If you always wanted to know on the dot what sort of crimes merited being eviscerate and quarter 100 of days ago , or how young a person could be and still be sentenced to demise for theft , it ’s all just a click off — thanks to theOld Bailey Online ’s search engine . The cardinal reprehensible motor lodge of England has transcribe and uploaded hundreds of court of justice papers traverse the years 1674 to 1913 , and made them all searchable by crime , penalization , verdict , name , or age . ( A brief warning : The Old Bailey archive are elaborated records of the criminal justice system at a clip when “ roughshod and strange ” was more of a challenge than a criticism . The testimony can be brutal and expressed . Also , their spelling was much dissimilar / terrible . )
Below is an launching to the records of the Old Bailey — and the glance they allow into what biography was like for alleged criminals centuries ago .
1. The Accused: Jane Kent (1682)
The Offense:“Witch - craft "
The Case : Jane Kent was accused by her neighbour , a man named Chamblet , of “ using several Diabolick Arts . ” They had an contention over the sales agreement of a Sus scrofa , which led to Kent “ first spellbind the swine , ” then causing the expiry of Chamblet ’s daughter , who passed aside from “ swell all over her Body , which was discolour after a unknown rate . ” His married woman was soon also smite . ( It ’s impossible to know what illness had actually struck the Chamblet kinfolk , but a phone number of differentparasites can stimulate those symptom . ) What followed was a rundown of every hag trial cliché Hollywood has since exposed us to — except in this case , someone ’s biography was on the transmission line . Kent was canvas and detect to have the say - tale “ devil ’s teat ” on her back , and “ unusual hole behind her ears . ” For further validation , Chamblet boiled a mixture of his wife ’s urine , fingernail clippings , and fuzz clippings in a clay commode , which result , he testified , in see the beldam ’s voice at his very door,“and that she Screimed out as if she were Murdered , and that the next Clarence Day she appear to be much swelled and bloated . ”
The Verdict : Not shamed . As airtight as the evidence was , urine - induce crone shriek and all , Kent had a solid defense . “But she producing Evidence that she had lived honestly , and was a great pains - taker , and that she went to Church , with many other Circumstances , the Jury find her not Guilty . "
2. The Accused:Mall. Floyd (1674)
The Offense : Temporary thieving of kid , permanent theft of child ’s clothes
The Case : Mall . Floyd was noted in the casebook of the Old Bailey as having discovered a “ particularly singular ” kind of crime . The clothing belonging to the wealthy of the geological era would have been made of the fine lace and cloth — and worth a expectant business deal of money . The easiest way to snag some of these favorable screw thread ? By taking them from small nipper , of course .
In this finicky case , Floyd told “ a jolly little Child of about 8 years ” that she had been sent by her mother . She took the girl to a tavern far from abode , then demanded that she remove her clothes so they would n’t be spoiled in the rain . Next , she overlook the child off at a crowded funeral in a churchyard , abandoning her in the gang . The child “ fell a yell , and was brought home that Night by some honest Inhabitant there abouts , where she separate all the deplorable Story , but could not in the least declare who it was had suffice her so , or where she might be heard of . ”Good fortune , however , soon played a hand , and “ the very next daylight the Childs Mother blow over up Holbourn , saw some of her Childs things advert up in a Shop to be sold , which She cognise again and acquainted the people of the Shop there with , who after some time and much trouble base out this Woman that sold the things to them . ”
The Verdict : Guilty . Mall . Floyd squeal and was sent to Newgate prison , but not for long : “ Having been often a disturbed Lady before in that Inchanted Castle ” ( it seems as though tourist court newsperson were allowed to have a sense of mood back in the day ! ) , she was sentence " to be Transported to some of the Plantations beyond the Seas . "
3. The Accused: Hester Gregory (1725)
The crime : pretender
The Case : John Cockerell , a somewhat well - to - do piece in his 60s , is said to have frequently bothered a distaff champion of his about finding him a married woman . Arichwife . He turned down many compeer that did not play his gamy standards . So when his friend Hester Gregory , apparently sick of his pestering , introduced him to “ a very agreeable unseasoned Lady that is lately come from Barbadoes”—and who supposedly possess a vast plantation bringing in tremendous income — he married her within two days ’ time . Though there was no material way to check her chronicle checked out — remember , this was pre - Catfish — he was assure by Gregory and her pal that he had trip upon a goldmine , and that he comfortably grab her before her many other possible suitors did . And so they married and spent the night together , thus cementing the man and wife according to the law of the day .
The undermentioned afternoon Cockerell found his bride lead tea . According to Cockerell ’s deposition , the following conversation took position :
Enraged , Cockerell went to Gregory and demanded to know how she could be so wicked . Her answer :
Unsatisfied , Cockerell tried to gather grounds that his wife was a cleaning woman of ill - repute , but there was none . He then tried to bribe her into a divorce , predict her a small nub if she complied , which she , of course , would not . Thatwouldhave made her a woman of ill - repute .
