The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-02-19
me Franchise for women.

The question of extending the cleo
tive franchise to women is again under
discussion in England. The quarter
lies and literary weeklies are taking up
the subject in all its phases, and the ad-
vocates of women's rights have found
champion in the Westminster Revieig,
which says:
''It seems to US that no abstract ideas
of woman's mission can reasonably be
brought forward as proof OF an urgent
necessity for the exclusion OF women
from the franchise under our existing
system; and that if the question is ask
ed-What good would be gained by
their admissionS the answer is yery
plain. Whatever good is to be gained
by the British Constitution. If that be
good, it is evident that the carving
it out must be good. The perpetuation
of an omission which originated in cir
cumstances that have long since passed
away, must do as much harm to those
who are omitted as would have been
done TO their countrymen if the British
Constitution had not existed. II it be
an advantage to be able TO protect ones
property by the power of voting for
mem oerS of Parliament, the possession
of this adyantage.mustb be good for all
those who live and own property under
parliamentary government. The good
that would be done to women them
selves Is, in fact, not open to dispute,
unless we dispute the advantage of par
llamentary government and represen-
tstion of property and in that case we
must dispute the advantage of the
English system of government alto
gether.
III, continuing to confiue ourselves
to strictly constitutional point of
view, we ask what would be the ad-
nj to . Wka
the political representation of female
holders of property, on the same con-
ditions as men, we think, as we have
already indicated, that the reply is
equally clear. If the representation in
Parliament of those who are interested
in property is national good, tending
TO the preservation and fostering of all
property interests, to the increase of
our national wealth, and tothe handing
down to our descendants of the nation
al property under favorable conditions
then the disfranehisement of any class
OF holders of property must be an evil
proportioned to their numbers, and
their enfranchisement an advantage in
the same proportion. Whatever may
be the causes, there can be no doubt
that the class of independent women is
continually increasing one in this
country, and their admission TO the
franchise is, therefore, continually be-
coming, by the natural course of events,
question of greater practical import
ance.
Turning now to the question, what
harm could be done by their admis-
sion? we are embarrassed by the diff
Guilty of finding any answer whatever,
unless We go out of the bounds we have
prescribed to ourselves, and get beyond
the limits of the constitutional point of
view. Revolutionary violence is out
of the question from them, and their
numbers are OF such as to give rise to
any OF the apprehensions of disturb
ance OF the balance of power which
have been excited in some minds by
the claims of the working classes
There would probably be found some
duly qualified female voters in every
rank of society, and among them some
members of almost every religious sys-
tenn or political party, so that the exist
ing interests of no single class, or party
or religious body could have anything
to fear from them. 1t seems difficult
to imagine case where the principles
of the Constitution could be applied
with more absolute freedom from the
slightest shadow. of danger"
The English journals are having a
deal of fun over critic in the London
Reader, who has certainly beat all his
tribe in the stupidity Of his blunder.
He undertook to write review of a
new edition of Johnson's Dictionary, by
DR.. Latham. He has innocently taken
DIR. Johnsonis preface for the editors,
and proceeds to lash DR.. Latham for his
pretension and brag- He even quotes
sentences, which could be written bT
nobody hut DIR. johnson, which any
person with the first r1diment of crit
ical faculty would know to be his,
though its being theaAuthor's preface, y
and dozens of passages in il had not
sugg ested its true authorship, and then
abuses the editor, as if he had set aside
DIR. johnson and were asserting that he
has done all that the old Doctor claim
ed for himself. He says, stin the
Authors ureface, Johnson'has altoeeth-
er disappeared If he had not been a
more than common fool he wouid at
least have detect ed Johnson's style, and
might have made more decent blum
der, in charging DIR. Latham with pla-
GiaIism, or close imitation He even
shows such alacrity in bIundering as TO
proceed -ssto beg Messrs- Io1gman 70
| cancel this authors preface, and substi-
tute one for 1t which will do little
! more justice TO Johnsonfs workI- He
promises good notice" he is much
more likely 70 throw himself into the
Thames, If his article has not already
killed him.