As early as 1727, an Abraham Caines was hanged at Gloucester Prison, having been charged and found guilty of theft. At his trial, it was noted that he was a member of a gang of thieves, and rogues, some of whom were his brothers.
Benjamin Caines, a later generation relative of the above, was also involved in petty crime, although he appears, in the main, to have 'got away' with his illegal activities until 1763 when, it is recorded, that he was convicted for the very minor crime of illegally selling beer without a licence. Perhaps he overstepped the mark once too often, and this led the local constable and/or magistrate deciding to 'teach him a lesson'.
Some 7 years prior to this conviction, Benjamin became the father of a son, and in the tradition of the time, gave his son the same Christian name. Although he may not have appreciated it at the time, he also passed on to his son the family trait of wanting to live on the wrong side of the law. Benjamin junior obviously found the family tradition to be very much to his liking, and as childhood turned into manhood, he set about becoming the patriarch of a family which was ordained to terrorise the parish and surrounding areas for over 60 years to come.
In 1777, at the age of 20 years, Benjamin junior married his sweetheart, Miss Ann Cool at St Mary the Virgin, Bitton. Whether or not Ann knew of her husband’s criminal activities when she married, will now never be known but, with the passage of time, and the personal production of no less than 10 children, the nature, and the subsequent pain of her family’s criminal activities must have become very obvious to her, as one by one, sons and daughters joined the family business and, the criminal fraternity.
Somewhat surprisingly, little is recorded of Benjamin’s own illegal activities, and thus we have to presume that they were either very minor, or that he was very crafty and was never, or rarely caught or that he was extremely lucky. Alternatively he may have played the 'God-father' role, and ensured that it was others who took the risks and the punishment. However, whatever was the truth of Benjamin’s good fortune or skill, the craft or luck of not being caught certainly deserted his siblings, and his subsequent 'inlaws'.
Benjamin’s eldest child was George, born in 1778, who at quite an early age had decided that he was going to maintain the family tradition and live a life of crime. For reasons, which will now never be known, George did not have the finesse, or luck of his forebears as before his 21st birthday, he was being sentenced at the Monmouth 1799 Lent Assizes, to one year’s imprisonment for passing counterfeit money. When arrested,at Pontypool with his cousin Francis Britton, both men were found to be in possession of a number of forged guineas, and it was said of them, that they belonged to a gang, who frequented country fairs as hawkers and pedlars.
The next few years appear to have passed without the Caines being caught for anything other than very minor crimes. Certainly there does not seem to be any record of a Caines being convicted by the local magistrates during the first few years of the new century.
However, much was to change when, in July 1804, four men were taken into custody in the city of Bath, charged with the theft of more than £400 worth of super fine cloth from premises at Freshford. (probably worth around £85,000 by today’s reckoning) One of this quartet was no less than Francis Caines, the second eldest son of Benjamin and Ann who, at 23 years of age, was in the gaol calendar, described as being an oyster and cider seller. By all accounts, the four, which also included from Bitton, Thomas Batt and Charles Fuller, had made quite a night of their illicit activities. Having participated in a late supper in Bath, they left the hostelry at around 10.00pm. and made their way to Bathwick where they broke into a stable, and succeeded in stealing a horse and cart. From there they drove to Freshford, arriving in the village at around mid-night. They then smashed their way into a store holding the cloth, and then proceeded to load the material onto the cart for a successful return to Bath. (perhaps an early form of 'ram-raid'?)
As part of an elaborate plan, Fuller had previously gone to Bath, and had, under an assumed name, hired a coach house, just off Pulteney Street. It was therefore around 2.00am that the stolen horse and cart pulled up outside the coach house, and together with the rolls of cloth, were secreted inside. Despite their belief that they had made adequate plans to carry out the theft, they had probably attempted more than they could handle, and all four were, in a relatively short time, brought to trial. In the early 19th century, theft was still regarded as a very serious crime, particularly theft from anyone wealthy enough to have influence, and no doubt, the true owner of the cloth was regarded as being wealthy. At his trial Francis Caines did the honourable thing by confessing to his part in the theft, but his attempts (if that is what they were) to mitigate the punishment fell on deaf ears and, two months later, in September 1804 he became the first of the Caines to receive the ultimate punishment, and was hanged at Ilchester Gaol. As with John Carey, Francis Caines’ body was recovered by his family and brought home to Oldland, for subsequent burial at the same church where, some 27 years previously his parents had taken their marriage vows.
