even women habitually appeal,—­the necessity of a single head to the domestic partnership, and the necessity that the husband should be that head.  This is especially true of English men and women; but it is true of Americans as well.  Nobody has stated it more tersely than Fitzjames Stephen, in his “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” (p. 216), when arguing against Mr. Mill’s view of the equality of the sexes.

    “Marriage is a contract, one of the principal objects in which is
    the government of a family.

    “This government must be vested, either by law or by contract, in
    the hands of one of the two married persons.”

[Then follow some collateral points, not bearing on the present question.]

    “Therefore if marriage is to be permanent, the government of the
    family must be put by law and by morals into the hands of the
    husband, for no one proposes to give it to the wife.”

This argument he calls “as clear as that of a proposition in Euclid.”  He thinks that the business of life can be carried on by no other method.  How is it, then, that when we come to what is called technically and especially the “business” of every day, this whole fine-spun theory is disregarded, and men come together in partnership on the basis of equality?

Nobody is farther than I from regarding marriage as a mere business partnership.  But it is to be observed that the points wherein it differs from a merely mercantile connection are points that should make equality more easy, not more difficult.  The tie between two ordinary business partners is merely one of interest:  it is based on no sentiments, sealed by no solemn pledge, enriched by no home associations, cemented by no new generation of young life.  If a relation like this is found to work well on terms of equality,—­so well that a large part of the business of the world is done by it,—­is it not absurd to suppose that the same equal relation cannot exist in the married partnership of husband and wife?  And if law, custom, society, all recognize this fact of equality in the one case, why, in the name of common-sense, should they not equally recognize it in the other?

And, again, it may often be far easier to assign a sphere to each partner in marriage than in business; and therefore the double headship of a family will involve less need of collision.  In nine cases out of ten, the external support of the family will devolve upon the husband, unquestioned by the wife; and its internal economy upon the wife, unquestioned by the husband.  No voluntary distribution of powers and duties between business partners can work so naturally, on the whole, as this simple and easy demarcation, with which the claim of suffrage makes no necessary interference.  It may require angry discussion to decide which of two business partners shall buy, and which shall sell; which shall keep the books, and which do the active work, and so on;