Guest Post: A Glimpse at Regency Era Law by Regina Jeffers

For my latest cozy mystery, part of the action is a trial set in 1816. Many of the tenets of court law we now accept as commonplace were not part of the court system during the Regency Period. For example, the defendant would be expected to argue his own case. A barrister could provide the defendant advice on points of law, but the proof of innocence rested purely on the defendant’s shoulders. Neither were witnesses for the defendant “required” to attend the trial’s proceedings. Needless to say, a writ of error could send the outcome of the case to a court of appeals, especially in the case of a wealthier defendant, who could afford the expense. 

In The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin, Fitzwilliam Darcy’s cousin, Major General Fitzwilliam  (Colonel Fitzwilliam in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice) is accused of a series of crimes of which he has no memory for he is suffering from what we would now call “PTSD.” (There was no official name for the stress of war at the time.)

Old Bailey Trial

Darcy must use every bit of cunning he possesses to prove his cousin innocent for it would be a great victory for the “unwashed masses” to convict the second son of an earl for the crimes. All of London is set against the major general. If Darcy does not know success at the trial, then his only hope would be a writ of error. But how does a writ of error become a point of appellation in the British legal system? And what role would the House of Lords play in this process? For those of us in the States, many facets of the English legal system is as foreign as the statute of limitations in juvenile cases. So, let us explore some of the differences.

“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to representation by counsel in serious criminal prosecutions. The responsibility for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of representation has historically rested in the federal judiciary. Before the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act in 1964 (CJA), there was no authority to compensate appointed counsel for their services or litigation expenses, and federal judges depended on the professional obligation of lawyers to provide pro bono publico representation to defendants unable to retain counsel.“ (United States Courts Services and Forms) http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-services

However, for many centuries in England, the law permitted appeals to the House of Lords. The HOL also served as the final Court of Appeals for Scotland and Ireland. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 continued the appellate jurisdiction of the House, as well as to provide the suitor a statutory right of appeal to the House of Lords. The 3rd Section of that Act says an appeal from any order or judgment of her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England lies to the House of Lords.

In Ireland, the Irish Judicature Act of 1877 gives the right of appeal to the House of Lords in all decisions, judgments, decrees or orders from the Irish Court of Appeal that were previously appealable to the House of Lords or to the Privy Council. The right of appeal by way of writ of error from the decision of the Queen’s Bench Division of the Irish High Court of Justice is also preserved in this Irish Judicature Act.

The Scots made no alteration in the right of appeal. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 provided Scotland the right of appeal to the House of Lords from any order or judgment of any court of Scotland from which error or an appeal lay to the House of Lords by common law or by statue at the time of passing the act.

An appeal of a civil case in the English courts must be sent up by the Supreme Court of Judicature in England (Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal).The only judicial proceedings by which matters of a criminal nature could formerly be brought before the House of Lords was by writ of error.

A writ of error is the only means a judicial proceeding in a criminal matter may be brought before the House of Lords. From ancient times, a writ of error could be brought in England at common law, both in civil and criminal proceedings from inferior Courts of Record to the Court of Queen’s Bench and from thence direct to the House of Lords. Numerous statutes define the means by which a writ of error was brought to the attention of the House of Lords. The writ must first come before the judges or barons of the other two courts in the Exchequer Chamber before coming to the House of Lords.

Time limitations for a writ of error in a civil case originally was set at twenty years. The Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 abolished writs of error in civil cases, but they remained in criminal cases. Such was true until the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875. The acts abolished writs of error in bills of exception and proceedings in civil cases, but nothing in the acts affect the practice and procedure in criminal proceedings.

_________________

For more information on the legal system, I would recommend Charles Marsh Denison and Charles Henderson Scott’s The Practice & Procedure of the House of Lords in English, Scotch & Irish Appeal Cases Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876.

__________________

New from Regina Jeffers

The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery from Pegasus Books

Fitzwilliam Darcy is enjoying his marital bliss. His wife, the former Elizabeth Bennet, presented him two sons and a world of contentment. All is well until “aggravation” rears its head when Darcy receives a note of urgency from his sister Georgiana.

In truth, Darcy never fully approved of Georgiana’s joining with their cousin, Major General Edward Fitzwilliam, for Darcy assumed the major general held Georgiana at arm’s length, dooming Darcy’s sister to a life of unhappiness.

