The Nature and Incidence of Criminal Activity In Oxfordshire Quarter Session Records,

1686 - 1696

 CHAPTER ONE

THE NATURE AND PROBLEMS OF THE EVIDENCE

The use of any records and the conclusions which may be drawn fromthe evidence contained within them is conditioned by the nature of those records and the reliance which one is able to place upon them. This is true of quarter Session rolls as for any other and for those of the Oxfordshire Rolls for the period under consideration.

Modern records are often kept in order to provide statistical material as well as a record of events. Such was not the case in years past. The primary function of the documents to be found in the local judicial records was to ensure that all persons accused should appear and that any action necessary taken to the satisfaction of the officials concerned. Basically this was done by means of presentment and indictment, with notes recording action either on the original presentment document or within the minute books. Recognancies were taken by justices, initially outside sessions for those involved to appear, and then renewed or released when the case proceeded. In addition the justices often heard evidence from accused witnesses or took depositions. Our problem today in using these documents is that of the accuracy of what they contained; the detail of the offences and background of those involved; the availability of all relevant documents needed to draw up an accurate statistical picture and the genuineness of those documents which have survived. Since there are no documents existent prior to 1687 doubts as to the survival rate within the immediate period after this date must arise. Important in drawing any picture of the patterns and incidence of offences during any period is the reliability of placing events within the year of their committal in order to see any trends from one yearto the next. Unfortunately the records at our disposal have some defects for this purpose. Possibly of least importance is the fact that the documents are not in the original rolls but were rearranged by Canon Oldfield in the course of cataloguing and calendaring them.(3) This may mean that some documents have been reassigned to periods other than ones which are historically correct. Nevertheless most of the documents do have dates that Oldfield obviously used to place them where he did and this should provide us with a reasonably accurate picture.

On the whole dating is reasonably possible for the purposes of any statistical approach but there are discrepancies that we have to consider. Some documents, by their physical nature, cause problems in this direction. Due to damage or deterioration it is not always possible to be one hundred per cent sure of their contents. One such is a presentment which appears in the 1690 Rolls for perjury of a William Hughes in an assault case of the previous year which has become difficult to decipher.(4) On another occasion the date of an assault is actually torn from a recognancies leaving an element of doubt. For the most part, however, it is just general differences in dating between documents which causes confusion. Cases of just a day being mistakenly recorded on documents is of little consequence in the overall pattern, but there are times when the dating is less easy to follow. Within the 1692 Epiphany session bundles Thomas Coare of Northleigh is presented for an assault committed on 29th July, presumably the previous year, his recognancies was taken on the 28th October.

Apart from the obvious problem of understanding why the victim, an esquire and socially superior, should have waited until the autumn to institute proceedings, we have to consider whether the offence should be properly considered for 1691 or 1692. Another one with similar discrepancies was the case of Peter Higg, who was bound to appear, according to Oldfield’s reallocation, at Easter Sessions for 1691 for a trespass which occurred in March 1690 according to the Bond. The same discrepancy occurs in documents over a bastardy suit where the mother's examination is recorded as 23rd March, 1690 while the accused father's recognancies is 25th March, 1691 and they now appear in the Easter 1691 bundles. It is possible that the latter dates in these and other cases were due to the long process which some cases resulted in with new documents being issued and that the originals have long since been lost. If so it would be useful to have a check to place the dates with some certainty. This should, of course, be possible from the Minute or Order, Book of the Sessions. The Minute Book for the Sessions normally contains a record of all the business transacted before the Justices in Sessions. It is not, however, possible to rely on these records prior to the Nineteenth Century for Oxfordshire. As Oldfield says at the beginning of his transactions:

"These 'minute books', in fourteen thin foolscap volumes ...... appear to be notes for making up the Minutes rather than the Minute Books proper. " (5)

Starting with Trinity 1691 they begin to contain fuller notes of proceedings but even so there appear to be gaps which mean that full reliance cannot be placed on them as being a true record of happenings. In the Epiphany notes, for example, there is a reference to a George Rawlings of Chalgrove having been fined at the last Sessions but the notes for the previous Michaelmas do not show this case.

