RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Shetland Sausage on Sunday 25 July 21 13:16 BST (UK)
-
I'm fairly new to genealogy, and yesterday came across the first criminal in my tree. She'd stolen a blanket, and for that crime she was sentenced to 7 years transportation to Van Dieman's Land. I was stunned at the severity of the punishment, but looking at other sentences in the list, it looks as though she got off quite lightly - someone convicted of stealing half a crown - sentence - death! This was 1830, and I wonder if this severity of punishment was the norm in England at this time, or if these were a set of particularly harsh judges?
-
Theft was split into 2 categories of larceny depending on value of item(s) stolen. Goods were sometimes undervalued in court to prevent a thief receiving a capital sentence. Many death sentences were commuted to transportation. Those commutations may have been similar to suspended sentences, dependent on future law-abiding behaviour.
I think there were also divisions of severity when it came to stealing from shops and houses. Stealing from unlocked premises in daylight wasn't as bad as breaking & entering. Burglary was breaking into a house at night with intent to steal. Armed robbery or armed burglary would likely have received a death sentence.
Numbers and proportions of death sentences differed by place and may also have been influenced by local or national events. Some magistrates were more likely than others to pass a death sentence. A magistrate who lived in the area where a trial happened might consider local public opinion and ill-feeling against him if he made an unpopular decision. A visiting judge didn't have to worry about what the locals thought or might say or do to him after the trial. Some juries were reluctant to convict if they had sympathy for the accused and thought a conviction would lead to a death sentence.
There are some statistics online.
-
Fascinating, thanks. The lady in question was an 18-year-old girl at the time, who had nicked the blanket from the family she was in service to, which may have made it worse for her. I wonder if politics came into play with these sentences - I know the empire was settling Australia at the time, and they needed a good supply of young blood to do the work. Maybe the magistrates were 'encouraged' to dole out transportation for trivial crimes? Just a thought.
-
I too have an ancestor who was sent to Australia in 1800's for stealing a duck . Yes! a duck with a bit of rough and tumble of course. Times were hard for some of our ancestors and desperate people did desperate things. If someone was poor they had no choice . I have traced my ancestors time in Oz and it worked out ok for him . After all he had a trade when his sentence was over so could move about and gain some sort of normality/ self esteem . However , he never left Oz to visit his Family back in Cheshire . I imagine he could nit afford the transport fares.. So maybe you will track your ancestor down like me . Genealogy is a wonderful hobby you learn so much . Best wishes Sausage.
-
Tornado - like yours, Jane seemed to have liked Australia. During her 7 years in penal servitude she met and married someone, and they settled in Melbourne when she was released from Tasmania, and lived there for over 50 years, so I guess it turned out OK for her.
-
In 1830 there were over 200 crimes that commanded the death penalty.
One being theft in excess of 5 shillings.
In reality it only applied to the lower orders.
My ancestor was heir to an estate when he broke into his old school & nicked £100's worth of
silver.
His Uncle paid £1500 for his release & reimbursed the school. He served just 3 months.
This in the 1700's.
A healthy 18 year old woman would have been viewed as a baby machine & top of the list
for transportation.
-
Jim - yes, that's kind of what I suspected. Pretty outrageous.
-
Who would have thought that the descendants of these transportees would come
back 150 years later & beat us at rugby...& cricket.
-
I know - it's called 'karma' :)
-
As a general rule in the 1700s, offences involving property generally attracted harsher sentences than offences against the person, and this attitude tended to persist into the early 1800s.
In 1830 there were over 200 crimes that commanded the death penalty.
One being theft in excess of 5 shillings.
In reality it only applied to the lower orders.
But in practice many of these sentences were commuted -- capital sentences to transportation, transportation to imprisonment, etc. Have a look at Digital Panopticon ...
https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Penal_Outcomes
-
A healthy 18 year old woman would have been viewed as a baby machine & top of the list
for transportation.
The study recommended by Bookbox suggests that age, health & fitness and occupation were important factors in selection for transportation. A ship's captain wouldn't risk taking anyone who might not survive the voyage or who might bring infection onboard. Older, unfit or sick convicts would have been left behind to serve their sentence in prisons or on prison hulks in Britain or freed early. A high proportion of young convicted women were transported in first half of 19th century. Female domestic servants were in demand in the new colonies.
-
More sources of information about crime and punishment:
"The Proceedings of the Old Bailey - London's Central Criminal Court, 1674-1913
Punishments at the Old Bailey - Late 17th century to early 20th century"
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Punishment.jsp
"Old British News - Death Sentences 1830"
https://oldbritishnews.com/death-sentences-1830/
This is a list compiled from English and Welsh counties. Vast majority of names on list are male. Some of the few females on list were sentenced in same place & same time as a male with same surname.
Also lists for 1831, 1832, 1833 and 1835-9 and for other decades. Some lists include estimated birth years for some convicts. Recommends looking at newspapers for more information.
"Crime and Law in England 1750-1840" by Peter King published by Cambridge University Press. A topic addressed is gender. Accessible online as pdf.
National Archives "Crime and Punishment : Punishment 1750-1900"
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/punishment/g09/default.htm
-
Thanks to everyone who replied. There's some great information there, and it's really helped me understand transportation, which is something I was pretty ignorant about up to now. I've subsequently found a second sibling who was sent to Tasmania, this time for 15 years. I think the family had issues!
-
I've subsequently found a second sibling who was sent to Tasmania, this time for 15 years. I think the family had issues!
Were they convicted at the same time? Was the offence also stealing? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, cause may have been poverty.
-
Oh yes, I'm sure the cause was poverty - grinding, relentless poverty the like of which we rarely see in this country nowadays, thank goodness. You only have to look at the probate records to see that they had nothing whatsoever.
-
You might find her listed on the prison ships to Australia. The Australian records are brilliant. Many children were transported too which was actually a blessing. While in England they most likely did not receive an education. In Australia, all transported children were educated and taught a trade which they wouldn't be if they'd remained in England.
-
My 5xgreat grandfather was sent to Australia in 1791 for stealing a hog. He arrived in Sydney in 1792 and died just months later.
-
Fascinating, thanks. The lady in question was an 18-year-old girl at the time, who had nicked the blanket from the family she was in service to, which may have made it worse for her. I wonder if politics came into play with these sentences - I know the empire was settling Australia at the time, and they needed a good supply of young blood to do the work. Maybe the magistrates were 'encouraged' to dole out transportation for trivial crimes? Just a thought.
Actually Australia was settled as a way for the UK to get rid of some of their huge prison population. The first settlers in Australia were shiploads of prisoners.
Ultimately I think many of them, or their descendants, were better off afterwards. They could own land and run businesses.