Manufacturing of Criminals and Youth Gangs
The causes of juvenile crime were a complex mixture of various environmental and social factors. Large towns like Birmingham with its dense population served as a hotbed for criminal activity. The environment and the negative influences on young minds was like a greenhouse that helps bad behaviour grow.
Economic instability and the lack of steady income drove children into criminal activities. When parents squander earnings on alcohol instead of necessities the children are often left hungry and desperate, resorting to theft to survive.
Often children were sent out to steal instead of going to school. The streets around the Gun-Quarter as were many in the ever expanding City were neglected and devoid of any green space. The courts and the streets became their playgrounds, setting the stage for the formation of “youth Gangs” and territorial defence
Gangs became a significant part of the city's underworld, drawing in children from impoverished backgrounds, who joined groups to feel like they belonged and gave them an identity. They were their friends, an escape from homelife and the harsh realities of life. (51)
Hierarchy and Training:
These youth groups often have structured hierarchies and training methods, where new recruits start with petty crimes and gradually move on to more significant serious crimes through the association with organised gangs. This systematic approach ensured that young members kept learning and using criminal skills and attitudes.
Published: Saturday 02 December 1876
Newspaper: Birmingham & Aston Chronicle
A significant operation involved apprehending a gang of young thieves who had been systematically committing petty and significant thefts. These youths operated from a place known as the "Kids' Hotel," a coffee house on New Town Row. They had a structured organisation with secret signs, passwords, and ranks. Their activities included stealing money from children on errands and other small-scale thefts, gradually moving to more serious crimes. The gang members, identified by special names like "Captain" and "Artful," were caught during a series of thefts, including stealing cloaks and belts.
All the "members" have had to swear allegiance, and promise secrecy, at the outset; an outward sign has been worn, by which each member would be recognisable; passwords have been adopted; and when certain degrees of proficiency have been obtained, the adventurers have been honoured by special names: thus they have had a " Gouger," "Artful," "Imp," "Captain," "Adam," &c.
The robberies in connection with which they have been caught were conducted by the "Captain," assisted by a number of the principal "officials" of the gang: a bundle of belts were taken from "the Home that Jack built"; thence they proceeded to Mr. Kynaston's Mourning Warehouse, where the "Captain" espied a cloak that might have proved serviceable to his mother; he pulled it off the hook, threw it over to the "Imp," who ran away with it while "Artful" busied himself in directing the attention of the pursuers on a false track. In due course, all the parties met at their "Commercial" room, whence the "Captain" took the cloak to his pawnbroker.
Psychological Impact of Poverty and Neglect
Continuous exposure to poverty, neglect, and abuse lead to psychological distress, pushing children towards crime as an escape or a form of rebellion. There was a lack of positive role models that exacerbated the issue. Children who grew up without seeing examples of lawful and productive actions were more likely to fall into criminal patterns
The following articles are of three separate cases that illustrate the typical home life and the environment of violence for children who lived in and around Water Street (52)
Excessive Punishment of Children:- Christmas last prisoner lost his wife, and since then he had undertaken the duty of correcting his children. He kicked them on one occasion and beat them with a strap. The elder boy had robbed the house, and had even run away with the money with which he had been sent to buy food, and had stayed out all night. The younger lad had played truant. The father pleaded that upon each occasion on which he beat the lads, their conduct merited correction. They were found to have extensive bruising and were dirty and had vermin.
Neglect to family:- Peter Surr was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour for neglecting to maintain his wife and children, they had been in the workhouse several times. They lived in water street, where his wife died. What became of the children, their mother had died, and their father imprisoned for three months
Unlawfully Wounding:- Charles Blakemore charged with unlawfully wounding his wife Emily Blakemore. cutting her about the face and fingers. She was drinking with the prisoner in the Bull’s Head, Water Street, and had left him there. Under the influence of drink he used abusive language towards her. Blakemore then drew a knife, saying he would cut her throat and "do for her," and proceeded to cut her about the face and fingers. Emily wrestled with him, and the prisoner's children called a neighbour, stating that her husband had attempted to murder her, and the prisoner said, "Yes, I have done it, and this is the knife I did it with."
Patrick Giblin and His Family’s Arrival
The Giblin family, like many Irish immigrants during the 19th century, fled their homeland seeking refuge from the Great Famine (1845-1852). Primarily driven by the search for work and a new life away from the poverty and famine that plagued their homeland.
Birmingham, a booming industrial city, offered opportunities for employment in factories, construction, and other labour-intensive industries. The family, headed by Patrick Giblin, arrived in the early 1850s, where they settled in Livery Street, like many other Irish families found themselves living in the poorest conditions, overcrowded, and working-class.
However, it wasn’t just economic factors that led the Irish to congregate in this specific area. The strong sense of community among the Irish populace played a crucial role. St Chads Catholic Cathedral in Bath Street and the corner of Shadwell Street being in close proximity, many Irish families took the cheapest and lowliest dwellings in which to establish themselves, settling in Park Street, Livery Street, Water Street, Northwood Street or Hospital Street. (53)
Patrick Giblin and his family were one of six other Giblin families who may or may not have been from extended families. In 1861 five Giblin all settled in Livery Street. With a further two Giblin families living nearby.
In court 33 Livery Street alone, twelve of the seventeen houses in the court were of Irish descent
Gun Quarter
Birmingham's history, particularly in Steelhouse Lane, is more tied to trade and industrial development. The area's history dates back to when it was known as Chapel Street, serving as a route for locals visiting the Priory chapel. Over time, Birmingham evolved from a rural area of a picturesque landscape with wooded slopes and watered dales into a bustling industrial city known for its steelworks and manufacturing prowess.
The name "Steelhouse" is thought to have originated from the extensive manufacturing of "brilliant and elegant steel toys" that took place there. These "steel toys" included a variety of cutting instruments such as swords, bayonets, cane knives, hatchets, and machetes, which were produced in vast quantities in the area for over a century. While this explanation is plausible, it is not the most widely accepted origin of the name.
It is more likely that Steelhouse Lane got its name from Kettle’s steelhouses, which once stood on part of the land before the churchyard appeared. These steelhouses were cleared away around 1770. However, little is known about Kettle or the specific steel manufacturing processes that took place at these steelhouses.
