exertions had been uniformly directed by separate committees of their
own sex, and that the abolitionists of Europe had no doubt that their
united influence was most powerful in this mode of action: that the
London Committee being convinced that no female delegate had crossed the
Atlantic, under the belief that the "call" or invitation was intended to
include women, felt themselves called upon, without in the slightest
degree wishing to interfere with private opinion on this, or any other
subject, to withhold their assent to the reception of such delegates, as
members of the Convention, and that their decision, when appealed
against, had been ratified in the Convention itself, by an overwhelming
majority, after a protracted discussion: finally, that those whose views
I represented, could not be parties to the introduction, in any future
convention, of this or any other question, which we deemed foreign to
our cause, and therefore that for those with whom it was a point of
conscience to carry out what they deemed "women's rights," I saw no
alternative but a separate organization, in which I wished that their
efforts on behalf of the oppressed colored race, might be crowned with
the largest measure of success. I observed, in conclusion, that my
object was simply to state the decision of those with whom I acted in
Great Britain, and that I must decline discussion, being fully convinced
that it was better that the now separate societies should aim at the
common object, in a spirit of kind and friendly co-operation, each in
its own sphere, rather than that they should waste their energies in
mutual contentions, and in the unprofitable discussion of topics not
legitimately belonging to the great question of the abolition of
slavery.

Although I had to address a company almost unanimously opposed on these
points to myself, my communication was received in a kind and friendly
spirit, and I was courteously informed that it would be taken into
consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

My friend, Daniel Neall, at whose house this interview took place, is a
venerable looking man, a native of Delaware, and son-in-law of the
excellent Warner Mifflin. He has been an abolitionist from his boyhood.
Two years ago, he was dragged from the house of a friend in Delaware,
and tarred and feathered, and otherwise mal-treated by a mob of
slave-holders and their abettors; he mildly told those near him that if
they would call at his