Woman Suffrage.

Part I.

The Counterfeit.

There is much misunderstanding in regard to the real character of what is known as the Woman Suffrage movement in this country. It is not surprising. The ostensible demand is made for Woman Suffrage. The organization that represents this demand is described as the "Woman Suffrage Society," the meetings are called on behalf of Woman Suffrage, and Women enfranchisement is the alleged object of agitation. Speakers and writers who come forward to advocate the cause, make their most touching appeal by declaring that they plead for "half the human race." They tell us in reply to one form of objection, that the perils of maternity are not page 4 less hazardous than those of war¹; all that they say leads us to infer that Woman Suffrage in its proper sense is the object of their demand, Yet, when we turn from professions and declarations to examine the actual substance of the measure which is proposed, we find that if it be adopted only propertied single women will be raised to citizenship! Widows, spinsters, and other single women possessing households, all the women, in fact, who are in an abnormal state—those who form the mere fragment of their sex—are to exercise political power, while wives and mothers, unless mothers be widowed, are to remain without the vote. Can this, then, be termed a genuine Woman Suffrage movement? How can it be said to represent "half the human race"?

As the substance of this pamphlet has been given already in the form of a lecture, not once but several times, and as discussion has followed upon each occasion, as likewise the Woman Suffrage Society appointed an eloquent lady² to deliver a lecture in answer to mine, I have had

¹ "As a matter of fact, we understand that the per centage of women who lose their lives in the dangers incident to them in the profession of marriage, exceeds the per centage of soldiers killed in battle." A reply to Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, &c. By Miss Lydia Becker.

² Miss Fenwick Miller.

page 5 every opportunity of ascertaining the manner in which my objections are met.

Two replies are almost invariably made in justification of the present form of the Woman Suffrage demand. They are as follows :—

1. We take the law as we find it; we find that certain property qualifies the owner to vote, we demand that where it qualifies a man it shall qualify a woman—that there shall be no sex disqualification.

2. The measure we propose, although it may only obtain Single Women Suffrage now, represents the "thin end of the wedge:" it must be regarded only as an instalment of the larger measure which will comprehend Wife Suffrage.

There is, perhaps, some further reply in the common remark that no other mode of female enfranchisement would receive consideration. The dilemma exists of having to propose Woman Suffrage based upon the property qualification, however fanciful the result may be, or of not proposing it at all.

The first of these replies sounds plausible. I do not say that those who make it are conscious of this : but it is plausible, or in other words, superficially satisfactory, as a reply to the objection I have raised. I maintain, and have reiterated on each occasion of delivering my lecture, that the page 6 advocates of Women Suffrage are bound to consider that the present electoral law was framed, both in spirit and letter, solely with a view to male voting. It was devised with the object of enfranchising certain men representative of their sex and race. Whom did it select as representative? Not the staid bachelors, nor the wild ones, nor the unmarried especially. It sought representation among the fathers and husbands—in the heads of households. They were necessarily associated with property: but property was not the object of representation, as it has become recently; it was the men. The Woman Suffrage Society propose now to pervert this law to the enfranchisement (as it is erroneously termed) of women : thus perverted it can of course only act in a fanciful and inappropriate manner. Used as a means of female enfranchisement, whom do we find that the altered electoral law selects as representative of the woman sex? Not the mature women, the wives and the mothers, but spinsters, widows and other single ladies. Miss Lydia Becker, the active Secretary of the Woman Suffrage Society, speaks occasionally of the "brand of electoral incapacity" which now rests upon women. Whether it is a brand or not, I will consider later. But it is certain that if the Single Woman Suffrage Bill is passed and political power is page 7 declared the privilege of single women alone, then a veritable stigma will be attached to wives, and marriage will represent, as far as they are concerned, the very livery of political subjection. This will be so on Miss Becker's own showing; I find the following passage in the pamphlet I have already quoted from in a foot note : "Every extension of the franchise to classes hitherto excluded lowers and weakens the status of the classes which remain out of the pale." If there be any truth in this declaration it applies with double force to Miss Becker's own scheme of woman enfranchisement. There is no stigma on wives while no women exercise political power, but a stigma is created for the first time if the enfranchisement of women is announced in a measure which deliberately excludes them. Moreover, if one class of men have ever been enfranchised to the detriment of a non-enfranchised class, it has at least been done upon the alleged social or intellectual superiority of the newly enfranchised, but even Miss Becker will hardly venture to assert the superiority of spinsters and widows over married women. The supporters of the measure say that it will "give the franchise to women upon the same terms on which it now is, or hereafter may be granted to men." This seems to me to be merely playing page 8 with words. Nominally it may be so; substantially it is otherwise, for while husbands will have the vote, wives will be deprived of it. An electoral law will be in force that qualifies propertied women so long as they avoid or survive marriage, and thus marriage will be invariably identified with political disability.

