The Ladies v. The Gentlemen of the Press

The Ladies on the Saturday Review

It has been for years the studied intention, carried out with consummate art, of the Saturday Review to denounce the modern English girl and matron as personages who have fallen immeasurably below the level of propriety. We speak particularly of this Review, because it has been the most persistent and the most biting in its assertion, inuendo, and sarcasm. Other masculine minds in journalism followed the lead, until they seemed to believe, almost, in the false text from which they preached appropriate sermons. And then we had the spectacle of the Pall Mall Gazette, the journal written by gentlemen for gentlemen, serving up a recital called "Lucy," contributed by the pretended Turk, Azamat Batuk. If it had not been so silly, this "Lucy" was a great affront. Azamat had mistaken a barmaid for a young lady of good family--poor deluded and distinguished foreigner! It is really full time for our journalists to see that their inoculation of French ideas is of no service here-- they have done their worst against the pure character of women in these islands, and they have signally failed. The fair fame of Englishwomen is what it was--the last and best attestor and witness being the admirable French writer, Henri Taine. The Daily News printed prominently a good translation of M. Taine's Notes. Let the English writers on the same staff imitate his honourable testimony to the "beautiful English girls and surpassing women;" and not neglect his literary style either, anymore than his lively observation. Two results, out of many, arising from our close relationship with France, are clear. One is that our womenfolk have had the talent to perceive what was good and bad in French ways, and have had the virtue to hold to the good and eschew the evil: the other result is that a few of our literary menfolk have seen the bad, and have become infected with it; and have either not had eyes for the good, or having eyes have followed the evil, and attempted to graft it on our English stock, which, let us be thankful, took unkindly to such foreign inoculation. [See earlier part of this column for an understanding of the inoculation reference.]

