On behalf of a great though silent multitude of women, I desire to set forth some of the grounds on which we shrink from the proposed abolition of our present exemption from the office of electing members of Parliament. This change, if made without the serious attempt to ascertain the wishes of the women of England, may inflict upon them, against their will and without a hearing, a grave injustice.

I am not about to attempt a full discussion of the whole subject, that being a task for which I am by no means competent. Nor is it my purpose to argue against the proposed measure. My objects are (1) to urge the claim of women to be consulted before any such unaccustomed share in the work of the country is assigned to them; and (2) to contribute towards the full and deliberate consideration of the question in all its bearings by calling attention to some of the pleas which women of the more retiring type are either unable, or for obvious reasons unwilling, to put forward for themselves.

(1) With regard to the first question -viz., the claim of women to be consulted before the introduction of any measure so profoundly affecting their interests, and through them the interests of the whole nation-a very few words will suffice, for there can scarcely be two opinions as to the desirableness of the step if practicable. And it could hardly "pass the wit of man" to devise some method by which the opinion of women could be ascertained. There can be no impossibility about a referendum, however unfamiliar to us may be the necessary machinery. In this way, and in this way alone, we could ascertain what is the

real wish of Englishwomen in this matter. We who object to the change would assuredly be glad of the opportunity of protesting; while the women who are agitating for the suffrage could not without obvious inconsistency demand that it should be given without reference to the wish of "one half the nation." We may be wrong in thinking that the change in our position would be disastrous. We cannot be wrong in maintaining that it should not be involuntary.

(2) But to set forth the grounds on which many women are strongly though silently opposed to the measure is a far more arduous task. The difficulty of approaching the subject from a point of view distinctively feminine, and at the same time purely human, is great, though, I trust, not insuperable. It arises, of course, largely from those habits of reserve, and those surrounding shelters of convention and tradition, for the continuance of which we have to plead. Many women, I am sure, are silent in this controversy, not only because their education may have in some degree unfitted them for the public advocacy of their cause, but also because the very cause itself which they would advocate the cause of reserve, of modesty, of personal dignity and refinementappears to forbid public discussion of a position which till lately has seemed to be "its own security." It can, however, no longer be held that the subject of the right position of women is sufficiently protected by our better instincts from public discussion; and since those who wish for a change are restrained by no such scruples as I have referred to, it would, indeed, be misplaced modesty to allow judgment to go by default.

The difficulty of discussing the question of female suffrage to any good purpose is also greatly increased by the impossibility of detaching it from the much larger and deeper problem of the right general position of women, and the feminine and human ideals to which that position should correspond and contribute. The question of the suffrage, indeed, is but an incident, so to speak, in the great movement of the last century towards what is called the "emancipation" of women. That movement has, no doubt, been mainly for good. Much has been gained for women and for the race by the removal of many restraints and causes of oppression from the lot of women, and by the opening to them of various spheres of activity and means both of self-support and of education from which they were formerly debarred. Yet none but a bold, not to say a blind, partisan of "progress" would venture to deny that the price paid for these gains had been a heavy one. With the removal of restraints it was inevitable that special protections should also be removed. With the opening of careers for women it was inevitable that they should become, more than of old, recognized breadwinners. It may be good that all doors should be open. It does not follow that it must be equally wise to pass through them all. No one can deny that there is need for caution in going forward; and we are now confronted with the demand for a further step in the same direction, by which in the name of justice and of equal rights a real injustice, as many of us feel, may not impossibly be wrought. For the equalization of conditions or of tasks, in disregard of unequal abilities, is manifestly injustice. Whether women can in any sense be considered as "equal" to men appears to be a question as idle as it is interminable; but there is no need to consider it,

since women are certainly handicapped by natural burdens from which men are free.

The women whose profound, though often unspoken, reluctance to the proposed addition to their duties and responsibilities I am endeavoring to interpret, do not regard the question as mainly referring to the value, or the best distribution, of a particular bit of political machinery; but as involving that of the right and fair division of labor between the sexes. We regard the suffrage not as conferring a necessarily advantageous position, but rather as the symbol, and to some extent the instrument, of a public participation in political functions; not as a prize to be coveted, but as the token of a task which should not be indiscriminately imposed-a task not to be lightly undertaken, or discharged without encountering both toil and opposition. We think that justice and fairness consist, not in ignoring actual differences, but in so adjusting necessary burdens with due regard to the lines of irremovable difference as to secure the most even distribution of pressure. We believe that the fact that Nature has irrevocably imposed certain burdens on our sex constitutes a claim, as a matter of justice, that we should be relieved from some part of those functions which men are competent to share with us.

That we have hitherto been exempt from political and electoral duties is. we believe, the natural result of the universal and partly instinctive recognition of this piece of elementary justice. It cannot be in fairness attributed to any doubt of our "worthiness” to take a part in national duties and responsibilities. Rather it is owing to the belief, unquestioned till yester day, that other methods of sharing such duties were more worthy of our already burdened strength. It has hitherto been felt that woman's time

and woman's best energies were not only more fitly occupied, but more economically bestowed, in discharging those duties which she alone is capable of undertaking. And who can estimate the importance to the whole nation of the right and unhindered performance of those duties?

