S.A. Register 11 July 1894 p3 ef

Parliament
Adult Suffrage Bill

Second reading.

The CHIEF SECRETARY moved the second reading. Women were offered the same privileges as men, except that they could not sit in Parliament.

The HON. D. M. CHARLESTON Is not that cowardly?

The CHIEF SECRETARY said that logically the women might also be allowed a seat in Parliament, but that would perhaps be too great a reform to propose all at once. John Stuart Mill had said that the legal subordination of one sex to another should be replaced by a principle of perfect equality. It was not long before that declaration would be accepted in every civilized country in the world and he might almost leave the Bill to stand on that declaration. Many of the objections taken to the Bill were superficial. The propertied classes, as they always had in English history, resisted this reform. Mr. Kidd, in his recent profound work on "Social Evolution," said the classes had always at first opposed measures which they afterwards defended and justified. Having rapidly reviewed the legislative history of the movement in South Australia, the Chief Secretary asked Mr. Warren why if it was right to give women with property a vote those who had no property should not equally with the men who had no property have a vote. What had property to do with the simple declaration of right and justice. A man might be dissolute and worthless and yet would have a vote, while a noble woman had none. It had been said that women were mentally inferior to men, too emotional, and too easily impressed to be trusted with the vote.

The HON. A. R. ADDISON They cannot touch pitch without being defiled.

The CHIEF SECRETARY The hon. member says' politics is pitch.

The HON. A. R. ADDISON Yes.

The CHIEF SECRETARY Then the sooner some purifying influence was introduced, the better. The old notion of women's inferiority to men except on the lowest plane of mere brute force was exploded. There were now many exceedingly clever women in the world, hundreds of them were professors, and a lady had been known to beat the senior wrangler at Cambridge. It had been claimed that the woman's sex should debar her from voting, but Mr. Higginson had argued that should be a reason for giving her a vote because it gave her a distinct interest in life. To say that if a woman differed in politics from her husband would break up the home argued a poor conception of the harmony and unity which should exist between husband and wife. There probably the greatest harmony where there was intelligent difference of opinion rather than the slavish admission of the woman. Some said to allow a woman to vote would take off her pedestal. Fudge! Everywhere women had to fight for their bare lives alongside men without interfering with their delicacy of character. It could not therefore be derogatory to their delicacy to give them a vote. It was said women should not vote because they were noncombatants, but what had that to do with the voting? It was no argument against granting the franchise that the women of South Australia had not asked for it; but leaders of women everywhere had asked for it, and the ladies in South Australia who had asked for it were not behind their sisters in intellect and in the philanthropic directions where women most shone. (Hear, hear.) No doubt it was that long ages of disuse had brought about in the minds of women a condition of atrophy of the desire to mingle in politics. It was the smallest conception of women's destiny to say she should stay at home. With Princess Ida he would say it were better to have two heads in council. The strongest argument for the Bill was that of experience. It had been bought into existence in many countries with the best results, and latest of all in New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) It could not be otherwise. The advent of women into politics was not likely to have other than a purifying effect.

On the motion of the Hon. E. WARD the debate was adjourned till next day.

S.A.Register 13 July 1894 p3 f

Parliament
Adult Suffrage Bill

Adjourned debate on the second reading.

The Hon. J. J. DUNCAN regretted that the Government had not proposed a more comprehensive consolidating electoral measure. The speech of the Chief Secretary was more of the character of a speech which might have been made to ladies after a tea party than to a legislative assembly. There was nothing in it. The question should be dealt with by hard facts and not poetical effusions. He was not opposed to some such measure if properly safeguarded. The Bill was illogical in saying that women while having the vote should not be allowed to sit in Parliament. It classed women with convicts and lunatics and insulted them. Now if all women were to have votes the Legislative Council qualification would be reduced if a man and woman who occupied a house worth £25 a year each had a vote. Would both have a vote, or if only one which would be regarded as the occupier? If the vote was given to the women it might be advisable to consider whether they should be given facilities to post by letter instead of making them elbow their way through crowds of rough men on election day. He would like to see the Absent Voters Act extended considerably, so that settlers in country districts, who now found it difficult to vote might do so through post. It was true that women could vote on Corporations and District Councils, but it was notorious that few of them voted.

The CHIEF SECRETARY I have been Mayor of a Corporation in which nearly all of the women voted. (Laughter.)

The Hon. J. J. DUNCAN said that while the Constitution Act was being amended they might seek to subdivide the present Legislative Council divisions, which were now too unwieldy.

