Year: 1867

Why Women should Vote.


In the House of Commons, May 20, JonN
STUART MILL made an amendment to the
fourth clause of the Representation bill, to
substitute the word "person for man"
and supported it with the following argu'
ment in favor of extending the franchise to
women:


rise TO propose an extension of the fran
chise which can excite no party or class
feeling in this house, and which cannot give
umbrage to the kcenest advocates of the
claims of property or numbers-an cxten-
sion which has not the slightest tendency
to disturb that of which we have lately
heard SO much, the balance of political
power; which cannot afllct the most timid
alarmist with any revolutionary terrors
nor offend the most jealous democrat as en-
infringement of popular rights which was
giving an advantage to one class which is
denied to another. There is nothing 10
distract our attention from the simple
question whether there is any sufficient
justification for continuing the exclusion Of
an entire half of the community, not only
from actual admission, but also. from the
possibility of ever being admitted within
the pale of the constitution, although they
may fulfil all the conditions of legal and
constitutional citizenship. Within the lin.
its of our constitution that is a solitary
case There is no other example Of exclu-
sion which is absolute. If the law refuse
vote to all except the possessor of $4,000
q year, The poorest man IN the community
might, and now and then would, acquire
the franchise. But neither birth nor for
tune, nor intellect, nor exertion, nor even
I that great dsposer of human affairs, acci-
dent, 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.


INJUSTICE OF EXCLUDING WOMEN.
| Before going any further | may be per-
mitted to say that primd fdcie case has al
ready been made out. 1t is not just to
make distinctions in rights or privi-
| eges without sufficient reason. do not
mean to say that the political franchise or
any other political function is an abstract
right, or that the Withholding of it from any
one without just reason or expediency is
public wrong. My argument is entirely
one of expediency. But there are differ
ent orders of expedienoy. All expeden-
cies are not exactly on the same level,
There is a very important branch of eXpe.
diency which is called justice, although it
does not necessarily require that we should
confer political privileges upon all persons,
requires that we shall not caproiously and
without cause withhold from one what We
give to another.


1t is not only the general principles of
justice that are infringed if not set aside,
by the exclusion of women merely as wo-
men from suffrage; but also particular
doctrine of the British Constitution. Ac-
oording to that doctrine this exclusion vi
olates one Of the oldest and most cherished
OF our constitutional maxims--a doctrine
dear to all reformers, and theoretically &C
knowledged by almost all conservatives
the doctrine that taxation and representa-
tion should be cOexistent.


TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATIONS.


Does not every woman pay taxes! Does
not every woman who is sui juriS contribute
exactly the same amount of revenue as
every man who, has tue same electoral
qualifications II a stake in the country
settles il, tEen every holder bf freehold
property has a stake in the country, wheth-
er that holder is man or woman. No one
| think can possibly pretend that womeni
many Of whom are responsible heads OF
fanilies-women who manage estates Or