PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.

HC Deb 03 February 1897 vol 45 cc1173-239

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG (Glasgow, St. Rollox),

in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said the question of the extension of the franchise to women was in no sense a Party one. He had no desire that it should be dragged into the arena of party controversy, and he did not think the interests of those whose cause he was pleading would be furthered should suck an event occur. He asserted, however, that, in his opinion, it would be a lasting credit to any Party in the country which should undertake a Party Measure embodying the principle which was embodied in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was intended merely to establish the principle of the extension of the Parliamentary franchise. The Bill, however, contained the irreducible minimum which should be granted by the House in the matter, if the franchise was granted to women at all. It was calculated that the Bill would enfranchise about 500,000 women. He was given to understand that one of the most difficult points in connection with the phraseology of the Bill was whether it did or did not include married women. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who held strong opinions on the subject, had said that the Bill was obscurely drawn, and contended that it would not include married women. He had no desire to go into the intricacies of legal phraseology, for in the course of discussing the details of the Measure the intention of the House would no doubt be made perfectly clear on the point. He might, say, however, for his own part, that he approved the inclusion of married women, and his reason for doing so was that, by a series of Acts which had been passed in recent years, married women had been given the control of their own earnings—["hear, hear!"]—the control of property that accrued to them as next of kin, and the right to hold property which was secured to them by bequest; and in those circumstances he contended that it followed, as a matter of course, that they should be entitled to vote in connection with the management of that property. ["Hear, hear!"] Another criticism of the Bill made by the right hon. Member was that it would further complicate the existing qualifications for the franchise. He admitted that the franchise was already sufficiently complicated, and he had hoped that the wording of the Bill, if it were passed into law, would rather simplify than further complicate the present state of things. At present the disqualifications for the Parliamentary vote applied to Peers—a restriction which he fully approved—to candidates' agents, to minors, to lunatics, to paupers, to felons, and lastly to women. That was the category in which intelligent women were placed in this country in relation to the Parliamentary franchise. ["Hear, hear!"] Even illiterate persons were allowed to vote, and he found that in the last election no fewer than 73,000 illiterates voted. It was not a credit to our civilisation that, in such circumstances, intelligent women should be debarred from exercising the privilege. [Cheers.] Now as to the qualifications of women to vote. They were regarded as capable of holding property, and, in consequence, paid taxes upon it, and it had been recognised for many years as a principle of the constitution that taxation and representation should go together. ["Hear, hear!"] Further, the right had been extended to them to vote in connection with Parish and District Councils, Poor Law Guardians, County Councils, Town Councils, and School Board Elections, and he ventured to say that they had exercised those functions with credit to themselves and advantage to the country. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, women had been recently appointed on Royal Commissions, and had been from time to time called as witnesses in Parliamentary inquiries. They had also been granted in recent years educational facilities, through which they had distinguished themselves in many walks of life. Nearly 500 women had already taken the B.A. degree at the London University, nearly 400 had passed tripos examinations at Cambridge, and nearly 300 had passed with honours at Oxford. [Cheers.] Notwithstanding all this, they were debarred from assisting to decide by whom the laws under which they lived should be made. ["Hear, hear!"] The criminal statistics of the country showed that women were more law-abiding citizens than men. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The female population of the country exceeded the male population by about one million, and yet they found that while 8,426 men were convicted at assizes and quarter sessions last year, only 1,267 women were convicted. They were told that women did not understand politics. Did all men understand them? [Laughter.] He denied that women were less capable of understanding difficult questions than men, but even if they were that would be no valid reason for excluding them from the franchise. ["Hear, hear!"] Women had special interests of their own which they understood, and which they desired and required to protect. They had special knowledge with regard to special questions, and they had special means of obtaining information with regard to matters which affected their own sex, which were not open to men in any proper sense of the word. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, it was only common justice that women should have the means of giving effect to the opinions they formed on those subjects in a constitutional manner—namely, by voting for the election of Members to that House. He wished to say here, with regard to the names which were on the back of the Bill, that he desired to thank hon. Members who had assisted him in bringing in the Measure. There was, he contended, a large mass of public opinion, both in Scotland and in England, in favour of the principle of this Measure, as shown, not only by the petitions sent up to that House by women, but by the resolutions adopted at representative conferences of both the great political parties in the State. He also reminded the House, on this point, of the appeal which was signed last year by no less than 257,000 women from every constituency in the United Kingdom, in favour of the principle of the Bill. Then they had the experience of their Colonies, and he thought this experience was very valuable, because it had given them an object lesson in connection with the working of this principle. A Bill for the enfranchisement of women in connection with Parliamentary Elections was passed in South Australia in 1894, and the working of that Measure had been eminently satisfactory. The first General Election under the Act took place in 1896, and he found that women voted in very large numbers, and that the utmost order and good feeling prevailed. "The gloomy forebodings," said his authority, "of those who had opposed Women's Suffrage have proved entirely groundless." In New Zealand, too, where such a Bill was passed in 1893, the working of the principle had been satisfactory. Sir John Hall, who was formerly the Premier for New Zealand, stated:— Already the fallacy of the arguments against it have been proved.… Instead of the rough usage and unpleasant associations which they were warned awaited them, never before has an election been conducted with more decorum and order. And Sir John quoted a returning officer, who told him that he would rather poll 200 women than 70 men. That was, he thought, admirable testimony to the working of the Measure. He was quite aware that there was a strong opposition in that House to the proposal he was now bringing forward. He knew the rejection of this Measure was to be moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke). He was to be wounded in this matter in the house of his friend, whose manly, but ungallant voice, would be shortly raised in opposition to the Measure. The rejection was to be seconded by the hon. Member for Northampton. He had always understood that the hon. Gentleman's mission in life was to break down privilege and to remedy injustice, yet hero they had him the advocate of exclusiveness and the perpetuator of inequality. He had not been able to follow the arguments of the hon. Gentleman in this matter. His main position he understood to be that this was a Measure for unsexing women. He had pondered over that expression, but he had not been able to attach any definite meaning to it. If this principle of the working of which they had not had experience in other connections in this country and in the Colonies, then there might be some point in the criticism. But this principle had been introduced here in municipal matters, and me the Colonies in Parliamentary Elections, and introduced with advantage. That being so he was unable to fathom what could be the basis upon which the hon. Gentleman brought forward an assertion of this kind. He believed himself that the hon. Gentleman had in his mind a certain political institution in this country which, if he might say so, was his pet aversion—that great organisation, the Primrose League—and that he believed, if women were enfranchised in this country, their votes would be cast exclusively in support of Tory candidates. If that was so, and the hon. Member did not dissent from it—

MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I do dissent.

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

Then the hon. Gentleman thinks that the votes would be cast in favour of the candidates of his own way of thinking.

MR. LABOUCHERE

No.

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

Then the hon. Gentleman has no opinion on the matter at all.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes I have.

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

said that, however that might be, the argument was largely used in the country that the effect of the enfranchisement of women would be to bring a great reinforcement into the ranks of either one or the other party in the State. In his opinion that was a most unworthy argument. That was the very last consideration which should be advanced in connection with a matter of this kind. He was not aware that when they had had to consider the granting of an extension of the franchise they had ever considered the particular direction in which the votes would be cast. If they had done so he hoped they would never do so in the future. Such an argument and such a consideration as that was pure and unadulterated Krugerism. Mr. Kruger professed to be willing to redress the grievances of the Uitlanders and to extend the franchise, but he wished to be satisfied beforehand that the votes would be cast in favoar of the particular policy of which he approved. That was not an aspect of the question which should be regarded for a. moment by anyone considering such an important matter as this. His general position was that there was no valid argument against the principle of this Bill. Arguments there might be, born of prejudice or of sentiment, but there was no logical, valid, or just argument against the position which he took up in this matter. He had had the greatest possible pleasure in bringing this matter before the House, and he appealed to all hon. Members to cast themselves loose from any remnant of prejudice of sentiment, or other unworthy consideration; to recognise the inherent justice of the claim which was now being once more made in constitutional form in that House, to give effect to the logical consequences and outcome of those successive legislative experiments which had been made, and which, he contended, had been made successfully, in this country in the past, and by doing so once more to broaden, to strengthen, and to improve the basis upon which our representative institutions stood. He believed that, thus broadened, thus strengthened, and thus improved, those institutions would continue to be the guarantee and security for the prosperity of the country in the future as they had been the guarantee and security for that prosperity in the past. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.),

in seconding the Motion, complimented the hon. Mover on the ability of his speech. He did not think there were any persons in the House who would be prepared to dispute the view that the Women's Suffrage question had, in the last few years, made the most substantial progress in the opinions of the people of this country. He did not deny that they might still be confronted to some extent with the ridicule which, in times past, was the usual way with which this question was approached by those opposed to it; but on the whole, the question had passed from the stage of ridicule to the intelligible ground of practical politics. Upon that common platform, as to the political expediency or inexpediency of the Measure, they were now in a position to debate the question. There still remained one or two grotesque arguments against the Measure of Women's Enfranchisement, but before dealing with them he should like to say one word with regard to the legal aspect of this Measure. He had not the smallest doubt that the Bill would be exposed to the critical acumen of many learned friends, and he might say at once that on the compass of the Measure there would be a divergent opinion from two points of view one that it was not large enough in its scope, and the other that it was too small or narrow in its scope. Those who were responsible for the drafting of the Bill thought it wise to choose the line of least resistance. They knew perfectly well, if, for instance, they were to enfranchise women lodgers, that there would be a very strong and very for- midable volume of opposition from certain sections of the House, and although he, for one, should very much like to see women lodgers included within the scope of the Bill, yet those who were responsible for its drafting came to the conclusion that it would be well to allow that question to be laid before the House at large, so that when the Bill came before the Committee, amendments in that direction, if that was the general sense, might be included. Again, there was the debatable question as to whether women who were married should be included in the Bill. There, again, no attempt had been made to deal with that proposition. The point of view the promoters of the Bill took was this. There were a large number of Members who say, "If you include married women we shall oppose the Bill." On the other hand, there were Members who said, "If you do not include married women we shall oppose it, because we think married women, of all people in the world belonging to their sex, at any rate, are entitled to the highest consideration, and it is discreditable to make marriage a loss of political status." He ventured to suggest that the Bill probably did include married women. It was not quite clear, and perhaps some hon. Gentlemen would say that it ought to be made quite clear. He agreed there was force in that observation, but, in view of a very recent decision. in the High Courts of Justice, there was some doubt raised as to whether or no certain operative words in the Acts of Parliament creating local government franchises did or did not include married women. However that might be, the basis upon which all hon. Members would vote, either for or against the Measure, was this—that its promoters were enunciating the principle of Women's Suffrage, and they should leave the questions of the scope and the extent of the qualifications to be dealt with by the House in the proper place for so dealing with them—namely, in the Committee of this House, and upon the Report stage of the Bill. He had said there were grotesque arguments still surviving against the enfranchisement of women. One such argument was that because women were not likely and could not be called upon to use arms in defence of their country, they ought not to be entrusted with the franchise. He remembered the last time upon which this question was debated in the House, his right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife—whose absence, in common with that of the occupants of both Front Benches he deplored, because he knew they should probably hear, when the Debate had reached its final stages, speeches from his right hon. Friend and other right hon. Gentlemen directed against this Bill, without their having condescended to listen to the arguments which have been advanced in support of it—he remembered his right hon. Friend adopted that argument, and he ventured to say that his expression of grotesque as applied to it was not unwarranted. He should like to ask how many people who were responsible for involving this country in war were ever likely to bear arms in its defence? They, in the House of Commons, and also in the other House, were the persons who in a. large measure were responsible for directing that movement of popular opinion which might produce war. And yet, of all the hon. Members in that-Assembly, except one or two hon. and gallant Gentlemen, there was hardly a solitary man who would bear arms. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and the hon. Member for Northampton, who would not even, either of them, take the position of a drummer boy in the Army, would both rise up in their places and say it was an anomaly, unjust and unreasonable, to entrust the franchise to people not capable of bearing arms in the defence of their country. What he claimed for women was, that although they did not actually, and might not, perhaps, be able (although that might be an arguable question) to bear arms, at the same time they bore the responsibilities and disadvantages of war. They suffered more acutely in their own persons and the persons of their children from being deprived of their husbands or their sons or brothers by the operations of war. They suffered from the burden of taxes and the general disarrangement of their social condition by war, to as largo an extent at least, and probably even to a larger extent, than those who took an active part in carrying on war. He would not dwell further upon that argument. He dismissed it as one which was grotesque, and which could not be reasonably sustained before any enlightened assembly. Among arguments he had culled from speeches made against this extension was one which at first sight appeared formidable, that women were indifferent to the franchise, and did not care to exercise it, that there had never been any demonstration on their part of their anxiety for the franchise. Had the working classes of this country ever demonstrated with any remarkable ardour for the exercise of the franchise? ["Yes!"] For centuries the working classes of this country acquiesced in their exclusion from the franchise. True, there were intermittent agitations excited by the enthusiasm of political leaders, but for the most part it was a sorrowful fact, and it was a matter of common reproach at the time of the extension of the franchise in 1867, and again in 1885, that the working classes were to a very large and lamentable extent oblivious to the responsibilities that devolved upon them in relation to the franchise; and he ventured to say, speaking with the strongest democratic instincts, that it was more due to the exigencies of political parties than to any persistent and solid agitation for it that the working classes received the franchise. Women had, not the same opportunities of making their views and opinions known as were in the nature of things conceded to men. Women had not control of the Press, women had not control of the platform, it was contrary to the nature of women to take part in those formidable demonstrations which from time to time marked the activity of political enthusiasm among men. But, although they had not these facilities, there were not wanting indications of a strong opinion in favour of this movement among the women of the day. Many women of distinction had given adhesion to the movement, and so far as he could gather the feeling among women was in that direction. So far as vehicles for the expression of opinion offered, petitions and so forth, the evidence was abundant that women did desire the possession of the franchise. Another argument which had a formidable appearance, and which no doubt would be heard ad nauseam, was that women would come under influences direct or indirect which would control their votes. Now which were these improper agencies?

MR. LABOUCHERE

The Church.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said he anticipated that. But which Church? Was it the English Church or the Catholic Church? [HON. MEMBERS: "All!"] Well, were the precepts and examples of the churches good or bad? Were Ministers belonging to the various religious denominations fit and proper persons to exercise their influence over women or not? In the first place there would be as great variety of opinion brought to bear upon women from the various sections of the Church as would be exercised in other directions, and Nonconformist Ministers using their influence in one way, Clergymen of the Established Church perhaps in another. Therefore, so far as the Church was concerned there would be check and counter-check applied, and the effect even if such influence did operate would be impartial. Another influence was possibly that of the male relatives of women. Well, that was not an unenlightened or baneful influence, and again there would be check and counter-check, and the number of the electorate would swell without injury to either political party. But these were mainly speculative opinions. There was no ground for supposing that women would be more likely to be susceptible to undue influence than men. The very same argument was advanced against the enfranchisement of certain sections of the working classes. It was said they would be subject to all kinds of indirect influence and would be driven to the polls like sheep. But none of these anticipations had been realised. The working classes had exercised the franchise with a full sense of their responsibility, and it was unworthy the serious consideration of this great cause to argue on the assertion that women would not honestly, conscientiously and intelligently exercise the franchise if it were conferred upon them. Another argument he would briefly touch upon would probably be the degradation of women. One hon. Member had even gone so far as to say women would be unsexed by being dragged into the turmoil and dust of party strife. Could such an argument as that be in the mouth of hon. Gentlemen who were only too glad to avail themselves of the services of women during election time? Had the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Cooke) never found a haughty Primrose Dame ready to go through the slums of Hereford to gain a vote for him? Did not his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) sometimes lean for support on a Liberal Woman of Northampton? [Laughter.]

MR. LABOUCHERE

No. [Laughter.]

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said his hon. Friend repudiated the suggestion, but he had reason to believe that among the ladies of Northampton his hon. Friend had many hearty and sympathising supporters. Not only did Members avail themselves of women's help in political organisations but they dragged their wives through all the dreary, weary election time, from platform to platform, to listen to insipid oratory. [Laughter.] He knew one most charming lady, wife of a Member on that side of the House, who conducted to a successful issue an election campaign during her husband's absence abroad. It was idle to talk about this degradation, all the evidence we had showed that it tended to elevate the tone of elections when women took part in them. If there ever was any force in the argument it had disappeared, and women now took part in District Council, Parish Council, County Council, Boards of Guardians, Municipal and School Board elections, and upon some of these bodies women sat and took part in administration of local affairs. In view of these admissions made by the Legislature, the justice of the claim to vote for a Member of Parliament could not be invalidated by any such ridiculous contention. Another, and the last argument to which he would allude, was that there was no necessity to give women votes because they were already represented by the male members of their families. It was a specious, plausible argument, but absolutely unsound. A similar argument was advanced against the enfranchisement of agricultural labourers; it was said that the farmers and owners represented the interests of agriculture, and solemn speeches declared the interests of owners, farmers, and labourers to be identical. He had only to state one fact to bring conviction to the minds of Members that the interests of women are not adequately represented. There are over two millions of women employed in our factories. He wished to say nothing in disparagement of Trades Unions, they might be right or wrong in the view they took, but they had been constant in their efforts to interfere with the rights of labour by women. Trades Unions had continually been hampering the attempts of women to have the free right to sell their labour in whatever direction they pleased. The two million women who worked in factories should have the right to bring direct influence to bear through legitimate channels upon Parliament, through Members chosen by themselves to decide this question. Was it not of urgent and vital importance in the interests of sanitation that factory women should be able to bring direct pressure to bear on Parliament to better the conditions of their lives? Was the question of education and employment of children of no moment to women? Whatever might be the effect of recent legislation in New Zealand or New South Wales, undoubtedly a great factor and lever for dealing with the temperance question would be the enfranchisement of women, and it was a well-known fact that what animated the women of New Zealand to secure the franchise was the conviction that, not through the men, but through the agency of women, could any reform in that direction be secured. If women possessed the franchise, an honest effort would be made, which, he believed, would be crowned with success, if not to remove, at least to mitigate, the horrible evils which resulted from our unhappy social system. The number of women who would be enfranchised by the Bill was comparatively small. The supporters of the Bill believed that by admitting women to the franchise Parliament would do much to upraise, morally, intellectually, and politically the condition of women, and to make woman what to a large extent she was not at present—a more fitting companion, comrade, and partner to man. [Cheers.]

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford),

in moving the rejection of the Bill, congratulated the supporters of the Bill on the able advocacy of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading. First of all, however, he desired to remove the reproach cast on the capital city of his native county, which he had the honour to represent. It was said that he sent 40—["No," and laughter]—Primrose Dames to wander about the slums of Hereford to get votes for him.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

Haughty, not forty. [Laughter.]

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

He sent no Primrose Dames to wander through the slums of Hereford, because there were no slums in that highly-respectable city. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken had said he was a comparatively new convert to this movement. He did not tell all about himself. When he first entered the House he was in favour of Women's Suffrage. A few years after he changed his mind, and became a convinced opponent of it, and now he said he had been re-converted to his original views.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

I never was in favour of it when I first entered the House. It was in my childhood. [Laughter and cheers.]

