Progress or Retrogression? 1840-1935

Evening Star, Issue 22146, 28 September 1935, Page 3

Progress or Retrogression? 1840-1935

Social Conditions of England in the Forties

[Contributed by C. J. L. White, Barrister-at-law;]

PREVALENCE OF CRIME. j lu the first article of the series I gave a resume of the social conditions under which people in England lived in the ’forties. In this article I shall deal with the prevalence of crime and its punishment. Dealing with the criminal aspect of the period covered by these records, the reader will realise that these articles are to he largely devoted to that seamy side of life. I deemed it of some importance to try to ascertain the number of offenders, the type of criminal, the typo of predominant crime, and the methods adopted for the punishment of those crimes. In dealing with the prevalence of crime and the number of prisoners tried with a view to comparing the same with present-day statistics many difficulties arise, and the. journals do not afford sufficient data to warrant any very definite opinion being formed. Tho number of prisoners awaiting trial at circuit sessions seems startlingly high. In many instances it is stated that considerably over a hundred prisoners were awaiting trial in different provincial towns. For instance, in the month of October, 1842, in one of these towns of England no fewer than 240 prisoners were arraigned at one assize court. Again, in 1843, 300 prisoners were awaiting trial at the central criminal court in London, and the usual number seemed to be well in excess of 100. In making comparisons with the present day, however, many factors have to be taken into consideration. There is first of all the fact that so many prisoners were then tried at assize sittings who would now be dealt with on summary trial by a stipendiary magistrate. In the England of this period practically all criminal cases were tried before a judge and jury at assize courts held periodically through the cities and provincial towns, very much in the same way as serious crimes are now tried at quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court in the more important cities of New Zealand. A few minor cases, such as petty assaults, complaints for sureties for breaches of the peace, etc., it is true, were tried before ignorant local justices of the peace, frequently to the everlasting disgrace of the period, in a manner which Charles Dickens has so aptly described in his novels, but the great bulk of criminal cases, be the amount involved ever so small, the circumstances .ever so trivial, or the offender ever so young, were tried before a judge and jury. It was only in later years, when educated and impartial paid stipendiary magistrates were appointed, that by various statutes the jurisdiction of inferior courts was gradually extended, until nowadays a great preponderance of criminal eases aro disposed of summarily and efficiently by these officials and only the very serious crimes are tried by juries in the superior courts. There is the further fact that it is not possible to ascertain the size of the district whence these criminals had been collected, and finally it is not clear at what intervals the assize courts sat in the various districts. Nevertheless, making allowance for all these factors, the numbers of criminals appear to be very high, and 1 the exteme severity of the punishments inflicted' does not seem to have had any real deterrent effect on the criminal clasess. Crimes were divided roughly into two classes-x-felonies and misdemeanours. Until about 1840 the punishment of felony was death, but about that time the death penalty was abolished excepting in cases of treason and murder. Thereafter ordinary felonies were punishable by transportation and misdemeanours by imprisonment and fine. HORRORS OF TRANSPORTATION. The abolition of capital sentences for ordinary felonies in favour of the transportation of convicts , overseas merely Substituted the torments of a living hell for a violent but speedy release. Many books, notably ‘ For the Terra of His Natural Life,’ have toldthe world what transporation really meant, and the grim prison ruins to be seen in Tasmania and other parts of Australia are perhaps an even more impressive testimony to its horrors. From tho point of view of the prisoner the story of his transportation was always, the same—the committal by the court, his severance from all relatives and friends, his incarceration in a filthy and unhealthy hulk in the Thames until a transport was available, then tho dreadful trip of months’ duration in the transport, herded like cattle in dark and unclean holds excepting for one short walk for a few minutes each day. Mutinies on these crazy ships were frequent, and were quelled by the warders by the simple expedient _ of sprinkling the convicts with boiling water, and afterwards inflicting punishments on the offenders which are better left to , the imagination than recorded. Finally the arrival of tho transport at its destination, and the subsequent incarceration as a member of a chain gang at Norfolk Island, Botany Bay, or the nefarious Port Arthur prison in Tasmania. Tho long sentences were punctuated by frequent Hoggings of unbelievable severity for the most trivia! breaches of the prison regulations. It is of interest to note that Marsdeu, who hold the dual office of missioner and justice in Sydney, was severely censured for his infliction as a justice of severe corporal punishments on prisoners, and Marsden himself admitted he was a “strict” magistrate, but he claimed he was not a severe one. Others apparently formed a different opinion (see Professor Elder’s biography). For the more serious offences capital punishment was _ resorted to freelv and without hesitation. The convicts’ spirits were broken by the system, and, as might bo expected, in a very short spaee of time they became degraded and desperate brutes of the worst' conceivable kind, and if they were fortunate enough to be ultimately released they frequently became enemies of society as bushrangers, and. imperilled the safety of the very State itself. The transportation of convicts

