sarily in all circumstances be expended upon labour, that Mr. Cairnes really opposes us. This, however, he does in unmistakable termswhen declaring that the proportion in question, styled by him wages fund,' is so far from a matter within the discretion of the capitalists that if, by reason of a reduction in the price of labour, some portion of the wages fund be temporarily withdrawn, the portion withdrawn must eventually be restored to the fund. Here is a distinct restatement of the doctrine against which I protested, and against which Mr. Mill, on reflection, joined with me in protesting. It would not be easy to affirm more explicitly that there is at any given instant a certain proportion of the national wealth which constitutes a wages fund, whereof the whole, and neither more nor less than the whole, must be expended upon labour.'

Assuredly, then, Mr. Mill and I were not fighting with our own shadows. Assuredly the creed which we undertook to controvert was at the time universally in vogue, and it would indeed be hard if, simply because we had succeeded so completely in exploding it that no trace of it remained, we were to be taunted with having assailed an absurdity which none but ourselves had ever held. In truth, however, even if, in consequence mainly of Mr. Mill's repudiation, it seemed for a while extinct, it has since revived, and is apparently little less rife than ever, now that its professors have, in virtue of the passages just quoted, some pretext for claiming Mr. Cairnes as one of their number. Luckily, there is no difficulty in showing that, when writing those passages, Mr. Cairnes had forgotten what he had a little before written, and was not less at variance with his own previous self than with those against whom he was for the moment arguing. On turning a few pages back, the reader of this paper will find Mr. Cairnes supposing the case of a capitalist starting with 10,000l., whereof one half enables him to procure implements and raw materials enough to give full employment to 100 workmen whose wages at the rate of 50l. a head would absorb the other half of his capital. Here, according to Mr. Cairnes, is a wages fund of 5,000l. But next the capitalist is supposed by him to succeed in forcing down the rate of wages from 50l. to 401., and to have consequently 1,000l. of capital still disposable, which he proceeds to invest in the same business. To this end it is necessary to distribute it among the instruments of production in the same proportions as before, that is to say, to lay out 550l. on additional implements and material, and with the balance of 450l. to hire eleven more labourers, whereupon the distribution of the entire capital stands thus:

In this case, of the 1,000l. temporarily withdrawn from the original

so-styled 'fund,' not the whole, but less than one half, is eventually restored to the fund. And it might similarly be shown that if, in consequence of a fall in the price of implements and of materials, instead of in that of labour, 1,000l. had been temporarily withdrawn from the implement and material funds, only 450l. would have been restored to these latter funds, the balance being added to the original wages fund and raising its amount from 5,000l. to 5,550l.

Mr. Cairnes had thus conclusively shown that, even with a given amount of capital invested in a given industry, the proportion of capital expended upon labour is not a predetermined and unalterable sum, but a sum which may vary materially with circumstances; and it is impossible to affirm more explicitly than he repeatedly does that the circumstances which influence the investment of capital are continually varying. That these were his deliberate opinions is clear from the general tenor of his discourse, and it can have been only in a moment of forgetfulness that he was able to express himself in an opposite sense. But, holding these sentiments, it is impossible that he should not really have agreed with me, first, that in the case of individual employers there are no definite or definable portions of capital which, and neither more nor less than which, they must necessarily apply to the hiring of labour; and, secondly, that if there are no such portions of capital in the case of individuals, neither can there be any aggregate of such portions constituting a national wages fund, the whole of which, and neither more nor less than which, must necessarily be divided among the entire body of labourers. Yet these two propositions compose the whole sum and substance of my thesis; and nothing, I submit, need be added to show how little ground Cairnes had for imagining there to be any discordance between that thesis and the matured results of his own reflections.

In

Here then I stop, gladly closing a discussion on which I very reluctantly entered. Nothing indeed has been said which Cairnes, were he still living, would not have received with the welcome with which every genuine seeker after truth greets objections to his own prepossessions; but still it has been painful to me to be obliged to make to him a reply to which a rejoinder is no longer possible. such circumstances my own credit, were that alone at stake, should cheerfully be sacrificed to the claims of a friendship like ours. But a far more serious interest is involved, and Cairnes would have been among the last to desire that any considerations should deter me from combating what I deem to be one of the most pernicious of economic fallacies. It is, too, the reverse of a disservice which I have rendered to his memory, if I have succeeded in showing that the adherents of that mischievous doctrine have no sufficient warrant for appealing to his high authority in its behalf.

PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS OF

WOMEN'S EDUCATION.

For thirty years and more I have been engaged in different schemes for the education of women, and I am thus able to give a sketch of those undertakings with which I have been most closely connected. These are: Queen's College, Harley Street; the University Local Examinations; Girton College; the National Union for the Improvement of Women's Education, with its various schemes, including the highly important one of the Girls' Public Day School Company; and, finally, the Medical College for Women. To speak fully of these would be to give a fair, though not complete, history of the progress in women's education during the last thirty years, and the difficulty of dealing with so large a subject might make me hesitate; yet perhaps, as one who has watched the beginning of the movement, I may be able in this slight sketch to show, more clearly than it is known to many, something of what has been done, and of what we still hope to achieve.

It was about the year 1846 or 1847 that the attention of some influential persons was directed to the miserable state of girls' secondary education, and that a first effort was made to remedy the evil by the foundation of Queen's College, Harley Street. This was the first public institution opened for the higher education of girls, and its establishment was chiefly due to the Rev. F. D. Maurice, who was at that time a professor at King's College, London. He took compassion on the sisters of his boy pupils, and with the Rev. R. C. Trench, the present Archbishop of Dublin, and some other fellowworkers, elaborated the plan of Queen's College. In the words of Dr. Trench on succeeding Mr. Maurice in the year 1854 as principal: 'Queen's College must ever look back with grateful affection on the late chairman as its parent and founder. For while that goodly tree which we now behold, may have had many to water and tend it, the vital seed in which it was all wrapped up, and out of which every part of it has unfolded, was sown only by him, even as he nourished and reared it during all the first and most critical years of its existence.'1

Mr. Maurice was connected with Queen's College for fourteen years-six years as professor and Principal from 1848 to 1854; and eight again as professor from 1858 to 1866. We need not recall the painful memory of the causes of this severance from the college in 1854.'

The first idea of the founders was that governesses only were to be educated in this college; but that limited plan, by the very necessities involved, soon gave place to one including all who could and would come to the classes. In those days teaching was not looked upon by the world in general as either a pleasant or, socially speaking, an honourable employment for women; and in the Queen's College Report for the year 1849 the following sentence occurs in explanation of the wider course to be adopted: The profession [of governess] has been, and will in all probability always be, supplied by ladies driven into it by family misfortune. It is impossible to provide education for the future governess except by offering it to all who may become governesses.'

6

For such a purpose no endowment could be got, and Queen's College was a venture depending for its success on the unselfish devotion and energy of its founders. Good workers were not wanting. The college was modestly opened in a house in Harley Street on the 1st of May, 1848, and in 1853 a Royal Charter was obtained, at that time the only means of forming a corporation except by an Act of Parliament. This charter was the first formal public sanction given in modern times to the principle that the 'education of English women was not less important or less worthy of honour than that of men.' Queen's College at the time of receiving its charter had more than two hundred students; nearly one-third of these, however, were in the so-called preparatory division, which was added to the college very soon after its beginning. The age of admission to the college was fixed at twelve; and pupils were taken into the preparatory class, which was taught by women and examined by the professors, and which has since developed into a school now attended by about one hundred and twenty scholars.

In addition to the systematic classes of the college, free evening classes were opened, for governesses only, in arithmetic, mathematics, geography, Latin, history, theology, and mental and moral philosophy. They were well attended and much valued; some classes had as many as seventy students. In the words of Miss Buss, the well-known organiser and head mistress of the North London Collegiate School: To young beginners they opened, as it were, a new life. The lectures were given by the Rev. F. D. Maurice and the other professors of the college. The students, of whom I was one, really worked hard, and all the teachers took the greatest interest in their classes.' Under the provisions of the charter and deed of constitution, the governing body consisted of :

1. The Visitor, the Bishop of London.

2. The Council, to whom was assigned the entire management of all financial arrangements.

3. The Committee of Education, consisting of the professors of the college, who had the arrangement and control of all matters

directly relating to education. These held office during life. The chairman of this committee has the title of Principal, and the office has been held in succession by Mr. Maurice, by Dr. Trench, Dean Stanley, Dr. Plumptre, and Mr. Llewellyn Davies, the present Principal.

A library was started very early in the history of the college. It now contains more than 2,200 volumes, some of the most valuable having been given by Dr. Trench. The number of students subscribing last term was 128. Between the years 1853 and 1858 twelve scholarships were founded at different times; the earliest by the Queen, and four by the professors jointly. The number of students has steadily increased, and now amounts to 400. In the early part of 1874 some changes were made in the scheme of the college, the most important of which were-examination by independent examiners, and the introduction of women on the committee of education;' till then there had been only a body of lady visitors, whose influence was necessarily small. In 1875 it was resolved that the lady resident of the college should assist at the deliberations of the council.

Since the Rev. Llewellyn Davies has been re-elected president, the council has taken a more active part in the government of the college, and four ladies have been added to it. These ladies have an intimate knowledge of the working of the college, have been long interested in the education of their sex, and are able to give more time than the distinguished but much occupied men whom they have replaced.

Another change made at this time was that of raising the age of admission to the college from twelve to fourteen; but this not proving adequate to secure well prepared students for the classes, in January 1877 a preparatory school was organised, through which many of the girls have to pass before they can enter the first junior year of the college course. This school is taught by women, and, in addition, a lady has been appointed to act as tutor to the more backward girls. The result of both these movements has been highly beneficial.

Queen's College has never laid down a fixed curriculum. A very wide field of studies is opened, and the choice of subjects is left to the pupils, or their parents, in the higher classes, the limit of twenty-one hours in the week being fixed for the actual teaching that any one pupil can attend. A plan, however, has been passed by the committee of education for making some subjects obligatory in the junior years, such, for instance, as are required at the local examinations. With regard to the latter, the students of the college have not gone up to them in sufficient numbers to afford any fair test of the teaching they have received; but those who have offered themselves have mostly passed.

2 It was the first members of this committee who bore the expense of establishing Queen's College as a separate institution from that of the Governesses' Benevolent Society, and of obtaining the charter.