Reports

South Tyneside Meeting - September 2003 "Crime and Punishment" by Geoff Nicholson A Report by Margaret Stafford

Introduction

This can be a very large subject, so when I first began to put my ideas together, after having been talked into doing so by Margaret one night in the bar next door (where else?), I was almost put off going any further. However, I then realised that I would be talking to a very knowledgeable audience who probably already know all the general historical stuff and, being active researchers, would really be most keen to hear about what information is now readily available on this topic for family historians.

It is true to say that in recent years there has been an explosion of information available to us: on the internet, yes, but also in more conventional ways such as on microfiche and even in that rather ancient medium, the printed book.

First, however, what is a crime? If we include in that description what would now be called civil offences, rather than criminal ones, there are lots of laws which we probably all disobey every day. Did you all attend church last Sunday? By Law you should have done so, and not a nonconformist church or even a non-Parochial Chapel such as this one, but your Church of England Parish church! Also, you men, when did you last present yourselves to the local Vicar so that you could take archery practice under his supervision? Again, by Law you are supposed to do that about once a week. On the basis that we probably all habitually break those Laws, we are all hardened criminals.

On this topic I quote a paragraph from the PRO Pocket Guide to Family History called "Using Criminal Records". "Not all illegal or immoral acts are crimes. Crimes are defined by the law and are subject to shifting definitions, as new laws are enacted and old ones remodelled. Until 1967, crimes were either felonies or misdemeanours. The distinction was procedurally important. Felonies were not necessarily more serious than misdemeanours (although most serious crimes, murder, arson, rape, robbery, were felonies) but they had to be tried by jury. The value of the stolen goods was often important in distinguishing between offences: a pickpocket committed a felony if he or she stole goods worth more than a shilling. But there could be other factors: highway robbery was a felony irrespective of the amount stolen - but only if the victim was 'put in fear'".

13th century serfdom

One of the earliest court actions to be written up in local histories is not strictly a criminal one but it is one which should interest us as its outcome depended largely on the genealogy of the contestants. You can read all about it in the Northumberland County History, Vol 1, p210. In 1256 Henry de Mulessen, owner of the township now called Mousen, in Bamburgh parish, claimed that two local men, named Adam Wyther and Walter his brother were his runaway villeins (effectively serfs). Henry stated that the men's great grandfather, Eduardus had been a villein, and so had their grandfather, one Walter de Coltbayne, and their father before them. He brought as witnesses two of the men's second cousins, also male-line descendants of Eduardus, the villein, who did acknowledge that they were Henry's villeins and that their ancestors back to Eduardus had all been likewise. The accused men themselves agreed that they were the grandchildren of Walter de Coltbayne but claimed he was a free man who had come into the district from Flanders as such, and with their own father with him as a child, and he was not the son of Eduardus the villein. They claimed that Henry de Mulessen's witnesses were not related to themselves at all. The jury found in favour of the accused, who were thereupon freed from all aspects of serfdom. Henry de Mulessen, however, had to pay the penalty for his false accusations; he was taken into custody and had to pay a fine of two marks (6s 8d). This case has also been written about in the Surtees Society volume on the Northumberland Assize Rolls, which I have not seen. We are told in the County History that it was typical of many such cases. It is a great pity we are not told about the circumstances of Walter de Coltbayne's immigration from Flanders - nor about how many others of the population of Bamburgh parish were descended from Flemish people.

Tudor Courts

Coming forwards to Elizabethan days, we have, in another Surtees Society publication, some Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts at Durham from the 1560s. These were trials, either for offences against church laws, or against clergy or which in some way were considered to reflect on the soul or the spiritual standing of either the offender or the victim. The sorts of cases one gets are ones of defamation of character, of blasphemy, of marrying relatives within the scope of the church's Table of Kindred and Affinity, assaults on the clergy and disputed Wills.

To get back to early offences of the Lay Courts, there is a set of microfiche published by Northfiche in 1996, which is an index to the Northumberland Quarter Sessions Indictments from 1580 to 1630. These are Indictments only so we should realise that the accused may possibly have been found "not guilty". The first page of the Indictments deals with five cases, of which three are horse-thefts, one a house-breaking where 24 ewes and 8 hoggs were taken (in how many dwelling houses would you find that amount of livestock these days?) and one was a murder. The murder was well described:

16 October 37 Elizabeth (1595): John Johnson of Whitfield, yeoman, Christopher Johnson of Whitfield, yeoman and John Cragg of Town Green, yeoman at Whitfield murdered Garrard Vickers, and John Johnson with "a long fower squared pyked staffe", valued 2s, held in both hands, pierced him through the guts with the said iron staff, giving him a mortal wound 3 inches deep and 5 inches long and Garrard Viccars languished at Whitfield from 16 October to 18 October when he died, and that Christopher Johnson and John Cragg ("with malice aforethought" crossed through) aided John Johnson.

