societies and conventions, before it was thought of merging their influence in a joint stock community with their brethren.  Where can we find an anti-slavery organization more potential, and so dignified, as was the convention of American women?  Is it therefore surprising that the question has not been conclusively settled by American abolitionists, that women ought to act identically on the same platform and in the same society with men; and that the practice, founded on this plan, still remains measurably local, and, by many conforming to it, is deemed experimental?

“In convening a World’s Convention, no innovation upon the general social usages was contemplated by our brethren in England who called it.  The convention was meant to be a convention of men; and what was deficient of explicitness in the first notice was amply made up in the reiteration of the call.  It was fully known before the appointment of delegates by the American Anti-Slavery Society that the intention of the committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was such as is above explained.  The views of the inviting party being known, it was competent to the invited to accept or reject the invitation, but not to modify its terms.  The American Society, however, in face of the invitation, with a knowledge of the extreme sensitiveness of that portion of the British people whom the Convention would deem it important to conciliate, to any innovation upon established forms, and itself not united in discarding the distinctions of sex, resolved to send female delegates to the Convention, and thus, in effect, to appeal from the Committee to the paramount authority of the Convention, and with it to settle the American question.

“In exercising this authority we are to suppose, from the high moral, intellectual, and philanthropic standing of its members, the Convention, in adhering to the general usages of society, meant to perpetuate no injustice; and we know, from their very respectful attention to the rejected delegates, that they were influenced by no want of courtesy—­I am satisfied that they acted according to their best impressions of duty, the carrying out of which was their high aim; and that the Convention was not the less a World’s Convention because it did not embrace both sexes as its members, or any reforms without the scope of its call.  I cannot unite, therefore, in the resolutions declaring the proceedings of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society ‘arbitrary and despotic;’ or the act of the London Conference, excluding the female delegates of the American Society appointed in contradiction to the terms of the invitation, as ’highly disrespectful to the delegates, and to us, their constituents, tyrannical in its nature, mischievous in its tendencies, and unworthy of men claiming the character of abolitionists.’

“Thus my views not being in harmony with the action of the society, in the particulars