The Lady In Red: An Eighteenth-Century Tale Of Sex, Scandal, And Divorce by Hallie Rubenhold
Authors: Hallie Rubenhold
Ads: Link
divorce, like death would also free her fortune and enable her to remarry as she chose. Regrettably, neither the stipulations of her marriage contract nor the law provided for this. The harsh truth of the situation was that if she chose to leave her husband’s protection she would also relinquish access to any funds. The law was constructed so that women were dependent on the largesse of men: fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands and, in widowhood, their sons. Runaway adulteresses, like whores, were expected to live off the charity of their lovers.
An elopement would have tied Lady Worsley’s lot to that of the captain and whatever hardships he encountered would also become hers. Although society would stigmatise him less, George Bisset would still face stiff penalties for his behaviour. By absconding with the wife of his senior officer and intimate companion, Bisset would be in breach of a rigid gentleman’s code of honour which placed fraternal bonds and the dictates of hierarchy at the very heart of male relations. In future, virtuous women might think twice about receiving him while many of his male acquaintance would be less inclined to trust a man who was prepared to betray a friend and social superior. How his religious family would view his transgression can only be imagined. But in spite of this loss of esteem, scorn would not be Bisset’s
primary concern. The possibility that Sir Richard might seek satisfaction in the form of a duel could not be discounted altogether; however by the late eighteenth century it was far more fashionable for a cuckolded husband to exact his revenge in court with a charge of criminal conversation.
The offence of criminal conversation, or ‘crim. con.’ as it came to be known, was no more than a euphemism describing an act of sexual intercourse with another man’s wife. Since the religious laws that prohibited adultery had been relaxed in the late seventeenth century, alternative ways of punishing marital infidelity had to be found. The action for criminal conversation evolved out of the civil law of ‘trespass’, which covered offences of ‘mayhem, battery or wounding’. In this case, the ‘wounding’ had been done to the plaintiff ’s wife, by ‘polluting’ or ‘defiling’ her person and chastity, therefore the suit of crim. con. was about extracting reparations for the damage inflicted on a man’s property. As a legal action it stood entirely apart from any additional suit pursued in Parliament or in Doctors’ Commons. It was not obligatory for a man to secure a divorce before initiating proceedings for crim. con., nor did the result of a criminal conversation trial necessarily influence another court’s decision about the dissolution of a claimant’s marriage.
Prior to 1760, the legal expenses of launching an action for crim. con. at the Court of the King’s Bench were so unaffordable that most disputes tended to be settled out of court, either by means of a private payment to the injured husband or, in some cases, by a duel. However by the second half of the eighteenth century a general increase in wealth meant that more husbands were prepared to do battle in open court. A successfully prosecuted suit for crim. con. also had the ability to restore a man’s injured sense of honour. This was duelling, but by another name.
As might be expected, indignant spouses wishing to salve their dignity brought forth claims for astronomical amounts: £10,000 even £15,000. Spectacular payouts encouraged others to come forward with their complaints. The result was a veritable explosion of criminal conversation litigation between 1760 and 1829. At its peak between 1789 and 1799, 73 cases were heard. 2 The numbers only began to drop when juries became less inclined to hand out large settlements and the action was eventually abolished in 1857, when public sentiment turned against the idea of ascribing a value to a man’s wife.
It is remarkable that with so many factors to
An elopement would have tied Lady Worsley’s lot to that of the captain and whatever hardships he encountered would also become hers. Although society would stigmatise him less, George Bisset would still face stiff penalties for his behaviour. By absconding with the wife of his senior officer and intimate companion, Bisset would be in breach of a rigid gentleman’s code of honour which placed fraternal bonds and the dictates of hierarchy at the very heart of male relations. In future, virtuous women might think twice about receiving him while many of his male acquaintance would be less inclined to trust a man who was prepared to betray a friend and social superior. How his religious family would view his transgression can only be imagined. But in spite of this loss of esteem, scorn would not be Bisset’s
primary concern. The possibility that Sir Richard might seek satisfaction in the form of a duel could not be discounted altogether; however by the late eighteenth century it was far more fashionable for a cuckolded husband to exact his revenge in court with a charge of criminal conversation.
The offence of criminal conversation, or ‘crim. con.’ as it came to be known, was no more than a euphemism describing an act of sexual intercourse with another man’s wife. Since the religious laws that prohibited adultery had been relaxed in the late seventeenth century, alternative ways of punishing marital infidelity had to be found. The action for criminal conversation evolved out of the civil law of ‘trespass’, which covered offences of ‘mayhem, battery or wounding’. In this case, the ‘wounding’ had been done to the plaintiff ’s wife, by ‘polluting’ or ‘defiling’ her person and chastity, therefore the suit of crim. con. was about extracting reparations for the damage inflicted on a man’s property. As a legal action it stood entirely apart from any additional suit pursued in Parliament or in Doctors’ Commons. It was not obligatory for a man to secure a divorce before initiating proceedings for crim. con., nor did the result of a criminal conversation trial necessarily influence another court’s decision about the dissolution of a claimant’s marriage.
Prior to 1760, the legal expenses of launching an action for crim. con. at the Court of the King’s Bench were so unaffordable that most disputes tended to be settled out of court, either by means of a private payment to the injured husband or, in some cases, by a duel. However by the second half of the eighteenth century a general increase in wealth meant that more husbands were prepared to do battle in open court. A successfully prosecuted suit for crim. con. also had the ability to restore a man’s injured sense of honour. This was duelling, but by another name.
As might be expected, indignant spouses wishing to salve their dignity brought forth claims for astronomical amounts: £10,000 even £15,000. Spectacular payouts encouraged others to come forward with their complaints. The result was a veritable explosion of criminal conversation litigation between 1760 and 1829. At its peak between 1789 and 1799, 73 cases were heard. 2 The numbers only began to drop when juries became less inclined to hand out large settlements and the action was eventually abolished in 1857, when public sentiment turned against the idea of ascribing a value to a man’s wife.
It is remarkable that with so many factors to
Similar Books
