Fact-Checking Fielding

Although the date of this article should serve as a warning for homophobic content, it presents an extremely thorough dissection of three topics: the evidence for Henry Fielding as author of The Female Husband, the relationship of The Female Husband to the objective facts of Mary Hamilton’s life and trial (i.e., tenuous), and the most likely sources for Fielding’s fictional additions and substitutions. I’m going to skim over much of the detailed evidence, but will use this opportunity to include the text of the primary sources that Baker quotes.

The solid historical facts about Mary Hamilton {and the broad strokes of their conflict with Fielding’s text, in brackets} are:

• She was born in Somerset. {Not the Isle of Man.}
• At some point the family moved to Scotland. {Nowhere mentioned.}
• At age 14, she left home in her brothers clothing and began a multi-year apprenticeship as a quack doctor, then set up in business on her own. {No apprenticeship mentioned. No reference to a brother. Inciting cause for cross-dressing is disappointment in love and an intent to become a Methodist preacher.}
• In the course of her work, she returned to Somerset in May 1746.
• There she lived in Wells as Dr. Charles Hamilton. {Not George Hamilton.}
• She lodged with one Mary Creed and her niece Mary Price. {Aunt, not mother.}
• In July, she married Mary Price and they lived and traveled together for two months. {Only one marriage to a woman, not three.}
• In September, having discovered Hamilton’s gender disguise, Mary Price reported her to the authorities. {Not the mother/aunt.}

Baker’s article begins with a summary of Fielding’s narrative and notes the scanty correspondences with the historic record. Fielding had no personal connection with the case, although a cousin of his was mentioned as having been consulted on the charges. Although Fielding called the case “notorious” implying that the details he related were widely known, in fact there had been only brief mentions of the case in a couple of newspapers. Fielding himself created the notoriety.

Identical notices in the Daily Advertiser (1746/11/07) and St. James’s Evening Post (1746/11/08) repeated an item in the Bath Journal (1746/11/03) mentioning the trial for “a very singular and notorious Offence”  and the defendant sentenced as “an uncommon notorious Cheat” but the work “notorious in this context doesn’t mean “widely known” but something more like “notable.” And Fielding clearly didn’t expect his audience to be familiar with Hamilton’s story, given how many liberties he took.

The article continues by citing characters, motifs, and events appearing in Fielding’s works that correspond to some of the invented details in The Female Husband, including some episodes that repeat scenarios appearing in his novels. Even the insertion of the satire on Methodism echoes events in his novel Shamela. (Methodism is nowhere mentioned in the factual record and the description of Hamilton as something of a fop is at odds with Methodist practices.) This catalog of motif sources goes on for quite some time.

Moving on to the trial itself, where records of the Quarter Sessions are available, it’s clear that Fielding did not make reference to the official record for his fiction. In fact, his version barely squares with the more limited information published in newspapers.

The Quarter Session Record

The deposition of Mary Hamilton “daughter of Wm Hamilton & Mary his wife” made on 1746/09/13 is as follows. (The deposition originally was taken down in the first person, presumably as dictated, and later revised to be in the third person. I’m going to stick to the revised version. I have also converted all instances of “ye” to “the.”)

“The Examinant saith that she was Born in the County of Somerset afores[ai]d but doe not know in what parish and went from thence to the Shire of Angus in Scotland and there continued till she was about fourteen years of age, and then put on her Brothers Cloaths and travelled for England, and in Northumberland entered into the service of Doctor Edward Green, a Mountebank and Continued with him between two and three years, & then entered into the service of Doctor Finly Green & Continued with him near a twelve month and then set up for a Quack doctor herselfe, and travelled through several Counties of England, and at length came to the County of Devonshire, and from thence into Somersetshire afores[ai]d in the Month of May Last Past where she have followed the afores[ai]d business of a Quack doctor, Continueing to wear mans apparel ever since she put on her brothers, before she came out of Scotland.

“This Examinant further saith that in the Course of her travels in mans apparel she came to the City of Wells in the County afores[ai]d and went by the Name of Charles Hamilton, and quartered in the house of Mary Creed, where lived her Neice Mary Price, to whome she proposed Marriage and the s[ai]d Mary Price Consented, and then she put in the Banes of Marrige to Mr Kinston Curate of St Cuthberts in the City of Well afores[ai]d and was by the s[ai]d Mr Kingstone Married to the s[ai]d Mary Price, in the parish Church of St Cuthberts afores[ai]d, on the sixteenth day of July last past and have since travel[e]d as a husband with her in several parts of the County to the day of the date above mentioned and further this Examinant saith not.”

