Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1891. FEMALE FRANCHISE.

Judging by present appearance, the franchise will be extended to women before very long. There is a large majority in favor of it in the House of Representatives, and it will be carried through that Chamber this session unless it meets with unforseen obstruction, such as the stonewalling which resisted the efforts of the late Government to disfranchise one-forth of the citizens of oiir large centres of population. But after the Female Franchise Bill has passed the Lower House it has still to run the gaunlet in the Legislative Council, and there we are told the majority •are against it, and it will be thrown out. The grounds on which the Legislative Council objects to extending the franchise to women is, that the question has never been submitted to the people of the colony, and that consequently it would be unfair for the representatives of the people to carry such a large measure of reform without giving the electors an opportunity of voting for or against it. This is a plausible, but fallocious, argument. Unless the Swiss referendum system is applied to it, the electors would not have an opporiunity of saying whether they approve or disapprove of the proposals. For instance, let us suppose that there are two candidates before the Geraldine constituency next election, one favouring the present Government, and the other opposing it. One favours female franchise, the other oppose* it, but the electors will look on the general policy instead of the one item of it. Will the Conservatives throw over, their candidates because he is opposed to extending the franchise to woman? Certainly not- In the same way will the Liberals reject their candidate because he favors female franchise ? Will they reject a whole policy because of one item in it ? They will not, and therefore to submit to the electors is all nonsense. We have elected representatives and it, is their duty to do the best they can for all classes. Why, then, should they not extend the franchise to women, as well as they do other things ? But who are to be consulted ? are women themselves to be consulted ? Hither-to they have been, kept in political slavery, and if the question is to be referred to the electors at all, the women ought to have a voibe in deciding whether they are to be admitted to the franchise or not. We do not think therefore, that the objection of the Legislative Council is at all tangible. The question has for many years been before the couniry, and the public showed no other feelings than indifference with regard to it- Sir Julius Vogel carried a Billon the subject through its second reading six years ago, and ever since Sir John Hall has worked persistently At it. The same Bill again passed its second reading two or three/ years- ago, and now WO find an overwhelming majority in Parliament in favor of it. What does this signify, but that the public are in favor of it ? Compare this with the question of Denominational Education, the supporters of which are getting fewer every year, because the people do not believe in it. It is therefore plain that the time has , arrived for extending the franchise to women, and consequently, although hitherto opposed to it, we are now ready to accept it, let the consequences be what they may. We have opposed the measure on one ground only, and that ground was this; wo are afraid : that the poorer classes of women would not take the trouble of voting, and knowing full well the wealthy classes would talf® advantage of it wo feared it would result in a preponderance of power being extended to wealth. We have, however, reason to believe that this is a mistaken idea, and that poor women would be very glad to get an opportunity of voting with the view of effecting many, social reforms which affect themselves. As we are in favor of these reforms, and as we believe much good would result from them, we unhesitatingly give in our adhesion to the female franchise principle, and we therefore it will soon be carried into law.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TEML18910822.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Temuka Leader, Issue 2244, 22 August 1891, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
703

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1891. FEMALE FRANCHISE. Temuka Leader, Issue 2244, 22 August 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1891. FEMALE FRANCHISE. Temuka Leader, Issue 2244, 22 August 1891, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert