Entered at New York Post Office as Second Class Matter.
Published Weekly by the

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, 18 and 20 Astor Place, New York.
London: 44 Fleet Street.
Toronto: 11 Richmond Street, West.
Subscription price, $3.00 per year. Single Copies, 10 cents.
Renewals.-Two weeks after the receipt of a remittance, the extension of the
subscription will be indicated by the yellow label on the wrapper.

Discontinuances.-The publishers must positively receive notice by letteor postal-card, whenever a subscriber wishes his paper discontinued.

W

WHEN the famous Peace of Kiel was made on the 14th of January, 1814, Norway had been for more than two centuries an appanage of Denmark. By the terms of the Peace, Norway was to be transferred to Sweden. The Norwegians were at first inclined to resist this, but subsequently assented to a union under a written Constitution agreed to by Sweden. Under this Constitution Norway retained its full sovereignty and Sweden preserved hers. The King has his Norwegian Court at Christiania, just as he has his Swedish Court at Stockholm.

Each kingdom has its separate executive and legis

lative powers, administration, army, and fleet. There is nothing in common between the two kingdoms, except the Sovereign, the prerogatives of the crown, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the representatives of the two kingdoms in foreign countries. These, if I may use the expression, are the only points of contact between Sweden and Norway.

Now, if the part the Sovereign has to play in the union is constitutionally and clearly defined, such is not the case with the question relating to diplomatic representation and the direction of the international relations of the two States.

This is the burning question, the cause of the dissensions which at this moment divide the two peoples and put in danger a union which has brought them happiness for three-quarters of a century.

Trouble began in 1837 when, for the first time, Norway pretended that the supremacy of Sweden in the foreign affairs of the two kingdoms put Norway in a state of inferiority, which was in violation of the spirit of the Union. It happens, however, that an article of the Constitution on which the Union is based, provides that in no event can the Norwegian militia be compelled to go outside of the Norwegian territory. It results from this that, in case the common defense of the two kingdoms should require their united forces, Sweden is obliged to defend the territory of both nations, while Norway is under no obligation to defend any territory, save her own.

When, then, Norway complained of the supremacy of Sweden in the foreign affairs of the two kingdoms, Sweden declared herself quite willing to consent to a reorganization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under a chief who should be indifferently either Swedish or Norwegian and responsible to both Legislatures, upon condition that Norway relinquish her right to keep her troops wholly on her own soil, and agree that these troops share in the common defense of the two kingdoms. To this condition Norway refused to accede. Three commissions for revision of the Constitution, the last one in 1871, came to naught. Since the last attempt at revision failed, a new theory of the nature of the union between the two kingdoms has been started by Johan Sverdrup, the leader of the opposition to the Union. This theory may be summed up thus:

1. The union of Norway and Sweden is a simple alliance, dynastic and defensive.

2. The inalienable right of Norway to watch over its own interests, gives it the power of having its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a diplomatic representation separate from Sweden.

These propositions have been adopted as the programme of the Opposition, and the attempt to carry out this programme has brought about the crisis which exists at this moment.

The battle which had raged so fiercely seemed likely to be ended by a peace on the 14th of January last; but the Radicals in the Norwegian Parliament, or Storthing, would have none of the Swedish proposition for rearrangement: their objections were, first, that Sweden was not sincere in her offer, and, second, that acceptance of it would deprive Norway of her primordial right to have a Ministry of Foreign Affairs of her own, and an independent representation in foreign countries. The Radicals in the Storthing were supported by those outside, who were led by the poet, Björnstjerne Björnson, whose great popularity has made him, in some sort, a tribune of the people. After twelve days of violent debate a vote on the 17th of March decided not to entertain the Swedish proposition.

One point becomes clearer every day. The tendencies of the party, the recent debates, have demonstrated that the programme of the radicals, as it is conceived by their chiefs who take no pains to conceal their intentions, will lead infallibly to the overthrow of royalty and the rupture of the union with

Sweden.

