User:JMChaleat/sandbox

Biography
William Spiggot or Spigget was born in Hereford in West Midlands. His father was an innkeeper (or ostler in Old English) at the Chief Inn. He was married (probably at 19 years old) and he had 3 children. He said that he was an apprentice to a cabinet-maker or joiner in Hereford. But he is best known for his criminal life as a highwayman.

Criminal Life
For about seven to twelve years, William Spiggot was highwayman and leader of a gang made of at least 8 men. He perfomed his robberies on the roads from London to Hounslow Heath, Kingston and Ware. The exact number of his crimes his unknown, yet according to him "it was in vain to mention his numerous Robberies on the High-Way, being perhaps about a Hundred".

His criminal life came to an end when he was arrested along with other members of his gang in January 1721, in a tavern at Westminster by the men of the famous thief-taker Jonathan Wild. According to the thief-taker John Merrit, who arrested Spiggot and his gang, the actual arrest was of a violent sort. Spiggot was described as very reluctant on being taken and fought back, eventually shooting his landlord, Mr Rowlet, in the shoulder. According to another witness, Spiggot swore on his arrest that "he would kill a thousand before he would be taken".

First Trial and Refusal to Plead
On the 13th January 1721 session at the Old Bailey Court, William Spiggot and Thomas Phillips (alias Cross) were judged for highway robberies and violent thefts. But when they were brought to the bar, they refused to plead. They declared that until their belongings, money and horses were not given back to them, they would remain silent. The court remembered them of William and Mary 1692's act untitled "An Act for encourageing the apprehending of Highway Men". Part IV of this act stipulates then 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 jugement also called peine forte et dure, which is to be press to death until one would speak. The judge threatened them, describing how the sentence should be carried out. But still the convicts stayed mute.

They were brought back to Newgate Prison to receive their sentence. On their arrival in the Press (the room where the heavy judgment should be carried out), Thomas Phillips asked to be brought back to court in order to plead. On the other hand, Spiggot endured the Press. His legs and arms were kept outstreched by cords, while he layed almost naked on the floor. 350 pounds (about 160 kilogramms) of iron were put on his breast. Appart for groans and "pray for me!", Spiggot kept silent. Even if just a cloath was recovering his face, he also complained about a heavy weight on his head; according the Ordinary of Newgate Thomas Purney,  this was due to the blood pressure as the blood being "flush'd and forc'd up into his face". After half an hour, 50 pounds (about 23kg) 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 the 12th 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 200l". They were also convicted with one of their associates, William Heater, for another highway robbery, attacking John Turner on the 1st 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".

When he testified, John Watkins declared that he recognized Spiggot, knowing him for some years. On the contrary, the gang that attacked John Turner, were on horseback and wore masks. The testimonies suggested that some of the Turner's stolen goods were found at Spiggot's lodgings. Among the witnesses, 6 people described Spiggot's gang's violent arrest. They made him appear as a very impetuous man, not eager to surrender and who was difficult to catch. Even one of his former accomplice, Joseph Lindsey testified against him.

Heater was described as the man in charge of renting horses and receiving the stolen goods. Even Spiggot and Phillips declared that he was innocent. This declarations and the lack of proofs found against him made the jury acquit Heater.

The Proceedings do not recollect any defence from the prisoners. The jury found Spiggot and Phillips guilty and they were sentenced to death.

Third Trial
On the same session of the 13th of January 1721, Spiggot was cited in the next trial along with another prisoner William Bourroughs of Finchley. They were indicted for highway robbery. Charles Sybbald prosecuted them for assaulting him on the highway near Finchley Common on the 25 of August 1720. According to the victim, they stole him "15 Guineas and 10 Shillings in Money". Again the accomplice of Spiggot, Joseph Lindsey testified against him. Lindsey clearly declared that he participated in the attack of Sybbald and his man. The three armed robbers were on horseback. However, Sybbald recognized only Lindsey having seen his face and heard his voice during the assault. The two other attackers had indeed covered up heir faces. Burroughs' brother also testified during the trial and said that Lindsey's wife told him that his brother and her husband left together for the country. Burroughs' brother explained that he took William home to their mother, were he was guarded by other men. The Proceeding only record shortly this trial. This is only a report without any direct speech. The defense is not written. The jury found them guilty and they were sentenced to death.

Execution
Founded guilty by the jury at his trials on January 13 1721, he 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 executions thus being a "truly penitent". He also recalls that Spiggot did not easily weep but only once, when he wished his son fairwell for the last time. The condemn man was furious against his former accomplice Joseph Lindsey, who betrayed him testifing at his trial. The convicted robber declared that he once helped his ex-accomplice escape and that he protected him and saving his life.

Spiggot and Phillips were both executed on the 11 February 1721 at Tyburn, with 5 other convicts. The crowd carried off his body in order to prevent surgerons to take hold of it and use it for dissection. As suggested by Hitchcock and Shoemaker, it is probable that people were impressed by his bravery as he suffered the press ordeal and therefore protected his corpse.

Interpretations of his Refusal
A refusal to plead led to such a harsh punishment, "a torture" according to Newgate's Ordinary, that people always wondered why Spiggot kept obstinate. The Chaplain already considered in his accounts of February 1721 the reasons of Spiggot stubbornness.Thomas Purney, affirmed that Spiggot's main motive was to secure his family so that they would not suffer from his trial, on a social and finacial level. Then, Purney affirmed that since Spiggot was enragged at Lindsey, his ex-accomplice who testified against him during several trials, he would not want his treator to be delighted by his downfall. However, for the historians Shoemaker and Hitchcock, these two reasons don't justify his actions completely.

For them, the proof resides in the account opening sermon, where the Ordinate condemned misused virility and pride qualifying them of being "false courage". The two felons, Spiggot and Phillips bragged about their numerousless extravagent crimes. The historian Andrea McKenzie suggests that obtaining a fame as highwayman could have been one of Spiggot's reason. The "criminal celebrities" were populars among the people, who would visit the famous criminals in prison or gather in huge crowds to watch an execution. Published works related the depravity of prisoners of the time, for instance Spiggot and his stubbornness were cited the Newgate Calendar or The Lives of the Most Remarkable Criminals. The question of challenging justice in England is also raised. Even if Spiggot's intention were not to challenge the legal system, it was interpreted by modern historians as confronting its authority.