Clearly a gambling addiction had Henry in its grip. I can see why he was hanged given the laws of the day and the large amount he stole. But, poor John Roberts hanged for £5. I wonder if his case had been tried at a different time (and not in the shadow of Henry's theft of a huge amount), whether John would have gotten off more lightly ... transportation for example.
Their trials were on different dates so Henry's trial did not influence the trial of John Roberts. The wife of John Roberts, Sarah Best, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Best-1797, was later sentenced for stealing a cotton counterpane and transported.
When you think about it, John Roberts' sentence was probably not that inconsistent with others at the time. £5 was quite a large sum of money. My 5th great grandfather got a death sentence (commuted to transportation for life) for a sheep worth 45 shillings!
John Roberts, alias Colin Reculist, was on Monday examined before W. Addington, Esq; at the Public Office in Bow-street, on suspicion of uttering divers forged bills, purporting to be bills on the Plymouth Bank for 5l. 5s. each. John Rubery, of Spitalfields, publican, stated that the prisoner, who was in the habit of frequenting his house, came there on the 26th of June last, and after having some liquer, requested change for a Plymouth Bank bill of 5l. 5s. which the witness being unable to do, took him to the shop of Mr. Heseltine, a grocer, who lives opposite to him, and who gave him change for the said note, which was produced, and proved to be a forged one. The prisoner was also charged with having passed a forged note of a similar description at Woolwich in March last, to which place he went a few days since for the same purpose, but the former circumstance being still in remembrance, he was taken into custtody. Committed for further examination.
This is certainly a cautionary tale. One of the questions it raises for me is: if there were so many gamblers losing, who was profiting? The amounts gambled away are astounding. In today’s Australia, at least, gambling venues are subject to mandated return-to-player rates—but in the period you describe, it is hard to know who the main profiteers were. Bookmakers? Owners of the gambling houses? It is an intriguing area. Thank you for this well-researched and carefully documented post, with so many useful links to follow up.
Clearly a gambling addiction had Henry in its grip. I can see why he was hanged given the laws of the day and the large amount he stole. But, poor John Roberts hanged for £5. I wonder if his case had been tried at a different time (and not in the shadow of Henry's theft of a huge amount), whether John would have gotten off more lightly ... transportation for example.
Their trials were on different dates so Henry's trial did not influence the trial of John Roberts. The wife of John Roberts, Sarah Best, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Best-1797, was later sentenced for stealing a cotton counterpane and transported.
When you think about it, John Roberts' sentence was probably not that inconsistent with others at the time. £5 was quite a large sum of money. My 5th great grandfather got a death sentence (commuted to transportation for life) for a sheep worth 45 shillings!
Roberts forgery was not a one off:
Gloucester Journal 27 July 1795 page 2
John Roberts, alias Colin Reculist, was on Monday examined before W. Addington, Esq; at the Public Office in Bow-street, on suspicion of uttering divers forged bills, purporting to be bills on the Plymouth Bank for 5l. 5s. each. John Rubery, of Spitalfields, publican, stated that the prisoner, who was in the habit of frequenting his house, came there on the 26th of June last, and after having some liquer, requested change for a Plymouth Bank bill of 5l. 5s. which the witness being unable to do, took him to the shop of Mr. Heseltine, a grocer, who lives opposite to him, and who gave him change for the said note, which was produced, and proved to be a forged one. The prisoner was also charged with having passed a forged note of a similar description at Woolwich in March last, to which place he went a few days since for the same purpose, but the former circumstance being still in remembrance, he was taken into custtody. Committed for further examination.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-gloucester-journal-john-roberts-alia/176088177/
Well that explains a lot then.
This is certainly a cautionary tale. One of the questions it raises for me is: if there were so many gamblers losing, who was profiting? The amounts gambled away are astounding. In today’s Australia, at least, gambling venues are subject to mandated return-to-player rates—but in the period you describe, it is hard to know who the main profiteers were. Bookmakers? Owners of the gambling houses? It is an intriguing area. Thank you for this well-researched and carefully documented post, with so many useful links to follow up.