Читать книгу The Complete History of the Women's Suffrage Movement in U.S. - Jane Addams - Страница 23

Worcester, Sept. 15, 1853.

Dear Friend:—In writing to the New York Woman's Rights Convention, I mentioned some few points of argument which no opponents of this movement have ever attempted to meet. Suffer me, in addressing the Cleveland Convention, to pursue a different course, and mention some things which the friends of the cause have not yet attempted to do.

I am of a practical habit of mind, and have noticed with some regret that most of the friends of the cause have rested their hopes, thus far, chiefly upon abstract reasoning. This is doubtless of great importance, and these reasonings have already made many converts; because the argument is so entirely on one side that every one who really listens to it begins instantly to be convinced. The difficulty is, that the majority have not yet begun to listen to it, and this, in great measure, because their attention has not been called to the facts upon which it is founded.

Suppose, now, that an effort were made to develop the facts of woman's wrongs. For instance:

1st. We say that the laws of every State of this Union do great wrong to woman, married and single, as to her person and property, in her private and public relations. Why not procure a digest of the laws on these subjects, then; prepared carefully, arranged systematically, corrected up to the latest improvements, and accompanied by brief and judicious commentaries? No such work exists, except that by Mansfield, which is now obsolete, and in many respects defective.

2d. We complain of the great educational inequalities between the sexes. Why not have a report, elaborate, statistical, and accurate, on the provision for female education, public and private, throughout the free States of this Union, at least? No such work now exists.

3d. We complain of the industrial disadvantages of women, and indicate at the same time, their capacities for a greater variety of pursuits. Why not obtain a statement, on as large a scale as possible, first, of what women are doing now, commercially and mechanically, throughout the Union (thus indicating their powers); and secondly, of the embarrassments with which they meet, the inequality of their wages, and all the other peculiarities of their position, in these respects? An essay, in short, on the Business Employments and Interests of Women; such an essay as Mr. Hunt has expressed to me his willingness to publish in his Merchants' Magazine. No such essay now exists.

Each of these three documents would be an arsenal of arms for the Woman's Rights advocate. A hundred dollars, appropriated to each of these, would more than repay itself in the increased subscriptions it would soon bring into the treasury of the cause. That sum would, however, be hardly sufficient to repay even the expenses of correspondence and traveling necessary for the last two essays, or the legal knowledge necessary for the first.

If there is, however, known to the Convention at Cleveland any person qualified and ready to undertake either of the above duties for the above sum (no person should undertake more than one of the three investigations), I would urge you to make the appointment. It will require, however, an accurate, clear-headed, and industrious person, with plenty of time to bestow. Better not have it done at all, than not have it done thoroughly, carefully, and dispassionately. Let me say distinctly, that I can not be a candidate for either duty, in my own person, for want of time to do it in; though I think I could render some assistance, especially in preparing materials for the third essay. I would also gladly subscribe toward a fund for getting the work done.

Permit me, finally, to congratulate you on the valuable results of every Convention yet held to consider this question. I find the fact everywhere remarked, that so large a number of women of talent and character have suddenly come forward into a public sphere. This phenomenon distinguishes this reform from all others that have appeared in America, and illustrates with new meaning the Greek myth of Minerva, born full-grown from the head of Jove. And if (as some late facts indicate) this step forward only promotes the Woman's Rights movement from the sphere of contempt into the sphere of hostility and persecution—it is a step forward, none the less. And I would respectfully suggest to the noble women who are thus attacked, that they will only be the gainers by such opposition, unless it lead to dissensions or jealousies among themselves.

Yours cordially,

Thomas Wentworth Higginson.

Miss Lucy Stone.

Lucy Stone remarked: This letter, you see, proposes that we shall find some way, if possible, by which our complaints may be spread before the people. We find men and women in our conventions, earnest and thoughtful, who are not drawn by mere curiosity, but from a conscious want of just such a movement as this. They go away and carry to their villages and hamlets the ideas they have gathered here; and it is a cause for thankfulness to God that so many go away to repeat what they have heard. But we have wanted the documents to scatter among the people, as the Tract Society scatters its sheets. And now Mr. Higginson proposes that we have these essays.

The President of Oberlin College, Rev. Asa Mahan, was present during all the sessions of the Convention, and took part in the debates. On the subject of the Seneca Falls Declaration, he said:

I can only judge of the effect of anything upon the public mind, by its effect upon my own. It has been suggested that that Declaration is a parody. Now you can not present a parody, without getting up a laugh; and wherever it goes, it will never be seriously considered. If a declaration is to be made, it should be one that will be seriously considered by the public. I would suggest that the Declaration of this Convention be entirely independent of the other.

I have a remark to make upon a sentiment advanced by Mrs. Rose. I have this objection to the Declaration upon which she commented. It is asserted there, that man has created a certain public sentiment, and it is brought as a charge against the male sex. Now I assert, that man never created that sentiment. I say it is a wrong state of society totally, when, if woman shall be degraded, a man committing the same offense shall not be degraded also. There is perfect agreement between us there. But, that Declaration charges that sentiment upon man. Now I assert that it is chargeable upon woman herself; and that as she was first in man's original transgression, she is first here.

Mrs. Rose: I heartily agree that we are both in fault; and yet we are none in fault. I also said, that woman, on account of the position in which she has been placed, by being dependent upon man, by being made to look up to man, is the first to cast out her sister. I know it and deplore it; hence I wish to give her her rights, to secure her dependence upon herself. In regard to that sentiment in the Declaration, our friend said that woman created it. Is woman really the creator of the sentiment? The laws of a country create sentiments. Who make the laws? Does woman? Our law-makers give the popular ideas of morality.

Mr. Barker: And the pulpit.

Mrs. Rose: I ought to have thought of it: not only do the law-makers give woman her ideas of morality, but our pulpit preachers. I beg pardon—no, I do not either—for Antoinette L. Brown is not a priest. Our priests have given us public sentiment called morals, and they have always made or recognized in daily life, distinctions between man and woman. Man, from the time of Adam to the present, has had utmost license, while woman must not commit the slightest degree of "impropriety," as it is termed. Why, even to cut her skirts shorter than the fashion, is considered a moral delinquency, and stigmatized as such by more than one pulpit, directly or indirectly.

