Freedom House is a U.S.-based^[2] non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights.^[3]

Freedom House was founded in October 1941, and Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. It describes itself as a "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world". As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding.^[4]

The organization’s annual Freedom in the World report, which assesses each country’s degree of political freedoms and civil liberties, is frequently cited by political scientists, journalists, and policy-makers. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Net, which monitor censorship, intimidation and violence against journalists, and public access to information, are among its other signature reports.

While widely regarded as a reliable source, in the past some critics have accused Freedom House’s reports of bias or of promoting U.S. government interests abroad. However, systematic evaluations have found them to align closely with freedom indices from other sources.

Mission statement[link]

As stated by Freedom House:

"Freedom House supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights around the world. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House amplifies the voices of those fighting for freedom in repressive societies. We work directly with democracy and human rights advocates in their own countries and regions. These reformers include human rights defenders, civil society leaders and members of the media. Freedom House’s programs provide these advocates with resources that include training, expert advice, grants and exchange opportunities. We press the United States, other governments, international institutions and regional bodies to adopt consistent policies that advance human rights and democracy around the world."^[5]

History[link]

Freedom House was founded in October 1941. Among its founding members were George Field, Dorothy Thompson, Wendell Willkie, Herbert Agar, Herbert Bayard Swope, Ralph Bunche, Father George B. Ford, Roscoe Drummond and Rex Stout. George Field (1904–2006) was executive director of the organization until his retirement 1967.^[6]

According to its website, Freedom House "emerged from an amalgamation of two groups that had been formed, with the quiet encouragement of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to encourage popular support for American involvement in World War II at a time when isolationist sentiments were running high in the United States."^[7] After the war, "Freedom House took up the struggle against the other twentieth century totalitarian threat, Communism.... The organization's leadership was convinced that the spread of democracy would be the best weapon against totalitarian ideologies."^[7]

The organization describes itself currently as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House states that it:^[8]

has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets.

The group states that during the 1940s, Freedom House supported the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO. Freedom House also states that it was highly critical of McCarthyism.^[7] During the 1950s and 1960s, it supported the U.S. civil rights movement and its leadership included several prominent civil rights activists. It supported Andrei Sakharov, other Soviet dissidents, and the Solidarity movement in Poland. Freedom House assisted the post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics.^[7]

Books USA was started by Edward R. Murrow sometime before 1963,^[9] as a joint venture between the Peace Corps and the United States Information Service.^[10] In 1967, Freedom House absorbed Books USA, which had been created by the USIA.^[11]

More recently, Freedom House has supported citizens involved in revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. It states "In Jordan, Freedom House worked to stem violence against women; in Algeria, it sought justice for victims of torture; in Uzbekistan, a brutal dictatorship, it sought to defend human rights advocates; in Venezuela, it worked with those seeking to protect and promote human rights in a difficult political environment."^[7] Freedom House has been critical of Saudi Arabia and Chile under Augusto Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free." It was also strongly critical of the apartheid in South Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America.^[12]

Funding[link]

In 2001 Freedom House had income of around $11m, increasing to over $26m in 2006.^[13] Much of the increase was due to an increase between 2004 and 2005 in US government federal funding, from $12m to $20m.^[13] Federal funding fell to around $10m in 2007, but still represented around 80% of Freedom House's budget.^[13] Diego Giannonea, an Italian political science professor, wrote that the preponderance of governmental funding was "unusual, especially when one considers that the organizations involved in the assessment and monitoring of human rights, democracy and freedom in the world refuse on principle—as a guarantee of their independence and credibility—government funding".^[13]

Organization[link]

Freedom House headquarters in Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.

Freedom House is a nonprofit organization. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and also countries in Central Asia.

Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists". All board members are current residents of the United States. It does not identify itself with either of the American Republican or the Democratic parties. The board is currently chaired by William H. Taft IV. Taft assumed chairmanship of the board in January 2009, succeeding Peter Ackerman. Other current board members include Kenneth Adelman, Farooq Kathwari, Azar Nafisi, Mark Palmer, P. J. O'Rourke, and Lawrence Lessig,^[14] while past board-members have included Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Mara Liasson, Otto Reich, Donald Rumsfeld, Whitney North Seymour, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, and Bayard Rustin.

Reports[link]

Freedom in the World[link]

Map reflecting the findings of Freedom House's 2010 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2009, which correlates highly with other measures of democracy .^[15]

  Free (89)

  Partly Free (62)

  Not Free (42)

Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World

This graph shows the percentage of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1973-2008

Since 1972 (1978 in book form), Freedom House publishes an annual report, Freedom in the World, on the degree of democratic freedoms in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, by which it seeks to assess^[16] the current state of civil and political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). These reports are often^[17] used by political scientists when doing research. The ranking is highly correlated with several other ratings of democracy also frequently used by researchers.^[16]

In its 2003 report, for example, Canada (judged as fully free and democratic) got a perfect score of a "1" in civil liberties and a "1" in political rights, earning it the designation of "free." Nigeria got a "5" and a "4," earning it the designation of "partly free," while North Korea scored the lowest rank of "7-7," and was thus dubbed "not free." Nations are scored from 0 to 4 on several questions and the sum determines the rankings. Example questions: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?"^[18] Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[18]

The research and ratings process involved two dozen analysts and more than a dozen senior-level academic advisors. The eight members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with 16 outside consultant analysts, prepared the country and territory reports. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information—including foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region—in preparing the reports.^[19]

The country and territory ratings were proposed by the analyst responsible for each related report. The ratings were reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings — Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe — involving the analysts, academic advisors with expertise in each region, and Freedom House staff. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Many of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisers.^[19]

The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with expertise in methodological issues.^[19]

Freedom House also produces annual reports on press freedom (Press Freedom Survey), governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads). In addition, one-time reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House's methods (around 1990) and other democracy-researchers were mentioned as examples of a expert-based evaluation by sociologist Kenneth A. Bollen, who is also an applied statistician. Bollen writes that expert-based evaluations are prone to statistical bias of an unknown direction, that is, not known either to agree with U.S. policy or to disagree with U.S. policy: "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."^[20]

Freedom of the Press[link]

The Freedom of the Press index is an annual survey of media independence that assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and internet freedom throughout the world.^[21] It provides numerical rankings and rates each country's media as "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Individual country narratives examine the legal environment for the media, political pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to information.

The annual survey, which provides analytical reports and numerical ratings for 196 countries and territories in 2011, continues a process conducted since 1980. The findings are widely used by governments, international organizations, academics, and the news media in many countries. Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a set of 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories: legal environment, political environment, and the economic environment. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trends over time. Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. The ratings and reports included in each annual report cover events that took place during the previous year, for example Freedom of the Press 2011 covers events that took place between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010.^[22]

The study is based on universal criteria and recognizes cultural differences, diverse national interests, and varying levels of economic development. The starting point is the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual. The survey uses a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team of regional experts and scholars, including an internal research team and external consultants. The diverse nature of the methodology questions seeks to encompass the varied ways in which pressure can be placed upon the flow of information and the ability of print, broadcast, and internet-based media to operate freely and without fear of repercussions. The report provides a picture of the entire “enabling environment” in which the media in each country operate. Degree of news and information diversity available to the public is also addressed.^[22]

An independent review of press freedom studies, commissioned by the Knight Foundation in 2006, found that FOP is the best in its class of Press Freedom Indicators.^[23]

Other reports[link]

Freedom House also produces annual reports on governance in the nations of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Nations in Transit), and countries on the borderline of democracy (Countries at the Crossroads). In addition, the multi-year reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the Middle East.

Freedom House regularly produces special reports. The annual "Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies" report consists of extracts from Freedom in the World covering countries that receive the the lowest possible combined average score for political rights ans civil liberties, as well as countries "on the threshold," falling just short of the lowest possible rating.

