The Oddingley Murders

On 24th June 1806, George Parker, Rector of Oddingley, was found in the village of Oddingley lying in a field and dying from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He was discovered after a shot and the cry of "Murder, Murder!" had been heard by two men travelling along a nearby lane. They saw someone running away and, from their description, Richard Heming, a local odd-job man, was wanted. He could not be found and rumours abounded he had left for America. In 1830 a skeleton was found in a barn near to where George Parker had been shot. From his clothes he was identified as Richard Heming. Both men were deemed to have died in 1806, and neither had yet resulted in a conviction.

The barn was owned by one Thomas Clewes. He was promptly arrested and, while in gaol, he confessed to having witnessed the murder of Heming, and even named the killers. Three local farmers, all substantial landowners, were in dispute with Parker about the tithes they were required to pay. They paid £50 to Heming to murder the rector, and then bludgeoned their own man to death. Clewes, John Barnett, and George Banks were arrested and charged, and the case made national headlines. (The third farmer had since died.) Everyone expected a triple hanging - and, in 1830, who did not enjoy a good hanging (well EastEnders had yet to reach the public and yes, I know it seems like it's been around that long).

First the law did not allow for the charge of murdering Parker to be levelled at any of them. They may have been accessories, but the law in 1806 (when the murder took place) did not allow them to be charged. It had been changed by 1830, but the law was not changed to work retroactively. Yet they could have been charged with Parker's murder, if Heming had been charged, which he could not be as he was already dead. But, it was these three who had had a hand in killing the killer, so where is the justice here?

Further complications meant Clewes was only charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Heming. His two surviving accomplices, Barnett and Banks, were then charged as his accomplices. Now it gets even more frustrating, for there was little evidence remaining, any witnesses called to give evidence were uncertain when giving details and many contradicted statements they had made earlier. Well it was 24 years afterwards and the ringleader, Captain Evans, and the third man, James Taylor, were deceased. To add further confusion, Clewes counsel argued that his confession could not be used to implicate others, as he had had no foreknowledge of, nor participated in, the murder of Heming. All three, despite clearly being guilty, were set free and lived out thier lives in relative peace. The locals, who were rather relieved that nobody was held to account for two murders (showing how unpopular the tithes were), broke into the church and rang the bells in celebration (much to the indignation of the press).

For a clergyman to be murdered was rare in Georgian England, but for his death to result from a conspiracy between a magistrate and yeomen farmers was unique. Although a clash of strong personalities contributed at Oddingley, the dysfunctional tithe system was the root of the conflict. Parker's income as rector came from his 'tithe', his right to a one-tenth share in everything the parish produced. At Oddingley as in most parishes farmers had switched to paying money annually rather than giving actual produce, but by 1800 there was often a mismatch between whatever long-agreed sum they gave as tithe, and the real value of a tenth of their crops. Parker's annual income from his tithes was £135, then a respectable amount; but one which had not altered for decades, while years of war had caused rampant inflation. After Parker tried to renegotiate his payment and the farmers refused, for several years he collected his tithes in kind. This procedure caused smouldering resentment and sometimes violence: when it did, Parker simply took the recalcitrant farmer to court. His stubborn refusal to be intimidated exasperated them and his success in gathering a tenth of their produce cost them money. After five years of attrition they were ready to yield the increase he had asked - but at this point Parker demanded a further sum of £150 compensation for costs incurred in collecting his tithes. With the resentful farmers under the sway of Captain Evans, an ex-military man already familiar with the process of delegating violence, a fairly commonplace quarrel over tithes ended in double murder.

The Judicial System

I have recently returned to something approaching normality after a couple of weeks jury service. A lot of the time was spent sitting around, with some roaming about in the jurors waiting area. Innumerable notices adorned the walls (I proofread them all) but it was not until the second week I found a notice referring to the origins of the judicial system in this country (and thereafter in many parts of the world), saying it was largely unknown but had existed much as it does today for several centuries.

There will be many more qualified to write on the subject of the system and my thoughts, somewhat predictably, turned to the terminology. Indeed some indication of the etymology of these terms may even give some clues as to the origins of the system.

Court – from Old French cort, itself derived from Latin cohors hortis ‘the yard retinue’. Note this refers to the whole assembly and not the room which we should correctly refer to as a courtroom.

