Editorial, August 31, 1895 'one man one vote and one woman one vote'.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, AUGUST 31, 1895.

The Editorial Mill.

Our Motto: “Socialism in our time.”

The members of the present Ministry and their supporters appear to be resolved that so far as they are concerned Queensland shall lag behind all the other Australian colonies in anything that pertains to social and political reform. So blindly determined is their resistance to all progressive legislation that even Mr. Charles Power's very moderate request to amend the electoral laws of the colony in the direction of abolishing the unfair plural vote and of allowing a man who moves across the road into another electorate to vote in that electorate after he has been resident there for a period of two months has been rejected. It was said that if Mr. Glassey would not ask for so much as one man one vote and one woman one vote the House would be disposed to grant a measure of reform; but when every chance is given honourable members on the Government side of the House to in some small degree set themselves right with the public the opportunity is thrown away, and by 36 votes to 30 all hope of electoral reform for at least another year is cast aside.

* * *

One may wade for hours through the speeches of the opponents of one man one vote without finding one single cogent argument against the proposal. The secretary for Lands harped on the necessity of giving a vote for thrift to every man of industry and thrift – the proof of industry and thrift to be the possession of an allotment of land said to be worth £100, though how the possession of such a piece of land (to which the community gives the value) qualifies its owner to be a better judge of the candidate for parliamentary honours than the landless man is not explained. The Secretary for Public Instruction (Mr. Dalrymple), who being at the head of the Education Department, might be expected to know something of the pros. and cons., reiterated the speech of Mr. Barlow, with a repetition of his old grievance against the New Australians for trying to make a home in a land which they thought was better than this badly-governed prairie. The Hon. J.R. Dickson, the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Tozer), and the small political fry of the M'Master type had nothing new or worthy to say against Mr. Power's proposals.

* * *

The official organ of the Government, the Brisbane COURIER, did certainly strike something novel prior to the taking of the division on Wednesday last, and that was, that with the abolition of the plural vote the young men of the colony would have a preponderance of voting power over the old men. But in trying to prove this the COURIER placed itself in an awkward position. This special pleader for the Nelson Ministry stated that the number of possible voters, according to the 1891 census (that is, the entire number of adult males in the electorates, aliens excluded) was 109,919. Of these 16,588 were below 25 years of age, 38,621 were below 30, and as many as 56,672 were below 35. The electors on the on the Queensland roll at last election were 83,005, or about three fourths of the possible number. Now, granting that this is so, what are the 26,914 adult males who are not on the roll? If they are young men there is no preponderating influence. If they are old men, the claim set up by the COURIER for superior wisdom on account of age either falls to the ground or it is plainly evident that there is some obstacle in the way of their exercising their vote, and an obstacle which a reform in the electoral laws should remove.

* * *

It is not necessary here to go over the arguments against the allotment of land plural vote. No doubt it is sufficient to observe that the man who scrapes and saves and denies himself and his family in order that he may buy a £100 allotment, should not have greater political power than the man who stints himself in order to purchase £100 worth of books and education. The young man contention may be more forceful, but it presents as many difficulties as any other. Were it at all possible to fix an equitable standard of efficiency other than mere sane manhood whereby men might be adjudged qualified to vote in parliamentary and municipal elections, the WORKER would advocate such a standard, but it is not possible. Who will deny that some hard-headed business man of his acquaintance, who cannot even read or write his own name, is not able, after hearing and knowing two candidates for parliamentary honours, to decide which of the two is best fitted to represent him and his in Parliament. We have met such men-few, it is true; but such men there are who have had no school education, who are better politicians than many who have creditably passed several university examinations. And if you introduce the family test, what then? Is the man who is too proud and too honourable to marry in these days, when few men can say they are sure of being able to support a wife and family in decency and comfort, to be given less political power than the man who is careless of the responsibilities which marriage entails?

* * *

There may perhaps be something in the young man idea. But even that is a dangerous doctrine. The young man is hopeful, he is enthusiastic, he is more generous. Less acquainted with the dark side of human nature, he is not so cynical and suspicious as the old man. Knowing less of historical failures he is more courageous. Where the aged man would tremble for the results impending from drastic reform, the young man would see nothing but good to come. The young man is fresh and vigorous, anxious for that variety and change which is the spirit of progress. The old man is too often soured by the severer by the conservatism of old men before him, and he desires the peace and quietness of “Let things alone.” We should beware of hampering the judgement of the young. As a young man Tennyson, the late poet laureate, wrote:

Men, my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new,

That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do;

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,

Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew

From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,

With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

Had Tennyson, “poor old voice of eighty crying after voices that have fled,” been imbued with the spirit of “Sixty Years After” when he wrote the first “Locksly Hall,” his life's work as we know it would have been impossible. As with Tennyson, so with the average man. When he becomes old he grows crusty and conservative. He wants everything done as it used to be. He doesn't believe in modern locomotion because as a young man he was compelled to walk. He doesn't believe in the “new-fangled notions,” he doesn't believe in one man one vote or one woman one vote either, and if he had his way, the world would just about stand still.

* * *

No, the difficulties in the way of restricting the franchise to education, experience, or landed property are so stupendous that Queensland should give up trying to be different to other people. Most nations have recognised that 21 years is a fair age at which a man may be considered an adult, and at which he may be expected to obey the laws of his country. Most nations have set their faces against the plural vote, and Queensland, a young country half a century old, is perfectly safe in following their example.

France Denmark Switzerland Hungary Spain Netherlands United States New Zealand South Australia

Germany Greece Prussia Italy Bavaria Servia New South Wales Victoria, and

have abolished plural voting, and in some instances have had one man one vote as their electoral franchise for as long as 100 years, and in others have long since granted to adult women the parliamentary suffrage. What have we to fear?