"Today’s American: How Free?" is a special report which examines whether Americans are sacrificing essential values in the war against terror, and scrutinizes other critical issues such as the political process, criminal justice system, racial inequality and immigration.

Other special reports include "Freedom on the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media", "Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa 2009", and "Freedom of Association under Threat".

Other activities[link]

In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, currently focused on North Korea, Africa, and religious freedom. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists local human rights workers and non-government organizations.

On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers managed by Freedom House in Tashkent, Namangan, and Samarkand offered access to materials and books on human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.

Freedom House is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 80 non-governmental organizations that monitors free expression violations around the world and defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Criticism[link]

The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.^[24] In a research study, with Mr. Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."^[24]

On June 8, 2006, the vice-chairman of Freedom House's board of trustees^[25] asked the U.S. Senate to increase the share of NGO funding aimed at helping support non-violent foreign democratic activists organize for potential overthrows of their non-democratic governments. Palmer argued in favor of shifting funding away from NGOs working in already democratic nations to fund this effort.^[26]

Cuban, Sudanese and Chinese criticism[link]

In May 2001, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations heard arguments for and against Freedom House. Representatives of Cuba alleged that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also claimed a lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. Cuba also claimed that these violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as China and Sudan also gave criticism. The Russian representative inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the International Criminal Court."^[27]

The U.S. representative stated that alleged links between Freedom House and the CIA were "simply not true." The representative said he agreed that the NGO receives funds from the United States Government, but said this is disclosed in its reports. The representative said the funds were from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was not a branch of the CIA. The representative said his country had a law prohibiting the government from engaging in the activities of organizations seeking to change public policy, such as Freedom House. The representative said his country was not immune from criticism from Freedom House, which he said was well documented. The US representative further argued that Freedom House was a human rights organization which sought to represent those who did not have a voice. The representative said he would continue to support NGOs who criticized his government and those of others.^[27]

Russia[link]

Russia, identified by Freedom House as "Not Free", called Freedom House biased and accused the group of serving U.S. interests. Sergei Markov, a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, called Freedom House a "Russophobic" organization. "You can listen to everything they say, except when it comes to Russia," Markov argued. "There are many Russophobes there," he asserted.^[28] In response, Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, argued that Freedom House made its evaluations based on objective criteria explained on the organization's web site, and he denied that it had a pro-U.S. agenda. "If you look closely at the 193 countries that we evaluate, you'll find that we criticize what are often considered strategic allies of the United States," he said.^[28]

Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political scientist, has criticised Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman has pointed out that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Freedom House, is a federation of absolute monarchies with no hint of democracy anywhere in the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen. In Yemen, according to the constitution, Sharia law is the only source of legislation, and allows assaults and killings of women for alleged immoral behaviour. Criticising the president is illegal in Yemen. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics and in which Russia has a much better score. In the Polity IV scale, Saudi Arabia is a consolidated autocracy (-10), while the United States is a consolidated democracy (+10); United Arab Emirates has the score -8, while Russia has the score +4.^[29]

U.S. domestic criticism[link]

On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said that

"one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."^[30]

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman write that in 1979, Freedom House monitored the election of Ian Smith in Rhodesia and found it "fair", but found the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision "dubious".^[31] Chomsky and Herman argue that the group's history has been characterized by excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests.^[31] The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a government that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run-up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable".^[31] Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."^[32]

Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, wrote that the executive director of Freedom House told him in 2003 that the group decided to back off from its efforts to spotlight human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, because some Republican board members (in Murray’s words) "expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to U.S. and coalition forces". Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan at the time included treatment of prisoners who were killed by "immersion in boiling liquid," and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.^[33] Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of Freedom House in 2003, replied that Murray's "characterization of our conversation is an inexplicable misrepresentation not only of what was said at that meeting, but of Freedom House’s record in Uzbekistan... Freedom House has been a consistent and harsh critic of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as clearly demonstrated in press releases and in our annual assessments of that country".^[34]