You ask me who made this sentiment; and my friend yonder, says woman. She is but the echo of man. Man utters the sentiment, and woman echoes it. As I said before—for I have seen and felt it deeply—she even appears to be quite flattered with her cruel tyrant, for such he has been made to be—she is quite flattered with the destroyer of woman's character—aye, worse than that, the destroyer of woman's self-respect and peace of mind—and when she meets him, she is flattered with his attentions. Why should she not be? He is admitted into Legislative halls, and to all places where men "most do congregate;" why, then, should she not admit him to her parlor? The woman is admitted into no such places; the Church casts her out; and a stigma is cast upon her, for what is called the slightest "impropriety." Prescribed by no true moral law, but by superstition and prejudice, she is cast out not only from public places, but from private homes. And if any woman would take her sister to her heart, and warm her there again by sympathy and kindness, if she would endeavor once more to infuse into her the spark of life and virtue, of morality and peace, she often dare not so far encounter public prejudice as to do it. It requires a courage beyond what woman can now possess, to take the part of the woman against the villain. There are few such among us, and though few, they have stood forward nobly and gloriously. I will not mention names, though it is often a practice to do so; I must, however, mention our sister, Lucretia Mott, who has stood up and taken her fallen sister by the hand, and warmed her at her own heart. But we can not expect every woman to possess that degree of courage.

Abby Kelly Foster: I want to say here that I believe the law is but the writing out of public sentiment, and back of that public sentiment, I contend lies the responsibility. Where shall we find it? "'Tis education forms the common mind." It is allowed that we are what we are educated to be. Now if we can ascertain who has had the education of us, we can ascertain who is responsible for the law, and for public sentiment. Who takes the infant from its cradle and baptizes it "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" and when that infant comes to childhood, who takes it into Sabbath-schools; who on every Sabbath day, while its mind is "like clay in the hands of the potter," moulds and fashions it as he will; and when that child comes to be a youth, where is he found, one-seventh part of the time; and when he comes to maturer age, does he not leave his plow in the furrow, and his tools in the shop, and one-seventh part of the time go to the place where prayer is wont to be made? On that day no sound is heard but the roll of the carriage wheels to church; all are gathered there, everything worldly is laid aside, all thoughts are given entirely to the Creator; for we are taught that we must not think our own thoughts, but must lay our own wills aside, and come to be moulded and fashioned by the priest. It is "holy time," and we are to give ourselves to be wholly and entirely fashioned and formed by another. That place is a holy place, and when we enter, our eye rests on the "holy of holies;" he within it is a "divine." The "divines" of the thirteenth century, the "divines" of the fifteenth century, and the "divines" of the nineteenth century, are no less "divines." What I say to-day is taken for what it is worth, or perhaps for less than it is worth, because of the prejudice against me; but when he who educates the people speaks, "he speaks as one having authority," and is not to be questioned. He claims, and has his claim allowed, to be specially ordained and specially anointed from God. He stands mid-way between Deity and man, and therefore his word has power.

Aye, not only in middle age does the man come, leaving everything behind him; but, in old age, "leaning on the top of his staff," he finds himself gathered in the place of worship, and though his ear may be dull and heavy, he leans far forward to catch the last words of duty—of duty to God and duty to man. Duty is the professed object of the pulpit, and if it does not teach that, what in Heaven's name does it teach? This anointed man of God speaks of moral duty to God and man. He teaches man from the cradle to the coffin; and when that aged form is gathered within its winding-sheet, it is the pulpit that says, "Dust to dust and ashes to ashes."

It is the pulpit, then, which has the entire ear of the community, one-seventh part of the time. If you say there are exceptions, very well, that proves the rule. If there is one family who do not go to church, it is no matter, its teachings are engendered by those who do go; hence I would say, not only does the pulpit have the ear of the community one-seventh part of the time of childhood, but it has it under circumstances for forming and moulding and fashioning the young mind, as no other educating influence can have it. The pulpit has it, not only under these circumstances; it has it on occasions of marriage, when two hearts are welded into one; on occasions of sickness and death, when all the world beside is shut out, when the mind is most susceptible of impressions from the pulpit, or any other source.

I say, then, that woman is not the author of this sentiment against her fallen sister, and I roll back the assertion on its source. Having the public ear one-seventh part of the time, if the men of the pulpit do not educate the public mind, who does educate it? Millions of dollars are paid for this education, and if they do not educate the public mind in its morals, what, I ask, are we paying our money for? If woman is cast out of society, and man is placed in a position where he is respected, then I charge upon the pulpit that it has been recreant to its duty. If the pulpit should speak out fully and everywhere, upon this subject, would not woman obey it? Are not women under the special leading and direction of their clergymen? You may tell me, that it is woman who forms the mind of the child; but I charge it back again, that it is the minister who forms the mind of the woman. It is he who makes the mother what she is; therefore her teaching of the child is only conveying the instructions of the pulpit at second hand. If public sentiment is wrong on this (and I have the testimony of those who have spoken this morning, that it is), the pulpit is responsible for it, and has the power of changing it. The clergy claim the credit of establishing public schools. Granted. Listen to the pulpit in any matter of humanity, and they will claim the originating of it, because they are the teachers of the people. Now, if we give credit to the pulpit for establishing public schools, then I charge them with having a bad influence over those schools; and if the charge can be rolled off, I want it to be rolled off; but until it can be done, I hope it will remain there.

Mr. Mahan: No class of persons had better be drawn into our discussions to be denounced, unless there is serious occasion for it. I name the pulpit with solemn awe, and unless there is necessity for it, charges had better not be made against it. Now, I say that no practice and no usage in the Church can be found, by which a criminal man, in reference to the crimes referred to, may be kept in the Church and a criminal woman cast out. There is no such custom in any of the churches of God. After twenty years' acquaintance with the Church, I affirm that the practice does not exist. Now, in regard to the origin of public sentiment, can a pulpit be found, will the lady who has just sat down, name a pulpit in the wide world, where the principle is advocated, that a criminal woman should be excluded, and the man upheld? Whatever faults may be in it, that fault is not there.

Mrs. Rose: Not in theory, but in practice.

Mr. Mahan: Neither in theory nor in practice. Where a wrong state of society exists, the pulpit may be in fault for not reprobating it.

Abby K. Foster: I do not wish to mention names, or I could do so. I could give many cases where ministers have been charged with such crimes, and where the evidence of guilt was almost insurmountable, and yet they were not disciplined. They were afraid it would injure the Church, I remember one minister who was brought up for trial, and meantime they suspended him from office, and paid him only half his salary, but retained him as a church member; when, if it had been the case of a woman, and had the slightest shade of suspicion been cast upon her, they would not have waited even for trial and judgment. They would have cast her out of the church at once.

