ABSTRACT
At a time when apprentices and servants – typically, teenaged boys and girls – had limited legal authority and freedom, false accusations of crimes such as rape and sodomy were frequent, particularly against their masters or somebody else in their households. Malicious prosecution typically occurred when the accuser wished to gain some benefit from the accused, such as when girls who had become pregnant through an assignation wished to secure financial support or when servants wished to get out of their legal contracts, which is possibly the situation in this story. In this case of alleged buggery, the youth Henry Wells was obviously deemed to be credible, likely because of the earnestness and consistency of his story over several retellings (and it is possible that despite his ultimate retraction, he was telling the truth). As described in quite exciting and fast-paced prose, the gardener’s reprieve happened at the brink of death, when Wells, after much pressure and being separated from his family of supporters, recanted his statement. This was followed by a hasty audience with no less than the person of the king himself, Charles II, who authorized the gardener’s reprieve and encouraged the news of it to precede the formal pardon, for fear that in the meantime an innocent man might be executed. Most commendable in this case are the actions of the ministers and keepers of Newgate, who tirelessly fought for the exoneration of a man they believed to be innocent. This case reminds us that, even in the face of serious allegations of sexual misconduct – buggery being considered one of the greatest affronts against the laws of God and nature – the participants of the criminal justice system did not simply let those accused of serious crimes be punished without due consideration.
