Women and Internationalism in Europe

[ . . . ] My summer’s trip to Europe had an added charm thru the active interest and very pleasant part which I took in five International Congresses, held in Paris, Vienna, Buda-Pesht, The Hague and Antwerp. It really imprest me to note how the feminist movement had grown apace. Today I am convinced that it is one of the most stirring and vital in the world, appealing to a very large number of men as well as women. For instance, at the Peace Congress, held at The Hague in August, my resolution recommending to the peoples of the world that in order to attain universal peace they should give favorable consideration to the movement for the granting of equal political rights to men and women, was signed by every member of the Committee on Sociology, except one. This was a Dutch gentleman, anxious about his political fences at home, who apologetically explained that for political reasons he must decline. This action was perhaps made more noteworthy by the fact that every member of that committee was a man—except myself. [ . . . ]

But it was the International Woman Suffrage Congress, held in Buda-Pesht in June, which perhaps created the greatest stir of the summer, in the region where it was held. There never had been before such a large congress held in Hungary. Twenty-eight hundred men and women were participants, and twenty-six nations were represented. A preliminary congress was held during two days at Vienna; and the echoes of the addresses reverberated down the Danube to the Hungarian capital.

The Hungarian Free Masons invited some of our speakers to enlighten them at a special meeting, held in the Lodge, for that purpose. I have always understood that the Masons refuse to admit women members on the exploded ground that we cannot keep secrets. But the Hungarian Masons certainly seemed most eager to gather from us any secrets we might have to tell! If Susan B. Anthony could have risen from her grave and could have peeped into that assembly hall, occupied by a sprinkling of women, and a large number of men who filled the seats, who overflowed into the aisles, and who eagerly drank in our words and greeted all our points with hearty applause, she would have again uttered her prophesy: “Failure is impossible!” [ . . . ] There was a White Slave Congress held in London, at which Mrs. Catt¹ presided for one day. She controlled the meeting with such power and yet such courtesy that I heard a universal comment not exactly favorable to the presidents of the other sessions, who were of the sex of which presidents are usually made.

In England no one ever greeted me with, “How do you do?” but always with the immediately burning question, “Are you a militant?” I am not. I am strongly averse to giving the slightest countenance to militancy. It may, however, interest our American critics of English methods to know that I sat at dinner beside an English member of Parliament, himself strongly anti-suffragist, who declared that it was thru the militant tactics that the question had become a vital one in his country, that he admired the brilliant political sagacity displayed by Mrs. Pankhurst² and believed that no other course could have brought the matter to the front.