The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1911. WOMEN’S SUFFRACE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 4, 14 December 1911, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1911. WOMEN’S SUFFRACE.

The case for and against women’s suffrage was recently debated before a large audience in the Queen’s. Hall, London, Mrs F. T. Swanwick, of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, taking the platform with Mr Gi. K. Chesterton. The contest «as an entertaining one, Mrs Swanwick, in opening, attacking the argument’ that women would be at all likely to subordinate the interests ol the State to those of woman. What woman did ask for was liberty to use all her qualities, many of which she possessed in common with men; they were in fact not masculine, but human. In urging that the influence of women in politics might be expected to be uplifting, she said that at present the mass of the electors took a purely sporting interest in politics; but, she added, “men made the party system, not women.” Politics as men had made it had produced on the one hand this levity among the electors, and on the side of the governing classes the small oligarchy ■pf men in power which looked at politics largely from the point of view of profit. Hut there was nothing wrong with the vote in itself; it was the way men had used it which was wrong. She protested against “the preposterous cant” of pretending tc consult the will of the people when nothing was done to ascertain the will of one half of the people. Women were told that they exaggerated the power of law to influence lives, but, speaking as an individualist who hated the growing interference of government with the lives ot the people, she said women had no choice but to urge that they should he consulted in the making of the

mvs, Mr Chesterton, in the course of his entertaining reply, observed that it was possible to agree with He principle of female suffrage without claiming that it was “essential” to the State. For instance, he might say ;; republic was better than i monarchy without meaning that it a essential to introduce a republic into this country. As a matter of fact, the vote was not essential at

ciiis moment. If it were proposed to take the vote away from men, lie should resist it, because lie would know that the attempt was the effort of an evil oligarchy working for its own ends; hut lie would not lie really ■onccrncd. The power of demoracy as it existed in the world expressed itself nowhere in Europe through the vote. Half the males in the country did not vote now, and although ho agreed with the democratic idea lie did not think that the experiment of working democracy by the vote had been very well tried or even completed. The vote was not a thing to talk about as if it were Westminster Abbey or the Garden of Eden. It was a clumsy piece of machinery which happened to have work'd badly in the case of men and which it was row sought to extend > women. He did not think that ir.yone would really claim that women card more for ideals than for individuals or that they were wanted 'like policemen) to bring ideals into

politic;!! life. Each speaker madetwo speeches, and at the close a .resolution moved by airs Swanwick a'finning that “it is to the host interests of the State that women should have the Parliamentary franchise” was carried by a large majority, which went,at least, to show that her audience was {sympathetic.