페이지 이미지

woman, who gives us her views in a very succinct form. The writer of Remarks on the Education of Girls,' as might be expected, has to form a school of complainants. Englishwomen now, as in the days of Mary Wollstonecraft, hug their chains, and do not want more liberty than they have. Education, then, is her lever to stir the inert mass. Girls must be differently trained, and then they will not be content in their present bondage. And, first, their physical training must be reformed.: Strength and growth are to be the sole aim. No attitude is to be deemed unbecoming; no distinction of sex in these matters is to be acknowředged. The words • ladylike' and

decorous' are no more to be named, as miserable restrictions on the individựality of the individual.' In short, muscular development is the one desideratung. Then follows mental training, which is to be even on. å: freer scale; “fully to investigate, and 's

fearlessly to adopt the whole truth, is the leading principle of • Protestantism as opposed to that of the Catholic Church,' and on this axiom is built the claim to universal knowledge. Not only is the whole field of science to be laid open to girls, but they must, by all means, be instructed in the knowledge of evil, • There must be no concealment, and they must know what is

going on around them;' and to this end a course of George Sands is rigorously prescribed. From the calm, dispassionate * investigation of human relations,' the term applied to the reading of French novels, they are to proceed to the study of political economy, with a view, amongst other things, of making them more agreeable and intelligent companions to their future husbands; while, in connexion with the subject of marriage, they are to be allowed a freer and more unrestrained intercourse with the other sex than is sanctioned by our customs. Then they must learn responsibility by being placed in responsible situations, which naturally leads to advocating a wider sphere of employment than public opinion now allows to women; arguing for a wife's right to the exclusive possession of the earnings she is thus in a situation to acquire. The pamphlet concludes with an animated address to young women in society, on whose brave upholding the social success of all reform greatly depends ;' bidding these young ladies never to forget, day by day, and hour by hour,' that they are the trustees for this generation of the great Protestant principle of individual research. You are Dissenters,' she adds, 'not because you have the truth, but because you have, and shall ever have, freedom to find it. Another pamphlet in connexion with this, and especially with its latter topics, gives a summary of the English laws concerning women, including the legal condition of spinsters; the laws concerning married women, and the disposition of their property; those on separations and divorce, and on the maintenance of illegitimate children; with remarks on their supposed injustice, especially in the matter of property. And this concludes the English plea for change.

In spite of the appeal we have quoted to young women as the pioneers of progress, there is no indication, as we have said, of any general active sympathy with the views here laid down. In cases of individual hardship in this country, women suffering under the existing laws or usages may, and in some instances do, desire a change, but, as a rule, silence speaks consent to things as they are with us. It is not so in America. There the free daughters of a free country make known their discontent by unmistakeable signs. The malcontents probably form a very small minority even there, but it is a very noisy, active, and clever one, composing a compact and influential party, which it is worth the while of male factions to encourage, flatter, and fraternise with. Nor are they content with complaints and appeals; they take the privileges they plead for, and wait neither for man's consent nor woman's acquiescence.

They hold conventions—they make speeches—they preach they lecture-they physic, and, in the fearless exercise of these assumed rights, they affix to their names titles and distinctions which men have hitherto believed their exclusive privilege. Nor can they be dispossessed of the masculine decorations, which, indeed, it would seem are fairly earned.

Many of our readers may not have read, and others may have forgotten, the history of the Convention of Syracuse, which appeared two or three years ago in our leading journal. The whole is too long for insertion, but it puts us so readily in possession of the aims of the fair assemblage, and shows so forcibly the spirit and determination which animated the meeting, that we are tempted to introduce this phase of our subject by some graphic extracts. That the view taken should be a masculine and ex parte one is not more than must be expected, and probably was a matter of indifference to these enthusiasts, who required publicity rather than sympathy from men who had usurped the world too long, and put them off with fair speeches instead of just rights.

