Tag Archives: c18

The Law enters Southwark Mint

We now present another classic piece of ‘Newgate Literature’, featuring adultery, fraud, debt, perjury, sanctuary, murder, court room shenanigans, and an execution to round everything off. But for my purposes the central interest is in the description of law enforcement in the Mint. One John Sayer, Esq., had obtained a warrant to seize his property and estranged wife from the Mint, where she, with her lover and her mother, had taken shelter.

He therefore obtained a warrant of a justice of the peace, and taking with him two constables, and six assistants, went to the house of George Twyford, in the Mint; the constables intimating that they had a warrant to search for a suspected person; for if it had been thought that they were bailiffs, their lives would have been in danger. Having entered the house, they went to a backroom, where Noble, Mrs. Sayer, and Mrs. Salisbury, were at dinner; the door was no sooner open than Noble drew his sword, and stabbing Sayer in the left breast, he died on the spot. The constables immediately apprehended the murderer and the two women; but the latter were so abandoned, that while the peace-officers were conveying them to the house of a magistrate, they did little else than lament the fate of Noble.

Apprehensive that the mob would rise, from a supposition that the prisoners were debtors, a constable was directed to carry the bloody sword before them, in testimony that murder had been committed, which produced the wished-for effect, by keeping perfect peace.

The constables, it appears, were obliged to demonstrate that they were not bailiffs, first by ‘intimating’ that they had a warrant, and then by displaying the murder weapon. Thus assured, the Minters, alert to their presence, let them alone.

In my previous post, Thomas Baston had portrayed the Southwark Minters as honest folk obliged by the unjust threat of the debtors’ prison to set up their ‘Little Republick.’ Although they were determined not to lose their liberty to the bailiff, “they do not in the least resist the Execution of the law in any other particular …. for they give shelter, or Protection unto none, except purely to the Unfortunate in the case of Debt.” This is probably an overstatement, but here we do have an example of the authorities going unhindered in a sanctuary, where the matter at hand does not seem to be debt-related.

But do we have a case where a criminal – as opposed to debtor – was taking refuge within a sanctuary? And is it without a financial aspect? Not, I think, in this affair: it appears to be a matter of civil dispute, rather than criminal law. Furthermore, the occasion for Mrs Sayer seeking refuge was a public notice published by her husband in some newspapers, informing “tradesmen and others” not to grant her credit and disavowing any responsibility for such. Cobbett’s State Trials quotes the mother as saying

she attended her daughter, in the Mint, which she thought a private place, from the resentment of Mr. Sayer, who threatened her daughter’s life

casting it as a sanctuary from ill fame and financial disrepute.

Note also that the unfortunate Sayer had previously sought refuge “within the rules of the Fleet Prison” to escape a false charge of debt by his eventual killer. The ‘rules’ were an area around that jail, where convicted debtors, if they could afford it, were allowed to reside. They also gave their name to “Fleet Marriages”, irregular and clandestine weddings, often without parental approval and sometimes for fraudulent purposes. Such contracts were made in a number of religious peculiars and sanctuaries throughout London, including the Mint.

Money and marital discord are interrelated in this case, and that the Mint is the stage for the denouement is not an accident, but essential to the narrative.

RICHARD NOBLE
 Executed at Kingston, March 28, 1713, For the Murder of Mr. Sayer.

WE forbear to comment upon that part of this shocking transaction which relates to the female sex; and happy should we be, if our duty permitted us to consign to oblivion, imputations upon those who were by nature formed to be the friend and comfort of man. Richard Noble, we are sorry to say, was an attorney at law, and the paramour of Mrs. Sayer, wife of John Sayer, Esq. who was possessed of about one thousand pounds a year, and lord of the manor of Biddesden, in Buckinghamshire. Mr. Sayer does not appear to have been a man of any great abilities, but was remarkable for his good nature and inoffensive disposition. Mrs. Sayer, to whom he was married in 1699, was the daughter of Admiral Nevil, a woman of an agreeable person and brilliant wit; but of such an abandoned disposition as to be a disgrace to her sex. Soon after Mr. Sayer’s wedding, Colonel Salisbury married the Admiral’s widow; but there was such a vicious similarity in the conduct of the mother and daughter, that the two husbands had early occasion to be disgusted with the choice they had made. Mr. Sayer’s nuptials had not been celebrated many days, before the bride took the liberty of kicking him, and hinted that she would procure a lover more agreeable to her mind. Sayer, who was distractedly fond of her, bore this treatment with patience; and at the end of a twelvemonth she presented him a daughter, which soon died: but he became still more fond of her after she had made him a father, and was continually loading her with presents. Mr. Sayer now took a house in Lisle-street, Leicester-fields, kept a coach, and did every thing which he thought might gratify his wife: but her unhappy disposition was the occasion of temporary separations. At times, however, she behaved with more complaisance to her husband, who had, after a while, the honour of being deemed father of another child of which she was delivered; and after this circumstance she indulged herself in still greater liberties than before; her mother, who was almost constantly with her, encouraging her in this shameful conduct. At length a scheme was concerted, which would probably have ended in the destruction of Mr. Sayer and Colonel Salisbury, if it had not been happily prevented by the prudence of the latter. The Colonel taking an opportunity to represent to Mrs. Sayer the ill consequences that must attend her infidelity to her husband, she immediately attacked him with the most outrageous language, and insulted him to that degree that he threw the remainder of a cup of tea at her. The mother and daughter immediately laid hold of this circumstance to inflame the passions of Mr. Sayer, whom they at length prevailed on to demand satisfaction of the colonel. The challenge is said to have been written by Mrs. Sayer, and when the colonel received it, he conjectured that it was a plan concerted between the ladies to get rid of their husbands. However, he obeyed the summons, and going in a coach with Mr. Sayer towards Montague-House, he addressed him as follows: “Son Sayer, let us come to a right understanding of this business. ‘Tis very well known that I am a swordsman, and I should be very far from getting any honour by killing you. But to come nearer to the point in hand, thou shouldst know, Jack, for all the world knows, that thy wife and mine are both what they should not be. They want to get rid of us both at once. If thou shouldst drop, they’ll have me hanged for it after.” There was so much of obvious truth in this remark, that Mr. Sayer immediately felt its force, and the gentlemen drove home together, to the mortification of the ladies. Soon after this affair, Mrs. Sayer went to her house in Buckinghamshire, where an intimacy took place between her and the curate of the parish, and their amour was conducted with so little reserve, that all the servants saw that the parson had more influence in the house than their master. Mrs. Sayer coming to London, was soon followed by the young clergyman, who was seized with the small- pox, which cost him his life. When he found there was no hope of his recovery, he sent to Mr. Sayer, earnestly requesting to see him: but Mrs. Sayer, who judged what he wanted, said that her husband had not had the small-pox, and such a visit might cost him his life; she therefore insisted that her husband should not go; and the passive man tamely submitted to this injunction, though his wife daily sent a footman to enquire after the clergyman, who died without being visited by Mr. Sayer. This gentleman had not been long dead, before his place was supplied by an officer of the guards; but he was soon dismissed in favour of a man of great distinction, who presented her with some valuable china, which she pretended was won at Astrop Wells. About this time Mr. Sayer found his affairs considerably deranged by his wife’s extravagance; on which a gentleman recommended him to Mr. Richard Noble (the subject of our present consideration), as a man capable of being very serviceable to him. His father kept a very refutable coffee-house at Bath, and his mother was so virtuous a woman, that when Noble afterwards went to her house with Mrs. Sayer, in a coach and six, she shut the door against him. He had been well educated, and articled to an attorney of eminence in New Inn, in which he afterwards took chambers for himself; but he had not been in any considerable degree of practice when he was introduced to Mr. Sayer. Soon after his introduction to Mr. Sayer’s family he became too intimate with Mrs. Sayer, and, if report said true, with her mother likewise. However, these abandoned women had other prospects besides mere gallantry, and considering Noble as a man of the world as well as a lover, they concerted a scheme to deprive Mr. Sayer of a considerable part of his estate. The unhappy gentleman, being perpetually teased by the women, at length consented to execute a deed of separation, in which he assigned some lands in Buckinghamshire, to the amount of one hundred and fifty pounds a year to his wife, exclusive of fifty pounds a year for pin-money; and by this deed he likewise covenanted that Mrs. Sayer might live with whom she pleased, and that he would never molest any person on account of harbouring her. Mr. Sayer was even so weak as to sign this deed without having counsel of his own to examine it. Not long after this, Mrs Sayer was delivered of a child at Bath, but that the husband might not take alarm at this circumstance, Noble sent him a letter, acquainting him that he was to be pricked down for high sheriff of Buckinghamshire; and Mrs. Salisbury urged him to go to Holland to be out of the way, and supplied him with some money on the occasion. It does not seem probable that Sayer had any suspicion of Noble’s criminal intercourse with his wife, for, the night before he set out, he presented him with a pair of saddle-pistols and furniture worth above forty pounds. Soon after he was gone, Mrs. Sayer’s maid, speaking of the danger her master might be in at sea, Mrs. Sayer said, “She should be sorry his man James, a poor innocent fellow, should come to any harm; but she should be glad, and earnestly wished that Mr. Sayer might sink to the bottom of the sea, and that the bottom of the ship might come out.” Not long after the husband was gone abroad, Noble began to give himself airs of greater consequence than he had hitherto done. He was solicitor in a cause in the Court of Chancery, in which Mr. Sayer was plaintiff, and having obtained a decree, he obliged the trustees nominated in the marriage articles to relinquish, and assumed the authority of a sole trustee. Mr. Sayer remained in Holland nearly a year, during which time Noble publicly cohabited with his wife; and when her husband returned she refused to live with him; but having first robbed him of above two thousand pounds, in exchequer bills and other effects, she went to private lodgings with Noble, and was shortly after delivered of another child. After Mrs. Sayer had thus eloped from her husband, he caused an advertisement to be inserted in the newspapers, of which the following is a copy:

“Whereas, Mary, the wife of John Sayer, Esq. late of Lisle-street, St. Anne’s, went away from her dwellinghouse, on or about the 23d of May last, in company with Elizabeth Nevil, sister to the said Mary, and hath carried away near one thousand pounds in money, besides other things of a considerable value, and is supposed to go by some other name: he desires all tradesmen and others not to give her any credit, for that he will not pay the same.”

While Mrs. Sayer cohabited with Noble, he was constantly supplied with money but he was not her only associate at that time, for, during his occasional absence, she received the visits of other lovers. Noble now procured an order from the Court of Chancery to take Mr. Sayer in execution for four hundred pounds, at the suit of Mrs. Salisbury, the consequence of a judgment confessed by him, for form’s sake, to protect his goods from his creditors while he was in Holland. Mr. Sayer declared that the real debt was not more than seventy pounds, though artful management and legal expenses had swelled it to the above-mentioned sum. Hereupon Sayer took refuge within the rules of the Fleet Prison, and exhibited his bill in chancery for relief against these suits, and the deed of separation, which he obtained. In the mean time, Mrs. Sayer finding herself liable to be exposed by the advertisement her husband had caused to be inserted in the newspapers, she, with her mother, and Noble, took lodgings in the Mint, Southwark, which was at that time a place of refuge for great numbers of persons of desperate circumstances and abandoned characters. Mr. Sayer having been informed of this, wrote several letters to her, promising that he would forgive all her crimes, if she would return to her duty; but she treated his letters with as much contempt as she had done his person. Hereupon he determined to seize on her by force, presuming that he should recover some of his effects if be could get her into his custody. He therefore obtained a warrant of a justice of the peace, and taking with him two constables, and six assistants, went to the house of George Twyford, in the Mint; the constables intimating that they had a warrant to search for a suspected person; for if it had been thought that they were bailiffs, their lives would have been in danger. Having entered the house, they went to a backroom, where Noble, Mrs. Sayer, and Mrs. Salisbury, were at dinner; the door was no sooner open than Noble drew his sword, and stabbing Sayer in the left breast, he died on the spot. The constables immediately apprehended the murderer and the two women; but the latter were so abandoned, that while the peace-officers were conveying them to the house of a magistrate, they did little else than lament the fate of Noble.

Apprehensive that the mob would rise, from a supposition that the prisoners were debtors, a constable was directed to carry the bloody sword before them, in testimony that murder had been committed, which produced the wished-for effect, by keeping perfect peace. The prisoners begged to send for counsel, which being granted, Noble was committed for trial, after an examination of two hours; but the counsel urged so many arguments in favour of the women, that it was ten o’ clock at night before they were committed. Soon afterwards this worthless mother and daughter applied to the Court of King’s Bench to be admitted to bail, which was refused them. The coroner’s inquest having viewed Mr. Sayer’s body, it was removed to his lodgings within the rules of the Fleet, in order for interment; and three days afterwards they gave a verdict, finding Noble guilty of wilful murder, and the women of having aided and assisted him in that murder. On the evening of the 12th of March, 1713, they were put to the bar at Kingston, in Surrey, and having been arraigned on the several indictments, to which they pleaded not guilty, they were told to prepare for their trials by six o’ clock on the following morning. Being brought down for trial at the appointed time, they moved the court that their trials might be deferred till the afternoon, on the plea that some material witnesses were absent: but the court not believing their allegations, refused to comply with their request. It was imagined that this motion to put off their trials was founded in the expectation that when the business at the nisi prius bar was dispatched, many of the jurymen might go home, so that when the prisoners had made their challenges, there might not be a number left sufficient to try them, by which they might escape till the next assizes, by which time they hoped some circumstances would happen in their favour. It being ordered that the trials should commence, Mr. Noble and Mrs. Salisbury each challenged twenty of the jury, and Mrs. Sayer challenged thirty-five. Here it should be observed, that all persons indicted for felony, have a right to challenge twenty jurors, and those indicted for petit-treason thirty-five; which may be done without alleging any cause. Happily, however, the sheriff had summoned so great a number of jurors, that the ends of public justice were not, for the present, defeated. Noble’s counsel urged that some of the persons who broke into the house might have murdered Mr. Sayer, or, if they had not, the provocation he had received might be such as would warrant the jury in bringing him guilty of manslaughter only. As the court had sat from six o’ clock in the morning, till one o’ clock the next morning, the jury were indulged with some refreshment before they left the bar; and after being out nine hours, they gave their verdict that Mr. Noble was “Guilty,” and Mrs. Salisbury and Mrs. Sayer were “Not Guilty.” When Mr. Noble was brought to the bar to receive sentence, he addressed the court in the following words:

