with the following, from a speech of Lord Brougham’s, which pleased me, as being as radical as mine in your stately Hall of Representatives: 

“’Before women can have any justice by the laws of England, there must be a total reconstruction of the whole marriage system; for any attempt to amend it would prove useless.  The great charter, in establishing the supremacy of law over prerogative, provides only for justice between man and man; for woman nothing is left but common law, accumulations and modifications of original Gothic and Roman heathenism, which no amount of filtration through ecclesiastical courts could change into Christian laws.  They are declared unworthy a Christian people by great jurists; still they remain unchanged.’

     “So Elizabeth Stanton will see that I have authority for going to
     the root of the evil.

     “Thine,

     “LUCRETIA MOTT.”

Those of us who met in Albany talked the matter over in regard to a free discussion of the divorce question at the coming convention in New York.  It was the opinion of those present that, as the laws on marriage and divorce were very unequal for man and woman, this was a legitimate subject for discussion on our platform; accordingly I presented a series of resolutions, at the annual convention, in New York city, to which I spoke for over an hour.  I was followed by Antoinette L, Brown, who also presented a series of resolutions in opposition to mine.  She was, in turn, answered by Ernestine L. Rose.  Wendell Phillips then arose, and, in an impressive manner pronounced the whole discussion irrelevant to our platform, and moved that neither the speeches nor resolutions go on the records of the convention.  As I greatly admired Wendell Phillips, and appreciated his good opinion, I was surprised and humiliated to find myself under the ban of his disapprobation.  My face was scarlet, and I trembled with mingled feelings of doubt and fear—­doubt as to the wisdom of my position and fear lest the convention should repudiate the whole discussion.  My emotion was so apparent that Rev. Samuel Longfellow, a brother of the poet, who sat beside me, whispered in my ear, “Nevertheless you are right, and the convention will sustain you.”

Mr. Phillips said that as marriage concerned man and woman alike, and the laws bore equally on them, women had no special ground for complaint, although, in my speech, I had quoted many laws to show the reverse.  Mr. Garrison and Rev. Antoinette L. Brown were alike opposed to Mr. Phillips’ motion, and claimed that marriage and divorce were legitimate subjects for discussion on our platform.  Miss Anthony closed the debate.  She said:  “I hope Mr. Phillips will withdraw his motion that these resolutions shall not appear on the records of the convention.  I am very sure that it would be contrary to all parliamentary usage to say that, when the speeches which enforced and advocated the resolutions are reported and published