[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In your article
on " Mr. Trevelyan " I find the following words :—" It is becoming more and more the belief of wise men, in spite of Carlyle's clumsy ridicule, that no good-will on the part of statesmen is enough effectually to fix the attention of the Legislature on the miseries of the unrepresented,—that adequate representation does a great deal more to bring to light what is evil in the condition of the people, than any amount of right-mindedness that is not reinforced by the stimulus of political power." This passage exactly embodies the experience and convictions of women-suffragists. No good-will on the part of our statesmen in the past has ever sufficed to fix their attention adequately on the miseries of unrepresented women ; adequate representation will do a great deal more to bring to light what is evil in their condition than any amount of right-minded- ness that is not reinforced by the stimulus of Parliamentary votes.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[There is nothing inconsistent between our view that women do not need direct representation, and that agricultural labourers do. We hold that the women of all represented classes always have been and still are fully represented by their fathers, hus- bands, and brothers, and that we have seen the result, not only in the Married Women's Property Act, but in other still more important decisions of the Legislature.—Eo. Spectator.]
Previous page
