During the new zealand women's suffrage campaign
The women’s suffrage campaign of the 19th century had a myriad of opponents. It was a controversial idea at the time, that resulted in both males and females in society taking a side or stance on the issue. Suffragists felt the presence of females in the political world would actually increase the morality of politics. Anti suffragists argued that politics was outside a woman’s “natural sphere” of home and family life. Suffragists countered this argument by stating that having women voting would encourage policies which “protected and nurtured families.” (29) As such, the women suffragists had to campaign furiously in order to overcome their opponents and achieve their goals.
Kate Sheppard was the head of the franchise and legislation department of the W.C.T.U in New Zealand. This department ran the suffrage campaign. Thus Sheppard played a significant role in the establishment of women’s suffrage in New Zealand.
Sheppard’s campaign methods included handing out pamphlets, writing letters to the press, talking personally to politicians and getting petitions signed. Another method used by the W.C.T.U to gain support involved publishing and distributing leaflets to every member of the House of Representatives, full of reasons why women deserved the right to vote, one of which was “because it has not yet been proved that the intelligence of women is only equal to that of children, nor that their social status is on par with that of lunatics or convicts.” (25) This demonstrates the determination found in the women of the W.C.T.U, and shows just how focused they were on gaining suffrage. These methods were similar to those that were being carried out by overseas movements at the time.
Sheppard also, rather cleverly, made an invaluable tie with John Hall, a politician who led the pro-suffrage group in parliament. John Hall was supportive of the suffrage movement as he believed by supporting the women he was increasing the chances of a Conservative Electoral success. Hall was well informed about the procedures required to pass a legislation through the Assembly and was well respected by all factions. His role as a former Premier added to his reputation.
Hall made insightful suggestions and commented on the proposals of the suffragists. He replied promptly to any letters he received from Kate Sheppard (as well as those he received from the leaders of other women’s groups in New Zealand). He also provided financial support to the suffragists and, on one occasion, printed 1800 copies of his 1890 speech to be given to the House of Representatives. His speech supported enfranchisement of women and was intended to be used as propaganda (yet another method used by suffragists to gain support).
Sheppard also wrote for the Prohibitionist in order to keep New Zealand women up to date with suffrage movements around the world.
Sheppard’s campaign methods included handing out pamphlets, writing letters to the press, talking personally to politicians and getting petitions signed. Another method used by the W.C.T.U to gain support involved publishing and distributing leaflets to every member of the House of Representatives, full of reasons why women deserved the right to vote, one of which was “because it has not yet been proved that the intelligence of women is only equal to that of children, nor that their social status is on par with that of lunatics or convicts.” (25) This demonstrates the determination found in the women of the W.C.T.U, and shows just how focused they were on gaining suffrage. These methods were similar to those that were being carried out by overseas movements at the time.
Sheppard also, rather cleverly, made an invaluable tie with John Hall, a politician who led the pro-suffrage group in parliament. John Hall was supportive of the suffrage movement as he believed by supporting the women he was increasing the chances of a Conservative Electoral success. Hall was well informed about the procedures required to pass a legislation through the Assembly and was well respected by all factions. His role as a former Premier added to his reputation.
Hall made insightful suggestions and commented on the proposals of the suffragists. He replied promptly to any letters he received from Kate Sheppard (as well as those he received from the leaders of other women’s groups in New Zealand). He also provided financial support to the suffragists and, on one occasion, printed 1800 copies of his 1890 speech to be given to the House of Representatives. His speech supported enfranchisement of women and was intended to be used as propaganda (yet another method used by suffragists to gain support).
Sheppard also wrote for the Prohibitionist in order to keep New Zealand women up to date with suffrage movements around the world.
But the main method used by Sheppard, and thus the W.C.T.U, to try and gain women's suffrage involved organising and sending a massive series of petitions to parliament. There was a buildup of support for the New Zealand women’s suffrage movement. In 1887, 350 women signed the petition requesting enfranchisement. In 1880, this number increased to 800 women, and the number of petitions increased to 2. In 1891, more than 9000 women signed no less that eight petitions requesting enfranchisement. In 1892, only a year later, six petitions were signed by over 19,000 women. 1893, thirteen petitions, signed by 32,000 women, were presented to parliament. (13) Some Maori names (from Turua on the Hauraki Plains and from Gisborne) appeared on these thirteen petitions. It appears that there was some Maori involvement in the women’s suffrage campaign, although it does appear minimal.
