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.

WORLD'S TEMPERANCE CONVENTION.

Just previous to this, two stormy Conventions had been held in the city of New York; one called to discuss Woman's Rights, the other a World's Temperance Convention. Thus many of the leaders of each movement met for the first time to measure their powers of logic and persuasion.

Antoinette L. Brown was appointed a delegate by two Temperance associations. Her credentials were accepted, and she took her seat as a member of the Convention; but when she arose to speak a tempest of indignation poured upon her from every side. As this page in history was frequently referred to in the Cleveland Convention, we will let Miss Brown here tell her own story:

Why did we go to that World's Convention? We went there because the call was extended to "the world." On the 12th of May a preliminary meeting had been held at New York—the far-famed meeting at the Brick Chapel. There, because of the objection taken by some who were not willing to have the "rest of mankind" come into the Convention, a part of those present withdrew. They thought they would have a "Whole World's Temperance Convention," and they thought well, as the result proved. When it was known that such a Convention would be called, that all persons would be invited to consider themselves members of the Convention, who considered themselves members of the world, some of the leaders of the other Convention—the half world's Convention—felt that if it were possible, they would not have such a meeting held; therefore they took measures to prevent it. Now, let me read a statement from another delegate to that Convention, Rev. Wm. H. Channing, of Rochester. (Miss Brown read an extract from the Tribune, giving the facts in regard to her appointment as delegate, by a society of long standing, in Rochester, and extracts, also, of letters from persons prominent in the Brick Chapel meeting, urging Mr. Greeley to persuade his party to abandon the idea of a separate Convention, a part of such writers pleading that it was an unnecessary movement, as the call to the World's Temperance Convention was broad enough, and intended to include all). This appointment was made without my knowledge or consent, but with my hearty endorsement, when I knew it was done. Let me state also, that a society organized and for years in existence in South Butler, N. Y., also appointed delegates to that Convention, and myself among the number. They did so because, though they knew the call invited all the world to be present, yet they thought it best to have their delegations prepared with credentials, if being prepared would do any good.

When we reached New York, we heard some persons saying that women would be received as delegates, and others saying they would not. We thought we ought to test that matter, and do it, too, as delicately and quietly as possible. There were quite a number of ladies appointed delegates to that meeting, but it was felt that not many would be necessary to make the test of their sincerity.

We met at the Woman's Bights Convention on the day of the opening of the half world's Temperance Convention, and had all decided to be content with our own Temperance Convention, which had passed off so quietly and triumphantly. Wendell Phillips and I sat reconsidering the whole matter. I referred him to the fact, which had come to me more than once during the few last days, that the officials of the Convention in session at Metropolitan Hall, and others, had been saying that women would be received no doubt; that the Brick Chapel meeting was merely an informal preliminary meeting, and its decisions of no authority upon the Convention proper; and that the women were unjust in saying, that their brethren would not accept their co-operation before it had been fairly tested. Then, said Phillips, "Go, by all means; if they receive you, you have only to thank them for rebuking the action of the Brick Chapel meeting. Then we will withdraw and come back to our own meeting. If, on the other hand, they do not receive you, we will quietly and without protest, withdraw, and, in that case, not be gone half an hour." I turned and invited one lady, now on this platform, as gentle and lady-like as woman can be, Caroline M. Severance, of your own city, to go with me. She said: "I am quite willing to go, both in compliance with your wish, and from interest in the cause itself. But I am not a delegate, and I have in this city venerated grandparents, whose feelings I greatly regard, and would not willingly or unnecessarily wound; so that I prefer to go in quietly, but take no active part in what will seem to them an antagonistic position for woman, and uncalled for on my part. In that way I am quite ready to go." And so we went out from our own meeting, Mr. Phillips, Mrs. S., and myself; none others went with us, nor knew we were going.

After arriving at Metropolitan Hall, accompanied by these friends, I did quietly what we had predetermined was the best to do. The Secretary was sitting upon the platform. I handed him my credentials from both societies. He said: "I can not now tell whether you will be received or not. There is a resolution before the house, stating, in substance, that they would receive all delegates without distinction of color or sex. If this resolution is adopted, you can be received." I then left my credentials in his hands, and went down from the platform. It was rather trying, in the sight of all that audience, to go upon the platform and come down again; and I shall not soon forget the sensations with which I stepped off the platform. After a little time they decided that the call admitted all delegates. I thought this decision settled my admission, and I went again upon the platform. In the meantime a permanent organization was effected. I went there, for the purpose of thanking them for their course, and merely to express my sympathy with the cause and their present movement, and then intended to leave the Hall. I arose, and inquired of the President, Neal Dow, if I was rightly a member of the Convention. He said, "Yes, if you have credentials from any abstinence societies." I told him I had, and then attempted to thank him. There was no appeal from the President's decision, but yet they would not receive my expression of thanks; therefore I took my seat and waited for a better opportunity.

And now let me read a paragraph again from this paper, the temperance organ of your State. The writer is still Gen. Carey. (The extract intimated that Miss Brown, supported and urged on by several others, made an unwomanly entrance into the Convention, and upon the platform itself, which was reserved for officers, and as it would imply, already filled). There were only the two other persons I mentioned who went with me to that Convention, but they took their seats back among the audience, and did not approach the platform. There were friends I found in that audience to sustain me, but none others came with me for that purpose. The platform was far from being full; it is a large platform, and there might a hundred persons sit there, and not incommode each other at all.

(Here Miss Brown read another extract from the same article, in which Gen. Carey implies, that concerted measures had been set on foot at the Woman's Rights meeting at the Tabernacle, the evening after Miss Brown's first attempt at a hearing before the Temperance Convention, for coming in upon them again en masse, and revengefully).

Not a word was said that night upon the subject in the Convention at the Tabernacle, except what was said by myself; and I said what I did, because some one inquired whether I was hissed on going upon the platform. As to that matter, when I went upon the platform I was not hissed, at others times I did not know whether they hissed me or others, and

"Where ignorance is bliss,'tis folly to be wise."

I stated some of the facts to our own Convention, but I did not refer to this resolution (the one which was to exclude all but officers or invited guests from the platform), for I was not entirely clear with regard to the nature of it, it was passed in so much confusion. I did state this, that there had been a discussion raised upon such a resolution, and that it was decided that only officers and invited guests should sit upon the platform; but that they had received me as a delegate, and had thus revoked the action of the Brick Chapel meeting, and that on the morrow Neal Dow might invite me to sit upon the platform. That was the substance of my remarks, and not one word of objection was taken, or reply made by our Convention.

I read again from this paper. (An extract implying that among the measures taken to browbeat the Convention into receiving Miss Brown, was the forming of a society instantly, under the special urgency of herself and friends, for this especial object, etc.) That again is a statement without foundation. I intend to-night to use no harsh words, and I shall say nothing with regard to motives. You may draw your own conclusions in regard to all this. I shall state dispassionately, the simple, literal facts as they occurred, and they may speak for themselves.

