Refusing the Royal Pardon: London Capital Convicts and the Reactions of the Courts and Press, 1789

Abstract

This article examines a series of angry confrontations which took place at the Old Bailey in 1789 between judges and a group of capital convicts who refused the royal pardon. Using the ideas of James Scott as a framework, the article analyses the court and press responses to these protests, tries to explain why the pardon was rejected in the first place and finally, explores what can be learned from this episode about the nature of deference. The court was not able simply to impose its will; its leverage for doing so was limited given the need to maintain the appearance of humanity and mercy. The press marginalised the protests by creating a fictive melodrama focussing on the leading female refuser. The reactions of the court and press also emphasised the humane concern of the court officials thus underwriting the legitimacy of the legal system. The prisoners were in part protesting against the re-imposition of transportation, but this was part of a larger hidden transcript which developed in Newgate Prison and on the hulks. The logic of their actions indicates that the prisoners were aware of the court's lack of room to manoeuvre on this issue. These women and men were able to mock with impunity the court's pretensions to justice and humanity. Finally, the article proposes an alternative way of understanding deference. Rather than making the degree to which it is internalised a central issue, deference is more usefully understood as a site of continuous struggle. The outward appearances of deference become tactical weapons used by both the powerful and the weak in different ways to suit their own needs and interests.