Nevertheless, one of the cases of horse theft, on the same page and dated 1598, only three years after the murder at Whitfield, also involved John Johnson "formerly" of Whitfield, who, if the same person, must have either been found not guilty of the murder or else had served his time, possibly for manslaughter, and was a free man again, for in 1598 he broke into the stable of Richard Gibson and stole from him one black gelding worth 53s and two others coloured grey worth 53s each. The sentences are not normally given with the indictments but they can often be found in the Quarter Sessions Order Books, where they have survived. Note, incidentally, that all stolen goods are valued, as are those used to commit a crime, thus giving us another insight into the value of money at the time, a useful addition to the information obtainable from Probate Inventories, for instance.

The 18th and 19th centuries

Further Indictments from Northumberland, also published by Northfiche, are those covering 1771 to 1807. By then, however, many of the cases were administrative ones to do with the failure of various Townships to repair and maintain highways and bridges, though various forms of theft and of assault also figured large. The Midsummer Assizes of 1771, for instance, dealt with four cases of assault, three of larceny and two cases of failure to maintain the highway. We are told nothing of the verdicts or sentences, but for the next Sessions, those of Michaelmas 1771, where five assault cases, two of larceny and one of false pretences came up, we are given sentences for most of them. John Jarreel of Morpeth, who had stolen five shirts, one pair of buckskin breeches, one coat, one waistcoat, one handkerchief and two pair of stockings, was transported for seven years, as was Elizabeth Orde of Morpeth, whose haul was mainly of women's clothing and Christian Horsley of North Shields, a butcher's wife, who had falsely obtained quantities of cloth. George Shevill a yeoman of Holystone and Mary Shevill, also of Holystone, a yeoman's wife, presumably George's, were each fined for assault, but then they were committed to gaol for non-payment of the fine. Sarah Shevill of Holystone, possibly their daughter, was also fined, but not gaoled, so she must have paid up.

This Society has published, as I am sure you will all know, the Order Books of the Newcastle Quarter Sessions covering 1744 to 1777, 1818 to 1855 and 1867 to 1876. We have also covered the order books of the Durham Quarter Sessions for 1861 to 1871, under the title "Durham Quarter Sessions and Assize Prisoners". This list purports to be a list of prisoners in Durham Gaol who were awaiting trial, but in fact it gives details of the offence and of the sentence, if any, so is comparable with the Quarter Sessions Order Books in that respect.

It is often commented, and quite rightly so, that the best way to find the details of any case is not to look at the rather dry official record but to seek out a newspaper report, where the evidence given is all reported, often word for word, with no gory or juicy bit left unexplored. To that purpose it may be useful to use an index published by Original Indexes, to newspaper reports from the Newcastle Courant covering Quarter Sessions, Assizes and Gaol deliveries from Northumberland, Co Durham, Newcastle and Berwick 1782 to 1839 and 1830 to 1851.

Among published records from the former Public Record Office, in Kew, which we must now learn to call the National Archives, since it merged with other Government Departments earlier this year, are the Criminal Register Indexes (PRO ref: HO 27), 1805 to 1816. This publication is in many volumes, of which volume 10 covers Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and Co Durham. It gives us very basic information about a case, but may be just what is needed to find more details elsewhere. As an example of what it tells us, one entry refers to Ann Buckham who, at the 1806 Easter Sessions in Newcastle was found guilty of larceny and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. More details will be in PRO Volume HO 27/2, but local sources, especially newspapers should help fill in most of them. As a Supplement to the Criminal Register Indexes there is also a index of Executions, Rioters, etc, 1805 to 1817, also taken from HO 27. Both these publications are on microfiche by Stuart Tamblin.

The same author has also published a series of floppy discs on similar topics,"Court Martials and Executions", which lists Courts Martial 1914 to 1921 (from WO 71/344 to 690) and Soldiers Executed, 1914-1920 (from WO 9¾9), and also "Criminal Lunatics", listing those in Bethlehem Hospital and in County Asylums, 1799 to 1843, taken from HO 20/13.

