26 Scott, Jefferson Hogg, pp. 189–204, 212–13; Ashton, G. H. Lewes, pp. 116, 155–9; Haight,
George Eliot Letters, V, 7; Karl, George Eliot, pp. 441–2; Hughes, George Eliot, pp. 150–5;
163–6, 213–24.
27 Mack, A Prince of Our Disorder, p. 4.
28 Prosser in Lancaster Guardian, 11 February 1860, p. 2; Ross in Lancaster Guardian, 14
November 1885, p. 2; Western Daily Mercury, 6 November 1885, p. 8; 7 November 1885,
p. 2; 11 November 1885, p. 3; 2 January 1886, p. 3; Wardleworth in Lancaster Guardian,
23 November 1850, p. 2; 7 December 1850, p. 2. See also LPA, Court of Arches Records,
Schultes v. Hodgson (1822), Eee18, H319/1–9; Oliver & Toll v. Hobart (1827), H 381/1–7. Both
these cases involved vicars removed from their positions due to cohabiting unions.
29 Wolff, Sensational Victorian, pp. 104, 249–51.
30 Hunt, I Have This to Say, pp. 225–42; Goldring, South Lodge, pp. 87–114; Belford, Violet,
pp. 175–210; 238–9; Hardwick, Immodest Violet, pp. 172–3; Mizener, The Saddest Story, p.
305.
31 Wolff, Sensational Victorian, p. 105.
32 Goldring, South Lodge, pp. 108, 114 (for first quote); The Times, 8 February 1913, p. 3 (for
second).
33 A. S. Holmes, ‘“Fallen mothers”: Maternal adultery and child custody in England, 1886–
1925’, in C. Nelson and A. S. Holmes (eds), Maternal Instincts: Visions of Motherhood and
Sexuality in Britain, 1875–1925 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997), 49.
34 R. Selig, George Gissing (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), p. 17; Halperin, Gissing, p.
355.
35 Myers, Reluctant Expatriate, pp. 157–60.
36 B. Strachey and J. Samuels (eds), Mary Berenson: A Self-Portrait from Her Letters and
Diaries (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1983), pp. 42–93.
37 Hunt, I Have This to Say, p. 73.
38 Myers, Reluctant Expatriate, p. 94.
39 Halperin, Gissing, pp. 295–351; Selig, George Gissing, pp. 16–18; Fredeman, A Pre-Raphaelite
Gazette, pp. 8; 25–6.
40 Karl, George Eliot, pp. 409; 427; 584; Hughes, George Eliot, pp. 221–2; 273–4.
41 Garnett, Life of W. J. Fox, pp. 168–76; Yeldham, Margaret Gil ies RWS, p. 45.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
42 Haight, Letters of George Eliot, V, 66; VII, 268, n.7; Hughes, George Eliot, pp. 250–2; 274–6;
Wolff, Sensational Victorian, p. 107.
j
j 120
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.
adulterous cohabitation
43 C. Rol yson, Rebecca West: A Life (New York: Scribner, 1996), pp. 65–6; 87–92; H. G.
Wel s, H. G. Wel s in Love: Postscript to an Experiment in Autobiography, ed. G. P. Wel s
(London: Faber and Faber, 1984), pp. 97–107; G. Ray, H. G. Wel s and Rebecca West (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 96–166.
44 Rol yson, Rebecca West, pp. 69–94; J. R. Hammond, H. G. Wel s and Rebecca West (New
York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1991), pp. 120–43.
45 Goldring, South Lodge, pp. 110–15; 127; Belford, Violet, pp. 217–50; Hardwick, An Immodest
Violet, pp.137–42; Mizener, The Saddest Story, pp. 278–313; A. Judd, Ford Madox Ford
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 254–6; 273–8; 311–16; 321–7.