“My Lord,
I am soon to appear and render an account of my sins to God Almighty. If your lordship should think me guilty of those crimes I have been accused, and convicted of by my jury, I am then sure your lordship will think that I stand in need of such a reparation, such a humiliation for my great offences, such an abhorrence of my past life to give me hopes of a future one, that I am not without hopes that it will be a motive to your lordship’s goodness, that after you have judged and sentenced my body to execution, you will charitably, assist me with a little time for the preservation of my soul. If I had nothing to answer for but killing Mr. Sayer with precedent malice, I should have no need to address myself to your lordship in this manner. It is now too late to take advantage by denying it to your lordship, and too near my end to dissemble it before God. I know, my lord, the danger, the hell that I should plunge myself headlong into; I know I shall soon answer for the truth I am about to say, before a higher tribunal, and a more discerning judge than your lordship, which is only in heaven. I did not take the advantage to kill Mr. Sayer, by the thought or apprehension that I could do it under the umbrage of the laws, or with impunity; nothing was more distant from my thoughts than to remove him out of the world to enjoy his wife (as was suggested) without molestation. Nor could any one have greater reluctance or remorse, from the time of the fact to the hour of my trial, than I have had, though the prosecutors reported to the contrary, for which I heartily forgive them. My counsel obliged me to say on my trial, that I heard Mr. Sayer’s voice before he broke open the door; I told them as I now tell your lordship, that I did not know it was him, till he was breaking in at the door, and then, and not before, was my sword drawn, and the wound given, which wound, as Dr. Garth informed me, was so very slight, that it was a thousand to one that he died of it. When I gave the wound, I insensibly quitted the sword, by which means I left myself open for him to have done what was proved he attempted, and was so likely for him to have effected, viz. to have stabbed me; and his failure in the attempt has not a little excited my surprise. When I heard the company run up stairs, I was alarmed, and in fear; the landlord telling me instantly thereupon, that the house was beset, either for me or himself, added to my confusion. I then never thought or intended to do mischief, but first bolted the fore-door, and then bolted and padlocked the back-door, which was glazed, and began to fasten the shutters belonging to it, designing only to screen myself from the violence of the tumult. When he broke open the door, and not till then, I perceived and knew he was present; and his former threats and attempts, which I so fully proved on my trial, and could have proved much fuller, had not Mrs. Salisbury’s evidence been taken from me, made my fear so great, and the apprehension of my danger so near, that what I did was the natural motion of self-defence, and was too sudden to be the result of precedent malice; and I solemnly declare, that I did not hear or know from Twyford the landlord, or otherwise, that any constable attended the deceased, till after the misfortune happened. It was my misfortune, that what I said as to hearing the deceased’s voice was turned to my disadvantage by the counsel against me, and that I was not entitled to any assistance of counsel, to enforce the evidence given for me, or to remark upon the evidence given against me: which I don’ t doubt would have fully satisfied your lordship and the jury, that what happened was more my misfortune, than my design or intention. If I had been able, under the concern, to remark upon the evidence against me, that Mr. Sayer was but the tenth part of a minute in breaking open the door, it could not then well be supposed by the jury, that I was preparing myself, or putting myself in order to do mischief, which are acts of forethought and consideration; which require much more time than is pretended I could have had from the time I discovered Mr. Sayer; for even from his entry into the house, to the time of the accident, did not amount, as I am informed, to more than the space of three minutes. But I did not discover him before the door gave way. I wish it had been my good fortune, that the jury had applied that to me which your lordship remarked in favour of the ladies, that the matter was so very sudden, so very accidental and unexpected, that it was impossible, to be a contrivance and confederacy, and unlikely that they could come to a resolution in so short a time. I don’t remember your lordship distinguished my case, as to that particular, to be different from theirs, nor was there room for it; for it is impossible for your lordship to believe that I dreamt of Mr. Sayer’s coming there at that time, but on the contrary I fully proved to your lordship, that I went there upon another occasion, that was lawful and beneficial to the deceased; and I had no more time, to think or contrive, than the ladies had to agree or consent. If any thing could be construed favourably on the behalf of such an unfortunate wretch as myself, I think the design I had sometime before begun, and was about finishing that day, might have taken away all suspicion of malice against Mr. Sayer. Must it be thought, my lord, that I only am such a sinner that I cannot repent and make reparation to the persons I have injured? It was denied; but I strongly solicited a reconciliation between Mr. Sayer and his lady, and if this had tended to procure me an easier access to Mrs. Sayer, it would have been such a matter of aggravation to me, that it could not have escaped the remark of the counsel against me, nor the sharpness of the prosecutors present in court; with both I transacted, and to both I appealed, particularly to Mr. Nott, to whom, but the day before this accident, I manifested my desire of having them live together again, and therefore, my lord, it should be presumed I laboured to be reconciled to, and not to revenge myself on, Mr. Sayer. Your lordship, I hope, will observe thus much in my favour, that it was so far from being a clear fact, in the opinion of the jury, that they sat up all night, and believing there was no malice at that time, told your lordship they intended, and were inclined, to find it manslaughter, and, doubting the legality of the warrant, to find it special. I hope this will touch your lordship’s heart so far, as not to think me so ill a man as to deserve (what the best of Christians are taught to pray against) a sudden death!– I confess I am unprepared; the hopes of my being able to make a legal defence, and my endeavours therein having taken up my time, which I wish I had better employed; I beg leave to assure your lordship, upon the words of a dying man, that as none of the indirect practices to get or suppress evidence were proved upon me, so they never sprang from me: and I can safely say, that my blood, in a great measure, will lie at their door who did, because it drew me under an ill imputation of defending myself by subornation of perjury. I would be willing to do my duty towards my neighbour, as well as God, before I die; I have many papers and concerns (by reason of my profession) of my clients in my hands, and who will suffer, if they are not put into some order; and nothing but these two considerations could make life desirable, under this heavy load of irons, and restless remorse of conscience for my sins. A short reprieve for these purposes, I hope will be agreeable to your lordship’s humanity and Christian virtue, whereupon your lordship’s name shall be blest with my last breath, for giving me an opportunity of making peace with my conscience and God Almighty.”

The last request that Noble made was granted: he was allowed some time to settle his spiritual and temporal concerns, and at length suffered at Kingston, on the 28th of March, 1713, exhibiting marks of genuine repentance. As to the women, they were no sooner acquitted, than they set out for London, taking one of the turnkeys with them, to protect them from the assaults of the populace, who were incensed in the highest degree at the singular enormity of their crimes.

Text in the public domain, taken from archive.org.

Thomas Baston’s “Little Republick”

Little is known of Thomas Baston, a printmaker specializing in naval scenes. It appears he was born in the early 1670s, fought the French at sea and perhaps the Irish on land, lived and worked in London, had prints commissioned by William and Mary, and spent the best part of the 1710s in the Kings Bench prison for debt.

It was whilst in prison that he wrote Thoughts on Trade And a Publick Spirit, a wide-ranging attack on corruption, malpractice and fraud, in state, economy and law alike. Against such tyranny, not only does he plead the case of those on the receiving end, the poor debtors and ill-used sailors, but counterposes the example of the Southwark Mint, in a glowing, almost utopian, description of it as a ‘little Republick.’ There, the Minters are honest, honorable and hard-working, regular in government, needing few law books. Justified by both scripture and ‘ancient liberty’, ‘they live very lovingly together.’ An idealistic description without a doubt, but also a radical, political vision of how the whole country could be: ‘the best Way to set this Place on the same level with the rest of the Kingdom is to bring the rest of the Nation on a nearer level with them.’

There is much more to discover about both the man and his book. I’m not even certain he had any first-hand experience of Southwark Mint. Most of the information I’ve found on Baston comes from Charles Harrison Wallace’s site, who notes the suggestive co-incidence of publication and reprinting with crisis: the South Sea Bubble in 1716, the Navy’s Porto Bello disaster of 1728 and the Customs and Excise Bill of 1732. But pending further research, I present his remarkable portrait of a sanctuary.

Of the Mint

from Thomas Baston, Thoughts on Trade and a Publick Spirit, 1716, pp.111-113.

There is a Place on the other Side of the Water, in St. George‘s Parish, call’d the Mint, where a great Number of unfortunate Persons have agreed together to recover a little of ancient Liberty, and rather to loose their Lives than be carry’d to Prison for Debt, tho’ they do not in the least resist the Execution of the law in any other particular; for this little Republick (in this respect) has a very regular Government, executed by their Senators, which they call Clubs, in which some Days every Week they meet together, and examine all Enormities, for they give shelter, or Protection unto none, except purely to the Unfortunate in the case of Debt. They protect no Man who has it in his power to make Satisfaction; no Man who flyes from his Bail; no Cheat of any Sort: In short, they are a tolerable good Sort of People, as Times go, and every whit as honest as their Neighbours, notwithstanding they are call’d by a great many bad Names; yet I am of Opinion they are at worst, very diminutive Rogues in Comparison of those out of the Place; however, their Creditors, and the Bailiffs in general, are mighty Angry with them, because they will not quietly go to Goal, and there be starv’d; tho’ abundance of them, being at liberty to Work, having Time, with their Industry, have paid their Creditors their whole Debt; and others part, according as they can agree, which cou’d never have been done if their Creditors had had their Wills to throw them into Prison. God allow’d several Sanctuaries, or Cities of Refuge; and seeing the Law of our Land allows of none, these Gentlemen allow themselves one. When they catch a Baily (who is an Enemy to their Constitution) they treat him according to the Custom of the Place, which like most of our Courts, is as binding as a Law. ‘Tis true, they make use of very few Law-Books, for which Reason they live very lovingly together, consulting one anothers Good, and Safety, and account their little Cottages happier Dwellings, than Palaces out of the Place, where Bailiffs and their Dogs are continually waiting at their Doors with Writs and Executions. They give Credit to one another, as well in this Place as in any other, according to their Abilities, only upon Honour, and honestly pay when they have it, and better than those out of it, notwithstanding the infallible Security of a Prison, as some foolishly and ridiculously account it. It has been talk’d a long time of putting down this Place, but I believe it will not be easily done without a great deal of Mischief; but the best Way to set this Place on the same level with the rest of the Kingdom is to bring the rest of the Nation on a nearer level with them; that is, to let all the other good People of England have the same Protection for their Persons by Law from a Prison for Debt, as they have by Force.

