Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales

Women's Literary Society minute book , 15 August 1892 - August 1893
B 693

Women’s Literary Society
250 Pitt St

Minute Book

Edith McKenny
Hon. Secretary

[page 1]

Monday August 15th 1892

The forty-ninth (1.3) General Meeting was held at the Society’s room 250 Pitt St. 67 members & 2 visitors present. Mrs Wolstenholme in the Chair. Mrs Wolstenholme announced the election by the Committee of Miss McKenny as Secretary and Miss Montefiore as Treasurer.

Miss McKenny proposed, Miss Montefiore seconded that Miss M. Windeyer & Miss Wilson should act as scrutineers. The following were elected members of the Society – Miss L. Turner & Miss Wilson.

Nominations of new members were then made.

Miss Montefiore proposed that

[page 2]

in order to facilitate elections & to lighten the duties of the Secretary, proposers of new members should find a seconder and present at the meetings a written paper containing the name and address of the proposed member with the names of the proposer & seconder. Carried. The minutes were then read and confirmed.

Mrs Wolstenholme announced that, this being the first meeting of the new financial year, subscriptions were now due. Also that owing to a suggestion made by Miss Scott, a book had been provided and placed on the table in which members were at liberty to write suggestions that might be considered of use to the Society. A notice board had been placed within the door, the gift of Mrs Wolstenholme, on

[page 3]

which would be placed the addresses of Secretary & Treasurer, and notices of forthcoming meetings.

Miss Bonney read a paper called “the New Year’s Address”. She expressed her gratitude to the Society for having been a source of happiness to her during the last two years. She alluded to its success, which she attributed to the honest enthusiasm of its leaders, who had devoted mind & heart to its service. The friction of ideas had been of much service, & the heart had benefited. No less than the brain, as many friendships had been formed, or had increased during under the auspices of the society. Philosopers had predicted harm from the cultivation of women; thinking that pride of intellect was in danger of hardening the heart, in which, Miss Bonney asserted, they would be not following in the footsteps of men. She quoted Des [Cartes’?] saying

[page 4]

“I know nothing – not even that I know nothing”, advocated manual work as a rest from mental effort & ended by offering heartfelt thanks to the founders of the Society.

Miss Montefiore agreed with Miss Bonney as to the good work done, & said that she owed to the Society considerable increase of friendship.

Miss Windeyer announced the result of the ballot for three subjects for next programme chosen by the members “Carlyle’s Life & Works, especially on Heroes 15 votes “Debates on “Which impresses & teaches us most beauty in Art or Nature 10 votes George Eliot’s women” 10 votes.

Mrs Aronson described a meeting arranged by the Austral Salon, called a “Daffodil Evening” at which decorations of daffodils, yellow silk [etc] were used and the readings & recitations had these flowers for their subject.

[page 5]

Mrs C. Edwards read some notes on ”Long-lived Superstitions” saying that the work “unlucky” was much more frequently used than “luck”. She referred to superstitions relating to cures of illness, snakes, whist players & 13 at table, & said that the custom of placing the hand before the mouth when yawning originated in a fear lest the soul should escape.

Miss [indecipherable] gave other examples including that relating to the Australian Bunyip.

Miss Mitchell read a paper on “Obscure Heroines”, in which she deprecated the amount of false sentiment lavished on such heroines as Grace Darling, Joan of Arc, Hypatia, or Elizabeth of Hungary. Though not cavilling at admiration being felt for them, she thought it undue, when many women ten times more kind & loving were passed by. She instanced the maudlin sympathy

[page 6]

surrounding Mary Queen of Scots and Marie Antoinette, characterising the latter as vain frivolous & scheming, and the former, & the former as crafty lascivious & selfish. She said our sympathies should be turned in the right direction, and quoted George Eliots reference to the “noble women who have stood at wash tubs”.

In the discussion which followed Miss Scott, Miss Wright, Miss Mitchell, Mrs. Gullett, Miss Coleman, Miss [Whiffel?], Miss Windeyer, Miss Wilson, Miss McKenny & Mrs Armstrong took part.

Mrs Wolstenholme read a paper on “Mary Wolstonecraft” who at the end of the 18th Century, when women were afraid to write or speak in any way that stamped them with individuality, vindicated the Rights of Women. It was with her the result of bitter experience, & in writing so, she knew she faced disgrace. Her style was faulty, but

[page 7]

her rhetoric good. Mrs. Wolstenholme gave an account outline of Mary Wolstencraft’s early history & its trials, the result of the ineffectuality of woman’s early training. Her book electrified Europe. Its main argument is that the simple principles of light & truth have been perverted by expediency. She attacks the system of teaching boys & girls by different methods, thinking that women are taught to desire admiration & become jealous despots when no longer attractive. She advocates that schools should be maintained by the State & not by the fees & caprices of parents. The book might have been written by one of the most advanced thinkers of today & Mary Wolstonecraft should be honoured at the Pioneer Woman.

Miss Montefiore read an extract from Coventry Patmore’s “Angel in the House”, Mrs Wolstenholme, at the

[page 8]

request of Mrs. Curnow read an extract from an American paper called “Champions of the Sex”.

Miss Bensusan recited “The Victim” by Tennyson. The meeting ended at 9.45.

Rose Scott
V.P.

[page 9]

Monday Sept 5th 1892

The fiftieth (2.3) Meeting of the Society was held at the Society’s Room 250 Pitt St. Members & visitors were present. Miss Scott in the Chair. The minutes were read & confirmed. Nominations of new members were made.

Miss M Windeyer reminded those present that it was the jubilee meeting of the Society, & in celebration of it read a poem by Mrs Warner [Shoad?].

Miss Scott announced that she had the pleasure of making a presentation from the members to Miss M Windeyer, the retiring Hon. Sec. in recognition of her untiring efforts for the good of the Society – The presentation consisted of a writing-case, mounted in silver & suitably inscribed. Miss Windeyer

[page 10]

expressed her pleasure in accepting the gift.

The subject for the evening being “George Eliot’s Women”, Miss McKenny read a short paper on “Mary Garth” whom she described as a “fireside heroine possessed of a sturdiness of nature which many of George Eliots grander & sweeter women lack, and, by its power, she attained the true women’s object denied to them, of arresting the downfal of the man she loves.”

Mary Garth belonged to the class of good women described by Holmes who have “no right to marry perfectly good men, because they have the power of saving those who would go to ruin but for the saving providence of a good wife.” Miss McKenny said there was no very great hero among George Eliot’s men. Miss Whitfield disagreed and cited Adam Bede

[page 11]

and Lydgate. Miss M. Windeyer challenged a statement made by Miss McKenny that O.N. Holmes was the man who understood women best naming George Meredith & others who, she said, had equal insight. Mrs Gullet, Miss Scott & Mrs Todd then spoke.

Miss Ryrie read a paper on Adam Bede in which she showed by extracts from George Eliot’s life that the character of Dinah had been suggested to the author by her recollections of her aunt.

Mrs Todd related an anecdote in connection with “Janet’s Repentance”, and noted the unusual incident of Janet’s overcoming her habit of drinking, a thing she said sometimes accomplished by men, but never of rarely indeed by women.

Mrs Gullett suggested that some men

[page 12]

should touch upon the comic side of George Eliot’s women, and several anecdotes & extracts followed.

Miss Scott read a short paper on Dinah Morris, alluding to her divine power of sympathy, her comforting of Lisbeth in her sorrow, and her faithfulness to Hetty in her hour of need. Miss Scott read several extracts relating to Mrs. Poyser.

Mrs Todd said that it was remarkable how great an interest, George Eliot herself such a plain looking woman, took in describing the beauty of women, especially of Hetty. Her descriptions of such women were more like those usually given by men.

Miss Montefiore said that the key notes of G. E’s works was the necessity for self-sacrifice & quoted Middlemarch. Mrs Todd thought the>strike>y keynote was “Failure”.

Mrs Evans noticed that the motives for

[page 13]

right were, in most cases without help from religion, & afterwards explained that she meant to refer to conventional ideas with rgard to religion. Mrs Gullet & Mrs Todd then spoke.

Miss Vallentine read a poem of Geoge Eliot’s beginning “Oh may I join the choir invisible!”

Miss Vallentine thought it desirable to encourage members who had not yet taken active part in the meetings to begin to speak or read. Miss Scott, Miss Windeyer, Mrs Gullett, Miss McKenny & Miss Montefiore spoke in agreement with the suggestion, and it was proposed that members should be compelled to speak within a fixed time after entrance. It was decided that there was no power to do this, & Mrs Todd & Mrs Gullet moved and seconded that on Dec 19 for which

[page 14]

evening a subject had not been arranged, members who had not then spoken should be invited, & cordially encouraged to read papers or speak. The motion was carried & the subject chosen was “Papers by members on the last books they have read.” Miss Baly promised a paper for the evening named & papers for the next meeting, Sept 19 were promised by Miss P. Montefiore, Miss Eichler, Mrs Watters, Mrs Weiss, Miss Davies, Miss Palmer & Mrs. Teece. The meeting ended at 9.35.

M.S. Wolstenholme
19.9.92

[page 15]

Monday Sept 19th 1892

The fifty first (3.3) general meeting was held at the room of the Society 250 Pitt St. 36 members and 2 visitors present. Mrs Wolstenholme in the Chair. The minutes were read & confirmed. Miss McKenny moved, Miss M. Windeyer seconded that Miss Hague Smith & Miss Gullet should act as Scrutineers. Carried. The following ladies were elected members of the Society. Mrs Thos Warren, Mrs Ernest Bonney, Miss C. Whitfield, Mrs Merriman, Miss Plumb, Miss Walker, and Miss N Stack. Nominations of new members were then made. Miss E. Montefiore read a paper on the subject for the evening “Carlyles’s Life & Works, especially on Heroes” – He said that the quality Carlyle considered indispensable

[page 16]

in a hero was sincerity, and that he hurled himself against untruth in every form, feeling that only work done in sincerity was well done. She related Harriet Martineau’s description of Carlyle’s manner of giving his famous London Lectures to which “Heroes” belonged, - and alluded to Carlyle’s consciousness of his own faults.

A very interesting paper was read by Miss Palmer, who described Carlyle’s parentage, & his early life, dwelling upon the deep affection existing between him and his Mother, evinced by her learning to write in order to correspond with him and his many sacrifices for her sake. The spoke of his spiritual conflict at the time when he disappointed his parents by refusing to enter the

[page 17]

ministry, & of the ill health which made him a wretched pessimist.

He agreed with Go?the that truth was the only thing worth living for. At one time he was ambitious for literary fame though starvation might be his lot, but disregarded this sentiment when he published Sartor Resartus. Miss Palmer thought this book repaid the careful and earnest reading of an active mind, but was useless to one of somnolent or passive nature. He quoted Carlyle’s saying that the “French Revolution” was written with his heart’s blood, and also his words on tolerance from the “Knox” chapter of the “Heroes”. The Puritanism of Carlyle made him the strong advocate of Luther & Knox for whose sake he thought millions of ordinary people

[page 18]

might well have been given up. Miss Palmer ended with an allusion to the inner life of Carlyle & his wife, as exposed to the world in Fronde’s Biography.

Miss McKenny thought it a pity such a biography had been given to the world, as it encouragedthe a morbid prying into the lives of the great, & characterised Fronde’s action in the matter as treachery.

Mrs Arnold held a different opinion, & thought much of the unhappiness the fault of Mrs Carlyle, who was wrong in troubling her husband by the relation of domestic details. Mrs Gullet spoke in agreement with Mrs Arnold, defending the friendship of Fronde, & extenuating Carlyle’s irritability by remembering the relativeness of nerves to brain power. Mrs Evans said that

[page 19]

those who assumed the office of teachers should, in some degree, shine themselves. Mrs Arnold instanced parsons.

