THERE IS DEATH IN THE POT - The University of Texas at Arlington

influenced by the work of British Quaker Elizabeth Heyrick. Indeed, as we have seen,
Heyrick’s activism inspired the formation of many American anti-slavery and free-
produced associations. Their rejection by British women — even if for reasons of
“sectarian zeal” — was deeply disappointing for American women. British abolitionists
Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight were notable exceptions, welcoming the American
women yet helpless to bridge the divide between American and British women. “Every
obstacle was thrown in the way,” Pease noted of Mott’s attempts to set up a meeting. “I
regretted it deeply & several of us mourned over our utter inability to help it,” she
explained. 16 Pease, in particular, would remain an important link between American
women like Mott and sympathetic British female abolitionists in the 1840s. In the final
days of the convention, when delegates failed to endorse a strong free-produce resolution,
Mott linked the weak stance on free produce to the rejection of the female delegates.
Charles Stuart introduced the free-produce resolution on June 20, the ninth day of
the convention. Stuart, a native of Jamaica and a retired British army officer, had been
active in anti-slavery in the United States and the West Indies. When the American
abolitionists divided, Stuart sided with the Tappans and the American and Foreign Anti-
Slavery Society. Introduction of the resolution followed William Adam’s report on
slavery in India and the Committee on Free Labour’s report to the convention, both
account of the religious opinions of the latter; and I am not alone in believing that this had some influence
in the decision of the Convention; but we were unable to see what our opinions on doctrines had to do in
preventing our pleading the cause of the down-trodden humanity.” Hallowell, James and Lucretia Mott,
199.
16 Elizabeth Pease to unknown, July 17, 1840, BAA, 102. Mott later noted “a strong binding tie of
affection with all our band of ‘rejected delegates.’” Hallowell, James and Lucretia Mott, 232.
194