From Knapp and Baldwin’s Newgate Calendar
Barrington was unusual in that he was an educated, middle-class man – a surgeon – convicted of theft. He seems to have realized that his genteel bearing made him unthreatening, and this combined with the poker-face required to front out stealing from people in places like the House of Commons made him a successful thief. Barrington’s appearance benefited him after he was arrested too – he was able to persuade the court to transmute his sentence from hanging to transportation to hard labour. (The entry is given in full.)
AN ACCOUNT OF THAT REMARKABLE OFFENDER, GEORGE BARRINGTON, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STEALING A METAL WATCH FROM THE PERSON OFELIZABETH IRONMONGER, ON THE 15TH OF MARCH 1778
Barrington was convicted of stealing a watch from a lady in the pit of one of the theatres, and sentenced to labour three years on the Thames. When about a year of the time had expired, he procured a petition to be presented to the court, praying that the remaining part of his sentence might be remitted: and the officers of the Justitia hulk made so favourable a report of his behaviour, that, some time after, an order was sent to Mr Campbell for his releasement.
A few days after Barrington’s releasement, he went to St Sepulchre’s church, when Doctor Mylne was to preach a sermon for the benefit of the society for the recovery of persons apparently drowned. William Payne, a constable, saw him put his hand into a lady’s pocket in the south aisle, and presently after followed him out of the church, and took him into custody near the end of Cock-lane upon Snow-hill. Having taken the prisoner to St Sepulchre’s watch-house, and found a gold watch and some other articles in his possession; Payne returned to the church, and spoke to the lady whom he had seen the prisoner attempt to rob; and she informed him that she had lost nothing, for, expecting the church to be much crowded, she had taken the precaution of emptying her pockets before leaving her house.
Upon Payne’s return to the watch-house, a gentleman advised that the prisoner might be more strictly searched. He was desired to take off his hat, and, raising his left arm, he cautiously removed his hat from his head, when a metal watch dropped upon the floor. He was now obliged to pull off the greatest part of his cloaths. He wore three pairs of breeches, in one of the pockets of which was found a purse, containing thirteen guineas, and a bank-note for £10, made payable to himself.
In consequence of an advertisement inserted the next day in the newspapers, Mrs Ironmonger came to Payne’s house, and described the watch she had lost; and it proved to be that which had been concealed in Barrington’s hair, and dropped on the floor when he took off his hat. She attended the examination of the prisoner, and, having sworn that the watch produced by Payne was her property, was bound over to prosecute.
Upon his trial, Barrington made a long, an artful and a plausible defence. He said that, upon leaving the church, he perceived the watch mentioned in the indictment laying upon the ground, and took it up, intending to advertise it the next day; that he was followed to Snow-hill by Payne and another constable, who apprehended him, and had, in all probability, seen him take up the watch. ‘I reflected (said he) that how innocently soever I might have obtained the article in question, yet it might cause some censure; and no man would wonder, considering the unhappy predicament I stood in,1 that I should conceal it as much as possible.’
The jury having pronounced the prisoner guilty, he addressed the court, earnestly supplicating that he might be permitted to enter into his majesty’s service, and promising to discharge his trust with fidelity and attention; or, if he could not be indulged in that request, he wished that his sentence might be banishment for life from his majesty’s dominions. The court informed him, that, by an application to the throne, he might obtain a mitigation of his sentence, if his case was attended by such circumstances of extenuation as would justify him in humbly petitioning to be considered as an object of the royal favour. He requested that the money and bank-note might be returned. Hereupon the court observed, that, in consequence of his conviction, the property found on him when he was apprehended became vested in the hands of the sheriffs of the city of London, who had discretionary powers either to comply with, or reject, his request.
George Barrington was convicted to labour on the Thames for the space of five years, on Tuesday the 5th of April 1778.
Barrington was by profession a surgeon; and his education, abilities and address, were such, that, had they been properly employed, would certainly have introduced him to a genteel competency, and a reputable station in life. He was early attached to dissipation and extravagance, to which the earnings of honest industry proving greatly unequal, he had recourse to felonious practices, for the means of indulging his insatiable desire of engaging in scenes of gaiety and fashionable amusement. Barrington seems to have had a natural taste for dress, in which particular he was never beneath gentility, but frequently bordering upon elegance. His appearance gained him ready admission to the most respectable public assemblies; and he was a frequent visitor in the galleries of both houses of parliament.
Count Orlow, the Russian minister, being in one of the boxes of Drury-lane play-house, was robbed of a gold snuff-box set with diamonds, estimated to be worth an immense sum; and one of the count’s attendants, inspecting Barrington, seized him, and found the snuff-box in his possession. He was examined by Sir John Fielding, but the count, being in a foreign country, was influenced by motives of delicacy to decline a prosecution.
Some time after the above circumstance, a gentleman observed Barrington in the house of lords, and pointed him out to Philip Quarme Esquire, deputy usher of the black rod, who insisted upon his immediately quitting the house, assuring him that his attendance in parliament would, for the future, be dispensed with. We have not heard that he disputed Mr Quarme’s power of expulsion, or that, after the disgrace he sustained from the strong arm of authority, he made any attempt to gain a seat in either house…
How strange is it that, after having experienced the intolerable severities to which offenders sentenced to labour on the Thames are exposed, Barrington should return to his former illegal courses! The horror he expressed upon being subjected to the same kind of punishment for a longer time, we hope will deter others from following his iniquitous example. To be deprived of all the comforts, conveniences and almost, the very necessaries of life – to be cut off from all communication with the rest of mankind – to be condemned to hard, and almost incessant labour – to be exposed, in the most degrading situation, to which human nature can possibly be reduced, to public curiosity and public reproach – is a punishment of such extreme severity, that the dread of feeling its complicated miseries we should think sufficient to enforce a due obedience to the laws.