Volume III Part 128 (1/2)

In the subst.i.tution of the word ”man” for that of ”male person”

in the Reform act of 1832, a great difference was already discernable, but this difference was more important when taken into conjunction with what was popularly known as ”Lord Romilly's act,”

an act for shortening the language used in acts of parliament (13 and 14 Vict.). This act provides, ”that all words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, unless the contrary is expressly provided”; and in the Representation of the People act there was no express provision to the contrary. This had been pointed out by one or two members at the time.

Accordingly the several societies united in a systematic endeavor to procure the insertion of women's names on the registers of electors under the new Reform act. A circular respectfully requesting the boards of overseers to insert on the list of voters the names of all persons who had paid their rates, was sent to several hundred boards in different parts of the country. Very few replies were received, but women were placed on the lists in many counties, in Aberdeen, Salford and many small districts in Lancaster, Middles.e.x, Kent, etc. The overseers of Manchester declined compliance. In that city there were 5,100 women householders who claimed their votes, and when the revision courts were opened in September, this claim came on for consideration. The case was ably argued, but the revising barrister decided against admitting it, granting, however, a case for trial at the Court of Common Pleas. Another case was also granted, being that of Mrs.

Kyllman, a free-holder, her claim being under the old free-holding franchise 8 Henry VI., to wit.:

Elections of knights of the s.h.i.+re shall be made in each county by people dwelling and resident therein of whom each has free-hold to the value of 40 by the year.

In the majority of districts the revising barristers disallowed the claims; but in four district-revision courts the women's names were admitted. In Finsbury, one of the metropolitan boroughs, Mr.

Chisholm Anstey was revising barrister, and he admitted them on account of ancient English law; in c.o.c.kermouth, Winterton and two towns.h.i.+ps of Lancas.h.i.+re, the revising barrister admitted them upon his interpretation of the Reform act taken in conjunction with Lord Romilly's act. In the suffrage report for this year the number of women placed on the electoral roll by these decisions is estimated at about 230, but undoubtedly there were others concerning whom no information was received. In many cases the women voted: 15 did so in Finsbury (not only was there no disturbance, but hardly any remark was made, and they expressed their surprise that it was so easy a thing to do); 12 in Gordon and 10 in Levenshulme, both little districts in Lancas.h.i.+re, and smaller numbers in other places. In Chester the parliament candidate issued his election placards to ”Ladies and Gentlemen.”

On November 7, the case of the 5,000 Manchester women householders was argued before the Court of Common Pleas. Mr. J. D. Coleridge (now Lord Coleridge, Lord-chief-justice of England) and Dr.

Pankhurst were the counsel for the appellants. Mr. John Coleridge in an able argument spoke of the ancient const.i.tutional right of women to take part in elections. He produced copies from the record office of several indentures returning members to parliament, the signatures of which were in the hand-writing of women, or to which women were parties. He argued that the term ”man” in the Reform act included woman, not only generally but specifically, under the provisions of Lord Romilly's act. The case was argued before Lord-chief-justice Boville; the decision was given on November 9, and decisively p.r.o.nounced that the new Reform act had never intended to include women, and that they were incapacitated from voting. This decision did not affect the women who were already on the register, and many voted in the general election which took place afterwards. Thus women have been shut out from electoral rights, not by any decree of parliament, but by this decision of the Court of Common Pleas. However there was no appeal from this Court, except to parliament, and from this time forward the character of the agitation changed. The year 1868 ended with a legal decision which seemed crus.h.i.+ng in its finality, while the same year had given the most conclusive proof that women wished to vote, and would do so whenever the opportunity offered.

The next year, 1869, gave another convincing proof that women were eager to vote, and brought us the most substantial triumph yet obtained, due to the wisdom and skilful tactics of Mr. Jacob Bright, member of parliament for Manchester. This victory was the munic.i.p.al franchise for women. Early in 1869 Mr. Hibbert introduced a bill to regulate the conditions of the munic.i.p.al franchise. By the Munic.i.p.al Corporation Amendment act, pa.s.sed in 1835, male persons only were authorized to vote. The present bill was to amend that. Mr. Jacob Bright, seconded by Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.

