We have two posts on Bessie Rayner Parkes – one focusing on her activism by Amandy Jimenez, and one focusing on the broader legal context of that activism by Aminah Khanom.
Bessie Rayner Parkes
Author: Amandy Jimenez
A Wife’s Legal Status
Historically, English common law controlled a woman’s economic prosperity through principles such as coverture’. Under the legal doctrine of coverture, a married woman endured the legal status of a ‘femme couvert’, and was subsumed under the “protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord”. A husband and wife were treated as one person. According to William Blackstone, the “legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated or consolidated into that of her husband”. Any personal property a woman owned, either through wages, investment, or inheritance, belonged to her husband upon marriage. Once married, she could own her real property, but she could not exercise control over them without her husband’s consent.
Common law principles were not favorable to married women. The doctrine of coveture and unity of spouses encroached on women’s right to property; however, the rules of equity provided an alternative. The rules of equity allowed for married women to set aside a part of their property rights under a trust to be used be either her children or by the married woman herself, as if she were a femme sole. This possibility was used as an excuse to avoid broader law reform. However, marriage settlements (effectively pre-nuptial agreements) were authorized by the courts, and could only be afforded by upper-class women, who represented only one in ten marriages. This meant that working-class women were left financially disadvantaged at both common law and equity. The Law Amendment Journal asked whether “in a country that boasts equal legislation, there is to be one law for rich women and another law for poor women?”
At the same time, women such as Bessie Rayner Parkes, were also beginning to agitate for the right to work. As a result they had access to greater earnings and more personal property. Therefore, by the mid-nineteenth century it became evident, not only that women should be able to enjoy the same rights men retained after marriage, but also to enjoy them to the same extent. This gave life to a women’s movement that fought for gender equality.
Bessie Rayner Parkes’ Involvement in the Women’s Movement
Bessie Rayner Parkes was born in 1829 in Birmingham to a progressive Unitarian family. Despite her affluent background, Parkes became aware of the outrageous circumstances of women in England. Parkes became an admired feminist and campaigned for a wide range of women’s right including the right to vote, the right to education, and the right to receive training for paid work. Her first undertaking was to change the restrictive property laws that applied to married women. She argued that the refusal of property rights constructed married woman as legally invisible: ‘women have little individuality in the eyes of most men, that when a parent has married his girl he feels to have washed his hands of all responsibility about her’. In her twenties, she refused to get married, despite a proposal, preferring to maintain her independence.
Married women’s inferior status also became apparent to other influential women. For example, when Millicent Fawcett had her purse snatched, the offender was charged with stealing ‘the property of Henry Fawcett’ (her husband) – she felt as though she may as well have been charged too. In 1855, Parkes, along with Fawcett and other like-minded women, formed the Married Women’s Property Committee (MWPC). The purpose was to collect signatures to support a Married Women’s Property Bill that was to be put before Parliament. If passed, the Bill would ensure that married women would “no longer pass from the state of freedom into the condition of a slave”, thus enabling her to exercise free will in regard to her property.
The petition collected 26,000 signatures. However, it required a male sponsor, and so was presented to the Houses of Parliament by Lord Brougham and Sir Thomas Erskine Perry MP in 1856. At the time, two property bills were being discussed in Parliament. The first discussed the rights of married women who were separated from their husbands and the other proposed by the MWPC, concerned the rights of all married women. Only the former was approved and only separated women were included in The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857; which enabled legally separated wives to keep their earnings. Conservatives in parliament argued that now that injured wives were provided for, it was not necessary to provide for those who, presumably, remained happily married. However, Parkes held that though the direct purpose of MWPC’s petition failed, “the germs of an effective movement were scattered far and wide”.
Parkes argued that it took over two decades to acknowledge women’s full property rights because laws were based on the assumption that women were supported by their husbands and fathers. This notion derived from the stereotypical role of husband as the family provider; it was his gender role to feed and clothe his wife and children. Failure to do so would strip him of the masculine title of a ‘real husband’ or even more so, a ‘real man’. Nonetheless, principles such as coverture opened a window for contradiction. There were many instances in which men would deliberately seek to marry a wealthy woman; adding to his wealth by absorbing his wife’s fortune upon, and throughout, marriage. In modern language, the term ‘gold digger’ may come to mind, which today negatively describes a woman who uses her relationships with men for the pursuit of money or gifts. Arguably, married men of the Victorian era were essentially gold diggers; frequently a husband would indulge in personal consumption at his wife’s expense, leaving her to financially struggle within the household. However, according to the law, her wealth was his property to dispose of however he pleased. Equally, a woman may have sought to marry a wealthy man in order to obtain financial security, but was pointless as she was not entitled to the same financial advantages of her husband, even after his death.
