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.