greatest proficiency in the most abstruse sciences-and this fact, he thought, was worth a thousand arguments. He thought that woman's natural timidity had not been taken sufficiently into the account. Her name--her reputation, was at stake, and this kept her back. Besides, when she did try to raise herself, were not satire, mockery, and discouragement heaped upon her, by those very persons who boast their superiority? He (Mr. Y.) believed that the asserters of woman's inferiority were actuated by selfish motives-that they were afraid woman would eclipse them. (Laughter.) He pointed to history, and he was sure history would support his views. Mr. Y. concluded his speech by saying, that he thought it would be a disgrace to the Institution to pass the question in the negative.

Mr. C. WARWICK was almost deterred, by the last speaker's appeal to the sympathies of the meeting, from speaking at all. His friend had appealed to chivalry; he (Mr. W.) trusted, that however knightly his friends around him might be, they would not be convinced against reason. (Cheers.) I think, Sir, (continued the speaker) that the gentleman's arguments are too old to merit much reply; but I cannot pass, without notice, the extraordinary assertion-the great libel-that women of talent have been frowned into silence by men. It is not true. (Loud cheers.) Where is the instance? There has never been one. Tell me not that they have been suffered to languish unnoticed in obscurity. Sir, no obscurity can destroy intelligence. (Cheers.) Was not Shakspere obscure, and Otway, and a host of others, and did they not rise? Yes! for genius will rise, whether it be in man or woman, and no force can keep it down. (Loud cheers.) Some have said that all female sovereigns have been great; but why? Because they had men for counsellors. (Hear, hear.) This is not a new question; thinkers of all ages have considered it. Plato, Aristotle, and others, had triumphantly maintained the mental inferiority of woman. And have we not with us the voice of experience? Do we not find that in all ages, in all countries, under all circumstances, men have been the leaders in goverment, in laws, and in all that promotes happiness? It has been said, Sir, that woman has risen and progressed as civilization has advanced; but what is this owing to? To her own powers-her own exertions? No! It is to man's higher appreciation of her worth. (Cheers.) Education does not bear upon the question. Amongst the Asiatics-the barbarous creatures into whose minds the coruscations of light have never darted-even there woman bows to man as to a lord. In the wigwam of the savage, in the tent of the barbarian, the woman is still inferior; and the man-where is he? He is ruling, extending his territories, conquering. And is not this traceable to the tendencies born with them? Woman has no desire to rove; her home is the temple of her happiness; her children demand her care; her frame renders her incapable of either laborious physical or mental exercise. Man, on the other hand, is obliged to leave his home, and to go into the great world of action and of thought; and Nature has fitted him for the emergency. His physical strength enables him to bear more mental exercise-the supply of strength is equal to the demand-and the results of his application are seen in the thousand fresh inventions and improvements that every day affords.

But do I dare to say that woman is inferior in the scale of being to man? No! Heaven forbid it! Though she is beneath him in intellect, she is above him in morality. Cast up the long catalogue of woman's virtues - compare them with man's; her graces overshadow his superiorities, and she stands on God's earth as noble and as great as he. (Loud cheers.) As between the majestic beauty of the Apollo and the seraphic gracefulness of the Venus it is difficult to judge, so is it difficult to decide between man and woman. They are different, but they are equally to be admired. He sits on the high throne of intellect, and rules the world; but she has a throne and a prerogative as well; her empire is the home, and there, whether in the character of

She

Mother, daughter, wife,

Strews with fresh flowers the weary way of life."

We tell of man's eloquence--his voice is heard in the senate, in the camp, in legislation ; but woman has an eloquence as great as his-an eloquence to be read in the kindling eye and the blushing cheek, and that never fails to gain its end. We record man's resolution and prowess-we speak of his courage in the battle and the storm; but there is something braver and nobler in the fortitude with which woman meets distress, and bears the shafts of adversity. And her love, how strong, how ardent, how enduring! In youth and in age-in want and in prosperity-in

all times, all seasons, all circumstances-she is ever the same kind and benevolent angel-our refuge, our balm, our hope. But I will not attempt to speak woman's eulogy; her value has never been recorded, and I will not essay the task. (Loud and long continued cheers.)

Mr. W. W. LLOYD made a few observations on the other side of the question, in which he argued, that custom, and a variety of circumstances, had combined to cramp the efforts of woman, but that the names of the few great females recorded in history prove that they are not necessarily inferior to men. He particularly instanced Miss Martineau, and said, he only wished his own intellect approached her's. (Laughter, and "hear, hear.")

Mr. ROBERT SMITH-Sir, I cannot agree with the tenour of the observations of the last speaker, and I am very sorry that a spirit of rivalry should have entered into this question. I think we should discuss the matter more calmly and philosophically than has yet been done; and, as our only object is truth-to use Truth's best weapon-moderation. I think that rivalry and chivalry should be altogether laid aside; I am sure that no female would wish to say that there is a disposition among men to keep back the female mind; and, therefore, Truth, and not Chivalry, should be the genius invoked. I said, Sir, that no woman would desire to establish a rivalry with man. I must except Lady Morgan; and I cannot but consider that her work, "Woman and her Master," is a diabolical-I repeat it a diabolical book. Its aim is to establish a rivalry between the sexes-to raise an equality of right and power-to drag woman from the privacy she adorns into a collision with man-and to cause a civil war such as the world has never seen. But the work is beneath my notice, and I will say no more of it-I will treat it with contempt.

Now the great point to settle in reference to this question of equality of mind is, as to what we mean by mind. I apprehend we must describe the mind as the energy that acts through the frame as a medium; we cannot otherwise speak of it than as dependant on the physical frame for its manifestation. Now by what, or through what, does the mind operate? Through the brain; and upon the quantity and quality of that organ the manifestation of mind depends. Now, in woman the brain is much smaller than in man, and therefore it necessarily follows that woman, having the smaller medium, must manifest the smaller intellectual power. If we go into the higher region of metaphysics, we shall find that there is in no case any essential difference in the spiritual mind, but that it is manifested according to the organization it animates. I believe that all mind is in quality essentially the same; that the intelligence of every man and of every woman is equally divine and powerful. Nay, more; I believe that there is no real difference between the nature of angels and of human beings. The angel is superior to the man in organization, and therefore possesses superior intelligence; so in like manner is the man superior to the woman. (Loud cheers.) Let me now speak briefly on the historical phase of the question, and I will say at once that I believe there will ever be found women who can do what men have done in the world of mind. I think that in Epic poetry there may one day be found a Milton amongst them, and in the Drama a Shakspere. Nay, I will go further; I will say that if you give woman greater chances than she yet has had, she may do more than man has yet done: she may exceed Miltonshe may distance Shakspere. But at the same time I say, Do as much for man, and he will do more still. Give him and her the same circumstances to govern them the same influences to work upon them-the same education-the same advantages-and the man will do what he has heretofore done-he will distance the woman in the race, and achieve the higher glory. (Loud and continued cheering.) The debate was adjourned till the 5th January by Mr. OPPENHEIM.

ADJOURNED MEETING, JANUARY 5, 1843.

Mr. OPPENHEIM re-opened the discussion. He was afraid that after the talented and eloquent manner in which the question had been handled, his remarks would be thought scarce else than presumptuous. It was his intention, however, to discuss the subject in a somewhat different manner-to leave metaphysics and philosophy to those who were better able than himself to elucidate them-and to consider the question purely historically. Mr. Yrigoyti had asked, where were the Colleges and Literary Institutions for females? He (Mr. O.) would meet this by saying, that Shakspere became one of the greatest poets the world has ever seen without any

such opportunities, and that it is proved thereby that it is the nature of the mind, and not the circumstances surrounding it, that determines its possessor's place in the scale of mental power. The faculties of a man are born with him; a poet must be born a poet:

The speaker then proceeded to cite from history the names of the most celebrated female sovereigns, and argued that whenever a nation has been governed well by a Queen, it was because she had men of great and powerful mental qualifications to advise her; but that whenever a people had been ruled by a female sovereign who has had weak advisers, that people have been ruined, and their liberties have been destroyed. He spoke of Semiramis, Cleopatra, and Zenobia, and showed the small claims they possess upon the admiration of mankind. Mr. O. then instanced Christina of Sweden, who had been called "a great queen," and briefly traced her history, to show that, so far from being entitled to respect, her career was one of lust, cruelty, and revenge. He next proceeded to speak of the Salic Law, which he regarded as wise and beneficial, and concluded his remarks in the following words :"Whether a woman be the wife of a king, general, senator, or commoner-if she be content to remain in that sphere of life for which she was formed by her Creatorshe will be respected. To attend to the household-to minister to the wants and soothe the sorrows of her domestic circle-to superintend the education and rearing of her children, and implant in their minds the seeds of virtue and religion-this was her proper sphere. Happy is the man who can find a virtuous woman for a wife her price is above rubies' And when I see the warmth, the ardour, the earnestness with which woman adores the object of her affections, then can I love` and worship her-then can I exclaim with the poet Otway

'Oh, woman, lovely woman! nature made thee

To temper man. We had been brutes without you.'" (Cheers.)

