Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/206

 to follow the granting of the franchise; and they decided that the franchise clause should form part of the new Electoral Bill, partly prepared by Mr. Ballance.

Mr. Ballance believed that women should have the right to sit in Parliament, and he was favourable to that privilege being granted them, as he saw no reason why women, as well as men, should not frame the country’s legislation. It was quite useless, however, to expect Parliament to go as far as that.

In 1891, the proposal to extend the franchise to women was carried in the House by a majority of about three to one, but it was rejected in the Legislative Council by two votes. Mr. Seddon’s Government, therefore, argued that the proposal, having been sanctioned by the representative chamber, had received the consent of the country and ought to become law without any delay.

The Electoral Bill passed through the House with ease in 1892, but in the Council, which had thrown out the new franchise without reservation in 1891, there was a clause inserted that women, instead of going to the polls to vote, should record their votes privately by the exercise of electors’ rights, on the same system as was allowed to seamen and shearers, that is, virtually, by letter. The Council, in its reported arguments, at any rate, expressed a belief that women would not go to the polls in the rain and bad weather. Councillors said that it was unreasonable to ask women in the country districts to ride twelve or fifteen miles to record their votes, and that women who were employed in factories would not have time to attend the polls and wait for their turn for recording their votes, and they should therefore be allowed to vote by letter.

Mr. Seddon, in Mr. Ballance’s absence, was in charge of the House in September 28th, 1892, when the amendment of the Electoral Bill, proposed by the Legislative Council, to allow women to vote by electors’ rights, was sent down, and he said at once that he would not advise the House to agree with it. He moved that the House should disagree, and the House formally decided that it was not desirable to do as the Council wished, as the proposal, if carried, would place disabilities in the way of