Volume III Part 127 (1/2)
F. McMaster, John Hallam, esq.; _Treasurer_, Mrs. W. B. Hamilton; _Secretary_, Miss J. Foulds; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. McKenzie, Mrs. S. McMaster, Mrs. Riches, Mrs. Miller, Miss Hamilton, Miss McMaster, Miss Alexander, William Houston, J. L. Foulds, P.
McIntyre, Phillips Thompson, Thomas Bengough.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Mentia Taylor]
CHAPTER LVI.
GREAT BRITAIN.
BY CAROLINE ASHURST BIGGS.
Women Send Members to Parliament--Sidney Smith, Sir Robert Peel, Richard Cobden--The Ladies of Oldham--Jeremy Bentham--Anne Knight--Northern Reform Society, 1858--Mrs. Matilda Biggs--Unmarried Women and Widows Pet.i.tion Parliament--a.s.sociations formed in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, 1867--John Stuart Mill in Parliament--Seventy-three Votes for his Bill--John Bright's Vote--Women Register and Vote--Lord-Chief-Justice of England Declares their Const.i.tutional Right--The Courts give Adverse Decisions--Jacob Bright secures the Munic.i.p.al Franchise--First Public Meeting--Division on Jacob Bright's Bill to Remove Political Disabilities--Mr. Gladstone's Speech--Work of 1871-2--Fourth Vote on the Suffrage Bill--Jacob Bright fails of Reelection--Efforts of Mr. Forsyth--Memorial of the National Society--Some Account of the Workers--Vote of the New Parliament, 1875--Organized Opposition--Diminished Adverse Vote of 1878--Mr. Courtney's Resolution--Letters--Great Demonstrations at Manchester--London--Bristol--Nottingham-- Birmingham--Sheffield--Glasgow--Victory in the Isle of Man--Pa.s.sage of Munic.i.p.al Franchise Bill for Scotland--Mr. Mason's Resolution-- Reduction of Adverse Majority to 16--Conference at Leeds--Mr.
Woodall's Amendment to Reform Bill of 1884--Meeting at Edinburgh-- Other Meetings--Estimated Number of Women Householders--Circulars to Members of Parliament--Debate on the Amendment--Resolutions of the Society--Further Debate--Defeat of the Amendment--Meeting at St. James Hall--Conclusion.
In writing a history of the woman suffrage movement, it is difficult to say where one should begin, for although the organized agitation which arose when John Stuart Mill first brought forward his proposal in parliament dates back only eighteen years, the foundations for this demand were laid with the very earliest parliamentary inst.i.tutions in England. As a nation we are fond of working by precedents, and it is a favorite saying among lawyers that modern English law began with Henry III. In earlier Saxon times women who were freeholders of lands or burgesses in towns had the same electoral rights as men. We have records of the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, showing that ladies of the manse, in their own right, sent members to parliament. Down to the time of the civil wars women were accustomed to share in the election of ”parliament men.” In 1640, some women voted in an election for the county of Suffolk, Sir Simonds d'Ewes being high-sheriff:
Who, as soon as he had notice thereof, sent to forbid the same, conceiving it a matter verie unworthy of anie gentleman, and most dishonourable in such an election to make use of their voices, although in law they might have been allowed.
The spirit of the Puritans was not favorable to woman's equality; but, though disused, the right was never absolutely taken away by law. In a celebrated trial, Olive _vs._ Ingram (reign of George II.) the chief-justice gave it as his opinion that ”a person paying scot and lot,” and therefore qualified to vote, was a description which included women; and all the writs of election down to the time of William IV. were made to ”persons” who were freeholders.
However, for all purposes of political life this right was as good as dead, being absolutely forgotten. But still the local franchises remained. We have no data to determine whether these were as completely neglected as the parliamentary franchise. Paris.h.i.+oners voted for overseers of the poor and for other local boards; and women were never legally disqualified from voting in these elections. The lowest period in the condition of women appears to have been reached at the end of the last century, though they were not then indifferent to politics. ”You cannot,” says Miss Edgeworth's Lady Davenant, ”satisfy yourself with the common namby-pamby phrase, 'Ladies have nothing to do with politics.' * *
* Female influence must exist on political subjects as well as on all others; but this influence should always be domestic not public; the customs of society have so ruled it.” This sentence exactly represented ordinary English feeling. It was never considered derogatory to an English lady to take an active part in elections, provided she did so for some member of her family; but of direct responsibility she had none.
In the ferment of opinion which preceded the great Reform bill, woman's claim to partic.i.p.ate in it was never heard. The new franchises which were then for the first time created applied exclusively to _male_ persons, but in the old franchises continuing in force, the word ”person” alone is strictly used. Mr. Sidney Smith said:
In reserving and keeping alive the qualifications in existence before those itself created, this statute falls back exactly to the accustomed phraseology of the earlier acts. Whenever it confers a new right it restricts it to every male person.
Whenever it perpetuates existing franchises, it continues them to every person, leaving the word ”male” out on system.
