as an act of opposition to their movement that the married working woman's claim should be formulated. There would have been no need to put it forward if the less wealthy married women were not excluded from present hope by the formula "on the same terms as men." If the vigorous life of the new movement had at first been poured from all quarters into the wide channel of adult suffrage, there would have been no need for troublesome grubbing to make way for wandering streams. No genuine suffragist wishes to create difficulties, and the Guild deferred to the prejudice against asking for adult suffrage so far as to state the claim in a form suitable to a limited Bill. But it would be a mistake to treat the objections to limited Bills as an invention of the enemy, and at the moment of writing Mr. Levy is giving a striking illustration of the way in which women, by not making adult suffrage their own, are providing the party in power with an excellent excuse for resistance. Liberalism could not long resist a strong demand for adult suffrage. The fear of a women's majority, making common cause against men, is no more than a confused expression of the sex prejudice which prevents even the most persuasive little Bill from taking its short cut home.
Married women are a generation behind the single in this cause, and yet they need the vote at least as much. The physical deterioration scare and the high infant death rate have set going a demand for impossible and one-sided legislation concerning motherhood. In this and everything wives should assert their right to think for themselves. Parents give