Mrs Wolstenholme said we should not complain if a life does not correspond with its writings, as people find it difficult to live up to high aspirations. Miss Mitchell said that the ungovernable temper of Carlyle was due to physical suffering. Miss Vallentine, Miss Whitfeld, Mrs [indecipherable] & Miss Wilson also spoke.

Miss Eichler read a paper commenting on Carlyle’s not having received any sympathy from Edinburgh University, & on his non-appreciation in Britain generally, America having been first to value him. Carlyle was possessed of affection, reverence & many noble qualities.

[page 20]

He was much influenced by the study of Goethe & Schiller, & brought a knowledge of German literature into England. He was free from pride & prejudice, & gladly confessed an error, when it was proved to exist. His heroes were nearly all common working men, who rose from the ranks. He did not care for poetry.

Miss Vallentine read “The Gospel of Mammonism” from “Heroes”, & spoke of modern utilitarianism. She also spoke appreciatively of the members who had to-night spoken read papers for the first time.

Miss Eichler, Miss Montefiore, Mrs Todd, Miss Whitfeld, Miss Wilson, Mrs Arnold, Miss M Windeyer, Mrs Wolstenholme, joined in discussion.

Miss Wilson read an extract on “Happiness”. The subject was discussed

[page 21]

by Miss Vallentine, Mrs Arnold, Miss Montefiore, Miss Wilson & Miss McKenny. Miss McKenny objected to Miss Eichler’s statement was that Carlyle was free from prejudice. Miss Eichler modified her statement, & explained her meaning. Mrs Wolstenholme read an entry in the suggestion book.

The meeting ended at 9.50.

T.H. Kelly
3/10/92

[page 22]

Monday October 3rd 1892

The fifty second 3.4 (4.33) general meeting was held at the Society’s room 250 Pitt St – 25 members & 7 visitors were present. Mrs Vandaleur Kelly in the chair. In the absence of the Secretary the minutes of the previous meeting were read by Mrs C. Edwards and confirmed. Mrs Edwards also took notes of the evening’s proceedings.

Miss Wilson & Miss Whitfeld having acted as scrutineers, the following ladies were announced to have been elected as members of the society – Miss Lamb, Miss Fidler, Miss M. Fidler, & Miss Mary Hills.

A letter was read, received by the Secretary from Lady Jersey, in who expressed her pleasure in accepting the office of President of the Society during her residence in New South Wales. Lady Jersey

[page 23]

also expressed her regret at having been unable to attend any meetings in the past, and her hope to do so in the future. The subject for the evening’s debate was the following – “which impresses & teaches us most, beauty in Art or Nature?” It was opened by Miss Mitchell, in an able speech in which she advocated the supremacy of Art over Nature as a teacher. “Savages” she said “are not impressed by natural beauty – they see in Nature only the use of natural objects. At length an artist arises who becomes the herald of beauty. Art & Civilization are reversible terms. The Britons were greatly influenced by their original conquerors – Australia owes her supremacy to art. Art natural

[page 24]

is rare, but cultivated common. Imitation is so rife that we almost weary of Art. The beautiful in Nature does not impress spontaneously, any more than does the beautiful in Art. The Artist sees beauty in everything. St Peter’s impresses more than the high Alps.

Mrs Todd thought the Term Art had not been sufficiently indicated. Miss Ryrie read a paper on the divine beauty of Nature as being higher than that of Art. Mrs Todd said that the fact of the Swiss having a nature different to that of other nations is due to their beautiful country. Religion springs from the worship of beauty. Mrs Evans quoted Buckle to support Mrs Todd.

A discussion followed in which

[page 25]

Mrs Edwards, Miss Mitchell, Miss Vallentine, Miss Whitfeld, & Miss C. Whitfeld took part.

Mrs Evans read a few remarks stating that it was impossible to admire art without understanding Nature. The age which produced the Gothic architecture was that in which men began to sigh for reverent liberty. Mrs Todd & Mrs Edwards discussed the subject.

A division was taken by the President, and it was decided by a majority that Nature was the greater teacher.

M. S. Wolstenholme
V.P.
Oct. 17th /92

[page 26]

Monday Oct 17th 1892

The fifty-third (5.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s Room 250 Pitt St. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. 45 members and 2 visitors were present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Miss McKenny proposed, Miss M Windeyer seconded that the Miss Bruce & Miss M Newman should act as scrutineers. The following ladies were elected members of the Society – Miss Fotheringhame, Mrs Mackay, Miss G. King, Miss S Ward, & Miss Ethel Knight. Nominations of new members were then made. The President announced that a reading-stand had been presented by Mrs Greene, and a hearty vote of thanks was accorded by acclamation.

Members were informed that any books contributed by them would

[page 27]

be received to form the beginning of a library, members borrowing any such books at one meeting being expected to return it at the next.

The suggestion that stationery should be provided in the room for the use of members had been met by a gift of paper & envelopes from Mrs Wolstenholme for present use as a test of its desirability.

Miss Vallentine’s suggestion of the need of providing a more suitable room was placed before the meeting & approved of by a majority. Miss Montefiore moved, Miss Scott seconded, that Miss Vallentine & Mrs Todd should act as a sub-committee with power to add to their number in making inquiries about a room.

The President informed the members that a letter of sympathy signed

[page 28]

by Lady Jersey & the committee had been sent to Lady Tennyson in the name of the Society, also that on the day of his funeral, a wreath had been placed under a portrait of Tennyson in the Women’s Exhibition at the Centennial Hall, bearing the following inscription – “In love & honour, from the Women’s Literary Society”.

The subject for the evening was “The Story of Tristram & Iseult, as told by Tennyson, Swinburne, & Matthew Arnold.”

Miss M Windeyer read an extract from Mallory’s “Mort d’Arthur”, the source of the three poems mentioned. It dealt chiefly with the parentage & early history of Tristram.

Mrs Todd read a paper, in which she touched upon the pathetic fitness of the subject,

[page 29]

the Laureate having so recently died, & Swinburne or an Arnold being conjectured as his successor. In Tennyson we had lost one capable of being understood by the simplest or most complex mind. His slight sketch of “Tristram & Iseult” was purely incidental, being one of those which foreshadowed the impending tragedy of the destruction of the Round Table. It was the most terrible of the three poems. All the characters were shown in their worst light. Mrs Todd quoted Tristram’s insolent reference to Iseult of Brittany “Pale-blooded” and illustrated his selfish, ease [like so?] loving nature by his words “Free love, free field, we love but while we may &c” and alluded to the horror of the final catastrophe.

[page 30]

The descriptive passages in Swinburne’s poem were very beautiful, especially three describing the voyage, the incident of the love potion, and the sympathy of Tristram’s hound, & the guileless love of Iseult of Brittany, one of the most exquisitely beautiful characters ever drawn. Mark was hardly less generous. Mrs Todd’s favourite was Matthew Arnold’s poem describing Iseult as a wife & mother. The contrast between the two Iseults was subtly drawn, the slight sketch of the lonely wife in Britanny being that of a silent heroine.

Miss McKenny read a short paper sent by Mrs C. Edwards who said the difference in style of the three poets was scarcely more marked than the variation of their minds. Matthew Arnold’s fragment was instinct with

[page 31]

beauty, & full of scholarly grace, though lacking strength. Swinburne’s story was almost an epic, and the best example of his delicate touch marred by piteous coarseness. His opening stanzas on love are full of beauty & his descriptive power marvellous.

Miss Scott read a paper in which she said that although Tennyson was, on the whole, the greatest poet, he in this he poem appeared at the least advantage, while M.A. surpassed himself. Tristram’s contempt of his wife and flippancy to his love deserved Mark’s retribution. Swinburne’s verse was mechanical, appealing to the sense & not to the soul. But many fine lines and passages evidenced Swinburne’s wealth of words. He tries to make out the best case he can for the

[page 32]

marriage of Tristram while Swinburne’s sympathies are with the ill fated Queen of Cornwall. M. Arnold attributed all the evil to the victory of sorcery & witchcraft. Miss Scott read the death scene and recalled how the lovers set sail on the seas of death together as before on those of light & love.

Miss Coleman read made a speech from some notes on the subject. She said that in reading the three poems she had not so much considered sentiment and rhyme as true poetry. M. Arnold’s pretty story might have been written in prose, and its motley poetic form made it wanting in power. Tennyson at the close of the idylls places in strong relief the sin of Arthur’s knights, who were not after all beasts, but men with strong human passions, the

[page 33]

fabric of Arthur fell to the ground as too ambitious for man to achieve. Swinburne’s poetry contains, perhaps, too many words, but it is undoubtedly the grandest & most real.

Miss Badham read a paper. She said this had been considered a fit subject for the muse of three great men, who had each approached it by a different method. The preface of “Mort d’Arthur” attempted a palliation of the profligacy & ingratitude of the hero and Matthew Arnold’s romance made him still more attractive. His is a shadowy presentment of the characters. The “white hands” of Iseult appear to be her only distinction; and we are puzzled by constant and unfitting changes of metre.

In Tennyson’s poem we can detect nothing unwholesome. His bad

[page 34]

characters are not allowed to throw dust in our eyes. Our sympathy is with the sinner but not with the sin. He approaches the story with repugnance. Tristram touches coarseness throughout, & Iseult of Cornwall is no unfitting mate. There is not one softening touch. Contrast the parting with the pathetic one of Lancelot & Guinevere. Swinburne on the contrary approaches the subject con amore. He is neither pedantic nor obscure like Tennyson and enshrines a revolting story in magnificent poetry. His art is of that highest kind which is not art at all. He does not excuse Iseult by making Mark base, but she has graces Tennyson’s heroine lacks. Contrast her passionate wail with the colourless background of Arnold’s pair of lovers.)

[page 35]

Miss McKenny differed from Mrs Todd in the estimate she had formed of the character of Iseult of Brittany, as depicted by Swinburne whose poem she infinitely preferred. She quoted from it to support her impression that Iseult was cruel & revengeful & merciless in her moment of power. Miss M Windeyer spoke, Miss M Windeyer read from “Mort d’Arthur” the account of Sir Kehydin’s [like so?] death for love of la belle Iseult, who she said must have been a magnetic woman.

It was announced by the President that a Tennyson Memorial Evening would be held on Dec 5. The meeting ended at 9.40.

R Scott V.P.
Nov. 7th 1892

[page 36]

Monday Nov 7th 1892

The fifty-fourth (7.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room. Miss Scott in the chair. 39 members and 5 visitors were present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The elections were made. New members were nominated.

The report of the sub-committee appointed to find a new room was received. Miss Vallentine said that a room in Waltham Buildings, Bond St., rent 15/- per week, had been thought suitable by her and by Mrs Todd, and that they had reported it to the Secretary, & referred her to the agents Messrs Raine & Horne. The Secretary stated that she had notified the Committee of the room in question, and that a

[page 37]

large majority had thought it not suitable, also that she, Mrs Wolstenholme and Mrs Warren, had been informed that the rent was higher than as stated to the sub-committee, who were requested to continue their search for a room.

It was moved by Mrs Todd, seconded by Mrs T.H. Kelly and supported by Mrs Wolstenholme, that debates should in future , be carried on by the usual rules of debates. Carried.

It was moved by Mrs Wolstenholme, seconded by Miss Scott that votes of thanks should be given to Mrs Curnow for a present of a clock to the Society, and to Mr E.L. Montefiore for a smoke portrait of Tennyson. Carried. The Secretary was instructed to write a letter of thanks to each.

[age 38]

The subject for the evening being Matthew Arnold’s Essays in Criticism, Miss Hamilton read a paper on the first second volume. She said that Arnold’s work in literature marked an epoch & corresponded with that of Huxley in Science. Literary criticism was the longest remembered. According to Arnold the end and aim of all literature was a criticism of life. Poetry was the crown of literature & most perfect speech of man. We should have a lofty standard, & seek only what is best. Arnold’s chief power was in his power of discernment. He was so clear-sighted, so just and reasonable, that we are were apt to follow him blindfold. This however was not according to his wishes, he advocated the preservation of individual judgment.

