capitally convicted & ‘pleading the belly’ before the jury of matrons

L0038225 Stages in pregnancy as represented by the growth of the womb

Talking about the female jury today.

Above image shows:

Stages in pregnancy as represented by the growth of the womb from Nouvelles démonstrations d’accouchements. Jacques-Pierre Maygrier (1822) Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London. Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0

As a woman in Australia I’m grateful we don’t face the possibility of being capitally convicted i.e. face the death penalty once convicted of a certain offence. Once in Australia women did.

And once in Australia we had juries of matrons, yes, venerable matrons.In 1789 Australia, Ann Davis faced an indictment in the name of “our Sovereign Lord George the Third” for break, enter and theft.

After being found guilty she tried unsuccessfully to assert the defence of viable pregnancy or to ‘plead the belly’ before a jury of matrons.

“On her condemnation she pleaded pregnancy and a jury of venerable matrons was empanelled on the spot, to examine and pronounce her state, which the forewoman, a grave personage between 60 and 70 years old, did, by this short address to the court: ‘Gentlemen! She is as much with child as I am.”

220px-first_execution_in_south_australia_in_1838_for_shooting_sheriff_smart1

 

The sentence of death was accordingly confirmed.

It’s been a long journey for women in the law & the legal profession especially as jurors.

Generally, we understand it to be in the 1920s that women started serving on trial juries. But is that correct? I wonder if the real first all female jury was the jury of matrons?

 

Used from the 13th century, this jury was a group of women impaneled to judge capitally convicted females, women facing the death penalty, who claimed they were pregnant & “quick” with child or carrying a viable foetus.

 

1804: The fate of Anne Hurle, after her capital conviction for creative fraud

Anne Hurle, on being asked why sentence of death should not be pronounced against her, said, that she thought she was with child. This, however, was not asserted with sufficient confidence to occasion any enquiry. Sarah Fisher, another of the prisoners, alleged with confidence, that she was with child; this occasioned the calling of a Jury of Matrons, who, after retiring to another apartment, declared, on oath, that she was not quick with child. She was accordingly taken back to prison, to suffer the punishment to which she had been sentenced.”1

 

The trial of M D'Eon by a jury of matrons
The trial of M DEon by a jury of matrons

 

Before women were permitted, from 1920 onwards, to serve on the grand and trial juries which were responsible for the final determination of a person’s guilt or liability, they had occasionally been empanelled on “juries of matrons”. The most common reason for such a jury to be put together was if, on being convicted of a crime which carried the death penalty, a woman pleaded that she was pregnant. Unwilling to take two lives for a single person’s crime, the law then needed to know whether the woman was “quick” with child (whether she really was pregnant and, as a proxy for viability, whether the foetus had started to move – if the answer to either of these questions was “no”, the woman’s pregnancy plea would fail). ….

 

A Jury of Matrons – Medical History

firstPage-S002572730004758Xa[1].jpg

 

 

And see Rex v Peggy and non Christian women on the Jury of Matrons

This extraordinary case (Rex v. Peggy) involved a court debate over whether non-Christian women could serve on a jury of matrons (used in deciding whether a convicted woman was pregnant or not). The fact that the court ruled non-Christian women ineligible was even more fascinating, suggesting that the practice of using Hindu and Muslim women on juries of matrons had been an accepted practice earlier.

focus_201210_ss61

Leave a Reply