The Saturday Review's ears are "heavy with trumpetings which are to 'inaugurate' a new era of women's rights," and were it not for the high sense of duty which our contemporary is known to possess we might, perhaps, hear, ere long, of its departure from the "noisy capital" to one of those "snug little towns" where the newspapers do not corrupt, and where, in unbroken peace, it might discover the means to check the decline in sentiment on account of which it wears to-day the trappings of woe. The spectacle of the Saturday in the country, looking down from the "lonely splendour" of its throne upon the human infusoria below, would convey an impression of its greatness, that we are unable to realise under existing circumstances. But the world is wide, and the obligations of the Saturday are great, even unto the extent of dealing with the fate of the kingdoms of the earth; nor does it suffer the most insignificant creature to pass unobserved or fall below its standard of virtue without being punished for falling. Hence the difficulty of leaving the metropolis, of shutting itself up, or of passing, in any form, beyond earshot of the ominous "trumpetings" or the tinkling of wine-glasses in the drawing-room. But after all, the decline of which our contemporary speaks is a matter of serious import, provided, of course, that all that is said be true. This reservation is necessary, because the Saturday, in its anxiety to sweep back the rollers of immortality which now and again threaten to engulf society, and no less protect its beloved from the wash of the seas of Cynicism, Scepticism, and so forth, has been known to stretch a point so far as to leave an impression in the reader's mind that, like the supposed son of Coelus and Terra, it had but one eye, and, consequently, was denied the privilege of being able to see in more than one direction at the same time. Now what it wishes us to believe is, that sentiment is passing away from English society, and that in its place is growing up a feeling akin to contempt for the best and purest, the most redeeming forms of human passion, and for all the sympathies and attachments which our forefathers held sacred. There is much, says the Saturday Review, that "gives support to the theory that English sentimentality has become obsolete." Without stopping to inquire how it is that Thersites has thus contrived to turn round and mourn for the decline or loss of that which a little time ago was puerile, weak, namby-pamby, and all the rest of it, or how it is that the "liquid pabulum of babes" has supplanted the strong-flavoured meats that alone make a reviler's life worth living for, we may pass on to the main point and ask if we are to accept as a fact the statement that sentiment, if not absolutely gone, is at any rate fast disappearing, on no better testimony than that supplied by the Saturday Review, and which briefly is this: --Women, as the "main conservators of sentiment," cannot properly fulfill their functions unless they remain between the "confines of the domestic bricks" and leave the real business of life to man, and as they have not done so recently, but, on the contrary, have manifested a wish to exercise some control in what concerns themselves, the Saturday hurries to a conclusion that sentiment is departing. It observes that young women are growing "too active," too much disposed to "cut a figure in the world" to obey those wise laws and regulations for the guidance of the sisterhood which have been framed by our contemporary; and when it recollects that a few years ago young women were all its fancy painted, it saddens in sight of the shortcomings of the sex now; that is to say, it is disappointed because the living, breathing women of our own decade display less apparent sentimentality than what has been observed of the heroines of fiction or of the devotees of the poets at their very best. In a word, the Saturday would, as it were, adopt as its model a forgery on nature in preference to nature herself, otherwise it would hesitate before entering a London drawing-room with one of Miss Austen's novels for the purposes for comparison. We will grant, however, that in some respects sentiment has declined and is declining rapidly, but the real authors of that declination are not women. They are those who have had female interests in trust and neglected them, and the result of which is women have been forced to come forward and lay their claims before the country or witness in silence the growth of the extraordinary anomaly of half a generation educated, clothed, and fed, while the other half remained ignorant, starved, and naked. Were the case reversed, and the boys of the rising generation left to provide for themselves, would the Saturday reviewers denounce the appeals of their own sex as "clamour" and "trumpetings"? But while granting that sentiment of a certain kind had declined we by no means admitted that it was of the right kind, as it appears to us that the work in which women are now to a more or less extent engaged shows that "the ideas of duty, self-culture, or general beneficence," which the Saturday tells us are now almost discarded, are, on the contrary, esteemed more highly than ever. What is passing away is the feeling of antipathy experienced by women towards employments that they have hitherto been led to believe belong exclusively to the opposite sex, and in this misrepresentation our contemporary has not been the least among the offenders. It has, with its characteristic sneer, that solitary prop of its greatness, always maintained this mean and shallow pretext to fetter women to their homes and circumscribe their sphere of usefulness even there. That has, however, failed, and its interposition now will be equally ineffectual; the quackery of the attempt is too apparent to deceive or to permit of a delusion being foisted where all is fair and open. It will, however, serve one good purpose, and that in exposing the absurdity of patching up a bad case with only such materials as mere cleverness affords. This the Saturday Review has attempted, and the product is a rambling, contradictory, arrogant attack, unworthy even of its own resources. Were it not so would we hear that the earnestness of women in supporting their own claims on public attention had sounded heavy in the reviewer's ears, and the next moment learn that "all ardent enthusiasms are repressed?" Would we be told that young women are greatly concerned about employment, and afterwards that "the ideas of duty," &c., are regarded with indifference? Are we to believe that the efforts now being made by women to provide for the uneducated, to clothe and feed the destitute, and to establish asylums for the diseased and helpless, show that the ideas of "general beneficence" attract no large share of passionate regard? Surely our contemporary has on this occasion exceeded even the bounds of its own notions of prudence, and, indeed, reckless of consequences, aspires to take the lead in folly as well as audacity.

The Saturday Review has chosen from time to time to attack the sex we represent in a most unmanly, unjust, malignant spirit, which reflects the greatest discredit upon our contemporary itself, although, as most people know, it is nothing unless it reviles. There are certain subjects however which no one is privileged to approach and treat disrespectfully, and one of these is that with which the Saturday dealt in its last issue under the heading "Fashionable Screws," but which, in reality, ought to have been called "Fashionable Toilers Abused." We object more especially to the article in question because in the first place it is calculated to discourage those who are engaged in missions of charity and philanthropy, and in the next place we think that the character of the work performed by these ladies ought to protect them at the least from the chance of being insulted. But it appears not. "The malice, hatred, and all uncharitablenes" of the Saturday Review are too overpowering to allow any Christian sentiment to prevail in its mind; hence the attack on a large number of ladies whose offence consists in having either contributed to a bazaar or given a concert with a view to raise funds for some good purpose. Now it is perfectly unwarrantable to take these ladies to task at all. They give their time and attention gratuitously, and they, moreover, succeed in raising money where all other means fail. Their efforts should rather be made the subject of commendation than of attack, and had the Saturday Review possessed a spark of generous feeling the article we refer to would never have been written. It is, however, notorious that our contemporary is not only devoid of all generous and manly feeling, but that it is absolutely unjust and never hesitates to back up its own views by the most unauthorised statements. The charge, for instance, that ladies of rank are "not above the less reputable arts of their prototypes," the shopkeepers, is simply untrue in respect of both the titled ladies and the shopkeepers. We consider it monstrous that people should be attacked and maligned in this fashion while they are engaged in promoting some philanthropic scheme. We do not suppose that the various causes to aid which bazaars are got up will be injured to any appreciable extent by the article in question, but its publication is distinctly discouraging, and a mean attempt, to use the reviewer's words, to "render charity odious and philanthropy ridiculous." It is not sufficient that there should exist difficulties in the way of getting up the "hateful" bazaars, but also that a journal could be found thrusting itself in between the benevolent and the object of their charity, thus striving to rob the poor and the benighted, for that is exactly what the Saturday has done. Click here to read a front-page attack on SR in this issue. --6/22, p. 290

