Silk Sails

by Calvin Evans

  Dona Lee Davis, who conducted a survey in 1978 of women in a south-west coast Newfoundland fishing village and published the results in the book entitled Blood and Nerves: An Ethnographic Focus on Menopause, writes: “Women feel particularly free to cause a spectacle or behave rudely when their family or household has been threatened or wronged.” She found in her research that men will often defer to women’s desire and ability to put things right. In the words of one of her women respondents: “A man has to be careful but a woman can say exactly what she likes.”

  In any event, the family’s struggle for survival in what was often a harsh environment, and always against formidable odds, required a strong partnership between men and women in households. Male authority was routinely challenged and compromised for a higher purpose: the family’s very survival. The result was a family solidarity that has persisted beyond what might have been expected. This is not to imply that marriages were always ideal relationships, but at least in the earlier periods personal self-fulfilment for both parties, and especially for the woman, was harshly subordinate to existing and surviving.

  The written law and unwritten rules and practices have conspired through the centuries to treat women differently from men. A woman has had to fight harder and sometimes “behave rudely” in order to ensure that her case would be considered. Women occupied a dependent status in law for a very long time and were not even defined in certain jurisdictions as “qualified persons” for certain jobs. Power and responsibility were somehow connected with property ownership, and most property was vested in the name of men. Lack of power and responsibility combined with unjustified prejudices about women as inferior and incompetent, as ornaments for men’s pleasure and convenience, to create practices of widespread discrimination against women. Marriage became, in the thinking of many men, a means of licensed control over women because the woman’s identity was absorbed into their own. This false view of marriage has been rightly viewed as a form of bondage.

  The English Common Law gave a husband almost unlimited rights over property belonging to his wife, which represented, in fact, an erosion of certain rights and freedoms that women in Europe had held in the pre-industrial period; women gradually became more associated with household, domestic, social and family matters in later periods. And all during the reign of a British queen!

  Newfoundland became an official colony of Great Britain in 1824, and by 1837 had officially adopted English criminal law, which remained in effect until 1949 when Newfoundland became a province of Canada. English criminal law actually had the effect of curtailing more liberal practices with respect to women’s ownership of property and management of estates, which had prevailed in the colony prior to this period.

  Advent of Married Women’s Property Acts

  While the rights of widows and single women were approximately the same as men, except for civic rights, the rights of married women were severely curtailed in law. The battles for reform were being fought in England, both by women and by men who supported them. Two of the most famous proponents of reform were Elizabeth Barrett Browning and John Stuart Mill. Few of the supporters of reform were happy with the limited success achieved in the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870, and the battle continued until a more liberal act was passed in England in 1882, the “Magna Carta” for women. A few quotes from Registration of British Ships published in 1896 are appropriate here: “As regards married women, a reference to the Married Women’s Property Act, 1882…will show under what conditions they are in this country capable of holding ships…the power of a married woman to transfer shares is not absolute. Since the Married Women’s Property Acts have been passed, the titles of married women to shares in shipping have frequently been recorded… A registered mortgagee has an absolute power of sale subject to the conditions imposed by Section 35.”

  In 1834, Newfoundland had passed the Real Chattels Act, which declared all landed property to be “Chattels Real” and gave responsibility for settling affairs to an appointed executor or administrator, subject to the direction of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Historiographers are still trying to determine the full impact of this unique piece of legislation. However, it is worthy of note that following the passing of this Act, women were appointed as executors and administrators (though they are usually called executrixes or administratrixes) of estates, and that this procedure usually passed quickly through the Supreme Court. From the ship registers of all the Atlantic provinces, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which handled estate settlements after death, treated them in a straightforward manner and with reasonable speed. Probate was often granted within a month or two of the owner’s death. In cases where the owner left a will with a designated executor (often the owner’s wife and/or brother or business associate), the same time-frame is observed. In cases where there was no will, the Supreme Court granted “Letters of Administration,” usually to the wife, and she either sold the ship quickly or continued with the family business, often becoming the business head until one of her sons was old enough to assume responsibility.