In the meanwhile, their eldest daughter Betty, had started to live with a Timothy Bush, who subsidised his miner’s income with money received from the odd misdemeanour or dubious acquisition of property which just happened to come his way. Having provided Betty with two sons, Timothy’s relatively short life of crime resulted in him being convicted, together with a Thomas Wilmot and a Joseph Willis of horse theft. Such a theft was regarded as a very major invasion into the deeply held privileges of the rich, and, accordingly could be punishable by death. Certainly all three were found guilty and condemned to death, but perhaps with providence smiling upon them, they were reprieved, having their sentences commuted to transportation for life. Accordingly, on the 26 August 1813, Timothy Bush sailed from these shores onboard the vessel General Hewart, bound for New South Wales, and the start of a new, if somewhat arduous life as a convict.
Back in 1800, George Caines was released from prison, quite undeterred from living a life of crime. Although for a number of years his criminal activities were relatively small or, went unnoticed by the authorities, some time, during the first decade of the new century, George teamed up with two other well known local thieves who, collectively, helped to promote the Cock Road Gang story.
Research shows that whilst collectively referred to as a gang, the individual members involved do not appear to have operated as a tight-knit cohesive group in the generally accepted sense of a gang, but appear to have been a much more loosely connected body drawn together by a common bond of crime, and a sense of strong family links. Certainly there is evidence through marriage registers that many of the participants were either cousins, or in-laws, and a study of the gaol calendars show the frequent appearance of the family names, Brain, Britton, Bryant, Fry, Isles, Ward, Webb and, Wilmot. It is not to say that everyone with those surnames should be regarded as having been a 'member of the gang', but many considered petty crime to be a way of life, not only for its thrill, but quite often, as a means to produce the bare necessities of life, such as food and clothing.
As already stated, George had joined forces with others, and collectively, they managed to relieve many of their fellow inhabitants of Oldland and the surrounding parishes of their money,. goods and chattels. In those cases where the owners were less than willing to hand over their possessions, George and his friends were only to happy to try and dissuade them from that particular course of action. Eventually greed, and no doubt over confidence and misplaced loyalty, caused George to over step the mark, and around 1812 he was arrested after having attempted to kill Benjamin Curtis. Had Curtis been just a poor member of the general public, probably nothing more would have been said, but this Benjamin was a local constable who had been beaten about the head with the butt end of a gun, whilst trying to arrest Caines’ friend, Isaac Cox. At his subsequent trial, George Caines was found guilty, and as expected, was sentenced to be hung from the neck until dead. Somewhat surprisingly the death sentence was subsequently commuted to transportation for life, and during April 1815, George followed Betty’s 'husband' to the antipodes, sailing for New South Wales on board the vessel 'Fanny'.
With his two elder brothers no longer around, the third son, Thomas, was quick and willing to step into the fray, and to take on the mantle of leader. In fact, Thomas went one better and decided that his leadership would seem even more impressive if he took the exalted title of 'Captain'. Perhaps Thomas was more of a showman than a clever thief, as within a relatively short time of becoming 'captain of the gang' he fell foul of the law, and was to soon discover for himself the nature and quality of gaol life in the 19th. century.
Due, no doubt, to the death or, incarceration of the three eldest sons, an unnatural lull appears to have occurred in the major crime rate of the area, although it still continued in petty ways.
With the main protagonists out of the way, there may have been less organisation of crime, and almost certainly less in the way of intimidation. It is perhaps therefore, not surprising, that towards the latter part of 1811, the honest, and respectable citizens of Oldland came out of their shells by deciding that they should meet the challenge of the rising crime figures head on, by forming themselves into a group, to be called the Kingswood Association, with the pious aim of exposing the thieves, housebreakers and wrongdoers. No doubt wishing to keep their hands clean, these honest and respectable citizens formed a sub-group on military lines called the Bitton Troop or Bitton Cavalry.
This group was raised, on the pretext of being able to assist the local constabulary, but almost certainly, the founder members saw this group of mounted citizens as vigilantes who, given the opportunity, could dish out their own form of retribution. The military wing of the association was headed by one Thomas Bevan, who undoubtedly, full of his own self importance, and not to be out done by Thomas Caines, also gave himself the style of 'Captain'. Despite the undoubted enthusiasm of the association, and of those who formed with Thomas Bevan, the Bitton Troop, their efforts fell well short of what was required, (perhaps they knew their quarry too well or vice versa), and it was eventually left to the authorities in Bristol to take, what was then, the very exceptional measure of collecting together the city watchmen and the city guards, and for this body of men to proceed during the middle of the night, to the strongholds of those whom it was believed formed part of the 'gang'.
With the aid of the local constabulary, they surrounded each house in turn, arrested every adult male, and marched them back to Bristol. Of those arrested, some were liberated during the next day or so for lack of evidence, (there were no doubt a great number of wrongful arrests), whilst some were charged with crimes. Those who were subsequently found guilty, were either imprisoned, or transported, but as far as can be determined, the bulk of those adult males who fell into the net were mostly a few rowdies, and a few petty criminals, the majority of whom appear to have had no known association with the Cock Road Gang, and certainly none could in any way be regarded as being 'gang leaders'. Could it have been that the important members of the gang were 'tipped-off’ that authorities from Bristol were on their way or, did the local constabulary really not know where the gang leaders lived?.
Certainly none of the Caine family were involved in the round-up, and all that seems to have been achieved, is that the level of crime fell, or certainly did not get any worse for a while. This may of course been the main, if not the sole, aim of the exercise, and if it was, it had only a limited success rate, as by 1816, the fourth of the Caines sons came on the scene.
Named after his father and his father’s father, Benjamin, had by the start of the second decade, all the ill-advised confidence of youth. As a consequence, he had decided that he could do much better than his elder brothers, and make crime pay by attacking the elderly and the rich. During 1816, Benjamin carried out a number of minor crimes, none of which produced that much in the way of a financial return. It was, therefore, in the following year that Benjamin decided to really put his theories to work, and armed with sword and pistol, and accompanied by two fellow roughnecks, set off one summer evening with the sole aim to burgle the house of an elderly lady, Miss Sarah Prigg, of Bitton. Unfortunately for young Benjamin, he was unable to put into practice his crime winning ideas, and he fared no better, and probably much worse than his brothers, by not only bungling the burglary, but also by making the fatal mistake of removing his mask. He at once became instantly recognised not only by Sarah, but also by her nephew James Evans, who happened to be lodging with her at the time of the burglary.
It may say a great deal about Benjamin’s character, inasmuch as at no time does he appear to have used either his sword or pistol, particularly after he was recognised. On the other hand, it could be that his naivet or surprise, or fear of being recognised, caused an understandable delay in his reaction, and as a consequence, he had no opportunity to draw either weapon. With his family’s reputation for crime, and his obvious recognition by the victims, it is perhaps not surprising that, within a short time of fleeing from Miss Prigg’s house in Bitton, Benjamin Caines was arrested by the local constable.
It was on the 4 August 1817, when the 22 year old Benjamin Caines arrived at Gloucester Gaol, charged on the oath of Sarah Prigg, with having broken into her dwelling house in Bitton, and feloniously stealing therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel, silver tea-spoons, cash notes, Irish cloth shifts and sheets and, sundry other articles to the value of £30 upwards. (probably around £15,000 in today’s valuation)
An entry in the Felons Register for the 13 August 1815, when Benjamin had previously appeared before the same magistrates bench, described him as being 5’7¼' tall, with light brown hair, a fresh complexion, dark grey eyes, a short nose, turned up a little at the end and long features. He had scars on two fingers of his left hand, and a scar on his left shin. His occupation was stated to be that of a fish carrier, and it was noted that he could read a little. Whilst held in the prison, it was reported that he had behaved very well.
It will be recalled that Benjamin’s elder brother, Thomas, had for the past few years, been spending his time in prison, and having now served his sentence was about to change places with his brother, by regaining his freedom, whilst Benjamin lost his.
