William Spiggot

William Spiggot (also spelled Spigget) was a highwayman who was captured by Jonathan Wild's men in 1721. During his trial at the Old Bailey, he at first refused to plead and was therefore sentenced to be pressed until he pleaded.

Criminal Life For about seven to twelve years, He performed his robberies on the roads from London to Hounslow Heath, Kingston and Ware. The exact number of his crimes is unknown, yet according to the Ordinary of Newgate, Spiggot had declared to him that "it was in vain to mention his numerous Robberies on the High-Way, being perhaps about a Hundred".

First Trial and Refusal to Plead The punishment peine forte et dure for a refusal to plead in London. Engraving published in the 1780 edition of the Malefactor's Register or Newgate Calendar

During the 13 January 1721 session at the Old Bailey Court, William Spiggot and Thomas Phillips (alias Cross) were judged for highway robberies and violent thefts. But as they were brought to the bar, they refused to plead. They declared that until their belongings, money and horses were given back to them, they would remain silent. The court reminded them of William and Mary's 1692 act titled "An Act for encourageing the apprehending of Highway Men". Part IV of this act stipulates clearly that when highwaymen are arrested, the apprehender can take the horses, money and other belongings from the felon. Still they both refused to speak. At the time, a refusal to plead would lead to a heavy judgement also called Peine forte et dure, which is to be pressed with heavy weights either until death or until one would speak. The judge threatened them, describing how the sentence should be carried out. The atrocity of the sentence was thought to dissuade felons from non pleading and that they would submit themselves to a trial by a jury. But still, the convicts stayed mute. Thomas Purney, this was due to the blood pressure as the blood was "flush'd and forc'd up into his face". After half an hour, 50 pounds (about 23 kg) were added on his chest. The excruciating pain made the weak prisoner accept to be brought back to court in order to plead not guilty.

Second Trial Brought back to court, Spiggot and Phillips pleaded not guilty on their new trial. They were accused of assaulting John Watkins on the Highway on 12 November 1720 and robbing him "a Silver Watch, a Holland Gown, a pair of Stays, a Scarlet Riding-Hood lined with Silk, with divers other Goods, and 5 l. in Money, in all to the value of 200 l". They were also convicted with one of their associates, William Heater, for another highway robbery, attacking John Turner on 1 November 1720 and stealing " [his]5 Guineas [...] and 1 Box, a Gold Watch, 12 Holland Shirts, 2 pair of Lace Ruffles, 2 Cambrick Bosoms. 2 Lawn, Turnovers, 2 Muslin Turnovers, 2 pair of Stockings, a Hat, a Perriwig, &c. and 12 Guineas, the Goods and Money of Neal Sheldon, Esq". do not recollect any defence from the prisoners. The jury found Spiggot and Phillips guilty and they were sentenced to death.

Execution

Found guilty by the jury at his trials on 13 January 1721, Spiggot was sentenced to death along with his partner in crime Thomas Cross alias Phillips. The Ordinary of Newgate recorded that William Spiggot attended to the prayers before his execution thus being "truly penitent", contrary to his associate Cross who would disturb them. He also recalled that Spiggot did not easily weep, and when he wished his son farewell for the last time might have been the only moment that Purney saw Spiggot crying. The condemned man was furious at his former accomplice Joseph Lindsey, who had betrayed him by testifying at his trial. The convicted robber declared that he once had helped his former accomplice escape and that he had protected him and had saved his life.

The question of challenging justice in England is also raised. Even if Spiggot's intentions were not to challenge the legal system, it was interpreted by modern historians as confronting its authority. For instance, in her article about the Peine forte et dure, Andrea McKenzie argues that such refusals showed a "persistent popular resistance to that most sacred of English institutions, trial by jury". In an 18th-century trial, the balance was on the side of the prosecutor. Being judged by neighbours, with friends and relations testifying for and against them, prisoners had a few chances to be found innocent. Maybe knowing that his trial would certainly be his downfall considering the violence of his crimes, Spiggot refused to plead and to have a trial by a jury.