Engines of Truth YY6746.indb6746.indb i 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:27:40:27 PPMM This page intentionally left blank Engines of Truth Producing Veracity in the Victorian Courtroom Wendie Ellen Schneider New Haven & London YY6746.indb6746.indb iiiiii 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:27:40:27 PPMM Published with assistance from the Kingsley Trust Association Publication Fund established by the Scroll and Key Society of Yale College. Published with assistance from the foundation established in memory of Calvin Chapin of the Class of 1788, Yale College. Copyright © 2015 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (U.S. offi ce) or [email protected] (U.K. offi ce). Set in Bulmer type by Newgen North America. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Control Number: 2015935095 isbn 978–0-300–12566-5 (cloth : alk. paper) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ansi/niso z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 YY6746.indb6746.indb iivv 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM For Graham B. Hovey and Frank M. Turner YY6746.indb6746.indb v 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 part one from crime to cross-examination 1. The Rise and Fall of Perjury Prosecutions 17 2. The Gentlemanly Art of Cross-examination 48 part two experimentation abroad and at home 3. Perjury and Prevarication in British India 103 4. The Queen’s Proctor: An Inquisitorial Experiment 143 5. Adultery, Sex Offenses, and the Criminal Evidence Act of 1898 181 Notes 211 Index 259 YY6746.indb6746.indb vviiii 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments this book initially took shape at Yale University, where I was fortunate to attend classes at the intersection of York and Wall Streets, the literal coming together of a world-class history department and a law school unique for its critical self-awareness and intellectual vibrancy. Without that happy coincidence and the community of scholars and visitors it attracted, this project could not have happened. I am very grateful for both the legal his- tory program at the Yale Law School and the broad-minded approach of the Yale History Department. Law and history may seem to occupy two indepen- dent intellectual universes, but at Yale the physical distance between them was less than a stone’s throw, and the conceptual distance shrank markedly as a result. This book is the product of the climate of broad-based intellectual curiosity and questioning this proximity fostered. At Yale, I benefi ted from the instruction of Mirjan Damaška, George Fisher, Robert W. Gordon, Laura Kalman, John Langbein, Jerry Mashaw, Reva Siegel, and James Whitman at the Law School; and Linda Colley, Geof- frey Parker, Jonathan Spence, Frank M. Turner, and David Underdown in the History Department. Rogers Smith in the Political Science Department encouraged and mentored me as a teacher of legal history to undergraduates. Bob Gordon and Frank Turner also served as the co-advisors of my disserta- tion research. It is an enduring regret for me that I am not able to give Frank a copy of this book. He, and Graham Hovey, who encouraged me at a very early stage to write and to think about history on a global scale, both passed away before this book’s publication. Each of them left a permanent mark on the text that follows, which is therefore dedicated to their memory. One of the wonderful things about studying legal history at Yale was the cohort of students interested in that topic during my time there. We ix YY6746.indb6746.indb iixx 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM x Acknowledgments truly learned as much from each other as from our readings. There were many fi ne scholars, both in the joint program in law and history and also among my colleagues on the Yale Law Journal and the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. Late-night conversations with my fellow students, as we struggled to pin down references and citations, shaped the intellectual foundations of this book. Financially, the research for this book was made possible by awards from the Truman Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the Yale Graduate School, and a travel grant from Iowa State University. The law fi rm of De- bevoise & Plimpton also supported my research indirectly, as did the Yale Law School’s COAP repayment program. At the University of Iowa, I ben- efi ted from the research help of a number of wonderful student assistants and library employees. Research on this topic would not have been possible without the su- perb collections and knowledgeable staff of the India Offi ce Collection at the British Library, the British Library Newspapers at Colindale, and the Public Records Offi ce materials held at the National Archives in Kew. I am also indebted to the marvelous collections of historical legal materials at the Yale Law School library, the University of Iowa Law School library, and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London. I am grateful to the editors and readers at the Yale University Press who have provided helpful suggestions over the course of the development of this manuscript. Chris Rogers, Erica Hanson, and Dan Heaton have been remarkably supportive of my work over this book’s long develop- ment, and Jessie Dolch was a very effective copy editor. Ultimately, however, family and an array of furry creatures have spent the most time with this book project. Mocha the rabbit and dogs Suley, Dervish, and Djinn have contributed nothing to the content of this book but have provided ample distraction and occasional note-stealing services. John Monroe, my husband and partner in crime, has been there through the thick and thin of this project. His assistance has been invaluable, and his ability to remain interested in the follies of an array of nineteenth- century characters has kept this endeavor going. I cannot overstate my debt of grati- tude to him. YY6746.indb6746.indb x 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM Engines of Truth YY6746.indb6746.indb xxii 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM This page intentionally left blank Introduction charles allen was unlucky. In 1850, he testifi ed for a friend in a case that grew out of a road accident. A brougham driven by a man named Haynes allegedly ran up against a pony-chaise and caused two pounds, eighteen shillings in damage. The owners of the chaise sued for damages, and Allen testifi ed that in fact no collision had occurred. Rather unconvincingly, he suggested that the damage had been caused by the pony-chaise having been backed into a water tub. The County Court judge hearing the case ignored Allen’s testimony, awarded damages to the plain- tiffs, and committed Allen, still a teenager, on perjury charges. At Allen’s trial, the prosecution argued that Allen had lied in order to prevent Haynes, apparently a friend, from losing his job. The jury convicted Allen, and, de- spite his youth, the judge sentenced him to seven years’ transportation.1 Harriet Ricketts fared little better. In 1885, she petitioned for divorce from her husband, William, citing his cruelty, adultery, and desertion. Al- though she was successful before the Divorce Court, Harriet did not re- ceive a divorce because her case attracted the attention of the Queen’s Proc- tor, a Victorian offi cial charged with discovering falsity in divorce cases. In a separate proceeding, Harriet had to defend herself against William’s accusation that she had committed adultery with Silas Beasly. If petitioners for divorce had themselves committed adultery, their petitions were auto- matically rejected. Harriet responded that since their separation, William had repeatedly sought her out and verbally abused her at her workplace. In order to hide from him, she claimed to be married to Beasly when she gave a statement to the police about an unrelated traffi c accident. Harriet denied any relationship with Beasly and contended that she used his name only because she was afraid her husband would discover her whereabouts. 1 YY6746.indb6746.indb 1 77/2/15/2/15 22:40:28:40:28 PPMM 2 Introduction Her word was not deemed sound enough to outweigh the Queen’s Proc- tor’s charges. The court denied her divorce petition, leaving her married to William.2 Charles’s and Harriet’s ill luck was a matter of bad historical timing. Had they been caught lying in court half a century earlier or later, they likely would have gone unpunished. Late eighteenth- and early nineteenth- century courts did little to prosecute perjury, even though judges regu- larly complained about its prevalence in their courtrooms.3 Similarly, by the end of the nineteenth century, an indifference to perjury had returned, and prosecution of it was effectively restricted to a narrow range of cases. By 1898, the Home Offi ce described perjury by criminal defendants as a “not very serious matter.”4 But courts in the mid-nineteenth century ap- proached the question of truth-telling with unprecedented seriousness and adopted an array of innovative strategies to guarantee veracity in trials.