Norway, politically detached from Sweden, will then proclaim a repuplic.

At this point the question begins to interest Europe. A Norwegian republic! What chance would there be of its being recognized by the Powers?

France, notwithstanding her attachment to republican institutions, so far as she is concerned, does not, as she has said repeatedly, care to export her policy.

The other Powers would perhaps, be still less disposed to grant a place at the hearth for this young sister, coming to trouble the repose of the family.

Would not Sweden feel herself threatened by such a troublesome neighbor, through the foreign intrigues which would be created thereby? Supposing even that she consented, for her part, to forget the Treaty of Kiel and regard it as a dead letter, would the other parties interested do as much?

THE

WOMAN SUFFRAGE."

THE REVEREND JOHN M. WILLIAMS.

Condensed for THE LITERARY DIGEST from a Paper in

Bibliotheca Sacra, Oberlin, April.

HE Divine conception and true ideal of marriage, which consists in the oneness of husband and wife-their home and possessions common to both, their earthly interests inseparable-this is the key to the great problem of woman's sphere and rights. What are woman's rights? Precisely those of her husband. As a matter of convenience he carries the ballot to the polls as he carries the tax to the county treasurer. The vote he carries is not his own alone. It is the family vote, selected, it is presumed, by the united wisdom of both husband and wife. The complain: that she is deprived of her vote is groundless. She is, if in the true sense a wife, represented at the polls by her husband, as a partner in the firm. But I am reminded that all women are not wives. It is true, the absolute number of unmarried women is large, but the relative number is not large. The woman who is not identified with some family, and not represented by husband, father, brother, son, or some one is a rare occurrence; and to burden the many, for any fancied good to the few, is, to say the least, undemocratic.

I am also advised that women pay taxes, and am triumphantly asked whether taxation without representation is just. Certainly it is. A tax is payment for value received, and in no government constitutes a right to the ballot. There is no necessary relation between tax-paying and voting.

It is further urged, that discriminating against women at the polls is an implication of inferiority, and an indignity to her sex. Not so is it generally regarded by women. The average

woman deems her duties respectable, and about as onerous as she cares to assume, and feels no need of the honor the ballot would confer. Thirty years of faithful missionary labor have failed to make her realize that she is suffering for want of it. Woman, it is further claimed, is a citizen having natural right to the ballot, and as all just government rests on the consent of the governed, it is unjust to deprive her of all share in choice of rulers, and to exact obedience to laws in making which she has no part.

This is absurd and atheistic. The right to govern does not rest upon the consent of the governed. The divine authority, to which all rightful human authority is subordinate, rests on no such basis. God never asked permission to reign. The

right of the parent to govern does not rest on the consent of his children. Right to punish the criminal does not rest on his consent to be punished. Governments were ordained to govern, not to be governed. The right or duty to govern rests on the same foundation on which every other obligation rests, -the claims of the highest good, the supreme law of the moral world. It is his duty and right to govern who can do it best. He is the right ruler whose services, in that capacity, the highest interest of all demands. Where there are no providential indications pointing to the right man, the choice and approval of the people should be regarded as such an indication, and he on whom the choice falls should be accepted as the "Minister of God." His authority to govern rests not upon the consent of the people nor is it conferred by them; it rests on the obligations of the moral law to contribute to the extent of his ability to " the good of being in general."

No one doubts the ability of the average American woman to use the ballot with discretion. The decisive question is: Does the greatest good of the greatest number require that she have it? The burden of proof is upon them that demand the ballot for her.

Would it aid woman? That she suffers much from the brutality and cruelty of the stronger sex no one doubts. Her wages in many cases are pitifully inadequate, and many have a hard lot. Will the ballot remedy these evils? Will it tame the ferocity of a husband? Will it afford her more and betterpaid employment? It fails to aid men in that respect. Probably ten men find nothing to do, to one woman. Within my. observation, while men are seeking employment, employment is seeking women. Woman has but to suggest any enactment for the betterment of her condition, and our legislatures will hasten to write it in their statute-books.