Resources: Canting Dictionaries

To round off this series of posts on canting language, here are links to those pre-Victorian cant, slang and jargon vocabularies freely available on the internet. More are to be found in various subscription archives; these are not listed here both because they are not open to the general public, and because it is important to show that there are alternatives. The digital vaults should not be the first resort, as much for ethical as economic reasons.

The difficulty with using Archive.org and Google Books, from whence much of the material below can be obtained, is that the metadata, being generated by machine, is generally patchy and frequently erroneous. This makes it all the more important that what the historian does in the course of writing history – compile reference material – is made public, for all to benefit from, as well as allowing the story to be checked.

Three other resources of note are: Pascal Bonenfant’s database of cant, drawn from three dictionaries dating from 1737, 1811 and 1819; LEME, the Lexicons of Early Modern English, is an ingenious resource, although partly behind a paywall so of limited use to non-subscribers; and finally, I have started a list of canting dictionaries through the facilities provided by the Open Library.

Finally, throughout this series of posts, I have drawn on the first volume of Julie Coleman’s excellent History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries.

Thomas Harman, A caveat or warning for common cursetors, vulgarly called vagabonds, (1567). The first of the glossaries, compiled through interrogating suspected rogues. A reprint from 1814 is available from Archive.org. Open Library.

Samuel Rowland, Martin Mark-all Beadle of Bridewell, (1610). In Volume 2 of his collected works. Open Library.

Thomas Shadwell, Glossary to The Squire of Alsatia, (1688). Subject of my previous post.

B.E., Gent., A new dictionary of the terms ancient and modern of the canting crew, in its several tribes, of gypsies, beggers, thieves, cheats, &c. with an addition of some proverbs, phrases, figurative speeches, &c. First published in 1698, the Internet Archive has a scan of an 1899 reprint. Open Library.

Nathan Bailey, Canting Dictionary, (1736), extracted from Bailey, The New Universal Etymological Dictionary, (1727). Transcribed at From Old Books; the fifth edition of the  full dictionary is available via Google.

Bampfylde-Moore Carew, The life and adventures of Bampfylde-Moore Carew. Picaresque account of the ‘King of the Beggars’, the edition of 1750 contained a canting glossary. Archive.org. Open Library.

Francis Grose, Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, first published 1785 and frequently reprinted and re-edited. Transcribed at From Old Books and also available at Gutenberg and  Archive.org. Open Library

The Life of Charles Towers, a Minter in Wapping

Of all the sanctuaries, Wapping Mint, also known as the New Mint, was the most audacious and the shortest lived. Set up by refugees from Southwark Mint after the act of 1722, the claim for being a sanctuary was based on being, as with Southwark, the former site of a Royal Mint. Its inhabitants appear to have been more aggressive towards bailiffs than with other sanctuaries, raiding their lock ups to rescue comrades, abducting the bailiffs responsible and trying them in mock courts. Perhaps on account of this it lasted just two years until being abolished by the law of 1724.

The following account, somewhat more pompous than others of the genre, is taken from Lives of the most remarkable criminals volume 1, first published in the 1740s. After giving a short history of the sanctuaries and some tantalizing details of Minter practices , it describes the acts of the Wapping Minter Charles Towers, executed for going in disguise on a raid to free a compatriot.

There is some doubt as to the law under which Towers was found guilty and sentenced to death. This text explicitly states that it was under the notoriously severe ‘Black Act’, passed in 1723 against the poachers and deer stealers of Windsor and Hampshire. E.P. Thompson, in Whigs and Hunters pages 247 to 249, debates this, saying that it was more likely to have been the law against Southwark Mint, which also criminalized going in disguise. However, the latter act didn’t make the crime capital. Yet the Black Act, comprehensive as it was, was fundamentally about securing rural property, and doesn’t seem easily applicable to urban conditions. There is a lot more to investigate here.

Unlike much of the popular criminal literature, the executed man does not go quietly to his death, but fulminates against bailiffs and his sentence on the scaffold. As with Francis Winter, he doubted the justice of his execution. And as with Winter, his death was lamented by a large crowd.

Text courtesy of Project Gutenberg from the 1927 edition. An earlier version (from 1874) is available at archive.org.

The Life of Charles Towers, a Minter in Wapping

Notwithstanding it must be apparent, even to a very ordinary understanding, that the Law must be executed both in civil and criminal cases, and that without such execution those who live under its protection would be very unsafe, yet it happens so that those who feel the smart of its judgment (though drawn upon them by their own misdeeds, follies or misfortunes which the Law of man cannot remedy or prevent) are always clamouring against its supposed severity, and making dreadful complaints of the hardships they from thence sustain. This disposition hath engaged numbers under these unhappy circumstances to attempt screening themselves from the rigour of the laws by sheltering in certain places, where by virtue of their own authority, or rather necessities, they set up a right of exemption and endeavour to establish a power of preserving those who live within certain limits from being prosecuted according to the usual course of the Law.

Anciently, indeed, there were several sanctuaries which depended on the Roman Catholic religion, and which were, of course, destroyed when popery was done away by Law. However, those who had sheltered themselves in them kept up such exemption, and by force withstood whatever civil officers attempted to execute process for debt, and that so vigorously that at length they seemed to have established by prescription what was directly against Law. These pretended privileged places increased at last to such an extent that in the ninth year of King William, the legislature was obliged to make provision by a clause in an Act of Parliament, requiring the sheriffs of London, Middlesex, and Surrey, the head bailiff of the Dutchy Liberty, or the bailiff of Surrey, under the penalty of one hundred pounds, to execute with the assistance of the posse comitatus any writ or warrant directed to them for seizing any person within any pretended privilege place such as Whitefriars, the Savoy, Salisbury Court, Ram Alley, Mitre Court, Fuller’s Rents, Baldwin’s Gardens, Montague Close or the Minories, Mint, Clink, or Dead Man’s Place. At the same time they ordered the assistance for executing the Law, of any who obey the sheriff or other person or persons in such places as aforesaid, with very great penalties upon persons who attempt to rescue persons from the hands of justice in such place.

This law had a very good effect with respect to all places excepting those within the jurisdiction of the Mint, though not without some struggle. There, however, they still continued to keep up those privileges they had assumed, and accordingly did maintain them by so far misusing persons who attempted to execute processes amongst them, by ducking them in ditches, dragging them through privies or “lay stalls,” accompanied by a number of people dressed up in frightful habits, who were summoned upon blowing a horn. All which at last became so very great a grievance that the legislature was again forced to interpose, and by an act of the 9th of the late King, the Mint, as it was commonly called, situated in the parish of St. George’s, Southwark, in the county of Surrey, was taken away, and the punishment of transportation, and even death, inflicted upon such who should persist in maintaining there pretended privileges.

Yet so far did the Government extend its mercy, as to suffer all those who at the time of passing the Act were actually shelterers in the Mint (provided that they made a just discovery of their effects) to be discharged from any imprisonment of their persons for any debts contracted before that time. By this Act of Parliament, the privilege of the Mint was totally taken away and destroyed.

The persons who had so many years supported themselves therein were dissipated and dispersed. But many of them got again into debt, and associating themselves with other persons in the same condition, with unparalleled impudence they attempted to set up (towards Wapping) a new privileged jurisdiction under the title of the Seven Cities of Refuge. In this attempt they were much furthered and directed by one Major Santloe, formerly a Justice of Peace, but being turned out of commission, he came first a shelterer here, and afterwards a prisoner in the Fleet. These people made an addition to these laws which had formerly been established in such illegal sanctuaries, for they provided large books in which they entered the names of persons who entered into their association, swearing to defend one another against all bailiffs and such like. In consequence of which, they very often rescued prisoners out of custody, or even entered the houses of officers for that purposes. Amongst the number of these unhappy people, who by protecting themselves against the lesser judgments of the Law involved themselves in greater difficulties, and at last drew on the greatest and most heavy sentence which it could pronounce, was him we now speak of.

