Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Griffin, Ben 2013. Languages of Politics in Nineteenth-Century Britain.


    Karlsson Sjögren, Åsa 2011. Matrimony, Property and Power: marriage settlements in Sweden 1870–1920. Scandinavian Journal of History, Vol. 36, Issue. 4, p. 443.


    Griffin, Ben Delap, Lucy and Wills, Abigail 2009. The Politics of Domestic Authority in Britain since 1800.


    Combs, Mary Beth 2006. CUI BONO?THE 1870 BRITISH MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, BARGAINING POWER, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES WITHIN MARRIAGE. Feminist Economics, Vol. 12, Issue. 1-2, p. 51.


    Freeman, Mark Pearson, Robin and Taylor, James 2006. ‘A doe in the city’: Women shareholders in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Britain. Accounting, Business & Financial History, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 265.


    ×

CLASS, GENDER, AND LIBERALISM IN PARLIAMENT, 1868–1882: THE CASE OF THE MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACTS

  • BEN GRIFFIN (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X02002844
  • Published online: 01 March 2003
Abstract

The class and gender identities created by male politicians are vital to a proper understanding of how and why parliament increased women's legal rights in the nineteenth century. An examination of the parliamentary debates on the Married Women's Property Acts of 1870 and 1882 reveals that it is misleading to divide men into supporters and opponents of women's rights, because even some of those who supported the most radical reform did so in the belief that the gender hierarchy should be left intact. At the same time, politicians were reluctant to accept that their own homes should be affected by changes to women's rights, both because they feared that these changes would reduce their domestic authority and create discord in their homes, and because they did not think that the critique of male behaviour which justified the reforms should apply to them or their class. Their ability to confine both charges of abuse and the effects of the acts to the poor was essential to the successful passage of the Married Women's Property Acts. Rather than see this as the defeat of a liberal individualist vision, it was in fact the victory of an alternative strand of Victorian liberalism.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
I would like to thank my research supervisor, Dr Simon Szreter, for his continuing support and advice. I would also like to express my gratitude to everyone who commented on an earlier version of this paper when it was read at the Graduate Seminar in British Political and Constitutional History, Cambridge University, 30 April 2001. I am also indebted to the Historical Journal's anonymous readers for their valuable suggestions. The research for this article was funded by St John's College, Cambridge, and the Arts and Humanities Research Board.
Footnotes
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Historical Journal
  • ISSN: 0018-246X
  • EISSN: 1469-5103
  • URL: /core/journals/historical-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×