British freewomen : $b Their historical privilegeStopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
History
British freewomen : $b Their historical privilege
Stopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
Women -- Great Britain; Women -- History
I forbear enlarging on the last great decision regarding women’s
disabilities, by which the Judge, following the example of his
predecessor in Rex _v._ Chardcroft, refused the electors of Brixton a
right to elect Lady Sandhurst as County Councillor, and put another in
her place that the majority of them had not elected; refused also to the
County Councillors themselves their right of electing Miss Cons among
their Aldermen. On May 16th, 1889, in the Queen’s Bench Division, was
tried the case of Beresford-Hope _v._ Lady Sandhurst. The other
candidates had given notice of objections to the Lady, but the Deputy
disallowed these, studying only the Statute. There were 1986 votes
recorded in favour of Lady Sandhurst, and 1686 in favour of
Beresford-Hope, who appealed. It was allowed, that the office being new,
there was no precedent to guide them; that the Municipal Act of 1882 had
enacted that “for all purposes connected with the right to vote at
municipal elections, words in this Act importing the masculine gender
include women.” It was allowed that the Local Government Acts of 1888
contain no enactments against women.
One Judge stated that it was a new office, but that no woman had ever
sat in a Municipal Corporation. That Anne Clifford was a _solitary_
instance of a woman being Sheriff.[23] That it was necessary that a
statute should give express permission to women to be elected, because
Lord Brougham’s Act does not apply to this.
Footnote 23:
_See_ “Ante,” pp. 43, 44.
Another Judge stated that his opinion would have been in favour of the
women’s claim, but for the 63rd Section of the Act of 1888. But the
majority of those concerned, accepting the assertion “that a more
learned Judge never lived than Justice Willes,” who had checked the
Historical arguments in the case of Chorlton _v._ Lings, accepted also
the decision in that case as the grounds of their Ruling. “I take it,
that neither by the Common Law nor the Constitution of this country,
from the beginning of the Common Law until now, can a woman be entitled
to exercise any public function.”
One at least they forgot whom they might have remembered, it was the
Woman from whom they held their Seals of office.
Thus Lady Sandhurst, after helping her colleagues, her country and her
sex, for a year, with two other brave women were turned out, and the
Council and the Country were alike the sufferers thereby. “Who will take
care of the Baby Farms, the Pauper Lunatic women? the many small details
that a man cannot know by accident, and prides himself in not knowing by
experience?”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account