When Wendell Phillips went out of the Convention, he told persons with whom he came in contact, that a delegate had been received by the President, and that delegate had been insulted, and nobody had risen to sustain her. He said to me, too, "I shall not go to-morrow, but do you go. I can do nothing for you, because I am not a delegate." There were a few earnest friends in New York, however, who felt that the rights of a delegate were sacred. They organized a society and appointed just three delegates to that Temperance Convention. Those three persons were Wendell Phillips, of Boston; Mr. Cleveland, one of the editors of the Tribune; and Mr. Gibbon, son-in-law of the late venerated Isaac T. Hopper. The last two were men from New York City. The question was already decided that women might be received as delegates to that Convention; therefore there was no need of appointing any one to insist upon woman's right to appear, and no one was appointed for that purpose.

The next morning we went there with Mr. Phillips, who presented his credentials. During the discussion, Mr. Phillips took part, and persisted in holding the Convention to parliamentary rules. He carried in his hand a book of rules, which is received everywhere as authority, and when he saw that they were wrong, he quoted the standard authority to them. After a while the preliminary business was disposed of, and various resolutions were brought forward. I arose, and the President said I had the floor. I was invited upon the stand, and was therefore an "invited guest" within their own rules; but when once there, I was not allowed to speak, although the President said repeatedly that the floor was mine. The opposition arose from a dozen or more around the platform, who were incessantly raising "points of order"—the extempore bantlings of great minds in great emergencies. For the space of three hours I endeavored to be heard, but they would not hear me (although as a delegate, and I spoke simply as a delegate), I could have spoken but ten minutes by a law of the house. Twice the President was sustained in his decision by the house; but finally some one insisted that there might be persons voting in the house who were not delegates, and it was decided that the Hall should be cleared by the police, and that those who were delegates might come in, one by one, and resume their seats.

There were printed lists of the delegates of the Convention, but there were several new delegates whose names were not on the lists. Wendell Phillips and his colleagues were among them. He went to the President and said: "I rely upon you to be admitted to the Hall, for we know that our names are not yet on the list." The President assented. As the delegates returned, the names upon the printed lists were called, and while the rest of us were earnest to be admitted to the house, and while they were examining our credentials and deciding whether or not we should be received, Neal Dow had gone out of the Hall, and Gen. Carey had taken the Chair! The action of a part of the delegates who were in the house while the other part were shut out, was like to nothing that ever had occurred in the annals of parliamentary history. Those persons who came in afterward, asked what was the business before the house, and on being informed, moved that it be reconsidered. The President decided upon putting it to the house, that they had not voted in the affirmative, and would not reconsider. Gen. Samuel F. Carey is a man of firmness, and I could not but admire the firmness with which he presided, although I felt that his decisions were wrong. "Gentlemen," said he, "there can be no order when you are raising so many points of order; take your seats!" and they took their seats.

Previous to the adjournment, a question was raised about Wendell Phillips' credentials, and again next morning they raised it and decided it against him, so that he felt all further effort vain, and left the Hall. After this, there came up a multitude of resolutions, which were passed so rapidly that no one could get the opportunity of speaking to them. A resolution also written by Gen. Carey, was presented by him, as follows:

"Resolved, That the common usages have excluded women from the public platform," etc.

That resolution, amid great confusion, was declared as passed. Of course, then soon after, I left the Hall. I ought to say, in regard to Mr. Phillips' credentials, that they had been referred to a committee, who decided that he had not properly been sent to the Convention, for no reason in the world, but because the society who sent him, had been organized only the night before; while I know positively, and others knew, that there were societies organized one week before, for the very purpose of sending delegates to that Convention; which societies will never be heard of again, I fear. But the Neal Dow Association, of New York, exists yet. Their society shall not die; so good comes out of evil often.

A motion was also made by some one, as better justice to Mr. Phillips, to refer the credentials of all the delegates of Massachusetts to the Committee on Credentials, but for very obvious and prudent reasons, it was not suffered to have a moment's hearing or consideration. (Miss Brown here read a few additional lines from the same article, asserting that she was merely the tool of others, and thrust by them upon the platform; and charging all the disorder and disturbance of that Convention to herself and friends, etc.) I needed no thrusting upon the platform. I was able to rise and speak without urging or suggestion. And as to the disorder which prevailed throughout the Convention, who made that disorder? I said not a word to cause it, for they gave me no opportunity to say a word, and the other delegates with me, sat quietly. No mention is made in this paper that I had credentials. It is stated that throughout Ohio the impression is that I had none; and it is generally believed that I went there without proper credentials.

One word more as to Mr. Carey. He says, "The negro question was not discussed as Greeley & Co. wished it to be. O Greeley, how art thou fallen!" These are Gen. Carey's words, not mine. Mr. Greeley has risen greatly in my estimation, and not fallen. A colored delegate[18] did take his credentials to the Convention, but he was not received. I saw him myself, and asked him what could be done about it. He folded up his hands and said it was too late. And this was a "World's Temperance Convention!"

And this paper says that the New York Tribune, which has usually been an accredited sheet, has most shamefully misrepresented the whole affair, and refers to what was said in the Tribune, as to what the Convention had accomplished: "The first day, crowding a woman from the platform; second day, gagging her; and the third day voting she should stay gagged;" and asserts that it is a misrepresentation.

The evenings of that Convention were not devoted to this discussion, and wore not noisy or fruitless. There were burning words spoken for temperance during the evenings; but whether the Tribune's report of the day-sessions be correct or not, you yourselves can be the judges. I must say, however, the Tribune did not misrepresent that affair in its regular report; and I call upon Gen. Carey, in all kindness and courtesy; to point out just what the misstatements are—and upon any one acquainted with the facts, to show the false statement, if it can be shown.

And now I leave the action of the Convention to say what were our motives in going there. From what I have related of the circumstances which conspired to induce us to go, and the manner of our going, you can but see that no absurd desire for notoriety, no coveting of such unenviable fame as we know must await us, were the inducements. And as a simple fact, there was nothing so very important in a feeble woman's going as a delegate to that Convention; but the fact was made an unpleasant one in the experience of that delegate, and was blown into notoriety by the unmanly action of that Convention itself. But what were our reasons for going to that Convention? Did we go there to forward the cause of Temperance or to forward the cause of woman, or what were our motives in going? Woman was pleading her own cause in the Convention at the Tabernacle, and she had no need that any should go there to forward her cause for her; and much as I love temperance, and love those poor sisters who suffer because of intemperance, it was not especially to plead their cause that I went there. I went to assert a principle, a principle relevant to the circumstances of the World's Convention to be sure, but one, at the same time, which, acknowledged, must forward all good causes, and, disregarded, must retard them. I went there, asking no favor as a woman, asking no special recognition of the woman-cause. I went there in behalf of the cause of humanity. I went there, asking the indorsement of no ism, and as the exponent of no measure, but as a simple item of the world in the name of the world, claiming that all the sons and daughters of the race should be received in that Convention, if they went there with the proper credentials. I simply planted my feet upon the rights of a delegate. I asked for nothing more, and dare take nothing less. The principle which we were there to assert, was that which is the soul of the Golden Rule, the soul of that which says, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." I went there to see if they would be true to their own call, and recognize delegates without distinction of color, sex, creed, party, or condition; to see if they would recognize each member of the human family, as belonging to the human family; to see if they would grant the simple rights of a delegate to all delegates.

