WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 2 June 1905)

§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)
, continuing his speech, said that according to the promoters this Bill was intended to include married women, but there was considerable doubt whether they would be brought in. It was open to question whether under the Bill in its present form a married woman holding a property right, and her husband holding another property right, would both be allowed to vote at the same election in the same district. The hon. Member for Leicester, who seconded the Motion for the Second Reading, admitted that on the whole women who held property did not want the vote because they considered it would be a nuisance to them to vote at all. This Bill would bring into the electorate a large number of occupiers who were not married; married women who occupied houses, but were living apart from their husbands; and a considerable number of lodgers. The class chiefly enfranchised by the measure would be unmarried women, and, putting aside his general objection to, women voting at all, he did not think 614 it was desirable that the vote, so far as women were concerned, should be practically confined to those who were unmarried and to widows. Under any scheme framed for the enfranchisement of women there ought to be some means by which married women would be as much represented as the unmarried. He maintained that women were fully represented by men, that there would be no advantage in allowing them to vote, and that the present system was satisfactory to the great bulk of the women of this country.
At present women exercised enormous influence in political matters. Was there a Member of the House who had not been influenced by women in regard to measures which specially concerned them, and in which they took a definite amount of interest? Hon. Members naturally applied to their female relations to ascertain their views on these matters, and he thought it would exceedingly seldom be found that they went against them in regard to matters which were specially within their province. Women exercised a certain amount of influence at elections. The Primrose League had been mentioned, and there were other political organisations in which women took part. By that means they exercised considerable influence on the course of legislation.

§ CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)
called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members being found present.

§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
said the state of the House in respect of the attendance of Members indicated the amount of interest taken in this question. Women were not the only class who under our present electoral system were represented by men. Young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one had no votes, and yet in many instances they were quite as capable of considering matters and rating as some who had reached the qualifying age. They were represented by the fathers of the people. That had 615 been the state of matters all through history.
Recently in some of our Colonies a trial had been made in the enfranchisement of women, but his information was that the Colonies were not at all satisfied with the result. There was a very fair prospect of the repeal of the legislation which enabled women to vote, and of the restoration of the old condition of things which gave the control of the Administration to those persons who had the physical power to enforce the law. It was important to observe that no law had any force unless, in case of necessity, it could be enforced by physical power. Now it was proposed for the first time on a large scale—he could not admit that the trials made in the Colonies were of any great importance—in a country of first-class importance to shift the centre of power from its true base. There were more women than men in the country, and if they were to be enfranchised the country would practically be governed by them. Was it to be supposed that men would stand it? Some change would have to take place because it would be quite impossible to carry on the Government of the country under such circumstances. He could understand the proposal if Parliament was only a sort of glorified county council for dealing with domestic arrangements. But it was nothing of the kind; it was the supreme power in the country. This was not a Party question, as was proved by the fact that he was seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, whom nobody would accuse of being a Tory. In fact, the hon. Member for Northampton declared that he was the only true Radical in the House. If the Bill which had just been rejected, and which practically gave one vote to one man, had passed, it might have been necessary, to keep the balance right, to give women a vote. If every woman had a vote, women being in the majority, one could imagine how the business of this House would be carried on. Undoubtedly women would exercise their power to obtain admission into this House, and that would not be a beneficial change in our Parliamentary system. He saw so many dangers to 616 the country from granting the franchise to women that he heartily seconded the Motion made by the hon. Member for Northampton.