Systematic evaluations[link]

In several studies of the methodology used by Raymond D. Gastil and others to create Freedom in the World report, Kenneth A. Bollen found that "no criticisms ... have demonstrated a systematic bias in all the ratings. Most of the evidence consists of anecdotal evidence of relatively few cases. Whether there is a systematic or sporadic slant in Gastil's ratings is an open question".^[35] Bollen studied the question of ideological bias using multivariate statistics. Using their factor-analytic model for human-rights measurements, Bollen and Paxton estimate that Gastil's method produces a bias of 0.38 standard deviations (s.d.) against Marxist–Leninist countries and a larger bias, 0.5 s.d., favoring Christian countries.^[36] In contrast, another method by a critic of Freedom in the World produced a bias for Leftist countries during the 1980s of at least 0.8 s.d., a bias that is "consistent with the general finding that political scientists are more favorable to leftist politics than is the general population".^[36]

In 1990, Gastil discussed criticisms of Freedom in the World, stating that "generally such criticism is based on opinions about Freedom House rather than detailed examination of survey ratings".^[37]

The definition of freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. "citizens" vote; in the U.S., "the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison".^[38]

Another study by Mainwaring, Brink, and Perez-Linanhe found the Freedom Index of Freedom in the World to have a strong positive correlation (at least 80%) with three other democracy indices.^[39] Mainwaring et al. wrote that Freedom House's index had "two systematic biases: scores for leftist were tainted by political considerations, and changes in scores are sometimes driven by changes in their criteria rather than changes in real conditions".^[39] Nonetheless, when evaluated on Latin American countries yearly, Freedom House's index were strongly and positively correlated with the index of Adam Przeworski and with the index of the authors themselves: They evaluated Pearson's coefficient of linear correlation between their index and Freedom House's index, which was 0.82; among these indices and the two others studied, the correlations were all between 0.80 and 0.86.^[39]

Freedom House maintains that its methodology is systematic and not culturally biased:

Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.^[40]

Recognition[link]

Former US President Bill Clinton, giving a speech at a Freedom House breakfast, said:

I'm honored to be here with all of you and to be here at Freedom House. For more than 50 years, Freedom House has been a voice for tolerance for human dignity. People all over the world are better off because of your work. And I'm very grateful that Freedom House has rallied this diverse and dynamic group. It's not every day that the Carnegie Endowment, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Foreign Policy Council share the same masthead.^[41]

Speaking at a reception hosted by Freedom House to honor human rights defenders, U.S. Representative Jim McGovern said:

I want to thank Freedom House for all the incredible work that they do to assist human rights defenders around the world. We rely a lot on Freedom House not only for information, advice and counsel, but also for their testimony when we do our hearings. And I’m a big fan.^[42]

Writing in the conservative National Review Online, John R. Miller states:

Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."^[43]

Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. He wrote that repressive regimes, and even democracies such as Germany and India, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers.^[43]

See also[link]

• Cultural relativism
• Democracy
• Democracy Index
• Human Development Index
• Human rights
• International Republican Institute
• List of Indices of Freedom
• Negative rights
• United States government

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• Freedom House Papers at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University
• Freedom House
• "The Freedom House Files", Diana Barahona, HaitiAnalysis.com, 2007 (Note: the abstracts of Freedom House's Non-profit Income Tax Declarations (Form 990) for 1997, 2000, and 2002 are no longer available from this site)
• Freedom House Form 990 tax forms: 2004, 2005
• Freedom House Records, 1933–2007: Finding Aid, Princeton University Library, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library
• George Field Collection of Freedom House Files, 1933–1990 (Bulk 1941–1969): Finding Aid, Princeton University Library, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Freedom House