Peter Rylands, proposed the omission of the word ”male” from the bill, and the insertion of a clause securing to women the right of voting in munic.i.p.al elections. Mr. Hibbert concurred in the introduction of these amendments, though he did not antic.i.p.ate they would lead to any result beyond a discussion. A circular containing full information upon the ancient and existing rights of women to vote in local affairs was sent to each member of parliament by the Manchester committee. It showed that before the pa.s.sing of the Munic.i.p.al Corporation act of 1835, women rate-payers had rights similar to those of men in all matters pertaining to local government and expenditure; and that in non-corporate districts they still exercised such rights, under the provisions of the Public Health act, and other statutes guarding the electoral privileges of the whole body of rate-payers. But when any district was incorporated into a munic.i.p.al borough, the women rate-payers were disfranchised, although those not included within its boundaries remained possessed of votes. It showed also that women can vote in parochial matters, and take part in vestry meetings, called for various purposes, such as the election of church-wardens and way-wardens, the appointment of overseers, the sale of parish property, and, formerly, the levying of church-rates; also that they can vote in the election of poor-law guardians--that in fact, in none of those ancient voting customs, was the s.e.x of the ratepayers taken into consideration as either a qualification or disqualification. We quote from the Manchester society:

In the House of Commons on June 7, 1869, on consideration of the Munic.i.p.al Franchise bill as amended, Mr. Jacob Bright rose to move that in this act and the said recited act (Munic.i.p.al Corporation Reform act, 1835) wherever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with and having reference to the election of or power to elect representatives of any munic.i.p.al corporation. He stated that his object was to give the munic.i.p.al vote to every rate-payer within the munic.i.p.al limits; to give to munic.i.p.al property the representation which all property enjoyed elsewhere; that had the proposition been an innovation, a departure from the customary legislation of the country, he would not have brought it in as an amendment to a bill; but that his object was to remove an innovation--to resist one of the most remarkable invasions of long-established rights which the legislation of this or any other country could show. The bill before the house was an amendment of the Munic.i.p.al Corporation act of 1835. That act was the only act in regard to local expenditure and local government which established this disability. Before and since, all acts of parliament gave every local vote to every rate-payer. The Health of Towns act of 1848 had a clause almost identical with the one he was moving. He was therefore asking the House not only to make the bill in harmony with the general legislation of the country, but to allow it to be in harmony with its latest expressed convictions as shown in the act of 1848. There were in England 78 non-corporate towns which were not parliamentary boroughs, with populations varying from 20,000 to 6,000. In these every rate-payer voted. There was little if any difference between their government and that of munic.i.p.al towns. Who could a.s.sign a reason why women should vote in one and not in the other? Every parochial vote was in the hands of the whole body of rate-payers. Women held the most important parochial offices. The sister of the member for Stockport had acted as overseer. Miss Burdett Coutts had been urged to take the office of guardian. Had she been a large rate-payer in a munic.i.p.al town, what an absurdity to shut her out from the vote! He then showed how the process of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt was going on, and quoted Darlington and Southport. The latter town was incorporated in 1867. In 1866, 2,085 persons were qualified to vote for commissioners; 588 of these were women.

From the moment of incorporation these votes were extinguished without a reason being a.s.signed, though they had exercised them from time immemorial. Such would be the case with any town incorporated in the future. He appealed to the metropolitan members, and showed them that unless his clauses were carried, when they came to establish corporations throughout the metropolis, as some of them desired, all the female rate-payers would be struck off the roll; that over a population of 3,000,000 this exclusion would prevail. He stated that where women had the vote they exercised it to an equal degree with the men. Mr.

Lings, the comptroller for the city of Manchester, affirms that according to his experience the number of men and women who vote in local affairs bears a just proportion to the number of each on the register. He showed that as the bill was a largely enfranchising measure, his clause was in strict harmony with it, but that while the bill sought to increase the representation of those who were already considerably represented, the clause which he wished to add would give representation to those who within munic.i.p.al towns were totally deprived of it. He concluded by saying that questions had come to him, since these amendments had been on the paper, from women in different parts of the country, and from those who by their social and intellectual positions might be regarded as representatives of their s.e.x, asking why there should always be this tender regard for the representation and therefore the protection of men, and this apparent disregard for the interest of women; and he appealed to the House, by its decision, to show that as regards these local franchises it had a common regard for the whole body of rate-payers.

Mr. Jacob Bright's motion, which he supported with all the tact, earnestness and judgment of which he afterwards gave such repeated proofs in bringing forward his Women's Disabilities bill, was seconded by Mr. Rylands. Mr. Bruce (the home secretary) said he had shown conclusively that this proposition was no novelty, and that women were allowed to vote in every form of local government, except under the Munic.i.p.al Corporations act. The clause introduced no anomaly, and he should give it his cordial support. Mr. Hibbert also supported the clause, which was agreed to amid cheers, and it was pa.s.sed without a dissentient word or the faintest shadow of opposition, as was also the proposal of Sir Charles Dilke, to leave out the word ”male” in the first clause.