William Lloyd Garrison said: I have but a few words to submit to the meeting at the present time. In regard to the position of the Church and clergy, on the subject of purity, I think it is sufficient to remind the people here, that whatever may be the external form observed by the Church toward its members, pertaining to licentiousness, one thing is noticeable, and that is, that the marriage relation is abolished among three and a half millions of people; and the abolition of marriage on that frightful scale, is in the main sanctioned and sustained by the American Church and clergy. And if this does not involve them in all that is impure, and licentious, and demoralizing, I know not what can do so.

As it respects the objection to our adopting the Declaration of Independence as put forth at Seneca Falls, on the ground that it is a parody, and that, being a parody, it will only excite the mirthfulness of those who hear or read it in that form; I would simply remark, that I very much doubt, whether, among candid and serious men, there would be any such mirthfulness excited. At the time that document was published, I read it, but I had forgotten it till this morning, and on listening to it, my mind was deeply impressed with its pertinacity and its power. It seemed to me, the argumentium ad hominum, to this nation. It was measuring the people of this country by their own standard. It was taking their own words and applying their own principles to women, as they have been applied to men. At the same time, I liked the suggestion that we had better present an original paper to the country; and on conferring with the Committee after the adjournment, they agreed that it would be better to have such a paper; and that paper will undoubtedly be prepared, although we are not now ready to lay it before the Convention.

It was this morning objected to the Declaration of sentiments, that it implied that man was the only transgressor, that he had been guilty of injustice and usurpation, and the suggestion was also made, that woman should not be criminated, in this only, but regarded rather as one who had erred through ignorance; and our eloquent friend, Mrs. Rose, who stood on this platform and pleaded with such marked ability, as she always does plead in any cause she undertakes to speak upon, told us her creed. She told us she did not blame anybody, really, and did not hold any man to be criminal, or any individual to be responsible for public sentiment, as regards the difference of criminality of man and woman.

For my own part, I am not prepared to respect that philosophy. I believe in sin, therefore in a sinner; in theft, therefore in a thief; in slavery, therefore in a slaveholder; in wrong, therefore in a wrong-doer; and unless the men of this nation are made by woman to see that they have been guilty of usurpation, and cruel usurpation, I believe very little progress will be made. To say all this has been done without thinking, without calculation, without design, by mere accident, by a want of light; can anybody believe this who is familiar with all the facts in the case? Certainly, for one, I hope ever to lean to the charitable side, and will try to do so. I, too, believe things are done through misconception and misapprehension, which are injurious, yes, which are immoral and unchristian; but only to a limited extent. There is such a thing as intelligent wickedness, a design on the part of those who have the light to quench it, and to do the wrong to gratify their own propensities, and to further their own interests. So, then, I believe, that as man has monopolized for generations all the rights which belong to woman, it has not been accidental, not through ignorance on his part; but I believe that man has done this through calculation, actuated by a spirit of pride, a desire for domination which has made him degrade woman in her own eyes, and thereby tend to make her a mere vassal.

It seems to me, therefore, that we are to deal with the consciences of men. It is idle to say that the guilt is common, that the women are as deeply involved in this matter as the men. Never can it be said that the victims are as much to be blamed as the victimizer; that the slaves are to be as much blamed as the slaveholders and slave-drivers; that the women who have no rights, are to be as much blamed as the men who have played the part of robbers and tyrants. We must deal with conscience. The men of this nation, and the men of all nations, have no just respect for woman. They have tyrannized over her deliberately, they have not sinned through ignorance, but theirs is not the knowledge that saves. Who can say truly, that in all things he acts up to the light he enjoys, that he does not do something which he knows is not the very thing, or the best thing he ought to do? How few there are among mankind who are able to say this with regard to themselves. Is not the light all around us? Does not this nation know how great its guilt is in enslaving one-sixth of its people? Do not the men of this nation know ever since the landing of the pilgrims, that they are wrong in making subject one-half of the people? Rely upon it, it has not been a mistake on their part. It has been sin. It has been guilt; and they manifest their guilt to a demonstration, in the manner in which they receive this movement. Those who do wrong ignorantly, do not willingly continue in it, when they find they are in the wrong. Ignorance is not an evidence of guilt certainly. It is only an evidence of a want of light. They who are only ignorant, will never rage, and rave, and threaten, and foam, when the light comes; but being interested and walking in the light, will always present a manly front, and be willing to be taught, and be willing to be told they are in the wrong.

Take the case of slavery: How has the anti-slavery cause been received? Not argumentatively, not by reason, not by entering the free arena of fair discussion and comparing notes; the arguments have been rotten eggs, and brickbats and calumny, and in the southern portion of the country, a spirit of murder, and threats to cut out the tongues of those who spoke against them. What has this indicated on the part of the nation? What but conscious guilt? Not ignorance, not that they had not the light. They had the light and rejected it.

How has this Woman's Rights movement been treated in this country, on the right hand and on the left? This nation ridicules and derides this movement, and spits upon it, as fit only to be cast out and trampled underfoot. This is not ignorance. They know all about the truth. It is the natural outbreak of tyranny. It is because the tyrants and usurpers are alarmed. They have been and are called to judgment, and they dread the examination and exposure of their position and character.

Women of America! you have something to blame yourselves for in this matter, something to account for to God and the world. Granted. But then you are the victims in this land, as the women of all lands are, to the tyrannical power and godless ambition of man; and we must show who are responsible in this matter. We must test everybody here. Every one of us must give an account of himself to God. It is an individual testing of character. Mark the man or the woman who derides this movement, who turns his or her back upon it; who is disposed to let misrule keep on, and you will find you have a sure indication of character. You will find that such persons are destitute of principles; for if you can convict a man of being wanting in principle anywhere, it will be everywhere. He who loves the right for its own sake, loves the right everywhere. He who is a man of principle, is a man of principle always. Let me see the man who is willing to have any one of God's rational creatures sacrificed to promote anything, aside from the well-being of that creature himself, and I will show you an unprincipled man.

It is so in this movement. Nobody argues against it, nobody pretends to have an argument. Your platform is free everywhere, wherever, these Conventions are held. Yet no man comes forward in a decent, respectable manner, to show you that you are wrong in the charges you bring against the law-makers of the land. There is no argument against it. The thing is self-evident. I should not know how to begin to frame an argument. That which is self-evident is greater than argument, and beyond logic. It testifies of itself. You and I, as human beings, claim to have rights, but I never think of going into an argument with anybody, to prove that I ought to have rights. I have the argument and logic here, it is in my own breast and consciousness; and the logic of the schools becomes contemptible beside these. The more you try to argue, the worse you are off. It is not the place for metaphysics, it is the place for affirmation. Woman is the counterpart of man; she has the same divine image, having the same natural and inalienable rights as man. To state the proposition is enough; it contains the argument, and nobody can gainsay it, in an honorable way.

I rose simply to say, that though I should deprecate making our platform a theological arena, yet believing that men are guilty of intentional wrong, in keeping woman subject, I believe in having them criminated. You talk of injustice, then there is an unjust man somewhere. Even Mrs. Rose could talk of the guilt of society. Society! I know nothing of society. I know the guilt of individuals. Society is an abstract term: it is made up of individuals, and the responsibility rests with individuals. So then, if we are to call men to repentance, there is such a thing as wrong-doing intelligently, sinning against God and man, with light enough to convict us, and to condemn us before God and the world. Let this cause then be pressed upon the hearts and consciences, against those who hold unjust rights in their possession.

Mrs. Rose: I want to make a suggestion to the meeting. This is the afternoon of the last day of our Convention. We have now heard here the Bible arguments on both sides, and I may say to them that I agree with both, that is, I agree with neither. A gentleman, Dr. Nevin, I believe, said this morning that he also would reply to Mr. Barker, this afternoon. We have already had Mr. Barker answered. If any one else speaks farther on Miss Brown's side, somebody will have to reply upon the other. "There is a time and a season for everything," and this is no time to discuss the Bible. I appeal to the universal experience of men, to sustain me in asking whether the introduction of theological quibbles, has not been a firebrand wherever they have been thrown? We have a political question under discussion; let us take that question and argue it with reference to right and wrong, and let us argue it in the same way that your fathers and mothers did, when they wanted to throw off the British yoke.

Dr. Nevin: It will be unjust, not to permit me to speak.

Mrs. Mott moved that he be allowed, since he had already got the floor, without attempting to limit him at all; but that immediately after, the Convention should take up the resolutions.

Mrs. Rose objected, because, if a third person should speak, then a fourth must speak, or plead injustice, if not permitted to do so.

Considerable confusion ensued, Dr. Nevin, however, persisting in speaking, whereupon, the President invited him to the platform. He took the stand, assuring the President and officers, as he passed them, that he wished only to reply to some misinterpretations of Mr. Barker's, and would take but little of the time which they so much needed for business. After commencing, however, with Bible in hand, he launched out into an irrelevant eulogium upon "his Christ," etc.; from that to personalities against Mr. Barker and his associates upon the platform, calling him a "renegade priest," "an infidel from foreign shores, who had come to teach Americans Christianity!"

Mr. Garrison rose to a point of order, with regard to the speaker's personalities as to the nativity of anybody.

Dr. Nevin retorted: The gentleman has been making personalities against the whole priesthood.

Mr. Barker: I expressly and explicitly made exceptions. I only wish that Mr. Nevin may not base his remarks upon a phantom.

Dr. Nevin continued wandering on for some time, when Stephen S. Foster rose, to a point of order, as follows: "The simple question before us, is whether woman is entitled to all the rights to which the other sex is entitled. I want to say, that the friend is neither speaking to the general question, nor replying to Mr. Barker." Mr. Foster continued his remarks somewhat, when Dr. Nevin demanded that the Chair protect him in his right to the floor. The Chair decided that Mr. Foster was out of order, in continuing to speak so long upon his point of order.

Mr. Foster said he would not appeal to the house from the decision of the Chair, because he wished to save time. He continued a moment longer, and sat down.

Dr. Nevin proceeded, and in the course of his remarks drew various unauthorized inferences, as the belief of Mr. Barker, in the doctrines of Christ. Mr. Barker repeatedly corrected him, but Dr. Kevin very ingeniously continued to reaffirm them in another shape. Finally, Mr. Garrison, in his seat, addressing the President, said: "It is utterly useless to attempt to correct the individual. He is manifestly here in the spirit of a blackguard and rowdy." (A storm of hisses and cries of "down!" "down!")

Dr. Nevin: I am sorry friend Garrison has thought fit to use those words. He has been in scenes and situations like these, and has himself stood up and spoken in opposition to the opinions of audiences, too often not to have by this time been taught patience.

Mrs. Clark: Mr. Garrison is accustomed to call things by their right names.

Dr. Nevin: Very well, then I should call him—turning upon Mr. G.—worse names than those. Only one word has fallen from woman in this Convention, to which I can take exception, and that fell from the lips of a lady whom I have venerated from my childhood—it was, that the pulpit was the castle of cowards.

Mrs. Mott: I said it was John Chambers' cowards' castle; and I do say, that such ministers make it a castle of cowards; but I did not wish to make the remark general, or apply it to all pulpits.

Dr. Nevin continued some time longer.

Mrs. Foster asked, at the close of his remarks, if he believed it was right for woman to speak what she believed to be the truth, from the pulpit; to which he replied affirmatively, "there and everywhere."

Mrs. Rose: I might claim my right to reply to the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I might be able to prove from the arguments he brought forward, that he was incorrect in the statements he made, but I waive that right, the time has been so unjustly consumed already. To one thing only, I will reply. He charged France with being licentious, and spoke of the degraded position of French women, as the result of the infidelity of that nation. I throw back the slander he uttered, in regard to French women. I am not a French woman, but if there is no other here to vindicate them, I will do it. The French women are as moral as any other people in any country; and when they have not been as moral, it has been because they have been priest-ridden. I love to vindicate the rights of those who are not present to defend themselves.

Stephen S. Foster: Our "reverend" friend spoke of dragging infidelity into this Convention, as though infidelity had to be "dragged" here. I want to know if Christianity has been "dragged" here, when the speakers made it the basis of their arguments. Who ever dreamed of "dragging" Christianity here when they came to advocate the rights of woman in the name of Christ? Why then should any one stand up here and charge a speaker with "dragging" infidelity when he advocates the rights of woman under the name of an infidel. I supposed that Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scythian, Christian and Infidel had been invited to this platform. One thing I know, we have had barbarians here, whether we invited them or not; and I like to have barbarians here; I know of no place where they are so likely to be civilized. I have never yet been in a meeting managed by men when there was such conflict of feelings, where there was not also ten times as much confusion. And I think this meeting a powerful proof of the superiority of our principles over those who oppose us.

