[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR,—Your argument in respect
to the Woman Suffrage, i.e., that women are better off when represented indirectly, is very well for those women who are in lawful possession of a man of their own, and may be very cogent as to the indiscrimate extension of the franchise to all women ; but it seems to me an argument rather for than against the present agitation for the suffrage to women-householders. As one of the latter class (not very desirous of the privilege, yet a little impatient of its denial), let me ask by whom are we to be indirectly represented P By our servants, if we are rich enough to have them,—by our green- grocers, or any stray man whom we may be able to persuade into adopting our opinions P The influence which we should wield in such circumstances would very likely be held to come under the heads of bribery or intimidation, and would in any case be illegitimate, seeing the man would naturally have womankind of his own looking to him for indirect representa- tion. And pray tell me in what respect it would be better for me to borrow a share in a man for political purposes than to
have a vote of my own ?—I am, Sir, &c., M.
[Every woman, whether married or single, has as much in- fluence on politics—where she has as much knowledge—as any man. There are sons and brothers to represent women, as well as husbands. And women, with the same knowledge, are much more persuasive than men.—En. Spectator.]