All quotation marks, hyphens, dashes,
apostrophes and colons have been transcribed as entity references.
All apostrophes and single right quotation marks are encoded as
’.
Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed; all hyphens are
encoded as ‐ and em dashes as —.
BY
"The humble Petition of the undersigned,
sheweth,--
"That it having been expressly laid down by
high authorities that the possession of property in this country carries
with it the right to vote in the election of representatives in Parliament,
it is an evident anomaly that some holders of property are allowed to use
this right, while others, forming no less a constituent part of the nation,
and equally qualified by law to hold property, are not able to exercise
this privilege.
"That the participation of women in the
government is consistent with the principles of the British Constitution,
inasmuch as women in these islands have always been held capable of
sovereignty, and women are eligible for various public
offices.
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your
honourable House to consider the expediency of providing for the
representation of all householders, without distinction of sex, who possess
such property or rental qualification as your Honourable House may
determine."
This petition was signed by 1499 women, including many whose names alone
are sufficient to entitle them to a respectful hearing. It has given rise
to discussion in many households, and articles have appeared in newspapers
and magazines, some containing arguments for the prayer of the petition and
some against it. As I think the onus of proof lies with those who say women
ought not to vote, I will proceed to consider the arguments I have met with
on that side of the question.
Among these, the first and commonest is,--Women do not want votes.
Certainly that is a capital reason why women should not have votes thrust
upon them, and no one proposes compulsory registration. There are many men
who do not care to use their votes, and there is no law compelling them
either to register themselves or to vote. The statement, however, that
women do not wish to vote, is a mere
assertion, and may be met by a counter-assertion. Some women do want votes, which the petitions signed and now in course of signature, go very far to prove. Some women manifestly do, others, let it be admitted, do not. It is impossible to say positively which side has the majority, unless we could poll all the women in question; or, in other words, without resorting to the very measure which is under discussion. Make registration possible, and we shall see how many care to avail themselves of the privilege.
But, it is said, women have other duties. The function of women is
different to that of men, and their function is not politics. It is very
true that women have other duties--many and various. But so have men.
No citizen lives for his citizen duties only. He is a professional man, a
tradesman, a family man, a club man, a thousand things as well as a voter.
Of course these occupations sometimes interfere with a man's duties
as a citizen, and when he cannot vote, he cannot. So with women; when they
cannot vote, they cannot.
The proposition we are discussing, practically concerns only single
women and widows who have 40s. freeholds, or other county qualifications,
and for boroughs, all those who occupy, as owners or tenants, houses of the
value of £10. a year. Among these there are certainly a great number
whose time is not fully occupied, not even so much as that of men. Their
duties in sick rooms and in caring for children, leave them a sufficient
margin of leisure for reading newspapers, and studying the
pros and cons
of political and social questions. No one can mean seriously to affirm that
widows and unmarried women would find the mere act of voting once in
several years arduous. One day, say once in three years, might surely be
spared from domestic duties. If it is urged that it is not the time spent
in voting that is in question, but the thought and the attention which are
necessary for forming political opinions, I reply that women of the class
we are speaking of,
have as a rule, more time for thought than men, their duties being of a less engrossing character, and that they do, as a fact, bestow a considerable amount of thought and attention on the questions which occupy the Legislature. Social matters occupy every day a larger space in the deliberations of Parliament, and on many of these questions women are led to think and to judge in the fulfilment of those duties which, as a matter of course, devolve upon them in the ordinary business of English life. And however important the duties of home may be, we must bear in mind that a woman's duties do not end there. She is a daughter, a sister, the mistress of a household; she ought to be in the broadest sense of the word, a neighbour, both to her equals and to the poor. These are the obvious and undeniable duties, and within the limits of her admitted functions, I should think it desirable to add to them--duties to her parish and to the State. A woman who is valuable in all the relations of life, a woman of a large nature, will be more perfect in her domestic capacity, and not less.
If we contemplate women in the past, and in different countries, we find
them acting in addition to their domestic part, all sorts of different
rôles. What was their
rôle among the Jews and the Romans?
What was it in the early Christian churches? What is it amongst the
Quakers? What is it in the colliery districts,--at the courts of
Victoria, and the Tuileries? We can conjure up thousands of pictures of
women, performing different functions under varying conditions. They have
done and do, all sorts of work in all sorts of ways. Is there anything in
the past history of the world, which justifies the assertion that they must
and will do certain things in the future, and will not and cannot do
certain other things? I do not think there is.
But to return to my argument, and supposing that there were enough data
in the past to enable us to predict that women will never take sufficient
interest in politics to induce even widows and single
women to wish to vote once in several years, should we be justified in realising our own prediction, and forbidding by law what we declare to be contrary to nature? If anyone believes, as the result of observation and experience, that it is not a womanly function to vote, I respect such belief, and answer--only the future can prove. But what I do not respect, is the strange want of toleration which says--"you shall not do this or that." We do not want to compel women to anything; we only wish to see them free to exercise or not, according as they themselves find suitable, political and other functions.