This may have been little more than an oversight, or it may have been that respect for precedent which used to be an inherent quality in English statesmen. But it is curious that the first pet.i.tion ever, to our knowledge, presented for women's suffrage to the House of Commons should date from this same year. It was presented on August 3, 1832, and is the worthy predecessor of many thousands in later times. Hansard thus describes it:
Mr. Hunt said he had a pet.i.tion to present which might be a subject of mirth to some honorable gentlemen, but which was one deserving of consideration. It came from a lady of rank and fortune, Mary Smith of Stanmore, in the county of York. The pet.i.tion stated that she paid taxes, and therefore did not see why she should not have a share in the election of a representative; she also stated that women were liable to all the penalties of the law, even death, and ought to have a voice in the fixing of them; but so far from this, on their trials both judges and jurors were of the opposite s.e.x. She could see no good reason for the exclusion of women from political rights while the highest office of the State, that of the crown, was open to the inheritance of females; and, so we understood, the pet.i.tioner expressed her indignation against those vile wretches who would not marry, and yet would exclude females from a share in the legislation. The prayer of the pet.i.tion was that every unmarried female, possessing the necessary pecuniary qualifications, should be ent.i.tled to vote for members of parliament.
The following year Sir Robert Peel in opposing vote by ballot said:
The theoretical arguments in favor of woman suffrage were at least as strong as those in favor of vote by ballot. There were arguments in favor of extending the franchise to women to which it was no easy matter to find a logical answer. Other and more important duties were entrusted to women. Women were allowed to hold property, to vote on many occasions in right of that property; nay, a woman might inherit the throne and perform all the functions of the first office of the State. Why should they not vote for a member of parliament?
But Sir Robert Peel evidently had no idea that a time would come when women would ask this question in downright seriousness.
Meanwhile the preference for the words ”male person” in the new enactments still continued. It was employed in the Munic.i.p.al Corporation Reform act, 1835; and in the Irish poor-law act of 1838, women, as well as clergymen, were expressly excluded from election as poor-law guardians. The repeal of the corn-laws brought the political work of women to the front; they formed local committees, collected funds and attended meetings. In a speech on free-trade, delivered in Covent Garden Theater January 15, 1845, Richard Cobden said:
There are many ladies present, I am happy to say; now, it is a very anomalous fact that they cannot vote themselves, and yet that they have a power of conferring votes upon other people. I wish they had the franchise, for they would often make much better use of it than their husbands.
Again in 1848, in supporting a motion of Mr. Joseph Hume in the House of Commons to the effect that the elective franchise should be extended to all householders, Mr. Cobden said:
A gentleman asked me to support universal suffrage on the ground of principle, and I said to him, if it is a principle that a man should have a vote because he pays taxes, why should not a widow who pays taxes and is liable to serve as church-warden and overseer, have a vote for members of parliament? The gentleman replied that he agreed with me.
In 1853, Mr. W. J. Fox, member for Oldham, in acknowledging the presentation to him by the ladies of Oldham of a signet-ring bearing the inscription, ”Education, the birthright of all,” spoke strongly in favor of women having a definite share in political life:
If women have nothing to do with politics, honest men ought to have nothing to do with politics. They keep us pure, simple, just, earnest, in our exertions in politics and public life. They have to do with it, because while the portion of man may be by the rougher labors of the head and hands to work out many of the great results of life, the peculiar function of woman is to spread grace and softness, truth, beauty, benignity over all. Nor is woman confined to this. In fact I wish that her direct as well as indirect influence were still larger than it is in the sphere of politics. Why, we trust a woman with the sceptre of the realm, consider her adequate to make peers in the State and bishops in the Church; surely she must be adequate to send her representatives to the lower House. I know the time may not have come for mooting a question of this sort; but I know the time will come, and that woman will be something more than a mere adjective to man in political matters. She will become a substantive also. And why not?
Other speakers and writers brought forward the same point. Jeremy Bentham declared he could find no reasons for the exclusion of women, though he laid no stress on the matter; Herbert Spencer in ”Social Statics” (1851), Mr. Thomas Hare in his book on ”Representation,” and Mr. Mill in ”Representative Government,” all discussed it. In 1843 Mrs. Hugo Reid published an excellent volume, ”A Plea for Woman,” in which she maintained that ”There is no good ground for the a.s.sumption that the possession and exercise of political privileges are incompatible with home duties.” In 1841 a strong article appeared in the _Westminster Review_, written by Mrs. Margaret Mylne, a Scotch lady still living. Mrs. Stuart Mill's admirably comprehensive article appeared in the same review in 1851.[536] In 1846, also, Col. T. Perronet Thompson, the well-known anti-corn-law advocate, wrote:
Whenever the popular party can agree upon and bring forward any plan which shall include the equal voting of women, they will not only obtain an alliance of which most men know the importance, but they will relieve the theory of universal suffrage from the stigma its enemies never fail to draw upon it, of making its first step a wholesale disqualification of half the universe concerned.