In the case of Thomas Coare it is possible to conclude, as Oldfieldobviously did, that the case was anew one for the 1692 Epiphany Sessions as no record appears in the notes for 1691 but the fact that, either parts of the notes may have been lost or., the clerk eras not a2'ays conscientious in his recording does leave an element of doubt. It therefore follows that the Minute Books, such as they are, can only be used as a supplement to the other documents and certainly cannot always be used assure way of dating proceedings. The most useful of the records are the presentments which outlined the charges against accused persons. These do give us, as a general rule, sufficient information to see who was accused, what their alleged offence was, when and where it was committed. In the 1692 Epiphany rolls we find that Mary Bridgeman, a widow of Wheatley, together with William Mutar, a labourer and William Gardiner a mason, acted together to break into property of Walter Symonds and damaged property on the 13th December, 1691. This was the normal legal charge and as Beattie comments does not go into detail about the background of the offence. (6) Nevertheless it is a useful beginning. Unfortunately not all the presentments give a full indication of the nature of the offence, assaults are more often no more than a simple record of the event and even in the case of robbery there may not be any note of what or how much was stolen; Maria Smith was said to have stolen from Cath Wiggins on 20th May, 1690 but no more. At the same Sessions Richard Cealy of Watlington was presented for assault against Richard Terry on the Highway with no more details. So, while we have some idea of the offence and those involved, we often have little idea of the seriousness.

This is the nature of Quarter Session presentments in general but the Oxford records do not support the general thesisthat some historians have maintained of charges for theft having valuations at a nominal 10 pence to avoid a felony charge. Where valuations are given there is a tendency for realistic figures to be quoted. If presentments were our sole source of information it would be possible for us to draw up a reasonable picture of the crime of a period and the Oxfordshire presentments, in spite of their limitations, are no exception. But they would not nor could not give any where near a full picture. Only, as Elizabeth Melling says, by referring to other documents can we fill in some of the gaps. (7)Certificates of examinations by Justices are the best source of background to an accusation. These are the testimony of those involved giving us a much broaderpicture of who was involved and what happened. Amongst such certificates we find one from the people of a village in Gloucestershire explaining that a Thomas Rickets who was in gaol for behaving in a disorderly manner was in fact a congenital lunatic who was really quite harmless, while the Constable of Fulbrook fills in some of the detail of presentments over a riot, assaults and one for enclosing which were all connected.(8) Sometimes the Calendar of Prisoners in the Gaol or House of Correction will acid detail, or provide the sole source of information about a crime; 1692 Walter Tiler and John Woodley were in the Castle on a charge of stealing a brass kettle and two petticoats, (9) and Eadieth Saunders' assault on Elizabeth Stiler was shown to have been quite vicious.(10) These Calendars also supplement the notations on the indictments in the matter of what the final result of a casewas which had passed beyond the competence of the J.P., to decide.

In addition to these and the Minute books the other, and more numerous, extra source are the recognancies but these have to be approached with a certain amount of caution. While some of them do give an inkling of what has happened to demand the appearance of someone before the justices they quite frequently do only record the binding over to appear. Sometimes there is reference to keeping the peace towardsparticular individual and where a presentment or some other reference is available ten they can confirm or even give supplemental information but otherwise one is less sure of exactly what has happened. In many cases the "crime" is only to be accused of fathering an illegitimate child or the recognisance is in correction with recusancy. Nevertheless, with careful sifting they do help to give an indication of offences alleged which do not show elsewhere and also help us, at times, to speculate on the gravity of an offence by the size of the bonds demanded. 壣(11)Unfortunately nothing else relating to this appears to have survived so that we can only wonder.

The probable loss of some of the evidence is one ;which has to be taken into account when drawing general conclusions as to amounts of any particular crime at any given period. That documents could go astray even before the case was heed is quite clearly shown from the Oxfordshire records. A letter attached to a recognisance apologises to the Clerk of Sessions, a Mr. Prince, for not delivering the bond to him as ordered by the writers' master. As the bond is dated 14th October, 1693 and the letter 11th January, 1694 from London it would appear that the oversight was due to the servant having gone off on his masters' business to the capital with the bond in his pocket.

