xt70rx937t9n_506 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets text Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_33/Folder_1/Multipage21605.pdf 1867-1884 1884 1867-1884 section false xt70rx937t9n_506 xt70rx937t9n “AME-DIME COPY

i333"? TC.) BE ESQLD



IN THE erxsn PARLIAMENT, MAY 20, 1867.

[Reprinted by the College Equal Suffrage League]

I RISE, sir, to propose an extension of the suffrage which
can excite no party or class feeling in the house—which can
. give no umbrage to the keenest assertor of the claims either
of property or of numbers; an extension which has not the
faintest tendency to disturb, what we have heard so much about
lately, the balance of political power , which cannot afflict the most
timid alarmist by any revolutionary terrors, or offend the most
jealous democrat as an infringement of popular rights, or a privi-
lege granted to one class of society at the expense of another.
There is nothing to distract our minds from the simple consideration
whether there is any reasonable ground for excluding an entire half
of the nation, not only from actual admission, but from the very
possibility of being admitted within the pale of citizenship, though
they may fulfill every one of the conditions legally and constitu-
tionally sufficient in all cases but theirs. This is, under the
laws of our country, a solitary case. There is no other ex-
ample of an exclusion which is absolute. If it were the law
that none should have a vote but the possessors of £5,000 a year,
the poorest man in the community might, and now and then would,
attain to the privilege. But neither birth, nor merit, nor exertion,
nor intellect, nor fortune, nor even that great disposer of human
affairs—accident, can enable any woman to have her voice counted
in those common concerns which touch her and hers as nearly as
any other person in the nation.

Now, sir, before going any farther, permit me to say that a
prima facie case is already made out. It is not just to make dis—
tinctions, in rights and privileges, between one of Her Majesty’s
subjects and another, unless for a positive reason. I do not mean
that the suffrage, or any other political function, is an abstract right,
or that to withhold it from any one, on sufficient grounds of expe-
diency, is a personal wrong; it is an utter misunderstanding of
the principle I maintain to confound this with it; my whole argu—
ment is one of expediency. But all expediencies are not on
exactly the same level. There is a kind of expediency which is






called justice; and justice, though it does not necessarily demam
that we should bestow political rights on every one, does demand
that we should not capriciously and. without cause give those rights
to one, and withhold them from another. As was most justly said
by my right honorable friend. the member for South Laneashire,
in the most misunderstood and misrepresented speech that I ever
remember, to lay a ground for the denial of the franchise to any
one, it is necessary to allege either personal unfitness or public dan—
ger. Can either of these be asserted in the present case? Can it
be pretended that women who manage a property or conduct a
business, who pay rates and taxes, often to a large amount, and
often from their own earnings, many of whom are responsible heads
of families, and some of whom, in the capacity of sehoolmistresscs,
teach more than a great many of the male electors have ever learnt,
are not capable of a function of which every male householder is
capable? Or is it supposed that, if they were allowed to vote,
they would revolutionize the State, subvert any of our valuable
institutions, or that we should have worse laws, or be, in any single
respect, worse governed by means of their suffrage? [Hear, bean]

No one thinks any thing of the kind; and it is not only the
general principles of justice that are infringed, or at any rate set
aside by excluding women, merely as women, from the election of
representatives. That exclusion is repugnant to the particular
principles of the British Constitution. It violates the oldest of
our constitutional axioms—a principle dear to all reformers, and
theoretically acknowledged by‘ conservatives—that taxation and
representation should be co-extensive; that the taxes should be
voted by those who pay them. Do not women pay taxes? Does
not every woman who is sui jvuris pay exactly the same as a man
who has the same electoral qualifications? If having a stake in
the country means any thing, the owner of freehold or leasehold
property has the same stake, whether it is owned by a man or a

There is evidence in our constitutional records that women have
voted in counties and in some boroughs at former, though cer-
tainly distant, periods of history. But the house will expect that I
should not rest my case on general. principles, either of justice or
of the Constitution, but should produce what are called practical
arguments. Now I frankly admit that one very serious practical
argument is entirely wanting in the case of women: thev do not
hold great meetings in Hyde Park—[laughtcr]—nor demonstra-
tions as Islington. '

