hypocrisy in the tender welcome she receives; and conjugal conversations, after everybody has retired at night, are solely occupied with the praises of this cheerful relative, and pious hopes that she may long continue with us. We do not even mention the fact that her occupying one of the bed-rooms will lessen our dinner-party, of next Friday, by Mr. and Mrs. Brown; Brown being a man of common sense, and refusing to dine with anyone in the suburbs, or the country, who does not also give him a bed for the night. This is how we regard our mother-in-law; but, as for the ancient Caffres, one gets more puzzled than ever by dwelling upon this custom, and seeking an explanation of it. Indeed, we must dismiss that suggestion of stinginess; for, as the Caffres recognised the equal rights of women, and gave their women liberty to do their share (and a little over) of what work was necessary for their mutual existence, the more women there were about a house, the more easily and luxuriously did the male owner of it live. And, doubtless, if a man compelled his wife to work, he would not be likely to let his mother-in-law remain idle. and we are inclined to look upon the man who hates his mother-in-law as one of those historical monsters who commenced their career by torturing blue-bottles, proceeded from that to stealing their brother's penknife, and ultimately ended their days on the scaffold, amid the howlings and hootings of a nation. Perhaps the fact that he has the authority of generations of savages to countenance him, does not much better the position of the modern mother-in-law hater; but it shows, at least, that the effect of a mother-in-law upon a household was perceived at a very early period of the world's history. One difference between the savage and the civilised man is, that the former at once adopts the handiest expedient with which to obtain an immediate good, while the latter has a tendency to seek for first principles, and takes care that he does nothing to injure the general interests of morality. But, in the present case, might we not accept the lesson of a venerable experience, and adopt a custom which has proved its worth by remaining permanent through so many centuries? IT T is a striking illustration at once of the eventful nature of recent American history, and of the rapidity with which men rise in the republic, that the two candidates for the Presidency were, ten years ago, the one wholly, the other almost wholly, unknown. Horatio Seymour, the democratic candidate, has never filled a national office; the highest dignity which he has hitherto reached, is that of Governor of New York. Ulysses S. Grantsoon destined, by rapid steps, to rise to the chief command of the Northern forces-was, when the civil war broke out, quietly pursuing the modest occupation of a tanner in a farwestern town. The feverish and dramatic years of the civil contest brought both, though in different ways, prominently before the public eye. Grant, after proving his military capacity by a series of victories in a subordinate rank, finally became General-in-chief, and to him was it reserved to bring the war to a successful close. Seymour, as the Governor of the most important Northern State, meanwhile became noted for his opposition to President Lincoln's conduct of the war, and gradually rose to the leadership of the Conservatives and democrats. Are we thrown back, then, on the supposi- THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. tion that in such earlier portions of the earth's history as have escaped both human tradition and writing, the experience of mankind had informed them that it was not good for a man to be in the society of his mother-in-law; and that this experience was translated into a social law, or custom, which was observed long after the cause of its institution had been forgotten? Had savage penetration already discovered that mothers-in-law got up linen (or such substitutes for it as were then in fashion) and love-quarrels with equal dexterity; and that their skill in controlling, directing, or abridging the latter, was as nothing compared to their power of initiation? If we are to set aside, on the one hand, the notion that the Polynesian did not like to be reminded of what his wife was likely to become, and, on the other hand, the notion that he did not want to be at the expense of supporting his mother-inlaw, it follows that his reasons for desiring the absence of his relative must have been remarkably similar to those which are sometimes expressed in our own day. This is a sufficiently notable discovery; because we sometimes see it stated that a man's dislike for his motherin-law is an unnatural product of a late civilisation. We are told that all the fine human affections are dying out before the spread of that morbid mental analysis and social materialism which mark our present time; Two men with fewer traits in common it would be hard to find. Seymour is essentially a politician-a man of conventions and plat |