The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 127

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.

Among other writers and speakers on the subject, we must also enumerate Anne Knight, an earnest warm-hearted Quaker lady. She sometimes lectured upon it, and many of her letters written to Mrs.

Elizabeth Pease Nichol of Edinburgh, Lord Brougham, and others, are still preserved, in which she eagerly advocates the admission of women to the suffrage. She a.s.sisted in founding the Sheffield Female Political a.s.sociation. On February 26, 1851, this a.s.sociation held a meeting at the Democratic Temperance Hotel, Sheffield, and unanimously adopted an address, which was the first manifesto dealing with the suffrage ever formulated by a meeting of women in England:

ADDRESS OF THE SHEFFIELD POLITICAL a.s.sOCIATION TO THE WOMEN OF ENGLAND--_Beloved Sisters_: We, the women of the democracy of Sheffield, beg the indulgence of addressing you at this important juncture. We have been observers for a number of years of the various plans and systems of organization which have been laid down for the better government and guidance of democracy, and we are brought to the conclusion that women might with the strictest propriety be included in the proclamation of the people's charter; for we are the majority of the nation, and it is our birth-right, equally with our brother, to vote for the man who is to sway our political destiny, to impose the taxes which we are compelled to pay, to make the laws which we with others must observe; and heartily should we rejoice to see the women of England uniting for the purpose of demanding this great right of humanity, feeling a.s.sured that were women thus comprehended, they would be the greatest auxiliaries of right against might. For what would not the patient, energetic mind of woman accomplish, when once resolved? The brave and heroic deeds which history records are our testimony that no danger is too great, no struggle too arduous for her to encounter; thus confirming our convictions that woman's cooperation is greatly needed for the accomplishment of our political well-being. But there are some who would say: "Would you have woman enjoy all the political rights of men?" To this we emphatically answer: Yes! for does she not toil early and late in the factory, and in every department of life subject to the despotism of men? and we ask in the name of justice, must we continue ever the silent and servile victims of this injustice? perform all the drudgery of his political societies and never possess a single political right? Is the oppression to last forever? We, the women of the democracy of Sheffield, answer, No! We put forth this earnest appeal to our sisters of England to join hand and heart with us in this n.o.ble and just cause, to the exposing and eradicating of such a state of things. Let us shake off our apathy and raise our voices for right and liberty, till justice in all its fulness is conceded to us. This we say to all who are contending for liberty, for what is liberty if the claims of women be disregarded? Our special object will be the entire political enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of our own s.e.x; and we conjure you, our sisters of England, to aid us in accomplis.h.i.+ng this holy work. We remain with heartfelt respect, your friends.[537]

At the end of 1858 there was established in Newcastle-on-Tyne an a.s.sociation called the Northern Reform Society, which had universal suffrage for its object, and it expressly invited the contributions of women. Letters were written by Matilda Ashurst Biggs, and afterwards by two or three women in different parts of the country, offering to become members. In acknowledging these letters, the secretary stated that the Northern Reform Union only contemplated the extension of the franchise to men, although he admitted that many of its leading members were individually in favor of "woman suffrage" but they believed that by asking for manhood suffrage, they were advancing a step towards universal franchise. He added.

"The society will be very glad of women's subscriptions, and trusts that they will use their best efforts to promote its extension."

Undoubtedly, there has never been any reluctance to accept the subscriptions of women towards promoting the objects of men. In commenting upon this letter, Mrs. Biggs[538] said in the _Newcastle Guardian_, February 19, 1859:

I have never given my rights to be merged in those of any other person, and I feel it an injustice that I, who am equally taxed with men, should be denied a voice in making the laws which affect and dispose of my property, and made to support a State wherein I am not recognized as a citizen. I consider that a tyranny which renders me responsible to laws in the making of which I am not consulted. The Northern Reform Society, which "takes its stand upon justice," should claim for us at least that we be exempted from the duties, it we are to be denied the rights belonging to citizens.

These books, speeches and letters though scattered and unconnected, slowly prepared the ground for the organized agitation. Another Reform bill grew into preparation. Men's thoughts were turned again towards the question of representation, and every word spoken on behalf of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women a.s.sumed double force as it drew near to a political issue. The enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women advanced from a question of philosophical speculation to actual politics in the election of John Stuart Mill member of parliament for Westminster in 1865. In his election address, Mr. Mill, as previously in his work on representative government, openly avowed this article of political faith. Nevertheless, the first speech of which we have record in the House of Commons plainly vindicating the right of women to the vote, was that of a man who differed from Mr. Mill in every other feature of his political life and creed--Mr. Disraeli. He used almost the same form of argument as Sir Robert Peel had done thirty years before, but unlike the former statesman he backed it up with his vote and personal influence for many succeeding years. It was in 1866 that he spoke these words, long and gratefully remembered by the women of the country:

In a country governed by a woman--where you allow woman to form part of the estate of the realm--peeresses in their own right for example--where you allow a woman not only to hold land, but to be a lady of the manor and hold legal courts--where a woman by law may be a church-warden and overseer of the poor,--I do not see, where she has so much to do with the State and Church, on what reasons, if you come to right, she has not a right to vote.

