asserted, too, that all this reform agitation was the work of demagogues and infidels.  Time has proved that the common people of England were able to record intelligent votes, and that they did prize the privileges which were so reluctantly granted; neither is infidelity any more rampant since liberty has been given to the people to express their opinions than it was before.  Indeed, it has less material upon which to feed and grow than it then had.  It is asserted by reverend divines that, to accord women equal rights and privileges with men, is to countenance infidelity.  Such assertions have yet to be proved to be truthful.  Logically, the position is untenable.  There are many thousands more infidels among men than among women.  How, then, can these divines make it appear that giving to women equal civil and political privileges with men would countenance infidelity, or tend to its increase?  Women being so much more generally religiously disposed than men, the influence of the former, if allowed its due weight in public affairs, would be much more likely to neutralize the influence of the infidel men now exercising the rights and privileges from which women are debarred, and would thus contribute to the development of a higher moral and religious tone in community.  Apply these men’s theory to themselves, and they would quickly observe its absurdity, as well as its shameful injustice.  It is said, too, that women are amply represented by their husbands, brothers, or fathers; which is not true, since wives do not always think as their husbands do; daughters do not always see matters from the same stand-point that their fathers do, any more than sons; and sisters do not agree in opinion with brothers, any more than brothers agree with brothers.  It is a well-known fact that, in all countries, fathers and sons have entertained different views, both political and religious, and have given public expression of them; so, also, brothers have arrayed themselves against brothers in civil and ecclesiastical contests.  It is absurd, therefore, to say that one member of a family—­even though he be the “head”—­of necessity represents the views of the entire family.  But, supposing it were true that the thing could be done, it would be just as reasonable for women to represent their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers at the polls as to be represented there by them.

It is urged that many women are frivolous, that they seem scarcely to have a serious thought, that the energies of their minds—­if they have any—­are bent upon the acquirement of a thorough knowledge of the latest foreign fashion, heedless whether they ruin father or husband or not.  So there are—­those especially who are taught to think it very “unfeminine” to be “strong-minded” enough to be independent, who deem it a fearful thing to bend mind or body to work for their own living, asserting, with an unwitting sarcasm, that “papa” or “husband” is the responsible head of the house, and that it