Snarls, Smiles, Stone From Northern A Smoke-room

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XI, Issue 44, 4 November 1893, Page 373

Snarls, Smiles, Stone From Northern A Smoke-room

... So the leaders of the Women’s Franchise Forgetting League are issuing manifestoes and proclaimtheir Place. . ... ... ing a * platform. The Italian proverb applies, * Femmine e galline per a ndur troppo si perdono— Women and hens through too much gadding are lost.’ The good persons who banded themselves together to secure the passing of the franchise have forgotten their place, and the sooner they realise the fact and retire from the position they have now taken up the better. The object for which female Franchise Leagues were established was to see that the suffrage was bestowed on women without delay. That object they have accomplished, the applause has followed, and only one duty remains to the Leagues— to see that every woman duly registers and becomes an elector. With platforms and political parties they have nothing to do. Women of all shades of opinion supported the League, and helped to obtain the vote, and it is not merely unwise but impertinent for them to set up a platform, more especially when some of the planks of that platform decide on some of the most vexed and warmly-contested questions of the day. Thoughtful people are not, of course, wholly surprised at their action. There are a fair number of women in the League, just as there are men in the various political associations, who delight in the notoriety which follows the entry into certain forms of political life. These women were dangerous when the Leagues had not accomplished their work. Their antics, their absurd denunciations of the men, went perilously near swamping the franchise boat with ridicule. The harm they can now do is less than it was, but they have still a capacity for unlimited mischief and complication. Having tasted the blood of a certain amount of public life, they are unwilling to return to the domestic milk. Nor is it absolutely necessary that they should do so. If they are ready for legislation, if their political knowledge is ripe, let them form themselves into some association like the National and Liberal Associations, according as their opinions dictate. No objection can be raised to such a course. Some women wilj •|lay low,’ the more ambitious will mount plat, forms, promulgate political doctrines, and surfeit herself in notoriety (if that is possible), and nobody will be the better or worse. But for the Franchise Leagues, composed as they are of women of all shades of opinion, to asssme the responsibility of setting up a platform is intolerable—doubly intolerable when it has the audacity to make the League take under its wing the fanatic section of the temperance party and to make Prohibition a plank of the platform.

The hopelessly narrow-mindedness of these Refutation. remarks makesit almost impossible to answer them with any chance of convincing their author. Thus the prolific parent, with some indignation. The question of dissolving the various Franchise Leagues now that the object of their formation has been attained, has, af course, presented itself to the several Committees. These latter say that owing to the very short time which has elapsed between granting the suffrage to women and the forthcoming elections, it is not expedient to break up the Leagues and form fresh associations and combinations ; such a course would inevitably split up all the Leagues. They would become mere political organisations to be swayed and dominated by some energetic leader. The greatest good of the greatest number would no longer be their object; they would simply became fanatical adherents of the several parties. At present the Leagues recognise no party. Their demand is for men with the best reputation for integrity of character to represent them, and to them they will offer a few suggestions as to women’s needs in connection with the various laws of the colony. Were the Leagues to disband, and re-organise, calling themselves National and Liberal Associations, they would find themselves weakened by disunion, scattered, separated, and in many cases, merely merged in the existing Associations, compelled by virtue of their new membership to record their votes for such men as the male leaders of these parties should, in their wisdom, announce as their pet and particular canidates. At present the various members of the Woman's Franchise

League have, on the whole, woiked most harmoniously together. It would be a thousand pities to break up that harmony so close to the elections, when there is not time for the fractured pieces to heal, and, recovering after the shock of the rupture, unite themselves into fresh and solid wholes under different nomenclatures. And, after all, what’s in a name ? The Franchise League can call itself a F < anchise League as long as it likes. 11 is not the first instance in history where a name has been perpetuated long after its original significance has been forgotten, its motif changed. And the Franchise Leagues are not so antiquated already, that they will find a difficulty—after the elections and when they can give the matter due consideration—in dissolving and resolving themselves into associations. For this change from general to particular opinions, which some friends or foes of the Leagues are so anxious should be done at once is a matter, say our thinking, reasoning women, which needs earnest consideration. The men have been Liberal Ass’s and National Ass’s for a long time, and having joined either of these sensible — the name to the contrary notwithstanding—bodies, willingly give up their political freedom to a certain extent in order to support a nominee of their Association. But women have only just gained their political freedom, and do not care to yield it up in haste. They have been in subjection long enough. Let them, for this election at least, taste the sweets of voting for any man of whose character they approve, and whose general feelings and opinions are not prejudiced or narrowed by party tradition.

