But the new female philosophy looks down contemptuously on existing women, as poor arrested, distorted un- developed beings, with forced habits, and false ideas fit for nothing without a recombination of their elements.* Whence, evidently The Coming Woman will present a marked contrast to woman as she now is. If medical women cannot succeed in altogether abolishing sex, and extinguishing all hopes of posterity, the future woman will become almost a fac-simile of man. The present generation can only see the promised land. But we have only to gaze towards a country continually extolled as a model in everything, by reformers who have never been there ! Most significant fact 1 Some most advanced female advocates of Transatlantic Sexual Equality, have joined practice to precept, by adopt- ing partially or wholly, the habiliments of the so- called tyrannical, inferior, and "played-out" sex. Wonderful ! That the superior should condescend to copy and covet the clothes of the inferior being ! But so it is, and though decorum now opposes moral objections to this "reformation" in female dress, there is no physical impediment to woman adopting male costume. Nature hinders us from training a woman physically, mentally, or morally, • Victoria Magazine, May, 1870. See Part First, Chapter VI. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 201 like a man ; but the law alone hinders woman from dressing like man. But this is one among the first of man-made laws, which female legislators would alter. As we have seen, the Latin word virago means a man-acting, or man-like woman, a female warrior.* This word is a bitter term of reproach to woman. If a woman is ashamed of her sex (girding at the term womanly, which is every sensible woman's proudest boast) she must not be surprised if her sex return the compliment with compound interest, and are very much ashamed of her. To forfeit the good opinion of one's own sex, is a sure method to be despised by both" sexes. But if a woman will ape man, will make herself up into a poor imperfect copy of the male being whom she vituperates and affects to despise, let her be a trifle more consistent. Instead of wearing a compromise between male and female costume, let her at once abandon every vestige of female dress, and adopt every garment worn by man, from hat to boots. Even in America, however, some prejudices still remain to be over- come. The President refused an audience to a certain medical lady, unless she appeared in a thoroughly female costume ; and the insulted advocate of Sexual Equality, refusing to abandon her principles and her " jpantalettes" actually burst into tears. Strange, what ideas strong-minded women have of elevating their sex. It has not yet occurred to male reformers to regenerate man, by wearing female costume. * See Part First, Chapter IV., near the end. 202 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Sexual non-equality is fraught with, many advan- tages to woman, especially in exempting her from compulsory military and naval service. Within the memory of living men, the British navy was manned by press-gangs. No woman incurred any risk of being seized, and forcibly taken off to face the enemy — (as able-bodied men were) — no matter how far she excelled man's average height, size, and strength. All this will be altered, when women get their " rights " and their duties. Able-bodied women will firstly volunteer : they will gradually assert their right to enter the police, preventive service, fire brigade, and militia. Lastly, they will claim the privilege of enlisting in army and navy; and being eligible for commissions. Women will gradu- ally discover that citizen's rights are inseparable from citizen's duties. The law (based on the plat- form cry of strict Sexual Equality) will no longer distinguish between " the two sexes of man " to protect the female sex. Miss Becker's theory will then be reduced to practice. And the word Man must then include woman, not merely when privileges are to be gained, but also when serious sufferings, dangers, wounds, and death are to be borne. Should we ever have to recur to press- gangs to man the navy ; to conscription, compulsory recruiting, or the Prussian universal military service system; emancipated women will have the full benefit of the new order of things, introduced by their oflScious friends — Sexual Equality and Women Suffrage Advocates. Women will then practically Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors 1 203 appreciate the adage : — " Save us from our friends." Platform ladies will get their reward, that is, if they escape being lynched by their female dupes, at last awakened from their fool's paradise. Sexual Equality Advocates may then too late regret the old-fashioned so-called female slavery, when women exempt from citizen's rights and duties, were main- tained and protected by men. How far chivalry is carried from man to woman, and how kind and considerate rough sailors were to women who had forfeited all title to consideration by character and conduct ; is shown by Captain Marryat's graphic account, or rather history, of how a press-gang of determined men were circum- vented and conquered by one woman ! Peter Simple describes the party entering a house, where the landlady stood to defend the entrance. "The passage was long and narrow, and she was a very tall, corpulent woman, so that her body nearly filled it up, and she held a long spit pointed at us, by which she kept us at bay. The officers did not like to attack a woman ; and at last she made such a rush upon us, with her spit, that had we not fallen back, and tumbled over one another, she certainly would have run it through the second lieutenant. The passage was cleared in an instant, and she bolted us out ; so there we were, three officers and fifteen armed men, fairly beaten off by a fat old woman." Peter concludes with this moral reflec- tion exceedingly appropriate to Sexual Equality, and Woman's Rights Advocates, virtually inciting 204 Woman Suffrage Wrong. women to fight with men ! " Had her husband been in the passage, he would have been settled in a very short time; but what can you do with a woman who fights like a devil, and yet claims all the rights and immunities of the softer sex ? " What indeed ! This sentence contains the kernel of the nut, called The Woman Question. Sexual Equality is absurd. The man-acting woman is a virago, and must expect to be treated like a man ! Platform Paradox : Women-voters softening Political Bancour ! A notable argument for Woman Suffrage has been urged. Give women the suffrage. Let them play active parts in politics, and then — what ? There will be less acrimony ; the world will be better governed. Then, and then only, may we hope to abolish war. This is a stock platform Amazonian argument. Otherwise we might imagine it invented by ironical opponents ; so completely are assertions of theory contradicted by lessons of fact. History teaches this incontrovertible truth, that woman exerts an invincible influence over man, for good, only so long, and so far, as that influence is indirect. Man is ruled by the Womanly Woman. The man-woman, the virago who disputes his authority, invariably fails, and must ever fail where the contest for supremacy is to be decided on sexual equality principles of physical force ! Without en- dorsing the prevalent opinion formulated by the Hindoo Rajah, that from Eve, to present platform Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 205 theorists, a woman has been at the bottom of every calamity, quarrel, and war ; it is notorious that when women attempt man's work, they do not impart to him their gentleness — they lose it them- selves ; they acquire man's roughness. Instead of elevating, soothing, purifying man ; they degrade, irritate, sully themselves. They do not pour oil on the troubled waters of strife ; they intensify the bitterness of political conflict, and add a more lurid light to the horrors of war. Queen Philippa plead- ing for the burgesses of Calais, is a far nobler figure than Joan of Arc in complete armour, mingling in slaughter. Women aggravated the atrocities of the I'rench revolution. They played a prominent part in the outrages of 6th Oct., 1789, when the Queen narrowly escaped with life, and whichi Bailly called " un beau jour." The mob's proceedings, after forcing the palace, and murdering two body-guards, are given in Burke's graphic language, thus : — " Their heads were stuck on spears and led the procession ; whilst the royal captives who followed, were slowly moved along, amid horrid yells, thrilling screams, frantic dances, infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the furies of hell, in the abused shape of the vilest of women."* Cannon, dragged by the mob, were bestridden by howling, drunken blood-stained women, who shouted : — " We shall none of us want bread, for here comes the baker, the baker's wife, and the little apprentice." A witness of this terrible pro- * " Eefleotions on the Eevolution in France," p. 98. 206 Woman Suffrage Wrong. cession of twelve miles protracted to six hours, Lally Tolendal, calls the women who assisted, " ces femmes cannihales." Their leader was Theroigne de Mericourt, a remarkable type of revolutionary woman. Dressed in a blood-coloured riding-habit, a plume in her hat, armed with sabre and pistols, she was foremost in every revolt. She led the women, or rather female fiends, from Paris to Versailles, and on the return, rode beside the ferocious Jourdan, or coupe-tete, and lookedj without shrinking, at the bloody trophies borne on pikes. This was her way of softening political rancour ! Yet, women more degraded and sanguinary, punished her terribly, because even she tried to stop the downward progress of the revolution. The furies of the guillotine publicly stripped and scourged Theroigne on the terrace of the Tuileries. This infamous outrage overturned her reason. She was flung into a common madhouse, and lived twenty years, one long paroxysm of fury. She would drag herself naked along the floor of her cell, and, with her white hair, in wild disorder, cling to the window- grating, address an imaginary populace, and demand the blood of Suleau, her first lover and betrayer. Singular indeed that anyone acquainted with the French revolution, should echo the platform paradox of woman softening political rancour ! These revolu- tionary females evinced a keen interest in slaughter. They played a prominent part in the prison massacres of September, 1792. They danced the Carmagnole, before the tumbrils conveying victims to execution. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 207 Hideously blending domestic and sanguinary tastes, they took their work, and sat amicably round the guillotine, critically enjoying the spectacle of royal and aristocratic blood streaming from severed veins and arteries. These were " les tricoteuses de la guillotine." These knitters of the guillotine, these female citizens, who softened political ran- cour, by dancing, singing ribald songs, insulting the dying, and inflicting nameless mutilations on the dead, were paid by the republic, " ever great, and ever generous," which grudged a cofl&n sufficiently large to the remains of her murdered king ! Some invented a gratuitous amusement which gained them the sickening title of " les lecheuses de la guillotine." Yes ; these horrible unsexed women actually licked up the warm human blood which trickled down the scaffold; thus literally meriting their title of cannibal women ! On the fatal 10th August, 1792, when the heroic Swiss were massacred in cold blood, women far exceeded men in cruelty. Women were seen to murder disarmed Swiss, to strip, and to mutilate them barbarously. Some women greased the corpses, exposed them to kitchen-fires, and boasted that they had fried a Swiss like a mackerel. Mutilations too terrible to be named;, are recorded in " Crimes of the Revolution " by Proudhon, a republican, and therefore unlikely to exaggerate. He writes : — " Most of these atrocities were committed by women." It will be said : " These women were the off- scourings of the streets." Many were — not all. But 208 Woman Suffrage Wrong. they were women politicians, and, according to the platform theory, should have softened political rancour, pacifying their male companions, instead of encouraging, and far exceeding them in bloodshed ! The French revolution infused madness into the minds of both sexes. "Women were more mad than men. The female mind is more easily excited, and thrown ofE its balance, than the male mind. The revolution unsettled Charlotte Corday's mind, and caused her to embrue her hands in the blood of Marat — a monster — but she was not the less a murderess ; and the rash act sealed the final doom of her own party, the Girondists. Madame Roland, a woman of genius (very different from the furies of the guillotine, and from her talents, far more dangerous), did not soften political rancour. It mastered her, and made her the life and Soul of the Gironde. With the best intentions, she did immense mischief. She inspired, perhaps composed Roland's long, insulting letter to the king, beginning : " Sire, this letter shall remain an eternal secret between you and me." Roland read aloud this letter at the next council, and after his dismissal from the ministry, in the Assembly. Nor was this all. This letter which was to have remained an eternal secret, was printed and sent to the eighty-three depart- ments, thus pointing daggers at the heart of Louis. As Roland did nothing without consulting his wife, this base perfidy was her act.* In thus aiding to * The greatest reproach that can justly be attached to Madame Eoland, is that she induced her husband to publish his confidential Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 209 destroy the monarcliy, Madame Roland caused the destruction of her own party, herself, and hus- band ; and prepared the way for the Terror under Robespierre. This celebrated woman was very ambitious. Her character is well sketched in Croly's novel called " Marston." Of her, Madame de Genlis observes: — " During captivity, and in hourly expectation of death, she thought not of her daughter, bequeathed no instructions for her future life. Yet she wrote volumes, in every page of which is seen bursting forth party spirit, animosity, and the most ridicu- lous vanity." Alison observes : — " She had all a woman's warmth of feeling in her, disposition, and wanted the calm judgment requisite for the right direction of public affairs. Vehement, impassioned, and overbearing, she could not brook contradiction, and was often confirmed in error, bj opposition. Her jealousy of the Queen was extreme, and she often expressed herself in reference to her fall and sufferings, in terms of harsh and unfeeling exultation unworthy alike of her character and situation." In her memoirs, written in prison, she left details of her feelings and desires when a young woman — as she letter to the King, beginning : " Sir, the contents of this letter shall never be known but to you and me. . ." On his dismissal from the ministry, he could not resist the pleasure of a disguised revenge; and published his letter, containing prophetic menaces, without perhaps reflecting that these were likely to realise his predictions ; and that by pointing out to the King all he had to fear from the people, he suggested what they ought to do against the King ! (Dumont : " Eecollections of Mirabeau," p. 328). 210 Woman Suffrage Wrong. said — " les besoins d'une physique hien organisee" with whicb, as Sir Walter Scott justly observes, a courtesan of the higher class would hardly season her private conversation to her most favoured lover ! Nor was the great revolution of 1 789 exceptional. Subsequent revolutions have proved that female politicians do not soften political rancour. Women increased the excitement of the banquets and clubs, and fought at the barricades in 1848. An Eye- witness, Captain Chamier, observes: — "At St. Etienne, ladies got up a revolt : they declared the nuns robbed them of their food, by working, and selling their work. The convents were attacked, and a most serious collision took place : blood was shed, and the nunneries were sacked and burnt. Women were much more desperate than men : it cost the lives of several of the National Guard, and was altogether a most serious and deplorable affair." * At a barricade battle on the Boulevards on June the 23rd, two women perished, after causing much bloodshed. " A woman with bare arms, and head dressed, seized the flag and advanced. In vain the National Guards called on her to withdraw. She waved her flag in defiance, whilst the insurgents continued their well-directed fire on the courteous National Guards, until their numbers began to grow less, and their patience being exhausted, they re- turned the fire, and the heroine was killed. Another woman seized the flag with one hand, while she * " The French Revolution of 1848," Vol. i., p. 174. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 211 supported her dying companion with the other. A volley from the barricades, and one from the National Guards took place at the same instant, and amid many victims was the second woman, who fell over the body of the first." * " In virtue of this liberty, the democratic and Socialist ladies had another banquet, in which praises of St. Just and Robes- pierre were loudly applauded. Toasts of the most repugnant kind were given, and received with enthusiasm ; and these when not blasphemous, could seldom escape being treasonable. The more moderate doled out their sentiments, and gave, what they themselves prevented being accomplished, ' Universal Fraternity ; ' while one Madame Oanda- lot gave the forlorn hope of Trance, ' Liberty.' Only in France — that country of excessive civilisation, which has so far surpassed the rest of Europe in arts, sciences, belles lettres, and liberty — could these Amazons be listened to. The barbarism of all countries which enjoy rational liberty under monarchies, would prompt the tyrant man to recommend the treason-spouters to go home and busy themselves in domestic affairs. In all political disturbances in France, the worst feelings are engendered by women, who at once forsake all charms of domestic life, to rush into the arena of discord. We have seen the stronger sex during the Revolution, led on by an Amazon on horseback, from whose head waved the emblem of blood and slaughter, the red feather."t Female communists * Ibidem, Vol. ii., p. 66. J Ibidem, Vol. ii., Chap. XI. 212 Woman Suffrage Wrong. in 1871, were more bloodthirsty than the men, and earned another untranslatable name — lespetroleuses. We cannot wonder that female suffrage is not popular in France. There are in Great Britain female politicians, whom the first breath of revolu- tion would drive completely frantic. We have only to attend Woman Suffrage meetings, to become convinced of the Platform Paradox that woman- voters would soften political rancour! " Both in Paris and Versailles, the women are, when violent, more cruel and violent than the men, and all the recent experience of France seems to show that the acrimony of political contests would be greatly increased, if women were invited to take part in the struggle. Men are the gentler sex, except in dealing with domestic and private calamities."* "We know of old ' furens quidfcemina possit,' and .whether your unsexed female is firing the first shot at an Orange procession in New York, or pouring petroleum into houses full of women and children, or disseminating obscene pamphlets for the maintenance of contagious diseases, and the habits which engender them, she is sure to be more violent and more mischievous than the worst of her male accomplices. English demagogues are more rational and business-like than their foreign allies. The Bealeses and Odgers never made their clubs additionally ridiculous, by allowing frantic women to scream from their platforms. At Lausanne, as in all other places where female politicians have shared in * Saturday Review, 29th April, 1871. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 213 public agitation, women have been noisier, sillier, more violent than the most infuriated of masculine philanthropists. A Mrs, Leo, a Mrs. Minck, and several other ornaments of their sex, occupied the time of the Peace Congress, by elaborate apologies for the Paris Commune, and the civil war which it promoted : and another virago propounded the sweeping assertion that all men, whether warlike or peaceful, were equally monsters." At this Peace Congress, it was, I believe, seriously proposed to inaugurate the reign of Peace by a war ! Curious commentary on the argument for Woman Suffrage, that female politicians would abolish war. Mr. Ruskin, addressing women, observes: — "You know, or at least you might know, if you would think, that every battle you hear of, has made many widows and orphans. We have none of us heart enough truly to mourn with these. But at least we might put on the outer symbols of mourning with them. Let but every Christian lady, who has conscience towa^rds Grod, vow that she will mourn, at least outwardly, for His killed creatures. Let every lady in the upper classes of civilised Europe, simply vow that while any cruel war proceeds, she will wear black — a mute black — with no jewel, no ornament, no excuse for an evasion into prettiness. I tell you, no war would last a week." Grand words ! Supposing Ruskin right, women can, whenever they like, put an end to war. How ? At what sacrifice ? They are not required to imitate the Sabine women, who rushed 214 Woman Suffrage Wrong. between the combatants at risk of life, wounds, and deatli. To ask this would be unreasonable ; but only to put off their ornaments, and to put on mourning for one-sixth of the time of Lent — one hrief week ! Is this too high a price to pay for Peace ? Will women pay it ? Madame de Gasparin has proposed union of women for this noble, humane. Christian purpose. All honour to that lady and to all who assist her. This is certain, that if through female action, war should be dis- couraged, and eventually cease, such a result will be achieved by womanly domestic women — not by Amazons — platform, ambitious, combative women, clamouring for votes, and preaching a revolt of women against man. The idea that they would ever put an end to war, is excessively amusing. Political women would multiply wars, and their personal interference would render them more deadly ! Woman's face (independently of her form and con- stitution) denotes her never intended to undergo that nerve-tension, and violent excitement of passions, which outdoor public life, politics, and war exact from man. The " short madness of anger " should be avoided by both sexes. But , man's anger, and attempts to restrain, or moderate it, are not without a certain majesty, appealing to poet, painter, and sculptor. No object in nature is so repulsive as an angry woman. All beauty, all dignity, are then deposed. The contrast between the placid female features in repose, and the meanness of the same Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 215 features contracted, and distorted by passion, renders all such violent emotions indescribably hideous in woman. Physical courage is exclusively a male virtue. "Women are constitutionally timid, and their chief virtue is modesty. Any great and unusual exhibition of bravery by a woman, or violent excitement, especially the loud, intemperate language of quarrel, with vehement gestures, or manual conflict, almost always causes hysterical reaction, most injurious to health, dangerous, and sometimes fatal : conclusive testimony that woman was never intended to rival man, either in politics or war. The senate, bar, platform, barrack, guard- room, and battle-field do not foster womanly virtues. The comparatively few women who have distin- guished themselves in such careers, have done so at the expense of essentially female virtues, always regarded as woman's chief ornament. Intimate association with scenes of violence and blood, un- sexes women, and has a most serious effect in deteriorating race. Sir Walter Scott has illustrated a profound physiological truth, that the whole future career is influenced by the infant's first sustenance. In " The Heart of Midlothian " the wild, irregular, rebellious, lawless, vagabond youth of Sir George Staunton, and the actual crimes of his early manhood, are traced truly to the vile character of his foster-mother, Margaret Murdockson, " a soldier's wife, who had long followed the camp, and had acquired in battle-fields, and similar scenes, that ferocity and love of plunder for which she was 216 Woman Suffrage Wrong. afterwards distinguished." Many a profligate (whose reckless career puzzles friends, parents, and the mother who abdicated maternal functions) might personally apply George Staunton's confession to Jeanie Deans : — " The source from whence I derived food when an infant, must have communicated to me the fatal propensity to vices that were strangers to my own family." Some may say : — " It is superfluous to dwell on a self-evident proposition : woman ought not to engage in war." But women- warriors are as natural as women politicians. On the Sexual Equality prin- ciple, we cannot draw a hard and fast line between what women may, and may not do. I have dwelt on the enfranchised woman's right to shed blood as soldier or sailor, because war has hitherto — (with some very trifling exceptions)^ — been confined to man. But after our laws shall have made woman a full citizen, on the sexual equality principle, accord- ing her the right to labour in any profession, war cannot logically be confined to man. Recruiting parties could now enlist thousands of able-bodied women capable of enduring the fatigues of a cam- paign, and eager to encounter the enemy. Among so many martial spirits, a fair proportion of women will be fit to command, and distinguish themselves as tacticians and strategists. If, then, women wish to fight, to distinguish themselves in the military and naval professions, advocates of Sexual Equality, female suffrage, and woman's right to labour in all professions, cannot consistently forbid them. "We, Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 217 consistent opponents of "Woman Suffrage, can say : female soldiers and sailors disgrace their sex, out- rage humanity ; and that men would be justified in preventing such a scandal, by physical force. But advocates of equal rights for both sexes, cannot say, this, without abandoning the principle on which woman suffrage is demanded. "We take our stand on this principle that by God's ordinances, pro- claimed in Nature and Revelation, man can say to woman : You shall meddle neither with politics nor war. "Woman Suffrage advocates virtually concede woman's right to do everything she desires to do. At the Dialectical Society (3rd May, 1872) I asked Dr. Drysdale, and other woman suffrage advocates, whether women should be permitted to fight as soldiers, sailors, etc. ? Only one consistent woman's suffrage advocate, a gentleman under thirty, ven- tured to advocate woman's right to shed blood, and supported his opinion by stating that he had fought side by side with a woman in France ! If one woman may legislate, another may fight. If the strong-minded may display their talents in the forum, senate, pulpit ; on platforms, at hustings and committee-rooms ; strong-bodied, and physically brave women have as good, or rather a far better right, to display their prowess on battle-fields. If one woman may embrace a political, another may embrace a military career. If a woman may be an elector, a legislator, an M.P., an office-holder, a Speaker, a Secretary of State, a prime minister, a judge, a bishop, a professor, a principal of a College, 218 Woman Suffrage Wrong. etc.; a woman may also be a common soldier, or sailor, a military or naval officer, a general, or admiral, minister of war, or first lady of the Admiralty. All these abnormal avenues of female ambition are strictly involved in the sexual equality principle, the basis of woman's claim to political power. On that basis, all attempts to distinguish between womanly and unwomanly occupations, are worse than hypocritical. They cannot be objected to, with any force or consistency, by advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle. Objections of those who would only enfranchise spinster and widow house and property holders, would soon be swept away, if that partial measure became law. If there is sexual equality, female politicians involve women warriors. If there is no sexual equality, man has a right to debar woman from politics and war. One pursuit is as unnatural as the other for women. And it could easily be shown that women- warriors would be far less mischievous than female politicians. No bounds to the insatiable ambition of political women, can be expected from consistent advocates of the Women's Disabilities Bill. Rev. Mr. Dunbar observes : — " The same God who has appointed the ' fir-tree a dwelling for the stork,' and the high hills ' a refuge for the wild goat, has appointed family requirements, nursing children, ordering households, as occupation, and fitting sphere of labour for woman ; allowing her also the range of art, architecture, music, painting, and literature (in fact, what Nature permits her to Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 219 do), and the rougher labour, out-door work, and exhausting toil of the Law Courts, House of Commons, etc., as the fitting sphere of man's toil. Fancy a regiment of women going to battle ! Fancy a woman [even if there were not a high wind] standing on a steamer's paddle-box, and shouting to women sailors running up and down the rigging ! A wild goat on the top of a fir tree, would not appear more out of place 1 Or fancy a man managing the nursery ! As Nature has not provided him with the power (to put it elegantly) ' of nourishing and bringing up children,' he is evidently there as much out of place, as a stork would be on the rugged tops of the steep 'high hills !' Any unprejudiced person who glances at Nature's provisions, as seen in men and women, will at once be convinced that she has appointed each, his or her, own fitting and appro- priate duties, and that the two cannot be made in all respects equal."