REQUISITOS Y RECOMENDACIONES DE DISEÑO SEGÚN LA NTC 5831

When pregnancy was suspected in an unmarried woman, rumours spread quickly throughout the neighbourhood.76 _{It was ‘a common report’ that Elizabeth Richard was}

pregnant, and it ‘generally prevailed in the family and neighbourhood that Ann Hughes was with child’.77 _{Both men and women engaged in the distribution of suspicions. The}

language of the rumour, however, was gender-specific. Women retold their own observations of the suspect’s increasing belly or enlarged breasts, often based on personal experiences of pregnancy, whereas men more frequently repeated the observations of female family members or neighbours. Whether retold by a man or woman, in order to maintain plausibility it was essential that the rumour was perceived to be collective. Testimonies relating to communal gossip frequently stated that their belief of the suspect’s pregnancy was corroborated by the views of others. Elizabeth Matthews accused her fellow servant of being pregnant and told her that ‘many people said so’.78

If the rumour was not collective then its plausibility declined. David Bufton noted that ‘some of the neighbours reported that the said Hannah was with child some time...some others said she was not’. He declared that ‘to his knowledge he knows nothing of the matter’.79 _{Howell Pritchard lived in the same house as one suspect, but}

when questioned about the pregnancy he responded that ‘he thought there was no such thing, and living in the same house together he should have taken notice if she had been big with child, but that he did not suspect any such thing’.80 _{The belief of one individual}

was often insufficient, particularly if the suspect had familial support. Evan Prees feared challenging his servant about her suspected pregnancy because she was of a ‘dangerous, wicked family’, though he believed ‘in his conscience’ that she was responsible for the death of the newly-discovered child.81 _{Catherine Edwards accused Jane Edwards of}

being pregnant, to which Jane replied by giving her ‘several ill names’.82 _{The suspicion}

76 _{For a detailed discussion of the importance of gossip and rumour to infanticide cases, see Gowing,}

‘Secret births and infanticide’, 94-6.

77 _{NLW GS 4/912/2.14 (1814); NLW GS 4/900/3.1 (1776).} 78 _{NLW GS 4/623/3.27 (1774).} 79 _{NLW GS 4/517/6.14 (1735).} 80 _{NLW GS 4/373/6.7 (1730).} 81 _{NLW GS 4/518/2.13 (1735).} 82 _{NLW GS 4/47/6.22 (1742).}

of a single individual could be viewed as a personal attack and subject to successful denial. The views of multiple individuals were likely to lead to an investigation

In addition to rumour, community members searched for more definite signs of pregnancy. The perceived increase, or sudden decrease, in the size of the woman’s belly or breasts, or the appearance of illness, was viewed as evidence of pregnancy. Mary Powell questioned Jennet John about her supposed pregnancy and desired to see her breasts. On viewing them she said ‘she never saw such a breast of any honest girl’.83

John Rogers observed that Hannah Morris was ‘not well’ and ‘much smaller’ than she previously seemed to be. He also recalled that her breasts ‘seemed as if they were swelled by reason of which he...suspected the said Hannah to be with child’.84 _Thomas

Lewis saw Elizabeth Rees daily and ‘observed that she was increasing in size’ and ‘had no doubt’ she was ‘with child’.85

Laura Gowing has suggested that although men knew and watched for signs of pregnancy, ‘[t]here was no possibility here of the kind of physical confrontations and interventions that women used’.86 _{This was not necessarily the case in Wales. Robert}

Jones suspected that Catherine Roberts was pregnant and in order to prove his assumption he touched her belly ‘and found the same to be hard as his own wife’s belly used to be when she was with child’.87 _{Thomas Lewis also told how Elizabeth Rees’}

belly felt ‘as hard as a stone’ when she rode behind him on horseback.88 _{Jenkin Griffiths}

similarly demanded that Elizabeth show him her breasts ‘which she at first declined but afterwards showed [them]’ and that he ‘then observed it was not necessary to have any doctor to view her breasts as there was a sufficient sign of milk’.89 _{Men, particularly}

those who were married with some experience of the pregnant body, did feel that they possessed the authority to examine suspects, and that their comments and observations would be noted.

Additionally, any act which could be viewed as an attempt to conceal or dispose of signs of pregnancy or delivery raised suspicion. David Thomas had shared a room with Mary Davies and noted how she appeared ‘very bad all night’ and had left the room in the early hours of the morning. The following day he discovered ‘several drops of blood on the stairs which seemed fresh’ and the ‘floor of the room downstairs had

83 _{NLW GS 4/623/3.27 (1774).} 84 _{NLW GS 4/517/6.14 (1735).} 85 _{NLW GS 4/761/2.77 (1817).}

86_{Gowing, ‘Secret births and infanticide’, 93.} 87 _{NLW GS 4/46/2.23 (1736).}

88 _{NLW GS 4/761/2.77 (1817).} 89 _{NLW GS 4/761/2.77 (1817).}

been washed’.90 _{A ‘great quantity of blood’ was also found on Jane Davies and on the}

floor of the privy at her employer’s house. She had desired her fellow servant to ‘come up with a broom and sweep the floor and not tell anybody’.91 _{The appearance of blood}

stains on the bedding or linen belonging to females was commonplace and readily accepted as ordinary signs of menstruation, so much so that it was often the non- appearance of menstrual blood that raised suspicion. Attempts to conceal bloodstains inadvertently turned the ordinary into the mischievous.

As with the cleaning of the house, evidence of an increase in the washing of clothes was also viewed as an attempt to hide evidence of a birth. Catherine Morgan returned from market to find that her daughter’s blanket and clothes had been washed, ‘at which she was surprised’ and suspected that she ‘had either miscarried or borne a child and charged her with [it], but she absolutely denied the charge’.92 _{It was}

‘commonly reported in the neighbourhood’ that the mother of one suspect had washed five petticoats within 24 hours.93_{Jane Edwards was seen ‘washing her clothes and arms}

at a well’ by two witnesses, who, as a result of this seemingly suspicious act, ‘suspected...[she] had been delivered of a child’.94 _{Unusually dirty or missing clothing}

was similarly suspicious. Sarah Joseph observed that Ann Lloyd’s petticoat was ‘dirty and wet’, and that her under-petticoat was ‘all spots and nasty’. From the appearance of her clothing she ‘suspected that the prisoner had been delivered of a child’.95 _{Mary Price}

and Jane Davies were ordered by Justices of the Peace to scrutinise Jane Williams’ clothing, which they believed possessed ‘the marks or sign of a birth of a child’.96 _In

contrast, the production of clean undergarments could refute such claims. Jennet John’s employer told her that ‘she was sure she had done something which she ought not to have done and that she would see her petticoat which was missing’.97 _{Common acts,}

undertaken in an atmosphere of heightened suspicion, became clear proof of guilt.

90 _{NLW GS 4/634/4.2 (1815).} 91 _{NLW GS 4/829/4.11 (1805).} 92 _{NLW GS 4/392/9.1 (1810).} 93 _{NLW GS 4/46/2.23 (1736).} 94 _{NLW GS 4/47/6.20 (1742).} 95 _{NLW GS 4/635/6.20 (1819).} 96 _{NLW GS 4/178/2.23 (1734).} 97 _{NLW GS 4/623/3.27 (1774).}