Now we hold Jesus up as an ensample, when we perceive the assumption of clergymen, that all who venture to dissent from a given interpretation, must necessarily be infidels; and thus denounce them. as infidel; for it was only by inference, that one clergyman this afternoon, made Joseph Barker deny the Son of God. By inference in the same way, he might be made to deny everything that is good, and praiseworthy, and true.

I want that we should consider these things upon this platform. I am not troubled with difficulties about the Bible. My education has been such, that I look to that Source whence all the inspiration of the Bible comes. I love the truths of the Bible. I love the Bible because it contains so many truths; but I never was educated to love the errors of the Bible; therefore it does not startle me to hear Joseph Barker point to some of those errors. And I can listen to the ingenious interpretation of the Bible, given by Antoinette Brown, and am glad to hear those who are so skilled in the outward, when I perceive that they are beginning to turn the Bible to so good an account. It gives evidence that the cause is making very good progress. Why, my friend Nevin has had to hear the Temperance cause denounced as infidel, and proved so by Solomon; and he has, no doubt, seen the minister in the pulpit, turning over the pages of the Bible to find examples for the wrong. But the Bible will never sustain him in making this use of its pages, instead of using it rationally, and selecting such portions of it as would tend to corroborate the right; and these are plentiful; for notwithstanding the teaching of Theology, and men's arts in the religious world, men have ever responded to righteousness and truth, when it has been advocated by the servants of God, so that we need not fear to bring truth to an intelligent examination of the Bible. It is a far less dangerous asser

tion to say, that God is unchangeable, than that man is infallible.

THIRD DAY-EVENING SESSION.

MRS. GAGE, because of indisposition, resigned the chair in favor of Mrs. Severance.

MISS E. WRIGHT.-In connection with the propositions of Mrs. P. W. Davis' letter, I wish to say, that Mrs. Martha Pillsbury of this city, has been in the practice of calculating Almanacs, although her work has passed under other persons names.. She would be glad to calculate the one proposed, if it is to be done.

The entire series of resolutions was now presented for final action. MRS. SEVERANCE.-(Mrs. Mott in the chair) I must beg leave to enter my protest against one phrase of the resolutions, which had, in some way, strangely escaped my notice until now. We wish our platform broad as the world,—as indeed it is,-so that men and women, of every shade of faith, may stand upon it, as indeed they now do. And while we accord liberty, during all our deliberations, for a free individual expression from all such, we should not suffer ourselves in our official acts, to brand, invidiously, any one sect. I move, therefore, that some less invidious phrase be substituted for that which now reads, "The cant of Papal Rome." I would add, also, that a woman ; who advocated our cause ably and effectually upon this platform yesterday, is still a conscientious adherent of the Romish Church, a church indeed, which, whatever its other errors, has honored woman, and recognized her humanity as none other has done.

The resolution was therefore amended to read, "The cant of Theological Bigotry ;" and the series being submitted to the convention, with this amendment, was adopted unanimously.

A proposition was made to consider as next in order of business, the time and place of holding the next National Convention. James Mott, proposed Philadelphia, Mrs. Rose, proposed to hold the next convention at the very Seat of Government. Women have to do with government questions, and she thought it most proper to have the next convention in the city of Washington.

MRS. MOTT.-I do not think it of so much importance to go where we could produce the greatest political effect, as to produce the

greatest moral effect. You may rest assured, the political men of the country, the partizans of politics, will be ready enough to take up our movement, when, by making these moral appeals we have been instrumental in calling forth such a sentiment, that there shall be a demand for our rights before the people. Then, without our appealing "to the powers that be," directly, the powers that be will come to us, and be ready to yield what has been so long denied us.

MISS STONE.I prefer Philadelphia. We have talked about Washington, and we shall go there, sometime; but now, when in the District of Columbia they sell women-I think we had better wait till they are more civilized, before we go there. Let the next convention be at Philadelphia, and as that is so near on to Washington, perhaps the moral effect of it, may reach there, so that the next year we may go there. We have had conventions in New York, Massachusetts and Ohio, and it seems to me, the next state should be Pennsylvania.

The vote was taken upon the motion to adjourn to Philadelphia, and decided in the affirmative.

MRS. EMMA R. COE.-I have very little to say this evening beyond reading a letter, received by me to-day. (Here follows the letter.)

