had its ducking-stool for scolds. In 1741, old Rugby paid 2s 4d for a
chair for the ducking stool. The parish of Southam, in Warwickshire,
got a beautiful stool built in 1718 at an expense of £2 11s 4d. Ancient
Coventry had two stools.”
The most noteworthy of all the instruments designed for the correction
of Eve’s offending daughters was the ducking-stool, known as the
tumbrel and the trebuchet. A post, across which was a transverse beam
turning on a swivel and with a chair at one end, was set up on the
edge of a pond. Into the chair the woman was chained, turned toward
the water—a muddy or filthy pond was usually chosen for this purpose
when available—and ducked half a dozen times; or, if the water inflamed
her instead of acting as a damper, she was let down times innumerable,
until she was exhausted and well nigh drowned.
From the frequency with which we find it mentioned in old local and
county histories, in church wardens’ and chamberlains’ accounts, and
by the poets, we shall probably not be wrong in concluding that at
one time this institution was kept up all over the country.—“London
Graphic.”
[52] John Dillon.—_Colonial Legislation of America._
[53] _Ibid._
[54] JERSEY CITY, N.J., July 23, 1887.—Mrs. Mary Brody, convicted a few
days ago of being a common scold, was today sentenced to pay a fine of
$25 and costs.
Only the other day a woman in this city, under some ancient unrepealed
law of this state, was arrested and brought before a magistrate on
the charge of being a common scold. A too free use of the tongue was
reckoned a public offense in all the American colonies, and in England
the lawful punishment of common scolds was continued until a recent
day. It was for these that the “ducking-stool” was invented, which
usually consists of a heavy chair fastened to the end of a large piece
of timber, which was hung by the middle to a post on the river side.
The offender was tied into the chair, and then soused into the water
until it was judged that her shrewishness had departed from her.
Sometimes she was dipped so thoroughly that her breath departed for
good, as happened to a certain elderly lady at Ratcliffe Highway. The
ducking-stool was constantly hanging in its place, and on the back
of it were engraved devils laying hold of scolds, etc.—“St. Louis
Republican.”
[55] If it is a crime to buy and sell wives, let the men who do such
things be punished; if there is no crime in the transaction, why should
the wife who is sold be punished. Unfortunately this is not a solitary
instance of law made or administered to punish women in order to teach
men.—_English Women’s Suffrage Journal._
Before Mr. Justice Denman, at the Liverpool Assizes, Betsey Wardle was
charged with marrying George Chisnal at Eccleston, bigamously, her
former husband being alive. It was stated by the woman that, as her
first husband had sold her for a quart of beer, she thought she was at
liberty to marry again.
George Chisnal, the second husband, apparently just out of his teens
was called.
His Lordship—“How did you come to marry this woman?”
Witness [in the Lancashire vernacular]—“Hoo did a what?” [Laughter.]
Question repeated—“A bowt her.” [Laughter.]
His Lordship—“You are not fool enough to suppose you can buy another
man’s wife?” Oi? [Laughter.]
His Lordship—“How much did you give for her?” Six pence. [Great
laughter.]
His Lordship asked him how long he had lived with the prisoner.
Witness—“Going on for three years.”
His Lordship—“Do you want to take her back again?”
“Awl keep her if you loike.” [Laughter.]
His Lordship (addressing the prisoner)—It is absolutely necessary
that I should pass some punishment upon you in order that people
may understand that men have no more right to sell their wives than
they have to sell other people’s wives, or to sell other people’s
horses or cows, or anything of the kind. You cannot make that a legal
transaction. So many of you seem to be ignorant of that, that it is
necessary to give you some punishment in order that you may understand
it. It is not necessary it should be long, but you must be imprisoned
and kept to hard labor for one week.—“News of the World,” 1883.
A peculiar case came up in the mayor’s office at Vincennes, Ind., in
1887. A man named Bonn sold his wife to another man named Burch for
$300, and held Burch’s note therefor. The sale was a reality, but the
note was never paid, hence the difficulty.
