Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 By Cerian Charlotte Griffiths Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy September 2017 Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Abstract The inspiration for this thesis comes from a recognition of the problems in prosecuting financial crime in the modern day. In exploring how fraud was prosecuted from 1760 to 1820, this thesis seeks to contextualise modern prosecutorial failings into a longer history of the struggles to define and address fraud and deceptive practices. It also seeks to contribute to existing research into historical financial crime by providing a detailed history of fraud offences and the settings in which these offences had been previously enforced. This thesis will answer three central questions: what offences made up ‘fraud’ by the early nineteenth century? – Who was prosecuting these offences? – and, how was fraud being prosecuted at this time? The first of these questions seeks, for the first time in the literature, to identify and trace fraud offences to the nineteenth century. This thesis will then identify who was prosecuting fraud, and then how they prosecuted fraud in order to explain how fraud offences were shaped through enforcement and how this impacted upon the development of fraud offences. In asking these three central questions, this thesis will provide a lens through which to explain how, and for whom, the criminal justice system operated in the eighteenth century. This thesis explores and categorises all fraud trials heard at the Old Bailey between 1760 and 1820 and builds on these records by using a range of greater and lesser known sources including City of London officials’ notes, government financial records, and more obscure materials of contemporary practitioners. By tracing the prosecution of fraud from the lowest to the highest criminal courts in London, this thesis provides an holistic overview of the choices available to prosecutors of fraud, and explains why so many fraud trials were heard within the senior courts rather than the summary courts. This explanation is made possible by the application of structuralist theories which explain why particular social and economic groups prosecuted fraud offences at such a high level, and how the criminal justice system operated to assist such prosecutions. i Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Table of Contents Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………………………………………………..p.vi List of Tables and Images……………………………………………………………………………....p.ix Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..………p.x Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………………....p.1 The Project: An Overview……………………………………………………………………..…...p.3 Pre-Existing Literature in the Field……………………………………………………………..p.17 Chapter Outline…………………………………………………………………………………….…...p.20 Chapter 2: Methods and Methodology……………………………………………………………p.22 The Old Bailey Sessions Papers: Use as an Historical Source……………………….p.23 The Proceedings: Methodological Considerations……………………………………...p.33 Old Bailey Online (OBO): the Digitisation of the Proceedings……………………..p.35 Searching for Fraud Offences within the OBO…………………………………………….p.40 Additional Archives……………………………………………………………………………………..p.43 Disciplinary Approaches………………………………………………………………………………p.47 Methods of Analysis………………………………………………………………………………….…p.55 ii Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Chapter 3: Fraud: Offences, Ontology, and Connections………………………………..p.60 Fraud: Offences and Ontologies…………………………………………………………………p.63 Fraud and the Wider Criminal Law……………………………………………………………..p.87 The Operation of the Law: Fraud alongside other Offences………………………..p.94 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………....p.95 Chapter 4: Disposal of Fraud Accusations……………………………………………………….p.98 Civil or Criminal? Fraud within the Wider Court System…………………………….p.99 Fraud within the Summary and Quarter Sessions Courts……………………………p.118 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….p.126 Chapter 5: Fraud in Practice and the People who Prosecuted…………………………p.128 The Occupations of Fraud Prosecutors at the Old Bailey…………………………….p.130 Types of Fraud Heard at the Old Bailey………………………………………………………p.145 Naval Fraud………………………………………………………………………………………………..p.155 Prosecutorial Actors: Complainants and Agents………………………………………….p.172 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………….......p.173 iii Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Chapter 6: The Role of Prosecutors and Tools of Prosecutions……………………….p.177 Deciding the Offence……………………………………………………………………………......p.177 The Role of Clerks………………………………………………………………………………...