THE ALBUM. No. III. "INTELLECTUAL WOMEN." "Ce qu'il y a de bizarre dans les jugemens des hommes à l'égard des femmes, c'est qu'ils leur pardonnent plutôt de manquer à leur devoirs que d'attirer l'attention par des talens distingués.”—Mme. de Staël. It is very common for minds of ordinary calibre to con found social and natural institutions-that is, to regard regulations of society, which have almost immemorially existed, as established laws and principles of nature. In this country, for instance, where inheritance by primogeniture has so long obtained, there are many who look on it as the natural and only mode of succession ;—and, though some, who have the misfortune of a later birth, may wistfully think the last Egyptian infliction-which converted universally younger brothers into elder ones— a blessing rather than a plague, yet even these have their minds so imbued with long-standing usage, that the contrary example of many surrounding nations is scarcely sufficient to convince them of the possibility of any other practice. The actual condition of women in society seems to such persons still more naturally fixed, for it has, more or less, prevailed in all countries, and at all times. But to those who are in the habit of VOL. II. PART I, B running things up to their first principles-who judge from reason instead of precedent-from what ought to be, rather than from what is, to such persons it has sometimes occurred that the softer sex has scarcely had fair play-that we have styled ourselves lords of the creation more by the patent of physical power, than of moral right-that, in a word, if we have not, like Brennus, declared va victis to be the principle of our conduct, it has, in real fact, been the rule by which we have been guided. There can, we imagine, be no doubt that physical superiority was the original cause of the man being preferred to the woman, in almost every thing;—and from this it has been argued, that it is evident that such was the intention of nature. If so, then it is equally the intention of nature, that the strong man should despoil the weak at his pleasure-that the many should oppress the few-the powerful lord over the defenceless. This argument clearly involves the principle of might giving right. The "good old rule," "That they should take who have the power, "And they should keep who can❞ would then indeed prevail; and would, as it always has done, terminate in universal robbery, and general cutting of throats. The truth is, that one of the very first principles of nature is that which urges men to combine for their respective welfare-for the very purpose of preventing power being considered justice. And, accordingly, the very first laws of the rudest and most incipient society are to defend weak right from strong injustice— to assert, in short, the superiority of moral over physical principles. The greater bodily power of the man having given him command, he forthwith exerts it to his own advan tage, and the woman's detriment. He enacts laws to exclude her totally from most of the privileges he enjoys-to postpone her to him in them all. We have, it is true, in modern times, admitted women to a much greater share of the enjoyments of what, vulgò, is called society. They are no longer, except in Turkey, treated as the mere toys of sexual passion-the enslaved and imprisoned victims of the appetites of animal lust. They have more personal freedom-more mental self-government—and if, in some cases, they are still treated as servants, they are no longer regarded as slaves. But in more serious matters they have few more rights than in the ungallant and ante-chivalrous days of Greece and Rome. To go no farther than our own country, where it is boasted that no salique law exists, our law in almost every thing establishes and enforces the greatest inequality. If, for instance, a man kill his wife, he is no more punishable than if it had been an indifferent person, it is murder-if the woman kill her husband, it is treason--a crime visited by the law with much severer penalties. Indeed, it is not many years ago, that the sentence for petit-treason, was for a man, to be hanged, for a woman to be burned alive! In matters of property, sexual inferiority has even greater force than the favourite system of primogeniture-for a younger brother inherits intestate real property, to the exclusion of all elder sisters-that is, of all sisters whatever. The personal property of a woman becomes, by the fact of marriage, that of her husband--she acquires no right on his. Of her lands, also, he has all the profit while she lives, and even after her death, if he have a child-whereas the widow sinks into a dowager, to make room for the male rights of her son. And when, in despite of all these barriers, a woman does become possessed of pro perty, it does not confer the same rights on her that it would on a man. It is equally taxed for the exigencies of the state, but it gives her no voice towards guiding its councils. Taxation without representation is to the full exemplified in her case. She cannot even vote for a member of Parliament, while the possession of the same property would qualify a man to be a member of Parliament himself. We have used, above, the expression that women are still sometimes regarded as servants ;this may have been considered exaggerated; but so far from that, it is the chief character in which the law recognises the relation of father and daughter. If a man's daughter be debauched, how does he come forward to seek redress?-Does he say this villain has robbed me of my child-has disgraced her, and dishonoured me-has blasted in a moment the hopes and the care of yearshas turned what was my pride into my shame, what was my blessing into a curse?-No-he says this man has decoyed away from me my servant, and thus deprived me of her services-give me compensation for them! There is yet another inequality to which women are subject, not imposed by law, indeed, but of greater and more general force than almost any law. We mean the obdurate and irrevocable sentence which is passed on a woman who has gone astray, and the light, in fact, the no censure, which falls on the accomplice, if not the creator, of her crime. When a woman falls away from the path of what, in her, is called by pre-eminence, virtue, she is shut out for ever from all the advantages of social intercourse-from all the charities of friendly communion. Every hand is raised to cast a stone against her-and there is no one to say "Go and sin no more.' In all things else, peculiarity of circumstance-force of temptation-are taken into account in judging and punishing the actual transgression. But in this case, all shades of guilt are confounded:-confirmed depravity is not more severely visited than that which one must be mercilessly just to term even error. She who has every palliation in her favour-an ill-assorted, if not a forced, marriage-and that martyrdom of the heart which attends long struggling with irrepressible affection,-who has undergone temptation too great for human heart to bear, and has withstood it almost longer than human heart is capable of withstanding,-such a woman as this, if she fail at last, is classed in the same rank with the lustful and the wanton-with those who yield unsought, or seek the means of yielding. Draco-like, the world thinks the extremity of punishment not too severe for the lightly erring, and it has no greater infliction for the deeply criminal. We are saying nothing in favour or defence of this latter class:- -we do not think that more than deserved justice is meted to them. It is for those immeasurably less guilty, that we are speaking in palliation. We object to the classing and confounding together offenders so different-to all degrees of crime receiving the same, and that the severest, degree of punishment. And from this sentence, when once passed, there is no appeal-to this punishment, when once inflicted, there is no cessation. Repentance-long-suffering-manifest amendment-are no atonement-no extenuation. Even the precious tear of Remorse, which opened the gates of Heaven, fails to remove the more than crystal bar of the world's relentlessAnd how is the man treated who errs in a similar way? Is he shut out from society ?-No-he is received in it with increased distinction. Is he branded for ever with dishonour and disgrace?—No-his conduct becomes to him a trophy and a triumph. The more scrupulous ness. |