be met by convincing them that prudence in this matter is a duty which is as fully recognized in other grades of society as it is ignored by themselves. The sympathy and example of educated people living in their midst does more good in all these ways than the foundation of any number of new charitable institutions. Destitute London requires their personal help as well as their subscriptions.” Such was the plan which had worked so admirably at Oxford House, Bethnal Green, established by a number of Oxford men for just this work; and these good women rightly argued: If such an institution worked by men has been found so useful, how much more effectual would be something on similar, but less ambitious lines, if worked by women! Reform the women, you reform the men and the next generation. Make the home life what it should be, and you have made virtue and decency, not only possible, but easy and pleasant. It was brave of these good Oxford men to go and live in the gloomiest part of surely the gloomiest and poorest parish of East London; but though they might stimulate the brains of the people amongst whom they laboured, and do good in a thousand ways, it was impossible for them to hope to achieve the influence of women in the home. The men could capture the outworks; women were required to secure the citadel. So they spent their money liberally, and went to work at the courts and alleys that run off right and left of this great thoroughfare from the Docks to the City. One of their great ideas was an hospital for Women and Children—not a place for teaching doctors their business, or giving them scope for their fads,—not “happy hunting grounds” for “cases,” but wards for the restoration to health with all possible speed of sick folk of the neighbourhood who could not effectually be tended at home. It was an axiom with the Lady Head of the Home, which was called Nightingale House, that no sick person should be removed to the hospitals who could be effectually and comfortably treated at home. She argued that we do great harm by making hospitals the universal resource of the lower classes, even of those who have sufficiently comfortable homes. She maintained with great force that much of the tenderness of family life is fostered, nay, created, by the mutual care of parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister, in seasons of illness and in the hour of death; and held that if we deduct from _our_ feelings all which we owe to sources of this kind, the residue would represent all that we can expect from the working classes under the present system. Thus if the home were not over-crowded and the disease not infectious, she held that it should be nursed and doctored in the family. As much kindly aid and sympathy, as much attention and skill as possible these ladies lent, but there was no removal from home unless absolutely necessary. Sister Agnes was just the woman to be matron of this hospital for women and children; and as the plan was