Why they stole: women in the Old Bailey, 1779-1789 - Old Bailey Sessions Papers

Journal of Social History, Spring, 1999 by Lynn MacKay

Department of History Brandon, Manitoba, Canada R7A 4T5

APPENDIX A

BREAKDOWN OF DEFENCE STATEMENTS

GROUP ONE: NOTHING SAID CONCERNING GUILT OR INNOCENCE

No defence recorded. I leave my defence to my counsel. Other reasons (1 have character witnesses, etc.).

GROUP TWO: I HAD IT BUT NOT THROUGH THEFT

I was hired or asked to deliver it. I found it or I bought it. I pawned it for another or with permission or I meant to redeem it. It was loaned or given to me. Other reasons (I didn't intend to steal it, etc.).

GROUP THREE: THE PROSECUTOR OR HIS OR HER STORY ARE SUSPECT

The prosecutor was too drunk to know what happened. Other reasons (the prosecutor or witness are lying, etc.).

GROUP FOUR: I AM NOT GUILTY

I am innocent or I know nothing of it. I can prove I did not take it. Other reasons (I wasn't with the other defendant, etc.).

GROUP FIVE: I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS

I was too drunk to remember what happened or to know what I was doing. Other reasons (I am subject to fits, etc.).

GROUP SIX: I AM THE VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES

Someone else took it or had the opportunity of doing so. I was there for a legitimate reason. I was just coming along and was taken up. Other reasons (The prosecutor and I were drinking and he/she accused me, etc.).

GROUP SEVEN: I AM GUILTY

I did it from distress. I beg mercy. Other reasons (I only took some of the things, etc.).

GROUP EIGHT: NOT CLASSIFIED

Miscellaneous. Unclear

ENDNOTES

I would like to thank John Markoff for his commentary on an earlier version of this article given as a paper at the North American Conference on British Studies in Chicago on 18 October 1996. I am also grateful to Douglas Hay for commenting on the draft of this piece. Any errors that remain are, of course, my own.

1. John Beattie, " 'Hard Pressed to Make Ends Meet': Women and Crime in Augustan London," Women and History, Valerie Firth, ed. (Toronto, 1995), p. 106.

2. Garthine Walker, "Women, theft and the world of stolen goods," Women, Crime and the Courts, Garthine Walker and Jenny Kermode, ed. (Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 99.

3. For a discussion of the reformers of this period, see Michael Ignatieff, A Just Measure of Pain (New York, 1978), Ch. 3, pp. 44-79.

4. T.S. Ashton, Economic Fluctuations in England 1700-1800 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 162-169.

5. Ashton, p.24.

6. L.D. Schwarz, "The Standard of Living in the Long Run: London 1700-1860," Economic History Review, Second Series, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1 (February 1985): 31.

7. Old Bailey Sessions Papers, British Library, PP 349a 30, 1779-1789.

8. So when I refer to 1780, for instance, I am including the December 1779 session through to that held in October 1780 - the last in the legal year.

9. John Langbein, "Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources," University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter 1983): 14. The squibs as a percentage of total male theft cases for the decade are as follows: 1780, 14.7%; 1781, 27.6%; 1782, 32.3%; 1783, 37.4%; 1784, 46.1%; 1785, 36.3%; 1786, 38.1%; 1787, 44.8%; 1788, 44.7% and 1789, 34.7%. For women the respective figures are 18.3%, 26.3%, 28.1%, 34.2%, 51.4%, 40.1%, 44.2%, 44.2%, 50.9% and 31.6%.