in these beneficial laws. Indeed, in some cases, such as the case of laundries, the beneficiaries are exclusively women; and as to that part of the new Act which gives compensation to domestic servants, the vast majority of those who will benefit by it are women.

This does not look as if the interests of women had been ignored or forgotten. The Married Women's Property Act gives further proof, if such is needed, that laws are not made in the interests of either sex exclusively, but for the good of both. No one can justly and reasonably doubt that whatever is deemed to be for the real benefit of women will be obtained for them, through the good will and sympathy of men, without the agency of the vote.

It is frequently urged that women's wages will never be properly raised until they have the vote. But does the history of the men's efforts to raise their wages prove that the vote is such an indispensable factor in the case? Without the vote in the textile trade, represented by Mr. Shackleton, the women are paid at the same rate as the men ; while even with the vote men are sweated in the tailoring trade and in unskilled labour. The fact is that it is on the strength of their unions rather than on their votes that the men rely to push their wages up. If women had as strong unions as the men they would know, as the men do, that that is the solution of the wage difficulty.

The conditions of women's labour in the Colonies and in the Mother Country are obviously not comparable; but in such of our Colonies as have given the vote to women it has not, I believe, had any effect on their wages. Of course, all wages are much higher there than here, and New Zealand has made the payment of a minimum wage legally binding; but the standard of wage involves economic questions of supply and demand, and does not touch the question of the female franchise.

It must not be forgotten that the low scale of women's wages is partly attributable to the fact that many a woman-a wife or a daughter living at home-can work and will work for a smaller wage than would be required for the maintenance of the woman who keeps herself wholly on her own earnings. The trade of many women is only a part of their business, and not always the most important part. This fact makes combination more difficult for them than for the men, and tends to reduce unduly the standard of pay. While the man works at his trade through all the years of his working life, the majority of women either cease from working when they marry, or work only during such intervals as they can spare from their more pressing home duties. Hence it is not reasonable to expect that women would attain the skill of men, and their inferiority in physical strength also makes them as workers less valuable. Therefore, though with better organisation they would reach a higher standard of wage, it seems certain that in most trades they could not attain to the level of men's wages, for if they were paid at the same rate, or nearly the same rate, as men

The fact

the tendency would be to substitute men for women. that this has not occurred in the textile industry is due to exceptional circumstances and does not affect the general argument.

No one doubts that, if much has been done to ameliorate and improve the condition of the working class, very much remains to be done, particularly amongst the very poor, whose very poverty offers them as a prey to the sweating employer, and in whose life preventable suffering still bears too large a part. But it is in no way shown that the enfranchisement of a sex will bring the remedy for these or any other evils.

It is very doubtful whether there will be any tangible gain for women if they obtain the vote. And if the gain is dubious, the loss, on the other hand, is very obvious.

'Women,' says Mr. Goldwin Smith, 'will renounce their present influence in grasping the vote. Let them appear as a separate interest in the political arena and they will, like every other separate interest, awaken an antagonism which does not now exist.' And in this connection we are bound to consider what would be the result of a great cleavage of opinion between men and women on some crucial matter of national policy. It is not necessary to suppose that all the women might be found in one camp; but if the majority of women were opposed to the majority of men on a matter of policy leading to an outbreak or a revolution, then, though they would be responsible for the situation, they could neither fight nor be fought. 'Women,' to quote Mr. Goldwin Smith again, cannot be made accountable like men. A sex not thoroughly justiciable cannot be made thoroughly

responsible.'

The work of the world may be roughly divided into 'indoor' work-the work that lies in and around the home, and outdoor' work-the work that lies far afield and deals with matters of public and Imperial concern. Both kinds of work are equally honourable and equally necessary for the common weal, but both cannot be done effectively by the same person. The man does not attempt such a double task; he leaves the care of the home, and all that belongs to the home, to the woman; and the woman, since she is not a superwoman, will find that, if she attempts to take up the work of the man, she will fail in the due discharge of the more important work which immediately depends upon her.

Whether the woman is well-equipped physically, by training and by temperament, for this larger outdoor work even a Suffragist, if candid, might admit is open to question; of her essential and irreplaceable fitness for the indoor work there can be no possible doubt. That was decided in the days when Adam dolve and Eve span.' In the distribution of the world's work it is an intelligible and consistent principle that public concerns should be directed by men and domestic concerns by women, and it is a principle upon which all the

countries of the Old World (with the insignificant and recent exceptions of Finland and Norway) and the most important of those in the New World have invariably acted. It is not a question of intellect. We need only bethink ourselves of the many distinguished and brilliantly clever women among us to be aware that intellect, in some of its highest forms, is not man's prerogative. But the question is not one of intellectual capacity; it is one of particular capacity for a particular kind of work. The prophets of ill are saying that the English race is degenerating, and plain truth is crying out that infant mortality is terribly high. Women (if we may so say) are the 'manufacturers' of England's sons and daughters. Is this the time to lay upon women extraneous and unnecessary burdens, which must tend to restrict and reduce their capacity for their special and particular and transcendently important function?