was the great curse which British statesmen inflicted upon the Australian colonies, and it is a curious anomaly that a nation which about this period fought with such disinterested determination to suppress negro slavery should have instituted such a wicked crime against humanity as this nefarious method of disposing of its criminal population. ■ Whenever in the course of these articles, therefore, the word “ transportation ” is mentioned as the punishment inflicted you are invited to conjure up in your mind what' this sentence really meant to the unhappy wretch so condemned. It is usually assumed that the persons so transported were hardened criminals. In some cases, no doubt, they were of Ibis type, but the cases mentioned in these articles will show that a large percentage were first offenders, and frequently were children convicted of quite trivial offences against property. The reports of cases in these articles are absolutely authentic, and are for the most part just ordinary reports appearing in the current newspapers, and were given no more prominence than is given to an odinary charge of drunkenness in our newspapers 'to-day. Although dates arc frequently given in my articles the names of the offenders are mostly omitted, as there is always the possibility, remote though it be, that their publication may still cause pain to some descendants of the unfortunate concerned. In any ease the poor creature usually suffered enough, without again advertising his name to the world after this lapse of time. EXAMPLES OF TRANSPORTATION. Here are a few examples of the infliction of this typo of punishment. Readers must appreciate that the cases quoted are not of any special severity, but merely typical instances of punishments selected a t random from dozens of reported cases. The transportation of juveniles is dealt with later. In November, 1842, a young man of respectable appearance who had been convicted of bigamy was sentenced to seven years’ transportation. •At the Central Criminal Court in October, 1842, a young rustic who had been convicted of killing a sheep with intent to steal the same was sentenced to 10 years’ transportation. In October, 1842, an old man of 70, charged with, forgery, was sentenced to 10\years’ transportation. In December, 1&44, a man aged 65, convicted on three charges of false pretences involving a total sum of 14s, was ordered to be transported for seven years. In January, 18-13, • a clergyman charged with bigamy was transported for seven iyears. In October, 1842, two rioters were, charged with being concerned in the demolition of a house. One was ordered to he transported for' 21 years and the other for 10 years. Six other rioters on similar charges were each transported for life. Seven others were transported for 21 years, and one (a boy of 18) for 10 years. In December, 1842, a man charged, with theft of a purse containing £5 was sentenced to 10 years’ transportation. in January, 1543, a youth of 20, for uttering a forged order for one dozen bottles of port wine, was awarded seven years’ transportation. At the Oxford circuit at the beginning of 1843 three persons were tried together for burglary. The eldest, aged 23, was sentenced to 10 years’ transportation ; the next, aged 19, to 12 years’ transportation; and-the youngest aged 18, also to 12 years’ transportation. At the Central Criminal Court in November. 1842, 69 prisoners were ordered to be transported overseas, the sentences awarded being as follow: Sentences of seven years, 50; sentences of 10 years, 16; sentence of 14 years, 1; sentences of 15 years, 2; total 69. A total of 554 years of hell distributed amongst 69 prisoners, most of whom, judging by the records of other sittings, would ho probably mere youths at the very threshold of life, and first offenders at that. PUNISHMENT OF TREASON.' As I have mentioned, the punishment of death had just recently been restricted to treason and murder cases, and the newspapers of the day stress the leniency which has been extended to criminals by this amendment of the law. For treason, however, a special little piece of barbarity was specially reserved despite these humane innovations. Here is an example, in June, 1842, a man named John Francis was convicted of attempting to shoot Queen Victoria, The sentence of the court solemnly pronounced was that “ You be taken from hence to the place from whence yon came, that you he drawn from thence on a hnrdlo to tho place of execution, and that you be banged by the neck, until yon bo dead; that your head be afterwards severed from your body, ami that your body be divided into four quarters to he disposed of in such manner as Her Majesty may seem tit.” The date was fixed for these almost cannibalistic rites, but at the last moment the culprit was reprieved and was ordered to bo transported for life to “ tho most penal settlement of Tasmania.” He was conveyed to the South Western railway station in a hackney chariot and thence to Gosport, where he was immediately placed on the transport York, bound for Australia. Tho report naively adds that “ it is not anticipated he would long survive the hardships consequent on his punishment.” There is nothing to show what ultimately happened to the poor wretch. Presumably he would spend the rest of his life regretting that his compatriots had been deprived of the goufish spectacle of his hanging and quartering, for which full preparations had been made, the crowd only being disappointed at tbe eleventh hour by a tardy reprieve. ' ROYAL PARDON. It was just about this time that the alteration was made in connection with tho exercise of the Royal prerogative ol pardon and reprieve. Up till that time these questions had/been the direct responsibility and concern of the Sovereign, although, by the way, tho prerogative seems seldom to have been exercised by the Queen. This procedure was about 1846 changed, and the present method of the Royal prerogative being exercised on the recommendation of the Executive Council was substituted.

(Tt» he continued-X