Miss Hamilton gave an outline

[page 39]

of Arnold’s Essays on Milton, Gray, Keats and Wordsworth, - Gray whom he called the scantiest & frailest of our classics, and who in the midst of uncongenial surroundings “never spoke out” – Keats, who in natural magic, ranks with Shakespere, and who, like all true poets, composed with his soul, while such as Pope & Dryden composed by their wits – Wordsworth’s name has no such magic, it sounds cold & bleak, & too often suggests weariness.

Matthew Arnold, with impelled by wonderful justness, discerns the beauty & perfection, imbedded among a mass of inferior work, & places him higher than any modern poet except Goëthe.

Miss Scott read a paper. She had chanced to read the 2nd series

[page 40]

just after Matthew Arnold’s death, and she had felt regret that he had not lived to give the world his impressions of Browning & Tennyson. His books had the great power of leading us to think for ourselves, and so develop the intellectual life, & not become mere thinking machines. Miss Scott deplored the excessive praises of Australian poets, as showing a lowering standard of excellence. In general criticism it was easy to see evil only, but much rarer to see good in evil. The gems of Arnold’s book were the essays on Gray & Keats, except the Introductory one on poetry. He rated Byron higher than either Burns or Shelley; did not appreciate Shelley because he was not himself a great poet.

[page 41]

Both Goëthe & Arnold considered Byron the greatest poet of the 18th century. He was a truly human creature. Arnold discribed Tolstoy’s life of self sacrifice, rising like a star in a country steeped in barbarism. But to bury talents in the earth was not the best way to serve our fellow creatures. Arnold’s teaching was not dogmatic. His hearers developed their own intellects, & he was thus one of the greatest teachers of the 19th Century.

Miss Hamilton read a second paper the subject being the first series. She expressed her admiration for the essay on the “Value & Aims of Criticism”, acknowledged the importance of academics, and thought that the dogged desire of Englishmen

[page 42]

to do as they liked made it difficult to establish such a thing in England. The book would be charming if it contained nothing but the Essay of [like so?] the De Guerins describing their wonderful charm. Another full of interest was that on Heine, who ever, in like & death battled with Philistinism.

Joubert may be classed with Coleridge in his love for Earnest truth - & union of soul with intellect. The life of Marcus Aurelius was described as a tragedy of the soul. The English man of letters and the Roman ruler had much in common.

Mrs Wolstenholme expressed her intense admiration for Arnold’s pure English, his freedom from dogmatism, and his power to raise to higher levels.

[page 43]

Miss Hamilton, Miss Scott, Mrs E. Bonney, & Miss M. Windeyer spoke. Mrs Wolstenholme read Arnold’s comparison of the Russian & American races.

It was proposed by Miss Montefiore & seconded by Miss Bonney that each member should not propose more than two subjects for the forthcoming programme. Carried. The meeting ended at 9.40.

M.S. Wolstenholme
21.11.92

[page 44]

November 21st 1892

The fifty-fifth (7.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room, 37 members & 7 visitors being present. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. The minutes of the previous evening were read & confirmed.

Miss McKenny moved, Miss Montfiore seconded that Miss Fox & Miss Hague Smith should act as scrutineers. Mrs Martel was elected a member of the Society.

Members were requested by the President to suggest subjects for the forthcoming programme, either by sending them to the Secretary before Dec 5th or producing them at the general meeting of that evening.

The subject for the evening was

[page 45]

“Emerson”. The first paper was read by Mrs Warren, who gave an outline of the history of his early life & training & referred to his scholarly ancestors and the influence upon him of his mother and aunt. He was a born essayist, and had a peculiar charm as a lecturer & preacher. His sympathy with women was enough for him to admit their right to suffrage if they desired it, but it was remarkable that with his own love of liberty, he should have shown so little sympathy with the Anti-Slavery Movement. Mrs Warren especially admired the Essays on “Friendship” & on “Education”.

Mrs Todd gave an epitome of Matthew Arnold’s criticisms of Emerson, in which he is said

[page 46]

to have done the most important work in prose in our century his gospel being that of Happiness & Eternal Hope.

Miss Montefiore read a paper, in which she said Emerson’s fame would rest upon him as a philosopher & not as a poet. He makes use of excessive poetic license, but has the true poetic ring, & may be described as a “poet lacking the accomplishment of verse”. He is distinctly bracing & invigorating. Miss Montefiore’s favourite essay was that on “Self-reliance”. “Compensation” had a tinge of fatalism. Emerson was evidently much influenced by Goëthe, whom he somewhat resembled. Miss Montefiore quoted his poem “Terminus”.

A paper was read by Miss Coleman, who touched upon

[page 47]

Emerson’s wholesome mind, mild bearing, and simplicity of mind & heart. His work was a challenge to the masters of literature & religion. He was one whom it would have been a delight to have dwelt near and heard talk every day.

Although he was so deeply read, his chips of philosophy were all his own. He had a deep insight into today, & was an example of all the worth & vigour of his race. He was not, however, a genius or master mind such as Goëthe. He had a slower & narrower apprehension, & thought Carlyle’s pictures exaggerated. He did not think it necessary to strike at the root of abuses, but his excessive optimism left all to time. His description of the

[page 48]

English people shows him to have seen only one side of English life. He could not have suffered or been poor in England. He did more however to destroy conventional weeds [like so?] than many denouncers.

Miss Ryrie read a paper on the Essay on “Friendship”. She said it was treated rather as an abstraction to be dreamed of rather than as a thing to be enjoyed. Emerson placed it on so high a pinnacle that it was unattainable, & he despised smaller coin [like so?]. He was distinguished by a certain aloofness even at school, and was always mentioned by his friends & contemporaries as “Mr Emerson”. He seemed to sit in a Tower, from the loopholes of which he saw the world.

[page 49]

Miss Ryrie disagreed with Emerson as to the necessity of for tenderness as well as truth in Friendship. She thought it possible for it to exist without much tenderness. She then quoted from the essay on Hospitality.

Miss McKenny7 read a paper. She said that George Eliot’s words remark “He is the first man I have ever met” was the final force which drifted her out to the deep sea of Emerson’s divine thought, which had influenced her as no other literary work had done, having revolutionized her mind, & remoulded her life. He had given a glimpse of what life might be worth lived according to his high ideal of self reliance, bare simplicity & honest self-knowledge. Although so little of the world, he grasped its whole complexity

[page 50]

& unity, and although so absolutely spiritual, he did not disdain a knowledge of life’s humblest cases. His method of teaching was compared with Carlyle’s, who makes us hate what is evil, while Emerson makes good so attractive, that at least we get as far as wishing to attain it. Miss McKenny spoke of the good influence on each other of the two men, the one being hardened, the other softened, and alluded to their letters, also to the chasm of the essay on “Stonehenge”.

Emerson set an extraordinary value on conversation, considering all experienced to be valued & welcomed as being ultimately its factor, while it was important as an index of character, which is not only “higher than intellect” but “nature in its highest form”.

Miss Windeyer asked if any one present knew the nature of

[page 51]

the anæsthetic discovered by his brother Charles which was administered to Emerson in his last hours. It was not known by the members. Miss Coleman (Coleman), Miss Windeyer, Mrs Wolstenholme, Miss Montefiore & Mrs Todd discussed the tendency of literary people to live apart from the world & its cares, and avoid the practical part of life.

Miss Palmer read a paper. She said Emerson lived in a spirit world of his own creation. He was irresistibly eloquent. There was a peculiar charm in the correspondence of Carlyle & Emerson, C. is a whirlwind, E. a gentle dew from heaven. His influence was ennobling, & his teaching full of grandeur and consolation. Miss Scott agreed with Miss McKenny’s

[page 52]

view of Emerson. Mrs Wolstenholme expressed the deepest admiration for him. Her favourite essay was that on “Compensation”. She thoroughly entered into his views with regard to the value of Experience, as a source of strength.

The meeting ended at 9.45.

Rose Scott
Dec 5th 1892

[page 53]

Monday Dec 6 5th 1892

The fifty-sixth (8.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room 250 Pitt St. Miss Scott in the chair.

Members & visitors were present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Miss McKenny proposed, Miss Montefiore seconded that Miss Gullett & Miss Whitfeld should act as scrutineers. The following ladies were elected members of the Society – Mrs Cruikshank, Miss Amos & Miss Janet Amos.

Mrs Dillon proposed that in order to allow more time for discussion only 3 papers should be read on each evening. Miss McKenny proposed as an amendment that papers should be read until no later than 9 o’clock, the rest of the evening to be devoted ti discussion.

[page 54]

Mrs Edwards moved, Miss Montefiore seconded, that the rule stating that the reading of no paper occupy longer than 10 minutes be rigidly enforced – Carried.

Miss Hamilton moved, Mrs T.H. Kelly seconded that each paper should be discussed after its reading. Mrs Gullett supported the motion, as she thought many thoughts opinions members would like to express would escape their memories, and be also out of place if not following the papers to which they referred. Miss McKenny moved, Miss Coleman seconded, that any such discussion be ended at the discretion of the President. Both motions carried. Suggestions for the new programme were then received.

Miss Montefiore proposed, Mrs Gullett seconded that the Society should adjourn from Jan 16 until the 1st Monday in March. As an amendment Miss Windeyer moved, Miss Vallentine seconded that no meeting should be held in January, and that the postponement of the one announced for Jan 16th should be notified in the new programme. Carried.

The subject for the evening was “Tennyson”.

Mrs Edwards read a short paper in which she spoke of the feeling of personal loss experienced by so many of us in the death of Tennyson who had for so long stirred up his Countrymen to heroic thoughts. He would, however, have been still more appreciated had he been born at the other side of the Tweed.

Mrs Edwards related several anecdotes of Tennyson’s life, and mentioned his quiet friendship with the Sage

[page 56]

of Chelsea who was thereby influenced to go less frequently upon the war-path than was his habit. Tennyson was truly a national poet.

Miss Windeyer read a poem dedicated to Tennyson by William Watson, mentioned as a possible poet laureate.

Miss Elsa Montefiore read Tennyson’s poem on “Will”.

Miss Hamilton read a paper. She said that Tennyson’s claim to our affection & homage lay in the fact that he was the poet of the people. He was the sanest teacher – the mouthpiece of a critical age. His genius may be said to have assimilated & then produced. He was lucid, logical, polished & was widely read by all sections of people. No one, since Shelly Shakespere, had so enriched our language. In “In Memoriam” grief finds a voice, and those who

[page 57]

have suffered hang on his words. He has great affinity with the noblest of his characters, such as King Arthur & the Duke of Wellington.

The fault urged againt Tennyson was that of isolation. He Browning could not find pleasure in such environments as would to him be distasteful. Both, in their crucibles melted down passing thoughts and events into precious golden images.

The “Two Voices” was little inferior to “In Memoriam”. “The Princess” marked an epoch, being, not prophetic, but creative. In “Maud” we hear the social cries from the heart of humanity. Tennyson was indeed a torch bearer to the dark places of the earth.

Mrs Gullett spoke, dwelling upon the beauty and peacefulness of the death scene, and its accord with the sentiments expressed in

[page 58]

“Crossing the bar”. Some of the shorter poems held the highest place in many hearts, notably the last mentioned and “Break”.

Mrs T.H. Kelly read a poem composed by the Rev. T.H. Tovey on the death of Tennyson.

Miss Montefiore then read one on the same subject by A. Austin. Mrs Edwards, Miss Hamilton, Mrs T.H. Kelly & Miss McKenny spoke. Miss Coleman related some personal reminiscences of Tennyson.

Mrs McKeown did not agree with Miss Hamilton that he might be called the poet of the people. She thought he appealed to the smaller, cultivated class. Miss Scott agreed with Mrs McKeown.

Mrs Edwards recalled the fact that “Maud” was the poet’s own favourite & the one he always chose to read aload aloud. Mrs Gullet mentioned

[page 59]

that he was born in the same year as Charles Darwin, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Mr Gladstone.

The meeting ended at 9.40

Rose Scott. V.P.
Dec. 19 - 1892

[page 60]

Monday December 19th 1892

The fifty-seventh (9.3) general meeting of the Society was held at 250 Pitt St, twenty-four members and 3 visitors being present. Miss Scott in the Chair.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed.

One new member was nominated.

It was announced by the President that a vacation of the Society would last from the present evening until Jan February 6th 18923. Members would be informed by means of the new programme of the postponement of the meeting announced for January.

Voting papers for the new programme were distributed. The following members spoke, advocating the choice of the

[page 61]

subjects mentioned in connection with their names – Miss Montefiore, Miss Scott, Miss Coleman, and Mrs Evans – Socialism.

Miss Coleman – Foreign poets of today.

Mrs Edwards – The condition of wages – Earning women.

Miss McKenny moved, Miss Montefiore seconded that Miss M Windeyer and Miss Bonney should act as scrutineers of the voting papers for programme.

Miss McKenny read a letter received from Messrs Beale & Co offering a suitable room. The letter was handed to the sub-committee who were asked to inspect the room.

Miss Baly read a paper in justification of Mrs Carlyle, who she thought, had been hardly dealt with at a former meeting of which Carlyle was the subject.

[page 62]

Carlyle, was judged too much by his writings and not enough by his life – no book being so powerful for good as a good, honest life. Mrs Carlyle was a brilliant young creature condemned to the dreary life of Craigesputtock, obliged to live without sympathy & encouragement. Her husband thought that what his mother had done his wife edited as he talked of duty but never recognised it. His love was seen in his letters only. His pride was of that worst kind which cannot receive a favour. It was but natural that Mrs Carlyle should feel his frequent visits to Lady Ashburton. He should never have married a woman so reluctant to be won. As examples of his pessimism & her optimism Miss Baly quoted Carlyle’s lines beginning “What is Hope” and those of Mrs Carlyle beginning “Nay this is Hope”.

[page 63]

Miss Montefiore mentioned Sir C. Savor Duffy’s “Conversations with Carlyle” as showing him less surly & grumpy than he usually appeared. Miss Scott & Mrs Evans spoke in agreement.

Miss Everitt read a paper on some modern poetry, describing the peculiar rythm of a Ballade by W. Sharp called “Song of the Sea Winds”. She also read a poem by Austin Dobson called “When I saw you last, Rose”.

Miss M Windeyer and Miss Bonney announced that the following subjects had been chosen by the members for the new programme “Socialism” 19 votes.

“Suggestions for the improvement of affairs as regards wage-earning women” 14 votes, “On the art & Practise of Housekeeping” 13 votes, “Celebrated Women” 12 votes, “Anonymous papers”

[page 64]

Miss Hamilton read an original poem called “A Christmas Monologue”. Mrs Todd read a paper “On Marie Corelli – a protest”

After giving an outline of “Ardath” Mrs Todd spoke in disapproval of the unscrupulousness of the author, whose gorgeous rendering blinds us for a time to her insidiousness. She borrows the doctrines of Theosophy to embellish a commonplace love story. Her spirit of profanation is but thinly concealed when she uses Heaven as the background to a novel. The description of the feast of Lysia is not beaten by anything written by Theophile Gautier. Yet Ardath finds its way into many a household in which “Adam Bede” is forbidden, and “Thelma” is often given to girls as a birthday

[page 65]

present. “Wormwood” was a nightmare of horrors – worse than Zola.

Miss McKenny, Mrs Edwards and Mrs Todd spoke.

Miss M. Windeyer read a sonnet by Robert Browning called “Why I am a Liberal”.

The meeting ended at 9.45.

R. Scott
Feb. 6th 1893

[page 66]

Feb 6th 1893

The fifty-eighth (10.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room, 250 Pitt St. Miss Scott in the chair 34 members & 3 visitors being present. No election took place, the number of votes being less than 10. One new member was nominated. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

The president requested that the rule providing for the introduction of visitors to the p herself or the secretary should in future be more carefully observed in order that the presence of the said visitors might be recorded.

Miss Bonney read a paper on “Ambition”. She said too much evil was usually associated with its name, ambition and envy being frequently confused. People

[page 67]

should give plenty of scope to the former, and enable themselves to succeed by the development of their highest powers. The want of ambition ruined thousands, and if there were more of it, there would be less poverty.

Miss Scott said ambition was not the highest motive power. Mrs Ashton said that the finest of the world’s work was the result of it.

Miss Coleman somewhat deprecated [indecipherable] too evident ambition, especially that which is designed to make others envious. She mentioned Thoreau & Balzac as fine natures in whom ambition was not apparent.

Miss Scott & Miss Windeyer agreed with Mrs Ashton. Miss King & Mrs Minns held somewhat similar opinions.

[page 68]

Miss Montefiore read a paper called the “World as it will be” suggested by a book of Senile [like so?] [indecipherable] which although written some time ago was 3000 years ahead of Bellamy in in its ideas of the future. It described mechanical arrangements in houses so perfect that domestics were dispensed with. The whole life was mechanical, & without love of anything but knowledge. Specialism was carried to an extreme, there being doctors for each portion of the human frame, and special muscles developed for each kind of work. The rearing & training of children were touched upon, and the rights of women seemingly [like so?] upheld, but the book appeared to be a sarcasm on modern progress.

The paper was discussed by Miss

[page 69]

Windeyer, Miss Coleman & Miss Bundock. Mrs Todd read a paper called “The Tragedy of the Commonplace”, suggested by a story called “An Unseen Foe”, which appeared in a number of the Centennial Magazine. The story ended suddenly by the washing over-board, in her lover’s presence, of the heroine. His agony was not depicted, and Mrs Todd speculated on the nature of it, and its probable effect on his future life.

She thought the fate of the heroine preferable – Better a vivid day cut short than a long loveless life. Modern literature did not tolerate a tragic ending in contrast to the spirit of the old Greek drama.

Miss Windeyer read from a new paper called “Shafts” an article on George Meredith, which summed up his ideas

[page 70]

about women. These were progressive, for although he did not admire the type called “womanly women’ he had not a man’s horror of those with brains. He delighted in the presentment of women’s friendships for each other, too seldom the subject of novelists. He was unpopular, by reason of his being so far in advance of his time.

M.S. Wolstenholme
V. Pres.
Feb. 20th /93

[page 71]

Monday Feb 20th 1893

The fifty-ninth (11.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room 250 Pitt St. Mrs Wolstenholme in the Chair. 32 members & 4 visitors were present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Mrs Wolstenholme proposed, Miss Scott seconded that Mrs Todd and Miss Montefiore should act as scrutineers. The following ladies were declared to have been elected members of the Society – Mrs Lionel Benjamin and Miss Gould.

The president Mrs Wolstenholme read the following letters received by the Secretary. From Lady Jersey resigning her position as President on her departure from Sydney. From Miss Badham expressing her regret at having been unable to attend many meetings

[page 72]

and her hope to do so in the future. From Mrs T.H. Kelly resigning her membership, on her departure for England.

Members were informed that the room had been let as a studio on Tuesday & Friday afternoons to Mrs H. Williamson, whose request to be allowed to place some of her pictures on the walls had been granted with great pleasure.

The room had further been let to the Garrick Amateur Dramatic Soc. for rehearsals on Tuesday and Monday evenings.

Mrs Wolstenholme suggested that to facilitate the recording of attendance – a roll should be called as an experiment & the time thus spent was found to occupy 4 minutes.

The subject for the evening being “Thoughts or pictures in the Art Gallery”, a paper was read by Miss Scott, who

[page 73]

quoted Sir Joshua Reynolds’ saying that “A room hung with pictures was a room hung with thoughts”. The Art Gallery was our own possession & a place where every emotion was brought into play. Witness the feeling of patriotism excited by Rorke’s Drift. Miss Scott expressed distaste for the “Sons of Clovis” and “Lesson in Anatomy”, and also for the “Return of Spring” with its excess of colouring & the languid faces of the children. No one had painted Australian scenery like Conrad Marteins.

Brierley’s Whale Boats well depicted the anxiety & perils of the sea, beloved friend & mystical teacher.

Hermione was not the Hermione of Shakespeare, being too young. Notwithstanding its wonderful detail “Sheba & Solomon” failed to please, the former being slavish the latter patronizing. “Shaies [like so?] alike” was

[page 74]

admirable. It was a pity there were so few pictures of dogs of in the A.G. “Wedded” suggested Romola & Tito The Man All Earth, the woman all soul.

Miss Ashton thought Miss Scott over-rated Conrad Marten who was an Australian Claud Lorraine, and whose work, pretty though not great, bore the same relation to greatness as did a sketch by Miss Thackerary to me by Balzac. “The promise of Spring” was a purely decorative picture, “Sheba & Solomon” was a suggested a tableau vivant.

Miss Baly did not think the highest kind of patriotism was necessarily called forth by war.

Miss Windeyer expressed her admiration for the mystical expression in the face of “Senore”.

Miss Montifiore thought our want of appreciation of “Solomon & Sheba” was

[page 75]

partly due to the fact that the episode was too far in the past to attract, but later in the evening said that this opinion was untenable when one considered the touching picture of “Esther” in the Melbourne Art Gallery. Mrs Todd said she would like to know the story of Senore. Miss Montefiore & Miss McKenny spoke in reply.

Miss Wolstenholme referring to “Wedded” said the love of a noble woman was by a wise process of nature often given to an ignoble man, for the same reason that dark people often marry fair ones & vice-versa.

Mrs Edwards read a paper. She thought the artistic value of landscapes greater than that of figures. Her favourite was “Ripening Sunbeams” with its suggested thoughts of home. Of figures her favourite was a cool little French picture “A la jetée”. The sea was calm

[page 76]

& still, but still dreaded for its hidden treachery by the watching women. “Rising Mists” had no human interest but was the work of a poet artist. It was possible for a man to be a magnificent artist who yet had a miserable way of putting his colours on.

Miss Montefiore was glad to hear the last opinion. The radical defect in art in the present day was that treatment was all important, & the subject not enough considered.

Mrs Ashton disagreed as did Miss Hamilton.

Mrs Thring thought all subjects should be made pleasing. Miss Mitchell instanced the carefulness in detail of Dutch pictures.

Mrs Wolstenholme said “A study in Anatomy” was repulsive. Mrs Edwards said it was a modern challenge in imitation of Rubens.

[page 77]

Mrs Dillon & Mrs Bonney discussed the grief expressed in “Non Angli sed Angeli”. Miss Hamilton & Miss McKenny spoke. Miss Windeyer drew attention to the fact that the most touching pictures depicted the life of the poor, giving as examples “A la jeté” in admiration for which she was in agreement with Mrs Edwards, “The Ever-Shifting home”, “Widower”, “Old scenes revisited”, “Birth of the first born”.

Mrs Edwards & Mrs Ashton siad the poor were more picturesque. Miss Scott asked whether there was any famous painting of Vashti [like so?], and was informed of a companion picture to the Melbourne “Esther”. Miss Mitchell thought “The Sons of Clovis” the finest picture in the gallery. Miss McKenny asked permission to withdraw her paper.

Mrs Curnow read an extract from

[page 78]

a newspaper on Woman Suffrage. The meeting ended at 9.50.

C.L. Montefiore

Monday March 6th 1893

The sixtieth (12.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room – Miss Montefiore in the chair – 39 members and 4 visitors were present. An apology was received for the absence of Mrs Wolstenholme. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed. Miss McKenny proposed Miss Bonney seconded that Miss Eichler and Miss Williamson should act as scrutineers. The election was informal. The subject for the evening being “Thackeray”. A paper was read by Mrs C.A. Edwards who described him as our greatest student of humanity, having all of Fielding’s power without his coarseness.

