in many instances, contribute to the support of others. The work which they perform in their own households is not to be considered as something which they should be thankful to do in order to have a roof over their heads and a piece of bread in their mouths, but as a service which, while elected through affection, and glorified by it, has also a monetary value, in the determination of which the husband and wife should agree. This determination would best be made before marriage, and in this matter the counsel of trusted advisers might properly be called in. Instead of being inimical to affection, such an understanding would preclude the discontents and embarrassments which naturally tend to undermine it. If the prospective bridegroom shows himself unwilling to make suitable provision beforehand for the comfort and pleasure of his wife, it will be much better for her that the relation be relinquished.

If we consider things as they are, we shall have to acknowledge that husbands are sometimes shamefully mean and parsimonious in their treatment of their wives. These last, even when living in luxury, are, in such cases, merely sharers in the indulgences with which their husbands love to surround themselves, and, having too much of many other things, have very little ready money under their control. On the other hand, husbands are sometimes ruined by the senseless extravagance of wives, and men in public life have been known to commit high crimes and misdemeanors in order to meet unreasonable expenditures, or to satisfy insatiable cravings for the costly superfluities of dress, furniture, and entertainment.

A man who marries a woman without fortune will sometimes forget to afford her the means of repairing the inevitable waste and wear of her wardrobe. Conscious of having brought no money into the establishment, she may suffer no small personal inconvenience before she can make up her mind to request of him the price of a pair of shoes. This neglect on the husband's part may be the result of intention or of inadvertence. In either case it will not improve either his wife's opinion of him or her estimate of the regard in which he holds her.

It is only just to admit that a case the opposite of this is quite supposable. Women who marry with no means of their own

are often more unreasonable in their expenses and demands than are those who bring with them a fair dowry. This may arise from their want of the knowledge to be acquired through the habitual handling of money. Or it may be a manifestation of the greed which is apt to follow upon privation. In either case it is an evil to be guarded against, and in this view the pre-nuptial engagement recommended for the protection of the wife will equally avail as a safeguard for the husband.

The question, "Which is most to blame?" where these matters go wrong, is of less importance to us than the query, "How can existing evils be remedied?" In any effort to better the present condition of things, men and women have each their part to bear, and the first effort of each should be to recognize and guard against the predominant weakness of either sex. The man must be willing to submit his jealous, tyrannous will to the dictates of justice. He is naturally jealous of power, and prone to take offense at any distrust of his generosity which he may recognize, or think he recognizes, in the mind of his wife. The woman must restrain her love of approbation and her habit of easy compliance. It is delightful to be praised, or to expect to be praised, for making even a costly sacrifice. But as the husband must set the measure of justice before his eyes, so must the wife also. She has no more right to acquiesce in a wrong which affects herself than in one affecting the condition of others. She should, therefore, stand upon the ground of true courage and candor, and we may be assured that she will gain by it in the end.

As the position of daughters in the household is, in many respects, analogous to that of wives, let us give a moment's thought to the practical duties of fathers toward daughters. In training helpless and dependent beings to cope successfully with the exigencies of life, men should have in view the processes which will most surely lead them to the attainment of self-helpfulness and independence. Essential to this training will be a reasonable comprehension of the uses of money. A clear understanding of these would do much to dissipate the money craze which so widely afflicts our community, and indeed most communities. I feel much impressed, almost startled, when I contemplate the change which a right understanding of the nature and office

of money would bring about in the world. Money is neither power, merit, nor happiness. It is, like fire, a good servant, but a bad master. It is an instrument of power, an adjunct of merit, a concomitant of happiness. Its legitimate use is not to exaggerate the inequalities of human condition, but to correct and harmonize them. In the training which was familiar to my youth the religious aspect of this idea was not without a place. The desire to outshine others was held to be unworthy, the attempt to do so by outward display was simply considered mean.

