Contemporary story
Off

Hermann the Irascible

It was in the second decade of the Twentieth Century, after the Great Plague had devastated England, that Hermann the Irascible, nicknamed also the Wise, sat on the British throne. The Mortal Sickness had swept away the entire Royal Family, unto the third and fourth generations, and thus it came to pass that Hermann the Fourteenth of Saxe-Drachsen-Wachtelstein, who had stood thirtieth in the order of succession, found himself one day ruler of the British dominions within and beyond the seas. He was one of the unexpected things that happen in politics, and he happened with great thoroughness. In many ways he was the most progressive monarch who had sat on an important throne; before people knew where they were, they were somewhere else. Even his Ministers, progressive though they were by tradition, found it difficult to keep pace with his legislative suggestions.

"As a matter of fact," admitted the Prime Minister, "we are hampered by these votes-for-women creatures; they disturb our meetings throughout the country, and they try to turn Downing Street into a sort of political picnic-ground."

"They must be dealt with" said Hermann.

"Dealt with," said the Prime Minister; "exactly, just so; but how?"

"I will draft you a Bill," said the King, sitting down at his type-writing machine, "enacting that women shall vote at all future elections. Shall vote, you observe; or, to put it plainer, must. Voting will remain optional, as before, for male electors; but every woman between the ages of twenty-one and seventy will be obliged to vote, not only at elections for Parliament, county councils, district boards, parish-councils, and municipalities, but for coroners, school inspectors, churchwardens, curators of museums, sanitary authorities, police-court interpreters, swimming-bath instructors, contractors, choir-masters, market superintendents, art-school teachers, cathedral vergers, and other local functionaries whose names I will add as they occur to me. All these offices will become elective, and failure to vote at any election falling within her area of residence will involve the female elector in a penalty of 10 pounds. Absence, unsupported by an adequate medical certificate, will not be accepted as an excuse. Pass this Bill through the two Houses of Parliament and bring it to me for signature the day after tomorrow."

From the very outset the Compulsory Female Franchise produced little or no elation even in circles which had been loudest in demanding the vote. The bulk of the women of the country had been indifferent or hostile to the franchise agitation, and the most fanatical Suffragettes began to wonder what they had found so attractive in the prospect of putting ballot-papers into a box. In the country districts the task of carrying out the provisions of the new Act was irksome enough; in the towns and cities it became an incubus. There seemed no end to the elections. Laundresses and seamstresses had to hurry away from their work to vote, often for a candidate whose name they hadn't heard before, and whom they selected at haphazard; female clerks and waitresses got up extra early to get their voting done before starting off to their places of business. Society women found their arrangements impeded and upset by the continual necessity for attending the polling stations, and week-end parties and summer holidays became gradually a masculine luxury. As for Cairo and the Riviera, they were possible only for genuine invalids or people of enormous wealth, for the accumulation of 10 pound fines during a prolonged absence was a contingency that even ordinarily wealthy folk could hardly afford to risk.

It was not wonderful that the female disfranchisement agitation became a formidable movement. The No-Votes-for-Women League numbered its feminine adherents by the million; its colours, citron and old Dutch-madder, were flaunted everywhere, and its battle hymn, "We Don't Want to Vote," became a popular refrain. As the Government showed no signs of being impressed by peaceful persuasion, more violent methods came into vogue. Meetings were disturbed, Ministers were mobbed, policemen were bitten, and ordinary prison fare rejected, and on the eve of the anniversary of Trafalgar women bound themselves in tiers up the entire length of the Nelson column so that its customary floral decoration had to be abandoned. Still the Government obstinately adhered to its conviction that women ought to have the vote.

←2

Then, as a last resort, some woman wit hit upon an expedient which it was strange that no one had thought of before. The Great Weep was organized. Relays of women, ten thousand at a time, wept continuously in the public places of the Metropolis. They wept in railway stations, in tubes and omnibuses, in the National Gallery, at the Army and Navy Stores, in St. James's Park, at ballad concerts, at Prince's and in the Burlington Arcade. The hitherto unbroken success of the brilliant farcical comedy "Henry's Rabbit" was imperilled by the presence of drearily weeping women in stalls and circle and gallery, and one of the brightest divorce cases that had been tried for many years was robbed of much of its sparkle by the lachrymose behaviour of a section of the audience.

"What are we to do?" asked the Prime Minister, whose cook had wept into all the breakfast dishes and whose nursemaid had gone out, crying quietly and miserably, to take the children for a walk in the Park.

"There is a time for everything," said the King; "there is a time to yield. Pass a measure through the two Houses depriving women of the right to vote, and bring it to me for the Royal assent the day after tomorrow."

As the Minister withdrew, Hermann the Irascible, who was also nicknamed the Wise, gave a profound chuckle.

"There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream," he quoted, "but I'm not sure," he added "that it's not the best way."

Options

Introducing your ereader mobile app!

Manybooks

Get The Best Reading Experience

App linkApp link

Rate this story:

Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Submitted by admin on Thu, 03/13/2003 - 08:15

Permalink

The women didnt vote out the king or vote to end mandatory voting because those choices were not on the balot. The government made the balot, the women were forced to vote on it. The story made perfect sense. ---DB

Submitted by admin on Thu, 03/13/2003 - 08:15

Permalink

yes, very funny, good point... but... couldnt it have been something else? a subject such as the womens right to vote brings to mind a lot of irrelevant historical stuff. also the king chose a clever way... not to let women vote implying tat women voting is not a good thing. Really great, but how about chosing some other subject? maybe like the right to drink vodka in public place? imagine the possiblities...

Submitted by admin on Thu, 03/13/2003 - 08:15

Permalink

what a treat! thoroughly enjoyed this, Saki; you have a wonderful talent. happy to see youre taking advantage of it! this one reminds me of the story of the kids who constantly begged for candy, and whose parents, after having been nagged to death, decided to treat their young-uns to candy for each and every meal for one solid month. at the end of the thirty-days, those children were begging their parents, Please!!! No more candy. May we have some soup and bread for supper? thanks for the outstanding read....

Submitted by admin on Sat, 03/13/2004 - 16:50

Permalink

Sorry but this story lacks many points, and excels in others less flattering: *starts lamely and goes nowhere particular *Too much telling, not enough showing. *Verbosity E.g. (near the end) "The hitherto unbroken success of the brilliant farcical comedy "Henrys Rabbit" was imperilled by the presence of drearily weeping women in stalls and circle and gallery, and one of the brightest divorce cases that had been tried for many years was robbed of much of its sparkle by the lachrymose behaviour of a section of the audience." Whew! *The same story can be told in half the space, and therefore better told. * Weakly comic - very close to Un-Funny. * Very little relevance of characters, plot, themes, etc to fact; or in other words, not fantastical enough to warrant fantasy label.

Submitted by admin on Sun, 05/23/2004 - 03:24

Permalink

Sakis writing is, as always, quite brilliant. But I found the story so insulting to women, simply because it seems to imply that women really wouldnt want to vote if they knew what voting entailed, when in actual fact, the Bill drafted by the King didnt promote EQUAL voting at all (what the feminists of the age were after was EQUALITY, after all), but an utterly unfair, unreasonable,and burdensome voting system for women in contrast to the voting system the men were privy to. Could not help also finding it ridiculous that the women in the story gave in to the Kings trick so easily instead of seeing through it and demonstrating against such a discriminatory voting system.

Submitted by admin on Fri, 07/02/2004 - 07:27

Permalink

I think the ending is not quite good, the latter half of the story doesn`t work well. The reaction of the women was really stupid and absurd. I looked forward to a more surprising and impressive ending. But it did frustrate.

Submitted by admin on Fri, 07/09/2004 - 11:06

Permalink

Pretty Good. Im new to all this and havin a top time searchin round for the writers of today, tomorrow and sundays. Top stuff from you. a bit spike, would work well as a pete n dud sketch if you took it to its limits. george

Submitted by admin on Sat, 07/17/2004 - 17:52

Permalink

Sorry, but I just found this weak. If the author was invested in humor, then he passed up too many possibilites. Perhaps news reporters interviewing the women for direct reaction to the new law. Like it or not, the subject too is touchy, and, because of that, the story suffers because it doesnt go far enough over the top in its humor. It is more fable than farce, even containing a moralistic tag line!

Submitted by admin on Sun, 07/25/2004 - 18:44

Permalink

For those of you who are mystified as to why the author might disapprove of the womens vote, it would help to keep in mind that he was born in 1879 and died in 1916. With that in mind, stories like Fillboid Studge are even funnier, revealing the unchanging folly of human behavior.

Submitted by admin on Fri, 01/21/2005 - 03:27

Permalink

Interesting story though I would have liked it better without the misogynistic undertones. I guess the opinions of the author stays true to his historical context, but whats the excuse for the men whove commented and related womens vote to children wanting candy or whove complained about women "bitching" too much. Do you guys hear yourselves? You do realized that it is the 21st century right?

Submitted by admin on Thu, 03/03/2005 - 08:16

Permalink

I like this storys comments on the idea of feminism being entirely benificial to men. "Honey, you want to go grad school and keep your job? Im damned opposed, but Ill be right here, supporting you... on the couch... with a beer."

Submitted by admin on Mon, 06/13/2005 - 11:56

Permalink

Not the best story ever but definitely interesting and worth a read. Quite sexist if you think about it though and not really all that funny. Making it maditory for women to vote just to make them not....well I never!

Submitted by admin on Sun, 07/03/2005 - 19:58

Permalink

A stupid sexist story. The feminist movement is all about women having the same rights as men. When women have to vote on every single election while men don’t, creates the same kind of special treatment for men as before. I am sure there would have been protests to this rule before it even got into effect.

Submitted by admin on Thu, 07/07/2005 - 16:27

Permalink

I agree that if the author wanted this to be taken less seriously, he would have made the humor more ridiculous and over-the-top, like Jonathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal," so complaints of "misogynistic undertones" are accurate, if overblown. But the story is cleverly written and the idea is still good.

Submitted by admin on Wed, 08/03/2005 - 20:39

Permalink

It is simply not funny and it just dosent crack me up at all.This is insulting to women, simply because it seems to imply that women really wouldnt want to vote if they knew what voting entailed. It makes women like brainless hooligans.

Submitted by admin on Fri, 09/30/2005 - 20:23

Permalink

Can we get one thing straight for all the braindead people on here, the story was written over 100 years ago when women did not act like they do now, they used to look after the family and do the housework and left all the politics to the men, so when this was written women would not have known what to do with their right to vote and so really the king was merely looking for the easy option out of the problem. It was either give women the right to vote and cause conflict in society and create the need for political education for women or confuse the women and leave everything as is, he chose the simpler method, not saying this was right but it was his way of dealing with a possible bad situation. On a positive note the story was well written and very witty.

Add new comment

About text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.