Outlines of the Woman Suffrage Movement in New Zealand.

White Ribbon, Volume 6, Issue 69, 1 February 1901, Page 3

Outlines of the Woman Suffrage Movement in New Zealand.

VIII. Undaunted by the successful ho> tility of the Legislative Council the Franchise department of the W.C.T. U. redoubled its efforts, M 3 Sh pp . still remained at the helm, and was ably assisted by the district nd local superintendents, viz., Miss Strange, Invercargill; Miss Nicol, Dun dm; Mrs Ward, lvaiapoi; Miss Bignell, Hokitika ; Mrs Plimmer and Miss DalrvniDle. Wellington: Mrs 1 1 >v.

jk'’ r j 1 X ipier, and Mrs D.ildy, Auckland Nor w is tiie \\ ( l'.l . 1 it to continue the struggle unaided, l'he educative work of previous years had h gun to tell, and the Franchise Leagues in Auckland and Dunedin and the Women s Institute in Christchurch, all of which were established this year (1692), became va!u bie alin s. A fresh petition was prepared and circulated, and such zeal was shown th it when the sheets were colic ted and prepared for presentation t > Parliam nt it was found that no fewer than 2 >,27 \ signatures had been obtained, the [ ) ,

o # - 7 taking fn-t place wth y.oSS naim s. To a large extent this fine n cord t jr Otago Wris due to the harmonious working of the local supciiutendent with the PresuK nt of the Dunedin Women’s Franchise League Mis Marion Hatton. Mrs Hatton was a woman of unusual energy and great determination, and threw herself into the work with extraordinary vigour. In Dunedin, too, Mr 11. S. Fish, the Arch-opponent of Woman Suffrage in the House of Representatives, this year found his Waterioo. An able man, with great pugnacity, Mr Fish had been most successful in obtainin'' o

civic honours, and this year aspired to the Mayoial chair. Ilis candidature was strongly supported by the liquor trade and the opponents of the enfranchise, ment of women A coalition was formed of the Franchise League and the various temperance organisations to oppose him, and aft r a most exciting struggle Mr Fish met with a crushing defeat.

In I aril uncut the question was the most absorbing one of the session. Ihe House in t on June 23rd. Sir John Hall had prepared a Bill, but finding that Mr Ballancehad included W oman Suffrage in the Electoral Bill it was docided that it would be better to support the Government measure.

On July 1 st, Mr Ballance moved the second reading of the Electoral lhll. Ile explai nd that the most important feature of the Bill, was that it proposed to confer the Franchise on women. The Government h ul resolved that this should form part of the measure and desired to s- e it become law during that session. They had Ift out what might be considered a put of woman’s f ranchise, namely, that women should become members ot that House. Personally he was not at all opposed to going the whole length. If they gave the Franchise to worn 11 and if 1 here were women capable of silting in the Councils of the Country and legislating, why should they not be admitted as members of that House? He hoped that the question which lnd so long agitated the minds of members would b*.,* settled once and forever by granting tiie Franchise. The question was

strongly opposed by Messrs Rolleston, Fish, and Seobie Mackenzie, and as strongly advocated by Mr S Hinders and Sir John Hall. The latter drew attention to the means which had been adopted in procuring signatures to a rag whi.h had in en pr< s< nt d y Mr Fish. ('a vassers had been employed and bad been paid so much per hundred names, and many h td been indue d to sign by representations that this was a petition in favour of the Franchise. Sir John went on to say tint the right of petition was a sacred one and ought to be carefully g larded, but the means of obtaining signatures should be carefully watched. 1 he Bill passed it* second reading the -am3 day. On the motion for g< nig into committee on July sth, Mr Fish indulged in a most verbose attack oi. tht F 1 nuchiseq uestion with such numerous extracts from books, magazines, and uewsnaners as to

enchance his established reputation for industry. Mr Saunders and others, however, provided weightier metal, and his attack failed. In the passage of the Hill through the Committee stage Mr Fish was joined by Mr Carncross and Mr Blake, and the trio shewed much ingenuity in their endeavour to twist the interpretation clauses in such a manner as to nullify the intention of the Government to immeui.uely enfranchise women. Proving unsuccessful, an assault was made during the third reading, Mr Fisher joining in with much vigour. The opposition was, however, fruitless, and the Hill was read a third time on Aug. 3 1 st. In the Legislative Council the opponents did not wait for the Hill. On July ijtlr, the Hon R. Oliver presented the fir>t instalment of the petition with 18,407 signatures. Mr Shrimski objected to the reception of the petition, it was not, he said, in accordance with Standing Orders, as the various sheets were pasted together without the prayer of the petition. Mr Oliver contended that the petition did comply with Standing Orders. Every sheet was signed on a p iper bearing the petition, and the petition which stood on the first sheet exactly resembled the petitions on the other sheets. The Speaker settled the matter by ruling that the petition was in order. The Electoral Hill was received from the Lower House and passed its first reading on August 31st. The debate on the second reading was taken on Sept. 6th and the following day. In introducing the Hill the Minister in charge—Sir P. A. Buck ley, frankly confessed that personally he was opposed to Woman Suffrage. Out of loyalty to his party, and in deference to the wish of the people, he held his private views in abeyance. 1 he Hons R. Oliver, \\. Downie Stewart and others, however, fully compensated for the Minister’s lack of warmth, and the second reading was carried without a division. When the Bill was in Committee however, Sir George Whitmore divided the Council on the question of the interpretation of the word “ person” which he wished to read, “ Person does not include women.” This ungallant motion was, however, lost and the Hill was read a third time on Sept. 2/ th. Unfortunately, among other alterations the Council had added a new clause to the Bill which gave women the option of voting through the post nffirp bv means of what was termed an

“ Elector’s right.” This privilege the Lower House had confined to Sailors, Shearers, and Commercial travellers. Still more unfortunately, Mr Ballance, the Premier, had been stricken with a fatal illness and was no longer able to guide the deliberations of the House of Representatives. It was well known that Mr Seddon, who occupied the position of Acting Premier, was not personally favourable to the emancipation of women. There were also other considerations which it was believed rendered him secretly antagonistic to this portion of the Bill. Events proved these fore bodings to be only too true. 1 o the delight of Messrs Blake, Fish, and other opponents of the measure, Mr Seddon lost no time in declaring that this new clause could not be accepted. Managers of both Houses were appointed but faded to agree. A heated debate arose when this was reported to the Lower House, and Mr Seddon was accused of being uinvishful of seeing an agreement arrived at. A fresh Conference was asked for, but on October Bth the Managers again reported that they could not agree. Again there was a long discussion, and to bring the matter to a clear and definite issue Mr Saunders moved: That in the opinion of this House the amendments in the Electoral Bill that are still insisted upon by the Legislative Council are not of sufficient importance to justify the rejection of such a large Constitutional measure, affecting so largely the full and equal politic and just representations of all classes and conditions of the New Zealand populations. The motion was lost and with it all hope of the enfranchisement of women in the session of 1802.—\V. S. S.