one charged under the Constitution with the framing and execution of the
laws of the land. Aristocracy decrees that in the House of Lords the
Bishops shall have a voice; but in the House of Commons no clergyman can
hold a seat, and for members of Parliament no woman votes. Would any
Suffragist hold that a clergyman was the inferior of men who do sit in the
House of Commons? They are excluded for the same reason that woman has not
the parliamentary vote--they are looked upon as non-combatants.

The Greek and Roman republics appear to have followed an instinct that was
unerring in the condition of society when they removed women from the
seats of power as the commonwealth gathered strength. Gibbon, in the
sentences quoted, attributes the fact that queens as well as kings have
occupied the thrones of modern Europe to the chivalry of men toward those
who would yet be incapable of exercising actual power except for the
backing of a standing army, or an hereditary nobility sworn to their
support, both of which are composed solely of men. If this be true, it
should be visible in the workings of the constitutional restrictions upon
monarchies that have developed in the past fifty years, during which the
principle of democratic government has advanced with enormous strides over
a great portion of the globe.

In the Austro-Hungarian monarchy there is restricted woman suffrage. The
kingdom of Italy has restricted municipal woman suffrage. The little
republic that separates those countries, the land of Tell and the Vaudois,
has direct manhood suffrage only.

Sweden and Norway are apparently parting company. Sweden chooses to keep
its king and its aristocracy, and it has restricted woman suffrage; but
Norway, which is working toward free institutions, and last year voted to
remove the insignia of union from the Norwegian flag, has no woman