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

Then the sooner the hon. Member attains to his second childhood the better. ["Hear, hear!"] The Conference of the National Union of Conservative Associations, which at Oxford in 1887 passed a resolution in favour of Women's Suffrage, passed also a resolution in favour of Protection, but nothing came of either. [Laughter.] It was suggested that we should follow the example of New Zealand and South Australia. Gene-rally speaking, the children followed the example of the parent, not the parents the example of the children, and the only answer to this he would give in two words—fiat experimentum. When other civilised nations began to grant the franchise to women, it might be time for the most civilised nation in the world to see whether it would not be well to follow their example. Women had now the vote in Wyoming, and formerly in Washington, but when the latter was formed into a State the Women's Suffrage Law was repealed. If in America, where there were about 44 States, only the smallest and most remote had adopted the system, that was considerable reason why we should hesitate and watch what they were going to do in the matter. Before proceeding further he would like, with the permission of the House, to make a few respectful comments on the attitude assumed by Members of Parliament on this question. He had had an opportunity on this and previous occasions of conversing with Members of the House, and he had found their attitude to be one of considerable doubt. In fact, many would have been only too pleased if the Debate of yesterday had lasted over to-day. He did not wonder at their state of mind, for sometimes they called themselves Wobblers, and sometimes Waverers, but he would not weary the House with particular instances, though he would mention in passing one hon. Member who, when he asked him if he was going to vote for the Bill, said, "Yes, to please my mother." [Laughter.] There were also a large number who said they would vote for the Bill, but hoped it would not pass, or would vote for it because they had a number of women bothering them to do so. He had also a very good instance which would give rise to no little surprise if he ventured to mention the name of the hon. Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name."] No, he was not going to give him away. [Laughter.] He was not going to expose him to the tender mercies of the women he had deluded and deceived. [Laughter.] What did that hon. Member tell him only last Thursday as ever was, when he met him in the Lobby? The hon. Member was in the House now. [Laughter.] He said to him, "Are you an advocate of Women's Suffrage?" He replied, "Oh, yes, yes!" Then he looked very solemn, cast his eyes up to the ceiling, smote thrice upon his breast, assumed the attitude of the penitent publican, and said, "But in our inmost soul"—and then he smote his breast again so as to leave no doubt where he kept his soul—[laughter]—" in our inmost soul we dislike this Measure. We are the victims of pertinacity. We are the victims of the importunate widow." [Laughter.] Then he went on to say, "More than this, I will give you what I think a good argument to use against it "—and he was going to use it. He would not say on which side of the House that hon. Member sat, but he could see him. [Loud laughter.] The argument was this. It was said that several of the Leaders of the two Parties in the House were in favour of Women's Suffrage; yet was it to be supposed that if the Leaders of the two great Parties had been in favour of Women's Suffrage, and believed there was a feeling in the country in favour of it commensurate with the talk about it, they would allow the matter to remain in the hands of private Members? Would it not long before this have formed a plank in some Government platform? Was it to be supposed that the Leader of the House, who was believed to be in favour of this movement, would have taken that Wednesday last year which would have afforded so favourable an opportunity for the discussion of this Bill? Would the right hon. Gentleman not have spared that one day if he had had any real belief that either his followers were in favour of this Bill, or that there was any considerable body of opinion in the country in its favour? He thought it was very dishonourable on the part of hon. Members to deceive the ladies by telling them they would vote for this Measure though they did not want it. Now he would say a few words as to the progress made with the movement. The two principal Women's Suffrage Societies into which the original society was divided had been in existence for 30 years, and he had asked the Secretary of the so-called Parliamentary Committee, Miss Cozens—they had all seen her outside in the Lobby—what she thought was the cause why the original society was divided, and her reply was that there was a split on the married women. He knew there was a difference of opinion. The married women said they would not be ruled over by spinsters and widows, and they had their way, but the real cause of the division was, that about eight or nine years ago the fortunes of Woman Suffrage were at an extremely low ebb. Many branches had to be given up because no women attended them. The main support came from the Radical side, and at last it occurred to a brilliant but unscrupulous genius that it would be a good stroke of policy if they could persuade Liberal associations—purely political associations—to become affiliated with the central body of the Women's Suffrage Society. That scheme was actually carried out, but at the expense of unity. Why? Because some who remained in the old society said it was not honourable nor honest. He found in the report of the Central National Society that out of 67 societies who were claimed as affiliated with the Suffrage Society only 11 were Suffrage Societies, and 56 were Liberal Associations of the ordinary stamp. The Parliamentary Committee appeared to have originated at Congleton, in Cheshire. It did not flourish there, and was brought up to London, and it consisted for some time, so he understood, of Miss Cozens, the secretary, and her mother. There was no office, no officials, and no money. Now, however, there was an imposing list of officials, headed by their old friend Sir R. Temple, whom he regretted not to see in the House. The financial condition of the society—which he thought was, after all, the great test of the vitality of a society—was this: The annual subscriptions amounted to £15 1s. 6d., but the expenditure came to £26 1s. 9d. However, there was a. balance of£12 in hand. He had asked Miss Cozens how that was made up, and she said it was no use trying to get subscriptions, so they had a ball at Kensington Town Hall, by which they raised £40. He would now turn to the part of the country which was the most favourably situated in connection with this movement—that was the North of England, whose centre was Manchester. The Manchester society was the earliest founded of any. It was founded in the year 1867–30 years ago. It was greatly assisted by the fact that Miss Becker, the mainstay of the movement up there, lived in the place. It was also the constituency represented by the Leader of the House, who was supposed to be in favour of the movement. He would point out the condition of that Society. Manchester was a city of 530,000 inhabitants. It was difficult to be closely accurate in giving the number of members of the society, because he observed in all these eases where application was made to secretaries for official reports giving the number of members of their societies, there was much vagueness in their replies. However, he had endeavoured to calculate the number of members of the Manchester Society, and he found that in a population of 530,000 there were about. 160 members all told, both men and women, many of them not residing in Manchester at all. So, roughly speaking, they were in a proportion of about 1 to 3,500 of the population, and that in a part of England where the Society had been longest in existence. In these circumstances could it be said that public feeling had been greatly roused in Manchester, or that there was a great desire for the grant of these privileges to the sex in that part of the world? Then as to the question of finance. In what condition were the finances of the Suffrage Society in Manchester? Why, the Society was in debt to the extent of £70 at this moment, and yet in Manchester there were plenty of wealthy, intelligent women who were supposed, according to the supporters of this Hill, to be pining for the franchise. How was it that they did not come forward to free the Society from the burden of this debt, planking down their thousands, and putting the Society in a position of permanent financial security? But there was not a single supporter of the movement in Manchester who would move a finger to relieve the Society from this burden of debt. But if the parent Society in Manchester languished, what about the branches, of which there was one at Rochdale and another at Gorton? A friend of his wrote to those places asking what the position of those Societies was, and what was the feeling in the neighbourhood. With reference to Rochdale, the report of the Secretary said:—" Thought has been stirred in the town on the question, and we have enrolled fresh members." Now this stirring of thought had resulted in the expenditure of £4 15s. 4d., and in receipts of £4 9s. 3d. There was accordingly a deficit of 6s. 1d., which the General Committee had to defray, so that the Rochdale branch of the Society was now without a shilling to bless itself with. With reference to Gorton, the report of the Secretary said:—"The cause of Women's Suffrage is slowly gaining ground, and the opinions of this branch have been instrumental in some degree in forming a true opinion upon the matter here." But they had not gone very far in the formation of a true opinion, for the total income of the year amounted to the magnificent sum of 12s. The management, however, cut their coat according to their cloth, and spent in the year exactly the same sum. They were, however, happier than the Society in Manchester, in that they were not in debt. To sum up, Manchester was in debt to the sum of £70, Rochdale had not a single shilling to bless itself with, and Gorton was in the same position. Yet he should have supposed that, if these opinions were really spreading, there would have been people in both those places who would be willing to give some practical expression of their views, and to put these Societies on a sound foundation, thus enabling them to rouse public opinion in the neighbourhood. Now he would go to another place in the North of England. In Leeds the population was 402,500, and the number of members there was about 113, bearing the same proportion to the population as the members of the Society did to the population in Manchester, namely, 1 to every 3,500 inhabitants. The finances of the Society in Leeds, the report said, were in a satisfactory condition, and he was bound to say they were, as compared with the finances elsewhere. The income of this Society last year was £7 6s. 4d., and there was a cash balance of £2 11s. 5½d. That appeared to be the Society in the whole of this part of the country which was in the most flourishing condition. But he was not surprised that the Secretary who supplied this information should say, "Here also women are very indifferent; "so they were not only indifferent in Leeds but in many other places also. In London there were the two parent Societies, and he lumped their members together, although it was very difficult to say whether they were residents in London or not. It was clear that many were not, and had no real connection with London; but he would give the Society the benefit of those members, and lumping together the total number of members of the two parent Societies in London, he found that the proportion of members of this Society to the population was I to half a million. So this movement had made so much progress that one person in half a million would subscribe to the funds of the institution which was intended to promote the cause. If it were said, as it would be probably, that this view was the view of an opponent, and possibly a biassed individual, he would refer to what the most active supporters of the movement said about it themselves. Did they say that much substantial progress had been made? He had with him a report of the National Conference of the Delegates of the Women's Suffrage Societies in Great Britain and Ireland, held in Birmingham in October last. He presumed they got together there the most representative body they could. Affixed to this report was a map of England, which he held in his hand. The dark places on the map were the names of places where meetings had been held during the last few years—drawing-room meetings, and so on. Here was Manchester, where so much good work was said to have been done, and Leeds, and Gorton, and Rochdale. These were marked very black. All the rest of England was almost wholly blank. The supporters of the movement did not seem to be altogether satisfied with the condition of the country. They did not think that it had been quite sufficiently well worked, and they had drawn up a smaller map, which he held in his hand. On this, as would be seen, they proposed to divide England into districts, to be organised by paid organisers. Well, they had £2 11s. 5d. in Leeds, which would go some way to pay them, he supposed. Where the rest of the money was to come from he did not know. He would say as regarded that map that it was as blank as a map of Africa used to be. So here was a great constitutional agitation for conferring new rights upon people who had never had them before, and who inhabited places where they had never even heard of those rights, never had been approached on the subject, and knew nothing about it. The first reference he should make to the speeches delivered at this Women's Suffrage Meeting, in October last, was to the speech of the principal speaker—a Mrs. Thomas Taylor. She made an earnest speech, a speech which was referred to as being the most interesting and practical speech those present had ever heard. She wanted to know how it was that Women's Suffrage had not made the progress that some of its friends wished it had made, and she said:— We must seek for the real reasons why we have not yet got the Suffrage, and amongst all those that are hurled at our heads by friends or foes, only one to my mind really hits the nail on the head. It is this: you have not got the great mass of women with you. The majority of women do not really care about the Suffrage.' That I think we must all admit is true. There are hundreds and thousands of women who do care for the Suffrage, but there are millions—I speak advisedly— and this was a. woman who knew all about it and who had been all over the country propagating the faith— millions who not only do not care, but who have many of them never heard of it, and who certainly do not realise what it means. So that House was actually asked to giant the suffrage to millions of women who knew nothing about it, and did not care for it. Then Mrs. Taylor referred to the map he had shown to the House, and said:— Look at Cumberland, at Lincoln, at Devonshire. What do all those blank spaces mean but that there are no Suffrage women there, or only a few isolated individuals. If all the marked places may be taken as centres of life, all those blank spaces are realms of darkness, heathen lands so far as Women's Suffrage is concerned. What chance, I ask you, have we of getting Women's Suffrage "— this was what the Women's Society, the active supporters of the movement said, who knew all about it— what chance have we of getting Women's Suffrage or of having numbers of women at elections pressing M.P.'s for the Suffrage, when we have all that much country unconcerned about it—unconverted. So what they were asked to do was to give to that large country, that unconverted land, the Suffrage, and there were gentlemen who would actually do so, and who were ready to take a leap into the realm of darkness, to use this good lady's phrase. Mrs. Taylor was followed by a lady of distinction, the Hon. Mrs. Arthur Lyttleton, who, after addressing Mrs. Taylor, and thoroughly agreeing with the truth and accuracy of the observations that had fallen from her, spoke as follows:— Let all those anxious for the amelioration of the position of women, in whatever department of life it may be, put aside their differences, and agree to some such scheme as that laid before us to-day, which will, as we hope, ensure that every man and woman in England will be made acquainted with what we seek. This will enable us to have a definite plan to put before our supporters, many of whom have contributed to the Suffrage movement during the last twenty or thirty years, and who are growing tired of giving, for as they say, we seem no nearer to our goal. "No nearer our goal!" And his hon. Friend pretended to think they had reached it when he knew perfectly well they had not even made a start for the race that was set before them. He would give the House one more quotation, and then he had done. Mrs. Lyttleton was followed by Mrs. Scatchherd, who also spoke with such becoming frankness that he would venture to read one passage, the last one he should read from the Report:— The question is," asks this good lady, "what are we to do now? It is useless merely to say pleasant things; we must speak the truth and face the situation. Our experience then is that the day of the average public meeting which we have been holding for the last fifteen years is practically over and that drawing-room meetings are also becoming things of the past. What did you get at these meetings? A resolution passed in favour of the Suffrage. What next? Well, nothing—nothing practical. You get an expression of approval, intellectual approval; but that is vastly different from conviction. They had it then that the day of the average public meeting held in Manchester, Leeds, or at the Oxford Conference, which the ladies had been holding for the last 15 years, was practically over, and that the drawing-room meeting was also becoming a thing of the past. The drawing-room meeting of his day was sometimes of a singular complexion. The ladies used to think then that it was desirable to try and get up some kind of discussion on the subject of Women's Suffrage, for although they were all women they were of one mind in one house, and they could not get them to advocate the question with any show of argument on behalf of the unfortunate men. What they did, therefore, was this. In order to make the meeting more agreeable they used to borrow a couple of barristers and invite them to come and say what they had to say on behalf of their own degraded sex. He knew this, because he had been "borrowed," and he had made remarks that were not received in the cordial spirit in which they had been offered. [Laughter.] He knew also the exaggerated mode in which the resolutions were passed, and how the meetings were put in the Press. He met the same speakers over and over again; the same organisers, such as Miss Becker, Miss Tod, Miss Orme. If the front drawing-room was nearly full then the meeting was described as "a fine display of public feeling; "if the front drawing-room was quite full, and the folding doors were thrown open, and the little back drawing-room nearly full, too, then the assembly assumed the character of a national demonstration. [Laughter.] Those meetings were industriously reported throughout the country, until at last people began to say that there must be something in the movement, whereas, if they were behind the scones they would know perfectly well that it was a "put-up job," that it was a manufactured article, and that the people who promoted it were "a stage army." [Laughter] It was the same now. The Report of the National Society for Women's Suffrage, 1894, contained a list of meetings which were held—78 in all, of which 25 were drawing-room meetings. There was a drawing-room meeting by invitation of Miss Tickell; a drawing-room meeting by invitation of Mrs. Algernon Joy, with Mr. Joy in the chair; and of these meetings Mrs. Fawcett, the hon. secretary, addressed 34, Miss Blackburn 10, and Miss Mordan 8, and all these women made one attempt after another at different meetings to endeavour to excite enthusiasm among their friends in favour of this movement. In the North, the manifestations were the same. Out of 34 meetings held in the year ending October last, the "stage army" was again to the front. Mrs. Philip addressed 15 meetings, Miss Hodgson and Miss Edwards each 7.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

rose to order, and asked whether the hon. Member was speaking to the question before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is within the limits of order, though perhaps somewhat discursive.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said he was employing all these quotations as an illustration to show how the movement in favour of Women's Suffrage was got up, and he was, therefore, endeavouring to support the arguments with which he began—that there was no sufficient demand for the Franchise among women; and that the demand was supported by meetings organised and got up in this way was no true demand, and in order to show what the nature of the meetings was. He said now, as he said before, that it was a "stage army" that went about the country; whereas now they had Mrs. Fawcett and other ladies going from place to place about the country endeavouring to promote the movement, so then they had Miss Becker, Miss Tod, and Miss Orme following the same procedure.

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

Is it right, Sir, that all the names of those ladies should be dragged into this controversy? [Cheers.]

MR. SPEAKER

It is not a question of order.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

It is very bad taste then.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said it was a matter of purely good or bad taste, if the hon. Gentleman liked, when he mentioned that a lady attended 50 meetings, that the women had a public meeting here and a public meeting there, and that certain ladies attended so many public meetings, and he mentioned them by name. Was it wrong to say that? Was it a question of bad taste? How could he show how a movement of this kind was organised unless he mentioned the organisers by name? Was it bad taste to mention that? No; he thought it was good argument. He considered that Mrs. Russell-Cooke formed a very good judgment of the opinion of the members of the House when she said:— I am under the impression, though I would not say it to everyone, that, although we sometimes attack Members of Parliament, there is on the whole a larger proportion of opinion in favour of Women's Suffrage in the House of Commons than there is in the country; and that is why Members are so slack about putting their professions into actual practice. He had shown the plan of campaign and the war chest at Leeds; and he said that the position of the movement in this country did not as yet warrant the introduction of any Bill of any sort or kind granting the Suffrage to Women. [Cheers.] If he were conducting a case in Court he should stop here. He should submit that there was no case; or if it went to the jury, he should rest content with the facts he had proved and should decline to address them. But he thought it due to his hon. Friend who brought forward the question, and in consideration of the strong views held by some hon. Members on the subject, to venture, with the permission of the House, on a rather dry disquisition while making the endeavour to prove the second head of the argument with which he started, namely, that it was unjust to grant Women's Suffrage. Might he be allowed to preface the observations on this head with some remarks on the nature of the Franchise? This Measure was said to be intended to give the vote to duly-qualified women, that was to say women who had some sort of property qualification. Stress was laid by his hon. Friend on the intelligence of women, and this was a point which was made much of, and would be again, by subsequent speakers, He granted that intelligence as fully as ever the hon. Member could wish, but intelligence had nothing to do with this question, except that the voter must not be deficient in ordinary human capacity, must not be a lunatic or an idiot. But intelligence, whether good, bad, or indifferent, was not a qualification, for the simple reason that they could not test it where millions were concerned. Mr. Mill, an early and consistent advocate of what he called the emancipation of woman, desired such a test, but he abandoned all notion of it on the ground of its impracticability. Examinations formed some test, and they had the University vote so tested, but this, too, as a test, was becoming discredited. Therefore, the highly intelligent widow with a lowly, intelligent coachman, had no cause quâ intelligence to complain because he had a vote and she had not. But it was said that the highly-intelligent widow had a large property and the non-intelligent coachman none; but on the score of intelligence she had no claim for special consideration, because to put her on an equality with the coachman she ought to have a proportion of votes equivalent to the extent in which her intelligence exceeded his. [Laughter.] It would be said also that there were many women possessed of a large amount of property, but neither was property in itself a qualification. It was not the house, the sticks and the stones, that voted; this property was only an indication of the position in the community held by the owner of it; it was an outward and visible sign that he had some interest in the country. But property was not the only indication, and as an indication it was rapidly falling into disrepute. Indeed, they proposed to take away from the owners of property the very property qualification and votes which they now enjoyed. Services were a qualification, a lodging was a qualification, and the like. Now, what sort of position did these indications denote? He thought it was this, that the subject of them was not a mere casual, not a mere waif and stray.

MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (Gateshead)

Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

After the usual interval, a quorum was found to be present.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said all the qualifications he had mentioned were indications of some stability on the part of the voter, or led to some presumption that he had some interest in some place for some time, and therefore was likely to be engaged in the duties of a citizen. Underlying all these qualifications or indications was the suggestion or presumption of work. Position in the community, with the ever underlying accompaniment of work, was in his judgment the true qualification for the exercise of the franchise. Now women, like men, had position in the community—married women the best and most stable of all positions, and they had their sphere of work; but again, with insignificant exceptions, their sphere of work was different from that of men. It had no direct relation as men's work had to the principal functions of this House, and the reasons for the existence of this House. In a word, the question resolved itself into a question of sex. Look around. This building, in which this room, from its associations and use, was the most noteworthy feature, was raised by the labours of men. He went forth into this great city and found that throughout the length and breadth thereof not one brick nor one stone was laid on but by the hands of men. All those great arteries of communication which constitute what Lord Bacon called the essentials to the greatness and wealth of a nation—easy conveyance of men and goods from place to place—had been made and were maintained by men who, in like manner, conduct the traffic over them, and devise the complex system whereby such traffic was regulated. All our manufactories in which the produce of the earth was converted into wealth for the use of mankind, and all the machinery therein, had been erected and were kept going by men. Go to our great ports and see how vast was the foreign trade of this country, and how all the laborious part of it was carried on by men. Who went down to the sea in ships and saw the wonders and braved the dangers of the deep? Men. Who navigated over trackless oceans? That vast marine which brought wealth and comfort to every home. Who founded the great Empire of which this kingdom was the heart? Men. That "morning drum beat which," as had been well said, "following the sun and keeping company with the hours, encircles the earth with one unbroken strain of the martial airs of England," wakened whom? Men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who nursed you? "] Who secured to us the fruits of toil and safeguarded us in our sea-girt isle? Men. What was the outcome of all these unceasing and ever increasing labours of men? [MR. ALLAN (Gateshead): "Children."] Our existence here to-day as a social and civilised community. And what did a social and civilised community involve and require? Laws, whereby its complex system might be regulated. And laws made by whom? By Parliament. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member to address himself more directly to the question. [Cheers.]

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

Oh! I must have egregiously failed to make myself clear. [Cheers and laughter.] What he was arguing was this, that as all the material framework of society, all that enabled this country to be a social and civilised community, was made and executed by men, so they ought to govern it. That this point was a good one was plain from the efforts which the supporters of the Women's Suffrage movement had made from time to time to show that women could do the work of men. In the Women's Suffrage Journal, conducted by Miss Becker, a number of instances were cited of cases in which women performed the work of men. From that he gathered that there were a few women who superintend lighthouses in America, a few women who navigate small coasting vessels, and that there is at least one woman pilot somewhere on the Welsh coast. She even went to the extent of instancing women criminals where the crime committed was, if he might so say, of a masculine character, such as burglary, and she included these as instances of women being equal to men. In this day her example in this last mentioned respect was followed by her successors, for in a recent number of the Women's Signal there was an instance given of a young woman housebreaker which was given as an instance of women being physically the equal of men. The pit-brow girls were used by the supporters of the Women's Suffrage Movement for that particular purpose. There was a deputation to a former Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) requesting him to include these girls in his Bill and prohibit them from working as described, on the ground that the work was hard and unwomanly. A deputation of those same girls attended this House in their picturesque garb, and by whom was it led? By the leaders of the Women's Suffrage Movement, who had declared that the reason why they supported the claim of these women to do this hard and unwomanly work was, that it showed women were physically the equals of men, and could do the same hard work as men, and that that was the strongest argument in favour of granting them the suffrage. He did not see, at present, any prospect of putting the two sexes on an equality. No one could set bounds to the march of intellect or the discoveries of scientific men; but he could see no chance of the human race being propagated in any other mode than that with which they were familiar. [Cries of "Oh!"] Looking around them as they walked through the streets, and observing how the standard of height of women had risen as compared with the standard of height among men, one might possibly expect the time when the equality of women and men would be physically, and, as regards stature, an established fact; or, possibly, as was the case with birds of prey, the female might become ultimately bigger than the male, and then men would have to take a back seat. But until this physical alteration was effected he should be a convinced opponent of this Measure, and if ever he happened to be in the House of Commons when it was brought forward, if he did not move its rejection he should, at any rate, vote against it.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the visual interval,

MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said he was sorry that an important question such as this was should be greeted with a certain amount of levity by the House. He would ask the House to look at it in its serious aspect. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Bill apologised for being the only Scotchman whose name was upon the back of the Bill. What surprised him was that there was one Scotchman who would put his name on the back of the Bill, because in his youth he had been nurtured on the works of John Knox, and he remembered especially one of John Knox's works, which was "The Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regimen of women." If Scotchmen had any respect for that great man—whom they all respected in England—he was convinced that they would not say that John Knox's views were to be set aside on account of anything that might be said by recreant Scotchmen—he did not use the word in any invidious sense. It was 30 years ago, he thought, when this question was first submitted to the House of Commons by Mr. John Stuart Mill. About 50 Members voted in favour of it; but he remembered that it was regarded by every Member who went into the Lobby as a huge joke. He was perfectly certain that there was not one Gentleman in the House who voted on that occasion who took the thing seriously, with the exception of Mr. Mill himself. [Sir C. DILKE: "Mr. Bright."] His right hon. Friend said Mr. Bright. He himself happened to be sitting down in the smoking room with Mr. John Bright while the discussion was going on, and Mr. Bright said, "I suppose we must give John Mill a vote, but I cannot say that I am strongly in favour of giving votes to women," and on subsequent occasions he had told him that he regretted on that occasion that he did give a vote for it. He hoped hon. Gentlemen, therefore, would think well before they voted. He admitted that, foolishly, looking upon the thing as a joke, he went into the Lobby as one of those 50 Members; and it was because he might have done some evil upon that occasion that he had made, it his special duty to show his repentance by doing what he could ever since to prevent women having votes. It was said that this was a woman's question; but he ventured to point out that it was also a man's question. As a man, he objected to petticoat government, and he also spoke for the vast majority of women, who recognised that they were not fitted to govern in that House, and did not wish to. [Cries of " Oh!"] He was obliged to call attention to the tactics pursued on this occasion. They seemed to him to be essentially feminine, and they were a forecast of what they might expect if this vote was carried and women were allowed to exercise paramount influence on the affairs of the country. He gathered from what fell from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill that he did not intend to proceed with the Bill. [Mr. FAITHFULL BEGG: "I made no such statement."] Did he understand the hon Gentleman distinctly to say that he intended to proceed to the Third Reading of this Bill? [Mr. FAITHFULL BEGG: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman divided different political opinions into three categories; one was as to subjects that no one could understand, and he proceeded to tell them that this Bill was one of the subjects which he could not understand. He had said that the phraseology of the Bill might be bad, that everything in the Bill might be bad, but that he did not trouble himself with the cobwebs of phraseology. He could not help thinking himself that a lady must have drawn "to this Bill. He saw the names of the right hon. Member for the Liskeard Division, of an eminent lawyer on this side of the House, and of other equally eminent Gentlemen upon it, but he should like to ask these Gentlemen and the hon. Gentleman who moved it whether they had anything to do with the drawing up of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman's silence gave consent. He should like to know whether he ever took the trouble to read the Bill before it was in print. No, he did not.

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am entirely responsible for the phraseology of the Bill so far as a layman can be responsible for a document of this kind.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said the hon. Gentleman made his position worse. He said he did read the Bill, but he had told them that he did not understand it, and he calmly put it before them without understanding what it meant. The words of the Bill were, that on and after the passing of this Act every woman who is an inhabitant, occupier or tenant of any dwelling place, tenement or building within the borough or county where such occupation exists shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. There was a certain amount of ingenuous cunning in these words in he might say so. There were two associations for Women Suffrage, and there was a dispute going on between the women suffragists. Some desired that married women should have votes; others desired that married women should not have votes. So far as he could see—and he had taken the opinion of eminent lawyers—this Bill would not give married women votes, although it was intended by it to give married women votes. Surely they ought to know whether this Bill did give married women votes or did not. If this were a Bill for men, would they for a moment go on with it without clearly understanding so essential a point as whether they gave to one-half of the men whom they were going to enfranchise a vote or not? The Bill went on to say that women should be entitled to be registered, but it did not state what were to be the conditions of registration. They knew, in regard to men, that there were certain conditions which had to be fulfilled in order to enable a man to be on the register. One condition was the question of time; but here there was to be no time. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to place women in a different position to men? He did not think he did; and therefore he hardly thought that he did read this Bill before it was printed, or if he did so, that he did not read it with any very great care. The last clause of the Bill said," Provided always that such woman is not subject to any legal incapacity which would disqualify a man voter." Now, what were the legal incapacities at the present moment? That a man must not be an alien, a lunatic, an idiot—or a Peer. There was actually inserted in this remarkable Bill a special clause to make a distinction between men and women, and to say that idiot, alien, or lunatic women, and Peeresses in their own right, were to have a vote. He did think that a Bill ought to be drawn up in a more practical manner before they discussed it.

