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 Municipal 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 passed 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 Municipal 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 passed; 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 municipal borough in England and Wales, and by their courtesy in replying it was ascertained that the women voted in very large numbers. In our municipal 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 assembly 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, Justitia), 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 passed 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 noble array of speakers followed.[542]

The principle of women's suffrage was unhesitatingly conceded by the passing of the Municipal 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 assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

First—That in all acts relating to the qualification and registration of voters or persons entitled 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 noblest proverbs of our language, "God 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 assembly 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 attitude 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.

It became evident that we were in for a long contest, which would require not only patience, courage and determination, but a high degree of political sagacity. Organizations had to be perfected, and additional societies established; meetings had to be called, and lectures given to explain the question. In March of this year the Women's Suffrage Journal was established in Manchester. Miss Becker has conducted this monthly from the beginning with great talent and spirit; it is frequently quoted by the ordinary press, and its pages contain the best record extant of the movement. This same year of 1870, which witnessed our first parliamentary defeat, brought compensation also of such magnitude as to outweigh the temporary overthrow of the franchise bill. This was the Elementary Education act, by which women were not only admitted to vote for school-board candidates, but expressly enabled to sit on these boards, and thus exercise not only elective, but legislative functions of the most important character. The election clause reads thus:

The school-board shall be elected in the manner provided by this act, in a borough by the persons whose names are on the burgess roll of such borough for the time being in force, and in a parish not situated in the metropolis, by the rate-payers.

In London, with the sole exception of the city, the persons who elect the vestries, i. e. the rate-payers, are the electors—this includes women as a matter of course. In the city only, the electors were to be the same persons who elected common-council-men, and as these included men only, women are thus excluded from voting in the school-board election, though even here it may be observed they are eligible to sit on the board. Thus, within the space of two years, two important measures were extended unexpectedly.

In 1871 Mr. Jacob Bright again introduced the Women's Disabilities Removal bill, and it was also supported by Mr. Eastwick and Dr. Lyon Playfair. It was thrown out in the division upon the second reading on May 3, by a majority of 69; 151 (including tellers and pairs 159) voting for it, and 220 (including tellers and pairs 228) voting against it. The most remarkable feature of the debate was a speech made by Mr. Gladstone, which certainly justified the confidence that women have subsequently entertained that the great minister was willing to see justice done to them:

The ancient law recognized the rights of women in the parish; I apprehend they could both vote and act in the parish. The modern rule has extended the right to the municipality, so far as the right of voting is concerned.... With respect to school-boards, I own I believe that we have done wisely, on the whole, in giving both the franchise and the right of sitting on the school-board to women. Then comes a question with regard to parliament, and we have to ask ourselves whether we shall or shall not go further.... I admit, at any rate, that as far as I am able to judge, there is more presumptive ground for change in the law than some of the opponents of the measure are disposed to own.... I cannot help thinking that, for some reason or other, there are various important particulars in which women obtain much less than justice under social arrangements.... I may be told that there is no direct connection between this and the parliamentary franchise, and I admit it, but at the same time I am by no means sure that these inequalities may not have an indirect connection with a state of law in which the balance is generally cast too much against women, and too much in favor of men. There is one instance which has been quoted, and I am not sure there is not something in it—I mean the case of farms.... I believe to some extent in the competition for that particular employment women suffer in a very definite manner in consequence of their want of qualification to vote. I go somewhat further than this, and say that so far as I am able to form an opinion of the general tone and color of our law in these matters, where the peculiar relation of men and women is concerned, that law does less than justice to women [hear, hear], and great mischief, misery and scandal result from that state of things in many of the occurrences and events of life. [Cheers.] ... If it should be found possible to arrange a safe and well-adjusted alteration of the law as to political power, the man who shall attain that object, and who shall see his purpose carried onward to its consequences in a more just arrangement of the provisions of other laws bearing upon the condition and welfare of women, will, in my opinion, be a real benefactor to his country. [Cheers.]

In another portion of his speech Mr. Gladstone said that the personal attendance of women in election proceedings, until the principle of secret voting should be adopted, was in his eyes an objection of the greatest force—thus giving reason to believe that as soon as vote by ballot was secured, this objection would be removed. Mr. Gladstone did not on this occasion vote against the bill, but left the House without voting.

In 1872, our indefatigable leader again moved the second reading of the bill on the 4th of May. His speech was calm and masterly, and he was ably supported, but the division remained much the same; 143 for the bill and 222 against it. This year the Scotch Education bill was passed, which extended the voting of women and their election on school-boards to Scotland; thus the principle of direct representation on a matter so important as national education was recognized. The Ballot act also, which at once rendered elections orderly and safe, henceforth gave increased security and comfort to women who were voting in municipal elections.

In this year a new committee was established in London called the Central committee, to which all other branches of the society had the right of appointing delegates, and the movement received thereby a considerable increase of strength and solidity.[543]

Meantime each branch of the society was working away indefatigably. During 1871, the Suffrage Journal recorded 135 public meetings, and during 1872, 104 in England and 63 in Scotland. The work in Scotland was chiefly carried on in the way of lectures by Miss Jane Taylour, who during these early years of the movement was an untiring and spirited pioneer, Miss Agnes McLaren often accompanying her and helping her to organize the meetings.

We must not omit to mention Mary Burton (sister of John Hill Burton the historiographer of Scotland), who was also one of the most energetic workers of the Edinburgh committee, especially in the north of Scotland; and Mrs. Dick Lauder who had the courage to free herself from the opinions in which she had been educated, and with much sacrifice devoted herself to the work. Space fails us fitly to record the indomitable efforts of Eliza Wigham, one of the honorable secretaries of the Edinburgh committee. In England, Mrs. Ronniger organized and spoke at many meetings, as did Mrs. Fawcett, Miss Rhoda Garrett, Miss Becker, Miss Craigen and, less frequently, Mrs. Josephine Butler, Lady Amberley, Miss Annie Young and others. Mrs. Grote, wife of the historian and herself a well-known author, took part in one meeting held in Hanover Square rooms, London, on March 26, 1870. Mrs. Grote was then upwards of seventy years of age. Rising with great majesty, she spoke with all the weight that age, ability and experience could give, greatly impressing her audience. Miss Helen Taylor, step-daughter of John Stuart Mill, also made her maiden speech at this meeting; it was delivered with much grace, excellent in thought as in manner.

Many additional local committees were established, and good work was done by familiarizing the public mind with the principles of the association. Ward meetings were held in which the women burgesses and municipal voters were assembled, and while the responsibilities of the vote they already possessed were pointed out to them, attention was called to the prior importance of the vote which was withheld from them.

In 1873, for the fourth time, our unwearied champion, Mr. Jacob Bright, brought forward his bill. This time the second reading was fixed for April 30. He was supported in the debate by Mr. Eastwick, Sergeant Sherlock, Lord John Manners, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Heron, Mr. Henley, and Sir J. Trelawny. While all these gentlemen deserved our thanks for the able assistance they rendered the cause, the speech of Mr. Henley, Conservative member for Oxfordshire, so old a member that he was styled the "Father of the House," excited special attention. He said he had once felt considerable doubt and dislike of the measure, but after careful watching of the way in which women gave the local votes, he had come to the conclusion that an extension of the principle would be useful. The votes in favor of the bill increased at this debate to 155 (with tellers and pairs 172), a larger number than had ever before been obtained, while the opposition remained stationary.

