Full text of "Woman suffrage wrong in principle and practice [microform] : an essay"

See other formats

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

ki§2^ |2.5

1^ 112.0

IL25 III 1.4

1.6

■Ty

w ^

'^^t"

>:> .^. Q

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

'•a W»ST MAIN STUBET

WEB;,ru.^,N.Y. 14580

(716) 873-4S03

"^J%

•^^'^

■<^

4^.

C/j

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiquaa

The ci
to the

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographicaily unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

D
D

Coloured covers/
Couvert'jre de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculie

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes g^ographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches at/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reiii avac d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

Lareliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se paut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 fiimdes.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.

D
D
D
0
D
B
D
D
D
D

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dicolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages ditach^es

Showihrough/
Transparence

Quality of print varies/
Quality inigale de i'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6X6 film^es 6 nouveau de faqon 6
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Their
possil
of th«
filmin

Origir
begin
the la
sion,
other
first p
sion,
or illu

Theli
shall <
TINUI
which

Maps
differ!
entire
begin
right j
requir
methi

□

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:

Various pagings.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est fiim^ au taux de rdduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

Th« copy filmed h«r« has b««n raproducad thanks
to tha ganarosity of:

University of Victoria

Tha imagas appaarinvi hara ara tha bast quality
possibia considaring \ha condition and lagibility
of tha original copy arod in kaaping with tha
filming contract spacificationa.

Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad
beginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha last paga with a printad or iilustratad impraa-
sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copias ara filmad beginning on tha
first paga with a printad or iilustratad impraa-
sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad
or iilustratad impression.

L'axampiaira filmA fut reproduit grice it la
g*n4rosit4 de:

University of Victoria

Las images uuivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compta tenu de la condition et
da la nettetA de rexemplaire film*, st en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmaga.

Lee exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
pepier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commenpant
par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la
darniAre paga qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon ie cas. Tous les autres exempleires
originaux sont filmbs en commenpant par la
premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la derniire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Mapa, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate tha
method:

Un dee symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole •— »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, pisnches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
fiim^s d des taux de rMuction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clichi, il est film* d partir
de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche i droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'imagas n^cessaira. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE WRONG.

AiiHinrnf " 7
MimU of .

Most rc'f
iiicliiditij.' ;i
fraiicliiscd I

" It is rig
nidiv opposi
rivalry with
iiiuuruiug-bii

R E ^I I

18,

WOMrtN SUFFRAGE WRONG

IN riilNCirLE, AND niACTlCE.

AN ESSAY

jA]\LKs ra«c;uiaoii ai^lan.

Author of

hor iif '• ■/■/,,■ liitflli;'!,,,,! s.-rrrmtrr iif ,1/ // nwl W.iiiirn," " The Krai /)i// mirra in th
MinU.< uj .)/(■// and IWinimt," •' .1 /mif^l ,i,/,iiii^t IWjiniin's /Jiininn/ fur l/tu I'noilenex

of Hutu lScxi s," iVc

Most respectfully dedicated to llio seventeen millions of wuinen

iueliidinj; all wires— \\\ Great Britain and Ireland, who will not bo en-
franchiscd by tlio present Unal ypinster and Widow ynlTra''o iJill.

" It is right (o exclude women from political and civil affairs ; nothing is
nuire opposite to their natural destiny, than all that would bring them into
rivalry with men, and glory itself woidd be for woman only a splendid
niuuruiug-teuit for happiness.''

Madame de Stael: "Germany."

REMINGTON AND CO., PUBLISHERS,

18, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.

.-W«^r'—

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

UBRARY

To sour

a*7gravu

offciitliu

ri^lit t<

untMjuiv

" Womt!

Suffragt

iniglit h

iimbigiK

possible.

title she

not atte

right tc

before tl

criticisir

from the

that the

thus din

It is \

theologi(

tlare to c

op2)ose ^l
I grant i
by selfis'
can und(
female ii

PREFACE.

To some, tho titlo of my work may seem intentionally
aprgmvatin^. It is certainly not my design to begin by
offending those whom I wish to convince. But I think it
right to them and others, to nse a title which shall
uneciuivocally e.ipress the purpose of the book. The term
*' Woman Suffrage" indicates no opinion. Wonuin
Suffrage Advocates, hoping to tind 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 i)lainly 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. Honest 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

yi Preface.

nnd tmdos. A doctor nntnnilly dislikos fciiinlo [>liysiciiin8.
r iiiysclt' »)!ico HliiinMl ill this prcjiulict'. I mow think it
ri^'ht th:it woinoii Hhould hiivo lit hsist th«' option of hiMiij^
attciiih'J hy their own sox. A liiwyrr ohjtH'ts to tViiiah;
solicitors and biirristcrs : a chM'^ymnn, to t'oiiialc proiu'hors.
An«l l)y Hoiiio (U)uhth'ss, such purely personal leelinyfs
prompt objections to Woman Suil'm^o. But my opposi-
tion to VV^oman SutVra','e cannot truly be imputed to tears
of personal rivalry. Ft would matter nothiii<jf to me if all
women wore voters. Some would doubtless like to send
me to imiiKMliate execution, forwritin;^' this book. Others
more maufuaiiimous, would n un-tdy re<>;ard me with pity and
coiitiMn[)t, as they re^Mrd le<,'islators who oppose Woman
SurtVa^e. r am not a party i>oliti('iau. Tin; arts in which
I take most interest, Literature and Paintinj^, have lon;^
been successfully cultivated by women. And however
their rivalahip, may ai)parcntly, or really injure male
authors and painters, it must eventually tend to elevate
literary and pictorial art. Where than is tlie unworthy
personal motive for my writin<jfagainr>t Woman Suffrafje?
I am unconscious of any such, but should I deceive myself,
my error must be apparent in the following' paj^es ; and 1
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.

than it
I'rotofit
both St
Conduit

Women
Amtu'ica
Hritain,
has bee
Suffrage
ten yeai
men of ^
petty, p(
if liiial, :
Women,
generall
sistentl)'
as an ac

Preface.

y\\

than it [)r(»biil)ly ovrr will iipiiii. In a Irctnrr — " A
Protest ai^aiiiHt \Voiii;in's Dciiiainl lor tiio l*rivili';;t's of
both SexoH " (tlrlivcM'eil iit tlio Architt'ctiinil (i!ill«»ry,
Coiuliiit Street, 4tli July, ami publislnMl in The Victoria
Maij(tzim\ Aug., 1H70) — I saiil : " Mun»[»«':iii iiiid llritish
Woinen are naturally iullueuiMMl by the rtivolt of women in
America, where the mania is at its hciL^'ht, while in
Ihitain, the disease has not etilmiiiated." I^fy i)ro[»heey
has been amply fulfilled. The division in th»» Woman
Suffrajg'e Camp is traced in these paijfes. And for the last
ten years, the Moven:ent for the Political Knfranehise-
nieu of Woman, ha.i dwintlled down to a purely sellisli,
petty, peddliuL,' S|)iiistcr and Widow Suflra^'e Hill, which
if linal, insults Women <jfenerally, ami espeeially Married
Women, Therefore my illustrations and (luotatioiis
^'cnerally date from the time when the battle was con-
sistently fouj^ht for Woman Sutl'raj^e, as a jyrinciido ; not
as an accident.

C 0 X 'r K X T s .

> I • • ••

•>

TAUT KIKST.

Woman KUKKRAUB CONHII«Klll<:i> IN TllKLllY, Ari A I^IINCII'I.K.

CIIAPIKU I. ,.A.,K

Why hIiouM Womon Imvc tlic I'uliiiciil I-'ruiirliiHi' ? ... :!

I'll A I'll; l{ II.
Docs t'li! Bible H)iuctii)ii W<»miui SiitVni^'o? . . ... 7

ciiAi'Ti:i{ in.

Tlio Bil>lo opposed to Woiimii SiilVni^'o

ciiAnim IV.

Naturu o[)p(>so(l to Si'xiiul j'ii|uiility

CIlArTKIl V.
8t'xurtl Kiiimlity mid Sul»ji'(!tioii of Woiimii

CIIATTKII VI.
rullaoy of OlainiH liasotl on Soxual l'!([Uiility ... ... '.»*)

CIIAI'TKIt VII.
Marriage ami Maternity verfiiis Woman SulVraufo ... \'2'2

... I J
... CD

TAUT SKCOND.
Woman Sukkuaok conhii)Kuki> in I'iiai ti(;i:, ani» Dktaii..

CHAPTKK I.
Analysis of tho Woman SiilVraufo Mill ... ... ... l.'»'.)

CIIAPTKIi ir.

Women Politicians involve Women Warriors! ... llU

CIIAI'TKIt 111.

•).)

I • • • • •

Division in tho Woman SnllVaj^'o Camp

CILVrTEIt IV.

spinster and Widow Voti-rs a,u;ainst Woman SuflVage! 2.")0

ClIATTKIi V.
Results of Married Women's SnlTra^'e ... ... ... 2(11)

CHAPTKii vr.

liosults of Woman tSanVago in (Jeneral ... ... '2'X]

CIIAPTKll VII.

Woman Suffrage Mania : Conclusion of Diagnosis ... 318

;j Woman ^

Why sho
demr

Cons

forV

prove

two

Theo

Does the
and ^
rule r
Equa
Advoi

i its isi
from

I cates

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.

PART Fir? ST.

_ Woman Suffrage considekkd in Theokt, as a Principle.

1 CHAPTP^R I.

Why should women have the political franchise P— The
demand involves a radiciil alteration in the British
Constitution— Dissinuilatiiig title: "The Movement
for Women "—Woman's assumed right to vote, not
proved— Ask-and-have policy— Subject divided into
two parts — Woman Suifrag-e 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 Sc*rii)ture account as " the old rib theory "
— Woman made from man, for a companion : not coun-
sellor— Man created ; woman /ormcfZ ; 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 Jidelity involved in her oh edience — 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 — Sigtifi 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
ojiposed to all claims based on Sexual Equality —
Brief address to professing Christians — Conviction
that the Bible is opposed to Woman Suffrage.

Nature <
Adv
and
"wc
hyst
of bi
of ^
trati

4 Sexual
Stroi
Extri

Contents.

Xill

hat?—
; Advo-
lieory "
it coun-
f a copy
le glory
3Giug —
wives —
Matrons.

iiesis to
Sexual
e could
in mar-
c—Man
nipts to
ates of
against
roman's
Bclaring
Sexual
remple,
r about
ble con-
Woman
netimes
ed alike
utterly
aality —
nvictioii

CHAPTER IV.

Nature opposed to Sexual Equality — Woman Suffrage
Advocates assume what cannot be proved : Mental
and Physical Sexual Equality — The Bible truth
"woman the weaker vessel " proved — Strong-niinded
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 ! — ]\Ian-woman deplorably fails
as a sample of Sexual Equality ! — Not independent
of man — Cannot escape from ])rotection 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 w^oman 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 Proudlion — Counterfeit Strong-Minded
Women, Amazons — Female Independence, legitimate,
and illegitimate — Political, involve all riyhts ! —
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 Equality and Subjection of Woman — Really
Strong-Minded Women opposed to Sexual Equality —
Extracts — Lady M. W. Montagu, Madame de Stael,

<7<

xiv Contents.

"v Ilaiuiali More, Miuliiuic Cottin, Countess Tliihn-
IJjihn, Mrs. ►Samli'ord, Mrs. Ellis, ^Irs. Jiiniicson,
Mrs. (jore, Baroness liurdett-Coutts (ij)[)osed to
Woman Suffraj^^e ! — Insurrectionary doctrines out-
come of concessions to women — Kesults of civilisation
reared on sexual non-equality — Sexual Equality
destroys Woman's Liberty — Nearest approach to
mental and physical Sexual Equality in savage races/
— There, women most oppressed and enslaved ! —
Neyress more nearly equals her lazy lord, whom she
implicitly obeys, than Eurojiean 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 — Difficulty
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

Eqi
inec
won
bod
trai
Equ
dev(

A UK

" gr
Euti
— Tl
phys
currc
— Se
sex-
May,
ture
by a
copy

Marriage

Won]

teach

never

Conni

AVom

wo ma

prese]

cated

— Imj

In fu

Iliihn-
iiicson,
iod to
J out-
isatioii
quality
ach to
races I
Lvecl ! —
oui slie
usbaiid
ion of
iropean
es pro-
ated by
ses and
Sexual
civility,
cannot
quality
t— The
itrerous
nlerior,
es, the

fficulty
ved in
than
regard
-Sexual

., . Contents. xv

Equality Advocates attribute all divergence and
inequality to I'lducation — 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 — Result 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 evorythinpf ! — Propfntincy and political excite-
ment— Cornel i.i contrasted with inan-apin*,' Amazon
— British nuitrons will not join the revolt — Mrs. S.
O.Hall eloquently censures "The Movement" — Miss
Emily FaithfuH's criticism— Begs the question —
Imputes seUishness to opponents — A minority of
amhitious women call British women seltlsh ! —
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 doin<j^ what they dislike to
do — British women freest in the world — Various
pursuits in which they do, or may enf?a<?e — Pre-
ference for domestic sphere confirms the conclusion
— A natural division of duties hetween man and
woman.

PART SECOND.
Woman Suffrage considered in Practice, and Detail.

CHAPTER I. y-- '^9

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 Suffrage — Victoria
Magazine — Victory already won ! — Disinterested sup-
port by Spuister 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

froi

exe(

Glai

old

not

feni;

—If

be I

— G

Woi

privi

tives

advc

— Pc

Contents

XVll

xcite-
lazon
rs. S.
-Miss
ion —
ity of
sU!—
3 and
?omen
> that
[ike to
arioiis
— Pre-
ilusion
n and

)etail.

.sses of
ertain
Taylor
icating
idoria
id sup-
tential
female
jortant
ument

— MxcluMJon from l)urtliena a fair offset for exclusion
from privil('<,'('s — Women cannot make, administer,
execute laws — Miss Becker's delinition of m;in — Mr.
(JIadslone in 1H7() — DeCmes Hill as " uprootin}jf the
old lainlinarlvs of the country" — His " eilucation "
not sufficiently rai)id ! — SellisliMess of sei'ond class
fennile supporters — Bill, if final, pari ia I and unjust
— If not final, involves suffra<,'e for wives — Cannot
be logically and consistently s>(pi)orted hy any class
— Grants too little or too mueb — 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 Rights include everything.

CHAPTER II.

Women polilicians 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 dress like man ! — Transatlantic fashions —
Virago ! — " Pantalettes " and princi[)les ! — Able-
bodied female Volunteers — Sailors' chivalry — Press-
gang boaten-off by a woman : fights like a devil, and
claims all the immunities of woman ! — Platform
Paradox — Women-Voters softening Political Ran-
cour ! — Fact; woman embitters strife ! — Illustrations

XVllI

Contents.

— French revolution — 'riioroi;jfno <lo Mericoiirt — Can-
nibal wonuMi ! — Charlotto Corday; Matlanio Roland —
Harricado biittU'S in 181H: wonicii niort» dosporate
tlian ni(Mi — IVtroloiisos in 1871 — I'oaco Coji^'ross,
Lausannt" — Uuskin — How women inii^hi iibolish war
— Woman's association with scones of violence
deteriorates race — Woman has us nuudi ri^ht to
('inbrace a military, as a political career — Woman
JSutfra^'o Advocates inconsistent — Women-warriors
less mischievous than women -politicians — Rev. Mr.
Dunbiir on women soldiers and sailors — A Woman's
Protest ajifainst Women Politicians — Woman a noun
adjective to the noun substantive Man.

CHAPTER III.

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 Mcujazine — Cause —
Contagious Diseases Acts ! — Bill imperilled — Strife
between linal, and non-final advocates — A consistent
woman suffrage advocate against the Bill! — Fray
between Strong-minded Amazons — Mutual recrimi-
nations and accusations of selfishness ! — Pot 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 wives-
Importance of conjugal and maternal duties—

illi;

opi

del

~]^

suil

tho

Dell

adm

to i

acri

Spinster
Miss
— AV
Serii
Prop
Com
ever
votoi
Glad
worn
wom(
votes
injus
great
spins
houst
franc
whetl

Contents.

XIX

•age !—
wives—
uties—

Matrons cniinot bo subordinate to single wonion^
Mr. KMat(!hbiill-llugossen — I'oliticivl Uaclicls mourn-
ing over th 'ir nuissacred innocent ! — Hill opposed by
o[)pont'nt.s, and advocates of woman sutVrago — Mxcited
debate and division at a woman sullVago cont'erenco
— ]\Ir. Iloskins — " Bill to [U'ovont married wonuui
suH'riigo " — 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 Sutlrage — Women sol'tening
acrimony of political debate !

CHAPTER 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 Erskine 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
women, immoral — Ludicrously unjust to disfranchise
women for marrying — Alleged injustice of refusing
votes to female tax and rate-payers — Reply — Real
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-
franchise themselves alone — To their advantage
whether the bill be final or not — Euge le Sue on

Contents.

i*olitioal NVomoti — Iirl<„'ht Kill n'flcoiit'tl up by IrUli
Attorney (lOtioral — Woodall IJill (listVaiichiMcs wivoH
for ever.

('HAPTER V.

Rcsulls (»f iiiiirried woineu's HiUIra;jfo : ui.sriintion o

it!)

ipti

ilomt'Htic tit'H : dosecmtion of niarriajjfe — Eiit'mMchi8(3j
wife votiiijr ajj^ainst hor Imsbaml \\i anotlior man's
instillation — Mr. Laboiichoro on wonnin sntlViij^o —
Speech of Mr. (now Sir IFenr}) Jaines — Clerical and
priestly inlluenee — Troniotion of matrimonial dis-
cord and \vif('-l)eatin<^' — Temptation to bribery — T/io
Sjteclntor — An elcctioneerin;,' aj^enfc dividing' nuin 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 i)urified
by women — Dabbling in political mire and dirt! —
Mrs. Bodiclion "that polling-booths should be made
fit for women " — Fallacy — Begging the (piestion —
Man must do things women must not — War! —
Woman wlicn cruel, exceeds man — (iladiatorial shows
— Bull- fights — Municipal franchise — " Staggering
women-voters supported by staggering men : not
their husbands " — Impossible to withhold votes from
qualified married women — Saturday Uevietu — Sum-
mary of arguments against the bill — British women
the freest — Indirect influence — Alleged grievance ' "
Baroness Burdett-Coutts not being enfranchised —
Politics would seriously diminish the number of
women distinguished in the fine arts, literature, and
other legitimate occupations.

^Kesidts ol
*' fnli
wish,
prote
— " W

on p(>

answe

verie,

Disgii

SuffVa:

fietter

tile coi

presen

harves

binino-

— (Jl;4

by L. C
tion do
good Ol
of teiii;

Wonia
— Neill
period-
Woman
-Men'!
Women';
Woman
Amazon
Owti Pa

rish
vivo8

n of

liisfMl
iiiin'H

>;?<'—
lI aiul

I dis-

-The

n aii<l

hu8-

)aii(U'

ictoria

mi fled

irt!-

made

iou —

ir!—

shows

rcring

: not

from

-Sum-

^romen

nee ' ""

ised —

Der of

and

Contents. xxi

CllAITMK VI.

UoMdts of Woman SMlVrny;(» in LTtMUMMl — Ar^niniont that,
" cnrrancliisfd wonu'n iicod not vote nnli.'ss thoy
Nvisli," Jinswcrod \\y Mr. nonvcrio — Iin[>(i>Hihh» to
I»rotoct suili women ; tlioy would l)e woirii'd to voto
— " Worn inpf " a round <jf;nn(; — Ar«jfiunont fountlod
on [tctitions J\n\ and none (Hfdhml Woman SnfVra<^o
an.swcrt'cl in I'arHaintMil — S[)eoc.dn'H of Mrssrs. Itoii-
vcrie, Knatclibull-lln^^'sst'n, (). Morgan, \\. Ilopo —
I)isi;iistin^' petitions st ivn^tlion opposition to Woman
SutlVa^o — Oidy womanly W(tmen inlluonoo mcMi —
Lotters from I'lihlir (fjuiuon — "Ifavo women counteil
the cost P " — Mr. J. IJ. McMilhui " women tram[)lin^'
present «,'ohk'n j,a'ain, soarcdiin^^ for a tutiiro phantom
harvest-field ! " — Si)cctatoi- — '' Impossibility of eom-
biniuM- Wonian Sutfra^'e with safety of a free state"
— Graphic picture of a zealous female li^iitin|^' voter
by L. O. i'ik'c — What lias the Woman Sulfraj^e a<^ita-
tion done for woman "P — Slio cannot disrej^ard man's
•jood opinion — Eccentric and extrava<^ant assertions
of female personaHty due to man's bad example —
Woman reflects her aye : holds the mirror up to man
— Neither sex isolated in good or evil — Kevolutioiuiry
period — Attempt to invert tiie social pyrjiniid —
Woman SutlVaj^e opposed to Conservative princii)les
—Men's dissi[)ation, immorality, irreliyion eucouraj^e
women's assertion of sexual equality and revolt —
Womanish men affect mannish women — Man-hatinir
Amazons denounced by The Qlobe and by The Lady's
Uivn Paper.

XXII

Contents.

CllAlTKK VII.

Woimiri SufTra«,'o imiiiiii — Conclusion of DIhi^miosIh — Por-
trait of ii woninii in rrvolt — Tlio f»Miialt> nian-hator —
FiMiialo (MiiaiicipationiMts : thou;^Hitl(>sH (>liil<lri*ti on
the vorj^tjot'a pivi'ipico — Spoctdioi' — " VVonian*.s inovo-
nicnt in America, doin^ aInioHt puro harm'* — Iii<
toniponite nntl in(l(M'(»nt writers — Saturdnif licinnw —
"A Free Lovo lloroino'' — Mrs. VVoodhiill — MIhs
Antliojiy — Division in AnuM-ican Wonuin SutlVa;,n«
Camp — Woman's Hi^^'lits brain-fever attacks both
sexes: comparatively harmless in youth: at a later
period incurabl*; : sometimes ends in deran<,'ement—
Reaction in America — Women petitioning,' aj^fainst
Woman Suffrage— Enerj^'etic protests a<,'ain8t 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 — l*oint of lionour 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.

W0i\rAi

I— Por-

lator —
I't'ii on

"-In.

iuinw —
— Migg

liillV.'i;,'(>

S l)()tll

a later
iniMit—
iiyfjiiiist
; it, by
pinstor
(oiionts
ich SOX
KHir ill
tratioii
jinaiily
/Vomaii
38 her
iier ! —
,nent —
3xplaiii
at ad-
man by
me lit—
tricks
ruide—

PART FIRST.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE CONSIDERED IN
THEORY, AS A PRINCIPLE.

((

CHAPTER I.

WHY SHOULD WOMEN HAVE THE POLITICAL FRANCHISE?

"Why should not women have the electoral fran-
^li'se?" 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 rigfhts and

Wovian Suffrage Wrong.

privileges of both sexes ; au attempt to subvert the
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. Bullard, 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

spring!

of the

doterm

whatev

ploadir

noedin<

woman

chise, \

concess

moral,

with w

So fj

that the

franchij

Avoman

virtuall'

we will

women,

to it."

suffrage

it. It ^

the maj<

ask-and

stop ?

some W(

we must

to be so'

clothes.

in a thoi

be force(

to medd

iniy sJiould Women have the Political Franchise.^ 5

springs from sheer inability to grasp the magnitude
of the subject; with others, from a deliberate
ilotermination to perceive or admit no objections
whatever to AVoman 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

( .MB

Woman SuJ/rage Wtotig.

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.

DOES

'' But I

Christ; and

All clain
for both I
tion of S
satisfacto
Holy Scr:
(liredhj f(
Bible sa'

against t
which is
right to
though u
woman's
changes
term — F(
other rio
social, dc

CHAPTER II.

DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION WOMAN SUFFRAGE r*

" But I would have you know that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man." — 1 Cor. xi., 3.

Nominal Acceptance of the Bihh.

jAll 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
Idirecthj for, or against, Woman Suffrage. But the
I 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

Woman Suffraife IVmng.

Doc

the iidmission, oithor doclarod or itnpliod, of Sexual
Equality. Honco Woman Siiffrai^o advocates roundly
assort Sexual Equality. They do not attempt to prove
it, because it is more convenient to assume what can-
not bo 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
Eights.

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.

luistic to
sistcntly
jHible.
\vhich gi
(lovout (
and poll
and fern J
rcnlly be
faith foui
lown tin
they are
lalternativ
r AVoma

Texts
,vliole tei
ho shibbi
0 Woma
n that t
uently I
i)y my sol
)Ociety, a
iiet. AV(
'e do n(
isolated t
that the
)ut our 0
jion of th
Equality f
fiore subj(
liantly, ai
1)0 impor

Does the Bible Sanction Wonian Sit/fragc

Oman

tic to their Tnovcmcv^. But tlioy act most incon-
sistc!itly with this [)rofcssiou of implicit faith in tho
liible. Thoy ought to wolcomo every objection
which gives them an opportunity to prove that a
(lovout Christian may advocate a social, ilomestic,
!in(l political revoUitlcn based on sexual erpiality
jjuid female autonomy. 'JMiey would do so, if tlioy

ircnlly believed their principles consonant witli tho
liiith founded on tho Rock of Ages. If it can bo
shown that the Bible is really against their movement,
ftliey are morally bound to choose the only logical
|alternative of defeat — repudiation of Christianity,
r Woman Suffrage.
Texts neither " few " nor " isolated " prove the
,vhole tenor and spirit of Scripture repugnant to
llio shibboleth of Sexual Equality, and consequently
to Woman Suffrage, and all alleged "rights" based
"^'11 that theory. This important subject was fre-
juently brought before AYoman Suffrage advocates
y myself and others, at the Victoria Discussion
ociety, and elsewhere. Never once Avas it fairly
let. We are told sharply that we are wrong ; that
'p:Q do not understand tho Bible ; that we quote
Isolated texts dealing with the letter, not the spirit ;
|hat the Bible can be made to prove anything :
ut our opponents always shirk full and fair discus-
lion of this inquiry : — Does the Bible sanction sexual
Jquality and all the claims based thereon ? It is a
ore subject. They reiterate their orthodoxy indig-
antly, and hope that in future the Bible may not
e imported into debate. They assume that the

onKvi

S„f,-

^iif/rnsrc

rang.

Bible is with tlieni, but declino to arpjuo tlio point.
A very couveiiicut mode of bo<T(rin(r tho (question !
If they were hui'o tlie WWAo sn[)portecl their views,
they woukl eagerly eoiirt, instead of shrinking from,
discussion.

The ]iiblo is very often unfairly quoted, atid thus
ostensibly niiide to su[)[)ort any meaning maintained
by ignorant or unserupulous special pleaders. I
despise all sucli dishonest dealing. But misuse of
the Bible cannot render us indifferent to its proper
legitimate use and authority. Tlio Bible must
throw light on the normal position and duties of
man and woman. Woman Suffrage advocates can-
not bo allowed to ignore all appeals to Sacred
Scripture on tho convenient, but transparent, suh-
terfuge, that the Book is too sacred for everyday
use. This is ([uite 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

Docs ill

ol the Bibl
% idl Chr
fUDin time
direct po

reigning

|an real ;

i(j)}^ and

r's exclus

cither in
Ible's tea(
iristian ca

tho latter
|c most se
Incteen cc

lorantly,
[eluding w
It is re
Ivocates ic

number (
ialed relig

)ts which
[ollstonecr
Ights mov(
[oman" su]

with the

it the disc

jir teache

mecraft d

Her denu;

Dus impostor

Blending to :

lee Vol. i., C

Docs the Dihlc Sanction Woman Suffrage ? 1 1

point.
)stion !
viows,
^fi'oin,

(1 thus
itaiuLMl
3rs. I
uisc of
proper

must
tics of
DS can-
Sue red
t, sul).
pryday
ical ns
forced

This
lo real
n, and
I)uting
ve tlie
vvered,
mrcli;
:)ulpit,

ol the Bible, and fear that it decides against them.
Hi nil Christian States, women arc, and have been
flt)ni time immemorial, excluded from tho exercise
oi direct political power. Tho exception in tho case
ol ivigning (jueens is accidental, and moro nominal
tjau real ; since our constitutional Sovereigns
i|/;i, and wo aro governed by a Prime ^linister.
•s exclusion from man's political privileges must
either in accordance with, or antagonistic to, tho
ble's teachings and spirit. If tho former, no
Cftii'istian can consistently advocate Woman Suffrage,
the latter. Woman Suffrage advocates must court
c most searching investigation to prove that for
Ticteen centuries Christian civilised nations have
ignorantly, or wilfully, violated Bible precepts in
excluding women from the political franchise.

It is remarkable that among revolutionary
t^vocates in politics, religion, and social structure,
m number either openly disavow natural and re-
aled religion, or quietly repudiate all Bible pre-
ts which are not exactly to their taste. Mary
ollstonecraft was the Mother of the Woman's
Rights movement. " A Vindication of the Rights of
Woman" supplies the arguments rehashed and served
up with the SGMce jpiquante of platform declamation.
%t the disciples have in some respects gone beyond
lieir teacher. Though not orthodox, Mary Woll-
necraft devoutly believed in God.* Some of our

Her denunciation of so-called " cunning men " — the blasphe-
iis impostors who delude silly women of all ranks, by impiously
tending to foretell the future — is worthy of a Christian divine.
|ee Vol. i., Chapter XIII.)

<ii

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

platform ladios aro avowinl Atheists. Tho lato ^Irs.
I^iinniu Martin, a Deistical writer of considorablo
ability, defended Woman Suffrage in a well-written
article in tlio WestminHter Ilevieio, July, 1851. Tho
late tF. S. Mill adopted implicitly his wife's views on
AVoman SnlTra<^"e. The most consiHtent advocate
of Woman Suffiai^e I ever heard, is ^Irs. Harriot
Law. She openly repudiates the Bible, on the
consistent and logical ground that its teachings
oppose that liberty of speech and action which sho
demands as a representative woman. A lady
advocate of Woman Suffrage, signing herself
*' lerne," writes that whatever good Christianity
may have achieved, it is now an obstacle in tho
path of progress! (I'Jxaminery 18th Oct., 1873).
Mrs. Bcsant, an avowed Atheist, at the Co-opera-
tive Institute, said : " If tho Bible and religion
stood in the way of woman's rights, then tho Bible
and religion must go. Tho Biblo forbade a woman
to speak, and that being so, tho Bible must stand
on one side, for we aro going to speak." Hero the
trumpet gives no nncertain sound ! These, and
other repudiators of Christianity, are consistent
AYoman Suffrage advocates.

Purpose of Wo7nan's Formation,

We might expect to find a perfect analogy between
God's will revealed in Scripture, and manifested iu
the physical, mental, and moral structure of His
creatures. If the Bible distinctly declares man's
buprem.acy, and emphatically repudiates those

Does tli\

principles
and self-sufi
for Womanl
we have a pi
Scripture, a
time to Etei|
the first woi
factorily ans
an insoluble!
tions on AVo
i'li'iancipatio
iifl'orded m(
this comph
ravelling tl
(Juixotic, w
rcdrcsser of
special pleac
Gordian knc
"fad" of w
is impossible
and written
sighing for t
Amid the cL
^ eolation to \
' all sinfijlenes
i Word, the
The accoun
removes our
- Firstly, cc
behever's op
ithe Authore

-««|B

Does the Bible Sanction Woman Snjfra^e t 1 ''\

jii'iiiciplcH of sexual ocpiality, foiimlo autonomy,
utid Holf-aullicicncy, underlying the preaent a<^itati()n
for Woman's Suffrage, and other alleged ** rights,'*
wc have a powerful additional motive for reverencinf]^
Scripture, and acknowledging it as a guide through
time to Eternity, Why, how, and to what end was
the first woman formed ? If this (piestion bo satis-
factorily answered, woman's mission will not remain
^n insoluble problem. I have hoard many declama-
tions on Woman's Rights, Sexual Equality, Female
I'li'iancipation, Woman Suffrage, etc. None ever
iifl'orded me clear and comprehensive answers to
this complex question. Instead of patiently un-
ravelling tho tangled skein, each impetuous.
Quixotic, would-be regenerator of society, and
redi'csscr of women's wrongs, in the true spirit of
special pleading, proceeded summarily to cut tho
(lordian knot, according to his or her favourite
"fad" of what woman's position ought to bo. It
is impossible to hear and read the nonsense talked
und 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 sucli an oracle. Turn with
iill singleness of heart to the repository of God's
Word, the treasury of wisdom and knowledge.
The account of woman's formation in Genesis
removes our doubts.

Firstly, contrast with rejecters of the Bible, a
behever's opinion. The following exposition is by
the Authoress of "Pre- Adamite Man." After

Wofnan Snff^ragc IVrontr,

(loscribing Adam's flolitary condition, alio observe
that God provided liitn tho companion ho craved
*'This, howovor, was not donoatonco. (lod, whos
wisdom fjfOVornH all Ilia acts, choso hero also i
teach His new-born son His divino sovereignty
and, thcroforo, ordered that tho result should bo tli
fruit of what, with duo roveronuo, and in a sons-
consistent with tho perfection of His attril)utes, w
may call an experiment made by Himself in
lower field."

She describes tho creation of tho lower animals a
intended to make trial whether there might no
be ono or more whose presence and companionsliij
should prove the help-meet needed.

"No other interpretation can bo given of tlit
Divino proceedings hero described (Gen. ii., 18)
* And tho Lord God said, It is not good for man t
be alone. I will make him an help-meet for him
And' — the result follows (verso 10) — * out of tliJ
ground, the Lord God formed every beast of tli
field, and every fowl of tho air, and brought tliei:
unto Adam, to sou what ho would call them,' etc.

