be I shall see some one else purchase a copy, and go into the great express that runs to the North, and I shall think how in the early morning this train will pass Melrose and Abbotsford, and sweep up the long and beautiful valley by Gala Water. I can take you to a seat in Regent's Park from which no house is visible, only the waving trees, and from which for nearly four months of the year you can see a panorama of flowers such as you see at Haarlem if you chance to be there in April, when the hyacinths are in bloom.

And then there are the concerts in the Queen's Hall on Sunday afternoons one hundred and two performers (I often pass in first of the fifty admitted free); the familiar music of Wagner and Tschaikowsky; perhaps a symphony by Beethoven, or Schubert's unfinished symphony, saying things you can never put into words, any more than you can put into words the last sunset you saw from the Riffelberg.

I often walk to the Tait Gallery to look at one picture 'The Girl at the Gate' ('doubt, hesitation and pain')-beautiful as the faces painted by Bastien Lepage that hang in the gallery of the Luxembourg. I may venture to the upper gallery, where there is a small picture called 'Solitude'-only sea-birds, shingle, and long waves rolling in to the shore as the 'waters welcome the land.' And it is delightful to go to the great cathedrals, and listen to the anthems ; and perchance wait for the sermon, if it is to be preached by one who has earned the right to speak by years of labour among the poor of London. And then I go to hear other preachers, above whose doors I sometimes think might be written, 'Your prayers for the poor, your pence for me.'

6

Possessing a private library of your own, it is difficult for you to appreciate what the public libraries are to those of us who have none. There are two within ten minutes' walk of this house-the Holborn Public Library, and the Clerkenwell. John Ruskin' calls them King's treasuries. . . .The treasures hidden in books. . . . The company of the noble who are praying us to listen to them. . . . This eternal court is open to you, with its society, wide as the world, multitudinous as its days, the chosen and the mighty of every place and time.'

I often find my way to the Guildhall Library, and taking one of the blue slips of paper I write upon it 'Horae Subsecivae, by Dr. John Brown;' and the author of Rab and his Friends ' takes me away to the wild Minchmoor, and I see again Traquair House, 'a pallid forlorn mansion, stricken all o'er with eld,' standing like a grey

ghost watching by the banks of the Tweed, and I read Professor Sharp's weird and delightful poem :

And the Quair burn singing down to the Vale o' Tweed.'

Such are a few of the pleasures open to -pleasures you cannot take away from him.

a poor man in London

After all, it is not our

possessions that make life worth living; it is our inner selves.

W. A. SOMMERVILLE.

1899

A WOMANS CRITICISM OF THE

WOMEN'S CONGRESS

A REPLY

THE closing words of the article A Woman's Criticism of the Congress,' appearing in the last issue of this Review, are as follows: To exaggerate the importance of woman's work in activities which are adequately accomplished by men, and to underrate all the simple homely duties which have been dignified and rendered lovely by myriads of noble and cultured women, and instinctively consecrated by the wisdom of generations, is wanting in breadth, insight, and loftiness, and productive of unnecessary confusion and chaos.'

In the warped view of the critic, the Women's Congress seems to have been reduced to the condition of a 'senseless, chattering, talking head.'

We are not surprised that the Congress was 'productive of unnecessary confusion and chaos' in the mind of the critic, since from her initial statement that 'the Congress is already arranging to hold another Congress at Berlin next year,' it is evident that the writer is the victim of incorrect and insufficient information on her subject, and also without any grasp or comprehension of the purposes which lie back of such gatherings.

No Women's Congress exists or holds conventions. Therefore, in criticising The Congress' one is attacking air, since once the session closes, the molecules of thought and opinion which formed for the time allotted that body known as The Congress' separate and dissolve back into the world from which they came. Only the influence remains, and it would not seem that the influence of any congress could be duly measured and balanced within a month after its close, and ultimately summed up in an eleven-page article.

This Congress was invited or called together by the International Council of Women, which is an organised body, and convenes in general session once in five years.