And do you ask, did this not retard the cause of Temperance? No; it carried it forward, as it carries every good cause forward. It awakened thought, and mankind need only to be aroused to thought, to forever destroy all wrong customs, and among them the rum traffic. They need only to think to the purpose, and when this shall be done, all good causes are bound to go forward together. Christianity is the heart and soul of them all, and those reforms which seek to elevate mankind and better their condition, cling around our Christianity, and are a part of it. They are like the cluster of grapes, all clinging about the central stem.

A wrong was done in that Convention to a delegate, and many people saw and felt that wrong, and they began to inquire for the cause of it; and so the causes of things were searched more nearly than before, and this was a good which promoted temperance. It is absurd to believe that any man or woman is any less a temperance man or woman, or a "Maine law" man or woman now, than before. If ever they loved that cause they love it now as before.

Water is the very symbol of democracy! a single jet of it in a tube will balance the whole ocean. We went there, only to claim in the name of Democracy and Christianity, that all be treated alike and impartially. The human soul is a holy thing; it is the temple of living joy or sorrow. It is freighted with vital realities. It can outlengthen Heaven itself, and it should be reverenced everywhere, and treated always as a holy thing. We only went there in the name of the world, in the name of humanity, to promote a good cause; and it is what I pledge myself now anew to do, at all times and under all circumstances, when the opportunity shall present itself to me. It was a good act, a Christian duty, to go there under those circumstances.

But let me now leave this matter, and say something which may have a direct bearing upon the circumstances of our Convention, and show why it is proper to bring up these facts here. Let us suppose ourselves gathered in Metropolitan Hall. It is a large hall, with two galleries around its sides. I could see men up there in checked blouses, who looked as though they might disturb a Convention, but they looked down upon the rowdyism of the platform, a thing unprecedented before, with simple expressions of wonder, while they were quiet. Well, here we are upon the platform. The President is speaking.

PRESIDENT: "Miss Brown has the floor."

A DELEGATE: "Mr. President, I rise to a point of order."

PRESIDENT: "State your point of order."

It is stated, but at the same time, in the general whirl and confusion all around, another voice from the floor exclaims: "I rise to a point of order!"

The PRESIDENT: "State it!"

But while these things are going on, a voice arises, "She sha'n't speak!" another, "She sha'n't be heard!" another, "You raise a point of order when he is done, and I will raise another." In the confusion I hear something almost like swearing, but not swearing, for most of those men are "holy men," who do not think of swearing. The confusion continues. Most of this time I am standing, but presently a chair is presented me, and now a new class of comforters gathers around me, speaking smooth, consoling words in my ear while upon the other side are angry disputants, clinching their fists and growing red in the face. Are the former good Samaritans, pouring into my wounded heart the oil and the wine? Listen. "I know you are acting conscientiously; but now that you have made your protest, do, for your own sake, withdraw from this disgraceful scene."

"I can not withdraw," I say; "it is not now the time to withdraw; here is a principle at stake."

"Well, in what way can you better the cause? Do you feel you are doing any good?" Another voice chimes in with: "Do you love the Temperance cause? Can you continue here and see all this confusion prevailing around you? Why not withdraw, and then the Convention will be quiet;" and all this in most mournful, dolorous tones. I think if the man cries, I shall certainly cry too.

But then a new interval of quiet occurs, and so I rise to get the floor. I fancy myself in a melting mood enough to beg them, with prayers and tears, to be just and righteous; but no, "this kind goeth not out by prayer and fasting," and so I stand up again. Directly Rev. John Chambers points his finger at me, and calls aloud: "Shame on the woman! Shame on the woman!" Then I feel cool and calm enough again, and sit down until his anger has way. Again the "friends" gather around me, and there come more appeals to me, while the public ear is filled with "points of order"; and the two fall together, in a somewhat odd, but very pointed contrast, somewhere in the center of my brain. "Do you think," says one, "that Christ would have done so?" spoken with a somewhat negative emphasis. "I think He would," spoken with a positive emphasis. "Do you love peace as well as Christ loved it, and can you do thus?"

What answer I made I know not, but there came rushing over my soul the words of Christ: "I came not to send peace, but a sword." It seems almost to be spoken with an audible voice, and it sways the spirit more than all things else. I remember that Christ's doctrine was, "first pure, then peaceable;" that He, too, was persecuted. So are my doctrines good; they ask only for the simple rights of a delegate, only that which must be recognized as just, by the impartial Father of the human race, and by His holy Son. Then come these mock pleading tones again upon my ear, and instinctively I think of the Judas kiss, and I arise, turning away from them all, and feeling a power which may, perhaps, never come to me again. There were angry men confronting me, and I caught the flashing of defiant eyes; but above me, and within me, and all around me, there was a spirit stronger than they all. At that moment not the combined powers of earth and hell could have tempted me to do otherwise than to stand firm. Moral and physical cowardice were subdued, thanks to that Washington delegate for the sublime strength roused by his question: "Would Christ have done so?"

That stormy scene is passed; that memorable time when chivalrous men forgot the deference, which according to their creed is due to woman, and forgot it as they publicly said, because a woman claimed a right upon the platform; and so they neither recognized her equality of rights, nor her conceded courtesy as a lady. This was neither just nor gallant, but to me it was vastly preferable to those appeals made to me as a lady—appeals which never would have been made to a man under the same circumstances; and which only served to show me the estimation in which they held womanhood. It reminded me of a remark which was made concerning the Brick Chapel meeting: "If you had spoken words of flattery, they would have done what you wanted."

Let the past be the past. "Let the dead bury their dead," contains truths we well may heed. Is God the impartial Father of humanity? Is He no respecter of persons? Is it true that there is known neither male nor female in Christ Jesus? In my heart of hearts, I believe it is all true. I believe it is the foundation of the Golden Rule. And now let me tell you in conclusion: if it be true, this truth shall steal into your souls like the accents of childhood; it shall come like a bright vision of hope to the desponding; it shall flash upon the incredulous; it shall twine like a chain of golden arguments about the reason of the skeptic.

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, having listened to the narration of the action of the World's Convention in New York, said: I rise to offer some resolutions by which the sense of this Convention may be obtained. I happened to be an eyewitness of these proceedings, and I bear witness to the accuracy of the account given us this evening by Miss Brown. I have seen many tumultuous meetings in my day, but I think on no occasion have I ever seen anything more disgraceful to our common humanity, than when Miss Brown attempted to speak upon the platform of the World's Temperance Convention in aid of the glorious cause which had brought that Convention together. It was an outbreak of passion, contempt, indignation, and every vile emotion of the soul, throwing into the shade almost everything coming from the vilest of the vile, that I have ever witnessed on any occasion or under any circumstances; venerable men, claiming to be holy men, the ambassadors of Jesus Christ, losing all self-respect and transforming themselves into the most unmannerly and violent spirits, merely on account of the sex of the individual who wished to address the assembly.