Judge – again came to English from Old French juge and ultimately from the Latin judex judicis where jus is ‘law’ and dicus ‘speaking’.

Jury (and thus juror) – from Old French juree and ultimately from Latin jurare meaning ‘oath, swear’.

Barrister – is correctly a barrister-at-law, a term used mainly in Britain for an advocate in the higher courts and ultimately derived from the use of ‘bar’ to refer to the enclosure where a prisoner is held in a court of law. The additional ‘-ister’ is understood to have been likened to ‘minister’. Obviously the ‘bar’ in the court is used much the same as any dividing line.

Solicitor – another chiefly British term, at least from the legal perspective, and referring to those dealing with conveyancing, wills, acting in lower courts, and advising barristers. It clearly comes from ‘solicit’, from Old French solliciter. Ultimately these are from Latin, where sollicitare ‘agitate’, sollicitus ‘anxious’, and derived from sollus ‘entire’ and citus ‘set in motion’.

Prosecution – again this came to English through Old French from Latin, in English derived from ‘prosecute’. Here the origin is prosequi and used in the same sense as ‘to pursue (as in an inquiry)’ coming from Latin pro sequi.

Clerk – both Old English cleric and Old French clerc and from Latin clericus and ultimately from Greek klerikos ‘lot, heritage’. This is easy to see how those recording events in the courtroom were likened to those reading and writing on behalf of the church.

Magistrate – a term which came to English from Latin magistratus ‘administrator’ and describing perfectly the role such officers play in the court system.

Usher – correctly usher-of-the-court, the term is used to refer to those showing people to their seats in a theatre and at a wedding. This came from Old French uissier and ultimately from Latin ostiarius and ostium ‘door’.

Prisoner – clearly derived from ‘prison’ and coming to English from Old French prisun and Latin prehensio ‘the lay hold of’.

Dock – the most recent of all the terms, which is unknown in English (in this context) before the sixteenth century. It seems its original use is as a slang term and derived from the Flemish word dok or ‘cage’.

Chambers – the term used for the private quarters for barristers and judges came to our language from Old French chambre, ultimately from Latin camera meaning ‘vault, arched chamber’.

Plea – from Old French plait ‘agreement’, from Latin placitum ‘a decree’ and ultimately from Latin placer ‘to please’.

Guilty – whilst we can trace this back to Old English gylt we have no idea of its origin.

Alibi – absolutely identical to the original Latin alibi meaning ‘elsewhere’.

Evidence – sharing an origin with ‘evident’ ultimately this is from Latin videre ‘see’.

It seems the etymological evidence suggests this was brought to our shores by the Normans. As these people were descended from the Vikings who invaded the French coast and assimilated as much of the French culture as they could, the judicial system in this country will have been based on the system used in Gaul.

The Capital Punishment Debate

With all this talk of the death penalty and should we / shouldn't we, I was reminded the apparent abolition in the 1960s didn't include a number of things including fire-bombing a naval dockyard (until 1971) and treason not until as recently as 1998. This set me thinking, not about any moral implications but just what might carry the death penalty. Of course everyone will have their own pet hates but, just in case you read this (and particularly if you find yourself a neighbour of mine), perhaps you might want to think about the following personal annoyances.

1. Chewing with the mouth open

2. Failing to queue properly.

3. Labelling children with dumb names.

4. Being Jeremy Kyle.

5. Allowing the pet cat to roam free.

6. Contacting me to "compare fuel prices".

7. Not addressing me as 'Mr.......' when appropriate to do so.

8. Any association with a Chinese Lantern.

9. Barking when there's nothing to bark at.

10. Using an umbrella on days when it is far too windy.

11. Saying "And I thought oooooooooo!" (unless you're a friend of Thomas the Tank Engine).

12. Topiary (this includes taking a perfectly good tree-shaped conifer and hacking at it until it resembles a large green bollard).

13. Saying "fart" on Blue Peter.

14. Use of "proactive", it isn't a word but a yoghurt.

15. Manufacturers of tea sets for kids (who then subject parents to a diet of dusty water and grey pastry dough)

16. Socks and sandals

17. Asking me "security questions" when they made the call.

18. Marketing the iron and/or ironing board.

19. Overuse of the word 'basically'.

20. Not owning at least one of my books.