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

1686 - 1696

CHAPTER THREE

THE NATURE OF CRIME

Just what crime is depends very much on what view society takes of. various acts. It is true that 'crime' is often equated with breaches of social norms as Elton has said⁽³⁴⁾ but what else is a crime unless it breaches those norms which society accepts? fare acts only so decided by the nations' rulers criminal while those which the local governors feel obliged to act against in the interests of social harmony not criminal? It may be easier in a society such as ours to determine what is a crime, as we have a highly organised system of courts and legislative machinery to decide such matters but we can only judge what people in a primitive or non-industrial society considered criminal by viewing the nature op those acts which brought not only personal condemnation but also official reaction. We need to consider just what was the back round, the intensity and, if possible, the reasons behind accusations. Some acts were, and always have been, criminal, some become so only when they appear to have consequences for the community which either the majority or the rulers deem to be damaging to that community. It is such a look at these backgrounds and the nature of the offences op which people were accused that I propose to briefly examine.

Of the various classification op accusations I suppose the easiest to accept as criminal are those against the person; Henry Twyford in his work on the justices in the seventeenth century, noted that people who commit offences against the Body: are delinquent. (35) But of course offences against people took many differing forms and even within these there were degrees of severity from quite mild verbal insults through to the greatest crime one can commit against another, deliberately taking his life. Within the area of physical assault, the degree of severity, and the degree of deliberation is not always possible to ascertain, nevertheless it is obvious that the whole range was involved and whether severe or not, the courts investigated and, where necessary, punished. Below the level of murder it is clear that some cases of assault were quite violent; Thomas Coare of Northleigh complained that he had been left for dead; Eadeth Saunders was committed to prison for putting Elizabeth Stiler in a dangerous condition; Richard Nown w s in prison for wounding Henry Cross "in twenty several places". (36)

Others were less serious but still quite severe in their intensity according to those presenting the defendants; William Paxford was accused of throwing William Rathbone's daughter Jane to the ground, although the court found that this case was not proven, ("ignoramus"). One which did get a conviction was one of less consequence in terms of physical hurt but which was obviously not acceptable to the good people of Oxfordshire. In this instance the victim hada bucket of water thrown over her and the perpetrator was fined three shillings and fourpence for his pain. (37)

At the other end of the scale of offences against persons, the verbal attacks were still considered grave enough to take up the courts' time and, if proved, to warrant punishment. Elinora Bettrice was presented for slandering Henry Davies of Baldwin Brightwell by claiming he had made her pregnant, a grave defamation and it is not surprising that he acted to clear his name although the presentment was noted as "ignoramous".⁽³⁸⁾ Equally grave was the accusation of witchcraft which needed scotching quickly as in the case brought against Martha Peart of Ramsden for calling Mary Larner a witch. Once again an "ignoramous" return shows that the evidence against Martha was not completely conclusive but the slander was sufficiently serious to warrant initiating proceedings. (39) Just as serious, possibly more so from the viewpoint of the ruling section of the country, .were slanders against leading citizens and those holding office. To maintain that justices were fools or drunk when issuing warrants was to doubt their integrity but to maintain in public that a Justice was a fool and that "... I do not care a fart or a turd for his warrant" as Thomas Howell was accused of doing was a threat to county authority. (40) There were no returns of "ignoramous" in these presentments and one such slanderer was certainly fined six shillings and eightpence. There can be little doubt that at all levels of society it was generally accepted that any sort of attack on a person, whether physical or not, was criminal requiring retribution.

