The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-08-24
THEIR PETITION NOT BOGUS.
Injustice TO the Engiishw omen Who Pro
tested Against Female Suffrage.

To THE EDITOR OF TEE SUN-Sir: In a
widely circulated letter last month essaying
to correct certain errors in the Massachusetts
"Remonstrance- Miss Alice Stone Blackwell,
referring to the petition against woman suf-
frage sent by Fl 900 En- lishwomen to the
House Of last spring, said:
The petition was throVn out by Parliament. the
signatures having proved to be largely bogus.
Every person well Informed on the suffrage ques-
ton has known this for months.
Thinking IL extremely unlikely that the
high minded and intelligent women who cir.
culated the anti-suffrage petition In England
would stoop to dishonorsble methods, 1 sent
a letter Of inquiry to Mr.. Rowland Whitehead.
Lincolns Inn, London. one OF the leading
Liberal members OF the House OF Commons.
and l have received from him the following:
In reply TO your letter with reference 10 the petit
tion against woman suffrage presented 10 the House
of Commons on March 8 last, and signed by about
81 900 women, 1t Is quite untrue TO state that the
signatures TO tho petition proved to be largely
bogus" There were q few cases In which two or
three different names appeared to DO in tho same
handwriting, and there was one batch Of Ave or six
names which seemed to have been written by one
person. II h by no means uncommon TO md that
an. sas s ns%ss q :. ssx y PETITION %s% IN r.. 81 Sam. sSs ss nSx i1%,iy
II ulioMn,T% were Sos,a wans 70 inyss,igate these cases II
signed the names had sulhority TO DO 50. "~'
l enclose you an extract from the Morning Post
OF Apfu IL, lSUI, which comments upon the mis-
leading statement above mentioned. That extract
refers 70 a technical rule of the House OF Commons
by which the prayer" OF q petition must DO written
upon each sheet OF paper on which the signatures
occur. This precludes the fixing onto the ORIGINAL
petition OF sheets which contain nothing but sigma.
lures. II Ia merely a technical rule Of the House
which In OF very recent Introduction and not known
to the general public. Failure In respect OF any
part of a petition TO comply with this technical rule
docs not In any way imply that the sig natures 10
the petition are bogus.
Miss B~lackwell's plain statement is that the
petition was thrown out by Parliament" and
that the reason for this action was that the
signatures had proved to be largely bogus
But from Mr.. Whiteheadis letter and the arti-
Gle In the London Morning Post it appears
that the real trouble with the petition was a
failure to comply with a new and little under
stood technical formality regarding the head
ing; and that in only q comparatively few
Instances were several names written in one
handwriting, and then under conditions easily
explaina BILE by the fact that the signers were
members OF the same family.
Surely these are slight grounds on which 10
base a sweeping accusation OF fraud. II
seems to me a pity that the woman suffrage
leaders in this country should not be able TO
carry on their propaganda without aspersing
the motives and disappearing the acts Oh
women whose convictions lead them TO on
pose the granting OF the ballot to their sex.
BOSTON, August %. FRANK FoxCRoFT.