In the subst.i.tution of the word "man" for that of "male person"
in the Reform act of 1832, a great difference was already discernable, but this difference was more important when taken into conjunction with what was popularly known as "Lord Romilly"s act,"
an act for shortening the language used in acts of parliament (13 and 14 Vict.). This act provides, "that all words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, unless the contrary is expressly provided"; and in the Representation of the People act there was no express provision to the contrary. This had been pointed out by one or two members at the time.
Accordingly the several societies united in a systematic endeavor to procure the insertion of women"s names on the registers of electors under the new Reform act. A circular respectfully requesting the boards of overseers to insert on the list of voters the names of all persons who had paid their rates, was sent to several hundred boards in different parts of the country. Very few replies were received, but women were placed on the lists in many counties, in Aberdeen, Salford and many small districts in Lancaster, Middles.e.x, Kent, etc. The overseers of Manchester declined compliance. In that city there were 5,100 women householders who claimed their votes, and when the revision courts were opened in September, this claim came on for consideration. The case was ably argued, but the revising barrister decided against admitting it, granting, however, a case for trial at the Court of Common Pleas. Another case was also granted, being that of Mrs.
Kyllman, a free-holder, her claim being under the old free-holding franchise 8 Henry VI., to wit.:
Elections of knights of the shire shall be made in each county by people dwelling and resident therein of whom each has free-hold to the value of 40 by the year.
In the majority of districts the revising barristers disallowed the claims; but in four district-revision courts the women"s names were admitted. In Finsbury, one of the metropolitan boroughs, Mr.
Chisholm Anstey was revising barrister, and he admitted them on account of ancient English law; in c.o.c.kermouth, Winterton and two townships of Lancashire, the revising barrister admitted them upon his interpretation of the Reform act taken in conjunction with Lord Romilly"s act. In the suffrage report for this year the number of women placed on the electoral roll by these decisions is estimated at about 230, but undoubtedly there were others concerning whom no information was received. In many cases the women voted: 15 did so in Finsbury (not only was there no disturbance, but hardly any remark was made, and they expressed their surprise that it was so easy a thing to do); 12 in Gordon and 10 in Levenshulme, both little districts in Lancashire, and smaller numbers in other places. In Chester the parliament candidate issued his election placards to "Ladies and Gentlemen."
On November 7, the case of the 5,000 Manchester women householders was argued before the Court of Common Pleas. Mr. J. D. Coleridge (now Lord Coleridge, Lord-chief-justice of England) and Dr.
Pankhurst were the counsel for the appellants. Mr. John Coleridge in an able argument spoke of the ancient const.i.tutional right of women to take part in elections. He produced copies from the record office of several indentures returning members to parliament, the signatures of which were in the hand-writing of women, or to which women were parties. He argued that the term "man" in the Reform act included woman, not only generally but specifically, under the provisions of Lord Romilly"s act. The case was argued before Lord-chief-justice Boville; the decision was given on November 9, and decisively p.r.o.nounced that the new Reform act had never intended to include women, and that they were incapacitated from voting. This decision did not affect the women who were already on the register, and many voted in the general election which took place afterwards. Thus women have been shut out from electoral rights, not by any decree of parliament, but by this decision of the Court of Common Pleas. However there was no appeal from this Court, except to parliament, and from this time forward the character of the agitation changed. The year 1868 ended with a legal decision which seemed crushing in its finality, while the same year had given the most conclusive proof that women wished to vote, and would do so whenever the opportunity offered.
The next year, 1869, gave another convincing proof that women were eager to vote, and brought us the most substantial triumph yet obtained, due to the wisdom and skilful tactics of Mr. Jacob Bright, member of parliament for Manchester. This victory was the munic.i.p.al franchise for women. Early in 1869 Mr. Hibbert introduced a bill to regulate the conditions of the munic.i.p.al franchise. By the Munic.i.p.al Corporation Amendment act, pa.s.sed in 1835, male persons only were authorized to vote. The present bill was to amend that. Mr. Jacob Bright, seconded by Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.