“We know a man in the Black Hills—a man who is well-to-do and
respected—the foundation of whose fortune was $4,000, the sum for
which he sold his wife to a neighbor. The sale was purely a matter of
business all around, and the parties to it were highly satisfied.”
1889.—“_The Times_,” Bismarck, N.D.
[56] In “The Doncaster Gazette” of March 25, 1803, a sale is thus
described: “A fellow sold his wife, as a cow, in Sheffield market place
a few days ago. The lady was put into the hands of a butcher, who held
her by a halter fastened around her waist. ‘What do you ask for your
cow?’ said a bystander. ‘A guinea’ replied the husband. ‘Done,’ cried
the other, and immediately led away his bargain. We understand that
the purchaser and his ‘cow’ live very happily together.” Ashton.—_The
Progress of Women._
[57] “Morning Herald,” March 11, 1802.—On the 11th of last month a
person sold, at the market cross, in Chapel en la Frith, a wife, a
child, and as much furniture as would set up a beggar, for eleven
shillings.
“Morning Herald,” April 16, 1802.—A butcher sold his wife by auction at
the last market day at Hereford. The lot brought £1 4s. and a bowl of
punch.
“Annual Register,” February 14, 1806.—A man named John Garsthorpe
exposed his wife for sale in the market at Hall about 1 o’clock, but
owing to the crowd which such an extraordinary occurrence had brought
together, he was obliged to defer the sale, and take her away, about
4 o’clock. However, he again brought her out, and she was sold for 20
guineas, and delivered with a halter, to a person named Houseman, who
had lodged with them for four or five years.
“Morning Post,” October 10, 1808.—One of those disgraceful scenes
which have of late become too common took place on Friday se’nnight at
Knaresborough. Owing to some jealousy, or other family difference, a
man brought his wife, equipped in the usual style, and sold her at the
market cross for 6d and a quid of tobacco.—_Ibid._
[58] Our laws are based on the all-sufficiency of man’s rights;
society exists for men only; for women, merely in so far as they are
represented by some man, are in the _mundt_, or keeping of some man.
Herbert Spencer.—_Descriptive Sociology, England._
[59] A committee appointed by the National Woman Suffrage Association,
at that time in convention assembled in Washington, waited upon
President Cleveland with the memorial.
[60] Mediaeval Christian husbands imprisoned erring wives in cages so
small they could neither stand upright nor lie down at full length.
Mediaeval Christian priests boiled living infants in osier baskets in
presence of helpless heretical mothers. In mediaeval times the public
scourging of women was one of the amusements of the carnival; even as
late as the eighteenth century English gentlemen, according to _Herbert
Spencer_, made up parties of pleasure to see women whipped at Bridewell.
[61] Seduction was connived at that the guardian might secure the
estate of the ward.—_Ibid._
[62] The Salic law had not preference to one sex over the other—purely
economical law which gave houses and lands to males who should dwell
there, and consequently to whom it would be of most service.—_Spirit of
the Laws._
[63] In order to give color to the usurpation (for it was nothing
better), the lawyers cited an obscure article from the code of the
barbarous Salians, which, as they pretended had always been the
acknowledged law of the French monarchy.... Since that time the Salic
law, as it is called, has been regarded as an essential constitutional
principle in France.—_Student’s History of France_, p. 19.
[64] Montesquieu.—_Spirit of the Laws._
[65] Women in England were for more than a thousand years legislated
for as slaves. Crimes committed by men which could be atoned for by a
fine, were by women punished with burning alive. The period is not very
distant when she was distinctly legislated for as a servant and but on
a level with chattel slaves.—_Hist. Crime in England._
[66] _American Law_, 1829.
[67] Through the influence of Governor M. Nutt, who instituted many
reforms.
[68] There was no distinction between offenses against the church on
one hand, and offenses against the state or individual on the other.
Cases of theft and sorcery, like those of witchcraft, could be tried in
the church. From the position of the clergy as law-givers, it follows
not only that the secular laws had the sanction of religion, but that
religious observance were enforced by the secular arm.
