| Sex & scandal in
north Berkshire John Gurnett
Until the 1857 Divorce Act divorce and separation
was confined to the rich elite. If a husband wished
to divorce his wife he would need to go through a
complicated series of procedures with no certainty of
the outcome. In the early nineteenth century divorce
involved three separate lawsuits: one in an
ecclesiastical court, for separation from the
adulterous wife, one in a civil court against the
wife's lover for damages for criminal conversation,
or crim con, and a private parliamentary bill. Crim
con involved a writ of trespass, the principle being
that by using the body of the wife, the alleged
adulterer had damaged the property of her husband.
The nature of the divorce procedure meant that few
husbands came before the courts, but one scandalous
case involved Edward and Anne Loveden of Buscot Park
near Faringdon. Little is known about their marital
relationship, although as an MP, and with his county
commitments, Edward would have been away from home on
many occasions. Anne said she felt neglected, so a
young good looking visitor'who had the reputation of
flirting with every woman he came near', would have
been a clear temptation despite the moral climate of
the time. Thomas Raymond Barker, the son of a close
friend of Edward, lived a short distance away at
Fairford Park, and he was a constant visitor to
Buscot. Edward supported him at College and even lent
him an expensive horse. in 1805 both friends and
servants noticed a growing attachment between Anne
and Tom. The love affair had begun.1
'that loss of
virtue in a female is
irretrievable, that one false step involves
her in endless ruin'
One of the witnesses in the divorce action that
followed four years later who heard the gossip felt
compelled to approach Anne. She is said to have taken
it badly declaring that "so long as Mr. Barker
behaved well to her she should not alter her
behaviour to him". According to the Consistory
Court judge this was a symptom of blind attachment,
because a "women of delicacy who had been
informed by a friend that her character was suffering
would, for her protection and good name, have avoided
such unfavourable impressions of her character".
2 As Jane Austen wrote in 'Pride and
Prejudice': "that loss of virtue in a female is
irretrievable, that one false step involves her in
endless ruin, that her reputation is no less brittle
than it is beautiful".
Anne does not seem to have cared for her
reputation. The couple were often seen walking arm in
arm in the grounds of the house, and when her husband
was away they would remain closeted for hours in
Anne's dressing room, where men were not usually
admitted. The housekeeper, Hannah Calcutt, later gave
evidence that the couple had already 'conceived a
criminal passion for each other'. In the following
year more evidence emerged. On one occasion the
butler noticed first Anne and then Tom enter her
dressing room before she had rung the bell to
announce she was awake. When breakfast was served the
butler also saw them sitting close together and
"mixing their legs or feet together in a very
peculiar and indecent fashion".
Anne paid particular attention to his
accommodation when he visited the house, taking care
with the ornaments, getting lavender, hyacinth roots,
and roses, even assisting with making the fire. No
sooner was her husband absent then Tom arrived by
appointment. When he was in the house she told the
servants to say she was out if visitors called.
By the end of 1806 Edward became suspicious. He
sought the advice of an old friend Francis Knight.
Edward wanted to send Anne back to her mother, but
Knight counselled that there was no real evidence of
any impropriety. Francis Knight did talk to Tom about
Edward's suspicions and warned him not to visit
Buscot Park. Later in 1807 Anne and Tom spent two
nights at the Barker family house at Fairford. Edward
was furious with his wife for disobeying his wishes,
but Knight once again advised that there was no proof
of misconduct.
Gradually more rumours began to reach Edward, and
his son Pryse, and Tom was once again ordered never
to come to the house again. But the liaison continued.
They were seen kissing and almost discovered making
love in the greenhouse.
While the family was in London Edward's coachman
and footman gave evidence that in May 1806, his
mistress picked up Tom in her coach. It was hot
weather and she was accustomed to have the carriage
open, but on this occasion it was closed and when she
got out "she looked very warm and wild in her
attire". On another occasion in 1807 while the
house guests were out hunting, the cook looked for
her mistress to ask how to make a particularly fine
dish. She searched the house and finally Anne emerged
from the dining room closely followed by Tom. Anne
was "very red in the face and extremely
confused, and held her riding habit half-way up her
legs as if she did not know what she did for the
confusion she was in".
By 1808 Edward's under-butler, Warren Hastings,
suspected that his mistress had received Tom. She
denied that he had been there, yet upon hearing a
noise late at night, Hastings ran out of the house
with a pistol in his hand and caught Tom attempting
to leap over the palings. The two men, one a servant
and the other a lay fellow at Merton College, Oxford,
spent three-quarters of an hour in conversation.
