Alegalregulation of prostitution (such as prevailed formerly in England and as prevails now in Germany) does not exist in the United States. Cincinnati is the only city which in the European sense has police control of prostitution. Public opinion has successfully resisted all similar attempts. (Woman’s Journal, July, 1904.) The American Commission, which went to Europe to study the regulation of prostitution, declared that the American woman cannot be expected to sanction such an arrangement, and that, moreover, the system had not stood the test. In the police stations, police matrons are employed. The law protects the woman in the street against the man and not, as in Europe, the man against the woman.
In order to combat the double standard of morals the “Social Purity League” was formed. The membership is composed of those men and women who arethoroughly convinced that there is only one standard of morality for both sexes, since they have the same obligations to their offspring. Founded in 1886, this organization has spread since 1889 throughout the entire Union.
The “World’s Woman’s Christian Temperance Union,” the second largest international woman’s organization, originated in America. It was founded in 1883 by Frances E. Willard (her father was Hilgard, from the Palatinate). The Union has 300,000 members in the United States at the present time, and 450,000 members in the whole world. In 1906 it met in Boston. It is the determined enemy of alcohol, and gives proof of its convictions through the work of its soldier’s and sailor’s department, its committees on railroads, tramways, police stations, cab drivers, etc. This Union, as well as the “Social Purity League,” is a firm advocate of woman’s suffrage.
The emancipation of the American women is promoted through sports. If on the one hand they appreciate an elaborate toilette, on the other hand they recognize the advantages of bloomers, the walking skirt, and the divided skirt. In these costumes they play basketball, polo, tennis, and take gymnastic exercise, fence, and row. The woman’s colleges are centers of athletic life. There the girls now play football in male costume, the public being excluded. In all large cities there areathletic clubs for women, some extremely sumptuous (with a hundred-dollar fee) as well as very simple clubs for workingwomen of sedentary life.
We have seen that the legal status of women in many states is still in need of reform. All the more instructive is the survey of laws concerning women and children in thewoman’s suffrage states, published by Mrs. C. Waugh McCullock, a woman lawyer, of Chicago. The wife disposes of her wages and her dowry (in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho). Men and women receive equal pay for the same work. All professions and public offices are open to women. Women act as jurors. They have the same right of inheritance as men. Divorce is granted to either party under the same circumstances. The claims of the wife and the children under age are given a decided preference over those of creditors. Education from the kindergarten to the university is free and is open to women. The labor of women in mines is prohibited. The maximum working-day for women is eight hours. All houses of correction and institutions for the protection of women and children must have women physicians and overseers. The age of consent is 18 years. Gambling and prostitution are prohibited. Both father and mother exercise parental authority. The surviving husband is guardian of the children. The sale of alcoholic liquors and tobacco to children is prohibited. No childunder 14 years of age may work in the mines. Pornographic literature and pictures are prohibited.
In conclusion I shall take several points from the lecture which Professor F. Laurie Poster held before the Political Equality League in Chicago, after the women of Chicago had waged a vigorous campaign for the right to vote in municipal affairs.
Why is the value of woman placed so low? Merely because she is more helpless than man. Children are valued even less than women because they surpass the women in helplessness. Only animals have less power of defense; therefore they have the lowest value placed on them. In the United States it has now been demonstrated that whoever possesses the right to vote is esteemed more highly than he who does not have that right. We see this in the woman’s suffrage states; here the women have made provisions not only for themselves, but for the children as well, for it is one of the fundamental instincts of woman to protect her little ones. In most of the states of the Union, however, women can help directly neither themselves nor their children. That women should be forced to struggle for these ends against the opposition of man is one of the most unfortunate phases of the whole movement.
When woman became property, a possession, the overestimation of her sexual value began. Her sex was her weapon, and her capabilities became stunted.This over emphasis of the sexual causes a great part of the most flagrant evils among civilized peoples. To-day we have reached a stage where we despise him who sells his vote. Unfortunately it is still permitted to sell one’s sex. In this roundabout way woman attains most of the good things in life. Her economic successes depend almost entirely on the resources of the man to whom she belongs. Both sexes suffer as a result of this attitude of society. Woman’s uncertain feeling, that she must concentrate her interests and responsibilities in the one who provides for the family, has created exceedingly peculiar customs and a wholly absurd code of honor for both man and woman. Thereby woman is directed to aroundabout wayfor everything she wishes to obtain. Whatever she wishes for herself must appear as a domestic virtue, if possible as a sacrifice for the family. Man thinks it very natural that he should do what he desires, that he should pursue his pleasures and gratify his passions, for he is indeed the one who possesses authority and does not need first to stamp his wishes as virtues. But it seems just as natural to him that the women of the family should be endowed with a double portion of piety, economy and willingness to make sacrifices,—virtues in which he is so lacking. Women are created especially for that. By nature they are better, and indeed they make great efforts to cover the faults of the offendingone and forgivingly accept him again. In fact they do it gladly; it gives them pleasure, and man certainly does not wish to deprive them of the opportunity for such great joys. Therefore man is instantly at hand to warn woman when she shows any inclination toward adopting “masculine” habits. But he certainly would be more conscientious and more moral if woman no longer assumed these virtues vicariously for him. Woman must make her demands of man. For that she must befree.[25]
AUSTRALIA[26]
It is a rare thing for Europeans to have a definite conception of the Australian Commonwealth. This isthe more to be regretted since this federation of republics is among the countries that have made the greatest progress in the woman’s rights movement. In no other part of the world has such a radical change in the status of woman been effected in so short a time and with such comparatively insignificant struggles.
Till 1840, Australia had been a penal colony. Since then,—after the discovery of the first gold fields,—a multitude of fortune-seekers, gold-miners, and adventurers joined the population of deported convicts. The good middle-class element for a long time remained in the minority. Certainly nobody would have believed that there existed at that time in Australia all the conditions necessary for the growth of a flourishing and highly civilized commonwealth. Nevertheless, such was the case. There were formed seven democratic states, whose people were not bound by any traditionalism or excessive fondness for time-honored, inherited customs; these people wished to have elbowroom and were determined to establish themselves on their own soil in their own way. This all took place the more easily since England gave the growing commonwealth in general an exceedingly free hand, and because the inhabitants were by nature independent. Australia was colonized by those who, having come into conflict with the laws of the old world, found their sphere of life narrow and restricted.
Because Australia to-day has only about five million inhabitants, the country is confronted only in a limited way with the problem of dealing with congested masses of people, a condition which is favorable to all social experimentation. Those in authority believe they can direct and eventually mold the development of the Commonwealth.