[page 79]

Sterne was distinguished from Thackeray by the fact that he was not always covertly sneering at good like the latter whose good men were all more or less fools. There seemed a touch of pity in his pourtrayal even of Col. Newcome. One wondered hos Baroness Bernstein had been evolved from charming Beatrix Esmond. “Esmond” and “The Virginians” were Thackeray’s best works from a purely literary standpoint. “Vanity Fair” was the most popular. In “Pendennis” much of the writer’s own life was represented. In each the magician holds us as in thrall. He however over wrote himself; tempted by his too facile pen. Mrs Edwards remembered having said at a former meeting that she found it hard to entirely blame Becky Sharp, & still held the same opinion, adverting to the hardness of

[page 80]

her early training and the probability of good perverted.

A discussion followed on the contrasting characters of Becky and Amelia in which Miss Windeyer, Mrs Armstrong, Mrs Dillon, Miss Vallentine, Mrs Edwards, Miss McKenney and Miss Hamilton joined.

Miss McKenny read a paper on the development of Beatrix into Baroness Bernstein.

Nature meant her for a much higher fate than that into which she wilfully plunged. Under her fribble & froth she was very level headed, with the introspective faculty too strongly developed for self deception & pitilessly self applied. She knew that the good in her nature could only develop in prosperity, and did not therefore fall into the huge mistake of

[page 81]

marrying Henry Esmond. Her consciousness of seeing what seems to be her the highest without being able to love it, causes her to despise herself and take the first step towards being Baroness Bernstein, the flinty hearted heroine of the “Virginians”. Miss McKenny alluded to her death scene as one of the most pathetic passages in Thackeray’s writings.

Miss Windeyer while expressing admiration for Thackeray protested against his too frequest repetition of ideas. Simile became a similetude. She quoted passages in support of her statement. Mrs Armstrong spoke in agreement. Miss Whitford said it was one of the weaknesses of George Meredith. A discussion ensued in which Miss Hamilton, Mrs Dillon, Miss Montefiore, Miss Windeyer, Miss McKenny, Mrs

[page 82]

Armstrong, Miss Vallentine and Mrs Edwards joined.

Miss Montefiore read Thackeray’s poem “Werter & Charlottee”, Mrs Edwards said his best work was the “Four Georges” the most fearful bit of sarcasm ever penned. A short discussion took place on the subject for debate at next meeting.

Miss Windeyer announced with regret her projected absence from Sydney for some months, and after a few kind words of farewell recited Coleridge’s lines on “Love, Hope, & Patience”.

Miss McKenny moved an expression of regret at Miss Windeyer’s absence, &, an acknowledgment of the Society’s indebtedness to Miss her great efforts on its behalf since its formation.

[page 83]

Mrs Armstrong warmly seconded the motion, and in the name of the Society wished Miss Windeyer great enjoyment of her travelling, expressing the hope of welcoming her soon again among them. The motion was carried by acclamation. Proceedings then terminated.

M.S. Wolstenholme
Vice Pres.
20.3.93

[page 84]

Monday. March 20th 1893

The sixty-first (13.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room – Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. The roll was called members & 4 visitors being present.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Voting papers were distributed, & members were asked to observe the rule of producing them at the next meeting, as there had lately been several non-elections through informal voting.

The President asked the sub-committee to report its success in finding a new room for the Society. Miss Vallentine said no steps had been taken of late.

The President announced a vacancy on the Committee and said that nominations would be received

[page 85]

until April 10th Election April 17th.

Members were asked when speaking to try to address the chair, instead of directing their remarks to each other, using the form “Mrs President”. And to observe the rules of debate, the openers leaders only of each side, having a right to speak more than once.

The subject of the evening was a debate on the question “Which does the most to produce crime – Poverty, Wealth or Ignorance?”

Miss Montefiore spoke on the side of Wealth as a source of crime, defining wealth as “The accumulation, in individual hands of means of satisfying our wants” “All those things, & those only that are transferable”. In primitive states our wants are few. Savages do not accumulate, providing only for present wants. As civilization increases, so

[page 86]

does crime. In proportion, for instance forgery & embezzlement which are called into existence by law, and cannot exist in a primitive state. These are examples of the products of wealth. There are gradations of crime in proportion with the increase of civilization – for example – from the theft of the poor is evolved the forgery of the wealthy, certain other crimes being peculiar to certain classes.

Mrs Wolstenholme spoke, advocating the idea that Poverty was the cause of the greatest amount of crime. There appeared to her to be overwhelming reasons for this belief. If crime resulted from the desire of the poor to get rich the question was whether the wealth in individuals or the poverty in other individuals was the real source of the crimes. It was

[page 87]

naturally produced by civilization, as failing that there did not exist comparative poverty. Mrs Wolstenholme quoted Havelock Ellis in support of the argument that criminality waited on civilization. Among very poor people the cleverest pick-pocket was often the most honourable man. Much harm was caused by the obstructions resulting from civilization. These existed among the poor, besides the crimes of the rich, their own special ones. Because the comparatively rich man’s forgery was more productive of evil than the theft of the very poor the crime was not greater in one individual than in the other. The poor had greater temptations to the crimes arising from unconscious passions. Poverty was answerable for all the ills to which human nature

[page 88]

was liable. Extreme temptation was not understood by the rich. Men existed honourably, who, but for comfortable means might perhaps be as low as the poorest thief. Many good women surrounded by cares & guarded from the world, might have been under less fortunate circumstances as low as the lowest of their unhappy sisters.

Miss Hamilton spoke, claiming for ignorance the ignoble distinction. She considered the former speakers had spoken in support of her cause, Wealth & Poverty, the products of so much harm, were themselves the results of Ignorance. Such contrasts were presented to us as men wasting fortunes in play, while poor men stole the necessaries of life. We, the heirs of all the ages, should come

[page 89]

near a solution of such difficulties. In a late case known to us all an engine-driver was convicted of manslaughter, because loss of life resulted from his being compelled to work when exhausted both physically & mentally. With less ignorance, such conditions would be adjusted. The influence of environment was exaggerated, though it was important in decreasing temptation.

For the present argument crime must not be defined as supposed to include infringements of moral law. There were, morally speaking, as many criminals in drawing rooms as in gaols. The greatest amount of evil was wrought by want of knowledge of consequences. Miss Hamilton gave as instances Nora Helmer & Richard Feverel [like so?]. Three fourths of the crime in this

[page 90]

world was the fault of mothers, who were untrained for their office. It was considered necessary to train a man for his life’s work, for instance to be a member of parliament. For motherhood, no special education was supposed to be necessary, & the great harm was often done in the most impressionable time of life – the first 8 years.

Mrs Diller said the conviction of the engine-driver was the result, not of ignorance, but of the laws of the country.

Mrs Wolstenholme attributed it to the ignorance of legislators.

Mrs Bundock said the incident proved that wealth produced crime, or rather the desire for wealth, the share-holders not employing enough people to provide for such emergencies.

[page 91]

Mrs Evans said people did not pick pockets because they were poor, but because others were rich.

Miss Baly said wealth gave power to commit crime, alluded to bribery, & said that statistics showed that crime was less when distress was greatest.

Miss S. Whitfeld gave examples of crimes the results of wealth – gambling, horse-racing, over-amusement, laziness. Where the rich led, the poor followed as far as their means permitted.

Mrs Todd asked a definition of crime. Mrs Wolstenholme replied “That which makes amenable to criminal law” as a subject for the present debate.

Miss Eichler spoke in agreement with Miss S. Whitfeld.

Miss Vallentine said ignorance

[page 92]

was the mainspring of crime, not the desire for money. Real civilization should decrease it. Read extracts from B. Sykes & Lady Morgan.

Miss Montefiore spoke of people who made themselves amenable to law, by way of experiment, & to resist & destroy bad laws.

Miss Hamilton said the spread of education would lessen crime. The ignorance resulting in the struggle for life [like so?] produced the engine driver incident also Baby Farming [like so?].

Mrs Wolstenholme said women were driven into an evil life by poverty. Mrs Kelly contended that they were attracted to it by money.

Mrs Ashton said no decision could be arrived at. The whole social system was wrong and

[page 93]

the debate futile. Miss McKenny in a measure agreed with Mrs Ashton, so far that no she could not entirely support any side of the question. Too much value had been placed on environment, & people’s strong individualities & independence of outward circumstances not been given due weight. Education might alter crime in kind but not lessen it in degree. The bad nature would develop in one direction if not in another.

Mrs Todd & Miss Bonney agreed in not finding in education a panacea for wrong-doing. Mrs Wolstenholme said the education was defective.

Miss Gould said that History taught us when nations became opulent crime flourished.

Mrs Armstrong said the

[page 94]

infringement of the moral law was due to ignorance, of the penal law to poverty.

Mrs Hammond said crime was a question of degree & spoke of the unscrupulousness of professional men.

Votes were taken with the following result –
Poverty 16. Ignorance 14. Wealth 8.

The meeting ended at 9.45.

M.S. Wolstenholme
V. Pres.
10.4.93

[page 95]

Monday April 10th 1893.

The sixty-second (14.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room 37 members & 3 visitors being present. The Chair was taken by Mrs Wolstenholme. The following ladies were elected members of the Society – Miss Foster, Mrs A. Meeks, Miss Watts, and Miss L. Ryrie.

The Secretary read a letter received from Mrs Teece, who therein resigned her seat on the Committee of the Society.

The President stated that four books had been presented to the Society by Mrs Warren. Mrs Minns then promised a gift of a book shelf.

The Secretary read the names of those nominated for the two vacancies on committee. They were as follows – Miss Badham, Mrs Dillon, Mrs Sanger Evans and Miss Hamilton.

[page 96]

The subject for the evening being Socialism, the first paper speech was read by Mrs Sanger Evans. She said the argument so often brought against socialism was that it had so often failed. The conditions were now different and it might now succeed. The proof of its strength was that it was so deathless. Attempts had been made to establish it in many parts of the world. It was possible that the easiness of communication & consequently of co-operation might facilitate its becoming general.

The problem of Poverty was now to be definitely faced, and not to be considered as inevitable. Lord Salisbury said it was no longer to be ignored. The Japanese were far ahead of the English races in their recognition of human brother-hood. The condition was however better than in the time of Elizabeth,

[page 97]

when the penalty of begging was hanging. We were now living over a volcano, which might at any time burst forth, and as a mere matter of policy action was necessary. If the change came gradually & quietly it would be well, - Mrs Evans alluded to the “Quintessence of Socialism” by Dr Schaffer, who, though summing up against it, gives a true & temperate account of its requirements. The only thing demanded was the replacing of individual by collective capital. The orthodox political economists had been unable to solve the difficulty, and it would probably be done by other than experts – as Goëthe, primarily a literary man, made the greatest discoveries of his days in Physics & Botany.

Mrs Evan’s statement that “as a mere matter of policy, action was

[page 98]

necessary” was discussed by Miss McKenny, Miss Hamilton, Mrs Edwards & Mrs Wolstenholme.

Miss Scott read a paper – comparing Socialism and State Socialism. The press was much to blame for conveying to people wrong notions with regard to Socialists. These were in Germany, revolutionary one driven to despair by poverty and misery, holding the belief of Cardinal Manning that “a starving man has a right to the bread of his neighbours”. We saw the extremes of wealthy bishops & starving curates. Women should study & understand these matters. The little that had been done to alleviate poverty was merely as a track cleared through a jungle.

Poverty in old age should be prevented. Socialism would abolish the wage slave, & there would be as Carlyle

[page 99]

says work for all, overwork for none. Miss Scott read a list of the things desired by the Sydney Socialistic League not agreeing with all. No perfect system had been yet evolved. We were not responsible for the things of today, but we were for those of tomorrow.

