dure the sneers of the illiberal, and even suffer the accusation of ruining our own husbands and families rather than ruin the nation. Only contemplate, if you have the resolution to do it, the scene that would ensue should all the fashionable ladies in America renounce their ornaments and costly superfluous apparel, and nothing wear but frieze,' as many wiseacres are recommending. The gentlemen would, of course, follow the example of simplicity. In civilized communities the men imbibe their taste for the splendid in dress mostly from female influence,—and should all who have the means of indulging in luxury prefer the plain, simple and domestic manufactured, our foreign trade would be annihilated. And what would be the result? Think of the decaying vessels, deserted cities, bankrupt merchants fleeing in despair to the interior and rusticating on farms; and those dainty, delicate young clerks that now show off so gaily at our theatres, with frizzed hair and plaited ruffles and gold chains, transformed into ploughboys-O, horror! But the worst remains to tell. The revenues of the general government are, as even ladies know, derived mostly from foreign commerce. What would become of our republican government, the most pure and perfect that the wisdom of man ever devised, as our orators assure us, if its revenues should cease? I have not courage to pursue the inquiry, but I feel a sufficient confidence in the patriotism of my own sex to assure the Congress that foreign commerce will be patronized. As I am so near the subject of political economy I am half tempted to tell my own speculations on the best method of remedying what is significantly termed the pressure of the times. The calamity under which the world is at present suffering, arises from doing too much. In agriculture, manufactures, and every department that requires physical power, too much is produced. Ergo, there is more effective industry employed than is needed for the general prosperity and happiness. Now, if the men, instead of urging industry upon the women, would entirely absolve the gentle sex from work of all kinds, and make it infamous, alias unfashionable for them to do any thing, save instructing their children, and attending to their own personal appearance, there would at once be a reduction in the effective industry of every country which would once more bring the production on an average with the consumption. And this, as I think, is the most rational and honorable way, indeed, the only christian way of remedying the evils of plenty and an over-stocked market which now afflict civilized nations. The men could perform all the labor necessary for the support of the species, and they ought to do it. There is no command of God making it the duty of women to work; there is no fitness in the thing showing it to be sanctioned by nature. Indeed there is the reverse. Labors and hardships and exposures give to man strength, energy, and even masculine beauty, which partly consists in strength of bones, and sinews. But the beauty, the delicacy and the constitution of woman are injured if not destroyed by physical exposures and hardships. Look on the savages. They make their women work-and civilized men, husbands, who insist on female industry, (meaning work-I would not have women idle, only at leisure-fashionably and intellectually employed,) are little better than savages. Another advantage might be hoped if women were exempt from the necessity of exertion. The respect in which they would be held would diffuse and nourish in society a chivalrous sentiment. How supremely selfish and commonplace the social world has become !-Every man taking care of himself, and caring for nobody else; and women expected to contribute their share to the support of their families, and engaging in business with all the calculation of financiers. Will this manner of intercourse between the sexes have a tendency to elevate the character, call forth the noblest energies of the human mind, and awaken the kindest and purest feelings of the human heart? I think not. I appeal to the good husband. When do you feel yourself most invested with the dignity of a man? Is it not when determining that as far as the earthly destinies of your family are in your keeping they shall be made happy? Is it not when meeting the smile of confiding love and thankfulness from your fair intelligent wife, and lovely daughters who, by your exertions, crowned with the blessing of God, are in possession of all the comforts, perhaps elegancies of life? But I cannot, without giving an article as long as a patriotic dinner speech at the West, even glance at half the advanta ges which would result to society were the female sex priviledged to devote their time to the moral, mental, and fashionable improvement of society. Ah, then it would truly be said of woman's influence over the other sex —emollit mores nec sinit esse feros. But men will be barbarous while they seek wives for pecuniary