Thus, numerous facts can be gleaned about the campaign made by women suffragists in 19th century New Zealand.
Firstly, the issue gained momentum and support over time. During the 19th century, society’s views on the matter, and the view of women themselves on whether or not they wished to vote, changed, and for the better--more women 1893, than in 1887, were aware of the significance of being able to vote, as more petitions and signatures were collected in 1893, than in 1887.
Secondly, the majority of the signatures were female. This is important as it exhibits the intelligence of the women suffragists at the time; they were aware that in order to demonstrate to parliament members that New Zealand women (not their husbands, fathers or brothers, who may be construed to have wanted women to vote so that they themselves were given ‘extra votes’) did indeed desire the vote, and would vote if and when given the opportunity, it would have to be mainly women who signed the petitions.
When, in 1893, John Hall presented the members of parliament with the thirteen petitions signed by 32,000 women, the other members were significantly impacted. They began to realize the large number of women who truly desired enfranchisement. Thus the petitions were shown to be effective as they raised questions such as “will it seriously be construed that women don’t want to vote?” (28)
Thus, numerous facts can be gleaned about the campaign made by women suffragists in 19th century New Zealand.
Firstly, the issue gained momentum and support over time. During the 19th century, society’s views on the matter, and the view of women themselves on whether or not they wished to vote, changed, and for the better--more women 1893, than in 1887, were aware of the significance of being able to vote, as more petitions and signatures were collected in 1893, than in 1887.
Secondly, the majority of the signatures were female. This is important as it exhibits the intelligence of the women suffragists at the time; they were aware that in order to demonstrate to parliament members that New Zealand women (not their husbands, fathers or brothers, who may be construed to have wanted women to vote so that they themselves were given ‘extra votes’) did indeed desire the vote, and would vote if and when given the opportunity, it would have to be mainly women who signed the petitions.
When, in 1893, John Hall presented the members of parliament with the thirteen petitions signed by 32,000 women, the other members were significantly impacted. They began to realize the large number of women who truly desired enfranchisement. Thus the petitions were shown to be effective as they raised questions such as “will it seriously be construed that women don’t want to vote?” (28)
Sheppard was held in high esteem by her colleagues, and it is clear why: she possessed formidable organisational, analytical and communication skills. Her admirable leadership qualities enabled her to effectively motivate and direct her women’s suffrage campaigners.
She herself was able to occupy such a critical role in the women’s suffrage campaign due to her unusual relationship with her husband (a businessman). He supported Kate Sheppard 100% and backed her financially as, unlike other men at the time, he did not oppose women’s suffrage. Hence Sheppard, unlike ‘feminia’ for instance, was able to rise to the occasion and become the figurehead for women’s suffrage, as there was nothing, and no one, preventing her from doing so.
She herself was able to occupy such a critical role in the women’s suffrage campaign due to her unusual relationship with her husband (a businessman). He supported Kate Sheppard 100% and backed her financially as, unlike other men at the time, he did not oppose women’s suffrage. Hence Sheppard, unlike ‘feminia’ for instance, was able to rise to the occasion and become the figurehead for women’s suffrage, as there was nothing, and no one, preventing her from doing so.
One of the more significant opponents of women’s suffrage was a woman herself. Mrs Lynn Linton was against enfranchisement of women, and thus was against the idea of the “New Woman”. The “New Woman” was a role model for the suffragists, and much like the “Angel of the House” had once been what women aspired to be, the “New Woman” soon became the new ideal.
Mrs Linton was against the issue as she believed the “New Women” was, wrongfully, more concerned in the affairs of men than needlework. The ‘affairs of men’ refers to politics and the vote, and ‘needlework’ is symbolic of domestic life. Linton devised the term “Shrieking Sisterhood” for the suffragists, a name that ended up being used liberally by anti-suffragists everywhere. (1)
Thus it is apparent that some women did not desire enfranchisement, and did not wish to vote. These women were content with their domestic lives and were unwilling to step to out of the stereotypical behaviour expected of them. This is likely because this behaviour was all they knew and had been brought up to uphold. The “New Woman” was an idea that was more readily adopted by younger women. As such it would generally have been the slightly older, more settled women who found the “New Woman” to be a nonsensical idea thrown about by the ‘foolish’ young.