Sixty-five per cent of the population are Protestant; the Germanic element predominates. The women constitute not quite 50 per cent of the population. Thus in many respects the Australian colonies possess conditions similar to those prevailing in the western states of the American Union, and the results of the woman’s rights movement are in both regions approximately the same. Mrs. M. Donohue, one of the delegates from Australia, declared at the London Woman’s Suffrage Congress that her country had brought about “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
Naturally, the Australian governments had originally a series of material problems to solve, real problems of existence, as, for example, to find a satisfactory agricultural policy in a predominantly farming and cattle-raising country. When the economic basis of the country seemed sufficiently secure, the intellectual interests were given attention. A country which never had slavery or a feudal regime, a Salic Law, or a Code Napoleon; a country which has no divine right of kings,and is not oppressed with militarism; a country which judges a man by his personal ability and esteems him for what he is, such a country certainly could not tolerate the dogma of woman’s inferiority. Between 1871 and 1880, the school systems of the various colonies were regulated by a series of laws. Elementary instruction, which is free and obligatory, is given in public schools to children of both sexes between the ages of five and fifteen, but in most cases the sexes are segregated. In the public schools of the whole continent about 20,000 teachers are employed (9,000 men and 11,000 women). The men predominate in the leading well-paid positions. The secondary school system (as in England) is composed largely of private schools, and is to a great extent in the hands of the Protestant denominations and the Catholic orders. The governments subsidize these institutions. Girls and boys enjoy the same educational opportunities in the schools, part of which are coeducational.
The four Australian universities—Sidney (New South Wales), Melbourne (Victoria), Adelaide (South Australia), and Aukland (New Zealand)—are to-day open to women, who can secure all academic degrees granted by the philosophical, law, and medical faculties.[27]
The number of students in the universities is as follows: in Sidney, 1054 (of whom 142 are women);in New Zealand University, 1332 (of whom 369 are women); in Melbourne, 853 (of whom 128 are women). The total number of students in Adelaide and Hobart is 626 and 62 respectively, but the number of women students is not given. The educational problem is thus solved for the Australian woman in a favorable manner: she has equal and full privileges in the universities.
What are the conditions in the occupations? “All occupations are open to women,” is stated in a report which I have used.[28]But that is not entirely correct. Women are teachers, but they are not lecturers and professors in the universities. As preachers they are admitted only among the Nonconformists. There are women doctors and dentists, and in four colonies (New Zealand, Tasmania, West Australia, and Victoria) women are permitted to practice law, but they are confronted with a certain popular prejudice when they attempt to enter medicine, law, technical science, and a teaching career in the universities. The state employs women in the elementary schools; in the postal and telegraph service; as registrars (permitting them to perform marriage ceremonies); and as factory inspectors. But the salaries and wages in Australia are not always the same for both sexes. Thus, forexample, in South Australia the male head masters of the public schools draw salaries of 110 to 450 pounds sterling, while the women draw 80 to 156 pounds sterling. Since school affairs are not affairs under the control of the Commonwealth, the federal law (equal wages for equal work) cannot be applied in this particular. In Tasmania[29](where the women have voted since 1903) women are teachers in the public schools, employees in the postal, telegraph, and telephone systems, supervisors of health in the public schools, and assistants to the quarantine and sanitary boards; they are registrars in the parishes, superintendents of hospitals, asylums, prisons, etc. Public offices in the army, the navy, and the church alone remain closed to them.
It is to be noted here that Mrs. Dobson, of Tasmania, was the official representative of the Australian government at the International Woman’s Suffrage Congress held in Amsterdam in 1908.
The official yearbook of the Australian Federation gives the following industrial statistics for 1901: state and municipal office holders, 41,235 women (69,399 men); domestic servants, 150,201 women (50,335 men); commerce, 34,514 women (188,144 men); transportation, 3429 women (118,730 men); industry, 75,570 women (350,596 men); agriculture and forestry,fisheries, and mining, 38,944 women (494,163 men). In all fields, with the exception of domestic service, the men are in a numerical superiority; therefore the matrimonial opportunities of the Australian woman are favorable. For every 100 girls 105.99 boys were born in 1906; the statistics for 1906 showed a greater number of marriages than ever before (30,410). The difference in the ages of the married men and women is 4.5 years on the average; the number of children per family is about 4 (3.77).
Five Australian colonies (New Zealand, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales) have enacted the following laws for the protection of workingwomen:
1. Maximum working time—48 hours a week.2. The prohibition of night work (except in Queensland).3. Higher wages for overtime.
1. Maximum working time—48 hours a week.
2. The prohibition of night work (except in Queensland).
3. Higher wages for overtime.
The eight-hour day is necessitated throughout Australia by the climate. The other provisions are perhaps not stringently enforced. Children under thirteen years cannot be employed in the factories. Socialistic regulations, such as fixing the minimum wages in certain industries, and the establishment of obligatory courts of arbitration, have been instituted in several colonies (Victoria, New South Wales, etc.).
In the beginning the English Common Law regulatedthe legal status of the Australian women. During the past fifty years this law has undergone many modifications. Each colony acted independently in the matter, and therefore there is no longer uniformity. In all cases separate ownership of property is legal. However, joint parental authority is legally established only in New Zealand. The divorce laws are prejudicial to women in almost all respects.
In the field of legislation the influence of woman’s suffrage has already made itself definitely felt. Each colony has its state legislature which consists of a Lower House and a Senate. Every Australian who is twenty-one years old is a voter in both state and municipal elections. (There is a property qualification only for those voting for the Senate.) In 1869 the woman’s suffrage movement began in Australia (in Victoria). The right to vote in school and municipal affairs was given to women as a matter of course.[30]The right to vote in state affairs was granted to women first in New Zealand in 1893, in South Australia in 1895, in West Australia in 1899, in New South Wales in 1903, in Queensland in 1905, and in Victoria in 1908.
When the six Australian colonies (excluding New Zealand) formed themselves into a federation in 1900, an Australian Federal Parliament was established. The women ofall of the six coloniesvoted for theparliamentary officers on an equality with men. Here was a curious thing—the women of the four conservative colonies voted for the members of the Federal Parliament but could not vote for the state legislature.
