Chapter DXXI: Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this (11)

_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 4._

WIMPFEN, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

WINCEBY FIGHT (1643).

The sharp encounter known as Winceby Fight, in the English
civil war, was one of Cromwell's successes, which drove the
royalist forces out of the Lincolnshire country, and compelled
the Marquis of Newcastle, who was besieging Hull, to abandon
the siege. "Cromwell himself was nearer death in this action
than ever in any other; the victory, too, made its due figure,
and 'appeared in the world.' Winceby, a small upland hamlet,
in the Wolds, not among the Fens, of Lincolnshire, is some
five miles west of Horncastle. The confused memory of this
Fight is still fresh there." The Fight occurred October 10,
1643.

_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
letter 18 (volume 1)._

See HULL.

WINCHESTER, General:
Defeat at the Raisin.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

WINCHESTER, England:
Origin of.

"There can be little doubt that a town, of greater or less
importance, has existed since the earliest dawn of English
history on the same place where stands the Winchester of
to-day. … If the first founders of the ancient city were
Celtic Britons, covering with their rude dwellings the summit
and sides of S. Catherine's Hill they were certainly conquered
by the Belgæ, also probably of Celtic origin, who, crossing
over from Gaul, established themselves in a large district of
southern England. But whether in their time Winchester was
called Caer Gwent is doubtful; very probably it was simply
Gwin or Gwent, the white place. … But as there is no question
of the Roman occupation of Britain, first by Julius Cæsar,
later on by Claudius and Vespasian, so we know that the
settlement on the Itchen was turned into Venta Belgarum, and
S. Catherine's Hill converted into a Roman camp. … Venta, as
well as many other towns, was completely Romanised. … But the
time arrived when Rome could no longer defend herself at home,
and was thus forced to leave Britain to contend with the wild
Northmen who had already begun their inroads. The Britons
implored their former masters to come back and help them, but
in vain. … We know how Vortigern, chief among the southern
British kings, invited the Saxon adventurers to help him
against the Picts and Scots, who encroached more and more in
Britain. … In 495 (as we learn from the Brito-Welsh
Chronicle), there · came two ealdormen to Britain, Cerdic and
Cymric,' who landed at Hamble Creek, and eventually, after
many battles much extolled in the Saxon Chronicle, became
kings of the West Saxons. Cerdic is said to have been crowned
in Venta, to have slaughtered most of the inhabitants and all
the priests, and to have converted the cathedral into a
heathen temple. … The name Venta now becomes Wintana, with the
affix of 'ceaster,' Saxon for fortified place."

_A. R. R. Bramston and A. C. Leroy,
Historic Winchester,
chapter I._

See, also, VENTA.

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1862.
Defeat of General Banks.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1864.
Sheridan's victory.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

WINDSOR CASTLE:
Rebuilt by Edward III.

See GARTER, KNIGHTS OF THE.

WINDWARD ISLANDS, The.

See WEST INDIES.

WINEDI.

See VENEDI.

{3655}

WINGFIELD, Battle of.

Fought, A. D. 655, between King Oswin of Northumberland and
King Penda of Mercia, the latter being defeated and slain.

WINKELRIED, Arnold von, at the battle of Sempach.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

WINNEBAGOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WINSLOW, Edward, and the Plymouth colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.1623-1629 (PLYMOUTH), and after.

WINTHROP, John, and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.

WINTHROP, John, Jr., and the founding of Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

WINTHROP, Theodore:
Death at Big Bethel.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WIPPED'S-FLEET, Battle of.

The decisive battle fought, A. D. 465, between the Jutes under
Hengest and the Britons, which settled the conquest of Kent by
the former.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

WISBY, Its Code of Maritime Laws.

See HANSA TOWNS.

WISBY: A. D. 1361.
Taken and plundered by the Danes.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

----------WISCONSIN: Start--------

WISCONSIN:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1634-1673.
Visited by Nicolet, and traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Sylvania, Michigania
and Assenisipia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1785.
Partially covered by the western land claims of
Massachusetts, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
Territorial vicissitudes.
Admission into the Union as a State.