This International Council decided to hold its next session at Berlin five years hence. It is within the privilege of this International Council to invite in general speakers, and so form a congress

of women at Berlin in five years; but it is not committed to do so. The object of this Congress was to gather from the varying opinions and differences of desire and effort throughout the world, a consensus of facts regarding women in organised work either for support, philanthropy or social uses. The facts existed before they were expressed in this Congress, but simply a more widespread knowledge of facts was opened up by this gathering.

The International Council, having thus felt the strong beating pulse of woman's inmost effort and desire, will be guided or warned, as the case may be, in its ministrations and deliberations for the next five years.

The Congress, like all human affairs, was not perfect; but it was honest and earnest in intent, and some of its utterances were certainly wholesome. The very fact of its being an open Congress, where one could hear all views, bars it from the unjust slur of being a mutual admiration society-or that any or all of its chance utterances were expected to be adopted as law and gospel by all

women.

It is admitted that good, bad, and indifferent matter was set forth from the platform, but the residue it is believed will be helpful and broadening.

We do not quite follow Miss Low in many of her criticisms, as for instance when she asserts that

The radical defect of the Conference will be discerned at a glance when it is understood that theories of a most startling nature, practically overthrowing present social conditions, were propounded from a purely feminine standpoint, and subjected in many instances to no sort of criticism or correction, each woman speaking her own words, and giving her own suffrage to what seemed best in her own eyes, without any reference to what had gone before or was to come five minutes later.

Naturally the standpoint was expected to be feminine, and each used her own words: and few men or women are gifted with prevision enough to know just what theories some one may advance five minutes later, which might bias or contravert present conclusions at which they were arriving. But as the Congress was purely for talking and listening, and not for weighty decision or vote, I fail to see where either a feminine standpoint or lack of prevision was a vital question. The critic asks if any one was able to discover the fundamental principles of the Congress,' and explains that by fundamental principles she does not mean the feminist bias exhibited by a large number of the speakers.'

We met many who discovered at once the fundamental principles of sympathy outreach and information underlying and mellowing each department of the Congress. I know one woman from California who, having large interest in agriculture and horticulture, devoted her time to attending almost strictly to this department.

She listened to the able papers, met some of the writers, and went with them personally, both during and at the close of the Convention, to witness that of which they spoke; and so enthused did she become by what she gleaned that she expressed her determination to go home to California and devote her large means to effect certain improved conditions in agriculture and forestry which had been opened up to her by the opportunity of the Congress. We know of women from India and Finland, who found the fundamental principle they needed, and went home strengthened and enriched from the influence of the Congress.

We fear our critic tried to absorb too much of the feast of speakers and naturally indigestion followed.

No one (with or without the feminine bias) could attend all the various sections of the Congress and escape 'confusion of ideas.'

In attending the sessions devoted to 'Ethics of Wage Earning,' Miss Low makes a statement which I challenge.

6

No congress of women, either this particular one or any other, ever derided the sacred and dignified labour a woman pursues on her own hearth,' and no gathering of women has ever set its seal of approval upon the theory that housework is detestable and degrading.' On the contrary, the tone of every woman's assembly which has ever met, has rung out strong and clear to the world, that no honest work is degrading; and that the breach between mistress and maid should be bridged by mutual respect and consideration. In the special criticism on Journalism, one statement is made which I cannot pass by, namely that 'No paper in this Congress which does not assume or express woman's superiority to man is in order.'

This statement is utterly wide of the truth and sentiment of the Congress.

Facetious remarks may have been made by individual speakers, and some may have made spiteful reference to man's power and dominion; but the abiding spirit of congresses of women is to thank God that men are as good as they are considering how feebly women have assisted them towards that higher standard of things temporal.

While the general trend of the Congress seems to have eluded our critic, we still hope that the general effect of the Congress will neither be misleading nor mischievous, because it was not representative and impartial, for the reason that the experiences of successful women alone were heard from the platform, especially in Professions.'

This last was perhaps unfortunate, but the Congress need not be blamed. We know of several who were asked to take part in the department of Professions, but were unable to respond for the very reason that their lack of success made it impossible to spare the money necessary to undertake attendance.

The Congress was, therefore, obliged to take those who could and would come.

VOL. XLVI-No. 271

H H