that was in

rather was it a call to do in the community what they did in the home, a call to public service that was in the direct line of their own distinctive capacity and character. Jt was as women they were called to serve society and relate themselves directly to public life and activity. There was hardly any form of social or civic work, Dr. Hunter maintained, which would not be much the better for the introduction into it of the special gifts or qualities of women. It was just for the want of those qualities that some of their public institutions did not fulfil as they might their beneficent purpose. The truth was men had hardly learned the rudiments of the work which competent and cultivated women-could do in society. In all their agencies for relieving, rescuing, uplifting, and training the dependent classes they needed just the elements which women could supply, and he exhorted women to prepare themselves for greater work in the future by doing thoroughly what they could do now without hindrance. The amount of work waiting for willing and capable women to do in the city and for the city pressed heavily on the faithful minority. Endo'wment, education, privilege, leisure, opportunity-all meant responsibility. It was a dishonourable and mean life that drew much from the common weal and added nothing to it. The conception of womanly duty which the few possessed must be shared by the many, and the enthusiasm for service must be a more widely diffused spirit in the community if the ideal of a city was ever to be realised.-Abridgedfrom the Glasgow Herald.