Women's Disabilities Removal Bill

Speech

By: John Bright

Date: 1889

Source: Bright, John. "Women's Disabilities Removal Bill." London: C. Blackett Robinson, 1889.

About the Author: John Bright (1811–1889) was a British radical who took pride in nonconformity. He was part of the Anti-Corn League, which was a group of politicians who rallied the public into getting the Corn Laws repealed in 1846. The Corn Laws were aimed to protect British farmers from foreign competition. Bright was also noted for his oratory skills, and in 1882 he was elected lord rector of the University of Glasgow.

INTRODUCTION

Conceptions of womanhood in Victorian England (circa 1837 to 1901) called for women to be pious, patient, frugal, and industrious. A woman's sphere was within the home because motherhood and domesticity should have fulfilled her. These conceptions of the dutiful women were reinforced through literature in women's magazines, in popular fiction, and through social orders. Some of these social customs manifested through women's clubs and organizations, for which they developed a sense of community and dignity from work and communication with other females. Other manifestations of social order came from laws.

Victorian England did not permit women to vote, and while they were allowed to be in public without an escort, women did not have a strong legal standing within civil society. Women needed a man to own property, they were expected to get married and have children, and were not expected to work outside the home. Popular romantic fiction often portrayed these women as weak, but this was generally not the case. Even though social orders told them to be passive members of society who did not interact with political debates, middle- and upper-class women expanded their sphere outside the home. In England and the United States, as well as other countries, a rising women's movement emerged. These women, who labored within their homes because rarely could a middle-class woman afford more than one servant, balanced their time between their homes and social networks. Their social clubs brought forth urban reforms for city sewage and street clean-up and other local causes. Their reforms also brought a heightened awareness of women's lives outside the home.

Newspapers, whose circulation grew steadily in the late nineteenth century, reported on the crimes of women being accosted in the street. In late 1888, these stories—written to incite fear—reflected the social mood of the day. London, particularly the Whitechapel area, buzzed about the serial killer Jack the Ripper. He was never caught, but his slayings of numerous prostitutes caused fears to escalate. These fears of social mayhem reflected tensions about declining morals in society—particularly in cities. Mirroring social reform movements in the United States, middle-and upper-class women in England fought for the reduction and removal of prostitutes, reduced working hours, and a cleaner environment. The working classes also fought for these rights, and middle-class men even joined the crusade for higher wages. The laborer wanted fair wages for his work, and the middle-class businessman wanted higher wages to afford the luxuries of middle-class living. Women wanted reforms to improve the quality of life. One of the ways that Victorian women sought reform was by pushing pieces of legislation like the Women's Disabilities Removal Bill to Parliament.

The Women's Disabilities Removal Bill called for men and women to be treated equally within society. It meandered through Parliament for over thirty years before it was laid aside for more pressing matters. The framework of the bill was similar to the U.S. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA, passed by Congress in 1972, called for legal protection against discrimination of anyone. It failed ratification in 1982, but its story is similar to the English Women's Disabilities Removal Bill in the late 1800s. Ardent opponents to the bill declared that a woman needed protection in society because of her gentle and weak status, and events like Jack the Ripper and news stories highlighting the crime helped reinforce beliefs that women had to be protected. The opponents used Victorian ideals on gender to reinforce their point, and they used prescriptive literature that reinforced the notion of a woman's role being in the home. Political leaders like John Bright said that women should not be held equal to men because differences between the sexes called for different rules for each.

PRIMARY SOURCE

The bill seems to be based on a proposition which is untenable, and which I think is contradicted by universal experience. In fact it is a Bill based on an assumed hostility between the sexes. Now, I do not believe that any honourable member in this House who is going to support this Bill entertains that view; but if hon. Members have been accustomed to read the speeches of the principal promoters of this Bill out of doors, and if they have had an opportunity, as I have had on many occasions of entering into friendly and familiar conversation on this question with those who support it, I think they will be forced to the admission that the Bill, as it is offered to us, and by those by whom and for whom it is offered to us, is a Bill based upon assumed constant and irreconcilable hostility between the sexes. The men are represented as seeking to rule, even to the length of tyranny; and the women are represented as suffering injustice, even to the length of depth of slavery. These are words which are constantly made use of both in the speeches and in the conversation of the women who are the chief promoters of this Bill. And this is not said of savage nations or of savages—and there are some in civilized nations—but it is said of men in general, of men in this civilized and Christian country in which we live.

What, if we look over this country and its population, would strike us more than anything else? It is this, that at this moment there are millions of men at work sacrificing their leisure and their health, sustaining hardship, confronting it in every shape, for the sake of the sustenance, the comfort, and the happiness of women and children. Yet it is of these men, of these millions, that language such as I have described is constantly made use, and made use of eminently by the chief promoters of this Bill. The object of the Bill is not the mere extension of the suffrage to 300,000 or 400,000 persons, its avowed object is to enable women in this country to defend themselves against the tyranny of a Parliament of men, and the facts that are brought forward are of the flimsiest character.