The development of manufacturers, warehouses, and workshops in places like Weaman Street and Whittall Street, once aristocratic suburbs emblematic of Birmingham's broader shift from country houses to industrial and residential spaces. (54)
The streets surrounding Lower Loveday street, were historically known for its firearms manufacturing known as the ‘Gun Quarter’.
Whittall Street
Loveday Street
Price Street
Shadwell Street
Staniforth Street
Weaman Street
These streets were central to the gun-making industry, with many workshops and factories located there. The Gun Quarter played a significant role in Birmingham's industrial history and was renowned for the production of high-quality firearms. The Industry once employed 50,000 people and manufactured more than three quarters of the world's guns and home to 600 firms. (55)
The rapid growth and the large influx of workers created a volatile social environment where tensions often led to violence. The working-class population faced harsh living and working conditions, leading to frequent disputes and conflicts. The lack of formal legal and social institutions to mediate conflicts often resulted in brawling as a means of resolving disputes.
The Catholic-Protestant Divide
Although Birmingham did not experience the same level of sectarian violence as cities like Liverpool or Glasgow, there were still instances of conflict and animosity towards the Irish Settlers. Religious affiliation was a significant factor in the formation of these close-knit Irish communities. The majority of Irish immigrants were Catholic as opposed to the predominantly Protestant population in Birmingham. Economic competition between the Irish communities and the local working-class population led to resentment, which was often framed in religious terms.
The Irish were sometimes viewed negatively by the local working-classes due to fears of wage depression and job competition. The demographic correlation of poor housing and insanitary conditions exacerbated by economic competition, cultural differences, and political issues led to an association between the newly arrived Irish and the polluted environment of the expanding urban landscape. The lifestyle and domestic economy of Irish migrant settlers were held to be directly responsible for overcrowding. Irish Catholics were often viewed with suspicion and hostility when viewed as a threat to jobs and were often associated with poverty and crime. (56)
Tensions between Catholics and Protestants led Anti-Catholic sentiments and the threat the Irish settlers and the real or imagined threat they posed to employment prospects led to serious riots and clashes notably Murphy Riots of 1867 and the Navigation Street Riot of 1875.
William Murphy was a staunch Protestant known for his inflammatory speeches against Catholicism. His lectures often provoked strong reactions, particularly in areas with substantial Irish Catholic populations. In 1867, Murphy arrived in Birmingham, and chose to deliver his lectures in the Aston area, including Park Street, which was known for its large Irish community. He accused Catholics of disloyalty to the British Crown, insinuated that they were a threat to Protestant England, and stirred up fear about Catholic influence.
The Riots:
The lectures drew large crowds, including both supporters and opponents, predictably led to violent confrontations. The first major disturbance occurred on June 14, 1867 in Park Street, when a crowd gathered to hear Murphy speak, as Irish labourers finished their work they joined a mob of men, women, and boys. Violence broke out between the two factions. The street quickly became dangerous, with rioters hurling stones, bricks, and tiles, and attacking each other when they lacked a target. The mob engaged in widespread destruction, breaking windows, tearing down doors and signboards, and creating bludgeons from stolen materials. (57)
The situation worsened until around 8:30 p.m., when a strong police force attempted to restore order. Despite charging with truncheons, the police faced fierce resistance, with rioters attacking them from rooftops and windows. Over the next few days, the riots escalated, with homes and businesses of Irish Catholics being targeted and vandalised.
The local police struggled to control not only sectarian violence, between Protestant and Catholic communities but also involved large, angry mobs, making it dangerous for individual officers. There was a lack of respect from the public with attitudes towards the police being ambivalent or outright hostile, particularly among marginalised groups.
The Spectator addressed the Birmingham riots as a reflection of deeper issues in social structure, particularly the failure to assimilate certain populations and the lack of an adequate civil force to maintain order. It criticises the handling of the riots, noting that the situation is discreditable to all involved: Catholics, Protestants, magistrates, and the municipal system itself.
The article argues that Catholics must respect freedom of speech and encouraged the use of legal means to address grievances, rather than resorting to violence. It also acknowledged that while Irish immigrants have often been unfairly associated with violence, they are equally entitled to their beliefs and customs as any other group, and the destruction of their property is unjust
"How can we expect Irishmen to embrace British identity when being Irish often means being seen as inferior and without rights. The police, however, aided by a large number of English civilians fraternised with Protestants and if used excessive force against Catholics, they deserve severe censure."
The Navigation Street Riot of 1875.
The riot was primarily a violent confrontation between police and a group of roughs (the newspaper frequently used this term) The police officers Fletcher and Genniman went to the Hop and Malt Inn, Navigation Street to arrest William Hemmings for burglary, leading to a mob attacking police officers. Unrest escalated, outside the pub was crowded with Hemmings' friends who attempted to obstruct the officers. Once outside, the officers were attacked with stones and missiles. Sergeant Fletcher was severely beaten, and police constable William Lines who came to assist was also attacked and struck in the neck with a knife and subsequently died from his injuries. He was only 30 years of age.
Lines joined the police force in 1864, resigned in 1871, but rejoined a few months later. Known for his bravery within the force had been wounded several times before twelve men were arrested in connection to Navigation Street, William Milard confessed to the murder of PC Lines. However, at court it was Jeremiah Corkery “Cork” who was found guilty, and sentenced to death by hanging.
Emergence of Trade Clubs and “Club” Nights
Before the establishment of formal trade unions, workers formed trade clubs, which were early forms of worker associations. These clubs provided a social space for workers to gather, discuss issues, and support each other.
Club nights were regular meetings where members of trade clubs would gather, often in taverns or other public houses. Livery Street was home to several bars and pubs and its surroundings were known for nightlife activities. Loans and other financial services were available to members who joined their club
These gatherings included drinking, socialising, and discussing trade-related issues. However, they also became venues for expressing grievances and settling scores, leading to brawls.
“Pugnacity” or combativeness was a social norm, with the culture of Brawling often seen as a demonstration of masculinity and toughness. In a society where physical strength was highly valued, especially among manual labourers, engaging in fights was a way to assert dominance and gain respect.