profit, for helps, rather than the generous and manly purpose of protecting and supporting delicate, gentle, graceful and grateful friends. "Cœlebs has alluded to absurd modes, and talks about the ladies sacrificing their health to appearances,"—which means, I suppose, that they wear corsets. There never has been, since Don Quixotte fought the windmills, so preposterous a combat as that which modern knights of the quill are waging against these same unoffending things of cloth and whalebone. There is hardly a mortal disease, affecting females, which has not been ascribed to their agency-except the yellow fever. I wonder no wise observer of the effect of tight lacing never discovered that it produces, or at least, predisposes to the yellow fever. It is in vain to attempt argument in this case ;-the anti-corset part of our population have determined not to be convinced by the assertions or arguments of those interested to preserve this fashion for the mould of form " It is in vain that we ladies remark that the fashion of ap parel not being prescribed by nature, it makes little difference to the health, and none to the comfort, in what form it is worn after we have become accustomed to the manner. Different nations as well as the sexes, wear their apparel differently, yet without inconvenience or injury. Even customs of dress that alter the physical form can be endured without danger if gradually imposed. Feet may be compressed, and heads flattened; and on the same principle a lady's waist may be gracefully modelled without those awful consequences so pathetically described and lamented by the anti-corset faction. But still I would not recommend to any lady to carry the science of lacing beyond a reasonable pressure. Nor have we any cause to think it is done. The bills of mortality do not show that a greater proportion of women than men die of consumption, which disease is particularly ascribed to corsets. Out of the same given number of men and women it will be found that the latter equal if not exceed the former in longevity. Nor do we find that in countries where loose and flowing robes are worn that women are healthier, or that they live longer than in countries where their dresses are more closely fitted. On the whole there seems no just cause to condemn the ladies for extravagance or absurdity of fashions,-and there is not a man in our country worth having, who might not find a good wife, that is, provided he proved a good husband. LUCILLA. REMEMBERED AFFECTIONS. There are hours, bright hours, when the loved are near- Yet think not the soul, when 'tis rudely torn Than days of mirth with the thoughtless train, There's a blest and sacred solitude And then as fair as the evening star, Comes the image of friends removed afar; And the vision that brightens through memory's tears, 1824. CAMIRE. Translated from the French-for the Ladies' Magazine. I was one day reproaching a Spaniard, who had just arrived from Buenos Ayres, with the frightful cruelties exercised by his countrymen in their first conquests in America. I trembled, as I recalled to mind, the crimes which had stained the glory of Cortez, of Pizarro, and of many others, who perhaps by their talents, and courage, have surpassed all, which we most admire in the heroes of antiquity. I expressed my regret that so noble, so glorious an era in the history of Spain, should be inscribed in its annals, on pages stained with blood. The Spaniard listened to me with patient politeness-his eyes were filled with tears when I pronounced the name of Las Cases. "He is our Fenelon," said he, "he is not indeed the author of Telemachus; but he passed through the two Americas, to soften the fate of the unfortunate Indians,--he crossed the ocean to defend their cause, before the council of Charles the Fifth, like your Archbishop of Cambray, who defended that of the Protestants, whom you massacred in the Cevennes you were cruel persecutors at the end of the reign of Louis 14th. And what were we-what was Europe in the 16th century,--a period rendered memorable by our splendid discoveries, by the progress of the fine arts in Italy, by the rise of new sects in Germany, and by the crimes of every country. The Portuguese, our neighbors, slaughtered the conquered nations on the coast of Malabar, on the shores of Ceylon, and in the peninsula of Malacca. The Dutch were not less cruel. In Sweden the hero of the North, and the Archbishop of Upsal, assassinated the senators and the citizens of Stockholm. At London the funeral piles were kindled for the Lutherans and the Catholics. But I forbear. Let us not reproach each other--we were all barbarians. Let us leave to history, the painful task of transmitting the crimes of our ancestors; let us remember only their virtues, and speak of them often, that we may learn to imitate them. You have repeated to me the frightful details of the conquest of Peru. I knew them but too well permit me, in my turn, to relate to you, in what |