A Flogged Bread Thief

Genealogy is often about names and dates associated with distant ancestors who, having led very ordinary lives left no mark.  David Stratton who also led a very ordinary life in Luton, Bedfordshire, England during the nineteenth century could be said to be one of those ancestors but for one interesting youthful event.  

David Stratton (1825-1910) was a paternal great great grandfather of mine who went on to father three daughters, one of whom was my great grandmother.  Before taking up the responsibilities of parenthood, however, one youthful escapade intruded on his otherwise very ordinary life.  He is the only known ancestor to have been judicially flogged.

Bedfordshire County trial records for March 11, 1843 record his conviction for the felony of larceny at the stated age of sixteen (He was in fact 17 at the time.)  The Stratton family was not well off.  David’s crime, according to the Luton gaol registry, had been to steal some bread.  Bread thievery, at least in the mind of the presiding judge, was something to be dealt with severely.  David was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment and whipping.  The number of lashes is not specified.

Whipping had been a common punishment for various crimes until the early nineteenth century.  David Stratton’s sentence of jail plus whipping seems to have been imposed at a time when it was a common sentencing tool for a myriad of crimes.  It also appears to have been a favourite sentencing tool of the presiding judge.  All those on the docket convicted of larceny on March 11, 1843 met a similar fate. 

It was not long after that whipping was reserved for only the most serious sexual offences until being completely outlawed in England in 1948 and Canada in 1972.  To a present day observer, the practice sounds barbaric and inconsistent with any notion of what is judicially appropriate.

It may be, however, that David was grateful only to be jailed and whipped.  Transportation and banishment to Australia remained in the British arsenal of sentencing tools until 1851.  It is difficult to feel all that much shame for this ancestor convicted of minor theft. The shame more rightfully belongs to the draconian system of justice in nineteenth century England that considered corporal punishment appropriate for such a trivial crime.