Mary Hyde

Mary Hyde
Bornc. 19 February 1779
Halesowen,
Worcestershire, England
Died1 December 1864 (aged 85)
"Banks House", Botany, Sydney, Australia
Other namesMary Hide, alias Sarah Blunn; Mary Black;
Mary Lord
Spouse(s)Simeon Lord
(1771–1840),
and her earlier partner was
Captain John Black
(1778–1802)
Children2 children with John Black:
John Henry Black
(1799–1867)

Mary Ann De Mestre
nee Black
(1801–1861)

8 children with Simeon Lord:
Sarah Ann Ramsay
nee Lord
(1806–1889)
Louisa Dick
nee Lord
(born 1808, date of death unknown)
Simeon Lord Jnr.
(1810–1892)
Francis Lord
(1812–1897)
Edward Lord
(1814–1884)
Thomas Lord
(1816–1876)
George William Lord
(1818–1880)

Robert Charles Lord
(1821–1857)
Parent(s)Edward Hyde
and Sarah Blunn

Mary Lord née Hyde (c. 19 February 1779 – 1 December 1864) was an English Australian woman who in the period 1855 to 1859 sued the Commissioners of the City of Sydney and won compensation for the sum of over £15,600[1] (plus costs) for the inundation of her property at Botany.[2][3][4]

Hyde is noted for her pertinacity.[2] Despite in late 1855 partially winning her case through the New South Wales courts, Mary appealed and three years later in early 1859 won fully after taking her case as far as the Privy Council in England, the final court of appeal then available to a British subject living in the Colony of New South Wales.

In 1859, in the 70-year-old Colony of New South Wales, her court case, although largely ignored by historians, was nevertheless an achievement: women did not have the vote; and Hyde lived in a male-dominated society governed by British law where women had little power. Married women had no power at all,[5] and Mary was only able to sue as, being a widow, she was no longer married.[6]

Having experienced life as a woman in Victorian society, single, married and widowed, Mary became concerned with what today would be called a feminist issue. She stipulated in her will that any bequests made to her daughters and granddaughters were to be given to them in their own right and that their husbands should not have any say. She attempted to give her daughters and granddaughters control over their own inheritances. The law of the day overrode her stated wishes. Remembering that colonies in Australia were largely governed by English law, prior to the English 1887 Married Woman's Property Act (which was a rallying point for many first-wave feminists in the late nineteenth century, and was only passed after years of intense political lobbying by dedicated women[7]) a married woman could own no property, and was the chattel of her husband. Any property that she had owned as a single woman, or that she inherited as a married woman whether in goods, money, or land, passed into the ownership of her husband.[7][8][9]

  1. ^ According to "Measuring Worth", £15,600 in 1859 is in 2007 worth £10 million using average earnings. Measuring Worth
  2. ^ a b D. R. Hainsworth, 'Lord, Simeon (1771–1840)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 2, MUP, 1967, pp 128–131.
  3. ^ "Sydney". The Courier (Hobart). 17 December 1855. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  4. ^ "IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL. – LORD v. THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. – The Hobart Town Daily Mercury (Tas. : 1858 – 1860) – 24 May 1859". Hobart Town Daily Mercury. 24 May 1859. Retrieved 11 April 2016.
  5. ^ Caroline Norton's 1855 pamphlet:
    A Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth's Marriage and Divorce Bill
    1. a married woman has no legal existence whether or not she is living with her husband;
    2. her property is his property;
    3. she cannot make a will, the law gives what she has to her husband despite her wishes or his behavior;
    4. she may not keep her earnings;
    5. he may sue for restitution of conjugal rights and thus force her, as if a slave to return to his home;
    6. she is not allowed to defend herself in divorce;
    7. she cannot divorce him since the House of Lords in effect will not grant a divorce to her;
    8. she cannot sue for libel;
    9. she cannot sign a lease or transact business;
    10. she cannot claim support from her husband, his only obligation is to make sure she doesn't land in the parish poorhouse if he has means;
    11. she cannot bind her husband to any agreement.
    In short, as her husband, he has the right to all that is hers; as his wife she has no right to anything that is his.
    Property Rights of Women in Nineteenth-Century England
  6. ^ A married woman could not sue or be sued unless her husband was also a party to the suit. The legal status of married women prevented them from unilaterally participating in the civil legal system. Property Rights of Women in Nineteenth-Century England
  7. ^ a b Brinjikji, Hiam. "Property Rights of Women in Nineteenth Century England". Archived from the original on 5 August 2012.
  8. ^ Thomas, Pauline. "A Woman's Place in Victorian Society – Social and Fashion history". fashion-era.com. Retrieved 11 April 2016.
  9. ^ Married Woman's Property Act 1887