Content introduction Main body

Marriage contracts and the effects of cobverture.

If neither the man nor the woman filed a claim for breach of promise, the relationship is likely to develop into the following legal form: marriage. When concluding a marriage contract, both public and private powers are used. Religion, the original jurisdiction over marriage, is considered a personal belief; however, the supreme hierarchy of a particular religion publicly regulates this.
According to Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, a marriage was considered valid only if “the ceremony [was] to take place in some parish church or public chapel.”23 It was not until 1836, when Lord John Russell's Law was passed, that marriage could be considered valid in the eyes of the public. the law, as well as the church. Thus, people had the opportunity to “marry in any form they choose.” Dickens shows readers an example of a Victorian marriage that combines both roles of power: religion and law. Esther “accidentally walked into a small [private] church when the marriage had just been concluded and the young couple had to sign the [state] registration.” The changes made regarding the process required to obtain a marriage license increase tensions related to the public and private aspects of this personal commitment.
Expectations about marriage and what sphere should regulate these expectations caused confusion. As for the process of marriage, this change of power raised “the question of concern to lawyers, whether marriage is a religious contract requiring the sanction of the church. This issue [was] settled by the legislature, and the marriage [then] was a civil contract.”26 As soon as the civil contract is concluded, the laws concerning concealment come into force. Concealment ensures that “a married woman in England has no legitimate existence: her being is absorbed into the being of her husband.” Further, after marriage, an English wife has no right to property, since “her property is the property of [her husband]... [she] has no legal rights even to her clothes or jewelry... even if they are gifts from relatives or friends or bought before marriage.” In addition to the restrictions imposed on property rights, women were also prohibited from making wills, demanding their own earnings, abandoning their husbands, avoiding physical violence, and signing leases or other contracts.As soon as the marriage contract is signed, the irresistible force of concealment restricts the woman to the private sphere. Concealment deprives a woman of all legal rights, because:
A man and a wife are one person by law; the wife loses all her rights as an unmarried woman, and her existence is completely absorbed by the existence of her husband. He bears civil responsibility for her actions; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called concealment. The woman's body belongs to her husband; she is in his custody, and he can exercise his right with a writ of habeas corpus.
One of the most obvious legal examples of Dickens, in addition to the main case of "Jarndyce and Jarndyce", is the concealment of information. Allan Woodcourt finds the brickmaker's wife on the street with “a severe bruise and [her] skin, unfortunately, damaged.” Woodcourt is ready to help her, but legally he can't do it. The extent of his help manifests itself in minor medical care after he confirms that “[he is] a doctor” and the brickmaker's wife “[need not] be afraid.” This is where Woodcourt's help ends, and he cannot resist the husband, because according to the laws of concealment, the wife is tied to her husband as a whole. In addition, a woman cannot sue her husband because she has become her husband, and a man cannot sue himself. The maximum she can do is file for divorce, but “if a wife sues for separation because of cruelty, it should be “cruelty threatening life or health.” This means that, despite physical violence on the part of her husband, a woman who has received bruises cannot receive legal assistance against her abuser. In this example, Dickens demonstrates that the law interferes with private relationships when it should not be done, but also fails to protect women because it will not interfere with the personal rights of husbands. Dickens challenges the role and power of English law by creating this double standard.
The article published in the Morning Chronicle confirms and challenges the disenfranchisement of women under the laws of concealment. Eliza Lynn, the first hired journalist, wrote this article in 1856. Confirming the fact that a woman loses all authority as soon as she is governed by the laws of concealment, Lynn declares that women have no more power in their relationships than a dog in relation to its owner. For a Victorian woman, her legal authority “lies in the fact that she can claim the protection of the laws simply as a reasonable animal, and not as a wife or citizen.”
In the Cold House, a bruised woman bears a resemblance to a dog, both in her legal rights under cover, and in her height and position. A woman who looks very much like a dog is sitting on the doorstep when Woodcourt approaches her. The comparison continues when Woodcourt asks, “Can't you make them hear? Do you want to be let in?”34 At the time of the publication of this series of "Cold House", changes in legislation concerning the protection of animals were in the center of public attention, and not the protection of women from marital violence. Adopted in 1853, the Law on More Effective Prevention and Punishment of Attacks on Women and Children under Aggravating Circumstances was aimed at leveling the playing field. Women's rights advocate Mr. Fitzroy introduced the bill in the House of Commons, arguing that “the same protection [should be extended] to defenseless women as it already extended to poodles and donkeys”, which was provided by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. In the Act of the Better Prevention and Punishment of Aggravated Assaults on Women and Children, the preamble noted that laws in place were deemed insufficient for the protection of women and children from violent assaults. At this point, portions of coverture law were recognized by some as being ineffective, if not unjust.
