The post concerning the breach of promise case Rooke v Conran gives an opportunity for some further thinking. For scholarly work on the subject see this thesis.

A male media and judicial filter

Apart from the court transcript, the source for this case and the individuals involved consists of newspaper reports. The main purpose of the reporters and editors lay in finding and publishing stories which would retain existing readers and attract new ones into the fold. They would concentrate on engaging and sticky content. Most of the readers would have occupied similar social positions to the plaintiff and defendant. The press, therefore, acted not to mould its readership in this example but to mirror it. The moral stance and tone leaching through the reportage echoes the approach practised by the fictional Tom Tower as satirised by the near contemporary author, Anthony Trollope. The reports did not avoid portraying the humiliation of the defendant, an ancient male. The overall tone, however, feels like a morality tale. It cautions men against unexpected fortune-hunting campaigns mounted by predatory females.

It seems plausible to assume that males made up most if not all the media people involved. At this time, also, women could not participate in court processes unless as plaintiff, defendant, or witness. Men made the arguments, the decisions, and the judgements. The woman who decided to sue for breach of promise, therefore, participated in an event controlled at all points, case and report, by people having the same gender as the defendant. Although Rooke won her case, the farthing damages awarded made clear the jury’s opinion beyond the legal points. Nor did the judge disagree. It seems necessary, therefore, to look behind the male curtain to achieve a more balanced view of the case and the circumstances of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s perspective and situation

A plot worthy of movie-of-the-week

Did the plaintiff in this breach of promise case have a plan to ensnare the defendant and his money? Could the label ‘gold-digger’ apply to her? Before addressing this question, the wider context should come into view. In particular, the plaintiff’s mother, as well as her siblings, appear to have played an active role in the decision to sue.

The press story has the making of a plot for a solid movie of the week. The plaintiff’s sister had made an earlier marriage in conditions similar to those that might have applied to her. An older man, affluent, who pre-deceased his wife, a healthy estate given in the widow’s probate listing. The defendant’s barrister laid this out as the plaintiff’s blueprint. He encouraged the jury to see the family as manipulating its younger members into marriages that perhaps set material advantage above love. Family members became involved in negotiating an allowance for the bride to be. That the plaintiff made the decision to sue alone seems unlikely given the apparent roles taken by her family members. That she made the decision implies that she did experience a measure of disappointment. Perhaps the issue to consider, however, lies in the balance between her self-esteem and her duty to the family.

A limit on personal control

To what extent did young females at this time and this social position accept that their future life would obey directions set by the elder members of their family? If they had aspirations to plot a future path divergent to her family’s wishes, what probability did they have in succeeding? This moves on to another consideration. To what extent did such an individual feel in control of her life?

Households in Victorian Bournemouth sometimes contained one or more spinster daughters resident at home into middle age. Enough examples occurred to make this a recognisable social category. Had male partners not arrived or did the daughters see marriage as a possibility rather than a probability? As a 29 year old spinster, dependant for some income on giving music lessons, living in her mother’s home, the plaintiff may have seen her future falling into this category. The defendant’s behaviour, perceived by the plaintiff as courtship, tilted towards a marriage probability. From the court account, the young woman’s mother and siblings seemed to treat this also as a commercial opportunity, if not this alone. They may have swept her along on a tide of familial duty. The existing facts do not provide an answer to these questions, but they suffice to raise the issues for consideration.

The purpose of the case

The decision to sue may have followed the old saying about hell and a woman scorned. On the other hand, the argumentation in the case inclined more towards accountancy than disappointed feelings. Breach of promise suits needed strong cases to succeed. Public humiliation as well as loss of money awaited failure. Given this, the question arises as to the reason the plaintiff and her family decided to go public and to put matters into the uncertain hands of the court. No doubt they thought they could win, but a farthing damages went not far in meeting their barrister’s costs. Nor did it compensate for the substantial public humiliation they encountered through the press. Perhaps their decision all came down to ‘damn the torpedoes’.

Another consideration however lies in the relationships between the parties. Kinship connected them. The plaintiff’s mother and the defendant were cousins of a sort. In the end, perhaps the whole thing came down to a family dealing with internal matters in a way which spilled out into the public.

If any family documents or memories exist, they would throw more light on this interesting event.

References

For references and discussion, please contact here.