This argument is very much strengthened by tb;
peculiar expression of the text, " to see what li i
would call them." Had the object of bringing tli
animals to Adam, been merely that he might turn
them, the word hear would have been far more ap-
])ropriate than the word see. The latter ver
certainly implies an ulterior purpose beyond tbe*
mere naming of the different creatures ; the oppor-
tunity thus afforded Adam to select from amon:
them the required " help-meet." " The main rcsul:,

Does

was not
wns not
noci'ssity
creation,
woman <
formed.
Adam, b
(verso til
extent, oj
condition
identity,
stances.*
like Ada I
empire; {
never fel
perience
tor the s
known. ^
by the C
on daylig
rounded I
life had
husband g
Adam Go(

* " Kxtro
of man's am
the (lust of t
dominion of
Him from w
is taken and
bumau wit b
this great uiai
of Life," Lee

Docs the Bible Saiuiion Woman SuJ/rngc ^ 15

tlic'i:

etc'

)y tht

ijr the

[•e ap-
ver
ll tbe»
ppor-

was not lon^ (l()iil)lfnl (verso -0), ' For Adam thoro
wns not fuinul an iKlp-incot tor hitn.' Ilonco the
necessity of a still further oxporinioiit in Evo's
cMvatlon. Hut hero in a very special inannor, tho
woman drew hoi* brin^ frotu what had boon already
formed. She was not modclNMl fi'oui tho dust, like
Adam, but derived her body and life from him
(verse 21). Hut thoujifh woman was thus, to somo
extent, one with man, there was a distinctness in tho
condition of her creation, that marked her present
identity, and shadowed forth Ww future circum-
stances.* Her introduction to the world was not
like Adam's, amid tho ru;^^i'd ruins of an ancient
empire; she was not disciplined like him; she had
!icver felt his need, nor, like him, learned by ex-
perience to de[)end directly op God's affluent hand,
tor tho supply of every want as soon as it was
known. Sho had not seen Kdeii planted, or peopled
by tho Creator for her ; but Eve opened hor eyes
on daylifjfht, among tho bowers of Paradise, sur-
rounded by tho blessings which each day of Adam*s
lifo had hitherto been accumulating. la her
husband sho saw hor stay and defence, and while to
Adam God's first grand lesson was to rely directly

* " Extremely signiOcant nlso is tlie diUVreuoo in tho accounts
of man's and of woman's mntorial forniution. Man is formed of
tlio dust of the earth, and thereioro shortly after invested with the
dominion of the whole earthly globe as deputy and vicegerent of
lliin from whom oometh all lordship and autliority. 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 great uiarvcl of creative omnipotence?" (Schlegel,** Philosophy
of Life,*' Lecture IV.).

MiCr

lVo7nnn Sii/jfrage Wronf^.

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,
feaeher, provider, and husband.'*

Not much 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, why, 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 amorg the lower animals had been
tried without success, though not in vain, since by
previous disappointment and experience of his
solitary state, Adcm 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 Eqiality)
will say that the being thus made q/*, and /or, 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 anatv^my, physiology, and human

Does

exporicMic
LMjUiility.
from man
liersclf; t
slave; bu<
;iii(l siipp
Sir Wi
'uado of,
comfoi'ter
Another a
God — for ]
towards Ji
a iter the 1
great an c
}sntnro fas
man stooc
issued froi
iSucceeded,
iinade after
lafter an ea:
liud only a
^eft to be d

Creator's ii
|)oth, ' He i

{"^voman is tl:
lusion fore
liid to all I
pom the D
i'ith him."*

\ * " Woman,

Docs flic Bible SaJicfioi JWujiaii Suffrage. f' 1

e\'[)oricMice, and are utterly opposed to sexual
LM[uality. Woman was formed not to live apai't
iroin man; not to enjoy life by herself, and for
lioi'self; to be not man's rival, ruler, servant, or
slave; but liis intimate companion, cojnfort, solace,
and su[)[)ort — in short, his " help-meet."

Sir Walter Raleigh observes : — '* Woman was
'iiado of, and for, the man, expressly given for a
comforter, a com])anion, not for a counsellor."
Another author writes : — " Man, made entirely by
God — for no creature of a similar nature contributed
towards IlIs 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.
Xatnre fashioned him in a strife of grandeur, and
man stood forth the last coDiplete creation that
issued from God's hand. Whereas woman who
succeeded, was not so properly created^ ns formed ;
made after man, taken out of his substance, fashioned
after an earthly pattern, and thus but man's imago,
aud only a copy of a copy. But this question is not
>cft 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
^voman is the glory of the man.' Thus, then, the con-
clusion forced on the mind is irresistible, putting an
jeud to all cavil; he draws his irradiation directly
from the Deity — she only by reflex communication
S\'ith him."*=

* " Woman, as she is, and as she should be," Vol. ii.. Chap.

ll'o))ia)i Suffrage Wrong.

Does I

Sexual Equal if fj Bisprnved hj 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 wishc:! to
destroy num by causing liim to disobey his Creator.
The connnand to refrain fi'om the tree of knowled*^! ,
was given to Adam, before Eve's formation. ^'i
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 acti: g thus, the wily tempter
addressed Eve, well knowing that her nientnl
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 discernmeDt,
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 soicness 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 f
of danger, guide to ruin."* "What meanb," writes

* Hunter, " Sacred Biography," Vol. i., p. 20.

Sir Waltei

instrument

fittest to vv

vanity of t

(!is()l)edien(

most unfit

has ever si

The tern

to her infli

<('einnr that

ti'iiiptation.

1)1' lore his ]\

unto the v

(iod's sentei

to thy husbi

iii., IG). F

wei'o addres

even if their

«n"' wijjy ap]

f'>' ■ 1 I'e =?pin

?liid\- c rswers

l^aily remein

i'y God, * tlr

this coalman

■I'Ve, by her

i sterity."f

f> 'Straction.

|\in greatly

<!<^'ption ; in g

* Victoria Mo
t Mrs. King,

Does the Bible Sanction Woman Suffrage f V.>

Sir Walter I^nloiu^li, *' did tlio devil find out, or what
instriiinetit did his own sal)tlcty |)resL'nt him, as
fittest to woi'k his subtlety by ? Kveii the unquiet
vanity of the woman. What was the motive ofher
(!is()l)edience? Kven a desire to know what was
most unfittinix her knowledofe: — an affection which
has ever since remained in all her sex's posterity."
The tempter beguiled the weaker being, trustino-
to lier influence over her husband, probably fore-
seeing that Adam wm:)u1(1 not have yielded to -direct
t('iii[)tation. Man was for the first time rebuked
before his Maker, because he had unwisely hearkened
unto the voice of his wife. AVliile unto woman,
(rod's sentence is distinct : *' And thy desire shall be
to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen.
iii., IG). Female logic contends that these words
were addressed to the offending Eve alone, and that,
even if tlieir application could be made general, they
ai" ,i:!y appro[)riate to tvives, and thei'efore cannot
ey lie spinsters and widows from political life.* A
Jady c ' swors a lady thus: " Finally, let a woman
daily remember the important command pronounced
|)y God, 'tlr husband shall rule over thee,' and that
jhis command was a part ot that judgment which
l^ve, by her transgression, entailed on all her female
i sterity."t The text will not bear any other
v^ 'Straction. "And unto the woman he said, I
Ivill greatly multiply thy sorrow ::nd thy con-
Joption ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children,

* Victoria Magazine, March, 1871, p. 444.
I t -^Ii's. King, '* Female Scripture Characters," Eleventh Edition.

I if

WoDiaii Sitf/'rai^c Wrojii^.

and tliy desire shall be to tliy liusband, and lie shall
rule over thee" (Gen. iii., lO). The husband shall
continiu^ to rule over the wife, so lonpf as women
briui'' forth children in sorrow. The Divine com-
mand of conjugal obedience was given, not to tlic
offending li]ve alone, but prosjjectively to all wives.
So much for the ingenious attempt to elevate women
by rel 'ising them from their conjugal allegiance to
their lui ,ds !

The latier argument, that married women only
are to be subject to their husbands, but that simple
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 privilege;
than matrons, would be an inducement to women tn
remain celibate, and places marriage under a stigma,
Such a system would tend to destroy marriage, ai
subvert society.

THE

From Genes
entirely aga
Woman Sui
tlie woman
suffer not a
over the ma
first formed
but the wO]

gression

submit your
I Lord. For
even as Chr
as the Chu
wives be t(
Husbands, I
love his wi:
that she re\
24, 25, 33)
[attempt to i

sluill
shall

OIIUMI

coni-
j till'
vivos,

OUUMl
ICC to

only
5iiiL(le
ower,
irrii'd
iiiiied,
ilege<
10 u to
("•ma,
, 111 111

CHAPTER III.

THE BIBLE OrrORED TO WOMAN SUFFT?AOE.

Teaits Against Sexual Equality.

From Genesis to Revelation, tlie spirit of the Bible is
entirely against claims based on Sexual Equality. Let
Wotnan 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.
I Husbands, love your wives. Let every one of you so
I love his wife, even as himself; and the wife see
that she reverence her husband" (Eph. v., 22, 23,
24, 25, 33). Will any Christian man or woman
I attempt to reconcile these texts with permitting a

U^ODKDi Sii/fnjiTc Wroug.

wife to vote ni^alnst licr liiisband, to bcanl liini at
the hiistiiii^'.s, aiul to bo canvassed for lier vote l)y a
inalo clectionooring agent, in Ium- liiisbaiid's absence?

Hero are some more texts diametrically oi)|){)S((l
to Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage: " Let
your women kee[) silence in the cliurcbes, for it is
not permitted unto tliem to spenk; but tliey ai'c
commanded to be under obedience, as also saitli tlic
law. And if tliey will learn any tiling, let tliem ask
their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women
to speak in the church " (1 Cor. xiv., 34, 35).
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 bu
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. 1'his
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, be
would advocate female emancipation ! I think be
would not ! I cannot imagine the great Apostle

The Bihlc Opposed to Womiiu Siiffraire, *J:i

sittini^ at tlio f(.'ot of platfoi'iu ladies. Sii(!li plain
t(.'Xts show tlio spii'it; of St. Paul's toacliiiiL;' plainly
oppoHccl to all claims (IcvclopcMl from S(».\iial
equality, and e.S[)ecially to Woman Suffra'^c*.
Advocates of such claims com[)lain of what they
call the law of servitude in marriage. Accordim^
to Gen. iii., IG, and the whole tenor of Scripture
teaching, the wife ])romises to love, clu'rish, and
chey her luishand. TFow can any man or woman,
vho has been married according to the Church
service, consistently advocate ]3erfect equality in
Avedlock? Is this solemn [iromiso to bo ignored or
repudiated at will ? Yet Woman Suffrage advociites
profess to elevate woman ! How ? By teaching
lier to cancel her marriage-vow ! If she may break
that vow at pleasure in one particular, why not
altoo'cther ? Abroi>'at(» the oblio-atiou to obedience.
and there remains none to fuldUy !

Woman Suffrage advocates teach : *' There
should be perfect equality in the married state."
St. Paul saj's 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 tl 3 other ; or else he will
bold 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

*«?;

IVoniaii Sn/frnirc JJ'roig.

divided autliorif.y ? Cliildrcn and sorvants would
do ns tlicy liked, and [)oov pa ferj'tini i I i(ts would soon
1)0 ill tlio (iazrtte. A lady writor obscrvos : '* Lcl,
any man try a democracy in liis own family for oiio
week ; and unless ho is surrounded by anj^els,
instead of relatives and doniostics, I predict lio will
soon be weary of it. 'J'lio democratic spirit has
huiried many a ])art'nt 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 !

Conju<yal obedienco is a pleasure as well as a
duty. Every true woman likes to obey her husband
in all things lawful. AVomcn despise a hen-pecked
husband, a3 much as men despise a virago. Give
the wife a political vote — place her as far ?,z 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. Ko rationjd
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 Opposcil to W'omiui Siiffrni^c

I'lilo ; that an iiun-t and passive olx^dicnco doos not
satisfy a woman ; tliat her lovo dictitfcH activ(»
()I)CMlionco — to oboy by antici[)!ition, by divining the
uiuittcMvd wish, and never to hesitate, save where
ohedience mii^lit peril tlie safety of the loved
person." This hidy suppoi'ts the Bil)le view of
marriage, and exhil)its j^n-eater knowledge of her
SOX than all the platform liidies in the world. Xo
wonder ! They fight for themselves first, and sex
afterwards. This, undoubtedly the eharacter of the
true normal womanly woman, is indignantly and
scornfully repudijitod by those, her direct anti-
podes, who claim the suffrage for themselves {is
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 ho 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 wonum of
the man. Neither was the man created for the
woman; but the woman for the man '"* (1 Cor. xi.,
3, 7, 8, 9). Here the Apontlo 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.

.0*-.

)

2r»

IVonitvi Sii/rr<ii^c W^'oiig.

In nuy wny, either lit(M*ally or ull<»j]foriofilly, to
woMiJin's l'oi'in;ili()Ji, it is <M|iially fjital to tliM lunv
(locli'ino. Tlioso who try to rocoticih) soxiiii
(Mjti.'ihty with Scripture, ar(3 coinpdhMl to taivc
rofii«;o in the url)itrary ex{)hin.'ition of tho Mystic
S\ve(lonbor«j^. Accordiiiij^ to this, tho chapter docs
not treat of woman's foi'niation at all. lie dofincs
*'a he][)-nieet for man" as ** tho proprium! "

" Likewise, yo wives, bo in subjection to your own
hiisl)antls; that, if any ol)ey not tho word, they nmy
also, without the woi'd, bo won by tho couvorsatiori
of tho wives; while they behold your chasto coii-
veisation coupled witli fear. Whoso adoiMiinuf, \vt
it be the ornament of a meek and ([uiet spirit, which
is in the siu;ht of (lod of <;'reat pi'ice. Likewise, yo
husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge,
giviui;* honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker
vessel" (I Peter iii., 1, '2, 8, 4, 7). Hero wives
are distinctly told to endeavour to win their hus-
bands, who may bo indifferent to relii^ion — by what
means ? By asserting equality, by d( manding
rights, tho privileges of both sexes ? Nothing of
the kind; but by subjection, by chaste conversation
cou[)led with fear, by the ornament of a meek and
quiet spirit — by conduct entirely opposed to tho
AVoman's Rights 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 Hi hie Opposvii lo W'onuui S/tJ/'nigc. 27

iiii(! toiK^hirjjf |)i(^turo of womanly ^tMitlciioss iitul
sul) uinsion ; of what a wil'o should l)o. St. Vv\ov
was niart'itul ; possibly, probably Im drow that piciiii'o
from tlic lil'(».

iJy iio sti't'lch of iinaij^i nation cati wo concoivo St.
iV'Uir (if now in this world) ap[)i'ovin^ of fiMiialo
pi.ilforin a;;itatoi's clairnin^^ man's ri<j;hts in addition
to thoir own ! Would tho wil'o convoi't a scoptical
or wofldly husband, to bo a hearer of tho word?
Let lior be a doer of that word. IJy her example,
may she liope to convert her ffee-thinkiiiL!;' husband.
Let her life be a practieal sermon. Her (Jhristianity
will appear in her docility, in that j^rand teatui'o of
humility which, before tho Gospel had enliijfhtened
the world, was never accounted a vii'tuo ! Indi-
vidual self-assertion is the characterislio feature i^i"
the present inuttitoi agitation for AVoman Suffra^'o;
a direct abandontnent and ronuncialion of tho
Christian virtues of humility, modesty, chai'ity,
self-sacrifice, obedience, and, generally, all that
makes women amiable. The wife led astray by
AVoman Suffrage advocates, to clamour for (ho
"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!

FreefhinJcing Advocates of Woman Suffrage.

It is impossible for anyone who respects Uevela-
tion to ignore, repudiate, or twist these texts into a
support of Sexual Equality and Woman Suffrage.

<-i.L

¥ J

'Woman Sn/frajrr W^roiii*,

This is Htill moro appiiroiit from the fact that ho
!nnny avowctl Dcistn ami AtluMsts advooato soxiial
iMpiality, etc. Siicli pci'soiis aro (|iilto consistent, ami
Rct ati cxiitnpU) of candour ami liotKvsty to \Vom;in
Siifl'i'Mi^'o a<lvocat(VS profossin'jf Oliristianity. Phm).
tliinivci's SCO cloarly ami admit IVaidvly that the Old
Tu8tamcnt and N^ow Tostamofit arc totally opposed to
Sexual Mipiality; tiiat tlu Riblo distinctly (l(»claros
!nan'ssupi'('tniicy,andcullshimth(^ hoadof tho woman.
Krcothinki'i's do not Ium'o pi'ovaricate, comijromisc,
nor tamper with the plain, obvious meaninL; of Scrip-
ture. Atlo[)tin<^ Sexual I0([uality, tliey conseipionlly
ijijnoro and ref)udiato the Bible, and believe that
somethint^ they call '* prou^ress " will enable the' ' to
** elevate" woniaji in direct delianco of Chi-istian r
relii^ion, natural or revealed ! They will not succeed,
because (as will bo shown) Revelation and Natu»'e
unite in declarint^ that the weaker must obey, and
acce[)t y)rotoction from the stron^^er sex.

I have heard Mrs. Law inveigh strongly against
**l*aur' (as she called the great Apostle to the
Gentiles) for those very texts. And it is to her
credit (as com[)are(l with professedly Christian
advocates of sexual equality) that she did not
tamper with the plain meaning of Scripture. She
made no atteinpt 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 thorn

The Ih'h/c 0/>/>t>S('i/ /() ll'oniiin Sul/hii^e, lM>

iliiiinetrically oppo.sod to Hoxual iM{utility ; and tliat
w()iimii*rt oiimncipatioTi involves reniniciatioii of
( 'lii'istiaiiify.

Ui'V. Mr. Dunbar obscrvoa : ** A lai%a> portion of
W'oMiaji's Kiirlit.s advocates laiij^di at tiio story of
Adam ami Vtwo. An (Midncnt, Lntlicran divine JK'LCan
iiis sermon, *St. I'aid says so-and-so, and / partly
ai;reo witli luin.' IMany promoters of tiio now move-
ment «^o lurtlier. 'I'lioy entirely disa^^reo with SS.
Teter and Paul as rej^ai'tls woman's true position,
hut tlu'y lorj^et that as tlie hlessed Ajiostlos wuro
inspired, it is not with tiieai, hut willi lliui who
inspired them that they disagree. 'The thiu^;' formed
is in qneruhMis accents saying- to Mini who loruicMl it
(her) : * Why hast I'hou luade me thus?' The real
L;i'ievanco ol" many Woman's Ui^lits advocates is,
not that they have not their rit^hts as women, hut
tluit they are women at all ! 'I'hey thiidv it une(pnil
on the part of Providence that they shoidd not hive
been men, with all .1 num's advantages. They do
not wish to be women. The Holy Scriptures are in
their tone and spirit strongly antagonistic to tho
movement, but unfortunately in England, every man
is his own ro[)e,and though holding most of the Bible,
many repudiate parts of it, including SS. i*eter's
and Paul's views on woumn's tiuties and position.
This, too, while tenaciously holding to the rest. An
eld(4'ly lady, on hearing her favourite theory over-
thrown by an appeal to Si. Paul, replied, * Ah, yes ;
that's where I and Paul differ.' AVitli such persons,
of course, argument from a religious point of view

€i\

?«

«■

IVoma t Suffrai^'c Wrong,

is out of tlie question, but I ask those wlio have not
yet given up tlie 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 Knglish grammar, tlieir 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 Rights movement, then all I
can say is, it would be idle to argrr> 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 mau 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 Swedenborgian Lady on Sexual Equcdity.

In 1872 appeared " Signs of the Times," an
abridgment of Swedenboror's twelve volumes
(Arcana Coilestia), with a very original "Dedi-
cation," and an "Address to Chrsti^ns." The
authoress, a member of the Victoria Discussion
Society, and a st ong advocate of sexual equality,

* Victoria Magazine, Jan., 1872.

The Bible Opposed to Woman Sii/fraf[C. ^1

forwarded me a printed pamphlet of the " Dedica-
tion " as intended to be, in which she observes :
"It is scarcely worth while noticing snch ari2:um(^nts
as those by Mr. McGri;^or Allan, for as soon as the
Pfible 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 mi!>," etc. She gives a synopsis of
tlie account of Eve's formation f»\ora " Pre-Ada»Tiile
j\[an," and adds : " On seeing: such erroiieoiis ideas
set forth by a lady, we need not be surprised to see
this gentleman %ncy 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 lorongi'^ After acknowledg-
ing a letter from the Bishop's chaplain (Rev. Mr.
Siindford), 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 Cor. xi., 7). Scott
says : * The woman was not originally created
separately, but taken out of man, as part of him,

:?2

Woman Suffrage ]\'ro)ig.

yet hi fori or to lilm; neither was mau created for
woman's advantage, but woman was created for
man's advjintage.' And Rev. Dr. Anderson, of
Newburgli, Fifesliire, says: ' Tlie words ^' very good''
are a|)]ilica])lc only to man.' And I say tliat in this
respect Paul, Scott, and Anderson are wrong, and
it is evident that none of them understand tlie story
of creation. If they were not selfishly blind, they
Avould see in the account given in the first chapter
of the Bible, that God created man, male and female,
ill His own image,'' etc.

Accordinof to this female loG:ic, all who differ
from her interpretation of the account of creation
in Genesis, are "selfishly blind." She adds: "I
have not anywhere met a clergyman who would
ndmit woman man's equal, except Rev. Dr. Tafel, of
tlie New (^hurch," 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 if
this, they will not admit of errors in the opinions

they ho
to upho
bility.'

This (
wcill fro
"Paul,"
Temple,
Tafel,
comj)lim(
the "fu
Such effi
From thi
to re mail
and IJis .
ing Sexii
all who c
" There
educated,
superior,
tlie quest
proof ! ^
St. Paul'
"Paul."
even Atl:
and while
accepts e
she alwa

giving hi)

book, his
the great
martyr \v

Tlic Bible Opposed to lipoma )i Sii/frno-c. o)J

tlioy hold, but, like tho Popo, tlioy siro dotonniiKMl
to iipliold by one menns or other, thoir own iufidli-
bih'ty."

This denunciation of inf;dlibility in others, coinos
well from an anonymous writer, who declai-es
" Paul," the clergy without exception, Bishop
Temple, and all who differ from Svvedenbor<^, Dr.
Tiifel, Jind herself, quite wrong ! I take it as a
compliment to be cLissed with those who hold
tho "fundamental error" of sexual non-equality.
Such effusions hel}) 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 IJis 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 aii < qual to, if not
superior, to those of man." The old story, begging
the question — assertion, without a single attc mpt 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 Chi^stianity,
and while declaring " Paul " and the clergy wrong,
accepts every word written by Swedenborg. Of him
she always writes respectfullj^ 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

■4 "

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

refuses even tlio attribute of *' Holy," prefixed to
Lis name by Christians for more than eighteen
centuries. Why is she so bitter against the
Apostle? For this obvious reason. He distinctly
dcchires the sexes not equah 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 publishe'^, a
synopsis of Swedenborg, in v/hich she undertakes to
instruct learned divines ; ana to show her fitness for
her self-nppointed 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 ^^ oman Suffrage. At least,
she disapproves of female M.P.'s in this strange
phrase : " The woman who ^^earns for a seat in the
Houses of Parliament (.^/V^) may nsk herself this
question : What /.^ the motive that prompts 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 IVonian Suffrage. -J-j

Houses of Parliament. How it is possible for lior
to perform the extraordinary and seemingly super-
human feat, of oceupying 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 lioctrine 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 Svveden-
borg to St. Paul the best methods of '*insr;ructing
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
th^ 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." Tiiey
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,

."»«*

m^'

<■**?'

IVomnii Siiflyai^c U^rong.

if tljey thought it supported their views. A Biblo
text against their opinions renders tliern very un-
comfortable. These Women Suffrage advocates
play at controversy like children. They firstly
challenge to debate, and make great pretensions to
impai'tiality 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 they can mani-
pulate, misinterpret, twist, and distort texts to sup-
port Sexual Equality — a doctrine flatly conden-^ncd
in Scripture. Thus they either ignorantly, or deli-
berately, treat the Bible far worse than avowed
infidels, who openl}^ reject it, for the very reasou
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-
pjomise, 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
thera are i;pso facto wrong ; that every text against
Sexual Equality can, and must be, explained away ;

TIic lUblc Opposed to Woman SKjfriige. 'M

but as tliis process nii^'lit not succood, thoy, with
triio worldly wisdom, concliido that tho host wuy to
advanco AVoinan Siiffrago is (|uietly to sholvo Scrip-
ture ! 'riiey would like to be able to say of the
Bible: **0h, no, we never mention it; its name is
never lieai'd." They will not thaidv the im[)ulsive
compiler of *' Signs of the Times " for throwing
down the gauntlet to " Paul," Bishop Tem[)le, and
the Clergy. When possible. Woman Suffrage advo-
cates avoid all allusions to Scriptural texts, and
when forced to notice such, tam[)er with, distort,
and coolly deny thei/ 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 indication 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

,>t|lSltt>l

(«

4(^

Womaft Sn/frdifc IVrons^.

tlieso singular Christiana, and tlioso Sexual Equality
advocates who openly reject the Hible, like Mrs.
Law, Mrs. Besant, and others? rnfidelity is prefer-
able to hypocrisy. The open rejection of the liible,
Christianity, and God, by advanced Woman Suffrage
advocates, is useful to warn those who really think
a revolution of woman's si)here 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 '^rthodox 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 Bihlc Opposed to Woman Snfj''rng;c. ^^0

in spito of tlieso texts which yoa are morally and
lo<;icully bound to cx[)hiin. Your Christian faith
obli<jj('H you to faoo tlioso toxts. Yet you arc unoMsy
when thoy ai'o (juotod, and, dohuUjd by your self-
constituted leaders, object to the Bible being
dragged into the controversy. If you wvv) not
completely deluded and deceived, you would detect
this artifice Jind reject it with scorn and contempt.
What ! Your leaders dare to tell you to lay asido
your Bible, the book which you accept as your rulo
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 ap[)eal, the test, the touch-stone of
those new opinions, so glibly trumpeted forth from
the [)latform ; and your " guide, philosopher, jind
friend " tries to dissuade you from consulting your
Bible ! You are shocked at those " advanced "
Woman Suffi'age 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, ^'^ 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

h.J )

•*•« w

Woman Siijfrairc liyoiig.

K(|imlit.y? You can hardly say 80, wlioii Atlioista
mid Deists, AVoiiian SulTrago advocates continually
(|uoto HUc'li texts to provo tiio IJiblo does ()[)|)()80
Sexual l'](|ualily. Ilerneniber that you have not even
attempted to prove the Bible lavourin^" the " rights ''
you demand. Between our respective positions, is
this important distinction : I incite — you avoid and
deprecate discussion oF this ci'ucial qiu^stion. I,
denyiuL^ Sexual Kcpudity, treat you as ratioiuil
beings — a[)peal to your reason to decide. Your
platform leaders, deelarinj^ women ecpud and
superior to men, actually insult your understand-
ings ])y persuading you not to bring the Bible into
the conti'oversy I

Imitate the Jiereans : search tlie 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 sodal revolution now inaugu-

The Bible Opposed to Wo man SuJ/'ntgc. 11

ratt'd, I ask all profcssiiit^ (Mii'istiiitis to coiisldor
jukI rt»|»ly to tlicso Ic^ntiimito and wciglity oUjcc-
tions ; to tako up, oiio by uiio, tlioso texts which i
havo conscientiously quoted, and to Hhovv, if possi-
l)le, that they nanction Sexii.d Mtpuilily and Woman
SulTrage. If ycu cannot, will not, chiro not do this,
thon, while [)ursuin^ tiie will-o'-the-wisp — Sexual
K(piality — you have already lost your Christian
liberty, i repeat that Sexual Equality and Woman
SufTrai^e advocates must come, sooner t>" later, lo
secret or avowed infidelity. It is but a (piestion of
time. Meanwhile, 1 re[)eat my own heartfelt con-
viction, the result of matured thoug'ht, that Ihe
Bible is oi)poscd to Wuiiian Sul/'ntje,*

* yinco writing this, I liav(^ road " Woman : Ilcr Mission and
lier Life. Two Discourses," by Kev. Ailolitlio Alonod, dcliverod
lit Paris, February, 1848. Tliou^li well awaro that orthodox
divines support my opinions, 1 was struck with tlie remarkahlo
unanimity between his views and mine. To give a summary or
extracts would too much lengthen my work. Readers are referred
to the original pamphlet, translated from the third edition, by Kev.
VV. G. liarrett. Hall, Virtue, and Co., 25, I'ateruostur liow.

,«««

CIIArTER IV.

NATUill'l Ol'l'OSED TO SEXUAL EQUALITY.

A just biolo^'icnl i>liilos(>j)liy \r boginning to «liscrf(Ht tlioao
cliiiiu'ricnl rovolutionnry dcclimintions on tlio protciKlcd ('(|imlity of
tlie sexes, Ity directly (lenioiist rating', citlior by iiiiut(»niieid iiivcKtiga-
tion, or by jiliilosophiciil oliserviitioii, tbo nidicnl dilVeronces, both
|ibysiciil niid Tiioral, whiob in all aninuvl Npoeies, and tb(? human ract^
more especially, ho distinctly demarcnto them, notvvithstuiuling tho
prcponderunco of tho specific typo.

O. H. Lewih.

TiiMHR is no pica for Woman Suffraf^o as a
principle, except on the hypothesis of Sexual
E(piality. Once admit woman, not man's equal,
but by the Creator's eternal fiat (declared in Revela-
tion and manifested in Nature) compelled to occupy
a subordinate s})here, 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 Opposcii to Sexual Equality,

pRycholo^ical (listiiictiona of thoscxos I liavo treated
fully olsewliero.* Here, thesuhjoct must bo treated
more Huturiiarily. It i ', indeed, difliciilt to refute
ar^iiincnts for Sexual M([uality, since tione such
exist. That l<yp()th(>sis is a-'vaya assuined l)y Wotiuin
SulTra^e advocates. They wisely take for <,'rantod
what luwor has been, and never can be?, proved.

Wo all perceive that woman is not man's ecpial.
She is, on the avera<iro, s. nailer and weaker. This is
so jronei'ally admitted, that amoiiL^her acknowledi^ed
rights, woman is entitled to man's t'orl)(»aranoo,
courtesy, chivalry, and protection. L'ancy a man
offering forbearance and protection to his ecpial !
Can any idea be more absurd ? Tie who should
really ti'eat a woman as his equal, atid conduct
himself towards her, in every resp(>ct, as to a
fellow-man, would bo a churl an<l a bi'uto. And the
first to condemn him would bo the logical lady who
continually casts Sexual Equality in our tooth. But
consistency is not part of the platform propai^anda.
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 Tobiu's " Honeymoon " —

" The man who lays his hand upon a woman,
Have in the way of kiiulnoss, is a wretch,
Whom 't were gross flattery to name a coward! "

* " On the Real Differences in the Minds of Men and Women,'*
Anthropoloijical Journal, October, 18GU.

»,.. '

ii«« ^

4-i

]Vo))iaii Suffrage Wrong.

Do our platform ladies ontlorso this scntituont ?
If tliey do, tlioy logically refute their fuuda mental
claim in their programme — Sexual E(juality ! In
shape, organisation, function, woman differs so pro-
foundly from man, that we do not expect from lier
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. F. 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 Fuseli.
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 dissemble your love ;
But why did you hiss me, my dears ? "

• He paid them a very high compliment in taking

fchem at their word, reducing to practice the theory

* Victoria Magazine, August, 1870, p. 346.

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality.. 45

of Sexual Equality ; speakiug to woiuon as candidly
as to men. The result showed the " stroMg-minded"
ones could not tolerate their own pet Sexual Equality
hypothesis reduced to practice. ** Loud disapprol)a-
tion " mig'lit have been excusable had Mr. Jolinstono
said the men ought to chain up all the women in
cellars. This he disclaimed. He only said men had
tlie muscular power to do so. Is it not true ? Had
he gone still further, and stated tliat men, if they
chose to combine for such an execrai)le 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

Woman Su If rage Wrong.

between tlie 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 tc
be a little moro 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. 47

What is raofint by Woman's Rights? To givo
woman exactly mau's privileges — neither mere nor
loss ? 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 advocaies
virtually propose thoroughly to ignore, and prac-
tically to abolish sex, as a trivial distinction. There
is a limit to reform in this direction. Tliey 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. Female emancipation is,
tbeu, a mere ignis fat\vr^, 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 our
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.

,.«:i»*'-

'^'isfiist:

•«

€'^

)

»*5*'*'"

Wo)nnii Su If rage lVro)ig.

Tlio platform lady conceives nil her class thorouj^hly
self-capable, and conseqnonlly regards man, not as
friend and protector, but as enemy and rival. She
condemns our political and social system, and
declares tlie nation will never prosper until women
liavo 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 tlieir 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 fup;leman of what she wants her sex to
bo 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 which 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, 41)

chcnsli, and obey." Apparently this is not the
type preferred by men. From whatever cause,
Miss Amazon is like the virgin Queen, thus flattered
by Shakspere : —

" And the inii)crinl votaress passcil on,
In maiden meditation, fancy-frco."

The masculine woman does not influence, but repels ;
tlie womanly woman attracts man. The solemn
pi'oraise 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 ii mental
strength is tested by personal influence, so-called
weak-minded women possess far more real motlier
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

«»!tl

Woj/ian Suffrage Wrong,

could be a woman so false as slie wlio ^ives the lie
to nature, by trying to pervert lierstlt' into a man !
Tlio Amnzon's idea of exerting influence over man,
is to cliallengo him to mortal cond^at, and then to
plead her sex to shield her from the effects of her
impudence. "Come on, IMan!" cries the woman
warrior. '* There lies my gauntlet ; who's afraid ?
But, stay, you must have one hand 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 ad . antages 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 rcgenerato and rohabilitato lior " iinfortii-
ujito, down-troddon sisters," as she miscalls the
fi't'ost, lia[)[)iost women in the world. Curious illus-
ti'iition of consistency and stron<^-inindednos3, th.ifc
her grand aim in all she says and d >os, is to bocomo
as nian-liko in thought, word, action, looks, dress,
and deportment as possible ! But she is a failure.
The jackdaw in borrowed plumes was immediately
(k'tected by the peacocks. Miss Amazon cannot
altogether become a man. Sex is sex, and even a
nuisculine woman is but a sorry caricature of man.
rnwonuinly she is, but the assumption of the to(ja
vuilis does not convey manly qualities. The
Amazon is still hampered by her sex. She cannot
tvade the Almighty fiat which made her a woman ;
she cannot quite unsex herself; she must accept
the consequences of being born of the feminine
uender. She has a woman's form and face, thouGfh
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.
Xature 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

WonKHi Suffrage Wrong.

Amazon'^ appearance is forlorn. As a sample of
Sexual Kfjuality, female emancipation and womanly
autonomy, she is a faihu'o. The world ways she
has blundered. IMiss Anuizon retorts upon the
world that charge with compound interest.
*• Society is wrong ; anybody and everybody is
wrong, except myself," says Miss Amazo!!. Moral
obli(piity hinders the clear mental perception necea-
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 ho 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 somo
form, individually or colLoiively, 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. '^3

noss."* Yet so )\v^\\ ia tho intoj^rity of tlio British
jud^^o, lluit a hint tliafc lu* coiikl ho hrihcMl, would
pi'ovoko mii'tli, nithor than iiidii^iiation.

If in caso or afniionco, Miss Amazon's t'ortuno lias
hocn accuniuhitod hy tnan's industry, and socurod to
her hy man's provident and lovinf^ foresight. She
shouUl reflect that slio had two parents, a fatlier as
well as a mother. Miss Amazon is [)rotecte(l in life,
property, lionour, and lihcrty, by British soldiers,
sailors, marines, coastL^uards, militia, volunteers,
yeomanry, police, fire brigade, etc. — all men ! She
may employ men servants, whom she could not
properly rephice by female domestics. All these
services, and many more, connected with procuring
daily necessaries and luxuries, arc performed by
merii 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 thouglit 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 looman presides morally, and
actually, as Qtteen. " 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.

lift ill.-, w

«tf

*'%

Woman SnlTriii^c Wrong.

arc matoniity and rcarinf^ rliiMrcu; sho tliiiR fulfils
duties appc)iut(>d by tlio Creator, quite an important
in the scale of bein^' as tlioso of man. So little
demand is there for wornan's assistance in tliose
departinonts which are the essential prorop^ativo of
man, that could the mal(> int(^llect bo suddenly
suspended or paralysed, there is not sufHciont con-
ception of the abstract cpialities of justice, moralil \
truth, and virtue in all the women at [)rcsent in
the world, to keep civilisation alivo for one week.
Take away the strong protecting arm of man, and
woman sinks into an idiot and a slave."*

Furthermore, woman's levitablo 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 slio
can, under any circumstances, require protection
from the tyrant. While travelling alone, she is
suddenly attacked by a male rufHan — a wretch who
abuses to woman's outrage, the strength given foi*
her protection. Suppose Miss Amazon loses lur
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 Scxttal lujuality. '»'">

stancoR, the stronufost mitidtMl, moat iiKlopoiMlciit.,
inost c()iir;iLif(»oiis .'uid <»n(3r<]f()tio woman, t'cclin^ lior
sex's wcaknuHs in hor nuuiilost inability to copo
with a robber, ravislier, or murderer, would lifladly
wi^lcomc tho ititorvoutiou of ^niard, paiscn-^or, or
any otiicr br-avo man, ovon it' totally opposed to
Woma!! SufCi'at^e. The very possibility of such a
praclicd lesson should leach Miss Amazon tho vast
dilleronco between Sexual K([ualily as a platform
tlicuiy, ..ud Sexual Equality as a fact. And tho
knowledge that all wotnen travellini^ alone are
exposed to such risks, should make ()latfoi'iu ladies
blush to sneer at woman's need For man's chivalrous
protection.

Woman must depend on man for protoctiim.
Were it otherwise, every woman travellint^ alone,
would bo at tho mercy of any ruffian she met. Yc^t
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,

* Victurla Magazine, July, 1871, p. 245.

ns.«'

M «i *

\\ Of/id Pt Stiff rage Wron^.

that tlxTo is ill our 8(ututc> iJook u criiiw! wliich
wns until iccoiitly a capital olTcnco, iiiid is now oo-
casiDniiily punislicd by irM[)ris()uuiuut tor life, or for
a long term of years ! If every woman can ik'lt'ud
lirr virtue, \\\ovq is no hucIi crime as violation of
female cliastity ; every man who has been han^^ed
for the iniai^inary olTence of rape, luis been judicially
murdered ; and every wo-called ravisher, who sufl'ei's
in any way, on conviction of sucli a charge, is un-
justly punished I To deny that such n crime can
be comuntted, and to infer tliat no woman, under
any circumstances, can part with that which
virtuous women prize beyond life, except volun-
tarilf/f 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 huly legislators,
defendei'S of their sex, would take away this shield !
Surely AVhateley 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

isex s 11

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality, *»7

aiitlior, in tliiH extract: ** I do not iv^^ard tlio (juom-
tiuii of man iagu, wutiuin, and thu t'uniily, in tliu Hanio
li^dit as you, or nny of the new li<^lit party, whoso
ideas liavo coino to my kiiowledgu. L do not admit
that woman has the ri^ht to Koparalo her causo
from that of man, and to chiim for herself a special
justice, as if her first enemy and tyrant were i|iaii.
Whatever reparation may bo duo to woman, and
whatever her ri«(ht to count as a third with lier
liusband (or Calher) and chihhen, I (h) not allow
that the most viij^orous justice can ever maki; her
man's ecpial. Also, I do not any the more admit
that this inferiority of tlie female sex constitutes for
it either servitude or humiliation, nor that it lessens
it in dignity, liberty, and hap|)iness. I maintain
that the contrary is truth. 1, therefore, consiiUT
the sort of crusade which some estimable ladi* s

•

of this and of the other hemis[)hcro aro 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
inca[)acity of knowing and governing itsolf.

" 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

•• « R 1 '

I *" 'i

Wo VI (171 Suffrage Wrong.

perhaps not irreproacliablo, uiiderstand that quality
of your coiriprehension which only allows you to
seize the connection of thinf^s, 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 'lative inertia (!)
an incapacity which man's mind can alone over-
come, and which it cannot always set to work.*

'* In two words, I can cGtablish, 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 iNDUSTRiATi,
PiiiLOSOPiTio, AND MoEAL PowER ; 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,
tliat terrible justice which tlie Romans compared to
an unsheathed sword, y?;s sir'wtum,Q:\i(\ which obtains

* A moist 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 ip.ertia. 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 tlie mere
presence ^/. a man ; his appearance gives a zest and excitement to
matters otherwise most commonplace." [Mrs. Randol[)h : "Wild
Hyacinth," chap. 28.] An admirable exposure of tSexual Equality
and Woman Sutlrage.

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality

51)

between iiulividuals 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 tliis mystery,
I consent, madam, to sign your certificate of g<=)nius
— -EY eris mild wagniis Apollo. But then I shall
have gained m}'- cause.*

"What lias 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,
wide- 1, most progressive, if Tiot the most masculine,
geniuses of the age."t

Covnterfcit Strong-Mhided Woiuea !

No term, perhaps, is more abused than that of
" strono'-minded women." That there are mental
differences among women, as well as men, is

* Docs tlio author mean PiUj ?

1' Translation of two articles iu December and January Numbers
oi Plulosopliical and Religious lievieiv (185G and 1857). Corres-
pondence between Madame Jenny D'Hericourt, and M. Proudhon.

„, w^ '
'«^*;;':. a

Woman Sitjfrage ]\ ro)ig.

fipparont. 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 a!id
platform, saying in effect: "We are the strong-
minded." It is affectation to ignore them. They
usurp a titlo belonging to totally different women.
I discriminai;e between women who deserve, and
those who assume, the appellation. I believe in
really stroTig-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 ! 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 '<:ruth from the lar<2:e
heap of assertions and assum;3tions. 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.

gain a
not be
and a si
So far,
old gri
forms.
It was
long be
III. iJ
telligen
suppose
in worn
both se
dent ac
great a

her e
woman
ing to
Sexual
opened
man's 1
by ever
and mo
sex to ]
of spec
a man.
The m
can be,
and pi
well av
protect

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 01

gain a livelihood quite indopoiidontly of marriage;
not be compelled to accept a husband without love,
and ashamed to claim damaores for breach of promise.
So far, I cordially agree vvitli 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
Ion"" 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.

I'/i, f

."^

*1 •!

Woman S/iffrns^e \V>u)ns^.

ill addition to cliiv^alry and law, have tlie personr.l
defence of their respective husbands.

Our Amazons mean much more than tliis legfiti-
mate independence : tliey seek independence, not
individual, but embracing the wliole sex. \Yoman's
absolute independence of man, at variance with dis-
abilities imposed on the sex, not by male tyranny,
bub by nature; to subvert normal relations between
male and female, founded on centuries of experience,
and sanctified by revelation, distinctly pi'oclaiming
the obvious truth : '* Man is the head of the woman."
Amazonian ])rinciples 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
nuion, 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 fSeparation of the Sexes in Education," by Whateley
Cooke Taylor, Victoria Magazine, December, 1870. Tlie 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 I Would
any mother have liked her daughters to play with Kiich boys ?

vivisecl
others,,
tion oil
man's
own :
do wha
dress, il
niansla
struggl
politica
peace
thing
change
really
bar, on
women
adminis
annul r
offices -
to be w
firewon
meetini;
logical
pudiate
or Miss
Polit
househi
paltry ]
neither
sex ; c
the Spi

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 03

vivisect togofclior ! Tlioy vilify incdical irion and
othcM's, who protest against the llagrant abomina-
tion of mixed chisses. Tlioy demand for woiniiii
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 : Pollticalj Involve all rights ! Amazons
really want women on juries, in pulpits, at the
bar, on the bench, in both Houses of L-'arliamont :
women exercising all branches of legislative, j udicial,
administrative power; women free to contract and
annul marriage at pleasure ; women eligible to all
offices — civil, naval, military ; women having a right
to be whatever man is — soldier, sailor, policewoman,
firewomau, navvy. A woman presiding at a public
meeting is literally a chalrwotnim ! Of course the
logical Sexual Equality advocate indignanily re-
pudiates the name, and insists on being called Mrs.
or Miss Gliairman I

Political Amazons are chiefly spinster and widow
householders, who would be enfranchised by the
naltry little Bill annually defeated. Thi-y ro[)resent
neither the Woman Suffrage principle, nor their
sex; certainly not wivc^ expressly excluded from
the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Bill. Amazons

:.|-J 'a ^1

1 h"

Cyl

Woman Suffrage Wronj^.

do most admirably represent a strong individual and
class determination to have their own way, and to
wield political power, because tliey 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
*' S(^lfishly blind." Tliey 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 ^o?2«-/f/p rivalship with
man. Repudiating hard, disagreeable, dangerous
work, they claim all man's political and o^^"^"
privileges, and to be absolved from discharging
nil 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

b(« rul^

everytlj

rank,

vanity,!

e(|uiva|

IML'ht t(

Ainazo]

into th

di'udgel

In the

thcii' '

])racticf

Ido-ical

Suffrag

consistt

selves,

tliemsel

of their

oress, i

endorse

of fomr

incnt

while a(

its proi^

agitatio

where i

rc'prese'

deluded

iiiiioran

represe

can pro

Nature Opposed to Sexual Equality. 05

be ruled, but to rule ; to lifivo lior first choice of
evorythiiif^ ; to intercept honours, rewards, phace,
rank, wealtli, sinecures — every gratification of
vanity, ambition, acquisitiven(\ss, without man's
e(|iiivalent lal)our and responsibihties : woman's
rii^lit to pleasure and [)rofit, vihins pain and loss.
j\niazons will not descend with num, their "e(/iralf^*
into tlie world's dusty arena, and share in masculine
drudgery, obscure toil, danger, and violent death.
In the hour of peril, Amazons claim protection from
tlieii'

((

equal," like other women. This is tl

])ractical programme of the ])latform propaganda, the
](\gic'al 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 exce})tions, they vote
themselves disinterested, chivalrous representatives
of their o[)pressed sex ! They, as ])ioneers of pro-
oress, 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 7'idlciUous, only
wluM-e it luis become positively offensive ! Amazons
represent a sect^ not a sex. They are, for simple,
d( luded women, exactly what demagogues are for
iciiorant, discontented men. Amazons no more
re[)resent women, than organisers of noisy Republi-
can processions, with flags and red caps, represent

*4r:

*■)<•'

.J,

IV* ,.

(>()

IVoiiKin SujfniiTC Wyong.

tlio pooplo. Tn all an^os, mascnlino ambitious women,
spiiriiiiii^ the control of religion, law, custom, com-
mon-sense, and duty, have sou<^lit latifmh' and license
for themselves, demanding liberti/ for their sex ;
modestly constituting themselves its representatives.

The word virago (most objectionable as a[)pliod to
woman) means a man-acting woman, or, shortly, a
man-woman. Amazons, boasting tliemselves as
" strong-minded,'' desirous to obliter-ate all distinc-
tions of sex, repudiate the term inriifjoeSt as a gross
insult. Yet to whom can the term bo applied so fitly
as to them? They are ashamed to be called^ what tliey
are not ashamed to be ! Impossible to show more
forcibly the wisdom of adhering to nature, which
gives each sex its distinct province. IVIan 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 coi)y 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

Nuliirc Opposed to Sexual Equality, 07

who think ill of women, aro not stronf^-niiiidcd.
(>outiriuo(l woman-hators afo noithor wise nor I'ood
men. Amazons, bein«^ man-haters, are not stroni^-
mindcd. Excited by vanity, enthusiasm, and [)lat-
t'orm cheers, Amazons mistake a petty, local, tem-
porary ])opularity For enduring fame. They accept
in earnest the ironicMlly-<j;iven 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 [)()[)ularity at any price,
tiiey totally ignore future generations. Their motto
is A2>r<'s-n(yus, le dcliKje ! 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. ^len
do not care to court bad copies of themselves.

rt f>-\

,iV< •'•

Hf ■.

•^

IVoninn Suffrage Wrong.

Well for tlic world, porhaps, tlmt Aiimzons stool
their hearts to Cupid's darts ; but the cnuao of gront
wenkness to the platform propnf^anda. Would Miss
Auiazon otdy d('i«jfii to liecoino wife and mother, she
mjnjit transmit to a second self au Amnzoniati
(laiini-hter, her instinct ivo anta«j^()nism to man, and
il hist rate her princi[)les by sliowin^ how to rear an
Amazonian family — the girls trained to rule, father
and sons severely snubbed, and taught to obey.
AniMzons will never succeed in I'lUjoierafiojiy till they
concjuer tlunr antipathy to fjcncrafloi). Kven should
our Amazons condescend to copy their prototypes,
and snerilico tlieii* principles for posterity's sake, a
self-supporting Amazonian race is extremely pre-
carious, if not im])ossible. Normal women lovo to
please and obey their husbands. The married
Amazon would make her husbjuid obey her! She
must then select some; poor hen-pecked creature
Avho 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
ytrouir-Minded Women.

CJIAPTI^R V.

SEXaAFi KQUALITY AND SUnjROriON Or WOMAN.
" Tlio fcmalo has u coll loss iu the liouJ — a libro more in ti>o heart."

ClIAMFOUT.

Really Strony-Muuhd 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. Repudiating 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-lialred lunatics," vain, conceited, fussy, would-
be leaders )i their sex. I will strip these jackdaws
of their l)orrowed 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

.:;t 'n '^ I

«f

►, ti

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT~3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

111

■a Uii

SB.*
Hf y£ 12.0

1.4

12.2

1.6

^ >

^»

'^ ^ «4r '^ /•

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WE5T MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. .<^80

(716) 872-45U3

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

Sc:

"strong-mindedness." Their principles are directly
and etern.illy opposed to published precepts of Really
Stron^r-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 a^^ainst Oppo"
nents. Really Strong-Minded Women a?'gue, 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 geiir^ral 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 Rights of Woman," Introduction, p. 3.

remov(
slaven
with
manne^
voyage|
woraai
depreci
literary
our se:
passior
expens
ferable
You w
are mi
me an})
fully a^
She
female
" Thes'
learnin
hersell
Eoraai
bavin c
essays
of Wl

ing p(
imagii
Womj

* H
thinkei
the Sal

Sexual Eqiu^lity and Subjection of Woman.

remove rnnch 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
woman's opinions on her own sex, are ignored and
depreciated only by Amazons. She condemns fomalo
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 tliis 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 Echard's
Roman History; another a profound philosopher,
having got by heart some of Pope's nnintelligihle
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

lif r. •

* 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."

IVomnn Suffrage Wrong.

Meeting. She evidently knew the Shrieking Sister-
hood of lier 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 us 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, 7'i

cessive vigour of mind, tluit 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
lieari 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 : — " God, in creating
man first, made him tlie noblest of His creatures ;
and tlie most noble creature is that one who has the
greatest number of duties to perform."*

A contemporary Englishwoman, not so brilliaiit
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).

Woman Sitffraf^c Wrong.

bounds to each; bounds which the prudent and
candid will Tievor 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 thf want of which they derive their greatest
merit. * This is the porcelain clay of human kind,'
sa3'S Dryden of the sex. Greater delicacy implies
greater frac^ility, 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, thny 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-

SexiKil Equalitv and Subjection of Woman. 1^\

able writers of memoirs, never of one chronolofi^er.
The mind in each sex has some natural bias, con-
stitutino; distinction of character ; the happiness of
both depends on the preservation and observance of
this distinction. Where would bo 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. Consideral)lo
advantages are reaped from a select society of both
sexes. Rough angles and asperities of male manners
arc imperceptibly filed, and gradually worn smooth
by the polishing of female conversation, and rofiining
of female tasto ; 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 bo good originals, rather than bad
imitators ? to be excellent women, rather than in-
different men ? '*

Madame Cottin 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

Vtii"-

iiA"

]Vo))uvi Sii/frngc Wrong.

{

exalted themselves to the summit of glory, by the
mere force of their genius ? No woman that I
know of, liiis yet done tlio like." In denying genius
to wonuMi, iMadamo Cottin carries humility too far.
Theauihorcss of " The Exiles of Siberia" forms one
among the galaxy of eminent literary women who
disprove the assertion. Diderot observes: " When
wouKni possess genius, its imprint is more original
in thom, than in us." Madame Cottin's view, how-
ever, finds otlier lady supporters. Countess Ilahn-
Ilahn observes : " * Inspiration is the electi-ic shock,
and history chows it only received by men.* * Only
by men,' interrupted Faustina, * and Hebrew
])roplietesses, Roman matrons who laughed at
death, priestesses of German 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 slie 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 Galileo, with his E Pur si muove.
We cannot so much as form an idea of a female

Soera
Bacoi]
sperc.
long si
BaconI
Some
tlio gri
in natl
that y|
river
goms (
])oems
0})era,
a mini
strung
Mrs
womeii
the sci
and tl
immor
perhap
requisi
oidy ii:
if oftei
ceived
female
presen
but th
On thi
rated.

Sexual Equality ami Suh/crlion of \\%)nian. 77

Socrates.' " Nor, I add, of u female (yoliunbiis.
Bacon, Newton, Homer, TTandel, Milton, and Sliak-
spore. ** In matters intellectual and moral, the
lon^ strain beats tlietn dead. Do not look foi' a
Bacona, a Newtona, a ITandella, a Victoi'ia lEiit^a.
Some American ladies tell us, education has sto[)|)ed
tlie j^rowth 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
g(Mns of stories: they can flash little diamonds of
poems. The entire sex has never j)r()duc(Ml one
o})era, or one epic, that mankind could tolerate for
a minute : and why ? These come by loiii^' high-
strung labour."*

Mrs. John Sandford observes : ** Seldom aro
women great proficients. The clief>^ (VceurroH 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 boon 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 Reade : " White Lies."

I. w " '

,-•»'»'*■' I

.1 /,u. "*" ^^

f r

't;

I Tom (If I S/t/fmi^c IVrotiff,

tlio considcnition in which thoy arc hold, tho iii-
fhuMUJo they possoss, ami the confidtMico phK'od in
their jiid^iiK'Ht, aro in sonio instances dispro-
])orti()iiuto witli tlicir true claims. This is tho
cause of their occasionally aspirin(( to situations,
and intruding; upon officos for which they aro not
fit. They aro betrayed into overweenin<^ conceit of
their powers, and willing to put them to proof.
Tho indulj^once with which their efforts are treated,
prevents their consciousness of failure, even when
unsuccessful. A wonum obtains distinction for
attem[)ts little to tho credit of any but a female
candidate. Her sex is at once a recommendation
and an apology. She should be spared sevei-e
criticism, but should not presume on indulgence.
Nature 'gns her a subordinate place and powers.
She should feel this, and not arrogate tho superiority
of the other sex, while claiming tho pi'ivilegos of
lier own. Tho reputation of a clover 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 withhoiden, even when fairly
earned. But the female hel esprit flutters from
one fancy to another; writes a sonnet, skims a
periodical, deciphers an alphabet, divides a crystal.

ScMuii Equality ami Subjection of Woman, 7U

glitters ill Jiti annual, and the crown of Coriuno is
hy acclaniution phicod on lior brow."*

Mrs. Ellis observes : " As women the first thinj^
of impoi'tanco is to bo content to be inferior to
ninn, in mental power, in the same ])roporti()n that
you are inferior in bodily strength. "f " Look at
all the hei'oines of romance and reality, at all
female characters held up to universal admiration —
at all who have gone down to honoured graves,
among teai's and lamentations. Have they been
learned, accomplished 'vomen, who could speak
many languages, solve problems, and eluciilate
systems of philosophy ? No ; or if they were, they
have also been dignilied with the majesty of moral
greatness — women who regarded not themselves,
their feebleness, or susceptibility ol' 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."}

The following would lose its piquancy somewhat

I. It

1 .' f

yi4 J*

..''■

* " Woman : in her Social and Domestic Character."
t " Daughters of England."
X " Women of England."

IVofHnii Sii/J^rai;^c Jf'ron/^,

by trnnalntion : ** On rof^'nrflo iin(» fommo Rfivnntp,
ronuno on fnit iino l)i»ll(» anno: elle est cisolco
artist(»ni(»nt, (I'uno |f)lis.sur(^ a(hni''al)lo, ot d'nn
travail fort rcclu'rclir ; c'cst uno piiro do ca))inot
(juo I'on inontrc aiix ciii'itMix, t/ni nvxt jxts trttstifff^
(jui no sert ni h la pfiiorre, ni a la cliaaa(», non plus
qii'nn clioval do niaiu'^^'o, (|noiVpio la mioiix instruit
(lu niondo."*

Mi'.s. .laniioson ol)s(M*vrs: "Seldom are women
jjfit'at ])roHc'icnta : woman's mind is perhaps in-
capable of tlio orieiiiality and strtMi'^dii rocpiisito
for the sublinio. Tho female pencil has never yet
limiKHl the immortal foi'ms of heanty." She adds
til is pithy trntli, entirely opposed to woman's
claims for ])olitical ?H)wer : '* Women are illnstrions
in history, not from what they niiiy have been in
themselves, bnt in propoition to the mischief they
have done or can sod. 'riio beat female characters are
precisely those of which History never heai'd, or
disdains to speak." (joldsmith expresses t\w saino
trnth, thna : *' The n' xlcst virn^in, the prudent wife,
or the careful matron, are much moi'e serviceable
in life, than petticoated philosophers, blustering
heroines, or virago qneons." Distinguished literary
men and women completely agree as to woman's
true position. Mvs. Core personifies "Female
Domination " in ]\Irs. Armytage, graphically
describes the mischievons consequences of a woman
grasping at inordinate power, and frankly states
her conviction that in a comparison of intellectual
* La Biuycrc : " Lcs CaraCvercs."

Sexual E<i Utility und Suhjiutiou of Woman, 81

power *' a first-rato wotnnn would niako only a
tliir(l-i'!it(> man." Tho Uai'orjcss |{ui<l('tt-('()iitts is
not only opposcil to VV^oman SulTia;;T, but dis-
approvos of Women bcin^ on tim School Hoard. At
a meeting of tlio Diali'Ctical Society, 1 statod this
fact. It olicitod this characteristic remark : " Moro
sliamo for her I " Thus, womc!! roi'!iiiii.i; a ti-ado
union, to ohtain what thoy call thfir *' political
I'iu^htM," would coorco other women to siipnort their
views, and freely impute unworthy porsonal
motives to all conscientious opponents. Should
Amazons ever jj^et the upper haml, they would
cai'ry on *' The Movement by ji reii^Mi of tenor.'*
These ** eleijjant extracts" sufHciently display the
contrast betw(>en " Counterfeit, and Really Strong-
Minded Women."

Sexual I'jiiHuUtij desfroijs \Voni((n\s Lilwrtfj I

T\\o independent attitude of Amazons, their
ii'rational claims, and insuri'ectionary dnctrines aro
the outcome of concessions by the stron_u;er to tho
weaker sex; and could not exist but for the hi(rli
state of civilisation and social structure reared on
the practical acknowledgment of sexual iion-e(]uality.
This liourishing 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

t HI

Ki;

IVonian Suffrage lVro)ig.

hypothesis, tend to weaken the immense influence
now wielded by womanly woman, solely through
the pathetic appeal to man's better, higher natnre,
continually, silently, but most effectnally made
by her weahiess. 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, courtes}'-, 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 should
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 ami Subjection of JFoinan. 8'5

re,
ure

Ulll

lie
to
of
b-
th
ne
he
Id
is
is
led

innovators on establisliecl usages. And tho women
are not merely patient, but appear (juite reconciled to,
and oven gratified with these customary and striking
marks of manhood and devotion. Tho North
American squaw would utterly despise tho chief —
her husband — who should be guilty ol' 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 I The uegress
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 I

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 ; 1 stated this interesting
and conclusive fact at the Victoria 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-

* Victoria Magazine, July, 1871, p. 240.

,,)] ■•«'■

)

■.^ •■'

vA'

,. Si

IVoman 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 such 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 woraanl}'- 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 reductio ad
ahsurdmn.

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 jind 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 JFonian. 85

aiy

md
ical
lost

lav

ec-

have been perfectly appropriate. But as to civilised
women in Europe and America, *' Subjection " is far
more nominal than real. Legitimate subordination
there must ever be, until Amazons can either alto-
gether abolish Sex, or cultivate woman's physical
strength up to man's standard. When they brini^
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 losjical
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
insurrections t doctrines taught by Sexual Equality

rv.':V")

*,.. 'i i

I' 'I

80 Wo?nan Suffrage Wrong.

advocates, wlio think llioy benefit, elevate, and
educate women, by a theory long since reduced to
practice in Central Africa I 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 !
The late Mr. Hain Friswell observes : — " J.
McG rigor 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. F. If.] 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 Anthroiwlogical 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 IVonian. 87

in reasonins^ capacity, as she rises above him in the
instinct of intuition. This latter specialty belont^s
only to women satisfied with being what God made
them. Amazons grasping at the privileges of both
sex'3S, 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 undovelopt man,
But diverse.'

The woman dreaming of Sexual Equality, and de-
manding on that ground, man's rights added to her
own, is essentially '* nuiddled." Dr. Carl Vogt
observes : ' The female type of skull approaclies 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
amoiig 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

>., . 1

IVonian Suffrage Wrong.

i»

dovolopcfl, or into which it lias relapsed, llonce is
partly explained the fact that sexual inequality
increases with ])rogress 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. Tlio 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
Rights." The Editor concludes : '* We hope thinking
readers will give us credit for having wisely opposed
a movement which all great women — Baroness
Burdett-Coutts, George Eliot, Miss Muloch, Mrs.
S. C. Hall, etc. — shun and detest, and which,
instead of elevating, w^ould depress woman.' f

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.
Civilised 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. 8'.)

and authority ; dovotos his life to laboiii'ia<^ ovory
day, and all day lon<if, 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 woniaidy
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-

7V « "^H

';■': ""I

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

Sc.\

iiii,' all inan*8 rights, aiming at rivalship, or supre-
macy, throwing down tho gauntlet, and challenging
her natural protector to a trial of strength, forfeits
all tho ])rivilegcs 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 Eqiialiti/ 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, vian-icomnn, entered a railway car
in America and looked about for a seat, evidently
ex])ectin"- some chivalrous Yankee to vacate in her
favour. At length she concentrated her gaze upon
tho nearest male offender — a sturdy Quaker — who
remained immovable, although, like the Ancient
]\lariner, 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 ? "

Amason {scornfully): "Yea, verily; I be."

Quaker: "I concluded so from thine appearance.
Wilt thou, then, be judged by the principles which
tliou dost profess ? "

A77iazon : "Of course ; but what is all this to the
purpose?"

Qtwl\
proclaij
"Womnil
A ma
Qjufll
be tre;l
worse ?|
ylmr7
now us
Qual
my seji
like a
out of
desires
at liber
dand !
Sucl
consist
man's
due t(
asserti
such ]
Equali

egg-
she is

persoi

pet cl

Eucli

an E

and e:

to st\]

ScMKil Equality ami Siihjertion of Woman. '.M

Quaker: "Wax not- itnpaficnt, friend. 'Plion
proclaiincst perfect equality between ^\\\\\ ami
Woman?"

Amacon : '* T do.'

Quaker : ** Thou thinkost, then, woman aliould
bo treated exactly like mati, neither better nor
worse ? "

Amajon : ** Certainly. I demand cvc^ry privilege
now usnrped by man, as my natural right."

Quaker: *' Bo it so, friend. I should not yield
my seat to a man. Hadst thou elected to bo treated
like a woman, I should have surrendered my scsit,
out of respect to thy sex's weakness; but as thou
desirest to bo treated exactly like a man, tliou 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
assertionsof Sexual Equality like this worthy Quaker,
such practical lessons would bear fruit. Sexual
Equality, in tlieory^ is as tasteless as the white of an
Qgg. The Amazon declaimii 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,

C II Hi

Woman Sit/frmrc Wrong,

like a precocious atul forward child, whoso revolt is
coiisich'rod more amusiiii^ than serious. And if the
** sickening pnito " were all, the hubblo lui^iit he
permitted to burst ; the windbag might be allowed
to collapse, without being punctured. The danger
and mischief lie in the etTect of platform declamation
on inexperienced, credulous, enthusiastic, young, and
easily-duped persons of both sexes. Carried into
practice. Sexual Kipiality strikes at the root of all
chivah'y, civility, cornnion 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. Tlie real
value and importance of these prescriptive privileges
can only bo 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

WOlll"

disapil

attiicH

polite

hndt.

gi'atitl

inten(|

a rigll

Sexual Equality and Suhjcction of Woman. *.)JJ

wotiicii, ami for which sho secretly pirios. TFor
(lis.ippoiiitiruMit may l)o measured l)y her bittor
attacks on mon who pay, ami womon who rccoivo,
p()lit(»nc8a wliich she has lost throticrh hor own
fault. ** When male courtesy C(Misea to pi'ovoko
jri'atitu(l(i or reciprocity, it ceases to piM'form its
intended function. When att(>ntions are (^xtoi'ted as
a ri«^dit, their flavour and spirit are <;one. When
two gaunt middle-aged women ])lockade the chairs
of two inoffensive mon, and number one drawls,
* 1 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 itnmediate ca[)itulati()n of
tlie 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. Tfad 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 modifi(>d. Ilow 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 Gorgon gaze of learned females
elbowing medical students in dissecting rooms, or

ll'offian Sti^nti^e ll^foni^.

of fiiHt women tipin^ the cliHsoluto nlan^ of fast tnon,
but wostutt* tliocuHo vtM'y iiiililly \\\iv\\ \vu prophosy
that this st'xiial rivah'y will put ohivahous virtuos to
n very hc'vlm'o tcHt iiicU'od. 'I'ho exacting wonuin, tlie
herriia))lii-o(litiHh woman, and the fast woman Itave
un e(pnil contoinpt for true politeness on man's [)ai't,
and for its inspiring Rentimont.***

Here is another ilhistration of Sexual K(piality in
practice. A well-known Wonuin SulTrage advocate
said : ** I treat my wifi» in all respects like my eipial."
Of course this gentleman never meant to state an
untruth; but very little reflection will show that lie
uttered a transparent fallacy. Treat his wife like an
ecjual — say his Fellow -man, indeed ! lie treats hei* a
great ileal better. On the hypothesis of Kcpiality, ho
would not protect her; for no one olTers [jrotection
to an equal. Hu})pose this gentleman walking wit h
his wife : a rulUan 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 re(|uiring man's protection. If under such
circumstances, a husband folded his arms and said :
*' Now, JMary Anne, is the time to carry into
practice, Amazonian Sexual Eciuality principles. You
have often proclaimed yourself my equal, when
wishing to share in some amusement, ])leasure, or
benefit, which I thought an exclusive male privilege.
* Saturday Review^ 26 March, 1876.

It is
and
I hIiui
e(pud
out,
in tor I
Guar
a wifj
the I

Sextiat Equiilily and Suhjcclion oj Woman. '.' o

It JH only fiiir tliiit you hKouM Htick to your colours,
ami hIiow yuursulf my e([uul,whuu iluiigur irt incurrud.
I hIuiII i\ot insult you !)y ofToriri^ proti»ction to my
eciual. Tlioro is only ouo muii — your ('((lUil. Fi^lit it
out, and nuiy tliu l)(*st man win. 1 shall not
inti'i'lfrc, I'xcopt as hacker and bottlo-lioldcr.
(juard your bosom well ! '' Tins would bo treating
a wifu liku un equal ! Of course, ladies whoohuereil
tho utterance, ** 1 treat my wife as my equal,"
would be the first to call him who diil not defend his
wife, an unmanly cur. K(|inilly, of course, they
would deny that in so doin^, they refute their ^n-and
ISexual Kquality pi'inciple, and bid farewell to lo<^ic,
and consistency I Amazons nmst either approve the
non-deteiidin^ busband, or abandon Sexual l^](juality.
You mifrbt as wellex()ecta lay iii^ureof the fashions,
to abandon her dress-improver until iM. Worth, of
L'aris, or some other autocrat, ortlers her to j^o into
another uniform 1 Sexual Equality is reduced to
practice, when a husband not only neglects to protect
his wife from insult, but beats her himself; /.c,
settles domestic (piarrels, as ho wouhl a S(piabl)lo
witli another man ! 'JMie linest illustrations of Sexual
Equality are found among savages abroad, and at
home. Why blame a man for beating his equal 1

If woman really bo man's ecjual, how can she
chiirn protection from him ? Why should he fight
for his equal ? Let her j)rotcct herself. If she bo
his rival, demanding a fair field and no favour ; de-
termined, if she can, to beat man in the race for
po'ver, pelf, or daily bread ; why should man stand

PVotnafi Suffrage Wrong.

aside and let himself, wife, and family, starve, tliut
Miss 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 horself and sect ; if not for
tlie 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,
w^ithout surrendering her own. While this modest,
logical, and consistent woman, declares herself man's
political and social equal, anc* demands the suffrage
a? a rigid ; she resents as ungentlemanly, 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 tame 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 a)id Subjection of IVofnau. 97

corapromisinpr Sexual Equality : " I am man's equal ;
no sex in mind. Inferior in musclo, perhaps, but
equal in intellect, far superior in morality — a plat-
form saint!" with a very shrill voice, and self-
esteem strongly developed I But when there is hard,
manly work to be done, danger to be faced, sevcrr,
physical or mental toil to be endured, responsibility
to be incurred, or, in short, any distasteful duty ;
then Miss Amazon changes her coat, aim 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 forgot I
am ' ^ady, to undertake hard, dirty, dangerous
work. If you were a gentleman, you would not
tlirow 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,
slie 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,

•■11

)

Wotnan Suffrage Wroiig.

lis

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. Rousseau
settles Sexual Equality pretensions tlius : " Decide to
educate women like men ; the latter will cordially
assent. The more closely woman resembles man,
the less will she govern him. Tlien, indeed, men
will really become the masters." The masculine,
man-like woman, tlie 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 he.' 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,
lint diverse."

Tennyson : " The Princess."

Were male and female minds not radically different,
one sex would find no difficulty in understanding the
other. It is much easier to understand one of our
own, than one of the other sex. Hoffman
observes : — '* 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. It 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 I

V:, '

.1-..,,

<i|^

100

Woman Sn[fyage Wrong.

Mon have certainly succeeded better in delineatinp^
women, than women in delineating men. We cannot
even conceive a woman looking into a man's mind,
as Sliakspere, 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 Goethe said that each
of his best novels seemed du^: out of a sufferinor
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

UfJIVERSITY OF V CTORIA

LIBRARY

I <"

8 C,

FcMa

size anc
that wo
the S. E
elusion
True ; a
on man
exceptic
that sue
existed,
abilities
imposec
Turn o
togethe
the sai
labour ;
recover
size, bu
complex
will gr
equal ii
A se
doctrin
haps n(
educati
as if 1
Greek
weaker
inventi
woman
big anc
strengi

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 respfi
weaker than man / 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,

•n

102

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

if we could, bocome a kind of inferior, undeveloped
man ; because, in that case, we should lose our
beauty, grr/^e, and all feminine influence over the
other sex, obtained alone by the charra of our weak-
ness. And what should we gain by proclaitning
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, fnrm-
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 |)ro-
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.
^ 'ess 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. ln:{

in shape, not lu'caiiso sho has drosscd differently for
thousands of years ; but it is on account of this
orif^dnal and eternal difference in sliape, that she
has dressnd diffoi-eutly in all civilised nations. And
among savages dispensing with costume, and where
there is the nearest approach to mental Soxunl
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 " iji these and other fashionable particulars,
cannot bo attributed to man's tyranny supported by
physical force and legal enactments. Men in
general would only be too glad to rescue wotneu
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 nbaudon it one day tbo sooijer, because it was
fatal to tlio lives of others beside its wearers.
These facts are conclusive aj^ainst Sexual Kfjuality,
and Woman's SubjectioM ; although they [)rovo that
Woman must remain under Man's control, because
incapable of independent thought and self-guidance,
to an equal extent with hira. We are perfectly
satisfied with the general division of labour, duties,
and privileges between the sexes, knowing tiiat
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, witli-
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 bascil on Sexual Equality. 1 Oo

than women who excel or equal men in montal
vigour. For one really strong-inindod woinati, tlioro
are 500 stronjij-bodied women. The arguinont
founded on exceptions, ia far more favourable to
physical, than to mental ec^uality. The norinal
woman is essentially womanly, and cannot be nuis-
culine in body or mind. Mental Sexual K([uality is
flatly contradicted by every-day experience, history,
tradition, anatomy, and physiology. Man's mental
supremacy is an accomplished fact. Sexual Ecjuaiity
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 I To tell women
towards the closo 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

Kx;

Woman Suffrajrc lVroii]r,

iTnpossil)lo to explain how this primitive Sexual
Equnlity, if over posscsaod, wns over lost by woman.
Kousscaii o})sorvos : ** Krnilius is man ; Sophia is
woman. Thoro is tlioir whoh) ^lory. In tho oxist-
in<j^ confusion of soxos, it is almost a prodigy to
bc'Ionn- to one's own." Lord Shaftc'sl)nry writes :
" 1'ho sexes have now little other distinction than
that of person and dross. Ono has advanced into
boldness, the other has sunk into effeminacy." Yet
when this was written, women made no demand for
political privih^gos. They had not then discovered
an (ihstrad rhjht to lei^islate for the country which
they are not called on to defend I

Intellectual Distinctions.

Old-fashioned ^grammarians unp^allantly defined
the masculine, as the more worthy fyendor. 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 equaUfy, 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, 1 07

cis€!ly on account of this iinportiuit, difforofico iu
Boxiuil or^'aiiisutioti, dovolvin;^ on the forn.'ih^ pjuTtifc
tho nmtn'nal functions — ^j^ostation, partui'ition, lacta-
tion, and tho cliild's earliest education — woman lias
always occupied, and must ever occupy, a position
subordinate to man's, in thought and action. But
if (as tlioy say) man is "played-out," and must
"cave-in" before woman, Ids su|)erior, then this
American hy[)othesis at once abandons the Uritish
Sisterhood's position of Sexual i^i([uality. ITorcjaro
three distinct views : Woman iid'erior to ; woman
equal to; woman superior to man. All aro wron^^
** Nay," urge Sexual Erpiality Advocates, " woman,
neither superior nor inferior, must l)o man's equal."
No; tluit does not follow. Tlu^ fallacy is the t'utilo
attempt to compare man and wouutn. They offer
no commoi"! standard of measurement, and therefore
no [ground of 'comparison. We niioht as well com-
pare animals of different species, or one colour with
another. The primitive colours, red, yellow, blue,
constitute solar light. We cannot compare thoiu,
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-

■'a

108

IVotnnn Su/frngc Wrouff,

i»

ponds with her body, jukI consoquontly differs
al)()ri^inally, and intrinsically, from man's mind. I
Hay itaxiomatically : There muHt be natural, radical,
primitive, and p(M'maneiit distinctions in mental and
moral eonlorniation of male and humanity, corres-
ponding with those in physical sexual organisation.
All experience, tradition, history, obsorvation con-
firm the facts that men and women do so differ.
Anatomists, physioh)^ists, students of history and
inan-sci(Mice, ])hysi()nfn()mists, artists, obaorvors of
human nature, in all clinuites, under all circum-
stances, and in all states of society, concludo sexual
influence on mind as natural, ordained, inevitable,
and independent of education ; as sexual influence in
])r()ducin^ pliysical inecpialities of size, strenu^th,
bulk, sliapc, etc. Relatively to sphere and functions,
woman is ([uite 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 1 Miin and
woman constitute the human species. Each sex, in
developing its special qualities, characteristics, func-
tions, and faculties, accoruplishes 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-

hlHM

bed

IMMti

the

Culii

])rcc

won

Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality, 101)

hood novor did, iind iiov(»r will Jissimiliito in mind or
body. They may marry, and l)u in all rcsprots
miit(>d and conpfonial ; but this will novor rosnit from
tbo husband becoming «'fl'(Mninat(», or the wiFo inas-
culino. Tlio very torniH manly and womanly typt^a,
procUido any such iiH'tamorpliosis. A rnascnlino
woman and an cITcminat^ man aro tho woi'st possihlo
types of thoir respoctivo soxea. Ono cannot bo tho
echo or counterpart of tlio other. Thoro will bo
neither aimilitndo nor o(|uality. Thoy nm.st rcpro-
Bont respectively distinct Imtnan i(l(;als. Thoy will
(iilTor psycholoufically to tho pliiloaopJi(U*'s montal
eye, as decidedly as they dilToi* [)iiysically to tho
material vision of physio<^nomist and artist. This
view is far more complimentary to woman, than to
ima<]^ino hor an undeveloped boiii^ m(n'<i[ing her
womanhood in vain attempts to copy man !

But Sexual E(iuality is tho basis of Woman
Suffrage, and other claims to bo developed there-
from I According to this hypothesis, Sox does not
naturally influence mind. There is a (luasi-condi-
tional mental equality. Woman might, could, would,
or should have a male mind, if sho were only edu-
cated like man ! Then the converse must bo true —
if not, why not ? Man would have a feminine mind,
if educated like woman. The man-woman apes man.
The celebrated voluptuary, Mademoiselle do 1' Enclos,
observes : " J'ai vii que les hommos ne s'utoient
point du tout maltraites dans la distribution dos
roles, et je me suis faite homme." But with all her
mental cultivation and personal charms, this remark-

HI*

110

Wo?nan Suffrage Wrong.

€

able woman must ever be a warning to lior sex.*
Rousseau observes: " Aussi Mademoiselle cie V Knolos
a-t-elle passe pour nn prodige. Dans le mepris des
virtns de son sexe, eile avait, dit-on, conserve celles
du notre. Enfin on dit qu'elle s'6toit faite homme :
A la bonne lieure. Mais avec toute sa haute reputa-
tion, je n'aurais pas plus voulu de cet hoinme-la
pour mon ami, que pour ma maitresse." Diderot
observes: "There are masculine women, and femi-
nine men; and I confess I would never make a
friend of a masculine woman '* (homme- fern me).
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
dof^ma that Woman is as good as man — and a great
deal better, too! British advocates hold the firs'-^;
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 ;vith her, not knowing her to
be his mother. When coiupclled to communicate to him the fact

differ
degei

Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality. Ill

clifferinj2f 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 liave 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 bo 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, h^is 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 bis birth, tbe unbappy young man rushed into the garden, and
fell upon bis sword ! — See tbe anecdote related in The World,
Vol. i., No. 28.

112

Woynan Suffrage Wrong.

■fill .

almost app£:.r to demand a recombination of their
elements, to enable 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
donhle,^^ 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 cf the animals
respectively caricatured. T' e lady writer should,
at least m 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, "^his
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 morcly reformed,
but revolutionised, completely reli;i))ilitated. She
iibels — under pretence of defending women. She
lifts u[) her lieol against her own familiar fi'iends.
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 Avomen. 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 \,oman
once possessed equal mental capacity, and if this
mental equilibrium be the normal condition of male
antl female humanity; then unuL abtedly it would
u ; correct inference that existing Av'omen are
deiiC i(\it in mental power, degenerate, and very far
from wliat 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
^n 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

««i

114

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

itt

at a much lower rate, than advocates of Sexual non-
equality I Our lady reformer sees her sex tliroui>h
the discolouring medium of her hypothesis. I
cannot discover these blemishes. I repudiate tliis
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 n'lenendence never did, never can
exist. This me . 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 150 years ago. Amazons are
nothing without their hypothesis. On this rests
Woman Suffrage, the whole AVoman's Rights' 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 mnjority 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. AVomen 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, o]3press, enslave, subject in marriage,

and " '* Love ! 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

11(5

Wo))iaii Sii/frnf^c Wrong.

€

I™ 1^

\owcf lee-way to make np. You cat your own words.
You illustnito woman's logical inferiority. The
difference actually existin*^ between male and female
minds, I call natvral; you artificial! Wliatever
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 tho 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 ce'psor and censured are all in the
same boat. " Mais que diable allait elle faire dans
cette galdre?" Have the shrieking Sisterhood
not escaped the degeneracy of centuries ? Then they
are 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. 1 1 7

fortiinato. Women wlio rctfiin fernalo accomplisli-
monts, refuse to rave on platforms on subjects tlioy
ought not to understand, atid 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 )iot 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
Sexual /iow-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 singuL.irly professes to defend. Woman,
" the weaker vessel," is no more perfect than man.
But from the original wo.nanly standard, she has
departed less than man, from the primitive manly
type. It is high time tc denounce in plain words,
this pitiful pretentious platform cant which shame-

&9^

118

Womcvi Suffrage Wrong.

lesaly daros to advocate a male pattern for woman,
and to stipfmatiae 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 rij^hts 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,
poeury, 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 nuhibus, 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, 1 P.)

** ^ orfoct woman nobly plann'd ! " Sho is cortjiinly
nob tho poet's ideal of " a phantom of doli<^lit.'*
Sho is indignant that men and women will not
worship, but rather ridicule the brazen imago. Miss
Amazon is persuaded that sho is a sample of Tho
Cominjj Woman. She is the faultless fujjleman.
Undeveloped, i.e., all women — Amazons excepted—
h;ivo 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 massG^ 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 r)referred —
man as he is, or man as he is to be, jjamb 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 tho lady defender

■1.1

I'D

aa0

120

Wo fun n Suffrage Wrong.

Fill

of luT SOX npfainst censors nnd satirists ! T ask this
fom.'ilo tluvonul, how woman in this (lo[)h)nil)U) sonii-
idiotic atato, can bo fit for political powor, social
cutVanchiricnient, [)rorossional life, in(li»[)()n(lonco, and
all tho rcs[)onsibiliti(38 involved in Soxual E(|uulity,
when tho platform seed has gorminatod, and pi'o-
duced revolution? Women, as she describes them,
are utterly unfit for their present freedom — far loss
competent to rival men in [)olitical and pi'ofessional
life I 1 further ask this believer in Sexual Equality,
how woman, if once man*8 equal, conld possibly
sink to such abject inferiority as they are credited
with by their pretended champion ? To enfranchise
such wretched failures would bo moro 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 1
If she were right, to give women votes, is quite out
of the question. The lady logician kills ilivee birdn
^'7ith rne 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

femnlc
fold at
Ama/iO
Wonu!!
exhibit
Equali
and S;
on wo I
who (
and, pi
Comin

Fallacy of Claims based on Sexual Equality . Vl\

fornnlo omuncipation. Curious to fintl tlicHo throo-
fold iittestations in 'Ihe. Victoria MiKjazinc ! An
Araa5-.on unconsciously turns the Movunient I'or
Women into ridicule ! A Sexual Kquality Advocate
exhibits the fallacy of claims based on Soxual
E(piality I A dofondor of her sex against Censors
and Satirists looks down with witherini^ contempt
on women I The Amazon is not the only reformer
who despises the class whom she affects to pity,
and, puffed up with vanity, praises herself in — Tiie
Coming Woman I

'i\

CHAPTER VII.

•t

MAUIUAGR AND MATKUNITY vevSUH WOMAN aUFrilAOE.

" In tlio normal condition of Uiinj^R, womfin*s mlBsion \n not
merely to bring forth, jind Hucklo oliildron, but to att»'nd to thoir
onrly cdnciition ; wliile tlio father provides for the family's subsist-
once. l*]vcrything thnt affects this normal order, necessarily
induces a porturbanco in the evolution of races."

BiiocA on '* Anthropology

Ni'ARLY two centuries ap^o, a lady, criticising the
insurrectionary women of her 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 Sujfrage, 12-1

fiiich wo nmy apply Zono'H Hdrcasm to a talkativo
youth: * Thoir cars aro fallon into thoir totijjjuo.*
Such a (lop^onorous apfo do wo now live in, that
ovorythitii^ HO(^tns lnvort(Ml, ovon soxos ; whilst ftion
fall to tho (^ITt)ininacy and uiciwioHs of woiuoii, and
woinon tako up tho coiifidouco aud bolduoss of

men.

»»•

In all a^rs, ambitious women havo 8[)urnod tho
control of K(»li<^ioTi, Tj.iw, and Custom. Sookinp;
latitude for thernaolvea, they have dematulcMl it for tho
BOX which thoy misropreaeut, while modestly con-
stitutiiifjf themselves its repreaontativea. The fact
that audi women continually incite their sex to an
unsuccessful revolt against man's so-called tyranny,
is a stronpf practical evidence ft)r man*s natural
siipremacy. Tho natural eternal suboi'dination of
woman to man, is fully exem[)lifiod in her exa<^«j;orated
artless admiration of the masculine attestations of
sovereignty — strength^ conrayef intellect. To the
magical influence of tho latter quality, women are
more abjectly subject than men. Woman has ever
been, is now, and ever will bo, under man's guar-
dianship. Mentally, woman stands towards man in
the relation of child to adult. Sho 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 misfht

• " The Ladies' Calling," by the Author of " The whole Duty
of Man," generally attributed to Lady Dorothy Packington,

124

V/oman Snffrage Wrong,

have thought that m the making and arrangement
of her Dress (Eve's fig-leaf) woman might have dis-
pensed with man — but it is nut so ! She is as
incapable of discovering principles for herself, as of
inventing logarithms, a moral system, or writing
books like Newton's " Principla," Locke's " Essay
on the Understanding," or Darwin's " Origin of
Species." Tn 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
cautious deliberation, the mental gi^sp, 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 Amaze lian 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 Sdvago, 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 alw lys 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-

'itt^tin

!' '

12G

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

«t

cliair, pulpit, or platform, she accepts with implicit
reverence, making him to all intents and purposes,
an infallible judge, irom 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 clifferihg decidedly from Professor Blackie, who said
of Mill : " He never was a man at all. He was a wretched
wrinkled creature."

Marn'a,

of politic
Woman
mating ]
wanting
interests
power, 1
enemy,
settling
cannot
person
desirous
woman
war or t
she cam
ship anc
easy su
But und
up to th
tion : "
The ]
marriag
natural
less doi
great, tl
women
title of ]
the men
offendiii
agitatio
women,
humanii

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 guidance : and in flying from natural and
easy subordination, she rushes into real slavery.
But under all circumstances, the female must look
up to the male st x. Nature's voice echoes Revela-
tion : "The head of the woman is t1-^ man."

The real difficulty is how to obL.uii for every
marriageable woman her "best light" — tluit to a
natural protector, or, in plain ICnglish, 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 Russell's once celebraf:ed 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

>'»

''H«|

128

Woman Suffrage Wron/r.

■•el,

connection between involuntary female celibacy, 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 uhis destiny, there is something wrong
somewhere — it may be in herself, it may bo 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 (jud 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 Ecvcuro'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 cu se, instead of
blessing each other. Yet Love is not included in
the Amazonian platform programme for woman's

Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. 120

«)

regeneration. Nature is to be altogctlier expelled.
Love has nothing to do with the purely personal
political ambition of Miss Amazon and sect. Nay,
more, Love is essentially antagonistic to the w^man-
suff rage 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 maki^ htr womanly, end mistaken ambition,
and causo her to love someone better than herself.
Such a woman does not understand, and cannofc
represent her sex. The author quoted knows more
of woman's nature, and needs, than all Amazons,
spinsters, and widows agitating, by means o:: 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
ths 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?
Thought would destroy their Paradise.
No, more ! where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."

■\\

130

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

€

Such contented women might 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 eflSciently 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

d,
of

■

stand the 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 Bode."
Children should bo 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 compreliensive sense — Mater'
nity. It is all over with humanity, when that oflBce
is slighted. What a \ oble profession to be a wife
and mother in Isrnol I 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

'Hi
^1

. S\

132

Woman SnJ/hige Wrong.

being is influenced by tlio mothi't\ 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 bo 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 tu.v0 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 offspi^ing 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 those 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. ff^oman Siijfyage. \^'^

upon tlio children unto ^ho third and fourth
gonoration." Conjugal, matornal, and domostio
duties, being incompatible with political functions,
wo find normal women, utterly indiToront to
Woman Suffrage. The Mother has noitijer 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 docs 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

"91

IVoman Suffrage Wyong.

thoroughly understands thorn, and ** Tho Movo-
mcnt." Her sound comraon sonso is unpcrvortod
by sophistry, and absurd solf-contradictoiy tlioorios.
She Hoes that spinst«'rs and widows agitato for thoir
own sup[)osod personal interests, and do not re[)ro-
sent thoir sox at largo ; far less wives and mothers.

The mother who presents good citizens to the
State, has certainly discharged her mission. It is
difficult to see in what other way women in general
could bettor benefit society. Madame do Stael
asked Napoleon, whom he considered the greatest
woman ? He replied ; ** She who has had most
children." This reply intended to mortify Madame
do Stael, or perhaps conveying the genuine opinion
of the military man who regarded men as chair a
canony is not true. I would give tho palm to her,
who has best fulfilled conjugal and maternal duties,
bv the most unremittinor 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 God 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, 1:V5

** What is wantiiiEf that tho youth of Franco may
bo woll odiicatcd ?" Sho ropliod : ** Good mothers I "
** IIiTo," said Na[)oloon, "is a system of education
in two words." doldsmith observes : ** Women
famed for valour, political skill, or learning, leavo
tho duties of their sex, to invade tho privileges of
ours." Rousseau writes : ** Your wonderfully
clover woman imposes on nono but fools. You
can generally discover tho arti.st, or friend who
guides her pencil or pen — the discreet literary
man who secretly dictates hor oracles, and olal)0-
rates her iDiimimptn good things. AH this mockery
and pedantry are unworthy a good sensible woman.
Such pretensions servo but to disgrace real talent,
when it exists. Tho true woman's diu^nity is to
remain unknown. Her glory lies in her husband's
esteem, iler pleasures are in the family circle.
Tell mo 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 noto paper, scribbling verses? Whcu
there are nono but sensible men in tho world, every
learned lady will die unmarried.

• Quceris cur nolim to ducere, Galla ? Diserta es.' "*

Ask the happy matron, what is woman's mission ?
When she pressed her first-born babe to her bosom,

«i«^
''^«

* " Emilius and Sophia," Vol. iv.

I'M

Woman Sul/'ra^c Wron^,

*cs

Nntiiro dictated tlio reply — .\fii(rniif//. To this
respoii>o alio cannot bo unfaithful. Which is tho nioro
ogrecublo form of woinnnhood, or would nuiko the
bettor })ictur() — Miss Amazon ^eMticulatin*^ on a
platform, raving' of woman's abstract I'i^ht to vote;
01* a youiifj; mother nursing lun* child ? Public tasto
Las alieatiy answered the fjucstion. Kv(»n nuMi
favourin*^ woman suffra^'e, can liardly pi-efer tho
platform Amazon to tho young mother. Which is
the more womaidy woman, and better representative
of her FOX? Which lias the really stronn^er, bettor
balanced mind, more cultivated faculties, tho warmer
lieart — the hi;;hei', nioro eoiiscii'iitious senso of
religion, morality, duty? Which is tho loss seKish,
and exerts tho most powerful iufluenco over men ?
Which would bo ])reforable as a life companion?
Which would mako tho better nurse in sickness,
and consoler in sorrow ? Which, if left a widow,
would moiirn longer, and more truly ? All these
questions can have but one answer. All right-
thinking men prefer domestic, to platform women.
The British matron will not join the Woman
Suffrage agitation. In vain she is told that the
vole, now looming hazily in tho rrfreme distance ,
must some day be hers; and stimulated by the
prospect of enjoying the new pleasure of disobeying
her "jusband ; 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

MarriaffC and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage. IH?

liusl)and nt humo, of buiu'ilin^ Iiitn at the husting!^,

'■

ist him nt t)io poll. A

iinority

wives ndvocatiti)^ Soximl K(|ii;ility, think it old*
fasliioiicd und woak-miiidrd to ho j^uidod by
Imshand.s whom they piomiHcd to lovo, cherish,
and ol)oy. iJiit tho typical Hritisli matron is not
tompted hy .such sinj^ular piivilogos, and considora
th(»m totally opposed to hor ideas of conjugal duty.
Tlioro is plenty of woi'k for woman, without forc-
ing her into politics. Yet involuntary celibacy
offers material for a gri(»vanco eagerly utilised by
\Vom:ni SnnVage agitators. Naturally, a number
of impressionable women, feeling keenly, not reflect-
ing dee[)ly, listen curiously to fnnalo demagogues,
who propose to give their dormant energies some
vent, however abnormal : confiding, impulsive
women consult seeming imnunliate individual
interests, and ap[)rove 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 AVidow Suffrage,
Some platform lecturers virtually represent Woman's
sphere as consisting of only 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.

Mar

herself a typical, woman. She glories in having
sufficiently unscxed herself, to plunge con strepitUf
and con amove, into all the work which man must
do. She resents the application of the word ivomanlf/,
confounding it with weak-minded, and considers it
degrading. Certainly, it is no more appropriate to
Amazons, tlian to Mrs. Quickly, who indignantly
repudiates the word woman, thus : " Who ! I ? I
ddiy 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

meanmg.

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 clearlv desii^rned, Nature
will not immediately work a miracle, and radically
change that woman's organisation ; alter the whole

Marriage and Maternity v. Womafi 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 motlier, 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 Great Britain and Ireland.
It is then difficult or impossible to fix the age at
which matrimonial expectations are laid iiside. 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.

•'All

''HI

:;i%i||

''^m

140

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

(

'■iiii

<|«

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
degrade 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

.1^1

Marriage and Maternity v. Woman Suffrage, 141

5specially to

that if the claii

women

ceded, 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 Rofhts' — the bef]rinnin2:
of the end — would deprive ^hem of their power and
lower their position under a pi atence t ) raise it. I
warn women of all countries, all ages. o-U 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 vjomen 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.

'-ail

142

<Ct

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

sure womeD'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 !

4 i

Marriage and Malcniity v. Woman Suffrage. 143

and comforts, and so promoting his interests and
happiness, as well as he»* 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 God 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 SitffrasfC IVrofiinr.

sought to bo noutralised, by a comment in which
Miss Emily Faith full has rocourso to tho petitla
princlpii^ tho most favourite figure of lady logicians.
Sho completely bogs 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' indifference 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. C. Hall, with a will, but not skill, thus :
" We quote this as the utterance of a woman who
has for yetn'S 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. C. 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

n which
0 petitlo
5gicians.
issue, as
Protest
of both
ation of
o-called
eu who
nire of
almost
3 stcite-
totally
e cool
shness
i; that
draw-
npute
ciselj
gainst
thus :

who
)ower
tever
nt in
^gest
J to

was

rom
C.

Hall observes, wo fear too truly, that few * womua
of letters * are to be found * among the zealous
but unthinking advocates ' of what she terms tlie
movement. Alas ! for the hardness of our hearts,
and the selfishness of human natui'o. Those alone
cry out who/t'6^/ the pinching shoo (/.c, spinster and
widow householders !). The ha|.py well-fed autliorcsa
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 ; wliy
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 suffraofe
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 o{ *^ selfishness" on ambitious women
who, wanting perso^ial political power, misrepresent
it as an infallible remedy for all female disabilities.

Much indeed they care for the female masses, who

'HI

146

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

grasp their own enfranchisement by a Bill expressly
excluding married women 1 " Alas I 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 Faithfull 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 using 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 with politics 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 Faithfull) Mrs. Hall and I prefer
against all women opposed to women suffrage.
Who is most selfish — spinsters advocating, or wives

opi

wij

tioi

Spi

all

Spi]

frai

Th(

tpressly
e bard-
human
Protest
n, whose
D, as an
In con-
sement,
ist, and
ull and
uffrage.
, and of
ent ex-
ig their
pleased
begins
sbands,
isponsi-
human
)n — are
)beying
mmon
eddle
noisy
Ing to
jigainst

lich-^

1 prefer

Prage.

wives

I-

Marriage and Maternity v. fVoman Suffrage. 147

opposing woman suffrage ? Spinsters and widows
wishing to subvort 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 I 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

«!

11.8

IVovtan Suffrage Wroug.

jidvocatc, than to woinon w'lo opposo Woman
Suffrage.

Female agitators for woman sufPrago are chiefly
Spinster and Widow-housoliolderH, 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 largo. They
represent their own personal interests, or rather
what they conceive such.

Amazonian agitators arc 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 dr> they not show their
credentials ? If they ha\ u none to sliow, they speak
for themselves alone ; seek only their own en-
franchisement, and so far from representing,
actually betray woman suffrage as a principle I
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

lif

Woman

0 cliiofly
vould bo
iiU'h Bill.
Woman
). Thoy
ir ratlior

ssing to

istcT and

[)rcsonta-

ccrediteJ

ivv thoir

oy spoak

own en-

senting,

•inciplo !

ead and

British

ater and

, vanity,

pinsters

** weak-

isticated

dtli the

ovement

o reflect

Itivated,

at there

een the

Marriage and Maternity v, IVotnan Suffrage. I !'.>

sexes; that directly in proportion to civilisation's
advance, do the respective spheres of man and
woman diverge; and that to unite and confound
them, is really to retrograde towards biirhiirism ;
that woman ia 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 ItiS fortunate
sisters I

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 I

:ilTl

Hill

«1I

150

irotfian SHjfragc Wrong,

lids

Ah ]Vfi'M. Hall feelingly obHorvcs : "Agitation to
liinit woinon'fl work to work for wliicli thoy wore
designed by Nature — work physical and intol-
IcctiHil — would bo indeed n duty and a glory. But
that is not what the stiong-uiindcd want." No,
indeed ! Tina cry is not on behalf of poor toil-worn
wo!n(»n actually tloiiig work unsuitable to their sex,
in factoi'y, field, an<l mine. The sulTiago is de-
manded not to relieve these, but for independent
women householders. As among savage races, so
in the humbler ranks, itmny 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

hisi
bell

g(M

tation to
bhoy wore
tid intol-
)t'y. But
It." No,
toil-worn
tlioir 80X,
^'o is (lo-
li'|)oii(]cnt
races, so
lou work
)uglit not
vy heavy
aiistainod
1 coiifino-
srnaking,
And this
in on far
'iovances
Sexual
incipio is
nents of
lovitably
7 thrust-
political
al wife-
xs "the
lefiantly
of men,
Woman
rn it, as

Mat'tiagc and Maternity v. Woman Suff^ragc. 151

his e(|iial, hIio will soon bo told to take caro of
herself. KxoeptioiKilly gifted wotiuni doiiianding
votes for themselves, may occasionally catit and
whino about poor women for the sake of political
capital ; but Ain:izons aro either supi'enu'ly in-
diflererit to tho wants and wishes of women in
general forced to de[)end on men : or are utterly
ignoi'antof woman's nature, if they I'cally tliiuk their
theories reduced to practice, would bcueliL and
elevate the sex. In either case, they are unfit to
represent women : ITow indeed can Amazons under-
stand womanly women, whom they sneer at as weak-
minded ?

Woman Suffrage Advocates artfully pretend that
women aro legally disabled from doiug all things
thoy do not choose to do. Accorditii^ to platform
platitudes, woman unenfranchised, has no other
resource but nuirriage from interested motives, to
live. If she do not marry, or taivo to dissecting
dead human bodies, ami living lowei* animals, along
with medical students ; improving mind and morals
with mixed classes ; and if she cannot dabble in
political mire, then her whole life is a blank I 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

.^1

utn

*I9I

152

Wo7nnn Suffrage Wrong.

iibii

various artistic, literary, industrial, and mechanical
pursuits. They are authorrt, 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 pul:lic 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 danco better, women are taught by men !

fr!

all

1)1

Marriage and Maternity v. IVonian Suffrage. 15

• )

jhanical
s of all
tors to
school-
Lilptors.

Thoy
ss, and
ancers,
riiongh
3Ssions,
'or the
Female
in any
?, since
no ex-

well-
'ay or
of the
s may
ly aid
nfined
covet
;ralto.
tes of
iplain
)iselle
1, not
3 and
30 in
e for

Ollgll

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,* coastgurjd, militia, vobiateers,
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-wdt, 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— oho noble profession of wife and mother —
their earthly mission of M^iternity. " All very well,
sir," say^ 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 undcvolopt man,
But diverse: "

* Women are, I believe, employed in the detective department.

154

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

<f?

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 wis'ies, 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 Suffrage. 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 w.ay 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 I
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 Y\ the
great majority of women, including the best and
wisest, are scolded, and nick-named weak-mi'^ded

:.!7l

■•Sin

mwnk

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."

rtll'l

END OF PAET TIEST.

1.1 '

^eloped
anoh^de
pinster
I Its all
al just

PAET SECOND.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE CONSIDERED IN
PRACTICE AND DETAIL.

■mM

de
in
tic
va
se:
I.
ci].
we
an
aD
th(
op]
wo

wa
Su
W(
fur

CHAPTER I.

ANALYSIS OF THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE BILL.

Passing iVom 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-
ci;ple, 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 prlnci;ple, 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-

.%i^

i#^

<%«■

IGO

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

mm
if

mandod by woracn, or if domandod, should bo
Bternly refused. Both those classes are equally
honest and sincoro ; but not, I think, equally con-
sistent. III. These supporters are ti'lmmers^ 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, bocrotly hoping and be-
lieving that it would only be an instaltnont of a
much more sweeping measure to bo subsequently
granted I

How can these three classes conscientiously and
consistently co-openite ? 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 bo 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

A /Id /y sis of the IVoman Suffrage Dill. 1<>1

intorforonco iti government or war. Women suff-
rage a(lv()ciit(\s deny, or dispute these positions.
We Imvo then nouglit in common on this (question,
save liotu^sty of conviction and consistency in action.
If my oppoMCMit has read tlie first part of my work,
and is not convinced, it wouUl ho fuiile to prolong
the argument as to the principle of W(nnan Suffi-age,
There, wo must part fair foes, and agree to differ.
But with regard to Woman Suffrage in its concrete
foi-rn, in pra(*tice and detail, tlie question assumes an
as[)ect wholly different. Strange as it mny at first
appear, the zealous advocate, and zealous opponent
of Woman Suffrage as a principle, are actually
drawn together to oppose the present Hill.