On the basis of the documents dealing with Victoria I shall give a more detailed account of the history of woman’s suffrage in this colony. The greatest statesman of Victoria, George Higinbotham, in 1873 introduced the first woman’s suffrage bill before Parliament. This met with no success. A number of similar attempts were made until 1884. In this year there was founded the first “Woman’s Suffrage Society” in Victoria. The movement then spread rapidly, and in 1891 thirty thousand women petitioned Parliament for the suffrage in state affairs. For the time being this attempt likewise met with failure. But the political organization of the women was strengthened through the formation of the “United Council for Woman’s Suffrage.” Every year after 1895 this Council gave advice to the Lower House concerning the framing of woman’s suffrage bills, and thus enlarged its influence. Hitherto the passing of the suffrage bill had been prevented by the opposition of the Upper House (which was not chosen by universal suffrage). On November 18, 1908, the bill was finally passed by theHouse of Obstruction, and thus the women, who had worked for the suffrage, were finallyemancipated. Since 1893, the year of the emancipation of women in New Zealand, the opponents of woman’s suffrage put off the women with the request to wait and see how the plan worked in New Zealand; in 1896 the women were asked to wait and see how the plan worked in New South Wales; in 1902 they were asked to see how woman’s suffrage worked in the federal elections. In 1908 it was possible to secure only 3500 signaturesagainstwoman’s suffrage.
In New Zealand the women have exercised active suffrage since 1893. There also, the gloomiest predictions were made when this “unprecedented” measure was adopted. There were, of course, women opponents of woman’s suffrage. Such, for example, was Mrs. Seddon, the wife of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. She said: “It seemed to me that the women ought to remain away from the tumult and riotous scenes of the polling booths. But I gave up this view. With us, the women benefited the suffrage and the suffrage benefited the women. The elections have taken place more quietly and women have indicated a lively interest in public affairs.
“Woman’s suffrage has not caused family dissensions. It has frequently happened that whole families have voted for the same candidate. In other cases different members of one family voted for different candidates. But this has not disturbed domestictranquillity, for nowhere have family feuds been engendered by one member or another of the family boasting of the success of his candidate. The fear that the women would vote largely for Conservative candidates, through the influence of the clergy, was not realized. Already the women have twice contributed to the reëlection of a Liberal minister. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic clergy endeavored to influence the votes of the women anywhere.” The Countess Wachtmeister, a Californian traveling in Australia, confirms this opinion, “Thanks to woman’s suffrage the respectable elements that formerly often remained away from the political arena have now again stepped to the front; they have presented successful candidates, and have begun to play an important part in the political life of the country.”
Since women have exercised the right to vote in New Zealand the following legal reforms have been enacted:
1. Divorces are granted to the wife and to the husband upon the same grounds.2. The husband can no longer deprive the wife and children of their inheritances by means of a will.3. The conditions of suffrage in municipal elections were made the same for both women and men.4. The saloons are closed on election days.5. Women are admitted to the practice of law.6. The age of consent for girls was raised to 17.
1. Divorces are granted to the wife and to the husband upon the same grounds.
2. The husband can no longer deprive the wife and children of their inheritances by means of a will.
3. The conditions of suffrage in municipal elections were made the same for both women and men.
4. The saloons are closed on election days.
5. Women are admitted to the practice of law.
6. The age of consent for girls was raised to 17.
Similar reforms were enacted in South Australia. There Mrs. Mary Lee is the leader in the woman’s suffrage movement, and founder of the “Women’s Suffrage Society.” When the woman’s suffrage bill was passed in 1895 the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Instruction, and the Lord Mayor gave Mrs. Lee an impressive reception in the town hall; they thanked her for the untiring efforts which she had devoted to the cause, and the Prime Minister said, “Mrs. Lee is the originator of the greatest reforms in the constitutional history of Australia.” What enlightened views the ministers in the antipodal countries do have! Are they really our antiscians to such a degree?
Since 1896, the following reforms have been effected by the South Australian Parliament:
1. A modification of the marriage law (the husband must provide for the wife and children if his brutality leads to a divorce). An enlargement of woman’s sphere in the business world. Separate property rights.2. Greater strength was given to the law compelling the father of illicit children to fulfill his pecuniary duties.3. A severer penalty for trafficking in girls.4. The increasing of the age of consent to 17.5. Improved laws providing for the care of dependent children.6. A maximum working week of 52 hours for children engaged in industry.7. Laws suppressing pornography.8. Laws prohibiting the sale of liquor and tobacco to children.9. Women were appointed to the positions of inspectors of schools, prisons, hospitals, etc.
1. A modification of the marriage law (the husband must provide for the wife and children if his brutality leads to a divorce). An enlargement of woman’s sphere in the business world. Separate property rights.
2. Greater strength was given to the law compelling the father of illicit children to fulfill his pecuniary duties.
3. A severer penalty for trafficking in girls.
4. The increasing of the age of consent to 17.
5. Improved laws providing for the care of dependent children.
6. A maximum working week of 52 hours for children engaged in industry.
7. Laws suppressing pornography.
8. Laws prohibiting the sale of liquor and tobacco to children.
9. Women were appointed to the positions of inspectors of schools, prisons, hospitals, etc.
In West Australia, where women have voted since 1899, the women were admitted to the practice of law; the age of consent was raised to 17 years; and the conditions on which divorce are granted were made the same for man and woman. In Europe people still question the practical value of woman’s suffrage.
Following the establishment of woman’s suffrage in New South Wales and Tasmania, juvenile courts were introduced; New South Wales adopted a very stringent law regulating the sale of liquor (local option; no barmaids under 21 years could be employed; the sale of liquors to children under 14 years was prohibited).
Since women have voted in the elections for the Federal Parliament they have formed the Australian Woman’s Political Association. The President is Miss Vida Goldstein, of Victoria. To the Associationbelong woman’s suffrage leagues, woman’s trade-unions, temperance societies, woman’s church clubs, and other organizations. For the present the women will not ally themselves with any of the existing parties, since the principles of none of them correspond exactly to the programme which the women have set up. The “Political Equality League” is satisfactory in one respect (equal rights for both sexes), but goes too far in its socialistic demands.
The women have succeeded in having federal laws enacted providing that all state employees be paid the same wages for the same work, and that the legal provisions for naturalization permit woman to retain her right of self-government and her individuality. The government will propose a federal law securing uniformity in the marriage laws (laws in regard to marriage, property, divorce, and parental authority).
In all the Australian colonies women have active suffrage, but not in all cases the passive. Wherever they possess the latter they have laid little claim to it:
1. because a part of the capable women believe they can work more effectively and achieve more if they are not attached to a political party;2. because the established party programmes very frequently embody the demands of the women;3. because for this reason the political parties expect no special advantage from the women, and it is difficult to secure the support of the great party papers for the women candidates;4. because the Australian elections also cost money, and the capable women are not always well-to-do.
1. because a part of the capable women believe they can work more effectively and achieve more if they are not attached to a political party;
2. because the established party programmes very frequently embody the demands of the women;
3. because for this reason the political parties expect no special advantage from the women, and it is difficult to secure the support of the great party papers for the women candidates;
4. because the Australian elections also cost money, and the capable women are not always well-to-do.
In 1903, Miss Vida Goldstein announced her candidature for the Federal Parliament and was defeated. In the federal elections of 1906 on an average 58.36 per cent of the registered men and 43.30 per cent of the registered women voted (against 53.09 and 30.96 per cent in 1903).
In two pamphlets,—Woman’s Suffrage in New Zealand, andWoman’s Suffrage in Australia,[31]—the leading men of the youngest region of the world have given their written testimony on the practical workings of woman’s suffrage. These men are prime ministers of the colonies, public prosecutors, the ministers of the various state departments, members of the lower houses in the parliaments, high dignitaries of the Church, the editors of large political newspapers. They all make the most favorable statements concerning woman’s suffrage.
“The women have demanded nothing unreasonable from their representatives, and have always placed themselves on the side of clean politics and clean politicians.” “Woman’s suffrage has brought about neither the millennium nor pandemonium,” and the New Zealanders do not understand why it is that in other countries people “can still become agitated over anything so inherently reasonable as woman’s suffrage.”
All who wish to have the right to participate in a discussion on woman’s suffrage must first study these two books of testimonials. A mere knowledge of these facts will cause much insipid discussion to cease in public meetings.
From the French consul in Dantzig, Count Jouffroy d’Abbans, one familiar with Australian conditions, I learned the following isolated facts concerning woman’s suffrage. It has a salutary influence throughout. Women show a lively interest in political and municipal questions; for the sake of their political rights they neglect their “specifically feminine” duties so little that they come to the parliamentary sessions with knitting, embroidery, and sewing. They also engage in these feminine activities while attending the night sessions. On election days there is certainly often a cold dinner or supper. But that occurs on washing days, too, and no one has yet wished to deny women the privilege of doing the washing. It is safe to saythat the Australian woman’s rights movement will not fail because of this obstacle.
GREAT BRITAIN
“England is the storm center of our movement,” declared the President of the International Woman’s Suffrage Alliance in the Amsterdam Congress. This was the conviction of the Congress, which therefore resolved to hold the next International Woman’s Suffrage Congress in London (in April, 1909). The fact is undisputed that the English suffragettes—whether one favors or opposes their actions—have made Great Britain the center of the modern woman’s rights movement. England is a European country, an old country with rigid traditions, which, nevertheless, are the freest political traditions that we have in Europe to-day. For fifty years the English women have struggled for the right to vote. In spite of the fact that their country has neither Salic Law nor continental militarism (two of the greatest obstacles to all woman’s rights movements), the English women have not as yetattained their ends. This is an indication of the tenacity of the prejudices against women in the countries of older civilizations.
The opposition offered to the political emancipation of women in England is all the more remarkable since the English women were able to exercise the right to vote on an equality with men in national elections till 1832, and in municipal elections till 1835.[32]To that time we find the same conditions prevailing in England as prevailed in the nine American commonwealths previous to 1783. This parity of circumstances is explained by the English principle of representation:no taxation without representation. In 1832 and 1835, however, the English women, who as taxpayers were qualified to vote, had the right to vote in national and municipal affairs taken from them; for the word “persons” the expression “malepersons” was substituted in the election law. When this disfranchisement took place none of those concerned cried out against it. For two hundred years the women had made no use worth mentioning of the right to vote. But a part of the women, especially those of the liberal and cultured circles, saw the significance of this retrograde step.
The political struggles of general concern during thefollowing period (such as the antislavery movement and the anticorn-law movement) furnished these women an opportunity to educate themselves in political affairs, and, like the American women of that time, they in many cases learned their political ABC by means of the same questions. Such men as Cobden, Pease, Biggs, Knight, and others were the advance guard of the political women in England. The earliest pamphlet on women’s suffrage preserved to us appeared in 1847. It is a small leaflet and says among other things, “As long as both sexes and all parties are not given a just representation, good government is impossible” (which is a paraphrase of the American principle—every just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed). The contrary view had been stated in theEncyclopædia Britannicaas early as 1842 by the father of John Stuart Mill: “It is self-evident that all persons whose interests are identical with those of a different class are excluded from political representation without injury.” Certainly from such an arrangement the “representatives” will suffer no injury. That select group of intellectual women who trained themselves politically during the antislavery movement and the struggle for free trade consisted of the mothers, the sisters, and daughters of liberal politicians and academically trained men. Many of these women were themselves students and teachers. No antagonismever existed in England between the woman’s suffrage movement and the movement favoring the education of woman.
Such were the conditions in 1866. A new election law was to be introduced in Parliament; a new class of men was to be granted the right of suffrage by the lowering of the property qualification. The women decided to present a petition to the House of Commons requesting the right to vote in national elections. The women had decided to act thus publicly because of the presence of John Stuart Mill in the House of Commons, and because of an utterance of Disraeli’s, “In a country in which a woman can be ruler, peer, church trustee, owner of estates, and guardian of the poor, I do not see in the name of what principle the right to vote can be withheld from her.” Four petitions (one signed by 1499 women, one by 1605 taxpaying women, and two more signed by 3559 and 3000 men and women) were sent to the House of Commons; and on May 20, 1867, John Stuart Mill, after he had presented the petitions, moved that the right to vote be given to the qualified women taxpayers. His motion was rejected by a vote of 196 to 73. Thereupon there were formed for systematic propaganda, woman’s suffrage societies in London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol; these cities are still the center of the movement. The new election law gave women afurther advantage—the expressionmaleperson was replaced with the generic word “man.”[33]Since an Act of Parliament (13 and 14 Vict., c. 21) declares that in all laws the masculine expression also includes the feminine,unless the contrary is expressly stated, the friends of woman’s suffrage believed they could interpret this expression in favor of women. The attempt to do this was now made. A number of qualified women demanded that they be registered with the voters; they were determined to have recourse to the law if the government commission refused to register their votes. At this time the first public meeting of women in England was held in the famous “Free Trade Hall” in Manchester. But the courts and the Supreme Court interpreted the lawagainstthe women,—“they are disqualified neither intellectually nor morally, butlegally.” Then a methodical propaganda by means of public meetings was begun; the first victory was won as early as 1869,—the women taxpayers were given the right to vote in municipal affairs in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Between 1870 and 1884, the political organization of the women was strengthened; the women of the aristocracy (Lady Amberly, Lady Anne Gore-Langton,and others) were won over to the cause of woman’s suffrage. A “Central Committee for Woman’s Suffrage” was formed, and a number of excellent women speakers (Biggs, Maclaren, Becker, Fawcett, Craigen, Kingsley, Tod, and others) spoke throughout the country. A further success was achieved when the Parliament of the Isle of Man[34](House of Keys) gave qualified women the right to vote.