Along with the petitions of this year were two memorials signed by upwards of 11,000 women, and presented to Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. Every English county, with the exception of the smallest, Rutland, and most large towns sent representative signatures. An effort was made this session by Mr. William Johnston, the member for Belfast, to introduce amendments into the Irish Municipal bill, which would have had the effect of extending the municipal franchise to Irish women householders. But the bill was withdrawn, and similar efforts made in subsequent years have met with the like fate.

This year the death of Mr. John Stuart Mill saddened the hearts of all. He will never be forgotten as the first man who carried this question into the arena of practical politics and gave it the weight of an honored name. The strength and vitality of the movement were further tested by a disaster which threatened to do it a lasting injury. The general election took place early in the spring of 1874, and to the regret and consternation of the friends of equal suffrage, their able and devoted leader, Mr. Jacob Bright, lost his seat for Manchester—a loss in a great degree attributable to his unshrinking advocacy of an unpopular question. Never did his clients, for whom he had sacrificed so much, feel so deeply the need of the power which the franchise would have given them to keep so good a friend in the House of Commons. Not only was Mr. Bright defeated, but Mr. Eastwick, the friend who had always seconded the bill, also lost his seat with about seventy others of our supporters. We were thus compelled to look around for fresh leaders. The task of bringing in a bill was accepted by Mr. Forsyth, the Conservative member for Marylebone, one of the London boroughs; with him were associated Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Russell Gurney and Sir R. Anstruther, men differing widely on matters of party politics. The bill was introduced early in the session, but no day was found for it, and in the middle of July it was withdrawn. Considerable discussion was excited by the unexpected action of Mr. Forsyth, who on his own responsibility inserted in the bill an additional clause by which married women were especially excluded from its operation. Although the insertion of this clause would probably have made no difference, the bulk of legal opinion being that under the law of coverture, married women even when possessed of property are not "qualified persons," yet the society joined in requesting that this additional clause should be dropped and the original form of the bill adhered to.

Memorials, signed by upwards of 18,000 women headed by Florence Nightingale, Harriet Martineau, Lady Anna Gore Langton (sister of the Duke of Buckingham), Frances Power Cobbe, Anna Swanwick, were again this year forwarded to Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. An important memorial was also forwarded from a large conference held in Birmingham in January, which represents very accurately the special aspects of the question in England. The president of the conference was Mrs. William Taylor, sister-in-law of Mr. Peter A. Taylor, M. P.:

To the Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, M. P., First Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury:

The memorial of members and friends of the National Society for Women's Suffrage, in conference assembled at Birmingham, January 22, 1874, showeth, that your memorialists earnestly desire to urge on the attention of her majesty's government the justice and expediency of abolishing the disability which precludes women, otherwise legally qualified, from voting in the election of members of parliament.

They submit that the disability is anomalous, inasmuch as it exists only in respect to the parliamentary franchise. The electoral rights of women have been from time immemorial equal and similar to those of men in parochial and other ancient franchises, and in the year 1869 a measure was passed, with the sanction of the administration of which you are the head, restoring and confirming the rights of women ratepayers to the exercise of the municipal franchise.

The electoral disability is further anomalous, because by the law and constitution of this realm, women are not disabled from the exercise of political power. Writs, returning members to serve in the House of Commons, signed by women as electors or returning officers, are now in existence, and the validity of such returns has never been disputed. Women who were heirs to peerages and other dignities exercised judicial jurisdiction and enjoyed other privileges appertaining to such offices and lordships without disability of sex. The highest political function known to the constitution may be exercised by a woman. The principle that women may have political power is coeval with the British constitution. On the other hand the practice of women taking part in voting at popular elections is equally ancient in date, and has been restored and extended by the action of the present parliament. Your memorialists therefore submit that to bring the existing principle and practice into harmony by removing the disability which prevents women who vote in local elections from voting in the election of members of parliament, would be a step in the natural process of development by which institutions, while retaining the strength and authority derived from the traditions of the past, and preserving the continuity of the national life, continually undergo such modifications as are needed in order to adapt them to the exigencies of the age and the changed conditions of modern life.

They also submit that the old laws regulating the qualifications of electors do not limit the franchise to male persons; that the laws under which women exercised the parochial franchise were couched in the same general terms as those regulating the parliamentary suffrage, and that while the latter were not expressly limited to men, the former were not expressly extended to women. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the exclusion of women from the parliamentary suffrage was an infringement on their ancient constitutional rights, rendered possible in a barbarous age by the comparative weakness and smallness of the number of persons affected by it, and continued until the exclusion had become customary. The franchise of women in local elections has been from time to time under judicial consideration, and their right to take part in such elections has been repeatedly confirmed by the judges. During the arguments in these cases, the question of their right to vote in the election of members of parliament was frequently mooted and conflicting opinions thereon incidently expressed by various judges, but the matter was never judicially decided, and no authoritative judgment was ever given against the right until the year 1868, after the passing of two modern acts of parliament in 1832 and 1867, the former of which for the first time in English history, in terms, limited the franchise created by it to every "male person," and the latter to every "man" qualified under its provisions. Your memorialists submit that had the question of the right of women to vote in the election of members of parliament been raised in the law courts under the old statutes which contain no reference to sex, and before the passing of the limiting acts of 1832 and 1867, that the precedents which had determined the right in their favor in the construction of the law as to local government must have been held to apply to the case of qualified freeholders or others who claimed the right as regards parliamentary government.

They submit also, that even after these limiting acts, women had reasonable grounds for claiming the suffrage under the existing law. There is an act of parliament which declares that "in all acts, words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, ... unless the contrary is expressly provided." The act of 1867 contained clauses imposing personal liabilities and pecuniary burdens on certain classes of ratepayers. In these clauses, as in the enfranchising clauses, and throughout the act, words importing the masculine gender were alone used. No provision was made that these words should not include females. Accordingly in enforcing the act the extra liabilities and burdens were imposed on women ratepayers, to many of whom they caused grievous hardship. There was, therefore, reason to expect that the enfranchising clauses would bear the same interpretation, inasmuch as they were confessedly offered as an equivalent for the increased liabilities. But when the women who had been subjected to the liabilities claimed their votes, they found that words importing the masculine gender were held to include women in the clauses imposing burdens, and to exclude them in the clauses conferring privileges, in one and the same act of parliament.

This kind of injustice was shown in a marked manner in the case of certain women ratepayers of Bridgewater, who, in a memorial addressed to you in 1871, set forth the grievance of most heavy and unjust taxation which was levied on them, in common with the other householders of that disfranchised borough, for the payment of a prolonged commission respecting political bribery. The memorialists felt it to be unjust and oppressive, inasmuch as, not exercising the franchise nor being in any way directly or indirectly concerned in the malpractices which led to the commission, they were nevertheless required to pay not less than three shillings in the pound according to their rental. To that memorial you caused a reply to be sent through Mr. Secretary Bruce, stating that "it was not in the power of the secretary of State to exempt women owning or occupying property from the local and imperial taxation to which that property is liable." While fully admitting this, your memorialists beg to represent that it is in the power of the legislature to secure to women the vote which their property would confer, along with its liability to local and imperial taxation, were it owned or occupied by men.

They submit that this concession has recently been granted in respect to local taxation, and that if justice demands that Women should have a voice in controlling the municipal expenditure to which their property contributes, justice yet more urgently demands that they should have a voice in controlling the imperial expenditure to which the same property is liable. The local expenditure of the country amounts to about L30,000,000, the imperial expenditure to about L70,000,000 annually; if, therefore, the matter be regarded as one of taxation only, the latter vote is of more importance than the former. Local government deals with men and women alike, and knows no distinction between male and female ratepayers. But imperial government deals with men and women on different principles, and in such a manner that whenever there is any distinction made in the rights, privileges and protection accorded to them respectively, the difference is always against women and in favor of men. They believe this state of things is a natural result of the exclusion of women from representation, and it will be found impracticable to amend it until women are admitted to a share in controlling the legislature.

