A demand for conjugal rights

One 1920s court case exposed allegations of drunkenness, adultery, and a dubious offer to a private detective

It was February 1920, and Mrs Edythe Mary Fisk, 45, was standing up in the Divorce Court in London to demand a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, having originally petitioned the previous year.

The case centred on a middle-class wife and her relationship with her husband

Mrs Fisk was upset because her husband, Ernest James Fisk, a wealthy brass founder, had refused to live with her, and, in fact, wanted to legally separate from her - something she was adamant she did not want. In turn, Ernest had insisted that his wife was a drunk, and had been for many years. When drunk, he said, Edythe became violent. He had no intention of living with her again.

What was the story behind this couple's fight in the Divorce Court? The couple - Ernest James Fisk and Edythe Mary Dyas - had married 17 years earlier, in June 1903. After they married, they settled initially in Erdington, Birmingham, and had three children. It was at around the time of the birth of their first child, Ernest said, that Edythe had started drinking. She would drink anything: brandy, whisky, gin, whatever she could get her hands on. She had money of her own - around £200 a year - and so she was able to get drink from local pubs, wine shops, and even from neighbouring farm labourers, without having to ask her husband for cash. Edward soon sought the advice of a doctor, who told him to take her into the country to recuperate.

Things became worse, and by June 1905, they had moved into separate rooms. By 1907, they had moved to Waters Upton in Shropshire, in the hope of a bit of peace. There were spells of sobriety, but in 1910, Edythe became worse, and in 1913, she was sent to stay in Rhyl, with a nurse. This did little, and she returned with bottles of drink. Ernest discovered these, they fought, and Edythe threatened to throw herself downstairs.

Then the Great War came along, and Ernest became a captain in the Royal Field Artillery and went to France to fight in 1915. Left without her husband, Edythe struggled. There were times when she disappeared from the family home, leaving her children behind. By the time Ernest returned home on leave, in March 1917, Edythe had been admitted to a nursing home due to alcoholism. She would never live with Ernest again.

On 6 January 1919, the war over, Ernest came back to Birmingham for good. He wrote to Edythe to try and come to an arrangement about their marriage and children. She responded that their younger daughter Betty, now aged nine, had written to her telling her to "make it up with Daddy" and that she wanted Ernest to receive her as his wife again, as she expected to be able to "look after the children and household affairs."

Ernest responded that she had left the family home and himself without his consent, and had been absent every time he had come home on leave - meaning that he had not seen her for two years. He felt that the distance between them was solely due to her drunkenness and neglect of both home and children. Edythe received this letter, and promptly filed for restitution of conjugal rights.

In court, Edyth argued that her husband had neglected her, that he had slept with other women. She singled out one particular woman as "a continuous source of trouble”, named in the press as Miss Maud Riley. Maud was not just a local lady - she was employed by Ernest Fisk as his children’s governess. Ernest admitted that she referred to her boss as "Billy".

Happy families?: The 1911 census for Waters Upton Hall, Shropshire, showing Ernest and Edythe Fisk living together with their children. At the bottom is the entry for governess Maud Riley, who was said to be very close to Ernest, and who would later give evidence against Edythe at the Divorce Court (TNA/TheGenealogist)

In 1913, Edythe had found a letter from Miss Riley on his desk - an affectionate letter, where the young woman had said to Ernest, "I wanted to see your dear face again. Oh, Billy, you have made life very different to me". Later in the letter, he was called "Billy dear" and sent "love and kisses". In turn, Maud gave evidence of Edythe’s alcoholism, of once finding her “helplessly drunk on the floor”, and at another time, getting drunk at an event at the village hall.

Ernest was also accused of wanting Edythe to become paralysed, or to be taken into an asylum. But worst of all, in the minds of the reporters who covered their court case, was that Ernest had employed a private detective to watch his wife. That was one thing, but this unnamed private detective had been offered £300 by Ernest to seduce Edythe and persuade her to run away with him. Ernest denied this, but the private detective gave a statement to Edythe's solicitors admitting that he had been offered cash to "make improper advances to the wife".

There were clearly faults on both sides here; Edythe pushed to drink perhaps from boredom with her life, her husband having spells away from home, and her children and house looked after by a team of domestic servants. Ernest in turn may have lapped up female attention after feeling that he lacked it from his wife, and resorting to underhand tactics with a private detective in the desire to separate from his wife. In the end, their actions in court did little but to give them unwanted publicity. The judge refused both Edythe's demand for a restitution of her conjugal rights, and Ernest's demand for a judicial separation.

The couple remained unhappily married, yet living apart. Ernest and his children appear to have remained living in Shropshire, while Edythe may have continued to have issues with her health, dying on the Isle of Wight in 1935. Her husband, who was five years her senior, outlived her by over 20 years.