Before I leave this topic, I should also mention a series of microfiche by Jill Chambers, of the Petitions Index 1819 to 1839 (taken from HO 17/40 - 79 and including some 10,000 entries). The petitioners were persons sentenced to Death, to Transportation or to various terms of imprisonment, and who were requesting that their sentence be in some way reduced. The scope is the whole country and for each person we are told their name, their age (in about half the cases), where and when they were sentenced, what the sentence was and the PRO reference to the details. For instance, George Crosby, aged 35, had been sentenced to 7 years transportation at Alnwick on 16 October 1817, for larceny, and was petitioning from the "Justicia" hulk where he was being held prior to transportation. Some prisoners spent years on the hulks, waiting their turn to be sent out to Australia. We are told nothing more about George or his crime, apart from the PRO reference, in this case "HO 17 44/1 Gh 34". The Original Indexes index to newspaper reports tells us that his case, at the Northumberland Quarter Sessions, is reported in the "Newcastle Courant" of 25 October 1817. There will probably be a note in the PRO reference as to the outcome of the petition: most did not succeed and have the word "nil" scribbled upon them, or, even worse, "the Law to take its course".

Executions

Executions hold a great, albeit morbid, fascination for most of us, especially for family historians. It is a common misconception that in times past one could be executed for a comparatively trivial offence, but the facts do not bear that up. In a study of the punishment of capital felonies in Co Durham, 1707 to 1819, published in the Bulletin of Durham County Local History Society in 1977, John Smith looked at every five year period from 1755 to 1819 and for a couple of five-year periods before then. He gives statistics for each of those periods, the total for the whole period being that 569 persons were indicted for capital offences, of whom 173 were capitally convicted, 76 were convicted of lesser, non-capital, offences, 220 were acquitted altogether and for 90 there was "No Bill", that is, the case was not proceeded with. (yes, there is a discrepancy in the numbers, only 559 out of the 569 being accounted for, but anyone who has ever tried extracting statistics from historical records will know that is not at all bad!). So we have only 173 capital convictions out of 569 or so capital indictments. That is 30.4%, less than a third. Of those convicted, 81 were definitely reprieved and only 27 definitely executed. There are a further 65 to be accounted for but out of the 108 convicted of a capital offence and whose fate we know, only 27, or 25% were actually executed. To put it another way, only 4.7% of those capitally indicted are known to have been executed.

However, lists of those executed still form a subject of fascination for many people, not least members of this Society, which has published various articles about them in its Journal over the years, including Gordon Corbett on "Executions at Durham since 1816" (with a list of 13 public and 24 private executions 1816-1909) in Vol 22, p115, Barry Redfearn on "The Newcastle Borough Gaol and House of Correction, Carliol Square, Newcastle upon Tyne" (with lists of Prison Governors Medical Officers and 15 executions), also in Vol 22, on p117 and J Walker on "Executions in Co Durham 1732-1860" (names and details of crimes) in Vol 25, p118.

There is an internet web-site which at first sight may appear interesting, and no doubt it is in its own way, but it will not be much help for anyone researching a crime from the north-east of England. That is one called "The Old Bailey Proceedings Online". The cases dealt with are almost all from the London area. From Newcastle, for instance, there is only one case listed, a horse-theft of 1726, and that is only there because the horse and its thief were later discovered in London. Incidentally the thief had conned the owner, who was trying to sell it, by what must surely be the oldest trick in the book. At "the Fair in Newcastle upon Tyne" he had "taken it for a test ride of a quarter of a mile, but he 'forgot' to return"! The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to death.

Transportation

As you will all know, one frequently-used sentence was for a criminal to be transported. This was originally to the American colonies but soon after we lost them in 1776, transportation to Australia began. Transportation was usually either for seven years or for fourteen years or for life. We often hear tales of poor lads being transported for stealing something trivial and of course we all complain about the heartlessness of the magistrates for doing so. It seems to me on reading through the details of these cases, however, that only those who had a record of persistent offending who were transported. If, as occurred at Morpeth Market and was written up in the first of this Society's Journals, a boy was transported for stealing a handkerchief, then my experience is that he probably had a long record of such offences. Either that, or he had stolen many things on that occasion, the handkerchief being just a sample charge out of perhaps dozens which could have been brought against him. Also, note that the most serious offenders were not usually transported at all, but were given lengthy prison sentences, with or without hard labour.

