Submitted by Maria Dulce (mdulce@ndc.uff.br) on 2014-10-24T19:14:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigues, Pedro-Tese-Historia-2014.pdf: 5824282 bytes, checksum: 6564241ef2354b3abcacb58a8378e9d5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-10-24T19:14:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigues, Pedro-Tese-Historia-2014.pdf: 5824282 bytes, checksum: 6564241ef2354b3abcacb58a8378e9d5 (MD5) / Pretendemos refletir acerca dos conflitos entre algumas frações da classe senhorial sobre a ideia de propriedade, manifestados em discursos ao longo do processo de construção, aplicação e interpretação da Lei Hipotecária 1.237 de 1864. Tencionamos sincronizar os debates sobre o Estado e a questão agrária nos oitocentos, demonstrando como as divergências sobre a reforma da legislação hipotecária não podem ser compreendidas por meio da contraposição entre os interesses de uma elite política e os dos barões Também discutiremos com os pesquisadores segundo os quais a norma em questão teria criado a propriedade privada no Império. / This research is about some different ways of thinking about property in the Second Reign. During that time, there were a great discussion about the meaning of this very term. It was clearly seem on the legislative debate of 1864 Brazilian Mortgage Law. We will show the Estate building and those conflicts were related. The historians do not have a common sense about Brazilian land conflicts. José Murilo de Carvalho tells politics’ and farmers’ interest apart, as if they were completely different. We cannot agree with this point. Their interest were closer than the supposed. They had a lot to do with each other. We will also show that we cannot think that mortgage law as the beginning of the private property all over Brazil.