Capitally Convicted and The Jury of Matrons

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

Talking about the female jury today.

As a woman in Australia I’m grateful we don’t face the possibility of being capitally convicted and face the death penalty. 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.

220px-first_execution_in_south_australia_in_1838_for_shooting_sheriff_smart1

“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.”

The sentence of death was accordingly confirmed.

It’s been a long journey for women in the law and 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 whether the real first all female jury was the jury of matrons? Used from the 13th century, this jury was a group of women empanelled to judge capitally convicted females, women facing the death penalty, who claimed they were pregnant and “quick” with child or carrying a viable foetus.

1804: The fate of Anne Hurle, capitally convicted of fraud

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). ….

firstPage-S002572730004758Xa[1].jpgA Jury of Matrons – Medical History
focus_201210_ss61
Rex v Peggy and non Christian women on the Jury of Matrons

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: