WOMAN’S FRANCHISE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10105, 2 August 1893, Page 2

WOMAN’S FRANCHISE.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— ln reply to “ Nanciea’e ” epistle, allow me space to inform her that though I may have appeared foolish in her lovely eyes, I am certainly neither the apostle nor a member of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. When I entered the hall on Friday evening last I had no idea that I should have been called upon to speak. Allow me to inform her also that I have read Harriet Martineau’s life and works, and nearly all the writings of other such " blue stockings.” But though women have taken positions in art, science and literature, and in these degenerating daya have entered the legal and medical profesaions, it does not therefore follow that because a few bright intellects have risen above the, ordinary stamp of women that such an all-important step as the granting the female franchise should at once be taken, and that before first of all asking the constituencies, and even the women themselves, whether such a privilege should be granted. These few and exceptional women are an exception to the rule “ that woman is not man’s equal in intellectual powers.” One of the greatest geniuses that the world has yet seen, Napoleon Bonaparte, was once aaksd by ons of these few exceptional creatures (Madame do Stael), whom ho considered was the greatest woman that ever lived. His cogent reply was, “Madam, the woman who bore the mostchildreu.” Surely " Nanciea” will not deny that this is woman’s place in creation, and that if, as a good mother, she fulfils all the multifarious duties appertaining to that state, she will not be able to find time to occupy herself with any other subjects. “ Nanciea ”is likewise mist iken if she believes that I have not watched the “ great wave of evolution that has swept over some English women everywhere.” On the contrary, I have watched with dismay the approach of this terrible “ wave of evolution,” for I begin to sea that from it will evolve "a political hermaphrodite” which will cause the disruption of our homes and destroy our liberties. Have men who advocate this woman’s franchise ever considered the inevitable results that will follow. Let us consider and think what our future homes and firesides will be, when husband, wife, sons and daughters, to say nothing of the kitchen family, will be discussing and arguing on politics. We know what an excitement an election sometimes is. Now, fancy every home in every electorate during a general election. Imagine fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, men and female servants.allrushing about, attending different political meetings, canvassing each one for his or her candidate for weeks and weeks before the day of election. On that day the homes will he turned upside down. Imagine — or try to do bo— our wives and daughters in the crowds at the declaration of the poll. Lot us again remember that the inevitable result must be—household duties neglected, children left uncared for, dinners—well, that’s out of the question; wife, daughters, sons, husbands wrangling, disputing; in other words, tho beautiful English “home, sweet home,” all gone. And for what ? To grant to women what seven out of every ten do not want and will never ask for. Let those who champion or’advocate this question reflect before adopting such a revolutionary measure. Let them pause, and let every man who cherishes his home, wife and children be up and at work, and move heaven and earth to prevent such a calamity.—l am, &c., M. DE H. DUVAL. P.S. —Since writing the above, I see in yesterday’s issue that two other political mermaids have thought proper to rush into print. As I have, however, no intention of writing any further I must decline to take any notice of them, but will repeat what I said at tho meeting, " That if, instead of rushing, howling and screaming and running about attending meetings, tbey, as good Christian women, would only stop at home and look after their children and household duties, and make their homes cheerful and comfortable, they would have no reason to complain that their husbands did not stay at home, and woman’s franchise would never be mentioned or thought of.”