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

thought the phraseology of the Bill was perfectly clear; the object was to attach to women precisely the same disability as was attached to men.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked the hon. Gentleman, whatever his opinion was, to look at the words he had quoted. The male voter was subject to the incapacity he had pointed out, but the Bill distinctly said that a woman was not to be. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, grammar was the same whether it applied to men or women. So far as he could see, the only women who would be enfranchised by this Bill would be widows and spinsters who lived alone and had some little shop. It was a thorough property qualification Bill, and, therefore, he should be surprised if many hon. Gentlemen on his own side voted for it. They had heard of the two million toiling women, but they were not the persons who would be enfranchised, so that the very class of women for whose sake hon. Friends of his had advocated female suffrage would not be benefited by this Measure. Very possibly his argument did not affect hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He had been very glad to notice on the other side in the present House of Commons so many young women—so many young men. [Laughter.] If he ignored their initial error in being Conservatives he had found them manly and independent in the views they expressed, and he wished to address a few remarks to them. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had brought in a Bill which provided that every man and woman of full age, whether married or single, should be qualified to vote at Parliamentary or local elections unless disqualified for reason other than sex or marriage, by common law or Act of Parliament. The Bill further provided that no person should be disqualified by sex or marriage from being elected or being a Member of either House of Parliament. If they did away with the barrier of sex, logically they must give the vote to every woman. [Ministerial cheers.] What would be the consequence? In electioneering the life of a candidate would be absolutely intolerable. [Laughter.] They knew what phase of mind a lady had. She never would understand a plain answer to a question. [Laughter.] He had always observed that ladies, for whom he had the highest respect and admiration, were incapable of argument; when one proved to a woman she was wrong she simply repeated in almost the same words her previous proposition. [Laughter.] A lady, one of the leading members of the Liberal Women's Federation—he believed that was the name of it—[a laugh]—who had been in favour of female suffrage, wrote to him only this morning. She said she was recently founding a Liberal Women's Association when a lady got up and said:— We need a moral vote; no one ought to be allowed to vote whose character does not bear the strictest investigation. [Loud laughter.] He merely mentioned that as an instance of the sort of thing they would be exposed to when women ruled the roast. It must be remembered that women were in the majority. ["Not qualified."] He was pointing out that if they passed this Bill they would in the end have to give women the vote on the same conditions as they gave it to men. [Ministerial cheers.] His right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was perfectly logical in saying that if women were to be electors they ought also to be elected. They themselves would look to that when they got the vote. What would happen? This august assembly would become an epicene club. [Laughter.] They would have men and women sitting here together and discussing matters. Women would claim the right to be on the Executive. They had now a Lord of the Admiralty; they would have a, Lady of the Admiralty. [Laughter.] He really believed that the Speaker's seat would not be sacred, and that it was probable they would have a Speakeress. [Laughter.] He took it the Whips would be ladies. If he were allowed to choose the Whips he did not know anything he could not pass through the House. It was a most dangerous and fatal possibility that they would have Whips urging hon. Members, by all the blandishments known to the fair sex, to vote for or against what were their conscientious opinions. Reference had been made to the action of New Zealand on this subject, but he declined to admit that the Mother of Parliaments should be influenced by what the New Zealand Legislature did. Would the hon. Members who cited New Zealand be in favour of a proportionate income tax and divers other schemes which had passed the New Zealand Legislature? Women had votes at municipal elections. Well, he was sorry they had, but he did not think the few women who had such votes would do themselves much harm by it. But he was perfectly certain that when they obtained those votes they would make the fact an argument for claiming the Parliamentary vote. Nor had he any objection to women sitting on Boards of Guardians and School Boards, because there were matters concerning women and children who were under the control of those bodies, which women were best fitted to deal with but to say that there was no distinction between women having a vote for those local bodies and for the election of Members of Parliament was, in his opinion, to take an exceedingly low view of the Imperial Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] What hon. Member who was in favour of this Measure would appoint a, woman to manage his estate or his business? Not one of them; and to say that, because women were elected to sit on Boards of Guardians and School Boards, therefore they had a right to sit in that House, was in his opinion an utter absurdity. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen who were moving in this matter had to face the hard fact that women generally really did not want the suffrage. But they were told that, even were this so, it should not prevent the House from granting it to them, and in this connection the hon. Member who seconded the Motion asked whether the working man really wanted the suffrage before he got it. He was surprised at his hon. Friend using that argument, because he was certainly under the impression that the working man did want the suffrage, and that Parliament gave it to him, not only as a matter of justice, but because he claimed it. ["Hear, hear!"] Then it was urged, as an argument in favour of the Bill, that women had no means at present of expressing their views. Why, they went about the country holding meetings, forming associations, and getting up petitions, and they almost mobbed hon. Members when they were leaving the House. [Laughter.] He sometimes thought that, on the whole, ladies had too many means of expressing their views. [Laughter.] Assuredly, then, they had the means of expressing their views, but the views they expressed were their own particular views, and they did not represent the views of their sex. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the statement that women really desired the vote, he could only say that he had met a great many women in the course of his life, and he had not found that any such desire existed among them. In fact, he did not believe that one woman out of 100 was the least desirous of obtaining the vote. ["Hear, hear!"] He would state what happened to him at Northampton at the last General Election. Ladies connected with the Women Franchise movement came down in strong force, took a committee room, placarded the town with denunciations of him, and went about the place trying to induce persons to vote against him. Well, he asked a. meeting of Liberals whether they had seen those ladies going about the town, and they said they had. Then he said he wanted to know what the husbands of those women were doing, and the men exclaimed: "Nursing the baby "—[laughter]—"Washing up the baby's dirty clothes"—[laughter]—" Cooking the dinner," or "Cleaning up the room." [Loud laughter.] He asked them whether they wished their wives to go galavanting about the country in this way, and whether they were prepared to undertake domestic duties? They said emphatically that they were not, and he did not believe he lost a. single vote in consequence of the action of those ladies. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a question of Conservative or Liberal, for not only were there a couple of Conservative, but there were two or three Liberal candidates in the field besides himself who were in favour of giving women the suffrage, and yet the men of Northampton deliberately came to the conclusion that they preferred sending to Parliament a Radical who was opposed to Women's Suffrage, rather than either a Conservative or a Radical who was in favour of it. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the ladies came to see him—a nice-looking, charming girl—[laughter]—and she said, "Is it possible that you are against us?" He said he was, and he gave this instance just to show the kind of way women talked on these matters. What did hon. Members think this lady next said to him? She said, "Do you believe in love?" [Loud laughter.] He replied that he did—more or less—[laughter]—and he added that he was surprised that so fascinating a young lady had not yet succumbed to the demands of some gentleman. "Well," she replied, "I might have done so; a baronet wanted me to marry him, but I did not love him." [Laughter.] And he then told her that, if she would take his advice, she would do a great deal better for herself to go and get a baronet than going about fishing for votes on this question. ["Hear, hear" and laughter.] He bad noticed that one hon. Gentleman who had supported the Bill charged its opponents with having recourse to sentimental arguments, but he contended that sentiment was wholly on the other side of the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] He was talking the other day on the subject with an esteemed friend on that side of the House, and when he said that he was going to vote against the Bill his friend said, "Had you a mother?" [Loud laughter.] He frankly said that he had had a mother; that she did not want the suffrage, and did very well without it. ["Hear, hear!"] But really what had all this to do with the matter? ["Hear, hear!"] He only related those incidents as specimens to show the silly talk that did duty for argument on this question. He had no doubt that there were many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who were sincerely and honestly in favour of the Measure on the merits of the question; for instance, men like the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), though he must confess that he was surprised that a man of his robust views should be in favour of it. It was further urged that the proposal ought to be granted on grounds of justice, and they were asked whether it was just to impose taxation without representation? Well, the present Bill would not give representation to women generally even if it were passed. Widows and moneyed spinsters were not the only women who were taxed. There was such a thing as indirect taxation, and all women were subject to it. ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Gentlemen think that they would in any way benefit the vast numbers of working women, large numbers of whom were' subjected to sweating, by granting the suffrage to widows and moneyed spinsters, who would in no sort of way, and in no sense, represent them? ["Hear, hear" and murmurs of dissent.] He did not think so, and when hon. Members talked about Justice demanding the Measure, it should always be borne in mind that the matter was really based on common sense. Nature had made a distinction between men and women, and no Act of Parliament could alter that distinction. [Laughter.] Woman had her province, and he would prefer to leave her to it. For women to exercise the Parliamentary vote, to meddle with Parliamentary elections, or to he in Parliament, was as absurd as for men to engage in the occupations of women. He asserted that women were physically unable to fulfil the full duties of citizenship. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are exeeptions."]Yes, but they could not legislate for exceptions. They must legislate for the general mass. He knew perfectly well that no man here, with perhaps two or three exceptions, would fight if they were engaged in war abroad, but, if the country was invade, then it was the duty of every man sound in wind and limb to tight for the country. It is impossible to say that women could fulfil the primary duty of citzenship, which was to defend the country against foreign invasion, unless they went back to the reign of the Amazons. Intellectually, he said, that women had not these gifts which fitted them for being elected. They had got a certain amount of what he might call instinct rather than reason, but, they were impulsive, emotional, and had got absolutely no sense of proportion. The tendency of women had been to fall under influence. His hon. Friend the Seconder said it was desirable they should fall under the influence of the Church, meaning all Churches. He thought that Members on that side of the House drew a great line of distinction between religious matters and political matters, and that, while they recognised that the pastors of the different denominations were in their right in exercising influence over their flocks in religious matters, they must not have one half-penny worth of influence over them in political matters. Woman was essentially an altruist, if he might be allowed to use the expression—she worked through somebody else. The fact was, woman's province was not to go into the market-place and talk. Who was the woman they had respected for ages? Cornelia. Did they suppose that if Cornelia had gone talking in the Forum her name would have come down to them with that respect it had? No. They respected her because she was the mother of the Gracchi—because she brought into the world these Gracchi, and worked through them for the benefit of her country. He did not want women to take part in the rough wrangles and quarrels that distinguished political life. It had always been the rule, since the world began, that it was most undesirable that women should take that active part in public life that men did. The Greek view of women was that the best woman was the woman who was the least heard of. The Roman view was, "the woman who lived chaste, made wool, and looked after her own house." For his part he was of opinion that those views, though old, were sound and solid, and by them he should always stand. He stood there, not only as the advocate of man, but as representing the wishes of the women in protesting against their being given votes, and in saying that the vast mass of women did not want them. If they had the ballot he did not think they would have twenty Members of that House, voting for this Bill. He only asked hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to vote fairly and squarely, and according to their own conscientious opinions. If they did really believe it was desirable that the whole of the women should have votes and should be allowed to sit in that House, and to fulfil all the duties that were now performed by men in public matters, let them by all means vote for this Bill. But he urged them not to vote simply because they imagined that this was not a practical question, and that the Bill would not be pushed forward. The fact was, they pledged themselves by giving a vote for the Bill, because if it was not pushed forward at the present moment, another Bill would be brought in later, they would be reminded that they had already voted for a similar Measure, and that they were bound to continue to do so. Always after a large extension of the franchise there was almost immediately a general election. The result of this vote would be that there would be a general election. He showed the strength of his convictions on this subject by urging the House to vote against the Bill, although he thought that in some respects a general election was most desirable. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were not anxious for a general election let them not give a, vote, a thoroughly unpractical vote, for a Bill which was drawn up in a fashion truly ridiculous, and which at one moment tried to persuade them that all women would have votes, and, at another moment, that they would not have votes.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said they knew that there were more than 100 Members who would vote for the Bill that day, and they voted because there was a. strong feeling outside for the Bill. The hon. Member for Hereford seemed to imply that there was no feeling in Cumberland in favour of it. He happened to know that there were no less than 4,000 women connected with the various political associations in that county, and every one of those associations was in favour of Women's Suffrage. He was glad that there had not been much said that day on the odious lines of voting for this Bill, because women would vote this or that way. He thought that was about the lowest line anybody could take. If all the women were to vote in favour of the publicans he should still be in favour of giving them votes, because he thought it was right and just that they should have them. There could only be two sound and satisfactory reasons why women should not be allowed to take part in Parliamentary elections. One was that they had some defect in their intellect, and the other was that they had some defect in their conscience. Either their head or their heart must be wrong if they were justified in excluding them as they were now excluded. He did not think there was any deterioration in women in regard to character in any way. A diploma of this kind from the hon. Member for Flint was trustworthy. But, without going so far as the hon. Member for Flint, he would say that women were at least as good as men. Then, if they were not too bad for the franchise, they were too stupid? If the stupid were to be excluded from the franchise, how about the illiterate voters? These were entrusted with the franchise, and elaborate precautions were taken to allow them to record their votes. Surely these should be excluded if women were to be excluded. What did the £10 householders know about polities when the Whigs enfranchised them in 1832; or the householders who were enfranchised by the Tories in 1864; or the county voters whom Mr. Gladstone enfranchised in 1884? The way to teach people politics was to let them take part in politics, else it was to act on the principle of the old lady who would not allow her son to go into the water until he had learned to swim. [Laughter.] Women would learn politics, and have plenty of teachers when they had votes to give. Many of them were politicians now. Look at the Primrose Dames—did they not talk politics at their meetings? Look at the Women's Liberal Association—were they not at the present time most active among Liberal organisations? It was but a year ago that his hon. Friend Mr. Labouchere took him to address a Women's Liberal Association somewhere in the East End of London. [Laughter.] Were not candidates delighted to avail themselves of the services of women? Of course they were; and was it not an extraordinary thing for a Member to accept the assistance of women to influence voters, and yet to say that women who could influence votes were not lit to have a vote themselves? This was more inconsistent than the average politician, and that was saying a good deal. Another argument which had not been used much during the Debate was what he might call the refinement argument, the argument that women were too refined, and would be spoiled if they took part in the rough and tumble of Parties—that they are too good for politics. He read in a newspaper the other day how at Dunedin, New Zealand, where it appeared the women electors outnumbered the men, they returned a man who had been very much opposed to giving the franchise to women, and he explained his position by saying he opposed the extension because women were too good for the franchise, not that the franchise was too good for women. That might be so; he did not know whether that argument would be used. It had been said by so great an authority as Mr. Gladstone, that to adopt Women's Suffrage would be to invite women to leave that position of delicacy, purity and refinement which is the present source of her power. But he wax not convinced. If polities degraded women they degraded men; and if there was something degrading in politics, then they had better not take part in them, but leave them to the basest of mankind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) had in times past expressed the view that the Turf offered a more honourable pursuit than proceedings in the House, but he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In sitting for six months in the House, trying to promote just legislation for the whole country, they were employed in the noblest work men could occupy themselves with. If, as Mr. Gladstone said in one of his articles, all those who lived in a country should love that country and take an interest in it, it was a most patriotic thing to give women votes. He could not understand how any Liberal could be afraid in this matter. He looked upon his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) as a leader of democrats, as a friend of political economy and of liberty in every shade, and yet there he was shuddering and shaking in his shoes at the prospect of a few women voting for or against him. [Laughter.] It was an extraordinary position to take, and it gave him a thrill of pain to contemplate him. Everybody was to have equal justice—except women. An American planter expressed the view that all men are born free except niggers; and similarly his hon. Friend declared all men are born free except women. [Laughter.] If women were admitted to the franchise, what harm could they do? Could they make things worse than they were? Mankind had been running the world for some four thousand years, and had made an awful mess of it; could women make it worse with hundred-million Budgets, massacres, famine, riots, and frightful war expenditure all over the world? Would they bring in the drink traffic or do anything to remove evils which, as Mr. Gladstone said, made our people in our slums as miserable and degraded as those of any heathen country? Let us not wrap ourselves in self-complacency and say," Who can show us any good?" Take women's help in everything that was humane and merciful, everything that would alleviate the lot of our suffering fellow countrymen—that was our duty. He might quote the words of the present Prime Minister, uttered some eight months ago:— It is the improvement of the daily life of struggling millions, the diminution of the sorrows so many are born to, which is the task, the blessed task, that Parliament is called into existence for. If that be so, then call in women to help in that noble work. We had arrived at a year which should be memorable in the annals of this country, and every day brought suggestions how to celebrate the completion of the sixtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign—a woman—he might say the woman of the century. The House might do something worthy of the celebration of this great event, the longest reign in English history, by performing a great act of enfranchisement, which would be a legislative monument for all years to come of statesmanlike justice. ["Hear!"]

