The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-21 00:00:00

IiCPERIAL PARLTANENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newry and Greenore Railway, Enfield Gas, Aberdeen
Police and Water, Thames Navigation, Llanelly Railway
and Docks, and Stockport Corporation Water Bills were
read a second time.
Bodmin Railway, Ayr Water, Dewsbury, Batley, and
Heckrnondike Water, Hampton-court United Gas, and
Aylesbury Market Bills were read a third time and
passed

THE COLONIAL CHURCH.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM gave notice that he should
ask, on a future occasion, whether it was the intention of
the Government to bring in a bill with regard to the Co-
lonial Church.
THE INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
The house having gone into committee on this bill,
Lord LYTTLETON said that .£3,000 was the minimum
for the increase of the Episcopalian Church. lie was un-
derstood to say that there was a great difference in the
views of the right rev. prelates.
The Arcbhishop of CANTERBURY said that he wished
the question might be postponed as there was a great dif-
ference between his right rev. brethren.
Lord DERBY said that he considered that to give to
every bishop in any part of the world the power to appoint
a suffragan would be fatal to the principles of the bill.
The noble lord then went into a long detail as to the in-
convenience that would thus arise.
Lord PORTMAN said that he would ask his noble
friend a question before he pressed the bill further.
Earl STANIIOPE wished to know what was to be the
position of the suffragan bishops, and if any difference of
opinion should arise between them and the metropolitan
who was to decide which was right ?
The Bishop of LONDON said that the suffragan bishops
would act under the commission appointed by the actual
bishops, and certain regulations would be laid down for
that purpose. He for one was not afraid that there would
be any danger in again establishing pluralities, but the
only occasion for a suffragan bishop would be old age
or infirmity on the part of the actual bishops.
The vvholeof the districts in Europe were under the juris-
diction of the Bishop of London, but it was impossible that
he could visit all those places on the continent of Europe,
and it was therefore advisable that suffragan bishops
should be appointed. Children wanted confirmation, and
therefore it seemed that some arrangement should be made
to meet this emergency. The statute of Henry VIII.
encouraged the appointment of suffragan bishops.
Earl GREY said that the bishops received great assist-
ance front col',nial bishops who had come home. He
thought, therefore, that certain clergymen should be ap-
pointed who should act as bishops under the direction of
the actual bishops, and should perform all those duties
which might devolve upon them.
Lord LYTTLETON said that he did not wish to have
the evening pass by without doing something. He should
wish their lordships to mention a day on which they would
be ready to go into the question.
The matter was then postponed till next Monday.
The committee on the Divorce Court Bill was postponed
till Thursday next.
THE NEW PALACE YARD.

Lord LY VEDEN asked what was being done with re-
spect to the new Palace-yard ?
Lord DERBY said that the arrangements would make
a much nearer way for persons coming that way, and that
a great convenience would be given to the public coming
that way, and a great improvement would be effected.
FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION.OF EXPENSES)
BILL.
This bill was committed, and their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
London and North-Western Railway (Ashby and Nun•
eaton Lines) ; London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail•
wad• ; and Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

THE SALTERS' ESTATE (IRELAND.)

In reply to Mr. MAGUIRE,

Lord NAAS said the question he had on the paper did
not relat3 to public matters, but to those of a com-
pany having an estate in Ireland. He, therefore, had no
official knowledge of the matters to which he referred.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (IRELAND).
In reply to Mr. PIM,

Lord NAAS said he had taken stops to ascertain the
jurisdiction relative to tho inspection of weights and mea-
sures in Ireland.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY (IRELAND).

In reply to the same lion. Member,
Lord NAAS said the Government proposed to wait to
see the course taken by Parliament with respect to the
English bill before they introduced a measure of the same
description for Ireland.

TILE PUBLIC FOOTPATIIS.

In reply to Mr. 0. STANLEY,
Lord J. MANNERS said the pavement between Buck-
ingham Palace gates and the royal stables were laid down
under the authority of an act of Parliament, known as the
Pimlico Improvement Act. The footway in Piccadilly,
adjoining the Green Park, had also been laid down under
an act of Parliament. The pavement in Arabella-row was
not under the control of the Crown.
MIBARKATION OF TROOPS.

