In September 1888, Mary Ann Reynolds was found insane after murdering her five-month-old child by suffocation.[i] Reynolds’ landlord, a medical practitioner, a policeman, a nurse, a surgeon and her sister all testified during the trial. It was agreed by all witnesses that she was insane, and puerperal mania, induced by her pregnancy, was her illness. The trial transcript provides an insight into wider Victorian societal, legal and medical views concerning female insanity and infanticide.
Social ideas surrounding motherhood and femininity influenced insanity verdicts in infanticide cases. Reynolds’ trial began with her landlord revealing that she ‘was an affectionate mother in every way.’ This declaration of good character was reiterated by Reynolds’ sister: ‘she is a very kind mother.’ During the Victorian period it was expected that women would be ‘good’ and nurturing mothers, as this was their natural and instinctive function. Mothers like Reynolds who murdered their children contradicted this belief. Historians have utilised similar infanticide cases to highlight how Victorian society preferred to believe that child-murdering mothers were insane. Samantha Pegg argued that there were higher moral standards for women as they were the ‘purer’ sex, so immoral female conduct, and infanticide, was explained through an insanity verdict, reinforcing women as the weaker sex.[ii] This is visible within Reynolds’ trial as the jury rejected female agency and used an insanity verdict to explain her inappropriate and untraditional female behaviour. As Reynolds had previously conformed to the ideals surrounding motherhood, it is likely she was found insane because her crime was uncharacteristic, and she had previously fulfilled societal expectations. This trial enables historians to identify that witnesses who knew the defendant personally had a considerable influence over verdicts of insanity. The jury concluded that this crime was unusual behaviour and not reflective of the defendant’s previous role as a ‘good’ mother.
The trial identifies biological causes of insanity in women, as puerperal mania was a gendered form of insanity, directly related to the female reproductive system. Rodgers claims that ‘women’s bad behaviour, when taken in the context of pregnancy or childbirth would often trigger the diagnosis of insanity’ due to links between hormones, the brain and female body.[iii] This is evident within Reynolds’ trial, as her difficult pregnancy provided her and society with an excuse for her despicable crime. Medical practitioner, Sidney Lloyd Smith claimed: ‘there is a well-recognised form of insanity which comes on then, it is a form of puerperal mania- this was about five months after her confinement- her milk had not been flowing quite freely.’ The defendant’s pregnancy, confinement and breastfeeding problems were all characteristics of puerperal mania. Physical illnesses were another assumed cause of insanity addressed within the source. The defendant’s landlord mentioned that ‘shortly before her confinement she broke two of her ribs.’ This was reiterated by a medical practitioner and the defendant’s sister. This recurrent evidence reflects how physical illnesses had the potential to influence an insanity verdict. A medical practitioner also referenced Reynolds’ ‘inflammation of the lungs’, and her sister stated that she had ‘complained of a very burning pain at the top of her head.’ Health problems, coupled with Reynolds’ pregnancy and childbirth, signified insanity to the jury and medical witnesses. This case enables historians to ascertain that some women were excused of their crimes due to gendered assumptions surrounding the causes of insanity and the relationship between the female body and the mind.
Jill Ainsley claimed that ‘financial troubles were identified as a major causative factor of insanity in many women’s cases.’[iv] This is visible within this trial as the defendant was a working-class mother of four and her husband had placed them in financial difficulty prior to her crime. The defendant’s sister highlighted that around the time of Reynolds’ confinement, ‘her husband lost his situation, and the landlord gave them notice to quit…that was a great trouble to her.’ Reynolds’ husband was not performing his masculine role as financial provider. By losing his job, he burdened her with economic difficulties during her pregnancy and gave her cause for greater anxiety at a time where mothers were already believed to be at their weakest. This trial highlights how social factors such as poverty could influence insanity verdicts as juries were sympathetic to struggling working-class mothers with multiple children.
The trial also conveys the legal clarifications of insanity, and although not explicitly mentioning the McNaughton Rules, alluded to the primary legal concern of whether Reynolds understood the nature of her actions during her crime. Medical practitioner, Sidney Lloyd Smith, argued ‘she did not know the nature and quality of the act she had done.’ Surgeon Philip Francis Gilbert made a similar statement: ‘she was not in a condition to know the nature of the act she had committed.’ Within this trial, medical men adopted the language of the McNaughton rules as Reynolds was thought to be both legally and medically insane. This coincides with Rodgers’ claim that there was a medico-legal agreement surrounding the nature of puerperal insanity and its links with female biology.[v] The defendant also confessed: ‘I killed my baby’, ‘I was loving it, I don’t know what I did it for.’ Despite confessing, Reynolds was found insane because she had previously been an affectionate mother, and seemingly did not realise the nature of her crime.
This trial is a valuable source. It enables historians to gain an insight into how motherhood and femininity influenced insanity verdicts. It highlights how insanity was viewed in terms of gender as female insanity was related to assumed physical causes and inherently linked to biology and reproductive organs. Pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding all contributed to Reynolds’ diagnosis of puerperal mania. This infanticide case conveys how puerperal mania was used as an explanation and excuse for crimes reflecting ‘bad’ motherhood and untraditional female behaviour.
[i] Old Bailey Court Proceedings, The Trial of Mary Ann Reynolds, 17 September 1888, (t18880917-824). [Online Source] https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18880917-824&div=t18880917-824&terms=mary_ann_reynolds#highlight Accessed 9/3/18.
[ii] Samantha Pegg, “Madness Is a Woman”: Constance Kent and Victorian Constructions of Female Insanity’, Liverpool Law Review, Vol 30, Issue 1, (2009), 207-223.
[iii] M.E.Rodgers, ‘Gendered Assumptions: Madness, Pregnancy and Childbirth’, in Judith Rowbotham and Kim Stevenson (eds.), Behaving Badly: Social Panic and Moral Outrage- Victorian and Modern Parallels, (Ashgate 2003) P. 212.
[iv] Jill Newton Ainsley, ‘Some Mysterious Agency: Women, Violent Crime, and the Insanity Acquittal in the Victorian Courtroom’, Canadian Journal of History, Vol 35, Issue 1, (2000), 37-55. 25.
[v] M. E. Rodgers, ‘Gendered Assumptions: Madness, Pregnancy and Childbirth’, in Judith Rowbotham and Kim Stevenson (eds.), Behaving Badly: Social Panic and Moral Outrage- Victorian and Modern Parallels, (Ashgate 2003) pp. 207-220. 210.
Mad or Bad? Criminal Lunacy in Britain, 1800-1900 