{"id":4335,"date":"2024-11-07T19:34:05","date_gmt":"2024-11-07T19:34:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hosting.northumbria.ac.uk\/divorce_history\/?p=4335"},"modified":"2024-11-07T19:35:10","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T19:35:10","slug":"the-most-radical-legislation-of-the-nineteenth-century-wherefore-she-prays-for-an-order-for-the-protection-of-her-earnings-and-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hosting.northumbria.ac.uk\/divorce_history\/the-most-radical-legislation-of-the-nineteenth-century-wherefore-she-prays-for-an-order-for-the-protection-of-her-earnings-and-property\/","title":{"rendered":"The Most Radical Legislation of the Nineteenth Century: \u2018Wherefore She Prays for an Order for the Protection of her Earnings and Property\u2019\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"The
Credit: London \u2013 St Saviours Church, Southwark by Chronicle\/ Alamy Stock Photo <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On an unseasonably warm Wednesday in May 1825, Miss Margaret Shands travelled to St Saviour\u2019s Church, Southwark, to marry mariner, Alexander Christie. They set up home together on Watling Street in the City of London and were joined by a daughter, Rebecca in 1827, and a son, William, in 1830. The Christie\u2019s marriage (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the nature of this project) was not a happy one. In 1829, about six months before William was born, Alexander was dismissed from his position as \u2018captain of a merchant vessel trading to foreign parts\u2019 as a result of his \u2018drunken habits\u2019 and shortly afterwards deserted his pregnant wife and infant daughter.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It doesn\u2019t seem that Margaret was one to rest on her laurels. Upon realising that Alexander was unlikely to return, she went to live with her widowed mother (also called Margaret) and her adult siblings, all of whom were occupied as bakers, and who fortunately lived just a few streets away. Here, Margaret managed to reestablish herself and subsequent census returns show her as the head of her own household and trading as a linen draper. Rebecca lived and worked with Margaret as an assistant, but the 1841 census shows that William received an education at Christ\u2019s Hospital School, which was founded to educate poor, orphaned, or fatherless children and was located just a few minutes from their home.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"This
Credit: Christ’s Hospital, London: the exterior, seen from Newgate Street. Engraving.\u202fWellcome Collection.\u202fSource:\u202fWellcome Collection<\/a>. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Records show that Margaret and Rebecca continued as drapers until at least the 1870s, at which point Margaret was in her late 60s, and appears to have retired using funds that she had accrued from both waged employment, investments, and small windfalls that had come her way. We wouldn\u2019t know any information about the unhappy circumstances of the Christie\u2019s marriage except on 10 November 1865, Margaret Christie instructed a solicitor, Mr H Samler of the Doctors Commons, to petition the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes for an Order of Protection under Section 21 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a previous blog<\/a> has explored, petitions for a full divorce that allowed for remarriage represented only one type of case heard before the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Orders of Protection are one of the less well-known marital treatments that became law under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, and the topic of a new book by Dr Jennifer Aston and Professor Olive Anderson, Deserted Wives and Economic Divorce in 19<\/em>th<\/sup><\/em> Century England and Wales: For Wives Alone<\/em><\/a>, published on Thursday 14<\/strong>th<\/sup><\/strong> November. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 21 stated:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA wife deserted by her husband may at any time after such desertion, if resident within the metropolitan district, apply to a police magistrate, or, if resident in the country, to justices in petty sessions, or in either case to the court, for an order to protect any money or property she may acquire by her own lawful industry, and property which she may become possessed of after such desertion, against her husband or his creditors or any person claiming under him; and such magistrate or justices or court if satisfied of the fact of such desertion, and that the same was without reasonable cause, and that the wife is maintaining herself by her own industry or property, may make and give to the wife an order protecting her earnings and property acquired since the commencement of such desertion, from her husband and all creditors and persons claiming under him, and such earnings and property shall belong to the wife as if she were a feme sole\u201d.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This meant that any married woman who had been deserted by her husband and could demonstrate (i) that she had not caused the desertion (for example, through her own immoral behaviour) and (ii) that she was supporting herself, was entitled to apply for an Order of Protection which would revert her legal status to that of a feme sole.<\/em> She could inherit, purchase, and dispose of property, she could enter into contracts and raise credit, she would have legal guardianship of her children, and, if she met property qualifications, she could vote in municipal elections after 1869. Although knowledge of Orders of Protection under Section 21 quickly vanished into academic obscurity after their heyday between 1858 and 1893, we argue in Deserted Wives<\/em> that this was actually the most radical piece of legislation passed regarding married women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is a bold statement (what about the Infant Custody Acts, or the Married Women\u2019s Property Acts?!) but let me outline five key reasons why we are convinced it is true:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n