Caged in

Norwich Guildhall
Site of one of the many sets of stocks in Norwich and also the 'cage'

When Agnes Leaman was ducked it was for the "abominable act of whoredom", although most women accused of adultery and fornication were whipped, so too the men who were caught with them. Duckings were relatively rare and most of them were reserved for women accused of scolding and brawling behaviour. Women like Alice Cocker who was set in the ducking stool for being a, common skold and a brawler and a women of disquiet amonst her neighbors and for that she did beat Ellen Dingle and Joanne Tymouth. It was a time when women were meant to be passive and bound to their home. As one contemporary writer, Edmund Tilney in his Flower of Friendship put it, It is the office of a husband to deal and bargain with men, of the wife to make and meddle with no man. And women who did not subscribe to that view were punished sometimes harshly. I say sometimes, because the treatment of Alice Cocker was exceptional. She was ducked not for the scolding; the arguing and insulting her neighbours, but for the physical violence she had used. In other words Alice was punished for extreme anti social behaviour and not just because she was a women who dared open her mouth.

Indeed most women accused of scolding were set in the stocks, just like any drunken and disorderly man might be. Either that or she would be set in the cage; literally a cage which as far as I can tell hung from the side of the guildhall. In 1657, Mary the wife of Thomas [was] ordered to be put in the cage for skoldinge and other misdemeaners by the space of one hower. Although in her case I think it must have been a close run thing between the cage and the duck stool, for as well as scolding her neighbours Mary's "other misdemeaners" included a violent assault on a woman called Sybil Chapman and her husband was ordered to pay five shillings to Sybil, for satisfaction of a battery committed upon her.

Most cases of caging women though were only for the very petty 'crime' of scolding and other verbal abuse. Women like Rebbeca Marsden who also in 1657 was, sett in the cage one whole hower for scolding and abusing Mr John Andrews Alderman.

Although I've played down the punishment of women again, there may be some still thinking that women had a hard time of it in Early Modern England, but remember that some men also made it into the cage for 'brawling' and there were other gendered punishments for men. Its also worth noting that for all the punishments aimed at women, they still had a voice. For I deal with realities of life in the past as shown in the court records and not the idealised version promoted by Tilney and many others. Real women like Margaret Caley who clearly had not read the advice of Edmund Tilney, or if she had she was more than happy to treat it with the contempt it deserved. For in July of 1621 it was reported that, Margaret Caley on Witsun Tuesday last past did revile and miscall Christopher Gyles and often tymes claped her hand on her backside, and badd him kisse there. Margaret was a women who clearly didn't know and didn't care about her place in Stuart society, although she was commited to the Bridewell house of correction for her rudeness.

Thomas Alyard-What a git!

Now, before I start this post I must point out that we know very little of many of the people who turn up in court records beyond what is written here. For that reason we must be careful not to make too many assumptions about their lives and be careful not to exploit them. In the case of Agnes Leman in earlier posts for example we we cannot even be sure that she was guilty of the crimes for which she was punished, nor do the records tell us her reasons for doing what she might have done! Just because Agnes appears in the Mayors Court of Norwich, it doesn't make her a bad person, a conclusion backed up by the fact that she does not turn up in the court records ever again. If anything it simply demonstrates that Agnes's was an act of desperation brought about by poverty and/or being involved with a dodgy husband! Certainly there is evidence that many women (And men for that matter) were in loveless violent marriages in Tudor and Stuart times and that often women would have to fend for themselves. And the evidence is that the authorities struggled to control wayward spouses, which takes us neatly to Thomas Alyard the subject of this post. And whilst I do believe we must be careful not to judge those who feature in the court records of long ago, this does not apply to Thomas, for after meeting him just a few times in the Mayors court sessions of 1620 I began to take a dislike to the man....

