Public Meeting at Batley, 29th Feb 1876
The (Dewsbury) Reporter, 26th February 1876
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.--We are desirous of drawing the attention of our readers to the announcement in our advertising columns to-day, of a public meeting to be held in the Town Hall, Batley, on the above subject, under the chairmanship of the Mayor. Miss Becker, of Manchester, and Mrs. Scatcherd, of Leeds, will attend as a deputation from the National Society for Women's Suffrage. As these ladies are very clear and logical speakers, and as the question they will speak upon is one that commends itself to the lovers of fair play of all political shades, we would advise all who desire that the principles of justice should be applied to men and women alike, to attend this meeting. Several local gentlemen will also attend the meeting.
The Leeds Mercury, 1st March 1876
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MEETING AT BATLEY --Last night a numerously attended public meeting was held in the Town Hall, Batley, under the presidency of the Mayor (Mr J. T. Marriott), for the purpose of advocating the granting of the Parliamentary suffrage to women householders. Miss Becker, of Manchester, and Mrs. Oliver Scatcherd, of Leeds, attended as a deputation from the National Society for Women's Suffrage ; and several other ladies were on the platform, as well as several aldermen, councillors, and others.- Mr. Joseph Parker moved the first resolution :- "That the exclusion of women, otherwise legally qualified, from voting in the election of Members of Parliament, is injurious to those excluded, contrary to the principle of just representation and to that of the laws now in force regulating the election of municipal, parochial, and all other representative governments." - Councillor Vero seconded the resolution, which was supported by Mrs. Oliver Scatcherd, and carried unanimously.- Ald. Carter proposed the adoption of a petition to both Houses of Parliament, based on the foregoing resolution, and the memorials to Serjeant Simon, M.P. for the borough, and the two Members for the Southern Division, requesting them to support this bill to remove the electoral disabilities of women.- Miss Becker ably seconded the resolution, which was also carried unanimously,- The proceedings concluded with a vote of thanks to the Mayor, on the motion of Mr. J. S. Bailey, Leeds, seconded by Mr. C. Burnley.
The (Dewsbury) Reporter, 4th March 1876
PUBLIC MEETING AT BATLEY ON THE WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE QUESTION.
On Tuesday evening, a large and enthusiastic public meeting was held at the Batley Town Hall, in support of the bill for conferring the Parliamentary suffrage upon women householders. His worship the Mayor (J. T. Marriott, Esq.) presided, and there were on the platform Miss Lydia Becker (member of the Manchester School Board), Mrs. Oliver Scatcherd, of Leeds (who attended as a deputation from the National Society for Women's Suffrage), the Mayoress (Mrs. Marriott), Mrs. Wood (Dewsbury), Mrs. Ellis (Batley), Mrs. Abernethy (Heckmondwike), and several other ladies, together with Alderman J.J. Carter, Councillors Oldroyd, A. Parker, and Vero, Mr. Joseph Parker, sen., Mr J.S. Bailey (Leeds), &c.
HIS WORSHIP, in opening the proceedings, said it was not often that a Mayor was put in the position that he was that evening, because he was understood to be in the presence of ladies who were acknowledged to be great orators. (Hear, hear.) The cause of their lady friends had been ridiculed and pooh-poohed, because better arguments could not be brought to bear. (Hear, hear). The real question at issue was simply this - What did women want, and what did they think they had a right to have? With respect to that particular grievance they thought they were suffering under, all they demanded was this : If a house or freehold was inhabited or owned by a person, it granted a vote, and they wished that vote to be held, whether the house or freehold was occupied by or owned by a man or a woman. If a woman had all the rates to pay, in all fairness she ought to have the same privileges as a man. (Hear, hear.) If the possession of a house gave a vote, it should make no difference whether a male or a female occupied it. That very same property conferred the same voting power on a woman as on a man in all municipal and parochial affairs. She could vote for a member of a Board of Health, a member of the Board of Guardians, for overseers of the parish, and members of the Town Council. She could also attend vestry meetings, and vote for churchwardens, and , he believed, every other office, but when it came to vote for a member of Parliament, they at once began pooh-poohing and saying, let her mind her own business. Another question occurred to him. Was it because women were less able or less qualified to form a correct judgement on that particular matter? Did anybody say that today? Let them remember that woman was a very different person to-day to what she used to be. She was not the simpering Miss Nancy sort of being only to be looked at that she was formerly. (Laughter.) They found women to-day stepping out of