One hundred years ago
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was waited upon on Monday by a Bristol deputa- tion to urge the claims of women to the franchise . . . After stating that he had been opposed to women's suffrage, he said that 'he did not mean to say that the question to his mind occupied the position it previously did; and he thought there was force in the argument used by Mr Wait that, looking at the great extension of the suffrage which had been given to the more ignorant and less educated classes, the injustice of depriving the educated and intelli- gent women of the vote which was given to the uneducated and less intelligent labourer had certainly increased. . . . His feeling on the subject always had been that, although he had no objection to including in the enfranchised classes those women who possessed property or household qualifications, he doubted whether they could safely include looking at the condition of certain classes in the large towns, and especially in London — those who possessed the lodger qualification.' Further, he sup- posed that married women would soon urge their right to the franchise if single women were to be enfranchised, and he could not approve bringing politics into every household in England. No, he cannot approve it now; but what will he approve a year hence if Lord Randolph Churchill urges upon him that the women's votes will be as useful to the Conservatives as the Irish votes are now?
Spectator, 15 August 1885
Previous page
