This post is to give an idea on how children who committed crimes (in the eyes of their elders) were treated in Victorian Marlow. Some of our juvenile offenders have already received a post of their own. This is a more or less random selection of a few others that we came across during our research.
The first thing that is obvious is the child's family would have a bearing on the sentence the young one recieved. If the miscreant was considered to come from an otherwise respectable family, this fact is carefully noted in reports and considered a mitigating factor come sentencing time. But if the child's parents were considered lacking in such respectability, the child was feared to be more likely to commit another misdeed and was without doubt treated more harshly. It's unlikely a middle class child committing a theft would get sent to a reformatory for example. So the child's appearance in court and that of their parents mattered.
Thomas Plumridge
Going in date order, our first case is from 1843 and it involves Thomas Plumridge who is described at "about 11". He was caught stealing a piece of pork from grocer Joseph Eagle* of Spittal Street. There are two possible candidates for this young man - one the son of William and Ann of Gun Lane, the other from Handy Cross. The tearful lad presented a truly penitent appearance in their eyes. He was able to present witnesses as to his "excellent character" which along with a guilty plea helped him escape with just 3 days in prison. He had been put up to the theft by other unnamed boys he said. Sometimes a explanation like this worked in a child's favour, in other cases it had the opposite effect and bought down warnings against a moral failing and inability to resist sin. Thomas does not seem to have erred again regardless!
Emily Grace
Moving to 1860, we come to a contrasting case, that of twelve year old Emily Grace**. Emily was up in court for theft. She had gone into the Washbourne's Seminary for Young Ladies (a small private day and boarding school) and removed several items belonging to the young pupils from the place where the girls hung their clothes. These were later detailed as a hat and coat valued at 4 shillings and a hat and cape valued at the same. At the same time she was accused of stealing an umbrella from the parish church. Umbrellas were relatively more valuable as well as easy to abstract so were not infrequent subjects of thefts at the time. Emily was seen at the Washbourne's when the clothes were missed and a search at her home revealed the missing items hidden away. It may well be they intended to pawn them. Young Emily confessed and plead guilty at trial. Unfortunately for her, she was not regarded as coming from a strictly respectable home. The wider Grace family were frequently before the bench. PC Nash considered her a victim of bad parenting and suggested it would be "beneficial to remove her from the scene of her vice for a time." The newspaper reports were also quick to accuse her elders as providing "very indifferent training" to Emily. A household that was considered likely to encourage their offspring into a life of crime, or at least one that did not prove capable of controlling an errant child was just the sort the authorities feared. And so Emily was considered the ideal candidate to be sent to reformatory. This was a sort of prison come school where the children were taught "honest industry" in the hope they would gain legitimate employment on release. She was put into prison for 2 weeks first, which was at the time a requirement, and then was handed over to a representative of Hampstead Reformatory for Girls where she was sentenced to spend the next 3 years. (The minimum term was 2 years.) These institutions varied hugely in quality, but Hampstead was thought to be one of the better ones at the time. Let us hope it was. The father of Emily, Richard Grace, was summoned a few months later for failing to make the compulsory maintenance payments towards his daughters upkeep at the Institution. The newspapers headed that reported again that Emily was a victim of "bad bringing up". The court considered that Richard was earning good money and could easily afford to pay for Emily but "cared little" about doing so.
There was no possibility of remaining annoymous if you were child criminal. Public shame was no doubt meant to act as a deterrent. But it must have made it difficult for the girls trained in their "honest industry" to get jobs thereafter, at least in their home area. Emily was 15 on her release. Obviously many young unmarried women were servants and this might well have been the job Emily was always destined for. But now she had a public bad character it was going to be difficult for her to access this big source of employment. In the end she went to work as a servant for Elizabeth Keene, who is supposed to have taken her on out of charity. But less than a month into the job, Elizabeth missed a pair of boots which were found in Emily's possession. Emily confessed to taking them and this time she was sentenced to serve 9 months in Aylesbury gaol with hard labour. She was 16. On release Emily returned to live with her parents. She would go on to have two illegitimate children, before marrying James Smith in 1879. (She was unable to prove paternity for the second child born 1871 so no money was forthcoming from the alleged father, John Howard. At the hearing where that was settled there was said to be raucous scenes with much swearing from both sides!!) The couple moved to Essex, the birthplace of James.
George Robinson
Next "criminal" is 12 year old George Robinson. He was guilty of doing what seems at first to be simply behaving as a child - running through a Marlow Bottom field with some other boys while playing a game. However corn was growing there and crop damage was taken seriously at a time when many farmers were operating on a small margin. The other lads got away, but George was recognised and somewhat unfairly was made to pay costs amounting to the whole estimated value of the corn damaged by all the group - 10s. His mother Emma said George was a good boy and she appealed for mercy as he "had no father". In this case it meant she was a widower. She explained that George worked to help support his household, along with brother William age 14. Both were working as furriers then but George was previously a shoemaker. Emma was a needlewoman. The court said they would be as lenient as possible and so George recieved a 6d fine plus costs and the compensation mentioned above. If his mother had not been able to pay, George would have been required to spend two weeks in jail.
Owen Hatch
Lastly we have a case from the end of the era. Owen Hatch age 7 had set alight two pig styes and a shed at Cookham Dean. All were completely destroyed. It would cost elderly owner Henry Clark at least £5 to replace them. As he had "respectable parents" and was normally well behaved, he was let off with a telling off. It seems that Owen had been playing with matches and acting only out of misplaced curiousity. The petty sessions established that Owen's family could not afford to compensate Henry Clark for his heavy loss as the father was not in regular employment at the time. Therefore it was decided to set up a subscription fund so well wishers could make good his loss. I believe the amount was comfortably raised.
Related Posts:
*You can read about Joseph Eagles grocer shop here
**More about the Grace family (caution, some distressing content) here
The Washbourne's school here
Crime and punishment in old Marlow: here
Pictures of the old police station and police court and it's history : here
Case of Mary Ann Burt, child thief here
To find all mentions of an individual or family here, use the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. There's over 4,000 people listed there.
Cookham Dean and other areas near Great Marlow - post list here
Written by Kathryn Day.
Sources: Washbourne family research by Charlotte.
Judicial record summary by Jane Pullinger 1975.
Census 1841,51,61 - transcript from microfilm by Jane Pullinger.
Reports From The Commissionees Vol 38, Great Britain House of Commons. 1866.
Wilkinson, Robert - The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts 1866 with notes etc (Knight and Company 1867)
The Reformatory and Refuge Journal 1860. (Reformatory and Refuge Union,1861)
Slough, Eton and Windsor Observer 28 September 1889. Slough Library.
© MarlowAncestors.
