 |
The Nature and Incidence of Criminal Activity In Oxfordshire Quarter Session Records,
1686 - 1696
CHAPTER TWO
INCIDENCE AND PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
".... there is evidence of rising tensions in the increase in the number of crimes (especially those against property) for which capital punishment was prescribed...."
So says L. Jones in his survey of the post Restoration period. (17)
His assumptions are based upon the fact that contemporaries felt that matters were growing worse and that the death penalty was being extended to cover an increasing number of criminal acts. Such an increase may, in reality, have been true over an extended period of time and for the country as a whole, whether there are any indications of any such trends within the rural county of Oxfordshire at the end of the seventeenth century we have now to consider. Certainly the closing years saw crises which might well have helped to increase pressure on the population as a whole; the political upheavals of 1688-9 disturbed the even tenor of the governing classes while war and a period of bad harvests imposed hardships on the lower orders. It is difficult to assess simply the number of crimes committed. Since it is the social aspects of criminal activity which we are primarily concerned it is more useful to see how many people were accused of crimes, and with which types of crimes they were predominantly concerned, and whether or not there were any major shifts during the period. We also need to see what type of person was involved, in so far as this is possible from the evidence at our disposal and whether there is any pattern. It is true that as Bonger maintains, crimes vary almost as do men, (18)and so I have separated the some sixty-nine offences, not including recusancy, which can be identified into three main groups,
- Crimes against persons,
- Crimes against property,
- Crimes against the community;
and then two minor groupings of political and judicial offences.
Taking the number of people accused of all types of offences it does not appear that there was any dramatic change in the general level of criminal activity at the end of the period., compared with the beginning. Looking at the chart (diagram 1) one can see a high peak in 1691 and another in 1696 but the latter is swollen by an abnormal number of people involved in one riot at Ensham when 35 persons were ordered to appear before the magistrates. Taking these away the level of persons involved was only slightly up on the numbers for 1687, 87 compared with 72. Nevertheless, after 1688 the tendency does appear to have been for slightly more people to rate attention from the courts. The bad year of 1691 does coincide with the beginning of a cycle of bad harvests(19)but one would have expected an increase to have trailed by about a year; prices rose in the year 1691-92 (see diagram 2). Whether the overall rate of criminal involvement rose or not during this period it is clear that a slight majority were accused of acting alone and that many of the indictments were for several offences committed at the same time. It would appear that some 56% of all persons were acting on their own, while most of those accused of acting with others did so in teams of two or three, often relatives; such was the case of the Ody father and son of Askett accused of poaching and assault in 1691(20) and in 1689 a Richard Hodges and John Lucas were jointly presented for theft. Riot charges generally related to larger numbers, although some were for small groups; in 1694 six people were accused of riot and stealing horses. More of a riotous assembly was the gathering of sixteen people of Stadham in March 1692.(21) It can be seen from these instances that generally more than one offence was involved. To count individual offences and give this as the pattern of criminal activity for general consideration might well have shown a society riddled with criminals. Most people, of course were not criminals in the sense that they habitually committed crimes. Generally, so far as one can tell from the evidence, they fell foul of the law on only one occasion. But there were persistent law breakers, those who committed a series of crimes before being dealt with or who returned to their bad habits at a later date. Lucas and Hodges fell within the category of offences in quick succession, both being presented together at the Michaelmas Sessions on two separate charges, one for theft on 1st March and the other on the 30th June. William and Thomas Harding were jointly accused at the Easter Sessions of 1694 of three separate robberies in April while William Stevens of Biscester appears to have been a major problem in that he was involved with five separate presentments at the Epiphany Sessions in 1692(22) Fransisca Fairbeard was involved in two separate offences, an assault in 1687 for which she was fined and again for assault, riotous assembly and theft in 1694. In both instances she was in the company of someone else but it seems that her early experience in court did not cure her inclinations.(23)
Assault comes within the general category of crimes against the person and when one looks at the numbers of people accused with these types ofoffences one sees a generally level trend until half way through theperiod and then a drop in numbers, (see table II) Sumaha found that people in Essex did not go in for rape, murder and pillage and the same would seem to hold true of Oxfordshire a century later. (24)Only three people were accused of murder during our period as far as the records show while rape, or to be accurate attempted rape, was only charged against two persons. Infanticide, a bastard child killed, was only charged against one man although at attempt at procuring an abortion is also recorded. The main offence against persons was clearly that of assault, although, as we have already mentioned this varied in its level and is not always easy to define. Nevertheless this offence accounted for approximately two thirds of all such crimes. Verbal attacks were next in volume with some 19%v of the total and these comprised of a variety of types including threats of violence to insulting the honesty of magistrates. It is note worthy that during this period of political and economic tension peoples' liberty were liable to be violated illegally and that while the numbers are small in proportion to criminal acts as a whole, minor officials, or those pretending authority, seemed to take advantage of the situation. The sum total of such offences against the person, does not, however, uphold the view that the late seventeenth century society was a particularly violent society.
