I have long been a convinced advocate of woman suffrage and am now
firmer than ever in supporting it. It seems to me a necessary and
desirable consequence of the vast extension of the functions of
Government which the past century and a half has witnessed. The state,
nowadays, enters the homes of the people and insists on having a voice
in questions that individual men and women, acting together, taking
counsel together, used to settle for themselves in their own way.
Education and the training and feeding of children, the housing and
sanitation problems, provision against old age and sickness, the
prevention of disease--all these are questions that formerly were dealt
with, of course, in a very isolated and inadequate way, by cooperation
and discussion between the heads of each household. What reason is
there why the same cooperation should not continue now that these
matters have been raised to the sphere of legislative enactments and
official administration?
Laws to-day affect the interests of women just as deeply as they do the
interests of men. Some laws--many laws--affect them more gravely and
intimately; and I do not believe you can trust the welfare of a class
or a sex entirely to another class or sex. It is not that their
interests are not identical, but that their point of view is different.
Take the housing problem. A working man leaves home in the morning
within half an hour after he wakes. He is not there all day. He turns
up in the evening and does not always remain there. If the house is a
poor, uncomfortable, dismal one, he very often seeks consolation in the
glare and warmth of the nearest public-house, but he takes very good
care that the wife shall not do as he does. She has got to stay at home
all day, however wretched her surroundings. Who can say that her
experience, her point of view, is not much better worth consulting than
her husband's on the housing problem? Up to the present the only and
the whole share of women in the housing question has been suffering.
Slums are often the punishment of the man. They are almost always the
martyrdom of the woman. Give women the vote, give them an effective
part in the framing and administration of the laws which touch not
merely their own lives but the lives of their children, and they will
soon, I believe, cleanse the land of these foul dens.
All sorts of women's interests were affected by the National Insurance
Act, and all sorts of questions sprang up in connection with it on
which women alone could speak with real authority. But, being voteless,
there was no way in which their views could be authoritatively set
forth. Four million women workers and seven million married women have
come under the operation of the Act, yet not one of them was given the
opportunity of making their opinions known and felt through a
representative in the House of Commons. It was the experience of every
friendly society official I consulted that had it not been for the
women and their splendid self-sacrifice, the subscriptions of the men
would have lapsed long ago. Yet these women who had thus kept the
societies going were not considered worth consulting as to their status
under the Act. The House of Commons itself insisted on there being at
least one woman Commissioner. But if a woman is fit to be a
Commissioner--a very heavy and difficult position involving enormous
responsibilities and demanding great skill and judgment and
experience--how can she be said to be unfit to have a vote?
What is the meaning of democracy? It is that the citizens who are
expected to obey the law are those who make the law. But that is not
true of Great Britain. At least half the adult citizens whose lives are
deeply affected by every law that is carried on the statute-books have
absolutely no voice in making that law. They have no more influence in
the matter than the horses that drag their lords and masters to the
polling-booth.
The drunken loafer who has not earned a living for years is consulted
by the Constitution on questions like the training and upbringing of
children, the national settlement of religion in Wales and elsewhere,
and as to the best method of dealing with the licensing problem. But
the wife whose industry keeps him and his household from beggary, who
pays the rent and taxes which constitute him a voter, who is therefore
really responsible for his qualification to vote, is not taken into
account in the slightest degree. I came in contact not long ago with a
great girls' school in the south of England. It was founded by women,
and it is administered by women. It is one of the most marvelous
organizations in the whole country, and yet, when we had, in the year
1906, to give a national verdict on the question of education, the man
who split the firewood in that school was asked for his opinion about
it, while those ladies were deemed to be absolutely unfit to pass any
judgment on it at all. That is a preposterous and barbarous
anachronism, and so long as it lasts our democracy is one-sided and
incomplete. But it will not last long. No franchise bill can ever again
be brought forward in this country without raising the whole problem of
whether you are going to exclude more than half the citizens of the
land. Women have entered pretty nearly every sphere of commerce and
industry and professional activity and public employment; and there
never was a time when the nation stood more in need of the special
experience, instincts, and sympathy of womanhood in the management of
its affairs. When women get the vote the horizon of the home will be
both brightened and expanded, and their influence on moral and social
and educational questions, especially on the temperance question, and
possibly on the peace of nations, will be constant and humanizing.
Those are a few of the reasons why I favor woman suffrage. But because
I favor it I do not therefore hold myself bound to either speak or vote
for any and every suffrage bill that may be introduced into Parliament.
I voted against the so-called Conciliation Bill which proposed to give
the vote to every woman of property if she chose to take the trouble to
get it, and at the same time enfranchise only about one-tenth or
one-fifteenth of the working women of the country. That was simply a
roundabout way of doubling the plural voters and no democrat could
possibly support it, so long as there remained a single alternative.