[69] From 499 to 1066. Herbert Spencer.—_Descriptive Sociology._
[70] To women were still applied those punishments, which had been
instituted by the men whose practice it was to buy their wives and sell
their daughters. Pike.—_Hist. Crime in England._
[71] Bracton.—_De Legibus Anglice I_, 479.
[72] “The reformation altered, but did not better the condition of
woman. Socially it rescued her from the priest to make her the chattel
of the husband, and doctrinally it expunged her altogether. Martin
Luther declared that the two sacred books, which especially point to
woman as the agent of man’s final redemption—the books of Esther and
Revelations—that in ‘so far as I esteem them, it would be no loss if
they were thrown into the river’.”
[73] “The forefathers of _Benjamin Franklin_ used a Bible kept fastened
under the seat of a four-legged stool, the leaves held in place by
pack-threads. When the family assembled to hear it read, one of the
number was posted as sentinel some distance from the house to give
warning of any stranger’s approach, in which case the stool was
hurriedly replaced upon its legs, and some one seated upon it for more
effectual concealment of the book.”
[74] Herbert Spencer.—_Descriptive Sociology, England._
[75] The _English Women’s Suffrage Journal_, November, 1886, reported:
“Mrs. —— rose to move a resolution. After reading a memorial, she said:
’Now, when I was asked to add a few words of support to the memorial
I have just read, my first feeling was that I was very far from the
right person to do so, inasmuch as being a married woman—and therefore
disqualified—and rightly disqualified,” etc.
[76] The coverture of a woman disables her from making contracts to
the prejudice of herself or her husband without his allowance or
confirmation.
[77] I have arrived at conclusions which I keep to myself as yet, and
only utter as Greek _phogagta sunetotsi_, the principle of which is,
that there will never be a good world for women till the last monk, and
therewith the last remnant of the monastic idea of, and legislation
for, woman, i.e. the Canon Law is civilized off the face of the earth.
Meanwhile all the most pure and high-minded women in England and Europe
have been brought up under the shadows of the Canon Law, and have
accepted it with their usual divine self-sacrifice, as their destiny by
law of God, and nature, and consider their own womanhood outraged when
it, their tyrant, is meddled with. Canon Charles Kingsley.—_Letter to
John Stuart Mill_, June 17, 1849, in _Life and Letters_.
[78] Dowers were first introduced into England by the Danish king,
Cnut or Canute, and into Denmark by Swein, father of Canute, who
bestowed it upon Danish ladies in grateful acknowledgment of their
having parted with their jewels to ransom him from the Vandals. For
account of Dowers, see _History of Dowers_; Grote.—_History of Greece
2_, 112-13; Alexander.—_History of Women_; Lord Kames.—_Sketch of the
history of Man_; _Histoire des Morales des Femmes_. In Denmark, King
Sweinn Forkbeard was the first to give woman a share in her parents’
property. Saxo Grammaticus says, The king was taken prisoner by the
Vinds who demanded so large a sum of money for his ransom, the men
of Denmark would not pay it, so their king remained a prisoner. The
women of Denmark sold their ornaments and ransomed him. From gratitude
the king decreed that afterwards daughters should inherit one-third
of their father’s property. _Journal of Jurisprudence._ One especial
right belonged to wives among the Northmen; this was the custody of her
husband’s keys, and if he refused them the wife could compel him by law
to give her their possession. These were the keys of the store-room,
chest, and cupboard.
[79] The law of dower was less favorable to the wife in the 13th
century than it became later.
[80] See _Reeves_ pp. 156-6.
[81] Sheldon Amos.—_Science of Law._
[82] _History of Women_, 1779.
[83] Higgins says the word widow comes from Vidya, to know.
[84] _Ancient Laws of Ireland, Sanchus Mor._ pp. 347-51.
[85] At a time when the English law of husband and wife, which now
for three centuries, has been substituted for the Irish law in this
country, has been condemned by a committee of the House of Commons, as
unjust towards the wife, and when the most advanced of modern thinkers
are trying to devise some plan by which wives may be placed in a
position more nearly approaching to equality with the husband, it is
interesting to discover in the much despised laws of the ancient Irish,
the recognition of the principle on which efforts are being made to
base our legislation on this subject. Preface to _Sanchus Mor._ Vol. 2.
