For some individuals at this time, the relation between government and marriage were closely related. That similar to a government, once in a family some one person must become the ultimate ruler... as Mill states "It is not true that in all voluntary association between two people one of them must be absolute master: still less hat the law must determine which of them it shall be." (Mill 85).
Furthermore, if the law dealt with marriage as it does other business it would ordain, "that one partner should administer the common business as if it was his private concern." (Mill 85). Mill believes in the natural order of division of powers between the two, that it is up to the two willing partners to agree and compromise with one another.
As well, Mill believed that "the law not determining her rights, but theoretically allowing her none at all, practically declares that the measure of what she has a right to, is what she can contrive to get." (Mill 93).
Furthermore, if the law dealt with marriage as it does other business it would ordain, "that one partner should administer the common business as if it was his private concern." (Mill 85). Mill believes in the natural order of division of powers between the two, that it is up to the two willing partners to agree and compromise with one another.
As well, Mill believed that "the law not determining her rights, but theoretically allowing her none at all, practically declares that the measure of what she has a right to, is what she can contrive to get." (Mill 93).
Intro
The rights of women in Britain were restricted, and both single and married women had sufferings and oppressions they had to live with. Women were oppressed financially and sexually, endured discriminations within their marriages and social statuses creating a significant lack of equality between men and women. Many women’s rights organizations developed to fight for equality and over time made successful advances to modify women’s legal rights.
No Votes for women
National politics in Britain in the nineteenth century did not include women. Women had assumed the role society placed upon them as homemakers and caretakers of children. There was no opportunity for women to run for positions in the Parliament or vote. It wasn’t until The Great Reform Act of 1832 that duly qualified women landowners were allowed a vote, but just for Members for Parliament (MP).
By the 1860’s and the Industrial Revolution, the role of women began to change they first began to develop a voice in the man’s world of politics. A shortage of male laborers made women a viable option to meet labor needs. This need allowed women to step out of the house and take on jobs as industrial laborers. As women began to be deemed somewhat capable of working jobs previously occupied by men, women began to seek representation in politics. In 1865, John Mill a supporter of women’s suffrage was elected as an MP. By 1867 the Second reform Act was passed but failed to improve womens’ representation at the polls. Instead it opened voting up to more men. The Third Reform Act then passed in 1884. This doubled the number of men permitted to vote and further divided roles of men and women.
In 1894, the Local Government Act passed, allowing women landowners to take part in elections at the local level. While a vote in local elections gave women a start, the goals of equality were far from reached. At the end of the nineteenth century several women’s suffrage groups had formed. The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) would lead the battle into the twentieth century in the pursuit of women’s equality.
Finally in 1928 the Representation of the People Act gave women the right to vote on the same terms as men as long as they were of 21 years of age. Women who paid taxes to the government could no vote in elections regardless of property ownership.
Wife beating
The 1800s had been a period in Britain in which it became a social norm for a man to beat his wife, provided it was to correct her actions if she disobeyed the husband’s authority over her or upset him in any way. The belief was so strong that the majority of society had accepted this behavior as being acceptable as long as it was in moderation. In 1853 the Aggravated Assaults Act was passed. The new provisions increased penalties for violators who had been found guilty of excessively, or had no good reason to beat their wives.
No divorce
Prior to 1857 women were not legally permitted to divorce their husbands except for on extraordinary limited situations such as adultery or cruelty. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act enabled women in Britain to file for separation, but the divorce was not absolute. Upon divorce neither spouse was permitted to remarry and the woman was forced to surrender all property to the husband. In some cases the court could order payment of maintenance to the wife, allow her to recover her rights to property and sue as if she was single. The significance of this law was that marriage became established on the basis of a contract rather than sacrament. Women finally had some influence on their marital status. The only way to establish absolute divorce was through approval by Parliament. This process was only a realistic option to the extremely wealthy and generally only men qualified. Traditionally marriage was said to be a natural purpose of life. Yet, in reality for women living in Britain, it marked the end of their independent existence. As a whole, the act failed to grant married women a realistic chance at equality upon marriage.
Women property rights
The Married Woman’s Property Act of 1882 said that a woman was to completely rely on a man. Therefore women could only own property upon kinship or desertion and would be liable to provide the entire family support. This included her parents, spouse, children and grandchildren. Under English common law, the marriage contract transferred to the husband all the wife’s personal property, including that which she might subsequently acquire by inheritance or by her own exertions, and gave him administration of her landed estates. This restriction made it even more challenging and costly for a woman to own her own property. Once a women wed she lost her right to keep the wages she earned from working, and all other property was surrendered to her husband. Failure to allow women to own property further subjected women to become financially dependent upon their husband’s own good will.
Right to nationality
In 1870 British women again had their freedoms controlled by their male counterparts. Any women who elected to agree to marriage with a foreigner would sacrifice her rights to retain her British nationality. Selecting a partner now had potential repercussions if with a foreigner. Women were already being oppressed and now faced losing more rights if choosing to follow the heart rather than the social norms and laws.
Limited education opportunity
The educational opportunities of women were far from equal to those provided to men in Britain. When women finally gained entry into some of the established educational institutions they faced restrictions. Women were represented significantly less in attendance in comparison compared to their male counterparts. For example, as recent as 1920 Oxford University had a statutory limitation of one woman admitted for every six men into their university.
Custody of Infant's Act
In 1839, Parliament passed the act to allow mothers to have rights to custody of their children after failed marriage. It permitted a mother to petition the courts for custody of her children up to the age of seven, and for access in respect of older children.
In 1873, the act was repealed and broken up into 2 more sections.
Section 1- allowed the Court of Chancery to order that a mother would have access to, or custody of, any infants under sixteen years of age; or to order that any such infants in her custody were to remain so subject to any regulations for the access of the father or guardian.
Section 2- provided that no agreement in a deed of separation between the father and mother was to be held invalid simply for providing that the custody or control of the children lay with the mother, with the important caveat that no court was bound to enforce any such agreement if it felt it would not be to the benefit of the infant.
Cat and Mouse Act
An act, passed in 1913 by Parliament, in Britain under Herbert Henry Asquith's Liberal government in 1913. Suffragists who were undertaking hunger strikes at the time would now be released from prison as soon as they became ill. The strikes themselves were now technically legal. However, the Act allowed for the re-imprisonment of the hunger strikers upon their recovery on their original charges. The nickname of the Act came about because of a cat’s habit of playing with its prey (a mouse) before finishing it off.