breach of promise article

4
W hen women began to take their first tentative steps towards equality at the end of the nineteenth century, they were more than equal in the eyes of one law. And they knew it. Breach of promise of marriage was a flourishing legal action that allowed a jilted person to demand compensation from their faithless intended. In theory, the claim was gender neutral. In practice, men seldom sued for damages as they usually left the court hearing with the smallest coin of the realm, and the catcalls of spectators ringing in their ears. Women were very clued up about their legal rights, and enforced them, regularly winning a hundred pounds or more to make their continuing solitary state more tolerable. At today’s values, this is comparable to receiving around £10,000. It would not keep the woman in luxury for the rest of her life, but used sensibly, it could provide a little something for a rainy day. As Victorian women had few opportunities for saving because of the lack of well-paid work available to them, claiming damages after a broken engagement was a sensible insurance against hardship. Most scorned women were content with just one claim for breach of promise, but an unlucky few found themselves having to sue more than once. Farmer’s daughter Harriet Roper was already 30 when her fiancé decided not to go ahead with the wedding unless her father gave the pair a wedding gift of £500. In 1871, Harriet obtained £100 damages for her broken engagement. A few years later, the now middle-aged spinster met a young man who worked in his father’s grocery business. The couple became engaged, but James Bagley said he would only wed her when he could afford to maintain a wife. After two years, Bagley ended the engagement and Harriet wrote, ‘I think you ought to be made an example of to prevent others being deceived as I have been.’ Her opportunity came in 1880 when Bagley married someone else, proving that he could afford to support a wife and family. This time Harriet obtained £80 and The Times commented that she was in a remarkable and unique position having obtained two lots of damages for being jilted. Repeat offenders Harriet was not the first woman to obtain damages from two different men. The first may have been dressmaker Matilda Ubsdell, who made two successful claims in the 1840s, netting £300 and then one farthing, which was the smallest coin of the realm. At this time juries seem to have disliked a woman enriching herself more than once for being jilted, probably wondering if she had given the men good reason not to want to marry her. In 1860, Fanny Davies unexpectedly lost what appeared to be a very strong DISCOVER YOUR HISTORY • MARCH 2014 58 www.discoveryourhistory.net Breach of Promise of Marriage Denise Bates uncovers the antics of Victorian women who made multiple claims for damages after being jilted before getting to the altar

Upload: pen-and-sword-books-ltd

Post on 01-Apr-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

As featured in Discover Your History magazine

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Breach of Promise article

When women began totake their firsttentative stepstowards equality at the

end of the nineteenth century, theywere more than equal in the eyes ofone law. And they knew it. Breach ofpromise of marriage was aflourishing legal action that alloweda jilted person to demandcompensation from their faithlessintended. In theory, the claim wasgender neutral. In practice, menseldom sued for damages as theyusually left the court hearing withthe smallest coin of the realm, andthe catcalls of spectators ringing intheir ears.

Women were very clued up abouttheir legal rights, and enforced them,regularly winning a hundredpounds or more to make theircontinuing solitary state moretolerable. At today’s values, this iscomparable to receiving around£10,000. It would not keep thewoman in luxury for the rest of herlife, but used sensibly, it could

provide a little something for a rainyday. As Victorian women had fewopportunities for saving because ofthe lack of well-paid work availableto them, claiming damages after abroken engagement was a sensibleinsurance against hardship.

Most scorned women werecontent with just one claim forbreach of promise, but an unluckyfew found themselves having to suemore than once. Farmer’s daughterHarriet Roper was already 30 whenher fiancé decided not to go aheadwith the wedding unless her fathergave the pair a wedding gift of £500.In 1871, Harriet obtained £100damages for her brokenengagement. A few years later, thenow middle-aged spinster met ayoung man who worked in hisfather’s grocery business. Thecouple became engaged, but JamesBagley said he would only wed herwhen he could afford to maintain awife. After two years, Bagley endedthe engagement and Harriet wrote,‘I think you ought to be made an

example of to prevent others beingdeceived as I have been.’ Heropportunity came in 1880 whenBagley married someone else,proving that he could afford tosupport a wife and family. This timeHarriet obtained £80 and The Timescommented that she was in aremarkable and unique positionhaving obtained two lots of damagesfor being jilted.