The Saturday Review's attack on the philanthropic patronesses of charity bazaars was unpardonable, but compared with a recent attempt to drive "lady lecturers" from the platform, it was really respectable. Indeed, we have no recollection of having read, even in its own pages, an article so freighted with coarse and malignant inventive as the one we refer to. It almost seemed to us that our contemporary had suddenly broken loose from restraint, and, wild with excitement, had dashed furiously against the first object in its path. In an ordinary way the Saturday is, in some respects, reasonable, but on certain occasions prudence is thrown to the winds, and downright malice takes its place. Now, it is a fair question to ask, Is it permissible in English journalism that a weekly review should periodically concoct scandalous and libellous charges against either men or women, and publish at will these charges? It is of course at the option of people whether they read the Saturday or not, but it is none the less necessary that a vigorous protest should be made against the course which it sometimes adopts. As far as we are concerned we shall continue to offer "the most that uncompromising resistance, more especially as the ladies are the chief sufferers, and as it is usually the case the most unoffending. For example. A talented lady is invited by large numbers of her sex to deliver a lecture on a subject of special interest to themselves, but before she can do so she must be prepared to encounter a bitter and venomous attack on the following Saturday. The world is told that she does "not scruple to add indecency to folly and to dabble in shamelessness to give flavour to her nonsense," while her manner, dress, and delivery, are criticised dishonestly and maliciously. Now if an attack of this kind does not outstep the bounds of legitimate criticism we don't know what does. But we forget the Saturday Review is a sort of literary outlaw, and is not, of course, bound by the principles of anything. Against every man and woman its hand is turned, and against it are turned the hands of all honest people. But between the two modes of warfare there is a wide difference. While the Saturday attempts to poison, honest people use the lance. While the former hides like an assassin in the shadow, the latter defend themselves on the platform. And like all cowards, our contemporary avoids the strong and selects the weak for its victims. It deals with men cautiously, unless they are friendless, but its virulence is unbridled when it attacks women. It is presumed that they are defenceless, hence the constant attempts to malign the sex.

