MR. NEWDEGATE said, he believed the House was perfectly prepared to deal with the question, after the very able speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). When the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) said that the right hon. Gentleman had used no arguments, he must have meant that the arguments used did not reach his understanding, for a more lucid exposition of sound doctrine in opposition to the Bill could not have been made. It was argued that, because women were admitted to vote at municipal elections, they ought to be allowed to vote at Parliamentary elections. He had observed some disposition to confound the functions of the House, the most powerful element of the Imperial Parliament, with those of municipalities; but he trusted that the distinction between the functions of the House and those of mere municipalities would always be observed. [You, Sir," said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker, "are not a Mayor, sitting in that chair."] The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that he hoped that with respect to the qualifications and rights of women, the House would abide by the opinion of the greatest Sovereign, who ever in the person of a lady occupied the Throne of this country, that woman had a right to vote in matters connected with the Poor Law, for that was a system locally administered, so completely so, as originated in the days of Queen Elizabeth, as to render the parochial system an extension of the system of "the family." It was quite right that women should have a voice in the care of their poorer neighbours. So, likewise, by voting for the parochial churchwardens Queen Elizabeth very properly decided that women should have a voice in the internal arrangements of their parish churches; but it was not proper to presume that the education of women generally fitted them to have a voice in the Imperial questions which were to be decided in Parliament, or to throw women into the contest and rough passages of a Parliamentary election. The hon. Member for Manchester quoted the other day a passage from a speech of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, but laid no stress on the qualification accompanying that passage. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire

said that if there were to be universal suffrage then women should vote. That point, however, had not yet been reached by the extension which Parliament had given to the suffrage, and he (Mr. Newdegate) shared the prevailing opinion of the House in thinking the extension of the suffrage under the last Reform Bill quite wide enough. It was a great mistake to conceive, that the proposal before the House could have a Conservative tendency. Whenever a proposal like the one before the House had been advocated it was advocated by those who entertained the most ultra democratic views. That was the case in the United States. This proposal was an exaggeration, and a precedent which he believed would be very dangerous, and, therefore, being remarkable for his obstinacy and for his determination that his fellow-countrywomen should suffer no wrong, he could not lend himself to the support of doctrines which even in the United States were thought to be wild and exaggerated.

MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Member who has moved the Adjournment of the debate does not intend to press that Motion.

I

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE: That being so, may say a few words on this subject, and I rise chiefly for the purpose of answering the appeal which was made to the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who made a complaint that the Government had not taken any part in the discussion on the second reading of the Bill. I must say that the importance of a measure is not the only criterion of the question whether it is the duty of a Government as such upon all occasions to take part in the debate. Whenever the Government in its official capacity takes part in a debate, it is supposed and understood to invade the liberties of the independent Members of this House, and that is a consideration which often makes it desirable to leave even questions of very considerable importance outside the direct action of the Government, which direct action again has a tendency to draw them within the sphere of political party-a result not always to be desired. That was in a marked degree the view taken by the late Government at a time when we had among us Mr. Stuart Mill, the late Member for

Westminster, whose absence from this House we all deplore. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon for my rashness in speaking on behalf of dissentient Members who have just signified their disagreement; but I did believe that that was the unanimous sentiment of the House, and I am very sorry if the time has come when either political or other prejudice can so blind us that we cannot recognize and appreciate the merits of one who was an ornament to this House. On the occasion to which I refer my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who was then the Leader of this House, quitted it and gave no vote upon the subject, he having been in the House when the subject was brought on, and the state of the opposite Bench at this moment, so far, at least, as the late Cabinet is concerned, appears to me an emphatic testimony that they agree with the doctrine I am pronouncing. A very important element in the consideration is, whether there is a practical necessity for the interference of the Government, or whether the Government are convinced that the matter is one on which the House is perfectly competent to act for itself. That undoubtedly is a matter that may very naturally influence their conduct; and I may say for most of my Colleagues as well as for myself, that we were both surprised and disappointed at the result of the debate on Wednesday last. We do not attempt to limit the freedom of anyone either in the official body or elsewhere; but, undoubtedly, there is a prevailing opinion, which I, for one, strongly entertain in common with all those who are sitting near me, that it would be a very great mistake to proceed with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) has made a most gallant and chivalric defence of the opinions which he entertains. But I cannot say that his argument weighed with me. He said that he regarded the turbulent proceedings at elections as likely to be abolished by the Bill which has been introduced by my noble Friend the Postmaster General; but in answer to that I may say that we had better wait until that Bill has become law, and those happy results have been achieved, before we venture to assume as a fact such a transformation in the elections of this country. My hon. Friend says that the property held by women requires to be

Mr. Gladstone

represented, yet if that be so that argument does not apply to the principle on which this Bill is founded, because the Bill excludes all married women from the benefit-or the evil as it may be-to be derived from the franchise. But even if women are as competent as men to exercise the franchise-if it is a function equally suitable for them, why do you not recognize in married women that which you recognize in joint proprietorship, in joint ownership, in joint trade, in joint tenancy, and allow both a man and his wife to vote in respect of property which is sufficiently valuable to qualify them? Again, if it be true that the property of women ought to be represented, the ingenuity of the legislators of other countries has discovered a mode of attaining that end without its being open to the objection which attaches to this measure. In Italy widows and single women who are possessed of a property qualification are authorized to exercise the franchise, but only through the medium of a relative whom they appoint for the purpose. These, however, are particular points in the question; and the real matter at issue is much broader, for the question really is whether there is a necessity, nay, even, whether there is a desire or a demand for this measure. I must say I cannot recognize either the one or the other which would justify such an unsettling not to say uprooting, of the old landmarks of society, which are far deeper than any of those political distinctions which separate Gentlemen now on these Benches from those on the other. I am not aware of any such case, while I think that the practical matters that we have in hand are amply sufficient for our energies and our best attention. At nearly 2 o'clock in the morning I will not attempt to go into the general arguments, but I have listened to the debate with interest, and I am perfectly content to give my adhesion not only to the proposal, but also to the declaration and the reasoning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and I shall therefore cheerfully follow him into the Lobby.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT said: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) seems to think that no one in his district at all events cares about this question, and that the women certainly do not want to have the fran