Barbara Leigh Smith argued that women who acted as housekeepers and mentors for children, often did as much for the support of the household as their husbands. Important domestic roles are rarely acknowledged and a woman’s direct financial contribution is disregarded. This illustrates how the gender binary became a tool for creating English law. Masculine dominance within the domestic household was so entrenched that little was done to effectively recognize the needs of the woman. Because a majority of law-makers endorsed this dominance, it was difficult for women to have their experiences and opinions heard in order to change these laws.
Furthermore, during this movement a national debate regarding a woman’s right to divorce flared. The legal status of a women virtually ceased to exist once she married; marriage not only took with it her right to property, but also the right to her own person. Once married it was difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce as it required an Act of Parliament. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 gave men the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of adultery. Women were not granted the same privilege.
Alternatively, judicial separation upon the grounds of being deserted by her husband without a cause for two years, enabled the Court to stop her husband from interfering with her property, placing her back in the position of an unmarried woman. It was evident in the case of Susannah Palmer (1868), that men would avoid this law but suffer no consequence. Palmer’s abusive husband abandoned her and the children, taking all her possessions and earnings. He returned before the two-year period taking all earnings she managed to build during his absence, knowing she was unable to sue him for theft. Enraged, she stabbed him and was convicted, while he received no repercussion. Any donations made by the public towards her cause were made to the sheriff, to avoid Mr. Palmer absorbing it.
Women increasingly became aware that men were taking advantage of the authority given by the legal system. Property reform became a fundamental national issue as women were being punished for becoming a wife, which ironically was a societal norm that was expected of every woman. In 1867, the MWPC revived their previous campaign, and appealed to the Social Science Association, which produce a draft married women’s property bill which would have given married women comparable property rights to single women. The Bill won the support of John Stuart Mill. At the time, Bessie Rayner Parkes was convinced that victory seemed certain. However, the Bill was resisted by patriarchal voices in parliament. For example, in 1870, Beresford Hope M.P. argued that the domestic duties of a woman would be neglected, should she be enabled to take part in the government of the country. Essentially, he was arguing that the reason why women stay married is because they require financial security. If a wife had sufficient resources, she could leave her husband as he would be useless. Then the religious sanctity of marriage would be tarnished as it would be considered a mere vehicle for benefit and comfort. The Act was radically re-written by the Lords, and the Act which passed the Commons was not what the MWPC would have wished for.
The 1870 Act enabled a wife to keep earnings (if any) from employment or investments for her separate use, independent from her husband. It also allowed her to keep property she inherited during the marriage up to the value of £200 to continue to inherit and hold rented property, and it made both parents legally liable for the maintenance of their children. Though it was an advance for women, it was criticized. The position of married and unmarried women remained distinct. Husbands could still claim property which the woman already owned upon married. Parkes’ own feminist activism had ended by then; in part because she was now married and had become a carer for her ill husband; Louis Belloc. It was 1882 before Parliament could be convinced that a full Act, equalizing the property rights of married women and married men, was required by measures of practicality and justice.
Bessie Rayner Parkes and The Married Women’s Property Act
By Aminah Khanom
Introduction
Bessie Rayner Parkes played an influential role in the progress of the law by advocating for women’s rights through social and legal change. Parkes was born in Birmingham into a middle-class family. Her father was a politician and lawyer. Political engagement was widespread amongst wealthy women with the socio-economic means to advocate for equal rights in society. In 1833, Bessie moved to Westminster, where she met the famous feminist Barbara Leigh Smith. Their friendship developed into passion for advancing women’s rights and together they sought to progress the law for vulnerable women.