the ruts of old stiff conventionalism, and promoting all that was good and useful to society. Did they want instances? He need only refer them to Elizabeth Fry, and Sarah Martin and others. Who did not admire the self-denial and the courage of such women, who thought it not going out of their way to visit the prisons of our land, which were not then as they are now. Those ladies, at considerable peril and risk to themselves, went to those prisons, and administered the sacred principles of religion to those whose crimes had brought them there. (Applause.) He then pointed out that the lives of great men justified the influence of good mothers. John Wesley owed to his mother's training his future usefulness and influence ; so with Doddridge and many others. The late John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest political thinkers of the day, acknowledged that he owed to his sister a great amount of his success. Did they want instances of the abilities of women to wield the sceptre and sway the destinies of empires? He need only refer them to the late Empress of Russia, Catherine. Did they wish to see some of the brightest phases in our own history. Let them turn to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or to that of the illustrious lady who now holds such judicious sway over her extensive empire. Turn to this or any other age, and they would find the influence of women giving a colouring to very age and forming great lives. It was said that Lady Palmerston was the good genius of the late Lord Palmerston. Mrs. Gladstone, the wife of the most highly gifted and brilliant statesman of this or any other period -- (applause)-- was actively engaged in promoting several institutions for the benefit of the poor. (Hear, hear.) Talk about women not being fit to exercise the franchise, when she so largely influences our actions from our very birth to our exit out of the world. (Applause.) Who did more than Mrs. Beecher Stowe, by her thrilling tale of "Uncle Tom's Cabin, " to break the fetters of slavery. We wanted another Harriett Beecher Stowe in our country at present, and then the Government would not dare to issue another circular associated with the hateful name of slavery. (Applause.) He did not know that he need take up any more of their time, because time would fail him to give the glorious list of ladies' names which had figures in the page of history, and he concluded by reading a piece of poetry appropriate to the occasion.
MR. JOSEPH PARKER, senr., proposed the first resolution, as follows :- "That the exclusion of women, otherwise equally qualified, from voting in the election of members of Parliament, is injurious to those excluded, contrary to the principle of just representation, and to that of the laws now in force regulating the election of municipal, parochial, and all other representative governments." He said it was a new subject to him. He had not thought very largely upon it. He, however, sympathised with the object of the meeting, and was glad to see women so far raised from the state she had hitherto occupied, and seeking to have an interest in what was for the benefit and wellbeing of the public generally. He thought property ought always to be represented, and where there was capacity to do so, there ought to be nothing to prevent women from exercising the privileges which property conferred. (Hear, hear.) If a woman was capable of managing a house, he thought she was quite capable of giving a vote either municipally or politically, and he felt as an individual that he should put nothing in the way of the accomplishment of that object. After speaking of the influence exercised by women in public matters, both social and religious, he said they ought to encourage her to rise, and intelligence would make her rise. He always considered woman as the flower of creation, and always respected her. (Hear, hear.) He had lived with a woman for nearly fifty years, and he should know something about the matter. (Laughter and cheers.) He hoped the meeting would take the subject honestly in hand, and consider it fairly. (Applause.)
Councillor VERO seconded the resolution. He could say, as the previous speaker had said, that he had had some experience in living with a woman. He had lived with one for nearly forty-two years, and he considered his wife had been his equal in every respect-(hear, hear, and applause)--in promoting their mutual happiness, in the training of their family, and if he were to die before her, it would be an injustice to her to deprive her of the rights now possessed by him. She read a great deal, thought a great deal, and took an interest in everything that tended to promote the liberty of mankind, and the wellbeing of her own sex, and of the nation at large, and she was also a thorough Liberal. (Applause.) With respect to the question of slavery, he believed that if women had been placed in the position that some of our Government were placed in nether of the Slave Circulars would have been issued--(hear, hear)--and he had no doubt if women had votes that would do their utmost to prevent slavery in every form. He had great pleasure in seconding the resolution.
Mrs. SCATCHERD, supporting the resolution, said the subject they were met to discuss that evening was one of a very grave nature. It was not a question that had been thoughtlessly taken up, nor was it a question of entirely new origin, or of very recent growth. Those who looked a little deeper would see that it was only one part of a very great question, which had stirred the national mind for the last fifty years, and occupied public attention. The movement on their part was but a continuation of the struggles that had been made from time to time by the people of this country to secure for themselves direct representation in the Houses of Parliament, and so far as they had succeeded they had been the parents of untold blessings to this country. (Applause.) In 1832 merchants, manufacturers, clergymen and others of the middle classes were enfranchised, and in 1867 their artisans were also enfranchised. On both those occasions there was a great amount of opposition on the part of those in power. Probably there were some of those present who took part in the great struggle, who could tell them how fierce was the battle against the opposition of those who were in power. It was so in 1867, when the artisans got their votes, and it was so now. It was that same fear, that vague indefinite sort of dread that the women had, to contend against. It was not argument they had to fear, and that was the reason they were there that night. They felt that their cause was right. Their demands were very moderate, but they were very just. (Hear, hear.) What was their case? It was simply that women householders should be allowed to vote in the election of members of Parliament. That was the whole of their bill. It was very short and very simple, and she found very few people who said it was not right to allow this. Not long ago she had a letter from Mr. Forsyth, M.P., who had charge of their bill, and he said, "It is not reason we have to contend with, our difficulty has always been not reason, or argument, but we have had very foolish objections to answer and they have been very difficult to answer." The only objection that ever had a shadow of argument in it was this, that the majority of women themselves did not want it ; but that was no reason why the minority which did want it should not have it. (Hear, hear.) Those who did not want the vote could do like a great many men did now, abstain from exercising it. (Applause.) That argument, that the women did not want it, was the same spirit as that by which the slaveholder justified slavery. Some people told them that if women got votes that would exercise them in a certain way. Some Liberals told them that all the women would be Conservatives. What ground had they for saying so? But if that were so it would be so much better for Conservatives. (Laughter.) Just imagine that objection as applied to any class of men who wanted the vote. It might have been applied to the artisans in 1867. What was the result of the last Parliamentary election? Women took no part in that election. But if people had known that they would send such a Conservative majority to the House of Commons, it would have been no reason for withholding from them the vote. (Hear, hear.) People said, "Oh, but if you give women the vote you will go further, and want to send women to Parliament." Well, now, was it a proper thing to deny what was right to women now because they might in the future have to grant something to women which they considered would be wrong? When women were enfranchised they would form but one seventh of the voting power, so that if a woman was sent to Parliament she would be sent there by the men--(applause)--she could not go to Parliament unless the men were willing that she should go. But supposing that in that far future which they would not live to see--well she would not say that--that all the men of Batley should have difficulty in finding a man fit to represent them in Parliament, and they found out there was an intelligent woman who wished to go, and the men went to ask her to go, then she did not say that woman would be justified in refusing to go. (Laughter and applause.) Some said women were sufficiently represented by their fathers and brothers already. So said the aristocracy to the middle classes in the beginning of this century, and so said the employers to the workpeople not very long ago, but they were not satisfied with that. So said the landowners to the labourers in their employ. Some men said "what do you want to vote for, we represent you, be satisfied," but they were not satisfied. It was really very difficult to know what was a women's sphere, there were so many things to consider on the subject that they really could not tell when they were in and when they were out of the sphere. She must say to the credit of Batley, that a fortnight ago, when she visited the town, she was received with great intelligence and courtesy by the majority of those she called upon. Many of them said they were thoroughly at one with them in their object. Three or four said they had not thought much on the subject, and were not prepared to go on the platform, but would come to the meeting. She met with one gentleman who said that women were out of their sphere in taking part in politics, that their sphere was home, and that women should stay at home. She reminded him that that was no argument, it was merely a theory. She asked him to come to the meeting, but he refused, saying that his feelings were against it. Now, when a man took refuge in his feelings, what was to be said? Surely it was pitiable to hear a man make such an excuse, especially when that man was a Yorkshireman, and a West Riding man. (Hear, hear.) The speaker went on to point out the inequality of the law as regards men and women, as a ground for their claim, and said that where great inequality exists there is always great injustice. We had in this country two laws of marriage --one for men and one for women ; and two laws of divorce--one for men and another for women. She would like to have the opinion of the Bench of Bishops on that point. They had two laws of education, and those laws were very unequal. Where the interests of men and women clash, it was but human nature that men should legislate with a keener eye to their own interests than to the interests of women ; very likely women would do the same. (Hear, hear.) Large sums of money had been spent in this country by working men for education which had been nearly all applied to the education of the boys. She was considerably under the mark when she said women had only one twelfth of the money applied to their education that men had. The only profession that women had been allowed to enter was that of teaching. Again, any average man might go to the University, and might take a degree, although he might not have his living to earn by teaching, but the most gifted women could not go to our Universities until lately. There was another point on which she felt very strongly. There was a very great demand among the women of this country for doctors of their own sex. She was convinced that one half of the illnesses, diseases, and deformity of limbs that they saw in this country sprung from the ignorance of women, relative to the common laws of health, and how to rule their own bodies. (Applause.) They could speak to a woman doctor in a way they could not speak to a man, and she was convinced that when they had women medical practitioners that in ten and twenty years that would find a great improvement in the health of the community. Mrs. Scatcherd next referred to the invidious position in which women were placed by the marriage laws relative to the holding of property. A man before his marriage altar said to a women "With all my worldly goods I thee endow," and the next minute he took possession of everything she had got. (Loud laughter.) She gave instances of the working of this law, and strongly condemned the forbidding of women to hold property or make contacts. Speaking of the labour laws, she said women ought to be consulted on those points which affected their labour as well as men. She had no need to speak to the people of this district as to the capacity of women to manage their own affairs. A year ago the women of this district gave the world considerable proof of their own capacity in that respect. (Applause.) She also commented on the fact that the wages which women are paid are very low in comparison with those of men. She expressed her opinion that if women had votes they would send a higher type of men to Parliament in point of morality. They were told that women could not understand politics. What, for instance, could they know about the army or navy, or about finances? That was very true, those were men's questions rather than women's questions, but only a few trained men understood them, the bulk of those matters were left with members of Parliament, and they again placed them upon the shoulders of ministers. It was very rarely they had the opportunity of expressing an opinion on those matters, except when some one blundered, as in the case of the Admiralty Slave Circular--(applause)--and then the men cried out, and the women with them. (Renewed applause.) After speaking of the feelings of women in reference to the introduction of the Flogging Bill, and the drink traffic, she ably replied to the argument that it was unwomanly for women to take part in politics, and concluded by earnestly urging the claims of women to the suffrage.
The resolution, on being put, was carried unanimously.
Alderman CARTER moved--"That petitions to both Houses of Parliament, based on the foregoing resolution, be adopted and signed by the chairman, on behalf of the meeting, and that memorials to Serjeant Simon, member for the borough, and Messrs. Stanhope and Starkey, members for this division of the county, requesting them to support the bill to remove the electoral disabilities of women, be signed by the chairman, and forwarded by him."
Miss BECKER, who was received with applause, seconded the resolution. She said when she came to Batley she came under the very strong impression that the people of Batley did not want any converting, but were already prepared to recognise a just principle when once fairly placed before them, and did not need any argument to commend it to their attention. That impression had been decidedly confirmed by the vote on the first resolution, which was a unanimous one. But although it appeared the people did not want converting, the business was not quite finished. It was not enough merely to approve the principle. Approbation was of little worth unless something was done to carry it into effect. The resolution she had the honour to second had such an object in view, it was meant to bring some influence to bear upon the member for the borough, and the members for the county, so that on the 22nd of April next those members might be in their places in the House of Commons to listen to the arguments which might be brought forward, and, they hoped, to support it by following Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Jacob Bright into the lobby. (Hear, hear.) She was happy to say the borough member did support the measure, and had never been absent on a division on the bill. It might be of interest to know how it would affect them locally if the bill was passed. In looking over the Parliamentary return she found it would add about 300 women votes in Batley, and rather more in Dewsbury, so that in that constituency they would have 600 voters added to the list, and, therefore, in Batley and Dewsbury they had not household suffrage ; they were defrauded of 600 voters. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Disraeli, in 1867, said his bill was intended to give the franchise to every householder rated to the relief of the poor. A short time afterwards he visited Manchester, and driving through the town in company with an alderman, they passed a row of twenty houses. The alderman said to Mr. Disraeli, "There is a defect in your bill ; sixteen of those houses are occupied by women." "That," said Mr. Disraeli, "is a defect in the bill, and it shall be remedied the first opportunity." The Right Honourable gentleman was now the Prime Minister, at the head of a large majority in the House of Commons, but he could not remedy that defect unless the people supported him. The real ground of opposition that many men had to measure was some idea that women were personally unfit to exercise the franchise, that the law classed women along with minors, idiots, criminals, and lunatics, as persons personally unfit to have votes. (Hear, hear.) But the position of women was really worse than that of lunatics. If a lunatic had a lucid interval sufficient to remember the names of the candidates he could be allowed to vote, but the law never allowed that a women could have a lucid interval. (Applause.) They could not be surprised that women should resent that slight upon their intellectual capacities, and were anxious to be allowed to prove not only that they possessed intelligence, but that they should have a chance to throw some light upon the affairs of the State. (Hear, hear.) Many foolish objections have been made against their movement. One was that women were guided by emotion, and men by reason. It must require a considerable amount of assurance in men to be constantly telling them that men were only guided by reason. What had caused all the war and misery of nations but the emotions of pride and passion and revenge? (Hear, hear.) The emotions of women were more likely to be of an opposite kind. What was it that maintained the slavery system so long? Was it not the emotions of greed, covetousness, and love of power? And who were the most distinguished for their opposition to slavery but women? (Applause.) Another objection was that women could not bear hardship. That might be true. She believed women would not be so disposed to fight for their country, and settle their disputes with other nations by force of arms. The reason was obvious. They had got more sense. (Laughter and applause.) Miss Becker afterwards replied to the objections that it was contrary to the experience of all ages of women to have votes ; that women themselves, as a rule, did not want the franchise ; that they would vote for the influence of a clique ; and that women ought not to have votes because their function was to suffer. After speaking of the manner in which women had to suffer from the brutal treatment of husbands, who certainly dishonoured their sex, she said she did not know whether the remedy proposed--that of flogging--would answer or not. She would like to try it another way, by giving those women equal political rights with men. Only a short time ago a man was sent to prison for beating his wife, and he said, "What is the use of punishing me? Make her my equal and I will treat her as such." The married woman's property question was another way in which women suffered. She next pointed out how women suffered in the matter of education, and then said they had come there not so much for the purpose of stating abstract opinions as for asking for practical help. It was not possible in two or three short speeches to give anything like the a summary of that question ; all they could hope to do was to turn the thoughts of the audience into a channel that they might be enabled to give the subject some consideration. She concluded by giving some particulars respecting the society which she had the honour to represent and concluded by urging those present to support the movement for the political enfranchisement of women.
Mrs. WOOD, Dewsbury, supported the resolution, and expressed her approval of the objects of the National Society for Women's Suffrage. She believed with Mrs. Scatcherd that if the girls had been educated and trained as the boys they would have had the franchise for women before now. (Hear, hear.) She was a regular politician, and she was not ashamed to tell them she was a thorough Liberal. (Laughter and applause.) In the course of some further remarks, Mrs. Wood caused considerable amusement by relating how she had asked a man and his wife to come to that meeting and the man had replied that his wife would look better at home. He went further than that, and said, if she might tell them in broad Yorkshire, "If my wife were to go, I would pawse her to deeoth." (Laughter.) He also said, "If a lot of you had a good stick to your back to make you stay at home it would look much better of you." (Renewed laughter.) She thought if he had treated her with common civility it would have looked much better of him. (Hear, hear.) She did not say that because the man was not there, because she had seen him at the meeting. (Much merriment.) If that man would not allow his wife to have a vote or to come to a meeting to hear two such able speakers as they had had that night he was not ashamed to come himself, and so she thought she would not be ashamed of telling the audience that he was there. (Laughter.) After stating what another man had said to her, on the subject, she said she hoped those gentlemen would not be offended at what she had said, for she would not tell their names. (Laughter and applause.)
The resolution, like the preceding one, was carried without a single dissentient.
Mr. J. S. BAILEY (Leeds), in a vigorous speech, proposed a vote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding.
Mr. CALEB BURNLEY seconded the resolution, which was carried with applause.
His WORSHIP briefly replied, and the meeting was terminated.
Mrs. SCATCHERD, supporting the resolution, said the subject they were met to discuss that evening was one of a very grave nature. It was not a question that had been thoughtlessly taken up, nor was it a question of entirely new origin, or of very recent growth. Those who looked a little deeper would see that it was only one part of a very great question, which had stirred the national mind for the last fifty years, and occupied public attention. The movement on their part was but a continuation of the struggles that had been made from time to time by the people of this country to secure for themselves direct representation in the Houses of Parliament, and so far as they had succeeded they had been the parents of untold blessings to this country. (Applause.) In 1832 merchants, manufacturers, clergymen and others of the middle classes were enfranchised, and in 1867 their artisans were also enfranchised. On both those occasions there was a great amount of opposition on the part of those in power. Probably there were some of those present who took part in the great struggle, who could tell them how fierce was the battle against the opposition of those who were in power. It was so in 1867, when the artisans got their votes, and it was so now. It was that same fear, that vague indefinite sort of dread that the women had, to contend against. It was not argument they had to fear, and that was the reason they were there that night. They felt that their cause was right. Their demands were very moderate, but they were very just. (Hear, hear.) What was their case? It was simply that women householders should be allowed to vote in the election of members of Parliament. That was the whole of their bill. It was very short and very simple, and she found very few people who said it was not right to allow this. Not long ago she had a letter from Mr. Forsyth, M.P., who had charge of their bill, and he said, "It is not reason we have to contend with, our difficulty has always been not reason, or argument, but we have had very foolish objections to answer and they have been very difficult to answer." The only objection that ever had a shadow of argument in it was this, that the majority of women themselves did not want it ; but that was no reason why the minority which did want it should not have it. (Hear, hear.) Those who did not want the vote could do like a great many men did now, abstain from exercising it. (Applause.) That argument, that the women did not want it, was the same spirit as that by which the slaveholder justified slavery. Some people told them that if women got votes that would exercise them in a certain way. Some Liberals told them that all the women would be Conservatives. What ground had they for saying so? But if that were so it would be so much better for Conservatives. (Laughter.) Just imagine that objection as applied to any class of men who wanted the vote. It might have been applied to the artisans in 1867. What was the result of the last Parliamentary election? Women took no part in that election. But if people had known that they would send such a Conservative majority to the House of Commons, it would have been no reason for withholding from them the vote. (Hear, hear.) People said, "Oh, but if you give women the vote you will go further, and want to send women to Parliament." Well, now, was it a proper thing to deny what was right to women now because they might in the future have to grant something to women which they considered would be wrong? When women were enfranchised they would form but one seventh of the voting power, so that if a woman was sent to Parliament she would be sent there by the men--(applause)--she could not go to Parliament unless the men were willing that she should go. But supposing that in that far future which they would not live to see--well she would not say that--that all the men of Batley should have difficulty in finding a man fit to represent them in Parliament, and they found out there was an intelligent woman who wished to go, and the men went to ask her to go, then she did not say that woman would be justified in refusing to go. (Laughter and applause.) Some said women were sufficiently represented by their fathers and brothers already. So said the aristocracy to the middle classes in the beginning of this century, and so said the employers to the workpeople not very long ago, but they were not satisfied with that. So said the landowners to the labourers in their employ. Some men said "what do you want to vote for, we represent you, be satisfied," but they were not satisfied. It was really very difficult to know what was a women's sphere, there were so many things to consider on the subject that they really could not tell when they were in and when they were out of the sphere. She must say to the credit of Batley, that a fortnight ago, when she visited the town, she was received with great intelligence and courtesy by the majority of those she called upon. Many of them said they were thoroughly at one with them in their object. Three or four said they had not thought much on the subject, and were not prepared to go on the platform, but would come to the meeting. She met with one gentleman who said that women were out of their sphere in taking part in politics, that their sphere was home, and that women should stay at home. She reminded him that that was no argument, it was merely a theory. She asked him to come to the meeting, but he refused, saying that his feelings were against it. Now, when a man took refuge in his feelings, what was to be said? Surely it was pitiable to hear a man make such an excuse, especially when that man was a Yorkshireman, and a West Riding man. (Hear, hear.) The speaker went on to point out the inequality of the law as regards men and women, as a ground for their claim, and said that where great inequality exists there is always