Early Modern Resources
Cheshire Documents
HOME

The death of Francis Wood, 1659
(Documents from The National Archives, CHES 24/132/3: gaol file, Spring 1659]

An inquisition indented and taken att Adswood in Cheadle within the aforesaid county of Chester the twenty eight day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thousand & sixe hundred fifty nyne, before William Worrall gentleman one of the coroners of his highnes Richard Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging in the county aforesaid upon the veiwe of the body of one Francis Wood late of Adswood aforesaid husbandman then and there lying dead, by the oathes of Hugh Stanley, John Bailiffe, John Hough, Richard Prince, Hugh Daniell, Raphe Smith, William Byrch, Thomas Hoult, William Browne, Jeffrey Caldall, Nathaniell Hayfeild, Henry Collier, Thomas Smith, Rodger Worthington, John Royle, William Smith, William Devias and John Smith jurors of approved and lawfull men of the county aforesaid, whoe upon their oathes doe say that John Leigh of Cheadlehulme in Cheadle aforesaid husbandman the three and twentith day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thousand sixe hundred & fifty eight, in the high streete in Cheadle aforesaid, not haveing god before his eyes, but by the instigation of the divell, being thereunto moved and seduced and of his owne malice forehad and forethought, with force and armes, in and upon the aforesaid Francis Wood then and there (in Cheadle streete aforesaid) in Gods peace and the publiques being, an assault did make; and the aforesaid John Leigh then and there takeing upp, into his right hand, a certaine massey stone of noe value, he the said John Leigh, then and there in the streete in Cheadle aforesaid feloniously voluntarily and malitiously, and of his owne malice forehad and forethought, did throwe the aforesaid stone, att him the said Francis Wood, and with the stone aforesaid, then and then [sic] and there with the stone aforesaid upon the left syde of his head, one mortall wound being a crush and bruise, of which said mortall wound crush and bruise, he the aforesaid Francis Wood from the aforesaid three and twentith day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thousand sixe hundred & fifty eight aforesaid, untill the twentie sixth day of the same month of March then next following being in the yeare of our Lord one thousand sixe hundred fifty nyne, att Adswood aforesaid languished, which said twentie sixth day of March he the aforesaid Francis Wood of the mortall wound crushing and bruiseing aforesaid att Adswood aforesaid dyed. And soe the jurors aforesaid upon [(creased) their oaths say that John Leigh] voluntarily and malitiously and of his owne malice forehad and forethought, did kill and murder, contrary to the publique peace. And furthermore the jurors aforesaid upon their their [sic] oathes aforesaid doe say, that the aforesaid John Leigh att the tyme of the felony and murder aforesaid had in goods to the value of eight pounds twelve shillinges and two pence and that they doe remaine in the handes of Mary Leigh wife of the aforesaid John Leigh. In wittnes whereof as well the aforesaid coroner, as the jurors aforesaid to this present inquisition have putt to their seales. [parchment]

Notes:

Language: Until the 1730s, this type of document was normally written in Latin, except during the Interregnum period in the 1650s. A good deal of the strangeness (the placement of verbs at the very end of phrases, for example) of the English in this and the indictment below arises because of the way in which they seemingly strove to copy almost exactly the patterns of the language in the Latin documents. The result is not terribly reader friendly; what flows naturally in the formulaic phrases in Latin is just awkward and stilted in English, but it's undoubtedly more accessible to general readers. (I may put up some Latin documents later.) The other reason they read so clumsily is the legalistic need to remove any ambiguities about who or what is being referred to at any given moment.

Dating: Until the eighteenth century the official start of a new year, was not 1 January but 25 March; there are only three days - not a year and three days! - between the assault and the death of Francis Wood. In less formal documents between 'New Year's Day' on 1 January and the official new year a mixed dating convention, (eg) 1 March 1658/9, was often used. In any case, dating from the birth of Christ appears in this type of formal legal document only during the Interregnum; at other times such documents used 'regnal years', ie dating from the accession of the monarch on the throne at the time of the offence.

'Approved and lawfull men': I'm not sure what the precise qualifications were for jurors on coroner's inquests, but like other juries they were presumably based on holding property (and being male - with one exception, the 'jury of matrons' that examined female convicts who claimed a stay of execution/reprieve on the grounds of pregnancy). This doesn't mean that only wealthy landowners sat on juries; far from it. The requirements could be quite modest and include the holding of rented and leased property, not just freehold ownership of land. It depended on the jury and on the court. 'Grand' jurors were expected to be of somewhat higher status than 'petty' (trial) jurors; grand jurors at Assizes/Great Sessions were of higher status than those at Quarter Sessions. A coroner's jury was likely to consist of relatively modest status men and was drawn from the local population, rather than the whole county. Juries at manorial courts were also locally based, and there eligibility varied with the customs of the manor.