The teachable mind of childhood will easily grasp the distinction between a noble and an ignoble use of money; and in the instruction which may be given on this point the daughters of the household should share equally with the sons. A part of this instruction will consist in the experimental spending of a proper allowance, and in this all children should receive the needed guidance; they should also, as they become able, be associated in such of the household expenditures as may safely be intrusted to them. Children should be taught to consider what outlays are necessary, which are useful, which demanded by charity, which superfluous. The Scripture saying is, that “Every wise woman buildeth her house," while "the foolish plucketh it down with her hands." It is a serious thought that the little girls on the school bench, using or misusing their weekly allowance, are learning either to build their future house, or to pluck it down. And I pause sadly here to reflect how these little girls who are preparing to pull the family down will also pull the state down with it. For this no evil intention is necessary, only an ignorance, common enough, of the true relation of the individual, male or female, to the race and the state. The women who show to-day such deep distrust of their fellow women that they besiege legislatures with pleas and arguments against the enfranchisement of their sex-to whom did they go to school? Not to Plato, nor yet to Christ.

My remedy for the evil of financial disaccord between husband and wife would require, on the woman's side, a thorough and conscientious training in the use of money, and a worthy estimate of the opportunities it may afford for the ordering of our lives nobly and virtuously; on the man's side, a respect for the

woman as one who is neither disabled nor disqualified for earning her own support; one who, relinquishing a career of free activity in order to become his companion for life, carries her own power and value into the governance of his household, and is entitled to all that may render that service honorable and happy.

But it is most of all to be desired that both parties should agree in enthroning in their household an ideal worthy to be maintained and followed so long as they both shall live. Many circumstances may combine to prevent this, and no influence will be more inimical to it than the contagion of worldly ambition, and the belief commonly entertained in the omnipotence of money. The importance of the position usually conceded to the possessors of great wealth is certainly a tempting bribe to hu manity, whether male or female. The common error regarding this has its source, like most errors, in an exaggerated truth.

Regard for the appearance and dignity of a household is eminently commendable. The dress of parents and of children, at home and abroad, the choice of furniture and decoration, the appointments and service of the table, all these æsthetic concernments of the household are important enough to deserve serious consideration. But one's regard for these should not degenerate into a love of display, a desire to be looked upon as one able to indulge every costly whim, every splendid caprice. Nor can it excuse, in people of small or moderate income, the common emulation of the doings of those to whom the careful measuring of expenses is not a necessity. Many persons indulge in a display which they can ill afford, and in which they have little pleasure, thinking that it will commend them to the notice of social magnates, and, later on, win for them admission to the charmed circle of fashionable life.

Indeed, lavish expenditure for the sake of display is not unfrequently regarded as a business investment, justified by the common saying that nothing succeeds like success. The results of such a course as this are not always the same. In a certain number of cases, no doubt, the appearance of wealth becomes the stepping-stone to wealth. In other instances, the effort ends in melancholy failure and discredit. In either event, the integrity of the household has been wagered against the chance of profit,

and its tone has been correspondingly lowered. In view of these things, is it unreasonable to demand that self-respect and common sense shall rule in the ordering of family life, yielding no precedence to the illusory ambitions which we have just now endeavored to characterize? The dignity of the household can be upheld only by character, which is lost equally in the dishonest pursuit of gain, and in the vulgar display of its results.

Let husband and wife agree, not only regarding the distribution of the income, but also upon the state and surroundings which properly become them. While the extent of their resources should, in a degree, determine these, and while salutary and necessary economy should be exercised, the money question ought to be a secondary one in the thoughts and affections of both of them.

Such genuine culture as can be obtained, such good companionship as can be commanded, charity, hospitality, good feeling, and good taste these things bring honor to the home. Money does not, in all cases, stand for the same thing. Well employed, it means the opportunities of education, and the leisure to profit by them. It means the best hygienic conditions, or, at least, the power to enforce them. It opens the portals of art, it seconds and fructifies the impulse of benevolence. And one especial truth about it we must not lose sight of. We are familiar with the saying that time is money; but let us also remember that money is time, and that its unequal repartition gives to the rich more of this than they know how to employ, and takes from the poor the leisure which the very process of thought demands. What reason can be shown for circumscribing the woman's share in these great goods? None surely in morals, none in economics.

On the other hand, money to some may mean vicious and demoralizing extravagance. It may mean license to disregard all rational rules of conduct, the intoxications of vanity and luxury, the indulgence in all that undermines the moral life of society. Such abuses of wealth are less frequent on the part of women than on that of men, and yet the discrimination which the laws make against woman would seem to imply the contrary.