THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1893. THE FEMALE FRANCHISE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2547, 26 August 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1893. THE FEMALE FRANCHISE.

The Female Franchise clause of the Electoral Bill is, according to well informed authorities, in danger of being rejected in the Legislative Council. One of the members of the Council said, according to the correspondent of the Lyttelton Times, that he voted for the Female Franchise clause last year because he thought it would embarrass the Government, hut now he found that the Government were in earnest in their desire to get it passed, and he consequently would vote the other way. Now could any woman, old or young, do worse than this, and yet this is a member of our House of Lords. It is men like this who object to female franchise—men who certainly are not fit to exercise the franchise themselves. The objections which are raised against extending the franchise to women is really frivolous and absurd. The great objection is that it is woman’s business to mind her house and household duties, that meddling in politics will rob her of womanly modesty, and so on. If to draw her pencil across the name of H. IS. Fish, Juur., of Dunedin, and the likes of him once every three years will make her neglect her household duties and destroy her womanly modesty she must not be worth much. We do not expect that women will hunt candidates for Parliament into public houses, and make them pay for their drinks as some men do, we do not expect women will sell their votes for a pint of beer as some men do, nor indulge in rotten-egging, and so on. We hope they will not belie, slander, and vilify the opposition candidate as men do, nor resort to the other mean and shady artifices which men employ in an election campaign. Women will do nothing of this kind. The greatest dissipation in which a woman will indulge in connection with politics is in some instances to go to a public meeting once a year to hear the representative of the district give an account of his stewardship, to attend a meeting or two at the time of the general election, and to go to the poll to record her vote. The man who begrudges this much relaxation to his wife, is certainly mean and contemptible, and if he thinks this ft ill spoil her he has a very poor opiaion of her. Seventy five per cent, of women will not go to public meetings, nor do anything else in connection with politics, except to record their votes, and surely an hour, two hours, or three hours thus spent once every three years will not spoil women. The objection is simply idiotic. There is another objection, viz., that it will cause differences between husband and wife. It will not except in households where differences already exist, but even there it does not necessarily follow that they need quarrel over the choice of a candidate. The ballot box exists, and both of them can there choose their candidate. But why should not a woman have a vote as well as a man. She is subject to the same laws, and she must obey them as well as a man. Then why should she not have a voice in making them ? To deny it to her is inconsistent with the one-man one-vote franchise. Under this franchise man is given a vote because he is a man, and not because he is either wealthy or poor. All voting power in respect of property is abolished, because property in itself is not capable of exercising a vote. Mountains, plains, cattle, sheep, horses, etc., are not capable of exercising an intelligent discrimination as to the relative merits of candidates, and consequently they are not taken into consideration under the one-man-one-vote franchise. In the old times men got the franchise because they owned property ; now that is changed and they are enfranchised "Uidthey are intelligent human beings 1 !? eC! *' • au intelligent human being ] Is a woman that she is? Will Will any one "’"ao her in the any one attempt to p- - .1, and same category as the cow, the a... the horse? That is exactly what those who oppose the enfranchisement of women do, although of course they would not admit it. There is, therefore, no reason why women should not be enfranchised. She is an intelligent being; she must obey the laws, she must pay taxation on her property, and she lias as good a right to have a voice in the making of those laws, and in how her property must be taxed as a man. There is nothing more repugnant to democratic institutions than taxation withaut representation, and yet men who scream about this, tax women without giving them representation. But ages of misrepresentation have created a prjudice against the enfranchisement of women. For ages men have vied with each in saying smart things about women, some flattering, some the reverse, but without any regard as to accuracy. The real, honest truth is that there is not much difference between men and women. There are silly women and silly men, sensible women and sensible men, clever women and clever men, but taken all round, women are ten times more moral, ten times more honest, ten times more earnest, and ten times better in every respect than men. There is another argument against women being enfranchised, aud it is that the question ought to be submitted to the country. That is as much as to say that it is right to consult the slave masters as to whether they will set free their slaves, for any one who does not possess a vote is a political slave. Whatever way one looks at the question it is right and proper to enfranchise womens and we hope they will soon be placed on an equal footing with men.