Title: PETTY CRIMINALS, PUBLICANS AND SINNERS: PETTY

SESSIONS RECORDS IN THE BERKSHIRE RECORD OFFICE

Author(s): Flynn, Sarah, Stevens, Mark
Source: Journal of the Society of Archivists, 1995, Vol. 16, Iss. 1, p. 41-53
Language: English
Abstract: Traces the history of the petty sessional system and describes the
records held at the Berkshire Record Office. The records, most of
which date from the mid-19th century onward, are divided into three
main groups: the court in session, registration, and administration.
The problems of classifying and cataloging the records are also
examined. [Entry ©2002 ABC-Clio Inc.].
Time Period: 19c-20c
Subjects: Archives; Court Records; England (Berkshire)
Publication Type: Article
ISSN: 0037-9816
Accession Number: 00379816199516141Fly

Database: World History FullTEXT

PETTY CRIMINALS, PUBLICANS AND SINNERS:

PETTY SESSIONSRECORDS IN THE BERKSHIRE
RECORD OFFICE
Between September 1993 and April 1994 we were engaged in a project to catalogue petty
sessions records held in the Berkshire Record Office. In this article, we propose to give a
short historical introduction to the petty sessional system, to give a brief guide to the
records, and then to comment on the project itself.

History

Criminal jurisdiction in the localities has been an interest of central government since the
early fourteenth century. The office of justice of the peace dates from this time
(Wallingford, for example, had custodes pacis from at least 1308). The criminal jurisdiction
of the justices also included some areas that we now consider to be administrative. Justices
were appointed at county and borough level--the two jurisdictions were separate, and
remained so until 1971, although county and borough justices may have had concurrent
jurisdiction in some boroughs.
Traditionally, they met four times a year at the quarter sessions. As justices' duties grew, so
it became necessary for them to spend time in session, outside quarter sessions. A statute of
1541[1] enjoined county justices to 'devyde and sever themselves' into groups of two or
more serving county divisions based on hundreds or similar divisions. These groups of
magistrates could meet regularly, and issue writs based on reports of offences within the
division. This can be seen as the first official beginnings of petty (or petit) sessions.
However, this statute may not have been Widely effective: the preamble of the act which
repealed it suggests that at this time there was a lack of interest in such activities in the
localities.[2] It was not until the next century that the potential of this system was
recognised. The 1631 Book of Orders instructed county justices to meet monthly, in
divisions once again based on hundreds, ostensibly to hear the reports of the various
parochial officers, but also to enquire 'what persons have offended'.[3] This framework
seems to have survived the Civil War and the Interregnum.[4] In Berkshire, the descent of
petty sessional divisions from hundreds is clear from at least one example.[5] The
boroughs, if they had been granted a separate commission of the peace, retained their
separate jurisdiction.

Another factor in the growth of petty sessions was at work from the fifteenth century
onwards, in that a number of specific offences created by statute granted justices the power
to try them in a summary fashion (i.e., without a jury), if they felt it was proper.[6] The
increase in the volume of legislation after the Restoration led to an increase in paperwork;
the Settlement Act 1662 and its successors, for example, codified a number of offences.[7]

Together with the growing practice of hearing preliminary enquiries into criminal cases to
save time at trial, these developments established petty sessions as meetings of the local
justices, hearing local matters. The move to formality increased; petty sessions became
regular meetings, held at regular venues, to conduct the more routine work justices were
required to do.

The Petty Sessions Act 1849 (PSA 1849) was an attempt to bring statutory control to these
practices. It enacted the two tenets of a regular procedure for the sessions, and a regular
courthouse. However, it was probably as much the Prosecution Expenses (Amendment) Act
1851 (which provided for salaried clerks for the divisions) as the PSA 1849 which
accounted for the first series of court records, minute books, commencing about this time
for a number of the Berkshire divisions.[8] The new uniformity of petty sessions allowed
for a greater devolvement of quarter sessions powers--mostly jurisdiction over certain
criminal offences, but also over the function of licensing. Although brewster sessions
(annual meetings to license victuallers) had been held since the early eighteenth century,
and acts of parliament such as the Transfer of Licences Act 1842 made use of petty sessions
for the purpose of expediency, it was now possible to make general use of the 'new' creation
of petty sessions as a catch-all, a mini quarter sessions, dealing with lesser judicial and
quasi-judicial affairs.