A 'stone of noe value'; 'goods to the value of eight pounds twelve shillinges and two pence': These are to my understanding hangovers from medieval courts that were becoming increasingly irrelevant. It had been customary to value an object that caused a mortal wound (whether wielded homicidally or the result of an accident) for compensation purposes; I don't know if such compensation was still made by the seventeenth century. Valuing the goods of the person accused of causing a death had also been frequently undertaken in the medieval period; not this time to compensate victims' relatives, but because convicted felons' (and, incidentally, suicides') property could be seized by the crown. I've seen the occasional inventory of the goods of an accused killer, as well as pardons of wealthier gentlemen that explicitly lifted the threat of any forfeiture of their estates, so this was not entirely a dead letter. But in court there was evidently little or no effort to investigate such matters: the notation "ca' null'" (catalla nulla: no goods to forfeit) is a very common notation, sometimes clearly untrue, on guilty verdicts.

The jurors for his highnes Richard Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland and the dominions and terrytories thereunto belonginge upon theire oath doe present that John Leigh late of Cheadlehulme in the county of Chester aforesayd husbandman the three and twentieth day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thowsand sixe hundred fifty and eight not haveinge the feare of god before his eyes but by the instigacion of the divell beinge moved and seduced with force and armes at Cheadleholme aforesayd in the county aforesayd feloniously voluntarily and of his malice forethought in and upon one Frauncis Wood in the peace of God and the publique peace then and there beinge an assault and an affray did make And that hee the aforesayd John Leigh one stone of noe value which hee the aforesayd John Leigh in his right hand then and there had and held then and there at and against the aforesayd Frauncis Wood violently feloniously voluntarily and of his malice forethought did throwe and him the aforesayd Frauncis Wood in and upon the lefte syde of the head of him the sayd Frauncis Wood then and there with the stone aforesayd feloniously voluntarily and of his malice forethought did strike and bruise of which sayd stroke and bruise hee the aforesayd Frauncis Wood from the aforesayd three and twentieth day of March in the yeare aforesayd untill the sixe and twentieth day of the same mounth of March in the yeare aforesayd one thowsand six hundred fifty nine at Cheadlehulme aforesayd in the countey aforesayd did languish which sayd sixe and twentieth day of March in the yeare of our lord one thowsand six hundred fifty nyne aforesayd hee the aforesayd Frauncis Wood of the stroke and bruise aforesayd at Cheadlehulme aforesayd in the county aforesayd died And soe the jurors aforesayd upon theire oath aforesayd doe saye that the aforesayd John Leigh the aforesayd Frauncis Wood the aforesayd sixe and twentieth day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thowsand six hundred fiftie and nyne aforesaid at Cheadleholme aforesayd in the county aforesayd in manner and forme aforesayd feloniously voluntaryly and of his malice forethought did kill and murder against the publique peace [parchment]

Notes:

Although this virtually replicates the wording of the inquisition (and coroner's inquisitions were sometimes used as indictments in court), there are slight differences so it seemed worth setting out both in full. The inquest has slightly different priorities and often contains more detail. It can also be very slightly less 'legalistic' - a coroner was not a legal professional, unlike the court clerks who drew up indictments. So, in this case there are slightly fewer 'aforesaids' and repetitions in the inquest.

'The jurors for...'. This doesn't refer to the coroner's jury. It's the standard wording for all indictments, and I think (but will check) that it means the grand jury (mentioned above), which considered the prosecution evidence for all bills of indictment at the beginning of a court session and decided if there was sufficient evidence for a trial. If this was the case, they endorsed the bill 'billa vera' or 'true bill'. If not, 'ignoramus' (literally: 'we do not know') or 'no true bill'; usually that was the end of the prosecution, but unlike the situation after an acquittal at trial, the bill could be redrafted or further witnesses brought forward to present it to the grand jury again - as often as it might take to get the desired result. This happens most notably with political offences such as sedition at times of unrest. Also, if the grand jury rejected a murder bill, it might be redrafted for manslaughter; but this was not that common since (as we'll see in a moment) the trial jury could and frequently did reduce a murder charge to manslaughter in any case, and the grand jury too could choose to cross out the phrases relating to murder ('not having the fear of god...'; 'in malice aforethought') and send it on to trial as a manslaughter (felonious killing or 'felonice interfecit') indictment.

What happened after the grand jury had approved a bill of indictment depended on whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not guilty. In nearly all cases involving a capital charge - ie, the death penalty - no matter how strong the prosecution case, defendants pleaded not guilty and 'put themselves upon the country', as it was called ('ponit se super patriam' is the Latin, I think, usually abbreviated to 'po. se.'. Conversely, many of those charged with non-capital felonies (usually petty larceny, where the value of stolen goods was less than 1 shilling) or misdemeanours, simply confessed and accepted their punishment). This seems to have been because it was during the course of the trial that a defendant would have the opportunity to call character witnesses and plead mitigating factors, both of which (for reasons we'll see in a moment) could make a significant difference to the jury's decision and the prisoner's fate.