At the time, under English common law, property held by a wife as ‘femme sole’, was transferred to her husband upon marriage. In 1855, Bessie formed the first Women’s Property Committee and petitioned in parliament for equal property rights. However, this was unsuccessful at the time. Bonnie Anderson noted that ‘in Great Britain, the issue of divorce and property became intertwined’. Thus, the Matrimonial Causes Divorce Act 1857 was passed instead of reforms being made to the Married Women’s Property Act. So, this limited reform remained coloured by inequality. Under the Act, a woman would have to prove that her unfaithful husband had committed ‘aggravated’ adultery, which includes incestuous adultery or bigamy. On the contrary, if a woman was found guilty of mere adultery, that was sufficient grounds for her husband to divorce her. It was considered normal for a man to be take part in adulterous activities, but for a woman to do so was immoral and would make her subject to legal and social condemnation. Furthermore, the economic challenges of divorce placed it ‘out of reach for people of ordinary means’. This is because divorce was costly, so it was limited to a small class of privileged women. The inaccessibility of the courts was a property issue because if women were not granted divorce by the courts, they could not acquire access to their own personal property.
It is questionable as to whether the 1857 reform did actually protect this small class of vulnerable women, or whether it was simply used as a means of avoiding making property rights available to all women.
The Married Women’s Property Acts 1870/1882
Historically, the common law of coverture meant that a man and woman became one legal body upon marriage. This ‘legal disability’ reinforced the oppression of women by legally failing to recognise a woman as a separate entity. However, higher social classes of women had the privilege of being protected by the courts of equity, by keeping their father’s wealth within the family. Thus, equity was used as tool to protect the wealthy in society, but even this worked within the interests of wealthy men – here, fathers kept their authority over their daughters by safeguarding their property using equitable means, limited to a small class. Hence it is arguable that the law was limited for the less economically privileged.
The Married Women’s Property Act 1870 aimed to bridge the gap between working class and middle class women by having a provision which allowed married women to retain their earnings. However, under the Act a woman still couldn’t retain property that was passed to her husband upon marriage. In practice, even a woman’s access to her earnings was conditional on her husband’s support: a husband could threaten to prevent his wife from teaching if she did not give her earnings to him. The reality was that the law partially progressed, leaving gaps for vulnerable women to be exploited and oppressed.
Rosemary Auchmuty argues that the underlying reasons for legal reforms were not attributable to ‘gender equality’ but rather to protection of women from male oppression. It was not until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 that married women obtained formal equality with men by obtaining the right to ‘acquire, hold and dispose by will or otherwise’ of property as if she was ‘femme sole’. This meant that women’s rights had expanded to them now having rights to property acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the 1882 Act redefined the social position of women in society and removed the notion of ‘legal disability’ – exemplifying a move towards gender equality. Undoubtedly, this also altered the imbalance of power between a husband and wife, demonstrating the law shifting from protecting married men, to protecting married women in society.
However, some important inequalities persisted despite the reform of the law on women’s property. It is arguable that the programme of law reform was dominated by middle-class women’s problems and not all women’s obstacles. As Mary Coombs notes, ‘working class women owned little property and most of what they earned was spent on necessities for living’. Though the law progressed the interests of women in society by legal recognition, the reality is that working-class women’s issues were not the same as those of the economically privileged.
To conclude, Bessie Rayner Parkes should be remembered for using her social and economic connections to petition for gender equality in society. She challenged the norms of patriarchy in the Victorian era by moving into the ‘public sphere’ and engaging in political issues, rather than being confined to the ‘private sphere’. As a result, women gained the autonomy to control and manage their personal and real property, a progress which would have been unthinkable at one point in society.
Bessie Rayner Parkes
By Aminah Khanom
Introduction
Bessie Rayner Parkes played an influential role in the progress of the law by advocating for women’s rights through social and legal change. Parkes was born in Birmingham into a middle-class family. Her father was a politician and lawyer. Political engagement was widespread amongst wealthy women with the socio-economic means to advocate for equal rights in society. In 1833, Bessie moved to Westminster, where she met the famous feminist Barbara Leigh Smith. Their friendship developed into passion for advancing women’s rights and together they sought to progress the law for vulnerable women.