Repeat offendersHarriet was not the first woman toobtain damages from two differentmen. The first may have beendressmaker Matilda Ubsdell, whomade two successful claims in the1840s, netting £300 and then onefarthing, which was the smallestcoin of the realm. At this time juriesseem to have disliked a womanenriching herself more than once forbeing jilted, probably wondering ifshe had given the men good reasonnot to want to marry her. In 1860,Fanny Davies unexpectedly lostwhat appeared to be a very strong

D I S C O V E R YO U R H I S TO RY • M A R C H 2 0 1 458 w w w. d i s c o v e r y o u r h i s t o r y . n e t

Breach of Promiseof MarriageDenise Bates uncovers the antics of Victorian women who made multipleclaims for damages after being jilted before getting to the altar

Page 2: Breach of Promise article

case against Thomas Bomford whenhis barrister mentioned in court thatshe had settled a claim against aMr Skinner by a privatearrangement the previous year.

By the 1870s, succeeding withmore than one claim was acceptableif a woman had been let down twice.Caroline Negus obtained £100 fromThomas Tagg in 1866 when he threwher over and wed another woman.When Tagg’s wife died he began tocourt his first love again before jiltingher for a second time in 1872. On thisoccasion she was awarded £500, thefull amount she had claimed fromhim. As it was unusual for a jury togive a woman all the money sherequested, this case shows thatwomen who had been treated badlyon more than one occasion couldnow receive a reasonable amount ofcompensation for both.

Deceived and discardedThe most publicized case of awoman who made two successfulclaims was that of Elizabeth Dredge,an attractive young woman whoworked at Truefitt’s, an upper-classbarber’s shop in London. Sheattracted the amorous advances of awealthy American customer whopromised to marry her when hebecame financially independent ofhis family. On this basis she agreedto live with him and bore him a

daughter, but rather than marry her,he courted and married a richwidow instead. Elizabeth sued himfor breach of promise and obtained£1,500 in 1872, an exceptionallygenerous award for a discardedmistress.

To disguise the social stigma ofbeing an unmarried mother,Elizabeth moved to Bournemouth.There she reinvented herself aswidowed Elinor Miller and built upa successful business as a millinerand hairdresser. A few years later,she captured the interest of localproperty entrepreneur, Henry Joy,who asked her to be his wife. Whena woman had a dubious episode inher past it was conventional for herto reveal this in confidence if shereceived an offer of marriage. WhenElinor told him about her previousrelationship Joy said this made nodifference to him and confirmed hisoffer, but when his scandalizedchildren objected to their father’splan to provide them with astepmother, he changed his mindabout marriage. Rather thanbehaving as a gentleman andnegotiating a private monetarysettlement, he ended theengagement and threatened to revealher shameful secret if she took courtaction against him. When Elinor

began a court claim for damages,rumours began to circulate inBournemouth that she had neverbeen married and her daughter wasillegitimate.

By 1883, the Victorian middleclass had become very censorious ofanyone whose behaviour fell outsidea rigid and unforgiving moral code.Elinor’s clients deserted her indroves and her carefully nurturedbusiness collapsed almost overnight.She had the final word when a juryordered Joy to pay her £2,500

M A R C H 2 0 1 4 • D I S C O V E R YO U R H I S TO RY 59w w w. d i s c o v e r y o u r h i s t o r y . n e t

Women in History

EVEN BEFORE THE Victorian era, pre-marital relations could be a minefield.In this engraving from 1805, a young manhands a young woman a note, and apoem printed beneath the image is acaricature of romantic courtship:

A Receipt for CourtshipTwo or three dears, and two or three

sweets;Two or three balls, and two or three treats;Two or three serenades, given as a lure;Two or three oaths how much they endure;Two or three messages sent in a day;Two or three times led out from the play;Two or three soft speeches made by the way;Two or three tickets for two or three times;Two or three love letters writ all in rhymes;Two or three months keeping strict to

these rules,Can never fail making a couple of fools.

Library of Congress

A NEW COURT of Queen’s Bench, As itOught to Be – or – The Ladies Trying aContemptuous Scoundrel for a ‘Breach ofPromise’, a caricature by GeorgeCruikshank for the 1850 Comic Almanack.

