coolly consult their own internal consciousness touching this point. Yet too many see their wives and daughters scold so much that it ceases to strike them as improper, simply because it has first destroyed their regard for the scolding wife or daughter. No man, who truly loves and values the feminine character, but is pained every time he sees her manifest any species of anger towards the offspring she has borne and nursed. So high and holy should be the feelings existing between mother and child, as effectually to preclude all anger and even fault-finding. She should love them with a PERFECT love; and does not perfect maternal affection revolt at all chastisement of her own dear children, and even at all exercise of anger? I can view this matter in no other light. Reader, male and female, can you? Mark well our reason. Mothers should LOVE their offspring devotedly, as shown in the last article of this series, and this love prevents all anger. Nor can either this data or its result be evaded. Both are but transcripts of the true nature of woman. Remember, then, ye sharp-spoken women, that every harsh word you utter to your children-to ALL children-weakens the estimation in which children and men hold you, and is derogatory to your true character. How much pleasure it gives us to see children love their mothers! How delightful reciprocal affection between mother and child; and, by converse, how repugnant is ill-will between them! I once knew an exceedingly passionate mother, who often scolded and flogged her children, till she made every one of them HATE her cordially, become, in her old age, dependent for her daily bread on those abused children. Yet so deep and irrecoverable was their hatred of her, that when she was decrepit, blind, and OVER EIGHTY YEARS OLD, they literally EXPELLED HER FROM THEIR HOUSES, and obliged her to depend, for several of the last years of her life, on the cold charity of a selfish world! How awful in them! Yet her previous conduct had made them hate her so rancorously, that, though good, benevolent citizens, they could unfeelingly see her, who gave them birth, totter into her grave, houseless, except as her neighbors sheltered her, and starving, except as far as fed by precarious benevolence! And all because her anger toMothers, the time will come

ward them had excited their wrath toward her! in sickness and dotage when the love of your offspring will be worth more to you than crowns and kingdoms; and the time to rivet that love is during their minority, and the means, maternal love. Love them and they will love you; but every harsh word and act toward them diminishes their affection, and substitutes anger. If and as far as your children dislike you, it is YOUR fault. Be motherly to them and they will be filial toward you; whereas, every cross word, and even look, is a thistle sown in rich soil WHICH YOU WILL BE COMPELLED TO PLUCK AND EAT IN AFTER LIFE!

Fathers, I have one question to ask you. How do you feel on seeing your wife scold your children? Do you prize and love her the more or the less? On your verdict I rest the issue.

No, I have one other tribunal. Mother, consult the inner recesses of your own soul, and say, do you not feel guilty, ashamed, or, at least, as though something was wrong, every time after manifesting anger toward them? Combativeness was given you to DEFEND them and TAKE THEIR part. See that you exercise it in accordance with its true office. Be the true woman, and husband and children cannot HELP loving you most devotedly.

But for woman to scold man, is, if possible, still more incongruous. For her to show wrath toward children is utterly unfeminine; but to treat MAN angrily is an outrage on her sex-a virtual MONSTROSITY. Were not male and female created expressly to LOVE each other, and is not all hatred between the sexes a violation of their sexual constitution? Should not man always respect the woman, and treat her with tenderness? What male, among bird, or brute, or fish, but treats all the females of his own species tenderly? Especially, what male, except human, treats them other than affectionately? Males often fight with males, but, even then, mainly for the honor of waiting on the female. And how does the latter receive the courtesy of the former? With anything but sweetness and cordiality? Does any but the human female ever manifest anger, or anything but regard, for the male of its kind? And this is just the KIND of feeling, only that the DEGREE should be as much higher as man excels the fowl, which all men should manifest towards all women; and which TRUE men always Do feel and show towards true women. Then can woman scold man, and yet be the woman? No, never. She must first put off the feminine gender, and put on the NEUTER, before she can treat him combatively. Is not this result in perfect harmony with the primitive constitution of the male and female, and with all the FACTS which bear on this point? This general law, however, requires one qualification. When man abuses woman in any thing appertaining to her SEXUAL capacity, that is, when he forfeits the true relations of the male to the female, and wrongs her as a woman, she may of right feel indignation. Yet how shall she show it? By LETTING HIM ALONE. By treating him, not with anger, but perfect indifference. He has forfeited her regard as a woman for him as a man, and thereby becomes to her as heathen outcast, not to be hated, but to be neglected. He should be to her as if he were not. She should never see him when they meet, never know him in company, and this will gall him a hundred fold more terribly than if she manifests Combativeness in any form toward him; because her anger will excite his anger, and this will brace him up against her reproaches; whereas, if she treats him as a blank, he will have nothing to fortify him against her "silent reproof." And if aggrieved woman will consult her own nature, she will find herself involuntarily predisposed to thus "let him alone with a vengeance," who, as a man, abuses or misuses her as a woman. And she loses the high vantage ground this course gives her over him, the moment she deigns to treat him with resentment, however expressed, or with anything but perfect indifference. And if such treatment does not make him quail, and feel too sheepish and guilty to live, it is because he is harder than the nether millstone."

