Women's Suffrage in England.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5283, 14 June 1895, Page 4

Women's Suffrage in England.

It must not be forgotten that the demands of the English Society for Women's Suffrage come very fa? Bhort of womanhood suffrage. All that the agitatorß aßk for ia the enfranchisement ot "qualified women"— meaning not' the intelligent, educated or public-spirited women, but only thoße who are qualified as ratepayers,, propertyowners, lodgers or heads of families, married women whose husbands are alive and living with them are thus ezpresßly denied any share in the proposed reform. A series of opinions of publio men, recently published by the Central Com- ! mittee of the Women's Suffrage Society, niakeß this very clear. The Bishop of London, writes : "I shall be glad to see women in all cases holding the franchise on the same terms as men," and similar views are expressed by the Bishops of Southwell, Edinburgh, Hereford and Durham. Dr Martineau enters into the subject at greater length, writing as follows:—

This doctrine (manhood and womanhood suffrage)' took too wide a B weep for me, as an English constitutionalist, who recognises no abstract oivic lights, bnt only suoh aa are earned by some sacrifices made or dutiea done. I fiad, however, that in its practical aims your society keeps well within this limit. . and while protesting against; sex-exclusion Would confer the suffrage on such person only, woman or man, as, in point of age, nationality, and capacity, held the citizen's qualification, and whether a householder, chargeable lodger, or responsible head of a family, shared the burdens and was subject to the service of the State. This I heartily approve." '

Dean Kitohin considers "the outcry that we are taking women out of their sphere all selfishness." Dr Cameron Lees, Dean of the Chapel Royal of Scotland, " knows no reason why women should be excluded from sharing in the government of the country." Dr Adler, the Chief Babbi, also " sees no reason why . the suffrage should be withheld from spinsters and widowß possessed of the qualified-

tions prescribed by statute." Dr Newman thinks " that the influence cf women will, on the whole, be more likely than that of men to promote temperance, purity, peace and religion." Dr Lindsey, of the Free Church College, Glasgow, regards the refusal of the franchise to women as "a survival of theoretical paganism." Dr Lynd, ex-Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Church, in supporting the movement, observes that women already exercise the franchise in several departments, and "in all of them with much benefit to the public service." Apparently no. English publicist has thought fit to oite the success of womanhood suffrage in New Zealand as a reason for desiring the extension of the franchise in England— possibly because it would prove a deal too much for the Society's case. We in this country, with our freedom from prejudice and our actual experience to support) us, may be pardoned for smiling at the restricted notions of En gliah franchise reformers, and especially at the idea that propertied orself-aupportingy spinsters and widows "are more worthy of exercising political power than the wives and mothers of a land. .