Mrs Linton was against the issue as she believed the “New Women” was, wrongfully, more concerned in the affairs of men than needlework. The ‘affairs of men’ refers to politics and the vote, and ‘needlework’ is symbolic of domestic life. Linton devised the term “Shrieking Sisterhood” for the suffragists, a name that ended up being used liberally by anti-suffragists everywhere. (1)
Thus it is apparent that some women did not desire enfranchisement, and did not wish to vote. These women were content with their domestic lives and were unwilling to step to out of the stereotypical behaviour expected of them. This is likely because this behaviour was all they knew and had been brought up to uphold. The “New Woman” was an idea that was more readily adopted by younger women. As such it would generally have been the slightly older, more settled women who found the “New Woman” to be a nonsensical idea thrown about by the ‘foolish’ young.
Ultimately, the concept of the “New Woman” was seen in two different lights.
For anti-suffragists, it was a point of ridicule--a woman so besotted with the idea of gaining the vote that she had lost all her feminine qualities. In other words, because women were showing an interest in affairs that before had only been reserved for men, the very femininity and moral fibre of these women was being called into question.
For suffragists, the “New Woman” represented a competent, intelligent and influential lady---no less competent, intelligent or influential than any man. However, she did not shun her role as mother or wife in the process. For the suffragists, the “New Woman” did not necessarily symbolise the abandonment of domestic life, but rather symbolised their hope for the greater opportunities and power that could be available for women, even those with domestic lives, in the future.
As such, the “New Woman” trend was a source of great debate, and was tightly knitted with feminism and enfranchisement during the 1890s.
For anti-suffragists, it was a point of ridicule--a woman so besotted with the idea of gaining the vote that she had lost all her feminine qualities. In other words, because women were showing an interest in affairs that before had only been reserved for men, the very femininity and moral fibre of these women was being called into question.
For suffragists, the “New Woman” represented a competent, intelligent and influential lady---no less competent, intelligent or influential than any man. However, she did not shun her role as mother or wife in the process. For the suffragists, the “New Woman” did not necessarily symbolise the abandonment of domestic life, but rather symbolised their hope for the greater opportunities and power that could be available for women, even those with domestic lives, in the future.
As such, the “New Woman” trend was a source of great debate, and was tightly knitted with feminism and enfranchisement during the 1890s.
While outwardly and, on principle, Premier John Ballance supported women’s suffrage, inwardly he worried that the women’s votes would not lie with the Liberal Government, but rather with their opposition, the Conservatives.
Hence his double mindedness about the matter may have prevented him from truly enabling any bill involving the enfranchisement of women from passing through both the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council, and becoming law.
Hence his double mindedness about the matter may have prevented him from truly enabling any bill involving the enfranchisement of women from passing through both the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council, and becoming law.
In 1878 Robert Stout introduced a Electoral Bill which included a clause to enfranchise women ratepayers. This enabled the debate about women’s suffrage to be entered upon in parliament. The opinions of those in the House of Representatives ranged from those who were “radical reformers” to those who were prepared to grant women the vote (such as Stout), to those who completely refuted the idea. Although the extension of the vote to women ratepayers was accepted in both houses by the majority, the bill ultimately failed to become law (for reasons generally unconnected with women’s suffrage).
In 1879 the Qualification of Elector’s Bill was introduced. It proposed giving women property owners the vote. However parliamentarians who wanted all women to vote, not just those who owned property, joined forces with those that opposed enfranchisement, and the amendment was defeated.
Attempts made by Wallis in 1880 and 1881 failed as well. Because Parliamentarians weren’t under any pressure from the community, the debates lacked urgency. Although in less controversial areas women were having their rights extended, the matter of them gaining the vote ended up continually set aside. The parliamentarians were only too eager to put the matter off and drag it out.
In 1891 and 1892, the Electoral Bill granting women enfranchisement was passed through the House of Representatives, and both times was stopped in the Legislative Council, due to opponents adding devious amendments. It’s apparent that opponents to suffrage were willingly to go to extreme lengths to prevent the implementation of such a bill, and this reinforces the idea that equality between genders was an extremely radical idea in the 19th century.
There were three major views that members of Parliament held in regards to the women’s suffrage campaign.
