power of final decision be vested, in the domestie republic?-which should be considered the head of the family, the husband or the wife? Can there be any doubt as to the proper answer to this inquiry? I am confident I shall be supported by the reason, by the inherent sense of propriety, possessed by every lady who reads these lines, when I lay it down as self-evident, that the umpirage belongs of right to the husband, and that the husband should be viewed and respected as the head of the family circle. As this station can be occupied by but one, if it does not pertain to the husband, then it certainly must belong to the wife. And yet what woman possessing the modesty and delicacy of her sex, will seriously maintain, that in relation to grave and weighty matters, the right of final decision belongs to her, and that she should be viewed as the ruler and head of the family? In endowing the man with superior strength of body, does not nature evidently point to him as the guardian and protector of the wife and the offspring? And would this ability be invested in one designed for a secondary station? Is physical ability imparted to the man, only that he may exert it as "the pack-horse," to carry the heavy burdens of the family, without the privilege of directing his own course, or even of determining as to the weight which shall be laid upon him? Reason peremptorily decides against such a supposition. The whole frame-work of the husband's duties and responsibilities is, to a good degree, based upon the fact, that he is, or should be, at the head of the family. Whose duty is it to labor, and toil, and struggle through perplexities and trials of every description, to obtain food, raiment, and shelter for the family? The laws of God and man impose this duty upon the husband. Does not strict justice, then, require that he should have a deciding voice in respect to the nature of his business; in arranging its details, in directing its progress, and in all that pertains to it? The husband is responsible not only for debts of his own procuring, but also for those contracted by his wife or his children. The creditors look to him for payment-the law enforces their demands, and incarcerates him in prison (wherever imprisonment for debt is allowed) until he liquidates the claims resting against him. Many a husband has languished for years in confinement, for debts which were contracted through the wife's prodigality and love of fashion and display! But there is no responsibility of this character resting upon the wife. A woman never yet entered the walls of a prison to satisfy demands incurred by her husband. Such being his responsibility, ought not the husband to have the power to decide respecting the style of living, the general expenses, and the domestic economy of the family? Still farther the husband, in the eye of the law, is, to a great extent, accountable for the conduct of the wife. If she assaults the person or libels the cha racter of a neighbor, and is found guilty and fined by a court of justice, that fine must be paid by the husband, though it should sweep away every far thing of his property. But woman is not thus liable for the conduct of her husband. If she holds property in her own personal right, it cannot be liable for the husband's debts, or for any fine imposed upon him for misconduct. With this responsibility resting on the husband, again I inquire, should not the wife cause her general conduct to conform to the direction of his judgment? Should not the person who must sustain the weight of responsibility, have the power to decide in respect to those subjects wherein he is responsible? Strict justice will allow but one answer to these questions. The whole tenor of the Scripture seems to corroborate the view I have taken of the rights of the husband. The fact that man was created first, and the woman taken from him, appears to indicate the relative situations they should occupy. The apostles Paul and Peter speak more pointedly of the duties of the wife toward the husband, than any other Scripture writers. "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God....... For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. ""* "Wives, submit your * 1 Cor. xi. 3-8, 9. selves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ... As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conversation of the wives." I will not say, as I once heard an aged Quaker, that Paul's views of the station of woman, are to be attributed to his being an "old bachelor❞— neither am I prepared to coincide with the singular declaration of a modern female writer, that "his mind was under the influence of Jewish prejudices respecting women”—ştill I do not attach all that extent of meaning to this language of the apostles, that many writers do. I do not suppose Paul or Peter intended to command wives to yield a servile obedience to all the arbitrary commands of their husbands, or that they should in no instance follow the dictates of their own judgment or conscience; but it is evident they designed to lay it down as a general principle, that the husband should be con sidered as the head of the family, and that in any extreme case, where the conflicting will of one or the other must be affected, the wife should give way, and allow the husband to carry the decision of his own judgment into execution. More than this I cannot suppose the Scripture writers to Hence the sentiment which Milton causes mean. * Eph. v. 22. 24. t1 Peter iii.1. + Miss S. M. Grimke. Eve to express in her address to Adam, is one to which I cannot subscribe "My author and disposer, what thou bidd'st, God is thy law, thou mine: to know no more Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise." I acknowledge, this is very smooth poetry; but poetry is one thing-truth is often another and a different thing. The idea conveyed savors too much of the oriental subserviency and slavery of woman, to comport with the rank which she now occupies in the civilized world. The husband is neither the author nor disposer, properly speaking, of the wife. It would be manifestly improper for her implicitly to obey his imperious dictation, in all cases, whether right or wrong. Neither is it "woman's happiest knowledge," nor "her praise," to know no other law than her husband's will. God has ordained no such state of things. To her Creator, and not to fallible man, must she look for her supreme law-to Him alone is she accountable for her actions. It is as necessary for woman to exercise reason in the discharge of her duties, as for man; and she who fails to do so, acts not up to the high station which she occupies in the scale of being. Between this absolute subserviency on the one extreme, and the ultraism of the wife's entire independence of the husband, on the other, true and appropriate position is found. Do the views I have taken of the rights of the |