To stigmatise the setting up of a platform as insulting the being ‘ not merely unwise, but impertinent, Leagues. to grossly insult the Franchise Committees, and members of the League who endorse their action. There are, perhaps, a few too forward women in each of the various branches of the League in the colony, but there are also many quiet, thoughtful women, who, upon mature reflection have decided that it will materially assist themselves and their co-voters if they formulate some questions which can be put to those candidates who are offering themselves for election to the Lower House. The Auckland branch calls them ‘ suggestions,’ and does not for a moment suppose that any one man, unless made to order, can at once answer all of the queries in the affirmative. It will be enough if one can be found who will do his best—if returned by the women’s vote—to carry out, as far as practicable, their expressed wishes, one of which very strongly inculcates the abolition of party Government. Again, it is absurd to say that the Franchise League must have no ideas on political matters beyond simply returning a member for Parliament. They seem to have been accepted by many women—members and non-members—as pilots in the unknown seas of political life, invested as they are by sharks of canvassers and troubled by whales of candidates, who open huge jaws and swallow all the ‘suggestions’ and ‘questions’ which unsophisticated women propose to them,only to repudiate them as soon as more tempting bait is offered. It is not ‘ impertinent’ for the Franchise Committees, appealed to as navigators, to draw out a list of questions for the guidance of the women voters. There is no need for those who do not like them to adopt them. Women are bound by no party to stick to one platform. They can reject or accept any one of the questions. There are temperate women who protest against drunkenness, but who equally protest against prohibition as arbitrary’ and unfair to those who can enjoy nature’s bounty in moderation. There are others who think women are pretty well off as they are, and do not care in the least whether or not those suffering under unj ist laws are helped or not. It is needless to lecapitulate the vaiious questions, or platforms, or suggestions which have emanated from the central cities. One remark more. It is not only those women who • crave notoriety ’ who will still continue to take a public interest in politics, and will, if necessary, speak to their fellow women from a public platform. There are many good, thoroughly respected women—some in very high social positions—who, from a strong desire to do good and to help others, address public meetings. No one accuses them of not knowing when to retire into their shell, and no one should accuse — as a body — the leaders of the Franchise movement of not knowing when their work is over. There is still much for them to do, and they will do it, despite the sneers and insinuations of those who, despite the positions attained in all branches of study by women, despite the good done by those, like Florence Nightingale, who stepped forward in the midst of cavils to help suffering humanity, despite the example of Lady Aber-

deen and Lady Henry Somerset, Miss Frances Willard, and many others, none of whom have lost one iota of that sweet womanliness which is woman's greatest charm—despite all these, some men still cherish a secret conviction that woman's place is to minister strictly to the wants of her husband and her family, and to entertain only such outside beliefs and convictions as her mankind shall deem good for her. She has the Franchise—more s the pitybut after all, if properly kept in subjection, it means only another vote which you or I, dear sir, can control.