However unpleasant a prison sentence was in the 19th century, it certainly did not create the right environment to help produce a reformed character. In Thomas’s case, it probably did just the opposite and produced a tougher individual even more determined to get his revenge and just rewards. Within weeks of being released, Captain Thomas was back performing his trade of relieving the general public of their property against their will. Unfortunately for Thomas, prison life had not sharpened his skills, and thus he immediately suffered no better success than before.
During Thomas’s incarceration, the Bitton Troop had been formed, and perhaps no one had thought it worthwhile to tell Thomas of their existence. Alternatively, it may simply have been that Thomas overlooked their presence, or perhaps more likely, the name led him to believe that they restricted their activities to the immediate area around Bitton. What ever the reason, Thomas was apprehended by a private of the Bitton Troop whilst in the act of helping himself to several sacks of wheat from an Inn at Cold Ashton.
By chance or design, both Thomas and Benjamin were brought before the Magistrates at the same Mid-summer Assizes of 1817, with Thomas being the first to be called. With his record, Thomas was never likely to be dealt with leniently, and true to form,the magistrates considered that they had no choice but to rid the community of yet another Caine and gang member. Accordingly Thomas was sentenced to 7 years transportation to the colonies.
By the time Benjamin came before the Court, those who sat in judgement had obviously decided that they had had enough of the Caine family, and that the punishment inflicted upon its members had to be as severe as possible. Even though it was accepted that Benjamin had refrained from using the weapons at his disposal when he robbed Miss Prigg, the Judge decided in his judgement to impose the maximum penalty, it being that Caines should be hung in chains in a public place, and there left to rot as an example to the rest of his family. Fortunately for young Benjamin, the Judge was having one of his better days, and decided that he wished to err on the side of leniency. Accordingly, Benjamin’s sentence was commuted to the 'privilege' of being hanged in the normal way.
On Saturday, the 6 September 1817, Benjamin Caines received the Last Rites in the Chapel of Gloucester Prison, before walking with resignation, and much fortitude, to the scaffold above the Gate House.
With the sentence having been carried out, and death certified by the prison doctor, Benjamin’s body was handed over to his younger brother, and carried the 40 odd miles home to his father’s house in Oldland.
Although it was quite often the custom to lay the body out in the house, and for friends and neighbours to pay their respect, Benjamin senior decided to go one better. With a touch of the theatricals, and veering towards a farce, the body of young Benjamin was exhibited in the parlour, with a small charge made for those who had the somewhat macabre desire to look upon his earthly remains. The money so collected would then be used to help defray the funeral expenses.
Whether the local populace saw young Benjamin as some evil curiosity, or as some 19th century Robin Hood, or perhaps they had a personal desire to ensure that he was dead, will now never be known. However, what is known, is that the villagers, and others from the surrounding country side, eagerly turned out in their multitudes to hand over their few coppers, just to view the body. With so much money raised, the Caine family had sufficient funds to hold such a funeral as had never been seen before, or probably since, in the neighbourhood.
When the day of the funeral arrived, the remaining family gathered at the father’s house, together with six women from the village, all dressed entirely in white, to act as pallbearers. At the appointed time, the cortge left the house, with the coffin borne aloft, and was carried the two miles between Oldland and Bitton. Throughout the journey, the procession was flanked by many people, some of whom were, of course, Benjamin’s criminal friends and their relatives, who had turned out to pay their respects, and others who went just to be curious. The church of St. Mary the Virgin was packed for the service, and those who attended heard the vicar preach a solemn sermon using as his theme 'let him who stole, steal no more'.
Outside of the church, many friends and onlookers had gathered, not it might be added, in a sombre mood, but, more with the spirit of a carnival atmosphere. which soon prevailed over all of the mourners to the extent that, they spilled out into the church yard, merry-making throughout the remainder of the day. Such was the general mood of enjoyment, (no doubt aided by the liberal flow of alcohol), experienced by those who were there, that night had fallen whilst Benjamin’s coffin still rested in the church. Thus, when it was eventually agreed to commit his body to the ground, in the grave already occupied by his brother Francis for the past 13 years, candles had to be lit to provide sufficient light.
Over the next few months, those who remained loyal to the gang, embarked on a vicious rampage against persons considered to be part of the 'establishment', and in particular they seemed to take great delight in venting their loathsome anger or mentality, upon animals belonging to such persons. In one such instance, the horse belonging to George Haskins, the Bitton Constable, was crippled after having the large tendon at the back of both of it’s hind legs severed. This inhumane attack on a dumb animal was carried out by Henry Willis, one of the lesser gang members, who in his own warped mind, may have thought that his action would enhance his reputation. Although it is not certain that Henry Willis carried out a further attack, his hallmark was on the next act of brutality, when the poor constable also had his cow similarly treated, and mangled. h general, during this period of vindictiveness, corn ricks were put to the torch; houses, gardens and fields in the area were plundered for anything which could be easily carried away, and despicably other animals were either killed or maimed.
Having eventually exhausted their fury, their heinous crimes finally petered out, and the establishment and their animals could relax. However, despite the nature and direction of these wicked acts, and despite there being at least one person under suspicion, not one of the perpetrators was ever brought to account.
A period of some 5 years elapsed before another of the Caines dynasty came to the fore when, in 1822, a George Groves was transported for stealing watches. Elizabeth (Betty) Caines was the eldest daughter of Benjamin and Ann, and it will no doubt be recalled that, she had for a while, lived with a certain Timothy Bush and, bore him two sons. Timothy then landed himself in trouble, or just got caught, which resulted in his being transported for life. Betty was not only a Caine , she was also a very resourceful woman, and whilst marriage was never uppermost in her mind, she was certainly not going to bring up her children on her own. Accordingly, not long after Timothy left these shores in 1813 for a new life on the other side of the world, Betty opened her door to one George Groves. Whilst living with her second common-law husband, it is believed that a son Thomas was born but, more about him later.
For Betty to have had two pseudo husbands, both transported to the other side of the world for theft, in the space of nine years, must rank as some form of dubious record and, for her, and her offspring's, worse was yet to come.
Timothy Bush had left Betty with two children, the eldest being James, born in 1805 and who was thus, only 8 years of age when his father was permanently taken from him. Whether it was patriarchal pressure from his maternal grandfather or, pressure from his mother or, simply his liking of the name will now never be known, but what is recorded is that James was commonly known as James Caines Bush or, frequently, just James Caines.
He may well have had a loving childhood whilst his father was there and, this may have continued during George Groves’ eight years stand-in as a step father. However, living in such a criminal environment, encouraged by his seniors life style, must have had a great influence on his young mind. Unfortunately, James turned out to be not very bright and may even have been 'simple minded', and the fact that he was growing up amongst thieves and rogues, meant that he was not to get a particularly good start in life, exacerbated by the misfortune of having his second father also taken away from him at the age of 17 years.
James Caines
Two years after George Groves was transported, James became involved with an incident which was to have a very tragic result for this young man.
During the evening of the 27 November 1824, James in company with friends, was drinking at The Tennis Court Inn, Warmley. Also drinking at the bar was the local pound-keeper, Isaac Garden. Amongst James’ drinking companions was Francis Britton who started an argument with Garden over the cost of recovering a stray animal and, whilst the subject of the disagreement between these two had nothing whatsoever to do with James or the other friends, as so often happens in such circumstances, Britton’s friends became embroiled in the argument, and the disturbance grew. As far as can be determined, the sum total of James’ involvement during the commotion appears to have been no worse than the throwing of bits of broken clay pipe in the general direction of Mr.Garden
Being somewhat outnumbered, Garden left the Inn of his own freewill, and it is believed, without either injury or hindrance. The disturbance in the public house is therefore likely to have been no worse than verbal abuse, accompanied perhaps, by some pushing and shoving. Once outside, Garden appears to have been accosted and knocked or pushed to the ground, but by whom, is unfortunately not recorded. Whether or not Garden was hurt or just shaken, is also not recorded, but for reasons best known to himself, instead of trying to make his own way home, he returned to the bar of the Inn.
One can only guess at Garden’s intention of taking this particular course of action, possibly he was prevented from making his way home by either force or fear or perhaps just feeling unwell. He may possibly have felt more secure inside the hostelry where he may have had friends, or alternatively, he wanted a drink to settle his nerves before quietly returning home. There may have been the need for a drink or two, to build up sufficient 'Dutch Courage' to follow Britton and to settle a score on a hoped for one-to-one basis. Whatever theories we put to Garden’s motives will never be more than pure speculation, for all that is certain is that Garden remained behind in the Inn, apparently free of any further argument or intimidation, until after James and his friends left the warmth and comfort of the hostelry.
