_Id._... “The British _race_ cannot afford to dispense with _all_ the advantage that may be in embryo in the future female intellect, because men and some women are found who declare that women are intellectually inferior.... No amount of prayers and wishes and submitting to God’s will are of any avail. You must _use_ the organs of the intellect in order, not only to increase their efficiency, but to prevent their going from bad to worse. It might here be noted, that because the British people might choose to be satisfied with atrophy of the intellect lobes in their mothers, it will not at all follow that other nations will do so _also_. If such things as nations exist, there will always be rivalry and competition, and depend upon it those will be first whose mothers generally possess the most efficient intellect lobes.... Fortunately we have learnt another great lesson, evolved by Charles Darwin’s frontal lobes, and that is, that there is no such thing as a _fixed_ and _unalterable_ tissue or organism anywhere. All organisms and parts of organisms are _changeable_. Everything—organ and organism—_has_ changed in the past, _is_ changing in the present, and _will_ change in the future in accordance with the conditions that surround it. Women’s frontal lobes and grey matter will certainly be no exception to the rule. Emancipation, keeping her eyes open, and thinking for herself are the three main things she has to keep hammering at, until the lords of creation _see_ that they are the right things to do, to save future generations from universal imbecility.”—E. Bonavia, M.D. (“Woman’s Frontal Lobes”). 2.—“_Their stalwart body and their spacious mind_;” “If she be small, slight-natured, miserable, How shall men grow?” —Tennyson (“The Princess,” Canto 7). XLIII. 8.—“_Where lies her richest gift_, ...” “As I have already said more than once, I consider it presumption in anyone to pretend to decide what women are or are not, can or cannot be by natural constitution. They have always hitherto been kept, as far as regards spontaneous development, in so unnatural a state, that their nature cannot but have been greatly distorted and disguised, and no one can safely pronounce that if women’s nature were left to choose its direction as freely as men’s, and if no artificial bent were attempted to be given to it except that required by the conditions of human society, and given to both sexes alike, there would be any material difference, or perhaps any difference at all, in the character and capacities which would unfold themselves.”—J. S. Mill (“The Subjection of Women,” p. 104). XLIV. 4.—“... _the freeman, equable_ ...” “The freeman assuredly scorns equally to insult and to be insulted.”—Alexander Walker (“Woman as to Mind,” p. 205). XLV.