Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897
that we who listened felt as if, for the time being, we had entered with
him into the Holy of Holies.
Some time after, Miss Anthony and I called on him to return our thanks
for the very complimentary review he had written of "The History of
Woman Suffrage." He thanked us in turn for the many pleasant memories
we had revived in those pages, "but," said he, "they have filled me with
indignation, too, at the repeated insults offered to women so earnestly
engaged in honest endeavors for the uplifting of mankind. I blushed for
my sex more than once in reading these volumes." We lingered long,
talking over the events connected with our great struggle for freedom.
He dwelt with tenderness on our disappointments, and entered more fully
into the humiliations suffered by women, than any man we ever met. His
views were as appreciative of the humiliation of woman, through the
degradation of sex, as those expressed by John Stuart Mill in his
wonderful work on "The Subjection of Women." He was intensely interested
in Frances Power Cobbe's efforts to suppress vivisection, and the last
time I saw him he was presiding at a parlor meeting where Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell gave an admirable address on the cause and cure of the social
evil. Mr. Channing spoke beautifully in closing, paying a warm and
merited compliment to Dr. Blackwell's clear and concise review of all
the difficulties involved in the question.
Reading so much of English reformers in our journals, of the Brights,
McLarens, the Taylors; of Lydia Becker, Josephine Butler, and Octavia
Hill, and of their great demonstrations with lords and members of
Parliament in the chair,--we had longed to compare the actors in those
scenes with our speakers on this side of the water. At last we met them
one and all in great public meetings and parlor reunions, at dinners and
receptions. We listened to their public men in Parliament, the courts,
and the pulpit; to the women in their various assemblies; and came to
the conclusion that Americans surpass them in oratory and the conduct of
their meetings. A hesitating, apologetic manner seems to be the national
custom for an exordium on all questions. Even their ablest men who have
visited this country, such as Kingsley, Stanley, Arnold, Tyndall, and
Coleridge, have all been criticised by the American public for their
elocutionary defects. They have no speakers to compare with Wendell
Phillips, George William Curtis, or Anna Dickinson, although John Bright
is without peer among his countrymen, as is Mrs. Besant among the women.
The women, as a general rule, are more fluent than the men.
I reached England in time to attend the great demonstration in Glasgow,
to celebrate the extension of the municipal franchise to the women of
Scotland. It was a remarkable occasion. St. Andrew's immense hall was
packed with women; a few men were admitted to the gallery at half a
crown apiece. Over five thousand people were present. When a Scotch
audience is thoroughly roused, nothing can equal the enthusiasm. The
arrival of the speakers on the platform was announced with the wildest
applause; the entire audience rising, waving their handkerchiefs, and
clapping their hands, and every compliment paid the people of Scotland
was received with similar outbursts. Mrs. McLaren, a sister of John
Bright, presided, and made the opening speech. I had the honor, on this
occasion, of addressing an audience for the first time in the Old World.
Many others spoke briefly. There were too many speakers; no one had time
to warm up to the point of eloquence.
Our system of conventions, of two or three days' duration, with long
speeches discussing pointed and radical resolutions, is quite unknown in
England. Their meetings consist of one session of a few hours, into
which they crowd all the speakers they can summon. They have a few tame,
printed resolutions, on which there can be no possible difference of
opinion, with the names of those who are to speak appended. Each of
these is read and a few short speeches are made, that may or may not
have the slightest reference to the resolutions, which are then passed.
The last is usually one of thanks to some lord or member of the House of
Commons, who may have condescended to preside at the meeting or do
something for the measure in Parliament. The Queen is referred to
tenderly in most of the speeches, although she has never done anything
to merit the approbation of the advocates of suffrage for women.
From Glasgow quite a large party of the Brights and McLarens went to
Edinburgh, where the Hon. Duncan McLaren gave us a warm welcome to
Newington House, under the very shadow of the Salisbury crags. These and
the Pentland Hills are remarkable features in the landscape as you
approach this beautiful city with its mountains and castles. We passed a
few charming days driving about, visiting old friends, and discussing
the status of woman on both sides of the Atlantic. Here we met Elizabeth
Pease Nichol and Jane and Eliza Wigham, whom I had not seen since we sat
together in the World's Anti-slavery Convention, in London, in 1840. Yet
I knew Mrs. Nichol at once; her strongly marked face was not readily
forgotten.
I went with the family on Sunday to the Friends' meeting, where a most
unusual manifestation for that decorous sect occurred. I had been told
that, if I felt inclined, it would be considered quite proper for me to
make some remarks, and just as I was revolving an opening sentence to a
few thoughts I desired to present, a man arose in a remote part of the
house and began, in a low voice, to give his testimony as to the truth
that was in him. All eyes were turned toward him, when suddenly a Friend
leaned over the back of the seat, seized his coat tails and jerked him
down in a most emphatic manner. The poor man buried his face in his
hands, and maintained a profound silence. I learned afterward that he
was a bore, and the Friend in the rear thought it wise to nip him in the
bud. This scene put to flight all intentions of speaking on my part lest
I, too, might get outside the prescribed limits and be suppressed by
force. I dined, that day, with Mrs. Nichol, at Huntly Lodge, where she
has entertained in turn many of our American reformers. Her walls have
echoed to the voices of Garrison, Rogers, Samuel J. May, Parker
Pillsbury, Henry C. Wright, Douglass, Remond, and hosts of English
philanthropists. Though over eighty years of age, she was still awake to
all questions of the hour, and generous in her hospitalities as of yore.