It has been said by a great authority that in proportion as a nation advances from barbarism to civilisation the female sex become more esteemed, and women are allowed to attain a more important station in society. If this be true, in what a deplorable depth of barbarism must that unfortunate journal the Morning Advertiser be? Eager to keep down woman and asperse the female character whenever an opportunity can be found or created, the M.A. of last Monday sneers at Miss Kate Field and her soiree at the Hanover-square Room, and limping feebly far in the wake of a Saturday Reviler, utters its spiteful drivellings and the stolid rigmaroles against lady lecturers generally, saying, "a lady lecturer has become the most ordinary kind of our public amusements, although, as Dr. Johnson said of a dog dancing on its hind legs, 'it is not done well, but it is a wonder that it is done at all." The M.A. will doubtless admit that the Christian Mission is one of Peace, and being usually of a pious turn would applaud the male who preached that glorious mission of goodwill to man from a pulpit, but read how it jeers at a woman doing so: "Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston, U.S.A., is holding a series of meetings in this country,' although we should have expected that she would have had quite enough to do to keep the peace in the model Republic. It is said a prophet has no respect except in his own country, but we fear these enlightened female missionaries go abroad chiefly because they can get nobody to believe them at home." So our good friend of the M.A. sings his chansonette comique with meaningless grimacing and shrugging of shoulders, with much chuckling and winking, as who should say am I not witty, do you not think me clever? do I not adorn the noble sex, the superiority of which in all its representatives, nor man nor woman may rashly dare to doubt? By-the-bye if a prophet has not respect except in his own country, how is it that he or she can get no one to believe in him or her at home? Are we in the habit of respecting those in whom we don't believe? If so, how profound must be the respect with which all sensible persons of either sex regard the Morning Advertiser. Xenopheles the philosopher who railed at women, scorned, hated, and scoffed at them, was won over by Daphnis to kindlier thoughts of her gentle sex. That blear-eyed old man, Stratocles the physician, was a bitter hater of women all his life, and persecuted the whole sex. He mocked at them in such vile terms that, says quaint old Burton, "if thou had'st heard him, though would'st have loathed thine own mother and sisters for his word's sake." Yet this old doting fool was taken at last with the celestial charms of Myrilla, the daughter of Anticles the gardener, "that smirking wench," so that he shaved off his bushy beard, painted his face, curled his hair, wore a laurel crown to cover his bald pate, and "for love of her was read to run mad." Xenopheles the modern, writes for the Saturday Review; you may have read some articles of his on lady lecturers and charitable screws. Stratocles contributes leaders to the Morning Advertiser.There was one on lady lecturers published last Monday. Will two of our fair readers who lecture play the parts of Daphnis and Myrilla?

The Morning Advertiser says:--The reason most frequently urged for the extension of the suffrage to women is that until women have votes the peculiar grievances under which the sex at present labours will not be redressed. Upon the same principle it may be remarked, we ought also to give votes to paupers and lunatics, who have, beyond all doubt, especial grievances of their own, far outweighing both in number and intensity the grievances which oppress the female sex as a whole." This is a specimen of male logic which will provoke a smile from the ladies. We think the author of these sage remarks will admit that donkeys have grievances, but is that any reason for denying leader writers in the Morning Advertiser the right to vote. --5/18, p. 170

On The Daily Standard

The Standard, arguing against the woman suffrage claim, says: "It is the common error of the advocates of 'women's rights' to assume that in its present circumstances the sex is absolutely destitute of political influence; but this is notoriously the reverse of truth. It is impossible to doubt that the mothers and the wives of our voters and legislators exercise an enormous practical influence upon the conduct of public affairs." This occurs in the course of a long leading article, the whole purpose of which is to show that women as a body do not want political power and would not exercise it if it were given to them. "If," says the Standard, "the women of England were afforded a full opportunity of recording their judgment upon the agitation intended to win for them what are called their 'political rights,' we should hear no more of such measures as the Disabilities Removal Bill." In other words, the "enormous" power women already exercise indirectly, they would decline to exercise if they were permitted to do so directly. Is this a masculine specimen of that logic which is said the ladies never can command?

