April, 1892.
A century has passed since Mary Wollstonecraft published her “Vindication of the Rights of Women,” and Maria Edgeworth, with greater tact and knowledge of the world, pleaded for the higher education of women in her “Letters to Literary Ladies.” Whatever views we may hold as to the change, there can be no doubt that the modes of thought and of life of women in all classes have altered considerably, for good or for evil, in the last hundred years. It is, however, possible to exaggerate the change, and to be mistaken both as to its causes and its resulting tendencies; and now that there are signs of a new departure, it may be as well to take stock and consider how we stand at present.
First and foremost the question presents itself, How do women stand now with regard to that all-absorbing occupation obtained through marriage? Their position in industry is so vitally affected by their attitude towards marriage, and by the attitude of those around them, they are so constantly called upon to balance an industrial gain with social loss, that before all things it is necessary to see on what the expectation of marriage is grounded and the effect produced by it on efficiency and wages. After marriage we should estimate not so much the effect of marriage on industrial position, but rather the effect of industry on domestic life.
In calculating the possibilities of marriage on a statistical basis, the method is frequently adopted of subtracting all the widows from the population and pointing out that in the remainder (the widowers not being subtracted) there is a slight surplus of men; the moral is drawn that every woman can get married if she will only make herself agreeable, and not be too particular. Putting aside the practical objection that all men are not able to support a wife, and the sentimental one that numerical equality does not guarantee mutual attraction, this method of calculation ignores several important facts. One of these is the preference that men feel for women younger than themselves as wives and that women feel for men older than themselves as husbands. Granted an equal number of males and females between the ages of eighteen and thirty, we have not therefore in English society an equal number of marriageable men and women. Wherever rather late marriage is the rule with men—that is, wherever there is a high standard of comfort—the disproportion is correspondingly great. In a district where boy-and-girl marriages are very common, everybody can be married and be more or less miserable ever after; but in the upper middle class equality in numbers at certain ages implies a surplus of marriageable women over marriageable men. Nor do equal numbers at the same age imply equal numbers in the same locality. Women’s work and men’s work cannot always be found in equal proportions in the same district; and class habits may affect the stream of migration differently. The daughters of working-men go out to service or emigrate, while the daughters of well-to-do people stay at home; while, on the other hand, the percentage of sons of professional men who go to the colonies or to India is probably much greater than the percentage of sons of working-men. There is a probability, therefore, that the sexes will be distributed unequally in different districts and also in different classes of society.
1881.—Number of Females to every 100 Males in
| Kensington. | Hackney. | Islington. | London. | St. Pancras. | Shoreditch. | Bethnal Green. | Whitechapel. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All ages | 149·8 | 122·4 | 113·3 | 112·3 | 109·9 | 105·2 | 102·9 | 93·4 |
| Under 5 years | 99·9 | 102·0 | 97·9 | 99·9 | 97·2 | 102·3 | 99·1 | 103·6 |
| 5-10 | 105·1 | 103·3 | 100·4 | 101·1 | 104·5 | 101·3 | 98·6 | 101·9 |
| 10-15 | 122·1 | 110·2 | 104·3 | 103·9 | 105·4 | 102·2 | 102·5 | 102·1 |
| 15-20 | 172·9 | 145·0 | 123·4 | 114·7 | 107·3 | 98·3[1] | 98·1[1] | 100·0 |
| 20-25 | 195·9 | 142·3 | 118·9 | 112·9 | 108·5 | 104·5 | 101·7 | 83·0 |
| 25-30 | 187·2 | 128·1 | 115·3 | 110·7 | 109·4 | 100·8 | 105·0 | 82·1 |
| 30-35 | 171·9 | 120·0 | 111·9 | 114·5 | 108·1 | 102·7 | 102·5 | 82·4 |
| 35-45 | 152·2 | 118·9 | 111·7 | 111·8 | 110·3 | 104·8 | 101·6 | 89·4 |
| 45-55 | 153·6 | 125·1 | 120·4 | 117·0 | 118·3 | 111·6 | 110·8 | 92·4 |
[1] I have made no attempt to estimate the error introduced into the Census by falsehood.
Taking the Census returns for 1881, and comparing England and Wales with London, we find that, whereas in the former there were 105 females to 100 males, in the latter there were 112 females to 100 males. Here at once we have a marked local difference, and if we take special districts of London and compare them with each other we shall find a greater disparity.
According to Mr. Charles Booth’s classification in “Labour and Life,”[2] Kensington has 30·4 per cent. of middle and upper class people (classes G. and H.), Hackney 24·2, Islington 20·9, London 17·8, Pancras 15·2. The percentage of these classes in Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, and Whitechapel is too small to be taken into account, but Shoreditch has 59·8 per cent. “in comfort,” while Bethnal Green has 55·4. The order of these districts is, therefore, exactly the same whether we arrange them according to preponderance of females over males, or according to well-being. Whitechapel is set apart from the rest, most probably by the peculiar effects of the Jewish immigration. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the preponderance is entirely due to the servant class, there can be little doubt that it is connected with the servant-keeping classes. Between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five the merely migrant portion of the community seem to have disappeared, large numbers of shop-assistants, domestic servants, etc., having married and settled down amongst their own class. Between these ages but a small percentage of unmarried people marry; they are, or should be, in the prime of life, and for several reasons it is a period to notice, especially in estimating the proportion of men or women who remain unmarried.
[2] For brevity I use the letters assigned by Mr. Booth to the various classes, with the signification he has attached to them, viz.: