It wasn’t merely ‘the forbidden affection’, in the words of Oscar Wilde’s partner.
During the mid-19th century in the United Kingdom, intimate relations between men remained the offense that could not be openly acknowledged.
When a fresh statute was enacted in 1826 simplifying the prosecution for sodomy, Sir Robert Peel refrained from mentioning ‘the offense against Christians that shall not be named’ in English, opting for Latin instead.
Despite the prevailing abhorrence even in mentioning the crime, numerous men continued to face the extreme penalty for it.
England held the highest tally in Europe. Most other nations had never legally punished any individual for homosexuality, and those that had ceased the practice centuries before.
Between 1806 and 1835, 404 men received the death penalty in England for sodomy, with 56 of them meeting their end on the gallows.
James Pratt and John Smith were the last two individuals executed at the infamous Newgate prison during that era.
Sir Chris Bryant, the longstanding Labour Member of Parliament who notably marked the first same-sex union at the Palace of Westminster in 2010, has authored a book detailing the accounts of these men, James and John.
Within the book, Bryant depicts the tale of these two individuals – ‘merely two additional casualties of a period marked by exceedingly harsh and bloodthirsty bias’ – and delves into the reasons behind England’s aversion to homosexuality.
In an interview with Metro, Bryant articulated, ‘In 1835, we witnessed a government implementing numerous transformations.
‘The electoral system underwent revisions to diminish corruption, a new Factories Act aimed to restrict the working hours for children, and so forth.
‘Nevertheless, the one aspect that seemed impervious to change was the legislation concerning homosexuality, which still categorized sodomy as a capital offense.
‘While numerous other transgressions warranted capital punishment, the usual course for offenses like burglary and theft entailed a death sentence followed by a reprieve.
‘What makes this specific narrative shocking is that despite many individuals being sentenced to death at Newgate, James and John were the only ones executed. Everyone else received reprieves.’
The paranoia had escalated to a point where foreigners observed that Englishmen, who previously greeted with cheek kisses, now resorted to handshakes to avoid suspicion.
The condemned individuals, James and John, hailed from humble origins and had both served as domestic assistants.
Limited details are available about either man, but existing records indicate that James Pratt hailed from Great Burstead in Essex.
By the time of his ill-fated encounter with John Smith from Worcester on August 29, 1835, James was already wed to Elizabeth, with whom he shared a daughter.
Following a lunch outing in London with a couple of acquaintances, he proceeded to visit a lodging owned by William Bonnell in Southwark, where he was admitted by Smith.
Landlords John and Jane Berkshire harbored suspicions about Bonnell and later testified at the duo’s trial at the Old Bailey that he frequently brought men to his accommodation, often in pairs.
These doubts were reignited when Mr. Berkshire climbed into the adjacent stable’s loft and peered into Bonnell’s quarters through a broken tile.
‘It was at that moment he spotted James and John seated on each other’s laps,’ recounted Bryant.
‘He thought nothing more of it until his wife ascended the stairs, glanced through the keyhole, and caught sight of James and John engaged in intimacy.
‘She hurried downstairs, summoned her husband to return upstairs, where he witnessed the same.’
**Unveiling the Injustice: The Dark Tale of James Pratt and John Smith**
When Mr. Berkshire peeked through the keyhole and witnessed the same, he pushed the door open and bravely demanded the police be summoned to arrest the culprits. The two men tried to bribe their way out by offering their wallets but Mr. Berkshire, with the help of another lodger, stood guard as he sought assistance from a constable. Bryant empathizes with the fear and terror the men must have felt, knowing that their actions could lead to a fatal punishment.
The trio was escorted to the local police station, where they faced the magistrate and were then remanded to Surrey County Gaol to await trial. Subsequently, they were transferred to Newgate, described as a dreadful and overcrowded prison, where prisoners had only straw for bedding and were crammed in close quarters. Despite the deplorable conditions, Bryant highlights the illicit activities that took place among the inmates.