Mary Hall (August 16, 1843-November 15, 1927) was the first female lawyer in Connecticut, and also a poet, a suffragist, and a philanthropist. In 1882, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors’ decision to allow Hall to be admitted to the Connecticut Bar was the first judicial decision in the nation to hold that women were permitted to practice law.^[1]

Early life[link]

Mary Hall was born in Marlborough, Connecticut, one of seven children of Gustavus E. Hall and Louisa (Skinner) Hall. Gustavus Hall was a prosperous farmer and miller, known to be one of liberal convictions. Hall graduated from Wesleyan Academy in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, in 1866. She was an accomplished poet, winning a medal for her commencement poem and having her poems published in newspapers. Hall then went on to teach mathematics at the LaSalle Seminary near Boston, where she became the Chair of Mathematics.^[2]

In 1877, Hall decided to pursue the study of law. She approached her brother, Ezra, who was already an attorney and Connecticut State Senator, about her decision. Although he gave her no encouragement, upon her insistence, he gave her a copy of difficult legal work. After watching her study the work with great enthusiasm, Ezra decided to allow Hall to apprentice in his office. However, Ezra died a few months later in April 1878. John Hooker, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Errors, took Hall in as his apprentice, beginning on April 2, 1879. That year, Belva Lockwood became the first woman admitted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hall studied law and copied and prepared judicial opinions under Hooker’s supervision and instruction for over three years.

On April 2, 1880, while studying law, Hall founded the Good Will Club, a charity for underprivileged boys, particularly newspaper boys. The program provided education as well as vocational training. The Club began with nine boys, but eventually grew to 3.000 boys, with its own facilities and newspaper called “The Good Will Star.” Despite her eventual practice of law, the Club was “Mary Hall’s first priority, and her life’s work.”^[1]

Pursuit of becoming a lawyer[link]

In 1882, at the age of 38, Mary Hall made her application to the Connecticut Bar. She passed an examination on March 22, 1882. On March 24, 1882, the Hartford Bar Association held a regular meeting at which Hooker moved to have Hall admitted to the usual examination before the Bar Examining Committee, attesting that she had studied law in his office for three years and that she possessed the requisite qualifications for admission to the bar.^[3] The members agreed to allow Hall to be examined for the bar, subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Errors on its legality.^[1]

Hall had many supporters nationwide who believed that her admission to the Bar would be important for women’s suffrage. An editorial published in the Hartford Courant stated: “It is to be hoped that the members of the Hartford county bar will not see fit to put themselves on the illiberal side, on the pending application of an accomplished lady for admission to the bar. When women are allowed as teachers and as physicians without question, it would be taking a long step backward to refuse their admission to the bar. It would be regarded as a confession of fear on the part of men.”^[4] Another article stated, “Those very earnest and patient people of both sexes who advocate woman suffrage will look upon Miss Hall’s success in getting a decision in her favor as an important contribution to the triumph of their cause.”^[5]

In re Hall[link]

In May 1882, Thomas McManus submitted the brief in support of Hall in the case labeled In re Hall. He argued that “save sex,” there was no other reason why Hall should not be found to be qualified to be admitted to the Bar. Noting that women preached in churches, practiced medicine, taught in the classroom, and acted as executors, guardians, trustees, and overseers, he claimed that the language of the statute regulating attorneys “neither expressly [n]or impliedly exclude[d] women” and that “attorney” was defined as a “person.” Opposing counsel was Goodwin Collier, who argued that at the time the statute was enacted, women were excluded from the Bar and the legislature’s failure to change the statute indicated its intent to continue to exclude women.^[6]

On July 19, 1882, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors issued its decision in favor of Hall. Chief Justice John Park wrote for the Court and took the position, contrary to Collier’s argument, that if the legislature wanted to exclude women, it would have rewritten the statute to expressly exclude them. Park explained his opinion, stating, “We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as standing upon their defense, and can be sustained, if at all by valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear implication of the law.”^[7] This decision had the effect of holding that the laws of equal protection applied to women because he in effect rejected the “entire jurisprudence of separate spheres.”^[8] It has been said that this decision as “[o]ne of the greatest decisions in all of Connecticut jurisprudence.”^[9]

