NAWSA GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE Fawcett, Millicent G. 2 [??]W.C. Nov 29. 1920 Dear Mrs Harper, You will of course have heard, without delay, of Mrs Catt's safe arrival in London on Saturday evening. Her ship was 24 hours late, a very unusual thing which caused us some anxiety especially as we had heard of an [Imperalis?] having a very heavy list on her first voyage after being handed over by the Germans. However all was well & we are rejoiced to find Mrs Catt looking less fatigued than we had expected. She had an extremely comfortable POST CARD FOR INLAND POSTAGE ONLY this space may be used for printed or written matter. THE ADDRESS ONLY to be written here. 1/2d. STAMP voyage and it was evidently a rest which she appreciated. I am enclosing a cutting from our Sunday paper The Observer. which I think will interest you. I am grieved to say Miss Rathbone will not be in her chair at our meeting tonight : Her sister, with whom she lives & to whom she is devoted, is dying. It is intensely sad and we all grieve for her. I am to take her chair in her place. With affectionate remembrances Yours very sincerely M. G Fawcett The Association for Moral and Social Hygiene Being the British Branch of the International Abolitionist Federation, with which is incorporated the Ladies' National Association for the Abolition of State Regulation of Vice and for the Promotion of Social Purity, both of which organisations were founded by JOSEPHINE BUTLER. Chairman of Committee: Sir C. J. Tarring, M.A. Treasurer: RT. Hon. T.R. Ferens. Secretary: Miss Alison Neilans. Assistant Secretary: Miss M. Howes 19 Tothill Street, Westminster, S.W. 1 Official Paper: "The Shield," 1/- quarterly Telephone: 3451 Victoria Office Hours: 10-5. March 24th 1920 Dear Madam, Mrs Fawcett has suggested that you may be interested to see the [enclosed] accompanying copy of a Memorandum issued by the British Medical Women's Federation. As you know we in England have to face many serious problems in regard to questions arising out of prostitution and venereal disease, and there is much difficulty experienced just now in holding the balance equally between men and women. We view with grave apprehension the drift of opinion [in the] towards measures of repression which do, in actual fact, only affect women, and we feel that the time is approaching when a very serious stand will have to be made on this point. I enclose in addition a few of our papers which may interest you and shall at all times be glad to exchange ideas, or to hear from you if you have time to corresponde with this office. Yours very truly, Alison Neilans Secretary. Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, [*English Social Hygiene Ass'n*] [*Jan 1909*] NATIONAL UNION OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE SOCIETIES, 25, VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W. President – Mrs. HENRY FAWCETT, LL.D. _________________ EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS ARTICLES AND SPEECHES BY MRS. HENRY FAWCETT, LL.D., ON WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE. _________________ London: VACHER & SONS, PRINTERS, WESTMINSTER HOUSE, GREAT SMITH ST., S.W. 2 The principle of Representative Government is that– (1) That the rights and interests of any and every person are only secure from being disregarded when the person interested in himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them. (2) That the type of character and ideal of private and public duty evolved in a self-governed community are far higher than in one where people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, and nothing to do with the taxes but to pay them. With regard to the first of these, its truth has been demonstrated over and over again both in our long past and in our recent history. The rights and interests of individuals and of classes are only secure from being disregarded when they have the power and are habitually disposed to defend them ; and of all means of defending those interests and rights, the most effectual and the most automatic and constitutional is the possession of the Parliamentary franchise. VALUE OF THE VOTE. It is not a splendid thing that the merchant, the mechanic, and the labourer should feel that he has something beside his counting-house, his loom, or his plough : that he is the inheritor of all the past ages of England's greatness and glory, and that it rests in part with him to hand on that splendid heritage, not only unimpaired, but increased, to the generations yet to come ? This is brought home to the enfranchised classes with a directness and force that the unenfranchised cannot, unless in a few exceptional cases, feel. This is why I want the franchise for women, even more than because I know their special rights and interests are often wholly disregarded for want of representation. I will give some special illustrations of this by-and-by. But, personally, I care for the second of the two bases of democratic government more than for the first–viz., That the type of character and ideal of public and private duty evolved in a self-governed community are far higher than in one that is not self-governed. It is a great tonic to character, it tends to check the tendency to take a mean and too personal view of the interests of life, to know that you are entrusted with a share in the governing power of one of the greatest nations of the earth ; that if it goes wrong it is in part your fault ; that if it grows in wisdom and strength and righteousness, yours and your children's will be the glory. If we contrast the type of character evolved in the self-governing countries such as our own or the United States with the type evolved in autocracies such as Russia, or by pure despotisms such as are to be found in China and the East, it is impossible to hesitate as to the one to which preference should be given. 3 WHY WOMEN NEED IT. I admit unreservedly that Englishwomen have benefited by the atmosphere of freedom in which they have lived. We are the children of our fathers just as much as men are ; but still, when I contrast the general outlook on life of the great mass of middle-class women or of working women, with the outlook on life of their brothers and fathers, I confess that I feel there is something wanting on the women's part. I feel they take a smaller and pettier view. Religion– real, deep, personal religion–when they have it, takes them out of this small way of looking at things. It gives them something really great, which puts things that are small in their proper proportion. But if they have not this–and, after all, in vivid intensity it is the gift of only a few–is it not almost a commonplace to say that they are apt not to see things in their true proportion, and the great with them is too often little, and the little great ? I expect that in saying this I shall be considered to have made a great concession to my opponents. But, on the other hand, why should we urge a change in the political status of women unless we believe that political responsibility tends to improve and lift up those who are entrusted with it ? We want the electoral franchise not because we are angels oppressed by the wickedness of the "base wretch man," but because we want women to have the ennobling influence of national responsibility brought into their lives. We have seen its good effects on our fathers, husbands, and brothers, and we think, after all, that we are not so degraded but that it would have a good effect upon us too, and that without endangering the public safety. BENEFITS OF EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE IN THE PAST. The object of representation is to represent not a part merely, but the whole of the nation. Not necessarily every individual, but every section of the community ; above all, that no one should feel himself or herself hopelessly shut out from part or lot in the Constitution. Only when that is secured can you ever be sure