also of such magnitude as to outweigh the
temporary overthrow of the franchise bill. This was the Elementary
Education act, by which women were not only admitted to vote for
school-board candidates, but expressly enabled to sit on these
boards, and thus exercise not only elective, but legislative
functions of the most important character. The election clause
reads thus:

The school-board shall be elected in the manner provided by this
act, in a borough by the persons whose names are on the burgess
roll of such borough for the time being in force, and in a parish
not situated in the metropolis, by the rate-payers.

In London, with the sole exception of the city, the persons who
elect the vestries, _i. e._ the rate-payers, are the electors--this
includes women as a matter of course. In the city only,
the electors were to be the same persons who elected
common-council-men, and as these included men only, women are thus
excluded from voting in the school-board election, though even here
it may be observed they are eligible to sit on the board. Thus,
within the space of two years, two important measures were extended
unexpectedly.

In 1871 Mr. Jacob Bright again introduced the Women's Disabilities
Removal bill, and it was also supported by Mr. Eastwick and Dr.
Lyon Playfair. It was thrown out in the division upon the second
reading on May 3, by a majority of 69; 151 (including tellers and
pairs 159) voting for it, and 220 (including tellers and pairs 228)
voting against it. The most remarkable feature of the debate was a
speech made by Mr. Gladstone, which certainly justified the
confidence that women have subsequently entertained that the great
minister was willing to see justice done to them:

The ancient law recognized the rights of women in the parish; I
apprehend they could both vote and act in the parish. The modern
rule has extended the right to the municipality, so far as the
right of voting is concerned.... With respect to school-boards, I
own I believe that we have done wisely, on the whole, in giving
both the franchise and the right of sitting on the school-board
to women. Then comes a question with regard to parliament, and we
have to ask ourselves whether we shall or shall not go
further.... I admit, at any rate, that as far as I am able to
judge, there is more presumptive ground for change in the law
than some of the opponents of