Among the letters to the Convention, there was one quite novel and

interesting from Helene Marie Weber,[44] a lady of high literary

character, who had published numerous tracts on the Rights of Woman.

She contended that the physical development of woman was impossible in

her present costume, and that her consequent enfeebled condition made

her incapable of entering many of the most profitable employments in

the world of work. Miss Weber exemplified her teachings by her

practice. She usually wore a dress coat and pantaloons of black cloth;

on full-dress occasions, a dark blue dress coat, with plain flat gilt

buttons, and drab-colored pantaloons. Her waistcoat was of buff

cassimere, richly trimmed with plain, flat-surfaced, gold buttons,

exquisitely polished; this was an elegant costume, and one she wore to

great advantage. Her clothes were all perfect in their fit, and of

Paris make; and her figure was singularly well adapted to male attire.

No gentleman in Paris made a finer appearance.

One of the grand results of this Convention was the thought roused in

England. A good report of the proceedings in the New _York Tribune_,

for Europe, of October 29, 1850, was read by the future Mrs. John

Stuart Mill, then Mrs. Taylor, and at once called out from her pen an

able essay in the _Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review_, entitled

"Enfranchisement of Woman." This attracted the attention of many

liberal thinkers, and foremost of these, one of England's greatest

philosophers and scholars, the Hon. John Stuart Mill, who became soon

after the champion of woman's cause in the British Parliament. The

essayist in speaking of this Convention says:

Most of our readers will probably learn, from these pages, for

the first time, that there has risen in the United States, and in

the most Civilized and enlightened portion of them, an organized

agitation, on a new question, new not to thinkers, nor to any one

by whom the principles of free and popular government are felt,

as well as acknowledged; but new, and even unheard of, as a

subject for public meetings, and practical political action. This

question is the enfranchisement of women, their admission in law,

and in fact, to equality in all rights, political, civil, social,

with the male citizens of the community.

It will add to the surprise with which many will receive this

intelligence, that the agitation which has commenced is not a

pleading by male writers and orators _for_ women, those who are

professedly to be benefited remaining either indifferent, or

ostensibly hostile; it is a political movement, practical in its

objects, carried on in a form which denotes an intention to

persevere. And it is a movement not merely _for_ women, but _by_

them....

A succession of public meetings was held, under the name of a

"Woman's Rights Convention," of which the President was a woman,

and nearly all the chief speakers women; numerously reinforced,

however, by men, among whom were some of the most distinguished

leaders in the kindred cause of negro emancipation....

According to the report in the _New York Tribune_, above a

thousand persons were present, throughout, and "if a larger place

could have been had, many thousands more would have attended."

In regard to the quality of the speaking, the proceedings bear an

advantageous comparison with those of any popular movement with

which we are acquainted, either in this country or in America.

Very rarely in the oratory of public meetings is the part of

verbiage and declamation so small, and that of calm good sense

and reason so considerable.

The result of the convention was in every respect encouraging to

those by whom it was summoned; and it is probably destined to

inaugurate one of the most important of the movements toward

political and social reform, which are the best characteristic of

the present age. That the promoters of this new agitation take

their stand on principles, and do not fear to declare these in

their widest extent, without time-serving or compromise, will be

seen from the resolutions adopted by the Convention[45].

After giving an able argument in favor of all the demands made in the

Convention with a fair criticism of some of the weak things uttered

there, she concludes by saying:

There are indications that the example of America will be

followed on this side of the Atlantic; and the first step has

been taken in that part of England where every serious movement

in the direction of political progress has its commencement--the

manufacturing districts of the north. On the 13th of February,

1851, a petition of women, agreed to by a public meeting at

Sheffield, and claiming the elective franchise, was presented to

the House of Lords by the Earl of Carlisle.

William Henry Channing, from the Business Committee, suggested a plan

for organization and the principles that should govern the movement.

In accordance with his views a National Central Committee was

appointed, in which every State was represented[46]. Paulina Wright

Davis, Chairman; Sarah H. Earle, Secretary; Wendell Phillips,

Treasurer.

This Convention was a very creditable one in every point of view. The

order and perfection of the arrangements, the character of the papers

presented, and the sustained enthusiasm, reflect honor on the men and

women who conducted the proceedings. The large number of letters

addressed to Mrs. Davis show how extensive had been her

correspondence, both in the old world and the new. Her wealth,

culture, and position gave her much social influence; her beauty,

grace, and gentle manners drew around her a large circle of admiring

friends. These, with her tall fine figure, her classic head and

features, and exquisite taste in dress; her organizing talent and

knowledge of the question under consideration, altogether made her so

desirable a presiding officer, that she was often chosen for that

position.

THE SECOND NATIONAL CONVENTION IN WORCESTER.

In accordance with a call from the Central Committee, the friends of

Woman Suffrage assembled again in Brinley Hall, Oct. 15th and 16th,

1851. At an early hour the house was filled, and was called to order

by Paulina Wright Davis, who was again chosen permanent President.

This Convention was conducted mainly by the same persons who had so

successfully managed the proceedings of the previous year. Mrs. Davis,

on taking the chair, gave a brief _resumé_ of the steps of progress

during the year, and at the close of her remarks, letters were read

from Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann, Angelina

Grimke Weld, Frances D. Gage, Estelle Anna Lewis, Marion Blackwell,

Oliver Johnson, and Eliza Barney, all giving a hearty welcome to the

new idea. Mrs. Emma R. Coe, of the Business Committee, called upon

Wendell Phillips to read the resolutions[47] prepared for the

consideration of the Convention.

On rising Mr. PHILLIPS said:

In drawing up some of these resolutions, I have used very freely

the language of a thoughtful and profound article in the

_Westminster Review_. It is a review of the proceedings of our

Convention, held one year ago, and states with singular clearness

and force the leading arguments for our reform, and the grounds

of our claim in behalf of woman. I rejoice to see so large an

audience gathered to consider this momentous subject, the most

magnificent reform that has yet been launched upon the world. It

is the first organized protest against the injustice which has

brooded over the character and the destiny of one-half of the

human race. Nowhere else, under any circumstances, has a demand

ever yet been made for the liberties of one whole half of our

race. It is fitting that we should pause and consider so

remarkable and significant a circumstance; that we should discuss

the questions involved with the seriousness and deliberation

suitable to such an enterprise.

It strikes, indeed, a great and vital blow at the whole social

fabric of every nation; but this, to my mind, is no argument

against it.... Government commenced in usurpation and oppression;

liberty and civilization at present are nothing else than the

fragments of rights which the scaffold and the stake have wrung

from the strong hands of the usurpers. Every step of progress the

world has made has been from scaffold to scaffold, from stake to

stake.... Government began in tyranny and force; began in the

feudalism of the soldier and the bigotry of the priest; and the

ideas of justice and humanity have been fighting their way like a

thunderstorm against the organized selfishness of human nature.

And this is the last great protest against the wrong of ages. It

is no argument, to my mind, therefore, that the old social fabric

of the past is against us. Neither do I feel called upon to show

what woman's proper sphere is. In every great reform the majority

have always said to the claimant, no matter what he claimed, "You

are not fit for such a privilege." Luther asked of the Pope

liberty for the masses to read the Bible. The reply was that it

would not be safe to trust the masses with the word of God. "Let

them try," said the great reformer, and the history of three

centuries of development and purity proclaims the result.

The lower classes in France claimed their civil rights; the right

to vote, and to a direct representation in government, but the

rich and lettered classes cried out, "You can not be made fit."

The answer was, "Let us try." That France is not as Spain,

utterly crushed beneath the weight of a thousand years of

misgovernment, is the answer to those who doubt the ultimate

success of the experiment.

Woman stands now at the same door. She says: "You tell me I have

no intellect. Give me a chance." "You tell me I shall only

embarrass politics; let me try." The only reply is the same stale

argument that said to the Jews of Europe: You are fit only to

make money; you are not fit for the ranks of the army, or the

halls of Parliament.

How cogent the eloquent appeal of Macaulay: "What right have we

to take this question for granted? Throw open the doors of this

House of Commons; throw open the ranks of the imperial army,

before you deny eloquence to the countrymen of Isaiah, or valor

to the descendants of the Maccabees."

It is the same now with us. Throw open the doors of Congress;

throw open those court-houses; throw wide open the doors of your

colleges, and give to the sisters of the De Staëls and the

Martineaus the same opportunity for culture that men have, and

let the results prove what their capacity and intellect really

are. When woman has enjoyed for as many centuries as we have the

aid of books, the discipline of life, and the stimulus of fame,

it will be time to begin the discussion of these questions: "What

is the intellect of woman?" "Is it equal to that of man?" Till

then, all such discussion is mere beating of the air. While it is

doubtless true, that great minds make a way for themselves, spite

of all obstacles, yet who knows how many Miltons have died, "mute

and inglorious"? However splendid the natural endowments, the

discipline of life, after all, completes the miracle. The ability

of Napoleon--what was it? It grew out of the hope to be Cæsar, or

Marlborough; out of Austerlitz and Jena--out of his

battle-fields, his throne, and all the great scenes of that

eventful life.

Open to woman the same scenes, immerse her in the same great

interests and pursuits, and if twenty centuries shall not produce

a woman Charlemagne, or a Napoleon, fair reason will then allow

us to conclude that there is some distinctive peculiarity in the

intellects of the sexes.

Centuries alone can lay a fair basis for the argument. I believe

on this point there is a shrinking consciousness of not being

ready for the battle, on the part of some of the stronger sex, as

they call themselves; a tacit confession of risk to this imagined

superiority, if they consent to meet their sisters in the lecture

halls, or the laboratory of science.

My proof of it is this, that the mightiest intellects of the

race, from Plato down to the present time, some of the rarest

minds of Germany, France, and England, have successively yielded

their assent to the fact, that woman is not, perhaps,

identically, but equally endowed with man in all intellectual

capabilities. It is generally the second-rate men who doubt;

doubt because, perhaps, they fear a fair field.

Suppose that woman is essentially inferior to man, she still has

rights. Grant that Mrs. Norton[48] never could be Byron; that

Elizabeth Barrett never could have written Paradise Lost; that

Mrs. Somerville never could be La Place, nor Sirani have painted

the Transfiguration. What then? Does that prove they should be

deprived of all civil rights?

John Smith will never be, never can be, Daniel Webster. Shall he

therefore be put under guardianship, and forbidden to vote?

Suppose woman, though equal, does differ essentially in her

intellect from man, is that any ground for disfranchising her?

Shall the Fultons say to the Raphaels, because you can not make

steam engines, therefore you shall not vote? Shall the Napoleons

or the Washingtons say to the Wordsworths or the Herschels,

because you can not lead armies, and govern States, therefore you

shall have no civil rights?

The following interesting letter from Harriet Martineau was then read,

which we give in full, that the reader may see how clearly defined was

her position at that early day:

CROMER, ENGLAND, _Aug. 3, 1851_.

PAULINA WRIGHT DAVIS:

DEAR MADAM:--I beg to thank you heartily for your kindness in

sending me the Report of the Proceedings of your Woman's Rights

Convention. I had gathered what I could from the newspapers

concerning it, but I was gratified at being able to read, in a

collected form, addresses so full of earnestness and sound truth,

as I found most of the speeches to be. I hope you are aware of

the interest excited in this country by that Convention, the

strongest, proof of which is the appearance of an article on the

subject in _The Westminster Review_ (for July), as thorough-going

as any of your own addresses, and from the pen (at least as it is

understood here) of one of our very first men, Mr. John S. Mill.