Miss Montefiore said she did not agree with the socialistic views expressed. She would yield to none in sorrow for poverty & suffering, but did not allow sympathy to get the better of reason. People would choose the kind of work they liked and do it. The people of Australia had had a glorious chance of avoiding extreme poverty, but had almost lost it by persisting in centralisation. The thing to do was to make every one in the world

[page 100]

a little better.

Mrs Curnow said Miss Montefiore had voiced her thought.

Miss Coleman agreed entirely with Miss Scott, and said those who were not in sympathy with Socialism were not lovers of justice.

Miss Montefiore thought such a generalisation unjust.

Mrs Edwards said a system of State Socialism was practised to some extent in Australia, & was a failure. This was evinced by the fact of the government cutting down the salaries of its servants.

Mrs Edwards, at the request of Miss Coleman, read a paper formulating her ideas with regard to the tendency to crowd into cities. Miss Coleman spoke in favour of absolutely equal division of property, & of equality of all kinds.

[page 101]

Mrs Thring did not believe in sudden measures. All good things were slowly evolved.

Mrs Wolstenholme spoke of the terrible results of competition.

Miss McKenny spoke of the inconsistencies of Socialists. Unable to trust themselves, unwilling to trust each other in the present, they yet had dreams of ideal leaders, who after they had got rid of the responsibilities nature meant us all to bear, would be capable of ordering the very details of their lives.

Miss Scott said the condition she imagined would take hundreds of years to evolve.

Miss Badham said Socialism had been defined “Making people good by act of Parliament”.

Mrs Ashton advocated a heavy probate duty to lessen inherited

[page 102]

fortunes. Mrs Evans gave an example of struggle for life with hard conditions that had come under her notice.

Mrs Wolstenholme said all large fortunes were the results of roguery. She alluded to men whose time was said to be worth a guinea a minute, though not so in reality.

Miss McKenny instanced a short medical operation costing £60, which she thought not undue considering the years of preparation for executing it.

Miss Gould agreed, saying the same man would probably operate 60 times for nothing. Time did not permit the hearing of other papers promised which were deferred until the following Monday. The meeting ended at 10 p.m.

M.S. Wolstenholme
V. Pres.
17.4.93

[page 103]

Monday April 17th 1893

The sixty third (15.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room members & visitors being present. The chair was taken by Mrs Wolstenholme. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. New members were nominated. The roll was called. Voting papers were distributed for the election of two members of committee. Miss McKenny proposed Miss Montefiore seconded that Miss Bonney and Miss Vallentine should act as scrutineers. The following ladies were declared to be elected. Miss Badham (35 votes) Miss Hamilton (26). The President informed the members that the first annual celebration of the A.H.R. Society would be held at the University on Saturday, stating the nature of the programme & conditions of entrance to those who might wish to be present.

[page 104]

The subject of the previous meeting “Socialism” was continued, three of the deferred papers being read. The first, by Miss Bonney, spoke of the heart rending cry for reform, and the ardency with which people advocated their particular theories. Even if some of the schemes projected were ridiculous, they helped to move the world forward by resisting stagnation. Of these theories the good must live, the pernicious must die. The character of man ought to be superior to his surroundings, & in most cases was so. The cry being for State Reform the question was what means to employ. In increasing social institutions there was a grave danger which threatened to sow the seeds of decay, & by taking away the proud spirit of individuality to bring about the downfall of nations.

[page 105]

Socialists were not to be confounded with communists. Heinemann might however be classed with both. Much harm had been done to Socialism by some of its most enthusiastic advocates, who instead of abusing the rich, should appeal to their sympathies. It was desirable that class divissions should disappear, that unproductive land should be utilized, that large legacies should not be permitted, and that labour should be regulated. The state should have power to adopt every neglected child. A socialism was good that did not seek to rob of independence, but was ready to [indecipherable] & guide humanity to stand more firmly.

Miss Scott spoke in approval. She did not advocate free education, railways [etc]. Social government was desirable as lending to self dependence.

[page 106]

Mrs Wolstenholme spoke against land monopoly, replying to a question by Mrs Armstrong that compensation was proposed for the resumption of land. She referred to the Land Division Act lately passed in England, by which a right is given to boards to resume land if a sufficient number of working men desire it for cultivation. Miss C Whitfeld alluded to the larger grants of land made to early Australian settlers. The subject was discussed by Miss King, Mrs Wolstenholme, Mrs Armstrong, Mrs Dillon, Miss McKenney, Miss Baly & Miss Scott..

Mrs C. Edwards read a paper. She said that Socialism was no new idea, as was proved by the works of Plato, in that there had always been a few enthusiasts to cry “the times are out of joint [like so] [etc]”. But for a true example of a socialistic community,

[page 107]

we must go back to our monkey ancestry. But when with pomp (like so) innumerable the soul was evolved equality was no longer possible. Marriage was instituted & the family became a factor in social life. Socialism carried to its logical conclusion must destroy family life. The greatest work of the world had been achieved under great difficulties. Given abundance of food & pleasant surroundings & man never emerged from his savage condition. The pressure of necessity had brought him to his present condition. In spite of a Latin saw “the voice of the people is seldom the voice of God”. The mob is swayed by the emotion of the moment & is as unreliable as a dead leaf wafted by the wind.

The Socialists err in not allowing for the frailties of human nature, & in shifting all responsibility onto the State, which has neither “a body to be

[page 108]

chastised nor a soul to be saved”. No social question can ever be thoroughly settled, so much of the misery of the world being due to people’s own actions. It was only among people of low ideals that service was looked upon as degrading. It was so in the case of the queen’s service. The old order had at least trained up brave & true men, & good & noble women & no system could do more.

Miss Scott said socialists were at present in the minority.

Miss Montefiore & Mrs Minns spoke in agreement with Mrs Edwards.

Mrs Armstrong said socialism as expounded here was very noble, but to make such ideas successful, we must change human nature.

She spoke of the desirability of unveiling the laws of Physiology among all classes, & deprecated the unfortunate

[page 109]

relations existing between mistresses & servants. The comparative attractions of factory work & domestic service were discussed by Miss Scott, Miss Gould, Mrs Wolstenholme, Miss Hamilton, Miss Montefiore, Miss C. Whitfeld & Mrs Edwards.

Miss McKenny read a paper. She said that the absolutely equalising demands of the earlier socialists having presented a too offensive notion of crippling to the vertebrate section of humanity , to produce even opposition, the moderate socialists of today had presented their ideas in a more attractive, but a more insidious form. Their contention that it is was not a conflict with individual freedom, but merely asked a control of capital were not reconcilable statements. To do the latter included the former. The [indecipherable] capitalist was danged before a mob, who had not so distinctly pictured to them, the gigantic workhouse proposed as satisfying.

[page 110]

The work of assessing would be an impossibility, the more so if in proportion to the value of work done, instead of the time spent, as extreme socialists demand. The army of official administrators would have as fine a field for log rolling & wire pulling as any in this present state of darkness, & we should only substitute King Stork for King [indecipherable]. There would be no more Liberty than in a trade union; or share in government than has a small member of a Jt. [like so] Stock Co. The railways, postal arrangements, charitable public schools and other charitable institutions organized by the States were all mal-administered. Strife was a necessary condition of a hardy, self-respecting race. The superiority of the northern races was the outcome of a perpetual struggle with the inequalities of nature. Parental

[page 111]

& family responsibility ought to be increased & not lessened. It was deplorable that the spirit of the age tended to undermine these feelings. Rulers these must be, & no good ones could be evolved from those whose contemptibility failed in self-trust.

After remarks from Miss Scott, Mrs Wolstenholme & Mrs Edwards, the meeting terminated.

M.S. Wolstenholme
Vice.Pres.
May 1st 1893

[page 112]

Monday 1st May 1893

The sixty-fourth (16.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room, 250 Pitt St. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. Miss McKenny proposed, Miss Bonney seconded that Miss Cowlishaw & Miss Whitfeld should act as scrutineers. Mrs Peach was elected a member of the Society.

The President announced that this being a free evening, deferred papers on ‘Socialism’ would first be read, then those on “Celebrated Women” the subject arranged for the previous meeting. Discussions on each paper would be strictly limited to five minutes.

Miss Badham read a paper on “Socialism”, the upholders of which, she said, occasionally fell foul of those misguided human beings who confounded it with

[page 113]

anarchy. The attempt to combine heterodox human human nature too much resulted always in its swinging back as a pendulum. The Fabian Essayists were the present exponents of Socialism. It was not that of the Domain Orators to whom artists, poets, university professors sic. appear to be useless and dangerous. The leveling Socialism of Mr Bernard Shaw aimed at a very high level. The poor would no longer be among us. The word individual was to be tabooed – Each atom of humanity might consider himself to shine in the reflected light of the greatest contemporary poet, painter, or writer, and thus to be equally an artist. Socialism would, no doubt be its own interpreter. Mr Bernard Shaw was too serious to stoop to the slightest humour. Mr Oliver was more

[page 114]

graceful. Mrs Wallace begged the question in solving the difficulty of the proletariat – Were the aborigines to become free citizens or to form the submerged tenth of the future? Would equal education produce an equality of intellect? If so suicide would be a relief from such monotony. Men of many brain convolutions would not submit to be governed as fools & idiots. Life would be a huge sheep-fold, the State acting as nurse from cradle to grave – The Socialists were hurrying on an English reign of Terror, after which “When she awoke she found it a joke”, & Individualism was still there.

Mrs Ashton protested against Miss Badham’s interpretation of The Fabian Essayists, admitting that the least practical was Mrs Besant.

[page 115]

Miss Scott said that although Education was not somewhat equal there was no monotonous result.

Mrs Ashton said The Fabian Essayists did not aim at making all alike.

Miss Badham said they crushed out individualism.

Mrs Evans said the word had now acquired a technical meaning, implying “unrestrained competition”.

Mrs Wolstenholme did not see in the Fabian Essays what Miss Badham imputed to them.

Miss Hamilton read a paper. She said she knew little of the subject and did not wish to dogmatize. The present social system was full of anomalies & it was a moral obligation to study any scheme offering relief. Her position with regard to it was merely a tentative one. She had

[page 116]

found answers for much that had puzzled her in the Fabian Essays. Their writers did not assume the positions of teachers but of exponents. We should welcome any leader who would guide us out of the Egypt of our bondage. Socialism like a writhing chrysalis had not yet come to a knowledge of itself. Sir Thomas More was probably the first socialist. Bernard Shaw defined Socialism as “Individualism clothed & in its right mind”. It might overthrow the “gold-hunger” described by Mrs Besant. Every mother should train her children in self-denial & self-control. All should try to extend the limits of their nature. In the increase of love the Higher Socialism would find its exceeding great reward.

Mrs Wolstenholme asked how

[page 117]

it was possible for mothers to train their sons as Miss Hamilton suggested, when the world was so full of examples and of injustice, & the life of the young so beset with difficulties.

Mrs McKeown said surely such was not the case. The rich were ready to help all who would to learn & advance.

Miss Montefiore said Bernard Shaw counseled people to wait – This they would not do.

Miss McKenny said the attitude of socialists was that of people who despised charity but did not object to stealing.

Miss Badham & Miss Bundock discussed the inheritance of land. Mrs Edwards said that England divided against amongst its inhabitants would only mean a few sq. inches to each.

[page 118]

Mrs Ashton spoke of the Duke of Westminster’s oppression of his tenants. Mrs Edwards held a different belief with regard to him.

Miss King spoke of the want of thrift among the masses – She was supported by Miss Badham, who instanced the Newcastle miners.

Miss Montefiore alluded to Mr Kingsbury’s speech to the Electors of North Brisbane advocating the voluntary co-operation of very small capitalists. Miss Scott admired the speech.

Mrs Ashton spoke of the injustice of denying to the poor the right to beauty, personal adorments &c. Miss McKenny spoke of the miners of –51 whose notions of comfort included gold shoes for their horses. She thought the Socialistic leaders did not realize that the

[page 119]

mob once spurred onward would be past their control, and would carry out no scheme arranged for them.