Some of the violence was ritualised, with established rules and codes of conduct. This allowed brawling to serve as a form of social regulation, where disputes could be settled in a controlled manner.
Brawling also had economic and political dimensions. Conflicts often arose over employment conditions, wages, and competition for jobs. In some cases, brawls were a form of resistance against employers or authorities perceived as unjust. (58)
Fights escalated often after intoxication and in some cases death, such as the case of Patrick O’Donoughue who was killed in the Flying Horse in 1875. (59)
Two Irish labourers, Michael Caulfield (36) of Church Street and John Moran of Charles Henry Street, are in custody charged with causing the death of Patrick O'Donoughue (48), a labourer who lived at No. 67, New Summer Street, Summer Lane. The incident occurred after an assault in the Flying Horse public house, Hampton Street.
On the night in question, at around half-past eight, the deceased and his cousin, also named Patrick O'Donoughue, who lodged with him, went out together and visited the Flying Horse Inn at the corner of Hampton Street and Upper Tower Street. This establishment is frequented mainly by Irish labourers and hosts a sort of Home Rule club several times a month.
The O'Donoghues remained at the pub for a short time when several men, including the accused, entered. The prisoners were reportedly intoxicated and quarrelsome. One of them challenged the deceased's cousin to a fight, claiming he was "as good a man as he was." O'Donoughue declined, but the man provoked him by striking him in the face and knocking him down. Upon regaining his feet, O'Donoughue was again felled by another blow to the face. Realising the odds were against him, he managed to escape and went in search of a policeman.
The exact events in the pub during his absence are unclear, but police inquiries suggest that after O'Donoughue left, the men attacked the deceased. One of them, allegedly Caulfield, struck him down, and he was badly beaten and kicked by the others. When O'Donoughue returned with a policeman, the deceased was found lying unconscious on the floor. His clothes showed signs of a struggle. The policeman, upon hearing that the deceased was "beastly drunk" and the aggressor, refused to take the assailants into custody. The men were in an adjoining room, smoking and drinking, seemingly unconcerned.
The deceased was placed in a cab by his cousin and taken home. Medical aid was summoned, but Mr. Gascoigne, assistant to Mr. Jackson, surgeon of Summer Lane, found that life had been extinct for about an hour. It is believed that O'Donoughue died in the pub shortly after the assault. He had bled from the nose and mouth and bore severe facial injuries, including lacerations to his upper lip, nose, right eye, and right cheek. There were no other visible marks of violence on his body.
The men who caused the disturbance left the inn shortly afterward, and no one attempted to detain them. Detective Sergeant Black and Police Constable Baker apprehended Moran and Caulfield at their homes early yesterday morning. They will be brought before the magistrates today. Considerable excitement prevailed yesterday in the neighbourhood of New Summer Street.
As the 19th century progressed, the rise of formal trade shifted towards more formal unions and began to provide more structured and organised ways for workers to address their grievances. This shift helped to reduce the prevalence of brawling as unions sought to present a more disciplined and respectable image.
Bare Knuckle fights
Bare-knuckle fighting was a brutal sport that was a precursor to modern boxing. It often involved fighters in unsanctioned bouts with minimal rules. With limited leisure activities, bare-knuckle fighting became a popular form of entertainment and a way for men to prove their toughness and for some provided a means to earn money and escape poverty. Fights often took place in pubs, on open grounds, or in makeshift rings set up in backyards. These venues provided a way for the local community to gather and watch the bouts.
The Nature of the Fights:
Rules and Regulations: Early bare-knuckle fights had few rules. The introduction of the London Prize Ring Rules in 1838 brought some structure, such as banning head-butting, eye-gouging, and biting, but fights remained brutal. Rounds ended when a fighter was knocked down, and there were no fixed time limits.
Techniques: Fighters relied on a combination of punches, grappling, and wrestling techniques. Matches could last for many rounds and often ended in severe injuries.
Harry Levy, otherwise known as “Savage”, was a well-known figure in the early 20th century boxing world. He earned the nickname "Savage" due to his aggressive fighting style and ferocity in the ring. He fought for more than 40 years, this is what he thought of glove-boxing:
The glove business is all very pretty, but there's too much fuss and feathers about it. There's just one suggestion, by the way, I'd like to make to those fellers that run boxing in this country. Take the referee out of the ring, let the timekeeper keep track of knock-downs, and, best of all, do not let a fighter know how long he is down. Make every man get up as soon as he can, instead of sitting on the floor resting while the referee counts. Another thing, cut hugging and wrestling out. The Queensberry rules are all right. All this guff about new rules and the attempts of a lot of wise ducks to draw them up give me a pain. (60)
Fights in Birmingham attracted large crowds and betting. These events were well-publicised, with posters and word-of-mouth spreading the news. Bouts often had a carnival-like atmosphere, drawing spectators from various social classes. Birmingham produced several notable bare-knuckle fighters, one of the most well-known was Alf Greenfield.
Born in Northampton in 1852, Alf settled in Birmingham at a young age. Living initially in Nelson Street, where he met and married Maria Hounsell, a pen maker on 1st May 1870. Both Alf and Maira were 19 years old.
In 1871 Alf's occupation was a metal roller and then as a bargeman, a job that helped harden his muscles and provide ample opportunity to hone his fighting skills.
Attacked with a Sickle!
Once, during harvest time near the banks of a canal, a scuffle broke out between bargees and Irish reapers who had arrived for work. What began as banter escalated into a physical confrontation. A crowd quickly gathered to watch as Greenfield and a formidable Irishman became the de facto champions of their respective groups (61)
His first notable fight was against Pat Perry, a seasoned pugilist, at the "Beggar’s Bush," a popular venue for Birmingham's bruisers. Although Greenfield lost this fight, it marked the beginning of a storied career. Greenfield proved superior and swiftly defeated his opponent. However, as he reached for his coat to prepare for the bout, the defeated reaper, who had taken possession of a sickle, inflicted a deep cut on Greenfield's right forearm. This injury would continue to affect Greenfield throughout his career in the ring.