that Parliament really speaks with the voice of the nation. This is only possible when the Government is broad-based upon the people's will. We have experienced the benefits of an extension of the franchise, not once or twice, but many times when grave crises have arisen in our recent history. Those who feared that a democratic franchise would weaken the Executive have seen their fears happily falsified. The Executive have been all the stronger, because they were acting for the masses as well as for the classes. The principle of extending the franchise to sections of society hitherto excluded has been tried and found to work well. Take a little courage, then, and venture to include the only important section still left out–the women of England. B 4 THE CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD. I shall be told that in our own generation there has already been a very great amelioration both of the law and of public opinion so far as the rights and interests of women are concerned. No doubt there has been, and it is so because there is a large and constantly increasing mass of women who are habitually disposed to stand up for these rights and interests, and a not, perhaps, very large, but a distinguished group of men who are habitually disposed to help us in our efforts. The possession and exercise of the Parliamentary franchise is not the only way of standing up for one's rights and privileges. But it is the quiet and constitutional way, and the way that works automatically and without disturbance. As that way is not open to us we must seek others – the platform, the Press, and, in short, all means of publicly proclaiming what we want and why we want it. There has been nothing embittering in our position, as there would have been if we had been actually powerless to improve the state of things. It has been rather exhilarating than otherwise to feel that year by year, with an occasional repulse here and there, we were making way and gaining ground, and to know that as long as life lasted we should always have a worthy object to work for. There is nothing like it for making life worth living– "Things done are won ; Joy's soul lies in the doing ;" WHY WOMEN WANT THE VOTE. When people sometimes ask – Why do women want the franchise ? the obvious reply is : "For exactly the same reasons that men want it, to secure the attention of Parliament to their various wants and wishes." As long as the Parliamentary franchise was very much restricted, so that practically only the upper and middle classes were represented, women were in a relatively less disadvantageous position than they are now : they were excluded from citizenship, but so were the great mass of the artisans and labourers of the country. Now the only other classes which share with women the invidious distinction of disfranchisement are felons, idiots, paupers, and Peers. But Peers are compensated by having a House of their own ; felons, idiots, and paupers suffer only temporary disfranchisement; women, and women alone, are permanently and for ever shut out from all share in controlling the laws by which they are governed. A woman may pay hundreds a year in taxation ; she may be the head of a large establishment giving employment to dozens of persons; she may be the source of wholesome influence and kindly common sense in her immediate neighbourhood ; she may be regarded 5 with affection and esteem by a whole countryside, and her advice may be sought in practical affairs by men and women far and near. But when it comes to electing a member of Parliament for the place where she lives, she is in a lower political position than any drunken, illiterate ne'er-do-well man who is not fit to black her boots. There are people who affect surprise that women regard suck a state of things as insulting and degrading. As Hosea Bigelow puts it:– "Some folks seem to think it's natur' To take sarse and not be riled. Who'd expect to see a tater All on end at bein' biled ?" That women should be angry, that some of them should even be excited and do unusual things by way of protest, seems to some complacent critics the height of folly and vulgarity, if not of sheer indecency. WEAKNESS OF WOMEN IN INDUSTRY. Bills that have voting power behind them, such as the Trade Disputes Bill and the Eight Hours Bill for Miners, are pushed through by the very same men who a few months earlier were denouncing their principles, because the Labour vote must at any cost be conciliated. Bills without voting power behind them, such as the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, even when two-thirds of the House of Commons express approval of them, are postponed and neglected. The Trade Disputes Bill illustrates another of the practical injustices which women have to endure under a so-called representative system, which represents everybody except half the nation. The clauses which legalise picketing make the industrial position of working women still more precarious than heretofore. It is well known that the trade unions have been in the past bitterly hostile to the entrance of women into the skilled trades. The physical intimidation of women workers has been resorted to in known instances in the past. The Bill will go far to make such intimidation legal in the future. The professors of law in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have protested most strongly against the Bill from this point of view among others. Professor Dicey, in a powerful article in the "National Review" for October, said if this Bill passes "every woman's right to support herself as she pleases will depend not on the law of the land, but on the policy of trade unions." Professor Westlake has said the same. They might as well have whistled to the wind. The men's trade union vote had to be secured ; and the possibility of the industrial freedom of women (without votes) being imperilled was not even, I believe, referred to when the Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons. Sir A. Acland-Hood, however, did point out that 6 if the Bill passed, the women who in the summer of 1906 sought to "peacefully persuade" Mr. Asquith to hear their views on women's suffrage, and were sent to prison for six weeks for doing so, have only to form themselves into a trade union and their future proceedings will be under the aegis of the law. VOTE NEEDED AS PROTECTION. There is only one really sufficient remedy against legislative neglect and injustice--the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women on the same terms as those enjoyed by men. Every women's suffrage society is founded for this single purpose. We decline to be led away on the false scent of adult suffrage. If the suffrage were extended to women on the same terms as to men, probably 1,500,000 women would be added to the existing electorate of about 7,000,0000. More new electors would be added to the register than were enfranchised by the Reform Bill of 1832. The change we are asking for is great and important, and it is meeting with an ever-increasing support on the part of the public. It is essentially non-revolutionary in character, because it brings into harmony the political status of women with changes which have already taken place in their industrial and educational status. That a woman such as the late Miss Beale, who created for her own sex a magnificent educational establishment like the Ladies' College, Cheltenham, with a thousand pupils, ranging from the kindergarten to the university, should be held to be incapable of giving a vote in a Parliamentary election, is the greatest and most glaring of electoral anomalies. BOUND TO COME. A general feeling is beginning to prevail that women's suffrage is a thing that is bound to come. The tendency of public opinion is felt to be set in that direction, and even those who oppose us seem to know that they are fighting a lost battle. Mr. Lowell used to say, "There is a sort of glacial drift in English public opinion; you cannot see it move, but when you look again you see that it has moved." I think there is no doubt that the glacial drift of English public opinion has moved and is moving in that direction of the active participation of women in politics. We have evidences of this in all parties. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. With regard to the differences between men and women, those who advocate the enfranchisement of women have no wish to disregard them or make little of them. On the contrary, we base our claim to 7 representation to a large extent on them. If men and women were exactly alike, the representation of men would represent us; but not being alike, that wherein we differ is unrepresented under the present system. DOMESTIC POLITICS. The motherhood of women, either actual or potential, is one of those great facts of everyday life which we must never lose sight of. To women, as mothers, are given the charge of the home and the care of children. Women are, therefore, by Nature, as well as by occupation and training, more accustomed than men to concentrate their minds on the home and domestic side of things. But this difference between men and women, instead of being a reason against their enfranchisement, seems to me the strongest possible reason in favour of it; we want the home and the domestic side of things to count for more in politics and in the administration of public affairs than they do at present. We want to know how various kinds of legislative enactments bear on the home and on domestic life. And we want to force our legislators to consider the domestic as well as the political results of any legislation which many of them are advocating. We want to say to those of our fellow-countrywomen, who, we hope, are about to be enfranchised, "do not give up one jot or tittle of your womanliness, your love for children, your care for the sick, your gentleness, your self-control, your obedience to conscience and duty, for all these things are terribly wanted in politics. We want women, with their knowledge of child life, especially to devote themselves to the law as it affects children, to children's training in our pauper schools, to the question of boarding out, to the employment of children of tender years, and the bearing of this employment on their after life: to the social life of children and young persons of both sexes in the lower stratum of our towns and villages, to the example set by the higher classes to the lower, to the housing of the poor, to the preservation of infant life, to the provision of open spaces and recreation grounds, to the temperance question, to laws relating to health and morals, and the bearing of all these things and many others upon the home, and upon the virtue and the purity of the domestic life of our nation." POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOME. Depend upon it, the most important institution in the country is the home. Anything which threatens the purity and stability of the home threatens the very life-blood of the country; if the homes of the nation are pure, if the standard of duty, of self-restraint and of justice is maintained in them, such a nation has nothing to fear; but if the contrary of all these things can be said, the nation 8 is rotten at the core, and its downfall is only a question of time. Up to the present, my belief is that the home side and the political side of things have been kept too far apart, as if they had nothing to do with one another. We have before us the picture of the whole of Europe armed to the teeth, and the great neighbouring nations ready to spring like wild beasts at each other's throats, all for the sake of fancied political advantage, while the true domestic interests of the nations concerned would be almost as much injured by victory as by defeat. I confess that I think women are all too apt to forget their womanliness, even in such cases as this, and allow their aspirations to be guided by those of the masculine part of the society in which they find themselves. But by strengthening the independence of women, I think we shall strengthen their true native womanliness ; they will no so often be led away by the gunpowder and glory will-o'-the-wisp, which is really alien to the womanly nature, but will much more certainly than now cast their influence on whatever side seems to them to make for peace, purity, and love. DOMESTIC EFFICIENCY AND THE FRANCHISE. A large amount of opposition to Women's Suffrage is based on the fact that to women has been given, by Nature, the charge of the domestic and home side of things, and there is also the fear that contact with political life would blunt the gentler qualities of women. Let us look at these two objections separately. To women, it is said quite truly, has been given the charge of the home and the domestic side of things. That is to say, most women's lives are wholly, or almost wholly devoted to work for their husband and children within their home. I will apply myself to meet the argument against Women's Suffrage based on the fact that the daily business of most women's lives lies in the routine of domestic affairs. For the proper discharge of these duties many very high and noble qualities are needed, and no insignificant amount of practical knowledge. Women who are immersed in domestic affairs should be good economists, knowing how to save and how to spend judiciously; they should know a good deal about the health and training of children, about education, about what influences character and conduct; no quality is more important in the management of servants and children than a strong since of justice. In proportion as women are good and efficient in what concerns their domestic duties, they will, if they become voters, bring these excellent qualities to bear upon public affairs. Most men are as much taken up by some trade, business or profession in their everyday life as women are by their domestic duties ; but we do not say that this man is so industrious and experienced in his business that it is a great pity that he should be admitted to the franchise ; we rather feel that all that makes him 9 a useful member of society in his private life will also make him a good citizen in his public duties. THE AVERAGE VOTER. I am well aware that there are some women who are not good for much in the home ; in one class they think more of balls, bridge, and fine clothes, than of home duties ; cases have been known, I grieve to say, in all classes, where they have broken up their homes through drunkenness and idleness ; though for one home broken up and destroyed by a drunken woman, there are probably three or four broken up and destroyed by a drunken man. These women who are not good for much domestically, will most likely not be good for much politically ; but exactly the same thing can be said of the existing male voters. Taking women in the mass, I believe it can be claimed for them that they are faithful and conscientious in the fulfilment of the duties already confided to them, and if this be so, it is the best assurance we can have that they will be faithful and conscientious in the new ones that may entrusted to them. WOMAN'S SENSE OF DUTY. I think we may surely claim for women in general a high standard of goodness and virtue. Most of us are probably fortunate enough to know many women who live up to the ideal described by the late Poet Laureate: "Because right is right To follow right, were wisdom in the scorn Of consequence." In so far as conduct is a test of virtue, we have a rough test in the number of men and women respectively who are committed for trial for serious offences against the law, and we find that the women thus committed are less than a fifth the number of the men, although women are more numerous than men by about 4 per cent. I do not stop now to inquire what the cause of this may be, but I think the bare fact is a strong evidence that the admission of women to the suffrage would raise rather than lower the average quality, as regards conduct, of the existing constituencies. Duty is what upholds all the structure of national greatness ; why then exclude from the responsibilities of citizenship a large number of women among whom the standard of duty as measured by their conduct is conspicuously high and pure ? POLITICAL LIFE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. Let us now consider the fear that has been expressed that contact with political life will blunt the gentler qualities of women. We 10 know that a very similar fear has been expressed with regard to the extension of higher education to women. It was thought that if a woman knew Greek she would not love her children, and that if she learned mathematics, she would forsake her infant for a quadratic equation. Experience has set these fears at rest. It was imagined that if women were admitted to the studies pursued by young men at Oxford and Cambridge, they would imitate the swagger and slang of the idlest type of undergraduates. Experience has proved that these fears were baseless ; may we not also hope that the fears expressed about some of the effects of political life on womanly graces may prove to be equally unfounded ? It seems to me very inconsistent and illogical to say with one breath Nature has made women so and so, and so and so, mentioning all kinds of graceful and delightful qualities, and then to add that all these qualities will disappear if a certain alteration takes place in the political constitution of the country. Nature is not so weak and ephemeral as this. All the Acts of Parliament that have been or ever can be passed, cannot shake the rock upon which the institutions of Nature are founded. To think that we can upset the solemn edicts of Nature by the little laws of human invention is the most grotesque infidelity to Nature that has ever been dreamed of. WOMANLINESS – TRUE AND FALSE. If you descend from these general considerations to look at the experience we have thus far had of the result of political activity upon the gentler qualities of women, I think we cannot do better than cite the example given by Queen Victoria. She has been quoted as an opponent of Women's Suffrage ; but she is an illustrious example of the value of the feminine element in politics, and also of the fact that no amount of political power can quench the womanly spirit. From her early girlhood she was immersed in a constant succession of political duties and responsibilities, and yet no woman, as wife, mother or friend, has ever shown herself more entirely womanly in her sympathy, faithfulness, and tenderness. I like very much the story told of the late Queen in the early years of her reign, when one of her ministers apologized for the trouble he was giving her in regard to public business. "Never mention that word to me again," she replied, "only tell me how the thing is to be done, and done rightly, and I will do it if I can." That is womanly in the best sense, and the very quality we want more of, not in politics only, but everywhere, and in every department of life. When we speak of womanliness, and the gentler qualities of the feminine nature, we must be careful not to mistake true for false, and false for true. Is there anything truly feminine in fainting fits, or in screaming at a mouse, or at a black beetle ? Fifty years ago a female of truly delicate susceptibilities was supposed to faint on 11 the slightest provocation ; but there was, I venture to think, nothing truly and essentially womanly in this accomplishment ; it was merely a fashion which has now happily passed away. Women don't faint now unless their heart or their digestion is out of order. Merely foolish foibles ought not to be dignified by the name of womanliness ; their only advantage lies in their providing a cheap and easy means to persons of the other sex of establishing their own superiority. Those men who are not very sure, in the bottom of their hearts, of their own superiority, naturally like to be assured of it by finding a plentiful supply of women who go into hysterics if a mouse is in the room, know nothing of business except that Consols are things which go up and down in the City, or of history except that Alexander the Great was not the son-in-law of Louis XIV. The world would wag on if this kind of womanliness disappeared altogether ; what we cannot afford to lose is the true womanliness, mercy, pity, peace, purity and love ; and these I think we are justified in believing will grow and strengthen with all that strengthens the individuality and spontaneity of womanhood. In conclusion, I will only add that I advocate the extension of the franchise to women because I wish to strengthen true womanliness in woman, and because I want to see the womanly and domestic side of things weigh more and count for more in all public concerns. It is told in Nehemiah that when the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt after the captivity, women as well as men shared in the work. Our country now wants the hearts and brains of its daughters, as well as the hearts and brains of its sons, for the solution of many perplexing and difficult problems. Let no one imagine for a moment that we want women to cease to be womanly ; we want rather to raise the ideal type of womanhood, and to multiply the number of those women of whom it may be said:– " Happy he With such a mother ; faith in womankind Beats with his blood, and trust in all things high Comes easy to him, and though he trip and fall He shall not blind his soul with clay." National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, 25, VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W. President – Mrs. HENRY FAWCETT, LL.D. (1) This Society demands the VOTE FOR WOMEN on the same terms as it is, or may be, granted to men. (2) It works on CONSTITUTIONAL and NON-PARTY lines. (3) At by-elections it does not oppose the Government Candidate as such, but supports the Candidate who declares himself the best friend to the cause of women. Where all the Candidates are equally favourable, or equally unfavourable, it takes no sides. OUR WEAPON IS PUBLIC OPINION. The latest Leaflets published by the Union are : WOMEN'S VOTES.– The Repression of a Disenfranchised Sex. By CICELY HAMILTON (Author of "Diana of Dobson's") Can the Majority of Women Demand the Vote? Leading Facts of the Movement for the Parliamentary Enfranchisement of Women. The Coming of Women. By Canon HY. SCOTT HOLLAND. Published by THE NATIONAL UNION OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE SOCIETIES, 25, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W. January, 1909. V. & S. - 19121. MRS. F. W. HORNER, who has long held a prominent position in the Primrose League, made a brave fight during the recent campaign for the re-election of her husband as Member of Parliament, but the opposition was too strong to overcome. Mrs. Horner is a woman of letters and of recognized ability in English political circles. Some years ago she invented and introduced hats to shade the heads of horses. [*Feb 10.06*] [*Private*] 2 Gower Street London. Feb 23. [*1906*] Dear Madam, You are kind enough to send me The Women's Journal and I always read it with much interest and appreciation. I hope therefore you will take it in good part if I venture to remonstrate with you about this paragraph from the issue of Feb 10. The financial record of the Horners is most unsatisfactory. It has been before the law courts since the election. During the election Mrs Horner is reported to have behaved with extraordinary indelicacy. North Lambeth is not a particularly squeamish constituency but the number of votes polled by Mr. Horner fell from 2677 in 1900 to 108 in 1906. This was not caused by a mere political change. for the Conservative who came before his constituency with a good record polled nearly 2000 votes. Believe me, yours very faithfully M. G. Fawcett Millicent Garrett Fawcett REPUDIATION OF MILITANCY BY REPRESENTATIVE ENGLISHWOMEN, SUFFRAGISTS. ------------- MRS FAWCETT. President of the National Union of Women Suffrage societies in a letter to Mr Lloyd George, says, "I regret and deplore, condemn also, if the word must be used, the disgusting scenes of Nov: 21 and 29, as much as you do. The National Union has always condemned methods of violence. My Suffrage friends are constantly asking me, can nothing be done to stop them? In my opinion nothing can be done, by direct appeal to the leaders of the Women's Social and Political Union. That has been tried again and again on other occasions by other suffragists but without result. ................ At every meeting I have been at since your promise of public support for Woman's Suffrage, speaker after speaker has denounced violence and been supported by the whole sense of the meeting. The English have a deep sense of the value of representative government, but they are not naturally a revolutionary people; they only condone revolutionary methods when all other courses seem to be blocked. They will begin to laugh at riot and tumult when it is absolutely clear that the reform desired can be obtained by the ordinary constitutional channels." MRS DESPARD. President of the Women's Freedom League. (whose speech on the occasion of the deputation to the Prime Minister made the deepest impression on him of any that he heard, according to his own words.) Speaking at an "At home" of the above League, said, " she was glad that that body had not advocated a militant policy at the present crisis in the the Suffrage movement. The news of what had happened in the City Temple when the Prime Minister was howled down, had given her a terrible shock; it was against her sense of religion and fair play. .......For the first time since she had been connected with the movement she was obliged to dissociate herself from that which had been done." RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE OF THE WOMEN'S LIBERAL FEDERATION. ( an organization of over 95,000 women ) " This Committee desires to express its profound regret for the insult offered to the Prime Minister at the City Temple on Nov:29. It further wishes to dissociate itself entirely from the militant policy advocated by the Women's Social and Political Union, a policy endorsed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, by " an infinitely small proportion of the women of this country," and condemned and disavowed by the vast majority of those who have worked for years to secure the enfranchisement of women by the constitutional methods which they now feel more than ever confident are insuring the success of their cause by enabling them to work with the powerful cooperation of those members of the Cabinet who are in favor Women's Suffrage, and to whom the Prime Minister has generously given perfect freedom of action." September 24th, 1914. Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Coit, Miss MacMillan, My Dear Friends:- On the ship coming home I wrote a letter to each of you. To Mrs. Fawcett I wrote thanking her for her book about five French women, which I read with much pleasure and for which I was grateful. To Mrs. Coit I wrote about some matters concerning which I had further thoughts, and these belated ideas lead to a letter to Miss MacMillan. The letters were sealed and stamped ready for mailing when we should reach New York. Long before we arrived in New York we were aware that the world had seemingly gone mad. We were chased by imaginary British ships and got a little of the thrill of excitement which was everywhere apparent. When we came on shore and learned what had really happened, my letters seemed so out of place and inapplicable that I stuck them in a pigeonhole and they are there yet. Immediately it was reported that no regular mails were going to London, the cables were preempted by the press, and so I made no effort to reach you. I received Mrs. Coit's cablegram and was a long way from New York when it arrived; hence there was delay in sending a reply. Later, when I saw in the press some interview with Mrs. Schwimmer which made it seem probable that she was en route to this country, I cabled to know on what ship she was coming. The reply arrived about four days after she got here. Mrs. Coit's letter however reached me before Mrs. Schwimmer arrived, so that I got some idea of the general situation. I concluded not to reply until I had had a talk with Mrs. Schwimmer. #2 September 24, 1914 She arrived in Boston and was there a day or two before coming to New York. She was very unhappy and almost distraught. She was determined to go to Washington at once and present her peace idea to the president. Almost immediately upon my return I received a cable-gram from Miss Goldstein of Australia asking if the Alliance could not do something to hasten mediation. I received a letter with a more complete appeal to do the same thing from Mrs. Dennison of Canada. Apparently similar appeals had come to the headquarters in London, and at the last Mrs. Schwimmer had sent out cables and had received some replies. It seems that her peace idea was to make the initiative come from Hungary, and later she thought of connecting up the appeal for peace with the Alliance. She seems to be a combination of practicable initiative and very unpractical notions. When I called her attention to the fact that if an appeal was to be made in the name of the Alliance, the first thing ought to have been to secure the names of the officers of the Alliance and next of those Associations which were within reach. I than called her attention to the fact that it would be an omission noticeable to anyone that the National Union had not joined in the appeal. I further mentioned that Mrs. Coit had not alluded in her letter to any attempt of the Alliance or of Mrs. Schwimmer to take any steps towards securing intervention by the United States. She replied that she had not broached the matter to the officers at all but that she had liad the matter before the National Union before leaving England. I then cabled Mrs. Fawcett and knew from her cable that the National Union would not be in entire accord with the mission which Mrs. Schwimmer had taken upon herself. I further explained to her that the plan which she had outlined in her little printed leaflet could not be taken up in the name of the Alliance since it had not been put to either officers or auxiliaries. I really had hard work to keep her from running and going to Washington herself in the effort to see the President. Of course the press were on her tracks because she had had an interview in London and they knew she was coming to New York. So I arranged a press party for her the day of her arrival and she had an opportunity to say what she wanted to the representatives of all the chief New York papers. Just how to manage the matter was a difficult problem to me. I felt that we really ought to do something in the name of those who had made appeal. These appeals had not been anything definite. I therefore wrote the enclosed appeal to the President asking for the only thing which it seemed to me our auxiliaries might stand for, and we signed the names as petitioners of those who had written or cabled asking the Alliance to do something. We did not give the names to the public. I allowed the members of the press to see these names but made a request that they should not publish them on account of the name of Dr. Yavin. Mrs. Schwimmer thought that her name might be freely used and that no harm would come to her owing to the prominence of her husband's position. But I did not feel the same security for her knowing a little of Russian politics. I then wrote to a #3 Sept. 24, 1914 senatorial friend belonging to the President's party and asked for a hearing. When the reply came that the President did not want to grant it owing to the great number of obligations upon him at this time, we went to Washington and again sought an