Woman Before the Law.
The fact that men and women are held amenable to the same Divine law,
and held equally accountable for any infraction of it, and that human
law, with regard to criminal actions, is based upon the same principle,
clearly proves that God has created men and women, as a race, with equal
mental and moral capacity, and that, so far as it suited them to do so,
men have acknowledged the equality in framing the laws, especially those
relating to the punishment for crimes committed. It was only where
masculine arrogance and selfishness were concerned, that the privileges
of equality were denied to women; and they are still denied for the
same reason. Such is man's consistency. If women, because of their
sex--indeed, in consequence of it--are inferior to men in mental and
moral capacity, then it is unjust to judge them by the same law; for
where little is given little should be required. Imbecile men are not
judged by the same code as men of sound mind. If men and women are
mentally and morally equal--and we hold they are--then they are justly
held to be equally accountable by the laws, provided they have been
equally represented in the making of those laws; and if held equally
accountable with men to the laws, they ought, in common justice, to be
entitled to the enjoyment of equal immunities with men, and an equal
voice in the making of the laws that are to govern them.
To urge that, because the house is the legitimate place for a woman, she
is therefore inferior to man, and in consequence ought not to enjoy the
same rights, is no more logical than to contend that, because the farm
is the legitimate place for the farmer, he is therefore inferior to the
lawyer, who is somewhat better skilled in legal lore, and that
consequently the farmer is not entitled to equal political and religious
rights and privileges with the lawyer; or that, because neither of these
classes understands the minutiae of housekeeping, therefore they are
inferior to women, and in consequence not entitled to equal rights and
privileges with them. Good housekeeping is quite as essential to the
world's good, and to the healthful development of humanity, as good
farming or the proper construing of well-made laws, neither of which is
to be undervalued. Where, then, is the inferiority?
It requires as much good judgment and tact to manage a house properly as
it does to conduct a farm, make out a legal form, carry on an extensive
commercial business, or attend to a banking establishment as it ought
to be attended to; and quite as much wisdom and prudence are needed to
rear up successfully and govern a family with discretion, as is needed
in the government of a province or state. Indeed more practical good
sense is shown in the government of the majority of those homes where
the wife and mother is allowed to govern without interference, than is
usually exhibited in the exclusively masculine government of states and
empires.
It "is the mind that makes the man," sings one of Britain's most honored
poets; the mind, not the social position he occupies. And so with woman;
it is the mind, and not her local habitation or employment, that
entitles her to consideration--that entitles her to equality, to
justice. With equal advantages, women are no whit behind men in any
thing except physical strength. Are men deprived of civil rights because
some of them are puny?
It is an established fact that, where girls have had the same
advantages, and often when they have had not nearly such good ones, they
have maintained equally honorable positions in their classes, frequently
outstripping their masculine competitors in the literary contest.
Should any doubt that this can be done, all that is necessary, to prove
the truth or falsity of the assertion, is to select any given number of
boys and girls of average intellect, of the same or nearly the same
ages, and afford precisely the same advantages to them all, for a given
length of time, and then subject boys and girls to a like critical
examination. Even with the disadvantages under which they labor in our
ordinary and even higher schools, girls have surmounted the difficulties
of their position, and without favor--indeed, in spite of ridicule,
partiality, and opposition--have come out first in their examinations.
Send such a class of young women as this to a university that will
honestly admit them to all its advantages, and allow them to compete
with the most studious young men admitted to the same university; let
both enjoy precisely similar facilities throughout the entire course;
and see if there will not be as many brilliant scholars who will
graduate with honors among the women as among the men. It is said there
are more talented men, more men eminent in science or in history, than
there are women. Certainly. The advantage has all been on the side of
the man, the disadvantage on the side of the woman; besides which, the
doctrine that it is unwomanly to emerge from the retirement befitting
her sex into public notice has been preached so persistently, that many
women truly great have shrunk from the ribald criticism--to use no
stronger term--with which insolent men assailed them. Consequently,
learned women have frequently given their works to the world
anonymously, or allowed them to be attributed to their male relatives.