The first account of him comes in May of that year when he appears for... living dissolutely and is sent to Bridewell (House of Correction) and ordered and to support wife from earnings. But it is not just that Alyard spend all his money and refuses to support his wife because he is then later recorded as... wounding her and living dissolutely. Again he was sent to the Bridewell and set to work and... from his earnings there to pay wife 4s (Shillings) a week. On the 26th August 1620 Alyard was yet again committed to gaol then to Bridewell by order of the Sessions, because he was unable to find sureties and again to maintain wife out of earnings. He was not released until the following February.

Already these records demonstrate the ineffectuality of the authorities of dealing with a man like Alyard because again he turns up in Bridewell in 1622 where he is held for lewd behavior until the 5th October when he was released from Bridewell into service.... Thomas Alyard beinge heretofore co(m)mitted to Bridwell for lewdnesys nowe ordered to be discharged and he ys reteyned w(i)th Will(ia)m Butler Cordyner (Leather worker/Shoe maker) for a yeare and ys to have for his wages for a dozen of bootworke xvjd (16pence) and for a dozen of flyers ijs (2shillings) and the said Butler promiseth to pay the said earninges wekely to the wife of the said Alyard. The fact that Alyard's wages are being paid to his wife show just how desperate they were to stop Alyard's dissolute ways in order to help his wife but more importantly to protect those who paid taxes towards poor relief! It also demonstrates just how low Alyard had sunk, because for a man to have his wife in charge of his finances must I think have been seen as humiliating. Although I doubt Alyard cared much about such things because his behavior simply got worse and in January 1623 he was one of group of men who admitted to drinking in 5 different illegal tippling houses on 5 consecutive nights. He was the most hardened,
and not all rest of group drank in all houses. And again on the 25th Jan, 8th Feb. 1623 Margaret Hott confessed that Thomas Alyard and a John Werne were drinking in her house and that later Alyard was drinking in the house of John Gowen with Watson.

Things are clearly going from bad to worse for Alyard because in May of that year it is recorded that... Thomas Alyard for dangerously vsinge the keep(er) of Bridwell ys ordered to remayne in the Bridwell till further order and in the meane tyme to be forthw(i)th punished at the post. For the first time there is mention of physical punishment for Alyard, because he is whipped at the post. But even this has little effect, because he is still linked to Bridewell in July 1623 when it's recorded that Alyard is... now allowed out of the Bridewell during the day to work at his occupation, but have to return to keeper’s custody at night. Normally an inmate of Bridewell would continue his trade inside the walls of Bridewell, but is Alyards being allowed out by day evidence of his good behavior or simply that the keeper of the Bridewell is scared of him and wants him out of the institution? The latter is more probable because Alyard is growing increasingly violent and on the 8th November 1623 it is recorded that.... Thomas Alyard beinge very dangerous to many p(er)sons ys ordered to be safely kept in the Bridwell till he shalbe of better behavio(u)r and this howse shall take order for his discharge.

Clearly, the authorities were at a loss to know exactly what to do with Alyard, because although a violent man, his violence must have been low level in that no one was permanently maimed or killed by him. Such actions would have led to more severe punishments. The authorities were stuck for a while, but then it was taken out of their hands, because on the 1st of December 1624 it was recorded in the Mayors Court that the Deputy Lieutenants of Norfolk had sent a warrant to the City of Norwich requesting that the Mayor and his Alderman impress (Force)100 men into service to fight for the country in Spain. And so it was the Mayor used this as an opportunity to rid the City of many a problematic person! For on a winters night one week later the Mayor and his Alderman were dispatched to their wards and parishes to impress anyone who was walking abroad that night without good cause. And the Aldermen were extremely successful in their quest because they managed to impress 128 from which the Lieutenants could take their choice and of which only eight were considered unfit or otherwise had good cause why they could not go!

The record is a detailed one and below the original order is a list of impressed men, their parish and trade and looking down the list near the bottom is one Thomas Alyard of St Gregories Parish, Cobbler (Shoemaker) And so it was Thomas at last got his comeuppance for his dissolute and violent ways, for Thomas Alyard is never heard of again!

* Some time later in 1633 there is a reference to a Widow Alyard in the Norwich Poor Rate
books, which may confirm that Alyard died fighting. Thanks to Colin Howey for this
reference.