interview. We had an interview with the State Department and asked the Secretary of State to secure for us a hearing with the President. The hearing was granted and an hour set two days later. I was unable to remain away from my work so long. I left Mrs. Schwimmer to go alone and arranged for an escort to take her to the right place at the right time. She had an interview for fifteen minutes with the President and was highly delighted with it. She not only presented him the petitions which we had written in behalf of the Alliance, but she also gave him her little printed leaflet, which greatly delighted her. The President thanked her for having brought the matter to his attention which is a polite way in which officials of this country greet their petitioners. She really believed that she had done something great and good for the cause of peace. I do not believe myself that the matter did any special good but I do not think it did any harm. The President of the United States does not wish to overstep his authority as a neutral power, but the people of the United States are pretty generally of one mind and that is that they would like to have him in behalf of this great neutral nation do something more than has yet been done, and that is to insist upon an armistice until mediation could be brought about. So much for the report of Mrs. Scwimmer's mission up to date. If you think best to make a report of this for Jus Suffragii, do so and use your own judgment as to what you shall put into it. I will dictate a little paragraph and enclose it in this letter, which might be used if you desire. Do not do so unless you think it is entirely wise, and make no mention of it, if in your judgment that seems best. Permit me to say that I believe you have done the only thing possible in turning the headquarters into a Relief Station for foreign women. I am very glad that you have been able and willing to do this. I think it is wise also to publish Jus Suffragii as a matter of record of the work the women are doing during the war, provided it can reach its subscribers; and if not, the papers might be sent at a later date when the mails are again open. I do not think it would be right to use any of the funds of the Alliance for these purposes, since they were subscribed for entirely different objects and may not be easily replaceable. I am very glad that Mrs. Coit has been able to get some funds for this special purpose. Of course it follows that there will be no Congress at Berlin. It seems to me at this distance that even should the war come to an end soon a Congress next year would be inadvisable. #4 Sept. 24, 1914 It might develop with the passing of time that to keep the headquarters and the paper in England will be inadvisable. If however they are not maintained there I do not know where they could go. I sincerely hope that whatever happens the hard years of work done for the Alliance will not be entirely lost, and that we shall be able to pull it together and go on from the point where it was dropped. The war may give an impetus to woman suffrage - it may give it a period of reaction. Meanwhile there is nothing to do but to do the best we can as the duties arise. Here in the United States we are going on with out work just as thought Europe had not gone mad. At first there was a little jubilation on the part of anti suffragists who said - "You see when it comes to serious times it is only men who can perform duties of state." But the next development was a belief, which is growing at a tremendous rate in this country, that wars belong to periods of barbarism and that when this one is over measures must be adopted to prevent the coming of another. They are seeing more and more that in that new order of things the voice of women must be heard. So far as the of our campaign is concerned I am inclined to think the war is going to do it no harm. On the other hand we are hard hit financially. Industrial securities are not paying their dividends. The stock exchange is still closed. Wheat in the west is stored up by the thousands and thousands of tons and the farmers are feeling the burden because they cannot sell it. England and France have declared that it is a breach of neutrality to ship it to Europe. Of the ships that formerly carried it those of Great Britain and German are no longer performing this duty. In the South, cotton is piled high in the storehouses and cotton farms are closed down because certain chemicals which they formerly got from Germany cannot be had now. The cost of living has risen here as elsewhere. We are feeling in very many ways the effects of the war but of course not so seriously as in Europe. Charity Associations are looking forward to a tremendously hard winter's work. Large sums of money are being collected for the Red Cross, and in consequence of all these things, our own campaign fund is likely to suffer to the possible extent of our inability to do as much work as the cause requires. Please clip from this letter the following paragraph and let Miss Sheepshanks post it where it will be noted: - #5 September 24, 1914 On November 3rd, Nevada, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri and Ohio vote upon the question of woman suffrage. North Dakota has a clause in its Constitution which makes it necessary that an amendment to the Constitution shall receive a majority of all the votes cast at the election. As the amendments are printed at the end of the ticket many men vote for candidates and forget to vote for the amendments. Yet in consequence of this rule every man who does not vote at all is counted as voting against the amendment. We therefore have very little hope of that State. This fact may be recorded as an explanation if it fails to pass. Or, if by chance the question should pass it should be noted as an example of the overwhelming sentiment for woman suffrage. Missouri is a state in which there has been little organization and little work in past years, which ought to explain its failure at the polls in case it does fail, which we believe it shall. We are somewhat hopeful of Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, and Ohio. The liquor element is fighting the question very hard in all of these states. In Ohio they secured the submission of the suffrage question by initiative and referendum petition, which I think you understand. They are obliged to secure petitioners equal to 4% of the vote at the last election to have the question referred. They did secure about 6% of the vote on their petition. The liquor people secured another petition and referendum to abolish the local option law. These people are familiarly known as the "wets." The "drys" to retaliate secured the submission by petition of a statewide prohibition law. This has introduced into the campaign all the pros and cons of the temperance question, which is very bad for woman suffrage, and which may be used as an explanation of failure, if failure there is. Two years ago the question was voted on in Ohio, an amendment to the Constitution having been submitted by the legislature. 250,000 men voted for us. In any event we hope for a larger vote. Nevada, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Missouri have never voted on the question before. South Dakota has had the question up before, but is having a very badly conducted campaign now I understand. #6 Now, I will cable you in any event as soon as results are in after election. If any states are won I will give simply the name of the state; if none are won, I will tell you that. If Ohio is lost to us but has a larger vote I will mention the name of the state and amount of vote for us. You will understand that that does not mean that the state has been won but that it has been lost. I hope this is clear and will be our code, so that you can wrote up something of the results from these few items. I have received a copy of the letter sent by the Headquarters Committee to the auxiliaries. It is most happily put and I am sure will be received with satisfaction by all the auxiliaries. There is one thing in it which I wish to explain in the event that anything ever comes up about it in the future. You cabled that the Alliance would offer Mrs. Schwimmer to campaign in the United States for three months, i.e. had paid her salary. I cabled that we would accept this proposition. That would mean that we would be obliged to pay her expenses over and back and her expenses while here. When Mrs. Schwimmer came and I talked with her I concluded that after that cable was sent a good deal of discussion had taken place and that there was quite a different understanding. I now understand, and I have said this twice to Mrs. Schwimmer and she accepts it, that what really did take place was that you gave her three months' notice with three months' salary, so that you have no longer any connection with her at all. She came to this country of her own volition and without any contract with us at all. I very much fear that she will think that we have made some sort of promise to her which we will not be able to live up to and I have tried to make it clear. She has now gone to Ohio and is working in the campaign there. We shall keep her going for a while and I hope to put her in the way of earning her living here, but I do not consider that we are under any obligation to do so. I think Mrs. Fawcett's editorial in Jus Suffragii was splendid. I do not feel that I dare to write anything unless the paragraph concerning the hearing before the President can be used as an editorial. I tremble lest I say something which under these strained and sentitive times would offend somebody somewhere. All the countries apparently are anxious to keep the good opinion of the United States. The reports through the press from the war zones have come through London and Paris almost exclusively. The cutting of the cables to Germany has prevented any war news from coming from that source directly. In consequence the Germans here have tried to influence public opinion in behalf of Germany, and we glean from the joint efforts of the belligerents to secure the favor of the American public that each nation thinks the was has been forced upon it, that its opponents are barbarians etc. This state of feeling cannot do otherwise than be adopted more or less by the residents of each one of the warring countries. #7 The resolution of the National Union appeared in this morning’s papers and is excellent. My dear friends, I think of you every day and indeed I can do little but read the newspapers and think about the awfulness of this terrible war. You have my truest and most heartfelt sympathy, and I wish I were not so far away that I am unable to render you any assistance day by day in the burdens put upon you. I am proud of all you are doing, proud of the record the National Union is making and can only believe that evolution has not come to an end. After getting Mrs. Coit’s letter which intimated that Miss Ford might not remain with the office I wrote her saying that if she were not to work with the Alliance longer, and wished to come over here we would take her on. Lovingly, Carrie Chapman Catt February 28, 1913. The Public 201 ing he was apparently liberated, and as he started to walk away—according to the report of an eye-witness— he was shot by the guards. This is the notorious "fugitive law" of Mexico which affords easy excuse to the authorities for shooting to death any man in their hands, on the ground that his leaving was either unauthorized, or not known to the watching guards to be authorized. Another form of this unwritten law was undoubtedly immediately invoked for the perpetration of a still more shocking crime. At midnight on the 22nd Francisco I. Madero, the ex-President, and José Pino Suarez, the ex-Vice President, were taken in automobiles from the National Palace to the penitentiary, ostensibly for their greater comfort and safety. Their dead bodies shot through were found later at the back of the institution. The authorities declare not only that there had been attempts by unknown parties to rescue the prisoners, but that they had themselves attempted to escape. An investigation was ordered. The American Ambassador, Mr. Henry Lane Wilson, informed the foreign minister, Mr. Francisco de la Barra, on the morning of the 23d that none of the foreign diplomats would attend the luncheon arranged for them by the foreign office for the next day unless the mystery surrounding the killing of the distinguished prisoners were cleared up. Later the Ambassador declared that in the absence of reliable information he felt disposed to accept the government's version of the manner in which the ex-President and the ex-Vice President lost their lives, and that he believed these violent deaths were without government approval. The American embassy was informed on the 23rd that provisional President Huerta had arranged with United States capitalists on favorable terms for a loan of $30,000,000. A call for a new Congress has been issued by the provisional government, to immediately convene. Disorder prevails throughout Mexico, and there is uncertainty as to new groupings. On the 22nd it was said that 10 States had refused to recognize Huerta. What the Zapatistas in the south will do is not known. Emilio Vasquez Gomez in the north has proclaimed himself as a provisional President, at least on paper. Other northern leaders are protesting against the Huerta-Diaz leadership. The Federal garrison at Juarez revolted on hearing of the killing of their former President. When reinforcements arrived from Chihuahua 50 of the Maderist garrison escaped, but 95 were stood up against a wall and shot. President Taft is making fuller preparations than before for the protection of Americans resident in Mexico, but refuses to intervene. On the 22nd he stated that— We must avoid in every way that which is called intervention, and use all the patience possible, with the prayers that some power may arise there to bring about peace throughout that great country. We have to take precautions, and these have been taken. But I have no sympathy—none at all—and the charge of cowardice does not frighten me—with that which prompts us for purposes of exploitation and gain to invade another country and involve ourselves in a war, the extent of which we could not realize and the sacrifice of thousands of lives and millions of treasure—and then, when we had succeeded, what? No, we must exercise patience in a concrete case like this. The state of preparedness for needed protection on the part of the United States, was thus announced in the American press of the 25th: Number of regular soldiers in continental United States awaiting marching orders, 47,294. These troops are divided as follows: Infantry, 21 regiments, 17,576; companies of coast artillery, 159, 14794; cavalry, 12 regiments, 9,993; field artillery, 5 regiments, 3,795; engineers, 1,136, making a total of 47,294. In addition to this number of troops there are now at, en route to or entraining for Galveston, the mobilization camp, 11,000. Transports Sumner, McClellan and Kilpatrick, combined capacity 3,000, now en route for Galveston. Battleships and cruisers in Mexican waters, 6, as follows: Vermont, Georgia and Nebraska at Vera Cruz, Colorado at Mazatlan, South Dakota at Acapulco. Number of men on warships in Mexican waters: Vermont, Georgia, Nebraska and Virginia, each 49 officers, 900 men, making a total of 3,796; marines aboard those vessels, 85 each, 340, making a grand total of 4,136; Colorado and South Dakota, 878 officers and men each, 1,756; marines, 80 on each, 160, making a total of 1,916. This does not include warships at Guantanamo, San Diego and San Francisco, being held in readiness, or marines at Guantanamo and en route, all of these forming a part of the general scheme of preparedness. The War for Woman Suffrage in Great Britain. What some of the woman suffragists of Great Britain