Pugilistic Achievements
Greenfield's boxing career was marked by numerous notable fights. In 1878, he fought Sam Breeze of Birmingham for £50 at Tamworth and emerged victorious after a gruelling hour-long battle. Later that year, he fought Jem Highland at Packington Hall, a fight witnessed by Lord Aylesford and his sporting friends, which Greenfield won after an hour and a quarter of fierce combat.
One of Greenfield's most significant victories was in a heavyweight competition promoted by Jem Mace in Manchester, where he defeated the famous Jack Burke
Later Fights and International Fame
Greenfield's fame extended beyond Birmingham. He fought Denny Harrington under the Marquis of Queensberry rules at Lambeth Baths, London. Although controversially disqualified, his popularity soared. He went on to fight "Tug" Wilson under the old London Prize Ring rules near Brighton, with King Edward (then the Prince of Wales) among the spectators. Despite breaking his arm during the fight, Greenfield fought valiantly but ultimately lost to Wilson.
In 1884, Greenfield travelled to the United States, where he fought the American heavyweight champion John L. Sullivan twice, losing both four-round bouts. His return to Birmingham was celebrated, and he continued to fight notable opponents, including Jim Stewart of Glasgow and Jem Smith, the latter in a controversial fight in France that ended in chaos and was declared a draw.
The Swan With Two Necks
Alf Greenfield was more than just a boxer; he was a local hero and the amiable landlord of the Swan With Two Necks, transforming it into one of England's most famous "sporting drums." The tavern, located at 109 Livery Street , was a hub for sports enthusiasts, decorated with stuffed animal specimens, fishing trophies, and numerous portraits of boxing celebrities. The pride of the establishment was Greenfield's sparring saloon and picture gallery, a venue that was second only to Bill Richardson's Blue Cuckoo tavern in Shoreditch, London.
Theft of Champion Belt “Jem Mace” Belt Stolen!
His prized belt which symbolised his victory over Jack Burke was stolen. Alf was away at the time, having recently sailed to America to have a "spar" with Sullivan and Puck for the championship of the world. The belt was taken from Greenfield's "trophy room". Despite substantial rewards offered for its return, the belt remained missing, prompting Greenfield's supporters to provide him with a duplicate. (62)
Greenfield's reputation thrived not only due to his prowess in the ring but also because of his charismatic personality. Despite lacking formal education, he exhibited remarkable tact, likely honed through his challenging upbringing. His courage extended beyond the boxing arena, often intervening to protect the vulnerable from street violence in Livery Street. His presence alone was enough to deter criminal activity, earning him the nickname "the Green 'un," despite no obvious connection to anything green in his demeanour or dealings. (63)
Legacy and Final Years
Marie took Alf to court for money but they didn't divorce as shown in the 1881 census, they were living together. Alf's later years saw him move from the Swan With Two Necks to the Three Tuns in Digbeth. Despite his declining fortunes, he demonstrated remarkable bravery during a fire at the Three Tuns, rescuing his wife and children. Unfortunately, Greenfield's life ended tragically. He became mentally ill and spent his final days in the asylum at Winson Green, where he died on July 10, 1895.
Greenfield was buried in Yardley cemetery, but his legacy as "The Pride of Brum" lived on. His contributions to the sport of boxing and his role as a beloved publican and local hero was fondly remembered by the people of Birmingham for many years to follow.
Giblin Brothers, the criminal activities and slogging gangs
Patrick and his wife Mary struggled to provide for their children. They at 103 Livery Street, a couple of doors down form The Swan With Two necks of Alf Greenfield. Patrick worked as a bricklayer labourer, and their sons Michael (16), Martin (12), and Patrick Jr. (8) all having to work to help support the family with the weekly expenditure, both employed as button makers, notoriously low paid wages. In 1859 Bridget Giblin of Giblin Family 2, was caught stealing water from a nearby tap of a local Company
In 1861, Patrick was brought to the magistrate's court described in The Birmingham Daily Post as, a rough-looking fellow named Patrick Giblin, a labourer residing in a court in Livery Street, was charged with violently assaulting Patrick Fury on August 4th. During the incident, Patrick quarrelled with Fury over a previous matter and ended up knocking him down and dragging him into an entryway. Fury, who appeared in court with a bandaged head, had acted violently and damaged Patricks furniture during the altercation. Considering that Patrick was provoked, the Magistrates fined him 40 shillings plus costs, with a default punishment of one month in prison.
Another incident In August 1866 Patrick now aged 41 was the instigator of an unsavoury violent assault on a woman. Patrick along with seventeen year old Peter Byrne, and John Welch were charged with violently assaulting a woman named Bridget Byrne and throwing stones at the police. The incident began with an altercation involving other individuals, which escalated when Giblin and Welch attacked Byrne. They knocked her down, kicked her, and struck her on the head with sticks, causing severe injuries. Police arrived after hearing cries of "Murder!" but were met with hostility and stone-throwing, especially from Welch. The police later arrested the attackers. Patrick Giblin, who played a leading role in the assault, was sentenced to six months in prison.
This prison sentence would have had dire consequences on the Giblin household. The loss of Patrick's salary would place a financial burden on the brothers, who would now also need to support the youngest sibling, Thomas Giblin.
Thomas was born on the 27th of July 1863 and baptised in St Chads Catholic Cathedral on the 9th of August. The document was written in Latin, which was the universal language of the Catholic Church, used in liturgy and official documents. In the 19th century, Ireland was under British rule, and the Catholic Church played a significant role in maintaining Irish identity and culture. The use of Latin in religious contexts was part of the Church's tradition and helped maintain a connection to the broader Catholic Church, which was particularly important for Irish Catholics during this time of political and cultural suppression.
The document indicates that Mariae Giblin (also known as Mary) was formerly Mary Cain. The 1851 Census shows that John Giblin and his wife Bridget hosted an astonishing 12 lodgers in their home, one of whom was 24-year-old Mary Cain, born in 1827. The question arises: Did Patrick Giblin marry Mary after he arrived in Birmingham, making this his second marriage? Notably, all of Patrick’s other children were born in Ireland.
Records show that a Patrick Giblin married Mary Begley in 1864. However, we know that Patrick and Mary were already living in Birmingham by 1861, making it highly unlikely that they would have returned to Ireland just to get married. Given the costs and infrequency of travel at that time, such a journey would have been feasible only for the wealthy.
We can also see another family that were living in the household was “Feeney” this is a surname that regularly appears alongside John and Thomas Giblin in future crimes.
Of the seven Giblin Households, it is Patrick Giblin and in particular his Sons John and Thomas who became infamous for their violent crimes and leading figures in the “slogging Gangs” of Aston. The brothers grew up witnessing their father's violent behaviour and frequent brushes with the law
Punishment & Magistrates
The Irish in Britain were disproportionately represented in petty crime statistics, being three times more prone to prosecution and five times as likely to be convicted. This overrepresentation, coupled with anti-Irish sentiment and the attitudes of magistrates, likely contributed to the criminal records and convictions of individuals such as John Giblin. In my research, I found that there were two individuals named John Giblin who were convicted of crimes they committed, but they were tried under the mistaken belief that they were the same person. (63)
To make the distinction between the two John Giblins easier to follow, I’ve highlighted each member of the Giblin family or individual using the same colors I used in the census table above.
It is possible that the second John Giblin could have been a relative of Patrick Giblin's family. Addresses were sometimes reported as Livery Street, Northwood Street, or Water Street. The Giblins’ residences were directly behind the front house on Livery Street; sometimes the address was listed as 19 Livery Street, although it was actually court 19 Northwood Street. There might be a connection between Giblin family 1 and John Giblin 2 through Mary Cain. If Mary Cain was indeed Patrick’s wife, as I believe and have previously stated, she was a lodger with Giblin family 2 in Northwood Street in 1851.
In 1869 fourteen year old John Giblin of Giblin family 2 was living at Court 19 Northwood Street his father also called John was fatally injured in an accident where a wall fell on him in Ludgate Hill.
Fatal Result of the Fall of a Wall
Published: Thursday 01 April 1869
Yesterday afternoon, an inquest was held at the Turk's Head, Ludgate Hill, before the Borough Coroner, concerning the death of John Giblin, bricklayer's labourer residing at 19 Court, No. 3, Northwood Street.
It was reported that on the 24th inst., Giblin was working with others to level a wall on Legge Lane. The wall was undermined, and the foreman instructed Giblin to move out of the way. Unfortunately, Giblin did not move in time. The wall collapsed, and Giblin was thrown to the ground, becoming trapped under a heavy mass of debris.
After being rescued, Giblin was taken to the General Hospital, where it was discovered that both of his thigh bones were fractured. Amputation was performed the following day, but Giblin did not recover and passed away on the 26th. The verdict was accidental death. Giblin was 45 years old and left behind a wife and four children who are now left without financial support.
The loss of income became evident soon after, when on September 18th, just five months after his father's death, fourteen-year-old John, who was working as a brass caster and living at 19 Court, Northwood Street, found himself in trouble. Along with his friends—George Green (15), a brass caster from 118 Livery Street; Thomas Elwood (13), a pearl button filer from Court, Weaman Street; and Patrick Smith (12), a stamper from Henrietta Street—John was caught stealing a quantity of candles from the warehouse of Alderman Brinsley in Snow Hill. As a result, John was sentenced to fourteen days in jail.
Discrepancies emerge to which John Giblin the authorities are charging occurred in 1871. The Birmingham Daily Posted reported:- William Bates (16), iron caster, Summer Lane; John Giblin (17), iron caster, 36 Court, Livery Street; Patrick Cooney (17), glass button maker, 17 Weaman Street; and Edward Cunningham (14), brass founder, 14 New Summer Street were in court for stealing 4lbs of cheese from the shop of Richard Scott in Gooch Street. Scotts wife testified she saw William Bates steal the cheese and run out of the shop with the cheese under his jacket in the company of others, who were all waiting outside. All the other prisoners apart from John received ‘good characters’ and he was the only one sent to Gaol, which was for three months. The reason given for a custodial sentence was due to his previous conviction in 1869.
The article indicates that John was 17 years old and an iron caster, which matches his occupation in 1869 and aligns closely with John 2’s details. The address listed is Livery Street, though it could have been Northwood Street, where John 1, a polisher in a brass foundry, was recorded living in 1871. The criminal register of 1881 shows multiple instances involving both Johns, residing at various times on Northwood Street, Water Street, or Livery Street. However, there are discrepancies in their ages and occupations across these records.
John’s sense of injustice over his prison sentence likely stemmed not from the crimes he committed but from his broader circumstances—his father’s death, the harsh streets he lived on, and his necessity to work from a young age to support his family. While four individuals stole cheese, only John was imprisoned.
John’s experience in prison would have been different from that of adult prisoners. Juvenile offenders were generally kept separate from adult inmates, although the conditions were still quite harsh. The prison system at the time was intended not only as a punishment but also as a deterrent, with the belief that the experience of incarceration would discourage further criminal behaviour.
Short sentences like John’s in 1869 were intended to give young offenders a brief experience of imprisonment, hoping this would deter them from further crimes. Clearly, this approach was ineffective, as the two Johns and Thomas continued a pattern of criminal activity for the next twenty years.
Stone Throwing
Stone-throwing, or "stone-throwing nuisances," or “Ruffianism” were relatively common disturbances in Birmingham. This pattern typically started as a form of juvenile delinquency, often fueled by social unrest, poverty, and lack of constructive activities for young people. In industrial cities, where overcrowding and economic disparities were pronounced, such acts of vandalism and aggression became more frequent.
Stone-throwing was a way for disaffected youths to express their frustration or engage in rebellious activities against authority figures, such as the police. The practice could also be a form of gang initiation or a means of demonstrating power and solidarity within a group. In some cases, the disorderly behaviour was a reaction to poor living conditions, inadequate policing, or other issues affecting the community such as the young Giblin Brothers, in the case of John Giblin 2, already thrown into gaol for stealing cheese and in 1872, thirteen year old John 1 sent to prison for 14 days for being part of a slogging gang and stone throwing
John Gibbon (13), engine-driver, court, Water Street, and Michael Lowery (14), filer, court, Hospital Street, were charged with throwing stones in Livery Street. The previous night, they were part of a larger group of seventy or eighty individuals who had gathered in Northwood Street and Constitution Hill. The gang, armed with sticks and well-supplied with large stones, hurled missiles at Police Constable Baker before fleeing into Cox Street.