It is often said that the suffrage could be no grievance to the women who do not wish for it, because they could always abstain from voting.

Individuals, of course, could abstain. But is it reasonable to suppose that women generally, if placed by the deliberate act of the nation in the position of electors, could maintain their present sense of exemption from the call to investigate for themselves the opinions and qualifications of candidates, and the mechanism and probable working of the particular measures to which candidates might be willing to pledge themselves? Any woman could, of course, abstain from voting; but would this shelter her from being canvassed for her vote? Is it possible to suppose that a constitutional change of such magnitude as the extension of the suffrage to women would leave unaltered the prevailing view of the right relative position of the sexes? It is not the convenience or the wish of either sex, still less of individuals, that we have to consider, but the good of the nation. The proposed change may be for good or for evil, but it is idle to deny that it would be far-reaching and important in its effect on all our social relations.

Again, we are told that the objection which rests on the fact that the hands of women are already full of domestic duties does not apply to the large (at present unduly large) proportion of single women, who for the purposes of argument are often assumed to have no share in such duties. Those of us who occupy that position well know how far this is from being the

case, even during the existence of the present excess of the female population (soon, we must hope, to be reduced for the benefit of the colonies). In almost every home in the country, in every school, and every hospital, and every poverty-stricken district, there is work for single women, and the difficulty even now is to find women available for the performance of it. Childless women, of course, have more freedom of choice in the disposal of their time than mothers; but if they are but moderately capable they will find the demands on their time and sympathies often overwhelming. While sickness and sorrow and orphanhood abound amongst us as they do, it can hardly be otherwise.

It is also to be remembered that unmarried women, though many, are yet a minority. It is not easy to ascertain the precise proportion of women who never marry, but it would appear from an observation continued during some months of the deaths of women over thirty, as recorded in the Times newspaper, that about three out of four were or had been married. In the wage-earning classes the proportion of confirmed spinsters is probably still smaller. At any rate, the number of women of mature age who have really no domestic duties can never be large enough to alter to any appreciable extent the general truth that women's work, even when professional (as in the case of trained nurses, schoolteachers, and matrons of institutions), is still chiefly domestic. Whether it ought to be more or less exclusively so than it is now is a question of farreaching importance, and well worth our serious consideration. Its bearing upon the question of the suffrage is, perhaps, chiefly indirect. For there is no doubt that almost all women, whether married or single, and whatever their occupation, could find time to record a vote, if that were all, and

if it were their duty to do so. The question is whether, without neglecting their own special work, they can have leisure or opportunity for acquiring the familiar knowledge, either of candidates or of measures, which would be needed to give any value to their votes; whether, in short, public affairs are not outside the peculiar province of women, and whether it is best that women should outstep, or remain within, their own peculiar province.

In a certain sense, no doubt, public affairs are the province of us all. There are many questions coming before Parliament on which it would be most desirable that the opinion of wise and experienced women should be heard. If it were within the horizon of practical politics that some women should sit in each House, or that there should be a third House (with or without legislative power) in which the voice of women could be heard, as that of "the Church" is heard in Convocation, much would no doubt be gained. In that way a certain feminine toneby which I mean a tone of comparative tenderness, calmness, and piety, combined with a lively sense of detail -might not ineffectually leaven the deliberations of our representatives. Women, in electing each other, would bring to bear a real discrimination, and such elections could be carried on in modes specially adapted to preserve the essential qualities of womanhood from unfavorable influences.

But this is not what seems to be now in contemplation. The object of the present agitation seems to be to obliterate for electioneering purposes the distinction of sex, while maintaining it as regards the members elected, and so to plunge women into the struggles of an ordinary election, merely that their votes may be given in favor of one man rather than another. This process appears to be doubly wasteful.

No one can be sure what would be its effect on the House of Commons. The candidates chosen by men and women jointly might be pledged to a rather different set of measures from those now demanded of them; or the relative importance of certain measures might be in some degree altered; but the representatives chosen would still be men, and as such entirely incompetent to represent the woman's view of affairs. I am not undervaluing the importance of that view. My contention rather is that the proposed change would fail to give effect to it, and would, at the same time tend to hinder its present effectiveness, as conveyed through its natural channels of gentle home influence and personal authority over the consciences and convictions of men.

It is certainly not in the interests of either sex alone that this question should be considered. Nor can the demand for the extension of the suffrage to women be rightly described as a claim made by "woman." Not only do many women utterly refuse to acknowledge as their representatives those who are now making that demand, but these silent opponents feel that it is a claim on women rather than for women which is under consideration. The use of the word "enfranchisement" as equivalent to voting power appears to be full of misleading associations. To have a voice in electing members of Parliament is, no doubt, to have a minute fragment of political power. But this is a very different thing from freedom. It seems to me very doubtful whether the personal freedom of women would. on the whole, be increased by the possession of such power.

Anything like rivalry or jealousy be tween the sexes is too odious a thought to be dwelt on. But it seems necessary to remember that, were it possible for any such opposition to arise, women must of necessity fail.