The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2026, 11 March 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1907.

A Bill to grant tlio Parliamentary franchise to women has been talked out by the British House of Commons. This is a convenient way that Parliaments have of disposing of any question upon which members do not desire to record their votes for or against, and in view of the determined agitation in favor of the measure recently reported from London, it is open to the supposition that the ladies who waved their umbrellas with determined shouts for the franchise outside the Premier’s offices, have had their effect on the minds of members, for if they have not made converts to their side, they have evidently softened the opposition to their pot political card. This is not surprising, seeing that most members of Parliament are married men, and know the influence of a vehement gamp. But, joking apart, there is no logical reason why women should be excluded from the privileges of the franchise —that is, the majority of women, because Nature has endowed women with the plenitude of her mental gifts to as liberal . a degree as she lias endowed men, and upon mental qualities alone can the best franchise system be, based. There are potent reasons why some women should bo excluded from those privileges, but there are potent reasons also why some men should be excluded, and the absurdity of making age or sex the sole lines of demarcation between those who should and those who should not exercise a vote, must be apparent to every thinking person. The system of manhood suffrage is a socialistic fallacy entirely out of touch with the laws of nature itself, because it bringe every man to the same level in the communal considerations of State, and as nature has not endowed all men equally in mental force, it stands to reason that votes which are, or should be the results of independent and separate reasoning, cannot in the nature of things be of equal value. And yet they are so regarded by the socialistic law of manhood suffrage based upon the principle of “one man one vote” which takes no account of the potential force which women wield in the councils of every nation. In most countries that force is but an indirect one, it is true; nevertheless it is a force that has swayed the destinies of nations away back into prehistoric times, and if women’s mentality is such that it can exercise that influence in an indirect or secondary manner, there seems no reason why it should not be made a direct factor in our constitutional methods of government. Especially as by so doing, the effect would be to extend that influence beyond the limited ranks of courtiers, and to bestow its privileges upon those women who have in so many instances proved their mental superiority to the average man, and the hosts of others who have proved his equals. Socially and ethically there may be reasons why women should not indulge a penchant for politics because of the undesirable .contacts

that are always inovilablo in the aotivo pursuit of that study; hut that is not an argument why the privileges should not be granted, but rather a reason why the undesirable eloments should bo removed, for if it is admitted that politics are not respectable enough for women it is surely desirable that they should bo made so, and the admission of women to the ranks of voters lias done a great deal in this colony to bring about that improvement in the conduct of election campaigns. The real objoetiou to the admission of women us voters is that they arc by nature more emotional than men, and are not prone to divo into the wliys and the wherefores of political questions, but are liable to be swayed by superficial effects, and the candidate who can danglo the bouquets of polities (so to speak) before the eyes of an audience composed of women is tlio candidate who can succeed in a political contest nowadays without going to tlio root of a single political question* Hence it is, probably, that wo have so many men in Parliament today who openly avow that they need not bother' themselves to study political questions as efficient politicians ought to understand them, although the women’s vote may not be the solo cause. But hero again it may he said that this result is not tlio fault of tlio principle, but rather of a neglect on the part of women generally to dive a little more deeply into tho questions of tho day upon which they are nskod every three years at least to give an intelligent ruling through tho ballot-box. How many of. them read tho Parliamentary debates or the editorial commentaries in tho newspapers? But tho real crux of tho question is not whether tlio franchise should bo exercised by a man or woman, but if those who do not t'ako an intelligent interest in the business of tho country should exorcise tho franchise at all, for none but those who devote something more than a casual observance to political questions and principles lean possibly exorcise that franchise with advantage to the country or to the peoplo themselves.