Charles Towers was a person whose circumstances had been bad for many years, and in order to retrieve them he had turned gamester. For a guinea or two, it seems, he engaged for the payment of a very considerable debt for a friend, who not paying it at his time, Towers was obliged to fly for shelter into the Old Mint, then in being. He went into the New, which was just then setting up, and where the Shelterers took upon them to act more licentiously and with greater outrages towards officers of Justice than the people in any other places had done. Particularly they erected a tribunal on which a person chosen for that purpose sat as a judge with great state and solemnity. When any bailiff had attempted to arrest persons within the limits which they assumed for their jurisdiction, he was seized immediately by a mob of their own people, and hurried before the judge of their own choosing. There a sort of charge or indictment was preferred against him, for attempting to disturb the peace of the Shelterers within the jurisdiction of the Seven Cities of Refuge. Then they examined certain witnesses to prove this, and thereupon pretending to convict such bailiff as a criminal, he was sentenced by their judge aforesaid to be whipped or otherwise punished as he thought fit, which was executed frequently in the most cruel and barbarous manner, by dragging him through ditches and other nasty places, tearing his clothes off his back, and even endangering his life.

One West, who had got amongst them, being arrested by John Errington, who carried him to his house by Wapping Wall, the Shelterers in the New Mint no sooner heard thereof, but assembling on a Sunday morning in a great number, with guns, swords, staves, and other offensive weapons, they went to the house of the said John Errington, and there terrifying and affrighting the persons in the house rescued John West, pursuant, as they said, to their oaths, he being registered as a protected person in their books of the Seven Cities of Refuge. In this expedition Charles Towers was very forward, being dressed with only a blue pea-jacket, without hat, wig or shirt, with a large stick like a quarter-staff in his hand, his face and breast being so blackened that it appeared to be done with soot and grease, contrary to the Statute made against those called The Waltham Blacks, and done after the first day of June, 1723, when that Statute took place.

Upon an indictment for this, the fact being very fully and dearly proved, notwithstanding his defence, which was that he was no more disguised than his necessity obliged him to be, not having wherewith to provide himself clothes, and his face perhaps dirty and daubed with mud, the jury found him guilty, and he thereupon received sentence of death.

Before the execution of that sentence, he insisted strenuously on his innocence as to the point on which he was found guilty and condemned, viz., having his face blacked and disguised within the intent and meaning of the Statute, but he readily acknowledged that he had been often present and assisted at such mock courts of justice as were held in the New Mint, though he absolutely denied sitting as judge when one Mr. Westwood, a bailiff, was most abominably abused by an order of that pretended court. He seemed fully sensible of the ills and injuries he had committed by being concerned amongst such people, but often said that he thought the bailiffs had sufficiently revenged themselves by the cruel treatment they had used the riotous persons with, when they fell within their power, particularly since they hacked and chopped a carpenter’s right arm in such a manner that it was obliged to be cut off; had abused others in so terrible a degree that they were not able to work, or do anything for their living. He himself had received several large cuts over the head, which though received six weeks before, yet were in a very bad condition at the time of his death.

As to disguises, he constantly averred they were never practised in the New Mint. He owned they had had some masquerades amongst them, to which himself amongst others had gone in the dress of a miller, and his face all covered with white, but as to any blacking or other means to prevent his face being known when he rescued West he had none, but on the contrary was in his usual habit as all the rest were that accompanied him. He framed as well as he could a petition for mercy, setting forth the circumstances of the thing, and the hardship he conceived it to be to suffer upon the bare construction of an Act of Parliament. He set forth likewise, the miserable condition of his wife and two children already, she being also big of a third. This petition she presented to his Majesty at the Council Chamber door, but the necessity there was of preventing such combinations for obstructing justice, rendered it of no effect. Upon her return, and Towers being acquainted with the result, he said he was contented, that he went willingly into a land of quiet from a world so troublesome and so tormenting as this had been to him. Then he kneeled down and prayed with great fervency and devotion, after which he appeared very composed and showed no rage against the prosecutor and witnesses who had brought on his death, as is too often the case with men in his miserable condition.

On the day appointed for his execution, he was carried in a cart to a gallows whereon he was to suffer in Wapping, the crowd, as is not common on such occasions, lamenting him, and pouring down showers of tears, he himself behaving with great calmness and intrepidity. After prayers had been said, he stood up in the cart, and turning towards the people, professed his innocence in being in a disguise at the time of rescuing Mr. West, and with the strongest asserverations said that it was Captain Buckland and not himself who sat as judge upon Mr. Jones the bailiff, though, as he complained, he had been ill-used while he remained a prisoner upon that score. To this he added that for the robberies and thefts with which he was charged, they were falsities, as he was a dying man. Money indeed, be said, might be shaken out of the breeches pocket of the bailiff when he was ditched, but that whether it was or was not so, he was no judge, for he never saw any of it. That as to any design of breaking open Sir Isaac Tilliard’s house, he was innocent of that also. In fine, he owned that the judgment of God was exceeding just for the many offences he committed, but that the sentence of the Law was too severe, because, as he understood it, he had done nothing culpable within the intent of the Statute on which he died. After this, he inveighed for some time against bailiffs, and then crying with vehemency to God to receive his spirit, he gave up the ghost on the 4th of January, 1724-5.

However the death of Towers might prevent people committing such acts as breaking open the houses of bailiffs, and setting prisoners at liberty, yet it did not quite stifle or destroy those attempts which necessitous people made for screening themselves from public justice, insomuch that the Government were obliged at last to cause a Bill to be brought into Parliament for the preventing such attempts for the future, whereupon in the 11th year of the late King, it passed into a law to this effect:

That if any number of persons not less than three, associate themselves together in the hamlet of Wapping, Stepney, or in any other place within the bills of mortality, in order to shelter themselves from their debts, after complaint made thereof by presentment of a grand jury, and should obstruct any officer legally empowered and authorised in the execution of any writ or warrant against any person whatsoever, and in such obstructing or hindering should hurt, wound or injure any person; then any offender convicted of such offence, should suffer as a felon and be transported for seven years in like manner as other persons are so convicted. And it is further enacted by the same law that upon application made to the judge of any Court, out of which the writs therein mentioned are issued, the aforesaid judge, if he see proper, may grant a warrant directly to the sheriff, or other person proper to raise the posse comitatus, where there is any probability of resistance. And if in the execution of such warrant any disturbance should happen, and a rescue be made, then the persons assisting in such rescue, or who harbour or conceal the persons so rescued, shall be transported for seven years in like manner as if convicted of felony, but all indictments upon this statute are to be commenced within six months after the fact committed.

The Great Pudding Robbery of 1718

An amusing little story, taken from Rendle and Norman’s The inns of old Southwark and their associations (1888), another of those charming antiquarian volumes so full of observation and detail. Covering areas transpontine, there’s some significant material on the sanctuaries that I shall return to. As a taster, here’s an account of Mr Austin’s gargantuan dessert, and it’s seizure by the inhabitants of Southwark Mint, implying for the latter a level of organization, and a desperate hunger.

[I]n May 1718, James Austin, ‘inventor of the Persian ink powder,’ desiring to give his customers a substantial proof of his gratitude, invited them to partake of an immense plum pudding weighing 1000 lbs., a baked pudding of a foot square, and the best piece of an ox roasted. The principal dish was put in the copper ‘at the Red Lion by the Mint,’ and had to boil fourteen days. From there it was brought to the Swan Tavern on Fish Street Hill, accompanied by a band playing, ‘What lumps of pudding my mother gave me.’ The drum matched the pudding, being 18 feet 2 inches long and 4 feet in diameter, drawn by ‘a device fixt on six asses.’ Finally, the monstrous pudding was to be divided in St. George’s Fields, but apparently the smell and the ‘enough for all’ size of it was too much for the Minters; the escort was routed, the pudding taken and devoured; the whole ceremony being thus brought to an end before Mr. Austin’s customers could have a chance.

Source: Rendle, W.,  and Norman, P., The inns of old Southwark and their associations (1888), p286-7. Online at Archive.org.

An Account of the Southwark Mint

The text below is taken from the first volume of John Timbs’ The Romance of London, published in 1865. Timbs was an antiquarian, with a prodigious output of anecdotal compilations – over 150, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911. These anthologies are still an entertaining read, full of remarkable events and persons, but are dated in tone and suspect in accuracy.

This extract on the Southwark Mint is notable for many things: for the description of the order with which the Minters left their sanctuary, betokening community and discipline, necessary for fending off the threats of bailiffs; the landmarks and geography; the literary links; and irregular marriages.

The Minters of Southwark.