It would be truer to say, again with Samaha, that the people of Oxfordshire, as those of Essex, were more likely to rob than attack people. A glance at the figures for crimes against property shows a far higher number accused under this heading. (Table III). Such offences were not commonly committed by a single person, less than 30% of those accused had no accomplices and the average was pushed up by the years 1688, 1693 and 1695 having much higher percentages. Naturally enough it was theftin several guises which was the most common activity but what is interesting is the fact that there is a drop after the economic crisis years of 1691-2 rather than an increase. The immediate post revolutionary year of 1689 shows a substantial increase; political tension appears to have provided more pressure than economic instability. Perhaps the uncertainties of '88 and '89 when William's forces were on the march and loyalties were divided increased the opportunities for theft or the hopes of evading the consequences of such crimes. Once it was clear that the change of Monarch was to be permanent and the ruling classes sere still firmly entrenched the level of thefts settled back, dropping below that of 1687. It is a pity that we do not have records for at least a few years before this for a much fuller comparison. Whether or not the harder attitude which Ogg describes was also an important factor is not capable of verification from these records but they help to understand the concern felt by the propertied classes.(25) If crimes against property became less of a problem for the governing classes after the first years of the new monarchy the same was not true for that complex area, which I have called crimes against the community. This category of actions, which impinged upon the lives of people at all levels, the years after 1690 was a steady increase in people facing accusations. The one type of action most likely to cause concern was that of riot, a problem which the authorities sere always alive to since it brought together large numbers of people with hostile feelings.
The two worst years were 1692 and 1696 although in both years there was only one major incident involving relatively large numbers. It is unfortunate that we have no details as to the causes of these particular incidents, particularly that in 1692, as it would be interesting to know whether these were due to the economic conditions of. the timeor some local grievance. One can assume that the increase in persons being presented for illegal trading was due to such economic pressures. When living costs were up and living proving difficult there is a tendency to ensure that no one takes over those areas from which one derives ones living while more people, desperate to survive in a relatively honest manner, seem to have turned their hand to enterprises hither to not their province. The pattern of this apparent increase in communal offences, may, therefore, be as much due to an increased propensity for action against violations which had been tolerated before, erecting illegal cottages for example, as due to more people actually becoming driven to such acts.
While many of the anti-social acts, or those areas of social behaviour which caused the courts to be involved, may be termed very loosely political it is noticeable that during the ten year period under study overt political acts were negligible . It might have been expected that actions of a political nature, sedition for example, might have increased immediately before and after the turbulent years at the end of the 1680's. Such, however, does not appear to have been the case, at least not so far as the surviving records of the lower court is concerned. It might be that action after Lord Lovelace arrived in the county was taken directly at Assizes but the Quarter Sessions had little to concern itself in this sphere. Only four people were accused of uttering treasonable remarks, one against James before the crisis came to a head and three against the new King. Only one person was presented for refusing to take the new oath of allegiance. The only other Acts which, while considered treason, were more economic than political were not against the King and government directly but were undermining the currency of the realm, counterfeiting and coin clippingand only four people in the period were accused of these crimes. One can assume that the local folks had more to occupy their attention in staying alive and protecting their parochial interests than worrying about the more heady matters of national politics. The fact is that most of those involved before the courts were the lesser sort of person. Social status is difficult to ascertain with any degree of accuracy based on purely occupational descriptions on presentments or recognancies but certain broad patterns can be discerned which show that it was that area below the propertied classes which were generally involved although, as modern criminal activity shows, no groups were above acting in a manner considered by those in power to be against the interests of the community as a whole. Within the records one finds just about every occupation or position mentioned, from armigerious gentry down to the lowest labourer. Unfortunately, any conclusions can only be tentative since one third of all persons accused do not have specific occupations given.
