On Saturday 1 January 1898, Mrs Amelia Reade [referred to as Maud Amelia in newspaper reports] wrote a short letter (see image below) to her estranged husband Beaumont Russell Reade in which she said ‘I voluntarily confess to having misconducted myself with E. Durand on several occasions and I am willing to sign a document to this effect drawn up by my husbands (sic) solicitors’. By virtue of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 requiring adultery to be proven in every divorce petition, the J 77 case files are full of reports of adultery, but a confession like that written by Amelia is unusual. Two days later, and normal working life recommenced. Beaumont Russell Reade visited his solicitor at H.S. Harris & Co., and on the 7 January 1898, a petition for divorce was filed at the Principal Registry in London citing Amelia’s adultery with one of Beaumont’s friends.
Today, the first Monday of the year is known as Divorce Day, a time when spouses are most likely to start the process of divorce or separation, following Christmas and New Year. As we discussed in our previous blog, the festive period can be a difficult time for those in unhappy or abusive relationships, leading to a spike in calls to support helplines and solicitors, once children return to school and spouses return to work. For Beaumont, a wealthy gentleman, it appears that the strain of playing happy families following the revelation of Amelia’s affair had brought him to breaking point. He stated in his petition ‘that on the 8th day of May 1897 and on other days between that day and the 31st day of December 1897 the said Amelia Reade at “Yeronga” Stanley Street Bedford [the marital home] aforesaid committed adultery with Edward Durand of Ashmore Road Westbourne Park Paddington in the County of London.’ Newspaper reports on the case help flesh out the details of what happened and the events leading up to Amelia writing her confession letter. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper recounted how Beaumont often went on bicycling tours, leaving his wife alone. Upon returning from one tour, he confronted his wife about her ‘misconduct’ with Edward and Amelia ‘…burst into tears, and there was a great scene between them. Afterwards she admitted that she had been unfaithful, and unusually she then voluntarily wrote out a confession to that effect.’
The case went to trial on 28 February 1898, just over a month after the petition was filed, and the President of the Divorce Court, the Right Honorable Sir Francis Henry Jeune granted Beaumont a decree nisi. Amelia and Edward did not appear at the trial or defend themselves against the allegations. As Amelia was found to be guilty of adultery, the co-respondent Edward was ordered to pay all the costs. Judge Jeune also made a decision on the custody of the four children from the marriage (aged between 4 to 11 years old). As the ‘innocent’ party in the case, Beaumont was granted custody of the children. As the ‘guilty’ party, Amelia had no legal right to have access to her children and it appears that they went away to boarding school, living with Beaumont before going on to marry. It doesn’t appear that Amelia had any further contact with them. Just over six months later, on 14 September 1898, The Honorable Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore Baronet (one of the Justices of the High Court who was sitting as a Vacation Judge at the time) granted a decree absolute. This legally ended the 13-year marriage between Beaumont and Amelia and enabled them to remarry (if they chose to).
So, who was the co-respondent in the Reade divorce? According to the J 77 files, Edward Durand lived at 138 Ashmore Road in Paddington, London and although the electoral registers at the time do show an Edward Durand registered at this address, they do not contain any further information. Newspaper reports covering the trial in the Divorce Court make it clear he was a friend of Beaumont’s who had been welcomed into the marital home he shared with Amelia. But what the newspaper reports don’t tell us is his full name, only referring to him as ‘the Co-Respondent’ or just by his surname, ‘Durand’ or as ‘Mr. Durand’. This contrasted with the way that Beaumont and Amelia were described using their full first and family names in the newspaper reports, making it clear who they were while protecting Edward Durand from some scrutiny from the publicity. If ‘our’ Edward Durand was Sir Edward Durand, 1st Baronet of Ruckley Grange then this could have been a deliberate ploy of the press barons. Genealogy records tell us that Sir Edward Durand was a similar age to Beaumont and could have been mixing in similar circles in London but the only hint that the Edward Durand involved in this case was Sir Edward Durand, is linked to money. As we’ve already mentioned, at the decree nisi trial on 28 February 1898, the Co-Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s costs from the proceedings. At the same time as the Court made this order, Sir Edward Durand put all the stock and effects of Ruckley Wood Farm up for sale by auction, something which was advertised in multiple newspapers. Was this to pay the legal costs from the case?
What happened to Beaumont and Amelia in the aftermath of the divorce? We have struggled to find any record of Amelia after the divorce was finalised, and so what happened to her remains a mystery. Beaumont doesn’t appear to have remarried and at the point of the 1901 census he lived at 2 Stanley Street in Bedford with their 7-year-old son. By the 1911 census he had moved to 86 Gladstone Street, Bedford and lived with their 24-year-old daughter Henrietta. He was recorded as divorced and a retired tea planter. He died in 1933 in London.
January was always a busy month for solicitors as they translated the woes of unhappily married husbands and wives into petitions for the Divorce Court but, as an upcoming blog will show, being unhappily married did not necessarily translate into a successful petition.
Make sure to follow us on Blue Sky , Instagram, Threads, or Facebook where we’ll regularly post news about the project, and links to the blogs on the projects website.