Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/216

 for the colony. Up to this time, although the subject was coming gradually to the front, it was not well received by the public, and the harder the suffragists worked, the stronger grew the opposition. In 1887 the opponents, instead of being apathetic, were decidedly hostile. This hostility did not come so much from men as from women, large numbers of whom regarded the proposal with shuddering dread, as if they knew not what shocking consequences would arise. It began to be thought that if the extension of the franchise was made, the “women’s vote,” which, it was believed, would be a solid reality, would go strongly for the Temperance Party, and this, while it raised some friends, also raised many enemies who otherwise did not care much whether women received the franchise or not.

Mrs. Sheppard communicated with Mr. Saunders and took steps to organise all the forces in the colony. Literary and debating societies, synods, assemblies, and church unions were asked to give the subject prominence on their programmes, and the publicity afforded by the columns of the daily newspapers was taken full advantage of. “There were numbers of good men and true,” says a writer who took part in the campaign, “who, by voice and pen, heartily supported the courageous women; chief among them were Mr. Saunders and Sir John Hall; both were veteran politicians, usually on opposite sides of the House, both were full of years, and both had long and honourable records of public service; the prestige of their names gave weight and influence to the movement, their great experience rendered them invaluable advisers, and their unselfish co-operation and generous advocacy lifted the question high above mere party politics.”

The year 1890 saw the colony listening to many public debates on the subject. Early in the session of that year, Sir John Hall was again in front of the movement with a motion in the House, simply affirming the right of women to vote at the election of members of Parliament. The motion was seconded by the Hon. W. P. Reeves, who described himself as a “halfloaf” man. As a liberal, Mr. Reeves believed in equality of rights, but he thought that the franchise should be given to