Plano de protección del patrimonio de Sevilla :

Returning firstly to the crime of forcible rescue, just over 88 percent of female suspects pleaded not guilty, with only two women submitting to the charge (Table 6.7).91 _Two-

thirds of the women did not stand before a trial jury, either because the indictments were returned ignoramus, or because they were discharged or not prosecuted. For those who did stand trial, the jurors’ verdicts were far from clear-cut. Just over half of the women were found not guilty, with the remaining 43.8 percent successfully convicted of the crime. Most of the women for whom a punishment is identifiable were fined, with all punished in this way after 1800. Twenty percent were imprisoned, and a further 20 percent were transported for their crime.

88 _{Age also added weight to witness testimonies in court. See, for example, Matthew Hale, Historia}

Placitorum Coronae: The History of the Pleas of the Crown, Volume II (London: 1736), 278; Keith

Thomas, ‘Age and authority in early modern England’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 62 (1976), 207.

89_{Whyte, ‘Custodians of memory’, 155.} 90_{Whyte, ‘Custodians of memory’, 164.}

91 _{For the two women who submitted to the charge, see NLW GS 4/737/3.17 (1739); NLW GS 4/614/5.1}

Table 6.7. Outcomes for female defendants in forcible rescue cases 1730- 1830 % 1730-1763 % 1764-1797 % 1798-1830 % Pleas Guilty/submits 2 11.8% 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not guilty 15 88.2% 0 0.0% 12 100.0% 3 100.0% Unknown 111 - 48 - 56 - 7 - Total 128 100.0% 50 100.0% 68 100.0% 10 100.0% Pleads guilty/submits 2 3.8% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Verdicts No true bill _{28 52.8% 20 87.0% 8 32.0% 0 0.0%}

True bill for

assault only 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% No prosecution 4 7.7% 2 8.7% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% Discharged/ process stayed 1 1.9% 0 4.3% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% Guilty _{7 13.2% 0 0.0% 5 20.0% 2 50.0%} Not guilty _{9 17.0% 0 0.0% 7 28.0% 2 50.0%} Unknown 75 - 26 - 43 - 6 - Total 128 100.0% 50 100.0% 68 100.0% 10 100.0% Trial jury verdicts (known) Guilty 7 43.8% 0 0.0% 5 41.7% 2 50.0% Not guilty 9 56.3% 0 0.00% 7 58.3% 2 50.0% Total 16 100.0% 0 0.0% 12 100.0% 2 100.0% Sentences (known) Imprisoned 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% Fined 6 60.0% 3 100.0% 2 33.3% 1 100.0% Transported 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 0 0.00% Total 10 100.0% 3 100.0% 6 100.0% 1 100.0%

The rescue of an individual was viewed far more seriously than that of personal possessions, with the breaking of gaol considered particularly heinous. There was a marked difference in the treatment of suspects who rescued individuals to those who rescued goods or livestock. Grand jury verdicts were returned as ignoramus for 28 female suspects, of which 20 related to the rescue of goods or livestock. The evidence for these cases was deemed insufficient to warrant a trial. At least 16 female suspects stood before a trial jury for forcible rescue, all of whom were indicted for rescuing an individual. The exact nature of the rescue also appears to have influenced the jury outcome. Only seven guilty verdicts are known for the women, but six of these either rescued a prisoner, or escaped themselves, from gaol.92 _{The same was true for male}

suspects. Thirty-three men were indicted for escaping, or aiding and abetting an escape, from prison or custody in the period 1730-1830. Of these, only four (12 percent) were

92 _{NLW GS 4/620/1.1 (1764); NLW GS 4/741/2.27 (1774); NLW GS 4/821/8.4 (1781); NLW GS}

returned ignoramus by the grand jury, with 12 (36 percent) standing before a trial jury. Sixty-six percent of these men were found guilty.

For the crime of forcible entry and detainer, women pleaded guilty and not guilty in equal numbers, though the pleas are unknown for over 93 percent of the women (Table 6.8). Nearly 70 percent of the indictments were returned ignoramus by the grand jury. This figure seems particularly high, but given the large number of unknown verdicts the overall percentage may have actually been considerably lower. Indeed, an approximate comparison with the male suspects indicted for this offence suggests that there were similarities in the way the grand jury responded to male and female suspects. If the unknown female verdicts are excluded, then the indictments were returned ignoramus for 29 out of 98 female suspects: 29.6 percent. In comparison, out of a sample of 619 men indicted for forcible entry and detainer, 214 were returned ‘no true bill’: 34.6 percent of the suspects.93

Table 6.8. Outcomes for female defendants in forcible entry and detainer cases

1730- 1830 % 1730-1763 % 1764-1797 % 1798-1830 % Pleas Guilty/submits 6 50.0% 3 37.5% 3 100.0% 0 0.0% Not guilty 6 50.0% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% Unknown 86 - 30 - 40 - 16 - Total 98 100.0% 38 100.0% 43 100.0% 17 100.0% Pleads guilty/submits 6 14.3% 3 14.3% 3 16.7% 0 0.0%