Miss Brown was asked while standing on the platform, "Do you love the temperance cause?" What could have been more insulting than such a question as that at that moment? What but the temperance cause had brought her to the Convention? Why had she been delegated to take her seat in that body except on the ground that she was a devoted friend of the temperance enterprise, and had an interest in every movement pertaining to the total abstinence cause? She had been delegated there by total abstinence societies because of her fitness as a temperance woman to advocate the temperance cause, so dear to the hearts of all those who love perishing humanity. Was it the love of the temperance cause that raised the outcry against her? or was it not simply contempt of woman, and an unwillingness that she should stand up anywhere to bear her testimony against popular wrongs and crimes, the curses of the race?

MISS BROWN: Allow me to state one incident. A Doctor of Divinity was present at the meeting. His son and daughter-in-law stated to me the fact. "I said to my father, you had stormy times at the Convention to-day." "Yes," said the father, "stormy times." Said the son, "Why didn't you allow her to speak?" "Ah," said the Doctor, "it was the principle of the thing!" But it so happened that the son and daughter thought the principle a wrong one.

Mr. Garrison: Yes, it was the principle that was at stake. It was not simply the making of a speech at that Convention, by a woman. By her speaking something more was implied, for if woman could speak there and for that object, she might speak elsewhere for another object, and she might, peradventure, as my friend does, proceed to occupy a pulpit and settle over a congregation. In fact, there is no knowing where the precedent would lead; reminding me of the man who hesitated to leave off his profanity, because having left that off he should have to leave off drinking, and if he left off drinking he should have to leave off his tobacco and other vile habits. He liked symmetry of character, and so he was unwilling to take the first step toward reform.

The principle for which Miss Brown contended, was this: every society has a right to determine who shall represent it in convention. Invitation was given to the "whole world" to meet there in convention, to promote the cause of Temperance. Our friend needed no credentials under the call. It is true all societies were invited to send delegates, but in addition to that all the friends of Temperance throughout the world were expressly and earnestly invited to be present, and under that last express invitation she had a right to come in as an earnest friend of the cause, and take her seat in the Convention. When a body like that comes together, the principle is this, each delegate stands on the same footing as every other delegate, and no one delegate nor any number of delegates has a right to exclude any other delegate who has been sent there by any like society. Our friend had credentials from two societies, and thus was doubly armed; but she was put down by a most disgraceful minority of the Convention, who succeeded in carrying their point. In view of all this, I would present for the action of this Convention the following resolutions:

WHEREAS, a cordial invitation having been extended to all temperance societies and all the friends of temperance throughout the world, to meet personally or by delegates in a "World's Temperance Convention" in the city of New York, Sept. 6th and 7th, 1853;

And whereas, accepting this invitation in the spirit in which it was apparently given, the "South Butler Temperance Association," and the "Rochester Toronto Division of the Sons of Temperance," duly empowered the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, to act in that Convention as their delegate, representative, and advocate.

And whereas, on presenting herself at the time specified, her credentials were received by the Committee on the roll of the Convention, but on rising to address the assembly (though declared by the President to be entitled to the floor, and although his decision was repeatedly sustained by a majority of the delegates) she was met with derisive outcries, insulting jeers, and the most rowdyish manifestations, by a shameless minority, led on by the Rev. John Chambers, of Philadelphia, and encouraged by Gen. Carey, of Ohio, and other professed friends of the temperance cause—so as to make it impossible for her to be heard, and thus virtually excluding her from the Convention in an ignominious manner, solely on account of her being a woman; therefore,

Resolved, That in the judgment of this Convention, the treatment received by the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown in the "World's Temperance Convention" (falsely so called) was in the highest degree disgraceful to that body, insulting to the societies whose credentials she bore, worthy only of those who are filled with strong drink, and a scandal to the temperance movement.

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be given to Miss Brown, for having accepted the credentials so honorably proffered to her by the temperance societies aforesaid, and claiming a right, not as a woman, but as a duly authorized delegate, an eloquent and devoted advocate of the temperance enterprise, to a seat and voice in the "World's Temperance Convention;" and for the firm, dignified, and admirable manner in which she met the storm of opprobrium and insult which so furiously assailed her on her attempting to advocate the beneficent movement for the promotion of which the Convention was expressly called together.

Hon. JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS: Ladies and gentlemen, although I had designed to take no active part in the proceedings, I can not avoid rising, to second that resolution. When I learned of the appointing of this Convention, it brought a thrill of joy to me. I had read the transactions to which the lady has made such feeling allusion. I had read and mourned over them, and I rejoiced that an opportunity was to be given to the people of Cleveland, and this Western Reserve, to tender their thanks to this Convention, which had been appointed to meet upon the shores of Lake Erie; and that they also might see what sort of a greeting the friends of the rights of woman would receive here. And I now rejoice at the hearty manner in which the Convention has proceeded. I rejoice at the treatment the Convention has received. Then I was about to say, the fogies of New York, if they could see and know all that they might see here, would not be like some spirits, whom Swedenborg says he saw in the other world. He found spirits who had been departed several years, who had not yet learned that they were dead. I think Rev. John Chambers would now look down and begin to suspect that he had departed.

My friends, I know not how the remarks of Miss Brown fell upon your ears. I can only say that they struck me with deep feelings of mortification, that at this noontide of the nineteenth century any human being, who can give her thoughts to an assembly in the eloquent manner in which she has spoken to us, has been treated as she was; and when this resolution of reproof by my friend from Massachusetts was presented, I resolved to rise and second it, and express myself willing that it be sent out in the report, that I most heartily concur in the expressions contained in these resolutions.

WILLIAM L. GARRISON: I wish to make one statement in regard to General Carey, to show that he does not himself act on consistent principles, in this matter. The last number of the Pennsylvania Freeman contains an account of a temperance gathering held in Kennett Square. That square is for that region the headquarters of Abolitionists, Liberals, Come-outers, and so forth. In that meeting women were appointed for Vice-Presidents and Secretaries with men, and there was a complete mixture throughout the committees without regard to sex; and who do you think were those who spoke on that occasion recognizing that woman was equal with man in that gathering? The first was G. W. Jackson, of Boston, who made himself very conspicuous in the exclusion of women from the "World's Convention"; second, Judge O'Neil, of South Carolina, who spoke at New York, and who was also very active in the efforts to exclude Miss Brown; last of all was General Carey, of Ohio; and three days afterward they wended their way to New York, and there conspired with others to prevent a delegate from being admitted, on the ground of being a woman; showing that while at old Kennett they were willing to conform, finding it would be popular; in New York they joined in this brutal proscription of a woman, only because she was a woman.

LUCY STONE: I know it is time to take the question upon these resolutions, but I wish to say one word. When a world's convention of any kind is called—when the Rev. Drs. Chambers, Hewett, Marsh, and I don't know how many more, backed up by a part of those who were in that convention, are ready to ignore the existence of woman, it should show us something of the amount of labor we have to do, to teach the world even to know that we are a part of it; and when women tell us they don't want any more rights, I want them to know that they are held to have no right in any world's convention. I took up a book the other day, written by the Rev. Mr. Davis, in which he sketches the events of the last fifty years. He states that the Sandwich Islands at one time had one missionary at such a station; Mr. Green—and his wife! Then he went on to state another where there were nineteen, and—their wives! Now these are straws on the surface, but they indicate "which way the wind blows," and indicate, in some sense, the estimation in which woman is held. I mention these facts so that we may see something of the length of the way we must tread, before we shall even be recognized.