* Among other “ dangerous classes " in the United States there is one at this moment in a highly insurrectionary state. More ambitious than the "Lone-star," more deeply indignant than the African, more excitable than the Celtic immigrant, and at least as numerous as all the rest of the popu. lation, the “better half” of the Union is asserting its long denied rights. Half the human race has just held its third or fourth annual convention at

acuse. Brother Jonathan is well known to have a good many notions of his own, and there is no place where a good strong opinion is so likely to take root as somewhere or other between California and New York ; so the female movement-we beg its pardon, the anti-male-and-female movement-thrives on that generous soil, and forms all sorts of alliances

with other classes struggling for emancipation. And who can have attended such a convention? What manner of women can they be? We can form a pretty distinct idea of a Roman Senate, of a conclave of Cardinals, of a British House of Commons, of a Parliament of German philosophers, and even of Louis Napoleon's Senate ; but a petticoat Parliament—what sort of thing can it be? A much prettier sort of thing, gentle reader, than, perhaps, you imagine. True, there were some "strong-minded women.' True, there was Anne Partiman, a venerable widow, tall, in widow's weeds, who bad preached the everlasting gospel,” as Shaker preacher, for sixteen years, and a few others of the same calibre ; but the great majority of them were pretty girls in their teens, rather precocious, perhaps, in their habits and tastes, but very formidable specimens of Young America. A large proportion of them were Bloomers. As to the movers, the constitution, the objects, and operation of these Amazons of the New World, suffice it to say that everything is hitherto undetermined and free. The law of liberty, which impels them to seek emancipation from all female servitude, forbids also any organization and definite plan. Once a-year the struggling spirit of the sex—if we may venture to use the term-vents itself in a great meeting. As Doctor Miss H. K. Hunt very properly observed on the late occasion at Syracuse, “She did not like arbitrary organizations. Spontaneity is the law of life. Individualism is the only basis of responsibility. In going to Worcester, to the two first conventions, she was a mere baby, but she had grown since (as it appears, to rather bulky dimensions). Organizations and societies had performed their functions, and their day was gone by. We are organized and linked together like nature, and electrical sympathy is the only safe organization.”

After some further remarks on organization—a word apparently in great disfavour—the business of the meeting commenced with the first morning session :'

The first morning session before us was opened by Mrs. Dr. Fowler, one of the secretaries, a lady apparently not more than eighteen, and “who was taken for unmarried by most persons present.” She had to read the minutes of a former session, and did so from the free and easy report of a newspaper. On being taxed with this slipshod mode of discharging her office, she replied that she had minutes of her own, and would read them if desired; but on attempting to do so she blushed deeply-in such a company, of course, an unpardonable offence—and was accordingly released from all further discharge of her office. A committee of finance was then appointed, and a rev. gentleman having nominated “Mrs. Stephen Smith," the president called him to order, “Women's-rights' women do not like to be called by their husbands' names, but their own,” on which the objectionable appellation was corrected to Rosa Smith, that lady being still obliged by the state of the law to sign herself by her husband's surname. These preliminaries concluded, Mrs. George delivered a long address, in which she enumerated all the distinguished women in the world, including Queen Victoria, Sappho, Jenny Lind, and Miss Dr. Blackwell of the State of New York. Whatever the first in this list may say to her company, it is some satisfaction to us that we possess in this island at least one woman whose character and position fulfil the women's-rights' idea of individuality, spontaneity, and other feminine qualities. The next speaker was Mrs. J. Elizabeth Jones, of Ohio, with a strong western accent and an Irish face, who expressed herself rather new to the subject, but being in the habit of addressing large audiences on various subjects, was glad "to mingle with the free spirits of that hall.” She said, “she was not in the habit of talking much about women's rights. She was one of those women who, instead of talking about women's rights, took the rights without saying anything about them.” Mrs. Jones, it appears, occupies the pulpits all over the country five days out of seven in lecturing on science. What she wanted, however, was the right to vote, which included all other rights. She wanted {"to go into the legislative hall

, sit on the judicial bench, and fill the chair of the Executive." Universal applause and energetic movement of fans 'followed this bold flight of feminine ambition.'

• After the Rev. Miss Antoinette Brown had cited some cases that bore on this question, Mrs. Davies returned to the wider field of discussion, and instanced many lady-lecturers and preachers that drew largely wherever they went, and whom St. Paul bimself would not have commanded to cover their faces in the assembly." Woman's sphere," she observed, “is now wherever she makes it.” Miss Lucy Stone went as far as the rest, but saw a practical difficulty. It was not so easy to go and take their rights; and she mentioned that Miss Harriett K. Hunt went to claim her right in the college where she had obtained permission to study from the heads of it, but the students “sacrificed" her. The lady herself, a jolly looking woman, upwards of forty-fat, but not fair, resented this rather ambiguous expression. It is evident, however, that whatever conquest she might have made among the heads of the college, the students were blind to her attractions, and Miss Hunt experienced some ungallant usage.'