By the deprivation of the parliamentary vote, women, in the purchase or renting of property, obtain less for their money than men. In a bill which passed the House of Commons last session, provision was made for the amalgamation in one list of the municipal and parliamentary registers of electors. In that list it appeared that the same house, the same rent and the same taxes conferred on a man the double vote in municipal and parliamentary government, and on a woman the single vote only, and that the less honorable and important one. When the occupation of a house is transferred from a man to a woman, say to the widow of the former owner, that home loses the privilege of representation in the imperial government, though its relations with the taxgatherer continue unaltered. There have been various societies formed with a view to enable persons to acquire portions of landed or real property, partly for the sake of the vote attached to such property. Should a woman purchase or inherit such an estate, the vote, which has been one important consideration in determining the value, would be lost through her legal disability to exercise it.

The deprivation of the vote is a serious disadvantage to women in the competition for farms. A case is recorded of one estate in Suffolk from which seven widows have been ejected, who, if they had possessed votes, would have been continued as tenants. A sudden ejection often means ruin to a family that has sunk capital in the land, and it is only too probable that no day passes without the occurrence of some such calamity to some unhappy widow, who, but for the electoral disability, might have retained the home and the occupation by which she could have brought up her family in comfort and independence.

Besides this definite manner in which the electoral disability injures women farmers, it has a more or less directly injurious influence on all self-dependent women who maintain themselves and their families by other than domestic labor. A disability, the basis of which is the presumed mental or moral incapacity of the subject of it to form a rational judgment on matters within the ordinary ken of human intelligence, carries with it a stigma of inferiority calculated to cause impediment to the entrance on or successful prosecution of any pursuit demanding recognized ability and energy. This presumed incapacity is probably the origin of the general neglect of the education of women, which is only now beginning to be acknowledged, and the absence of political power in the neglected class renders it difficult if not impossible to obtain an adequate share for girls in the application of educational funds and endowments. So long as women are specifically excluded from control over their parliamentary representatives, so long will their interests be postponed to claims of those who have votes to give; and while parliament shall continue to declare that the voices of women are unfit to be taken into account in choosing members of the legislature, the masses of men will continue to act as if their wishes, opinions and interests were undeserving of serious consideration.

It is now nearly two years since you, in your place in the House of Commons, said that the number of absolutely self-dependent women is increasing from year to year, and that the progressive increase in the number of such women is a very serious fact, because those women are assuming the burdens that belong to men; and you stated your belief that when they are called upon to assume those burdens, and to undertake the responsibility of providing for their own subsistence, they approach the task under greater difficulties than attach to their more powerful competitors. Your memorialists therefore ask you to aid women in overcoming these difficulties, by assisting to place them, politically at least, on a level with those whom you designate as "their more powerful competitors."

One of the greatest hindrances in the path of self-dependent women is the opposition shown by members of many trades and professions to women who attempt to engage in them. The medical and academical authorities of the University of Edinburgh have successfully crushed the attempt of a small band of female students to qualify themselves for the medical profession, and the same spirit of "trades unionism" is rife in the industrial community. A few months ago the printers of Manchester, learning that a few girls were practicing type-setting, and endeavoring to earn a little money thereby, instantly passed a rule ordaining a strike in the shop of any master printer who should allow type set up by women to be sent to his machines to be worked. At the present time, in a manufacturing district in Yorkshire where there are "broad" and "narrow" looms, at the former of which much more money can be earned, the men refuse to allow women to work at the broad looms, though they are quite able to manage them, because the work is considered too remunerative for women. At Nottingham there is a particular machine at which very high wages can be earned, at which women now work, and the men, in order to drive them out of such profitable employment, have insisted on the masters taking no more women on, but as those at present employed leave, supplying their places by men. A master manufacturer reports: "We have machines which women can manage quite as well or better than men, yet are they not permitted by a selfish combination of the strong against the weak." These are only samples of the cases that are constantly occurring of successful attempts to drive women out of remunerative occupations. Your memorialists submit that women would be more able to resist such attempts if they had the protection of the suffrage; and that men would be less likely to be thus aggressive and oppressive if they had learned to regard women as their political equals.

Besides the restrictions on the industrial liberties of women effected by combinations of men, there are existing and proposed legislative restrictions from which men are exempt, and which exercise a powerful influence on the market for their labor. For the coming session we have the proposal further to limit their hours of paid labor in factories, and to place other restrictions on their labor in shops; also a proposition to place married women on the footing of half-timers. Without here expressing any opinion as to the wisdom of these proposals, we urge that members of the House of Commons would be more capable of dealing with them in a just and appreciative spirit if they were responsible for their votes to the persons whose interests are directly concerned and whose liberties they are asked to curtail; and, further, that it is a grave question how far it is safe to trust the industrial interests of women, as a class, to the irresponsible control of the men who have manifested to individuals and to sections of working women the spirit indicated by the examples we have cited.

In the same speech you spoke of a state of the law in which the balance is generally cast too much against women and too much in favor of men. Since you directed your attention to this matter, you have not been able either to introduce or to assist others who have introduced measures to ameliorate the state of the law respecting women, and such proposals have been unable to win consideration from parliament. Your memorialists cannot believe that this neglect has arisen from want of a desire on your part to deal with the grievances under which you have admitted that your countrywomen suffer; they are therefore led to the conclusion that you have been unable to take into consideration the affairs of an unrepresented class, owing to the preoccupation of parliament with the concerns of those to whom it is directly responsible.

You stated that "the question was, to devise a method of enabling women to exercise a sensible influence, without undertaking personal functions and exposing themselves to personal obligations inconsistent with the fundamental particulars of their condition as women," and that the objection to the personal attendance of women at elections was in your mind an objection of the greatest force. They respectfully submit that the exercise of the municipal franchise involves the personal attendance of women at the polls, and that since your words were uttered changes have been effected which render the process of voting absolutely identical for municipal and parliamentary elections, and the whole proceeding perfectly decorous and orderly. Experience has proved that women can vote at municipal elections without prejudice to the fundamental particulars of their condition as women, whatever these may be; and this experience shows that they may vote in parliamentary elections without the smallest personal prejudice or inconvenience. The school-board elections have also shown that women can appeal to large constituencies and go through the ordeal of public meetings, addresses and questions from electors, to which men must submit who seek the suffrages of a great community, without any sacrifice of womanly dignity, or of the respect and consideration accorded to their position and their sex. They therefore submit that events have obviated the objections you entertained in 1871 to the proposal to give representation to women, and that the course taken by the administration over which you preside in assenting to the extension of the municipal and school-board franchise to them; in calling them to the public functions of candidates and members of school-boards; and lastly, of securing the passing of a law which renders the process of voting silent and secret, have taken away all reasonable grounds for objecting on the score of practical inconvenience to the admission of women to the exercise of a vote, which they would have to give in precisely the same manner, but not nearly so often, as those votes which they already deliver.

