The Scolds Bridle/Branks

The image above is taken from an account of Ann Bidlestone who in 1653 was, drove through the street by an officer of the same corporation [City of Newcastle] holding a rope in his hand, the other end fastened to an engine, called the branks, which is like a crown, it being of iron which is musled over the head and face, with a great gap, or tongue of iron, forced into her mouth, which forced the blood out; and that is the punishment which the magistrates do inflict upon chiding and scoulding women.

As you will see the case cited is not from Norwich, nor the accompanying image, although you will often see it used with reference to the branks. The reason I've used here is because I can't find an example from Norwich or Norfolk. The reason I can't find one from Norwich or Norfolk is because there is not one! This hasn't however stooped the local museum making a feature of scolds bridles in its dungeons tours and if you were to go there today you would be told that in every town and village in the county, a man whose wife nagged him could go to the local magistrate and ask for the bridle/brank to be put on his wife. If you go anywhere where they display punishments from the past you will hear much the same thing. But its simply not true, especially in Southern England. Its more likely that the punishment was more popular in Scotland and only really made it into Northern England during the various crisis of the early to mid seventeenth century; a time when insecurity led to much harsher and far less liberal forms of control by the authorities! The conflicts of the time also led to a much closer connection between the affairs of Scotland and England.. Certainly Dr Plot in his Natural History of Staffordshire (1686) noted that it was a rare punishment. He referred to it as, a particular artifice at Newcastle and Walsall for correcting of scolds and also that it was, scarce heard of, much less seen.

This does not mean that bridle may have been used illegally, but its unlikely because when other unruly punishments meted out by the community took place, it often resulted in litigation in the courts. Both men and women who for example were forced to ride the stang, (Meaning to be humiliated upon donkey or pole) would often take action against those who humiliated them. And its also worth noting that the cases of ridings against scolding or adulterous women also punished husbands for allowing their wives to misbehave. It is therefore unlikely that any man being nagged by his wife would admit it to the local magistrate or anyone else for that matter!

There is little evidence to suggest that the scolds bridle was a popular punishment and many of the surviving examples, collected by nineteenth century antiquarians seem to have been copies and the real thing collected from European penal institutions. These examaples would have been used on both men and women. Certainly in the case of Norwich the examples held in the Castle Museum are copies of examples from the north of England or even copies of copies! In the case of Norwich the ducking stool was the accepted punishment for scolds and even that was only used in extreme cases.

Its not that I'm saying that bridles did not exist as a punishment and that it was a harsh one at that, but like most barbaric instruments, their use has been overstated. If there is anything to be learnt about the scolds bridle is probably to do with the Victorian antiquarians like T. N Brushfield who 'rediscovered' them. Brushfield is said to have single handedly brought their existence to public notice and collected examples like the much decorated Manchester bridle (The fact that its decorated suggests it had a symbolic/ceremonial function not a literal one) And its probable that any bridles that can be traced back to the seventeenth century were never intended for use, but simply displayed as jokes and served a psychological function; to release the tension created by the gap between idealised good female behaviour and the reality. There is also the famous case of Ann Bidlestone noted above, for it too was popularised by Brushfield and this interest in bridles in the nineteenth century does I think say a lot more about Victorian thoughts and feelings on female behaviour than it does on the ideas and beliefs of men from three hundred and fifty years ago!

But enough of that, for there is another famous first hand account of a woman being punished in a bridle in the seventeenth century, which you can read below. Although again it is not a local example for there are none! And in the case of Dorothy Waugh cited below, she was punished in the brank for speaking out about Quakerism (then a minor sect) and also about the Mayor of Carlyle's cruel treatment of Quakers, and not because she was scold....

Dorothy Waugh, her testimony in, Cruell usage by the mayor of Carlile, one of seven Quaker testimonies that occur in, The Lambs Defence against Lyes. And a True Testimony given concerning thye suffering and death of James Parnell (1656)

Out of Egypt where thou lodgest, but after these words, he was so violent and full of passion he scarce asked me any more questions, but called out to one of his followers to bring the bridle as he called it to be put upon me, and was to be on three hours and that which they called was a steel cap and my hat being violently pluckt off which was pinned to my head wherebe they tere my clothes to be put on the bridle as they called it, which was a stone weight of iron by the relation of their own generation, and three barrs of iron to come over my face, and a peece of it was put in my mouth, which was so unreasonably big a thing for that place as cannot be well related, which was locked to my head, and so I stood their time with my hands bound behind me with the stone weight of iron upon my head and the bitt in my mouth to keep me from speaking and the Mayor said he would make me an example.

The number one brand..