Page 3: Breach of Promise article

damages because he was seen asmean and malignant for publicizingsomething he had been told inconfidence. This was one of thelargest awards of damages made inthe nineteenth century. It caused apublic sensation because damages ofmore than £1,000 were usuallyreserved for gentlemen’s daughtersrather than working-class womenwho had been obliged to go out andearn a living. Despite her shockinglapse from prevailing moralstandards, Elinor had obtained alady’s compensation twice.

Fraudulent claimsNot all women who sued more thanonce had been unfortunate in theirchoice of men. Breach of promise wasan easy claim to win because successwas based on whether a man hadactually suggested marriage, even in ajocular or drunken manner. Thismade it susceptible to fraud aswomen identified a naïve orvulnerable man, flirted or conned aproposal out of him and then

threatened a claim for breach ofpromise when he realized his folly.There are indications that numbers ofmen bought their way out of anunwise proposal and it wasconsidered that a gentleman shouldmake a private arrangement to payoff a woman to whom he had madeindiscreet promises, rather than allowhis folly to become the talk of thetown.

A few women were serialfiancées. In 1877, Sarah Deane suedan elderly clergyman, ThomasOldacres, and won £150. Astonishedto receive her claim, which wasbased on little more than a fewconversations at a railway stationwith a fellow traveller, eight yearspreviously, Oldacres did not takeher writ as seriously as he shouldhave done, assuming that no jurywould believe her story. Shocked bythe outcome, Oldacres hastilyemployed a private detective, thewonderfully named William JollyDeath, to investigate. Soon it wasclear that Sarah was a petty criminal

who had served a prison sentencefor robbery. She had alsocompromised two other actions forbreach of promise in privatearrangements. One of these wasduring the period when she allegedthat she was engaged to theclergyman. Armed with this newinformation, Oldacres appealed forthe verdict against him to bequashed. He argued that a womancould not be engaged to two men atthe same time and, if she hadaccepted another man’s offer ofmarriage, this dissolved anyengagement to him. Sarah was toldthat if she wanted to pursueOldacres for damages, she wouldhave to do so in a new trial whenhis legal team would be able topresent this new information to thejury. Wisely, Sarah chose not tobring a further claim againstOldacres. Whether she continuedentrapping and then blackmailingother men for a few pounds is notknown.

Irrespective of whether she madeone claim or more, and whether shetook a man to court or negotiated aprivate settlement with him, awoman who demanded money tocompensate her for a brokenengagement was often consideredto be mercenary, a little hussy or anextortioner. Even a successful claimfor breach of promise seems to havebeen treated as a skeleton in thefamily cupboard and not talkedabout. So when you’re researchingyour family tree and discover thatdemure spinster Great-Aunt Maudnever went out to work, neverinherited any money, yet managedto support herself from a little nestegg she had discreetly invested, itmight be worth asking yourself,was she once a woman scorned? �

D I S C O V E R YO U R H I S TO RY • M A R C H 2 0 1 460 w w w. d i s c o v e r y o u r h i s t o r y . n e t

Denise Bates is the authorof Breach of Promise toMarry: A History of HowJilted Brides SettledScores, recently publishedat £12.99 by Pen &Sword. Discover YourHistory readers can buyit for the special price of£10.99 with FREE UK postage by using the code151141. Call 01226 734222 or visit www.pen-and-sword.co.uk and enter the code.

Discover more

Women in History

SIX MEMBERS OF a wedding party wait for the minister to arrive in Awaiting the Minister, anAmerican photographic stereograph, created with two almost identical images, onesuperimposed on the other, which when viewed through a stereoscope or special glasses,give a three-dimensional effect. Library of Congress

Page 4: Breach of Promise article

FAMILYHISTORYCOURSES

A VARIETY OFDAY SCHOOLS

& OTHER COURSESAccredited online

study courseIHGS.~The School of Family History

79-82 Northgate, Canterbury, CT1 1BA

Tel. 01227 768664

www.ihgs.ac.uk

SovereignAncestry

“The one stop service from a singlecopy to a complete family history.”

All aspects of English, Welsh,Scottish & Irish encestral research& location photography undertakenby experienced, professionaland enthusiasticgenealogists.Overseas clients aspeciality with avariety of paymentmethods available.

Research Servicesavailable throughoutEurope, USA, Canada& Australasia.

The Willows, High Street, Swineshead,Boston, Lincolnshire PE20 3LH

tel 0845 838 7246 or 07721 679104email [email protected] www.sovereign-ancestry.com

61 6/2/14 15:02 Page 1