The Garrotting panic of 1862
While some people may have heard of the term 'Garrote',
what does it really mean?
Many may believe that it was a simply a method of
murder. Television and popular culture tell us that a physical instrument, such
a rope (or in gangster movies, piano wire) is employed to strangle and thereby
kill the victim. It did not always end in death, however.
Garrotting originated in Spain, which explains the
exotic sounding name, and was used as a method of torture as well as execution.
Before industrialization made metal straightforward to procure, rope or some
other cordage was used. To provide better traction, a wooden rod was used to
increase the pressure and to reduce the incidence of slippage. It is the wooden
rod that was the actual garrot, but the term quickly became applied to the
process. As a method of torture, the garrote could be applied to any limb as
well as the neck.
An upsurge in its publicity occurred in 1851 when the
Spanish used it to execute a Cuban leader Narciso
López who led a failed rebellion against their rule. This was international
news. ‘Simple’ executions using this
method been used previously to despatch murders was often reported by overseas
reporters. In 1832, for example an eyewitness of one such execution in Madrid made
by a former reporter of the English newspaper, the Morning Herald was
widely reprinted in Australian newspapers. In his account the writer commented
that he hoped the English would follow suit, calling garrotting ‘more decent
and less cruel than hanging’ [1]
Garrotting was used to half strangle the victim,
rendering them if not unconscious at least senseless. It was made a viable
option for criminals in England when people, including women, began to arm themselves
as a defence against any form of assault.
Although more affluent men were accustomed to carry swords, developments
in the gun making industry made handguns not only cheaper but more compact
(women often carried their handguns in their muffs or occasionally their hats).
However, garrotting was not the only option. Similar
forms of assault included hitting the victim on the head with a handkerchief
with a stone in it. This evidence was much easier to dispose of (everyone had a
hanky, and a stone could be thrown away easily) but achieved the same result.
What made the news and caused concern was the foreignness
and novelty of the garrote. That fact that people were being attacked and
robbed was nothing new and certainly not news.
The London panic
In 1856, and later during 1862-3, London was consumed
by a garrotting panic. Physical assaults associated with robbery did increase
during these outbreaks, but certainly not in the numbers that were stated by
newspapers. The Garrotting panic has many similarities with social media
manipulation of today. It saw the press
create hysteria in the exaggeration of numbers of attacks and provided graphic
details of the assaults. It converted a few instances into a widespread,
uncontrollable threat. Word of mouth soon spread the fever of fear throughout
the country and was fully reported overseas.
The panic resulted in a blame game, where the public condemned
the police force for not acting quickly and claimed sentences were too short
and life in prison too soft. A section
of the population was singled out as being responsible for the attacks. Unlike
modern situations it wasn’t a race that was being slandered but a type of
people, in this circumstance it was convicts.
In the 1850s transportation to Australia began to slow
and then stop. New South Wales, the
first colony of convicts, stopped accepting convicts in 1850 and Tasmania (Van Diemen’s
Land) in 1853. Western Australia did accept a limited number of convicts up
until 1868, but by then the process of sending men and women to Australia had
become unacceptable in England and unwelcome in Australia.
England therefore was faced with not only an increase
in criminals who were apparently unafraid of sentences and life in English prisons
and, more frightening (at least if one listened to the press), an influx of
former convicts (ex Australia) returning home hardened, desperate and
frightened of nothing.
However, the number of convicts returning home is
thought to be rather small. The freedom to leave Australia legally required a
full pardon, which few men bothered to apply for. Conditional pardons, or
ticket of leaves prohibited them to leave the area in which they had been
convicted without written permission. Not only that they would have had to pay
their own fare back. This was expensive and many convict settlers realised that
their chances to rehabilitate (if that were their choice) were much better in a
land that had better employment chances, easier access to land and, in many
cases, less prejudice against them as past offenders.
So, the 1851 outrages were small in number and
possibly not carried out by ex convicts at all. Tougher sentencing did occur
after this spate and the panic died down, as such things do.
In 1862 a member of the English Government (James
Pilkington) was garrotted and the scare started again, this time more
intensely. Panic and fear spread like a contagion and the public reacted by
less mobility after dark, and even wearing anti garrotting clothing (such as
studded collars). As occurred in the
earlier scare, people demanded tougher sentencing and stricter conditions in
prison. Sentences were increased. While penal administration had been moving
towards a more pro rehabilitation stance now punishment and deterrent returned
to being in vogue. Prisoners were forced into longer periods of solitary ,
given more reduced diets and forced to ‘hard labour’, which took the form of monotonous,
unproductive tasks such as the crank and treadwheel.
It was an anxious time and dominated the minds of
many, for a time. Eventually, as most things do, the press moved on to another
topic and the garrotting scare subsided naturally. However, given that the
English activities were covered fully in the colonies it is not surprising
perhaps that interest and perhaps a little concern migrated to Australia and
New Zealand.
Australian attacks
It is interesting that although Australia’s convicts
had been blamed in England, no such accusations seem to have been made in their
local papers. Also, when attacks did occur there was reference to the English incidences,
but no real panic ensued. There had been similar attacks before 1856 in
Australia. One of the earliest attacks recorded in newspapers was in 1854 in
Hobart[2].