Dutifully, Darcy and Elizabeth rush to Georgiana’s side when the major general leaves his wife and daughter behind, with no word of his whereabouts and no hopes of Edward’s return. Forced to seek his cousin in the slews of London’s underbelly, at length, Darcy discovers the major general and returns Fitzwilliam to his family.

Even so, the Darcys’ troubles are far from over. During the major general’s absence from home, witnesses note Fitzwilliam’s presence in the area of two horrific murders. When Edward Fitzwilliam is arrested for the crimes, Darcy must discover the real culprit before the authorities hanged his cousin and the Fitzwilliam name knew a lifetime of shame.

The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery is available for purchase on Kindle or Nook and in paperback through Amazon and Barnes and Noble.    

Meet the Author

Regina Jeffers is an award-winning author of cozy mysteries, Austenesque sequels and retellings, and Regency era romances. A teacher for thirty-nine years, Jeffers often serves as a consultant for Language Arts and Media Literacy programs. With multiple degrees, Regina has been a Time Warner Star Teacher, Columbus (OH) Teacher of the Year, and a Martha Holden Jennings Scholar. With 7 new releases in 2015, Jeffers is considered one of publishing’s most prolific authors.

Connect with the Author

Regina Jeffers’ Website  www.rjeffers.com

Every Woman Dreams   reginajeffers.wordpress.com

Austen Authors     austenauthors.net   

The Arrest of George of Clarence

George Plantagenet, like most of his contemporaries, lived a dramatic life through turbulent times. Born in 1449, his life almost precisely lines up with the years of the Wars of the Roses. On June 10, 1477, he was sent to the Tower on the order of the King, George’s brother, Edward IV.

This arrest came as a surprise to some, who had observed Edward tolerate more serious crimes perpetrated by his impetuous, glory seeking brother. Was this the final straw for the tolerant older brother or did he truly see George as a threat to his throne?

George would have done well to have been content with his lot in life as the king’s heir. Until the birth of Prince Edward in 1470 that is the role George had filled, though he had consistently strived for more. With the birth of two princes ahead of him in the line of succession, George seems to have had thrown caution aside and determined that he could grasp more.

George had been convinced to join the Earl of Warwick, Richard Neville, who would later become known as the Kingmaker, in revolting against Edward. Both were looking to create a regime in which they could have more power. Whether Warwick ever planned on truly giving George a better position than he already had as the Duke of Clarence, one can only guess. In the end, George lost his nerve and turned his coat once again to join his brother in 1471.

However, George was not arrested until 1477, so Edward forgave his brother his betrayals and difficulties until the death of Isabel Neville. The daughter of Warwick had been married to George against Edward’s wishes, but this is another crime that George had been forgiven for. When she succumbed to childbed fever, George seems to have lost any small amount of self-control he once had.

With his household in mourning, George ordered the execution of Isabel’s servant, Ankarette Twynho, claiming that she had poisoned her mistress. George’s mental state continued to deteriorate in the following months, reportedly consulting necromancers and bristling over his brother’s refusal to approve a foreign bride for him. Finally after six months of George causing havoc wherever he went, Edward had him arrested for treason.

Some have hypothesized that George had learned of the precontract that Richard III would later use to disinherit his nephews, and that this is the true reason that Edward felt that he must be eliminated at this time. George’s actions of 1477 are disturbing but not as serious as those in his past. Was Edward’s decision simply based on the accumulation of George’s sins?

George would be held in the Tower for eight long months while his brother agonized over what to do with him. His execution finally took place on February 18, 1478. His execution was performed privately, but it is widely believed that he chose to be drowned in a butt of malmsey, making George’s death as dramatic as his short life had been.

George left behind two children, Edward and Margaret. Edward inherited his grandfather’s title and became Edward of Warwick. He would be imprisoned for over half of his life before being executed by Henry VII due to the threat of his Plantagenet blood. Margaret was awarded an old family title of Countess of Salisbury by Henry VIII decades before he, too, decided that her Plantagenet blood was too great a threat. She was beheaded on Henry’s orders on May 27, 1541 at age 67.

The Coronation of Richard III

July 6, 2015 is the 532^nd anniversary of one of the most controversial events in English history. Many historians and Wars of the Roses enthusiasts continue to debate Richard of Gloucester’s motivations and intentions when he took the crown of England from his young nephew, who was already being called Edward V. I will leave that debate for another day as we look at what the coronation of Richard III may have looked like.

Richard’s coronation was shared with his wife, Anne Neville, who was crowned queen at his side. Their son, another Edward, remained in the north. Did they fear for his health or safety? It is unknown, but the fact remains that he died less than a year later so poor health is a possibility.

Richard’s brother Edward IV had been a boisterous and glamorous king, probably not unlike his grandson, Henry VIII. Except that Edward had better luck with the fertility of his queen, Elizabeth Woodville, and therefore never experienced the frustration to beget a son that defines so much of Henry’s reign. Edward had set a high standard for pageantry and magnificence that Richard’s coronation met and exceeded.

Anne’s dress was handcrafted out of 27 yards of white cloth of gold, trimmed in ermine. Over it, she wore a velvet robe and mantle in royal purple. This purple stretched behind Anne in the form of a stunning train created from 56 yards of the precious velvet. With her proud Neville background, Anne surely looked every bit a Queen of England.

Richard was dressed no less magnificently than his bride in his own purple velvet mantle that was exchanged for one in glimmering cloth of gold once the ceremony at Westminster Abbey was completed. He and Anne had been reverently anointed with holy oil, recognizing them as monarchs of England and representatives of God.

The banquet following the solemn mass was another example of amazing ceremony, especially considering the brief period of time that had been taken to plan it. Course after course of savory foods and delicate desserts were served to the most important people in the land. Richard and Anne were served from dishes of rich gold and silver.

Contrary to what some may believe about Richard’s reputation as a villain and usurper, great rejoicing took place at his coronation. Though Edward V may or may not have been the legitimate heir (that, too, is a discussion for another day), the people of England had suffered through too many years of civil war that were the result of a child king who never truly grew up. Rather than taking the chance that young Edward would become a second Henry VI, many nobles were eager to back the capable brother of the previous king. More than 3,000 people including most of the nobility attended the coronation feast in a celebration that has not seen its equal since.

Since I have a particular interest in her, I have often wondered what Elizabeth of York was thinking as Richard III’s coronation took place. Still in sanctuary with her mother and sisters, Elizabeth would have still been in shock at the death of her larger than life father and the bastardization of herself and her siblings. Did she see Richard as a grasping villain?

Nine more months would go by before Elizabeth and her sisters would leave sanctuary with their mother. In this time, Richard ruled well, but somehow misplaced Elizabeth’s brothers. Did he have them murdered to solidify his own strength and eliminate future heads of rebellion? Did someone else do away with them, thinking they were doing Richard a favor? Possibly a member of the Lancastrian remnant rid the country of two more York boys, or they simply sickened and died. Many authors have written in the hope that the boys didn’t die at all but escaped or were sent away by Richard for their own safety. We do not know the truth to this day, but this is an issue that Elizabeth would have struggled with.

When she went to court, no longer as a princess but as the bastard daughter of the king’s brother, what thoughts were coursing through her mind? Maybe Elizabeth believed the story of her father’s precontract. After all, she was old enough to know that he had been many things, but monogamous was not one of them. To overhear one conversation between her and Richard is a privilege that I wish there was a way to obtain.

Whether Elizabeth hated Richard, was in love with him, or had a relationship that fell somewhere in between, his reign was not to last. Shortly following the deaths of his heir and then his queen, Richard fell in a courageous charge at Bosworth, defending his crown from Henry Tudor on August 22, 1485. Henry had promised to marry Elizabeth the previous Christmas and made good on that promise on January 18, 1486. 

Reader Survey Results

Remember the Reader Survey that you were invited to participate in here? Well, author MK Tod has compiled some interesting results! You can see them here.

It looks like there is good news for me with the highest percentage of readers responding that they prefer to read about the 13th-16th centuries. Welcome, my medievalist friends!

Death of the Last Plantagenet Princess

Like most of us when we hold our newborn baby in our arms, Isabel Neville would never have guessed at the future of her tiny daughter when she was born on August 14, 1473. The baby's name was Margaret, and she seemed to have a secure future as a Plantagenet princess. Her father, George of Clarence, was the younger brother of King Edward IV, who had successfully won the English crown for York.