An instance in point is Miss Herschel. It is well known, not only that
she gave her brother valuable assistance in his astronomical pursuits,
but that some of the discoveries attributed to him were actually made by
her; not because he wished to defraud her of the honor of her
achievement, but because she shrank from public notice.
But history has given us the record of learned women enough to show
that, with any thing like fair play, there would have been more. As it
is, the list of them is longer--very much longer--than those given to
decry their ability are willing to admit, or are perhaps aware of. The
names of women are found who have been famous for the founding of
empires, the carrying on successfully of civil governments, and the
leading on to glorious victory of armies which, under the generalship of
men, had suffered defeat after defeat, till they were not only
disheartened, but almost disorganized; and yet a woman reorganized
these shattered bands and roused them once more to determined action.
They have been found, in times of trouble, giving to statesmen sound
counsel, which, followed, has led to beneficial results; and, alas! they
have, equally with men, been found capable of base intrigue. Cleopatra
was fully on a par with Marc Antony, Madame de Pompadour with Richelieu
or Mazarin.
Women noted for piety and for patriotism are not found lacking on this
list. Retired lives as they have led, compared with men, history, both
sacred and profane, abounds with them. They shine out conspicuously,
bright lights in a very dark world. Miriam stands side by side with
Moses, Deborah a little in advance of Barak. They contribute their
jewels to adorn the tabernacle or to save the State; and, in time of
need, they cheerfully endure every privation, that the commonwealth may
prosper. They were found last lingerers about the cross, and the first
to visit the sepulcher of Christ; and they were the first commissioned
by him to proclaim his resurrection.
In philanthropic enterprise, Mrs. Fry is the peer of Howard. Who, among
men, have been found to excel the world-honored Florence Nightingale in
intelligent arrangements and administrative talent, as displayed in her
management of the important department to which she devoted herself, and
where her courage, promptitude, and sound judgment were as conspicuous
as her sweet, womanly compassion?
Similar qualities distinguish in a marked degree both Miss Rye and Miss
McPherson, and also the power of influencing and controlling juveniles
unaccustomed to moral restraints. These, though only a few of the many
noble women whose business talents have been used to bless the needy and
suffering, may suffice to prove that women have not only the heart to
devise philanthropic undertakings, but the ability to carry them out
successfully.
Mothers of great mental power rear sons whose names never die. The
mother of the Wesleys, and the mother of Washington, are named as
reverently as are these illustrious men themselves. In fine, how few
great men there are who do not, when they speak upon the subject,
attribute their greatness or success to their mothers!
Since, then, women have in a measure shown the capabilities of which
they are possessed, it remains to be ascertained what rights and
privileges are accorded them, and to be shown whether these are in any
proportion to what they are entitled to; and, as the women of Europe and
America enjoy more liberty than those of the other portions of the
globe, it is their condition that will be inquired into. Whatever may be
amiss in Christianized and civilized lands, the state of woman is
incomparably worse where the light of the Gospel does not shine.
Christianity and its attendant civilization have done much for the
amelioration of the condition of woman. Except in Turkey and in Utah,
the idea that a man is to have more than one wife at the same time is
not tolerated. In referring to the continents of Europe and America, it
will be understood that Turkey in the one, Utah in the other, are always
excepted. In neither Europe nor America are women subject to the
surveillance of the East; they are not bought and sold in the markets.
They are, if they do not marry before coming of age, mistresses of their
own personal actions. The halls of science, literature, and the arts,
have been partially opened to them. The doors have been set ajar, and
they allowed to peep in. They may now attend the house of God without
being railed in behind a lattice; and they may, without censure, move
about the streets without veils, if it is not the fashion, or it does
not please them to wear them. They are accorded a measure of liberty in
forming their own religious opinions; that is, the law does not prevent
them from doing so. They may, if they can, acquire property in their own
names, or they may inherit it. In such cases they, perhaps, if
unmarried, may be allowed to manage such property. Once married, it is
managed, or mismanaged, as the case may be, by the husband, except in
very special cases. They are not compelled by law to marry unless they
choose, and are supposed to have a choice with regard to those they do
marry, though outside pressure is very frequently brought to bear with
regard to both. And, finally, they are allowed a share of authority in
the joint government of their respective families. This is about the sum
total of the privileges accorded to them.