Tell me if Christianity has not ever held the reins in this country; and what has it done for woman? I am talking now of the popular idea of Christianity. What has Christianity done for woman for two hundred years past? Why, to-day, in this Christian nation, there are a million and a half of women bought and sold like cattle; a million and a half of women who can not say who are the fathers of their children! I ask, are we to depend on a Christianity like that to restore woman her rights? I am speaking of your idea of Christianity—of Dr. Nevin's idea of Christianity—I shall come to the true Christianity by and by.

One of two things is certain. The Church and Government deny to woman her rights. There is not a denomination in this country which places woman on an equality with man. Not one. Can you deny it?

Mrs. Mott: Except the Progressive Friends.

Mr. Foster: They are not a denomination, they have broken from all bands and taken the name of the Friends of Progress. I say there is not a religious society, having an organized body of ministers, which admits woman's equality in the Gospel. Now, tell me, in God's name, what we are to hope from the Church, when she leaves a million and a half of women liable to be brought upon the auction-block to-day? If the Bible is against woman's equality, what are you to do with it? One of two things: either you must sit down and fold up your hands, or you must discard the divine authority of the Bible. Must you not? You must acknowledge the correctness of your position, or deny the authority of the Bible. If you admit the construction put upon the Bible by friend Barker, to be a false one, or Miss Brown's construction to be the true one, what then? Why, then, the priesthood of the country are blind leaders of the blind. We have got forty thousand of them, Dr. Nevin included with the rest. He stands as an accredited Presbyterian, giving the hand of fellowship to the fraternity, and withholding it from Garrison and others—he could not even pray a few years ago in an anti-slavery meeting. Now, either the Bible is against the Church and clergy, or else they have misinterpreted it for two hundred years, yes, for six thousand years. You must then either discard the Bible or the priesthood, or give up Woman's Rights.

A friend says he does not regret this discussion. Why, it is the only thing we have done effectively since we have been here. When we played with jack-straws, we were hail-fellow with those who now oppose us. When you come to take up the great questions of the movement, when you propose to man, to divide with woman the right to rule, then a great opposition is aroused. The ballot-box is not worth a straw until woman is ready to use it. Suppose a law were passed to-morrow, declaring woman's rights equal with those of men, why, the facts would remain the same. The moment that woman is ready to go to the ballot-box, there is not a Constitution that will stand in the country. In this very city, in spite of the law, I am told that negroes go to the ballot-box and vote, without let or hindrance; and woman will go when she resolves upon it. What we want for woman is the right of speech; and in Dr. Nevin's reply to Mrs. Foster, does he mean that he would be willing to accord the right of speech to woman and admit her into the pulpit? I don't believe he would admit Antoinette Brown to his pulpit. I was sorry Mrs. Foster did not ask him if he would. I don't believe he dares to do it. I would give him a chance to affirm or deny it. I hope some other friend will give him that opportunity, and that Antoinette Brown may be able to say that she was invited by the pastor of one of the largest churches in this beautiful city, to speak to his people in his pulpit; but if he does it, he is not merely one among a thousand, but one among ten thousand.

I wish to have it understood that an infidel is as much at home here as a Christian; and that his principles are no more "dragged" here than those of a Christian. For myself, I claim to be a Christian. No man ever heard me speak of Christ or of His doctrines, but with the profoundest reverence. Still, I welcome upon this platform those who differ as far as possible from me. And the Atheist no more "drags" in his Atheism, provided he only shows that Atheism itself demands woman's equality, and is no more out of order than I, when I undertake to show that Christianity preaches one law, one faith, and one line of duty for all.

Mrs. Mott: We ought to thank Dr. Nevin for his kindly fears, lest we women should be brought out into the rough conflicts of life, and overwhelmed by infidelity. I thank him, but at the same time I must say, that if we have been able this afternoon to sit uninjured by the hard conflict in which he has been engaged, if we can maintain our patience at seeing him so laboriously build up a man of straw, and then throw it down and destroy it, I think we may be suffered to go into the world and bear many others unharmed.

Again, I would ask in all seriousness, by what right does Orthodoxy give the invidious name of Infidel, affix the stigma of infidelity, to those who dissent from its cherished opinions? What right have the advocates of moral reform, woman's rights, abolition, temperance, etc., to call in question any man's religious opinions? It is the assumption of bigots. I do not want now to speak invidiously, and say sectarian bigots, but I mean the same kind of bigotry which Jesus rebuked so sharply, when He called certain men "blind leaders of the blind."

Now, we hold Jesus up as an example, when we perceive the assumption of clergymen, that all who venture to dissent from a given interpretation, must necessarily be infidels; and thus denounce them as infidels; for it was only by inference, that one clergyman this afternoon made Joseph Barker deny the Son of God. By inference in the same way, he might be made to deny everything that is good, and praiseworthy, and true.

I want we should consider these things upon this platform. I am not troubled with difficulties about the Bible. My education has been such that I look to that Source whence all the inspiration of the Bible comes. I love the truths of the Bible. I love the Bible because it contains so many truths; but I never was educated to love the errors of the Bible; therefore it does not startle me to hear Joseph Barker point to some of those errors. And I can listen to the ingenious interpretation of the Bible, given by Antoinette Brown, and am glad to hear those who are so skilled in the outward, when I perceive that they are beginning to turn the Bible to so good an account. It gives evidence that the cause is making very good progress. Why, my friend Nevin has had to hear the temperance cause denounced as infidel, and proved so by Solomon; and he has, no doubt, seen the minister in the pulpit, turning over the pages of the Bible to find examples for the wrong. But the Bible will never sustain him in making this use of its pages, instead of using it rationally, and selecting such portions of it as would tend to corroborate the right; and these are plentiful; for notwithstanding the teaching of theology, and men's arts in the religious world, men have ever responded to righteousness and truth, when it has been advocated by the servants of God, so that we need not fear to bring truth to an intelligent examination of the Bible. It is a far less dangerous assertion to say that God is unchangeable, than that man is infallible.

In this debate on the Bible-position of woman, Mr. Garrison having always been a close student of that Book, was so clear in his positions, and so ready in his quotations, that he carried the audience triumphantly with him. The Rev. Dr. Nevin came out of the contest so chagrined, that, losing all sense of dignity, on meeting Mr. Garrison in the vestibule of the hall, at the close of the Convention, he seized him by the nose and shook him vehemently. Mr. Garrison made no resistance, and when released, he calmly surveyed his antagonist and said, "Do you feel better, my friend? do you hope thus to break the force of my argument?" The friends of the Rev. Mr. Nevin were so mortified with his ungentlemanly behavior that they suppressed the scene in the vestibule as far as possible, in the Cleveland journals, and urged the ladies who had the report of the Convention in charge, to make no mention of it in their publication. Happily, the fact has been resurrected in time to point a page of history.