With the Inn closed for the night, and the dank, still air of a late November night invading the surrounding countryside, a coal miner, on his way home from a long fourteen hour shift, stumbled across the battered body of Isaac Garden.
Once his body had been identified, the local constable began to make enquiries, and, soon the story of the previous evening’s altercation, involving Garden and a known group of seven young men in The Tennis Court Inn, became public knowledge.
In reporting his findings to the local magistrates, the constable confirmed that Garden had met his untimely end in a most unpleasant and brutal way. With the then limitations in medical science, and in particular, forensic science, the magistrates had to rely a great deal on their and the constable’s judgement, which was that Garden had been killed by being hit about the head with a blunt instrument, believed to be a clothes-post which had been found near the body. Also near to where the body lay, was found a knife which was subsequently identified as belonging to a Robert England, already named as being one of the young men in the group of seven. In addition to the knife, the constable had come across a set of muddy footprints, and the imprint in the ground, of a mark where someone had obviously sat down. Rather importantly, there was within this imprint, the additional outline which represented the shape of a patch, where the owner’s trousers had at one time been mended.
By now the constable had the names of the men involved in the altercation with Garden and so, the hunt was on for Francis and Isaac Britton, James Bush (alias Caines), Thomas Wilmot, Mark Whitting, Samuel Peacock and Robert England.
Within a relatively short space of time, the constable had arrested most of the above and, upon checking the state of their trousers, he was soon to have no doubt that the person who had sat near the body was none other than Mark Whitting.
Having been kept in local custody for almost a week, six of the men were, on the 9 December 1824, transferred to Gloucester Gaol, charged on the oath of George Haskins, with suspicion of having, on the night of Saturday 27 November 1824, in the parish of Oldland, feloniously assaulted, killed and murdered, one Isaac Garden.
In the Felons Register, the hand written entries, for the 9 December 1824, describe Francis Britton as being a labourer, 5'2¾' tall, with a pale complexion and rather stout, he was unable to read or write. Samuel Peacock was a 5'4' tall cordwainer, also with a pale complexion, a long face, with a large nose and a scar on his forehead, he could both read and write. Mark Whitting was another labourer, just shorter than Peacock, with brown hair and brown eyes, he could read a little, but not write. Robert England was the shortest man, just 5’0¾' tall, a collier by trade, with an oval face, very much marked by the after effects of smallpox. Whilst Thomas Wilmot is not described, James Caines is shown to be 5'4½' tall, with brown hair, grey eyes, a dark complexion, and a full face with several visible scars resulting from his employment as a collier, he also could neither read or write.
This just leaves Isaac Britton, who was to arrive at the gaol some four days later, having been similarly charged with Garden’s murder.
Almost 170 years after the event, it is difficult to make a sound judgement on the subsequent actions of the presiding magistrates or judge. There are, of course, decisions taken in today’s Court Rooms which are hard to understand, and we should perhaps put the decisions taken in this case into the same category. However there does seem to be strong grounds for believing that the decisions then taken, were, to say the very least, preposterous, if not somewhat prejudicial.
During the constable’s enquiries, he had discovered that whilst the argument had started over a disagreement between Francis Britton and Isaac Garden, and was originally just between those two, when the altercation began to encompass Britton’s friends, it had been Thomas Wilmot who was the first to physically assault Garden.
Following such evidence as this (presumably there were witnesses to the attack), it might have been expected that Wilmot would have become one of the prime suspects of the violence perpetrated upon Garden, but this was not to be so as, all charges in this case against Wilmot were dropped and, he walked free.
Francis Britton was the instigator of the argument, and no doubt, egged on by his son Isaac and, the demon drink, appears to have taken a leading roll in upsetting Garden’s evening. No specific evidence was put forward to suggest that they were involved with the subsequent murder, and they were also found not guilty. Similarly the charge against Samuel Peacock was also dropped.
