criminal proceedings by the wife under this Act, shall in like manner be liable to criminal proceedings by her husband."

The intention of the Act is clear enough; woman ceased to be deprived of her rights as an individual by the contract of marriage; but in retaining the rights of a femme sole against others, her husband included, she also rendered herself liable to similar responsibilities, that heretofore the husband alone had had to discharge. But although since January 1, 1883, it has been decided that husband and wife are not one person, and it follows that in many cases the wife's income is separate and distinct from that of her husband, and not subject to his control, we find that the Inland Revenue still considers the joint incomes of husband and wife as being one for the purposes of taxation, and assess them accordingly. For example, if the income of the husband is £300 a year, and that of the wife £120, the income is assessed at £420; whereas if the same two persons were not married, the man would have an abatement of £120, and the woman would be exempt. Two brothers, or a brother and sister, or any other two persons living together, except husband and wife, would only pay on £180, instead of paying, as husband and wife have to do, on £420. This seems unjust; it is certainly contrary to the principle of the Married Woman's Property Act, and ought at once to be remedied.

There is still too exclusive a feeling by some men and societies as regard women. For example, in the Globe, May 27, 1889, is the following: "Sir,-Your issue of yesterday's date contains a statement that a 'lady was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature for the first time since Miss Hannah More.' Allow me to inform you that neither the last-mentioned lady nor any other lady has been elected a Fellow since the inaguration of the Society, the election of women having been held to be ultra vires by the charter, a view since confirmed by the late unanimous decision of the Appelate Court in Hope and Sandhurst, &c." (P. Colquhoun, President.) I fail to see any reason why women should not be elected as Fellows of

the Royal Society of Literature. In art, literature, and music the sexes should be put upon an equality, and no right, privilege, or honours accorded to the one, should be denied to the other. The only reason for disability in any occupation is, that it is for woman's own good she keep to her legitimate and natural sphere of occupation, the home and family; but having the time and capacity for the study of art, literature, or music, she has as much right to be a candidate for any of the honours associated with these pursuits as men.

Woman-her altered position, her greater power for good or evil, is one of the most important social subjects of the day. My only fear is, that in attempting to do men's work, they will neglect their own legitimate sphere-the home; her true friends should advise her to use her power for good there. Prepare them for the management of the bome; the understanding of children's bodies, so as to rear them healthfully; study their brains, so as to give support when needful and counteract any tendency to evil; study human nature in its every aspect, so as to mould and develop as perfect a being physically, mentally and morally, as is possible from the material in her charge. In this way, woman will do more good alike to man and woman, and for her own happiness, than interfering with politics, or the government of the State. She has, first of all, to learn how properly and most effectually to govern the house, and rear and educate into good habits her children. Practically, men have yielded to women, whilst claiming to be her superior. She now asks to be legally recognised as his equal; and there can be no doubt it will be better for both if men were to consider her more as an intellectual friend, helpmeet and companion, than as a toy to pass away an idle hour, as heretofore. The change should be beneficial to each, and aid in the progress of both. In her own department-the home, the higher the position occupied by women, and the greater respect she is held in by men, will be to the advantage of both.

We must, in considering this question of the rights of

woman, think of the effect such a social revolution will have if women be free. In my opinion, they are, and I used the word because Mill says: "There remain no legal slaves, except the mistress of every house." That some men abuse their marital rights, and brutally tyrannise oyer their wives, is unfortunately true; but such men are not influenced in their conduct because "the law compels the women to bear everything from them." It is not the law, but the vicious and brutal propensities of the men that want altering. Mr. Mill (see pages 148 to 153, Subjection of Women,) attaches far too much importance to what he calls the injustice pervading that most universal of all human relations, and its tendency upon boys so that, although they may see their sisters are superior to themselves, yet they feel that they must be really the superior, as they are entitled to command and she is bound to obey. But this is not true; boys obey their mother as they do their father, and are not allowed to domineer over their sisters because of the legal rights of their sex. Mr. Mill exaggerates when he says that "all the selfish propensities, the self-worship, the unjust self-preference, which exists among mankind, have their source and root in, and derive their principal nourishment from, the present constitution of the relation between men and women."

Such statements are calculated to do harm. By degrees, as men and women understand each other better, and form more suitable partnerships, home will have stronger attractions for man, and the wife will be more to him as a companion in his ideas and mental tastes. Each should improve the other, and would, if both will act more from the reciprocity of duty towards each other. Marriage either urges the man forward, and in his progress the wife joins ; or acts as a deadweight in pulling him back; unless they are as one in co-operating for the mental and social improvement of each other-urged thereto by mutual communion, and the sympathy of kindred thoughts, tastes, and aspirations. The moral and temporal regeneration of mankind will receive the aid it needs when men and women recognise at its true worth the wise advice to "Love one another."

ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

Suppose a Being made a wheel,
A wheel that would evolve alone-
A little wheel you'd scarcely feel;
And we'll suppose 'twas made of stone.
And, as the wheel evolved it grew
To many wheels, each moving round,
And all the movements moving true,
Until a perfect watch was found,—
Self-winding, and with balance rod:
Would He not be, who made the wheel, Almighty God?"
Psychosis.

THE result of all investigation demonstrates that the Eternal One has arranged everything beforehand, by the operation of fixed laws. It is a wonderful chapter in the world's history which is taught us by Geology. The vast changes which took place at distant spaces of time, and vegetable and animal life gradually developed until the world was ready to receive its last visitor, Man. Man is an organic being, and derives his existence from previously existing organised beings, and we have no evidence of life except by the ordinary means of generation. Yet, there must have been a spontaneous generation at the origin of the species; the original pair could not have derived their existence from previously existing beings. There are many clever theories as to the origin of species, but they are, must be, purely speculative.

Passing by as inscrutable how the original man and woman became possessed of life, we find development to be the existing law. The facts connected with this subject are very interesting: "First surmised by the illustrious Harvey, afterwards illustrated by Hunter in his wondrous collection at the Royal College of Surgeons, finally advanced to mature conclusions by Tiedemann, St. Hilaire, and Serres, embryotic development is now a science. Its primary positions are: (1) That the embryos

of all animals are not distinguishably different from each other; and (2) that those of all animals pass through a series of phases of development, each of which is the type or analogue of the permanent configuration of tribes inferior to it in the scale. With regard to the latter proposition, it is to be remarked that, while it is generally true of the whole forms of animal being, it is more particularly true of departments of the organisation, as the nutritive system, the vascular system, the nervous system, &c., each of which is destined for a peculiar degree of development in different groups of animals, according to their needs; and this, I may observe, is so far an explanation of the fact that a low class sometimes ascends in its highest forms to a point above the lowest forms of a class held on general grounds to be superior. Even in man there are some particulars of organisation less developed than in certain animals, which generally are far inferior. Speaking, however, roundly, it is undoubted, respecting nearly all animals, that they pass in embryo through phases resembling the general as well as the particular characters of those of lower grade. . . . The mammifer only passes through still more stages, according to its higher place in the scale. Nor is man himself exempt from this law. His first form is that which is permanent in the animalcule. His organisation gradually passes through conditions generally resembling a fish, a reptile, a bird, and the lower mammalia, before it attains its specific maturity. At one of the last stages of his foetal career he exhibits an intermaxillary bone, which is characteristic of the perfect ape; this is suppressed, and he may then be said to take leave of the simial type, and become a true human creature. Even, as we shall find, the varieties of his race are represented in the progressive development of an individual of the highest, before we see the adult Caucassian, the highest point yet attained in the animal scale.

"To come to particular points of the organisation. The brain of man, which exceeds that of all other animals in complexity of organisation and fulness of development, is at one early period only a simple fold of nervous matter,