The Wretched Women: The stories of some of the women sentenced to transportation by the Lancashire courts between 1818 and 1825

1.

INTRODUCTION

For a number of years I have been interested in the stories of 19th century criminals, particularly those who were sentenced to be transported. This stemmed from my own family history research, which culminated in 2018 with the publication of my book Transported, based on the transportation of a distant ancestor in 1832. One day, whilst researching other convict stories that could form the basis for another book, I came across an appeal file, and there buried in it was a list of 20 or so women who in 1824 were languishing in Lancaster gaol under sentence of transportation, some of whom had been there for a number of years and the oldest of whom was aged 76. A copy of this document is shown in Table 1.

Intrigued by this, I set out to see if I could discover their stories and what happened to them. To do this I had to research a number of aspects, including principally the differences, if any, between the treatment handed out to women rather than men, since Transported only concerns itself with male convicts.

As 20 or so individual stories is not sufficient for a book, I have expanded the number to 138 by including other women who were sentenced to transportation at the same court sessions as the original 20, and any other women who were convicted at different court sessions in Lancashire and transported on the same ships as them. This book covers a period of six years between March 1818 and May 1824, 12 different trial sessions and 10 separate voyages to Australia.

Being tried and/or convicted in Lancashire did not imply that the defendants only came from that county. Many of the 138 women featured in this book were not born in Lancashire. Those that were not came from places as far afield as Scotland, Ireland and Southern England.

In case the reader has not previously read anything about the 19th century criminal justice system, or indeed transportation, set out below are some introductory facts about both.

2

19TH CENTURY JUSTICE SYSTEM

The expression the ‘Bloody Code’ came from this time and was used to refer to the system of crime and punishment in the United Kingdom in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and which owed its name to the number of offences for which people were automatically given the death penalty (more than 200), including crimes considered trivial by today’s norms. A further 200 crimes attracted an automatic sentence of transportation. Added to this was that the Assize court at Lancaster had a reputation of sentencing more people to death than any other court outside of London, and as a consequence Lancaster had become known as the ‘Hanging Town’.

Criminal trials at that time were conducted very differently than they are today. They were very quick (perhaps lasting less than one hour¹), and frequently there were no lawyers, particularly for the accused. The victim of the alleged crime often acted as the prosecutor themselves. Judges and juries had far more flexibility than today. In effect, a trial was a confrontation between the prosecutor (who could be a lawyer) and the defendant. The latter’s sole form of defence was to explain the evidence given against them. Both sides were able to call witnesses. By modern-day standards the defendant was at a serious disadvantage.

When someone was accused of a crime, they would be taken before a local magistrate to see if there was a case to answer and, if it was determined that this was so, someone accused of a felony² would be committed (remanded) to gaol to await their trial. Before 1826 bail was rarely granted, but the prosecutor, and sometimes prosecution witnesses, would be ‘bound over’ to appear at the trial, in the form a ‘Recognizance’.³

The clerk of the courts would review and draw up the indictment. This part of the process was very important because the way the offence was defined by the clerk would determine the punishment in the event of the defendant being found guilty. Before the trial commenced, a grand jury would be convened locally, consisting of prominent individuals who rarely had any legal training, and whose role was to review the indictments and decide whether or not there was a case to go to trial.

Defendants brought to trial were encouraged to plead not guilty, because a confession would leave no flexibility in the punishment handed down. Defendants were not required to testify on oath, but nor was there a right to remain silent. Defendants were expected to disprove the evidence presented against them and establish their innocence. The assumption was that if defendants were innocent, they ought to be able to prove it. Unfortunately, all too often they would not be aware of the evidence against them until it was presented in court, and so would have little opportunity to prepare a response. Defence witnesses, unlike prosecution witnesses, could not be compelled to appear in court.

Unlike today, a single jury might hear many cases in any given day, one after another, rather than a fresh jury being convened for each trial. Gradually, as lawyers started to be used by the prosecution, and to some extent by the defendants, the role of judges changed. Where there were no lawyers, the judge would examine witnesses and the defendant, and his summing up could include his personal views on the merits of the case or otherwise. Later on the role of judges started to become more like that which we would recognise today; that of playing referee between the opposing counsels, arbitrating on matters of law and summing up for the jury.

An appeal court was not established until 1907. Before that date, prisoners and/or their relatives and/or friends could petition (appeal to) the Monarch, through the Home Department⁴, for clemency, and whether or not this was granted would often depend upon the original presiding judge’s sentencing recommendation at the time of the conviction. Everything hinged upon whether or not a convicted person was deemed to be a ‘fit and proper person to receive the Monarch’s mercy’. From looking at appeals/petitions that have survived, the conviction itself was not appealed, since that could be seen to be challenging the integrity of the presiding judge and/or the jury. People would appeal against the sentence, hoping either for a reduction, or to be allowed to serve it in gaol in the UK.

An article published in The Scotsman newspaper on 28 April 1824, entitled Crimes and Offences in England and Wales in 1823 and the in the Seven Years Ending 1823, revealed some interested facts. At this time the population of England and Wales was around 12 million people. The article can be summarised as follows:

Those who were not executed had their sentences mitigated (commuted) to a sentence that ranged from transportation for life, to a free pardon, or to a short period of imprisonment or anything in between. It should not be assumed that only murderers were executed, because that was not the case. As the century wore on, new laws were passed that relaxed some of the previous laws and allowed mitigation of previous automatic sentences. The Carlisle Journal dated 2 May 1840 reported that the ‘Society for the Suppression of Capital Punishment’ had published the following statistics for England and Wales:

The ‘Society for the Suppression of Capital Punishment’ concluded that the commutation of the sentence of death did not show any increase in the rate of those crimes, thus demonstrating that the death sentence was not a deterrent.

By way of comparison, in 2019 about 100,000 people stood trial in the Crown Courts, which is about a nine-fold increase, whereas the population has increased about five-fold.

LANCASHIRE’S COURTS

In the 19th century there were two types of courts in England that could impose sentences of transportation. These were the Assizes and the Quarter Sessions.

The courts of Assize and its judges, travelled across the six ‘circuits’ of England and Wales, setting up courts and summoning juries at the various assize towns. In Lancashire’s case, as part of the ‘Northern and North Eastern Circuit’, this court was held at Lancaster Castle. The Assizes dealt with the most serious of cases, and only it could pass sentence of death. The courts sat twice a year.

The courts of Quarter Sessions were local courts held four times a year from 1388 until they were abolished in 1972 and replaced together with the courts of Assize by a single-tier Crown Court. Those courts in Lancashire sat at Lancaster, Liverpool, Preston, Salford and Wigan.

In addition to criminal jurisdiction the Quarter Sessions also had some civil jurisdiction. Before the establishment of county councils in 1888, the Quarter Sessions court had responsibility for administrative functions, such as: repair of roads and bridges, highway diversions, construction and maintenance of county buildings, administration of the county gaols, supervision of lunatics, supervision of petty sessions⁵, licensing of public houses, supervision of the poor laws, the county militia, the police, and the setting of county rates. Each court had a ‘clerk of the peace’, and he was charged with looking after the county’s records. This was a well-paid job, but usually the ‘worthy citizen’ who had been appointed as clerk of the peace employed a solicitor to do the work for him. Before the start of each Quarter Session, the Chairman of the grand jury, who did not have to be legally qualified, would relate to the grand jury, in summary terms, what sort of cases they could expect to hear that session, and also whether or not there had been any new Acts of Parliament or new regulations relating to their administrative functions.

The qualification to sit as juror, for either court, at this point in time, was governed by property either through ownership or tenancy, and of course all jurors were men.

In order to try to provide some context, set out below are some facts relating to criminal trials in Lancashire in the periods in question.

Assize Courts

Each court sitting saw between 100 and 130 cases, of which between 60–80 per cent of defendants were convicted. The number of women standing trial represented between 10–20 per cent of the total, and they had comparable conviction rates. Of those found guilty, up to half would have been given a sentence of death, but the rate for women tended to be about half of that. However, the overwhelming majority of death sentences were respited. Numbers of around one-third (for both sexes) of those found guilty were sentenced to be transported by the court.

Quarter Sessions

The number of people standing trial varied greatly from session to session, but higher numbers tended to be seen during the autumn and winter months. The maximum number of cases I found in any one session was in excess of 420 and the smallest number was around 180. The split between men and women was comparable with that seen at the Assizes, and there was no noticeable difference in the conviction rates. One point of note was that, in an 1821 newspaper account about the Salford Quarter Sessions held in April of that year, it says that nearly one half of the accused were under the age of 21. The types of crimes dealt with by these courts included:

•Animal theft – cows, sheep, pigs and horses

•Returning from transportation before the sentence had expired

•Bigamy

•Body stealing

•Burglary

•Counterfeiting and forgery and distribution of coins, bank notes and other financial instruments

•Fraud and embezzlement

•Highway robbery

•Manslaughter

•Murder

•Pickpocketing

•Poaching

•Receiving stolen goods

•Sacrilege

•Sexual crimes

•Stealing lead from buildings

•General theft

•Assault

In some of the convicts’ stories, I have been able to identify the cost charged for prosecuting them. In isolation that might not mean a great deal. From some research, I can state that, during the Victorian period, wages for servants could be as little as £10 per year; but that probably took account of bed and board provided. For unskilled women, such as match-women, they might be able to earn £30 per year. For clerks and shopkeepers it could be £50 per year. So it will be seen that it was not impossible for prosecution costs to equate to most of an annual salary, which of course shows how impossible it would have been for most defendants to hire advocates.

LANCASHIRE’S GAOLS

At the time that these women were tried and convicted the principal gaols in Lancashire were: Lancaster Castle County Gaol (‘Lancaster gaol’), Preston County House of Correction (‘Preston gaol’), the New Bailey gaol in Salford, Kirkdale County Gaol and House of Correction (‘Kirkdale gaol’), and Liverpool New Borough Gaol and House of Corrections (‘Liverpool gaol’). In addition to these there were numerous local lock-ups where prisoners were often initially detained before being taken before the local magistrate. Almost 100 lock-ups have been identified as being in operation during the 19th century, and these include everything from an ordinary house in Blackrod, to police stations, to a building in Freckleton called ‘the cage’. At this time gaols also housed debtors and, in some cases, lunatics.

It is difficult to know how many people may have been detained in these places, but in 1818 a return to Parliament showed that there had been a total of 5,575 individuals committed to gaol that year in Lancashire; split:

•Lancaster – 466

•Preston – 936

•Liverpool including Kirkdale – 1877

•Salford – 2296

This number includes those remanded as well as those serving sentences. However, it is not clear as to whether or not it includes debtors, who at that time could be sent to prison for being in debt.

Although gaol conditions had improved as a result of the prison reformer John Howard’s 1777 report, conditions within the gaols remained grim. Conditions varied from gaol to gaol, but some of the common themes that might be encountered would be:

•Women prisoners were not automatically segregated from men, as it was not until the 1823 Gaols Act that this became required.

•The costs of running gaols were met by local ratepayers.

•Prior to 1824, prisoners were allowed to supplement their diets by either spending part of their earnings or through the receipt of gifts from family and friends. After this was banned, the death rates of prisoners increased.

•Disease was rife, but most gaols had access to surgeons.

•Not every gaoler received a salary, and those that did not charged a levy or fee not only on those convicted but on those acquitted, who would not be able to leave until it was paid. In Lancaster he charged 13s. 4d. to those discharged.

•The gaoler received 1s. per mile for each prisoner sent from either Preston or Manchester to Lancaster.

The prisoner reformer Elizabeth Fry⁶, whose work was conducted under the auspices of her ‘Ladies Committee’ (the Committee of the British Ladies Society for the Promoting the Reformation of Female Prisoners), said that many comparatively innocent women who entered prisons left them depraved and profligate.

Lancaster Castle County Gaol

Lancaster Castle had been a gaol since medieval times and did not finally close its doors until 2011. During this time there were many evolutions of the gaol. For instance, in 1792 the female gaol was updated, and in 1794 so was the male gaol.

At about this time it cost in excess of £1,000 annually to run the gaol, which could house up to 500 prisoners. This cost was met by the local community and so they were always keen to minimise the expense, and it was the local courts that would oversee the running of the gaol. At the 1819 Lent Assizes the Lancaster Gazette reported that the Grand Jurors had inspected the gaol and generally considered the operation of it satisfactory, given the constraints of its size, which did not allow for the proper classification of prisoners. They were hopeful that the planned new building work would alleviate that, but they also expressed the hope that the practise of keeping people sentenced to be transported in the county gaols (Preston gaol, Kirkdale gaol, New Bailey gaol etc.) would be discontinued, as the county gaols did not have the facilities for providing the type of hard labour associated with such sentences.

Preston County House of Correction

Preston gaol first opened in 1789 and continues to function today, although, today, only for male prisoners. It had capacity for up to 440 prisoners.