One of the punishments that most people are aware of, but know little about is branding with a hot iron.

It was one of a number 'mutilations' available to the authorities to ensured the continued humiliation of the 'wrong doer' and also to allow the population some protection against persistent offenders. The idea being that even the healed injury would be very hard to hide. Other punishments included cutting off ears and even occasionally the slitting of noses, although this tended to be an unofficial punishment meted out by women, to women in cases of adultery. The severity of the punishment meant that it was often reserved for what were then seen as more serious crimes, such as sedition and blasphemy. The type of crime might also effect the type of branding...

Branding took place using different letters depending on upon the crime and included an 'S' for seditious libel. You get the idea! It also take place on different areas of the body.. Thus in 1620 in Norwich, when Thomas Draper formally of Nottinghamshire was found, wandering the cytty and seemeth to be a dangerous rouge, it was noted that, he hath been branded upon his shoulder, prior to being committed to prison.

Branding might also take place on the forehead or cheek, but more commonly on the palm between the thumb and forefinger and it has been suggested that this is the reason that why defendants in court have to raise their right whilst swearing to tell the truth. Thus earlier offences could be seen and taken into account.

All that said, not all agreed with the punishment at the time... In 1639, one of the City Whippers of the convicted, John Hastings was himself whipped at the post, by order of this court for the branding of John Beamont who was convicted of having two wyves, so slightly that the print ys not seene in his hand and he his punishment of six stripes given him by the said Beamont. Hastings the City whipper was to whipped by the very man he failed to punish! But the question is, was it just incompetence on the part of Hastings that he failed to brand Beamont properly or something else? It might be that Hasting didn't approve of branding, but that's unlikely and its more probable that Hastings sympathised with Beamont. This was a time of the 'World Turned Upside Down', with a proliferation of radical sects prompting all sorts of new and liberal ideas including polygamy (Having more than on wife) Certainly there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that polygamy was going on in Norwich although as with the case of Beamont it was never sanctioned by the civic elite. Taking that into account perhaps Hastings was also a follower of these new and exciting radical beliefs!

Whatever the case with Beamont and Hastings it was not a common punishment in Norwich and elsewhere and by the eighteenth century the authorities were often sentencing offenders to token cold brandings. This in itself might be a reaction to the fact that in the harsh eighteenth century officially and ideally the punishment was to be used for less serious crimes. This however didn't sit well with local justices and other authorities and as with many other punishments I could mention the new idea was not reflected by the reality, with those in charge in the localities using cold branding etc.

Taking Stock.

Woodcut taken from: A statute for swearers and drunkards, or forsake now your

Follies, your book cannot save you, for if you swear and be drunke, the stockes will
have you.(c.1630, Pepys Collection)

The stocks were the most common form of punishment in all Tudor towns and cities and was used to punish the majority of petty offenses. The increased influence of Puritanism in the later sixteenth century led to an increase in statutes, many of which were aimed at governing the morals of the populace, especially swearing, drinking and gaming. Thus there was an increase in the use of the stocks.

There were many different sets of stocks in Norwich. A set near the Guildhall, facing the market. A set for each of the four Wards and also in the various institutions in the City Thus when two men called Gildenleve and Robinson were caught drunk they were set, in the stocks, in the street at the hospitall gate by the space of fower howers. It seems reasonable to assume that both were inmates of the this particular hospital and it was on the street to increase the humiliation.

This example stated that they should be held for four hours, but timings varied. Statutes stated that five or six hours should be the norm for drunkards, but as with most things in the past as well as now, the reality differed very greatly from the ideal. Thus in 1562, John Sparrow of Norwich plomer and Agnes Purdey wedowe wer taken in evell rule ar(e) commanded to the stockes for one howre. Evil rule mean sexual misconduct and so the five or six hours was needed for them to sober up. Instead one hour was seen as enough to cool their passions!

Such leniency was not always so obvious as in the case of Robert Bunsdale who was unfortunate enough to be caught drunk in 1632 when puritan fervor was at its height in the City, as the court record clearly shows... Robert Bunsdale beinge convicted by his own confession of being drunke for drinkinge at the cocke in St Giles and for swearing one oathe is ordered to the stocks accordinge to the statuate videlicet this daye five howers for drunkeness to morrowe, fower howers for drinkinge and one hower on Wednesday for swearing.

