If anything conclusive could be inferred from experience, without psychologicalanalysis, it would be that the things which women are not allowed to do arethe very ones for which they are peculiarly qualified; since their vocationfor government has made its way, and become conspicuous, through the veryfew opportunities which have been given; while in the lines of distinctionwhich apparently were freely open to them, they have by no means so eminentlydistinguished themselves. We know how small a number of reigning queens historypresents, in comparison with that of kings. Of this smaller number a farlarger proportion have shown talents for rule; though many of them have occupiedthe throne in difficult periods. It is remarkable, too, that they have, ina great number of instances, been distinguished by merits the most oppositeto the imaginary and conventional character of women: they have been as muchremarked for the firmness and vigour of their rule, as for its intelligence.
When, to queens and empresses, we add regents, and viceroys of provinces,the list of women who have been eminent rulers of mankind swells to a greatlength.(1*) This fact is so undeniable, that someone, long ago, tried toretort the argument, and turned the admitted truth into an additional insult,by saying that queens are better than kings, because under kings women govern,but under queens, men.
It may seem a waste of reasoning to argue against a bad joke; but suchthings do affect people's minds; and I have heard men quote this saying,with an air as if they thought that there was something in it. At any rate,it will serve as anything, else for a starting-point in discussion. I say,then, that it is not true that under kings, women govern. Such cases areentirely exceptional: and weak kings have quite as often governed ill throughthe influence of male favourites, as of female. When a king is governed bya woman merely through his amatory propensities, good government is not probable,though even then there are exceptions. But French history counts two kingswho have voluntarily given the direction of affairs during many years, theone to his mother, the other to his sister: one of them, Charles VIII, wasa mere boy, but in doing so he followed the intentions of his father LouisXI, the ablest monarch of his age. The other, Saint Louis, was the best,and one of the most vigorous rulers, since the time of Charlemagne. Boththese princesses ruled in a manner hardly equalled by any prince among theircontemporaries. The Emperor Charles the Fifth, the most politic prince ofhis time, who had as great a number of able men in his service as a rulerever had, and was one of the least likely of all sovereigns to sacrificehis interest to personal feelings, made two princesses of his family successivelyGovernors of the Netherlands, and kept one or other of them in that postduring his whole life (they were afterwards succeeded by a third). Both ruledvery successfully, and one of them, Margaret of Austria, as one of the ablestpoliticians of the age. So much for one side of the question. Now as to theother. When it is said that under queens men govern, is the same meaningto be understood as when kings are said to be governed by women? Is it meantthat queens choose as their instruments of government, the associates oftheir personal pleasures? The case is rare even with those who are as unscrupulouson the latter point as Catherine II: and it is not in these cases that thegood government, alleged to arise from male influence, is to be found. Ifit be true, then, that the administration is in the hands of better men undera queen than under an average king, it must be that queens have a superiorcapacity for choosing them; and women must be better qualified than men bothfor the position of sovereign, and for that of chief minister; for the principalbusiness of a Prime Minister is not to govern in person, but to find thefittest persons to conduct every department of public affairs. The more rapidinsight into character, which is one of the admitted points of superiorityin women over men, must certainly make them, with anything like parity ofqualifications in other respects, more apt than men in that choice of instruments,which is nearly the most important business of everyone who has to do withgoverning mankind. Even the unprincipled Catherine de Medici could feel thevalue of a Chancellor de l'Hopital. But it is also true that most great queenshave been great by their own talents for government, and have been well servedprecisely for that reason. They retained the supreme direction of affairsin their own hands: and if they listened to good advisers, they gave by thatfact the strongest proof that their judgment fitted them for dealing withthe great questions of government.