Later years[link]

During her legal career, Hall mostly confined herself to office work, assisting Hooker in preparing the Connecticut Reports and handling wills and property matters for women. Hall rarely appeared in court because “public sentiment would be much against a woman’s speaking in court.”^[10]

In addition to her legal work, Hall became increasingly involved in suffrage and social reform activities. In March 1885, Hall helped to find the Hartford Woman Suffrage Club and served as its Vice President. She also attended the International Council of Women to celebrate the first Woman’s Rights Convention, where the International Woman’s Bar Association was founded. Hall was then elected Assistant Secretary at the Connecticut Woman’s Suffrage Association convention. In 1895, Hall became a member of the State Board of Charities and was responsible for investigating and regulating the charitable institutions through the state. She also testified before the State Judiciary Committee in 1905 against a bill that would prohibit girls from selling newspapers.^[1]

Mary Hall will be remembered as a pioneer in the legal profession and a suffragist and reformist in Connecticut because of her dedication to the cause of women and of the welfare of underprivileged children.^[1]

Endnotes[link]

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} Matthew G. Berger, Mary Hall: The Decision and the Lawyer, 79 Conn. Bar J. 29 (2005).
2. ^ Dwight Loomis & J. Gilbert Calhoun, Judicial and Civil History of Connecticut 509 (1895); Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame, http://www.cfhw.org/hall/hall/hall/htm.
3. ^ A Question of Woman’s Rights: An Application for Admission to the Bar, Hartford Courant, Mar. 25, 1882.
4. ^ Mary Hall Scrapbook #4 (1882), Stowe Center Library, clipping.
5. ^ Miss Attorney Hall, N.Y. Times, Sept. 27, 1882.
6. ^ Matthew G. Berger, Mary Hall: The Decision and the Lawyer, 79 Conn. Bar J. 29 (2005); Virginia G. Drachman, Sisters in Law: Women Lawyers in Modern American History 31 (1998).
7. ^ In re Hall, 50 Conn. 131 (1882).
8. ^ Virginia G. Drachman, Sisters in Law: Women Lawyers in Modern American History 31 (1998).
9. ^ Wesley W. Horton, The Connecticut State Constitution: A Reference Guide 22 (1993).
10. ^ Virginia G. Drachman, Women Lawyers and the Origins of Professional Identity in America 136 (1993).

External links[link]

• Mary Hall at Find a Grave

Thomas Hughes
Thomas Hughes in The Law Gazette, ca. 1893
Born	(1822-10-20)20 October 1822 Uffington, Berkshire (now Oxfordshire), England
Died	22 March 1896(1896-03-22) (aged 73) Brighton, East Sussex, England
Occupation	Lawyer, Writer
Nationality	English
Period	19th century
Genres	Children's Literature

Thomas Hughes (20 October 1822 – 22 March 1896) was an English lawyer and author. He is most famous for his novel Tom Brown's School Days (1857), a semi-autobiographical work set at Rugby School, which Hughes had attended. It had a lesser-known sequel, Tom Brown at Oxford (1861).

Biography[link]

Hughes was the second son of John Hughes, editor of the Boscobel Tracts (1830). Thomas Hughes was born in Uffington, Berkshire (now Oxfordshire). He had six brothers, and one sister, Jane Senior who later became Britain's first female civil servant. At the age of eight he was sent to Twyford School, a preparatory public school near Winchester, where he remained until the age of eleven. In February 1834 he went to Rugby School, which was then under Dr Thomas Arnold, a contemporary of his father at Oriel College, Oxford, and the most influential British schoolmaster of the 19th century. Though never a member of the sixth form, his impressions of the headmaster were intensely reverent, and Arnold was afterwards idealised as the perfect schoolmaster in Hughes's novel. Hughes excelled at sports rather than in scholarship, and his school career culminated in a cricket match at Lord's Cricket Ground. In 1842 he went on to Oriel College, Oxford, and graduated B.A. in 1845. He was called to the bar in 1848, became Queen's Counsel in 1869 and a bencher in 1870, and was appointed to a county court judgeship in the Chester district in July 1882.

