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

1686 - 1696

CONCLUSION.

What conclusions can be drawn about crime and criminals in rural England and particularly Oxfordshire at the close of the seventeenth century? If we are aware of the limitations of any generalisation which such a limited area of evidence must impose there are a few useful conclusions which might be drawn. Certain things may be said about the rate of crime during the period. It is also possible to assume certain things regarding the type of people who were involved in criminal acts. We can also see a main thread in the nature of crime as well as make some comment on the possible causation. Whether or not is is possible to make any valid comment on what actually constituted a crime in the eyes of contemporaries is perhaps not of outstanding importance, this essay is not intended to be an exercise in Criminology as such.

One can see that for the most part acts which were of a criminal nature stayed at a general level throughout the period. What did alter was that acts which threatened the peace of the community either as minor disputes amongst neighbours, acts which affected the rates people paid or could upset the even tempo of life, tended to increase after the bad harvest years, while acts which involved individuals and were, for them, of a more serious nature slackened. The degree of than e was hardly enough to talk of a real change of emphasis but it does appear that the concern of the governing classes to protect property which resulted in more severe penalties together with a parochial view of matters at a time of economic stress made minor offences become more noticeable as more serious crime slowed down. It has often beer, felt that the labouring poor we.^-re the source of the majority of criminals due to their economic conditions. This

does not appear to be entirely the case. Going by occupational description while the labourers are a large group it would appear that the two better placed classes were more prone to crime than the outright poor. Of course occupation alone does not give a real understanding of the social or economic position of a person. Nevertheless, yeomen and the artisan/tradesman groups were more involved in appearances before the courts than the labourers.

One of the most troublesome individuals, both in actual references and by the admission of his neighbours, was John Lucas of Biscester who was a silkweaver. The gentry were not excluded from criminal activity but to a lesser extent than the others, as one would expect, both on their lower total numbers in the community, the lack of economic pressure on them and their position as leaders and govenors. Most crime was of an economic nature, although not necessarily obviously so in all cases. Some acts were clearly economic; theft of food stuffs, money or belongings was obviously either for the financial gain which would accrue or probably to provide immediate needs. Others, while not falling into such a neat category must also be considered as economic. The riot at Fulbrook clearly was as much economic as anything else since the walling off of the common pool could have economic consequences for many people. Much of the concern over offences to do with the community were really economic although the political stability at the local level may well have partly influenced action; failing to support a bastard child; hanging on to parish income; forcing vagrants on to another parish; setting up as unlicensed traders or un-apprenticed workers were all economically motivated, as was much of the reaction against them.

We cannot be sure why people commit crimes, the criminologists, psychologists and the social science commentators have many theories. In the absence of any excuses or explanations from the people at the time it is not even possible to state the primary motivation. Of course, a large part of theft, and therefore those connected crimes are likely to have been due to desperate need since, although the occupational pattern does not show the very poor labourer as being the largest single group, nevertheless it can be assumed that a fair percentage of even the middling sorts were not wealthy. This may not apply to the yeomen who may well have benefited from the price rises of the mid 1690's. The bad harvests which pushed up prices obviously must have hurt the poorer people but the evidence for an automatic increase in crime is not absolutely clear since the peak year does appear to have been at the beginning of that cycle and was not sustained as one might have expected. But this might only reflect gaps in the evidence. Criminal acts for the seventeenth century were any acts which were likely to be detrimental to the social fabric either locally or nationally.

Obviously anything which was against the interests of the governing classes was adjudged to need suppression. This included anything that was directed against the national government whether merely claiming that the king had no right to his position or undermined the stability of the currency. Equally objectionable were attempts at ridiculing local magistrates: attacks against persons and property were also criminal acts as much then as today. On the lesser level but nevertheless still considered criminal were such acts as misuse of office and minor disturbances of the peace.

Moral offences, sexual misconduct was, perhaps, no longer considered criminal in the ordinary sense of the term. The ecclesastic courts were no longer involved and the secular courts only seem to have become involved when the result of immorality was likely to place a financial burden on the community. When this happened the woman involved was-apparently considered more guilty than the male partner.

Overall it is difficult to see great differences between what was criminal then and what society today condemns. We might be less severe, in our attitudes towards criminal acts when it comes to punishments. Although of those criminals condemned for felonies most, appear to have been reprieved and transported this may only reflect a growing desire to make better use of people rather than to waste the labour which they represented. The willingness to remit heavy fines where the offender could obviously not pay, and therefore his family because a charge on society if he remained in gaol, was not necessarily a sign of compassion but only a practical measure of common sense. The constables returns showing that stocks, pillories and whipping posts were maintained in good order, the use of the whip as a punishment shows little suggestion of any easing of attitudes towards criminals.

This was a harsh world where deprivation and death were commonplace but where crime was concerned it was no more violent than our own. People assaulted, robbed cheated and evaded their social obligations then as they do today.

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