46 Mineka, The Dissidence of Dissent, p. 192; Garnett, Life of W. J. Fox, pp. 166–76.
47 Yeldham, Margaret Gil ies RWS, pp. 74–84; 87; F. N. L. Poynter, ‘Thomas Southwood
Smith – the man (1788–1861)’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 55 (1962), 390;
392; M. Howitt, An Autobiography 2 vols (London: William Isbister Ltd, 1889), II, 30–1;
311–12; Lady Lindsay, ‘Some recollections of Miss Margaret Gillies’, Temple Bar 81 (1887),
265–73.
48 Norman, After Shel ey, pp. 82–4, quote from p. 82; Scott, Jefferson Hogg, pp. 217–19.
49 Gettmann, George Gissing and H. G. Wel s, pp. 165–6.
50 Ibid. , pp. 171–2; letter from Gabrielle Fleury to H. G. Wel s, 24 June 1901, all emphases as
in original.
51 Royal Commission, II, 248,252; III, 74–90.
52 A. Martin, Working Women and Divorce (London: David Nutt, 1911), pp. 49–73.
53 Menefee, Wives for Sale; Thompson, Customs in Common, p. 409.
54 Lancaster University, Centre for Northwest Regional Studies, Elizabeth Roberts Collection
(hereafter ERC), Mrs T4P, p. 46.
55 HO 144/31/75877; The Times, 2 August 1878, p. 4; ERC, Mrs S7P, p. 9.
56 Royal Commission, III, 173–4.
57 F. Fulford, The Rector and His Flock: A View of the Cambridgeshire Vil age of Croyden in
Early Victorian Days, ed. D. Ellison (Bassingbourn, Cambridge: Bassingbourn Booklets,
1980), p. 13.
58 Justice of the Peace 47 (1883), 116–18; quote from 118.
59 Royal Commission, III, 31, 121; II, 309 (for quote).
60 J. Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender,
Family and Empire (London: Pearson/Longman, 2005), p. 174; O. Anderson, ‘Emigration
and marriage break-up in mid-Victorian England’, Economic History Review 50 (1997),
104–9. For examples, see Rex v. Twyning (1819), 2 Barnewall & Alderson’s Reports 386–
91; 106 English Reports 407–9; Martin, Working Women and Divorce, pp. 64–6; London
Metropolitan Archives, Foundling Hospital Rejected Petitions (hereafter LMA), A/FH/
A8/1/3/44/1, Petition #63, 7 June 1837; A/FH/A8/1/3/60/1, Petition # 151, 8 October 1853.
61 Royal Commission, I, 447. See also The Times, 28 July 1866, p. 12; Lancaster Guardian, 9
June 1866, p. 8; 28 July 1866, p. 3; The Times, 10 December 1887, p. 6; Portsmouth Times and
Naval Gazette County Journal, 10 December 1887, p. 3.
62 C. Chaplin, My Autobiography (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964), pp. 20–59; D.
Robinson, Chaplin: His Life and Art (London: Collins, 1985), pp. 4–36.
63 Cornell in The Times, 24 March 1863, p. 11; Duffin in Lancaster Guardian, 13 September
1890, p. 3.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
64 Royal Commission, ‘Appendix’, III, 183.
65 Battersby in Lancaster Guardian, 28 June 1900, p. 2; Chapman in Lancaster Guardian,
121 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
17 August 1895, p. 5. See also Yorkshire Gazette, 30 July 1870, p. 10; and Women’s Suffrage
Journal 13 (1882), 119.
66 Kimpton in The Times, 26 April 1858, p. 11; Elliott in Justice of the Peace 23 (1859), 117. See
also Lancaster Guardian, 29 July 1865; 22 October 1870, p. 4; 29 October 1870, p. 6; 3 July
1880, p. 7.
67 Royal Commission, II, 228.
68 See, for example, Royal Commission, II, 95; Martin, Working Women and Divorce, p. 72;
Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People of London, 17 vols (London: William &
Norgate, 1891–1904 [Reprint edition: New York: AMS
Press, 1970]), II, 53.