In 1884, the property qualification was again reduced through a new election law; the friends of woman’s suffrage took advantage of this opportunity to present a motion in Parliament favoring woman’s suffrage, in support of which the following statements were made: “Two million men, many of whom are ignorant and uneducated, and possess only a small plot of ground, are to be given political rights. On what principle is the same right withheld from 300,000 women who are educated and who are landowners?” This motion was lost also. In 1885 the English women, in order to make their influence felt in political affairs, formed the “Primrose League,” which supported the Conservative candidates in the election campaigns; and in 1887 was formed the “Women’s Liberal Federation,” which supported the Liberals in a similar manner. The next attempt to secure woman’s suffragewas made in 1897, but it was unsuccessful. During the Boer War woman’s suffrage receded into the background, and not until March 14, 1904, was a woman’s suffrage bill again introduced; this bill did not become law. At that time the woman’s suffrage movement was lifeless, and in a thoroughly hopeless condition. All the usual means of propaganda had been exhausted,—meetings, petitions, and personal work during campaigns made no impressions either on the members of Parliament, the government, or on public opinion. It was no longer possible to educe argumentsagainstthe right ofqualifiedwomen to vote (it was not a question of universal suffrage, but, just as in the case of the men, it was a matter of granting the franchise to women holding property in their own name and earning their own living). Governments, however, wish to becoercedinto granting the franchise, and the representatives of the woman’s suffrage movement were not determined enough to exercise the necessary coercion. Therefore, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies transferred the leadership of the movement to the National Women’s Social and Political Union, whose members are known by the name of suffragettes. This transference of leadership took place during the autumn of 1905.
The suffragettes then adopted militant tactics, making the government their point of attack. This wasa good stroke, for since 1905 England has had a Liberal Cabinet, and several of the ministers and over 400 of the 600 members of the House of Commons have declared themselves as friends of woman’s suffrage. “Then why don’t you grant us our political freedom?” asked the suffragettes.
The women are heads of families, they pay rent and taxes, just as the men. All their conditions of livelihood are as dependent upon the laws as are those of the men. Aliberalgovernment andliberalmembers of Parliament ought to be liberal towards women and grant them the suffrage. Many of these ministers and many members of Parliament owe their political careers, their election, and their influence to the practical campaign activities of women or to the woman’s suffrage movement, which they supported in order to enlarge their political influence. They have made use of the woman’s suffrage movement and now wish to do nothing in return. The fate of all woman’s suffrage bills introduced since 1870 (13 in number) proves that it is hopeless to have such bills introduced by private members.Women must turn their hopes to a bill introduced by the government.The present Liberal government needs only to treat the matter seriously; then a woman’s suffrage bill will be passed.
But the government has not treated the matter seriously; hence the suffragettes have declared war.It is their determination to fight every ministry which is not kindly disposed toward the suffrage movement.
The struggle is carried on by the following means: organization of societies; meetings throughout the country; street parades and open air meetings (especially significant are those of June 13 and 21, 1908); the employment of first-class speakers, who make concise, clear, ingenious, and stirring speeches; the raising of large sums of money (20,000 pounds,i.e.$100,000 annually; there is a reserve fund of 50,000 pounds,i.e.$250,000); the publication of a well-managed periodical,Votes for Women.[35]
The leaders are Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst, Mrs. Drummond, Annie Kenney, Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence. These and the most determined of their associates undertake to send deputations to the Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, and to ask the question in all public meetings in which members of the Cabinet speak,—when will you give women the right to vote?
The deputations go to Parliamentbecause women, as taxpayers, have the right to speak to the Prime Minister, who continually receives deputations of men. Since the Prime Minister does not wish to grant women the right to vote, the deputations of women are preventedfrom entering the Houses of Parliament by strong squads of police, both mounted and on foot; and if the women do not desist from their attempt to make known to the Prime Minister the resolutions of their meeting, they are arrested for the disturbance of the peace, the interruption of traffic, or the instigation of tumult and riot; they are arraigned in thepolice courtand are sentenced to imprisonment in the ordinary prisons. The Liberal government stubbornly refuses to regard these women as political offenders and to punish them as such.
The woman’s suffrage advocates, who ask the Cabinet members questions in public meetings, direct their questions to both friends and opponents of woman’s suffrage. For, they inquire, of what use are our friends to us if they do nothing for us? The members of the English Cabinet have a joint responsibility for their political programme. If the friends of woman’s suffrage treat the matter seriously, they must either convert their colleagues or resign. As long as they do not do that, they are merely playing with woman’s suffrage and the women think it necessary to “heckle” them. The women who ask the questions are often ejected from the meetings in a very rough way.[36]
The suffragettes give the government conclusive proof of their political power when they oppose Liberalcandidates at all by-elections and contribute to the defeat of the candidates or cause a reduction of their votes. To the present this has occurred in fourteen cases. It is due to the success of these tactics that the whole world is to-day speaking about woman’s suffrage, which has become a burning political question in England. All along the people and the press are giving greater support to the suffragettes who have the courage to brave the horrors of the London prison, and there become acquainted with the distress of the poor, the destitute, and the helpless.
During the last three or four years of the activity of the suffragettes a great number of woman’s suffrage organizations were founded: The Woman’s Freedom League (Mrs. Despard), The Men’s League for Woman’s Suffrage, The Artists’ Suffrage League, The Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association, The Actresses’ Franchise League, The Writers’ League, etc. Scotland and Ireland have their own woman’s suffrage associations.
In opposition there have been formed the National Women’s Antisuffrage Association and a Men’s League for Opposing Woman’s Suffrage (those are supported chiefly by the aristocratic circles). They declare that woman does not need the right to vote since she exercises an “enormous indirect influence”; that woman does notwishthe right to vote; that hersubordination is based on natural law since brute force rules the world; woman’s suffrage would result in England’s destruction, if a majority of women voters (England has a majority of women) were permitted to decide questions concerning the army and navy.
