Living in Sin
Page 19
more bigamy cases. Both were motivated by a trial in Staffordshire during
the winter assizes. The defendant, Rosannah Owen, had been married to
William Owen, who, she testified, had ill-treated her and then thrown her
out of their home. Justice Mathew stopped the trial there, asking who had
prosecuted. A local police constable had done so; furthermore, Rosannah
had a good character in her town. At that point, Mathew discharged her
with no punishment. The chief constable admitted that this case was not
heinous, but argued that ‘there may arise some future question of legitimacy
of children, so … there are strong reasons for punishing such offences.’
Since most bigamists were working-class, the constable’s remarks about
property were beside the point to most judges. In contrast, most of them
believed, as Justice Hawkins put it in 1898, that couples who had hurt no
one should be ‘free from the vexatious interference of the law.’81
Eventual y, the Director of Public Prosecutions came up with a set
of guidelines for prosecution. In 1901, when the question of trying Lord
Russell for his second marriage, made in America, arose, R. B. Finlay
delineated them:
Firstly, whether the case is in itself a bad one, e.g., where, as not infrequently
happens, persons have been in the habit of going through a ceremony of
marriage with young women in order, either to obtain possession of their
persons or possession of their money; (2) where the circumstances of the
case are such as to occasion serious injury either to the wife or the person
with whom the second marriage ceremony was gone through.
In Finlay’s opinion, Russel ’s case met neither of these criteria, so he
recommended against prosecution. The fact that the Attorney General
insisted on the prosecution was more a case of Russel ’s personal
unpopularity than the norm in bigamy trials by the end of the century.82
Public prosecutions, except in rare instances, did not pay.
If even the legal community could not agree on the desirability of
prosecuting bigamy cases, the public’s ambivalence is not surprising. In fact,
one could argue that these cases are another example of the legal system
being influenced from the bottom up. The actions of thousands of ordinary
people to expand the marriage law – and the support they received from
neighbours, kin, and, eventual y, the courts – limited the effectiveness of
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
an entire type of criminal prosecution. These cases, like the violence trials,
also partial y revise notions of the biases of the Victorian judicial system.
j
j 90
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
bigamy and cohabitation
Although their reasoning could be flawed and inequitable, judges did
take many circumstances into account in sentencing, which mitigated the
conventions of class and gender. In addition, bigamies again emphasised
the difficulties of the criminal justice system in dealing with a status with
no legal standing. As a result, judges did not impose middle-class standards
of morality, nor did they favour men over women; if anything, they did the
opposite. Judges’ leniency was such, in fact, that they came into conflict
with local authorities rather than presenting a united front in favour of
legal marriage.
The judges were perhaps more supportive of marriage by their
flexibility than by a rigorous execution of the law. They realised that most
of the people involved in bigamous unions did not intend to subvert
matrimony. For one thing, they wanted to have a ritual and the support of the
state. For another, their second, happier unions were better advertisements
for marriage than their first, unhappy ones. In fact, reformers argued that
the laws meant to support marriage instead undermined it by forcing
people to remain in empty unions. As a result, some unhappy couples took
little notice of the law. As long as certain rules were followed, most people
accepted these bigamous unions.
Though this usual y remained unstated, bigamous marriages
were, by definition, adulterous. At least one marriage had been broken
up, and sometimes both partners had formed second unions. The fact
that communities accepted these couples as married anyway disturbed
conservatives, but at least bigamists agreed that a marriage ceremony was
vital. Not all couples made that choice. Some instead lived together without
any wedding at al , openly cohabiting in adultery. Such partnerships offered
another, and in some ways, stronger critique of marriage and divorce laws
and a redefinition of marriage as a relationship and idea. Not surprisingly,
then, they also provoked more disapproval from their families and the
wider community.
Notes
1 S. Colwel , ‘The incidence of bigamy in 18th and 19th century England’, Family History 11
(1980), 92; Justice Ridley, ‘Increase in bigamy’, Justice of the Peace 74 (1910), 125.
