Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

5. Is woman's claim to full rights of citizenship a valid one? 6. What are the ulterior aims and logical outcome of the woman suffrage movement? and are these such as to commend the movement to our support?

In his very able, fair, and temperate treatise on the American Commonwealth,1 Mr Bryce has left us in no doubt as to whence and when the outbreak or "revolt" of modern woman from the traditional limitations of her sex took its origin. The movement is barely half a century old. It began to stir when the question of negro emancipation became a burning one, and its seat and home was the United States of America. If the uncultured black, it was said, was to be liberated and declared free and equal with the white, and entitled to the same political rights, then what about women? The claim of woman to the franchise and to public office would, Mr Bryce thinks, have probably been made sooner later; but the circumstances of its origin in the Abolitionist agitation, he considers, have tinged the subsequent course of the woman's movement. In this country, no doubt, the cause of the fair Progressive was helped on by the advocacy of John Stuart Mill and the disciples of his peculiar sex tenets. The first Women's Convention in America was held in 1848; and, after the Civil War and subsequent admission of the negro to the franchise, the question of the female vote came speedily to the front. Women's suffrage societies grew apace, and united efforts were brought to bear on the State legislatures, and

or

upon Congress itself. Up to the present time, however, it would seem that the net result in the occidental Republic is small. Prior to 1890, in no State had the suffrage in elections to the State legislature and State offices been extended to women, and therefore they nowhere enjoyed the right of voting in Federal elections. In three Territories, however, the right of voting at legislative elections was given by the territorial Legislature, and in one of these, Wyoming, the population of which is relatively very insignificant, the right was retained when the Territory received Statehood in 1890. In the other two, Utah and Washington, both of which have also become States of the Union, the female legislative vote was abolished. On the other hand, in 1893 Colorado adopted woman suffrage, mainly, says Mr Bryce, through the action of the "Knights of Labour" and other working-men groups "among whom abstract theories of equality prevail." On the whole, the female franchise movement appears distinctly to have lost ground in America. And it is noteworthy that in June 1895 the Canadian House of Commons threw out the Woman Franchise Bill by a large majority; while still later, in December 1895, the Legislative Council of the colony of Victoria similarly rejected female suffrage. "The utter lack of interest," we are further told, "taken by most women in the woman suffrage question" both in Massachusetts and Connecticut has been emphasised by the recent referendum in the former State. "Although there are over 600,000 women in Massachusetts, only

1 The American Commonwealth. By the Right Hon. James Bryce, M.P. Macmillan (revised edition), 1895.

20,000 took sufficient interest in to admit that no instance was to the subject to vote for woman suffrage."1

The

But, when investigating the origin of this movement, we are met with the bold challenge that female suffrage was exercised centuries ago in Great Britain, and great stress has been laid by some upon this asserted precedent. What does it amount to? All the facts and bearings of the case were thoroughly thrashed out before the Court of Common Pleas during November 1868 in the registration case of Chorlton, appellant, v. Lings, respondent, wherein a certain Mary Abbott claimed to be put on the list of parliamentary voters for the township of Manchester. Her case was a test one, representing the consolidated appeals of 5346 other women. late Lord Coleridge, then Q.C. and Solicitor-General, cited everything possible in the women's behalf. It was sought by him to show that in 13 Hen. IV. Lucy, Countess of Kent, evidenced the return of a member of Parliament by her attorney. In 2 Hen. V. an attorney signed a similar indenture pro Margaret, widow of Sir H. Vavaseur. In 7 Edw. VI. the return for the borough of Gatton was made by the Lady Elisabeth Copley, widow of Roger Copley, and all the inhabitants of the borough. A return for the borough of Aylesbury in 14 Eliz. is signed by Dame Dorothy Packington, widow, and in the Lyme case (1) there is a list of burgesses of the town of Lyme Regis in 19 Eliz. which includes the names of three women. But so meagre and so little to the point of establishing woman suffrage were these examples that counsel was obliged

be found of the exercise by women of the parliamentary franchise. And, in order to show that females were not legally incapable of voting, Sir J. Coleridge was driven to cite a case in which it was decided that a woman might hold the office of sexton!