It has been said that there is neither desire nor demand for the measure, and further, that women do not care for and would not use the suffrage if they possessed it. But the demand for the parliamentary franchise is enormously greater than was the demand for the municipal franchise, and for the school-board franchise there was no apparent call. Yet these two measures were passed purely on their own merits, and it was not held to be necessary to impose on their promoters, over and above the obligation to make out their case, the condition that a majority of the women of England or of a particular district should petition for the proposed boon. Experience proved the wisdom and justice of this course, for although women throughout the country had taken no active part in agitating for the municipal franchise, no sooner was the privilege accorded than they freely availed themselves of it, and statistics obtained from some of the largest boroughs in the kingdom show that from the first year that women possessed the suffrage, they have voted in about equal proportion with men to the number of each on the register. The parliamentary vote is more honorable and important than the municipal vote; it is, therefore, safe to conclude that women who value and use the latter will appreciate and exercise the former as soon as it shall be bestowed upon them. Your memorialists submit that great injustice and injury are done by debarring these women from a voting power which there is such strong presumptive ground for believing that they would freely exercise but for the legal restraint.

Your memorialists are especially moved to call your attention to the urgency of the claim at the present time, when a bill extending the application of the principle of household suffrage is about to be proposed to parliament, which bill received last year such expressions of approval from members of her majesty's government as to lead to the belief that they are willing to take the proposal into serious consideration. They submit that the claim and the need for representation of women householders are even more pressing than that of agricultural laborers. The grievances under which women suffer are equally great, and the demand for the franchise has been pressed by a much greater number of women and for a much longer period of time than in the case of county householders now excluded. The number of persons who petitioned last session for the County Franchise bill and for the Women's Disabilities bill respectively were, for the former, 1,889, and for the latter, 329,206. The latter bill has received most influential support from both sides of the House, and more votes have been recorded in its favor than have been given for any bill not directly supported as a party measure by one or other of the great parties in the State. Under these circumstances your memorialists earnestly request that you will use your influence as leader of the House of Commons and of the government to secure the passing of the bill introduced by Mr. Jacob Bright, either as a substantive enactment, or as an integral portion of the next measure that shall be passed dealing with the question of the representation of the people.

Signed on behalf of the conference,

CAROLINE M. TAYLOR, President.

The first vote that was given by the new parliament was on April 7, 1875, Mr. Forsyth having moved the second reading in an able speech. It at once became manifest that the question had made great progress in the country. In spite of the loss of the seventy friends at the preceding general election, our strength in the new parliament had greatly increased. Including tellers and pairs, 170 voted for the bill, and only 250 against. This result appears to have alarmed our opponents, who proceeded to form an association of peers, members of parliament and other influential persons, to resist the claims of women to the suffrage. They issued a circular which will be read by future generations with a smile of amazement.[544]

It may have been partly owing to the influence of this association that the next year, when Mr. Forsyth again brought forward his bill, April 26, 1876, although the numbers of our friends and supporters remained undiminished, the opponents had considerably increased. This was due, also, no doubt, in great degree to the unexpected attitude taken on this question by the Right Hon. John Bright, the most powerful living advocate for freedom and representative government. In Mr. Mill's division of 1867, Mr. Bright had voted in favor of the measure, and while his brother had charge of the bill, he had never opposed it. His opposition speech in this debate, therefore, caused extreme disappointment and discouragement. It had little of the force which had always characterized his pleas for political justice. The most eloquent voice in the House of Commons lost its magic power when no longer inspired by truth. The women in the gallery listened with sorrowful hearts. Though they knew Mr. Bright's opinion could not block the wheels of progress, yet they felt intense regret that so honored a friend to freedom should abandon his most cherished principles when applied to women.

The parliamentary history of the next few years may be very briefly recorded. In 1877 the bill had again passed into the hands of our beloved leader, Mr. Jacob Bright, who had resumed his place in the House of Commons, as member of parliament for Manchester. After a debate of great interest, and while our advocate, Mr. Leonard Courtney, was speaking, the opponents of the measure burst into a tumultuous uproar, which effectually drowned his voice. This new method of setting up shouts and howls in place of arguments, has since been brought to bear on more than one public question, but it was then comparatively novel. Mr. Courtney, nothing daunted, would not give way, and when six o'clock, which is the hour for closing the debates on Wednesday, struck, it was no longer possible to take a division.

The following year, 1878, Mr. Jacob Bright was unable from failing health to continue in charge of the bill in the House of Commons, and a deputation of members from each society waited on Mr. Courtney and placed it in his hands. June 19, was set for the second reading. In his speech Mr. Courtney dwelt on the benefits that may accrue to women from representation. He added:

The political reasons for granting the prayer of the bill appear to me to be undeniable, but I confess they are not the reasons why I most strongly support it. I believe it will develop a fuller, freer and nobler character in women by admitting them into the sphere of political thought and duty. Some may say, "But what is to be the end?" I do not know that we are always bound to see the goal towards which we are moving. If we are moving on right principles; if we are actuated by a feeling of justice; if the hand that moves above us and leads us on is a hand in which we can place implicit confidence,—then I say, trust to that light, follow that hand, without fear of the future.

The bill was again lost by 219 votes against 140, thus showing a smaller adverse majority than on the last division. This year Mr. Russell Gurney died. His name will always be associated with the women's suffrage movement, which he had supported ever since Mr. Mill's division in 1867. The death of Lady Anna Gore Langton about this time was also a severe loss.

The last time that the question was brought before that parliament was the following summer, 1870. Mr. Courtney, after taking counsel with his parliamentary friends, made an important change in the conduct of his measure. It had hitherto been brought forward as a bill, which, if passed, would have made the actual change desired in the law; as the parliament was now verging towards its close, it was thought wiser to test the opinion of the House by bringing the question forward in the form of a resolution. Two purposes were served by this change: one was that many men who were in favor of the principle of women's suffrage had objected to it when brought forward as an isolated measure of reform involving a large addition to the constituency, and possibly therefore a new election; the other was, that the time for discussion of a private member's bill is very limited. On Wednesdays, when such bills come on, the House only sits in the morning, and the debate must be concluded at a quarter before six, while the forms of the House afford greater facilities for discussing and voting upon motions. Mr. Courtney in a clear and exhaustive speech moved his resolution as follows:

That in the opinion of this House it is injurious to the best interests of the country that women who are entitled to vote in municipal, parochial and school-board elections when possessed of the statutory qualifications, should be disabled from voting in parliamentary elections, although possessed of the statutory qualifications, and that it is expedient that this disability should be forthwith repealed.

The debate was animated, but the result on division was much the same as before: 113 (including tellers and pairs, 144) voting for it, and 217 (with tellers and pairs, 248) against it. Thus closed the ninth parliament of Victoria, as far as women's suffrage was concerned.

The steady perseverance and unflagging courage of the devoted band of men and women had achieved victories at many points along the line of attack.[545] Every suffrage meeting was the means of gaining converts. The agitation for the suffrage kept the memory of women's wrongs and grievances fresh before the public mind. These years saw the medical profession legally thrown open to women, and facilities given them in school and hospital for obtaining that education which had been hitherto sought abroad. Pharmacy no longer excluded them. London University opened its gates. The Irish Intermediate Education bill, in 1878, which was originally introduced for boys only, was, after several energetic discussions, widened, so as to include girls. Women began to be elected as poor-law guardians. A Scotch Married Women's Property bill was passed, which was a great improvement on the former law. A Matrimonial Causes Amendment act was also carried, which enables magistrates to grant a judicial separation to wives who are brutally treated, along with a maintenance for their children. Some of our friends regretted that these side issues should absorb the time of those who might otherwise have been working exclusively for suffrage; but this was a short-sighted fear. By broadening the basis of work, by asking simultaneously for better laws, better education, better employments and wider fields of usefulness, the sympathies of more women were engaged; while underlying and supporting all was the steady agitation for the suffrage with its compact organization of committees, meetings, publications and petitions which kept parliament awake to the fact that though still disfranchised, women had claims which it could not afford to ignore.