Hastings warned Tom that the affair was well known in
the neighbourhood, a horse-dealer had even mentioned
it at a local market. Tom admitted that he was
planning to see Anne, but promised Hastings that he
would never visit the house again. Tom's father and
Edward's son-in-law, Mr. Cox, also warned Tom to stay
away from Anne. The following morning Hastings saw
Anne and she admitted seeing Tom. Hastings said that
her behaviour was imprudent, and he told her that Tom
had given him an assurance that the clandestine
affair would end. She promised never to see Tom or
correspond with him again. But the lovers were now
committed to each other and entering into
correspondence.
'Anne was very red
in the face and extremely
confused, and held her riding habit half-way up
her legs as if she did not know what she did for
the confusion she was in'
What Anne did not know was that the servants were
conspiring against her. In November 1808 James
Hooper, Edward's manservant, took a locked bag of
letters from Buscot to the Faringdon Post Office. He
was warned by Anne's maid that the package contained
letters addressed to Tom. Hooper removed the package
and found that it contained three letters. One was
from Tom dated 1804, another was an amorous love-letter
from her. The third letter was sealed and became the
decisive evidence of adultery which the servants had
sought. In it Anne gave details of her menstrual
cycle over the winter months, so that they could
avoid making love on those days. She recommended the
avoidance of intercourse for six days after her
period. It was clear that she was embarrassed by
writing such personal details. "Now love, she
wrote, "you cannot but consider me most
indulgent. I flatter myself too, most explicit, but I
am so much ashamed of what I have said that I shall
instantly seal it up and expect that you as readily
and immediately commit it to the flames". With
this evidence of adultery it remains curious why
Hooper did not immediately pass the correspondence on
to his master? He waited for a further four months
before doing so.
In March of the following year while Edward was at
Abingdon for a meeting of the local militia the
servants suspected that Tom would try to see Anne
again. Hastings said that he heard the library window
open and Tom admitted by Mrs. Loveden. At about nine
o'clock he was ordered to bring a glass of wine and
water into the library. Tom was not there, but
Hastings suspected he was in the study, on the other
side of the stairs. The servants said that Anne went
earlier to bed that night than was usual. Hastings
suspected that the defendant would go from the study
to his mistress's bedroom. He watched until nearly
two o'clock but saw nothing. Hannah Haynes, Anne's
maid, usually slept in the same bed with her mistress
when Edward was absent. But on this occasion she was
in an adjoining room.3 In the middle of
the night she heard a noise as if the bolt of the
door was raised and somebody entering her mistress's
bedroom. The next morning she examined the bed and
found it "very much tumbled" leaving her
without any doubt that two people had slept in it.
The next morning Hastings tried the door of the
library and found it locked and asked his mistress
for the key; she denied having one. Hastings was not
satisfied and got a carpenter to put a ladder against
the window and when it was opened Tom was found
hiding in the room, with his boots on and his
greatcoat over his arm attempting to hide himself
behind the door. He was released by Anne who had
found a key to the room.
The housekeeper immediately sent a letter to
Edward, who was staying with his son at Woodstock.
When it arrived Hooper took the letter, with the
package of letters from Anne intercepted the previous
November. Hooper's reason for not handing over these
letters before was that Pryse had been out hunting: a
justification which really does not make any sense,
unless the servants were waiting to catch the couple
in the act of sleeping together. But why not hand
over the letters to Edward rather than his son? In
the event Edward sent for his lawyer and the legal
formalities began.
The High Court action for crim con was heard on
July 3, 1809. It involved eight separate occasions
when intercourse was said to have taken place,
although only two were relied on in court, the rest
going to prove an improper familiarity between the
parties. Although the evidence was convincing Edward
was unable to introduce the damning letter about his
wife's menstrual cycle as it had not been delivered
to Tom, and the indelicate nature of its contents
could not be read in court. Despite that the
remaining evidence should have been sufficient to
convict. In his summing up Lord Ellenborough went
through the eight occasions when it had been
suggested that adultery took place. He found the
evidence unconvincing or ambiguous. He set very high
standards of proof, and his view was that all the
evidence was circumstantial. The jury was out for 45
minutes and when they returned brought in a verdict
of not guilty. Although they won the case both Tom
and Anne's reputations were tarnished.