These words from Disraeli were the spark that fired the train. In answer to a request from Miss Jessie Boucherett, Mrs. Bodichon and Miss Bessie R. Parkes, Mr. Mill replied that if they could find a hundred women who would sign a pet.i.tion for the franchise, he would present it to the House of Commons. A committee was immediately formed in London, and the pet.i.tion was circulated. In two or three weeks it had received 1,499 signatures. Among these were many who in after years took a prominent part, not only in suffrage, but in other movements for the elevation of women. The pet.i.tion was presented by Mr. Mill in May, 1866, and was received with laughter.

He then gave notice of a motion to introduce into the Reform bill a provision to the same effect. The committee[539] immediately began to circulate pet.i.tions and pamphlets. Two of these were by Mrs.

Bodichon, "Reasons for, and Objections against the Enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of Women," being the substance of a paper she had read at the Social Science Congress, in October, 1866. We give the text of the pet.i.tion, as it differed somewhat from those circulated in after years:

_To the Honorable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament a.s.sembled:_

The humble pet.i.tion of the undersigned,--showeth, That your pet.i.tioners fulfill the conditions of property or rental prescribed by law as the qualification of the electoral franchise, and exercise in their own names the rights pertaining to such conditions; that the principles in which the government of the United Kingdom is based, imply the representation of all cla.s.ses and interests in the State; that the reasons alleged for withholding the franchise from certain cla.s.ses of her majesty's subjects do not apply to your pet.i.tioners. Your pet.i.tioners therefore humbly pray your honorable House to grant to such persons as fulfill all the conditions which ent.i.tle to a vote in the election of members of parliament, excepting only that of s.e.x, the privilege of taking part in the choice of fit persons to represent the people in your honorable House.

This form of pet.i.tion was only signed by unmarried women and widows of full age, holding the legal qualification for voting in either county or borough, but there were other forms for other cla.s.ses of persons. On March 28, the Right Hon. H. A. Bruce presented a pet.i.tion from 3,559 persons, mostly women. Mr. Mill, in April, presented one with 3,161 names collected by the Manchester committee, and the Right Hon. Russell Gurney one signed by 1,605 qualified women, _i. e._, free-holders and householders who would have had the vote had they been men. In all 13,497 were counted in the parliamentary report this session; among these were many clergymen, barristers, physicians and fellows of colleges.

While we are on the subject of pet.i.tions we may as well briefly glance at what was done in this branch of work during succeeding years.[540] No better method could be found of testing public opinion, or of affording scope for quiet, intelligent agitation.

Many friends could help by circulating pet.i.tions, distributing literature at the same time and arguing away objections. In 1868 there were presented 78 pet.i.tions with nearly 50,000 signatures.

One of them, headed by Mrs. Somerville and Florence Nightingale, contained 21,000 names, and was a heavy but delightful burden which Mr. Mill could hardly carry to the table. This pet.i.tion excited great attention. During all these years no pet.i.tions were presented against granting the suffrage to women. These numbers were undoubtedly a surprise to many members of parliament who were inclined to look upon woman suffrage as an "impracticable fad,"

"the fantastic crochet of a few shrieking sisters." But the collection and arrangement of the signatures took up incalculable time, and after a few years this method of agitation was discarded to a great extent in the large political centres. Friends became wearied out with the toilsome process of year by year collecting signatures, which when presented were silently and indifferently dropped into the bag under the table of the House of Commons. But during the early days of the movement these pet.i.tions, signed by all cla.s.ses of men and women, were invaluable in arousing interest in our movement.

In 1867, for the better prosecution of the work, instead of one committee embracing the whole of England, separate a.s.sociations were formed in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The London committee consisted of ladies only, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Mrs.

Fawcett, Miss Hampson, Miss Hare, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Stansfeld, with Mrs. Taylor as secretary. In the Manchester committee Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., at once took up the position of leader and advocate which he afterwards so long and n.o.bly maintained in the House of Commons. Miss Becker was appointed secretary. The Edinburgh committee elected Mrs. McLaren[541] for their president. At a special general meeting, November 6, 1867, it was resolved that these three societies should form one national society, thus securing the advantages of cooperation while maintaining freedom of action. The same rule applied to societies in Birmingham, Bristol and other towns.

To return to the debate in the House of Commons on May 20, 1867 on clause 4 of the Representation of the People bill. Mr. Mill moved to leave out the word "man" and insert the word "person." His speech has been too long before the public to need quotation; it is a model of inductive reasoning and masterly eloquence. The debate which followed was very unequal in character, but the division was gratifying, for he received 73 votes (including pairs, 81); 194 voted against him. Mr. Mill wrote afterwards to a friend:

We are all delighted at the number of our minority, which is far greater than anybody expected the first time, and would have been greater still had not many members quitted the House, with or without pairing, in the expectation that the subject would not come on. But the greatest triumph of all was John Bright's vote.

At the election for Manchester, held near the end of 1867 (when Mr.

Jacob Bright was elected), Lily Maxwell, whose name had been accidentally left on the parliamentary register, recorded her vote.

No objection was taken to it by the returning officer, or by the agents of either candidate. The _Times_ devoted a leading article to it. The circ.u.mstance was of no legal value, but it was useful to show that a woman could go through the process of recording a vote in a parliamentary election even before the Ballot act was pa.s.sed.

The idea gained ground that by the new Reform act the right to vote had been secured to women. The Reform act of 1867, sec. 3, declares that:

Every man shall in and after the year 1868 be ent.i.tled to be registered as a voter, and when registered, to vote for a member to serve in parliament.