On The Globe

Several of our contemporaries have lately indulged in a good deal of nonsense on the subject of women's rights, more, perhaps, owing, let us charitably suggest, to a peculiar sense of duty than through any really honest wish to oppose the claims of the sex we represent. They possibly feel that the time is hardly advanced enough to inaugurate a change of the kind desired, and that until it is they are bound to maintain a hostile attitude, but having no shot or shell of any sort left they are obliged to fall back on their stocks of literary fireworks, and with these humble substitutes for the artillery of the press cover the passage to the poll. This, at any rate, seems to be not unlike the way in which several newspapers have conducted operations against the ladies recently. Notably among the number is the Globe, whose utterances of Saturday last were precisely those of the cracker order--sharp, noisy, and harmless. The leader we refer to seemed so like the device of some ingenious pyrotechnist that we lingered over it from the beginning to the end, while the sentences flamed, cracked, whirled, spluttered, and burst like so many squibs, catherine wheels, rockets, and so forth. It was not, however, devoted altogether to the illumination, or, perhaps, the writer would say the exploding, of feminine topics. It dealt with the nation at large and contained the startling announcement that sooner or later "we shall come to a breakdown and present the painful spectacle of a nation of imbeciles diversified by lunatics," and which we quote to account for the wild terms applied afterwards to Englishwomen. It is not so long ago that the nation was regarded as one vast lazaretoo, to adapt a reference of Goethe's, and for a long time we were victimised by those joyless mortals whose utterances ranged from the disconsolate brayings of a very useful animal to the "melodious moanings" and wail of the unhappy poet. Now, however, we are told that the nation is a madhouse, a vast Bedlam filled with imbeciles and raving lunatics, among whom we shall include the "wild-eyed, man-hating" writer of the article, as he finds "lunacy everywhere" and makes no reservation even in favour of his own office corner. We can have no objection to the Globe's opinions respecting those with whom it is intimately associated, but we do most distinctly object to the statement that a woman is "a lunatic at large" whose offences consist of signing a petition for the franchise and perhaps supporting a resolution at a public meeting. We also object to the statement that "chaste wives and virtuous maids ramp and rave about the world delivering lectures to men" on no better authority than the Globe's perverted fancy, and most people will agree with us in saying that its condition must be very bad indeed before it would liken an English lady, delivering an eloquent lecture on a subject interesting to her sex, to the "Maenad of old Greece." We have felt loth to deal with these crazy charges, as it has generally been observed of lunatics that they believe everybody to be insane but themselves, and so far as we can judge the writer of the article in question is no stranger to this belief. It was necessary, however, to protest against the introduction of the name of woman, coupled with what is false and insulting, and nothing can be more untrue or more shamefully indecent than to assert that a number of her sex have dabbled publicly "in the foul details of which no modest woman ought to speak save in the strictest privacy and with the greatest reticence." Nor can we imagine anything more disgraceful as a display of brutal ignorance of what is due to an English lady than the assertion that she knew "no more than the cows in the next field" of the value of a certain Act of Parliament. Ladies generally perhaps know very little of "the economic and physiological value" of an act of legislation, but they are not ignorant of what is due to the human race, and when they allude to the failings and coarseness of many of the opposite sex, they do so without coupling their names with those of the beasts of the field. Besides it is not at all necessary that they should make themselves familiar with the provisions of a Bill so long as our contemporary is so well informed on these subjects, and ready as it is at all times to make the most of its knowledge. It is only indeed when it fails, as it does sometimes, more especially while dealing with measures affecting feminine interests that the ladies find it necessary to look elsewhere for information. And we may add that when they get it they are perfectly at liberty to discuss its bearings when, how, and to whom they please, just as the Globe is at liberty to take notes at their meetings, and comment in an honest way on the report of their proceedings. There is no law, moral or otherwise, that we know of, which should prevent ladies from discussing the terms of certain Acts in which they are deeply interested, unless, of course, something of the kind has been established by the Globe; yet that can hardly be the case, for in the article we have quoted from, it lectures women in one sentence for their ignorance of the Acts, and in another takes them to task for daring to speak of them, so that we may conclude it numbers not among its manifold functions that of legislator. It would perhaps be a benefit to its readers were its steps to turn in that direction, as law-making has a sobering influence, and consequently we might not have again to protest against its unwarrantable criticism, nor comment on its bad taste in using disrespectful language towards English ladies whose conduct is irreproachable.