The stone-throwing had become an intolerable nuisance and a serious danger to the streets. On one occasion, a gang of lads assembled in front of Dr. Melson's house. When Dr. Melson confronted them alone, he managed to catch one of the boys and gave him a severe beating with an ash plant. The leader of the gang then attacked Dr. Melson, resulting in the doctor returning home with his ear and lip cut and covered in blood.
A reward of five pounds was offered for information about the gang known as the "Slogging" or "Slogger Gang," notorious for attacking premises on the site of the 'Old Inkleys.' The gang had repeatedly targeted the property with stones, breaking windows and endangering the lives of the occupants.
Such incidents often led to increased calls for more effective policing and community measures to address the root causes of juvenile delinquency.
Published: Saturday 14 March 1874
Newspaper: Birmingham Daily Post
'Slogging'—Henry Stokes (14), brass caster, Loveday Street, was charged with being disorderly, along with a number of other boys, and assaulting Thomas Shelton, a schoolboy from Cecil Street. The prisoner was a member of a "slogging gang," and on Thursday night this gang violently attacked the complainant, severely injuring him.
The prisoner was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour. Mr. Kynnersley expressed regret that he could not order the prisoner to be well whipped.
The dates highlighted in this colour mean there is a criminal record and newspaper article.
10-04-72 stone throwing Prison 14 days age 13
20-07-74 stone throwing Prison 6 weeks age 15
27-10-74 obstruction Prison 10 days with hard labour
23-12-74* assault Prison 2 calendar months with hard labour.
17-04-76 fighting Prison 14 days with hard labour
04-12-76 assaulting police Prison 3 calendar months with hard labour
05-10-77 assaulting police fine
28-11-77 drunk and riotous Prison 1 calendar month
09-04-78 assaulting police Prison 3 calendar months with hard labour
17-04-79 malicious wounding Prison 12 calendar months with hard labour
19-04-80 drunkenness Prison 14 days with hard labour (Just released from Prison)
03-05-80 assaulting police Prison 4 calendar months with hard labour
13-09-80 assault Prison 2 calendar months with hard labour
13-12-80 drunkenness Prison 14 days with hard labour
28-03-81 assaulting police Prison 4 calendar months with hard labour
06-09-81 fighting Prison 10 days with hard labour
13-10-81 wounding with intent Pentoville Prison 7 Years
John 1's criminal activities escalated over time, with each crime becoming increasingly violent. Thomas, who had yet to establish his own pattern of criminality, became involved in December 1874 when he was twelve years old. Along with his older brother John, who was three years his senior, Thomas was charged with juvenile ruffianism.
On December 6th, Police Constables Hill and Thompson were escorting their father, Patrick, who had been apprehended for drunkenness, through Livery Street. The boys, along with other members of the "slogging gang," attacked the police with stones. Despite two attempts by Patrick and his sons to escape, the situation quickly escalated. Stones were thrown at the officers, resulting in Police Constable Hill being struck on the head, knocked down twice, and his helmet severely damaged. The injuries Hill sustained were serious enough to keep him off duty for three days.
Thomas was dismissed without punishment, while John, identified as the one who threw the stone that injured Constable Hill, received a sentence of two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The case also became notable due to a controversial moment when Police Constable Thompson admitted to throwing a stone in retaliation against the crowd’s violence.
Juvenile Ruffianism is generally referred to as unruly, disruptive, or criminal conduct by young people, often involving petty crimes or mischief. The authorities were keen to suppress such behaviour, seeing it as a threat to public order. Society was less sympathetic to the idea of childhood innocence in the context of criminality. Young offenders were often treated as adults, and the criminal justice system was primarily punitive. 'hard labour' meant enduring severe physical work as a form of punishment and attempted reform for what was perceived as unruly or criminal actions. The focus was more on punishment and less on rehabilitation.
Early release was not an option, the notion of indeterminate sentences (where the length of imprisonment could vary based on behaviour or other factors) was not well established. Fixed terms were more common, and early release was not typically practised.
Key aspects of Hard Labour
When children were convicted of "juvenile ruffianism" and sentenced to prison with "hard labour”, it meant they were required to perform physically demanding and often gruelling work as part of their punishment.
Physical Work: The children would be assigned tasks that were physically strenuous, such as breaking stones, working on treadmills, oakum picking (teasing apart old ropes), or other forms of labour that required significant effort.
Discipline and Punishment: The purpose of hard labour was not just to punish but also to instil discipline. It was believed that making children engage in tough, monotonous tasks would reform their conduct and deter them from future crimes.
Harsh Conditions: The conditions under which this labour was performed were often harsh. The work was tedious, repetitive, and performed under strict supervision, with little regard for the child's physical or mental well-being.
Deterrence: The sentence of hard labour was intended as a deterrent both to the individual child and to other young people who might consider engaging in similar activities. It was part of a broader societal belief in strict discipline as a means of maintaining order.
The Giblin brothers, including the young John Giblin 2, did not see themselves as being reformed by society. From a very young age, they were marginalised, ignored, and left destitute. As Irish immigrants, they were treated as troublemakers and viewed as second-class citizens within the working-class communities. Irish Catholics, in particular, were more likely to be imprisoned than their Protestant counterparts, which led them to perceive society and its institutions in a very different light. For them, the courts and the streets became their home, and they asserted their control over this harsh environment. (64)
This perspective is reinforced by the context of hard labour and the conditions in prisons for young offenders. The community and the establishment response and failure to intervene or provide positive alternatives was to send the children to Prison and ‘flogging’
Flogging Children in Prisons
The flogging of children for juvenile offenders was a common practice, the effectiveness of whipping as a punishment was often debated but were commonly used by police officers and in schools as a deterrent.
In 1880, a meeting of the borough magistrates took place in the Grand Jury Room to discuss the Committee's report on the treatment of juvenile offenders.
