FROM the modes of conduct which affect the life or bodily welfare of a fellow-creature we shall pass to those relating to personal freedom. In its absolute form the right of liberty may be granted to a perfect being, but has no existence on earth. Ever since the conduct of men became subject to moral censure, the right of doing what they pleased was eo ipso denied them; and in resisting wrong men have not only in various ways interfered with the liberty of their fellow-creatures, but have considered such interference to be their right or even their duty. As to the question what conduct is wrong opinions have differed, and so also as to the proper means of interference; but with neither of these questions are we concerned at present. Nor shall I deal with the subject of political liberty, nor with such restrictions as people lay on their own freedom by contract. I shall only consider facts bearing upon that state of subjection to which large classes of individuals are doomed by custom or law, on account of their birth or other circumstances beyond their own control—the subjection of children, wives, and slaves to their parents, husbands, or masters.
Among the lower races every family has its head, who exercises more or less authority over its members. In some instances where the maternal system of descent prevails, a man’s children are in the power of the head of their mother’s family or of their maternal uncle;[1] but this is by no means the rule even among peoples who reckon kinship through females only. The facts which have been adduced as examples of the so-called “mother-right” in most instances imply, chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank descend exclusively in the female line;[2] and this is certainly very different from a denial of paternal rights.[3] Among those Australian tribes which have the system of maternal descent the father is distinctly said to be the master of his children.[4] In Melanesia, where the clan of the children is determined by that of the mother, she is, to quote Dr. Codrington, “in no way the head of the family. The house of the family is the father’s, the garden is his, the rule and government are his.”[5] As regards the Iroquois—among whom, at the death of a man, his property is divided between his brothers, sisters, and mother’s brothers, whilst the property of a woman is transmitted to her children and sisters[6]—we are told that the mother superintends the children, but that the word of the father is law and must be obeyed by the whole household.[7] Among the Mpongwe, who reckon kinship through the mother, the father has by law unrestricted power over his children.[8] And in Madagascar, where children generally follow the condition of the mother,[9] the commands of a father or an ancestor are, among all the tribes, “held as most sacredly binding upon his descendants.”[10] Whatever might have been the case in earlier times, it is a fact beyond dispute that among the great bulk of existing savages children are in the power of their father, though he may to some extent have to share his authority with the mother.
[1] Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, p. 40 sq. Grosse, Die Formen der Familie, p. 183 sq. Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, i. 51 sq. Marsden, History of Sumatra, p. 262 sq.
[2] Westermarck, op. cit. p. 97.
[3] See von Dargun, Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht, p. 3 sqq.
[4] Curr, The Australian Race, i. 60, 61, 69.
[5] Codrington, Melanesians, p. 34.
[6] Westermarck, op. cit. p. 110.
[7] Seaver, Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, p. 165.
[8] Hübbe-Schleiden, Ethiopien, pp. 151, 153.