great injustice. We had in this country two laws of marriage --one for men and one for women ; and two laws of divorce--one for men and another for women. She would like to have the opinion of the Bench of Bishops on that point. They had two laws of education, and those laws were very unequal. Where the interests of men and women clash, it was but human nature that men should legislate with a keener eye to their own interests than to the interests of women ; very likely women would do the same. (Hear, hear.) Large sums of money had been spent in this country by working men for education which had been nearly all applied to the education of the boys. She was considerably under the mark when she said women had only one twelfth of the money applied to their education that men had. The only profession that women had been allowed to enter was that of teaching. Again, any average man might go to the University, and might take a degree, although he might not have his living to earn by teaching, but the most gifted women could not go to our Universities until lately. There was another point on which she felt very strongly. There was a very great demand among the women of this country for doctors of their own sex. She was convinced that one half of the illnesses, diseases, and deformity of limbs that they saw in this country sprung from the ignorance of women, relative to the common laws of health, and how to rule their own bodies. (Applause.) They could speak to a woman doctor in a way they could not speak to a man, and she was convinced that when they had women medical practitioners that in ten and twenty years that would find a great improvement in the health of the community. Mrs. Scatcherd next referred to the invidious position in which women were placed by the marriage laws relative to the holding of property. A man before his marriage altar said to a women "With all my worldly goods I thee endow," and the next minute he took possession of everything she had got. (Loud laughter.) She gave instances of the working of this law, and strongly condemned the forbidding of women to hold property or make contacts. Speaking of the labour laws, she said women ought to be consulted on those points which affected their labour as well as men. She had no need to speak to the people of this district as to the capacity of women to manage their own affairs. A year ago the women of this district gave the world considerable proof of their own capacity in that respect. (Applause.) She also commented on the fact that the wages which women are paid are very low in comparison with those of men. She expressed her opinion that if women had votes they would send a higher type of men to Parliament in point of morality. They were told that women could not understand politics. What, for instance, could they know about the army or navy, or about finances? That was very true, those were men's questions rather than women's questions, but only a few trained men understood them, the bulk of those matters were left with members of Parliament, and they again placed them upon the shoulders of ministers. It was very rarely they had the opportunity of expressing an opinion on those matters, except when some one blundered, as in the case of the Admiralty Slave Circular--(applause)--and then the men cried out, and the women with them. (Renewed applause.) After speaking of the feelings of women in reference to the introduction of the Flogging Bill, and the drink traffic, she ably replied to the argument that it was unwomanly for women to take part in politics, and concluded by earnestly urging the claims of women to the suffrage.
The resolution, on being put, was carried unanimously.
Alderman CARTER moved--"That petitions to both Houses of Parliament, based on the foregoing resolution, be adopted and signed by the chairman, on behalf of the meeting, and that memorials to Serjeant Simon, member for the borough, and Messrs. Stanhope and Starkey, members for this division of the county, requesting them to support the bill to remove the electoral disabilities of women, be signed by the chairman, and forwarded by him."
Miss BECKER, who was received with applause, seconded the resolution. She said when she came to Batley she came under the very strong impression that the people of Batley did not want any converting, but were already prepared to recognise a just principle when once fairly placed before them, and did not need any argument to commend it to their attention. That impression had been decidedly confirmed by the vote on the first resolution, which was a unanimous one. But although it appeared the people did not want converting, the business was not quite finished. It was not enough merely to approve the principle. Approbation was of little worth unless something was done to carry it into effect. The resolution she had the honour to second had such an object in view, it was meant to bring some influence to bear upon the member for the borough, and the members for the county, so that on the 22nd of April next those members might be in their places in the House of Commons to listen to the arguments which might be brought forward, and, they hoped, to support it by following Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Jacob Bright into the lobby. (Hear, hear.) She was happy to say the borough member did support the measure, and had never been absent on a division on the bill. It might be of interest to know how it would affect them locally if the bill was passed. In looking over the Parliamentary return she found it would add about 300 women votes in Batley, and rather more in Dewsbury, so that in that constituency they would have 600 voters added to the list, and, therefore, in Batley and Dewsbury they had not household suffrage ; they were defrauded of 600 voters. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Disraeli, in 1867, said his bill was intended to give the franchise to every householder rated to the relief of the poor. A short time afterwards he visited Manchester, and driving through the town in company with an alderman, they passed a row of twenty houses. The alderman said to Mr. Disraeli, "There is a defect in your bill ; sixteen of those houses are occupied by women." "That," said Mr. Disraeli, "is a defect in the bill, and it shall be remedied the first opportunity." The Right Honourable gentleman was now the Prime Minister, at the head of a large majority in the House of Commons, but he could not remedy that defect unless the people supported him. The real ground of opposition that many men had to measure was some idea that women were personally unfit to exercise the franchise, that the law classed women along with minors, idiots, criminals, and lunatics, as persons personally unfit to have votes. (Hear, hear.) But the position of women was really worse than that of lunatics. If a lunatic had a lucid interval sufficient to remember the names of the candidates he could be allowed to vote, but the law never allowed that a women could have a lucid interval. (Applause.) They could not be surprised that women should resent that slight upon their intellectual capacities, and were anxious to be allowed to prove not only that they possessed intelligence, but that they should have a chance to throw some light upon the affairs of the State. (Hear, hear.) Many foolish objections have been made against their movement. One was that women were guided by emotion, and men by reason. It must require a considerable amount of assurance in men to be constantly telling them that men were only guided by reason. What had caused all the war and misery of nations but the emotions of pride and passion and revenge? (Hear, hear.) The emotions of women were more likely to be of an opposite kind. What was it that maintained the slavery system so long? Was it not the emotions of greed, covetousness, and love of power? And who were the most distinguished for their opposition to slavery but women? (Applause.) Another objection was that women could not bear hardship. That might be true. She believed women would not be so disposed to fight for their country, and settle their disputes with other nations by force of arms. The reason was obvious. They had got more sense. (Laughter and applause.) Miss Becker afterwards replied to the objections that it was contrary to the experience of all ages of women to have votes ; that women themselves, as a rule, did not want the franchise ; that they would vote for the influence of a clique ; and that women ought not to have votes because their function was to suffer. After speaking of the manner in which women had to suffer from the brutal treatment of husbands, who certainly dishonoured their sex, she said she did not know whether the remedy proposed--that of flogging--would answer or not. She would like to try it another way, by giving those women equal political rights with men. Only a short time ago a man was sent to prison for beating his wife, and he said, "What is the use of punishing me? Make her my equal and I will treat her as such." The married woman's property question was another way in which women suffered. She next pointed out how women suffered in the matter of education, and then said they had come there not so much for the purpose of stating abstract opinions as for asking for practical help. It was not possible in two or three short speeches to give anything like the a summary of that question ; all they could hope to do was to turn the thoughts of the audience into a channel that they might be enabled to give the subject some consideration. She concluded by giving some particulars respecting the society which she had the honour to represent and concluded by urging those present to support the movement for the political enfranchisement of women.
Mrs. WOOD, Dewsbury, supported the resolution, and expressed her approval of the objects of the National Society for Women's Suffrage. She believed with Mrs. Scatcherd that if the girls had been educated and trained as the boys they would have had the franchise for women before now. (Hear, hear.) She was a regular politician, and she was not ashamed to tell them she was a thorough Liberal. (Laughter and applause.) In the course of some further remarks, Mrs. Wood caused considerable amusement by relating how she had asked a man and his wife to come to that meeting and the man had replied that his wife would look better at home. He went further than that, and said, if she might tell them in broad Yorkshire, "If my wife were to go, I would pawse her to deeoth." (Laughter.) He also said, "If a lot of you had a good stick to your back to make you stay at home it would look much better of you." (Renewed laughter.) She thought if he had treated her with common civility it would have looked much better of him. (Hear, hear.) She did not say that because the man was not there, because she had seen him at the meeting. (Much merriment.) If that man would not allow his wife to have a vote or to come to a meeting to hear two such able speakers as they had had that night he was not ashamed to come himself, and so she thought she would not be ashamed of telling the audience that he was there. (Laughter.) After stating what another man had said to her, on the subject, she said she hoped those gentlemen would not be offended at what she had said, for she would not tell their names. (Laughter and applause.)
The resolution, like the preceding one, was carried without a single dissentient.
Mr. J. S. BAILEY (Leeds), in a vigorous speech, proposed a vote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding.
Mr. CALEB BURNLEY seconded the resolution, which was carried with applause.
His WORSHIP briefly replied, and the meeting was terminated.
Comments
Post a Comment