This year marks the 150th anniversary of Canada, so every Sunday we are looking back at editorials from our predecessor newspaper, The Daily British Colonist and Victoria Chronicle, in 1867.
The topic this week is not Confederation, but female suffrage. Despite the best intentions of the editors, women did not get the vote for another 50 years, and even then, most non-white women were excluded.
Why should women not vote? Why should not a woman be as eligible to the position of head of a republic as head of a monarchy? Under what sovereign has England prospered more than under Queen Victoria? And who of the whole mighty line of rulers made England’s name respected at home and abroad more thoroughly than Good Queen Bess [Elizabeth I]?
Jeanne d’Arc saved France. We do not say that women would make good soldiers, for there are physical disabilities that nature has interposed to render them inefficient; but we do candidly believe that in most of the light pursuits of life — the arts, the sciences, the pulpit, the bar, the legislature — they would rank with if not excel their male compeers.
In literature, women stand in the front rank. A few years ago, the idea of women becoming physicians was scouted as preposterous, yet today there are several colleges in England and America where women are exclusively educated for the profession, and several graduates of those institutes are already in successful practice in the large cities of both countries.
Women have shone on the stage; why should they not shine in the forum? Their slender fingers are admirably adapted to setting type, and some of the large printing offices in the East employ no men.
In telegraphy they are acquiring the reputation of being clever operators, and as sculptors and painters several of the sex are rapidly rising to fame.
We do not say that we would permit every woman to vote, any more than we would permit every man. A stringent qualification would be always desirable in both cases, but it should bear equally on both sexes.
We look upon the law that debars an intelligent, respectable woman from taking part in the government of her country, yet places the largest amount of political liberty in the hands of every ignorant, debased specimen of the masculine gender, as a legal absurdity that the enlightened public sentiment of civilized communities is destined soon to sweep away.
Woman is essentially the helpmeet of man. She shares his burdens and his sorrows; why should she not share his honours and his successes?
Why should not a married woman be placed in a position to say who shall or shall not be sent to Parliament to make laws to govern her and her children, and levy taxes that she holds in common with her husband?
And not only should married women be allowed to exercise the privilege, but all women of the legal age of 21 possessed of the necessary qualification should be entitled to the same privilege.
The humanizing influence the sex exercise over us socially should be extended to our politics.
Their presence in public life would elevate and improve the tone of public men and insure us honest and efficient public servants.
The Daily British Colonist and Victoria Chronicle,
June 19, 1867
