[Editorial Note: Elizur Wright, publisher and editor of the Chronotype, was a staunch supporter of the movement for woman's rights, as his letter to the Convention demonstrated. His paper's coverage, as a result, is highly complimentary, but also quite spotty. The Chronotype referred to Abby Kelley Foster's "brilliant" speech, but did not report her rhetoric about women having the right to cut the throats of their oppressors or Lucretia Mott's efforts, briefly described in the New York Daily Tribune, to dissociate the Convention from Kelley Foster's language.

There is, apparently, no unbroken run of the Chronotype anywhere. We would appreciate any help in locating a copy of the October 25, 1850 edition.]

The Daily Chronotype, Thursday, October 24, 1850 (P.2)
By Special Chronotype Express.
Women's Rights Convention at Worcester.

Wednesday, Oct. 23, 1850.
The weather yesterday was the finest possible. A glorious Indian summer sun arose, at his usual hour, behind a thick haze, that fled at his approach, and at ten o'clock, he shone with a well tempered halo of high approval upon Brinley Hall, where women were about to assemble to battle weaponless, but fearlessly for rights and privileges long withheld. At 10 1/2 o'clock the hall began to fill, and soon every seat in the house was occupied.

Among the distinguished women and men present we recognised
Mrs. Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia
" Sarah Tyndale, of do.
" Abby Kelley Foster, of Worcester
" Mary Ann Johnson, of Ohio
" Pliny Sexton, of New York
Dr. Harriet R. Hunt, of Boston
Rev. W.H. Channing, of do.
" Parker Pillsbury, of New Hampshire
J.C. Hathaway of New York.

Fred. Douglas of Rochester; and other women and men, eminent and otherwise, from different sections of the Union.
[here followed an account of the organizing of the Convention including the nomination and election of temporary and permanent officers as found in the Proceedings.]

Mrs. [Paulina Wright] Davis, on taking the chair, tendered her acknowledgements to the Convention for their kindness and delivered an earnest, eloquent and truthful address on the attitude and relations of the Woman's Rights' movement to the time and circumstances, and upon the proper spirit and method of promoting it.

A creed of abstract truths, a catechism of general principles, and a completely digested list of grievances, although useful, are not enough to adjust a practical reform to its proper work, else prophets and apostles and earnest world menders in general, would have been more successful, and left us less to wish and to do.

The European movement of 1848 was wanting neither in theory nor example for its safe direction, but it has nevertheless fallen into contempt.

We may not, therefore, rely upon a good cause and good intentions alone, without danger and deplorable disappointment.

The reformation we propose, in its utmost scope, is radical and universal. It is not the mere perfecting of a progress already in motion, -- a detail of some established plan, -- but ours is an epochal movement.

The first principles of human rights have now for a long time been abstractly held and believed in Europe and America; whole communities have put them into practical application in some of their bearings. Equality in the eyes of the law, and the right of the governed to choose their governors, are established maxims of reformed political sciences, but in the countries most advanced, these doctrines and their actual benefits are as yet enjoyed exclusively by the sex that in the field and the public forum have wrenched them from old time tyrannies. Woman is yet denied there, because she has not so asserted or won them for herself; for political justice still pivots itself upon the barbarous principles that "who would be free, themselves must strike the blow."[1]

The address of the President was warmly received by a large audience, but we have not room to give even a barren abstract of a truly philosophical address.

Mrs. Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia, followed the President in a few remarks upon the manner in which the Reform should be conducted. Mrs. M. thought a portion of the address of the President too mild. She said we must use as strong words as Jesus used when he rebuked Satan, Sin, and the money changers. True we should come armed with the panoply of truth, but should we speak that truth with plainness and force it may be considered pungent and impertinent -- truth is to some people. We must be indignant at the monstrous perversion of Scripture and the privileges of woman by the tyrant sex; and we must speak in the language of censure to the woman herself who is hugging her chains.

At the conclusion of Lucretia Mott's remarks Mrs. M.A.W. Johnson, of the nominating committee, reported a business convention [i.e., committee], which report was adopted.
[here followed the list of the business committee members as found in the Proceedings.]

On motion, all persons present were cordially invited to join in the discussions of the Convention, but only members were allowed to vote.

Letters from friends of the cause were then read, from Elizur Wright of Boston [editor of the Chronotype], Lucius A. Hine of Cincinnati, and from Elizabeth Wilson of Ohio, and others.

On motion of Mrs. Sarah Earle, the Convention adjourned to meet at 2 P.M.

Afternoon Session
The Convention met at the appointed hour, when Mrs. Abby Price of Hopedale, Mass., read an eloquent and piquant address with was received with applause by an almost enthusiastic audience.

Rev. W.H. Channing, on behalf of Mrs. Rose of New York reported the following resolution:
Whereas, the very contracted sphere of action prescribed for Women, arising from an unjust view of her natural capacities and powers, and from the infringements of her just rights as an equal with man is highly injurious to her physical, mental and moral development: Therefore
Resolved, That we will not cease our earnest endeavors to secure for her political, legal and social equality with man; until her proper sphere is determined by what alone should determine it, her powers and capacities strengthened and refined by an education in accordance with her nature.

Mr. Channing supported the resolution a good speech.

Mrs. Rose of N.Y. gave the resolution a radical support.

She attacked and demolished Dana's theory of mannish woman.[2] Mrs. R. is a Polish lady, but she speaks pure English undefiled, with a slight foreign accent. Hers was the speech of the afternoon.

Mrs. Sarah Tynsdale, of Philadelphia, made a few remarks introductory of Lucretia Mott's pamphlet on Woman.

Mrs. Lucretia Mott said that in the Society of Friends to which she belongs, women are constructed with lungs for use rather than show; but a part of their education is to keep silence. Our voices would, she continued, be heard in all parts of this crowded room if there were no whisperings.

Mrs. Abby Kelley Foster, then addressed the convention in support of Mrs. Rose's resolution. Her Subject, The rights of Humanity; shall women have them? She made a brilliant speech.

Chas. C. Burleigh, of Ct., was introduced and spoke upon the right and duty of woman to judge for herself her own sphere of action. His speech was pointed and often eloquent.

Evening Session
Rev. W.H. Channing addressed a large and almost solid [a reference to the number of people crowded into the hall?] audience at length upon the above mentioned resolution. He advocated the necessity of a National Congress of Women, to assemble annually.

Mrs. Lucretia Mott advocated the necessity of woman's entering the different Trades, Professions, et cetera, with dignified ability. She was frequently applauded.

Wendell Phillips addressed the meeting upon a series of resolutions to the effect that women are entitled to, and should possess, all the rights and privileges pertaining to humanity; and that the word "male" should be stricken from every state constitution.

The resolution was discussed by Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Foster, and Mr. Foster, who made a long speech.

On motion of Mrs. Earle, the Convention then adjourned, it being 10 1/2 P.M., to meet today at 9 1/2 o'clock.

[1] Lord Byron, Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto ii, Stanza 76:
Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?
[2]Possibly a reference to Richard Henry Dana (1815-1882), author of the best-selling Two Years Before the Mast (1840) and a member of the Massachusetts state legislature.