In the grand annals of London’s rich and often eccentric history, few traditions are as bizarre, misunderstood, or as steeped in myth as the wife auctions of Smithfield Market. These public spectacles, which reached their peculiar zenith in the 18th and early 19th centuries, were not quite the medieval barbarity they might initially seem, nor were they entirely as benign as a modern eBay listing. Instead, they occupied a curious grey area between legal loophole, social custom, and theatrical farce, set against the backdrop of one of London’s most vibrant markets.
The Setting: Smithfield Market
Smithfield, a name synonymous with the trading of livestock, was a bustling hub of commerce for centuries. By the 18th century, it was a chaotic symphony of braying cattle, shouting traders, and the occasional pickpocket. Amid this earthy milieu, wife auctions emerged as an unorthodox solution to unhappy marriages among the working classes. Divorce, at the time, was a luxury afforded only by the wealthy—a complicated and prohibitively expensive process requiring a private Act of Parliament. For those without the means to end a marriage formally, the wife auction became an alternative, albeit unofficial, route.
How Did It Work?
Contrary to popular misconceptions, these auctions were not about women being traded as property—at least, not entirely. They were, in essence, a public declaration of separation and transfer of marital obligations, often prearranged and conducted with the full consent of all parties involved. The process began with the disgruntled husband leading his wife to the market, often with a halter or rope around her waist or neck, symbolically mimicking the sale of livestock. This theatrical flourish was crucial; it signaled to onlookers that what was about to transpire was, in their eyes, legitimate.
Once at the market, the husband would announce the auction, often extolling his wife’s virtues (or lack thereof) to prospective bidders. It was not uncommon for the wife herself to participate in the event, voicing her opinions and ensuring her agreement to the arrangement was known. After a price was agreed upon, the “buyer” (frequently a lover or someone already known to the wife) would hand over a sum of money or goods, effectively taking over the husband’s role in the marriage.
A Social Safety Valve?
While it’s tempting to view these auctions through a modern lens of exploitation, historians argue that they also represented a pragmatic—if deeply flawed—mechanism for addressing marital discord. In an era when marriage was both a legal and economic contract, a wife auction could offer a way out for women trapped in abusive or loveless unions. The public nature of the transaction, though humiliating by today’s standards, lent it a veneer of social validation. Witnesses to the event acted as a de facto jury, ensuring the transaction was consensual and publicized.
Moreover, the system often benefitted women who had already formed attachments to new partners. By “selling” the wife to her lover, the husband could pocket a small profit and extricate himself from a problematic relationship without the need for prolonged legal wrangling. In some cases, these auctions were even celebrated as a practical solution, with reports of jovial crowds cheering the proceedings.
Famous Cases and Outlandish Tales
Smithfield Market was not the only venue for such auctions, but it became one of the most infamous due to its boisterous atmosphere and central location. Numerous accounts of these events survive, often tinged with the sensationalism of the time. One widely cited case involves a woman named Mary Wollstonecraft—not the famed feminist writer, but a more obscure namesake—who was “sold” for a guinea and later described her new relationship as the happiest of her life.
In another notorious instance, a man named Joseph Thomson took his wife to market, halter and all, only to find himself embroiled in a bidding war. The final buyer, a butcher, paid three guineas and reportedly declared that she was “worth every penny.”
Legal Ambiguities
Despite their popularity, wife auctions were never legally sanctioned. They existed in a nebulous space where custom and community consensus often carried more weight than the letter of the law. Authorities generally turned a blind eye, viewing the practice as a kind of folk remedy for marital woes. However, as societal attitudes shifted in the mid-19th century, the practice began to decline, driven in part by growing campaigns for women’s rights and legal reforms that made divorce more accessible.
A Curious Legacy
The wife auctions of Smithfield Market offer a fascinating glimpse into a society grappling with the complexities of marriage, gender roles, and economic hardship. They were a crude, imperfect solution to problems that resonate even today: the desire for autonomy, the constraints of social norms, and the lengths people will go to escape unhappy circumstances.
Today, the notion of auctioning one’s spouse at a livestock market seems ludicrous—and rightly so. Yet, these events remind us of a time when public spectacle and personal drama intersected in ways that were both tragic and absurd, shedding light on the resilience and resourcefulness of those navigating the margins of society. As we wander through the sanitized streets of modern Smithfield, it’s worth pausing to remember its colourful past—a world where marriage and markets collided in the most unexpected of ways.
Leave a Reply