Nowadays we are often told by those in favour of light sentences that sending one man to prison can cause hardship to all his immediate, and of course always innocent, relatives. I recently came across one example of that happening in the 19th century. In Heddon on the Wall baptism register there is recorded the baptism on 27th of July 1815 of Mary, the daughter of Priscilla Charlton. A note in the register says "mother a married woman: her husband transported". However, there is no mention of anyone named Charlton at the appropriate time in any of the sources I have mentioned, so we must assume that Priscilla had not been waiting faithfully for her husband to return! Incidentally, transported prisoners did return at the end of their sentences. I once had to check up on a Co Durham case where two men were found guilty of stealing hay from a field. The judge said that he originally thought of sentencing them both to be transported but in the case of one of them at least, he would not do so because he had already been transported twice and returned each time, from which the judge deduced that it was no deterrent to him.

Some criminals had very odd ideas of the opportunities which lay before them if they could arrange for Her Majesty's Government to give them an assisted passage to Australia, and in 1853 a London judge felt it necessary to speak out about them (what follows was extracted by George Bell and has been lightly edited):

"Newcastle Courant 4 March 1853 (column 5f)

Erroneous Impressions of Transportation

The Right Hon J S Wortley, MP, Recorder of London, in his charge to the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, observed that many who brought themselves within the operation of the law, entertained an idea that gold was to be found in those parts of Australia to which transportation took place, and that thus the punishment was likely to prove an actual benefit. It should be understood that there was no foundation for such an opinion. What he was most anxious to do was to correct the supposition that any benefit or prospect of gain existed for any who subjected themselves to transportation. When a sentence of transportation was delivered, the prisoner was not immediately sent away, but removed to a prison, where he underwent 12 months of separate confinement and most severe discipline. Afterwards he was removed to Portland, and employed on public works of the most laborious character. If sentenced to seven years transportation, he had to perform this labour for two years; if for ten, three years and a half; if for 15, six years; if for 20, eight years and a half; and if for life, he had to undergo ten years and a half of this labour, in addition to the original 12 months' separate confinement, and it was only by continual good conduct that he could obtain the advantage of being sent out other than as a prisoner, and he was then only removed with what was called a ticket of leave, entitling him to be at large upon his arrival in the colony."

Sensational melodramas

This is the title I give to those crimes which are discussed in various books published in the last few years, dealing with the more sensational of usually serious and usually Victorian crimes. I have detailed them in the bibliography and if you get the chance to buy any, then I recommend you to take it, as they are all "good reads" providing, of course, you are not, as they used to say on TV, "of a nervous disposition".

Sources for Crime and Punishment in general, and with respect to Northumberland and Co Durham

Books

Green, Nigel, Crimes of Yesteryear: a collection of murders and mysteries from Wearside and old County Durham (Sunderland and Hartlepool Publishing, 1990.

Jones, Steve, Northumberland and Durham, The Sinister Side, Crime and Punishment 1837-1914, Wicked Publications, 1999, ISBN 1 870000 49 8).

Lewis, Roy, Brought to Justice (Casdec Ltd, 1983, ISBN 0 907595 06 5).

Paley, Ruth, Pocket Guides to Family History: Using Criminal Records (PRO, 2001, ISBN 1 903365 27 9).

Smith, J, The punishment of capital felonies in County Durham 1707-1819, Durham County Local History Society Bulletin 20, October 1977

Surtees Society, Vol 21: Ecclesiastical Proceedings from Durham (Also published on microfiche by Chadwyck-Healey Ltd).

Thompson, Albert A, Classic Murders of the North-East, (True Crime Library, 1998 ISBN 1 874358 23 0).

Microfiche

Northumberland Quarter Sessions Indictments 1580-1630 (Northfiche).

Northumberland Quarter Sessions Indictments 1771-1807 (Northfiche).

Newcastle Quarter Sessions Order Books 1744-1777 (NDFHS).

Newcastle Quarter Sessions Order Books 1818-1855 (NDFHS).

Newcastle Quarter Sessions Order Books 1867-1876 (NDFHS).

Durham Quarter Sessions and Assize Prisoners, 1861-1871 (NDFHS).

Northumberland and Durham Quarter Sessions and Assizes: Index of Newspaper Reports from the "Newcastle Courant" 1782-1829 and 1830-1851 (Original Indexes).

Criminal Register Indexes 1805-181: Vol 10, Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and Durham, from HO 27 (Stuart Tamblin).

Criminal Register Indexes 1805-1817, Supplement A: Executions, Rioters, etc, from HO 27 (Stuart Tamblin).

Criminal Petitions Index 1819-1839, from HO 17/40 - 79, in four parts (Jill Chambers).

Floppy disc

Courts Martial and Executions: Courts Martial 1914-1921 (WO 71/344 - 690) and Soldiers Executed 1914-1920 (WO 93/49).