In the population of both continents, men and women are about equally
divided. It is not estimated that there are any more idiots or imbeciles
among women than there are among men. Here, then, one-half of this
mighty population are prohibited by law from having any voice in the
making of the laws by which they are governed, or the carrying of them
out after they are made. Where is justice in this case? One slight
exception may be made here: in some of the Western States women are
allowed to vote and to hold some few positions of profit and trust in
the State. It is only a trifling advantage, but still it is an
advantage, and is one step gained in the right direction.
The law allows the mother's holiest feelings to be outraged with
impunity. It does not recognize her right to the custody of her own
children, except at the husband's pleasure. She may be intelligent and
educated, virtuous and pious. Yet, if he so wills, he may remove her
children from her care, deprive her of their society, and even of the
comfort of occasionally seeing them; and he may place them under the
tutelage of the ignorant and vicious; while the deeply wronged mother is
powerless, according to law, to help either herself or her children.
It is counted among one of woman's privileges that she may hold property
in her own right. Upon what tenure is she allowed to hold it? If the
property be acquired or inherited, without entail of any sort; if it be
real estate, it is hers in fee-simple till she marries. After that
event--unless she has guarded her rights by a legal pre-nuptial
contract, properly signed and attested to by him who is to be her
husband--she may not dispose of any part of it without his express
sanction. He may not legally sell it away from her, it is true; but by
law he is her master, and may manage it according to his supreme
pleasure while he lives. Even a will made by her does not take effect,
except her husband pleases, till his death. If the property be in ready
money or in funds--except it be guarded in the contract--the husband
becomes possessed of it at once, and may appropriate and apply it to
any purpose he pleases, without consulting the wishes of his wife. She
has no redress. He may, despite her remonstrances, take this her
substance and her money, and spend it in foolish speculation; or, worse
still, in gambling, drunkenness, and debauchery. He may maltreat her and
insult her by the presence in her own house of his mistress. If, no
longer able to endure his brutality, she is obliged to leave him, he
may, unless the law grant a divorce and alimony, keep possession of her
houses and lands, while she must leave home and children behind, and go
out upon the world penniless. She can not force him to return one dollar
of the wealth that was her own; and after the separation, unless legal
papers warranting it have been executed, he can follow her and collect
her scanty earnings. Thousands upon the back of thousands of times has
all this occurred. Does not civilized law give a woman a lien upon her
husband's property? and does not this counterbalance his lien upon hers?
About as equally as are all other privileges balanced between the
sexes; no more.
She has no legal voice whatever in the management of her husband's
estate. His real estate is the only thing upon which she has any claim,
and this is only a life interest--after his death--of the one-third of
the estate; and of this she may only draw the interest upon the
valuation. She may refuse to bar her dower[K] in a sale of land, but if
the bargain goes on, her refusal does not invalidate the title; all she
can do is, in the event of her husband's death, to claim her interest on
her "thirds." This is all she can claim. The furniture of her home, the
very beds which she may have brought to the house, are included in the
inventory of her husband's effects; and, unless she agrees to accept
them as part of her thirds, she may be left without, one on which to
rest her weary limbs; and that, too, though the property may have been
purchased with money brought by her into the matrimonial firm; or though
she may have been the working-bee who in reality acquired it. This is
not an overdrawn picture. It is the law in civilized countries; and men
are found every day who avail themselves of its conditions. That all men
are not mean enough to take advantage of such laws, is no excuse for
their existence. It is barbarous that, by laws in the enacting of which
women have had no voice, they are left to the mercy of unscrupulous men,
without the possibility of better men coming to their help, except by
repealing the iniquitous statutes.
It is quite true that all women are not made to feel the full force of
this bitter oppression, because of the kindness of their husbands, or
the prudent forethought of their fathers in providing for unlooked-for
emergencies which might occasion poverty or distress; but the laws, and
the makers of them, deserve little credit for any comfort or degree of
independence enjoyed by women. More sorrowful than it is, infinitely
more sorrowful, would woman's condition be, if true Christianity had not
made many men more just than the laws require them to be. Many of the
slaves had kind masters; but was slavery any the less an iniquitous
outrage upon humanity, a curse upon the land, a blot that could only be
wiped away by a bloody war? The present social condition of women is
merely one system of domestic slavery, which is hourly calling out to
God for redress; and, though he tarry long, yet his afflicted children's
cry is never lifted up in vain.
Society is even yet so constituted, and the minds of those who are
administrators of the law so blinded, by the prejudices which long usage
has established, that even the very few laws which are on record for her
so-called protection, are rendered of little avail.
The sufferings of women and children from the effects of the
liquor-traffic, is perfectly frightful; and what help is there for it?
Lately, in Canada, the wife may, after she is reduced to poverty, forbid
the dram-seller to sell her husband any more liquor. If he pays
attention to the prohibition, well and good; if not, when in a drunken
fit the husband has well-nigh killed her, she may have him bound over to
keep the peace--if she can find a magistrate who will do it--and she may
complain of the man who sold him the liquor. Perhaps he will be fined a
dollar, perhaps not. More likely the latter, with a not very gentle hint
that she has stepped out of her sphere by presuming to meddle in such
matters.
If women had a voice in the making of the laws, how long would the
dram-shop and low groggery send out their liquid poison to pollute
civilized lands? But all women are not on the side of right. Neither are
the very large majority of men. Many women are drunkards themselves, and
worse. True, alas! too true. Sin has corrupted human nature, and men
and women have sunk to fearful depths of degradation. Statistics go to
show, however, that fallen women happily bear only a very small
proportion to those upon whose moral character there is no stain. The
virtuous and good are in the large majority.
Men are not allowed by law to murder their wives. Indeed, the law
forbids them to beat them; but for this trifle, husbands frequently
escape with an "admonition." Yet, though the letter of the law is
explicit, they must stop short of killing their victims. There is a case
on record, within a few years back and in a British province, where a
man beat his wife to death. He was found guilty of the crime. The
jury--composed of men, of course--brought in a verdict of manslaughter,
and he was sentenced to three months in the common jail. The plea in his
behalf was that she was a drunkard. The poor fellow had only gone a
little too far; the court must be merciful. At this same assize, there
was a man indicted for theft. He had made good his entrance into a
jeweler's shop, and stolen therefrom a watch. The theft was proved, and
the culprit sent to the penitentiary for three years. _Query_: Which was
the greater crime, killing a woman or stealing a watch?
The law professes to punish seduction and rape; but when either or both
are proved, what are the sentences? In nine cases out of ten, scarcely
so severe as for damaging an animal belonging to a neighbor.
Occasionally, when the cases have been atrociously aggravating, a man
has been hung for poisoning his wife, or one has been sent to the
penitentiary for rape; but the instances are more frequent in which the
criminal escapes punishment. It is contended that, usually, the women
who are murdered, or otherwise maltreated, are ill-tempered, drunken
creatures, and therefore not worthy the protection of the law. Would
these same parties contend that because a man was ill-tempered,
drunken, or dissolute, therefore his wife was scarcely to be punished
for foully murdering him? Not at all. The universal testimony would be
that she was a shockingly wicked wretch.
Women, as well as men, have to contend with infirmities of temper; and
they quite as well succeed in controlling or keeping them in check.
There are both men and women, unfortunately, who let their evil passions
run riot till they are torments to all who have any thing to do with
them. Some women, naturally gentle and kind, have been so ill-treated,
so shamefully tyrannized over, that in process of time the "milk of
human kindness in their breasts has turned to gall;" and the gall is
then bitter enough. Would not men, in similar circumstances, be just as
bitter?