In the House of Lords an attempt was made by Lord Redesdale to reverse the decision of the House of Commons, but the proposal found no seconder, and therefore fell to the ground. The Earl of Kimberley, on behalf of the government, supported the proposition, as did also Lord Cairns, from the opposition benches. The Munic.i.p.al Franchise bill became law in August, 1869. One well-known statesman said at the time, ”This is a revolution; this vote means still another, and there never was so great a revolution so speedily accomplished.” In 1869 the Ballot act had not been pa.s.sed; this was in the days of open voting. It was therefore possible to ascertain with accuracy in how large a proportion the women householders availed themselves of their restored right to vote whenever a contested election took place. On the following November a letter of inquiry was sent to the town clerk of every munic.i.p.al borough in England and Wales, and by their courtesy in replying it was ascertained that the women voted in very large numbers. In our munic.i.p.al towns the average ratio of women householders to men householders is about one to seven. This varies greatly in different localities. In Tewkesbury, for instance, there was only one woman householder to twenty-three men householders, while in Bath the proportion had risen as high as one to three. The women voters were in about the same proportion. In the larger boroughs the proportion was especially good, while there were cases in which the polling of the women exceeded that of the men. In Bodmin, Cornwall, two women voted, one of whom was 92 and the other 94 years of age.

The first public meeting in connection with women's suffrage was held in Manchester, April 14, 1868, in the a.s.sembly room of the Free Trade Hall. The occasion was one of great interest. Mr. Henry D. Pochin, the mayor of Salford (which adjoins Manchester), took the chair, and the first resolution was moved by Miss Becker, seconded by the venerable Arch-deacon Sandford, and supported by Mr. T. B. Potter, M. P.:

_Resolved_, That the exclusion of women from the exercise of the franchise in the election of members, being unjust in principle and inexpedient in practice, this meeting is of opinion that the right of voting should be granted to them on the same conditions as it is or may be granted to men.

The other resolutions were spoken to by Dr. Pankhurst, Mrs. Pochin (who had also written a very exhaustive pamphlet on ”The Claim of Woman to the Elective Franchise,” signed, _Just.i.tia_), Mr. Chisholm Anstey, Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., Miss Annie Robertson of Dublin, Mr. F. W. Myers, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Mr. J.

W. Edwards. This meeting, and the one which followed in Birmingham, May 6, are fair types of those which have followed by thousands.

With few exceptions they have been addressed by men and women jointly; the resolutions pa.s.sed have generally been of a directly practical and political character. They have been presided over, whenever possible, by the chief magistrate, or some other well-known man in the locality; in comparatively few cases have women presided, and very seldom, indeed, strangers. Thus they have been modeled closely on the ordinary English political meeting; and this form, quite apart from the principles discussed at the meetings, has done much to identify women's suffrage with the practical politics of the day. The first meeting ever held in London (July, 1869,) excited much attention. Admittance here was by ticket. Mrs. Peter A. Taylor took the chair; Miss Biggs read the report, and a n.o.ble array of speakers followed.[542]

The principle of women's suffrage was unhesitatingly conceded by the pa.s.sing of the Munic.i.p.al Amendment act of 1869. The time was come to demand its application in parliamentary elections.

Moreover, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas had left no mode of action possible except for parliament to reverse that decision. Mr. Jacob Bright, therefore, on the first day of the session gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to remove the electoral disabilities of women. Sir Charles Dilke, a Liberal, and Mr. E. B. Eastwick, a Conservative, also gave their names on the back of the bill.

A BILL _to remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women_:

Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present parliament a.s.sembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

_First_--That in all acts relating to the qualification and registration of voters or persons ent.i.tled or claiming to be registered and to vote in the election of members of parliament, wherever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with, and having reference to the right to be registered as voters, and to vote in such elections, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

On February 16, the bill was read for the first time, and on May 4, it came on for its second reading. Mr. Jacob Bright earnestly appealed to the House to grant this measure of justice:

The women who are interested in this subject, he concluded, are only acting in the spirit of one of the n.o.blest proverbs of our language, ”G.o.d helps those who help themselves.” Is it a matter of regret to us that they should have these aspirations? Ought it not rather to be a subject of satisfaction and of pride? That this bill will become law, no one who has observed the character of this agitation and who knows the love of justice in the British people can doubt. I hope it will become law soon, for I have a desire which will receive the sympathy of many in this House. I have a strong desire that when our children come to read the story of their country's fame, it may be written there that the British parliament was the first great legislative a.s.sembly in the world, which, in conferring its franchises, knew nothing of the distinctions of strong and weak, of male and female, of rich and poor.

The result of the division surprised and cheered all the supporters of the measure. The government was neutral, and members of the cabinet voted on either side according to their own opinions. The second reading was carried by a vote of 124 to 91, being a majority in its favor of 33. Those who witnessed that division will never forget the grateful enthusiasm with which Mr. Jacob Bright was received when he came up to the ladies' gallery, with his wife leaning upon his arm. But our triumph was short-lived. Before the bill went into committee, a week later, it became known that the government intended to depart from its att.i.tude of neutrality. A strong pressure was exercised to crush the bill, and the contest of course became hopeless. On the division for going into committee 220 votes were counted against 94 in its favor.