The advocates of the Bill say they take the law as they find it: and they frequently claim credit for not altering it: they are only going to give it a new signification. "Man" is to mean "Woman." This sounds delightfully simple: but it represents a considerable alteration. It would have been more straightforward to endeavour to alter it so as to embrace the genuine principle of Woman Suffrage,¹ instead of attempting to pervert the law and mislead the public for the benefit of a counterfeit principle.

There is, I am sure, no intentional deception. The promotors of this movement do not realize that they support a counterfeit principle, but they commit the common error of mistaking the shadow

¹ This might have been done by proposing that, simultaneously with the adoption of the minor alteration, wives shall be held to share their husband's qualification. I do not advocate this, because I am entirely opposed to Woman Suffrage. I merely indicate the proper course for those who desire something more than nominal Woman Suffrage.

page 9 for the substance. And there is everything to encourage them in this error. They find themselves embarked on a politic course. To the astute Conservative mind that leads,¹ the scheme is altogether deserving, it may be truly termed a "constitutional" one, it is favourable to people who have "a stake in the country" as it is called; the Conservative does not much care who is connected with property so long as it is represented, and then he reflects that most women are likely to be Conservatives. The Radical is also conciliated. Extension of the franchise, never mind how allotted or how collected, is his one panacea for all ills. Then there is the concession of an abstract right. All his own pet arguments and declarations about the rights of every man, &c.,—why not "every woman"?—are turned upon him. He thinks the measure is in favour of every woman; he is told that this is the ultimate object, although the Conservative is carefully told that it is not so.

There are some ladies in this movement who know that it does not comprise genuine Woman Suffrage, but they regard it as a stepping stone. Theirs is the reply to the Radical; they say that the anomaly created by the measure—the maid

¹ See Appendix i. Letter of approval from Mr. Disraeli.

page 10 voting, and the wife disfranchised—will be so outrageous that public opinion will not sanction its continuance.

These ladies deceive themselves. I warn you not to share their generous confidence. Anomalies which are favorable to property are always tolerated in this country. And "Public Opinion!" Who can have faith in what is termed Public Opinion? The conditions under which a seat is obtained in the House of Commons are such as almost to close the Parliamentary channel for the expression of independent opinion, ¹ while the condition of national publicity to opinion is that it shall be common place enough to suit

¹ It will be found in nearly all constituencies that the party managers on the Liberal side represent the Nonconformist and non-political Middle Class point of view. It may be asked, if "non-political," why do they organize opposition to the Conservatives? The reply is that party feeling, inherited apparently as an instinct, seems to prompt the opposition. There is very frequently a hot contest in which the actual difference of idea upon politics between the candidates is imperceptible, but one is called a Conservative and the other is called a Liberal. This being the case, a man of independent political thought is by no means acceptable as a candidate. It is the pliant man, it is he who has not thought upon political subjects at all, and who turns to his agent for the cue to each public reply, who is known to be the model candidate for an electoral campaign. On the Conservative side orthodoxy is indispensable.

page 11 the average mind, and obtain the "largest" or a "world-wide" circulation. No prominent publicity can be obtained for opinion which is likely to be unpopular with the propertied class. The proposal to give all wives votes, which would include the wives of all working men, (just conceive the effect of a proposal to double the terrible Democracy!) would not even obtain discussion in our prudent London Daily Press—that Cerberus, which has taken charge of our liberties, and guards us carefully from the access of disturbing unorthodox ideas, or only admits them duly caricatured and discredited.