The history of the woman suffrage movement
during ten years has almost, if not quite, practically
answered my question to advocates of tlie 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 6*(?.r, 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,

Hft

102

WoffiaH Suffrage Wrong.

moral, and social revolutions, frau^'ht with woal or
woo to tlio liurnan I'aco ? A^n-oo firstly ainonfjf
yourselves. Is tins Hill to bo final, or only tlu^ fiist
instalment of a much larger measure?" To this
most reasonable question, two, if not throe, distinctly
antapfom'stic answers are retunuMl. Supporters of
the first class say : " The Bill is not, cannot, shall
not be final." Supporters of the second class say :
"The iiill is, must, shall be finMl." Third-class
supporters, say: ** Nevermind whether it be final or
not. Time will show. Pass the Bill on its own
merits." But it is im{)ossible to estimate its merits,
or demerits, until it be determined wlu^ther the iJill
would be a final settlement or not. For if the liill
be final, it should, /y>6'(?/(f6'^o, alienate every supporter
of woman suffrage as a principle. If tho Bill bo
only a preliminary instalment of a nuich more
sweeping measure of woman sufFrnge, it should,
■ipso facto, alienate every supporter of woman
suffrage as an accident. Third-class sup})orters
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 scouters 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 I he Wo man SNjJ)\t^c Bill. 103

Suffi'ft<^o, uniti!i«jf to cnfrancliiso cort.iin spiiistor.s
niul widows, and to pass a Hill which, if fmal, is a
inero abortivo incasuro to thu first class; aiul it' not
final, must ovontually lead to enfrauchising wives, or
})ossibly oven to univorsal woman sulTr'a^^o ; (Miually
condemned by second-class sup|)orterH ! And both
those classes accept the co-opet-ation of 'Pri mi inters,
who will not say whether tiio Hill should be liii.'il, or
not; eitlu'i' because they are too ignorant to have
an opinion, or too insincere to express one. First
and second class supi)()i'tei's, entirely disagi'e»'ing on
Woman SurtVage as a principle, ])oth make the
property ([UMlification the basis oF enfranchisement.
Advocates of woman's [)ersonal right of voting,
should scorn the com[)romise of votes given merely
as a property qualification ; should reject the pitifid
gift doled forth to unmarried female householders,
and resolutely refused to wives. Such advocates are
most inconsistent su[)})orters of a Bill which betrays
their princi[)le. 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 I

Second-class supporters believe that by passing

III I

1»

lit

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

■C v\ ^^

1.0

I.I

|50

1^ m

1^ li^

2.0

■ 40

1.25 III 1.4 1.6

►

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

104

lVowa?i Suffrage Wrong.

,.1

this Bill, tho vexed question would be settled satis-
factorily. Settled it might bo 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 they may take an ell.
This cannot be denied in face of this printed
declaration of " The National Society for Woman's
Suffrage," 17th July, 1860. 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
paeans 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 IVonian Suffrage Bill. 105

d satis-
become
so who
could,
porters
an ell.
printed
Oman's
Taylor
LIS ; we
ly have
>w that
vill not
Lnd we
)rking,
ng the
Thus
at the
would
itude;
tainly
stand-
Male
ir feet
ied or
ly, so
latory
battle
rves :
elieve
ready

signs of weakness may bo observed in the opposini^
force. So many leadin<^ men have given in tlioir
adhesion to the cause, that tho general crowd are
changing their tone, and beginning to wonder why
so much is said on so trivial a subject. Wo liave
written laughingly, not because wo think littlo of
the battle's importance, but because wo l)oli(ive
victory already won. With so many of the best
heads of England on our side, wo are sure of
triumph."*

And yet tho armour (whether used metapliorically,
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 i not vote. " We are educating the women

* Victoria Magazine, March, 1871. The best male heads then
in favour of woman suffrage, might be counted ou the fingers !

•■i-i
ma

lOG

Woman Siijfnif^c Wrong.

•~l

'■it

of Engl.ind for the franchise. " That sounds grand.
Wicefi swelled the chorus. But five years later,
sinnstevs and widows come in with this amendment:
— " Provided that no married woman shall vote."

•* I'artiiriunt montcs ; — nascctur lidicuhis mus."

" How are the miglity 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
princi[)le. Madame E. A. Venturi 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 suffrage advocates, to have a better head than the late John
Bright, who to the last opposed woman suffrage !

Analysts of the Woman Sn/Z'raj^c Bill. 1()7

1 grand.
3 later,
dmont :
ote."

rs and
power,
stance,
ienated
3, as a
V from
is lady
d new
ssocia-
ate the
tinctly
effect,
iffrage

r^oman
^oman
^ht on
aid in
[luced
and
epre-
verj
that

red by
3 John

it should be advanced by the very men who had
always upheld tlu* personal right 3f voting."* Wo
can now test the pretensions of si)instors and
widows in comfortable circumstances, claiming to
represent their sex on the franchise question. They
alone woukl be enfranchised. Like previous o'les,
tlu> 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 s[)insters
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 I'epresent
women in general, or to redress the grievances of
wiveSi 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 chair -ions
of womanhood suffrage, they would not clutch
eatrerlv at votes for themselves. Tliey would re-
pudiate so partial a measure of enfranchisement, or
only support, and accept it, on the clear under-

* 12 May, 1870.

'It I

"II

K,8

Woffidff Suffrage Wrouf^.

MIC

stanflinpf that it should not bo final, but .in instal-
ment of a much moro comprehensive measure. Tht^y
would denounce any Bill containing' a clause disen-
franchising^ married women. The Woo(hill JUll
seeks to enfrfinchiso only the very class which least
requii'cs protection; with fewest grievjinces to redress.
What will spinsters and widows do with the franchise,
if tliey get it ? Exercise it for tlieir own benefit,
while the vast majority of women go without ?
Pursue the agitation for woman suifrage, or rest
and be thankful; or copy men, and having got the
franchise themselves, hinder its extension to other
classes ? If they rest satisfied witl) their own en-
franchisement, they will forfeit the sympatliy 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 wlio
obtained the franciiise 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. Reflect 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

f(i

isl

ail

til

{nalysis of the U'otuau SnU'rngc Bill. 1<>0

inst.'il-
. Thoy

disen-
ill Hill
;li least
'cdrc'ss.
mcliiso,
Jenefit,
bhout ?
)r ivsfc
^ot the

otlior
ivn cMi-
thy of
/^onian
agita-
3 who
vs, on
er be

layers

jsible

ow — -

vow;

mit;

in is

st be

idow

loiild

age?

hold

Huffrngo will not necessarily lead to univorsal suffrai^^e
for women, any more tlian it does for men. lUit t lie
fallacy of this argument lies in this fact, tliat there
is no real analogy between male household suflVagi',
and female household suifrago I The man house-
holder (being generally married) is a more important
member of society than the single man. AVitli
women, it is generally the reverse. The matron
who must not vote, is eaderia paribus^ a more impor-
tant member of society, than the spinster or widow
householder, whoi.i this Bill would enfranchise. If
then v.e break down the present barrier, and say
sex shall not exclude from electoral power, [)rovided
a certain property qualification exists, we shall not
be able to stop there, and draw a hard-and-fast lino
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 will reply
that, giving votes to spinsters and widows only, 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-

'&' mm

170

Wotunu Sii/frai^c Wrong.

■il '

pnyors nntiirally roG^ard this as conclusive, since it
would <^ivo tlioin votes ! Hut lot readers clearly
cortipivhcnd the scope of this arc]fU!nont for spinster
and wi(h)\v voters. It is proposed to enfranchise
certain women, not as woinen, but as citizens.
That is, because they are already, more or less
independent, they and they alone of thoir sex, sliall
have this male ])rivilej4*e of votinf^ ! Citizens* privi-
lesj^es are accorded to men, not merely on a property
(pjalilication, but also in rii^ht of sex; and properly
so, because from men, are exacted citizens* duties,
fraught with toil, dauf^er, and considerable con-
sumption of valual)le time — from which all vjomcn
are exempted, solely in right of se,« / 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 excludinsj them ; so lonct 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 hurtliens, is a fair offset against
exclusion from privileges ; to all logical thinkers.
Not of course to platform Amazons, who argue
thus : " Woman is man's equal, therefore woman

3, since it
s clojirly
• spinster
rraiichiso

citizens.

or less
Jex, shall
is' privi-
[)r()perty
properly

duties,
ble con-

vjomen

liis fact

\>\ struc-

Sexual

1. Mr.

\s been

mchise,

lad he

acuity,

at this

ongest

3an be

xclud-

male

omen !

gainst

nkers.

argue

^oman

Analysis of the Woman Siiffrairc Bill. 171

should have nmn*8 rights added to her own." The
gentler sex are not exp(>cted to serve in army, navy»
TiianneH, militia, vohinteers, police, coastguai'd, fire
biigade; on juries; nor to render the State various
other arduous services re(|uired 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 adudt to be physically weaker
than the male) — and on account of ini[)()rtaiit
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, where such an ccpiitable,
Divinely-disposed division of labour — mental, and
physical — is not jealously respected, and zealously
guarded 1 Can woman carry arms in her country's
defence ? Can she capture smugglei's, I'obbers,
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 miore capable of
making, administering, and executing laws, than of

172

Wo man SnffraifC Wfoug,

^1^

dofotullii^ tho country jit luizjinl of hor life. Milton,
eclioin^ tlio inspircMl volume, obsorvos : — *' liuws
nro njjisculino births. Notliiiig is nioro away from
tho law of God and Naturo, than that a woman
shoukl give laws to man." Woman can no nioro
dischargo man's special duties, ns citizen, soldier,
politician, jurist, legislator, judge, statestnan,
ge!ieral, admii'al, etc., than man can fulfil woman's
special conjugal and maternal functions. Kach sex
is strong, precisely where tho other is weak. Each
therefore is tho 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 po,ver. 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 difiference of opinion
or sentiment, until the age of puberty. Then how great the differ-
ence. The boy springing into manhood, is at once and for ever
developed, and so far as sex is concerned, completed. Whereas
tlte 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 Real
Differences in the Minds of Men and Women," Anthrop. Journ.,
Oct., 1869). See E^ssay, for explanation of term in text.

Ann/ysi's of the Woman Siiffrairc Hill. \1''\

I. Milton,

: — ** FiJiwa

iiwny fi'orn

n wornsiii

1 no nior'o

n, Holdior,

3tatu8tnuM,

woman's

Each H(»x

ik. Kach

lubstitiito.

It is a

3man, tlio

pplied to

'ays inore

)n.*

is with

justice,

women

nay, and

ly, and

diculous

Parlia-

great

of opinion

the differ-

i for ever

Wliereas

an admir-

ublime of

the Real

J. Journ.f

majority of mon cannot voto. IJnriiUistionably,
non-voting mon and womon aro indirectly rupre-
sontod. nosid(»s, tho fair, l(»gitiiniito means of
iiifliKmcing legislation o|)(m to both soxos, non-
voting woman's influnnco is iuwo far sti'ongor tlian
that of non-voting man. The [)ro-c5min(MJC() givon
to questions affecting woman, snIHciontly proves
this fact. Since then ordinary observation, hourly
exporicncn, respect for womon, mon, natui'o, pos-
terity, Uovolation, Divine and human laws, cojupol
us to mnke such importatit distinctions in the (liific.i
imposed on m(m and womon; it is absuj'dly,
wickedly unjust to ask legislators to make no dis-
tinction in the privilryeti of tho sexes. Endced such
a claim is intolerable, and itnpossible of fulfilment.
Men treat women much better than their ocpials.
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 1 The logical man- woman wants to
bo treated like a man, and a woman too ! Makers,
administrators, and interpreters of our laws,
let^islators, judges, lawyers, ministers of Religion,
u[)liolders 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 Su/fruifc Wrong,

!»

««

Minn Beckur tnado thu gnind disoovory thnt tliu
wonl Man^ Rciontifically iiaod, compriflos Uoth soxos.
ll(!ii{'(? tho lady logician argued — (and d()ul)tl(»s.s
ja'ovcd .satisfactorily to soil' and party) — that,
wojriati, in addition to wornanVs I'i^dits ; is cloarly
entitled to all tlio rights of man, includinjjf ofcourHo
Bucli a triBu as thu political francluHo, which, as
women ontnutnhor men, would, as womanhood
8nnVa<;e, cMiablo women to ndo men directly, as they
now do indirectly. Revising barristers, however,
bein^^ men and lawyers, were too obtuse, or preju-
diced to SCO tho logical force of this clever argument,
and relentlessly struck female names off tho rolls of
voters. Tho inventor of this anjHoicntinn ad fa-mi-
iiavit proves far too much I If tho word IMiin is to
bo wrested from its purely scientific meaning, and
applied politically to give women the ri-anchiso — 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 hnrt/icns are involved 1 Our
legislators are asked to abrogate the law; our
judges and lawyers to interpret and stretch tlie law,
sj as to confer — not on women in general — not
on the foi'cmost, most important women — not on
wives, and mothers charged with educating the
rising generation — 7wt even on the poorest, most
helpless women, but on a favoured chiss comprising
comfortable, independent and wealthy women — the
prlvilt>(/cs of hath 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

fil
ill

til
w

(if
d(

I'd

Analysis of the Wonuin Siiffriiffc Hi II. 175

r timt thu

oi\\ 80X08.

doubtloss
y) — tlmt
ia cloarly
of coiirso

•Vllicll, UH

nnanliond
y, as tlioy
Iiowovor,
or pi'f'jii-
i'i,nim(Mif,
e rolls of

7r/ fo'tnl"

liui is to
iM<r, aii(]
cliiso — if
rivilot^us
'Mion, so

! Our
w; our

lio hiw,

al — not
-not on

ng the
most

)rising

n — the

f such
class,

'tually

t liis : — Tlio (lormmd o*' ctM'tiiin \voin«>ii I'or inauVs
pi'ivih^^us, is as uiiroasoiialilo as wouM bo llio (IouisiikI
of curtain raon for women's privilogos— oxotuption
from citizens' duties, male burtlions, toils, daui;»'r?i
involving hazard and sacrifice of life. 'L'o ^naut
tliis di'niand, inadi^ not as a rcMpiust, but as a l*i<jlif%
would bo to ignore all distmotioiis botwooii man and
woman, to subvort nature and tiio constitution, to
destroy the foundations of law, order, social and
domostic happiness. In ltS70 Mr. (iladstono said :
** I cannot recognise rthor the ni'cessity or desii'u
for this measure which would justify sucli an un-
settling, not to say uprcx'ting of the old landmarks
of society."

This sound observation was made previously to
the then Premier's "education" in the j)rinci[)les of
Woman Suffrage. Since then Mr. (jhulstono was
"got at" by some of the platform ladies, and the
" grand old mail " began immediately, like a woathei'-
cock, to veer to the wind. At (Jreonwich, when
power was slipping from htm, he made a bid for
po[)ularity in these words : — " How, in an ago whoa
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 wo 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

.A*^'

170

IVoman Suffrage Wrong.

.^f

Suffrage, but ho 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 V^oman 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
Right Hon. Mr. Gladstone was a more intelligent
friend to '^'oman, 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

'acyement.
platform
tool from
)ceed fast
he goes
An Irish
n calls an
it to be
estion of
in utter
Brmininof
am still
my hand
laws and
i present
: quoted
was one
s I ever
I ere are
merely
ving to
human
ige the
diligent

Mem-
educa-
than

inde-
merits
y and

Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Dill. 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 belief that
sentiment will supply the place of reasoning. What-
ever other advantages may result, 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

JVof/Kin 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 I 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.

ofTered
hoy aro
, wrong

iiiority.

''e them

cpressly

virtual

lich can

J advo-

1 of the

to any

able to

involve

jy first-

le fran-

this

atom

md for

s to be

ded on

Litly to

ssed of

iu the

logical

mand,

in the

who

fluent,

noes ;

Analysts of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 179

but all^ more or less, independent, above the world.
None could bo 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 introdioed 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.

C3 \

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 I The
bill asks either too little, or too much. Citizens
are elijjible for manv offices besides votiner. 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 utie
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

lal, no
II If rage
lity for
aid in
he first
HIS the
•ported
! The
itizens
Advo-
sly or
rt^omen
vith a
^ with
vomen
If a
lected
erical,
Mr.
3t ad-
o say
ctoral
3gisla-

to be

^e, as
osing
■>j of

women by a *' fluko." 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 ! ITow 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 Property 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 Suff^-age, 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 Snjf'ras^e Wrong,

thereby intensifies a very pretty quarrel, or mortal
striigi^le of ten years' standing — Division in the
"Woman Suffrage Camp !

The plausible platform {)lca is that woman's
interests are not sufHciently 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 ])roperty 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 tiix.es voted for woman's franchise, in a sort

Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 183

of complimentary way to women, never believing
tliat it would bo carried. The boast of its advocates
that the measure may be carried, and tlie parade of
promises of support that they have received, have
led many to perceive the abyss into which their
thou<(htless civility was leadin<jj thom. 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 iiien 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 factor 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. Labouclicre may not have
followed so long, and so closely as I have, the Woman Suffrage
Movement. But tlie expression " Revile me, latlies," shows that
he is well acquainted with the manner in which its lady advocates
receive opposition!

184

Wow an Suffrage Wrong.

government. Stippoae these women's men do not
satisfy their female constituents, actin*^ like other
representatives, or even more independently. Tlu^y
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.
Eesult — open rupture and deadlock I

Then, and in that case, what is the value of this
measure of Woman Suffrage ? Spinster and Widow
voters, in Scriptural phrase " took men," ^.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 ;

9n do not
liko otlior
ly. Tli.y
" stro!i<^-
Tightonod
,nd hisaos.
p a spirit,
judgruont,
ino policy
aent. No
sciontious
bound by
aucus-lod
jine, wax
their lady
;old, and
heir own
spinster
wishes of
and that
ed duty.

of this
Widow
i.e,, re-
-accord-
Ipieces of
be ever
and to
In flatly
lidding ;

Analysis of the Woman Suffrage Bill. 185

will no longer tilt at wiiulniills with ftMiialo
Quixotes; ridicule the wavy cause thoy oiilislcd Lo
servo; and openly repudiate the sickening cant that
Lvitish women, the freest, happiest, most clierishod
and honoured in the world — are classed with felons,
idiots, lunatics, outlaws, and minors, because thoy
have not votes I Something like a real gi'iovanco
at last I And spinsters and widows are not the
men 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 })ormitted
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 1 Women can
represent women far more effectually than mere
men. We will return women representatives to
Parliament."

** Tall talL' 1 " 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

180

Woman Sufffuf^c Wrouir.

%%i

ia tmoupfh to tost tlio case. Would (loor-ko(i|)ora
daro to koop hor out ? If she onco got in, would
tho combined wisdom of Parliamont, moasurod
ai^ainst hor fomalo wit, c^vor ^ot hor out, or koop
hor out? Supposo sho sat down and throatonod to

lolla

Fir

'(»

if intcrforod with. Would tho

S(M'joant-at-arms vonturo to oboy tho Spoakor*s
ordor to remove tho incomploto member vi et armla ?
Supposo that f]^ravo official and tho lady M.P. por-
forrnini^ an involuntary pan de (hiu^ a novel kind of
waltz, an impromptu ** No I'opory" dance, from
tho table to tho door; could Honourable members
j)i'osorvo their <^ravity ? But oven wore " tho
resources of civilisation " competent to eject tho
intrnder, could tho House pass calmly to the ordor
of tho day ? Would not legislators bo harassed by
painful memories, and by still more painful fore-
bodinu^s — to say nothing of imminent danger.
Imagine Trafalgar Sqinro filled with women in
revolt I Imagine tho incomplete lady member
weeping, with dishevelled hair, making political
capital oiit of her suffei'ings, exhibiting marks of
personal violence; appealing to an Amazonian army
awfully arrayed, ready and willing to copy the
excesses of Parisian women at Versailles Gth
October, 1789.*

* Reatlors dpeming tliis picture overcharged, should refer to
"The Modern Woman" {Truth, 14th June, 1888). ihe article
describes women forcing themselves into the Ladies' Gallery to
hear a debate on a particularly revolting subject. The Speal^er's
warning given by tho attendants, was " treated with flaunting
insolence and impudent contempt." Nor would they listen in

Analysis 0/ the Wotnan Suffnigc UilL 187

in, would

ino.isurod

or koop

!lf(!nO(l to

oiild tho

S|)('jikor*s

ot (irnn's ?

Vr.P. por-

)1 kind of

CO, from

mombors

re " tho

3J0Ct tlio

jho ordor

assod by

fid fore-

(lani,'er.

)rnon in

niornbor

[)olitical

arks of

m army

py the

es Gtli

refer to

ic article

allery to

5peaJ<er'8

flaunting

isten in

Seriously, howtwor, liow long would tlu> present
law restricting tnornborship to mon, roiuuin un-
changed? If 800,000 women can talk thomaelvos
into possession of votes, they will soon talk women
into Pai'liuuK^nt. I eliallongo rational consistent
women sulTrage advocates to reply satisfafjtorily in
the negative. Advocates of women voting, cutmob
consistently object to women legislating. In en-
franchising women, they make a much more radical
change in tho constitution, than in sanctioning
t'emalo Members of i^ai'liamont. If some women are
better fitted than some men to vote; tho samo or
other women aro bettor fitted than other women to
legislate. Mrs. Woldon might bo returned at tho
head of tho 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, suddoidy to stop short in thoir
seU'-aketcli(»d programme of political power ? Little
they know of human, of womanly, and of political
woman's nature, who think tho agitation for

BJlence. '* At the conclnsion of one speech, these nasty-ininded
women, actually, in violation of all rules of tho 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 ! ' 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

JVoman Stiff tdgc Wrong.

'iM

c ^*

\\ fit

political power would flulwido with Spinstor niwi
Wi<low rtuffni^o 1 Why Hhould it? You liuvn j^nvrti
80(),()()() woinrri siilHciont povvor to muko thoin wisli
for moro ; and you havo oxcitod very luitui'jil (Uivy
iu thu mass of wotnou for thu suffrugu. It will
thun bo too latu to say to atnbitious wornun l)urniti<;
to distinguish thctnsolvos, and to oxtinguisli inan's
monopoly iti tho Sonato : ** Think what you ask.
If women may ))ec()mo legislators, they may become
ministers — anything and everything they fancy."
"VVomen-electors will then openly sav, what they
now only think, ** Of course wo may I So you
men havo just discovered the game we women havo
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 tho consoqueucos, boforo assisting us to pass Mr.
Woodall's bill. Had you at first put your feet
down against Woman Suffrage, you would havo
been consistent. You foolishly helped us to
electoral povvor, thinking that would settle the
question. As if we would havo boon satisfied with
this paltry modicum of political power, oven if
married women would have tolerated tho invidious
distinction of Spinster and Widow voters represent-
ing, and betraying their sex 1 Wo 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 oflQce in any, and every dopartmenl of tho
public service. You have forfeited all right to say :

iristcr and
liuvo j(iv<?ti
tliutn wish
if iinil iwwy
e. it will
Dn Ixir-riin^
lisli riiiiii's
^ you ask.
ay bocDrno
iy fancy."
vluit, tlioy
So you
3111011 Iiavo
3, aro now
consistent
t) thou^lit
• pjiss Mr.
your foot
ukl Iiavo
d us to
cttlo the
fiod with
oven if
invidious
oprosont-
ght their
withhold
r. That
right to
of the
to say :

Analysis of the Woman Sujfni^c DHL 189

' Thus far, arul no further. This occupation is
womanly ; that is not.* VulUical jtowcr Inclndas
etwri/t/iimj I *'

Women electors would say very much inoro.
But this is more than enou^^h logically to silorjco
thoii* pros(»nt allies, who simply think that Spinster
and Widow Suffrage will settle the vox(m1 (piestion.
Srttle it, in one way, it certaiidy 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 wore told in 1809
tlwit women wore educating the Women of FiUgland
for the SufTrago. And in 1871 that the victory
was already won I In face of these facts, can it bo
seriously boliovod 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
niy conviction that the groat mass of women, re-
ninining 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.

'.lie

la*'

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 'hat the Woman-Suffrage Question
was settled by admitting 800,000 Spinsters and
Widows to the suffrage I 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 cVeti^e, 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.

tes mono-
Id to this
be mocked
> Question
isters and
3I1 actually
ony ; does
si'oputable
eludes all
y will you
)n-electors
Qable. Is
1 of wives,
s? Is it
vances of
)il utterly
Sexual
practice,
lout any
ere com-
tli man,
Widow-
measure,
cates of
pported,
but the
of the

CHAPTER II.

WOMEN POLITICIANS INVOLVE WOMEN WARRIORS !

Are 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.

■■Si

102

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

^ :.'

I now argue on the hypothesis that woman suffrage
is a right. If you contend that woman can becomo
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 physical, than in mental vigour. For one woman
really meriting the much misapplied term strong-
mi?ided, 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 ! 198

m suffrajxe
an becomo
courage of
al measure
onsistently
^dministra-
md all the
champion
ed from a

copy that
King of
s. But I
> to show
tilise our
ceptional
e woman
m strong-
)died. On
al power,
sion, are
ly sweep
right of
to act
3llow the
enlistinor
a, volun-
ice, civil
'j of our
ith their
ding our

common country. If the sexual equality theory be
reduced to practice, women must becompolled to do
their share of all the datigorous work now monopo-
lised by man ; a result of tlieir pet hypothesis not
yet perceived by logical platform Amazons ! But,
observe, the question here, is not man's right of
forcim] 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 womajily 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 miofht 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 sus^o-estion 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,

rfll

194

Wo VI an 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 I 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 difficult, it" 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

ing, and
Dryadalo,
serves : —
jcompaiiy
liei'S and
jir wives
, regard -
e point a
any tlieir
ige when
no more
lan men,
be nrged
count be
such an
^ to un-
ties will
ions and
lities, it
3le, for
ler, and
me ship,
bakers,

inces of
ed their
he toils

women
nilitary
uish an

speak.

*' 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 meny that they might
personate male voters. Thus, female warriors hrve
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, spoech,
and action ; and do precisely what seems riglit in her
own eyes. There will be a great increase in female
warriors. The martial spirit is now y^?"^ 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 tliey say
We live an easy life at home, secure
From danger, whilst tliey lift the spear in war :
Misjudging men ; thrice would I stand in arras
On the rough edge of battle, e'^r once bear
The pangs of child-birth."*

" There's a good time coming, giiis^^ 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."

lOG

Woman Si(Jfrage Wrong.

titl '»,

IN ^1

hK .t,

suf^gestion that " women should accompany man
every where."

Advocates, eager to remove woman's political
disabilities, should give us a bill more straight-
forward, consistent, thorough, and comprehensive
than this ])Oor abortive measure of cora[)romise ;
this bill which gives the vote to concubines and
courtesans, possessing establishments, while refusing-
it to all wiveSi 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
aUoi»:ether. 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 : — " Noits aeons change tout cela^
Permit every woman to do lohat Iter liand findeth to do
— what seems right in her own eges.-\ Let female

* " Tliis Cill ought to be opposed, whenever it docs 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,
theret'ore, that all the principal advocates of female suffrage among
women are bitterly opposed to it." {Truth, 11th April, 1889.)

+ 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! 107

pany man

s political
) straight-
prohensivo
Qpromiso ;
bines and
le refusing"
I'oporty in
ing, let us
to remove
bolish sex
les women
ijustico of
y, persists
Let men-
Moliere's
lit cela^
deth to do
Jt female

's come for-
ar, what it

ifies them,
al rights of
er is a dis-

■surprised,
age among

1889.)

ctoria Dis-
ar, hoar :"
^ing ladies
that I did,
uded these

modesty, female weakness, feinalo virtue take care
of themselves I Female warfare will at once provide
for all, or most of our sur| lus women. Women
wlio have got no work to do, may convert tluun-
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 bo absorbed by army,
navy, marines, militia, volunteers, police, coast-
guard, fire brigade, navvies, etc. And, considering
the present state of Piccadilly, and other West P]nd
thoroughfares at midnight, this would be a very
great blessing 1 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 corpora
sanoy* 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. Woodull's
little Bill.

* At the Victoria Discussion Society, I heard a young lady say
she saw no impropriety in mixed classes 1 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.

:1IB il

C '»

iiS^

will be the bc3t cure for many fomnle complaints
resulting from a sedentary life ; and when political
disabilities are removed, women who now go through
a reyimeny may prefer to go through a refjiment !
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 retnin 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 uusexed 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 PoIitici(Vis Involve Women Warriors! 101>

omplaints
1 political

0 tliroiigh
rcfjiment !
fonstrous
en in its

it<ablo for
oro cavil.
3tpin any
abandon
bjoction.
the law
woman,
:o whioli
endorses
es most
ing the
5ut con-
onsider
ct con-
ised on
to the

1 views
Who

eman-

sex ?
1 wear

chief

possible

characteristic of womanhood ? PolUlnal rights m-
clmk (dl of hers ! The principle* of Sexual Kqiiality
pressed lioine, consistently carried out, and acted
on, must infallibly level all bai'riers 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 bo
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 like man, and (since the greater
privilege comprehends the less) the corollary is in-
evitable— that woman has a right to dress in every

I 1

c *

^" 1

200 JVoiudfi Sn/frmrc IVnmg.

respect like man I To tliia Imppy pfoal of proi^ross,
this (Icadlock of dcccMicy, BritiHli emancipationists
liuvo not ycf hmnn^lit w()iM(»n I Lessons of morality
and i'eli<^ion instilled into women, nnder man-mado
laws, are not so easily unlearned. But the new
female philosophy looks down contemptuously on
existing women, as ])oor ari'estcd, distorted un-
developed heinj^s, with forced habits, and taKse 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 far-simile of man. The ])resent generation
can only see the promised land. But we have ordy
to gaze towards a country continually extolled as a
model in everything, by reformers who have never
been there 1 Most significant fact I 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 1 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.

fVomcn Politicians Involve H'onicn IVarriors! 2r>l

ro,i,'roas,
itionists
tnornlitv

lio now

n.sly on

led un-

lee ideas

)f tlu'ir

Woman

ns slie

ecd in

ing all

become

oration

^G only

xl as a

) never

) most

Soxual

adopt-

he so-

sex.

scend

)eing !

)poses

emale

ODian

from

rally,

er VI.

like a man ; hut tlie law alone hinders woman from
diessing like niaii. IJiit this is one amonj^ the first of
man-maih! laws, wliich feinaU? legislators would ahcr.
As wo have seen, the Latin word virago means a
man-acting, or man-Hke woman, a lemalo warrior.*
This word is a hitter tertn of re[)roach to woman.
If a woman is ashamed of lier sex (girding at the
term womanly, which is every sensible woman's
proudest boast) she nuist not bo surprised if hoi*
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 im[)erlect
copy of the male being whom sho 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 Ameiica,
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 ^^pantalettes" 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

WoffiuH Suffrage Wrong,

lVo\

ta ft

Cm ■
*m ■

m !• If

Soxiiul iion-tM^ujility is fraught with \niu\y udvun-
tn^os to woman, es[)ocifilly in oxornpting lior from
coinpiilaory milit.iry and imval florvioo. Within
tho tiiornory of liviuir ithui, tho IJritish navy was
niaiMMMl by pross-i^a!»;^s. No woman iruiurrod any
risk of l)oin<( soizcd, an<l forcibly takon off to faoo
tho cnomy — (as al)lo-l)odiod mon wore) — no matter
liow far she oxcolUul tnan'aavorago hoight, size, and
stron^th. All this will bo altorod, wlum womon <j;ot
th(»ir ^^rif/htH** and thoir duties. Ablo-bodiod woinon
will firstly voluntoor : tlu>y will fijradiially assort
their ri^ht to ont(}r tho polico, provontivo sorvioe,
firo brifjfado, and militia. Lastly, thoy will claim
tlio privilof^e of oidiatinf^ in army and navy; and
b(>ini^ eli^^'iblo for coirunissions. Women will gradu-
ally discover that citizen's rlijhts are inseparable
from citizen's ditfics. The hiw (based on the plat-
form cry of strict Sexual Equality) will no longer
distinguish between ** tho two sexes of man " to
pi'otect tho female sex. Miss Becker's theon/ will
then bo reduced to i)ractice. And the word Man
must then include woman, not merely when
pi'ivilegos aro to be gained, but also when serious
sufferings, dangers, wounds, and death are to be
borne. Should wo ever have to recur to press-
gangs to man the navy ; to conscription, compulsory
recruiting, or tho Prussian universal military service
system ; emancipated women will have tho full
benefit of the new order of things, introduced by
their officious friends — Sexual Equality and Women
Suffrage Advocates. Women will then practically

appi(
IMiittI
they

tion
and

iromcn Politicians Involve H'onicn ITarriots ! 2l)Ji

a|)pr(»ciiit(> tlioadaj^o:— ** Save us from our fVitnuls.**
Platform ladlcvs will \fv.t tlioir rtuvaitl, tli;it, is, if
thoy eacapo buiti^ lynchoil by tlioir fuinalo dupos, at
last awakofUHl from tlioir fool's parivliso. Soxuiil
K(piality Advocates may tlion too lato ro^^rot tlio
old-fasliioMod so-calltMl fouialo slavery, wIhmi wotuoii
oxoiupt from citizi'u's ri;^lits and dutios, wero main-
tained and [)rotocted by men.

How far chivalry is carriuil from man to womati,
and how kind and conaidorato rou<^h sailors woro to
women who had forfeited all titlo to considi^ration
by character and conduct; is shown by C/a[)tain
Marryat's graphic account, or rather hUtovij^ of
how a press-gaiif? of determined men were circum-
vented and conquered by one woman I Peter Simple
describes the party entering a house, where tho
landlady stood to defend the entrance. ** Tho
passage was ^)ng and narrow, and she was a very
tall, corpulent womati, so that her body nearly
tilled it up, and she held a long spit [)ointed at us,
by which she kept us at bay. Tho officers did not
like to attack a woman ; and at last she made such
a rush upon us, with her spit, that had wo not fallen
back, and tumbled over one another, she certainly
would have run it through tho 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 i'loral reflec-
tion exceedingly appropriate to Sexual Equality,
and Woman's Rights Advocates, virtually inciting

4irii

204

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

'm ft

C=^

*»: Ml

women to fight with mon I " 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 imrau cities 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 v. man I

Platform Paradox : Women-voters softening Political

Rancour !

A notable argument for Woman Suffrage has
been urged. Give women tbe 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 o1 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
HiEiloo Rajah, that from Eve, to present platform

Women Politicians Involve JVomen Warriors! 205

man,
lienoe
man.
his
srhere
sxual
t en-
the
form

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
French revolution. They played a prouiinent part
in the outrages of 6th Oct., 1789, when the Queen
narrowly escaped with life, and which Bailly called
*' un beau joiir.^' 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 w^^e, and the
little apprentice." A witness of this terrible pro-
* " Reflections on the Kevolution in France," p. 98.

iii!S'4

206

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

C^^

•5 It: m.

cession of twelve miles protracted to six liours,
Lally Tolendal, calls the women who assisted, "ces
femmes cannihales." Their leader was Theroij^ne
de Mericonrt, 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 looked, without
shrinking, at the bloody trophies borne on pikes.
This was her way of softening noli^i^al rancour !
Yet, women more degraded and san;^ i.....y, punished
her terribly, because even s7ie tried to stop the
downward progress of the revolution. The furies
of the guillotine publicly stripped and scourged
Theroigue 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, au^l, with
her white hair, in wild disorder, cling to the \v ' \ 0*^.
grating, address an imaginary populace, and deii. i id
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 femiJes evinced a keen interest in si-'ighter.
They played a prominent part in the prison ma. satTes
of September, 1792. They danced the Carmagnole,
before the tumbrils conveying victims to execution.

Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors! 207

: liours,

leroigne
ationary
ig-liabit,

pistols,
led the
^aris to
lide the
without
n pikes,
ancour !
)unished
top the
e furies
CO urged
This
ihe was

twenty
|ld drag
la, with

[eiiai Kl
lyer.
[ith the
laradox
:'evolu-
ighter.
■sa(Tes
^gnole,
5ution.

Hideously blending domestic and sanguinary tastes,
they took their work, and sat amicably round the
guillotiue, critically enjoying the spectacle of royal
and aristocratic blood streaming from severed
veins and a^^teries. These were *' les trlcoteiises
de la guillotined 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 coffin sufficiently
large to the remains of her murdered king I Some
invented a gratuitous amusement which gained them
the sickening title of *' les lecheuses de la (jaillotlne."
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 iatal 10th August, 1792,
when the heroic Swiss were massacred in cold
blood, women far exceeded men in cruelty. Women
were seen to li^arder disarmed Swiss, to strip, and
to mutilate them barbarously. Some women greased
the corpses, exposed tliem 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 street?." Many were — not all. But

illl'rl

208

lVo})inn Sujffage Wrong.

^U!

C'^

,;; ffi Jis' '

they were toomen politicians, and, according to the
phitforrn theory, should have softened pohtical
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 off 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
•nurderess ; 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
Roland, is that she induced her husband to publish his confidential

g to the

political

istead of

)oclshed !

into tlio

aad than

ited, and

id. The

lind, and

blood of

a less a

lal doom

Roland,

furies of

\r moro

3ur. It

il of the

minense

Poland's

' Sire,

jetween

r at the

t)m the

This

secret,

depart-

Loiiis.

lis wife,

ding to

Madame
nfidential

Women Politicians Involve Women Warriors ! 201)

destroy the monarchy, 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 contradicticn,
and was often confirmed in error, by 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 disgu'sed
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 : " Recollections of Mirabeau," p. 328J.

210

Woman Suffrajfc IV f on if.

^lim

C'i'

said — " les hesolns d*une ^;/i?/s?V/?tg bien organiseey^
with which, as Sir Walter Scott justly observes, a
courtesan of tho higher class would hardly season
her private conversation to her most favoured
lover 1

Nor was the great revolution of 1 789 exceptional.
Subsequent revolutions have proved that female
politicians do not soften political rancour. Wotnen
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.

fVonien Politicians Involve IVotncn IVayriors! 1211

erves, a

season

avoured

ptional.
female
Women
d clubs,
n Eye-
At St.
ired the
fig, and
:ed, and
IS shed,
Women
it cost
nd was
air. *
ds on
iausing
Is, and
1. In
idraw.
rgents
rteous
) grow
ey re-
other
e she

supported her dying companion with the other. A
volley from the barricades, and one from the Niitioual
Guards took place at the same instant, and amid
many victims was the second woman, who full over
the body of the first." * *' In virtue of this ///>«;■///,
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 Canda-
lot gave the forlorn hope of France, * 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
* Ihideiiij Vol. ii., p. 66. % Ibidem, Vol. ii., Chap. XI.

212

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

in 1871, wore moro bloodthirsty than tho men. and
cnrnod another untranslatable name — hspetrolewses.
Wo cannot wonder that female suffrage is not
p()[)ular in France. IMioro are in Great Britain
female politicians, whom the first breath of revolu-
tion would drive completely frantic. Wo have only
to attend AVoman 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 Franco 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 \fiirens quidfcemina
possity 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 demaojogues 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.

IFovicn Politicians Involve fronicn ffarriorsl 21:1

public af^itation, women liavo boon nolsitu', sillier,
iiioro violent than the most infuriated of masculino
|)liilantlu'0[)ists. A Mrs. Leo, a Mrs. Minck, and
several other ornaments of their sex, occupied the
time of the Poaco Congress, by elaborate apologies
for the Paris Commune, and the civil war which it
promoted : and another virago propounded tlio
sweeping assertion that all men, whether warlike or
peaceful, wore equally monsters."

At this Peace Gontjress^ 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. lluskin, addressing women,
observes: — "You know, or at le^^t you might
know, if you would think, that every battle you
hear of, has made many vvidows 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 towards God,
vow that she will mo' n, 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, slie will wear black — a mute
black — with no jowel, 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 rufihed

21 |.

IVonuin Sujfrngc IVfong.

5* 11 J

b'tweon tlio comlMitaiits iit risk of lift^, woundH, niul
dentil. To ask tliis would be inireasoimblo ; but
only to put off tlieii* ornanieiita, arid Lo put on
mourning for ono-sixth of tho time of Lent — one
brief week! Is this too liigli a price to pay for
Peace? Will women pay it? Madame de Gasparin
bas proposed union of women for this noblo,
humane, Christiati purpose. All honour to that
hidy 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 tkeij would
ever put an end to war, is excessively amusing.
Political women would nndtiply 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 \var exact
from man. The "short madness of auger" 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

cIh, nnd
lo ; hut
nut on
it — ono
lay for
iispnrin
iioblo,
o that
Jortain,
bo (lis-
ilt will
■not by
/ornon,
r'olt of
would
iusiiif,^.
thoii"
more

d con-

o that

sions,

exact

lould

, and

liout

and

tis an

then

male

same

Wofucn Politicians Involve Women Warriors I 2l'>

features contracted, and dislorted by passion, I'tMidors
all such violent emotions indescribably hideous in
woman. Physical courage is exclusively a male
virtue. Women are constitntionally timid, and
theii' chief virtue is modesty. Any gi'eat and
nnusual (whibition of bravery by a woman, or
violent excitement, especially the loud, iiitcmperato
lan<,niaL^e of (piarrel, 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 intendcjd to rival man, either in politics
or war. The senate, bar, platform, barra(;k, guard-
room, and battle-field do not foster woitianly 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 wonuin'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

210

Woman Sn/fra^c Wrong,

Hfll

nflorwnnlH iliHtiii^uishod,'* Afjiiiy ji |)r()fll«,'nto
(wlioflo rcrklf'RH caicci' piizzlcH fricinlH, piiroiitM, and
tho niotlicr who alxlicatc'd mutoriud luiK'tioiis) mif^lit
personally apply Ooorgo Staunton's confession to
Jrniiio Deans : — *' Tlio sourco from whence I derived
food when an infant, niUHt have coniniiinicatctl to
nie the fatal propc^nsity to vices that were sti'aiij^cr'S
to my own t;unily."

Some may say : — " It is su[)erlluoiis to dwell ou a
self-evident proposition : woman ought not to engage
in war." Hut womon-warriors are jis ruitural as
women politicians. On tho Sexual Kcpiality [)rin-
ciple, wo cannot draw a hard and fast lino between
what women may, ami may not do. i have dwelt
on tho eid'ranchised woman's right to shed blood as
soldier or sailor, because war 1 Mtherto — (with
some very trifling exceptions) — been confined to
man. liut after our laws shall have made woman a
lull citizen, on the sexual equality principle, accord-
ing her the right to labour in any profession, war
cannot logically bo confined to man. Recruiting
parties could now enlist thousands of able-bodied
women capable of enduring the fatigues of a cam-
paign, ard 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 aistinguish 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,

Wopfivn Politicians Involve Women Warriors f 217

itM, and
) Mii^^Hit
sion to
(lurivi'd
atcd fo

'Jin<;(»r8

on a

ii'al as

r priri-

L^twccri

I dwt'lt

ood as

-(with

od to

man a

ccofd-

1, war

uiting

lodied

cam-

•nong

ornen

L'lvos

wish

itary

ility,

n all

We,

conRistont, oppononts of Woman Suffra^o, can say :
fernalo Holdiors an<l .sailorn disgrace thoir sox, out-
rage liumanity ; and that men woidd bo Jn^tituMl in
provontinj^ hiicIi a scandal, by physical I'orco. Hut
advocatos oE ocpial rights for both soxoa, oannot say
this, without abandoninj^ tho pri!»ci[)l() on which
woman suffrajj;o is doniandnd. Wo tako our stand
on this principlo that by (iod's ordinances, pro-
claimed in Nature and llovt^lation, man can say to
woman : You shall mcddlu neither with politics nor
war. Woman SulTrage advocates virtually concede
woman's ri<j;ht to do everything she desires to do.
At the Dialectical Society (Urd May, 1872) I asked
Dr. Drysdale, and other woman sulTra^e advocates,
whether women should bo permitted to tight as
soldiers, sailors, etc. ? Only one consistent woman's
suffrage advocate, a gentleman under thirty, ven-
tured to advocate woman's right to shod blood, and
supported his opinion by stating that ho had fought
side by side with a woman in France I

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
bravo women have as good, or rather a far better
right, to display their prowess on battle-helds. 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,

I' '

I ,

218

IVoman Suffrage Wrong.

€

etc.; a woman may also be a common soldiei*, or
sailor, a military or naval officer, a general, or
admiral, minister of war, or first lady of the
Admiralty. Ail 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 '"bjected
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 politic^' ans 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 frr 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
ciiildren, ordering hou'ehclds, as occupation, and
fitting sphere of labour for woman; allowing he"
als(> the range of art, architecture, music, painting,
and literature (in fact, what Nature permits her to

Women Po/t'fictans Involve Women Warriors I 219

iiei', or
3ral, or
of the

female
equality
Dolitical
inguisli
)ns, are
bjected
3ates of
)f those

widow
3 swept
f there
involve
quality,
ics and
her for
7'omen-
female
tion of
sistent

God
for the
e wild
lursing
n, and
ig hf*
inting,
her to

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 1
A wild goat on the top of a fir tree, would not appear
more out of place I Or fancy a man managing the
nursery I 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 provision3, 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 Woman^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

JVofnan Suffrage Wrong.

I ^m It

'KB il

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, mors 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 caso of female
ascendency, it gains its reputation, and produces its
effect, only by adding its peculiar propei ties 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

sticated
manly

I of his
lourage-
ivacious

II brook
tives to
nent be
>re diffi-
ing this
woman
s is not
0, when
r good ;
d there
tutions

I ; that
rulers,
the in-
IV, the
•mities,
female
ces its
) those

ts, all
:omIng
Bstions
'atigue
3s, and
; from

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 ? ' there anything alluring in
exercising irascib e passions? anything congenial
to female temper, in the methods adop od by persons
coveting power, that we should barter aU our joys
to partake theirs ? What do we se- gained by those
now foremost? Endless anxiety with those in
power; chagrin not to bo alleviated 'n those ex-
cluded. Let us, then, leave to i^ .n 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

Woma7i Suffrage Wrong.

■ I

^11

3«''«|i

< I

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 shn^l 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 I 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 ^".dker never designed us for anything
but what tie created us, a suhordiivite class of beings;
a sort of noun adjective of the human species, tend-
ing greatly to the perfftotion of that to which it is
joined, but iiicapable of sole subsistence.f In this
age of female heroism, I shall gain no credit by

* See Miss Emily FaitbfuU's statement, Part i., Chap. II., and
attempts of authoress of " Signs of the Times " to reconcile Sexual
Equality with the Bible, Chap. III.

•j- Imagine the shrieks of ^ .sapproval 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 I 22)3

heirs re-
' percep-
pass us :
partially
rmation,
ract us.
ofc know
ns, and
ernately
d below

s, there

le in the

religion

i plead •

lat can

it while

we are

reason-

Qytbing

beiags;

, tecd-

ch it is

In this

ijdit by

II., and

le Sexual

nt would
r of this
her sex

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 i. aenviable 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 aflections."*

* " Letters on the Female Mind."

CHAPTER III.

DIVISION IN THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE CAMP.

■c

To give votes to women householders only, would
be far more unjust to the whole sex, than to leave
the law in statu qtiOf ante helium^ as it is now, and
ever should be, based on the broad demarcation
drawn by Nature between man a^d 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 :

I i

Division in the IVonian Suffrage Camp. 225

should this Bill bccomo law, women would petition
that tho vote should bo oxtondod to wives. Woro
this reaso!i{il)le lequest refused, tlio groat majority
of women would then rightly and justly agitato for
a repeal of the Spinster and Widow Suffrage Law I
Long ago, The S2>ectator admitted that i\[rs. Fawcott
and other Woman Suffrage Advocates *' have aban-
doned tho hypocritical little pretence of agitating
only for votes for indei)endent 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
princtiJe. But now that note is dead. "The
Ceidtral 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.

22G

Would II Suffrage Wrong,

I I

I ,

'can

W -iJ-S !|it.

>' II

loading the agitation, not for woman, but for spinster
and widow Hiirfia<^'o, and pre[)Ost()rously claiuiing to
rcprosont tlio sex, actually say to wivos, etc. : —

" Pray don't ask for votes for yourselves — "

** Why not?" ask wivos.

"Good gracious! how stupid yon are! Don't
you see, if you do, you Avill conii)licato tlio 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 tee shall not be enfranchised."

"Just like us, whether it passes or not.*'

" Exactly. Now do keep quiet — till we spinsters
and ]V'(doics get the franchise; and then we will see
what can bo 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 AVidow 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 Jinal

' spinster
liming to
5. : —

I Don't
tlio dis-

sition to

spinsters

will see

ancliised

ut wives

sounder

against

ons in-

pinsters

and all

)n, and,

widows,

;ing the

le most

nk and

now see

a final

Dtvist'on in the Woman S iffragc Camp. 227

measure; that its promoters tlcspiso woman suffrago
as a j)riiiciplo; only support it as an acci<Iont, ufTcct-
ing S[)instor and AVidow liousclioMora, and utterly
ropudialo tlio cMifranchisomont of wives. The latter
therofurc, righteously indignant at being impudently
duped by th(3ir pretended ropresontativos j rosent
being any longer utilised merely as decoys to deceive
others, and to swell an agitation to cany a partial
pitiful measure, which will not merely abandon, but
actually betray the Woman Suffrage })rinciple, and
leave the mass of the AVomen of Kugland, unon-
fi'anchised, and never to be enfranchised! Wives
naturally ask : — ** What good will it do us, to pass
a Spinster and Widow Suffrago 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 b'^ 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 althougb it is not absolutely impos-
sible for two committees to co-exist without hostile
feelings, all human experience goes to show that

228

IVoman Suffrage IVrofig.

'sai

^t «K

'««

persons liaviiig tlio solf-sanio object in view tlo not
divide forces, to ensure sti'engili. Eacl) of the two
parties which have sprung up, is no doul)t (juite
satisfied as to tlie absolute necessity tlioro wns for
this open breach : to its own conscience each l)oyond
question, is justified. The fruit Disaijjreeinent coini's
from the tree Dictation ; and if this last (juarrel has
the effect of putting an end to the cliijueisin which
we have ourselves mourned over, we, and all other
independent advocates of Woman's Suffrajj^e, will
not view the event with unmixed feelings."* The
** split in the cam[)," here referred to, was caused by
the savoury question of The Contagions Diseases Acts.
One party wished to connect the agitation for
abolishing these acts, with the Woman Suffrage
movement.! 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. Tho excitement and recrimina-

, I

1 1

* Victoria Magazine, January, 1872, p. 283.

f Tlius verifying the Sat. Rev., that votes " would enable women
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 tho habits
which engender them " (quoted Chap. II.). A rowdy deputation
of these ladies waited on tho llight Hon. Mr. Bruce, then Homo
Secretary, to make the modest request that these acts should bo
repealed at once, without any reference to Parliament, or discussion
by representatives of the People. These "nice-minded" ladies
artlessly wondered that any woman covld refrain from a subject so
attractive to them ! Opponents of woman suffrage must feel grate-
ful to til em for caufcing '* the split in the camp 1 "

Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 220

«lo not
tlio two
t quitu
*vns for
boyoiid
t coriK's
I't'l lias
wliicli
1 other
^e, will
The
I sod by
es Acts.
on for
iit'fi'a<»-o
r'o fused
'cn tho
hill tho
0 on a
[•imina-

0 wom(Mi
ntagious
obscene
e habits
pntation
!n Homo
lould bo
iscussion
" ladies
ibject so
el grate-

tion following tlio rejection of Mr. Jacob rJrigbt's
bill in 1872, clearly showed that another still more
serious division had already bi'<^nin on the vexod and
vital question, as to whetlu^r tho Spinster and Widow
Suffrngo bill should be final; or merely the first
instalment of a far more sweeping measure, includ-
ing in.'irried 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 es[)ecially loU^es^ 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 bo enfranchised. If woman suffrage ought
to be granted, married, have even a stronger claim
than single, women. And if too precious a boon to
bo 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, tho most consistent advocate of Woman
Suffrage I ever met. But if the principle be granted,
it is impossible to evade his argument on bi^lialf of
wives, stated thus : — ** To our mind, die 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

1230

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

y^f»

'can

'li'* 11!

1 I

(any, ton liours n wo<»k) H)!* tlio study of papor.s, ntid
fipHt-class roviows. HoMiilcs, it cannot l)o doniod
tluit tlio !'ospo!i8il)iIity of roftrin<jf u[) vii'tiioiia junl
healthy offHprin^, tho prothictiveiioas of whoso labour
in aftor-lifo must, to u j^reat oxtont, dt^pend upon
tho (piality of tho trainiuj^ rocoivod in irnprossion-
ftblo years of childhood, is infiuitoly uk : j ros[)oiisil)lo
than tho payinont of a thousand pounds worth of
taxofl. Tho idea that tho onfranchisoinont of
spinsters and widows will coniploto tho roprosonta-
tion of intelligence, is tantamount to a declaration
that marriage degrades wornon, 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 thai nuirried
women represent a lower level of intelligonco than
spinsters and widows. Womanly domesticated
women, engaged in tho most important and sacred
duties, can truthfully throw back the term '* weak-
minded,'* contemptuously hurled at them by the
so-called ** strong-minded " sisterhood. Gcxsterls
paribus, the woman who sensibly minds her own
affairs, is invariably more really intelligent, logical,
and morally worthy, than the platform woman, who
perverts her 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 U'onian Sitjfrairc Camp. 231

>rM, atid
<l(njio<l

us \\\\i\

> l;il)oiir
1 upon
x»ssion-
niisiblo
orMi of
out of
osonta-
nration
(J vol of

ilocout

ovory
verago
larriod
0 tlian
fcicatcil
sacred

woak-
)y the
^ (tier Is
V own
)gical,
I, who
eyond
ernate
nting,
dupes

to gratify her ill-diroctcMl ambition. 'V\u) fray
l)ctwocn Btroiig-inimUMl spinsters, and stronpf-mindod
wives — this voritablo battle of Atnnzoi^s a» to ox-
tending woman suffrage — is really *' a very pretty
((uan'ol .IS it stands." Ft illustrat(»s reniMrkably tlio
assertion that woman wouhl soFttMi th(» acrimony of
political contests, and infuso gentleness into debate !
Recriminations and accusations of seltishno.ss aro
most liberally bandied to and fro, between women
who would be enfranchised by the passing of this
bill, anci women who would not be (MilVanchised
Bhould that measure remain final. " Wiiat," cry
spinsters and widows, *• is this your loyalty to the
cause? — to desert our ngitation, merely because //ixt
will not be enfranchised?" ** Atid pray," retort
representatives of the vast nuijorlty f)f women,
single and marricMl, *' wliero is your loyalty to tho
woman suffiago ])riiiciplo, 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 suffnigo bill ; and dare to blatno us for not
helping you to ostracise ourselves ! You aro fight-
ing solely for yourselves, to gratify youi' own ambi-
tion. AVhy should wo help you, and yuii dlonCy to
the franchise ? "

Tho in qiioquG is excellent. Tho charge of
selfishness is certainly most amusing pi'eferred
against wives, by spinsters and widows accepting
the bill as final. Though neither will ackiiowledge
it, the cap fits representatives of both parties.

232

Woma7t Suffrage Wrong.

i 'm\i
■ma

i^^h

:ifi'!

>K«&

Wives see clearly the selfishness of spinsters and
widows agitating for their own enfranchisement, to
tlie 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 selfisliness 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 tho 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 Romance."

Division in the IVoman Suffrage Camp. 23'^

tors and
raenfc, to
spinsters
ves and
rom, or
n claims
D charge
gnantly
ertainly

well as
clivision
miction \
iiffrno'e,

selfish
301116 of

n, and
■ disin-
> serve
itionise
3 state-
'as the
•ior, so
ts and
vidual
3 ease.
) such

>Jmess,
i iadj^
plicat-

ing the question, and seriously jeopardising the
settlement of Mr. Woorlairs little bill, by demanding
a more extensive measure of female onfranchiseraent.
In riihllc Ojnnion, 20 April, 1870, Miss Emily
FaitlifuU 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 Pnhlic Opinion, or to
assume that they did not understand my phrase.
Still, I replied in good faith, without noticing
Miss Faithfuil'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 qncstion, tlio groat majority of men
and women throughout the world will endorse my
views ; as an opponent of woman suff"age, 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 Faithfull. 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 Faithfull 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 Faithfull only represents a small
minority on this question, I never implied a doubt
of ber sincerity in the cause she advocates, however
Utopian I think it. Miss Faithfull kindly proceeded
to advertise a little book of mine published in 1860.
Quoting from " The Intellectual Severance of Men

Division in the PVoman Snlffage Cauip» 235

" of men
dorse my
a^^e, and
ieve that
3ontemp-
3cl" by
tiean by
f female

i^factory
)lanation
Fo speak
saying I
led to a
gs from
lisputed
ith both

within
ibsolute
iionable

" If he
urteous

artless
' about
ffrage !
i small

doubt
owever
ceeded
I 1860.
f Men

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 thoir 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 impt:rtial 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!
This controversy speaks volumes, as to woman's
reasoning capacity ! I should be sorry to take
advantage of the Sexual Equahty 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

230

Woman Siifrage Wrong,

;SEllf

'^aa

C!"

' )

whotlior Miss Faithfuirs explanation is not a total
misconstruction of my meaning. The most eloquent
and intelligent lady advocate of "Woman's Suffrage
I ever heardj argvies thus ; begs the question ;
interprets my words in a totally erroneous sense,
wln'ch 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
FaithfuU 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."

i-.j

ot a total
eloquent
Suffrafife

(uestioa ;
IS sense,
; cannot

plained ;

point in
r do not
y! Miss
lad she
en more

upports
ferences
ou who
st have

seldom
leclaim,
confute,
distinct
. Till
acquire

! Faith-
xtrava-
Qalitj "
's of a
e self-
lej are
rseded

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 uni)leasant 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 insuhonlination !
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 S' ffi'ngc Wrong,

\ I

'sell
^''iia

! :■

threatens a very decided reaction against Woman
Suffrage. What did they expect ? Who first set
the example of selfislmess 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 du[)ed and betrayed our cause, sliall never
be so, if wo 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 ])roperty !
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. 231>

3t Woman
3 first set
•di nation?
)d women
rancliisod,
ll-\visliors
lall never
^^Iio think
ate than
io selfish,
'essly ex-
ister and
5ver, dis-

ever ac-
d would
ally, by
roperty !
take an
opposed
we per-
hat we
thank-
ral, and
Pore we
1 in the
inevit-
women
uously
e is to
;itive]y

decline to extend tlic nioasiire beyond themselves.
Each party pursues its own ap[)a!'ent immediate
interests. It is not tlio interest oF women in general,
to enfranchise only 800,000 spinsters and widows,
and thereby create an electoral disability for them-
selves. Qualified S[)iuslers and AVidows are erpially
positiv^e that it is not their interest, to lose their
chance of obtainiug votes, l)y declaring for a lost
cause — a real, instead of a sham woman suffrage
bill. But complaints from these interested leaders
against the scijishncss, insaborduiation, 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 I 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 ]Vro,ig.

,ij«i|i

! \

I \

spinsters aiitl witlows. How daro you tell U3 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 1)111 shall become
law, if wo can prevent it. You have sent in
* Bogus' petitions signed by unciualified female
servants, deliberately deceived into believing they
would be enfranchised. Wo 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 personab^v 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 oicn enfrancJdsement ! 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-

1 U3 not

foil brtvo

I stiginu-

il boconio

sent in

1 female

ing they

jijenuiiio

Widows

stalment

3\vs can-

;ation of

lat wives

3 leaders

ity; Le.^

lence of

abstract

ler indi-

horn in

" help.

IS abso-

ejudice

tood in

V much,

e rights

cepting

basing

I taxes,

, have

yed the

by for-

Division in the Moman Suffrnifc Camp. 2M

feitod all pieteuco to lead a movoniont which can bo
properly i'('[)r('S('Mtod by matrons aloiio.

Mai'riod womnn and others are pi'rl\'ctly justified
in revolting from leaders who have thrown over
womjin suffrage, for S[)iuster and Widow Suffrage;
and in superseding them, if they still persovoro iu
preferring their own personal enfranchisement to
that of Womati in general: and if they do not foi*-
mally, unhesitatingly, and explicitly cast in their
political lot with that of their sisters ; ri'[)udiate the
final clause, and declare for a com[)rehonsivo 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 motlier 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

242

Woman Sujfragc Wrong,

Cta

tat

I '

of Bubniisfiion. Kt Iciiiotto reciiiirca IIiIh. Tlio matron
guides tlio lioii.se, juici Hornetiiiu's its nominal master,
blio reigus supreme over domestic arrangements.
And these, the foremost, best women, ^Ir.WoodaU's
Bill not only leaves uncnfrancliistHl, but stignuitises
as a class wliich sliall not bo permitted to vote.
And tliis so-called Woman SuiTrago bill is supported,
adopted, and fiercely vindicated by women 1

" Oil, but it is women suffrag<s you know I "
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, niotliers, dowagers, and
mothers-in-. vv 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
Lis 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 I 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. 248

10 tnatron
il TiiJistor.

^Voodiill's

igimitises

to vote.

iipportcd,

know ! "
) 800,000
5y roiuain
a woman,
liiru, who
^ors, and
ajority of
:o remain
and Con-
ors and
inferior
British
)olitically
dall with
a special
itics ; to
return a
3dged to
•ntagious
sven op-
II e wives
ing their
56 either

to oxtoiul the franchiao to thornselvos, or if that is
hopeless, to repeal the law conferring it on a stnall
minority of their sex. Shouhl such a bill ever bo
carried, the gn^at majority of married and single
women will, /y>.so factor have a real and serious
grievance in [)()litical disability, inflicted by the
attempt to redress the imaginary grievance, which
makes rate-paying spinsters and widows demand
votes for themselves alone 1

In Parlir.ment (1st May, 1872) Mr. Knatchbull-
Ifiigesseii observed : — ** lint why did the promoters
of this bill, wish to exclude married women From
the privileges demanded on behalf of those not
married ? (Hear, hoar.) Was marriage a crime ?
If not, why, on the ground of justice, should those
electoral rights be conferred on unmarried women
alone ? (Hear, hear.) Tf women wore taught that
they must regard the suffrage as an important
right which they ought to exercise with pride, those
citizenesses who wero 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 Sujj'ra^c Wrong,

i I

uIbo groftt res|)(K!t for ladios who \\tu\ hitluM'io k(<pt
freo from inatrimoiiiiil entaiiglomenlH. Hut lie
inaintdincd that those wore not tho model IndieH of
England. (I rear, h(>ar.) Tho pui'i^-tninded ^irls
who, entering niarri(<d life, rcii-ed their children in
the fear of (Jod, and were the light and life of their
homes — (cheers) — those wei'o the model ladies of
England, and that was tho class whom this bill
would disfranchise. (Hear, hoar.) If, as was con-
tended, the disfi'anchis(Ml were in a position inforioi*
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 bo proud
than any other chiss ? (Cheers.)"

Political Rachels mourning over their massacred

Innocent I

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.i by Captain (now Admiral) Maxso 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 1 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 Sujf^nge Camp. 21-5

i{iit ]i(>
I Indies of
lied girls
hildren in

0 of tlioir
ladies of

this bill

1 was coii-
II inferior
hy was it
ion tliose
10 niission

1)0 proud

as sacred

J Wright's
, but by
3rinciple ;
70 letters
ent, first-
ico spoke

was told
amp was
visli was
)f events
)f excite-
ige Con-

the day

after tlie defeat of tlio T^ill in Afay, 1872. That the
breach was be^un at this chai'act(M'istie !ne(>ting, is
shown by this brief but significant snrnniai'y of tho
speeches: — **Mi'. I^lastwick, M.P., thought thoro
was Bomo trutli in the reiruirk made in tho del ate,
that nuirricd women in tliis country, did not take up
tho movement as if it was a serious grievance.
'LMiey nuist therefore endeavour to show married
women that they had a real grievance (!) (('heors.)
Mrs. II. Kingsley counselled increased agitation,
and the education of tho feminine mind to an extent
which would lead it to ap[)reciate its grievances (!)
(Cheers.)." Observe tho amusing assumption that
all married, and other women, indilTerent, or opposed
to woman suffrage, aro unconsciously suffering
under griovauces, and must bo educated to appre-
ciate them 1 The only real grievance which married
and other women could possibly fear, would bo tho
passing of the Spinster and Widow bill into law !

** Mr. Frederic Hill seconded the resolution, and
was followed by Mr. Iloskins, 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.] The Chairman called the speaker
to order [for speaking the truth which might have
alienated wives from the cause], which drew from
Mr. Hoskins the retort that such interference was
an attempt to burke free discussion. (Oh 1 oh I)
Let them look at the Daily Telegraph of that morn-

24G

Woman Suffrage Wrong:

If? ^**^^

iBg 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 th^
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 bei:ter
leave the bill as it was at present. Although a

Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 247

tish sense,
out that
's] a kept-
. virtuous
franchise,
iippose he
franchise,
1 ? (Mur-
tions, Mr.
at if they
Q express-
mistaken
?lieved his
1 justice to
i^ocate of
a have I
)iscussion
the cause
tolerated,
ister and
sed him I
jcure the
' woman
or wives

►portions,
, said she
lid vote,
■ opposed
ad becter
hough a

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 tlio
proper point on this question, was something quite
surprising. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Hoskins had
not been so long married as she had been —
(laughter) — tlierefore he was viJking 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 womini
suffrage advocates, that a proposal to worry le^l i-
lators into submission, was greeted with " cheers ! "
" Miss Ashworth gave vent to hor 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.
Rose, an American lady, who though considerablj^
declined into the vale of years, yet gave evidence of
great mental vigour, and evidently had the same

248

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

XAi

C-Bflii

feelings of pity for the male opponents of the ques-
tion as lier predecessor, was eloquent on ' tlie mass
of rubbish, called argument, displayed on Wednes-
day in the House of Commons a^jfainst 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 Suffrage
Advocates opposed to Religion (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 lieformery
15th Feb., 1^74). '' Qvandoque 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 he with you!

Division in the Woman Suffrage Camp. 249

the ques-
tlie mass
Wednes-
the bill.'
onents in
iliein up.
ig iu the
ey ought
sir taxes,
iscd last
urniture.
ban their
r.) Un-
opted, it
have a
le man
mirably.
reading,
do not
martyr
to her

Suffrage
On this
radlaugh,
the good
r opinions
nay some-
science I
Reformer^
' After
the good
o vulgar

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
l)y Mr. Raper, who deplored that the bill should
have been met in the House by buffoonery, 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 acrimon"- of
political debate ! Imagine female mombera 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 SUFFRAGE.

i i

To pass Mr. Wooclall'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, bee ise
the mere non-possession of a qualification for a vote,
did not constitute an electoral disabilitv These

ft/

words were spoken at a meeting in Si. George's
Hall on Monday evening, 29th April, 1872. 0;. the
following Wednesday, Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P,, made
his annual motion in favour of the Bill, and said : —

[JFFRAGE.

3, would
Drity of
ity. To
lities of
ife shall
:er once
3n as to
Harried
ision of

There
idstone
luld be
)et ,. ise
a vote.