Private assistance stemming from Woodcourt's good intentions, along with government regulation presented in English law, demonstrate the inability of interaction between spheres to provide assistance to private individuals, such as the wives of brickmakers. Ms. Pardiggle, a philanthropist who is in constant interaction with the public sphere, enters the house of Jenny and the brickmaker with a “businesslike and systematic” approach, which makes her “intrusive and inappropriate” in the private sphere. On the other hand, Esther and Ada, who are confined to the private sphere, use their quiet sympathy to make them welcome guests in the private life of the brickmaker's house. Jenny “stared in amazement [at Ada],” while Esther could do little more than cover the dead child with her own handkerchief. This example, which accompanies Woodcourt's assistance to the injured woman, demonstrates the fact that private intervention cannot compensate for the actions of state institutions and laws that, without providing any real help, invade privacy. Laws invade privacy and manage it in undesirable ways, unlike Mrs. Pardiggle, but those same laws don't extend far enough to provide genuine assistance that private individuals like Woodcourt can't compensate for. In addition, individuals are prohibited from helping others under laws that seem to protect the privacy of the private sphere without interfering between a husband and his property or his wife.
The English courts upheld this restriction in 1848 in the case of Wilson v. Wilson, when they concluded that “it is better for the spouses to enter into a private separation agreement than to bring their differences to court.” The identity of a woman depends on the identity of her husband, and state concealment laws ensure that this remains the case. Portraying the hopeless situation of the brickmaker's wife from the point of view of the law, Dickens emphasizes the fact that the ideology of "separate spheres" expressed a desire to limit women to the private sphere, but relied on laws that abolished the division of spheres, without giving women the opportunity to receive legal assistance. In his text, he does not offer a way out of the situation, rather Dickens uses "Bleak House" as a means to draw attention to the failed law on information concealment and, in turn, criticizes the role of the English legal system.
Property arising from concealment issues is another area of matrimony that affects a woman's personality. “In the period from 1850 to 1900, many novelists, including Dickens, emphasized the problem of property ownership, presenting property relations based on the destabilization of gender roles as a result of shifts in economic power.” Along with shifts in gender and economic power, the destabilizing effect of public control in the private sphere is a serious problem. serious problem. the main focus is in the text of Dickens. As for ownership, the dynamic that Dickens establishes between Lady Dedlock and Mr. Tulkinghorn asks readers to explore the impact of public control on privacy. This example is Dickens' most dramatic depiction of the tension between the spheres. Tulkinghorn, as a subject of the public, legal sphere, is allowed to gain full knowledge and control all areas of the private economy of Lady Dedlock and Sir Lester. Both Lady Dedlock and Sir Lester, actors in the private sphere, are under the impression that the resolution of their personal marital conflicts can only be achieved through the legal mediation of Mr. Tulkinghorn. In the end, Tulkinghorn fails to help Lady Dedlock and Sir Lester, and this leads to failure in both the public and private spheres.
A woman from the time of Dickens investigated this influence of public control, questioning the lack of legal status for women. Caroline Norton (1808-1877) was a feminist and social reformer, as well as a writer. As a British wife, Norton was regularly physically abused and could not get a divorce. “Her campaign to ensure support for women after the divorce included an eloquent letter to Queen Victoria, which was published.Caroline's efforts influenced the passage of the Marriage and Divorce Act of 1857.” In her ”Letter to the Queen" (1855) concerning the marriage and divorce bills, Norton noted: instead of [her] having any respect for these laws, they necessarily owe [her], seem just ridiculous. It is in vain that those who wish them to be preserved pretend to mock my attempts to expose their absurdity, claiming that this is a “private quarrel” that should remain confidential. They are invited to interfere not in a private quarrel, but in the state of English law. It can hardly be called a private quarrel that began within the framework of the state prosecution.⁸
Throughout Norton's letter, she raises the tension that exists between public control and private actions. This statement is important for Dickens' text, because Lady Dedlock, along with the rest of the private sphere, believes that women are best protected if they obey the requirements of the public sphere. Lady Dedlock follows Tulkinghorn's demands because she has an ingrained belief that the public sphere is the ultimate answer or the best option for continuing existence. The public sphere retains power over the private sphere, even though Lady Dedlock and Sir Leicester could have resolved their marital dispute in a private and successful way, without the intervention of Mr. Tulkinghorn. Unlike Lady Dedlock, Norton is able to distinguish the ideals imposed on her from the reality of spherical interactions. Lady Dedlock believes that she has tarnished the image of Sir Leicester, who is considered part of his estate, and this ultimately kills her. In this dramatic series of events related to property laws, Dickens challenges the public role of the legal system that regulates events in the private sphere of the home.
He is concerned that if this information becomes public, Sir Lester's estate will be ruined. Lady Dedlock is also under the impression that “whether she kept her secret until her death, or whether it was revealed and she brought shame on the name she took, it was always her lonely struggle.”
