S.A.Register 31 July 1888 p7 e,f

Women's suffrage

TO THE EDITOR

Sir — "Respice Finem" who is evidently well versed in his Bible, undoubtedly has given the best arguments against women's suffrage that can be adduced from Scripture. I have considered his letter carefully, and am persuaded that the enfranchisement of women is not opposed to common sense, but is the outcome of light and reason, and is in harmony with the spirit of Holy Writ. There is a difference between the truths and sentiments of Christianity. While the eternal verities of God are stedfast and unchangeable, yet during the ages we find that the sentiments of Christianity have shown an adaptability to the times. Running parallel with the advancement of civilization there has been a progressiveness of the sentiments of the Christian religion. For instance (Deut, xxiv. 12). "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes . . . . then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand and send her out of his house, and when she has departed out of his house she may go and be another man's wife." Fifteen hundred years after the expression of the above Christ says (Matt, xix. 8) — "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The reasonings of your correspondent are synonymous with the arguments of many good people in the United States of America who were against the abolition of slavery, because Noah had said concerning his son Ham, (Genesis ix 25), "A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," and because Paul wrote (Ephesians vi, 58), "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling . . . . whether bond or free.") Yet who would give the very semblance of encouragement to slavery in the present times? No! no! If Paul and Timothy in writing to churches where the women, because of the semibarbarous times, were without knowledge, and said, "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection," however appropriate such and kindred injunctions may have been to those whom they immediately concerned, they are not appropriate for the nineteenth century. In truth, the women have obeyed the apostolic voice. They have learnt in silence, they now know as much as the men, and are ready for the next step. The next step in this colony is women's suffrage. Your correspondent says "all that men can do is to offer women sentiment." That is just it. Strange irony: all the argument is on the side of women on this question, and their opponents can only offer sentiment, a sentiment too that is a twin sister to prejudice. It is time that "Respice Finem" left off feeding himself and others on the shrivelled husks of an effete sentimentality.

I am Sir &c.,

H. McLENNAN.

S.A.Register 31 July 1888 p7 e,f

SIR — I notice a letter on women's suffrage signed "Respice Finem." May I remind the writer thereof that the texts he quotes refer to Church and not political affairs. probably St. Paul would not have considered it more sinful for a single woman "to plait her hair, wear pearls and costly apparel" than for a married lady to waste her time and money (or her husband's) in such extravagance. If it be true, as Miss Von Finklestein told us, that it takes the best part of a day for a woman "to do her hair" or get someone else to plait it for her, I can understand how one of these socalled lords of creation might think such a proceeding a great waste of time. Doubtless "Respice Finem" has overlooked Luke ii 3738. Woman certainly did not keep silence in that case, although she was in the Temple. If it were a shame for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, we presume that the Apostle expected that she would be likely to pray in public, as otherwise, if in her own room at home for instance, such a command would be superfluous. I have read that in the East the women are for the most part ignorant, and it was to prevent whispering and low talking during the time of service that St. Paul advised them to keep silence and ask their husbands at home what such and such things meant. This is an age of women's ministry, and we must not forget that a very large proportion of our foreign missionaries are women, who have left good homes and kind friends to carry the good news into India, China and other lands. When need arises woman is not afraid to take her right stand. After all, what great difference can it make if women are allowed a voice in our political interests? Are our women so good that men are afraid of their influence that they who are not worthy of respect will not receive it — that they will be taken at their own true worth of character and not of money? Is this the fact of the case, or does "Respice Finem" think that the women of South Australia in particular, and the world in general are so bad that their influence is to be dreaded? He who takes he greatest number of votes being victor, does he think that the good influence of the patriotic, educated, and sensible will be put in the minority by extending the suffrage to women? Surely we cannot anticipate that as the result of women's suffrage. Are not women the moulders of the characters of our brothers, husbands, and fathers? It is certainly not to gain the goodwill of their fellow women that they follow fashion, novelreading and various frivolities, but to please these same relatives who lay these sins to their charge. When men learn to admire a good commonsense, practical, true woman, doubtless we shall find more of our girls trying to become such. And it is to bring about a better state of things for herself, as well as for her family, that woman is anxious to be recognized as the true helpmate of man, to take the place God gave her and meant her to maintain. Is it not a reflection upon the way in which our political affairs are conducted, a revolt of true woman's nature against the injustice of many of our laws, that this question has been agitated at all? When the lords of creation, as they like to consider themselves, learn that a good manly man is God's grandest creation, and that his best helper is a loving homely woman, we shall not find them giving utterance to the unfair and selfish, often cruel sentiments, which so many now cherish against their sisters, wives and mothers. If a better state of things can be brought about by so doing by all means let woman have more power in deciding what so seriously affects her family and herself.

