Downstairs v Upstairs

Introduction

Victorian Bournemouth (133) examines events concerning a parlourmaid who sued her former employer for libel in 1872. The case has a tangential association with Bournemouth, but it highlights how the law could on occasion balance the relationship between affluent and working people. In this case, Lydia Crouchman, a parlourmaid, sued her former employer, Mrs Emily Shakespeare, for libel. Mrs Shakespeare’s actions prevented Lydia from accepting a job in Bournemouth, causing her to become the defendant in the resulting case.

Victorian Bournemouth (133): the alleged theft

Part 1

The 1871 census placed Lydia Crouchman, about 20, working as a servant in Greenwich. At this time, Emily Shakespeare, 43, her husband, and teenaged children lived in Lee, Blackheath, about three miles distant. Her husband, George, would soon resume his career in the Madras judiciary before the autumn. On 11th August, Lydia Crouchman came to work as a housemaid for Mrs Shakespeare, now perhaps living at a different address in Blackheath. Within four weeks, however, she received a month’s notice, her employer believing her better suited to kitchen work. Around 21st September, in response to her advertisement, Mr Briant, manager of the Bath Hotel, Bournemouth, enquired about her availability and details. Lydia wrote back, giving Mrs Shakespeare as a character reference. This exchange appears to have happened as Mr Briant wrote Lydia a letter of employment, offering to pay her rail travel to Bournemouth. All must have seemed well.

Part 2

On 5th October, Mrs Shakespeare, placed a dress in the bedroom occupied by someone visiting her house. The dress pocket contained her purse. The next day, a letter arrived requiring twopence extra postage. At Mrs Shakespeare’s request, Lydia collected the dress and purse, taking it to her mistress. She did not pause anywhere during this task. Mrs Shakespeare gave her the money required, which she passed to a footman who paid the postman. Lydia’s replacement arrived on the 7th. Mrs Shakespeare had decided that Lydia could stay until the following Wednesday when the family would move to another address. Now, she changed her mind, asking Lydia to leave that day. Although she had permission to leave her box until going to Bournemouth, Lydia had it moved. She found lodgings for two nights nearby, but then moved to Mrs Puttnam’s, another local address, a day before her Bournemouth trip.

Part 3

On Tuesday, 10th October, Mrs Shakespeare confronted Lydia at her new lodgings. Before Mrs Puttnam, Lydia heard her former employer accuse her of stealing a £5 note from her purse. Lydia denied the charge. Mrs Shakespeare involved the police. She also wrote and telegraphed to the Briants. A detective interviewed Lydia that day, but no charges occurred. He advised her to travel to Bournemouth for her new job. Next day, she bought a single ticket and travelled to Bournemouth. The Briants showed her the telegram and letter. They seem to have cancelled the employment. Mrs Briant mentioned local police, when Lydia did not agree at once since the Blackheath police had not charged her. Nevertheless, she returned to London, in possession of both Mrs Shakespeare’s letter and telegram. Perhaps as early as October 12th, a solicitor took her case. He wrote to Mrs Shakespeare. Court hearings began by early December.

Victorian Bournemouth (133): the court case

Part 1

Reports about the court case began in early December. Lydia had acquired a solicitor, John Cowper Scard. He had written twice to Mrs Shakespeare, but she had ignored each letter. By December, however, she had appointed a barrister, E. T. E. Besley. Scard treated this as a criminal case at first. The defendant’s solicitors indicated that they would receive a writ for a civil case, without abatement. The presiding magistrate agreed to this direction and adjourned matters meanwhile. Another hearing at Greenwich police court occurred on December 23rd, where both parties agreed to an adjournment for three weeks. By the end of January, no progress had occurred in changing matters to a civil case. The handwritten original of the telegram entered the case. Suggestions arose that the handwriting belonged to Mrs Shakespeare’s daughter. Her presence at school in Boulogne, however, became an obstacle. The magistrate sent the case to the sessions.

Part 2

Defence solicitors managed to extend matters into March. At Greenwich police court, George Shakespeare, 14, summoned from Harrow, his school, gave evidence. From the original, present in court, he identified his sister’s handwriting. His mother, however, had sent him to Blackheath post office with the text and money. Now, the magistrate did send the case to sessions, £50 bail taken. Matters had now slipped beyond the reach of Mrs Shakespeare’s solicitors. She would now have to attend the Old Bailey and stand in the dock to answer a criminal charge. In early April, Mr Besley rescued her by applying to the judge in chambers. He managed to move the case from the Central Criminal court to the Queen’s Bench. There, she would have a special jury and pay costs. The events had proved difficult for Mrs Shakespeare, it seems. Mr Besley expressed concerns because his client suffered from ‘heart disease’.

Part 3

The newspaper archive thereafter has no further record of this case. Searches for the names of those involved, clients and lawyers, result in no mention. It seems, therefore, that either the special jury at Queen’s Bench or negotiations out of court brought the case to an end. Perhaps Mrs Shakespeare acceded to John Scard’s first letter. On behalf of Lydia Crouchman, he had asked for an apology and compensation. She had ignored this at first, but now she may have changed her mind. Her appearance in the Old Bailey’s dock would have sent ripples through society. Her husband, a senior member of the Madras imperial judiciary may have returned by then and perhaps knew of the case. The Suez Canal had opened two years earlier, telegraph connection between England and India had begun in 1870. The legal system may have closed ranks, encouraging her to settle and save face.

Takeaway

Victorian Bournemouth (133) has presented the first part in an analysis whereby a housemaid sued her former employer, the wife of a Madras judge, for libel, a criminal charge. The events involving the alleged theft and the ensuing court hearings have appeared here. Subsequent analysis considers the social positions, later histories of the participants, and the wider implications of the events.

References

For references and engagement, please get in touch. Main primary sources: here and here (subscriptions needed). See also here.