Lady Audley's Secret
is set a few years before it was published, around 1858. That was an important
year for all would-be bigamists. Up until that year, divorce was not realistically
an option, and bigamy was sometimes the only practical solution.
In Victorian times many left their husbands and wives and
took up with new partners. George Eliot and M. E. Braddon were not unique in
establishing households with married men. Some men, like Wilkie Collins, supported
two families. Madame Rachel, the infamous queen of cosmetics was abandoned with
a small daughter by her husband Joseph Moses, who went prospecting to Australia.
She moved in with Philip Levison, started a second family and took his name,
although there is no record of her ever marrying Levison. Madame Rachel was
eventually tried for fraud in 1868. Her shop would have been at 47a New Bond
Street for Lady Audley to visit, and perhaps it was her advertisements Lady
Audley had seen in the paper in Volume 1, chapter 7 (Madame Rachel advertised her
products frequently).
Changing life partners was sometimes scandalous
but mostly it was commonplace. Bigamy, however, was a step too far because it smacked of
being mercenary. A bigamist might have many reasons to hide his or her past
from the second spouse and they were not all based on morals or religion. An important
reason for such deception was financial: the desire to get your hands on your
new spouse's fortune. Men, as soon as they married, became owners of their
wives' property. Bigamy could be lucrative. Women had a strong motivation to
hide their previous marriages since few men were willing to invest in a woman
knowing that at any moment some other chap could come along and demand his
share.
For centuries marriage and divorce had been matters for the
church. When marrying, a woman lost all her rights, her property became her
husband's, her children belonged to him. He could abuse her; beat her, lock her
up, starve her, as it took his fancy. There was no redress for the wife, and no
authority that she could appeal to when the marriage went badly wrong. Legally
women were on the same page with children, the mentally ill and criminals.
Only the Church of England could create or end a marriage.
You could ask for annulment arguing that true marriage never took place because
it has not been consummated or because your spouse is insane and therefore
incapable of understanding the holy sacrament of marriage. You could also ask for
annulment based on possible incest. John Ruskin's wife Euphemia Ruskin gained
an annulment of their 6-year-long marriage in 1854 by proving she was a virgin.
After an annulment you could marry again, but all children of a null marriage
were illegitimate.
You could also ask the Church of England to grant you a
separation a mensa et thoro (from bed
and board) by petitioning the Consistory Court in Doctors' Commons. This meant
that the spouses could live apart without risking being blamed for desertion. You
could not remarry again, and the husband continued to have control of all
finances and children.
If you were wealthy
enough you could go the whole hog. This option was only open to husbands. After gaining a separation granted
by the Church, you could sue your wife's lover, termed 'co-respondent,' in the
Court of King's Bench for what was effectively the theft of your wife as your
property. If your case was successful, and you were granted damages for your
loss, the parliament could pass a private Act of Parliament giving you a divorce.
The cost of this process ran into thousands of pounds, but afterwards you were
both free to marry again, and your children were not declared illegitimate.
Caroline Norton was famously the woman who set the ball rolling to change
this with her indefatigable work for improving the rights of women in marriage
and divorce. She had a personal incentive being married to a violent bully who
appropriated all her property and kept her children from her. The full
story is told in A Scandalous Woman: the
Story of Caroline Norton (1992) by Alan Chedzoy. Norton was a well-educated
and well-connected woman whose marriage became a public scandal when her
husband George Norton, disappointed by his own lack of progress in politics,
lashed out in 1836 and accused the Home Secretary and future Prime Minister,
Lord Melbourne of "criminal knowledge" of his wife. Although Melbourne
was judged not guilty, George Norton's hostility towards his wife continued. In
the middle of their marital troubles their three sons were ruthlessly used as
bargaining chips and Caroline Norton grew desperate when her husband barred her
access to them. Since the law of the land gave her no support, Norton
had little choice but to try and change the law. She was in the fortunate
position of having a social standing and connections in the world of politics
to achieve this through lobbying and campaigning.
Her first victory was the Infant Custody Bill passed in
1839, which gave regular access rights to both parents for children of twelve
years old or younger. The next one came in 1857, when she was forty-nine years
old. After years of campaigning and hundreds of pages of pamphlets by her, the parliament
passed the Divorce Act. According to her biographer, four important clauses in
this act, granting divorced women power over their own property and financial
transactions, were taken almost word for word from her writings.
Following the passing of the Matrimonial Causes (or Divorce)
Act 1857, The Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes opened in 1858 with Sir
Creswell Creswell as the Judge Ordinary in charge. He presided with two other
judges. One of the early cases of the court was one submitted by Henry Robinson
who was determined to rid himself of his adulterous, diary-writing wife. This
story is told by Kate Summerscale in Mrs
Robinson's Disgrace: the Private Diary of a Victorian Lady (2012). Caroline
Norton never got divorced, and married again in 1877 only after George Norton had
died.
In the new secular divorce court, as in the ecclesiastical
court before, it was sufficient for men to prove one indiscretion, one false
step of adultery by their wives, as grounds for divorce. Wives, on the other
hand, had to prove their husband's adultery and another reason for divorce. They
had a list to choose from: bigamy, incest, rape, sodomy, bestiality, grievous
bodily harm or two years' desertion. There was always a guilty party in a
divorce. And divorce always required proof of adultery. In addition, no husband
would be given a divorce, if the wife could prove that he too had committed
adultery, or that he had condoned her adultery by being aware of it but not
doing anything about it. The lapse of time was an important factor.
The 1857 act was followed by several other laws that
modified woman's position in marriage and divorce proceedings. Further Infant
Custody Acts in 1873 and 1886 extended mothers' rights to keep custody of their
children. Married Women's Property Acts in 1870 and 1882 gave married women the
same property rights as unmarried women.
Only in 1923 the law was changed so that men and women both
could claim for divorce on equal grounds. From 1937 divorce did not require
proof of adultery; cruelty and desertion were also made
sufficient grounds. And it took until 1969 for the concept of a guilty party to
be removed and "irretrievable breakdown" could be quoted as the
grounds for divorce.
In Lady Audley's Secret,
what should Lucy Graham have done when Sir Michael proposed? Her first
husband disappeared leaving her with a babe in arms in the house of a father
who could not support them. In the three and a half years since her husband
left, she slowly built a life for herself and was managing to earn a living
in a respectable fashion as a governess. She had not fallen into prostitution,
destitution or the world of theatre. There was no way on earth she would have
been able to legally divorce George Talboys. Even after the 1857 Divorce Act,
Lucy Graham (aka Helen Talboys, as the narrative strongly suggests) would have needed money to bring a court case
in front of Sir Creswell Creswell and his fellow-judges. Although she would
have been able to claim desertion, she would have had to prove her husband's adultery
as well. And there is probably no chance of that, with Talboys constantly
expressing his devotion and love for his wife.
Should Lucy Graham have declined the offer of life-long
luxury and pampering by Sir Michael, just because her first husband was still
possibly alive somewhere? The temptation was great, the risk seemed minimal. Lady
Audley's bigamy is naughty and selfish, yes, but it is hardly evil. Bigamy
was a practical solution and sometimes quite necessary if you wanted to get on
with your life.
There is an ironic twist at the tail end of Lady Audleys Secret when Robert Audley makes his name as a lawyer in a dispute over a broken engagement: "the great breach of promise case of Hobbs vs Nobbs" (Vol III, Chapter 10).
There is an ironic twist at the tail end of Lady Audleys Secret when Robert Audley makes his name as a lawyer in a dispute over a broken engagement: "the great breach of promise case of Hobbs vs Nobbs" (Vol III, Chapter 10).
No comments:
Post a Comment