This was a time when the agitation for the suffrage had apparently reached a stationary condition, neither advancing nor receding, in which it was destined to remain for some years longer. Other causes, as the abolition of West Indian slavery and the corn laws, have had a similar period of apparent torpor succeeding the first activity. Justin McCarthy in his "History of our own Times," says:

This is, from whatever cause, a very common phenomenon in our political history. A movement which began with the promise of sweeping all before it, seems to lose all its force, and is supposed by many observers to be now only the care of a few earnest and fanatical men. Suddenly it is taken up by a minister of commanding influence, and the bore or the crotchet of one parliament is the great party controversy of a second, and the accomplished triumph of a third.

During the year of 1879, it was thought desirable to ascertain by some practical test what were the various reasons which caused thinking women to wish for the suffrage; and letters were addressed to ladies who were eminent either in literature or art, or who were following scientific or professional careers, or were engaged in any form of philanthropic work. The answers that were returned were collected into a pamphlet of exceeding interest, which was sent to each member before the debate, and it was amazing to watch from the gallery how the little green pamphlet was consulted and quoted from, in the most opposite quarters of the House, by friends who sought fresh arguments from it or by enemies who were looking for some sentence on which to base a sarcasm.[546]

As a specimen of these letters Miss Frances Power Cobbe said:

So far from the truth is the reiterated statement of certain honorable members of parliament that women do not desire the franchise, that in my large experience I have scarcely ever known a woman possessed of ordinary common sense, and who had lived some years alone in the world, who did not earnestly wish for it. The women who gratify these gentlemen by smilingly deprecating any such responsibilities, are those who have dwelt since they were born in well-feathered nests, and have never needed to do anything but open their soft beaks for the choicest little grubs to be dropped into them. It is utterly absurd (and I am afraid the members of parliament in question are quite aware they are talking nonsense) to argue from the contented squawks of a brood of these callow creatures, that full grown swallows and larks have no need of wings, and are always happiest when their pinions are broken.

The production of this pamphlet marked an era in women's suffrage literature. It was impossible after this to doubt that a large body of thinking women, not the queens of society, but the women who wrote, read, thought, or worked, were in favor of having full admission to political rights and responsibilities.

The chief work of the society had now crystallized into five or six great centres. Edinburgh, under the presidency of Mrs. McLaren, assisted by Miss Wigham and Miss Kirkland, treasurer and secretary, was the recognized centre of activity for Scotland. In Ireland there was a committee in Dublin, of which Mrs. Haslam is the most active member; and the North of Ireland Committee, led by Miss Isabella Tod.[547] The three principal associations in England were those of London,[548] including the east and north-east counties; Manchester,[549] taking charge of the north of England and Wales, and Bristol[550] looking after the West. The officers of the several committees of the three kingdoms form a National Central Committee which has its headquarters in London and superintends all of the work bearing specially upon the action of parliament.

Petitions were still sent in, but no longer in such enormous numbers. It had become evident that parliament cared little for a long roll of names from the unrepresented classes; they were now chiefly collected as a means of discovering how public opinion stood in any particular district. For instance, in 1879, a petition was sent from 1,447 women householders of Leicester. The total number of women householders in this town was 2,610, of whom only 1,991 could be applied to, and there is no reason to suppose that public opinion was more advanced in Leicester than in the majority of large manufacturing towns.

The municipal elections occur in England every November, and our custom in some towns was to call meetings of the women householders in every ward in which there was a contest, to explain to them the responsibilities resting upon the voters, and after an earnest address from some one of the ladies, to invite the respective candidates to speak. By these means not only was the interest of the women awakened in local politics, but the candidates themselves were reminded of the interests of an important section of their constituencies.

With the beginning of 1880, came again the promise of a reform bill. The majority of the Liberal members of the House of Commons had pledged themselves to their constituents in its favor. But as our enemies were still reiterating that women themselves did not care for the franchise, some further proof of their sympathy was in order. The first great demonstration in favor of women was held in Free Trade Hall, Manchester, which seats about 5,000 people, February 3, where women were admitted free, and seats reserved for men in the gallery at 2s. 6d. each. This arrangement was adopted to make it a meeting of women. One hundred gentlemen were present besides the reporters.

The purpose of the demonstration had been explained at preliminary ward meetings to which men and women came in crowds. On the night in question the scene exceeded the most sanguine expectations. Those who had witnessed the great free trade gatherings which assembled to hear Charles Villiers, Richard Cobden and John Bright, never saw a more enthusiastic audience. Mrs. Duncan McLaren of Edinburgh, who had been invited to preside, took her seat followed by an array of distinguished women, such as had never before graced any platform in the history of the three kingdoms, while the vast area and galleries were crowded with women of wealth and culture; factory women, shop-keepers and hard toilers of every station were also there. Some had walked twenty miles to attend that great meeting. They sat on the steps of the platform, climbed on every coigne of vantage, stood in dense masses in every aisle and corner. A large over-flow meeting was also held in the neighboring Memorial Hall over which Mrs. Lucas presided, but even this could not accommodate all who came, and thousands went away disappointed. It was truly a marvelous meeting, grand in its numbers, grand in the enthusiasm which had brought so many thousands together unattracted by the names of any distinguished speakers, to sympathize with each other in a great national movement, and to proclaim unity of action until it was gained; and it was grand also in the impressiveness of the words that were uttered. The president in her clear grave tones which were heard in the breathless stillness over that large assembly, said:

It seems like a dream. But only a grave reality could have brought so many women together. Need we wonder that the beneficent designs of Providence have been so imperfectly carried out when only one-half the intellect and heart of the nation have hitherto been called into action, and the powers of the other half have been almost wholly suppressed? Women are learning along with good men that politics in the true sense has to do with human interests at large.

When Mrs. McLaren had concluded, one speaker after another, gave her special testimony in favor of the necessity of obtaining representation. The number was so great that no one was allowed more than ten minutes.[551]

This demonstration was quickly followed by others that were every way as successful. In connection with one at St. James' Hall, London, over which Viscountess Harberton presided, a procession of working women marched through the streets with a banner on which was inscribed "We're far too low to vote the tax; we're not too low to pay." Here also an overflow meeting was held to accommodate the numbers that could not be admitted into the hall. On November 4, the same scene was repeated at the Colston Hall, Bristol, and Mrs. Beddoe, the wife of a popular physician in that city presided, and on November 11, the last demonstration of that year was convened in the Albert Hall, Nottingham, where Mrs. Lucas took the chair. The following year saw no relaxation in these efforts. The Birmingham demonstration took place on February 22, 1881. It was a most inclement night and great fears had been entertained that it would prove a failure, but nothing had power to keep the crowds of women away or to lessen their enthusiasm. Mrs. Crosskey, the wife of Dr. Crosskey, one of the most respected of the Birmingham Liberal leaders, presided. The next was in St. George's Hall, Bradford, on November 22, and here again Mrs. McLaren took the chair, and said:

We are here to-night in the spirit of self-sacrifice. We have had our sorrows in working on this question. We are here because we know there are on our statute books unjust laws which subject many women to sorrow and suffering, and the fact that we have worked our way to such a platform proves that women are capable of holding a political position, and ought to have a voice in our national affairs. We cannot rest contented under the consciousness of injustice because there are women who accept it as their natural condition. We feel it our duty to arouse our sex everywhere to a sense of their high destiny. The inspiration for this work has come from a higher source than ourselves, and we have had often to feel that God does not leave his children to fight their battles alone.