There is however other evidence that that the stocks could be a punishment of last resort and it could be commuted for a fine. Some drunks were given the choice of the four hours in the stocks or paying a 3 shilling and 4 pence fine. Those caught swearing an oath had the choice between an hour in the stocks or a 12 pence fine. You could be cynical and think that it was just another way for the Mayor and Alderman to line there own pockets, but it was not. Instead the money was put in a 'hamper' to be used for helping the poor. Thus in 1624 James Taylor was fined 12d for, swearinge by the name of God in the parishe of St Peter of Mancroft in the p(re)sence of Mr Maior. He was also fined another 3 s and 4d for, being drunk at the sign of the Cardinalles Hat in St Swithins. In the following court session it was ordered that, Francis Cocke Alderman of Westwymer was given the 3s and 4d to distribute and Mr Anguish, churchwarden of St Peter Mancrooft took responsibility for distributing the 12d in his Parish. The fine was shared between Parish and Ward.

Other interesting cases involve William Benthorpp who in 1564 was set in the stocks for, counterfetinge him selfe to be dume and desyving the Queenes lyege people. This is one example of many of the crackdown on vagrants and beggars, especially those who make false claims to be one of the 'deserving poor' who can't help themselves.

In 1606, Peter Pynfold of Bungay in Suffolk this day is sett in the stockes for cunnycatchinge and drunkeness. Cony/Cunny was an alternative name for rabbits, but was also at this time a slang term for a naive country person coming into town. Thus cunnycatching simply meant to con a country person!

Evidence from the Norwich courts show that the stocks could also be used to deal with some crimes that we still see as particularly bad today. And so in 1587, Priscilla Johnson to be put in the stockes for beatinge and misusing a little girl in her service. She is also banned from keeping children at home. The banning I think goes a long way to showing that people in the past were not so backward as we sometimes think.

I also like the example of James Lowe a laborer who in 1621, was this day sett in the stockes for buryinge a necessary (Having a poo!) in the castle dykes. The Old castle ditches were a virtual no go area at this time, because it was an illegal dumping ground for all kinds of waste. It also had its fair share of thieves and was used as a place to hang people as well. Again the punishment of James Lowe does at least demonstrate that the government didn't want filth in the City, although in truth they were fighting a loosing battle and there were repeated orders throughout the century to clean the ditches up. These usually occur at times of Royal visits, so read into that what you will!

Often it was ordered that those to be set in the stocks were to wear a paper on their heads. This meant a note detailing their crime. Papers stated crimes such as ill rule, evil behavior, disordered life, abuse of self and misbehavior. These were blanket terms used to detail all sorts of offenses from petty theft to drunkenness and sexual immorality. But it must be remembered that many of course could not read and so Norwich authorities came up with other ways of detailing the crime.. In 1587, John Frettesham for myching (Stealing) pieces of Sayes (A type of cloth) is sett in the stockes w(i)th a pap(er) on his hed and a piece of Saye abowt his neck. And in 1622, Will(ia)m Chapman for sellyng mustie otemeal ys sett in the stockes w(i)th halfe a peck of mustie meal by him.

And finally it is worth noting that the stocks was a well regulated punishment. Everyone has this picture of great crowds throwing rotten rubbish at those set in the stocks, but this is overdone. Firstly it would have been a waste of food in a time of high grain prices when food could be scarce. And those being punished were often violent people who wouldn't think twice about getting their revenge when let out! And the punishment was carefully regulated by the Mayor and his court as this evidence shows.. In 1563 two of the City constables, Roger Mayne and Symond Brechett found themselves in court for putting a millers man in the stocks without the courts permission and, only of ther owne rasshe hedes. In another case it could be the constables themselves who were lenient. I came across one who was punished for releasing an old vagrant early. In his deposition he stated that he could not sleep at the thought of the old man being left in the stocks on a cold night and so he got up, excused to young man keeping watch and sent the old man on his way!

Once again the evidence show that we cannot generalise about crime and punishment in the past, nor any other aspect of local history for that matter.....

Witch witch is witch?

On the 15th of June 1659 an order was made at he Norwich Mayor's court...
For as muche as Anne Carsey in prison vpon suspicion for a witch and there are many things w(hi)ch give great cause for suspicion. It is therfore thought fitt that m(istres)s Brooke, goodwife Wamsley goodwife Fann and others be desired to search hir the said Anne and certifie to the court

Ann Carsey was accused as a witch and a search ordered of her body. They were looking for witches marks; usually no more than a birthmark, perhaps on the inner thigh that would be interpreted as a third nipple on which she suckled her familiars (A cat, dog, ferret or some other animal) with her own blood. And in Anne's case they found one. For later that same month Anne's case was back before the court and...

Abigail Ram, Lidea Potter and Elizabeth Robinson (did) enforme that ther m(istres)s Brooke and goodwife Wamsley did vpon Wednesday last searche Anne Carsey in Prison, who is suspected for a witch and saye that they founde in hir privy P(ar)ts a thing like a teat w(hi)ch looked as if it had bene newly sucked and strange thinges hunge upon hir breasts like bladders.

