MR. AND MRS. FAWCETT'S ESSAYS.* IN the preface to this
book, Mr. Fawcett tells us that its contents may be ranged under three heads,—economy, education, and politics. Taking this as a tolerably correct description, we may remark that it is somewhat singular to find the latter class of subjects almost entirely abandoned by one whose position as Member of Parliament might be supposed to give him an exclu- sive right of dealing with it. We do not know how far the relinquishment of the political field to Mrs. Fawcett may be taken as an indirect support of her arguments in favour of female suffrage, but certainly the one paper which her husband has contributed to this division of the book—the article on the House of Lords republished from the Fortnightly Review— is far from doing justice to his powers. The contrast between this indifferent recapitulation of trite suggestions and the animated lectures in which Mrs. Fawcett advances the claims of her sex to direct representation, becomes the more marked when we observe what a difference there is between husband and wife in their treatment of economical questions. In these papers Mr. Fawcett is always more remarkable for inde- pendence of thought, while Mrs. Fawcett is apt to lean upon the authority of Mr. Mill or Mr. Herbert Spencer. Of course we are aware that political economy is Mr. Fawcett's strongest point, and it would be unfair to expect that Mrs. Fawcett, however diligent a student, could compete with her husband in what has long been his speciality. But the same rule ought to apply to politics, and it is there that we own ourselves disappointed.
The papers in which Mrs. Fawcett deals with most of the objections to female suffrage, and states the grounds upon which that suffrage is claimed, are important contributions to a dis- cussion which at one time seemed likely to be closed before long, but threatens now to be renewed yearly. Both the lecture headed, "Why Women require the Franchise" and that on the education of women state forcibly enough certain grievances which ought to be redressed. Even if we do not agree with Mrs. Fawcett that the only remedy for the want of educational endowments for girls and for the comparative impunity of brutal and drunken husbands is to be found in giving votes to women, we admit that in both respects some change is needed. We look, however, in vain for any practical suggestions of the kind in Mrs. Fawcett's lectures. Women are unjustly treated, she says ; if they are married their husbands have the absolute control of their property, they may be beaten, robbed, or deprived of their children ; there- fore give them votes. "Can it be believed for a single moment," we are asked, "that if women had had any share in the making and amending of laws their legal status would have remained what it is?" No doubt there is something in this argument, especially as it is put by Mrs. Fawcett, but it has the defect of begging the question. The main point to be determined is whether it is right or wrong, expedient or inexpedient, for the advantage or for the detriment of the whole community, that a certain class, hitherto excluded from the franchise, should be admitted to it, and until that point is decided, the interest of the particular class can- not be taken into account. We do not say that this is Mrs. Faw- cett's chief argument, though it may be the one most likely to weigh with her hearers. But what calls our attention to it is that it prefaces an attack on the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, a measure which Mrs. Fawcett might have criticised as severely but more effectually if she had taken the trouble to master its provisions. As it is, she begins by quoting a letter from the Daily News, which says that "by the 11th section of the Act" the consent, in writing, of the husband is necessary before the wife can exercise a separate ownership over her earnings and property." She then goes on to argue that, according to the Act, "our legislators can recognise the justice of the claims of women to their own property, provided it do not exceed £200. What a fine sense of discrimination the limit shows! What is justice at £200 ceases to be justice at /201." We are not con- cerned to defend the Married Women's Property Act, but any one who has read it through will see that both Mrs. Fawcett and the writer in the Daily News are completely in error. Mrs. Fawcett has misread the seventh section ; the writer in the Daily News has drawn a hasty and erroneous inference about the whole Act from one sentence. The provision to which Mrs. Fawcett alludes is, that if any woman becomes entitled to any personal property as next of kin, or one of the next of kin, to an intestate, or to any sum of money not exceeding /200 under any deed or will, such property shall belong to her for her separate use. The distinction
* Essays and Lectures on Social and Political Sultiects. By Henry Fawcett, M.P., and Millicent Garrett Fawcett. London: Macmillan. 1872. between the two cases is obvious. Any one who gives pro- perty by deed or will to a married woman has the power of giving it to her for her sole and separate use, and the Legislature naturally supposes that a gift of any large sum will be attended by such a precaution, if that be the intention of the giver. In the case of property corning to a married woman as next of kin to an intestate, where no such option can be exercised, there is no limit of value, and this ought to have shown Mrs. Fawcett that her sarcasm about £200 and £201, though useful in a lecture, would not bear investigation. If Mrs. Fawcett will take the pains to correct her own error, she will probably see that the letter she has quoted from the Daily News is hopelessly wrong, and that the writer's real grievance is that an act which merely professes to give married women the control over certain kinds of property, does not exempt settlements of other kinds of property from a stamp.