The Hon. D. M. CHARLESTON Introduce the HareSpence system.

The Hon. J. J. DUNCAN did not understand it. Women's suffrage had never been before the country. The opinion of the constituencies should be obtained before such a departure was made. He would ask did not those who proposed women's suffrage really admit that the present method of Government had been incompetent and incomplete, and that they wanted women in Parliament in order that they might have a better, more stable, more reliable, more honest, and more straightforward Parliament? (Laughter and cheers.) If so he felt almost inclined to vote for women's suffrage.

On the motion of the Hon. J. L. STIRLING the debate adjourned till July 17.

S.A.Register 18 July 1894 7 a b

Parliament
Adult Suffrage Bill

Second reading.

The Hon. J. L. STIRLING said the debate should be removed from the field of poetry which had been associated with it by the Chief Secretary. If women were to have the franchise the halo of romance and the region of poetry which so long surrounded womankind would to a certain extent be under a cloud, for they as well as mankind must be prepared to take their part in the severer struggle of life. Was the giving of the franchise to women going to reestablish industries in the colony, to make the finances satisfactory, and put the colony on a pedestal of posterity? It might lead to the return of purer men, but that might be at the expense of the country, because it might be that some men who would not be commended to the instincts of women had commercial knowledge which would be of advantage in legislation. The giving of the franchise to women would not have any immediate and practical effect. The franchise should not be extended to any more women than those who owing to their position and duties and life had the intelligence to use the franchise properly. Now, did 10 per cent. of the women have the knowledge of politics and the intelligent interest in them to justify the vote being given them?

The Hon. Dr. MAGAREY How many men have?

The Hon. J. L. STIRLING No doubt many had not. Then let them correct the error as far as the women were concerned. He would ask married men how often their wives discussed politics. If they had to there would be a rather large thorn which would be constantly scratching the domestic harmony. Nature had imposed cares and responsibilities upon women which would prevent them always exercising their privileges if they took part in politics, and they should not be invited to do so unless those responsibilities could be removed. Now if the Bill were carried at all it should also allow women to enter Parliament. Women did not want to vote. The majority of them were content to be represented by household suffrage. If women voted their votes would be a cause of frequent friction between husband and wife. A man might say, "You vote for Soandso," and she would say, "Oh no; he is not a good man, and does not support temperance." If she votes the other way to him there would be ructions. (Laughter.)

The Hon. D. M. CHARLESTON Then the man would not be worthy of the vote himself.

The Hon. J. L. STIRLING Mr. Charleston was in the clouds again. They had to deal with men as they were, not as they ought to be. The plea for woman's suffrage had followed closely on the temperance question, which was a question of sentiment rather than a practical one. A woman's place was in the home. The children were her population, and the home her world. It was a noble duty for a woman, and sufficient to occupy her time.

The Hon. D. M. CHARLESTON Will not those duties prepare her better to exercise the vote?

The Hon. J. L. STIRLING was anxious to save the women trouble. They did not want to interfere with politics, but were content to trust their husbands. The Chief Secretary had quoted John Stuart Mill, but the writer was perverted by the influence of a woman. He would oppose the Bill.

The Hon. Dr. MAGAREY said the temperance question was not one of sentiment. If it were promoted it would stimulate industry more than any measure Mr. Stirling could propose, because at present much money was wasted on drink which might be better invested. The promotion of industry and commerce was not the highest duty of legislators. They should try to promote the happiness, peace, and contentment of the race. Mr. Stirling said women had not the capacity to vote properly, but as a matter of fact the ability of women was rapidly forcing them into commercial life, and they would more and more enter into competition with men. Was a test of physical power to decide whether women should have a vote? Was education to then decide? If so how would some men fare under an educational test? There was talk of a pedestal. Members would drag women who had property off that pedestal to vote; but why should they drag some women off the pedestal and leave others on it? Mr. Basedow said women should remain in the home and in the kitchen, in which case he supposed the camp oven was the pedestal. (Laughter.) If home duties disqualified women from voting, then the man who got up at 2 a.m. to walk the floor with the baby should be disqualified. (Laughter.) Even if the admission of women into politics would be a disturbing factor that was no reason why they should not be admitted. Mr. Stirling said women had enough to do to look after children, but a man lacked in his duty if he handed over to his wife the entire control of his children. It was said pitch could not be touched without defilement, but they wanted to raise the pitch of politics so that it could be meddled with without defilement.

The Hon. A. R. ADDISON At the expense of women.

