The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-06-14 00:00:00

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Mr. Woodall moved his clause, which provides that
for all purposes connected with the right to vote the
words in the Representation of the People Act import-
ing the masculine gender shall include women. In sup-
port of his proposal, Mr. Woodall combatted the objec-
tion founded on the emotional nature of women, the
inexpediency of diverting them from domestic duties,
&c.; and to prove their title as capable citizens he
referred to the public services of eminent women in the
cause of temperance, education, and philanthropy. He
showed, too, how large had been the increase lately in
the number of women engaged in public employments,
urged the injustice often done to the sex for want of
direct representation, and quoted the declarations of
Mr. Gladstone and other leading politicians in its
favour. As to the objection that it would imperil the
bill, he said he had received no notice how this could

Mr. Gladstone, in reply, said he would give no
opinion as to the enfranchisement of women except
that it was a difficult question and would require a
great deal of sifting. But as to effecting it by means
of a clause in this bill, the Government were very
strongly of opinion that they would be betraying their
duty if they assented to it. Being responsible for the
mode of procedure, they had determined that the best
chance of carrying their bill was to present it in the
most simple form, and to put aside many points which,
on their merits, might have been acceptable, but which
would have opened new and wide fields of discussion.
They could not make an exception of this question, and
if Mr. Woodall succeeded in carrying his clause the Go-
vernment would disclaim all further responsibility for the
bill. In the course of his speech Mr. Gladstone said: Now,
at least, I hope my hon. friend understands fully and
clearly in what direction it is we think the danger lies.
But this is no passionate conclusion on our part. It is
not a conclusion from which I for one or my colleagues
have been driven by the eagerness of the Opposition.
We have felt that if we are to maintain our ground and
to put this great proposal singly to the judgment of
Parliament in such a way as to give it a fair chance,
it was impossible for us to enter into the multitude of
questions that may fairly be raised in connexion with the
franchise, and most certainly was it impossible to make
the proposal of my hon. friend an exception to the
rule. Why could we not make it an exception? In the
first place it is a very large proposal, and my hon. friend
did not enter upon the consideration of the number of
persons whom he proposed to enfranchise by his mea-
sure. I have referred to the authorities upon that subject;
but, though it is impossible for me to arrive at anything
resembling a close estimate, it does not seem unreason-
able to believe that the number in the three kingdoms
would be little short of half a million. Of course, if
there be any truth in the arguments so persistently
urged with some amount of reason I admit—
with_ regard to the disproportion of constituencies

4,