After all it is sufficient to point to the work in which the ladies are engaged to secure a verdict in their favour, even from a jury of professed opponents. And that apart from their domestic occupations, the very nature of which, especially that class which concerns the care of children, is not only ennobling, but is also productive of habits of quick and intelligent observation, that often prove of infinite service in connection with private and public charities. Not however on that score, nor that of the task of presiding over the more civilised part of civilised life, refining and polishing rude masculine natures and preserving society from falling asunder by the delicacy of their mind and the unimpeachable strictness of their conduct, but on account of their activity and zeal in labouring to promote the welfare of the labouring classes in directions often lost sight of by the authorities while endeavouring to keep pace with the wants of the country. We were reminded of this on learning that a number of ladies had formed a Women's Society for the cultivation of knowledge and practice of sanitary laws, the programme of which, so far as it had been arranged, appears comprehensive and business-like in every respect. It is proposed to make the society useful in all cases of sanitary difficulty, in inducing schools to include sanitary instruction in their teachings, in the formation of local societies, and, in a word, the removal of the great obstacles that have hitherto prevented the public from acquiring a knowledge of sanitary laws. A reference library, with plans, models, and papers, will be established, and to still further increase the Society's usefulness, adding at the same time to its strength, it is proposed to apply for admittance as an affiliated society, or as a special department of the Health Department of the Social Science Association. Already the assistance and advice of several of our most eminent sanitarians has been secured, and what is also of importance, sufficient funds have been forthcoming to encourage the promoters to proceed confidently with their work. Thus another scheme has been, we may say, floated by the ladies, and dealing, too, with one of the vital questions of the day. In it we are all greatly interested, as, although nine-tenths of our population probably are in good health for more than nine-tenths of their lives, and from that we may say that we enjoy very good health, it would notwithstanding be a source of satisfaction were we made acquainted with the best means of preserving it, and besides have it in our power to improve the condition of those neighbourhoods where sickness has been so long in possession.

The Globe

Now and again the Globe has something to say of an unjust and very uncomplimentary character respecting woman and the schemes which have been set on foot in her interest, and that something is usually said in a consequential, uncompromising tone, very unlike that which is adopted on other occasions. Indeed, we might conclude from its mode of dealing with feminine questions that our contemporary holds them in very little account, and their advocates in perhaps less. Were it otherwise, we might discover traces of thought and research even in its strictures, some evidence of conscientiousness in its treatment of facts, and possibly some little delicacy in its tone; as it is, the principal features of its criticism are professions of spurious sympathy and pompous invective. On a former occasion we took exception to its attacks on English ladies engaged at that time in discussing among themselves certain political questions affect their sex; now it is our duty to enter a protest against a deliberate and altogether unauthorised attempt on the part of the Globe to injure the cause of female education. On Saturday last our contemporary endeavoured to persuade its readers to regard the institution of educational establishments for girls and young women on the collegiate plan as a mistake--thus pitching its hatchet at one of the most important branches of the new educational movement, at the head of which are the most eminent of both sexes in the kingdom. The Globe's chief objection to the collegiate plan is that it is likely, in our contemporary's opinion, to render girls unfitted to discharge their duties satisfactorily in the home sphere--its theory being that as women advance in education beyond a certain point the more incapacitated they become for the duties of the household; or, in other words, that the higher education uproots the natural instincts of women and fosters tastes which make them discontented and practically useless in the domestic circle. This theory has not even the recommendation of novelty, as it was mooted and was disposed of about seventy years ago. In Sydney Smith's essay on "Female Education" he says, in reference to this identical point, that "all such opinions are referable to one great and common cause of error;--that man does everything, and that nature does nothing." That nature, as it were, abrogates its laws in the case of women and leaves the latter entirely to the wisdom and affection of man--that nature, for example, confides to the Globe the duty of establishing laws for the guidance of women, and declares that these laws shall be immutable. The absurdity of the Globe's borrowed theory is rendered still more striking by observing that it actually offers a premium to ignorance. For if education in a higher or lower degree, it matters not which, is a mistake as far as women are concerned, then ignorance must be a blessing, and those who are the best wives and mothers, the best sisters and housekeepers, are to be found among the uneducated. There are thousands of women throughout the country who can neither read nor write who are nevertheless good housekeepers, and, as far as attention and affection go, excellent mothers. But surely it would be monstrous absurdity were it said that these women were benefited by being ignorant. Their testimony goes to prove that their ignorance is often a deep source of grief and mortification to themselves, and frequently the cause of idleness and misery in their families. It proves moreover that in the lives of these women there have been materials neglected which otherwise might ere this have been turned to a valuable account. For if uneducated intelligence can make a mark in humble life it is fair to say that were it educated that intelligence would make a deeper and wider impression elsewhere. The Globe, however, admits that it "should like to see all women better educated than they are." What it disapproves of is the higher education. But where, let us ask, is the line to be drawn--and by whom? We entertain the greatest possible respect for our contemporary's political sagacity, but we humbly submit that although it has appointed itself teacher, reprover and judge in feminine matters, the Globe possesses no special qualifications for drawing the necessary line. In the first place, he who undertakes that task ought to know something about the duties of a wife and a mother, and in the second place he ought to possess a knowledge of the intellectual capacity of woman which no human being has yet displayed. On the latter point we need say nothing as it is impossible to suspect the Globe of being wiser than its neighbours, or even as wise as some of them. The principal duties of the home sphere, according to the Globe's notions, consist of "mending little shirts and darning little socks," of cooking, cleaning, and in short of making every member of the household comfortable in the matters of sleeping, eating, and drinking. In fact the duties of a wife from this point of view are those of a superior servant. We are not told who it is that forms the character of the children for the first seven or eight years of life, although it is upon the foundation then formed that the future happiness of the son or daughter mainly depends. It probably does not suit our contemporary's purpose to deal with this point, the most important of all, and it is not exactly strange to say, the point which the opponents of female education invariably avoid. Because it can be shown that at this period a highly educated woman is the most competent mother. She infuses her tastes into the minds of her children, and just as these tastes have been cultivated in proportion are her children benefited. "Why should a woman," says Sydney Smith, "dedicate herself to this branch of knowledge? or why should she be attached to such sciences? Because by having gained information of these points she may inspire her son with valuable tastes which may abide with him through life and carry him up to all the sublimities of knowledge." But irrespective of the duties which a woman discharges in the domestic circle, she acts frequently as her husband's assistant in business, and in that capacity, although untrained, often distinguishes herself for shrewdness and activity. She is regarded as less shifty and more loyal to family interests than her husband, and if unable to match his daring in speculating she is often more than his equal in prudence. It is seldom indeed that the wife of a tradesman, for instance, is outbargained or driven from her purpose by a specious story--cheated and so forth, while a score of cases might be adduced to illustrate her husband's credulity. Now on these points the Globe is silent, whether intentionally or not is not for us to say; but we may observe, that before it undertakes to teach women their duties, it should, as a preliminary step, find out what these duties are, and deal with them honestly. Had it done so a week or two ago it might have made the discovery that it is utterly impossible to draw the line where the education of women should cease. Now there is another matter which our contemporary in its haste appeared to have missed, although it is of infinite importance, namely, the educational requirements of unmarried females. It is all very well to say that "the right sphere of women is home," but when a woman remains single, and is dependent upon her own industry she is compelled to seek another sphere. About a third of the adult female population are either of independent means, or support themselves by non-domestic industry. Of this number a large portion consists of unmarried women employed away from home in various businesses, and whose numbers are augmented every year by thousands who have overcome the prejudice against work in the shop or warehouse. At present female labour generally is poorly paid, the principal reason of which is the absense of skill and education among the female assistants. ... it is absolutely necessary, whatever the Globe may say to the contrary, that unmarried females should be educated liberally, and thus placed in a position to obtain employment of the better class.

