“All criminal trials are about society, not just a case.” These words were written by the journalist and author Colin MacInnes in 1971. It states a truism that crime reflects society. Changing rural crimes and misdemeanours show different aspects of rural lives of the fens whether it be the animals, the equipment or the habits of the people.
Alcohol was a significant issue for rural law and order with either illegal sales or drunk and disorderly behaviour. It was an issue that drove the temperance movement as alcohol was deemed, legitimately for many, as a cause of poverty. There was no social welfare system. Instead workers used friendly societies and simple insurances to protect against loss of life of the main breadwinner, penny sick clubs, pig clubs and cow clubs to provide some financial assistance to a cottager losing their personal livestock. The premiums for these early forms of insurance were often collected weekly in pubs throughout the Fens.
The temperance movement spawned a special off shoot that also supplied such insurance provided you signed yourself and possibly your family too up for the temperance pledge:
I remember my grandmother, Alice Parrish as a fierce old lady. In my childhood she lived with my grandfather in an Agricultural tied house owned by Cecil Smith’s farms at Spinney Farm at the bottom of Twenty Drove between Bourne and Spalding in Lincolnshire. Nowadays the houses are still there with the farm owned by R Stevenson and Son. It was a drafty old house miles from anywhere down the bottom of a very bumpy and ill kept drove with frequent weeds growing through the tarmac.
When we visited, usually on a Sunday, she would say very little to my sister and I. Indeed, I reckon my sister was a little afraid of her, and understandably so as she could be a bit fierce. Sadly she died an early death from liver cancer. But after her death there was a bit of mystery added to her as my father kept going on about her being a Rechabite and that her parents had signed the pledge for her. Now to my child like ears this painted a picture of her belonging to some sect or religious group and perhaps accounted for her fierceness. Furthermore, what was “the pledge”? The whole thing had an air of mystery, intrigue and even menace about it.
The “pledge” I was shown took the form of a colourful certificate signed by her parents at the beginning of the 20th Century and in its wording was a pledge of abstinence from alcoholic drinks. It had a six pointed star on the certificate that gave it the air of a masonic like organisation.
Did my grandmother keep to this pledge? I believe she did. I only ever saw her drink a small sherry at Christmas. She mainlined tea with a pot of loose leaf tea stewing throughout the day so strong that my father used to joke that if you let go of the tea spoon it would stand upright in the middle of the cup. Her husband, my grandfather, Frank , on the other hand had a tea spoon of Lambs Navy rum in his tea every day.
But what were the Rechabites? Well, they were Friendly Societies with a religious motivation inspired by the Old Testament story of abstinence and compliance in Jeremiah 35
“Go and speak to the Rechabites, bring them to one of the rooms in the house of the Lord and offer them wine to drink. So I fetched Jazaniah son of Jeremiah, son of Habazinah, with his brothers and all his sons and all the family of the Rechabites. I brought them into the house of the Lord to the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igladiah, the man of God……..
.. I set bowls full of wine and drinking cups before the Rechabites and invited them to drink wine; but they said , “ We will not drink wine, for our forefather Jonadab son of Rechab laid this command on us: ‘You shall never drink wine, neither you nor your children. ‘”
Thus Jeremiah was using the Rechabite’s abstinence and compliance with other rules as an example to others.
Similarly the Rechabites were formed from the Temperance movement of the early 19th Century. At that time there was little or no welfare and few ordinary workers had bank accounts. Death and illness rapidly descended into destitution. To insure against this Friendly Societies formed where people would pay a small sum such as a penny a week into a fund that would pay out in the event of death or illness. Often these premiums would be collected weekly at a pub or beer house. However, groups of businessmen, many of them Methodists, became highly concerned that the collection of these premiums in pubs was encouraging the over consumption of alcohol and all the evils that entailed.