There is a certain class of women, however, who as a rule are likely to
become fretful and ill-tempered as they grow in years: girls who are
allowed to grow up with uninformed judgments, who are taught that the
chief end and aim of woman is to captivate and please the opposite sex,
who are taught to think a pretty face and delicate figure of more
importance than good sense or a thorough education. And yet it is a fact
worthy of notice, that those who most eloquently assert their great
superiority over the entire sex, are the very men most easily led--ay,
and duped--by dressy, frivolous, brainless women. It would be a
misfortune, scarcely to be endured, for such men to have wives who know
too much.
That there should be a head to every family, is self-evident. A man and
his wife, according to Scripture, should be one; and the corporate head
is best qualified to govern a family, or manage an estate in which both
have a common interest, and therefore ought to have an equal voice. What
one lacks, the other may have. The man may be overconfident, the woman
too cautious; by counseling together, a proper and safe medium is
arrived at.
One-half of the property in the matrimonial firm should always be
regarded as belonging to the wife. And if a man and his wife fail to
agree as to the advantage, or even safety, of a proposed scheme, and he
is still determined to act upon his own judgment, contrary to that of
his wife, he should never, in such case, risk more than one-half of the
property.
What right has a man, except that "might makes right," to hazard all he
has in wild speculations, or by indorsing for some friend or boon
companion, despite his wife's expostulations, or without her knowledge?
Yet it is done every day, and all lost; and if women who see their
children and themselves thus reduced to poverty, complain, they are
stigmatized as fretful, unwomanly grumblers. Their husbands, says the
world, had a right to do as they pleased with the property in their
possession. What if the wife had earned or inherited half, or even the
whole, of it! what should women know about business?
In indorsing, especially, a man should be restrained by law, under pains
and penalties, from indorsing to amounts exceeding one-half of his
property; and no indorsement in excess of that amount should be allowed
to constitute a legal claim.
But is it really right to indorse for any one, under any circumstances?
Why should a third party encumber his estate, and run the risk of
ruining himself and his family, to secure the payment of a debt in which
he has no personal interest, simply to make a capitalist secure in the
investing of his funds, or in the profitable disposal of his property on
credit? If the lender can not trust the party who deals directly with
him, let there be no credit. It is manifestly a departure from the line
of duty for a man to jeopard the means of maintenance for his family,
without any prospect of advantage to himself or them. It is as much a
great moral wrong for a man to rob his wife and children as it is to rob
strangers, although commercial usage and the laws of mankind may declare
the reverse. "He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and
he that hateth suretyship is sure." (Proverbs xi, 15.)
It may be said that to refuse to indorse would retard trade. Let it be
retarded, then; for why should the capitalist have two chances to the
trader's one? If the man trusted is unsuccessful, why, to enrich the
capitalist who loans his money for his own gain, should an innocent
family be impoverished, who reaped no benefit, and were expected to reap
no benefit, from the transaction? How many families have thus been
brought to ruin, the day of Judgment alone will reveal.
In many countries the law of primogeniture prevails, though, happily, in
the United States and Canada it has been abolished. Whether the
interests of the mothers and younger members of families ever were in
any degree the better provided for by every thing being placed at the
absolute disposal of the eldest son, is a doubtful question. It may have
been that, in the old barbaric times, when women and children were a
prey to every bold marauder who chose to prey upon them, that the law
was intended for their protection, the eldest son or brother being the
person most likely to be able to protect them; and the property, not
being subdivided and scattered, was more easily defended; and it might
have been expected that natural affection would cause the heir to deal
justly with his mother and the other children.
But with the passing away of these days of barbarous forays, passed away
the need of any such arrangement; if indeed any good ever was
accomplished by it. Certainly, much mischief has been wrought and foul
injustice sanctioned by it, for many centuries.