§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said the state of the House showed that though this was one of the most important Bills which had been brought forward this session, or for many sessions, it was not one in which either the country or the majority of the House took a very serious interest. The discussion really had dwindled down to be infinitely small. He admitted that hon. Members did not know that the Bill would come on that afternoon. On the other hand, he pointed out that the Bill with which they had been dealing earlier in the day was an enfranchising Bill, and that those who supported it might have stayed to take an interest in this Bill. The debates on this very important subject had been very unfortunate. The last occasion on which the Bill was moved it came on after another Bill and there was only a very short time to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading only spoke for ten or twelve minutes and, therefore, they had only the advantage of listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton and his hon. friend beside him. The arguments brought forward by these Gentlemen were very much weightier than the arguments offered in support of the Bill. It was conceivable, if the hon. Member who brought the Bill in, had devoted a little more time to the subject, he might have been able to adduce stronger arguments in favour of it.
Those who supported the Bill did so on sentimental grounds. One of them said that women had an inherent right to the franchise; indeed, that seemed to him to be practically the sole argument on which the 617 case for the Bill was based. He did not know of any country in the world in which any subject, whether a male or a female, had an inherent right to the franchise. At any rate, if he or she had an inherent right to the franchise, it had never been granted. He did not deny that it was possible to argue that women were not fairly dealt with, because the power of legislation was in the hands of men, and men, being selfish creatures, would pass laws for their own benefit. That argument, however, was not capable of proof. Many years ago there were exceedingly harsh laws in regard to property held by women, but laws had since been passed to grant women certain rights in regard to their own property and in the management of their own affairs.
He confessed that the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, who was opposed to him on political questions, was extremely powerful and able, and his arguments were cogent and well-reasoned. He did not think that anyone would contest that the ultimate result of this Bill, if it became law, would be that women would claim to sit in the House. It had been maintained by the advocates of woman's enfranchisement that they sat on county councils, boards of guardians, and other kindred bodies. The hon. Member for Northampton had said that if he were asked by some lady Member to give a particular vote, if she were nice-looking he would not be able to resist her. He agreed that the result of having ladies sitting amongst them on those benches would not be conducive to the proper conduct of business; and should there be any serious disagreement between Members on these occasions it would be very greatly to the disadvantage of the men. They all knew that women were, by nature, different from men, and nothing could make them the same. He always understood that the average woman did not want to become a man, and the average man did not want to become a woman. The consequence of that was that the two sexes could not be put on an equality, or take part in the same pursuits, especially on such a subject as the government of the country. Everyone would recognise that women had great qualifications. They 618 Were extremely quick to catch a point, and very quick judges of character but they were not capable of looking at a case in all its bearings. He was sure they would never be able to convince a woman in this House if she did not wish to be convinced. He believe that there were very few instances of any Member having changed his vote by anything said in debate; but he was quite certain that if women were introduced into this House it would be useless to debate any point at all, because the women would have made up their minds before the debate began. If one argued with a woman she always got the best of it; she repeated the same argument, and when that failed she changed the subject to something else.
The hon. Member for Northampton had pointed out very truly that there were certain duties which attached to men but which women could not fulfil. Where physical qualities came in, women were not fitted by nature or inclination to cope with all the roughnesses of public life. He knew perfectly well that women did exercise a considerable influence at elections, but that was done more or less in a quiet way. He could not conceive of a woman in his own constituency, where there were a good many of them, and a considerable number of them Conservatives, taking part in a public meeting. Then there wan the question of voice. Woman had not a good voice. [Cries of "Question" and "vote."] One had to consider the question in all its bearings. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said he did not propose to alter the qualification of the franchise; all that he proposed to do was to admit women in the same way as men were admitted now. Now, a man could not obtain a vote unless he was a householder or a lodger, and therefore a married woman, who was not herself a householder or a lodger, would not have a vote. The result would be that in one street a married woman might have a qualification for the vote, and next door another married woman would not. Where was the sense of that? It might be said that the husband might let the house stand in the name of his wife, but that would deprive the man of his vote. Hon. Members might say that such a 619 thing might not be likely to occur. He disagreed with them. There were women who had such influence over their husbands that they could get anything, otherwise the husbands had an exceedingly bad time of it. It would cause unhappy relations between husband and wife. Suppose one was a Conservative and the other a Radical there would be no domestic peace at all.
There was another point of extreme importance. To enfranchise women would increase the electorate to an enormous extent. It was a fact that women exceeded men in number; and if this Bill were carried, and the Party opposite were to go in for manhood suffrage—he himself hoped that manhood suffrage would never become the law of the land—there was no doubt that the women electors would be in the vast majority. [Loud cries of "Divide."] He really thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite could not suppose that a Bill which would probably add five or ten millions to the electorate was going to be passed in a quarter of an hour, when only two Gentlemen had spoken in favour of it. [Cries of "Divide."] One naturally took a good deal of time and some deliberation to discuss a matter of this great importance. [Renewed loud cries of "Divide."] Supposing the Bill passed it would lead to a great deal of domestic trouble.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
did not accept the Motion.

§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said what would the result of passing this Bill 620 be? The result would be that the command of the physical forces of the country would remain in the hands of the women.
And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.