Peter Rylands, proposed the omission of the word "male" from the bill, and the insertion of a clause securing to women the right of voting in munic.i.p.al elections. Mr. Hibbert concurred in the introduction of these amendments, though he did not antic.i.p.ate they would lead to any result beyond a discussion. A circular containing full information upon the ancient and existing rights of women to vote in local affairs was sent to each member of parliament by the Manchester committee. It showed that before the pa.s.sing of the Munic.i.p.al Corporation act of 1835, women rate-payers had rights similar to those of men in all matters pertaining to local government and expenditure; and that in non-corporate districts they still exercised such rights, under the provisions of the Public Health act, and other statutes guarding the electoral privileges of the whole body of rate-payers. But when any district was incorporated into a munic.i.p.al borough, the women rate-payers were disfranchised, although those not included within its boundaries remained possessed of votes. It showed also that women can vote in parochial matters, and take part in vestry meetings, called for various purposes, such as the election of church-wardens and way-wardens, the appointment of overseers, the sale of parish property, and, formerly, the levying of church-rates; also that they can vote in the election of poor-law guardians--that in fact, in none of those ancient voting customs, was the s.e.x of the ratepayers taken into consideration as either a qualification or disqualification. We quote from the Manchester society:
In the House of Commons on June 7, 1869, on consideration of the Munic.i.p.al Franchise bill as amended, Mr. Jacob Bright rose to move that in this act and the said recited act (Munic.i.p.al Corporation Reform act, 1835) wherever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with and having reference to the election of or power to elect representatives of any munic.i.p.al corporation. He stated that his object was to give the munic.i.p.al vote to every rate-payer within the munic.i.p.al limits; to give to munic.i.p.al property the representation which all property enjoyed elsewhere; that had the proposition been an innovation, a departure from the customary legislation of the country, he would not have brought it in as an amendment to a bill; but that his object was to remove an innovation--to resist one of the most remarkable invasions of long-established rights which the legislation of this or any other country could show. The bill before the house was an amendment of the Munic.i.p.al Corporation act of 1835. That act was the only act in regard to local expenditure and local government which established this disability. Before and since, all acts of parliament gave every local vote to every rate-payer. The Health of Towns act of 1848 had a clause almost identical with the one he was moving. He was therefore asking the House not only to make the bill in harmony with the general legislation of the country, but to allow it to be in harmony with its latest expressed convictions as shown in the act of 1848. There were in England 78 non-corporate towns which were not parliamentary boroughs, with populations varying from 20,000 to 6,000. In these every rate-payer voted. There was little if any difference between their government and that of munic.i.p.al towns. Who could a.s.sign a reason why women should vote in one and not in the other? Every parochial vote was in the hands of the whole body of rate-payers. Women held the most important parochial offices. The sister of the member for Stockport had acted as overseer. Miss Burdett Coutts had been urged to take the office of guardian. Had she been a large rate-payer in a munic.i.p.al town, what an absurdity to shut her out from the vote! He then showed how the process of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt was going on, and quoted Darlington and Southport. The latter town was incorporated in 1867. In 1866, 2,085 persons were qualified to vote for commissioners; 588 of these were women.
From the moment of incorporation these votes were extinguished without a reason being a.s.signed, though they had exercised them from time immemorial. Such would be the case with any town incorporated in the future. He appealed to the metropolitan members, and showed them that unless his clauses were carried, when they came to establish corporations throughout the metropolis, as some of them desired, all the female rate-payers would be struck off the roll; that over a population of 3,000,000 this exclusion would prevail. He stated that where women had the vote they exercised it to an equal degree with the men. Mr.
Lings, the comptroller for the city of Manchester, affirms that according to his experience the number of men and women who vote in local affairs bears a just proportion to the number of each on the register. He showed that as the bill was a largely enfranchising measure, his clause was in strict harmony with it, but that while the bill sought to increase the representation of those who were already considerably represented, the clause which he wished to add would give representation to those who within munic.i.p.al towns were totally deprived of it. He concluded by saying that questions had come to him, since these amendments had been on the paper, from women in different parts of the country, and from those who by their social and intellectual positions might be regarded as representatives of their s.e.x, asking why there should always be this tender regard for the representation and therefore the protection of men, and this apparent disregard for the interest of women; and he appealed to the House, by its decision, to show that as regards these local franchises it had a common regard for the whole body of rate-payers.
Mr. Jacob Bright"s motion, which he supported with all the tact, earnestness and judgment of which he afterwards gave such repeated proofs in bringing forward his Women"s Disabilities bill, was seconded by Mr. Rylands. Mr. Bruce (the home secretary) said he had shown conclusively that this proposition was no novelty, and that women were allowed to vote in every form of local government, except under the Munic.i.p.al Corporations act. The clause introduced no anomaly, and he should give it his cordial support. Mr. Hibbert also supported the clause, which was agreed to amid cheers, and it was pa.s.sed without a dissentient word or the faintest shadow of opposition, as was also the proposal of Sir Charles Dilke, to leave out the word "male" in the first clause.
In the House of Lords an attempt was made by Lord Redesdale to reverse the decision of the House of Commons, but the proposal found no seconder, and therefore fell to the ground. The Earl of Kimberley, on behalf of the government, supported the proposition, as did also Lord Cairns, from the opposition benches. The Munic.i.p.al Franchise bill became law in August, 1869. One well-known statesman said at the time, "This is a revolution; this vote means still another, and there never was so great a revolution so speedily accomplished." In 1869 the Ballot act had not been pa.s.sed; this was in the days of open voting. It was therefore possible to ascertain with accuracy in how large a proportion the women householders availed themselves of their restored right to vote whenever a contested election took place. On the following November a letter of inquiry was sent to the town clerk of every munic.i.p.al borough in England and Wales, and by their courtesy in replying it was ascertained that the women voted in very large numbers. In our munic.i.p.al towns the average ratio of women householders to men householders is about one to seven. This varies greatly in different localities. In Tewkesbury, for instance, there was only one woman householder to twenty-three men householders, while in Bath the proportion had risen as high as one to three. The women voters were in about the same proportion. In the larger boroughs the proportion was especially good, while there were cases in which the polling of the women exceeded that of the men. In Bodmin, Cornwall, two women voted, one of whom was 92 and the other 94 years of age.
