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.
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.....
