The amending Act of 1895 has made no substantial alterations in the law in spite of the persistent agitation of Prohibitionists in favour of prohibition on the vote of a bare majority. It was decreed that licensing polls should be held concurrently with General Elections, that voters should be allowed to vote both for prohibition and reduction, though the two votes could, naturally, no longer be combined in favour of the latter, that the vote should affect all forms of licenses, and, in view of the district in which prohibition had been carried, that, in such cases, the issue should be between the continued refusal of licenses and their restoration to the former number. Under the present law, it will be noted, should successive reductions lead to the cancellation of all licenses, a vote of the electors can never restore more licenses than existed at the time when the last was doomed to extinction.
The second poll was taken at the end of 1896 and resulted in the failure to carry either prohibition or reduction in any district. The figures were as follows: continuation, 139,249; reduction, 94,226; prohibition, 98,103. Though the Prohibitionists had been enabled to increase their vote by nearly 50,000 and had therein sufficient grounds for the hope of ultimate success, it is probable that they would have been more successful but for the intemperance of their leaders, who aim at prohibition alone and care neither for the regulation of the traffic nor for reduction. They were also handicapped by the frantic efforts of the brewers, who spent their ample funds freely and were able to command the votes of many who were interested, either directly or indirectly, in the trade; and by an alliance between the brewers and many of the Ministerialists. While the General Election and the Local Option poll constituted distinct issues, and there was no reason why a supporter of the Government should feel bound to vote for the continuation of licenses, it is an undoubted fact that a large number of the women of the working classes, who might have been expected to be opposed to the public-houses, voted, on that occasion, in favour of their retention. At Wellington, where, as at Adelaide, I was struck by the prevailing orderliness, the only women whom I noted as taking an active part in the proceedings were canvassing in favour of the brewers.
At first sight it seems strange that the brewers should have worked with the party which had passed the most stringent liquor legislation on the Statute Book, but it must be remembered that this question had neither been debated nor divided the House on the ordinary lines of cleavage. The brewers, many persons maintain, know that they have the sympathy of the Government which, according to this hypothesis, has done as little as possible to meet the wishes of the Prohibitionists, and that only under virtual compulsion, and, in its measure of 1896, introduced a Bill which would certainly be rejected by the Council and was calculated to cast ridicule upon the agitation of the Prohibitionists. It was provided therein that a fourth issue should be added at the Local Option polls, that of national prohibition, and that, if it were carried by a three-fifths majority of the votes recorded in all the districts, it should be unlawful, subject to the exception mentioned hereafter, to import into the Province any liquor for any purpose or to distil it in the Province or to manufacture it for sale or barter. No person selling any spirituous or distilled perfume, nor any apothecary, chemist, or druggist administering or selling any spirituous, distilled, or fermented liquor for medicinal use, should do so otherwise than in such combination as rendered it unfit for use as a beverage. The Governor might declare, by notice in The Gazette, by what combination of ingredients the articles would be rendered sufficiently unpalatable. Persons requiring liquor for medicinal use or use in the arts and manufacturers were to make applications to Her Majesty's Customs and if their bonâ fides were proved, might receive it, for ready money, "in such closed and sealed bottles or other receptacle as that the liquor therein cannot be poured out without such seal being first broken," and attached "with a Government label declaring the kind, quantity, quality, and price of the liquor, as these may be determined by the Governor." In this measure the Government seem to have attempted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The brewers would laugh in their sleeves and the Prohibitionists would welcome a measure which instituted machinery for the attainment of national prohibition. If the assumption be correct, the latter are credited with a lamentable lack of any sense of humour; from all appearances they are not prepared to allow themselves to be hoodwinked.
Many of the representatives seem to have had an equally low opinion of the average intelligence of female electors, as they sought to capture the votes of domestic servants by a Bill which was rejected by the Council, in which a weekly half-holiday was decreed to them except in cases of sickness or death in the family, or where an annual holiday of not less than fourteen days had been substituted by mutual agreement between employers and their servants. How the period of rest was to be enforced was, perhaps wisely, not laid down, as domestics would, in few cases, be prepared to give information against their employers. Those among the latter, however, who took the matter seriously would, presumably, guard themselves against judiciary proceedings by compelling their servants to be out of the house on the holiday between three o'clock and half-past nine, whatever might be the state of the weather. Again, the undoubted evil, that young girls, by the culpable weakness of their parents, are allowed to parade the streets at night, was to be cured, according to the Government, by the so-called Juvenile Depravity Suppression Bill, which failed to meet with acceptance by the usually docile House of Representatives. Its danger and absurdity can be gathered, without further comment, from the quotation of one of the clauses: "Whenever any constable finds any girl" (who is apparently not over the age of sixteen years) "loitering in the streets or in out-of-the-way places after the hour of ten of the clock at night, and he has reason to believe that she is there for improper purposes, the following provisions shall apply:—
"1. He shall forthwith take her to the nearest beat of another constable, or, failing him, to the nearest justice or clergyman, or, failing him, to the nearest house of some married person of good repute, in whose presence the girl shall be questioned as to her name, her abode, her parents or guardians, and her reason for being from home and loitering as aforesaid.
"2. The constable shall then take, or shall cause her to be taken, to her home, where she shall be handed over to the person in charge of the house, and the constable shall forthwith on his return from duty make report of the facts to the officer in charge of the station."
Should the offence be repeated and the girl's reply be deemed by the officer in charge of a police station to be unsatisfactory, she may be brought before a magistrate and be committed to a reformatory or an industrial school. Some justification, I must add, for the seemingly depreciatory opinion of the members was afforded by the proceedings at the convention of the National Council of Women held at Christchurch early in 1896. This Association, which claims to be non-political and to focus the views of the women of New Zealand, passed resolutions in favour of the nationalisation of the land, a compulsory eight hours' day, and the enactment of a minimum rate of wages; but the climax was reached when it was resolved that "in all cases where a woman elects to superintend her own household and to be the mother of children, there shall be a law attaching a certain just share of her husband's earnings or income for her separate use, payable if she so desires it into her separate account." The first portion of this sentence is mysterious, and seems to be based on the assumption that the husband has nothing to say in the matter.
The extraordinary legislative activity which I have summarised need arouse no astonishment, as it is in consonance with the usual practice of the Parliament of New Zealand. Between the years 1876 and 1894, it has been computed, 2,972 measures were passed, and of these no less than 1,602 have already been repealed.
So much for the past: we must now consider briefly the present position of affairs and the further effects which may be anticipated from female suffrage.
It is the general impression that while a large majority of the women voted in 1893 as their husbands and brothers advised them, yet they were induced, in many instances, by their leagues, which had been started on independent lines, to support candidates on moral rather than political considerations. In the following year these leagues, with the exception of those which placed liquor questions before all others, were captured by one of the political parties, most of them by the Ministerialists. An amusing incident occurred in this connection at Dunedin. Shortly before the last elections it was decided, at a thinly-attended meeting of the Women's Franchise League, to support the three Ministerial candidates, although one of them was an anti-prohibitionist. Thereupon many of the members protested against the party character given to the association, and called a meeting, the proceedings at which were thus described by the local newspaper:—