and in the Steps to the Altar (p. 17): “Lord, I am that sick man whom thou camest from Heaven to heal." This segregation of the individual from his brethren-this claim to a peculiar share in Redeeming Love-(and if not that, what can it mean?)—seems to us singularly offensive.

The other is the notion, often found in these writings, that thoughts passing through the mind in dreams can be actually matter of guilt, and calling for repentance. Dreams may, perhaps, be among the proofs of the sinfulness of nature; and possibly particular dreams may be indications of an actually sinful life-though we conceive that both these are beyond what any one can really know of the depths of that unsounded sea. But that a malicious or an impious thought conceived in a dream can be in itself matter for judgment, seems to us one of the strangest delusions ever entertained.

We have now done with our fault-finding. It has been no welcome task. And we repeat our admission, that if we could look on this book as only a repertory for discreet selection, much, though by no means all, that we have said would be less applicable. We can only say “less applicable," for, as we before intimated, that very discreet selection is just that in which many who deserve the most consideration are likely to fail.

There will always indeed be many who delight in these books: many to whom they will be found suitable. Nothing that we or any one could say will ever put an end to the demand for them; nor have we any such purpose. We have written for the young, the innocent, the inexperienced, the sensitive, the scrupulous: who, we cannot but fear, are in danger of needless violence to their consciences and loss of mental health, by the unrestricted use of such writings. These, or some of them, may perhaps be warned to consider carefully, and take good counsel, before they finally commit themselves to their guidance, rather than to the sounder and more Scriptural tone, as we deem it, of the Prayer-book, of Taylor, of Wilson, and of Keble.

LYTTELTON.

FEMALE SUFFRAGE.

THE action taken by Mr. J. S. Mill in the House of Commons on behalf of the freeholders and householders, the petition for whose enfranchisement he presented, raises a question of very great importance to women, and to the community of which they form the numerical majority.

It is probably the first occasion on which the claims of female persons to political rights have been seriously brought before the British Parliament, and as the attention of the nation is now being directed to the question of the expediency of making some re-distribution of political power, it seems an appropriate season for the grave consideration of all that can be urged in favour of this claim being allowed.

Hitherto the difficulty has been to get the question of the political rights of individuals of the female sex recognised as one open to discussion at all. The advocate has not been allowed to come into court. It has been assumed that the male sex, by a sort of divine right, has the exclusive privilege of directing the affairs of the community; and any serious claim made by the other half of the human race, to a share in controlling its destinies, has been met, not by argument showing the groundlessness or inexpediency of the demand, but by a refusal to entertain it, as if it were something intrinsically

absurd.

Y 2

But in this inquiring age, first principles of all sorts, whether in religion or politics, are being sharply scrutinised, and those who maintain them must be prepared to justify them at the bar of the intelligence of the age. The principle of confining political privileges exclusively to one sex, though persons of both sexes are equally affected by the course pursued in deciding political questions, is now challenged, and the case must be fairly judged on its merits.

The sheer novelty of the proposal is the weakest part of the case for the petitioners; the opposition will find their most formidable stronghold in taking up the position that women never have voted in choosing members of Parliament, and therefore they ought not to do so now. They may also possibly make the assertion that women do not desire the franchise, it is therefore needless to inquire whether it ought to be given to them.

The best answer to this last proposition is, that many persons otherwise qualified, but at present excluded from the franchise on account of their sex, do petition that the privilege shall be extended to them; and that a number of ladies, honourably distinguished among the people of England for their intellectual attainments, and therefore most worthy representatives of womankind, are very much in earnest in seeking to obtain a favourable hearing for the petition. This being the case, it is difficult to see on what principles of equity its continuous rejection can be justified.

It surely will not be denied that women have, and ought to have, opinions of their own on subjects of public interest, and on the events which arise as the world wends on its way. But if it be granted that women may, without offence, hold political opinions, on what ground can the right be withheld of giving the same expression or effect to their opinions as that enjoyed by their male neighbours? To individual men the law says, "All of you whose rental reaches the prescribed standard shall have your political existence recognised. You may not be clever nor learned, possibly you do not know how to read and write. Still you know your own wants and wishes better than others know them for you; you have a stake in the country, and your interests ought to be consulted; you contribute directly to the national revenue a certain proportion of your property or carnings, and you shall enjoy in return a small share of direct political power, for the exercise of which, according to the best light you possess, you shall be legally responsible to no one."