Mrs. Margaret Lucas, whose whole soul was in the temperance movement,
escorted me from Edinburgh to Manchester, to be present at another great
demonstration in the Town Hall, the finest building in that district. It
had just been completed, and, with its ante-room, dining hall, and
various apartments for social entertainments, was by far the most
perfect hall I had seen in England. There I was entertained by Mrs.
Matilda Roby, who, with her husband, gave me a most hospitable
reception. She invited several friends to luncheon one day, among
others Miss Lydia Becker, editor of the _Suffrage Journal_ in that city,
and the Rev. Mr. Steinthal, who had visited this country and spoken on
our platform. The chief topic at the table was John Stuart Mill, his
life, character, writings, and his position with reference to the
political rights of women. In the evening we went to see Ristori in
'"Queen Elizabeth." Having seen her, many years before, in America, I
was surprised to find her still so vigorous. And thus, week after week,
suffrage meetings, receptions, dinners, luncheons, and theaters
pleasantly alternated.
The following Sunday we heard in London a grand sermon from Moncure D.
Conway, and had a pleasant interview with him and Mrs. Conway at the
close of the session. Later we spent a few days at their artistic home,
filled with books, pictures, and mementos from loving friends. A
billiard room, with well-worn cues, balls, and table--quite a novel
adjunct to a parsonage--may, in a measure, account for his vigorous
sermons. A garden reception to Mr. and Mrs. Howells gave us an
opportunity to see the American novelist surrounded by his English
friends.
Soon after this Mr. Conway asked me to fill his pulpit. I retired
Saturday night, very nervous over my sermon for the next day, and the
feeling steadily increased until I reached the platform; but once there
my fears were all dissipated, and I never enjoyed speaking more than on
that occasion, for I had been so long oppressed with the degradation of
woman under canon law and church discipline, that I had a sense of
relief in pouring out my indignation. My theme was, "What has
Christianity done for Woman?" and by the facts of history I showed
clearly that to no form of religion was woman indebted for one impulse
of freedom, as all alike have taught her inferiority and subjection. No
lofty virtues can emanate from such a condition. Whatever heights of
dignity and purity women have individually attained can in no way be
attributed to the dogmas of their religion.
With my son Theodore, always deeply interested in my friends and public
work, I called, during my stay in London, on Mrs. Grey, Miss Jessie
Boucherett, and Dr. Hoggan, who had written essays for "The Woman
Question in Europe"; on our American minister (Mr. Lowell), Mr. and Mrs.
George W. Smalley, and many other notable men and women. By appointment
we had an hour with the Hon. John Bright, at his residence on
Piccadilly. As his photograph, with his fame, had reached America, his
fine face and head, as well as his political opinions, were quite
familiar to us. He received us with great cordiality, and manifested a
clear knowledge and deep interest in regard to all American affairs.
Free trade and woman suffrage formed the basis of our conversation; the
literature of our respective countries and our great men and women were
the lighter topics of the occasion. He was not sound in regard to the
political rights of women, but it is not given to any one man to be
equally clear on all questions. He voted for John Stuart Mill's
amendment to the Household Suffrage Bill in 1867, but he said, "that was
a personal favor to a friend, without any strong convictions as to the
merits of what I considered a purely sentimental measure."
We attended the meeting called to rejoice over the passage of the
Married Women's Property Bill, which gave to the women of England, in
1882, what we had enjoyed in many States in this country since 1848.
Mrs. Jacob Bright, Mrs. Scatcherd, Mrs. Elmy, and several members of
Parliament made short speeches of congratulation to those who had been
instrumental in carrying the measure. It was generally conceded that to
the tact and persistence of Mrs. Jacob Bright, more than to any other
person, belonged the credit of that achievement. Jacob Bright was at the
time a member of Parliament, and fully in sympathy with the bill; and,
while Mrs. Bright exerted all her social influence to make it popular
with the members, her husband, thoroughly versed in Parliamentary
tactics, availed himself of every technicality to push the bill through
the House of Commons. Mrs. Bright's chief object in securing this bill,
aside from establishing the right that every human being has to his own
property, was to place married women on an even plane with widows and
spinsters, thereby making them qualified voters.
The next day we went out to Barn Elms to visit Mr. and Mrs. Charles
McLaren. He was a member of Parliament, a Quaker by birth and education,
and had sustained, to his uttermost ability, the suffrage movement. His
charming wife, the daughter of Mrs. Pochin, is worthy of the noble
mother who was among the earliest leaders on that question--speaking and