It is not clear that the late seventeenth century society was necessarily a violent society. It is true that people were not averse to resorting to violence either to protect their rights or when their own freedom or safety were endangered and that some people appear to have had violent dispositions. But: the evidence shows that in this respect there is little difference with modern society. Much of the assault that did occur was not premeditated but occurred as a result of other acts in which the accused were involved. A straightforward riotous situation was obviously likely to produce incidents where blows were struck between members of contending groups. Such was the case when both sides in the argument over the wall Richard Jordan had built around the common pool clashed;

"Mr. Jordan, Will Hicks, John Staite, Edward Cripse, Elizabeth Box and Judith Owen with Prongs or Long Staves and approached Armes Collyer and William Fitchett who were attacking the Wall with Iron Bars A general free for all occurred in which others joined. Richard Jordan's side won and the Wall still stands as a general nuisance". (41 )

The main assault charges, however, were the result of persons involved in robbery where they were probably surprised by the owner or his servants and in order to escape the thieves attacked. Richard Nown was involved in a burglary when he assaulted Henry Cross, while the Ody's, senior and junior were caught poaching in Wychwood Forest and attacked the keepers who surprised them. ⁽⁴²⁾ These were all attacks committed in the heat of the moment, as was probably the case when Robert Maundy trod on Ralph Bayly's toes, spit in his face and struck him.⁽⁴³⁾

Some violent actions do appear to have been premeditated, in that the intention was clearly there when the accused set out. John Griffin of Brize Norton's attack on Anna Cotemore certainly was premeditated since he was accused of attempting to rape her, although there was some doubt as to the truth of the accusation. Illegal detention and assault was clearly premeditated as a rule, the case of several leading members of Lewknor's citizens who apparently took the law into their own hands and whipped Walter Stevenson was clearly not a spur of the moment occurance.(⁴⁴⁾ Generally, however, in spite of the willingness to violent action, there seems little to suggest that people were more prone to attack their fellows in this period than at any other time. It may be that such action was looked upon as expected in what was a harsh world where punishments were severe by modern standards but the prevalence of acts of violence today, either in pursuit of other crimes or not, would suggest that therewas little difference in attitudes.

If offences against people were unacceptable so to were those against property. Society had possibly become more and more conscious of the sanctity of private property during the 16th and 17th centuries and by the late 17th century the propertied classes were quite clearly determined to defend their possessions. Even those with little of their own saw no reason to let go of what little they had. Much of the crime involving property was that of theft and usually brought forth swift reaction regardless of the amount involved. For the most part it was goods which were stolen and mostly clothes or food; Edw_ard Baldwin and Joseph Powell were accused of takinggeese, eggs, hens and cocks in 1687, in the following year Thomas Luckett was presented for stealing hens and cocks; in 1691 William Bayley maintained that two accused had admitted stealing linen. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ The value of most was seldom above ten shillings, although the linen was said to have been sold for fifty-six shillings. In some instances the values were much higher; Thomas Franklyn was charged with taking two mares valued at eighteen pounds as well as riding coats, swords and other belongings, while John Saunders was also in gaol for stealing fourteen pounds.⁽⁴⁶⁾ Some of this crime, particularly the taking of livestock was probably opportunist, as was also the case of the four members of Lord Lovelaces' regiment accused of entering a house and stealing goods from someone pointed out to them as a papist. (47)Few of these could be called professionals nor were they really premeditated crimes. But such crimes were, at times, committed by people who went to some trouble to be successful. In a deposition to the Justices, Mary Hinds of St. Clements tells of a plot to break into her shop using the loft area between her property and her neighbours. The whole exercise involved breaking through partitions in order to gain access. (48)

Damage to property often occurred together with attempts at theft but sometimes damage was deliberate and done with a certain maliciousness. Actions such as attempts to break down Richard Jordan's wall was in defence of what were seen as common rights but the act of several persons at Northmore in 1689 seems to have been malicious Having broken into an orchard and stolen apples they then damaged property and sank a terry boat. They may well have been drunk (but we have no evidence of this) or they may have had a grudge against the individual, or both. It is equally difficult to understand why several men should fill in the well of a widow as Grace Cherrell of Dorchester claimed, if they indeed did so, but if they did then it must be considered malicious. The same can be assumed of incidents of cutting down or tearing up trees which appear within the presentments and recognancies.⁽⁴9)It is more difficult to understand the motives behind one particular case, that of taking over a house.

