or not, is opposed tooth and nail. For every Government—Liberal or Conservative—that refuses to grant Female Suffrage is ipso facto the enemy. The cause is to be greater than mere party. Damage the Government—that is the whole secret.
Are these tactics sound? In my opinion absolutely so. They are not only ladylike, they are constitutional. They are the only legitimate way in which woman can bring direct political pressure upon the Government. Serious as may be the questions which divide the parties, woman is justified in thinking that there is none so serious as her own exclusion from a voice in any of them. And so I would venture to advise those ladies who meditate martyrdom to choose a male victim instead. Far better than to put yourself in prison is to keep a man out of Parliament. It may be said women ought to oppose only those candidates who are against Female Suffrage. But they are so difficult to find. There never was a cause with so many champions. Why, there are elections in which both candidates swear devotion, and what is poor woman to do then? No, let her remorselessly pursue the Government; there will be at least this advantage, that the candidate, having nothing to gain by declaring himself in favour of Women's Suffrage, will be reduced to telling the truth. Then we shall know where we really are. Open foes are better than false friends.
But although these tactics are sound, I trust woman will not have to fight every inch of her way. I trust that man's chivalry and justice, which have awakened in New Zealand, Finland and other outlandish places, will not much longer lie dormant in the so-called centres of civilisation, and that, hand in hand, man and woman will try to work out the problems of the social order. There is no problem upon which an intelligent woman cannot throw some new light, and in neglecting woman's help, men are not merely
