"And now we ask, what respect ought to be shown to the opinion of a legislator who would put the adulterous woman and the virtuous on the same level, and give them, prima facie, even after the one has been convicted in a court of law of adultery, the same right?"-p. 294.

Will it be believed that Serjeant Talfourd instantly complied with the suggestion, and added the clause himself, stating at the same time his opinion that the whole had better be left to the discretion of the judge, who would know how to discriminate the cases ?--and that this very writer has actually stated, in another place, a decisive objection to the clause ?

"That the present judges, and probably their immediate successors, on account of their own education, and the opinion at present existing in society, and not yet utterly destroyed, would make as many difficulties as they could in granting the orders of access, we believe; but that this salutary reserve would gradually give way to the growing laxity of public opinion, thus demoralized, there can be little doubt. And this is the more probable, because where any restrictive clause is introduced in a law, the judges are in the habit of interpreting the intention of the lawgiver by that clause; so that all the cases which are not expressly excepted are presumed to have been intended to be admitted; and thus, with the exception of convicted adulteresses, the admission of all other cases to an order for access would become ultimately the rule of practice."p. 291.

So, according to the writer's own showing, Lord Mahon's amendment will have the effect of extending the benefits of the Act to persons of light conduct, who would otherwise be excluded from them; whilst, as regards the convicted adulteress, the clause will be next to nugatory, as it is difficult to conceive a case in which a woman of this class could establish a claim.

A still more impudent assertion is,-that, " if the parliamentary expositions of the framer are to be believed, the doctrine of sexual equality is embodied, and was intended to be embodied, in the bill." He has never uttered a syllable to that effect, nor has the doctrine the slightest necessary connection with the question.

The worst part of the attack on Mrs. Norton, also, is that

in which this doctrine is imputed to her. In the May number of the Metropolitan Magazine appeared an article entitled "An Outline of the Grievances of Women." This is made the subject of a postscript (17 pages) in the British and Foreign Review; one main object being to insinuate (whilst professing not to know) that Mrs. Norton is the writer in the Metropolitan. A few passages will assist our readers to appreciate the compliment:

"If any one can read the above insane rhapsody1 without a feeling of abhorrence and disgust, we pity him. The idea of setting the two sexes in organized hostility against each other, and the avowed intention of this she-fire-brand, if she can, 'to do it, is so disgustingly atrocious, that we can find no words strong enough to express our contempt and abhorrence. Who this human being-this person-this woman-this lady-may be, who has thus deliberately proposed to propagate such an infernal doctrine, we know not-nor have we any wish to know her. But what her name ought to be we know right well: she-misanthrope,-man-hateress! for certainly no one has ever come forward with more disgusting bravado of indecency and offensiveness to stir up hatred against men!"-pp. 404, 405.

The inflated lies, coolly argued out with the cold-blooded ratiocination of calculating selfishness, by this talented, celebrated, appreciated writer, can excite no feeling within us but one of unmitigated disgust! Good God! can this woman be either a wife or a mother? Impossible! Such a woman can neither be married, nor is fit to be married. We should regard any man as still more insane, if possible, than she is, who could think of marrying a woman holding such opinions and feelings as this writer does; and if she herself, whilst holding them, could for a moment think of marrying any man, be he who he may, we should despise her as having a heart still falser and more contemptible than her head is! How is it possible that any honest woman could ever consent to go before God's altar, and pledge her vow to love, and honour, and obey a being, whom all the while she must hate as her tyrant and master; and whose yoke she has secretly resolved, in her inmost soul, to throw off at the first opportunity?' Such a perjury as that none but a she-devil could do! Or how again is it possible that, without any feeling of real love (and where can there be love without respect and

Alluding to a proposed scheme of agitation,—about as likely to influence society, and probably about as seriously intended, as the ballet of The Revolt of the Harem.

esteem?—and how can any being respect and esteem, and so love, another who she is convinced is an odious tyrant?)—that, without any feelings of real love-she should still submit willingly to his embraces? Such an act as that none but a she-beast could do! for certainly, if man in genere be a disgusting tyrant-(and this female tries to excite and irritate, as with an itching cantharides-blister, her sex into the sore belief of it!)—it is certain that every individual of the same kind must be so too; and, therefore, the woman who could willingly engage to live with such an one, as his wife, must necessarily be a still more disgusting slave! We repeat it, any woman who holds the doctrines of this writer cannot have the slightest idea of what is the Divine sacredness and honour of marriage-nor is fit to engage in it!

"However, if report be true, that would matter little to the advocates of female emancipation and the Femme Libre! Lust may exist where love does not; and we should not be surprised to learn that this writer is as notorious for her well-known, though perhaps non-convicted gallantries, as the advocates of her emancipation doctrines commonly are."--pp. 406, 407.

This is the most objectionable passage we ever saw in a review.

