October 13, 1911, To the Editor of The Times, “Liberal Measures Affecting the Working
Classes”
The “intrusion” of legislation into social and domestic space that resulted from the various
reforms of the later nineteenth and earlier twentieth century in England became an argument
for woman suffrage. Here, the presence of children in public houses becomes the center of
an argument in favor of the social benefits of woman suffrage in New Zealand, where female
drunkenness has decreased since the enfranchisement of women, and the suffragist argument
that women’s perspectives on social problems expressed through their votes will yield better
legislation.
Sir, –The letter which you publish in your columns to-day, signed, ‘A Working Woman,’
forms a strong prima facie argument for the need of woman’s point of view in the State
to-day. Legislation, especially under Liberal administration, is tending to become more
and more domestic and social in trend. Here is a case where it is deliberately interfering
with the relations of parent and child. As Mr. Chesterton put it at the Queen’s Hall the
other night, an immense step would have been taken in the direction of social reform if
all those women who entered a public-house refused point-blank to leave their children
outside. Such a situation would undoubtedly have arisen if the women had possessed a
feeling that they were responsible citizens of their country. But, being in their present
irresponsible position, they accept the status quo as inevitable. Undoubtedly the drink
problem is a terrible one, but this is not the way to solve it—at the expense of the children.
If women had had the voice in national affairs which they demand, such harmful and
sentimental tinkering as this would not have taken place. For a wiser example let us look
to New Zealand, where women have had the vote since 1893, and where the Licensing Act
of 1908 has got well to grips with this problem, for the average of convictions of women for
drunkenness per 1,000 has been steadily lowered from 2.51 to 1.68. Your working woman
correspondent, having more sense upon such a matter as this than a whole male Cabinet,
suggests that while public-houses exist under their present condition the only feasible
alternatives are to let the children in or to force the public-houses to provide decent
nurseries for the children. That the innocent should suffer for the guilty is unpardonable.
But it will happen so long as the State is one-sided in view.
Yours, &c.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram-street, W.C., Oct. 12