* A Woma7i's Protest against Women Politicians. A lady writing during the French Revolution, observes : — " Almost every hour has by its unex- pected productions, convinced me of the truth I asserted, that we women are by education, and still more by limited intellectual powers, precluded from political questions. Naturally jealous, men look on each other with a malignity proportioned to the dis- tance anyone has outgone his competitors : every step of the foremost is watched ; every impediment * Victoria Magazine, January, 1872. 220 Woman Suffrage Wrong. obtruded ; every slip remarked and prognosticated fatal. A man's spirit contending for a manly mind's rewards, power, wealth, promotion of his dearest interests, may sustain all these discourage- ments ; but a woman's spirit, supported by vivacious impulse, more than by steady vigour, could ill brook the conflict ; and still less will be the incentives to engage in it, if the benefits of the attainment be duly weighed. The wider our path, the more diffi- cult to walk in a right line. Who considering this attentively, but must laugh at the idea of a woman assuming this office ? An Atlas in petticoats is not more ridiculous. Yet what do we pretend to, when we take on ourselves to advise a people for their good ; to decide on their policy ? It may be said there have been female heads, hearts, and constitutions competent to all fatigues of jurisprudence; that women have governed kingdoms, and their rulers, with credit and wisdom. Very few are the in- stances ; for in the case of female monarchy, the female character bears with it all its infirmities, and advisers rule it ; and in the case of female ascendency, it gains its reputation, and produces its effect, only by adding its peculiar properties to those of the more powerful sex. " From all perplexities of human interests, all harrowing of indecision, all danger of becoming guilty through vice, or error; from all questions between public and private claims ; from all fatigue of intense thought racking the brain to madness, and all remorse arising from unresisted temptation ; from Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 221 all the 10,000 miseries of power, we happy women, and doubly happy as Englishwomen, are provi- dentially exempt. Protected by laws, custom, and general sentiment, we may, if we choose, live un- disturbed in possession of every earthly good. Public calamity must become personal suffering, must pervade our dwellings, before we, housed and sheltered in the hearts of our generous protectors, are exposed to it. The whole world might be at war, and yet not the rumour reach an English- woman's ears. Empires might be lost, states over- thrown, and still she might pursue her peaceful occupations of home, and her natural lord might change his governor at pleasure, and she feel neither change nor hardship. "Who would give up this situation so friendly to all the heart's gentle virtues, and all the mind's elegant powers, to make inroads into the hostile lands of public feud and political contest? Is there anything alluring in exercising irascible passions ? anything congenial to female temper, in the methods adopted by persons coveting power, that we should barter all our joys to partake theirs ? What do we see gained by those now foremost? Endless anxiety with those in power ; chagrin not to be alleviated in those ex- cluded. Let us, then, leave to them the battle- field. Peace, happiness, the mild virtues — I might say, all virtues — will depart from our dwellings, if we take too active a part in the world: and the mental sufferings thus superinduced, will far exceed those of the other sex ; for as we cannot give our 222 Woman Suffrage Wrong. minds their strength, ours must sink, while theirs re- main firm : as our feelings are more acute, our percep- tions of evil will still more distressingly harass us : and as we must, after all our efforts, be partially- ignorant, all the misery of imperfect information, which aggravates every danger, will distract us. Not knowing when we are safe, we shall not know what to fear, and blinded by our passions, and misled by .our prejudices, we shall be alternately elevated and depressed equally above, and below reason's level. " When we women commence politicians, there will be an end of one characteristic difference in the minds of the sexes — the superior influence of religion on us ! We shall have the same necessity to plead : frame the same excuses for neglecting what can never be neglected innocently : and fancy that while serving the State, according to our ideas, we are serving our Maker.* But this is fallacious reason- ing. Our Maker never designed us for anything but what He created us, a subordinate class of beings ; a sort of noun adjective of the human species, tend- ing greatly to the perfection of that to which it is joined, but incapable of sole subsistence. f In this age of female heroism, I shall gain no credit by * See Miss Emily Faithfull's statement, Part i., Chap. II. and attempts of authoress of " Signs of the Times "' to reconcile Sexual Equality with the Bible, Chap. III. t Imagine the shrieks of disapproval which this sentiment would elicit from the " Shrieking Sisterhood 1 " Yet the writer of this profound truth is really strong-minded, and understands her sex better than all the Amazons in the world. Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 223 avowing myself inimical to female patriotism ; but, in truth, I know no such virtue. A woman's country is that which her protector chooses for her; and only such of us as enjoy the unenviable privilege of being wholly at our own disposal, can boast without absurdity, of their patriotism. We may entertain a tender regard for the soil that gave birth to our dearest connections; think with a sigh of scenes endeared to us in our youth ; but to prefer our country to all others, for this truly selfish reason, that we were born in it, is to adopt the conduct of some wives, now perhaps repenting their folly, who have too late perceived that a husband's interests should regulate the wife's affections."* * " Letters on the Female Mind." CHAPTER III. DIVISION IN THE WOMAN SUPFEAGB CAMP. To give votes to women houseliolders only, would be far more unjust to the whole sex, than to leave the law in statu quo, ante hellwm, as it is now, and ever should be, based on the broad demarcation drawn by Nature between man and woman. In attempting to legislate for an alleged grievance, we should inflict a serious injury on existing men and women, and on posterity. Consider the position of second-class supporters of a final bill. Does any- one who has watched this movement (as I have for twenty years) really suppose that such an alteration of the law, as its promoters contemplate, would or could be accepted as final ? that non-enfranchised women would rest and be thankful — for nothing — for something even worse than nothing ? That if votes were given to some 800,000 spinster and widow householders, all feelings of jealousy and envy would be at once allayed; and that the great majority would remain contented and unenfranchised ? No : Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 225 should this Bill become law, women would petition that the vote should be extended to wives. Were this reasonable request refused, the great majority of women would then rightly and justly agitate for a repeal of the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Law ! Long ago, The Spectator admitted that Mrs. Fawcett and other Woman Suffrage Advocates " have aban- doned the hypocritical little pretence of agitating only for votes for independent women householders, and assert boldly that wives should have equal political privileges with their husbands." Yes ; the Woman Suffrage harp then resounded to a note of principle. But now that note is dead. " Th6 Central Committee of the National Society for Women's Suffrage, 10, Great College Street, are promoting a meeting in support of the Bill as intro- duced by Mr. Woodall this session. The object is to support the extension of Women's Suffrage, as now established by common and statute law in local elections, to Parliamentary elections, and to depre- cate any attempt to complicate the discussion by introducing the question of the suffrage for married women, the effect of which would be to postpone indefinitely the passing of any practical Women's Suffrage measure."* > This very clever and very unprincipled attempt will ignominiously fail, as it deserves to do. Spinster and Widow householders are vainly trying to keep wives and others quiet, at least until after this bill shall have become law. Platform single women * The Echo, 6th April, 1889. Q 226 Woman Suffrage Wrong. leading tte agitation, not for woman, but for spinster and widow suffrage, and preposterously claiming to represent the sex, actually say to wives, etc. : — " Pray don't ask for votes for yourselves — " " Why not ? " ask wives. " Grood gracious ! how stupid you are ! Don't you see, if you do, you will complicate the dis- cussion — " " Aye, and what then ? " " Why then, you will rouse such opposition to our nice little Bill, that it will not pass." " And if it does not pass ? " " Then we shall not be enfranchised." " Just like us, whether it passes or not." " Exactly. Now do keep quiet — till we spinsters and Widows get the franchise ; and then we will see what can be done for you, poor unenfranchised women of England." What disinterested unselfish advice ! But wives and other women not eligible for the franchise under a Spinster and Widow Suffrage bill, rebel against their self-elected representatives ! Matrons in- veigled into joining " The Movement '' for Spinsters and Widows, think it monstrous that they, and all wives, are to occupy a subordinate position, and, after aiding to enfranchise spinsters and widows, " take a back seat," with no prospect of getting the franchise for themselves ! In spite of the most systematic attempts for years, to hoodwink and deceive the great mass of women, they now see plainly that this Bill is advocated only as a final Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 227 measure ; that its promoters despise woman suffrage as a principle ; only support it as an accident, affect- ing Spinster and "Widow householders, and utterly repudiate the enfranchisement of wives. The latter therefore, righteously indignant at being impudently duped by their pretended representatives ; resent being any longer utilised merely as decoys to deceive others, and to swell an agitation to carry a partial pitiful measure, which will not merely abandon, but actually betray the Woman Suffrage principle, and leave the mass of the Women of England, unen- franchised, and never to be enfranchised ! Wives naturally ask : — " What good will it do us, to pass a Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill, which dis- tinctly stigmatises us as not to vote? How can wives be represented by Spinsters and widows who would lose their votes if they married? Besides, this Bill directly insults us by placing Spinster and Widow interests before those of us, and our children." The Division began seventeen years ago, as stated thus : — " The misfortune which some of our readers have lately apprehended, has come. Those differ- ences of opinion among promoters of women's suffrage, to which no well-wisher of the movement could pretend to be blind, have produced their inevitable result, and there is a split in the camp. It is discouraging at first sight, to view this state of affairs, because although it is not absolutely impos- sible for two committees to co-exist without hostile feelings, all human experience goes to show that 228 Woman Suffrage Wrong. persons haviBg the self-same object in view do not divide forces, to ensure strength. Each of the two parties which have sprung up, is no doubt quite satisfied as to the absolute necessity there was for this open breach : to its own conscience each beyond question, is justified. The fruit Disagreement comes from the tree Dictation ; and if this last quarrel has the effect of putting an end to the cliqueism which we have ourselves mourned over, we, and all other independent advocates of Woman's Suffrage, will not view the event with unmixed feelings."* The " split in the camp," here referred to, was caused by the savoury question of The Contagious Diseases Ads. One party wished to connect the agitation for abolishing these acts, with the "Woman Suffrage movement.f The other, with better taste, refused to endorse any necessary connection between the two agitations. This was " the little rift within the lute " which heralded the approaching divorce on a matter of principle. The excitement and recrimina- * Victoria Magazine, January, 1872^ p. 283. f Thus verifying the Sat. Rev., that votes " would enable womea to join more vigorously than ever, in discussions about contagious diseases " (quoted Part ii, Chap. I.), and " disseminating obscene pamphlets, for maintaining contagious diseases, and the habits which engender them " (quoted Chap. II.), A rowdy deputation of these ladies waited on the Eight Hon. Mr. Bruce, then Home Secretary, to make the modest request that these acts should be repealed at once, without any reference to Parliament, or discussion by representatives of the People. These " nice-minded " ladies artlessly wondered that any woman could refrain from a subject so attractive to them ! Opponents of woman suffrage must feel grate- ful to them for causing " the split in the camp I " Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 229 tion following the rejection of Mr. Jacob Bright's bill in 1872, clearly showed that another still more serious division had already begun on the vexed and vital question, as to whether the Spinster and "Widow Suffrage bill should be final ; or merely , the first instalment of a far more sweeping measure, includ- ing married women. If final, it is not really a Woman Suffrage, but a Spinster and Widow householder bill ! Under such circumstances, Woman Suffrage, and Anti-Woman Suffrage, advocates might, and should, combine to urge women in general, and especially wives, to organise — and petition — against this class enfran- chisement of independent spinsters and widows, as a standing insult to matrons, and all other women, not to be enfranchised. If woman suffrage ought to be granted, married, have even a stronger claim than single, women. And if too precious a boon to be entrusted to British matrons, then no other women have a shadow of right to the suffrage. A consistent opponent, I was bound to oppose Mr. Hoskins, the most consistent advocate of Woman Suffrage I ever met. But if the principle be granted, it is impossible to evade his argument on behalf of wives, stated thus : — " To our mind, the idea of making female suffrage hinge dogmatically on mere household qualifications, is utterly unpractical. Married women are no less intellectual than single ladies, even more experienced in the ways of the world, and the routine business of every-day life; and, if they choose, can often make plenty of time 230 Woman Suffrage Wrong. (say, ten hours a week) for the study of papers, and first-class reviews. Besides, it cannot be denied that the responsibility of rearing up virtuous and healthy offspring, the productiveness of whose labour in after-life must, to a great extent, depend upon the quality of the training received in impression- able years of childhood, is infinitely more responsible than the payment of a thousand pounds worth of taxes. The idea that the enfranchisement of spinsters and widows will complete the representa- tion of intelligence, is tantamount to a declaration that marriage degrades women, to a lower level of general culture — an insinuation which every decent husband repudiates with disdain."* Not only " every decent husband," but every man, or woman, of common sense, and average experience, will repudiate the idea that married women represent a lower level of intelligence than spinsters and widows. Womanly domesticated women, engaged in the most important and sacred duties, can truthfully throw back the term " weak- minded," contemptuously hurled at them by the so-called " strong-minded " sisterhood, Gceteris paribus, the woman who sensibly minds her own affairs, is invariably more really intelligent, logical, and morally worthy, than the platform woman, who perverts ber mind by grappling with subjects beyond her comprehension, and attempts, by alternate wheedling, scolding, sneering, and misrepresenting, to get her own way ; and utilises her female dupes * Woman, 3rd February, 1872. Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 231 to gratify her ill-directed ambition. The fray- between strong-minded spinsters, and strong-minded wives — this veritable battle of Amazons as to ex- tending woman suffrage — is really " a very pretty quarrel as it stands." It illustrates remarkably the assertion that woman would soften the acrimony of political contests, and infuse gentleness into debate ! "Recriminations and accusations of selfishness are most liberally bandied to and fro, between women who would be enfranchised by the passing of this bill, and women who would not be enfranchised should that measure remain final. " "What," cry spinsters and widows, "is this your loyalty to the cause ? — to desert our agitation, merely because you will not be enfranchised?" "And pray," retort representatives of the vast majority of women, single and married, " where is your loyalty to the woman suffrage principle, which you have not only abandoned, but basely betrayed ? You throw us over ; brand all wives as ineligible for the suffrage ; accept a petty, insignificant, partial spinster and widow suffrage bill ; and dare to blame us for not helping you to ostracise ourselves ! You are fight- ing solely for yourselves, to gratify your own ambi- tion. "Why should we help you, and you alone, to the franchise ? " The tu quoque is excellent. The charge of selfishness is certainly most amusing preferred against wives, by spinsters and widows accepting the bill as final. Though neither will acknowledge it, the cap fits representatives of both parties. 232 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Wives see clearly the selfishness of spinsters and widows agitating for their own enfranchisement, to the final exclusion of all other women ! Spinsters and widows see clearly the selfishness of wives and others, who either withdraw altogether from, or paralyse the movement, by pressing their own claims for the suffrage. Each faction lustily hurls the charge of selfishness against the other, and indignantly repudiates it as actuating itself. There is certainly a good deal of human nature in woman, as well as in man. This battle of the blues, this division among insurrectionary women, is full of instruction; as the natural result of a demand for the suffrage, made on purely individual, personal, and selfish interests. The whole agitation is the outcome of misdirected short-sighted, female ambition, and extravagant self-assertion. The process of disin- tegration among women in revolt, who, to serve their own apparent advantage, would revolutionise our social structure, illustrates Hawthorne's state- ment : — " What amused and puzzled me was the fact that women, however intellectually superior, so seldom disquiet themselves about the rights and wrongs of their own sex, unless their own individual affections chance to lie idle, or to be ill at ease. They are not natural reformers, but become such by the pressure of exceptional misfortune."* Still more amusing than the charge of selfishness, is that of insubordination brought by interested lady leaders against former followers now complicat- * " The Blithedale Eomance." Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 233 ing the question, and seriously jeopardising the settlement of Mr. Woodall's little bill, by demanding a more extensive measure of female enfranchisement. la Tuhlic Opinion, 20 April, 1870, Miss Emily Faithfull commented on a letter of mine, and asked me in the name of the numerous lady-readers of that journal, an explanation of what she termed my *' high-sounding phrase," "extravagant and eccentric assertions of female personality." Miss Faithfull certainly does not represent women in general on the suffrage question. She had no authority to represent lady-readers of Public Opinion, or to assume that they did not understand my phrase. Still, I replied in good faith, without noticing Miss Faithfull's attempt to be sarcastic at my expense, which might have dispensed with any reply. I stated what every logical reader at once perceives, that there are two ways of asserting per- sonality — legitimate, and illegitimate. To assert that woman is in all respects man's equal, that she can, and ought to do whatever man does ; that she should wield political power; be educated exactly like, and rival man in public life ; especially for a mother — while performing her maternal functions by proxy — to advocate by tongue and pen, a claim to the privileges of both sexes : — such assertions I am ready to prove unwomanly, and therefore illegiti- mate, extravagant, and eccentric assertions of female personality. Though I do not advertise myself as the accredited representative of British men and women, I most conscientiously believe 234 Woman Suffrage Wrong. that on this question, the great majority of men and women throughout the world will endorse my views ; as an opponent of woman suffrage, and spinster and widow suffrage. I also believe that the majority of those womanly women contemp- tuously and falsely called "weak-minded" by Amazons, clearly comprehend what I mean by " extravagant and eccentric assertions of female personality." My explanation was not, however, satisfactory to Miss FaithfuU. She failed to see any explanation of my " curious phrase," and observed: " To speak of personality, is only another method of saying I myself, and I submit that women are entitled to a condition which distinguishes human beings from elephants and cats." Observe that I never disputed woman's right to assert her personality. With both sexes, self-assertion in a proper cause, and within due limits, is a duty and a virtue, an absolute necessity. Undue self-assertion for a questionable object is the reverse. Miss FaithfuU added : " If he really does think as he says " — an uncourteous expression implying doubt of my sincerity; artless wonder that I could actually differ from her about woman, or rather Spinster and Widow Suffrage ! Although Miss FaithfuU only represents a small minority on this question, I never implied a doubt of her sincerity in the cause she advocates, however Utopian I think it. Miss FaithfuU kindly proceeded to advertise a little book of mine published in 1860. Quoting from " The Intellectual Severance of Men Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 235 and Women," she observed : " It is strange to see how completely Mr. McGrigor Allan's present theories contradict the statements he made in 1860." Why strange ? Do ladies never change their minds ? People generally get wiser as they grow older. My views accord with those generally entertained, and were confirmed by the rejection of Mr. Jacob Bright's bill by 222 to 143 votes, in 1872. The views I ex- pressed in 1860, I consider "theories; " my present views are sound. The confession of the decided change in my opinions since 1860, should (and would with impartial thinkers) have at least put my candour and good faith beyond suspicion or innuendo, even with opponents. But the lady logician advocating woman's claim to the privileges of both sexes, is not only unable to suppose that the opponent of her pet theory can be right ; she cannot even conceive the possibility of his being sincere t This controversy speaks volumes, as to woman's reasoning capacity ! I should be sorry to take advantage of the Sexual Equality theory, and retort on Miss Faithfull, her charge to me; to say that she knew perfectly well, my phrase did not convey the- meaning she puts on it. I am bound to believe that Miss Faithfull did not understand me, and believed that I really stated the absurdity that women have no personality ; or no right to assert their personality. For that is the point in dispute — not whether Miss Faithfull, or I, think correctly about woman suffrage — which is, of course, a matter of taste. I leave grammarians to decide 236 Woman Suffrage Wrong. whether Miss Faithfull's explanation is not a total misconstruction of my meaning. The most eloquent and intelligent lady advocate of "Woman's Suffrage I'-ever heard, argues thus; begs the question; interprets my words in a totally erroneous sense, which they do not grammatically convey; cannot comprehend their meaning, even when explained; and because I do not at once yield the point in dispute, politely hints that I state what I do not believe ! Singular method of securing victory ! Miss ^aithfuU speaks better than she writes. Had she written more leisurely, she might have written more logically. This little controversy distinctly supports the views in my paper : "On the Real Differences in the minds of Men and Women." "You who have attended to female disputants, must have remarked that, learned, or unlearned, they seldom know how to reason ; they assert, and declaim, employ wit, eloquence, and sophistry to confute, persuade, or abash their adversaries ; but distinct reasoning they neither use nor comprehend. Till women learn to reason, it is in vain that they acquire learning."* The logic of events may have helped Miss Faith- full to understand my " curious phrase " " extrava- gant and eccentric assertions of female personality" better in 1873 than in 1870. Lady leaders of a revolutionary movement appealing to female self- assertion, have long since discovered that they are playing a round game, and liable to be superseded * Miss Edgeworth, " Letters to Literary Ladies." Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 237 by other female demagogues representing a still larger number of self-asserting women, and a corre- sponding increase of female personality. Celibate female advocates of a partial measure enfranchising only themselves, doubtless think demands for a real woman suffrage bill, including wives, " extravagant and eccentric assertions of female personality " ! They see the danger of asking so much : nothing will be granted. It is unpleasant for the engineer to be hoist with his own petard ; to behold their own personal schemes utterly thwarted, not by con- scientious opponents, but by advocates of their own principles consistently applied to a sex — not a class. But neither male nor female demagogues are exempt from seeing their own tactics turned against them- selves. Single women lecturers have for years called on women to claim their electoral rights ; to assert their personality ; to get the suffrage for unmarried women householders. Spinsters and widows were not selfish, but they wanted just enough of agitation to enfranchise themselves ! But now that a number of wives and other women not eligible under the present bill, plainly declare that they will not have their electoral privileges " burked " or ignored, and demand a more sweep- ing measure of the suffrage, it is sought to silence them by a charge of selfishness and insubordination ! The charge comes well from Spinsters and Widows seriously alarmed at demands threatening their own intensely selfish bill ! They see clearly that the magnitude of the claim tends to defeat the bill, and 238 Woman Suffrage Wrong. threatens a very decided reaction against Woman Suffrage. What did they expect ? Who first set the example of selfishness and insubordination? The great majority of single and married women now say : — " If we are never to be enfranchised, then we shall strive that our pretended well-wishers who have duped and betrayed our cause, shall never be so, if we can hinder them." Women who think thus, are certainly not more insubordinate than their platform teachers, and not nearly so selfish. For a bill including wives, would not expressly ex- clude spinsters and widows; while the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill expressly, and for ever, dis- franchises all wives ! Cautious second class partisans have never ac- cepted Woman Suffrage as a principle, and would only enfranchise certain women accidentally, by way of completing representation of property! Such say : — " If women are determined to take an ell, they shall not have an inch. Totally opposed to enfranchising the Sex, especially wives, we per- ceive that women are not satisfied with what we proposed to grant : they would accept it thank- lessly ; and only as an instalment of general, and eventual universal women suffrage. Therefore we will grant nothing." The cause of " Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp " is very simple, and inevit- able. Sensible wives, and other unqualified women naturally decline to support a measure — ambiguously styled a woman suffrage bill — if that measure is to be final. Qualified spinsters and widows positively Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 239 decline to extend the measure beyond themselves. Each party pursues its own apparent immediate interests. It is not the interest of women in general, to enfranchise only 800,000 spinsters and widows, and thereby create an electoral disability for them- selves. Qualified Spinsters and Widows are equally positive that it is not their interest, to lose their chance of obtaining votes, by declaring for a lost cause — a real, instead of a sham woman suffrage bill. But complaints from these interested leaders against the selfishness, insubordination, and intract- ability of their former followers, are excessively amusing, on two accounts. 1. It is contrary to nature, and society's established rule, for maidens and widows to lead matrons. 2. Wives and other unqualified women only practise the very precepts enjoined by their leaders. Thus we observe the instructive spectacle of self-appointed leaders of a female revolt, roundly scolding their followers for revolting against themselves ! The old, old story ! We cannot wonder at the self-assertion of matrons and others, against leaders determined to restrict female suffrage to qualified spinster and widow householders. Matrons and all unqualified women virtually say to those who now inconsistently and insolently try to silence them : — " You have long preached to us sexual equality, and assertion of female personality, and pertinaciously practised both. We apply your precepts and example. If our sex is equal to man, we will not remain without the franchise, while it is possessed by 800,000 240 Woman Suffrage Wrong. spinsters and widows. How dare you tell us not to ask for it, lest you should not get it ? You have betrayed our cause, by accepting a final Bill stigma- tising British matrons. No such bill shall become law, if we can prevent it. You have sent in ' Bogus ' petitions signed by unqualified female servants, deliberately deceived into believing they would be enfranchised. We will send in genuine petitions. Never shall you Spinsters and Widows be enfranchised by any measure not an instalment of woman suffrage ! " Spinsters and widows can- not logically reply to this practical application of their own principles. They dare not say that wives are represented by their husbands ; because leaders of the Movement have taught sexual equality ; i.e., the intrinsic value, and natural independence of woman, whether single, or married ; her abstract right to a vote, and the duty of asserting her indi- vidual personality as a political unit, and thorn in man's side, instead of his comforter and " help- meet." All these principles they taught as abso- lutely necessary to destroy the so-called prejudice respecting woman's subordination, which stood in the way of their own enfranchisement ! How much, or rather how little they really cared for the rights or wrongs of their sex, is shown by their accepting a bill against married women's suffrage ! By basing the claim to vote, on payment of rates and taxes, these women, the pioneers of the agitation, have deserted their colours, abandoned and betrayed the Woman Suffrage principle, and have thereby for- Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 241 feited all pretence to lead a movement which can be properly represented by matrons alone. Married women and others are perfectly justified in revolting from leaders who have thrown over woman suffrage, for Spinster and Widow Suffrage; and in superseding them, if they still persevere in preferring their own personal enfranchisement to that of Woman in general : and if they do not for- mally, unhesitatingly, and explicitly cast in their political lot with that of their sisters ; repudiate the final clause, and declare for a comprehensive woman suffrage bill, or none. Matrons claim, and rightly possess much more social influence than single women. On the proper performance of conjugal and maternal functions, depend not only the happi- ness, and progress, but the actual existence of the human race. The high importance which man- kind's common sense accords to such duties, is shown by this solemn fact, that notwithstanding the number of leisured • distinguished single women, matrons are always accepted as leaders and repre- sentatives of their sex in society. The terms wife and mother are held sacred; since it is impossible to overrate the duties implied by such words. Woe to the nation which shall reverse this opinion ; when marriage shall cease to be honoured, and wife and mother no longer hold the first place. British matrons are queens in drawing-rooms, at festivals, and receptions. Visitors pay their re- spects firstly to the lady of the house. Her word is law. Even the husband assumes the semblance B 242 Woman Suffrage Wrong. of submission. Etiquette requires this. The matron guides the house, and sometimes its nominal master. She reigns supreme over domestic arrangements. And these, the foremost, best women, Mr. Woodall's Bill not only leaves unenfranchised, but stigmatises as a class which shall not be permitted to vote. And this so-called Woman Suffrage bill is supported, adopted, and fiercely vindicated by women ! "Oh, but it is women suffrage, you know ! " Yes ; to the extent of enfranchising some 800,000 spinsters and widows, only so long as they remain spinsters and widows. Is there a man, or a woman, or a child of twelve out of a lunatic asylum, who believes that the wives, mothers, dowagers, and mothers-in-law of Britain, and the vast majority of single women unqualified, will be content to remain indirectly represented by male relatives and con- nexions, while they see 800,000 spinsters and widows — many socially and personally inferior to themselves — possessing votes ? No : British matrons will not submit calmly to be politically •' shunted into a siding " while Mr. Woodall with his Spinsters and Widows whirl by in a special train, to be a disturbing influence in politics ; to impede imperial legislation, and possibly to return a strong-minded spinster to Parliament, pledged to remove all obstacles to the spread of contagious diseases ! Under such circumstances, even op- ponents of Woman Suffrage could not blame wives and all other non-qualified women, for showing their discontent ; and for using all their influence either Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 243 to extend the franchise to themselves, or if that is hopeless, to repeal the law conferring it on a small minority of their sex. Should such a bill ever be carried, the great majority of married and single women will, ipso facto, have a real and serious grievance in political disability, inflicted by the attempt to redress the imaginary grievance, which makes rate-paying spinsters and widows demand votes for themselves alone ! In Parliament (1st May, 1872) Mr. KnatchbuU- Hugessen observed : — " But why did the promoters of this bill, wish to exclude married women from the privileges demanded on behalf of those not married ? (Hear, hear.) Was marriage a crime ? If not, why, on the ground of justice, should those electoral rights be conferred on unmarried women alone ? (Hear, hear.) If women were taught that they must regard the suffrage as an important right which they ought to exercise with pride, those citizenesses who were of marriageable years, might feel such a deep sense of patriotism as to take into serious consideration whether, before entering into any matrimonial bond, they might not make an engagement of a less disfranchising character. (Laughter.)* He had a great respect for those talented ladies who went about the country giving lectures in advocacy of women's rights. He had * It is no laughing matter to reflect that a law stigmatising marriage, by giving votes solely to unmarried women, conditionally on their remaining unmarried, holds out a strong inducement to political women to dispense with the marriage ceremony altogether ! 244 Woman Suffrage Wrong. also great respect for ladies who had hitherto kept free from matrimonial entanglements. But he maintained that those were not the model ladies of England. (Hear, hear.) The pure-minded girls who, entering married life, reared their children in the fear of God, and were the light and life of their homes — (cheers) — those were the model ladies of England, and that was the class whom this bill would disfranchise, (Hear, hear.) If, as was con- tended, the disfranchised were in a position inferior to the enfranchised, and less respected, why was it proposed to place in an inferior position those women who in marriage fulfilled their true mission upon earth, and who had more reason to be proud than any other class ? (Cheers.)" Political Rachels mourning over their massacred Innocent ! It is worthy of notice that Mr. Jacob Bright's bill was opposed, not only by opponents, but by zealous advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle ; e.g., by Captain (now Admiral) Maxse in two letters in The Examiner ,- and by that most consistent, first- class advocate, Mr. Hoskins. When I once spoke to this effect at The Dialectical Society, I was told that the Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp was far more imaginary than real ; that the wish was father to the thought, etc. The course of events has proved me in the right ! A great deal of excite- ment was manifested at a Women's Suffrage Con- ference at the Westminster Palace Hotel, the day Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 245 after the defeat of the Bill in May, 1872. That the breach was begun at this characteristic meeting, is shown by this brief but significant summary of the speeches: — "Mr. Eastwick, M.P., thought there was some truth in the remark made in the debate, that married women in this country, did not take up the movement as if it was a serious grievance. They must therefore endeavour to show married women that they had a real grievance (!) (Cheers.) Mrs. H. Eangsley counselled increased agitation, and the education of the feminine mind to an extent which would lead it to appreciate its grievances (!) (Cheers.)." Observe the amusing assumption that • all married, and other women, indifferent, or opposed to woman suffrage, are unconsciously suffering under grievances, and must be educated to appre- ciate them I The only real grievance which married and other women could possibly fear, would be the passing of the Spinster and "Widow bill into law ! " Mr. Frederic Hill seconded the resolution, and was followed by Mr. Hoskins, who elicited sibilla- tions by endorsing Mr. W. Fowler's description of the bill, as a bill to prevent the enfranchisement of married women. [Which it was distinctly avowed to be, by Mr. Jacob Bright in Parliament, 1st of June, 1872.J The Chairman called the speaker to order [for speaking the truth which might have alienated loives from the cause], which drew from Mr. Hoskins the retort that such interference was an attempt to burke free discussion. (Oh 1 oh !) Let them look at the DaAly Telegraph of that morn- 246 Woman Suffrage Wrong. ing as a representative of average British sense. (Loud laughter.) That journal pointed out that under this bill [also under Mr. Woodall's] a kept- mistress would have a vote, whilst a virtuous married woman would be denied the franchise. (Oh ! oh ! and Time, time.) Did they suppose he would allow his wife to be denied the franchise, whilst it was exercised by a single woman ? (Mur- murs.) Waxing wroth at the interruptions, Mr. Hoskins declared with great energy, that if they thought to deter him by such means from express- ing his opinions, they ' had once for all mistaken their man,' and having by this philippic relieved his mind, he quietly subsided." Note the injustice to an honest, conscientious, impartial advocate of Woman Suffrage as a principle. Often have I heard Mr. Hoskins speak at the Victoria Discussion Society. The record of his services to the cause merited gratitude. Yet he was not even tolerated, when he told them the truth. The Spinster and Widow Faction interrupted, silenced, hissed him ! How natural in women determined to secure the vote for themselves ! The principle of woman suffrage being accepted, his argument for wives could not be answered. " Mrs. George Sims, a lady of stately proportions, who made the most characteristic speech, said she was quite willing that her husband should vote, although his political opinions were totally opposed to hers. (Laughter.) She thought they had better leave the bill as it was at present. Although a Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 247 married woman, she was content to wait until after her single sisters were enfranchised. (Hear, hear.) When they had got one wedge in, they would soon pull the other in. (Laughter.) The time she had expended in trying to 'educate' men up to the proper point on this question, was something quite surprising. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Hoskins had not been so long married as she had been — (laughter) — therefore he was walking on the sunny side; but she knew there was a shady side to matrimony. (Loud laughter.) Most women were married in their green youth, and therefore had to be subsequently educated. She had great faith in worrying — (great laughter) — and advised the ladies to use that, and all other available methods of persuasion to attain their object. (Cheers.)" Doubtless worrying does exert considerable in- fluence, but it is not a very high recommendation of a cause, that its supporters should condescend to such a more than questionable method of advance- ment. And it is surely discreditable to woman suffrage advocates, that a proposal to worry legis- lators into submission, was greeted with " cheers ! " " Miss Ashworth gave vent to her contempt of the mental calibre of the parliamentary opponents of the bill, by advising the meeting to take no notice of any of those paltry things which members had said, but, go straight to work. (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Eose, an American lady, who though considerably declined into the vale of years, yet gave evidence of great mental vigour, and evidently had the same 248 Woman Suffrage Wrong. feelings of pity for the male opponents of the ques- tion as her predecessor, was eloquent on ' the mass of rubbish, called argument, displayed on Wednes- day in the House of Commons against the bill.' She urged that they should take their opponents in hand, pull them to pieces, and show them up. (Laughter.)* Miss Bell had been listening in the hope that someone would suggest what they ought to do. She advised them not to pay their taxes, unless they had the franchise. She refused last year, and allowed them to take her furniture. Some people valued their principles less than their furniture, but she did not. (Hear, hear.) Un- fortunately, if this line of action was adopted, it was, generally speaking, inconvenient to have a man in possession. (Laughter.) But the man in possession in her case, behaved admirably. (Laughter.) He was very fond of reading, especially Shakespeare. (Laughter,)" I do not question Miss Bell's willingness to become a martyr to the extent of sacrificing her furniture to her * Mrs. Rose must be added to the list of Woman Snfifrage Advocates opposed to Eeligion (Part i., Chap. III.). On this subject, we could not have a better authority than Mr. Bradlaugh, who observes : " She is as true and loyal as ever to the good cause. An Atheist by conviction, she has always avowed her opinions boldly." He hopes that " the heroine of a hundred battles may some- times favour us with her presence at the new Hall of Science ! When bidding me good-bye, Mrs. Rose," etc. {National Reformer, 15th Feb., 1874). " Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus." After hoping that the lady Atheist will co-operate with him in the good cause, that there is no God, both Atheists so far yield to vulgar prejudice as to say " Good-bye," i.e., God be with you I Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 249 principles. But as her admiring friends bought in, and returned her furniture, the lady had the satis- faction of obtaining renown cheaply, of preserving her principles, and her furniture; and the addi- tional pleasure of studying the admirable behaviour of a man in possession ! " Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P., who described himself as not a violent politician, but rather Conservative, which evoked some feminine laughter of a slightly ironical nature, was followed by Mr. Kaper, who deplored that the bill should have been met in the House by bufioonery, instead of logical argument."* Imagine a Woman Suffrage meeting complaining of a lack of logical argument ! This general abuse of legislators opposed to Woman Suffrage, forms a significant comment on the plat- form theory that Women soften the acrimony of political debate ! Imagine female members of Par- liament, pulling male legislators to pieces, and show- ing them up ! * The summary in the text, is from a report in a daily paper ; I think The Telegraph. CHAPTER IV. SPINSTER AND WIDOW VOTERS AGAINST WOMAN STJFFEAGB. To pass Mr. Woodall's Bill as a final measure, would offer insult and injury to the vast majority of women still remaining under political disability. To call this a bill to remove electoral disabilities of women, while actually declaring that no wife shall vote, is deliberately disingenuous. Miss Becker once said : " There had been considerable discussion as to whether the Bill would confer votes on married women ; but that was a matter for the decision of the law-courts, after the Bill had become law. There was no doubt whatever, that what Mr. Gladstone called the brand of electoral incapacity would be removed from every woman by the Bill, because the mere non-possession of a qualification for a vote, did not constitute an electoral disability." These words were spoken at a meeting in St. George's Hall on Monday evening, 29th April, 1872. On the following Wednesday, Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P., made his annual motion in favour of the Bill, and said : — spinster and Widow Voters. 251 " Another objection was that the bill would give votes to married women, but that was not his intention. His object was to give women who were owners and occupiers of property, the franchise, and in carrying that out, the number of married women who would be enfranchised would be very limited, but the Court of Queen's Bench had recently decided in a case arising under the Municipal Elections' Act, that married women could not vote, and that objection was also set at rest." With his usual fairness, Mr. Hoskins observed : — " If passed without alteration, the bill would extend the right of suffrage to female owners, and occupiers of land and houses of the annual value of £10, also to lodgers of the annual value of £10. That is, if one may rely on the testimony of Mr. Bright him- self. Dr. Lyon Playfair, etc., it would, in plain English, confer political trusts upon widows and spinsters, to the exclusion of married ladies, who, evidently from one or two recent adverse decisions in respect to claims by relatives of householders, could not, in the present state of the lodger fran- chise, satisfy the conditions of electoral eligibility. It is all very well to assert that in none of the four corners of the bill do we find any distinction drawn between married and unmarried. Neverthe- less, the practical effect of the measure would (as its supporters have constantly declared in the House of Commons) be merely to enfranchise those not blessed with husbands, and, as has been justly contended by their opponents, with whom on this 252 Woman Suffrage Wrong. point we feel much sympathy, inflict a political grievance, if not a downright insult, on everyone who glories in the honoured title of wife."* Mr. Hoskins has since consistently withdrawn from all support of a partial measure of enfranchisement. In the following letter, he proposes " allowing wives to vote with consent of their husbands, instead of their husbands. Such an amendment would remove the degrading stigma which — all Mr. Arnold's and Miss Becker's hair-splitting to the contrary, not- withstanding — would otherwise rest on the holy profession of matron, whether ' enfranchised with- out a vote' (!) by Mr. Jacob Bright, or more definitely degraded by the learned member for Marylebone. It would also be carrying out the principle, such as it is, of Household Suffrage to its humane and logical extent. And it would more- over afford ample satisfaction to the men who, unfashionable though they may be in this country, are nevertheless resolved to persist by sacrifices of time, health, and money, in a determined implacable opposition to any and every so-called Woman Suffrage scheme which directly, or indirectly excludes from a modest participation in electoral rights their own wives at home."t — (Signed) J. Thoenton Hoskins. Clearly, then, the present Spinster and Woman Suffrage Bill, instead of removing, actually places on all wives expressly, and on the vast majority of * Woman, 3rd February, 1872. t The Examiner, 16tli May, 1874, spinster and Widow Voters. 25S ■women, the brand of electoral incapacity ! Even those spinsters and widows, who would be enfranchised, should the present bill become law, would not be exactly like men ; because every such woman householder would, by marriage, become ipso facto disfranchised. Leave the law as it is, and no woman can justly complain : pass a final spinster and widow bill, and you immediately create electoral disability. For, then, it could not be truly said that women without a qualification, would be no worse off than now, without a vote. That is what Miss Becker insinuated. But independently of enfranchised women not permitted to vote, the great mass of non-enfranchised women would feel keenly that the law had been altered to benefit some women — that in certain cases sex was not, and in others, it still remained a political disability. If urged that the law would enfranchise these, not as women, but as property-holders, that is not true ; because according to Mr. Jacob Bright's statement, already quoted, married women holding property independent of their husbands, would not be allowed to vote. And this class has been greatly increased by the passing of the married women's Property Act. However excellent and necessary that act is on its own merits, it causes a serious complication relative to Woman Suffrage. There is no escape from this dilemma : Either you refuse a vote to a wife possessing large property, while her husband may have nothing. Then, you violate the whole principle of Mr. Jacob Bright's bill, that property 254 Woman Suffrage Wrong. should be represented ! You declare every married woman under political disability, no matter how great her property ! You thereby place every spinster or widow ten-pound householder politically above all matrons, whether poor, or rich ! Or, on the other hand, you grant votes to married women house or property holders. Then, you invidiously distinguish between wives who may, and wives who may not vote. But this is not the worst. You render the voting wife politically, as well as pecuniarily, independent of her husband. The vote becomes a curse : the husband becomes a mere appendage without authority, a cypher, a nonentity in his own house. The wife is practically absolved from her solemn promise to love, cherish, and obey. And in thus freeing wives from husbands' control, you simply abolish the marriage institution. For no rational man will commit his happiness, his honour, his very life to the keeping of a wife not amenable to her husband's authority. What sort of marriage would that be, where the wife insisted on going out, and coming in, at all hours of day, or night ; keeping her own company, female and male ; and rendering no account to her husband, as to where, or with whom she had been ? Let a woman prefer independence, with or without a vote, to honourable love. She is not compelled to marry : but she cannot expect to combine the peculiar advantages of celibacy and matrimony ! The defect in the Married Woman's Property Act, was thus ably displayed by Sir Brskine spinster and Widow Voters. 255 Perry : — " In considering the subject, we ought not to look at it as Mr. Russell Grurney's bill appears to do, exclusively as a question of property between man and wife, as between two independent parties, brother and sister for example, or any two parties who agree to live together. For marriage, although a sort of partnership, is unlike any other partnership in several respects, and undoubtedly the acquisition and preservation of property is not the main object in married life. We must therefore in all rules framed for enjoyment of such property, make them subordinate to the main object — the mutual happiness of both. Mr. Russell Grurney's bill seems to set up the woman completely as an independent partner, without throwing on her any of the obliga- tions which enjoyment of property in the married state ought to be made to bear. And it seems to introduce a futile and never-ending subject of dis- cussion not very likely to produce harmony. " It will not conduce to matrimonial happiness, to have two separate persons in the house, each enjoy- ing separate property, each having complete control over his (or her) own share, and each complete master as to disposition of property and mode of living. That proposition will not receive willing consent among my audience, mostly composed of ladies, because it is opposed to the legislation which they and their friends have so vigorously pushed forward in Parliament. But when two people enter into holy matrimony, does not the law enjoin that the leadership should be in the man ? A lady shakes 256 Woman Suffrage Wrong. her head — (Laughter) — but if she recollects her Prayer-book, which echoes the common law, she knows she plights herself to love, honour (cherish), and obey. That may be called a slavish doctrine, but it is the law, and I believe it is good sense, for if two persons ride on a horse, one must ride behind. (' No, no,' and laughter.) Well, I never saw two persons riding one horse in any other fashion. (Renewed laughter.) In matrimony, which of the two is to ride behind, is a matter to be settled between the parties. Occasionally the grey mare is the better horse — (Laughter) — and no doubt, if the woman has a strong mind, and the husband is a zany, he will go behind. But as these distinctions cannot be settled by law, and a rule is necessary, the law decides that the husband shall be leader. If I support this proposition, it will be asked, how I can propose such a doctrine, presenting myself, as I do, as an advocate of woman's rights, and a strong opponent of the present law. (Applause.) I reply that it is unsound in principle to give married women separate property, and to absolve them from all obligations which the enjoyment of such property ought to confer. " Is it right that in the case of a wife who has a larger fortune than the husband with whom she is living, she should have no liability at law for the expenses of the married state ? How is the objec- tion met by those who advocate a separate partner- ship ? It is altogether passed over : not even touched by any advocates of the bill, and yet it Spinster and Widow Voters. 