The woman-suffrage movement seems to me, and I think to the great public, a revolt against marriage in its true import, owing its genesis and inspiration largely to the absence of domestic affection. It appears more like a revenge than a reform, finding its reasons for being and its incentives largely in man's alleged tyranny, selfishness, and oppression, the consequent hard lot of women and her need of protection. These considerations, whispered in closets and shrieked on public platforms, have created in many an unreflecting woman unrest and dissatisfaction with her divinely appointed sphere; lowered her estimation of her sacred position of wife, mother, and mistress of a home; thrown the apple of discord into thousands of otherwise happy families, and doubtless contributed to the alarming increase of divorces.

Woman suffrage inculcates "the individuality of woman, as related to her husband"; it emphasizes the dualism, as against the unity, of husband and wife, and assumes that their interests are so diverse that two votes are necessary to represent them. The spectacle of husband and wife on the way to the polls, carrying antagonistic votes, suggests anything but domestic harmony.

The wondrous undefined fascination of the lady who is a lady is of great price, but, like the aroma of the flower, is easily despoiled. She cannot be too cautious.

A rift within the lute

By-and-by may make its music mute.

It is by no means conceded that woman suffrage would increase the relative number of temperance and reform votes. The contrary strikes me as more probable.

Women who could be induced to vote would, with relatively few exceptions, vote like their husbands, and consequently not materially change results. Mrs. Coggswell, formerly a woman suffragist, says: "Not two women in Wyoming would vote for a Republican, were her husband a Democrat, and vice versa." Indeed, most of the women take their votes from their husbands, and without looking at them cast them into the ballot-box.

Women, I am sorry to say, are not all angels. In Utah

woman's vote proved the bulwark of polygamy, and she had to be deprived of it in the interest of moral purity. There is an uncounted army of women, sixteen years old and upwards, whom the saloons and brothels and slums of great cities could pour forth, and who under the influence of money would vote early and often, in spite of all safeguards yet devised. The numbers of illiterate voters would be alarmingly increased. Restricted suffrage for women would diminish the latter evil somewhat, but it is impracticable.

While I can conceive of no benefit from giving woman the ballot, my unshaken conviction is that almost every human interest would suffer therefrom.

ENGLAND IN RELATION TO MAHOMEDAN STATES.

RAFIUDDIN AHMAD.

National Review, London, April.

ROFESSOR VAMBERY in his article in the March

PROSer of the National Review, notices a reversal of

Mahomedan feeling towards Russia and her policy, highly prejudicial to England, and he warns this country against allowing her great Eastern rival to increase her influence among Islamic nations. It cannot be too often brought home to the English mind that Great Britain is the greatest of Mahomedan Powers. The Queen's Empire has in it more Mahomedans than Christians. There is not a single Mahomedan country with which England is not closely connected in politics or commerce. The question of the Anglo-Mahome

dan Alliance is bound, sooner or later, to attract attention. The statesman or the journalist who accentuates the interest of the British public in the Mahomedan countries is a patriot.

They say that an Englishman's heart is in his pocket, therefore a few words on England's commercial interest in the Mahomedans may be useful. In the first place, sixty millions of the Moslems, under the British flag, are clothed by industrious Lancashire. Apart from Lancashire, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, and other centres of industry have much more real benefit from the Moslem States. I admit that Birmingham, which supplies the heathen with wooden gods and missionaries impartially, has no customers in this department among the Moslems; but it has a chance in many other things. Almost all articles of daily necessity and usage, such as needles, pins, thread, pens, paper, lamps, and furniture are supplied to the Moslems by the English. At present there is a mania for English watches and watch-chains.

In the second place, as regards the Mahomedan States that are under her protection," Trade follows the flag." We see a notable instance of this in Zanzibar, whose imports from Great Britain in 1889, when she was not under the English flag, were valued at £87,642, but which in 1890 under the protectorate increased to £195,850.