Prisons were overcrowded, legislation changes for juvenile offenders were discussed to relieve courts from having to either release or imprison very young offenders. It was proposed that by 1879 all offences by children under 14, courts should have the power to avoid initial imprisonment for juveniles destined for reformatory schools. While arrangements are made for a school, children can be detained in non-prison facilities like workhouses. If the court orders whipping, parents should have the option to pay a fine of up to 40 shillings instead. Parents must also provide security for their child's good behaviour, leading to the child's discharge.
The crimes committed by children were often petty such as stealing fruit, it was argued that if a fine was imposed on the parents, it would be the parents who were punished. These households were from the poorest of societies, as shown in my poverty line data, weekly earnings for families regularly did not arn 40 shillings, they did not have sufficient money to feed their families, let alone pay fines for their children's crimes. They had no choice but to consent to the flogging of their children. (65)
The quarterly of magistrates in 1876, reported 22 ‘juvenile offenders’ had been whipped in Birmingham Gaol, the prisons were overcrowded and it was argued flogging acted as a discouragement and to prevent further crimes. The governor indicated that if a boy was ordered to be whipped, of course it was necessary that he should be whipped properly. One warder used more force than another, but it had never come within his knowledge that any particular cruelty had been inflicted not more severe, perhaps, than many boys received school. He should extremely sorry to allow any cruelty, and the surgeon was always present at times to hold the child's hand to feel their pulse during the flogging with a maximum of 12 strokes allowed (66)
The below article published from the Pall Mall Gazette 30 July 1887 is a sickening and brutal scene of what flogging entailed, taken from a witness of the flogging:.
A police birch is much like a school birch. It is made up, as everybody knows, of a bunch of long thin twigs, which serve as lashes, tied tightly to the end of a stick about a couple of feet long. The police birch, however, is of considerably better manufacture than the school birch, and more care is taken in its general make and get-up. The one brought into use on this occasion was composed of twigs which must have been very carefully selected, for they were unusually long and thin, and had the resemblance of wires more than wood. However, we had not many minutes to wait before the big, burly magistrate who was to officially witness the operation (and therefore on behalf of the Queen give Her Most Gracious Majesty's sanction to it) arrived. Everybody and everything was ready, and a move was made to the courtyard at the back of the gaol—a dull, bare, and uninteresting piece of ground surrounded by high walls, and used chiefly for the purpose of drilling the police force. Here a form like an old-fashioned school seat was already placed. The persons present were a magistrate, the chief superintendent of police, a detective, who administered the punishment, a couple of constables, myself, and of course the two poor little fellows who were to be so cruelly tortured, both of whom, it is hardly necessary to state, were crying bitterly. "Now, then, down with your trousers, quick!" said one of the constables; and although the two delinquents obeyed the command, their movements were not very rapid. One of the constables quickly unbuttoned one of the poor little fellow's braces, and his trousers were pulled down so as to leave his buttocks bare. Almost with lightning rapidity he was placed on his stomach on the form; one constable at one end held his hands with an iron grasp, and the other at the other end took the poor little wretch's legs. The official who held the birch stepped forward, the culprit yelling and screaming in unearthly tones, and with all his might and main, both hands grasping the rod, commenced to administer the punishment, the distress of the other boy being by no means lightened at the sight of his comrade's treatment: at the first stroke, the squealing, howling, and yelling of the culprit were heartrending, and the magistrate, who, being an admiral, could not have been altogether unused to that kind of thing, turned his back on the sickening sight. Immediately the birch had touched the poor little fellow's skin, the weals or marks of the lashes were plainly visible, and after two or three strokes had been laid on the culprit's right buttock, it resembled nothing so much as a piece of raw beef, and when the whole complement of six strokes had been inflicted, I say it to the disgrace of the nation, blood was drawn, and as his comrades viewed the matter, the official who held the birch had proved himself a clever fellow; for it is the acme of ambition on the part of the officers who are told off to administer the punishment to draw blood. The detective with the birch then moved his precious body to the other side of the form and inflicted the remaining six strokes in a similar manner on the tiny culprit's left buttock, the other little boy being put through the same cruel ordeal with exactly similar results. The agony caused to these two poor little mites by such barbarous treatment was simply indescribable, and their unearthly yells, the results of such punishment, are ringing in my ears at this time as plainly as if I were still watching the proceedings in the courtyard of that prison on the occasion of which I write.
In the same quarterly report of the magistrates in 1876, it was noted that flogging had little deterrent effect. In fact, it was often observed that a boy who was whipped one week would be back in gaol the following week. A review of the records revealed that the rate of reoffending among boys who had been whipped was actually higher than among those who had not undergone such punishment.
So, is it any wonder that the young Giblens look upon society, the establishment and particularly the police with contempt?. John Giblin was frequently in and out of prison, the offences for which he was being convicted were becoming increasingly violent. As a gang member, he was often involved in fights with other gangs. From 1866 until 1884, the family lived in Court 12 Water Street, with at least one member frequently imprisoned, often for serious violence
In September 1875, John was arrested for assaulting Police Constable Bennett on the 14th. A crowd had gathered in Constitution Hill where a man and woman were fighting. When Constable Bennett attempted to disperse the crowd, John and others attacked the constable, kicking him in the head and face. John received a six month custodial sentence for this assault
.
However, the criminal records for the two Johns become entangled at this point. John 1, who was sixteen and imprisoned from September for six months, is identified as John 1 of Water Street. Yet, in October, another John Giblin also living on Water Street and aged nineteen was charged with assaulting Police Constable Hall. Constable Hall had intervened in a fight between John and William Jennings, who was fined 20 shillings for being drunk and assaulting Hall. During the same incident, John was ejected from the Black Horse Inn on Summer Lane for violence, during which he kicked Hall, causing significant injury. This John was fined 10 shillings plus costs.
The second case more likely involves John Giblin 2. His age matches that of John 2, and his occupation was listed as a 'caster,' which also aligns with John 2’s profession. However, he was also recorded as living on Water Street, which raises questions.
In January 1876, John 2 was sentenced to six months of hard labour for being drunk and disorderly and for assaulting three people who confronted him after he kicked at a dog. At this time, he was recorded as a 19-year-old labourer from Court, Livery Street. Two months earlier, he had been listed as a caster living on Water Street.
John 1 was released in March, and John 2 was released in June but faced further charges later in the year.