I am not without hope that this article will materially

strengthen your hands, and I am sure it can not but cheer your

hearts.

Ever since I became capable of thinking for myself, I have

clearly seen, and I have said it till my listeners and readers

are probably tired of hearing it, that there can be but one true

method in the treatment of each human being, of either sex, of

any color, and under any outward circumstances, to ascertain what

are the powers of that being, to cultivate them to the utmost,

and _then_ to see what action they will find for themselves. This

has probably never been done for men, unless in some rare

individual cases. It has certainly never been done for women,

and, till it is done, all debating about what woman's intellect

is, all speculation, or laying down the law, as to what is

woman's sphere, is a mere beating of the air. _A priori_

conceptions have long been worthless in physical science, and

nothing was really effected till the experimental method was

clearly made out and strictly applied in practice, and the same

principle holds most certainly through the whole range of moral

science.

Whether we regard the physical fact of what women are able to do,

or the moral fact of what women ought to do, it is equally

necessary to abstain from making any decision prior to

experiment. We see plainly enough the waste of time and thought

among the men who once talked of Nature abhorring a vacuum, or

disputed at great length as to whether angels could go from end

to end without passing through the middle; and the day will come

when it will appear to be no less absurd to have argued, as men

and women are arguing now, about what woman ought to do, before

it was ascertained what woman can do.

Let us once see a hundred women educated up to the highest point

that education at present reaches; let them be supplied with such

knowledge as their faculties are found to crave, and let them be

free to use, apply, and increase their knowledge as their

faculties shall instigate, and it will presently appear what is

the sphere of each of the hundred.

One may be discovering comets, like Miss Herschell; one may be

laying open the mathematical structure of the universe, like Mrs.

Somerville; another may be analyzing the chemical relations of

Nature in the laboratory; another may be penetrating the

mysteries of physiology; others may be applying science in the

healing of diseases; others maybe investigating the laws of

social relations, learning the great natural laws under which

society, like everything else, proceeds; others, again, may be

actively carrying out the social arrangements which have been

formed under these laws; and others may be chiefly occupied in

family business, in the duties of the wife and mother, and the

ruler of the household.

If, among the hundred women, a great diversity of powers should

appear (which I have no doubt would be the case), there will

always be plenty of scope and material for the greatest amount

and variety of power that can be brought out. If not--if it

should appear that women fall below men in all but the domestic

functions--then it will be well that the experiment has been

tried; and the trial better go on forever, that woman's sphere

may forever determine itself to the satisfaction of everybody. It

is clear that education, to be what I demand on behalf of women,

must be intended to issue in active life.

A man's medical education would be worth little, if it was not a

preparation for practice. The astronomer and the chemist would

put little force into their studies, if it was certain that they

must leave off in four or five years, and do nothing for the rest

of their lives; and no man could possibly feel much interest in

political and social morals, if he knew that he must, all his

life long, pay taxes, but neither speak nor move about public

affairs.

Women, like men, must be educated with a view to action, or their

studies can not be called education, and no judgment can be

formed of the scope of their faculties. The pursuit must be

life's business, or it will be mere pastime or irksome task. This

was always my point of difference with one who carefully

cherished a reverence for woman, the late Dr. Channing.

How much we spoke and wrote of the old controversy, Influence vs.

Office. He would have had any woman study anything that her

faculties led her to, whether physical science or law, government

and political economy; but he would have her stop at the study.

From the moment she entered the hospital as physician and not

nurse; from the moment she took her place in a court of justice,

in the jury box, and not the witness box; from the moment she

brought her mind and her voice into the legislature, instead of

discussing the principles of laws at home; from the moment she

announced and administered justice instead of looking at it from

afar, as a thing with which she had no concern, she would, he

feared, lose her influence as an observing intelligence, standing

by in a state of purity "unspotted from the world."

My conviction always was, that an intelligence never carried out

into action could not be worth much; and that, if all the action

of human life was of a character so tainted as to be unfit for

women, it could be no better for men, and we ought all to sit

down together, to let barbarism overtake us once more.

My own conviction is, that the natural action of the whole human

being occasions not only the most strength, but the highest

elevation; not only the warmest sympathy, but the deepest purity.

The highest and purest beings among women seem now to be those

who, far from being idle, find among their restricted

opportunities some means of strenuous action; and I can not doubt

that, if an active social career were open to all women, with due

means of preparation for it, those who are high and holy now,

would be high and holy then, and would be joined by an

innumerable company of just spirits from among those whose

energies are now pining and fretting in enforced idleness, or

unworthy frivolity, or brought down into pursuits and aims which

are anything but pure and peaceable.

In regard to the old controversy--Influence vs. Office--it

appears to me that if Influence is good and Office bad for human

morals and character, Man's present position is one of such

hardship, as it is almost profane to contemplate; and if, on the

contrary, Office is good and a life of Influence is bad, Woman

has an instant right to claim that her position be amended.

Yours faithfully, HARRIET MARTINEAU.

From her letter, we find, that Miss Martineau shared the common

opinion in England that the article in the _Westminster Review_ on the

"Enfranchisement of Woman" was written by John Stuart Mill. It was

certainly very complimentary to Mrs. Taylor, the real author of that

paper, who afterward married Mr. Mill, that it should have been

supposed to emanate from the pen of that distinguished philosopher. An

amusing incident is related of Mr. Mill, for the truth of which we can

not vouch, but report says, that after reading this article, he

hastened to read it again to Mrs. Taylor, and passing on it the

highest praises, to his great surprise she confessed herself the

author.

At this Convention Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith made her first

appearance on our platform. She was well known in the literary circles

of New York as a writer of merit in journals and periodicals. She

defended the Convention and its leaders through the columns of the

_New York Tribune_, and afterward published a series of articles

entitled "Woman and her Needs." She early made her way into the

lyceums and some pulpits never before open to woman. Her "Bertha and

Lily," a woman's rights novel, and her other writings were influential

in moulding popular thought.

Angelina Grimke, familiar with plantation life, spoke eloquently on

the parallel between the slave code and the laws for married women.

Mehitable Haskell, of Gloucester, said:

Perhaps, my friends, I ought to apologize for standing here.

Perhaps I attach too much importance to my own age. This meeting,

as I understand it, was called to discuss Woman's Rights. Well, I

do not pretend to know exactly what woman's rights are; but I do

know that I have groaned for forty years, yea, for fifty years,

under a sense of woman's wrongs. I know that even when a girl, I

groaned under the idea that I could not receive as much

instruction as my brothers could. I wanted to be what I felt I

was capable of becoming, but opportunity was denied me. I rejoice

in the progress that has been made. I rejoice that so many women

are here; it denotes that they are waking up to some sense of

their situation. One of my sisters observed that she had received

great kindness as a wife, mother, sister, and daughter. I, too,

have brethren in various directions, both those that are natural,

and those that are spiritual brethren, as I understand the

matter; and I rejoice to say I have found, I say it to the honor

of my brothers, I have found more men than women, who were

impressed with the wrongs under which our sex labor, and felt the

need of reformation. I rejoice in this fact.

Rebecca B. Spring followed with some pertinent remarks. Mrs. Emma E.

Coe reviewed in a strain of pungent irony the State Laws in relation

to woman. In discussing the resolutions, Charles List, Esq., of

Boston, said:

I lately saw a book wherein the author in a very eloquent, but

highly wrought sentence, speaks of woman as "the connecting link

between man and heaven." I think this asks too much, and I deny

the right of woman to assume such a prerogative; all I claim is

that woman should be raised by noble aspiration to the loftiest

moral elevation, and thus be fitted to train men up to become

worthy companions for the pure, high-minded beings which all

women should strive to be. A great duty rests on woman, and it

becomes you not to lose a moment in securing for yourselves every

right and privilege, whereby you maybe elevated and so prepared

to exert the influence which man so much needs. Women fall far

short now of exerting the moral influence intrusted to them as

mothers and wives, consequently men are imperfectly developed in

their higher nature.

Mrs. Nichols rejoined: Woman has been waiting for centuries

expecting man to go before and lift her up, but he has failed to

meet our expectations, and now comes the call that she should

first grasp heaven and pull man up after her.

Mrs. Coe said: The signs are truly propitious, when man begins to

complain of his wrongs--women not fit to be wives and mothers!

Who placed them in their present position? Who keeps, them there?

Let woman demand the highest education in our land, and what

college, with the exception of Oberlin, will receive her? I have

myself lately made such a demand and been refused simply on the

ground of sex. Yet what is there in the highest range of

intellectual pursuits, to which woman may not rightfully aspire?

What is there, for instance, in theology, which she should not

strive to learn? Give me only that in religion which woman may

and should become acquainted with, and the rest may go like chaff

before the wind.

Lucy Stone said: I think it is not without reason that men

complain of the wives and mothers of to-day. Let us look the fact

soberly and fairly in the face, and admit that there _is_

occasion to complain of wives and mothers. But while I say this,

let me also say that when you can show one woman who is what she

ought to be as a wife and a mother, you can show not more than

one man who is what he should be as a husband and father. The

blame is on both sides. When we add to what woman ought to be for

her own sake, this other fact, that woman, by reason of her

maternity, must exert a most potent influence over the

generations yet to be, there is no language that can speak the

magnitude or importance of the subject that has called us

together. He is guilty of giving the world a dwarfed humanity,

who would seek to hinder this movement for the elevation of

woman; for she is as yet a starved and dependent outcast before

the law. In government she is outlawed, having neither voice nor

part in it. In the household she is either a ceaseless drudge, or

a blank. In the department of education, in industry, let woman's

sphere be bounded only by her capacity. We desire there should no

walls be thrown about it. Let man read his own soul, and turn

over the pages of his own Book of Life, and learn that in the

human mind there is always capacity for development, and then let

him trust woman to that power of growth, no matter who says nay.

Laying her hand on the helm, let woman steer straight onward to

the fulfillment of her own destiny. Let her ever remember, that

in following out the high behests of her own soul will be found

her exceeding great reward.

William Henry Channing then gave the report from the committee on the

social relations. Those present speak of it as a very able paper on

that complex question, but as it was not published with the

proceedings, all that can be found is the following meagre abstract

from _The Worcester Spy_:

Woman has a natural right to the development of all her

faculties, and to all the advantages that insure this result. She

has the right not only to civil and legal justice, which lie on

the outskirts of social life, but to social justice, which

affects the central position of society.

Woman should be as free to marry, or remain single, and as

honorable in either relation, as man. There should be no stigma

attached to the single woman, impelling her to avoid the

possibility of such a position, by crushing her self-respect and

individual ambition. A true Christian marriage is a sacred union

of soul and sense, and the issues flowing from it are eternal.

All obstacles in the way of severing uncongenial marriages should

be removed, because such unions are unnatural, and must be evil

in their results. Divorce in such cases should be honorable,

without subjecting the parties to the shame of exposure in the

courts, or in the columns of the daily papers.

Much could be accomplished for the elevation of woman by

organizations clustering round a social principle, like those

already clustered round a religious principle, such as "Sisters

of Mercy," "Sisters of Charity," etc. There should be social

orders called "Sisters of Honor," having for their object the

interests of unfortunate women. From these would spring up

convents, where those who have escaped from false marriages and

illegal social relations would find refuge. These organizations

might send out missionaries to gather the despised Magdalens into

safe retreats, and raise them to the level of true womanhood.

