This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/apr/15/suffragettes-women-voting-fawcett

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
From the archive, 15 April 1892: Speaking up for women's voting rights From the archive, 15 April 1892: Speaking up for women's voting rights
(6 months later)
It is obvious that Mr. Samuel Smith's criticisms do not apply to either of the bills introduced, but to an entirely different measure which exists only in the clouds. Mr. Smith assumes that universal womanhood suffrage is what is aimed at; and that every political disability of women will be swept away. Having made this fundamental (and false) assumption, he is able to conjure up at will his horrific pictures of the 11,000,000 women destroying the Constitution; wives being brought up to vote against their husbands; wives and mothers neglecting their babies and their husbands' suppers to attend clubs and political meetings; the physical health of unborn generations being destroyed by "febrile" excitement on politics on the part of mothers, and all the rest of it.It is obvious that Mr. Samuel Smith's criticisms do not apply to either of the bills introduced, but to an entirely different measure which exists only in the clouds. Mr. Smith assumes that universal womanhood suffrage is what is aimed at; and that every political disability of women will be swept away. Having made this fundamental (and false) assumption, he is able to conjure up at will his horrific pictures of the 11,000,000 women destroying the Constitution; wives being brought up to vote against their husbands; wives and mothers neglecting their babies and their husbands' suppers to attend clubs and political meetings; the physical health of unborn generations being destroyed by "febrile" excitement on politics on the part of mothers, and all the rest of it.
All these things are said in criticism of a practical proposal which, if carried out, would enfranchise not 11,000,000 but less than 1,000,000 women, heads of households, ratepayers, and property owners, who have already exercised, during some twenty-two years, all the various local franchises without producing any symptom, however infinitesimal, of the evils Mr. Smith so confidently predicts.All these things are said in criticism of a practical proposal which, if carried out, would enfranchise not 11,000,000 but less than 1,000,000 women, heads of households, ratepayers, and property owners, who have already exercised, during some twenty-two years, all the various local franchises without producing any symptom, however infinitesimal, of the evils Mr. Smith so confidently predicts.
That is really the strength of the women's suffrage question at the present moment; we are not asking Parliament to give a legislative expression to any theory or doctrine of equality between the sexes, but we ask Parliament to weigh the practical expediency of giving Parliamentary representation to a certain class of women who, as heads of households and ratepayers, have already had experience of voting in other elections, where much good and no harm whatever has resulted from including them in the lists of persons entitled to vote.That is really the strength of the women's suffrage question at the present moment; we are not asking Parliament to give a legislative expression to any theory or doctrine of equality between the sexes, but we ask Parliament to weigh the practical expediency of giving Parliamentary representation to a certain class of women who, as heads of households and ratepayers, have already had experience of voting in other elections, where much good and no harm whatever has resulted from including them in the lists of persons entitled to vote.
Mr. Smith confesses that he was once in favour of extending the parliamentary suffrage to women householders, but that his opinion has changed for two reasons - the first is that "the injustices from which women formerly suffered have been remedied," and the second is, that if there is women's suffrage at all it must be universal womanhood suffrage.Mr. Smith confesses that he was once in favour of extending the parliamentary suffrage to women householders, but that his opinion has changed for two reasons - the first is that "the injustices from which women formerly suffered have been remedied," and the second is, that if there is women's suffrage at all it must be universal womanhood suffrage.
Mr. Smith's calm assumption that the legal injustices under which women labour have all been removed is an instance of the fortitude with which one of the kindest of men is prepared to endure the misfortunes of others. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is scarcely an instance in which the supposed interests of men and women come into conflict in which the state of the law is not flagrantly unjust to women. It cannot for a moment be doubted that the possession of Parliamentary representation would immensely strengthen the position of women industrially. We have only to look at what the possession of the franchise has done for the agricultural labourer to be sure that if women had votes all parties would be eager to prove their zeal in remedying any legal, educational, or industrial incapacity from which they may suffer.Mr. Smith's calm assumption that the legal injustices under which women labour have all been removed is an instance of the fortitude with which one of the kindest of men is prepared to endure the misfortunes of others. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is scarcely an instance in which the supposed interests of men and women come into conflict in which the state of the law is not flagrantly unjust to women. It cannot for a moment be doubted that the possession of Parliamentary representation would immensely strengthen the position of women industrially. We have only to look at what the possession of the franchise has done for the agricultural labourer to be sure that if women had votes all parties would be eager to prove their zeal in remedying any legal, educational, or industrial incapacity from which they may suffer.
Mr. Smith has lately taken a prominent part in favour of Church Disestablishment. I do not do him the injustice of supposing that in opposing women's suffrage he is influenced by the impression that the majority of women would be against him on this question. As Mr. Courtney said the other day, such a reason for opposing a measure of enfranchisement is too shameful to be avowed, and, he hoped, too cynical to be secretly acted upon.Mr. Smith has lately taken a prominent part in favour of Church Disestablishment. I do not do him the injustice of supposing that in opposing women's suffrage he is influenced by the impression that the majority of women would be against him on this question. As Mr. Courtney said the other day, such a reason for opposing a measure of enfranchisement is too shameful to be avowed, and, he hoped, too cynical to be secretly acted upon.
Mr. Gladstone has said that to withhold the franchise from any section of the community on the ground that their political views may not be in accordance with our own is a "sin against first principles." I therefore earnestly hope no one will be guilty of this sin on the 27th April, but that all who believe that a case for the enfranchisement of women householders has been made out will vote for Sir Albert Rollit's bill.Mr. Gladstone has said that to withhold the franchise from any section of the community on the ground that their political views may not be in accordance with our own is a "sin against first principles." I therefore earnestly hope no one will be guilty of this sin on the 27th April, but that all who believe that a case for the enfranchisement of women householders has been made out will vote for Sir Albert Rollit's bill.
[Rollit's women's suffrage bill was defeated on its second reading by a surprisingly close margin of 23 votes. Here you can read Millicent Fawcett's letter in full][Rollit's women's suffrage bill was defeated on its second reading by a surprisingly close margin of 23 votes. Here you can read Millicent Fawcett's letter in full]
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.