So in 1835 The Independent Order of Rechabites was founded accepting adults and children, initially from the age of five, but later from birth provided they would completely abstain from alcohol except for religious or medicinal use they could belong to the Friendly Society and in return for a small fee enjoy health insurance and death benefits. Children could be included in this cover by their parents, “signing the pledge”. In some areas the Rechabite founders even went as far as buying up pubs, inns and beer houses and doing away with alcohol in those establishments replacing it with coffee and tea so as to provide alcohol free venues for the travelling worker and alcohol-free venues to collect premiums.
The Friendly Society became the Rechabite Friendly Society and still exists today, albeit with a new name in 2004 trading as Healthy Investment. It still offers low-cost savings and insurance solutions as a mutuality for the benefit of its members.
We have already seen with employment that the populations of the fens were thinly spread. This meant that pubs were also thinly spread. It became customary for a farm foreman to buy beer for workers. The 1830 Beer Act saw a new type of establishment able to sell alcohol, the beer house. Beer houses did not need a licence from the local magistrate like pubs, rather they had to fulfil some very basic conditions to receive an automatic licence to sell beer with virtually no regulation. Beer houses in the fens were usually just a room in a house and would typically sell bottled beer only. They were not allowed to sell spirits and had to close by 10pm. By 1950 legislation had changed allowing no new beer houses, but enabling existing ones to continue provided they did not change hands. As a result by the 1950’s most beer houses were run by elderly people. I have already mentioned one such beer house, The Barge in Commercial Road, Spalding where Spalding Wildfowlers Association first formed. It was run by an old lady and had a regular cliental of two dozen locals who were served bottled beer in their own pewter tankards that they kept behind the bar.
On the marshland farms farm labourers would often find themselves several miles from even the nearest beer house. This meant that farm foremen supplying beer could and did fall foul of the law with not infrequent prosecutions found from the 1880’s right up to the 1940’s. Indeed, after the evacuation of Dunkirk many soldiers were housed at marshland farms where they supplied some labour. But this did not prevent police raids and subsequent prosecutions as seen in the headlines of 1940:
POLICE RAID FARM FOREMEN’S HOUSES – BEER SEIZED AT HOLBEACH MARSH AND DAWSMERE. Nearly fifty cases of beer stacked in Holbeach Police Court on Thursday were the haul obtained in a police raid on the houses of two farm foremen, and as a result the foremen were heavily fined for selling beer without a licence.
John Edward Bowett of Gedney Dawsmere was fined £40 and costs for an offence on the night of September 27th.
James Henry Rye of Lundy’s Farm, Holbeach St. Marks was fined £25 and costs for a similar offence on the same date.
In each case the beer was ordered to be confiscated. Both defendants pleaded guilty.
Dawsmere Case – Insp. Barnes giving evidence in the case against Mr Bowett said he obtained a warrant authorising him to search this defendant’s premises and remove from there intoxicating liquor which he had reasonable grounds to suppose was there for the purpose of unlawful sale.
At 9 p.m. on September 27th accompanied by P.C. Skerritt and an Army officer and sergeant he entered the kitchen of Mr. Bowett’s house. Inside the kitchen were four soldiers and three Irishmen, all of whom had a pint bottle of beer near them. The beer in all bottles, except in two cases, were partly consumed. He told Mr. Bowett that he had a warrant authorising him to search the premises. He said: “All right, read it.” Witness read it over to him. The Army officer said to one of the soldiers, “Who served you?” Mr. Bowett said, “I served the men with the beer in here and paid 10d. a bottle.”
Witness went into the living room with Mr. Bowett and asked him if he would care to give an explanation. Mr. Bowett said, “I have got the beer in and they are only working people on the farm. I collect the money once a week on a Saturday when I pay them. With regard to the soldiers it is a shame. They are from Dunkirk. They are very hard-worked indeed working with their shirts off. I gave them a bottle of beer, cigarettes and some biscuits each. They came in the evening and asked for another case of beer to pay for and I obliged them. It is four miles to the nearest public house. I have done my very best for the men, and lent them horses and carts and provided tools.”
The Inspector continued that later he said to the defendant, “There is only one thing to say, you are guilty.” Mr. Bowett said to the witness, “I have done my best for the soldiers and you come and clear the house.” Witness replied that he was doing his duty and said to the defendant, “You don’t want to have a solicitor: just plead guilty.” Mr Bowett said, “I will go up the line this time for six months. You will need a special van this time to take me to Lincoln.”
34 dozen pint bottles of beer and two dozen pint bottles of stout were taken from the house.
Defendant: “I much respect the gentlemanly way to which the Inspector carried out his work, but I don’t think I said anything about a special van to take me to Lincoln.”
The Inspector, “You were excited at the time.”
Thomas Arthur Howling, clerk in the employ of Thos. Peatling & Sons, Wisbech said his firm had supplied the drink to the defendant on 23rd September in one order. There were 30 dozen bottles of pale ale at 8s. a dozen, 10 dozen bottles of Worthington at 9s. a dozen, and three dozen bottles of Oatmeal stout at 9s. a dozen.
Defendant had nothing to say to the bench.
Supt. Booth said on November 1st 1932 defendant was fined £25 at Spalding for a similar offence, and the drink was confiscated. “We regard this as a serious offence, there is a big loss to the revenue.” Added the Superintendent.
After the bench had retired the chairman (Mr. Alex West) said Mr Bowett would be fined £40 and costs and the beer would be confiscated.
Superintendent Booth said arrangements would be made for it to go to a brewery and defendant could be supplied with a copy of the invoice note.
Holbeach Marsh Case: The case against James Henry Rye was then heard. Mr.W.G.Hammond (Messrs Roythorne and Hammond) appearing for the defence.
P.S. Lown said he obtained a similar warrant to that in the last case and at 7.55 p.m. on September 27th accompanied by an army captain, a military police sergeant, Insp. Barnes, P.C. Leach and P.C. Fryer he visited the defendant’s house which was in a cul-de-sac. A paddy hut formed part of the premises. Two soldiers were in the paddy hut and each had a pint bottle of beer and a glass near him.
Witness went into the living room and met Mr Rye. He told him that he had a warrant to search the premises and read it to him. Mr. Rye said, “I have nothing to say.” In the living room were four soldiers round a table and near each was a pint bottle and a glass containing beer. The army captain spoke to each soldier in turn and asked them how they came to buy their beer. A corporal said, “ Sergt. Smith paid for my beer.” Sergt. Smith said, “I paid 3s. 6d. for biscuits and beer, and she gave me 16s. 6d. from a £1 note.” The two other soldiers said Sergt Smith paid for their beer and Mrs. Rye agreed with what was said. At that time the soldiers were billeted on the premises on which the house of Mr. Rye stood.
The two soldiers from the paddy hut were brought into the kitchen and asked where they got their beer. They said they were served by a younger woman in the house. They had a pint bottle each and paid 1s. 6d. for the two.
Witness asked Mr Rye if the beer was sold with his knowledge and consent. He replied, “I acknowledge responsibility for all beer sold here tonight.”
The Sergeant said he took possession of 16 cases containing 379 pint bottles of beer. In the paddy hut there were 37 empty beer bottles. The cases were dated Wednesday Sept. 18th and on some of them were labels bearing the names of various people.
Claud King, a representative of Messrs Soames & Co. said he had done business with the defendant Mr. Rye and had charged 8s. a dozen and 9s. a dozen for the beer supplied. Cross-examined by the witness said there were invoices to the people whose names were on the cases. He assumed that those people were workmen on the farm.
Addressing the bench Mr Hammond said that the defendant was foreman at Lundy’s Farm for Messrs. Caudwell and Hay on the Marsh Bank , three miles away from a public house. There were two cottages at the farm, and a paddy hut was also used for workmen. Usually there were 30 men in the paddy hut, but at this particular time there were only seven. It was the habit of the men to have their beer on the farm instead of having to go to the public house. The beer was invoiced to the workmen and it belonged to them. There was no question of making any profit.
