upon the manner in which the anti-suffragists have obtained the signatures to their petitions and protests against women's suffrage, and we know that in some cases signatures have been asked for "as a protest against being governed by these lawless women." Now there are almost as many fallacies in this sentence as there are words. Many ardent suffragists, probably the majority of them, are opposed to the use of physical violence as a means of obtaining political justice. Moreover, women are not lawless. Women in this country, as all criminal statistics prove, are about nine times more law-abiding than men.[1] If people object to being governed by the more lawless sex, it is not women who should be disfranchised. And besides these considerations there is another—the voter, whether male or female, does not govern. He, when he gives his vote, has to decide between two or more men representing different sets of principles, to which he wishes to confide the various tasks of government.
The Anti-Suffrage Review of January 1911 contained an article called "Arguments for use in Poor Districts," which throws a flood of light on the methods by which these signatures of women against women's suffrage have been obtained. The article represents an anti-suffrage lady going round with a petition against women's suffrage. She approaches the house of a working woman and appeals to her whether, after she
- ↑ See Statistical Abstract from the United Kingdom.
suffragists in 1911. When the suffragists canvassed, the results were:—
| In Favour | Against | Did not answer and Neutral |
| 1047 | 60 | 467 |
When the anti-suffragists canvassed in 1910 the results were:—
| In Favour | Against | Did not answer and Neutral |
| 166 | 1133 | 401 |
With such disparity as this between the two returns no conclusion can possibly be drawn from either without further investigation of the methods pursued.