That the ladies whose names are here recorded are distinguished amongst the party, we gather from the independent witness of Mr. Thos. Wentworth Higginson, whose essay on

Woman and her Wishes ’ is one of our subjects, where we find many of them placed in his list of worthies. The test of sphere,' he says, “is success. If Miss Millar can walk the quarter-deckSif Madame Grange can argue cases in court—if Mrs. W can conduct the complex business transactions of a great Paris house—if Maria Mitchell can discover comets, and Harriett s Hosman carve statues—if Apollonia Jagiello can fight in one • European revolution, Mrs. Putnam vindicate another (besides

having the gift of tongues)-if Harriet Hunt can really cure • diseases, and Lucretia Mott and Antoinette Brown can preach s good sermons, and Mrs. Swisshelm and Mrs. Nichols edit suc• cessful newspapers, then all these are points gained for ever,

and the case is settled so far ' (p. 8). And to Miss Lucy Stone he elsewhere gives this eloquent-we must not say gallant testimony (p. 20): Often at conventions of men, amid the • roughness and the gruffness of tone, the stammering and the 'hesitating, when I have recalled to memory the clear delicious 'voice of Lucy Stone, “gentle and low,- an excellent thing ' in woman," yet penetrating with its quiet fascination to the s utmost corners of the largest hall-never loud to the nearest, * never faint to the furthest, bearing in its quiet current all pure

womanly thoughts and noble aspirations-I have almost wondered at the tolerance of Paul in suffering a man to speak in public. But to return

[ocr errors]

• The ladies now retired, and assembled again in the afternoon, when Mrs. Paulina W. Davis delivered an eloquent address on marriage, the conclusion of which was, woman was “the redeeming agency” of the world, and therefore now was the time for ber to do “ her proper work, and contribute to the peculiar elements of the new civilization now opening upon the world, in which love shall overrule force, and equal liberty and justice shall replace the degradation of castes and the oppression-of individuals.".'

Here followed A magnificent burst on the wrongs of woman and the tyranny of man by Mrs. Ernestine Rose, a Polish Jewess by birth, who, after denouncing husbands, household duties, and tobacco, proceeded : “Her imagination was not large, but she bad enough of it to see how the sexes could be united, that the whole might be regarded as man in the highest title that the race is capable of. Kings, and priests, and archbishops, and other titles, invented to amuse children, are nothing compared to the title man, and that includes woman.” Mrs. Lucretia Mott then showed the degrading character of the marriage relation, and the false vow of obedience on the part of the woman made in some churches. Yes, woman was degraded by the times and by the monopoly of the church. According to a Commentary on Blackstone,” the law made both man and wife one, but the man was that one.

It was from Lucy Stone she first learnt the degradation of women, even after her husband's death. She was called “the relict," or what remained of him. After a Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Nichols was announced as the editor of the “ Wyndham County Democrat," and said, “So, you see, I am a politician." She entered at great length, and with much ingenuity and tact," as we are told, into the legal wrongs of woman in regard to property. She had no legal existence. In the words of “ Blackstone," “ her existence is suspended during coverture.”

[ocr errors]

• The evening session of this day was opened by Miss Lucy Stone reading a letter, addressed to her by Mr. Brigham, who had had the temerity to point out that man had his sphere and woman bers, and that they were equal in their several positions. Miss Lucy, who appeared to know a great deal about it, maintained, in reply, that the “ arts and sciences were matters of genius, not of sex.” “She denied that there was any peculiarity in the male that distinguished him from the female. The sexes were both alike by nature.” Mr. Brigham, who chanced to be present, said in defence of his letter, “All the ladies wanted was better taste, and they would find their sphere at last in the domestic circle ;" whereupon a host of single ladies jumped up, and “Miss Dr. Harriett K. Hunt” became their spokes

" What was she to do?She was living a life of single blessedness—what was to be her sphere? Mr. Brigham replied rather weakly, and soon found he had disturbed a hornet's nest. In the midst of the uproar, while, if not sticks and stones, at least very grave words were flying about, a vir pietate gravis, in the shape of the venerable Anne Partiman, mentioned above, rose up and plunged into the mysteries of the question. "A clergyman once said to her, that woman was the wickedest thing God ever made. Her reply to him was, that if the one rib taken from man was so awfully wicked, what must the whole body of man be?” This led the way to the “ Bible argument” in favour of the equality of the sexes, which was thereupon ably taken up by the Rev. Antoinette Brown. No sooner, however, had the clerical lady sat down, than the gentle Miss Rose gave her views on scriptural authority. “She did not want appeals to the Bible. Anything might be proved from that book. When the people of Boston turned their harbour into a teapot, there were plenty to quote Scripture to


« 이전계속 »