Mr. Hammond asked the Bench to take a lenient view having regard to the remote position of the house, and the fact that Mr. Rye was making no profit. The beer which had been seized was worth about £13 10s. and if the defendant was to lose it he asked that that should be taken into account in fixing the penalty.
The chairman told Mr. Rye that this was his first offence, and he had met a lenient bench. The fine would be £25 with 22s. 6d. costs and the beer would be confiscated. [i]
When it comes to drunkenness the nature and weakness of men possibly does not change over time. In 1881 you see headlines: “Five hours drinking three harvest men in trouble.”
Even before cars you could get drink-drivers: “Henry Smith of Spalding Marsh, farmer was summoned for being drunk in charge of a horse.” (18th March 1881). “Chas Barker, labourer Holbeach Marsh fined for being drunk while in charge of a wagon and three horses.” (20th January 1882).
The propensity for drunk driving was an early fault with the advent of the motor car, one of the first cyclists to ever suffer a road traffic accident was hit by a drunk driver in Spalding in 1904: “ Mrs England, wife of Dr. England, of Moulton, while crossing Fulney Bridge on her machine, was jammed against the parapet by a passing vehicle. She promptly had the driver arrested, and he was fined forty-three shillings and sixpence for being drunk in charge of a vehicle.”[ii] There will be many a cyclist reading this not surprised that the subsequent discussion was to the suitability of having ladies ride a bicycle with no comment or condemnation of the drunk driver!
The 1930’s sees many fines issued by magistrates for cyclists riding without lights and reflectors and cars parked without lights. My grandfather Cyril Elsden amongst them in 1938 fined for parking in Winsover Road, Spalding without lights. With no fixed penalty tickets the issuing of fines fell on the magistrates to perform. When you see some of the names in the villages, those fined for riding bikes without lights were also names that you see poaching, and I suspect such fines were a means of “marking their card”. Sergeant Lown of Holbeach had a more direct approach in dealing with offenders with summary justice of one form or another, for example if a car was parked outside a pub without lights the offender, who possibly should not be driving after visiting the pub, will have found his car pushed into the dyke.
Sheep stealing was prolific in the Fens, in 1793 Arthur Young reported that the number of sheep stolen, “is incredible, they are taken off in whole flocks.” This was especially the case around Crowland. Sheep stealing by navvies cutting the drains and various navigations reached epidemic levels around Sutton Bridge in the early 19th century. The navvies became so brazen that they would chalk up a tally of the number of sheep stolen on the farmer’s gate and taunted with graffiti about not being caught. Such actions saw the farmers of the marshes near Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge banding together to protect their interests and this sowed the seeds of what was to become the Long Sutton Agricultural Society. Sadly, such theft of sheep still happens today, I have found the remains of roadside butchery, and have also seen “garage butcheries” that process illegal meat. Obviously reported, but such things exist because people are prepared to obtain meat from irregular and possibly dangerous sources.
Navvies were constantly under suspicion of crime and the finger was repeatedly pointed in their direction for any crime as we see in August 1828:
“In the night of Friday the 8th inst. Some villains effected an entrance into the premises of Mrs. Reams, who keeps a small public house, called the Wheatsheaf, and also a little grocers shop, at Gedney Drove End. They made a hole in the outer wall of the shop and carried off goods to the amount of £11 – suspicion rests upon four labouring bankers employed at Sutton Wash.”
Theft of livestock also had a seasonal nature as Christmas approached in December 1828: “In the night of Wednesday night Mr. Derry of Gedney had his premises robbed of 40 fowls, a duck and a turkey.” This is an ongoing problem to this day, especially as Christmas approaches, but was possibly a greater problem in the 1970’s when towards Christmas anyone driving a van late at night, such as my father returning from repairing a customer’s TV aerial, would be liable to be pulled over by police known locally as “turkey patrol” as they checked the occupants of vehicles were not up to no good stealing poultry or poaching.