Of those whose status is given the gentry, as one might expect, are relatively small in numbers representing only a mere 2.8% of the total accused and 4% of those whose status is given. Of the twenty-three named in the total (see Table VII) four were listed on the recognisance bond for those ordered to appear to answer charges relating to the Ensham riot. (26) During the economically critical years none were apparently involved with socially unacceptable acts. Of course, one would hardly expect that the gentry would appear often in cases of theft but this did happen; at least three given as gentlemen-were citedfor theft in 1689, two who were serving as officers with Lord Lovelaces' troops.(27) Action against them normally came from the authorities or their equals; Richard Jordan of Fulbrooke was presented by the Constable for enclosing a common pool, (28) while the Ensham rioters were reported by Thomas Jourdan, Esquire. (29) Generally it was acts which involved the community which involved gentlemen. Significantly, the largest single group of those involved in criminal activity were those with a trade or commercial interest which placed them above the level of mere labourers but well below the gentry. Over 21% of all accusations were within this category and if one takes into account only those where occupations are known, on the assumption that the spread within the unknown group will approximate the total,
then the percentage rises to 32%. Even if we accept that the assumption is not correct and that the unclassified group contains a higher percentage of labourers. and others it is unlikely that the percentage of trades people would drop below the 21% and is more probably much higher. Why these should be more concerned in crime is difficult to assess, unless the economic factors were pressing. In 1691 and 1696 the figures for people in trades increase significantly but, once again, one would expect that the years following bad harvest rather than in the year before would show an increase, particularly since the Epiphany Rolls contain cases where the offence was committed during the last months of the previous year. They were also involved in the whole range of activities, which comprise our three main classifications, so that many of the incidents, particularly those within the community grouping were probably not motivated by any external forces. Some appear to bedue to some kind of local rivalry or neighbourly quarreling as in the case of Anthony Adherton of Watlington who was presented by another butcher from the same town in 1696 and was bound at subsequent sessions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Of course a simple description of butcher, master etc. does not tell us what an individual's social standing within the community actually was. We do not know whether these were successful and prosperous people or the less fortunate who were barely surviving.
This is true of the other group of middling people who go to swell the figures for this area of society, the yeomen. This group, generally accepted as being the backbone of society, were almost as numerous as the labourers amongst the accused and so,ona simple occupational designation, make it appear that, overall, the main "criminals" of society were to be found within the middle stratum of society. Some 77 individual yeomen can be identified within the accused and here it is noticeable that the worst years were during 1690,'91 and '92 when prices generally averaged low and that from 1693 onwards the level of involvement of this social group declines, when prices were relatively high. A closer look at the 1692 figures, however, shows that this high number was swollen by some eight yeomen involved in an incident at Stadham when a large number of villagers were jointly accused of riotous assembly in what appears to have been a purely local dispute. (30)Crimes against persons in this year did see a relatively high number of those accused coming from this group, out of eleven so accused six were listed as yeomen. They were less involved with crimes against property, only four out of the eighteen within this category in 1692 being described as yeomen. Since, once again, the true standing of these people is not ascertainable from such a meagre description it is difficult toascribe the rise in involvement with crime to any purely economic,or political, cause although the cases of selling unlicensed ales brought against some from time to time would suggest that a few found it more profitable to use their malt and barley crops this way rather than sell in the open market. Mostly, however, one gets the picture of purely local factors, occasionally added to by economic pressures, bringing this class before the magistrates. The one class who ought to have provided the largest number of law breakers, and who both contemporaries and historians have always seen as the doing so, were the labouring class; those people forced to eke out less than a bare subsistence existence. In fact of those whose occupations we can identify they were only 20% against 32% for trades people. Of course the numbers are increased if one adds servants and husbands n for both of whom wages made up a large part of their income. But even within the labouring classification social status is not always clearly defined by the description in the records; at least one person so accused was the son of a yeoman. (31)The problem of labourers' involvement over the period in criminal activity shows a peak over the period 1690 - 91 with 1695 dropping drastically, while 1696 sees the riot at Ensham once more distorting the figures. However, there does seem to be more correlation between the more unreliable economic position of this class of crime against property; 1690 one of the two highest years (1696 aside) shows almost two thirds (60%) accused to have been so far some kind of theft, and approximately 27% were involved in crimes against the person. Of course it may well be that the unclassified total does contain a higher percentage of the class than the others but once again, any distortionsthat this blank group creates are unlikely to be so great as to alter the general conclusion that, while the labouring class was well represented in crime, and probably more in crimes of theft, that overall they were no worse and possibly not so bad as the middling sort. Of course such a broad generalisation is only within the "criminal" portion of society. If taken against the total population then the figures might show differing relative positions.