Mr. Channing spoke at length on the civil and political position of

woman, eloquently advocating the rightfulness and expediency of

woman's co-sovereignty with man, and closed by reading a very eloquent

letter from Jeanne Deroine and Pauline Roland, two remarkable French

women, then in the prison of St. Lagare, in Paris, for their liberal

opinions.

Just as the agitation for woman's rights began in this country,

Pauline Roland began in France a vigorous demand for her rights as a

citizen. The 27th of February, 1848, she presented herself before the

electoral reunion to claim the right of nominating the mayor of the

city where she lived. Having been refused, she claimed in April of the

same year the right to take part in the elections for the Constituent

Assembly, and was again refused. On April 12, 1849, Jeanne Deroine

claimed for woman the right of eligibility by presenting herself as a

candidate for the Legislative Assembly, and she sustained this right

before the preparatory electoral reunions of Paris. On the 3d of

October Jeanne Deroine and Pauline Roland, delegates from the

fraternal associations, were elected members of the Central Committee

of the Associative Unions. This Central Committee was for the

fraternal associations what the Constituent Assembly was for the

French Republic in 1848.

_To the Convention of the Women of America_:

DEAR SISTERS:--Your courageous declaration of Woman's Rights has

resounded even to our prison, and has filled our souls with

inexpressible joy.

In France the reaction has suppressed the cry of liberty of the

women of the future. Deprived, like their brothers, of the

Democracy, of the right to civil and political equality, and the

fiscal laws which trammel the liberty of the press, hinder the

propagation of those eternal truths which must regenerate

humanity.

They wish the women of France to found a hospitable tribunal,

which shall receive the cry of the oppressed and suffering, and

vindicate in the name of humanity, solidarity, the social right

for both sexes equally; and where woman, the mother of humanity,

may claim in the name of her children, mutilated by tyranny, her

right to true liberty, to the complete development and free

exercise of all her faculties, and reveal that half of truth

which is in her, and without which no social work can be

complete.

The darkness of reaction has obscured the sun of 1848, which

seemed to rise so radiantly. Why? Because the revolutionary

tempest, in overturning at the same time the throne and the

scaffold, in breaking the chain of the black slave, forgot to

break the chain of the most oppressed of all of the pariahs of

humanity.

"There shall be no more slaves," said our brethren. "We proclaim

universal suffrage. All shall have the right to elect the agents

who shall carry out the Constitution which should be based on the

principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Let each one

come and deposit his vote; the barrier of privilege is

overturned; before the electoral urn there are no more oppressed,

no more masters and slaves."

Woman, in listening to this appeal, rises and approaches the

liberating urn to exercise her right of suffrage as a member of

society. But the barrier of privilege rises also before her. "You

must wait," they say. But by this claim alone woman affirms the

right, not yet recognized, of the half of humanity--the right of

woman to liberty, equality, and fraternity. She obliges man to

verify the fatal attack which he makes on the integrity of his

principles.

Soon, in fact during the wonderful days of June, 1848, liberty

glides from her pedestal in the flood of the victims of the

reaction; based on the "right of the strongest," she falls,

overturned in the name of "the right of the strongest."

The Assembly kept silence in regard to the right of one-half of

humanity, for which only one of its members raised his voice, but

in vain. No mention was made of the right of woman in a

Constitution framed in the name of Liberty, Equality, and

Fraternity.

It is in the name of these principles that woman comes to claim

her right to take part in the Legislative Assembly, and to help

to form the laws which must govern society, of which she is a

member.

She comes to demand of the electors the consecration of the

principle of equality by the election of a woman, and by this act

she obliges man to prove that the fundamental law which he has

formed in the sole name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, is

still based upon privilege, and soon privilege triumphs over this

phantom of universal suffrage, which, being but half of itself,

sinks on the 31st of May, 1850.

But while those selected by the half of the people--by men

alone--evoke force to stifle liberty, and forge restrictive laws

to establish order by compression, woman, guided by fraternity,

foreseeing incessant struggles, and in the hope of putting an end

to them, makes an appeal to the laborer to found liberty and

equality on fraternal solidarity. The participation of woman gave

to this work of enfranchisement an eminently pacific character,

and the laborer recognizes the right of woman, his companion in

labor.

The delegates of a hundred and four associations, united, without

distinction of sex, elected two women, with several of their

brethren, to participate equally with them in the administration

of the interests of labor, and in the organization of the work of

solidarity.

Fraternal associations were formed with the object of

enfranchising the laborer from the yoke of spoilage and

patronage, but, isolated in the midst of the Old World, their

efforts could only produce a feeble amelioration for themselves.

The union of associations based on fraternal solidarity had for

its end the organization of labor; that is to say, an equal

division of labor, of instruments, and of the products of labor.

The means were, the union of labor, and of credit among the

workers of all professions, in order to acquire the instruments

of labor and the necessary materials, and to form a mutual

guarantee for the education of their children, and to provide for

the needs of the old, the sick, and the infirm.

In this organization all the workers, without distinction of sex

or profession, having an equal right to election, and being

eligible for all functions, and all having equally the initiative

and the sovereign decision in the acts of common interests, they

laid the foundation of a new society based on liberty, equality,

and fraternity.

It is in the name of law framed by man only--by those elected by

privilege--that the Old World, wishing to stifle in the germ the

holy work of pacific enfranchisement, has shut up within the

walls of a prison those who had founded it--those elected by the

laborers.

But the impulse has been given, a grand act has been

accomplished. The right of woman has been recognized by the

laborers, and they have consecrated that right by the election of

those who had claimed it in vain for both sexes, before the

electoral urn and before the electoral committees. They have

received the true civil baptism, were elected by the laborers to

accomplish the mission of enfranchisement, and after having

shared their rights and their duties, they share to-day their

captivity.

It is from the depths of their prison that they address to you

the relation of these facts, which contain in themselves high

instruction. It is by labor, it is by entering resolutely into

the ranks of the working people, that women will conquer the

civil and political equality on which depends the happiness of

the world. As to moral equality, has she not conquered it by the

power of sentiment? It is, therefore, by the sentiment of the

love of humanity that the mother of humanity will find power to

accomplish her high mission. It is when she shall have well

comprehended the holy law of solidarity--which is not an obscure

and mysterious dogma, but a living providential fact--that the

kingdom of God promised by Jesus, and which is no other than the

kingdom of equality and justice, shall be realized on earth.

Sisters of America! your socialist sisters of France are united

with you in the vindication of the right of woman to civil and

political equality. We have, moreover, the profound conviction

that only by the power of association based on solidarity--by the

union of the working-classes of both sexes to organize labor--can

be acquired, completely and pacifically, the civil and political

equality of woman, and the social right for all.

It is in this confidence that, from the depths of the jail which

still imprisons our bodies without reaching our hearts, we cry to

you, Faith, Love, Hope, and send to you our sisterly salutations,

JEANNE DEROINE,

PAULINE ROLAND.

PARIS, PRISON OF ST. LAGARE, _June 15, 1851_.

Ernestine L. Rose, having known something of European despotism,

followed Mr. Channing in a speech of great pathos and power. She said:

After having heard the letter read from our poor incarcerated

sisters of France, well might we exclaim, Alas, poor France!

where is thy glory? Where the glory of the Revolution of 1848, in

which shone forth the pure and magnanimous spirit of an oppressed

nation struggling for Freedom? Where the fruits of that victory

that gave to the world the motto, "Liberty, Equality, and

Fraternity"? A motto destined to hurl the tyranny of kings and

priests into the dust, and give freedom to the enslaved millions

of the earth. Where, I again ask, is the result of those noble

achievements, when woman, ay, one-half of the nation, is deprived

of her rights? Has woman then been idle during the contest

between "right and might"? Has she been wanting in ardor and

enthusiasm? Has she not mingled her blood with that of her

husband, son, and sire? Or has she been recreant in hailing the

motto of liberty floating on your banners as an omen of justice,

peace, and freedom to man, that at the first step she takes

practically to claim the recognition of her rights, she is

rewarded with the doom of a martyr?

But right has not yet asserted her prerogative, for might rules

the day; and as every good cause must have its martyrs, why

should woman not be a martyr for her cause? But need we wonder

that France, governed as she is by Russian and Austrian

despotism, does not recognize the rights of humanity in the

recognition of the rights of woman, when even here, in this

far-famed land of freedom, under a Republic that has inscribed on

its banner the great truth that "all men are created free and

equal, and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness"--a declaration borne, like the vision

of hope, on wings of light to the remotest parts of the earth, an

omen of freedom to the oppressed and down-trodden children of

man--when, even here, in the very face of this eternal truth,

woman, the mockingly so-called "better half" of man, has yet to

plead for her rights, nay, for her life. For what is life without

liberty, and what is liberty without equality of rights? And as

for the pursuit of happiness, she is not allowed to choose any

line of action that might promote it; she has only thankfully to

accept what man in his magnanimity decides as best for her to do,

and this is what he does not choose to do himself.

Is she then not included in that declaration? Answer, ye wise men

of the nation, and answer truly; add not hypocrisy to oppression!

Say that she is not created free and equal, and therefore (for

the sequence follows on the premise) that she is not entitled to

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But with all the

audacity arising from an assumed superiority, you dare not so

libel and insult humanity as to say, that she is not included in

that declaration; and if she is, then what right has man, except

that of might, to deprive woman of the rights and privileges he

claims for himself? And why, in the name of reason and justice,

why should she not have the same rights? Because she is woman?

Humanity recognizes no sex; virtue recognizes no sex; mind

recognizes no sex; life and death, pleasure and pain, happiness

and misery, recognize no sex. Like man, woman comes involuntarily

into existence; like him, she possesses physical and mental and

moral powers, on the proper cultivation of which depends her

happiness; like him she is subject to all the vicissitudes of

life; like him she has to pay the penalty for disobeying nature's

laws, and far greater penalties has she to suffer from ignorance

of her more complicated nature; like him she enjoys or suffers

with her country. Yet she is not recognized as his equal!

In the laws of the land she has no rights; in government she has

no voice. And in spite of another principle, recognized in this

Republic, namely, that "taxation without representation is

tyranny," she is taxed without being represented. Her property

may be consumed by taxes to defray the expenses of that unholy,

unrighteous custom called war, yet she has no power to give her

vote against it. From the cradle to the grave she is subject to

the power and control of man. Father, guardian, or husband, one

conveys her like some piece of merchandise over to the other.

At marriage she loses her entire identity, and her being is said

to have become merged in her husband. Has nature thus merged it?

Has she ceased to exist and feel pleasure and pain? When she

violates the laws of her being, does her husband pay the penalty?

When she breaks the moral laws, does he suffer the punishment?

When he supplies his wants, is it enough to satisfy her nature?

And when at his nightly orgies, in the grog-shop and the

oyster-cellar, or at the gaming-table, he squanders the means she

helped, by her co-operation and economy, to accumulate, and she

awakens to penury and destitution, will it supply the wants of

her children to tell them that, owing to the superiority of man

she had no redress by law, and that as her being was merged in

his, so also ought theirs to be? What an inconsistency, that from

the moment she enters that compact, in which she assumes the high

responsibility of wife and mother, she ceases legally to exist,

and becomes a purely submissive being. Blind submission in woman

is considered a virtue, while submission to wrong is itself

wrong, and resistance to wrong is virtue, alike in woman as in

man.

