ABSTRACT
This trial of Sir Edward Mosely for an allegation of rape involved issues of rank, wealth, gender, reputation, and credibility, all criteria that juries commonly took into consideration when deliberating on their verdict. Mosely was a baronet, a senior member of the English gentry, and with an income of £3,000 per year, which rivalled some of the richest of the nobility, was very wealthy. He admitted to having mistresses, among whom he, and several of his witnesses, included Mistress Anne Swinnerton. Even Master Swinnerton was suspicious of his wife’s behaviour, to the point where he asked her explicitly whether or not the sex was consensual and then deliberately sought out Mosely in order to pose the same question. This testimony prompted the court to query why Swinnerton would more likely believe Mosely than his own wife, which suggests that her reputation and character were under scrutiny. This suspicion was heightened when Master Kilvert testified that Mistress Swinnerton was after Mosely’s money. She allegedly expected the exorbitant sum of £2,000 for her silence. This may have suggested to the jury that Mistress Swinnerton was maliciously using the court system to force a settlement. If true, this strategy did not work in Swinnerton’s favour. Testimony that Swinnerton was complicit in the sexual act and a person believed to be of loose sexual morals, the woman’s generally combative attitude towards the court and its witnesses, and the entire absence of any discussion of the elements common to rape charges – coercion, crying out, and penetration – compelled the jury to acquit Mosely. This was possibly an issue of gender politics or simply the court’s expectation that it, and its proceedings, should be accorded due respect by all participants.
