# Outlines of the women's franchise movement in New Zealand/Chapter 8

CHAPTER VIII.
UNDAUNTED by the successful hostility of the Legislative Council, the Franchise department of the W.C.T.U. redoubled its efforts. Mrs Sheppard still remained at the helm, and was ably assisted by the district and local superintendents, viz., Miss Strange, Invercargill; Miss Nichol, Dunedin; Mrs Ward, Kaiapoi; Miss Bignell, Hokitika; Mrs Plimmer and Miss Dalrymple, Wellington; Mrs Troy, Napier, and Mis Daldy, Auckland. Nor was the W.C.T.U. left to continue the struggle unaided. The educative work of previous years ​had begun to tell, and the Franchise Leagues in Auckland and Dunedin and the Women's Institute in Christchurch, all of which were established during this year (1892), became valuable allies. A fresh petition was prepared and circulated, and such zeal was shown that when the sheets were collected and prepared for presentation to Parliament it was found that no fewer than 20,274 signatures had been obtained, the Otago district, as on the last occasion, taking first place with 7,088 names. To a large extent this fine record for Otago was due to the harmonious working of the local superintendent with the President of the Dunedin Women's Franchise League, ​Mrs 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 H. S. Fish, the arch-opponent of Woman Suffrage in the House of Representatives, this year found his Waterloo. An able man, with great pugnacity, Mr Fish had been most successful in obtaining civic honours, and this year aspired to the Mayoral chair. His candidature was strongly supported by the liquor trade and the opponents of the enfranchisement of women. A coalition was formed of the Franchise League and the various temperance organisations to oppose him, and after a most ​exciting struggle Mr Fish met with a crushing defeat.
In Parliament the question was the most absorbing one of the session. The House met on June 23rd. Sir John Hall had prepared a Bill, but finding that Mr Ballance had included Woman Suffrage in the Electoral Bill it was decided that it would be better to support the Government measure.
On July 1st, Mr Ballance moved the second reading of the Electoral Bill. He explained that the most important feature of the Bill was that it proposed to confer the Franchise on women. The Government had resolved that this should form part of the measure and desired to see it become law during that ​session. They had left out what might be considered a part of woman's franchise, namely, that women should become members of that House. Personally, he was not at all opposed to going the whole length. If they gave the Franchise to women, and if there were women capable of sitting 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 had so long agitated the minds of members would be settled once and for ever by granting the Franchise. The question was strongly opposed by Messrs Rolleston, Fish, and Scobie Mackenzie, and as strongly advocated by Mr Saunders and ​Sir John Hall. The latter drew attention to the means which had been adopted in procuring signatures to a petition against Woman Suffrage which had been presented by Mr Fish. Canvassers had been employed and had been paid so much per hundred names, and many had been induced to sign by representations that this was a petition in favour of the Franchise. Sir John went on to say that the right of petition was a sacred one and ought to be carefully guarded, but the means of obtaining signatures should be carefully watched. The Bill passed its second reading the same day. On the motion for going into committee on July 5th, Mr Fish ​indulged in a most verbose attack on the Franchise question, with such numerous extracts from books, magazines, and newspapers as to enhance his established reputation for industry. Mr Saunders and others, however, provided weightier metal, and his attack failed. In the passage of the Bill 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 immediately enfranchise women.
Proving unsuccessful, an assault was made during the third reading, Mr Fish joining in with ​much vigour. The opposition was, however, fruitless, and the Bill was read a third time on August 31st. In the Legislative Council the opponents did not wait for the Bill. On July 13th, the Hon. R. Oliver presented the first 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 paper 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 Bill 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 Bill the Minister in charge—Sir P. A. Buckley—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. The Hons R. Oliver, W. 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 woman." This ungallant motion was, however, lost and the Bill was read a third time on Sept. 27th. Unfortunately, among other alterations, the Council had added a new clause to the Bill which gave women the option of voting through the post office by 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. To 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 failed to agree. A heated debate arose when this was reported to the Lower House, and Mr Seddon was accused of being unwishful of seeing an agreement arrived at. A fresh Conference was asked for, but on October 8th, 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 1892.