Mr. E. BULLER asked the Secretary of State for War
whether it was true that the depot companies of the 98th
Regiment were ordered to embark at Tilbury Fort,
about the middle of April last, to proceed by sea for
Portsmouth, and were two days and nights on the voyage,
instead of proceeding by railway in six or seven
hours ; and, whether it was true that on board the
transport, though conveying two and three hundred
persons, there was no medical man ; that one of
the 98th Regiment broke his leg during the voyage, and
remained with the limb onset till his arrival at Ports-
mouth ; and that the officers of the regiment on their arrival
were exposed to great inconvenience from no quarters
having been provided for them ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said 'the question was founded on
very exaggerated statements. The number of troops only
amounted to 196, and they were at sea less than twenty
hours. The reason why there was no medical man on
board was that it was not usual to have the services of a
medical man for such a short passage. It was, unfortunately,
true that oue of the men met with an accident, but the
limb was set within two hours after the mishap. It was
a mistake to say that no quarters were prepared for the
officers.

MONEY ORDER OFFICES.

In reply to Mr. EV/ART,

Lord ST AN LEY said there was an international system
of money-order offices in France. The idea of establishing
a money order office between England and France was
under discussion, and an experiment was being tried by
opening a money order office in the French Exhibition.

MILITIA RESERVE BILL.

In reply to an HoN. MEMBER,

Sir J. PAKINGTON said there was not the least in-
tention to persevere with the clause empowering militia
courts-martial to sentence deserters to twelve years' penal

servitude.

ROYAL PARKS BILL.

In reply to Mr. TAYLOR,

Mr. HARDY said he did not intend to proceed with this
bill until after Whitsuntide, when the bill could then be
more calmly considered than it could bo at the present

moment.

CATTLE PLAGUE.

In reply to Mr. DENT,

Lord I:. MONTAGU said it was unfortunately true
that a fresh case of cattle plague had been reported that
morning. It occurred at a dairy at Duncan-terrace,
Islington, at which there were 95 cows in the shed, 12 of
whom were attacked. The question of dealing with the
importation of foreign cattle was then under the considera-
tion of the Privy Council.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.

The question was the adoption of an amendment moved
by Mr. Hodglinson as an addition to the 3d clause, viz.:
" Provided always that, except as hereinafter provided, no
parson other than the occupier shall, after the passing of
the act, be rated to parochial rates in respect of premises
occupied by him within the limits of a parliamentary
borough, all acts to the contrary now in force notwith-
standing."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said he
thought the proposition recommended by the hon. gentle-
man could be effected by some of the clauses is the bill.
(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") There were some difficulties
in the way, but on a consideration of the subject by
his colleaguVs;. it had been determined to make certain in-
quiries, whielil he would report to the house on Thursday,
on which day be hoped to propose a course of proceedings
which would facilitate the passing of the bill and its pas-
sage to the other house. (Hear, hear.) Under these
ci.cumstances he thought it inexpedient to proceed with
the 3 lth clause. (Hear, hear.) The house would, ou the
disposal of thy 31 clause, now proceed with clause 4 in
the usual way.•

Mr. HODGINKSON,said under these circumstances he
should not press his amendment.
The amendment wa then, by leave, withdrawn, and on
the motion that the clause stand part Of the bill,
Mr. LOWE said ho hoped the house would allow him to
make a few observations, especially as it was on a subject
which had not been referred to during the discussions which
took place on the bill. He thought ho was not demanding too
much if he asked that clause 3, as amended, should be re-
printed, in order that every person might know
exactly how it stood, because no clause had been
more cobbled (laughter)— or more discussed in
the House of Conuneus. The clause enacted a perfect
revolution, and under such circumstances it was most im-
portant that every one should know the precise terms of
such an important enactment. It appeared from the bill
that all householders were to have a vote except
those who were excused from the payment of rates front
poverty. Such a proposition, coming from the quarter it
did, was in itself a revolution. All previous principles

were discarded in order that the bill might go forward,
like the car of Juggernaut, crushing the principles of its
supporters under its wheels. (Laughter and cheers.) On

;he Liberal side there had been a weariness of the question

and a longing for a settlement, a dread of a dissolution,
and a dread of the new classes of voters ; and on the Con-
servativo side there was an impatience of the programme
the Liberals had laid down—that they alone should be per-
petually bringing in Reform Bills and enjoying office as a
consequence—which in a party view was not intelligible.