Verdicts No true bill 29 69.0% 15 71.4% 11 61.1% 3 100.0%

No prosecution 3 7.1% 1 4.8% 2 11.1% 0 0.0% Quashed 3 7.1% 1 4.8% 2 11.1% 0 0.0% Guilty 1 2.4% 1 4.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not guilty 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Unknown 56 - 17 - 25 - 14 - Total 98 100.0% 38 100.0% 43 100.0% 17 100.0% Trial jury verdicts (known) Guilty 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not guilty 0 0.0% 0 0.00% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sentences (known) Imprisoned 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 3 75.0% 0 0.0% Fined 5 62.5% 4 100.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% Total 8 100.0% 4 100.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0%

93 _{The years 1730-45, 1770-85 and 1805-20 were chosen as sample periods for the male cases. Using the}

‘Crime and Punishment’ database, the number of male suspects was reached by searching for ‘Category of Offence: Others’, ‘Specific Offence: forcible entry/ejectment and related offences’ for the sample years. A total of 619 male names were returned, excluding female suspects. Of these, 214 are recorded as ‘no true bill’.

In only one case can it be determined with certainty that a woman stood before a trial jury for a forcible entry and was found guilty.94 _{Eight women received a punishment for}

the offence: three were imprisoned (37.5 percent) and five were fined (62.5 percent), though it is uncertain whether these women had pleaded guilty or were convicted by a jury.95 _{There are some differences evident in the sentences received by male and female}

suspects. Punishments are only apparent for 32 male suspects in the sample: 31 were fined (96.9 percent) and only one was imprisoned. Although women were more likely to suffer incarceration than men, the length of their imprisonment was considerably shorter: one month, in comparison with the six month sentence imposed on the male suspect.

Men also tended to receive larger fines. For women, fines ranged from sixpence to one shilling, whereas 10 male suspects received fines of five shillings. Robert Shoemaker found that in Quarter Sessions indictments, women generally received much smaller fines than men, even when the women admitted to their crimes. This led him to conclude that for petty offenders, their sentences were influenced by their sex as much as their social status and the gravity of the crime, and women benefitted from the fact that they were ‘not viewed as dangerous criminals’.96 _{Shoemaker’s observations are}

based solely on misdemeanours, and are therefore not directly comparable to the more serious crimes tried at the Great Sessions courts, but the gaol files do not give the impression that the differing sentences handed to women were a result of them being considered less dangerous. It could be argued that more practical considerations were taken into account. Peter King has suggested that pleas of unemployment, poverty, and economic hardship made by women were more likely to be received sympathetically by juries, and that material conditions played an important role in the decision-making.97

The court may have felt that women did not have the resources to pay larger sums of money, which may also explain the jury’s greater willingness to imprison them, rather than women being less in need of punishment.98 _{This should not be misinterpreted as}

gendered leniency towards women. It was arguably a wholly practical consideration of

94 _{NLW GS 4/299/4.68 (1752).}

95 _{For the three women who were imprisoned, see NLW GS 4/747/1.39 (1786). For those who suffered a}

fine, see NLW GS 4/521/1.1 (1747); NLW GS 4/299/4.68 (1752); NLW 4/1007/1.30 (1762); NLW GS 4/254/1.30 (1773); NLW GS 4/747/1.39 (1786).

96 _{Robert B. Shoemaker, Prosecution and Punishment: Petty Crime and the Law in London and Rural}

Middlesex, c.1660-1725 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 158-59.

97 _{King, Crime and Law, 263.} 98 _{King, Crime and Law, 192.}

the effects that punishments would have on the suspects, and how this would impact on their families and, ultimately, the parish.

6.8. Conclusion

There are clear similarities between the offences discussed in this chapter. In committing forcible rescue and forcible entry and detainer, the women were inverting prescriptive gendered stereotypes about the role of the rescuer and the rescued. There is firm evidence of women’s use of violence, as well as less overt methods, to protect or regain their property, and to uphold their household’s integral reputation. The cases confirm that they could act both defensively and offensively to protect household members and chattels, either with or without assistance from a spouse. It was also not solely married women who were driven to such actions. Singlewomen and widows were equally compelled to act in order to protect their perceived rights, or to support their families, friends and neighbours.

The nature of the crimes often meant that community members were pitted against each other. Evidence regarding boundaries and ownership of land or property was frequently contested, with oral memories proving central in some cases. As the large percentage of ignoramus indictments, and the similar number of guilty and not guilty verdicts for forcible rescue, suggests, it was difficult to assign culpability. Where sentences were passed, fines or imprisonment were common. However, there are clear differences in the treatment of women who rescued individuals to those who rescued livestock, as well as differences in the treatment of men and women for forcible entry and detainer.