In 1882 there were two more demonstrations. The first was in Albert Hall, Sheffield, on February 27, Lady Harberton presiding, and it was crowded to overflowing with women of all ranks and conditions of society. The demonstration at Glasgow was on November 3, and no way inferior to the other in brilliancy and interest.[552]

These demonstrations conclusively proved that the suffrage is desired, not only by a few educated women, the leaders of the movement, but by the great masses of the hard-working women. They proved also woman's political capacity and organizing power. No body of persons could possibly do more to manifest their desire for political liberty than the women who have organized and attended these demonstrations. So far as I am aware no such meetings have been attempted by the agricultural laborers over whose enfranchisement the House of Commons has been so deeply exercised, and though the absence of interest which these classes of men have as a whole shown in the question of the franchise is no argument for depriving them of it, the political knowledge and aspirations that women have shown for more than fifteen years ought to count for something in establishing their claim.

The session of 1880 was broken, and the dissolution of parliament in March, the general election which followed, the change in the government and the consequent press of public affairs, made it impossible to bring forward any measure for the suffrage, but the principle was most splendidly and triumphantly vindicated in the ancient kingdom of the Isle of Man which has an independent government dating from the time of its first colonization under the vikings. It has in modern times its elective house which is called the House of Keys and is equivalent to the Commons. Its Upper House consists of the attorney-general, the clerk of the rolls, the bishop, two judges (or deemsters) and other officials. It enacts its own laws and imposes its own taxes, but is subject to imperial control by requiring the sanction of the queen before any law can come into effect. Some few years ago the franchise was felt to be too restricted, and a movement was set on foot which culminated in 1880 in a bill to extend the franchise to every male person who was a householder. Mr. Richard Sherwood, who five years previously had brought forward a similar motion, moved an amendment to omit the word "male" for the purpose of extending the franchise to women who possessed the requisite qualification, which was carried by 16 to 3, a vote of two-thirds of the whole body of the House of Keys. It then went before the Council which refused the franchise to female occupiers and lodgers, though agreeing to give it to all female owners of real estate of L4 annual value. Thus modified the bill was sent back to the House of Keys which gave up the lodger franchise but adhered to that for occupiers. The bill thus altered was again sent back to the Council and again returned with a message that the Council refused to come to an agreement. The Keys then proposed a compromise, limiting the qualification to woman occupiers of L20 a year. This again was refused, and the Council were prepared to reject the bill altogether. Sooner than lose the whole, the Keys assented, signing, however, a protest in which they stated that they had complied simply to secure a part of a just principle rather than lose the whole. The act was signed by the governor, the Keys and the Council on December 21, received the royal assent on January 5, 1881, and was immediately afterwards, according to ancient custom, proclaimed as law on the Tynwald Hill.

Fully to estimate this victory, it must be remembered that the vote thus gained is the complete parliamentary franchise. Though the total area of the island is so small and though only those women who were absolutely owners of property were enfranchised, they numbered about 700. The law came into operation immediately, and the election began March 21. The women voted in considerable numbers, and were, as an eye-witness states, without exception quite intelligent and business like in this procedure. At the polling stations, the first persons who recorded their votes were women. We may mention in proof of their political gratitude that in the district where Mr. Sherwood was one of the candidates, every woman, whatever her party, voted for his reelection.

Just before the opening of parliament in 1881, Mr. Courtney accepted a position in the administration, which rendered it impossible for him to continue in charge of any independent measure. By his advice, application was made to Mr. Hugh Mason, member for Ashton under Lyme. But the state of public business during the session never permitted the resolution to be discussed. The same disappointment occurred in the session of 1882—the difficulties in Ireland and Egypt occupying the attention of the government and the country to an extent which almost precluded any measure of domestic reform. Nevertheless, by constant and arduous efforts, these two years witnessed the passing of the Municipal Franchise bill for Scotland.

The Municipal Franchise act of 1869 applied to English women only. Early in the session of 1881, Dr. Cameron, member for Glasgow, introduced a bill to assimilate the position of Scottish women to that which their English sisters had enjoyed for twelve years. The bill passed the House of Commons before Easter, and was then brought forward in the House of Lords by the Earl of Camperdown, passed May 13, and received the royal assent June 3. This law applied only to women rate-payers of the royal and parliamentary burghs, and did not extend to the police burghs, the populous places endowed with powers of local self-government under the general Police and Improvement act of 1862. A request was sent to Mr. Cameron to exert himself for a similar extension of the franchise to the women of the police burghs, and he answered by introducing in the following year, 1882, another act which gave to all women rate-payers the right, not merely of voting at elections of burgh commissioners, but also of voting with the other inhabitants as to whether a populous place should be constituted a police burgh.

The election under these new measures was in November, 1882, and then Scottish women voted for the first time, excepting of course in school-board elections. The result was entirely satisfactory, though the number of women who voted varied greatly—in some places where no special interest attached to the election none came to vote, while in others they voted in equal proportion with the men, and in a few towns nearly every woman whose name was on the register voted. The passing of these two franchise bills was an undoubted triumph of the women's suffrage party. As one of the opponents in the debate of July, 1883, scornfully observed, "Had it not been for the question of women's suffrage being agitated throughout the country at the time, we should not have heard a syllable of the Scottish women's franchise bill," a sneering admission which we willingly construe into compliment.

The year 1882 also witnessed the passing of the Married Women's Property act, whose immense benefits can hardly be estimated, and we may confidently assert that but for the unceasing agitation of the friends of women's suffrage, another quarter of a century would have been suffered to pass without bringing in this tardy measure of justice.[553]

We now come to the session of 1883, inoperative as far as actual legislation was concerned, but rich in its augury for the future. Already in April the improved temper of the House on questions in which women were concerned, had been shown by the brilliant majority that voted with the Rt. Hon. Mr. Stansfeld for the suppression of the Contagious Diseases acts which have so long stained the English statute book. Early in May a memorial to Mr. Gladstone was signed by 110 Liberal members of parliament, unconnected with the government, in which they stated:

That in the opinion of your memorialists no measure for the assimilation of the county and borough franchise will be satisfactory unless it contain provisions for extending the suffrage without distinction of sex to all persons who possess the statutory qualifications for the parliamentary franchise.

This memorial was a most remarkable manifestation of the support which members on the Liberal side of the House are pledged to give to the principle of justice to women. Nor are we wanting in Conservative support. Sir Stafford Northcote, has always given his friendly approval to the movement, and has very recently repeated his assurances of cooeperation in answer to a deputation of ladies who waited on him. After repeated balloting, Mr. Mason obtained a day, July 6, on which to bring forward his resolution. It was thus worded:

That in the opinion of this House the parliamentary franchise should be extended to women who possess the qualifications which entitle men to vote, and who, in all matters of local government have the right of voting.

Mr. Edward Leatham, also a Liberal, gave notice to oppose the resolution affirming with a curious liberalism, that "it is undesirable to change the immemorial basis of the franchise, which is that men only shall be qualified to elect members to serve in this House." Thus after a silence of four years, years of apparent inertia, but really fraught with progress, the debate once again revived in parliament. Mr. Jacob Bright said:

They have told us women can get what they want without the franchise. That used to be said of working men—but since they have had a vote, members in every part of the House have had a generosity and sympathy and courage in all matters affecting working men which they never had before. Precisely the same effect would follow if you gave women the franchise. I admit that women have gained much without the franchise, and I will tell the House when that gain began: It began with the introduction of the question of women's suffrage to the House, and the gain has been mainly due to the awakening intelligence of women on political questions owing to the wide-spread agitation and the demand for women's suffrage. They have gained without the franchise, municipal votes, school-board votes, the right to sit on school-boards, the magnificent act of last year—an act which ought to confer lasting fame on the present lord chancellor—the Married Women's Property act. And owing to the untiring energy of the right honorable member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), they have succeeded in inflicting a blow on an act of parliament[554] more unjust to women than anything which has ever been passed, a blow from which that act will never recover. These things have been gained without the franchise. But who will tell me they would not have gained them sooner, with less heart-breaking labor, if they had had the political franchise?