The Hon. Dr. MAGAREY said women already concerned themselves with all strata of society, and went into the slums to do good, and there the pitch is blacker than that of Parliament. Opponents of the Bill had not come to the gist of the whole question, "Had women a right to vote?" They claimed the vote as a right as much as men, who had grasped the vote because they had the power. As soon as women could exercise enough power to demand the vote they should have it. Men had no more inherent right to the vote than women had. If women had the vote the commercial element which surrounded the liquor traffic would vanish; but even if women voted against the temperance question he would give them the vote as a right. There was nothing in the argument that the giving of the vote to women would cause disturbances in the home. Did it cause a disturbance if father and son in the one house voted for different candidates? There was undoubtedly a world for women and a world for men, and the world of women should be represented.

On the motion of the Hon. J. WARREN the debate was adjourned till next day.

S.A. Register 25 July 1894 p3 c d

Parliament
Adult Suffrage Bill

Adjourned debate on the second reading.

The Hon. J. WARREN said the speech of the Chief Secretary on the question was a jumble of misconstruction, of meaningless sentences, quotations foreign to the subject, and arrogant and uncalled for language. Mill, instead of being for adult suffrage as the Chief Secretary had said, was altogether against it. He did not agree with Mr. Kidd's condemnation of the Conservative classes, who had always been generous to the classes below them. These classes had been fighting for freedom from the chains Unions had cast about them. Mr. Gordon quoted a good deal of poetry which had nothing to do with the question. Goldwin Smith, an American writer, contended that this question should be put to the constituencies which would not be subject to such influences as individual legislators. The Professor contended that the granting of the suffrage would mean the abdication of man, and the handing over of his power to women. There was a large majority of women in the Central District of South Australia at least, and if the suffrage were extended, women at the next elections would sweep the boards. Women took matters into their hands at Moonta once and drove men away from the engines to prevent them going back to work. What would not those women do now to bring back those piping times? Now, should all the women in factories and shops, women who did not know their political alphabets, be suddenly given the franchise? Worse still, under the Bill the poor creatures of Rosina street and Light square would be able to vote, and might aspire to the position of President of the Legislative Council. It would be unspeakably wrong. He utterly denied that the Women's Suffrage League represented the women of South Australia.

The Hon. E. WARD Not one tenth of them.

The Hon. J. WARREN said they were honest, straightforward, wellmeaning women (Hear, hear) but they were not representative. The majority of the women had not asked for the extension of the suffrage.

The CHIEF SECRETARY Silence means consent with the women always.

The Hon. J. WARREN said so far the granting of the suffrage had not been of great advantage to New Zealand. It was not a right but a privilege which this Bill proposed to extend. Women in the country might be able to carry it out, but he doubted whether those in the city would attempt to force their way through the riffraff who gathered round the pollingbooth on election day. If the suffrage were to be granted to women at all it should not be rushed upon them. Women of property should have it first, and when it was found to work well with them it might be extended to those qualified by age. Women's suffrage had not progressed in America, not even in Wyoming, where it was first tried twentyfour years ago. The present time considering the conditions of the colony was not one to experiment to polish the brasses or burnish the panels. All attention should be devoted to trying to stop the leak and increase our exports. The Bill would double the number of electors which would entail considerable expense, and that was not advisable now. Before such a Bill was passed the vote of the country should be taken.

The Hon. J. G. BICE complimented the Chief Secretary on his speech, which contained elements of solid logic, inspiring lines of poetry, and argument and humour blended into a harmonious whole, which would make any opposition nothing but the last wail of a lost chord. He was glad there were no restrictions in this Bill such as had killed former measures. Wyoming, which had been mentioned was in the back blocks, and yet the administration of justice, was purer there than in any other State of America. In other States women's suffrage had only been defeated by narrow majorities. In AustroHungary women could vote for all public officers and for members of local Legislatures. In many other places the suffrage was more or less granted to women. Women did not trust their male friends politically. The law gave men all the advantages even the marriage contract was all in their favour. The garroter was flogged, but who ever heard of the wife beater being flogged? Such things showed how men had carried out the trust they had reposed in themselves to make laws. There was some show of reason in the argument that women did not understand politics, but the policy of men had been to prevent women becoming competent to vote. If women could vote the number of voters would increase in the North compared with the increase nearer the city, and if that meant that the North became more proportionately represented it would be a good thing.

