first, by following the same lines as men, prove their powers on
common ground; now they must find whether there are special fields for
them, and how, if these exist, they may best be occupied. They need
no longer be afraid to emphasise what was good in the old-fashioned
education of girls. Might not, for example, elocution and caligraphy
with advantage re-appear as good reading aloud and beautiful
penmanship? just as physical training carries on the lessons of
deportment and the Domestic Science course revives the lessons of the
still-room, the kitchen, and the store. On the other hand, under the
existing pressure to relieve the burden of childhood, women must see
to it that the mothers of the coming generation are not sacrificed to
the earliest stages of the lives of their children that are to be.
The motherhood of women and their home-making powers are indeed to
be developed, but not at the expense of their own lives and their
citizenship. Women educators, then, must take what is good in boys'
education, what has been good in girls', and must utilise both. This
work is great, and it is specially difficult because legislation and
administration are almost entirely in the hands of men. Now men are
apt to take for granted either that girls should be treated just like
boys, or that they are entirely different and are to be brought up on
different lines; and women who see the truth there is in both of these
propositions are hindered alike by the men who hold the one and those
who hold the other.

The pioneer girls' schools of the nineteenth century did much
experimental work and established the right of individual initiative
and a distinct line of work for each school. Perhaps special gratitude
is due in respect of this to the governing body of the Girls' Public
Day School Trust, since its schools were numerous enough soon to
create a tradition requiring for their Headmistresses great initiatory