Mr. Courtney also addressed the House in stirring words. The result was most encouraging. Four years had passed since a division had been taken, and the enormous majority against us which in so many divisions had maintained its strength had dwindled to only 16. A total of 164, including tellers and pairs supported the resolution against an opposition of only 180. If the Liberal side of the House had only been canvassed on this occasion it would have been a victory, as 119 Liberals voted for it and paired, and only 75 against it.

With the close of the session the question was transferred to the country, and the events of the autumn made it amply evident that the majority of Liberals were in favor of extending the parliamentary suffrage to women. A great conference was held in October at Leeds, where delegates from between 500 and 600 Liberal organizations were present. Fully 2,000 delegates were present at the first meeting. After a long discussion upon the coming Reform bill, the Rev. T. Crosskey, of Birmingham, proposed a rider to the resolution which would include women's suffrage, as follows:

Resolved, That, in order to meet the just expectations of the country, and to fulfill the pledges given at the last general election, this conference is of opinion that a measure for the extension of the franchise should confer on householders in the counties the same electoral rights as those enjoyed by householders in parliamentary boroughs; and that, in the opinion of this meeting, any measure for the extension of the suffrage should confer the franchise upon women, who, possessing the qualifications which entitle men to vote, have now the right of voting in all matters of local government.

Mr. Walter McLaren seconded Dr. Crosskey in an able speech, and Miss Jane Cobden (daughter of the late Richard Cobden) who was sitting on the platform, and who had been appointed delegate from the Liberal association of Midhurst, supported the resolution. She begged them, representing as they did the Liberal principles of all England, to give it their hearty support. This was a continuation of the struggle in which Liberals had taken part during the last fifty years, and she trusted they would be true to their principles.

Mrs. Helen Bright Clark, the daughter of Mr. John Bright, M. P., who had been appointed delegate from one of the few Liberal associations which comprise women among their members, said:

There was in this country a considerable and increasing number of earnest women of strong liberal convictions, who felt keenly the total exclusion of their sex from the parliamentary suffrage. Their hope was, of course, in the Liberal party, though all of its members were not yet converted to true liberalism. The Liberal women would not rest satisfied until there was throughout the United Kingdom a real and honest household suffrage. They knew that they were weak in the cabinet, and they regretted to know that some of the most eminent leaders of the Liberal party were not in this matter wholly their friends. These leaders had fears which she thought the future would show to have been unfounded. But she could venture to say on behalf of the Liberal women of England that they were not unmindful of the past, and were not ungrateful for the services which these men rendered and were prepared to render to their country. Women were grateful. They sympathized with the efforts of Liberal statesmen in the past, and they knew how faithfully and loyally to follow. But they felt that they must sometimes originate for themselves, and they dared not blindly and with absolute faith follow any man, however great or however justly and deeply beloved. Further, she could say that, with the result of the high political teaching they had had in the past, they would endeavor faithfully, intelligently and with what ability was given to them, to uphold those great principles of justice, and trust in the people which she believed had made the Liberal party what it was, and which alone were capable of lifting it to the highest triumphs in the future.

There were enthusiastic cheers when Mrs. Clark had finished speaking. The historical interest, the self-evident justice of the plea brought forward by the daughters of the great reform leaders on behalf of the continuance of the grand cause of freedom for which their fathers had so bravely battled, went to the hearts of the crowded assembly. Delegates who had come determined to vote against the resolution—the "monstrous political fad," as one of our opponents in parliament had called it—said, almost with tears in their eyes, "We can't vote against the daughters of Bright and Cobden," and when the resolution with the rider was put, a forest of hands went up in its support, and in that vast crowd there were only about thirty dissentients. The following evening Miss Jane Cobden and Mrs. Scatcherd addressed an open-air meeting of 30,000 men who could not gain access to Victoria Hall, where John Bright was speaking on the franchise for men, and a unanimous cheer was given in favor of women's suffrage.

This was only the beginning of the autumn campaign among the Liberal associations. The general committee of the Edinburgh United Liberal Association met on November 16, 1883, in the Oddfellows' Hall (No. 2), Forrest road, Edinburgh, to consider the questions of the Local Government Board (Scotland) bill, the equalization of the burgh and county franchise, and the extension of the parliamentary vote to women householders. After the two first subjects had been considered, the following resolution, moved by ex-Bailie Lewis, was adopted:

Resolved, That this meeting regards the extension of the parliamentary franchise to female householders as just and reasonable, and would hail with satisfaction the introduction of a government measure which would confer the parliamentary franchise upon all female householders, whether resident in counties or burghs.

November 21, a meeting of the general council of the Manchester Liberal Association was held in the Memorial Hall to consider the resolutions passed at the Leeds conference. Mr. J. A. Beith presided. Mr. J. W. Southern moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That in order to meet the just expectation of the country and to fulfill the pledges given at the last general election, this council is of opinion that a measure for the extension of the franchise should confer on householders and lodgers in the counties the same electoral rights as those enjoyed by householders and lodgers in parliamentary boroughs, and should extend to Ireland the franchise enjoyed by Great Britain; and that, in the opinion of this meeting, any measure for the extension of the suffrage should confer the franchise upon women who, possessing the qualifications which should entitle men to vote, have now the right of voting in all matters of local government.

An amendment to strike out the portion relating to women having been rejected, the resolution was carried unanimously. November 26, the sixth annual meeting of the National Liberal Association was held at Bristol. Here also one or two ladies were present as delegates. After a resolution affirming the urgency of the question of parliamentary reform had been passed, Mr. Lewis Fry, M. P., moved:

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting any measure for the extension of the suffrage should confer the franchise upon women who, possessing the qualifications which entitle men to vote, have now the right of voting in all matters of local government.

The resolution was seconded by Dr. Caldicott, supported in excellent speeches by Mrs. Walter McLaren and Mrs. Ashworth Hallett, and carried by a majority of five. Many other Liberal associations of less importance, during the autumn, affirmed the principle of women's suffrage. All the political associations in Ulster, both Conservative and Liberal, either formally or informally signified their acceptance of the principle. In the progress of the movement it was very encouraging to see so many brave women[555] of ability crowding our platform, conscientiously devoting their time, talents and money to this sacred cause, ready and able to fill the vacant places that time must make in our ranks.

The year 1884 opened with good hopes. There was the immediate prospect of a reform bill, intended so to widen the representation of the people as to fix it on a satisfactory basis for another generation at least. The time seemed opportune for the attainment of women's suffrage. There had been repeated proof that the majority of the Liberal party in the country admit the justice of their claims; there were renewed promises of support on the part of members of parliament of all shades of political opinion. Many times the claims of women for the franchise have been set aside by the assertion that so important a privilege could not be granted till the time came for the general re-settlement of the question. That time appeared to have come. A considerable extension of the suffrage was to be granted, so as to include another 2,000,000 of unenfranchised men; what better time to recognize the claims of women who already possessed the qualifications of property or residence which alone in England give the vote? A few persons expected that the government Reform bill would contain a clause relating to women, but this expectation was not generally shared. It was well known that strong differences of opinion existed in the cabinet which would render it well-nigh impossible for the government to introduce the question as one of their own; and though there may have been disappointment, there was no great surprise when the Franchise bill, on its introduction, was found to contain no reference to women.