At this time, the surviving court records may be headed with different titles: petty sessions,
special sessions, police courts, or even the more legally correct name of courts of summary
jurisdiction. The latter predominates after the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which
introduced the requirement of the court to keep a register of in-session business.
After the initial burst of legislative activity, which ended with the Summary Jurisdiction
Act 1879, the courts were left, once again, to evolve. Now they were officially constituted,
petty sessions became a very attractive way of dealing with law enforcement. They met
often, and they were cheap. This move of volume towards the lower court has very much
been the trend throughout the twentieth century. Some offences, including thefts and
frauds, previously triable only before an expensive jury, have found themselves becoming
triable summarily, and new bodies of offences have been created, notably under the heads
of road traffic; public order and obscenity, which have utilised summary jurisdiction.

But while petty sessions were being pulled into contemporary social concerns, their
administrative structure still lay largely in the historic system of quarter sessions, a more
rigid body, which seemed at odds with the fluidity of the lower court. After the report of a
Royal Commission, the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 was passed, which significantly
changed the way that the (now called) magistrates courts operated. For the purposes of this
article, the reforms introduced by this Act will serve as a cut-off point in our discussion of
the development of the magistracy, though occasional reference will be made to its later
history in Berkshire. Taken out of the quarter sessions system (itself abolished by the
Courts Act 1971, and largely merged with the old assizes to form the present higher tier,
crown courts), they were now to be under the control of a local magistrates courts
committee, ultimately answerable to the Home Office--the first move towards
centralisation.

Subsequent re-organisation of the law has placed petty sessions further into the modern
centralised, uniform legal system. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 abolished the distinction
between felonies and misdemeanours, replacing them by indictable offences (which must
be tried by jury) and summary offences (which are tried in a magistrates court with no
jury). It also created a third category, offences triable 'either way', crimes which, though
indictable, could be tried summarily if the defendant so chose. The recent trend has been
towards scrapping this choice, and simply transferring the 'either way' type of offence to the
list of summary ones. Financial considerations of jury trials, as well as their time-
consuming nature, have accounted for this. These 'lesser' criminal offences are still a large
part of petty sessional work. The new, single legal hierarchy is demonstrated further by the
magistrates' jurisdiction over committal proceedings for jury trials, and by the power to
grant summonses and warrants for arrest and search. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 also allows for magistrates to monitor police detention of suspects.

In addition to these functions, magistrates deal with two other major areas of work. Firstly,
there are what are known as 'civil offences', such as non-payment of tax or of maintenance
awards granted in cases of marital breakdown. The other main element is the granting of
licences and permits, the descendant of the administrative work discussed above.
Nowadays licensing is confined to liquor and gaming, but examination of any petty
sessions archive will illustrate the range of jurisdictions which fell under justices' control in
the past. More recently the function of (uncontentious) registration has generally been
incorporated into local administrative government, a sign perhaps of the previous situation
reversing itself, and administrative bodies taking on what were formerly regarded as solely
judicial functions.[9]
Justices

As already mentioned, the office of justice of the peace (now more commonly referred to as
magistrate) dates from the early fourteenth century. Historically, there was a property
qualification, but this was abolished in 1906. Women were allowed to become justices in
1919.[10] Traditionally, justices were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, usually on the
recommendations of the Lord Lieutenant. This was found to be unsatisfactory, as most
Lord Lieutenants fitted a rather conservative stereotype, and the justices' benches reflected
this. So the JPA 1949 created local advisory committees for each area, with an anonymous
membership, which were empowered to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor,
who would still ultimately confirm appointments. These committees were supposed to be
reasonably apolitical, in an attempt to take party affairs out of this potential area of
patronage. The committees are not locally accountable. The JPA 1949 also made the new
magistrates courts committees responsible for the training of justices. This worked in a
rather piecemeal fashion at first, depending on local priorities and the irregular appointment
of justices, so in 1966 the Lord Chancellor took control of the development of training
courses, in an effort to standardise them.

One anomaly which remained was the large number of ex-officio magistrates, people who
became justices by virtue of their position, largely mayors, council chairs and churchmen.
Their statutory removal in the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 was a prelude to the end of
the borough/county magistracy distinction in the Courts Act. The idea of ex-officio justices
was reflected in the fact that there was no set maximum to the size of the bench until 1949,
when this was fixed at seven. Petty sessions had grown out of two justices meeting
together, but over time the view has come to be that three is the optimum, and that
continues today. This bench is usually formed and chaired by lay magistrates. Although
stipendiary magistrates have been approved since 1792, they have never really been used
outside large urban centres. These paid professionals must be drawn from the ranks of
solicitors or barristers, and can only be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the request of
the division.

Clerks and administration

Historically, a justice often had a clerk to manage his affairs. As the office became
established, the Clerk of the Peace for the county looked after the county quarter sessions,
on behalf of the Lord Lieutenant, the borough Clerks of the Peace likewise looked after the
borough quarter sessions on behalf of the mayor and aldermen. Over the years, with the
growth in population and workload, the magistracy grew, and the role of the justice's clerk
changed. The Prosecution Expenses (Amendment) Act 1851 allowed the benches to pay a
salary to a clerk to the bench (previously clerks had survived by taking a cut of fees due to
their justice of the peace). Subsequent legislation, notably licensing acts and the Summary
Jurisdiction Act 1879, cemented this new position--a clerk to the justices, with records to
keep.

The clerk is a judicial and administrative figure combined, employed to advise the justices
with regard to the law, and also to see that legal decisions are recorded. As petty sessions
themselves have become a target of the legislators, so too have their servants. Before the
Justices Clerks Act 1877, there were no statutory guidelines on a clerk's necessary
qualifications. That act introduced two separate criteria: to become a clerk to the justices it
was necessary to be a lawyer, or to have been an assistant clerk. This was very much in
keeping with the joint specialisation of the position in law and administration, and allowed
the post to be approached from either direction. However, some legal knowledge has
always been anticipated in a holder of the post, and the rise of professionalism in the
twentieth century, together with the continuation of (mostly) lay justices, resulted in the
eventual abolition of qualification by apprenticeship in the JPA 1949; henceforth, only a
barrister or a solicitor of 5 years standing could become a clerk.

In practice, in Berkshire at least, many clerks were local solicitors, who worked part-time
for the justices. Alternatively, a clerk might work part-time for one division, but hold more
than one such post. Only in the busiest places was one clerkship a full-time occupation. A
multi-clerkship existed, for example, in the county divisions of Windsor and the Forest for
about 30 years from the 1930s. This explains why there are some entries for one of these
sessions in the minute books of the other, and why a large amount of the records of both
were discovered together in 1982.

The matter of who guards the clerks has varied too. Before 1851, and the salaried clerks,
the justices' clerks were a private operation, each clerk very much allied to his own
justice(s). After the creation of the petty sessional bench in 1849, the Prosecution Expenses
(Amendment) Act 1851 empowered the justices to appoint a clerk. This tied the clerk to the
magistracy, as his employers, and therefore to quarter sessions and the Clerks of the Peace,
as providers of this salary. With the JPA 1949, this situation changed. As already
mentioned, part of the act set up magistrates courts committees, one for each county or
county borough, which were to act as co-ordinators of petty sessions for their area. These
committees first met in 1952. Among their functions were the appointment of clerks, the
organisation of divisions, staffing, maintenance of buildings and facilities, and the training
of justices. They also assumed the role of creators of divisions; this would seem to explain
the large amount of re-organisation which occurred in Berkshire in the 1950s-1960s.[11]
Clerks were now under the control of the committee, comprised of justices for the area,
rather than their divisional justices under quarter sessions. The committee also brought
forth a new post--Clerk to the Committee. Though originally partly paid for by local
authorities, the committees were not run by them, but instead were under the direction of
the Home Office. This division meant that they prevailed after the abolition of quarter
sessions by the Courts Act 1971. This continuing local autonomy survives. The counties
remain in divisions, but are not part of a greater regional whole, or circuit. The committees
even changed boundaries in line with local government re-organisation in 1974.

The juvenile court

For many years, juveniles were tried in the same court as adults, at the same hearings.
Separate registers of juvenile offenders may have been kept, as for example in Reading
county division,[12] but these were at the clerk's discretion, rather than under any uniform
requirement to do so. The juvenile court was established as a separate sessions by the
Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The same act led to the formation of juvenile court
panels, which choose the justices who sit in juvenile courts, and arrange meetings.
Generally there is one such panel for each petty sessional division. Juvenile courts remain
special sessions of petty sessions.

Adoption

The Adoption of Children Act 1926 made possible legal adoption by court order.
Proceedings might be undertaken in the High Court, county courts or petty sessional courts;
Jackson maintains that in the case of the last 'they are assigned to juvenile courts because of
this general principle of securing the child's welfare',[13] though the records of Berkshire
petty sessions have shown that this may not always have happened. Adoption records pose
their own problems of access, and these will be discussed later.