Published: Monday 04 December 1876
Birmingham Mail
'Assault'— John Giblin (19), labourer, Court, Livery Street, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Livery Street, and also with assaulting Henry and Eliza Mann and Fanny Hill. From the evidence, it appeared that the prisoner had kicked at the dog of one of the complainants and subsequently assaulted the three complainants who had remonstrated with him. Mr. Kynnersley remarked that there was scarcely a crime in the calendar of which the prisoner had not been guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. At the end of that time, Giblin would be required to find two sureties to keep the peace.
This crime, however, is recorded under John 1’s criminal register by the magistrates as a habitual offender. This casts doubt on the identification of the two Johns, given the three separate cases involving individuals named John Giblin, living on Livery Street and Water Street, aged 16 to 19 (John 2 would have been 21), with various occupations including metal roller, caster, and labourer.
The confusion in criminal records involving two individuals with the same name can arise for several reasons:
Record-Keeping Practices: In the 19th century, record-keeping was less systematic and less precise than it is today. Records might have been manually transcribed, and similar or identical names could easily be conflated.
Administrative Errors: Clerks or officials might have mistakenly recorded crimes under the wrong John Giblin especially if both John’s were active in the same area and had overlapping periods of criminal activity. This could lead to a single criminal record sheet reflecting the activities of both individuals.
Inconsistent Reporting: The reporting and documentation of criminal activities might not have always been consistent. Information about arrests, court cases, and penalties could have been inaccurately recorded or not updated properly
Court and Police Records: If the court or police systems did not have a reliable method for cross-referencing individuals, it might have been easier for their records to get mixed up. This would be particularly problematic if both individuals had similar crimes or frequented the same areas.
In June 1875 in his first recorded conviction thirteen year old Thomas was sent to gaol for 14 days hard labour for assault. In the same year his brother was twice in Prison for collectively nine months. His older brother Patrick, himself a violent individual with his own list of crimes, also had a history of criminal conduct.
Key Incidents Involving Patrick Giblin
August 17, 1875: Violent Assault - Patrick the older brother himself a very violent individual. He was often involved in fighting with other gangs and the police. In August 1875 along with James Welsh, and Walter Penogurst were caught and charged for extorting money from a boatman by the canal. Wm, Kayson, the boatman refused to the demand of money, got knocked him down and was violently assaulted
September 17, 1878: A Case for Inquiry - Patrick Giblin (19), labourer, Court, Water Street, was charged with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting James Cowen in Water Street. while in the cell at the station, Giblin attacked Michael Hoban, kicking and beating him in a very savage manner
September 17, 1878: A Case for Inquiry - Patrick Giblin (25), Labourer, Court, Water Street, pleaded guilty to stealing 24 yards of oilcloth, valued at 28s., from the shop door of Mr. Alfred Dean, Bull Street. The prisoner had several previous convictions, and he was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment.
February 12, 1884: A Brutal Fellow - Patrick Giblin, a 30-year-old labourer from Water Street, was charged with assaulting his wife. On Saturday night, Giblin came home drunk, used abusive language, and attacked her with his fists and a fire fender, causing a severe head injury that required hospital treatment. Despite her reluctance to see him punished, the wife sought a separation order and support for their four children. She believed he would not reoffend if discharged, but Mr. Bunce noted Giblin's long history of offending. Giblin was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour and warned that any further assault would result in six months in prison and a judicial separation for his wife.
July 29, 1884: Brutal Husband - Patrick Giblin (29), a labourer, of TI Court, Water Street, was charged with violently assaulting his wife, Eliza Giblin. The prosecutrix stated that she wanted a legal separation; she did not wish to send her husband to gaol, as he had been there often enough to do him good. From her account, it appeared that the prisoner came home drunk on Saturday afternoon and threw a bucket of water over her, following this up by striking her on the head with a frying-pan, inflicting a severe wound. Police Constable Rowley stated that he heard cries of ""Murder"" and ""Police."" He went inside the prisoner’s house and found the prosecutrix covered with blood, which flowed from a wound on her head. The prisoner was drunk, and when the officer attempted to take him into custody, he picked up a chair to strike him with. The prisoner claimed he did nothing of the kind and insisted he was very quiet.
Alderman Powell Williams remarked, "We know you are a gentleman," but during the hearing of the case, a number of people in the court frequently gave way to laughter. Alderman Williams said that he did not understand why they were laughing at a case of this kind; it was disgraceful, and if it persisted, the court would be cleared. The prisoner, who has been in custody forty-seven times, asked to be dealt with leniently. Alderman Williams described him as a drunken, cruel, merciless ruffian, and said that no punishment could ever reform him. Mr. Timmins stated it was a savage assault, and the prisoner would have to go to gaol for six months. A separation order was granted, and the prisoner was to pay 10s. a week towards his wife’s and children’s maintenance.
Although Patrick's wife Ellen wanted a separation and they were in fact living separately, by 1891 the census record shows they are back living together in Ludgate Hill.
This second mug shot shows Thomas after his second conviction on May 3, 1876, for stealing 50 lbs of coal. By this time, the courts had become much stricter about imprisoning offenders. His brother John had committed numerous crimes before serving a prison sentence, and now Thomas faced his second custodial sentence—one month in jail, likely accompanied by additional corporal punishment and whipping, and a five-year term at a reformatory school.
The Giblin family, already struggling with financial hardship—John in prison and Patrick involved in extortion—desperately needed coal for their home on Water Street.
At just fourteen, Thomas’s mind was already shaped by a confluence of factors: the pervasive poverty and destitution of his family, the hostility towards Irish immigrants, growing up seeing violent activity on a daily basis, drunkenness and prostitution in the streets surrounding him, no green space or clean air to breath or to play.
Is it any surprise that these influences set Thomas on a path of escalating criminal behaviour, with his future seemingly predetermined by the harsh realities of his upbringing? Such a trajectory inevitably led him to a crime that would have a significant impact on both his own life and that of his family.
Part two to follow:.
Could someone action a members request for my wife lynn massey nee Giblin she's contrite at the moment but you know what the Giblins are like thank you .
Carnt wait for part 2 im married to a descendant of Patrick Giblin and Mary Begley . I must say the family have turned out very respectable .