First entry after the list of jurors' names
John Leigh - trial for "murder for ye death of Francis Wood". Found guilty of manslaughter (line above the main entry). 'Read', 'burned', bailed (notes in margin). [parchment]

Notes:

The layout of a jury return is at first slightly confusing, but quite easy to follow once you know how they were put together. The list of defendants (and the charges) was written out beneath the jurors' names, leaving spaces between them. Then the verdict was inserted above each defendant's name. Finally (though this information was not always added), the sentence was written in the left hand margin next to the name.

These jurors seem to be of unusually high status for a trial jury; all are given the addition 'gent(leman)' (although it's worth saying that this might not be accurate in all cases; some research suggests that some grand jurors described as gentleman on the jury returns did not in fact have that status...).

We think of jury trial as an ancient tradition in Anglo-American law; but there have been significant changes in its operation since the medieval and early modern periods. By the seventeenth century, the 'self-informing' local jury of medieval trials had disappeared; this early modern trial jury would have been drawn from across the county and although it might have contained jurors with some personal knowledge of the case - that would not have excluded them from the jury - that would have been a matter of chance. Secondly, many early modern jurors were not the 'novices' of today; not only did they often serve at several trials in one session - as you can see from this jury return - they could be called to serve repeatedly over many years. Not all jurors on any jury would be experienced, but some of them usually would be. This (combined with the virtual absence of trial lawyers until the eighteenth century) was perhaps one of the reasons that trials could be conducted extremely quickly compared to today - sometimes just a few minutes, while the average was possibly about half an hour. The jurors usually simply gathered together to make their decisions; they only left the courtroom to do so in particularly complex cases; and, what's more, their deliberations could not be adjourned, even for food or rest. Further, their judicial independence was not established until the second half of the seventeenth century (with the landmark 'Bushell case' of 1670); until then, the judge could bully them into returning the verdict he wanted, with the threat of fines if they refused to comply.

The verdicts in this document, though, help to demonstrate the extent of jury 'discretion'; and historians debate just how significant judicial interference and influence really were in most trials. Only a minority of those tried for capital felony were convicted; but moreover only a minority of those convicted were convicted of the full capital charge. Juries brought in 'reduced' verdicts in a variety of ways. They often, as in the case of John Leigh, reduced murder charges to manslaughter. They reduced the value of goods stolen. They rejected 'aggravating' elements such as house breaking. All of these, in various ways, had the same effect: they saved convicts' lives. Defendants who could show that they had acted out of desperate necessity, who were young, had no previous convictions and had a good 'character' or reputation were unlikely to hang; 'old offenders' who were seen as being past redemption, or people convicted of particularly heinous crimes, would be much more lucky to escape.

That's the point of the notes in the margin that say Leigh 'read' and was 'burned' (it doesn't mean he was sentenced to death by burning!). Men convicted of manslaughter, along with a host of other common-law capital felonies, could claim 'benefit of clergy'; but offences that were regarded as particularly serious - including premeditated murder, burglary and robbery (theft from the person), horse theft - were excluded from this provision by specific statutes (if you see references to 'capital statutes' in accounts of the 'Bloody Code', that is what is meant).

Benefit of clergy had medieval origins, but had been gradually expanded beyond application exclusively to clerics. By the late sixteenth century it worked like this: a defendant convicted of his first offence who could 'read' a passage from the Bible (not to be regarded as a serious 'literacy' test; almost everyone 'passed'; the reading requirement was removed altogether in the early eighteenth century) would be branded on the thumb and released. (I say 'he' deliberately because benefit of clergy was not made available to women until the 1620s, and then only partially so - women could not claim benefit of clergy for manslaughter or for thefts valued at more than 10 shillings, for example - until the 1690s.) The branding was therefore a permanent mark to prevent someone claiming clergy more than once, and no doubt a shaming stigma too. Not pleasant, but better than the alternative. There were other changes in the eighteenth century: rather than being branded and freed, those convicted of 'clergyable' property crimes were transported instead, and late in the century imprisonment was introduced in cases of manslaughter. By the early nineteenth century, benefit of clergy was virtually defunct, but for almost two centuries it was a key mechanism in saving many thousands of people - most of them convicted of relatively minor property crimes - from the gallows.

The other entries on the jury return are:
Thomas Whiteley: burglary: not guilty: bailed
Robert Wollam and Edward Griffith: burglary: guilty of felony only: read for benefit of clergy, branding, bailed
Elizabeth Johnson: witchcraft: not guilty; remanded in custody
Hugh Kinsey: 'for a nagge' (ie, horse stealing): not guilty: bailed
Thomas Leigh: 'upon the ?statute for burglinge the howse of Harvey Walkelett in the day tyme and for vij l. in money': not guilty: bailed (NB choice of words; technically, burglary was a night-time activity)

Early Modern Resources www.earlymodernweb.org.uk

This page last updated 26 September 2004 by Sharon Howard

E-mail: Advertise@ my site is a working email.