66

And if this is the case in the green tree, what is it in the dry? If woman should never manifest anger towards man in general, what shall we say of those who scold their HUSBANDS? What do the connubial relations imply, but the most perfect oneness and affection? The simple fact that they have partaken together of the most sacred repast of our being, should be a GUARANTY DEED by which each has conveyed himself or herself to the other for life in bonds of the most perfect unity and love. Would that I might be allowed to treat this subject freely-that I might sustain this point by stating its REASON. Indulge me in saying that the fact that a woman has admitted a man to the most sred

rights and intercommunion of wedlock, in and of itself is the highest oath between them of perfect cordiality forever afterward. How can they afterward treat each other angrily, or otherwise than most tenderly? Reference is now had, not merely to those nominally married, but to the CONSTITUTIONAL character of such intercommunion. And if it is habitual, as in wedlock, how can they so far forget the sacredness of these relations as to ever afterward manifest the least anger? They ought to be perfectly wrapped up in each other, and melted together by the fires of love into one molten mass. And if a woman cannot live with a man without scolding him, she ought, by all that is high and holy in the connubial relations, neither to tender nor receive the rights of wedlock. But we will not prosecute this subject farther, partly lest some squeamish prude, who either has not fulfilled the highest department of her feminine nature, or would make believe not; or lest some fastidious GENTLEMAN, who either is, or would be thought yet virtually a boy, should take offence; and partly because "he that hath eyes, let him see" both the point at issue and its reasons, neither of which "can be gainsayed or resisted."

Women, more especially wives, do be entreated duly to consider this point. Should not the feminine seek to render herself ATTRACTIVE to the masculine? Is not this as consonant to her nature as breathing? And what order, what amount of happiness, can she experience at all to be compared with that derived from the affectionate regard of her husband? Then should she not employ all the charms and powers she possesses to secure such affection, and avoid whatever is calculated to mar his love? And does Combativeness excite love? Is not the former the antipode of the latter? Does not anger CAST OUT love? How can two walk together unless they be AGREED? Contention is water to the fire of love. Every cross word any wife gives her husband, weakens his love and his respect. The scolded husband must either settle down into a state of calloused indifference toward his wife and her sex, or he must loathe her, and seek in others what her anger denies him in her. Nothing else remains. I pity the scolded husband, but I pity the scolding wife. She can never know what it is to be beloved, but must, to all PRACTICAL intents and purposes, remain a widow. To true love for each other, she and her sham husband are strangers; or if they love a little, it is so marred with the "gall of bitterness," as to be worse than nothing. And every unkind word which passes between them, tends proportionally to induce this woful result. Scolding a husband is no trifle; nor will the true wife ever do it, however much he may deserve it. If any thing will win him back to love, "turning the other cheek" will do it. Fault-finding wife, let this great practical truth sink arep into your soul, and govern your conduct.

These views administer merited reproof to many of the ungentle portion of the gentle sex; yet, fair reader, are they not founded on the constitution of woman? Are not many women unwomanly in this important respect? Do they not, in consequence, sink themselves in the respect of men, and especially the affections of their husbands? And would not laying aside the sharp and fault-finding, and assuming, instead, the gentle and winning, greatly elevate woman in the eyes of their families and the public? We plead now for HER sake-for the honor of her sex-instead of the convenience of our own. We wish to see her occupy that exalted station which nature ordained she should

fill, which her imperfections prevent her attaining, and to which she will assuredly rise, whenever, and as far as she obviates her faults, and arrays herself in the moral garb of the true woman. Till then, she must be content to remain proportionally unappreciated and unloved.

