The Life and Crimes of Jane Leigh-Perrot
The Life and Crimes of Jane Leigh-Perrot
"Bath is a charming place, sir; there are so many good shops here. We are sadly off in the country. . . . Now, here one can step out of doors, and get a thing in five minutes."
Northanger Abbey
Jane Austen's first entrance into Bath was facilitated by a visit to her Uncle and Aunt, James and Jane Leigh-Perrot. Wealthy and childless, Uncle James was the older brother of Cassandra Leigh Austen, Jane Austen's mother. In a turn of events, not unlike what would later happen to Austen's own brother, Uncle James inherited a fortune from another childless relative. Upon inheriting the Northleigh Estate (which was promptly demolished and sold) James added the surname of his late Uncle Perrot to his last name, becoming James Leigh-Perrot. He then went on to build a new home in Berkshire, which he named "Scarlets".
For many years the Leigh-Perrots were quite happy spending their summers at Scarlets and their winters in Bath. From their home at Number One, the Paragon, they were able to enjoy society, take the waters, and offer their nieces from Steventon a chance at seeing something of the world. Surely young Catherine Morland's visit to Bath in Northanger Abbey is taken from Jane Austen's own first visit there in 1797.
Soon after that visit, an incident took place which would cast a pall over the Leigh-Perrots stay in the City and bring Aunt Jane into the annals of history. In August, 1799, Mrs Leigh-Perrot had stopped in at a linen drapers to purchase a length of black lace. Upon leaving, she was accosted by the owner of the shop who asked to inspect her package. At that point it was discovered that a card of white lace, worth twenty shillings (£1), was also included in the packet. Mrs Leigh-Perrot insisted that it was a mistake by a clerk who had accidently wrapped the white lace along with the black. The owner called it shoplifting.
Mrs Leigh-Perrot forcefully denied the claim and continued home. A few days later, she was arrested for theft and help for an additional eight months in jail until the March Assizes would be held. Due to her station as a gentlewoman, she was not lodged in the public gaol, but instead, lived with the jailer and his family, thoug in relative filth, while awaiting trial. Her ever devoted husband stayed by her side, regardless of the "Vulgarity, Dirt, Noise from morning till night...Cleanliness has ever been his greatest delight, and yet he sees the greasy toast laid by the dirty children on his knees, and feels the small Beer trickle down his Sleeves on its way across the table unmoved." No doubt Jane Austen was relieved when her aunt turned down Mrs Austen's offer of allowing her daughters to travel to the Ilchester gaol to keep her company.
The crime which Mrs Leigh-Perrot was charged with, was no small thing. At that time, theft of any item worth five shillings or more was punishable by hanging or, as was more likely in her case, deportation to Australia for 14 years. The trial took place on March 29, 1800. Fortunately for the Austen-Leighs, the jury took only a few minutes to return with a "not guilty" verdict and the matter was soon hushed up.
* * *
Most essays that have been written
about the matter since, have been by Austen family members and
it is usually said the male in the shop at the time sought to
blackmail Mrs Leigh-Perrot. As in most cases, the evidence is complicated, and the arguments
on both sides have to be paid attention to.
In The Trial of Jane's Aunt, Albert Borowitz argues a careful examination of what happened at the trial suggests that the woman was probably guilty and that the jury came in with a "not
guilty" verdict because one, she was a wealthy gentleman's wife,
and two, the punishment for the crime was so severe.
The case is still known and the details available for anyone who
wants to study it because the individual arraigned for grand larceny
was Jane Austen's aunt, Mrs Jane Leigh-Perrot. With very little and
discreet commentary, Sir Frank MacKinnon reprinted all the
original documents having to do with the case in a 4 volume set of
books containing documents and essays and letters pertaining
to Jane Austen. Borowitz and MacKinnon agree the case created a
local furor of sorts because the woman was wealthy and a known personality
in Bath.
The actual evidence is somewhat damning. The day
Mrs Leigh-Perrot left the shop with the lace stuffed awkwardly
into a package made up for her by the a clerk, Mr Filby, another
woman, Miss Gregory, the shop's owner, accosted and accused her, and then went right to the
magistrates and demanded she be arrested.
Miss Gregory and Mr Filby (with whom she was having an affair) went for three days in a row to ask that Mrs Leigh-Perrot be arrested and the crime admitted to. It is true that a week
later the man made the mistake of trying to blackmail Mr Leigh-Perrot
(he had been getting nowhere with the magistrates as yet), but
if you read his letter it seems to be reaction, an afterthought.
However, it was used as evidence against him but in a mild way:
the four defense attorneys (that's four) who defended
Mrs Leigh-Perrot never accused the man of blackmail but argued
he had by mistake put the white lace into the package.
Borowitz provides a detailed drawing to show where the man
was standing, where Mrs Leigh-Perrot was standing, and reprints testimony
to suggest the man could not have mistaken a white lace hanging
on one side of a shop with black lace lying on a counter on the
other.
Two people were brought into court to say that this man
had put extra things in their packages, but both incidents happened
after Mrs Leigh-Perrot was arraigned (so there is suspicion that
they were currying favor with the Leigh-Perrots and their
connections). The judge told the jury to ignore one of them
(as not worthy evidence) and the other did buy the same colour
lace as the one she said the man put into her package.
Then there was an attempt to blacken the character of the
shopkeeper. It was shown the attorneys for the shopkeeper
and people who helped the couple in the shop were
respectable citizens who had been involved in philanthropic
activities. So another "countercharge" that the milliner and her boyfriend were
unsavoury types was at least not thought to be so at the time.
In any case it was irrelevant to whether Mrs Leigh-Perrot stole
the lace. The judge pointed this out.
Finally, the two letters which Mrs Leigh-Perrot and her husband produced
which accused this man of having a bad character are said
by Borowitz to be suspicious, to be in the same handwriting
and have the same phrases in them.
The above is a summary of answers to most of what has been
said on behalf of the idea that Mrs Leigh-Perrot was utterly innocent
and framed by bad people.
Now for the evidence Jane's Aunt Jane did it. This is usually
not brought up by the many who want to argue she didn't.
One of the employees in the shop persistently testified that
she saw Mrs Leigh-Perrot do it -- under some sharp barrages
from Mrs Leigh-Perrot's lawyer. This is long and convincing.
And of course the others said she did it, and
she had the lace on her. The sketch by Borowitz shows how easily she could have done it and
just as she was accused of doing it.
There was an attempt on the part of Mrs Leigh-Perrot's lawyers to
get the arraignment squashed but the man and milliner
in the shop were able to stop this partly because
shopkeepers in Bath were influential. Shopkeepers
saw a not-guilty verdict as against their interests. Not
to have arraigned her would allow the already privileged "company"
(wealthy visitors and people who were society) a kind of
"carte blanche".
Mrs Leigh-Perrot's lawyers wrote a statement for her in which she
basically appealed to the jury to suppose that a woman
as wealthy as she would have no reason to steal such a piece
of lace. While she read it, her lawyers wept. Mr Leigh-Perrot paid
something like £2000 for a row of character witnesses to
appear to tell the jury what a respectable pious wealthy
woman Mrs Leigh-Perrot was.
Then the judge gave a very even-handed summing up until
he reached the last part of his speech, at which point he
emphasized the woman's wealth & character as described
by her witnesses. Was it "probable or reasonable for
her to steal this lace?", was the question implied.
At the time there was no such illness as kleptomania. This is
a modern concept: illnesses are in the eyes of beholders and
tell as much about the society that perceives them as the symptoms.
It took the jury less than 15 minutes to come back with a
verdict of not guilty.
One of the interesting aspects of the documents is that
afterwards neither side openly talked about the disjunction
between this crime and the punishment. It was insinuated she
got off because of who she was. It may be that this
idea of the disjunction of the crime and punishment
was mentioned in the newspapers but I haven't read them
and the essays about the case don't quote anyone in the period
saying this. It was apparently not in the interest of
Mrs Leigh-Perrot's side to explicitly appeal to the jury's sense
that the punishment was too harsh for the crime.
It seems to be only today that people writing
about the case emphasize that she got off whether
she was guilty or not because the punishment
was overdone and in such cases juries
were loathe to convict. Borowitz and the couple of
people who have read his essay suggest
that if you look carefully you could say that though it's
probable the woman stole the lace, there is some doubt.
This is very different from the Austen family
and Janeites who talk about the utter innocence
of the woman and bad-mouth the man.
It's interesting to note she had been to the shop the
day before 'cheapening the lace', in other words giving
these shopkeepers a hard time and it's possible they
had learnt to dislike her intensely -- (she was, I think, one
of the originals for Austen's Lady Catherine de Bourgh
and Mrs Norris). Since there is reasonable doubt, given
the harsh punishment, and her status, the jury would not
convict.