Miss Montefiore read a paper on a “Celebrated Woman” whose name she would not mention, - Thereupon giving a humourous and easily-recognizable sketch of “Mrs Grundy”.

Miss Scott read a paper on “Celebrated Women”. She said it gave great help & encouragement to reflect on what women had done in our own times. What did we not owe to the bravery of the women of Sydney, who had persisted in entering the University and medical schools. Kate Marsden had done a noble work among the lepers of Siberia, her visits resulting in the erection of two hospitals.

[page 120]

Mrs Evans made a speech in which she stated her reasons for believing Sericulture to be one of the future industries and sources of wealth in Australia. In Italy, the fact of the mulberry being deciduous, made the industry a subsidiary one. Here it could stand alone. It would give suitable employment to women and children. A Mrs Brady had discovered valuable secrets with regard to bringing out & rearing the worms, and was willing to impart them to N.S.W. A silk growing association had that day been formed, and it was hoped to induce the government of N.S.W. to secure the services of Mrs Brady at instruction in Sericulture.

R. Scott
V.P.

May 15th 1893

[page 121]

Monday May 15th 1893

The sixty-fifth (17.3) general meeting was held in the society’s room 260 Pitt St, Miss Scott in the Chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Miss Montefiore proposed Mrs Edwards seconded that Miss Bonney & Miss Cowlishaw should act as scrutineers – The following were elected members of the Society – Miss Flora Ross & Miss Maze. A new member was nominated. Miss Scott announced that Miss Montefiore had presented three books to the Society also that Miss Bonney had consented to take charge of all such books, lending them out to the members who wished to borrow them.

Miss Scott read a paper of the subject for the evening – “Australian Poets”

[page 122]

Many people, she said, did not think Australian poetry worthy of study. It was like the opening mind of a child. The poets of historic nations looked upon their country as their mother, those of Australia regarded her as their child. We should keep in mind the fact that true criticism was not merely fault finding – It was well not to imitate Douglas Sladen, who compares the poets of this country with Swinburne, Proctor &c. People were fond of saying Gordon was an Englishman True, but his inspiration was drawn from Australia.

Mrs Humphery Ward, though born in Tasmania, was known as an English novelist. The first literature of this country, like the American, was merely an echo of the old. By slow degrees, it struck out a path for itself.

[page 123]

Baron Fields’ attempt at versification in an “Address to a Kangaroo” was here quoted. Gordon caught up and explained the very spirit of bush life. Allusion was made to the “Sick Stock Rider”, “How I beat the Favourite”, “The Sea” & “From the Wreck. Brunton Stephens excelled in comic verse – for example “A Black Gin” & “A Clunee [like so?] cook”. Kendall was buried in sight of the sea he loved so well. Why should we be protected from self-murder, & not from the death in life of drink. Miss Scott read Kendall’s “Song of the Cattle Hunters” & “Euroma” [like so?] and made allusion to George Essex Evans, Mrs Cross “Australie” & Charles Allen Sherrard and ended with a translation of an aboriginal song.

Miss Bundock read “The Dark Companion” by Brunton Stephens.

[page 124]

Miss Hamilton said the leading characteristic of Australian poetry was its melancholy. She then read “A plea for Ragged Schools” & “The Burrangong” by “Australie” Miss Montefiore some Australian realistic verse of the present day called “A Wedding”.

Miss Vallentine mentioned a young poetess of great promise who died here in 1884 – Florence Marian Emmanuel – and read from a volume of her poems published for private circulation the following – “March of Death” “The Kangaroo” & “A Dream”. Mrs Edwards read “Mrs Watson” by Douglas Sladen. The meeting ended at 9.40.

M.S. Wolstenholme
V.P.
5.6.93

[page 125]

Monday June 5th 1893

The sixty-sixth (11.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room, 250 Pitt St, Mrs Wolstenholme in the Chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed. Members were requested to send anonymous papers to be read at the next meeting to the Secretary before June 12th in order that readers might be provided.

The subject arranged for the evening was entitled “Suggestions for the improvement of affairs as regards wage-earning women”. The first paper was read by Miss Badham. She contrasted the days when the Roman matron “stayed at home & span” while her husband ploughed the field with the present social strife. All could not be wives & mothers. The question was, what to do

[page 126]

with the rest. It was not impossible that such conditions as shown by Besant in Katherine Regina might exist in Sydney. Large numbers of women took to teaching, some of them imparting all the ologies [like so?] combined with their mother-tongue, & not unfrequently, without it. There was a tendency to over educate, weak physique not being considered; personal experiences had not however led Miss Badham to fear young women were in danger of weakening themselves thus. Teaching was the only calling in which personal aptitude was not thought necessary. Many women crammed at universities who could not speak English, & in such cases it was a mercy when they broke down. Culture sat on them as a grotesque excrescence. It was right that the higher education should be within reach of all, but

[page 127]

not fitting that the many should grab at it. The city was overrun with trained nurses, whose work was not very profitable to them. They had to pay for rooms when out of work. Telegraphy & Typewriting were over crowded on account of supposed gentility. It was thought that any Teachers would do for beginners in Music, notable those who cost least. The life of women in shops promoted habits of extravagance, and such became incapable of household work. Domestic service was at a discount, and domestic duties were in every woman’s province, though now decreed slavery. Women lacked concentration. When they mastered trades they would do as well as men.

Miss Scott said a woma’s highest work in the world was not that of being a wife & mother.

[page 128]

There was work more worthy of women. She advised girls not to marry. Mrs Wolstenholme said that those who believed a woman’s best work was to be a wife & mother ought to agree that that of a man was to be a husband & father.

Miss Hamilton spoke of training women for domestic work.

Miss Scott said domestic service should be on the same basis as trained nursing, which had risen from the condition of the Mrs Gumps of the past.

Miss McKenny in answer to Miss Scott said that there was, unfortunately, a growing tendency among the higher kinds of women not to marry, & that many less worthy of carrying on the race, had no scruples about doing so. Miss Montefiore quoted George Eliot on the same subject.

Mrs Wolstenholme, in answer to Miss Badham, said that [indecipherable] among

[page 129]

women would be useless if directed against men. A battle of the sexes should be avoided. She agreed with Miss Badham as regarded Teachers. The Teachers’ Association had in contemplation a plan for examining them. She had once formed a plan for a training school for domestic servants who were to be inspected, certificated & dressed in uniforms.

Miss Vallentine said servants should have amusement provided in their terms [like so?] & more liberty.

Mrs Wolstenholme spoke of the inquisitorial attitude of mistresses. Mrs Edwards said it was somewhat necessary. A mistress should feel as a mother to her servants.

Mrs Bonney asked what was to be done with the servants when their places were filled with gentle women – Miss Scott said all class distinctions should be done away with.

[page 130]

Miss Hamilton read a paper. She suggested a household brigade, with regular working hours & uniforms. The cause of low payment was the slovenly & amateurish manner of working. Any work entailing skill & concentration was shirked, hence we had so many indolent & incompetent teachers, mothers, & housekeepers. Besant had said women hated work & performed it execrably. Marriage should not b e the aim & centre of a woman’s life – We should increase a sense of the dignity of work – A girl should earn her living as nature intended her.

Miss B Mrs Bonney said there had yet been no suggestion except putting one class in the place of another. Mrs Wolstenholme Miss Whitfeld suggested buying ready made clothing but employing women here. Mrs Wolstenholme spoke against

[page 131]

bazaars as injuring workers, & against rich or independent young women doing fancy work to add to their pocket money. Miss Baly mentioned cases in point. Mrs Curnow added her experience of such. Mrs Dillon, Mrs Minns, Miss McKenny, Miss Whitfeld & Mrs Bonney spoke on the subject.

Miss Vallentine said women would not work in union like [indecipherable]. Miss Scott said the suffrage would set everything right.

Miss McKenny read a paper sent by Miss Georgina King who said that we should distinguish between capable & incapable women workers, the latter always tried to drag down the former to their standard. Heads of work rooms did not dare to give a word of encouragement to their best hands, owing to the inordinate jealousy of the incompetent ones.

[page 132]

It was most often for love of finery that girls & women in all classes sold their souls, & not through poverty. Heads of work rooms had stated that unwholesome literature was a great factor in the deterioration of girls. Those who are not worth high wages should work contentedly for low ones; the women who instituted the Factory-girls club were doing a noble work. Women should uphold the best endeavours of their own sex. Mrs Edwards said the reason women were not as well paid as men was that they were not thorough, giving as instances tailoring & cooking. Music was the only thing in which they were pre-eminent, & enormously paid. Miss Hamilton suggested gardening as a woman’s occupation.

Miss Gould said the evil of the day was that of square people in round holes. She described the pleasant relations existing between trained nurses. Mrs Bonney spoke of the difficulty in the association of the educated & uneducated. Miss Gould said that was revealed [like so?] by their professional sympathies – No class distinctions were recognised. Mrs Curnow, Miss Hamilton, Miss Scott and Miss Gould & Mrs Wolstenholme continued to discuss the question.

M.S. Wolstenholme
Vice Pres
19.6.93

[page 134]

Monday June 19th 1893

The sixty-seventh (19.3.) general meeting was held at the Society’s room. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed.

Miss McKenny proposed, Miss Montefiore seconded that Mrs Minns and Miss Bonney should act as scrutineers – Dr. Tsa Coghlan was elected a member of the Society. Two nominations were made. Mrs Wolstenholme announced that Lady Duff had been requested to act as President and had consented and Miss McKenny read her letter conveying the request and Lady Duff’s reply.

The subject for the evening was “Anonymous papers on any Subject”. Mrs Wolstenholme stated that the ladies who were about to read the papers had been requested to do so either by the writers or the

[page 135]

Committee, and were not to be held responsible for the statements or ideas therein.

The first paper entitled “Woman’s present position in the political world – Thoughts Thereon” was read by Miss Scott. The writer said a beginning had been made but we lagged on the road. No fresh recruits were added to the little army of women fighting for political equality. Although admitted to the Universities, Medical Schools, they had not possessed themselves of the only key of the door of political life – wide & genuine knowledge of the subject. The topics of conversation of men & of women in trains & other public places were compared. Women should be educated in political knowledge and the lynx eye of public opinion must see women as though in earnest about house-keeping

[page 136]

maternal, philanthropic & teaching duties as men are in mercantile pursuits.

Mrs Wolstenholme read a paper called “Practical reforms”. The writer said that should the new system of Socialism be carried into effect, it would require an elaboration in detail into which its advocates did not seem inclined to go. Meanwhile those who had not given their adherence to Socialism desired to mangurate [like so?] a better state of things. Poverty was not the source of the greatest ho unhappiness. More harm was done by the unkind words, want of sympathy and the spread of false reports than by want of sufficient food & clothing. Girls in service should be taught to make the best use of their house of freedom, & encouraged to take more exercise, - Drapers shops

[page 137]

should be closed in the hot part of the day, and shop girls should be allowed to sit down when possible. Such reforms should not be deferred until suffrage is given to women

Mrs Edwards read a poem called “Jennie” and one untitled, the subject of which was the power of Love.

Miss Whitfeld read a story called “A Mistaken Sacrifice”.

Miss Badham read a paper on “Idleness” – in favour of which, the writer wished to say a good word. The present activity of mind & body which was so striking a characteristic of our day, was really becoming mischievous. Nobody was contented to be simply idle. The household superfluities [like so?] either eat their hearts out brooding over their uselessness or rushed

[page 138]

into work for which they were unfitted. People work to add to already sufficient incomes. Idleness should be cultivated and though not perhaps easy & comfortable at first, the habit was known to grow & might become graceful, inducing the classic repose of [indecipherable] so sadly lacking in the 19th century countenance.

