THE REVOLT OF MAN.

The inevitable has oome. Man has risen in revolt and the new order changeth, yielding plaoe to old. The leader of the reaotion is one William Austin, a London business man, whose soul has been atirred within him by the injuriea done to his aex by proud women. He haa formed a Men's Rights League, and it is darkly hinted that thousands are flocking to his standard. Secretly, as yet, for fear of the sovereign sex. Indeed, the only one ot the oonspirators who has dared to disolose his identity is the bold Austin. Imagination woald pioture him as a sour old baohelor who has Buffered many things in the oonrts by various breaohes of premise, or as a philanthropio widower who, freed himself from galling ohains, is fired with a high ambition to be another and reactionary Moses to lead his people from the Promised Land. It stands to reason that he himself is not a married man, for no woman, however well disposed towards the vulgar sex, would allow her particular property to boldly head so flagrant a revolt. As a matter of ,faot Mr Austin is a rioh young baohelor. They say he is good looking, too, but upon this point it would be wiser to reserve judgement until after a jury of New Women ahall have reoorded its verdiot. The ' they ' of report is evidently only a man, who is no judge of such matters, besides beißg prejudiced and generally of no Importance. However that may be, Mr Austin may at leaßt be credited with the oourage of his opinions. Hia ohief supporters are ' two noblemen whose names are well known.. Bat that doe. not count for muoh in these days, when some members of our old nobility take suoh eccentric—in some oases suoh objectionable—measures to bring their names Into public notice. Any way, Mr Austin reckons that women are too well treated. He says tbat, merely as women, they have more advantage over men than the rioh man has over the poor man. He points to the English Divorce Oourt for adornment to his tale ; but as tbe Australian laws differ so much from the English, what be calls his ' arguments ' need not be repeated here. He olaims, generally, that if a woman goes into a court of law she oan perjure herself till she is blaok in the face, but no man regardeth. What in a woman Ib a humorous word that in a man is rank perjury. AU the offioers ln the oourt — from Judge to usher — tumble over themeelves ill their eagerness to befriend her. In faot, Mr Austin would have us believe that ' Trial by Jury ' is not a faroe — or what« ever Mr W. S. Gilbert called it -but a tragedy. The only trouble would be when both parties to a causa were of the reigning sex, in whloh case probably Justice would be blind to the petticoats on either Bide. And Mr Austin further says that marriage is a bed of roses to the wife, whilst the husband has all the thorns. She need not love him, and only the wildest humorist would expect her to obey him ; whereas ho m u 8 t always honor her and her oheques. Especially her cbeqnes. If Bhe gets dissatisfied with him — and who, it may be asked, would blame any woman for getting dissatisfied with any man P ' —all she has to do in England is to go down to the nearest police court and obtain a separation order. The husband has still the honor of contributing to her support, whilst she is relieved of tbe irksome necessity of oonsortlng with bo vulgar a person. And Mr Aut.ln is bold enough to urge that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Whloh may be good cookery, but it la bad law. Besides, there are no geese in these days — only ganders. If there were fewer ganders there would be more geese.. This was sometime a paradox, but now the time gives it proof. What ls the use, for ins.a_.o9, of Mr Austin exclaiming, as he does, against tbe luok of women in getting absurd damages in breach of promise cases? The plaintiffs do not assess thel damages. It is the jury, and the jury is composed of men. That is where tbe trouble lies. Set a jury of matrons to assess damages in suoh oases, and nothing like the present absurdities would prevail. Give Woman another Bight — the right to serve on juries— and yon would remove one, at least, of Mens' Wrongs. Our forefathers were wiser than we. . Their Courts of Love were not officered exclusively by men as are the sordid descendants of those courts in these degenerate days. Two happenings of the last few days would never have given ocon.iOD to the enemy to soofE if the jury had been oompoaed of women, In one a yonng woman was awarded £50 beoause a man who had not seen ber Bince she waa shortfrocked did not marry her. If the two* had met in the streets they would probably not have known eaoh other; yet a sapient jury solemnly penaliied tha man for not keeping an engagement made when he was a boy. One oan imagine what a jury of sensible women would have said in suoh a oase — something about the plaintiff being sent to bed after the usual preliminaries, and | the defendant being dismissed with a '

caution. A woman would think more than twice before she brought an aotion for breaoh of promise before a jury of her own sex, especially if the Judjfe might also be a woman. It is beoause Judge and jury are men that a man never comes into oourt —or seldom oomes, for there hare been oases— ask. ing for money wherewith lo soothe his Injured feelings. And what is true in this case is trne in others also. So, Mr Austin and his Men's Rights League are going the wrong way about their work. If they want to make women less powerful they should give them more power. They should send them Into Parliament to help make the laws ; they should send them on to the benoh and into the jury-box to help administer the laws. The Btuff gown of the advocate will hide the petticoats of the woman. Sentiment will be abolished by the first Aot of a Woman's Parliament and Common Sense and sexless Justice — always, by the way, repre» sented as a woman— will reign in its stead.