Next he went on to discuss what the effect of the bill

would be, remarking on the complete contempt which had
been shown for statistics this year, predicting that it would
at least double the present borough constituency, and as-
serting that its only aim was to admit as many as possible,
so that they were of the poorest and most ignorant

classes, and that it would transfor the entire power to
the present non-electors and to the dass of unskilled

[abcurerr. At present these classes had no politics at all,

and when they took up with polities they would be of a
Socialist character, and they would support the men who
promised them a redistributio❑ of the good things of this
life. The first result of their reign would be the substitution

of direct taxes on the rich for the indirect taxes on spirits,

tea, sugar, tobacco, and other luxuries of the poor, and
among other consequences of the bill which Mr. Lowe
shadowed forth were a graduated income-tax, a repudia-
tion of the national debt, an inconvertible currency, a social
contest between the upper and middle and the lower

classes, in which the victory would follow political
strength, an attack on the House of Lords, and a law
restricting the hours of labour to eight a day. Possibly
it might be expected that these consequences would be
averted by lavish corruption, but he warned those who
contemplated the purchase of a democratic constituency
that they would have to swallow the shibboleth—the

whole roll of democratic pledges to boot. Of the effects
on tho composition of the house Mr. Lowe drew a gloomy
picture, repeating his argument of last year, that the house
is not a mere legislative assembly, but, in the last resort,
the executive of the country ; and he concluded with a
powerful denunciation of a scheme which, though it only
. _

Carried ont the old oligarchical idea of an alliance with de-

mocracy, would cast an indelible stigma on the Conserva-
tives, and would ruin not only the present parties in the
State, but the State itself.
Mr. HENLEY replied that most of Mr. Lowe's arguments
applied to the present constituency just as much as that to

be created, and, therefore, to all representative institutions,

aqd asserted that the scheme of the Government was the
most Conservative proposal that could be made, as well as
the safest and most honest. It was not a question which
the Government had any option in taking up, since, for
the last 14 years, it had been recommended in successive
Queen's Speeches, without provoking any opposition from
either party or from any leading politician ; and the Go-
vernment had to consider whether they would attempt

to settle it, or would allow "the pot to boil over," with
what consequences it was impossible to predict. Having
once determined to settle it, there was no ground on which
they could hope to find firm footing but that which they
had chosen, and though its working might be expected
with some anxiety, there was every prospect of its being
as permanent a settlement as could be obtained.

Sir R. KNIGHTLEY made some strong observations
on the new aspect of affairs, and argued that, so far from
Mr. Disraeli having been playing with his party, he had
been groping for a policy all along.
Mr. HUBBARD, speaking from the same quarter of the
house, insisted that the proposal was a degradation of the
suffrage, and expressed a hope that it would be qualified
by Mr. Scrope's amendment.

Mr. NEwDEGATE and Mr. B. COCHRANE defended the
support given by the Conservative party to this scheme,
and Mr. Cochrane laid the primary responsibility for it on
the Liberal party, who had so long played with the ques-
tion and encouraged public meetings out of doors. The
Conservative party had obeyed a necessity stronger than
themselves, and he anticipated that the effects of the bill
would be advantageous to the country.
Mr. B. HOPE protested against the degradation of the
franchise, and found fault with the representatives of the
landed interest, who had not been sufficiently forward to
defend the boroughs.
After some observations from Mr. Scourfield, who,