A large portion of the parish of St George the Martyr is called the Mint, from a “mint of coinage” having been kept there by Henry VIII., upon the site of Suffolk Place, the magnificent seat of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, nearly opposite the parish church. Part of the mansion was pulled down in 1557, and on the site were built many small cottages, to the increasing of the beggars in the Borough. Long before the close of the seventeenth century, the district called the Mint had become a harbour for lawless persons, who claimed there the privilege of exemption from all legal process, civil or criminal. It consisted of several streets and alleys; the chief entrance being from opposite St George’s Church by Mint Street, which had, to our time, a lofty wooden gate: there were other entrances, each with a gate; like Whitefriars, it had its Lombard Street. It thus became early an asylum for debtors, coiners, and vagabonds; and of “the traitors, felons, fugitives, outlaws, condemned persons, convict persons, felons, defamed, those put in exigent of outlawry, felons of themselves, and such as refused the law of the land,” who had, from the time of Edward VI., herded in St George’s parish. The Mint at length became such a pest that its privileges were abolished by law; but it was not effectually suppressed until the reign of George I., one of whose statutes relieved all those debtors under £50, who had taken sanctuary in the Mint from their creditors. The Act of 1695-6 had proved inefficient for the suppression of the nuisance, though it inflicted a penalty of £500 on anyone who should rescue a prisoner, and made the concealment of the rescuer a transportable offence. In 1705, a fraudulent bankrupt fled here from his creditors, when the Mint-men resisted a large body of constables, and a desperate conflict ensued at the gate before the rogue was taken. A child had been murdered within these precincts, when the coroner’s officer was seized by the Mint-men, thrown into “the Black Ditch” of liquid mud; and, though rescued by constables, he was not suffered to depart until he had taken an oath on a brick, in their cant terms, never to come into that place again.

At the clearance of the place, in 1723, the exodus was a strange scene: “Some thousands of the Minters went out of the land of bondage, alias the Mint, to be cleared at the quarter-sessions of Guildford, according to the late Act of Parliament. The road was covered with them, insomuch that they looked like one of the Jewish tribes going out of Egypt; the cavalcade consisting of caravans, carts, and waggons, besides numbers on horses, asses, and on foot. The drawer of the two fighting cocks was seen to lead an ass loaded with geneva, to support the spirits of the ladies upon the journey. ‘Tis said that several heathen bailiffs lay in ambuscade in ditches on the road to surprise some of them, if possible, on their march, if they should straggle from the main body; but they proceeded with so much order and discipline that they did not lose a man upon this expedition.”

The Mint was noted as the retreat of poor poets. When it was a privileged place, “poor Nahum Tate” was forced to seek shelter here from extreme poverty, where he died in 1716: he had been ejected from the laureateship, at the accession of George I., to make way for Rowe. Pope does not spare the needy poets:

No place is sacred, not the church is free,
E’en Sunday shines no Sabbath-day to me:
Then from the Mint walks forth the man of rhyme,
Happy to catch me just at dinner-time.

Johnson has truly said: “The great topic of his (Pope’s) ridicule is poverty; the crimes with which he reproaches his antagonists are their debts, their habitation in the Mint, and their want of a dinner.”

In Gay’s Beggars’ Opera, one of the characters (Trapes) says: “The Act for destroying the Mint was a severe cut upon our business. Till then, if a customer stept out of the way, we knew where to have her.” Mat o’ the Mint is one of Macheath’s gang. This was also one of the haunts of Jack Sheppard ; and Jonathan Wild kept his horses at the Duke’s Head, in Redcross Street, within the precincts of the Mint. Marriages were performed here, as in the Fleet, the Savoy, and in May Fair. In 1715, an Irishman, named Briand, was fined £2000 for marrying an orphan, about thirteen years of age, whom he decoyed into the Mint. The following curious certificate was produced at his trial: “Feb. 16, 1715. These are therefore to whom it may concern, that Isaac Briand and Watson Anne Astone were joined together in the holy state of matrimony (Nemine contradicente) the day and year above written, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of Great Britain. — Witness my hand, Jos. Smith, Cler.”

The Mint of the present century was mostly noted for its brokers’ shops, and its “lodgings for travellers;” and in one of the wretched tenements of its indigent and profligate population occurred the first case of Asiatic cholera in 1832. Few of the old houses remain.

From Timbs, Romances of London, volume 1, pp.349-352, available from Archive.org.

The Law against Wapping Mint

Another law, from 1724, the last made against the sanctuaries. Two years after the supression of Southwark Mint, similar measures were taken against those of its inhabitants that had crossed the Thames and claimed sanctuary at Wapping, where there once had been a Royal Mint. It was thus claiming exemption from rule by the City of London by appealing to secular rights rather than religious.

The Wapping Mint appears to be better documented than the other priviledged places; there are more cases relating to it in the Old Bailey Online database than the others, and there seems to be some pamphlet literature around it as well. These documents will appear here in due course.

Anno 11 George I cap. 22: An act to prevent violences and outrages being committed by any persons under pretence of sheltering themselves from debt, or any process of law, within the hamlet of Wapping-Stepney or elsewhere within the weekly bills of mortality.

Whereas it is notorious, that many evil-disposed and wicked persons have, in defiance of the known laws of the realm, and to the great dishonour thereof, unlawfully assembled and associated themselves in the hamlet of Wapping-Stepney, and places adjacent in the county of Middlesex, under pretence of sheltering themselves for debt, and have committed great violences and outrages upon many of his Majesty’s good subjects, and by force protected themselves and their wicked accomplices, against law and justice: and whereas it is absolutely necessary that provision should be made for effectually preventing such violences and outrages for the future, and for bringing all offenders in the premisses to more speedy and exemplary justice: may it please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,That if any number of persons, not less than three, shall, after the first day of June one thousand seven hundred and twenty five, within the said hamlet of Wapping-Stepney, or any other place within the limits of the weekly bills of mortality of the cities of London or Westminster, wherein persons shall unlawfully assemble and associate for the sheltering themselves from their debts, of which complaint shall have been made by a presentment of the grand jury at a general or quarter-sessions of the proper county, knowingly and wilfully obstruct and oppose any person or persons serving, or endeavouring or attempting to serve or execute any writ or any rule or order of any court of law or equity, or other legal process whatsoever, and shall, in making such obstruction or opposition, insult or abuse any person or persons serving or executing any such writ, rule, order or process, or for having so done, whereby any such person or persons shall receive any bodily hurt, every person so knowingly and wilfully offending in the premisses, being therefore lawfully convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported for seven years to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

II. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That after the said first day of June one thousand seven hundred and twenty five, upon any complaint or complaints at any time or times to be made to a judge of any court, out of which the writs or process herein after mentioned shall issue, of such obstruction and opposition within the said hamlet, or elsewhere within the said bills of mortality, wherein persons shall unlawfully assemble and associate for the sheltering themselves from their debts, of which complaint shall have been made by a presentment of the grand jury at a general or quarter sessions of the proper county, by any person or persons who hath or have or shall have any debt or debts, sum or sums of money due or owing to him, her or them from any person or persons now being, or which shall hereafter be sheltered or reside within the said hamlet of Wapping-Stepney, and places adjacent, or elsewhere within the said bills of mortality, wherein persons shall unlawfully assemble and associate for the sheltering themselves from their debts, of which complaint shall have been made by a presentment of the grand jury at a general or quarter sessions of the proper county, such creditor or creditors having any legal writ or process taken out for prosecuting, recovering or levying any such debt or debts, sum or sums of money, and making oath before such judge, that a debt or debts, exceeding fifty pounds, is or are justly due to him, her or them from the person or persons against whom such complaint shall be made, and that such creditor or creditors verily believe, that such person or persons do then reside, and is or are sheltered, within such place or places as shall in such oath be particularly mentioned, it shall and may be lawful to and for such judge, and he is hereby authorized and impowered, in all and every such case and cases (if he in his discretion shall find it to be requisite) to issue his order from time to time to the sheriff of the county of Middlesex, or to the sheriff of any other county into which the said bills of mortality do extend for the time being, thereby strictly enjoining and respectively requiring him or them, his or their respective deputy or deputies, officer or officers, under such penalty as by this act is prescribed for non-performance of his or their duty therein, to raise and take the posse comitatus and enter the said hamlet of Wapping-Stepney, and places adjacent, or anywhere else within the said weekly bills of mortality, as shall be mentioned in the said oath, and to arrest, and in case of resistance or refusal, to open or break open any door or doors in the day-time, to arrest such person or persons upon any mesne process or other process, extent or execution, and to seize the goods of any such person or persons upon on execution or extent; and if any such sheriff or sheriffs, or any his or their deputy or deputies, officer or officers, or any of them, shall wilfully neglect or refuse, upon such order, to use his or their best endeavours for the executing of such process, execution or extent, he or they so neglecting or refusing to execute such process, execution or extent, shall forfeit to the plantiff or plaintiffs the sum of two hundred pounds, to be recovered by action of debt or of the case, bill, plaint or information, in which no essoin, protection, wager of law, or more than one imparlance shall be allowed: and if any person or persons shall knowingly and wilfully resist or oppose any officer or officers of justice, or any such person or persons who shall be aiding or assisting to such officer or officers, int he execution of any writ, or of any legal process, execution or extent, within the said hamlet of Wapping-Stepney, and places adjacent, or elsewhere within the said bills of mortality, wherein persons shall unlawfully assemble and associate for the sheltering of themselves from their debts, of which complaint shall have been made by a presentment of the grand jury at a general or quarter sessions of the proper county, or shall make rescous of any prisoner taken upon such process, execution or extent within the place aforesaid, or shall there knowingly harbour or conceal any prisoner so taken, or any person or persons who rescued any such prisoner, or shall be in any ways contriving, or knowingly and willingly abetting, aiding or assisting in resisting any such officer or officers, or in rescuing any such prisoner or prisoners taken as aforesaid, all and every person or persons so offending, being thereof lawfully convicted upon any indictment or information to be brought or filed within six months after the offence committed, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported for seven years to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

III. And whereas divers persons, who have taken shelter within the said hamlet of Wapping-Stepney since the twenty ninth day of September one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, have rented houses and land to the yearly value of ten pounds per annum or upwards therein, but by reason of their poverty were never rated nor paid to the relief of the poor of the said parish, nor served any parochial offices there; be it therefore declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no such person or persons so taking shelter, or their families, shall be judged to have gained any legal settlement in the said parish by virtue of having rented any houses or lands of such value, unless such person or persons have been rated and have paid to the relief of the poor of the said parish, or have served parochial offices there; any law or statute to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

Taken from Danby Pickering, The Statutes at Large, vol. XV, 1765. Hand transcribed by John Levin. This text is in the public domain and may be reproduced freely.

The Law against Southwark Mint

One of the most important questions about the 1697 law was whether it was successful in closing down the sanctuaries. This law from 1722 shows that at least in the case of The Mint in Southwark it was not. It’s a very convoluted, repetitive text, presumably to avoid leaving any loop-holes, leeway or hope to the residents of the sanctuary. I will write a longer analysis in due course – to spare the reader this tortuous text as much as anything else! – but here’s a few preliminary comments:

It starts by acknowledging the failure of the previous law, that “hath not proved effectual within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint” and that the area was “notorious” for the “dangerous riots and tumults [that] have been frequently occasioned, and great mischiefs done by many inhabitants in the said place …. unlawfully assembling themselves, and with force opposing the execution of legal process.”

It is directed against debtors, and can be set in process by creditors, “by any person or persons, who have or hath, or shall have any debt or debts, sum or sums of money, due or owing to him, her or them, from any person or persons now being, or which hereafter shall be or reside within the said place or places ….”

It extensively criminalises resistance to the King’s law, anyone who “shall be any ways contriving, or knowingly and willingly abetting, aiding or assisting, in resisting any such officer or officers, or in rescuing any such prisoner or prisoners taken as aforesaid, or shall presume to exercise any unlawful jurisdiction, or make or execute, or join in the making or executing any pretended rule, order or ordinance, for supporting any pretended privilege …. or any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, contrary to law, or for opposing or hindering the due execution of any legal process, or any lawful warrant, or any rule, order or decree of any court of law or equity ….”

It specifically mentions anonymity: “any person or persons whatsoever, wearing any vizard, mask, or disguised habit, or having his or their face or faces, or body or bodies disguised.” Here is a connection to the ‘Black Act’ (Anno 9 George I cap 28) against the organized poachers of Windsor and Richmond parks that E.P. Thompson wrote of in Whigs and Hunters. He wrote: “We have in the case of the ‘Mint’ some kind of metropolitan parallel of the forest matrix of Blacking, with debtors as foresters and baliffs as keepers”‘ and over three pages (pp.247-9) gives the only account of the organization of the Minters I have yet found. Again – and I apologise to the reader – this is something I will return to later.

Finally, it was a harsh law; offenders were to “be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.”

More anon, but for now, here’s the law:

Anno 9 George I cap 28: An act for more effectual execution of justice in a pretended privileged place in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey, commonly called the Mint; and for bringing to speedy and exemplary justice such offenders as are therein mentioned; and for giving relief to such persons as are proper objects of charity and compassion there.

Whereas it is notorious, that many evil-disposed and wicked persons have, in defiance of the known laws of the realm, and to the great dishonour thereof, unlawfully assembled and associated themselves in and about a certain place in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey commonly called or known by the name of Suffolk-place, or the Mint, and have assumed to themselves (by unlawful combinations and confederacies) pretended privileges, altogether scandalous and unwarrantable, and have committed great frauds and abuses upon many of his Majesty’s good subjects, and by force and violence protected themselves, and their wicked accomplices, against law and justice: and whereas it is evident, that an act made in the eighth and ninth years of the reign of his late majesty King William the Third, intituled, An act for the more effectual relief of creditors in cases of escapes, and for preventing abuses in prisons and pretended privileged places, hath not proved effectual within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint; and it is absolutely necessary, that further provision should be made for more effectually abolishing the pretended privileges aforesaid, and for bringing all offenders in the premisses to more speedy and exemplary justice: may it please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any person or person shall, after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, within the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, in the parish of Saint George in the county of Surrey, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, knowingly and wilfully obstruct or oppose any person or persons, serving, or endeavouring to serve or execute any writ, or any rule or order of any court of law or equity, or other legal process whatsoever, or any escape-warrant or warrants of any justice or justices of the peace, or shall assault or abuse any person or persons serving or executing any such writ, rule, order, process or warrant, or for having so done, whereby any such person or persons shall receive any damage or bodily hurt, every person so knowingly and willingly offending in the premisses, being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

II. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, upon any complaint or complaints at any time or times to be made to any three or more justices of the peace of the county of Surrey, by any person or persons, who have or hath, or shall have any debt or debts, sum or sums of money, due or owing to him, her or them, from any person or persons now being, or which hereafter shall be or reside within the said place or places, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof (such creditor having any legal writ or process taken out for prosecuting recovery, or levying any such debt or debts, sum or sums of money, and making oath before such justices of the peace, or any of them, that a debt or debts, exceeding fifty pounds at the least, is justly due to him, her or them, from the person or persons against whom such complaint shall be made, and that such creditor verily believes, that such person or persons doth then reside or remain within such a place as aforesaid) it shall and may be lawful to and for the said justices of the peace, or any three or more of them, and they are hereby authorized and empowered, in all and every such case and cases (if they in their discretions shall find it to be requisite) to issue their warrant or order, from time to time, to the sheriff of the county of Surrey, or to the bailiff of the liberty of the borough of Southwark, for the time being, thereby strictly enjoining and requiring him or them, his or their respective deputy or deputies, officer or officers (under such penalty, as by this act is prescribed for non-performance of his or their duty therein) to raise and take the posse comitatus, or such other power or force, as to the said justices, or any three or more of them, shall seem requisite, and enter the said pretended privileged place, called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, and the limits, or pretended limits thereof, and every or any part thereof, and to arrest, and in the case of reluctance or refusal, to open or break open any door or doors to arrest such person or persons, upon any mesne process or other process, extent or execution, and to seize the goods of any such person or persons, upon any execution or extent; and if any such sherrif or chief bailiff, or any his or their deputy or deputies, officer or officers, or any of them, shall neglect or refuse, upon such warrant or order, with such force, to use his or their best endeavours for the executing of such process, execution or extent, he or they so neglecting or refusing to execute such process, execution or extent, shall forfeit to the plantiff or plantiffs the sum of two hundred pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, or of the case, bill, plaint or information, in which no essoin, protection, wager of law, or more than one imparlance shall be allowed; and if any person or persons shall resist or oppose any officer or officers of justice, or any person or persons, who shall be aiding or assisting to such officer or officers in the execution of any writ, or any escape warrant, or any warrant or warrants of any justice or justices of the peace, or of any legal process, execution or extent, within the said place called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, or shall make rescous of any prisoner taken upon any such write, process, execution or extent, within the place or limits aforesaid, or shall there knowingly harbour or conceal any prisoner so taken, or any person or persons, who rescued any such prisoner, or shall be any ways contriving, or knowingly and willingly abetting, aiding or assisting, in resisting any such officer or officers, or in rescuing any such prisoner or prisoners taken as aforesaid, or shall presume to exercise any unlawful jurisdiction, or make or execute, or join in the making or executing any pretended rule, order or ordinance, for supporting any pretended privilege within the said place called Suffolk-place, or the Mint, or any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, contrary to law, or for opposing or hindering the due execution of any legal process, or any lawful warrant, or any rule, order or decree of any court of law or equity, all and every person and persons so offending, being thereof lawfully convicted upon any indictment or information to be brought or filed within six months after the offence committed, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

