THE TURN OF THE TIDE.
1868-1894.
“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”
IT was not only the seven thousand women from Manchester and Salford who
were disappointed in the results of their appeal. Women began on all
sides to analyse the grounds of the judgment, and to take steps towards
counteracting its baneful influence. An ever-increasing body of
generous-hearted or far-seeing men joined their party, and worked with,
and for them, both within and without the House of Commons. Meeting
after meeting has spread enthusiasm. Petition after Petition has been
presented. Bill after Bill has been brought forward. Amendment after
Amendment has been proposed hitherto without success. As Mr. Stuart,
M.P., once wittily said at a public meeting, “Petitions sent up by the
Unrepresented, are like Bell-handles rung outside of a door, that have
no bell attached at the other end. They occupy the attention of those
outside of the house, but do not disturb those that are within.” The
strongest plea has been taken from women. By the extension of the
Franchise in 1884, the Service Clause disallowed the doctrine that
taxation was the qualification for representation, and reversed the
prime reason of members being first called to the House in the reign of
Hen. III. If women had felt it hard that their payment of taxes had not
been sufficient to purchase their right of representation, they felt it
harder that their payment of taxes, invalid and inoperative as regards
themselves, was valid and operative as providing the qualification of
their male servants, that, in short, the qualification had been altered
fundamentally. Yet some good has come out of the evil. It has provided a
_reductio ad absurdum_.
It has made women see clearly that no qualification, but that of sex,
lies in the modern readings of the Statutes. They cannot alter the sex,
but they may alter the Basis of Privilege. Such things have been done
ere now. Ripe scholars in Mathematics have been excluded the
Universities because they could not subscribe to the articles of the
English Church. Political Economists have been excluded the House of
Commons because they were of Jewish descent. These disabilities have
been removed for men. The disabilities of sex must ere long be removed
for women.
=Progress has been very rapid since 1868.=—The “woman’s question” no
longer provokes somnolence nor awakes mirth: it is treated as a question
of gravity. The publication of John Stuart Mills’ “Subjection of Women,”
in 1869, educated many minds. The humorous treatment of the question in
_Fraser’s Magazine_ in the article entitled, “Latest News from the
Planet Venus,” where logical objections against Male Enfranchisement are
supposed to be urged by women, taught others that there were two sides
to the principles of exclusion, and that those against the
Enfranchisement of men, were, to say the least of it, quite as valid, as
any that have ever been brought against the Liberty of Women. Many other
interesting volumes and articles have been written, making the views of
women known.
Women have begun to speak for themselves, and to speak clearly—with no
uncertain sound.
No new elucidation of the 1867 Charter has taken place except one very
remarkable one. “If a woman’s name were to get on an _election list by
mistake_, and she afterwards tenders her vote, that vote must be
accepted” (_see_ “Warren on Election Law”). The humour of the remark is
great. As by the mistakes of some men women lost their rights, by a
further masculine mistake they may regain them. Is this what it imports?
If not, what?
The 1868 Decision threw back civilisation theoretically 2000 years. But
it necessitated opposition. One clear sign of this effect was given in
1869 when Mr. Jacob Bright moved a resolution in the House that women
should vote in Municipal affairs, and it was adopted almost without
discussion. The Bill was modified, but reconfirmed in 1882. The right
has been exercised by women since that time without any overturning of
the social fabric.
In 1870 the vote for the School Board, and eligibility thereto, was
conferred upon them. Ancient rights allowed them to vote for Poor Law
Guardians; and in 1888 they were allowed to vote for County Councillors.
In 1893 they were made electors, and eligible for election on Parish
District Councils.
Many Bills have been passed in their favour through the toil and energy
of devoted women, and the co-operation of broad-minded men.
=The Married Women’s Property Acts= of 1870 and of 1882 have secured the
earnings of industrious wives from the clutches of grasping or drunken
husbands to a certain degree. A slight improvement has taken place in
regard to the Custody of Infant Children. The Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1884 took a step in the right direction, though sadly crippled by its
overriding conditions. (_See_ Mrs. Fawcett’s pamphlet on “The Criminal
Law Amendment Act of 1884.”)
Various other moral Bills have showed the woman’s spirit working behind
the scenes in favour of justice and mercy and chastity.
And the famous Clitheroe case, in 1891, which sent back the Judge,
through lack of Precedent, to the original Statutes to find a decision
as to the imprisonment of a wife, bewildered the populace, and reduced
the demand for wife-kicking boots.
Public Conscience is beginning to be awakened to the errors of its
judgments in regard to women. The disproportionate awards of punishment
to those who steal food when hungry, and those who maltreat their wives
through tyranny, do not so often now arouse the indignation of those who
read the Law Reports in newspapers.
Yet the tide has not been uniform in its motion. It is the way of waves
to retire before and after a rise.