After describing a production, justly or unjustly, in this manner, the editor should have taken good care not to print a syllable that could induce a false belief as to the authorship. Has he done this when he sanctions such sentences as the following ?—“We begin to fear that, after all, this fair lady is also one of the ungrateful ones," (alluding to an assertion that women are not represented by men).-" Alas! after all his late exertions in the cause of female emancipation, has the honourable and eloquent member (Mr. Serjt. Talfourd) received from his fair client no dearer guerdon of thanks,-no sweeter reward than that?" (p. 401.)-Or, “there is as usual not a little falsehood, exaggeration, and bad taste"-as if her other writings had been criticised. After terming the article a rationale of agitation in one place, (p. 402,) he says in

another:

"The article we have exposed above is nothing more nor less than a rifaccimento of the 7th section of third chapter of Miss Martineau's Society in America: from that section, entitled Political Non-existence of Women,' the authoress of the article, whoever she be, seems to have derived all her arguments-minus

indeed some absurdities of ratiocination, which are peculiar to Miss Martineau. Next to Mary Wolstonecraft, and Frances Wright from America, we believe Miss Martineau to be the propagandist of the sexual equality most notorious in our days, and in this country. Other renowned agitatrices are the Hon. Mrs. Caroline Norton, who is understood to have circulated a work on this subject; and Lady C. Bury."-pp. 409, 410.

The copestone to the whole appears in the table of contents prefixed to the number, where we find enumerated as one of the books reviewed: Statement of the Wrongs of Women. By the Honourable Mrs. C. Norton; which implies that the article in the Metropolitan had since been published as a book, and that the editor of the review was copying the title-page. There is no such book; Mrs. Norton has written nothing of the sort; and the pretended title-page is a vulgar forgery on the face of it, for she would never call herself Mrs. C. or Mrs. Caroline, though the reviewer calls her so throughout. Will then the editor of the British and Foreign Review permit us to ask what course he would pursue towards the person who should advertise a work advocating promiscuous intercourse, or one of Messrs. Stockdale and Duncombe's publications, as the work of his sister or his wife?

The passages in which Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mrs. Norton are associated, are introduced as follows:

"In the course of our discussing the merits of this bill, we have hinted that it might perhaps not improperly be called Mrs. Norton's peace-making Bill. Now, that we have here followed the plan of those base innuendo-making dastards who dare to make insinuations against persons, which they dare not afterwards substantiate, but had every reason to believe were false at the time they made them, we are certain that the readers of the British and Foreign Review will not for an instant suppose. We abhor all such conduct. Our principle, as they well know, in conducting this Review, has ever been to avoid all personalities, except where they were so mixed up with important subjects, that a full exposure of the subject itself could not be made without an exposure of the conduct and motives of the actors therein. This Custody of Infants' Bill is precisely and preeminently one of these cases; and that our readers may see that we have not acted without good reason, we shall relate, as briefly as may be, the whole history of this affair. The nature of any event can never be fully understood except where its primum mobile,

the motive of the actors, is first known. The great duty then of the historian of human conduct is to expose motives; and the real motives of the actors in public life can rarely in any other way be obtained but by a consideration of the coincidences and connexion of events, -in short, by a consecutive train of circumstantial evidence."-pp. 367, 368.

Quam facile in nosmet legem sancimus we cannot say― iniquam. The editors of certain Sunday newspapers, who pride themselves on exposing motives, should adopt this paragraph as their motto, for they have the same notions of the freedom and dignity of history, and are just as much entitled to call themselves historians of human conduct as this We proceed with our extracts:

man.

"That trial (Norton v. Lord Melbourne) took place towards the close of the Parliamentary Session, when no more new bills could then be introduced. But in the April of the session following a very remarkable bill was brought in by a gentleman known to be an intimate friend of the lady in question."-p. 368.

"Amongst other means adopted for this purpose (forwarding the measure), a pamphlet was circulated in society, as the co-production of the Hon. Mrs. C. Norton and Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, upon the wrongs and rights of separated mothers. Mrs. Norton had the credit of being the authoress, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd that of being the assistant."

"And now for the internal evidence as to the connection between the Bill, Speeches, and Pamphlet,-that they have all come from the same mint."-p. 373.

We regret that we cannot afford space to quote the whole of this internal evidence, which consists of such marvellous coincidences as these:

"The Pamphlet goes on to state what is the law at present relating to children, so does Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Speech. Here is a quotation from both :

"The Pamphlet-The custody of legitimate children is held to be the right of the father from the hour of their birth, to the utter exclusion of the mother.'

"The Speech-The exclusive custody of all legitimate children, from the hour of their birth, belongs to the father.'"-p. 373.

"The Pamphlet then proceeds to cite the four most notorious cases on record of the abuse of the parental power;-so does the Speech, and in the very same order.

"The Pamphlet then refers to those cases where the Court of