Mercy Leroux

William Clarke was a soldier in the 29th Regiment of Foot, and in March 1770, he found himself in the presumably awkward position of living in the same gaol as eight of his fellow soldiers and one officer, Captain Preston, all held for the Boston Massacre.

Hiller B. Zobel’s The Boston Massacre implies that Clarke was actually in Captain Thomas Preston’s company, but doesn’t provide a source, so I cannot be certain on this. But if so, being confined to the same gaol as your captain must have been pretty awkward.

Now, Clarke’s path to prison was a long time coming. He was indicted on November 21, 1769, over an incident five months old: on June 30, Clarke had brandished a loaded pistol at Joseph Nowell, a 45-year old boatbuilder. The court records don’t specify what caused Clarke to threaten Nowell’s life and that of “divers other liege subjects,” thereby perpetuating “an evil Example to others, & against the peace of the said Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity.” But I’d assume it has something to do with a story first alluded to in the July 31 edition of the Journal of the Times: that Clarke had been caught in bed with Joseph’s daughter Polly, by her own grandfather.

The couple tried to claim that they were already married, but didn’t decide to make it official until October 28. Alas for them, Boston records list their marriage as forbidden.

Now, forbiddance could happen for several reasons… including parental objection if the bride or groom was under twenty-one years old (see notes). Polly was twenty in October 1769, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to speculate that Joseph Nowell did not, in fact, approve of his daughter wedding the dude who pointed a loaded pistol at his breast.

Considering the five-month wait, I do have to wonder if it’s a coincidence Nowell brought an indictment against Clarke a mere three weeks after their attempted marriage. But whatever transpired, Nowell had no less than seven witnesses. Clarke admitted to the assault and pled no contest, choosing to “submit” himself to “the King’s ‘grace.‘”

The sentence was two pounds, which might not sound like a lot. Except that’s equivalent to 480 pence…. and a soldier’s wages were a grand total of six pence a day. It’s thus not terribly surprising that Clarke languished in prison for his inability to pay.

Which is where Captain Preston came in. Despite his own presumably-very-stressful predicament, Preston went out of his way to write Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Hutchinson about Clarke. He requested that Clarke’s fine be waived, and Hutchinson agreed on July 23. Clarke rejoined his regiment in New Jersey by August, and based on an advertisement in the New York Journal, authored a sixty-page pamphlet about his ordeal.

I found this story interesting especially in light of the common suggestion that Preston didn’t care about the rank and file soldiers charged with him. Preston did not have to intervene with Clarke (who sounds like quite the loose cannon!). But he still did.

Clearly, Preston did care about his men. He just, you know, maintained he never ordered the soldiers to fire. (Which isn’t to say the soldiers were lying – someone did later admit to saying “fire,” only it wasn’t Preston.)

Next week, we’ll discuss Justice Dana, whose name seems to be something of a misnomer.

Note 1: I’ve seen some sourceless claims that the age of marriage without a parents’ consent was only eighteen for women. However, Sir William Blackstone’s popular 1765 Commentaries on English Common Law seems to support an age of twenty-one: “full age in male or female is twenty one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person’s birth; who till that time is an infant, and so stiled in law.” If I’m wrong, please do point me to a primary source.

Note 2: Yes, I know That Book I’ve already critiqued says they married and gives a different timeline, but the court record was pretty clear on dates. As for the did-they-or-didn’t-they, the issue seems to stems from a discrepancy between the earlier, handwritten list of Boston marriages and the later, typed list. The handwritten list clearly says “forbid,” but the later typed list drops this, though other forbidden marriages are correctly typed. This omission would not occur if they later married; another entry would be provided instead. The most probable conclusion, then, is that the dropping of “forbid” was a copying error. It is also notable that Joseph Nowell’s will refers to his married daughter by her married name, but Mary “Polly” Nowell is still referred to by her maiden name. In light of the forbiddance, this suggests to me her attempts to marry Clarke failed.