The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 131

To bring in a new cla.s.s, under new conditions, whilst continuing to exclude those who fulfill the present conditions, would be very injurious to those excluded and set a wrong example before the community. Every enlargement of the electoral franchise for men which can now take place necessarily includes many whose interests in the country cannot equal those of the women who now claim it. Their position is already recognized by their possession of every local franchise whatsoever. Justice requires that the principle should be fully carried out by extending to women the right to vote for members of parliament, whose legislation so strongly affects their welfare. Prudence also requires that an important cla.s.s of educated and philanthropic persons should not be left out, or their claims postponed, when a large addition is likely to be made to the less educated portion of the electorate. We most seriously believe that few things could happen more dangerous for the real happiness of the nation than to permit the opportunity to pa.s.s without the admission of legally qualified women within the circle of the const.i.tution.

A correspondence also was conducted with Mr. Gladstone by the Bristol Ladies' Liberal a.s.sociation and others whom they invited to join them, of known Liberal views, urging him to receive a delegation and praying that

It may not in the future be said that women alone were unworthy of any measure of confidence which you so rightly extended even to the humblest and most ignorant men.

Mr. Gladstone declined to receive the deputation, partly on the ground of illness, partly lest the admission of their views might interfere with his plans for the bill. So the day of battle drew on, when a rumor began to be circulated that the government intended to oppose Mr. Woodall's clause, on the ground that its admission might endanger the bill. Strenuous efforts were at the same time made to induce him to withdraw the amendment, and the government whips plainly intimated that the question would not be considered an open one, on which members were to be free to vote according to their convictions, but as one which the government had made up their minds to oppose. With the hope of changing this determination a memorial was signed by seventy-seven members of parliament, and presented to Mr. Gladstone, asking him to leave the introduction of the clause an open question. It represented--

That the Franchise bill being now in committee a favorable opportunity is afforded for the discussion of the amendment for extending its provisions to women, of which notice has been given by Mr. Woodall.

That your memorialists have heard a rumor that her majesty's government have declared against allowing the question to be discussed and decided on its merits, on the ground that the adoption of the proposal might endanger the bill.

That your memorialists are of the opinion that the claim of women who are householders and ratepayers is just and reasonable, and that the time when the House is engaged in amending the law relating to the representation of the people is the proper time for the consideration of this claim.

That during the discussion in committee on the Reform bill of 1867, an amendment for extending its provisions to women was introduced by Mr. John Stuart Mill, and that on that occasion the government of the day offered no opposition to the full and free discussion of the question, and placed no restriction on the free exercise of the judgment of members of their party as to the manner in which they should vote. The tellers appointed against Mr. Mill's motion were not even the government tellers.

That your memorialists earnestly pray that the precedent so inst.i.tuted may be followed on the present occasion, and that the clause proposed by Mr. Woodall may be submitted to the free and unbiased decision of the House on its own merits.

They desire earnestly to express their conviction that the course of allowing the question to be an open one, on which the government is prepared to accept the decision of the House, cannot possibly endanger or prejudice the Franchise bill. In connection with this your memorialists would press on your attention the fact that Mr. Woodall's amendment is in the form of a new clause, and would not therefore come under discussion until the bill as it stands has pa.s.sed through committee.

This request was refused. On June 9, such unexpected progress was made by the committee of the House of Commons with the Franchise bill that all the government clauses were carried. There were many amendments on the paper which took precedence of Mr. Woodall's, but these were hastily gone through or withdrawn, and in the middle of the morning sitting of June 9, he rose and moved the introduction of his clause. Mr. Woodall's speech was a masterpiece of earnest but temperate reasoning. He was fortunate enough to present an old and well-worn subject in new lights. He said that Mr. Gladstone had affirmed the principle of the measure to be to give every householder a vote, and it would now be his endeavor to pursuade parliament that women were capable citizens, who would meet all the conditions so clearly laid down by the prime minister. Against the charge of inopportunity in bringing the subject forward at this crisis, he reminded the House of Mr. Chamberlain's words on a recent occasion, that it was always opportune to do right.

