iss Stone seemed
to feel as much at home on this festive occasion, as amid the
more important proceedings of a convention.

As the agitation was kept up from year to year with frequent
conventions, ever and anon some prominent person who had hitherto
been silent, would concede a modicum of what we claimed, so timidly,
however, and with so many popular provisos, that the concessions were
almost buried in the objections. It was after this manner that Henry
Ward Beecher, then in the zenith of his popularity, vouchsafed an
opinion. He believed in woman's right to vote and speak in public.
There was no logical argument against either, but he would not like to
see his wife or mother go to the polls or mount the platform. This
utterance called out the following letter from Gerrit Smith in _The
Boston Liberator_:

PETERBORO, N. Y., _Nov. 19, 1854_.

DEAR GARRISON:--I am very glad to see in your paper that Henry
Ward Beecher avows himself a convert to the doctrine of woman's
voting. But I regret that this strong man is nevertheless not
strong enough to emancipate himself entirely from the dominion of
superstition. Mr. Beecher would not have his wife and sister
speak in public. Of course he means that he would not, however
competent they might be for such an exercise. I will suppose that
they all remove to Peterboro, and that a very important, nay, an
entirely vital question springs up in our community, and
profoundly agitates it; and I will further suppose that the wife
and sister of Mr. Beecher are more capable than any other persons
of taking the platform and shedding light upon the subject. Are
we not entitled to their superior light? Certainly. And certainly
therefore are they bound to afford it to us. Nevertheless Mr.
Beecher would have them withhold it from us. Pray what is it but
superstition that could prompt him to such violation of
benevolence and common-sense? Will Mr. Beecher go to the Bible
for his justification? That blessed book is to be read in the
life of Jesus Christ; and in that life is the fullness of
benevolence and common-sense, and no superstition at all. Will
Mr. Beecher limit his wife and sisters in the given case to their
pens?[130] Such limitation would he then be bound in consistency
to impose upon himself. Would he impose it? Again, it take