In the eyes of English Law, women had little to no protective rights before the year 1850. Men could be as violent to their wives as they chose to be. As a result, the Matrimonial Causes act of 1878 was passed by British Parliament. It was implemented during an era of frequent “divorce related legislation” in England. The goal was to give women an opportunity to separate from their physically abusive husbands. The action was taken with hopes of closing legal “loopholes” to violence against women. Despite parliament’s good intentions, the act was ultimately ineffective in protecting women from marital violence. Many fictional stories were written as “mockeries” and critiques of the law’s ineffectiveness. The goal of these authors was to prove that women were still oppressed under the British patriarchy. They wanted to inspire more strict and vigorous legislation to protect married women. The main problem with the act was that British courts of law rarely worked to enforce it. Because of the law’s futility, it was largely discredited among British women. Many of them were de-incentivized from using it because they knew nobody would enforce the order. Once married, women were not allowed to make their own money. Since the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1878 didn’t guarantee divorce, this rule remained despite a woman’s restraining order. Nevertheless, financial support wasn’t always given to women who separated from their husbands. This led to many women being neglected by the British government even after they obtained restraining orders against their husbands. The act also failed to address female captivity at the hands of their husbands. In one instance, a woman left her husband in favor of living with family. Her husband took the case to court, where the judiciary ruled in his favor. At the time, it was legal in England for a husband to control the whereabouts of his wife. This possibility wasn’t even considered in the Matrimonial Clauses Act.

However, an historian named Lisa Surridge concluded that British journalists started covering domestic violence more after the act was passed. She also highlighted the role that novels and stories played in drawing awareness to the issue of domestic violence. In other words, British writers worked harder to end domestic violence than courts and parliamentary legislators. Charles Dickens is one example of an author that worked to expose marital injustice through his writing. In stories such as the Old Curiosity Shop and Oliver Twist, Dickens reveals his grievances and skepticism of marriage as an institution. Unfortunately, some advocates for the Matrimonial Causes Act used questionable strategies to ensure its passage. For example, Francis Power Cobbe (a prominent feminist author), tried to portray domestic violence as a “middle-class” issue. Surridge confirms that this elitist interpretation was dominant in British Parliament as well.

It was in the year 1878 that people started viewing physical violence towards women as torture. Francis Power Cobbe was a major advocate for this comparison. The works that she wrote on this subject played a big role in passing the Matrimonial Causes Act. Overall, the act (among others) represented a profound change in the British perception of marriage. It destroyed the notion that women had to stay with their husbands no matter what. Religious turmoil also contributed to “setting the stage” for divorce legislation. During periods of theocratic conflict, many people started questioning the Church of England. The divorce law is an example of something they questioned and criticized. This type of thinking helped prepare for future legislation. Under the act, women who separated from their husbands were eligible for financial support. It also ensured them custody of their children had they not committed adultery. However, financial aid for child care and marital separation was rarely granted under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1878.

Ferguson, Trish. Tom Hardy's Legal Fictions . Edinburgh University Press, 2013. 

Bailey, Joanne. “English Marital Violence in Litigation, Literature, and the Press.” Journal of Women's History, vol. 19, no. 4, 2007, pp. 144–153., doi:10.1353/jowh.2007.0065. 

Qureshi , Shazia. “Reconceptualising Domestic Violence as 'Domestic Torture'.” Journal for Political Studies , 2013. 

Hager, Kelly. Dickens and the Rise of Divorce: the Failed-Marriage Plot and the Novel Tradition. Routlege, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 

Gibson, Colin S. Dissolving Wedlock. New York, 1994. 

Image: https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/facts-history-parliament-ho...