How far this omission may be considered to invalidate their
claims, I will not pretend to say. But other practical arguments
-——practical even in the most restricted sense. of the term are
not wanting; and I am ready to state them if I may first be
allowed to ask, Where are the practical objections? In general,



the difficulty which people feel on this subject is not a practical
objection; there is nothing practical in it; it is a mere feeling—a
feeling of strangeness. The idea is so very new; at least they
think so, though that is a mistake: it is a very old idea. Well,
sir, strangeness is a thing which wears off. Some things were
strange enough to many of us three months ago which are not at
all so now; and many which are strange new will not be strange
to the same person a few years hence, not to say a few months;
and, as for novelty, we live in a world of novelties.

The despotism of custom is on the wane: we are not now con—
tent to know that things are: we ask whether they ought to be;
and in this house, I am bound to suppose that an appeal lies from
custom to a higher tribunal, in which reason is judge. Now, the
reasons which custom is in the habit of giving for itself on this
subject are very brief: that, indeed is one of my difficulties. It
is not easy to refute an interjection. Interjections, however, are
the only arguments among those we usually hear on this subject
which it appears to me at all difficult to refute.

The others chiefly consist of such aphorisms as these: Politics
is not women’s business, and would make them neglect their proper
duties. Women do not desire the sufirage, and would rather not
have it. Women are sufficiently represented through their male
relatives. Women have power enough already. I shall perhaps
be thought to have done enough in the way of answering, when I
have answered all these: it may perhaps instigate any honorable
gentleman who takes the trouble of replying to me, to produce
something more recondite. [Hean]

Politics, it is said, is not a woman’s business. Well, sir, I am
not aware that politics is a man’s business either, unless he is one
of the few who is paid for devoting his time to the public service,
or is a member of this or of the other house. The great majority
of male visitors have their own business, which engrosses nearly the
whole of their time; but I have never heard that the hours occu—
pied in attending, once in a few years, at a polling booth, even if
we throw in the time spent in reading newspapers and political
treatises, has hitherto made them neglect their shops or their count—
ing—houses. I have not heard that those who have votes are worse
merchants, or worse lawyers, or worse physicians, or even worse
clergymen, than other people. One would think that the British
Constitution allowed no man to vote who was not able to give up
the greater part of his time to politics; if that were the case, we
should have a very limited constituency. '

But let me ask, what is the meaning of political freedom? Is it
not the control of those who do make a business of politics by those
who do not. It is the very principle of constitutional liberty that
men come from their looms and their forges to decide—and de-
cide well—whether they are properly governed, and whom they




will be governed by; and the nations who prize this privilege, and
who exercise it fully, are invariably those who excell most in the
common affairs of life.

The occupations of most women are, and are likely to remain,
principally domestic; but the idea that those occupations are 111-

compatible with taking an interest in national affairs, or in any of «

the great concerns of humanity, is as futile as the terror once
sincerely entertained, lest artisans should desert the workshops and
the factory if they were taught to read.

I know there is an obscure feeling, a feeling which is ashamed to
express itself openly, that women have no right to care about any
thing but how they may be the most useful. and devoted servants of
some man. But as I am convinced that there is not one member
of this house whose conscience accuses him of any such mean feeling,
I may say that the claim to confiscate the whole existence of half the
human species for the convenience of the other half, seems to me,
independently of its injustice, particularly silly. For who that has
had ordinary experience of human life, and ordinary capacity for
profiting by that experience, fancies that those do their own business
best who understand nothing else? A man has lived to little pur—
pose who has not learned that without general mental cultivation no
particular work that requires understanding can be done in the best
manner. It requires brains to use practical ex erience; and brains,
even Without practical experience, go further than any amount of
practical experience without brains.

But perhaps it is thought that the ordinary occupations of women
are more antagonistic than men’s occupations are to any comprehen—
sion of public affairs. Perhaps it is thought that those who are
principally charged with the moral education of the future genera—
tions of men must be quite unfit to judge of the moral and. educa-
tional interest of a community ; or that those whose chief daily
business is the judicious laying-out of money so as to produce the
greatest results with the smallest means, could not give any lessons
to right honorable gentlemen on that side of the house, or on this,
who produce such singularly small results with such vast means.

