Repeated attempts to obtain a day for the debate and division were followed by repeated disappointments. The session commenced in November, 1884. Mr. Woodall at once gave notice of a bill. In presenting it to the House, he concluded after consultation with parliamentary friends, to add a clause defining the action of his bill to be limited to unmarried women and widows.[1] The enacting clause of the bill was as follows:
The addition of this clause excited much discussion. Those in favor of it argued that this limitation would certainly be imposed in committee of the House, which though it was in all probability prepared to give the vote to women possessed of independence, dreaded the extension of faggot votes which would have been the almost inevitable consequence of admitting married women; while the result would be the same whether the limitation clause was introduced by the promoters of the bill or by a parliamentary committee, and it would be more likely to obtain support at the second reading if its intentions were made clear in the beginning. On the other hand it was argued that the principle of giving the vote to women in the same degree that it was given to men, was the basis upon which the whole agitation rested; that marriage was no disqualification to men, and therefore should not prove so to women; and that, though it might be necessary to accept a limitation by parliament, it was not right for the society to lower its standard by proposing a compromise. This divergence in the views of the supporters of the movement was the cause of much discussion in the public press and elsewhere, and unfortunately resulted in the abstention of some of the oldest friends of the cause from working in support of this particular bill, although it was admitted on all sides that if a day could be obtained its chances in a division were very good.
- ↑ The bill was prepared and brought in by Mr. Woodall, Mr. Illingworth, Mr, Coleridge Kennard, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Yorke and Baron Henry de Worms.
kept her doors barred against the coarse minions of the law, but ultimately they entered the house, seized her goods and carried them off to be sold at public auction, but they were bought in by friends next day. Miss Charlotte E. Hall and Miss Babb have protested and resisted taxation for many years. It is probable that Miss Müller's example will be followed by many others next year. This quiet form of protest used to be very generally followed by members of the society of Friends, and must command the sympathy of our co-workers in the United States, who date their national existence from their refusal to submit to taxation without representation.—[E. C, S.
