TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1896. THE WOMEN'S VOTE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVIX, Issue 2997, 8 December 1896, Page 2

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1896 . THE WOMEN'S VOTE.

j OSB of the most impudent things w e have 'seen for a long time is the attick made by , our evening contemporary on a largo sec- : tion of the women of Wellington. He i recalls a prophecy about the wfcrldng of j the women's franchise, made by Somebody—" it Wat said ”i 6 the vagfto authority —ho makes that ridiculous vaticination a l-ttie of conduct, fend ho proceeds to judge j; the women On that line so curiously laid 1 down, without regard to the evidence obi taimib-o in great abundance on the sub- ; jeet. He pretends at the outset to i believe that the influence of woman has had a sobering effect in politics, but ho has the audacity to go on and insinuate that women were respon-i sible for some rowdiness during the ejection campaign. That is simply and ABsolUtely untrue. "We are told ”i& the Visual cloak for a falsehood. The SNil may have “ been told that At tirb or three booths the women who represented Opposition candidates bad to put up with considerable rudeness from some representing the Seddonites.” If so, tho Post was told what was not true, and the Post had not the manliness or tho good sense to make afty enquiries. The statement that any Women engaged in rough, rude treatment during tho election is as false at it is dastardly. It. is equally falsa to pretend that women received the franchise on condition of being guided by character alone iu J its exercise. Women have now proved ; themselves capable of understanding political principles. They do not, As pre* dieted, take men before ulaasiUcs, and they are right. They are abused in insinuatory terms, but that does not make them wrong. And how does this critic kuow how the women voted ? The fact that ho Cannot know emphasises the effects of the ravings of an infuriated loser. “It cannot be said that women ! showed better than men in this respect.” If that outrageous assumption had been printed in our columns there Would have been a howl against tho betrayal of the' ballot. The public Would have been informed that ah unscrupulous Crovermhoilt had forced the wretched rCtUynittg officers to open the ballot boxes. The fact is that au unscrupulous faction has been drawing largely on its imagination. “ Professed : Seddonisitt ” is, forsooth, the women’s, shibeeieth. But there is no such thing as ■ Seddonism in this country, profeSsed or vmprofeasad. Tho women of liaw Zealand have eyes that see straight, in spite of the sophistry of nettspapors. But they shall not be insist tod in consequence. It is not a crime to differ from tho Post as to purity of government. The women of Wellington have failed to see that the Pod has advanced any fact worth a straw iu support of its virulent charges of impure government. They were in this just and logical. They differed ten) the Post, but tho difference is cot to their discredit. It is to the discredit of the Post.

I'he most perfectly hypocritical thing in the whole article is the wail that the in* fluence of the woman on the temperance side was not felt. What is the teuiperance side ? Will the Post kindly tell us ? We tike leave to toll mir donteifipprary that the temperance side is hot the Prohibition aide. There are niany tsrhperate people, the majority Of the population, who are against Prohibition. To brand them as ■not on the temperance side is an act of falsehood and folly. Bat the Post itself is not a Prohibitionist. It did not dare to advise its readers to strike out the top line. Yet it dares to make it a charge against some of the women that they distributed leaflets advising people to leave the top line in. What a Pinchbeck pretence at fanaticism 1 The Post hates and detests all Prohibitionist tactics, so it would have us believe. Yet it wants us to believe in the honesty of its denunciation of all women who are not out-aud-oiXt Prohibitionists. It even goes so far as to pretend that they are under coercion from Seddonism. Coercion to agree with the Posf ! Nothing could be more absurd, mad, idiotic. Nobody is supposed to hate Prohibition more than the Pod. That journal ought therefore to welcome every ally. But it insults all women, including the charwomen of the Government Buildings, who raise their voices against the fanaticism of Prohibition. One set of women may go to the Willis street booth, it appears, and vote Prohibition, but another set, who oppose Prohibition, in Tory street, are denounced as everything that is bad.

“ The Prohibitionists have not had the aid of even a majority of the women/’ This is the most daringly, glaringly false of the many false statements of the Post. It is hypocrisy to begin with, for the Post is not Prohibitionist, though for the sake of insulting women it poses as such. It is false, because the women never undertook to forward the cause of Prohibition. It is glaringly false, because the cause of Prohibition is most certainly not the cause of temperance, either in drinking or in language, or in idea. There are women who do not accept the doctrine that a State “without the liquor ” is the ideal State. They have a perfect right to their view. No Pecksniff has the right to insult them by declaring that they have been bribed and coerced and cajoled into holding views which are perfectly sound and held by the majority of reasonable people. The plain fact is that the women have thought fit to think for themselves on this and all other questions. That is their offence. A number of prominent politicians favoured the female franchise not because they, thought it was right, not because they folt that women have rights, but for- the miserable reason tliat they thought they could treat . women like putty, to be moulded to any shape they chose to give them. The diatribe in the

Post proves incontestably that the advocacy of • tho female franchise, by some prominent men was a pretence on their part and a gross insult to the women. The women have used their own judgment independently. For this they have been further insulted by abuse and charges of bribery, coercion and cajolery. It was predicted by the opponents of female franchise that women would be grievously insulted at the polls. The prediction had been verified by the men who pretended to be their friends. .They advocated the .franchise in order that they might get the benefit of tho franchise for their social fads and for their political tergiversations. They have been bitterly disappointed and they have shown their disappointment by heaping insult and abuse of the worst kind on the women who have shown independence of judgment. No such Insult has been given to the women who used their votes for Prohibition or for the Opposition cause. The women of New Zealand can now see clearly who are their friends, and who are their enemies.

RAVINGS OF AN INFURIATED LOSER. In three brief monosyllables tho defeated and disappointed Mr Earnsbaw, having lost what temper ho may have had, directed the Dunedin electors to descend to pandemonium. But they did not taka tho advice; only scorned tho more at tho man who could hot accept what proved to ba the inevitable, and who failed to take his punishment with a smiling face, however much his heart may have burned within him. /a iujio veritas does not apply to this defeated Prohibitionist, because he is * a teetotaller, but the objurgation shows the inner man, and. that his disappointed anger was such as to lay bar© tb© natural coarseness of the exposdd interior. Sir Robert Stout cannot be proud of his pupil and henchman, and this vulgar display of costermonger irate eloquence amply justices the conclusion that in the House which will know him no more Mr Earnshaw never will be missed, and may be safely left to tho Gehenna of his own thoughts.