III. And for more effectually preventing for the future the great and enormous mischiefs and abuses, which have been riotously committed and done within the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, by wicked persons in vizards, masks, or disguised habits, or having their faces or bodies disguised; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three, any person or persons whatsoever, wearing any vizard, mask, or disguised habit, or having his or their face or faces, or body or bodies disguised, shall within the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within any the limits, or pretended limits thereof, join in, or aid or abet any riot or tumult there, or shall, in any vizard, mask, or other disguise whatsoever, knowingly and willingly there oppose the execution of any legal process, order or warrant, or assault or abuse any person or persons serving or executing any such process, order or warrant, or for having so done, all and every such person or persons, being lawfully convicted of any such offence, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall forfeit and suffer as in cases of felony, without benefit of clergy; and all persons aiding, assisting or abetting, or knowingly harbouring or concealing any such disguised person or persons, being thereof convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall be transported to some or one of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, by such ways, means and methods, and in such manner, and for such time, and under such pains and penalties, as felons in other cases are by law to be transported.

IV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the tenth day of October one thousand seven hundred and twenty three,all and every person and persons who shall apprehend and take any person or persons, guilt of any of the offences before mentioned, and prosecute such person or persons until he or they be convicted, shall have and receive, for every such offender so convicted, the sum of forty pounds, to be paid by the sheriff of the county of Surrey, without any deduction or fee for the same, within one month after such conviction and demand thereof made, by tendering a certificate to the said sheriff, under the hand or hands of the judge or justices before whom such offender or offenders shall be convicted, certifying the conviction of such offender or offenders, and that he or they were taken by the person or persons claiming the said reward; and in case any dispute shall arise between the persons so apprehending any of the said offenders, touching their right and title to the said reward, that then the said judge or justices, so respectively certifying as aforesaid, shall in and by his and their said certificate, direct and appoint the said reward to and amongst the parties claiming the same, in such shares and proportions, as to the said judge or justices shall seem just and reasonable; and if it shall happen any such sheriff shall die or be removed after such conviction and demand made of the said reward (the same not being paid as aforesaid) that then the next succeeding sheriff of the said county of Surrey shall pay the same, within one month after demand, and certificate brought as aforesaid; and if default of payment of the said sum or sums of money shall happen to be made by any such sheriff, the sheriff making default shall forfeit to the person and persons, to whom such money shall be due as aforesaid, double the sum or sums of money such sherrif ought to have paid, to be recovered with double costs of suit by the person or persons aforesaid, or his or their executors or administrators, in any of his Majesty’s courts of record at Westminster, by action of debt, bill, plaint or information, wherein no essoin, privilege, protection or wager of law shall be allowed, nor more than one imparlance.

V. And be it further enacted, That in case any person or persons shall happen to be killed by any such offender or offenders, endeavouring to apprehend, or in making pursuit after him or them, that then the executors or administrators, or such person or persons, to whom the right of administration of the personal estate of each person so killed shall belong (upon certificate delivered under the hands and seals of the judge or justices of assize for the county where the fact was done, or the two next justices of the peace, of such person or persons being so killed, which certificate the said judge or justices, upon sufficient proof before him or them made, is and are hereby required immediately to give without fee or reward) shall receive the sum of forty pounds from the sheriff of the county where the said act was done and committed, and upon failure of payment thereof by the said sheriff, such sheriff shall forfeit double the said sum of forty pounds, to be recovered against him, with double costs of suit, in manner aforesaid.

VI. And it is hereby further enacted, That all sheriffs, their executors or administrators, upon producing such respective certificates, and the receipts for the money by them paid in pursuance of this act, shall be allowed, and are hereby impowered to deduct, upon their accounting with his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all monies (other than the forfeited sum and sums of money, and costs of suit) which they shall disburse as aforesaid, without any fee or reward whatsoever.

VII. Provided always, That if upon the account of any sheriff there shall not be sufficient in the hands of such sheriff to reimburse him such monies paid by him by virtue of this act, that then the sheriff having so paid the said monies, shall have the same repaid by the comissioners of his Majesty’s treasury or the lord high treasurer for the time being, out of the revenue of the crown, or by record of surplusage upon any other sheriff indebted to his Majesty, upon certificate from the clerk of the pipe to that effect.

VIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in case any such apprehender and prosecutor is guilty of any of the offences aforesaid, every such apprehender and prosecutor, not being in prison for any the said offences, and convicting two or more persons of any the offences aforesaid, shall not only have the aforesaid reward of forty pounds, but shall also have, and is hereby entitled to his Majesty’s most gracious pardon, for any of the said offences committed at any time or times before discovery is made of such other two or more persons so to be convicted as aforesaid.

IX. And whereas it is notorious, that dangerous riots and tumults have been frequently occasioned, and great mischiefs done by many inhabitants in the said place, commonly called Suffolk-place or the Mint, unlawfully assembling themselves, and with force opposing the execution of legal process, so that it hath been necessary, for suppressing such riots and tumults, and to enforce due execution of the law, to raise the posse comitatus, or some other extraordinary power: be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the necessary charge of raising the posse comitatus, or such other power as aforesaid, for enforcing the due execution of this act, or the said former act, or for better effecting the purposes thereof, shall be paid by the said sherrif, and allowed in his accounts, or be repaid by the commissioners of his Majesty’s treasury, or the lord high treasurer for the time being, out of the revenue of the crown, or by record of surplusage upon any other sheriff in debt upon his account, upon certificate from the clerk of the pipe to that effect.

X. Provided always, That nothing in this act contained, shall be construed to extend to repeal or make void the said recited act of the eighth and ninth years of the reign of his said late majesty king William the third, or any other law in force, against pretended privileged places, or for suppressing riots or tumults, but that the same shall, to all intents and purposes, be in full force and effect, as if this act had never been made, except in such cases touching which other provision is made by this act.

XI. And forasmuch as there may be inhabiting or residing in the said place called Suffolk-place or the Mint, or within the limits thereof, some persons, who by misfortunes in trade, or other accidents or calamities, have been reduced to such necessities, as have obliged them to take shelter or protection there; and it may be reasonable and convenient to give some relief to such objects of charity and compassion, upon their faithful discovering upon oath, and delivering up, and assigning all their estates and effects whatsoever, for the benefit of their creditors, as is herein after directed; be it therefore enacted, &c.

Inhabitants of the Mint assigning over their effects, &c. are to be discharged from arrests, &c. Notice must be given thirty days before the sessions to the creditors of the party petitioning to be discharged. Clerk of the peace to give a duplicate of discharge, on pain of 5l. Inhabitants &c. perjuring themselves, deemed felons. Persons discharged are not to be imprisoned for debts due before the 11th of February 1722. General issue pleadable. Others than the persons discharged by this act are answerable as before. No discharge is good, if not obtained before 10 July 1724. Bankrupts not intitled to the benefit of this act. Discharges fraudulently obtained, void. Petitioner, &c. to leave with the justices a list of his creditors, &c. persons owing more than 50l. &c. not to be discharged. No shelterer to gain a settlement without paying to the poor, or serving an office. EXP>

Taken from Danby Pickering, The Statutes at Large, vol. XV, 1765. Hand transcribed by John Levin. This text is in the public domain and may be reproduced freely.