This may be only an isolated incident but it clearly shows how, with no organised postal system, papers could fail to enter or stay within the court records. The appearance of actions taken, apparently by constables. ,either on the orders of a J.P. acting in Petty Sessions or on their own initiative, such as fines for swearing, and dealing with vagrants suggest that there might be other incidents so dealt with whose documentation may have gone astray. The reference to incidents in one source referred to before, without the others one might expect also makes us realise that what we have may not be a complete record of all reported and legally actioned offences. But such probable gaps, while making any conclusions subject to a cautionary qualifications, need not deter us from attempting such conclusions. More irritating, but no more of a deterrent, are the obvious discrepancies one finds within those records which have survived. What is one to make of the apparently dead man who was accused of being the father of an illegitimate child? Under examination Mary Mole of Cropredy claimed on 26th January 1695, that a John Haslewood was the father of her child and yet the vicar of Cropredy certified to the burial of a John Halewood on 22nd March, 1693. Of course this appears to have been a dating error since the other documents show that at least a John Halewood was alive to answer the charge in January or the vicar was mistaken. (12) Other discrepancies concern place of origin; In the case of Walter Tiler and John Woodly accused of stealing the complainant is said in the Calendar of Prisoners to have come from Chinnor, while the recognisance maintains that he was from Chilton in Bucks. As we have no other records one wonders which was correct.

There are also several incidents of fines being differently recorded which makes it difficult to assess the type of punishment being awarded for misdemeanours; Anthony Jackson was fined 25 marks in 1698 but in 1694 this was reduced according to a petition from prison by 10 marks while the Epiphany Minute Book only shows 5 marks as having been abated; the Easter and Trinity Minute Book entries actually makes the amount 20 nobles, six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence; which is more than Jackson was claiming. Was the original Minute Book entry a mistake which was later corrected, or did Jackson's pleas of poverty move the justices to an even more lenient view than he claimed had been granted? (13) A similar discrepancy occurs between the Minute Book entry for Thomas Coare, convicted for assault in 1692, and the note on the presentment, the first noting 20 nobles (approximately six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence) and 11 marks on the latter, approximately one pound more. (14)The case of William Harding presents similar problems when the Easter Minute Book records that he was committed to the assizes while the Trinity Calendar of Prisoners notes that he was "guilty at last Sessions of felony". (15) Such differences quite obviously do not make completely accurate statistical analysis likely.

One other minor problem is the authenticity of the documents. This hardly applies in the case of presentments, recognancies and entries in the Minute Books but does apply to warrants which are not substantiated by other sources. Certainly a warrant for the arrest of a shoe maker of Standlake which has survived in the 1689 rolls was a forgery as we have also a recognisance for an appearance to answer the charge of forging this and another involving other inhabitants ofthe same parish. (16) Luckily these are not liable to cause mistakesand there are few warrants which are not covered by genuine other documents to make any figures based on such sources suspect. Nevertheless, the fact that such forgeries did exist makes it necessary to view similar sources with extra caution in compiling any figures. Generally, it can be said that the evidence available in the Quarter Session Rolls do present some basic problems due to various short comings. There is often a lack of detailed background information; the back-up documentation to presentments is not generally available; some records may well have not survived; discrepancies of information between documents does occur; and there is always the possibility that some documents arenot what they appear. But, in spite of these factors, there is sufficient evidence for us to compile a picture of what offences were being committed during this period and to enter into some tentative conclusions based on that picture.

End Notes - Chapter One

(3) Note at beginning of Volume of Contents to Oldfield's Calendars by W. M. Halton 28/11/35

(4) Oldfield’s Calendars. Easter 1690, Vol.1.33.

(5) Oldfield's Transcriptions; East. 1688, 1768

(6) Beattie; "The Pattern of Crime in England 1660 - 1800"; Past and Present, No. 62; p. 53, February 1974

(7) E. Melling (ed) Kentish Sources VI: Crime and Punishment, Maidstone 1969 p.10

(8) Oldfield Cal. Vol.VIII Mich.1689.

(9) Oxon. Q.S. Rolls Q5/1692 Ep./80.

(10) Oldfield Vol.I Mich. 1687; "who is in dangerous condition".

(11) Joseph Hage, Esq. of Sherbourne was bound in sum of £500. and two sureties in £250. each in 1696 but with no indication of what the circumstances demanding such a guarantee. Oldfield Vol.I. Easter 1696;24.

(12) Oldfield Cal. Vol.I. Easter, 1695 1, 2, & 4

(13) Oldfield Minute Book Vol.II Epiph. p. 9, East. p. 15, and Trinity P.21; Calendar Vol. VIII.2.

(14) Oldfield Calendar Vol.I. East. 1692 P.40.

(15) Oldfield Minute Book Vo.II East.1694 P.16. Vol.III, Trinity 1694;1.

(16) Oldfield Vo.I. Trinity 1689; 5, 7.

[index] [Introduction] [Chapter One] [Chapter Two] [Chapter Three] [Conclusion] [Append1] [Append 2] [Bilblio]