A House of Assumptions

These assumptions of gender difference paved the way for pronouncements about “woman’s true sphere,” a place where she belonged, separate from men and their politics. William Mulock referred to women as the “weaker sex,” inherently separate from men. Even Wilfred Laurier believed that a woman’s political influence would be more effective if exercised in the circle of the home, by persuasion and advice, than if the woman is brought to the poll to vote.” In an implicit appeal to God, Joseph Royal argued against female enfranchisement, saying that “[w]oman has been created for another kingdom.” In a humorously intended remark, Peter Mitchell illustrated the prevalent opinion that women needed to be managed:

I have found it pretty hard work to manage a woman anyway, and one of the difficulties of our lives is to know how to manage our wives. Some fellows who have not wives find it more difficult still to know how to manage those who are not their wives.

When he made this joke, Mitchell knew that it would not fall on deaf ears, that the atmosphere in the House of 1885 was one that accepted a marked political difference between women and men. It was taken for granted in the House that women had to lose their “freedom of action” as soon as they were married, and should not receive the franchise either.

Thus, key assumptions held by members of the House in 1885 defined the nature of debate regarding the enfranchisement of women, Natives, and the Chinese. Assumptions of the primacy of federalism over the provincial sphere, caused the Parliamentary debate to be necessary in the first place. Assumptions of the primacy of personal beliefs over party loyalty made for a debate fought on the basis of individual conscience and opinion. Debates were framed with reference to these beliefs and assumptions: voters had to be free, had to be intelligent, had to desire the vote, and had to be civilised in a British manner to even qualify for the franchise.

Affecting these arguments were widely-held racial and gender-based prejudices in the House, all the more significant because were denied and dismissed. Perhaps, with an understanding of these assumptions held more than 120 years ago and their profound impact upon legislative policy, we might learn today to recognise and question our own assumptions; perhaps the history of the future will not have to be as critically examined.