Crime and Punishment in Tudor and Stuart Herefordshire

The Tudor period was a time of great change and upheaval. There was a constant threat of rebellion, ongoing religious dissent and groups of vagrants and beggars roaming the streets. Harsh laws were made to deal with troublemakers and criminals, but there was no police force to enforce the law. Instead, communities appointed sergeants or constables to bring people to justice and the government appointed Justices of the Peace (magistrates) to hear the cases brought before them. In addition to sentencing criminals, Justices of the Peace also had to prevent riots, report people who did not attend church services and manage the building of poor houses, bridges, roads and jails.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PUNISHMENT

Tudor punishments were very harsh. Hanging, burning to death, torture, whipping, being chained to stocks where people could pelt you with rubbish, dunking in a river or branding with a hot iron, these and other gruesome methods were accepted practice and according to many textbooks were commonly used.

Whipping was inflicted for serious offences such as robbery with violence and from 1531 also for vagrancy. In Leominster a whipping post was erected in Corn Square in 1604. Civic accounts are often a good source for studying the Tudor period. We know of this particular whipping post because in 1604 Jon Patres was paid 20 pence for a piece of timber to make the whipping post, 23 pence to John Wood for making the post, and 1 shilling to Haape to mend the bolts, unbolt the prisoner and make the irons for the whipping post.

Likewise the civic accounts attest to the existence of a pillory in Leominster, which was situated on the site of number 14 Church Street. A pillory usually consisted of two upright posts which were connected by two vertical flat boards. These boards had circular openings for the neck and wrists of the prisoner. In Leominster the pillory was covered with a roof, had open sides and was raised on a platform. The prisoner was forced to stand throughout his ordeal, being fully exposed to the public. This form of punishment was usually reserved for male offenders.

Stocks were used in the same way as the pillory, except that with stocks, the feet were bound. The HSMR records 4 stocks and whipping posts, such as the ones seen attached to Fownhope Church. According to law each parish had to have and properly maintain a set of stocks. The stocks were generally used to punish people who offended against public order, such as drunken behaviour. Nevertheless, stocks could also be used to punish religious dissenters. One such case was a Quaker who went to a meeting organised at a house in Kings Caple in May 1657.


FOWNHOPE STOCKS

The Corn Market Square also housed a cage, the Cage House. Humiliation was a large part of Tudor punishment and being locked in a cage in full view of passers-by must have been very degrading. In 1558 6 pence was paid for the mending of the lock. We know the cage was still in use in 1685 because 10shillings 6 pence were paid to "ye Carpenter for mending ye Cage and other worke."

One popular method of punishment which had already been popular in the Middle Ages and can be traced back to the Saxons, was the Ducking Stool, an example of which can still be seen in Leominster Priory. It seems that this form of punishment was usually reserved for women, primarily "scolds", and butchers, bakers, apothecaries and brewers who cheated on measures or sold inferior food. The person had to sit in the chair, which was wheeled through town and then submerged in the river, if there was enough water there, hence the name "ducking stool". In some places the stool was fixed to a swivel which in turn was fixed to a bridge, but the Leominster version was a mobile one with wheels.


Leominster ducking stool

It appears that the last recorded incident of a ducking in England was at Leominster in 1809! There was in fact another case in 1817, but this time the river was too low, so the woman, named Sarah Leeke, was merely wheeled round the town.

[note: the Leominster Folk Museum has brought out a useful information sheet (#7) on the Ducking Stool]

WOMEN AND CRIME

Historians have long debated the meaning of the term "scold" and its implications. Were these women merely outspoken and independent? Did men bring these charges to keep women in "their place"? Social conformity was extremely important during these centuries and it seems that neighbours felt they had a right to keep a constant eye on the comings and goings of their fellow citizens. The following deposition from Hereford illustrates this:

"Information against Margaret Woodliffe for being idle, abusive, malicious and envious, and for cursing and abusing Richard Dobles, a neighbour, and creating discord between him and his wife by her slanders; and for being too drunk to stand and having to be put to bed by neighbours before she did herself a mischief."