Meanwhile there had been a change in the leadership of the movement. Mr. Hugh Mason having intimated his intention to resign the conduct of the measure, Mr. William Woodall, member of parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, consented to take charge of it. A conference of friendly members of parliament was held in the House of Commons on February 7, and it was then agreed that should the government Franchise bill not extend to women, an amendment with the object of including them should be moved at some stage of the discussion in the House of Commons. Mr. Woodall agreed to take charge of this amendment.

On February 28, Mr. Gladstone moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people. The forms of the House did not admit of Mr. Woodall's amendment being placed on the notice-paper until after the second reading of the bill, but during the adjourned debate on the second reading he found an opportunity to announce that he would move his proposed clause while the House was in committee on the bill. He remarked that the fundamental principle of the bill as it was described by the prime minister was to give a vote to every household, but as there was no provision for giving the franchise to such householders if they happened to be women, he intended to propose the insertion of a clause to remedy this omission. The clause was:

For all purposes connected with and having reference to the right of voting in the election of members of parliament, words in the Representation of the People acts importing the masculine gender include women.

A careful analysis of the opinions of members of the House of Commons gave every promise that such an amendment might be successful. The views of 485 out of the entire number were known, while 155 had never expressed an opinion, about one-third of these being new members. Of those whose opinions were known, 249, or a majority, had expressed themselves in favor of women's suffrage, 236 had expressed themselves against it. The preponderance of support had hitherto always been among the Liberal ranks, for though the leaders of the Conservative party had given the principle their hearty approval, their example had not been followed by their partisans. It appeared probable therefore that, if the government held itself neutral on the occasion and permitted fair play, the amendment would be carried mainly by means of their own friends.

During the spring, meetings of considerable importance were held in the country. The first was at Edinburgh on March 22. It was a demonstration of women inferior in no respect to those we have had occasion to chronicle of former years. No more imposing assemblage for a political object had ever been seen in Edinburgh. The largest hall in the city—that of the United Presbyterian Synod—was crowded to the doors, and an overflow meeting was held in the Presbytery Hall. Banners were hung above the platform and a roll inscribed with the names of the principal supporters of the movement was conspicuously displayed.[556] Lady Harberton occupied the chair and was accompanied by the delegates.[557] Letters[558] of sympathy were read by Miss Wigham, the secretary.

LADY HARBERTON said: If our legislators say taxation and representation should go together, it is right that they should give expression to this opinion fairly and openly, and at all times and seasons insist upon it that those women who are ratepayers and who are in fact heads of households, ought not to be excluded from the privilege of voting for a member to represent them in the House of Commons. This is no question of women usurping the place of men or any trivialities of that kind; it is a much more serious matter. The exclusion of women from the right to representation has already led to laws being passed about them and their interests, that I do not hesitate to call a disgrace to humanity. [Cheers.] That they are not more commonly recognized as such is due, I think, to two causes. One thing is that women of the upper classes, who are usually wealthy, are able by the aid of money so to hedge themselves around with barriers to oppose the inconveniences placed upon women by the laws, that they very often do not feel them so much; while women of the classes who are not wealthy are so crushed and oppressed by the working of these laws that they are unable to take the first step, which is agitation, towards getting them altered or repealed. [Cheers.] It often seems to me that another reason why women themselves are not more enthusiastic upon this question of the franchise is, that from their earliest childhood they are taught that the first duty of women is unselfishness, the putting of their own interests and wishes behind those of others. Any discussion of this great question only brings forth hysterical clamor that "women should stay at Home"—with a very big "H." [Laughter and cheers.] Well, I have been examining a little into the conduct of those ladies who do stay at home so much, and what do I find? Why, that they rush about and seem like the changing colors of the kaleidoscope, now collecting at a bazaar, anon singing at a concert, with no end of publicity [cheers], but as long as no rational object is promoted by their action, it is all counted as staying quietly home in the nursery, whether they have children or not. That is their notion of being "thoroughly domesticated." [Laughter.] Now, much as I could wish myself that men had done their duty and agitated for us, in this case it is an undeniable fact that they have not shown that readiness, I may say eagerness, to begin that one could have wished; it therefore changes at once into one of those duties men have not seen their way to do, and so becomes of necessity women's work.

A series of meetings[559] after this was held in Bath, Newcastle and London.

The audiences heartily concurred with the speakers that the time when a reform bill was before parliament was the fittest and most opportune moment in which to press forward the claim of women to representation.

We may observe once again with pride, how hearty and cheering have always been the sympathy and assistance that men have rendered to women in this movement in England. At no time has there been a possibility of a feeling of bitterness between the sexes or a conviction that their interests were antagonistic, for the plain reason that there have always been men working side by side with women. Our suffrage meetings have been attended and supported by political leaders, members of parliament, town councils or prominent movers among the working-class associations. Except in the great demonstrations, which for special reasons were confined exclusively to women, our movement has formed part of the ordinary political life of the country.

The Suffrage Journal for May contains a very carefully drawn calculation of the number of women in the United Kingdom who will probably receive the franchise if the wider qualifications contained in the present Franchise bill become law. It must be remembered that there are now 3,330,720 more houses than electors in the British Isles. In boroughs where household suffrage already prevails for men, the unrepresented houses should guide us to a tolerably correct estimate of the number of women householders. We may say that practically there are 446,000 houses in the boroughs of England and Wales, whose inhabitant in each case being a woman, is unrepresented. The proportion varies much in different localities; in the city of Bath one-fourth the householders are women. If we calculate that one house in every six in the boroughs is occupied by a woman, we find that 349,746 is the probable number to be enfranchised there.

For the counties there are no means of arriving at so close a result, but by estimating the proportion of women householders to be the same as that of women land-owners, or one in seven, we reach the fairly approximate calculation of 390,434, in the counties. The same method of calculation applies to Scotland and to Ireland, where, however, the proportion of woman land-owners is one in eight.[560]

In order to show that the desire for the suffrage was not confined to any one rank, class or profession of women, a circular was signed by a large number of ladies and sent to every member of both houses of parliament. It was as follows:

SIR: We desire to call your attention to the claim of women who are heads of households to be included in the operation of the government Franchise bill.

Women have continuously presented this claim before parliament and the country since the Reform bill of 1867. The introduction of a measure declared by the government to be intended to deal with the franchise in an exhaustive manner, renders it especially necessary now to urge it upon the attention of parliament.

We respectfully represent that the claim of duly qualified women for admission within the pale of the constitution is fully as pressing as that of the agricultural laborer, and that the body of electors who would thereby be added to the constituencies, would be at least equal in general and political intelligence to the great body of agricultural and other laborers who are to be enfranchised by the government bill.

Among this body would be found women land-owners, who form one-seventh of the land proprietors of the country; women of means and position living on their own property; schoolmistresses and other teachers; women engaged in professional, literary and artistic pursuits; women farmers, merchants, manufacturers and shopkeepers; besides large numbers of self-supporting women engaged in industrial occupations. The continued exclusion of so large a proportion of the property, industry and intelligence of the country from all representation in the legislature is injurious to those excluded, and to the community at large.

Several bills having special reference to the interests and status of women have been introduced in parliament during the present session. This affords a powerful reason for the immediate enfranchisement of women, in order that members of parliament may have the same sense of responsibility towards the class affected by them whether dealing with questions relating to women or to men.

For these and other reasons we earnestly beg that you will give your support to the amendment to be introduced by Mr. Woodall in committee on the Representation of the People bill for including women householders in its operation. We are, sir, yours faithfully,[561]