Inquiring readers: Paul Emanuelli, author of Avon Street, has contributed a post for this blog before about the City of Bath as a Character. He has graciously sent in an article about crime and an incident involving Jane Austen’s aunt, Mrs James Leigh-Perrot. Paul writes about Bath in his own blog, unpublishedwriterblog. It is well worth a visit!
Arrest of a woman at night, 1800. Thomas Rowlandson. Image @The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Apart from the Bow Street Runners in London there was no organised police force in 18th Century England. The capture and prosecution of criminals was largely left to their victims to deal with. Every parish was obliged to have one or two constables, but they were unpaid volunteers working only in their spare time. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to track down and arrest the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of their doing so.
Sometimes victims of crime hired a thief-taker to pursue the wrong-doer. Again, they were private individuals working much like latter day bounty hunters. Sometimes, thief-takers would act as go-betweens, negotiating the return of stolen goods for a fee. Many though were corrupt, actually initiating and organising the original theft in order to claim the reward for the return of goods, or extorting protection money from the criminals they were supposed to catch.
Covent Garden watchhouse. Image @The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
For the most part, unless a criminal was “caught in the act” (probably) by their intended victim it was unlikely they would be brought to justice. In the absence of a police force, the maintenance of “Law and Order” therefore came to depend more on deterrence rather than apprehension and the harshest penalty of all came to cover more and more crimes. In 1799 there were 200 offences that carried the death penalty, including the theft of items with a monetary value that exceeded five shillings.
In practice, judges and juries often recognised the barbarity of the punishment in relation to the crime. Juries might determine that goods were over-priced and bring their value down below the five shilling threshold. Defendants might claim “benefit of clergy” which by virtue of stating religious belief and reading out an oath allowed the judge to exercise leniency. In other cases the Government could review the sentence. Between 1770 and 1830, 35,000 death sentences were handed down in England and Wales, but only 7000 executions were actually carried out.
Milliners shop, after Henry Kingsbury
On the 8th August 1799, Jane Leigh-Perrot was accused of stealing a card of white lace from a millinery shop in Bath. The Leigh-Perrots, a wealthy couple, were Jane Austen’s mother’s brother and sister-in-law (Jane’s Uncle and Aunt). The white lace valued at £1 was found in Mrs Leigh-Perrot’s possession together with a card of black lace that she had bought and paid for from the same shop. Mrs Leigh-Perrot denied stealing the lace, saying that the sales clerk must have given it her by mistake when he handed over her purchase. She was nevertheless arrested on a charge of “grand theft” and the lace she was said to have stolen was worth four times the five shillings that carried the death sentence.
Jane Cholmeley Perrot, aka Jane Austen’s Aunt Perrot
In practice it was unlikely (given her standing) that if she had been found guilty she would have been sentenced to death. The alternatives, however, included branding or transportation to the Australian Colonies with the prospect of forced labour for 14 years. Jane Leigh-Perrot was refused bail and committed to prison on the sworn depositions of the shopkeeper. Due to her wealth, social standing and age she was allowed to stay in the house of the prison keeper, Mr Scadding, at the Somerset County Gaol in Ilchester, rather than being kept in a cell. Mrs Leigh-Perrot still wrote though that she suffered ‘Vulgarity, Dirt, Noise from morning till night’. James Leigh-Perrot insisted on remaining with her in prison.
Mr James Leigh-Perrot. Image @JASA
During her trial Jane Leigh-Perrot spoke eloquently for herself. Several testimonials as to her character were also read out to the court. At the conclusion of the trial the jury took only 10 minutes to find her “Not Guilty.” It does, however, make you wonder how someone less well refined, less well-connected, less eloquent, less educated, less wealthy might have fared. The evidence of her guilt, might have been quite sufficient to send someone else to the gallows, or transported, or branded with a hot iron. She was after all caught in possession of the item and identified by the shop-keeper. In “Persuasion” Captain Harville asks Anne Elliot, ‘But how shall we prove anything?’ Anne replies, ‘We never shall.’
Mrs. Leigh-Perrot. Image @JASA
Jane Austen's World 
The question is: why did the shop keeper go to the expense and trouble of prosecuting this case when she had her lace back and wasn’t out any money. It was expensive to prosecute . The trial wasn’t held in Bath but at the assize in Taunton and the expenses of the prosecutor’s witnesses were on her. It also cost the Leigh Perrot’s money for the defense. Some have surmised that Mrs. L-P was known in the shop as a kleptomaniac — translated as ordinary thief in the shop keeper’s dictionary.– Others suggest that it was hinted that if money changed hands the charges would be dropped and Mr. L-P refused to pay. I don’t like this suggestion because I think Mr. L-P would have gladly paid hte money to save his wife distress. Or perhaps, the shopkeeper just disliked rich women and used the event to take revenge on one of them. Mrs.L-P said that it must have been put in by mistake or on purpose. I still wonder why.
I don’t think we will ever know the truth of this incident. As you say, Nancy, the shop-keeper had lost nothing and yet chose to prosecute, presumably knowing the severity of the punishment that the crime carried.
Opinions on Mrs L-P seem to differ, some liking her, others not, and I can’t help thinking that personalities were involved.
What can’t be doubted, is that if someone of a lower social class had been tried with the same evidence against them, it is possible that the verdict might have been quite different – and a severe punishment exacted.
How amazing that this occurred! I had no idea that her family was ever in trouble in this way, certainly not a lady like her aunt.
What an absolutely fascinating anecdote. I love this site!
[…] Austen’s World: “Law & Order and Jane Austen’s Aunt, by Paul Emanuelli“ Share […]
It is part of the family history that Mrs. Austen offered to send one of her girls to stay at the gaoler’s house to keep Mrs. L-P company when her husband had to be gone. Mrs. L-P is said to have declined the offer.
A very fascinating insight into the legal shortcomings of the past. What strikes me as really strange is that it took such a very long time for this country to come up with an organised police force, whereas many countries had already experimented with different methods of policing.
Ha ! Ha! Jane Cholmeley is wearing her trousers on her head!!!!!!!!
This is one of those things that I’d really like to know the real story because I just don’t have a favorable impression about her. She and her husband had also strongly hinted around that they were going to leave their fortune to James, I think, who was a poor rector of Steventon. The whole family counted on that and then when Mr. L-P died, it turned out that he left his entire estate to his wife, thus ending James’ hope of an easier life when he would have received an inheritance. I don’t know who Mrs. L-P left her estate to when she died. So, I’m inclined to not like Mrs. L-P. I seem to recall that she could be difficult to be in company with. I think the Austen family was more likely to favor her out of trying to make sure that James was still in her favor. I just think of her as a woman too aware of her own consequence who liked to liked being able to call on the Austens at her whimsy and they felt obliged to do what she asked. I’m basing this on biographies and Jane Austen’s letters. Please correct me if I’ve got some part of this wrong or if you have something to add.
Mrs. L-P did leave her fortune to James . Jane Austen thought it should have been left to her mother who needed it more.. James died with in a few years of Jane so it was his sons who mainly received the benefit of the money. They are the Austen-Leighs.
If she indeed had a problem, I think she would have taken the bail. Perhaps the shopkeeper was not as honest and did think she’d pay. Instead the lady decided to protect her name. Great post. But I say that a lot to you.
Thank you, Ellen. It was Paul who wrote the post, for which I am eternally grateful.
Reblogged this on Ella Quinn ~ Author.
[…] Avon Street, has contributed posts for this blog before about the City of Bath as a Character and Law & Order and Jane Austen’s Aunt. He has graciously sent in an article about food preparation in the 18th and 19th centuries. The […]
[…] order it), has contributed a post for this blog before about the City of Bath as a Character and Law & Order and Jane Austen’s Aunt, and Food – To Die For: Food Preparation in the Georgian Era. He has graciously sent in an […]
[…] order it), has contributed posts for this blog before about the City of Bath as a Character , Law & Order and Jane Austen’s Aunt, Walking in Austen’s Footsteps, and Food – To Die For: Food Preparation in the Georgian […]