The domestic court

The domestic court was established as a separate sessions in 1937.[14] Formerly known as
the matrimonial court, it dealt with cases that had previously been heard at ordinary
sessions. Thus it could hear applications for affiliation orders; cases of legal separation of
married couples and maintenance and custody of their children (though not divorce); and
cases of legal guardianship.

Probation

The idea of probation was set up in statute in the Probation of First Offenders Act 1887.
Subsequently this was extended beyond first offences by the Probation of Offenders Act
1907, which gave courts of summary jurisdiction the power to grant probation orders
(recognizances to be of good behaviour for a set period). The act also allowed for the
appointment of salaried probation officers for each petty sessional division. These officers
were accountable to the court (in practice, to the justices, who may or may not have been in
session to hear probation reports).

Although there was a probation committee for Reading borough at least from 1937, these
appear to have been nationally constituted only by the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which
repealed, but also restated, much of the 1907 act. Probation committees were set up to
appoint probation officers. Additionally, the 1948 act set up probation case committees for
each area (areas generally corresponded to petty sessional divisions). These committees
consisted of justices, and probably formalised the out of session accountability of probation
officers. Probation officers continue to be close to petty sessions, despite the fact that the
1948 act also empowered higher courts to grant probation orders, thereby ending one
particular link between the probation service and petty sessions.

Licensing

Magistrates' jurisdiction for licensing has extended over a number of areas; alehouses and
beerhouses, private clubs where alcohol is on sale, premises licensed to keep explosives,
cinemas, bookmakers and betting shops have all incurred the scrutiny of justices, usually in
petty session. Under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910, appeals against the removal
or non-renewal of public house licences had to be heard at the county quarter sessions;
from 1904, appeals to borough quarter sessions were also allowed.[15]

The records

The bulk of the records of the Berkshire petty sessions date back to the mid-nineteenth
century, although interesting glimpses of the earlier history of certain benches may be
gained from occasional survivals among the personal papers of individual justices.[16] The
existence and form of the register of a petty sessions court--the basic record of that court--
were not stipulated by statute until the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879. It should therefore
be no surprise that full series of registers and other petty sessions records often appear not
to have been kept in Berkshire until nearer the turn of the century. On the other hand, some
classes--for instance, bail registers--do not seem to have been required by statute, although
they may begin soon after the date of pertinent legislation. Thus statute may be a lever
towards the survival of historical evidence, even if it does not positively require record-
keeping.

Petty sessions records fall into three groups: the records of the court in session, including
pre-trial documents; records created because of the court's duties of registration (and
licensing); and records created by the magistrates or the clerk of the court and his officials,
as they attended to the day-to-day running of the court. The following discussion is of
necessity based on records of Berkshire petty sessions, but it should broadly correspond
with the situation in other counties.

The court in session

Before a case came to court, statements might be taken by the police from the defendant
and any witnesses. Warrants (for instance, for arrest) or summons might be issued by the
court. Survival rate for these is not high in Berkshire. Charges were laid before magistrates
in the form of informations and complaints. These could be made by individuals, the police,
or local authorities. Again, these do not always survive in large quantities. Statements of
witness (or depositions), sworn before magistrates, may also survive; in Faringdon division
they were kept in a series of volumes.[17]

While a case was being heard, court minutes were taken by the clerk of the court or his
representative. These vary in detail and form. They were kept in shorthand in Moreton
division around the turn of the century.[18] From the 1940s onwards minutes partly or
mainly in shorthand become more common generally; from this period they are also
referred to as 'notes of evidence'. At best, they constitute the fullest record of the court in
session, providing an account of witness statements, cross-examinations and all else that
was said in court. However, the speed at which minutes were taken can make them difficult
to read and to follow.

