Skip to main content

A good accident of legislation .. in 1865

Found by accident in the Nairnshire Telegraph and General Advertiser for the Northern Counties - Wednesday, 25 January 1865



WOMEN'S RIGHTS FOREVER!

The last mail from Australia has brought us the astounding intelligence that the Legislature of Victoria, having conferred the franchise upon women one of the provisions of their latest reform Bill, the fair voters, in proportionate number exercised their right at the General Election, the result of which is the rare phenomenon of giving an existing Government working majority.

One is disposed at first sight to grudge the colony her high distinction. But on examination of all the facts, she has not, after all, so far surpassed in courage, faith, and virtue the other nations mankind might first sight appear.

It is true the Victorian Legislature has given the right to women to vote in the election of its members—but, although the name of the colony might suggest that gallantry was its motive, strict truth obliges us to say that no such motive came into play—no motive, in fact, of any kind, complimentary or otherwise—but a legislative oversight which was not detected before the opportunity for correcting it had passed away.

It happened thus, according to the statement of the Times' correspondent.

The New Electoral Act of the last Government, having provided that the roll of every municipal district should be transferred bodily to the Parliamentary electoral roll, has given, probably without intending it, the franchise to women. Women who are householders, paying municipal rates, vote in municipal elections, and, therefore, finding themselves on the Parliamentary roll, they came forward in considerable numbers to vote in the late election.

The revolution has burst—the mischief is done—no human power can reverse the past—but what a pity it should have been nothing more than an accident! Still, when one comes it, neither alarm on the one hand, nor triumph on the other, need be of overpowering character it is an occurrence not altogether unprecedented. It seems to have been customary tiling in the colony for women who, as householders—"femmes soles" we believe they are designated in law—pay municipal rates, to vote in municipal elections. Why not? Have they not every requisite qualification?

Are they not equally interested in every question at issue? Speaking generally, are they not quite as intelligent as male householders of their own standing? Are they not as capable of resisting and resenting undue influence? Let it be borne in mind that in very few cases women who keep house and pay rates in their own name owe any allegiance to a husband.

Many of them are widows—some of them have never been married—few of them probably but have passed the heyday of youth. Any rate it hardly becomes people who cheerfully own the sway of the Queen denounce absurd the principle of which has an accidental exemplification in the Victorian election. Well, now, what was the upshot?

The Times correspondent says:—In very many instances, I am sure that they exercised the franchise at least as wisely as the common run of men. It is said that these patriotic women generally favoured educated candidates, were prone to plumpers, and ostentatiously despised the secrecy of the Ballot. Bravo

They played their novel part with discrimination, with consistency and decision, and with fearless sincerity. Who that knows anything of the sex would have anticipated otherwise? They contributed to some result or other—we hope the right one in most instances—a fair proportion of votes. That is all. We cannot magnify it into a revolution—we can hardly recognise it as precedent—it was merely a novel application ot an analogous custom common to our colonies and to ourselves. It was not designed. It did no harm. It did, perhaps, no great good.

There is nothing in it to make a noise about—and, certainly, it was not brought about vigorous agitation of the—question of women’s rights. But, in effect, was just, and will prove, confidently infer, expedient, and therefore we trust the law will be suffered to remain as it is. It was a happy accident on which we congratulate the fair sex—a sort of compensatory consolation to those whom destiny has forced into the position of femmes soles —and an incident which sheds indirect lustre upon the rest of womankind. So, in due devotion, rejoice in it. Hurrah Women’s rights forever!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Genealogy Series: Betsy (or Elizabeth) Esplin Bell (1858-1930).

Betsy (or Elizabeth) Esplin Bell (1858-1930). She had a long criminal record driven by her addiction to drink, but was she her husband’s victim? by Stewart Stevenson. Betsy was born on 26 th January 1858 in Dundee to David Bell, a carpenter, and his wife, Agnes Sandeman. i  Father registered the birth, but is recorded as “Not Present”. George T Bisset-Smith, the Registration Examiner, published his book “Vital Registration”, the manual for Scottish Registrars in 1907. ii  In it he states that a “liberal interpretation” should be given to the word “Present” in this context but also states that “Not Present” must not be used. I suspect that leaves most genealogists, me included, little the wiser as to what “Present” was actually supposed to mean. So let’s pass on to the story. Betsy’s parents married in 1856, iii  with her mother Agnes making her mark, an ”X”, rather than signing the registration record, indicating that she was illiterate. Her husband David signed. ...

Clutter

When big things go wrong, and one feels powerless to do much about them, small things in one's life can become surrogates for one's anger. And there are quite a few big things around at the moment; COVID-19, No-Deal Brexit; A US Presidential Election where the incumbent leads with racist statements. As the end of the current session rushes towards us, many of my colleagues are concluding that they will not be putting themselves forward at the forthcoming election. A couple of our younger colleagues are placing their families first. But most are looking at being in their eighth decade, as I already am, at the end of the next session. When the two leading candidates for the US President are both older than I am - seventy-four in five week's time - it may seem surprising that retirement may be beckoning for me and others a lustrum younger than I am. But it illustrates the profound differences between being a back-bencher in our Parliament and the political life of a US Senator...

Tome for a new keybiard

Today is the one hundred and eighth daily episode of my reports from an 8th decader's lockdown. For a mathematician, 108 is a "good" number. Having three digits just locks into parts of the brain that tune into threes. And at a glance, it is a number that is divisible by three. Why, at a glance? Because if you add up the digits one, zero and eight, the answer is nine. Any number whose digits add up to a number that divides by three is itself divisible by three. If after the first add, you have answer bigger than nine, add the digits together and keep doing that until you have a single digit. This is a digit sum. If the final digit is a nine, then the original number will be divisible by three and by nine. If it's a six, then it's divisible by two and by three. And finally, if it's a three, then it is an odd number which is divisible by three. I am far from sure, but my memory is trying to persuade me that I was taught this at school. I am certain about...