But it will be said that the husband provides for the wife, or in

other words, he feeds, clothes, and shelters her! I wish I had

the power to make every one before me fully realize the

degradation contained in that idea. Yes! he _keeps_ her, and so

he does a favorite horse; by law they are both considered his

property. Both may, when the cruelty of the owner compels them

to, run away, be brought back by the strong arm of the law, and

according to a still extant law of England, both may be led by

the halter to the market-place, and sold. This is humiliating

indeed, but nevertheless true; and the sooner these things are

known and understood, the better for humanity. It is no fancy

sketch. I know that some endeavor to throw the mantle of romance

over the subject, and treat woman like some ideal existence, not

liable to the ills of life. Let those deal in fancy, that have

nothing better to deal in; we have to do with sober, sad

realities, with stubborn facts.

Again, I shall be told that the law presumes the husband to be

kind, affectionate, and ready to provide for and protect his

wife. But what right, I ask, has the law to presume at all on the

subject? What right has the law to intrust the interest and

happiness of one being into the hands of another? And if the

merging of the interest of one being into the other is a

necessary consequence on marriage, why should woman always remain

on the losing side? Turn the tables. Let the identity and

interest of the husband be merged in the wife. Think you she

would act less generously toward him, than he toward her? Think

you she is not capable of as much justice, disinterested

devotion, and abiding affection, as he is? Oh, how grossly you

misunderstand and wrong her nature! But we desire no such undue

power over man; it would be as wrong in her to exercise it as it

now is in him. All we claim is an equal legal and social

position. We have nothing to do with individual man, be he good

or bad, but with the laws that oppress woman. We know that bad

and unjust laws must in the nature of things make man so too. If

he is kind, affectionate, and consistent, it is because the

kindlier feelings, instilled by a mother, kept warm by a sister,

and cherished by a wife, will not allow him to carry out these

barbarous laws against woman.

But the estimation she is generally held in, is as degrading as

it is foolish. Man forgets that woman can not be degraded without

its reacting on himself. The impress of her mind is stamped on

him by nature, and the early education of the mother, which no

after-training can entirely efface; and therefore, the estimation

she is held in falls back with double force upon him. Yet, from

the force of prejudice against her, he knows it not. Not long

ago, I saw an account of two offenders, brought before a Justice

of New York. One was charged with stealing a pair of boots, for

which offense he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; the

other crime was assault and battery upon his wife: he was let off

with a reprimand from the judge! With my principles, I am

entirely opposed to punishment, and hold, that to reform the

erring and remove the causes of evil is much more efficient, as

well as just, than to punish. But the judge showed us the

comparative value which he set on these two kinds of _property_.

But then you must remember that the boots were taken by a

stranger, while the wife was insulted by her legal owner! Here it

will be said, that such degrading cases are but few. For the sake

of humanity, I hope they are. But as long as woman shall be

oppressed by unequal laws, so long will she be degraded by man.

We have hardly an adequate idea how all-powerful law is in

forming public opinion, in giving tone and character to the mass

of society. To illustrate my point, look at that infamous,

detestable law, which was written in human blood, and signed and

sealed with life and liberty, that eternal stain on the statute

book of this country, the Fugitive Slave Law. Think you that

before its passage, you could have found any in the free

States--except a few politicians in the market--base enough to

desire such a law? No! no! Even those who took no interest in the

slave question, would have shrunk from so barbarous a thing. But

no sooner was it passed, than the ignorant mass, the rabble of

the self-styled Union Safety Committee, found out that we were a

law-loving, law-abiding people! Such is the magic power of Law.

Hence the necessity to guard against bad ones. Hence also the

reason why we call on the nation to remove the legal shackles

from woman, and it will have a beneficial effect on that still

greater tyrant she has to contend with, Public Opinion.

Carry out the republican principle of universal suffrage, or

strike it from your banners and substitute "Freedom and Power to

one half of society, and Submission and Slavery to the other."

Give woman the elective franchise. Let married women have the

same right to property that their husbands have; for whatever the

difference in their respective occupations, the duties of the

wife are as indispensable and far more arduous than the

husband's. Why then should the wife, at the death of her husband,

not be his heir to the same extent that he is heir to her? In

this inequality there is involved another wrong. When the wife

dies, the husband is left in the undisturbed possession of all

there is, and the children are left with him; no change is made,

no stranger intrudes on his home and his affliction. But when the

husband dies, the widow, at best receives but a mere pittance,

while strangers assume authority denied to the wife. The

sanctuary of affliction must be desecrated by executors;

everything must be ransacked and assessed, lest she should steal

something out of her own house: and to cap the climax, the

children must be placed under guardians. When the husband dies

poor, to be sure, no guardian is required, and the children are

left for the mother to care and toil for, as best she may. But

when anything is left for their maintenance, then it must be

placed in the hands of strangers for safe keeping! The

bringing-up and safety of the children are left with the mother,

and safe they are in her hands. But a few hundred or thousand

dollars can not be intrusted with her!

But, say they, "in case of a second marriage, the children must

be protected in their property." Does that reason not hold as

good in the case of the husband as in that of the wife? Oh, no!

When _he_ marries again, he still retains his identity and power

to act; but _she_ becomes merged once more into a mere nonentity;

and therefore the first husband must rob her to prevent the

second from doing so! Make the laws regulating property between

husband and wife, equal for both, and all these difficulties

would be removed.

According to a late act, the wife has a right to the property she

brings at marriage, or receives in any way after marriage. Here

is some provision for the favored few; but for the laboring many,

there is none. The mass of the people commence life with no other

capital than the union of heads, hearts, and hands. To the

benefit of this best of capital, the wife has no right. If they

are unsuccessful in married life, who suffers more the bitter

consequences of poverty than the wife? But if successful, she can

not call a dollar her own. The husband may will away every dollar

of the personal property, and leave her destitute and penniless,

and she has no redress by law. And even where real estate is left

she receives but a life-interest in a third part of it, and at

her death, she can not leave it to any one belonging to her: it

falls back even to the remotest of his relatives. This is law,

but where is the justice of it? Well might we say that laws were

made to prevent, not to promote, the ends of justice.

In case of separation, why should the children be taken from the

protecting care of the mother? Who has a better right to them

than she? How much do fathers generally do toward bringing them

up? When he comes home from business, and the child is in good

humor and handsome trim, he takes the little darling on his knee

and plays with it. But when the wife, with the care of the whole

household on her shoulders, with little or no help, is not able

to put them in the best order, how much does he do for them? Oh,

no! Fathers like to have children good natured, well-behaved, and

comfortable, but how to put them in that desirable condition is

out of their philosophy. Children always depend more on the

tender, watchful care of the mother, than of the father. Whether

from nature, habit, or both, the mother is much more capable of

administering to their health and comfort than the father, and

therefore she has the best right to them. And where there is

property, it ought to be divided equally between them, with an

additional provision from the father toward the maintenance and

education of the children.

Much is said about the burdens and responsibilities of married

men. Responsibilities indeed there are, if they but felt them;

but as to burdens, what are they? The sole province of man seems

to be centered in that one thing, attending to some business. I

grant that owing to the present unjust and unequal reward for

labor, many have to work too hard for a subsistence; but whatever

his vocation, he has to attend as much to it before as after

marriage. Look at your bachelors, and see if they do not strive

as much for wealth, and attend as steadily to business, as

married men. No! the husband has little or no increase of burden,

and every increase of comfort after marriage; while most of the

burdens, cares, pains, and penalties of married life fall on the

wife. How unjust and cruel, then, to have all the laws in his

favor! If any difference should be made by law between husband

and wife, reason, justice, and humanity, if their voices were

heard, would dictate that it should be in her favor.

No! there is no reason against woman's elevation, but there are

deep-rooted, hoary-headed prejudices. The main cause of them is,

a pernicious falsehood propagated against her being, namely, that

she is inferior by her nature. Inferior in what? What has man

ever done, that woman, under the same advantages, could not do?

In morals, bad as she is, she is generally considered his

superior. In the intellectual sphere, give her a fair chance

before you pronounce a verdict against her. Cultivate the frontal

portion of her brain as much as that of man is cultivated, and

she will stand his equal at least. Even now, where her mind has

been called out at all, her intellect is as bright, as capacious,

and as powerful as his. Will you tell us, that women have no

Newtons, Shakespeares, and Byrons? Greater natural powers than

even those possessed may have been destroyed in woman for want of

proper culture, a just appreciation, reward for merit as an

incentive to exertion, and freedom of action, without which, mind

becomes cramped and stifled, for it can not expand under bolts

and bars; and yet, amid all blighting, crushing

circumstances--confined within the narrowest possible limits,

trampled upon by prejudice and injustice, from her education and

position forced to occupy herself almost exclusively with the

most trivial affairs--in spite of all these difficulties, her

intellect is as good as his. The few bright meteors in man's

intellectual horizon could well be matched by woman, were she

allowed to occupy the same elevated position. There is no need of

naming the De Staëls, the Rolands, the Somervilles, the

Wollstonecrofts, the Sigourneys, the Wrights, the Martineaus, the

Hemanses, the Fullers, Jagellos, and many more of modern as well

as ancient times, to prove her mental powers, her patriotism, her

self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of humanity, and the

eloquence that gushes from her pen, or from her tongue. These

things are too well known to require repetition. And do you ask

for fortitude, energy, and perseverance? Then look at woman under

suffering, reverse of fortune, and affliction, when the strength

and power of man have sunk to the lowest ebb, when his mind is

overwhelmed by the dark waters of despair. She, like the tender

ivy plant bent yet unbroken by the storms of life, not only

upholds her own hopeful courage, but clings around the

tempest-fallen oak, to speak hope to his faltering spirit, and

shelter him from the returning blast of the storm.

In looking over the speeches of Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Abby Kelly

Foster, Clarina Howard Nichols, Antoinette Brown, and Lucy Stone, and

the well-digested reports by Paulina Wright Davis on Education, Abby

Price on Industry, and William Henry Channing on the Social Relations,

comprising the whole range of woman's rights and duties, we feel that

the report of one of these meetings settles the question of woman's

capacity to reason. At every session of this two days' Convention

Brinley Hall was so crowded at an early hour that hundreds were unable

to gain admittance. Accordingly, the last evening it was proposed to

adjourn to the City Hall; and even that spacious auditorium was

crowded long before the hour for assembling. It may be said with

truth, that in the whole history of the woman suffrage movement there

never was at one time more able and eloquent men and women on our

platform, and represented by letter there, than in these Worcester

Conventions, which called out numerous complimentary comments and

editorial notices, notably the following:

[_From the New York Christian Inquirer_, Rev. Henry Bellows,

D.D., editor.]

THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION AT WORCESTER.

We have read the report of the proceedings of this Convention

with lively interest and general satisfaction. We confess

ourselves to be much surprised at the prevailing good sense,

propriety, and moral elevation of the meeting. No candid reader

can deny the existence of singular ability, honest and pure aims,

eloquent and forcible advocacy, and a startling power in the

reports and speeches of this Convention. For good, or for evil,

it seems to us to be the most important meeting since that held

in the cabin of the _Mayflower_. That meeting recognized the

social and political equality of one-half the human race; this

asserts the social and political equality of the other half, and

of the whole. Imagine the difference which it would have made in

our Declaration of Independence, to have inserted "and women" in

the first clause of the self-evident truths it asserts: "that all

men _and women_ are created equal." This Convention declares this

to be the true interpretation of the Declaration, and at any

rate, designs to amend the popular reading of the instrument to

this effect. Nor is it a theoretical change which is aimed at. No

more practical or tremendous revolution was ever sought in

society, than that which this Woman's Rights Convention

inaugurates. To emancipate half the human race from its present

position of dependence on the other half; to abolish every

distinction between the sexes that can be abolished, or which is

maintained by statute or conventional usage; to throw open all

the employments of society with equal freedom to men and women;

to allow no difference whatsoever, in the eye of the law, in

their duties or their rights, this, we submit, is a reform,

surpassing, in pregnancy of purpose and potential results, any

other now upon the platform, if it do not outweigh Magna Charta

and our Declaration themselves.

We very well recollect the scorn with which the annual procession

of the first Abolitionists was greeted in Boston, some thirty

years ago. The children had no conception of the "Bobolition

Society," but as of a set of persons making themselves ridiculous

for the amusement of the public; but that "Bobolition Society"

has shaken the Union to its center, and filled the world with

sympathy and concern. The Woman's Rights Convention is in like

manner a thing for honest scorn to point its finger at; but a few

years may prove that we pointed the finger, not at an illuminated

balloon, but at the rising sun.

We have no hesitation in acknowledging ourselves to be among

those who have regarded this movement with decided distrust and

distaste. If we have been more free than others to express this

disgust, we have perhaps rendered some service, by representing a

common sentiment with which this reform has to contend. We would

be among the first to acknowledge that our objections have not

grown out of any deliberate consideration of the principles

involved in the question. They have been founded on instinctive

aversion, on an habitual respect for public sentiment, on an

irresistible feeling of the ludicrousness of the proposed reform

in its details. Certainly social instinct has its proper place in

the judgments we pass on the manners of both sexes. What is

offensive to good taste--meaning by good taste, the taste of the

most educated and refined people--has the burden of proof resting

upon it when it claims respect and attention. But we should be

the last to assert that questions of right and rights have no

appeal from the bar of conventional taste to that of reason.

And however it may have been at the outset, we think the Woman's

Rights question has now made good its title to be heard in the

superior court. The principles involved in this great question we

can not now discuss; but we have a few thoughts upon the attitude

of the reformer toward society, which we would respectfully

commend to attention. If the female sex is injured in its present

position, it is an injury growing out of universal mistake; an

honest error, in which the sexes have conspired, without

intentional injustice on one side, or feeling of wrong on the

other. Indeed, we could not admit that there had been thus far

any wrong or mistake at all, except in details. Mankind have

hitherto found the natural functions of the two sexes marking out

different spheres for them. Thus far, as we think, the

circumstances of the world have compelled a marked division of

labor, and a marked difference of culture and political position

between the sexes.

The facts of superior bodily strength on the masculine side, and

of maternity on the feminine side, small as they are now made to

appear, are very great and decisive facts in themselves, and have

necessarily governed the organization of society. It is between

the sexes, as between the races, the strongest rules; and it has

hitherto been supposed to be of service to the common interest of

society, that this rule should be legalized and embodied in the

social customs of every community. As a fact, woman, by her

bodily weakness and her maternal office, was from the first, a

comparatively private and domestic creature; her education, from

circumstances, was totally different, her interests were

different, the sources of her happiness different from man's, and

as a fact, all these things, though with important modifications,

have continued to be so to this day. The fact has seemed to the

world a final one. It has been thought that in her present

position, she was in her best position relative to man, which her

nature or organization admitted of. That she is man's inferior in

respect to all offices and duties requiring great bodily powers,

or great moral courage, or great intellectual effort, has been

almost universally supposed,--honestly thought too, and without

the least disposition to deny her equality, on this account, in

the scale of humanity.

For in respect to moral sensibility, affections, manners, tastes,

and the passive virtues, woman has long been honestly felt to be

the superior of man. The political disfranchisement of women, and

their seclusion from publicity, have grown out of sincere

convictions that their nature and happiness demanded from man an

exemption from the cares, and a protection from the perils of the

out-of-door world. Mankind, in both its parts, may have been

utterly mistaken in this judgment; but it has been nearly

universal, and thoroughly sincere,--based thus far, we think,

upon staring facts and compulsory circumstances.

In starting a radical reform upon this subject, it is expedient

that it should be put, not on the basis of old grievances, but

upon the ground of new light, of recent and fresh experiences, of

change of circumstances. It may be that the relative position of

the sexes is so changed by an advancing civilization, that the

time has come for questioning the conclusion of the world

respecting woman's sphere. All surprise at opposition to this

notion, all sense of injury, all complaint of past injustice,

ought to cease. Woman's part has been the part which her actual

state made necessary. If another and a better future is opening,

let us see it and rejoice in it as a new gift of Providence.

And we are not without suspicion that the time for some great

change has arrived. At any rate, we confess our surprise at the

weight of the reasoning brought forward by the recent Convention,

and shall endeavor henceforth to keep our masculine mind,--full,

doubtless, of conventional prejudices,--open to the light which

is shed upon the theme.

Meanwhile, we must beg the women who are pressing this reform, to

consider that the conservatism of instinct and taste, though not

infallible, in respectable and worth attention. The opposition

they will receive is founded on prejudices that are not selfish,

but merely masculine. It springs from no desire to keep women

down, but from a desire to keep them up; from a feeling, mistaken

it may be, that their strength, and their dignity, and their

happiness, lie in their seclusion from the rivalries, strifes,

and public duties of life. The strength and depth of the respect

and love for woman, as woman, which characterize this age, can

not be overstated. But woman insists upon being respected, as a

kindred intellect, a free competitor, and a political equal. And

we have suspicions that she may surprise the conservative world

by making her pretensions good. Only meanwhile let her respect

the affectionate and sincere prejudices, if they be prejudices,

which adhere to the other view, a view made honorable, if not

proved true, by the experiences of all the ages of the past. We

hope to give the whole subject more attention in future. Indeed

it will force attention. It may be the solution of many social

problems, long waiting an answer, is delayed by the neglect to

take woman's case into fuller consideration. The success of the

present reform would give an entirely new problem to political

and social philosophers! At present we endeavor to hold ourselves

in a candid suspense.

Judging Dr. Bellows by the above editorial, he had made some progress

in one year. A former article from his pen called out the following

criticism from Mrs. Rose:

After last year's Woman's Convention, I saw an article in the

_Christian Inquirer_, a Unitarian paper, edited by the Rev. Mr.

Bellows, of New York, where, in reply to a correspondent on the

subject of Woman's Rights, in which he strenuously opposed her

taking part in anything in public, he said: "Place woman

unbonneted and unshawled before the public gaze and what becomes

of her modesty and her virtue?" In his benighted mind, the

modesty and virtue of woman is of so fragile a nature, that when

it is in contact with the atmosphere, it evaporates like

chloroform. But I refrain to comment on such a sentiment. It

carries with it its own deep condemnation. When I read the

article, I earnestly wished I had the ladies of the writer's

congregation before me, to see whether they could realize the

estimation their pastor held them in. Yet I hardly know which

sentiment was strongest in me, contempt for such foolish

opinions, or pity for a man that has so degrading an opinion of

woman--of the being that gave him life, that sustained his

helpless infancy with her ever-watchful care, and laid the very

foundation for the little mind he may possess--of the being he

took to his bosom as the partner of his joys and sorrows--the one

whom, when he strove to win her affection, he courted, as all

such men court woman, like some divinity. Such a man deserves our

pity; for I can not realize that a man purposely and willfully

degrades his mother, sister, wife, and daughter. No! my better

nature, my best knowledge and conviction forbid me to believe it.

THE UNA.

In February, 1853, Paulina Wright Davis started a woman's paper called

_The Una_, published in Providence, Rhode Island, with the following

prospectus:

Usage makes it necessary to present our readers with a prospectus

setting forth our aims and objects. Our plan is to publish a

paper monthly, devoted to the interests of woman. Our purpose is

to speak clear, earnest words of truth and soberness in a spirit

of kindness. To discuss the rights, duties, sphere, and destiny

of woman fully and fearlessly. So far as our voice shall be

heard, it will be ever on the side of freedom. We shall not

confine ourselves to any locality, sex, sect, class, or caste,

for we hold to the solidarity of the race, and believe if one

member suffers, all suffer, and the highest made to atone for the

lowest. Our mystical name, _The Una_, signifying _Truth_, will be

to us a constant suggestion of fidelity to all.

_The Una_ could boast for its correspondents some of the ablest men

and women in the nation; such as William H. Channing, Elizabeth

Peabody, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Rev. A. D. Mayo, Dr. William

Elder, Ednah D. Cheney, Caroline H. Dall, Fanny Fern, Elizabeth Oakes

Smith, Frances D. Gage, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Abby H. Price, Marion

Finch, of Liverpool, Hon. John Neal, of Portland, Lucy Stone, and

Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

For some time Mrs. Dall assisted in the editorial department. _The

Una_ was the first pronounced Woman Suffrage paper; it lived three

years. Glancing over the bound volumes, one may glean much valuable

information of what was said and done during that period. We learn

that Lady Grace Vandeleur, in person, canvassed the election of

Kilrush, Ireland, and from her ladyship's open carriage, addressed a

large assemblage of electors on behalf of her husband, the

Conservative candidate. She was enthusiastically greeted by the

populace.

The _Maine Age_ announces the election of a Miss Rose to the office of

Register of Deeds, and remarks: "Before the morning of the twentieth

century dawns, women will not simply fill your offices of Register of

Deeds, but they will occupy seats in your Legislative Halls, on your

judicial benches, and in the executive chair of State and Nation. We

deprecate it, yet we perceive its inevitability, and await the shock

with firmness and composure."

This same year, _The Una_ narrates the following amusing incident that

occurred in the town of P----, New Hampshire: It is customary in the

country towns for those who choose to do so, to pay their proportion

of the highway tax, in actual labor on the roads, at the rate of eight

cents an hour, instead of paying money. Two able-bodied and

strong-hearted women in P----, who found it very inconvenient to pay

the ready cash required of them, determined to avail themselves of

this custom. They accordingly presented themselves to the surveyor of

the highway with hoes in their hands, and demanded to be set to work.

The good surveyor was sorely puzzled; such a thing as women working

out their taxes, had never been heard of, and yet the law made no

provision against it. He consulted his lawyer, who advised him that he

had no power to refuse. Accordingly the two brave women worked, and

worked well, in spreading sand and gravel, saved their pennies, and no

doubt felt all the better for their labor.

In the April Number, 1853, we find the following appeal to the

citizens of Massachusetts, on the equal political rights of woman:

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--In May next a Convention will assemble to

revise the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

At such a time it is the right and duty of every one to point out

whatever he deems erroneous and imperfect in that instrument, and

press its amendment on public attention.

We deem the extension to woman of all civil rights, a measure of

vital importance to the welfare and progress of the State. On

every principle of natural justice, as well as by the nature of

our institutions, she is as fully entitled as man to vote, and to

be eligible to office. In governments based on force, it might be

pretended with some plausibility, that woman being supposed

physically weaker than man, should be excluded from the State.

