CURRENT TOPICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11227, 26 March 1897, Page 5

CURRENT TOPICS.

Mr Faithfull Begg’s Bill to enfranchise women, which was read a second time in the House of Commons by a majority of 71, does not propose to make woman-

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND women’s SUFFRAGE.

hood the basis of suffrage. It seeks to enact that “ every woman who is the inhabitant or occupier owner or tenant, of any dwelling-house, tenement or building within the borough or county where such occupation exists, shall he entitled to he registered as a voter in the list of voters for such horough or county jjn which she is so qualified as aforesaid, land when registered, to vote for a member or members to serve in Parliament.” This ■would be a very slight advance, for it •would only enfranchise , a fractional portion of Englishwomen, viz., those ■who are householders; and yet the proposal has been received with violent opposition, and has been rejected by the House of Lords. The debate in the House of Commons was attended by only fifty members, most of whom were inclined to ridicule the measure. Mr Radcliffe Cooke’s’ address was pitched in a key of extreme levity, and kept the House in convulsions of laughter. He said the sole reason why the State of Wyoming had adopted women’s suffrage was “because Wyoming was such a God-forsaken place that no woman would stay unless she got everything she asked for.” Then he told a story about a fellow-member who had confided to him his real notions about the Bill, though he was going to vote for it. “He smote thrice on his breast and said, *ln our souls we are against it; we are the •victims of, pertinacity, of the importunate ■widow.’” “Name, name?” shouted the' ■House,- Mr Cooke wagged his head. “No, I’m not going to reveal his name—you shall not drag it from me. I sha’n’t say on which side he is—but I can see him.” Mr Labouchere, with mock gravity, deprecated this flippant treatment of the subject, and at once launched out into fresh ridicule and fun. He told of a woman who wanted a “ moral vote.” “What vigilance societies would be wanted! Who of us would pass ?” And then he gave a picture, of the House under the new regime —“A Hirst Lady of the Admiralty”—"p'erhaps. Sir, a lady in your place—a Speakeress!” “At any rate, 1 pity the Speaker who’sat in your place and had to rule over women!” The witty “ Labby ” also told about a young lady who had canvassed him on the question, and who asked him, “Do you believe in love?” This was so funny that the House was convulsed for quite a long period. “ I told her I did, and asked her why she was not married. She replied that a baronet had asked her and she had refused; so I said to her, ‘You go about getting a baronet for yourself instead of fishing for votes for other people,’ ”

There was some attempt to debate tbe question seriously, and a significant feature was the delivery of

BBBIOUS TALK AND STONEWALLING.

a speech in opposition to the proposal by Sir William Harcourt. The Liberal leader had on former occasions recorded a silent vote against women’s suffrage; now he spoke and revealed the weakness of his arguments against it. He dealt with the bigness of the question—the undesirableness of disposing of so great a constitutional matter on a Wednesday afternoon—and then passed to the numerical argument: “Women are more than men, and we shouldbe swamped.” Mr Courtney, who had been lying in wait, came down on the opponent of the franchise. “I am glad to see that Sir William Harcourt has spoken at last, because that looks as if we should win.” As for the numerical argument, it reminded him of Curran’s story—“ If the fleas all pulled at once, they would pull mo out of bed.” But they, never pulled at once! There had been the same fear about workmen, and what had it come to? Mr Courtney talked so long in support of the measure that its enemies saw a chance of talking it out, and were only baulked by the gentleman in charge of the Bill calling for an application of the closure to the debate, •which was carried by 214 to 170, after which the second reading was * afllrmed by 22S to 157. This triumph is all the more gratifying when it is remembered that the House of Commons has on, nine occasions since 1870, rejected Women’s Suffrage Bills by majorities ranging from sixteen to 126. As was to be expected, Mr Faithfull Begg drew upon his colonial experiences in advocating the measure. He referred to the acknowledged success of women’s suffrage in South Australia and New Zealand, and quoted the assertion of a returning-officer in the latter colony that he would rather poll 200 women than seventy men. A later speaker, however, pooh-poohed the Antipodean precedents, It was, he said, all very well for giddy young colonial Legislatures to indulge ih amusing experimental freaks, but the Mother of Parliaments could not do such things. The Mother of Parliaments, however, has shown that sho is rapidly coming round. Our own legislators made very merry over the franchise question for a time, and the mirth fulness of England’s commoners may very soon give place to other i'oeiings regarding the claim put forward by women for a duo •hare of political power.

THE < DISTRESS IN 1 INDIA. f

Recent news from India confirms the impression ■which prevailed in England some months ago that the

Indian Government failed at the outset to grasp the magnitude of the calamity that had overtaken that great dependency owing to the failure of the crops. In their hope that the autumn rains would set things right, the authorities were dilatory in soliciting external aid, and also in adopting adequate relief measures. By energetic action this neglect has since been atoned for; but it is becoming evident that the distress will continue and will probably grow in intensity until the month of June, when the crisis may be expected to abate. A chart showing the experience in recent famines proves that the rule is for the distress to increase in the early months of the year until relieved about the middle of June by the monsoonal rains. Vivid pictures of the fearful sufferings of the people continue to ho presented in the public journals. The correspondent of the Times of, India, writing from the Jhansi district, 'says:— The case of the children excites my compassion the more I see of them. They are everywhere the pictures of hopelessness and the innocent victims of neglect, of selfishness or of cruelty. They do nothing but look wistful by the hour, and die without complaining. I saw a small hoy standing alone among a crowd of grown-up paupers. He was asked where his mother was, and he pointed her out. “ Where was his father ? ” “ Oh! He has taken another wife.” That is a common case. A man who in ordinary times would take a second wife and keep his first now turns off the first and her children. A woman deserted by her husband takes up with another man; but he makes it a condition that she must not bring her children; he cannot afford to feed so many. Some mothers are kind to their children, and think of them before they think of themselves. Other mothers are simply depraved. They daily starve their children that their famished appearance may induce compassionate people to give them money. One unnatural creature of this sort, who was daily receiving a measure of flour for herself and one for her child, was so fast growing fat while her child grew lean that one day cooked food was placed before the child to he eaten on the spot; but the mother snatched it up and devoured it, almost literally out of her own child’s mouth, and then held out her cloth for her own share of meal,” These wretched little beings, frequently left to starve by the unnatural conduct of their parents, are made the special care of the missionaries, whose resources are severely taxed to provide ■ them with food. The Christchurch fund for the relief of the sufferers by the famine is now about to he closed, and subscribers have the satisfaction of knowing that their contributions will reach India at a time when the severest pinch of the distress will be experienced.