Miss Montefiore read a paper “Our Literary Society. What it is, & what it ought to be”. The writer described its origin, growth & objects. It had brought together the floating feminine [like so?] intellectuality. The first meetings were unbusiness-like. The provisional committee had retained office without re-election. It was considered too personal to point this out, also that the members suffered under minutes which were & always had been too long.

Magazine articles had been snuffed

[page 139]

out, discouraging beginners. Papers read in opposition to the general feeling had been uncourteously & harshly treated. People were still too fond of introducing their pet hobbies. Many of the papers read would rival those of men. Those who wished men admitted still hoped to gain their point.

Miss Hamilton read two poems called “Wattle” & “White Chrysanthemums”.

Votes were taken for a prize offered by Miss Scott. This was won by the Paper on “Idleness” which was written by Miss Montefiore. The other writers remained anonymous.

A vote of thanks was passed to Lady Windeyer for her gift of a portrait of Miss M Windeyer.

The meeting ended at 9.50.

Rose Scott
V.P.
July 3rd 1893

[page 140]

Monday July 3 1893

The sixty-eighth (20.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s room. Miss Scott in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read by Miss Montefiore & confirmed. Miss Montefiore proposed, Miss McKenny seconded that Miss L Whitfeld & Miss Bonney should act as scrutineers. Mrs Russel Jones & Miss McCrae were elected members of the Society.

Miss Montefiore wished to explain, in order to do away with a misunderstanding that had arisen that the anonymous paper of which she had been reader at the last meeting had quoted Max O’Bells description of an American Literary Society, and was not th an account of the personal experiences of the

[page 141]

writer. Miss Scott presented to Miss Montefiore as a prize for her paper on Idleness Balfour’s “Essays & Addresses”.

Miss Scott also presented on the part of Mrs Armstrong of [like so] Auburn a picture of Danté & Beatrice, reading Mrs Armstrong’s accompanying letter, and Dante’s description of the incident represented in the picture.

Miss Montefiore proposed, Miss Baly seconded a vote of thanks to Mrs Armstrong. Carried.

The subject for the evening was “The Art & Practice of Housekeeping”. A paper written by Miss McKenny was read at her request by Mrs C.A. Edwards. The writer quoted Herbert Spencer’s injunction to “Be a good Animal” as forming the necessary basis for the higher Education. There was a tendency to shirk the

[page 142]

personal administration of the household. The reason being that the life of a woman who worked in a definite way as a breadwinner offered fewer difficulties than that of the mistreess of a middle class house who was also a mother, and to whom the future owed more than to the free lance excellent though the latter might be. Women should be trained to domesticity in order to be spared the humiliation of beginning housekeeping without knowledge & if they found it distasteful they should do other money making work & employ housekeepers.

A knowledge of chemistry & physiology should result in common sense as regarded food, & women should give much attention to the important subject of ventilation. Ruskin’s definition of cooking was then quoted from “Ethics of the dust”.

page 143]

Miss Whitfeld spoke of the difficulty of a married woman acting as breadwinner. Mrs Edwards, Mrs Aronson & Miss Baly discussed the question. Miss Montefiore said too much time was given to the details of housekeeping, & many causes of labour could be dispensed with. Miss Scott said she blamed mothers for not given their daughters a share in housekeeping. Miss Badham said it would be very exasperating to keep house during alternate months. Miss Ackman, (a visitor,) Miss Montefiore & Miss Scott spoke. Mrs V. Kelly spoke of the Brontës as both intellectual & domestic. Mrs Minns said any girl with common sense ought to keep house without training. Miss M Manning read an extract bearing upon the subject from Mrs Lynn Lynton

Mrs Aronson advocated consideration for servants. Miss Montefiore did

[page 144]

not agree with Mrs Minns. Miss Eichler said cooks were born not trained. Mrs Edwards related her terrible experiences as an untrained woman without domestic training thrust into colonial housekeeping. Miss Badham spoke.

Miss Gould mentioned the German method of sending girls away from their homes to be taught housekeeping. Miss Baly said mothers were afraid their daughters would waste if allowed to help. Miss Bonney thought the reason unselfishness. Miss Scott said there should be temperance in virtues. Miss S. Whitfeld spoke. Miss Manning said women should study food values & quoted Mrs Lynn Lynton. Miss McKenny spoke. Miss Eichler said German girls were taught housekeeping in boarding schools

[page 145]

Mrs V. Kelly, Mrs Dillon, Miss S Whitfeld & Miss Manning spoke. The meeting ended at 9.40.

M.S. Wolstenholme
Vice Pres.
17.7.93

[page 146]

Monday July 17. l893

The sixty-ninth (21.3) general meeting was held at the Society’s Room 250 Pitt St. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read & confirmed. Miss McKenny proposed, Mrs Edwards seconded that Miss Eichler & Miss Baly should act as scrutineers. Mme Bulteau was elected a member of the Society.

Mrs Wolstenholme read the names of two subjects suggested to the Society by Lady Duff – “Dante” & “Pope”. The Secretary read a letter from Mrs Todd drawing the attention of members to a paragraph in the ............?

Mrs Wolstenholme reminded those present of the annual members meeting to take place August 7 & announced

[page 147]

that nominations for Vice Presidents & members of committee would be received in writing only by the Secretary up to Saturday July 22nd. The Secretary would also receive suggestions for the new programme up to the time of the annual meeting.

The subject for the evening was “Mrs Browning”. Miss Gould read a paper. She spoke in appreciation of “Faustine’s” [like so?] notes in the Daily Telegraph, comparing the sufferings of Annie Besant there related with those of Mrs Browning. The gold threads running through Mrs Browning’s poems was Hopefulness, although the shadow of her cross was thrown over all her writings. They ought to be by every sick bed. Miss Gould quoted as favourites “The Poet’s Vow” Isobel’s Child” Sonnet on “Consolation” & “Lady Geraldine’s Courtship”,

[page 148]

in which the lover did not lose faith in God & man & commit suicide.

Miss McKenny spoke in agreement with Miss Gould.

Miss Badham read a paper – She alluded to the happy marriage of the Brownings as an artistic contrast & an example of the attraction of opposite currents. The poets of the 19th century were steeped in Metaphysics & the Brownings especially. She wrote much that was exquisite & much sublime nonsense. An It was a pity she had followed the fashion of telling stories in verse. The beauty & unity of the poem was often sacrificed & it was interspersed with dull & clumsy lines. Miss Badham expressed her admiration for the Sonnets reading one on “Hopeless Grief”. Mrs C.A. Edwards read “Mother and Poet”.

Miss Hamilton read a paper, Mrs Browning’s description of George Sand might be applied to herself. “Aurora Leigh” was one of the epoch making poems of the century. The author was a woman’s poet as well as a woman poet. She touched the woman nature in a hundred ways unknown to men. She saw the defects, as well as the divine attributes of women. Miss Hamilton read the wedding scene in “Aurora Leigh”. Mrs Browning was a woman first & a lady afterwards. The publishing of “Aurora Leigh” decided that many subjects should no longer be a closed book to women.

Mrs Ashton called attention to the fact that Miss Hamilton

[page 150]

had exceeded the time allowed to readers. Miss Hamilton regretted that she had not been aware of it. Mrs Ashton read “Lord Walter’s Wife”

Mrs McKeown read “The cry of the Human”.

Mrs Wolstenholme said this was the poem of Mrs Browning for which she cared least. It was wrong to attribute all the gloom of humanity to God & then ask him to pity it.

The meeting ended at 9.l45.

G.A.. Badham
V.P.

[page 151]

Monday August 7th 1893

The seventieth (22.3) general & third Annual Meeting was held at the Society’s room 250 Pitt St. Mrs Wolstenholme in the chair.

The Secretary read the first Report of the Society which included a slight account of the Society’s formation & progress, and a more detailed account of the work of the last year.

The Treasurer read the Balance Sheet which showed £12.14.9 to the credit of the Society.

Miss Baly moved, Mrs Dillon seconded the adoption of both. Carried by acclamation.

Mrs Harris moved Mrs Gibbs seconded that both be printed. Carried.

The Secretary reported a room seen in the Royal Arcade of suitable size at £1 per week. It was rejected.

The Vice President announced that

[page 152]

the Secretary of the School of Arts had sent 100 catalogues to the Society. A vote of thanks was recorded.

Miss Vallentine presented on behalf of Mrs Emanuel a copy of the poems of the late Miss F.M. Emanuel. Miss Montefiore proposed Miss Scott seconded a vote of thanks. Carried.

The Rules were then amended.

Miss Montefiore proposed, Miss Bonney seconded that that the Society’s name should be changed to the “Women’s Literary & Debating Society”.

Miss McKenny proposed Miss Hills seconded as an amendment that the name should not be changed. The amendment was carried.

Miss McKenny proposed Miss Scott seconded that the names of members who did should not pay their subscriptions within 3 months of annual meeting or of electing should be posted for 3 months in the Society’s room at the end

[page 153]

of which time, should these subscriptions be still unpaid it would be assumed that they desired their membership to lapse. Carried.

Miss Vallentine asked that the question of the privileges of the junior members might be discussed. It was resolved that they should be retained.

Miss Scott moved in amendment of Rule 3 that there should be 3 Vice Presidents. Miss McKenny moved, Miss Vallentine seconded that the rule remain unaltered. The amendment was carried.

Miss Scott moved, Mrs Whitfeld seconded that in Rule 6 the words “She shall also report at the first meeting in each quarter upon the financial condition of the society” be omitted. Carried.

The Secretary asked that the length of the minutes might be discussed.

[page 154]

Miss Whitfeld & Miss Montefiore thought them too long. Mrs Badham, Miss King, Mrs Dillon & Mrs Miss Baly approved of them as at present. No vote was taken. Miss McKenny moved Miss Scott seconded that in rule 8 the words “once a quarter” be changed to “twice a year”. Carried.

Miss Montefiore moved Miss McKenny seconded that there be no elections in the months of May, June, & July. Miss Vallentine moved as an amendment Miss Whitfeld seconded that members then elected pay entrance fees and a half year’s subscription. Amendment carried. Miss Whitfeld moved Miss Baly seconded that members then elected should not have a vote at the annual meeting or be eligible for election on committee in the next year. Carried.

Miss Scott moved, Miss Vallentine seconded as an amendment to Rule 11 that “the Committee be empowered

[page 155]

to arrange special meetings at which men should be admitted, any one present of literary note being requested to address any such special meetings”. Carried.

Miss Hague-Smith moved, Mrs Gills seconded that the rule of limiting papers to 10 minutes be strictly enforced, the time to be only exceeded by special request. Carried.

The Annual Elections then took place. The Vice President Mrs Wolstenholme announced Miss Scott’s retirement as V. President and Mrs Warren’s resignation of her seat on the Committee.

Miss Scott proposed Mrs Kelly seconded Mrs Wolstenholme as a Vice President. Carried. Miss McKenny proposed Miss Montefiore seconded Miss Badham as a Vice President. Carried.

The following members were then proposed for Committee, - Mrs Aronson, Miss Bonney, Mrs C.A. Edwards, Miss

[page 156]

Scott, Mrs T. Kelly, Miss Montefiore, Miss McKenny, & Miss Hamilton. They were elected without opposition on the show of hands.

Miss Baly proposed Mrs Dillon seconded a vote of thanks to the office bearers. Carried by acclamation.

Mrs Wolstenholme made a speech advocating help to women oustside the Society, & hoping that members would agree to stand by it notwithstanding the bad times.

Miss Badham suggested the formation of a book club. It was favourably discussed, & deferred to a future meeting. Proceedings ended at [indecipherable]

G.A. Badham
V.P.

The Committee afterwards elected an Hon. Secretary, & Hon. Treasurer. Mrs Wolstenholme proposed, Mrs Kelly seconded that Miss McKenny should be re-elected

[page 157]

as Hon. Secretary & Miss Montefiore as Hon. Treasurer. Carried.

[Transcribed for the State Library of New South Wales]