But ours is a government professedly resting on the consent of

the governed. Woman is surely as competent to give that consent

as man. Our Revolution claimed that taxation and representation

should be co-extensive. While the property and labor of women are

subject to taxation, she is entitled to a voice in fixing the

amount of taxes, and the use of them when collected, and is

entitled to a voice in the laws that regulate punishments. It

would be a disgrace to our schools and civil institutions, for

any one to argue that a Massachusetts woman who has enjoyed the

full advantage of all their culture, is not as competent to form

an opinion on civil matters, as the illiterate foreigner landed

but a few years before upon our shores--unable to read or

write--by no means free from early prejudices, and little

acquainted with our institutions. Yet such men are allowed to

vote.

Woman as wife, mother, daughter, and owner of property, has

important rights to be protected. The whole history of

legislation so unequal between the sexes, shows that she can not

safely trust these to the other sex. Neither have her rights as

mother, wife, daughter, laborer, ever received full legislative

protection. Besides, our institutions are not based on the idea

of one class receiving protection from another; but on the

well-recognized rule that each class, or sex, is entitled to such

civil rights, as will enable it to protect itself. The exercise

of civil rights is one of the best means of education. Interest

in great questions, and the discussion of them under momentous

responsibility, call forth all the faculties and nerve them to

their fullest strength. The grant of these rights on the part of

society, would quickly lead to the enjoyment by woman, of a share

in the higher grades of professional employment. Indeed, without

these, mere book study is often but a waste of time. The learning

for which no use is found or anticipated, is too frequently

forgotten, almost as soon as acquired. The influence of such a

share, on the moral condition of society, is still more

important. Crowded now into few employments, women starve each

other by close competition; and too often vice borrows

overwhelming power of temptation from poverty. Open to women a

great variety of employments, and her wages in each will rise;

the energy and enterprise of the more highly endowed, will find

full scope in honest effort, and the frightful vice of our cities

will be stopped at its fountain-head. We hint very briefly at

these matters. A circular like this will not allow room for more.

Some may think it too soon to expect any action from the

Convention. Many facts lead us to think that public opinion is

more advanced on this question than is generally supposed.

Beside, there can be no time so proper to call public attention

to a radical change in our civil polity as now, when the whole

framework of our government is to be subjected to examination and

discussion. It is never too early to begin the discussion of any

desired change. To urge our claim on the Convention, is to bring

our question before the proper tribunal, and secure at the same

time the immediate attention of the general public.

Massachusetts, though she has led the way in most other reforms,

has in this fallen behind her rivals, consenting to learn, as to

the protection of the property of married women, of many younger

States. Let us redeem for her the old pre-eminence, and urge her

to set a noble example in this the most important of all civil

reforms. To this we ask you to join with us[49] in the

accompanying petition to the Constitutional Convention.

In favor of this Appeal Lucy Stone, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips,

and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, were heard.

We find in _The Una_ the following report of Mr. Higginson's speech

before the Committee of the Constitutional Convention on the

qualification of voters, June 3, 1853, the question being on the

petition of Abby May Alcott, and other women of Massachusetts, that

they be permitted to vote on the amendments that may be made to the

Constitution.

MR. HIGGINSON'S SPEECH.

I need hardly suggest to the Committee the disadvantage under

which I appear before them, in coming to glean after three of the

most eloquent voices in this community, or any other [Lucy Stone,

Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker]; in doing this, moreover,

without having heard all their arguments, and in a fragment of

time at the end of a two hours' sitting. I have also the minor

disadvantage of gleaning after myself, having just ventured to

submit a more elaborate essay on this subject, in a different

form, to the notice of the Convention.

I shall therefore abstain from all debate upon the general

question, and confine myself to the specific point now before

this Committee. I shall waive all inquiry as to the right of

women to equality in education, in occupations, or in the

ordinary use of the elective franchise. The question before this

Committee is not whether women shall become legal voters--but

whether they shall have power to say, once for all, whether they

wish to become legal voters. Whether, in one word, they desire to

accept this Constitution which the Convention is framing.

It is well that the question should come up in this form, since

the one efficient argument against the right of women to vote, in

ordinary cases, is the plea that they do not wish to do it.

"Their whole nature revolts at it." Very well; these petitioners

simply desire an opportunity for Massachusetts women to say

whether their nature does revolt at it or no.

The whole object of this Convention, as I heard stated by one of

its firmest advocates, is simply this: to "make the Constitution

of Massachusetts consistent with its own first principles." This

is all these petitioners demand. Give them the premises which are

conceded in our existing Bill of Rights, or even its Preamble,

and they ask no more. I shall draw my few weapons from this

source. I know that this document is not binding upon your

Convention; nothing is binding upon you but eternal and absolute

justice, and my predecessor has taken care of the claims of that.

But the Bill of Rights is still the organic law of this State,

and I can quote no better authority for those principles which

lie at the foundation of all that we call republicanism.

I. My first citation will be from the Preamble, and will

establish as Massachusetts doctrine the principle of the

Declaration of Independence, that all government owes its just

powers to the consent of the governed.

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of

government, is to secure the existence of the body politic....

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of

individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people

covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole

people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common

good.... It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a

constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of

making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a

faithful execution of them," etc., etc.

Now, women are "individuals"; women are a part of "the people";

women are "citizens," for the Constitution elsewhere

distinguishes male citizens. This clause, then, concedes

precisely that which your petitioners claim. Observe how explicit

it is. The people are not merely to have good laws, well

administered; but they must have an equitable mode of making

those laws. The reason of this is, that good laws are no

permanent security, unless enacted by equitable methods. Your

laws may be the best ever devised; yet still they are only given

as a temporary favor, not held as a right, unless the whole

people are concerned in their enactment. It is the old claim of

despots--that their laws are good. When they told Alexander of

Russia that his personal character was as good as a constitution

for his people, "then," said he, "I am but a lucky accident."

Your constitution may be never so benignant to woman, but that is

only a lucky accident, unless you concede the claim of these

women to have a share in creating it. Nothing else "is an

equitable mode of making laws." But it is too late to choose

female delegates to your Convention, and the only thing you can

do is to allow women to vote on the acceptance of its results.

The claim of these petitioners may be unexpected, but is

logically irresistible. If you do not wish it to be renewed, you

must remember either to alter or abrogate your Bill of Rights;

for the petition is based on that.

The last speaker called this movement a novelty. Not entirely so.

The novelty is partly the other way. In Europe, women have direct

political power; witness Victoria. It is a false democracy which

has taken it away. In my more detailed argument, I have cited

many instances of these foreign privileges. In monarchical

countries the dividing lines are not of sex, but of rank. A

plebeian woman has no political power--nor has her husband. Rank

gives it to man, and, also, in a degree, to woman. But among us

the only rank is of sex. Politically speaking, in Massachusetts

all men are patrician, all women plebeian. All men are equal, in

having direct political power; and all women are equal, in having

none. And women lose by democracy precisely that which men gain.

Therefore I say this disfranchisement of woman, as woman, is a

novelty. It is a now aristocracy; for, as De Tocqueville says,

wherever one class has peculiar powers, as such, there is

aristocracy and oligarchy.

We see the result of this in our general mode of speaking of

woman. We forget to speak of her as an individual being, only as

a thing. A political writer coolly says, that in Massachusetts,

"except criminals and paupers, there is no class of persons who

do not exercise the elective franchise." Women are not even a

"class of persons." And yet, most readers would not notice this

extraordinary omission. I talked the other day with a young

radical preacher about his new religious organization. "Who votes

under it?" said I. "Oh," (he said, triumphantly,) "we go for

progress and liberty; anybody and everybody votes." "What!" said

I, "women?" "No," said he, rather startled; "I did not think of

them when I spoke." Thus quietly do we all talk of "anybody and

everybody," and omit half the human race. Indeed, I read in the

newspaper, this morning, of some great festivity, that "all the

world and his wife" would be there! Women are not a part of the

world, but only its "wife." They are not even "the rest of

mankind"; they are womankind! All these things show the results

of that inconsistency with the first principles of our

Constitution of which the friends of this Convention justly

complain.

II. So much for the general statement of the Massachusetts Bill

of Rights in its Preamble. But one clause is even more explicit.

In Section 9, I find the following:

"All the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, having such

qualifications as they shall establish by their form of

government, have an equal right to elect officers," etc.

As "they" shall establish. Who are _they_? Manifestly, the

inhabitants as a whole. No part can have power, except by the

consent of the whole, so far as that consent is practicable.

Accordingly, you submit your Constitution for ratification--to

whom? Not to the inhabitants of the State, not even to a majority

of the native adult inhabitants; for it is estimated that at any

given moment--in view of the great number of men emigrating to

the West, to California, or absent on long voyages--the majority

of the population of Massachusetts is female. You disfranchise

the majority, then; the greater part of "the inhabitants" have no

share in establishing the form of government, or assigning the

qualifications of voters. What worse can you say of any

oligarchy? True, your aristocracy is a large one--almost a

majority, you may say. But so, in several European nations, is

nobility almost in a majority, and you almost hire a nobleman to

black your shoes; they are as cheap as generals and colonels in

New England. But the principle is the same, whether the

privileged minority consists of one or one million.

It is said that a tacit consent has been hitherto given by the

absence of open protest? The same argument maybe used concerning

the black majority in South Carolina. Besides, your new

Constitution is not yet made, and there has been no opportunity

to assent to it. It will not be identical with the old one; but,

even if it were, you propose to ask a renewed consent from men,

and why not from women? Is it because a lady's "Yes" is always so

fixed a certainty, that it never can be transformed to a "No," at

a later period?

But I am compelled, by the fixed period of adjournment (10 A.M.),

to cut short my argument, as I have been already compelled to

condense it. I pray your consideration for the points I have

urged. Believe me, it is easier to ridicule the petition of these

women than to answer the arguments which sustain it. And, as the

great republic of ancient times did not blush to claim that laws

and governments were first introduced by Ceres, a woman, so I

trust that the representatives of this noblest of modern

commonwealths may not be ashamed to receive legislative

suggestions from even female petitioners.

On Tuesday, August 12, 1853, in Committee of the Whole, the report

that "it is inexpedient to act on the petition" of several parties

that women may vote, was taken up.

Mr. GREEN, of Brookfield, opposed the report, contending that

women being capable of giving or withholding their assent to the

acts of government, should upon every principle of justice and

equality, be permitted to participate in its administration. He

denied that men were of right the guardians or trustees of women,

since they had not been appointed, but had usurped that position.

Women had inherent natural rights as a portion of the people, and

they should be permitted to vote in order to protect those

inherent rights.

Mr. KEYES, of Abington, paid a warm tribute to the virtues and

abilities of the fairer sex, and was willing to concede that they

were to some extent oppressed and denied their rights; but he did

not believe the granting of the privileges these petitioners

claimed would tend to elevate or ameliorate their condition.

Woman exerted great power by the exercise of her feminine graces

and virtues, which she would lose the moment she should step

beyond her proper sphere and mingle in the affairs of State!

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston, believed that the same reasoning that

would deny the divine right of kings to govern men without their

consent, would also deny a similar right of men over women. The

Committee had given the best of reasons for granting the prayer

of the petitioners, and then reported that they have leave to

withdraw. He expatiated on the grievances to which women are

subjected, and concluded by moving as an amendment to the report,

that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted.

The Committee then rose, and had leave to sit again. Wednesday

the first business of importance was the taking up in Committee

of the report "leave to withdraw," relative to giving certain

privileges to women. Question on the amendment of Mr. Whitney to

amend the conclusion of the report, by inserting "that the prayer

of the petitioners be granted." Debate ensued on the subject

between Messrs. Marvin, of Winchendon; Kingman, of West

Bridgewater; when the question was taken, and Mr. Whitney's

amendment rejected. Mr. Marvin then moved to substitute

"inexpedient to act" for "leave to withdraw"; which was adopted.