257 is clearly an outrage on common sense, and no lady in the room, I am sure, would maintain tliat slie is to be invested with property equal and superior to that of the husband, and yet sustain none of the obligations ? (Hear, hear.) You all say that, and I have no doubt everybody in the room would pro- test against such a doctrine. (' No ! ') Well, it seems there are ladies who accept the doctrine, and men who defend it. The wife in America has no obligations whatever thrown upon her : however large her fortune may be, on the husband falls the whole burthen. It is clear, therefore, that many Americans approve of the doctrine that the wife ought not to be liable for any domestic require- ments. But it appears to me that that is to put women's position in a very inferior grade to that of men. (Cheers.) It is desired to give them all the advantages, and escape all burthens. I do not believe a well-regulated female mind desires such a posi- tion." * Logical readers will perceive that the American marriage law, made by male legislators (which throws all the burthen of providing for the family on the husband alone, however great the wife's fortune), is totally opposed to the "strong-minded" Trans- atlantic ladies' theory that man is played out, and woman the superior being! Were woman man's equal, she should have exactly similar duties to perform. Were she superior, she should have more duties than man ! Madame de Stael sums up the * Yicioria Magazine, January, 1871. 258 Woman Suffrage Wrong. question thus : — " God, in creating man the first, has made him the noblest of his creatures ; and the most noble creature is that one who has the greatest number o£ duties to perform." Some " strong- minded " women are at least quite consistent in their peculiar view of Women's Rights, as respects both political privileges and property ; determined to get all they can, and to concede nothing ! Sir Erskine Perry's views on the husband's leadership entirely support those in Part i., Chapters II. and III. The Sexual Equality principle is utterly opposed to Bible precepts, and, practically carried out, involves infidelity. A discussion with a second- class advocate, on this Bill, shows that the measure does not consistently enfranchise property, while refusing votes to wives. He thought the question would be satisfactorily settled by Spinster and Widow ratepayers' suffrage. " Married women would then demand the suff- rage." " They would not get it." " But your only reason for enfranchising women, is the property qualification." " Certainly." "Tou think that all who pay rates and taxes, should have votes, independently of sex ? " "Exactly." " Well, then, by the Married Woman's Property Act, and even under the previous law, by a deed of settlement, a wife may hold property in her own right, and pay large sums in rates and taxes." spinster and Widow Voters. 259 " The wife is represented by her husband, whether she holds property or not." " Yes ; but her separate property is not repre- sented by her husband. And if it is considered a grievance that property held by single women should be taxed and rated without being represented, it is equally a grievance that property held by wives should be taxed and rated, without being repre- sented. What becomes of your argument that all paying rates and taxes should have votes, indepen- dently of sex ? If you make personal payment of rates and taxes, the qualification for the franchise, it makes not the slightest difference to this argu- ment, that the rate and taxpayer is a wife. You must either carry out the principle of Mr. Woodall's bill, or admit that it cannot be applied to women at all. You must either enfranchise wives possessed of separate property, or you must refuse the fran- chise to all women." No satisfactory reply was, or can, be made. The "Woodall Bill advocate thought there would not be many wives with separate property qualifications for votes; and that it would be better to leave such unenfranchised, than to refuse what he considered an act of justice to spinster and widow ratepayers. To this I replied that independently of wives hold- ing property by special deeds of settlement, the class of married women separate property-holders has greatly increased, and is rapidly increasing, through recent legislation by the Married Woman's Property Act : so that a clear act of insult and 260 Woman Suffrage Wrong. injury is done to a whole class of wives mocked by getting votes, which the law forbids them to use ! The number of such does not affect the question at issue. Except but one married woman property- holder from the benefit of the proposed act to enfranchise all ratepayers of certain value, indepen- dently of sex : you thereby violate the principle of the Bill, the sole basis on which you ask the suffrage for women holding property. After making this the plea for enfranchising 800,000 spinsters and widows, you deliberately discard it, in the case of married women property-holders, and thus place a large and increasing class under political disability. Doing a so-called act of justice to certain spinsters and widows, entails a real act of injustice to all married women, but especially to property-holding wives, excepted under the proposed new law. On 3rd May, 1871, Mr. Gladstone observed:— "I am not quite sure that my honourable friend, in exclud- ing married women, has adopted the right course. It is quite clear that married women, if they possessed the qualification, ought not to be omitted." If we level the barriers demarcating the sexes, to admit Spinster and Widow ratepayers to the elec- toral franchise, we must, at all hazards, weaken, if not thoroughly destroy, conjugal obedience. Other- wise we distinctly place wives below single women. We invert the legitimate social order, and offer a premium to women to refrain from matrimony. We virtually say to a woman voter : — " Better not spinster and Widow Voters. 261 marry. If you do, you lose your vote. Love ; be a mother if you like ; so long as you are not legally married, you retain your vote. As an elector, an indirect legislator, the Law places you above every honest married woman. This is final woman suff- rage ! " There are then (as Mr. Grladstone might say) three courses, all more or less consistent. 1. Oppose woman suffrage altogether. 2. Pass this bill, as an instalment. 3. Pass a real measure of women sufirage, including wives. Either refuse the franchise to all women, or else give it to all female householders, spinster, widow, and wife ! To leave all women unenfranchised, is far more accordant with common sense, morality, justice, and good government, than to enfranchise 800,000 spinsters and widows as a final measure. But will you be able to stop ? Once surmount the natural barrier of sex, and declare a class of spinsters and widows eligible to vote; legislation must go further. It would be shamefully, ludicrously unjust to leave the best and foremost women wives and mothers under political disability, as a fine for entering the holy state of matrimony. We must either maintain our present electoral law, or pass a much more com- prehensive measure of female suffrage, than is now proposed as a final settlement of the vexed question- Either from inability to see more than one aspect of the subject, or from partiality of partisan feeling, those who harp on the gross injustice of taxing spinsters and widows (not wives), without allowing them to vote, place the question altogether in a 262 Woman Suffrage Wrong. wrong light. Previous chapters have proved that we cannot treat woman as a full citizen, without subjecting her to the most cruel injustice. The analogy completely fails, when our opponents attempt to place one sex in the other's place, asking, with superficial mistaken triumph : " How would men like such treatment ? Is it fair to disfranchise male householders ? " Observe that these Spinster and Widow advocates ignore all married women house and property holders. Sex is not a trivial distinc- tion, though platform declaimers treat it as such, while asking for woman the privileges of both sexes. We cannot treat woman like man. Attempt to reduce to practice the Sexual Equality theory — lay on woman all a full citizen's burthens — and she would be the first to complain justly that we were oppressing the weaker sex. It is then silly sophistry to " pile up the agony " about the hardship of refus- ing votes to female ratepayers. Declaimers on sexual equality, protesters against Nature, who print "weaker sex" in inverted commas, sneer at " womanliness,'' and shriek about placing woman on the same level with man ; either speak from full hearts and empty heads, sheer arrant nonsense, or they serve a purpose by such deliberate insincerity. In the latter case, they know sexual equality is impossible ; nothing is further from their thoughts than this party cry. They seek to put woman on a better footing than man. To give woman man's privilege of political power, in addition to her own privileges of exemption from a citizen's duties, and spinster and Widow Voters. 263 her enjoyment of other immunities inseparable from sex, is not treating her as man's equal, but as a pampered, petted, spoilt child. The objection of the monstrous wickedness in refusing votes to tax and ratepayers, is too trans- parently futile to succeed with any but a Woman's Suffrage audience, ready to endorse everything from their own speakers. Millions of non- voters are taxed, by paying duties on articles of daily consumption. The alleged grievance of refusing votes to single female householders, is more than cancelled by their special privileges as women ; by their exemption, in right of sex, from personal service in war, by land and sea, on juries, and from many more laborious, painful, and perilous duties discharged by men, and to a very great extent for women's protection. The women for whom the franchise is demanded — (and on many of whom it would be literally forced) — ^ara comparatively few. And the very conditions on which their alleged claim is based, show that so far from being destitute, or especially requiring protec- tion, they are, some in middling circumstances, some prosperous, and some affluent. These facts are most important, because clearly, so long as the vote is claimed for women solely on the property basis, it is sought to enfranchise not married women, to influence legislation against cruel or unfaithful husbands ; not women in poverty and distress ; not the working women and operative classes, whose special grievances would be legislatively ignored, while gushed over by platform agitators for spinster 264 Woman Suffrage Wrong. and widow suffrage ; but women generally speaking above the world ! Great stress has been laid on tbe hardship of withholding the franchise from a wealthy single lady ! Beyond the theoretical unfairness of taxing and rating property whose owner cannot vote, what actual suffering is inflicted' on this lady, by with- holding from her — in common with her whole sex, according to time-honoured law in all civilised nations — the very questionable boon of the electoral franchise ? A wealthy woman without a vote, is no worse, but a great deal better off, than a poor woman without a vote. Were this cry for the franchise made on behalf of poor labouring women, actually doing work unsuitable to their sex in factory and field, it would possess some plausibility. But all this declamation is for the avowed object of enfran- chising as a final woman suffrage measure, a small section of the sex, far above the classes standing most in need of legislation to protect their interests — spinster and widow householders. Such claimants are logically silenced by this reply : You demand the passing of Mr. "Woodall's bill, either as an instal- ment of a more comprehensive measure, or as a final settlement. On the former supposition, you begin at the wrong end. Married, ought to be enfranchised before single women : poor toiling, distressed work- women, before women in easy circumstances. But the Spinster and Widow franchise as a final measure, is a virtual betrayal of Woman Suffrage as a prin- ciple. To remove the alleged grievance of 800,000 spinster and Widow Voters. 265 •spinsters and widows paying rates and taxes with- out votes, you would inflict the real grievance of keeping the vast majority of women, married and single, under political disability for ever, enhanced by contrast with a favoured enfranchised class ! "Were I to concede that the class iu question laboured under any grievance, I would urge that it is their duty as Christian women to bear it, rather than by grasping at the franchise for themselves, directly inflict far greater grievances on their sex ^nd country. Of course, I know this argument will be derided by the thorough-paced Woman's Rights woman. That enthusiast sees only that aspect of a question which first presents itself. To logical in- capacity she adds the mental blindness of the par- tisan of a false hypothesis ; perverted by sophistry, and trying every proposition, not by its own intrinsic merits, but by its capability of adaptation to what .she calls the Movement for women ; meaning thereby a movement for her own apparent personal interests. This Movement places her on the platform, gives her notoriety, gratifies her vanity, enables her to pose as a pioneer of progress ; and, if successful, she will obtain direct electoral influence. The Woman Suff- rage woman identifies herself on the platform, with her poor, oppressed, down-trodden sex. But she never loses sight of the main chance. In her eager- ness to vote, she accepts as final a partial measure actually against married woman suffrage, thereby •clearly proving that she seeks not to enfranchise her sex, but to gratify her own personal ambition. So 266 Woman Suffrage Wrong. long as she votes, she is indifferent to the results of this limited measure on her sex at large. Doubtless some women really advocate this partial enfranchisement, as an instalment of universal woman suffrage, in spite of the clause against married women voting ; and believe that by plunging into political strife, they exemplify woman's mission, and elevate their sex. Where there are dupes, there will be designing leaders. Such see their own apparent temporal advantage, whether the Bill be final, or an instalment of general woman suffrage. In the latter case they will be hailed as pioneers of Woman's Enfranchisement ; will have still greater numbers of women electors to counsel and command ; and may possibly gratify their darling ambition of entering Parliament and holding ofl&ce. But there are selfish women as well as selfish men, who, having got the franchise for themselves, think electoral reform has gone far enough, and will dread further agitation lest it should cause reaction. Such women laugh in their sleeves, at the idea of a bill expressly declaring against married women suffrage, removing women's political disabilities. They feel certain that men will never be mad enough to grant a greater exten- sion of woman suffrage, and under pretence of struggling for Woman Suffrage in principle, will leave no stone unturned to carry a nice little pro- perty bill, which will exalt spinsters and widows above wives. Alas for the selfishness of human nature ! Such ambitious political women are not exemplars of their sex, and cannot legitimately spinster and Widow Voters. 267" represent them, with or without votes. Eugene Sue thus defines political women : " They are a babbling race, inspired with ambitious passions, as egotistical as men, and gifted with none of the quali- ties or graces of women. Sterility of mind, coldness, and feebleness of heart, severity of character, preten- sions to wisdom ridiculously exaggerated, constitute their characteristics ; in a word, political women are- a mixture of the schoolmaster and step-mother, and, whether married or not, always resemble old maids." Mr. Jacob Bright's extraordinary bill for relieving independent Spinsters and Widows, and against married woman suffrage, was well and wittily summed up by the Attorney General for Ireland, thus : — (1 May, 1872) " He objected to it both in form and substance. (Cheers and laughter,) He did not know what it meant, and he did not believe that its proposer knew what it meant. Although it was said that the bill was not intended to en- franchise married women, he would venture to say that, taken in connection with the Married Women's Property Act, it would have that effect, and he be- lieved that no lawyer would deny that assertion. (Mr. Eobertson : ' No, no.') His hon. friend who was not a lawyer, said ' No, no.' It had been said that it would be easy to amend the bill in com- mittee, so as to prevent any doubt.* No doubt,. * A clause in Mr. Woodall's bill expressly limits the franchise to spinsters and widows. For not supporting this so-called " practical measure of women's suffrage " married women ar* scolded by those who have thrown them over ! 268 Woman Suffrage Wrong. like the weapon of which they had heard, it might be a very good gun, if it had a new stock, lock, and barrel. (Laughter.) But for his own part he ob- jected to the second reading of bills which had to be transformed in committee into such a condition that when they emerged, their own mother did not know them. (Laughter.) Changes of this kind ought not to be taken up as a matter of detail, but should be considered in their entirety, and with reference to the consequences which they would involve." CHAPTER V. EESULTS OF MAEEIBD WOMBN's SUFFRAGE. Not as opponent, but as advocate of women's real rights, I oppose the important and disastrous change in the law, contemplated by Woman Suffrage. I anticipate the social revolution, disruption of domestic ties, desecration of marriage, destruction of the household gods, dissolution of the family — • which would result from the political enfranchise- ment of married women. Grant the suffrage to wives, and this must follow : Either we give two votes to the husband who influences his wife; or two votes to the wife who influences her husband. If the enfranchised wife has no political views, and votes as directed by her husband — which perhaps the majority of wives would do — the husband has two votes, without additional taxation. But the very enfranchisement of married women, assumes that the wife is not properly represented by her husband, and invites her to turn her newly fledged political influence against him whom she has solemnly pro- 270 Woman Suffrage Wrong. mised to obey ! Chapters II. and III. (Part i.) show this distinctly irreligious. It cannot then be politic, wise, moral. Strong-minded Amazons and women of fashion will of course vie with each other, in the pleasant privilege of openly rebelling against their respective husbands ; and showing how lightly they hold the bride's promise to love, cherish, and obey. They are "as women wish to be who hate their lords." The enfranchised wife refusing her husband's guidance, gives her own, and possibly her husband's vote, obtained by the " worrying process " accord- ing to what she professes to be her own political convictions. In 99 cases in 100, this means voting according to the dictates of spiritual director ; priest, clergyman, or some other man — not her husband — whom she regards as infallible. Would this process add to the collective wisdom of Parliament ? Mr. Labouchere answers thus : — " Collectively women are impulsive, and easily swayed. I do not believe they would be continuously Liberal or Conservative. They would be a disturbing element in politics, mainly actuated in giving their votes, by non- political motives. Charming, agreeable, tender, and kind, as I have found some women, I never knew one on whose continuous common sense I could reckon. Nature has made them mentally flighty. Their opinions are almost always the reflex of someone else. I have known the wisest and most staid of them as potter's clay, in the hands of an assertive fool. Let anyone observe the sort of Results of Married Vt^omen's Suffrage. 271 man whom women regard as an intellectual divinity. Oenerally speaking, the god is one of the poorest creatures that walks on two legs. Argument is thrown away on most women. Either they blindly agree, or obstinately repeat the foregone conclusion impressed on their minds. They have, I admit, a sort of instinct ; but if this is termed reason, female reason is quite different from male reason." * On the 3rd of May, 1871, Mr. H. James observed : — *' How enormous, if such a measure became law, would be the power of the priest in one country, and of the clergyman in the other. How dangerous to have these canvassing women, whispering into the ear of the lady at the polling-booth, how she was to vote. They would not depend on their own judgment, and therefore it was sought to create a class to whose influence the word undue could emphatically and specially be applied. The argu- ment used so frequently, that it was illogical to deny the franchise to women, when the head of the country was a woman, was answered by the fact that the great virtue of sovereigns was rather negative, than an undue interference in politics; and that her Majesty, from the moment she took as her consort, a foreigner, chose, though an English- woman, who had received an English education, to respect the guidance and influence of that foreigner, simply because he was a man, and she was a woman. (Cheers.)" Strong-minded women with sexual equality on * Truth, 11 April, 1889. 272 Woman Suffrage Wrong. the brain, would of course be guided by " noble champions " of woman suffrage. But even accord- ing to the definition of women, quoted from The Victoria Magazine (Part i., Chap. IV.) the great majority are poor weak limp, arrested, undeveloped creatures, with forced habits, and false ideas, " such as would almost appear to demand a recombination of their elements." Evidently women in such an imbecile condition, are not fit for the franchise. Collect from what Mrs. Rose called " the mass of rubbish called argument " the strongest things said and written byM.P.'s against "Woman Suffrage, and they are mild compared to the above. Mr. H. James only said : — " Had women fitness and capacity? They possessed indeed quick apprehen- sion and powers of acquiring languages, larger perhaps than men, but if asked whether of equal capacity in political matters, he would say emphati- cally they had not, because of that great and over- whelming sympathy which prevented a woman from seeing error on the side on which she had ranged herself — (Laughter) — a happy provision perhaps, of nature, enabling a woman to feel a devotion which would be impossible were she capable of weighing men in an even balance. Then there was in many women a total want of logical power, and though one lady here and there might be pointed to, possessing considerable dialectic skill, yet these were exceptions like cases of extraordinary phy- sical strength." Both statements by M.P.'s are panegyrics compared with the depreciation of her Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 273 sex by the lady writer. If her estimate of womea be correct, then all agitation for Woman Suffrage should cease at once ! Enfranchisement of married women offers a powerful inducement to matrimonial discord. "Were it desired to increase wife-beating, no better method could be proposed than to add this political cause of contention to other disagreements between man and wife. A female constituency would also increase temptations to bribery and corruption. If men, supposed to have some political education, sell their votes, electoral equity cannot be expected from women, who take no interest whatever in politics. To sell a vote will be considered an additional help towards providing for the family, and from this point of view, many poor wives with large families would readily petition for women's suffrage. At a meeting of the Victoria Discussion Society, a gentle- man alluding to the manner in which woman suff- rage petitions were got up, stated that they were largely signed by domestic servants, and other women not possessing the qualification entitling them to votes ! The women who collect such signatures, are more dishonest than the poor, deceived women who give them. Such a practice is clearly a conspiracy to deceive legislators into the belief that the women signing are all qualified under the bill ; and whether legally punishable or not, is morally base, and equivalent to deliberate lying. " No evidence is more striking than that relating to the active interest taken by women of a corrupt place in the bribes to T 274 Woman Suffrage Wrong. be obtained. Very naturally, poor things, not having a political idea, they think it John's bounden duty to think of his family's interests, the little mouths to be fed, and possible Sunday clothes to be bought ; and make exceedingly impressive appeals to the father to get the highest attainable price. This is no matter of moral conjecture. All recent in- quiries into electoral corruption, show the woman's influence one of the principal incentives to corrup- tion, and chiefly for this reason, that they have no positive political interests, and consider it all one which candidate beats, but not all one what the winning candidate pays. Grive women votes, with- out giving them political interests, and you will much more than double the area of corruption. Whether they bargain for their husbands, or them- selves, they will hold it a sacred duty to their children to make their vote fetch something tidy for the housekeeping. "We repeat, then, it is not to be thought of for a moment to give women equal votes with men, so long as only a very small portion of women betray real political interests. The only security against political corruption is sincere political conviction. If you present swords to those who have no cause of their own to fight for, of course they will sell them, and become mercenary troops."* But far more serious than even selling of votes, is the certain incentive to disunion which married woman suffrage must introduce. It would permit an electioneering agent to interfere between wife • The Spectator, 2nd April, 1870. Results of Married Women' s Suffrage. 275 and husbandj and sunder those whom Divine and human laws pronounce one. While the husband was absent at business, the wife would be exposed to solicitations from male canvassers to vote, per- haps in direct contradiction to her husband's political convictions. Here, I earnestly entreat readers, male and female, to banish preconceived ideas. Look at this question, not from narrow, controversial, politi- cal, party views ; but in its human, moral, religious aspect, as affecting future generations. Permit the heart to speak. Let conscience decide. Only try to imagine the opportunities for depravity afforded by the political franchise, which we are told is to elevate woman ! Let every husband ask himself : " Should I like to expose my young, beautiful, in- experienced wife to visits in my absence, from some dapper electioneering agent, an utter stranger, whose moral character may be contaminating ? Is it pleasant for me to know that such a person will have a legal right to seek a tete-a-tete interview with my darling wife, and to press her with all kinds of arguments, to vote for the candidate who employs him ? Is it right that my wife should thus be per- plexed by divided duties : so that if she decides to see this man, she fails in her conjugal duty by dis- pleasing, if not flatly disobeying, her husband ; if she refuse to see the stranger, she fails in her political duty ? Will these conflicting obligations make home happier, or knit more closely the bonds of mutual confidence between husband and wife ? " An affirmative answer is preposterous I 276 Woman Suffrage Wrong. At a meeting of the Victoria Discussion Society, 3rd June, 1871, Mr. Hoskins, advocating married woman suffrage, observed : " I think Mr. Jacob Bright's bill a profound political error, because it provides for the enfranchisement only of single women and widows, who on the average, are the least experienced." A male visitor stated the reason why Mr. Jacob Bright did not venture to demand the franchise for married women, and why our legislators wisely determine against such a measure. The speaker stated in plain language, the objection I have made. I was curious to read the report of his speech in the next number of the Victoria Magazine. As a matter of course, this, the grand, the all-im- portant objection to married woman suffrage, was deliberately suppressed ! An accurate report of his speech would have turned too glaring a light on the subject, and would probably have caused numerous desertions from the ranks of woman suffrage advocates. For though this objection applies most forcibly to married women, it applies more or less, to all modest women. If no husband would like his wife to be canvassed for her vote in his absence, presumably no man would like to expose daughter, sister, mother, or any other female relative to similar molestation. All woman suffrage meetings display an impatience of honest opposition, and as far as possible, deliberately suppress unfavourable opinions. This of itself is sufficient to condemn the agitation. The cause must be bad and weak, which has recourse to special pleading ; which heaps invectives and re- Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 277 proaches on opponents whom it cannot silence ; and publishes garbled reports of debates, suppressing objections which it cannot answer. In Chapters II. and III., Part ii., I dealt with the theory that woman softens political rancour. We hear of elections being sweetened, purified; and electors' angry passions being mollified by women voters refining men. According to woman suffrage partisans, the future enfranchised woman is to influence, like the faithful study of the humani- ties : — " Emollit mores, nee sinit esse feros." But unless we could radically revolutionise human nature, another alternative is certain to happen. There is a proverb against touching pitch. Even Mr. Jacob Bright admitted : " There was no doubt a considerable quantity of mire and dirt connected with politics." Yet he did his best to precipitate women into this mire and dirt, without reflecting that the mud would certainly stick to his spinsters and widows : that instead of making miry political ways clean, women will themselves become contami- nated much more rapidly and extensively than men. The ermine's is sooner soiled than the sable's fur. Proportionate to Woman's purity, will be the taint imparted by fetid political mire. No object is purer than woman in her normal state, under man's pro- tection, as sister, daughter, wife, mother. Nothing is viler than unsexed woman succumbing to the world's temptations. Unhappily we have too many 278 Woman Suffrage Wrong. illustrations that woman, when fallen, falls lower than man. Mrs. Bodichon observes : — " A gentleman who thinks much about details, aJErms that ' polling- booths are not fit places for women.' If this is so, one can only say that the sooner they are made fit, the better."* This illustrates the singular manner in which women argue. Here we have the favourite female figure of speech — -petitio prmcipii, or begging the question ; " id est, taking for granted the very thing that remains to be proved." This lady should at least have attempted to prove that polling-booths can be made fit and proper places for modest, respectable women — the very conclusion denied by woman suffrage opponents. Instead of doing so> Mrs. Bodichon simply affirms that there is no moral unfitness ; a proposition which of course cannot be granted by anyone conscientiously opposing woman suffrage. For if we granted this, then we should agree with Mrs. Bodichon; there would be no ground for argument : cadit qucestio : the debate ends. And yet Mrs. Bodichon can so far enter into her opponents' views, as to observe (p. 5) : " If anyone believes as the result of observation and experience, that it is not a womanly function to vote, I respect such belief." Now, that is just the position of sincere Woman Suffrage opponents. Our conviction is that no amount of purifying or improvement in the manner of voting, can ever make * " Objections to the Enfranchisement of Women Considered " (1867), p. 7. Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 279 polling-booths fit places for women. Mrs. Bodichon distinguishes between unmarried, and married women thus : " "We are not discussing the expediency of giving votes to wives." But why not ? If polling- places are fit for spinsters and widows, why not fit for wives ? "We make no such nice and arbitrary distinctions. We draw the line where it is palpably drawn by Nature between the sexes. We do not say spinsters may dabble in political mud and mire ; wives may not. We declare the whole sex too precious to expose its purity to such contamination. We see that the heat, turmoil, excitement, quarrels, and conflicts of a contested election do not purify man — and are certain far more to sully woman. We entirely condemn the plausible theory that woman may, and should do, whatever man does. We say there are points at which the respective functions and duties of the sexes clearly and widely diverge. The path leading to political strife, and rivalry with man, is one of these. And we have as good a right to forbid woman meddling directly with man's functions in politics, as in war. I repeat, no argument can be urged for woman's direct inter- ference with politics, which cannot be wielded with far greater logical force, for her engaging personally in war ! Experience shows that some women want to fight, and have actually disguised their sex to gratify their military propensity; enlisted and fought as soldiers and sailors. If woman's indi- vidual wishes are to be granted at all costs — if women wanting to vote should be indulged, then 280 Woman Suffrage Wrong. women-warriors must be permitted to fight. There is an end of all legislative interference whatever. Apply Mrs. Bodichon's argument to war, and we shall perceive its real value. Substitute battle-fields for polling-booths, and read thus : " A gentleman who thinks much about details, afl&rms that battle- fields are not fit places for women. If this is so, one can only say that the sooner they are made fit, the better." Of course, Mrs. Bodichon would repudiate this as an argument for woman's right to fight, as strongly as I do. But it is her own argument, only applied to war, instead of politics, and equally worthless to prove woman's right to engage in either. If you say : the sooner battle- fields are abolished, the better for men and women ; we must all endorse that proposition. It might be well to abolish both polling-booths and battle-fields: but granted the existence of both as necessary evils, it is surely better to confine them to the rougher sex exclusively. At present, war is held to be, under certain circumstances, a stern necessity, and considered compatible with man's civil and religious duties. No one has yet contended for woman's right to fight. Yet I have shown (in Chapter II., Part ii.) that woman may as consistently engage in war, as in politics ; that if we permit her to vote, we must grant her all a citizen's rights, and allow her to enlist in the honourable and lucrative profes- sion of arms ; to say nothing of volunteering to defend her country. No Amazon has yet said that the scene of mortal strife is woman's proper place. Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 281 War is not made more gentle by female warriors. All experience shows that when cruel, women are more cruel than men. -If the fighting man is but a fiend, what is the fighting woman ? The heart revolts against a woman delighting in blood and slaughter ; and such a monster we would apostrophise in Shakspere's words: — "0 tiger's heart, wrapp'd in a woman's hide ! " Patrician ladies of Ancient Rome were delighted spectators of the gladiatorial shows — " Where man was slaughtered by his fellow man," They shrank not from beholding tigers, lions, and other beasts of prey lap the blood, and crunch the bones of Christian martyrs ; enjoyed the spectacle of female gladiators wounding and killing each other. At modern Spanish bull-fights, women of all ranks are delighted spectators, and loudest in their acclamations. We can consistently condemn such women. Not so. Woman Suffrage advocates claiming woman's right, to do whatever man does, and be in all respects as wicked and vile. In Parliament, 3rd May, 1871, Mr. Bouverie quoted Mr, Alderman Murray, as to the unseemly sights at a late municipal election in Manchester. " Women were seen in public-houses, in a state of semi-drunkenness, and he had made up his mind that before the parliamentary franchise was ex- tended to women, they must have the protection of the ballot. But thfere was nothing in the ballot to prevent women from going to public-houses, and 282 Woman Suffrage Wrong. there forming an unseemly spectacle. Mr. Alderman Lamb asked whether any gentleman would like to see his wife, mother, or sister, staggering women, supported by staggering men, not their husbands, going up to vote ? " Such a spectacle might well stagger the allegiance of the most staunch stickler for married women's suffrage. And such spectacles would be multiplied by a sweeping woman suffrage extended to wives, even if we believe the 800,000 spinsters and widow- voters, all sober persons, if not all teetotalers. The vice of drunkenness has greatly increased among ladies, since grocers obtained wine and spirit licenses. Ladies addicted to private drinking, when canvassed for their votes during their husband's absence, might drink a glass or two to the success of the favoured candidate. And, under such circumstances, it would be the polite canvasser's duty to assist the lady voter to the polling-place. Seriously, the voting wife would be called on to exercise an unsuitable function ; entrusted with a dangerous power which poor weak human nature would be certain to abuse. She would be continually exposed to an irresistible temptation to violate her solemn promise to love, cherish, and obey. Suppose a husband said to his enfranchised wife : " I forbid you in my absence to see an electioneering agent or any male canvasser." The wife might urge her duty as a citizeness, as an excuse for disobeying her husband. Such conjugal disobedience must immediately and directly result from married woman suffrage. Indirectly, and con- Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 283 sequently, voting-wives would be exposed to still more dangerous and terrible trials, involving loss of virtue, and a husband's honour. Without obedience, there is no guarantee for conjugal fidelity. Should 800,000 spinsters and widows obtain the franchise, strenuous efforts will be made to extend it to wives. As regards personal abstract right of voting, wives seem better entitled than single women to the suffrage. Should the franchise ever be extended to married women, husband and wife may be seen not merely voting against each other, but employing all manner of electioneering tactics, in rivalling and opposing each other, wearing different coloured badges ; speaking and canvassing against each other ; trying all available election tricks to ensure the return of their respective favourite candidates. Yet the possibility, pro- bability, moral certainty of such unseemly opposi- tion between man and wife, does not in the least deter zealous woman suffrage partisans, who would abrogate every law by which it is barely possible for husbands to maltreat their wives ! Nay, wife- beating is one of the pleas put forward for granting woman suffrage. And how do they propose to protect the wife ? They cannot station a detective in every house. It will not tend to a wife's pro- tection, to teach her to beard a brutal tyrannical husband. Will a vote, involving the wife's asser- tion of independent and separate interests, and private interviews with men in her husband's absence, tend to allay the suspicions of a jealous 284 Woman Suffrage Wrong. husband ? Yet forsooth, wives must have votes to protect them against their husbands ! The only difference between Mr. Jacob Bright's bill, and Mr. Woodall's, is that the present Spinster and Widow Suffrage bill deliberately insults all married women. The arguments against the former bill, were ably summarised thus : " Woman cannot be man ; and sex cannot be obliterated, however much Miss Martineati may feel the inconvenience of being Miss Martineau, Married women who hold property, under settlement, or under trust to their separate use, are not to be enfranchised. The bill, if it has any meaning, is this, that women who are left alone in the world are to be charged with duties, or invested with trusts, from which mothers and wives of the political hive are to be excluded. If property is to be the only qualification for voters, we are asked to establish a new and invidious dis- qualification in the case of married women, as against their unmarried sisters. Dr. Playfair says there are 487,000 widows, and 1,110,000 spinsters not represented in the House. [It would he fair flay in Dr. Playfair to state the number of widowers and bachelors not directly represented in the House.] Does he mean to say that all these women, a million and a half, or more, are to be enfranchised by Mr. Jacob Bright's bill ? Mr. Bright only proposes to enfranchise ' the lass wi' a tocher,' and recommends his scheme, on the express ground, that the number of women whom he proposes to enfranchise, would be so small, that they are not worth countino-. Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 285 What then the Bill does, is to cure the injustice done to a million and a half of women, by doing justice to some 10,000 or 15,000 of them! The feminine gender is as worthy as the male, but the wife and mother is an inferior animal to the widow and spinster. Miss Martineau may influence Parlia- ment. Mrs. Somerville and Mrs. G-rote may not. What about creating faggot votes ? What is to prevent the father of seven daughters from endow- ing each on the eve of an election, with a freehold rent charge ? " Promoters of the bill are not honest and plain- spoken. They mean to establish, so far as the law goes, complete equality of the sexes. They draw a line now, which they know to be purely artificial, illogical, and illusory, only because they know that common sense must very soon efface it. The fran- chise proposed to be given to unmarried women with separate estates and incomes, is an absurdity, unless it involves, sooner or later — [which it certainly will, or the alternative of the repeal of spinster and widow suffrage] — the removal of all so-called social and political distinctions founded on sex. The title of the Bill is at least honest — ' Women's Disabilities Bill ' in the broadest and vaguest terms. It is non- sense to ring the changes on Florence Nightingale, and Harriet Martineau, when what is meant, is women in the jury-box, women free, not only to contract, but to dissever the marriage tie as they please. [In short, the dissolution of our political, civil, and social structure.] And it is something 286 Woman Suffrage Wrong. worse than nonsense to say that, because we do not permit women to go to the polling-booth, therefore we class them with felons, idiots, lunatics, outlaws, and minors. Mr. Jacob Bright has often avowed that he wants to assimilate our social state to that happy land, the home of Free Love, and The Sorosis ; but to assist that blessed state of things, it is simply dishonest for anyone to say that English women are now no better ofE than she-Turks." * How much longer will platform women, and their press allies, venture to insult the understanding of the public, by speaking and writing about the sub- jection and slavery of British "Women ? How much longer will women, as a sex, tolerate what each would individually resent as a palpable falsehood? The beauty of British and Irish women is proverbial, and testifies to their happiness and freedom. Long since it was well observed : — " There is, perhaps, no country where women enjoy so much and so great privileges as in our own. The phenomenon has never passed unobserved by foreigners ; and smartly has it been said that were a bridge thrown across the channel, the whole sex would be seen rushing to the British shores. In many countries, women are slaves ; in some, mistresses ; in others (what they should be everywhere), companions ; but in England, they are Queens." f The demand for female suffrage, based on the desire to increase woman's direct influ- ence, shows wonderful ignorance of human nature. Where do these people vegetate, or what micros- * Saturday Review, 7th May, 1870. f " Woman as she is, and as she should be," Vol. i., Chap. I. Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 287 copic perceptive power do they possess, who are blind to the immense influence exerted by that so-called poor, oppressed, down-trodden, stunted, undeveloped, arrested creature — woman — over her tyrant and oppressor — man ? This normal influ- ence she always has wielded, does now, and will always continue to wield, just so long as she has the womanly tact to restrict it to its natural and legiti- mate sphere, and method of exercise. " But this influence is indirect" shrieks the Amazon, desirous of bearding man, whom, she regards as ber natural enemy. Certainly it is indirect. And no Act of Parliament, no enfranchisement of wife, spinster, and widow, can ever make it direct. As the Supreme Euler over nature has ordained that woman shall be physically and mentally weaker than man, woman's influence over man, must ever be indirect. Amazons know less of human nature, than Arab women. " When an Arab damsel gets married, her mother gives her the following advice for securing her future happiness : ' You are leaving your nest to live with a man with whose ways and habits you are un- familiar. I advise you to be his slave, if you wish to become the absolute mistress of your husband. Be satisfied with little, endeavour to feed him well, and watch over his sleep, for hunger begets anger, and sleeplessness makes a man cross-grained. Be dumb as to his secrets, do not appear gloomy, when he is merry, nor merry, when he is sad, and Allah shall bless you." * The man -woman — perceiving she has little, or no * Household Words, 11th May, 1889. 288 Woman Suffrage Wrong. influence over man, compared with the womanly woman — wishes to destroy the existing political and social structure, and substitute another, which will enable her to lord it over unenfranchised married women, and over man, whom she defies as an enemy and rival. In this she will fail. Just in proportion as woman aims at direct influence, she excites man's antagonism. When real rivalry is declared on the basis of sexual equality, the weaker must go to the wall. Man will grant every reasonable request of woman. Pretended rights sought to be exacted, in the form of demands, will be sternly resisted. The woman who forgets grace and dignity ; imperfectly veils indignation and fury, by bitter unwomanly un- christian scorn, continually breaking forth into impotent invectives against a legislative majority — therefore against the People whom they represent — such a woman will be treated like a petulant spoilt child who cries for the moon. Woman fighting with man for his privileges, will simply lose- her own ! And just as they lose deference, respect, civility, courtesy, chivalry, and indispensable pro- tection, will women discover that they have no more dangerous enemies, than their officious " fussy " pretended friends, and self-constituted representa- tives — female demagogues using women as their dupes and tools, and making woman suffrage the stalking horse of personal ambition. Woman was never intended to beard man, to rebel against her natural guardian, protector, and head : to measure her strength in serious conflict with her husband, or Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 289 any other man. The great majority of women know this. The typical womanly woman is docile, gentle. She aims to please. She enjoys rights and privi- leges which the man-woman never possesses. A hen-pecked husband is as odious to every true woman, as a virago is to every true man. Abnormal exceptions prove the rule. The sex is illustrated by the normal type; gentle, amiable, womanly woman. Clever, thoughtful women (however much they may differ on the Suffrage question) must laugh openly or secretly, at some of their over-zealous advocates and Quixotic champions; especially at those men who display ignorance of womanly and human nature : who should apply Talleyrand's pre- cept " Toint de zele ! " " Woman and her Master : " " Man and his Mistress : " " Subjection of Woman : " "Thraldom of Man." "Six of one, and half-a- dozen of the other." As if even political influence were only exerted through the direct medium of a vote ! Intelligent wives, by their legitimate influ- ence over husbands — all women through male rela- tives and friends, by their own conduct, precept, example, and collective efforts ; by speaking, writing, by legitimate action and combination — as recent parliamentary acts prove — create a public opinion, and influence legislation far more effectually and beneficially for themselves, and for the nation, than by any direct interference in politics. Instead of vague declamations about female suffrage, let these enthusiasts point out any special grievance affecting women, with which Parliament can reason- w 290 Woman Suffrage Wrong. ably deal, with any hope of removal or remedy. Legislators and the public are eager to redress any grievance affecting women as sex or class, made known by legitimate combination, meetings, resolu- tions, and genuine petitions. The alleged grievance of a highly-intelligent cul- tivated gentlewoman holding property, without a vote, is certainly not the terrible hardship which it is pathetically represented to be. A woman suff- rage journalist stated it as a gross injustice, that the Baroness Burdett-Ooutts should be without the franchise, while a chimney sweeper renting a four- roomed house at Camberwell, had a vote. A most unfortunate illustration amounting to misrepresen- tation. Lady Burdett-Ooutts is the best judge of an alleged personal grievance. And this lady, so far from wanting to vote, is opposed to Woman Suffrage, and does not approve of women being on the School- board ! The argument is also unsound in principle. Does this journalist believe, or think readers can believe, that the direct political influence of the Camberwell sweep is greater than what Lady Burdett-Ooutts could, or probably does exert, by a simple expression of opinion ? It might be statisti- cally proved that this lady's influence exerted on the side of any Candidate, would equal many hundred or even thousand Camberwell sweep power. One of the best of living women, whose name is a House- hold word as a philanthropist, distinguished for the chief of Christian virtues — charity, is opposed to Woman Suffrage, etc. This fact alone has great Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 291 weight with all impartial judges. Such will not endorse the platform condemnation, "More shame for her." * I am convinced that a far greater number of women distinguish themselves in the Fine Arts, literature, science, and other legitimate female occu- pations, than there would be, were a political career open to them. Female usefulness and influence would diminish with the possession of votes. The franchise would produce fewer great women — and these not so great as now. Possession of the electoral privilege would distract female attention from those careers in which women are qualified to excel, and induce rivalry with men, just where man is strongest and woman weakest. The political franchise would be mentally unprofitable, morally injurious to woman — to whom and to humanity, it would prove a gift as fatal as the fabled Pandora's box of old. The fact that so many women occupy successfully so many careers, proves how utterly unfounded is the alleged limited sphere of action continually re-asserted as a plea for woman suff- rage. Woman's influence [like man's] finds its limit, with this important advantage in favour of the weaker sex — that the moral power wielded by both sexes in right of individual merit, is greatly enhanced by womanly grace, amiability, gentleness, and accomplishments, and is frequently remarkably exerted over men, by women deficient in, or utterly devoid of, solid qualities, by beauty, tact, and * See Part i., Chap. V. 292 Woman Suffrage Wrong. mother-wit. And this is felt and resented as a grievance by masculine women, who make no sacri- fice to the graces, and in their unavailing attempts to become men, only succeed in becoming un- womanly. But this alleged grievance cannot be brought under the notice of Parliament. If Socrates occasionally left Xantippe, to listen to Aspasia, or Phryne, the blame lay to a great extent with his wife, who should have moderated the rancour of her tongue. From time immemorial, men have preferred gentle womanly women, to ungentle masculine women : this cannot be remedied by woman suffrage. Men are said to object to female enfranchisement from dread of increased rivalry and competition. Doubtless some men are actuated by such personal motives. Mr. Labouchere, or other Members opposed to Woman Suffrage, would naturally object to be " pulled to pieces and shown up," as Mrs. Rose so forcibly suggested.* I object to Woman Suffrage on principle, not from any personal jealousy of extending her influence. I have not the slightest personal interest in the question. I write to benefit, not to injure — to enlarge, not to circumscribe, her proper legitimate influence, indirect, judicious, immense, natural. For this reason, I solemnly protest against a radical change in our electoral laws, which would weaken woman's influence, revolutionise society, and destroy the existing salutary inter-relations of the sexes. * Part ii., Chapter III. CHAPTER VI. EESULTS OP WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN GENERAL. Women would lose far more than they would gain by the franchise. Woman Suffrage would illustrate the moral of the dog in the fable losing the sub- stance, while grasping at the shadow. The majority would be certain to abuse votes forced upon them unsolicited — to which they are indifferent, and would not value, save to sell. To this the plausible answer, that " women need not vote unless they wish," is simply untrue. In Parliament (3rd May, 1871), Mr. Bouverie exposed its untruth, thus : " If they conferred this franchise upon women, they would not be able to protect those who were un- willing to take a part in politics. Politics would be forced upon them : they would be forced to the poll : they would be followed and worried to give their votes. If, then, the great body of women did not ask for this measure — and it was well known they did not ask for it — the House ought to hesitate 294 Woman Suffrage Wrong. before it imposed this damnosa hcereditas on the country." I challenge denial of Mr. Bouverie's statement. The leader of the opposition to Mr. Jacob Bright's bill, endorses my statement in Chap. I. Agitators wanting the suffrage for themselves, will force it on a large number of other women, utterly disregarding their feelings and sufferings. It thus appears that " worrying" is a round game played by both sexes. We saw (Part ii.. Chap. III.) that Mrs. Sims had great faith in " worrying," and advised ladies to use that, and all other avail- able methods of persuasion to attain the suffrage. If, then, men are ever worried into granting women suffrage, it would be a beautiful illustration of poetical justice, that men should worry unwilling spinsters and widows to vote ! Women who object to this worrying process, should petition against woman suffrage being forced upon them. Mr. Bouverie completely disposed of the woman suffrage' argument based on petitions, thus : — " Reference had been made to the petitions signed by 240,000 or 250,000 persons, but the signatures were not exclusively those of women, but there were also men's signatures. Almost all those peti- tions were framed on one or two deliberate models, and they all knew how petitions of that sort might be got up, and signed. (Hear, hear.) When he considered that there were in England, Ireland, and Scotland, some 16,000,000 women, he could not help thinking that 260,000 signatures constituted a very small proportion to be appended to petitions in Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 295 favour of this movement." Mr, Scourfield "denied that there was any evidence to prove that the mass of the women of England were in favour of this measure. On the contrary, he was persuaded that the vast majority of the ladies of England, and the general feeling of the people at large were utterly opposed to this movement. (Hear, hear.) It had once been remarked by the Chief Baron Alexander, that it required an immense amount of mental energy to hold one's tongue at certain times. Mr. Scourfield believed that the ladies of England generally had shown themselves possessed of this faculty in relation to this question ; and he did not see any reason why their feelings upon it should be ignored, because they did not express themselves in so demonstrative a manner, as certain lady politicians who were favourable to the measure. The petitions represented but a very small fraction of the people, while there were millions against the bill." Mr. KnatchbuU-Hugessen (now Lord Brabourne) said : " They were told that those (petitions) in favour of the bill contained 250,000 signatures. Many of the signatures were, however, those of men. He did not know what was the proportion of women's signatures to these petitions, but if it was true that the women of England suffered grievously from the present state of the law, how was it that so comparatively few women had petitioned Parlia- ment on the subject, seeing that there were not fewer than 11,000,000 in England, and 16,000,000 in the whole of the United Kingdom? (Cheers.) 