These
Borge's
3;i the

made
aid : —

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, tho 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 unmarriod. Neverthe-
less, the practical effect of the measure would (as
its supporters have constantly declared in the Hou^e
of Commons) be merely to enfranclnTSe those not
blessed with husbands, and, as has been justly
contended by their opponents, with whom on this

252

Woman Suffrage Wrong,

'SSI

sill

*^ ««

f I

point wo feol 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 eifranchisement. 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.
Thornton Hoskins.

Clearly, then, the present Spinstc ^nd 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, 16th May, 1874.

spinster and Widow Voters,

25:}

political
ivoryono
'* Mr.
Prom all
ent. In
vives to
of their
ove the
I's and
y, not-
le holy
cl with-
in more
)er for
)ut the
e to its
more-
who,
)untry,
ices of
acable
Toman
rectly
ctoral
d) J.

Oman
places
ity of

women, the brand of electoral incapacity ! Even
those spinsters and widows, who would bo
enfranchised, should the present l)ill become law,
would not be exactly like men ; because every such
woman householder would, by marriage, become ?^?.<?o
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 hiw 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 pa-^jing 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,

1 (

should bo repro3onted ! You decluro every married
woman under political disability, no matter how
great her property I You thereby place every
spinster or widow ten-pound householder politically
above all matrons, whether poor, or rich I 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 Imsbands' 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 I

The defect in the Married "Woman's Property
Act, was thus ably displayed by Sir Erskine

Spinster and Widow Voters.

255

married
tor how
0 overy
alitically

Or, on

women
idiously
vos who
t. You
well as
L The
\ a mere
jnentity
ibsolved
id obey,
control,
n. For
3SS, his
vife not
at sort
sted on
day, or

male;

as to

iwoman

ote, to

narry :

Bculiar

operty
rskine

Perry : — ** In considorin^jf the subject, wo ought not
to look at it as Mr. UuhhoU Gurnoy'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 accjuisition
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
liappiness of both. Mr. Russell Guruey'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

25G

Woman Suffrage ]\yong.

C-taii
am

her head — (Laughter) — but if slio rocollocts hop
Prayer-book, which echoes tlio common law, she
knows she plij^Hits horsolf to love, honour (cherish),
and obey. Tluit may bo c.illod a slavish doctrine,
but it is the law, and I bolievo it is good sense, for
if two persons ride on a horse, one must ride behind.
(* No, no,* and laughter.) AVell, 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.

cts hor
i\v, sho
horiali),
octrine,
nao, for
boliind.
;iw two
Faahion.
of tlio
settled
tnaro is
/, if tlio
tid is a
[notions
jossary,
loader.
)d, how-
elf, as
strong
I reply
oarried
n from
operty

has a
she is
or the
objec-
brtner-
even
yet it

is clearly an outrage on coinrnon sense, and no hidy
in the room, I am suns would maiiitiiln that slio is
to 1)0 itivt'stcMJ with ])n)[)('rty 0([iial and au[)orior to
that of the husband, iind yet sustain none of tlio
obligations? (Ib^ar, hear.) Vou all say that, and
I have no doubt everybody in tl»e room would [)ro-
tcst against such a doctrine. (* No ! ') Well, it
seems there are ladies who accept the doctiine, aud
men who deteiid it. The wife in Aiuei'ica has no
obligations whatever thrown u[)on hoi': however
large her fortune may be, ou tlu* husband falls tho
whole burthen. It is clear, therefore, that many
Americans a[)[)rovo of the doctrine that the wife
ought not to bo liable foi' any domestic recjuire-
ments. IJut it appe;irs to me thiiL that i,s to put
women's position in a very inferior grade to that of
men. (Cheei's.) It is desired to give them ;dl the
advantages, and escape all burthens. 1 do not b(>lieve
a well-regulated female mind desires such a posi-
tion."*

Lof'ical readers will Dorceivc that the American
mari'iage law, made by male legislators (which throws
all tho burthen of ])roviding for the family on tho
husband alone, however great the wife's fortum^), 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
an 1 Madame do Stael sums up the

duties than

* Victoria Magazine, January, 1871.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1^ 1^

2.0

1.8

1-25 i 1.4

1.6

Photogiapliic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80

(716) 872-4503

v^o

258

IVovian Suffrage Wrong.

111

^■1*

question tlius : — *' God, in creating man the first,
lias made bim the noblest of bis creatures ; and tbe
most noble creature is tbat one wbo bas tbe greatest
number of duties to perform." ^omo '* strong-
minded " women are at least quite consistent in
tbeir peculiar view of Women's Rigbts, as respects
both political privileges and property ; determined
to get all tbey can, and to concede notbing I Sir
Erskine Perry's views on tbe busbaud's leadership
entirely support tbose in Part i., Chapters II. and
III. Tbe 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 tbat tbe measure
does not consistently enfranchise propsrty, while
refusing votes to wives. He thought tbe question
would be satisfactorily settled by Spinster and
Widow ratepayers' suffrage.

"Married women would then demand tbe suff-

rage.

'* They would not get it."

'* But your only reason for enfranchising women,
is the property qualification."

" Certainly."

"You think that all who pay rates and taxes,
should have votes, independently of sex ? "

'* Exactly."

*' Well, then, by tbe 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."

10 first,
and the
greatest
strong-
3 tent in
respects
srmined
cr I Sir
idership
II. and
utterly
carried
second-
measure
y, while
question
iter and

lie suff-

women,

d taxes,

*roperty

deed of

ler own

Spinster and JVidow Voters.

250

*' The wife is represented l)y her husband, whether
she liolds property or not."

" Yes ; »)ut her separate property is not repre-
sented by lier liusbaiid. 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 francliise,
it makes not the sliohtest difference to this arj^u-
nient, that the rate and taxpayer is a icifc. 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 bo
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 acu 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

Wo7}ian Suffrage Wrong.

111

211

I'll

^^ ^9.

•I

injury is done to a whole class of wives mocked hy
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 princi[)le 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:—"! 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 JVidow Voters.

2(il

ckc'd l)y
to uso \
jstion at
ropcrty-

act to
indepeii-
iciplo of
suffrage
iiig this
ters and
' case of

place a
isability.
spinsters
36 to all
^-holding
aw. On
-"I am
1 exclud-
coursc.

if they
to be

sexes, to
he elec-
aken, if
Other-
women,
offer a
Qy. We
iter not

marry. If you do, you lose your v\ to. Lovo ; bo
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. Tliis is final woman suff-
rage I " There aro then (as Mr. Gladstone 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 suffrage, including lohes. Either refuse the
franchise to all women, or else give, it to all female
householders, spinster, widow, and ivlfe ! 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 i? ow
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

2G2

Woman Sit If rage Wrong,

111

^r«Ci

wrong light. Previous chapters have proved tliat
we cannot treat woman as a full citizen, without
Bubjecting her to the most cruei injustice. The
analogy completely fails, when our op[)onents attempt
to place one sex in the other's place, asking, with
superficial mistaken triuujph : " How would men
like such treatment ? Is it fair to disfranchise mnle
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 declaimors 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
Rexual 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

'0(1 that
witliout
0. Tlie
attom])t
11^:^, with
lid men
iso male
iter and
n house
distinc-
is such,
:h sexes,
jmpt to

and she

ve were

3histry

■ refus-

Hers on

who

neer at

man on

)m full

mse, or

icerity.

dity is

loughts

m on a

man*s

er own

3s, and

Spinster and IVidoio Voters.

her enjoyment of other iintnuiiities insep;iral)lo from
sex, is not treating her as man's e(|u;d, but as a
pampered, pettcMl, spoilt chihl.

The objcetion of tlie monstrous wickedness in
refusing votes to tax and rate[)ayers, is too trans-
parently futile to succeed with any but a WomuJi's
SulTrage audience, ready to endorse everything from
their own speakers. Millions of non-voters are tax^'d,
by paying duties on articles of daily consumi)tion.
The alleged griewnce of refusing votes to single
female householders, is more than cancelled by their
special privileges as women; by their exemption, in
right of SOX, from pei'sonal service in war, by Ian I
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) — arj
comparatively few. And the very conditions on
which their alleged claim is based, show that so far
from being destitute, or especi;dly 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 leg^islation aofainst 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

204

Wonuvi Suffrage Wrong.

IS I
Ml

I'll

and widow suffraj^o ; but women generally speaking
above the world !

Great stress lias been Inid on tlie hai'dsliip of
withholding tlie franehise from a wealthy single
lady ! JJeyond the theoreticid unfairness of taxing
and rating property whose owner cannot vote, what
actual suffering is inflicted on this lady, by with-
holding from he!' — in common with her wliole sex,
according to time-honoured law in all civilised
nations — the very cjuestionable 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. AVere 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

peaking

aliip of
siM<»'lo
t fixing
0, wliat
' with-
Aii SOX,
ivilisod
loctoral
e, is no
woman
incbise
ctually
)i'y and
But all
jnfran-
small
mdinsf
;erests
mants
imand
nstal-
final
begin
jliised
svork-
But
sure,
prin-
),000

Spinster iinii IVidoiv Voters.

205

spinsters and widows payin;^ rates and taxes with-
out votes, you would inflict the real grievance of
keeping the vast majority of women, married and
single, under political dis;il)ility for ever, eidianced
by conti'ast with a favoured enfranchised class!

Were 1 to concede that the class in cpiestion
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
and country. Of course, I know this argument will
bo 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 lier 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 si^^ht of the main chance. In her eaofer-
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

2G0

H'oman Siijfragc Wrong.

ail

I'll

a$0

lon<^ ns slio votcM, slio is iiidirfct'cnt to tho rosults of
this limited iiicisiifc' on lior sex at lar^o.

Doubtless Homo women really julvocato this partial
onfrancliisomont,as an instalment of universal woman
Buffrago, in spite of the clause ngainst married women
voting; and helii^ve that by plunging into political
strife, they exemj)lify woman's mission, and elevate
their sex. Where there are dupes, there will bo
designing leaders. Such see their own apparent
temporal advantage, whether the Hill bo final, or an
instalment of genei'id woman suITVage. In the latter
case they will bo hailed as pioneers of AVoman's
Enfrancliisement ; will have still greater numbers of
women electors to counsel and command ; and may
possibly gratify their darling ambition of entering
Parliament and holding office. But there are selfish
women as well as selfish men, who, having got tho
iranchiso for themselves, think electoral reform has
gone far enough, and wib dread further agitation
lost it should cause reaction. Such women laugh in
their sleeves, at the idea of a bill expressly declaring
against married women suffrnge, 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

Spinstct" and Widow Voters,

207

results of

Ills partial
ial woman
ctl women
3 political
11(1 t'lt'vato
0 will be

apparent
iial, or an
tlio latter
\\'oiMaii's
inil)ers of
and may

entering
ro selfisli

orm liMS
[i^ntation
aiigh in
eclarin*^
vo men's
it men
ex ten -
nco of
le, will
le pro-
widows
human
ire not
mately

represent them, with or without votes. Euj^ono
Sue thus (Uplines political women : *' Th(»y ai'e a
bal)blin<^ race, inspired with aml)itiou8 passions, as
egotistical as men, and gifted with none of the cpiali-
tios or graces of women. Sterility of mind, coldness,
and feebliMie.ss of heart, seveiity of character, preten-
sions to wisdom ridiculously exaggerated, constitute
their charactovistios ; in a word, political women are
a mixture of tho schoolmaster and step-mother, and,
wheth.er married or not, always resemble old maids."
Mr. Jacob Bright's exti'aordinary bill for relieving
independent Spinsters and Widows, and against
married woman suffrage, was well and wittily
summed up by tho Attorney General for Ireland,
thus :— (1 May, 1872) " lie objected to it both in
form and substance. (Cheers and laughter.) llo
did not know what it meant, and ho did not believe
that its proposer know what it meant. Although it
was said that tho 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 ho be-
lieved that no lawyer would deny that assertion.
(Mr. Robertson : * No, no.') His hon. friend who
was not a lawyer, said ' No, no.' It had been said
that it would be easy to amend tho 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 sutlVage " married women are
scolded by those who have thrown them over !

2()8

IFt^w/a// Suffrage Wrong,

liko tlio weapon of wliich tlu^y hiul lionrd, it might
be a vovy good gun, if it had a now stock, look, and
barrel. (Laughtui*.) Hut for his own part ho ob-
jected to the second reading of bills which had to
be transformed in committco into auch a condition
that when thoy emerged, their own mother did not
know tliem. (Ljuigliter.) (changes of this kind
ought not to be taken up as a matter of detail, but
should bo considered in their entirety, and with
reference to the consequences which they would
involve."

. it might
lock, luicJ
Tt liu ob-
ih had to
3on(lition
I* (lid not
Iiis kind
Dtnil, })ut
ud with
y would

CIIAPTKR V.

UKSUrXS OF MARUIKD WOMRN*S SUlM'llAdK.

Not ns opponent, but afl advociito of wonion's real
rights, I oppose the important and disasti'ous change
in the law, contemplated by Worjian SulTrage. F
anticipate the social revolution, disi'n[)tion 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 sulTrago to
wives, and this must follow : Either wo 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 husbatid 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.

Cm
m

raised 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 ligbtly 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
areimpulsive, 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, ap 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 t^e sort of

Results of Married JFomen's Suffrage. 271

t i.) show
»e politic,
i women
LT, in the
inst their
btly they
nd obey.
cite their

usband's
usband's
accord-
political
s votinir

; priest,
sband —
process
.? Mr.
women
relieve
vative.
)olitics,
non-
ender,
never
ense I
n tally
reflex
and
ds of
ort of

rcan whom women rej^ard as an intellectual divinity.
Generally 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. II. 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

IVoninn Suffrage lVro)ig.

till

Cmi
■MM

the brain, would of course ho guided by *' noble
champions " of woman suffrage. But even accord-
ing to the definition of women, quoted from TIlg
Victoria Maijazlne (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 by M.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 bad not, because of that great and over-
whelming sympathy which prevented a woman from
seeino: error on the side on which she had rano-ed
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

)y ** noblo
30 accord-
fro rn The
the groat
(lovolopod
as, *' such
mbination

sucli an
franchise.

mass of
iiiigs said
'rage, and

Mr. H.
less and
ipprehen-
s, larger
of equal
3niphati-
ind over-
an from

ranged
|haps, of
n which
eiofhinof

many
[though
fed to,
these
phy-
's are
)f her

Results of Married Women's Siijfrni^e. 27;5

sex by the lady writer. If her estimate of women
bo 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 rnetliod
could be proposed than to add this politicnl cause of
contention to other disagreements botwcLMi 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 wei'e
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

274

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

IS II

Sill

bo 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. Give 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. AVe 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 sinr^^^e
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 Sitffrngc.

lings, not
3 bounden

tho little
thcs to be
appeals to
ice. This
recent in-
3 woman's
to corrup-
Y have no
it all one

what the
'tes, with-

you will
orruption.

or theni-

to their

g tidy for

not to be

ual votes

ortion of
he only

to those
f course
'oops."*
^otes, is
1 married
permit
ien wife

and husband, and sunder those whom Divine and
human laws pronounce one. AVhile tho husband
was absent at business, tho 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 I'rom narrow, controversial, politi-
cal, party views ; but in its human, moral, religious
aspect, as affecting future generations. Permit tlie
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
ray 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

27G

Wo?nan Suffrage Wrong.

IS II

At a meetinpf of the Victoria Discussion Society,
3ril June, 1871, Mr. Hoskins, advocatin<^ 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 wornen. 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 Si{ff)'(ige.

277

»n Society,

ig married

Mr. Jacob

because it

of siiifjlc

0, are the

the reason

to demand

wliy our

I measure.

)bjection I

'ort of his

Magazine,

'he all-im-

rage, was

ort of his

it on the

lumerous

suffrage

ies most

r less, to

like his

absence,

lughter,

) similar

display

far as

minions.

itation.

course

,nd re-

proaches on opponents whom it cannot silence ; and
publishes garbled reports of debates, suppressing
objections whicli it cannot answer.

In Chapters II. and III., Part ii., I dealt with the
theory that woman softens poHtical rancour. Wo
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 : —

** Emoll'it mores t nee shut esse feros." .

But unless we could radically revolutionise human
nature, naother 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

1 i

278

IVoDinu Suffrage Wrong.

CTIII

■ i'li

illustrations tluit woinnn, when fallen, falls lower
than man.

Mrs. Bodichon obsorvos : — ** A gentleman who
thinks much about details, aflii'ins that * polling-
bootliH 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 sinLCular manner
in which women argue. Hih'o we have the favourite
female figure of speech — petitio prinnpn^ or begging
the (piestion ; ** id cst^ taking for granted the very
thing that remains to be proved.'' This lady should
at least have attempted to prove that polling-booths
can bo 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 bo
granted by anyone conscientiously opposing woman
suffi'age. For if we granted this, thon we should
agree with Mrs. Bodichon; there would be no
ground for argument : cadit qiUBstlo : the debate
ends. And yet Mrs. Bodichon can so far enter into
her opponents' views, as to observe (p. 5) : " If
anvone 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 Eufrancliisement of Women Considered "
(1867), p. 7.

Results of Married Womcn^s Suffrage, 27*.>

alls 1

owcr

^rnan who
* polling-

tliis is so,
mado fit,

ir manner
f;ivourito

!• bcggiiicr

tlio very
ly should
ii^^-booths

moilost,
oiiiod by
loiiinr so,
10 moral
mnot bo

wo ma a

should
be no

debate
tor into
): "If
on and

ion to

ust the

3aents,

ing or

f make

idered "

polllnpf-booths fit places for women. Mrs. Hodichon
distint^uislies between unmarrie<l,and married women
thus : ** Wo aro not discussinuj the expediency of
giving votes to wives." Hut wliy not? [f polling-
places aro fit for spinsters and widows, why not fit
for wives ? We make no such nice and arbitrary
distinctions. Wo draw the lino whero it ist palpably
drawn by Nature between the sexes. Wo do not
say spinsters may dabi)le in political mud and Juire ;
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 aro certain far more to sully woman.
We entirely condemn the plau:sible 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 bo urged for woman's direct inter-
ference with politics, which cannot be wielded with
far greater logical force, for her engaging personally
in war I 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

W'opnnn SK/frna^e (f'n)//^.

Ciiti
mi

• I'll

women-warriora rnuHt be pormittod to fi^ht. Thoro
is i\\\ eml of all l(^<j^islativo iutorforc^noo wliatovor.

Apply Mrs. Hodiclioii's ar^umont to war, and we
bIiuII porcoiveitfi renl value. Substitute battle-fields
for polling-booths, and read thus : *' A gentleman
who thinks much about details, aflirnis 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 riglit to
fight, as strongly as I do. liut it is her own
argument, only a})plied to war, instead of politics,
and equally worthless to prove woman's right to
engage in cither. 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 11. ,
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.

;. Tlioro
tover.
', and wo
:tlc-fu!lds
untlonuui
it battlo-
lis is ao,
ro made
ti would
right to
lev own
politics,
right to
• battlo-
vvomen ;
^ight be
fields:
•y evils,
ougher
to be,
, and
igious
Oman's
er II.,
age in
vote,
allow
rofes-
ig to
that
)lace.

I^csults oj' Miinicd Women ^ Siiffragc. 28 1

War is not made more goiitlo by foinalo warriors.
All oxperionco shows that when cruel, wornou aiv^
more cruel than ineri. If the lighting man is but a
fiend, what is the fighting woman ? The heart revolts
against a woman delighting in blood and slaughtor ;
afid such a motister wo would apostrophise in
Shakspere's words: — '* 0 tiger's heart, wrapp'd in
a woman's hide ! " Patrician ladies of Ancient
liome were delighted spectators of tho gladiatorial
shows —

" VVliero man was Hliiughtorod by his fellow man,"

They shrank not from bohoUling tigers, lions, and
other beasts of prey lap the blood, and crunch tho
bones of Christian martyrs; enjoyed tho 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 there was nothing in the ballot to
prevent women from going to public-houses, and

2H2

JTonKifi Siijfrnij^c IVt'onif

nil

tlioro rornilnuf an unnpornly apcctnclo. Air. AMormrm
liuriih ask(Ml wlicthor iiny jr(»ntloiimii would like to
SCO his wit**', rnothci*, or sister, stat(u:<'rit)}^' women,
supported hy stn^^«(orin<^ men, not their husbiinds,
j(oinj( up to voto?" Such n spectacle mii^ht well
Btajrtrer the idlejrianco of the most staunch stickler

'nn

for mai'i'ied women's sulTra(j;o. And such spoct:i(!l<M
would he multiplied by a sweepiu'j^ wotnan sMr[Vii}.^o
extended to wivt)S, even if wo Ix^lievo the 800,000
spinstei'S and widow-voters, all sobei* pei'sons, if not
all tcototnlors. The vice of drunkenness has
gri'atly inci'cased amonu; ladies, since grocers
obtained wine and spirit licenses. Ladies addicted
to private di'inkinij^, when canvasscMl for their votes
during' their husband's absence, mii^ht drink a ^lass
or two to the success of the favoured candidate.
And, under such circumstances, it would bo 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 bo certain to abuse. Sho
would bo continually exposed to an irresistible
temptation to violate her solemn promise to love,
cherish, and obey. Suppose a husband said to his
enfi'anchised wife : *' I forbid you in my absence to
see an electioneering agent or any mule 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-

Morrnaii
l1 like to

lsl)!Ul(ls,
,'llt \Vt»ll

stickler
oct.'iclo.s

soo.ooo

s, if nut

>ss llJlS

i^mcor.s

dilictcMl

ir votes

a jjflass

idiilato.

ho the

otor to

would
iction ;
weak
She
nstible
) love,

to his
nee to
lissor."

as an
njugal

result
1 con-

Rcsittts of Sfnrricd Women's Sn/ffai^c, 2H:l

8oqu»»ntly, votinef-wivcs would bo oxposod to still
more dan^(»rous and torrihh) trials, involviiij; loss of
virtue, and a hushand's honour. Without oUodiencf,
there is no nrnaratitee for conjui^al fidnlity.

Shoidd 800,000 spinsters aiid \vi<lo\vs obtain the
franchise, strenuous efforts will bo inadi) to extend
it to wives. As n»«(ards porson.il ab-^trant ri.fht of
votinj^, wives seem l)0tter entitled th:ui siu'^de
women to tlu? sulTraLje. Should tho IV.UHjhiso ever
be extended (o married women, husband and wife
may be seen not merely votin«^ ai^ainst each otiier,
but employinj^ all manner of ekujtioneei'in^^ tactics,
in rivallinL» and opposing each otlier, wearin<jf
different coloured badges; s[)eaking and canva-^sing
against each other; trying all available election
tricks to ensure the return of their i*(vs[)ectivo
favourite candidates. Yet the possibility, pro-
bability, moral certainty of such unsecMuly op[)osi-
tion between man and wife, does not in the least
deter zealous woman suffrage p.artisaiis, who would
abrogate every law by which it is barely [)ossiblo
for husl)ands 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 <letectivo
in every house. It will not tend to a wife's [)r()-
tection, to teach her to beard a bi'utal 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. WoodaU'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 Martineau 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 wit'«
duties, or invested with trusts, from which mothers
and wives of jhe 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 /airplay 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 counting.

Results of Married IVc len^s Suffrage. 285

e votes to

> Bright's
'> Spinster
isults all
•le former
m cannot
however
nience of
who hold
J to their
The bill,
who are
ed wit' I
mothers
scluded.
' voters,
)us dis-
against
I there
rs not
play in
rs and
louse.]
million
by Mr.
»ses to
mends
umber
would
nting.

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 r;r.:;xial to the widow
and spinster. Miss Martineau may influence Parlia-
ment. Mrs. Somerville and Mrs. Grote 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

280

Wo man Suffrage Wrong.

Jli

(3»

worso than nousenso to say that, because we do not
permit womun to go to the polling-booth, therefore
we class them with felons, idiots, lunatics, outlaws,
and minors. Mr. Jacob Bright has often avowed
that ho wants to assimilate our social state to that
happy land, the home of Free Love, and Tho Sorosis ;
but to assist that blessed state of things, it is simply
dishonest for anyone to say that English women
are now no better off 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 ? IIow 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.

•]• " Woman as she is, and as she should be," Vol. i., Chap. I.

wo do not
therefore
, outlaws,
n avowed
.0 to that
3 Sorosis ;
is simply
h women

and their
inding of
the sub-
[ow much
hat each
Isehood?
ovorbia],

Long

•haps, no
so great
non has
smartly
1 across
shing to
nen are
at they
ngland,
uffrage,
t influ-
nature.
nicros-

hap. I.

Results of Married IVomeii' s Suffrage. 287

copio perceptive power do they possess, who are
blind to the immense influence exerted by that
so-called poor, oi)pressed, down-trodden, stunted,
undeveloped, arrested creature — woman — over lior
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, Avhoni she regards as her natui'al
enemy. Certainly it is indirect. And no Act of
Parliament, no enfranchisement of wife, spinster,
and widow, can ever make it direct. As the Supremo
Ruler over nature has ordained that woman shall bo
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
ofives her the folio wino- advice for securino^ 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 watcli 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 Stiff rage ]Vro)ig.

;«iii

influence over man, compared with tlie womanly
woman — wishes to destroy the existing poUtical 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. AVoman 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

womanly

►litical and

wrhich will

i married

an enemy

proportion

ites man's

ed on the

go to the

'equest of

sacted, in

ied. The

iperfectly

aanly un-

)rth into

ijority —

resent —

nt spoilt

fighting

lose her

respect,

3le pro-

no more

fussy "

esenta-

IS their

ige the

an was

ist her

leasure

and, or

Results of Married Women's Suffrage. 280

any other man. The great majority of women know
this. The typical womanly woman is docile, gentle.
Slie 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 " Point 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-

290

IVovian Suffrage lVri))ig.

al)ly deal, with any hope of removal or roraody.
Legislators and the public are eager to redress any
grievances alTecting women as sex or class, made
known by legitimate combination, meetings, resolu-
tions, and (jennine 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-Coutts 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-Coutts 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-Coutts 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

Dr remedy,
cdrcss any
slasa, made
igs, rosolu-

llinj'ont cul-
witliout a
p vvliicli it
oinan suff-
ice, that the
'ithout the
ng a four-
e. A most
lisrepresen-
judge of an
[idy, so far
n Suffrai^e,
:he School-
principle,
waders can
ICO of the
hat Lady
|xert, by a
)e statisti-
^ted on the
lundred or
One of
a House-
}d for the
iposed to
las great

Results of Married It'omcn's SKj/ragc. -91

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, l^he
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.

202

JFoman Suffrage Wrong,

11
0

motlior-wit. And tliis is felt nnd resented as a
grievance by masculine women, who make no sacri-
fice to the graces, and in their unavailing attempts
to bccorao men, only succeed in becoming un-
womanly. But this alleged grievance cannot bo
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. Kose 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.

ntcd as a
3 no flacri-
; attempts
ning un-
3annot bo
lent. If
listen to
3at extent
rated the
memorial,
omen, to
remedied
object to
increased
3 men are
t)ouchere,
ge, would
id shown
I object
rom any
ence. I
in the
jure — to
gitimate
'al. For
radical
weaken
destroy
■exes.

CHAPTER VI. •

RESULTS or WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN QENEllAL.

Women would lose far more than they would [.^aia
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

201-

Wn)}inn Sii/frnifc JVyong»

(!>

H
^

})of()ro it im[)osiMl this tinninosa hvri'cVifnf^ on the
comitry." I cliiillcn^jfo ilciiial of Mr. Hoiivorio's
statciiuMit. TIk^ l(\'i(l(»r of \\\v, opposilioii to Mr.
Jacob ]Jri«j^lit'H bill, cndorsc^H my statcinent in Chap.
I. Agitators wanting tho suffrage for thomsolvos,
will f'orco it on a largo ]iunib(»r of other women,
utterly disregai'diug their feeliugH and suffei'ings.
It thus app(>ars that *'woi'rying" is a round game
played by both soxes. Wo saw (Part ii.. Chap.
Jll.) that ]\Irs. Sims had great faith in " worrying,"
and advised ladies to nse that, and all othor avail-
able methods of persuasion to attain the suffrage.
If, then, men arc ever worried into granting women
Buffiage, it would bo a beautiful illustration of
poetical justice, that men shoidd 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 Avomen, he could not help
thinking that 250,000 signatures constituted a very
small proportion to be appended to petitions in

Iff on tho

Jouvorio's
II to Mr.
b in CliJij).
lomsolves,
r worneti,
!iifT(3i'in<(s.
inid iTixmo
ii., Cliaj).
worrying,"
lier avail-

g women
ration of

iinAvillinir
^o object
against

woman
thus : —

signed
'natures

t there
>se peti-
models,

might

hen he
id, and
ot help

a very
■ons in

A\'sn//s of Woman Suffrage in General, O'J")

favour of tliis movement." Mr. Scourfiohl *" diuiicd
that tliero was any evidence to prove that tho mass
of the women of England wore in favour of this
measure. On the contrary, ho was persuaded that
the vast majority of the ladic^s of Kngla?id, and tho
genei'al feeling of tho people at large were utterly
opposed to this movement. (Iltsar, hear.) It had
once been remarked by the Chief Ihiron Alexander,
that it required an immense amount of mental
energy to hold one's tongue at certain times. ^[r.
Scourfield believed that the ladies of England
generally had shown themselves possessed of this
faculty in relation to this question ; and ho did not
faoe any reason why their feelings upon it should bo
ignored, because they did not express themselves in
so demonstrative a manner, as certain lady politicians
"who wei'o favourable to the measure. The petitions
represented but a very small fraction of the people,
while there were millions against tho bill."

Mr. KnatchbuU-Hugessen (now Lord Brabourno)
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 tho 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.)

It'ontan Suffriiifc Wrong.

IIo uppt'jilod to tho oxporicnco of hon. ^^lMnl)or8
wlioti lio Htiitod his owti, timt littlo asHtMit wus j^ivon
l)y woinuti ^uiierully to tliu principlu of this biU.
((Jhcors.) lEo couhl not liolp thinking whon hidios
of hi^di position and (;ducatioii wuiit iiboiit tho
country hohlin^ nioctings on this subject, tlint a
certain nund)or of tho sijjf natures obtained to tho
petitions must bo ascribed to tho pobteness of tlio
male box. (Hear, hoar, and hiughter.) It might l)o
objected that tliei-o wero no petitions against tlio
bill. There were, however, good reasons for that —
first, because tho nuijority of tho women of England
naturally shrank from interfering in a matter of this
kind, and next, because, having regard to tho un-
inistakeable position of the House last session on tho
same question, they had confidence in tho 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

aband(|
SulTral

(I.S flllill

Htigm:i

franclil

Ht'itaiil

crownl

is no\\|

especij

and \\

does 1

Parliai

being

0. Moi

in fav(

womei

not ki

presen

d iff ere:

body

rights.

which

were

wome

wron<;

on th

the bi

addre

buttc

publisl

/\\'S{t//s of Woman Siijfrii^c in General. *J*.>7

iib.'indontMl th(3 iiiipiirtiiil principle of Wotimn
yiiffrai^o ; utul l)otrayo<l tlioir hox by iiccoptifi;;
as final ^ w s[)iiistor uixl witiow bill, wliich actiuilly
bti^timtisoH inarriod woniou as never to be eii-
franchised ! Will the wiveH uml luotliorH of Gnat
liritain and Ireland remain silent un<Ier this last
crowning insult ? I l)uliove not : I hope not. It
is now a sacred duty for women generally, and
especially for wives, to petition against Spinster
and Widow SulTrago. Whether Uie liill does, or
does not become law, such p(>titions will show
Parliament, that woinen generally protest against
being represented by Spinsters and Widows. Mi*.
O. Morgan said, '* It had been stated that petitions
in favour of the bill had been sent in by 25(>,0(K)
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 [)olitical
rights. The women who wished for the change,
which the present bill was framed to bring about,
were a very small number. They were earnest
women, who had been brooding over imaginary
wrongs ; they were like the women who had dwelt
on the Contagious Diseases Acts, and wbc inundated
the breakfast table with a miserable literature — not
addressed, however, to the husband and wife ^lone,
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

208

Woman Si(/fraf^c Wrong.

women of one idea, who looked at every question
from one point of view. If tliey gave the franchise
to these women, they would be creating a new party
ill 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 putti jg 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
dis<.';usting 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

uiulor the ..atice of youth of both sexes, are liable to prosecution
under Lord Campbell's, or some other Act.

Results of Wiwian Suffrage in General. 21)9

present measure. (Cries of * Oh, oh.') Ho opposed
the bill, because he wished to protect women from
being forced forward into the hurly-burly of ])arty
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 bo 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
mp.n 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
ccnstituting 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 lier humour most when she obeys."

:500

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

Tho bold, shrill-tongued virago is not meroly
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 Sirach thought the only use of a virago was
to dedicate her to war : " A load crying woman and
a scold shall be sought out to drive away the
enemy." The man-woman has laid aside woman's
surest panoply — thai admission of weak./'Si 'hich,
combined with modestvi disarm man's ubuse of
strength, and ensures his protection. And as no
possible ** recombination of her elements" can give
woman, man's mental pnd ph3/2ical vigour, her
attempts to cope with Iiim, 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 allo^v
her to win. The womanly woman wisely declines
to fight on any terms, with her natural protector,
guide, and head. For acting naturpl^^'- 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 Wo}}ian Suffrage in General. .'^01

aside to let them pass with as much deforonco as
now, wlien 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 wlio would care
to see his modest gentle young sweetheart })ushing
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
I 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 influent _ 3 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 to let any such boil their
puddings, or nurso their babies. But let all women,
who care to maintain their true position and dignity
in their husbands' love, and mankind's esteem

302

11 r

^"mau SnOragc If.ong.