There is the question of the property of married women. There may be injustice with regard to the laws that affect the property of married women, but is there no injustice in the laws that affect the property of men? Have younger sons no right to complain just as much as married women? If a man dies in the street worth £100,000 in land, and he leaves no will, what does the fiat of this House say? It says that the £100,000 in land shall all go to the eldest boy, because he happened to come first into the world, and that the rest of the family of the man shall be left to seek their fortunes as they like. Is there any greater injustice than that? But that is an injustice which Parliament inflicts upon men as well as women, and the fact of there being some special or particular injustice of which women may have a right to complain—I am not asserting or denying it—is no argument, no sufficient argument, for the proposition which is now before the House. I have observed when the question of the property of married women has been before Parliament—I think it was brought forward by the right hon. And learned Gentlemen the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney)—that he was supported by several hon. And learned gentlemen, lawyers of eminence, in the House, and, so far as my recollection goes, the matter was discussed with great fairness, great good temper, and great liberality; and changes were made which to some extent meet the view of those who had proposed them. There can be no doubt then—I think no member on either side of the House will doubt it—that this House is as fairly disposed to judge of all questions of that kind which affect women as it is qualified and willing to judge all questions of a similar or analogous character which affect men. If married women are wronged in any matter of this kind, surely we all know that many of our customs and laws in regard to property come down from ancient times when power was law, and when women had little power, and the possession and the defence of property was vested, and necessarily vested, almost altogether in men. But there is another side to this question.

It seems almost unnecessary to quote it, but I would recommend some of those very people who blame Parliament in this matter to look at how much there is in favour of women in other directions. Take the question of punishment. There can be no doubt whatever that as regards that question there is much greater moderation, and, I might say, mercy, held out to women than there is to men. Take the greatest of all punishments for the greatest of all crimes. Since I have been in Parliament I think I could specify more than a score of instances in which the lives of women have been spared in cases where the lives of men would have been taken. It is a horror to me to have to speak in a civilized and Christian assembly of the possibility of the lives of women being taken by the law, but the law orders it, and it is sometimes done, but whether it be from mercy in the judge or from mercy in the jury, or mercy in the Home Secretary, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the highest punishment known to the law is much more rarely inflicted upon women, and has been so for the last thirty or forty years, than upon men. Also in all cases of punishment, I say that judges and juries are always more lenient in disposition to women than they are to men. I might also point out to some of those ladies who are very excited in this matter that in cases of breach of promise of marriage the advantage on their side seems to be enormous. As far as I can judge from the reports of the cases in the papers they almost always get a verdict, and very often, I am satisfied, where they ought not to get it; and beyond that, the penalty inflicted is very often, so far as I can judge, greatly in excess of what the case demands.

Take the small case now of taxation. We know that the advocates of this measure deal with very little questions, showing for instance how badly women are treated by Parliament. Take the case of domestic woman-servants, who are numerous; they are not taxed, men are. That is an advantage to the women as against the men. I do not say that it is any reason why you should not pass this Bill, but I am only saying that these little differences do exist, and will exist; they exist in every country, and under every form of government, and, in point of fact, have nothing whatever to do with the real and great question before us.

The argument which tells with many persons who sign the petitions to this House is the argument of equal rights. They say, if a man lives in a house and votes, and a woman lives in another house, why should not she vote also? That is a very fair and a very plain question, and one not always quite easy to answer. It is said that there can be no harm to the country that women should vote, and I believe that is a thing which many of us, even those who oppose this Bill, may admit; but it is not a question which depends upon a proposition of that kind. As to the actual right, I would say nothing about it; I suppose, however, the country has a right to determine how it will be governed—whether by one man, whether by few, or whether by many. Many men in Britain are, by their official or professional position, deprived by law of the privilege of voting, notwithstanding their property qualifications. Many men, on the other hand, are entitled to vote although possessed of no property qualification of any kind. The intelligence and the experience and the opinion of the country must decide where the power must rest, and upon whom the suffrage shall be conferred.

SIGNIFICANCE

Women continued to push for their right to vote, and they pushed social notions about them to the edge. In the twentieth century, working-class women continued to work outside the home, and during World War I women entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Middle-class women left their domestic roles to temporarily help their country in a time of need. Accordingly, Parliament recognized this action in 1918 by affording women the vote, and twelve other countries passed suffrage bills that year. In the United Kingdom, the suffrage bill merely gave women the vote, and prescriptive literature continued to educate women on the social need for them to stay within the home. Throughout their campaign for suffrage, women had been saying that their service to the nation came in a variety of forms, and they reiterated that they could balance their personal and political lives.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Frost, Ginger S. Promises Broken: Courtship, Class, and Gender in Victorian England. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1995.

International Perspectives on Gender and Democratization, edited by Shirin Rai. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2000.

Web sites

Equal Opportunity Commission. "The Gender Equality Duty." 〈http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=15016〉 (accessed May 12, 2006).

Women and Equality Unit. "What Has the Government Achieved for Women?" 〈http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/about/government_women.htm〉 (accessed May 12, 2006).