Mr. Gladstone said there were two questions to be considered. One of these was the question whether women were to be enfranchised, the other whether the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt should be effected by a clause introduced in committee on the present bill. The second question was that on which he was about to dwell. He deprecated the introduction of new matter into the bill. The cargo which the vessel carried was, in the opinion of the government, as large as she could carry safely. The proposal was a very large one. It did not seem unreasonable to believe that the number of persons in the three kingdoms to be enfranchised by the amendment would be little short of half a million. What was the position in which Mr. Woodall placed the government when he requested them to introduce a completely new subject on which men profoundly differed, and which, it was clear, should receive a full and dispa.s.sioned investigation? It was not now practicable to give that investigation. This was one of those questions which it would be intolerable to mix up with purely political and party debates. If there was a subject in the whole compa.s.s of human life and experience that was sacred beyond all other subjects it was the character and position of woman. Did his honorable friend ask him to admit that the question deserved the fullest consideration? He gave him that admission freely. Did he ask whether he (Mr. Gladstone) wished to bind the members of the Government or his colleagues in the cabinet with respect to the votes they would give on this question? Certainly not, provided only that they took the subject from the vortex of political contention. He was bound to say, whilst thus free and open on the subject itself, that with regard to the proposal to introduce it into this bill he offered it the strongest opposition in his power, and must disclaim and renounce all responsibility for the measure should Mr. Woodall succeed in inducing the committee to adopt his amendment.

On motion of Lord John Manners the debate was adjourned till June 12.

On the intervening day a meeting was summoned of the general committee of the society. Miss Cobbe first, and Mr. Woodall subsequently, presided, and the following resolutions were pa.s.sed:

_Resolved_, That the claim of duly qualified women to the exercise of the suffrage having been continuously presented before parliament and the country since the Reform bill of 1867, this meeting is of opinion that the time when the legislature is again engaged in amending the law relating to the representation of the people is the proper time for the consideration of this claim.

_Resolved_, That this meeting heartily approves of the amendment which Mr. Woodall has moved in committee on the Franchise bill for extending its provisions to duly qualified women, and pledge themselves to support his action by every means in their power.

_Resolved_, That they have heard with astonishment that her majesty's government refuse to allow this amendment to be discussed on its merits and to be decided by the free exercise of the judgment of members of the House of Commons, but that the government require their supporters to refrain from such free exercise of their judgment on the alleged ground that the adoption of the proposal would endanger the Franchise bill.

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this meeting the exercise of such pressure appears to be an infringement of the privileges of a free parliament and an aggression on the rights of the people.

They hold that all sections of the community, whether electors or non-electors, have an indefeasible right to have matters affecting their interests submitted to the unbiased judgment, and decided by the unfettered discretion of the members sent to represent them in parliament.

_Resolved_, That a declaration signed by 110 Liberal members of the House of Commons was presented last session to Mr. Gladstone which set forth that, in the opinion of the memorialists, no measure for the a.s.similation of the borough and county franchise could be satisfactory unless it contained provisions for extending the suffrage, without distinction of s.e.x, to all persons who possess the statutory qualifications for the parliamentary franchise.

_Resolved_, That this meeting calls upon those who signed this declaration, and all other members who believe that the claim of duly qualified women to the parliamentary franchise is reasonable and just, to support the clause moved by Mr. Woodall, in committee on the Franchise bill, for extending its provisions to such women.

_Resolved_, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to Mr.

Gladstone and to every member of parliament.

_Resolved_, That pet.i.tions to both houses of parliament in support of Mr. Woodall's clause be adopted and signed by the chairman on behalf of this meeting.

Some members of parliament who attended this meeting explained that though they were as firmly convinced as ever of the justice of the claim, they could not vote for it after Mr. Gladstone's distinct declaration that he would abandon the bill if the amendment were pa.s.sed. On June 12 Lord John Manners resumed the debate. He said:

That although this proposal had never been of a party character, it had always been a political question. There was no question connected with the franchise which had been more thoroughly discussed, threshed and sifted. Guided by every consideration of justice and fairness, of equity, of a.n.a.logy and experience, he should give it his cordial and unhesitating support.