though dissatisfied with the clause as amended, bad too
much confidence in the good sense of the people to share
in Mr. Lowe's gloomy views; from Mr. Schreiber, who
stronly condemned the lodger franchise ; and from Mr. P.
Scrope, who argued, in favour of his amendment, that it
would cure all the evils Mr. Lowe had apprehended, and
would keep out the " residiuum."
Clause 3 was declared to be agreed to, amid considerable
cheering.
On clause 4,
Mr. J. S. MILL rose to move as an amendment that the
word "man" should be left out in line 16, and the word
"person" substituted. The hon. member said he rose to
propose an extension of the franchise which would excite
no party or class feeling in that house, which could not
give umbrage to the keenest advocates of property or num-
bers—an extension which had not the slightest tendency
to disturb what they had heard so much about lately, the
balance of political power—which could not afflict the most
timid alarmist with any revolutionary terrors, nor offend
the most zealous democrat as an infringement upon popu-
lar rights, nor as giving an advantage to one class and de-
nying it to another. There was nothing to distract their
attention from the simple question whether there was any
justification for continuing the exclusion of an entire half of
the community, not only from actual admission, but from
the possibility of being ever admitted within the pale of the
constitution, although they might fulfil all the conditions
of legal and constitutional citizenship. Within the limits
of the constitution this was a solitary case. There was no
other example of exclusion which was absolute. If the
law refused a vote to all except the possessor of £5,000 a
year, the poorest man might, and now and then would,
acquire the franchise. But neither birth, nor fortune, nor
intellect, nor exertion, nor even that arch disposer of
human affairs, accident, could ever enable any woman to
make her voice counted in those national affairs which
touched her as nearly as any of her member of the commu-
nity. Before going any further, he might be permitted to
say that a prima facie case had already been made out. It
was not just to make a distinction in rights or privileges
without sufficient reason. He did not mean to say that
the political franchise was au abstract right, or that the
withholding it from any one without reason or expediency
was a public wrong. His argument was entirely one of
expediency. But there were different kinds of expediency.
All expediencies were .not exactly on the same level.
There was a very important branch of expediency termed
justice; and justice, although it did not necessarily re-
quire that political privileges should be conferred upon all,
did require that they should not capriciously and without
cause withhold from one what they gave to another. But
it was not only general principles of justice which were
set aside by the exclusion of women merely as women from
suffrage, but also a particular doctrine of the British
Constitution. According to that doctrine the exclusion
violated ono of the oldest and most cherished of our con-
stitutional maxims—a doctrine dear to all refcrmers,
and theoretically acknowledged by almost all Conserva-
tives—the doctrine that taxation and representation
should bo co-existent. Did not every woman pay
taxes ? Did not every woman who was sui funs con-
tribute the same amount of revenue as every man
who had the same electoral qualification? If a stake in the
country settled it, then every possessor of leasehold or free-
hold property had a stake in the country, whether that
holder was a man or a woman. No one could possibly
pretend that women, many of whom were responsible heads
of families—women who managed estates or conducted a
business, who paid rates and taxes with their earnings, and
many of whom in the capacity of schoolmistresses taught a
great deal more than a great proportion of the male elec-
tors ever learned—(a laugh)—no one could pretend that
they were not fit to exercise the political functions which
every male householder was supposed to be capable of.
(Hear.) Was it to be supposed that if woman were to be
admitted to the franchise they would revolutionise the
State, or that there would be worse laws or worse govern-
ment than at present ? It was most justly and truly said
by his right hon. friend the member for South Lancashire
in the most misunderstood and most misrepresented speech
he had ever heard—(hear, hear)—that in order to lay a
ground for the exclusion of any one from the franchise, it
was necessary to allege personal unfitness or public dan-
ger. Neither of those things could possibly be alleged in
the present case. There was evidence in our constitutional
records that women had voted for counties and for some
boroughs at a distant period of our history. But the house
would expect that ho should not rest his arguments chiefly
on general principles either of justice or of the constitu-
tion, but that he should allege practical reasons. There
was one practical reason which he frankly confessed was
totally wanting in the case of women ; they did not hold
meetings in Hyde Park—(a laugh) —nor political de-
monstrations at Islington. (Hear, hear.) But practical
reasons of another kind were not wanting, and he was
prepared to state them, if he might be permitted. First,
to ask what were the practical objections? The sympathy
which most people felt was not a practical one. It was a
mere feeling of strangeness. " The proposal," they
said " was new ;" but that was a mistake, for it was a
very old one. Some things which were very strange
three mouths ago, and many things which were strange
now, would not be strange some years hence. They lived
in a world of novelty. The despotism of custom was on
the wane. They were not satisfied to know why a thing
was, but whether it ought to be. He was bound to sup-
pose that in this house an appeal lay from custom to a
higher tribunal, in which reason was the judge. The rea-
sons which custom gave on this subject were very brief.
It was not easy to refute an interjection, but interjections
were the only arguments heard on the subject, which were
difficult to refute. The others generally presented them-
selves in such aphorisms as those that politics were not
women's business, and would distract them from their
proper duties ; and that they did not desire the franchise
and would rather be without it. ; that women were suffi-
ciently represented by their male representatives, and that
they had power enough already. (Cheers and laughter.)
They were told that politics were not a woman's business,
but he rather thought that polities were not a man's busi-
ness, unless he happened to be one of the few who were
paid for devoting their tinae to the pub:o or as a mentor

of either House of Parliament. The great majority of male
voters had their own business, which engrossed nearly the

whole of their time ; but ho never heard that the hours
occupied in attending once in a few years the polling-

booth made them neglectful of their shops or counting-
houses, or that those who had votes were worse
merchants, worse lawyers, worse physicians, or even
worse clergyman than others. The ordinary occupation

of most women is domestic, but that this incompatible
with a knowledge of public affairs is as absurd as the
old argument that artisans would desert their work if
taught to read. This political exclusion is really formed
on an old social hard-and-fast line between man and

