I had hoped to be in the position to offer a picture of powerful feminist engagement with this post. Building in 1892, championing the suffrage victory in 1893, and continuing to engage beyond that on into the latter half of the 1890s. Such a picture is yet to emerge. At present, from our 1893 sample of 540 petition signatories, 46 have been successfully traced onto the 1892 petition, 295 onto the 1893 electoral roll, and 280 onto the roll for 1896. Just 27 women appear on all four documents. This could be read as a lack of engagement. I think, however, that it is first important to consider some other limiting factors. The WCTU Franchise PetitionsTaken in isolation, 27 of a possible 540 doesn’t stack up as particularly good odds. Let us consider, however, what I have come to term ‘the limitation of 1892’. First, a little context is, perhaps, in order. Franchise petitions were presented to parliament in 1891 and 1892 before the success of the 32’000 signature petition in 1893. While the petition from 1891 has not survived, the other two have been made available as transcriptions by the Department of Internal Affairs. Even excluding its ultimate legislative implications, there is a reason that 1893 stands as an archetype for all three. Measuring more than 200m in length, the sheer scale of the petition baffles the imagination. Compare this, then, with 1892, still admirably boasting some 8500 names. While undeniably significant, there is little need for a numerical comparison between the two documents. Take into account the fact that just 177 women listing Napier as their residence appear in 1892, and the limitation is apparent. Excluding appearance in 1892 as a prerequisite, 242 women from the petition sample appear on both electoral rolls for 1893 and 1896. It’s also important to note that the women appearing on each of the three auxiliary documents do not necessarily overlap. That is to say, while we have 279 appearing in 1896, it is not entirely the same group appearing on the 1893 roll. On the whole, we have 345 women who exhibit some degree of consistent engagement (appearing on at least one other document). This is 63.8% of the total sample. Not enormous, but equally not to be dismissed. Credit: 'Election Campaign', The Observer, 2 December 1893, p.2, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TO18931202.2.3 Nominal ChallengesTracing individuals onto the electoral rolls posed a number of challenges, many of which were foreseen but nonetheless time-consuming to resolve. The lack of consistency of signature format on the original 1893 petition stands out as the most readily identifiable challenge. We have individuals such as Wilhelmina Dalton, who signs under her husband Henry’s initial as Mrs H. Dalton. Others, like Miriam McDougall, have omitted a first name or initial altogether, opting for the rather less detailed Mrs McDougall. Still further, we have women signing with their husband’s given names, Women’s Franchise League President Emily Hill, for example, appears as Mrs Henry Hill on sheet 426. Tracing the women onto the electoral rolls did, therefore, require either a degree of inference, or a search for supporting documentation (generally provided by the New Zealand Births, Deaths, and Marriages indices) to ascertain potential changes in name. The inconsistency of naming patterns highlights another potential limitation which arises predominantly because the sample is exclusively female: marriage. This may have played a significant part in influencing the traceability of the sample, particularly, though not exclusively, for younger signatories. Jane Mill, for example, appears as such before her marriage to William Cameron in 1895. Failing to appear on the 1893 electoral roll, she is traceable, under her married name, in 1896, living on Tennyson Street, Napier. There are also less fortunate reasons that women may not appear as expected on the subsequent electoral rolls. Annie Charlotte Staite, for example, the adopted daughter of fellow signatory Mrs W.L. Rees, appears in 1893, and dies tragically young in July that same year before the petition is even presented to Parliament. MobilityBy the 1890s the population was also becoming increasingly mobile. Rail links between Napier and Wellington had, for example, been completed in 1891. Mobility within New Zealand has mostly been tracked in cases where other limitations have not prevented the women being identifiable. Lizzie Molloy, for example, appears in both 1893 and 1896, initially residing on Coote Street in Napier, then on Shelbourne Street in Nelson having followed her husband Patrick whose occupation as a gaol warden appears to have forced their relocation. There may be cases, however, where signatories have left New Zealand altogether. Such instances will be harder to identify, and require a different set of sources to verify.
While perhaps initially slightly less significant than expected, the number of women who have been successfully traced at this juncture certainly provide a series of interesting starting points for analysis. Despite the fact that, admittedly, few analyses of any real consequence have been conducted as of yet, a richer picture of this group of signatories is beginning to emerge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |