Regular readers will know that I have a passing interest in history, and like to post from a constant perspective on life  that there is nothing new under the sun.

Recently SadButmadLad’s post on Minister for Silly Crimes contained a reference to an article on “gang culture” in Victorian times and reminded me that many years ago I did part of my history degree on History of Crime, and that “gang culture” formed part of this.

It was perhaps the most interesting term of my studies, apart from the one I spent pursuing a young lady called Roxanne. But that is another matter.

Anyway, over the past couple of months, we have had the spectacle of undercover policemen infiltrating radicals and turning native, the government having a go at hoodies and gangs, and the odd riot. We have the constant moaning about drunkenness and disorder and knife crime. Have we seen it all before? Let’s have a brief look at the 18^th Century and the Victorian Age and see how it compares.

By the early nineteenth century the economic and social effects of industrialisation were of course beginning to take effect, particularly by the expansion of urban centres and the squalor that came with it. At the same time the criminal law was still rooted in an almost feudal base with offences, as I recall, such as ”Having  wood and being unable to account for it” punishable by hanging. By the same token, until the formation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829, the concept of police in the modern sense was unheard of, and law enforcement seems to have remained at the level of the Shakespearean Watchman.

Against this background radical and revolutionary ideas were in the air, which would later flower in the form of Engels, Marx and others.

In terms of revolutionary activity and agent provocateurs and rioting we’d have to go it a bit to top the Cato Street Conspiracy.

In 1792 Thomas Spence arrived in London from Newcastle and became a radical ideologue preaching the equal distribution of land and other ideas which can legitimately be termed socialist.

He died in 1814 but his followers (“Spenceans”) continued to organise and agitate. After a riot in Islington one of his followers was stabbed and four charged with High Treason. The main prosecution witness turned out to be a government spy and agent provocateur with a questionable history and the jury refused to convict.

In 1819 members of the Spencean movement played a part in organising and speaking at the huge public meeting which resulted in the Peterloo massacre in Manchester. 18 people died and as many as 500 were injured by the sabres of troopers on horses.

This revved up the hard core Spenceans even more. So much so that the next year (1820) when some of the Spenceans learned that several ministers were due to have dinner in Grosvenor Square the next evening they formed a daring plan to assassinate the ministers and just for extra spice cut off their heads and parade them on poles. They took over a building in nearby Cato Street as a base for the assault, but once again there was a spy in the camp and police raided the house. Some Spenceans escaped, some surrendered but there was also a sword fight in which one policeman was stabbed to death. Four of the conspirators were later hanged and others transported.

How about the modern day booze cruise? I understand the revenue have been busy confiscating alcohol and cigarettes brought from Europe for re-sale to the unhappy inhabitants of this isle who are too poor to enjoy the heavily taxed booze and fags.

I am not sure this would have been tolerated in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Smuggling gangs such as “The Blues of Kent” were large and well organised and employed so called “batsmen” to defend the contraband – armed with clubs, flails and hand guns, woe betide any revenue man who tried to intervene.

I well recall reading how the citizens of one area rise up when they discovered their precious contraband had been seized, marched 30 miles en masse to the revenue men’s basis, and forcibly took it back, giving the 18^th VAT men a severe kicking in the process, before processing home in triumph. An aspect of the Big Society which I would heartily endorse, although IDave might not feel this entirely “on message”.

How about general crime?

In the squalor of Victorian London (and doubtless elsewhere), street crime was endemic. In 1811 there was a brutal double murder in the east end which sparked a debate about policing which ultimately led to the formation of the Metropolitan Police, and crime formed the basis of lurid reports in the press such as this one.

For a brief snapshot of mayhem on the Victorian street, there is this from The Victorian Web history site. It certainly seems as if the police were busy in London. In The Night Side of London (1858) J. Ewing Ritchie gives the following figures for 1856:

It appears that in all 73,240 persons were taken into custody, of whom 45,941 were `males, and 27,209 females; 18,000 of the apprehensions were on account of drunkenness, 8160 for unlawful possession of goods, 7021 for simple larceny, 6763 for common assaults, 2194 for assaults on the police; 4303 women were taken into custody as prostitutes.