I beg leave to inform the gentleman, if he is present, that I believe I understand these laws, and this point particularly, very nearly as well as himself; and that I am as well acquainted with the laws passed since 1840, as with those enacted previous to that time. I would also inform him, that the committee, some of whom are much better read in law than myself, were perfectly aware of the existence of the statutes he mentions, but did not see fit to incorporate them into the petition, not only on account of their great length, but because they do not at all invalidate the position which the petition affects to establish, viz., the inequality of the sexes before the law. Their insertion, therefore, would have been utterly superfluous. This letter refers, evidently, to that portion of the petition which treats of the equalization of property, which I will now read. (Then follows the reading of one paragraph of the petition.) Again I refer you to the letter, the first paragraph of which, is as follows:

"MRS. EMMA R. Coɛ, will you look at Vol. 44, General Law of

Ohio, page 75, where you will find that the property of the wife, can not be taken for the debts of her husband, &c.; and all articles of household furniture, and goods which a wife shall have brought with her in marriage, or which shall have come to her by bequest, gift, &c., after marriage, or purchased with her separate money or other property, shall be exempt from liability for the debts of her husband, during her life, and during the life of any heir of her body."

Very true we readily admit the law of which the gentleman has given an abstract; and so long as the wife holds the property in her hands, just as she received it, it cannot be taken for the husband's debts, but the moment she permits her husband to convert that property into another shape, it becomes his, and MAY be taken for his debts. The gentleman I presume will admit this at once.

The next paragraph of the letter, reads thus:

"Also in Vol. 51, General Laws of Ohio, page 499, the act regulating descent, &c., provides, that real estate, which shall have come to the wife by descent, devise, or gift, from her ancestor, shall descend-first, to her children, or their legal representatives. 2d, if there be no children, or their legal representatives living, the estate shall pass to the brothers and sisters of the intestate, who may be of the blood of the ancestor from whom the estate came, or their legal representatives, &c."

True again :-So long as the wife holds real estate in her own name, in title, and in title only, it is hers; (for her husband even then controls its profits) and if she leave it so, it will descend to her heirs so long as she has an heir, and so long as she can trace the descent. But if she suffers her husband to sell that property and receive the money, it instantly becomes his : and instead of descending to her heirs, it descends to his heirs. This the gentleman will not deny. Now, we readily admit, that while the wife abides by the Statutes, of which our article has given us an abstract, her husband cannot take the property from her, he can only take the use of it. But the moment she departs from the Statute, she comes under the provisions of the common law; which, when they do not conflict, is equally binding in Ohio, as the Statute Law. And in this case, the common and Statute Laws do not conflict. Departing from the

Statute, that is, suffering her property to be exchanged, the provision is thus: (Here follows the common Law, taken from the petition.) I have nothing further to add on this point, but will quote the last paragraphs in the letter.

"If you would know what our laws are, you must refer to the laws passed in Ohio since 1840."

This has already been answered.

"You said last night, that the property of the wife, passed to the husband, even to his sixteenth cousin! Will you correct your error?

And oblige

A BUCKEYE."

I should be extremely happy to oblige the gentleman, but having committed no error, there is nothing to correct; and I do not, therefore, see that I can in conscience comply with his request. I am, however, exceedingly thankful for any expression of interest from that quarter. There are other laws which might be mentioned, which really give woman an apparent advantage over men; yet, having no relevancy to the subject in the petition, we did not see fit to introduce them. One of these is, that no woman shall be subject to arrest and imprisonment for debt: while no man, that is, no ordinary man, none unless he has a halo of military glory around his brow-is held sacred from civil process of this kind. But this exemption is of very little benefit to woman, since, if the laws were as severe to her as to man, she would seldom risk the penalty. For this there are two very good One is, that, conscious of her inability to discharge obligations of this kind, she has little disposition to run deeply into debt : and the other is, that she has not the credit to do it, if she wished! If, however, she does involve herself in this way, the law exempts her from imprisonment. This, perhaps, is offered as a sort of palliation for the disabilities which she suffers in other respects. The only object of the petition is, I believe, that the husband and wife be placed upon a legal and political equality. If the law gives woman an advantage over man, we deprecate it as much as he can. Partiality to either, to the injury of the other, is wrong in principle, and we must therefore oppose it. We do not wish to be placed in the position which the husband now occupies. We do not wish that

reasons.