Again, a splendid field is opening up for British authors. English supremacy over Moslem countries has indirectly compelled the followers of the Prophet to study her language and follow the lead of English thought in spheres of knowledge with which their own destinies are inextricably involved. Many of the old Arabian schools of philosophy and science, having imbibed a moderate dose of Baconian doctrines, find its temptation irresistible and have resolved to enrich their libraries with as much modern literature as they can acquire.

The political importance of the Moslems cannot be overrated. The largest portion of the British army is the native army in India. Distinguished military officers and strategists of many European nations have repeatedly testified to the high efficiency of the native army. It is composed of the flower of the martial races of India. The Mahomedan, the heir of the military virtues of his conquering ancestors, is the readiest recruit. Russia attaches the highest importances to the political and military ability of the Indian Mahomedans,

Russia has long been wooing Afghanistan, but the eagle eye of the Afghan always detects in her a hypocrite. The Bear, however, is an obstinate suitor. The British Lion cannot witness with equanimity the advances of the other beast.

It is true that the Mahomedans as British subjects in India enjoy innumerable blessings. The worst governed corner of British India is undoubtedly preferable to the best governed part of Russia, but-the shield has its obverse. Russia, resting on physical force alone, permits the rise of Mahomedans to high rank in her army while the English Government refuses military honors to the Moslem. This is a bitter disappointment to the scions of historical military families. Again, as M. Vambery points out, Russia wisely secures the favor and friendship of the Mahomedan nation through the agency of her own enlightened Mahomedan subjects. England does not utilize the invaluable services of her educated Mahomedan subjects in this direction. The consular and diplomatic advantages which England might derive through the agency of a well-qualified Mahomedan in Moslem countries cannot be overrated. His religion and his knowledge of Eastern character will enable him to work more smoothly at Oriental courts. He will inspire confidence more readily, and in cases of friction he will be an adequate buffer between the Powers.

Again, from the Mussulman point of view, justice, as administered in India, though not blind, is lame. The only cure is to utilize Mahomedan agency in judicial affairs. This is a measure which we advocate as much for the consolidation of British rule as for the happiness of the Indian Mussulmans, who are its prime supporters.

A new and unparalleled awakening of intellect and conscience is now visible among Islamic peoples. Every corner of the Mahomedan world has been roused to a sense of grave political danger; to a realization of the extent to which the European nations have passed them, and to desire for aid to recover their true place in the march of progress. It is England's duty and interest not to allow Russia or any other European nation to beguile the Mahomedans from their allegiance. She must exercise motherly supervision over them, she must adopt means for the diffusion of learning among them, she must patronize and foster their national institutions, and not withhold high civil and military honors from her Moslem children. She may rest assured, in that case, that she will always have the loyal support of a valorous and honest people.

ITALY AND THE EPISCOPAL JUBILEE OF LEO XIII.

Translated and Condensed for The Literary Digest from an Editorial in

THE

La Rassegna Nazionale, Florence, March.

HE most noteworthy fact which has happened in Italy, or, perhaps we may say, in the whole world, during the fortnight preceding the day on which these lines are written, has been the celebration of the Episcopal Jubilee of the Holy Father, not at Rome alone, but in all countries enlightened by the Christian faith. By the unanimous testimony of all impartial witnesses, the ceremonies were of great solemnity everywhere, and especially, as was natural, in the Eternal City. All the sovereigns and chiefs of foreign governments were officially represented at the festival in Rome, and tens of thousands of pilgrims shared in it there, while in France, in Austria, in Germany, in the United States, many went a long distance to take part in the appropriate religious functions and in the numerous congresses and meetings.

Certainly it is deplorable that, while representatives of all civilized States and innumerable private citizens assembled in Rome, in order to take part in a manifestation so noble and elevated, Italy, upon whose territory the manifestation took place, Italy, whose soldiers kept order with exact and admirable discipline, alone ignored that which occurred within the doors of Saint Peter's, alone of all abstained from participating officially in the ceremonies. Yet the feeling of humiliation and ill-concealed contempt with which some have commented