Leaving aside drunkenness, theft was rampant. While children might pickpocket and steal from barrows on the streets, women might engage in shoplifting, and, as for London’s sly con men, cheats, “magsmen” or “sharpers,” they were notorious. So were the housebreakers working in teams, and slipping into homes and shops and warehouses. Mugging, with its associated violence, was rife. A hanky dipped in chloroform might be used to subdue someone before robbing him, or a man’s hat might be tipped over his face to facilitate the crime (this was called “bonneting”). Another ruse was to lure men down to the riverside by using prostitutes as decoys. The dupes would then be beaten up and robbed out of sight of passers-by. Violence could, of course, easily extend to murder. Prostitutes themselves ran huge risks. No one knows how many of them were strangled or stabbed or butchered (Jack the Ripper was far from the only villain, and Dickens’s Nancy must be mourned for many a pitiful “lost woman”). No respectable woman would have ventured forth after dark at all, if she had any choice in the matter. Even if a policeman appeared on the crime scene, he might be driven off by having nitric acid thrown in his face. The helpless were at special risk. Well-turned-out children might be waylaid, dragged down an alley, and stripped of their finery, or pet dogs kidnapped for ransom or simply filched for their skins. Around mid-century, and again in 1862, “garrotting” or half-strangling unwary pedestrians from behind while accomplices stripped them of their valuables, caused great waves of panic (White 337). There were big-time criminals as well as gangs of street hooligans. In a new version of highway robbery, for instance, bankers’ consignments might be snatched in transit. There was also a surge in gun crime in the 1880s, and hardened burglars “increasingly went armed”.”

Perhaps you could avoid trouble by taking the new fangled railway? Not a bit of it!  From The Victorian Web again.

“According to Peter Kalla-Bishop, in the mid-nineteenth century, the railway traveller — and men in particular — often had to cope with danger as well as discomfort. Trains were frequented by cardsharps, thimble-riggers [con men who play the shell game], pickpockets, robbers and murderers, whose fondness for dressing up as clergymen often gave the impression that the Church of England had ordered a mass exchange of incumbents.

These threats to the wallet and the person could not be avoided by wisely choosing a compartment occupied by a lady. In the absence of corridors many of these apparent ladies turned out to be blackmailers who, unless their demands were met, proved only too ready to march up to a porter at the end of the journey and make accusations of “improper advances.” The word around the clubs was that it was safer to travel in make company while bearing in mind the advice of The Railway Traveller’s Handy Book of 1862: “In going through a tunnel it is always as well to have the hands and arms disposed for defence so that in the event of an attack the assailant may be immediately beaten back or restrained.”

The first murder on a British train was Thomas Briggs, a 69-year-old clerk, battered to death and thrown onto the line while travelling to London on the 21.50 from Broad Street to Poplar in July 1864. The motive appeared to be robbery as his gold watch and chain, and gold-rimmed glasses, were found to be missing.

Meanwhile, today’s hoodies would appear to have a long and an illustrious heritage

The term “Hooligan” is said to derive from the activities of the Irish Hooligan family in south London, but this may be something of an urban myth. But what is not a myth is that the term has been in currency since the 1890’s. It was first recorded in the annals of the London Police Courts in 1894 in a reference to a gang terrorising Lambeth, “The Hooligan Boys”. Also referred to as “The O’Hooligan Boys.” A murder by a member of the gang in 1898 drew the attention of the press and the word passed into common parlance from there.

Meanwhile up in Manchester gang culture would give anything in London a run for their money.  Historian Andrew Davies has written an account in his book The Gangs of Manchester – Gang members were known as “scuttlers,” “scuttling” being the colloquial word for fighting.

Just like mods and rockers of the 60’s or the modern hoodie they often they wore trade mark clothes and haircuts: these included bell bottomed trousers, caps and distinctive haircuts known as “the donkey fringe,” seemingly something quite New Romantic in style. Coloured scarves marked out particular gangs and brass tipped clogs added to the menacing look.

In another uncanny parallel with modern concerns about violence amongst teenage girls there were female gang members as young as 14 known as “scuttlerettes.”  These young ladies would raise the testosterone lever by flirting with rival youths, egging them on.  Scuttler gangs fought for status as the “hardest” and would travel considerable distances to arranges fights. Some became media figures: Joseph Hillier was a member of “the Deansgate Mob” aged 14. These days it would mean that he drank cappuccino and ate tapas. Then it meant that he was repeatedly jailed for slashing members of the rival “Casino Gang” with a butcher’s knife. He was known in the press as “The King of the Scuttlers”. Delighted with this, he had the slogan sewn into the front of his jersey.

Gangs adopted fantastic names which seemingly reflected the whiff of Empire such as “the Bengal Mob” or “the Meadow Tigers”, but what “She Battery Mob” were named after goodness only knows. Fights such as “the Rochdale Road War” between groups nicknamed “Turks” and “Russians” might involve hundreds of Scuttlers.

Finally, one little titbit that my researches turned up. When watching all those holiday adverts that plaster the TV at this time of year, remember that one Thomas Cook began his business by, amongst other matters, organising train trips to watch public executions. Now that’s what I call a holiday!

Gildas the Monk

Eleanor February 6, 2011 at 12:43

Interesting about the word Hooligan. It even sounds Irish. Not that I’ve
got anything against the Irish, being half Irish myself. And a bit of a
Hooligan in my time.

kevin
Burctoolla February 5, 2011 at
20:55

very good post.