  In 1876, Newfoundland passed the Married Women’s Property Act, based on the British Act of 1870. By this Act, property which a married woman acquired was designated as her own and could be used independently of her husband. A married woman could now carry on a business, occupation or trade separately from her husband. She could register in a joint stock company; she could sue and be sued; and she was now responsible for debts which she accumulated. Not until this Act was amended in 1883 did married women acquire the legal status of a single woman with respect to owning property. This Act was further amended in 1895 to deal with contracts, court action and wills.

  Similar legislation came a little later in the Maritime provinces. The Married Women’s Property Act was passed in 1884 in Nova Scotia, 1895 in New Brunswick, and 1896 in Prince Edward Island. It was not until 1964 that a similar Act was passed in Quebec. The Civil Code, derived from the old French Law, had operated in Quebec since the sixteenth century, when the territory was known as New France. It is very different from the Common Law of England. The Civil Law is codified as opposed to the largely unwritten Common Law. Marital status, including a woman’s right to own property, was strictly defined under the Quebec Code. Many of a woman’s legal rights were ceded to her husband at the time of marriage, including property rights. While single women and widows held essentially the same legal rights as men in Quebec, married women were discriminated against simply because they were married. There was one saving grace possible for married women under the Civil Code; it was possible to have a legal marriage contract separate from the religious ceremony of marriage, and many women who held property or possessions at the time of marriage entered into such contracts, as is evident in the Quebec ship registers.

  In spite of what the law in all the colonies said about married women and restrictions on property ownership, there is clear evidence that married women owned ships and shares in ships well before the Married Women’s Property Acts were proclaimed into law. We will look at the details later, and a summary of these data will suffice for now. In Newfoundland married women owned shares in ships in 1844, 1853, 1854 and 1866, as these ships were registered. That first date, 1844, was 32 years before the Married Women’s Property Act became law in Newfoundland! The Conception Bay Plantation Book of 1805, with antecedents dating well back into the 1640s, demonstrates that married women owned property, boats, fishing premises, and possibly ships, well before 1800.

  Nova Scotian married women owned ships in 1877 and 1884; the first date was seven years before the Act was proclaimed into law. In New Brunswick married women owned shares in ships that were registered in 1860, 1870 and 1872; and in 1873 the floodgates opened and many married women began to purchase shares despite the fact that the Married Women’s Property Act did not come into effect until 1895. In Prince Edward Island a married woman held shares in a ship as early as 1827, and there was not another until 1895. The relevant dates for Quebec ma
rried women were from 1827 to 1903; there were so many, in fact, that either they all held civil marriage contracts or they simply ignored the existing law. The number of women holding shares in ships constitutes clear evidence that married women were following a pattern established in the pre-industrial period and did not wait for the law to affirm their right to own property.

  Women’s Occupations in Canadian Ship Registers

  It is almost certainly true that occupation was self-designated and that the registrar from earliest times recorded what he was told by the person registering the ship. The registrar was male and most of those who came to register their ships were male. Women were also conditioned by the norms of early society to designate themselves as widows, spinsters or married women. Were it not for a scrapbook kept by Quebec registrars from 1850 to 1958, and which I found by happenstance in Ottawa, we might never have had a public pronouncement on the issue. It is clearly stated in a letter from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, dated December 30, 1949: “Where a woman’s name appears as owner or mortgagee, she should be described as Spinster, Married Woman, or Widow, as the case may be.” This directive was, of course, a complete reversal of a practice which had evolved over many years, and I expect that the bureaucrat who penned these words was unaware of what registrars in the provinces had been doing. Did his words, on the other hand, represent an attempt to reverse the fortunes of women in that society, or were they purely personal?

  There is a section in the Quebec scrapbook entitled “Description of ownership title of a woman” and a note to the effect that regarding mortgages, the “marriage contract may be used instead of Last Will & Testament in case of death.” There is a further note on “Married Women, Legal restrictions as to their right to hold or transfer ship property not the business of the Registrar.” There is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Marine in Ottawa dated September 15, 1880, indicating that if Madame Beaupre wishes to be the mortgagee for her husband’s, Maxime Beaupre’s ship, that is really of no concern to the registrar’s office; if she wishes to risk her money that is her prerogative. A further section of the scrapbook is indexed as “Registered owner may sell to his wife,” suggesting only that the wife would first have to file a Declaration of Ownership and a Declaration of Assets. These documents were to be sworn before a notary public. A further index entry for 1949 is entitled “Title of Married Woman” and refers to a section where a woman had been registered as a “Mariner” but this should now be changed to “Spinster”; another woman had been designated as a “Manager” but this should now be changed to “Ship’s Husband.” I wonder if the registrar saw the irony in the latter dictate. There is an added communication signed by Elizabeth Descheneaux’s attorney indicating that she had originally been called a married woman and this has now been changed to spinster.

  There is some evidence that existing records were “corrected” by a registrar who served after the time of the original registration. There is an instance where “Stenographer” was marked over and “Spinster” was written in by a later hand. There is a case where “Hotel Proprietor” was crossed out and “Married Woman” was written in. And yet another case where “Housewife” was crossed out and “Married Woman” was written in. But only about half a dozen such instances were found in the ship registers of all five provinces.

  So what are the facts related to designated occupation? The earliest women shipowners, dating from the early 1800s, were widows, but it was not long before single women made an appearance, and then married women. In Newfoundland the first widow to register a ship was Ann McCarthy of Crocker’s Cove, Conception Bay. She registered the ship Susan at St. John’s in 1822 as sole owner. The ship had been built at Moreton’s Harbour by Richard Horwood. Modifications must have been made to the ship subsequently since it was re-registered in 1825 when it was noted that the ship was engaged in the Labrador fishery, and Joseph Taylor was the master or captain. Twenty years later, in 1842, Mary Foley Morris, a single woman of St. John’s, registered three ships: the John and Mary, the Nancy, and the Relief. She must have been a courageous woman since she took mortgages on all three ships. The first married woman shipowner in Newfoundland was Caroline Winsor of Aquaforte; she held 13 shares in the Pelter when it was registered in 1844, i.e., 32 years before the Married Women’s Property Act became law in the colony.

  Use of the titles “Widow,” “Spinster” and “Married Woman” persist throughout the period under study, though there are some interesting variations on the themes. Stated occupations are: Single Woman, Single Lady, Unmarried Woman, Married Lady, and in the later periods, Housewife and Homemaker. Also used are related terms such as Lady, Dame, Madame, Matron and Gentlewoman; the latter are generally indicative of high status.

  Some of the other occupations listed for women in the ship registers are: Merchant, Trader, Dealer, Shopkeeper, Planter, Fisherman, Brewer, Accountant, Business Manager, Businessperson, Company Director, Clerk/Manager, Teacher, School Teacher, Religious Order, Secretary, Stenographer, Nurse, Seamstress, Milliner and Auto-motorcycle Dealer. The designation of women as “Mariner,” but not “Master Mariner,” is not uncommon; however, I suspect the former term in some areas was taken to be roughly equivalent to “Fisherman” (a term that is used occasionally for women) in other areas, but it may also have been used to designate women who actually went to sea. It is curious that the Quebec woman who had been designated “Manager” but whom the registrar decided should be designated as “Ship’s Husband” was not instead called a “Managing Owner” since that term had long been in vogue. A woman in New Brunswick, Annie Seely, was listed as a “Tradesman – Non-marine”; her husband was a shopkeeper. Though the title “Agent” is not used, that appears to be the effect of designating Louisa Charlotte Boucherville (neuve Collar) in 1788 in Quebec as “subscribing” for the heirs of Joseph Collar, who are “non-subscribing.” She was probably representing a non-resident family or possibly minors who were the inheritors.