A question arising in the Convention as to the colleges, Antoinette Brown remarked:

That much and deeply as she loved Oberlin, she must declare that it has more credit for liberality to woman than it deserves. Girls are not allowed equal privileges and advantages there; they are not allowed instructions in elocution, nor to speak on commencement day. The only college in the country that places all students on an equal footing, without distinction of sex or color, is McGrawville College in Central New York. Probably Antioch College, Ohio (President Horace Mann), will also admit pupils on the same ground.

Mrs. Rose said she knew of no college where both sexes enjoyed equal advantages. It matters not, however, if there be. We do not deal with exceptions, but with general principles.

A sister has well remarked that we do not believe that man is the cause of all our wrongs. We do not fight men—we fight bad principles. We war against the laws which have made men bad and tyrannical. Some will say, "But these laws are made by men." True, but they were made in ignorance of right and wrong, made in ignorance of the eternal principles of justice and truth. They were sanctioned by superstition, and engrafted on society by long usage. The Declaration issued by the Seneca Falls Convention is an instrument no less great, no less noble than that to which it bears a resemblance.

In closing she alluded to that portion of Mr. Channing's Declaration which referred to the code of morals by which a fallen woman is forever ruined, while the man who is the cause of, or sharer in her crime, is not visited by the slightest punishment. "It is time to consider whether what is wrong in one sex can be right in another. It is time to consider why if a woman commits a fault, too often from ignorance, from inexperience, from poverty, because of degradation and oppression—aye! because of designing, cruel man; being made cruel by ignorance of laws and institutions,—why such a being, in her helplessness, in her ignorance, in her inexperience and dependency—why a being thus situated, not having her mind developed, her faculties called out: and not allowed to mix in society to give her experience, not being acquainted with human nature, is drawn down, owing often to her best and tenderest feelings; in consequence also of being accustomed to look up to man as her superior, as her guardian, as her master,—why such a being should be cast out of the pale of humanity, while he who committed the crime, or who is, if not the main, the great secondary cause of it,—he who is endowed with superior advantages of education and experience, he who has taken advantage of that weakness and confiding spirit, which the young always have,—I ask, if the victim is cast out of the pale of society, shall the despoiler go free?" The question was answered by a thunder of "No! no! no!" from all parts of the house. A profound sensation was observable. "And yet," said Mrs. Rose, "he does go free!!"

Ernestine L. Rose, says the Plain Dealer, is the master-spirit of the Convention. She is described as a Polish lady of great beauty, being known in this country as an earnest advocate of human liberty. Though a slight foreign accent is perceptible, her delivery is effective. She spoke with great animation. The impression made by her address was favorable both to the speaker and the cause. In speaking of the personnel of the platform, it says:

Mrs. Lydia Ann Jenkins, of New York, who made an effective speech, is habited in the Bloomer costume, and appears to much advantage on the stage. Her face is amiable, and her delivery excellent. She is as fine a female orator as we have heard. The address embodied the usual arguments offered in favor of this cause, and were put in a forcible and convincing manner. We say convincing, because such a speaker would convince the most obdurate unbeliever against his will.

Miss Stone is somewhat celebrated for an extraordinary enthusiasm in the cause of her sex, and for certain eccentricities of speech and thought, as well as of outward attire. She is as independent in mind as in dress. She is as ready to throw off the restraints society seems to have placed on woman's mind, as she is to cast aside what she considers an absurd fashion in dress. Without endorsing the eliminated petticoats, we can not but admire Miss Stone's "stern old Saxon pluck," and her total independence of the god, Fashion. Her dress is first a black velvet coat with collar, fastened in front with buttons, next a skirt of silk, reaching to the knees, then "she wears the breeches" of black silk, with neat-fitting gaiters. Her hair is cut short and combed straight back. Her face is not beautiful, but there is mind in it; it is earnest, pleasant, prepossessing. Miss Stone must be set down as a lady of no common abilities, and of uncommon energy in the pursuit of a cherished idea. She is a marked favorite in the Conventions.

During the proceedings, Miss Brown, in a long speech on the Bible, had expounded many doctrines and passages of Scripture in regard to woman's position, in direct opposition to the truths generally promulgated by General Assemblies, and the lesser lights of the Church. Mrs. Emma R. Coe took an equally defiant position toward the Bench and the Bar, coolly assuming that she understood the spirit of Constitutions and Statute Laws. Some lawyer had made a criticism on the woman's petition then circulating in Ohio, and essayed to give the Convention some light on the laws of the State, to all of which Mrs. Coe says:

I have very little to say this evening beyond reading a letter, received by me to-day. (Here follows the letter). I beg leave to inform the gentleman, if he is present, that I believe I understand these laws, and this point particularly, very nearly as well as himself; and that I am well acquainted with the laws passed since 1840, as with those enacted previous to that time. I would also inform him that the committee, some of whom are much better read in law than myself, were perfectly aware of the existence of the statutes he mentions, but did not see fit to incorporate them into the petition, not only on account of their great length, but because they do not at all invalidate the position which the petition affects to establish, viz: the inequality of the sexes before the law. Their insertion, therefore, would have been utterly superfluous. This letter refers, evidently, to that portion of the petition which treats of the equalization of property, which I will now read. (Then follows the reading of one paragraph of the petition). Again I refer you to the letter, the first paragraph of which is as follows:

"Mrs. Emma R. Coe, will you look at Vol. 44, General Laws of Ohio, page 75, where you will find that the property of the wife can not be taken for the debts of her husband, etc.; and all articles of household furniture, and goods which a wife shall have brought with her in marriage, or which shall have come to her by bequest, gift, etc., after marriage, or purchased with her separate money or other property, shall be exempt from liability for the debts of her husband, during her life, and during the life of any heir of her body."

Very true: we readily admit the law of which the gentleman has given an abstract; and so long as the wife holds the property in her hands, just as she received it, it can not be taken for the husband's debts, but the moment she permits her husband to convert that property into another shape, it becomes his, and may be taken for his debts. The gentleman I presume will admit this at once.