I feel a degree of confidence, sir, on this subject, which I could
not feel if the political change, in itself not a great or formidable
one, for which I contend, were not grounded, as beneficent and
salutary political changes usually are, upon a previous social change.
The idea of a peremptor.v and absolute line of separation between
men’s province of thought and women’s—the notion of forbidding
women to take interest in what interests men—belongs to a gone-by
state of society which is receding farther and farther into the past.
We think and talk about the political revolutions of the world, but
we do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that there has taken
place among us a silent domestic revolution: won en and men are,


for the first time in history, really companions. Our traditions
about the proper relations between them have descended to us from
a time when their lives were apart—when they were separate in
their thoughts because they were separate both in their amusements
and in their serious occumtions. The man spent his hours of
leisure among men: all his friendships, all his real intimacies were
with men: with men alone did he converse on any serious subject:
the wife was either a plaything or an upper servant. All this
among the educated classes is changed: men no longer give up
their spare time to violent out-door exercise and boisterous con-
viviality with male associates: the home has acquired the ascend—
ency: the two sexes now really pass their lives together: the women
of the family are the man’s habitual society: the wife is his chief
associate, his most confidential friend, and often his most trusted
Counsellor. [Cheers]

Now, does any man wish to have for his nearest companion,
linked so closely with himself, and whose wishes and preferences
have so strong a claim upon him, one whose thoughts are alien from
those which occupy his own mind—one who can give neither help
nor comfort nor support to his noblest feelings and purposes?
[Hear, hearfj Is this close and almost exclusive companionship
compatible with women being warned off all large subjects——
taught that they ought not to care about what it is man’s duty to
care for, and that to take part in any serious interests outside the
household is stepping beyond their province? Is it good for a man
to pass his life in close communion of thought and feeling with a
person studiously kept inferior to himself, whose earthly interests
are forcibly confined within four walls, who is taught to cultivate
as a grace of character ignorance and. indifference about the most
inspiring subjects, those among which his highest duties are cast?
[Hear, lie-an] Does any one suppose that this can happen without
detriment to the man’s own character?

Sir, the time has come when, if women are not raised to the level
of men, men will be pulled down to theirs. [A laugh] The
women of a man’s family are either a stimulus and a support to his
higher aspirations, or a drag upon them. You may keep them
ignorant of politics, but you cannot keep them from concerning
themselves with the least respectable part of politics—its person—
alities. If they do not understand, and cannot enter into the man’s
feelings of public duty, they do care about his private interests, and
that is the scale into which their weight is certain to be thrown,
They are an influence always at hand, cooperating with his selfish
promptings, watching and taking advantage of every moment of
moral irresolution, and doubling the strength of every temptation.
Even if they maintain a modest neutrality, their mere absence of
sympathy hangs a dead weight upon his moral energies, and makes
him averse to incur sacrifices which they will feel, and to forego




worldly successes and advantages in which they would share, for the
sake of objects which they cannot appreciate. But suppose him to
be happily preserved from temptation to an actual sacrifice of con—
science, the insensible influence on the higher parts of his own
nature is still deplorable. Under an idle notion that the beauties
of character of the two sexes are mutually incompatible, men are
afraid of manly women [a laugh] ; but those who have reflected 011
the nature and power of social influences, know that, when there are
not manly women, there will not much longer be manly men.
[Laughteiz] When men and women are really companions, if
women are frivolous, men will be frivolous ; if women care only for
personal interests and trifling amusements, men in general will care
for little else. The two sexes must now rise or sink together.

It may be said that women can take interest in great national
questions Without having a vote. They can, certainly; but how
many of them will? All that society and education can do is
exhausted in inculcating on women that the rule of their conduct
ought to be what society expects from them, and the denial of the
vote is a proclamation, intelligible to every one, that society does
not expect them to concern themselves with public interests. Why,
the whole of a girl’s thoughts and feelings are toned down by it
from her earliest school-days; she does not take the interest, even
in national history, that a boy does, because it is to be no business
of hers when she grows up. If there are women, and fortunately
there now are, who do care about these subjects, and study them, it
is because the force within is powerful enough to bear up against
the worst kind of discouragement, that which acts not by inter-
posing obstacles which may be struggled against, but by deadening
the spirit which faces and conquers obstacles.