This is not quite a case of squatters taking over an empty house but one of deliberate ejection of t he owners. While not really a case of damage the accused broken into the house, held it for several days with the Justices having to issue a warrant for the constable to arrest the invaders. During the occupation several others apparently went into the house but for what purpose is, unfortunately, not clear. (50)

Much of this type of incident may well have stemmed from local quarrels and grievances and there is little doubt that this was the cause of a large amount of the minor offences which came generally within the offences against the community heading as well as those of assault. The action of the rioters at Fulbrook and Stadham are both obviously local in their origins while John Lucas, silkweaver, of Bicester was always at loggerheads with his neighbours. Sometimes it was a matter of quarrels between parishes ever jealous of their rights which saw the courts involved as in cases where constables were accused of pushing on vagrants rather than do their duty.

Of course, incidents developed which did not have local connotations, quarrels which spring up at markets or other gatherings such as the cross presentments between Tildred West of Swarford and Maria Baldwin of Southrop accusing each other of assault at Hook Norton. This quarrel was one where there was sufficient doubt as to who was in the wrong that an ignoramus decision was returned on both but Mildred West may well have been something of a trouble maker as she apparently appears to have been earlier charged by her son with burglary. (51)

Such family squabbles were also a source of offences and, although, as Weiner comments about Elizabethan crime, they may not have often reached the courts sufficient were prosecuted to show that they presented problems for law and order. Whether there was any family connection between the troublesome John Lucas and the yeomen of the same name who claimed assault, breaking and entry and damage to belongings against the silk weaver is not clear, ⁽⁵²⁾but there is no doubt about the fact that it was a case of family when William Harper of Southleigh maintained that his brother Thomas had put him in fear of his life. ⁽⁵³⁾ Wife beating was not often brought before the courts as most people considered husbands had right to discipline their wives (54) but at times wives rebelled and sought the protection of the courts; in 1691 Nicholas Gulstane of Chalgrove was bound to appear and keep the peace towards his wife and in 1693 William Eldridge was charged with beating her by his wife and bound to appear in the sum of £100. quite a large amount compared with most sureties demanded. (55) It obviously caused disquiet amongst neighbours and authority as did the case of James Wlildgoose who was bound to appear at sessions accused of "threatening and abusing his wife who has disappeared and been missing some time".⁽⁵⁶⁾

Not all offences reported were necessarily real, a proportion must have been the result of vindictiveness on the part of the accuser, a situation that sometimes backfired. Mildred `West certainly maintained that she was the victim of her son and daughter-in-law's maliciousnesswhen they brought the burglary charge which had landed her in gaol. (57) The citizens of Siddenham were quick to give William and Mary Eustace a good character and blame all their troubles on a neighbour who,

".., is a very quarrelsome person and brings up his familyin a disorderly manner. John Butler's wife has no justcause for prosecuting against William Eustace or his wifebut is animated by Allen and his son. The words sworn tohave been spoken by Eustace's wife about Butler's wifewere really spoken by Allen's wife. "(58)

In another case Anna Dodd was accused of robbing Richard Seale but he maintained that the whole matter was of his wife's making and he had no wish to press any charge.(59)Where accusations were made, as in the case of Mary Larner called a witch, the obvious retaliation was to bring a deformation charge but sometimes the parish retaliated when it was felt that a presentment charge would fall on them; whether or not the Thomas Woodward had falsely accused someone we do not know but Church Wardens were obviously not happy about his case. (60)

Sometimes an accusation may have been made as a form of defence; in 1689 Sunnibank Veysey and Thomas Veysey, gentry were accused of assault and they appear to have tried to discredit at least one accused by bringing a charge of burglary committed a few days after the alleged assault. If this was the case then it was unsuccessful as the assault charged was indicted as a true bill while the burglary was considered unproven.⁽⁶¹⁾

