This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate from the brains of intelligent men, and I cannot think they seriously entertain the views they express. But give us a voice in the matter, gentlemen, and we will not only save ourselves from being sent to the battlefield, but will if possible keep you at home with us by averting the difficulties and dangers, and so compromising matters with foreign powers that peace shall be maintained and bloodshed avoided. In justification of the exclusion of woman from a voice in the government we are told that she is already represented by her fathers, husbands and sons. To this I might answer, so were our fathers represented in the parliament of King George. But were they satisfied with such representation? And why not? Because their interests were not well cared for; because justice was not done them. They found they could not safely entrust their interests to the keeping of those who could not or would not understand them, and who legislated principally to promote their own selfish purposes. I wholly deny the position of these objectors. It is not possible for one human being to fully represent the wants and wishes of another, and much less can one class fully understand the desires and meet the requirements of a different class in society. And, especially, is this true as between man and woman. In the former, certain mental faculties as a general thing are said to predominate; while in the latter, the moral attain to a greater degree of perfection. Taken together, they make up what we understand by the generic term _man_. If we allow to the former, only, a full degree of development of their common nature one-half only enjoys the freedom of action designed for both. We then have the man, or male element, fully brought out; while the woman, or female element, is excluded and crushed.