Another crime that the modern day farmer will only be too aware of is arson. In 1833 arson became so bad on Holbeach Marsh that after three stacks of wheat were burnt a £100 reward was offered. A considerable sum for that time. Penalties for arson were intentionally severe, for example in 1884 we see William Gee sentenced for 18 months hard labour for committing arson in Holbeach Fen.
The worrying of livestock is also a familiar problem that modern-day farmers will be all too familiar with such as this case in October 1835:
“Sixty-three ducks were worried it is believed by dogs in Red Cow Drove, Moulton Marsh. The ducks belonged to Mr. Franks, Mr. Martin and Mr. Ashton.”[iii]
It has to be noted that most livestock worrying cases I have read in the nineteenth century are of poultry, mainly ducks and chickens. Geese in a group are capable of defending themselves and there are accounts of foxes being killed by geese. A case at Freiston in the 1890’s sees the policeman giving evidence to the magistrate that he reasoned the owner of a dog was guilty for when he saw the dog it had feathers in its mouth. This evidence was deemed adequate by the magistrates to secure a prosecution of the owner and an award to the victim for his lost poultry.
We also see fenland farmers having their crops stolen. In the late nineteenth century we see the value of daffodil bulbs being such that theft of them is highly viable. As we enter the twentieth century the theft of potatoes becomes more common. Often the theft were from potato graves broken open for riddling and subsequent bagging of the potatoes for market. A potato grave is a pile of potatoes, covered in straw and topped off with soil to hopefully store the potatoes protected from frost before being riddled. The legendary Sergeant Lown of Holbeach sought to prevent such crimes by visiting the potato graves that were being riddled during the day, at night and removing the planks across the nearby drains that were used by the farmworkers to access those graves. This denied thieves easy access to the fields.
One morning when I was wildfowling at the Hare and Hounds entrance to Moulton Marsh I came off the sea wall to find a man in the potato field with a sack digging himself a sack full of potatoes. Rather than challenge him directly, I went over to him and introduced myself and chatted about the weather and whether he had seen any geese and in this way got his name. Talking to the local farmer about him he was a well-known local who regularly helped himself to crops growing in local fields, but they tolerated him because he also let them know if any “no-goods” were about.
High value crops have always attracted theft and on another occasion I disturbed a gang that arrived in a van to descend on a small local field to cut and steal a crop of asparagus, a crop that could very quickly earn a few hundred pounds. In the days before mobile phones you had to be realistic about whether you could get to a phone and call the police, or simply make your presence felt. I do know of one local farmer that solved the problem by pattern-testing his shotgun on the side of the offending van.
But as well as being frequent victims of crime farmers themselves fall foul of the law. In 1884 we see Frederick Tilson and Walter Naylor of Gedney Marsh each fined 6d. a head plus costs for one foal and a cow straying onto the highway. In 1898 William Toon was summoned for allowing three boar and two cows to stray onto Red Cow Drove in Moulton Marsh according to evidence supplied by P.C. Cooper. To enable such a prosecution would require strong local knowledge of who’s livestock was where and which areas were grazed by different farmers and cottagers. Rural policemen of that era did not have a bicycle and had to walk everywhere. So they would often take a pragmatic view to law enforcement as time at court, even the local magistrates court, would involve time and effort travelling. Far better that they resolve issues themselves leaving the courts for repeat offenders.