  The fact that women were, indeed, fishermen is demonstrated by a delightful vignette which Cyril Harris describes in his book Northern Exposure: A Nova Scotia Boyhood. He writes of the visit to Nova Scotia in 1904 of an American cricket team which was challenged to a game by the locals from Sandy Cove. The smartly dressed American team appeared on the field and looked with disdain on the local fishermen dressed in their overalls and denim shirts. The bowler for the locals turned out to be a young woman, though she bowled so well and carried herself so smartly that the visitors thought for a while that she was a young man. They discovered later that she was a lobster fisherman and that she worked in the boat with her father and sister every day. The “lobster girl” was responsible that day for the defeat of the fine Weymouth cricket team!

  Exceptional, no doubt, is the story of Mildred Jewett of Nantucket, known locally as Madaket Millie, who was as strong at 11 years of age as any two Coast Guardsmen. Edward Rowe Snow, in his book Women of the Sea, writes that, as a mature woman, Millie “could roll over a dory, launch it, fish with the best of them, and could handle any sort of craft in almost any type of blow.” Besting even this story is that of Capt. Linda Greenlaw of Topsham, Maine, who was the only woman swordfish captain in the Grand Banks fleet, and by 1997, had been fishing for 17 of her 36 years. Fishing out of Gloucester, Massachusetts, on the lunar cycle, she would return to port every 30 days with full loads of fish. In his book The Perfect Storm, Sebastian Junger characterized Greenlaw as “one of the best captains, period, on the entire East Coast,” as he described the Halloween Gale of 1991. Greenlaw was a graduate of Colby College and was skipper of the swordfish boat Hannah Boden.

  There are other interesting occupations of women designated in the early records. For example, when Eleanor Quinn of Rider’s Harbour, Random Island, Newfoundland, married James Sullivan of Youghall, Ireland, in 1804, her occupation was given as “Boatkeeper”; that would be similar to ship’s husband and probably meant that she was left in charge of fishing boats when the British owner
s returned home for the winter. Marjorie Clark of Bay Bulls was a boatkeeper sometime in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Hannah Langher in 1805 and Lydia Fifield in 1808, both of Trinity, gave the same occupation, boatkeeper, at the time of marriage. In 1815 Mary Gillet of Trinity, widow, married Charles Randell and her occupation is given as “Blacksmith.” Perhaps she had inherited her late husband’s business of blacksmithing and had carried on that business from the time of his death to the time of her remarriage. Madge (“Meg”) Curlew was a blacksmith in Coley’s Point, Newfoundland, through the 1920s; she was a big, raw-boned woman with large hands and wore a long leather apron at her work. She became a blacksmith by accident; the big wagon was broken, there was no one to fix it, and she did it, and that became her occupation.

  As I have discussed these issues with people over the past several years, many have suggested snippets of information about women’s unusual occupations in connection with the sea. Hannah Eliza Evans, whose husband was Edward, ran a supply store at Northern Arm for the George J. Carter fishing business of Herring Neck from about 1900 to 1914. Carter had bought the Edwin J. Duder business after it went bankrupt in the Bank Crash of 1894. Mary Olivia Noseworthy, whose husband had been Lorenzo, operated the family business at Spaniard’s Bay, with sub-operations in Labrador, for three years from 1931 to 1933, and then phased out the business and moved to St. John’s. Thomas Collett, a merchant at Harbour Buffett in the 1870s may have left his estate, including ships, to Frances Bendle. A letter exists naming her children as beneficiaries and referring to her son Henry “carrying on the business, his mother not objecting.” Other interesting variations on occupations exist. Cindy Parmiter of Point Leamington, whose father is Capt. Wes Parmiter, was a working crew member on her father’s sealing ship in the 1970s. Sarah May Dempster, daughter of Jim Coombs of Plum Point, carried on her father’s job of wharfinger (owner/manager of a wharf) until the late 1970s when CN Marine phased out its operations at Plum Point. Vera Abbott of Bonavista was a fisherperson and co-owner of boats and property with her husband Cecil for almost 20 years in the 1980s and 1990s, until her husband was tragically killed in a traffic accident.