Through much trial and tribulation, Margaret's life did not go at all as Isabel likely imagined, though she was kept from witnessing it herself. Isabel died in 1476, attempting to give George another son. Therefore, this proud Neville woman would not see her husband executed by his own brother for treason after he had plotted with her father to overthrow the king. This was the first in a long line of deaths and disappointments that would define Margaret's life.

After the death of her father and mother, Margaret and her

brother Edward of Warwick were left orphans in a volatile court. Following his brother in death after only five years, Edward IV had not put much effort into the raising of his brother's children. When his youngest brother Richard took the throne from his own son, the favor was returned in spades. Academics and armchair historians continue to debate the motivations and facts behind Richard's usurpation to this day, but little Margaret was 10 years old and floating in a churning political sea.

Two cousins, The Princes in the Tower, were lost to Margaret at this time, but she was housed with their sisters, the daughters of Edward IV. Included in this household was Elizabeth of York, who Margaret would go on to serve as a lady in waiting when Elizabeth married Henry Tudor. Margaret was quickly married off by Henry VII to a firm supporter who could be trusted to keep a former princess in line, Richard Pole.

Though Margaret was likely only 14 when this wedding took place, evidence indicates that it was a happy marriage and Margaret was probably thankful for the stability it brought to her life, despite it being a very different type of life than her mother would have envisioned for her. This happiness was relatively brief. Richard died in 1504, leaving Margaret with five children, the last possibly having been born after his father's death.

Margaret's life under Henry VII was calm if, at times, destitute, but his son, Henry VIII decided to raise her up. Made Countess of Salisbury in 1512, Margaret was shown the respect and given the riches that recognized the position she had been born into. While her sons were forced to carefully present themselves at court as not to be seen by Henry as rivals to the throne, she seemed to be in favor.

Margaret was named as governess to the Princess Mary, and stood firmly by her and her mother Queen Katherine of Aragon when Henry decided that it was time for a new wife to give him his longed for son. Margaret's sons were a torture to Henry just as Catherine Grey's sons would be to his daughter a generation later.

Henry, Arthur, Reginald, and Geoffrey managed mostly to please the king and keep him from feeling threatened by them, unlike the duke of Buckingham who was executed for treason in 1521. The Pole boys were careful not to point out their closeness to the throne and their royal Plantagenet blood.

However, Henry VIII was famous for seeing demons where none existed, and the Poles simply could not bring themselves to support Anne Boleyn or the reformation of the Church of England. By 1538, Margaret saw many members of her extended family arrested, including her firstborn, Henry lord Montegue. He was executed, along with his noble cousins Exeter and Neville, by the end of the year. Margaret and her youngest son, Geoffrey, continued to languish in prison. (Arthur had died around 1527.)

Geoffrey, the weakest willed of the strong Poles, was released after two suicide attempts. Was Henry merciful or could see that freedom and life were the harshest punishment to the boy who had given evidence against his older brother? Margaret was kept under house arrest for some time before being transferred to the Tower.

As Henry's failure to beget an heir and declining health caused ever increasing cruelty and mood swings, he took aim at the Plantagenet remnant that he felt sure had eyes on his crown. Reginald was forced into exile as his brother's small children were also taken to the Tower. Not a soul was bragging about Plantagenet blood now.

On May 27, 1541, this day 474 years ago, Margaret was woken in her Tower cell and informed that she would die that day. Henry had determined a need to clear the Tower of traitors and Margaret's continued longevity was rather inconvenient. The execution was kept quiet, for even Henry understood the poor reception his actions would receive. Margaret, for her part, is reported to have accepted her fate with royal dignity, even when the inexperienced axeman hacked ruthlessly at her head and upper body. Her painful and unnecessary death rid Henry of that generation of Plantagenets (his father had executed Margaret's brother Edward without cause), and his children would do their part to execute those that remained.

The bloody Wars of the Roses may have been long over for most families, but for the York remnant the fight for life and position carried on until the last Plantagenet princess, Margaret Countess of Salisbury, was executed by her cousin's son at the age of 67. In 1886, Margaret was beatified by the Catholic Church and became Blessed Margaret Pole.