2 Parliamentary Papers: Judicial Statistics of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office, 1857–1906).
3 G. Savage, ‘Defining the boundaries of marital sexuality: Bigamy, incest, and sodomy
in the divorce court, 1857–1907’, Mid-Atlantic Conference on British Studies Annual
Meeting, New Brunswick, NJ, 22 March 2003.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
4 J. Skinner, Journal of a Somerset Rector, 1800–1834, eds H. Coombs and P. Coombs
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 35; G. Aldred, From Anglican Boy-Preacher to
91
j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
Anarchist Socialist Impossiblist (London: Bakunin Press, 1908), pp. 48–52.
5 I amassed this group of cases from the same newspapers as the violence trials. The years
I used were the same in the two provincial newspapers; for the Times, I looked at every
bigamy case in the index at five-year intervals beginning in 1830 and ending in 1900. I also
included cases from law reports and the Annual Register. The chronological breakdown
was as follows: before 1830: ten cases; 1830–39: eighteen cases; 1840–49: thirty-nine cases;
1850–59: forty-six cases; 1860–69: forty-eight cases; 1870–79: thirty-four cases; 1880–89:
forty-eight cases; 1890–99: thirty-three cases; 1900 and after: twenty-eight cases.
6 See, for example, The Times, 17 May 1845, p. 8; Justice of the Peace 72 (1908), 90; 9 (1845),
624; and 15 (1851), 711. Bentley, English Criminal Justice, p. 164.
7 G. W. Bartholomew, ‘The origin and development of the law of bigamy’, Law Quarterly
Rev
iew 74 (1958), 259–71; see also Bartholomew, ‘Polygamous marriages and English
criminal law’, Modern Law Review 17 (1954), 350–4. For the defence of invalidity of first
and second marriages, see Reg. v. Chadwick (1847); 11 Justice of the Peace 140–3; 829–40;
and Reg. v. Al en (1872); 1 Law Reports, Crown Cases Reserved 367–77; 36 Justice of the
Peace 356–7; 820–2; The Times, 6 May 1872, p. 13.
8 See Yorkshire Gazette, 16 March 1850, p. 7; The Times, 17 July 1850, p. 8.
9 1 Law Reports, Crown Cases Reserved (1872), 196–9; The Times, 26 April 1869, p. 11; L.
Radzinowicz and R. Hood, ‘Judicial discretion and sentencing standards: Victorian
attempts to solve a perennial problem’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 127 (1979),
1288–1349. I thank Dr Stephen White for this reference and for Bartholomew’s articles,
above.
10 23 Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division (1889), 168–203; 54 Justice of the Peace (1890), 4–7;
The Times, 28 January 1889, p. 3.
11 T. J. Gilfoyle, ‘The hearts of nineteenth-century men: bigamy and working-class marriage
in New York City, 1800–1890’, Prospects 19 (1994), 135–60; Colwel , ‘Incidence of bigamy’,
p. 95.
12 52 Justice of the Peace (1888), 808; Lancaster Guardian, 7 March 1868, p. 3.
13 The Times, 26 August 1872, p. 9.
14 Derby in Warwick and Warwickshire Advertiser, 15 November 1879, p. 3; The Times, 17
November 1879, p. 11; Steventon in The Times, 20 April 1880, p. 13 (for quote); Liverpool
Mercury, 20 April 1880, p. 6. See also Colwel , ‘Incidence of bigamy’, 96.
15 Johnson in The Times, 13 July 1830, p. 4; Robertson in The Times, 8 May 1855, p. 11.
16 Annals of Our Time (1840), p. 70; R. M. Fox, Drifting Men (London: The Hogarth Press,
1930), p. 92. Fox was in prison for refusing to fight in World War I. See also Annual
Register 85 (1843), p. 116; Colwel , ‘Incidence of bigamy’, 102.
