Gendered Justice: Women Workers, Gender, and Master and Servant Law in England, 1700-1850 Madeleine Chartrand A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in History York University Toronto, Ontario September 2017 © Madeleine Chartrand, 2017 ii Abstract As England industrialized in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, employment relationships continued to be governed, as they had been since the Middle Ages, by master and servant law. This dissertation is the first scholarly work to conduct an in-depth analysis of the role that gender played in shaping employment law. Through a qualitative and quantitative examination of statutes, high court rulings, and records of the routine administration of the law found in magistrates’ notebooks, petty sessions registers, and lists of inmates in houses of correction, the dissertation shows that gendered assumptions influenced the law in both theory and practice. A tension existed between the law’s roots in an ideology of separate spheres and the reality of its application, which included its targeted use to discipline a female workforce that was part of the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution. A close reading of the legislation and judges’ decisions demonstrates how an antipathy to the notion of women working was embedded in the law governing their employment relationships. An ideological association of men with productivity and women with domesticity underlay both the statutory language and key high court rulings. Therefore, although the law applied to workers of both sexes, women were excluded semantically, and to some extent substantively, from its provisions. A quantitative analysis of 5590 cases of employment conflicts, drawn from 64 different sources and entered into two databases, reveals that gender shaped the rates of prosecutions brought by and against male and female workers, as well as the types of conflicts in which they were involved, and the outcomes of cases. In general, female workers were treated slightly more leniently as defendants than male workers, although they were slightly less successful as plaintiffs – except in cases of assault. However, female textile workers were treated more harshly than female workers overall, and than male textile workers. They were also an exception to the iii downward trend of female servants’ involvement in cases over the course of the period. As women were increasingly driven out of employment in arable regions, they made up a decreasing share of workers in master and servant disputes. iv Acknowledgements The road to a complete dissertation is long and winding, or at least it has been for me, and along the way I have incurred many debts. I would like to begin by thanking my supervisor, Douglas Hay, who first sparked my interest in the topic of gender and master and servant law. His vast knowledge, scholarly generosity, and invaluable guidance and suggestions over the years have immeasurably improved the final product. I would also like to thank the other members of my excellent supervisory committee. Joanna Innes read multiple drafts and offered helpful comments and criticisms. She also sponsored my term as a Junior Visiting Scholar at Oxford University and helped to make my time there both productive and enjoyable. Nicholas Rogers read the complete draft in a very timely manner and provided useful feedback that helped me to clarify some methodological issues. Furthermore, I would like to thank Maxine Berg and Amanda Glasbeek, the external members of my examining committee, for their valuable suggestions and observations during the defence. I have also benefited from the expertise and kindness of scholars in Canada and England alike, including Jeanette Neeson, Paul Craven, Stephen Brooke, Christopher Frank, Greg Smith, Carolyn Steedman, and Deborah Oxley, who have been generous with their time, comments, and encouragement. Moreover, I am very grateful to the helpful archivists in the many archives and public record offices that I visited, whose work makes my work possible. I am grateful as well to the faculty and staff of the Modern European History Research Centre, now the Oxford Centre for European History, at Oxford University – particularly Jane Cunning, who patiently answered my many questions about being a visiting scholar. The members of the support staff of the York University History Department have been friendly and helpful during my time there. Karen Dancy especially, as a graduate program assistant in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and then the v History Department, has kindly guided me through many applications, forms, and procedures over the years. My scholarship has been greatly aided by generous funding from both the government of Canada and my institution. I have been the fortunate recipient of a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship and a Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, as well as an Elia Scholars Award and a Provost Dissertation Completion Scholarship from York University. This funding enabled me to undertake a lengthy research trip in England, attend conferences, and focus full-time on dissertation work, for all of which I am very grateful. I have been lucky enough to meet many talented and inspiring graduate students during my time at York University, many of whom I can count not just as colleagues but also as friends. Daniel Ross was an excellent co-chair who made it fun instead of stressful to organize the New Frontiers in Graduate History Conference. My frequent co-panellist Ronnie Morris made the experience of presenting at conferences in the United States more enriching and enjoyable. David Zylberberg was a dedicated fellow teaching assistant who also generously shared his own archival research with me. Amanda Robinson, Brad Meredith, Rebecca Dirnfeld, Katie Bausch, Ashlee Bligh, and Sara Howdle have all supported me through the ups and downs of this journey, and my friendships with them are some of the most rewarding things I have taken away from my years in graduate school. Finally, I owe my deepest debt of gratitude to my family. My cat, Winnie, who came along as I finished my comprehensive exams, has been a “mew”se and an ins“purr”ation. My sister, Adriana Chartrand, has encouraged me while reminding me not to take myself too seriously. My parents, Judith Owens and Gilbert Chartrand, have been endlessly supportive of vi me. They instilled early a love of learning that has sustained me through decades of study. My mother has also read and commented on countless essays and projects that I have written over the years, including this dissertation, and been a perpetually patient and sympathetic listener. My daughter, Elowyn Degroot, who was born as I was finishing my first complete draft, has been my greatest joy and delight, and my motivation for continuing to work on the dissertation despite almost unimaginable sleep deprivation. Finally, my husband, Dagomar Degroot, has enthusiastically encouraged me throughout the entire journey, tirelessly talking through my issues and concerns and helping me to clarify my thinking. His unflagging support, as both a colleague and a partner, has made this dissertation possible. vii Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………...iv Table of Contents ………………………………...…………………………………………….vii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….ix List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………xi Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....1 Historical Context: Women’s Work in the Industrial Revolution………………………...3 Historical Context: Master and Servant Law…………………………………………….20 Gender and Employment Law…………………………………………………………...34 Sources and Methodology………………………………………………………………..40 Organizing the Sources…………………………………………………………………..45 Challenges of the Sources………………………………………………………………..50 Challenges of Analysis…………………………………………………………………..57 A Note on Terminology………………………………………………………………….59 Dissertation Outline……………………………………………………………………...60 Chapter One: Gender and the Architecture of Master and Servant Law…………………..64 The Statutes………………………………………………………………………………69 The Case Law……………………………………………………………………………87 The Exclusion of Domestic Servants From Employment Law Coverage……………….89 Women Workers, Relationships, and Pregnancy………………………………………...97 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...117 Chapter Two: Employment Offences……………………………………………………….119 Plaintiffs and Defendants……………………………………………………………….120 Servants’ Complaints…………………………………………………………………...138 Wage Claims……………………………………………………………………………139 Being Turned Away Before the End of the Term of Service…………………………..149 Other Complaints……………………………………………………………………….151 Masters’ Complaints……………………………………………………………………156 Running Away………………………………………………………………………….161 Misbehaviour…………………………………………………………………………...168 Pregnancy……………………………………………………………………………….171 Drunkenness…………………………………………………………………………….181 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...185 Chapter Three: Theft and Embezzlement…………………………………………………...189 Interconnections of Theft and Master and Servant Offences…………………………...192 Servants’ Illicit Takings: The Gendered Pattern of Larcenies and Embezzlements……205 How Servants Stole: Gendered Means of Appropriation………………………………219 Gendered Patterns of Punishment………………………………………………………234 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...246 viii Chapter Four: Assault and Violence in Master and