The solution that most appeals to me is the one embodied in the
Dickinson Bill, that is to say, a measure conferring the vote on women
householders and on the wives of married electors; and I believe that
it is in that form that woman suffrage will eventually come in this
country. How soon it will come depends very largely on how soon the
militants come to their senses.
I say, unhesitatingly, that the main obstacle to women getting the vote
is militancy and nothing else. Its practitioners really seem to think
that they can terrorize and pinprick Parliament into giving it to them;
and until they learn something of the people they are dealing with,
their whole agitation, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, is
simply and utterly damned. It is perfectly astonishing to recall with
what diabolical ingenuity they have contrived to infuriate all their
opponents, to alienate all their sympathizers, and to stir up against
themselves every prejudice in the average man's breast. A few years ago
they found three-fourths of the Liberal M.P.'s on their side. They at
once proceeded to cudgel their brains as to how they could possibly
drive them into the enemy's camp. They rightly decided that this could
not be done more effectually than by insulting and assaulting the Prime
Minister, the chief of the Party, and a leader for whom all his
colleagues and followers feel an unbounded admiration, regard, and
affection. When they had thus successfully estranged the majority of
Liberals they began to study the political situation a little more
closely. They saw that the Irish Nationalists were very powerful
factors in the Ministerial Coalition. The next problem, therefore, was
how to destroy the last chance that the Irish Nationalists would
support their cause. They achieved this triumphantly first by making
trouble in Belfast where the only Nationalist member is or was a strong
Suffragist, and secondly by going to Dublin when all Nationalist
Ireland had assembled to welcome Mr. Asquith, throwing a hatchet at Mr.
Redmond, and trying to burn down a theater. That finished Ireland, but
still they were dissatisfied. There was a dangerous movement of
sympathy with their agitation in Wales, and they felt that at any cost
it had to be checked. They not only checked, but demolished, it with
the greatest ease by breaking in upon the proceedings at an Eisteddfod.
Now the Eisteddfod is not only the great national festival of Welsh
poetry and music and eloquence, it is also an oasis of peace amid the
sharp contentions of Welsh life. To bring into it any note of politics
or sectarianism or public controversy, even when these things are
rousing the most passionate emotions outside, seems to a Welshman like
the desecration of an altar. That is just what the militants did, and
Welsh interest in their cause fell dead on the spot. But even then they
were not happy. They were still encumbered by the good-will of perhaps
a hundred Tory M.P.'s. But they proved entirely equal to the task of
antagonizing them. They began smashing windows, burning country
mansions, firing race-stands, damaging golf-greens, striking as hard as
they could at the Tory idol of Property. There is really nothing more
left for them to do; they have alienated every friend they ever had;
their work is complete beyond their wildest hopes.
Well, one can not dignify such tactics and antics by the title of
"political propaganda." The proper name for them is sheer organized
lunacy. The militants have erected militancy into a principle. I am
beginning to think that a good many of them are more concerned with the
success of their method than with the success of their cause. They
would rather not have the vote than fail to win it by the particular
brand of agitation they have pinned their faith to. They don't really
want the vote to be given them; they want to get it and to get it by
force; and they are quite unable to see that the more force they use
the stronger becomes the resolve both of Parliament and of the country
to send them away empty-handed. If they had accepted Mr. Asquith's
pledge of two years ago and thanked him for it and helped him redeem
it, woman suffrage by now would be an accomplished fact. But they
preferred their own ways, and what is the result? The result is that
working for their cause in the House of Commons to-day is like swimming
not merely against a tide but against a cataract. The real reason why
the attempts to carry woman suffrage through the House of Commons
during the past two years have failed is not merely the difficulty of
trying to combine a non-party measure with the party system; it is,
above all, the impossibility of using Parliament to pass a bill that
the opinion of the country has been fomented to condemn. The fact that
in both the principal parties there is a clean division of opinion on
this issue and that no Government, or none that is at present
conceivable, can bring forward a measure for the enfranchisement of
women as a Government, is a great, but not necessarily an insuperable
obstacle. The one barrier, there is no surmounting and no getting
round, is the decided and increasing hostility of public sentiment; and
for that the militants have only themselves to thank.
Personally I always try to remember, first, that militancy is the work
of only a very small fraction of the women who want the vote and ought
to have it, and, secondly, that there have been crazy men just as there
are crazy women. Militancy has not affected my own individual attitude
toward the main question and never will. But I recognize that it has
killed the immediate Parliamentary prospects of any and every Suffrage
Bill, and that so long as militancy continues the House of Commons will
do nothing. Only a new movement altogether can now bring women to the
goal of political emancipation; and it will have to be a sane,
hard-headed, practical movement, as full of liveliness as you please,
but absolutely divorced from stones and bombs and torches. When it
arises the friends of the Women's cause will begin to take heart again.