William Spiggot

[3] 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".

[4] 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.

[2] 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.

[6] 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.

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.

The excruciating pain made the weak prisoner accept to be brought back to court in order to plead not guilty.

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.

[14] 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.

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.

[3] 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.

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 financial level.

Then, Purney maintained that since Spiggot was angry at Lindsey, his ex-accomplice who testified against him during several trials, he would not want the person who betrayed him to be delighted by his downfall.

[3] For them, the proof resides in the account opening sermon, where the Ordinate condemned misused virility and pride qualifying them of being "false courage".

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.

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".

Requesting to be given back the money that was taken on his arrest, Spiggot probably wanted to secure better living conditions in Newgate.