LAW AND ORDER
The church, until the last century was responsible for dispensing justice and punishment at a local level for minor offences and it was only for more serious misdemeanours that the accused were taken to court to be tried. The first reference to crime in North Waltham is in 1307 when Thomas Bromley, who was a curate from the parish, allegedly robbed a woman called Alice Bolbetrice from Overton. John Aulton, a fellow clergyman and John Tytinge a merchant from Winchester were also accused of taking part in the same crime. The Bishop of Winchester dealt with the case and when the two clergy were released from custody, they were required to carry out a penance before being allowed to carry out their normal duties. The punishment seems rather lenient for times which were known for the harsh treatment of criminals Whether "robbery" was the same crime as today, or perhaps some form of fraud or double dealing, is not known. Whatever, it was, it was not a very good example for men of the cloth to set for their parishioners. The merchant's fate is not recorded, possibly his punishment came outside the jurisdiction of the Church.
Physical chastisement was used frequenfly. To our rather more enlightened eyes, this was administered where the punishment far outweighed the offence allegedly committed. In 1598, the following entry appears in the Churchwardens' Accounts.
"The 3 day of March John Parker and Eliz his wife (we(re) whipped, they said they were born in Manchester in Lankers(ire).
Richard Trimelet and Eliza his wife were whipped the 3 of March who said they were born in Lankester in Lancashire.
Signed Peter Biggs Tythingman"
Again in 1600 there was a similar incident:
"John Thompson and his daughter were whipped the 2th March who say they were borne at Exaster. (Exeter)"
The "crime" committed by these unfortunate people was that of having no fixed abode. The many and complicated Acts of Settlement which were passed to condemn and punish vagrancy were responsible for such harsh treatment. In other villages, the removal of an ear, or even hangings were not unknown so perhaps these poor vagrants did not fare as badly as they might. To have no work was regarded as an offence and yet because of the administration of the Poor Laws, if one had no money, a "pass" permitting travel was required, making the seeking of work outside one's Parish of birth, exceedingly difficult.
Stocks were provided and maintained by the Church and the most recent entry in the record concerning these is as late as 1844 when repairs to them were carried out. New stocks had been purchased in 1804 at a cost of £1.11 .6d so it is possible that the same ones had been in use for forty years. Being sentenced to a spell in the stocks could have been happening as recently as 150 years ago. There is no indication as to where they were situated, but most villages placed them on the village green to afford maximum publicity and humiliation.
The Burial Registers record one murder within the Parish bounds.
"Troops, James (who was found murdered in Trinleys Copps) Nov 5th 1694"
The Calendar for Prisoners for Winchester Assizes records some less serious misdemeanours. In 1849, John Smith, aged 18 years was sentenced to on month in prison with hard labour for stealing a coat and a towel. In the same year, three young men were acquitted of the charge of stealing oats and beans from George Harriott, a local farmer, whilst Charles Chivers was accused of having "violently assaulted his wife". No prosecution was the verdict in this case so poor Mrs Chivers did not have the support of the law on her side although perhaps the publicity it attracted may have saved her from further abuse.
An example of a case being dealt with at local level is that of William Blunden. The Poor Rate book records the following:
"William Blunden fined 20/= G. Harriott and the money was paid to find bread for the poor."
Presumably this is a case of where justice had to be seen to be done as William Blunden was too poor to pay his fme and the money had to be paid out of the Poor Rate. In effect, by requesting that the money be used to buy bread for the poor, George Harriott used common-sense and the poor of the village did not suffer for William Blunden's actions, although what the misdemeanour was is not recorded.
Until the official police force was established, the village constable or "Tythingman" was appointed annually by the Churchwardens. His must have been an unenviable task. He was responsible for apprehending his neighbours when they had done wrong, had to cope with stray animals as well as on occasions acting as judge and jury amongst people he knew. There was a village pound for confining wandering animals - it was repaired at a cost of 7/= in 1810, but its whereabouts was not mentioned. The village had a lock-up too. The site for this is not known either although local information suggests that it was on the A30 in the vicinity of the Wheatsheaf. The Church paid for the holding of prisoners and their transport to court for their trials and the following is a typical example of many entries:
"1786/87 May, Harry - keeping him in hold and hawng him to prison £4.08".
The sins of the father was indeed visited upon the child when in 1808 this incident is reported:
"Wild, William for child, bread, idiot girl. April. 4 gallons of bread stop'd for his misconduct to Mr Cotterill. (Mr Cotterill was the rector at the time)".
It goes against the basic principals of charity that a handicapped child should be penalised because of her father's misbehaviour and this is a classic example of how dependent the poor were on the goodwill and judgement of those distributing Relief. At least animals fared somewhat better. In 1878 a report appeared in the Basingstoke Gazette concerning the misuse of a horse by a builder in North Waltham. He was charged with working a horse which was in an unfit condition and a graphic description of the state of the horse was fully reported. The builder was found guilty and fined £3.00.
There is no evidence at all of poaching or sheep-stealing which were the two "classic" crimes of the rural poor. Just because it does not appear in the records does not mean that it didn't happen, although in a small community such as this a stolen sheep would have been difficult to conceal! Nor is there any mention of any involvement in the smashing of threshing machines which Hampshire labourers, especially those from Overton were involved in during the middle of the last century when they were trying to protect their jobs from the introduction of mechanisation. However, in the 1840s, one of our parishioners was transported and although the reason is not mentioned, it is possible that he was a member of the threshing machine breaking gang. Transportation and hanging were the punishments administered for this offence and Winchester prison was the scene of much anguish when the miscreants were brought to trial and the issue reached Parliament and the national press.
It is difficult and meaningless to make comparisons between then and now. Such harshness and injustice seem incomprehensible today - it has to be a case of "other days, other ways.
Return to Contents Page
