The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. WOMEN'S POLITICAL DISABILITIES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1774, 7 March 1906, Page 41

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. WOMEN'S POLITICAL DISABILITIES.

The issue by Messrs Longman, (Ween and Co. of a new and cheap* edition of John Stuart Mill’s notable essay “The Subjection-of Women” is well timed. Though not among the most prominent issues of the late general elections in Great Britain, the question of women’s political rights was* repeatedly brought fonvard during the campaign by various leading members of the Female Franchise League. The reception those met with was not at all encouraging and in' many cases was absolutely discreditable to the alleged Bi itish love of fair play. In some instances women who persisted in asking questions ou the subject were ejected not too gently from the meetings. I his occurred even at ilm Premier s meeting at Liverpool, on which occasion bo bad promised to deliver an explicit pronouncement of lii.s personal policy on the subject. * Clearly..the time is not yet ripe for tlie granting; of the f ranch us*:? to women in Great Britain. The minds of those who at present control legislation are for the most part prejudiced against any serious extension of women’s rights, and furthermore the majority of the adult female population of the country are not themselves agreed on the desirability of securing votes. In our country, and in the Australian Commonwealth, where manhood suffrage bad long been recognised ae an essential basis of political rights, the extension of the franchise to women was a comparatively easy process. In Great Britain with its complicated system of qualifications for a Parliamentary vote, the matter is on quite another footing. The difficulty is recognised even by the Female Franchise advocates who are themselves divided into two camps consisting respectively of those who would be content with a franchise on an educational or property basis, and those who desire a vote irrespective of anything but adult citizenship. Clearly the only road to a theoretically just extension of the franchise to women lies in the previous or contemporaneous enfranchisement of all men. Iveir Hardie’s contention that the energies of men and women alike should be concentrated on the establishment of adult suffrage irrespective of sex, is the only logical and thorough one. This is part of the announced policy of the Independent Labour Party, and with the growth of that party’s power there can be no doubt that the subject will yearly push its ways towards practical realisation. Meantime the republication of the hook we referred to at the opening of these remarks, will give all an opportunity of analysing the arguments for the full enfranchisement of women and will certainly have a great effect in stimulating to thought on this most, important subject. Mill’s essay in its present edition has the advantage of an introduction by Dr. Stanton Coit, recently the I.L.P. candidate for Wakefield, who is himself a sociologist of European and American fame, a writer on ethical subjects in various languages, a lecturer well known in Britain and America, and the Chairman of the West London Ethical Society. Mill did not, of course, confine his arguments to the merely. - parliamentary aspect of

women’s disabilities, his contention being that their legal subjection to men wherever it might prevail, was wrong and should give way to perfect equality. Dr Coit’s introduction marshals Mill’s statement of facts and cogent arguments in an outline of easy reference, giving in brief a synoptical review of tlie whole essay. Certain of the disabilities to which women were subject in 1860, tlie year of publication of the original edition, have since) been considerably modified and ameliorated. The editor is careful to note those conditions referred to in the text that are now obsolete, and to quote or refer to the .statutes by which changes have been secured. He is particular, too, in pointing out what Mill apparently overlooked, viz., that the wives and daughters of working men suffer chiefly through no fault of the -husband or father, “but because of economic conditions wholly beyond the oontrol of any but the voters of the country.” “We know more,” says Dr. Coit, “aud know, worse than Mill did; and this fresh knowledge gives a new and wider applicability to much in bis essay which might otherwise be counted to-day as rhetorical exaggeration.” In New Zealand we have fortunately quite obliterated many of the legal distinctions between men and women against which Mill’s remarks were directed. Short of the right to occupy a seat in Parliament women in this colony are on a practically equal legal footing with mein. In this respect we are almost in the van of civilisation. In the Commonwealth and in the State of South. Australia even the one right which we reserve is extended to women. It is true that eo far no woman member of Parliament has been returned, and indeed only one, if we recollect aright, has ever gone to the polls. Custom is too strong to' be overcome in a day, and it will probably he years before the electors, male or female, of any constituency will reconcile themselves to Parliamentary representation by a woman. The woman member will come, however, and we shall almost certainly find that with her advent little change will occur. Those who prognosticated legislative retrogression in this country as a consequence of women’s franchise proved themselves bad judges of the future. There is nothing more than fanciful reason, to suppose that tlie conduct of Parliamentary business would suffer in any respect through the presence of women members. Logically no civilised community has a right to enforce any political or legal disability on account of sex, and it is very certain that in the long run in Britain and her colonies women will attain their undoubted right—a footing of perfect legislative equality with men.