The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

|__Mr. Allan Studholme contributed to the general discussion with an anima-- ted speech in support of the prin-- ]ciple of his bill for the full Provincial | franchise. He linked up the question 'of the female franchise with the pro-- gram for social and industrial better-- ment, with the minimum wage -- and child welfare. He styled the expres-- sion "in our wisdom" as self--conceit, and declared that no man was in a po-- sition to say there was no demand on the part of women for the ballot. He wanted to know what evidence the Government desired to prove that women wanted the franchise. They had got tired sending deputations, and the Prime Minister had said that pe-- titions did not count. Would the Gov-- ernment have the women of Ontario adopt the same tacties as their 'sis-- ters had in England? He would not quarrel with the statement that wom-- an's place was in the home, but how could the 8,000,000 factory and shop girls in Canada and the United States find a home influence until progress was made in social reform, and this alone could be accomplisheqd hy the influence of the ballot. This had hbeen the result in Australia and New Zea-- land. | An Election Question. | The debate concluded with Mr. Proudfoot taking issue with Sir James Whitney's statement that the question of extending the franchise to include women was not before the country at the last election. He had stood on many platforms where the subject had 'been advocated. If corporations were entitled to representation in the ballot,surely the same privilege should be extended to women. It was clear that the combined influence of a mar-- ried woman and her husband at the polls would be destructive to the li-- Mr. Proudfoot (Centre Huron) fol-- lowed Mr. Johnston (Hastings West),-- who was not in favor of votes for women in Provincial elections at pres-- ent, but thought the time was coming when the franchise would be extended to them. Mr. Proudfoot wondcred why the Provincial Secretary did not| suggest amendments to the bills un' der consideration if they did not quite satisfy him. He declared the Pro--! vincial Secretary had sidestepped the ; questions raised by the leader of the Opposition. ! Mr,. Studholme's Argument. | Hon. W. J. Hanna attempted to criticize the bill. It looked as if it had been prepared -- hurriedly and without proper consideration as to where it would lead to. It was also inconsistent. It either went too far or not far enough. He was sure it was not a bill that even the warmest friends of the suffragists would sup-- port in its present form. Rowell showed that it dida not place married women on the same basis as widows-- and -- spinsters. His > hon. friend's bill would include all mar-- ried women who owned property in their own right, and occupan: of houses who held a five--year lease. It did not include provision for all mar-- ried women who were wage--earners, and if there was one woman above an-- other who should have the privilege of voting it was the woman who, for reasons it was unncecessary to detail, went to work. Dissecting the bill in-- troduced by Mr. Macdiarm{id, the lead-- er of the Opposition showed that be-- fore a woman under its provisions could get the right to vote she virtu-- ally had to put her husband on the Indian list. HMe thought that placed the wife in an invidious position. If they were going to give women votes they ought to do so without imposing such hampering conditions. Mr. El-- liott's bill placed married women on the same basis as widows and spin-- sters, and he respectfully urged upon the Government to send it along with the bill of Mr. Macdiarmid to the com-- mittee, in order that the bill of the member for West Elgin might be modified. He was proceeding on the' assumption that the Government were in favor of some change in the muni-- | cipal laws. His hon. friend (Sir James Whitney) had stated property was the basis of the franchise in municipal elections. If the vote was based on property qualifications there was ab-- solutely no reason why marrled wo-- men should not stand in exactly the same position as widows and spin-- sters. Mr. Hanna Criticizes, Shortly before midnight Mr. Prou foot's amendment was defeated on vote of 46 to 14. In support of his amendment Mr. Proudfoot said $5,000,000 was being spent by the Government and the Opposition was denied information as to how it was being spent. They had as much right as the Ministers to know what was going to bhe done with the money. He contended that the way in which the Government was dealing with the grant struck at \the root of responsible government. Mr. (%. Mageau (Sturgeon Falls) continued the discussion, saying that the Government did not intend to spend a dollar of the money in his constituency. Mr. Sam Clarke (Northumberland West) wanted to know what was the use of the entire House considering the estimates if the Government could take $5,000,000 and spend it as they liked. Hon. Mr. Hearst pooh--poohed the idea that the question was an im-- portant one. Late in the evening a motion that the House go into Committee of Sup-- ply was met by Mr. Proudfoot with an amendment that the method of spending the $5,000,000 for New On-- tario was subversive of the prin-- ciples of responsible government. The motion was indicative of the Opposition's intention to pursue the action of the Government on this matter as constituting a serious de-- parture from all constitutional prac-- tice. br A.ch cAorth e dicinditith adinchcatein ns -- Siutntointh T C Both the amendment and the main motion were lost on division. The Five Million Stays Sealed, question during the recess,. Mr. T. Marshall (Monck) introduced a little humor into the debate by showing the added interest that would be given to politics when the ladies were interested. There would be no difficulty in securing attendance -- at political meetings, and on campaigns members of the fair sex would be congenial company. He moved -- in amendment that the motion for the second reading be changed, that the House recognized the advantage that would ensue from the extension of the franchise, and asked for a gpecial committee to inquire into the whole quor traffic in local option campaigns, for instance. "It is because their friends the liquor interests do not want the vote given to women that the Government are opposing the, bill," said Mr. Proudfoot. ' £xp" ess®" ,'.oa' th¥ . Proud--