And now what of our Statesman? I grant that the clearest and most sagacious mind in all philosophy is the mind of Bacon, and that his philosophy (rightly studied and understood) is of a high, pure, and useful character. But what has he done for us? To say nothing of the miserable example he sets us by his own conduct, (which shows how little his philosophy is calculated to influence and improve the life,) do we not find that the effect of his works has been to plunge Europe in scepticism, if not infidelity in doubt, if not darkness? To it are clearly owing the disbelief of Hume- the atheistic philosophism of the last century- and the mean, ignoble, calculating utilitarianism of the present day. I do not impute this fault to Bacon, nor to his philosophy; I merely instance it to prove that all mere mental teaching is vain, useless, and injurious, that it fills the mind without touching the heart, and that it makes a man wise without leading him to be good.

But who can estimate the vast benefit that Shakspere did and is doing to his country? Who can sufficiently point out the effect of his chivalrous patriotism - his pure benevolence - his high philosophy - his sound morality - his universal sympathies — his glorious aspirations to nobler and to better worlds than this? The Warrior, as we have seen, links man to man by the word of com

mand, the word of authority. The Statesman, as we have seen, links man to man by the principle of mutual dependence and of self-interest. But the Poet links man to man by the holy tie of sympathy and brotherhood- a tie which no authority, no force, can break. Place then these three men side by side-Cromwell, Bacon, Shakspere; and let your choice point out to you the answer you should give to the question now before us. You will not hesitate, for you cannot doubt. For whilst you will perceive that the Warrior and the Statesman are but the creatures of the day that produces them, and perish with that day; you will also find that the Poet engraves his glory so deeply on the heart of man, that till the heart of man perishes for ever in the grave of time, that glory shall be fresh and ineffaceable.

See Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH'S WORKS, vol. ii. pp. 320–327.; and vol. iii. pp. 200. 252. Lord JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. i. p. 231.; vol. ii. p. 259.

EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. xlvii. pp. 184-196.; vol. xxvi. p. 458.

QUESTION II.

Are the Mental Capacities of the Sexes equal?

OPENER. Sir, In rising to open the question which has been put from the chair, I assure you that I feel I stand in need of much indulgence. I expect no small amount of reproach and contumely for the part I mean to take in this debate, for I know the gallantry of many of my friends around me, and I fully make up my mind to smart under the weight of it. However, I prefer truth to reputation, and I do not mind a wound or two in a cause that I feel to be right. I will meet my fate boldly at all events; and I will at once declare that, so far as I have been enabled to judge, I have been led to believe that the mental capacities of the sexes are not equal; that the man's intellect is, on the average, superior to the woman's. I am quite ready to own that this rule will not hold universally. One cannot read the records of the world - one cannot look round his own circle of acquaintance,—without perceiving that some women are superior to some men. But I arrive at my present judgment, by observing that the best samples of the male sex are

far superior to the best samples of the female sex; and that the bulk of the male sex is far superior to the bulk of the female sex.

We see this proved whichever way we turn. In history, which shines the brighter — the male sex, or the female? Look among Sovereigns. Where is the female Cæsar? - the female Alfred?

the female Alexander? Or take Legislators. What woman have we to compare with Solon or Lycurgus? Where are the female philosophers, moreover ? Where is their Socrates their Plato their Newton? In literature, too

are

the great names those of the fairer, or of the sterner, sex? Homer, Shakspere, Milton, Byron, what lady-writers equal these?

I shall not enter into the philosophical part of the question at all. Facts are the strongest arguments, and facts I have produced. Besides, I dare say that some of my supporters will choose that view of the matter; and into their hands I am quite willing to resign it.

I feel that I should weaken my cause were I to say more. I therefore commit the question to the fair and full discussion of the meeting, quite convinced that a just conclusion will at length be arrived at.

SECOND SPEAKER.-Sir, My friend who has just resumed his seat has regarded this question

as it is answered by history. I will view it by the light of reason and philosophy.

I think then that women were meant to be The female of every kind of

inferior to men.

animal is weaker than the male, and why should a distinction be made with the human species? The sphere which the female is called upon to fill is the domestic one. To rule and to command is the sphere of man. He is here to govern and to guide. Now the exercise of authority requires greater mental power than the duties of the other sex demand; and I think that man would not have been called upon to rule without having the power to rule conferred upon him. What would follow if Woman were endowed with the highest intellect? Why that instead of tempering society with grace and softness, she would embitter it with the asperities of debate; that instead of being man's comforter and better angel, she would be his intellectual antagonist, ever at wordy war with him; that instead of refining the hearts of those who come within the reach of her gentle influence, she would continually spur, excite, and agitate their minds. Where would be man's refuge from the corroding cares of life and thought?-Where would be his domestic comfort. and happiness?-Where would be the unutterable delight that now dwells in the magic word HOME," if woman were more intellectually

66