When the judgments of the bench came to be delivered, their lordships made light of these quasiprecedents, and swept away every shred of argument for pristine female suffrage based upon them. Chief-Justice Bovill admitted that a few instances had been adduced

where women 66 'appear to have been parties to the return of members of Parliament," and even went as far as to allow the possibility of a few women having voted. "But these instances," he added, "are of comparatively little weight, as opposed to uninterrupted usage to the contrary for several centuries. .. The fact of its not having been asserted or acted upon for many centuries raises a strong presumption against its having legally existed." And he winds up thus: "I come to the conclusion that there is no such right, and that women are legally incapacitated from voting." Mr Justice Willes gave judgment to like effect: "It is said that women might be suitors of the County Court, and must therefore have been among the voters for the election of knights of the shire. But could they act as suitors? Apparently not." Mr Justice Keating remarked as follows: "It is not very difficult to suppose that in those ancient times, when such proceedings were probably not very regular, a few seals should have been affixed without the

1 Daily Chronicle,' 3d December 1895.

legal right of women to vote being recognised; whereas, it is absolutely inconceivable that women should ever have possessed the franchise, and yet should have immemorially ceased from its exercise for so long a time." Mr Justice Byles concurred with the above views.1

A further point brought out by Judge Willes, and supported by the late Professor E. A. Freeman,2 is that a peeress in her own right has neither seat nor vote in the Upper House, nor, says the latter, can she vote by proxy. Surely, then, so long as the highest born and presumably most cultured of our country women are debarred by sex reasons from taking part in parliamentary duties, the female commoner may reasonably hesitate to rush into the political arena!

I come now to my second point. Is this agitation to obtain the electoral vote for women a spontaneous one on the part of the sex generally? The answer seems distinctly in the negative. Even in those American States "where women possess the school suffrage, it is reported that extremely few vote. In Minneapolis, a city of 200,000 people, one is told that only two or three hundred women usually vote at school elections." As regards Wyoming, Mr Bryce considered the balance of evidence unfavourable to the exercise of female suffrage. This is what one of the most trustworthy authorities on the subject told him. "After the first excitement is over, it is impossible to get respectable women out to vote except every two or three years on some purely emotional question like Prohibition

or other temperance legislation. The effect on family life seems to be nil; certainly not bad: but after a year or two it is found that the women of the worst classes are those that most regularly go to the polls." Now, this lukewarmness in the matter is just what might be expected, having regard to the distinguishing characteristics of the sex; but it is a strong argument against the existence of spontaneity or any urgent feeling on the part of the masses of women towards exercising the vote. Furthermore, "there is a widespread apprehension that to bring women into politics might lower their social position, diminish men's deference for them, harden and roughen them, and, as it is expressed, 'brush the bloom off the flowers.' This feeling is at least as strong among women as among men. . . . Of the many American ladies whose opinion I inquired, the enormous majority expressed themselves hostile; and there has been formed a Women's AntiSuffrage Association of America, which conducts an active agitation." Further, "in enacting their State Constitution" (1889), says Bryce, "the people of Washington pronounced against female suffrage by a majority of two to one, and a good authority declared to me that most of the women were well pleased to lose the privilege." Moreover, the Convention of August 1894, sitting to consider the draft of a new Constitution for New York State, would have nothing to do with woman suffrage, and this "is deemed to have seriously discouraged the movement so far as the Atlantic States

1 Law Reports, Court of Common Pleas, vol. iv. London, 1869.

2 Article on "Peerage" in Ency. Brit.' (1885). In the article 66 Woman," in same publication (1888), Mr Williams takes a different view, affirming the peeress's right to sit, as distinguished from speaking or voting, in Parliament.

are concerned." Similarly, in South Australia, where female suffrage was recently enacted, a strong movement against it is said to have sprung up among the German women of the colony.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Again, "the number of women,' says Mr Goldwin Smith, "who have spontaneously asked for the change [woman suffrage] appears to be small; and its smallness is important as an index of woman's feeling respecting her own interest." 1 Mr Gladstone expresses himself more strongly. "The subject," he says, "is as yet only sectional, and has not really been taken into view by the public mind at large... There has never within my knowledge been a case in which the franchise has been extended to a large body of persons generally indifferent about receiving it. But here, in addition to a widespread indifference, there is on the part of large numbers of women who have considered the matter for themselves the most positive objection, and strong disapprobation."2 These words from the greatest living exponent of Liberalism I commend to the careful consideration of the Women's Liberal Federation, and its various affiliated societies, which in their platforms make such a prominent plank of female suffrage.

