ambitious woman in any monarchy who wishes to live in a republic. Millions of women in republics would gladly desert their governments, if their freedom from family ties admitted of such a step. There is a true saying (which originated in America by the way) that "every woman is at heart an aristocrat.' This arises from that strongest impulse of nature, selfpreservation (as well as a desire for sex-preservation) and insures woman's lasting allegiance to aristocratic institutions.

The greatest misfortune that ever befel American women was that their colonies broke away from English rule, for they must always desert their native land, kith and kin, and live under a foreign flag in order to gain the superior sex-recognition which a republic denies them.

In every aristocracy large numbers of women always have greater power, authority, and opportunity than the vast majority of men, but in a democracy (even with the ballot) no class of women will ever possess authority, oppor¬ tunity, or power higher than its lowest classes

of males. I grant that woman generally has not grown in aristocracies as she should have done—but there is nothing inherent in such institutions to prevent her growth; her condition therein is like the grain of wheat buried for thousands of years with a mummy, grain which grows and blossoms when the necessary conditions are furnished. But woman's condition in a republic is like that of a grain of sand, which can never grow and blossom, whatever condition may be furnished, as it has no inherent germinating qualities.

I feel sure no one can look into these matters as deeply as I have done, without deciding that there is no government which gives woman such scope for her ambition as an aristocracy; for differentiation, that law of all-enduring progress, growth and aspiration, is the inherent law of European monarchies.

I beg you never to let anybody persuade you to believe that it is the comparative youth of the American Republic which causes these disparagements, for this is not true. (Voices: "So, so!") New Zealand, and West Australia are

young enough to be its great grand-children, and yet women therein enjoy not only all the rights, privileges, liberties-political, legal, civil and social-of women in the oldest communities, but they enjoy as well all the distinctions, honours, recognitions, favours, glories and powers. The true reasons are that New Zealand and West Australia are the arteries of an aristocracy; and that every republic is inherently a masculine monopoly, as dangerous to woman's future as the Upas tree to life. (Cheers and prolonged applause.)

THE SIMILARITY

OF THE THREE "ISMS"

I have striven to show you woman's position in a democracy because you had already rightfully agreed, before you ever saw me, that its conception of our sex would be preserved, should your ideas of society prevail. As your ideals are emanations from republicanism, I know that you ladies are either socialists or anarchists. I have not presumed to ask which, nor shall I do

so, but I think I have rightfully surmised that you lean toward anarchism. I have never for an instant thought you were the especial devotees of republics, but I have gone minutely into such government to prove to you that the promises held forth to our sex by theoretic institutions cannot be relied on. (A voice: "And I believe you are correct!")

Socialism only claims to be the economic complement of democracy and every thinker concedes that beyond democracy there is only anarchy. If you will reason all this out you will see how absolutely correct are these assertions and how close to republicanism are anarchy and socialism—or that it would be impossible to go six inches beyond a republic without encountering socialism, and that a foot farther on you must inevitably meet anarchism. Or, as Josiah Strong, a most popular American writer, says, "Beyond republicanism there is only anarchism," and nobody is mad enough to attempt to contradict him.

I read very hurriedly (never expecting to quote the same at the time) several years ago,

an article in a review which asserted that the American Republic is the sire of both socialism and anarchism. The author claimed that he knew these three "isms" in their correct connotation, could correctly define each, was thoroughly conversant with the teachings of all, and that it was on account of his intimate acquaintance with them that he so readily traced their kinship. He farther said, "I know that anarchism would destroy all powers of government and that socialism would multiply its powers; but these three 'isms,' although they differ upon minor points, have aims which are one and would unite to repel a common foe." He proved his assertions by showing how the American Republic, hiding behind the Monroe Doctrine, repelled and resisted the establishment of monarchies South America and gave constant protection to the anarchies therein-and farther that even the most radical socialists agree that the republican drill has to make only one more turn when it will penetrate the socialistic strata." He said, moreover, "It is generally supposed that Prodhoun was the earliest modern philosophic anarchist,

in