Ed P February 5, 2011 at 21:12

The post was made from the best wood

Richard B February
5, 2011 at 20:20

“Having wood and being unable to account for it”

I remember it well.

*sigh*

Pericles February 5, 2011 at 20:17

The bit about ‘having wood’ —

XLI.  That if the whole or any part of any tree, sapling, or shrub,
or … being of the value of two shillings at the least shall … be found in
the possession of any person … and such person … shall not satisfy the
Justice that came lawfully by the same, he shall … forfeit and pay, over and
above the value of the article so found, any sum not exceeding two
pounds.

— is from the Larceny Act, 1827 (7/8 Geo. IV Cap. XXIX), one of
four acts consolidating the vast majority of the criminal law in England at
the time ;  it makes interesting reading.

Jolly good article, Fra. Gildas ;  I find the history of
industrial England fascinating.

ΠΞ

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 21:59

Hey, cool, thank you! maybe my memory has mislead me on the penalty,
Well, It is 30 years or more!

Span
Ows February 5, 2011 at 19:50

Excellent stuff. More please. Parallels a-many but no forced hard labour,
deportation, obliged sea/naval service etc. More’s the pity.

Demetrius February
5, 2011 at 19:26

Leave my family out of this.

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 19:50

Eh?

Ancient and Tattered
Airman February 5, 2011 at 19:20

Ah, a wonderful read – but it leaves me feeling nostalgic for the ‘good old
days’!

Jim Baxter February 5, 2011 at 18:57

Excellent bit of hisory GtM. Reminds me of complaints of unruly youths who
don’t respect their elders, dating from Roman times. Dating in Roman times is
another matter.

Of course we need new, draconian laws, maybe dicatorship. A totalitarian
state never suffers from terrorism or piracy. It is too frightening. Worth
noting that. Julius Caesar would confirm that, never having been kidnapped by
pirates, as would Quinctilius Varus who so awed the Germans. Hannibal too.

Jeremy Poynton
February 5, 2011 at 18:12

“Having wood and being unable to account for it”

Perfect New Labour legislation, really.

Ed P February 5, 2011 at 17:41

Fascinating and informative, O esteemed monkiness.

Roxanne went on to be lauded by the Police (beat combo, not the
rozzers).

But your “Having wood and being unable to account for it” has damaged my
keyboard, as I was drinking coffee when my dirty mind read it!

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 17:58

Thank you Ed!
Yes…, I too thought of that on re-reading! Actually it
was a real offence. Sadly my notes and books have long been pillaged by
barbarians (i.e my ex wife) and lost to history and my internet research has
been unable to pin it down. What was happening was that offences which were
essentially feudal/Norman were still on the statute book and with the most
severe sanction in the face of wholly new social forces….
But that is
another story….
G

Joe Public February 5, 2011 at 17:09

Thank you Gildas.

A posting read for pleasure turns out to be a (social) history lesson in
disguise.

My recollection that ‘History is Boring’, was because the ‘teachers’ failed
to instil interest. For me, the web arrived too late.

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 17:40

Thank you Joe. You were unlucky. My history teachers at school were
great. At University, of course, they were crap plus I did no work,
preferring to drink, do sports and chase girls.
But it should never be
boring!
G

JuliaM February 5,
2011 at 17:08

Fascinating!

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 17:38

Thank you Julia

Zaphod February 5, 2011 at 16:47

So, about this return to Victorian values…

Rocky
Raccoon February 5, 2011 at 16:46

This article reeks of Victorian London. I can almost smell the drains.

Dick Turpin was a member of an Essex gang. He was not the dashing anti-hero
of myth, he was brutal and people who resisted during a robbery were tortured
or killed. Turpin was a modern day Kenneth Noye. He evaded justice for some
time, but his temper let him down. Having slunk to York he lived under an
alias. Turpin’s rotten temper got the better of him and he was arrested for
shooting a prize cockerel belonging to his landlord, and arguing violently.
His true identity was exposed and he was hanged close to where York racecourse
is today.

lenko February 5, 2011 at 16:35

I seem to remember that in Elizabethan days, there were concerns over the
number of apprentice boys and the time they lost playing football. London was
at least as dangerous then as in Victorian times, and crime levels were high,
despite the draconian nature of some of the punishments.

Gildas theMonk
February 5, 2011 at 16:31

The above pic are various infamous “scuttlers” arrested by Plod. Contrary
to my initial reading, their hair cuts are more “Mod” than New Romantic , but
involved a distinctive fringe. Note also the distinctive scarfs, forerunners
of the distinctive “chav” look, perhaps?
Not to be left out. our Brummie
friends had their own version with gangs such as “the Sloggers”:
http://www.spaghettigazetti.com/2010/12/gangs-of-victorian-birmingham-revealed.html
Regards
G
the M