The Bee-Hive. — 1872-07-13 (London, England)

LEGISLATION FOR WOAIEN. WIUN the House of Common's, by its decisive vote on the Ist of May, aflirtned that women ought to . have nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with legislation, honourable members Must have had very fresh in their recollection the fact that legislation had very much to do with women, Mr. Jacon BRIGHT having just enumerated a long array of measures then before the House, every one of which concerned the special interests of wetnen.  In a country which prides itself on its representative institutions, it might have been supposed that the representative assembly would have felt that .in questions in which the interests of women conflict, or seem to conflict, with those of Men, the opinion of women, regularly expressed through the recognized ,constitutional media, must afford an element most necessary to be taken into account in arriving at any just solution. Yet, our legislators in their wisdom have, for the present, determined that the inalienable laws of nature and of GOD, prescribe for men liberty, for . women, slavery ;-,-that the preogative of sex is such as to lift the .coarsest and most ignorant boor, if but a "male person," above the level ever to be attained by the noblest and most gifted of. Women ;--tllat the relation between the sexes was, is, and is for ever to remain, that of lord and serf, a dominion of .absolatO away on the one hand, and of passive obedience on the other. Such is, in effect, the meaning of the vote of the House of Commons when reduced to its simplest possible expression. Granted, that many circumstances of our daily lives conflict with such a theory, that in words no man ventures to affirm it, and that the best men  have long ceased practically to act upon it, it yet remaina fant, that in this country this is .the political status of every woman, and the personal status of every, married woman, although recent legislation has so far modified this servile condition as to give to a married woman her own earnings earned after marriage; and, moreover, women can never forget that, So long as they are excluded from the exercise of the lowest political function on the ground of their sex, they have absolutely no guarantee .that their Claims will at any time .be taken into the aatiount in determining matters affecting the 'sexes differently; If, these claims are ,OOnsidored, it is as a matter of favour, and not of right; of generosity, and not of justice.  Justice cannot, indeed, enter into questions between those who have all rights and those who have none. Yet, comically enough,. most of the opponents of Mr. JACOB BRIGIIT'S Bill were driven to argue on the assumption that justice between the sexes is desirable, so far as the progress of events led them beyond the limit's of their own theory. Some even ventured to argue that men would, in legislation, at least; be always just towards women. " Thus, " Mr. BOUVERIE affirmed, "the men composing that House had no feeling of sex whieh would prevent their agreeing to measures of a perfectly equitable character between men and women." And again that "Parliament, as at present. elected and constituted, would at any time be willing to pass any measure ealculated to put boys and girls on an equality, so far as education was concerned." Unfortunately for Mr. BOVVERIE, the women of England have not forgotten, though ho apparently has, that when this, very question of equal provision for- the education of girls and boys was expressly before this present Parliament, iv the discussion on clause 12 of the Endowed Schools Bill on the 14th of June, 1869, the House of Commons decisively refused to sanction the principle of equality between the sexes whieh it was asked by Mr. WINTERBOTITAM to accept. Mr. BouvEnts is even loss fortunate in his more general statements as to the equitable character of legislation as between men and women. abgeTheceo alleigeorteilsea,e wo tofw aaCuoimmd emahosanuvrseed irwde restored ettda marriedi t ever indeed wo years wproOlpneerlity at, oofsitvhoifehthth se); rari that at porevseernttlideleprrio'vwedn  by law. But the 'same louse complacently  acquiesced in the destruction of the measure by the Lords, and accepted at their hands,under the same name, a changeling which had not one feature of the murdered infant. It is perbars bit natural that those who have to wear the shoes so sadly misfitted to them, should know where they pinch better than their makers. The