Woman is certainly not inferior to man, but the difference between them is as evident as the similarity; and only by carrying out their joint action in accordance with their inherent powers and susceptibilities can the human race really be benefited. It is only a waste of time to tell us that woman can do many things quite as well as man can,—that there are many public occupations which she could fill as well as he,—that were she properly educated, it would be seen that man had no natural superiority over her except in physical strength. All that may be true. Our argument is, that while woman, in consequence of her more pliable nature, may be able to do man’s work as well as he can, it is certain that he cannot do her work so well as she can; and therefore the body politic would suffer loss were the sexes generally to exchange places. _POLITICAL EQUALITY._ The question of the proper position of woman in regard to politics has become one of general interest. It lies in our way, and demands to be dealt with. We cannot now ridicule the idea of putting legal power into her hands, and as little can we discuss it superficially, for that were all the same as to discuss it unfaithfully. It is therefore matter of congratulation that John Stuart Mill, one of the intellectual _élite_, alike as a metaphysician, a logician, a moralist, and a politician, has taken up this subject, and carried his inquiry into somewhat wider and deeper relations than men in general, or even women, with a few exceptions, have been accustomed to regard it as involving. Several years ago, when acknowledging a vote of thanks from the reformers of York, Mr. Mill, M.P., took the opportunity of showing them the legitimate consequences of one of the principles which they had laid down in public resolutions. “It is unjust,” they had maintained, “that the great bulk of the nation should be held amenable to laws in the making of which they had no voice.” Mark the inference of the great thinker from this proposition. “It cannot stop at residential manhood suffrage; but requires that the suffrage be extended to women also:” and then he adds, “I earnestly hope that the working men of England will show the sincerity of their principles by being willing to carry them out, when urged, in favour of others besides themselves.” This logical deduction reminds us of Ann Knight’s retort upon the late Joseph Sturge. Happening to meet that excellent man at a time when his name was prominently before the public in connection with the demand for “complete suffrage,” she thus accosted him: “Friend Joseph, art thou aware of thine inconsistency? Thou talkest of complete suffrage. Canst thou be thinking of what the words imply? Dost thou not know that women are more numerous in our nation than men?” “Yes, friend Ann,” he answered; “I believe thou art right.” “Well, then, friend Joseph,” she replied, “how can the suffrage be complete when withheld from the