The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-06-05
Woman Suffrage.

The debate which took place some nights
ago in the British House Of Commons on the
subject of female suffrage. and in which John
Stuart Mill, the philosophic M. P. for West
minister, appeared as the champion Of the fair
sex, has impaired fresh interest to the question
on both sides Of the Atlantic. To those who
cannot see it in the light of joke or q mean
ingless compliment which it was difficult for
chivalrous gentlemen to withhold, the fact that
seventy-three Of the members of that staid
assembly voted in favor of Mr. Mills amend
ment naturally enough appears as a ground of
encouragement and hope 1t is certainly not
the least striking characteristic Of this age OF
fearless logic that question of this sort should
have acquired so much prominence Nor are
we at all surprised that, encouraged by so
much philosophy (for Mr.. Mill was backed up
by q learned Cambridge professor in the per-
son Of Mr.. FaucetD and by SO much chivslry,
the Lucy Stones and the Mrs. Cady Stantons
and the other male and female advocates Of
equal rights, should, with more logged deter
mination than ever, renew their efforts here.
After all, however, we are not satisfied that
woman suffrage has been in any material
degree advanced by this recent exhibition in
the British House Of Commons. 1t is certainly
something to have had the cause cham
Stuart Mill. Great names, however, we
have sometimes noticed, are to a cause more
injurious than helpful. There are not few in
England who think that the cause of the
people in this present reform movement might
have been more. effectually served had Mr..
Mill been less enthusiastic in its advocacy.
Nor will it at all surprise US to learn. cautious
and sclfposscssed as he was in this, his latest
effort, that the cause Of the advocates OF equal
rights has been as much damaged as promoted
by Mr.. Mills assistance The truth is, Mr. Mill
is in many respects an overrated man. He is
no politician nor can he be called great
| philosopher. His vision Is clear. rather than
comprehensive. His intellect is keen and
vigorous, rather than broad and massive. He
| is great only as logician. Grant him HE
premises, and he viii truthfnlly and fearlessly
work out his conclusion. His premises, how
| ever. are not always based on a sufficiently
broad induction OF facts. Herein lies Mr.
Mills weakness, and il is this which renders
| his guidance unsafe. 1t would not be difficult
TO viniicate the correctness OF this estimate by
references to Mr.. Mills writings: but we have
said enough to show we are not convinced
that. because Mr.. Mill has become the advo-
cate Of woman's rights female suffrage 10 q
foregone conclusion either in the United States
or in England. II is something, also, 10 have
| obtained seventy three votes ia such an assem-
bly, but. as we have limited already, these
votes are to be regarded as indicating
chivalrous feeling Of respect for the fair sex.
rather than sympathy with hopeless cause.
| Our fears, therefore, as TO the speedy advent
OF this new kind Of power in the political man
/, agement OF nations are not great The ques-
| ton Is settled for the present in England, and
| is little likely to be revived again by John
Stuart Mill or "any other man for many years
to come. On this eide the question may be ad-
vocatci with greater persis,ency, but We ques-
ton whether with greater success. Lucy stone
may write letters, f. Cady Stanton may draw
MP petitions, Henry Ward Beecher and other
divines and philosophers may lend them the
weight Of their influence; but the revolution is
little likely to come at their bidding. We wish
better for the sex. We wish them pobler and
more congenial spheres OF usefulness than the
arena OF politics can afford. We cannot per
susde ourselves that any good would come
from sending Mrs. Csdy Stanton as one Of out
representatives TO Congress, or from seating
MS Anna Dickinson in the Presidential chai
at Washington. We are certainly very grea
people. or all the world we are least liable y