It is of course highly unlikely that the women found what they claimed, although their evidence did result in Anne's death for she was one of many accused of witchcraft hanged in Norwich Castle ditches at this time. The court record is then is evidence of the witch craze that was sweeping the country at this time and being exploited by the likes of Matthew Hopkins, the Witch-finder General. But it was just that, a craze and this evidence of gross paranoia and subsequent executions should not be taken as evidence that our ancestors were nothing more than primitive, superstitious fools.

Certainly the evidence from the period tends to bring out the worst in us today and we feed upon misinformation about the time, often focusing on grisly details about witches being burnt and boiled alive. This did not happen and in England burning was a punishment reserved for those men and women who spoke heresy and for women who committed Petty Treason (The killing of ones husband) Now this of course would be of no comfort for women like Anne, for hanging was a cruel enough death especially for the many hundreds of innocent women and some men who fell prey to the hysteria of the time.

But it is a case of setting the accusations in the context of their time. England in the mid seventeenth century was a world turned upside down. The Reformation was still in full swing and over the course of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth century traditional forms of charity and hierarchical relationships were being swept away or at the very least challenged. In religious terms, this had seen a flowering of many religious sects by the 1650s, many of which challenged traditional codes of behavior as well as political status quo. These would have been worrying times for the leaders at all level of society and what better way to divert the masses than to scapegoat others for the problems of the time. Meaning quite simply that there were many things such as prostitution and even homosexuality that although illegal, were often tolerated in earlier times, until that is there was some crisis or other and a scapegoat/diversion was needed. And the same was true of witchcraft; for at other times it too was less harshly treated. Just look at the case of Ann Robson who came before the very same Mayor's Court in March of 1587/8...

This daye Anne Robson of Trowse next Norw(i)ch in the countie of this citie widowe for abusing the constables and threatining the towne that she will revengyd vpon the towne recyvyng rougues and l(e)wd persons into her howse thretening som that if they will not spend their monye in her howse she will make them dance naked in the howes and that by her black catt as she sayeth...

So here we have Anne Robson who is said to have threatened the whole of the city and some in particular with witchcraft. She is even accused of admitting to having a familier; a black cat (Popularly thought to have been given by the Devil) whom she drew her powers from. Clearly this is serious stuff and we might expect Anne to receive a harsh punishment for her 'crimes'. But no; for Anne is simply commanded to leave the city, or her children shall be whipped. A harsh punishment in some ways you might say, but remember that it is a punishment as much for threatening to maintain rogues in her house as it is for the accusation of witchcraft. In 1587, a time when 'masterless men' were said to be everywhere, wandering from town to town in search of charity, the illegal harboring of vagrants was a far greater concern to the Mayor and his Alderman than Witchcraft ever was!

The shaming of Agnes Leman cont.

Norwich Mayor's Court Book NCR/16a/7 1555-62, fol. 521
Extract dated 10th September 1561.....

T(h)is day Angnes Leman wedowe for that she was taken vpon Sundaye nyght last past in the Cockey lane w(i)th one John Gorney in the comytting the abomynable acte of whordome / Yt ys this daye ordeyned that at one of the clock at afternoone she shall be taken oute of prison and lede abowte the markett and so by my lordes howse and ov(er) Coslany brydge and to seynt Georges and ov(er) Fyebrigg w(i)th a bason tynklyd before hyr and so set upon the cuckingstoole and ducked in the water/ And from thens to cum with a bason tynked before her vp tum lande and seynt Andrew and so to saynt Stephens.

There are many things that can be said about this extract....

Firstly the surname Leman or Leaman could mean 'lover' or 'Prostitute' and so I suppose if you were feeling uncharitable you could say that Agnes may have had quite a reputation already! And Agnes is listed as a widow, which meant that she probably had no other means of support other than what she could earn herself. On the other hand, it may well be be a coincidence as surnames had already been in common use from the 13th-14th century onwards.

More importantly the extract is quite unusual in the amount of detail it contains. Detailing how she was to be carted from the market place, through at least three other parishes before being ducked and then carted back to her home parish of St Stephens. A normal order for ducking would be short and with little extra humiliation. An example from July 1560, simply states.. This daye Alys cocker the wyfe of Will(ia)m Cocker was ducked vpon a cokingstole for a com(m) en skolde and braller. NCR/16a/7, fol 401. Although Alice's crimes were deemed less extreme than those of Agnes (A scold is merely an argumentative wife) the detailed extra shaming in Agnes's case suggests that she was a persistent offender and so singled out in the court.

