with
parliamentary friends, to add a clause defining the action of his
bill to be limited to unmarried women and widows.[564] The enacting
clause of the bill was as follows:

For all purposes of and incidental to the voting for members to
serve in parliament, women shall have the same rights as men, and
all enactments relating to or concerned in such elections shall
be construed accordingly, provided that nothing in this act shall
enable women under coverture to be registered or to vote at such
elections.

The addition of this clause excited much discussion. Those in favor
of it argued that this limitation would certainly be imposed in
committee of the House, which though it was in all probability
prepared to give the vote to women possessed of independence,
dreaded the extension of faggot votes which would have been the
almost inevitable consequence of admitting married women; while the
result would be the same whether the limitation clause was
introduced by the promoters of the bill or by a parliamentary
committee, and it would be more likely to obtain support at the
second reading if its intentions were made clear in the beginning.
On the other hand it was argued that the principle of giving the
vote to women in the same degree that it was given to men, was the
basis upon which the whole agitation rested; that marriage was no
disqualification to men, and therefore should not prove so to
women; and that, though it might be necessary to accept a
limitation by parliament, it was not right for the society to lower
its standard by proposing a compromise. This divergence in the
views of the supporters of the movement was the cause of much
discussion in the public press and elsewhere, and unfortunately
resulted in the abstention of some of the oldest friends of the
cause from working in support of this particular bill, although it
was admitted on all sides that if a day could be obtained its
chances in a division were very good.

The bill was introduced on November 19, 1884, and its opponents
took the unprecedented course of challenging a division at this
stage. Leave was however given to bring it in, and the second
reading was set down for November 25, and then for December 9; on
each occasion it was postponed owing to the adjournment of the
House. It was next set down for Wednesday, March 4, but its chance
was again destroyed by the appropriation by the government of all
Wednesdays for