WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 168, 13 February 1868, Page 2

WOMAN'S RIGHTS.

We don't believe it, but Professor Newman asserts that free-love doctrines are finding favor with the women of England, and that there is a growing objection to enter the marriage state on account of the disabilities which the law imposes on married women. They object, it is said, to the subjection imposed by marriage vows, and will not be considered bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of their husbands. If this be true, the' world has come to a pretty pass, and forefather Adam was deprived of his rib in vain. That married women generally get the upper hand of their husbands in all matters domestic, is allowed ; but the wives themselvs have so,stoutly denied the imputation that the truth cannot be arrived at ; but if the women themselves hoiat the petticoat in rebellion,

and vow they won't bo married unless they can openly do that which has hitherto been done in secret, what are the inferior sex—poor, unfortunate down-trodden men—to do ? The symptoms of rebellion have so long been visible that we, in some measure, should be prepared for a revolution of the sexes. Once on a time it was the custom of men to woo, and of women to be won ; but since kiss-me-quick bonnets and coquettish boot-heels have come into vogue, the practice is reversed. Amongst the weaker (the male) sex there is a prevalent impression that they are involuntarily taken in and done for, are hooked, caught, and led like lambs to the slaughter. Now they are informed that women are impatient of matrimonial obligations that they won't obey, although willing enough to love—as for honoring, that depends on circumstances : in fact, that they won't entrap and marry any longer unless they enjoy greater privileges afterwards. Let us see what are the disabilities under which women labor. Married or single, they have no political privileges. Married, they can have no separate property of their own, and their earnings belong to their husbands. The advocates of women's rights insist that they should have a voice in political government, but we are not aware if the chivalrous enthusiasts go the length of contending for female representatives. If the theory be carried to its legitimate conclusion, there should be female members of Parliament, female judges and lawyers, female bishops, and, we presume also, female soldiers. One inconvenience resulting from a House of Eepresentatives of both sexes would be a strong disposition to pair off, and, although women might be tolerably good judges of men; who would entrust a woman to their discretion, tempered with mercy ? Very fair lawyers women might make, although it cannot be supposed that they would ever wear wigs and gowns. That women possess in a Mgh degree the qualities necessary for soldiers, may be admitted, and if they are to share in government' it would only be fair that they should take also their share of fighting. It would he necessary in order to maintain an equality of the sexes ; for if unfortunate men were compelled to fight out women's quarrels, the sex would soon become rare. A once popular song says : " Let those who make the quarrels be the only ones to fight." Three-fourths of all the quarrels that have taken place since the beginning of the world have had women at the bottom of them, and hence if women plead for a removal •of legal disabilities, and assert their right to equality with the other sex, they cannot object to recuit the ranks of armies. Where are the disabilities apart from political grievances which are imposed on women ? True they cannot acquire property, but then they are not liable for their own debts. Extravagant women may ruin their husbands, but for them the Insolvent Court has no terrors. How many husbands will be driven distracted by their drapers' bills delivered at the end of the year ? "What about those expensive dresses which have been purchased in honor of the Prince ? Poor MrCaudle may be driven to his wits' end, to find the wherewithal to pay his tradesmen's bills. He may be threatened with lawyer's letter and writs, but these have no terrors for a lawfully married wife. Disabilites, indeed , What disability can be more enjoyable than that which saves one from the consequences of running into debt. Seriously, the rights of women advocates are but rank humbugs, and the attempts to induce women to step out of their state of dependence is very destructive of womanly influence and of womanly virtues. Intellectually, women have as much opportunity of distinguishing themselves as men. But if the truth must be told, women do not use the powers they have and the privileges they possess as beneficially as they might. They don't do as much for their own sex as they might. They don't do as much for those whom Providence has specially placed in them, we mean children, as they might; and we may be permitted to hint that wives some times do not do quite as much for their husbands as they might. Heaven knows there ij room enough for the exercise of all the intellectual powers with which women are endowed, and their exemption from the cares and temptations of men should be regarded as a blessing rather than a disability. Give to women what Professor Newman aud Mr Mill would have, and what would they bo in danger of becoming ;" True love " and the equality of women are American notions, and like many other notions, are most pernicious to society, and if Mr Mill's doctrines should make English women what American are, then farewell to all hopes of England's beneficial influence on mankind