296 Woman Suffrage Wrong. He appealed to tlie experience of hon. Members when he stated his own, that little assent was given by women generally to the principle of this bill. (Cheers.) He could not help thinking when ladies of high position and education went about the country holding meetings on this subject, that a certain number of the signatures obtained to the petitions must be ascribed to the politeness of the male sex. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It might be objected that there were no petitions against the bill. There were, however, good reasons for that — first, because the majority of the women of England naturally shrank from interfering in a matter of this kind, and next, because, having regard to the un- mistakeable position of the House last session on the same question, they had confidence in the judgment of the House, and did not want to come into un- necessary pre-eminence by getting up petitions. (Hear, hear.)" This, doubtless, explains why women did not actively petition against the bill. Besides, women indifferent, or even averse to the suffrage, might think it ungenerous to petition against a movement professing to obtain the suffrage, not for a favoured class, but for all women sooner or later. Ladies might say ; " We think women suffrage advocates mistaken, but, at least, they mean well : they are trying to get the suffrage, not for themselves alone, but for the majority of women." Now, however, it is impossible for women to be any longer deceived. Promoters have long thrown off the mask ; have Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 297 abandoned the impartial principle of Woman Suffrage ; and betrayed their sex by accepting as final, a spinster and widow bill, which actually stigmatises married women as never to be en- franchised ! "Will the wives and mothers of Great Britain and Ireland remain silent under this last crowning insult ? I believe not : I hope not. It is now a sacred duty for women generally, and especially for wives, to petition against Spinster and "Widow Suffrage. Whether the Bill does, or does not become law, such petitions will show Parliament, that women generally protest against being represented by Spinsters and Widows. Mr. 0. Morgan said, " It had been stated that petitions in favour of the bill had been sent in by 250,000 women. All he would say to this was that he did not know where the signatures came from. At present the minds of Englishwomen were in a different groove from political rights. The great body of Englishwomen did not wish for political rights. The women who wished for the change, which the present bill was framed to bring about, were a very small number. They were earoest women, who had been brooding over imaginary wrongs ; they were like the women who had dwelt on the Contagious Diseases Acts, and who inundated the breakfast table with a miserable literature — not addressed, however, to the husband and wife alone, but to the sisters and daughters also.* They were all * Surely these nice, or nasty-minded ladies, who not only publish, but circulate obscene tracts, and actually bring them 298 Woman Suffrage Wrong. women of one idea, who looked at every question from one point of view. If they gave the franchise to these women, they would be creating a new party in the house — a woman's party. There would be not only a war of opinion, and a war of religion, but a war of the sexes. He could not consent to make a revolution for the sake of a handful of fanatics." In the debate of 1871, Mr. Beresford Hope said : — " It was true that no women had petitioned against the bill, but it was equally true that they had never petitioned against the Divorce Bill, although it was well known that generally speak- ing, the females of England were greatly opposed to the passing of such a measure. He honoured the women for not having done so, because that innate modesty, which was the great attribute of the sex, prevented their putting themselves forward on such occasions. No doubt, women had sometimes peti- tioned Parliament — they had even crowded that table with petitions on a certain question, which should have been the very last to attract their attention. (Hear, hear.) So far from that fact being urged as a reason for conferring this franchise upon women, as showing that they took a deep interest in the proceedings of that House, he thought that the disgusting appearance of the petitions to which he alluded, greatly strengthened the arguments of those who were conscientiously opposed to the principle contended for by the advocates of the under the notice of youtti of both sexes, are liable to prosecution under Lord Campbell's, or some other Act. Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 299 present measure. (Cries of ' Oh, oh.') He opposed the bill, because he wished to protect women from being forced forward into the hurly-burly of party politics, and obliged to take part in all the dis- agreeable accompaniments of electioneering con- tests, and their consequences. (Hear.)" Even in those cases where women conscientiously sought the suffrage, and where it might be expected to be independently and prudently used, women- voters would not in the end be benefited. Because just as women conquered in man's domain of reason, applied to politics and public life, would they be defeated in their own proper province of the affec- tions : just as they distinguished themselves in public, would they extinguish their influence in private life, and abdicate their present almost despotic sway over men in the sphere of Home : just as they usurped male prerogatives, rivalled man in politics, interfered in elections, and dis- cussed, published, circulated unwomanly, indecent, unsavoury questions — would these women lose those womanly charms and sterling qualities now constituting their true legitimate kingdom. Just inasmuch as woman resembles, copies, caricatures, apes man, does she cease to influence him. All experience and daily observation testify to this most important fact that it is the gentle, modest, womanly woman who indirectly rules man. " She who ne'er answers till her husband cools ; Or if she rules him, never shows she rules ; Charms by accepting, by submitting sways, Yet has her humour most when she obeys." 300 Woman Suffrage Wrong. The bold, shrill-tongued virago is not merely without influence, but actively repels, by exciting man's open, undisguised ridicule, disgust, aversion, and contempt. The wisest of men declares : — " It is better to dwell in a corner of the house-top, than with a brawling woman in a wide house." And the son of Siraoh thought the only use of a virago was to dedicate her to war : " A loud crying woman and a scold shall be sought out to drive away the enemy." The man-woman has laid aside woman's surest panoply-^that admission of weakness which, combined with modesty, disarm man's abuse of strength, and ensures his protection. And as no possible "recombination of her elements" can give woman, man's mental and physical vigour, her attempts to cope with him, on the ground of sexual equality, are ludicrously fatal to her pretensions. The " strong-minded " woman is the most illogical of her sex. She claims equality, defies man to mortal combat, and when defeated, shrieks out " Coward ! " because her " equal " does not allow her to win. The womanly woman wisely declines to fight on any terms, with her natural protector, guide, and head. For acting naturally thus, she is vilified by Amazons as frivolous, weakminded, and selfish ! Public Opinion, in 1868, published some most interesting letters on Woman Suffrage. " J. M." observes; (3rd October): — "But have women counted the cost ? Are they prepared to rough it at the hustings? Do they expect man to stand Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 301 aside to let them pass with as much deference as now; when they are pressing boldly forward to claim his rights, and oppose him at the poll? Women confess that marrying men are all too few, but are not they (women) taking the proper way to make them fewer than ever ? For who would care to see his modest gentle young sweetheart pushing her way through, like a man among men, to register her vote ? Or who would care about her doing so, after she became his wife ? Such a thing may perhaps do for the go-ahead Yankees, but is not the thing for sober-minded Englishmen." (Nor for "Yankees" either, as will be subsequently seen.) " Will not feminine gentleness and reserve become things of the past ? And will not all those delicate attentions from the opposite sex — which women consider as their vested rights, and of which they are so jealous — be neglected ? And by trying to make these influences more felt in public, by showing for how much of man's work they are really capable, they will find over men in private their influence waning, and will mourn the time when they sat as queens, influencing the law-makers, and conse- quently the laws ; in their true position at home, more than they can ever hope to do, by all their voting in public. Let masculine women, who care not for man, or his opinion, vote ; and no doubt men will be warned not tp let any such boil their puddings, or nurse their babies. But let all women, who care to maintain their true position and dignity in their husbands' love, and mankind's esteem 302 Woman Suffrage Wrong. generally, put no hand into such, for them, mud-pie. Women are not called on, neither are they qualified either to support, or defend the nation. Neither are they called on, or qualified, and consequently have no right to govern it." Mr. J. B. M'Millan (P. 0., 10th Oct.) observes : — " Taking ' Jane Stephens ' as a representative woman, I ask gentlemen coquetting with this evil, are they satisfied with their sample? Ehapsodic diction always indicates minute intelligence, and is foreign to the judicious mind. It is the staple stock of the majority of women. We expect it, we get it, and are resigned to it, as to any other evil beyond our control. Like has an affinity to like, and the political smatterer with a whirligig brain will be the first to secure imaginative woman's vote." (And be considered one " of the best heads of England." Woman suffrage women think all their ganders, swans. This of itself, shows what will be the immediate and deteriorating effect of Woman Suffrage — to place power in the hands of inferior men !) " Perhaps I may be pardoned at feeling slightly timorous at the faintest probability of a Parliament composed of such frenzied furies as ' Jane Stephens.' Let her not imagine that I write in an ill-natured vein : I have not the re- motest intention of paying her back in her own coin. I bear no animosity to her, or any other woman. Nor let women imagine that a fossilised bachelor, or a despotic domestic tyrant, soured with misfortune, addresses them. I wish for women a Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 303 higher place than they wish for themselves. Grive women a vote ! For what ? For retaining the nursery dignity, and acting like spoilt children ; for reading and writing the trash that fills our libraries " (in spite of our judicious publishers ! our impartial critics ! ! and our virtuous and nice-minded librarians, who circulate no improper novels, unless by popular authors ! ! !) ; " for not doing what she ought to do, and for meddling with what does not concern her. If this deserves a vote, let her have it. There was a time when women were not ashamed of their husbands or their babies ; but it is only in accord- ance with the assumed fine-ladyism of the times : Home and its surroundings are above (below ?) the notice of the woman of mind. The pretty dears must have a vote, not because they know anything about it, or are interested in the national welfare ; simply because they want it." (Or, more correctly, because the minority only want it ; and will, if they can, force it on the majority who don't want the vote !) " Were women standing idle in the market-place, having exhausted all the work within their sphere, they might with more reason, claim a vote. But the reverse is the case. Unbounded influence is within their grasp, but the majority of women do not use it, nor even know its existence. They know the easiest way to wheedle their husbands out of a new bonnet, or the best way to get rid of the children, while they maunder through the pages of the latest novel. But few of them know that the softest 304 Woman Suffrage Wrong. strains of music have not more power over man, than hath the silent influence of a noble woman." [Plat- form women are doing their best, or worst, to degrade women from man's lofty ideal of the sex. Man cannot more highly compliment woman, than by expecting her to be (what he yearns to believe her) far better, purer than himself. Our logical Amazons take this as an insult ; are highly indig- nant that their sex (which they proclaim man's equal and superior) should be morally better than man ; and determined to drag women into fetid political mud, and public life, until they become as bad as men. These " representative " women uncon- sciously illustrate Dr. Johnson's saying : " Women have a perpetual envy of our vices : they are less vicious than we, not from choice, but because we restrict them."] " Few of them train their children as they ought. Children grow, and that is all that can be said. In everyday life, as I catch the glib oath of the young profligate, or watch the corrupt- ing influence of the inane flirt, I know much of that might be avoided by careful training. Woman ! think you not that in asking for political power, you are trampling under foot the golden grain of the present, searching for a phantom harvest field in the future ! What have the Beckers and the Laws done for women ? Made them ridiculous food for cynics, and comic journals. I maintain that women cannot take to politics, and retain their womanhood. I say it in no selfish monopolising spirit : they cannot take to politics without forfeiting their modesty, and when Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 305 their modesty leaves them they are no more women. At the risk of incurring another broadside from * Jane Stephens ' let me say that rather than have women brawling with brawlers, I would have them even exclusively ' love their husbands, feed their babies, buy their ribbons, and boil their puddings.' " The following is conclusive against woman suff- rage : — " The true point of the difficulty is not yet touched ; that point being the impossibility of com- bining female suffrage with the safety of a free state. The first necessity of free government is that the majority shall have power to govern ; that it shall not be liable in the last resort to be summarily get at naught. If it can be so set at naught, whether by soldiers, or rioters, or by individual genius, then government itself, not this or that ruler, but govern- ment, is of necessity destroyed. Suppose, for in- stance, that the women of England, having votes, and being, as they are, in the majority, were to decree, as they almost infallibly would decree, that the sale of liquor should cease, and that, as is quite possible also, the majority of rough men rose in armed insurrection against the Act. Clearly the Legislature, though with a majority at its back, would have to yield ignominiously, and government by the majority, that is, the only form of govern- ment which the world has yet been able to devise, would be summarily brought to an end." This insuperable objection to Woman Suffrage has never yet been answered ! The writer adds that in spite of Mr. Gladstone's apparent conversion, it is not 306 Woman Suffrage Wrong. likely women will have votes yet awhile, for the ballot, among other results, would greatly diminish their influence ; and points out to woman suffrage opponents, just two measures to render its success impossible : " One is to grant at once all just demands of women; such as their right to own property as if they were men ; their right to an education equal to that of men, though differing in kind ; with equal State aid : their right to special, though temporary, protection from tyranny of Trades Unions — who in many Trades will not let women labour — their right with the husband to control of their children ; and their right to take their chance in any and every profession, and occupation to which they can aspire. These clear rights granted, the first and best argument for the agitation will be got rid of, for men will have shown they can justly represent the majority of mankind. Secondly, let opponents of the scheme vote as one man for the compulsory and universal training of Englishmen to arms, and so prove conclusively that there is at least one most important duty of citizenship which women can never fulfil, and, failing which, their powers in the State must, like their responsibilities, be some- what limited."* Since this was published 18 years since, nearly all the just demands therein specified have been granted, proving my previous statement, that Parliament desires to remedy all real grievances affecting both sexes, and especially women ; and thus removing all * The Spectator, 6 May, 1871, Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 307 real cause for the agitation, in which, the majority of women did not join. That agitation, mainly facti- tious, and interested, was begun, and is now con- tinued by Spinsters and Widows, nursing the noble ambition of getting the suffrage for themselves. They show their regard for the interests of women at large, by eagerly grasping at votes which would be granted solely on condition that no married woman could vote ! Woman's alleged right to labour in every profession, must include permission to fight as soldier and sailor. Suppose, then, the worst, that female legislation should cause a dead- lock, by bringing government into collision with armed rioters ; it does not follow that these will have it all their own way. Amazons would fight for their principles. And that a female elector is quite capable of holding her own in an election row, is cleverly shown in the following graphic picture : " A state with an hermaphroditic form of government, if even it could exist for a generation, is by nature doomed to extinction. It may, however, be worth while to consider what kind of being a woman would become, who should take an active part in the elec- tion of a representative. As an energetic member of his committee, she would have to fight the battle, foot by foot, with his opponents of either sex ; she could not always sit at home, and restrict herself to the use of a voting-paper, because she would then tacitly admit her unfitness for political life, with all its hard work, and its turmoil of speech-making : she would be like a foreigner giving a vote from a dis- 308 Woman Suffrage Wrong. tance, without a knowledge of the qualities requisite for success in Parliament. It would be necessary for her to be thoroughly prepared for the fray — breeched instead of petticoated, with a voice hoarse from shouting, with hair cropped close to her head, with her deltoid muscles developed at the expense of her bust, prepared with syllogisms instead of smiles, and more ready to plant a blow, than to shed a tear. She hurries from her husbandless, childless hearth, to make a speech on the hustings ; with hard biceps and harder elbows, she forces her way through the election mob ; her powerful in- tellect fully appreciates all the ribald jests and obscene gestures of the British " rough ; " she knows the art of conciliating rude natures, and can exchange " chaff " with a foul-mouthed coster- monger; or if necessary, she can defend herself, and blacken the eye of a drunken bargee. She has learned all the catechism of politics, and when she mounts the platform, she can glibly recite her duty to the world, according to the side she has chosen. Experience has taught her the value of invectives, and she denounces her opponents with a choice selection of the strongest epithets : at first she speaks loud in a tone of contentment and self-satis- faction ; she ends by losing her temper, and bawling at the top of her voice. The crowd, never very in- dulgent, has no mind to respect a sex which makes no claim, and has forfeited all right to forbearance. The hardened lines of her face are battered with apples, brick-bats, and rotten eggs — the recognised Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 309 weapons of political warfare. Perhaps the very place where she stands, is the mark of a storming party; and after enjoying the glory of an encounter with a prize-fighter (it may be of her own sex), she is at last brought to the ground by superior skill and strength. Then probably she retires to her home; but I for one had rather not follow her thither, nor into that House of Parliament of which she is one day destined to become an ornament."* View now the Woman Suffrage agitation, and ask what has it done, and what is it doing for women ? Rather what is it not doing against woman ? What have advocates of Women's Rights, Female Emancipation, Sexual Equality, Woman Suffrage, etc., achieved for the sex, so far as they could compromise it, by this high-handed attempt to carry man's political privileges by a coup d^etat? What has this defiant attitude obtained for the weaker sex ? Does it exalt woman in man's esti- mation ? She cannot afford to disregard man's good opinion. Neither sex can, with impunity, venture to form itself exclusively according to its own ideal of what is manly or womanly. When a man virtually says : " I despise women ; I am utterly indifferent as to what they think of me;" he degenerates rapidly, visibly, into a sensuaUst, a sloven, a sot, a licentious, selfish, disgusting, brutal being. Thackeray well observes : " All amusements of youth, to which virtuous women are not admitted, * " On the Claims of Women to Political Power," by Luke Owen Pike, Esq., M.A,, Anthropological Journal, April, 1869. 310 Woman Suffrage Wrong. are deleterious in their nature. All men "who avoid female society, have dull perceptions, are stupid, and have gross tastes, and revolt against what is pure. Club- swaggerers sucking the butts of billiard- cues, all night, call female society insipid. Poetry is uninspiring to a yokel : beauty has no charms for a blind man : music does not please a poor beast who does not know one tune from another ; but as a true epicure is hardly ever tired of water, sauce, and brown bread and butter, I protest I can sit for a whole night talking to a well-regulated kindly woman, about her girl Fanny, or her boy Frank, and like the evening's entertainment. One of the great benefits a man may derive from a woman's society, is that he is bound to be respectful to her. The habit is of great use to your morals, men, depend upon it." Indisputable truth ! I shield not my own sex from their due share of blame, in aiding to originate the revolt of woman. Eccentric and extravagant assertions of female personality are in a great measure due to the bad example of men. If woman be, according to Pope's inimitable satire : — " Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear, And best distinguished by black, brown, or fair :" she at least possesses the invaluable quality of all plastic substances, the capacity of being moulded, and fashioned into a correct impression of the age in which she lives. Woman is a moral mirror in which we see " the very age and body of the time." She faithfully reflects the failings, foibles, virtues, Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 311 vices, good and bad qualities of her lord and master — man. In the illustration to La Gomedie Eumame (the title of Balzac's collected works), woman is characteristically represented, as nude, masked, and holding a mirror in which the various types of French society, depicted by the illustrious philo- sophic novelist, may see themselves faithfully re- flected. Thus the artist conveys, in a thoroughly French style, the not very novel idea that woman is a riddle. By hiding her own face, she conceals her own character from the prying physiognomist, but as some compensation, she reflects each gazer's countenance . There never was, nor ever will be a period or a people, where the morality of one sex will present a marked contrast to that of the other. Man and woman are too intimately related by nature and intercourse ; they act and re-act far too powerfully on each other, to present any such miraculous phenomenon as that of a nation in which one sex shall be positively good, and the other positively bad. Neither sex can be isolated in good or evil. One sex may be better than the other, but probably, if one sex seems a great deal better than the other, the former is really very much worse, by adding consummate hypocrisy to actual vice ! Nevertheless " hypocrisy " being " the homage which vice pays to virtue," is better than shameless effrontery. Should the day ever come, when (obeying the Sexual Equality principle), woman shall lay aside her modesty, or even the semblance of modesty, 312 Woman Suffrage Wrong. and copy man's bold avowal of vice, such society as may thgn exist, will have retrograded to a bar- barous, or bestial condition. Diderot observes : " Women are so many thermometers of the vicissi- tudes of morals and manners. Fix with as much justice and impartiality as possible, the prerogatives of men and women, but do not forget that for want of reflection and principles, nothing penetrates to a certain depth of conviction in women's intelligence ; that the ideas of justice, virtue, vice, good and evil float oil the surface of their minds ; that they have preserved self-love, and personal interest with all the energy of nature ; and that, more civilised than us externally, they have remained real savages within." This is a revolutionary period. Our religious, political, and social institutions are undergoing decisive changes. The British constitution is passing into another phase of existence — only I trust to renew its pristine vigour. Amid such changes, we cannot expect a being so impressionable as woman, to sit still, and make no sign. In these days of strikes, trades-unions, and co-operation in all depart- ments of thought and action, woman, true to her mission, and in character, reflects in faithful feminine fashion " quidquid agunt homines." Man is her great exemplar. She faithfully copies him, even while ostensibly threatening revolt, and degrading him from supremacy, to equality in Britain ; to inferiority in America. Man agitates, gets up meetings, organises processions, makes speeches in halls, streets, squares, and parks ; pulls Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 313 down, destroys, regenerates, revolutionises, reforms all things and people — except himself! Some "out-and-out'' reformers are eager to try a very- hazardous experiment — that of entirely subverting the great social pyramid, and placing it on its apex, instead of base ! Men being thus busy in turning the world upside down, women are in the fashion, and move with the times. Woman, the mirror of the age, thermometer of the vicissitudes of morals and manners, will 'not be left out in the cold. She also is on the platform, and on the stump (and would be on the hustings) trying to do something, and talking a great deal, though often not to the purpose. She also agitates, gets up meetings, revives the stock subject of Woman's Rights, and demands spinster and widow, versus wives' " suffrage." Regard the deteriorating influence of violent party politics on man — they would utterly demoralise woman. Already some coolly threaten revolution — a revolt against man — unless their demands are granted. And what are these ? that spinsters and widows shall be enfranchised — married women never! English women are so accustomed to have •their wants, wishes, whims anticipated, that a factious blustering minority now ask for the suffrage for themselves and class — that is, for man's privileges added to their own— quite as a matter of course, and taunt male opponents as unmanly ! We are arrived at this singular deadlock. Women, who through their despotism in matters of the affections, are far more conservative than men, now demand 314 Woman Suffrage Wrong. the most revolutionary of measures, and deprecate the slightest opposition to their wishes, in the same tone as they would resent male objections to some new fashion ! " femmes vous etes des enfans lien extraordinaires ! " It is superfluous to expose the absurdity of those asserting that woman suffrage is a conservative measure ; and who therefore advocate the present bill on party grounds. For, though Spinster and Widow-voters might generally vote with Conservatives, such a radical change in the Constitution tends entirely to subvert Conservative principles of government. Balzac observes : — " Woman is the most logical of beings after the child. Both offer the sublime phenomenon of one sole thought. With the child, the idea changes every instant, but he pursues the idea of the moment, with such intense eagerness, that everyone yields, fascinated by the ingenuousness, the pertinacity of his will." At the commencement of the Agitation, or the Movement for Women, twenty years ago. Woman demanded Woman Suffrage as a principle as the abstract right of humanity. " No delay — no obstacle would daunt her. She was educating ■women of England for the suffrage." Five years later, she abandoned the principle of Woman Suffrage. And ever since she has contended for a Spinster and Widow bill, actually disfranchising all wives, and the vast majority of the Women of Eng- land ! " With skill she vibrates her Huwearied tongue, For ever most divinely in the wrong." Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 315 Female fickleness here contrasts strongly witli man's tenacity in pursuing his deceased wife's sister. And when such marriages are legalised, he will not care to marry her ! Degeneracy of manners and habits, private and public, is one cause of the woman's present extra- ordinary attitude of hostility, impatience of man's government, assertion of social, civil, and political independence. Men muddle their intellects with narcotics and stimulants ; they degrade their man- hood by vice, sensuality, and selfishness ; they forget all lofty aims, in the sordid pursuit of mammon, place, power ; they forget their high destiny in base cynical materialism ; live entirely for this world, and actually try, by precept and example, to undermine woman's faith and morals. We cannot wonder that women should despise these unmanly men ; should assert sexual equality, and seriously meditate sup- planting them and winning independence. Those crazy American women who call man " played out," and naturally inferior to themselves, can point to some very bad specimens of male humanity, to justify their contempt. Drinking, smoking, chewing, and spitting, are not calculated to gain woman's re- spect. Long ago " Fanny Fern " observed that young men were " nothing more than moustaches and cigars, walking about with coat-tails behind them." Vice, dissipation, effeminacy, irreligion in man, greatly help to make bold, masculine, unwomanly women. As men become unmanly, women will become un- 316 Woman Suffrage Wrong. womanly. Any encroachment of one sex on the physical and mental characteristics of the other, is unnatural, unwholesome, and indicates degeneracy repulsive to all well-constituted male and female minds. Humanity involves two sexes ; implying a male and a female type. Animals uniting the sexes in one individual, are very low in the organised scale. An epicene human gender is regarded with loathing. Man should be manly ; woman woraanly. Manly men and womanly women mutually attract ; and, vice versa, womanish men are well mated with mannish women. A journalist describes " A Nation of Lunatics " thus : — " What is it but mad- ness, when a number of women, fairly assumed to be chaste wives, and virtuous maids, ramp and rave about the world, delivering lectures to men ; sometimes to men and women, in a mixed audience, against a particular Act of legislation, of the economical and physiological value of which they know no more than the cows in the next field; dabbling publicly in foul details, of which no modest woman ought to speak, save in the strictest privacy, and with the gravest reticence. While as for the wild-eyed, man-hating, and woman's rights woman, voluble of speech, unabashed of presence, the woman who has thrown off all the restraining influences, and old-fashioned prejudices of sex — she is distinctly a lunatic at large, and we wonder the Commissioners do not look after her, before she does herself (shall we say) a further mischief."* * The Globe, 11th May, 1872. Results of Woman Suffrage in General. 317 Amazons are welcome to sneer at this, as a man's opinion. I supplement it by a lady writer's : — " We are sorry to say that there are a few ladies even in this country who, claiming to be champions and regenerators of their sex (though they are most certainly not acknowledged by ladies as such) are doing an immense amount of harm, by the attitude they have assumed. They are not content to set earnestly about redressing obvious grievances, and thus advancing their own, and their sisters' good, but seem to feel it incumbent on them to take up a belligerent attitude against men, and indulge in never ending tirades against them, on the assump- tion that every man, be he married or single, gentle- man or clown, is a brute, or a villain, an oppressor and a coward — a very wolf indeed, against whose wily and nefarious designs, the lambs must be pro- tected. Now this it is that all true women, having the real progress of their sex at heart, should pro- test against, and we do so most strenuously."* * Lady's Own, Paper, 6 May, 1871. CHAPTER VII. WOMAN SUPFEAGE MANIA : CONOLUSION OP DIAGNOSIS. Contrast now with the male woman-hater, the female man-hater, who adopts an analogous in- dependent position towards our sex. The " strong- minded " mannish insurrectionary woman (actually at Lausanne) and virtually everywhere, and always, expresses her antagonism towards man, thus : — " Man is played out. I go in for sexual equality. Woman is the superior being, ' on account of the greater complexity of her physical organisation.' I ignore man. I believe in the truth of Woman only, and of all women mostly in myself — not in womanly women. I detest, despise, and defy man. I con- descend to notice the odious thing in trousers ; the big, rough, muscular, hairy, he-creature, only to insult and humiliate him; to challenge him to mortal combat, to sting him with my tongue, as I would prick him with my needle, if I ever used one ; but I leave that old-fashioned contemptible house- hold implement to poor weak-minded, arrested. Woman Suffrage Mania. 319 undeveloped, domestic, womanly woman ! Ha ! ha ! I call on my sex (especially the bold spirits whom I represent), never to lose an opportunity to try all means, legitimate and illegitimate, to worry their husbands, and other male relatives in particular, and generally to best, and baste that boasting beast — man ! " Men, and weak-minded womanly women, con- tent to be man's dolls, or drudges, may ridicule me as much as they choose. I will neither try to please man, nor the majority of my own sex — poor mean- spirited down-trodden beings — by my dress, or address. I am a law unto myself. I will do every- thing I wish; and leave undone everything I dislike to do. I will attempt anything and everything that seems right in my own eyes, utterly indifferent to custom, or the so-called proprieties and moralities of a corrupt, artificial, effete social structure, which it is my mission to destroy preparatory to reconstruction. My motto is ' A'pres moi, le deluge.' I laugh at public opinion, and vulgar prejudices of both sexes. It is totally wrong that there should be two sexes . According to the law ' survival of the fittest ' the glorious day must arrive, when none save Amazons will survive. I emancipate myself from male control, and male protection ! Ha, ha ! I snap the chain of bondage which female slaves contentedly bear. I tell the masculine tyrant to his face, in clear, ringing, silvery, bell-like notes (which a male and venal press will misrepresent as ' pain- fully shrill ') that I, Miss Amazon, will neither be 320 Woman Suffrage Wrong. his drudge, nor doll; will neither minister to his sensual pleasure, nor pamper his egregious vanity. I will not be enslaved, under pretence of being proteeted, by any man. I will never promise to love, cherish, and obey, a man. The wretch not only rules, but ridicules us ; defines woman thus : ' A being who cannot reason, and who pokes the fire from the top.' * There ! But I will be calm. My works, my lectures, my. woman suffrage mis- sion prove me the most logical of beings — after the child — ISTo, sir, that addition is man's sneer — a mere lapis lazuli. False Latin ? No, sir, very good Latin for a slip of the tongue. I illustrate my grand principle of sexual equality. I prove man inferior to woman — certainly to that transcendent type of womanhood honoured by being represented by myself. vanity, thy name is Man ! " For me, marriage would be worse than a crime — a blunder. By marriage, I should not merely forfeit my glorious birthright of independence, but also lose my vote as a female householder, when the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill becomes law — as it must — What's that ? Who dared say ' No ! no ! ' But I say Yes, yes, and I here warn all wives, and the rest of the women of England, not to complicate the question, and postpone our right to vote ! When stupid men have shared with women, the right of returning members to Parliament, female enfranchisement shall not stop there. We will agitate until I, and others under me, shall be in * Archbishop Whateley's definition. Woman Suffrage Mania. 321 Parliament not merely as simple members, but as office holders. Political rights include every con- cession. Electoral, involve legislative, judicial, administrative powers. Strong-minded women will govern. Then will come our turn to be revenged on the creatures, who now forsooth rule men by their weakness ; who turn their womanly grace and beauty to such good account, and fawn on male oppressors, to obtain as a favour, what they should exact as a right. Ha ! ha ! "We will govern very differently. I have no patience with such women, and will show them no mercy, when I am in power. I despise beauty. I would not exchange my strong mind with the most beautiful female fool. For in the coming mortal struggle with man, strong-minded woman must win. " We strong-minded single women {spinsters they call us in derision — as if we ever did anything use- ful) will lead, keep our places in the van, and claim the most honourable and lucrative offices as rewards of our priceless services in Woman's emancipation — that is, in enfranchising ourselves, and keeping all wives, and the vast majority of women un- enfranchised. I shall make a first-rate M.P. I can speak faster than many men, who think before they speak. I would certainly discharge a prime minister's duties, far better than any man, pre- judiced like all his sex. But even should the move- ment not extend so far in my time— should the agitation stop with carrying the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill, we single women will still be placed 322 Woman Suffrage Wrong. politically, as we are intellectually, above mere lawful wives and mothers, and all other non-enfranchised women. That is a tolerable victory to gain, with the help of our clever male allies, over men, and womanly women ! Meantime, I will be educated like man ; will engage in man's work ; that is, will choose all that is most profitable, honourable, and least laborious, all sinecure appointments suitable to us as equal, and superior to man ; leaving to him all hard, dirty, dangerous work. Thoroughly, con- sistently, antagonistic to established ideas, and paltry prejudices, of my sex, and nation — my exalted mind disdains such unworthy trammels. My aim is to think, feel, and live like man. I shall bring in a bill enabling superior women to dress like man, leaving poor womanly women who refuse to vote, to wear petticoats their badge of servitude. At present I will wear a hybrid costume, neither male nor female. And as the glorious work of female emancipation proceeds, as prejudices dis- appear, and opposition vanishes; I will assert my womanly right to wear every garment — yes, male reporters, you may sneer, or blush — every garment from chimney pot to bluchers, now usurped, along with other female privileges, by that despicable, inferior, male tyrant and oppressor whom agreeably to Womeai^s Rights, Sexual Equality, and woman's superiority — I loathe, despise, and — copy I " This — the logical programme of the unsexed woman — a type of the Transatlantic " Shrieking Sisterhood " whom their male critics more truly, than Woman Suffrage Mania. 323 politely, call " long-haired lunatics," is the model which womanly women will carefully study to — avoid, 1 An author already quoted, observes : — " "When the mountain-top is once gained, descent only offers : in the march of civilisation, there is a highest point too. Many a mighty people has travelled with fearful rapidity on the very same path — has gained the summit, and fallen. We are on the pass ! " * Our female emancipationists are now, like thoughtless, mischievous children, luring their dupes towards the verge of a precipice. That they do not comprehend their danger is natural. " I have always observed in the understandings of women who have been too much cultivated, some disproportion between the different faculties of their minds. "t The "strong-minded" mannish woman is blinded by her personal political ambition, which unfortunately cannot be gratified, without involving other women, willing, or unwilling. Her womanly instinct is thoroughly perverted by her own sophis- tries, and the fulsome adulation of male and female sycophants, who flatter her as a reformer, and cheer her when pouring forth fluent, frothy, common- place, or declaiming the most glaring absurdities and contradictions. She sees not the moral gulf yawning at her feet ; the social, political, religious, convulsion into which she is aiding to precipitate her sex. Excitement has paralysed her reasoning power, or she would be startled by this question : * "Woman: as she is, and as she should be," Vol. i., Chap. I. + Edgeworth's " Letters for Literary Ladies." 324 Woman Suffrage Wrong. What hope for woman can there be in a Movement founded on the silliest, most transparent falsehood — sexual equality — [independently of the flat contra- diction of the American assertion of female sujperiority] urging Christian woman to revolt against her natural and apostolically-declared head Man? " The "Woman's movement in America at least, seems to be doing almost pure harm, and to have brought to the surface a host of the most intem- perate and indecent writers and speakers, with whom it has ever pleased Providence to scourge the earth. In this country, we have got a very dif- ferent, and far wiser set of heads at the top of the movement."* Granting the latter statement true, it does not convey any particular praise of those carry- ing on the Movement here. American " Shrieking Sisters" proclaim woman man's absolute superior. Here, we have only got as far as Sexual Equality. Yet human nature is the same everywhere ; and like causes produce like effects. In the U.S. the plat- form talk was certainly of the tallest kind. Under the title of " A Free Love Heroine," a journalist briefly touches a savoury address at Stein way Hall, New York : — " It is stated that the substance of the address will not bear repetition, and that in this country it would be suppressed under Lord Camp- bell's Act. Mrs. "Woodhull is reported to claim ' an inalienable constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love for as long or as short a period * The Spectator, 2nd April, 1871. Woman Suffrage Mania. 325 as I carij and to change that love every day if I please.' Not only, Mrs. "W. holds, is the community not entitled to interfere with this right, but it is bound to protect her and her sex in the exercise of it. ' I trust,' she said, ' that I am fully understood, for I mean just that, and nothing else.' "* In Europe, and America, certain classes of women prac- tise this natural right, but seem ashamed of it, since they do not publicly boast of it, and are not received in reputable society. And independently of morals and religion, evidently, were all, or the majority of "women to act thus, the human race would be doomed to speedy extinction. " ' It is time,' says Miss Anthony, ' that women should throw off the mock modesty which has mantled them for so long, and deal plainly with facts as they are.' We really hope it is not time. We entreat the women of England to continue to wear the mantle of modesty, at least, in concession to the prejudices of the unenlightened majority of men." (No wonder that there is division in the Woman Suffrage Camp in America, as well as in Europe.) " Some American advocates of Woman Suffrage are beginning to be dissatisfied with the energetic champions of their cause, who speak so very freely on Free Love. Miss Anthony took the broad ground that social degradation ought not to affect political rights, or, in other words, that the class called ' jprostitutes ' were as much entitled as herself to share in the agitation for woman's rights. * Saturday Review, 9th Dec, 1871. 326 ^ Woman Suffrage Wrong. Some of the persons most active in demanding woman's suffrage in England, have made themselves conspicuous in agitating for repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. If this agitation is caused by sympathy for the class to which the Act applies, the sympathisers are entirely mistaken, as the Act has already done more good to this class, than they are likely to get by Woman Suffrage."* Woman's Revolt (like Fenianism) crossed the Atlantic, and surprised John Bull. The Woman's Rights mania aflBicts nations periodically, like Cholera. This brain-fever chiefly affects women, though it attacks both sexes ; chiefly effeminate men. Like other contagious diseases, it is comparatively harmless in youth. Young women and young men frequently pass through a mild form of the disease, from which they entirely recover, with little likeli- hood of other attacks. But Woman Suffrage on the brain, at a later period of life, is generally obstinate, dangerous, and with women frequently incurable ; sometimes ending in confirmed derange- ment. Twenty years ago this Disease attacked women of all conditions impartially, ravaging maids, wives, widows ; and spreading to men of delicate womanly constitutions, but who were aflBrmed by delirious female patients, " the best heads in Eng- land I " Since 1874 cases of married women mania began regularly and rapidly to decrease — wives who were attacked, completely recovered. At present, the Woman Suffrage epidemic is confined almost * Saturday Beview, 9th Dec, 1871, and 3rd February, 1872. Woman Suffrage Mania. 327 exclusively to Spinsters and Widows — and singular to relate, all the patients are householders : all wives, and all poor women, single or married, being entirely exempt. Inoculation in youth seems to have beneficial effects by preventing more serious attacks later in life. The diagnosis of the Disease differed according to the respective constitutions in various countries. In America it assumed a most malignant form of brain-fever. There, and in Great Britain, the mania has culminated, and from visible symptoms of improvement, especially the localising of the disease to spinster and widow-householders, it is expected finally to disappear. Some once frenzied patients now exhibit a calm, settled melancholy. On all other questions they are perfectly sane. But on Woman Suffrage, they still assert that Woman being both equal, and superior to man, is conse quently entitled to the privileges of both sexes They " prove " this impossibility, by repeating it Contradiction irritates them. And, to quote Polo nius : — " Mad call I it : for to define true madness, What is 't, but to be nothing else but mad." To quit metaphor, in spite of the " tall talk " of Transatlantic platform ladies, in America women have only recently obtained the municipal franchise, and seem further than ever from the political vote. In the debate of 1871, Mr. Bouverie read from a New York letter, this extract : — " I think the ques- tion is pretty nearly played out. The women of the country do not want the suffrage. Fourteen hundred 328 Woman Suffrage Wrong. women in a single town petitioned not to be allowed to vote. In Massacliusetts, a motion to admit women to vote, had been rejected by women them- selves. In Minnesota, a female suffrage bill had been negatived by the Governor. And in Utah, where it might be supposed that the women would value the franchise, they refused to vote at all."* In this country, the agitation proceeded far enough for a vigorous reaction in Parliament, followed in 1874 by a measure virtually abandoning — even condemning the vital principle of Woman Suffrage. Since then, the Country has been annually diverted by a Bill solemnly declaring against the Suffrage for all wives, and the vast majority of women ! This will account for the fact that women have not yet petitioned against the Suffrage. Why, indeed, should matrons and others do, what has been so effectually done for them, by their dear friends among Spinsters and Widows ? Women generally wisely eschew politics, and treat with indifference, demands for the suffrage made in their name, without their leave being asked. The majority of women have let Woman Suffrage severely alone. Should, however, promoters of Spinster and Widow Suffrage, persist in posing as representatives of women generally on this subject, the women of Great Britain and Ireland should give such a baseless assertion an indignant denial. With increasing Parliamentary majorities * " The truth is that in this country the woman suffrage move- ment has declined in serious importance during the last 20 years." — New York Sun ; Public Opinion, 19tli April, 1889. Woman Suffrage Mania. 329 against the Bill, such action may not seem necessary. Women know, and can at any time apply, the remedy. They can hinder their silence being misconstrued into an assumption of a tacit consent to a Spinster and Widow Suffrage bill insulting all wives, and the vast majority of women ! Though women have not yet petitioned Parlia- ment against Spinster and Widow suffrage, yet there is no lack of energetic individual woman pro- tests against the measure. Independently of the really strong-minded women quoted against Sexual Equality (Part i.. Chap. V.), expressed sentiments averse to Woman suffrage, of Mrs. S. 0. Hall, Baroness Burdett-Ooutts, and other ladies, chiefly married, who now openly repudiate the Bill; so long ago as 10 June, 1870, The Times published an admirable letter, containing this extract : — " Sir, — I am very sceptical as to the great power of woman's mind. I believe that the Creator who made woman a help-meet and companion for man, not a rival, made her mind of weaker stuff. She has a natural quickness that sometimes gives her the advantage over the manly intellect ; but whenever the reason- ing faculties require to be brought into action, woman must yield to manly superiority. This difference in mental calibre is developed from early childhood, as those must surely know who have had to train the young of both sexes. Were it other- wise, should we not find women in the ranks of our greatest geniuses ; and where are they ? Granted that law, physio, and divinity have been closed 330 Woman Suffrage Wrong. against them, where, in the paths open to all, are the female names worthy to be placed on a level with those of men ? Where is a female Eaphael, a Titian, a Michael Angelo, a Galileo, a Newton, a Shakspere, a Milton, a Wordsworth, a Scott, a Thackeray ? Our ' Eights of Women ' Advocates say : ' Train the female mind for some generations, give it the advantages possessed by men, and you will have all these : ' but many of our most eminent men were of humble origin, self-educated, and had no generations of ancestors with well-trained minds to account for their success ; * and if the same powers were latent in the female mind, they would certainly have found means to develop themselves. If our strong-minded women obtain all they ask for, they will find only failure, where they look for success ; they will lose precious substance, while grasping after empty shadows. I ask you, sir, to continue to raise your powerful voice on the right side of the question. Tell advocates of ' Women's rights ' to speak and advocate fairly ; to let the world know honestly in how small a minority they are, and not to drag the whole female sex unwillingly after them into a contest where we shall sustain certain defeat, and loss. I am, sir, one who is proud to sign herself — A Weak-minded Female." With everything in this extract, I agree, except the writer's definition of herself as " A Weak-minded * Eeaders are requested to uote the remarkable resemblance between the textual statement, and that of Madame Cottin : Part i., Chap. V. Woman Suffrage Mania. 331 Female." She is far better entitled, to be called Strong-minded, in the proper sense of that mis- applied term, than any by whom it, is usurped. No amount of exhortation from Printing House Square, would make Women's Eights advocates speak and advocate fairly. " The less we say about honour, Peter, the better." Yet four years after this letter appeared. Woman Suffrage Advocates unconsciously complied with the writer's request to let the world know their small minority ; when in their selfish eagerness to grasp votes for themselves, they distinctly and deliberately abandoned the Woman Suffrage principle, and sold the political franchise of woman in general for a mess of pottage, in the shape of Spinster and Widow Suffrage. On their assumption that the Women of England wanted, and were entitled to the suffrage, this was a betrayal of their sisters' cause. Nor was it a good bargain for themselves, whichever way matters turn. Judas received the paltry price of his treachery. But Spinsters and Widows have not yet received their promised reward. Year after year, they tell Parliament and the nation, that they are willing to Jeave all women unenfranchised, except a minority of 800,000 spinsters and widows ; thus virtually say- ing : — " We believe women without votes, slaves : but only enfranchise our qualified class, and we are content that all other women shall remain politi- cally slaves for ever." Yet — they wonder Parlia- ment does not comply with their modest, dis- interested request! 332 Woman Suffrage Wrong. These Spinster and "Widow suffrage advocates have certainly landed themselves in a singular dead- lock. At one moment, blaming unqualified married and single women, for not swelling their agitation; the next, peremptorily forbidding them to agitate on their own account, lest they should indefinitely postpone Spinster and "Widow Suffrage ! A ukase to this effect from the Central Committee of the (so-called) National Society for Women's Suffrage, has been already quoted.