And surely it is a fact patent to us all, that in this country the female advocates for conferring upon women a franchi coextensive with that enjo ien are a comparatively sn

[blocks in formation]

themselves well in evidence, and to pass for a considerable army. The number of women who may fancy themselves in favour of giving a more limited franchise than I have expressed above may doubtless be larger, but the fallacy of separating the wider from the narrower aspects of the question will be touched on presently.

Then, again, much has been made of the monster Petition for female suffrage exhibited in Westminster Hall last May, with its 257,000 women's signatures. But any one conversant with the methods whereby girls and women are induced to sign documents of this kind will largely discount its importance as an index to the genuine opinions of the sex.

The next stage of our inquiry is very important: The probable influence of woman's vote, if it were given, upon the character of our legislation. From our knowledge of the sex, and the general tenor of the discussions at the reunions where women's rights and claims are debated, we can judge with tolerable accuracy the class of legislation to which the female mind would incline. We should have in the forefront liquor prohibition pure and absolute: for, conversely, in America "Prohibitionist Conventions," Mr Bryce tells us, "almost always declare in favour of woman suffrage." Under the guidance of leaders like certain sentimentalist M.P.'s whose names are familiar to us,

clique of ladies and ultrasts who not long since fell of Lord Roberts for cerregulations he had carried for the benefit of our sols in India-would desire to

[graphic]

dwin Smith. Macmillan, 1893. o Mr Samuel Smith, M.P., just before

have their way and prosecute it with redoubled energy. In this connection the Proceedings of the Women's Liberal Federation at Chelsea in May 1894, to discuss the Cambridge Corporation Bill for the regulation of women of doubtful character, may be studied with advantage. There is enough and to spare of sentimental legislation already: with a woman faction supported by the woman vote, sentiment would be apt to run riot. The very fact that, with parties otherwise pretty evenly divided, a small access of female votes might turn the scale, would open the door more widely than ever to the political canvasser. With women's votes to catch, male and female touters would abound. "It is not women's virtues," says Mr Francis Parkman, "that would be prominent or influential in the political arena: they would shun it by an invincible repulsion. The 'Washington' lobby has given us some means of judging what we may expect from the woman 'inside politics.' If politics are to be purified by artfulness, effrontery, insensibility, a pushing selfassertion, and a glib tongue, then we may look for regeneration; for the typical female politician will be richly endowed with all these gifts. And as the zeal of one class of female reformers has been, and no doubt will be, largely directed to their grievances in matters of sex, we shall have shrill-tongued discussions of subjects which had far better be left alone." 1

The gentler sex are prone to be swayed by impulse, and are easily led. Thus, also, they would fall a ready prey to the paid organiser

2

and political adventurer. In New Zealand, for example, woman's suffrage has got a footing for the moment, and the two main planks it has adopted are, as in America, liquor prohibition and secular (non-religious) education. Then, as has been truly said, behind prohibition of alcoholic drinks begins to loom prohibition of tobacco. In ancient Rome they tried taxing the unmarried, and recently, according to M. LeroyBeaulieu, like suggestions were made with a view to check the shrinkage of population in France. Such an impost as one on bachelorhood might not impossibly commend itself to a sensational legislature largely dominated by female votes ! Furthermore, it is matter of common knowledge that women (save perhaps a select few of the upper classes and the band of political malcontents) concern themselves but little with politics, and that the great mass of them have scarcely an intelligent or thought-out idea on the subject. Such serials as, let us say, 'The Family Herald,' 'Short Stories,' or 'Forget-me-not,' with their thousand and one fiction-tales of how men and girls fall in love, are much more in women's line than the newspaper; and of the latter, when they do read it, it is not the political matter, but the fashions column, and the births, marriages, and deaths, that mainly interest them. The vote of the lower strata of the present male electorate is already erratic enough, and most difficult to forecast upon any given question. But with a large, perhaps a preponderating, female element superadded, it

1 Minority Report of U.S. Senate Committee, p. 24 (quoted by Mr Goldwin Smith in Questions of the Day').

2 Economiste Française, September 1890.

« VorigeDoorgaan »