But to individual women the law says, "It is true that you are persons with opinions, wants, and wishes of your own, which you know better than any other can know for you; we allow that your stake and interest in the country are equal to that of your next-door neighbour, and that your intelligence is not inferior to that of great

numbers of male voters; we will tax your property and earnings as we see fit, but in return for your personal contribution to the national revenue you shall not possess the minutest fraction of personal political power; we will not allow you to have the smallest share in the government of the country of which you are a denizen, nor any voice in the making of the laws which determine the legal and political status of persons of your sex."

Now can any man who feels that he would not like to be addressed in language of this sort, seriously believe that women do like it? Surely there is no such difference in the feelings of persons of opposite sexes as to make language which would sound mortifying and unjust to one set of persons, seem agreeable and equitable to another set. If we do not hear much of such discontent as may exist, it must be remembered that women are naturally shy at expressing any sentiments liable to draw upon them the disapprobation or ridicule of their male friends; and that these, instead of talking of the question quietly and calmly, as one to be settled by fair reasoning, are apt, in discussing it with ladies, to assume a bantering air, and in asking their female friends whether they want votes, to indicate by their tone and manner the kind of answer they expect, or, at any rate, would approve of. They put, as it were, leading questions, and often receive the reply they prepare for. Men do not ask women earnestly, whether they will have votes, but jestingly, whether they would like them; and it is not very wonderful if the answers they receive to questions put in this spirit are much to the effect that the grapes are sour.

It is admitted that cultivated and intelligent women at least, even if it be denied of others, have opinions of their own on political and kindred matters; and the tendency of public opinion, if it has not already reached this point, is in the direction that the formation of these opinions should be encouraged, and that it is desirable that women should take an interest in the general welfare. But if this is right, where is the consistency or propriety of saying to them, "Open your eyes to what is going on in the world, think for yourselves on the subjects that engage public attention, and when you have taken pains to inform yourselves on the topics of the day, and on the merits of the various questions that stir the mind of the nation, your opinions shall be treated as worthless, your voices counted as nothing, and not a point of independent standing-ground shall be given to one of you from which you may endeavour to give effect to the strongest desire or opinion that may influence you." Is not this style of dealing with the opinions women are encouraged to form, something after the manner of the famous recipe for treating a cucumber—Carefully prepare the fruit, adjust the proportions of

the seasoning, and when all is done, and the dish dressed to perfection, open the window and fling it away!

The question should be fairly put, and honestly answered, Ought the wishes and opinions of women to be allowed any political influence at all, any weight whatever in the general councils of the nation? It is for those who answer this question in the affirmative to show cause why they should not be permitted to exercise whatever influence it is thought right they should possess, in a direct, straightforward manner.

But many who allow that women's voices ought to count for something in estimating public opinion, say that the proper manner for them to exercise power in the State is through the influence they possess over the minds of their male relatives-when they happen to have any-and that this indirect method of making their opinions known ought to satisfy them. This may sound plausible, but the legal measure of influence accorded under this arrangement to the opinions of women of independent position is found, on examination, to vanish to a nullity. By what process can the votes of men be made to represent the opinions of women? Is a man bound, before giving his vote, to consult the wishes of the woman or women on whose behalf, as well as his own account, he is supposed to be acting? Each individual voter can give but one voice-his own; that voice represents the sentiments of a single mind. It adds nothing to the weight of this voice in choosing a representative, that any number of his female neighbours coincide in the views of the elector; and if they do not so coincide, far from representing their wishes, he is thwarting them. If, then, the opinions and wishes of women ought to have any political influence whatever, a channel should be open to them for expressing them independent of the votes of men, for these may or may not represent their opinions truly.

Some persons will boldly maintain that women ought not to think on political questions at all, and these are at least consistent in denying them votes. But it cannot surely be deemed desirable, or even possible, that more than half the adult population of the realm should remain wholly apart from, and uninterested in, the events that daily happen among them. If women lived shut up in zenanas, seeing no man but their husbands, and with nothing to occupy their minds but baubles and sweetmeats, it might be possible to sequestrate them wholly from interest in the world's affairs. But English women live in the world -in the society of English men. They have access to the same sources of information that men have, and they have usually enough of leisure at their disposal to make themselves acquainted with passing The newspaper is a daily feature in the life of most English families, and though the female members of a family group will pro

events.