Law and History

This article explores the law of coverture in Medieval England and its impact on women's rights. It discusses the legal restrictions of the law of coverture and how women found ways to circumvent it. The article also highlights the role of industrial revolution and capitalism in challenging the law of coverture. Various historical figures and their contributions to the abolishment of the law are also discussed.

Running head: LAW AND HISTORY 1
Law and History
Student’s Name
Date

LAW AND HISTORY 2
Introduction
The law of coverture in Medieval England traces its roots to the feudal Norman customs.
This law dictated the status of a woman after marriage whether legal or political1. Before getting
into marriage the woman could freely enter into contracts, practice trade as a single entity and
carry out several tasks which ceased when she got married due to her “marital unity.”
After marriage, the husband and the wife were treated as a single entity where property
rights and other rights of the woman including the separate legal existence disappeared since she
was one with the husband2. The wife had no right and control over her own property, they were
not allowed to file lawsuits in courts, they could not sign contracts on their own and neither
could they sell properties without the consent of the husband. This paper discusses the legal
restrictions of law of coverture and how the efforts towards circumventing it.
Restrictions of The Law of Coverture
Marriage united the husband and the wife in law which meant that the rights of the
woman were forgotten or suspended as they were incorporated into those of her husband. This
married woman under the law of coverture was called feme covert while single unmarried
women were referred to as feme sole. This names had their origin from the Norman terms3.
The man or the woman could not enter into a contract with each other, since this would
show that they are different entities in the marriage thereby going against the law of coverture,
1 Joanne, Bailey. "Favored or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture ‘in England, 1660–
1800." Continuity and Change 17, no. 3 (2002), 351.
2 Amy Louise, Erickson. "Common law versus common practice: the use of marriage settlements in early
modern England." Economic History Review (1990), 21.
3 Margot, Finn. "Women, consumption and coverture in England, c. 1760–1860." The Historical
Journal 39, no. 3 (1996), 703.

LAW AND HISTORY 3
man and woman in the marriage were a single entity therefore signing a contract with her is the
same as signing a contract with himself.
The mandate of taking care of the family was on the man and this meant that if the wife
had acquired a debt which she failed to pay, then the husband was responsible for paying the
debt. If the wife encountered an incident that required reporting to court she required, the consent
of the husband to sue the offender. In the court systems neither of the couple could testify against
or for each other since it was impossible for their testimony to be indifferent due to their union4.
Even though the law of coverture considered the husband and wife as one person, in most
situation the man was considered supreme to the woman and there were instances when the
woman was considered inferior and an agent working according to the directions of the husband.
This meant that most actions that are done by the wife during coverture were void since the
husband was responsible for those actions.
In Seneca Falls declaration of Sentiments the legal existence of wife under the law of
coverture is described as “civilly dead” unlike the widows and unmarried women who enjoyed
the privilege of owning property, managing business such as shops and representing themselves
to court unlike married women who did not enjoy any of those privileges unless under certain
conditions5.
Any income generating activity that the wife engaged in before, after marriage is under
the control of the husband, therefore if she was able to earn some income the income belonged to
the husband for they were one entity.
In the case of murder, where a husband killed the wife he was to be charged with murder
which was punishable by death or imprisonment, on the other hand if the wife murdered the
4 Ibid 8.
5 Ibid 10.

LAW AND HISTORY 4
husband she was to be charged with treason against the husband and for this crime she was to be
burned alive or stoned to death6.
This law of coverture was intermingled with the traditions of Romans, Normans, Anglo
Saxon and canon laws of Catholic Church7. As a result, the social norms dictated that this was
not only the best practice as reflected in law for natural occurrence but it was also God’s
intention quoting the book of Genesis 3:16 which states that the desire of the woman shall be for
the husband and that the husband will rule over the wife.
The courts enforced this law of coverture since the training judges studied Sir
Blackstone’s commentary of 1765 titled “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. In his
commentary, his view on the law of coverture was: “Through marriage the husband and wife are
one person in law, which means the legal existence of the woman is suspended and incorporate
into that of her husband, where she performs everything hence the name a feme covert…8”
Women under the law of coverture were also not allowed to vote in national or local
elections (women’s suffrage), since their husbands voted and when the husbands voted their
interests were already captured considering that the husband and the wife were one in marriage9.
Sexual offenses such as rape by the husband were merely considered as illegal with the view that
the wife was a property to the husbands will therefore it was not an offense. Furthermore, if the
wife wanted to report any case she needed the approval of the husband10.
6 Margot, Finn. "Women, consumption and coverture in England, c. 1760–1860." The Historical
Journal 39, no. 3 (1996), 705.
7 Ibid 707.
8 Ibid 710.
9 Joanne, Bailey. "Favored or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture ‘in England, 1660–
1800." Continuity and Change 17, no. 3 (2002), 357.
10 Ibid 361.

LAW AND HISTORY 5
Some exceptions to this law included when the wife and husband made agreements
regarding the property that the wife had before joining the marriage, the husband also needed the
wife’s consent when he was to sell inheritance property of the wife. A widow had the right to
dower, which is the right to have the properties that they came with into the marriage and a third
of the dead husband’s property11.
This law of coverture at its best was beneficiary to the landed elites in the early 17th to
18th century who benefited from dominating land ownership as very few women owned land12.
This law enhanced male dominance enabling these rich individuals to have a lot of land on the
expense of women who did not have a voice in their homes neither did they have a voice at the
courts. This law continued to dominate for a long time until it was challenged and changed as
discussed below.
Circumventing the Law of Coverture
The existence of the law of coverture rendered women unimportant without the ability to
own property or carry out their own businesses. However, there were a group of women who
were able to circumvent this law of coverture making exceptions and important historical figures
in the abolishment of the law of coverture.
The introduction of industrial revolution and capitalism contributed to the circumvention
of the law of covurture. While Alan Clark criticizes capitalism and industrial revolution in the
17th century for making women lose their economic importance, other scholars such as Ivy
Pichbeck and Louise Tilly recognize this factors as the basis of women’s stand against law of
coverture. Industrial revolution enabled women to be custodians of home property and children
11 Margot, Finn. "Women, consumption and coverture in England, c. 1760–1860." The Historical
Journal 39, no. 3 (1996), 711.
12 Amy Louise, Erickson. "Common law versus common practice: the use of marriage settlements in early
modern England." Economic History Review (1990), 31.

LAW AND HISTORY 6
as their husband went away for work purposes. Women therefore started carrying out lending
and selling activities in their husband’s absence. A wife could be sued on her contract while the
husband was away according to Mansfield court.
While the law of coverture stipulates that men should own all the wife’s property
included those that she had before marriage. Amy Erickson argues that some women only gave
part of the property they had to their husbands. Such cases were seen in situations where wife’s
made agreements with their husbands allowing them to retain part of their property.
An example of a case of agreement was when Anne Peach a widow who had several
cows signed an agreement with John Rhodes who was a stonemason before their marriage. Anne
assigned part of her property to her trustees which included 32 cows. John Rhodes signed a
contract “permitting Ann to trade and business her cows for her own use and benefit.”
Bailey and Margot have suggested a group of London women in secret financial
networks whose purpose were to carry out lending and other business transactions (2002, p.371).
These were a group of women against their financial dependency to men according to the law of
coverture. An American midwifery diary has shown a group of house wives who traded goods
and services as independent entities employing other women and neighbor’s daughters, this was
known by their husbands who did not object.
Margaret Sayer, a married business seller recorded the name of those who owed her in a
bard with a chalk, this was an exception due to the fact that only husbands were to make such
recordings as a way of removing their wives’ commercial activities (Evans &Tanya 2004, p.72).
Some women were able to circumvent the law of coverture through carrying out
individual business using their husbands name. This could also happen to widows and married
women who engaged in secret businesses using their husbands name in avoiding suspicions to

LAW AND HISTORY 7
breaking the law of coverture. Other women violated the law of agency which made their
husbands to sign out of contracts that tied the husband financially to the wife.
Women like Lucy Stone publicly protested against the law of coverture that suspended
women’s legal right in marriage, even after her marriage she went against the expected norm and
kept her maiden name. She was the first to do so in England (Anthony & Deborah 2017, p.7).
Religion sects in the sixteenth century were very important in fighting against the law of
coverture. Women were very prominent within these sects as chairman, secretary and just
members, while the exact number of women in this sects remain unknown it remains clear that
women had the power to express themselves in this sects. The principle that enabled these sects
to be powerful was that; a woman’s loyalty to the sect was above her loyalty to the husband
(Wong & Carolyn 2015, p.193). These sects gave women a voice as single entities unlike the law
of coverture that regarded the couple as a union.
Other women who were able to circumvent the law of coverture were Elizabeth Hatchet
and Elizabeth Carter. This two partners operated as pawn brokers in London in the early decades.
In a case on inheritance of this women’s property there are several witnesses who provide useful
information regarding how they carried out their business operating against the law of coverture
against women owning and contracting movable property (Savage & Gail 2016, p. 388).
Conclusion
The law of coverture did more harm than good restricting the potential of women
immediately after marriage. This law restricted the women from owning, filing law suit, carrying

LAW AND HISTORY 8
and owning businesses and their interests amongst other limitations. However, a group of women
refused to allow themselves to be restricted by this law finding ways to circumvent it. Some of
this women include Judith Baker, Elizabeth Shackleton, Elizabeth Carter, Elizabeth Hatchett and
Lucy Stone amongst others.
Bibliography
Anthony, Deborah. "Analyzing the Disappearance of Women's Surnames and the Retrenchment
of Their Political-Legal Status in Early Modern England." Hastings Women's LJ 29 (2018): 7.

LAW AND HISTORY 9
Bailey, Joanne. "Favored or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture ‘in England,
1660–1800." Continuity and Change 17, no. 3 (2002): 351-372.
Erickson, Amy Louise. "Common law versus common practice: the use of marriage settlements
in early modern England." Economic History Review (1990): 21-39.
Evans, Tanya. "Women, marriage and the family." In Women's History, Britain 1700–1850, pp.
69-89. Routledge, 2004.
Finn, Margot. "Women, consumption and coverture in England, c. 1760–1860." The Historical
Journal 39, no. 3 (1996): 703-722.
Savage, Gail. "Married Women and the Law: Coverture in England and the Common Law World
ed. by Tim Stretton and Krista J. Kesselring." Victorian Studies 58, no. 2 (2016): 387-389.
Wong, Carolyn. "Married Women and the Law: Coverture in England and Common Law World
Edited by Tim Stretton & Krista J. Kesselring." (2015): 193.