We are told that women do not wish the suffrage. If this be
so, it only proves that nearly all women are still under this deaden-
ing influence, that the opiate still benumbs their mind and con—
science. But there are many women who do desire the suffrage, and
have claimed it by petitions to this house. How do we know how
many more thousands there are who have not asked for what they
do not hope to get, either for fear of being ill thought of by men
or by other women, or from the feeling so sedulously cultivated by
the whole of their education—aversion to make themselves con-

Men must have a great faculty of self—delusion if they suppose
that leading questions put to the ladies of their families, or of
their acquaintances, will elicit their real sentiments, or will be an-
swered with entire sincerity by one woman in ten thousand. No
one is so well schooled as most women are in making a virtue of
necessity. It costs little to disclaim caring for what is not offered;
and frankness in expressing feelings that may be disagreeable or
unflattering to their nearest connections is not one of the virtues


which a woman’s education tends to cultivate. It is, moreover, a
virtue attended with sufficient risk to induce prudent women to
reserve its exercise for cases in which there is some nearer interest
to be promoted by it.

At all events, those who do not care for the sufirage will not use
it. Either they will not register, or if they do, they will vote as
their male relatives advise them, by which, as the advantage would
probably be about equally shared among all classes, no harm would
be done. Those, whether they be few or many, who do value the
privilege, would exercise it, and would experience that stimulus to
their faculties, and that widening and liberalizing influence on their
feelings and sympathies, which the suffrage seldom fails to exert
over every class that is admitted to a share in it. Meanwhile, an
unworthy stigma would have been taken off the whole sex, the law
would have ceased to stamp them as incapable of serious things,
would have ceased to proclaim that their opinions and wishes do
not deserve to have any influence in things which concern them
equally with men, and in many that concern them much more then
men. They would no longer be classed with children, idiots, and
lunatics—[laughter and cheers] ——as incapable of taking care either
of themselves or others, and needing that everything should be done
for them without asking for their consent. If no more than one
woman in twenty thousand used the vote, it would be a gain to all
women to be declared capable of using it. Even so purely theo—
retical an enfranchisement would remove an artificial weight from
the expansion of their faculties, the real evil of which is far greater
than the apparent.

Then it is said that women do not need direct political power
because they have so much indirect through the influence they pos-
sess over their male relatives and connections. [Laughter] Sir,
I should like to try this argument in other cases. Rich people have
a great deal of indirect influence. Is this a reason for denying
them a vote? [Cheers] Did any one ever propose a rating quali—
fication the wrong way, and bring in a reform bill to disfranchise
everybody who lives in a £500 house, or pays £100 a year in direct
taxes. [Hear, hear.] Unless this rule for distributing the fran-
chise is to be reserved for the exclusive benefit of women, the
legitimate consequences of it would be that persons above a certain
amount of fortune should be allowed to bribe, but should not be
allowed to vote. [Laughter]

Sir, it is true that women have already great power. It is part
of my case that they have great power. But they have it under
the worst possible conditions,vbecause it is indirect, and, therefore,
irresponsible. [Hear, hear]. I want to make that power a respon—
sible power. [Hear, hear.] I want to make the woman feel her
conscience interested in its honest exercise. I want to make her
feel that it is not given to her as a mere means of personal ascend-




ency. I want to make her influence work by a manly interchange of
opinions, and not by cajolery. [Laughter and cheers] I want to
awaken in her the political point of honor. At present many a
woman greatly influences the political conduct of her male connec-
tions, sometimes by force of will actually governs it; but she is
never supposed to have 'any thing to do with it. The man she in—
fluences, and perhaps misleads, is alone responsible. I-Ier power is
like the back-stairs influence of a favorite. The poor creature is
nobody, and all is referred to the man’s superior wisdom; and as,
of course, he will not give way to her if he ought not, she may
work upon him through all his strongest feelings without incurring
any responsibility. Sir, I demand that all who exercise power
should have the burden laid upon them of knowing something
about the things they have power over. With the admitted right
to a voice would come a sense of the corresponding duty.

