that if the State has no solution to offer, the State tie must be dissolved, and the contending parties left to fight out their differences in the arena of free discussion.' Now, so far from this appearing a contingency full of terrifying potentialities, to some people it appears a 'consummation devoutly to be wished.' It seems monstrous that religious aspirants of the twentieth century are to be bound by the conclusions arrived at in the sixteenth by a set of people suffering from the most blinding of all emotions-burning hatred for their co-religionists whose influence they were seeking to overthrow and supersede. And it seems a primitive species of morality that demands unqualified adherence to the letter of a contract entered into more than three hundred years ago, because that contract happens to be bound by that most sacred of all bonds, a monetary fund.

There are those who believe that the power of free discussion can be conducive to nothing but good, that whatever is of value as embodied in the teaching of the Church will endure in spite of freedom of thought and freedom of action, and that the Church' whose doctrines find an echo in the heart of every right-thinking man and woman is the true Church and the only one founded on the rock.

No doubt there are some who regard even so weighty a subject as Woman's Suffrage as a fad. And, although it seems wellnigh impossible to shriek too loudly over the palpable injustice of women's present thraldom, we should be saved from these blatant methods by the example of those who oppose women in this their spirited striving after self-help.

The fact is, that the case of the tax- and rate-paying woman who demands enfranchisement, stated temperately and accurately, is so unanswerable that no hysterics are needed. For, as Carlyle said of Free Trade, no argument has ever been heard against it 'that would not make an angel weep.' Indeed, it is singular that on this subject the accepted characteristics of the male and female appear to change places. The woman has the whole battery of reason on her side, the man relies on prehistoric prejudice. The manifestation of this prejudice takes various forms. Some people meet women's unanswerable demand for common justice, on the ground that taxation necessitates representation, by attempted ridicule, and play the buffoon. This is essentially the rôle Mr. Labouchere adopts more or less successfully. Others meet the demand courteously but negatively, with

all sorts of prettily flavoured testimonials as to the charm and usefulness of the fair sex,' which are very gratifying, but so unnecessary, for women never doubted the possession of either quality in themselves. Then there are those who deny women their 'rights' brutally and aggressively. One kind seems to say: 'Women are fools, and we are glad it is so, bless them!' the other kind equally say, 'Women are fools,' but add, 'we wish it were not so.' Nevertheless one can but sympathise and even experience a feeling akin to shame when one sees the lords of creation forced to descend from the lofty pedestal of hard logic, and ensconce themselves behind the shield allotted without question to woman by man as her lawful armoury of defence, namely, instinct or prejudice. Yet this is what we are forced to see some of us with a delicate shrinking from the exposure of such weak spots in the much-prized and much-vaunted masculine brain. But, with rising hope and renewed faith, we gratefully contemplate the communities of Wyoming, New Zealand, West Australia, South Australia, Idaho, and Colorado, where after many a struggle the male population have reasserted the supremacy of their reasoning powers and Woman Suffrage has been established.

Perhaps the Anti-vivisectionists have the most difficulties to contend with in their righteous crusade against legalised cruelty perpetrated in the name of science, and ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting humanity. For not only have they enemies without the camp, but enemies within to contend against. The enemies from without accuse anti-vivisectionists of hysterical ignorance, and attribute to them a want of capacity to estimate correctly the incalculable service that is rendered to the human race through the experiments upon living animals, which experiments they assert, through their most eminent apostles, are carried on perfectly painlessly to animals, and that, therefore, they afford no justification for the attacks made upon the experimenters. Onslaughts from within come from those who, like the more ardent spirits amongst the temperance reformers, do not admit the word 'compromise' into their vocabulary, nor recognise its productive influence on the cause they have at heart. Their watchword is 'consistency,' and sooner than be found wanting by the smallest scruple in this superlative quality, they will forego their chance of advancing their cause by however appreciable a degree.

Amongst the moderate section, however, there are also to be

found people who overstate their case, or state it wrongly, neither of which is necessary if a cause be just and honourable. There are those who, on platforms for instance, glibly proclaim their willingness to sacrifice not themselves only, but some one dear to them (their favourite child for choice), in the cause of the tortured animal, or inconsequently maintain their potential inflexibility even should the glorious prospect of an unlimited extension of years be offered them at the price of a tortured animal's life. These appear to less heroic souls to give away their case by formulating hypotheses involving an admission of the usefulness of vivisection. The only reasonable and impregnable position for anti-vivisectionists to take up is the utter uselessness of vivisection. To defend oneself

for one's energetic action with the plea of scientific ignorance, and to put on the inadequate armour of sentiment, is attempting too great a task against odds very much in favour of the vivisectionists; but the anti-vivisectionists have on their side weapons as potent as the physiologists, on the battlefield of reason. They possess an array of indisputable and undisputed facts, undisputed even by the physiologists themselves, wherewith to confront their enemies.