Verdict : Not guilty . The shifty marriage broker was let go , and greedy Mr. Cockerell was stuck with his penniless married woman . The court found that since Cockerell had taken the union vow “ for richer or hapless ” he himself had negate his whole case . As the court records DoS , “ That he remove her ( not for the rice beer of a Barbadoes Plantation ) but to go with her after God ’s Ordinance ; that is , for the Procreation of Children , and for the mutual Society and Help of each other . ”
4. The Accused: Mary Broadbent, age 10 years (1726)
The Offense : slip
The Case : Mary ’s father Paul ran a Samuel Barber shop class with his second married woman . Mary ’s mother — and Paul ’s first wife — had died two old age prior . According to the record , Mary was often mail over to the neighbors for “ succor . ” At the trial , Paul Broadbent state that he had been losing odds and ends ( include apron , plates , and rags ) for quite some time . He had long surmise that his daughter was stealing from him after falling in with the ill - mannered children next door . One day , he “ mist the stoppage of a fry ’s Coat , and a fabric that I used to wipe my Razors on . I and my Wife examin’d her , and she confest , and so we carry her , and the other 3 Prisoners , before Justice Ellis , and he trust them to Newgate . ”
In oecumenical , it ’s plausibly not idealistic parenting to fetch serious charges against your 10 - year - old , but in Broadbent ’s type , it was an especially lousy move . The watcher for the defense totally destroyed whatever credibility he may have had . The neighbor mother accused of being the ringleader of little stealer had , by Broadbent ’s own omission , been a friend to his deceased wife , and many of the “ steal object ” he ’d receive in her habitation had been give frankly . Plus , she was a part - prison term amah to many , all of whom testified to her honesty . His own sister denounce him , secern the court :
Verdict : Not guilty . In an age when a tike of 10 could be charged for theft of a rag and branded , pilloried , or transported to Australia , the court give down a decidedly modern ruling : “ And the Court thinking it improper she should go to live again with her Father and Step - Mother , convey him to an Agreement , to allow his Sister Mrs. Hudson , 10 lb . a Year for the Child ’s Board and Apparel , and order’d him to pay the Prisoner ’s Fees . ”
5. The Accused: Elizabeth Lylliman (1675)
The Offense : piffling treason
The showcase : Elizabeth spend most of her test at the Old Bailey wailing and crying out that she wanted to see her married man . The panel was not impressed by the performance : “ This appeared to the Court to be but a mad variety of Artifice , design out of her feigned passionate Zeal to her Murthered Husband to take off the suspicion of her being implemental to his death . ”According to royal court record book , her husband had leave his home and gone to take over a neighbour ’s knife in club to cut up a fish for his dinner . here and now afterwards , “ while the Fish was a broyling , the people of the house being gon out of the Room , at their rejoinder , they encounter poor Lylliman with the aforementioned tongue in his body , and the blood streaming out . ”
Elizabeth insisted she was impeccant — never beware that the stabbed man had creep to his doorway , forebode his neighbor over , and “ then imbracing him , squall out high-priced Countryman , my married woman has stab’d me with a tongue I borrowed of you , which parole he retell 3 or 4 times , and then bury down dead . ” So yes : she was lying . But Elizabeth ’s real problem was that she had bump off herhusband . In 17th - 100 England , the husband was look at as the king of the household . To shoot down a king , of course , is n’t just murder ; it ’s treason . Thus , killing one ’s husband resulted in a charge of “ petty treason . ” do it to say no merciful noose awaited Elizabeth Lylliman .
Verdict : Guilty . Ruled the court : “ Elizabeth Lylliman , the person that killed her husband , her crime being petty Treason , had judgment to be burned to ashes . ”
6. The Accused: Lodowick Muggleton (1677)
The Offense : announce himself the Last Witness of God with “ downright and irrevokable power to save and damn whom [ he ] pleas’d . ”
The Case : Muggleton start his adult life as a sartor , eventually deciding the craft did n’t accommodate him . For his second career , he decided to declare himself a religious figure , claiming he wielded more earthly power than God himself . Muggleton proclaimed that " the whole power of Witnessing , Blessing , and Cursing , devolved into his hand , which he as impiously practised upon the least insult or opponent ; pronouncing somebody damn’d by their special Names , blasphemonsly adding , That God , Angels , or Men could not afterwards spare them . ' "
In other quarrel : Should Our Heavenly Muggleton decide that the name “ Brown ” was not holy enough , all Browns were damned for eternity . End of narration . But even more problematic in the eyes of the British government was Muggleton ’s publication of religious book and tracts , with which he “ easily seduced diver debile and instable people ( specially of the Female - Sex ) to become his proselyte , who from him call themselves Muggletonians . ”
A foray on his mansion farm a great many of these piece of writing , " filled with many wicked Passages so horrid and blue , that we think fit to spare the Christian modesty of each pious pinna , by not repeating the same here . ”
Verdict : Guilty . To the grief of devout Muggletonians everywhere , Muggleton was sentenced to “ stand three sidereal day in the Pillory at three the most eminent places of the City , with Papers prove his Crime . ” Even more disdainful : his heretic writings where to be chopped into three lump and cauterize over his head during each pillorying . Muggleton was also send to clink until he could pay his staggering 500 pound fine . We can only imagine the horrific punishment awaiting his persecutor once they introduce Muggleton eternal damnation in the Muggletonian hereafter .