The reader will see from these debates the amount of prejudice, wickedness, and violence, woman was compelled to meet from all classes of men, especially the clergy, in those early days, and on the other hand the wisdom, courage, and mild self-assertion with which she fought her battle and conquered. There is not a man living who took part in that disgraceful row who would not gladly blot out that page in his personal history. But the few noble men—lawyers, statesmen, clergymen, philanthropists, poets, orators, philosophers—who have remained steadfast and loyal to woman through all her struggles for freedom—have been brave and generous enough to redeem their sex from the utter contempt and distrust of all womankind.

NATIONAL CONVENTION AT CINCINNATI, OHIO.

In 1855, October 17th and 18th, the people of Cincinnati, Ohio, were summoned to the consideration of the question of Woman's Rights. A brief report in the city journals, is all we can find of the proceedings. From these we learn that the meetings were held in Nixon's Hall, that some ladies wore bloomers, and some gentlemen shawls, that the audiences were large and enthusiastic, that the curiosity to see women who could make a speech was intense. Martha C. Wright, of Auburn, a sister of Lucretia Mott, was chosen President. On the platform sat Mrs. Mott, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Josephine S. Griffing, Mary S. Anthony, of Rochester, N. Y.; Ernestine L. Rose, Adeline Swift, Joseph Barker, an Englishman, an ex-member of Parliament, Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry B. Blackwell, recently married. Mrs. Stone did not take her husband's name, because she believed a woman had a right to an individual existence, and an individual name to designate that existence.

After the election of officers,[19] the President stated the object of the Convention to be to secure equality with man in social, civil, and political rights. It was only seven years, she said, since this movement commenced, since our first Convention was called, in timidity and doubt of our own strength, our own capacity, our own powers; now, east, west, north, and even south, there were found advocates of woman's rights. The newspapers which ridiculed and slandered us at first, are beginning to give impartial accounts of our meetings. Newspapers do not lead, but follow public opinion; and doing so, they go through three stages in regard to reforms; they first ridicule them, then report them without comment, and at last openly advocate them. We seem to be still in the first stage on this question.

Mrs. CUTLER said: "Let there be light, and there was light," "And many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." This light, this increase of knowledge, we are seeking. Men have always applied the last text to themselves, and did not expect woman to run to and fro and increase in knowledge. They objected to her raising her voice on this platform in the pursuit or diffusion of knowledge; but when she is employed upon the stage to minister to everything that pollutes and degrades man, no voice was raised against it. It was but a few years ago that a French queen brought over with her to the British Isles, a male mantua-maker. It was not supposed then that woman was capable of fitting woman's clothes properly. She has since advanced to have the charge of man's wardrobe; and it will be right when the time comes, for man to take care of himself. Conservatism opposes this now; but I love conservatism; it is guarding our institutions until the new mother is prepared to take the charge.

I desire that marriage shall not be simply a domestic union as in early days, or a social one as it has now become, but a complete and perfect union, conferring equal rights on both parties. I desire light from the source of light. The question is frequently asked, "What more do these women want?" A lady in Cincinnati told me that she did not desire any change, for she thought we had now entirely the best of it; while the men toiled in their shops and offices, the women walked the streets splendidly dressed, or lounged at home with nothing to do but spend the money their husbands earned. I never understood the elevating effect of the elective franchise until I went to England, where so few enjoy it. I attended a political meeting during the canvass of Derby, as a reporter for three or four political papers in the United States. One of the candidates proposed to legislate for universal suffrage; his opponent replied by showing the effect of it upon France, which he declared was the only country in which it existed. "You forget," exclaimed one, "America!" "America! never name her! a land of three millions of slaves." The multitude would not believe this; they shouted in derision, whenever the speaker attempted to resume. America was their last hope. If that country was given up to slavery, they could only despair. Party leaders rose and tried to calm them as Christ calmed the sea, but they could do nothing. "You are an American," said one near me; "get up and defend your country!" What could I say? I spoke, however, and pledged them that the stain of slavery should be wiped out.

Mr. WISE, of North Carolina, made a long and learned address, treating principally of geology and women. He claimed for woman more even than she for herself. He said: "Women are generally more competent to vote than their husbands, and sisters better fitted to be judges than their brothers, the mother more capable of wisely exercising the elective franchise than her booby son."

LUCY STONE said: The last speaker alluded to this movement as being that of a few disappointed women. From the first years to which my memory stretches, I have been a disappointed woman. When, with my brothers, I reached forth after the sources of knowledge, I was reproved with "It isn't fit for you; it doesn't belong to women." Then there was but one college in the world where women were admitted, and that was in Brazil. I would have found my way there, but by the time I was prepared to go, one was opened in the young State of Ohio—the first in the United States where women and negroes could enjoy opportunities with white men. I was disappointed when I came to seek a profession worthy an immortal being—every employment was closed to me, except those of the teacher, the seamstress, and the housekeeper. In education, in marriage, in religion, in everything, disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart until she bows down to it no longer. I wish that women, instead of being walking show-cases, instead of begging of their fathers and brothers the latest and gayest new bonnet, would ask of them their rights.

The question of Woman's Rights is a practical one. The notion has prevailed that it was only an ephemeral idea; that it was but women claiming the right to smoke cigars in the streets, and to frequent bar-rooms. Others have supposed it a question of comparative intellect; others still, of sphere. Too much has already been said and written about woman's sphere. Trace all the doctrines to their source and they will be found to have no basis except in the usages and prejudices of the age. This is seen in the fact that what is tolerated in woman in one country is not tolerated in another. In this country women may hold prayer-meetings, etc., but in Mohammedan countries it is written upon their mosques, "Women and dogs, and other impure animals, are not permitted to enter." Wendell Phillips says, "The best and greatest thing one is capable of doing, that is his sphere." I have confidence in the Father to believe that when He gives us the capacity to do anything He does not make a blunder. Leave women, then, to find their sphere. And do not tell us before we are born even, that our province is to cook dinners, darn stockings, and sew on buttons. We are told woman has all the rights she wants; and even women, I am ashamed to say, tell us so. They mistake the politeness of men for rights—seats while men stand in this hall to-night, and their adulations; but these are mere courtesies. We want rights. The flour-merchant, the house-builder, and the postman charge us no less on account of our sex; but when we endeavor to earn money to pay all these, then, indeed, we find the difference. Man, if he have energy, may hew out for himself a path where no mortal has ever trod, held back by nothing but what is in himself; the world is all before him, where to choose; and we are glad for you, brothers, men, that it is so. But the same society that drives forth the young man, keeps woman at home—a dependent—working little cats on worsted, and little dogs on punctured paper; but if she goes heartily and bravely to give herself to some worthy purpose, she is out of her sphere and she loses caste. Women working in tailor-shops are paid one-third as much as men. Some one in Philadelphia has stated that women make fine shirts for twelve and a half cents apiece; that no woman can make more than nine a week, and the sum thus earned, after deducting rent, fuel, etc., leaves her just three and a half cents a day for bread. Is it a wonder that women are driven to prostitution? Female teachers in New York are paid fifty dollars a year, and for every such situation there are five hundred applicants. I know not what you believe of God, but I believe He gave yearnings and longings to be filled, and that He did not mean all our time should be devoted to feeding and clothing the body. The present condition of woman causes a horrible perversion of the marriage relation. It is asked of a lady, "Has she married well?" "Oh, yes, her husband is rich." Woman must marry for a home, and you men are the sufferers by this; for a woman who loathes you may marry you because you have the means to get money which she can not have. But when woman can enter the lists with you and make money for herself, she will marry you only for deep and earnest affection.