[86] Vol. 3, p. 35.—_Ibid._
[87] _Rambles and Studies in Old South Wales._—Wirt Sikes.
[88] The three peculiars of a women, are her cowyll, her gowyn, and her
sarand; the reason these three are called three peculiars, is because
they are the three properties of a woman and cannot be taken from her
for any cause; her cowyll is what she receives for her maidenhood; her
sarand is for every beating given her by her husband, except for three
things; and those three for which she may be beaten are, for giving
anything she ought not to give; for being detected with another man in
a covert; and for wishing drivel on her husband’s beard; and if for
being found with another man he chastises her, he is not to have any
satisfaction beside that, for there ought not to be both satisfaction
and vengeance for the same crime; her gowyn is, if she detect her
husband with another woman, let him pay her six score pence for the
first offense, for the second, one pound; if she detect him a third
time she can separate from him without leaving anything that belongs to
her. _Aneurin Owen_, Professor of Welsh Law.
[89] The law enacts that she ought not to suffer loss on account of the
man, since she received no benefit from him, and therefore he is to
rear the child. _Ancient Laws and Institutions of Wales._
[90] The Welsh laws of Howell the Good were enacted by four laics
and two clerks who were summoned lest the laws should ordain anything
contrary to scripture. _Ibid._
[91] A woman cannot be admitted as surety or as a witness concerning
man. _Ibid._
[92] _Civil Code_, Art 340.
[93] _The Woman Question in Europe._—T. Stanton. This law of France
differs greatly from the old Welsh pre-christian law, which threw the
support of an illegitimate child upon the father. Notwithstanding
the responsibility thus thrown upon her, a French proverb declares
that “the most reasonable woman never attains the sense of a boy of
fourteen.”
[94] It was no mere accident that the French language only possessed
one word, _l’homme_, for man, and human being. French law only
recognizes man as a human being.—_August Bebel._
[95] Legouve—_History of Morals of Women._
[96] The baby was born in the next house, and of course I was
interested, how can one not be interested when one of these little
angels becomes imprisoned in the earth form and begins a career that
makes one tremble to think of? Meeting the father a few hours later I
ask the customary question. “Another no account girl to be supported,”
he said gloomily, and passed on.—_Woman’s World_. A father of experience
spoke differently: “My gals never forget me. They married and went away
to their own homes: and though they were none of them well-to-do, yet
not one of them ever saw the time she wouldn’t steal a dollar from her
husband to give to father or mother; but it isn’t so with the boys.
They never knew they owed me anything; they never put their hands in
their pockets for me; they never laid awake o’ nights thinking how to
scrimp household expenses to get me or mother a present like the gals
did. And yet when I was araisin’ ’em I thought one boy was worth a
dozen gals.”
[97] See _Scandinavian Jurisprudence_.
[98] A story is told by an American traveller, of a party met upon the
cars, the mother a delicate little personage, the father stout and
strong. Upon leaving the train he walked off incommoded by a single
traveling impedimenta, while the wife was almost hidden under the pack
she was carrying. With indignation the American asked, “why do you not
let the man take some of these things?” ‘What! and he the father of a
family?’ was the surprised answer.
[99] It is unnecessary to let the whole many-colored map of German
common law pass in review; a few specimens will suffice. According
to German common law woman is everywhere in the position of a minor
with regard to man; her husband is her lord and master, to whom she
owes obedience in marriage. If she be disobedient, Prussian law allows
a husband of “low estate” to inflict moderate bodily chastisement.
As no provision is made for the number or severity of the blows,
the amount of such chastisement is left to the sovereign discretion
of the man. In the communal law of Hamburg the regulation runs as
follows: “The moderate chastisement of a wife by her husband is
just and permissible.” Similar enactments exist in many parts of
Germany. The Prussian common law further decrees that the husband
can determine the length of time during which a woman must suckle
her child. All decisions with regard to the children rest with the
father. When he dies the wife is everywhere under the obligation of
accepting a guardian for the children; she is decided to be under age,
and incapable of conducting the education of children alone, even
when their means of support are derived entirely from her property
or her labor. Her fortune is managed by her husband, and in cases
of bankruptcy is regarded in most states as his and disposed of
accordingly, unless a special contract has been made before marriage.