On The Daily News

We are, indeed, very sorry, but it is not our fault. We have no desire to act the part of Mrs. Naggleton or Madame Censor. But what are we to do? The Daily News has aggravated its offence. In a literary review, the critic goes out of his way to accuse Englishwomen and Irishwomen of having deteriorated in consequence of "the Parisian inoculations of the last twenty years." If THE LADIES could be critical, it would in the first place prove that "inoculations" is not the word which an accurate writer would have used in that connection to carry his meaning. But the advantage is waived by us, chivalrously; de minimis non curat lex, we would not quarrel about a word, except the last one. Our conflict is with the accusation itself which is here brought against the women of this age. What is it, let us ask, that they have imported from Paris, which has infected them? And how has the contagion spread? We answer there is no infection, and ipso facto no contagion. We affirm that Englishwomen are not only as pure now as ever they were, in thought, feeling, and action; but we go farther. We assert that the contact of English ladies with French society, French manners, French sentiment, French skill, French knowledge--we assert that this contact has improved out wives and daughters. They are as good as ever they were, and they are more gracious. The rampant vice in English society--all men know it, and women too, and both know the others know it--is neither fastness, immodesty, or impropriety of any kind: it is pretence. This it is that makes our society for the most part parvenu society,--burthensome, troublesome, tedious. And it is just this pretence which is never seen in French society, whose chief characteristic is, on the contrary, naturalness.