Age and sex differences are the other areas where one might hope to see some definable patterns within the statistics. Unfortunately there is no indication of ages within the records, only occasionally whether someone is the elder or junior of two persons with the same name. Sex is, obviously, noted and quantifiable.
The Oxfordshire records do show that, generally speaking, the conclusions found by others hold true, mainly that women are not likely to have taken part in criminal acts, and not often on their own. (32)Of the total number of people who appear in the Quarter Session records only 9.92% are women. It is difficult to be precise as to the marital status of all women as many of the records give no indications on which to base any statement. We do know that of those where anything is shown, the middling sort, that is whose husbands were yeomen or tradesmen numbered twelve while labourer's and husbandmen's wives numbered eight. These are too small to really make any generalisations. For what it is worth, and the numbers are again so small as to make generalisations unreliable, there does seem to be some evidence to support Beat ties' claim that during years of economic crisis widows and spinsters are more acted against.Â(33) With 1692 and 1693, havinga dramatic increase, sixand five actions against only two per year for the last three years of the 1680's. These are the women who Beattie views as most venerable havingno men to support them. Overall it would seem that there was an increase in the amount of crime reported and acted against during the early part of the 1690's which may have been a reflection of increased criminal activity or just a growing concern for "law and order" during what were difficult years. Much of this activity was of a minor nature and concerned mainly with commercial offences and offences against the even tenor of the community.. Crimes against persons were a substantial part of the total picture while never showing any predominance as, indeed, was the case of crimes against property. How much of the acts against property were premeditated is difficult to ascertain although such acts as poaching and housebreaking must have had an element of planning attached to them. One thing is, seems to me, clear,that the poorer sort, socially speaking, were no worse and possibly slightly better in their attitude to socially accepted norms and legal requirements than were their slightly better placed superiors of the middle orders. The problem of such a conclusion is that such neat social bracketing is suspect due to our lack of knowledge of the realities behind cold occupational references. But such is the problem of any sociological stratification. It is also obviously difficult to make any classification of crime without looking more fully at what was a crime, the very nature of what happened.
End Notes - Chapter Two
(17) J. R. Jones; Court & County England, 1658 - 1714; 1978; p. 93
(18) W. Bonger; Ciminality; p. 169
(19) Oldfield;Vol. I, East. 1691, 2; Mich. 1689, 9
(20) Oldfield; Vol. I. East. 1691, 2; Mich. 1689, 9
(21) Oldfield Vol.I.Epiph.-1694,7, East. 1692, 13.
(22) Oldfield Vol.I. East.1694;10,11,12; Ep.1692,2,3,4,5.
(23) Oldfield Vol.I. Mich.1687; Ep.1694,17.
(24) J. Samaha: "Gleanings from Local Criminal Court Records' Sedition Amongst the 'Inarticulate' in Elizabethan England"; Journal of Social History; Vol.VIII, Sommer 1975; p.62.
(25) Ogg; op. cit.; p. 103
(26) Oldfield; Vol. I, Trinity, 1696, p. 7
(27) Oldfield Vol.I. Mich.1689,11.
(28) Oldfield Vol.IX. 1687,6,7. Vol.I. East. 1687,17.
(29) Oldfield: Vol.I. Trin. 1696,5.
(30) Oldfield; Vol. I. East. 1692, 13
(31) Oldfield; Vol. I. Epiph.; 1691, 15
(32) Bonger: op. cit. p.59; J. , Beattie; "The Criminality of Women inthe Eighteenth Century England;" Journal of Social History, Vol.VIII, Summer 1975 p.80.
(33) Beattie; idib; p.107.
|
Hey Webmasters! Get a free website with holiday themes - Get it NOW!
bravenet.com
