CHAPTER IX.

Natural Equality of the Sexes.

"Without intending a silly compliment, I think I may say, if you look at the two sexes and ask which is the best product, and does the most credit to its own training, he would be a bold person who would say it was the male sex."

PROFESSOR SEELEY.

DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITY.

WHETHER Woman's powers are equal to those of man seems to us hardly to admit of discussion. The proper question is not one of equality but of adaptation. In the very nature of things, between the two sexes there is a difference as well as a similarity. It was not good for man to be alone, therefore God provided an help meet for him. The one sex is the compliment of the other. "Man and woman," to adopt the language of Dr. Craik, "are fitted the one for the other as much by their difference as by their similarity. The parts which they have to act, the spheres in which they have to move, are as distinct in some respects as they are identical. Of all false social philosophies, that is the blindest and shallowest which overlooks or denies this, and would seek to improve the character or elevate the condition of women by making them, as far as possible, exchange their own proper character for that of the other sex." The functions, the occupations, and consequent duties of

man and woman grow out of their bodily and mental structures. Each sex is perfect for its purpose; and when the one encroaches on the other, inferiority, incongruity, and antagonism is the result. What so odious as a masculine woman? What so contemptible as a feminine man? Alas! both are frequently met in the world.

Woman's claim to entire equality with man cannot on any pretence be made to rest on the word of God. Some writers beg the question, and insist that woman should be treated by man as she is by God: in all respects equal. But the Scriptures do not teach that the sexes are in all respects equal; nor from the earliest ages, down to the hour when John laid by the pen, and closed the book, is there the slightest intimation that the two sexes may not have peculiar privileges and duties. By declaring the essential unity of the sexes, the Bible bestows supreme honour upon woman, while shedding a dew, tender as the blessing of God upon her affectional nature. In matters of conscience there is no sex; consequently in the discharge of the duties of piety each is equally capacitated, and therefore equally responsible. Love on the part of husbands is made as binding as obedience on the part of wives; and where love rules, instead of heartless ministrations, there are affectionate assiduities, ingenious anticipation of wishes, and noble self-sacrifices.

Woman is certainly not inferior to man, but the difference between them is as evident as the similarity; and only by carrying out their joint action in accordance with their inherent powers and susceptibilities can the human race really be benefited. It

is only a waste of time to tell us that woman can do many things quite as well as man can,—that there are many public occupations which she could fill as well as he,—that were she properly educated, it would be seen that man had no natural superiority over her except in physical strength. All that may be true. Our argument is, that while woman, in consequence of her more pliable nature, may be able to do man's work as well as he can, it is certain that he cannot do her work so well as she can; and therefore the body politic would suffer loss were the sexes generally to exchange places.

POLITICAL EQUALITY.

The question of the proper position of woman in regard to politics has become one of general interest. It lies in our way, and demands to be dealt with. We cannot now ridicule the idea of putting legal power into her hands, and as little can we discuss it superficially, for that were all the same as to discuss it unfaithfully. It is therefore matter of congratulation that John Stuart Mill, one of the intellectual élite, alike as a metaphysician, a logician, a moralist, and a politician, has taken up this subject, and carried his inquiry into somewhat wider and deeper relations than men in general, or even women, with a few exceptions, have been accustomed to regard it as involving. Several years ago, when acknowledging a vote of thanks from the reformers of York, Mr. Mill, M.P., took the opportunity of showing them the legitimate consequences of one of the principles which they had laid down in public resolutions.

"It is un

just," they had maintained, "that the great bulk of the nation should be held amenable to laws in the making of which they had no voice." Mark the inference of the great thinker from this proposition. "It cannot stop at residential manhood suffrage; but requires that the suffrage be extended to women also: " and then he adds, "I earnestly hope that the working men of England will show the sincerity of their principles by being willing to carry them out, when urged, in favour of others besides themselves." This logical deduction reminds us of Ann Knight's retort upon the late Joseph Sturge. Happening to meet that excellent man at a time when his name was prominently before the public in connection with the demand for "complete suffrage," she thus accosted him: “Friend Joseph, art thou aware of thine inconsistency? Thou talkest of complete suffrage. Canst thou be thinking of what the words imply? Dost thou not know that women are more numerous in our nation than men ?" "Yes, friend Ann,” he answered; "I believe thou art right." "Well, then, friend Joseph," she replied, "how can the suffrage be complete when withheld from the larger portion of the community?" Friend Joseph was obliged to own himself beaten; and this amusing colloquy led to the substitution of "manhood" for "complete" in the suffrage programme of Mr. Sturge and the Reform party which he then led.

In asking, in sober form and phrase, for the enfranchisement of women, the late member for Westminster, is quite aware of the difficulties of his position. In every respect the burden is hard on those who attack an old and deeply rooted opinion. The com

mon rules of evidence will not benefit them. In his recent work on the "Subjection of Women,” Mr. Mill says:"It is useless for me to say that those who maintain the doctrine that men have a right to command, and women are under an obligation to obey ; or that men are fit for government and women unfit; are on the affirmative side of the question, and that they are bound to show positive evidence for the assertions, or submit to their rejection. It is equally unavailing for me to say that those who deny to women any freedom or privilege rightly allowed to men, having the double presumption against them that they are opposing freedom and recommending partiality, must be held to the strictest proof of their case; and unless their success be such as to exclude all doubt, the judgment ought to be against them. These would be thought good pleas in any common case, but they will not be thought so in this instance. Before I could hope to make any impression, I should be expected not only to answer all that has ever been said by those who take the other side of the question, but to imagine all that could be said by them-to find them in reasons, as well as answer all I find; and besides refuting all arguments for the affirmative, I shall be called upon for invincible positive arguments to prove a negative." Many views expressed in this volume lie far apart from the thinking of ordinary intellects, but they must become familiar before life can be purified at its fountain. Is it creditable to English justice that women should be classed for electoral purposes with idiots, lunatics, and criminals? Nay, women are placed lower than the latter; for the House of Commons has deliberately resolved not to