At the time, under English common law, property held by a wife as ‘femme sole’, was transferred to her husband upon marriage. In 1855, Bessie formed the first Women’s Property Committee and petitioned in parliament for equal property rights. However, this was unsuccessful at the time. Bonnie Anderson noted that ‘in Great Britain, the issue of divorce and property became intertwined’. Thus, the Matrimonial Causes Divorce Act 1857 was passed instead of reforms being made to the Married Women’s Property Act. So, this limited reform remained coloured by inequality. Under the Act, a woman would have to prove that her unfaithful husband had committed ‘aggravated’ adultery, which includes incestuous adultery or bigamy. On the contrary, if a woman was found guilty of mere adultery, that was sufficient grounds for her husband to divorce her. It was considered normal for a man to be take part in adulterous activities, but for a woman to do so was immoral and would make her subject to legal and social condemnation. Furthermore, the economic challenges of divorce placed it ‘out of reach for people of ordinary means’. This is because divorce was costly, so it was limited to a small class of privileged women. The inaccessibility of the courts was a property issue because if women were not granted divorce by the courts, they could not acquire access to their own personal property.
It is questionable as to whether the 1857 reform did actually protect this small class of vulnerable women, or whether it was simply used as a means of avoiding making property rights available to all women.
The Married Women’s Property Acts 1870/1882
Historically, the common law of coverture meant that a man and woman became one legal body upon marriage. This ‘legal disability’ reinforced the oppression of women by legally failing to recognise a woman as a separate entity. However, higher social classes of women had the privilege of being protected by the courts of equity, by keeping their father’s wealth within the family. Thus, equity was used as tool to protect the wealthy in society, but even this worked within the interests of wealthy men – here, fathers kept their authority over their daughters by safeguarding their property using equitable means, limited to a small class. Hence it is arguable that the law was limited for the less economically privileged.
The Married Women’s Property Act 1870 aimed to bridge the gap between working class and middle class women by having a provision which allowed married women to retain their earnings. However, under the Act a woman still couldn’t retain property that was passed to her husband upon marriage. In practice, even a woman’s access to her earnings was conditional on her husband’s support: a husband could threaten to prevent his wife from teaching if she did not give her earnings to him. The reality was that the law partially progressed, leaving gaps for vulnerable women to be exploited and oppressed.
Rosemary Auchmuty argues that the underlying reasons for legal reforms were not attributable to ‘gender equality’ but rather to protection of women from male oppression. It was not until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 that married women obtained formal equality with men by obtaining the right to ‘acquire, hold and dispose by will or otherwise’ of property as if she was ‘femme sole’. This meant that women’s rights had expanded to them now having rights to property acquired during the marriage. Therefore, the 1882 Act redefined the social position of women in society and removed the notion of ‘legal disability’ – exemplifying a move towards gender equality. Undoubtedly, this also altered the imbalance of power between a husband and wife, demonstrating the law shifting from protecting married men, to protecting married women in society.
However, some important inequalities persisted despite the reform of the law on women’s property. It is arguable that the programme of law reform was dominated by middle-class women’s problems and not all women’s obstacles. As Mary Coombs notes, ‘working class women owned little property and most of what they earned was spent on necessities for living’. Though the law progressed the interests of women in society by legal recognition, the reality is that working-class women’s issues were not the same as those of the economically privileged.
To conclude, Bessie Rayner Parkes should be remembered for using her social and economic connections to petition for gender equality in society. She challenged the norms of patriarchy in the Victorian era by moving into the ‘public sphere’ and engaging in political issues, rather than being confined to the ‘private sphere’. As a result, women gained the autonomy to control and manage their personal and real property, a progress which would have been unthinkable at one point in society.
Further Reading:
- Bessie Rayner Parkes, Essays on Woman’s Work (Cambridge University Press 2010)
- Holcombe, Wives & Property: Reform of the Married Women’s Property Law in the Nineteenth Century England (University of Toronto Press 1883)
- Lyndon Shanley, ‘Suffrage, Protective Labor Legislation, and Married Women’s Property Laws in England’ [1986] 12 (1) Journal of Women in Culture and society 62
- Jones, ‘Revising the married women’s property acts: recapturing protection in the face of equality’, , (2013) 22 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 91
- Wright, ‘Untying the Knot: An Analysis of the English Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court Records, 1858-1866’ (2004) U. Rich. L Rev.903
- Coombs, ‘A measure of Legal Independence’: The 1870 Married Women’s Property Act and the portfolio Allocations of British Wives’ (CUP, 2005)
- Lowdes, ‘Turning Victorian ladies into women: the life of Bessie Rayner Parkes 1825-1925’ (Academia Press, 2012)
- Auchmuty, ‘The Married Women’s Property Acts: Equality was not the issue’ in R.Hunter (ed), Rethinking Equality Projects in Law: Feminist Challenge’ (OUP, 2008)