The leader of the suffragettes, Mrs. Fawcett, recently established the fact that the newly formed Association has a considerably smaller number of prominent names among its membersthan the organization formed two years ago, which soon came to an inglorious end. She emphasized the fact that the two important women, who at that time still favored the antisuffrage movement,—Mrs. Louise Creighton and Mrs. Sidney Webb,—have since gone over to the suffrage advocates. On the occasion of Mrs. Fawcett’s public debate with Mrs. Humphry Ward, the leader of the antisuffragists (in February, 1909), it happened that 235 of those present favored woman’s suffrage and 74 were opposed.
The argument against the brute force statement was treated in three excellent articles inVotes for Womenunder the title “The Physical Force Fallacy.”[37]The most influential of the English women, together with the women in the industries, the students of both sexes, the workingwomen,—in short, the intellectual and professional women are in favor of the suffragettes;and the woman’s suffrage advocates have “the spiritual certainty” that moves mountains. Let no one believe that the appeals made on the streets, the parades of the women as sandwich-men, or the noisy publicity of their tactics are gladly indulged in by the women. These actions are entirely opposed to woman’s nature. But the women have recognized that these tactics are necessary and they act accordingly because it is their duty. Such movements have always been successful.
Women do not possess the right to vote in parliamentary elections; but, if taxpayers, they can vote in municipal affairs in the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. Themarriedwomen of England and Wales have a restricted right of suffrage, however: they are “persons” and therefore voters in parochial elections, in the election of poor-law administrators, and of urban and rural district councillors; but they are not regarded as “persons” and are not voters in elections for the borough and county councils. In one single case, in the County of London, by the law of 1900, married women were given almost the same rights as those exercised by married women in Scotland and Ireland.[38]The right of single or married women to hold office (passive suffrage)[39]has prevailed in England and Walessince 1869 in respect to the offices of guardians of the poor, overseers, waywardens, churchwardens,—and since 1870 (Education Act) in respect to school boards.[40]At the very first school elections women were elected, which induced women to have themselves presented also as candidates for the offices of poor-law administrators. In 1875 the first unmarried woman was elected to that office, the first married woman in 1881. In the discharge of their duties in both classes of offices the women have acted admirably. Nevertheless, the reactionary Education Act of June, 1903, took away from the women the right to hold office as members of school boards in the County of London. They can still secure administrative offices by governmental appointment, but no longer by an election. In 1888 were created the county councils for England and Wales; the county councils were at the same time organs for the self-governing municipalities. Since this law, like those of 1869 and 1870, did not specially exclude women from the right to hold office, two women, Mrs. Cobden and Lady Sandhurst, presented themselves as candidates for the office of county councillors of London. They were elected. Thereupon Mrs. Beresford-Hope, whom Lady Sandhurst had defeated, contested the legality of the election. In 1889, the Court of Appeals declared that women were eligible to public office onlywhen thisis expressly stated.[41]This decision of the Court, which was in conflict with the English Constitution, also brought about the loss of the right of the women of Scotland and Ireland to hold office as county councillors.
As a result of this judicial decision, when the new Local Self-government Act for England and Wales was enacted (1894), it was necessary expressly to state the eligibility of women (unmarried and married) to hold the minor local offices (parish, urban, rural district councillors, poor-law guardians, etc.). Article 22, however (in spite of historical precedents), excluded women from the office of justice of the peace. In 1894 the same thing occurred in Scotland, and in 1898 in Ireland.
In 1899, the attempt to secure the eligibility of women to the metropolitan borough councils (for London only)[42]failed, owing to the opposition of the House of Lords.
The law of 1907,[43]known as theQualification of Women Act, grants unmarried women the right to hold office in the borough and county councils (councillor, alderman, mayor). Married women have this right only in the County of London; elsewhere they canmerely vote for these officers.[44]On the occasion of the first elections under this act twelve women presented themselves as candidates; six were elected (one as mayor); hitherto the women had been elected only in small places, and then owing to exceptional circumstances. Whoever investigates the struggle of the women to secure their rights in the local government and studies the attitude of the men toward these exceedingly just demands will comprehend the exasperating circumstances under which the women are to-day struggling for the right to vote in the English parliamentary elections. In questions of power and of gaining a livelihood [Macht- und Brotfragen] the nobility of man can really not be depended upon.
The woman’s suffrage movement has led to the consummation of a number of legal reforms: the property laws now legalize the separation of the property of husband and wife[45]; in the United Kingdom the wife administers her own property and disposes of it, and has full control over her earnings. The remainder of the laws regulating marriage are still rather rigorous,—in England at least; the wife has nohereditary rightto her husband’s property. If she economizes in the administration of the household, the savings belong to the husband. The wife cannot demand any pay inmoney for performing her domestic duties; the mere expenses of maintenance are sufficient remuneration, etc. In normal cases thefatheralone has authority over the children. It is made very difficult for a woman to secure a divorce, etc.[46]
The women that have labored so untiringly in political affairs have very naturally made it a point to promote the educational opportunities of their sex. Since 1870, the elementary school system has been regulated by the school boards, which have introduced obligatory public instruction. In these institutions the boys and girls are segregated (except in the rural districts). On an average there is one male teacher to every three women teachers in these institutions. The secondary schools are private, as in Australia. Hence it was not necessary for the English women to wrest every concession from a reluctant government (as was the case in Germany); but private initiative, combined with the devotion of private individuals, made possible in a few years the full reorganization of England’s institutions of learning for girls. This reorganization began in 1868 and led to the following results: the establishment of higher institutions of learning in all English cities (these are called girls’ public day schools, most of them being day schools. Theyare governed by committees consisting of the founders, the principals, and the qualified advisers). Latin and mathematics are obligatory studies in the curriculum. The schools are in close relationship with Oxford and Cambridge universities, the universities inspecting the schools and supervising the various examinations (including the examinations of the students upon leaving the schools). In England these schools are for girls only; in Scotland, girls attend similar schools which are coeducational. The number of women teachers is estimated at 8000.