Here in New Zealand
New Zealand of course, given its connection to both
countries, was unlikely to remain immune from these attacks. There was interest
in the activities. In 1863 the Daily Southern Cross [3] (an Auckland newspaper)
reported that ‘garrotting is openly practiced in the streets’ of London. Nelson’s
Colonist stated that two cases of garrotting had recently occurred in
Melbourne.[4] However, by August 1863 local
newspapers, such as the Southland Times[5] were claiming the panic
was over and that it was all ‘highly exaggerated.’
New Zealand did have incidences of garrotting of
course, but there was no widespread panic that occurred when it happened
elsewhere. While the first case called garrotting was possibly in Otuhuhu [6] late in 1863 there was an
even earlier incident which although a very clear case was not described as
such.
In March 1862 the Otago Daily Times recorded the Gallant
capture of a gang of five desperadoes. [7] A tent at the
junction of Garbriels [Gully] and Weatherstones was the scene of the attack.
Two men were inside and one, a Mr Livesey, went out and was promptly garrotted,
thrown down and generally attacked and robbed by three men. When the men were
arrested, they were charged with highway robbery and stealing from the person.
For those romantically envisaging a dashing Dick Turpin on his trusty stead
when they hear term ‘highway robbery’ may be disappointed to hear that it
merely means a robbery, not necessarily armed, on a public thoroughfare.
The arrest of the gang, which numbered five was quite
a drama, perhaps that is why the incidence of garrotting was overlooked by the
press. The Police had suspicions of who may have committed the crime and sought
them out. This may sound rather unlikely considering the number of people,
often mobile, living in the area at the time. While a rather sleepy area now,
in the 1860s it was seething with humanity given the number of gold fields in
the area. A question may be asked how a
few policemen stationed in this isolated area could be aware of a small group
of men in a sea of many.
This is easily, but nevertheless extraordinarily,
explained by the tremendous communication networks operating in police circles,
not just locally and nationally, but internationally. Victoria and Otago had a
very close relationship when it came to policing. Both areas had experienced a
massive influx of people due to gold strikes and with it a dramatic increase in
crime. When Otago, only founded in 1848, became aware that they would soon
follow down the path trod beforehand by Victoria, they approached them for
advice and assistance.
The first constabulary, which was originally dedicated
to patrol the goldfields was established by St John Branigan, late of the
Victorian Police. He brought with him a few handpicked constables and
established the first professional police force in Otago. The Provincial Government
also introduced a police gazette for Otago, based on a similar publication in
Victoria. This Gazette, among reporting missing horses and stolen goods, listed
convictions and the whereabouts of past convicted men. As many men travelled
from the Victorian goldfields to those of Otago, it was an ingenious way to
keep track of possibly active criminals. To ensure police officers were keen to
keep their eyes peeled, the possibility of a reward for apprehending criminals
was offered.
These men had all served time in Victorian prisons,
some were convicted from England, so they were well known in Victoria and
quickly marked in Otago. The arrest was reported in detail and published in
several Victorian newspapers.
Three police officers approached the tent, and the
five men scattered. Two men were arrested almost immediately, although one did
attempt to attack Constable Johnson with a pick but was knocked down by Sergeant
Major Bracken who was described in the newspaper as an extremely powerful man.
Once these two were secured at the police camp, Bracken mounted his horse and apprehended
another.
The second officer, Sergeant Trimbill, chased the
remaining two on foot, he was armed and fired on the men after he told them to
stop. They returned fire. He returned to camp, mounted and was joined by
hundreds of miners in the search. The following day Bracken joined the search
and was informed where the two could be hiding. The area, near Waipori, is very hilly and Bracken crawled down the
hill to the hidden tent, cut it open and pointed his revolver at the two
sleeping men, warning them he would ‘blow their brains out’ if they moved.
Cheers greeted the police when they brought the
remaining men in to face their fate at the hands of the Dunedin court. Bracken
was awarded £10 for the arrest, and the two other officers received £5 each.
The five men were John Russell (aka Spratty), John
Davies, Joseph Sullivan, Thomas Hannah (aka Kelly, aka Noon) and Richard Hill
(aka Burgess). If readers feel some of these names are familiar Sullivan, Kelly
and Burgess were part of the Burgess gang who became infamous as the Maungatapu
Murderers.
An interesting, if perhaps fatal, coincidence in
connection to these two crimes was that originally the gang intended to rob the
bank at Hokitika, however on arriving in the town the gang, who split up to
avoid suspicion discovered, to their astonishment, that both Bracken and
Trimbill had left the force and both had become landlords of hotels. They
therefore decided to travel to Nelson where their, and their victims, fate was
sealed.
Thus, a very early, if not the first garroting case in
New Zealand has been overlooked as a small, almost irrelevant aspect of a story
that was a vital episode in a much larger story that ended in the hanging (a
very English means of execution) of two of the men.
[1] “British Extracts”. Sydney
Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, August 13,1833. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2213377?
[2] “Hobart Town Supreme Court”.
People’s Advocate and New South Wales Vindicator. January 7, 1854. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/251541515/27926933.
[3]Daily Southern Cross. February
27, 1863. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18630227.2.11.
[4] Colonist. April
10, 1863. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TC18630410.2.6.
[5] “The Garotting Panic”.
Southland Times. August, 4, 1863. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18630804.2.13.
[6] Daily Southern
Cross. October 29, 1863. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18631029.2.12
[7] “Gallant Capture of
a Gang of Five Desperadoes”. Otago Daily Times. March 13, 1862. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT18620313.2.15.