* All along, one signifi- cant feature of the Agitation, has been the slighting and contemptuous manner in which zealous and intemperate advocates denounce conscientious oppo- nents. Ambitious women would revolutionise the State for their own personal advantage ; to enjoy a political arena for the display of their exceptional abilities. This is natural. But that this new poli- tical sect should coolly constitute themselves fitting representatives of their sex ; dare to depreciate and abuse womanly women for not joining their move- ment for spinsters and widows ; and stigmatise their sex as stunted, arrested, undeveloped, with forced habits, and forced ideas, weak-minded, silly, and selfish, for preferring to mind their own affairs, and to discharge faithfully their important conjugal, maternal, and other duties ; and for refusing to be dragged from the sacred precincts of Home, to be unsexed, to shriek on platforms, and set an example of insurrection, and revolt against Divine, Natural, and Human laws — this spectacle might seem impos- sible, were it not actual fact ! * Part ii., Chap. III. Woman Suffrage Mania. 333 A line of conduct obliging women to express indifference to, and scornful contempt of, the good opinion of the great majority of men and women, is a certain proof of error, independently of any judg- ment formed on the merits of the question. The instinct of womanly women is not perverted by straying out of their sphere, and meddling in matters utterly foreign to their special qualifica- tions. This intuitive power compensates woman, for man's superior intellect ; and is alone suflScient to teach the sex this obvious truth, that woman openly antagonistic to man, must ever occupy a miserably false position. The sexes being formed to supplement each other, each is morally bound to act so as to merit the other's esteem. As a general rule, men and women perceive, admit, and act on this truth. Those who really are, or profess to be, utterly independent of, and indifferent to the oppo- site sex's good opinion, are abnormal creatures who, far from being taken as examples, should be care- fully shunned as warnings ! Sensible good men and women always pay great respect to the estima- tion in which they are held by virtuous respectable persons of their own, but especially of the other sex. So far from men and women being indepen- dent of, and able to despise each other's criticism, it is most remarkable that each sex finds its heau ideal prescribed, and its principal and essential virtue dictated by the universally concurrent and tradi- tionary opinion of the other sex ! Thus, women decide that men should be hrave. Men decide that ^nmPTi f=ih£uuLldJbe^;2io^es^. And this decision is so 334 Woman Suffrage Wrong. thoroughly accepted, as established beyond all cavil, or remonstrance, that it is impossible to insult a man, and a woman more grossly, than by hinting that he lacks courage, and that she lacks virtue ; the respective sexual, characteristic qualities, whose absence can never be considered trivial. Addison illustrates this grand truth, thus : — " The great point of honour in man is courage, and in woman, chastity. If a man lose his honour in one encounter, it is not impossible to regain it in another ; a slip in a woman's honour is irrecover- able. I can give no reason for fixing the point of honour in these two qualities, unless it be that each sex sets the greatest value on the qualification, which renders them the most amiable in the eyes of the contrary sex. Had men chosen for themselves, without regard to the opinions of the fair sex, I should believe the choice would have fallen on wisdom, or virtue ; or had women determined their own point of honour, it is probable that wit or good nature would have carried it against chastity."* The fact thus stated alone amply suffices to explode the platform Sexual Equality theory, and to demolish the whole Woman's Rights edifice, reared like a house of cards, on that sandy foundation. Women should seriously ponder this proposition : Do the doctrines comprised in the terms Woman's Rights, Woman Suffrage, public life, close competi- tion and rivalry with man, and all other demands springing from an alleged Sexual Equality (which * Spectator, Ko, 99. Woman Suffrage Mania. 335 never did, or can exist) tend to improve, or utterly destroy woman's modesty (her principal virtue), and all other womanly qualities which man prizes so highly, that their loss is never condoned ? Evidently such claims tend visibly and rapidly to decrease sympathy and esteem between the sexes, and to augment the very growing evil which forms the ground of complaint and agitation — that compulsory celibacy now stimulating the cry for Female eman- cipation. Every young woman who meditates join- ing this Movement to give woman man's rights, should timely reflect, and seriously ask herself this question : " What will be my personal condition twenty years hence, when " The bloom of young Desire and purple light of Love " have departed, and I shall be nearing ' the period of weeds and worn-out faces ? ' " Let her pause before, in attempting to grasp man's, she loses woman's rights, and forfeits her best right to a natural pro- tector — a loving husband, proud of his wife and children. During the long time I have tracked this Movement, I have seen many instances like this : An attractive young lady is lured on to the platform, to propose a resolution. She makes a silly, inconse- quent, illogical, contradictory, and self-stultifying speech. In her place, a man would have been hissed : but, according to the glorious Sexual Equality prin- ciple, pretty Miss Priscilla Prattles is actually ap- plauded ! Her ultimate destiny greatly depends on her own natural good sense, aided by sincere friends. 336 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Two opposite careers are before her. Either dazzled by flattery, deceived by falsehood, she shakes hands with Miss Amazon, and along with other fanatics, zealots, dupes, and tools, labours to enfranchise 800,000 Spinsters and "Widows, at the expense of some 18 millions of non-enfranchised worn en: withers prematurely into an unpleasant old maid, with per- manent "Woman Suffrage on the brain : or, she marries, finds "Woman's rights in Home, husband, children ; appreciates the moral of Tennyson's "Princess" (a proud, unfeeling, mischievous, sangui- nary termagant, until she reforms herself by Love) ; and laughs heartily over Mrs. Randolph's exposure of platform women in " "Wild Hyacinth." The normal woman, immortalised by poets, painters, sculptors, novelists — purifying, enchanting, legiti- mately ruling man ; her sex's type and real represen- tative — was formed to love and be beloved. All those qualities which the mannish woman affects contemptuously to despise, scorn, and condemn as "womanly," are God's gifts to win man's respect, love, devotion ; and to prevent for ever the possi- bility of undue and dangerous rivalry between the sexes. By beauty, grace, good temper, modesty, woman influences man far more genuinely, power- fully, and directly, than she could ever do by her wit, wisdom, and learning. The former do not alarm ; the latter always inspire, more or less, feelings of rivalry, envy, in both sexes, and must be carefully controlled, not to excite aversion and disgust. " Superiority of mind must be united with great Woman Suffrage Mania. 337 temper and generosity, to be tolerated by those forced to submit to its influence. I have seen witty and learned ladies, who did not seem to think it at all incumbent on them to sacrifice anything to the sense of propriety. On the contrary, they seemed to take both pride and pleasure in showing the utmost stretch of their strength, regardless of the consequences, panting only for victory. Upon such occasions, when the adversary has been a husband or a father, I have felt sensations which few ladies can easily believe they excite. Airs and graces I can bear as well as another — but airs without graces, no man thinks himself bound to bear ; and learned airs least of all. Ladies of high rank in the Court of Parnassus, are apt, sometimes, to claim precedency out of their own dominions, which creates much con- fusion, and generally ends in their being affronted- That knowledge of the world which keeps people in their proper places, they will never learn from the Muses."* Most certainly they will never learn this most necessary of all requirements — self-knowledge — from the Platform ! But platform ladies were unknown in Miss Bdgeworth's days ; else her gentle- man correspondent would most assuredly not have stated literary ladies' airs as the most intolerable. For in " airs without graces " literary women are completely distanced by " The Shrieking Sister- hood," to use the appellation bestowed on them by a literary lady ! Happy domestic womanly women do not envy * Miss Edgeworth: " Letters for Literary Ladies." 338 Woman Suffrage Wrong. platform displays of wit and wisdom, or learning and political economy ; but console themselves for the absence of notoriety, in practically applying these lines : — " Nor make to dangerous wit a vain pretence, But wisely rest content with common sense ; For wit, like wine, intoxicates the brain, Too strong for feeble woman to sustain : Of those who claim it, more than half have none. And half of those who have it, are undone."* In all languages, the words Wife, Mother are spoken with reverence, and associated with the highest, holiest functions of woman's earthly life. To man belongs the kingdom of the head : to woman the empire of the heart ! Within the domestic sphere, woman sits by the hearth, the genius of that sacred place — a crowned Queen, a ministering priestess, a purifying presence, personifying the household gods of our pagan ancestors. In every pure and legitimate relation — as daughter, sister, wife, mother — woman is the direct assistant of individual man ; supporter, consoler, renovator, pre- server of the human race ; or, as comprehensively summed up in Holy "Writ, mans help-meet ! Thus woman discharges faithfully, to the very utmost, her share of duties. In no possible way could woman generally better fulfil her mission, or more nobly, effectually, and thoroughly, aid the grand cause of human welfare. Woman's nature, require- ments, interests are little understood by those who * Lord Lyttleton : " Advice to a Lady." Woman Suffrage Mania. 339 blindly depreciate her actual work, influence, and abilities ; who misrepresent her as insignificant and undeveloped, and who would persuade her to prefer the platform to Home ! - Not woman's enlightened advisers and true friends, are those who encourage her to risk all that solid power, and legitimate sovereignty which she now exerts over man, (swaying him by her beauty, good temper, good sense, womanly graces, accomplish- ments, and instinctive tact) to try a wild experi- ment, and rush into a revolt which can only end in ignominious and ridiculous defeat. The imaginary rights which women are to attain when the sexes become equal, will be but a poor exchange for such an empire of pure and holy control. The normal ■woman cannot change her gentle womanly, retiring nature, to plunge into the coarse, dangerous conflict of rivalling man in politics, and public life. But even if she could, she would gain nothing, and lose everything. If the indecorous contest be real, defeat is certain. If a sham fight, there is no sexual equality. Imagine womanly woman, a VAmazone, throwing down the gauntlet, challenging man to the unnatural strife, straining into a shrill scream, that silvery voice which previously was : — '< Gentle and low ; An excellent thing in woman." In demanding man's rights, such a woman abdi- cates her influence, her very womanhood. She pro- claims Sexual Equality. She will be taken at her 340 Woman Suffrage Wrong. word. Henceforth let her expect no consideration on account o£ her sex. She has declined to give, or receive quarter. She must descend from that lofty throne of moral, religious, social pre-eminence to which she has been elevated, during centuries of civilisation by man, the so-called tyrant who is at once her master and her slave. No more reverence for the priestess who scorns the temple, who volun- tarily and ruthlessly shatters the household gods, and abandons the sanctuary of the hearth. Woman must quit the shrine where she was the presiding genius, but where she disdains any longer to minister. Man cannot offer protection to the being who tauntingly declares herself his equal, his superior, his rival ; and with a child's logic, demands the rights and privileges of " the two sexes of man." He cannot reverence, can hardly pity the nondes- cript man-woman who, in trying to ape man, ceases to be woman ; and who tramples upon the most precious prerogatives of her own sex, while selfishly, greedily, and vainly grasping at the rights of the other. Woman^s Superior Religious Sentiment. The word Revolt is surely too harsh a term for the spirit of independence now actuating so many of our fair countrywomen. Michelet eloquently compares the partial and passing hostile attitude of woman towards her natural guardian, and pro- tector — man, to the rebellion of a beautiful boy, who partly in passion, partly in play, slaps his mother ; Woman Suffrage Mania. 341 but at the first word of reproach, throws himself into her arms, and sobs out his repentance and love. Of course, this illustration does not at all apply to Miss Amazon. She does not resemble a beautiful boy. No concession will mollify her. But as re- gards the woman's Movement generally, let man only copy the mother's touching conduct towards a froward fractious child ; practise the same forbear- ing kindly Christian spirit of love ; and we need not fear that a transitory ebullition of feeling, the result of bad example, will become a chronic agitation, or a permanent revolt. For the idea of a serious con- tinuous quarrel between " the two sexes of man " is utterly impossible. Even men-women will not effect that. They indeed act like warnings, and by exciting salutary aversion, cause men to love womanly women all the more, from the force of contrast. The shrill war-whoop of the platform startles like a steam-whistle. Though here and there, a young woman is bewildered and beguiled, women generally have not adopted or endorsed the words of strife uttered in their name, by their interested would-be leaders. Except where women are more or less deceived, and temporarily led astray by obliging friends, who " coach " them on griev- ances so recondite that they would not otherwise be suspected, and inculcate revolt against man, as a moral and religious duty ; the vast majority of women continue gentle, amiable ; inspire, and re- ciprocate man's esteem and love. " Woman is the most admirable handiwork of God in her true place 342 Woman Suffrage Wrong. and character. Her place is at man's side. Her office that of the sympathiser ; the unreserved, un- questioning believer ; the recognition , withheld in every other manner, but given, in pity, through woman's heart, lest man should utterly lose faith in himself; the echo of God's own voice, pronounc- ing — ' It is well done ! ' All the separate action of woman is, and ever has been, and always shall be, false, foolish, vain, destructive of her own best and holiest qualities, void of every good effect, and pro- ductive of intolerable mischiefs ! Man is a wretch without woman; but woman is a monster — and, thank Heaven, an almost impossible, and hitherto imaginary monster — without man as her acknow- ledged principal ! " * Mental distinctions between man and woman, which demolish the Sexual Equality theory, have a still more solemn moral result, affecting the spiritual development and eternal prospects of humanity. The recognised fact that woman's moral conduct is more correct, and her religious sentiment stronger than man's, is directly due to this great diversity in the intellectual constitution of the sexes. On woman devolves the child's first teaching, and im- planting of moral and religious principles. Woman, acting instinctively, intuitively, remains more im- mediately and directly under Divine Providence. Man, the stronger being, has very diffe rent functions to perform, and requires more independence. To man therefore are granted greater liberty of action, * Nathaniel Hawthorne's " Blithedale Eomance;" Woman Suffrage Mania. ^ 343 and greater latitude of thought. Woman is not permitted to puzzle herself with theological pro- blems ; to wander and lose herself in the mazes of sophistry and false philosophy, as man invariably does, when he depends on his own unassisted reason, to discover truth, and abandons faith in natural and revealed religion. As well might the ocean mariner dispense with the compass, as man try to live well, and wisely, without God ! Here, how marked the contrast between the two sexes ! Woman, unable to reason on these pro- found, abstract, and intricate questions, naturally declines to argue at all on Religion, or moral Philosophy. Denial, or doubt of God's existence, horrifies her. On one occasion, I was present at an Atheistic lecture delivered by a female Woman's Rights igfidel. No sooner had she formulated her denial of a final Intelligent Cause, than a lady who. was immediately before me, rose abruptly and quitted the room. In vain, her husband tried to persuade her to stay for the conclusion of the lec- ture. The wife obeyed a natural, pure, and holy instinctive impulse of self-preservation ; telling her not to parley with temptation ! The respective conduct of man and wife on this occasion, seemed to me characteristic of each sex. The woman was too much shocked by the avowal of Atheism, to have been capable of weighing the arguments, had she remained. The man was willing to hear what could be said for Atheism, trusting to his ability to refute them. Previous chapters illustrate the fact that 344 Woman Suffrage Wrong. so-called " strong-minded "' women, priding them- selves on rivalling man in logic, do not substantiate tteir orthodoxy by argument. They have no con- ception of defending their premisses by ratiocination. They simply assume, and declaim, continually beg the question, and scold opponents for daring to dis- agree with them; influencing none, save those previously convinced. These female reasoners never really get beyond their feminine and childish argu- ment — " Because." Man runs into the other extreme, and priding himself on his reason — (not humanity's highest attribute) — frequently errs by expecting from it impossibilities. By trusting to limited reason alone, to solve all difficulties, and explore all truths, Man continually stumbles, and wanders from the right path. As if God deter- mined to punish His short-sighted creature, for being proud of any talent not really his, but lent to him for a season ! Melancholy warnings are men who have reasoned themselves out of all belief in God. Hence the necessity of supplementing Man's reason, with woman's intuition. The intellect, divorced from the heart, will always prove a false light, an ignis fatuus, a mere will-of-the-wisp. Woman is confessedly more religious than man. The cause of this is, that distrusting her reasoning powers where she feels herself comparatively weak, she avoids those severe intellectual trials, for which she is unarmed and incompetent; which would fatally injure her mind and body; and in which so Woman Suffrage Mania. 345 many ignorant and partially educated men, think- ing to find a short cut to truth, a royal road to knowledge, stumble and sink in the Slough of Despond: but from which the really profound, enlightened, and cautious thinker, is ever destined to emerge as one not wise in his own conceit. Like the normal woman in the previous instance, such a man seeks after Grod, not with the mindj only, but with the heart. He does not, like the infidel, pervert his reason, and starve one part, and that the higher portion of his nature ; but gives free scope to his emotions and affections, which pant after God, as the hunted hind pants after water-brooks. From these mental pit-falls, the Christian Champion, pro- tected by " the whole armour of God," emerges a sadder, but a wiser man. Doubt and disbelief have practically taught him the profound truth of Bacon's aphorism : " A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to Eeligion." Irreligious women are therefore far more rare than irreligious men. Lavater observes : — " With- out religion, man is a diseased creature who would persuade himself he is well, and needs not a physi- cian; but a woman without religion is raging and monstrous. A woman with a beard is not so dis- gusting, as a woman who acts the freethinker. Her sex is formed to pity, and religion." Woman's inability to reason profoundly, and perseveringly, is so far from a proof of non-development, weak- mindedness, and a defect ; that it is really a safe- 346 Woman Suffrage Wrong. guard to herself, to the rising generation, and to mankind. Men of excellent abilities and high attainments, who are being continually influenced for their temporal and eternal welfare, by the moral conduct and religious feeling of their female re- latives, friends, and generally of gentle womanly women, are thus led to perceive the intimate con- nexion between such religious feeling, and superior moral conduct : while they would laugh to scorn the attempts of their wives, or other women to con- vince them by reason. The attempt to do so, and other female pretensions to govern man directly, by politics, and public life, would cost woman her in- fluence. Most conducive to man's earthly happiness, and immortal interests, that woman, his " help- meet" through this vale of tears, should be thus mentally constituted so differently from him, that she should seek to impress on man, with whom she is utterly unable to argue, the vast Philosophy of Faith ! Many a man is thus led to respect and appreciate those indispensable qualities in the female mind, which he at first undervalued, and which plat- form ladies sneer at as " womanly." Evidently woman's influence reposes on qualities totally opposed to, and destructive of, the Sexual Equality theory. This pre-eminence of the religious senti- ment is found only in womanly women, and is imperfectly developed, if at all existent, in men- women, inconsequent illogical assertors of "Women's Eights to rival man in all pursuits. To women Woman Suffrage Mania. 347 generally, applies Lamb's beautiful description of a good, religious, womanly woman : " It has been my cousin's lot, oftener perhaps than I could have wished, to have had for her associates and mine,, freethinkers — leaders and disciples of novel philoso- phies and mysteries ; but she neither wrangles with, nor accepts their opinions. That which was good and venerable to her, when a child, retains its authority over her mind still. She never juggles- uor plays tricks with her understanding." Let each womanly woman exposed to similar trials and temptations — to have her mind puzzled and per- verted by the platform Sexual Equality theory, and the alleged Rights thereiu involved — consult the dictates of conscience. That faithful monitor will teach her to fly from such doctrines, until further experience of human nature and knowledge of the subject shall have taught her, that Woman's truest interest lies on the side opposed to Woman Suffrage. Such a woman will find she has chosen " the better part," whether single or married. Such a wife will indeed be a crown unto her husband — "Her children arise and call her blessed." " Seek to be good, but aim not to be great, A woman's noblest station is retreat : Her fairest virtues fly from public sight, Domestic worth that shuns too strong a light : To rougher man, Ambition's task resign, 'Tis ours in Senates and in Courts to shine, To labour for a sunk, corrupted state, Or dare the rage of envy and be great."* * Lord Lyttleton's " Advice to a Lady." 548 Woman Suffrage Wrong. Final Words. One important truth has been thoroughly illus- trated, by the failure of this twenty years' struggle of woman to wrest the suffrage from man. The whole movement — the result of misdirected female ambition — illustrates and confirms the grand truth taught in Scripture and in Nature : " Man is the head of the Woman." Consequently, woman in revolt seek- ing to reverse this by separate action not merely without, but directly opposed to man, has failed, as such action always must and will fail ; no matter what amount of individual talent be exerted in its defence. The interests of the sexes are too closely related, to be thus arbitrarily separated. To suppose that woman, living under man's protection, con- tinually exerted, individually and collectively ; priTately and publicly; in the domicile, by usage and by law ; could establish a totally independent and even antagonistic Amazonian empire, is absurd. The logic of facts is unanswerable. Promoters of the agitation were at last convinced that the legis- lature would never sanction married women's suffrage, and reduced their demands to a spinster and widow rate-paying franchise. This was de facto ringing the knell of the cause. With the insertion of the clause : " Provided that no married woman shall be entitled to vote," the whole principle and raison d'etre of Woman Suffrage collapsed. All vitality departed from the measure. Woman •Suffrage really died; and had its partisans been Woman Suffrage Mania. 349' consistent, should have been decently buried. In- stead of this, its corpse, imperfectly embalmed, has been paraded, and annually galvanised, until it has begun to stink in the nostrils. For what can seriously be urged in support of Woman Suffrage (so-called), which excludes the most experienced women — matrons — the natural leaders of society? The 800,000 qualified spinsters and widows should flatly refuse a questionable boon granted solely on condition that all wives, and the vast majority of single women, should never vote. But the qualified female voters are like gamesters, too eager to win, to review the situation coolly, and impartially. They reiterate their one and only argument, the alleged injustice of claiming rates and taxes from non-voters. I do not admit it, but I would prefer the remission of rates and taxes from female house- holders, rather than sanction the perpetration of the far greater injustice of enfranchising them finally, at the expense of all the rest of the sex. Woman Suffrage is either right or wrong ; good or bad ; wise or foolish. Its advocates demand it as a right. They are loud enough in its praises. It is, therefore, the duty of those who think it a delusion and a snare, to have the courage of their opinions. In these pages, "Liberavi animam meam" I pretend not to be the accredited mouthpiece of any party. But I am morally convinced that my views, as an opponent of Woman Suffrage, are shared by the great majority of sensible men and women : and I have shown that really strong-minded women scout 350 Woman Suffrage Wrong. . the Sexual Equality theory — the flimsy foundation on which the Women's Rights house of cards is erected. I have also demonstrated that woman never can be a full citizen ; therefore cannot justly claim man's political privileges ; and that he has as good a right to forbid her to vote, as he has to forbid her to enlist as soldier or sailor ! Whether right, or wrong, this book will be useful. I have tried, within reasonable limits, to treat the subject exhaustively, so that the work might become a text- book for readers desirous to have the chief objec- tions to Woman Suffrage explained and defended. Whether I have convinced any opponents I know not ; but this at least I claim to have done : 1. I have treated the subject comprehensively ; having embodied in these pages, the results of many years' practical experience, information, and reflection. 2. I have stated my conscientious convictions, in perfect good faith, from no personal, interested, un- worthy motive ; but from a sincere desire to benefit women and men. 3. I have demonstrated that this Bill, or any other final measure of Spinster and Widow Suffrage, insults all wives, and the great majority of single women. Here, I think I deserve thanks even from consistent. first-class advocates of Woman Suffrage as a principle. And I have, 1 hope, enlightened unqualified women, and convinced them that they should not be satisfied with not supporting, but should strenuously oppose, by tongue, by pen, and by petitions, any such selfish measure. In conclusion, should the pertinacity of Woman Stiffrage Mania. 351 persevering promoters be crowned with success, that will not in the least affect the truth of my state- ments, and the force of my objections. On the contrary, should this Bill ever become Law, I doubt not that the rapid verifications of some of my pro- phetic warnings, especially in the " Logical Results of Woman Suffrage " (Part ii., Chap. I.), will fur- nish strong conclusive evidence to the truth of my Title, and prove : "WOMAN SUFFRAGE WRONG IN PRINCIPLE, AND PRACTICE." THE END. '^ '-^-^ --.J,>^