"But," it is objected, "a woman who does not scold is tame, inefficient, and good for nothing. Unless she can make herself feared by her tongue, none regard her, every thing about the house is in disorder, and nothing is accomplished." Exactly the converse. It is the SCOLD who is disregarded, and effects little. Storming may make them "stand round" for a short time, but soon hardens children, husband, all, and makes them cease to respect, and of course to obey. Previous numbers have shown that LOVE constitutes by far the most powerful incentive to obedience known to the human mind. Scolding is powerless, compared with it. Let a woman get the warm AFFECTIONS of husband and children enlisted in her favor, and all will bound with joy to fulfill her requests. Her desires have but to be known to be gratified, and with a promptness and completeness incomparably superior to any thing which anger can possibly secure. In fact, the more a woman frets or storms, or even blames, the less she is beloved, and the less obeyed. And this is borne out by facts. Whoever knows a sweet, good woman, who does her utmost to render her family happy, knows one who is so beloved as to exert unbounded control over her household. I never saw an exception. Reference is not now had to weak, brainless women, who know too little to scold, or even to be good. Such can never be respected or beloved, because they have too little mind to command either. But I speak of women of good mentality, and a high order of true goodness and affection. The truly feminine cannot but be adored and beloved. Both men and children are as much compelled to prize and love the amiable, affectionate, and motherly in woman, as to be hungry, or to talk, or fulfill any other constitutional function of mind or body. Women complain that they are neglected or abused! This is but a practical confession that they so conduct themselves as not to DESERVE love. It is like one complaining that he has no appetite. Why none? Because he has so abused his stomach as to impair its natural function. The sex is slighted and imposed upon only as far and BECAUSE their imperfections render them so. The heathen savage very is compelled, by an inexorable law of their primitive constitution, to love the feminine, wherever, and as far as it is manifested. Woman, be true to your nature, and a man can no more HELP respecting and worshipping you than he can help breathing, or seeing, or remembering. You are not respected because you do violence to your nature, and can never occupy the proud station you were created to maintain, till your FEMININE VIRTUES place you there-till you substitute loving for scolding. Then take your choice, to remain as you are, underling, or, by becoming sweet and lovely, to be beloved and honored. Remember, too, that those very virtues which entitle you to a more elevated place in the public estimation, WILL PLACE YOU IN IT-Will COMPEL men to respect and love you, in exact proportion to your deserts. Cease, then, all complaint about your being treated as inferiors, and set about perfecting yourselves so as to DESERVE, and you will thus SECURE the highest seat in the synagogue of the human soul.

as,

Woman, I have exposed one of your faults thus plainly, not because I underrate you, or would further the hue and cry against your sex, but because 1

would, by obviating your blemishes, raise you in public and private esteem and affection. I tell you the truth because I LOVE you. For this reason, I shall tell you other faults-other departures from the feminine-in other numbers. Be not angry; strive to become better.

MISCELLANY.

PROPOSED PHRENOLOGICAL DISCUSSION.

The Orange County News contains the following challenge, which I accept -the challenger to open the discussion in whatever paper he likes:

N. B.-To show my perfect confidence in the truth of my cause, and give nim a fair chance of defending his science in a much more public manner than by an oral discussion in this place, I hereby challenge him to defend Phrenology, in a discussion in the New-York Commercial Advertiser, provided the editors will agree to insert the communications, and abstain from all comments, each side to occupy at one time no more than two numbers of the paper.

Please send a copy of your paper to the Professor and one to the Advertiser office. If the former accepts my challenge, let him inform me through the Advertiser. I trust the editors will be kind enough to state whether they agree to open their columns to the discussion. They need fear nothing inconsistent with propriety on my part, and I presume my opponent will also guard against any thing of that sort.

As I have heard Mr. Fowler's defence, I am ready to open the discussion with an attack, unless he prefers the contrary. If he has any special objection to the paper I have mentioned, he can name any neutral daily paper he pleases. I mentioned the Advertiser, because it is a very respectable paper, and much read in this vicinity. Mr. Fowler's silence will be construed into declining a challenge provoked by his own temerity. Yours, respectfully, PATRICK MCGREGOR.

Wallkill Academy, Orange Co., April 22, 1847.

P. S. My statement, and Mr. McG.'s professed correction, relative to his twice changing the condition of the proposed discussion, amount to nothing. The numerous AUDIENCE in attendance are our judge and jury. By their version of the matter in dispute, I abide.

BUTTER IN VEGETABLES AND GRAINS.

The Boston Chronotype, in reviewing the Editor's work on "Physiology, Animal and Mental," makes itself quite merry over our statement that pure butter can be made, by a chemical process, directly from hay and grass, and in greater quantities than when fed to the cow. Besides the reasonableness of our statement, since the cow can make nothing from the hay not originally in it, the following extract shows that if the Chronotype kept pace with modern discoveries in chemistry, it would not have made fun of us AT ITS OWN EXPENSE.