obtained under the Bill as introduced by Mr. Jacob Bright. The question of the justice or expediency of maintaining the common law disabilities of married women is not a practical question at the present time. "Should measures dealing with the whole or any portion of these disabilities come before Parliament, it would be of great assistance to members, in arriving at a just decision, if they were responsible to a large body of women constituents, even if all such women were Femmes soles."1 In view of the representations made to him, Mr. Forsyth agreed to modify his proposed proviso to the restricted technical aspect conveyed by the legal phrase "no woman under coverture." No modifications or explanations, however, could remove the scruples of some who regarded any semblance even of limitation as a defection from principle and several members withdrew from the Central Committee. The view, however, which was taken by the Society at large is clearly conveyed in the following letter from Miss Becker to Mr. Forsyth, dated May 28th: "I have never doubted that you introduced the proviso in the belief that it would disarm objection to the Bill, and so it does completely, the objection from one side. But there is a Scylla as well as a Charybdis in this delicate navigation, and the original Bill was carefully and purposely drafted so as to avoid both. If you will refer to Mr. Gladstone's speech on the 1 Women's Suffrage Journal, April 1874, p. 53. debate in 1871, you will see that he says: 'It is quite clear that married women, if they possessed the qualifications, ought not to be omitted from any privilege conferred upon single women.' Mr. Jacob Bright's answer to that was clear and simple. 'My Bill does not exclude married women; if they are excluded it is by the common law disabilities of wives, which are not now under discussion. Let us keep the purely electoral law clear from the complications of the marriage law. The electoral law does not, or should not, take cognizance of the fact of marriage in the case of either women or men.' So might Mr. Bright have replied to Mr. Gladstone. On the other hand, the objectors on the contrary side should have been silenced by the fact that the Bill did not touch the common law disabilities which precluded wives from the suffrage. You will gather from this, as well as from an article in the journal, and even my letter in the Examiner, that I think the proviso weakens the Bill logically, as well as raising some practical difficulty, although words. cannot express my indignation at the conduct of those. who have cast about such unworthy aspersions, and at the deplorable folly of those who have tried to create these dissensions and difficulties which it is our first duty to avoid. Although I prefer the Bill as originally introduced, I am sure that with the amended proviso it ought to satisfy all reasonable people, and be heartily accepted and strenuously worked for by all friends of the cause-and it is very likely that the proviso will win or secure votes; if it does that, its introduction is amply justified." The developments of the session, which, owing to the unexpected dissolution in February, had only begun on 19th March, gradually showed it to be hopeless to preserve a day for the Bill, in the pressure of Government business, and it was withdrawn for that year. § 27. Work for and against the Bill. Petition work may be described as the dominant factor of the work during this Parliament. They flowed in an incessant stream. The April issue of the Women's Suffrage Journal says that within the few weeks that Parliament had been in session, petitions, containing over a quarter of a million signatures, had been presented in favour of Mr. Forsyth's Bill-more than for any other Bill that session. Of these the majority appeared to be the signatures of women. By the close of the session, 1273 petitions, with 415,622 signatures, had been sent up in favour of Women's Suffrage, while the numbers for Mr. Trevelyan's County Franchise Bill were 68, with 48,797 signatures.1 As the day for the trial of strength approached, two vigorous whips-one with the signatures of four members on the Conservative, and the other with four members on the Liberal side-were issued.2 But all this effort 1 Women's Suffrage Journal, 1875, p. 122. 2 Opposition Conservative Whip. CERTAIN AND IMPORTANT DIVISION. WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL. You are earnestly and particularly requested to be in the House of Commons on Wednesday, April 7th, by four o'clock, to vote against the notwithstanding, the majority against sank to 13, thereby occasioning so much uneasiness in the minds of the opponents that they resolved to form a Committee for "Maintaining the Integrity of the Franchise."1 MINUTES OF A MEETING at the House of Commons, "Present.-The Rt. Hon. E. P. Bouverie in the chair, and the following Members of Parliament: Rt. Hon. H. C. Childers, Marquis of Hamilton, Lord Randolph Churchill, Hon. E. Stanhope, Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Hayter, Sir Henry Holland, Sir Henry James, Mr. Kay Shuttleworth, Mr. Leatham, Mr. Merewether, Mr. Newdigate, Mr. Raikes, Mr. de Rothschild, Mr. Scourfield, Mr. Whitbread. "Resolved.-I. "That a committee of Peers, Members of Parliament, and other influential men be organized for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the franchise, in opposition to the claims for the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to women. "II. "That Mr. E. P. Bouverie be requested to act as chairman; and Lord Claud John Hamilton and Mr. Kay Shuttleworth as honorary secretaries. The following members have since joined those named above: Lord Elcho, Rt. Hon. E. KnatchbullHuguessen, Rt. Hon. T. B. Mowbray, Sir Thomas Bayley, Mr. Butt, Mr. Gibson, and Col. Kingscote.' second reading of the Women's Suffrage Bill, the rejection of which will be moved by Mr. Chaplin. HENRY CHAPLIN. J. H. SCOURFIELD. A. J. B. BERESFORD HOPE. Opposition Liberal Whip. WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL. Your attendance in the House of Commons on Wednesday, April 7th, to vote against the second reading of the Women's Suffrage Bill, is earnestly requested. E. A. KNATCHBULL-HUGUESSEN. E. A. LEATHAM. 1 Women's Suffrage Journal, 1875, p. 109. HENRY JAMES. But even a Committee for Maintaining the Integrity of the Franchise did not lessen the support given to the Bill by a single vote, when, on 26th April 1876, Mr. Forsyth again brought forward his " little Bill of mighty consequence." 1 Even though the eloquence of the Rt. Hon. John Bright had been enlisted against it, there were very few among the noes who were not already known to be opponents of the Bill-" the stronghold of the opposition was amongst the M.P.'s of the old Parliament." 2 In a letter to the Rt. Hon. John Bright, which was published as a pamphlet, " A Lady in the Gallery" (Miss Isabella Tod) wrote: "I felt the pity of it when you rose with pale face and laid a trembling hand on the table before you for support, whilst, with hesitating accents, you repeated against us the worn-out arguments you have so often and so mercilessly exposed when uttered by your opponents." In the Annual Report of the Manchester Committee, the speech was described as "characterized throughout by a tone of doubt and hesitation very unusual with the speaker." Surely the Lady in the Gallery hit the true blot in Mr. Bright's conception of the matter when she wrote: "You say that our Bill is based on an assumed constant and irreconciliable hostility between the sexes.' It is, on the contrary, based on the belief in the constant, trustful sympathy between the sexes." The elevation of Mr. Disraeli to the peerage at the close of the session, was a distinct loss to the strength of the movement in the House of Commons. 1 Punch. 2 Women's Suffrage Journal, 1876. |