When landed property is entailed on the eldest child, a daughter has no
rights, as long as husband or brothers are alive; she cannot succeed
unless she has no brothers or has lost them by death. She cannot
exercise the political rights which are as a rule connected with landed
property, unless in some exceptional cases, as for instance in Saxony,
where communal regulations in the country allow her to vote, but deny
her the right of being elected. But even this right is transferred to
her husband if she marry. In most states she is not free to conclude
agreements without the consent of her husband, unless she be engaged in
business on her own account, which recent legislation permits her to
do. She is excluded from every kind of public activity. The Prussian
law concerning societies, forbids school-boys and apprentices under
eighteen, and women to take part in political associations and public
meetings. Until within the last few years women were forbidden by
various German codes to attend the public law courts as listeners. If
a woman becomes pregnant of an illegitimate child she has no claim on
support if she accepted any present from the father at the time of
their intimacy. If a woman is divorced from her husband, she continues
to bear his name in eternal memory of him, unless she happens to marry
again.
August Bebel.—_Woman in the Past, Present and Future._
[100] Who, indeed, would not have been received by the queen.
[101] A German girl continues to be a maid-of-all-work until
circumstances elevate her to a higher position. She becomes a mother,
and this opens a fresh career to her as an _amme_ or wet nurse. Her
lines thenceforward fall in pleasant places. An _amme_ is a person of
consideration. No disgrace or loss of character is attached to the
irregularity of conduct which often is the origin of her promotion to
a higher sphere. Her wages are quadrupled; her fare by comparison is
sumptuous; she can never be scolded; she is called upon to fulfill but
one duty. The occupation is so much more remunerative than ordinary
service, that one can scarcely be surprised if plenty of women are
found ready and willing to follow the trade. With them the child is
only a means to an end. Marriage among the lower orders in Germany is
cumbered about with so many restrictions and conditions, that it has
come to be looked upon as almost an impossibility.
[102] When _Miss Aarta Hansteen_, a Norwegian lady announced her
purpose of lecturing on woman’s natural equality with man, she met
little or no support, the church strenuously opposing on ground of
woman’s original curse.
[103] Translated into English under title of “Nora,” by _Miss Frances
Lord_.
[104] So profound was its effect that visiting invitations were coupled
with the request not to speak of the work.
[105] _Marian Brown Shipley_, an American lady, long a resident of
Sweden and thoroughly conversant with its literature and tone of
thought, said of it, “A more glorious thing has not been done in Sweden
for centuries, Strindberg has defied church and state, striking both to
their foundations with his merciless satire, and rallied the Swedish
people at a single stroke.”
[106] Bjornsen said, “The confiscating of August Strindberg’s book
_Giftas_, is the greatest literary scandal in the North in my time. It
is worse than when one wished to put me in the house of correction on
account of the King; or thrust out Ibsen from the society of honorable
people for gjengungerd (Ghosts).”
[107] March 30, 1882.
[108] _Russian Revolt._
[109] A Russian writer of the 17th century said: “As Eve did wrong, so
the whole race of women become sinful and the cause of evil.”
[110] She was spoken of as a “Vanity itself,” “A storm in the home,” “A
flood that swells everything,” “A serpent nourished in the bosom,” “A
spear penetrating the heart,” “A constantly flying arrow.”
[111] _Rural Life in Russia.—The Nineteenth Century._
[112] See Chap. 4. p. 161.
[113] I myself am the happy possessor of a little rude wooden
bas-relief, framed and glazed, of two saints, whose names I have
ungratefully forgotten, to whom if you pray as you go out to commit a
crime, however heinous, you take your pardon with you.—_Rural Life in
Russia._
[114] See Chap. 4. p. 182.
[115] Reported by _Mrs. Livermore_.
[116] _Leavenworth Standard_, Dec. 21, 1886.
[117] Under common law a woman is classified with lunatics, idiots,
infants and minors.
CHAPTER SEVEN