the qualifications which entitle men to vote, have now the right of voting in all matters of local government.”

He said the Conference would stultify itself if it rejected this motion, and reminded them that ladies were taking part in the Conference, which had made no difference of sexes in the summons to attend.

Mr. Walter S. B. M'Laren (delegate from the Central Liberal Association of the North-West Riding of Yorkshire) seconded the rider, and reminded the Conference that there was nothing new in bringing the question before such an assembly. In 1874, at a Conference in London, and in 1876, at one convened by the National Reform Union in Manchester, amendments had been carried in favour of giving votes to women. During the preceding session of Parliament, a memorial, signed by 110 M.P.'s, had been presented to Mr. Gladstone, which stated that no measure for the extension of the franchise would be satisfactory unless it contained provision for giving the franchise to all persons, without distinction of sex, who possessed the necessary qualification. That memorial had been signed by Mr. John Morley, member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, who was president of this Conference, and by nearly every member of Parliament on the platform.

Miss Cobden (Mrs. Fisher-Unwin), daughter of the late Richard Cobden, said she heartily supported the resolution. She begged them, as representing the liberal principles of all England, to give it their hearty support. Mr. Carbutt, M.P., also supported; and Mrs. Bright Clark, daughter of the Hon. John Bright, said she was one of the delegates from a Liberal Association

which comprised among its members a very few women, therefore she thought she had a right to support the rider. There was in this country a considerable and an increasing number of women of strong Liberal convictions, who felt keenly their exclusion from the Parliamentary suffrage. They sympathized with the efforts of Liberal statesmen in the past; they knew how faithfully and loyally to follow; but they felt they must originate for themselves sometimes.

Mrs. Clark's speech was followed by loud cheers, and when, after the original resolution had been unanimously carried, it was put with the rider, this was carried too by a very large majority, amid great cheering.

$33. Mr. Woodall's Amendment.

When on 1st May 1884 the Reform Bill went into Committee, Mr. Woodall at once gave notice to add a new clause in Committee, providing that words importing the masculine gender should include women, Baron de Worms seconding on the Conservative side.

Already there were signs of the coming battle. Members who were supporters of the Government had been given to understand that Mr. Woodall's amendment was regarded as dangerous to the Bill itself, and that the Government meant to oppose. Liberal members known to be favourable to the inclusion of women householders in the Bill were informed, by the usual official channels for conveying the mind of the Government, that they were not to be free to exercise their judgment, nor to vote according to their honest con

victions. Under these circumstances a memorial from seventy-nine Liberal members of Parliament was forwarded to Mr. Gladstone by Mr. Woodall with the following letter:

"Queen Anne's Mansion, St. James' Park, S.W.,

June 9th, 1884.

"DEAR MR. GLADSTONE,-Very respectfully and very earnestly I commend the accompanying memorial to your favourable consideration.

"I wish I could convey to you any idea of the wide and deep interest which is felt in regard to this claim of women householders to the Parliamentary franchise, and to the importance of its recognition in the Bill now before Parliament.

"I would it were possible for me to tell you how confident is the belief (in spite of what has been said to the contrary) that you will not deny a hearing to a plea the abstract justice of which few deny, and which so many regard as invincible, under what you have termed the principal and central idea of your great measure of enfranchisement.

"The appeal, as you will see, is strongly supported; it is made in the hope that you will regard it as at once just and reasonable, and believing that your favourable assent is consistent with good policy, I remain, dear Mr. Gladstone, faithfully yours,

(Signed) "WM. WOODALL."

The memorial with the list of signatures will be found in full in Appendix F. The following letter was sent by Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Woodall in reply to the memorial:

"10 Downing Street, June 10th.

"DEAR MR. WOODALL,-In acknowledging the receipt of your letter, let me say that I am very sensible of the kindness of its form, of the singleness of your motives, of your thorough attachment to the Franchise Bill, of the weight due to the signatures you have placed

before me, and of the just title which your subject possesses to full consideration at the proper time. But the question with what subjects, viewing the actual state of business and of parties, we can afford to deal in and by the Franchise Bill is a question in regard to which the undivided responsibility rests with the Government, and cannot be devolved by them upon any section, however respected, of the House of Commons. They have introduced into the Bill as much as, in their opinion, it can safely carry. The introduction of what it cannot safely carry endangers a measure which the heart and mind of the country alike desire and assent to. Such introduction would, therefore, on our part be a breach of the duty to the Bill and to the nation.-Believe me, yours, etc.,

"W. E. GLADSTONE."

The wide and deep interest of which Mr. Woodall speaks in his letter was further evidenced by a letter, signed by seventy-six representative women of the day, which was sent to every member of Parliament. This letter and the signatures appended will be found in Appendix G.

A letter also appeared in the Times with the signatures of Adeline Paulina Irby and Sophia Jex Blake, M.D., in which, "as two working women, who have hitherto taken little part in the agitation," these ladies showed strong grounds in support of Mr. Woodall's amendment, based on the principle of representative Government; they went on to protest against the idea that by "omitting female suffrage from the Reform Bill women will be left in statu quo, and no injury will be done them by passing the Bill in the first instance and leaving their case to be considered subsequently." They pointed out that "This is thoroughly false on two grounds: first, by the extension of the suffrage to such

an enormous number of additional men, the position of the women will be sharply accentuated and made infinitely worse than before; the residuum of the unrepresented will have so diminished that practically every family will have its voice recognized, except the many thousands of families of every grade who have women as their heads." They pointed out also that the present Bill was avowedly intended to settle the franchise, at least for that generation, and that "to pass it without doing justice to women" would indefinitely postpone any measure for that purpose.

On June 10th Mr. Woodall moved his clause, and was followed by Mr. Gladstone, the burden of whose speech may be summed up in the two following sentences: "The cargo which the vessel carries is, in our opinion, a cargo as large as she can safely carry." " With regard to the proposal to introduce it into this Bill, I offer it the strongest opposition in my power, and I must disclaim and renounce all responsibility for the measure should my hon. friend succeed in inducing the Committee to adopt the amendment."

On the motion of Lord John Manners (afterwards Duke of Rutland) the debate was adjourned, to be resumed on June 12th, when Lord John Manners, as one who had taken a strong interest in the movement for a long series of years, maintained that it was in no sense a party question, nor was it in any sense a new question. But more important than the debate was the division.

"The true significance of the division may be estimated by an examination of the number of known friends of Women's Suffrage who voted on this occasion