The first public meeting in connection with women"s suffrage was held in Manchester, April 14, 1868, in the a.s.sembly room of the Free Trade Hall. The occasion was one of great interest. Mr. Henry D. Pochin, the mayor of Salford (which adjoins Manchester), took the chair, and the first resolution was moved by Miss Becker, seconded by the venerable Arch-deacon Sandford, and supported by Mr. T. B. Potter, M. P.:
_Resolved_, That the exclusion of women from the exercise of the franchise in the election of members, being unjust in principle and inexpedient in practice, this meeting is of opinion that the right of voting should be granted to them on the same conditions as it is or may be granted to men.
The other resolutions were spoken to by Dr. Pankhurst, Mrs. Pochin (who had also written a very exhaustive pamphlet on "The Claim of Woman to the Elective Franchise," signed, _Just.i.tia_), Mr. Chisholm Anstey, Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., Miss Annie Robertson of Dublin, Mr. F. W. Myers, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Mr. J.
W. Edwards. This meeting, and the one which followed in Birmingham, May 6, are fair types of those which have followed by thousands.
With few exceptions they have been addressed by men and women jointly; the resolutions pa.s.sed have generally been of a directly practical and political character. They have been presided over, whenever possible, by the chief magistrate, or some other well-known man in the locality; in comparatively few cases have women presided, and very seldom, indeed, strangers. Thus they have been modeled closely on the ordinary English political meeting; and this form, quite apart from the principles discussed at the meetings, has done much to identify women"s suffrage with the practical politics of the day. The first meeting ever held in London (July, 1869,) excited much attention. Admittance here was by ticket. Mrs. Peter A. Taylor took the chair; Miss Biggs read the report, and a n.o.ble array of speakers followed.[542]
The principle of women"s suffrage was unhesitatingly conceded by the pa.s.sing of the Munic.i.p.al Amendment act of 1869. The time was come to demand its application in parliamentary elections.
Moreover, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas had left no mode of action possible except for parliament to reverse that decision. Mr. Jacob Bright, therefore, on the first day of the session gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to remove the electoral disabilities of women. Sir Charles Dilke, a Liberal, and Mr. E. B. Eastwick, a Conservative, also gave their names on the back of the bill.
A BILL _to remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women_:
Be it enacted by the Queen"s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present parliament a.s.sembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
_First_--That in all acts relating to the qualification and registration of voters or persons ent.i.tled or claiming to be registered and to vote in the election of members of parliament, wherever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with, and having reference to the right to be registered as voters, and to vote in such elections, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
On February 16, the bill was read for the first time, and on May 4, it came on for its second reading. Mr. Jacob Bright earnestly appealed to the House to grant this measure of justice:
The women who are interested in this subject, he concluded, are only acting in the spirit of one of the n.o.blest proverbs of our language, "G.o.d helps those who help themselves." Is it a matter of regret to us that they should have these aspirations? Ought it not rather to be a subject of satisfaction and of pride? That this bill will become law, no one who has observed the character of this agitation and who knows the love of justice in the British people can doubt. I hope it will become law soon, for I have a desire which will receive the sympathy of many in this House. I have a strong desire that when our children come to read the story of their country"s fame, it may be written there that the British parliament was the first great legislative a.s.sembly in the world, which, in conferring its franchises, knew nothing of the distinctions of strong and weak, of male and female, of rich and poor.
The result of the division surprised and cheered all the supporters of the measure. The government was neutral, and members of the cabinet voted on either side according to their own opinions. The second reading was carried by a vote of 124 to 91, being a majority in its favor of 33. Those who witnessed that division will never forget the grateful enthusiasm with which Mr. Jacob Bright was received when he came up to the ladies" gallery, with his wife leaning upon his arm. But our triumph was short-lived. Before the bill went into committee, a week later, it became known that the government intended to depart from its att.i.tude of neutrality. A strong pressure was exercised to crush the bill, and the contest of course became hopeless. On the division for going into committee 220 votes were counted against 94 in its favor.
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 s.p.a.ce 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 munic.i.p.ality, 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 compet.i.tion 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 pa.s.sed, 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 munic.i.p.al 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. d.i.c.k 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. s.p.a.ce 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 a.s.sociation. Ward meetings were held in which the women burgesses and munic.i.p.al voters were a.s.sembled, 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 a.s.sistance 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 pet.i.tions 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 Munic.i.p.al bill, which would have had the effect of extending the munic.i.p.al 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 a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sembled 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 pa.s.sed, 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 munic.i.p.al franchise.
The electoral disability is further anomalous, because by the law and const.i.tution 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 s.e.x. The highest political function known to the const.i.tution may be exercised by a woman. The principle that women may have political power is coeval with the British const.i.tution. 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 inst.i.tutions, 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 const.i.tutional 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 pa.s.sing 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 s.e.x, and before the pa.s.sing 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 cla.s.ses 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.