It will of course be remembered, that a knife belonging to Robert England was found near Garden’s body. Whilst there was no evidence that Garden had suffered any knife wounds, the discovery of the knife would seem to indicate that England had been at the scene, either before the murder was committed, or not long afterwards. It is of course possible that the knife had either been borrowed from England. and dropped by the murderer or, had been deliberately placed there just to incriminate him. Whatever the reason, the judge was satisfied that England was not involved, and like the other four, he also was found not guilty, and walked free.
Undoubtedly, a murder had been committed and someone had to be punished. If the crime had not been perpetrated by five of those involved in the altercation then, it must have been carried out by the other two, and it should not be forgotten, that for one of those left, there was the damning evidence of the trouser seat imprint whilst the other was, after all, a member of that infamous Caines family.
The only other 'evidence' which was brought before the learned judge was that, in the opinion of the constable, the muddy footprints matched those of Caines.
It would therefore appear to have been an open and shut case against Caines and Whitting with undisputed, (as far as the law was concerned), evidence in the mud surrounding Garden’s body, plus the known fact that both men were part of a group of seven who argued with, and may have pushed and shoved the poor unfortunate victim in the presence of witnesses in the bar of The Tennis Court Inn. No evidence was brought forward by the prosecution that either of the two defendants had struck the fatal blow, or that they were anywhere near Garden when the blows were made.
Whether James, or indeed any of the seven drinking companions, were ever involved in the murder of Isaac Garden, will now never be known. For the young, unintelligent James, there was an unfortunate legacy which caused his continued plea of not guilty to fall on deaf ears, this being that he liked to use Caines as his surname and that he was, without doubt, part of the Caines dynasty.
The fact that both Caines and Whitting may have simply watched the beating or, had gone to Garden’s help, after he had been killed by persons unknown, or had visited the site of the murder out of some morbid curiosity, does not seem to have entered the minds of those who tried the case. Certainly there was no benefit of the doubt shown and, thus, no way of escaping the hangman’s noose, as both young men were found guilty and sentenced to death.
Like his Uncle Benjamin before him, 20 year old James Caines Bush was publicly hanged at Gloucester prison on the 11th April 1825.
The following day, to add to his mother’s grief and worry, James’ younger brother Francis, was brought to Gloucester Prison in chains, charged with highway robbery. Subsequently, Francis was to follow in his father’s footsteps when, as a result of this charge, he was sentenced to be transported to Australia.
Although she perhaps brought about much of her own family’s adversity upon herself or perhaps the die was cast the moment she was born a Caines, sympathy must surely be given to Elizabeth (Betty) Caines for the many losses which occurred in a relatively short space of time. Born in 1781, she had, by the age of 41 years, experienced the loss of one son, to the hangman’s noose, plus two common-law husbands, and one other son, transported across to the other side of the world. In addition, Betty also suffered the loss of two brothers, executed, and two other brothers, transported. To have no less than three male relatives hanged and five transported, all in the space of just 21 years, is either down to extreme bad luck, or gross negligence and creates a probable record, unenvied by all.
By the year 1825, Betty was left with just five siblings remaining in and around Oldland, plus what is believed to be her son Thomas, the offspring of George Groves.
The family remained together for a further 7 years, during which time they continued to be involved in various crimes, mostly however of a relatively minor nature. As there appears to be no record of any prosecutions against the family between 1825-1831, it is just possible that they attempted to live a life of honesty, but it is more likely that the family simply kept a low profile, and were lucky.
However, either greed or over confidence brought this barren spell to an end, for 1832 saw changes in the luck of the Caines. During this year, in two unrelated instances, Thomas Caines (alias Groves), and his uncle, Samuel Caines, were arrested.
Separately they were charged and convicted of theft, and separately, they were both sentenced to be transported.
Thomas was, at the time just 19 years old when he was brought before the Magistrates at the Gloucester City Summer Assizes. He is shown as being a labourer, and received absolutely no lenience from the magistrates who no doubt, in recognising the name decided to sentence him to be transported for life. It was, therefore, on the 22nd. September 1832, that Thomas boarded the sailing vessel Camden, following in his uncle’s footsteps, bound for New South Wales and, out of our story.
Thus, 'poor~ Betty suffered the pain and anguish of losing a further two male relatives from her life, to bring the total to ten either hanged or, transported, in just over 30 years. It is perhaps not surprising, that by the time of the first published census in 1841 there are no Caines listed as being residents of Oldland.
