Charlotte Annie Fitzgerald was tried for the theft of a gold pencil case, necklace, diamond ring, and other property from Henry Collingwood and Elizabeth Mary Gosling in 1873. She was found insane. The trial transcript highlights themes of class, femininity, and grief and their influence on the treatment of insanity; particularly in middle-class married women.
The trial transcript includes the voices of both the victims of theft; Henry Collingwood and Elizabeth Gosling, as well as close relatives and witnesses of Fitzgerald’s behaviour including her sister, brother, stepmother, family cook, and medical men who treated her brothers. The personal testimony from family and attending doctors held authority and appeared to influence the outcome of the trial as they identify the reasons behind the defendant’s behaviour. Alienists Walter Fergus and Roger Nunn highlighted Fitzgerald’s ‘mania’, observing that she appeared ‘muddled and confused’ in conversation and Fergus’ professional opinion of her manner equated to ‘disease of the brain’ and ‘delirium of mania’ due to ‘suffering the most severe attack of Indian Fever’ in 1870.[ii] Fitzgerald had since returned from India to care for her younger brothers of whom she was ‘intensely fond of’ and upon their death, became ‘terribly cut up and depressed’ which accelerated her delusions. [iii] Fitzgerald’s behaviour was ‘very much altered…gone raving mad’ speaking of her dead brother ‘as being still alive’.[iv]
The testimony from Fitzgerald’s family solidifies her insanity defence as her delirium caused her to become ‘overly excitable’ and ‘short tempered’, even going so far as to become violent and ‘box the ears’ of her family cook Jane Armstrong, also getting into a ‘quarrel’ with her sister, which previous to 1870 ‘would have never have happened’.[v] The defendant’s behaviour was ‘simply that of a mad woman’ who had previously been regarded as a woman of ‘affectional disposition’ and ‘strong feeling’ by her family.[vi] The authority of medical and personal testimony had influence on the outcome of the trial by outlining alterations in behaviour and opinions of being ‘unaccountable for her actions’ and unaware of behaviour, ‘for my head had been so turned from the effects of the return of that Indian fever’.[vii] Therefore, the psychological effects of bodily illness on the sanity of the defendant influenced her accountability for her crimes, which subsequently influenced the jury’s treatment of her as a criminal.
Class also had a significant influence on the outcome of this case in terms of attitudes toward criminal lunacy. Social status was of high importance in the minds of jurors in nineteenth-century England, therefore Charlotte Fitzgerald, as the wife of a Major and daughter of ‘a clergy-man’ and a middle-class respectable woman of ‘considerable means’ and ‘liberal allowance’, had a considerable impact on her treatment in the courtroom.[viii] The items stolen were luxury goods from a jeweller that the defendant was ‘a customer of between 1871 and 1872’, with an open account of ‘10l 6s’, therefore was easily able to afford them.[ix] This is highlighted by Tammy Whitlock as middle-class women who stole were of ‘comfortable circumstance’, and had an impulse to steal.[x] This is supported by the cultural development of consumerism during the nineteenth century, which caused an influx in thefts. Victorian alienist J. C Bucknill highlighted how consumer culture was driven by a ‘need’ for things, which encouraged theft and diminished impulse control.[xi]
Victorian Christian morality helps to understand the attitude that middle-class women were considered not deserving of punishment therefore Fitzgerald’s treatment and classification as insane was reflective of the social attitudes towards respectable women who stole because juries in the nineteenth-century reacted differently when sentencing middle-class women compared to working-class.[xii] Tammy Whitlock highlights how juries were ‘loathe to label the respectable woman as criminal’ refusing to convict and instead label them as insane as not to be acquainted with the ‘criminal class’.[xiii] Similarly, Deirdre Palk highlights that a defendant’s social and financial status influenced outcomes in court, as an ability to pay for effective defence counsel as well as social attitudes towards the criminality of the middle classes, influenced the minds of jurors.[xiv] Therefore, because of her social status, the jury was more inclined to send Fitzgerald to an asylum to be reformed rather than convict her of a crime.
This trial transcript helps us to understand attitudes and treatments of insanity within the courtroom, especially that of middle-class women. It is useful for understanding and identifying cultural and social influences on verdicts in the nineteenth century. It is also an example of how class may have influenced verdicts, as social status was an important factor in the minds of juries and were less inclined to convict middle-class women, not wanting to label them as members of the criminal class.[xv] The trial is also useful in helping us to understand types and causes of insanity such as the influence of bodily illness and grief on the development of insanity and highlighting the authority of medical testimony to influence its treatment.
[i] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 24 November 2021), October 1873, trial of CHARLOTTE ANNIE FITZGERALD (33) (t18731027-675).
[ii] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[iii] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[iv] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[v] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[vi] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[vii] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[viii] Deirdre Palk. Gender, Crime, and Judicial Discretion 1780-1830 (Woodbridge, 2006) 54.
[ix] Charlotte Fitzgerald – Trial.
[x] Tammy Whitlock. ‘Gender, Medicine, and Consumer Culture in Victorian England: Creating the Kleptomaniac’. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British. 31:3. (1999). 413-437 (418/419).
[xi] Whitlock. ‘Gender, Medicine, and Consumer Culture in Victorian England’. 414.
[xii] R Smith. ‘The Victorian Controversy about the insanity defence’ Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 81:2 (1988) 70-73. (71).
[xiii] Whitlock. ‘Gender, Medicine, and Consumer Culture in Victorian England’. 417.
[xiv] Palk. Gender, Crime, and Judicial Discretion 1780-1830. 55.
[xv] Palk. Gender, Crime, and Judicial Discretion 1780-1830. 54.
Mad or Bad? Criminal Lunacy in Britain, 1800-1900 