WOMEN AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—In the debate on the Conciliation Bill in the House of Commons on March 28th Mr. Baker again brought forward Miss Violet Markham's argument that the work of local government, which belongs naturally to women, has been practically neglected by them, and he quoted figures showing the small number of women at present sitting on municipal _councils and boards. I do not think the real answer to this charge has received the attention it deserves. The simple truth is, as Mr. Snowden pointed out in his speech, that the reason why more women are not elected to municipal bodies is to be found, not in the apathy of the women, but in " the masculine prejudice prevailing against them." In estimating the number of the women who are willing " to take advantage of the opportunities they now have," as Mr. Baker puts it, it is obvious that the primary consideration must bo the number of candidates who come forward. In the last Metro- politan Borough election (and there has only been one general election since the Act was passed enabling women to stand) sixty-four women came forward, but eight only were elected. The fact that, on the first opportunity afforded them, no fewer than sixty-four women should have been prepared to stand for the Metropolitan Borough Councils alone is an unmistak- able proof of women's readiness to serve ; the fact that eight only were elected shows with equal clearness the reluctance of men to accept their services. That this is the case will not be denied by any one who has any knowledge of these municipal elections. It is notorious that no woman has more than a remote chance of getting on to any of the councils =less she is supported by one or other of the party organizations. Experience shows that neither Moderates nor Progressives are at present willing to place even tolerably safe seats at the disposal of women, and hence, as a rule, a woman must be content either to stand as an independent candidate, against both parties and at great additional expense to herself, or else to throw iu her lot with the losing side, who only accept her help because the party man is reluctant to fight. Parliament, it is true, has given woman a mandate to serve in local government, and she is anxious to accept it; but the party organizations, entirely managed by men, resent her presence as an intrusion and deny her that helping hand which nowadays is almost a necessity in times of election.
One word more. Both Mr, Baker and Miss Violet Markham have the hardihood to charge women with indifference to, and lack of sympathy with, "causes which concern the aged, the sick, the destitute, the erring, the welfare of little children," and to dilate upon their failure to take advantage of the opportunities now offered them of serving these causes. In making this charge they apparently agree in ignoring the thousands of women now doing voluntary work as school managers, members of advisory committees, after-care com- mittees, distress committees, boarding-out committees, old- age pension committees, and the like, all the army of paid workers, such as district nurses, police-court matrons, sanitary inspectors, factory inspectors, and many others, and, lastly, the vast field or charitable effort upon which a countless number of women, paid and unpaid, arc toiling and have toiled from time immemorial. Theirs is a splendid work not done in the "limelight," and surely we have a right to expect that it should not be ignored in order to give a false point to an anti-
suffragist argument.—I am, Sir, &e., ELINOR RE N D re,L.
[We cannot admit to our Correspondence Columns letters dealing with either side of the suffrage question. The problem of Woman and Local Government is, however, a different matter, and as Mrs. Rendel's letter is written from a point of view hostile to that of the Spectator wo find room for it. We do not, however, desire to continue the correspondence on this subject.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
