Page:Lily Gair Wilkinson - Revolutionary Socialism and the Woman's Movement.djvu/20

 17 minority—leaving the vast majority, the working class women, in bondage. They would thus subordinate the interests of their sex to the interests of their class. From the beginning of the movement it has been so; the famous John Stuart Mill petition and amendment of 1866 and 1867 demanded the suffrage for women on the ground of property qualifications. The petition began with these words;—"That it having been expressly laid down by high authorities that the possession of property in this country carries with it the right to vote," etc.

At the present day these bourgeois reformers are agitating on the same lines, in spite of their fair words to working women; but in the face of Socialist criticism the true facts are now disguised by false pretences. It is claimed that working women would be enfranchised if a limited Bill were passed. This, in fact, is one of the main contentions of its supporters. They state that the majority of women enfranchised under the householder, lodger, and "latch-key" franchises would be women of the working class. This sounds well in theory, because it is obvious that the majority of women who might vote under such a franchise would, be working women, if they could fulfil the necessary conditions. But what are those conditions? To vote as an "occupier" a woman would have to be the owner or tenant of a house for which rates have been paid, and could then only vote after a year's occupancy. As a "resident" a woman might vote by the "latch-key" franchise as inhabitant of a house, flat, or single room; but in this case the "resident landlord" must have no control over her habitation. Legal decisions, such as that of Douglas v. Smith, have made the actual working of this franchise exceedingly difficult. For a "lodger's" vote a twelve month's occupation of a separate room, with an annual rental, unfurnished, of £10, or, furnished, of 5/ per week, is necessary, The "service" vote is given to an occupier who occupies by virtue of his service, and does not apply to servants living in the employer's house.

Now, taking all these qualifications into account, the possibility of a large women-worker's vote dwindles away. Certainly women of the capitalist class could qualify to use the franchise, even when they were not independent, property-holders. Capitalists already buy for their sons the necessary qualifications tor voting; with this kind of woman's suffrage they could do the same for their daughters, and so greatly increase the voting power of the propertied class. But how are the women of the working class to get their