British Suffragettes

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 26, 1 September 1911, Page 17

British Suffragettes

Sir, —May we beg leave to differ from Mrs. Montefiore in her statement made in a recent issue that the leaders of the British suffragettes, belong \ to and are working solely in the interests of the capitalistic, class? Firstly, because personal friends of our own, not one or two but many working women, are in that movement; secondly, because the leaders of the Social and Political Union never demanded or wished for a limited franchise. They have declared themselves willing to accept the present Bill simply because it appears the only thing the Government is likely to grant, and in all great reforms it is the first step that counts: the principle once affirmed, the rest follows. Moreover, they have never said that they will rest content with the measure' of liberty conceded by this Bill. We are, of course, not speaking of the older societies. They probably were almost entirely composed of women of the capitalistic class, for certaitnJy there were few, if any, working women among them. The quotations given by Mrs. Montefiore as coming from the leaders as a matter of fact were spoken by members of these older societies. No one ever expected anything but rank Conservatism from Lady Frances Balfour; and Mrs. Fawcett, who must be old, also belongs to the "classes."* These ladies have done good work according to their lights in the past, but neithea* they nor their companions were made of the stuff that would go to prison for their convictions, as the braver and bolder spirits of the past five years have done.

It must be remembered that when Mrs. Pankhtirst, her daughters, and Anna© Kenny (a Lancashire, mill girl, with hundreds of mill girls behind her) formed the Social and Political Union in 1905, the entire movement was revolutionised. The Union was a tremendous success from the very first, tne secret of that success lying in the fact that working women and girls of every class were encouraged to join it and- put all their energy and strength into it. Is it likely those girls—dressmakers, nurses, compositors, factory hands, etc. —will rest content when the present Bill is passed?

It is, of course, only reasonable to suppose that there are some members of the capitalistic class in the S. and P. Union, as it embraces all classes. But 110 one who knows the narrowness and conservatism of the middle classes in England will imagine that forty thousand of them would march in procession through London or anywhere else for the sake of a. vote. Some of the more broad-minded were naturally included, but the great mass of the procession . was made up of workers, not necessarily the poorest class of workers (though they also were represented), but self-supporting women, not in any way adlied to the capitalistic class. The older societies, which were at first rather scandalised at the doings of the members of the young Union, seeing that it -has made the movement popular, also joined in the procession, as they did last year. And there were also many Socialists there also, besides the Fabians.

Everyone, especially residents of New Zealand, will admit that universal adult suffrage- is the ideal and should be the aim of all men and women everywhere. Rut seeing that the men of the United Kingdom, who have been agitating for it for the last 70 years,, have not yet obtained manhood, suffrage, how can the women expect to get it all at orvee? If the men of 1832, of 1867, and 1884 had refused, to accept the dole offered them would they be as near to universal suffrage as they are to-day? They would not, for each Bill brought in, a fresh number of electors to vote for the succeeding one, a-nd the next Reform Bill must see the woirk accomplished as far at least as men are concerned. And perhaps it is written that women must progress in the same way, one step ; at a. time. When Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill was introduced in 1884 it was quite understood that women, Avea'e to b© enfranchised by it. But at the last moment they were thrown overboard for fear the' Bill might be jeopardised by their inclusion. That is how women were treated when, they tried to '' achieve emancipation, together with man," and the same thiiig could occur again. We> a.re sorry that Mrs. Montefiore, who must know so well what it costs a woman to com© out boldly and agitato for reform, should impute, these motives to women whose moral courage is universally acknowledged. When in London some years ago one of the writers met the leaders and attended many meetings of the Union. There