I am Sir&c.,

OVER TWENTYFIVE

S.A.Register 31July 1888 p7 e,f

Women's suffrage

TO THE EDITOR

Sir — Your correspondents in favour of the above mostly commence their arguments by abusing a writer whose opinion is adverse to their own, and question the range of his intelligence. This mode of writing will only damage their cause. If women at present suffer any injustices under the existing laws are those injustices only to be remedied by completely upsetting the Constitution? Instead of wasting time striving for the power to vote why not better employ themselves in educating their sons to use their votes properly? "The hadn that rocks the cradle rules the world." Did not our grandmothers in the days of chivalry educate their sons to bear their part bravely in the battlefield in defence of their country, instead of pleading to be allowed to buckle on the sword themselves? We bleed and die in defence of our wives, mothers and sisters, and yet these agitators would have them turn round and tell us we are not capable of governing our country. One of your correspondents says that in the past "men have made a mess of it." What guarantees have we that women wouldn't make a greater mess of it? I admire the woman who "loves, honours and obeys" her husband and tends as a good mother her children, but I turn away from her when she becomes an agitator. Giving the wife a vote would in the majority of cases only mean one more for her husband. And what a power the parson would have! The majority of the female part of his congregation would vote as he directed, and although I have the greatest respect for those worthy men, and yet I think one vote each is quite sufficient for them. I must refrain from saying anything further, Sir, I fear of trespassing too far upon your valuable space, though I have not written half of what I intended when taking up my pen: but allow me, in closing, to say to the ladies who are so inclined, do not risk losing the respect of men by entering the political arena.

I am Sir &c.,

M.H.J.

S.A.Register 31 July 1888 p7 e,f

Sir— In your paper there is a report of a meeting for the furtherance of a Women's Suffrage League, Dr. Stirling in the chair — a great factor of this movement. Any one would give him credit from his education and position to have had a more longsighted policy. What has universal suffrage done for these colonies? Already it has given labour a double voting power over capital, and for what good are they using it? They are sending their own nominees into Parliament with their present voting power, and in the event of women obtaining the same voting power it will be 6 to 2 in their favour, then they can nominate their own Parliament and pass any law these Trades and Labour Councils promote, which means destruction to all independence, also the independence of Parliament. What are these Trades Unions doing at the present moment? They are not only bossing these colonies, but are trying to boss California and China, and in a short time will have a try at our own English mail steamers. That will show the necessity to curtail the present suffrage instead of extending it, as women's suffrage will do; but I suppose, since universal suffrage has been and is the law of the land, it would now be impossible to repeal that law, give property a vote only, say a freeholder as low as £20: but to increase it as for this Women's League will be madness, and the originators ought to be confined at the south east corner of the Park Lands to keep them from further mischief, as I feel sure even with the present voting power of the Trades and Labour Councils it will not be long before our Parliaments will be composed of their nominees only. What will follow will be something serious to contemplate with the present odd bits of national debt having over our heads; but to these grand financiers that will be but mere trifles, as if they pass laws repugnant to English laws, and are not allowed by Her Majesty, these will be the men to sever their connection with the mother country; but in that they may find the only check to their assumptions, as England may then say, " We have a bit of a mortgage on your country; pay that trifle off, and then take your colony and do as you like with it; but that must be paid off first, and if not, the interest must be paid at proper dates." That will be the only check that trade and labour nominee Parliament will have. The colony will not have a say in it or the representatives of capital, as their voting power will be too small even as it is, especially if this Women's Suffrage Act is passed, which I, for one, must protest against.

I am, Sir, &c.,

THOMAS DODD

Glen Osmond