But the influential and official representatives of the Woman Suffrage Society disclaim the idea of seeking Wife Suffrage. Theirs is the reply to the Conservative. At a public meeting held at St. George's Hall in May, 1875, by this society, when resolutions of support were submitted to the meeting, but no discussion was permitted on them until after they had been passed, Mrs. Fawcett said :—

"If the bill is carried, I do not think anyone need be afraid that an agitation for Married Woman's Suffrage would take the place of the present agitation. The heart would be taken out of the whole movement."

And this is perfectly true. But note that there are two faces to the movement, the one irreconcilable with the other. Mrs. Fawcett's reply is the true one. A proposal to enfranchise wives would be scouted.

Mrs. Fawcett, in the same speech that I have quoted from, claims credit to England on account of the position which the Woman Suffrage question occupies, as compared to the position it occupies in all other countries. I say that this position is a discredit to the country; in no 'other could a vessel have sailed so far without having its true character exposed. Its progress here is mainly due to the surreptitious knowledge of conservative supporters that it makes for a goal far different to the one which is inscribed on its banner. It is chartered by money, plied by Conservatives, it has the generous breath of radicals in its flag, and makes with ammunition (an armory of votes) to an enemy's port. Once in that port, the banner will be hauled down, and the ammunition will be expended in opposing the rights of women and the rights of men.

If you think I am severe in my description of the Woman Suffrage Society measure, I will quote an opinion to you which you may consider less prejudiced than my own. It is the opinion of a talented lady who is a well known advocate page 13 of Woman Suffrage. I refer to Mrs. Besant. She uses the following words in a letter addressed to an American newspaper:—

"The real truth is that the Woman Suffrage movement, as conducted by the National Society, is in no sense a popular movement in England; it is a movement of the upper classes, of the propertied women to whom alone a vote would be given if Mr. Forsyth's Bill became law. It is timid, apologetic, and irresolute, favoured much by the clergy, and smiled on by Conservatives."

Here is another witness. The following passage is from a letter addressed to the Standard, and quoted with approval by the Woman Suffrage Journal in which I found it:—

"I should be glad to know," writes a lady correspondent, "what action, if any, the Conservative Association is prepared to take on the important question of the so called 'Woman Suffrage;' to my mind, more properly to be named 'property suffrage.'"

I oppose this agitation, then, upon the following grounds:—

1.	Because it is falsely termed a Woman Suffrage Movement.
2.	Because the measure advocated will create an invidious distinction between wives and other women, at the expense of the former.page 14
3.	Because its success will constitute a triumph of the representation of property as against the representation of persons.
4.	Because the effect of the Bill proposed will be to strengthen the reactionary party, and thus to impede National Progress.

Of course it is sufficient to oppose a measure which has proclaimed itself as "advanced" or "progressive" to invite the usual taunts of illiberalism and shafts of ridicule. The fanatic of every idea invariably pronounces opposition as contemptible or prejudiced; each petty whipster of a notion declares that those who are against it enact the part of the opponents of Galileo, Newton, &c., or institute a comparison with Mrs. Partington's combat with the ocean; yet for one idea—heralded forth with this customary braggadocio—that proves its fitness to survive and benefit mankind probably ninety-nine perish. Another effective device is to recall the foolish predictions which have been made at various times upon proposals of beneficial reform, and thus to confound two entirely dissimilar cases.¹

¹ "Well, sir, very likely you and others in this room can remember the time when our Catholic fellow-countrymen struggled for their emancipation: did you not hear the same sort of thing from the Admiral Maxses of the time?"—Miss Fenwick Miller's reply to my lecture delivered at the Eleusis Club.

page 15 According to this mode of reasoning, the infallibility of all projects is necessarily assumed. Yet a sufficient number of people can always be collected who will applaud such an exhilarating fallacy.