From 1805 to 1809, Wisconsin formed a part of Indiana
Territory. From 1809 to 1818 her territory was embraced In the
Territory of Illinois, excepting a small projection at the
northeast which was left out of the described boundaries and
belonged nowhere. When Illinois became a State, in 1818, and
her present boundaries were established, an the country north
of them was joined to Michigan Territory. In 1834 that huge
Territory was still further enlarged by the temporary addition
to it of a great area west of the Mississippi, embracing the
present states of Iowa, Minnesota and part of Dakota. It was
an unwieldy and impracticable territorial organization, and
movements to divide it, which had been on foot long before
this last enlargement, soon attained success. In 1836, the
year before Michigan became a State, with her present limits,
the remaining Territory was organized under the name of
Wisconsin. Two years later, "by act of June 12, 1838, congress
still further contracted the limits of Wisconsin by creating
from its trans-Mississippi tract the Territory of Iowa. This,
however, was in accordance with the original design when the
country beyond the Mississippi was attached to Michigan
Territory for purposes of temporary government, so no
objection was entertained to this arrangement on the part of
Wisconsin. The establishment of Iowa had reduced Wisconsin to
her present limits, except that she still held, as her western
boundary, the Mississippi river to its source, and a line
drawn due north therefrom to the international boundary. In
this condition Wisconsin remained until the act of congress
approved August 6, 1846, enabling her people to form a state
constitution. … Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, by act
approved May 29, 1848, with her present limits."

_R. G. Thwaites,
The Boundaries of Wisconsin
(Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections,
volume 11, pages 455-468)._

ALSO IN:
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 17._

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1832.
The Black Hawk War.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1854.
Early formation of the Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

----------WISCONSIN: End--------

WISCONSIN, University of.

"In 1838, two years after organization as a Territory,
Wisconsin petitioned Congress for aid to establish a
university. The request was granted, the usual seventy-two
sections of land were set aside for this object, and the
Territorial Legislature at once passed a law establishing the
University of the Territory of Wisconsin. The organization of
a board of trustees was, however, the only other action which
took place previous to the adoption of the State Constitution
In 1848; this provided for the establishment of a State
university 'at or near the seat of government,' and stated,
emphatically, that the lands granted for a university should
constitute a perpetual fund, the income of which should be
devoted to the support of this institution. This declaration
was apparently to little purpose, as the State has treated
these domains as granted absolutely, and not as held in trust.
There is probably no worse example of mismanaged public
educational funds on record than is to be found in connection
with this institution. … The entire sum realized from the
46,080 acres was only 'about $150,000.' The University of
Wisconsin was established in 1850 on the basis of the funds
thus secured, but even while passing laws for the sale of the
university lands the Legislature realized that the income
would be insufficient to support the institution, and they
therefore petitioned Congress for seventy-two additional
sections in lieu of the saline lands granted to the State in
1848 but never located. Congress granted this petition in
1854. … An opportunity to atone for past errors was now
afforded the Legislature. It began to be realized, after it
was too late to enact suitable laws to remedy the evil, that
the best lands had been sold at a disadvantage.
{3656}
It was felt that, whereas the policy pursued had benefited the
State at large, it was not faithful to the increase of the
seminary fund. … After fully examining the claims of the
regents and the condition of the university in 1872 for four
years, this body granted $10,000 annually, to atone for the
injustice done by the State in selecting for an endowment
unproductive lands."

_F. W. Blackmar,
History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
in the United States (Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 250-251._

WISHOSKAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WISHOSKAN FAMILY.

WISIGOTHS.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS).

WISMAR.

See HANSA TOWNS.

WITCHCRAFT, Salem.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

WITE-THEOW.

See THEOW.

WITENAGEMOT, The.

"The Witenagemot or assembly of the wise. This [in old English
history] is the supreme council of the nation, whether the
nation be Kent or Mercia as in the earlier, or the whole gens
Anglorum et Saxonum, as in the later history. The character of
the national council testifies to its history as a later
development than the lower courts, and as a consequence of the
institution of royalty. The folkmoot or popular assembly of
the shire is a representative body to a certain extent: it is
attended by the representatives of the hundreds and townships,
and has a representative body of witnesses to give validity to
the acts that are executed in it. … The council of the
aggregated state is not a folkmoot but a witenagemot. … On
great occasions … we must understand the witenagemot to have
been attended by a concourse of people whose voices could be
raised in applause or in resistance to the proposals of the
chiefs. But that such gatherings shared in any way the
constitutional powers of the witan, that they were organised
in any way corresponding to the machinery of the folkmoot,
that they had any representative character in the modern
sense, as having full powers to act on behalf of constituents,
that they shared the judicial work, or except by applause and
hooting influenced in any way the decision of the chiefs,
there is no evidence whatever. … The members of the assembly
were the wise men, the sapientes, witan; the king, sometimes
accompanied by his wife and sons; the bishops of the kingdom,
the ealdormen of the shires or provinces, and a number of the
king's friends and dependents. … The number of the witan was
thus never very large."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, sections 51-52 (volume 1)._

