explains by saying that the 'misgiving which weighed so heavily upon her mind afterwards was due to the fact that she had left her father practically unprotected from the enticing company of a too festive curate.'

I shall not dispute the existence of the festive curate, and alas! I cannot ignore the evidence that, not only at the period to which Mr. Shorter refers, but at other times in Mr. Brontë's life, that unfortunate man fell into temptation. But as I was the first to draw attention to the special significance of Charlotte Brontë's experiences in Brussels, and to the undoubted effect they had upon her life and character, I am bound to re-state my position. I never applied the term falling in love' to her feeling towards M. Héger. What I did say 2 was that 'her spirit, if not her heart, had been captured and held captive in the Belgian city;' and I cannot, even in the light of Mr. Shorter's new evidence, alter my opinion. Surely the 'irresistible impulse' which drew her back to Brussels when she felt that she ought to have remained at home, and the yielding to which was punished by a total withdrawal for more than two years of happiness and peace of mind,' was something real. There never was a saner woman than Charlotte Brontë, and she could never have written in this fashion to her friend if she had merely imagined this thing. Nor is it possible to ignore the evidence which supports the theory that Charlotte Brontë, pure and noble woman as she was from first to last, had been fascinated by her brilliant and eccentric master in Brussels. Not even her genius would have enabled her to draw the portrait of Paul Emanuel if she had not herself experienced something of that overmastering intellectual influence which in her novel he exercises over Lucy Snowe. I have no desire to press the unconcealed dislike and jealousy which was felt towards her by Madame Héger too far; but the evidence of her great book, and of her own letters after her return from Brussels, points unmistakably to the one logical conclusion that is to be drawn from the words she wrote to Miss Nussey regarding the 'irresistible impulse' which drew her back to Brussels when she knew in her heart that she ought to have stayed at home. She had found a mind there which fairly dominated her own, and held it captive for the time; and all the deeper experiences of her soul, all the higher flights of her intellect, may be said to date from that period in her life. Who is there who will honour her the less because she was thus susceptible to the influence of a mind which she believed to be stronger than her own? Nobody has said, and nobody believes, that M. Héger was Charlotte Brontë's lover, even in the most platonic sense of the word. But that for a time he was her master, the controlling influence in her intellectual life, cannot, I think, be seriously disputed.

There are many other portions of Mr. Shorter's fascinating volume 2 Charlotte Brontë: a Monograph, p. 60.

which, if space permitted, it would be a delight to dwell upon. It would have been interesting, for example, to discuss the claim set forth on behalf of Branwell Brontë to a share in the authorship of Wuthering Heights. The claim was absolutely unfounded, but the evidence by which it was supported is stronger than Mr. Shorter is disposed to admit. The fact that I differ from him on some points only makes me feel, however, the more strongly the debt which, in common with all who love and honour the memory of Charlotte Brontë, I owe him for the labour which has enriched our knowledge of his heroine so greatly. His book will always hold a prominent place by the side of Mrs. Gaskell's noble Life, and will remain a permanent magazine to which those who desire in future to understand or criticise the character of one of the greatest of Englishwomen will resort for the materials on which to found their judgment.

WEMYSS REID.

1896

'OF WOMEN IN ASSEMBLIES'

A REPLY

THE value of one ounce of practice being by general consent accredited as worth pounds of theory is the only excuse I offer for this article. It has lately been advanced in this Review as a truism that the self-consciousness of sex prevents men from being outspoken and businesslike on such public boards as have women members. I prefer to contend that the meeting together of men and women for public work lessens exaggerated sex-consciousness by bringing men and women together on a sound and easy union of common duty.

Thirteen years' experience as poor-law guardian, member of a rural sanitary authority, and frequenter of parish vestries, with just one opportunity (by invitation) of arguing an important subject before quarter sessions, on a matter in which that body and several of the boards of guardians throughout the county were at variance, followed by further experience under the Local Government Act 1894, both as rural district councillor and first chairman of a parish council, ought to entitle me to speak on the utility of the joint work of the sexes in local government; even though my statement be regarded as of necessity it must be as an ex parte one.

