Mr. SLACK (Herts, St. Albans), in moving the second reading of the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, commented upon the gross abuse of the forms of the House which had been witnessed that afternoon with the object of postponing this important measure. (Cries of "Oh.") This was not a party question. The principle of the Bill had on more than one occasion secured an absolute majority of the four parties in the House.
The enfranchisement of women was a necessary factor in our modern social progress. The British colonies had already accepted it, and so before long should we be compelled to accept it in the mother country. The object of the Bill was to place women electorally in the same position as that which men occupied today. It would enfranchise women of every class, married women as well as single, working women as well as women of leisure.
It had been objected that the Bill did not really enfranchise married women; but he was quite willing to insert words at the Committee stage making the point clear. This was simply an extension of the existing franchise to women. It would enfranchise the great class of women occupiers, a far larger class in numbers than was generally believed. To show that the Bill would enfranchise working women he pointed out that in the borough of St. Pancras there were 5,231 women on the register of voters for municipal purposes, and of that number 3,221 were working women.
The national attitude towards this question had changed in recent years, and yet in the House of Commons the tendency had been retrograde and reactionary. Women had lost ground in the House, both as regarded educational and municipal representation. These disqualifications would never have been imposed on women if the principle of this Bill had been the law of the land.
The disfranchisement of women was unconstitutional (cries of "Oh"), inexpedient, mischievous, and unjust. It was wrong to force reasonable, responsible citizens to obey laws which had been enacted without the possibility of either sanction or protest on their part.
SIR J. ROLLESTON (Leicester) seconded the motion. He said that under our modern commercial and industrial system, female labour now took a large share in the production of the wealth of the country. But while women took their places as workers side by side with men their position was by no means the same. They complained that they were peculiarly subject to the exactions of the sweater, that they received lower wages than men even for the same work, that as regarded technical education their needs were almost wholly disregarded. The improvement which working men had been enabled to secure in their condition would not have been so great if they had not been endowed with the vote. Many people who were opposed to this Bill were in favour of the franchise being given to women having a property qualification. It was not for them, however, that the vote was urgent, but for the women who worked for weekly or daily wages. He had in his possession a statement that 7s. a week was the average wage of working women in this country. It was not for the good of the State that cheap labour should be exacted from any section of the community. He did not know or care what effect the reform suggested would have on the balance of parties. A State highly advancing in civilization should be able to put its internal economy on principles of justice without fear of the disturbance of political power.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the views entertained by Mill had been referred to. He remembered asking Mill, at Mr. Bright's suggestion, whether he was really in favour of giving the franchise to all women or only to a few. It was only when Mill replied that he was in favour of giving it to a few that Mr. Bright was prepared to vote for women's suffrage. Therefore Mr. Mill, whose arguments had been referred to as unanswerable, would himself have been against this Bill.
That was 37 years ago, and in 37 years one increased to a certain extent in experience. Every successive year since then had made him more and more regret the vote he once gave. He had endeavoured to make up for it as a penance by opposing the Women's Franchise Bill tooth and nail ever since. (Laughter.)
He was entirely against female suffrage (Ministerial cheers), and even if he were in its favour, he would, as a Radical and a democrat, oppose this Bill. Women were different from men physically and intellectually. There were many physical tasks performed by men for which women were not fitted. They could not serve as soldiers. Neither could women act as policemen. Order and liberty, the social fabric, rested ultimately upon force, and the fact that women could not contribute to that force was a limitation of citizenship. It was the same in industrial life. As civilization increased, the hard manual work was taken out of the hands of women.
In this country the law had interfered to prevent women from doing men's work. He thought, therefore, it might fairly be said that women could not fulfil the duties of citizenship. That, of course, was not their fault, because they were more beautiful than muscular. There was also a difference between women and men in mental equipment. In some things they were superior to men, but in the consideration of the great problems which came before the Imperial Parliament they were certainly inferior to men.
Women were nervous, emotional, and had very little sense of proportion. Every man knew what it was to argue with a woman. (Laughter.) He had given it up. (Laughter.) A woman would lay down her views, and though it were conclusively proved to her that she was wrong, she would continue to repeat her old arguments. (Laughter.)
It was said that women were entitled to the franchise as a right. But the giving of votes must depend upon whether it was an advantage to the community, and it would be a great disadvantage to the community to give women votes. It would also be injurious to women themselves.
It was said also that the argument against women being unfit for the franchise was disproved by the fact that this country had an excellent Queen for many years. But it must be remembered that the Queen could only act on the advice of her Ministers, and in his opinion it would be easier for a woman to act as Queen than to act as a simple voter.
Women exercised a great influence over men, and they desired to retain that influence. The laws of nations had been largely shaped by women, although women had no hand directly in the making of the laws. This influence would be lost to women if they had votes, and that was the reason why the vast majority of women did not desire the franchise.
It was only a few women of masculine minds, who took an interest in politics, that desired to have votes. Again, as there were more women than men in the country, if the female franchise was established it would mean the surrender of the whole government of the country to women. Whether his hon. friend was in favour of it or not-
Mr. SLACK.-I am not in favour of talking it out.