The result of a case was usually recorded in the court register. Since the 1879 Act the
register has given the name of the informant or complainant; the name of the defendant; the
offence of which he or she is accused; and the result of the trial--committal, fine, or a
hearing before a higher court (which, before 1971, might be quarter sessions). Amounts of
any fine or costs are also given. In Faringdon division no register was kept until 1881, but
the minutes appear to have taken its place before that.[19] The result of a case would also
be the subject of a court order. As with other court papers, surviving court orders are
relatively few. Orders could be made on behalf of a local authority as part of the 'care and
protection' role of the court, for the reception of lunatics and the removal to hospital of
persons in need of care and attention under the Lunacy Act 1890 and the Public Assistance
Act 1948 respectively.[20]

Specific types of cases could result in separate records. Under an Act of 1847, notices of
conviction and recognizances resulting from juvenile cases heard at petty sessions were to
be kept by the relevant county or borough clerk of the peace. Research into surviving
Berkshire quarter sessions records may yet reveal whether this was actually done in the
county. The earliest separate register of juvenile offences in the county was being kept in
Reading county division in 1861;[21] but registers of separate sessions (as opposed to a
record of offences) tend to begin after the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.[22]
Separate juvenile court minutes were being kept in Maidenhead borough from the early
1930s.[23]

Under the Adoption of Children Act 1926, applications to adopt might be made to a petty
sessional court. Although they should be recorded in the juvenile court registers and
minutes, in some cases in Berkshire they were noted in the general registers and minute
books.[24] Separate registers of adoption orders might be kept, as might the orders
themselves. In Berkshire, some registers have been retained by the courts concerned; at the
time of writing registers are held in the Record Office only for Moreton division and
Maidenhead borough.[25] Sessions of the domestic court were often recorded in the general
minute books and registers. Separate registers and minutes of this court are also sometimes
found, probably due to the assiduity of individual clerks rather than to legislation.

Registration

The second main group of petty sessions records can be described under the heading of
registration, or, more specifically, registration of licences or permits. Legislation of various
dates required magistrates to issue licences, either by the court's authority or by authority
delegated to it by local government bodies. Registers were generally kept for different types
of licence. They usually give the name of the applicant, the date application was made for
the licence or permit, and any dates of renewal, transfer to a different licensee, or removal
to different premises. They may also include notes on reasons why a licence was removed,
transferred or not renewed.

Various licensing papers also survive. Correspondence with licensees might be kept. Under
the 1910 Act, the justices of each petty sessional division or borough might keep lists of
public houses and their value to enable sufficient compensation to be paid for the loss of
their business to those whose appeals against non-renewal of a licence failed.[26] Also
under that Act, clubs with licences to sell alcohol had to make annual returns, including
relevant portions of club rules, to the clerk to the local petty sessional division. These
returns complement the registers of clubs, required under the Licensing Act 1902. Club rule
books also sometimes survive, either attached to the register or separately.
Administration

There are three main classes of petty sessional administrative records: minutes of
magistrates' committee and other meetings; financial records; and the correspondence of the
clerk. Other, more miscellaneous records may also survive; these vary from court to court.

Magistrates' meetings were used for detailed discussion of administrative matters arising
from cases and sessions. Main areas covered are licensing and compensation, probation and
the juvenile court. The most prominent financial records kept by the clerk were fines and
fees account books. Balance sheets and correspondence about fines have also survived for
Reading county division as has material concerning police costs.[27] There are also a
number of quarterly returns of fines, which were destined for the Exchequer.[28] Lastly,
some clerk's correspondence survives. Specialised correspondence may survive with the
records to which it relates, but separate correspondence files are also found.
Correspondence may cover any aspect of the court's business.[29]

A notable feature of the administrative records of one Berkshire petty sessional division--
the Forest--is the series of records of other bodies which survive among them. These are the
records of Land Tax Commissioners for the Forest Division, 1846-1924; of the General
Commissioners of the Inland Revenue for the Forest Division, 1882-97; and of the
Wokingham police from the period of the First World War.[30] Magistrates could act as
land tax commissioners under the Land Tax Act 1827, and as general commissioners of the
revenue under the Income Tax Act 1845. That they used their powers in the Forest division
is confirmed by the existence of letters concerning land tax in the clerk's letter books for the
period.[31] The presence of the police records in the Forest archive is explained by the fact
that the division's main centre was Wokingham, and its courthouse was housed in the same
building as the Wokingham police; these records were discovered in the building's
attic.[32]

The cataloguing project

In 9 months, 1540 producible units (ie items) were catalogued, including 551 revisions; this
represented material from 21 petty sessional courts in both the old and new county of
Berkshire.

Our basic task was to catalogue outstanding deposits from the courts already held at
Berkshire Record Office. However, after initial survey work, it soon became apparent that
the existing classification scheme did not adequately reflect either the functions of the
courts or the records which they had created, and that consequently much of the original
cataloguing would have to be reworked. This work formed the first strand of the project.
Unfortunately, we could not dispense with the old classification scheme completely, due to
the length of time such a revision would take, so instead we altered what we could, in order
to provide a more accurate picture of the court at work, and to bequeath a workable scheme
for any future requirements. (For a comparison between the two schemes see Figure 1.)