The next paragraph of the letter reads thus: "Also in Vol. 51, General Laws of Ohio, page 449, the act regulating descent, etc., provides, that real estate, which shall have come to the wife by descent, devise, or gift, from her ancestor, shall descend—first, to her children, or their legal representatives. Second, if there be no children, or their legal representatives living, the estate shall pass to the brothers and sisters of the intestate, who may be of the blood of the ancestor from whom the estate came, or their legal representatives," etc. True again: So long as the wife holds real estate in her own name, in title, and in title only, it is hers; for her husband even then controls its profits, and if she leave it so, it will descend to her heirs so long as she has an heir, and so long as she can trace the descent. But if she suffers her husband to sell that property and receive the money, it instantly becomes his; and instead of descending to her heirs, it descends to his heirs. This the gentleman will not deny. Now, we readily admit, that while the wife abides by the statutes, of which our article has given us an abstract, her husband can not take the property from her, he can only take the use of it. But the moment she departs from the statute, she comes under the provisions of the common law; which, when they do not conflict, is equally binding in Ohio, as the statute law. And in this case the common and statute laws do not conflict. Departing from the statute, that is, suffering her property to be exchanged, the provision is thus: (Here follows the common law, taken from the petition). I have nothing further to add on this point, but will quote the last paragraphs in the letter.

"If you would know what our laws are, you must refer to the laws passed in Ohio since 1840."

This has already been answered.

"You said last night, that the property of the wife passed to the husband, even to his sixteenth cousin! Will you correct your error? And oblige

A Buckeye."

I should be extremely happy to oblige the gentleman, but having committed no error there is nothing to correct; and I do not, therefore, see that I can in conscience comply with his request. I am, however, exceedingly thankful for any expression of interest from that quarter. There are other laws which might be mentioned, which really give woman an apparent advantage over man; yet, having no relevancy to the subject in the petition, we did not see fit to introduce them. One of these is, that no woman shall be subject to arrest and imprisonment for debt; while no man, that is, no ordinary man, none unless he has a halo of military glory around his brow, is held sacred from civil process of this kind. But this exemption is of very little benefit to woman, since, if the laws were as severe to her as to man, she would seldom risk the penalty. For this there are two very good reasons. One is, that conscious of her inability to discharge obligations of this kind, she has little disposition to run deeply into debt; and the other is, that she has not the credit to do it if she wished! If, however, she does involve herself in this way, the law exempts her from imprisonment. This, perhaps, is offered as a sort of palliation for the disabilities which she suffers in other respects. The only object of the petition is, I believe, that the husband and wife be placed upon a legal and political equality. If the law gives woman an advantage over man, we deprecate it as much as he can. Partiality to either, to the injury of the other, is wrong in principle, and we must therefore oppose it. We do not wish to be placed in the position which the husband now occupies. We do not wish that control over his interests, which he may now exercise over the interests of the wife. We would no sooner intrust this power to woman than to man. We would never place her in authority over her husband.

The question of woman's voting, of the propriety of woman's appearing at the polls, is already settled. See what has been done in Detroit: On the day of the late election, the women went to the offices and stores of gentlemen, asking them if they had voted. If the reply happened to be in the negative, as was often the case, the next question was, "Will you be kind enough to take this vote, sir, and deposit it in the ballot-box for me?" Which was seldom, if ever, refused. And so, many a man voted for the "Maine Law," who would not, otherwise, have voted at all. But this was not all; many women kept themselves in the vicinity of the polls, and when they found a man undecided, they ceased not their entreaties until they had gained him to the Temperance cause. More than this, two women finding an intemperate man in the street, talked to him four hours, before they could get him to promise to vote as they wished. Upon his doing so, they escorted him, one on each side, to the ballot-box, saw him deposit the vote they had given him, and then treated him to a good supper.

Now, this is more than any Woman's Rights advocate ever thought of proposing. Yet no one thinks of saying a word against it, because it was done for temperance. But how much worse would it have been for those women to have gone to the polls with a brother or husband, instead of with this man? Or to have deposited two votes in perhaps five minutes' time, than to have spent four hours in soliciting some other person to give one? Why is it worse to go to the ballot-box with our male friends, than to the church, parties, or picnics, etc.? If a man should control the political principles of his wife, he should also control her religious principles.

Charles C. Burleigh: Among the resolutions which have been acted upon and adopted by this meeting is one which affirms that for man to attempt to fix the sphere of woman, is cool assumption. I purpose to take that sentiment for the text of a few words of remark this evening, for it is just there that I think the whole controversy hinges. It is not so much what is woman's appropriate sphere; it is not so much what she may do and what she may not do, that we have to contend about; as whether one human being or one class of human beings is to fix for another human being, or another class of human beings, the proper field of action and the proper mode of employing the faculties which God has given them. If I understand aright the principles of liberty, just here is the point of controversy, between the despot and the champion of human rights, in any department. Just when one human being assumes to decide for another what is that other's sphere of action, just then despotism begins. Everything else is but the legitimate consequence of this.

I have said it is not so much a matter of controversy what woman may do or may not do. Why, it would be a hard matter to say what has been recognized by men themselves, as the legitimate sphere of woman. We have a great deal of contradiction and opposition nowadays when woman attempts to do this, that, or the other thing, although that very thing has sometime or other, and somewhere or other, been performed or attempted to be performed by woman, with man's approval. If you talk about politics, why, woman's participation in politics is no new thing, is no mere assumption on her part, but has been recognized as right and proper by men.

You have already been told of distinguished women who have borne a very prominent part in politics, both in ancient and modern times, and yet the multitude of men have believed and acknowledged that it was all right; and are now acknowledging it with all the enthusiasm of devoted loyalty. They are now acknowledging it in the case of an Empire on which it has been said that the sun never sets—an Empire, "The morning drumbeat of whose military stations circles the earth with one continued peal of the martial airs of England." It is recognized, too, not by the ignorant and thoughtless only, or the radical and heretical alone, but also by multitudes of educated and pious men. That bench of Bishops, sitting in the House of Lords, receiving its very warrant to act politically, from the hands of a woman, listening to a speech from a woman on the throne, endorses every day the doctrine that a woman may engage in politics.

If you seize the young tree, when it just begins to put forth to the air and sunshine and dews, and bend it in all directions for fear it will not grow in proper shape, do not hold the tree accountable for its distortion. There is no danger that from acorns planted last year, pine trees will grow, if you do not take some special care to prevent it. There is no danger that from an apple will grow an oak, or, from a peach-stone an elm; leave nature to work out her own results, or, in other words, leave God to work out His own purpose, and be not so anxious to intrude yourselves upon Him and to help Him govern the Universe He has made. Some of us have too high an estimation of His goodness and wisdom to be desirous of thrusting ourselves into His government. We are willing to leave the nature of woman to manifest itself in its own aptitudes. Try it. Did one ever trust in God and meet with disappointment? Never! Tyrants always say it is not safe to trust their subjects with freedom. Austria says it is not safe to trust the Hungarian with freedom. Man says woman is not safe in freedom, she will get beyond her sphere.

