In England, it is said that a movement has been initiated to abolish the use of the wedding-ring, possibly in some sense as a war measure, to constitute a slight check on the use of gold for ornamental purposes. It is, however, conjectured that its real source is rather to be sought in the general movement for the complete independence of women, the wedding-ring being looked upon by some extremists as an antiquated badge of slavery. It is hardly probable that such a movement will meet with any considerable measure of success, for the idea that the ring is a symbol of faith has become too deeply rooted in the popular mind to warrant the rejection of the time-honored usage. Perhaps the objection of the extreme advocates of “woman’s rights” might be satisfied by the introduction of an interchange of rings both at engagements and marriages. This exchange of rings is an acknowledgment of the mutuality of the relation, and it has been practiced, and still is practiced in many countries on the European continent. Moreover, the introduction of this usage in England and the United States would afford scope for a broadening of the symbolism connected with these rings, by differentiating them in some way, so that they might signify the special virtues each of the contracting parties bring to their mutual relation. This differentiation would in no wise imply any subjection, but would merely emphasize those fundamental distinctions, without which the true progress of the world would be checked. Real equality consists in the untrammeled development of the characteristic excellences, not in any arbitrary reduction of all to some preconceived standard.