17 Annual Register 7 (1764), p. 113; Lancaster Guardian, 17 December 1870, p. 2.
18 Prince in Leeds Daily News, 24 January 1880, p. 4; Coaley in The Times, 11 May 1895, p. 16.
19 Anyone with a job that required work for wages was working class, as well as criminals
and those described as ‘poor’. Small business owners and clerks were lower-middle
class, and those with larger concerns or in the professions were middle class. The small
upper class included those with independent incomes or ‘gentlemen’. Both Gilfoyle’s and
Colwel ’s samples were also overwhelmingly working class, ‘Hearts of nineteenth-century
men’, 137; ‘Incidence of bigamy’, 101.
20 Yorkshire Gazette, 13 June 1885, p. 6.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
21 NA, PCOM 1/138, p. 1064; The Times, 28 August 1890, p. 11; 12 September 1890, p. 10.
22 Manley in The Times, 19 December 1860, p. 9; Dames in The Times, 22 April 1885, p. 10;
j
j 92
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
bigamy and cohabitation
Western Times, 22 April 1885, p. 3.
23 E. Roberts, A Woman’s Place: An Oral History of Working-Class Women, 1890–1940
(Oxford: Basil Blackwel , 1984); E. Ross, ‘“Not the sort that would sit on the doorstep”:
Respectability in pre-World War I London neighbourhoods’, International Labor and
Working-Class History 27 (1985), 39–59; Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 248–52; M.
Tebbutt, Women’s Talk? A Social History of ‘Gossip’ in Working-Class Neighbourhoods,
1880–1960 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995); and E. P. Thompson, Customs in Common:
Studies in Traditional Popular Culture (New York: New Press, 1993), pp. 442–52.
24 Griffiths in The Times, 16 March 1850, p. 8; Trouse in The Times, 8 August 1885, p. 6; East
Sussex News, 7 August 1885, p. 5. See also Gilfoyle, ‘Hearts of nineteenth-century men’,
139–42.
25 The Times, 30 March 1854, p. 9; M. L. Shanley, Feminism, Marriage, and the Law in
Victorian England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 37.
26 Ainley in The Times, 15 July 1840, pp. 6–7 (quote from p. 6); Matthews in The Times, 30
November 1900, p. 11 (first quote) and Bristol Mercury Supplement, 1 December 1900, p.
6 (second quote).
27 Collen in PCOM 1/43, pp. 284–7; The Times, 17 December 1840, p. 7; Galway in PCOM
1/59, p. 505; The Times, 8 March 1850, p. 7; see also The Times, 3 April 1845, 7; and Liverpool
Mercury, 4 April 1845, p. 117 (bound).
28 P. Ayers and J. Lambertz, ‘Marriage relations, money, and domestic violence in working-
class Liverpool, 1919–39’, in J. Lewis (ed.), Labour and Love: Women’s Experience of Home
and Family, 1850–1940 (Oxford: Basil Blackwel , 1986), 195–219; and E. Ross, ‘“Fierce
questions and taunts”: Married life in working-class London, 1870–1914’, Feminist Studies
8 (1982), 575–602.
29 Lancaster Guardian, 10 November 1900, p. 3.
30 Both cases in Yorkshire Gazette, 10 March 1855, p. 7; Colwel , ‘Incidence of bigamy’, 99–
100.
31 The Times, 10 May 1865, p. 11. See also Emma Hill/Hall in CRIM 10/69, p. 20; The Times,
25 March 1880, p. 4.
32 Annual Register 84 (1842), 143.
33 The Times, 21 November 1865, p. 9.
34 The Times, 11 December 1875, p. 11; Durham County Advertiser, 10 December 1875, p. 7
(for quote).
35 See The Times, 10 December 1870, p. 11; Hampshire Advertiser and County Newspaper, 10
December 1870, p. 8; and CRIM 10/2, p. 365; The Times, 11 July 1850, p. 7.
36 E. Ross, Love and Toil: Motherhood in Outcast London, 1870–1918 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), pp. 84–6; Hammerton, Cruelty and Companionship, pp. 34–67;
Conley, The Unwritten Law, pp. 74–81; A. Clark, The Struggle for the Breeches: Gender
and the Making of the British Working Class (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
1995), pp. 67–87; and Behlmer, Friends of the Family, pp. 181–229.
37 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 251–3; Ross, Love and Toil, pp. 69–86; Clark, The Struggle
for the Breeches, pp. 259–63.
38 The Times, 21 March 1860, p. 11; Justice of the Peace 22 (1858), 454–5; 63 (1899), 795; Gilfoyle,
‘Hearts of nineteenth-century men’, 150.
39 The Times, 12 November 1900, p. 11.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
40 See, for instance, The Times, 8 February 1850, p. 7; 9 May 1845, p. 14; 13 March 1865, p. 11;
Staffordshire Advertiser, 11 March 1865, p. 5; 18 March 1865, p. 6.
93
j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
41 The Times, 30 July 1860, p. 11; 12 December 1860, p. 9; 18 December 1860, p. 11; and
Warwick and Warwickshire Advertiser, 15 November 1879, p. 3; The Times, 17 November
1879, p. 11; Women’s Suffrage Jour
nal 11 (1880), 6.
42 Bickerstaffe in The Times, 14 March 1860, p. 12; Yorkshire Gazette, 17 March 1860, p. 4;
Greene in PCOM 1/60, pp. 471–73; The Times, 22 August 1850, pp. 6–7.
43 Jones in The Times, 24 August 1850, p. 7; Green in Il ustrated Police News, 2 July 1898, p. 2.
44 Moran in The Times, 26 October 1855, p. 9; Curgenwen in The Times, 7 August 1865, p. 9;
Cornish Times, 5 August 1865, p. 4; 1 Law Reports, Crown Cases Reserved (1872), 1–4; 29
Justice of the Peace 820–1.
45 The Times, 9 June 1830, p. 6.
46 Leeds Daily News, 31 March 1890, p. 3; PCOM 1/138, pp. 957–9; The Times, 1 August 1890,
p. 10; and 30 March 1854, p. 9.
47 Windsor in Leeds Daily News, 6 August 1875, p. 6; Jessop in Lancaster Guardian, 5 March
1870, p. 3; Potling in The Times, 22 April 1830, p. 3.
48 Annual Register, ‘Chronicle’, 81 (1838), 122–3.
49 Scoltock in The Times, 22 March 1890, p. 5; Young in Justice of the Peace 71 (1907), 401.
50 For judges, see The Times, 12 July 1845, p. 8; and 20 April 1880, p. 13; for newspapers’ terms
see The Times, 8 March 1850, p. 7; and 19 December 1855, p. 11.
51 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, p. 229; Clark, Struggle for the Breeches; and S. Rose, Limited
Livelihoods: Gender and Class in Nineteenth-Century England (Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 1992).
52 Thompson, Customs in Common, p. 430.
53 Courtney in The Times, 16 November 1900, p. 10; Western Times, 15 November 1900, p. 3;
Calvert in Yorkshire Gazette, 10 March 1855, p. 7; Cobbett in Royal Commission on Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes 3 vols [Vols. 18–20 of Parliamentary Papers of 1912] (London: His
Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1912), I, 403.
54 Weaver in The Times, 13 March 1865, p. 11; Goode in PCOM 1/118, p. 687 and The Times,
20 October 1880, p. 4 (for quote).
55 Garden in The Times, 17 March 1845, p. 8; Rogerson in The Times, 12 December 1900,
p. 14.
56 The Times, 19 August 1884, p. 3; 28 August 1884, p. 3; quote from 19 August.
57 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 190–228; B. Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism
and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Virago, 1983), pp. 47–53.
58 Aldred, From Anglican Boy-Preacher, p. 48. See also PCOM 1/43, pp. 284–7; The Times, 17
December 1840, p. 7; 31 July 1861, p. 1; and CRIM 10/86, pp. 77–8 (1895).