The constitution and powers of the witenagemot are very fully
discussed by Mr. Kemble, who gives also a list of the recorded
witenagemots, with comments on the business transacted in
them.

_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_R. Gneist,
The English Parliament._

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

WITIGIS, King of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

WITT, John De, The administration and the murder of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650; 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.

WITTELSBACH, The House of.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

WITTENBERG, Luther at.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1017, and after.

WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

WITTENWEIHER, Battle of (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITTSTOCK, Battle of (1636).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITUMKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

WIZA.

See THRACIANS.

WOCCONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WOIPPY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

WOIWODES, VOIVODES, WAIWODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1078-1652;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WOLFE, General, Victory and death of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

WOLFENBÜTTEL, Duchy of.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

WOLSEY, The ministry and fall of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529; and 1527-1534.

WOMAN ORDER, General Butler's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

----------WOMAN'S RIGHTS: Start--------

WOMAN'S RIGHTS. WOMAN SUFFRAGE: A. D. 1790-1849. The pioneer advocates.

"In 1790, Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Vindication of the Rights of
Women,' published in London, attracted much attention from
liberal minds. She examined the position of woman in the light
of existing civilizations, and demanded for her the widest
opportunities of education, industry, political knowledge, and
the right of representation. … Following her, came Jane
Marcet, Eliza Lynn, and Harriet Martineau—each of whom in the
early part of the 19th century exerted a decided influence
upon the political thought of England. … Frances Wright, a
person of extraordinary powers of mind, born in Dundee,
Scotland, in 1797, was the first woman who gave lectures on
political subjects in America. When sixteen years of age she
heard of the existence of a country in which freedom for the
people had been proclaimed; she was filled with joy and a
determination to visit the American Republic where the
foundations of justice, liberty, and equality had been so
securely laid. In 1820 she came here, traveling extensively
North and South. She was at that time but twenty-two years of
age. … Upon her second visit she made this country her home
for several years. Her radical ideas on theology, slavery, and
the social degradation of woman, now generally accepted by the
best minds of the age, were then denounced by both press and
pulpit, and maintained by her at the risk of her life. … In
1832, Lydia Maria Child published her 'History of Woman,'
which was the first American storehouse of information upon
the whole question, and undoubtedly increased the agitation.
In 1836, Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady—banished from her
native country by the Austrian tyrant, Francis Joseph, for her
love of liberty—came to America, lecturing in the large cities
North and South upon the 'Science of Government.' She
advocated the enfranchisement of woman. Her beauty, wit, and
eloquence drew crowded houses.
{3657}
About this period Judge Hurlbut, of New York, a leading member
of the Bar, wrote a vigorous work on 'Human Rights,' in which
he advocated political equality for women. This work attracted
the attention of many legal minds throughout that State. In
the winter of 1836, a bill was introduced into the New York
Legislature by Judge Hertell, to secure to married women their
rights of property. This bill was drawn up under the direction
of Honorable John Savage, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court,
and Honorable John C. Spencer, one of the revisers of the
statutes of New York. It was in furtherance of this bill that
Ernestine L. Rose and Paulina Wright at that early day
circulated petitions. The very few names they secured show the
hopeless apathy and ignorance of the women as to their own
rights. As similar bills were pending in New York until
finally passed in 1848, a great educational work was
accomplished in the constant discussion of the topics
involved. During the winters of 1844-5-6, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, living in Albany, made the acquaintance of Judge
Hurlbut and a large circle of lawyers and legislators, and,
while exerting herself to strengthen their convictions in
favor of the pending bill, she resolved at no distant day to
call a convention for a full and free discussion of woman's
rights and wrongs. … In 1840, Margaret Fuller published an
essay in the Dial, entitled 'The Great Lawsuit, or Man vs.
Woman: Woman vs. Man.' In this essay she demanded perfect
equality for woman, in education, industry, and politics. It
attracted great attention and was afterward expanded into a
work entitled 'Woman in the Nineteenth Century.' … In the
State of New York, in 1845, Reverend Samuel J. May preached a
sermon at Syracuse, upon 'The Rights and Conditions of Women,'
in which he sustained their right to take part in political
life, saying women need not expect 'to have their wrongs fully
redressed, until they themselves have a voice and a hand in
the enactment and administration of the laws.' … In 1849,
Lucretia Mott published a discourse on woman, delivered in the
Assembly Building, Philadelphia, in answer to a Lyceum lecture
which Richard H. Dana, of Boston, was giving in many of the
chief cities, ridiculing the idea of political equality for
woman. … It was her early labors in the temperance cause that
first roused Susan B. Anthony to a realizing sense of woman's
social, civil, and political degradation, and thus secured her
life-long labors for the enfranchisement of woman. In 1847 she
made her first speech at a public meeting of the Daughters of
Temperance in Canajoharie, New York. The same year Antoinette
L. Brown, then a student at Oberlin College, Ohio, the first
institution that made the experiment of co-education,
delivered her first speech on temperance in several places in
Ohio, and on Woman's Rights, in the Baptist church at
Henrietta, New York. Lucy Stone, a graduate of Oberlin, made
her first speech on Woman's Rights the same year in her
brother's church at Brookfield, Massachusetts. Nor were the
women of Europe inactive."

_E. C. Stanton, S. B. Anthony, and M. J. Gage, editors,
History of Woman Suffrage,
chapter 1._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1804-1891.
The higher Education of women in America.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &C.: A. D. 1804-1891.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1839-1848.
Legal emancipation of women in the United States.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1839-1848.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1840-1890.
The organized agitation.

"In 1840 a 'World's Antislavery Convention' was held in
London, and all Antislavery organizations throughout the world
were invited to join in it, through their delegates. Several
American societies accepted the invitation, and elected
delegates, six or eight of whom were women, Lucretia Mott and
Mrs. Wendell Phillips among them. The excitement caused by
their presence in London was intense, for the English
Abolitionists were very conservative, and never dreamed of
inviting women to sit in their Convention. And these women who
had come among them had rent the American Anti-slavery
Societies in twain, had been denounced from the pulpit,
anathematized by the press, and mobbed by the riffraff of the
streets. … A long and acrimonious debate followed on the
admission of the women. … When the vote was taken, the women
delegates were excluded by a large majority. William Lloyd
Garrison did not arrive in London until after the rejection of
the women. When he was informed of the decision of the
Convention he refused to take his seat with the delegates. And
throughout the ten days' sessions he maintained absolute
silence, remaining in the gallery as a spectator. … The London
Convention marked the beginning of a new era in the woman's
cause. Hitherto, the agitation of the question of woman's
equal rights had been incidental to the prosecution of other
work. Now the time had come when a movement was needed to
present the claims of woman in a direct and forcible manner,
and to take issue with the legal and social order which denied
her the rights of human beings, and held her in everlasting
subjection. At the close of the exasperating and insulting
debates of the 'World's Antislavery Convention,' Lucretia Mott
and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton agreed to hold a Woman's
Rights Convention on their return to America, and to begin in
earnest the education of the people on the question of woman's
enfranchisement. Mrs. Stanton had attended the Convention as a
bride, her husband having been chosen a delegate. Accordingly
the first Woman's Rights Convention of the world was called at
Seneca Falls, New York, on the 19th and 20th of July, 1848. It
was attended by crowds of men and women, and the deepest
interest was manifested in the proceedings. 'Demand the
uttermost,' said Daniel O'Connell, 'and you will get
something.' The leaders in the new movement, Lucretia Mott and
Mrs. Stanton, with their husbands, and Frederick Douglass,
acted on this advice. They demanded in unambiguous terms all
that the most radical friends of women have ever claimed. …
The Convention adjourned to meet in Rochester, New York,
August 2, 1848. … A third Convention was held at Salem, Ohio,
in 1850; a fourth in Akron, Ohio, in 1851; a fifth in
Massillon, Ohio, in 1852; another at Ravenna, Ohio, in 1853,
and others rapidly followed. The advocates of woman suffrage
increased in number and ability. Superior women, whose names
have become historic, espoused the cause—Frances D. Gage,
Hannah Tracy Cutler, Jane G. Swisshelm, Caroline M. Severance,
Celia C. Burr, who later be·came Mrs. C. C. Burleigh,
Josephine S. Griffing, Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, Susan
B. Anthony, Paulina W. Davis, Caroline H. Dall, Elizabeth
Oakes Smith, Ernestine L. Rose, Mrs. C. H. Nichols, Dr.
Harriot K. Hunt; the roll-call was a brilliant one,
representing an unusual versatility of culture and ability.
{3658}
The First National Woman Suffrage Convention was held in
Worcester, Massachusetts, October 23 and 24, 1850. It was more
carefully planned than any that had yet been held. Nine States
were represented. The arrangements were perfect—the addresses
and papers were of the highest character—the audiences were at
a white heat of enthusiasm. The number of cultivated people
who espoused the new gospel for women was increased by the
names of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Bronson and
Abby May Alcott, Thomas W. Higginson, William I. Bowditch,
Samuel E. and Harriet W. Sewall, Henry Ward Beecher, Henry B.
Blackwell, Ednah D. Cheney, Honorable John Neal, Reverend
William H. Channing, and Wendell Phillips. … A dozen years
were spent in severe pioneer work and then came the four years
Civil War. All reformatory work was temporarily suspended, for
the nation then passed through a crucial experience, and the
issue of the fratricidal conflict was national life or
national death. The transition of the country from peace to
the tumult and waste of war was appalling and swift, but the
regeneration of its women kept pace with it. … The development
of those years, and the impetus they gave to women, which has
not yet spent itself, has been wonderfully manifested since
that time. … It has been since the war, and as the result of
the great quickening of women which it occasioned, that women
have organized missionary, philanthropic, temperance,
educational, and political organizations, on a scale of great
magnitude. … In 1869, two great National organizations were
formed. One styled itself 'The National Woman Suffrage
Association,' and the other was christened 'The American Woman
Suffrage Association.' The first established its headquarters
in New York, and published a weekly paper, 'The Revolution,'
which was ably edited by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. 'The
American' made its home in Boston, and founded 'The Woman's
Journal,' which was edited by Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs.
Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison and
Thomas W. Higginson. … After twenty years of separate
activities, a union of the two national organizations was
effected in 1890, under the composite title of 'The National
American Woman Suffrage Association.'"

_M. A. Livermore,
Woman in the State
(Woman's Work in America, chapter 10)._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892.
Women in the Medical profession.

"The first advocate for women medical students, Miss Elizabeth
Blackwell, after many years of struggle obtained entrance into
the medical faculty of Geneva in 1842; in 1847 she received
her doctor's degree, and went to England, Germany, and finally
to Paris, to complete her studies. Her example fired others.
In that same year a medical college for women was founded in
Boston, in 1850 a similar one in Philadelphia, one in New York
in 1868, and in Chicago in 1870. Soon after, the greater
number of universities in America were thrown open to women,
and by this their studies were largely extended. The
difficulties proved far greater in Europe. The universities of
Zurich in 1864, and of Berne in 1872, were the first to
receive lady students for the study of medicine. In 1868 the
Medical Faculty of Paris, chiefly through the intervention of
the Empress Eugenie, first admitted lady students to follow
the medical course. In Italy, in 1876, they obtained equal
success; in Russia, an ukase of the Czar Alexander II., of
November 2nd, 1872, conferred upon ladies the right to attend
the medical courses in the Medico-Chirurgical Academy of St.
Petersburg, but this permission was subsequently withdrawn on
political grounds, on the accession of a new government. In
1874 the first school of medicine for women was started in
London; in 1876 they were admitted to the study of medicine in
Dublin. In Germany and Austro-Hungary women are not allowed to
enter the universities, although ladies' associations have
obtained thousands of signatures to petition both parliaments
on the subject. From statistical sources, we learn that there
are seventy lady doctors in practice in London, five in
Edinburgh, and two in Dublin. Seven hundred lady doctors
practise in Russia, of whom fifty-four are the heads of
clinical schools and laboratories. In Italy, at the same time,
there were only six. Spain has but two qualified lady doctors.
Roumania, also, has two. Sweden, Norway, and Belgium have
likewise comparatively few. In Berlin there are Dr. Franziska
Tiburtius and Dr. Lehmus (who founded a poly-clinical school
which is increasing year by year), Dr. Margaret
Mengarin-Traube and Fraulein Kuhnow. In Austria, Dr. Rosa
Kerschbaumer is the sole possessor of Government authority to
practise her profession. In India, where native religion
forbids their women calling in men doctors, there has been a
strong movement in favour of ladies, and they have now one
hundred lady doctors, three of whom are at the head of the
three most important hospitals. The largest number of women
practising medicine is in America."