I am detaining you too long, many of you standing, that I ought to apologize, but women have been wronged so long that I may wrong you a little. (Applause). A woman undertook in Lowell to sell shoes to ladies. Men laughed at her, but in six years she has run them all out, and has a monopoly of the trade. Sarah Tyndale, whose husband was an importer of china, and died bankrupt, continued his business, paid off his debts, and has made a fortune and built the largest china warehouse in the world. (Mrs. Mott here corrected Lucy. Mrs. Tyndale has not the largest china warehouse, but the largest assortment of china in the world). Mrs. Tyndale, herself, drew the plan of her warehouse, and it is the best plan ever drawn. A laborer to whom the architect showed it, said: "Don't she know e'en as much as some men?" I have seen a woman at manual labor turning out chair-legs in a cabinet-shop, with a dress short enough not to drag in the shavings. I wish other women would imitate her in this. It made her hands harder and broader, it is true, but I think a hand with a dollar and a quarter a day in it, better than one with a crossed ninepence. The men in the shop didn't use tobacco, nor swear—they can't do those things where there are women, and we owe it to our brothers to go wherever they work to keep them decent. The widening of woman's sphere is to improve her lot. Let us do it, and if the world scoff, let it scoff—if it sneer, let it sneer—but we will go on emulating the example of the sisters Grimke and Abby Kelly. When they first lectured against slavery they were not listened to as respectfully as you listen to us. So the first female physician meets many difficulties, but to the next the path will be made easy.

Lucretia Mott has been a preacher for years; her right to do so is not questioned among Friends. But when Antoinette Brown felt that she was commanded to preach, and to arrest the progress of thousands that were on the road to hell; why, when she applied for ordination they acted as though they had rather the whole world should go to hell, than that Antoinette Brown should be allowed to tell them how to keep out of it. She is now ordained over a parish in the State of New York, but when she meets on the Temperance platform the Rev. John Chambers, or your own Gen. Carey (applause) they greet her with hisses. Theodore Parker said: "The acorn that the school-boy carries in his pocket and the squirrel stows in his cheek, has in it the possibility of an oak, able to withstand, for ages, the cold winter and the driving blast." I have seen the acorn men and women, but never the perfect oak; all are but abortions. The young mother, when first the new-born babe nestles in her bosom, and a heretofore unknown love springs up in her heart, finds herself unprepared for this new relation in life, and she sends forth the child scarred and dwarfed by her own weakness and imbecility, as no stream can rise higher than its fountain.

We find no report of the speeches of Frances D. Gage, Lydia Ann Jenkins, Ernestine L. Rose, Euphemia Cochrane, of Michigan, nor J. Mitchell, of Missouri, editor of the St. Louis Intelligencer, nor of the presence of James Mott, whose services were always invaluable on the committees for business and resolutions.

In 1857, the Legislature of Ohio passed a bill enacting that no married man shall dispose of any personal property without having first obtained the consent of his wife; the wife being empowered in case of the violation of such act, to commence a civil suit in her own name for the recovery of said property; and also that any married woman whose husband shall desert her or neglect to provide for his family, shall be entitled to his wages and to those of her minor children. These amendments were warmly recommended by Gov. Salmon P. Chase in his annual message. The Select Committee[20] of the Senate on the petition asking the right of suffrage for woman, reported in favor of the proposed amendment, recommending the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified electors at the next election for Senators and Representatives an amendment to the Constitution, whereby the elective franchise shall be extended to the citizens of Ohio without distinction of sex.

But the bill was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 44. The petition had received 10,000 signatures. We give this able report in full.[21]

The proceedings of these early Conventions might be read with pride and satisfaction by the women of Ohio to-day, with all their superior advantages of education. Frances D. Gage was a natural orator. Her wit and pathos always delighted her audiences, and were highly appreciated by those on the platform. Her off-hand speeches, ready for any occasion, were exactly complemented by J. Elizabeth Jones, whose carefully prepared essays on philosophy, law, and government, would do honor to any statesman. Together they were a great power in Ohio. From this time Conventions were held annually for several years, the friends of woman suffrage being thoroughly organized; J. Elizabeth Jones was made General Agent. In her report of May 16th, 1861, she says:

And through the earnest efforts of Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Tilden, and many others, the Legislature was petitioned from year to year for a redress of legal and political wrongs. At a later period, the indefatigable exertions of Mrs. Adeline T. Swift sustained the interest and the agitation in such portions of the State as she could reach. As the fruit of her labor, many thousands of names, pleading for equality, have been presented to the General Assembly, which labor has been continued to the present time.

Our last effort, of which I am now more particularly to speak, was commenced early in the season, by extensive correspondence to enlist sympathy and aid in behalf of petitions. As soon as we could get the public ear, several lecturing agents were secured, and they did most efficient service, both with tongue and with pen. One of these was Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, of Kansas, formerly of Vermont; and perhaps no person was ever better qualified than she. Ever ready and ever faithful, in public and in private, and ever capable, too, whether discussing the condition of woman with the best informed members of the legal profession, or striving at the fireside of some indolent and ignorant sister, over whose best energies "death is creeping like an untimely frost," to waken in her heart a desire for that which is truly noble and good.

Of another of our agents—Mrs. Cutler, of Illinois—equally as much can be said of her qualifications and her efficiency. Having been very widely acquainted with the sorrowful experiences of women, both abroad and in our own country, which have been caused by their inferior position, and by legal disabilities; and lamenting, too, as only great and elevated natures can, the utter wreck of true, noble womanhood in the higher circles of society, a necessity is thus laid upon her to do all in her power to lift both classes into a freer, better life.

Mrs. Frances D. Gage, of Ohio, deeply interested herself in this question in the beginning, and has never failed in faithful testimony and timely word, to promote its success. Although not identified with us as an agent, yet we had her active co-operation during the campaign. Her editorial connection with the press, and her lectures on the West India Islands, gave her abundant opportunity, which she did not fail to embrace, of circulating petitions and advocating the cause to which she has so largely given her energies.