The New Bailey Gaol in Salford

The New Bailey gaol operated between 1787–1868 and was located on New Bailey Street, which is beside the River Irwell. It had capacity for up to 750 prisoners.

Kirkdale County Gaol and House of Correction

This institution was known by many names: Kirkdale House of Corrections, Kirkdale County Gaol, Kirkdale Prison, and Liverpool County House of Corrections. This institution operated between 1819–1892 and had a prisoner capacity in excess of 500. It was located two miles from the centre of Liverpool, on North Dingle Lane, Kirkdale.

The prison reform movement had also begun by this time, and the following is an extract from the ‘Fourth Annual Report of the Committee of the British Society⁷ for the reformation of Female Prisoners’, and relates to a report about Kirkdale gaol:

The Committee have received very gratifying intelligence from the parent of another young woman, whose case affords the most signal instance of real improvement that has come under the notice of the committee; she having for years led a very abandoned and dissolute life. Her mother, who resides at a distance of nearly forty miles from Liverpool, had repeatedly sought her out in that town, and taken her home, whence she as often returned to her vicious habits. During the term of her imprisonment, she was awakened to a serious sense of her situation, and of poignant regret for the anguish she had caused her mother, to whom she expressed an earnest wish to return if she would once more receive her. Her mother’s residence was with some difficulty traced, and on hearing the above particulars, she was much affected, and joyfully and thankfully availed herself of the wishes of her daughter, for whose restoration she said she had not failed to offer her daily prayer, but had nearly given her up for lost. The young woman had been at home twelve months, when her mother wrote to inform the Committee of her exemplary stability, and to express their mutual heartfelt thanks.

Liverpool New Borough Gaol and House of Corrections

Also known as Liverpool Borough Gaol, this institution operated between 1811–1855 and had a capacity of in excess of 100 prisoners.

GAOLS OUTSIDE OF LANCASHIRE APPEARING IN THIS BOOK

In addition to the gaols in Lancashire, I want to provide a few details about the other gaols, both in England and Australia, where the convicts in this story were locked up.

General Penitentiary (‘Millbank’)

The General Penitentiary was located in London, on the banks of the Thames, on the site of what is today ‘Tate Britain’. Quite a few convicts, the subject of this book, were sent to Millbank to serve their sentence of ‘transportation’. I have not been able to determine the selection criteria.

Millbank first opened to female prisoners in 1816, with male prisoners following the year after. In 1822, 452 male prisoners and 326 female prisoners spent time there. The regime was harsh and unpleasant. Prisoners were not allowed to communicate with one another in any way during the first half of their sentences. It was one person per cell, and they had to undertake non-productive tasks, such as turning a screw until it clicked, and having a set number of rotations to undertake before they were allowed to stop. Another ‘activity’ was the treadmill. One can only imagine the effect this enforced isolation and silence had on the women’s mental and emotional well-being.

The thought behind this regime was that hard work, coupled with religious instruction, would make the inmates reflect and reform. The prison was built on a marsh, and this allowed disease to flourish. There was a cholera outbreak in the early 1820s, and there were reports of scurvy and dysentery, to say nothing of the effect on the mental health on the inmates. Millbank finally closed its doors in 1890, and was demolished two years later.

Female Factories in New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land

Whilst women might find themselves in one of the many gaols dotted around New South Wales (NSW) and Van Diemen’s Land (VDL) that were also used for male convicts, a unique set of facilities grew up for women. These were called ‘Factories’ or ‘Female Factories’, and they were a cross between houses of correction or workhouses and prisons. Inmates were sent there to work and/or undergo punishments.

In NSW the first encounter with a Female Factory would be with the one at Parramatta, where women without husbands or jobs would spend long days and nights working under draconian rules for food and shelter. Before the Parramatta Female Factory opened in 1821, unassigned female convicts were crowded into two rooms above Parramatta Gaol, where, among other jobs, they spun wool and linen by day and slept on the floor by night. This busy space was known as the ‘Factory Above The Gaol’.

The women were grouped into three classes: first, second and third. Women in first and second class worked for low wages, as wool pickers, weavers, straw plaiters, seamstresses and hat makers, among other jobs. First class status meant that a woman was available for assignment, which would get her out of the factory. They also had more freedoms in terms of the ability to go to church or see visitors. Second class convicts were not allowed out as they would be on probation, ill, injured or pregnant. Third class or crime class convicts as they were sometimes referred to, were essentially imprisoned and enslaved. Their days were spent