^'it'-or to sup,.o,-t. or deZ;, ! '''' "'^'^ ^'■^"'fi^d

*'»'3^ -„oa ^i. o; ; '2 :roo"- '^'^""^^ •^^•^

no '•-•gl.t to govern it." "onsequoutly have

Mr. J. B. M'Millan (P n ln»i, n . ^

-'Taking .J„„e Stepbens aTa ^^ °'"^^^^ ^
^voman, I ask rrnnMo,« « as a representative

A-t-ou alvvays indicates minute W, ^''"P^°'J'°
f-^' o the judicious ZZ U iT'"" '^°'' -^
of the .ajorit, of wonaen Wet;;;^^''''^'^ ^'-^
and are resigned to it ^« t ^ ' ''"'^ ^^t it,

0- control." Lke t '°r°''" "''' "^^^^

political smatterer J la vh?^*° "'^' ^°^ '^^
first to secure im. Jnatv °'° "''"'» ^^"' ''« '^o

considered one " ^ t 'JVTr ' '°'^-" ^^^'^ "e

Woman suffrage l:ertlk:?;t?.""="'»^-"
swans. This of itself ,I,„ ^"' ^'''^*'-*.

■«iateanddr;ri;\t::;''^^'^«

Su£frage-to place power in the ^,. ^°"^''

•nen !) « Perhaps I Z be ^"''' °'^ '»'"«"°'-

flight], timorous at 21 ^LZ t :' '^^"°""

Parliament composed of tTZ^^f' "' ^

*Jane Stephens' Lpf i. '^®Qz»ecl funes as

-teinaSilUaturtd^-.TV""^^'"*'"^'^
«otest intention of navinT; t ? °°' ""'^ '^■

-- I bear no aniZ^ t\Tj ''' ?»
woman. Nor let women iL ?. ""^ °*'"^'-

-bachelor, or a ^^esJ^lZTtl^T ' '"^^"^-^

"-fortune. addreLes them I S ^ """' "'"^

J- Wish for women a

tiud-pie.
lualified
tlier are
ly have

serves :
»ntative
lis evil,
^psodic
and is
0 stock
get it,
beyond
id the
be the
[nd be
and."
ndersy
3 the
Oman

erior
lelinof

of a
as

t I

re-
|own

her

fsed

ith
a

Results of JVoman Suffrage in General. 'MY\

higher place than they wish for themselves. Give
women a vote I For what ? For rotaiiiing the
nursery dignity, and acting like spoilt children ; for
reading and writing the trash that fills our librari(3H "
(in spite of our judicious publishers ! our iinj);irti;il
critics ! ! and our virtuous and nice-minded libi-arians,
who circulate no improper novels, unless by popular
authors ! I !) ; '* for not doing what she ougliL to do,
and for meddling with what does not concern her.
If this deserves a vote, let her have it. 1 .ere was
a time when women were not ashamed of tlioir
husbands or their babies ; but it is only in accord-
ance with the assumed fine-ladyism of the tiuios •
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 tliey
ca^n, 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 tho softest

804

Woman ^ujffnsj^e Wrong.

strains of music liavo not more power over man, than
liatli tlio siluiit infliionco of a noblo woman." [Plat-
form women are doirii^ their best, or worst, to
(lof^ratle women from man's lofty ideal of the sex.
Man cannot more highly compliment woman, than
by expecting her to bo (what he yearns to believe
her) far better, pnrer than himself. Our logical
Amazons take this as an insult ; are highly indig-
nant that their sex (which they proclaim man's
Ciiiml and suj^erior) 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 WonKDi S/t/frnjrc in General. :]05

aan, fchan

" [Plat-

vorst, to

the sex.

lan, than

3 believe

r logical

ly indig-

Q man's

ier than

to fetid

come as

1 uncon-

Women

are less

Luse we

hildren

all that

he glib

|orrupt-

of that

Oman !

|er, you

of the

in the

done

jynics,

fannot

I say

take

when

their modesty leaves them they are no more women.
At tlie risk of incurring anotlun* broadside from
* Jane Stepliens ' let me say that rather tliati have
women brawling with brawlers, T woidd have them
even exclusively * love their husbands, feed theii*
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 stat(».
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 set
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, liaving 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 majori^v, 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 1 The writer adds that in spite
of Mr. Gladstone's apparent conversion, it is not

30G

JVonian Suffrage IVrong.

likely women will Imvo votes yet awhile, for the
ballot, amon^ other results, would greatly diminish
their iiifhiencc! ; and points out to woman sufTrago
opponents, just two measures to render its success
impossible: "One is to grant at onco 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 : tlieir right to special,
though temporary, protection from tyraimy 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 irranted, 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 If'onian Snjfragc in General, JJU7

ly all

Inted,

Iment

Iboth

gall

real cause for tlio agitation, in wliicli tlio majority of
woinun ilid not join. That agitation, mainly Tacti-
tious, and interested, was begun, and is now con-
tinued by Spinsters and Widows, nursing the noblo
ambition of getting tlio suitVago for tlieinsi'lves.
They show their regard for the interests of women
at largo, by eagerly grasping at votes which would
be granted solely on condition that no married
woman could vote 1 Woman's alleged right to
labour in every profession, must include permission
to fight as soldier and sailor. Su[)poso, then, the
worst, that female legislation should cause a (load-
lock, by bringing government into colb'sion with
armed rioters ; it does not follow ^hat theso will havo
it all their own way. Amazons would fight for
their principles. And that a female elector is i|uito
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
6ven it could exist for a gt oration, 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-

li,

:U)8

Woniau SiiJfraiTC Wroii^,

(

■h

tanco, witliout a knowlcd;^^* of tlu^ ([i;jilitios iV(jiiisifco
for Huccess in Pailijunoiit. Ifc would i)o nocossary
lor her to bo thoroughly prepared for tlio fray —
brecclicd instead of petticoated, with a voice lioarso
fi'oiM Hhoutin«(, with hair croppiMJ closer to her head,
with her deltoid muscles developetl at the expense
of her bust, prepared with sylloi^isins inst(\'ul of
smiles, and more ready to plant a blow, than to
shed 11 tear. She hurries from her husbandloss,
childless hearth, to make a speech on the hustini^s ;
Avith hard biceps and hardo!* elbows, she forces her
way through the election mob ; her powei'ful in-
tellect fully appreciates all the ribald j(^sts and
obscene gestures of the British ** rough ; " sho
knows the art of conciliating rudo 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. Sho has
learned all the catechism of politics, and when she
mounts the platform, sho can gli^iy recite her duty
to the world, according to the side sho has chosen.
Experience has taught her the value of invectives,
and she denounces her opponents \n\h 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

Rcsulls of U'onttui Siiffi (j^c in Gcui'm/. :{(>'.)

hu U'liy —
ico lioju'so
hor liend,
0 ox[)onso
nstoad of
, than to
il).'in(lle8S,
liustiniTs;
brcoa hor
^orfiil in-
cests iiiul
i;" sho
, and can
costor-
horsclf,
Slio has
hon she
lor duty
clioson.
^^ectives,
choice
rst she
If-satis-
bawling
very in-
makes
arance.
'd with
3gnised

weapons of political warfare. Pt^rhaps the V(»ry
place where she stands, is the mark of ii storniin*^
])arty ; and after enjoying the glory of an encounter
with a prize-fighter (it may bo of her own sex), sho
is at last brought to the ground by superior skill
and strength. Then j)r{)l)al)ly she retires to \\ov
iiome; but I for one had rather not follow lun*
thither, nor into that House of Parliament of which
she is one day destined to become an ornament."*

View now the NVoman Suffrage agitation, and
ask what has it done, and what is it doing for
women? Rather what is it not doing (ttju'mst
woman? What have advocates of Women's Rights,
Female Emancipation, Sexual Ecpiality, Woman
Suffrage, etc., achieved foi the sex, so far as they
could compromise it, by this high-handed attempt
to carry man's political privileges by a coup (Tetat?
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 indifterent as to what they think of me ; "
he degenerates rapidly, visibly, into a sensualist, 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.

JJ'offinn Suffrage Wt'oug.

■h

firo <li'lot,orious in tluM'r luitiiro. All tnon who avoid

t«'m!ilo Hocioty, Imvo dull porcoptiotis, iiro atu[)id,

utid lijiv(? i^ross tustos, ruid rovolt jiiif.iinst- wli.it in

puro. ()liil)-s\Vii;jf«;c)rcM's Huckiiii^ tlio bufcts of hilliard-

oucH, nil night, call foinalo socioty insipid. Pootry

is uninsi)iring to a yokol : boauty has no charms for

a blind man : music (Ux's not ploaso a poor boast

who docs not know ono tunc from another ; but as

a ti'uo opicuro is hardly ovt»r tircid of water, sauco,

and l)rowii bivatl and buttcu*, [ protest [ can sit for

a wholo ni<;ht talking to a woll-roguhitod kindly

woman, about hor girl Fanny, or hor boy Fratik,

and liko the evening's entortainmonf Ono of the

great benefits a inan may derive fr( i woman's

society, is that lio is boujid to bo res[)ectful to her.

The habit is of great use to your morals, mon,

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,

Iio avoid
afciipid,
\vli!it is
i)illi,'it'(l-
Pootry
irrns for
>»• \)mnt
; but us
, saiico,
1 sit for
kindly
Frank,
0 of tlio
^ornati's
to iior.
moa,

vn sex

<^inato
vagant
groat
vornan

of all
ilded,
age
or in
ime.'*
rtues,

Ri'sttlts of Wofnan Siijfmgc in General. Ill 1

vices, good and hud (Hialitios of hor lord a!»d master
— rnan. In tho illustration to fiU Cono'ilii' llnniniue
(tlio titlo of IJalzao's collected works), wotnan is
cliaractoristically roprosontod, as nudo, masked, and
holding a mirror in which the various types of
rretxOi society, depicted by the illustrious philo-
Hopliic novelist, may see thenis(»lvus taithrully ns
flected. Thus the artist conveys, in a thoroughly
French style, the not very iiovel idea that woman
is a riddle. By hiding her own face, she conceals
her own character from the prying physiognomist,
but as some compens lion, she reflects each gazer's
count(Mia!ice.

'riiero 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 thc^ 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 SGe7ns a great deal better than the other,
the former is really very much worse, by adding
consummate hypocrisy to actual vice ! NevertheloRS
" 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

Wo7iia}i Suffrage Wro)ig.

and copy man's bolJ avowal of vice, such society as
may then 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 impavtiality 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 on the surface of their minds ; that they have
preserved self-love, and personal interest with all
the energy of nature ; and ^liat, 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 vigou*. 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, vvoman, true to
her misoion, and in character, reflects in faithful
feminine fashion " quidquid agunt homines.^^ Man
is her great exemplar. She faithfully copies him,
even while ostensibly thieatening 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 Wovia/i Suffrage in General. 'Uli

)ciety as
' a bar-
)serves :
vicissi-
is much
)gatives
3r want
tes to a
igeuc'3 ;
tnd evil
)y have
^ith all
»d than

avages

igious,
['going
assing

st to
3s, we
3man,
ys of

part-
e to
fchful

Man

him,

and
in

btes,

kes

ulls

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 I Men being thus busy in turning
the world upside down, women are in the fashion,
and m.ove with the times. Woman, the mirror of
the age, thermometer of the vicissitudes of morals
and raap.ners, 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 enf ra iichised — 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 I 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,

tlie most revolutionary of measures, and deprecate
the ^Uightest opposition to their wishes, in the same
tone as they would resent male objections to some
now fashion I ** 0 femmes vans eies des enfans hien
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 pertinacitjT- 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 ed;icating
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 ail
loives, and the vast majority of the Women of Eng-
land !

" With skill she vibrates her Hn»vearied tongvic,
For ever most divinely in the wrong."

tel

wl
tol

ffOl

Results of Wcma?t Suffrage in Gcucral. )n5

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 hostiHty, 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
w( man's faith and morals. We cannot wonder that
women should despi? these unmanly men ; should
assort sexual equaiitv, nd seriously medil;ru sup-
planting them and winning independence. Those
crazy American women who call man '* phiyed out,'*
and naturally inferior to themselves, can [jjint to
some very bad specimens of male humanity, to
justify their contempt. Drinking, smoking, chewing,
and spitting, are not calculated to gain wr)man'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-

31G

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. Hum..nity 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 womanly.
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 parti^'ular Act of legislation, of the
economical an., 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, sa7c 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-fashioi jd 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. '^M

on the
ither, is
Dnoracy

female

lying a
e sexes
?anised
)d with
>manly.
ttract ;
3d with

it mad-
med to
ip and
I men ;
iience,
Df the
they
field i
aodest
'ivacy,
or the
Oman,
the
lining
— she
3r the
e she

Amazons are welcome to sneer at this, as a man's
opinion. I supplement it by . lady writer's : —
** We are sorry to say that there are a few ladies
even in this country who, claiming to bo 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 3 Own Fajyer, 6 May, 1871.

CHAPTER VII.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE MANIA ; CONCLUSION OF DIAGNOSIS.

C
it

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 01 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 aad 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 Sulffagc Mania,

;mo

NOSIS.

3r, the
•us in-
Jtrong-
ctually
Iways,
us : —
aality.
Df the
I

only,
nanly

con-
the
y to
n to

as I
one;
)use-

ted.

undeveloped, domestic, womanly woman I lla ! lia I
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 parUcuhii',
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 nic.ui-
spirited down-trodden beings — by my dress, or
address. I am a law untu 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 hiugh 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

IJ20

Woman Siiffrcurc Wrong.

Ilia driulcfo, nor doll ; will iioithor minister to his
scnaiml ploasiiro, nor panipor his op^rep^ious vanity.
I will not bo rnshirrd^ uiidor protonco of l)oin<^
jirofcctrAf by any man. I will novor prorniao to
love, clioriali, and oboy, a man. Tho wretch not
only rulos, but ridicules ua ; defines woman thus :
* A being who cannot reason, and who pokes the
fire from the top.' * There ! But T will be calm.
My works, my lectures, my woman suffraj^o mis-
sion prove me the most losj^ical of beincfs — after tho
child — No, sir, that addition is man's sneer — a
mere hqrls lazuli. False Latin ? No, air, very good
Latin for a slip of tho tongue. I illustrate ray
grand principle of sexual equalitif. I prove man
inferior to woman — certainly to that transcendent
type of womanhood ' onoured by being represented
by myself. 0 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 I 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 Suffragt: Mntiia.

321

r to his
s vanity,
of boinf^
ruiao to
itch not
n thus :
kos tho
36 calm,
go mis-
ifter tho
necr — a
ry good
[ito my
'0 man
3ondent
esented

crime
merely

e, but
leu the
iw — as

I no I'

, and
plicate

vote !

, the

em ale
will

be in

!6'

Parliament not merely as s inplo mcmborri, but as
office holders. Political rights include every con-
cession. Electoral, in'^olvo legislative, judicial,
administrative powers. Strong-i!J!iidod women will
govern. Then will come our turn to bo reveugo'l
on the creatures, who now forsooth rule »uon oy
their iceakmss ; \\\\q turn their momanhj (jrace and
beauty to such good account, and fawn on nialo
oppressors, to obtain as a favour, what they should
exact as a right. Ha ! ha ! We will gov(3i'n very
differently. I have no patience with such woinou,
and will show them no mercy, when I am in [)ow('r.
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. 1
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 Siiffraf^e Wrouif,

political I f/^na wo aro intolloctusilly, iibovo rnoro lawful
wives uiul rnotliors, und uU other non-onlVfincbisod
womcMj. 'IMuit is ii toleniblo victory to ^.lin, with
the holp of oui* rlevrr nmlo tiUies, ovor iiion, Jiiul
womanly wornoii ! Moantiiiie, I will bo cilucatod
liku man ; will ongat^o in man's work ; that is, will
chooso all that is most profitablo, honourable, ami
least laborious, all sinccuro appointinonts suitable
to us as CMpial, and superior to man ; leaving to him
all hard, dirty, dan<^erous work. Thorou^ddy, con-
sistently, antagoidstio 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 maii. I sli;dl
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 1 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 Woman's Rights, Sexual Equality, and woman's
superiority — I loathe, despise, and — coj)?/ 1 "

This — the logical programme of the unsexed
woman — a type of the Transatlantic " Shrieking
Sisterhood " whom their male critics more truly, than

1»*
w

Oil

Ir;

Woman Siiffr'.i^c Mania,

323

politely, ciill ** l()n«^-liiiii"«Ml luiuitics," Im tlio iud'IoI
which womanly wotnoii will Ciirot'iiUy study to—
avoid I All author already (juotod, obsorvos :—
** Wlion the inouutaiti-top is oiico j^ainod, descent
only olTers : in the rnai'ch of civilisation, there is a
hi^diest point too. Many a ini«^hty p(M)plo ha^j
travelled with fearful i-apidity on the very same
path — has gained the suniniit, and fallen. IIV (ire
on the paHH ! *^ * Our female emancipationists are
now, like thou<(htless, mischievous children, lurini^
their (lu[)os towai'ds the ver^o of a precipice. That
they do not comprehend their dani^er is natural.
** I have always observed in the undei'standin^-s of
women who have been too much cultivated, some
disproj)ortion between the different faculties of their
minds. "t The ** strong-minded " mannish woman
is blinded by licr personal political ambition, which
unfortunately cannot bo 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 Avhen 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.
t Edgeworth's " Letters for Literary Ladies."

324

U'omnn Suffrage U^ong,

Wlmt, liopo for woman can tlioro ho in a Movotnnnt
foinided on tlio HJllicst, tnost transpanuit falsj^hood —
gci'finl rt/iin/ifi/ — [iii(l('p(Mi(l(>ntly of tho flat, contra-
diction of tho American aascrtior* of fcinalo
iiiperiorttt/] urfrin^ Christian woman to revolt
npfainst her natural and apostolically-doclarcd head
^lan ?

" Tho AVonian'a Tnovorncnt in Amorioa at loaat,
Beotns to ho dointi; almost puro harm, ami to liavo
hron<,dit to the surfaco n host of the most intc^n-
perate and indecent writers and speakers, with
whom it has over pleased Pi'ovid(»nce to scournro tho
eai'th. In this country, we have got a very dif-
ferent, and far wiser set of heads at the op of tlio
movement."* Granting the latter stateme.ii true, it
does not convoy any jjarticular praise of those carry-
ing on the Movement hero. American " Shrieking
Sisters " proclaim woman man's absolute superior.
Here, we have only got as far as Sexual Equality.
Yet human nature is tho same everywhere; and like
causes produce like effects. In tho U.S. the plat-
form talk icas certainly of the tallest kind. Under
tlio 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 tho
address will not bear re})etition, 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 T may, to love for as long or as short a period
* The Spectator, 2nd April, 1871.

Wo/utift Snlfrti^c i\fiinia.

825

ovomont
lohood —
co!itni-
forrmlo
I rovolt
red IuskI

[\t least,
to Imvo
t intern-
rs, witli
iirf^o tho
ery dif-
)|) of tho
L true, it
^0 Cfirry-
liriekinfj
uperioi'.
Iqujility.
and like
.lie plat-
Under
urnalist
ay Hall,
!e of tho
- in this
1 Cainp-
aira * an
to love
a period

us T can, and to ehiin^'e that lovo every day if I
please.* Not otdy, Mrs. W. holds, is the corntnni.ity
not entitled to interfere with this ri-^dit, hut it in
bound to protect her and her sox '\n the exercise of
it. * I trust,* she said, * that I am fully understood,
for I mean just that, and nothin<^ else.**** In
J'lurope, and America, certain classes of women prac-
tise this natiu'al I'i^dit, but seem ashamed of it, since
they do not publicly boast of it, and are not received
in reputable society. Anil independently of morals
and reli<^ion, evidently, wore all, or the major-ity of
women to act thus, the human race would bo
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 plaiidy with
facts as tlioy are.* We really hope it is not time.
Wo entreat the women of England to continue to
wear the mantle of modesty, at least, in concession
to the prejudices of tho laienlightened majoi'ity 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 tho
energetic champions of their cause, who speak so
very freely on Free Love. Miss Anthony took tho
broad ground that social degradation ought not to
affect political rights, or, in other words, that the
class called ' prostltates * were as much entitled as
herself to share in the agitation for woman's rights.
* Saturday Review, 9th Dec, 1871.

32G

Wotiian Suffrage Wrong.

if.

Somo of the persons most active in demanding
woman's suffrage in England, liave 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. Thu Woman's
Rights mania afflicts nations periodically, like
Cholera. This bram-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 icomen 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 affirmed by
delirious female patients, " the best heads in Eng-
land ! " 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 Review, 9th Dec, 1871, and 3rd February, 1872.

WoDian Suffrage Miviia.

327

manclirifr
em selves
ntagious
used by
)lies, the
Act has
thoy are

;sed the
Voman's
Ij, h'ke

women,
ite men.
iratively
mg men
disease,
e likeli-
rage on
onerally
jquently
lerange-
Lttacked
\ maids,
delicate
med by
in Eng-
1 mania
')es who
)resent,

almost
, 1872.

exclusively to Spinsters and "Widows — and singular
to relate, all the patients are housoholdors : all wives,
and all poor women, single or married, being entiioly
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 notliuig 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

Wotnan Suffrage Wrong,

i;
t

women in a single town petitioned not to bo allowed
to vote. In Massachusetts, a motion to admit
women to vote, bad been rejected by women tliem-
selves. In Minnesota, a female suffrage bill had
been negatived by the Governor. And in Utali,
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 i n 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, 19th April, 1889.

Woman Suffrage Mania.

329

allowed
3 admit
1 tliem-
bill had
1 Utali,
1 would
It all."*
enough
)wed in
— even
uffrage.
liverted
'age for
! This
lot yet
should
ctually
insters
Bschew
or the
leave
ve let
ivever,
)ersist
llj on
eland
gnant
)rities

move-
l^ears."

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 tlie
vast majority of women !

Though women have not yet petitioned Parlia-
ment against Spinster and AVidow 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. Y,), expressed sentiments
averse to Woman suffrage, of Mrs. S. C. Hall,
Baroness Burdett-Coutts, and other ladies, cliiefly
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 grent 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, physic, and divinity have been closed

330

Woman Suffrage Wroig.

against them, where, in the paths open to all, are
the female names worthy to bo placed on a level
with those of men? Where is a female Raphael, a
Titian, a Michael Angelo, a Galileo, a Newton, a
Sliakspere, a Milton, a Wordsworth, a Scott, a
Thackeray ? Our * Rights 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

* Readers are requested to note the remarkable resemblance
between the textual statement, and that of Madame Cottin : Part
i., Chap. V.

' all, are

a level
phael, a
wton, a
)Cott, a
Ivocates
rations,
nd you
jminent
nd had
i minds
9 same

would
iselves.
ej ask
fok for

while
sir, to

right
omen's
et the
r they
llingly
ustain
rho is

Wo /nan Suff/'age Mania,

331

e.»

except

inded

iblance
: Part

Female." She is far better entitled, to bo 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 AVomen's Rights 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 tho
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
leave all women unenfranchised, except a minority
of 800,000 spinsters and widows ; thus virtually say-
ing : — " We btHeve 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
liavo certainly landed themselves in a sin<^ular doad-
lock. At Clio 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 I 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
ibuse 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 Siiffras^c Mania.

333

Ivocates
ar (load-
married
itation ;
;itato on
D finitely
^ ukase

of the
uffrage,
signifi-
lighting
us and
s oppo-
lise the
enjoy a
ptional
w poli-

fitting
te and

move-
matise
with
, silly,
iff airs,
ijugal,

to be

to be
ample

tural,
cnpos-

A lino of conduct obliging women to express
indifference to, and scornful contempt of, the good
opinion of the great majority of nu'ii and women, is
a certain proof of 3rror, inde[)ondontly of any judg-
ment formed on the merits of the question. Tlio
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 sufficient
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
women should be modest. And this decision is so

334

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

tborou^lily accepted, as establialiod beyond all cavil,
or reinonstraiicc, tliat it is iinpossil)lo to insult a
man, and a woman more grossly, tlian by luntin<^
that ho lacks courat^e, and that she lacks virtue; tjjo
respective sexual characteristic qualities, whose
absence can never bo considered trivial.

Addison illusti'atcs 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 quallPjation,
which renders them the most amiable in the eyes of
the contrary sex. Had men chosen for themselves,
without regard to i^ue 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^ No. 99.

I To man Sujj'ragc Mania,

3:J5

never did, or can exist) tend to improve, or utterly
destroy woman's modtstij (her principal virtue), and
all other womanly (qualities which man prizes so
liigldy, thjit their loss is never condoned ? I^jvideiitly
siicli claims tend visibly and rapidly to ikicreaso
sympathy and esteem between the sexes, and to
au<rment the very {^rowing evil which forms tlio
ground of com[)]aint and a<jfitation — that compulsoiy
celibacy now stimulating the cry for Female eman-
cipation. Every young woman who meditates join-
ing this Movement to give woman man's I'ights,
should timely reflect, and seriously ask herself this
question : ** What will be my personal condition
twenty years hence, when

*' The bloom of young Desiro and purple light of Lovo "

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.

X\C)

Wojfinn Si^ffrngc Wrons^.

•h

Two oppoflito caronrs aro boforf her. Either dazzlod
l)y flattory, deciMVcd by falsehood, slio shakes hands
witjj Miss Amazon, and alonpf with oth(U" fanatics,
zcahots, duf)es, and tools, labours to onfi'anchiso
800,000 Spinsters and Widows, at the expense of
some 18 millions of non-enfranchised women: withers
promaturoly into an unpleasant old maid, with ]ior-
mancnt Woman Suffrage on the brain : or, sho
marries, finds Woman's righfa in Homo, husband,
children; appreciates the moral of Tennyson's
"Princess" (a proud, unfeeling, mischievous, sangui-
nary termagant, until she reforms herself by Love) ;
and laughs heai . ily 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

ll'offnin St{jtfragc Mania.

a37

(1.'iz/I<mI
s IihikU
aiiatics,
•anoLiso
oiise of
withors
ith per-
or, sho
iisband,
ny son's
snTigiii-
Love) ;
C[)OHure

linters,

legiti-
preson-
1. All
affects
mil as
cspect,

possi-
Bn the

dt'sty,
jower-

r wit,
ilnrm;
igs of
'efully
sgust.

great

temper and gcMiomaity, to Ix* toIcrattMl by tlioso
forccMl to siil)rMit to its infliioiice. I have s<m>ii witty
and learned ladies, wlio did not soorn to think it at
all incnmbnnt on tliom to sacrifice anything* to the
sense of propriety. On the contrary, thoy seemed
to take botli pride and pleasure in showing the
uttnost stretch of their strength, rogardlons of the
consecpKMicea, panting only for victory. Upon sutdi
occasions, when tlie adversary has been a husband
or a father, T have felt sensations which few ladies
can easily believe they excite. Airs and graces I
can bear as wull 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, sorae^ imos, 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 Edgeworth'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 wom'^n 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 en

* Miss Edgewortli : " Letters for Literary Ladies."

nas

Woman Suffrage Wtonff,

platform displaya of wit and wisdom, or learning
and political economy ; but coiiHolo thoniHolvcs for
the absonco of notoriety, in practically a[)plying
tlioso linos : —

" Nor nrmko to dnnpcronn wit a vnin protonco,
Hut wiNoly rcNt coiiti'iit with C()iiiiiic)ii nimisc ;
For wit, lii\e wiiu% iiitoxiontes tlu' liruiii,
Too stroll^' for ft't'Mi) womnn t(. sustiiin :
Of tliost! who chiiin it, tnoru thnn half imvo noitc,
And halt' of thobO wiio huve it, arc uiuloiie."*

In all languages, the words Wife^ Mother arc
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 1 Within the domestic
S[)here, 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 Wr'ity 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."

Wopnan Siiffhifrc Mania,

339

blindly (iepreciutu her iicluiil work, iiitlii(UiC(>, iirul
al)iliti(m; wlio inisrupresunt hor as insignificant i;,nd
un(l(jvelo|)(Ml, and who would porsiiado hor to profor
tlio phitfonn to llonw I

iVot woman's <'idi;^htonod advisors and tnio frionds,
aro those who onooufago hor to risk all that solid
power, and le^^iLirnate soverei<^iity which she now
exerts over man, (swaying him by her beauty, p^ood
tomper, good sense, wotnatdy u^races, accom[)lish-
nients, and instinctive tact) to try ;>. wild expc^ri-
in(«tit, and rush into a revolt whi(di can oidy end in
i^^niominious and ridicidous defeat. The imaginary
rights which women aro to attain when the sexes
become equals will be but a poor t^xchange for such
an empire of pure and holy control. The normal
woman cannot change her gentle wornaidy, 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, thai 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 of 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 pi'iestess who scorns the temple, who volun-
tarily and ruthlessly shatters the household gods,
and abandons the sanctuarj'^ 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 Siiperior Religious Sentiment.

The word Revolt is surely too harsh a term for
the spirit of independence now actuating so many
of our fair countryworr.en. 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;

PVovian 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. SSlio does not resemble a beautiful
boy. No concession will mollify lier. 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 Chr' -t ian 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, aa 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, lost 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 'piritual
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, intuiti v^ely , 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 Romance."

Woman Suffrage Mania.

343

and greater latitude of tlioui^ht. Woman is not
permitted to puzzle herself with theological pro-
blems ; to wander and lose liorself in the mazes of
sopliistry and false philosophy, as man invariably
does, when he depends on liisown unassisted reason,
to discover truth, f»nd 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 arguo 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 infidel. 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 xltheism, trusting to his ability to refute
them. Previous chapters illustrate the fact that

344

iVojnan Suffrage Wrong.

so-called "strong-minded" women, priding them-
selves on rivfilling man in logic, do not substantiate
their orthodoxy by argument. They have no con-
ception of defending thoir pi-eraisses by ratiocination.
They simply assume, and doclaitn, continually beg
the question, and scold opponents for daring to dis-
agree Avith them; influencing none, save those
previously convinced. These female reasouers never
really get bcn'ond tlieir feminine and childish argu-
ment— " Because." JMau runs into the other
extreme, and priding himself on his reason — (not
humanity's highest attribute) — frecpiently 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 Avoman's intuition. The intellect,
divorced from the heart, will always prove a false
light, an ignis fatuvs, a mere will-of-the-wisp.
Woman is confessedly more religious tliar man.
The cause of this is, that distrusting her reasoning
powers where she feels herself comparatively weal.,
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.

34.5

' them-
;anti,'ito
10 con-
nation,
lly beg
to dis-

tlioso
5" never
1 arufu-

otlier
— (not
ITS by
ng to
5, and
3, and
deter-
e, for
t lent
3 men
ief in

\Iau's
)llect,
false
wisp,
laan.
ninof

bich
oald
h so

many ignorant and partially educated raon, think-
ing to find a short cat to truth, a I'oyal 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. Liko
the normal woman in the previous instance, such a
man seeks after God, not with the miwl 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 Religion."

Irreligious women are therefore far more rare
than irreligious men. Lavator observes : — *' With-
out religion, man is a disease^l 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 JVrong.

■h
it

guard to herself, to the rising generation, and to
mankind. Men of excellent al)ilities and high
attainments, wlio are being continually influenced for
their temporal and eternal welfare, by tlie 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 qut*,iiiies 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
Rights to rival man in all pursuits. To women

Woman Suffrage Mania.

347

1, and to
,nd hiufh
onced for
lie moral
)malo re-
womanly
late con-
superior
to scorn
n to con-
) so, and
ectly, by
I her in-
appiness,
, "help,
be thus
ra, that
hora she
sophy of

3reciate
e mind,
plat-
vidently
totally
quality
s senti-
and is
n men-
omen's
women

generally, applies Lamb's beautiful description of a
good, rolin^ious, womanly woman : *' It has b(?on my
cousin's lot, oftonor po?'haps than I could have
wished, to have had for her associates and tnino,
freethinkers — leaders and (liscij)lesof novel philoso-
phies and mysteries ; but slio neither wrangles with,
nor accepts their opinions. That which was good
and ven(Table to her, when a child, retains its
authority over her mind still. She never juggles
nor plays tricks with lier undei-standing." Ijet
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 therein 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."

348

Woman Suffrage Wrong.

Final Words.

One important truth has been tliorouf^hly illus-
trated, by the failure of this twenty years' 8tru«(glo
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 Script uro and in Nature : *' Man is the head
of the Woman." Conse(|uently, woman in revolt seek-
ing to reverse this by separate action not merely
without, but dii'ectly opposed to man, has failed,
as such action always must and will fail ; no matter
what amount of individual talent bo exerted in its
defence. The interests of the sexes are too closely
related, to be thus arl)itrarily separated. To suppose
that woman, living under man's protection, con-
tinually exerted, individually and collectively;
privately 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 lacts 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 Sujffragc Mania.

349

:lily illus-

' stru^glo

an. Tho

jcl fomalo

iiid trutli

} tho head

volt seek-

t moroly

IS failed,

o matter

;ed in its

o closely

) suppose

on, con-

ctively ;

>y usage

pendent

absurd.

loters of

le legis-

vomen's

pinster

de facto

isertion

woman

pie and

i. All

/Voman

s been

consistent, should have boon decently buried. In-
stead of this, its corpse, imperfectly oinl)almod, has
been paraded, and annually galvanised, until it has
begun to stink in the nostrils. For what can
seriously bo urged in support of Woman Suffrage
(so-called), which excludes tho most oxporioncod
women — matrons — tho natural loaders 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 wiu,
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 mearny 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,

tho Soxual Equality theory — tlio flimsy foundation
on which tho VVomun's Rights house of cards is
erected. I have also dornonatratod that woman
never can bo 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 1 Whether
right, or wrong, this book will be useful. I have
tried, within reasonable limits, to treat tho 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 1 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. 1 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 demonsti;p,ted 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 Stiff rage Mania »

351

persevering promoters bo crowned with success, tlmt
will not in the lejiHt ulTect the trutli of my state-
ments, and the force of my objections. On the
contrary, should this Hill ever become Law, I doubt
not that the rapid verifications of some of my pro-
phetic warnings, especially in the '* Logical Ilesults
of Woman Suffrage" (Part ii., C/hap. I.), will fur-
nish strong conclusive evidence to the truth of my
Title, and prove:

"WOMAN SUFFRAGE WRONG IN PRINCIPLE, AND

PRACTICE."

THE END.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Woman suffrage wrong in principle and practice [microform] : an essay"

See other formats