woman belonging to a bygone state of society. We talk
a great deal about political revolutions, but take little

note of those which are social. For the first time in
the history of the world men and women are ti OW com-

pinions. (llear, hear.) All their disabilities have de-
scended from the time when they were separate in their
lives. Man of old passed his time among men ; but now
the wife is his companion and friend, and often his most
trusted adviser. Is it good for man morally to live with
one who is studiously inferior to himself ? No one can
suppose that this can happen without detriment to his
character. If woman be not lifted up to man, man will in-
evitably fall down to the moral level of woman as degraded
by society. The two sexes must rise or sink together. It
may be said that a woman may take an interest in public
affairs without having a vote. Undoubtedly she may ;
but how many of her sex do it ? This is seen in the edu-
cation of a woman. A girl never takes the same interest
in national history as her brothers. We are told that

women do not desire the suffrage ; this would only prove

how the mind may be benumbed by unjust laws ; but, that
many women do is a fact beyond doubt. None are so

well schooled in making a virtue of necessity as women.

Those who do not wish fm. the suffrage will not use it,
qr under the influence of male relations; and in this case,

as the general advantage would be equally balanced, no
great harm would be done. Meantime an unworthy
stigma would be thrown off the sex, which would no
longer be classified by law with children, idiots, and luna-
tics. (Laughter.) If only one woman in 20,000 exercised
the suffrage it would bo a boon to every woman alive.
(Hear, hear.) But then it is said that women do not

need direct political power, inasmuch as they exercise
so much indirectly through their influence over men. It
is desirable to carry this argument a little farther. Rich
men undoubtedly exercise great influence over society ;
and on equally sound ground it might be maintained that
there is no reason for giving them votes. (Hear,

hear.) Unless this ground of exclusion is to become
the rule and general, it must fall to the ground. It

is true that women do exercise great power over men,

and that is part of the case now urged.

He wanted to make that power responsible,
for it is exercised now under the worst moral conditions.

He wanted to interest her conscience in the exercise of

this power, to show her that it is a thing not for personal
advantage, and to awaken in her the principle of political
honour ; for her power at present over political things is
like tho back-stairs influence of a favourite. (Laughter.)
Again, it is said that women do not feel any practical in-
convenience from the franchise being denied to them, for
it is now in the hands of a father, a husband, or brother,
who have the same interest, and know much better how
to use it than a woman can do. This is saying no more
than has been often said of other classes unenfranchised.
It might be as truly affirmed of artisans that they are
directly represented, and with the same mutuality of in-
terest, by their employers. But then this would be the
horrible crime of setting class against class. He should
like to procure a return of the women who have been
kicked or trampled to death by brutal husbands; a second
column to show the number who have come off scot-free ;
while a third should show the comparative estimate in the
sentence of judges for offences against property under
laws made by male legislators. (Hear, hear.) We con-
stantly hear it said that we must improve the education
of mothers because in their hands is the education of men.
But do we act on this belief ? Do we spend as much on
the education of our daughters as on that of our sons?
and where are universities and colleges for their training ?
What has become of the endowments which our ancestors
intended equally for the education of both sexes ? for it is
on authority that old deeds speak of education generally
without distinction of sex. At Christ's Hospital, for in-
stance, expressly endowed for the education of both, while
there aro 1,500 boys, there are exactly 26 girls. We
have excluded the educated female from all employments
save one, that of a governess. The case of Miss Gar-
rett is a notable one in point. In a sincere wish to
aid in alleviating human suffering she desired to enter
the medical profession, but she found all doors closed
save that of the Apothecaries' Company. No sooner had
she got into the profession than it appeared so objection-
able that a woman should attend upon a woman that the
wicket was closed. It was only the other day that women
were admitted as associates of the Royal Academy, and won
a high place in talent in competition with mon, but that
privilege is now withheld from her. By the common law
everything the wife has becomes the absolute property of
the husband, and may be squandered by hint in debauchery,
and unless under jn finial separation he may, after aban-
doning her and her children, seize on the savings of her
industry. The rich man, it is true, protects his daughter
by a marriage settlement, but why do they not provide for
the daughters of the helpless poor the same justice they
can do fur their own children? Circumstances loss than
these have provoked revolution. We ought not to take
advantage of the security we feel from that to allow us to
fail in our duty in this case. We ought not to deny to
I women what we aro giving to every one else—the com-
mon privilege of a right to be consulted—the common pri-
vilege of having what every petty trade possesses—a few
members of Parliament who feel specially called upon to
attend to their interests, and to see how they are affected
by any change in tho law. No more than this is asked by
the present motion ; and when the time comes—as it must
come—when this is granted, I am sure you will never re-
gret the concession. I move, sir, in clause 4 to omit the
word "man," in order to insert the word " person."
(Cheers.)
Mr. KARSLAKE having paid attention to the speech,
and read the writings of the hon. member for Westminster,
said both obviously point, not merely to the admission of
spinsters and widows, but also to the admission of married
women. Ho had received petitions of all kinds, but never
received one for the admission of women to the suffrage.
If, however, spinsters attach so much importance to the
possession of the franchise as the hon. member for West-
minster says they do, how will they give it up when they
are led to the altar and become at once debased and do-
ghArosaudsf ezdtir
ticreatures,
nwt somethingthe House
tHh
oe u likels,et thewh, aas shepeooatoredrh
sCoo
writermp
uo
cuohnb d?-
soaheverlervvroaey woman
worldlyha
farthing.
int
everything
otsi,
dthhso althoughl thas,heieno
le
untddhi
endow,"
wg
herself,
ha e says,
and
e s "
fdrwoonirhts h
nhoai ltsl
give
t e(
aL (Laughter.)
lhdtreern. ) h
eB
is
st
ooasfbudlpiitgpshooeerds idnletogrowl a
supportma n m
them,arr marries
oasonuccihewttyh—nenohte—hieromahya,rries a wife who takes a drink whoa she
oh)—speakingb e locked
law is that the wife shall be absolutely and eyenrit:cresllaoysnstiensTchh:ref
the power of her husband. She may not gad about, or he
may lock her up. How then can this state of things be re-
conciled with the differences of opinion that would arise
when, as frequently happens, the wife would always vote
blue and the head of the family yellow ? Under the plan of
the hon. member for Westminster, hon. members would
have spent every Sunday evening during the past six weeks
—the only evening they have to themselves—in logically
discussing with their wives whether the compound house-
holder should survive or not. The "unerring instincts"
of men are against this innovation. The hon. member said,
"Woman, when she obtains the franchise, would be able
to protect herself against the brutality of man." Man must
be unbrutalised by some other means. You want to make
man better than he is, but not to alter the condition of
women. The hoe. member for Westminster will do well
to import net so much of political economy into this ques-
tion, and a little more of common sense. The hon. member
is wrong in his first principles, for he says there is no more
difference between man and woman than between human
beings with black hair and red hair. I contend that a man,
if he is only worthy by nature and by qualities to possess
the franchise, is ennobled by its exercise. A woman, on
the other hand, would, I may almost say, be debased and
degraded by it; for by the possession of the franchise she
would lose that which is one of her finest virtues—her
gentleness and affectionate disposition. Not a single lady
in the county of Essex asked me to obtain the franchise;
I therefore conclude they would prefer to remain as they
are, and not have the franchise, but rather look forward,
whether' spinsters or widows, to a happy home and the
advantages they now possess.
On clause 4, the county franchise clause,
Mr. MILL moved bis amendment, embodying a female
suffrage, which, ho argued was a logical consequence of
the constitutional maxim that taxation and representation
go hand in hand, and of Mr. Gladstone's dictum that every
one should have the franchise who was not unfit, or would
not be dangerous to the public good. Women, he asserted,
in old times, had been allowo I to vote for some counties
and boroughs, acid as to the arguments against it, they
were utterly unpractical, and had no foundation except in
the feeling of strangeness. Tu the argument that politics
were not women's business, he replied neither were they
the business of any but very few men, and no man was
held to discharge his professional or business duties the
.worse because he took an interest in electioneering; and
having combated the objections that women were already
sufficiently represented and had sufficient power, he pointed
out various grievances under which women laboured, such
as the unfair share allotted to men of educational endow-
ments, and in the distribution of employments.
In the discussion which followed, and which for the
most part was more jocular than serious in its tone,
the amendment was opposed by Mr. Laing, who pointed
out that it must be followed by the admission of women to
the House of Commons ; by Mr. Onslow and Lord Galway,
who pressed Mr. Mill to withdraw it, as it placed many
admirers of the fair sex in a false position. Mr. Fawcett,
Mr. Denman, and Sir C. Bowyer supported the amendment
which on a division was rejected by 196 to 73.
An amendment by Mr. Colville to reduce the copyhold
franchise to X 5 was faintly opposed by the Attorney-