After having oppressed her for centuries, what wonder if she should rebound, and at the first spring, even manifest that law of reaction somewhat to your inconvenience, and somewhat even beyond the dictates of the wisest judgment. What then? Is the fault to be charged to the removal of the restraint; or is it to be charged to the first imposition of the restraint? The objection of our opponents remind one of the Irishman walking among the bushes just behind his companion, who caught hold of a branch, and passing on, let it fly back into the face of his friend; "Indade I am thankful to ye!" said the injured man, "for taking hold of that same; it a'most knocked the brains out of me body as it was, an' sure, if ye hadn't caught hold of it, it would have kilt me intirely!"

The winds come lashing over your lake, the waters piling upon each other, wave rolling upon wave, and you may say what a pity we could not bridge the lake over with ice, so as to keep down these billows which may rise so high as to submerge us. But stand still! God has fixed the law upon the waters, "thus far shalt thou come"; and as you watch the ever piling floods, it secures their timely downfall. When they come as far as their appointed limits, the combing crest of the wave tells that the hour of safety has arrived, proving that God was wiser than you in writing down laws for His creation. We need not bridge over woman's nature with the ice of conventionalism, for fear she will swell up, aye, and overflow the continent of manhood. There is no danger. Trust to the nature God has given to humanity, and do not except the nature He has given to this portion of humanity.

But I need not dwell upon such an argument before an audience who have witnessed the bearing of women in this Convention. It is a cool, aye, insolent assumption for man to prescribe the sphere of woman. What is the sphere of woman? Clearly, you say, her powers, her natural instincts and desires determine her sphere. Who, then, best knows those instincts and desires? Is it he who has all his knowledge at second-hand, rather than she who has it in all her consciousness?

If, then, you find in the progress of the race hitherto, that woman has revealed herself pure, true, and beautiful, and lofty in spirit, just in proportion as she has enjoyed the right to reveal herself; if this is the testimony of all past experience, I ask you where you will find the beginning of an argument against the claim of woman to the right to enlarge her sphere yet more widely, than she has hitherto done. Wait until you see some of these apprehended evils, aye, a little later even, than that, until you see the natural subsidence of the reaction from the first out-bound of their oppression, before you tell us it is not safe or wise to permit woman the enlargement of her own sphere.

The argument which I have thus based upon the very nature of man, and of humanity and God, is confirmed in every particular—is most impregnably fortified on every point, by the facts of all past experience and all present observation; and out of all this evidence of woman's right and fitness to determine her own sphere, I draw a high prophecy of the future. I look upon this longing of hers for a yet higher and broader field, as an evidence that God designed her to enter upon it.

"Want, is the garner of our bounteous Sire;

Hunger, the promise of its own supply."

I might even add the rest of the passage as an address to woman herself, who still hesitates to assert the rights which she feels to be hers and longs to enjoy; I might repeat to her in the words of the same poet:

"We weep, because the good we seek is not,

When but for this it is not, that we weep; We creep in dust to wail our lowly lot, Which were not lowly, if we scorned to creep; That which we dare we shall be, when the will Bows to prevailing Hope, its would-be to fulfill."

It can be done. This demand of woman can be nobly and successfully asserted. It can be, because it is but the out-speaking of the divine sentiment of woman. Let us not then tremble, or falter, or despair—I know we shall not. I know that those who have taken hold of this great work, and carried it forward hitherto, against obloquy, and persecution, and contempt, will not falter now. No! Every step is bearing us to a higher eminence, and thus revealing a broader promise of hope, a brighter prospect of success. Though they who are foremost in this cause must bear obloquy and reproach, and though it may seem to the careless looker-on, that they advance but little or not at all; they know that the instinct which impels them being divine, it can not be that they shall fail. They know that every quality of their nature, every attribute of their Creator, is pledged to their success.

"They never fail who gravely plead for right,

God's faithful martyrs can not suffer loss.

Their blazing faggots sow the world with light,

Heaven's gate swings open on their bloody cross."

Pres. Mahan: If I would not be interrupting at all, there are a few thoughts having weight upon my mind which I should be very happy to express. I have nothing to say to excite controversy at all, but there are things which are said, the ultimate bearing of which I believe is not always understood. I have heard during these discussions, things said which bear this aspect—that the relation of ruler and subject is that of master and slave. The idea of the equality of woman with man, seems to be argued upon this idea. I am not now to speak whether it is lawful for man to rule the woman at all; but I wish to make a remark upon the principles of governor and governed. The idea seems to be suggested that if the wife is subject to the husband, the wife is a slave to the man—if He has said, in the sense in which some would have it, even that the woman should be subject to the man, and the wife to the husband, you will find that in no other position will woman attain her dignity; for God has never dropped an inadvertent thought, never penned an inadvertent line. There is not a law or principle of His being, that whoever penned that Book did not understand. There is not a right which that Book does not recognize; and there is not a duty which man owes to woman, or woman to man, that is not there enjoined. It is my firm conviction, that there is but one thing to be done on this subject—if the women of this State want the elective franchise, they can have it. I don't believe it is in the heart of man to refuse it. Only spread the truth, adhere to Woman's Rights, and adhere to that one principle, and when the people are convinced that her claim is just, it will be allowed.

Of Charles C. Burleigh the Plain Dealer says:

This noble poet had not said much in the Convention. He had taken no part in the interferences and interruptions of other gentlemen, Mr. Barker and Mr. Nevin for instance.

When at length he took the stand he did indeed speak out a noble defense of woman's rights. It was the only speech made before the Convention by man in which the cause of woman was advocated exclusively. When Mr. Burleigh arose, two or three geese hissed; when he closed, a shower of applause greeted him.

We hope the reader will not weary of these debates. As the efforts of many of our early speakers were extemporaneous, but little of what they said will be preserved beyond this generation unless recorded now. These debates show the wit, logic, and readiness of our women; the clear moral perception, the courage, and honesty of our noble Garrison; the skill and fiery zeal of Stephen Foster; the majesty and beauty of Charles Burleigh; and, in Asa Mahan, the vain struggles of the wily priest, to veil with sophistry the degrading slavery of woman, in order to reconcile her position as set forth in certain man-made texts of Scripture with eternal justice and natural law. Mr. Mahan would not have been willing himself, to accept even the mild form of subjection he so cunningly assigns to woman. The deadliest opponents to the recognition of the equal rights of woman, have ever been among the orthodox clergy as a class.