some because of the higher proportion of capital crimes among the offences
charged, a situation created not only by the prosecution of more burglars and
robbers but in particular by a strong increase in the number of coining offences,
and by the changes in the criminal law that transformed some of the most com-
mon clergyable felonies (most notably, shoplifting) into capital crimes. While
that in itself significantly enlarged the number of offenders in danger of being
hanged, there was the added difficulty that, as coining, clipping, and shoplifting
formed a larger proportion of the capital punishments coming to the Old Bai-
ley, an increasing number of the convicted capital offenders were women. More
capital offences meant, it is true, that more offenders would be hanged. But it
also meant—particularly because so many were women—that even more of-
fenders would be pardoned and returned to gaol to serve some alternative
punishment.
That was one side of the crisis: a large number of men and women awaiting
trial or awaiting punishment, which meant that Newgate and the other London
gaols were unusually crowded by the mid- 1690 s. The pressure of numbers was
made worse by delays in a significant number of trials—delays that meant that
some accused offenders were being held in gaol much longer than had normally
been the case. One can see this in petitions to the aldermen asking to be tried or
released at the ensuing session, a right of petition granted by the Habeas Cor-
pus Act of 1679 , which had clarified the scope and powers of the writ of habeas
corpus to prevent wrongful imprisonment. Among its provisions was the re-
quirement that persons committed on charges of felony or treason were to be
put to their trial at the next session of the relevant court or at the next session but
one. Failing that, they had a right to be bailed.^109 Defendants had to activate
their right by petitioning the justices on the opening day of the court session.
Several dozen such petitions were received in 1695 and 1696 , and many others
in later years, continuing more sporadically through Anne’s reign, most of them
submitted by accused coiners and clippers whose trials were almost certainly
being delayed because the Mint wanted to collect as much evidence against
them as possible and to prepare effective cases for the prosecution.^110 But peti-
tions were also received from thieves and pickpockets whose trials were delayed
by the overcrowded court calendars. One can see the effects of delay in the
The Revolution, Crime, and Punishment in London 363(^10931) Chas II, c. 2. The petitions themselves are interesting: the fact that so many prisoners knew their
rights under this act suggests that men with knowledge of the law were making themselves available to
give advice and more practical help by the late seventeenth century (as they may have for some time) to
men and women caught up in the criminal law and who could afford to pay to have a petition drawn or
to seek advice on assembling witnesses and constructing a defence. Such men, known scathingly as
Newgate solicitors, were being criticized in the 1690 s; they were to be increasingly active in the eight-
eenth century, offering help to both defendants and prosecutors. See above, p. 329 , and Ch. 8 ,
pp. 395 – 401.
(^110) This was Richard Lapthorne’s explanation of the delayed trials of several accused clippers in
August 1695 (Kerr and Duncan (eds.), The Portledge Papers, 210 – 11 ). If cases were being prepared by solicitors
on behalf of the Mint, that in itself would be likely to require a longer period of preparation.