The next speech of importance was Mr. Stansfeld's. He maintained that the acceptance of the clause by the government would have strengthened rather than weakened the bill, and that its insertion certainly would not have rendered the bill less palatable to the House of Lords:

The principle of this bill is household suffrage. Household suffrage is one of two things--it is either put as a rough test of capable citizenship, or else it means what I will call the family vote. The women to be enfranchised under this clause would be first of all women of property, intelligence and education, having a status in the country; secondly a large cla.s.s of women of exceptional competency, because having lost the services and support of men who should be the bread-winners and the heads of families, they are obliged to step into their shoes and to take upon themselves the burdens and responsibilities which had previously devolved upon men, and because they have done this with success. I decline either by word or deed to make the admission that these women are less capable citizens than the 2,000,000 whom the right honorable gentleman proposes to enfranchise by this bill. Well, then, let it be the family vote--that is to say, exceptions apart, let the basis of our const.i.tution be that the family, represented by its head, should be the unit of the State. Now that is the idea which recommends and has always recommended itself to my mind. But on what principle, or with what regard to the permanence and stability of that principle, can you exclude the head of the family and give that family no voice, because the head happens to be a woman? If this clause be excluded from the measure, as it will be, this will not be a bill of one principle, but of two principles. It will not be a bill containing only the principle of household suffrage interpreted as the family vote, but one founded on these two principles--first, a male householding vote; and, secondly, the exclusion of the head of the household when the head is a woman. That is a permanent principle of exclusion, and therefore the bill with this clause left out is a declaration for ever against the political emanc.i.p.ation of women.

After some speeches against the motion Colonel King-Harman said:

In the old state of the franchise it was not so much a matter of importance to women whether they possessed votes or not, but now that this bill proposed to create two million new voters of a much lower order than those now exercising the franchise, it became of importance to secure some countervailing advantage.

They were told this was a matter which could wait. What were the women to gain by waiting? They had waited for seventeen years during which the subject had been discussed, and now they were told to wait till two million of the common orders had been admitted to a share in the parliamentary management of the country. The honorable member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) had used an argument which he (Colonel King-Harman) thought a most unworthy one, namely, that the franchise was not to be extended to women, because, unhappily, there are women of a degraded and debased cla.s.s. Because there were 40,000 of them in this metropolis alone, the remaining women who were pure and virtuous were to be deprived of the power of voting. But would Mr. Leatham guarantee that the 2,000,000 men he proposes to enfranchise shall be perfectly pure and moral men? Would he propose a clause to exclude from the franchise those men who lead and retain in vice and degradation these unfortunate women? No--men may sin and be a power in the State, but when a woman sins not only is she to have no power, but her whole sisterhood are to be excluded from it. He believed that every idea of common sense pointed to the desirability of supporting the amendment, and he therefore had great pleasure in doing so.

There were also excellent speeches from Mr. Cowen (Newcastle), General Alexander, Sir Wilfred Lawson and Mr. Story, and finally from Sir Stafford Northcote the leader of the Conservative opposition. He observed:

That the prime minister had told them that they did not consider this clause to be properly introduced now, because this was not the time for the question. It seemed to him, on the contrary, that it was the very best opportunity for dealing with it, because they were going enormously to increase the electorate, and would, therefore, make the inequality between men and women much greater than it was before. It would be said they were going to extend the property franchise if this amendment were carried.

On that issue they were prepared to join and to maintain that it was a right thing, and it was the duty of that House to make proper provision for those cla.s.ses of property holders now without a vote. Members who had canva.s.sed boroughs would remember that after going into two or three shops and asking for the votes of those who were owners, they have come to one perhaps of the most important shops and have been told, "Oh, it is of no use going in, there is no vote there." Such women are probably of education and gentle character, and perhaps live as widows and take care of their families; they have every right to be consulted as to who should be the man to represent the const.i.tuency in which they lived and to take care of their interests and the interests of those dependent on them. That was the ground on which Lord Beaconsfield stood. They had adhered to that ground for several years, and there they stood now.

The division took place at a late hour with the result that the clause was defeated by 271 votes to 135, being a majority against it of 136, or two to one. But though such a vote would have been a sore discouragement if it had represented the real opinion of the House, on the present occasion it meant little if anything. The government had sent out a "five-line" whip for its supporters, and so effective had this whip been, combined with Mr. Gladstone's a.s.sertion that he would give up the responsibility of the bill if the clause were carried, that 98 Liberals and 6 Home Rulers, known to be supporters of our cause, voted with the government, even Mr.