……p.179 Prosecution Associations and Fraud…………………………………………………………..p.185 Fraud and the Use of Policing and Magistrates’ Agents……………………………..p.199 The Presence of Counsel in Fraud Trials……………………………………………………..p.204 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….p.211 Chapter 7: Fraud Trials within the Old Bailey………………………………………………….p.213 Fraud in the City and Middlesex…………………………………………………………………p.216 Fraud in the Magistrates’ Courts………………………………………………………………..p.217 Decision-making in the Magistrates’ Courts……………………………………………….p.218 Middlesex…………………………………………………………………………………………………..p.222 The City………………………………………………………………………………………………………p.228 The Naval Exception…………………………………………………………………………………...p.236 The Old Bailey and the Specialised Jury………………………………………………………p.238 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….p.243 iv Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Chapter 8: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….…p.245 Fraud Offences…………………………………………………………………………………………..p.245 Prosecutors of Fraud………………………………………………………………………………….p.248 Methods of Fraud Prosecution…………………………………………………………………..p.249 Concluding Thoughts and Future Research………………………………………………...p.253 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………….p.256 v Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Glossary of Terms Aldermen The City of London elected officials who sat as Magistrates, and from whom one was chosen each year to serve as Lord Mayor of the City. Assize Court The most senior criminal court for trials of first instance. The assize court heard mostly felonies but some misdemeanours. In London, see Old Bailey Crown Court The appellant court within which sat the Twelve Judges. See the Reserved Twelve Judges. Felony The most serious category of criminal offence, some felonies were capital. Historically, a conviction for felony resulted in the forfeiture of all goods. By the eighteenth century the main procedural characteristic was the denial by right of defence counsel in matters of felony. Guildhall Where the Aldermen of the City of London held Summary Court Sessions, see Summary Courts. King’s Bench A common law court which heard both criminal and civil matters. Criminal cases could be removed from ordinary criminal courts using a writ of Certiorari. Magistrates See Summary Courts Court vi Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Mansion House Where the Lord Mayor of London held Summary Court Sessions, see Summary Courts. Metropolis London was made up of the City of London, Middlesex, and (London) Westminster. The Metropolis in the eighteenth century covered the central and northern parts of modern London; south of the river Thames was Southwark which formed part of London but which fell under the jurisdiction of Surrey. See Image 7.1 Misdemeanour The least serious category of criminal offence, some misdemeanours could result in seven years transportation. By right, a prisoner was entitled to counsel in matters of misdemeanour. Old Bailey The assize court for the entire Metropolis of London but which sat within the walls of the City of London. Petty Sessions Another term for a Summary Court Quarter The second highest criminal court in England in which could be heard Sessions felonies or misdemeanours but which heard primarily misdemeanours. Quarter Sessions sat four times a year and were sometimes referred to as ‘Sessions’ for short-hand. Sessions This can refer to Petty Sessions or Quarter Sessions depending on the context of the usage. vii Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 Star Chamber Established in the fifteenth century as a court (ostensibly) hearing prosecutions and litigation against socially and economically powerful persons. Decisions of the Star Chamber are contentious as it is well recognised that the court abused its position to pursue political opponents. Summary The lowest criminal court which heard mostly criminal matters and Courts often acted as the first court to which a criminal complaint was made. Presided over by Magistrates. The work of these courts would largely be transferred to the Police Courts in the nineteenth century. See Magistrates’ Court and Petty Sessions Twelve Judges The senior professional twelve judges in England who decided on matters of law appealed to the Crown Court Reserved. These judges also sat within courts of first instance such as the assize courts, including the Old Bailey. viii Prosecuting Fraud in the Metropolis, 1760-1820 List of Tables and Images Tables Table 4.1: The Value of Goods Obtained by Fraud Indictments Table 4.2: Disposal of Fraud Accusation in the City of London Summary Courts Table 4.3: Sample of Quarter Sessions Recognizances in Middlesex and Westminster, 1760-1820. Table 4.4: Sample of Quarter Sessions Recognizances in the City of London, 1760- 1820. Table 5.1: Occupations of Prosecutors of Fraud Table 5.2: Forms of Fraud Heard at