The Press. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1889.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7382, 7 August 1889, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1889.

As will be seen by our Wellington telegrams, the consideration of the question of granting the franchise to women has been postponed to a future date. Sir John Hall has very properly agreed not further to complicate the present situation by raising a discussion on the subject in connection with the Representation Bill. An opportunity is thus afforded to the public of discussing the question on its merits. There has at home for some years been a movement among women for obtaining the concession of the franchise. Circumstances have brought it into prominence, and it seems lately to have been thought a brilliant stroke of party tactics to profess a willingness to take it into early consideration. Under these circumstances it has become necessary to know what the mind of the sex upon the subject really is. We bave before us in the June number of the Nineteenth Century a manifesto in the shape of an " appeal" made by women " against female suffrage." It is short, and consists not so much of an argument as of a forcible statement of opinion and feeling against the proposed concession. The signatures are appended of some hundred and twenty ladies of rank and social position, of all shades of Liberal opinion, and with an appreciable admixture of the Conservative element. The document is clearly of a highly representative | character, and with the steps which are being taken to have it generally circulated and adopted cannot fail, we think, to be of influence in determining the issue now before the British public. It is the more likely to have this effect because it accepts no low view of the intellectual qualities of women. It asserts for them a position fully equal to that of men. It says only, in effect, that while their power to serve the State may fairly rival that of the sterner sex, it does not, therefore, necessarily follow that it will be wisely employed in the same departments of labor. The faculties are equal, but not identical. Man has his sphere, woman hers. Speaking broadly—this is the contention of the paper before us—the domain of force belongs to man. that of influence to woman. Legislation and the great departments of administration involve the exercise of force, and, as a mere matter of physical organisation, these must be left to men to direct and control. Women cannot fitly claim a direct voice in the decision of matters in the carrying out of which they are physically incompetent to help. " To men," says the paper, " belong the struggle of debate and legislation in Parliament; the hard and exhausting labour implied in the administration of the national resources and powers; the conduct of England's relations towards the external world; the working of the Army and Navy; all the heavy, laborious, fundamental industries of the State, such as those of mines, metals and railways; the lead and supervision of English commerce, the management of our vast English finance, the service of that; merchant fleet on which our food supply depends." In all these cases the signatories of the appeal disclaim the right to deal directly with the management, and they so disclaim it because they say that after having shared in the decision they could not go on to take part in the consequent labor. Their judgment would not be weighted by the responsibility of having to perform. We cannot but acknowledge the great force of this argument It is nothing more, indeed, than the application to the particular question of woman's suffrage of the constitutional principle which we see daily working so beneficially in our present system of government by party. In those countries in which the administration, however criticised, remains in the same hands, the license of Opposition is unbounded. In England, where the party finding fault with the measures of the Government knows that it may at any moment be called upon to take their place and show that it can do better, the tone and temper of Opposition is inevitably moderated by a sense of responsibility. This check is wanting in the case of woman suffrage. They cau never be called upon to act, and their decisions will be tempered by no responsibility. The case is not, in the paper before us, made to rest here. The effect of the possession of the suffrage on the family life is also considered, and it is urged with great force that the heats and party violences which already act so injuriously, even as confined to men, would, with the stronger emotional

tendencies of women, have a far worse effect if extended to both sexes. If the " quickness of feeling" which belongs to women " could be immediately " and directly translated into public " action in matters of vast and com- " plicated political import, the risks of " politics would be enormously in- " creased and what is now a national " blessing might easily become a " national calamity." The paper then touches upon the alternative difficulties which present themselves, whether the franchise is to be extended to single women or confined to married women only, having property, and finally protests, temperately but strongly, against bringing forward a question of this kind before the public mind is ripe for it, and with an evident view mainly to the " passing needs of a party organisation." Altogether, the paper not only makes out a strong case against the so-called reform, but shows also that there is an important element in English society which has not hitherto intervened in the question, but now feels itself called upon to speak out plainly and decidedly against the scheme.

The enormous majority by which the clause abolishing plural voting was carried in the House of Representatives must have taken the colony completely by surprise. Sir George Grey's clause, it is true, does not do away entirely with the property qualification, but in limiting the number of votes which any elector can give at a general election to one, it practically makes it of little or no value. We do not believe for a moment that the division list published yesterday represents in" any way the opinion of the constituencies. We are convinced that if the question were fully and fairly discussed at a general election a considerable majority of members would be returned pledged to retain the property qualification as it now stands on the Statute Book. The right hitherto of giving a vote in any district in which a man possessed property was an admission that industry, thrift, and provident habits ought to have some slight recognition on the part of the Legislature. Those who have, by these means, accumulated some property have, at any rate, a stake in the colony, are interested in its welfare, and may be expected to act and vote with greater responsibility. It i 3 reasonable, therefore, that such persons should have an increased voice in the Government of the country. They have larger sacrifices to make, and, on the average, they act with greater rjrudence and caution than those who may be here to-day and somewhere else to-morrow. The House has been engaged for a number of days fightino' fiercely over the question of the quota. The country members have been acting in connection with that matter as if it was of the most vital importance to the future of New Zealand that the country districts should have, man for man, a greater voice in the management of the affairs of the colony than towns. Yet when a question which to our mind ia of vastly greater importance comes up for consideration it is scarcely debated at all, and is then carried by an overwhelming majority. It appears to us that the Conservative section of the House have in this matter acted with a singular want of judgment. While eagerly grasping at the shadow they have missed the substance. They are apparently so , delighted with the victory they have won over the quota question, that they have recklessly sacrificed a much larger and more important principle. They have affirmed the doctrine that, in connection with electoral matters, every person in the community should be exactly on an equality. We say unhesitatingly that we do not believe that this is the opinion of the majority of the constituencies. It is a delusion to imagine that the property qualification is the privilege of a few rich persons only. There are thousands in the colony who, by their own efforts, have succeeded in accumulating some property, and who value greatly the electoral privileges | which they have thereby acquired. These are the persons who give stability to the country and infuse a spirit of prudence and moderation into the deliberations of tho people. It is, therefore, in the best interests of New Zealand that no restriction Bhould be placed on the existing electoral rights of such citizens. It only requires the House to refuse to pass the Registration of Electors Bill now before it to complete the work of disintegration upon which it has entered. As the registration law at present stands persons with no qualification whatever appear to have no great difficulty in getting on the rolls. The fact that hundreds indeed, we may say thousands, were struck off the rolls after the last general election proves, it appears to us, that many who had no qualification at all succeeded iv exercising a plural vote with the greatest ease. If the House refuses to make such provision as to render that state of things impossible in the future, we cau only conclude that it desires that the least deserving alone shall have the opportunity of exercising the plural vote.