As already pointed out, the all-potent factor of Sex intervening, members of neither sex are capable of doing their best work while in association with the other. Sex-rivalries are stirred, or sex-antagonisms. Either of which range the sexes on opposite sides; thus precluding amicable co-operation. Or they engender sex-ascendancy. Which, making one sex dominate or defer to the other, precludes intelligent co-operation. Through all, moreover, only too often run threads of intrigue, to entangle and hamper the powers of both. British politics have notably declined since woman's incursion therein. British commerce, once supreme among the nations, has notably declined since women entered business-houses. Good and thorough work demands, beyond all things, undivided concentration of the powers upon it. And for nine persons out of ten, this concentration is impossible while in the presence of members of the opposite sex. And emphatically this is true of the male, since woman exercises a hypnotic, and, accordingly, an enervating influence upon him. Worse still, he poses for her: becoming meretricious and insincere. It is held by some that women in Parliament might elevate the codes and modes of latter-day politics, many of our best men withholding themselves therefrom because of bad odour imparted by self-seeking and unscrupulous politicians. But let us keep our House of Commons a House of men, and make it representative of the nation's finest manhood. It is the first and foremost function of the sex, the way of national success and progress. And just as the presence of women would blunt the pioneering spirit and cripple the action of a party of Arctic explorers, so women in the House must blunt the enterprise and hamper the exploits of Statesmanship. So far, the good sense alike of women as of men has declared against the innovation; rejecting, by large majorities, all but one of women Parliamentary candidates. It remains to be seen, however, whether men outside the House will later endorse the new departure, by electing members of the other sex to represent them. A thing impossible for one sex to do for the other, of course, seeing that not only do men and women arrive at their different conclusions by wholly different routes, but all questions bear wholly different values for them. It may be argued that the existence of dual departments of politics, and dual points-of-view is argument for electing representatives of both sexes to The Commons. Not so, however. Each sex is specialist in its own domain. And an aurist wastes time, and most likely blunders, when he applies himself to treat eye-diseases. An oculist wastes time, and probably blunders, when delicate ear-operations are required of him.