The Committee then rose, and recommended the adoption of the

report as amended, by a vote of 108 to 44.

The prejudices of the 108 outweighed all the able arguments made by

those who represented the petitioners, and all the great principles of

justice on which a true republic is based.

We find the following comments on the character and duties of the

gentlemen who composed the Convention, from the pen of Mr. Higginson,

in _The Una_ of June, 1853:

_To the members of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention:_

The publication in our newspapers of the list of members of your

honorable body, has won the just tribute of men of all parties to

the happy result of the selection. Never, it is thought, has

Massachusetts witnessed a political assembly of more eminent or

accomplished men. And yet there are those to whom the daring

thought has occurred, that to convoke such ability and learning,

only to decide whether our Legislature shall be hereafter elected

by towns or districts, is somewhat like the course of Columbus in

assembling the dignitaries of his nation to decide whether an egg

could be best poised upon the larger or the smaller end. A

question which was necessarily settled, after all, by a

compromise, as this will be.

But at that moment, there lay within the brain of the young

Genoese a dream, which although denounced by prelates and derided

by statesmen was yet destined to add another half to the visible

earth; so there is brooding in the soul of this generation, a

vision of the greatest of all political discoveries, which, when

accepted, will double the intellectual resources of society, and

give a new world, not to Castile and Leon only, but to

Massachusetts and the human race.

And lastly, as we owe the labor and the laurels of Columbus only

to the liberal statesmanship of a woman, it is surely a noble

hope, that the future Isabellas of this Nation may point the way

for their oppressed sisters of Europe to a suffrage truly

universal, and a political freedom bounded neither by station nor

by sex.

Elizabeth Oakes Smith, writing in _The Una_, says of this historical

occasion:

The Massachusetts Convention did not deign to notice the prayer

of these two thousand women who claimed the privilege of being

heard by men who assert that we are represented through them.

They decided that "it is inexpedient to act upon said petition."

This is no cause for discouragement to those who have the subject

at heart. Two thousand signers are quite as many, if not more,

than we supposed would be procured. The believers in the rights

of woman to entire equality with man in every department

involving the question of human justice are entirely in the

minority. The majority believe that their wives and mothers are

household chattels; believe that they were expressly created for

no other purposes than those of maternity in their highest

aspect; in their next for purposes of passion, with the long

retinue of unhallowed sensualities, debasements, and pollutions

which follow in the train of evil indulgence. With others, women

are sewers on of buttons; darners of stockings; makers of

puddings; appendages to wash days, bakings, and brewings; echoes

and adjectives to men for ever and ever. They are compounds of

tears, hysterics, frettings, scoldings, complainings; made up of

craftiness and imbecilities, to be wheedled, and coaxed, and

coerced like unmanageable children. _The idea of a true, noble

womanhood is yet to be created._ It does not live in the public

mind. Now, in answer to the petition of these two thousand women,

the Committee reply that all just governments exist by the

consent of the governed. An old truism. We reply, women have

given no such consent, and therefore are not bound to allegiance.

But our sapient Legislators say, since there are two hundred

thousand women in Massachusetts twenty-one years of age, and only

two thousand who sign this petition, therefore it is fair to

suppose that the larger part of the women of the State have

consented to the present form of government. Now, this is

assuredly a willful and unworthy perversion of the truth. These

women are simply ignorant, simply supine. They have neither

affirmed nor denied. They have not thought at all upon the

subject. But there are two thousand women in Massachusetts who

think and act, to say nothing of the thousands of intelligent men

there who believe in the same doctrine. Now here is a little army

in one State alone, and that a conservative one, while through

the Middle and Western States are thousands thinking in the same

direction. Here is the leaven that must leaven the whole lump.

Here is the wise minority which will hereafter become the

overwhelming majority of the country. The Committee remark on the

fact that while 50,000 women have petitioned for a law to repress

the sale of intoxicating liquor, only two thousand petition for

the right to vote! While the multitude could readily trace the

downfall of father, husband, brother, and son, to the dram-shop,

only the thinking few could see the power beyond the law and the

lawmaker that protects the traffic, the right to the ballot, with

which to strike the most effective blow in the right place.

NEW ENGLAND WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION.

BOSTON, Friday, _June 2, 1854_.

This Convention assembled the day on which poor Anthony Burns was

consigned to hopeless bondage;[50] and though many friends of the

woman movement remained in the streets to see his surrender, still at

an early hour the hall was literally crowded with earnest men and

women, whom a deep interest in the cause had drawn together. Sarah H.

Earle, of Worcester, was chosen President; Lucy Stone, Chairman of the

Business Committee, reported the resolutions, among which we find the

following:

_Resolved_, That the Common Law, which governs the marriage

relation, and blots out the legal existence of a wife, denies her

right to the product of her own industry, denies her equal

property rights, even denies her right to her children, and the

custody of her own person, is grossly unjust to woman,

dishonorable to man, and destructive to the harmony of life's

holiest relation.

_Resolved_, That the laws which destroy the legal individuality

of woman after her marriage are equally pernicious to man as to

woman, and may give to him in marriage a slave, or a tyrant, but

never a wife.

William Lloyd Garrison, Emma E. Coe, Josephine S. Griffing, Wendell

Phillips, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Rev. S. S. Griswold, Sarah Pellet, Abby

Kelly Foster, Mrs. Morton, and Lucy Stone took part in the debates.

Letters were received from Thomas W. Higginson, Rev. A. D. Mayo,

Paulina Wright Davis, Mrs. Nichols, and Sarah Crosby. Francis

Jackson,[51] of Boston, made a contribution of $50. Committees were

appointed from each of the New England States to circulate petitions

for securing a change in the laws regulating the property of married

women, and limiting the right of suffrage to men. All the sessions

drew crowded audiences, and the enthusiasm was sustained to the end.

The sympathy for Burns intensified the feelings of those present

against all forms of oppression. Those who had witnessed the military

parade through the streets of Boston to drive the slave--a minister of

the Baptist denomination in his southern home--from the land of the

Pilgrims where he had sought refuge, were roused to plead with new

earnestness and power for equal rights to all without distinction of

sex or color.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION IN BOSTON.

_Sept. 19 and 20, 1855._

This Convention was fully attended through six sessions, and gave

great satisfaction to all engaged in it. After its close, its officers

received such expressions of interest from persons not previously

enlisted in the cause, as to convince them that a lasting impression

was made. The attendance was the best that Boston could furnish in

intelligence and respectability, and to a greater degree than usual

clerical. Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis was again chosen President.

Business Committee--Dr. William F. Channing, Caroline H. Dall, Wendell

Phillips, and Caroline M. Severance. Among the Vice-Presidents we find

the names of Harriot K. Hunt and Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Caroline

H. Dall, Ellen M. Tarr, and Paulina Wright Davis presented carefully

prepared digests of the laws of several of the New England States.

Mrs. Davis said:

In 1844 a bill was introduced into the Legislature of this State

(Rhode Island) by Hon. Wilkins Updike, securing to married women

their property "under certain regulations." The step was a

progressive one, and hailed at that time as a bright omen for the

future. Other States have followed the example, and the right of

woman to some control of her property has been recognized. In

1847 Vermont passed similar enactments; in 1848-'49, Connecticut,

New York, and Texas; in 1850-'52, Alabama and Maine; in 1853, New

Hampshire, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa followed. But the

provisions "under certain regulations" left married women almost

as helpless as before.

Mrs. DAVIS further says: If in 1855, from the practical workings

of these statutes, we find ourselves compelled to pronounce them

despotic in spirit, degrading and tyrannical in effect, we do not

the less give honor to the man who was so far in advance of his

age as to conceive the idea of raising woman a little in the

scale of being.

We have always claimed the honor for New York as being first in this

matter, because the Property Bill was presented there in 1836, and

when finally passed in 1848, was far more liberal than in any other

State; and step by step her legislation was broadened, until 1860 the

revolution was complete, securing to married women their own

inheritance absolutely, to use, will, and dispose of as they see fit;

to do business in their name, make contracts, sue, and be sued.

The speakers on the first day of this Convention were Wendell

Phillips, Thomas W. Higginson, and Lucy Stone; on the second morning,

Caroline H. Dall, Antoinette L. Brown, and Susan B. Anthony. The

evening closed with a lecture from Ralph Waldo Emerson, and a poem by

Elizabeth Oakes Smith. No report of the debates was preserved.

In a letter to her family Susan B. Anthony, under date of Sept. 27th,

says:

I went into Boston on Tuesday, with Lucy Stone, to attend the

Convention. We stopped at Francis Jackson's, where we found

Antoinette Brown and Ellen Blackwell. A pleasant company in that

most hospitable home. The Convention passed off pleasantly, but

with none of the enthusiasm we have in our New York meetings. As

this was my first visit to Boston, Mr. Jackson took Antoinette

and myself round to see the lions; to the House of Correction,

the House of Reformation, the Merchant's Exchange, the

Custom-House, State House, and Faneuil Hall, and then dined with

his daughter, Eliza J. Eddy, in South Boston, returning in the

afternoon. Lucy and Antoinette left, one for New York and the

other for Brookfield. In the evening, Ellen Blackwell and I

attended a reception at Mr. Garrison's, where we met several of

the _literati_, and were most heartily welcomed by Mrs. Garrison,

a noble, self-sacrificing woman, the loving and the loved,

surrounded with healthy, happy children in that model home. Mr.

Garrison was omnipresent now talking and introducing guests, now

soothing some child to sleep, and now, with his charming wife,

looking after the refreshments. There we met Mrs. Dall, Elizabeth

Peabody, Mrs. McCready, the Shakespearian reader, Mrs. Severance,

Dr. Hunt, Charles F. Hovey, Francis Jackson, Wendell Phillips,

Sarah Pugh, of Philadelphia, and others. Having worshiped these

distinguished people afar off, it was a great satisfaction to see

so many face to face.

On Saturday morning, in company with Mr. and Mrs. Garrison and

Sarah Pugh, I visited Mount Auburn. What a magnificent

resting-place this is! We could not find Margaret Fuller's

monument, which I regretted. I spent Sunday with Charles Lenox

Remond; we drove to Lynn with matchless steeds to hear Theodore

Parker preach. What a sermon! our souls were filled. We discussed

its excellence at James Buffum's, where, with other friends, we

dined. Visited the steamer _Africa_ next day, in which Ellen

Blackwell was soon to sail for Liverpool.

Monday Mr. Garrison escorted me to Charlestown; we stood on the

very spot where Warren fell, and mounted the interminable

staircase to the top of Bunker Hill Monument, where we had an

extensive view of the harbor and surrounding country. Then we

called on Theodore Parker; found him up three flights of stairs

in his library, covering that whole floor of his house; the room

is lined all round with books to the very top--16,000

volumes--and there, at a large table in the center of the

apartment, sat the great man himself. It really seemed audacious

in me to be ushered into such a presence, and on such a

commonplace errand, to ask him to come to Rochester to speak in a

course of lectures I am planning. But he received me with such

kindness and simplicity, that the awe I felt on entering was soon

dissipated. I then called on Wendell Phillips, in his sanctum,

for the same purpose. I have invited Ralph Waldo Emerson by

letter, and all three have promised to come. In the evening, with

Mr. Jackson's son James, the most diffident and sensitive man I

ever saw, Miss B---- and I went to the theater to see Dussendoff,

the great tragedian, play Hamlet. The theater is new, the scenery

beautiful, and, in spite of my Quaker training, I find I enjoy

all these worldly amusements intensely.

