The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1913. MILITANT WOMEN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8348, 7 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1913. MILITANT WOMEN

The militant suffragists who are responsible for such outrageous conduct as is reported in our cablegrams this morning—merely repetitions of previous acts of criminality—no doubt honestly believe their tactics will advance their cause. It is conceivable that such a result may ensue, though wo are inclined very much to think otherwise. The indiscriminate destruction of letters entrusted to tho care of tho Post Office is most cruel and wicked. Tho consequences of a communication being interrupted, or a letter being lost, are likely at all times to occasion inconvenience, distress, and possibly poignant anguish to the parties concerned; even life itself may easily bo at stake. Tho sufferers in such circumstances are as likely as not warm sympathisers with tho movement in favour of female franchise; at all events, they are unoffending victims of a system of warfare altogether out of place among civilised people in the twentieth century. To throw pepper in one policeman’s face, and besmear another’s with ink, to douoh yet another with a bucket of water, to smash windows, and so on, is certain to advertise the existence of a woman suffrage campaign, if that is tho end in view. But neither these incidents nor the dispatch of envelopes containing red pepper to members of the Cabinet seem reasonable arguments in favour of women’s suitability to take a hand in tho serious arena of politics. The adoption of “the hunger strike,” too, appeals to us more in tho nature of an affectation of martyrdom than an exhibition of patriotism, or even of common-sense. We know that there are different ways of looking at the question. Big reforms have been forwarded in the past by defiance of the authorities that opposed them. In regard to the franchise itself, the men of England found it necessary to institute something like a reign of terror before they could overcome the stubborn opposition of the aristocracy. When the House of Lords rejected the Reform Bill in 1831, the people in various centres resorted to tumultuary violence, which quickly spread and developed into crime. “In London,” says the late Mr Stead in his “Peers or People?” “the demonstrations of hostility to the peers did not go beyond rough horseplay, accompanied by threats of violence to come. It was far otherwise in the provinces. The pent-up violence of the hour found vent in outbreaks of violence and crime. The mob at Nottingham got out of hand, and expressed their antipathy to the political principles of the Duke of Newcastle by giving to the flames the palatial castle which looks down from its lofty eminence upon the great industrial town which lies at its foot. Riotous mobs iTssembled. destroying property and subverting order at Derby, Loughborough, and other places.” What was more serious was that the Government could not rely implicitly upon the obedience of its armed forces. In fact, two troops of Kentish yeomanry actually resigned because their commanding officers had voted against the Reform Bill. But Bristol gave the most terrible illustration of the dangers of tho situation. The Recorder, Sir Charles Wetherell, had opposed tho Bill with special ardour and vehemence. Practically the whole city rose up in revolt, and for three days there were witnessed scenes recalling the worst days of the French Revolution. Even the prisoners were released from the gaols to join in the orgy of violence. The Mansion House, the Customs and Excise Houses, the bishop's palace, the prisons, and many houses were destroyed by fire. Eventually troops were found who did not hesitate to shoot, and tho riot was quelled. This widespread, determined uprising of tho people undoubtedly impressed tbe authorities with the full* lity of obstructing the Reform Act, which was at last most reluctantly allowed to pass. But that was four score years ago, when England was shockingly ignorant, and when the common people were atrociously over-ridden by their “superiors.” There was something to fight for. There was tho right of the taxpayer to his share in the administration of the country. The reform denied by the peers was one that would be considered miserably small in these days, but one that gave an immense fillip to the national and natural aspiration of the nation to take a share in the government. Tho tendency of modern times is to discountenance the use of violence in place of reasonable argument. Unless civilisation and enlightenment are anything but a name, the tactics of tho militant suffragists are grossly out of place in the year 1913. Moreover, as we have said before, sympathy for tho extremists in this campaign is very difficult when we know that it is to a very large extent a class movement—an agitation to increase the already preponderating influence of property in the sphere of politics. We do not believe the majority if the women of the United Kingdom are with the law-breakers. Tho voice of the militant suffragist is certainly not tho voice of tho women of England. What is more, it is not raised on their behalf. Violence is unconvincing nowadays, and it is unwomanly.