~ „ , ‘Pardon me,’ returned the Professor. The Professor • suavely, ‘ if I point out that in the heat of Returns to ... argument you have mistaken or misstated the the Charge, question under discussion. You have worked yourself up to a totally unnecessary and (forgive me) somewhat hysterical state of excitement in laying down the axiom that women must think and are capable of thinking for themselves. That I have not denied. It is most earnestly to be hop rd that women will think for themselves. Assuredly I should never have supported the measure giving them the suffrage had I not thought so. But that is not the point. The point is whether the Franchise Leagues, supported as they have been by men of all shades of opinion, are not forgetting their place in erecting a platform, or in the more diplomatic language of the Auckland League, offering “suggestions”on political matters. The Leagues you say have been accepted as “ pilots.” Would it not be more correct to say that they have arrogated that title, assumed unasked the position of leaders, self-constituted themselves Solons of political life. And with what qualifications ? What knowledge have they of the waters into which they propose with such assurance to guide the precious fleet of woman’s vote. You cite the names of a dozen women whose names stand prominently before all our eyes—names that are dragged in on every possible and impossible occasion w hen women are anxious to prove their fittedness, their immediate (and I presume intuitive) fittedness, without training or education for anything and everything. It always appears to me such a fatal mistake, the everlasting citation of the names of these feminine celebrities. Take half-a-dozen of the thousand upon thousands of names of eminent men. Do the shining qualities of a Bismarck, a Beaconsfield, a Gladstone, a Chatham, a Pitt, or a Walpole prove that many of the men who attempt to lead opinion are worthy or capable of so vast a responsibility ? Does the vast learning of the head of the great science schools of the world entitle the callow student to declare “thus and thus "simply because he has become the most youthful member of the school. Assuredly not. Neither do the names of the famous women and heroines you have mentioned prove that the self-con-stituted “ pilots,” as you call them, are worthy orcapable of directing thousands of their fellows, are anything better indeed than blind leaders of the blind. The names I say you have quoted do not prove anything to the contrary. Happily, we know several of the women (the majority, I trust) on these committees arc worthy and capable of directing public thought, though perhaps not to the same extent as they themselves fondly believe. But that is not the question 1 I submitted and submit that Franchise Leagues are exceeding the objects for which they were formed when they assume such responsibility. You declare that if reformed, the Leagues would be weakened by disunion. That is tantamount to admitting that the Leagues are submitting objects which are against the conviction of some of those who originally supported the League to enable them to get the vote and helped to give them the power they now possess. Again, it was not suggested that women should affiliate with either the Liberal Association or the National Association, but merely that they should form some sort of association amongst themselves. If to do this would weaken them, the seeds of weakness must surely be already sown. Let the women, you say, enjoy the sweets of voting for anyone they like. Exactly ! But where then is the necessity of “ pilots ?” Does it not really come to this, that the leaders of the Leagues are like children who have a penny and are determined to “spend it all by themselves,” but they have no objection to advising other people how to spend theirs. I cannot but regard your diplomatic term of “ suggestions ” as anything but an unworthy subterfuge. Everyone with a fraction of political knowledge knows that such a thing as otl'ering a candidate suggestions is simply bunkum. A candidate must either pledge himself one way or the other. To suggest prohibition, for instance, what would be the result? The member would not even know which way he was required to vote. If the women are not bound to accept these platforms or “ suggestions ” what on earth is the use of them. If each woman is to “ gang her ain gait ”we know what will ensue. Chaos. Somebody must direct opinion, and the only question is who? I say not the Leagues, and I have endeavoured to show why.'

What It ail ‘ 1 cannot understand,' quoth the ordinary man, placidly, • what all this volume of words Gomel to. . . is about. Let those who are on the Franchise Leagues, and object to the continuance of those Leagues and their “ platforms ” and “ suggestions ” say so, and withdraw from membership. But what business is it of rank outsiders like ourselves? The thing will be all settled in a

week or two, and when the elections are once over the franchise Leagues can disband and re organise themselves into some other association or affiliation as has been very properly suggested. They must and will be governed greatly now by what their male relations tell them of the standing candidates. They have not time to find out much for themselves, nor to make up their minds on political questions.. They will have found their feet in three years, and will have watched the progress of the men for whom they have voted—supposing they are returned — and have decided whether or not their politics are what they—the women—approve. At present, as far as I can judge, there are very few women in the colony who really understand any of the great questions of the day. It is kind of some women to undertake to guide these innocents over the tempestuous waters of contested elections. They may be blind leaders of the blind, or perhaps they have a glimmer of light, which from no vanity—so I take it—from no desire for notoriety, but from a helpful, kindly spirit, they wish to dilfuse over the track of those who have less leisure and fewer opportunities of studying the political chart than they. One thing is certain, that these Franchise Leagues—especially their presidents and committees—ha--e won female suffrage for themselves and for other women, who, though unwilling to work, are by no means unwilling to enjoy the fruits of other people’s labour. To these wo kers, then, belongs the right, if there be a right, whether under the name they have borne so long or not—of drawing up “ suggestions ” or “ platforms,” or whatever they like to call their little plans and queries. At all events it is a woman’s question, and so far as we are at present concerned ends, for us, in smoke.'