The Hon. Dr. CAMPBELL would support the Bill, but to some extent he would be a freelance. A halo of idealism surrounded most questions, but there was also a concrete side. The Chief Secretary had thrown a halo of beauty round this very concrete subject, while the opponents of the measure had adopted a chivalrous tone. This proposal partook of the nature of a leap in the dark, and the foundation should therefore be made as solid as possible. (Hear, hear.) John Stuart Mill, although refusing the franchise to women started by admitting that women had equal rights with men. He was surprised that the capitalistic classes opposed the Bill. By admitting women to the roll things would largely remain as they are in the House of Assembly, for the large number of spinsters and widows, would not be likely to vote for extreme measures. The increase of voting power would really come in the Legislative Council, and he believed the balance would go to the Conservatives. It was said that women when they had the opportunity would mainly use their influence for temperance. Women, however, laboured under other disabilities than that of a drunken husband. When they had the vote they would try to improve their opportunities of living. They would seek for freedom of culture and freedom of vocation.

The Hon. A. R. ADDISON They have freedom now.

The Hon. Dr. CAMPBELL Only to an extent.

The Hon. E. WARD What more do they want?

The Hon. Dr. CAMPBELL thought that in every direction of culture woman should have as much freedom as the man who stood by her side. She should also have absolute freedom of vocation.

The Hon E. WARD What is there she cannot be if she like?

The Hon. Dr. CAMPBELL said woman as well as man had to support others. She was not now admitted to any trade or sphere she sought. He hoped the employers and the Labour party alike would grant women full freedom of vocation.

The Hon. W. A. ROBINSON If they give women the same wages as man we will not object.

The Hon. Dr. CAMPBELL would not prevent women sitting in Parliament. Where freedom had already been granted to women they had shown that they deserved it. Woman, could not take her full share of responsibility in legislation if she was merely restricted by voting.

The Hon. E. WARD said there were physical and physiological considerations which his modesty prevented him treating as they deserved in the presence of such an audience which were of importance. Members were there to share to defend the Constitution, which the Bill assailed. Would the present assailment tend for reform?

The CHIEF SECRETARY Yes.

The Hon. E. WARD Would it not corrupt and destroy?

The Hon. W. RUSSELL It will purify.

The Hon. E. WARD said the bulwarks of the Constitution were threatened. They were asked to set aside the accumulated experience of ages. At the demand of whom?

The Hon. W. RUSSELL Of the electors.

The Hon. E. WARD Nonsense. The demand came from a lot of fanatics and faddists who called themselves social reformers, and who assumed to represent the will of the country, but who were not merely a few females who were not feminine, as he had once described them, but were associated with and supported by a few males who were not masculine. (Laughter.) The vaunted democracy dare not trust itself, or the referendum would be again proposed in connection with this proposal. The speech of the Chief Secretary was calculated to afford a pleasant hour's entertainment to the special gallery it was addressed to, only the rules of the Council prevented muffins, crumpets, tea, and cake being handed round afterwards. No such speech could justify such a gross violation of existing electoral rights as the Bill proposed. The present electors had no desire to have their rights swamped by an antagonistic influence. Members had no desire to vote those rights away. Recently he quoted from Genesis against woman's suffrage, but was sneered at by an unfeminine female and equally unChristian, who repudiated the idea that we were to be bound by the ideas which prevailed 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. Would she also repudiate what Paul said in l Timothy v. 10, 11? The description given of young widows was a splendid description of political agitators. If they followed the advice Paul gave them they might with more reason claim the right to vote. The best reform which could be undertaken would be to reform the mistaken female political agitators. There was a splendid field for a philanthropist. (Laughter.) The logical deduction of the extension of the franchise would be that women would get into Parliament. Then, as a friend said to him, when he (Mr. Ward) remarked "the men would have to stay home and nurse," there would be no babies to nurse. It would play into the hands of Malchusianism, which he did not believe in. One of the great arguments used for the extension of the franchise was that it would lead to temperance legislation. No country had gained by placing prohibitory law on its Statutebook. True reform of the Constitution would not be gained by doubling the voting power by giving the vote to women who did not understand politics. To give time for further consideration and investigation he moved as an amendment to make the motion read

That the Bill be referred to a Commission to be appointed, comprising members of both Houses of Legislature for investigation and report, and specifically upon the following questions:

l. What practical evidence, if any, is there of a desire on the part of a majority of the electors of either or both Houses of the Legislature that the Constitution they possess should be altered in the manner proposed by this Bill?

2. Where else if anywhere, in the British dominions does a similar, or approximately similar, system prevail as proposed in the Bill?

3. And if anywhere what have been the practical experiences and results thereof?

The Hon. A. A. KIRKPATRICK secured the adjournment of the debate till July 3l.