Margaret sounds like a neighbour from hell, but would she today be charged with anything at all? The closest the current legal system comes to curtailing such alleged anti-social conduct is by allowing housing associations to expel families who display extremely bad behaviour. Anti-social Behaviour Orders allow for various measures to be taken (such as banning culprits from creating a nuisance during set hours of the day, imposing curfews etc) before eviction is resorted to. Local authorities as well as housing associations can take these measures (which have to be approved by the courts) against their tenants. In Tudor times, the remedy was a stint in the ducking stool.

PREVENTION OR PUNISHMENT?

Crime prevention measures were taken seriously. In Leominster, by order of the Court Leet (1534), young people were not allowed to be out and about without permission after 10 p.m. under threat of imprisonment.

"It is orderyd by the xii men that no mans son nor wagyd sevnt shall walk in the strette after the owre of x of the Clok in the nyght, upon peyn of Ipsonment, unlesse that the father or the master will make for them a lawfull excuse."

Not all criminal activity could be prevented, however, and the ingenuity in meting out punishment is illustrated in the following example:


This is a picture of an authentic royal charter,© HRO

An interesting exception to the general paucity of outcome is a case of forgery of 1535. A John Bedo hired a William Blast to forge a document claiming to be a letter from the Commissioners of the Marches and got a James Watkyns to deliver this forged letter. In spite of using an old seal to make the letter seem more authentic they were caught and brought to justice. The punishment was carried out during the time of the market in Hereford, when the streets would have been full of people to watch and jeer and throw things. The two accomplices had to lead John Bedo through the streets of Hereford, whilst he was sitting on a horse back to front, wearing a large sign around his neck with the following message:

"This wear I for falsyfying the King's letter".

John Bedo was then led to the pillory [in a pillory your head and hands are bound, in the stocks your feet] where James Watkyns and William Blast had to stand beside him for the duration of the market. Note that in this case also humiliation played a large part. During the night the three culprits were thrown into prison.


WHAT OTHER SORTS OF CRIMES WERE HEREFORDIANS CHARGE WITH?

A fascinating case involves slavery and the West Indies. A John Seaborne of Canon Pyon was accused of abducting children for slavery in 1670. The accuser, a Thomas Blythe of the parish of Weobley, asserted that the said John Seaborne had inveigled and carried away poor children, including his own child, to be sold for slaves into the Barbados.

Note: The sugar cane, (and to a lesser extent tobacco and cotton) plantations in the West Indies required a large number of workers and especially in the years before the introduction of slaves from Africa, white people from Britain were transported to the colony of Barbados, either as prisoners or indentured servants. For example, nearly 7000 Irish were transported during the Cromwellian period. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history).

As our court case proves, kidnapping was also a source of forced labour. "Descendants of the white slaves and indentured labour (referred to as Red Legs) still live in Barbados, they live amongst the black population in St.Martin's River and other east coast regions. At one time they lived in caves in this region." (http://www.barbados.org/history1.htm ) Perhaps descendants of those original kidnapped Herefordian children are among these "red legs"?

The historian John P. Dwyer collated charges brought in Hereford for each decade from 1470 to 1600 according to category of crime or public order offence. For the period 1540 to 1550, for example, during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, he recorded 170 charges of violence against people, 95 cases of traders overcharging, 105 drinking offences, 439 offences against civic cleanliness and 251 gaming (gambling) offences. Fifty years later, for the period 1590 to 1600, during the reign of Elizabeth I, only 69 charges of violence to people, 73 price offences, 270 offences against civic cleanliness and 166 gaming offences, but 313 drinking offences were recorded!

Some offences were of a minor nature. In 1573 several people were charged with wearing hats instead of caps. To encourage the woollen trade, Queen Elizabeth I had signed a statute enforcing the wearing of woollen caps on Sundays. For minor offences people were usually fined.

The following case is the Tudor equivalent of abandoning a vehicle: A John Bullock was fined 3s 4d for placing a "a certain dead mare in the high way leading from Kingsland aforesaid towards Leominster to the damage of the king's subjects".

All the inhabitants of the township of Westowne were fined 3s 4d "because they did not practice with bows and arrows after the manner of the statute." The fine did not really provide sufficient incentive for the men to turn out for practice, because they were fined again 6 months later.

