Everyone knows about the punishments meted out to lawbreakers
in Tudor times. So much so, that the general impression is that all felons were
hanged, even if they stole a loaf of bread. It isn’t that simple, though. There were statutes which
covered the whole of England, but punishment varied throughout the kingdom. Whereas
some Justices would indeed hang a man for stealing a loaf or rabbit to feed his
family, others would not.
It is also a myth that many people were racked. There was
only one rack in the whole of England and that was in the Tower of London and
saved for traitors and heretics. Capital crimes attracted the most horrific
punishments, although England never descended to the horrors of the
inquisition. Torture was technically illegal unless sanctioned by the monarch. Poisoners
were subject to being boiled alive, a law that Henry VIII rescinded. High-born
traitors were beheaded. Others were either hanged or hanged, drawn and
quartered.
In the reign of Edward I (1272-1307), Richard Puddlicott
robbed the royal treasury. He begged Edward to show clemancy and not hang, draw
and quarter him. Edward, not known for his mercy, agreed. Puddlicott was hanged until he was dead. Then
Edward had him skinned and his hide nailed to the door of Westminster Abbey to
warn any others who might try to rob him.
Minor crimes were punished with less ferocity and sometimes
with a fitting ‘punishment fits the crime’ sentence. For example a fishmonger
who sold tainted fish would be put in the pillory and rotten fish hung round
his neck. The Justices might sentence him to stay there from an hour to 24
hours, regardless of the weather. Drunkenness was also punished by a stay in
the pillories or stocks, usually situated in the market place.
Whilst so imprisoned, the malefactors were the constant target of
abuse, both verbal and physical. Not just rotten food was aimed at them, but horse dung, bloody
animal entrails from the fleshers stalls, anything that could be thrown. It was not unknown for the prisoners to be doused immediately before
being released - and not with water. Imagine a drunken roisterer on a frosty February morning, now
sober, having endured hours of such abuse, extremely cold and then released but
only after being soaked by freezing horse urine. I wonder if that would make
our present-day rampagers think twice before re-offending?
The ducking stool was used for alleged witches or nagging
wives. If a suspected witch sank, she was innocent, so whatever happened, she
was doomed. Any woman found guilty of malicious gossip or false accusation was liable to be
punished by the brank or gossip’s bridle. The offender's head was imprisoned in an iron cage with a tongue lever
covered in spikes. It was excruciatingly painful, especially as the populace
were permitted to beat the woman whilst she wore it. Often, sufferers died. Some media bosses and editors might find that interesting.
Branding was common. The Earl of Somerset in the first days
of Edward VI’s reign passed a law that any man out of work for three days was
to be branded with a V for Vagrant and sold into slavery for two years. Most
Justices thought this too severe and it was not enforced by all courts.
Obviously, Somerset would have fallen down in shock at the theory of state
benefits. Other brands included a T for thieves, who could also have their ears
clipped or a hand amputated, a visible symbol of their crime. Not all murderers
were executed. An M brand denoted a murderer – perhaps it depended on the
intent of the criminal for there was a crime of ‘Man’s Slaughter’ for
unintentional killings.
Those women who committed adultery as well as prostitutes were
liable to have their heads shaved and be paraded around the town in a cart.
Beatings were common and most towns had a ‘whipping post’, but that was better
than being hanged! Beggars were beaten as far as the parish boundaries and cast
out.
Clerics were very much involved in the formation of some
laws. So much so that self-interest led to the ‘benefit of clergy’ plea,
whereby anyone who could recite the first lines of Psalm 150 was given a much
lesser punishment, usually a fine. It is interesting to muse on current
clerical scandals and think that nothing has changed.
Most interesting. Do we know the number of the population was at these given periods? Were punishments harsher at times following national unrest, ie soldiers returning from war, or not so harsh in times of famine?
ReplyDeleteIn 1520, the population in England and Wales was about 2 million, of which 6% lived in London. By 1560, that had risen to 2.9 million and by 1599, 4 million, by which time 3% of the population lived in London. Increasing enclosure by landowners so that they could graze sheep and sell the wool in Europe meant that poverty was a real problem because the poor had no land to till. As in all times of difficulty, that was when civil unrest was high. Somerset's dictum referred to in the post was partly due to the failure of 3 harvests in succeeding years. The exchequer was always short of money, as was the monarch and so soldiers were frequently unpaid and that led to further lawlessness. One of Henry VIII's nicknames was 'Old Coppernose' because he debased the silver coinage to be one third silver and two thirds copper.
ReplyDeleteHow fascinating. And to think that the population of England and Wales alone now stands at around 56m. A huge change in 400 years.
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff. From what little reading I've done on the period, it seems that justice, as we understand it, was somewhat arbitrary and that there was definitely one law for the rich and many others for the poor. Not much changes, other than that these days the courts are a little less transparent in their cow-towing to those in authority or with wealth, eh?
ReplyDelete