SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 September 1886)

LORD DENMAN

It cannot be said this Session, and in your Lordships' 1055 House, that there is not time to discuss any subject which may be brought before your Lordships. My excuse for troubling you at the present time is this—that when the municipal franchise was extended to women this question came only three days before both Houses of Parliament, and then after both Houses were exhausted by the Irish Church Bill. My Lords, I believe there are those who would wish to see this Bill passed in "another place," and then brought to your Lordships with a sort of threat that your Lordships should follow the behests of those who had passed it. I believe that my motives are pure, and that common sense is on the side of this question being advanced. If it were not my misfortune to be so very old, I should not, perhaps, trespass as much as I do on your notice; but, my Lords, for the last five years I have tried to get this Bill passed, unhappily without success. The measure I now recommend to you is a most moderate one, being confined solely to female householders. I represent a lady who has built four or five cottages and who employs three or four labourers, all, no doubt, very intelligent people. She can only talk to these people and to her tenantry about their prospects, and can only tell them that she looks to them to exercise their privilege as voters— according to their consciences of course —for she can set them no example, and can give them no information that they may deem worthy of their consideration, because, from a political point of view, they look down upon a person who has no right to the franchise. At the time all the municipal officers of the country met together at the Mansion House, it was my duty to inquire, as I did of the Mayor of Sheffield, as to the working of the female franchise in connection with Municipal Corporation elections. He held that it was a very unjust thing that women were not admitted before, because if they were outside the municipality they were permitted to vote in relation to such matters as watching, and paving, and lighting; but if they happened to belong to a corporate town they were deprived of these votes. My Lords, two years ago I brought forward this question, and the late Earl Cairns wrote to me with regard to it on the 9th of July—a very eventful and trying period, for it preceded the time which 1056 put an end to all Business, because of the pressure put on Parliament in regard to the Representation of the People Bill. His Lordship wrote to me and said— I hear that your Women's Suffrage Bill stands for tomorrow. I take an interest in the question, and should he sorry if anything were to lead to its having an unfavourable reception in the House, but it stands before Lord Houghton's Marriage Bill, and the House will be impatient to come to a division on that Bill before dinner. Might I suggest for your consideration the desirability of postponing the Bill to the next open evening? My Lords, nothing there was said about the propriety of bringing the Bill before the House. The difficulty was only the amount of Business standing on the Paper which had to be disposed of before my Bill could be reached, which induced the noble Earl to suggest that I should wait for an open evening. Your Lordships well know that there was no open evening at that time, and I will only say on this point that I have waited for an open evening. I have succeeded in finding opportunities before, and I now avail myself of the present opportunity, for it cannot be contended that this is not an open evening. This is so completely a women's question that I cannot help thinking it ought to precede the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Apropos of that, there was a long argument by Lord Bramwell in The Nineteenth Century on the subject not long ago, and it certainly seems to me that his Lordship's law is not very sound, because he says that if, before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, a man married again after going through the ceremony of marriage with his deceased wife's sister he ought to have been prosecuted for bigamy. If a man marries a deceased wife's sister and then deserts her he is one of the basest of mankind. The Bill I now propose I would recommend to your Lordships on religious grounds. I maintain that women are to be trusted with the franchise, because they are better than men. They read their Bible more assiduously, and are altogether better living persons. I have three widows, tenants, who hold houses and some little land, and I certainly think they ought not only to have the privilege of voting at municipal elections, but also of voting for our local Members of Parliament according to their appreciation of the characters of those Gentle- 1057 men. We have many examples in the East as well as at home of the virtues and mental capacities of the other sex; and history affords us many instances of gifted and illustrious women. Why should they not be permitted to vote? It is a great privilege to be able to vote; but I believe that if it were conferred upon women a chastening influence would be exerted upon those institutions which are the outcome of strong partizanship—the National League for instance —whilst the Women's Suffrage Association would be gradually superseded and dissolved. The women would join other Associations, where their influence for good would be greatly felt, especially in relation to those questions which more intimately concern their sex. Questions that they are specially interested in would receive greater attention, and would be more frequently brought before the constituencies by candidates, and more often brought before Parliament by Members. I am sure it is better that I should trouble your Lordships with this Bill than that you should sit here always doing nothing. I should be sorry to speculate too much on the matter; but I have no doubt, looking at the pledges which were given at the hustings during the General Election, that if this measure came before the other House it would be carried by a large majority, and surely it would be a gracious thing of your Lordships to disarm opposition, and to give the Bill at once a second reading. I have endeavoured to state my reasons for bringing forward the measure, and all I have to say is that if you pass the Bill now it may save your Lordships from having to listen to me again on the subject. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.