before them, and each time someone present has asserted that women _cannot_ form unions. The only ground for this assertion,” adds Mrs. Paterson courageously, “appears to be that women _have not_ yet formed unions. Probably they have not done so because they have not quite seen how to set about it.” =Women’s Protective and Provident League.=--The first result of Mrs. Paterson’s paper was that a conference was convened to consider her proposal. Many friends outside the ranks of labour attended the meeting held in the Quebec Institute on July 8th, 1874, at which Mr. Hodgson Pratt presided. Resolutions were passed to the effect-- 1. That a Committee be appointed, to be entitled the Women’s Protective and Provident Committee. 2. That one of the objects of the Association shall be to enable women earning their own livelihood to combine to protect their interests. 3. That it shall be one of the objects of the Association to provide a benefit fund for assistance in sickness and other contingencies. A committee was elected, and Mrs. Paterson was appointed honorary secretary, a post which she held until her death in 1886. The resolutions here quoted indicate sufficiently clearly the objects of the Association. It was considered necessary, however, not to proclaim these too loudly to a world unprepared for their reception, and accordingly the use of the term “Trade Union” was carefully avoided. Public opinion had not then been enlisted in favour of the principle of combination for either men or women; employers were not likely to regard amicably a further extension of the methods against which they had already fought so obstinately, and working men as a class had not yet grasped the importance, in the interests of labour generally, of the complete adoption of unionism by workers of both sexes. Their attitude was to some extent one of suspicion towards women, on account of their readiness to undersell the labour of men. It behoved the friends of the movement to walk guardedly, and to disarm suspicion until their cause had gained strength. The cumbrous title “Women’s Protective and Provident League” first adopted, directed attention accordingly to one side only of the work--that of insurance against sickness--while veiling its trade union aspect under the vague adjective “protective.” More stress was laid than would perhaps now be the case upon the advantage to be derived from the sick benefit funds of the unions. The courage and hopes of the women were hardly raised to the point of making sacrifices for an organization of whose powers as a bulwark against oppression they were ignorant, but the prospect of receiving payment when out of work was something that the most timid could appreciate.