In these days no one can say that a woman is cabined, cribbed, confined' in the scope of her work. All forms of local government work are now open to women. They are able both to vote and sit on any deputed local body—a wide enough field, surely, for all the energy and all the time they can spare. Here is work within the circle and neighbourhood of their home, a sort of larger housekeeping. It is administrative rather than legislative, and the matters dealt with are often those in which the distinguishing characteristics and training of women make their co-operation extremely valuable. But the Parliamentary vote is on a different plane. Here women would encroach on ground that essentially belongs to man. It is men exclusively who are our soldiers and sailors; it is men exclusively who work in the more important and laborious industries of the country; and it is just that matters of Imperial interest, of peace and war, trade and commerce, should be under the jurisdiction of those who are the defenders and wealth producers of the country. And it must not be forgotten that civilisation has not yet been able to eliminate force. Force is still the ultimate basis of all law and social order, the final tribunal of appeal; and the force of the community is man. No woman can imagine that, in case of rebellion, her sex could reassert the law; for that work she must look entirely to the man. She would be at best a reine fainéante, without power to make her authority valid. As she has not the physique, neither has she the temperament suitable for managing imperial affairs. She is by nature emotional and impulsive, apt to break away from the restraint of reason under the influence of strong feeling. She is guided by her heart rather than her head. In a word, the average woman is much more excitable and has less self-control than the average man. What would be the condition of the country in a crisis of its fate if its policy were swayed to and fro by the gusts of feminine emotion ? Before the vote is given to women it is well to reflect deeply and seriously on the national effect of such a momentous step, not

forgetting that with the vote women will naturally and certainly claim the logical sequence-eligibility for election to Parliament.

There is also the impenetrable tangle that besets any measure for the enfranchisement of women. The Suffragists themselves have never quite got clear of this wood, for they are disunited as to the particular kind of franchise they desire to pass. In the babel of voices some are asking for the franchise' on the same terms as men'; some would include married women, others would exclude them; while there are others, again, who would oppose everything short of adult suffrage; and others, finally, who would admit women to the House of Commons, and therefore to the offices of State.

In these various franchise schemes one wonders what is to become of the peeresses. Is the House of Lords to become a House of Ladies too? For there are peeresses in their own right, and yet they have not a seat in the Upper House. Or-short of the actual seating of these ladies in the non-representative House-is the country so greatly enamoured of the aristocratic Chamber as to cast its shadow over the Commons and give the wives of the peers the power, which their husbands do not possess, of voting for the representative House? Surely the ground should be cleared of these contradictions and absurdities before those in favour of this movement talk of legislation.

On the physiological disqualifications, such as child-bearing, which necessarily militate against reliance upon women for the regular discharge of public duties I will say nothing; but such disqualifications are paramount and cannot be ignored. One word, before I conclude, on another point-the indifference of women generally to the vote, and the reasoned objection to it on the part of a vast number of them. In 1892 Mr. Gladstone wrote:

There has never, within my knowledge, been a case in which the franchise has been extended to a large body of persons generally indifferent about receiving it. But here, in addition to a widespread indifference, there is, on the part of large numbers of women who have considered the matter for themselves, the most positive objection and strong disapprobation.

There may be less indifference than there was when these words were written, but the conviction of those who object and disapprove has not lost any of its strength.

This is a question of supreme importance, and it should be considered from the widest possible standpoint. Let us as women look to the end; and let every woman, looking to the end, ask herself, not whether women desire the franchise, but whether, if it were granted, it would make for their own highest good and for the welfare of the nation at large. And let the men who respect women much, but love their country more, do their utmost to keep women out of a sphere which would be fraught alike with harm to themselves and danger to the commonwealth.

EDITH M. MASSIE.

'HOW TO MAKE THE NEGRO WORK'

IN the January number of this Review there is a paper with the above heading under the signature of my friend Sir Harry Johnston, whose extensive travels, experience, and studies entitle his opinion on such subjects to profound respect.

It does not, however, appear quite clear whether Sir Harry endorses the views he presents as coming from M. Goffin, and whether he considers the answer to the question 'How to make the negro work,' is to be found in the remarks he quotes, wherein the sovereign remedy proposed is expressed in the words travail à la tâche ou à prime.

Piece-work and cash are in effect prescribed as the constituents for solving this important problem.

We may welcome all contributions, either from those on the spot or those who have studied these questions affecting unskilled native labour which have a powerful bearing upon the prosperity of the various territories where such labour is required and is at hand, though not always available.

In using the word prosperity, I refer, not only to that of the Governments responsible and of the white people residing permanently or temporarily engaged in profit-making business, but to the prosperity of the natives who occupy those territories.

My wish is, therefore, not so much to be critical of the previous paper as to show that there are sides to the question which are not taken into consideration by M. Goffin; that the impasse and difficulties to which he incidentally alludes were mere features in a large aspect, which has to be approached broadly from the point of view of the environment in general, and not from that of exploiting concessions and railways to the best advantage.

If concessions, whether for railway making or otherwise, are authoritatively approved and granted in spheres where there is a great density of natives who have come under European control, and are in beneficial occupation of the land, it is only right that every reasonable facility should be afforded for the successful conduct of such concessions, which, as a rule, however, pass from the hands of those