My feelings had been stirred to their depths very early in life by the sufferings of a dear friend of mine, at whose wedding I was one of the bridesmaids.  In listening to the facts in her case, my mind was fully made up as to the wisdom of a liberal divorce law.  We read Milton’s essays on divorce, together, and were thoroughly convinced as to the right and duty not only of separation, but of absolute divorce.  While the New York bill was pending, I was requested, by Lewis Benedict, one of the committee who had the bill in charge, to address the legislature.  I gladly accepted, feeling that here was an opportunity not only to support my friend in the step she had taken, but to make the path clear for other unhappy wives who might desire to follow her example.  I had no thought of the persecution I was drawing down on myself for thus attacking so venerable an institution.  I was always courageous in saying what I saw to be true, for the simple reason that I never dreamed of opposition.  What seemed to me to be right I thought must be equally plain to all other rational beings.  Hence I had no dread of denunciation.  I was only surprised when I encountered it, and no number of experiences have, as yet, taught me to fear public opinion.  What I said on divorce thirty-seven years ago seems quite in line with what many say now.  The trouble was not in what I said, but that I said it too soon, and before the people were ready to hear it.  It may be, however, that I helped them to get ready; who knows?

As we were holding a woman suffrage convention in Albany, at the time appointed for the hearing, Ernestine L. Rose and Lucretia Mott briefly added their views on the question.  Although Mrs. Mott had urged Mrs. Rose and myself to be as moderate as possible in our demands, she quite unconsciously made the most radical utterance of all, in saying that marriage was a question beyond the realm of legislation, that must be left to the parties themselves.  We rallied Lucretia on her radicalism, and some of the journals criticised us severely; but the following letter shows that she had no thought of receding from her position: 

     “Roadside, near Philadelphia,

     “4th Mo., 30th, ’61.

     “My Dear Lydia Mott: 

“I have wished, ever since parting with thee and our other dear friends in Albany, to send thee a line, and have only waited in the hope of contributing a little ‘substantial aid’ toward your neat and valuable ‘depository.’  The twenty dollars inclosed is from our Female Anti-slavery Society.

“I see the annual meeting, in New York, is not to be held this spring.  Sister Martha is here, and was expecting to attend both anniversaries.  But we now think the woman’s rights meeting had better not be attempted, and she has written Elizabeth C. Stanton to this effect.

“I was well satisfied with being at the Albany meeting.  I have since met