_A. Crepaz,
The Emancipation of Women,
pages 99-103._

"The medical faculty of the University of Paris opened its
doors to women in 1868, but at first only a very few availed
themselves of the privileges thus offered. In 1878 the number
in attendance was 32; during the next ten years (1878-1888) it
increased to 114, and is at present 183, of whom the great
majority (167) are Russians. The remainder are Poles,
Rumanians, Servians, Greeks, and Scotch, and only one German."

_The Nation,
February 14, 1895._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1865-1883.
The higher Education of Women in England.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1869-1894.
Progress in Europe and America.

A certain number of the English cities "occupy a privileged
position, under the title of 'municipal boroughs.' These alone
are municipal corporations, enjoying a considerable degree of
autonomy by virtue of charters of incorporation granted in the
pleasure of the crown. … The other cities have as such no
legal existence: they are simply geographical units. In past
times the privilege of incorporation was often granted to
wretched little hamlets. But whether they were once of
consequence or not, the municipal corporations degenerated
everywhere into corrupt oligarchies. The municipal reform of
1835 destroyed these hereditary cliques and extended the
municipal franchise to all the inhabitants who paid the poor
tax as occupants of realty.
{3659}
But in doing this … it was expressly provided in the Municipal
Corporations Act of 1835 that the electoral franchise in the
municipal boroughs should belong to male persons only. Before
long the unorganized condition of the larger towns that were
not municipal boroughs received the attention of Parliament.
It did not grant them communal autonomy,—there could be no
question of that,—but conceded special powers to establish
sanitary systems and to undertake works of public utility such
as lighting, paving, sewerage, etc. The special acts passed
for these purposes from time to time, as the necessity for
them arose, were consolidated and made general in two
statutes: the Public Health Act of 1848, for a class of towns
designated as 'local government districts,' and the
Commissioners' Clauses Act of 1847, for the cities described
as 'improvement commissions districts.' These acts gave to
these urban agglomerations an incipient municipal
organization, by establishing boards of health in some, and in
others commissions to direct the public works. In both these
classes of 'nascent, half-developed municipalities,' which had
scarcely emerged from the parochial phase of local
self-government, the authorities—i. e. the members of the
boards of health and the commissioners—were elected, as in
the parishes, by the rate-payers without distinction of sex.
As these cities enlarged and developed, they were admitted to
the honor of municipal incorporation. But since the Municipal
Corporations Act limited the franchise to men, it resulted
that while the city which was promoted to the rank of
municipal borough saw its rights increased, a part of its
inhabitants—the women—saw theirs suppressed. This anomaly gave
the advocates of woman suffrage a chance to demand that the
ballot be granted to women in the municipal boroughs. In 1869
Mr. Jacob Bright introduced such a measure in the House of
Commons, and it was adopted almost without discussion. … But
when the English legislator placed the administration of the
'nascent, half-developed municipalities'—which were only
temporarily such and which might become cities of the first
rank—on the same plane, as far as the suffrage of women was
concerned, with the government of the parishes, he substituted
a fluctuating for a permanent test, and as a result wiped out
his own line of demarcation. When this fact was brought out,
Parliament could not but recognize and bow to it. This
recognition was decisive: it resulted in the overthrow of the
electoral barriers against women in the entire domain of local
self-government. The clause which, upon the proposal of Mr.
Jacob Bright, was inserted in section 9 of the municipal act
of 1869, found its way into the revised municipal act of 1882.