Mr. GATHERER agreed with the opener in the opinion that the best way to settle this question was to go to every-day life, and gather the materials of our judgment from thence. It was true that some women had greatly signalized themselves in history-Mrs. Somerville, for instance. He (Mr. G.) thought with many of the preceding speakers, that this was not a fair way of treating the question; but if it were, could Mrs. Somerville stand in the same elevated and glorious position in astronomical science as Newton or Herschel? The Class had been told that the size of the brain was to be the test of the mental power. Now he (Mr. G.) could not agree to this. Was the doctrine borne out by fact? Could the members of that Class, for instance, say that the gentlemen with the largest heads were always the best speakers? (Laughter.) This test, therefore, would not do, and it should have been left out of the discussion altogether. He had been highly amused by the gallantry of many of the defenders of the ladies. It was true that in their rapture they had said a good many unaccountable things-(Laughter)—and that

"Their active fancies had travelled beyond sense,

And pictured things unseen."

but he (Mr. G.) would make every allowance for them. (Cheers.) He knew that on such a subject it was impossible to chain down the mind; he knew that, when "the Ladies" were the theme, the speakers must be eloquent; and he, therefore, was not at all surprised at the splendid displays of gallantry that many of his friends had made. (Laughter.) He (Mr. G.) believed, that in whatever art or science we view the relative intellectual powers of the sexes, the genius of man will always be the most conspicuous, and he thought that the advocates of woman's mental equality were labouring under a theoretical delusion, or were exercising their ingenuity at the expense of their judgment. He was opposed to changing the present order of things: it would not do to transfer woman from the domestic hearth to the counting-house-or from the parlour to the Exchange: no new influx of light would be cast into the world, but much confusion and disappointment would ensue. (Cheers.)

Mr. J. G. HARGREAVES-I cannot but regret that a question of this nature should ever be agitated in these days. To my fancy, there is a flavour of barbarism about it for which, I confess, I have no relish. I trust I shall not be suspected of passing the slightest reflection upon those gentlemen who have so ably maintained the

affirmative of the question, when I say, that it would much better suit the 9th than the 19th century. It would be more palatable, I have no doubt, in an ancient Celtic club or a modern Indian settlement, than in such an "emporium of civilization" as the City of London Institution.

We are certainly far in advance of the musty ages, when it was doubted whether women had souls at all; but it would seem, that, even at this day, there exists a great reluctance to extend to them fully the noblest franchise of which man can boast that of intellect. The Lords of Creation cannot concede to woman an equality with themselves; they cannot admit her to the freedom of an intellectual community upon the same terms as themselves; they must, therefore, justify their illiberality by suspecting her capacities, and even asserting her inferiority. Onehalf the whole human race denied the full possession of human intellect! It is far too sweeping, too monstrous a conclusion. Is it not a startling proposition, that the half of every generation is to be disrobed of the intellectual dignity conceded to the other; that those whom we love and cherish most-our mothers, our sisters-are to be degraded to a lower place, and assigned a lower office, than ourselves; that ties so sacred-so interesting-should be formally weakened by the establishment of so wide and permanent a distinction?

With regard to the physical organization of woman, which has been so frequently referred to, I cannot think it such as would justify a conclusion as to her inferiority. It may be that mind is restrained in its development by the peculiarities of physical structure; but to what difference of form can we safely point as demonstrative of a difference of intellect? Philosophers, it is true, now lay hold upon any limb or bump upon the body, and discover the qualities of mind from a very simple inves tigation of its form or size! The Swiss metaphysician, Helvetius, for instance, asserted that man was superior to brutes only because he possessed fingers, and they but hoofs and claws. If this were any test, it would be found, I daresay, that a woman's fingers are as numerous, as flexible, and as industrious as a man's. Shall we then take a survey of the cranium-institute a comparison between the bumps of the male and female head-and because some slight difference in altitude may, perhaps, be found in individual cases, draw the startling conclusion, that those with whom we are so closely associated are yet not of the same intellectual rank as ourselves. Without denying the merits of phrenology, I may-nay ought to—question its competency to decide upon a matter of such import. However advanced it may be as a science, we cannot fairly measure the subtle spirit which is so transiently linked with matter by the minute curves which that matter may assume upon a part of its surface. But even if phrenology could do this-if upon a comparison of heads, male and female, it had shown a decided difference-yet, it must be remembered that it can only speak of what is, and not prophesy what is to be. The utmost, therefore, it can do, is to show a superiority of present DEVELOPMENT, and not of native, radical power, which, of course, can be the only legitimate object of inquiry implied in the question. But that even this inquiry cannot fairly be made, it is my wish to submit to the Class.

