Search

This chapter suggests that it was the innovations of this period that began the long-term shift in popular responses to dealing with marital violence. The introduction of the ‘new police’ under Sir Robert Peel, the ‘professionalisation’ of medicine, and legislation that increased the powers of magistrates, occasionally brought practical benefits for wives with violent husbands, but more importantly they started a process of change in which responsibility for dealing with marital violence was adjusted. By the mid-nineteenth century it was becoming possible to designate marital violence as a matter that might be dealt with by the police, doctors or magistrates, rather than solely by the informal intervention of those who were related or lived nearest to the woman affected. We see only the seeds of change within the period covered by this book, not their full development. ‘Amateur’ assistance for wives remained important, and was never wholly replaced by the professionals. Furthermore, change was far from uniform; it was Rachael Norcott, not Mary Veitch who had as one of her witnesses a surgeon who previously treated her injuries. Nevertheless, the groundwork had been laid, and in the future it would be third parties who would be left to manage the effects of marital violence. The period between the Restoration and the mid-nineteenth century was one of transition in the development of the professions. During this period, clergymen, parish and poor law officials, constables, JPs, the police and medical practitioners were not seen as ‘outsiders’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter, and the one that follows, argues against the idea that over the course of our period marital violence was increasingly conducted in private. It will be shown that although violence between husbands and wives often occurred in domestic locations, this did not make it any less of a public activity. Marital violence could not be confined to conjugal ties and spaces, but instead could affect all those with whom a couple came into contact, spilling out into places of social as well as familial interaction. Violence was the mechanism by which family matters became community concerns. Indeed, by its very practice marital violence broke down any distinction that could be made between ‘private’ and ‘public’ behaviour, for it knew no boundaries. My argument differs significantly from that advanced by other historians, who have concluded that it was the growing privatization of marital violence which explains why it became a problem that few people outside the conjugal unit were prepared to confront. It was over the course of the period chosen for this book that this important change is thought to have occurred. From an event witnessed by many, marital violence became shrouded with secrecy. What had been behaviour that attracted the attention, intervention and regulation of others, changed to conduct popularly viewed as the business of only the couple themselves. In the process, it is argued that the response of those who lived and worked around a couple enduring marital violence became one that we might recognise today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happened to Rachael Norcott and Mary Veitch? In neither case has a sentence, or judgement upon their request for marriage separation survived. While we will never know whether they were released from the clutches of their brutal husbands, we have seen how in many ways their stories were typical of the experiences of women who resisted marital violence. The similarities of their accounts suggest the continuities of what women could endure over the period between their lifetimes. Their stories have shown us how marital violence had multiple forms, of which physical violence constituted only one damaging part. While the variability of marital violence made it difficult for lawyers to label or define, we have learned that to ordinary people who witnessed the violence directed towards Rachael and Mary, unacceptable or cruel violence depended upon the personal circumstances or characteristics of the person who was its target. As for much of this period violence was seen as a legitimate corrective to insubordinate behaviour, the conduct of Rachael and Mary also had to be assessed before any judgement of cruelty could be made. We have seen how the impact of marital violence extended beyond its intended target, to affect Rachael and Mary's children, family, friends, and neighbours. There is little evidence that the violence directed against Mary was any more private or secret than that against Rachael. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today, when marriages break down and there are children from that marriage, issues of childcare, welfare, maintenance and custody are considered of paramount importance. Long and bitter disputes over child custody and access arrangements have become a standard feature of modern divorce proceedings. In our ‘child-centred’ culture, protecting children from violence, and removing them from homes where they could be at risk from physical and/or sexual abuse is a major concern. A wide range of professionals, from social workers to police officers are trained to minimise the harm that can be inflicted upon children who endure violence, directly or indirectly, from their parents. It is highly unusual, especially in cases of divorce due to marital violence, for mothers not to gain custody of their children. The situation could not be more different from that experienced during the period from the Restoration until the mid-nineteenth century, as represented by the Norcott and Veitch marriages. There were children living in both households. In the case of the Norcott children, harm was inflicted upon them from their father even as they lay in their mother's womb. We know that Rachael Norcott had been pregnant on two occasions when her husband, John, struck her. She was ‘big with child’ when he hit her so hard on the head that she was knocked senseless to the floor, and six or seven years later, a midwife was present in the household when Rachael had to be treated for injuries that her husband had inflicted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rachael Norcott first fled from her husband John's violence in 1664, when she sought refuge with one of her sisters. John found her there, and facing criticism for his behaviour from Rachael's family and friends, dramatically wished, ‘that his tongue might rot out if ever he abused her again’. Such words appear to have persuaded Rachael to return to her husband, for she was to endure another two years of violence before she began separation proceedings. Asking why women remain with violent men is a question that is frequently asked today, but this is in a society where divorce is widely available. During the period of this study, divorce was not possible on the grounds of violence, and there were many economic and social factors that acted to dissuade women from pursuing a marriage separation on the basis of cruelty. Thus, even if their personal safety was at risk, some women calculated that it was not in their best interests to leave. From the Restoration to the mid-nineteenth century, a more relevant enquiry was not why women stayed with violent husbands, but how women learnt to cope with their violent partners. Thus on 12 March 1789 one London debating society considered the motion, put forward by ‘a young lady’, whether ‘a Lady that is married to a tyrannical husband be more likely to promote her own happiness by a spirited opposition, or a patient submission to his temper and conduct?’ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While both women experienced forms of marital violence, the ways in which Rachael Norcott in 1666 and Mary Veitch in 1837 described what they had endured were very different. According to Rachael's witnesses, her husband knocked her senseless on the head when she was pregnant, threw a large hammer at her leg so that her ankle nearly broke, struck her with a candlestick and was only narrowly prevented from hitting her with a fire fork, threw her on the floor and dragged her by the arms about the house. John Norcott also repeatedly ‘scolded and railed’ at his wife, calling her a whore, and he refused to support her financially, giving Rachael no money for food or clothes for at least eight or nine months. Rachael's body was testimony to what she had suffered: her ankle had a permanent scar from her husband's attack that was ‘somewhat bigger than half a crown’, her wound from being hit with the candlestick could still be seen on her temple, and immediately following each violent incident many witnesses could recall seeing blood and then the black and blue signs of bruising. James Veitch was also accused of failing to provide Mary with money ‘to purchase clothing and other necessaries’. He swore and verbally abused her, threw the contents of the slop basin from their tea over her and once struck her on the face. But the cruelty that was alleged in this marriage consisted more of threats than physical blows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Let me start by introducing two married women: Rachael Norcott and Mary Veitch. They both lived near London; Rachael in Barking, Essex and Mary in Richmond, Surrey. They were of comparable social status. Rachael's husband, John, earned enough from the rents of the houses he owned to support a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. James Veitch, Mary's husband, was a member of the Royal College of Physicians, received an annual pension for being a surgeon to the Royal Navy, and had inherited a considerable sum of money upon the death of his father. Like Rachael, Mary was supported in her household tasks by the presence of a number of live-in servants. Both women were mothers as well as wives. Rachael had given birth to at least two sons, but only one of the children born to Mary and James had lived beyond its infancy. Mary was a widow when she met James and she brought one child from her previous marriage into her new home. The wealth, income and occupations of their husbands, their role as managers of households with servants, shared histories of motherhood, and lives cut short by infant and premature mortality, made these women typical of the middle classes of their generation. But we only know about these women because they experienced a level and type of violence from their husbands that became so unbearable that they both went to the same law court to seek a marriage separation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]