“How farre that extendeth I cannot tell, but herein the sexe feminine is at no very great disaduantage:  for first for the lawfulnesse; If it be in no other regard lawfull to beat a man’s wife, then because the poore wench can sve no other action for it, I pray why may not the Wife beat the Husband againe, what action can he haue if she doe:  where two tenants in Common be on a horse, and one them will trauell and vse this horse, hee may keepe it from his Companion a yeare two or three and so be euen with him; so the actionlesse woman beaten by her Husband, hath retaliation left to beate him againe, if she dare.  If he come to the Chancery or Justices in the Country of the peace against her, because her recognizance alone will hardly bee taken, he were best be bound for her, and then if he be beaten the second time, let him know the price of it on God’s name.”]

Yet behind these unchanging institutions, a pressure has been for centuries becoming concentrated, which, now that it has begun to act, is threatening to overthrow them all.  It has not yet operated very visibly in the Old World, where (even in England) the majority of women have not yet mastered the alphabet, and can not sign their own names in the marriage-register.  But in this country, the vast changes of the last twelve years are already a matter of history.  No trumpet has been sounded, no earthquake felt, while State after State has ushered into legal existence one half of the population within its borders.  Every Free State in the American Union, except perhaps Illinois and New Jersey, has conceded to married women, in some form, the separate control of property.  Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania have gone farther, and given them the control of their own earnings,—­given it wholly and directly, that is,—­while New York and other States have given it partially or indirectly.  Legislative committees in Ohio and Wisconsin have recommended, in printed reports, the extension of the right of suffrage to women; Kentucky (like Canada) has actually extended it, in certain educational matters, and a Massachusetts legislative committee has suggested the same thing; while the Kansas Constitutional Convention came within a dozen votes of extending it without reserve, and expunging the word male from the Constitution.  Surely, here and now, might poor M. Marechal exclaim.  The bitter fruits of the original seed appear, and the sad question recurs, whether women ought ever to have tasted of the alphabet.

Mr. Everett, perhaps without due caution, advocated, last summer, the affirmative of this question.  With his accustomed eloquence, he urged on the attention of Suleiman Bey the fact of the equal participation of the sexes in the public-school system of Boston, while omitting to explain to him that the equality is of very recent standing.  No doubt, the eminent Oriental would have been pleased to hear that this public administration of the alphabet to females,