Signed with “the mark of Mary Hamilton” with “Mary Hamon” written in a different hand.

The record also includes Mary Price’s statement, from a month later on 1746/10/07, the date of the Quarter Sessions. (That is, Hamilton’s statement was taken at the time of her arrest, but Price’s was taken at the time of the trial.)

“Who on her Oath saith that in the Month of May last past a Person who called himself by the name of Charles Hamilton introduced himself into the Company of the Examinant and made his Addresses to her, and prevailed on this Examinant to be married to him, which she accordingly was on the Sixteenth day of July last by the Rev[eren]d Mr Kingstone Curate of the Parish of St Cuthbert in Wells in the said County—And this Examinant Further saith that after their Marriage they lay together several Nights, and that the said pretended Charles Hamilton who had married her as aforesaid entered her Body several times, which made this Examin[an]t believe, at first, that the said Hamilton was a real Man, but soon had reason to Judge that the said Hamilton was not a Man but a Woman, and which the said Hamilton acknowledged and confessed afterwards (on the Complaint of this Examin[an]t to the Justices) when brought before them that she was such to the Great Prejudice of this Examinant.”

The deposition was signed “The Mark of Mary Price” with a mark indicating her signature.

Baker also provides transcripts of the sentence (“Continued as a vagrant for Six Months to hard Labour, and to be whipped publickly…”) and the reference to the consultation with Fielding’s cousin regarding the appropriate punishment.

With respect to the trial record, Fielding has also spun the tale in a way that more strongly frames Mary Price as a naïve innocent, continuing to protest that she believed her husband to be a man even after the arrest (whereas the factual record indicates that she was the one who brought the complaint).  This is further evidence that Fielding did not consult with anyone directly familiar with the case.

The newspaper mentions from the Bath Journal are given as follows.

1746/09/22

“Tuesday last a Woman, dress’d in Man’s Apparel, was committed to Shepton-Mallet Bridewell. She was detected at Glastenbury and has for some Time follow’d the Profession of a Quack Doctor, up and down the Country. There are great Numbers of People flock to see her in Bridewell, to whom she sells a great Deal of her Quackery; and appears very bold and impudent. She seems very gay, with Perriwig, Ruffles, and Breeches; and it is publickly talk’d, that she has deceived several of the Fair Sex, by marrying them. As the Circumstances in general are somewhat remarkable, we shall make a further Enquiry, and give our Readers the Particulars in our next.”

Although several details here contradict Fielding’s narrative, this may be a source for the multiplication of marriages that Fielding attributes to Hamilton.

A second notice in the Bath Journal dated September 29, mentions her alias of Charles Hamilton and adds “…we hear that she was born in Yeovil in Somersetshre.” Fielding does not seem to have used this information, but most likely did have access to the following item appearing in both the Bath Journal on November 3, and the Daily Advertiser:

“We hear from Taunton, that at a General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, for the County of Somerset, held there lately, Mary Hamilton, otherwise George, otherwise Charles Hamilton, was try’d for a very singular and notorious Offence; Mr. Gold, Council for the King, open’d to the Court, That the said Mary, etc. pretending herself a Man, had married fourteen Wives, the last of which Number was one Mary Price, who appeared in Court, and deposed, that she was married to the Prisoner, some little Time since, at the Parish Church of St. Cuthbert’s in Wells, and that they were Bedded as Man and Wife, and lived as such for about a Quarter of a Year, during which Time she, the said Price, though the Prisoner a Man, owing to the Prisoner’s using certain vile and deceitful Practices, not fit to be mentioned.

“There was a great Debate for some Time in Court about the Nature of her Crime, and what to call it, but at last it was agree, that she was an uncommon notorious Cheat, and as such was sentenced to be publickly whipp’d in the four following Towns, Taunton, Glastonbury, Wells, and Shipton-Mallet; to be imprisoned for six Months, and to find Sureties for her good Behaviour, for as long a Time as the Justices at the next Quarter-Sessions shall think fit.”

This newspaper account introduces several details that diverge from the depositions (the length of time married, the multiple marriages, the use of the name George) but that appear in Fielding’s account, making it likely that he had access to this and relied on it.

Baker concludes by speculating on Fielding’s financial motivations for publishing the hasty and sloppy account, concluding that the work was not intended as anything more than a sensational opportunity to monetize the events.