regard as a "war" in that country for the purpose of coercing an extension of British voting rights to women, has recently become more drastic in the direction of destructive assaults upon property and personal rights. Leaders of this movement are reported as saying publicly that there are no limits to the violence that will be resorted to by them and their followers, short of taking human life, so long as suffrage rights are delayed. [See current volume, page 132.] Pursuant to this program, as the cable dispatches of last week report, the country residence at Walton Heath, leased from Sir George February 28, 1913. The the suffrage than against the women. Still this story is being propagated, and is, of course, believed. There are innumerable other legends which are greedily swallowed, and help to keep up the agitation. The women are going on, and no one can say when they will stop. Half the things they do are not told in the press, and are perhaps deliberately concealed. It is known that two attempts have been made to assassinate Mr. Asquith, but it is still quite possible that other attempts have been made. There has scarcely been a meeting for a long time addressed by him which has not been interrupted by some screaming women. Other ministers are pursued with the same persecution. David Lloyd George, who is really one of their best friends, is attacked more than even their worst enemies. Mr. Lewis Harcourt is also one of the favorite targets of the suffragets, for he is an open and irreconcilable enemy of their claims. Winston Churchill is rarely free from their attentions.... He used to be in favor of woman suffrage, but these things have converted him to the other side. Sir Edward Grey risked the whole life of the Cabinet to force female suffrage on his colleagues, but he also is constantly pursued. It is an equally singular feature of this strange movement that the women who take part in it are drawn from all classes of society. Some of the most violent are daughters of the aristocracy; others of course come from the dressmakers and factories. There is an inexhaustible supply of money behind the movement. It will be a mercy if the whole campaign does not end in some tragic catastrophe in which a homocidal fury kills an illustrious man. 202 The Public Sixteenth Year. Allardice Riddell by Lloyd George, Chancellor of the British Exchequer and leading advocate in the Cabinet for votes for women, was destroyed by a bomb on the 19th. No one appears to have been hurt. Suspicions of the police that this crime was the work of physical force woman suffragists appear to have been confirmed by leaders of that faction. Mrs. Drummond, one of them, was reported as saying that the explosion was "undoubtedly the work of women" and that "it was a fine act successfully carried out." The same news dispatches told of Mrs. Pankhurst, the principal physical force leader, as saying in a speech at Cardiff, Wales, on the evening following the explosion: "We have blown up the Chancellor of the Exchequer's house. The authorities need not look for the women who actually did it. I personally accept full responsibility for it." She is reported to have added that if imprisoned she would refuse food until released by discharge or death, and that if she died there were many others ready to take her place. Mrs. Pankhurst was reported later as having been received at Chelsea, on the 21st, upon appearing to speak in the town hall, with "groans, hisses, yells and cheerings," and as having "twitted the authorities for being afraid to take advantage of her assumption of responsibility for blowing up Mr. Lloyd George's house and to send her to jail." In the latter connection London Newspapers reported on the 22d that the law officers have decided that "there are no legal grounds for prosecuting Mrs. Pankhurst for her speeches approving this week's suffrage incendiarism and the use of bombs," and that "she knew her legal immunity when she made these speeches," but that "her position is different in regard to future excesses to which she has offered direct incitement." Nevertheless, Mrs. Pankhurst was arrested on the 24th charged with conspiring with and inciting her followers to destroy Mr. George's house with a bomb. Other violent acts in connection with this "war" were reported both before and after the blowing up of Lloyd George's house. Window smashing and indiscriminate destruction of mail matter in post boxes have characterized these crimes. On the 20th a tea shop in Kew Gardens was burned by incendiaries while unoccupied, and two young women were arrested on suspicion. On the same day, about 2,000 letters were destroyed with chemicals in the post boxes at Edinburgh, and characteristic demonstrations were made in other places. In Birmingham, shot was poured into the keyholes of private residences. Mrs. Despard and other militant speakers were howled down by the audience at a suffragette meeting at Thornton Heath on the 22d, as reported in the dispatches, and "the police were compelled to intervene to protect the women from violence." Sylvia Pankhurst, Zelie Emerson (an American) and other suffragettes sentenced during the past week, were reported on the 22d as "hunger striking," but it was stated "that no forcible feeding has as yet been resorted to," and that "a new policy by the prison authorities is to provide food regularly for the women in their cells, and not to force them to eat anything until the prison doctor considers that the prolongation of the fasting will endanger their lives." Woman suffrage opponents of physical force tactics were represented in a speech on the 21st at London by Mrs. Fawcett, president of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies. Mrs. Fawcett's speech, as reported by the dispatches of the 21st, strongly denounced the physical force campaign, describing its tactics as— detestable outrages harmful to their aims. Such crimes, she said, would be excusable only among savages and were really a serious menace to civilization. In his cable letter of the 22d, T. P. O'Connor, M. P., explains his view of the situation as follows, these excerpts being from his letter as it appears in the Chicago Tribune of the 23d: What is to be done with women? Of course they are defeating their own ends. These outbreaks, especially of such a purely wanton and mischievous character as interfering with pillar boxes, shop windows, and golf greens, are exasperating people so much that there is now growing up what has never existed before—namely, sex war and sex hatred. There is little doubt that some form of woman suffrage bill would have been passed two or three years ago if it had not been for the militancy. Member after member of the House of Commons who had pledge himself to female suffrage has publicly declared that he will no longer vote for it, or at least not until this militancy has come to an end. But still the militant women go on. Nothing is more surprising than the extraordinary power some of these women have to misunderstand the most palpable facts of political life. They are demanding, for instance, that the next suffrage bill should be brought in by a ministry. But there could not be formed any ministry at this moment which could comply with this request. It could not be done by the Liberals because Premier Asquith is against the women, and half of his colleagues agree with his opinion. It would be just as impossible for the Tories, for while Arthur Balfour and A. Bonar Law are in favor of the women, Austen Chamberlain and F. E. Smith are just as strongly against them. Similarly the women are saying that the postponement of their bill this session of Parliament was all a plot concocted between Mr. Asquith and the Speaker. The Speaker gave his ruling which excluded the women from the franchise bill without consulting Mr. Asquith, and this ruling was directed rather against the large addition of male electors to Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.