Hugh Mason being among this number, while 34 Liberals and 7 Home Rulers, also friends of ours, were absent from the division. We may safely a.s.sume that had the government more wisely left it an open question, upon which members were free to vote according to their consciences, our defeat would have been turned into a victory. On the other hand while our Liberal friends thus voted against the amendment or abstained from voting, the bulk of our supporters in this division were Conservatives, a circ.u.mstance unknown in the previous history of the movement.

An important conference of friends and supporters was held the next morning in the Westminster Palace Hotel at which Mr. Stansfeld presided. To use Miss Tod's words:

Never had a defeated army met in a more victorious mood. There was much indeed to encourage in the degree of importance to which the question had attained. It had risen from a purely speculative into a pressing political question; it had been debated during two days, and it was heartily supported by the Conservative leader.

The speeches at the conference were animated and full of hope for the future. Mr. Stansfeld congratulated the meeting on having made a new departure; their question had become one of practical politics, and they had now to address themselves in all the const.i.tuencies to the political organizations.

A magnificent meeting was held in St. James Hall the following week. The hall was densely crowded in every part, and an overflow meeting was arranged for those unable to gain admission. Some of the speakers[562] proposed as the best measure for agitation, a determined resistance against taxation.[563]

Repeated attempts to obtain a day for the debate and division were followed by repeated disappointments. The session commenced in November, 1884. Mr. Woodall at once gave notice of a bill. In presenting it to the House, he concluded after consultation with parliamentary friends, to add a clause defining the action of his bill to be limited to unmarried women and widows.[564] The enacting clause of the bill was as follows:

For all purposes of and incidental to the voting for members to serve in parliament, women shall have the same rights as men, and all enactments relating to or concerned in such elections shall be construed accordingly, provided that nothing in this act shall enable women under coverture to be registered or to vote at such elections.

The addition of this clause excited much discussion. Those in favor of it argued that this limitation would certainly be imposed in committee of the House, which though it was in all probability prepared to give the vote to women possessed of independence, dreaded the extension of f.a.ggot votes which would have been the almost inevitable consequence of admitting married women; while the result would be the same whether the limitation clause was introduced by the promoters of the bill or by a parliamentary committee, and it would be more likely to obtain support at the second reading if its intentions were made clear in the beginning.

On the other hand it was argued that the principle of giving the vote to women in the same degree that it was given to men, was the basis upon which the whole agitation rested; that marriage was no disqualification to men, and therefore should not prove so to women; and that, though it might be necessary to accept a limitation by parliament, it was not right for the society to lower its standard by proposing a compromise. This divergence in the views of the supporters of the movement was the cause of much discussion in the public press and elsewhere, and unfortunately resulted in the abstention of some of the oldest friends of the cause from working in support of this particular bill, although it was admitted on all sides that if a day could be obtained its chances in a division were very good.

The bill was introduced on November 19, 1884, and its opponents took the unprecedented course of challenging a division at this stage. Leave was however given to bring it in, and the second reading was set down for November 25, and then for December 9; on each occasion it was postponed owing to the adjournment of the House. It was next set down for Wednesday, March 4, but its chance was again destroyed by the appropriation by the government of all Wednesdays for the Seats bill. Mr. Woodall then fixed on June 24, but before that time the ministerial crisis occurred, and when that day arrived the House had been adjourned for the reelections consequent upon a change of government. He then obtained the first place on Wednesday, July 22, but again ministers appropriated Wednesdays, and all chances for the session being over, Mr. Woodall gave order to discharge the bill.

This delay stands in sharp and painful contrast with the promptness with which parliament pa.s.sed the Medical Relief bill. A clause had been inserted in the Franchise bill disfranchising any man who had been in receipt of parish medical aid for himself or family. This clause caused great dissatisfaction as it was stated it would disqualify from voting a large number of laborers in the agricultural counties; parliament therefore found time amidst all the press of business and party divisions to pa.s.s the Medical Relief bill removing this disfranchis.e.m.e.nt from _men_, though we are repeatedly a.s.sured that nothing but the want of time prevents their fair consideration of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of _women_. It is another proof that there is always time for a representative government to attend to the wants of its const.i.tuents.

Another effort was made in the House of Lords by Lord Denman who introduced a bill for extending the parliamentary vote to women.