69 LMA, A/FH/A8/1/3/51/1, Petition #70, 3 April 1844; A/FH/A8/1/3/41/1, Petition #36, 11
June 1834.
70 LMA, A/FH/A8/1/3/44/1, Petition #63, 7 June 1837; A/FH/A8/1/3/39/1, Petition #31, 4
April 1832.
71 Royal Commission, I, 429; III, 126; Sir John Kirk, ‘The creche and the ragged school union’,
Progress, Civic, Social, Industrial: The Organ of the British Institute of Social Services 2
(1907), 184; A. Davin, Growing up Poor: Home, School and Street in London, 1870–1914
(London: Rivers Oram Press, 1996), p. 93.
72 Royal Commission, I, 324; II, 308; III, 126.
73 Cretney, Family Law, pp. 189–90.
74 Royal Commission, II, 227; III, 174 (in ‘Appendix’); see also II, 311; and A. August, Poor
Women’s Lives; Gender, Work, and Poverty in Late-Victorian London (London: Associated
University Presses, 1999), p. 48.
75 Barnham in The Times, 30 October 1862, p. 11; Woodhead in NA, HO 45/9454/70865;
The Times, 18 December 1877, p. 7; Nottingham and Midland Counties Daily Express, 15
December 1877, p. 4.
76 Royal Commission, II, 388; 383; III, 122; 31.
77 Ibid. , III, 182 (in ‘Appendix’); for other examples, see III, 171–89. See also Quilter, Is Marriage a Failure? , pp. 238–40.
78 Martin, Working Women and Divorce, pp. 1–26; quote from p. 21.
79 Banks in The Times, 28 July 1866, p. 12; Lancaster Guardian, 9 June 1966, p. 8; 28 July 1866,
p. 3; Oldham in Nottingham Evening Post, 5 March 1895, pp. 3–4; 26 March 1895, p. 3.
80 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 256–9; Royal Commission, I, 383 (for quote); II, 82.
81 Royal Commission, II, 82; III, 31. Being able to ‘pass’ as married, of course, contrasts with
the experience of gay couples. See Brady, Masculinity and Male Homosexuality, pp. 200–
6; Vicinus, Intimate Friends, pp. 61–84.
82 Ibid. , II:391; III:33.
83 Ibid. , II:389–93; Martin, Working Women and Divorce, pp. 49–74.
84 Padget in Yorkshire Gazette, 3 December 1870, p. 7; Nicholson in Lancaster Guardian,
19 October 1895, p. 5; 26 October 1895, p. 2; 31 October 1895, p. 2; Lancaster Standard, 8
November 1895, p. 8.
85 CRIM 10/59, pp. 26–32, quote from p. 30.
86 Snape in The Times, 26 July 1865, p. 6 (for quote); and Lancaster Guardian, 29 July 1865, p.
3; Cooper in The Times, 30 October 1862, p. 11.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
j
j 122
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.
6
The ‘other Victorians’: the demimonde
and the very poor
The majority of people who cohabited in the nineteenth century
did so because they could not marry, but some couples lived together
by choice. These fall into four categories: the very poor, the ‘criminal’
classes, the demimonde, and, final y, cross-class couples. This last category
is the subject of Chapter 7. This chapter concentrates on the first three of
these groups, with the most emphasis on the first, since the second and
third groups have received more historical attention. What these couples
had in common was their unrespectability, due either to poverty or their
professions. They made up two major segments of the ‘other Victorians’:
the undeserving poor and the demimonde. These couples were in more
marked dissent from the marital regime than those who could not marry,
and had less interaction with the law as a result. They did not seek reforms,
nor did they challenge gender roles. In fact, the power relations in these
groups showed that the sexual double standard was universal, since the
preference for cohabitation was not equal between the genders.
Cohabitation and the poor
The largest category of those who chose not to marry was that of the poor.
