RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Eric Hatfield on Tuesday 21 August 18 06:23 BST (UK)
-
An ancestor I am researching was, as a 22 year old single woman, convicted of concealing the birth of her child and imprisoned for 2 weeks. The child was stillborn and the stage of the pregnancy was not mentioned, but as it was only 7 months and 1 week since she gave birth to her previous child, the child was obviously premature. This was in UK (Herefordshire) in 1865.
I am trying to understand her life and situation, as she seems to have had a difficult life and appears to have been a victim of circumstances. Does anyone know if this conviction indicates that the mother had obtained an abortion?
-
Hi there,
Was anyone else tried on that same day in that court ... if she obtained a termination, then perhaps the person performing it ought to have been charged too.
JM
-
Abortion is a different offence, so the fact she's been convicted of concealment would indicate it wasn't an abortion, imho.
-
If they could prove illegal abortion they would try for that offence and I think the sentence would be far more than 2 weeks. Looks like she hid the body of the stillbirth and it was found.
Wonder if she was living with the father of the children? Poor couples didn't always marry.
What happened to her later?
I have a 3rd gt aunt married in 1840s, had a baby son then her husband died. 3 yrs later gives birth to a daughter, 2 yrs after that a 2nd son, both with her husband's surname. I have the daughter's birth cert. no father named. 2 yrs after her 2nd son was born she marries and has more children. First 3 children remain with dead husband's surname.
Those who know Ancestry won't be surprised to know several trees have the dead father as the father of the 2 born well after his death. :o
-
Wonder if she was living with the father of the children? Poor couples didn't always marry.
I don't know, but I'm doubtful. She had a most unfortunate life as far as I know. She had a child at age 19 and had to go to court get the man she claimed was the father to acknowledge paternity (he denied it) and that child was brought up by that man's parents. Two years later she had another child in the same village and ended up in the workhouse while the child was brought up by her sister and parents. Then 7 months later she had this stillbirth at a village some distance away from the others. I wonder if she got pregnant again while at the workhouse and went away to have an abortion, but maybe it was just to give birth away from people she knew, and the stillbirth was natural.
What happened to her later?
That is the last I have been able to find of her. There are records of people of her name, but no certainty any were her. So I'm trying to understand her life. I feel she was probably a victim of men who took advantage of her.
-
Was anyone else tried on that same day in that court ... if she obtained a termination, then perhaps the person performing it ought to have been charged too.
That's a good thought, I didn't think of it. However the court return for that day shows no-one being charged for that offence. But thanks for the idea.
-
Abortion is a different offence, so the fact she's been convicted of concealment would indicate it wasn't an abortion, imho.
If they could prove illegal abortion they would try for that offence and I think the sentence would be far more than 2 weeks.
Those are good thoughts, though perhaps they couldn't prove it, or didn't want to try?
I'm wondering whether anyone has had a similar event in their family history and knows more than I do about the legal situation back then (1865).
-
We have to remember the time -
I imagine she was very Niave (maybe once :) but 3 times ?) bless her. Who knows her circumstances, she herself could have been a child that - well didnt have the best start in life.
It would be brilliant to investigate and imagine and re-create this lady - FIND all that you can. She deserves it. There is the chance that she could also have been a 'wanton harlot' ... but again there would be a reason.
I love to investigate the facts behind this kind of tale.
I have a GG -- of similar circumstances - she had 4 children - before she married. I have found their baptism's all but ONE (my gg :() and purchased their birth certs. NO FATHER NAMED
She eventually marries and becomes a respectable member of the little village and seemingly the children are accepted.
I could ask more questions, but I am nervous of getting the response that I am convinced is correct..
difficult..
xin
-
It would be brilliant to investigate and imagine and re-create this lady - FIND all that you can. She deserves it.
Yes, I have that feeling about her, that I'd like to uncover as much as I can about her life and circumstances, I guess sort of like giving her the recognition I presume she never gained in life. But so far, I haven't got anything after this stillbirth.
-
Any stillbirth to an unmarried mother was automatically deemed as abortion or infanticide unless proved otherwise (I can't remember when it changed - this was in some old midwifery history book I've got)
-
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Concealing the Birth of a Child
60 If any Woman shall be delivered of a Child, every Person who shall, by any secret Disposition of the dead Body of the said Child, whether such Child died before, at, or after its Birth, endeavour to conceal the Birth thereof, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour: Provided that if any Person tried for the Murder of any Child shall be acquitted thereof, it shall be lawful for the Jury by whose Verdict such Person shall be acquitted to find, in case it shall so appear in Evidence, that the Child had recently been born, and that such Person did, by some secret Disposition of the dead Body of such Child, endeavour to conceal the Birth thereof, and thereupon the Court may pass such Sentence as if such Person had been convicted upon an Indictment for the Concealment of the Birth.