A woman is not generally inferior in tenderness of conscience to
a man. Make her a moral agent in matters of publicconduct.
Show that you require from her a political conscience, and when she
has learnt to understand the transcendant importance of these
things, she will see why it is wrong to sacrifice political convictions
for personal interest and vanity; she will understand that political
honesty is not a foolish personal crochet, which a man is bound
for the sake of his family to give up, but a serious duty; and the
men whom she can influence will be better men in all public rela-
tions, and not, as they often are at present, worse men by the
whole effect of her influence. [Hear, hear.]

But, at all events, it will be said women, as women, do not suffer
any practical inconvenience by not being represented. The interests
of all women are safe in the hands of their fathers, husbands, and
brothers, whose interest is the same with theirs, and who, besides
knowng better than they do what it good for them, care a good
deal more for them than they care for themselves.

Sir, this is exactly what has been said of all other unrepresented
classes—the operatives, for instance; are they not all virtually
represented through their employers? are not the interests of the
employer and that of the employed, when properly understood, the
same? To insinuate the contrary, is it not the horrible crime of
setting class against class? Is not the farmer interested along with
his laborer in the prosperity of agriculture? Has not the cotton
manufacturer as great an interest in the high price of calicoes as his
workmen? Is not the employer interested as well as his men in
the repeal of taxes? Have not employer and employed a common
interest against outsiders, just as man and wife have against all
outside the family? And are not ‘all employers kind, benevolent,
charitable men, who love their work-people, and always know and
do what is most for their good? Every one of these assertions is
exactly as true as the parallel assertion respecting men and women.


Sir, we are not living in Arcadia, but, as we were lately reminded,
in fwce Romuli; and in that region workmen need other pro-
tection than that of their masters, and women than that of their

I should like to see a return laid before the house of the number
of women who are annually beaten to death, kicked to death, or
trodden to death, by their male protectors. [Hear, hear.] I should
like this document to contain, in an opposite column, a return of
the sentences passed in those cases in which the dastardly criminal
did not get off altogether; and in a third column a comparative View
of the amount of property, the unlawful taking of which had, in
the same sessions or assizes, by the same judge, been thought worthy
of the same degree of punishment. [Cheers] We should thus
obtain an arithmetical estimate of the value set by a male legisla-
ture and male tribunals upon the murder of a women by habitual
torture, often prolonged for years, which, if there be any shame in
us, would make us hang our heads. [Cheers]

Sir, before it is contended that women do not suffer in their in—
terests, especially as women, by not being represented, it must
be considered whether women, as women, have no grievances——
whether the law, and those practices which law can reach, treat
women in every respect as favorably as men. Well, sir, is that the
case? As to education, for example, we continually hear it said
that the education of the mothers is the most important part of the
education of the country, because they educate the men. Is as
. much importance really attached to it? Are there many fathers

who care as much, or are willing to expend as much, for the good
education of their daughters as of their sons? Where are the
universities, Where the public schools, where the schools of any
high description for them. [Hean]

If it ‘is said that girls are best educated at home, where are the
training schools for governesses? What has become of the endow-
ments which the bounty of our forefathers established for the in-
struction, not of boys alone, but of boys and girls indiscrimi-'
nately? I am informed by one of the highest authorities on the
subject that, in the majority of the deeds of endowment, the pro—
vision was for education generally, and not especially for boys.
One great endowment—Christ’s Hospital—was designated expressly
for both. That establishment maintains and educates one thousand
one hundred boys, and exactly twenty-six girls.

Then when they have attained womanhood, how does it fare with
the large and increasing portion of the sex, who, though sprung
from the educated classes, have not inherited a provision ; and, not
having obtained one by marriage, or disdaining to marry merely for

‘a provision, depend 011 their exertions for support? Hardly any
decent educated occupation, save one, is open to them. They are
either governesses, or nothing.