I forbear enlarging on the last great decision regarding women’s
disabilities, by which the Judge, following the example of his
predecessor in Rex _v._ Chardcroft, refused the electors of Brixton a
right to elect Lady Sandhurst as County Councillor, and put another in
her place that the majority of them had not elected; refused also to the
County Councillors themselves their right of electing Miss Cons among
their Aldermen. On May 16th, 1889, in the Queen’s Bench Division, was
tried the case of Beresford-Hope _v._ Lady Sandhurst. The other
candidates had given notice of objections to the Lady, but the Deputy
disallowed these, studying only the Statute. There were 1986 votes
recorded in favour of Lady Sandhurst, and 1686 in favour of
Beresford-Hope, who appealed. It was allowed, that the office being new,
there was no precedent to guide them; that the Municipal Act of 1882 had
enacted that “for all purposes connected with the right to vote at
municipal elections, words in this Act importing the masculine gender
include women.” It was allowed that the Local Government Acts of 1888
contain no enactments against women.
One Judge stated that it was a new office, but that no woman had ever
sat in a Municipal Corporation. That Anne Clifford was a _solitary_
instance of a woman being Sheriff.[23] That it was necessary that a
statute should give express permission to women to be elected, because
Lord Brougham’s Act does not apply to this.
Footnote 23:
_See_ “Ante,” pp. 43, 44.
Another Judge stated that his opinion would have been in favour of the
women’s claim, but for the 63rd Section of the Act of 1888. But the
majority of those concerned, accepting the assertion “that a more
learned Judge never lived than Justice Willes,” who had checked the
Historical arguments in the case of Chorlton _v._ Lings, accepted also
the decision in that case as the grounds of their Ruling. “I take it,
that neither by the Common Law nor the Constitution of this country,
from the beginning of the Common Law until now, can a woman be entitled
to exercise any public function.”
One at least they forgot whom they might have remembered, it was the
Woman from whom they held their Seals of office.
Thus Lady Sandhurst, after helping her colleagues, her country and her
sex, for a year, with two other brave women were turned out, and the
Council and the Country were alike the sufferers thereby. “Who will take
care of the Baby Farms, the Pauper Lunatic women? the many small details
that a man cannot know by accident, and prides himself in not knowing by
experience?”
If they have been defeated on the County Councils, the success of women
as Poor Law Guardians is undeniable. The spirit of tenderness for those
who receive charity in their old age, the healing spirit of sympathy for
those that have been tempted; the spirit of exact investigation of
accounts, and of economy in expending the ratepayers’ money, has
certainly been fostered by the presence of women on the Boards. The same
may be said of women on the School Boards. They have offered themselves
for many public appointments and offices. Sometimes they are accepted
gladly; sometimes they are only not ejected because the law for doing so
cannot be found.
A self-sacrificing worker in the cause of women has collected together
and tabulated all the elections a woman may at present join, all the
public offices she may at present fill. “The elections at which women
may vote at present are: The House of Keyes, Isle of Man; Town Councils
in England, Scotland, and Belfast; County Councils in England and
Scotland, District Councils in Scotland, School Boards, Boards of
Guardians, Local Boards of Health, Improvement Commissioners, Waywardens
and Highway Boards, Road Surveyors, Burgh Commissioners in Scotland,
Parochial Boards in Scotland, Select Vestries and District Boards in
London, Burial Boards and Common Vestries.
They can be elected to School Boards, Boards of Guardians; also to
Parochial Boards in Scotland and many other boards. They can be elected
now to very many public offices, can be Members of Royal Commissions,
Visitors of Lunatic Asylums, Inspectors of the Poor in Scotland,
Inspectors of Nuisances, Registrars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages;
Collectors of Poor Rates, Members of Dispensary Boards, Road Surveyors,
Overseers of the Poor, Churchwardens, Sextons, Parish Clerks, Local
Government Board Inspectors, County Council Inspectors of Baby Farms,
Noxious Trades, etc.; Factory and Workshop Inspectors under the Home
Office, Post-mistresses and Clerks in the Post Office, Census Clerks”
(_see_ “The Civil Rights of Women,” by Mrs. Eva Maclaren).
Some of these duties are, of course, performed without remuneration, but
in others they are paid at a fair rate, in some cases, at the same rate
as men.
I take in a separate paragraph some questions regarding work and its
returns, but it seems necessary first to show the advance of education
during the period. I have always felt that our sex owes much to our
Queen simply for _being_ what she is. At the time of the Reform Bill of
1832, she was being trained wisely for her future duties. The
intellectual powers of a girl, when educated under favourable
conditions, were brilliantly illustrated in her. The young Queen
succeeded in 1837, and from the commencement of her reign there has been
a constantly expanding view of the educatability even of ordinary girls.
The want of good secondary schools was at first severely felt; but women
began to patch up their education by private study or at public
Lectures. The Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh, providing
Lectures, Library, and Reading-Room, founded in 1846, was open from the
first to women, as well as to men, and in many a large town were similar
opportunities.
Mr. Thomas Oliphant of that city, in the same year, started a large
School in Charlotte Square, to which he added two “Advanced Classes” for
the elder girls. There were taught Literature and Science in new and
suggestive methods, that many women, still living, have rejoiced in. The
Normal Schools for training Teachers had always been open to women; but
these “Advanced Classes” were intended for women of leisure, those who
had been accustomed to leave a Ladies’ Finishing School, to become the
Butterflies of Ball-Rooms, or better-class domestic drudges. A host of
imitators showed the demand for schools of Mr. Oliphant’s style.
In London, the Public Day School Company, since 1871, has done splendid
work, and trained thousands of girls; and higher schools and colleges
all over the country, have given solid education to a class of young
women, to whom, formerly, the most superficial smattering was considered
sufficient.
Meanwhile, the Secondary Education of women having succeeded, the higher
education was attempted. When the University Local Examinations were
commenced, they were opened to girls as well as to boys, to women as
well as to men. They soon proved that they were able to take advantage
of their opportunities. Strong efforts were made in many quarters to
have them admitted to the Universities on equal terms with men. Failing
this, there were strenuous attempts made to secure, at least, the
education, if not the other privileges of a University career.
=The earliest University Classes for Women= were opened in Edinburgh in
the winter of 1867-8, when 265 women enrolled themselves as students in
Professor Masson’s class on English Literature alone. In 1868-9, three
branches of the Arts Curriculum were offered in Literature, Natural
Philosophy, and Logic and Mental Philosophy; opportunities which spread
until the whole field was covered. In October, 1869, Hitchin Temporary
College was opened for women in similar connection with Cambridge
University. In 1873, the Oxford Association for the Education of Women
took shape. In 1876, Glasgow and St. Andrews joined the work, and other
opportunities all over the country had to be arranged to meet the
ever-increasing demand.
The first University to grant degrees to women on equal terms was
London, in the new Charter of 1878. As a non-teaching university,
however, its gift of Degrees was limited by the opportunities opened to
women of acquiring professional education in recognised colleges.
The Royal University of Ireland in Dublin opened in 1880, and in its
original Charter grants equal terms for men and women; and the Victoria
University in 1880, allowing women instruction and examination in some
departments, granted Degrees where they had passed sufficient
examinations.
In 1892, the Scotch Universities were opened simultaneously.
Durham offered, under certain conditions, to admit women, conditions not
finally arranged, when it found by its Charter that it could not do so.
Education is, however, granted women in the affiliated colleges of
Newcastle, and Titles, if not Degrees, allowed.
Cambridge admits women to its examinations, grants them a recognised
place, but no Degrees. Oxford examines them, but also excludes them from
full privileges. [x].
In none of these Universities can women, either as Undergraduates or
Graduates, vote for the University Member of Parliament. The same
anomaly exists as existed in relation to a property qualification. The
real qualification in a University is based upon attending certain
classes, passing certain examinations, living under certain conditions,
and paying certain fees. Women fulfil all these duties, but they do not,
even from their Alma Mater, receive the same privilege as their
brothers, on a University Qualification; because the Reform Bill of
1867, while granting it to all men on property qualification, by clause
5, limited it to “male persons in Universities.” It is possible that,
after a little more of the Higher Education, it will be found that they
have attained “an improved understanding,” enough to allow them even to
vote by the side of the navvy and the pot-boy.
The twenty-six years have not been lost, however, even in regard to
Women’s Suffrage. Meanwhile have been growing up young men and young
women, educated under the broadening effect of more equal privileges in
learning. The old restrictions seem to them meaningless in the new light
of reason. A generous youth, in the older Universities, who has been
beaten by a woman in a mathematical examination, feels his brow flush
when he receives the reward that is denied to her, and feels shame
instead of pride that he has to be protected against her competition. He
would never dream of suggesting that she would “require an improved
understanding to vote for a Parliament man.” In the youth of the country
lies hope, if the youth be but trained aright.
The result of the educational opportunities has been to give women
personal capability of entering professional life. But the Professions
have certain powers of excluding competitors, and they have all done
what they could to make entrance difficult or impossible. Women are now
admitted to the Medical Profession. Several original professions they
have invented for themselves, and they have done their best with the
old. They have therefore gained new powers of acquiring property. Their
energy and self-dependence have revolutionised the thoughts of men as
regards their capability.
John Stuart Mill, in his “Subjection of Women,” p. 99, says: “If
anything conclusive can be inferred from experience, without
psychological analysis, it would be that the things women have not been
allowed to do are just those that they succeed best in doing.”
Association of ideas is doing its work in forming customs and in
moulding habits of thought. No longer is a woman an incongruous sight in
Halls of Learning or of Research, in Scientific Societies or on Boards
of Guardians. Those who exclude women are learning that they themselves
suffer by the exclusion.
They welcome them eagerly as Canvassers at elections. Ere long they will
find it both natural and desirable to invite them to co-operate with
them through the Ballot-box, “to choose a Knight of the Shire or a
Burgess from a Borough, in the stead of all and of each of them, to go
to the Parliament House, and there consulting with the Knights of other
Shires,” to defend the interests of _those who sent them_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------