Mr. ANTHONY. I suppose that the Senfrom Pennsylvania introduced this amendment rather as a satire upon the bill itself, or if he had any serious intention it was only a mischievous one to injure the bill; but it will not probably have that effect, for I suppose nobody will vote for it except the Senator himself, who can hardly avoid it, and I, who shall vote for it because it accords with a conclusion to which I have been brought by considerable study upon the subject of suffrage. I do not contend for female suffrage on the ground that it is a natural right, because I believe that suffrage is a right derived from society, and that society is competent to impose upon the exercise of that right whatever conditions it chooses. I hold that the suffrage is a delegated trust a trust delegated to certain designated classes of society and that the whole body politic has the same right to with draw any part of that trust that we have to with draw any part of the powers or the trusts that we have imposed upon any executive officer, and that it is no more a punishment to restrict the suffrage and thereby deprive certain persons of the exercise of that right who have hereto fore exercised it, than it is a punishment on the SecyTreasury if we should take from him the appointment of certain persons whose appointment is now vested in him. The power i. confers in each case has the right to withdraw. The true basis of suffrage of course is intelligence and virtue; but as we cannot define those, as we cannot draw the line that shall mark the amount of intelligence and virtue that any individual possesses, we come as near as we can to it by imperfect conditions. It certainly will not be contended that the feminine part of mankind are so much below the masculine in point of intelligence as to disualify them from exercising the right of suffrage on that account. If it be asserted and conceded that the feminine intellect is less vig orous, it must also be allowed that it is more acute; if it is not so strong to strike, it is quicker to perceive. But at all events it will not be contended that there is such a difference in the intellectual capacity of the sexes as that that alone should be a disqualification from the exercise of the right of suffrage. Still less will it be contended that the female part of creation is less virtuous than the masculine. On the contrary, it will be conceded by every one that morality and good order, religion, charity, and all good works appertain rather more to the feminine than to the masculine race. The argument that women do not want to vote is no argument at all, because if the right to vote is conferred upon them they can exercise it or not as they choose. It is not a ". comexercise of power on their part. But think that argument is partly disproved by the convention to which the Senfrom Pennsylvania referred yesterday, whose arguments he said were worthy of consideration even in this Chamber. I think they are, and I think it would be very difficult for anyone in this Chamber to disprove them. Norisit a fair statement of the case to say that the man represents the woman in the exercise of suffrage, because it is an assumption on the part of the man; it is an involuntary representation so far as the woman is concerned. Representation implies a certain delegated power and a certain responsibility on the part of the representative toward the Fo represented. A representation to which the represented party does not assent is no representation at all, but is adding insult to injury. When the American Colonies complained that they ought not to be taxed unless they were represented in the British Parliament, it would have been rather a singular answer to tell them that they were represented by Lord North, or even by the Earl of Chatham. The gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber who say that the States lately in rebellion are entitled to immediate representation in this Chamber would hardly be sat isfied if we should tell them that my friendfrom Massachusetts represented SCarolina and my friendfrom Michigan represented Alabama. They would hardly be satisfied I think with that kind of representation. Nor have we any more right to assume that the women are satisfied with the representation of the men. Where has been the assembly at which this right of representation was conferred? Where was the compact made? What were the conditions? It is wholly an assumption. A womanois a member of a manufacturing corporation; she is a stockholder in a bank; she is a share holder in a railroad company; she attends all those meetings in person or by proxy, and she votes, and her vote is received. Suppose a woman offering to vote at a meeting of a railroad corporation should be told by one of the men “we represent you, you cannot vote,” it would be precisely the argument that is now used; that men represent, the woman in the exercise of the elective franchise. A woman pays a large tax, and the man who drives her coach, the man who waits upon her table, goes to the polls and decides how much of her property shall go to support the public, expenses, and what shall be done with it. She has no voice in the matter whatever; she is taxed without representation. The exercise of political power by women is by no means an experiment. There is hardly a country in Europe I do not think there is anyone that has not at some time of its history been governed by a woman, and many of them very well governed, too. There have been at least 3 empresses of Russia since Peter the Great, and 2 of them were very wise rulers. Elizabeth raised England to the very height of greatness, and the reign of Anne was illustrious in arms and not less illustrious in letters. A female sovereign supplied to Columbus the means of discovering this country. He wandered footsore and weary from court to court, from convent to convent, from one potentate to another, but no man on a throne listened to him until a female sovereign pledged her jewels to fit out, the expedition which “gave a new world to the kingdoms of Castile and Leon.” Nor need we cite Anne of Austria, who governed France for ten years or Marie Theresa, whose reign was so great an glorious. We have 2 modern instances., A woman is now on the throne of Spain, and a woman sits upon the throne of the mightiest empire in the world. A woman is the high admiral of the most powerful fleet that rests upon the seas. Princes and nobles bow to her, not in the mere homage of gallantry, but as the representative of a sovereignty which has descended to her from a long line of sovereigns, some of the most illustrious of them of her own sex. And shall we say that a woman may properly command an army, and yet cannot vote for a common councilman in the city of Washington? I know very well this discussion is idle and of no effect, and I am not going to pursue it. I should not have introduced this question, but as it has been introduced, and I intend to vote for the amendment, I desire to declare here that I shall vote for it in all seriousness because I think it is right. The discussion of this subject is not confined to visionary enthusiasts. It is now attracting the attention of some of the best thinkers in the world, both in this country and in Europe, and one of the very best of them all, John Stuart Mill, in a most elaborate and able paper, has declared his conviction of the right and justice of female suffrage. The time has not come for it, but the time is coming. It is coming with the progress of civilization and the general amelioration of the race, and the triumph of truth and justice and equal rights.