Admission to the universities was secured with difficulty by the women. At first a number of women requested the privilege of attending lectures in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Since these universities are resident colleges, it was necessary to provide boarding places for women. This was done in 1869 and 1870 in both places, through the work of Miss Emily Davies and Miss Anna Clough. Both of these beginnings developed into the women’s colleges of Girton and Newnham. Since then, St. Margaret’s Hall, Somersville Hall, and Holloway College have been established for women. These institutions correspond to the German philosophical faculties [the colleges of literature and liberal arts in the United States]. An entrance examination is necessary for admission. The course of study is three years. Thefinal examination, called “tripos,” embraces three subjects; it corresponds to the GermanOberlehrerexamen,—examinations given to candidates for the position of teachers in theGymnasiums, theRealgymnasiums,Oberrealgymnasiums, etc. Theology, medicine, and law cannot be studied in these woman’s colleges (any more than in the American woman’s colleges). Part of the teachers live in the woman’s college buildings; part of them belong to the faculties of Oxford and Cambridge. The former are women tutors and professors.
The English colleges for women are maintained by private funds. Many women not wishing to take the “tripos” examination or to become teachers attend the university to acquire a higher education. Others prepare themselves for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, or Doctor of Philosophy. These examinations are accepted by Oxford and Cambridge universities, but the women are not granted the corresponding titles, because the use of such titles would make the womenFellowsof the University, which would entitle them to the use of the university gardens and parks, and to live in one of the colleges. All other universities in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with the exception of Trinity College, Dublin, admit women to all departments, accepting their examinations and granting them academic degrees.
The women’s colleges are centers of sport,—incidentally they possess their own fire department. To arouse an interest in political affairs and to develop facility in speaking, debating clubs have been organized. More than 1300 women have graduated from Cambridge, and more than 1200 from the University of London. When Mary Putnam wished to study medicine in 1868, she had to go to Paris. Jex Blake, who attempted the same thing in Edinburgh in 1869, was driven out by the students. She went to London and was there at first given instruction by the noble Dr. Anstie. As early as 1870 there was formed in London a special School of Medicine for women, to which a hospital for women was later attached, being directed and supported entirely by women physicians. To-day, 553 women doctors are practicing in Great Britain. Of these 538 have expressed themselves in favor of, and 15 against, woman’s suffrage. In England, women were first permitted to take the public examination in dental surgery as late as 1908; while the Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Irish Royal Colleges of Surgeons had admitted them long before. Women can study law in England, but as yet they have not been admitted to the bar. If this privilege were granted to women, they would have to affiliate with the London lawyers’ associations, such as theInner Temple, theMiddle Temple,Gray’s Inn, etc. Members of these organizations must several times a monthattend the dinners or banquets of the lawyers. These corporate customs of the English Bar are said to exclude women from the legal profession just as similar customs have excluded them from tutorships and professorships in Oxford and Cambridge.
In spite of this, Miss Cave recently sought admission toGray’s Inn, but was refusedbecause she was a woman. She appealed her case to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but they declared that they had no jurisdiction; the matter will be pursued further. The first woman preacher in England, a native of Germany, Miss v. Petzold, studied theology in Germany and graduated there. After her trial sermon in Leicester she was elected in preference to her male competitors. Later she accepted a call to Chicago. The Congregationalists have four women preachers; the Salvation Army over 3000. Except in those callings where personal ability is determinative, the salaries of English women are lower than those of the men. The women have a large field for their efforts in the public schools (where there are three women teachers to one man teacher). In the secondary schools for girls, instruction and control are entirely in the hands of women; their salaries are quite sufficient (the minimum being 100 pounds sterling, about $500). As we have seen, the higher institutions of learning also offer the women well-paid positions (the tutorsbeing paid $2000, with board and lodging; the principals $2500).
Thewell-paidcivil offices are reserved for the men. Although there are more women teachers and more female students in the schools than males, there are 244 male inspectors of public schools and 18 women inspectors; the male inspector-general is paid 1000 pounds sterling annually, the woman inspector-general 500 pounds. In the secondary schools there are 20 male inspectors and 3 women inspectors with annual salaries of 400 to 800 pounds, and 300 pounds respectively. The women teachers of the elementary schools (of whom there are approximately 111,000) draw on an average two thirds the salary of the men teachers, though they have the same training and do the same amount of work.
In spite of the fact that there are two million women engaged in industry, there are 900 male factory inspectors and hardly 60 female factory inspectors. Here again the men are paid 1000 pounds and the women only 500 pounds a year. In the postal and telegraph service the same injustice exists: the men begin with a minimum wage of 20 shillings a week, while the women are paid 14 shillings; the men increase their salaries to 62 shillings a week; the women to 30 shillings. The male telegraph operator begins with 18 shillings and is finally given 65 shillings aweek; the woman telegraph operator begins with 16 and reaches 40 shillings. The male clerks of the second division of the civil service are paid 250 pounds and the women 100 annually. In 1908, the number of women employees in the postal and telegraph service of Great Britain was 13,259; the number of women supernumeraries, 30,476: total number, 43,735. The highest positions (heads of departments, staff officers) have been attained by 4 women and by 178 men.
In recent years many new callings have been opened to women living in the cities. They are engaged in the manufacture of confectionery. Prominent and wealthy women have established businesses of their own, in which fine confections are produced,—in many cases by destitute, nervous, and overworked women music teachers. Women are active as bookbinders, stockbrokers, bills of exchange agents, auditors, teachers of domestic economy, instructors in gymnastics, ladies’ guides, wardrobe dealers (the costly robes of the women of fashion are sold on commission through agents), paperers and decorators, etc.
The Woman’s Institute[47]has published a complete handbook on the occupations of women. This book does not omit the occupation of explorer, in which Mrs. French Sheldon has distinguished herself (by exploration in the interior of Africa). In London, thenumber of women engaged in gainful pursuits is naturally very large, many of the women being alone in the world. The women journalists and authoresses in London have been numerous enough to organize a club of their own,—the Writers’ Club, in the Strand. The number of women employed in commercial houses is very large,—450,000. The weekly wages, especially the wages of the saleswomen in the shops, are often quite moderate, 20 to 25 shillings where exceptional demands are made as to attractive dress and appearance. The women have organized the Shop Assistants’ Union. For women with this weekly wage the securing of good rooms and board at a reasonable price is a vital question. There are three apartment houses for workingwomen,—theSloane Garden Houses, and the apartments for women in Chenies Street and in York Street. Women teachers, designers, artists, bookkeepers, cashiers, secretaries and stenographers obtain room and board here at varying rates. There are bedrooms (with two beds) for 4½ to 5 shillings a week for each person, furnished rooms for 10 to 14 shillings. The dining room is a restaurant. Only the evening meal, dinner (served from 6 to 7), is served to all at once. This meal costs 10 pence (20 cents). In Chenies Street living expenses are somewhat higher: 6 pence for breakfast, 9 pence for luncheon, 1 shilling for dinner; which is about 55cents a day for board. For suites of two to four rooms $15 to $30 a month is charged. TheAlexandra Housein Kensington offers women artists similar privileges; theBrabanzon House(under the protection of the Countess of Meath) accommodates employees of the shops only. Since the English women are—fortunately—independent in spirit, these institutions lack the scholastic, monastic, or tutelary characteristics that are unfortunately found in many similar institutions on the continent.