Our work showed that at archive group level the records divide into county court divisions
and borough courts. Almost all the records from the old borough jurisdictions had been
deposited via the court clerks; unlike quarter sessions, all the borough courts had been
under the control of a magistrates courts committee (a body responsible to the Home
Secretary rather than the mayor and aldermen) since 1949, a time which coincided with the
birth of the Berkshire Record Office. It seems that for these reasons early deposits of the
records of borough courts had been catalogued as part of the archive of petty sessions,
rather than as part of the archives of their respective boroughs. The merger or abolition of a
division acted as a cut-off point for its catalogue; as far as possible all the records created
by a division during its life were catalogued under the appropriate divisional head, and not
placed among the records of successor divisions. This was necessary as it was always
impossible to state that one division was a successor to another; more often, it was a
successor to two or three, merged simultaneously.

It must be stressed that the new scheme is not ideal, not least because it does not truly
discriminate between court in session and registration, preferring instead a division between
licensing and other court business. It also has a tendency to treat classes and subclasses of
records at the same level of description; for example, probation papers and registers are
each catalogued at class level (10 and 11 respectively), whereas adoption registers must
perforce become a subclass included under the class of adoption records (13). But such
theoretical niceties had to take second place to the pressure of time and targets; overall, our
desire was to see that the scheme was as consistent as possible, and that the records did not
have to be forced into it. Subsequent cataloguing has shown it to be satisfactory.

At about the same time as cataloguing commenced, we undertook a programme of surveys

of the records still held at the various courts. The most significant result of this was to show
the huge volume of space that would be required even if we were to preserve nothing but
the court registers, the primary record of the court. Technology meant the death of the
handwritten register by the end of the 1960s, and the amount of computer printout
subsequently generated has resulted in an exponential increase in the volume of
registers.[33] In practice, we decided to retain all registers which the courts produced, and
other items which we knew would be of interest to our user groups, for example plans of
licensed premises, and club rule books. We also kept all adoption records.

Longer series of court papers (which did not have to be permanently preserved),[34] were
sampled by selecting only papers for census years and every 5 years after a census, in line
with an informal office practice. Our decision was perhaps not based primarily on storage
considerations, but on a desire to avoid unnecessary duplication of information and to
establish models of best practice. For instance, a series of informations and complaints for
the period 1895-1931 (something under one cubic meter in bulk) was found among the
records of the Forest division; as the essential information they contained was recorded in
the court registers and expanded in the court minutes, only samples were preserved.[35]

Survey work also established a close working relationship between the county archivist and
the petty sessional clerks, with a result that a number of new deposits were received, and
the magistrates courts committee decided to use the facilities of the Berkshire Records
Centre for its more current records. There remains however a long-term problem of storage.
In addition to the dilemma of retention of records, the problem of access to them arose.
There are a number of conflicting authorities on this subject, resulting from common law,
statute law, and a certain amount of secondary interpretation. Berkshire's policy is now to
have a standard closure of 30 years for petty sessions records (in line with general office
practice and the Public Records Acts). Records which contain sensitive information about
named individuals which was not revealed in open court are closed for 50 years for adults
(for example, probation reports) and 75 for juveniles (for example, adoption orders).[36]
After discussion with one of the local court clerks, registers of public house licences and
clubs have been deemed not subject to any closure. It seems that ex-offenders may have a
legal right of access to the record of their own conviction under the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974; but we were unable to establish this definitely. We therefore have
decided only to allow access to interested parties who have applied to the relevant clerk
(whose duty it is to interpret the law for his bench, after all).

Conclusions

One of the first problems we encountered was that, while many articles and monographs
have been written about the history of quarter sessions, and notwithstanding recent research
into the role of justices themselves, books about petty sessions tend either to be technical
manuals for magistrates or extremely general accounts of their contemporary role.[37]
Little attention has yet been paid to the development of the courts in modem times. More
substantial work than this article can provide is required in this field.

The project also confirmed the need for a revision of Home Office Circular 37/1968.
Preceding as it does the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, it leaves unsolved the issue
of access by ex-offenders to closed records, and has not prevented local differences of
opinion. Nor does it satisfactorily address the problems of selection of records for
permanent preservation, particularly with reference to storage space and potential user
groups in local record offices. We look forward with interest to the new version promised
in 1995/1996.[38]

Specifically in Berkshire, the project has given rise to renewed contact with an important
group of local depositors, resulting in fruitful collaboration. It has also shown us that it is
possible to make changes to an existing classification scheme which greatly improve access
to the records while not being as time-consuming to implement as might be expected.

