MONDAY, MAY 2, 1892. THE FEMALE FRANCHISE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4102, 2 May 1892, Page 2

MONDAY, MAY 2, 1892. THE FEMALE FRANCHISE.

It has often been remarked that Ne Zealand is made (be stalking-hor, for nearly every kind of Bentinienti radicalism. In tbe credulous eagei ness with which new nostrums for.tl improvement of the body' politic ai taken up and tried, our little color resembles the United States > America; but here the resemblam ends. The United States can—for time-Btand an almost limi.tlei amount of foolish and experiment law-making, so vast are the reoupen tivo powers of that magnificei country; but among ourselves a vei short term of reckless legislation wi make itself disastrously felt. Yi some of our politicians, Mazeppa-likt urge on their wild career, regardlei ot consequences; and no one can te what new nonsense will find its w« into the Statute' book enlarged an revised by a" Liberal" Ministry, • The advocaoy of Female Franchii is now the fashion in the Welhngto Parliament; and unhappily it drati its patrons from both sides of th House, It is unsafe to impute mo tives; but when we see an anciet like Sir John Hall gravely arguing i favour of it, we ; cannot smother th suspicion tbat this gentleman i throwing a sop to Cerberus, and seel ing the suffrages of the six-momht resident radical voter in em rathe than of the female politician in poss Be this, however, as it may, the Fe male Franchise looms darkly upon ui It has left the region of abstract di: cussion, and come down into th arena of near probabilities. We imagine that Mr Gladston will not be charged with excessiv Conservatism; yet Mr Gladstone hp just said that he does not favour an such proposal as this, inasmuch as i requires further discussion, Anothe instance of our superiority over th representatives of an effete old-worl civilization! Our New, Zealan Premier is prepared to support tb measure "bald-headed") and M Lee-Smith, the Ministerial pe who is standing for the Bruce con stituency al this moment, of cours commits himself to the sam sapient declaration, Let us examin the question a little, from the stand point of our own despised conserva tism. If we fail to startle our reader with the originality of our remarks it will be because the consideration which we have to offer are bo ob vjouslv true tbat writers all over tin world must have given expression ti them. "' ! ' In the first place, then, it is a fallac; to regard this proposed enfranchise ment as in any respect a gift or i kindness to :women. So far fron beni(?ag!ft,jtJG i a positive robbery For it is an attempt to rob pqp o the position which men's instinct l)a accorded to them in all ages; a position which has its cares and respon< sibilitiesj its toil and its dignity; a position whjch has always claimec thechiyalrous sew °ftbe fltrongei sex. Therealajmoftlieprpposiil is not the enfranchisement of women its object is rather to proclaim there the absolute equals of men in every way. The franchise is only a detail, a sido issue, a, means of asserting something further.' Wo take upon ourselves to say that this proclamation of equality is sheer nonsense, The difference of physical .environ; ment which exists between the sexes W$ to.illustrate the essential' dserenoe whioh must always exist between 'tjfiejr intendeij functions. Man is, has been, and will continue io be, the Protector and the Food«producer, To woman. belongs the work of making the home; and we need scarcely stop to .argue that into ia a "anc! .complete in itself.' This 'principle is ibsplute.; and it is untouched by any reference to tl\e remarkable women whose names are studded her.e'and there oyer tjja pagfl of history. Such criti« cism of bur prjnrjnlfl' .is just as.valueh?S3 as any comparison whioh may be instituted between the

mental capacity of men and women' For example, it is often asked by captiousadvooates of "Women's Bights," " Why should not the various professions be thrown open to women ?" " "Why, indeed?" we may reply. There can be no particular objeotion to such a course; in point of fact, women already oocupy the field side by side with men, in oallings connected with Literature, Art, Mubic, and the like; and the cry is still 'they come.' But while, in tht abstract, such a state of things call; for no reprehension, it may safely bs inid that if women as a whole embarked on a course of rivalry to mer in all their ordinary oallings, thej would presently find themselvei over-weighted. Speaking broadly thesß things are not really woman'i sphere; and no amount of legislatioi can alter facts. But to return to this specifio pro posal to enfranchise our sweetheart; and wives. It might be pertinentl; enquired whether women themselvei are asking for this magnificent booi —asking for it, that is, in significant numbers and under the sanction'o I weighty names. But if ; we dwelt 01 this point, we might, be informei that petitions for the parliament^ vote are at present being signed b; lots of ladies in the Wairarapa—am we do not care to hint that such peti tionslacksoraethingofimpressivenes! But let us prooeed to say—and tin friends of female franchise may mak the most of the admission—that ther is no logical inconsistency in givin votes to New Zealand women sine we have long »go, for ou Bins, accepted the manhood su£ rage in this polony. We quit agree that the voting of a woman undesirable though we oonsider it, i at least no more objectionable tlm the voting of a swagger who has bee shearing or acting as" wood-anc water Joey" for six months in pastoral district, or the voting of public house loafer who has for si months been the pest of tb pavement in a town. • This journi has always contended for a proper) qualification, do matter how smal We have always maintained that tl man who has his little bit of land, it be only an eighth-of-an-aoi building section, has a'direct mierei in the good government of the Colon; which is wholly lacking. to tl: resideMially-qualified voter. Butt all events the parliamentary franchii should be limited to women who ai widows or spinsters paying taxes. '. the enfranchisement of women based upon the argument that thei should be" no taxation without repr sentation,." the reply is easy that i this case the ordinary manied.woma is'exoluded from any right to the frai chise and the proposal to enfranchii women other that tax-payers mu take its stand upon wholly differei grounds. Nevertheless, as we have alreac intimated, mostof theseconsideratioi are of the nature of side-issues. Tl principle which they seek to cmboc is itself faulty. Men and women ai not" equal "—and theyneveroan h Proclaim them so by Act of Parlit ment, aud still you will find that tl supposed " equality" is not inconsi tent with utter diversity of gifts an callings and functions. Finally, if it is said that women ai not allowed sufficiently tb influent publio opinion, we answer with a possible emphasis that this is a mil take. They : do influence publ opinion—although they do not stati in the glare of politics or mix wit mobs, By graces of dispositio which they would lose if they gave.u their own line of life for ours, the are ever forming a high standard i character for men to'aspire to, no as in all ages. We take it that tl mothers of the ancient Greeks' a') Romans were not" enfranchised;" yi Greeks and Romans could call tl world to witness how they had bee inspired with lofty ideals and educe ted in patriotism and manliness 1 the women of their homes.