alternatehistory.com

There was an article in the Manchester Guardian for 3 February 1896 headed 'Mr. Balfour and a New Reform Bill'. Balfour was First Lord of the Treasury and leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. Here is an extract from the article as published in the book Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain, 1866-1914 by Constance Rover, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967.
It appears not improbable that what Mr. Disraeli, when head of the Conservative Party, dared to do, Mr. Balfour is also more than willing to risk. I learn from a trustworthy source that one of the surprises which the present government have in contemplation is an important extension of the franchise. This, it is anticipated, will go considerably beyond any legislative proposal bearing upon the matter which the Liberal party has yet put forward. Indeed, if I am rightly informed, and my information comes from a good source, Mr. Balfour, at all events, contemplates the introduction and passing of a measure whose magnitude would entitle it to be classed among the great Reform Bills of the nineteenth century. It would provide for one man one vote, for the extension of the franchise to women on equal terms with men, and would be accompanied by a Redistribution Bill based on the principle of equal electoral areas, or 'one vote one value'.
In 1896 the franchise for men was as laid down in the Representation of the People Act 1884 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1884. My reading of the above article is that women would get the vote for parliamentary elections on the same terms as men as specified in the above Act. Plural voting for owners of business premises and university graduates in university constituencies would be abolished.

If such legislation was enacted in 1896 what could be the effects on British politics and society? There would be no suffragette movement. Which political party would it benefit or would it make little difference?
Top