An arrangement so well calculated to foster selfishness and arrogance,
so long established, produced its legitimate fruit. Since at his
father's death every thing, or nearly so, would come under his control,
the eldest son became the one important member of his family. As his
mother could have but her interest on the third of the value of the
estate, unless specially provided for by marriage settlement, she
necessarily became dependent upon him who inherited the estate; and
therefore the lad, even while a lad, was constantly deferred to, until
he deemed himself superior to the rest of his family. The elder members
of a family might have been girls, and, there being no boys, might have
arrived at the conclusion that the property of their father might be
theirs; but a boy born late in the life of their father would sweep away
the delusion, and leave them to poverty. Eldest sons have been known to
send their brothers and sisters out into the world penniless, and sell
from over their mothers' heads the homes in which they had hoped to
die, obliging them to subsist or starve, as they might, upon their
meagre "thirds." Whether justice to mother or children was done or not,
depended entirely upon this one boy. And this was the brightest side of
primogeniture. In cases of entailed property, very often the entail
specified that it was to go to the heir male for all time. A father in
this case, dying without a son, could do nothing besides willing to
these girls such loose property as he might have acquired independently
of his estate. It might revert to his daughter's most bitter enemy; it
was not in his power to help it.
From the hour of a woman's birth to her death, there is a continuous
system of belittling her, which, if it does not succeed in destroying
her self-respect, thus teaching her that she may, as her only means of
retaliation, allow herself in any little meanness which may occur to
her, is so galling to that self-respect, that the wonder is that her
very nature has not become revolutionized. But women have so long been
trained in this school, that they have, to a large extent, adopted the
language expressive of their own inferiority, if not the sentiment
itself.
Emma and John, as children, play together; Emma aged five and John three
years respectively. Their toys are suited to their sex--Emma's a doll,
John's a toy carriage and ponies. For a time all goes on harmoniously;
they use each other's toys indiscriminately; for as yet their minds have
not been contaminated by outside influences. By and by, as will come in
play, both children wish entire possession of the same toy. There is a
contest, and John appeals to mother: "Emma has my carriage, and won't
give it up." "For shame!" says mother, "Emma, give John his toy
directly. Don't you know that a carriage with ponies is a toy for little
gentlemen? Besides, if you are good, when you both grow up perhaps he
will give you a ride with real carriage and live ponies." Awed by the
command, and charmed by the distant prospect of the actual ride, the
little girl--as indeed she ought--gives up the toy, and peace is
restored for the time. But presently a shrill cry is heard: "Johnnie's
rubbing all the paint off my dolly's cheeks. He won't give her to me. O,
he has broken her arm." The mother's reply to this cry is stern and
sharp. "Don't be so cross with your little brother." Then to John. "O,
John, you ought not to have broken sister's pretty dolly; it wasn't half
so nice as your own little carriage and ponies. Why didn't you play with
them? Boys should be gentlemen. Emma is only a little girl;" with a tone
emphatic of inferiority upon the word girl. "Little boys should never
stoop to play with girl's toys." Later on, where a girl's enjoyment is
in a measure provided for in connection with her brother, he is made
almost invariably the purse-bearer. What she has is of his generosity.
Girls must be yielding, submissive, and dependent, as becomes their sex.
Boys may be overbearing or rough; it is a sign of a manly spirit to be
so.
Thus arrogance and injustice is fostered in the boy, and a sense of
wrong begotten in the girl; the one is degraded in her own eyes, and in
the eyes of her brother; the other is elevated above his just level in
his own eyes and his sister's; and heart-burning and jealousies
engendered that often last through life. A girl may hardly choose her
own husband. Her father, brother, or some friend will introduce some
eligible party. She is an undutiful girl if--when he honors her by
asking her hand--she do not thankfully consent. To the credit of
humanity be it said, that girls have more liberty of choice in this
respect than they had formerly. There is still room for improvement. The
sooner match-making and match-makers die out, the better for the world.
If man or woman make a mistake in marrying unfortunately, and in
consequence suffer unhappiness, let those more fortunately situated,
pity and be kind to the sufferer; but let none incur the responsibility
of having made such a match.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote K: By recent legislation in Ontario, she is deprived of her
right of dower in wild lands.]