A fact has quite recently occurred which is worth commemorat-
ing. A young lady, Miss Garrett, from no pressure of necessity,
but from an honorable desire to find scope for her activity in allevi-
ating the suiferings of her fellow-creatures, applied herself to the
study of medicine. Having duly qualified herself, she, with an
energy and perseverance which cannot be too highly praised,
knocked successively at every one of the doors through which, in
this country, a student can pass into medical practice. Having
found every other door fast shut, she at last discovered one which
had been accidently left ajar. The Society of Apothecaries, it
appears, had forgotten to shut out those whom they never thought
would attempt to come in; and through that narrow entry this
young lady obtained admission into the medical profession. But
so objectionable did it appear to this learned body that women
should be permitted to be the medical attendants, even of women,
that the narrow wicket which Miss Garrett found open has been
closed after her, and no second Miss Garrett is to he suffered to
pass through it. [Cheers]

Sir, this is instar omnium. As soon as ever women become
capable of successfully competing with men in any career, if it be
lucrative and honorable, it is closed to them. A short time ago
women could be associates of the Royal Academy; but they were
so distinguishing themselves, they were taking so honorable a rank
in their art, that this privilege, too, has been taken from them.
That is the kind of care taken of women by the men who so faith-
fully represent them. [Cheers] That is our treatment of un—
married women; and now about the married.

They, it may be said, are not directly concerned in the amend-
ment which I have moved, but it concerns many who have been mar-
ried as well as others who will be so. By the common law of
England, every thing that a woman has belongs absolutely to her
husband; he may tear it all away from her, may spend the last
penny of it in debauchery, leaving her to maintain by her labor
both herself and her children; and if, by heroic exertion, she earns
enough to put by any thing for their future support, unless she is
judicially separated from him, he can pounce upon her savings,
and leave her penniless ; and such cases are of very common occur-
rence. If we were besottcd enough to think such things right,
there would be more excuse for us; but we know better. The
richer classes have found a way of exempting their own daughters
from this iniquitous state of the law. By the contrivance of mar—
riage settlements, they can make in each case a private law for
themselves, and they always do. Why do we not provide that
justice for the daughters of the poor which we take good care shall
be done to our own daughters? Why is not what is done in every
particular case that we personally care for made the general law of
the land ?—that a poor man’s child, whose parents could not afford


the expense of a settlement, may be able to retain any little property
which may devolve on her, and may have a voice in the disposal.
of her own earnings, often the best and only reliable part of the
sustenance of the family? [Hean] I am sometimes asked what
practical grievance I propose to remedy by enabling women to vote.
I propose, for one thing, to remedy this. I have given these few
instances to prove that women are not the petted favorites of
society which some people seem to imagine; that they have not that
abundance, that superfluity of influence, which is ascribed to them,
and are not sufficiently represented by the representation of those
who have never cared to do in their behalf so obvious an act of
justice. Sir, grievances of less magnitude than the laws of the
property of married women, when affecting persons and classes less
inured to passive endurance, have provoked revolutions.

We ought not to take advantage of the security which we feel
against any such danger in the present case to refuse to a limited
class of women that small amount of participation in the enactment
and the improvement of our laws which this motion solicits for
them, and which would enable the general feelings of women to be
heard in this house through a few female representatives. We
ought not to deny to them what we are going to accord to everybody
else: a right to be consulted; the common chance of placing in the
great council of the nation a few organs of their sentiments; of
having what every petty trade or profession has—a few members
of the legislature, with a special call to stand up for their interests,
and direct attention to the mode in which those interests are affected
by the law, or by any changes in it. No more is asked by this
motion; and when the time comes, as it is certain to come, when
this will be conceded, I feel the firmest conviction that you will
never repent of the concession. I move, sir, that the word “ man 7"
be omitted, and the word “ person ” inserted in its place. [Cheers]

There were '73 votes for Mr. Mill’s amendment, 196 against it—
it was lost, therefore, by 123 votes.

“ The Tribune” correspondent says, “ Some of the greatest in—
tellects in Parliament, and nearly all the young men on whom the
future of England depends, made an honorable record on this great
question. Among them were Hughes, Stansfield, Taylor, Lord
Amberley, Oliphant, Mr. Dcnman, Mr. Fawcett, the O’Donoghue,
and the sturdy old Roman Catholic, Sir George Bowyer.”




President, Miss M. CAREY THOMAS,
President Of Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.

Ex-Ofiicio, Doctor ANNA HOWARD SHAW,
President of National American Woman Snfi