Stan
-
It sounds like a very lenient sentence? Could she have been "feeble minded" in some way? Such girls always have been, and still are, taken advantage of.
-
imprisoned for 2 weeks.
Sometimes there are newspaper articles on these sorts of cases and at times give a bit of information on the mother's life. Could be worth a look. Prison records might give something up as well.
-
There are thousands of newspaper reports on cases of concealing the birth of a child. The earliest one in the British Newspaper Archive is for March 1803.
Stan
-
An episode of BBC tv series "Garrow's Law" concerned a case of a servant-girl who had given birth to a stillborn baby in the cellar of house where she worked. The drama series was based on the real lawyer Garrow who lived late 18th-19thC.
-
I remember 2 modern cases, 1 in Ireland, 1 in Scotland. 1980s I think.
-
That's a really thought provoking thread, what about illigitemate children who might have been concealed born into society and concealed by higher echelons of society was this rule invoked for just commoners ???
-
Abortion is a different offence, so the fact she's been convicted of concealment would indicate it wasn't an abortion, imho.
If they could prove illegal abortion they would try for that offence and I think the sentence would be far more than 2 weeks.
Those are good thoughts, though perhaps they couldn't prove it, or didn't want to try?
I'm wondering whether anyone has had a similar event in their family history and knows more than I do about the legal situation back then (1865).
I have come across a similar event in my extended tree at about the same time. It was two women who were in court together on the same charge.
I don't think it should be assumed that 'the birth' was by the person who was convicted. As far as I could make out, in the case I came across, at least one, probably both, of the women had not given birth and that it was a blatant criminal act. An illegal abortion or forcing another woman to 'dispose' of a body for example. Maybe even related to organised prostitution?
Sorry to describe it in those terms, but if people were desperate, going hungry and with other children to feed, I suppose they took desperate measures. As xinia says, it was different, and to us unimaginable, 'times'
Are you sure that the person convicted was the one who had given birth?
-
Thanks everyone for interesting and helpful comments. Keep them coming!! :)
Any stillbirth to an unmarried mother was automatically deemed as abortion or infanticide unless proved otherwise (I can't remember when it changed - this was in some old midwifery history book I've got)
That is interesting. I wonder if it still applied in 1865? It would seem she certainly wasn't considered guilty of infanticide or sh'ed have been imprisoned for more than 2 weeks.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Thanks for this reference, it was almost certainly current at the time, just 4 years later. This was clearly not considered a serious crime, but a "misdemeanor" with a maximum penalty of only 2 years. Since Betsey only received 2 weeks, it must have been considered minor, or else the judge was hugely sympathetic.
It sounds like a very lenient sentence? Could she have been "feeble minded" in some way? Such girls always have been, and still are, taken advantage of.
I have wondered the same thing. This was her third child (that we know of) before age 23. She was in the workhouse for a while, which was for people unable to find work or unable to do work. Since her family was nearby, you'd think they'd care for her unless they had given up trying to help her, for whatever reason. The four possible theories I can come up with are (1) naivete, (2) mental disability, (3) working as a prostitute, or (4) very unfortunate.
The story handed down in the family was that she was working in "the big house" and was taken advantage of by the son of the squire, who then paid a man in the village to accept paternity. Closer investigation reveals many holes in that story (not least that the paternity case was for her first child, and the man in the village contested paternity, whereas the family link is through the second child. So I think the story was probably invented to save family reputation, but it does illustrate the difficulties facing young women in service in those days. They needed #MeToo back then!
Sometimes there are newspaper articles on these sorts of cases and at times give a bit of information on the mother's life. Could be worth a look. Prison records might give something up as well.
I have a newspaper report, but it says little beyond the fact that she was single, the location (a village about 20 km from the small villages where she and her family had lived), and the fact that the child died immediately after being born, and she disposed of it by wrapping it in a bundle and placing it under the bed (which sounds a very naive thing to do). I haven't seen prison records betond the court case summary.
There are thousands of newspaper reports on cases of concealing the birth of a child. The earliest one in the British Newspaper Archive is for March 1803.
I have never heard of it before, but I will have to look it up. Thanks.
Are you sure that the person convicted was the one who had given birth?
