STRANGE BUT TRUE

The art of saying sorry

Public penitence has become popular in recent years, especially among politicians and other prominent people who err, and perhaps this is the way forward as a means of settling disputes at all levels because it would certainly save a lot of public time and expense. One of the objectives of our criminal justice system is to point the defendant towards the path of repentance and if remorse were more widespread today then fewer cases need come before the courts. Apologies proffered before a hearing no longer expiate the crime although they may reduce a sentence if the guilty are seen to be truly contrite.

Two hundred years ago, there were occasions when someone accused of a crime could escape a hearing before the magistrates, thus saving the court’s time and a great deal of public money and such a case in Bourne in 1820 illustrates the method then adopted.

William Mason, a yeoman or smallholder with land in the South Fen, found himself in trouble with the law after a violent assault on George Naylor, assistant sheriff’s officer, who was going about his lawful duties. The exact circumstances of the altercation are unknown but the encounter between the two led to the assault and Mason was subsequently informed that he would be prosecuted, a familiar scenario for those who have lost their temper and then regretted their action when it was too late. A conviction would almost certainly have led to a spell in jail, a particularly dismal prospect in those days, and so he offered his deepest regret to the officer and it was accepted on certain conditions.

The result was the publication of a public apology by Mason which appeared in the Stamford Mercury on Friday 28th July stating: “A prosecution has been commenced against me for this offence which the prosecutor has agreed to discontinue on my consenting to testify in this public manner, my sorrow for having committed the offence aforesaid: now I do hereby engage to pay all expenses incurred in such prosecution and promise never to offend again in like manner; and further, I agree to pay the sum of £10 to be given to the High Sheriff for some charitable institution.”

Ladies were not immune either from this form of public penance and the following year, a young woman made similar redress after admitting to writing a series of poison pen letters to several ladies she once worked with while an apprentice with Mrs Jemima Todd, a dressmaker, with premises in Bourne. One of the recipients, her daughter, Elizabeth, was so incensed with the contents that she had the handwriting analysed and on discovering the culprit, instituted proceedings against her.

When faced with the evidence, the accused woman, Miss Elizabeth Thurlby, then working as a straw bonnet maker at Morton, admitted that she had written the letters but agreed to make a public apology and pay the costs provided the charges were withdrawn. So it was that a notice appeared in the Stamford Mercury on Friday 20th April 1821 headed “Pardon asked” and then stated: “I did write and circulate the letters for which I publicly ask forgiveness of all the said parties as they never directly or indirectly gave me any cause whatsoever for such malicious conduct which they have agreed to grant.”

The injured parties in both cases were therefore appeased and the culprits duly punished and warned about their future conduct and in these circumstances it is doubtful if either would ever offend again. The first case is also interesting in that the £10 the culprit agreed to pay by way of compensation went to charity, a practice still used as a means of expressing regret without resort to the law and perhaps the public apology might also be usefully deployed today in certain cases to help reduce the work load in our courts of justice.

Return to

Strange but true INDEX