The committees[565] were unaware of his intention until they read a notice of the bill in the newspapers. The enacting clause was as follows:

All women, not legally disqualified, who have the same qualifications as the present and future electors for counties and divisions of counties and boroughs, shall be ent.i.tled to vote for knights of the shire for counties and divisions of counties and for boroughs, at every election.

A division was taken upon it on June 23, just after the Seats bill had been pa.s.sed and the peers were about to adjourn in consequence of the change of government. Many protests were made that the time was ill chosen, and some peers left the House to avoid recording their votes while others voted against it without reference to its merits as a question. The division showed 8 in favor and 36 against. There appears to be a strong impression that if a bill to enfranchise women were pa.s.sed by the Commons it would be accepted by the Lords, while there is at the same time a feeling that any measure dealing with the representation of the people should originate with the Commons, and not in the upper House.

During the year 1885 we sustained the loss of many of the earliest friends of the movement; chief among these Professor Fawcett, who from the commencement of its history had given it his firm and unflinching support. His conviction that justice and freedom must gain the upper hand often caused him to take a more sanguine view of the prospect than the event has justified. He was the firm friend of women in all their recent efforts, and helped them to obtain employment in the civil service, to enter the medical profession, to open the universities, and in many other ways. Next to be mentioned is the death of Mrs. Stansfeld. She was the daughter of Mr. William H. Ashurst, who was a staunch advocate of freedom and may be remembered as the first English friend of William L. Garrison. She had been a member of the suffrage committee in London for more than sixteen years, and gave unfailing sympathy to all the efforts made by her n.o.ble husband, James Stansfeld, in behalf of the rights of humanity. This year has also been saddened by the death of Mrs. Ronald Shearer, formerly Helena Downing, an able and true-hearted woman, who had devoted her strength and talents to the furtherance of our cause at a time when its advocates were still the objects of ridicule and attack.

The electorate of three millions of men is now increased to five millions, and by this extension of the suffrage the difficulty of waging an up-hill fight in the interests of the still excluded cla.s.s has also been increased. The interests of the newly represented cla.s.ses will imperatively claim precedence in the new parliament. Like the emanc.i.p.ated blacks who received the vote after the American civil war, while the women who had supported the cause of the Union by their enthusiasm and their sacrifices were pa.s.sed over, the miners and laborers of English counties have received the franchise for which they have never asked, in preference to the women who have worked, pet.i.tioned and organized themselves for years to secure it. Women have now to appeal to this new electorate to grant that justice which the old electorate has denied them; they have to begin again the weary round of educating their new masters by appeals and arguments; they will once more see their interests "unavoidably" deferred to the interests of the represented cla.s.ses; they will once again be bidden to stand aside till it is time for another Reform bill to be considered!

In recounting the history of woman suffrage frequent allusion has been made to the parallel movements which have been carried on through the same course of years; the most important of these have been: (1) The admission of women to fields of public usefulness; (2) removal of legal disabilities and hardships; (3) admission to a better education and greater freedom of employment. Much of the progress that has been made has been the work of the active friends of woman suffrage, and under the fostering care of the suffrage societies.

Under the first division comes the work of women on the school-boards. The education act of 1870 expressly guaranteed their right of being elected, and even in the first year several were elected. One, Miss Becker, in Manchester, has retained her seat ever since. In London the number of lady members has greatly varied. Beginning with two, Miss Jarrett and Miss Davis, in 1879 it rose to nine, but now, 1885, has sunk again to three, Miss Davenport Hill, Mrs. Westlake, and Mrs. Webster. Taken as a whole, their influence has been very usefully exerted for the benefit of the children and the young teachers. Under this head also comes women's work as poor-law guardians. The first was elected in Kensington in 1875. Six years afterwards a small society to promote the election of women was founded by Miss Muller, and the number elected is steadily increasing. There are now in England and Scotland in all forty-six. In Ireland women are still debarred from this useful work. The election occurs every year, and it is one of the local franchises that women as well as men exercise. Last year three ladies were appointed members of the Metropolitan Board which looks after London hospitals and asylums. In 1873 Mr. Stansford, then president of the local government board, appointed Mrs. Ha.s.san Session a.s.sistant inspector of work-houses, and after an interval of twelve years Miss Mason was appointed to the same position.