Hughes was elected to Parliament as a Liberal for Lambeth (1865–68), and for Frome (1868–74). An avid social reformer, he became interested in the Christian socialism movement led by Frederick Maurice, which he had joined in 1848. He was involved in the formation of some early trade unions and helped finance the printing of Liberal publications, as well as acting as the first President of the Co-operative Congress in 1869 and serving on the Co-operative Central Board.^[1] In January 1854 he was one of the founders of the Working Men's College in Great Ormond Street, and was the College's principal from 1872 to 1883.^[2] He was a prominent figure in the anti-opium movement, and a member of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade.^[3]

In 1880, he acquired the ownership of Franklin W. Smith's Plateau City and founded a settlement in America — Rugby, Tennessee — which was designed as an experiment in utopian living for the younger sons of the English gentry, although this later proved largely unsuccessful. While his original intent was unsuccessful, Rugby still exists and is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

In 1847, Hughes was called to the bar, and married Frances Ford. They settled in 1853 at Wimbledon and while living there Hughes wrote his famous story Tom Brown's School Days, which was published in April 1857.

Statue of Thomas Hughes at Rugby School

Hughes also wrote The Scouring of the White Horse (1859), Tom Brown at Oxford (1861), Religio Laici (1868), Life of Alfred the Great (1869) and the Memoir of a Brother. His brother was George Hughes, whom the character of Tom Brown was based upon.

Hughes died in 1896 aged 73, at Brighton, of heart failure; and is buried there. His daughter, Lilian, perished in the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912. His other daughter, Mary, was a well known Poor Law guardian and volunteer visitor to the local Poor Law infirmary and children's home.

A statue of Hughes (pictured) stands outside Rugby School Library. It has been observed that although the sculptor has meticulously crafted a row of buttons on the right hand side of the statue's jacket, there are no corresponding buttonholes on the left hand side. Local folklore has it that when this omission was pointed out to the sculptor, a known perfectionist who suffered from depression, he was so dismayed that he was driven to commit suicide. This is untrue. The sculptor was Thomas Brock, the statue was unveiled in 1899,^[4] and Brock died of natural causes in 1922.

Bibliography[link]

Fiction[link]

• Tom Brown's School Days (1857)
• The Scouring of The White Horse (1859)
• Tom Brown at Oxford (1861)

Non-fiction[link]

• Religio Laici (1861)
• A Layman's Faith (1868)
• Alfred the Great (1870)
• Memoir of a Brother (1873)
• The Old Church; What Shall We Do With It? (1878)
• The Manliness of Christ (1879)
• True Manliness (1880)
• Rugby Tennessee (1881)
• Memoir of Daniel Macmillan (1882)
• G.T.T. Gone to Texas (1884)
• Notes for Boys (1885)
• Life and Times of Peter Cooper (1886)
• James Fraser Second Bishop of Manchester (1887)
• David Livingstone (1889)
• Vacation Rambles (1895)
• Early Memories for the Children (1899)

References[link]

• This entry incorporates some public-domain text originally from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica but has been heavily edited.
• The Aftermath with Autobiography of the Author (John Bedford Leno published by Reeves & Turner, London, 1892)

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Thomas Hughes

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Thomas Hughes

Wikisource has original works written by or about: Thomas Hughes

• Works by Thomas Hughes at Project Gutenberg
• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by Thomas Hughes
• Historic Rugby, Tennessee
• Thomas Hughes correspondence collection is held at The National Co-operative Archive, Manchester.
• Details of Hughes family, on page 1
• CricketArchive: Thomas Hughes