A Case of Bigamy

Interesting Trial Surrey Assizes

Weekly Entertainer August 25, 1806 at 665-668

Guildford, Saturday August 9.

BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF BARON MACDONALD

CRIM. CON. and BIGAMY.

ELEANOR WHITFORD was indicted for that she, at Gretna in Scotland, intermarried with John Whitford, on the 26th of November 1801, and afterwards, at the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, on the 19th of May, 1806, feloniously intermarried with Robert Jacques James, her former husband being still alive.

This was a case which excited a considerable degree of interest, as it was understood to involve the legality of a Gretna Green marriage. The defendant was a young lady of handsome person and elegant manners, and her appearance at the bar excited considerable sympathy on her behalf in the spectators of the court.

After she was arraigned and faintly uttered her plea of “Not Guilty,”

Mr. Curwood rose to address the jury. He began by stating that the melancholy duty devolved upon him, which he assured the jury he executed with most painful sensations, to conduct the prosecution against the prisoner at the bar, for a crime, which, if substantiated against her, degraded her from her rank in life; which the law had declared a felony; and which might subject her to be transported from her native country, an associate of the vilest and most profligate of mankind. The case which he had to lay before the jury was of a most extraordinary nature, and differed very far from that class of cases, which usually presented themselves for the consideration of a jury. In general, those who were arraigned for this crime were of the lowest order of society, who had no knowledge of the extent of their moral duties, or of the consequences of deviation from them. Not such was the case of the prisoner at the bar; she had been well educated, and ought to have been refined to a better sense of her duties, and impressed with the importance of their observance. She was the daughter of a man of respectability and of some importance in the town of Basingstoke, and in the year 1801 she was addressed by her husband, who solicited her hand in marriage. For what reason, the learned counsel said, he was not informed, but her father, at that time, was adverse to the match, and refused his consent; but the addresses of the young man were not disagreeable to her mother, and other parts of the lady’s family; but it being found that no entreaty would soften the obduracy of her father, the young people eloped to Scotland, and were there married, according to the forms and ceremonies of the Scottish law. Upon their return, they were reconciled to her father, and the husband commenced business as a linen-draper, at Southampton; at that time, he was about twenty-five years of age, and the prisoner scarcely eighteen. They continued at Southampton until the year 1805, when business not succeeding, he was obliged to relinquish his situation, and come to London. Here he was obliged to live on a reduced scale. He obtained a situation as managing man at a wholesale linen warehouse in the city, and took a small house for his wife at Kennington. They resided together, in apparent comfort and happiness, he going out early to his business in the morning and returning home about eight in the evening. They continued this course till about March last, when one evening, returning as usual, he found that another bed was putting up in a spare room; and upon inquiry, his wife told him that she had let this room to a most respectable old gentleman, who had taken the room to lodge with them. In the evening the new lodger made his appearance; he seemed above sixty years of age, and of most gentlemanly manners, and was, therefore gladly received by the husband, as a welcome inmate. From such a man he could suspect no injury; and none but the most suspicious could have thought his wife in danger in such society. However, so it was, that after a very short time, he found his wife strangely altered in her behaviour towards him. She appeared disgusted with him, and miserable in herself. He entreated her to reveal the cause of her uneasiness, and then, no doubt to reveal her own guilt; she affected to say that his behaviour was unkind, and she had reason to suspect his fidelity. He endeavoured, by every soothing attention, and by increased kindness to convince her of her forming an erroneous opinion, and had apparently succeeded, for on the morning of the 18th of April, when he left home, they parted with marks of more than usual kindness; but it so happened, that being taken ill that day, he returned home much earlier than was customary. He found his wife from home and on the mantelpiece was a letter, addressed to him, in her hand-writing, to the following purport:--”Sir, I have taken my own name of Miss Howard, and shall ever after disown that of Whitford, which I am now fully satisfied I never was entitled to; I thank God for it, for I hold it in utter abhorrence.” Yes, said the learned counsel, no doubt she then held it in utter abhorrence. While she was pure and uncontaminated she held it not in abhorrence; but when she had deviated from the path of virtue, she no doubt abhorred the name of the man whom she had wounded with the most cruel of all injuries. She did not return home that night, but the next morning her husband received a message that she was at a neighbour’s house, and desired to see him. He accordingly attended, and then she exhibited a gleam of remorse for her misconduct. When she saw her husband, she exclaimed, “Whitford, you cannot, will not forgive me?”--At that time he did not know the extent of the injury, but she immediately confessed that she had dishonoured his bed, and complained that James, their lodger, had seduced her from her duty. All she requested was that her husband would restore her to her parents, which, notwithstanding his injuries, he promised he would do. Of short duration, however, was her better resolve; and so true was it, that when the bounds of virtue were once transgressed, and the mind became familiarized with guilt, that it acted, without remorse what in its pure state it could not contemplate without horror; for in a few weeks after this event, she publicly married her hoary seducer; and for that act she now stood arraigned as a criminal at the bar of justice. The learned counsel concluded by stating, that he should call his witnesses to prove the case. The punishment, if she was found guilty, would be apportioned to the superior wisdom of his lordship; but there remained yet this consolation for the unhappy woman at the bar, that she was tried before a judge who always tempered judgment with mercy.

David Lang, the well-known blacksmith, or rivetter, at Gretna Green, was called. This man, having taken the Scotch oath, stated that he was a tobacconist at Gretna, and had been long in the habit of marrying persons who came to him. On the 26th of November, 1801, he married the lady at the bar and Mr. Whitford, according to his practice. He was asked many questions by the lord chief baron. He said he had no written form of ceremony, nor kept any books. There were no subscribing witnesses to the marriage in question. The only names written on the paper were David Lang, John Whitford, and Elizabeth Howard.

The lord chief baron said he would not admit this as a marriage. He asked him what he was? He replied, a tobacconist. His lordship observed that a fellow or two, like the witness, did these sorts of things, but both himself and the parties were liable to punishment.

Mr. Curwood said the marriage was irregular; but that did not vitiate it, though it subjected the parties to punishment. He understood by the Scotch law, there were two species of marriage.

Lord chief baron.--”I cannot take your understanding of the law of Scotland; I must have it certified by the lord advocate, or one of the judges of the court. There is no doubt but a valid marriage in Scotland, or in China is valid any where; but the law of every foreign country must be certified. If you have any advocate of character, I will receive his testimony.”

Counsel:--”Will your lordship permit the witness to give evidence of the law?”

Lord chief baron.--”No, certainly not. I will not receive the law of Scotland from a tobacconist.”

The prisoner was acquitted of course.

This verdict puts an end to an action for seduction brought by Mr. Whitford against Mr. James.