Now, as I have said, I care comparatively little what is done with the mere voting part of the matter, so long as it is not claimed in such a way as to allow the plutocrat to escape his responsibility for his crimes, by pretending to be much more progressive, or much more susceptible to popular protest, than he ever has been.  And there is this danger in many of those who have answered me.  One of them, for instance, says that women have been forced into their present industrial situations by the same iron economic laws that have compelled men.  I say that men have not been compelled by iron economic laws, but in the main by the coarse and Christless cynicism of other men.  But, of course, this way of talking is exactly in accordance with the fashionable and official version of English history.  Thus, you will read that the monasteries, places where men of the poorest origin could be powerful, grew corrupt and gradually decayed.  Or you will read that the mediaeval guilds of free workmen yielded at last to an inevitable economic law.  You will read this; and you will be reading lies.  They might as well say that Julius Caesar gradually decayed at the foot of Pompey’s statue.  You might as well say that Abraham Lincoln yielded at last to an inevitable economic law.  The free mediaeval guilds did not decay; they were murdered.  Solid men with solid guns and halberds, armed with lawful warrants from living statesmen broke up their corporations and took away their hard cash from them.  In the same way the people in Cradley Heath are no more victims of a necessary economic law than the people in Putumayo.  They are victims of a very terrible creature, of whose sins much has been said since the beginning of the world; and of whom it was said of old, “Let us fall into the hands of God, for His mercies are great; but let us not fall into the hands of Man.”

The Capitalist Is in the Dock

Now it is this offering of a false economic excuse for the sweater that is the danger in perpetually saying that the poor woman will use the vote and that the poor man has not used it.  The poor man is prevented from using it; prevented by the rich man, and the poor woman would be prevented in exactly the same gross and stringent style.  I do not deny, of course, that there is something in the English temperament, and in the heritage of the last few centuries that makes the English workman more tolerant of wrong than most foreign workmen would be.  But this only slightly modifies the main fact of the moral responsibility.  To take an imperfect parallel, if we said that negro slaves would have rebelled if negroes had been more intelligent, we should be saying what is reasonable.  But if we were to say that it could by any possibility be represented as being the negro’s fault that he was at that moment in America and not in Africa, we should be saying what is frankly unreasonable.  It is every bit