value of ten pence for which he was sentenced to be whipped rather than
branded.^114
On the other hand, juries also clearly believed that whipping was only ap-
propriate for those who stole relatively small amounts: it is striking that they
rarely reduced grand larceny charges to petty larceny when the goods stolen
were valued at more than two pounds. Of fifty-one men and women charged
with grand larceny but convicted of petty larceny and whipped in our sample
sessions between 1663 and 1689 , only five had stolen goods worth more than
forty shillings, though such offences accounted for 60 per cent of all grand lar-
ceny charges. There was a broad relationship between guilty verdicts and the
value of goods stolen in a property offence (Table 6. 6 ). The value of the theft had
little apparent influence on juries’ decision to acquit. But with respect to guilty
verdicts the relationship is clear: the greater the value of the goods, the more
likely juries were to convict defendants of the offence stated in the indictment;
the reverse was true with respect to partial verdicts that reduced non-clergyable
offences to grand or petty larceny, or that reduced grand larceny to petty lar-
ceny.^115 Apart from what appears to have been the jurors’ view that whipping
was not an appropriate punishment for more serious thefts, they may also have
thought that the branding of clergy retained some deterrent power, aware as
they must have been that the ‘F’ burned into the brawn of the thumb was still
potentially perilous in this period for those facing a second felony conviction.
The judges occasionally denied clergy to prisoners who had been previously
allowed clergy in order to manœvre them into a position of requiring a pardon,
a situation in which they could be sentenced to be transported.^116
The Old Bailey in the Late Seventeenth Century 305(^114) OBSP, May 1686 , p. 2 (Snape).
(^115) We shall explore this subject at greater length in the following chapter (see Ch. 7 , text at Table 7. 4 ).
(^116) See above, text at n. 89.
Table 6. 6 .Jury verdicts at the Old Bailey in property offences in the
City of London, 1663 – 1689 , by value of the goods stolen
Value Guilty Guilty reduced Not guilty Total
Less than 10 s. 32 32 42 106
% 30. 2 30. 2 39. 6 100. 0
10 s.– 39 s. 79 59 64 202
% 39. 1 29. 2 31. 7 100. 0
40 s.– 99 s. 86 22 89 197
% 43. 7 11. 2 45. 2 100. 1
More than 100 s. 199 44 193 436
% 45. 6 10. 1 44. 3 100. 0
Source: Sample