Much of the crime involved would not, of course, be considered criminal today but would either be outside the scope of the law or to be action for Civil Courts, but some, while accepted as being only morally wrong today by many are still actionable in Criminal Courts. The former situation would have been the case for at least two people in prison for uttering treasonable remarks. One was Nathanial Hitchcock of Devizes in Wiltshire who, in 1693, having drunk a drop too much ale, was overheard to claim that James was still King. (62) But the case of Thomas Kembar, a gentleman who was accused of trying to recruit troops to join James in Ireland in 1690, ⁽⁶³⁾if proved, would always amount to sedition and was without doubt treasonable at the time. The cases of breach of Contract, failing to teach a trade or to pay wages would all, generally speaking, be dealt with as civil actions today but fell within the range of the Quarter Sessions and might warrant a fine. Amongst those that many people might only feel that the question is moral rather than legal are things such as tax evasion and failing to support a family. Nevertheless this can be as much considered criminal today as it was then, not necessarily always punished with the full rigour of the law but always liable. Producing a bastard child was not considered too serious for the father but his failure to support it quickly brought him before the Court. (The mother who could not prove the child's parentage usually ended up in the House of Correction with the possible added punishment of a whipping). Much of the reaction against these offences was the fact that they placed a charge on the parish or deprived the parish of funds needed to fulfil its obligations. To a certain extent they were, and still are, economic offences rather than offences against moral obligations. It seems to me that, if any generalisation can be made about the nature of criminal activity in the rural society of the late seventeenth century society it is that it was mainly economic.

There was, it is true, an element of violence attached but much of that was involved in the perpetration of thefts. The riots, other than where the term was used as a legal fiction, were probably linked with economic ends, the restoration of common rights for example. Much of the community offences, breaches of the peace aside, were involved in the charges on the parish, obviously a concern for those of the community who paid rates. Of course not all offences can be so neatly explained, those which resulted from maliciousness may have been due to envy but the seventeenth century had its gossips, its troublesome neighbours and its drunkards who needed no precise reasons for causing trouble. One thing seems likely and that is that there is little evidence that crime was a professional activity in the countryside.

End Notes – Chapter Three

(34) G. R. Elton "Crime and the Historian'^° in Crime in England; 1550-1800; J. C. Cockburn (ed) ;1997;p. 2..

(35) Gretton; Oxfordshire Justices of the Peace in the SeventeentL Century; Oxford 10,34; p.XVi.

(36) Oldfield Va12.VIII; 1ich. 1691,11; Mich.1687,11; East. 1687, 1.

(37) Oldfield Vol.1; Epip. 1696, 14. Trin. 1687.

(38) Oldfield Vol.I. East.1687, 9.

(39) Oldfield Vol.I. East.1693,16. (40 Oldfield Vol. I

(40) Oldfield: Vol. I.

(41) Oldfield: Vol.IX East. 1687, 6, 7. (42) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1691; 2.

(42) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1691. 2

(43) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1690. 2

(44) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1696, 19, 20.

(45) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1687, 5: East. 1688, p: Ep. 1691, 5.

(46) Oxfordshire Q. S. Rolls/1690. Tr./27

(47)	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Trin. 1699, 22.
(48))	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Ep. 1696, 15.
(49)	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Mich. 1693, East. 1696, Mich. 1694.

(50) Oldfield: Mich. 1689, 7; East. 1696, 2; Mich. 1688, 7, 8, 9, 10.

(51) Oldfield: Vol.I. Mich. 1693, 16, 19. Mich. Vol.I. 1688, 2.

(52)	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Mich. 1689, 8.
(53)	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Epiph. 1692. 8,
(54)	Beattie:	Op. cit.	p.86.
(55)	Oldfield:	Vol.I.	Mich.	1691;	4; Ep. 1693,
(56) Oldfield Vol.I.			Mich.	1690,	4.
(57)Oldfield Vol.IX.			Mich.	1688,	2.

(58) Oldfield: Vol.I. Ep. 1696, 20.

(59) Oldfield: Vol.I. East. 1690, 23. (60) Oldfield: Vol.I. Eiph. 1690, 10.

(60) Oldfield :Vol.I. Mich.. 1690, 10.

(61) Oldfield: Vol.I. Mich. 1689, 5, 6.

(62) Oldfield: Vol.I. Trin. 1693, 8.

(63) Oldfield :Vol.I. East. 1690, 1.

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