Women, consumption and coverture in England,c. 1760–1860

Abstract

Historians concerned to demonstrate women's increasing relegation to a private, domestic sphere in the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have emphasized the extent to which married women's opportunities were restricted by the common law practice of coverture, which deprived wives of the ability to enter into economic contracts in their own right. Yet social and cultural historians have argued that women played an essential role as purchasers in promoting the consumer revolution of these decades. This article explores the devices used by married women consumers to evade the strictures of coverture. Focusing on three overlapping practices – wives' willingness and ability to pledge their husbands' credit to purchase a wide range of ‘necessary’ goods, their use of this tactic to secure a degree of independence from unsuccessful marriages, and their active participation in the deliberations of a variety of small claims courts – it argues that the purchase of coverture in the sphere of consumption was partial and contested, rather than monolithic.

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800

“…Amy Erickson concludes that 'in practice wives maintained during marriage substantial property interests of their own '. 23 A fourth line of relevant enquiry traces women's attitudes to their possessions, usually moveable goods. 20 Thirdly, a new focus on women's role in eighteenth-century consumption has uncovered that their purchasing activities helped stimulate economic growth and industrialization and influenced urban development.…”

“…34 A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband's credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. 39 Advertisements were structured around husbands' legal obligations and fell into three main categories, the majority of which did indeed refer to separation. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance.…”

“…122 It is also clear that some eighteenth-century wives were unaware of the extent to which they were technically economically dependent upon their husbands. 121 Margot Finn uses the example of Millicent Garrett Fawcett's shock, in the 1870s, on hearing her stolen purse described in court as the property of her husband to illustrate that the 'habitual, vital economic activities in the practice of her daily life ' were very different to the theory of coverture.…”

“…122 It is also clear that some eighteenth-century wives were unaware of the extent to which they were technically economically dependent upon their husbands. 126 The law of agency allowed wives to purchase a range of goods and, while the legal definition of agency conferred the authority to make financial contracts on behalf of others without ownership or partnership rights, the marital relationship added other dimensions in which women might feel that they had contributed enough to warrant ownership. She pointed out that in fact he had turned her out, 'and as for People not trusting me, I think he might have let that alone till I had contracted any Debt.…”

Waiting for her ship to come in? The female investor in nineteenth‐century sailing vessels

“…25 25 Erickson, ‘Common law versus common practice’; Finn, ‘Women, consumption and coverture’; Holcombe, Wives and property , pp. 18–47; Phillips, Women in business , pp.…”