Petty sessions records are probably more neglected than they deserve. Comparison of
holdings of record offices across the country would be an interesting contribution to the
social and administrative history of England as a whole, and an understanding in local
record offices of the workings of the court will help to bring this about. In our experience,
the hierarchical nature of the criminal courts has given petty sessions a somewhat forgotten
role on the bottom rung, even though they can be a first point of access to the higher courts,
from quarter sessions onwards. Shall it thus remain?
PETTY SESSIONS RECORDS PS/

Scheme of Classification

Court in Session

1 Court minutes
1A Depositions before magistrates
2 Court registers
3 Juvenile Court minutes
4 Juvenile Court registers
5 Information and Complaints
5A Court Orders
6 Magisterial Plaint books
7 Warrants
8 Security books (register of ball and persons bound over)
9 Plaint and minute books (under Workman's Act, 1875, 38 & 39
Vict., c.90)
10 Probation records
11 Probation registers
12 Pardons
13 Adoption records

Registration

14 Registers of alehouse licenses (under Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94)

14A Licensing maps and plans of licensed premises
15 Registers of licenses for killing hares (under Act 11 & 12
Vict. c.29)
16 Registers of clubs (under Act 2 Edw. 7 c.28)
17 Licensing returns and related papers (alehouses and clubs)
18 Registers of premises licensed for music and racing
19 Registers of cinematograph licenses (under Act 9 Edw. 7 c.30)
20 Registers of premises licensed to keep explosives (under Act
38 & 39 Vict. c.17)
21 Registers of applications for orders of removal
Administration
22 Financial records
23 Letter books
24 Miscellaneous

BERKSHIRE RECORD OFFICE PETTY SESSIONS RECORDS PS/

Classification Scheme

Court in Session

1 Court minutes
1A Court papers
2 Court registers
3 Juvenile court minutes
4 Juvenile court registers
5 Information and complaints
6 Magisterial plaint books
7 Warrants
8 Security records
9 Plaint and minute books
10 Probation papers
11 Probation registers
12 Pardons
13 Adoption papers

Registrations and Deposit

14 Registers of alehouse licences

14A Licensing maps and plans s
15 Registers of licences for killing hares
16 Registers of clubs
17 Licensing returns and papers
18 Registers of premises licensed for music and dancing
19 Registers of cinematograph licences
20 Registers of premises licensed to keep explosives
21 Registration (miscellaneous)
22 Deposited papers

Administration

23 Magistrates' minutes
24 Financial papers
25 Clerk's correspondence
26 Miscellaneous

FIGURE 1. Comparison of the former and present classification schemes for petty sessions
at Berkshire Record Office.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Note: all references to documents are to those in the Berkshire Record Office.

1. 33 Hen VIII c10.

2. 37 Hen VIII c7; see also J. A. Sharpe, Grime in Early Modern England (Longman,
1984), p 21.

3. For a printed transcript of this see J.P. Kenyon (ed.), The Stuart Constitution, 1603-1688:
documents and commentary (Cambridge, 1986), p 499.

4. See J. R. Kent, The English Village Constable 1580-1641 (Oxford University Press,
1986), p 307, and sources cited there.

5. For instance, court papers dating from the 1830s and 1840s among the records of
Moreton petty sessional division refer to the justices acting for Moreton hundred (PS/MN
1A/1-5); similarly papers among the records of Hungerford division relating to a highway
diversion in 1831 refer to the justices acting for the hundred of Kintbury Eagle (PS/H 1A/l).

6. Thus in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries statutes were passed enabling
judicial regulation of, for example, the wool trade, weights and measures, alehouses and
gambling -- see J. A. Lander, English justices of the peace 1461-1509 (Alan Sutton, 1989),
pp 7-8.

7. The resulting administrative paperwork, often found in quarter sessions archives, also
tends to be found in parish overseers' records, as it was those officers who had to carry out
the justices' orders. Other types of justices' orders in parish custody may have similar
origins.

8. The Act may not have had this effect in all counties. Pre-1851 petty sessions records
survive in larger quantities than in Berkshire elsewhere, eg in Essex: F. G. Emmison, Guide
to the Essex Record Office (2nd edn, Essex County Council 1969), pp 48-49.

9. It is interesting to note that as local administrative functions were taken away from
quarter sessions to be given to councils in the latter half of the nineteenth century, notably
by the Local Government Act 1888, so some quasi-administrative (or quasi-judicial)
functions, such as licensing, were also transferred to the lower court. This may have been
part of a more long term shift in the character of petty sessions, as business had probably
decreased in volume after the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which established the
Boards of Guardians with responsibility for the needy. Magistrates did however still
occasionally oversee the old poor law, at least in Berkshire: see PS/MN 1A/2, 3 and 5,
settlement papers for the 1840s, and PS/FT 1A/19, 20, settlement papers for 1914-21.

10. R. M. Jackson, The Machinery of Justice in England (6th edn, Cambridge University
Press), 1972 p 214.

11. See the minutes of the Berkshire magistrates courts committee, 1952-1974
(C/CL/C6/9/1-2).

12. PS/RC 4/1.

13. Jackson, The Machinery of Justice in England, pp 256-7.

14. By the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act of that year.

15. For a detailed history of licensing procedure, see H. B. Hemming and S. E. Major,
Paterson's Licensing Acts (39th edn, Butterworth, 1929).

16. Berkshire Record Office holds the notebook of Robert Leigh of Binfield, 1742-43
(D/EZ 30 Fl); examples from other counties include the notebook of Robert Doughty in
Norfolk Record Office, which covers the period 1662-1665 (Norfolk Record Office,
Aylsham 829, edited by J. M. Rosenheim, as The Notebook of Robert Doughty 1662-65,
Norfolk Record Society, vol 54, 1989).

17. PS/F 1A/l, 3-12.

18. PS/MN 1/7.

19. PS/F 1/1-7.

20. Cf Jackson, The Machinery of Justice in England, p 242.

21. PS/RC 4/1.

22. See, for example, PS/MW 4/1.

23. PS/M 3/1.

24. An example of this is PS/N 2/4, p 87.

25. PS/MW 13/1; PS/M 13/1.

26. PS/R 17/2,3; see also R. S. Wright and H. Hobhouse Local Government and Local
Taxation (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, 1914), pp 81, n82.

27. PS/RC 24/3,4; PS/RC 24/5.

28. For example, PS/AC 24/1-4.

29. Thus, among the records of Moreton and Wallingford division are files relating to the
construction of Didcot courthouse, to interpreters required in court and to 'Aliens and
Commonwealth immigrants' (PS/MW 25/1; PS/MW 25/6,7).

30. P/FT 22/1-53; PS/FT 22/54-56; PS/FT 26/1-21.

31. PS/FT 25/1-3.

32. As were the record of the Forest and Windsor county petty sessions mentioned above.

33. In general, Berkshire Record Office has not accepted deposits of computer-generated
registers; cut-off dates for deposited registers have tended to be the point at which they
change to this format.

34. For suggested retention and preservation schedules for petty sessions records, see either
Home Office Circular 37/1968, or the schedule of July 1942 under the Public Record
Office Act 1877.

35. PS/FT 5/1-7.

36. It should be borne in mind that court registers and minutes are only closed to public
access for 30 years, despite the fact that they contain intimate details of the marriages and
other aspects of the lives of the defendants and witnesses. This intrusion has to be justified
on the grounds that all the details have already been made known in open court and are
therefore in the public domain. It makes it all the more necessary to restrict access to
documents giving information which has never been made known in court.

37. As well as the works already cited, the following were helpful: R. Bird, Osborn's
Concise Law Dictionary (7th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, 1983); F. T. Giles, The Magistrates
Courts (Penguin, 1949); E. Moir, The Justice of the Peace (Penguin, 1969); G. H. F.
Mumford, A Guide to Juvenile Court Law (5th edn, Jordan and Sons, 1961); T. S.
Pritchard, Practice of the Quarter Sessions (Stevens and Sons, 1875).

38. See S. Shaw, Interim Guidelines on the Transfer of, and Retrieval of Information from,
Magistrates Courts Records less than 25 years old (Public Record Office, 1993).

~~~~~~~~

BY SARAH FLYNN and MARK STEVENS

formerly of Berkshire Record Office

This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied
without the copyright holder's express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the
retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: Journal of the Society of Archivists, 1995, Vol. 16, Iss. 1, p. 41-53
Accession Number: 00379816199516141Fly