Paths, like highways, were of great importance and were protected by the law as they would provide essential thoroughfares for country dwellers that could cut miles off an essential route. Indeed, as an agricultural bank manager I learned very quickly to rely upon maps rather than sat-nav, for there is nothing more annoying than arriving the wrong side of a drain and having to back-track a few miles to get to the correct destination. Hence, in 1871 we see: “Wm Tinsley of Holbeach Marsh, farmer alleged to ploughing up a foot path was fined 5s.”[iv]
Wartime brought its own challenges. In World War I food prices were affected by the successful attacks of merchant shipping supplying the UK with food. To ensure affordable food was available to the population strict maximum prices were applied to staple products such as potatoes. The fines for breaking these rules were considerable:
“Potato Prices. £5500 fine for gross profiteering. At Spalding yesterday George Thompson farmer of Sutton Marsh near Long Sutton, South Lincolnshire, was charged under 55 summonses with selling potatoes above the maximum price.”[v]
The Second World War saw different challenges to the local constabulary. The marshes of The Wash were made off-limits by law, much against the will of local wildfowlers and poachers. So we see numerous fines for breaking that rule. The breaking of salvage laws along the marsh also created some prosecutions as the loss of shipping increased. One particular instance sees locals procuring chocolate and cigarettes without declaring their find to HM Receiver of Wrecks:
“SALVAGED GOODS NOT REPORTED – Holbeach St. Matthews Men Fined – Chocolates and Cigarettes Found.
For failing to report and deliver up chocolate and cigarettes which they found washed up in the outmarshes George R. Croft, Salt Marsh Farm, Holbeach St Mathews, and Edward Maltby , Wrights Farm, Holbeach St Mathews, were fined £2 each with 10s. 6d. costs, at Holbeach Police Court on Thursday.
Defendants, who pleaded guilty, were summoned by Mr. J.R. Penistan of Boston, on behalf of the Ministry of War Transport, for taking possession of certain wreck and failing to deliver it to the Receiver of the Wreck contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 between January 1 and April 30 and thereafter.
Mr. Penistan said that the wreck washed up or that came ashore in that district, if found by people who were not the owners, should be reported and delivered to the Receiver of the Wreck. Notices to this effect were displayed, although he agreed that they were not posted so that every individual saw them. The authorities did not keep to the rule that people should actually deliver the material, but that they should report its discovery.
In the case in question, cigarettes and chocolates were washed up at Holbeach St. Matthews. Mr. Croft found 31lb of chocolate. He sold 21lb for £2 and that was regarded as a serious part of the offence. Mr. Croft gave away some of the other chocolate. He also found some cigarettes, but they were of no use.
In the case of Mr. Maltby he found seven tins each containing 50 cigarettes and one tin of chocolate. Mr. Maltby knew what he should have done on finding the goods. When salvaged goods were given up to the appropriate authorities remuneration was paid, and had Mr. Maltby had in fact been paid 55s. for goods which he had dealt with properly on a previous occasion.
‘It had been found that when people find goods which are no use to them, they report them and get paid for the salvage’, said Mr Penistan, ‘but when they find they are of some use and will fetch more than the salvage price they realise on them themselves.’
Mr. Croft told the court he did not know he was doing wrong. If he had known he would have reported his discovery immediately. Mr. Maltby had nothing to say.”
These various accounts give an insight into the sorts of crime and the society of the 19th through to the mid-20th century. Perhaps the largest changes in crime we see are due to increased access of cars to people combined with a moving and growing population especially in my lifetime from the 1970’s onwards. But I leave that for others to consider.[vi]
[i] Spalding Guardian 1st Nov. 1940
[ii] Daily Mail 1904
[iii] Lincolnshire Echoe 1835
[iv] Lincolnshire Chronicle 10th March 1871
[v] Sheffield Telegraph 5th Sept. 1917
[vi] Much of this section was researched with reference to the book “Recollections of a Country Copper 1936-1966” by Bert Fryer. Bert Fryer was a retired police inspector and local character that after retirement did investigation work for Spalding solicitors Calthrops. He lived in retirement with his wife in Cowbit and made excellent marmalade which he sold to raise money for charity and the local church.
Comments