More often than not people were charged with more than one offence. In 1664 an Elizabeth Prees brought information against her husband Edward Prees for drunkenness, swearing, abusing and beating her, threatening her with a knife and also threatening to have her dragged through the Wye as a witch.

There are many women today who suffer the same sort of domestic violence, nevertheless, the threat of being branded a witch is unfamiliar to most women today. Up until the 18th century, however, accusing someone of witchcraft was a serious matter, as it was considered a crime punishable with death. You may find the original wording of the deposition difficult to read:

"… the said Edward did since your peticioners intermarriadge with him contrary to his Covenant made in Matrimoney beinge greately given to drinking, swearinge damninge and Curseinge hath most uncindly both day and night abused your poore peticioner not onely in base and unbeseemeing words; but allsoe in deeds, as by callinge your peticioner whore and witch; saying hee would have her dragd through Wye for a witch; Whereas tis Well knowne to the whole Citty That your peticioner hath lived here all daies of her life in good and honest demeane repute and Carriadge; and allsoe with a naked knife in his hand hat diverse tymes of late run at your peticioner sweareing damming and threatning to ripp upp her gutts brateing dragging her diverse tymes out of her bed in the night threaning still to kill and mischief your peticioner and hath nowe not onely beaten your peticioner blacke and blewe but turned her out of her owne dwellingehouse soe that your peticioner cannot live with him without dainger of her life."

It seems that Edward Prees only married the widow Elizabeth for her money, as at the time of their marriage Edward was "worth nothinge but the Cloathes upon his backe, the goods and houshouldstuffe beinge then and yet your peticioners owne proper goods." Elizabeth argued that she was well known in Hereford and that her character was above reproach.


A woman whose character was far from faultless was Mary Hodges. She was charged not only with being a common quarreler and curser of her neighbors, a swearer and blasphemer of God's word but also with keeping a disorderly alehouse where she let "outcommers" (outsiders) and "idle lewd suspected persons" stay as well as having an affair with a married man for three years. It is difficult to tell if Mary really was such a terrible person or if the accusations were just part of an ongoing feud with her neighbours, Phillipp and his son Richard Benny who brought the information against her.

They accuse her of cursing Richard Benny and bewitching their cattle and describe the way in which she is supposed to have practised her witchcraft:

"… for at night when her household is gone to bedd and shee as is conceaved goeinge to bedd shee is observed to take the Andirons (hand irons) out of the chimney, and putt them crosse one an other and then shee falles downe uppon her knees and useth some prayers of witchcraft and (which reverence to the courte be it spoken) shee then makes water in a dish and throwes it uppon the said Andirons and then takes her iourney into her garden this is her usuall custome night after night, which doeth occation feare that shee intendes mischiefe against him and against others of her neighbors, and especially against the said Phillipp or his catell for that he had such misfortune with losse of his horse aforesaid."

It was common practice during this period to blame someone for cursing your cattle if one or more of your livestock died without an obvious reason. Witchcraft was considered a serious offence and it is a pity we do not know what the outcome of this case was. Written sources for witchcraft trials are scarce in the county of Herefordshire, but this does not mean that such trials did not take place.


CHURCH COURTS

Religious and moral matters, such as non-attendance at church services, non-payment of church dues, cursing, and sexual misconduct, were usually dealt with by church courts, such as the Consistory Court, where a common form of punishment was excommunication. Church Courts "were not entitled to harm the body of any individual or to fine them, although the bills for legal services may have been punishment enough for some." The most common deterrent was public shaming.

A case from Madley, which happened as late as 1821, involves an act of public penance, which would have been common in the 15th and 16th centuries. A woman named N.Gardiner who had been accused of slander, had to wear a white sheet and walk up and down the aisles of the church and take back all she had said in a loud voice.

The following excerpt from the Consistory Court Acts Books, now kept in the Cathedral Library, describes a case of cursing, for which the culprit was excommunicated:

"Yarpel Johannes Peacombe alias Smyth for cursing Walter of the same, viz: kneeling one his knees in the Churcheyard there, and praicing unto God that a heavie vengeance, and a heavie plague might light on him and all his cattle."

Many cases throughout the county are recorded involving play acting and dancing, two activities which were forbidden on a Sunday during the time of church services. On June 30th 1617, for example, a Thomas Waucklen, painter, was detected by the churchwardens of Kingsland acting in a play with others "upon the sabbath day at time of evening prayer", an offence for which he was excommunicated.

The charges against Edward Hall, innkeeper in Ledbury, demonstrate the popularity of Morris dancing in this county:

"He, being an actor and morris dancer, and having gone out of the parish to other places with gun and drum both in night to the disturbance of the king's subjects and the profanation of the sabbath day in the morning."

It seems that Morris dancing was popular in Wellington as well:

A William Edwardes was excommunicated "for dancing the morris at Wellington on a sabbath day before evening prayer."

[note: A useful source for records related to music, drama and dance is: Records of Early English Drama Herefordshire and Worcestershire, ed. David N. Klausner, University of Toronto Press, 1990. There is a copy of this work in the Cathedral Library]

Sometimes, however, cases of a religious nature came before a secular court as sometimes religious comments could be interpreted as being treasonous to the monarch. Religion was a very important part of life and many people died trying to worship in the way of their choice.

In Great Britain we take our freedom of speech and freedom of religion for granted. Most of us would consider the following case to be a breach of good manners rather than a criminal matter. In 1670 a Roger Boulcott brought information concerning a Thomas Elton, "who, in conversation about the liturgy of the Church of England, said he would come to hear sermons, but would as soon hear a fart as the Book of Common Prayer,…" People must have been aware that others were executed for their religious beliefs. It is therefore surprising that some volunteered opinions when it would have been much safer to remain quiet.

In 1660, after the restoration of the monarchy, those who had been treated badly for supporting the monarchy during the Protectorate, sought to settle old scores. From several depositions given during this period it seems that feelings had run high and that people had not been reluctant in keeping their opinions to themselves:

"John Dicke deposed that, about eight years before, Mary Quarrell had said that the king was the son of a papist whore; Walter Freene, that Edmund Quarrell had said that if the king returned, he should be served as his father was; and Richard Meredith, that Edmund Quarrell recently had denied the possibility of the king's restoration."

It seems that the political views of Edmund Quarrell, minister of Staunton-upon-Wye and those of his wife Mary were closely linked with their religious ones. An earlier deposition against them accuses them of treasonable language, and reviling the Book of Common Prayer. The Quarrells not only held strong opinions, it seems, but expressed these in very colourful language:

"Humphrey Baker deposed that Edmund Quarrell had said that the Book of Common Prayer was the devil's work and he would never read it; and Thomas Vaughan deposed that Mary Quarrell had said that it was not fitting for such a b****** as the king to inherit the land." Some might say, Quarrell by name, quarrell by nature!

In 1673 several men were charged with attending a Non-conformist meeting at the house of Thomas Seaborne, an ironmonger. Non-conformists were Protestants who were disillusioned with the Church of England and met in private houses to worship until they were permitted to build chapels.

If you would like more information on chapels in Herefordshire, click here.

It is difficult for us to imagine the constraints of life in the Tudor period. Freedoms we take for granted did not exist and things which are common practice today, such as extra marital sex, were considered to be serious infringements then. If we consider however, that there was no welfare state (no reliable birth control) and that each community had to look after its own, then it is perhaps not so surprising that illegitimate children would be frowned upon. Attitudes have changed and tolerance to differences is now encouraged. In the Tudor period, differences were seen to be a threat to the existence of the community.

Herefordshire had its share of both male and female evil doers and by studying some of the local court cases at the Hereford Record Office one can gain insight into many interesting happenings. Unfortunately, in many cases, we only have a record of the charge when the case was brought to court, not the outcome of the case and the punishment meted out. It seems that the sources recording the sentence have not survived. It is therefore difficult to establish how often brutal punishments were carried out. From the records that do survive, it seems that fining was a popular measure and the question arises: Do many textbooks highlight brutal punishments, even though they occurred rarely and pass them off as common practice or was Hereford a moderate sort of place in terms of sentencing? If anyone can shed more light on sentencing practices in Herefordshire in Tudor times please get in touch.


TFM

To play a word search game, click here