ential stations in society belong, therefore, naturally and properly to the male sex: this of necessity entails the chief rule in private life also. But it is here that the rights of women come in, and that the danger of unjust encroachment upon them commences*. Everything that tends to lessen the comparative purity and refinement of women, is most pointedly adverse to their real interests; these are the qualities that enable them to be the guardians and sustainers of national morals: and their rights must be founded on their natural attributes and their moral dignity. To these respect and consideration cannot be denied, and every step mankind advances in civilisation gives strength to those sentiments. Women have neither the physical strength nor the mental power, to compete with men in the departments which depend on those qualifications; and however little we were to suppose their inferiority, in the long run. they would always be defeated and discredited, in their competition for employment with the abler sex. Were so unnatural a state of society to arise, as that they should become the competitors instead of the assistants of man, they would lose their hold on his protection and tenderness, without being able to shield themselves from his harshness. The business of life would be far worse conducted, when the division of labour so clearly pointed out by nature was done away: and the just influence which women ought to have, would be destroyed by breaking down the barrier of opinion, which consigns * See Note L. at the end of the volume. them to the duties of a domestic and private station, and preserves them from the contamination of gross and contentious scenes. But the same arguments that establish the right of the male sex to the sole possession of public authority, must leave the chief control of domestic life in their hands also. All the most laborious, the greater and more lucrative social offices, being filled by them, it follows, that generally speaking it is they who produce the wealth and property of society, and the property they create they have assuredly the best right to control; within the rules of virtue and law they may spend it as they will. The children whom the husband supports, the wife who accepts him, engaging to follow his fortunes, must be content to live as he pleases, or as his business requires. This is the law of nature and of reason. If his tastes or his profession be unpleasant to her, she must see to it beforehand; for ever after their interests must be one. In every important decision that is taken, one counsel must prevail: if it cannot be mutual, it must be assigned as a legal right to the owner of the property and the abler sex. Hence he is the head of the family; he must be responsible to law and opinion for the decorum of his house, and must have the power of restraining what he holds to be discreditable or wrong. Happy if he could be made equally responsible, even to his own conscience, for unjustly encroaching on rights which should never be taken from a woman, except for positive vice or incapacity! Her right to all the self-government that can be left to her, without deranging his purposes or his enjoyment, is as real as his own; and his purposes and enjoyments are not to be measured by mere 'pride or fancy, but by reason and justice; even then he remains judge in his own cause. As the right of man to the chief power, public and domestic, has been deduced from his greater ability, so the aptitude of the female mind and character for the details of domestic life, and the improvement of society in manners and morals, establish her rights also to a share of control; otherwise her utility must be greatly impaired, and her enjoyment cruelly and needlessly sacrificed. The power of the male part of society is not only unavoidably great, but what is far worse, indefinite; for power is both more corrupting and more oppressive by being indefinite than by being great. Between man and man there is so wholesome a jealousy of undefined power, that it is hard for the hand who wields it, to satisfy public opinion. It is a recognised principle, that where it must be confided, it should be guarded by sound views and liberal feelings. But where women are concerned all this is reversed: prejudice runs not in favour of the weaker, but of the stronger. No fixed principle is ever instilled into the mind of a man, as to the grounds or limits of his rights over women; hence his own views of his rights are as vague and indefinite, as his practice must be left, through the absolute impossibility of laying down rules that should meet every case of private life. Even at the celebration of marriage, where in its beautiful and affecting form the vow of obedience is tendered to the wife, it is unqualified as to the nature of the commands she might receive; and there is not required from the husband, any declaration that he holds his authority for the practice and preservation of justice and order, not for his own interest alone; though, in truth, that vow is neither made, nor received, nor administered, in the unlimited sense conveyed by the terms. It was observed in a preceding page, that a legal authority which must unavoidably be left indeterminate, particularly required the moral restraint of clear views of justice; for whatever is universally admitted to be just, will be practised in the greatest number of cases. Paley observes that the greatest liar tells truth a hundred times for once that he lies. Society could not go on otherwise. The same may be said of other virtues. The most dishonest man is obliged, by self-interest, to pay much oftener than he cheats. And the same considerations that render men so far honest and true, will render them equally just upon other points, if once convinced it is their best interest. Many people act wrong, only because their ideas of what is right are not clear; and where we observe what the state of opinion upon this subject has hitherto been, we perceive, that instead of a zealous attention to the rights of the weaker, there has been a general disposition to point the finger of scorn against the man who is not sufficiently arbitrary. This leads men, who are too tender or generous, to take pleasure in controlling the tastes or the judgments of their wives, to look on their own noble nature almost as weakness. In the writings of the last age, or which were popular in those days, this spirit is very apparent. The moralist, the satirist, the religious instructor, with few exceptions, are all on the same side,—either warning off the master-hand from what they call weakness, or totally silent on the contrary extreme, so that, indeed, we might think the tendency of power was to render men too soft-hearted. The very terms in which men are faintly admonished, when the abuse of power is adverted to at all, rather tend to confirm their extravagant notions of their right. Domestic oppression is reproached as a want of indulgence, but not denounced as a shameful injustice. When we consider the history of mankind, and the effect which irresponsible power almost always produces on their conduct, the very term, "an indulgent husband," speaks volumes as to the general condition of women. It is true that a better spirit has arisen. Men are sometimes brought to the bar of opinion for the use they make of their legal authority. They can no longer be considered as quite irresponsible for the wrongs which they can inflict, under the sanction of law. And, yet, experience may be appealed to, whether in all general discussions on the comforts or ills of married life, the principal test, which most men apply to the question, be not what gives the greatest security for obedience on the part of the wife. In the same spirit, the most passive obedience, and the toleration of the greatest vices have often been represented as the duty of women. The trivial, or low standard of duties and sentiments held up for VOL. I. L |