Very few of the English women have become industrial entrepreneurs. However, they have directed their attention to agriculture as a means of earning a livelihood and have organized agricultural schools for women. Here the women engage especially in poultry raising, vegetable and fruit growing, which in England are very lucrative; England annually imports 41 million pounds’ worth of milk, eggs, poultry, vegetables, and fruits. The councils of London, Berkshire, Essex, and Kent counties support the Horticultural College for women in Swanley, Kent, which was founded privately by wealthy and influential persons. In England 100,000 women are engaged in agriculture. The demand for trained women gardeners to-day still exceeds the supply. Trained women gardeners are frequently engaged for a long term of years to teach untrained gardeners. Women areemployed in the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew and in Edinburgh. Holloway College has a woman gardener. In 1898 a model farm for women was founded by Lady Warwick in Reading. The institution began with twelve women students, who cultivated two acres of land. Within a year the number of students was quadrupled; and then eleven acres were cultivated instead of two.
The woman that wishes to learn stock feeding and dairying is sent to a special farm. The course requires two years. TheAgricultural Association for Women, founded by Lady Warwick, aids the women agriculturists and finds positions for the pupils. In Great Britain there are eight public schools in which women can learn agriculture and gardening. Many county councils have established courses in gardening, to which women are admitted.
Agriculture is encouraged in England because the migration from the country to the city has increased extraordinarily. Agriculture is restricted in favor of stock raising, which gives employment to fewer laborers than agriculture. In spite of the great increase in population, the number of agriculturists has steadily decreased since 1851. On the other hand, the industrial population (and it is predominantly urban) has increased significantly. Every industrialization means a pauperization to a certain extent. It produces thearmy of unskilled laborers, the victims of the sweating system, who in a destitute condition are left to eke out their wretched existence in the “East Ends” of the large cities. There is no corresponding misery in the country districts. A marked industrialization therefore causes a degree of general pauperism such as is unknown in the agricultural regions of western Europe. The pursuit of gardening among women has a social-political significance. The English laboring population is estimated at 4,000,000 people, among whom the trade-union movement has made considerable progress. The English trade-union statistics of 1904 show 148 trade-unions having women members. There are all together 125,094 female members,i.e.6.7 per cent of all organized laborers. The greatest number of these are in the textile industries (almost 100,000). The total number of women laborers in this industry is 800,000.
In the textile industry, in which women are better organized than elsewhere (there being 96,000), there existed in 1906 the preceding difference between the wages of men and women (see table, p. 84).
The organization of women laborers was first advocated by Mrs. Paterson and Miss Simcox at the trade-union congress held in Glasgow in 1875. But this organization is confronted with the same difficulties as exist elsewhere: the women believe that they are engaged in non-domestic work only temporarily; therefore they are interested in the improvement of labor only to a slight degree, and in addition are burdened with housework; while the male laborer is free when the factory closes. In almost all industries women are paid lower wages than men,—partly because those who are poorly equipped are given the lower grades of work and are not given an opportunity to do the more difficult work; partly, too, becausethey are women, i.e.people of the second order. Weekly wages of 5 to 7 shillings are common. Naturally, the workingwoman who is all alone in the world cannot exist on such a sum. Inoneindustry only the women are given the same pay as the men for doing the same work,—this is the textile industry in Lancashire. Since 1847 this industry has been protected by a law prohibiting night work for women. In this industry men and women laborers are organizedin the same trade-union. The standard of living of the whole body of workers is very high. There can be no doubt that the legislation for the protection of the laborers of this industry, in which the exploitation of women and children had been carried to the extreme previous to 1847, has caused the raising of the general standard of living. Without the intervention of law, exploitation would have been pursued further in this industry. So the English women have before them an example of the salutary effect of legislation for the protection of the laborers in the textile industries. Nevertheless, there is in England a faction among the woman’s rights advocates which vigorously resists every movement for the protection of women laborers; it has organized itself into the “League for Freedom of Labor Defense.” It acts on the principle that every law for the protection of women laborers signifies an unjustifiable tutelage; that the workingwomen should defend themselves through the organization of trade-unions; that the laws for the protection of women laborers decrease women’s opportunities for work and drive them from their positions, which are filled by men (who can work at night).
These fears are based purely on theory. In practice they are realized only in entirely isolated cases. The truth is that legislation for the protection of women laborers (prohibition of night work and the fixingof a maximum number of work hours a day) is entirely favorable to an overwhelming majority of workingwomen. It protects them against a degree of exploitation that they could not resist unaided becausethe majority of them are not organized, and have no power to organize themselves; they will secure this power only through laws protecting women laborers. A comparative international study of laws for the protection of women laborers, published by the Belgian department of labor,[49]shows that the number of women laborers has nowhere decreased, and that wages have not declined as a result.
Concerning this point Mrs. Sidney Webb says: “In most cases womencannotbe replaced by men, either because the men are not sufficiently dextrous or because their labor is too expensive. What employer will pay a man 20 to 30 shillings a week when a woman can accomplish just as much for 5 to 12 shillings a week?” We shall return to this subject in discussing France.
Those women that are members of trade-unions persistently demand the right to vote; many of them intimate that through this right they expect to secure an increase in wages. Naturally the wishes of women laborers possessing the franchise will be considered very differently from the wishes of those not possessingthis right. Proof of this has been given by the American woman’s suffrage states. Previous to the debates on woman’s suffrage in Parliament in 1904, a deputation of workingwomen from the potteries in Staffordshire presented the members of Parliament from that district with a petition having 4000 signatures, requesting the introduction of a woman’s suffrage bill, so that women might not continue to be excluded from all well-paid positions on account of their political inferiority. On this occasion the Hon. Mr. A. L. Emmott (member of Parliament from the Oldham district) declared that the salary of the women employees in the postal savings banks had been reduced from 65 pounds (with an annual increase of 3 pounds) to 55 pounds (with an annual increase of 2 pounds, 10 shillings).This would have been impossible if women had had the right to vote.Domestic servants are as yet organized only to a small extent, but they are well trained; they number 1,331,000.