126] ENGLISH HISTORY. [juh*
perform the duties imposed upon them. The real struggle however was reserved for the committee stage, when the Earl of Dunraven took up the question of the eligibility of women to sit as aldermen or councillors. He opposed any such con- cession to a sentimental cry, but Lord Salisbury maintained that women were as necessary for the purpose of assisting these local bodies to provide decent lodgings for the working classes as they had been for the purpose of administering the poor law. He declared moreover that the women who gave their attention to the needs of the working classes were in closer touch than any man could be. The Archbishop of York (Dr. Maclagan), as the one-time vicar of a London parish, also bore witness to the benefits of having women councillors in such matters, and he was supported by the leader of the Liberal peers, the Earl of Kimberley. The Lord Chancellor, however, took a precisely opposite view, and maintained that the clause was but a step in the direction of conferring the parlia- mentary franchise upon women, and in this view he was supported by the Duke of Devonshire. Party lines were thus wholly obliterated, and when the division was taken it appeared that the amendment had been carried by 182 to 68 votes.
The second evening's debate (June 27) was concerned almost exclusively with technical and administrative details, and on several points the Government consented to give way, or were defeated as on the points of financial control. On the report stage (July 3) Kensington Palace, which had hitherto formed part of the parish of Westminster, was attached to the borough of Kensington, an attempt, led by Lord Hawkesbury, to divide the city or borough of Westminster into two separate boroughs, although supported by the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Hobhouse, was negatived by 74 to 22 votes. The bill thus amended was sent back to the Commons, where the chief interest centred in the amendment disqualifying women for seats in the borough councils. The ardour of many supporters of this proposal had had time to cool in the interval since it was first discussed, and the idea that the Lords might prove inexorable was freely expressed. In view, moreover, of the personal views of members of both parties, such a proceeding on the part of the peers could not have been used as an argu- ment against their exercise of the veto. Mr. Courtney, there- fore, proposed (July 6) a compromise, under which women might be chosen as councillors but not as aldermen, his chief argument being that women ought not to be deprived of a like privilege which they had worthily discharged in the past. Mr. Balfour avoided, as far as possible, all discussion of the senti- mental side of the question, and declared that the point to be considered was whether in the interests of the bill, which almost every one was desirous of passing, it was advisable to enter into a contest with the Upper House on the subject. The Government were unanimously of opinion that it was not