The turning point
was Anne's letter on her menstrual
cycle....... It is a letter which from public decency is
not permitted to be read in court."
Edward took the case to the Consistory Court,
before Sir William Scott, when 20 witnesses gave
evidence. Anne denied adultery, although she admitted
an unnatural attachment to Tom. Contrary to the
opinion given in the High Court Sir William said it
was a fundamental rule that it was not necessary to
prove the direct fact of adultery. "It is rare
for the parties to be caught in the act", he
said. It was not necessary to prove that adultery
took place in a certain room at a precise hour,
circumstantial evidence should be sufficient.4
The turning point for the Consistory Court hearing
was Ann's letter on her menstrual cycle. "It is
a letter which speaks for itself", Sir William
said, "without reference to any external
transactions. It is a letter which from public
decency was not permitted to be read in this Court;
but I feel that my public duty calls upon me to state
so much as this - that it does contain an account of
the times in which the periodical indisposition of
the sex visits her, and when she says she must avoid
intercourse; she promises to mark the period in
future so that he may always compute it without
difficulty".5
The evidence from the witnesses seems conclusive,
said Sir William, "the only wonder in the case
is that such an intercourse could have been possible
for such a length of time, without in some way or
other, by some accident, by some information,
reaching the notice of Mr. Loveden".6
In his judgement Sir William declared that he was
satisfied that adultery had taken place for a
considerable time. So Edward could now be legally
separated from Anne. The next step was the
introduction of a Bill in the House of Lords for full
divorce. When it finally reached the Commons Anne was
awarded maintenance of £400 a year. Edward was
clearly furious at the high cost of his divorce
settlement and when the amendments went back to the
Lords Edward urged them to drop the Bill. By
abandoning the divorce action Edward deprived Anne of
a substantial settlement, now he would only need to
pay her expenses under the original marriage contract
amounting to no more than £100 a year.
The servants played a key role in gathering the
evidence for their master and protecting his good
name. But why did they fail to keep him informed
about Anne's relationship with Tom on a continuing
basis? What seems doubly strange is that Edward did
not attempt to find out from the servants what they
knew. As we have seen the affair lasted for four
years. Edward and his son had heard rumours and
banned Tom from the house, yet the servants made no
move. They must have been aware of developments in
the household; they spied on Anne and set traps for
her yet they seemed to have held their counsel. Even
when they obtained the damning letters they were
withheld from the family for four months. The
question is why? Why did Hooper not give the letters
immediately to Edward's son? The reason given in
court that Pryse was out hunting seems particularly
weak. When Edward had all the evidence surely he
would have demanded a full explanation from his own
servant Hooper? The only answer would seem to be that
the servants were acting on the instructions of their
master or his son. They must have been told to watch
Tom and Anne and report all the evidence. It is
possible despite the explanation given in court that
the letters were in fact given to Edward or Pryse
four months before. Edward may have been waiting to
catch his wife and Tom actually sleeping together. If
this explanation rings true it does mean that Edward
was attempting to entrap his wife. Alternatively were
the servants, more particularly Hooper and Hastings,
blackmailing Anne and Tom? It may be unlikely, but it
is unquestionably a possibility. How else to account
for the delay in handing over the letters to the
family?
However, Sir William Scott was convinced that this
was not a case of entrapment. "There is I think
no reason to presume any kind of connivance" on
the part of Edward. Laurence Stone believes this
effectively destroys any argument that Edward set a
trap for his wife.7 If we accept that he
may have ignored his wife's affair we are still left
with many unanswered questions. Did his son know the
full story? If so his motive could have been to
destroy his stepmother's reputation and deprive her
of a substantial legacy after Edward's death.
What kind of man was Edward? He was born in 1750.
When he was 17 years old he inherited his father's
large for-tune. Five years later his uncle died
leaving the whole of his estate to the young man
described at the time as remarkably handsome. He
married three times, firstly to Margaret Pryse, a
Welsh heiress in 1773, then an even richer heiress,
the daughter of a hop merchant. The third time he
found another wealthy bride Anne Liddell. When they
married in 1794 Anne was 21 years old and Edward 43.
