MR SEDDO AND FEMALE FRANCHISE.
Mataura Ensign, Volume 15, Issue 1291, 26 May 1893, Page 6
About this newspaper
MR SEDDO AND FEMALE FRANCHISE.
Interviewed by a representative of the ' M >n*watu Standard ' on the ques ion of female suffrage, the Premier stated that tha matter had not been finally dealt with by the Cabinet, although he h >d not the slightest doubt that the Electoral Bill would be introduced in the same form as it was last ye>r, women suffrage and all. And in his Napier speech the hou. gentleman referred to the question in these term:) : "It bad been said that the Government in bringing forward that clause were not sincere ; but they were. Sir John flail first brought forward the movement and requested Mr Ballance to incorporate it in the Bill. Now, was it reasonable to thiukthat the Government (if sincere) would h*ve incorporated this clause in their B'ectoral Bill ? If the/ had :been insincere their course would have been to have refused to bring fc*ie clause forward and have allowed Sir John Ball to a tamp, to put the proposal, through ia a private Bill j and a very poor chance he would have had of sue - ceeding in thit, and the ladies would still have been a very long way from having, the vote. The proposal was carried through the House by a large majority, but was thrown out from the Legislative Council. He would like for his own parb to see the ladies have the vote, as he felt sure they would have a beneficial influence on politics. The Legislative Councillor most active in securing the overthrow of the measure was a lawyer and a well--ead man, who unearthed an old measure in the House of Commons by Disraeli — viz., the Women's Rights Bill — and tried to bring it forward as an entirely oiiginal affair of his own, which he presumed the hoo. gentleman thought must bo g<>od for New Zealand aa it was good for Dsraeli. The Legislative Council wished to hedge around the question of women's franchise many conditions and restrictions which the Government would not accept. The only condition under which women ah uld receve the franchise shou'd be the same as m^n. Tiny should go j direct to the poll, and no difference should be made between .town and cou'ifry. There - was no difference between the people— then why in their mode of us'ng the franchise 1 Meetings had been he'd between the Lower and Upper House manager?, but • the latter had insisted on those obnoxious conditions being imposed, and the party would have none of them. It w«s simply done for a purpose, and the Governm°ut refused to take the amendme f . They said the franchise must be granted to women unconditionally or not at a]]. What was the result 1 The Bill was not allowed to pa«s in the form prescribed by the Government, who remained true to the pledge that was given by them, and therefore the responsibility rested with the Legislative Council, who refused to do justice to the women of the colony. Th? women must be placed on the same levels as their husbinds and sons. — (Applause:)"
