ensure the case was taken seriously.^92 But over the whole range of pardon deci-
sions that had to be made every year with respect to London cases, the more im-
portant petitions were those from the ‘respectable’ inhabitants of a parish who
could testify that the defendant had been an honest and settled member of the
community and that he or she deserved another chance.
Such petitions as were received make it clear how widely understood were the
considerations that shaped the pardon decisions and the imposition of the death
penalty. Petitions favouring defendants emphasized their naïveté, their inexperi-
ence in crime, their good reputation among their neighbours, their penitence
and determination to live honestly from now on. Age was clearly thought by pe-
titioners to be worth mentioning and likely to have a favourable effect when the
defendant was in his or her teen-years (‘not above eighteen’; ‘about fifteen’); or
when a young man’s age could be linked to his fitness for service in the army or
navy as the condition of a pardon.^93 Age was not an automatic barrier to execu-
tion, however. The 11 -year-old James Wilson was convicted and sentenced to
death for ‘privately stealing’ at the December 1704 session of the Old Bailey and,
though there is no indication in the recorder’s report that his case was discussed,
his execution was apparently confirmed at the council. He was in danger of
being hanged on 23 December, when a petition from his mother, alleging that
he had been drawn into street crime by a soldier and that her husband had re-
ceived some of the spoils, prompted Lord Nottingham, the secretary of state, to
push recorder Lovell to investigate. The outcome was a pardon on condition of
transportation, though it is likely he was in fact allowed to go free since there is
no evidence he was ever transported.^94
Like other aspects of character, age worked best in petitions for mercy when
it helped to paint a picture of a defendant who had been momentarily deflected
from a basically honest course of life. Petitioners might also link their appeal for
clemency to an issue that was important to juries and the council by emphasiz-
ing the triviality of the offence or the fact that stolen goods had been returned.^95
Occasionally petitions pointed to the dire ‘necessity’ that had tempted a defend-
ant into theft.^96 But perhaps the most important evidence that petitioners could
provide was some assurance, particularly those who were settled and re-
spectable citizens, about the previous good character of defendants, of their
penitence and resolve to stay away from bad company and become ‘new crea-
tures’—in short, to provide some guarantee of their future good behaviour.^97
William Hopley (or whoever helped him to compose and write his petition in
358 The Revolution, Crime, and Punishment in London
(^92) For evidence of the natural influence that rank could bring to bear on pardon decisions, but also the
limits of such influence, see CSPD 1696 , p. 285 ; SP 34 / 19 , fo. 72 , 138 – 9 ; SP 35 / 22 / 98 ; and SP 35 / 23 / 5 ,
34 , 41 , 98.
(^93) CSPD 1696 , p. 472 ; SP 34 / 5 , fo. 75 ; SP 34 / 28 , fo. 42.
(^94) CSPD 1702 – 3 , pp. 347 , 349 – 51.
(^95) CSPD 1689 – 90 , p. 295 ; SP 34 / 5 , fo. 75 ; SP 34 / 6 , fo. 117. (^96) SP 34 / 7 , fo. 13.
(^97) SP 34 / 6 , fos. 117 – 18 ; SP 34 / 7 , fos. 131 , 133 ; SP 34 / 28 , fo. 42.