 |
||
|
Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century
The French revolution and Gordon Riots of the 18th Century had given way to the political and social unrest of the 19th Century with accompanying riots. During the 18th Century there had been much acclaim as to the need for reform of the Criminal Code; of prisons and the policing arrangements. Much was spoken and written by the Reformers but no general success was achieved against the strong opposition and fears that changes would lead to a military gendarmerie with accompanying espionage and interference with individual liberty. In such agricultural districts as Lingfield and the surrounding villages, the Inclosure Act brought distress to many. The position was exacerbated by the evils accompanying the social and economic upheavals of the industrial revolution and the food and commodity shortages caused by the war with France. Against the menace of crime and mob violence, prior to 1829, there were few effective measures. Pitt had, as early as 1785, presented to Parliament a Bill for the prevention of Crime and its detection, which had a marked similarity to the Bill presented by Peel in 1829, which set up the Metropolitan Police. That there was a need can be seen from the remarks of Sir Archibald McDonald to the House of Commons in 1785: "The gallows groaned, and yet the example was found ineffective, for the evil was increasing". Pitt's proposals, like others prior to 1829, were swiftly thrown out, with much opposition coming from the Aldermen of the City of London who out of self interest wanted to preserve their Chartered privileges and to appoint and control their own magistrates and constables, even though they were no more efficient than other parish constables. In 1749 Henry Fielding had established in London the Bow Street Courts, Magistrates, paid informers and their famous Bow Street 'Runners' . Other courts later had their own 'Runners'. This did provide a model but there was no enthusiasm to extend this to the rest of the country. They were successful during their early years but later the system became corrupt with magistrates and the 'Runners' working with the criminals rather than putting them out of business. The new urban populations were served by the old rural organisations of squire or parson, magistrates and parish constables. Much rested on the individual parishes to provide for the needs of its inhabitants including the maintenance of law and order. This included the appointment of a local magistrate, often the local squire or other landed gentry, and a local constable or constables. Each inhabitant belonged to his own parish and it was to his own parish that a person looked for support, including poor relief. The local powers were quick to move on any outsiders, vagrants or anyone that might become a drain on their funds. Thus, anyone committing a minor crime or causing a nuisance, having received any appropriate punishment, such as a public whipping, was likely to be quickly shipped out and ordered to return to their own parish. In the early part of the 19th Century the position of local parish constable was an unpopular unpaid post. Those appointed would often 'fob-off ' the responsibility to a deputy, many of whom were both illiterate and inefficient. There were constables or Headboroughs (Petty Constables) for each village. Even so they could be called upon to deal with a wide range of duties; dealing with felonies, escaped prisoners, riots, unlawful assemblies, non attendance at church, commercial irregularities, licensing of ale houses, compiling jurors lists, drunkenness, unauthorised building, vagrants, intruders, militia muster rolls, lewd women/prostitutes, and detaining refractory fathers of bastards! There was little co-operation or co-ordination between parishes and therefore crime was at its highest in the particular towns and villages where criminals recognised the inefficiencies of the petty constable and where detection of crime was least likely. In addition there was a system of night watchmen or 'Charlies' . The popular image is fairly accurate - a shadowy figure armed with a lantern and rattle, keeping watch and calling out the hour. They were unprotected and fair game for all asunder, including the criminals they were supposed to catch. They tended to be old and decrepit, doing a job that others didn't want. The advent of the industrial revolution and the introduction of new technology and machines, caused much unemployment and hardship. The effects of the Government's protectionist policy, with the introduction of the Corn Laws in 1815 against the import of foreign cheap corn, produced widespread distress and discontent. Crime and disorder was rampant and with no established organisation to ensure law and order the Authorities turned to using the Yeomanry - an armed body raised by landowners, and the Troops. More and more laws were passed, the severity of sentences increased, with the death penalty for even minor offences. However, with the absence of a readily available body adequate to enforce these laws, the position worsened. In 1812 a military force of 12,000 men was raised and sent to the North and Midlands to suppress machine wrecking and the burning of factories by the 'Luddites' rioting against low wages and unemployment. The military were not successful as the Luddites used hit and hide tactics. The breaking of machines was made a capital offence. The measures had little effect. Widespread riots only ended following the withdrawal in 1812 of the restrictions stopping trade with ports under French control and some recovery in our trade and employment. Sporadic outbreaks of 'Luddism' continued and there is evidence of local unrest throughout the first half of the 19th Century due to under employment on the land. Threshing machines were destroyed by unemployed agricultural labourers and hay ricks were burnt in South East Surrey and Sussex.
