I entirely agree with you in your opinion of Mr. Mill's theory of marriage and the relations between men and women. I think it is not only fallacious, but a strangely superficial way of regarding a question which is made only the more serious by the fact that a great deal of suffering and much injustice result, not from arbitrary and removable causes, but from nature herself, and those fundamental laws which no agitation can abrogate.
My own idea is that woman is neither lesser man, nor the rival of man, but a creature with her share of work so well defined and so untransferable, as to make it impossible for her, whatsoever might be her gifts and training, to compete with him on perfectly fair terms. There may or may not be general inferiority of intellect—I have no theory on the subject; but intellect, in my opinion, is not the matter in question. Could the burdens of maternity be transferred, or could a class of female celibates be instituted, legislation might be able to do everything for them. But beyond this, I do not see how we can go, except in the case of such measures as those you refer to for the protection of the property of married women, which has already been anticipated by ordinary good sense and prudence, and thus been proved as practicable as it is evidently needful.
I am disposed to accept gratefully such safeguards of practical justice, and also every possibility of improved education, though I put no great faith in the results of the latter; the great difficulty in the case of every female student being, in my opinion, not the want of power, or perseverance, or energy, but the simple yet much more inexorable fact that she is a woman, and liable, the moment she marries, to interruptions and breaks in her life, which must infallibly weaken all her chances of success. This is the line I should take in any paper on the subject; and as few people could speak more fully from experience, I think perhaps my contribution to the discussion—from within, as it were, and not from without—might be worth having. Believe me, truly yours,
M. O. W. OLIPHANT.
And, on the lines here indicated, Mrs. Oliphant wrote the article on 'Mill and the Subjection of Women' in the October number of the 'Review.'
On August 24th, Reeve with his wife started for Scotland; but the grouse had been nearly exterminated by the disease, the shooting was everywhere very indifferent, and a month was passed in a number of friendly visits, of which little trace is left beyond the bare names. On September 21st they returned to London, where, in preparing for a contemplated journey to Portugal, he had to arrange for the sittings of the Judicial Committee immediately after his return. The following shows the kind of difficulty he had to contend with:—
From Lord Cairns
September 27th—I am very sorry that I shall be unable to take part in your sittings after Michaelmas Term. I have arranged to give up November to that dreadful arbitration of the London, Chatham, and Dover, which, in a weak moment, Salisbury and I undertook; and, after that, I go to Mentone, where I have taken a house for the winter…. I should regret very much to dissever myself from the sittings of the Judicial Committee, which I have always found agreeable, both from the interesting character of the business, and from the pleasant composition of the tribunal; and I hope in next year to be able to afford more service than I have in this; but for the next sitting I must not be reckoned on. I hope you will enjoy your run to Portugal.
This contemplated tour was, no doubt, mainly for the pleasure and interest of visiting a country still unknown to him, but with a slight pretext of business, as chairman of the Lusitanian Mining Company. A few days before his departure he received the following from Lord Clarendon:—
The Grove, October 3rd—You will not find Murray at Lisbon, as he is on leave; but a letter shall be written, and to Doria, the chargé d'affaires, to render you any service in his power. Do you want one to the consul at Oporto?