I do not, therefore, exaggerate the probable effect of my opposition. All I am anxious for is that you should realize the position that will be attained by this measure, and consider carefully whether it is likely to be of much value. Single women who are householders will have the vote—wives will be excluded from the poll. The Woman Suffrage Society will expire, its "heart" will go out. Then how shall we be? What will be the practical outcome? What sort of a political force shall we have released under the pretext of emancipating the sex? We have to consider the character and disposition of average women who are now all at home encompassed by a household horizon, and who trouble themselves little about this or any other public movement. They would rather not have the vote. It is common for the Lady Suffragists to allege that women approve of their measure because they do not come forward to oppose : it must be remembered, however, that it is not consistent with the views of ladies who object to the vote to make platform appearance. They are deficient in public spirit and in a knowledge page 16 of the ways of public life. Another fallacious statement is that if they do not want the vote they can "leave it alone." But will they be left alone? It must be remembered that they are unprotected, there is no male tyrant at hand to intimidate canvassers. What part, then, will these women play—the widows, the spinsters, and the single ladies—who are suddenly called in to give the casting vote upon many a momentous question? You will form a singularly erroneous notion if you regard the ladies who have come forward to demand the vote as representative of their sex. When they go to the poll, they will, I venture to predict, meet with an overwhelming antagonistic-vote on the part of their ungrateful sisters.

It is claimed that women have voted well in School Board elections; I do not know upon what ground this claim is made; I am disposed to think that the Woman School Board vote has been a clerical one.¹ Their voting in municipal

¹ It does not follow that this vote need be a Church vote: there is a Nonconformist clerical vote as well as a Church clerical vote. The last London School Board contest (1876) was mainly a struggle between Liberals and Nonconformists on one side and Conservatives and Churchmen on the other : it is likely that the woman vote followed congregations and was equally divided.

page 17 elections has not so far been characterized by much public spirit. I received not long since a somewhat discouraging letter from a friend who lives in one of our largest Southern towns; he wrote, in reply to a question I put to him concerning the number of women voters and proportion to class, as follows :—

We are blessed with about 500 lady voters on the burgess roll; of these the preponderance is very large on the side of the Upper and Middle Classes. This arises from the fact either that many of the widows of the Working Classes, when the head of the household is gone, content themselves with becoming lodgers, or are excused their rates, or procure the aid of the Parish Authorities. Nearly all the women vote Tory. The women of the Upper Classes are naturally Tory by association and connection. The Church parson and his district visiting ladies are converted at the election times into an active Tory Committee, whose influence the women of the Middle Class do not attempt to withstand. The parson recommends them in the way of business, and the association is of too flattering a character to be separated on polling day. My belief is, that at the last municipal election in All Saints, go out of 100 women of the Middle Class voted Tory. I canvassed one lady whose husband was a Liberal in his life time, but she voted Tory, and said afterwards, "How could I refuse Miss—who is always so kind to me, and what could I say to the clergyman when he asked me to accept a ride in his brougham to the poll."

Then the widows of the very poor vote Tory also. The parson at Christmas pleads for the poor widow, and he and his visiting ladies distribute amongst them the parochial charities. When election time comes, the parson is found among these people, pleading that one good turn deserves another, and when page 18 they in their turn ask a favour, and one so slight, how can it be refused ?

Dissenting ministers abound amongst us, but the parochial system of the Church is one in which they have no lot or part, and they find it much easier to propound a principle eloquently in the pulpit than to give effect to their views by bringing to the polling booth those over whom they have influence. When, at our last municipal election, there were at least six Church parsons at work bringing up voters, it was impossible to induce the Dissenting Ministers to budge one inch further than to record their own votes.

Of course it is retorted that there are men voters just as bad. But because there are many men who do not know how to vote, does it follow that women will know how to do so? I fail to see how one evil will be corrected by the introduction of another. Political responsibility has not educated the men, why should it educate the women? And we must remember this—much as self-dependent women may repudiate the idea of dependence-single women are more likely to be "dependent" than men voters. At least the men, if they choose, can protect themselves: it is more the nature of women to yield to solicitation; and whatever may be pretended to the contrary, it is certain that average women are more subject to clerical influence than men.¹ When I speak of clerical

¹ "Any one acquainted with the enormous power of popular preachers over the susceptible sex must know how little it depends on the matter of the appeal, or the object to be gained or the arguments used."—Times, April 28, 1876.

page 19 influence, pray understand that I refer to the doctrine more than to the man. I speak of the influence derived from human opinion claiming supernatural sanction and expressed through an ecclesiastical agent. Gibbon says, that "To a philosophic eye the vices of the clergy are less dangerous than their virtues "—their virtues are doubtless many. What with their doctrine, their virtues and various accessories, they exercise great power over women. The priest from his pulpit—or as the kind excellent friend which he so frequently is—can more readily excite women against public measures than he can excite men. I have known a clergyman send women out of his church, during a School Board election, in a state of righteous indignation against a "secular" candidate, and fully resolved to sustain the Church in its combat with Satan. If you wish to learn the influence of the clergy over women, look into the churches and observe the proportion of women.¹ Some will account this a merit, for it will be tantamount to saying that women care more for religion than men. But the word

¹ See appendix II. for an interesting table showing the relative number of men and women who made requests for special intervention through Moody and Sankey.

page 20 religion requires more than any other to have some definite meaning attached to it. Too often it may be described as the deification of human error. Feelings and thoughts, however mean, however selfish, and however ignorant—and excelling only in the quality of vehemence—ticket themselves as "religious," and forthwith claim a sacred immunity. "This is a religious feeling," it is said, "and you must respect it."

Now women resort to this plan of dignifying mere impulse with the name of "religious feeling," far more than men, and they claim a virtue for it. I fear that this religious "feeling will, at the time of an election, be made use of (especially in the case of lonely women) to oppose all movements of progress.

The common reply made to the objection that women are likely to vote under the influence of the Clergy, is that we have surrendered them to the Priests by failing to give them sufficient interest or concern in the affairs of the country; and Mill told us often that the explanation of the Priest having so much influence over woman is that he is the only person who speaks seriously to her. One of his objects in demanding the vote for woman was to counteract the influence of the Priest by means of the influence of the Politician. I fear I cannot share this sanguine expectation. page 21 Women are highly emotional, they fear death more than men, and they are weak. The Priest appeals to their emotions. He offers them access to celestial joys, he abolishes death, and holds in reserve a method of alarm which few women are strong enough to despise. The dead can never return to refute his words. What sort of a rival is the Politician with his meagre fare of doubtful benefit to others !

I am aware that taunts of illiberality are made against me, because I point out that the woman vote is likely to be Clerical. It is said, "They are of course free to vote as they like." This reply may perfectly serve for those who concede the right to vote. But I do not concede any abstract right to vote at all. The right to vote I regard as a question of expediency and fitness. It is easy to sneer at expediency, to toss the head, and enquire who is to judge of rightful expediency. The indignation with the word arises from its oppressive misuse. I will venture to say that there is not one person in this hall (however riotous his sense of justice may be) who is not prepared to defend some position he holds upon the ground of expediency. I have not heard the vote claimed for minors. I defy anyone to defend the non-enfranchisement of a young man of twenty, of a foreigner, or of a pauper, upon any page 22 other ground than that of expediency. The respective arguments of adolescence, of nativity, and of poverty, are expediency pleas, and none other.¹ As it is a favourite declaration on the part of members of the Woman Suffrage Society that women are placed in the same political category as paupers, criminals, and idiots, I must emphatically repudiate any such interpretation being placed on the illustration I have just given, the object of which is merely to show that Society determines the Suffrage upon the ground of expediency, that is to say, of fitness.² Women are