Afterwards in private letters (and I suppose to her friends),
Mrs Leigh-Perrot complained bitterly about the judge's behavior
during the trial and about how no one attempted to arraign
the man who had accused her of perjury. She keeps
wishing on him bankruptcy, imprisonment, or death.
There was no attempt during the trial to accuse this
man of perjury. The accusation was that he had simply
been negligent, made a mistake.
Mr Yates had staid to see the destruction of every theatrical preparation at Mansfield, the removal of everything appertaining to the play: he left the house in all the soberness of its general character; and Sir Thomas hoped, in seeing him out of it, to be rid of the worst object connected with the scheme, and the last that must be inevitably reminding him of its existence.
Mrs Norris contrived to remove one article from his sight that might have distressed him.
The curtain, over which she had presided with such talent and such success, went off with her to her cottage, where she happened to be particularly in want of green baize.
Mansfield Park
Those who have read the material about this woman know that
a number of years later a similar incident happened: in
some gardening shop, she is said to have tried to hide
a plant and take it out of the shop; a young girl saw and
stopped her on the spot; the shopkeeper got very angry,
but the young girl's father hauled the girl away because
he didn't want trouble. One of Mrs Leigh-Perrot's lawyers later
said the woman was known as a smoocher, someone
who would and did steal small things. (Here's that concept
of spunging, so popular in Mansfield Park. Is it possible that Aunt Leigh-Perrot was a type for Aunt Norris?)
"What else have you been spunging?" said Maria, half-pleased that Sotherton should be so complimented.
"Spunging, my dear! It is nothing but four of those beautiful pheasants' eggs, which Mrs Whitaker would quite force upon me: she would not take a denial.
Mansfield Park
As to the idea that she was so wealthy, she would not
steal, this falls down on experience of other cases.
Wealthy women do shoplift. The genteel shoplifter
is still a problem. In New York City some years ago
a woman who had been Miss America in 1946, Bess
Myerson, and was very wealthy at the time, was caught
shoplifting about $10 worth of goods; the case made
headlines for something of the same reasons Mrs L-P's case
did -- except Bess Myerson admitted to the theft. Of course
she didn't need to fear hanging or transportation. It is
said Mr L-P made firm arrangements to go to Australia
with his wife in case she was found guilty. He seriously
believed she might have been found guilty and spent
enormous amounts on her behalf. Another reason
Mrs L-P was declared not guilty was the same operation
of money we see in courts today when the wealthy are
arrested and get good lawyers who can take the time
and spend the money to get evidence on their client's
behalf.
I tell this story because one, it is usually not told fairly,
and two, it's interesting. Many of the details are known,
the documents are available. One can make a full
drawing of what happened; the characters of those involved
are known. The man and milliner were living together --
which didn't help them in court, though the man spoke
frankly and without shame about this. I have probably
not told the story clearly enough here but anyone
who is interested in the behavior of juries when someone
commits a theft of a small item with severe legel punishment, ought to look into this one.
The documents are in a Grand Larceny being the Trial
of Jane Leigh Perrot, Aunt of Jane Austen reprinted
in Jane Austen Family History 4 vols (Routledge,
Thoemmes Press, 1995). Albert Borowitz's fine essay has
been reprinted a couple of times, but is easiest to
find in A Gallery of Sinister Perspectives (Kent
State University Press, 1982).
* * *
After the trial, the Leigh-Perrots continued to reside in Bath and were delighted when the Austen's joined them in 1801. They remained in touch and reappear on the scene during the disposal of the Stoneleigh Abbey estate. More on this and further information about the Leigh-Perrots can be found in The People in Jane Austen's life: The Leigh-Perrots. Upon the death of Mrs. Leigh-Perrot in 1836, Scarlets and the majority of her fortune was left to Jane Austen's own nephew, who then took on the name of his Aunt and Uncle becoming James Edward Austen Leigh. JEAL, as he is often called, was the first to write a biography of his famous Aunt, Jane Austen.
Ellen Moody, a Lecturer in English at George Mason University, has compiled the most accurate calendars for Jane Austen's work, to date. She has created timelines for each of the six novels and the three unfinished novel fragments. She is currently working on a book, The Austen Movies. Visit her website for further Austen related articles.
|
|
