The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1867-06-13
SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN.
Speech by John Stuart Mill-Why Womel
Shrnld Vnta.

ported it with the following argument IN favor
of extending the franchise 10 women.
| rise to propose an eXtentIOn OF the fran
chise, which can excite no party or CLASSIFIED
ing in this House, and which cannot give UNI
bragg to the keenest advocates OF the claims
| of property or numbers-an extension which
has not the slightest tendency to disturb that
of which we have lately heard so much-the
balance of political power-which cannot at
nct the most timid alarmist with any reVolu-
tionary terors, nor offend the most jealous
democrat an infringement ofpopuiarrghts,
which was giving an advantage to one class
which is denied to another. There is nothing
! to distract our attention from the simple
question whether there is any sufficient justi-
fCatiOn for continuing + he exclusion OF an en-
! tire half of the community, not only from &C
| tual admission, but also from the possibility
! OF ever being admitted within the pale of the
constitution, although they may fill all the
conditions OF legal and constitutional citizen
ship Hear hear. Within the limits of our
| constitution this Is a solitary case. There is
| no other example of exclusion which is absO-
Lutte If the law refuse a vote to all except
the possessor of 5000 a year. the poorest
man in the counSy might, and now and then
would, acquire the franchise. But neither
birth, nor fortune, nor intellect, nor exerticn,
nor even the great disposer OF human affairs
| accident can ever enable any woman to make
| her voice heard in those national affairs which
touch her as nearly as any other member OF
the community. Hear, hear.
INJUSTICE OF EXCLUDING WOMEN.
Before going any further I may be permit
ted to say that pri01G Jacie case has already
hepn made out 1t is not Just to make dis
linctions in rights or privileges without sulli-
cient reason. do not mean to say that the
political franchise or any other political iunc
ton is an abstract right, or that the withhold
ing of it from any one without Just reason or
eTpediency is a public wrong. My argument
is entirely one of eXpediency. But there are
different orders Of eXpediency. All expedien
cies are not exactly on the same level. There
is a very important branch OF eXpediency
| which is called justice; and justice, although
it does not necessarily require that we should
confer political privileges upon all persons,
| REQUIRES that we shall not capriciOusy and
| without cause withhold from one what we
! give to another.
Ii is not only the general principles of jus
| tice that are infringed if not set aside by the
| exclusion of women, merely as women from
| the suffrage; but also a particular doctrine OIL
| the British Constitution. According to that |
doctrine this exclusion violates one Ofthe old |
est and most cherished of our constitutional |
! maxims-a doctrine dear to all TefOrmers, and
| theoretically acknowledged by almost all con- !
| servatives-the doctrine that taxation and |
J representation should be coeXistent.
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
Does not every woman pay taxes Does !
NOT every woman who is sal jarjs contribute |
exactly the same amount of revenue as every |
man who has the same electoral qualifications
If stake in the country settles it, then every |
holder of freehold property has a stake in the !
| country, whether that holder is man or Wo-
man. No one | think can possibly pretend !
| that women, many of whom are responsible |
heads OF families-women who manage estates
or conduct a buSness-women who pay rates
| and taxes even to a large amount, and fire.
ouently with their own earnings; and many of
whom in the capacity of school mistresses
teach a great deal more than great portion Of
male electors ever learned laughter no one
| say. can pretend that they are not fit to ex-
ercise the political functions of which every
male householder Is supposed 10 be capable.
Hear hear Is it supposed that If they are
admitted to the suffrage, they will revolution
ize the state, or deprive rs of any of our val
ued institutions, or that they would be worse
governed than at present? No one believes
any of those things.
/ it was most Justly and truly said by my
right honorable friend, the member for South
Lancashire, in the most misunderstood and
misrepresented speech have ever heard hear
hear, that in order to lay ground for the
exclusion of any one from the franchise, it is
necessary to allege personal unfitness or pub
lie danger. HeaF hear Neither of these
things l venture to say, can possibly be al
legged in the present case. Hear, hear. There
is evidence in our constitutional records that
women have voted for counties and some bor-
oughs at a distant period OF our history.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
The House will probably expect that sh'd
not rest my arguments solely Or primer ally
upon general principles either Of justice or of
the constitution, but that should allege prac-
teal reasons. There is one practical reason
of very great force which | frankly confess is
totally wanting IN the case of wOmen--they
do not hold meetings in Hyde Park laughter
nor get up political demonstrations at Isling-
ton. Hear, hear. How far this fact may be
considered to prejudice or inval. ate their
claims l do not pretend to say. But practical
reasons of another kind-practIcal in the most
restricted sense of the ternl-are not wanting;
and am prepared to state, if may be per-
mitted first what are the practical objections.
The difficulty which most people feel in con-
necton with this question is not practical
There is nothing practical in 1t at all; it is
mere feelng-a feeling of strangeness The
proposal they say is new; at least they think
so. That however, is a great mistake, for
the proposal is a very old one
Sir some things were very strange to many
of US some months ago laughter and many
others are strange now which will not be
strange to some persons a few years hence or
even possibly a few months hence. We live
in world Of novelty. The despotsm of Gus
tom is on the wane. We are not satisfied now
to know why thing is, but whether it ought
to be. | am bound to suppose that in this
House an appeal lies from custom to a higher
tribunal, in which reason is the judge. Now
the reasons which custom is in the habit of
giving for itself on this subject are very brief
and that indeed is one OF my difficulties. 1t
tions, however, are the only arguments which
we usually hear on this subject, which it APP
pears to me are not at all difficult to refute.
The others consist chiefly ofsuch aphorisms
as these-politics are not Women's business
and would make them neglect their proper
dutes-wOmen do not desire the franchise
and would rather not have it-women are sut-
fciently represented by their male representa-
tives-women have power enough already.
Laughter | shall, perhaps, be thought to |
pnOnOh n oil
when have answered all these; it may, per- !
haps, instigate any honorable gentleman who |
takes the trouble replying to me to produce |
something more recondite.
WOMEN IN POLITICS.
Politics, it is said, are not awoman's bust
ness Well, am not aware that politics are
a mans business either, unless he is one ofthe
! few who are paid for devoting their time to
| The public service, or is a member of this or ,
the other house. The great majority Of male
voters have their own business, which eDgross-
es nearly the whole of their time; but never
| heard that the hours occupied in attending
| once in few years the polling booth, or the
! time spent in reading the newspapers or the
political treatises, has hitherto made them
! neglect their shops or their cOuntinghouses.-i
l have not heard that those who have votes
are worse merchants, worse lawyers, or worse
physicians, or even worse clergymen than
other people. One would think that the Brit
ish constitution allowed no man to vote
who was not able to give the greater part of
his time to politics. If that were the case we
would have very limited constituencies Hear,
hear.] Is it not the essential basis of consti-
tutional liberty that men should know wheth-
er they are properly governed or not, and by
whom? All those nations which have this
privilege excel most in the conducting of all
ordinary affairs. 1t is said that the usual oc-
| equations ofmOst women are and will likely
| continue to be domestic. l ask are these oC-
equations Incompatible with deep interest
in national affairs, and in all that concerns hui
manity? To say that they are, would be fu-
tile as the apprehension that artisans would
desert their factories and workshops if they
were taught to read
THE SPECIAL OCCUPATIONS OF WOMEN
know that there is an absurd feeling