COL. WARING (Down, N.)

said he was an advocate of the rights of women, but he took a view slightly differing from that of hon. Members who had posed in the part. He was a convert or a pervert. The first time he voted in the House on this subject it was for a Bill similar to the present, and on the present occasion he had the full intention of voting in an opposite sense. He had been convinced by the arguments of women themselves, and held with good reason, that the majority of women, and those whose opinions were best worth having, were strongly opposed to the Bill. He was not without a little experience in the matter, and had the opportunity of knowing the views of a considerable number of ladies in various relations, and he had found them without exception opposed to this Bill becoming the law of the land. The proposer and seconder of the Amendment had gone over the grounds of objection thoroughly, and had dealt with the question from a jocular point of view. That was not his intention. He held the view of women, who were the best judges in this matter, that in accepting the franchise they would surrender more powerful influence than they would receive in political matters. They preferred the indirect power to the direct power with which it was proposed to invest them. This direct power would be exorcised only by that class of women of whom samples might be seen outside the doors of the House. He confessed that he did not think the hon. Member for Northampton, or even St. Anthony, would incur much danger in passing through the small crowd in the Lobby. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, it was his opinion; it was matter of taste. If hon. Members found attractions there it was surprising that they attended the Debate. The opinion among women generally was opposed to their introduction into political turmoil. If they had the franchise they would prefer not to use it, and still less would they like to be governed by their fussy sisters who Members might see in the Lobby. What evidence was there that women asked for the franchise? The evidence only of those ladies to whom he had alluded. There had been no demonstration on the other side, simply because those who were opposed to the Measure were those who considered it would be out of their sphere to demonstrate. They had demonstrated indirectly through their husbands, brothers, and sons, and he hoped they would do so effectually on the present occasion. The proposer of this Bill talked about their discarding prejudice. He had no prejudice in this matter. He had already voted for this proposal, and now he was prepared to vote the opposite way, because in the intervening time he had become convinced that to pass such a Measure would be mischievous to the country, mischievous to the sex it was proposed to emancipate, and mischievous to the interests of the world at large. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Bill talked about the military argument. He dared say there were some Members who wished to see the military influence of this country less preponderant than it was, and who thought that if ladies had a vote wars and rumours of wars would cease. He believed that the most militant and most military people were the ladies. Did they ever hear of a woman who would not like to see her son in the Army or Navy, and if she had children in either branch of the service would object to their going to the front? It was said that ladies should have this direct power because their male relations did not represent them. He thought a good many hon. Members would be chary about giving a vote contrary to the desires of his female relatives. It might also be said that, as the local franchise had been given to women, they should, therefore, extend to them the franchise for Imperial purposes. However, that was an entirely different question. In local matters their advice and assistance was most valuable, and he himself assisted his hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast in getting an Act passed last Session to enable ladies to serve as members of Boards of Guardians in Ireland. They were told that this question was a moral question. No doubt it was, but he doubted very much whether the ladies who were anxious to obtain a vote were the best judges of how that moral question could be best solved.

MR. G. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said that, as being in some slight degree responsible for the shape in which this Measure had been presented to the House—in collaboration, of course, with many others of greater experience and of far greater technical knowledge in the matter of drafting than he could pretend to be—he should like, for a moment, to take up the challenge which the hon. Member for Northampton had thrown out. He was sorry the hon. Member was not in his place. His speech amused the House, but it surprised him a little. On the cover of the weekly periodical which they all associated with the hon. Gentleman, there appeared the classic presentment of woman personified, as he had always ingenuously thought, with that wide wisdom, that manly courage, that common sense which the hon. Gentleman attributed to himself that afternoon, and which justified him, in his own opinion, in judging and condemning everyone in this Kingdom—from the Prime Minister in his own Party down to a corporal in a marching regiment. The hon. Member began his speech by a. sigh for the good old days. He remembered, he said, when this subject was a jest. Everyone would admit that the hon. Member could give it new life, that in his hands age had not withered it, nor custom staled its manifold variety. It was still amusing; but if the hon. Member could make fun of this matter which was new, he could not produce any new arguments. The arguments he adduced were the old arguments, and in particular he would beg the attention of the House to his use of a familiar device. He hardly touched the merits of the question at all, for be did not call it an attack upon the merits of the question to say in one sentence that women are so subjected to the influence of the other sex that they ought on that account, and that account done, to be struck off the register, and in the very next sentence to say there were not 20 men in the House who would vote according to their convictions, because they were all subject to the influence of women. As to the shape in which the Measure was presented to the House, it was the result of many Debates in times past. When the hon. Member argued that the House was suspicious, and justly suspicious, of any attempt to capture its assent to abstract resolutions, he associated himself with him. But in times past so many attacks had been made upon the shape in which this Measure was put forward that they dared not bring it forward as, perhaps, they should have done, in the form of a resolution, because if they had brought forward a resolution on the question of Women's Suffrage they should have been told that such a resolution weighed for nothing. They were, then, driven to a Bill. But if a Bill was brought forward, on the other hand, which introduced any question which was rather a question of franchise—whether for men or for women—it gave an opportunity to the enemy. He would assume that they made women who were owners voters, in right of their ownership, and not of their occupation, lf they had done so, there was not a Radical who would have voted for the Measure. He would assume, on the other hand, that they had left out the owners and put in women on the lager or service franchise. In such a case there was hardly a Conservative in the House who would have voted for it. Hon. Gentlemen who differed from them might say it was clear they could not frame a Bill on this subject. He denied that altogether. He said if, in that House, it was impossible to invite an opinion up on a question of principle, why then they were restricted by the law they had made from doing the duty which the country expected from them. The country did expect that this House should be able to say whether the sex was to remain under this disability or not, and in this Bill they invited the House to say yea or nay to that question, and invited them to pronounce on no other question of representation whatever. The hon. Member for Northampton, descending into minuter details, tried to frighten people by saying that in this Bill they gave a woman a preferential right over a man in the matter of registration. He did not read it so. They entitled a woman to be placed on the register of voters, but they only entitled her to be placed on as the Revising Barrister acted in accordance with the rules and procedure of his office. This Measure was, in the opinion of its promoters, a Reform Bill, and they declined to associate it in their minds with the terrors which the hon. Member for Northampton had depicted before them. They thought that this Reform Bill had nothing whatever to do with the so-called movement for Women's Rights, whatever might be the merits or demerits of that movement. It had nothing more to do with that movement for Women's Rights than the Reform Bill of 1885 had to do with the propaganda of Jack Cade. On the contrary, they held—and they appealed to the past to support them—that the result of every inclusion of new voters into the electorate had been to minimise the apparent importance of the most extreme advocates of those reform measures. He remembered when he was a boy that the name of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk was a word of terror in good Tory households, while now he was an esteemed and popular Member of that House on both sides. He would name again another question of representation—the question as to whether the religious test should be applied in that House. Mr. Bradlaugh, so long as he fighting for that question, was also a word of terror, but, when he had won the victory on that question of representation, Mr. Brad-laugh was also an esteemed and popular Member of the House. And so, he thought, it would be found that when the franchise was granted to women, who otherwise were capable and were householders, a great deal of the extreme pronunciation of views with which some persons were alarmed would no longer be heard. So long as they did not allow an elector to give effect to his voice constitutionally, he was justified in trying to attract their attention. For his part, he said that before the last Reform Bill he thought an agricultural labourer was quite entitled to "booh" a candidate while he was making a. speech, for he had no other way of showing that candidate that he disagreed with him. Now, however, he had no longer any such right to "booh" him. If he did so he was a, public nuisance, because he had a remedy in his hands. If he did not agree with the candidate, he could now vote against him. So also if the hon. Member for Northampton had been" incommoded by the arguments pressed upon him by certain ladies in this country, if he would pass this Bill, he had the remedy in his hands. He could say," My dear lady, if you disagree with me, vote against me at the next election; do not trouble me with your arguments now." But that was exactly what the hon. Member feared. In spite of all his imposing attitude of manly courage, what was the real motive of the hon. Member for Northampton in opposing the Bill? It was very transparent. He said that if these ladies had a. vote they would make the life of a candidate intolerable. What he meant was, that they would bring the Parliamentary existence of certain Members to an abrupt close. That was really the view of the hon. Member. Mr. Bagehot, in his work on the English Constitution, said that when Lord Eldon was Lord Chancellor of England the only political view he had was that things as they were were consistent with the continued existence of John Scott, Earl of Eldon; but if there were any change how did he know that they would be? So it seemed to be with the hon. Member for Northampton. Things as they were were consistent with his having a seat in that House, but if there was any change he might not any longer be very sure of his seat. [Laughter.] What was there in the present representative machinery of this country that claimed sentimental adherence? We spent many thousands a year to get barristers to interpret Acts of Parliament relating to our electoral system. The problem of Women's Suffrage would be presented to the same tribunal, and the technical difficulties which might be involved ought not to affect the decision of the House.

SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON (Southampton)

asked how they were to be sure that ladies would not claim to sit in the House of Commons if they once had Parliamentary votes. If once there was" one man one vote, and every man a vote," how could they deny votes to women? Considering there were 1,100,000 more women than men, and that every woman would have a vote if ever one got it, were they to suppose that when women could swamp the votes of men they would be content to remain outside. If ever they got into Parliament the end of this country would not be far off. The immediate result, however, of this Bill would be the biggest creation of faggot votes ever known. Rich men would buy votes for their wives and daughters, while the wives and daughters of artisans, who were told at every election that they were the backbone of the country, would have no votes. This would work the greatest possible injustice, and he could not possibly vote for such a thing. If the working classes were the backbone of the country, why should not the female backbone of the country have votes. This present House of Commons contained more new Members (and he was one of them) than any previous House, and if they were as wise and sensible as their predecessors they would defeat this most unwise and pernicious Bill by a very large majority. [Cheers.]