In 1879 the Qualification of Elector’s Bill was introduced. It proposed giving women property owners the vote. However parliamentarians who wanted all women to vote, not just those who owned property, joined forces with those that opposed enfranchisement, and the amendment was defeated.
Attempts made by Wallis in 1880 and 1881 failed as well. Because Parliamentarians weren’t under any pressure from the community, the debates lacked urgency. Although in less controversial areas women were having their rights extended, the matter of them gaining the vote ended up continually set aside. The parliamentarians were only too eager to put the matter off and drag it out.
In 1891 and 1892, the Electoral Bill granting women enfranchisement was passed through the House of Representatives, and both times was stopped in the Legislative Council, due to opponents adding devious amendments. It’s apparent that opponents to suffrage were willingly to go to extreme lengths to prevent the implementation of such a bill, and this reinforces the idea that equality between genders was an extremely radical idea in the 19th century.
There were three major views that members of Parliament held in regards to the women’s suffrage campaign.
Firstly, there were men such as Wallis and Fox, who desired the complete emancipation of the female sex. These sorts of men were dubbed “radical reformers”. (11)
|
Secondly, there were those such as Stout, who saw granting women the vote as the first step to progressing further as a society. Their reasons of support for bills enabling women to vote ranged from a commitment to establishing equality between the sexes, to a conviction that females would later support their party/cause. These sorts of men outnumbered the few “radical reformers”.
|
Thirdly, there were the men in parliament who opposed women’s suffrage because they believed that females (foolishly) wished to step out of their “gender sphere” and would be out of their depth in the world of politics. (11) It appears that gender spheres were a key part of the arguments of anti-suffragists; women were seen fit for domestic life and men were seen to be better suited for the public and political world.
Again, as females demanding enfranchisement was so shocking, so unheard of, an idea, it was initially rebuffed and subdued. Society as a whole tends to fear the unknown, and allowing women to vote would definitely have been taking a step towards jumbling up the known social order/norm. |
In 1893 an Electoral Bill that proposed giving women the vote was once again passed through the House of Representatives and presented to the Legislative Council. The liquor industries petitioned the council to reject the bill. In response to this the suffragists held mass rallies, sent a flurry of telegrams to parliament members and gave white camellias to their supporters in parliament to wear.
Seddon managed to get Thomas Kelly, a Liberal Party councillor, to change his vote from in favor of the bill to against it. Two other councillors, William Reynold and Edward Stevens, were furious at Seddon’s manipulation and changed their votes, allowing the bill to pass 20 votes to 18. Seddon’s meddling thus backfired. Hence on the 8th September, 1893, the Upper House (the Legislative Council) passed the Electoral Bill, allowing enfranchisement of women.
The fact that Seddon granted women’s suffrage by pure accident says something about his character---he never would have purposely enabled the bill to pass the Upper House, never would have changed his opinion on the matter, and was not above sabotage.
Even after the bill was passed ( 20 votes to 18) anti suffrage petitions circulated and some members of the Legislative Council asked the governor to withhold consent. Anti suffragists provided their parliament supporters with red camellias to wear.
Seddon managed to get Thomas Kelly, a Liberal Party councillor, to change his vote from in favor of the bill to against it. Two other councillors, William Reynold and Edward Stevens, were furious at Seddon’s manipulation and changed their votes, allowing the bill to pass 20 votes to 18. Seddon’s meddling thus backfired. Hence on the 8th September, 1893, the Upper House (the Legislative Council) passed the Electoral Bill, allowing enfranchisement of women.
The fact that Seddon granted women’s suffrage by pure accident says something about his character---he never would have purposely enabled the bill to pass the Upper House, never would have changed his opinion on the matter, and was not above sabotage.
Even after the bill was passed ( 20 votes to 18) anti suffrage petitions circulated and some members of the Legislative Council asked the governor to withhold consent. Anti suffragists provided their parliament supporters with red camellias to wear.
Ultimately, despite the best efforts of anti-suffragists, the Governor gave his consent and women achieved enfranchisement in September 1893. The feat was hard come by, full of last minute setbacks and disappointments. However, this would only have made the eventual victory of the suffragists so much sweeter, as the final result was that all women, all men, Maori and Pakeha, possessed the right to vote. It is only fair and just, after all, that both males and females get to decide who the individuals who govern them shall be---achieving women’s suffrage has been a great and proud moment in New Zealand’s history.