The court return says "her child" and the newspaper account says the same. From what others have said, the light sentence probably indicates a degree of sympathy and an assessment of little culpability.
Thanks again everyone, I hope more can be found about this and similar cases.
-
If they could prove illegal abortion they would try for that offence and I think the sentence would be far more than 2 weeks. Looks like she hid the body of the stillbirth and it was found.
Wonder if she was living with the father of the children? Poor couples didn't always marry.
What happened to her later?
I have a 3rd gt aunt married in 1840s, had a baby son then her husband died. 3 yrs later gives birth to a daughter, 2 yrs after that a 2nd son, both with her husband's surname. I have the daughter's birth cert. no father named. 2 yrs after her 2nd son was born she marries and has more children. First 3 children remain with dead husband's surname.
Those who know Ancestry won't be surprised to know several trees have the dead father as the father of the 2 born well after his death. :o
For years I had the wrong father for my grt grt grandfather. I had entered the father who was named on his marriage and death certificates. Took me a few years before I found the death record of the man I had thought to be my 3x grt grandfather that proved he couldn't be. Does illustrate that it is important to 'kill off' our ancestors though.
-
This is a similar story to my Margaret whos husband was lost at sea.. somewhere between the babes...
I have a 3rd gt aunt married in 1840s, had a baby son then her husband died. 3 yrs later gives birth to a daughter, 2 yrs after that a 2nd son, both with her husband's surname. I have the daughter's birth cert. no father named. 2 yrs after her 2nd son was born she marries and has more children. First 3 children remain with dead husband's surname.
Those who know Ancestry won't be surprised to know several trees have the dead father as the father of the 2 born well after his death.
xin
-
That's a really thought provoking thread, what about illigitemate children who might have been concealed born into society and concealed by higher echelons of society was this rule invoked for just commoners ???
They would have been sent away to be brought up by someone else. The "someone else" would keep quiet about it, either because of loyalty or because they had been paid.
-
I wonder whether part of the lenciency was due to the fact that the baby couldn't have survived due to gestation (as you said she had a 7 month old at the time) - even if she had conceived pretty much immediately the odds of a 30week gestation baby surviving at that point would have been considered nil (and probably were nil)
-
I've only just come across this thread. I've just posted about my elusive ancestor who appears in hardly any official records (except on the electoral register for a few years after she'd died!) but one of the few references I have to her comes in the newspaper, when she was in court as a witness to her sister concealing the birth and death of a child. Sheffield 1883)
Louisa Crossley was working as a domestic servant and had given birth to a daughter who was about a month premature. She lived between fifteen minutes and an hour. There were no signs that an abortion had been procured. Cause of death was found to be suffocation or asphyxia.
The child's body showed no sign of violence and some discussion occurred as to whether her death was the result of being suffocated in the bed clothes through inattention, or whether death could be brought about without there being any visible marks (it could be). Cause of death was found to be suffocation or asphyxia, and that the child "died from want of proper assistance at the time of birth".
Louisa had to appear before the Coroner at the Rising Sun Inn at Hunshelf [Stocksbridge, about 10 miles from Sheffield], and her sister Elizabeth as well [this is where their parents lived]. Elizabeth told the court that she destroyed all traces of the birth, and wrapped the child in a petticoat and placed it in a tin box. She said that Louisa was 29 years old and "had never had to do with babies". Apparently when Elizabeth found the body of the child on the Friday, Louisa sobbed, "oh Lizzie, I don't know what I am to do. Where shall I go? I must go home". She and Elizabeth went home to the Coach House at Hunshelf. When she got there, her mother took the child out of the box applied to the doctor for a certificate of burial. He refused to give one, and she then gave information to the police.
There was a lot more information than this in the Sheffield newspapers, but it's worth a read for background information about such cases. [search October/November 1883]
-
Hi Claire, thanks for that story. It adds to the picture of what happened to the person I am researching, and suggests that miscarriages and suspicion about the cause were not uncommon. Thanks.
-
I would think the possibility of being tried for murder after miscarriages would provoke women to conceal that they'd had a still birth
How long did the baby under the bed remain 'hidden' ?
Can't assume it was a sign of simple mindedness could have been initial panic if she didn't realise she was pregnant again .
-
I don't know how long, the newspaper report didn't say.
I wouldn't assume "simple mindedness", but she had spent time in the workhouse which was for people who couldn't work for whatever reason, and she did have at least 3 pregnancies without being married, so she appears to have been a victim.
-
A servant would have lost her job if her employer discovered she was pregnant or had given birth. It would have been hard to obtain another position without a character reference from her employer.