MR. JEBB (Cambridge University),

in supporting the Bill, said he would eon-fine himself to certain definite arguments for and against the principle of the Bill. Did women really want the vote or not? He remembered very well, in 1892, the last occasion upon which this question was discussed in the House, the present Leader of the House, as he was also then, in winding up the Debate, remarking that he did not know any way in which women could have manifested their desire for the franchise in which they had not manifested it, and he observed that when the agricultural labourers received the franchise in 1885 there was not then more evidence before the country of their desire for the franchise than there was now of such a desire on the part of women. No one knew exactly what proportion of women desired the franchise, but it was well known that a very large number of educated and intelligent women had been active in demanding it. In his opinion the demand among educated and thoughtful women had greatly increased even in the last five years, and at the present moment the number who desired the franchise as compared with the number who desired it in 1892 had very much increased. On what ground was the vote to be refused to women who had the qualification? Two grounds were mentioned, one of which was that women were of an inferior mental capacity to men. But that was no longer maintained. The other ground given was that women could not bear arms in defence of the country; but he submitted that, even in the ease of invasion, there were large numbers of men who would probably not be capable of rendering very efficient service. Possibly, if the garrison of Inverness were in need of a. librarian, for instance, he might offer himself for the post. [Laughter.] In the case of war, women, like men, would have their taxes raised, and he could not imagine that they should be refused the franchise on the ground that they could not bear arms. Then what was the force of the assertion that no legislation remained to be passed in the interests of women which would not have an equally good chance of passing, even if women continued to have no votes. It was an undoubted fact that much legislation in the interest of women had been passed in recent years, but it ought to be remembered that the attention given to that subject had been largely influenced by the fact that during the same period an active movement had been in progress for extending the franchise to women. But such a movement could not be relied on as a permanent force for keeping up the attention of legislators to the interests of women. He granted that legislators had in recent times had no desire whatever to refuse justice to women, but women were necessarily better judges of the needs of women than men could possibly be. It could not be denied that before the extension of the franchise to the agricultural labourer there was an earnest desire to do everything that was just for the agricultural labourer, but after he got the franchise the needs of his class were viewed for the first time from the point of view of that class; and the same was true of every successive extension of the Suffrage. If women had the Suffrage, legislators would legislate in the light of the directly expressed views of women on questions relating to the interests of women. ["Hear, hear!"] He had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission appointed to deal with certain educational questions. There were women members of that Commission, and one of the problems with which they had to deal was connected with girls' schools, and the male members found they had very much to learn from the women members. Women's Suffrage was especially desirable in the interests of those women engaged in employment which they shared with men, and in the interests of women who were candidates for employment as to their fitness for which men were at present the sole judges, and had the final power of excluding them. Large numbers of such women were not in a position to take any active part in demanding the Suffrage. The hon. Member who seconded the Bill referred to a large deputation of women which came up from the collieries to represent their views on the subject of female labour in collieries. Many of the women who had been leaders of the movement had taken that part, not only because they themselves desired the franchise, but also in the interests of women engaged in such employments as he had mentioned. It was true that the omission of the Lodger Franchise from the Bill would exclude numbers of women for whom the Suffrage was especially desirable, but he submitted that this was eminently a question in which it was desirable to proceed circumspectly, and the omission of the Lodger Franchise was not a reason for voting against the principle of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said that women would be drawn out of their proper sphere. He did not see how voting would do that. They already canvassed and spoke on platforms, and candidates for Parliament were only too glad to get them as canvassers. It was further contended that domestic interests would be neglected; but did domestic life make larger demands on women than professional life on men? Then it was said that the relations between the sexes would be revolutionised. He was unable to see how that result was to follow. If anything they could do in that House was capable of subverting the fundamental laws of nature, the powers of the House were very much greater than he took them to be. A revolution in the relations between man and woman was not likely to occur until" human nature is other than it is now." As to the suggestion that women would claim seats in Parliament if they obtained the franchise, there was absolutely no logical or practical connection between giving women votes and giving them seats in Parliament. Clergymen had votes, but they could not sit in the House. It might be said that the Bishops represented them. Were men then to be looked on as Bishops, and women as a, sort of inferior Clergy? It was said, again, that women would believe too much in the remedial power of legislation, and that if they had the franchise there would be some danger of increasing the tendency to over-legislation. What proof was there that women held that belief any more than men? And if they did, what reason was there to doubt that a little experience would cure them of the illusion? He now came to an argument which deserved respectful attention. It was that women were by nature more emotional and excitable than men. It was argued that a leaven of female voters in the electorate might be dangerous at times of crisis, when popular feeling ran high—as, for instance, at times when the issue of peace or war was in question. But what proof was there that women were on the average more emotional and excitable than men? It would certainly be difficult for them to be more so than some men, and he did not know by which process it was to be established that as a sex they were so. He should say that as a sex they were more practical than men. He would now introduce a few considerations on the other side. The calamities of war fell on women even more heavily than on men, because war desolated the home. At such a, crisis as that supposed, women would have an even stronger motive than men for using their influence against any rash or precipitate movement of public opinion. ["Hear, hear!"] At such a moment women would, probably, be often a moderating force. Another ease in which the supposed emotional temperament, of women was represented as a danger was the case of suffering caused by improvidence or vice. It was alleged that women would lean towards an excessive and misplaced clemency. Now it was to be noted that women were not more lenient, but usually harder and more severe, than most men in their judgment of certain delinquencies; for example, in their judgment of suffering incurred by thriftlessness—for women were accustomed to the details of economy, and were apt to resent the absence of thrift with just severity. Again, women are more severe than men towards all offences against the life of the family. And, further, a wider consideration applies here. The women who had been most active in claiming the Suffrage were familiar with the arguments which had been used against their claim. They would be especially on their guard against justifying the objectors by committing those errors which their opponents asserted that women, as a sex, would be sure to commit. And the less educated portion of the female electorate would be influenced in such cases by the example of those women to whom they would look as their natural leaders in such a matter. Further, the political responsibility of the Suffrage would of itself tend to steady and sober the judgment of women. If, on some public questions, some women had shown a lack of that quality, this had not been due simply to the temperament of woman, but also to the fact that hitherto they had not had the direct responsibilities of active citzenship. It was objected that, as there were more women than men in this country, the votes of men might ultimately be swamped by the votes of women. This argument assumed that men and women voters would form opposite camps. But how, he asked, was this argument to be reconciled with the other argument that there was no reason for giving women votes, inasmuch as all that they could want had already been done for them by male legislators? For, if that were the case, why should the votes of all women be arrayed against the votes of men? The two arguments contradicted each other, and the first, that all women would vote on one side and all men on the other, was flagrantly absurd. What were the probable advantages of Women's Suffrage? An eminent writer had said that women were, on the whole, more conscientious than men. Without denying or affirming that, it might be said that the number of women who would vote with a real and intelligent sense of civic duty would probably be at least as large as the number of men who did so. When a woman had some definite duty set before her, she was at least as scrupulous in the discharge of it as the average man, especially if it demanded self-effacement and self-sacrifice. The new element which Women's Suffrage would add to the electorate would probably have the quality of conscientiousness in a high degree. The result would lend to increase the importance of character in public life, and that was a result which they would all welcome. It had been said by the hon. Member for Hereford that in the State of Washington the Suffrage was given to women and then taken away. He could not help wondering that the hon. Member who used that argument against this proposal to give the Suffrage to women did not see that it cut both ways, because the reason for the withdrawal of the privilege at Washington might have been that the male voters found the female voters more fastidious than they desired. Then women knew a great deal about the life of the poor, and if they obtained the vote questions affecting the social condition of the masses would come to the front. Women would be opposed by instinct to violent or revolutionary changes, and to Measures involving confiscation of property. Let no one suppose that he meant that women, as such, would collectively lean to one of the great parties in the State rather than to the other. He could imagine nothing more absurd than to predict that the female sex, if enfranchised, would prove to be collectively Conservative or collectively Liberal. What might safely be predicted was that the general influence of women would tend to moderate extreme tendencies on either side in politics. ft would be no slight gain from Women's Suffrage if, through it, mothers who had taken an intelligent interest in the public affairs of their country, and in the duties of citzenship, were thereby better fitted to educate their children in such thoughts and aims as would tend to make them patriotic and public-spirited men and women. When he weighed the objections which had been urged against Women's Suffrage, and placed in the other scale the advantages which might reasonably be expected from it, he could feel no doubt to which side the balance inclined. He supported this Bill, not only because it was just, but also because he believed it to be expedient in the public interest. [Cheers.]

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

I do not feel as if I ought to give a silent vote upon this Bill. It seems to me that if there ever was a question upon which people ought to have the courage of their opinions it is this. ["Hear, hear!"] They ought to form an opinion and act upon it according to their convictions. It has been agreed all through this discussion that we are not dealing merely with the details of this particular Bill. That, I think, is generally admitted by both sides. What we are dealing with is a principle of the highest possible importance and of the gravest possible consequences. We have to consider it not in the least, I should hope, with reference to speculations as to the effect of that principle upon political parties—["hear, hear!"]—but with reference to the result which it will have not only upon the present, but upon the future interests of this country. I suppose that if this Bill is intended to do anything it is intended to assert ultimately the identical rights of women to exercise the electoral franchise with men. I shall not discuss the question on the ground of the distinction between local and Imperial questions. Everybody must feed that there is a real and solid distinction between them. ["Hear, hear!"] You cannot import the mere fact of female suffrage in local matters as a substantial and far less a conclusive argument in favour of female suffrage in Imperial matters. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] If that does not commend itself to the hon. Member he can answer me. To my mind the point is obvious. I decline altogether to enter upon invidious comparisons of the merits or capacities of the two sexes, for it requires a man with more courage than I possess to make distinctions of that kind. [Laughter.] But some Gentlemen have entered upon that dangerous ground. They will find abundance of such discussion in the modern literature of the day—[laughter]—conducted, think, to a great degree, probably to the largest degree, by the more numerous sex. [Laughter.] I shall confine myself to one single point, a dry, statistical point, which is incapable of contradiction and introduces no controversy—namely, the numerical relations of the two sexes. That has been stated already over and over again in this Debate. There are in this country 1,200,000 more women than men. This is practically a Bill for the ultimate enfranchisement of that majority. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for Durham argued upon that basis. He did not proceed with the caution of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who held out as an encouragement to men in this matter that this would be such a. very small Bill. It is not a small Bill in the consequences which it may entail. It is a very great Bill, for you cannot resist the ultimate results of this Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Northampton referred to the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. That is a Bill for universal manhood suffrage, and if that principle is ultimately accepted this Bill will lead as a consequence to universal female suffrage. There is not an arugument used by the hon. Member for the University just now which is not applicable to the ultimate extension of the suffrage to all women. That is the question upon which you are to vote to-day; that is the consideration that you ought to have in your minds. The hon. Member for the University asked what connection there is between voting powers and a seat in the Legislature. Well, there is the most intimate connection. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, the greatest authority upon that question, tells me that in the American States, where the vote has been given to women the capacity for a seat in the Legislature has also been given as a. matter of course. Therefore we can see what is the character and magnitude of this question. No man can doubt that at some time or other—it may be sooner, it may be later—all the restrictions, or most of the restrictions which are now placed upon male suffrage will be removed. These things wait sometimes a great deal longer than people hope, but they come quicker sometimes than people expect. But those restrictions will be removed. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge says that it is not to be expected that all men will vote on one side and all women on the other. No man expects that, but is it not perfectly clear that where you have a majority of 1,200,000 those who possess that majority must in the long run have the determining voice? Then this is a very fundamental change in the constitution of the country. [Cheers]. No one can doubt that. It is to establish what I think was called in the course of this Debate a change upon an Amazonian basis; you are going to establish the electorate on a popular womanhood majority. In my opinion that may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is not a thing to be disposed of on a Wednesday afternoon. [Cheers.] If a proposal so fundamentally affecting the whole Parliamentary Constitution of this country is to be entertained, not in a trivial Bill, but in a discussion of a great principle with enormous consequences, it ought to be produced on the authority of a responsible Government. [Cheers.] I do not see any indications to-day that Her Majesty's advisers are prepared to take the responsibility of making any such recommendation. [Laughter and Cheers.] Therefore it appears to me that this is not the manner and this is not the occasion to inaugurate the establishment of such a momentous change. This is a question which I think does not come within the ordinary category of these Wednesday debates, the value of which I entirely admit. I attach to it consequences which for good or for evil are of the most momentous character in the future of this Empire. I am not entitled at all to express any opinion as to what are the real sentiments of women on this subject. Each man must form his own judgment according to his own lights on that matter. Several hon. Gentlemen have expressed their opinions, among them the hon. Member for the Cambridge University. I am sure that his opinion is gathered from the most enlightened sources, but he has not gathered it, I am afraid, from his eminent studies in the ancient classics, particularly in the pages of Aristophanes. [Laughter.] To my mind, and according to my experience of what I have observed and learned, I should say that the great majority of women do not desire to have the Parliamentary vote. [Cheers.] I have come to the conclusion, therefore, and I think it my duty to express it, to the House, that it is not wise or expedient, nor is this a proper occasion for the House of Commons, by what I can hardly call in all respects a considerate vote, to endeavour to establish a principle of this kind, not on the responsibility of those who generally lead or advise the House, but by what I can only call on this occasion a catch vote to determine a question on of this enormous consequence. I feel compelled, therefore, to give my vote against this Bill. [Cheers.]

MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

thought that the advocates of this Bill were to be congratulated on the fact that his right hon. Friend had refused to give a silent vote on this occasion. He had, however, given a silent vote before now. Indeed, he had heard him declare that he would never undergo the degradation of speaking on this question. [Laughter.] Why had he spoken to-day? It was a good augury; they were going to win. [Ironical laughter.] What was the kind of argument addressed to the House whenever any discussion in arose on women's suffrage? He always asked those who were debating the question to substitute men for women, and to see whether the same argument would not apply. His right hon. Friend, disdaining the question as to the moral constitution of men and women, based his argument on the firm principle of numerical superiority. They had heard that argument used in respect of men. [Cheers.] His right hon. Friend had in previous years heard the argument used with regard to the admission of the artisan class to the franchise and he had heard it said that the admission of the artisans would swamp the men of property and intelligence, and though they might impose what checks and limitations they chose to the progress of manhood suffrage, the artisans would overwhelm the other classes. He remembered that on one occasion Mr. Lowe used an illustration to the effect that the artisans were so numerous that it might be said, as Curran said of the fleas," if united they could pull a man out of bed." [Laughter.] If, therefore, the artisans were united they could break down all the limitations which were against their wishes. Had they done so? Again, it was said that if the women united in that far distant time when there was absolute equality between men and women in respect of voting, the women might outvote the men. There was the same unfounded apprehension with respect to women as previously existed with respect to the labouring classes. He was astonished that his right hon. Friend, who had listened with disdain to similar arguments when applied to different classes of men, did not see how it disposed of he same question when it was based on the numerical argument. Then his right hon. Friend said that if the change were to be made at all it should not be voted on a Wednesday afternoon—[cheers]—and that it must be introduced by a responsible Minister. Did his right hon. Friend say that when the extension of the county franchise was proposed, or when household suffrage in the boroughs was brought forward? Not at all. Then it was a very proper exercise for the opinion of the House, if not to effect and promote legislation, at least to educate Ministers for the future. He hoped, therefore, that the House of Commons would disdain the notion that it had to wait for the Ministers of the Crown before it expressed its opinion as to whether women be enfranchised or not. The whole of these arguments were a thorough illustration of" the fears of the grave and the follies of the wise." They were afraid of a vast upsetting of human society, of overturning the relation of the sexes, and of altering the constitution of human nature. The House might do many things, but it could not achieve those ends. Those fears as to the dreadful consequences of this change recalled to his mind what was said by an even more advanced authority than his right hon. Friend 60 years ago. Hon. Members knew that before the old House of Commons was burnt down women were admitted to hear the Debates. There was a ventilating cylinder in the centre of the hall, and there was a gallery down which the ladies peeped and listened. When the question arose as to the rebuilding of the House there was a discussion as to whether there should be a gallery for the ladies. Sir John Cam Hobhouse declared then that" life would be intolerable if there was to be a Ladies' Gallery." [Laughter.] Those were the terrors which Sir John held out in those days, and they were just as substantial as those with which his right hon. Friend now tried to frighten the House. A former Speaker once interfered in a Debate in Committee to express his opinion that if a Ladies' Gallery were provided, society as at present constituted could not exist. [Laughter.] But society had existed in spite of the Ladies' Gallery, and it would exist in spite of the passing of this Bill that afternoon. [Cheers.]

MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

MR. SPEAKER

I think it right that the House should have an opportunity of saying whether it does or does

not desire to come to a decision on the Bill. I, therefore, accept the Motion.

The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 170.—(Division List—No. 15—appended.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Fisher, William Heay	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Aird, John	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Macaleese, Daniel
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Forster, Henry William	Macdona, John Cumming
Ambrose, William (Middlesex)	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Maclure, John William
Arch, Joseph	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift
Arnold, Alfred	Fowler, Matthew (Durham)	McKenna, Reginald
Arrol, Sir William	Fry, Lewis	McKillop, James
Ascroft, Robert	Galloway, William Johnson	McLaren, Charles Benjamin
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Gedge, Sydney	Marks, Henry Hananel
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. Manch'r)	Gilliat, John Saunders	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Barlow, John Emmott	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maxwell, Sir Herbert E.
Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.)	Gold, Charles	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Beckett, Ernest William	Gordon, John Edward	Milbank, Powlett Charles John
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Milward, Colonel Victor
Bigham, John Charles	Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Bousfield, William Robert	Graham, Henry Robert	Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Brigg, John	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	More, Robert Jasper
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Green Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)	Morton, Edward John Chalmers
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gull, Sir Cameron	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Nieol, Donal Ninian
Burt, Thomas	Hall, Sir Charles	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Cameron, Robert	Hazell, Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Carson, Edward	Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.	O'Kelly, James
Cecil, Lord Hugh	Helder, Augustus	Oldroyd, Mark
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Channing, Francis Allston	Hill, Rt. Hon. Ld. Arthur (Down)	Parnell, John Howard
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hill, Rt. Hon. A. Staveley (Staffs.)	Perks, Robert William
Clough, Walter Owen	Hogan, James Francis	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Holburn, J. G.	Pinkerton, John
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Colville, John	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Pryce-Jones, Edward
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Howell, William Tudor	Purvis, Robert
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Pym, C. Guy
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Randell, David
Cox, Robert	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Rankin, James
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy	Jacoby, James Alfred	Rentoul, James Alexander
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Curiae, Sir Donald	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Robinson, Brooke
Devenport, W. Bromley	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Round, James
Davitt, Michael	Kearley, Hudson E.	Russell, Sir George (Berkshire)
Denny, Colonel	Kemp, George	Russell, T. W. (Tyrorne)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dixon, George	Kenyon, James	Saunderson, Col. Edw. James
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon	Kilbride, Denis	Schwann, Charles E.
Doogan, P. C.	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Scott, Charles Prestwich
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Lafone, Alfred	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Drucker, A.	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Dunn, Sir William	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'laud)	Smith, Abel (Heits.)
Fardell, Thomas George	Lecky, William Edward H.	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Leng, Sir John	Souttar, Robinson
Fenwick, Charles	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)	Spencer, Ernest
Fielden, Thomas	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Spicer, Albert
Finch, George H.	Logan, John William	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Stephens, Henry Charles
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Lucas-Shad well, William	Stewart, Sir Mark J. McTaggart
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wedderburn, Sir William	Woodall, William
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Weir, James Galloway	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf ld.)
Strauss, Arthur	Whiteley, George (Stockport)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)	Wyndham, George
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Wyndham-Qnin, Major W. H.
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Thorburn, Walter	Willox, John Archibald	TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.
Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)	Faithfull, Begg and Mr.
Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)	Atherley-, Jones.
Walrond, Sir William Hood	Wilson, John (Govan)
NOES.
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme.)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Myers, William Henry
Anstruther, H. T.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch.)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Finch-Hatton, Hon. Harold H.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Flannery, Fortescue	O'Keefe, Francis Arthur
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fletcher, Sir Henry	O'Malley, William
Baker, Sir John	Folkestone, Viscount	Paulton, James Mellor
Balcarres, Lord	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Banbury, Frederick George	Garfit, William	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Bartley, George C. T.	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Penn, John
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Gunter, Colonel	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Pierpoint, Robert
Bethell, Captain	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon
Bill, Charles	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Plunkett, Hon. Horace Curzon
Birrell, Augustine	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hardy, Laurence	Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale	Quilter, William Cuthbert
Boulnois, Edmund	Heath, James	Reid, Sir Robert T.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Brassey, Albert	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hobhouse, Henry	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brown, Alexander H.	Hopkinson, Alfred	Roche, John (East Galway)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Howard, Joseph	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Butcher, John George	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sheeny, David
Caldwell, James	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Campbell, James A.	Joicey, Sir James	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Causton, Richard Knight	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Kenny, William	Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)
Cawley, Frederick	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Stevenson, Francis S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stock, James Henry
Chamberlain, J. Austen, (Worc'r)	Knowles, Lees	Start, Hon. Humphry Napier
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Charrington, Spencer	Lambert, George	Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lockwood, Sir Frank (York)	Taylor, Francis
Coddington, Sir William	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)	Thornton, Percy M.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Lorne, Marquess of	Usborne, Thomas
Compton, Lord Ahwyne (Beds.)	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)	Walton, John Lawson
Cook, G W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Waring, Col. Thomas
Crean, Eugene	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Maclean, James Mackenzie	Wharton, John Lloyd
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)	McArthur, William	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	McCalmont, Maj.-Gen. (Ant'm N)	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	McDermott, Patrick	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dane, Richard M.	McEwan, William	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Darling, Charles John	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wilson, J. W. (Wore'sh. N.)
Doughty, George	Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Monk, Charles James	Young, Samuel
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES,
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Colonel Lockwood and Mr.
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)	Mundella, Rt. Hn. Authony John	Labouchere

Question put accordingly, "That the word' now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes,

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose	Lorne, Marquess of
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	FitzWygram, General Sir F	Lowles, John
Aird, John	Flannery, Fortescue	Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Forster, Henry William	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Ambrose, William (Middlesex)	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Arch, Joseph	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Macaleese, Daniel
Arnold, Alfred	Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Macdona, John Cumming
Arrol, Sir William	Fowler, Matthew (Durham)	Maclure, John William
Aseroft, Robert	Fry, Lewis	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Galloway, William Johnson	McDermott, Patrick
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Gedge, Sydney	McKenna, Reginald
Baker, Sir John	Gilliat, John Saunders	McKillop, James
Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manch'r.)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	McLaren, Charles Benjamin
Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)	Gold, Charles	Marks, Henry Hananel
Barlow, John Emmott	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Gordon, John Edward	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Goulding, Elward Alfred	Milbank, Powlett Charles John
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Bonsfield, William Robert	Graham, Henry Robert	Milward, Colonel Victor
Brigg, John	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)	Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend	Gull, Sir Cameron	More, Robert Jasper
Burt, Thomas	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Morton, Edward John Chalmers
Cameron, Robert	Hall, Sir Charles	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Carson, Edward	Harrison, Charles	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hazell, Walter	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Channing, Francis Allston	Holder, Augustus	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Oldroyd, Mark
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)	O'Malley, William
Clough, Walter Owen	Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Parnell, John Howard
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hogan, James Francis	Perks, Robert William
Colville, John	Holburn, J. G.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Holland Hon. Lionel Raleigh	Pinkerton, John
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hopkinson, Alfred	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Pryce-Jones, Edward
Cox, Robert	Howell, William Tudor	Purvis, Robert
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Pym, C. Guy
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Hudson, George Biekersteth	Randell, David
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Rankin, James
Davenport, W. Bromley-	Jacoby, James Alfred	Rentoul, James Alexander
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Davitt, Michael	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Robinson, Brooke
Denny, Colonel	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)
Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)	Roche, John (East Galway)
Dixon, George	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon	Kearley, Hudson E.	Round, James
Doogan, P. C.	Kemp, George	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Doughty, George	Kenyon, James	Russell, Sir George (Berksh.)
Drucker, A.	Kilbride, Denis	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Dunn, Sir William	Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Rutherford, John
Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Fardell, Thomas George	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.)	Saunderson, Col. Edw. James
Fenwick, Charles	Lecky, William Edward H.	Schwann, Charles E.
Fielden, Thomas	Leng, Sir John	Scott, Charles (Prestwich)
Finch, George H.	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Finch-Hatton, Hon. Harold H.	Lock wood, Sir Frank (York)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sheehy, David
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Logan, John William	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Smith, Abel (Herts.)	Thorburn, Walter	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wilson, John (Govan)
Souttar, Robinson	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Spencer, Ernest	Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Woodall, William
Spicer, Albert	Walrond, Sir William Hood	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf'ld)
Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Wedderburn, Sir William	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)	Weir, James Galloway	Wyndham, George
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Whiteley, George (Stockport)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Strauss, Arthur	Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Younger, William
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.
Tennant, Harold John	Willox, John Archibald	Faithfull Begg and Mr.
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)	Atherley, Jones
Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
NOES.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Evans, Samuel T. (Gamorgan)	Myers, William Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton)	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Balcarros, Lord	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Banbury, Frederick George	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)
Barry, A. H. Smith-(Hunts.)	Forgusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	O'Kelly, James
Bartley, George C. T.	Fisher William Hayes	Paulton, James Mellor
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bri'l)	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Folkestone, Viscount	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Beckett, Ernest William	Garflt, William	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Bothell, Commander	Goachen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)	Penn, John
Bigham, John Charles	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bill, Charles	Gunter, Colonel	Pierpoint, Robert
Birrell, Augustine	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Quilter, William Cuthbert
Boulnois, Edmund	Hardy, Laurence	Reid, Sir Robert T.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Brassey, Albert	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Broadhurst, Henry	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hobhouse, Henry	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Howard, Joseph	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Brown, Alexander H.	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Hutton, Alfred E. (Yorks.)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Butcher, John George	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Joicey, Sir James	Stephens, Henry Charles
Caldwell, James	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Stevenson, Francis S.
Campbell, James A.	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Causton, Richard Knight	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Stock, James Henry
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Kenny, William	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cawley, Frederick	Knowles, Lees	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey	Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Lambert, George	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Taylor, Francis
Charrington, Spencer	Leng, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverpool	Thornton, Percy M.
Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)	Usborne, Thomas
Coddington, Sir William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Walton, John Lawson
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref')	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Waring, Col. Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount	Maclean, James Mackenzie	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Crean, Eugene	McArthur, William	Wharton, John Lloyd
Cross, Alexandra (Glasgow)	McCalmont, Maj. Gen. (Ant'm N)	Williams, Colonel E. (Dorset)
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs.)	McEwan, William	Williams, Joseph Powoll (Birm.)
Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Dane, Richard M.	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh N.)
Darling, Charles John	Maxwell, Sir Herbert E.	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)	Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Donelan, Captain A.	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Young, Samuel
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Monk, Charles James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Labouchere and Colonel
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lockwood.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Mundella, Rt. Hon Anthony John

157. (Division List—No. 16—appended.)

Main Question put, and agreed to: Bill Read a Second time amid loud cheers and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.