The other thing to say is that duckings were seen as a particularly cruel punishment even in Tudor times and so not that common. Some people will tell you that the stool on Fyebridge in Norwich was in continual use, but in the early 1600s there were on average only two cases a year. Even then there are cases of duckings being suspended in cold weather and evidence of women set upon the ducking stool, but not actually ducked, although when they were ducked it was common place to duck them three times... diving and ducking down, though against their will as ducks do under the water, William Sheppard, A grande abridgment of common and statute law (1695)

It must be remembered that the punishment was not just about the actual ducking, but also the other humiliation such as the... bason tynklyd before hyr and other loud discordant 'rough music' that often accompanied duckings and is said to have symbolized the woman's' disordered behavior.

The other thing that stands out about the Agnes Leman case is that there is no mention of John Gorney's punishment, but this was unusual and should not be taken as the norm. Firstly men were sometimes ducked, although this tended to be for 'ill rule' (Disorderly behavior) And men accused of whoredom would often suffer whipping at the carts tail about the market place, a punishment very rarely meted out on Women. If they were whipped it would be at the post or in private. We must not fall for the typical way of thinking that women's place was much worse in Tudor times and that their lower place in society was accepted by them or their men. Indeed, there is evidence that many men were willing to stand up for women. In the following year after Agnes was ducked a young women called Bennet Goodwyn was caught in a garden committing whoredom with William Tesmonde. It was ordered that she ride in a cart with a paper on her head describing her crime and that she would be processed with rough music and finally ducked. But there is no mention of a punishment for William and it turns out that he was a well connected young man! Clearly this rankled with some in Tudor Norwich, because her punishment did not go smoothly. We know this because in September of 1562 Robert Lloyd came before the Mayor's Court, because on... the xviii daye of July last past ... he tooke the pap(er) from the hed of one Bennet goodwyn .... [and did].. cast it into the ryver.

The point is that you can't generalize about history. Certainly there were laws that often treated woman harshly, but we mustn't assume that these laws were always rigidly applied or supported. There are those who would have you believe that life was hard for all of the lower orders of medieval and Tudor times, but its simply not always true.

And while we are on the subject, the ducking stool was not used to swim witches (The punishment of witches will be the subject of my next blog) And if you are ever on a dungeon tour at Norwich Castle Museum looking at the Victorian copy of the ducking stool, you will also see some scolds bridles and no doubt be told that these were in common use.. Put over a woman's head, the spiked plate forced into her mouth to stop her talking. But these are also copies; copies of copies and there is no evidence to show that bridles were ever used in the southern parts of England at any time.

But don't be discouraged by all this debunking, for if you continue reading this blog you will see that truth can be just as strange and exciting as the fiction often put about at heritage sites, museums and on the web. And hopefully you will see that people in the past were not that different to us, which by my reckoning should make them very strange and exciting indeed!

Welcome to Agnes's world...

Welcome to all of you who are wondering who exactly Agnes Leman was? Well, as my intro says, she was just one of many men and women who we only know of because she appeared in the various court records of Norwich in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. I first discovered her whilst studying for an MA at the University of East Anglia which focused on both male and female sexual control and punishments in late Tudor and Stuart times. She then went on to headline an alternative tour of Norwich performed by both myself and a museum colleague, Colin Howey under the name of Tangle & Hump, Pedlar's of the Past. The tour was called:

The Shaming of Agnes Leman,
or
a Tour of the Fine city of Norwich following in the steps of an unfortunate wretch processed and ducked in 1561, being also a true and faithful account of the sometimes disorderly nature of the same City, taken from court records and other miscellanea that explore its origins & development, expose its underbelly and reproduce the stories of its:
PEOPLE WITHOUT PLAQUES.

It was a serious attempt on our part to avoid the traditional tour of the 'great and the good' and rather to focus on the underbelly of Norwich life, the people who made up the great majority at the time but who left very little evidence behind. For as well as Agnes we told of other people who fell out with the Mayor, Alderman and other 'great' citizens of Norwich and often didn't know or didn't care about their place in early modern society!

As you will see from my profile, I have moved on from my days as an historical interpreter and am now a storyteller by trade, but for some time now I have wanted to do more with my old research . This is why I have set up this blog and also two others dealing with my story telling activities (See my links and blogs. The first is account of life as a traveling storyteller and looks at the places I will be performing this year, whilst the other will give written examples of some of the stories I tell) This blog however will be about my old passion of history and historical interpretation. It will over time include the accounts from the Agnes Leman tour and my other academic research, along with original court extracts, my own commentary and even the occasional debunking of a myth or two about life in the past. The next post will be about Agnes herself...