When he boarded the sailing vessel Mary 111 on the 4 September 1832, bound for New South Wales, Samuel Caines left behind him a wife and three small daughters. Whether he ever saw them again is not certain as, he does not appear to have returned to England after serving the 7 year sentence. Quite likely he would have been unable to have raised the fare home, but it is possible that he had become used to living 'down-under'. Certainly, by 1842, Samuel Caines is not only recorded as a freeman, it is also shown that he was working as a hospital dispenser in Australia. Whether this was as a reformed character, is not recorded, it would however, be pleasant to believe that he had learned his lesson and having managed to get his family over to Australia , that they were able to carve out a new and honest lifestyle for themselves.
Whilst much has been said about Betty and her menfolk, she was not the only daughter of Benjamin and Ann Caines. The fifth child born of that union was the second daughter, christened Lydia, who arrived during the year of 1790.
As Lydia grew older and reached her adult years, she adopted her elder sister’s belief that marriage, as a legal entity, was not for her. Possibly, both sisters disliked the thought of being 'owned' by a husband or, perhaps, seeing the way in which their father and their brothers rebelled against authority and the community, they saw such a stance as being their way of rebelling. Whatever the reason, neither seemed to relish the legal niceties or dubious security of being a bride.
Like Betty, Lydia was not able to keep her menfolk out of trouble, and even went one better than her sister, by having all three of the men she chose to live with taken from her and transported as criminals.
A George Caines, alias Avery, is believed to have been one of Lydia’s sons, and by all accounts, he took to theft in quite a big way for, certainly he appears to have had quite grandiose ideas about the scale of his nocturnal activities. Little is known of him, and as far as can be determined in the local records, he managed to escape the clutches of the law for most of the time that he plied his trade. It is known that around 1832/33 he carried out a substantial burglary in Dyrham, which led to his subsequent arrest and trial. At that trial he was found guilty, and despite the fact that be had no previous proven convictions, his surname was sufficient reason for him to be sentenced to transportation for life.
With his departure, the long and sad story of the felonious Caines family virtually came to an end. Of those members of the family still left in the area, only a few continued to get into trouble with the law, and in all cases, the trouble seemed to have been no more than minor misdemeanours. Obviously, after 60 years or more of being in the criminal limelight, the family name continued to attract rumours and accusations, all of which needed to be lived down as the years rolled by. In 1842, an Edward Caines, who may or may not have been directly related to the infamous family, experienced taunts and beatings in a public house in the city of Bath, over his surname, and the Caines’ reputation which, no doubt by then, had been probably enlarged upon with the passing of time. In 'self-defence', Edward drew a knife, and turned upon his tormentors, but being completely outnumbered, he was overpowered and soon arrested. At the subsequent trial, Caines explained why, under the greatest of provocation, he had drawn his knife. Whilst fully acknowledging these reasons, the presiding magistrates still decided that they could not sympathise with his difficulties and accordingly sentenced him to be transported for a minimum of seven years. It is perhaps, therefore, not surprising to find in the Oldland area, an absence of 'Caines' listed in the first published population census of 1841.
An interesting footnote to this chapter is, that having served his sentence in the penal colony, George Caines, the eldest son, who had been transported for life in 1815, subsequently became the landlord of a public house in Parramatta, Australia. Furthermore, although it is not known if he named the hostelry himself, it is curious to note that the name given to it was 'The Jolly Sailor', perhaps brought on by one or two pleasant memories of drinking bouts in nearby Hanham.
Although this is the end of the Caines story, it must not be presumed that that family were necessarily the only villains in the area. As already stated, many other families both collectively and individually, were involved in one way or another. Life had many different values in the early nineteenth century to those held today. There was, for example, no welfare state to 'fall-back on', life was extremely hard and tough, producing very few pleasures, and where even a minor (in today’s terms) illness could cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Death was probably more easily accepted simply because it was much more visible than it is today, particularly with a high infant mortality rate. In addition there was a huge gap in wealth and living conditions between the ruling class and, the working class.
The majority of the crime which occurred during the dynasty of the Caines, was probably petty and totally unsophisticated. Almost certainly, a great amount of crime, both petty and serious, went unrecorded and unpunished, and much was probably of a domestic nature.