Take the simple fact, for instance, of the almost invariable difference between the organs of the human and other animals: the fact that most drugs act in a totally different manner upon the lower animals' organs and upon the same organs in human beings: the fact that great terror causes certain fundamental changes in the blood and juices of the body, thus rendering observation, when the animal is in the state that it invariably is in when being vivisected, useless as data whereon to rest knowledge as to how the drugs administered would affect even the same animal when in a normal condition. And recently a vivisector commented upon the impossibility of forming accurate opinions upon the action of the heart during vivisection, because the condition of the vivisected animal's heart was never normal. But the acquisition of this positive knowledge will not prevent other physiologists from making similar admittedly useless experiments. Thus the uncertain science of medicine can derive no exact knowledge as to the effect of any drug on the human organism from experiments upon animals, and as to surgery, which is an exact science, we find surgeons of such eminence as Mr. Lawson Tait and Mr. Treves publicly declaring that not only had vivisection not taught them anything that was

of use to them in their operations, but that they had to unlearn nearly all they thought they had learnt from experiments on animals when they came to operate upon human beings. As long as there are men of eminence in this profession who question the necessity for what, there is no doubt in the mind of all impartial people, involves hideous suffering to helpless and inoffensive dumb animals, have we any right to aid and abet others less conscientious and less scrupulous in inflicting tortures on any of God's creatures for the sake of some possible benefit we, as human beings, may eventually derive from their action?

Undoubtedly the same eternal laws operate in the physical as in the moral world, and if we are convinced that by violating the recognised laws of the moral universe evil ensues, it is impossible to suppose that physical good can be effected by cruelty and injustice to the weak or at the expense of the moral good. It seems clear to those who think thus that vivisection is not only wrong because it is useless, but useless because it is wrong; in other words, it is futile to expect any actions to yield results contrary to those which universal experience, embodied in all the accepted codes of philosophical and religious teaching, justifies us in regarding as the certain ultimate result, or the inevitable aggregate outcome, of a particular course of conduct.

Convictions based on unemotional lines are necessarily of a more stable nature than those governed entirely by the emotions. And before embarking upon any weighty enterprise, it is well to examine our opinions, before they become convictions, by the Godgiven light of Reason. We shall then be less likely to find discouragement ourselves, and, what is perhaps more important, less likely also to retard the cause we are endeavouring to advance.

AGNES GROVE,

AN ACCOUNT OF HIS STEWARDSHIP.

WHEN the London papers announced that Raymond Fox, M.P. for Mid-Clare, had applied for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, other men in Parliament were not much surprised. His engagement had been very apparent, as his pretty fiancée, far from trying to allure him from his political duties to society frivolities, had herself developed an absorbing interest in politics, and was frequently to be seen dining in the House and having tea on the terrace, and even sitting through dull debates behind the grille of the ladies' gallery, with an aunt who would have infinitely preferred the opera. And this she did on the chance of hearing Raymond open his eloquent lips for five or ten minutes.

But, you may ask, if the lady was so sympathetic, why did his engagement entail his retirement from Parliament? Well, this was the way of it. Her father, though an Irishman and a supporter of the same political party, was yet eminently practical, and, having made his way in the world, desired to have as a son-in-law a man who could do the same. He had made it the sole condition of his consent to the engagement that Raymond should leave Parliament till he had put himself in a position of independence by exercise of his profession.

Raymond had been called to the Irish bar, but had never practised. He felt confident, however, that all would be plain sailing. He had attained a reputation as an orator and all-round clever fellow, was also a popular hero in a way, owing to a prominent part he had taken in an eviction affray in which the police came off second best. So there was first of all a private conference with the lady and then a confidential talk with his party Leader and the Whip, and it was unanimously decided that the retirement was to be sanctioned.

'When you are a rich man,' said the Whip, and have money to waste on an election contest, never doubt but we'll find a seat you can fight for us. I suppose Mid-Clare is safe for our party?'

Raymond assured them that Mid-Clare was safe, and promised to go down and back their candidate. 'I'll be of some use to him with the "hillside men," he added with a meaning smile.