chise. I do not know how it happensI know nobody in Kilmarnock myself but since I came into this House to-night I have received no less than four telegrams from Kilmarnock, telling me that Petitions are being forwarded, and that meetings are being held in favour of this Bill. Now, I think that I have a right to remind the House that we are accustomed to deal with Petitions as showing the general feeling of the country upon any question. Since we met this Session, 130,000 signatures have been attached to Petitions in favour of this Bill, and sent to this House. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke upon this question on the second reading of the Bill, he made it a great point that if we give women the suffrage they will next want to come into this House. I doubt whether that is a serious argument. Last Session we gave women a right to vote in municipal elections; but we did not also give them a right to sit in our town councils. If this Bill were passed, no one believes for a single moment that women would expect to have seats in this House, and that being so, and it being granted that women are not likely to come into the House, that in itself is a very strong reason why they should have some influence in electing Members of Parliament outside the House. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock says that women would be unsexed by the passing of this Bill, but that cannot be seriously believed by any one. If this Bill were passed women could come up to the polling-booth, if they chose, once in three, four, or five years, and that is the only difference that would be made, and yet we are told that in that way we should be unsexing women. Much has been said as to the undesirableness of intro

ducing women into the turbulent scenes of contested elections, but that objection should be entirely abandoned, because by the legislation of last year we have already brought women into political contests by giving them the municipal franchise, and an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who is opposed to me on this question, admitted that municipal contests are quite as political as Parliamentary contests. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock gave us some information on the subject from a book written by a lady. But I think that if he had tried to discredit the mat

ter by reading extracts from a book, he should at least have given us an English and not an American book. We look at this subject from very different points of view on different sides of the Atlantic. There is no person in this House who has a higher sense of justice than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure there is no one who is prepared to make greater sacrifices for impartial legislation. I should like to call his attention to one argument. There are two kinds of votes in this country-the local vote and the Imperial vote. Women now have the local vote universally, but it is of comparatively small importance to them, for as no distinction is made between men and women in the action of the local bodies, men in protecting themselves protect women also. Parliament, however, legislates for men and women separately; it constantly imposes inequalities upon women in regard to property, social matters, and many most important questions. It legislates in one direction for men, and in another for women. Thus, while the local vote is of comparatively small importance to women, the Imperial vote is of great importance to them. My opponents say that one-seventh portion of the occupiers and owners of property in the country are to be for ever excluded from the political franchise. Why are they to be excluded? No reason has been given for their exclusion, beyond the fact that they are women. Representation always means protection; protection is more necessary for the weak than for the strong; and I appeal to a Parliament elected by household suffrage to make household suffrage a reality.

HAWKERS' LICENCES.-QUESTION,

THE EARL OF AIRLIE rose to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government intended to propose any measure for the better regulation of the trade of travelling hawkers and pedlars? Their Lordships had, no doubt, seen a letter in the newspapers signed by a noble Lord whom he did not now see present (Lord Kinnaird), on the subject of the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit the Excise duties on hawkers' licences; and he believed that many similar representations had been made against the proposed remission. Now, he must say that these objections did not appear to him to be well founded. It must be remembered that the present tax pressed heavily upon a class of poor men, whose customers were also poor; and, as everyone knew, the mere possession of a licence afforded a very small guarantee as to the respectability of the holder of it. Indeed, it appeared to him that the present system tended rather to throw obstacles in the way of the police; for if they had any reason to think that a particular hawker was a suspicious character, he had only to produce his licence, and the police could not interfere further with him. The objections he thought rather tended to the adoption of some substitute to the present system rather than that it should be continued. At the same time there could be no doubt it was necessary that there should be police supervision, or check of some kind upon this class of persons. Many of them, he did not doubt, were struggling to earn a respectable living for themselves and their families; but there were many of whom that could not be said. They went about the country pretending to sell small articles, but really looking about for what they could steal they were a great means of inducing others to steal; their houses of call were often the receptacles of stolen goods, and the haunts of poachers. Some of them were

purpose

would

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.

QUESTION.

EARL CADOGAN asked the Lord President of the Council, Whether his attention had been called to an advertisement, which appeared in some of the daily papers on Friday, the 6th of this month, containing a detailed description of a diadem, composed of precious stones, on view at the South Kensington Museum, and whether it was considered in accordance with the objects of that institution and the regulations under which it was managed that articles should be exposed for exhibition there for the purpose of promoting their sale? The advertisement, after describing the diadem, added-"For further particulars apply to a certain locality between the hours of 12 and 2." Now, though there was some ambiguity about this intimation, yet there could be no doubt that the object was to attract the attention of persons who might be disposed to purchase the diadem. If that were so, it was not a fit object to be in the Kensington Museum. He was as fully aware as any of their Lordships could be of the advantage to the country in forming such an institution, and he was perfectly conscious of the great benefit it conferred upon the middle classes-especially in the work of education-by the facilities it afforded for giving instruction in the various processes of manufactured goods.