The theory which has been ventilated in this Review is so charged with life-destroying character that we women, most of us being proud to be united to men by near and dear ties, may well be excused if we fail to accept anything so derogatory to the character of men in general. We are told that the inherent differences of sex so dominate the nature of men as to preclude full and free discussion on their part of any subject when women are present. 'That things will appear to be threshed out, but will not be threshed, and yet they will appear so to the woman,' and that she, the woman, will delude herself with having been victorious when in reality she has not been clearsighted enough to correctly apprehend the situation. This reticence on the part of men will be owing to some fascination' which women always possess, and which men must always feel, because this fascination' has existed since the days of the Garden of Eden. And yet, propounding this theory as to the inability of men to be businesslike and candid, the writer goes on to say, 'And yet men VOL, XL-No. 237

777

3 F

would not like women to lose this "fascination" even in the council hall!' And further, alas! This great sensitiveness is so extensive that even if women be old and ugly-unless possibly they keep silence there is no guarantee that this dominating "fascination" of the sex will not tongue-tie male auditors.' Now, I think we should ask, where are we? Surely at a point where pathos is dissolved in bathos!

It would seem that women are akin to serpents, which, whether beautiful, old, or ugly, alike exercise in a greater or lesser degree so dangerous a fascination that men must be protected from having to face them. They are advised to double round and scotch them if they can, the result of which advice, if taken, will be that the snakesi.e. the women-will thrive and multiply in the land of public debate. There is another suggestion to protect men, and that is that women might be allowed to collect evidence for men to use in debate." We therefore presume that there should be an end to women giving evidence before committees of the Houses of Parliament or Royal Commissions. In the future we ought to lose such valuable testimony as was given years ago by Miss Louisa Twining on workhouse management, or that of Dr. Annie M'Call and other ladies before the recent Commission on Midwifery. We should dispense with that verbal testimony which from time to time able and philanthropic women can give to the nation.

We are asked to believe that the possibility of rudeness is the indispensable condition of public debate;' that women will never-by rightly constituted men-be subjected to that heckling and sifting which those who love their country' give to men. Therefore

women should be kept not only out of Parliament, where they would intensify the already too venomous style of debate, but also off local councils.

Those who are conversant with the modern work of women in local government know that even if women have not been exactly heckled on boards of guardians, they have certainly not been received with uniform courtesy. The success of lady guardians has not been due to any fascination which has struck dumb their male co-workers, but to the signal ability and ease with which they have grasped the possibilities of the poor law. This has doubtless been in part owing to their superior knowledge to men of the needs and characters of the poor.

The women who have taken part in such forms of local government as have been open to them do not believe-nor do the public who have watched the joint work of men and women on boards of guardians believe-that the presence of women has stultified freedom of speech or discussion for men. The Local Government Board and both Houses of Parliament have in every way encouraged the election of women, both as poor-law guardians and as members of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Those governing powers have realised that

poor law work cannot be thoroughly done without the co-operation of women. Both sexes can bring to the application of the poor law the full complement of facts, and in this way both the poor and the public have been the gainers. I will give as an example of the need of the womanly mind the consideration of three of those Acts of Parliament which for brevity I will call Permissive Acts-they may be applied or not applied-viz. the Notification of Diseases, the Vaccination, and the Cow Sheds and Dairies Acts. Who would say but that women ought to have a voice and vote in the working of those Acts, or that the interest of women in those Acts should be confined to collecting evidence for men to debate' thereon? There have been most full and free discussions of the working of those Acts on councils composed of men and women, and surely it is reductio ad absurdum to suppose that the most susceptible of men to female influence felt unequal to say all he required to.

If it be granted, as indeed it must be, that questions will sometimes arise touching the most miserable side of the relations of the sexes, I can say that from my fifteen years' experience there need be. no reticence in discussion, except that which is of pre-eminent importance in all public work, viz. the choice of fitting and appropriate language.

Long before the modern movement had arisen among women for taking their share in local government, they and men had worked. together on joint boards for the management of refuges for fallen. women and kindred institutions. To the pure all things are pure." A loathsome subject carries with itself an antidote for all except thosewho, if they have attained office, are really not fit to act as public representatives.

Parish councils have been in existence so brief a time that it is. not possible to report much experience, but so far as that experience has gone it has tended to show that the presence of women, far from being considered a hindrance by men, has been valued and appreciated. by them. Two at least of the lady chairmen who were elected at the first election were unanimously chosen by councils composed entirely of small village traders and labourers, in one case dashed with the Nonconforming element. One at least of those lady chairmen (Mrs. Barker of Sherfield) dealt with the powers under the Act in so systematic and exhaustive a manner as to serve, in my humble opinion, as a pattern for many a parish council under male control. Both Mrs. Barker and myself (though unknown to each other) resigned at the end of our first year of office, strangely enough for the same reasons. Both were anxious that the educational power of the chair of parish councils should not crystallise, and both were desirous of proving beyond a doubt that a woman could act as chairman and returning officer at the annual parish elections. This would have been impossible had we been candidates for office. By singular good luck