So far he had received two large inheritances, one
including Buscot Park, and married three rich
heiresses. It could be argued that he was lucky,
alternatively that he had a mercenary streak which
made him seek out money. His constituents had already
detected a parsimonious streak in his character which
strengthens this hypothesis.8
His political career gives many clues to his
character. His Berkshire property gave him a strong
county interest and he was returned as an MP for
Abingdon in 1783. At a time of shifting political
allegiance changing sides was common, but Loveden
seems to have changed his political loyalties more
than most, possibly in an attempt to gain political
office, or even a peerage. Many of his constituents,
already resentful for his frugality, were outraged
during the Regency crisis at his attitude which at
best could be described as equivocal and at worst as
changing sides to gain financial reward from
political office. He opposed Pitt as a "man of
doubtful gender", but later sought his support
when attempting to stand as one of the Berkshire
County Members of Parliament. He lost his Abingdon
seat in 1796 while he was still unpopular in the
county but then said he was determined never to enter
Parliament again - however, he eventually became MP
for Shaftesbury.9
So what conclusions can we draw? At the time of
his separation Edward was almost 6o, while Anne was
36. His interest in her may have waned and once the
liaison started Edward may have seized the
opportunity of waiting for his young wife to step
over the bounds of impropriety which could lead to
divorce. Whether it was Edward or his son Pryse
either one, or both of them, had much to gain from
separation and divorce.
There was no love lost between Edward's family and
Anne. Edward wrote to his sister Jane Gill telling
her about the discovery of the letters. Jane wrote
back immediately, "how such devils never
existed, I wonder much they did not connive to give
you a dose of poison, I am certain they were both
equal to it - and I firmly believe had she continued
under your roof, it would have been effected, without
doubt".10
What happened to Anne and Tom? The Loveden papers
at the Berkshire Record Office includes a letter from
the Town Clerk at Abingdon, Samuel Sellwood, dated 9
August, 1811.11 In it he refers to the
vacancies at Mer-ton (Tom's old College), "B[arker]
of course has taken his leave, but I think with you
his courage will never carry him to Spain as a
Volunteer". The letter goes on to speculate that
Anne and her mother were planning to leave Berkshire.
Anne and Tom did in fact leave the county. They
moved to Hambledon in Buckinghamshire where Tom
purchased'Bakers House'. Here they lived together
until 1821 when his beloved Anne died. In her will
she left her entire estate worth about seventeen
thousand pounds to Tom.12 Her husband
Edward died the following year so Arm and Tom were
never able to marry. Edward bequeathed "to his
old and faithful friend Francis Knight" a dress
sword and gold-headed cane. His servants received
annuities: "my old and faithful servant Hannah
Calcott" received one of £20, the widow of
another servant received £11 for life, the widow of
his groom an annuity of £20 and Warren Hastings and
James Hooper, who played such an important role in
the story, were given £50 each. Most of the estate
apart from provision for his sister and his daughters
by an earlier marriage was left to Pryse. Clearly the
servants did well by standing by their master.13
Tom's father John Raymond Barker died in 1827. As
well as his properly at Fairford Park he also owned a
house in Portman Square, London.14 He
provided for all his sons and daughters, including
Tom. The size of the estate would have allowed Tom to
have a good lifestyle. He appears to have played a
full part in the life of the community in
Buckinghamshire curiously becoming a magistrate,
probably as early as 1832, and chairman of the Gaol
Building Committee. He seems to overcome his love for
Anne and eventually married Eliza Jane, who was nine
years his junior. He died on 23 June 1866 aged 88 and
is buried at Hambledon churchyard with Eliza Jane.
References
1 Stone, Lawrence: 'Broken Lives, separation and
divorce in England 1660-1857', CUP, 1993, pp 248-269.
For a detailed account of the divorce action.
2 Haggard, John, 'Reports of Cases Argued and
Determined in the Consistory Court of London;
containing the Judgements of the Right Hon. Sir
William Scott', London, 1822, p 651
3 The Times Law Report of the King's Bench, JulY 4,
1809, p2d
4 Haggard, p648
5·D/ELV L24
6 Haggard, p651
7 Haggard, p652
8 Thorne, R.G. 'The House of Commons 1790-1820'
London 1986, pp457
9 ibid p458
10 D/ELV C2/13
11 D/ELV E98/16
12 PROB 11/1643/286
13 PROB 11/1657
14 John Raymond Barker's will, PROB 11/1722
I am grateful to Lisa Spurrier of the Berkshire
Record Office and to Sue Baxter from the Buckinghamshire
Record Office in identifying some of the Loveden and
Barker documents in their position.
|
