1896: Benjamin Ratcliff, school shooter	2015: Liu Han, former tycoon
1721: William Spigget, after peine forte et dure
February 8th, 2016 Headsman
English courts during the Bloody Code were strewn with all manner of weird pre-modern juridical relics, among which one must surely number the peine forte et dure — the "hard and forceful penalty" applied by courts against a defendant who refused to submit a plea.
The jurisdiction of criminal courts that we take for granted today initially emerged opposite potentially rival legal mechanisms for dispute resolution: ecclesiastical courts, weregild, even trial by combat. In principle, a defendant entering a plea at the bar was submitting himself to the specific jurisdiction of the court … a submission that, in principle, he could decline.
The march from that point to the present — when refusing to plead means the court simply enters an automatic "not guilty" plea on your behalf — consisted of gradually making the principle impossible in practice by dint of physical violence to force open the prisoner's lips. It doesn't matter if you lift a finger to defend yourself at trial, Mack, but we need you to say "guilty" or "not guilty" first.
The French term itself dates to a statute of Edward I in 1275, under the heading "The Punishment of Felons refusing lawful Trial" — one of those situations where the existence of the legislation proves the existence of the phenomenon. "Notorious Felons, and which openly be of evil Name," the text complains, "will not put themselves in Enquests of Felonies, that Men shall charge them with before the Justices at the King's Suit, shall have strong and hard Imprisonment (la prisone forte et dure), as they which refuse to stand to the Common Law of the Land."
The text's language suggests close confinement, fetters and guards, crummy rat-gnawed rations in the dumpiest hole of the dungeon: probably the king who introduced hanging, drawing, and quartering could make "hard imprisonment" quite persuasively uncomfortable.
But by the time of Queen Elizabeth, the state saw the need to narrow this potential refuge from the law down to the size of a pinprick. From the 16th century, we find that a special form of torturing to death is designed for prisoners refusing to plead:
the Prisoner is laid in a low dark Room in the Prison, all naked but his Privy Members, his Back upon the bare Ground his Arms and Legs stretched with Cords, and fastned to the several Quarters of the Room. This done, he has a great Weight of Iron and Stone laid upon him. His Diet, till he dies, is of three Morsels of Barley bread without Drink the next Day.*
"Which grievous death some resolute Offenders have chosen," we understand, "to save their Estates to their Children." Even this potential pecuniary loophole — the one once sought by Salem witch trials victim Giles Corey when he preferred pressing to death to the certainty of condemnation as a warlock — had vanished, for "in case of High Treason, the Criminal's Estate is forfeited to the Sovereign, as in all capital Crimes, notwithstanding his being pressed to Death."
The crown was trying to open an impassable gap between theory and practice, and it was accomplishing that end: this stuff happened once in a blue moon.
People threatened to withhold their plea, sure. What would follow is that a judge would read out in chilling detail everything that was about to befall the fellow (it was usually a fellow, though not always), then a bailiff would seize him and painfully tie his thumbs together right there in court, then march him off to the staking-out room to get things ready. Just showing the instruments of torture was the first rung on the torture-ladder, and usually somewhere in this whole process the defendant — be he ever so hardened — would chicken out and agree to make a plea before the first weight was ever loaded onto his torso.
A Tyburn hanging is the focus of this post: it's a mass execution of seven souls on the 8th of February in 1721. So the peine forte et dure did indeed do its job, force its plea, and noose its man.
But even though William Spigget/Spiggot died at the end of a rope, he was the rare soul who did go so far as to force the awful pressing torture, and to endure it for a little while.
Spigget led a robber gang of eight or so men preying on the roads out of London; one of those men, Thomas Phillips aka Thomas Cross, hanged alongside his boss. They had been caught only days before their eventual trial on January 13, and Spigget bravely, stubbornly, or foolishly refused to submit his plea. (Cross at first refused too, but he was in the chicken-out camp.)
The Ordinary of Newgate, plainly struck by the experience (and not a little aware of its potential to move copy), dwelt at greater length on Spigget's 30 minutes under the stones than he did on the whole lives of some of the other February 8 hang-day compatriots.
Before he was Put into the Press, I went to Him, and endeavour'd to dissuade him, from being the Author and Occasion of his own Death; and from cutting Himself off from that Space and Time which the Law allowed Him, to repent in, for his vicious Course of Life: He then told me, that if I came to take Care of his Soul, he would regard Me, but if I came about his Body, he desired to be excused, he could not hear one Word. After a while, I left him, and when I saw him again, it was in the Vault, upon the bare Ground, with the Weights (viz. 350 pounds) upon his Breast. I there pray'd by him; and at Times ask'd him, why he would destroy his Soul as well as Body, by such an obstinate Kind of Self-Murder:** All his Answer was, Pray for Me; Pray for Me! In the Midst of his Groans, he sometimes lay silent, as if Insensible of Pain; then would fetch his Breath very quick and fast. Two or three Times, he complained that they had laid a cruel Weight on his Face; tho' nothing was upon his Face, but a thin Cloth; That was however remov'd and laid more light and hollow; but he still complain'd of the prodigious Weight they had laid upon his Face; which might be occasion'd by the Blood being flush'd and forc'd up into his Face, and pressing as violently against the Veins and small Tendrills there, as if the Pressure upon them had been externally on his Face. When he had continu'd about half an Hour in the Torture, and 50 pound more of Weight had been laid on his Breast, he told the Justice of Peace who committed him, and myself, That he would Plead.
Having thus been awed by 400 pounds of the law's majesty — and restored to something like sensibility with a splash of brandy, and several days' rest during which Spigget's post-ordeal health at times turned so precarious that he besought the last sacrament — both the apex robber and his henchman were easily convicted of several specific robberies upon the roads. One victim was able to identify the two as his assailants; in other cases, specific victims' stolen goods were recovered from Spigget's own lodgings, like Neal Sheldon's valuable wig. Any one of these crimes would have been good enough to hang them.
Showing honor among thieves, the two men concentrated their few remarks on clearing a third confederate tried with them: the evidence against William Heater being circumstantial, and Spigget and Cross insisting that he was more incidental flunky than accomplice, his neck went un-stretched.
So why endure the hard and forceful penalty at all? By all appearances Spigget's reason in the end resolved to pride: a violently exaggerated performance of the same criminal bravado that led so many of his peers to make a show of dying game at the gallows. "The Reasons, as far as I could learn from Him," the Ordinary reported,
were, That he might preserve his Effects, for the use of his Family; That it might not be urged to his Children, that their Father was hanged; and that — Linsey should not tryumph over him, by saying he had sent him to Tyburn.
(Joseph Lin(d)sey was a former fellow-robber who saved his own life by turning crown's evidence against his former mates. Spigget, we are told, was particularly galled by this betrayal "because Spigget had once rescued him [Lindsey] when he was nigh being taken, and in the defending him was wounded, and in danger of his Life.")
As we have noted, Blighty's seizure laws had already made the first objective a nonstarter, which leaves our man aspiring to a desperate exertion of masculine defiance. The Spigget of his own mind's eye was a knight of the road so scornful of death that he would even let them slowly crush him to death. He fell short on that score, but dared much more than anyone had done in years, and no wonder: even the moments he endured as if hours might have been enough to shorten his years had he received an unlikely reprieve.
Sometimes he would say, that he wish'd he had dy'd in the Pressing, For that all sence of Pain was by the Pain taken from him, and he was fallen into a kind of Slumber. At other Times he express'd himself, that he was glad he did not cut himself off, by his Obstinacy, from that space the Law had allow'd him, for his Repentance, for the Sins of his whole Life.
On Monday, February 6, before the Execution, he receiv'd the Sacrament; and said that he desir'd not to Live, for he could be only a weak and unhealthy Man; and added that he could raise his Breath only in the lower Part of his Stomach
* This is not statutory language but that of a contemporary observer.
** The Ordinary really fixated on the suicide angle, just as if entering the trial were not an equally suicidal choice; the whole lot of the condemned got to hear as part of his sermon
That it was a False-Courage, for Malefactors assured that they shall dye, to lay violent Hands upon Themselves, to prevent the effects of the Law; and that if it was an Action fit for Socrates and Cato, and the greatest Heathens; it was yet too mean and indecent for the lowest Christian; as there is something Cowardly and Base, in cutting off our Lives, for fear of Pain and Shame. Nor would Sampson perhaps have obtain'd Licence from God, to Murder Himself, but that in his Person the Name of his God was mocked and ridiculed, and made a Jest for Dagon.
1723: Charles Weaver, John Levee, Richard Oakey and Matthew Flood - 2019
1804: Ann Hurle, forger - 2018
1943: The five martyrs of the lycee Buffon - 2017
1527: Georg Wagner - 2015
1844: Hester Foster and William Young Graham - 2014
1804: Little Harpe and Peter Alston, Mississippi pirates - 2013
1942: Icchok Malmed - 2012
1924: The first electrocutions in Texas - 2011
1910: George Reynolds and John Williams - 2010
1924: Gee Jon, debuting the gas chamber - 2009
1587: Mary, Queen of Scots - 2008
1726: The Gypsy outlaws of Hesse-Darmstadt
1750: James Maclaine
1741: Jenny Diver, a Bobby Darin lyric?
1719: Nicholas Horner, a minister's son
1739: Dick Turpin, outlaw legend
1784: Richard Barrick, Massachusetts highwayman
1761: Isaac Darkin, dying game
Entry Filed under: 18th Century,Capital Punishment,Common Criminals,Crime,Death Penalty,England,Execution,Hanged,History,Mass Executions,Outlaws,Public Executions,Theft,Torture
Tags: 1720s, 1721, february 8, joseph lindsey, london, ordinary of newgate, peine forte et dure, thomas cross, thomas phillips, Tyburn, william spigget