Besides the General Agent, whose time was divided between correspondence, lecturing, and the general details of the movement, there were other and most efficient workers, especially in canvassing for signatures. We are indebted to Mrs. Anne Ryder, of Cincinnati, for much labor in this direction; and also to Mrs. Howard, of Columbus for similar service. Miss Olympia Brown, a graduate of Antioch College, canvassed several towns most successfully—adding thousands of names to the lists heretofore obtained. Equally zealous were women, and men also, in various sections of the State. By means of this hearty co-operation, both branches of the Legislature were flooded with Woman's Rights petitions during the first part of the session—a thousand and even two thousand names were presented at a time.

Our main object this year, as heretofore, has been to secure personal property and parental rights, never ignoring, however, the right to legislate for ourselves. We were fortunate in the commencement in enlisting some of the leading influences of the State in favor of the movement. Persons occupying the highest social and political position, very fully endorsed our claims to legal equality, and rendered valuable aid by public approval of the same. We took measures at an early period to obtain the assistance of the press; and by means of this auxiliary our work has been more fully recognized, and more generally appreciated than it could otherwise have been. Without exception, the leading journals of the State have treated our cause with consideration, and generously commended the efforts of its agents.

So numerous were the petitions, and so largely did they represent the best constituency of the State, that the committees in whose hands they were placed, felt that by all just parliamentary usage, they were entitled to a candid consideration. Accordingly they invited several of us who had been prominent, to defend our own cause in the Senate chamber, before their joint Committee and such of the General Assembly and of the public, as might choose to come and listen. From the reports of the numerous letter-writers who were present, I will place one extract only upon record.

"The Senate chamber was filled to overflowing to hear Mrs. Jones, Cutler, and Gage, and hundreds went away for want of a place to stand. Columbus has seldom seen so refined and intelligent an audience as that which gathered round those earnest women, who had none of the charm of youth or beauty to challenge admiration, but whose heads were already sprinkled with the frosts of life's winter. Earnest, truthful, womanly, richly cultivated by the experiences of practical life, those women, mothers, and two of them grandmothers, pleaded for the right of woman to the fruit of her own genius, labor, or skill, and for the mother her right to be the joint guardian of her own offspring. I wish I could give you even the faintest idea of the brilliancy of the scene, or the splendor of the triumph achieved over the legions of prejudice, the cohorts of injustice, and the old national guard of hoary conservatism. If the triumph of a prima donna is something to boast, what was the triumph of these toil-worn women, when not only the members of the Committee, but Senators and Members of the House, crowded around them with congratulations and assurances that their able and earnest arguments had fully prevailed, and the prayers of their petitioners must be granted."

The address of the first speaker was a written argument on legal rights. It was solicited by members of the General Assembly for publication, and distributed over the State at their expense.

The change in public sentiment, the marked favor with which our cause began to be regarded in the judicial and legislative departments, encouraged us to hope that if equal and exact justice were not established, which we could hardly expect, we should at least obtain legal equality in many particulars. The Senate committee soon reported a bill, drafted by one of their number—Judge Key—and fully endorsed by all the judges of the Supreme Court, securing to the married woman the use of her real estate, and the avails of her own separate labor, together with such power to protect her property, and do business in her own name, as men possess. The last provision was stricken out and the bill thus amended passed both Houses, the Senate by a very large majority.

Although this secures to us property rights in a measure only, yet it is a great gain. He, who in abject bondage has striven with his fetters, rejoices to have the smallest amount of their weight removed. We have, therefore, reason to be grateful not only for the benefits we shall derive from this Act, but for the evidence of a growing sense of justice on the part of those who claim for themselves the exclusive right to legislate. Senator Parish had already prepared a Bill for Guardianship, and to change the Laws of Descent, that something more than a paltry dower should be secured to the widow in the common estate; but the press of business, and the sudden commencement of open hostilities between the North and South, precluded all possibility of further legislation in our behalf. While Judge Key has deservedly received universal thanks from the women of Ohio, for proposing and carrying through the Legislature the Property Bill, they are no less indebted to the Hon. Mr. Parish for his faithful defense of their cause, not only during the present session, but in years past. If all the Honorable Senators and Representatives who have given their influence in favor of it were to be mentioned, and all the faithful men and earnest women who have labored to promote it, the list would be long and distinguished.

J. ELIZABETH JONES.

Thus, in a measure, were the civil rights of the women of Ohio secured. Some of those who were influential in winning this modicum of justice have already passed away; some, enfeebled by age, are incapable of active work; others are seeking in many latitudes that rest so necessary in the declining years of life.

The question naturally suggests itself, where are the young women of Ohio, who will take up this noble cause and carry it to its final triumph? They are reaping on all sides the benefits achieved for them by others, and they in turn, by earnest efforts for the enfranchisement of woman, should do what they can to broaden the lives of the next generation.

In Ohio, as elsewhere, the great conflict between the North and South turned the thoughts of women from the consideration of their own rights, to the life of the nation. Many of them spent their last days and waning powers in the military hospitals and sanitariums, ministering to sick and dying soldiers; others at a later period in the service of the freedmen, guiding them in their labors, and instructing them in their schools; all alike forgetting that justice to woman was a more important step in national safety than freedom or franchise to any race of men.

FOOTNOTES:

[14] Years before the calling of this Convention, Mrs. Frances D. Gage had roused much thought in Ohio by voice and pen. She was a long time in correspondence with Harriet Martineau and Mrs. Jane Knight, who was energetically working for reduced postage rates, even before the days of Rowland Hill.

[15] See Appendix.

[16] Said to have been written by J. Elizabeth Jones.

[17] My notoriety as an Abolitionist made it very difficult for me to reach people at home, and, consequently, I had to work through press and social circle; women dared not speak then. But the seed was sown far and wide, now bearing fruit.

[18] James McCune Smith.

[19] See Appendix.

[20] J. D. Cattell and H. Canfield.

[21] See Appendix.



CHAPTER VII.

REMINISCENCES BY CLARINA I. HOWARD NICHOLS.

VERMONT: Editor Windham County Democrat—Property Laws, 1847 and 1849—Addressed the Legislature on school suffrage, 1852.

WISCONSIN: Woman's State Temperance Society—Lydia F. Fowler in company—Opposition of Clergy—"Woman's Rights" wouldn't do—Advertised "Men's Rights."

KANSAS: Free State Emigration, 1854—Gov. Robinson and Senator Pomeroy—Woman's Rights speeches on Steamboat, and at Lawrence—Constitutional Convention, 1859—State Woman Suffrage Association—John O. Wattles, President—Aid from the Francis Jackson Fund—Canvassing the State—School Suffrage gained.

MISSOURI: Lecturing at St. Joseph, 1858, on Col. Scott's invitation—Westport and the John Brown raid, 1859—St. Louis, 1854—Frances D. Gage, Rev. Wm. G. Eliot, and Rev. Mr. Weaver.

In gathering up these individual memories of the past, we feel there will be an added interest in the fact that we shall thus have a subjective, as well as an objective view of this grand movement for woman's enfranchisement. To our older readers, who have known the actors in these scenes, they will come like the far-off whispers of by-gone friends; to younger ones who will never see the faces of the noble band of women who took the initiative in this struggle, it will be almost as pleasant as a personal introduction, to have them speak for themselves; each in her own peculiar style recount the experiences of those eventful years. As but few remain to tell the story, and each life has made a channel of its own, there will be no danger of wearying the reader with much repetition.

