The Progress of the World. 



557 



Nothing is more extraordinary m 



Demo/airsatlon "'^ present situation than the 



of demoralisation of the House of 



the Peers. j^^^j^ jf ^^.^^ ,1^^^^ „.^.,g ^ 



n)easurc which demanded the closest attention from a 

 revising Chaniher of the Legislature, it is the Insur- 

 ance Dill. 'J'hat measure is entirely novel. It has 

 never been voted upon by the country. Since its 

 introduction it has been altered so often that it is no 

 exaggeration to say that no one really knows what the 

 Bill really is, excepting Mr. Lloyd George, and even 

 about Mr. Lloyd George some have their doubts. 

 It is admitted that many sections of the Bill 

 have been rushed through under the Kangaroo 

 closure without debate adequate to e.xplain their real 

 meaning. Now when this revolutionary measure, 

 inchoate, ill-digested, which has been remodelled 

 since its introduction, comes up to the House of 

 Lords, with a certificate from the Speaker that 

 as it is not a financial Bill in the technical sense 

 of the word the Upper House can deal with it 

 as it pleases, what happens ? The Peers are so 

 demoralised by their defeat over the Parliament 

 Bill that they have not the courage to insist upon 

 being allowed adequate time to consider the Bill. 

 As it was rushed througl^ the House of Commons so 

 it is to be gulped by the House of Lords. This 

 scandalous failure to perform an obvious duty is due 

 either to funk or to sulk, and it is difficult to say 

 whether funk or sulk is more unworthy of the dignity 

 and the position of the House of Lords. 



The cause of the emancipation of 



Tiie Triumph women took a great leap forward 



of the , , ,, . • , , 



SuffrttRists. ''■"*' month. Mr. Asquith has 



received a deputation of women 



with the same ■courtesy and attention that every 



.Minister receives any deputation of men, and both 



he and Mr. Lloyd George have discussed the subject 



with the gravity that it deserves. The position of 



the question was suddenly revolutionised by the 



discovery — a somewhat belated discovery — that the 



Government intended to e.-.lablish Manhood Suffrage 



under cover of the Bill abolishing the Plural Vote. 



.Manhood Suffrage comes of itself when all legal 



impediments are removed that at present render it 



difficult for the British citizen to claim to register and 



to record his vote. But somehow or other the 



promise to remove these impediments had never been 



understood to be equivalent to a pledge to introduce 



a .M.nnhood Suffrage Bill. Last month the public 



suddenly opened its eyes to this fact, and in a 



moment the whole position of the Suffragist Move- 



ment was changed. The women were at once split 

 into two camps. One shrieked that they were 

 betrayed, and that manhood suffrage was being con- 

 ceded solely to make womanhood suffrage impos- 

 sible. The other, drawing a long breath, exclaimed 

 with gratitude that they did not dare refuse the boon 

 which Ministers had offered them. The former 

 shrank in horror from the challenge to play double 

 or quits ; the latter accepted it with enthusiasm, recog- 

 nising that Providence has decreed they shall play 

 for higher slakes than they ventured to hope for. 



Six or seven years ago the offer 



Adult versus to establish manhood suffrage was 



Manhood Suffrage, regarded, and rightly regarded, 



by the Suffragists as a means of 

 getting rid of the claims of women to a vote. In 

 common with almost all the women's societies, I then 

 regarded the proposal to enfranchise all the 

 women of Britain as impracticable. I no longer so 

 regard it. It is true that adult suffrage would make 

 over the government of this Empire into the hands 

 of an electorate of which the majority were women. 

 The Reform Bills of 1868 and 1884 made over the 

 government of the Empire to an electorate the 

 majority of whose members were working men. 

 The country which faced household suffrage with 

 equanimity after it had shied at Mr. (Gladstone's 

 limited measures of enfranchisement may accept 

 adult suffrage when it would have boggled about the 

 Conciliation Bill. .Anyhow, whether we like it or not, 

 tlie battle has to be fought out on the wider issue. 

 It is not for us who in season and out of season have 

 fought for the great |)rinciple of making the law colour 

 blind as to sex, to flinch from insisting upon the 

 application of that jirinciple to the new Franchise 

 Bill. Nor need we despair of success. To propose 

 to base the franchise on manhood is felt to be an 

 aft'ront and a slight by every intelligent woman in the 

 land. Is Womanhood, then, so inferior to Manhood ? 

 Our timorous friends do not realise what that 

 challenge will do for us in rousing women who have 

 hitherto been indifferent. 



The arrangement made between 



The Ministry ||,e SuffragLsts and the Ministry is 



""•* r n Ti 



the Women. '""^ follows. I he women are to 



Inve facilities for their Conciliation 



Bill, but as it is " torpedoed " by the Manhood 



Suffrage liill its chances need not be seriously 



di.scussed. Ministers are hopelessly divided on the 



subject of woman's suffrage. They will, therefore, 



introduce tlie Bill upon which they <3n agree and 



leave it open to the House to graft upon it a clause 