Pratt found solace in visits from his beloved Elizabeth, who endured long queues for a chance to see him. Regrettably, there are no records of Smith or Bonnell receiving similar visits. The men were later brought to the Old Bailey, facing a daunting assembly of prominent figures that included two aldermen, the Recorder of London, and Judge Sir John Gurney.
Contrary to present-day procedures, the judges then played a dual role as prosecutors, and defense lawyers had limited advocacy rights. In court, the men, with no legal representation, could only utter their pleas of not guilty. The courtroom ambiance, with its authoritative figures adorned in ceremonial garments, was undoubtedly intimidating and aimed to influence the proceedings.
Witness testimonies, including Mr. Berkshire’s account of the incident he witnessed, Mrs. Berkshire’s observations, and the policeman’s findings, further incriminated the accused. Strikingly, with no defense counsel, the men could only articulate brief declarations of innocence. The disparity between the concise defense and the lengthy indictment underscored the inequities of the legal system at that time.
Despite historical data showing more acquittals than convictions for sodomy, the jury swiftly reached a guilty verdict for Pratt and Smith on felony charges, and Bonnell on charges of facilitation. The sentencing was left to the Recorder of London, Charles Ewan Law, who displayed a conservative stance and steered the legal amendments towards harsher convictions for such offenses.
In a final display of power and cruelty, Law delivered a scathing rebuke to the condemned men, reducing them to tears. The impending execution awaited the approval of the King and Privy Council, while Elizabeth fervently pleaded for clemency, garnering support from the local community. Despite the mounting pressure for mercy, the wheels of justice seemed unyielding in the face of such a grave accusation.
Uncovering the Truth of a Past Judicial Tragedy
In the historical annals of the Old Bailey, Hensleigh Wedgwood played a pivotal role.
He declared: ‘The discovery of these individuals in despair was solely due to their lack of wealth; they could not afford privacy, and the shoddy room made their activities visible from the outside.’
Bryant hailed it as ‘one of the most poignant and sensible correspondences of that era, displaying courage as well.’
However, both accounts were omitted from the Recorder’s official statement.
‘I believe he desired a public execution, and this sufficed,’ Bryant remarked.
‘It was a miscarriage of justice since there was no proper trial. The appeals process was flawed as it went before the Privy Council and the King, who never even reviewed the accurate evidence.’
‘They were unaware of Elizabeth’s letter, let alone Hensleigh Wedgwood’s correspondence. Hence, it was judicial homicide – the flawed system led to their demise.’
Yet, Bryant also asserts that ‘it requires an entire nation to facilitate an execution’.
‘It’s a fact,’ he stated. ‘For the legal system to function as it did, laws mandated by the Parliament necessitated capital punishment and vehemently defended it.
‘You needed crowds to assemble for the public execution in the streets. You necessitated individual attorneys willing to advance these arguments, indicating that this was a widely accepted stance at that time.
‘Thus, it seemed as if the entire country was present and in agreement.’
‘Yet, it is intriguing that this marked the end – possibly prompting certain politicians to question the morality.
‘Following this, individuals were still condemned to death, but they were consistently pardoned and exiled either to Botany Bay or Van Diemen’s Land.’
Reflecting on the Past to Safeguard Future Liberties
In his preface, Bryant conveyed that he chronicled the tale of James and John not only to narrate their narrative but also ‘to underline that the rights we cherish today do not come with an eternal guarantee’.
During his birth, homosexuality remained a punishable offense and remains so in 34 out of the 54 Commonwealth nations. In nine countries worldwide, one can face capital punishment for it.
‘It is rather alarming,’ he remarked.
‘We must be vigilant as the freedoms and rights we currently enjoy are not assured indefinitely, which is why I believe the Pride movement is so crucial.’
Contact our news team via email at webnews@metro.co.uk for inquiries or news tips.
If you wish to read similar stories, visit our news section by clicking here.