The lack of uniform regulation by the public sphere has led to tensions in the public sphere, the private sphere and the ways in which spheres interact with each other. In contrast to Tulkinghorn's insistence on hiding Lady Dedlock's illegitimate child from both spheres, the law of the time of Dickens sometimes extended its help to people like Lady Dedlock. In the case of R. v. Collingwood and another, Mary Ann Rance gave birth to an illegitimate child while married to George Rance. According to section two of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1844... a “single woman” who has given birth to an illegitimate child may apply to a judge with a request to serve a summons to a man whom she considers to be the father of the child.”45 The question in this case is whether Rance should have been considered a single woman, since “the wording of section two [of the Poor Law Amendment Act] applies only to single women,” as does the wording of the Illegitimate Children Act of 1733. The court ruled in Rance's favor, ruling that a married woman can file a lawsuit against the alleged father of her illegitimate child (to receive financial assistance for the maintenance of the child), since she must be considered unmarried, taking into account her circumstances. The courts were adamant in their decision because they found it important to “cover a very large proportion of illegitimate children” rather than support public speaking.
Despite the legal assistance provided by Lady Dedlock, coverture has ensured that as a married woman she no longer has a separate legal status and, as a result, cannot use the laws protecting women left with illegitimate children. In this case, Lady Dedlock chose a private solution rather than a lawsuit to rectify her situation. Unable to exercise her legal rights, Lady Dedlock assumes that her disappearance will be a relief in light of the birth of her illegitimate child. In preparing to escape, Lady Dedlock took care to leave all the property that could belong to Sir Leicester. Even if they were gifts or purchases made by herself, Lady Dedlock leaves “[her] jewels... in their proper places of storage. They will be found there. So, [her] dresses. So, all the values that [she] has.” At the moment, Lady Dedlock prefers to focus “especially on [her] attachment to personal portable property, those 'feminine' things, including household items, jewelry, costume jewelry and clothing that most husbands [including Sir Lester] had. not inclined to assign (or perhaps too embarrassed to do so.”
Accordingly, it does not occur to Lady Dedlock and Sir Leicester to use a private conversation to settle their personal quarrel. Instead, they hire Tulkinghorn to solve their private problems with the help of his public influence and legal knowledge. As a result, the dominant force in the public sphere, Mr. Tulkinghorn, mistakenly ousted Lady Dedlock from her personal life, and also left her no place in the public sphere. Rather than retaining power over Lady Dedlock's portable estate, Sir Leicester is more concerned with Lady Dedlock being in his possession, and ultimately represents a legal system that cares about women's property rather than creating balanced partnerships. He hired Mr. Bucket to “follow and find her.” If private matters such as marital disputes were left to the private sector, Lady Dedlock and Sir Lester could reach an effective civil compromise without the intervention of the legal system.
In the end, the inability of the private world to come to its own resolution leads Lady Dedlock to “death from horror and [her] conscience.” Tulkinghorn convinces Lady Dedlock that her actions are inexcusable under the law. This close attention leads Lady Dedlock to believe that she deserved the death penalty. Lady Dedlock's suggestion contradicts the legal precedent of her time. From 1837 to 1861, 350 people were sentenced to death for their crimes. Of these 350 people, 345 were executed for murder and five for attempted murder. Dickens illustrates with his example that “the relationship between property, power, and identity came under intense scrutiny during the Victorian period, when the debate on marriage law reform began in the 1850s.” Her fear and obligations stemming from the public sphere forced her to give up the share she had in the private sphere. Dickens carefully examines the standards set by public figures when he shows a representative of the law driving Lady Dedlock into the most extreme situation.
In this example concerning women and property, Dickens suggests that tension arises from the inability of the public, legal sphere to provide its assistance properly. On the one hand, the power of the public sphere does not extend far enough to help battered women, but, on the other hand, legal rights aimed at protecting the interests of the husband extend too widely to the private sphere, so that individuals such as Tulkinghorn may mistakenly dictate actions to other women. other people. In the end, this strain of forces leads to failure in both spheres, without helping any individual.⁹
The tension associated with women's interaction with property and women as property is transferred to another area of the marriage cycle: divorce. Like property laws, divorce is another area of law in which state power extends either too far or not far enough into the private sphere to provide assistance to women. The benefits of the divorce Act were reserved exclusively for Victorian men. If a man files for divorce, his wife is “not allowed to defend herself." She has no means of proving the falsity of his claims. She is not represented by a lawyer, and she is not allowed to be considered a party in a lawsuit between him and her.”
According to the marriage contract, women were limited to the private sphere, and they could not refuse this provision if their husbands did not make this decision for them. “If an English wife is guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her in order to marry again; but she cannot divorce her husband [from the marriage bond], no matter how dissolute he may be.” In addition, the courts of England did not have the ability to resolve cases of divorce; rather, the Act of Parliament on annulment of marriage was adopted on a case-by-case basis. “The House of Lords grants this almost as a matter of course to the husband, but not to the wife.” At that time, only four cases, two of which were cases of incest, allowed a woman to obtain a divorce for remarriage. As soon as news of Lady Dedlock's premarital relationship with Nemo begins to surface, the public begins to discuss “all the main circumstances that will become known to the lords upon Sir Lester's application for divorce.” This is an example of how a husband can achieve the dissolution of a marriage, even if the wife did not commit any actions against him during the period of their social unity.