Quotation: “Provided always, and be it enacted, That no Order shall be made by virtue of this Act whereby any Mother against whom Adultery shall be established, by Judgment in an Action for Criminal Conversation at the Suit of her Husband, or by the Sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court, shall have the Custody of any Infant or Access to any Infant, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Custody of Infants Act, 2)
“In Wellesley v. The Duke of Beaufort (2 Russ. Rep. I), (which however goes beyond any previous case), very gross misconduct was imputed to the father ; he had harboured an adulteress in his own residence; and the separation between him and his children had originally begun with his own deliberate consent. Here, the adulteress has never been brought to the father’s house, nor into contact with the children; aid, in such a case, adultery is not a sufficient ground for separating the children from their father” (Rex v. Greenhill, 5)
Comment: I thought that these two quotes demonstrated the double standard of women and men’s legal rights (especially those pertaining to child custody). The first quote, I believe, says that women who are accused of adultery cannot have custody of their children. However, the second quote from Rex v. Greenhill says that since the adultress was never in contact with the children, the father was allowed custody of his children, despite the fact that he had committed adultery. I think the juxtaposition of these quotations basically summarizes Victorian society. Men, it seems, were practically allowed to do whatever they wanted, even if the laws prohibited it. On the other hand, if women were anything less than perfect, their limited rights could be stripped away.
Questions: I’m really wondering what the catalyst was for the change in women’s legal rights after the Victorian era. While we’re already seeing dissent from Bodichon’s summarization of rights and from Bronte’s novel, I’m curious about when the women’s rights movement started to gain traction and momentum.
That’s a great question, and you’re right to acknowledge how Bodichon and Bronte are already articulating alternative views. It might be more helpful (and accurate perhaps) to think less of a singular “women’s rights movement” and more of multiple women’s rights movements, here, movements around specific legal reforms. Each movement–custody, divorce, property rights, education, suffrage, healthcare, etc.– would have its particular advocates, especially since they gain traction at different times. That said, we can see some names that reappear or clump together mid-late century. In other words, maybe its most helpful to think of different priorities within a larger, shared issue that attracted some activists more than others.