PAST CRIMEStenpenny piece of boxwood. Sheep stealing was a common crime, as was
petty larceny. What is interesting to note is that even when the value of stolen
goods was high, the court often only found the accused guilty to the extent of
ten pence–worth a whipping, but not a hanging. There was, on average, only
one hanging every five years from this community. A surprisingly large
number of not guilty verdicts were entered, despite the presence of witnesses.
There were also some more serious crimes, including burglary, which was
treated more stringently than robbery. John Rowse was sentenced to hang for
taking his daughters from their bed and drowning them. It seems that through
bad management and bad luck, he had lost all his fortune, and could not bear
the thought of his children living in penury. He was hanged at Croydon in
1621 ‘where he died with great Penitency and Remorse of Conscience’.
Charles Godden was a labourer who stole a pair of garters worth two pence,
two pairs of hose worth two shillings, a silvergilt ring worth three shillings,
and one shilling in cash; he tried to claim benefit of clergy but on
examination, was proved to be unable to read, and so was sentenced to hang.
Benefit of clergy was a medieval leftover–the civil courts were unable to
prosecute clergy, who could prove their status by being able to read. By the
Tudor period, all the accused had to do was to read the beginning of Psalm 51,
a verse that was easy to memorise. It seems to have become regarded as a way
of letting off firsttime offenders lightly. Perhaps Charles Godden was given a
different verse to read! Another labourer who broke into a house, stole
clothing and a larger amount of money was granted the benefit of clergy, as
was a yeoman who attacked a man with a dagger, inflicting wounds from
which he died the next day. Robert Hardinge faced numerous counts of
stealing cattle and sheep over several years, but though confessing, was given
benefit of clergy too. He was clearly not a firsttime offender–perhaps he
could bring other influences to bear on the court.^2
A study of the records for Sussex during the later Tudor period shows
that the proportion of women to men accused of theft increased during the
later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, although the types of theft
they engaged in were different. Women rarely stole horses, or robbed
people on the highways, but they did burgle houses, cut purses, and
commit larceny. Women also tended to join mixed gangs and rarely
worked alone. They tended to steal items for which they could easily find
a market–clothes and household items. Misogynist literature of the time
castigated women for their slyness, envious natures and underhand ways.
The canting language used by the underworld of the period has fewer
terms for specifically female crimes than for male or unisex ones, but there