In 1844 John was called as a witness in a criminal conversation case. A 'criminal conversation' is not what it may seem to those of us with no knowledge of legal matters. It is an obscure way of referring to a charge of ‘improper conduct’ of a sexual nature, especially charges of such behaviour made by one partner in marriage about the other.

Thomas writes to his brother James about the case on 21^st February, 1844, and gives a summary of the background:

‘Jack is attending as a Witness on a certain trial between one Fraser (whom you may remember as my Editor in old days) and his poor Wife – whom, poor scoundrel, he had used, and is using in the unworthiest way. She was a young widow with £500 a year; he a broken young man, having wasted his £15,000 of fortune to the last penny, - chiefly by getting into the hands of needy scamps, Irishmen, &c, for he was never an unkind creature, and could not say No to any body. They married some 10 or 12 years ago: he started again in hand, and seemed at first to prosper exceedingly; but ‘Attorneys’, scoundrels of one or the other hungry sort, again got him in lending; he fell into mild embarrassments, - at last, he walked off to some obscure quarter of London, and left his poor fidgetting anxious wife to shift with her four children as she liked. She supposed him to be living with other women &c; spent much of her time in crying. Last year he wrote to her in the depths of abasement to advance him £200, and he would go out to India, and then retrieve himself with it. He got the £200; staid where he was; and now , it all being eaten, he has started a public suit against his Wife for improper conduct with one of his friends who had assisted her sometimes in her distresses! There is no shadow of likelihood in the charge, - and tomorrow, Jack hopes, he will be condemned – to perpetual public disgrace at least.’

Jane continues and expands the story in a letter to Jeannie Welsh on the 26^th of February, 1844:

‘…my blood has been kept at boiling point all last week by a criminal conversation process before the Guildhall – in which I was neither a principal nor even a witness – but John was a witness and made it my own affair – for esprit de corps, Carlyle says. There never was a more infernal prosecution raised against any woman than this which occupied the Guildhall court for four whole days last week and has been filling many columns of the daily Papers.’

Jane related that one of the family’s phrases, coined by John, originally about Fraser, was ‘with the best of intentions he was always unfortunate.’ She writes that both her husband and her brother John ‘firmly believe her innocent.’ And on the Thursday the verdict went in her favour, although many thought that she might be guilty, perhaps the judge too, and that she only escaped because of her husband’s past conduct.

‘…think of it being made criminal to say to a man who for years had been dining four or five times a week in the house by her husband’s invitation “my dear will you ring the bell”!! Merciful Heaven – what criminalities have I walked over the top of without knowing it!’ Jane had cause to worry. She frequently entertained male friends alone, and had been embarrassed when, quite recently, another visitor was shocked to arrive and find her alone with a man.

The verdict was received with ‘tremendous cheers’ both inside and outside the court house. ‘John had been in court all the four days and sent me daily bulletins of the proceedings – always like a Job’s comforter as he is, winding up with “that in spite of internal heartfelt convictions there was every chance of it going against her.”’

Two days later, writing to Geraldine Jewsbury Jane explains John’s connection with the Frasers. Jane and Thomas had met her only once or twice, and had never known the couple well, but John had met them during his postgraduate medical studies in Europe.

‘John afterwards became intimate with her at Munich, where her husband’s extravagance compelled them to reside for several years – and from him I had heard much of her virtues as a Mother and housewife…’

Jane thought that Mrs Fraser was still in love with her husband despite all this, and had announced her intention of visiting Mrs Fraser immediately after the trial. When she did so, she found her very distraught and unable to communicate. She continued to visit her during the next month, and was clearly disappointed at finding Mrs Fraser making excuses for her husband’s behaviour. By April Jane is reporting to a friend that Mr Fraser is trying to get a retrial and that he has been spotted loitering at Mrs Fraser’s gate late at night.

In the weeks following the trial, prints of Mr Fraser under the name of ‘The Handsome Husband’ were for sale in the London streets.

An expanded and detailed account of this case is given in a paper given to the Carlyle Society in 2006:The Carlyles and the Fraser Criminal Conversation Case, 1844, available as a pdf file

Back to top of page