Most of the poor married legal y, of course, but a significant minority
did not. Determining the number of such couples is difficult, since many
passed as husband and wife; in addition, the numbers changed over time
and varied by region. Historians have argued that cohabitation was more
common early in the century. G. N. Gandy, in his study of Culcheth,
Lancashire, found that common-law marriages peaked between 1829
and 1842, when the economy was most depressed. Gandy estimated that
10 to 20 per cent of all couples were in free unions between 1780–1840,
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
but over 30 per cent in the 1830s. Similarly, J. R. Gillis argued the period
between 1750 and 1850 was an age of marital nonconformity, with large
j
j 123
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
numbers of irregular unions, though differentiated by region. Areas with
cottage industries, in which women and children could contribute to the
family economy, had higher levels of cohabitation. Anna Clark’s work also
revealed many common-law marriages in the first half of the nineteenth
century, particularly in weaving communities in Scotland and Lancashire.1
In short, cohabiting couples were a normal part of the landscape between
1800 and 1850, with some regional variations.
Later in the century, the numbers dropped, though many cohabitees
probably just concealed their status more successful y. Maude Davies, who
surveyed families in a rural vil age in Wiltshire in the early 1900s, found
no cases of cohabitation out of 130 families. Either they were not willing
to make their situation public, or vil agers would not tolerate unmarried
couples in their midst. Stil , the acceptance or disapproval of cohabitation
varied by region. Barry Reay’s research in Kent revealed several examples
of long-term irregular unions after 1850, as much as 10 to 15 per cent of
his couples. In other words, people called themselves married, and their
neighbours went along with it. Though they did not advertise their free
unions, the high number of such couples is significant, particularly for the
late nineteenth century and a rural area.2
Large cities had a wider scope for marital nonconformity. Middle-
class observers of urban poverty, such as Charles Booth, surveyed poor
neighbourhoods, recording the number of unmarried couples. Despite his
diligence, Booth probably undercounted; many families refused to speak
to him, and others may have misled him. Booth’s researches showed that in
the poorest districts, the number of unmarried couples was the highest, but
still only around 10 per cent. B. Seebohn Rowntree’s survey of York yielded
even fewer examples; only one family out of 103 in the lowest two income
groups admitted to living outside marriage and none at all in the top two
income group
s.3 As Rowntree’s conclusions indicate, as one went up the
social scale, the emphasis on respectability grew, and couples were more
likely to be married – or at least less likely to admit to being unmarried.
Some neighbourhoods may have had as high a concentration as 20 per cent
unwed couples, but overall the number was probably half that, especial y in
the late nineteenth century.
Despite their small numbers, such couples worried middle-class and
upper-class observers. Charles Tijou, the bailiff of Bow County Court,
complained that East End cohabitees freely admitted their status and met
little disapproval from neighbours. Andrew Mearns, writing about the
slums of London, asserted, ‘Ask if the men and women living together in
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
these rookeries are married, and your simplicity will cause a smile. Nobody
knows. Nobody cares.’ Similarly, George Sims asked cohabiting couples in
j
j 124
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.
the demimonde and the very poor
the poorest parts of England why they did not marry, and they replied that
they ‘never gave it a thought’.4 These observers melded together their fears
of an uncontrolled lower class with sexual freedom, assuming that those
who could live happily ‘in sin’ were also idle, drunken, and criminal. The
elision between these categories was almost universal, perhaps because such
couples were more threatening than those who could not marry. As we will
see, these worries were largely unfounded, though deliberate cohabitees
did expand the definition of marriage beyond its legal borders.
Reasons
Rather than being pathological, many cohabitees had sensible reasons
for living ‘in sin’ and saw clearly the difference between cohabitation and
marriage. For instance, cohabiting couples kept their privacy. Both the 1848
and 1894 Royal Commissions on Marriage and Divorce reported that many
couples resented the publicity of the banns. This was one reason, too, for the
beginnings of civil marriage in 1836, and its further simplification in 1856.5
Living in Sin Page 25