Mr. LABOUCHERE.- Talking it out! Was it really supposed that a measure of this tremendous importance could be voted upon after a discussion of two hours? (Laughter.) No, it was not a question of talking it out; he was trying to convert his hon. friend. (Laughter.)
Now, would it really be desirable to turn this venerable and respectable Parliament into an arena with a promiscuity of sexes? (Laughter.) He thought it would be most undesirable. There were young men here. (Laughter.) He had seen in the lobbies all sorts of political flirtations going on (laughter) to get their vote. As an old man he could not conscientiously countenance placing them or anybody else in the hands of those ladies.
He had had cards sent in to himself and gentlemen had come to him and said, "The ladies want to see you." (Laughter.) Well, he was cautious. (Laughter.) He remembered the intelligent Ulysses closed his ears not to hear the Sirens; and so he did not go to those ladies. If he had gone - man was weak (laughter) - he might have been cajoled and humbugged into taking their part and voting for this measure. No, it was really not safe. (Laughter.) Boys and girls were not taught together, and they did not have juries of women.
Mr. CORRIE GRANT.- All we want is freedom.
Mr. LABOUCHERE.- And I do too. I want freedom for men. (Laughter.) I am not going to be crushed under the dominion of women. He was a follower of John Knox, who wrote of "the horrible regiment of women." He went further; he was a successor of St. Paul. (Loud laughter.) St. Paul objected to women talking in churches. Take the Church now. Were archbishops women? (Laughter.)
He admitted that many working women did not get fair treatment in the matter of wages, but to give them votes would not raise their wage by one shilling. Women might be useful members upon subordinate local boards, for they had capacity for administrative work, and that work affected both sexes, but could not his hon. friend appreciate the vast difference between a board of guardians or a School Board and the great Imperial Parliament?
Votes in favour of women's suffrage had increased it was said, and possibly that was so. Men were very weak in regard to women. (Laughter.) Ladies came to them and adjured them to support the cause, and promised in return to canvass for the candidate, who in the belief that the movement would never come to a head weakly gave a promise. A vast number of gentlemen had incautiously made such promises, and were anxious to avoid the fulfilment of their obligations. ("Oh.") Yes, they were glad the Bill came on for discussion too late for a division.
He did not shirk the expression of his views in opposition to the Bill. An important Bill came on dealing with a matter on which he had a strong opinion (laughter), and it was supposed discussion should be restricted under pain of accusation of talking out women's suffrage. But let supporters of this Bill understand that they could not have it two ways, and if women came into political life they must accept the conditions equally with men. The polite difference to women in drawing-rooms did not obtain in politics, but it was supposed perhaps that if ladies had seats in the House male members would yield them precedence in speaking, though a man might hold strong views, as he did, on the question of vehicle lights. (Laughter.)
To give the franchise to women would destroy the best relations between the sexes. Think of a married man after having heard speeches maundering on all the evening having to go over the whole again with his wife and daughters. (Laughter.) It would mean destruction of the social relations that had existed from time immemorial. Those who were Radicals should vote against the Bill, even if they were in favour of women's suffrage, because it was not a Radical and democratic Bill, and Conservatives should not be induced to support it by the limitations attached, for they might be assured that if once a certain number were admitted to the franchise every woman in the country would soon be clamouring not only for votes but the right to sit in the House. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T.H. ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.) said he for once was in full agreement with the hon. member for Northampton. When men exercised their franchise they were creating the great body with whom ultimately must rest not only the making, but the enforcement of the laws. It might be perfectly possible that in certain constituencies votes of women under the Bill might be in the majority, and as the undoubted desire of promoters of the Bill was to extend it to all women in the end that majority would be probable. They could not force men's obedience to laws passed by the influence of a majority of women contrary to the opinion of men on whose power the final sanction of the law rested. Something like a revolution would result.
The agitation now experienced in consequence of the passing of the Education Act would be nothing compared to that which would follow an Education Act framed on the demands of women contrary to the wishes of men. His information as to the opinion of the Colonies, where women had received votes, regarding the success of that change did not agree with that given to the House today. On the contrary, he was informed that there was a desire to repeal that legislation.
The hon. member was referring to other arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, when a stranger (apparently a working man) rose at the back of the Strangers' Gallery and said:- "Mr. Speaker. Is that gentleman trying to talk the House out? Because I have come from Northampton"- Here the stranger was seized by an officer of the House and ejected, exclaiming "Oh, Oh," and "Talk it out."
Mr. ROBERTSON went on to argue that women did not care for the vote and that the public interest on the question, slight as it had always been, had much declined since the days of John Stuart Mill.
Mr. SLACK moved that the question be now put, but the Deputy Speaker taking no notice of the motion.
Mr. ROBERTSON continued his remarks a few moments longer till 5.30 when, by the rules of the House, the debate stood adjourned.
The House stood adjourned at 25 minutes to 6 o'clock.
.lcThis parliamentary debate on the Women's Enfranchisement Bill encapsulates some of the arguments used by opponents of women's suffrage: women were too emotional to vote; family life would suffer if women became too politically aware; and enfranchisement would inevitably lead to demands for women MP's. Mr Robertson argues that it would be unacceptable, even revolutionary, for women to be given the dominant voice in shaping laws, while Mr Labouchere treats the whole issue with derision. Time-wasting tactics ensured that no vote was taken.
