Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-08-03

points. An extraordinary sitting Of
the House of Parliament Is also por-
trayed in our cable dispatches.
TME W0MAN's RIGHrs QUESTION
IN ENGLAND.
A recent number Of the London
Times gives the greater part Of one of
it, ample pages TO the report of q warm
Parliamentary debate OH MIR. John
Bright's bill for removing the disabili-
ties of women The purpose of the
bill was TO confer the elective franchise
on the gentle sex. The Parliamentary
discussion was lively and amusing;
but . careful perusal Of all that was
said by the speakers on both sides and
III the vigorous leading article In the
Times on the debate, adds nothing TO
what we already knew on this inter.
es:ing subject. The Parliamentary
discussion and the Times forcible edi-
torial merely present, in somewhat
better language, the arguments, pro
and con, with which We have Icing
been familiar on this side OF the At
Ixn,ic. The only new point we have
been able to discover is the playful
one presented by The O'Donoghue.
"He would ask his honorable friend,
the member from Manchester, why
man should reserve to himself the
sole right Of putting a question on
which the happiness Of both sexes
largely depended? (Lsughter.) Why
should not woman also be permitted
20 pop the question instead of wait
ing till she was asked? The conven-
tionxl restraint which prevented her
from doing this and compelled her to
endure q suspense which often, no
doubt, was most painful was the only
disability under which, 90 far as he
knew, she was laboring, and if the
Honorable member from Manchester
thought ft to introduce q bill or set on
foot an agitation for its removal. he
(The O'Donoshue) would be prepared
to give him his most ardent support.
(Laughter.)" There were several
sportive sallies Of this kind, though
not so original, in the course Of the
debate, but the advantage Of serious
argument was on the side OF the OPP
ponents Of Mr.. Bright's bill.
The Times, which approached the
question on its serious side, was very
strong and energetic against the right
Of women to vote. The coloring of its
article wss borrowed from the great
war which absorbs public attention.
Its substance was that the effective
control OF political questions depends
upon those who can fight. All ques-
tons Of foreign politics must be ulti-
mately decided by the sword, II the
parties cannot agree, aud ven domes-
tic questions require the Intervention
OF force whenever they are carried to
the point Of insurrection against the
Government. The most extreme ad-
vocates Of the rights Of woman have
never maintained that she should
march with armies and encounter the
h~ardships Of military life. But IS she
cannot fight. there is no sense in cloth
Ing her with the power to decide ques.
tons that may lead to . conflict OF
arms in which she cannot participate
Even the most ordinary law on apure-
~ domestic question presupposes q
power to enforce 1t, and the compelling
power il the military force OF the Gov.
eminent. Laws amount TO nothing
without physical force to put down re.
sistance, and this armed physical pow.
or does not reside In the gentler sex
Government il not q rose.water n.
rangment; it IL not mere moral suasion
It Il idle and ridiculous without physi
cAl force behind it. The London
Times accordingly argues that woman
suffrage 10 absurd, because mere polit-
heal regulation 10 an empty farce with
out enforcing soldiers behind it. and
only the male sex h capable Of serving
~ soldiers.
An old friend, Al ex-residcnt Of Eu-
rska. sends IN his views regarding the
big mining suit. It will be observed
that he IL rather severe on the theory
OF Professor Raymond. Alter King and