¹ A writer in the Englishwoman's Review for January last combats the above remarks in the following manner: "To our mind it is a question of right that every person shall have during his or her life a chance of self government. A minor can become of age, a foreigner can be naturalised, a pauper may become a man of substance, a criminal may reform" (it should, perhaps, be added here, "A wife may become a widow" in anticipation of proposed law), "an agricultural labourer can emigrate to a town; it is in the possible future of all of these to become voters—only women have the franchise put out of their reach for life." The "chance of self-government" here spoken of is clearly a fiction, and a fiction invented for the occasion. If the "right" exists, the pauper may object that the chance of his becoming a "man of substance" is too remote to satisfy it. It is evident that the writer refuses the vote to the pauper upon the same ground of expediency as I do.

² See Appendix III. for American opinion on the Expediency of Woman Suffrage.

page 23 excluded for a number of reasons, which I shall consider later; but they are excluded, as they are excluded from the army—without contempt.

Leaving this I may say that even if I did concede the right to vote which is claimed, I should still be entitled to protest against the enfranchisement of a particular section of women whose position renders them peculiarly subject to reactionary tendencies, and might demand as a set-off the simultaneous enfranchisement of the wives of town bootmakers.

Certainly the ladies theory is a highly convenient one. They consider themselves entitled to dwell as fully as they please upon the beneficent changes which will result from the enlightened vote of single women. They may proclaim the advantage. I am to be debarred from showing the disadvantage—they may affirm that women will vote right; if I suggest that they may vote wrong, they indignantly exclaim "Is it possible that a Liberal can desire to constrain the liberty of the voter! "

The Woman Suffrage advocates generally commence their charge by stating a number of evils and oppressive laws from which women suffer, and which I desire to see abolished as heartily as they do—then, with an amazing inconsequence, they produce the single-woman vote as a remedy! page 24 It is assumed that with this vote the evils will commence to disappear, that it will correct bad laws, and abolish the existing legal disabilities. "Ten years after women become voters," says, one sanguine lady, "there will be some erasures in the Statute Book." This is just exactly what I deny—namely, that there will be some erasures favourable to women. The single-woman vote will, in my opinion, confirm the bad laws, and maintain the very restrictions that we desire to be rid of.

The evils referred to are due to other causes than that of the non-enfranchisement of single or other women. They are largely due to the intolerance and wilful ignorance of women themselves; they are partly owing to what women have made of men.¹ As far as the evils can be traced to political representation they are due to an Electoral system which (among other defects) is antagonistic to the representation of ideas upon

¹ "It is an undeniable truth that women ought to be infinitely better educated than they are, taught juster methods of reasoning, and a greater regard for facts. But when women rage passionately against the injustice of their own ignorance, they never seem to remember that it is they themselves who have so willed it. It is not the fathers who choose the schools for their daughters. Whatever girls' schools may have been, women alone have made and ordered them. It is women who mould and regulate the lives of women; and if the answer is, Mothers make their girls what men desire them to be, is there not a counter reply, Are not all men the sons of women? The miserable thing called a polite education has been, and is emphatically the work of woman; that more miserable thing, a fine lady, is still more emphatically her work and creation."—" Woman's Place in Nature and Society;" an article by Mrs. Lynn Linton, in Belgravia, May, 1876.

page 25 National subjects. There are plenty of ideas in the country favourable to progress for both men and women, but the means of representing them in Parliament is limited. It is the tendency of this system to elect members upon personal considerations, and local interests. Electors do not vote in virtue of themselves, but in virtue of a restricted locality, a method which breaks up association in the interest of the nation at large. They find, therefore, in too many instances, that the great privilege of the franchise gives them the opportunity, once in seven years—sometimes once in three years—of supporting one of two parish opinions, viz.: whether the vote shall be given to that well-known Conservative Tweedledum, who has always lived among them, or whether it shall be bestowed upon Tweedledee, who is Liberal to everything and in favour of nothing.