To Clarina Howard Nichols the women of Kansas are indebted for many civil rights they have as yet been too apathetic to exercise.

Her personal presence in the Constitutional Convention of 1859, secured for the women of that State liberal property rights, equal guardianship of their children, and the right to vote on all school questions. She is a large-hearted, brave, faithful woman, and her life speaks for itself. Her experiences are indeed the history of all that was done in the above-mentioned States.

VERMONT.

I was born in Townshend, Windham County, Vermont, January 25, 1810.

From 1843 to 1853 inclusive, I edited The Windham County Democrat, published by my husband, Geo. W. Nichols, at Brattleboro.

Early in 1847, I addressed to the voters of the State a series of editorials setting forth the injustice and miserable economy of the property disabilities of married women. In October of the same year, Hon. Larkin Mead, of Brattleboro, "moved," as he said, "by Mrs. Nichols' presentation of the subject" in the Democrat, introduced in the Vermont Senate a bill securing to the wife real and personal property, with its use, and power to defend, convey, and devise as if "sole." The bill as passed, secured to the wife real estate owned by her at marriage, or acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance during marriage, with the rents, issues, and profits, as against any debts of the husband; but to make a sale or conveyance of either her realty or its use valid, it must be the joint act of husband and wife. She might by last will and testament dispose of her lands, tenements, hereditaments, and any interest therein descendable to her heirs, as if "sole." A subsequent Legislature added to the latter clause, moneys, notes, bonds, and other assets, accruing from sale or use of real estate. And this was the first breath of a legal civil existence to Vermont wives.

In 1849, Vermont enacted a Homestead law. In 1850, a bill empowering the wife to insure, in her own interest, the life, or a term of the life of her husband; the annual premium on such insurance not to exceed $300; also an act giving to widows of childless husbands the whole of an estate not exceeding $1,000 in value, and half of any amount in excess of $1,000; and if he left no kin, the whole estate, however large, became the property of the widow. Prior to this Act, the widow of a childless husband had only half, however small the estate, and if he left no kindred to claim it, the remaining half went into the treasury of the State, whose gain was the town's loss, if, as occasionally happened, the widow's half was not sufficient for her support.[22]

In 1852, I drew up a petition signed by more than 200 of the most substantial business men, including the staunchest conservatives, and tax-paying widows of Brattleboro, asking the Legislature to make the women of the State voters in district school meetings.

Up to 1850 I had not taken position for suffrage, but instead of disclaiming its advocacy as improper, I had, since 1849, shown the absurdity of regarding suffrage as unwomanly. Having failed to secure her legal rights by reason of her disfranchisement, a woman must look to the ballot for self-protection. In this cautious way I proceeded, aware that not a house would be opened to me, did I demand the suffrage before convicting men of legal robbery, through woman's inability to defend herself.

The petition was referred to the Educational Committee of the House, whose chairman, editor of the Rutland Herald, was a bitter opponent, and I felt that he would, in his report, lampoon "Woman's Rights" and their most prominent advocates, thus sending his poison into all the towns ignorant of our objects, and strengthening the already repellant prejudices of the leading women at the capital. I wrote to Judge Thompson, editor of the Green Mountain Freeman (a recent accession to the press of the State and friendly to our cause), what I feared, and asked him to plead before the Committee and interest influential members to protect woman's cause against abuse before the House. He counseled with leading members of the three political parties—Whig, Free-Soil, and Democrat—including the Speaker of the House, and they advised, as the best course, that "Mrs. Nichols come to Montpelier, and they would invite her, by a handsome vote, to speak to her petition before the House." "When," added Judge T., "you can use your privilege to present the whole subject of Woman's Rights. Come, and I will stick by you like a brother." I went. The resolution of invitation was adopted with a single dissenting vote, and that from the Chairman of the Educational Committee, who unwittingly made the vote unanimous by the unfortunate exclamation, "If the lady wants to make herself ridiculous, let her come and make herself as ridiculous as possible and as soon as possible, but I don't believe in this scramble for the breeches!"

In concluding my plea before the House (in which I had cited the statutes and decisions of courts, showing that the husband owned even the wife's clothing), I thanked the House for its resolution, and referred to the concluding remark of the Chairman of the Educational Committee, and said that though I "had earned the dress I wore, my husband owned it—not of his own will, but by a law adopted by bachelors and other women's husbands," and added: "I will not appeal to the gallantry of this House, but to its manliness, if such a taunt does not come with an ill grace from gentlemen who have legislated our skirts into their possession? And will it not be quite time enough for them to taunt us with being after their wardrobes, when they shall have restored to us the legal right to our own?"

With a bow I turned from the Speaker's stand, when the profound hush of as fine an audience as earnest woman ever addressed, was broken by the muffled thunder of stamping feet, and the low, deep hum of pent-up feeling loosed suddenly from restraint. A crowd of ladies from the galleries, who had come only at the urgent personal appeal of Judge Thompson, who had spent the day calling from house to house, and who a few months before had utterly failed to persuade them to attend a course of physiological lectures from Mrs. Mariana Johnson, on account of her having once presided over a Woman's Rights Convention, these women met me at the foot of the Speaker's desk, exclaiming with earnest expressions of sympathy: "We did not know before what Woman's Rights were, Mrs. Nichols, but we are for Woman's Rights."

Said Mrs. Thompson to me upon our return to her home: "I broke out in a cold perspiration when your voice failed and you leaned your head on your hand."[23] "I thought you were going to fail," continued Mrs. Thompson. "Yes," said the Judge, "I was very doubtful how it would come out when I saw how sensitive Mrs. Nichols was. But," (turning to me), "you have had a complete triumph! That final expression of your audience was perfect. Mr. Herald with his outside recruits did not come forward with the suit of male attire at the close, as he had advertised he would, (I did not tell Mrs. N. this, my dear," said the Judge.) "He'll catch it now, in the House and out." And he did "catch it."

The effort brought me no reproach, no ridicule from any quarter, but instead, cordial recognition and delicate sympathy from unexpected quarters, and even from those who had heard but the report of persons present. The editorial criticism of the Chairman of the Educational Committee, paid me the high compliment of saying, that "in spite of her efforts Mrs. Nichols could not unsex herself; even her voice was full of womanly pathos." The report of the Committee was adverse to my petition, but not disrespectful. Though the petition failed, the favorable impression created was regarded as a great triumph for woman's rights.

From the time I spoke at the Worcester Convention, 1850, until I left for Kansas, October, 1854, I responded to frequent calls from town and neighborhood committees and lyceums—in the county and adjoining territory of New Hampshire and Massachusetts as well as Vermont, to lecture or join in debate with men and women, the women voting me their time, on the subject of woman's legal and political equality. In these neighborhood lyceums, ministers and deacons and their wives and daughters took part. Generally wives were appointed in opposition to their husbands, and from their rich and varied experience did excellent execution. In order to secure opposition, I used to let the negative open and close, other wise the debate was sure to be tame or no debate at all. In all my experience it was the same; the "affirmative" had the merit and the argument.