I do not see how the doctrine of woman's inferiority can be maintained at all, without admitting that she is of a different race-of a distinct order of soul-from our own. A distinction not of sex or species only, but more than this must be assumed to exist between her and man. To assert that the intellect of woman as a RACE (I do not say as to individuals) is naturally and radically inferior to that of man is to separate them by a line the most marked and decisive. But how does this divorce in theory accord with fact? Why, it is wholly inconsistent with the intimate relationship she holds to man, with that relationship which has been enforced by reason- -by necessity-by Scripture-by God! To sever mankind into distinct races is to estrange them, and it is not until the faculties of the savage-of the inferior in development-have been so cultivated as to place him on a similar level with the European, that there can be perfect communion, or perfect harmony, between them. If a difference really exists between the sexes in respect of intellect, if woman's mind is inferior to that of man, we ought to inquire in what faculties this inferiority is to be found. Where lies the defect? Is her physical oganization less perfect for the purpose of placing her in communication with the external world than man's? Does her eye-her ear-convey impressions less faithfully to the mind? Is not her perception as quick-her consciousness as perfect-her memory as strong-her judg ment as prompt-her imagination as vivid? Or, if it is admitted that the cause of

her inferiority is not to be detected in any faculty singly, does it consist in her inability to use these faculties conjointly? Let us, then, take an example-the Art of Oratory for instance-an art which Rousseau said, extravagantly enough, required such a combination of qualities in the speaker that he wondered how any man durst open his mouth in public. Now, women have no opportunities for making public orations, and therefore we need not be surprised that we have had no female Ciceros. But there is one branch of the art in which they excel so remarkably, that the term denoting a Professor in that department is almost exclusively feminine-I mean Scolding! I am sure, if any of us should ever, unhappily, be the objects of this fire-side oratory, we should soon be inclined to confess that woman was on an equality with ourselves with respect to the use she can make of her faculties. A cannonade of half-an-hour would, I think, satisfy most of us of that fact. I merely give this illustration—it is not the best I could have chosen-to show that in those exercises of the mind where many faculties must combine and co-operate, woman does not exhibit any defective organization.

Unless, therefore, we are willing to assert that women are a distinct race of beings -differing in capacity, in soul, as a race-I do not see what question can be raised, except this-Is the mind of woman generally less developed by circumstances and education than that of man? But the proposition under debate has vanished then-or, rather, it is lost in a general inquiry as to the diversities of intellect in the members of the human family at large. But that inquiry is as wide as human existence itself; for every one admits that there is an almost infinite variety of mind-of mind as it presents itself in its native form-of mind as it is actually developed. This admitted, what becomes of the question as to woman's equality or inferiority? Inferior to what? To the far-seeing, all-grasping faculties of a Shakspere, or to the unfledged intellect of a plough-boy? The scale upon which human intellect is graduated is an immense one indeed! One end, rooted in earth, indicates mind in its lowest form; the other, shoots far away into the Empyrean, and exhibits it with a grandeur which seems almost superhuman. But where shall we place woman? At its lowest extremity? Yes, if inferior in capacity as a race, it must be so! She must be interposed between men and animals; she must take her place at the very lowest point of masculine power; for if she reaches beyond that point, she then ceases to be the inferior in race which she is assumed to be. Raise the animal, so that he can perform the average intellectual operations of the man, and the races would then have lost their principal distinction.

But it may be said that the average intellect of woman is not equal to the average of man's. My chief object, however, is to submit that this comparison cannot be made; for how can it be ascertained, unless the two are placed on an equality as to circumstances and education? Woman has her own pursuits and employments; she is subject to numerous restrictions; she is forbidden, by custom, to meddle with matters beyond the sphere which its caprice has allotted her. As a necessary consequence of this, she cannot contend with man in exercises to which she has never been accustomed-in studies to which she has never been directed. But is she therefore inferior in intellect? Just as well might we say that a doctor of medicine was inferior to a serjeant at law, because he could not cope with him in a discussion upon some of the subtlest principles of law. Woman's recognized sphere of thought and action is indeed far more limited than man's; but we must not say she is inferior in intellect, because that sphere does not happen to include the science of legislation, or the principles of pneumatics, or the practice of stock-dealing.

The position, therefore, which I wish to occupy in this debate is simply this :-that no comparison can be fairly made, and therefore no conclusion can be safely drawn as to the intellect of the two sexes-considered as such. Whether this position is a sound one or not I must leave to others; but I ought to say, as some proof of its stability, that there is scarcely an argument I have heard on the other side which does not actually confirm it. It has been said, for instance, that woman's range of education is totally different from man's. Then, is it fair to compare them? Do we ever weigh the intellect of a boy against that of the man-the mind or brain of Timothy, junior, against that of Timothy the elder? Well then, the intellect of an Indian savage against that of a well-cultivated European, a peer, or an academician? No, says every one, it would be unfair to do so-they are not similarly circumstancedthey are not equally educated. But this attempt at a comparison becomes still more difficult when classes-not individuals—are concerned; for nothing could be more preposterous than an inquiry, whether the intellect of the tribe of butchers