There is one favourite argument I must refer page 26 to before passing to the consideration of True Woman Suffrage. It is founded on the notion that representation is the correlative of taxation. This one of those popular formulas which has no foundation in fact.

It is a mere phrase; women make themselves supremely ridiculous when they mimic Hampden, by refusing to pay taxes and allowing their spoons to be sold. All people are taxed and few people are represented. Lodgers of all kinds and classes, married men, married women, adults, minors and the entire peasantry, are taxed without representation.¹ There are in England and Wales some 12,000,000 adults who pay taxes, and of these 12,00,000 people, only two million (I speak in round numbers), have votes, that is to say, are nominally represented—and then, as an amazing climax of our Constitution, a minority of these

¹ "Because we are taxed we are not therefore entitled to vote. If we were, a minor who pays taxes is unjustly deprived of the franchise. Our taxes pay for the protection of our persons and property, and the benefit of Society."—Letter in Index.

"It is seen that the property of a woman is taxed, and that she is not allowed to vote: it is forgotten that the property of the Corporation, the minor, the non-resident, is taxed under the same circumstances. Taxes are assessed upon property with no reference to the owner. If it be urged that the women whose property is assessed for 100 or 1000 dollars ought for that reason to be allowed to vote, it may with equal propriety be maintained that a Corporation that pays one half the tax of the town, as in many instances they do, ought to be allowed more than one vote... The proposed change is opposed to the fundamental principle of Republican Government—namely, persons, not property, constitute the basis of representation; and property, not persons, is the basis of taxation."—"Woman and Politics;" an Essay read by Rev. E. S. Elder, before the Chestnut Street Club, Boston, U. S.

page 27 electors return the majority in the House of Commons! so that less than one million people have veritable representation. If you want an anomaly to wax indignant over—here is one! Here is an answer to those who assert that public opinion will not brook the anomaly of Woman Suffrage—minus wives !

If this movement makes way, it is because the Nation slumbers. We live at a period which all patriotic men must contemplate with some sorrow. In the powerful press—I do not refer to the honourable course of the subterranean unheeded Democratic press—there is a conspiracy of silence in regard to all great Domestic Questions. I measure a question by the number of people it affects. When meetings are held upon really important questions, such as the Agricultural Labourer question, the Land question, the Electoral Reform page 28 or State Church questions, they are disregarded, or are treated as minor questions, while questions that are really minor—such as administrative blunders or subjects that are sensational—are converted into great ones. I observed not long since that a leading journal which knows what kind of literary ware best suits the "largest circulation," gave nine columns to the details of a murder, and not one inch to the report of a great political meeting at Sheffield, where a man of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's mark attended and made one of his ablest speeches. Ambitious ministers study silence also. No Statesman dare, under our parochial system of election, express an honest conviction upon a People of England's question; and the safest seat in Parliament is held by the man who has not yet committed himself to "yea" or to "nay" upon a serious political issue. That honest Conservative, Mr. Thomas Collins, said, in his evidence before the Commission appointed to enquire into corrupt practices, that when he went to Boston as a candidate, he was told that if he wanted to secure the seat he must be careful to avoid politics! What a comment on the power of the non-political class! What an illustration of public apathy and insensibility to national affairs! It is not surprising that at such a time as this a page 29 Counterfeit Image of Progress should appear on the lifeless political scene¹ and receive a certain amount of applause.²