Returning to Worcester, I attended the Anti-Slavery Bazaar. I

suppose there were many beautiful things exhibited, but I was so

absorbed in the conversation of Mr. Higginson, Samuel May, Jr.,

Sarah Earle, Cousin Dr. Seth Rogers, Stephen and Abby Foster,

that I really forgot to take a survey of the tables. The next day

Charles F. Hovey drove me out to the home of the Fosters, where

we had a pleasant call.

Francis Jackson and Charles F. Hovey, though neither speakers nor

writers, yet they furnished the "sinews of war." None contributed more

generously than they to all the reforms of their times. They were the

first men to make a bequest to our movement. To them we are indebted

for the money that enabled us to carry on the agitation for years.

Beside giving liberally from time to time, Francis Jackson left $5,000

in the hands of Wendell Phillips, which he managed and invested so

wisely, that the fund was nearly doubled. Charles F. Hovey left

$50,000 to be used in anti-slavery, woman suffrage, and free religion.

With the exception of $1,000 from Lydia Maria Child, we have yet to

hear of a woman of wealth who has left anything for the

enfranchisement of her sex. Almost every daily paper heralds the fact

of some large bequest to colleges, churches, and charities by rich

women, but it is proverbial that they never remember the Woman

Suffrage movement that underlies in importance all others.

HEARING BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE,

MARCH, 1857.

_The Boston Traveller_ says: The Representatives Hall yesterday

afternoon was completely filled, galleries and all, to hear the

arguments before the Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred

the petition of Lucy Stone and others for equal rights for

"females" in the administration of government, for the right of

suffrage, etc.

Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE was the first speaker. He said:

Gentlemen, the question before you is, Shall the women of

Massachusetts have equal rights with the men? The fundamental

principles of the Constitution set forth equal rights to all. A

large portion of the property of Massachusetts is owned by women,

probably one-third of the whole amount, and yet they are not

represented, though compelled to pay taxes. It has been said they

are represented by their husbands. So it was said that the

American colonies were represented in the British Parliament, but

the colonies were not contented with such representation; neither

are women contented to be represented by men. As long as we put

woman's name on the tax-list we should put it in the ballot-box.

WENDELL PHILLIPS said: Self-government was the foundation of our

institutions. July 4, 1776, sent the message round the world that

every man can take care of himself better than any one else can

do it for him. If you tax me, consult me. If you hang me, first

try me by a jury of my own peers. What I ask for myself, I ask

for woman. In the banks, a woman, as a stockholder, is allowed to

vote. In the Bank of England, in the East India Company, in State

Street, her power is felt, her voice controls millions.

Three hundred years ago it was said woman had no right to profess

any religion, as it would make discord in the family if she

differed from her husband. The same conservatism warns us of the

danger of allowing her any political opinions.

LUCY STONE said: The argument that the wife, having the right of

suffrage, would cause discord in the family, is entirely

incorrect. When men wish to procure the vote of a neighbor, do

they not approach them with the utmost suavity, and would not the

husband who wished to influence the wife's vote be far more

gracious than usual? She instanced the heroic conduct of Mrs.

Patton, who navigated her husband's ship into the harbor of San

Francisco, as an argument in favor of woman's power of command

and of government. The captain and mate lying ill with a fever,

she had the absolute control of both vessel and crew. Mrs.

Stone's speech was comprehensive and pointed, and called forth

frequent applause.

Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, a woman of wealth and position, protested every

year against being compelled to pay taxes while not recognized in the

government.

DR. HUNT'S PROTEST OF 1852.

_To Frederick W. Tracy, Treasurer, and the Assessors, and other

Authorities of the city of Boston, and the Citizens generally:_

Harriot K. Hunt, physician, a native and permanent resident of

the city of Boston, and for many years a taxpayer therein, in

making payment of her city taxes for the coming year, begs leave

to protest against the injustice and inequality of levying taxes

upon women, and at the same time refusing them any voice or vote

in the imposition and expenditure of the same. The only classes

of male persons required to pay taxes, and not at the same time

allowed the privilege of voting, are aliens and minors. The

objection in the case of aliens is their supposed want of

interest in our institutions and knowledge of them. The objection

in the case of minors, is the want of sufficient understanding.

These objections can not apply to women, natives of the city, all

of whose property interests are here, and who have accumulated,

by their own sagacity and industry, the very property on which

they are taxed. But this is not all; the alien, by going through

the forms of naturalization, the minor on coming of age, obtain

the right of voting; and so long as they continue to pay a mere

poll-tax of a dollar and a half, they may continue to exercise

it, though so ignorant as not to be able to sign their names, or

read the very votes they put into the ballot-boxes. Even

drunkards, felons, idiots, and lunatics, if men, may still enjoy

that right of voting to which no woman, however large the amount

of taxes she pays, however respectable her character, or useful

her life, can ever attain. Wherein, your remonstrant would

inquire, is the justice, equality, or wisdom of this?

That the rights and interests of the female part of the community

are sometimes forgotten or disregarded in consequence of their

deprivation of political rights, is strikingly evinced, as

appears to your remonstrant, in the organization and

administration of the city public schools. Though there are open

in this State and neighborhood, a great multitude of colleges and

professional schools for the education of boys and young men, yet

the city has very properly provided two High-Schools of its own,

one Latin, the other English, in which the "male graduates" of

the Grammar Schools may pursue their education still farther at

the public expense. And why is not a like provision made for the

girls? Why is their education stopped short, just as they have

attained the age best fitted for progress, and the preliminary

knowledge necessary to facilitate it, thus giving the advantage

of superior culture to sex, not to mind?

The fact that our colleges and professional schools are closed

against females, of which your remonstrant has had personal and

painful experience; having been in the year 1847, after twelve

years of medical practice in Boston, refused permission to attend

the lectures of Harvard Medical College. That fact would seem to

furnish an additional reason why the city should provide, at its

own expense, those means of superior education which, by

supplying our girls with occupation and objects of interest,

would not only save them from lives of frivolity and emptiness,

but which might open the way to many useful and lucrative

pursuits, and so raise them above that degrading dependence, so

fruitful a source of female misery.

Reserving a more full exposition of the subject to future

occasions, your remonstrant, in paying her tax for the current

year, begs leave to protest against the injustice and

inequalities above pointed out.

This is respectfully submitted, HARRIOT K. HUNT,

32 Green Street, Boston, Mass.

Harriot K. Hunt commenced the practice of medicine at the age of

thirty, in 1835; twelve years after, was refused admission to Harvard

Medical Lectures. She often said that as her love element had all

centered in her profession, she intended to celebrate her silver

wedding, which she did, in the summer of 1860. Her house was crowded

with a large circle of loving friends, who decorated it with flowers

and many bridal offerings, thus expressing their esteem and affection

for the first woman physician, who had done so much to relieve the

sufferings of women and children. The degree of M.D. was conferred on

her by "The Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania," in 1853. Her

biographer says she honored the title more than the title could her.

MARRIAGE OF LUCY STONE UNDER PROTEST.

It was my privilege to celebrate May day by officiating at a

wedding in a farm-house among the hills of West Brookfield. The

bridegroom was a man of tried worth, a leader in the Western

Anti-Slavery Movement; and the bride was one whose fair name is

known throughout the nation; one whose rare intellectual

qualities are excelled by the private beauty of her heart and

life.

I never perform the marriage ceremony without a renewed sense of

the iniquity of our present system of laws in respect to

marriage; a system by which "man and wife are one, and that one

is the husband." It was with my hearty concurrence, therefore,

that the following protest was read and signed, as a part of the

nuptial ceremony; and I send it to you, that others may be

induced to do likewise.

Rev. THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON.

PROTEST.

While acknowledging our mutual affection by publicly assuming the

relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and

a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on

our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary

obedience to such of the present laws of marriage, as refuse to

recognize the wife as an independent, rational being, while they

confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority,

investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would

exercise, and which no man should possess. We protest especially

against the laws which give to the husband:

1. The custody of the wife's person.

2. The exclusive control and guardianship of their children.

3. The sole ownership of her personal, and use of her real

estate, unless previously settled upon her, or placed in the

hands of trustees, as in the case of minors, lunatics, and

idiots.

4. The absolute right to the product of her industry.

5. Also against laws which give to the widower so much larger and

more permanent an interest in the property of his deceased wife,

than they give to the widow in that of the deceased husband.

6. Finally, against the whole system by which "the legal

existence of the wife is suspended during marriage," so that in

most States, she neither has a legal part in the choice of her

residence, nor can she make a will, nor sue or be sued in her own

name, nor inherit property.

We believe that personal independence and equal human rights can

never be forfeited, except for crime; that marriage should be an

equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that

until it is so recognized, married partners should provide

against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in

their power.

We believe that where domestic difficulties arise, no appeal

should be made to legal tribunals under existing laws, but that

all difficulties should be submitted to the equitable adjustment

of arbitrators mutually chosen.

Thus reverencing law, we enter our protest against rules and

customs which are unworthy of the name, since they violate

justice, the essence of law.

(Signed), HENRY. B. BLACKWELL,

_Worcester Spy_, 1855. LUCY STONE.

To the above _The Liberator_ appended the following:

We are very sorry (as will be a host of others) to lose Lucy

Stone, and certainly no less glad to gain Lucy Blackwell. Our

most fervent benediction upon the heads of the parties thus

united.

This was a timely protest against the whole idea of the old Blackstone

code, which made woman a nonentity in marriage. Lucy Stone took an

equally brave step in refusing to take her husband's name, respecting

her own individuality and the name that represented it. These protests

have called down on Mrs. Stone much ridicule and persecution, but she

has firmly maintained her position, although at great inconvenience in

the execution of legal documents, and suffering the injustice of

having her vote refused as Lucy Stone, soon after the bill passed in

Massachusetts giving all women the right to vote on the school

question.

In 1858, Caroline H. Dall, of Boston, gave a series of literary

lectures in different parts of the country, on "Woman's Claims to

Education," beginning in her native city. Her subjects were:

_Nov. 1st._--The ideal standard of education, depressed by public

opinion, but developed by the spirit of the age; Egypt and

Algiers.

_Nov. 8th._--Public opinion, as it is influenced by the study of

the Classics and History, by general literature, newspapers, and

customs.

_Nov. 15th._--Public opinion as modified by individual lives:

Mary Wollstonecroft, Anna Jamieson, Charlotte Bronté, and

Margaret Fuller.

In June 11th, of this year, Mrs. Dall writes to the _Liberator_ of her

efforts to circulate the following petition:

_To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in General Court assembled:_

WHEREAS, The women of Massachusetts are disfranchised by its

State Constitution solely on account of sex.

We do respectfully demand the right of suffrage, which involves

all other rights of citizenship, and one that can not justly be

withheld, as the following admitted principles of government

show:

1st. "All men are born free and equal."

2d. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the

governed."

3d. "Taxation and representation are inseparable." We, the

undersigned, therefore petition your Honorable Body to take the

necessary steps to revise the Constitution so that all citizens

may enjoy equal political rights.

NEW ENGLAND CONVENTION.