Random Notes

Southern Cross, Volume 1, Issue 27, 30 September 1893, Page 9

Random Notes

When the question of extending the franchise to women appeared above the horizon of practical politics, some thought they saw in the measure a panaefea for the numerous evils with which our highly-organised society is afflicted. Others predicted the ruin of our social institutior s and a relapse to barbarism. Others again regarded the movement in favour of women’s rights with indifference, and concluded the measure an experiment in politics. Political weathercocKs, however, have had a time of anxiety and tribulation. There were so many breezes blowing and undercurrents flowing that they were at their wits’ ends to ascertain which would predominate. However the assent of the Governor to the Electoral Bill has decided everything. The most stubborn of the opponents of the Bill are now loudest in their advocacy of giving the gentle sex every opportunity and affording them every facility to get their names on the roll. None hails the passing of the measure with more satisfaction and delight than “Vox” does. I feel confident that the female electors of this progressive colony will vote with judgment and discretion. If, through the enfranchisement of women, society will be made more upright and moral then surely all will admit that the measure has not been passed in vain. Whilst glancing over, in Hansard, some of the speeches delivered on the Eranehise Bill by members of the Legislature, I was struck by the amount of historic knowledge displayed by our Peers. The Hon. Mr Bolt and other honourables seem to have recently brushed up their history. They could hold forth ad infinitum on the ability, the prudence, and the political capacity of Queens Elizabeth, Anne and Victoria. They argued that since these female rulers displayed intellectual capability, women are not a whit inferior to men as politicians. Were the august and learned legislators, however, to look a little below the surface they would readily perceive that neither Elizabeth nor Anne displayed any of those qualities which would encourage us to concede the franchise to women. Elizabeth, vain, headstrong and fickle, was surrounded by a galaxy of the most talented statesmen that England has ever produced. She was parsimonious in everything save personal adornment. Her rashness more than once brought the crown into conflict with the people, and at these times Elizabeth was reluctantly compelled to bow to the will of the Parliament. Q,ueen Anne, again,was indolent and careless. She preferred personal ease to the stirring politics of her time. She never displayed any administrative talent she allowed herself to he led by her female favourites, who were out the “ catspaws ” of the political parties of the time. No! England -does not furnish suitable examples of feminine administrative ability. Had our honourable gentlemen but read the histories of France, or Spain or Russia had they pourtrayed the “statesmanship” of Catherine of Russia or of Isabella of Spain, they might have made out a ease —of a kind, in favour of the extension of the franchise. But after all “a few swallows do not make a summer.” Y7e might as well take a few examples of poetic genius and argue that, because Shakespeare, Milton, Pope,and Tennyson were famous, each in his own department of poetry, all men can and ought to be poets, in spite of that time-honoured proverb, which declares poeta nascitur non fit. A country reader of the Southern Cross sends me the following communication; — Dear Vox, —I am pleased to see that you are ardent in your endeavours to place before the numerous readers of the Southern Cross in their true light the follies and foibles of men. 1 like to hear a “ spade called a spade,” but if there is anything in the world I morally detest, it is to read the highly flattering reports given by country correspondents of meetings and social gatherings, which to say the least were at best but miserable failures. I chanced to attend a meeting of a debating society in an upcountry village a short time ago. The subject for debate was—“ Should the franchise he extended to women ?” Well, there were about some half-a-dozen present, besides the chairman, and the proceedings were listless. The opener of the debate on the affiirmativc side declared that he had not given the matter any serious consideration, but thought that by way of experiment it would be a good thing to allow women to vote. His opponent declared himself as follows :—“ I did not come prepared to make a speech, in fact speechifying is not in my line. I think wC have got on well enough up to this, without women’s votes. I do not think we would make matters any better by giving them the franchise. That is all I have to say, Mr Chairman.” The seconders simply endorsed the remarks of the previous speakers, whilst the remaining two members considered that the matter had been threshed out. You may imagine my surprise, when a few Gays later I saw in one of the dailies the foil-awing glowing account of the above debate from “ own correspondent —■“ Our Mutual Improvement and debating Society held their usual weekly meeting on Friday evening. Despite the inclement weather, and counter attractions, the building was packed full. The president occupied the chair, and, as usual discharged his onerous duties in a very efficient and impartial manner. The subject for the evening was that important, all-absorbing question of Female Franchise. Mr Jones opened on the affiirmativc side, and in a very eloquent and exhaustive speech ably upheld

the cause of the gentler sex, and justified their claims to the franchise. He largely quoted well-knosvn- historical and literary facts to prove that in intelligence and ability woman is not man’s inferior. Mr Jones was, frequently applauded, and resumed his seat amid deafening cheers ; —and so on, through half a column, keeping up the high-faliitin strain to the end. Now 7 , Mr Vox, I would be pleased if you could give any explanation of why country correspondents should thus endeavour to hoodwink the public by extolling to the skies the merits and capabilities of their own cronies.—Yours, etc., Reader. Dear Reader, —I am pleased to meet a kindred spirit—one that is desirous of placing things in their true light. I certainly agree with you that an injustice is being done to newspaper readers by these country correspondents, but people are now dropping down to such glowing reports, and generally take them cum grano salis. You possibly overlook the fact, Mr Reader, that the correspondents in country districts are generally known to every resident in the locality, and consequently were adverse reports to be sent in, or were settlers’ corns to be trod on “ Own correspondents’ ” lives would not be worth living. Yox.