WOMAN’S FRANCHISE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10108, 5 August 1893, Page 2

WOMAN’S FRANCHISE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —lf I did not know that Mr Dnval had been willing to expound from a public platform his views on the above subject I should have been inclined to treat as a deep joke his letter in your issue of Wednesday last. It appears, however, that his alarmist jeremiad must be taken to a certain extent seriously. He saya that because a few bright intellects have risen above the ordinary stamp of women, it does not follow that such an all-important step as the granting of the franchise to women should be taken. It is, then, a fair inference that in Mr Duval's opinion the fact that the average women of the present day does not rise to a great height of intellectual attainment ia a sufficient reason for keeping tho franchise from her. I wonder if ho would acquiesce in an attempt to regulate the accordance of the franchise to men by that rule. I fear that a good many of the free and independent electors of to-day would be shorn of their proud right j perhaps even Mr Duval himself would fall under the ban, and be left out in the cold in the ranks of the unrepresented, along with women, children, and idiots. Besides, does he consider that hitherto woman has been taught thot intellectual acquirement was not quite womanly ? Does he remember that while every avenue has been thrown open to man for the exercise of his intellect, those avenues have been rigidly barred against woman, and have only recently been opened, much against the will of such fearful and faint-hearted persons as Mr Duval P Does he nob recognise that man himself is to a vary great extent responsible for the condition that he quotes as an argument against the extension of the franchise? I observe also that be refers to the granting of the franchise to woman as a "privilege.” It is no privilege, it is but the recognition of a right, the amendment of a wrong done to one-haif of the human race. Suppose the present state of affairs were reversed; would not Mr Duval object to have laws made for him by a body of people so ignorant of his interests, his feelings and his rights, as he shows himself ignorant of the rights, feelings and interests of women ? Mr Duval seems to think Napoleon Bbnaparte an authority concerning women. Ho was, undoubtedly, a great genius in military affairs, but his character was not such as to quality him to speak with authority as to the object for which woman was created. At any rate, thanks to the "terrible wave of evolution” whose irresistible advance Mr Duval watches with such dismay, this generation is fast outgrowing the idea that woman’s whole duty in life is to bear as many children as her lord and master deems advisable, to keep a clean home, to cook him nice dinners, to bear witli meekness the insults he too often heaps upon her, and accept with thankfulness the meagre scraps of justice he too seldom throws her. Does Mr Duval honestly believe that woman has no higher use in the world than ia possessed by the common barn-doorfowl ? He proceeds to draw an exceedingly fanciful, and highly coloured picture of the state of domestic confusion and “disruption of our homes ” which would follow the granting of the franchise to women. I quite admit that the discussions between husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, might occasionally prove rather lively, especially if the lords of creation assumed such a dogmatic and high-banded position as he seems to take up. But upon his own line of argument, a few exceptional geniuses do not warrant the granting of the franchise to the whole sex, neither do the few exceptional families which would be disturbed by an election justify the withholding of the franchise. If, as he says, seven out of every ten women do nob want the franchise, where is all his fancied disturbance going to arise, since it is not compulsory to exercise the right of voting P Mr Duval seems to think that if a husband stays at home, bis wife has nothing more to desire. That might be the case with such a loving spouse as he himself would undoubtedly be, but ho must remember that all husbands are not so gentle, polite and courteous to women. I wish I could meet some of the women he refers to as "rushing, howling and screaming and running about.” They are so scarce that I am inclined to think they exist only in his own mind, which would fully account for the state of hia views on this interesting and important subject.—l am, &0., JOHSi BBNDELY. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, -—lt is hardly fair to attack a man when he cries “ Hold, enough!” but the end justifies the means. Mr Duval’s points against the franchise for women are weak—to put it mildly. He whines about the liberty of men being gone when women gain the franchise. What of the liberty of

women ? They ere by nature equal, and, in some instances, superior t> men. It is a remarkable tact in history that all notable men had remarkably good and clever mothers. Mr Duval says ,f Fancy our wives and daughters at the declaration o the poll!” If it be such a disgraceful scene as Mr Duval would have us think, there is another strong reason for the women to come out, as their influence on a crowd of men for good is much greater than that of the police. Again, as to women neglecting their homes. How is it men have not made the law so as to keep woman in her proper sphere ? Women have to bo the bread-winners, have to leave their homes and little ones to look for work, or else the children may starve. It is very well for Mr Duval to speak of those objections to the few wealthy people who have all they require, but they do not apply to the many who are the toilers. I have known men sell a good candidate for a glass of beer or a free feed. I warrant women won't do that. —I am, &0., ANOTHER POLITICAL MERMAID.