Hitherto we have been dealing with Mrs. Fawcett's reasons for claiming the franchise. Her other lecture, which is confined to answering objections, is much more satisfactory. We cannot, indeed, say that in stating the arguments of those who oppose her view, Mrs. Fawcett is always fair, though any failing in this re- spect is clearly unintentional. Still when we think of all that has been said on the subject of the atmosphere which surrounds electoral contests, of the repugnance which many have shown to the appearance of women on such a troubled scene, we must say that Mrs. Fawcett does not really touch that objection,
whatever force it may have. First of all, she puts it thus :—" Women are very superior to men, and political ex- citement would contaminate them, and destroy their modesty and purity." And then she asks her audience, "If it be true that one sex is so superior to the other that to associate one with the other in the performance of the duties of political life would be ' contaminating ' and defiling,' with which do you think political power ought to rest, with the contaminator or the contaminated, with the defiler or the defiled?" 11'e wonder at its not striking Mrs. Fawcett that if this proves anything, it proves too much. She is arguing in favour of female suffrage, not against male suffrage. In another part of her lecture she tells us that "the danger of women proceeding to polling-places under the present system is greatly exaggerated," and that she herself during the last election went round to many of the polling-placers, both at Brighton and Westminster, without the least molesta- tion. Yet surely the treatment received by a non-elector from those of the other sex is no criterion of what might be expected if both sexes had a direct interest in voting. It may be that the presence of women at the polls would have a quieting effect ; but this can only be ascertained by experience, and Mrs. Fawcett's test is fallacious. Aa she was visiting the polling-places in the capacity of a mere observer, there was no reason why any one should interfere with her.
If she had been going up for the purpose of voting, and the crowd had consisted both of men and women who were also concerned in the contest, her experience might have been very different, but at all events it would have been more valuable.
We have not left ourselves space enough to examine any of Mr. Fawcett's economical papers with the care which they deserve. His two lectures on State intervention and his essays on Pau- perism and the Proper Treatment of Agricultural Labourers are especially valuable at the present time. It is true that the last of these papers was written nearly four years ago, at a time when Canon Girdlestone's efforts were beginning to attract attention to the question of agricultural labour, but long before the present strike had made that question prominent. Much, however, that was said in 1868 is equally true and applicable in 1872. The necessity of a more regular education for the labouring classes, to which Mr. Fawcett attributes so much importance, is now becom- ing generally felt, and though Mr. Fawcett takes this opportunity of showing his "discontented Liberalism" by attacking the Elementary Education Act, that measure is the first public re- cognition of the principle that a system of teaching ought to be provided for the whole community. A rise in the mental condi- tion of agricultural labourers would, in Mr. Fawcett's opinion, inevitably lead to better wages, more efficient work, decreased pauperism, improved living. Some of these advantages may no doubt be realised by means of the movement which began in Warwickshire and is spreading to so many other counties, but it is to be feared that its effects will not be permanent unless they are to be rested on a more solid basis than that of a temporary agitation. From this point of view Mr. Fawcett's suggestion sseem most important, and we commend them cordially to our readers.
Previous page