The need to reform the Criminal Code Crimes punishable by death included: There were 223 crimes for which the death penalty could be given and the following figures make interesting reading: Susan Kimber aged 16, under questioning confessed to having taken some satin which she had made up into a bonnet. She pleaded that if they did not punish her, she would pay for what she had taken. This obviously influenced the jury for notwithstanding the confession of guilt they found her "Not Guilty". Clearly they did not trust the judge to provide a lenient sentence! This epitomises one of the problems, as the severity of sentences did in many create some sympathy amongst officials and jurors alike and in such cases offenders were either not brought before the courts or were found not guilty. The 19th Century was not without compassion even if one had to search hard for it. Dr. Decaine, a French writer, furnished the world with some general statistics regarding the production and consumption of alcohol. French brandy production from 1828 to 1846 is said to have increased by two thirds, and that hospital visits and records show a corresponding increase in admissions due to "indulgence in spirits" leading to illness and madness! In respect of Great Britain he claimed that "alcohol supplies the country with two thirds of the poor and three fourths of its criminals and that out of 1,200 lunatics more than half became so in consequence of alcohol excesses"! There was much public interest in crime and punishment. Titillation of the more morbid aspects of this interest was afforded by the publication of sadistically illustrated broadsheets. Prison visits to view notorious villains out of curiosity was a common social activity. There were of course those who took an interest out of liberal, moralistic or religious convictions, with the intent of improving social conditions. However, to many it was merely entertainment, the highlight being public executions attracting thousands of spectators. Every room in every hostelry and lodging house would be filled in the towns and surrounding villages. A favourite venue near to us was the "Horsham Hang Fair". Prisoners would arrive in a horse drawn carriage to the cheers or jeers of the throng, sitting on their coffin! Typical cases appearing before the Courts in 1828, as reported in the "Times". Prisons. Apart from those serving prison sentences with hard labour the prisons were filled with vagrants, debtors and those arrested pending trial. Those with means could purchase any comforts but for the poor it was a nightmare. The hardened criminal was generally well looked after by his comrades. Mixed with these the 'CONVICTS' - those awaiting hanging or transportation - and CHILDREN over the age of five. All gaoled offenders were known as 'prisoners' but those sentenced to penal servitude (hard labour) or transportation were known as convicts. 1812 Lord Byron's speech to Parliament. 1815 Corn Bill prohibiting import of cheap foreign corn threatened famine. Riots starting in London spread throughout the country. Troops were called in but this only served to emphasise the helplessness of the Authorities and the need for an efficient police force . 1819 The 'Peterloo Massacre' 15 APRIL 1829 Metropolitan Police Act 1835. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - One section of this act empowered (but did not oblige) Boroughs to set up their own police force. There was no rush to implement this Act and Peel's concept of Forces throughout the country spread only slowly. 1839 "A Bill for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis" and "A Bill for regulating the Police Courts in the Metropolis" caused great concern. It was claimed that enormous and unconstitutional Powers would be conferred upon the Magistracy and Police, "depriving the people of their privilege of self-government and self-protection, destructive of the Rights and Liberties and comforts of the public." 1840. THE EAST SUSSEX CONSTABULARY WAS CREATED. 1st July 1853. Charles Hollington of Godstone, Superintendent of Police, acquired by auction, cottages and gardens in Plaistow Lingfield in several tenements. The site now houses Plaistow Hall.
Bibliography: "THE TIMES" Newspaper and Palmer's Index to The Times
John Bateson |
|