The argument that "women are ignorant of politics," would
have great force if it could be shown that the mass of the existing voters
are thoroughly well informed on political subjects, or even much better
informed than the persons to whom it is proposed to give votes. Granted
that women are ignorant of politics, so are many male ten-pound
householders. Their ideas are not always clear on political questions, and
would probably be even more confused if they had not votes. No mass of
human beings will or can undertake the task of forming opinions on matters
over which they have no control, and on which they have no practical desire
to make. It would by most persons be considered waste of time. When women
have votes, they will read with closer attention than heretofore the daily
histories of our times, and will converse with each other and with their
fathers and brothers about social and political questions. They will become
interested in a wider circle of ideas, and where they now think and feel
somewhat vaguely, they will form definite and decided opinions.
Court Guide
Among the women who are disqualified for voting by the legal disability
of sex, there is a large number of the educated class. We shall know the
exact number of women possessing the household and property qualifications,
when the return ordered by Parliament has been made. In the meantime, the
following calculation is suggestive. In the London
Page 6
The fear entertained by some persons that family dissension would result
from encouraging women to form political opinions, might be urged with
equal force against their having any opinions on any subject at all.
Differences on religious subjects still more apt to rouse the passions and
create disunion than political differences. As for opinions causing
disunion, let it be remembered that what is a possible cause of disunion is
also a possible cause of deeply founded union. The more rational women
become, the more real union there will be in families, for nothing
separates so much as unreasonableness and frivolity. It will be said,
perhaps, that contrary opinions may be held by the different members of a
family without bringing on quarrels, so long as they are kept to the region
of theory, and no attempt is made to carry them out publicly in action. But
religious differences must be shown publicly. A woman who takes upon her to
change her religion--say to go over from Protestantism to
Romanism--proclaims her difference from her family in a public and
often a very distressing manner. But no one has yet proposed to make it
illegal for a woman to change her religion. After all--is it
essential that brothers and sisters and cousins shall all vote on the same
side? For let me mention once again, we are not discussing the expediency
of giving votes to wives.
An assertion often made, that women would lose the good influence which
they now exert indirectly on public affairs if they had votes, seems to
require proof. First of all, it is necessary to prove that women have this
indirect influence,--then that it is good,--then that the
indirect good influence would be lost if they had direct
influence,--then that the indirect influence which they would lose is
better
than the direct influence they would gain. From my own observation I should say, that the women who have gained by their wisdom and earnestness a good indirect influence, would not lose that influence if they had votes. And I see no necessary connexion between goodness and indirectness. On the contrary, I believe that the great thing women want is to be more direct and straightforward, in thought, word and deed. I think the educational advantage of citizenship to women would be so great, that I feel inclined to run the risk of sacrificing the subtle indirect influence, to a wholesome feeling of responsibility, which would, I think, make women give their opinions less rashly and more conscientiously than at present on political subjects.
A gentleman who thinks much about details, affirms that
"polling-booths are not fit places for women." If this
is so, one can only say that the sooner they are made fit the better. That
in a state which professes to be civilised, a solemn public duty can only
be discharged in the midst of drunkenness and riot, is scandalous and not
to be endured. It is no doubt true, than in many places polling is now
carried on in a turbulent and disorderly manner. Where that is unhappily
the case, women clearly must stay away. Englishwomen can surely be trusted
not to force their way to the polling-booth when it would be
manifestly unfit. But it does not follow that because in some disreputable
places, some would be illegally, but with their own consent, prevented from
recording their votes, therefore all women, in all places, should be
without their own consent by law disqualified. Those who at the last
election, visited the polling places in London and Westminster, and many
other places, will bear me out in asserting, that a lady would have had no
more difficulty or annoyance to encounter in giving her vote, than she has
in going to the Botanical Gardens or to Westminster Abbey.
There are certain other difficulties sometimes vaguely brought forward
by the unreflecting, which
I shall not attempt to discuss. Such for example, is the argument that as voters ought to be independent, and as married women are liable to be influenced by their husbands, therefore unmarried women and widows ought not to vote. Or again, that many ladies canvass, and canvassing by ladies is a very objectionable practice, therefore canvassing ought to be the only direct method by which women can bring influence to bear upon an election. Into such objections it is not necessary here to enter.
Nor is it needful to discuss the extreme logical consequences which may
be obtained by pressing to an undue length the arguments used in favour of
permitting women to exercise the suffrage. The question under consideration
is, not whether women ought logically to be Members of Parliament, but
whether, under existing circumstances, it is for the good of the State that
women, who perform most of the duties, and enjoy nearly all the rights of
citizenship, should be by special enactment disabled from exercising the
additional privilege of taking part in the election of the representatives
of the people. It is a question of expediency, to be discussed calmly,
without passion or prejudice. It has been my desire to meet, in a candid
spirit, those, who without jealousy or distrust, are willing to extend to
women any privilege which is likely to conduce to their advantage or the
public good, but who reasonably shrink from precipitate action in a
delicate and difficult matter. Such persons I would invite to a serious
consideration of the question in all its bearings, confident that in
proportion as the investigation is deliberate and searching, the conclusion
will be in accordance with sound expediency.
BARBARA LEIGH SMITH BODICHON.
J. BALE, Printer, 78, Great Titchfield-street, Marylebone, W.